Blog #5:
In Ben Levin’s article, “Curriculum Policy and the Politics of What Should be Learned in Schools,” school curricula is developed and implemented under a political agenda. What political parties and the majority of a population deem important greatly influence what is brought into school curriculum. A hierarchy of groups – the Federal and/or Provincial government, elected institutional roles, educational stakeholders, experts, sector representatives, the curriculum review committees, etc. – all work together in making curriculum revisions. What surprised me the most was Levin’s negative view toward the inclusion of teacher expertise, describing the idea as a “poorly understood” dynamic (Levin, 2008). Why should people who have never set foot in a classroom have more say in educational change than teachers? The idea does not logically sit right with me.
Since the government’s political agenda plays such a significant role in curriculum making, as seen through Levin’s work, very little is found in the curriculum that critiques or undermines government structures, policies, or opinions. To teach Treaty knowledge, context is needed (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 2013). Therefore, when Indigenous content was finally implemented into the curriculum, it forced the government to further bring their mistakes and wrongdoings into the light. Thus allowing educators to teach students about the atrocities and broken promises the Canadian government committed against our First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples.
Sources
Levin, B. (2008). Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools. In F. Connelly, M. He & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 7 – 24). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (2013). Treaty Education Outcomes and Indicators.