As I think back to my schooling experience I am disappointed. I was the kid that was half decent at doing math but I absolutely hated doing it. The experience that pushed me over the edge with math was when my one teacher said that I had not done the math booklet her way therefore I would have to do it all over again. I went crying home to my mom begging to not have  to do it again. It wasn’t until my first year class of Math 101 that I actually enjoyed math. Particularly in this course there was more than one way to do a math equation and I think this is the type of freedom I longed for my entire schooling. In addition to this, we had the opportunity to learn math of Indigenous groups or other cultures. It was fun. But why couldn’t math always be fun? I cant say that I was ever really oppressed and discriminated against but I know for a fact that kids of Indigenous culture in my class were. No one every wanted to work with them because the teacher paid little attention to them meaning they didn’t understand it. 

Inuit math most definitely challenges eurocentric math. As a whole Inuit math is more focused on the environment and relationships. With this it allows Inuit math to become more practical. Where as eurocentric math is linear, singular and static. This type of math ultimately leads to students asking “when am I ever  going to use this” or “why am I learning this?” In the reading Leroy Little Bear (2000, pg.81) we are told that education is a collective responsibility among family, friends and the community. In today’s math we don’t see this type of concept. Instead we find a teacher standing at the front of the room telling students what they must know in order to be successful in the course. Where in contrast Inuit seek the advice of everyone in order to educate their child. Lastly, I found it super interesting that in the Inuit school and community they are taught their own language for the first three years than in either French or English. Where in contrast my schooling was taught in only English. Ultimately, there is lots we can learn as teachers from how Inuit are teaching math to students.

My upbringing in school was probably like any one else. I spent the majority of my time reading about Shakespeare and how important these classic works are to our schooling and understanding. Yes, these are beneficial to know and be aware of but I was never introduced to anything out of the English white person who is facing some type of problem in the story. It wasn’t until as a student I was allowed to pick my own book and analyze it that I learned a bit about diversity. For this particular assignment I scoured the school library for a book about a different culture or life in general from mine. It wasn’t till I went to the public library in my town that I found a book about Pakistan women living in war and forced marriages. It was a shock to me as I had never heard about this type of life. As a teacher I will ultimately bring the point of view and bias of a white middle class female that has lived in Canada her entire life. I have never been a minority in my life and this is important for me to understand. I need to make sure that I own these biases and make an effort to work on them. 

When Chimamanda Adichie began to recall her experience of single stories I instantly began to relate. There are always the stories of a blue eyed white person, a typical happy family, some type of small challenge, and constantly have a happy ending. Yes, these are usually good happy reads but it also places lenses on students such as what colour of skin is majority and what a typical family should look like. I feel that going to school I was almost cheating of understanding other cultures, languages and people just because my teacher did not realize all we read about was white people. As a future teacher I can understand this and be willing to give my students a diverse education as I now know the importance of this. 

I feel that citizenship was not a major part of my schooling. As I try to think back to my experience the only thing that can come to mind is when our teachers would constantly remind us to “treat others how you want to be treated” and “always treat others with respect” but obviously this did not resonate with every child. In addition to this students would participate in a school election for the president of the school who really had no purpose but to help with “pep rallies” which were essentially games for students. We as well would do volunteering where each student was required to volunteer somewhere for 10 hours. This was not a big task but it did help teach us to give back to the community but for some students they ended up failing the class because they refused to go volunteer.

 From my own schooling it was very clear to me that my own experience falls into the category of personally-responsible citizen. Growing up we were always told by teachers that they were preparing us for our future and making us into good people or good citizens. In my one class there was this particular teacher who would tell us everyday to not do drugs, not drink alcohol, and to try hard in school. For some reason she thought this would create us into better people. The teachers within my school for the most part would organize a time during the school day to go pick garbage in the parking lot and around the school. They as well would organize school wide food bank fundraisers where every student is expected to bring some type of non perishable food that will be donated to the local food bank. I found that this type of citizenship was more common in subjects such as physical education but thankfully there was a small sense of participatory citizenship in subjects such as health or my career class where we were encouraged to shadow different people in a range of jobs. These subjects more so allowed us as students to think critically and examine why we are seeing certain issues in our world today and to question why we were collecting food bank items, or picking up litter.

 Ultimately, the problem with only being taught from a personally-responsible citizen viewpoint is that as students we learn to be good people but do not learn to get to the root of the problem. If people are littering in the parking lot maybe we need to set out more garbage cans or consider why people are doing this. Although we need all three types of citizens in our world we also need to encourage students to critically think and analyze situations deeper. Ultimately, I do believe it is important for students to be able to experience all three different types of citizenship within their time at school.

