Treaty education is an incredibly important part of education but also seems to be one of the the least explored areas. From a personal perspective, I grew up with little to no education besides slightly going over residential schools but not even to great detail. The significance of treaty education is found in understanding the past and using this information to pave a better future. I have heard from many people “why do we have to learn this?” or “why do they keep bringing this up, get over it already” but the ignorance of these people don’t see the impact the past has on the present. I believe Claire said it best when she explains that treaty education isn’t intended for first nation students, but for the settlers of Canada. The problem lies with the settlers because we are the ones who truly don’t see the daily battles first nations face in light of the past. This means treaty education needs to be apart of the classroom regardless of the race of the students in the classroom because the education is imperative to all, not just the first nations students.

The reason this is so important for all students is because we truly are all treaty people. This phrase is often misinterpreted as people believe because the laws of the treaty aren’t applicable to them, they cannot be  a treaty person. The truth is we reside on treaty territory, land that was shared by the first nations people long ago who graciously came to an agreement allowing settlers to prosper on the lands alongside the first nations people. We are all Canadian, just as we are all treaty people because the country we all share is also land we share, therefore we all share the responsibility of being educated properly about how we have arrived here today. Being a treaty person may not always carry a positive annotation but, understanding the meaning of it can truly invoke critical thinking about why it is significant we understand how and why we are all treaty people.

Curriculum is at its root, the pinnacle of education. It is what we deem as important for children to learn, how it is to be instructed, and what objectives it will accomplish for the students. The way we formulate curriculum however, often varies and is influenced by outside forces as explained by Levin. The process of curriculum comes from a delicate balance of multiple factors at once. Politicians ultimately pass the bills but we as voters are the ones who elect them to take these stances. They are also influenced by personal beliefs based sometimes not necessarily what is right, but what people want to hear. Unaccounted factors such as time, opposition and lack of experience in classrooms are also absent when making these decisions. However, the greatest oversight in my eyes that is addressed by Levin is the variability in curriculum.

I have been aware of different provinces/states having different curriculums but examples such as Katia’s story about teaching in the states and seeing how “what is deemed important” amongst these places is frightening. As Levin describes, there is no possibility of avoiding some political possibility, but I have never really considered how drastically that can influence what we teach children. Another eye open for myself was the thought of how many people are strongly opinionated but also very uneducated on what they are voting for when electing some politicians when it comes to implementing these additions. Many people vote based on their own personal experience which in turn, influences them to support certain bills, whether they are best or not. The frightening thought of making ambiguous objectives without considering the specific repercussions. Many subjects are included in these curriculums but not enforced or even just added and never followed upon.

I think the Treaty Education is a prime example of how curriculum is influenced by politics. Personally treaty education is crucial and important to understand a culture we have stolen and understand our responsibility and role in reconciliation. This has however, been a highly contested issue in our country amongst citizens on the importance and relevance in school. It is in the curriculum but the problem is it not always taught. Reading through the first few pages of the document, I am left with a message that the government has done this because they feel obligated to but not because they find it important. How can we expect teachers to educate the youth on important subjects such as Treaty education when the Government who mandates the curriculum, doesn’t share that sentiment?