Curriculum as Numeracy

In ECS 210 this week we read two articles, both about colonialism, with one specifying in mathematics.  In the first article, Leroy Little Bear (2000) states that colonialism “tries to maintain a singular social order by means of force and law, suppressing the diversity of human worldviews. … Typically, this proposition creates oppression and discrimination” (p. 77).  This concept is interesting to me when I really think about what it means.  I think describing colonialism this way makes it seem like less of a single act, and more of an ongoing systemic issue.  I am aware that colonialism is not something of the past, and more than just being the main variable of what made Canada, it is also still occurring in society today.  In relation to the other reading this week, I thought back to my own education experience and tried to see where colonialism cause oppression and/or discrimination in mathematics.  I did really well in math, numbers and equations have always made sense to me, so I found it rather difficult to unpack what I learned and how I learned it.  Looking back math through the years is all a blur.  With that said however, I have come to the conclusion that mathematics in Canadian curriculum is oppressive by nature.

Teaching about multiplication or addition can seem like harmless topics, and I assume many would argue that there is not room for social justice in the world of mathematics.  However I disagree.  Looking at the mathematicians I studied throughout school are all old, white men.  Pythagoras, Pascal, and Descartes to name a few, are all white Europeans.  Yet their theories are considered to be necessary in the world of math.  I do not think there is a single First Nations name that appears in math text books across Canada.  This is a problem!  First Nations people had their own systems of mathematics before contact with the Europeans.  Yet, these systems have been lost and considered to be incorrect.  By ignoring the First Nations people’s way of learning math, and having that content absent from curriculum, math in schools becomes oppressive.  My mathematics education was extremely oppressive towards other cultures because by the time I graduated grade 12, nobody had once told me a single thing about First Nations math within their culture.

The second article we read was written by Poirier and it was about teaching math in an Inuit community.  This article was extremely interesting to me because it looked at math in many new ways.  Like I mentioned before, I have only ever been taught math through a singular world view.  It was fascinating to learn about different ways people view mathematics.  To start, the Inuit community uses base 20, instead of a base 10 model of numbers.  This is because when sitting in an igloo, the Inuit people could see their 10 fingers and 10 toes to count, which made 20.  I also found it so interesting how different math language is used in other cultures.  The Inuit community has different words for the number 3 based on the context.  I found this so interesting because it shows the connection between math and the rest of the world.  I find in Eurocentric math classrooms, numbers are often viewed as completely separate from the context they are in.  Finally I loved learning about how the Inuit community reads their calendar.  The months are based on animals and animal changes.  This is so different from the written down, 30-day per month calendar I am used to.  I think seeing the other versions of math present within Canada proves how oppressive curriculum math is.  There are so many different ways to learn, yet we are stuck with an idea of what is correct and choose to ignore any other method.

 

Teaching Treaty Education

The reading this week was quite a varied combination of resources, from a lecture given by Dwayne Donald, an article written by Cynthia Chambers, as well as our class period with a guest speaker named Claire Kreuger.  All three of the resources offered a look into what it means to teach Treaty Education in schools, along with deconstructing the idea of “we are all Treaty people”.  Our blog prompts this week encourage us to look at why it is important to teach about Treaties and First Nations culture in classrooms.  This goes along with the second prompt, which asks us to understand our connection between curriculum and that “We are all Treaty people”.

When looking at the importance and purpose of teaching about Treaty education, it is important to first start by coming to an understand of colonialism in Canada.  In class, Claire Kreuger discussed finding her identity and trying to understand where that identity fit into Canada’s history of colonialism.  To understand the purpose of Treaty education in curriculum, a teacher must first get educated on the history of Canada and what the Treaties meant for both the European settlers and the First Nations people of Canada.  Looking at Treaties through a European settler lens, which is the case for the vast majority of teachers in Saskatchewan, is very common.  We learn about Treaties, we learn about culture, however for most Saskatchewan teachers, we will never fully be able to understand the impact Treaties had on the First Nations people.  This disconnect is an example of colonialism in itself.  In Dwayne Donald’s lecture, he defines colonialism as being, “an extended process of denying relationships”.  As a country, over the past few years we have begun to recognize the horrible impact colonialism has had on the Frist Nations people here.  So now, how to we start to try to “decolonize” our society which has been built with a core of colonialism and cultural genocide.   I think this leads back to the question, what is the purpose of teaching Treaty Ed?  In my opinion teaching Treaty education through a First Nations lens is vital to building these long denied relationships.  The process of decolonialization begins in schools with the youth in our classrooms.  Since the time when the European settlers first made contact with the land that is now Canada, the First Nations people have been treated like “the other”, as less than. These conversations need to be had, and changed to start supporting the First Nations population today in order to re-work the future.

