My upbringing in a rural Saskatchewan community truthfully limited the ways in which I “read the world.” Throughout my schooling there was very little diversity in the classroom, and this is something that I am still working on understanding in classrooms today. I do not remember a time in my schooling where I had a teacher who was not white, and I think that has shaped how I view the world in many ways. The stories that we read and completed our research projects on were mostly those with white characters struggling with issues that we could understand in our society. I am actively trying to overcome the biases and lenses that I have formed throughout my childhood in such classrooms. I believe that one of the biggest and most important ways to overcome these biases, is to continue to educate ourselves. Our society is going to continue to change, and we as teachers must change along with it, as our classrooms become more and more diverse.

As mentioned earlier, many of the stories that I remember from my childhood were those with white characters. However, one book that I will always remember reading is “The Bite of the Mango” by Mariatu Kamara. I believe that this story was used as a tool to bring culture into the classroom. Although doing so with this particular book may not have been the best way of incorporating culture, especially to children who have not had much experience beforehand. I do understand that this is a true story that many of us could have never understood, but there are many other ways to introduce culture in the classroom without only showing the worst of the worst.

According to the Levin article, it is mentioned that “curriculum politics and policy choices are also increasingly related to larger issues of school change and improvement and to varying theories of what it is that shapes the outcomes of education.” Levin also mentions in this article that governments attempt to support educational change, but curriculum is controlled mainly at the district or school level. Levin also states that many educators do believe that choices regarding policy should be made by those who are qualified to be educators.

I do find it slightly concerning that those who are not qualified educators are creating the document stating what is to be taught. However, I do respect that school districts and schools themselves do have a say. I think it is alarming that curriculum creators are unaware of what really goes on in schools and the ways in which a school is actually run. They are completely unaware of the diversity and varying abilities in classrooms.

The Treaty Education document has four goals to be implemented in the already existent SK curriculum. The document is very simplistic, which really leaves it open for interpretation. Each teacher will incorporate the Treaty Education document is various ways, but I believe a bit more structure is needed from this document. I think that if this document was more structured and went more in depth, more teachers would be providing their students with a better Treaty education. Many teachers fear that they will do or say the wrong things, and I think this document could easily remove some of that added stress.

In the lecture titled “On What Terms Can We Speak” by Dwayne Donald, I was initially intrigued by the way in which he introduced himself. Dwayne introduced himself in Cree, which is something that he had to get himself used to. I believe this is a good place to start with looking at Treaty Education. Although Cree is a language that many of us do not understand, shouldn’t each individual have the right and feel confident in introducing themselves however they see fit? I think many teachers struggle with this and the ways in which we can teach about the culture and tradition of a culture that is not necessarily our own. Dwayne mentions in his lecture that we are meant to teach about aboriginal perspectives, but no one is educated enough to do so without feeling hesitant. Dwayne explains that we have all been colonized in one way or another. This allows us to explore the effects of colonialism and “denying relationships,” like he mentions. Dwayne also discusses the amount of disconnect that there is between cultures. Many people believe that if they don’t see or interact with these varying cultures in their everyday lives, there is nothing for them to learn; there is no need to consider these cultures.

I believe this is where there is the greatest detriment in children’s education today. Many teachers, as mentioned in the email to Mike, just don’t think that there is a need for Treaty Education unless their school has Aboriginal students. One of the broad areas of learning in the Saskatchewan curriculum is ‘building engaged citizens.’ How can we build engaged citizens if we are not providing them with the education that they need to be respectful to each and every individual that they meet, no matter their culture? Many school programs, especially in small schools I find, are lacking in Treaty Education. I personally believe this is because some teachers are set in their ways. In my own experience, teaching Treaty Education consisted of teaching a brief history of residential schools and there was not much more to it than that. Dwayne also mentions this in his lecture asking the question of how will teaching a timeline of the history change the between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples. I personally do not think that teaching a historical timeline can alter the relationship; there is so much more that needs to be done.

