Curriculum are developed a lot on the backing of political power. That is something that shocked me but there is a lot of politics involved with developing a curriculum. Levin also states that “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”. With this being said, it focuses on the general goals such as someone being able to do math at a certain grade level and what the students should be learning. Then it focuses on the broader goals meaning it could be whatever really. Not much is said on how it should be implemented, I think because you can’t really narrow it down to one right way of implementing such a thing. The new information I gained from this was seeing how much politics is involved. It makes sense for it to be that way but it s still something that I will carry forward with me. The two things that shocked me during the reading was Indigenous studies wasn’t mentioned once, and how it is demeaning physical education at the same time. Physical education isn’t something that should just stop at a specific time. You use physical activity everyday, so why should schools cut it off at a certain grade level?
The ways that the Indigenous Curriculum and the previous article are the same is the ways of implementation. The Indigenous Curriculum focuses on general goals and can have broader goals at the end as well. With this being said, it makes it easy to implement it into any class. An example would be in say a history class, you can easy have a class focusing on the treaties that were created and what each one of them meant, or you can talk about the language and the culture and dive deeper into that. The tensions I believe that were apart of this were making sure you got everything right and you say the right things. Since it’s a newer subject, it’s important to say the right things and make it something everyone can get behind so you don’t have people trying to go against it.