The second prompt we were offered this week was our understanding of the phrase, “We are all Treaty people”.  I thought the reading this week helped me unpack my views on the statement.  I think one important fact to mention first is technically we are not all Treaty people.  There were a few different groups who never signed into Treaties and that is often forgotten.  Along with that, the Metis people of Canada were never written into Treaties, and are not legally Treaty people.  However, with this said I strongly belive we have all been affected by Treaties in one way or another.  Without Treaties the European settlers would not have thrived as much as they did, meaning my life today may be very different based on my ancestors experiences.  Sadly, for all of the First Nations people in Canada, Treaties were mostly negative.  That statement may be a little off, but I think if not the Treaties themselves, the government’s use of the Treaty agreements did not fair well for Indigenous people. For the purpose of this response, maybe we are all Treaty people.  But, my side of Treaty, the European side of Treaty is not the relationship we need to learn about.  That is the side we live and breathe everyday.  We may all be Treaty people, but at this moment I do not really think that is a title I hold with pride.

Pedagogy of Place in Curriculum

The reading this week looked at a research project conducted in Fort Albany First Nation, that was exploring how the James Bay Cree community viewed the world, more specifically the land and environment.  The project had a variety of participants that took part in a 10-day river ride to learn about the lands and traditions of the Cree people.  The article brings up the concepts of decolonization and reinhabitation within the community.  I think one point right away that fits into an act of reinhabitation is taking a variety of generations on a trip with the sole purpose of connecting to the earth.  Many beliefs within the Cree culture are centred around Mother Earth.  Passing down those teachings to Cree youth, and non-Indigenous youth may help these ideas become common practice in many communities.  Without these conversations and inter-generational teaching, the James Bay Cree way of life could be lost in the future.

Reconnecting to the land and truly understanding the meaning of it, such as the rivers and the fields also leads into the idea of decolonization.  The article talks about how the research participants had conversations with community members about the loss of the Cree language.  Because of the European settlers and Canada’s dark history of colonization, many First Nations communities are struggling to keep their language alive.  This is a result of systemic issues such as the Residential School initiative.  Through this research project, Elders were able to use their language and teach important and spiritual words to the youth of the community.  Re-learning Cree, and teaching it to younger generations is an example of the community’s push towards decolonization.  I think learning about traditions and culture in a place where the culture originated, is a perfect example of the importance of place within curriculum.  These lessons had extreme value coming from the place they were in.  The stories and lessons for the community members were directly related to the community and the Cree way of life.  If this project were to be looked at through a teacher lens, it could be noted that the teachers and researchers used their place, and who they were within that place to give the learners the important and necessary education.

It is interesting to think about how my place will affect my teaching in the future.  Being in the Arts Education field, there are lots of opportunities to draw from other cultures to enrich lessons within curriculum.  With that said, that does not change who I am in relation to what I am teaching.  I very much fit the mold of the “nice white lady” that we have been talking about in class.   When looking at place in curriculum it is important to recognize who I am, what privilege I have had, what experiences I have been apart of.  It goes much farther than my education and knowledge.  Who are my students, and who am I in relation to them?  There is so much more than just integrating other cultures into lessons and activities.  Comparing to the article, I think it is important for me to use other generations of people, such as Elders, to properly educate on certain topics.  No matter the knowledge I have, I will be teaching from a place where colonization affected me in a positive way.  That is just how Canada was created.  Many of the students in my class will not have the same privilage I have in society.  That will affect how they are taught, and what they are taught.

It is an interesting concept and I do not know if I have any answers.  I have concluded for the time being, that it is important to be aware of my place in curriculum, as well as the place that we are in while teaching.  Canada has such a history of colonization that the process of reinhabitation and decolonization are not easy.  Hopefully teachers can shift the narrative of Canada in the past, and today, to progress towards these goals.  I am not sure if it will ever be possible, but I am optimistic that at some point people will start trying.

Who is the “Good Student” ?

