ECS 210: Curriculum and Treaty Education

In response to a student teachers concerns raised about the lax attitude towards teaching Treaty Education answer the following questions:

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?

I believe the purpose is to start bridging the gap of an “Us” and “Them” mentality regarding non-First Nations and First Nations people. When students are brought up with little knowledge of FN, Métis, and Inuit perspectives it can be easier for us to ignore the many ways Canadian society is biased against perspectives outside of the settler norm.

Another big reason is that it is often overlooked that First Nations and Inuit people were the original occupiers of the land, and that Canada owes most of its identity to the ways Indigenous peoples were stewards of the land. When we are only taught that history begins when settlers occupy what would eventually be Canada, we are ignoring the original perspectives of the people who were here long before.

I know I was not aware of the Treaties during my time in schools, and this left me ignorant to many of the ways we have a societal bias in the ways First Nations people are treated and the adversities it leaves them to overcome. I want my students to have an understanding so that as they move though secondary and post-secondary education, they can have a better understanding of the ways Treaties were meant to establish a sharing of the land between settlers and First Nation problems, and how that has actually been enacted as a displacement of First Nation peoples.

2. What does it mean for your understanding of curriculum that “We are all treaty people”?

In my understanding of curriculum “We are all Treaty people” means that we all equally share the land we occupy, and thus all carry the rights and responsibilities of being part of the treaty. If we do not teach what entailed the creation of treaties, what they continue to mean, and how treaties are still shaping the world we live in, our students will remain ignorant of these rights and responsibilities.

This understanding will also help to deconstruct some of the racial bias that can be a part of our Canadian identities. Incorporating Treaty Education into our curriculum helps us to take part in creating a more equitable curriculum for all our students.

Dwayne Donald mentions many of our students feel they do not have a culture (https://vimeo.com/15264558). Really we are all Canadian, whether that be a settler identity, First Nations, Métis, Inuit, or a recent immigrant to Canada, when we know the history of the land we are on, we can see how we all share a common identity as Treaty People.

Please see this link to read Cynthia Chambers’ article this post is a response to:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RpFQAVShNlNLA9u6aXv7udGnzTGk5LNN/view

ECS 210: Curriculum as Place

After reading the article Learning from Place: A Return to Traditional Mushkegowuk Ways of Knowing found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dI7wj8JcsOuMVHjWx1aKJy3XzCSoyYuc/viewe were asked two questions.

1. List some of the ways that you see re-inhabitation and decolonization happening throughout the narrative.

I saw this happening in the article in a few ways. One was the boundaries placed on the land by the colonizers seemed to dissipate to the participants in the project. By seeing how the land informed boundaries based on natural occurrences, trade routes, historical sites to the peoples and families, the formally defined boundaries were made less oppressive. The use of language to help connect the students with the traditional perspectives is also a form of decolonization as they are coming back to their cultural definitions of place and seeing themselves inhabiting those spaces. Even the facilitation between Elders and students can be seen as reinhabitation, as it reestablishes cultural norms that were being oppressed by colonization. When language becomes revitalized it also connects students to their cultural role in place and citizens of the land.

2. How might you adapt these ideas towards considering place in your own subject areas and teaching?

I think it will be important to look at multiple perspectives when teaching in any subject area and not seeing the dominant theory or pedagogy as the only one that is right. In visual art it has often been taught that European centred art and art history were the “right” way to view art and its history while Asian and Indigenous arts were treated as a separate, and less superior art narratives. This philosophy discounts all the ways that they share innovation and inform one another in the development of contemporary arts. Canada is now seeing First Nations, Inuit and Metis art as valuable and modern, and this shift is being seen in the way galleries and museums now show and feature these art works and histories.

In the same way teachers needs to look for the non-dominant ways they want to incorporate into their classrooms, whether this be First Nation views on the sciences, mathematics, literature, or any subject matter. To only teach euro-centred ways of knowing leaves out many perspectives that can help create an open and welcoming classroom to all cultural views.

ECS 210: Curriculum Policy

Exploring the creation of the curriculum

For this week’s prompt we are asked to write a before and after blog about Curriculum Policy and the Politics of What Should Be Learned in Schools, found here: http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/16905_Chapter_1.pdf

Before Reading: How do I think school curricula is developed?

I believe school curricula is developed by education professionals who are employed by the Ministry of Education in a permanent or consoling contract that view existing materials to make changes reflective of contemporary values and issues. These changes are then reviewed and may be made into the permanent curriculum at a later date. Curriculum mirrors the dominant values of a society and has importance placed in areas that are deemed as the most necessary for future success (employment) of the students.

After Reading:

School curricula is developed and implemented by experts in a specific field, political opinions, relevant industry, and public opinion. This reading provided new insights into how complex the creation of curriculum can be and the various ways the creators have to navigate political and popular beliefs to create a palatable curriculum that has little objection. The fact that curriculum is often not based on empirical data and research is a little disconcerting, as the ability to actually teaching the curriculum may not be a priority for those involved. That some creators are experts in the field is a good thing, but if a curriculum requires that same expertise to be recreated, that may be an issue as some teachers are more broadly trained and educated, and may not have that singular knowledge base to pull from.

A major concern is to be teaching based on assessment requirements that may be created on a national level and not reflective of the province’s own curriculum. This could be dire as students may not test well in accord to a standard even though they have been learning the required materials. I also worry about the basis of what students are learning being directed by industry leaders who are looking to serve their own interests in having readily available workers. While I see it as important to be teaching hireable skills, the fact that we could be molding students on a path towards employment in a particular field without properly exploring multiple interests is a little discomforting.

I see how complex the factors that shape and dictate curriculum can be. It is hard to make everyone happy as well as create the best guide for teachers to facilitate learning with their students. That curriculum is always going through evaluation and change is a positive thing, even if teachers may need to be ever vigilant they are using the curriculum to best meet their students’ needs.

ECS 210 The Good Student

What makes a “good” student?

In the common sense definition a “good” student is one who is quiet, still, and participants when asked and sees the teacher as the benefactor of knowledge, and themselves and the beneficiary.

While these traits can make for an easy experience for the teacher, they are not always realistic when thinking of our student populations. Historically, this traits might also describe white, christian, middle to upper class students as well. Students who cannot even begin to be seen as this good student may be those with intellectual, physical, or mental impairments. A child who has Attention Deficit Disorder may never be able to fit this mold of the “good” student, as being required to sit still and pay attention for long periods of time may not be a capability unless medicated or under the threat of severe discipline.

Students coming from diverse backgrounds may also suffer under the comparison with their “good” peers. Children who have been taught in different settings (ex outdoor schools, homeschooled, etc.) may not know the conformed way that we teach and may have a hard time adjusting to the long periods of sitting in a chair or at a desk and being required to listen attentively while the teacher facilitates. However some students who come from even stricter educational norms may likely fit right in and even be seen as being among the best students.

Children with physical and intellectual impairments are also unconsidered in this definition as sitting still at all could be a struggle or even impossibility. The setup of a classroom may hinder participation and involvement as well.

When we think of “good” students we are perhaps wanting the calmest, easier classroom for ourselves. This is not a practical way to approach classroom management and may set teachers up to feel frustrated when our students are not behaving as we hope and expect. Knowing who are students are, their best learning approaches, their knowledge, and their interests are ways to engage the classroom and created invested students. We as teachers are meant to adjust to our classes, not the other way around.