Scripted and Narrowed Curriculum Reform in Urban Schools

Abstract

In many urban schools, teachers are expected to rely on predetermined, scripted curriculum materials to shape their instructional practices rather than on their own professional judgment. Although with adequate support, development, and training, teachers can develop and enact rational curricular and instructional decisions in the classroom for student learning (McCutcheon, 2002;Milner, 2010a), too many teachers are not well prepared to make such decisions for a range of reasons. For example, alternative, fast-track teacher "education" programs such as Teach for America (TFA) make it necessary for scripted, narrowed curriculum because some of these teachers are not prepared to make rational, appropriate, and responsive curricular decisions in the classroom with students (Darling-Hammond, 1994;Vasquez Heilig & Jez, 2010). The reason for teachers' inability to make decisions without a script is likely a consequence of both their preparation and the amount of time they have been in the field of teaching (Vasquez Heilig & Jez, 2010). Moreover, traditional teacher education programs have not fared well either in preparing teachers to teach and make curricular decisions for student learning in highly diverse and urban environments (Milner, 2010b;Sleeter, 2001;Zeichner, 2006)-further exacerbating the press for scripted and narrowed curriculum.When teachers are underprepared, scripted and narrowed curriculum is seen as the means to help them know what to teach, when to teach it, and how. This line of thinking suggests that because teachers have not "gotten it right" in the past or because they do not have the knowledge and skill to teach effectively, they need guidance. Teaching guided by scripted and narrowed curriculum is seen as technical work as teachers are not necessarily expected to study what their students know and need to know because the curriculum is predetermined and preassembled. Unfortunately, urban schools-often those serving African American and Latino American students, those living in poverty, and those whose first language is not English-are heavily populated with underprepared teachers. Consequently, students in these environments experience scripted, narrowed curriculum more often than do those in other sociocultural contexts, such as suburban schools (Darling-Hammond, 2010). In their policy analysis, King and Zucker (2005) maintained that part of the impetus to narrow the curriculum 549685U EXXXX10.

Teaching for Social Justice and the Common Core

“…Although partici‐pants in this study were all teaching in public school classrooms where they were required to meet local and national accountability mandates, they also had the autonomy to design a curriculum according to their professional interests and expertise. This is not the case for all teachers, as districts increasingly rely on a standardized curriculum narrowly tailored to high‐stakes exams (Milner, ).…”

“…Contemporary teachers are subject to a growing array of accountability mandates, resulting in increased pressure to focus narrowly on tested content and skills (Milner, ). For language arts and literacy teachers, this creates a paradox in which there is more time allotted for literacy instruction but teachers have less autonomy to develop and implement a curriculum that reflects their professional vision and localized assessment of students' needs (Burns, ).…”

Writing Instruction for Adolescents in the Shadow of the Common Core State Standards

“…Of course, teachers will also need to be trained on the Common Core. In order for students to reach their highest potentials, teachers must have sufficient knowledge of how to teach across the Standards to address student needs (Milner, ).…”

Drawing out the value of the visual: children and young people theorizing time through art and narrative

“…These trends in Australia are echoes of similar trends in other parts of the world, leading to what has been termed 'policy borrowing' (Lingard, 2010), influenced by the globalized, neoliberal policy climate (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). Many educational researchers have noted commonalities in this policy-borrowing pattern, including: (a) greater focus on English literacy and numeracy in the curriculum at the expense of other subjects and hence, various forms of narrowing of the curriculum (Berliner, 2011;Darling-Hammond, 2010;Milner, 2013;Stobart, 2008); (b) reliance on standardized tests to compare and rank students, teachers and schools (Lingard, 2010;Smeed, 2010); (c) reduced trust in teacher autonomy and judgement (Crocco & Costigan, 2007;Macedo, 2013); and (d) strengthening of human capital discourse in discussions about the purposes of schooling (Comber & Nixon, 2009;Lingard, 2010). Of particular interest in relation to the work that we present in this article, is the effects of a narrowing of curriculum on the opportunities that students have to theorize and philosophize using a variety of 'literacies' or modes of communication, including the graphic and narrative.…”