Reimagining the Urban:
There were a variety of points that struck me when reading Beverly-Jean Daniel's, "Reimagining the Urban: A Canadian Perspective". One point that was especially pertinent for me is the misconception of "urban" schools, as dangerous, ruthless environments, appropriated through American content. Content that is far more available and numerous than Canadian content.
I thought it was interesting that more points of contention and thus animosity seem to be evolving in Suburban schools as their is a broader range of socio-economic and cultural variables at play amongst students. Especially due to lower income level families, being pushed out of "urban" areas through economic pressures, generated through the development of urban neighbourhoods.
The statement that the idea of leadership is changing, due to the continual evolution of Canadian demographics through immigration was also interesting. That leadership is becoming less hierarchical and more so collaborative, I think is not only due to the changing face of Canada but also to the information age and the open forums that have been facilitated through the internet.
"Where do I belong"
"Where do I belong" paints a disjointed picture of Canadian identity as a whole.
I think it only makes sense that the people of this country are as different as the environments they occupy. Canadians from the Yukon, and Canadians from Toronto will simply not share the same sentiments, because they do not share the same points of contention.
It is interesting that curriculum can be used as a tool to influence Canadian identity. A means of preparing Canadians of the future for the helm, so that they can navigate this globalized world, to the best of their abilities.
Chamberlain brings up a point about devising curriculum for students of this nation as a whole... and I have to say.. I'm not sure how deeply, such broad ranging input, can generate valuable output. I think the whole piece speaks to a paradox of contexts, and I wonder if broad ranging dogma could be more mind-numbing than impactful.
I think cohesion among Canadians is necessary and good to an extent, as we all share this country, and are all citizens of it, but from my experiences people as a whole do not have the desire to walk in the shoes of their neighbours, when they are preoccupied with their own concerns.
As the world becomes a more globalized place and markets are infiltrated world-wide the cost of preserving culture is rising. A ideological shift among, Canadians and government would need to occur to salvage, cultural and environmental authenticities within this nation.
There were a variety of points that struck me when reading Beverly-Jean Daniel's, "Reimagining the Urban: A Canadian Perspective". One point that was especially pertinent for me is the misconception of "urban" schools, as dangerous, ruthless environments, appropriated through American content. Content that is far more available and numerous than Canadian content.
I thought it was interesting that more points of contention and thus animosity seem to be evolving in Suburban schools as their is a broader range of socio-economic and cultural variables at play amongst students. Especially due to lower income level families, being pushed out of "urban" areas through economic pressures, generated through the development of urban neighbourhoods.
The statement that the idea of leadership is changing, due to the continual evolution of Canadian demographics through immigration was also interesting. That leadership is becoming less hierarchical and more so collaborative, I think is not only due to the changing face of Canada but also to the information age and the open forums that have been facilitated through the internet.
"Where do I belong"
"Where do I belong" paints a disjointed picture of Canadian identity as a whole.
I think it only makes sense that the people of this country are as different as the environments they occupy. Canadians from the Yukon, and Canadians from Toronto will simply not share the same sentiments, because they do not share the same points of contention.
It is interesting that curriculum can be used as a tool to influence Canadian identity. A means of preparing Canadians of the future for the helm, so that they can navigate this globalized world, to the best of their abilities.
Chamberlain brings up a point about devising curriculum for students of this nation as a whole... and I have to say.. I'm not sure how deeply, such broad ranging input, can generate valuable output. I think the whole piece speaks to a paradox of contexts, and I wonder if broad ranging dogma could be more mind-numbing than impactful.
I think cohesion among Canadians is necessary and good to an extent, as we all share this country, and are all citizens of it, but from my experiences people as a whole do not have the desire to walk in the shoes of their neighbours, when they are preoccupied with their own concerns.
As the world becomes a more globalized place and markets are infiltrated world-wide the cost of preserving culture is rising. A ideological shift among, Canadians and government would need to occur to salvage, cultural and environmental authenticities within this nation.