ECS 210- Week 6

Part 1: According to the Levin article, school curricula are developed by a variety of actors who are involved with the organisation, delivery, and future use of said materials. They are not limited to state actors, but also interest groups and the general public. For me, this paper does not really provide any new information about the development of the school curriculum, as I have taken a few courses in regards to public policy. Though something I found to be very interesting is the insistence that state actors are more interested in being re-elected than taking positive political stances. The idea that a politician’s goal is to maintain a sort of cultural status quo is not often explicitly shared. The point that politicians will choose to side with the people, even if their information is incorrect, versus pedagogical experts who have evidence based input, is a sad reality within our system but is necessary for democracy. Sometimes I think a technocracy would be a more effective form of government….

Part 2) In regards to the relation between the Levin article and the beginning of the Treaty Ed outcomes, it is easy to see that there is a variety of actors involved in the development of this curriculum: Elders, university professors, state actors, and tribal council members. Also, the outcomes and indicators are indicative of broad learning which can be applied to the Treaty context. In terms of tensions being part of the development of this curriculum, it is difficult to image a development of any curriculum without tension. There are always goals and outcomes that people think to be of the utmost importance, but the development of these documents are always a form of compromise between parties and perspectives. I can imagine settling on four different broad goals was likely a point of contention, because these ideas are supposed to be incorporated into the rest of the curriculum instead of being directly relayed within the documents. Choosing four things to have to learn from K to 12 obviously does not show the full picture. I can also imagine the making mandatory instruction in history and content of the Treaties in the K-12 curriculum likely caused some stir ups, as there are still people who are very resistant to “people shoving Indian content down our throats” – some kid during my internship.