Curricula is developed by governments and other sanctioned authorities.Policies govern every aspect of education including, what is taught, how it’s taught, to whom it is taught, and what resources are used. Every education policy decision can be seen as a political decision. Those involved in curriculum decisions often involve a combination of national, local, and school participation. Curriculum could be subject to a lot of political influences. These influences affect curriculum decisions, but they also affect political decisions which is another reason education is closely related to politics. The influences include ideology, personal beliefs, and media attention. Curriculum decisions often extend beyond education and become public debate.
Treaty education is something that, in my opinion, still needs a lot of work. While looking at the Treaty Education Outcomes and Indicators it is clear that the influences that effect other curricula affect this curriculum as well. Personal beliefs can influence the creation of curriculum, of course not everyone shares the same beliefs of what is important. This can be an issue when certain groups are speaking on behalf of all First Nations people. Not all nations share the same opinion of what is important for students to learn. Treaty education can also be seen as just good media attention. The media reports that this curriculum has been created and put in place and it is seen as a good thing even though many teachers haven’t implemented treaty education.
The western perspective is really ingrained in our understanding of the world as Canadians, simply because that’s the way it’s been for so long. But as educators we must understand the importance of having other perspectives and using other lenses in our classrooms, specifically the perspectives of FNMI peoples. Some people are of the opinion that if you’re non-Aboriginal then you shouldn’t have to learn Aboriginal content. That makes no sense, why should only Aboriginal students learn about their culture when settler Canadians brutally forced our culture on them for centuries? If we are going to grow as people and work towards reconciliation then we must all share an understanding of Aboriginal culture.
Another area we must understand are treaties, but it goes beyond just knowing the numbered treaties. Students, teachers, and really all Canadians should understand what treaties are, why they were made, the different types of treaties, and more importantly how treaties between Aboriginal nations and the government have been broken. The saying that we are all treaty people is very true, because by definition a treaty is an agreement made between multiple parties. This means both parties, to put it in colloquial terms, must uphold their end of the deal; and as far as I’m concerned the federal government has not done so. This problem has entrenched itself into our curriculum, yes treaty ed. is mentioned in the curriculum, but from my own experience and hearing the experience of others many educators simply don’t care to teach it or are to afraid to teach about another culture, especially when their own education is lacking.
This article discusses how reinhabiting cultural lands and learning about the importance of these lands is important to decolonization. Being on the lands and passing down information from your culture is traditional Indigenous education. One of the ways I saw reinhabitation and decolonization was through the audio documentary the participants made while on a river trip. They shared their knowledge with each other while on traditional lands, as I mentioned before, this is traditional Indigenous education as opposed to western education. Youth in the community also conducted interviews with elders, thus opening an inter-generational dialogue. Youth learned about living off the land and key areas of land along the river trip.
For me as a social studies major I can definitely see the value of the research the participants did in this article. I really enjoyed the concept of the audio documentary and the youth setting out to interview adults and elders about subject matter they were interested in. It helped teach them about their own culture and also got children out of a western style school and into a more traditional learning environment. I could see the value of having my own students do interviews similar to this one, being able to go out into the community and seek out the information for themselves rather than sitting in class and having the teacher tell them the information. I feel like I could also adapt this for my own classroom by asking my students what topics they would like to learn about and then bringing in an elder who has knowledge in one of the chosen topics to discuss it with my class, or having class outside on the land rather than in the classroom.
The common sense idea of what is a good students likely changes based on your own intersectionality. Typically it is someone who shows up on time, has good attendance, participates in class, does all their work and gets good grades. However, this notion of a good student only favours those who had previous knowledge to build upon and those who enjoy school. In North America it also favours students who are from middle-class families and usually of European heritage. This of course leads to issues as students who do not fit this mold are being labelled as ‘bad’ students. Not all students learn at the same pace and not all students share the same experiences. If a student is struggling in a class it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re a bad student but perhaps they have issues at home or the course material is brand new to them and they did not have the previous knowledge that other students did. Our common sense ideas make it impossible to see the other characteristics of students whom we’ve already labelled as ‘bad’. A student may show no interest in the content the teacher is presenting, but when given the choice to select their own area of study they may be the student who works the hardest. Some students may feel too ‘boxed in’ in the typical western style of education. It is clearly fair to say this this style of education does not work for everyone. So accusing a child of being a bad student just because they act out or don’t do the work or even show up late or not at all does not mean they’re a bad student, but perhaps that the education system and our notion of common sense does not help this particular student.
When our class came up with definitions of curriculum heteronormative was not one of the words that was used to describe it. Therefore, I have decided to examine sexual identity and curriculum for my critical summary. In my experience many schools have made progress in their attempts to welcome LGBTQ+ students into the school and give them a sense of belonging. But this does not stop LGBTQ+ students from being left out in the material taught in the classroom. I never once remember a LGBTQ+ character in any of the novels from my English courses and sex education only included information pertaining to heterosexual students. While this are only a couple of examples it is clear to me that while LGBTQ+ students themselves may be welcome in our schools, they are severely underrepresented in our curriculum content.
