By clicking this link, you will be able to hear a brief summary of some of the things I have learned and been challenged by during my studies in ECS 210. I enjoyed this class very much, as it reminds me to always look at the world from different perspectives and to consistently reflect on my learning and teaching practices.
a) How has your upbringing/schooling shaped how you you “read the world?” What biases and lenses do you bring to the classroom? How might we unlearn / work against these biases?
I grew up in a fairly conservative Christian home. The Bible is viewed as a manual on how to live, not just some story that has no relevance to today. Because of this mindset, my biases and views of how I read the world came from those roots. Although I did not always follow the Bible personally, I definitely tried to view the world in that way. For example, when it comes to topics like gender, sexuality, abortion, relationships, etc; my opinion would be based off of the way my family viewed those things. It is not until my early thirties that I met other Christians who did not have the same views as that of my Christian family. This is a good thing, because it opened my eyes to another perspective. That just because we may have similar beliefs in faith and who created the world, our beliefs may differ on other topics. Because of this, I feel I have grown in my understanding of the world. It has not changed my faith, rather how I read the world. I read the world in a way that is more loving, non-discriminatory, and have become more passionate about anti-racist, anti-oppressive behaviours. The only person I can change is my self, and keeping an open mind and sharing space with other people allows me to possibly unlearn those biases that I was raised in. I have also noticed that since learning new perspectives, that my passion has given me a bold voice to share these positive behaviours with my family, and their biases have been challenged and changed.
b) Which “single stories” were present in your own schooling? Whose truth mattered?
The single stories presented in my own schooling was that of a Euro-centric, hetero-normative, male point of view and truth. The books we read, the resources used, the teachers who taught me. There was very little to no representation in any of it. Although we are on Treaty 4 Land, I was never once taught from an Aboriginal perspective, nor was I taught about the contributions to our society by anyone other than Europeans and majority were males. This included things such as classic literature that was being read, like Shakespeare, for example. Or scientists like Albert Einstein. This is the prime of example of the male, pale, stale. This is not to say that they did not contribute something good to the world, but they are not the only ones. In fact, in the lecture by Gale Russell on mathematics, she explained how in our education system, we were taught that one of the greatest mathematicians was Greek, as to appease the white people, when in fact, he was Egyptian. Unfortunately the truth and stories of that of white people were considered the most important to share, and that was and is still being taught in our schools today.
At the beginning of the reading, Leroy Little Bear (2000) states 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). Think back on your experiences of the teaching and learning of mathematics — were there aspects of it that were oppressive and/or discriminating for you or other students?
My experience of oppressive mathematics was that in which it was all viewed from a Eurocentric and Westernized point of view. There was only one way of being taught math, and if you did not understand, you will struggle. However, I did not always struggle with mathematics. It wasn’t until around high school when math became difficult for me. This wasn’t necessarily based on the math itself, rather my experience with those who were teaching it. I experienced teachers who would quite visibly show their frustration with my lack of understanding and that lead to me stopping to pursue guidance and instruction to continue to learn. Since entering University of Regina, and Math101 being a required class for the program, I have “attempted” to take the class multiple times, but alas, I have dropped it 3 times within the first week because of fear of asking for help when I don’t understand. The professors have been kind thus far, but because of my experience, I am still wary of seeking help, especially in a subject that I feel I am completely inadequate.
Although there were all white, European settler students in my classes for majority of my academic career, we were never taught anything other than what has always been taught. As I stated in the previous paragraph, we did not learn math from any point of view other than that of our ancestors. Unfortunately that personally lead me to believe that, that was the only form of mathematics, which I have been awakened to the fact is not the case.
After reading Poirier’s article: Teaching mathematics and the Inuit Community, identify at least three ways in which Inuit mathematics challenge Eurocentric ideas about the purposes mathematics and the way we learn it.
Inuit mathematics challenge Eurocentric ideas of mathematics because their math is relevant to culture and environment. For example, (1)the base 20 system which refers to fingers and toes. They make it very clear that mathematics is tied to every other aspect of life, it is not just a singular topic or subject. (2)When the Inuit students are being taught, it is not the traditional pencil and paper, rather observation through elders and real world environment like land and spatial aspects in general. (3)For example, using their hands and palms to measure in length when making parkas. These three examples are quite different from the Eurocentric view of math, and when you look at the way the Inuit teach mathematics, it actually makes a lot more sense than that which I have grown up learning. It leaves me to wonder that if I were taught mathematics from another perspective, perhaps my understanding of it would be a lot different.
