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?
The article talks about how there are two main ways in which school curricula are developed and implemented. These are as general goals which are very broad or as much more specific learning activities and objectives. These decisions are often made through politics and not by those who actually work in the schools. This is something that very much surprised me as I would have believed those who work in the schools would have the most say over what was taught to students and not politicians who are much distanced from what actually happens every day in schools.
Politicians must respond to the desires of those who elect them and these desires are often influenced by the media. The media can often impart incorrect or nonsensical ideas to the public and those ideas are then carried into school curriculum by politicians despite the fact that many of the people who work in schools might not agree with what is being included in the curriculum.
I believe more power over school curriculum should rest in the hands of those who work in schools and directly with students rather than those who do not have this direct experience.
According to Levin school curricula is extremely complicated and involves an extremely large and diverse group of people. The curricula are made by people who hold vastly different beliefs, values and agendas and come with many different motivations.
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?
The introduction of Treaty education in Saskatchewan was undoubtedly a difficult and contentious issue as racism in this province is extremely prevalent. This combined with the fact that first Nations individuals make up a significant percentage of the population could only lead to a number of groups and individuals who had strongly opposing views on Treaty Education and how or if it should be introduced. Moreover, debate over the significance of treaties themselves has been a longstanding area of debate in the province so the teaching of this controversial issue would catch the attention of longstanding rivals who are passionate about this issue on both sides and likely have fought and argued with each other for years and years. These embittered rivals would undoubtedly cause emotional tension that fuelled argument and contention over how it should be introduced into school curriculum.