For the reading this week we looked at what it means to be a good student, and how that fits into the commonsense idea of school systems.  It is interesting to analyze what it means to be a student.  What is the point of going to school?  In the commonsense idea of what school is, a good student would fit into a singular learning style.  They would enter school with little information, and leave prepared to work in society.  In the same vein, curriculum would be taught and the only new information gained by students would be what the teacher explicitly teaches.  The “good student” would not question curriculum, instead they would progress consistently grade by grade until graduation.  However, this is not what takes place in schools, nor should it be.  The reading talked about how students come to school filled with information and knowledge.  They come prepared to learn with existing understandings and opinions of subject matter.  In addition, students also will learn more than just formal curriculum in schools.  This will enable them to become critical thinkers and challenge new information that is being taught to them.

The commonsense model of education only works for students with a singular learning style.  They are able to learn using systems like the Tyler Rationale that do not have room for different types of learning.  This system does not take student context into consideration.  Students come to school with many different experiences and knowledge.  This context will affect how they learn, and what they take from lessons.  Every student will not come to the same understanding regardless of how it is taught.  So, are the “good students” the individuals who take away the “correct” information?  If that is the case, the only students who will succeed are those who do not have experiences to provide them with a different world view or cultural context.

If the commonsense, oppressive model of education is active today, teachers will be unable to reach the majority of their students.  Students today learn in a variety of ways, for example, some have stronger visual literacy or physical literacies.  To reach all these students and help them succeed, how we educate them needs to be looked at.  As teachers we should want our students to critically think and question what they are learning.  Being able to think for themselves, and understanding things through different perspectives are both skills that students need to be active citizens in the world today.  Graduation rates will be higher if teachers pay attention to the knowledge students bring with them at the beginning of the year.  Systems like inquiry learning have started to be included in classrooms to break away from the traditional way of teaching.  Hopefully this will change the idea of what it means to be a “good student” in the classroom.

Autonomous Vs. Ideological

For the reading this week we were presented with two articles about literacy.  One discussed the difference between autonomous and ideological models of literacy, whereas the other talked about “learning to read” and “reading to learn”.  I struggled to understand the autonomous and ideological reading, but to the best of my knowledge they are quite different.  The autonomous model of literacy implies that being literate as a singular knowledge will help an individual learn about other practices, regardless of their socio-economic status.  The ideological model on the other hand, refers to literacy as being a social practice.  Literacy is about gaining knowledge that will be influenced by an individual’s identity and their social construct. Both of these readings can be applied to curriculum and teaching in schools.

My area of study as a teaching is Arts Education, specifically Drama Education.  The curriculum for elementary school groups the arts (music, drama, dance, visual art, literacy) into a single curriculum for each grade level.  Now, I may be wrong, but I think when looking at the overall curriculum for Arts Ed, literacy is ideological.  Although it is considered one of the arts strands, literacy is not specifically part of the outcomes and indicators in the curriculum.  I believe that through learning the arts, literacy is used in a variety of ways that are affected by different ideas.  For example, in visual art we learn about our visual literacy.  This refers to how we see and interpret an artwork, how we connect and analyze.  This is a knowledge of literacy that is gained through experience, rather than a “how to” lesson.  The arts are very hands on and interactive subjects which is another reason why I see more of an ideological approach to literacy in curriculum.

With that said, the autonomous model is still present in some ways throughout the Arts Education curriculum.  The outcomes of Arts Ed, are split into three categories, creative/productive, cultural/historical, and critical/responsive.  The autonomous model of literacy is much more relevant in the critical/responsive and cultural/historical outcomes.  The basic skills of reading, writing, analyzing and interpreting are still taught throughout various grade levels so students can respond to their learning.  There are many curriculum outcomes that include researching cultural and historical art forms, especially in the higher grade levels.  This relates to the autonomous model of literacy where having the skill of literacy will enable you to learn what is needed.

Although both autonomous and ideological models of literacy are present in the Arts Education curriculum, I think the ideological model is used more.  Arts Ed has a focus of creating and learning through experience.  Most teachers focus on this aspect when lesson planning for the arts, resulting in literacy being taught with the ideological approach.

School Curricula

Prior to reading this week’s articles we were asked to answer the question; how do you think that school curricula are developed?  I am not too sure how the first curricula came to be, but I think I have a basic idea about how they are updated and changed.  To the best of my knowledge curricula are formed by a group of people (possibly teachers?) who have some point of interest or expertise in a particular subject.  From there, through discussions and planning the base of curricula are created.  I assume then they get passed through higher up jobs in the school board and government, then get a practice run with working teachers.  This is most likely incorrect, but it is my best guess as to how curriculum is formed.

How are school curricula developed and implemented? What new information/perspectives does this reading provide about the development and implementation of school curriculum? Is there anything that surprises you or maybe that concerns you? 

