Here is my digital storyboard where i explain what i have learned in my semester in ECS 210! enjoy 🙂
In “Jagged Worldviews Colliding,” Leroy Little Bear describes the worldviews of Aboriginal peoples and compares them to the “Eurocentric worldview” of settler society. Reading “Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision” about the contrast in Indigenous worldviews vs. North American worldviews were really interesting and different for me to learn about. I believe assimilation and colonialism have played a massive factor in why I and many others were left unaware. First nation’s people’s voices have been suppressed and silenced that much of their culture and worldviews have been erased and lost by the more powerful culture. “Colonialism […] tries to maintain a singular social order by means of force and law, suppressing the diversity of human worldviews, instead “creates oppression and discrimination”. In school, I only learned whatever was in the textbook and I doubt that they had any sort of indigenous material. Math was very traumatic for me as I have struggled with it my entire life and then had some really horrible teachers. Once in grade 8, I had a teacher say “ want to see something funny? Let’s watch Lily do some math on the board.” or another personal fav memory was when in grade 12 I had a different teacher make me try to figure out a math problem while throwing garbage at me and then finishing up the class with backhanding me in the face with a stack of papers… ahh, the joys of going to a small school with too much male privilege. So because of these experiences, I have “math trauma.” when people ask me to do the math I refuse because getting the incorrect answer is too embarrassing for me now.
in Louise Poirier’s article called “Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,” she talks about an experience she math with the Inuit people and math. the Inuit students were struggling to learn math provided and no one understood why until it was discovered that they used a base 20 numeric system in their culture. so it is not that the students didn’t know math it is that they had learned a different way but to us, it was “wrong” because it not the eurocentric way. Inuit children also excel at spatial representations and different problem-solving skills. a lesson that we can take away from this is different does not mean wrong.
October 28th blog post:
I grew up in a small Christian k-12 school. It was predominantly white middle-class conservative students and families. My school was the opposite of diversity. When we learned about black history it was because we had the only black teacher (and person of colour) on the teaching staff. We didn’t talk about race in the classroom and the only time I would hear about it would be from racist jokes or when the few “native” kids would joke around about their heritage. I learned what I knew on the internet. I am a naturally compassionate person so making the change from never talking about racial issues so learning a lot about it in university was easy for me, but very hard for some of my fellow classmates. “Why do we have to learn about indigenous stuff so much” or “I get it’s important but I’m sick of talking about it”.
I read the world as everyone was trying to tear down Christians because that’s what I was taught. Things like black lives matter, women’s rights, and homosexuality were posed as a threat to us. Now I still follow my faith but I view the world much differently. Some of the things that were said in the classroom by classmates and even by teachers make me sick looking back. I feel as though I now read the world with two sets of eyes, one from my past and one through a critical lens. having critical lenses is important to keep a healthy perspective and this will be beneficial to yourself and your students. as educators, it is essential that we give an equal opportunity for everyone’s stories to be told.
October 21st blog post:
in Ben Levin’s article “Curriculum Policy and the Politics of What Should Be Learned in Schools” he shares his political thought about how to create and teach school curriculum. Levin takes a very different idea of curriculum and how classrooms work than I do. Levin sees education as political decisions and policies, he defines curriculum as “an official statement of what students are expected to know and be able to do” (Levin, 2007). Whereas I see it as free but that is Maybe because I haven’t been in education long enough or because I’m not even a teacher yet. When I think of changing curriculum I think about righting wrongs as in taking out the whitewashing of history, modernizing curriculum as the world changes and we learn new things or making lessons easier for children as we find better ways to teach. Levin says: “Every education policy decision can be seen as being, in some sense, a political decision.” to some degree, depending on who you are as a person you could see something as treaty education as a major political move when someone as myself only sees it as evolving. He states his political decisions for education in five organizing categories: issues, actors, processes, influences, and results (Levin, 2007).
Something that stood out to me was when Levin says “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 2007). In my assignment 2, I read many articles about how sexual education, a topic that includes literally every person on the planet, was extremely hard to put into the curriculum and it was actually against the law in some places. So I can’t imagine treaty ed was easy to get it into the curriculum since some people still believe that treaties do not involve everyone. After reading the treaty ed curriculum it seems perfectly attainable for students to have a fairly deep understanding of treaties and FNMI content if the teacher and school system works diligently. As a future educator I believe it is important to remember how curriculum can be viewed as highly political so some but that shouldn’t scare us away from striving to make it better for our students.