What examples of citizenship education do you remember from your K-12 schooling?
My k-12 schooling was over 15 years ago, so it is a little bit difficult for me to remember exact moments where citizenship was promoted. But, I suppose overall we were taught a lot about how to be personally responsible and participatory citizens. By this, I mean we were encouraged to volunteer in ways like going out into our community and cleaning up garbage, or raising money for the Heart and Stroke Foundation by doing a school-wide fundraiser called ‘Jump Rope for Heart’. I also think of examples of voting as a child for class leaders for the SRC (Student Representative Council) or having penny drives where we would bring in as many pennies as possible as a means to collect an abundance to donate to those in need.
What types of citizenship (e.g. which of the three types mentioned in the article) were the focus?
Personally Responsible Citizens are mentioned in the article as those who help in their community by voting, donating and paying taxes. Although it seems that these are three basic ways of being a personally responsible citizen, it is not that black and white. We discussed in class how this can made impossible for some, for example, if they are incarcerated, or living in poverty.
If I think of this in regards to my personal life, I have been a personally responsible citizen by donating my gently used clothes to different organizations like the Diabetes Foundation or Community Living, as well as Sophia’s House which is a centre for women and children fleeing domestic violence. By the governments standards, I am low income and do receive subsidies for things like rent or putting my daughter in activities, but I have still found ways to help those in more unfortunate circumstances than my own.
The Participatory Citizens are stated as those who actively in engage with their community and organizations that are meant to better their community and help those in need beyond just donating money. For example, instead of giving a cheque to Souls Harbour Rescue Mission each month, they would perhaps help serve food in the soup kitchen once a week or a few times a month. This is not to say that it is not important to give money to such organizations, as this is also a need, but it is also important to participate in the serving of others.
Ways in which I see this within our own school, for example is when Victoria Ordu and Favour Amadi were to be deported by the Canadian government for working while on a student visa, they were hiding in refuge to avoid deportation back to Nigeria, and some staff and students from the University of Regina were protesting against the deportation of the two women. All in all this made a difference by the government changing the laws of students who are here on studying visa’s to be able to work off campus much easier.
Justice Oriented Citizens are those who basically engage in all forms of citizenship and work towards the equity of everyone. Instead of only participating in the common betterment of all, they work towards finding the root problem of how these things came to be in the first place and don’t just want to find ways to bring change, but actively work towards bringing change.
If I think about the possibility of this, I think about my own privilege as a white woman. Because I am automatically placed in a position of privilege and power, I do believe I have a responsibility to work towards justice for all. Or what this class in particular is doing, both Mike and Katia are teaching us to think critically about the world, our communities and ourselves and to question the status quo and what we can do as future educators to bring justice to the education system which can hopefully be executed outside of the classroom as well.
The purpose of teaching Treaty Education is so that everyone, but particularly settlers of this land, understand what it means to be part of the treaties between the First Nations, Metis and Inuit of Canada. To understand and see the benefits and privileges we have received by being treaty settlers. Some of these benefits include:
- Right to One’s Own Religion. As most of the settlers are of white, European descent, the most common spiritual practices were of Catholic and Protestant origin. Therefore, although the treaty was made that both the First Nation’s of Canada and the European Settlers could both worship their own beliefs freely and peacefully, the settlers benefited by this treaty. By looking at Residential School’s in particular, the purpose was to assimilate the First Nation’s students to believe in Catholicism, meaning that if the dominant belief has always been in favour.
- Right to Agriculture and Economic Activity. Although the treaty was in in agreement that settlers were able to engage in economic activity produced by the labour of their hands within the confines of their “own” land down to the depth of the plough. However, treaty settlers have benefited by this by breaking the treaty and have entitled ourselves to free access natural resources that go beyond the depth of the play beyond our “own” land but of as much of the land in Canada as possible, despite the treaty agreement. This also meant that the dominant view of economy was favoured and put in place and still is.
