Curriculum Development

Part I

Levin’s article is suiting, especially in light of recent political events in Canada. Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in school gives readers an idea of how the school curriculum is developed and eventually implemented. Levin (2008) defines curriculum as “an official statement of what students are expected to know and be able to do” (p.9). This definition captures exactly what will dictate the curriculum.

Levin (2008) explains that education governance commonly involves a combination of national, local and school participation, although this system varies from country to country. (One of the main processes involved) Levin notes one of the main processes involved is bringing together expert groups who will draft and review elements of the curriculum document. This process more often than not involves teachers and post-secondary experts, with the process being directed by the officials of the ministry of education (Levin, 2008). Reviewing the curriculum involves reviewing the existing curriculum to study what works, what could be improved and what should be considered to change (Levin, 2008). It is then released either as a new system or enacted before being reviewed further to improve the version released (Levin, 2008). What is the most important is how it is taught, with each teacher having a unique style. The curriculum is always changing and being reviewed as government and public interest shifts.

A new perspective I gained came from the area where Levin spoke to how opposition to the government of education plays such a large role in how the curriculum is created. I have never shown much interest in politics until the most recent election. It is mildly frustrating that the policy the government would like to set in motion could be beneficial. However, it is the job of their opposition to deconstruct everything it brings to the table. Second, the danger of expert dominated curriculum exists  during the time policies are created. These experts may have a self-serving standpoint because what they are teaching is truly only being taught to advantage students who will be attending post-secondary or a certain area of study. This additionally causes problems for those who have to teach the subject matter and may, in turn, have limited knowledge of this. What concerns me the most is the ability of outside groups to influence the curriculum. More specifically public interest groups, organizations and religious groups who lobby for or against certain aspects of curriculum and education. I acknowledge that everyone has a right to voice opinions and concerns, but is it legitimate for them to dictate what is important to teach? They may not always have the best interest of students in mind, instead of exercising their own beliefs. We can look at the recent controversy the Regina school board has faced, caused by outside pressures.

Part II

Upon reading about Treaty Education in Saskatchewan, I find it includes many of the same stakeholders Levin wrote about. It includes many ministers of education, First Nation council members, including Métis and non-status representatives, members of the Treaty Commission and expects from post-secondary institutions.

 I imagine there were a number of tensions present during the making of this document. The first being the absence of the additional numbered treaties. I understand this is only to do with Saskatchewan, but it would be appropriate to acknowledge the other treaties signed across Canada, there may have been those who argued this. A second tension being parents or outside voices who argued for or against the importance of what was being taught in Treaty Education. Some argued there was information lacking and others saw there was too much that did not apply to their students. Lastly, there did not appear to be resources and guidance of what teachers were expected to follow when teaching Treaty Education.

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

One thought on “Curriculum Development

  1. I find it both interesting and intriguing that you included your feelings and the topic of the recent election within your post. Not only did this catch my attention but kept me entertained. I also agree that not only should Saskatchewan students learn about the treaties that cover the land here, but also the other treaties across Canada since we are part of this country as a whole. I really enjoyed your blog post this week, thank you for sharing!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *