Perspectives and perceptions of The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following people for being our generous respondents: Laurie Bennett, research and policy analyst at the Colorado Foundation for Families and Children; Hilary Burg, doctoral student, University of Denver; David Callejo Pérez, associate professor, West Virginia University; Cos Fi, assistant professor, University of Iowa; B. Mark Francis, doctoral student, University of Denver; Brent Graham, assistant principal, Boulder Valley Public Schools; Kelly Gruebnau, teacher candidate, University of Iowa; Peter Hlebowitsh, professor, University of Iowa; Anita Martin, graduate student, University of Iowa; Amy Masko, assistant professor, Grand Valley State University; Carolyn Mears, research fellow, University of Denver; Gerardo Muñoz, Denver Center for International Studies, Denver Public Schools; and Soonhye Park, assistant professor, University of Iowa. We appreciate their thorough and thoughtful written responses and wish we could have included more of their insights. We would also like to heartily thank Caitlin Lindquist and Shannon Burgert for their tireless efforts with the quantitative aspects of this review. Notes 1. We included five professors of education (of all ranks), five practitioners (teachers, school administrators, non‐profit personnel), and four students (three doctoral students and one undergraduate teacher candidate). Of the 13, seven are female and six are male; seven are white and six are persons of colour. 2. Due to space limitations we are unable to provide thorough discussion of each chapter. Instead we tried to provide points of interest so that readers of this essay review would then read the Handbook itself. 3. In their chapter, ‘What schools teach: a social: history of the American curriculum since 1950’ (Ch. 23), Franklin and Johnson are concerned about the end of the curriculum field as we have traditionally known it (p. 473). 4. Admittedly, our biases may show here. Uhrmacher has taught in alternative types of schools in the US and has dedicated much of his scholarship to understanding what can be learned from alternative schooling (in particular, see Uhrmacher (1997 Uhrmacher, P. B. 1997. Evaluating change: strategies for borrowing from alternative education. Theory Into Practice, 36(2): 71–78. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) in the theme issue of Theory Into Practice, ‘Exploring the margins: Lessons from alternative schools’, and Uhrmacher (1993 Uhrmacher, P. B. 1993. Coming to know the world through Waldorf education. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 9(1): 87–104. [Google Scholar])). 5. The years 1993–2002 were derived by searching JSTOR. The years 2003–2007 were derived by examining Blackwell/Synergy. 6. The years 1993–2007 were derived by searching Informaworld.com and the tables of contents for each issue. 7. Such as Cochran‐Smith and Demers' chapter on teacher education (Ch. 13), ‘Teacher education as a bridge: unpacking curricular controversies’; Craig and Ross' chapter on teachers as curriculum developers (Ch. 14), ‘Cultivating the image of teachers as curriculum makers’; and several chapters discussing policy (see especially Ch. 1, ‘Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools’ by Levin, Ch. 3, ‘Making curricula: why do states make curricula, and how?’ by Westbury, and Ch. 20, ‘Curriculum policy research’ by Short).