Well, after completing the reading for this week I have learned that my ideas on curriculum were very optimistic, and very incorrect.  I had the idea that teachers were the main contributors for building curricula.  However, the reading explained how political the process is.  Teachers and experts do have some input, but the government has a much more influential role.  Curricula is considered public policy, which I believe means it is a government situation that may have come from the public, or is influenced by the public, for the public.

One point I found interesting that made me think was how governments are affected more by the public around election time.  This seems like an obvious statement, but I never thought about how that could impact curricula.  The need to get votes and keep everyone happy may influence how curricula is made, and what it includes.  For example the article discusses the debate over whether subjects themselves are more important, or the content within the subject.  Both are valid points, it is important to look at what subjects are being taught, as well as the content itself, but which is more important for curricula?  Depending on public opinion, one may appear more important if the government at the time needs the public on their side.  The issue is, through all of this, when are the students themselves thought about?  Is the curricula being made to make the government look good, or for the bettering of youth in schools?  I think that could be up for debate.

I think leaving curricula up to the government may cause issues for students in schools.  The main decision makers are so far removed from today’s schools, how could they be expected to know what is best.  Similarly, the article mentions how everyone, both the public and government workers, think they are experts on schools.  They think this because they have all experienced at least twelve years in schools themselves.  I think this is a problem because they are only influenced by what they know schools systems to be.  There is little room for progressive education, moving away from that “common sense” if schools systems never evolve and change.  This change could be very difficult if the curricula teachers are expected to teach are limited to one way of looking at education.  Because of this, I think it would be very beneficial to have current, practicing teachers more involved with the making of curricula.  They could bring their insight of current classrooms to the government sections who get the final say in what is taught in schools.

The whole concept of building curricula being so separate from schools themselves seems a little strange to me.  But, I’m not sure if the system already in place needs work, or to be changed.  I think research needs to be conducted to see how curricula impacts learners and how classrooms work.  It would be interesting to see if the data changes with changes in curricula policies.

Creativity in Schools

When looking at education philosophies, and what education means to me, I often find myself gravitating towards my favourite TED Talk by Ken Robinson called “Do Schools Kill Creativity”.  I have seen this TED Talk in classes for the past three years in University and every time I do, I come to appreciate it even more.  I have a lot of respect for Ken Robinson and all the work he has done to incorporate creativity into learning and schools.  As a student in the Arts Education program, I spend a lot of my time lesson planning trying to figure out new ways to incorporate the arts into different subjects, thus, encouraging creativity in all students.  For the purpose of understanding my view on education and curriculum, I chose the following quote by Ken Robinson,

“Imagination is the source of every form of human achievement. And it’s the one thing that I believe we are systematically jeopardizing in the way we educate our children and ourselves” (2006).

I like this quote a lot because it is challenging how systemic education works.  I find many quotes about education are often meant to be inspiring and uplifting, but they rarely look at what education is, or what it means for students.  This quote by Ken Robinson on the other hand, approaches education with a challenge, saying imagination is what causes achievement, yet we educate that out of children, why is that?  In schools, is imagination and creativity encouraged?  Or lost in the hierarchy of “core subjects”?  Is it possible to include creativity in everyday learning?  I personally believe that yes, creativity is completely possible, but can also be difficult within the system of school.  This system of time limits, core subjects, and standardize testing makes it difficult for students to learn in a way that involves their creative thinking and imagination.  This makes me question if the “point” of education is to encourage young, innovative minds of the future, or just to produce graduates who fit into the system of society.

Before I go any further I think it is important to discuss what creativity actually means in the perspective of a learner.  The Oxford Dictionary defines creativity as, “Relating to or involving the use of the imagination or original ideas to create something” (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com).  “Original ideas to create something”, I think those words alone inspire my teaching philosophy in the Arts Education program.  I believe we need to be teaching a generation of strong-minded, free thinking, innovative youth who are willing to ask questions and be wrong.  The future leaders of the world need to think “out side of the box” per say.  I really question if the education system at the moment is achieving that mindset of graduate students.  Looking at the quote by Ken Robinson, I find relating it to students and teachers interesting.  In my opinion, it is the job of the teachers to encourage creativity in the classroom.  However, that is a difficult task when schools are following structured systems like the Tyler Rationale, and there is such little funding in Arts Education.

