Part One Response:

According to the Levin article, school curricula is developed and implemented through public policies. It states that policies surround almost every aspect of school from what type of schooling is provided, how it is provided, and to whom it is provided to (Levin, 2008, p. 8). By using public policies to develop curricula, essentially benefits those who are closer to power or in power because they may have more of an influence than those without. The article also brings attention to the process in which decisions are made regarding curriculum. It states that curriculum decisions have formal processes that include “bringing together groups of experts and sector representatives to draft the elements of a new or revised curriculum” (Levin, 2008, p. 17). Within these processes, teachers of the subject can also be included in decision-making (Levin, 2008, p. 17). Overall, it is evident that curriculum development is a much bigger picture and process than some of us think.

This reading provided me with new information and perspectives with the development of curriculum. It made me think about how almost everything needs to be considered throughout its creation. Developers need to take into consideration who they are creating it for, as well as, are they including what the public wants it to. This obviously opened my eyes as to how difficult it can be to please everyone. It put into perspective that the public policies that are put in place, whether it be for curriculum or anything else, are there to make society a better place (Levin, 2008, p. 10). Of course, there will always be individuals to critique the curriculum (I, for one, have been one of those people) but after reading this article, new perspectives and new information have been brought forward that may acknowledge some different thought.

I believe the main thing that surprised me is the fact that individuals who are involved in student’s education, such as teachers and administrators, are often just asked for input regarding the curriculum and are not the direct decision makers. I think that teachers should have a larger role in decision making as they understand how their students learn, what classroom dynamics are like, and it is also their job to educate the future.

Part Two Response:

Within the Treaty Education document, I noticed connections that could be made to Levin’s article. For instance, throughout Levin’s article, he highlights the government and its policies roles in creating and developing a curriculum. In the Treaty Education document, it states that the “The Ministry of Education respects the federal government’s legal, constitutional, and fiscal obligations to First Nations peoples and its primary responsibility for Métis people” (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 2013, p. 3). In relation, it also states Treaty Education is important because it binds us to the promises that were made long ago and which is why the government is committing to the mandatory instruction of the history of the treaties within the curriculum (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 2013, p. 3). Thus, the connections between the two articles lie between the government and its policies and the development of any curriculum.

I believe that the tension that was a part of the development of the Treaty Curriculum was who would be teaching it. Many educators may not feel fully educated on the topic and therefore, could lack the knowledge and confidence to teach it. Another aspect of tension could have been regarding that generally, in school, individuals learn the westernized or European side of history. Therefore, there may have been tension regarding what perspectives would be taught and how.