Welcome to my last blog post of ECS 210. Below is my final project, a review of the course components I found to be the most enlightening throughout the semester. Thanks to all who participated in this Journey. Enjoy!

Math for me has always been a challenge. I’ve been told by many teachers that “math just isn’t your thing.” Until now, I was in total agreement. I believed I was just more ELA and social studies orientated, subjects which I perceived to have more elements of subjectivity involved. This subjectivity allowed me to lean in a way that wasn’t so linear. I could make connections and come away with conclusions to aspects from either subjects that others didn’t and still be right. The fear in math of not getting the one right answer was paralyzing to me. To get this one right answer, oftentimes, only one linear method was given to solve it. If you couldn’t understand this method often you were considered a failure, or at least considered yourself a failure. This is not to say I didn’t have some excellent math teachers that worked hard to tutor me to success, but I still felt I simply didn’t catch on as naturally as other students. This caused me to have a very negative introspection of myself that I  believe caused further roadblocks for me in math. For this reason I gave up on ever considering myself to be good at math.

 It was Eddie Woo who changed my perception of math in his Ted Talk Mathematics is the Sense You Never Knew You Had. In this lecture Eddie compares math sense to the sense of sight. He emphasizes that just because your vision may be impaired doesn’t mean you should give up on sight, similar to how one should not give up on math as, “all human beings are wired to see patterns” and “make patterns,” which is essentially what math is. This helped me realize I am a mathematical being just as much as the star students in my Math Foundations 30 class were and that I’m more successful at math than I previously thought. Gale Russel further enhanced this epiphany for me in her lecture What is Mathematics anyway. She asked the audience to relate math to other subjects and see if mathematics didn’t have a relationship to any of these subjects, the answer was a resounding no. This further deepened my understanding of myself as a mathematical being and that perhaps I just needed to approach math differently to better understand it within a classroom setting.

In the article Jagged WorldViews Colliding by Leroy Little Bear, he notes 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). In my own math education experience I can not recall any experiences where I personally felt oppressed, but I can easily see how one could feel that way, specifically Inuit students. The article “Teaching mathematics and the Inuit community” highlights several  ways in which Inuit mathematics challenge Eurocentric ideas about the purpose of mathematics and the way we learn it. Some examples are listed below:

• Math is not learned in their native language of Inuktitut after grade 3, but English or French.
  • Inuit mathematics has a base unit of 20 and there is little connection of western mathematics to their daily lives in Inuit culture. 
• Inuit students are particularly good at spatial relations (geometry), due to their connection with the land and the importance of having an understanding of where you are spatially in the barren environment of the Canadian North.
  • Unfortunately, Western education does not put importance on this kind of math.
• The teaching methods of the students Inuit elders and teaching methods of Inuit students Western style teacher’s are vastly different. 
  • The Inuit children are brought up to learn with paper and pen they learn through listening and observing their elders  (Poirier 54-55).

It is obvious, from the examples above, that math is not a universal language. More and more educators are beginning to see this, but our education system still has a lot of work to do to change the often oppressive and discriminatory tone of math education.

References

• Bear, Leroy. “Jagged Worldviews Colliding.” UBC Press (2000). Web. 16 March 2020.
•  Poirier, Louise. “Teaching mathematics and the Inuit community.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 7.1 (2007): 53-67. Web. 16 March 2020. 
• Russel, Gale. “What is mathematics anyway?” University of Regina, Regina. 20 March 2017. Lecture.
• Woo, Eddie. “mathematics is the sense you never knew you had.” TED. June. 2018. Lecture.

Growing up in rural Saskatchewan in a white working-class family has had a lot to do with who I am today and how I read the world. Most of my upbringing was very positive. I learned to place value in kindness, hard work, and the importance of community, among many other things. My upbringing, unfortunately, also contributed to certain prejudices and negative biases that tainted the way I read the world. There was little diversity to speak of in my community thus, I was at the mercy of a single, very eurocentric narrative. This narrative was often filled with racist, sexist, and homophobic language. Oftentimes the overall message of this was to be different was to be wrong. Though I know this language is wrong, I still catch myself subconsciously engaging in it. For example, I often catch  myself paying more attention to what a white male has to say in a conversation versus a white female, even though they have a similar education and social status. These biases will unfortunately undeniably contribute to what I teach, consciously or not, in my future classroom. 