For this assignment I have found three articles which examine this issue. The first article is The Case for a Gay and Lesbian Curriculum by Arthur Lipkin, this article focuses on the “Children of the Rainbow Curriculum” debate that happened in New York in the 1990’s. This article, while based in the United States, gives a look at the public concern with a LGBTQ+ curriculum. The second article is Interrupting Heteronormativity: Toward a Queer Curriculum Theory by Dennis Sumara and Brent Davis. This article gives suggestions on how heteronormative thinking can be interrupted and argues that it is our obligation to do so in order to promote social justice. The final article is Queering Institutions?: Sexual Identity in Public Education in a Canadian Context by Heather Shipley. This article not only gives a Canadian perspective but offers insight into a recent issue; the proposed sexual education curriculum changes in Ontario.
My next steps in my research will be to analyze these articles further in order to critically understand what each one is arguing. After this I will begin to outline their arguments and how their individual ideas demonstrate a connection between sexual identity and curriculum.
This article describes four models of curriculum theory and practice. The first model is curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted. This model equates curriculum with the syllabus. It is connected with courses leading to examination. However, a syllabus will not indicate the importance of its topics or the order they will be learned in. This model is content based and is likely to limit planning to the content or body of knowledge they wish to transmit.
The second model is curriculum as product. This model entails objectives set, a plan made, the plan is applied, outcomes (products) are measured. It is heavily influenced by the development of management thinking and practice. This model runs into problems as students end up with no voice as they are told what they will learn and how they will learn it. Success or failure is based on the students ability to meet behavioural outcomes. It is often difficult for teachers to judge what the impact of certain experiences has been as students may not even realize the impact until much later in life.
The third curriculum model is curriculum as process. This model states curriculum is not a physical thing but rather the interaction of teachers, students, and knowledge. Teachers enter an educational setting with a more fully worked-through idea of what is about to happen. Curriculum is viewed as a particular form of specification about the practice of teaching and not a package of materials or a syllabus of ground to be covered. However, due to the uniqueness of each classroom each proposal must be tested to see which proposal works best for each class. Outcomes are no longer the central and defining feature, content and means develop as students and teachers work together. Unlike the product model students are not viewed as objects to be acted upon but rather as subjects. The process model is a critical model and not a marking model. The major strengths and weaknesses of this model rest on the quality of the teacher and how committed they are to the model. In an attempt to make this model more “attainable” for all teachers curriculum has been re-worked to include “process of discovery” and “problem-solving” outcomes. However, these outcomes reduce process to a set of skills. Once the student demonstrates the skill they have “completed” the process. Whether or not students can apply these skills in the world around them in overlooked.
The fourth and final model is curriculum as praxis. This model is a further development of the process model. Curriculum itself develops through the dynamic interaction of action and reflection. Teachers commitment to this model is expressed in action to the exploration of educators’ values and their practice. Those committed to this model explore their practice with their peers, they are able to say how their actions reflected their ideas and what theories were involved. Praxis model does not place strong enough emphasis on context.
This models I noticed most in my schooling experience are curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted and curriculum as process. In my schooling a lot of lessons focused on passing on knowledge with the intent of being able to use this knowledge during exams. Curriculum as process was shown through the problem-solving and process of discovery outcomes. I often learned things in school which to me had no purpose in my life after leaving school or the purpose was not made clear to me and my peers.
Kumashiro describes common sense as what is familiar and expected or what is already known by a group of people. Kumashiro looks at his teaching experience in Nepal with the American Peace Corps, believing he was going into the experience to improve the education of Nepali children and show Nepali teachers a more effective, or more American, style of teaching. The Nepali school system was a shock to Kumashiro as he learned the American methods of teaching did not necessarily work in Nepal. Not only was there a common sense about what should be taught in Nepali schools but Kumashiro also had to adjust to life in a remote village. The people who lived there thought Kumashiro could not do things, such as cook, because he did not share the same common sense as the Nepali people. This experience made Kumashiro re-think the American education system and the common sense that American students, teachers, and parents have about the classroom and how the classroom should operate.
It is important to pay attention to common sense because it often reinforces ideas that only work for a certain group of people. Educators may have found a way of teaching that works for the majority of students so they decided to stick to it and not question to status quo. However, the system put in place only works for students who share the same cultural background. Students of different gender, sexuality, race, socioeconomic background, etc, may struggle in school whether that be in class or in building relationships with fellow students. The same way Kumashiro experienced a learning curve and felt out of place in Nepal may be the way immigrant students or teachers feel when they arrive in a new school. They may come from a country who has a completely different idea of common sense than the students and teachers in North America. Paying attention to common sense can aid in breaking down oppression and making students and teachers feel more welcome.