I have never experienced math as a pre-service teacher. However, I did spend the majority of my elementary school and high school having to take math classes. I think the main aspects of teaching and learning of mathematics in relation to oppression is how our math curriculum takes a wholly European world view. For example, when we learned about patterns, we learned about the European version of patterns:

• 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
•  Red Red Red Blue Blue Blue Red Red Red Blue Blue Blue 

We did not spend our classes looking at the patterns of nature, or “the earth’s cycles, phases and patterns” (Leroy Little Bear, 2000, 78). The only way we learned about math was if we followed a curriculum made in European mindset. Even when math tries to be inclusive of different cultures, it is simply inserting other cultures’ examples into a European curriculum. For example, in the Math Makes Sense textbook, there is a section on totem poles, a section made to be more “inclusive”. However, these sections just teach the Eurocentric purposes of math with examples that are supposed to relate to Indigenous people. The lack of actual diversity of worldviews in mathematics promotes the power system that allows European worldviews to remain dominant in our country while oppressing and ignoring other world views on maths purpose. 

One of the ways Poririer’s article challenges how we learn mathematics is how Inuit mathematics teaches to its students. Mathematics, or even most subjects, are taught in English and are from a Eurocentric viewpoint. However, according to Poirier’s article, this community has been spending 75% of its time learning math in Inuktitut and only 25% of the time learning it in French or English. This is a reversal of the typical format we see in school and fundamentally changes how mathematics is taught and learned. Another way Inuit mathematics challenges Eurocentric ideas is what math is fundamental. In a European worldview, math has always been something written down or expressed in written numbers or written words. Inuit math is based on an oral tradition. According to Poirier’s article, Inuit culture is founded in oral tradition, so they did not have the “standard” counting system Europeans used. This changed the way children learned math because the numbers, while European based, are founded in Inuit language and have different meanings in Inuktitut. For example, from the article, Poirier discussed how the Inuktitut words for one mean invisible, while in English, one means singular. Finally, according to Gale’s lecture, Inuktitut and Europe have very different counting systems. Eurocentric views use a base ten counting system (10,100, 1000). However, Inuktitut has a base 20 counting system (20, 400). According to Gale, Inuktitut has its own counting system, its own subgroups, many different names and symbols for numbers, and the math is spoken orally in context. This is a drastic change to how math is taught in a classroom following a European worldview. I think these differences show that math can be put into context and used in almost any culture, and students can be successful in studying mathematics following their own worldview. However, because of the power dynamics of Canada, most schools use and will continue to use a Eurocentric worldview despite this information, which shows how even math can be oppressive. 

In my upbringing and schooling, western perspective and values were seen as very important. My family is Scottish, they were born and raised in the UK before they moved here, and I am first generation Canadian, so my family life was very European based. In school, our curriculum and the knowledge taught were very western-based as well. The books we read in English were European based, and really did not apply to our lives, but we read and studied them anyway, despite many students not connecting with the material. For example, I read 3 Shakespeare plays throughout high school. These plays were not reflective of the time period, current struggles, or reflective of a diverse classroom. Because of how my family and schooling focused largely on western knowledge and beliefs, I grew up learning and appreciating European knowledge. However, I know this also creates some biases and lenses that I have. I come into the classroom as a first-generation Canadian, as someone whose education was largely European based and only started to learn about Indigenous culture in the university. I know that these parts of me have created biases, and as a teacher, I might take a European route for a project that could have been done in another perspective. Or I might have a hard time connecting and reaching students whose first language is not English. I will attempt my best to create a classroom where every student can see themselves reflected in it, but I am also aware that my biases may direct me to do something I am more familiar with, which is why I need to unlearn the biases I have. I think the best way we can work against or unlearn our biases is to educate ourselves. Learning why you might have a bias, recognizing what is causing a bias, learning how the bias is misguided or prejudice, and recognizing how to move forward being aware of this bias you have. 

