According to Levin, the curriculum is developed and implemented with a government agenda.  The agenda is “…shaped in part by political commitments, party platforms, and the views of key political leaders.” (Levin, p.10).  The people or ‘Actors’ involved with the decisions are a combination of: principals, teachers, local authority, senior administrators, parents, and business representatives.  The decisions in the end are – what subjects will be taught along with the content of the subjects.   

The new information and perspectives I have gained is that there isn’t enough time for all issues.  And that there are other considerations into curriculum development such as: personal values, ideology, interests, and issues within the domain of public.  Educators aren’t necessarily satisfied with the curriculum being fully developed largely by politics – most educators just want “educational expertise” (Levin, p.22) only.  

What surprises me from the article is that the curriculum is so long for educators, “The Ontario curriculum for Grades 1 to 8 contains more than 3700 specific and general expectations for teachers and students to cover.” (Levin, p.7).  The length of the curriculum I can imagine adds stress to educators.  Another thing that surprised me how “Governments Have Limited Control Over the Policy Agenda” (Levin, p.10) – so who is in control then?  What surprises me is the people involved, there are not enough educators that’s for sure, and I don’t know why business representatives need to be involved in curriculum development.  

Several things concerned me from this article.  One thing is that there is “…little or no public attention” (Levin, p.8) for decision making.  This is concerning if decision making is all in secret and power is the driven force.  Another concern I have is the “policy goals will make society better.” (Levin, p.10).  In my opinion there are still issues, and who really benefits the most?  The wealthy?  One major concern I have is finding out that Levin is a sexual predator after the lecture on February.1.  This is very concerning to think who is in power and making the decisions for the curricula.  And lastly, another concern I have is how decisions are based on  “Beliefs [as being] More Important Than Facts”.  Decisions should not overlook factual information.  

There are comparisons with the politics and the treaty education such as what subjects will be included and the content for the subjects.  Another comparison is that the treaty education is mandatory, similar to how the curriculum is mandatory.  

There probably is tension with the government and the treaty education curriculum.  First, the renewal process of the curriculum perhaps doesn’t want to change much.  Second, how the beliefs are more important as opposed to the facts – there are different beliefs within the Indigenous culture compared to western culture.  The goals set for K-12 might be different compared to the goals for the politics involved.  This makes people uncomfortable with change in general.  And lastly, the treaty curriculum is getting what they want and the government really has no say, because this is important for reconciliation.  Adding onto why the government may be upset is due to the history of the residential school system was heavily implemented by the Canadian Government – there is possibly still tension.