According to the Levin article, how are school curricula developed and implemented?
Upon reading the Levin article I have learned that school curricular goals and outcomes are developed mostly by key experts or experts in a particular field of study. Some of the struggles regarding this is the fact that most times key experts are typically political figures, who are largely influenced by, “government decisions in general, ideology, lobbying, personal beliefs and media attention,” (pg. 18) So dependent on the moral and ethical codes of that person, who they are trying to impress and pacify, and even who they are connected to are key factors in the development of school curriculum.
Typically, school teachers are to implement the school curriculum goals and outcomes to their students in a school classroom setting. One problem stated in the Levin article regarding curriculum development and implementation is that, “One danger in curriculum development then is the production of curricula that are not readily usable by ordinary teachers,” (pg. 17). Meaning, the curriculum being created by “key experts” is being implemented by teachers who lack background knowledge and experience to be teaching the curriculum. There may not even be teachers with the appropriate knowledge or experience to in fact teach the specific curriculum outcome. This results in an outcome that may never be taught or taught in-effectively.
What new information/perspectives does this reading provide about the development and implementation of school curriculum? Is there anything that surprises you or maybe that concerns you?
Learning about the development of curriculum being done so mostly by political figures was a bit shocking. It got me wondering about the credentials, the knowledge, and even the motives of these people who create the curriculum. It also concerns me as a future teacher and if I will be well equipped and appropriately skilled to teach the curriculum outcomes to my student’s. It also has me question the validity of what we are teaching our students who will grow up and be our future generation.
After reading pages 1-4 of the Treaty Education document, what connections can you make between the article and the implementation of Treaty Education in Saskatchewan? What tensions might you imagine were part of the development of the Treaty Education curriculum?
Upon reading the Treaty document, I noticed a list of acknowledgements to numerous sub-committee members from First Nations and Metis associations who helped in collaboration with the ministry of education members in creating the outcomes and indicators. On page 4 I then noticed full recognition of the outcomes and indicators were made to 2 members from the ministry of education, who I assume are, Anglo-Canadian and not affiliated or apart of any First Nations and Metis associations.
Thinking back to Levlin’s article I recall how decisions regarding curriculum are in fact political, and are hugely impacted by outside factors such as, “government decisions in general, ideology, lobbying, personal beliefs and media attention,” (pg. 18) Upon reflection of both readings, I picture the sit down and creation of the curriculum outcome and indicators involved a group of members from a sub-committee of First Nation and Metis association members who provided their perspectives and ideologies to the members of the ministry of education. However, at the end of the day it was up to the two members from education (politically chosen) to finalize what would be implemented in the curriculum outcomes and indicators.
I imagine one of the major tensions that were apart of the Treaty Education curriculum would be that from the sub-committee members and their concern about their voices being heard and their ideologies being used in the creation of the outcomes and indicators. I imagine the tensions from the members of the ministry of education would arise from the concern about affectively creating the curriculum to make all parties happy, both political and public. I like to think this job would have been full of the best of intentions but it would have been very difficult to execute.
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. Available on-line from the University of Regina library: https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.uregina.ca/lib/uregina/reader.action?docID=996458&ppg=24&pq-origsite=primo.
Saskatchewan Treaty Education document. ( Pages 1-4)
You mention multiple times that you fear that there may not be teachers who are able to appropriately teach the outcome in the curriculum. As I understand your fear with how making the curriculum may cause it to be less accessible to certain people, but what can we do to prevent this. What as a system must be done to prevent this from happening and what must we as educators do so that we do not fall victim to the changing times. I am also curious as to why it makes you question the validity of what we are teaching students, do you fear that many teachers currently do not have the proper knowledge?
Thank you for your post it is very well written, and I had a good time reading through it.
Great questions!
When I say the validity of what we are teaching, I am meaning the curriculum. Who’s point of view and perspectives are we teaching? What is the point/objective to teaching our student’s this in the first place? What kind of society are we trying to create for the future?
It’s not about teacher’s not having adequate knowledge of a subject, but the expertise that will allow us to get our student’s to the expected outcome achievements. I imagine when experts sat down to create curriculum, they had a narrow view of what needed to be achieved and how to achieve it. So, being biased in their decisions and not necessarily thinking about how someone else will in-fact teach the desired outcome or if the outcome is a reasonable expectation.
To answer your question about what teacher’s can do to change the system, iI think it comes down to not staying quiet. TACTFULLY, Ask those important questions and constantly evaluate your pedagogical practices and hold yourself accountable to positively impacting your student’s to be creative and able to critically evaluate, and most importantly think for themselves and question things. It’s our job to create a better future with the generations we educate.