Part 1) School curriculum is developed by many people. It takes more than just one or two people to develop and implement a formal curriculum. The government plays a major role in the development of a new curriculum along with teachers, experts, historians, and companies. It is mentioned in Levin’s article how education governance typically involves a combination of national, local and school participation but the final authority falls under national. It is also mentioned that however the cabinet has one person in charge of education, many other political leaders may also have views and if curriculum decisions go through a political vetting process there may be all kinds of political influences including preferences of individuals. The many groups of people who come together to build a curriculum will look at data and past curriculums but in the end the government seems to have the most authority when it comes to implementing it. Groups that mainly sit on these formal curriculum development boards include experts, parents, and teachers. Teachers play a key role because they have been inside the classroom and are the ones who will be implementing the curriculum to their students. Levin suggests in his article that it is important to involve community members because their views and thoughts need to be considered. One thing that surprised me is that experts have a major say and that they may not consider the teachers abilities. Some teachers may not be capable of teaching a topic that is beyond their knowledge. Levin describes that a colleague described a high school mathematics curriculum as “developed by the six best teachers in [the province] and they are the only ones who could teach it successfully”. I was also surprised that scientists or tradespersons have a say because it mentions that they usually feel their field is important or more important than others.
Part 2) The first connection I noticed between the Treaty Education document and Levin’s article is the amount of people it takes to produce a curriculum. In both documents there wasn’t just one or two people involved but multiple people and multiple groups. Also, a connection is that it is important to have experts of that field helping produce these forms of documents. The formal curriculum has experts who give their input and the Treaty document also had experts in this field by bringing in elders to help create the document. Some tension I might imagine is the different views between the Indigenous community and the Ministry of Education. The things the Ministry of Education views as a must to include might be something the Indigenous community doesn’t feel the need to add and vis versa. I would hope teachers wouldn’t feel this way but one tension may be teachers feeling the Indigenous culture is being over taught and deciding not to teach the Indigenous culture as much or at all.