Within my schooling experience I also experienced a similar single story narrative. This narrative was based on the perspective of older white men. Their views dominated almost everywhere. They wrote much of the curriculum me and my peers were taught, authored many of our assigned books, and held leadership positions within my school division. Most of these men had good intentions and worked hard to better our educational experience, but the impact of their dominating presence was, nonetheless,  dangerous. As Chimamanda Adichie mentioned in her talk The Danger of a Single Story,  “The single story creates stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story.” This, in essence, is the danger of the single narrative I experienced. Their truths and perspectives were equally as important to others, yet few others had the opportunity to present or learn their own and others truths. 

As a consequence of this single narrative I grew to have a false sense of truth in the world. I saw that typically only men held positions of power and notoriety, such as author, principal, Minister of Education, CEO, Prime minister, etc. I never used to wonder why I only saw men in positions like these, but simply accepted that they were, perhaps, better suited for them. However, as I grew up and learned about the injustices of the world I realized this was not the case. I learned that men, typically white middle-aged men, simply had obtained unearned privilege that boosted their social status and allowed them an easier path to these positions of power. This is only one example of my personal experiences with the danger of a single narrative, but one of the dangers that the narrative of my background and schooling experience enabled me to resonate with the most. 

The silver lining of my own experience with the single story narrative, and the prejudices and biases they invoked, was that I was able to unlearn them. This was done through education by addressing such topics. For me this education was simply my primary and secondary education, but I believe the same effects can be had through travel and doing your own research. I believe the true power of education is the ability to gain new perspectives. These perspectives allow us to see more than the single story narrative that dominates our own life.

As a future English teacher it’s important to me to introduce different narratives through literature. The reading Against Common Sense by Kumashiro states that “[w]hen students read literature by only certain groups of people, they learn about only certain experiences and perspectives, especially those of groups that have been privileged in society (such as White middle-class men).” Thus, in my own future classroom, I will put a focus on implementing books written by a diverse group of authors. that offer a multitude of perspectives to help combat biases and prejudices.  

References

• Adichie, Chimamanda. “The Danger of a Single Story.” TED. July. 2009. Lecture
• Kumashiro, Kevin. “Preparing Teachers For Crisis: A Sample Lesson.” Against Common Sense. Routledge: London, 2009. 19-33. online

The article “What Kind of Citizen?” by Joseph Kahne and Joel Westheimer looks at “what good citizenship is and what good citizens do” in terms of supporting a democratic education system (1). It details three conceptions of citizenship, including personally responsible, participatory, and justice oriented citizenship and their implications on curriculum. In my own k-12 schooling experience I can remember many examples of participating in good citizenship practices, with the exception of justice oriented citizenship, and their implications on my peers.

Personally responsible citizenship was the focus of my schooling experience. For this model “citizen[s] act responsibly in his/her community” (Kahne & Westheimer 3). To promote this, my elementary school had us pick up garbage, taught us to be kind to others, and contribute to charity organizations. Every year we would participate in Operation Christmas, an organization that sends shoe boxes of gifts to children that wouldn’t otherwise receive anything for Christmas. We also brought non-perishable goods and donations in for food drives and participated and raised money for events like Jump Rope for Heart and the Terry Fox Run. As me and my classmates advanced to older grades we still participated in many of the same events, but we also learned about how to be law abiding citizens through programs like Dare and Drivers Ed and learned about paying taxes and contributing to society through classes like Accounting and Life Transitions. 

