• How has your upbringing/schooling shaped how you “read the world?” What biases and lenses do you bring to the classroom? How might we unlearn / work against these biases?
• Which “single stories” (see Chimamanda Adichie’s talk, viewed in lecture) were present in your own schooling? Whose truth mattered?

My upbringing was not varied from the traditional norm. I grew up white, heterosexual, able-bodied, and lower-middle class, as did most of my peers. Learning to read the world outside of these lenses has been a challenge; understanding my own privilege and learning to look at everything I can do through the lens of another is not always easy. It is difficult to consider what I take for granted may present an extreme challenge to others, right down to considering my own way of thinning and interpreting new information. For example, in the classroom, I did very well with linear thinking, while a classmate might have benefited from abstract thought. Learning to work against these biases is a challenge that can only be addressed through repeated exposure to new perspectives, and considering how someone who holds those other perspectives may be challenged in everyday situations that I take for granted as easy. For example, Kumashiro discusses the power of using literature to introduce the reader to new experiences, but warns that this can only touch the surface of breaking one’s own patterns of thinking, and can even reinforce certain biases held by the reader. Learning to work against these biases is a lifelong challenge.

My own learning was riddled with single stories, especially concerning race and ability. Similar to Adichie’s single story narrative of what constitutes an African child to someone in North America, here we had ideas of what constituted anyone from a different race than someone who is white. My learning focused around what white settlers have deemed important. I was not exposed to perspectives of different races or cultures. In fact, a single-story present in my learning centered around these ideas: that most people in Canada immigrated from another country, and Canada is an ethnic patchwork quilt who celebrates all different ethnicities. But this ignores Indigenous stories; the single story presented there is that they assimilated willingly into “Canadian culture”, although a more true interpretation is that they were forced out of their culture by white Europeans. Growing up, I did not understand that Indigenous perspectives are ignored and undermined in our learning, even when we discuss multicultural views, because in Canadian schools, Indigenous culture is taught as something of the past, something they used to have before colonization. 

Even in this ECS 203 experience, I have found it challenging to address and include perspectives that are different from what I have learned. The biggest challenge for me as a teacher will be to stop and consider how my lessons might perpetuate stereotypes or silence different perspectives.  

Written in response to:

Kumashiro. (2009) Chapter 7, Against Common Sense, pg. 71-79.

Adichie, Chimamanda. Ted Talk.

• Part 1: At the beginning of the reading, 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). Think back on your experiences of the teaching and learning of mathematics — were there aspects of it that were oppressive and/or discriminating for you or other students?
• Part 2: After reading Poirier’s article: Teaching mathematics and the Inuit Community, identify at least three ways in which Inuit mathematics challenge Eurocentric ideas about the purposes of mathematics and the way we learn it.

I haven’t had the experience of teaching mathematics, so I will focus on my own experiences for this response. Math class was always quite easy for me; I was able to catch on to new topics easily, and didn’t have to study much for quizzes. I don’t know if this is due to having good teachers, or due to being able to visualize problems and apply formulas due to some self-understood ability. However, my sister did not have a similar experience. She struggled to remain organized in her calculations and struggled to apply the correct formulas to problems, and to find her way to an answer. I never realized how privileged I was to experience ease in math class until I went to university. I hadn’t been in school for a few years, and when I went to try math 110, I ended up dropping out because I couldn’t understand the class and it didn’t come naturally. I struggled to understand what the prof was teaching us, and felt really put off because it was so structured. Having this difficult experience in university math showed me how many other students must have felt in elementary and high school. Not being able to come up with an answer quickly must have felt very discouraging to others, especially when seeing other students such as myself finish an entire test in half of the time it took them. Certain teachers would also not accept different ways of arriving at an answer other than what they had taught, which doesn’t really make sense to me as long as a student is showing their work. 

