These are my personal responses to the prompts listed above both paragraphs, individually.
Part 1) According to the Levin article, how are school curricula developed and implemented? What new information/perspectives does this reading provide about the development and implementation of school curriculum? Is there anything that surprises you or maybe that concerns you?
I found it extremely interesting how the article discusses the governmental issues that come with the government creating curriculum. I stated in the article the government doesn't always have the right to do whatever it wants to do it has to go through a lot of processes and there often isn't enough time to fully develop something that everybody can enjoy and benefit from. Although I already was aware of how the governmental system works surrounding curriculum, I still found it extremely important that it was involved in this article as not many people are aware of how it works and functions, which was also shockingly stated in the article. The article also discusses how much of what is passed depends entirely on the people in power and not necessarily their political alignment. A concern of mine is definitely the opposition, as people don't truly realize exactly what the opposition does in government their job as stated in the article is to oppose every little thing the government chooses to do. In some cases this can be very good but when it comes to curriculum I don't feel as though it can be extremely beneficial in many areas. For example, if someone were to try and pass something on treaty education, the opposition would need to oppose it. And if the opposition got the approval, that piece of curriculum would not be passed. With something as important as Treaty education, we would essentially be stunting our students, teachers and the Native population. Perhaps Canada should try and create a curriculum that doesn't involve too much governmental influence, however that would also come with its own slew of issues.
Part 2) After reading pages 1-4 of the Treaty Education document, what connections can you make between the article and the implementation of Treaty Education in Saskatchewan? What tension might you imagine were part of the development of the Treaty Education curriculum?
After reading Pages 1 to 4 of the Treaty education document, I found that what students were to learn or develop an understanding of in all four areas of the curriculum we're extremely similar and extremely vague. I found it just gives teachers very loose stomping grounds to develop the ideas that the document requires. It doesn't give much information on how teacher should introduce these subjects, just that they should. I can definitely understand how there was lots of tension when creating this document, as there isn't much information going off of it. It just says generalize things such as "students will understand that Treaty relationships are based on a deep understanding of peoples’ identity which encompasses: languages, ceremonies, worldviews, and relationship to place and the land." Which are the first glance seems pretty detailed, however it leaves too much room for interpretation. I personally found that throughout the entire document.