Week 3 Blog for ECS 203
During this week in ECS 203, we read Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools by Levin, B.. In F. Connelly, M. He & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (2008).
The first thing I wanted to point out that I noticed right away was how it mentions that politics and curriculum go hand and hand. Not long after, it says how “Tinder (1991) describes a political system as “a set of arrangements by which some people dominate others” (Levin, 8). To me this shows some red flags. “Most policy decisions in education, including curriculum decisions, are made with little or no public attention” (8) To me, this is another red flag. When I think about education, I think about teaching students life skills and knowledge while providing a safe environment. I do not think about a place that includes the interests of the government, and not of the community, all while the people living in it are having to fight for survival.
There was a highlight on research being a factor when it comes to building the curriculum, however, it only goes so far. I believe that research is a key part of building a foundation to which we can better the education for future students/ people. Taking the time and looking up what works and what does not work in the school setting so we can create a more accommodating environment where everyone can be happy and successful should be the main goal.
Throughout the article, there was also a point brought up about teachers disagreeing with the decision process when it comes to curriculum. There was mention of it being Teachers vs experts. What makes teachers’ opinions on the matter invalid? Instead of it being a person vs person situation, it should be person + person vs the problem. Working together to form decisions that benefit all.
“Curriculum decision processes depend on governance systems” (17). Not on students. Not on Community. Not on learning as an individual. Depends on governance systems.
Another red flag.
We also went over the Treaty EducationOutcomes and Indicators Saskatchewan Ministry of Education 2013. One of the first things I read that really stood out to me was “The Ministry of Education respects the federal government’s legal, constitutional, and fiscal obligations to First Nations peoples and its primary responsibility for Métis people.” (3). The words legal, constitutional, fiscal, obligation, to me make it sound like a chore. When this is a beautiful topic for students and staff to be learning about. It should have to be a legal obligation, it should just be in the curriculum. Another thing to note, the goal section was barely even half a page. I am sure that there were multiple tensions based on the Treaty Education Curriculum, which is why the words legal and a half page of goals were written out.
Overall, I believe that curriculum should be based on the students and what they need. Not about what the government needs.
Thank you for reading.
Best, Baylee
I really enjoyed reading through your blog post and seeing your thoughts on this weeks reading. While I had also found some alarming issues, you have highlighted some that I had not initially thought of. I found your point in regard to teachers disagreeing with the curriculum process to be very enlightening. When it was said to be teachers vs experts my first question was why are the teachers not considered experts? I was not able to understand why teachers thoughts on this matter were not taken more seriously. Considering they are the people who work with and teach the curriculum and experience daily what it is like to teach todays young minds I expected them to have the “expert” title. Regardless, your idea that it should be people vs the problem instead of people vs people is completely true. Rather than fighting with one another over opposing beliefs it would work much better if we could simply work together.