
jci.jams.pub/article/5/1/288
Preview meta tags from the jci.jams.pub website.
Linked Hostnames
9- 21 links tojci.jams.pub
- 1 link todx.doi.org
- 1 link tojams.pub
- 1 link tojournalofcontroversialideas.org
- 1 link totwitter.com
- 1 link towww.facebook.com
- 1 link towww.linkedin.com
- 1 link towww.mendeley.com
Search Engine Appearance
How Ideology, Not Science, Determined Teaching Children to Read in Ontario
This article exposes the sabotage of a much-needed, empirically based reform to reading instruction by an educational bureaucracy captured by a highly ideological, but evidence-poor contemporary Critical Theory. In 2023, Ontario’s Ministry of Education (Ministry) replaced its 2006 elementary language curriculum in response to the Human Rights Commission’s <i>Right to Read Report</i>, accusing the province of neglecting empirically tested Learning Science-based approaches, by unwarranted emphasis on socio-cultural concerns. Employing a bibliometric terminology-mining approach as a construct representing paradigmatic priorities in policy-making, I found that while the use of Learning Science terminology doubled from the old curriculum, Critical Theory language increased by 355.24%, and use of the term <i>identity</i> increased by 2,233.87%, indicating a resistance to prioritizing literacy over ideology. I attribute this to agenda-setting in the bureaucracy, promoting decontextualized American narratives and grievances nurtured in scholarship more concerned with copying American trends than solving Canadian education concerns. Despite alarming literacy trends, the Ministry remains ideologically intransigent in its adherence to Critical Theory, merely engaging in a Learning Science <i>pretence</i> that may temporarily deceive the public, but that will continue to negatively affect children’s literacy into the future.
Bing
How Ideology, Not Science, Determined Teaching Children to Read in Ontario
This article exposes the sabotage of a much-needed, empirically based reform to reading instruction by an educational bureaucracy captured by a highly ideological, but evidence-poor contemporary Critical Theory. In 2023, Ontario’s Ministry of Education (Ministry) replaced its 2006 elementary language curriculum in response to the Human Rights Commission’s <i>Right to Read Report</i>, accusing the province of neglecting empirically tested Learning Science-based approaches, by unwarranted emphasis on socio-cultural concerns. Employing a bibliometric terminology-mining approach as a construct representing paradigmatic priorities in policy-making, I found that while the use of Learning Science terminology doubled from the old curriculum, Critical Theory language increased by 355.24%, and use of the term <i>identity</i> increased by 2,233.87%, indicating a resistance to prioritizing literacy over ideology. I attribute this to agenda-setting in the bureaucracy, promoting decontextualized American narratives and grievances nurtured in scholarship more concerned with copying American trends than solving Canadian education concerns. Despite alarming literacy trends, the Ministry remains ideologically intransigent in its adherence to Critical Theory, merely engaging in a Learning Science <i>pretence</i> that may temporarily deceive the public, but that will continue to negatively affect children’s literacy into the future.
DuckDuckGo

How Ideology, Not Science, Determined Teaching Children to Read in Ontario
This article exposes the sabotage of a much-needed, empirically based reform to reading instruction by an educational bureaucracy captured by a highly ideological, but evidence-poor contemporary Critical Theory. In 2023, Ontario’s Ministry of Education (Ministry) replaced its 2006 elementary language curriculum in response to the Human Rights Commission’s <i>Right to Read Report</i>, accusing the province of neglecting empirically tested Learning Science-based approaches, by unwarranted emphasis on socio-cultural concerns. Employing a bibliometric terminology-mining approach as a construct representing paradigmatic priorities in policy-making, I found that while the use of Learning Science terminology doubled from the old curriculum, Critical Theory language increased by 355.24%, and use of the term <i>identity</i> increased by 2,233.87%, indicating a resistance to prioritizing literacy over ideology. I attribute this to agenda-setting in the bureaucracy, promoting decontextualized American narratives and grievances nurtured in scholarship more concerned with copying American trends than solving Canadian education concerns. Despite alarming literacy trends, the Ministry remains ideologically intransigent in its adherence to Critical Theory, merely engaging in a Learning Science <i>pretence</i> that may temporarily deceive the public, but that will continue to negatively affect children’s literacy into the future.
