Curriculum decisions affect every student—shaping what knowledge is transmitted, what skills are developed, what perspectives are normalized. Yet most people rarely think about who makes these decisions or how they're made. Curriculum authority is distributed across multiple levels: provinces set frameworks, school boards adapt them, teachers interpret them in classrooms. Various stakeholders seek influence—educators, parents, communities, politicians, employers, publishers. Understanding this decision-making landscape—who has power, who should have power, and how different interests are balanced—matters for anyone concerned about educational content.
Provincial Curriculum Authority
Education in Canada is constitutionally provincial jurisdiction. Provincial and territorial ministries hold primary authority over curriculum—setting what must be taught, defining expected outcomes, approving materials, and establishing assessment frameworks. This provincial authority creates 13 distinct curriculum systems across Canada, with varying content, approaches, and emphases.
Curriculum development processes vary by province but typically involve ministry staff, advisory committees, and various forms of consultation. Teacher input, expert review, and stakeholder consultation occur to varying degrees. The balance between professional educator input and political direction varies; some provinces give educators significant influence while others maintain tighter political control.
Political influence shapes curriculum through ministerial authority. Education ministers set directions; political priorities affect what gets attention. Changes in government can bring curriculum changes reflecting different ideological commitments. Curriculum thus becomes politically contested, with different governments pursuing different educational visions.
School Board and School Level
School boards operate within provincial frameworks but have some discretion. They may develop local curriculum supplements, set priorities within provincial requirements, and make implementation decisions that affect what curriculum means in practice. The degree of board discretion varies by province; some allow considerable local adaptation while others mandate close adherence to provincial curriculum.
Principals and administrators affect curriculum through school-level decisions. Resource allocation, timetabling, support for professional development, and emphasis priorities all shape how curriculum is implemented. Two schools following the same provincial curriculum may provide quite different educational experiences based on administrative decisions.
Teachers have significant discretion in curriculum implementation. Within framework requirements, teachers choose how to teach, which examples to use, how much time to spend on different topics, and what emphasis to give various elements. This teacher discretion means students experience curriculum through teachers' interpretations—for better or worse.
Stakeholder Influence
Teachers bring professional expertise to curriculum but don't control it. Teacher federations and professional organizations advocate for curriculum approaches reflecting educational expertise. Individual teachers influence implementation. But teachers don't set provincial curriculum frameworks; they work within frameworks others determine.
Parents have limited formal influence but exercise informal pressure. Parent concerns about curriculum—whether wanting more rigorous content, objecting to certain topics, or seeking different approaches—affect political pressure that shapes curriculum decisions. Organized parent advocacy can be influential, though parent voice is unevenly distributed by resources and organization.
Employers and economic interests advocate for curriculum serving economic needs. Business groups push for skills training, financial literacy, and workforce preparation. These economic interests have significant access to policy-makers and influence curriculum emphasis—though whether their influence is appropriate is debated.
Publishers and technology providers shape curriculum through materials they develop. Textbooks, digital resources, and educational technology translate curriculum frameworks into what teachers and students actually use. Decisions publishers make about content, examples, and approach affect curriculum as much as official frameworks.
Advocacy groups seek curriculum changes reflecting their interests. Indigenous organizations advocate for decolonized curriculum. LGBTQ+ advocates seek inclusive content. Anti-racism advocates push for diverse representation. Conservative groups advocate for traditional content. These various advocates compete for curriculum influence.
Contested Questions
Who should decide curriculum is itself contested. Democratic perspectives suggest public voice through elected representatives should control curriculum. Professional perspectives argue educators should lead curriculum decisions based on expertise. Community perspectives claim those affected should determine what their children learn. These different claims to authority don't easily reconcile.
National versus local control presents tension. Should curriculum be consistent across the country, ensuring students everywhere learn common content? Or should local communities determine what's taught to their children? Canada's provincial jurisdiction represents one resolution, but within provinces similar tensions exist between provincial standardization and local variation.
Expert versus democratic authority creates another tension. Curriculum involves both technical questions (what pedagogical approaches work?) and value questions (what knowledge matters?). Experts may have special standing on technical questions; democratic processes may be more appropriate for value questions. Distinguishing these question types and assigning authority accordingly isn't straightforward.
Whose interests should curriculum serve raises fundamental questions. Students' developmental interests? Future employers' workforce needs? Communities' cultural preservation? Society's democratic development? These interests may conflict; curriculum serving one may disserve another. Whose interests take priority reflects values that different stakeholders hold differently.
Transparency and Accountability
Curriculum decision-making often lacks transparency. How are decisions made? What inputs are considered? Why are certain choices made rather than others? These questions often can't be answered by those outside the process. This opacity prevents informed public engagement with curriculum governance.
Accountability for curriculum outcomes is diffuse. If curriculum fails to serve students well, who is responsible? Provincial ministries set frameworks; boards implement them; teachers deliver them; multiple factors affect results. This diffuse accountability means no one is clearly responsible when things go wrong.
Public engagement with curriculum is limited. Most people don't participate in curriculum consultations; most wouldn't know how if they wanted to. When curriculum becomes publicly controversial—as with sex education or Indigenous content—engagement spikes, but ordinary curriculum development proceeds with minimal public awareness or input.
Reform Possibilities
Greater transparency could enable informed engagement. Publishing curriculum decision processes, consultation inputs, and rationales for choices would enable public understanding of how curriculum is made. Whether greater transparency would improve outcomes or just create more conflict is uncertain.
Broader participation could bring more voices into curriculum development. Expanded consultation, participatory processes, and diverse representation on curriculum committees could diversify whose perspectives shape content. Managing broader participation while maintaining coherent curriculum presents challenges.
Clearer allocation of authority could reduce confusion. Specifying which levels decide which aspects—provincial frameworks, board implementation, teacher discretion—could clarify responsibilities. However, clear boundaries might not match the complexity of educational decisions that span levels.
Questions for Reflection
Who decided what you learned in school? Did you know then? Do you know now?
Who should have most influence over curriculum—elected officials, professional educators, parents, communities, or others? How should different voices be balanced?
How should curriculum decisions handle contested topics where different communities have different values? Whose values should prevail?
What would more transparent, participatory curriculum decision-making look like? What would be gained and lost compared to current approaches?
How would you want to be involved in curriculum decisions affecting your children or community?