As I got older I became more involved with different modes of participatory citizenship. Participatory citizenship is that in which “citizens. . . actively participate in the civic affairs and the social life of the community at local, state, and national levels” (Kahne & Westheimer 4). In doing this me and my classmates began to learn more about how the country we live in operates and how we as citizens contribute to that. In social class we learned about the different levels of government and their responsibilities. We learned about voting and the platforms of popular political parties. I also started to help organize fundraisers, which included a community wide bottle drive for my volleyball team every year and being on the head committee of our graduating class’s fundraiser. For our graduating class’s fundraiser picked a cause that we felt our class connected to and came up with ways to fundraise. We held several events to fundraise including bake sales, community barbecues, and a dance. We ended up raising a substantial amount of money for a great local cause and learned valuable lessons about citizenship in the process. 

My school had very few examples of justice oriented citizenship. Justice oriented citizenship is” analyz[ing] and understand[ing] the interplay of social, economic, and political forces” (Kahne & Westheimer 4). Although I can’t think of any personal examples of this there are a few ways I can ensure incorporating it into my own future classroom. I think Treaty Ed would be a great place to start. To incorporate this I would teach and help support students understanding of the history of the systematic oppression of First Nations, Inuit, and Metis people of Canada, and the trickle- down effect it’s had into the present, as to not reproduce similar patterns of oppression in the future.

The focus schools impose on personally responsible citizenship is of course important in producing good citizens that abide by laws and help others, but it has its limitations. As Westheimer and Kahne point out in their article, participatory citizenship “may actually hinder rather than make possible democratic participation and change” (6). This comes from a focus of teaching individual acts of kindness rather than collective social issues. Students simply aren’t seeing the benefits and interconnections of citizenship within a democratic society. I know many of my own friends did not vote in the previous election. They made the excuse “what difference does it make?” As a future teacher I would like to expose this misconception by incorporating more participatory and justice oriented citizenship practices into my future classroom to help students realize that their actions and vote make a difference. 

References

• Kahne, J., Westheimer, J. “What Kind of Citizen?” American Educational Research Journal,  41.2 ( 2004): 1-30. Web. 2 March 2020. 

The following blog post was written in response to an intern education student asking for help incorporating Treaty Education in a school that did not understand its purpose or  importance. 

Dear intern,

The situation you are experiencing is problematic, but unfortunately not uncommon. You were right to further question your situation, even though it might be uncomfortable, as these feelings are the best way to bring about change. Without future teachers like you asking uncomfortable questions, such as this, there would be minimal opportunity for change. 

In answer to your question I would explain to your class the importance of Treaty Ed by mapping out Canada’s past with treaties and the spirit and intent of treaties and its trickle down effect into the present. Explain that to change the relationship between First Nations and Canadians everyone must understand this past. As Dwayne Donald mentioned, in his lecture On What Terms We Can Speak, “if you’re going to think about the future you actually have to work backwards . . .  because it’s only then that any talk of the future makes sense.” I would help identify with your students that the lack of diversity with First nations students in their own school will probably not correlate into their future lives. Thus, it’s important to learn how to develop a positive relationship in the present. I would also point out to your students and co-workers that, as Claire Kreuger put it, “[a]pathy is a form of resistance,” and by ignoring the issue we are adding to the problem. 

Another important aspect your school is ignorant too, regardless of whether or not there are First Nations students present in the school, is that we are all treaty people. After mapping out Canada’s history with treaties and the spirit of treaty relationships students should begin to develop an understanding that, as Cynthia Chambers points out in her article “WE ARE ALL TREATY PEOPLE,” “treaties are a story that we share.” The Treaty Education Outcomes and Indicators document itself states that “[b]y the end of Grade 12, students will appreciate that Treaties are sacred covenants between sovereign nations and are the foundational basis for meaningful relationships that perpetually foster the well-being of all people” (2). Thus, treaty education is not only advisable, but mandatory.

It is important when teaching that “we are all treaty people”  to teach lessons with substance. Make sure to help the students contextualize the information they are given in a meaningful way. In other words don’t make lessons all about memorizing and reiterating. Be sure students place meaning in the fact that they are treaty people regardless of their ancestral background. Help students to understand that being a treaty person is all about being committed to a positive relationship between themselves and First Nation, Metis, and Inuit people. It’s a commitment to executing the spirit and intent of treaties to the best of your ability.