General Meta Tags
37- titleHow Ideology, Not Science, Determined Teaching Children to Read in Ontario
- charsetUTF-8
- viewportwidth=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no,viewport-fit=cover
- google-site-verification89CYc906OOh15h60nNF1SgYXLZw74jLCUaEVnuaXmJo
- titleHow Ideology, Not Science, Determined Teaching Children to Read in Ontario
Open Graph Meta Tags
5- og:site_nameJAMS
- og:typeArticle
- og:urlhttps://jci.jams.pub/article/5/1/288
- og:titleHow Ideology, Not Science, Determined Teaching Children to Read in Ontario
- og:descriptionThis article exposes the sabotage of a much-needed, empirically based reform to reading instruction by an educational bureaucracy captured by a highly ideological, but evidence-poor contemporary Critical Theory. In 2023, Ontario’s Ministry of Education (Ministry) replaced its 2006 elementary language curriculum in response to the Human Rights Commission’s <i>Right to Read Report</i>, accusing the province of neglecting empirically tested Learning Science-based approaches, by unwarranted emphasis on socio-cultural concerns. Employing a bibliometric terminology-mining approach as a construct representing paradigmatic priorities in policy-making, I found that while the use of Learning Science terminology doubled from the old curriculum, Critical Theory language increased by 355.24%, and use of the term <i>identity</i> increased by 2,233.87%, indicating a resistance to prioritizing literacy over ideology. I attribute this to agenda-setting in the bureaucracy, promoting decontextualized American narratives and grievances nurtured in scholarship more concerned with copying American trends than solving Canadian education concerns. Despite alarming literacy trends, the Ministry remains ideologically intransigent in its adherence to Critical Theory, merely engaging in a Learning Science <i>pretence</i> that may temporarily deceive the public, but that will continue to negatively affect children’s literacy into the future.
Link Tags
10- alternatehttps://jci.jams.pub/download/article/5/1/288/pdf
- alternatehttps://jci.jams.pub/article/5/1/288/htm
- alternatehttps://jci.jams.pub/download/article/5/1/288/xml
- icon/logo?logo.v2.jpg
- image_src/logo?logo.v2.jpg
Emails
1- ?&subject=From%20MDPI%3A%20How%20Ideology%2C%20Not%20Science%2C%20Determined%20Teaching%20Children%20to%20Read%20in%20Ontario&body=https%3A%2F%2Fjci.jams.pub%2Farticle%2F5%2F1%2F288%3A%0A%0AHow%20Ideology%2C%20Not%20Science%2C%20Determined%20Teaching%20Children%20to%20Read%20in%20Ontario%3A%0A%0AThis%20article%20exposes%20the%20sabotage%20of%20a%20much-needed%2C%20empirically%20based%20reform%20to%20reading%20instruction%20by%20an%20educational%20bureaucracy%20captured%20by%20a%20highly%20ideological%2C%20but%20evidence-poor%20contemporary%20Critical%20Theory.%20In%202023%2C%20Ontario%E2%80%99s%20Ministry%20of%20Education%20%28Ministry%29%20replaced%20its%202006%20elementary%20language%20curriculum%20in%20response%20to%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Commission%E2%80%99s%20Right%20to%20Read%20Report%2C%20accusing%20the%20province%20of%20neglecting%20empirically%20tested%20Learning%20Science-based%20approaches%2C%20by%20unwarranted%20emphasis%20on%20socio-cultural%20concerns.%20Employing%20a%20bibliometric%20terminology-mining%20approach%20as%20a%20construct%20representing%20paradigmatic%20priorities%20in%20policy-making%2C%20I%20found%20that%20while%20the%20use%20of%20Learning%20Science%20terminology%20doubled%20from%20the%20old%20curriculum%2C%20Critical%20Theory%20language%20increased%20by%20355.24%25%2C%20and%20use%20of%20the%20term%20identity%20increased%20by%202%2C233.87%25%2C%20indicating%20a%20resistance%20to%20prioritizing%20literacy%20over%20ideology.%20I%20attribute%20this%20to%20agenda-setting%20in%20the%20bureaucracy%2C%20promoting%20decontextualized%20American%20narratives%20and%20grievances%20nurtured%20in%20scholarship%20more%20concerned%20with%20copying%20American%20trends%20than%20solving%20Canadian%20education%20concerns.%20Despite%20alarming%20literacy%20trends%2C%20the%20Ministry%20remains%20ideologically%20intransigent%20in%20its%20adherence%20to%20Critical%20Theory%2C%20merely%20engaging%20[...]
Links
29- http://dx.doi.org/10.63466/jci05010002
- http://jci.jams.pub/user/manuscripts/upload
- http://twitter.com/home?status=How+Ideology%2C+Not+Science%2C+Determined+Teaching+Children+to+Read+in+Ontario+https%3A%2F%2Fjci.jams.pub%2Farticle%2F5%2F1%2F288
- http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjci.jams.pub%2Farticle%2F5%2F1%2F288
- http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjci.jams.pub%2Farticle%2F5%2F1%2F288&source=&titleHow+Ideology%2C+Not+Science%2C+Determined+Teaching+Children+to+Read+in+Ontario&summary=This+article+exposes+the+sabotage+of+a+much-needed%2C+empirically+based+reform+to+reading+instruction+by+an+educational+bureaucracy+captured+by+a+highly+ideological%2C+but+evidence-poor+contemporary+Critical+Theory.+In+2023%2C+Ontario%E2%80%99s+Ministry+of+Educa+%5B...%5D