I have been gone for a while and I acknowledge that but in August I had an amazing experience. At my summer job, we had two customers come to the store, who were both deaf. Long story short, the woman pulled me aside and showed me the pair of shoes she was interested in purchasing. I was nervous but decided to give some of my ASL a go. It was little bits of sign, like black, finger spelling, I am learning sign, and the one I was most proud of was offering to help them carry stuff to their car using the sign for help. I will admit I froze up fingers signing but the fact I tried and she appreciated it was the best part. Definitely, something I was very very proud of. Anyway, let’s get on with the learning. Also took my mask off to help read lips and didn’t get covid whoop whoop.

PS: thank you to the customers out there for being so patient with me while I learned and practice!!

I have always found myself reading or watching the news. I used to think this helped me view the world from a global perspective and through the lens of many people. However, following the reading and viewing of Chimamanda Adichie’s TED talk, this was challenged. The news I was viewing was always from the lens of Canadian journalists who were only viewing one side of the story either from home or on the front lines. The same can be said for literature in my schooling. I cannot recall many novels we read in early grades, other than Charlotte’s Web and Trumpet of the Swan. I do remember one novel we discussed in the fifth grade. I recall my teacher speaking about the book The Breadwinner, which follows the story of a young Afghan girl who becomes the breadwinner of her family. Until recently, I considered this to be a book that came from a different lens. When I researched this piece, I learned the book is written by a white woman, who has not experienced war to my knowledge, but was writing from one perspective. This is not to downplay the impact of this novel, but it is to say that this book, though powerful may not be accurate to capture the true lens of an Afghan child. In high school is when literature from Indigenous authors and authors of different ethnicity began to emerge. In grade twelve, I read The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini. I additionally read Three Day Road, but this was a piece written by a man of European descent writing about the experiences of Indigenous soldiers during the First World War and an Indigenous woman struggling during colonial times. These books gave a different perspective compared to the mainly white classics. I firmly believe that the classics are important even though they are not necessarily relevant to our modern world and current social justice issues.

It wasn’t until after high school that I began to read the world differently. I pushed myself to investigate different sides of every story, especially when it comes to Indigenous issues. This was guided by Indigenous study classes here in Regina. I have begun to read articles and novels by Indigenous writers. In any case, I do bring a certain biases/ lens to the classroom, which is one of an able-bodied Caucasian woman from a European settler ancestry. I have no living experiences of an ethnic minority or someone with a differing ability. Kumashiro (2009) is an excellent example of how to challenge racism in the classroom through literature. Not only changing what we read, but how we read. Over my schooling in University and outside school, I have found pieces such as textbooks that were written by Indigenous authors. Not only is this changing what we read but also how we read the literature.

As I mentioned before, my schooling did attempt to focus on other stories, but the presentation came from a white Eurocentric view. We would discuss poverty, war, and violence, but only from one perspective, someone looking in or reading it from the view of someone else who was not living these experiences. No matter how hard we tried, the truths of the wealthy seemed to be the only ones that mattered. The only way students will learn to read and view the world appropriately is through work that represents the points of views of those living diverse lives and having uncomfortable discussions about misconceptions and biases in text.  

Unfortunately, the disinterest in teaching Treaty Education is a real issue in the classroom, resulting in ignorance from students and educators. What I would like to outline first is the importance of Treaty education throughout the country/ province, and not just in areas populated by Indigenous people. The Indian Act and Treaty agreements pushed Indigenous people, particularly Aboriginal peoples onto reserves. The land that we stand upon as Canadian citizens was land where Indigenous people lived and thrived. An example given by Dwayne Donald is that the University of Alberta is built on an area which was traditional Cree territory in pre colonialism times. Speaking for myself, this was not common knowledge until it was brought up in On What Terms Do We Speak.  When we acknowledge treaty education in an area that may not be heavily populated with Indigenous students, we acknowledge those who came before us. 

​Claire Kreuger does an excellent job of speaking to this subject. She acknowledges that underlying racism and colonialism needs to be removed from the curriculum. When we focus on these topics, by isolating Indigenous people we are further teaching ourselves not to listen. As educators, we need to break this cycle of teaching students who matters or whose heritage is most important.  

