See Culturally Relevant Teaching

248

Curriculum Controversies

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (2009). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Nieto, S. (2008). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of education (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (2007). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Culturally Responsive Classes See Culturally Relevant Teaching

Curriculum Controversies César Chávez, the late labor leader and social activist, reminded educators of the implications of misguided teaching, resulting in the destruction of society, cultures, and surroundings. The severity of conditions within the U.S. public educational system should alert everyone to the need for change. Unfortunately, the severity of such conditions is not a new phenomenon. The United States has a profound history of creating and maintaining political and social structures that keep cultural minorities marginalized. Poststructuralists, such as Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, identify schools as the cornerstone for upholding hegemonic values and traditions within society. To deconstruct hegemonic values in schools, educators should reconsider their civic responsibility to further examine the impact of discounting the voices and lived experiences of traditionally underserved children and families in schools. And those efforts on the part of many educators have led to salient curricular reforms.

The Context of Curricular Reform Consider the meaning derived from the term civic. The Latin-to-English derivation references the significance of the Roman civic crown. The crown

was reserved for men who saved the lives of fellow soldiers throughout their duties of service. Similarly, educators’ civic responsibility is to protect the lives of those underserved in American schools. Gary Howard notes that such responsibility remains Eurocentric at best. The U.S. educational system’s response to uphold societal values and traditions translates into disproportionate academic outcomes for different racial groups, increased hategroup activity, inequities in educational funding, and monoculture teacher–school leader preparation. The curriculum perpetuates hegemonic pedagogical practices. The recognition of cultural nuances through a critical and truthful lens might reveal how cultural contexts influence power and abuses within American schools. Especially important is the examination of cultural nuances—what is taught, who is taught, educational resources, access to social networks, curriculum design, and pedagogical practices. It is impossible to separate structural conditions that guide curricula, research, and work from action taken in the broader public domain. If educators do not reconsider the complicity to create and support the conditions to meet the needs of traditionally underserved children, schools will continue to fail these children. Educators should take a critical stance—blend humanity and educational reform to extend beyond classroom walls. Cornelius Castoriadis suggests schools must do everything within their power to provide children with fundamental knowledge and skills to make sound judgments to exercise choice that supports the possibility of democratic change. For many educators, addressing the injustices faced by historically oppressive groups in schools is an unbearable burden. Educators struggle over what social order would best serve humanity through the educational system. Some educators assume that children living in poverty and those from historic racial minority groups are to blame for the achievement gap that separates them. They point to research by James Coleman in the 1960s and assert that it is the family and not the teacher that most influences student achievement. The key is that good teaching occurs when the lived experiences of the students are recognized by teachers who themselves understand how to connect those experiences with clear academic expectations. Developmental psychologists Patricia Greenfield, Barbara Rogoff, and Lev Vygotsky focus on how


varying social actions affect human development. If children develop their competencies through social interactions, then it seems impossible to separate an educator’s heritage (personal background) from what happens in the classroom. Lived experiences, including economic and political conditions, shape pedagogical practices and work as “educators” in the 21st century. Peter McLaren and Joe Kincheloe note that many educators struggle with how to serve human interests within an increasingly culturally diverse democratic social order. The current assault on the educational system is first and foremost an attack on myriad contexts that make culturally responsive pedagogical practices possible. It also raises questions regarding the real problems facing our traditionally underserved children and families. Culturally responsive pedagogical practices must be understood as fundamental to exercising academic freedom. Exercising such freedoms defends the institution of education, recognizing it as a space in which democracy is practiced in the public sphere. Engaging in reflective dialogue such as this encourages educators to reconsider curricular practices, examine wider societal forces, and identify influences on curriculum reform efforts. All of these contexts provide a space to imagine the possibility of a better world. Educator civic responsibility rests on pedagogical practices, which call for educators to engage in a moral quest to understand how beliefs, pedagogy, and actions are linked to wider forces. What seemed familiar knowledge years ago does not seem to exist when educators consider changes in wider social, political, and economic forces. Demographers, such as Harold Hodgkinson, note there is little question that the United States is increasingly becoming more racially and linguistically diverse. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 43% of public school students were considered to be part of a racial or ethnic minority group; this is an increase of 22% since 1972. Consequently, policymakers report that historic racial minorities are now the majority in elementary schools, posing perceived problems for educators, school leaders, and policymakers. An educator, who adheres to the belief that good teaching is simply good teaching, asserts that for such children, there are increases in drop-out rates, as well as lower scores on standardized tests.

