The purpose of this project was to conduct a theoretical literature review of the research that has documented examples of teachers’ principled resistance to curricular control. Principled resistance occurs when teachers reject curricular policies and programs that control their work and conflict with their professional principles. The authors examined the pedagogical commitments that led to teachers’ principled resistance and drew upon Lacey’s and Sikes et al.’s model of teacher socialization to analyze how teachers have engaged in principled resistance. The authors located 62 studies published between 1984 and 2022. Teachers resisted forms of neoliberal curricular control they believed did not meet their students’ academic and social needs, most negatively impacted ethnically diverse and impoverished students, and was not culturally responsive. Teachers enacted principled resistance through strategic compliance, strategic compromise, strategic redefinition, overt and outright resistance, and leaving. Implications for researchers, school administrators, policymakers, and teachers are discussed.
AbellS. K.RothM. (1994). Constructing science teaching in the elementary school: The socialization of a science enthusiast student teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310108
2.
AchinsteinB.OgawaR. T. (2006). (In)fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 30–63. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.76.1.e14543458r811864
3.
AdcockS. G.PattonM. M. (2001). Views of effective early childhood educators regarding systemic constraints that affect their teaching. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15(2), 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540109594960
4.
AllingtonR. L.JohnstonP. H.DayJ. P. (2002). Exemplary fourth-grade teachers. Language Arts, 79(6), 462–466. https://doi.org/10.58680/la2002265
5.
Barrett-TatumJ.DooleyC. M. (2015). From idealized to actualized instruction: Two elementary teachers’ enactment of the ELA Common Core State Standards in instructional scripts. Literacy Research and Instruction, 54(4), 257–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2015.1062941
6.
BaumlM. (2015). Beginning primary teachers’ experiences with curriculum guides and pacing calendars for math and science instruction. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29(3), 390–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2015.1040565
7.
BeattyB. (2011). The dilemma of scripted instruction: Comparing teacher autonomy, fidelity, and resistance in the Froebelian kindergarten, Montessori, Direct Instruction, and Success for All. Teachers College Record, 113(3), 395–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111300305
8.
BeckC.KosnikC.CaulfieldJ.CleovoulouY. (2018). Principled resistance to system mandates among early-career teachers. In SantoroD. A.CainL. (Eds.), Principled resistance: How teachers resolve ethical dilemmas (pp. 35–52). Harvard Education Press.
BrezichaK. F.KavanaghK. M.MartinA. E.Fisher-AriT. R. (2024). “This school is killing my soul”: Threat rigidity responses to high-stakes accountability policies. Urban Education, 59(5), 1455–1488. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859221081762
BurkeC. J. F.AdlerM. (2013). Personal consequences of compliance and resistance to mandated reforms for teachers in low-performing schools. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 9, 6–17.
13.
BushnellM. (2003). Teacher in the schoolhouse panopticon: Complicity and resistance. Education and Urban Society, 35(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124503252284
14.
CalkinsL.NevilleB. (2003). Units of study for primary writing: A yearlong curriculum (grades k-2). Heinemann.
15.
ChapmanL. A.ElbaumB. (2021). How―and why―middle school intensive reading teachers make adaptations to a scripted curriculum. Teacher Education and Special Education, 44(4), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406421992377
16.
ChoiP. L.TangS. Y. F. (2005). Role management strategies of beginning teachers in Hong Kong. Teacher Development, 9(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530500200273
17.
CohenD. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737012003311
18.
CostelloM.CostelloD. (2016). The struggle for teacher professionalism in a mandated literacy curriculum. McGill Journal of Education, 51(2), 833–856. https://doi.org/10.7202/1038605ar
19.
CostiganA. T. (2013). New urban teachers transcending neoliberal educational reforms: Embracing aesthetic education as a curriculum of political action. Urban Education, 48(1), 116–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912457579
20.
Crawford-GarrettK.RileyK. (2015). Inquiry, policy, and teacher communities: Counter mandates and teacher resistance in an urban school district. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 26(1), 36–51.
21.
CroccoM. S.CostiganA. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907304964
22.
DatnowA.CastellanoM. (2000). Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775–779. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037003775
23.
DeweyJ. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Henry Holt.
24.