Tânisi Intern,

I am so sorry to hear your struggles involved with teaching Treaty Education in the classroom. Sadly, this type of outlook on teaching treaties is far too often generalized and has become normal in many schools across the country. Treaty Education is apart of the curriculum therefore it is our responsibility as teachers to be teaching our students this knowledge.

I believe that listening to others opinions on Treaty Education would be very beneficial to you. Here are two different videos by Claire and Mike that will hopefully help you to understand your situation a bit more.

Claire Introduction

Mike and Claire

Claire who is an elementary teacher in Moose Jaw is very passionate about this topic and has dedicated lots of time towards creating a better future. Claire explains that teaching Treaty Education in the classroom will not be easy, you will make mistakes but it is being able to grow from these mistakes that make you a better teacher (Claire). Claire as well explains that Treaty Education is not about “just learning dates and history but about relationships, identity and owning mistakes to create a better future.” (Claire). Since she is a mother to two Indigenous girls she has a much better understanding of the hardships they face. It is not that these Indigenous students want more culture classes but instead they want their peers and classmates to understand what it is like to be Indigenous and be treated unfairly because of the colour of their skin. Your students may be making inappropriate comments because teachers in their past have placed this impression on their students that people of the Indigenous culture are of less importance. When teachers choose not to teach Treaty Education they are implying to their students that it does not matter. As sad as this may be you are still able to make a positive impact. I can tell that you are passionate about helping your students learn about Treaty Education and hope that your students will be able to see this about you. As Claire would say “we need to stop making racism apart of the underlying curriculum.” 

Another great resource you would find beneficial is Dwayne Donald’s “On What Terms Can We Speak?.” Dwayne deals more with the aspect of relationship between Canadians and people of Indigenous culture. He uses the notion of culture and explains it as noun that is stuck in the past, instead we need to think of it as a verb that is both in the present and future. As well, we need to make our Canadian students come to understand that they too have a culture as many believe they dont making it hard to connect to people of Indigenous culture. 

I hope that you can find some comfort in these resources and what I have said. You are already making a step in the right direction by teaching these kids the importance of Treaty Education when most teachers choose to skip this. It makes me so happy to know you have taken such an interest in this as I personally never had the opportunity to learn about Treaty Education therefore I am glad the future generation is. Since there are few kids of Indigenous culture it is even more important to teach them Treaty Education. Just some simple things that could be benefical is by hanging a treaty flag, map or even greeting the students in Cree. Thanks for all your hard work and dedication to making your school a better place. Best of luck!

-Ireland South

Levins Article

In Levin’s article “Curriculum Policy and the Politics of what Should be Learned in Schools” we ultimately come to understand school curriculum. School curriculum is ultimately developed and implemented by government officials, The Ministry of Education, textbook companies and others. In order for a new or revised curriculum to come about the government will ultimately need to bring together groups of experts. These experts may be knowledgeable about a certain subject area in accordance with the curriculum but not necessarily about the process of teaching children within the classroom. Thankfully, there are teachers involved in this process who would better be able to give insight into this aspect because if the curriculum is not teacher friendly it most likely will not be incorporated into the classroom as much as it could be. Something that concerns me about this fact is that students are the last on the totem pole in regards to giving input on curriculum but are the most impacted by these choices in our schools. I feel that students should be able to voice their opinion more on what they view is useful as they continue learning. 

Treaty Document

After taking a look through the Treaty education document it is clear to see how much effort and time is contributed to making these documents. The simple connection to make between Levin and the treaty document is all the people involved in making the curriculum. I was happy to see that people of Indigenous culture were the main contributors to this document and as well that they seeked help and wisdom from two elders as they are ultimately the most important people to consult. Some of the tensions I feel that could have went into this document is the fact that The Ministry of Education and the different Indigenous councils could have differing views on what is important for students to understand about treaties. Another issue I can relate to is that not all teachers will view this document as “important” in the classroom. My mom is a high school teacher and she has told me time and time again that teachers in her school don’t really view treaties as important in the classroom therefore they try to steer clear of teaching about them. This saddens me that teachers feel this way because treaties are not only an important part of our past but also our future.

Throughout the article Restoule at al (2013) we see a project being developed that has to do with Indigenous people and their land. Some ways that the article exemplified reinhabitation and decolonization is:

-Allowed elders and youth to become connected through conversation and reintroduction to traditional ways of knowing (71)

-The project takes places on Indigenous soil 

-Indigenous native language such as Cree was being spoken 

-Local youth got to take part in the project by making their own audio documentaries and interviewing people around the community

-Elders shared their ways of living with everyone

Overall, there are quite a few points that show the connection between the youth and elders of the community which is a great step forward in the right direction. Looking into my future career as a teacher I now realize how crucial it is to understand that I will have students from all different types of backgrounds, including those of the Indigenous heritage. I want to make sure that my students feel comfortable and safe but as well free to voice their opinion. I as well believe that as a future educator I need to understand the importance of the land and elders to tell the stories. In addition to this, I believe that it so critical for students to understand Indigenous culture, lands and language not only for them to accept this culture but also to help lead towards reconciliation.

