Please note once again in the blog hub that I don’t have the proper spacing and punctuation, but on my website it looks as it should.
This week’s post is based on the following prompt:
Part 1) 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?
Part 2) 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?
This week after reading Levin’s article, https://www.corwin.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/16905_Chapter_1.pdf I discovered how curriculum is made and who it’s made by along with what and who influences curriculum. In this article Levin defines curriculum as “ what students are expected to know and be able to do.” Firstly, curriculum is political. It is somewhat influenced by the public, but is overall a fast-tracked process made with little research. Often what research is made is not put into consideration as well. Levin writes, “Beliefs drive political action and voting intentions much more than do facts” because curriculum is political, it’s more likely that politicians will act on beliefs that will get them re elected than facts that would make them unpopular.
I found the ‘debate’ over who should be developing the curriculum to be interesting. As if it were developed by experts, it may only be useful to those who developed it, or the information would only be of use to people with high levels of expertise. Politicians will act only on what will get them re-elected and the general public’s decision would more than likely be belief-based rather than fact based. Which leads me to wonder who should be developing curriculum if we’re all biased one way or another?
The Treaty Ed document reflected several of Levin’s points on the development of curriculum. Firstly, teachers played little if any role in the development of the document. Levin also mentions that there is much debate over how things are taught. This document is quite vague and gives teachers a lot of leeway. The lack of detail is a bit concerning as it often takes long periods of time to reform the curriculum. I believe that a lot of thought should be put into this document and that it should accurately reflect the treaties, their history and their present role in society. This may not be included in the Treaty Ed. document as politicians will want to add what information will get them re-elected and it is difficult to add criteria that makes us uncomfortable.