One of the strongest points Dwayne Donald makes is when discussions about Indigenous culture and white settler culture emerge, it can lead to disconnect. It is fine to study culture, but culture often turns to race relations which presents an even greater barrier for interactions. Treaty Education needs to focus on the renewal of the relationship. Indigenous education is meant to teach us about Indigenous culture, but it really is not fulfilling this expectation. “We are all treaty people” is a popular term that is often questioned. In my own life, I had always heard this message, through textbooks or programming, but never fully understood what it meant. Treaties were not simply something that happened in the past, they play a large role in Indigenous and non-indigenous society today. 

Cynthia Chambers elaborates on this topic in her piece We are all Treaty people: the contemporary countenance of Canadian curriculum studies. She reminds us that for Indigenous people, the treaties were meant to start a conversation, not pause it. The conversation is tied back to the traditions and stories from Dene and Blackfoot that “human beings are the ‘newcomers’, and the animals are the ‘old timers’ who receive the ‘newcomers’ with compassion” (Chambers, 2012, p.28). White settlers were the newcomers and the Indigenous people the Old timers. Treaties were and are meant to be an invitation to meet again (Chambers, 2012). Kreuger shares that “in treaty we acknowledge ceremonies that make possible our ability to be here and we recognize the possibility of relating to each other in good ways” (Kreuger, 2017). Treaty Education needs to move beyond talking about the past, about colonialism and so forth, and instead focus on our present and how we can improve our lives and relationships as treaty people. 

Chambers, C. (2012). We are all Treaty people: the contemporary countenance of Canadian curriculum studies. In Reconsidering Canadian Curriculum Studies.

Donald, D. (2009). On what terms can we speak? [Video file]. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/15264558

Kreuger, C. (2017, September 6). Introducing treaty education Claire Kreuger . Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWY_X-ikmaw&feature=youtu.be

The article Learning from place: a return to traditional Mushkegowuk ways of knowing explores a research project that aimed to honor Mushkegowuk Cree relationship with the land. The end results would be broadcast across northern Ontario, and include youth interviewing Elders in the community. This then led to the concept of a ten-day river journey with participants of all ages. 

I see reinhabitation in this article occurring at a crucial time. The authors explain that at the time of this research, there had been major discoveries which eventually led to widespread extractions and invasive projects. This helped launch the movement to maintain the Mushkegowuk way of life and relationship with the land. On the first journey, Elders acted as tour guides sharing knowledge. One of the key features that relate to reinhabitaton is community mapping. This removes the borders and colonial traditions that uprooted traditional values. In relation to decolonization, the trip helped students understand and regain respect for the land that has been forgotten under western models. Through decolonization, youth of tomorrow will be able to experience what their ancestors experienced pre-colonialism. 

I would like decolonization and reconciliation education to be a constant presence in my classroom. In addition, I would like to teach this concept further by moving into place education and knowledge. As a secondary educator with a major in social studies, the study of Indigenous history and education will play a key role in my teaching. One of the ways I would like to incorporate place would be through excursions in and around our community. As an elementary student, my class would make regular trips to Wanuskewin Heritage Park, usually in the spring, to discover and learn about Indigenous people, history and traditions. These experiences of place guided my understanding and appreciation for Indigenous culture and history. Another aspect I would like to incorporate is inviting Elders or speakers who have connections to knowledge. It is one thing to have students read from a textbook but to live and experience knowledge is much more effective than reading a textbook written from a European narrative. 

What does it mean to be a “good” student according to the commonsense?

In a modern setting, it is difficult to define what exactly a good student is. Looking at a past context, we view a “good” student as someone quiet, a student who asks the right questions, achieves high marks and does not question the curriculum. This is in the example of the common-sense model. 

Kumashiro presents an example of students who do not fit into the category that is a “good” student in the traditional sense. He introduces a student who did not flourish in the traditional or structural classroom. What Kumashiro noticed that once the student was placed in a subject that allowed for more creativity the young student was not given specific guidelines to follow. This is not to say this student is quote on quote bad instead he had a different learning style from the other students. 

Which students are privileged by this definition of the good student? 

It is clear that students who are privileged in the “good” student definition, these are the students that excel academically and meet behavioural standards. Students who achieve higher grades are usually viewed as good students, who are clearly paying attention in class, excelling and have the ability to produce strong test results. There is a tendency to group these students in a category, the students who are the main focus and who will most likely succeed in the real world. Attend university and become successful adults. Unfortunately, the students who do not fit the good student criteria tend to be forgotten. These could be students who do not excel in a traditional classroom setting or those who may different classroom expectations. 

What is made impossible to see/understand/believe because of these common-sense ideas?