In my own schooling, the single-story that mattered was the kids riding the curve. These students are the student’s lessons are directed at, whose assessments were looked at for successes; the curriculum and activities used were aimed at these students. Students who were above the curve were not addressed; they just finished their work and had free time; the fact that they were not learning anything new or challenging themselves did not matter. On the other side, students who fell below the curve stories were not present. Students who had learning disabilities, whose first language was not English, who were struggling in their personal lives, or students who struggled with schooling were not the aim of the class either. These students might have gotten extra help, but that was the point, they got extra help for a lesson not geared towards them. The single-story in this situation is the grades, ambitions, assignments, and goals of the students riding the curve while ignoring the minorities that do not fit into that box. 

Citizenship was a large part of the hidden curriculum in my elementary schooling, and a part of the written curriculum during my high school education. For example, in my elementary school, we had citizenship awards for students, we did food drives, or in grade 8, we would lead play days or a school fair for the younger students. During high school, I took a class called Leadership 30L and the curriculum was based on being a leader and an active member of the community. The class had us volunteering, organizing food/blood/or charity drives. In elementary school, the citizenship that was focused on was The Personally Responsible Citizen, where we participated in community activities like food drives and have booths in the school fairs. In high school, the citizenship that was the focus personally was The Participatory Citizen. It was a class on leadership that allows this type of citizenship; in reality, this would probably not be the case if I had not taken this class. As a class, we were in charge of organizing events and leading events, instead of just partaking in events.

In high school, the curriculum made this type of citizenship possible. The article claims that “Proponents of this vision emphasize preparing students to engage in collective, community-based efforts” (4), which was the curriculum in our leadership class. The curriculum made it possible for the students to take this class to prepare, lead, and engage in collective efforts in our community. However, the curriculum does not align with all types of citizenship. A Justice Citizen is a thought-provoking subject and would need to be taught with freedom of thought available and analyze the problems facing the world around us (our community). However, the curriculum often does not look at the social, ethical, and prejudices problems our world faces, which makes exploring this type of citizen impossible. While teachers and professionals can aim their lessons in discussing issues facing our community, the curriculum makes it hard because it does not look at a wide range of perspectives.

Works Cited:

Westheimer, Joel, and Joseph Kahne. “What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy.” American Educational Research Journal 41.2 (2004): 237-269.

Dear pre-internship student,

This is a tough situation that you are dealing with. Trying to teach and foster an understanding of Indigenous education to a group that appears to not care is a challenge. The best advice I can give is to start from the beginning. The class you are teaching is mainly grade 11 and 12, correct? These students have had an entire childhood to pick up biases and integrate them into their belief system without any education to guide them.

Firstly, continue to attempt to teach Treaty Education. Your Coop might have expressed her doubts about the need for it because of the lack of Indigenous students. However, this will not always be the case. These students will one day enter the real world where there is a mixture of culture and diversity, and it is our job as educators to give them the information to be informed in this world. These students might not interact with Indigenous students today, but what happens if they become teachers? Social workers? Journalists? Or work with anyone whose culture differs from their own. Having a clear understanding of racial issues, the history of Canada and the issues and racism still facing our world today will be key in their ability to form positive relationships.

Second, address these biases your students seem to have. These students have had years to form biases, and from the comments you made in your original email, it sounds like they have no problem presenting those biases and thoughts to the world around them. It will be hard to change thinking that has been in place for years, so my suggestion is to give them a reason to care. They have racist thoughts and make comments, give them a reason to change, give them a reason to care, even if you can get them to question their own beliefs. Show them what purpose Treaty Education has in their lives, even if there are no Indigenous students around. Truly have them think about the purpose of Treaty Education and Indigenous education, and ask them who they think these programs are for. Explain how Indigenous students do not need to be taught about their own culture, and they do not need teachers to teach them their history. These programs and curriculum are in place for students who are not Indigenous.

I advised you to make your students care, or at least interested. I find the best way to do this is to make the topic relatable to them. I find when students can personally connect to a topic, they become, even grudgingly, more interested. I connect Treaty Education to the phrase, “We are all treaty people” and the relationships that come from Treaty Education. Try telling your students that Treaty Education and Indigenous studies are all about relationships. Explain to them that these courses give them the information and the viewpoint that allow them to function in a diverse nation and build positive relationships. Remember, make it personal. Ask students what would happen in their jobs if they made a remark like that, or when they get to university and interact with Indigenous students. Explain to them that Treaty Education helps them understand Indigenous viewpoints, beliefs, histories, and struggles, so we are able to build lasting relationships. When you can look in on and appreciate another culture you are able to connect with people. I think the phrase “We are all treaty people” is sometimes said to lightly, a nice sentiment, but without understanding, it means very little. I understand, “We are all treaty people” as relationships. Our relationship with our past, our relationship with ourselves, our relationships with the world around us and our relationships with others. We are all treaty people because we are all linked and connected through relationships.

