this week the readings considered the question of a Canadian curriculum theory, and what it means to theorize about curriculum, place and identity in this heterogeneous geographical space, where our individual histories converge in “common ground” that, as Chambers writes, ought to inspire a sense of “worthwhile labour” (p. 35). Now, it is obvious that we all have a very different history with this space, and its pasts that persist in the present. Indeed, for some of us, our time in Canada may be less than a year! Instead of referring, then, to what it might mean, or not mean, to be Canadian, I’m hoping you can focus your posts this week on the question of the “commons” as a kind of curriculum, and what, in relation to nation, space and history, “calls [you] to renew [your] relationships with one another, … to renew [your] commitment to what we have in common, to [your] stake in the world and its survival, upon which our own depends” (p. 30). Some questions you may want to consider this week are (and remember, these are all just suggestions … if you want to pursue a different area feel more than free!): · What kind of continuity do you see between the readings the past two weeks? How do the considerations you explored last week play into Ng-A-Fook’s and Chamber’s stories of Canadian curriculum? · When it comes to the role that place (and nation and histories, contested and situated) may play in our development of curriculum as both an individual and social phenomena, what might it mean to be “a curriculum listener” (Ng-A-Fook, 2014, p. 42). · What might you read as some of the problems of thinking about curriculum in relation to national identity? How do the authors this week address the question of who is–and is not–included within the dominant narratives of Canadian history and identity? As Chambers (2012) notes, “We show our children what to believe and how to believe when they are very young” (p. 26). How does the concept of the “commons” (as expressed by Chambers) relate to generational inheritance, and where, as educators (or as parents), we point in the granting of significance? In relation to your own upbringing, or experiences with a geography, neighbourhood or city (maybe even Edmonton!), how can you answer Chambers’ question, “What are the living literacies of this place?” (p. 33). Or, alternatively, how is the commons “kept alive” (p. 34) in your life, your family, your land, your education? What is the significance of this aliveness for curriculum theory?