To me, the term “we are all treaty people” never truly had much meaning before coming to university. I never really felt like this was a phrase that could be used by anyone and actually be true; I never felt a connection to it. However, looking at the work done by Clair Kreuger I have come to the realization that if I do not feel like I can confidently say “we are all treaty people,” how am I going to teach my students about the relationship and the history of treaties? I watched a short clip (about a minute) on her blog, where she had some of her students explain how they are all treaty people and what exactly that means to them. This is the type of teacher I wish to strive to become. Claire is truly an inspiration for all becoming teachers, as she makes such a huge impact on her students lives. She helps her students understand that the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people needs to be strengthened and improved upon. She is working to remove the stigma that is often associated with varying cultures.

References:

Donald, Dwayne. (2012). On What Terms Can We Speak? https://vimeo.com/15264558

Kreuger, Claire. (2016). Claire Krueger Electronic Portfolio: Class Videos. http://clairekreuger.ca/class-videos/

Saskatchewan Curriculum. (2019). https://www.curriculum.gov.sk.ca/bbcswebdav/library/curricula/English/Physical_Education/Physical-Education-20__aug-23-2019.pdf

This article shows many examples of how we can use the outdoors to decolonize our classrooms and schools if we simply put in the effort to do so. One quote by Restoule, Gruner & Metatawabin that really resonated with me goes as follows; “connection to nature is important to children’s intellectual, emotional, social, physical and spiritual development.” Throughout working to obtain my degree, I have participated in outdoor education classes that have showed me exactly how this quote can come true. Using the outdoors is an excellent was to decolonize our school programs, and this is shown in Fort Qu’appelle, SK. If you look at the land-based program that they provide for their grade 10 students. This program shows how Indigenous ways of knowing and culture can be taught through an outdoor education program. The learnings that students have during land-based education provides them with many life skills; skills that may be necessary later in life.

Place-based education opens many doors for teaching about reinhabitation and decolonization. Teaching in the outdoors can be cross curricular in many ways. You can teach about the history of the land, Indigenous traditions, language, and ways of life. The opportunities are truly endless. There is a way in which you can teach for every subject in the outdoors, allowing your students to create greater bonds and relationships with the environment that they live in, while still educating them.

Reference: Learning from Place: A Return to Traditional Mushkegowuk Ways of Knowing by Jean-Paul Restoule, Sheila Gruner, and Edmund Metatawabin

This weeks topic of good students really has me thinking about what this means. I remember from previous courses, being told over and over again that there is no such thing as a bad student. When discussing the ‘good student’, we are typically thinking about a student who is always ready to learn, done their work on time, is respectful of their teachers and peers, and is always behaving in and out of the classroom. However, when we think of the ‘bad student’, we not only think about the exact opposite of a good student, but we also think about how we can control these students into behaving like a ‘good student.’

I personally believe that this is unfair of us as teachers to label these students in such ways, and to expect each student to be the ‘good student.’ Why are teachers and schools so focused on forming students to fit these molds? Forcing students to become the good student may encourage them to fight it and do their best to stand out anyways.

The first model explored in the article by Smith (1996, 2000) was curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted. In this model the contents of a specific course are made aware of at the beginning of schooling, it shows the exact topics that will be explored, and it also makes parents aware of what their children may be learning (Smith, 1996, 2000). I think this model is beneficial for parents who may have a hard time understanding the reasons behind what a teacher is doing and why they are teaching their children certain topics. The second model mentioned by Smith (1996, 2000) was curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in students, or curriculum as a product. Curriculum as a product is more of a technical exercise, as there are set objectives which are then applied and measured (Smith, 1996, 2000). In my schooling, I would say that curriculum was more of a product approach than anything. We were aware of what needed to be done, when it needed to be done by, and how we would be assessed on said assignment. I think that having curriculum as a product limits the creativity of a child. Being handed a rubric stating exactly what is needed to achieve a high mark is what limits us as students. The third model by Smith (1996, 2000) was curriculum as process. This model has behavioural objectives, documents on specific implementation, as well as a strong interaction between students, teachers, and their knowledge (Smith, 1996, 2000).  The fourth and final curriculum model explained by Smith (1996, 2000) was curriculum as praxis. This model is a development of the process model and includes statements about the interests that it serves for the students (Smith, 1996, 2000).