-Best of luck!

The reading “Curriculum Policy And The Politics Of What Should Be Learned In Schools” by Ben Levin discusses the political elements involved in creating curriculum. It brings to light the complexities and key underlying information the public is often oblivious to when it comes to the development and implementation of curriculum. The chapter discusses who is involved in curriculum creation; largely being government. Other participants include “education stakeholder groups – teachers, principals, senior administration, and elected local authorities where they exist – are . . .involved in curriculum review and decisions” (16). Subject matter experts play a vital role “in the curriculum formation and  review processes” (16). Students also play a minor role, specifically in terms of assessment policies. In terms of implementation this is done mainly by educational stakeholders, specifically teachers, despite what one could argue to be, their minor involvement in curriculum creation. 

Teachers involvement, or insufficient involvement, in curriculum development surprised me. From Levin’s article I understood that teachers had the smallest part of curriculum making when compared to government and topic experts, but are essentially the only ones implementing it. Previous to this reading I believed teachers to have more of an active role in curriculum development. I believed topic experts to follow teachers leads and work closely in line with them to develop a teachable and educational curriculum, it seems to be very reversed though.

In connection with Levin’s reading I also read through Saskatchewan’s Treaty education curriculum, Treaty Education Outcomes and Indicators, largely made by Saskatchewan’s provincial government. From this document I made the connection of the struggle Levin notes regarding the teach-ability of a curriculum made by experts. Levin noted in his article “One danger in curriculum development . . . is the production of curricula that are not readily usable by ordinary teachers” (17). I can see, and have experienced,  how the average teacher, who comes from a white settler family and has little experience with First Nations culture or history, would have trouble teaching expert made curricula on treaty education. Even though this curriculum was made in 2013, while I was only in grade eight, I experienced only a small of the goals the document sets out to implement, the goals being: 

• Treaty Relationships
• Spirit and Intent of Treaties
•  Historical Context of Treaties
•  Treat Promises and Provisions.

When it comes to development I assume similar tensions were in play, with many of the stakeholders, government officials, and experts to some extent being of white settler decent working on a document aimed at First Nation culture and history. One can assume the Saskatchewan government was also facing a lot of public pressure to both push the document through as fast as possible, but also from people who questioned the necessity of the document at all. Its content would have been another extreme source of tension. The document is aimed at bringing about reconciliation due to a traumatic relationship caused by Canada’s government toward the First Nations people, thus its content holds no room for mistake as its a risk to furthering the trauma in the relationship. 

I believe teaching treaty education in my own future classroom to be of huge importance. I think education on the subject is the key to changing false and racist narratives. When tension on the subject inevitably arises I hope to use it as a learning opportunity as an entryway for greater understanding. Treaty education is something I feel very passionate about and hopefully one day have the opportunity to work alongside experts in developing a curriculum.

References

• Levin, Ben. “Curriculum Policy And The Politics Of What Should Be Learned In Schools.” The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction. Edited by Conelly, Micheal., He, Fang., Phillion JoAnn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2008. 7-24. Online.
• Government of Saskatchewan Ministry of Education (2013). Treaty Education Outcomes and Indicators.

For my critical summary I have chosen the topic of reconciliation and curriculum, focusing on Linda Radford’s theories. The main article I will be using is “Learning to teach for reconciliation in Canada: Potential, resistance and stumbling forward”. The article details a study of the findings from pre-service teachers experiences learning about reconciliation and responsibility. I believe this topic and article to be of great importance as teacher education can contribute so much towards reconciliation.

The article is part of a “growing body of research [that] looks at the ways education policy and curriculum initiatives are being used to address reconciliation agendas in societies divided by conflict or injustice” (Radford & Aitken, 2018). The article focuses on the heightened emotions caused from the topics of truth and reconciliation. The authors note that the resistance caused from this is “inevitable” but not “immobilizing”. Throughout the study three themes became evident among the pre-service teachers: new recognition, changes in self-awareness, and concerns over provoking learners’ emotional responses when teaching for reconciliation. The study acknowledges teachers resistance to teach reconciliation in the past and its consequential effects on the movement. The article seeks to uncover the social dynamics at play to reverse this effect.