A “good” student according to commonsense is someone who is able to listen to instructions, sit and pay attention to the teacher, go along with the class and does not question the teachers instructions. As well, these are students who are able to comfortably convey their ideas and understanding during essays and exams. Ultimately, this definition does not encompass every student in a classroom or school. Many times as teachers we assume that a student should be “behaving and thinking in certain ways” (Kumashiro 21) but in fact we will be interacting with a variety of students, with different values and different backgrounds.  

The students that are privileged by this type of definition of a “good” student are first the ones that are able to pay attention and excel in exams, essays, and other indicators. In addition to this these are most likely students who may not have any physical or mental limitations. Students with ADHD, anxiety, or poor home life may struggle with these common norms that teachers and society place on students. Lastly, a student that has a good home life and supportive family that is able to help them with homework, questions or to even provide support. For many kids this type of home life is not a reality, and sadly these kids struggle in school due to the expectations that are put upon how a student should be.

It is because of these commonsense ideas that as a teacher it makes it difficult to see that not every student is going to fit under the vague definition of a “good” student but that instead every student learns differently. Some may learn better with just the teacher talking and them figuring out, or being in a group, using blocks or other manipulative objects or they may just be a student that needs further instruction. From my own experience, there was always this one girl in my Grade 6 class that everyone found different. It’s not because she wasn’t smart or anything, it was because she was struggling to understand the content like the “good” students were and was questioning what the teacher was saying. Ultimately, these commonsense ideas create a barrier around learning and a students ability to learn as not every student is going to be the same.

Curriculum theory has never been a subject topic I felt that I could relate to or to be quite honest understand.  After looking through the article “Curriculum Theory and Practice” by Mark Smith we come to understand all the different approaches and theories of curriculum. Mainly we will be focusing on the product side of curriculum which deals with the Tyler rationale. For me personally I have experienced this type of curriculum reasoning many times in my life. Math was never my strong suit or something I enjoyed. I remember once when in Math class a teacher decided to go over all the key indicators of a certain outcome and basically explained to us that in order to pass this outcome and pass the class we had to understand all the indicators and know how to do them.In addition to this every class she would start with “today we are going to be learning” and would fill it in with an indicator. This ultimately made me feel overwhelmed and scared that I wouldn’t pass the class. Now looking at these indicators as a future teacher I can understand how these indicators can be both beneficial and have limitations to students learning. With every rationale comes some limitations. Since in this theory it is mainly to do with the product, students are told “what they must learn and how they will do it” therefore giving the learner little room to experiment. In addition to this the “success and failure of both the programme and the individual learners is judged on the basis of whether pre-specified changes occur in the behaviour and person of the learner.” These pre-specified goals “may lead educators to overlook learning” and ignore the true purpose of learning.  Ultimately, making these “long list of competencies that feel like a shopping list and “when all the items are ticked, the person has passed the course or has learnt something.” Although this rationale has quite a few negatives there are also potential benefits such as “the attraction of this way of approaching curriculum theory and practice is that it is systematic and has considerable organizing power” since each outcome is laid out with numerous indicators that clearly state what must be achieved. As well, the “apparent simplicity and rationality of this approach to curriculum theory and practice, and the way in which it mimics industrial management have been powerful factors in its success.” In conclusion there is many things we can learn from both the limitations and positives of the Tyler Rationale and I look forward to seeing how this continues to apply in my future as a teacher.

Often in our own lives we can find ourselves saying “oh, thats just common sense” as if how did that person not know that. Kumashiro defines common sense as if it is “something everyone should know.” When Kumashiro moved to Nepal to teach in a school things were not like America, such as “ [he] was accustomed to eating a breakfast, lunch and dinner but learned that only two meals were served in the shops” and this was plain common sense to the people of Nepal. Ultimately, Kumashiro explains that it is crucial to pay attention to common sense as this can be oppressive to others. Many times as a society and school we “find comfort in what is considered to be common sense” and are uneasy to take a step back and carefully consider what common sense may mean to other people. Instead common sense needs to be challenged in our schools. Too often we place a standard on what is suppose to happen in schools we and are too afraid to try new things or introduce ideas outside of the norm. I know for myself many times I have found myself saying, “thats not what a traditional teacher would do” or “I need to be professional and teach in the way I have been told” because that is common sense. Instead Kumashiro explains “educators need to address their own desires and resistances to teaching and learning certain things, and refuse to place certainty in any one way of teaching and learning.