Before reading Leven’s article Curriculum Policy and the Politics of What Should be Learned in Schools, I didn’t know much on how curriculum is formed and implemented. I learned that policies in education which include all aspects of how the curriculum is made, who it’s made for, what it’s made of and so on is a political decision and has almost little to no public attention. Government officials and scholars work together to shape the curriculum which means that they decide what subjects to teach and what to teach in them. Of course, there is no shock that there would be conflict between the creation process of the curriculum. In my own experience I learned that the native studies course is optional in high school which some people did not agree that it should be a mandated course. My teacher for that course made it a class assignment to compose a letter to the ministry of education and persuade them why it should be a mandatory. Thinking back, this made me realize that teachers don’t really get to say much when it comes to changing curriculum only the major stakeholders do which is the government officials, scholars and political leaders. It concerns me to think that as a student and future educator I have very little say in what goes on in the curriculum.
After reading the treaty education documented I noticed that it says that you cannot understand the goals of treaty education without considering them parts of a whole which is what was said in Leven’s article. It’s not hard to imagine that there would be some tension in the development of treaty education since some people can argue that science or other subjects are much more important than treaty education. To me this means that those policy makers (the curriculum makers) don’t understand or care to understand the importance of implementing treaty education in the curriculum. They do not want to come to term with the facts that indigenous ways of knowing is as important as science and math and any other subject currently in the curriculum.