There are two discussions involved in the politics of curriculum: the overall shape of school curricula and the content of individual subjects (Levin, 2008, p. 14). Currently, curriculum development and implementation are decided by an expert-dominated approach (Levin, 2008, p. 17). Curriculum development processes include teachers of the subject, post-secondary subject experts, and “are often organized and to some degree directed by government officials from ministries of education” (Levin, 2008, p. 17). Typically in this process, the strengths and weaknesses of the current curricula are identified before attempting to arrive at a consensus on the recommendations for change that were proposed based on the weaknesses (Levin, 2008, p. 17). New curricula are usually fully developed before they are implemented into schools, but sometimes, they are prematurely released and then revised into final versions later (Levin, 2008, p. 17).
The curriculum is decided through an expert-dominated approach, but Levin incorporates a few critiques of this approach to curriculum development in his article. One criticism that Levin (2008) discusses is that “there may be intense lobbying by various interests as to who should be named to a working group” (p. 18). This relates to another disadvantage that Levin (2008) includes about “the clash between experts with competing views (p. 18). There may be intense disagreement about who is allowed to be involved in the curriculum development process because experts may have conflicting ideas, and will deem the process unfair if all the views are not addressed. Another related impediment to the expert approach is that “curriculum formation may also be linked to much more public political processes” (Levin, 2008, p. 18). This last critique relates both to the content included in the curriculum as well as the people responsible for creating it. There are many issues surrounding whether to include content regarding controversial issues, such as climate change or different sexualities. The inclusion of these topics depends heavily on whether or not the general public allows them to be topics discussed in schools. The public is having more and more influence in developing curriculum, and because most people have been to school, they think they completely understand education enough to have a voice in the topics that are included in the curriculum.
I found it surprising that even though subject teachers are included in the curriculum development process, the curriculum product is only effective if it is being taught by an expert. Many schools suffer from low budgets and need to use teachers cross-curricularly. Curricula should be written so that a teacher with any level of expertise can navigate it, and still allow for the teacher to implement their own creativity into how to teach the information. Also, after obtaining a degree in education, teachers are certified to teach any grade. This means that many teachers do not get hired for the grade that they are best trained for. This is another reason why curricula should be written for teachers of every level of expertise.
When I was in elementary school, I remember wondering why reference to Indigenous Peoples was made in every single class. Finally, in middle school, an elder came to talk to our class and told us that the reason why information on Indigenous Peoples was given in each subject was because of treaty education. After this presentation, it finally made sense why the topic of Indigenous Peoples was included in every subject in some way. I remember reading questions in math textbooks regarding Indigenous ways of living, and numerous discussions in social studies on colonization in Canada. The treaty outcomes and indicators appear greatly written in the document, but I think there is still a disconnection between the document and the information that is shared in classrooms. I learned a lot about the Indigenous way of life in my years in school, but there was little emphasis placed on the actual treaties. I had heard the phrase “we are all treaty people”, but none of my teachers had ever given any meaning to it. We learned the very basic components of what was negotiated in the treaties but were taught that they were really only applicable to Indigenous people. I think my schooling failed me in my treaty education because it continued to enforce a separation between colonizers and Indigenous Peoples, as well as belittled the significance of treaties in our lives.
Based on the critiques that Levin found with the expert-dominated approach, I can think of two main tensions that occurred in the creation of the treaty education curriculum. The first tension may have arisen as a result of the many different cultures within the overarching idea of Indigenous culture. Each diverse group of Indigenous people had a different experience with the treaties, so there are many conflicting expert opinions on the matter. It would have been challenging to decide which experts to include in the process, as each expert would have added their unique experience and opinion. Tensions may also have arisen because of the voice that the public has in curriculum matters. There are still people that are uncomfortable with their children learning topics that include Indigenous ways of life; some people want only European history to be discussed in schools. I suspect these were the two main tensions that arose when the treaty education curriculum was being created and implemented in schools. I also think these tensions are still applicable today.
Nikki's Blog 