Levin (2008) states, “curriculum is defined as an official statement of what students are expected to know and be able to do” (p. 8). There are a variety of steps involved in the development and implementation of the curricula. Levin (2008) suggests governments (federal/provincial), civil servants or experts (school authorities or councils involving parents or others), main education stakeholders (teachers, principals, administration), and other policies such as assessment (p. 15-16) are key factors that shape and determine the curriculum.
Some new information that I came across that I never thought about was in regards to the implementation of the curriculum. Levin (2008) states, “one danger in curriculum development then is the production of curricula that are not readily usable by ordinary teachers” (p. 17). Therefore, if we have experts in the field that are determining what needs to be learned in the curriculum in a specific subject, it might be to in-depth or out of grasp for a common educator to relay the information to students. Thus, what “experts” in the field have contributed to the curriculum needs to be regulated so that teachers can deliver it.
One quote in the article that surprised me was “schooling is seen as so fundamental to the development of our children, it can turn into a battleground for wider social disputes” (Levin, 2008, p. 15). He goes on to further suggest, “political leadership will take account of expert opinion, but will inevitably take much more interest in the public opinion” (p. 18). Based on the information, I’m concerned that whichever societal group causes the most disruption about the curriculum will ultimately determine what is going to be taught.
One of the first connections I noticed between the Treaty Education and Levin’s article was the people involved in the development. There were thirteen people involved in the development; however, in this development only two of the thirteen people were not affiliated with some federation, university, or ministry. As Levin (2008) stated there will be “much more interest in public opinion” (p. 18). If we know that there is interest in the public opinion why isn’t there more than two people helping develop and organize this?
I can imagine that there were many different tensions that developed during the creation of the Treaty Education curricula. There would have been a variety of perspectives of what should be in the curricula, thoughts on the best way to implement the information, terminology associated within the curricula, and the process involved with the development (everyone getting a chance to speak their thoughts, address their concerns). Also, there might have been issues involved with the speed that the Treaty Education curriculum gets implemented. Development of a curriculum appears to be a in depth and time consuming process. Curriculum is always adapting and needs to be reviewed in order for it to be effective. Will these experts have time to readdress how the implementation went? How effective it is?