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?
The schools curricula is developed by the higher power that being the political representatives. These representatives come with many different perspective on the variety of creative ideas one is having. Then they are put into frameworks, many frameworks the main one's brought up in this article are : Levin used a typology of origins (where policy comes from), adoption (from an idea to a decision), implementation, and outcomes (results, intended or not, of decisions).
The new information and perspectives that this reading provided was that the school curriculum is really based upon the frameworks the higher up in politics and government want it's people to have. The outcomes of what is to be learned by what grade level.
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 tensions might you imagine were part of the development of the Treaty Education curriculum?
They are both given indicators and outcomes of what to be be learned at certain ages. They are also made by the higher class of the government and given guidelines for each age of how they are to understand the overall topic.
I feel like some tensions that Treaty peoples, knowing that there culture is to be taught by some people. That don't understand the true beauty and importance of it, to take it seriously. I also think there would be much of a conversation to as if it was people of a different group to decide what was important to teach and what wasn't.