This leads into how Ken Robinson’s quote, mixed with my own teaching philosophy relates to understanding curriculum in schools.  Formal curriculum is a curious thing when looking at incorporating imagination into lessons.  It can be difficult when teachers are given specific outcomes they need to reach.  In addition, this idea of getting certain topics that children need to know, again takes away from the idea of different learning and creative experiences.  I am at a bit of a crossroads when it comes to the importance of curriculum and how it fits into my own teaching philosophy.  I think it is important because although I may not find it ideal, it still is my job as a teacher to educate my students in a way where they can successfully continue in school.  However, I do not know if that thinking is just a result of what I believe school is for, if it is a common sense to me now.  This system of school is all I have ever known, and it seems strange and wrong to change it, even though I can see significant flaws.

All in all, Ken Robinson’s words encourage me to question what I know about education, and the curriculum system.  I strongly believe there is a lack of creativity being taught or encouraged in schools today.  I will continue to research different methods of teaching to come to a better understanding of my own teaching philosophy, and how I will implicate it in my future classroom.

Week #2 Tyler Rationale

For this week in ECS 210 we looked at the history of curriculum and different theories and uses behind it.  One of the main contributors to the concept of using curriculum in the United States was Ralph Tyler.  He based teaching off of four questions/stages.

1. State Purposes – What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
2. Identify Experiences – What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?
3. Organize Experiences – How can these educational experiences be effectively attained?
4. Evaluation Experiences – How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?

(a) The ways in which you may have experience the Tyler rationale in your own schooling?

I can see how this model of teaching and learning has influenced many educators still today.  While I was in school many classes I took were set up with a similar model.  In the beginning of a new unit or lesson, as a class we were introduced to the learning objectives and hopeful outcomes.  I remember this being very upfront and laid out in my high school years.  We then continued on to the lesson or activity followed by some sort of evaluation.  This system seems very natural to my experience as a student in high school and it has also carried through to university.  As a student teacher I have been given many different lesson plan outlines that I can use for my pre-internship.  However, they all have the same core stages that need to be completed, which all happen to relate to Tyler’s teaching rationale.

(b) What are the major limitations of the Tyler rationale?

There are a few limitations of the Tyler rationale, but there are two that I find very significant.  To start, the four stages are very one-sided with very little student involvement.  I think the process of teaching has been evolving to include many more in-class discussions and student input.  The curriculum itself is starting to be set up more towards the needs of students and their different learning styles, and I believe teaching styles have evolved as well.  Secondly, the Tyler rationale is missing any mention of context.  What we teach and how we teach varies from where we are geographically, along with culturally.  There are many social and environmental influences that may change a teacher’s approach to the classroom, which I do not think is made clear in the Tyler rationale.

(c) What are some potential benefits?

Although there are some limitations, the Tyler rationale has many benefits which is why it has been such an influential teaching tool.  The four stages are very easy to follow for both experienced and new teachers.  Also, the stages can be applied to any subject area or age group.  This makes lesson planning simple, and although repetitive, also effective.  If most teachers are trained using the Tyler rationale they would be able to move from class to class and deliver a strong lesson.  This rationale also ensures curriculum is being used in every lesson.  Most schools have a heavy focus on teaching the curriculum and the four stages will keep you on track in an effective way.

Week #1 – Common Sense

For this week’s reading we looked at the text written by Kumashiro about common sense and what it means for education.  The text looks at Kumashiro’s teaching experience in Napal and how it influenced his ideas on common sense, challenging common sense, and anti-oppressive education.  Kumashiro defines common sense as being an action or idea that has become so routine it that it happens without question.  He uses the example of the United States education system, how there are classes with students, taught by a teacher, in core subject areas.  If you went to school in the US this set up and routine is common sense for your education experience.

It is important to pay attention and be aware of common sense because it can very easily lead to oppression.  An idea that may seem like common sense to one person, may not be an idea shared by another.  Often if something feels like common sense, it is interpreted as correct, or better.  This idea relates to when Kumashiro discusses his time in Napal.  The education system there was very different from what he was used to, and his initial reaction was that it was wrong, that what he knew was better.  This idea is a big problem in the world today and leads to issues such as racism, sexism and homophobia.

Although it is an extreme example, while reading this text I continued to relate what Kumashiro was saying back to colonialism here in Canada.  What took place when the Europeans came to Canada is an example of common sense that resulted in cultural genocide that still is not resolved today.  The European people came with an idea of what life was, which was different from that of the First Nations People.  The European people decided that their way of life was correct, or better, and that idea is why things like residential schools took place.

Relying on the notion of common sense can cause many negative problems in the world.  In education especially, teachers need to be able to look past their common sense ideas and routines.  Having an open mind in education is crucial so all students can gain the learning and experiences that they need.