DuarteB. J.BrewerC. A. (2019). “Caught in the nets of ‘discipline’”: Understanding the possibilities for writing teachers’ resistance to standardization in local policy. Educational Policy, 33(1), 88–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818807326
DunnA. H.DerooM.VanDerHeideJ. (2017). With regret: The genre of teachers’ public resignation letters. Linguistics and Education, 38, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.02.003
27.
EdelskyC. (2005). Relatively speaking: McCarthyism and teacher-resisters. In PoynorL.WolfeP. M. (Eds.), Marketing fear in America’s public schools: The real war on literacy (pp. 11–28). Lawrence Erlbaum.
GibbsB. (2019). “I guess I just realized how tired I had become”: In defense of insurgent pedagogy. Critical Education, 10(10), 1–19.
30.
GitlinA.MargonisF. (1995). The political aspect of reform: Teacher resistance as good sense. American Journal of Education, 103(4), 377–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/444108
31.
GoldsteinL. S. (2007). Beyond the DAP versus standards dilemma: Examining the unforgiving complexity of kindergarten teaching in the United States. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.08.001
32.
GoldsteinL. S. (2008). Kindergarten teachers making “street-level” education policy in the wake of No Child Left Behind. Early Education and Development, 19(3), 448–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802065387
33.
GriffithR. (2008). The impact of a scripted reading program on teachers’ professional spirits. Teaching & Learning: The Journal of Natural Inquiry and Reflective Practice, 22(3), 121–133.
34.
GuminaD. (2022). Bilingual teachers’ improvisations as agentive policy work in a constrained policy context. Bilingual Research Journal, 45(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2022.2079764
35.
HikidaM.TaylorL. A. (2020). “As the test collapses in”: Teaching and learning amid high-stakes testing in two urban elementary classrooms. Urban Education, 58(6), 1032–1060. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920902263
36.
HochmanJ.SantoroD. A.HouserS. (2018). Tweeting to transgress: Teachers on Twitter as principled resisters. In SantoroD. A.CainL. (Eds.), Principled resistance: How teachers resolve ethical dilemmas (pp. 203–222). Harvard Education Press.
37.
HuddlestonA. P.OhleK.MullinsA.LowryH.ShakeD. (2020). Models of resistance: Novice teachers negotiating barriers to best practice. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 59(3), 41–60. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol59/iss3/4/
KellyL. B. (2018). Compliance and resistance: Showing future teachers how to navigate curriculum. Studying Teacher Education, 14(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2018.1428794
40.
KerstenJ. (2006). Hybridization, resistance, and compliance: Negotiating policies to support literacy achievement. The New Educator, 2(2), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15476880600657272
41.
KerstenJ.PardoL. (2007). Finessing and hybridizing: Innovative literacy practices in reading first classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.2.4
42.
LaceyC. (1977). The socialization of teachers. Methuen.
43.
LaceyC. (1987). Professional socialization of teachers. In DunkinM. J. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 634–645). Pergamon Press.
44.
MacGillivrayL.ArdellA. L.CurwenM. S.PalmaJ. (2004). Colonized teachers: Examining the implementation of a scripted reading program. Teaching Education, 15(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047621042000213575
45.
ManiatesH.MahiriJ. (2011). Post-scripts: Teaching reading in the aftermath of prescriptive curriculum policies. Language Arts, 89(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.58680/la201117154
46.
MarzanoR. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
47.
MasudaA. M. (2010). The teacher study group as a space for agency in an era of accountability and compliance. Teacher Development, 14(4), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2010.533489
48.
McCartheyS. J.WoodardR. (2018). Faithfully following, adapting, or rejecting mandated curriculum: Teachers’ curricular enactments in elementary writing instruction. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 13(1), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2017.1376672
49.
McCartheyS. J.WoodardR.KangG. (2014). Elementary teachers negotiating discourses in writing instruction. Written Communication, 31(1), 58–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313510888
50.
MeidlT. D.MeidlC. (2011). Curriculum integration and adaptation: Individualizing pedagogy for linguistically and culturally diverse students. Current Issues in Education, 14(1), 1–29. http://cie.asu.edu/
51.
MeyerR. J. (2002). Captives of the script: Killing us softly with phonics. Language Arts, 79(6), 452–461. https://doi.org/10.58680/la2002264
52.
MyersA. (2019). Confronting mandated curriculum: Being a transgressive teacher and meeting the needs of our urban learners. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 16(1), 1–13. https://urbanedjournal.gse.upenn.edu
53.