249

Margaret Grogan and Catherine Lugg identify this educational conflict with the social justice movement. The social justice movement encourages educators to take a stance that supports reflection, deeper understanding, and a commitment to advocate for social change, which is necessary to uphold democratic ideals for a just society. Schools alone cannot afford to position themselves or function as the only system that promotes democratic ideals and advocates for social change. Although modern U.S. society touts a concern for the welfare of children, Sonia Nieto notes that, in fact, children are not at the center of the nation’s concerns. The United Nations Report identified the United States as a country that needs to uphold the principle that all children are entitled to healthy and productive lives. Educators should reconsider links between social, economic, ecological, political, and cultural contexts to conceptualize the promotion of contemporary curriculum reform. William Yancey and Salvetore Saporito emphasize that the combined effects of poverty, isolation, and cultural diversity must be central to this analysis. A critical pedagogy that extends beyond the classroom walls and local contexts encourages the examination of how these contexts influence the learning and lived experiences of children in school. Such an approach scrutinizes conditions and pedagogical practices that give rise to underlying historic and contextual issues. Despite efforts made to support human welfare and educational reform, such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), legislative provisions have done little to promote and sustain the welfare of children. Reconceptualizing contemporary curriculum issues emphasizes the rethinking of the influence of dominant and preconceived notions. A historical analysis shows that John Dewey emphasized the relevance of subject matter, learners, and society, with Harold Rugg noting that each element was fundamentally dependent on the other. Dewey called for schools to build a new social order. Rugg organized his efforts among curriculum advocates to find commonality among contending schools of thought. Despite their efforts, reconstructionists, who were concerned about groups and children being guided by social ideology, were still in conflict with progressive educators, who favored individualized child-centered ideology. Some scholars sought to bridge the conflicting schools of thought.

250


Boyd Bode was a scholar who argued that those who identify themselves as progress educators should reconsider how to build on the strengths of common values. Dewey pointed out the reciprocal relationship between educating children and political growth. Dewey’s argument was anchored in creating a democratic hope. What remained unknown during the first 50 years of curriculum work were the voices of those who lived on the margins because of race, gender, and class. W. E. B. Du Bois referred to these unknown intellectual workers as invisible voices. Although the voices of other historic racial minorities such as Carter Woodson, Allison Davis, José Martí, remained marginalized, as did those of women, honoring the historic invisible voices is critical to understanding the contemporary realities surfacing throughout curriculum reform efforts. The significance of democratic ideals, institutionalized failure, and social transformation of curriculum reform begins with a democratic social order during colonial America. The roots of schooling in America promoted an education system for those from the privileged class. Schools filter through which members they encourage to become the elite leaders of society. The notion of education for the elite persisted well into the 1900s, and in some respects, the issue of unequal education continues to exist today despite the rhetoric of leaving no child behind. The U.S. Department of Education promoted the NCLB, which was signed into law in 2001. This federal mandate centers on the commitment to eliminate the achievement gaps between White middle- and upper-class children and children from marginalized populations (children of color and children living in poverty). Although this legislation promotes the elimination of the achievement gap, America’s deeply rooted histories of racial and class discrimination continue to exist in contemporary public educational systems, which is why curriculum reformers continue to represent such contentious voices for change. Inequitable outcomes are not the result of students, families, or their communities; rather, inequitable outcomes, in terms of educational impact on students’ lives, result from systemic organizational practices and policies. Jonathan Kozol concluded that federal mandates such as No Child Left Behind promote rhetoric at

