What is the purpose of Treaty Ed?
As it’s been said many times that history is written by the victors, it is still true that history to this day and to be more specific, curriculum is written by the victors or the majority of the people in power which in the case are white people. Although this is a term that people use as a way to be “okay” with the policies that are created when it comes to creating curriculums for students it is a very dangerous game to play by just being “okay” with what is going on. By there being a lack of education about treaty education it enables the history of the First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people to be stolen and rewritten. We also allow the oppressor to be glorified and covered by changing oppressor to victor. We allow a false narrative to be written at the expense of a people that have forever been oppressed through religion, education, and wealth. We as educators need to explain that Treaty education is not separate from history but is apart of it. We need to be able to draw parallels from other points of history to express the hurt and pain that the white immigrants put the First Nations through. We are forced to draw parallels to get a point and an understanding across because the students in the school systems have been so desensitized to the injustice and plight of the First Nations, Métis and Inuit community. We as educators live in our own racism taught to us by the school curriculum through the lack of education provided about “minority” groups, which include Black, Spanish, First Nation people. This is all to say that the importance of Treaty Ed is that it allows the history of the First Nation, Inuit and Métis people to be rewritten correctly, and what was stolen from them through curriculum can begin to be restored.
When it comes to the saying that “We are all treaty people” it rings true, because as long as we benefit off of what our ancestors began it is our responsibility to correct the wrong that has been done and create peace and reconciliation. This is done by teaching the truth and what is created in the curriculum which would be a result of what we talked about which is “common sense” because at this point the “common sense“ is bias and racist and does not stand for equality. So we as teachers need to fight to instil understanding through teaching students to recognize their privileges that they have received at the cost of another mans oppression. We as teachers have the ability to create and instil understanding and as a treaty person we should fight to create a place of truth, and reconciliation.
In Levin’s article, he examines how highly politicized the development and implementation of school curriculums is, as well as the role the public plays in what is taught. In Levin’s description it is seen that the main stakeholders in education are anyone but the students themselves. Levin’s main argument focusses on the large stake post-secondary institutions have in the formation of school curriculums, which is seen evidently in his case study on the Ontario Calculus curriculum. While I believed that post-secondary institutions could play a important role in the formulation of curriculum, I do not believe that they would be able dictate what must be taught in secondary schools even tho they choose the requirements that are necessary for entrance into their institutions or for individual programs.
In regards to the Treaty Education document, it doesn’t look like this document was demanded by any of the normal key players who have sway within the development of curriculum, rather, in considering the partners of the Curriculum Sub-committee, almost all advocate for Indigenous peoples through their work. As well these institutions were most likely the driving force behind the creation of this document.
While the Ministry of Education also took part in this document, this was likely not done on the same capacity as the institutions working for the advocation of Indigenous peoples. Some tensions I believe that were present in the creation of this document were mostly likely between the government and Indigenous groups as to be a reflection on the roles of each group’s actions in history. It could also be said that with so many different, unique peoples being encompassed through this umbrella term of Indigenous, each group within the province would want their views and beliefs taken into account, rather than forgetting these distinct groups and the differences between each. Tensions that would arise could be a result of the fact that in the building and creation of the Treaty Education Curriculum important aspects from one side could be left out as it could be viewed as unimportant from the other. Which would be an issue as then the other side would therefore be dictating the history of a people and therefor the amount at which students would be informed of the truth.
According to the school system to be a considered a “good” student you need to abiding by rules that have been set in schools. This means: behaving well, doing homework, attending school, participating in class and extracurricular activities and being engaged. Common sense see’s what is the stereotypical white middle-class child come to school and do well and achieve great things in there life. Students that are privileged by the definition of the “good student” are those who come from a “good family” which is basically a financially well off family with presence in the community and who are of European descent and are white. If they believe in the church system, if you are upper class and your family has money and if they fall into the male or female category (being straight) you live the life of a “good student”. “Mainstream society often places value on certain kinds of behaviors, knowledge, and skills, and schools would disadvantage students by not teaching what often matters in schools and society” (p. 20) The idea of common sense makes it nearly impossible to see what is going on with our students, mentally, spiritually and emotionally. You will never get to know the students on a personal level, you wont be able to know what makes them tic.
Kumashiro, defines common sense in many ways but to paraphrase he says common sense is dictated by what everyone considers “normal” and an expected form of practice which is dictated and fuelled by the pressure of society. Common sense although can be seen in a positive light because it acts as a secondary gate when we go to make decisions. As much as this can be very practical and beneficial can be very dangerous when not put into check. Although it can be a deterrent to stop the making of bad decisions, but it can also create a deterrent to stop the making of good valuable decisions. This can be translated when creating curriculums that affect students and their education, common sense can be seen as one sided and not equal and can created a environment that is prejudice and racist towards the very students that are to be educated and given equal opportunity. So my view of common sense in this case is that it give off a negative connotation because it creates inequality and oppression in thought and therefore in action. The model that was encountered in Nepal was “lecture, practice and exam”.
- Social Conflict Theory: How our educational system can cause and relate class differences.
- Meritocracy: The belief that hardwork and talent will give you recognition and reward.
