According to Levin’s (2008) article, the curriculum is developed from the input of many people and can include experts in fields, teachers, politicians, ministers of education, and voters. For implementation, Levin explains that there have been studies about the implementation of policies, but they try to not think about implementation too much because “the pressure of multiple issues is also one of the reasons that policy implementation tends to get short shifted” (Levin, 2008, p. 12). Also, an important part of developing the curriculum is thinking about the worst-case scenario because the political party wants to stay away from appearing incompetent (Levin, 2008). This forms the question, should the government have less power in what goes into the curriculum?
In terms of what was new, I learned that the curriculum is more about politics than education (Levin, 2008). I never thought political parties would influence the curriculum a lot, but it seems to be true. Alternatively, should we make non-elected public servants make the curriculum? Additionally, I did not think about corporations having a large impact on the curriculum. Although, this makes sense. How are corporations going to get capable workers if they do not tell the government what is important for these jobs?
My biggest concern of that the government is moving away from using experts (Levin, 2008). Using experts should be the priority because they will understand the experience and research in the fields. With that in mind, I am so surprised it has essentially come to a point where collecting knowledge can become political. Would this be missing the main ideas of the enlightenment? Everyone should be trying to understand everything from facts and research. Also, I am concerned about new politicians, ideologies, and how political terms impact education. Political parties have differing opinions from term to term, and they only have limited time in each term. This means parties need to enact change while they can. Consequently, the curriculum changes could be done in haste with no care (Levin, 2008). As well, they have “little attention to pedagogy” when developing the curriculum (Levin, 2008, p. 15). Pedagogy is rooted in education, and it is not even thought about when making a curriculum. Thinking about pedagogy may help smooth out the curriculum because it will show the time needed to teach, students’ needs for practice, and ultimately, how much can be included in the curriculum. In a sense, it could optimize the curriculum.
If we look into the 2013 Saskatchewan curriculum, we can see many of the ideas mentioned above. Most importantly, we can see tensions while some are created. After reading Treaty Education Outcomes and Indicators from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, I can tell tensions between the government and Indigenous Peoples were high. The government was going to include the curriculum, but since it is compact, it is evident that there was pressure to keep it short. When we contrast this with other curriculums, it does not compare. I know there are more objectives and outcomes that could be included but are not. It is a single page per grade for the outcomes and indicators, which is disheartening. There should be more focus on the history timelines, and cultures of the Indigenous specified throughout the grades. Another form of tension could have come from the population. Although it took a long time to make and the document was short, the public wanted to see an effort after the public apology.
References
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). Sage. http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/16905_Chapter_1.pdf
Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (2013). Treaty Education Outcomes and Indicators. Government of Saskatchewan. https://www.edonline.sk.ca/webapps/moe-curriculum-BB5f208b6da4613/ResourceExternalUrlRedirect?id=61283&value=https%3a%2f%2fwww.edonline.sk.ca%2fbbcswebdav%2fxid-799937_1
0 Comments