Scripted and Narrowed Curriculum Reform in Urban Schools

Urban Education

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 163-170

  Milner, H Richard ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

curriculum; equity; instruction; narrowed curriculum; policy; reform; scripted curriculum; teacher deprofessionalization; teacher professionalization; teaching; urban schools

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875102412     PISSN: 00420859     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0042085913478022     Document Type: Editorial

References (22)

1. Apple M. W.Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in education. New York, NY: Routledge; 1986:.
2. Au W.Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum.Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2011;43 (1): 25-45.
3. Banks J. A.Teaching literacy for social justice and global citizenship.Language Arts. 2003;81 (1): 18-19.
4. Cawelti G.The side effects of NCLB.Educational Leadership. 2006;64 (3): 64-68.
5. Crocco M. S.,Costigan A. T.The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability: Urban educators speak out.Urban Education. 2007;42:512-535.
6. Darling-Hammond L.Who will speak for our children? How "Teach for America" hurts urban schools and students.Phi Delta Kappan. 1994;76 (1): 21-34.
7. Darling-Hammond L.The flat world and education. New York: Teachers College Press; 2010:.
8. Ede A.Scripted curriculum: Is it a prescription for success?.Childhood Education. 2006;83 (1): 29-32.
9. JeraldC. D. (2006). The hidden costs of curriculum narrowing. Washington, DCThe Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerforcsri.org/files/CenterIssueBriefAug06.pdf.
10. King K. V.,Zucker S.Curriculum narrowing. San Antonio: Pearson Education; 2005:.
11. MathisW. (2012). Research-based options for education policymaking. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/pb-options-2-commcore-final.pdf.
12. McCutcheon G.Developing the curriculum: Solo and group deliberation. Troy, NY: Educators' Press International; 2002:.
13. Milner H. R.Start where you are but don't stay there: Understanding diversity, opportunity gaps, and teaching in today's classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press; 2010a:.
14. Milner H. R.What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for diversity studies.Journal of Teacher Education. 2010b;60 (1/2): 118-131.
15. Secada W. G.Agenda setting, enlightened self-interest, and equity in mathematics education.Peabody Journal of Education. 1989;66 (2): 22-56.
16. Shulman L.S.Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.Harvard Educational Review. 1987;19 (2): 4-14.
17. Sleeter C. E.Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools. Research and the overwhelming presence of Whiteness.Journal of Teacher Education. 2001;52 (2): 94-106.
18. Smagorinsky P.,Lakly A.,Johnson T. S.Acquiescence, accommodation, and resistance in learning to teach within a prescribed curriculum.English Education. 2002;34:187-211.
19. SrikantaiahD. (2009). How state and federal accountability policies have influenced curriculum and instruction in three states: Common findings from Rhode Island, Illinois, and Washington. Washington DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cepdc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=217.
20. Tate W. F.Geography of opportunity: Poverty, place, and educational outcomes.Educational Researcher. 2008;37:397-411.
21. Vasquez HeiligJ.JezS. J. (2010). Teach for America: A review of the evidence. Boulder, CO: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/teach-for-america.
22. Zeichner K.Reflections of a university-based teacher educator on the future of college-and university-based teacher education.Journal of Teacher Education. 2006;57:326-340.