How has your upbringing/schooling shaped how you “read the world?” What biases and lenses do you bring to the classroom? How might we unlearn / work against these biases?
We learn a lot more from reading and hearing stories then we may think. The way we develop are way of thinking is based of the stories we read and hear. For example if you just hear a single story about politics you may view that party negatively/positively as you only have one perception of them. But then you may read/hear more and find that you actually side with another party or side even more, with a party's beliefs. This moves in the classroom as the same kind of way. You are most likely to believe things on racism and stereotypes and bias in a certain way depending on how many resources you look at. The more you read the more knowledgeable on these topics you become. We can unlearn/learn biases by looking more into depth on topics, by reading and listening to more then one story to build our perspectives.
Which “single stories” were present in your own schooling? Whose truth mattered?
The curriculums stories are what were present In my schooling. We read as the curriculum told us to read. Stories such Life of Pi, To Kill A Mocking Bird, and Mice and Men. The typical stories of curriculum, your parents most likely read these as well. It was the assignments and tests truth which mattered. We read and listened to the stories as the assignments steered us too. And followed the stories in the path that would help us succeed best on our test. The truth that mattered were the marks, not what the story contained itself.
Note - My blog was to long and got cut off here is the full response to Part 2.
After looking at the first few pages of this curriculum I found it kind of broad. I noticed a very repetitive pattern with the expectations of outcomes and indicators. Everything says by the end of grade 12 students should understand TR, HC, SI, and TPP. This seems broad and kind of lazy I find. Seems very general. I am keeping in mind though that I am just looking at the first few pages of this and not looking into the whole thing and that it may be different or I just may be reading it incorrectly. However I believe by saying grade 12 its kind of sounding like a last priority. Why are they expected to understand the outcomes and indicators at the last grade level and not pushed to be at sooner.
Relating this to the previous article if this curriculum is developed around government, political opinion then the people who are most vocal I could imagine some huge tension between people well forming this curriculum. I was not here for the making of this curriculum but i can guess the ways it would have gone, not saying that this is accurate but a way of thinking, and hypothesising.
We look at some politics who do not believe that theres anything to discuss about treaty and are going to voice their opinion about this. Then their will be the politicians that know the importance of treaty ed. and believe strongly about it. Then we are going to have our teachers who are the ones that are going to be implementing these curriculums. But the part that is leaving me a little out is the involvence in the Indigenous peoples themselves in this curriculum. The government and Indg. have a horrendous history, did the politicians encourage the Indg. peoples to take part in this curriculum or did they make it within themselves? I can see tension rising in the implementation of this curriculum during this process here.
There is many ways that this can be thought out and imagined to how it all went down and ill leave the rest of the critical thinking to you now, with some of my critical thinking now expressed.
Most curricula are organized around at least two levels of objectives, very general or broad goals and then much more specific learning activities and objectives. Curricilum is politicial and is often shaped through those that are most vocal. This kind of suprised me as; if currciulum is made by poltics and the peopele who go in witht he strongest sense of self interest are the most vocal are curriculum can almost be made out as dictated even though we live in a country of democracy. If political power dictates the way our curriculum is shaped how are we to know its fair. The way that this article said things out to be with poltics and curriculum makes me question the way the curriculum is made.
It is expressed in the article that "Role of poltics in policy is troubling and misunderstanding by many educators, who feel that education is a matter of expertise and should beyond poltics." Then shortly follows up with how politics is about power and made me crittically think how are curriculum is developed. Are curriculum is all made up by higher society and keeps the lower society out as they tend to have least influence when it comes to political decision making.
A few other interesting things I took out of Levins article here is the discusiion on how the shaping of the curriculum occured. Deiciding on which to teach first, what to teach, and what not to teach at all, and all just really came to me as i have always just followed the curriculum and never really questioned how it ws formed or who it was formed by or even why the curriculum was fromed and opened my eyes to perhaps how curriclum is just "common sense" and thats why we dont really think too in depth about it. As we have read previous articles about the "good student" and how the good studnet is not someone who questions what is being taught. Kind of bringing Common Sense into this norm.
I also find it a ltitle crazy how "The Ontario high school curriculum already has 270 possible courses even though students only have a maximum of 12 options during their 4 years of high school.However,there are constant requests for new courses" (7). Then going deeper into the article and finding how they are still wanting to put in more subjects such as women studies and cultural studies and such and how they want to incorperate more subject area within each individual subject all well keeping school days and year the same length. Almost sounds like a imposssibile challange on teachers and politically dictated to what the teachers abilities really are.