- Social inequality is reflected upon the society. It is promoted by the educational systems that we are in. “Educational systems are grounded in the biases of the sociaty that they are built within”.
- The idea of meritocracy gives false hope for children of the minority who are in places where it is made so that equality is not attainable, this is seen in the schools system through standardized testing where the test is geared towards one type of person one type if learner one type of class and even one gender. Other things such as tracking which is when a student is followed in the academic world as is given opportunities which encourage them to lead to certain types of careers, which as a result results in what see today as gender pay gap and even a gap between races and economical status which is a hug problem in out society. “Structural features such as: taxes to cultural capital to standardized testing can disadvantage minorities i ways that can perpetuate patterns of social inequality.
- I believe that today it is the schools responsibility to emulate to the children the world that they live in by having the teachers reflect the world. If we as a school system neglect this then we are just as bad as people how are out right discrimtory and racist because when allow children to think and created prejudices and biases based upon the environment n which they were taught. “Teachers need to train children to uncover face, and change their own biases, discomforts, and misinformation and identify and alter educational practices that collude with racism and others insttitucationalized discrimination and prejudice.”
- I believe that in ECS 200 is so important that we teacher students about the real world and we emulate that through what we do, how we speak and how we look, and the only way that we as teachers can do that is if we are confident in ourselves and know how we are what our identity as a teacher. “By not discussing racial problems we allow students to think this is normal and right and therefore we teach children to participate by passively and quietly accepting the benefits of racism that is directed towards a different group.”
- It is right and is it safe that teachers not be allowed to change and alter the curriculum based on their students needs without having go to the top where there are the people that are the mosted detached from the educational world to say yes or no?
- (History of Education in Saskatchewan) For the First Nations people, before missionary schools etc came along, school was something that was not just an institution but it was a traditions, and was based on the children imitating the adults. The way that they viewed education was that it equally encompassed everything such as their spiritual practices etc.
- The First Nations people viewed the children not from the view that they belonged to the parents but more so they were loaned to the parents by the Creator. They communities rarely punished or scolded the children and corporal punishment was not a thing.
- Once the Europeans came they changed everything for the First Nations people. They didnt allow the children to speak their native language, but they tried to enforce there idea of a “balanced” education which was enforcing gender roles on the women and men, and therefore limiting them and their potential. That is also when they started to turn the education into an institution where money could be made.
- I believe that if we as an educational system went back to the beginning and started to draw from what the First Nations did when they taught their children; for example, when they incorporated everything into “school” meaning you did it all the time, life was your school. I believe that we should go back to the basics because I believe that in the school system that we have now, when we try to do what the Europeans did we limit and categorize children based on what we want them be which is concluded from their colour, religion, home environment, and gender we create a shallow and broken world.
- I believe that schools should emulate the real world, which I believe is what the First Nations people did.
- Why does our schools still to this day fight the idea of a ‘complete education’ where the school emulates the real world? I believe that if the First Nations people can do it so can our world today escpecially with the resources that we have.
- The School system forces people from different background and cultures to assimilate to the English language and Eurocentrism.
- The lack of funding in schools do not only affect the different ways that a child can learn but it limits the resources that allow children to learn out of the box and not in the traditional ways which therefor give the children a richer learning experience. Ie: children should be aware of the true culture of the land and not just things about European culture and history. We should be well versed and knowledgeable about the aboriginal culture and history. ( the education system is very one sided and in a way can come off racist or discriminatory )
- Benally “ when we are not taught in this way, drawing from all four areas of knowledge, we become spiritually, emotionally, socially, physically, ad environmentally improverished. We become narrow in our views and cannot see the connection between all knowledge. We wind up perpetuating the imbalance within and between ourselves, other people and the natural world.”
- I love how this reading points out the imperfections of the public education system in that it is very one sided in that it really is not about learning to become a better human being or a functional human being in the world, that is aware of the history of the country they live in. But rather just teaching for the sake of teaching kids.
- I love how the article talks a lot about aboriginal views and beliefs. As a teacher to be its important that we dont just learn it and regergetate it but we understand and relate to it.
- As an education system we need to work a lot faster to implement and intergrate aboriginal teachings and history into our school system so it allows their voice to be heard ad understood.
- Associative Play: this is when children engage in the same activity side by side but with an increased level of interaction in the form of sharing, turn-taking and general interest in what other children around them are doing.
- The different types of morality:
- Autonomous Morality
- Heteronomous Morality
- Preconventional Level of Morality
- Psychosocial Theory: Erickson’s work that dealt with principles of psychological and social development: ie. puberty etc.
1. Erickson’s view point about social development and so forth were very much influenced by his life experiences as seen in the facts that 1. He struggled with belonging since his mother was Jewish and his father was Danish and he was born in Germany. This effected his life in his adolescent years which made his theory really focused on the part of life.
2. Kolberg’s theory was very much influenced by his western view point as well as his priviliged point of view. In his research he only interviewed boys. As a teacher to be I find that because these theories are implemented into our systems it hinders teachers and even students from seeing all as equals.
1. Both of these theories though they have good ideas come from a one sided view that in the end ends up limiting what they could have accomplished if they 1. Saw everyone as equals etc.