I have attached some resources you might want to look at, as well as some notes I have on those subjects.

I wish you the best of luck, and please let me know if there is anything else I can do for you!

According to the Levin article, politics is how the school curriculum is developed and implemented. Levin claims that politics affect public policies, and these policies are what form our education system – including the curriculum. 

Policies govern just about every aspect of education—what schooling is provided, how, to whom, in what form, by whom, with what resources, and so on. The application of these terms to the curriculum is evident. Curriculum concerns what is taught—a fundamental aspect of schooling and thus of public policy. (Levin 8)

Levin continues their discussion on curriculum and talks about how curriculum changes and how that thinks to current thoughts and knowledge. When certain topics are important in politics, they are reflected in the curriculum, when politicians feel strongly about something it could be seen in the curriculum, when big companies or resources for education believe something it is implemented in the curriculum. From this viewpoint, the curriculum is a vehicle for change. For example, anti-bias education has pushed for larger inclusivity to LGBTQ+ communities, and because of that, there are known outcomes in the curriculum that aim to show the understanding of different families. For example, the grade 8 Health outcomes and indicators in the Sask. curriculum include the following:

A. Describe a variety of family structures (e.g., nuclear, mixed, childless, foster, same-sex, single parent, extended).

G. Examine the prejudices/biases that exist in the community.

H. Investigate how the differences that exist in families are respected and protected in Canadian human rights legislation.

J. Recognize, name, and challenge instances of inequity, bias, intolerance, and       discrimination related to family identities, structures, roles, and responsibilities.

Something that really surprised me in this reading is how the curriculum has changed in response to politics. After reading this article, I looked at old and new versions of different curriculums, and I saw how different topics had been implemented when it became politically important. For example, the discussion and investigation into AIDS and sex education, discussions on mental illness, Indigenous peoples, gender roles, and body image. After looking at how all these things suddenly appeared in the curriculum, I realized that these topics did not just appear. These topics became part of the curriculum in response to the world around us and what we value. 

After reading the Treaty Education document, I realize how real Levin’s article is, and how it relates to the implementation of Treaty Education in Saskatchewan. The Treaty Education document was dated in 2013, but a quote says, “In 2007, mandatory Treaty Education was introduced” (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education 3). What I find really interesting is how Treaty Education was introduced in a politically important time. Right after Treaty Education was introduced in 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a public apology for the Residential school system in early 2008. I think this is an important idea when thinking about the connections to the Levin article and the tension surrounding the topic of Indigenous people in Canada at that time. The curriculum update could be seen as another political act in the series of acknowledging Indigenous people. In 2007 the United Nations developed and published an article called The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in 2007 the implementation of Treaty Education in Saskatchewan was introduced, and in 2008 there was a public apology from the Prime Minister. It is clear that the curriculum change was not separate from the other political changes happening in this time period.

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.       

Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. Treaty Education Outcomes and Indicators, 2013, https://www.edonline.sk.ca/bbcswebdav/library/materials/english/docs/Treaty%20Education%20Outcomes%20%26%20Indicators%20-%20Feb%2021%202013.pdf

The narrative in the paper focuses on rehabilitation and decolonization by focusing on youth. The paper stresses the importance of Indigenous future generations are with the youth, and a central part of regaining Indigenous knowledge and decolonization is reintroducing them to their culture. We see this reconnection when the paper discusses the importance of Indigenous people and their relationship to the land. The paper says the connection Indigenous people had with nature that was lost during colonization and how it connects to children’s intellectual, emotional, social, physical and spiritual wellness. Another part of reconnecting youth to their culture was reintroducing them / or teaching them the importance of traditional knowledge. A large part of reintroducing children to traditional ways of knowing that were forgotten/forced to be ignored during the years of colonization is reconnecting them to their elders and community. By reintroducing youth and elders and building relationships between them, they are rebuilding bridges where knowledge can be transmitted. Another key aspect of decolonization we see throughout the paper is the importance of Indigenous knowledge. Residential schools and forced assimilation into European/settler ways of living caused the loss of language in many Indigenous communities. So the article also focuses on reintroducing language to youth in order to preserve and restore its position in Indigenous people’s lives.

