Krista - Blog 5

This chapter was called The Role of Curriculum. I thought that it was actually interesting to see how the Canadian curriculum has evolved over the past couple of decades. As discussed on page 126, education was primarily used to keep children in school during the harvest so that they would be ready to help on the farms in the summer. It relied heavily on agriculture and religion.

The part of this chapter that stood out for me was on page 131, where parental influences are discussed. I never had any issues reading “controversial” texts in school. I remember one time, someone’s parent tried to get my 8^th grade teacher fired because we read In Search of April Raintree which talks about drinking, racism, drug abuse and suicide. I read the book on my own before I read it in class. I don’t know what ever happened or became of my teacher because I didn’t stay in school long enough to find out (before I was pulled out and homeschooled for a second year). My cousin is reading the Hunger Games in her advanced literacy class and she says a lot of students enjoy it, while their parents don’t because of how much violence is in the book. I think it’s appropriate to an extent that parents be involved in their children’s education, but if it takes away the interest of other students, then I believe it becomes unfair. If a parent has an issue with a certain book deemed inappropriate by his or her own beliefs, then there should be some kind of waiver system set up just for that particular student. If I wasn’t allowed to read a book because of someone else’s parent, I would still find a way to read it, but only because I’m kind of a rebel.

Standardized testing never really irked my gears. I might have grown up with a bit of a bias around this topic. My mom always told me to do my best, to try, to just give it a shot, whatever “it” was. I always performed quite well on these provincial tests, so I never had any negative views on them, and probably won't when it comes to my son's future in his education. Many educators on our reserve are against standardized testing (and probably everywhere else too) because the scores usually, as stated on page 136, indicates (for a lack of better phrasing) either the teacher rocks, or the teacher sucks at what they do. Many teachers do not support or like the idea of standardized testing because as stated on page 144, the blame is often shifted to the teachers instead of the students’ performance. As an early years educator, I don’t think I would need to focus on this too much. Many assessments are done through what a child produces during regular classtime. I remember having to do weekly spelling tests and math tests, but looking back at what I had to go through in grades 1-4, and comparing my education to my son’s, it seems like even those little tests have been eliminated from the curriculum and now the focus is strictly on the worksheets or other little assignments he has to do. Sometimes he does a literacy and math survey that he brings home, and that’s a form of assessment. Things have really changed. I used to do long division in school, and now my son is doing the “show your work”, Bobby-has-8-weiners, 10 dogs, 2 paper bags, and a loonie, how-many-apples-can-he-buy math. I know that makes absolutely no sense, and that is my point. The math they do in early years today is very different than what I remember doing.  In terms of assessment, I can go on about it, but my bottom line view is that it is good to the extent that a child’s education is not based solely on these statistics, and that a good chunk of their learning should be focused on how they can become stronger, more compassionate and understanding citizens.