What do you think?
Democratic Curriculum Leadership: Critical Awareness to Pragmatic Artistry
This book provides educators with guidance on studying and practicing a curriculum problem solving artistry that is focused on deepening students’ subject matter understandings through democratic self and social understandings. The book begins with a discussion of seven principles of curriculum leadership, which provide a framework for the presentation of a theoretical platform that guides a four-phased process. The curriculum problem solving has four interrelated phases, and advice on studying and practicing each phase has been organized into separate chapters using a montage format incorporating inquiry prompts, supportive quotations, critical commentaries, practical tips, narrative illustrations, and study recommendations. There is a continuous recognition of the ways in which the four phases are folded into one another in highly interactive ways; hence, the problem solving approach is described as a fourfold process. The text concludes with an epilogue honoring the disciplined journey of understanding and the pursuit of professional virtues that are central to the cultivation of problem solving artistry. An ethical oath that was created by twenty Ohio teacher leaders serves as a collegial pledge to embrace this disciplinary commitment.
142 pages, Hardcover
Published March 7, 2018
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 14, 2018
This was VERY poorly edited, with an average of one misspelling/word confusion/incorrect verb tense per page. So many mistakes made it distracting when reading, especially given that this volume uses very specific jargon and flowery language. The content was - eh - not so convincing.
August 2, 2018
There is nothing a K-12 teacher appreciates more than people who are no longer working in K-12 schools (or never have at all) providing her with advice on how she should progress in her career. Henderson, et al. (2018) attempt to support their credibility by providing vague information on their collective experiences. The authors have “[t]wenty-seven years of action research in the context of three major transformative curriculum leadership and teacher leadership grants, as well as two Kent State University graduate courses” (p. 21). There is no further explanation of the grants’ purposes or the graduate courses. Readers are left to wonder if Henderson, et a. (2018) were students or professors in these courses and whether the grants supported K-12 schools. Instead, Henderson, et al. (2018) quickly transitioned to their holistic vision of education within the same paragraph.
Nowhere in the text do Henderson et al. (2018) include their K-12 experience, possibly because it is lacking. Henderson has never taught a course other than collegiate courses, according to his bio. If he has, he clearly did not find it necessary to mention in his book or anywhere on his website. Schneider, according to her CV, also has only held positions within collegiate education. Castner is the only author who was employed in a K-12 school, having worked as a public school kindergarten teacher for fifteen years. But he too left his position for teaching at a university. Though Henderson, et al. (2018) seem to desire to inspire K-12 teachers in their text, not one of them shares the point of view with those readers, which could be off-putting.
Even in their narrative examples of dialogue between colleagues throughout the text, the K-12 representation is inadequate. Dorothy and Cindy, the fictionalized characters whose dialogue attempt to represent what readers may have heard or could hear in professional collaboration, reflect the experience of the authors. They may have been a K-12 principal and teacher previously, but they both currently work for and represent a “College of Education,” leaving no current representatives of public school teachers (pp. 53-4). In addition to Dorothy and Cindy, readers are provided with the perspectives of “Jim,” “Dan,” and “Jen,” the more approachable, shortened names of the text’s authors who, as mentioned previously, also are missing collective, current K-12 experience.
Despite their lack of current experience as K-12 school employees, Henderson, et al. (2018) do acknowledge the ultimate power the administration has over teacher choice: “Administrators are the gatekeepers in the current standardized management cultures. Therefore, if teachers are going to have support to study and practice 3S pedagogy, they will need their administrators’ approval and proactive backing” (p. 31); however, though Henderson, et al. (2018) “[imagines] a critical mass of future teachers who are passionately pursuing” what they value in education, such as “vocational artistry,” the authors do not explain to readers how to effectively move from a personal professional awakening to proactive change in their schools when administrators have the final decision (p. 25). Instead, Henderson, et al. (2018) seem to have no answers for how to support this “critical mass” of teachers’ visions, advising readers that “if official administrative support is not forthcoming, teachers can still seek out small-scale, informal development opportunities” (p. 31).