My minor is in English, so this is a really good opportunity to incorporate Indigenous literature into my classroom. I can work towards incorporating Indigenous knowledge by focusing on Indigenous stories or Indigenous storytellers. This could also work towards the revitalization attempts at Indigenous language.

I am a social studies major, so it is really important to integrate these ideas into my area of study and my classroom. Social Studies can be broken up into multiple subjects in school (Social Studies, Indigenous Studies, History, Law, etc.), so Indigenous rehabilitation and decolonization could be part of multiple subjects that I could end up teaching. I think one of the most important parts of including these ideas in my classroom is that knowledge does not come from me. Like we discussed in our lecture this week, how can I teach Indigenous Studies? Who am I to teach about Indigenous culture to Indigenous students? So I think, while integrating these attempts into my classroom is important, they also must come from the write source. I would want to invite Indigenous speakers into my classroom, use Indigenously made documentaries that look into the colonizations (Residential schools, the pass system) and documentaries about decolonization attempts. I could work towards the goal of reconnecting with elders by inviting a few to come to speak to my classes, not only to just our Indigenous students; we all have a responsibility to work towards decolonization because we are all treaty people.

At the beginning of chapter 2 of the reading commonsense, a good student is someone who can listen to instructions, take turns speaking, and can focus for long amounts of time. This account is problematic. However, by the end of the chapter, the author has seemed to come to a conclusion through their experience and instead explains a student should have different qualities, different from those described at the beginning of the chapter. The author explains that teachers should strive for students that have left the school year, knowing more than they had previously. The goal is that these students have learned what is important, academically and socially. These students are also supposed to be able to think about and question what was taught to them. While this new concept of student takes a greater diversity in who is considered a “good student,” it still has some issues. For example, it still does not take into account that some students will learn at different paces. So while some students will have “learned what is important academically and socially,” others will have simply made steps in this direction. This does not mean these students are “bad” or “troubled” it just means they have different learning needs than others, which is the same for every student.

This definition benefits students who are able to keep up with the curriculum and social standards. Basically, benefitting kids that style of learning matches the way the teacher is teaching. This definition makes it impossible to understand the differences in our students. The fact that there is a definition of a good student, and that the definition is so specific, means that there are students who do not fit this definition, implying that there are “bad students”. This is what is troubling about the definition of a good student. The definition does not take into account students who struggle academically, have trouble communicating, or are more introverted than other students. Because the definition excludes this diversity, it makes it impossible to understand what a good student is, because a good student without some sort of individuality does not exist.

The journal article “Teaching under the New Taylorism: High-Stakes Testing and the Standardization of the 21st Century Curriculum” written by Wayne Au, focuses on the standardization of education in the 21st century. In order to explore this topic, Au focuses on what standardization means for the teacher, and how it affects what is being taught, as well as how it is being taught. In most of the article, Au talks about the standardization of teaching and what it means to teach under this new standardization. Au discussed how teaching has become more and more consistent. For example, a grade 2 teacher at one end of the country should be saying and teaching the same thing as a grade 2 teacher on the other end of the country, regardless of the different social cultures specific to that region. Au also discussed “the binder,” which tells teachers not only what to teach and how to teach it, but also what the teachers have to say. This planned curriculum leaves the teachers merely speakers for the already planned, organized, and scripted curriculum. 

The other part of the journal article focuses on the standardization of testing. Au compares the concept of standardized testing to a working factory. He claims that standardized testing is used to reduce the individual student to just a score. Regardless of these students’ home life, individual needs, or personal interests, they became a test score. Au discussed how these tests made schooling and success more about the score of a test compared to the masses instead of personal growth and achievement. Au also discussed how these standardized tests impact the concept of teaching and teachers as well. These standardized tests showed how well the student understood the curriculum. Meaning many students failing the tests shows poorly on the teacher because it means the teacher failed to teach “the binder” correctly. Au argues that the standardization of testing both neglects the individuality of the child, and is a means of judging the teacher. 

