*** This is for a link to my Glogster for a USC Course*** A look into some of my work:0
![]()
Those that created the geography curriculum for Rwanda are focused on development-, industrialization, population issues/healthcare AIDS, urbanization and agriculture. It seems they are promoting that Rwanda is/should be on a path towards development and can begin to be compared to other nations within these same realms. Students are taught to evaluate other nations according to such levels of development, as well. Development theory, with the goal of being able to be compared to large, developed nations such as America, Brazil, China and Japan is central to this curriculum. Westernized education system/methods can also be identified in how the standards (years/chapters) and academic goals are laid out. It was surprising that environmental issues were not mentioned, and globalized communication was not identified within Rwanda’s geography curriculum. These two concepts would seemingly be important to a rising, developing nation looking to become engaged with other African nations and countries of North America, Asia and Europe.
Rwanda’s History Curriculum: The voice of the Other is somewhat focused on in an early traditional sense. In some of the historic pieces dealing with Belgium, resistance and rebellions are mentioned as well as ethnic divisions. Personal narratives, such as was used by Subreenduth would be powerful tools to use in teaching through the conflicts. The voice of the Other in regards to colonialism/imperialism is not clearly evident in regards to other African nations. Global systems of trade, imperialism and colonialism are addressed. The negatives or cultural affects are not mentioned as a topic of discourse, however. Those who made this curriculum requests that students do make traditional and cultural identifications with Rwanda and the African continent as the “cradle of humanity”. Yet with the introduction of Europe and America focused on the Enlightenment- it seems that this curriculum promotes them (America and Europe)- as the “enlightened” nations- that take control over Africa’s humanity. There is room for debating the pros/cons of imperialism and the ramifications there of, but that is not mentioned in these standards. Possibly those who made this curriculum do not wish for students to engage in that type of inquiry. The worldview of Africa being the heart of humanity but Europe and America being the “enlightened” ones is evident. Also a world view of evaluating history through war and rulers, as opposed to localized cultures, arts, and customs is evident.
Question? Is there a tie UNICEF’s MDG in this curriculum? At the beginning of the document it is mentioned that it was created for Vision 2020, as a Strategy of the Reduction of Poverty Strategic Plan o f Education 2015. This seems to tie into the MDG language and that of development theory.
Education, Recovery and Development: RWANDA AND UNICEF
Those that created the geography curriculum for Rwanda are focused on development-, industrialization, population issues/healthcare AIDS, urbanization and agriculture. It seems they are promoting that Rwanda is/should be on a path towards development and can begin to be compared to other nations within these same realms. Students are taught to evaluate other nations according to such levels of development, as well. Development theory, with the goal of being able to be compared to large, developed nations such as America, Brazil, China and Japan is central to this curriculum. Westernized education system/methods can also be identified in how the standards (years/chapters) and academic goals are laid out. It was surprising that environmental issues were not mentioned, and globalized communication was not identified within Rwanda’s geography curriculum. These two concepts would seemingly be important to a rising, developing nation looking to become engaged with other African nations and countries of North America, Asia and Europe.
Rwanda’s History Curriculum: The voice of the Other is somewhat focused on in an early traditional sense. In some of the historic pieces dealing with Belgium, resistance and rebellions are mentioned as well as ethnic divisions. Personal narratives, such as was used by Subreenduth would be powerful tools to use in teaching through the conflicts. The voice of the Other in regards to colonialism/imperialism is not clearly evident in regards to other African nations. Global systems of trade, imperialism and colonialism are addressed. The negatives or cultural affects are not mentioned as a topic of discourse, however. Those who made this curriculum requests that students do make traditional and cultural identifications with Rwanda and the African continent as the “cradle of humanity”. Yet with the introduction of Europe and America focused on the Enlightenment- it seems that this curriculum promotes them (America and Europe)- as the “enlightened” nations- that take control over Africa’s humanity. There is room for debating the pros/cons of imperialism and the ramifications there of, but that is not mentioned in these standards. Possibly those who made this curriculum do not wish for students to engage in that type of inquiry. The worldview of Africa being the heart of humanity but Europe and America being the “enlightened” ones is evident. Also a world view of evaluating history through war and rulers, as opposed to localized cultures, arts, and customs is evident.
Question? Is there a tie UNICEF’s MDG in this curriculum? At the beginning of the document it is mentioned that it was created for Vision 2020, as a Strategy of the Reduction of Poverty Strategic Plan o f Education 2015. This seems to tie into the MDG language and that of development theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment