The article described curriculum as what the students are expected to know and do. School curriculum is developed in a very similar way to political views which can bring an abundance of pros and cons. Decisions are made usually by higher authority figures and are not always given public exposure. Policies that are produced do not always end up working as they expected them to. The article states, “In every setting, from classroom to country, political influence is usually highly unequal, and those who have the least status tend also to have the least influence on political decision making” (Levin, 2007, p. 8), which concludes that voices of minority or difference in society are usually pushed aside when decisions are made. A lot of ideas presented in the article when talking about policies referred to giving the majority what they want in all cases disregarding if it is applicable. People have inconsistent beliefs and can be unknowledgeable in certain areas in which they act with confidence. I was disappointed to hear the statement, “If conflict is what attracts public attention, then conflict is what politicians will create since public attention is what they must have” (Levin, 2007, p. 13), because policies are being implemented based on issues being fostered by people who have control. School curricula decisions are obviously on a smaller scale than otherworldly issues but the constant changing of what subjects need to be taught and what content lies within those subjects is very relevant. It would be hard to come up with unanimous decisions when there are so many different perspectives that favour one thing over another such as Phys. Ed over Band. The quote, “Any issue that is politically contentious can also turn into a curriculum dispute” (Levin, 2007, p. 15), regards the effects of global issues as an influence on curriculum as societies are always changing and adapting and social issues need to be implemented in the classrooms.
Some connections between the Treaty Education document and the Levin article would be how mostly higher organizations of power such as the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations lead decision making while people of the community and outside voices are considered but not always implemented. The levin article talked about how media influences politics as well as school curricula advances which is also the case for Treaty Education. Issues of colonization and working towards reconciliation are very prevalent in this generation which influenced the incorporation of the content in schools. The idea of using Treaty Education knowledge in all class subjects just as any other social justice issue would be implemented the same as in the Levin article shows a connection between the two pieces of writing. Possible tension that could have arisen were different viewpoints working together while creating the goals. The Ministry of Education may have had differing ideals compared to the First Nations University of Canada, as more representation of the Indigenous view would be present. I wouldn’t expect there to be too much conflict while creating the document as the issues being presented should be important to every individual in Canada and the main priority is and understanding of the treaty promises and why they’re relevant.