Many factors contribute to the development and implementation of curricula. Most prominently is the government of the jurisdiction where the curriculum is being developed. While I was aware that the government had an influence on curriculum I did not know to what extent this influence was. The members of the political party in power hold a great amount of power when it comes to curriculum development and as Levin’s article states “preferences of individuals” (2008, p. 15) is a major factor in the outcomes of the discussions and decisions regarding curriculum. This was surprising to me as I knew the opinions and views of politicians put pressure on the decisions but I did not know the real impact they had. Societal and community opinions also have sway in the decisions regarding curriculum and these opinions are unique to each location. One of the most frustrating aspects of learning about the development and implementation of curriculum is how minimally educators are involved in the planning process. The people whose opinions matter most, the students and the teachers, do not get enough say in discussions about curricula.
My experience with Treaty Education felt robotic. That was until I had a teacher who actually emphasized the importance of treaties and did not treat the lessons like a mandatory public service announcement. Now, as I am finished my K-12 schooling and reflect on my experience I see that there was a shift in how Treaties were talked about in school. My highschool was one of the first to raise a Treaty Four flag and we held a ceremony to signify the importance of the event. But I went to school in Regina and I know many rural schools do not treat this topic with such respect. Treaties were never previously taught in a valuable way so much of our general population do not have the same respect for Treaties as others do. This ignorance or lack of understanding likely caused tensions during the development of Treaty Education. Treaty Education also brings up the truth of the Residential School System and many people, especially rural, do not understand the horrors that happened within that system. Prior to being taught about the sacred and continuous nature of Treaties, I thought they were obsolete to be taught about and I did not learn that was wrong until later in my education. Many individuals still feel the way I once did and this would be a large cause of tension in the development of the Treaty Education curriculum.
Resources
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. Available on-line from: http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/16905_Chapter_1.pdf.
Your response to this weeks articles highlights some very important points about how curricula is developed and implemented. It is interesting to see your responses as you gathered information and learned from Levin’s article. One point that intrigued me was when you explained your frustration over how little input educators have in this process. I would have liked to know more about your thoughts on how educators could possibly increase their input, maybe by directly working with politicians and curriculum developers to examine student interests and behaviours.
I share very similar experiences with treaty education and I feel many others in Saskatchewan do as well. It’s upsetting that teachers do not know how to properly address treaty education so they often follow quota. Many of my teachers, often in history, followed the outline of treaty education that lacks engagement and overall feels forced.
Ben Levin?
The sex offender?
Why would you even bother?