a history of curriculum services canada

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