Scripted teaching curricula are becoming more ubiquitous across our school districts. Scripted curriculum literally gives teachers a script to read verbatim, mandated pacing guides, and pre-determined activities.
The topic is fraught with controversy. National leaders have felt local districts were not up to the task. So they began standardized curriculum delivery and outcomes. In turn, states created more prescriptive content standards.
The notion behind this movement has been to guarantee equity across schools. Political and educational leaders wanted to promise that all students could graduate by at least meeting a minimum threshold. In theory, this would remove variability and raise student learning attainment as measured through standardized exams. All students would learn the same content which was to be delivered in a consistent manner. Theories can be neat things.
While more veteran teachers are leaving the field because of burnout and a lack of professional autonomy, school administrators are forced to hire provisionally licensed teachers. Superintendents know some of these teachers are not adequately trained, so they provide them with scripts.
Credit: contributed
Credit: contributed
Kristin Webb, one of my doctoral students, explained of scripted curriculum: “This approach has created a school culture where compliance is valued over innovation, and where teaching is reduced to content delivery.” In some districts, principals use “fidelity checks” to monitor whether teachers are “sticking to the script.”
The result is a narrowing of the curriculum and a loss of professional autonomy for educators. When teachers are not able to adapt instruction to the unique needs of their students, the classroom becomes less responsive and more mechanical.
The model strives for uniformity, efficiency and rigor. Educators, however, have found it a formula for teaching to the test. Many teachers are afraid to state their concerns; someone needs to serve as their voice.
All parents know their own children are unique and wonderful; they are not automatons. My fear is the cookie-cutter model treats every child the same and hopes for the same outcomes.
Last spring I observed a wonderful math lesson plan taught by one of my interns. I asked her how she developed this tremendous lesson. She explained it was designed by the grade-level teachers in her building. The teachers meet each week as a team and adjust the curriculum to adapt to the children’s needs.
What has made local American schools so successful are the relationships teachers build with their students. Excellent teachers don’t teach to the test; they teach to the students. They differentiate instruction based upon individual needs and local context. Scripted curriculum developed in Texas, where most of the textbook companies are located, cannot do that.
Learning and teaching should be dynamic, organic and relational. They are not episodic or robotic. It takes away teachers’ professional insights and autonomy, and it doesn’t take into account the individual child.
Scripted curriculum can deliver, I’m certain, on low-level learning outcomes. By its standardized method, however, it is severely limited in higher-order cognition, like synthesis, critical thinking, evaluation and creativity. These levels require rigorous time-intensive lessons.
While new and provisionally licensed teachers can benefit from the structure of scripted curricula, veteran teachers need autonomy and flexibility to make adaptations. They need opportunities to co-plan and adjust their instruction for their unique students.
Said Webb, “District and school leaders must recognize that teacher autonomy is not antithetical to equity; it is essential to it.”
In a classroom dominated by scripted instruction, students are treated as passive recipients of knowledge, rather than active participants in their learning process. This not only stifles creativity but also undermines students’ ability to question and reflect.
Another one of my doctoral students, Maria Bass, reflected, “I entered the field of education with a deep sense of purpose rooted in my own experiences as a student. I attended schools where passionate teachers brought lessons to life, often deviating from the textbook to connect content with the realities of our lives. Those moments made learning feel personal and powerful. They also helped me see teaching as an art — one that depends not just on what is taught, but on how and why it is taught.”
A scripted curriculum, by its very nature, prioritizes standardization over personalization and compliance over critical thinking. Bass concluded, “I have seen how this disempowers educators and leads to a mechanical learning environment — one that prioritizes coverage over connection. Scripted curriculum may offer the illusion of equity, but true equity comes from relationships, responsiveness, and relevance — qualities that cannot be mass-produced or mandated.”
Perry Rettig is a professor and former vice president at Piedmont University. He has spent 42 years as an educator, including stints as a public schoolteacher and principal.
If you have any thoughts about this item, or if you’re interested in writing an op-ed for the AJC’s education page, drop us a note at education@ajc.com.
About the Author
Keep Reading
The Latest
Featured
