Response to Levin article & Treaty Ed

Throughout the Levin article it enforces the fact that the government has a large part in the production and distribution of the curriculum. In addition to the government there are also participants such as high tech companies and those we would consider to have “the big bucks”. This really came as no surprise to me as many things in the world operate on the same level. Those who have the money have the say, those who don’t have money don’t have a say, well not as much of a say anyways. I feel this has been an issue since the beginning of time and can be summed up by saying that money means power and it most likely will remain that way for years to come. 

I believe it is our duty as contributing citizens (specifically teachers) to speak up in terms of what we would like to see in schools, particularly the curriculum however we must do so with caution. We must be aware of policies and politics. We are free to do said “speaking up” but one must be prepared for an outcome that we do not necessarily appreciate, or no outcome at all (as if you haven’t even been heard). I just recently accepted that my voice may be loud but sometimes that means I need to speak even louder. 

Overall I do feel a great sense of concern when exploring the curriculum only to see the style has not changed much over the years to accommodate our expanding communities. However this lights a “fire” beneath me as a teacher. I am more than the curriculum and despite the challenges it may pose I will prevail. My awareness of the policies and politics will only lead me to be creative in the delivery of my lessons and the content they hold. 

Next was the reading of the Treaty Education document. I struggled with this. I think my perception at this very moment is disjointed due to some recent experiences that I have had involving education on reservations. The document states that the education system is committed to providing supports but I do not believe yet that they know what fulfilling this commitment means. Instead of being bitter I have chosen to move forward with hopes that this document enforces some follow through and accountability on the side of those who have produced it.

I am sure there were a variety of conflicting thoughts and opinions when putting this document together however I think the end product specifically the outcomes, were well written and attainable through wholesome treaty education and experiences. One main conflict they may have had would be in regards to the language used. It was admirable to see a statement such as “…..promises made generations ago.”. These words showed the act of admitting white people were wrong and this may have been a challenge to discuss in the production of this document. The process as a whole would have been challenging as when white people and indigenous people work together there is still that underlying tension no matter what reconciliation has taken place. This is natural and I am glad we have facilitators who are willing to respectfully work through it.