The second article was eye opening in that it showed a different way to consider mathematics. Our entire semester has worked around challenging curriculum, and many of my classmates and I have said, “I don’t know how we can possibly change math, or “Indigenize” math, it’s just math and that’s the way it is.” Working from a base twenty system (derived from using ten fingers and ten toes together in their igloos) allows the Inuit to think about math in a very different way than we do here. They also develop better spatial and strategic thinking skills than many of us do here as well, because that is better suited to their everyday. For example, they can ‘read’ a snowbank or smell the air to assess distance. Further, their way of learning and teaching is through oral instruction and application, rather than focusing on paper like ours. After reading the article, one could say that Inuit children learn math in a way that has much more application to their everyday lives. After all, how many times have you heard someone who learned math in a Eurocentric way say, “when am I ever going to use this, and why am I learning it?”

• During fall semester several years ago, Dr. Mike Cappello received an email from an intern asking for help. Here’s part of it: “As part of my classes for my three week block I have picked up a Social Studies 30 course. This past week we have been discussing the concept of standard of living and looking at the different standards across Canada . I tried to introduce this concept from the perspective of the First Nations people of Canada and my class was very confused about the topic and in many cases made some racist remarks. I have tried to reintroduce the concept but they continue to treat it as a joke. The teachers at this school are very lax on the topic of Treaty Education as well as First Nations ways of knowing. I have asked my Coop for advice on Treaty Education and she told me that she does not see the purpose of teaching it at this school because there are no First Nations students. I was wondering if you would have any ideas of how to approach this topic with my class or if you would have any resources to recommend.”
• This is a real issue in schools. As you listen to Dwayne’s invitation/challenge, as you listen to Claire’s lecture and as you read Cynthia’s narrative – use these resources and your blog to craft a response to this student’s email, being sure to address the following questions:
  • 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?
  • What does it mean for your understanding of curriculum that “We are all treaty people”?

It is no easy task to convince others that we must include FNMI content and treaty education in the classroom. Perhaps the best place to start is to show your students why it is important, and discuss it with your Coop. Once people understand why something is important, they are usually more willing to learn about it. I will share some resources to help them understand and highlight some key quotes.

“It is an elegy to what remains to be lost if we refuse to listen to each other’s stories no matter how strange they may sound, if we refuse to learn from each other’s stories, songs, and poems from each other’s knowledge about the world and how to make our way in it.” (Chambers). FNMI perspectives must be taught in Canadian classrooms because this is their homeland. That is to say, we don’t teach about other cultures as thoroughly because they still have a homeland somewhere else; if we don’t teach FNMI perspectives, and we don’t teach about treaties, that culture and that knowledge is at risk of being completely lost. As Claire Krueger describes in her classroom, ignoring treaty education or FNMI perspectives in a classroom full of white students subtly tells those students that FNMI people are not important. Ignoring those perspectives separates white from FNMI peoples, and places them as an ‘other’ in society that white settlers need not concern themselves with learning or thinking about. We need to teach all students about all Canadian citizens, and that includes FNMI citizens. 

The exploits of settlers were only made possible through the trickery of the treaties. We are all treaty people because without the treaties, colonizers wouldn’t have been able to swoop in and take the land under the false veil of lawfulness. In terms of curriculum, the treaties need to be remembered and talked about in terms of this trickery. Furthermore, without those treaties, we wouldn’t be here today, on this land. Both sides of the story need to be told, not just the Euro-centric side. More focus is needed on what we all have in common now, because of the treaties – this includes “human and other-than-human”, (Chambers), which is the ecological crisis that both sides can come together to solve. We, the settlers, cannot simply ‘give back the land’ now that we have taken it and destroyed it, especially when the initial meaning of the treaties was that the land would be shared. It belongs to everyone and everything. How is that translated into curriculum? Is it through teaching students about global citizenship? Is it through bringing indigenous perspectives into every subject? As the Ulukhaktokmiut elders think, perhaps it is through teaching our children that our need to live and make a livelihood will depend long-term on our ability to to do so without causing us harm – not just people, but animals and nature too, (Chambers). A curriculum that works for a common good, that does not place one person over the other, one group over the other, one species over the other, is what our education must strive to be if we are all treaty people.

