Curriculum as Public Policy

Part 1) School curricula is mainly developed by experts on the particular topic with teachers of the subject area also included in high numbers (Levin 2007, pp 17). There are other groups of people involved in developing and implementing the curricula such as government officials, post-secondary subject experts, and other groups such as parents, community members, companies and more (Levin 2007, pp.17). When the curriculum is under review or renewal those listed above that are involved in the developing and implementing gather to examine the existing curriculum and try to come to a conclusion of what to change, what to keep and what to get rid of all together. It takes a long time to revise or renew the curriculum and can be a lengthy process if solutions and arrangements to the curriculum are not found or agreed upon. A lot of work goes into making sure that what is included in the curriculum is what the group of developers see fit to be in the curriculum.

New information from this reading I have gathered would be how many people are involved in developing curricula. It’s surprising to see what kind of people are involved and who has the most say when it comes to deciding what actually gets included and what doesn’t. Something that concerned me about how curricula is made would be how expert dominated it is. As a future elementary teacher, it can be quite difficult to teach curricula that is made for an expert to teach when I have no expert background in the subject area. As a teacher who doesn’t have the expertise of all subjects it can be quite a challenge to teach when it is made for those with the expertise in the subject. This is also concerning because it raises the question of how much do experts really know about how students learn and what learning methods work in the classroom? If the experts don’t know what is happening in the classroom and how students learn then why are they the ones with the most say in developing curricula?

Part 2) When I was growing up treaty education was trying to be included in every subject area but never really made a point or a purpose as to why it was incorporated in multiple subject areas. I learned the same information year after year and never learned much about treaties or the purpose about why we would talk about them. Since I never learned until my later high school years or more in depth in university the importance of treaty education and why it was incorporated in multiple subject areas, I never knew the purpose. I believe that this can be seen as a disconnect when the curriculum is being made. The experts making the curricula don’t always connect treaty education in with the outcomes as this piece of information isn’t necessary to include in subjects to some developers. With the treaty education being implemented it makes a purpose to incorporate treaty education into the curriculum, but how it is implemented can effect how it is being delivered to the students.

Some tensions that could have been part of developing treaty education curriculum would be that most curriculum is made by experts that have a colonizer background and/or view point. This can be an issue because instead of wanting to incorporate other people and their way of life into the curriculum they fight against it as it doesn’t follow what they believe. Another issue could be that many indigenous people have experienced events differently and there could be tension in trying to create treaty education with multiple perspectives involved. Some community voices could also have been an issue when creating the treaty education curriculum as many people don’t feel it is important or don’t want their children learning about this important topic. Although these tensions may not have happened, they are possible as making any type of curriculum comes with challenges as so many people involved have different opinions and perspectives.