After looking at the first few pages of this curriculum I found it kind of broad. I noticed a very repetitive pattern with the expectations. Everyting says by the end of grade 12 students should understand TR,
1. What is the purpose of teaching Treaty Ed (specifically) or First Nations, Metis, and Inuit (FNMI) Content and Perspectives (generally) where there are few or no First Nations, Metis, Inuit peoples?
Regardless of the amount of Indigenous children attending the school, Treaty Ed is still in the curriculum to be taught. It also more then just the curriculum. This is the kids history and if you don't learn your history its bound to repeat itself as we have all heard the saying before.
We learn through stories. Treaty's our are story and we must pass our stories down generations for knowledge. Even if a school does not have Indigenous peoples attending, it is still a process that's being reconciliated and kids need to be aware of that.
We listened to Claire this week and how she has incorporated Treaty Ed into her curriculum. This was a great video to go off of the benefits of teaching treaty ed in the classroom regardless of the amount of Indg. kids in the school. These kids are young and it something that happened before they were even born and they livee to own up too it. I believe this video shows the strong effects and impact of the Treaty Ed. Curriculum. She made mention of story of how hours after her lecture on residential schools, one of her children out of the blue just said to her how she was happy she didn't go to a residential school. I feel like that is a big moment as a teacher as you know your lecture has been taken in when the students continue to think about your lecture after it has happened.
I feel this ties into importance of teaching Treaty Ed to all and shows the impact it has. Kids should know what land they are on and how things have come to be.
2. What does it mean for your understanding of curriculum that "We are all treaty people"?
We all live on treaty territory, everything we have is on treaty territory therefore making us all treaty people. Treaty Ed is 20% of our curriculum and its our jobs of teachers to teach it. As teachers we can incorporate Treaty Ed into different subjects to get a stronger and more beneficial method across for children to truly gain deeper concepts on the topic.
alA) identify, recover, and create material spaces and places that teach us how to live well in our total environments (reinhabitation)
When entering a school you are going to find a variety of personalities between kids, you are going to have kids with different skills, different talents, and different imaginations. Just because one kid doesn't act like the rest does not make them a "bad" student.
Our school system has a way to think that all children are to act in a "school manor". Behave appropriately and such on. It is the feel of the school and society to make sure all students act "good". Schools expect student to not question/challenge what they are learning. They expect all students to sit back and take in the learning, do their work, so on, it just common sense. But is it really common sense? It is because that's the way society and education make things to seem and common sense is created by the society around you of what the good and bad is. Society is built to dictate the way you think and its been drilled into our education programs.
After all students are going to school to learn, not ask questions about what they are learning. Teachers are given the resources that they are expected to teach throughout the year, assigned certain books that the students must read, leaving students to question why they are reading the material they are reading. Is it because it is interesting or because they have to do it. Through my teaching career I am sure what I am teaching will be questioned by a student. Why are we learning this? What is trig going do for me later in life? Why is the relevant, do we have to be going through this? If you have the answer why can't you just tell us? I don't know quite how to answer all these questions but they are valid questions in our system.
Heck maybe I should start figuring out what to say.
This system does not work for the students who think differently, in a creative, imaginative pattern. Kids who struggle with crisis of finding the way they are doing things is wrong to the way that the school wants it done suffer. When they come to the realization that what they thought they understood something, they will face frustration, confusion and potential other feelings. The common sense of the way to be a good student fails for all students who think differently, the curriculum is set the same for everyone, but everyone thinks differently.
Beginning to look into my assignment #1 project I am thinking of heading in the way of discovering more about William Pinar and looking into his work and what he is interested in. I am liking the way he puts his perspective on things so far looking into him that I feel this may be a enjoyable topic to continue to push through. "I am interested in each of these but – as a curriculum theorist – I am less interested in how teachers teach than in what they teach, what students learn (and what they don’t), the impact of standardized assessment on teaching and learning." He looks a lot into curriculum and seems to know it inside out.
William Pinar has written multiple books that university students are studying out of on the daily to push towards pursuing their future career in teaching. Some of his books sound familiar and I am pretty certain that I may have one of his books around, so I look to go further into this by looking into his books and find where the passion he is all about for curriculum comes from through his writing. I look to further my research on him through more searching through resources online and offline through his books.
