Politics is about power. Since not all can have what they want, the question is who does get what they want and who does not.
Levin, 2008
According to Levin, the school curriculum in heavily influenced by politics, and politics is influenced by a number of things. This is an interesting fact, since many teachers refuse to be political. However, by being a Canadian citizen and teaching other Canadian citizens, teachers automatically engage in politics. They insist students must be obedient and listen to the adult standing in front of the class, and this authoritative experience will turn students into uninquisitive, obedient citizens. They will grow to immediately obey the authoritative figures in a totalitarian society because that is all they know. Teachers practice their own political beliefs all the time, so for a teacher to state that they are removed from politics is wrong. Politics shape our worldview and people inherently look at situations, and their classes, through their worldview. To us, however, this belief is not called politics. It is simply “commonsense”, as Kumoshiro puts it.
The school curriculum is developed and implemented through the influence of the culture it’s raised in, according to Levin. Throughout his article, “Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools”, he talks about how the public influences politicians to create policies about the school curriculum. This public is influenced by their own culture. For example, a teacher is raised in Canada and grew up in a school culture that supported the mathematics and sciences over the arts, they teacher will go on to value the scientific and mathematic subjects over the artistic. People are shaped by the cultures they grew up in, some of these cultures are from schools, home-life, work, at concerts, in restaurants. etc. How they behave in all these settings will socialize them and force to them to have certain outlooks on education. Culture impacts the people, and the people decide on what they should learn.
The public, however, might be wrongly influenced by ignorant sources they shouldn’t trust. For example, social media shapes the political beliefs of the public. What the algorithm shows, or doesn’t show, to people crafts the type of experience and view they have on certain political parties. Remember that social media algorithms are made to show you what you want so that you keep scrolling on their websites and give them money. Many business owners, themselves, will use these tactics to try to get you to believe in a certain policy. For example, they may fund or push for programs that support their own markets. The public can, evidently, be deceived.
One interesting, and surprising, detail is how powerless Levin portrays politicians. When one imagines politicians, they view someone who is corrupt, greedy, and has an overwhelming amount of power to do what they please. The public can be manipulated by the politicians. While this may be so in many cases, most politicians find it difficult to manage public views. Many people are ignorant about political topics, and don’t wish to do large amounts of research to understand the whole picture of the topic at hand. There are also people who believe that their primary job is to oppose the political party no matter what. They also are under huge time constraints. Some decisions may take years to unpack and solve, but the public wants immediate results. At the same time, they lose interest in topics quickly, and won’t face the consequences of pushing their views onto the government. This is interesting because members of the public view themselves as powerless and oppressed against the lawmakers in black suits. Levin makes readers look at policy from the perspective of someone who was once a politician, and states that the power resides within the view of the people. This is causes reflection and humility in the reader, if she/he/they are a member of the public.
There are tensions in how Levin’s article interacts with the Treaty Education Curriculum. For example, the curriculum writes: “The Constitution of Canada recognizes and affirms the existing treaty rights” (“Saskatchewan Treaty Education Document”). However, the treaty rights have been existing for centuries. Why is it suddenly affirmed and recognized? It may have to do with the way Indigenous issues have been almost trending these past couple years. Now, everyone wants to acknowledge this land as Treaty 4 territory, the original lands of the Cree, Ojibwe, Saulteaux, Dakota, Nakota, Lakota, and the homeland of the Metis nation. Of course, Indigenous groups have been fighting for acknowledgement for centuries. For them, this is no trend. To make is so would be to patronize and neglect everything they have sacrificed, and all the hardships they worked through, and the traumatic incidents that they were forced to swallow and forget. Levin states that the power is within the people. Do “the people” not include highly marginalized groups such as the Indigenous peoples? I think what Levin might have meant was that power did not dwell among the public. Rather, it is held by the loudest and by those who can strike the most fear and anger in others. Levin said that the educated opinion rarely is the popular one, and many are misguided. Perhaps, the crude perceptions of Indigenous peoples in history are the misconceptions Levin mentions. Nonetheless, I can imagine a marginalized person being a little offended by Levin’s insinuation that politicians lack power. In their experience, they lack power compared to the “average” white, heterosexual, male/male-influenced citizen. The public do not wield influence. The strange culture (shaped by business owners, advertisements, individual experiences, social media, TV shows, books, friends, rivals, etc.) that prioritizes and privileges certain individuals over others is what drives the “popular opinion”, and this drives the curriculum.
Books, Books, Books! 