Being of Trouble and of Use to Education: Undoing the Romance of Theory Into Practice

Abstract

In the current moment of accountability, curriculum studies has much to offer in terms of helping to address both the productive effects and unfortunate failures of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 1 in U.S. classrooms. Though the intentions of this historic federal educational policy were to raise overall achievement of all students and close the achievement gap between minority and high-poverty students and their White, affluent counterparts, the policy appears to constrain its very intentions and negatively harm those disadvantaged and minority students it intended to help the most (Darling-Hammond, 2007;Gay, 2007).Many researchers argue that NCLB perpetuates rather than resolves educational inequality. From this viewpoint, testing culture promotes a narrowed curriculum, focused on low-level skills and high-stakes test "training," replacing rich critical inquiry and maximum potential with rote memorization and minimum expectations governed by the testing regime which undermines teachers, students, and schools. Testing and accountability provide strong incentives to exclude or ignore low-performing students and have led to an increase, rather than decrease, in the dropout rate. Public shaming, intimidation, and punishment experienced through the labeling of failing schools and the resulting reduction in funding and incentives to these needy programs not only demoralize the teachers themselves, but also reduce the ability of schools and districts to attract and retain high-quality educators, another intended goal of the bill (Darling-Hammond, 2007;Gay, 2007;Hursh, 2007).The title under review in this essay approaches these failures and begins to answer what has been for me an important overarching question when doing research in schools: How has our understanding of what counts as teaching and learning been resituated by the "twin banners of 'standards' and 'accountability' " (Taubman, 2009), and how have these directly affected curriculum and pedagogy in the classroom? Taubman attempts to critically analyze how U.S. educators have come to comply with the reforms under NCLB when most recognize and abhor not only the contradictions of the legislation but also the continued perpetuation of inequality. I want to use this review then to elaborate the understandings generated by Taubman in answer to these questions, the gaps it crosses and fills, and questions it raises.

Discourse studies and the material turn: From representation (facts) to participation (concerns)

“…However, Iedema's was not just a »troubling« but a »useful« discourse study (cf. Childers 2009). Childers regards feminist approaches as a general way to focus on becoming, materiality and critical engagement, and uses especially Barad in her studies (Childers 2013).…”