- Right to Peace and Goodwill. Settlers have benefited by this treaty because the First Nations people of Canada were the only ones to keep their end of the agreement. The right to peace and goodwill meant for both settlers and the First Nations people of Canada to live together in harmony. However, the settlers forced the First Nation’s people onto reserves and only allowing “peace” of the First Nation’s people did whatever was told of them by the Crown. Settlers have “benefited” from this because our children were not forcibly taken from our homes, put into schools that were intentionally made to assimilate every part of their being to be like someone else’s.
It is important to give a voice to the First Nations people of this land, because we have taken away that voice. We need to share their story, because their story is also our story. We need to teach the history of the relationship between both groups of people so that relationship can grow. Tyler McCreary of Briarpatch Magazine stated it well when he said,
“It is this understanding of relatedness, of being lovingly adopted by the First Peoples of this land, that should be the most provocative enticement for settlers to follow the protocols of good relations. A better society is possible if we allow ourselves to use the treaties as a guide.”
- List some of the ways that you see reinhabitation and decolonization happening throughout the narrative.
One thing in particular that really stood out to me was when the elders were discussing the lives of previous family members who were buried along the river. This is a way for their lives to continue through the flowing of the river and was also a marker to remember different points within the river and land of the area; a map if you will. Furthermore, the land is not simply meant to be lived off of. This was experienced through community by way of intergenerational means. The elders of the community were able to share and show the youth and young people how they can live with the land. For example, that the Moose knows when the people need food, so it will provide itself to the people of the land. In Mushkegowuk culture, when the frog sings, it is a sign that the water is safe to drink.
There was also a lot of use of Cree scribbled over the English map as a way to decolonize the map. Because of the crown and treaties made, along with residential schools, there had been a loss of language which is largely tied to the land which is also tied to the identity of the people. So the continuous use of Cree throughout their research with the intergenerational participants was also a form of decolonization. The young people were taught that it is not about accumulating all the resources of the land for their own gain, rather to work with the land socially and economically so both the people and the land grow and flourish together.
- How might you adapt these ideas towards considering place in your own subject areas and teaching?
Allowing my students to learn from others is a huge way I could adapt. By bringing in different generations to engage with my students is a way of also building community. Whether it is an Indigenous elder or parent of an Indigenous student in the classroom. Because my primary study of focus is middle years education, I think it is very feasible to access the outdoors as a means of learning as well. This also arranges the opportunity for each student to find ways they can identify with the land surrounding them. Within the classroom, a way of considering space is that bring on Treaty 4 Land, each day the entire class could learn a new word in Cree. Perhaps each subject that we learn, we can tie in a cree word or words. Also when thinking about land and social studies, it is important that we learn the Canadian map prior to colonization, and one way of doing this could be through learning about the treaty map of Canada.
This answer to this question has a plethora of opportunities to consider space within each subject that will be taught. I have never thought about it from this perspective until this required reading. It opens up a world to me that is not a new world at all, but a rich history of those who have been been here before me, and there is a lot I can learn from them.
How do you think that school curricula are developed?
I believe that school curricula is developed by the provincial and federal government. For example, the Ministry and Board of Education. Within those two categories, I would imagine that there are a variety of educated people in different areas who contribute to how the curriculum is developed. Perhaps an anthropologist, psychologist, educator, etc. However, an educator would seem like one of the best resources when creating a curriculum, because they are the ones teaching. There is likely a group of experts who decide what should go into the curriculum based on the present culture, but depending on funding, may not be updated for a period of time.
How are school curricula developed and implemented? What new information/perspectives does this reading provide about the development and implementation of school curriculum? Is there anything that surprises you or maybe that concerns you?
School curricula is actually developed by the government on both a federal and provincial level. They decide what students are expected to know and what they should be able to do with the education that is provided to them. In other words, this is referred to as public policy. Because public policy is rooted in politics, it is safe to say that school curricula is also rooted in politics. On page 8 of the article, Tinder (1991) describes a political system as “a set of arrangements by which some people dominate others” (p.162). If we look at those who are in authority within the political system, it is generally individuals who are white and male. Therefore, this would imply that those with the greatest influence over school curricula are also white and male. As this has been the case for many years it has only brought information and perspectives from a Eurocentric and patriarchal mentality. This is concerning because the people who education effects the most, are the ones who are not part of the curricula development. This is also confirmation that Eurocentric culture has dominated the education system as well.