My next steps for the assignment will be to find two more articles relating to the topic and one more scholar. My second scholar will be Nicholas Ng-A-Fook. He has several interesting articles about the topic including, “Spinning Curriculum Designs at a Crossroads: Big Ideas, Conversations, and Reconciliation,” which appears to be promising. That leaves me with one more scholar to find work on surrounding the subject. I will be comparing and contrasting these last two articles to “Learning to teach for reconciliation in Canada: Potential, resistance and stumbling forward”.

Aitken, A., and Radford, L. “Learning to teach for reconciliation in Canada: Potential, resistance and stumbling forward.” Science Direct 75 2018: 40-48. Web. 21 January 019.

In our first ECS 210 lecture the question was asked “what is curriculum?” Even though all of us have experienced curriculum in our educational journeys many had trouble putting it into words. The class eventually settled on a definition along the lines of “a set of guidelines set out by the government that students should learn.” In the reading Curriculum theory and practice by Mark Smith curriculum is defined in several ways. It is defined by Stenhouse as, “the attempt to describe what happens in classrooms rather than what actually occurs” (Smith 2000) and by John Kerr as, ‘All the learning which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school’ (quoted in kelly 1983). The reading Curriculum theory and practice goes over four ways of approaching curriculum theory and practice, one of which is the Tyler rationale. This approach is “[t]he dominant mode of describing and managing education” and is heavily linked to the success of the product” (Smith 2000). It’s a technical exercise where “[o]bjectives are set, a plan drawn up, then applied, and the outcomes (products) measured (Smith 2000).

In my own schooling I have had a lot of experience with the Tyler rationale, both good and bad. Many of the most memorable experiences occurred in elementary school where learning was fast paced and the efficiency of the teacher or curriculums success depended on the students performance. One area where the Tyler rationale’s set objectives and structured plans worked for me was learning to read. The skill came naturally to me. I hit all the objectives set out either early or just where I was expected to be and received the praise I was rewarded with confidently. I couldn’t understand why some of my other peers kept stumbling over their pronunciations and syntax. It never occurred to me that they could have a legitimate reading disability or just simply take a bit longer to learn. As I progressed into higher grade levels I began to encounter math skills that challenged me. I was simply not catching on to these skills as fast as my other peers. This had never happened to me before and I was confused and frustrated. The class was moving too fast for me and I was being left behind. In this way the conveyor belt system of the Tyler rationale failed me and I began to realize that learning is not  one size fits all as the Tyler rationale approach suggests.

It is obvious that the Tyler rationale has it limitations; the first being “the plan or program assumes great importance” (Smith 2000). This leaves students with no voice in their education and it can deskill educators. Educators are to apply the curriculum and are judged by the outcomes, effectively turning them into technicians. Secondly, “there are questions around the nature of objectives” (Smith 2000). The model is very dependent on measurability of the product but, there is always room for error when measuring. This is dangerous as it is often difficult to judge the impact of an experience. Thirdly, “there is a real problem when we come to examine what educators actually do in the classroom” (Smith 2000). Educators often have difficulties with meeting objectives, which points to something being inherently wrong with the approach. Lastly, “there is the problem of unanticipated results”(Smith 2000). All the focus on pre-specified goals causes both teachers and students to overlook learning that is not an objective but a product none-the-less.

Despite the Tyler rationales limitations it does have some benefits. The approach “is systematic and has considerable organizing power” (Smith 2000). This allows teachers the ability to methodically organize a fixed one size fits all plan and reuse these plans. Teachers also have the ability to easily pinpoint success and evaluate it as the desired outcomes are clearly noted. This approach also works well for students who are deemed to be “on the right track”. They are able to systematically learn the material presented and reap the rewards for their success.

