Standardized Curriculum: Annotated Bibliography

Baker, P.B., & Digiovanni, L.W. (2005). Narratives on culturally relevant pedagogy: Personal

responses to the standardized curriculum. Current Issues in Education, 8(22). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1611

The authors write about their views on standardized curriculum, and “through the use of narratives, [they have found] culturally relevant ways of applying curriculum to previous knowledge,” (p. 1). Baker and Digiovanni break down the issues that are being caused by the growing discharge of standardized curriculum such as the “decline of multicultural education,” (p. 1). This is one of the stronger points I will be including into my paper. They mention how standardized curriculum limits not only teachers, but more importantly, the students as well. With growing non-white populations, the authors discuss the harm that will continue to affect students, and end with solutions that include more than just awareness.

The authors did an excellent job with informing the readers with not only information about the effects standardized curriculum has, but provided steps we can take to make change actually happen.

They outline the publication well and continue throughout the text to inform readers how to work around the “script” educators are given and are not to stray away from to be able to meet the needs of the students, while maintaining a culturally relevant pedagogy. They incorporate studies from authors we have looked at in class as well with powerful quotes that fit into the text well like, “Good intentions and awareness are not enough to bring about the changes needed in educational programs,” (Geneva Gay,

2000).

Delpit, L. (2003). Educators as "Seed People" Growing a New Future. Educational Researcher,

32(7), 14-21.

Delpit writes that “educators must look beyond standardized test scores and scripted instructional programs in order to educate all children,” (p. 2). She also mentions that in order to engage our students, we must connect with them, and to start doing that, we must cease tracking. Delpit’s message is that educators “prepare the ground and plant the seeds of the future” - the students. She finds that we find more importance in test scores and meeting standards now and no meaningful learning is happening. Delpit suggests looking at African American pedagogical systems for teachers to search for “intellect… humanity, and the spirituality in their students”.

The author writes a sophisticated piece on stepping outside of the business institution of education for educators to provide more meaningful learning to their students. She lists ways she believes students can get the most out of their education with a cultural curriculum. Delpit does a wonderful job providing example from a culture that is not seen here in America to provide us with ways of connecting with our students.

Landsman, J., & Gorski, P. (2007). Countering Standardization. Educational Leadership, 64(8),

40-44.

The authors similarly believe that there is too much focus on test scores, like Delpit. They write about how narrow the curriculum is and how educators are scripted to teach to it, which puts students of all identities at a disadvantage. The authors challenge the myths that policymakers believe makes an “enriching” curriculum for all students, such as “tracking by ability promotes achievement,” (p. 1). One of the five myths they debunk is “the arts, recess, physical education, and second languages are frills,” (p. 2), and say we should counter them with “common sense” and new perspectives.

Landsman and Gorski use a wide variety of evidence to support their claims. They section off the five myths they discuss and go into detail about why they are complete misconceptions. The authors make strong points and demands to fight for the education all students deserve by providing readers with plans of action to counter the myths.

Shanks, J. (1994). Student Reactions to a Standardized Curriculum: A Case Study. 10(1),

43-59.

Shanks writes about the negative reactions students had from the transition to a standardized curriculum. She emphasizes how students quickly find disinterest in things they do not find relevant and how educators are deprofessionalize by “the script”. Shanks compares a variety of ethnographic research that studied curriculum in the different schools and how it was based around things such as social class, culture, and value of education, for example. Similarly, she writes about how the curriculum affects student performance, which is another big point I will be including in my paper, and the teachers’ fight against it when they saw the damage it was to create for their students.

Overall, Shanks does a good job with sharing ethnographic research by a variety of people on the effects of curriculum by a variety of factors. It gave the readers background information that helped the rest of the text come together when she introduced her ethnographic research. It was a good transition, ending with how we as teachers can go beyond the limitations standardized curriculums give educators and students.

Sleeter, C., & Stillman, J. (2005). Standardizing Knowledge in a Multicultural Society.

Curriculum Inquiry, 35(1), 27-46.

Sleeter writes about Basil Bernstein’s theory of codes of power in curriculum and how it “ is not simply about trying to improve student learning, but more important, about reasserting who has a right to define what schools are for, whose knowledge has most legitimacy, and how the next generation should think about the social order and their place within it.” She writes about the history that the educational system has seen in terms of curriculum. Using Bernstein’s work, Sleeter analyzes two different disciplinary knowledge constructs. For this she runs a curriculum content analysis on California standards, which is said that they have “led the nation's standards movement by drafting curriculum frameworks in the early 1980s,” (p. 7).

Sleeter does an amazing job providing readers with as much information we need to really comprehend the research she conducted, making the text easier for all audiences to read. She works out a perfect format, where we are introduced to terms that are going to frequent in the reading, provides a well explained history, and her research by Bernstein’s framework.