In the Levin article it states that the development and implementation of new curriculum and curriculum development is taken through many steps. It goes through more groups of people including being influenced by funders and politics which I had always more or less assumed but never actually realized quite how much. It also gets revised through many of the steps which diminishes the original idea at hand that the board would have started with. New perspectives that I have following the article is that their is lack of actual educational influence as teachers who are the ones actually pushing these on the students have little say in the decision of curriculum. I also find it concerning how much of it gets influenced by outside factors and politics which can ultimately sway the curriculum in a less effective way and aim at more at the intentions of investors or politicians.

The correlation to the treaty education article is very similar as it has it’s bigger outcomes as a whole then narrows it down to specific topics they want to meet by the end of each grade and the end of a students schooling. It’s also similar in the fact it goes through a large group of people who narrow down the aim and implementation of the teachings. In the development of Treaty education I feel like it would have been a struggle to get the ball rolling as through politics and funders it may not have been in their interest to introduce it as it doesn’t help them get their agenda across. I say that as the article was made in 2007 when teaching proper indigenous studies was not as big of a thing as it should have and I assume politically it was not of interest to politicians.