• 1) [Culturally relevant pedagogy and critical literacy in diverse English classrooms: A case study of a secondary English teacher’s activism and agency]: What will culturally relevant pedagogy look like, sound like, feel like, in your future classroom? 
• 2) [Placing elementary music education: a case study of a Canadian rural music program.]: How will you, as teacher, contribute to the sense of place for your future students?

My future classroom will hopefully be a secondary science classroom. To determine how a culturally relevant pedagogy could be enacted, I begin by thinking about the ways in which my past science experience was not culturally relevant. The first thing that comes to mind is a focus on the works of white, male scientists. In my classroom, I hope to be able to highlight the contributions and discoveries made by females and by racially diverse scientists. I also hope to have time to draw upon other culture’s beliefs and science systems; for example, the grade 9 science curriculum includes talking about Indigenous origin stories of the universe. Aside from this, however, I am still unsure how I could make science more multicultural, as the content itself is, for the most part, accepted and utilized in science globally. Perhaps discussing global environmental issues and how different nations do or do not work together to tackle them is another way to include culturally relevant pedagogy.

While a sense of place might be a little more difficult to include for lessons in physics or chemistry, it is quite easy to do in certain biology topics. Saskatchewan has a few different biomes, with a variety of plants and animals, that can all be discussed in relation to certain topics. By using a predator-species interaction example using animals that are common to Saskatchewan, or by discussing how humans affect our natural environment, like destroying natural prairie to make way for agriculture, I can contribute to a sense of place for my students by showing them how our class can relate to our province. 

Written in Response to:

Brook, J. (2013). Placing elementary music education: a case study of a Canadian rural music program. Music Education Research, 15(3), 290-303.

Lopez, A. (2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy and critical literacy in diverse English classrooms: A case study of a secondary English teacher’s activism and agency. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4), 75-93.

• [John Dewey and the Challenge of Progressive Education]: How can we understand new educational trends in relation to the global network context? How may we build upon and direct these new educational trends to realize the contemporary democratic aspirations of a global network society? 

New educational trends are beginning to push students into connecting on a global level. That is, students are considering their global citizenship vs just their national citizenship. This is important when considering the access students now have at their fingertips – technology allows even very young students to connect across a global network. New educational trends strive to include, “active and cooperative learning, interdisciplinary projects, networked distance learning, and global corporate universities,” which falls in with the, “changing pattern of life and work activities in global network society,” (Waks, 2013). In order to realize their role in a global society, students must learn how to work within these education trends, or learn a ‘fluid intelligence’, to enact progressive and democratic change in a society. 

This is in contrast to older education trends, which taught (and still teach) a ‘crystallized intelligence’; that is, knowledge that is simply passed down from teacher to student. This older idea of intelligence does not allow to realize the contemporary democratic aspirations of a global network society because it does not teach students to problem-solve and think of new solutions; it only allows them to maintain the status quo. Directing our newer educational trends will require the use of that technology which connects us. However, the overuse of technology in education does not replace the hands-on learning that is still required for students to acquire fluid intelligence, (2013).

Cited:
Waks, L. (2013). John Dewey and the Challenge of Progressive Education. International Journal of Progressive Education, 9(1), 73-83

In my younger years of elementary education, the focus of citizenship education was how to be a personally responsible citizen. We were taught to follow rules, help others, and be responsible. I don’t remember this being done in any particular way other than just by subconsciously instilling these values in all of our classes, like playing nice with others in kindergarten and handing in homework on time. In middle years and high school, the focus changed to participatory citizenship education. For example, students were encouraged to join the Student Activity Council and work with other students to organize efforts for the community, such as a food drive at Christmas. In social and history classes, we also learned how government systems work, and how to participate in our democratic voting system. As for justice-oriented citizenship education, I cannot recall any examples of this in my schooling other than in grade 11 or 12; when discussing left-wing versus right-wing politics, we had class debates that helped us examine some of the reasoning behind laws and current ways of thinking. These class debates helped me to examine my own biases and prepare me for the justice-oriented citizenship education I would later receive in university. However, in my k-12 experience, justice-oriented citizenship was not the focus of my citizenship education. 

