According to Levin, school curricula is developed through a jumbled process of public interest, expert advice and teacher consultation for implementation. Not only must a curriculum document be produced in subject areas, but this document must do the work set out for it by the Ministry of Education in order to teach students what this consultation group has deemed important to learn throughout their 13 years of public schooling. Most interesting for me was the perspective provided by Levin, stating that often subject experts are not the people most equipped to write curriculum documents. Overall, I am surprised by the lack of regulation writing curriculum appears to have. I would have thought that experts would be consulted almost exclusively and interest groups would have little say in the writing of curriculum. I worry about the role of public consultation, and while I believe in schools teaching for the people they serve, I agree with Levin that many people believe in their own school expertise having simply been educated.
After reading the beginning of the Treaty Education document I see the four goals stated being the main implementation plan for this curriculum in classrooms. Looking forward throughout the document, I see the outcomes and indicators given for each grade and can’t help but wonder how such a simplistic document could possibly be integrated into the existing curriculum documents. Compared to every other curriculum document I have read, this document is not extensive or in depth. I imagine the main tensions that influenced the writing of this document were the 2007 official apology for residential schools by the Harper government, the same year this document states that Treaty Education became mandatory curriculum. It is telling that between that mandate and the release of this document, 6 years had passed, which leads me to believe that teachers felt lost in the implementation of Treaty Education.