ECS 203 Blog Post 3

According to the Levin article, how are school curricula developed and implemented? What new information/perspective does this reading provide about the development and implementation of school curriculum? Is there anything that surprises you or maybe that concerns you?

According to the Levin article, schools’ curricula are influenced by more than just educators themselves. The curriculum is based on politics, social criticism, and those of higher power who are outside of the classroom. There were many arguments made throughout the reading that provided a different perspective on the development of the school curriculum. For example, the idea that politics of curriculum can be thought of as involving two discussions: the overall shape of the school curriculum and the content of particular subjects. There were certain questions associated with these discussions such as “Are English and Math getting enough dedicated time?” or “Should Sex Ed, Arts Ed, or languages classes even be included?” There were concerns that crucial life discussions get missed within teaching, so how will the students learn? It should be noted that the majority of these questions were from people outside of the classroom. Those people have a significant impact on the way that curriculum processes develop because they will bring different and more diverse interests to the classroom. Although I do believe outside perspectives are beneficial, I do have my concerns. I believe that the curriculum cannot be the same for every classroom. If students all learned the same and if teachers all taught the same, then there would be no need to adjust, review, or renew any curriculum. However, that is not the case. People outside of the classroom need to recognize this. It worries me that those of higher authorities think they know what is best based on what the public wants, instead of considering teachers and students themselves. I believe that developing a good quality curriculum should be done through what is experienced with and without the classroom. The framework of the curriculum should be discussions of schooling and educating, but also ideology, personal values, and issues within the public to create a balance.

After reading pages 1-4 of the Treaty Education document, what connections can you make between the article and the implementation of Treaty Education in Saskatchewan? What tensions might you imagine were part of the development of the Treaty Education curriculum?

The power of politics and society is highly implemented within this document. As mentioned in the article, curriculum changes and develops with time, experience, and demand. This curriculum implementation was done because it was made aware to society that it was missed and being mistreated. I believe that certain arguments would have countered this addition. One could have argued and said that Treaty Education is already being taught through History or Social Studies Education. And although that may have been true, but to what extent? I personally disagree with the idea of ‘goals’ in relation to Treaty Education for K-12 students. Instead of ‘goals’, I would say ‘expectations’. It should be expected that by the end of grade twelve students understand what Treaty Relationships are, have a clear understanding of the Historical contexts, and the purpose behind the Treaties.