As a K-12 teacher who has already sought out personal professional development (PD) opportunities, I argue that this recommendation is lacking. Unsatisfied with my administration’s obsession with standardized test scores over innovative teaching methods, I found multiple PD opportunities outside of my school, including a Folger Shakespeare workshop funded by the English Speaking Union and two National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Institutes. For weeks, I had some of the most meaningful, inspiring experiences with colleagues across the U.S. and excitedly brought my knowledge back to my school. But in the end, that was all it amounted to: Me implementing new techniques in my own classroom while administration kept promoting testing and my own colleagues had little interest in developing anything new. Ultimately, the techniques I garnered were not from a required, school sanctioned professional development day. Yes, there were some teachers and curriculum coaches who showed limited interest in what I had learned, but it was a far cry from sparking a professional awakening in others. When a teacher’s vision extends beyond the administration’s scope, the development will remain “small-scale,” especially when she has no resources outlining how she can move beyond her personal growth as an educator (p. 31).
Henderson, et al. (2018) also have a clear agenda against standardized testing, but how much experience have they had with it in its current form? Castner’s fifteen years as a kindergarten teacher was more than likely before Common Core was nationally rolled out, and Henderson and Schneider have never had current students who took standardized tests. While reading, the authors desire readers to contemplate “[h]ow precisely [. . .] test scores [are] valuable?” and if “standardized tests the best way to encourage and advance students’ democratic values? If not, what would be better ways to proceed?” (p. 4). But the issue never addressed is that, regardless if teachers have an “awakening” about the uselessness of these standardized tests, they really have little choice in whether they are promoted or not, that is, if they desire to keep their jobs. As previously referenced, Henderson, et al (2018) describe administrators as “the gatekeepers in the current standardized management cultures,” which supports the notion that teachers have little power in the world of standardized tests (p. 31); consequently, teachers reading this test may feel even more frustrated with their current situation than before they read.
The point of their negative rhetoric on the subject of standardized testing is to promote a professional awakening where “generative learners” can “navigate teaching in a culture of testing,” but are somehow able to “strive for balance” (p. 49). Yes, all those working in education desire a balance between testing and other forms of educational techniques, but after completing the book, it is clear that, like the actual teachers in public schools whose pay and job security may be tied to standardized test scores, Henderson, et al. (2018) merely have suggested “guidance” rather than clear paths to take, real-world examples, or solutions. In the beginning of their text, Henderson, et al. (2018) warn readers that “there are no easy answers on how to cultivate the problem-solving artistry [they] are advocating. Because the fourfold process is challenging and complex, the practical guidance [they] will be offering is not organized into a step-by-step format” (p. x). But their “practical” advice amounts to personal quests for professional improvement that are limited to the amount of approval they have from administration (p. 4).
Nowhere in the text do Henderson et al. (2018) include their K-12 experience, possibly because it is lacking. Henderson has never taught a course other than collegiate courses, according to his bio. If he has, he clearly did not find it necessary to mention in his book or anywhere on his website. Schneider, according to her CV, also has only held positions within collegiate education. Castner is the only author who was employed in a K-12 school, having worked as a public school kindergarten teacher for fifteen years. But he too left his position for teaching at a university. Though Henderson, et al. (2018) seem to desire to inspire K-12 teachers in their text, not one of them shares the point of view with those readers, which could be off-putting.
Even in their narrative examples of dialogue between colleagues throughout the text, the K-12 representation is inadequate. Dorothy and Cindy, the fictionalized characters whose dialogue attempt to represent what readers may have heard or could hear in professional collaboration, reflect the experience of the authors. They may have been a K-12 principal and teacher previously, but they both currently work for and represent a “College of Education,” leaving no current representatives of public school teachers (pp. 53-4). In addition to Dorothy and Cindy, readers are provided with the perspectives of “Jim,” “Dan,” and “Jen,” the more approachable, shortened names of the text’s authors who, as mentioned previously, also are missing collective, current K-12 experience.