The focus of citizenship education leaning toward being personally responsible and participatory in the curriculum helps create a certain type of citizen, or a certain “product” of the curriculum. It creates one who will follow the rules and participate in democracy, who gets a job and pays taxes. However, by not placing more of an emphasis on justice-oriented citizenship, it makes it somewhat impossible for new generations to take action and create social change. Students will think of a citizen who actively seeks out injustice and affects social change as being intangible, someone far away and somewhere else. By not placing more of an emphasis on this type of citizenship in our curriculum, it takes away any responsibility and drive to actively seek out oppression. Through my own k-12 education, I never thought of myself as being someone who could be justice-oriented; I always felt as though I did not have enough knowledge to even assess what was wrong, let alone bring about social change. 

The types of citizenship education that are focused on could tell us about the place. For example, in a more conservative location, citizenship education would likely focus more on the personally-responsible citizen. A more conservative curriculum maker would likely want to reinforce the status quo, and by placing value on a personally responsible citizen, it does just that. A more liberal curriculum maker would perhaps place more focus on a justice-oriented system and encourage its citizens to fight for social justice. I personally believe all three types of citizenship are important, but if we hope to fight the oppressive systems currently in place, we must teach younger students to be more justice-oriented, or we will continue to reinforce the status quo.

Written in response to the reading:
Westheimer,J. & Kahne, J. What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy, American Educational Research Journal, Summer 2004, Vol. 41(2), pp. 237-269.

Prompt:
[Curriculum Policy and the Politics of What Should Be Learned in Schools]: Although curriculum is a fundamental part of the framework of schooling, curriculum decisions and choices are shaped in large measure by other considerations—ideology, personal values, issues in the public domain, and interests. Curriculum decisions are often part of a much larger public debate that often extends beyond education to larger questions of public goods.
[The Saskatchewan Way: Professional-Led Curriculum Development]: Curriculum is complicated. At first glance, one might think that curriculum is just a set of documents to be taught to students. However, as you delve deeper and consider everything that is taught and learned in a classroom, curriculum becomes much more involved … Curriculum is ‘a complicated system of interpretation, interactions, transmissions – planned and unplanned’. Curriculum is complicated – particularly when examined within its relationship with teaching.

Many people, such as teachers and parents and the general public, would agree that curriculum decisions should be informed by teachers and students; they are the ones involved in following the curriculum and using it daily. But to what end? Is curriculum just what is being taught in schools? As Levin describes, curriculum goes beyond just that, and involves questions of public good. A belief that curriculum is not political is unhelpful, “because it takes attention away from the reality that politics is the primary process through which public policy decisions are made,” (Levin, 2008). So understanding how politics and policy is involved in shaping curriculum is essential. Then the question is what do we base our curriculum decisions on? Levin’s article shows us that it is more than the opinion of teachers, students, parents and school, and also includes research, general public opinion, and what the government deems important. That is to say, it’s more important that curriculum decisions focus on what governments believe will help get them elected or re-elected, and less about what research might show or what might actually be “right”. The opinions held by the general public, including educators, might be widely misinformed or have no basis on what is good for moving forward in our education system. As Levin says, “[p]eople’s own school experience, whether primarily positive or negative, deeply affects their views about education policy,” (2008). Therefore, when considering curriculum, it is important to understand just how much public opinion will factor into policy decisions.

However it is clear that many are unsatisfied with current methods of curriculum development. It is important to consider that while the scope curriculum may encompass more than the classroom, its development should certainly be professionally-led. Teachers should be at the forefront of its development as they are the ones striving to implement it. Saskatchewan teachers, “have the experience, knowledge and capability to lead system-wide curriculum renewal efforts” (STF Document). However, as discussed above, policy and politics are too important to be ignored and research and public opinion must also be included in curriculum development. Many factors will go into what is included in the curriculum; as the curriculum encompasses far more than what is taught in the classroom, so too will the decisions made surrounding it.

Cited:
Levin, B. (2008). Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools. In F. Connelly, M. He & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 7 – 24). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Available on-line from: http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/16905_Chapter_1.pdf.