We are all treaty people. If you live within one of the treaty’s then you are a treaty person. Its pretty simple. Regardless of how many or no indigenous students, the treaty affects all of us. If we use the logic of “we don’t have any indigenous students we don’t need to teach it” we should take a look at our curriculum and cut out a lot of our history lessons. we learn about American history even though most classrooms probably wouldn’t have American students. We shouldn’t limit our learning by who is in the class. It is very important to have education come from many different perspectives. If students grow up with a knowledge of the diverse population of Canada such as indigenous perspectives we will begin to undo harmful stereotypes, prejudice and colonization. Not teaching treaty ed sends the message that the treaties are not important, that indigenous ways of knowing aren’t important isn’t important and that only European knowledge is worth knowing. By teaching treaty, ed students will develop greater understanding, and perspective on the importance of indigenous culture and why we should have it within our schools. Treaty ed isn’t for the indigenous people, it is for the people of Canada.
I feel like I hear the phrase “we are all treaty people” almost every week in university. it is a simple concept to understand; if you live on treaty grounds guess what! you’re a treaty person. however, I think that we say it but don’t always think about how exactly that affects us as non-indigenous people. I went to a small school for K-12 and I think I learned about the treaty’s in grade 8 and from what I can remember we learned the bare bones of treaty ed. clearly none of our treaty ed stuck with us as none of my classmates can recall anything about the topic. never once were we given an indigenous based lesson, craft or anything else. now when I go into schools I hear ” we would like to acknowledge that we are on treaty 4 grounds” but is acknowledgement enough? understanding and teaching treaty education is a vital step in reconciliation that we as educators should make sure we are aiming for.
Reconciliation is telling the truth, apologizing and meaning it, and changing the future for the better. Without one of these 3 things, reconciliation will not happen. Hiding the truth invalidates survivors’ experiences and harms them. Not apologizing means not admitting fault and false apologies mean nothing. most importantly, if you don’t change your ways after you apologize, the cycle of hurting, apologizing and hurting again will just continue. In the article, it says: “decolonization as an act of resistance must not be limited to rejecting and transforming dominant ideas; it also depends on recovering and renewing traditional, non-commodified cultural patterns such as mentoring and intergenerational relationships.” Gruenewald (2003), paraphrasing Bowers (2001). Ignoring the treaty and dismissing the history of one people to shove in your own and make them like you is decolonization. Canada and Saskatchewan are supposed to be a “mosaic” although for a long time we as a country/province didn’t really do a great job of that. In today’s classroom, we as educators need to be mindful of decolonization when we teach our versions of history
A good student varies on the opinion of the teacher and location. In some countries students aren’t supposed to talk, only listen and test well. In the schooling environments that I’ve been in students are expected to contribute to the class discussion from a young age. If students don’t contribute and mingle with other classmates they are actually docked marks even if the student is extremely shy or has anxiety. A good student is quiet, but answers when called on. A good student sits still in their desk or chair and finished her assignment on time. A good student score 75+ on each test and assignment. A good student comes to class ready to learn, they are well-groomed and on time.
Students who are able to achieve these are usually well-liked by other students, staff and teachers and are trusted. Students who don’t follow these rules are usually deemed troubled and are watched and judged more harshly as their behaviour become habits. Students who are “good students” usually come for good homes and are supported with educated parent(s). These students probably don’t have a learning disability and learn easily.
Growing up I wasn’t a good student. I never studied, my assignments were late or poor and I frankly don’t care about school and just wanted to talk to my friends. However, I am a friendly and very personable person, my teaches loved me even though I was getting the lowest marks in the class. Even though I was absolute trash of a student I was treated very well and given a lot of extra help within school. I come from a good and educated home and had no excuse not to do well in school. Growing up I had many teachers try to label me as having a learning disability to explain why this “good kid” wasn’t being a good student.
