The Levin article sheds light on the process of developing curriculum in terms of the government’s influence and interests. According to the text, there are two main areas that are examined. Those being “what subjects will be included (or excluded), how much of each, and at what stage of students’ education” (14) And “the content of particular subjects” this applies to areas that might be more objective, the example used in the text is “should global warming be part of science curriculum?” (14)
I found that a lot of the debates surrounding the ‘content’ concern comes from angry parents and or political parties that basically want to shield students from the sometimes harsh realities of the real world. The issue with this is that students will develop into young adults with a naive worldview, too trusting, and having no practical knowledge only outdated textbook facts.
The new information I got from this reading is that the development of curriculum is currently sitting in the wrong hands. Like stated in the article, government parties are mainly focused on keeping their voters and donors happy. They will not propose radical (but essential) change to education in fear of backlash, such as what was faced in Ontario when the revised sex ed curriculum got released.
After reading the Treaty Education document it seemed to me very one dimensional. It describes all the end goals but none of the process of how to actually complete these given outcomes, which also by themselves are incredibly broad. For example grade seven; “Investigate the impact of Bill C31 on the equality of genders under the Indian Act.” (p.p. 12) Great, but how? To me that just sounds like students will be sitting at their desk and handed documents to read and then nod their heads when they are asked if they understand the material. This Treaty Education document needs to provide more insight on how teachers must get their students to interact with the information and history, this is how we will truly change the Canadian mindset towards Indigenous history.
Hi Nicole, I enjoyed reading your blog post. I particularly liked your comment on how some parents try to control curriculum as a way to shield their children from some of the more uncomfortable (but still necessary) topics that can be covered in schools such as sex ed or the history of Indigenous assimilation and genocide in Canada. Like you, I view this as a disservice to students. In regards to the curriculum being in the wrong hands, who do you feel should have more input and control over curriculum building? I also enjoyed reading your thoughts on the Treaty Education document. I agree that it seems one dimensional and that there is not enough teacher resources about how to implement these lessons in our classroom. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Nicole,
I always love reading your blog posts. You provide so much thought and close attention to the hidden aspects of the readings. In the last part of your post you mentioned that you feel as though “Treaty Education documents need to provide more insight on how teachers must get their students to interact with the information.” My question for you is how do you think students should be interacting with this part of curricula, and how could things be altered in the classroom to make it more inclusive and Diverse in Treaty Education?