 When we place the common-sense ideal on students it tends to mask their true potential. This is where incorporating alternative teaching into the classroom becomes important. Different approaches to curriculum can benefit students who are not seen to fit into the category of a good student. This goes back to every child is unique and with this in mind we need to build this into our lesson plan to benefit each of our students. Common-sense needs to be placed aside for a moment to fully understand the uniqueness of each students’ educational needs.

What are the four models of curriculum described in the article, and what are the main benefits and/or drawbacks of each? What model(s) of curriculum were prominent in your own schooling experience? What did these models make possible/impossible in the classroom?

`The first model of curriculum Smith (1996, 2000) introduces is syllabus to be transmitted. This model follows a set map of where the curriculum will lead. Usually, this structure resembles those of university classes, culminating in an exam to test the knowledge of the students. The main benefit of this model is the content is laid out for students who will then be tested on the material. However, some problems arise when there is truly a focus on content (Smith 1996, 2000). One of the drawbacks stated in Smith (1996, 2000) is “where people still equate curriculum with syllabus they are likely to limit their planning to a consideration of the content or body of knowledge that they wish to transmit” (p. 3). In this case, students are being presented the information, but there is little to no personalization of the information. 

The second model listed is the curriculum as a product. Smith (1996, 2000) views this form as an exercise as a set of objectives, plans which are applied then measured. The main benefit of this process is that it is broken down into what learners need to know and how they can obtain this. The article goes on to list several drawbacks that ultimately outweigh the benefits. The first is because it is so straightforward, there is no room for learners to have a voice and educators have limited movement within the curriculum (Smith 1996, 2000). Second, Smith (1996, 2000) mentions that when objectives are measured the assessment and education become shrunken; with this judgment is sidelined. The most important and problematic drawback is the heavy focus on goals that have been present, leading to those involved not realizing what has occurred during their interactions (Smith, 1996, 2000).

The third model is curriculum as process. Smith (1996, 2000) describes this model as not necessarily physical, instead, as interactions between three players: teachers, students, and knowledge. One of the main benefits of this model is the interaction between thinking and action. Smith (1996, 2000) highlights how this process enables educators to make judgments and reflect on the direction their work is taking. 

The fourth and final model presented in the text is that of the curriculum as praxis. This model very much follows and expands on the curriculum as a process. There is a dynamic between action and reflection (Smith 1996, 2000). Curriculum as praxis has the most benefits out of all the models, with the positives  outweighing the negatives. Smith (1996, 2000) notes that praxis focus attention on understandings and practices, instead of zeroing in on simply the person. One of the noticeable drawbacks is what Grundy (1987) states that this model does fail to emphasize context.

The models that were most present in my schooling career where curriculum as a syllabus to be transmitted, and curriculum as a product and as a process. Upon reflection, curriculum as a product was heavily present in math and science classes. What was beneficial about these models in these classes where it was clearly defined what we would learn and how to obtain the end goal through examination. However, the only way you could succeed or make success possible was to be able to present what you had learned through strong final grades. I feel personally that by incorporating these practices does not benefit students who may struggle with the examination. The student may understand the content but, is unable to present it to the extent the curriculum expects. This does not reflect a student’s intelligence or what the student has learned, but is heavily focussed on a percentage.  In language arts classes and social studies curriculum was modeled after curriculum as a process. There was much more of a focus on how students and knowledge bonded and the outcomes this lead to. 

Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ the encyclopaedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.

How does Kumashiro define ‘common sense’?

Kumashiro describes common sense as something everyone should know and is expected to know; something we do not question but rather expect. Kumashiro pulls from his teaching career in the Peace Corp. in Nepal. He looks at common sense from two different points of view. One from the people in Nepal and the other view as an American teacher. Kumashiro struggled to adjust to day to day life in Nepal something the Nepali defined as common sense and something everyone should know. On the opposite end of common sense spectrum was Kumashiro experiences in the classroom. He held the common-sense view of an American teacher who was there to help, and teach more effectively. It was clear that the concept of common sense was very different between the students in his classroom and Kumashiro as a teacher.

Why is it so important to pay attention to the ‘common sense’?

Common sense can be problematic because it can lead to oppressive behaviour and can limit alternative perceptions. Kumashiro references research that suggests what is taught in school commonly reflects the experiences for people who experience privilege in their lives (Kumashiro, 2009). Additionally, common sense masks the fact that what we consider the status quo is quite oppressive. When we embrace common sense we leave little to no room for battling oppressive behaviour which tends to plague our system.

Introduction; Kumashiro. (2009). Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice, pp. XXIX – XLI