The Saskatchewan Way: Professional-Led Curriculum Development. Available on-line from: https://www.stf.sk.ca/sites/default/files/the_saskatchewan_way_professional_led_curriculum_development.pdf

How can we begin to address the ways in which the systems that we teach our curriculum are homophobic, transphobic, biphobic, and oppressive towards queen and trans people? The most obvious answer is education; we must first become aware of and then understand those ways in order to change them. Understanding how the curriculum was initially developed to be oppressing, and seeing where it is still oppressive is an important first step. I belive that identifying the ways in which our curriculum is oppressive includes discussion with queer students and teachers. While it is our responsibility to examine our own practices and make our curriculum more inclusive, discussion is essential to help us ensure that our practices adapt for the better. 

What does integrating queerness into curriculum studies mean to me; what will it look, sound, and feel like in my classroom? Queerness in curriculum is more than just considering LGBQT+ people, it is also about the ways in which education seems “stuck”. For example, one person speaking at the front to a group of students in rows who take notes is considered normal, but is not always the best practice. In my classroom, queering the curriculum can also include having classes outside, having student discussion, and incorporating more projects or assignments that focus on bigger-picture learning and perhaps fewer exams. I will (hopefully) be teaching science; in my classroom, it will be important to discuss the contributions to science made by the people who are not often acknowledged: women, people of colour, and queer and trans people. By making these people important in my classroom, my students will have a better understanding and acceptance of queerness in the world and in science.

Which rule/discourse should the teacher follow: providing the duty of care for all students, or maintaining a classroom free from any notion of sexuality? I think that the classroom being free of sexuality dismisses the identities of our students. Ignoring something like that won’t make any of the difficulties of queering the curriculum go away, and will lead to further oppression and marginalization of queer students. Ignoring any notion of sexuality can also create an atmosphere of intolerance and would not promote ally-ship. While providing the duty of care for all students can be a difficult task, it is important to at least try to do so. One of the main reasons we are becoming educators is to help foster new generations and prepare them for the world; the world is not free of any notion of sexuality, and the classroom should not be free of it either.

The commonsense notion of a “good student” comprises several different traits, with a primary goal: a good student is one who succeeds academically and is prepared to transition into the working world as an adult. A good student is one who is prepared for class, studies hard to obtain high grades, and falls in line with the lessons being taught by the teacher; they are on time, they do not question what is being taught to them, and they can reproduce that knowledge, (Kumashiro, 2010). The traits of a good student that are commonsense in Western society are known because of which students we praise and which are disadvantaged, and which students go on to achieve success in the workforce and which are destined for lower-paying jobs. However, as Kumashiro describes, “students were and are learning things that reinforce a status quo,” (2010). That is to say, the status quo preserves the privilege of students who will fall in line with behaviours that are deemed desirable, and disadvantages students who do not and possibly cannot achieve such academic success. Ultimately, the commonsense notion of a good student is oppressive to any student who does not or would not reproduce status quo, and continuing to praise, prefer, and reward this “good student” only continues that oppression through our education system.

How did we come to this commonsense notion of what constitutes the good student? Reviewing some earlier works on education may give us a clue. Painter describes one of the goals of education as preparing students for “various labours and duties” they will perform as adults, (Painter, 1886). He also states that education is, “limited by the pupil’s individuality, which it can ennoble, but not radically change,” (1886), which suggests that those who do not suit his ideal of a good student are destined for failure. He goes on to describe that only White, middle-to-upper class students can achieve success, and describes the limitations of various ethnicities in their learning and reproducing the societal norms that a “good student” can. This is transmissible to today; these ideas are still prevalent in our education system. While it may not be as obvious as it was made in the era that Painter’s novel was written, today’s students who do not uphold the ideals of what is a good student are still oppressed and still conditioned for a life of oppression; one of a lower-quality education, a lower paying job, and ultimately a lower quality of life. 

Cited:
Kumashiro, (2010). Against Common Sense, Chapter 2 (pp. 19 – 33) – “Preparing Teachers for Crisis: What It Means to Be a Student”.

Painter, (1886). A History of Education.