The Levin article states that “curriculum is developed by governments or other sanctioned authorities for standard use in schools across a state, province, or country” (Levin, 2008, p.7). The government will bring “groups of experts and sector representatives to draft elements of a new or revised curriculum. Teachers of the subject will often be in the majority, with representation from post-secondary subject experts as well” (Levin, 2008, p. 17). Finally with that information, the government decides “what subjects will be included (or excluded), how much of each, and at what stages of student’s education” (Levin, 2008, p.14). I already knew that the government mandates the curriculum and the implementation process, but “the division of powers and responsibilities across these levels is quite variable from one country to another. in most jurisdictions, final authority over curriculum rests with the national or subnational government. In many federal systems, it is the provinces or states that control curriculum. In a few situations, the curriculum is largely located within individual schools” (Levin, 2008, p. 15). This is telling us that school curriculum may vary depending on whether Federal, Provincial/State, or individualized governments within schools are mandated the curriculum for their students. The one thing that concerns me is the discussion about pragmatics and how “there are simply not enough hours and days in 12 years of schooling to accommodate all the areas people want children to develop” (Levin, 2008, p. 14). A prime example of my schooling was during junior high in which you can only take one arts elective at a time. So you had to either pick, Drama, Music or Art and you cannot take two at a time. This example limits kids exposure in their development processes throughout their schooling experiences.
I think first and foremost the idea around informing individuals about the importance of Indengious ways of knowing. That we wouldn’t be in this position right now without the sacrifices that the Indengious people made in letting us live on their land for this long of time. It only makes sense in returning the favor and adopting a commitment in educating our youth about Indengious people and culture. That treaty relationships, spirit and intent of treaties, historical context, and treaty promises and provisions are the four main outcomes and indicators that are apart of the Treaty Education in Saskatchewan for years to come. The biggest tension that I could imagine would be the conversations between the government and the Indengious people about what parts can be seen as important aspects to their culture and what can we possibly leave out of the Indengious culture. I could imagine those conservations could be pretty tense for building the Treaty Education curriculum.
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: Sage. http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/16905_Chapter_1.pdf.
Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (2013). Treaty education outcomes and indicators. SK: Author. Kindergarten: Getting to Know My Community (blackboardcdn.com)