a history of curriculum services canada
a history of curriculum services canada
a history of curriculum services canada
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
1995-1996<br />
others—to help position themselves quickly as a key education site when the time came to<br />
go live. They also resolved to investigate the implications <strong>of</strong> expanding the catalogue to<br />
include private sector materials. (This would pose no problem on a website as commercial<br />
activity had recently begun to be accepted on the Internet, subject to certain guidelines.)<br />
In early December, an additional small <strong>of</strong>fice was leased from OPSBA, along with storage<br />
space in the basement and a site agreement was pending. Good news also came about the<br />
FileMaker Pro version <strong>of</strong> the JK-9 Catalogue - it would be ready for distribution to<br />
computer consultants by the end <strong>of</strong> February in versions for both Windows and Mac. And<br />
the ONeducation CD-ROM was due in April, complete with a new search engine that would<br />
provide results from all the catalogues with a single search. Technology was advancing<br />
steadily, making it possible to provide a wider variety <strong>of</strong> options and better service more<br />
quickly. In a community where both computer and Internet access and computing<br />
capabilities varied radically, this was a very positive step forward.<br />
Also encouraging were the results <strong>of</strong> a meeting with MET in early December. The Ministry<br />
was giving serious thought to linking its website to the future OCC website and was also<br />
considering listing its materials in the OCC catalogue. These actions would help to<br />
legitimize OCC in the eyes <strong>of</strong> those who were still unclear about its “<strong>of</strong>ficial” role.<br />
However, they would also make it more difficult to function, and to be seen to function, at<br />
arm’s length from the Ministry. This troublesome paradox in OCC’s relationship to and with<br />
the Ministry would be ongoing.<br />
Meanwhile, work on the evaluation tool had continued throughout the fall. Teachers,<br />
<strong>curriculum</strong> consultants, superintendents <strong>of</strong> program, supervisory <strong>of</strong>ficers, Circular 14<br />
representatives, Rochelle Rabinowitz, who was responsible for MET special education<br />
projects, and an evaluation team <strong>of</strong> fifteen representative members solicited from the<br />
federations all worked together over the months. The final draft was ready in early January.<br />
In the spring, the tool would be validated with the materials produced by schools and<br />
boards under MET’s Special Education Integration Fund, and all materials that met the<br />
tool’s criteria would be included in the OCC catalogue.<br />
However, OCC was not sure how best to use the evaluation tool once this initial project was<br />
completed. There were concerns that while it would ensure high quality, it would slow the<br />
process <strong>of</strong> sharing <strong>curriculum</strong> materials. Could these concerns be met? And should OCC sell<br />
the tool, share it, or give it to those purchasing <strong>curriculum</strong>. They considered developing a<br />
team that would use it to help individual boards evaluate existing materials and choose new<br />
ones. They also thought about training those people to train others. And certainly it would<br />
be wonderful to use the tool to vet all the materials submitted for the catalogue, but this was<br />
time consuming and costly. Who would do the work and who would pay? These were<br />
difficult questions. The only certainty was that an evaluation tool was important for Ontario<br />
educators. OCC believed that it was accomplishing a valuable first step in what would be<br />
an evolving process.<br />
©2008 Curriculum Services Canada 29