Levin Curriculum and Treaty Education

According to the Levin article school curricula is developed and implemented through policies that are made by the processing of the government’s political decisions. Because the government wants to be re-elected in the future they are influenced by ideologies, lobbying, personal beliefs, and media attention when making these decisions. There is often debate about what subjects should be taught and what content should be taught in these subjects. For example, people may question weather or not sex education should be taught in schools or they may question weather or not evolution should be taught in science. Discussions such as this also impact what curricula is developed and implemented in school curriculum. 

The Levin article provided a new perspective when it discussed how a single member of parliament, such as the minister of education, is able to influence what is and is not put in curriculum. This concerns me because one person cannot know what is the best things to teach to all students. Giving someone absolute power over curriculum could only lead to a corrupt curriculum because absolute power leads to absolute corruption. This article also provided a new perspective when it discussed incorporating multiple sources, such as a teacher, parent, student, expert, and a company member to review the curriculum and revise it to make it better. Having at least one person from each group to represent their group is important in order to make curriculum teachable, learnable, and successful in reaching goals and outcomes, such as getting a job.  

After reading the two articles I discovered the Levin article discusses different influences making curriculum and at the beginning of the Treaty Education document we see a list of people who are involved in creating this document. Also, The Treaty Education Document makes clear what students should have learned by the end of grade 12 but not how or to what extent they should learn it. Just like in Levin’s article the Treaty Education Document sets up what is to be taught and what students are supposed to take away from class.

Tensions will constantly occur in curriculum development as long as people have different views on what should and should not be taught. The curriculum will constantly change and never satisfy every  single person; However, it is important to cover Treaty Education as all students deserve to know the history of the lands in which they presently live.

2 thoughts on “Levin Curriculum and Treaty Education

  1. Thanks for the feedback! I agree with you that “it is very unwise to give a few people the power to create curriculum, especially without a ‘double-check’ completed by a variety of people” because as I said before “absolute power leads to absolute corruption”. When I discussed having multiple sources/representatives I was actually referring to the article when it says“[c]urriculum review parties are now more likely to include parents or students or non-educators such as business representatives. As discussed in the next section, these changes in composition can have significant implications for the ways in which curriculum processes unfold because they will bring different and more diverse interests to the table”(Levin 18). However, I may not have made that quite clear in my blog. I understand you may have read “Having a person to represent everyone that is impacted by curriculum is important” and thought I meant a single person but if you look back to what I wrote I meant having multiple people revising curriculum from various groups and we should atleast have one person from each group if not more involved for editing curriculum. I am glad you brought this up. I see how you could get confused when I said a person and didn’t specify a person from each group. I think I am going to edit it to “Having [at least one person from each group] to represent [their group] is important in order to make curriculum teachable, learnable, and successful in reaching goals and outcomes, such as getting a job” instead of writing “ Having a person to represent everyone that is impacted by curriculum is important inorder to make a curriculum ….” because I can see that it is quite unclear when I say everyone. Thanks so much for the feedback I just edited my post to make what I am trying to say more clear.

    Like

  2. I can tell you learned a lot from Levin’s article!! I was slightly outraged as well when I read that many decisions are made by an exclusive few. I think you missed one side to this dynamic, however! I think it is very unwise to give a few people the power to create curriculum, especially without a ‘double-check’ completed by a variety of people. Yet, I think that having a larger amount of people on a board may also severely water down what progress is being made. Just like we read in the article, everyone has a different idea on what should be taught. If we addressed each one, we would have a very shallow knowledge of many things.
    I’ll use the phrase, ‘it has potential’ in this situation. There is a possibility that a small number of people can do some very good things for curriculum. However, as you said, there is certainly a risk of corruption in this case too.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.