How Much of Curriculum is Actually About Teaching?

Curriculum is for the most part developed as a political decision and statement, and “any issue that is politically contentious can also turn into a curriculum dispute” (Levin, 15). As Levin notes, decisions that shape curriculum documents include debates on what subjects should be included and to what extent.

Curriculum debates involve a lot of self-interest (for politicians working to push their political agenda, for experts trying to advance their field, for employers trying to prepare students for their field). It reflects the values of those in positions of power (politicians, experts in subject areas, majority groups, etc), and, therefore, can often fail to acknowledge the opinions of educators and minority groups. However, formal curriculum often fails to account for the experience and expertise of teachers (and thus, their ability to teach the given objectives), as well as the limited amount of time that teachers actually have to meet all of those objectives. Curriculum documents rely on teachers having a thorough understanding and background with the subject area, although this is often not the case, as many teachers teach more than one subject area (especially evident with elementary school teachers) or teach areas they did not focus on in their studies. It is concerning that the documents teachers are given, outlining what is expected of them, are largely influenced by people who are not teachers, and who do not account for diversity between schools or within classrooms, and are not made on the basis of educational expertise/experience. What is included in the formal curriculum varies greatly from what is taught; what is taught relies on teacher expertise, teaching methods, and social environments.

These factors influencing curriculum are evident in the Saskatchewan Treaty Education document as well. The curriculum document was created through a “comprehensive consultative process with the following partners: Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, First Nations University of Canada, Office of the Treaty Commissioner, Curriculum Sub-committee for the Shared Standards and Capacity Building Council, and the Ministry of Education” (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education p3). It was largely influenced by government and academic institutions, reflecting the goals of the Canadian/Saskatchewan government, but failing to address why Treaty Education is an important topic to teach. It was probably created due to tension between the government and Indigenous peoples who saw a failure of the government to address any sort of Treaty Education. It fails to address the social injustices performed by the Canadian government and why Treaty Education is beneficial for everyone. As well, the document notes that “when meaningfully and thoughtfully incorporated into subject areas, Treaty Education moves beyond an idea to become actualized as a belief that benefits all learners” (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education p3). This reinforces the notion that what is taught in schools and how thoroughly/accurately/successfully it is taught relies heavily on the teachers who are teaching it, and this will vary in each school and in each classroom in a school.