NolanK. (2015). La educación in room 320: Toward a theory of care-based resistance in the context of neoliberal school reform. Teachers College Record, 117(5), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700506
54.
NolanK. (2016). Schooling novice mathematics teachers on structures and strategies: A Bourdieuian perspective on the role of “others” in classroom practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92(3), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9668-1
55.
ParsonsS. A.VaughnM.ScalesR. Q.GallagherM. A.ParsonsA. W.DavisS. G.PierczynskiM.AllenM. (2018). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 205–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743198
56.
Pease-AlvarezL.SamwayK. D. (2008). Negotiating a top-down reading program mandate: The experiences of one school. Language Arts, 86(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.58680/la20086698
SantoroD. A. (2013). “I was becoming increasingly uneasy about the profession and what was being asked of me”: Preserving integrity in teaching. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(5), 563–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12027
59.
SantoroD. A. (2016). “We’re not going to do that because it’s not right”: Using pedagogical responsibility to reframe the doublespeak of fidelity. Educational Theory, 66(1–2), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12167
60.
SantoroD. A. (2017). Teachers’ expressions of craft conscience: Upholding the integrity of a profession. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23(6), 750–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1228627
SantoroD. A.MorehouseL. (2011). Teaching’s conscientious objectors: Principled leavers of high-poverty schools. Teachers College Record, 113(12), 2670–2704. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111301208
63.
ScalesR. Q.WolseyT. D.YoungJ.SmetanaL.GrishamD. L.LenskiS.DoblerE.YoderK. K.ChambersS. A. (2017). Mediating factors in literacy instruction: How novice elementary teachers navigate new teaching contexts. Reading Psychology, 38(6), 604–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2017.1323056
64.
SchniedewindN.Sapon-ShevinM. (2012). Educational courage: Resisting the ambush of public education. Beacon Press.
65.
ShantonK. D.ValenzuelaT. C. (2005). Not in the script: The missing discourses of parents, students, and teachers about Success for All. In PoynorL.WolfeP. M. (Eds.), Marketing fear in America’s public schools: The real war on literacy (pp. 111–132). Lawrence Erlbaum.
66.
SikesP. J.MeasorL.WoodsP. (1985). Teacher careers: Crises and continuities. Falmer.
67.
SmagorinskyP.CookL. S.MooreC.JacksonA. Y.FryP. G. (2004). Tensions in learning to teach: Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103260067
68.
SmagorinskyP.LaklyA.JohnsonT. S. (2002). Acquiescence, accommodation, and resistance in learning to teach within a prescribed curriculum. English Education, 34(3), 187–213. https://doi.org/10.58680/ee20021609
69.
SmithR. (2013). The moral oppression of the teaching profession: Learning to transcend [Master’s thesis, University of Central Florida]. STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2002-2019. http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/CFE0004940
70.
StillmanJ. (2009). Taking back the standards: Equity-minded teachers’ responses to accountability-related instructional constraints. The New Educator, 5(2), 135–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2009.10399569
71.
StillmanJ. (2011). Teaching learning in an era of high-stakes accountability: Productive tension and critical professional practice. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 133–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111300107
72.
StillmanJ.AndersonL. (2011). To follow, reject, or flip the script: Managing instructional tension in an era of high-stakes accountability. Language Arts, 89(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.58680/la201117155
73.
ThompsonA.Pease-AlvarezL. (2018). Working the system: Teacher resistance in a context of compliance. In SantoroD. A.CainL. (Eds.), Principled resistance: How teachers resolve ethical dilemmas (pp. 69–84). Harvard Education Press.
74.
TierneyR. J.PearsonP. D. (2024). Fact-checking the science of reading: Opening up the conversation. Vancouver-Berkeley. https://literacyresearchcommons.org
75.
TracyS. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley-Blackwell.
VaughnM.ParsonsS. A.GallagherM. A. (2022). Challenging scripted curriculum with adaptive teaching. Educational Researcher, 51(3), 186–196. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x211065752
78.
WeedaJ. (2018). Teacher resistance: Personal or professional? In SantoroD. A.CainL. (Eds.), Principled resistance: How teachers resolve ethical dilemmas (pp. 139–153). Harvard Education Press.
79.
YoonH. (2013). Rewriting the curricular script: Teachers and children translating writing practices in a kindergarten classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(2), 148–174. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte201324323
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