The next steps I have in this assignment are to read the other two articles I have selected. As I read each article, I need to keep in mind how it contributes to or disputes my focus article. I want to look to see if either article mentions some of the topics in my summary, and how these different authors view the same topic. Maybe I will make a T-chart with similarities and differences, or maybe just a page of notes on each article so it will be easier to organize my thoughts when writing my critical analysis. 

Looking back in my schooling, I see many instances of the Tyler rationale. As students, we were taught. We never explored subject areas not being taught, we never learned about what interested us as students, unless it constantly happens to be part of the curriculum, we were graded on scales and given sheets of paper explaining what we should be accomplishing in each unit. Like the article describes, major ideas were broken down into units, and because of this, the main point was lost. For example, when studying novels in class, we broke down each chapter and analyzed it individually to make it easier to understand. However, this means we did not learn the significance of the chapter to the rest of the book, plot, or meaning. As the article said, there were also behavioural outcomes expected of us as students. Again like the article, we were given no choice in what we wanted to learn. In high school, we were forced to read a Shakespeare play, something that already disinterested me, but we did not even get to choose a play it was chosen for us. I recently learned the teacher did not even get to choose the play or book; it was written in the curriculum. Today, I can not recall the plot of the play, because I cared about it so little, but I can recall the books I read during free read that same year because I got to read which books interested me.  

The major limitation of the Tyler rationale is how planned the curriculum is. In this traditionalist curriculum, imagine the curriculum as a blanket. The blanket is thrown over and encompasses all students. Because the blanket was already made when thrown and is being used by every student, it leaves little room for individual needs. In reality, if the curriculum was designed around teacher’s interests, different ways of learning, and the diversity in knowledge and different student abilities, the curriculum would be achievable for each student and would take into account their needs. The Tyler rationale limits how many choices the students get in what they learn, meaning some of their interests and questions will be ignored. Because students are expected to reach a certain goal, a base goal for all students, students might not get the help or education they need. For example, someone who excels in reading and passes the goal of that year’s curriculum will not have their knowledge furthered because they already reached the goal. This rationale also affects teachers. Teachers are assigned the curriculum, and so they have very little wiggle room on what to teach. Meaning they can not stay and focus on one thing that maybe the students need more time to grasp because the teachers have to meet a deadline fully. Being forced to study certain subject areas can also prevent students from appreciating them truly. For example, I really disliked Social Studies in my elementary years. I thought it was boring and uninteresting. However, once I started taking it in high school I learned there was more history in the world then what I was being taught, and I found that I disliked some parts of Social studies, I loved others, I was just never given a chance to explore them early on. 

A potential benefit of this type of curriculum is that it covers many bases. This curriculum, according to Smith 2000, is based around the learners not having a say in what they learn. This is a major con of this process. However, it does have a few benefits. For instance, some basic knowledge is important to know, and whether it interests students or not, it should be taught. For example, many children prefer other classes when compared to math. If given a choice about what they learn, some children would opt out of these lessons. However, some knowledge may be needed later in life. For example, how to tell time, how to count money, simple addition and subtraction skills are going to be needed later in life. And if given a choice about what to learn, these skills may never be taught. Another potential benefit to this method is that children are still young and do not know what they want to accomplish later in life, or at least their dreams as a five-year-old may be different from that of a 16-year-old. Elementary education gives students the base knowledge of many subjects, so that when they continue on to middle and later years, they have a small understanding of each subject, so they can start to focus on what interests them and can focus on what they want to achieve later in life. For example, when I was younger, I wanted to be an artist. Also, I was not too fond of English classes because I was a slow reader and a terrible speller. However, the curriculum pushed English onto me as a child. Once I got into high school, I continued taking art, but I also started to read more, which led me to discover my favourite book series and discovering a love of history, which has now led me to study those subjects in education. This is an example of a potential benefit of this type of curriculum. Younger years education gives children a base knowledge of each subject, which means they are free to explore their interests and professional field later in life because our interests as children do not always reflect our interests as adults.