How much is too much? Refining normative evaluations of prescriptive curriculum

Abstract

As the disruptive effects of COVID-19 on education have prompted conversations about remedial learning and learning recovery, the expectation is increasingly that schools are more productive in less time. This raises concerns regarding potential increase in the use of prescriptive curricula. While critiques regarding the usage of such curricula abound, the lack of clarity about what it is that these curricula do and how they impact instructional processes render critiques too coarse-grained to be of value in both normative evaluations and remedial efforts. To resolve this problem, the authors provide a framework that analyzes what prescriptive curricula entail and how they impact teaching and learning. The framework postulates that prescriptiveness occurs along five dimensions and is a matter of degree along each of these. Subtle differences between how these dimensions and degrees of prescription materialize in individual curricula matter for formulating both targeted critiques about what makes such curricula objectionable and for developing adequate and feasible remedies to undo the harmful effects of prescriptive curricula.