Page 9 talks states, “every government has to pay some attention to the views of the elites of various kinds, even if not to citizens more generally”. What I gather from this statement is that in order to have some sort of influence outside of the government, if only slightly, is based on hierarchy. Most people that are elites within society are usually those with the most money. Which again, is generally white men when looking at the context of Canada and even Saskatchewan in particular. Page 10 states the despite those in political power, they are also making decisions with inadequate knowledge. With these few reasons alone, leaves a lot of concern because we are putting curricula in the hands of people who only represent a portion of the population. Page 15 mentions how there have been disputes over what history to teach. It is a bit ironic and not surprising at all, as there is only a dispute because the change would mean teaching subjects beyond just a colonial and Eurocentric perspective.
In its entirety, this is all new to me. I never realized that educators don’t have as much of a role in curriculum development as I thought they did. But what surprised me more is that the students have very little say. I understand that if we look at this from a view of hierarchy, why should students have a decision in the development of curriculum and how it is implemented? Because as time goes by, and culture shifts, and diversity enlarges, as should the way we approach education. Therefore, the students are changing and it is important that we learn new ways to develop and implement curriculum as well.
According to common sense, being a good student is to not challenge your view of the world in a learning environment. That a student is meant to think and act in specific ways; and if they regurgitate what the teacher has said and what they are told to read, they will do well on exams. Kumashiro referred to this as “meeting standards.” This does not allow any critical thinking or reflection of the individual. Not only that, what the students are being taught in school is the “common sense” view that supports a socially constructed society which supports the white, heteronormative, able bodied person. As stated in Chapter 2, Kumashiro talks about how this environment is not learning at all. It makes it impossible to see the oppression and inequities that we are not only being taught in school, but what we have learned outside of school. It proposes that the “common sense” view is the only view that really matters and continues to allow the student to remain sedentary, if you will, in their “knowledge” base, which only continues to perpetuate the stereotypes and view that differences are a negative thing.
“Leaders who do not act dialogically, but insist on imposing their decisions, do not organize the people–they manipulate them. They do not liberate, nor are they liberated: they oppress.” – Paulo Freire
Teachers are in a position of leadership. We have the opportunity to both grow and encourage growth in our students. Without dialogue between both student and teacher, this is not possible. As an educator, if all I do is stand in front of a classroom of students and speak what is my norm, and what is the norm of what is in the curriculum, without the interaction and involvement of others, I am showing that what I have to say and teach is of superiority. I believe what Freier is trying to say here is to empower one another through critical conversation. It is known that what happens outside of the classroom can affect the experience within the classroom. Therefore, what also happens in the classroom can have a profound affect on the outside. When teachers are aware of their role in preparing students to be critical thinkers, they are empowering them to not take everything at face value. To question and challenge what they are learning.
As a mature student, this dialogue opportunity had only arisen once I attended the Education program at the University of Regina. Through my elementary and high school days through out the nineties, what we learned was strictly colonial history. There was very little dialogue or critical thinking involved. Do what you are told and you will be a good student. That kind of environment created majority of individuals who fit with the status quo. There is nothing liberating about being expected to be like everyone else. To think, to act, to look and to speak the “right” way. Freire is making it evident that there is not one “right” way. That without dialogue we will never have the opportunity to know other ways beyond our own. There will always be more than one context and perspective, and a good leader will guide their students to also engage with one another to learn different aforementioned perspectives and contexts.
image source: paulo-freire.jpg
I have experienced the Tyler rationale in my own schooling for majority of my life. I am 31 years old and everything I seemed to be taught had the intention of producing a student and person who is rooted in Western culture. Mathematics, English and Science were always the focused subjects and the ones that matter the most. When seeking to get transcripts to apply for University, the main classes that mattered to determine how “capable” I am of being a student in University, was defined by the grades particularly in those three subjects.
The major limitations of Traditionalists and viewing curriculum and education as product is that it favours the dominant group. As we discussed in lecture, that it is based off of the ‘male, pale and stale’. Other limitations include considering individuality and thinking for oneself. The goal for traditionalists seems to be to learn from “the greats” and anything outside of that is not deemed as necessary, which limits one from thinking outside of the box and seeking new ways of thought.
What is made possible and the benefits from the Traditionalists is that there is a foundation built. Because of this foundation, both educators and learners can both continue to build on that foundation. For example, learning how to master specific subjects. Although this can be seen as a negative, this can be carried over into any subject, not necessarily the Mathematics, Sciences and Literature.