In the document by Levin, it is observed that much of what is administered and implemented through the curriculum has strong political biases and requires significant oversight from the public. This means that the vast majority of decisions based on curriculum content are processed from a political and public lens before they are finalized. Reference is made suggesting teachers and students having minor influences into the creation of curriculum content, but ultimately are not prioritized in correspondence with the larger players, such as politicians and public influence. This seems concerning, when focus should be placed on behalf of the individuals most involved, such as teachers and children. As stated, “Governments are particularly susceptible to issues that take on public salience through the media” (Levin, 2007). This is particularly important to understand considering the effects that media can have on decision making processes that do not necessarily operate in the scope of the desired model of inclusive education on behalf of teachers. It helps to recognize the commitments of a specific political party, to assess the projected political agendas and be able to articulate what intentions that party might have in response to what is passed in the curriculums.

In the connection with political and governmental influence, Indigenous educational content still faces challenges in being fully emerged into curriculums. Much of what we see in the present curriculum still focuses on what the government, public, and political interests decide is pertinent and deemed acceptable. This continues to not offer a genuine response to what reconciliation is inside educational contexts, and does not give Indigenous people full ownership of their methods of teaching. Much of this content created in this document originates in the mid 2000’s, suggesting an attempt at renewal is not a priority and time is not properly allocated to begin reviewing this. There is certainly still public tension, especially when observing what rural and urbanized schools might decide is “necessary” for them. There are signs that Treaty education is a work in progress in reference to this document. I do wonder however if getting to know my community is actually being implemented inside a kindergarten room, Saskatchewan Ministry of Education (2013). Is this something that is being done, or is this a form of fluff on behalf of the government to satisfy some of the Treaty promises, that are often broken or unfulfilled.

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. 

Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (2013). Treaty Education Outcomes and Indicators.