On the other hand, I had a close friend in my class who worked very hard for her grades and was one of the smartest in the class but the teachers and staff were always suspicious of her. She is an immigrant, her parents don’t speak English and she didn’t talk in class or participate in a class or extracurricular activities. Staff would ask me if she was a lesbian or if she hated everyone. They called her a vampire and grown men called her intimidating. My friend was a good student to the school on paper but because they didn’t like her as a person she never got that title of a good student.
In our last year of high school my friend opened up a little and staff got to know her and it was only then when she received that kind treatment that I and the other students got.
Students shouldn’t have to change themselves to seem worthy to staff and as educators, we should think critically of the term “good students”.
For my critical summary, I have decided to focus on the topic of sex education in the curriculum. this topic is interesting to me because I feel although I had a unique expense with sex ed. I went to a small Christian high school where we learned “sex ed” once a year for about a week starting in grade 4 to grade 12. depending on what teacher you had your week of sex ed could be a welcome space with lots of learning or it could be a scary fear-mongering tactic used by teachers to scare us into celibacy.
In grade 12 I took bio 30 and we spent a full unit on sex education. my teacher took his time and created a safe space for all his students to learn about our bodies and ask questions. we learned all the names and parts of our reproduction system to different types of birth controls and their effectivity. I already knew a lot of the material but I knew a good few of my classmates were very sheltered and knew very little. for the most part, I knew my class left with a decent amount of knowledge. most of the topics we covered were in the curriculum so it surprised me when my best friend told me that her class covered very very little about sex ed in her school. if it’s in the curriculum how did her teacher just skip it? even though I went to a Christian school we learned about evolution, something most Christians don’t believe in, because it was in the curriculum.
in my research so far I have come across a few articles about people advocating for better sexual education. I want to know if there is material in sask curriculum for sex ed that is good and teachers are just choosing to overlook it or if there is little to no material.
I found a Saskatoon article with a lot of resources of sex ed and how to teach it, I am going to use a few of these to write my critical analysis.
The Ignorant Schoolmaster takes a modern stance on the idea of the teacher in the classroom. This article has caused me to rethink my ideas of what a teacher should be like for my future as an educator and to think critically about the lasting impressions that I will leave on my students. Ranciere’s Rationale teaches many valuable lessons that I, as a future educator, need to keep in judgment in my attitude of office.
This article reminded me that the traditional ideas of school being a brick building with uniforms and books is from European civilization. Just because this system of school is the most common in the western world doesn’t mean that it is the best. The structure, roles, and expectations of school today have been mostly determined by the colonizers of North America, who did not require other ways of knowing under consideration. Student’s ability to be able to teach themselves has decreased because they are being ignored by educators who think their way is better.
The second part of the article that stood out to me was the suppressive thought process that many teachers that many teachers have fresh out of university, a Eurocentric institution. Teachers decide they are the ultimate authority leaving little room for discussion for students with other teaching ideas. The most frustrating thing as a student was having teachers who could never admit that they were wrong. Whether it be in a math question or a discussion these teachers would just grit their teeth rather than admit a mistake. If you cannot admit you’re wrong ever you have no humility and your student will never respect you. Of course, it is ideal to maintain an orderly classroom with everything under control many teachers get a power trip over this and is to “rule” over the classroom. Or the teacher that finds joy in knowing that they are smarter than their students and watching them struggle, it is wrong and the opposite attitude of what a teacher should have.
The biggest take away I have from Ranciere’s Rational is for the equality of intelligence. School should be a place where students are always given the opportunity to feel safe to share their ideas. The Eurocentric system has taught students for hundreds of years that those who achieve high grades are smart and worthy of a good life, and those who do not are dumb and don’t deserve any recognition. This is significant because countless people that I have met in my life have said something to “I would pursue post-secondary but I was dumb in high school so I won’t” and that’s just not acceptable. Everyone is intelligent in their own ways and the purpose of an educator is to celebrate uniqueness in the classroom.
I currently volunteer at my church the Regina Apostolic in the nursery Monday mornings with the 1-2-year-olds.
In grades 10, 11, 12 I was a part of an Inner City Missions team with my school that worked with multiple elementary schools around Regina. We would play games and spend time with the kids a couple times month getting to know them and building relationships.
2012-2014 I worked as a Leader in Training at my camp Kedleston Gospel camp. A leader in training helps out in cabins with the kids and assists the counselors