Teachers often build a syllabus hand it out and that's your guideline for the year. The teacher then turns that syllabus to teach out their whole course. This has been the way majority of classes have run I have found. Your handed a syllabus first day of class and then that is transmitted to the way that the course is to run. It can be quiete stressful too look at and feel like a lot and overwhelming, and can also sometimes be subject to change. Which can be frustrating as sometimes the teachers syllabus will not fully go as planned, perhaps falling behind in lectures, not taking into mind exactly how fast or slow a lesson will go. However if everything does fall on time its nice for the students to follow to have a organized representation of what they are doing when and what is due coming up and work they need to complete by days. "Where people still equate curriculum with a syllabus they are likely to limit their planning to a consideration of the content or the body of knowledge that they wish to transmit" . The whole semesters planning is done and you must stay tight on the course being taught to keep the syllabus transmitted to the course tight following the curriculum.
Curriculum as a Product
When curriculum is treated as a product it is broken down to "involve detailed attention to what people needed to know in order to work, live their lives and so on." It provides a clear notion on what is to be done and the outcome expected so that the content can be organized and the results can be evaluated. Organization is the key factor an most appealing attribute of this way of the curriculum. The problem with this although it is organized it can be hard on learners. As you are told what to do and exactly how you are going to do it. This can be hard on learners as some must use their creativity to best express their work and don't want to work on a strait line where they can not do their own thing. This can be a pro for some students who need this sense of direction, where they need to know exactly what to do and how to do it to give them a better sense of direction for completing a task. I have not noticed this type of curriculum in my learning to much but is slightly there. Teachers have assigned work to be done a certain way and no other, which can be frustrating, but if the directions are clear on the way things are to be done can be beneficial. If you lack the skill to translate the way that the teacher wants things done, students can fall in trouble and fall behind and not do well on the assignment. Everything has to continuously be broken down into smaller units which some learners may not be able to process.
Curriculum as a Process
"Teachers enter the classroom or any other formal educational setting with a more fully worked-through idea of what is about to happen." The way this curriculum works not quiete by saying curriculum is a process but more of what experience they get out of attempting of putting educational proposal into a practice. This way is not all about materials and a syllabus to follow as guideline for the course as much. Its about translating educational ideas into testable practices. This package is not designed to be delivered almost anywhere. It comes nicely as the teacher and student must work togheter in this practice of curriculum which can benefit the teacher in understanding the students and the outcomes and experience they need to learn best.This can become a problem though of focusing on the experience that the context that needs to be covered for the exam may not be greatly covered. Another problem with this method is quality of teacher, the teacher needs to be dedicated into this in order to get it done and must be full of wisdom. This system can make learning for enjoyable and help you take out more if you have the right teacher for the job, I am very unaware of this system as I have never personally followed it, heard of it, or experienced it. I feel this may be a nice way to have teaching to help take information in and have it stick with me through good experience in classroom. Rather then study strictly towards the exam and dread and stress upon the information I am forced to soak in.
Curriculum as Praxis
The main aspect of this type of curriculum is communication within the classroom amongst each other. This can work very well having students take knowledge and wisdom in from one another to see things from different perspective and putting it to practice. "In this approach the curriculum itself develops through the dynamic interaction of action and reflection." This practice is good on a social aspect to encourage kids to work togheter, and explore knowledge and ideas amongst each other. This curriculum sounds to be about group work what you see used in every class. I find this educational perspective at going at ways is very beneficial. Sometimes when students are lost working with other students can help provide the reinsurance to get back on track and understand the process of work that they need to accomplish and get a better understanding for the topic by it being explained to them by someone who is learning it as well. Working with groups you always do face a kid avoiding to do it and depending on group members to complete for them and some children may get lost in their group work if they do not fully understand the work and their group shuns them out. However working as a group is vital to life and I believe this type of understanding for curriculum is more dominant then others as its a easy way to help learners help each other out for the best understanding of the topic that they are covering.
Common sense is what we live by without thinking about it. We use common sense in our everyday life to get through our day. Our Common sense is built around the community and society we build ourselves into. Common sense is what makes us fit into our community. Kumashiro gave the example of teaching in a different country in a school where the students common sense was built differently then the teachers. The teacher was trying to teach in the way that has been signed off by the people of power of where they are from. However the students call the teacher out for teaching "wrong" as it did not swith the sense they have grown without thinking about it, tattling to other teachers that they were being taught wrong.
It is important to pay attention to common sense to take in the surroundings and community to fit in and understand the mind of the people around you to figure out how things work. Giving you the benefits of knowing what is "good" and "bad", and what to do without thinking. It is essential as a teacher to always take in and adapt to the way children work to get the best teaching benefits in to educate the children in the way that works for them best in the end and that may involve adapting different strategies to teach about the different curriculums.