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 school curriculum? Is there anything that surprises you or maybe that concerns you?
In the article, Curriculum Policy and the Politics of What Should Be Learned In Schools, Ben Levin reviews the role of the government and politics primarily shaping the curriculum, rather than including students, teachers, and other board members opinions. Levin states “curriculum is defined as an official statement of what students are expected to know and be able to do” (Levin, 2007, p. 8), reading this quote leads readers to question why individuals in the education board have such little influence on adjusting the curriculum. Although any person can have great ideas regardless of their career, educators should have a stronger voice in developing the curriculum since its their sole area of study. Learning that curriculum is more about politics than education, is concerning. In my opinion, as long as the government has the primary power over the curriculum, colonialism and learning topics in favour of this view, will likely never stop or last for many years. Teachers may be able to use their own resources to educate their students on others views as well as showing awareness of biases from colonialist viewpoints but until the education system has greater impact on the curriculum (more than small advances every few years), our country will likely continue to favour the government by containing broad goals in the curriculum and lacking focus on inclusion.
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?
Treaty education is essential to learn about, especially in Canada. I am grateful there are documents to ensure that treaties are mandatorily taught in K-12 classrooms in order to promote Indigenous education. I believe some tensions in creating this curriculum could’ve been the cause to how vague the lesson plans are to teach treaty education, there may have potentially been arguments in deciding the topics. When I look at the date this document was implemented, I was shocked. This document was released in 2013, when I had only been eleven years old. In all my elementary and high school years, I never remember learning about Indigenous education other than briefly speaking on Louis Riel and having an ancestor come speak to the class once every couple of years. I had only learnt about treaty education when I began university. This made me think critically about how much treaty education is unfortunately being overlooked within classrooms around Saskatchewan. In saying this, I am extremely hopeful for future educators to take the time and dedication to meet the outcomes of treaty education in the curriculum for all of their future students.
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). Sage. http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/16905_Chapter_1.pdf