Curriculum can be defined and approached in many different ways. The Tyler rationales systematic approach has both limitations and benefits. It is a convenient approach in terms of organization and for students who are performing within the levels of the objectives set out, but not so much for others. My own personal experience with it, as I’m sure is similar to others, has been both positive and negative. It is great for students who are able to meet the objectives the curriculum sets out but, leaves many students behind in doing so. Upon deeper analysis of my experience with the Tyler rationale I realized that it potentially has had lasting effects on my behavior. I would consider myself to be a box ticker and a “worrier”. I go through life wanting to meet all the targets I feel one should hit in order to be considered successful. For example, going to university, getting good grades, one day balancing a successful career with a husband and 2.5 children, etc. All these objectives are great but, when the success of these objectives is threatened (i.e. bad marks, tough deadlines, ect.) I feel anxious about failing or not meeting the same status quo of my peers. Not to mention it leaves me with little regard for things I would rather be doing (i.e. travelling!). Though this is hypothetical it’s undeniable that theirs links to this behavior and the conveyor belt like system of the Tyler rationale I experienced so often during my youth. Due to this, combined with the approaches other limitations I would say this approach to curriculum needs to be seriously revised or left in the past.

References
Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ the encyclopaedia of informal
education, http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.

The definition of common sense is, “[t]hat which is reasonable or sensible; that which appeals to or is in accord with instinctive understanding or sound judgement” (“Common Sense, n2.a”). In the reading “The Problem of Common Sense” by Kevin Kumashiro common sense is defined in relatively the same way. Unlike most people however, Kumashiro does not see common sense as an advantage when it comes to the education system. He wrote, “[c]ommon sense limits what is considered to be consistent with the purpose of schooling” (xxxv). He suggests that common sense creates a false sense of security within school systems that has led to an oppressive education system that is marginalizing many of its members. Paying attention to what is considered to be common sense in the education system is vitally important because of this.

When it comes to fighting oppression within our school systems we need to largely leave what we consider to be common sense at the door. This is easier said than done however. As Kumashiro points out challenging commonsensical ideas is difficult for two reasons. The first being that “it is difficult to recognize those ideas that are prescriptive,” largely due to social pressure to conform, and secondly, “commonsensical ideas often give us some sense of comfort” (xxxv). Due to this difficulty it’s imperative that we consciously search out commonsensical ideas, or norms of schooling that contribute to oppression and marginalization of “others on the basis of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disabilities, language, age, and other social markers”(Kumashiro, xxxvii). Doing this can help eliminate a direct symptom of common sense within the education system being, “it has become normal for us to experience oppression without realizing we are doing so” (Kumashiro, xxxvii).
A particular example I can think of in my own personal education experience were oppression occurred was in my high school biology class. We were discussing the formation of life on earth billions of years ago. My teacher started the lecture with a dismissive comment about creationism, saying something along the lines of “I don’t care if you believe in creationism, we are going to be learning about life on earth via science” and added a dismissive wave of her hand. I didn’t think much of this comment, mostly because at the time I wasn’t even aware of what creationism was, until a close friend mentioned that she felt offended. The comment had oppressed her based on her religious beliefs. Me and many other students in the class never thought to question this teacher because we believed the creation of life on earth via scientific processes to be common sense. We had all fallen guilty to not questioning commonsensical ideas for the two reasons mentioned above, “it is difficult to recognize those ideas that are prescriptive”, largely due to social pressure to conform, and secondly, “commonsensical ideas often give us some sense of comfort” (Kumashiro, xxxv). I realize now that this is a perfect example of an area that contributes to oppression that a teacher needs to consciously search out and question to avoid.

Kevin Kumashiro opened my eyes to the dangers of common sense in the education system. His approach of questioning commonsensical ideas to avoid an oppressive educational experience is a strategy I never thought about as being effective, but now it’s definitely something I plan put into effect in my future career. We need to challenge common sense in order to challenge the oppression impermeated in schools and identifying these areas of common sense is the first step.

References

• “Common Sense, n2.a” OED Online. Oxford University Press, 2019. Web. 7 January 2020.
• Kumashiro, Kevin. “The Problem of Common Sense.” Teaching and learning toward social justice. Routledge: London, 2009. XXIX- XLI. online.