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?
School curricula is developed by a gathering of experts, and non-experts. Curricula is developed by people who’ve specific agendas, balanced by those with the future of humanity and society in mind. School curricula is implemented by districts, administrators, and teachers. Most policy decisions in education, including curriculum decisions, are made with little or no public attention (concerning but understandable). Every government has to pay some attention to the views of elites of various kinds, even if not to citizens more generally. Because of the statement (pg. 9), “Everything in government occurs in the shadow of elections” ~ true beneficial policy changes to curriculum may be biased/skewed.
There are too many public issues for even the most committed citizens to know about beyond the most superficial level. “If I can’t explain it in 25 words or less, people stop listening.”
“Education policy is particularly susceptible as pretty well everyone has some experience of schooling and therefore opinions about how it ought to work.”
I understand better the ‘machine’ of politics and fickle creation of curriculum via: “However, they are also influenced, often to a much greater extent, by external political pressures, changing circumstances, unexpected events, and crises. Politicians are constantly bombarded with requests or demands to do things, stop doing things, increase funding, decrease funding, pass legislation, repeal other legislation, and so on.”
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 tension might you imagine were part of the development of the Treaty Education curriculum?
The internal politics/preferences of various desires/wants between members of – Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, First Nations University of Canada, Office of the Treaty Commissioner, Curriculum Sub-committee for the Shared Standards and Capacity Building Council, and the Ministry of Education – would have been a nightmare to satisfy.
Putting Treaty specific desires into the curriculum – but if teachers are not ‘experts’ in any way, shape, or form, on this subject matter – one better give them a crash course – and not ask for them to make it up on their own.
Tensions – infighting between different regions regarding what is / isn’t important – MIGHT have been a tension. Further, the implementation of Treaty understanding from BOTH perspectives – Euro-Western vs. Indigenous – do both get taught – both are legitimate understandings. All predicated on a teachers understanding of / and how to communicate the Indigenous way of knowing – regarding treaties.