Curriculum and Policy

Part 1) According to the Levin article, how are school curricula developed and implemented? What new information/perspectives does this reading provide about the development and implementation of school curriculum? Is there anything that surprises you or maybe that concerns you?

Part 2) 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 tension might you imagine were part of the development of the Treaty Education curriculum?

            Levin explains in his article that curriculum is organized in frameworks: issues, actors, processes, influences, and results. He then dives into each framework to better explain them. Elements of curriculum are organized around two central objectives “very general or broad goals and much more specific learning activities and objectives” (Levin, 14). This helps shape curriculum since the documents and policies involved may or may not support the above ideas. Extending off of the elements are the politics of curriculum. Levin explains two kinds of politics in his article – the first is the overall shape of the school, this includes what will be taught, how much of each subject will be taught, and so on; the second kind of policy is the debate over the content of each subject (Levin, 14). These two policies help develop the foundation of the curriculum for each course taught. A strong point made in Levin’s article is the impact outside factors have on curriculum and what is taught. People tend to influence curriculum based on their educational experiences, their fundamental ideas about their country, and influential experiences such as drinking, drugs, or sexual promiscuity. Curriculum involves many people including teachers, parents, students, professionals, and government officials. These levels all have different powers and responsibilities but each influence the development and implementation of curriculum regardless. Many teachers influence the curriculum because they are the ones teaching it but in most secondary schooling the influence of curriculum is placed by tertiary, or post-secondary institutions since they require certain courses for programs and faculties. Curriculum is also influenced by other policies such as student assessment policies (Levin, 16). Levin states that curriculum decision processes depend on governance systems (Levin, 17). This process involves many experts and representatives working together in order to refine or remake a curriculum. Redoing or renewing a curriculum could take months or even years to complete since the groups of people working have to examine existing data, look at the current strengths and weaknesses, and consider new changes.

            To quickly summarize the above paragraph, the article written my Levin states that curriculum is implemented and developed through many components and processes. The policies surrounding curriculum help shape and revise curriculum but are also influenced through several people who also shape the curriculum. Developing curriculum involves senior administrators, teachers, parents and community members, professionals, and federal/government officials. Levin points out that the involvement of experts in curriculum development can be problematic. This concept surprised me since I thought they would be involved deeply. I was a little shocked to find out that the work done by experts in curriculum can cause the subjects to become too difficult to teach and learn and therefore making it only possible for experts to teach the courses they built.

            After reading the Saskatchewan Treaty Education document I noticed that the document outlined the respects towards the content and acknowledged/recognized the treaty rights for First Nations peoples and the Aboriginal rights of Metis people in Canada (Treaty Education, pg.3). I noticed that this document also outlines the four K-12 goals that are to be identified as the basis for building understanding of this course. I do not get the same concepts from this document as I did from the Levin reading. When I read Levin’s work I felt as if it focused itself around public policies of government and using it to explain the policies of education. The Treaty Education document seems to focus more on the goals that need to be reached as well as the background of the Treaty Ed course. I feel like creating this course/subject curriculum could cause tension because it can have very sensitive and sometimes controversial topics. Deciding what aspects of the history to teach to which grades could potentially cause issues if, for example, a parent is uncomfortable with their 3^rd grade child learning about the effects of residential schools and the trauma that was inflicted through the schools. I also feel that tension may occur when this content is introduced into schools causing some people to misunderstand why it is being implemented. This is a very important topic to the Canadian history and should be taught in our schools as a process of reconciliation and to gain better understandings of the ways of knowing. (For more on the topic of why I believe Treaty Education should be taught in schools, check out my blog post “Importance of Treaty Education” https://edusites.uregina.ca/krh238/2019/10/11/the-importance-of-treaty-education/ ).