- 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?
According to Levin’s article Curriculum Policy and The Politics of What Should Be Learned in Schools, he described the curriculum as a scheduled plan of what students are expected to do and learn in the schools. The government is taking charge of the curriculum, the teachers and the students do not have a position on deciding what should be taught and what they want to learn. Levin also states that “politics is about power” (Levin, 2008), only power can have a dominant position in political society. I think it is true that having power in politics is important in the past because people were still seeking for a safe place to live, fighting for the racism and recovering from the wars, we were not focusing on the education field as much as the political field. But nowadays, in North America, the equity between people are fairer and economics are more stable, we start to catch up on the education field. Education is seen as a necessary thing for applying for jobs, most of the jobs require a high school diploma. Without a high school diploma, we may not find a job with high paying or we may not work in the field we want to peruse. Also, the governments need highly educated people to work for them so that the whole country can function better and can improve techniques. But how do we make our education system better so that more people will enjoy studying and peruse the careers they like? Here comes the importance of curriculum, having a good curriculum is the key for students to achieve success. I am not sure how the curriculum is produced, but as a university student, I know students and teachers should have a say in making curriculum. The curriculum is made for students, and only us students know what functions well and what goes wrong in the curriculums.
- 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?
After reading pages 1-4 of the Treaty Education document, I found out that many contributors are First Nations or work in the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. It is good to have acknowledged scholars to take part in making the Treaty Education curriculum. But at the same time, I found out that the goals of Treaty Education are very similar for each grade level, they are Treaty Relationships, Spirit and Intent of Treaties, Historical Context of Treaties, and Treat Promises and Provisions. Students will learn Treaty Education within these four titles, I think it is not a good way to design the curriculum like that because I always heard some students complaining they have been learning the same Treaty Education from elementary school till high school. Students will be bored easily if they learn the same thing again and again.
I think the tension of developing the Treaty Education curriculum is how to balance the student’s needs and the government’s needs. The government wants all the students to be educated with Treaty Education, but the students are tired of learning the same thing every year. If teachers and students have a say in editing the Treaty Education curriculum, I think we will be happier to teach and learn.