I find it very interesting how Levine’s article “Curriculum Policy and the Politics of What Should Be Learned in Schools” goes straight into the political aspect of education and curriculum development. I have never viewed education as such a political thing before; for me, I find that education should be more focused on the experiences of the teachers and students rather than on how to best appease voters. Something that really stood out to me in this article is on page 17 where it is stated that “teachers of the subject will often be in the majority” when it comes to renewals of curriculum; however, we saw in class that teachers are one of the least represented groups in curriculum committees.

As for the inclusion of Treaty Education, it is very clear to me that there would be many conflicts considering how influential voters and public officials are in curriculum decisions. The goals brought up in the Treaty Education document are very simple things that students can use in their day-to-day life and can be applied to all sorts of subjects. However, in my experience, I have seen these topics taught more subtly than they should be, which is due to the way that the government prefers to consult the public rather than educators. Just like sex education, I can see parents being upset at the implementation of Treaty Education in schools despite it being such an important subject in our society. These two documents make it clear to me that educators should be much more involved in what gets included in the curriculum because they are the ones teaching it; they know best what is important for their students to learn.