Upon reading the Ben Levin article “Curriculum policy and what should be learned in schools”, I learned a great deal about the development process behind Western curriculum both in the past and today. The article describes how the process has changed over time; in the past, the public had no say and education officials and experts made the decisions, while today parents and families are given a much larger role. They too are able to help decide what they think is best for their children to learn in school. The input of parents, combined with that of public officials, teachers, university professors, and other professionals and experts, all culminate in these decisions. As a result of the amount of groups and people involved, coupled with the often-controversial nature of the changes proposed, the process of changing the curriculum is rather lengthy and tedious. I honestly find it a fair bit confusing and concerning that these decisions are so controversial and take so long to be made, as this leads to the possibility that outdated or incorrect material is being taught due to it not having had the opportunity to be changed into something more appropriate.
Comparing these insights to the Saskatchewan Ministry of Education’s Treaty Education document makes things more clear. The document demonstrates the sheer number of groups and people of various levels of influence involved in the process of making these decisions. It is this overwhelming amount of people involved that makes the process so tedious and difficult, yet ultimately it can be for the better, which makes it worth it. Having so many people would also undoubtedly cause a fair degree of tension among decision makers, due to the sheer amount of disagreements and controversies that were bound to happen over such a topic.
Good Day Amir,
Like you, I noticed the flaws evident in the politics of curriculum. I notice that you say it is ultimately for the better, which makes the process worth it. I agree with you that while the current system of politics surrounding curriculum has its flaws, it seems the best system proposed so far that we have seen in a historical sense. While you have answered the questions sufficiently, I am curious to know what you might propose to streamline our political processes in light of what we have read.
Best,
Aiden
Amir,
As you say, curriculum development is a long process with a number of differing interests involved. While examining the documents it can sometimes give an impression of which is of more importance based on the dates they were revised.
The intentions of specific curriculums are usually laid out in the front matter. Does it differ in the content and if so why do you think that is based on your readings?
I’m curious on your thoughts on additional documents, such as Treaty Ed. What could the perception of these types of documents which are added on?