Reading Response 4

Prompt:
⁽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 concerns you?
⁽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 tensions might you imagine were part of the development of the Treaty Education curriculum?

⁽¹⁾When reading the Levin article it became obvious to me that curriculum is subject to all of the same stressors as any other piece of political policy. This is something that didn’t really surprise me, but has forced me to think back and reflect on the way that my parents, and many other parents have responded to curriculum changes in the past. I was in high school when the Saskatchewan curriculum moved to the Workplace & Apprenticeship, Foundations, and Precalculus streams. This switch was enough of a change for my parents to completely remove themselves from helping me, or younger brothers, with homework. Just the fact that it was different to what they had experienced made it worse in their minds. I think this situation holds true for many proposed curriculum changes. As stated by Levin (2008) “everyone has gone to school, so just abut everyone has a feeling of being knowledgeable … [of] educational issues” (p. 15). This point Levin makes about the general public’s view of their own educational policy knowledge comes in stark contrast to his earlier point about voters being interested in policy, even when they are not knowledgeable (Levin, 2008, p. 10). I think this dichotomy is worrisome. While people are generally well meaning, if they don’t understand the full scope of an issue, and are unwilling to concede to more knowledgeable parties then issues arise. On the flip side of this, Levin presents a situation where even the experts in specific fields and education in general often can’t agree on the best way to create and implement curriculum. While there is no perfect system for creating curriculum, it seems like the current system comprising of groups of subject experts, curricular experts, teachers, and the general public is the best workable solution we have at the moment.

⁽²⁾I personally did not experience much Treaty Education while in school. The unfortunate truth is, I have learned more about the Treaties in the last two years than I did in the whole rest of my life. I think that this speaks to just how important Treaty Education is though. An understanding of the Treaties, and the responsibilities that come with being part of a Treaty are not something that can just be picked up without some explicit lessons on the subject. One thing that does strike me as odd is the lack of Treaty Education integration in curriculum. The Treaty Education document clearly states “when meaningfully and thoughtfully incorporated into subject areas, Treaty Education moves beyond and idea to become actualized as a belief that benefits all learners” (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 2013, p.3). While this is made very clear, if you look through other curriculum documents there isn’t any specific mention about Treaty Education. This lack of inclusion in other curricular documents makes it though to keep in mind and can also make it tougher to include. I think that the tensions surrounding the implementation of a Treaty Education curriculum go beyond the usual ‘being uncomfortable with change’. It is an unfortunate truth that a lot of people — at least people in the rural communities I grew up near — do not see the need for Treaty Education. Whether this belief is due to a lack of understanding, or rooted in something more unsavoury, There are a large amount of people who seemed to push back against Treaty Education on the basis of what it is, and the rhetoric they would have to engage in if their kids were to take part in such a course. While I don’t think this way of thinking is something that we have completely moved beyond, I like to believe that attitudes will change.

References:

Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (2013). Treaty Education Outcomes and Indicators. Retrieved from https://learn-ca-central-1-prod-fleet01-xythos.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com

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. Available on-line from: https://www.corwin.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/16905_Chapter_1.pdf

2 thoughts on “Reading Response 4

  1. Hello Mack. I was wondering if you believe everyone has an input on creating and implementing curriculum? or are you saying just education does? The question to me does not seem fully answered. Also, I am a little confused by the talk about policy since, curriculum was suppose to be the main focus of answering the question. Also, are you linking policy and curriculum into one identity? Levin gives a few different ideas of who implements and develops curriculum. Did you find anything interesting from the Levin article? What are some of the new perspectives about curriculum development has the reading done for you? I also was in high school when the SK math curriculum changed it was interesting for that to occur and made it difficult for my older brother to help me with math. For the treaty education portion I was wondering if you noticed any links between the Levin article and the treaty education. Also, what are some tensions that may arise from this? Overall good work Mack.
    -Omari

    Like

  2. Omari,
    To answer your questions:

    Based on the Levin reading, as well as my understanding of curricular development, and policy creation in general, I would say that everyone has an input on curriculum development, though not all input is of the same level. For example, the general public can definitely change curriculum after it has been implemented. We saw this in the case study we went through in class. That being said, the general public can also indirectly make curricular decisions when they vote for local, provincial, and federal government. The truth is though, these influences are minimal when compared to the influences of those who are actively developing the curriculum.

    I did make a connection between political policy and curriculum. I didn’t intend for that to come across as them being one in the same, I merely wanted to draw attention to the connection that they have. Curriculum is created by the Ministry of Education — a governmental body — that is no doubt influenced by the sitting political party.

    I found a lot of points from the Levin article interesting. The ones I spoke to in my blog post included; the notion that curriculum development encounters the same roadblocks as other policy changes, the thought that attending school makes everyone feel like they are able to advise on educational policies (unlike other policies), the idea that voters tend to be interested in policy even when they are not knowledgeable in that subject area, and the fact that educational experts cannot often come to an easy consensus when creating new educational policies.

    The new perspectives of curriculum development that I drew revolve around the points mentioned in my last paragraph. I knew that a lot of thought went into creating curricular documents, but didn’t truly understand the scope until reading this. The truth is, even after this reading, there are likely things that I do not yet understand.

    In connecting the Treaty education document to the Levin reading, I can definitely see that when developing a curriculum that addresses something as ‘touchy’ as Treaty education all the stressors that apply to curriculum development will be exacerbated. You’re taking something that is extremely emotional and putting it in the public eye. The fact that the general public feel more comfortable expressing their opinions of educational policy, and that Treaty education is often misunderstood definitely leads to stress while both developing the curriculum and implementing it at the classroom level.

    I hope I have been able to answer all your queries. Feel free to reply again if you have any additional thoughts.

    -Mack

    Like

Leave a comment