Despite their lack of current experience as K-12 school employees, Henderson, et al. (2018) do acknowledge the ultimate power the administration has over teacher choice: “Administrators are the gatekeepers in the current standardized management cultures. Therefore, if teachers are going to have support to study and practice 3S pedagogy, they will need their administrators’ approval and proactive backing” (p. 31); however, though Henderson, et al. (2018) “[imagines] a critical mass of future teachers who are passionately pursuing” what they value in education, such as “vocational artistry,” the authors do not explain to readers how to effectively move from a personal professional awakening to proactive change in their schools when administrators have the final decision (p. 25). Instead, Henderson, et al. (2018) seem to have no answers for how to support this “critical mass” of teachers’ visions, advising readers that “if official administrative support is not forthcoming, teachers can still seek out small-scale, informal development opportunities” (p. 31).
As a K-12 teacher who has already sought out personal professional development (PD) opportunities, I argue that this recommendation is lacking. Unsatisfied with my administration’s obsession with standardized test scores over innovative teaching methods, I found multiple PD opportunities outside of my school, including a Folger Shakespeare workshop funded by the English Speaking Union and two National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Institutes. For weeks, I had some of the most meaningful, inspiring experiences with colleagues across the U.S. and excitedly brought my knowledge back to my school. But in the end, that was all it amounted to: Me implementing new techniques in my own classroom while administration kept promoting testing and my own colleagues had little interest in developing anything new. Ultimately, the techniques I garnered were not from a required, school sanctioned professional development day. Yes, there were some teachers and curriculum coaches who showed limited interest in what I had learned, but it was a far cry from sparking a professional awakening in others. When a teacher’s vision extends beyond the administration’s scope, the development will remain “small-scale,” especially when she has no resources outlining how she can move beyond her personal growth as an educator (p. 31).
Henderson, et al. (2018) also have a clear agenda against standardized testing, but how much experience have they had with it in its current form? Castner’s fifteen years as a kindergarten teacher was more than likely before Common Core was nationally rolled out, and Henderson and Schneider have never had current students who took standardized tests. While reading, the authors desire readers to contemplate “[h]ow precisely [. . .] test scores [are] valuable?” and if “standardized tests the best way to encourage and advance students’ democratic values? If not, what would be better ways to proceed?” (p. 4). But the issue never addressed is that, regardless if teachers have an “awakening” about the uselessness of these standardized tests, they really have little choice in whether they are promoted or not, that is, if they desire to keep their jobs. As previously referenced, Henderson, et al (2018) describe administrators as “the gatekeepers in the current standardized management cultures,” which supports the notion that teachers have little power in the world of standardized tests (p. 31); consequently, teachers reading this test may feel even more frustrated with their current situation than before they read.
The point of their negative rhetoric on the subject of standardized testing is to promote a professional awakening where “generative learners” can “navigate teaching in a culture of testing,” but are somehow able to “strive for balance” (p. 49). Yes, all those working in education desire a balance between testing and other forms of educational techniques, but after completing the book, it is clear that, like the actual teachers in public schools whose pay and job security may be tied to standardized test scores, Henderson, et al. (2018) merely have suggested “guidance” rather than clear paths to take, real-world examples, or solutions. In the beginning of their text, Henderson, et al. (2018) warn readers that “there are no easy answers on how to cultivate the problem-solving artistry [they] are advocating. Because the fourfold process is challenging and complex, the practical guidance [they] will be offering is not organized into a step-by-step format” (p. x). But their “practical” advice amounts to personal quests for professional improvement that are limited to the amount of approval they have from administration (p. 4).
May 14, 2025
It definitely needs to be edited again- I felt that the misspellings were consistent and distracting. I read this as a required text for a Master’s course and I felt the content to be inspiring. In some ways, it was really repetitive from his other book, but I do appreciate the heart behind his work.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews