Blog Post #3
According to the Levin article, how are school curricula developed and implemented? What new information/perspectives does this reading provide about the development and implementation of the school curriculum? Is there anything that surprises you or maybe that concerns you?
- The government develops the school curricula. Which tends to be people who do not understand how the classroom works. I was shocked to find out that the government creates the curriculum because they have control over what goes into it, instead of teachers and the school board. I always thought that the teachers, and school boards were able to create the curriculum because they have experience in the classroom and understand how the school systems work. But instead, it is the government and those considered key experts in their field which then may cause difficulty for teachers to teach that information to children. I feel that having the government control the curriculum is unfair because it gives a very specific type of people power over what the next generation is learning. When you think about the government it is usually one party that has more power and that party has their own belief system that people voted for, so then those values and beliefs will be the ones implemented in the schools. But what about those who do not share those values, they are then left out and do not have a say in the content children are learning.
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?
- I think it just showed how saying something and doing something are two very different things. There is a lot of talk about truth and reconciliation and incorporating important Indigenous and Treaty Education yet when you see what is actually being taught and who is creating that curriculum it is not the right information or people. The fact that there are only two Elders in the curriculum development of Treaty Education shows how it is still in the power of white Europeans and not Indigenous people. I believe that the Treaty Education curriculum should be created by Indigenous people and based on experience and history from their point of view, not the European point of view that is traditionally taught.
One of the unique things about confederation, as in Canada’s case, is provinces or states are allowed to manage curriculum and education themselves, independently from the federal government. Of course we know teachers are employed by the provincial government, who are elected by constituents who live in that province. With that said, I get what you are saying: surely curriculum should be written and amended by “experts” over bureaucrats—I do think you’re right. I’d only really raise, for your consideration, the question of the value of education for government. I cannot see a potential future where it will be any better than the province having say in curriculum because power, particularly political power, tends to lean towards all encompassing. I think the only alternative to provincial government curricula would likely be federally mandated curricula. And I see that as much much worse. The small Ukrainian farming town in Saskatchewan, or the Métis settlement in Alberta, would be teaching Ottawa/Quebec curriculum, without a say. Regardless of your political alignment, both large parties have been notoriously fixated on the east where, at times, the remainder of the country feels pretty disenfranchised ( I can think of 5 big issues from both Trudeau and Harper’s tenure). We can also reflect on instances of federal mandated curriculum like that in countries we consider to be less than democratic; it doesn’t seem very effective beyond centralizing information and power. Provincially, we ought to try and impact curriculum as I’m sure teachers unions and voters do. Just a thought—maybe it is just the cynic in me 😉