best, but the outcomes often exacerbate the extant social conditions. Despite legislative mandates and initiatives to promote student achievement by transcending neighborhood boundaries, residential segregation continues as an economic and social response to eliminating the achievement gap between urban schools and national norms. The contemporary context to improve the learning environments for historic racial minorities and children living in poverty may have been well intended; however, the creation of school choice and magnet schools led to greater segregation for neighborhood schools. Even in schools that achieved racial and social economic integration, another layer of marginalization and categorical programming emerged for students identified as English language learners. A special commission was appointed to investigate the issue of overrepresentation of historic racial minorities, which led to findings that suggest Black children are three times more likely to be labeled with behavior disturbances. Students segregated from specifically designed programs receive inferior instruction, placing them further at risk for educational failure. In many cases, selecting students for these specific curricular programs results in tracking students and is based on preconceived notions of culture. James Banks, a leading scholar in cultural education, notes the tendency to label children according to cultural difference encourages educators to underestimate their abilities, leading to rote learning rather than aligning curriculum practices with fundamental content, critical thinking, problem solving, and real-world application. To counter such pedagogical practices requires a deeper investigation of inclusive approaches that acknowledge difference, student strengths, and school practices. Comprehensive examinations such as these might in turn, have farreaching ramifications—educating all children. Sweeping school reform, such as the NCLB, requires major decisions to be made with the promise of significant institutionalized changes. Undoing the injustices requires redefining educational equity and how we think about difference. The challenge is identifying practices that deny and those that encourage success in school. Schools are part of a larger system. It is not possible to identify such practices without considering the larger social, economic, political, and cultural contexts.


Traditional monocultural pedagogical practices are embedded within these contexts to perpetuate the marginalization of the nation’s underserved children. The reality is that the way educational reform decisions are made may not be aligned to the lofty goals of school reform. Scholars emphasize not enough has changed in preparation practices (training, certification, and recruiting) or promotion of educators and school leaders that encourages social activism. Social activism is possible when vested interests in unequal relations of power are examined and acted upon. Educators are more likely to act on what they consider to be in accordance with their own vested interests. Those who tend to share an immediate vested interest in school reform that challenges traditional power structures usually occupy roles with little or no power. Forming alliances that create and direct social movements takes work. As educators enter the field, they will continue to face the grim realities and struggles associated with working in increasingly culturally diverse schools. Learning to act as an advocate for children and families who feel debilitated is challenging work. These communities are in need of change agents who build on community networks with visions of hope. The boundaries between teaching students, leading for school reform, and high-stakes standardized testing are becoming increasingly unclear. Institutions have the ability to guide children through a democratic process sharing ideals of social justice, which have the potential to translate into advanced social justice ideals in adulthood. Actualizing such ideals can enrich communities through the political process.

Perspectives of Reform Educators who lead with passion and continue the dialogue regarding broad-based school reform efforts need to consider how to significantly reduce the educational segregation and the achievement gap. The work of educators promoting contemporary curriculum issues is critical to linking intentions of equity to their local school community contexts. Venturing beyond school walls is essential to transforming how educators understand the complicities in creating inclusive learning communities for children and their families. If scholars

251

reconsider the enormous freedom to reconstruct the contexts of their pedagogical practices toward culturally responsive practices, new structures might lead to new commitments to democratic education and creative pedagogy. The educational reform efforts of the 1990s were marked by addressing the urgent needs of children and families from historic minority groups. However, according to the Center for the Future of Children, schools seem disconnected from the growing public demand to coordinate more inclusive practices that reconsider the health and welfare of children and families. Children and families who live on the margins because of language, immigration status, race, and class face many adversities. They could benefit from broader social policies that link schools to service agencies, which are central to systemic school reform. What is increasingly apparent is the need to create a school community in which everyone has a voice and is valued. Joyce Epstein stresses the need for equitable school learning communities that welcome all families. As many school communities serve an increasingly diverse range of students, including new immigrants and refugees, parents of such students want their children to succeed in school. Schools continue to build walls around their communities to keep out families and children who have been historically marginalized. Building a sense of community is critical to acknowledging the strengths of children and families. Lisa Delpit notes that adhering to “cultural deficit thinking” (i.e., the belief that cultural characteristics are negatively influencing a child’s development) perpetuates negative beliefs about children and school practices. Excluded children, like all children, do better when their parents and teachers are partners. In a welcoming school, educators appreciate differences and reconsider what it means to involve all families within the learning community. Successful restructuring is challenging; however, restructuring alone cannot create inclusive pedagogical practices. Nel Noddings emphasizes the need for America’s educational system to uphold an ethic of caring. Upholding civic responsibility is a state of becoming, a way of being with community, and internalizing the community as part of oneself. Humanizing pedagogical practices is a path through which people can deepen their presence in the world. Various beliefs in foundational

252

Curriculum Reconceptualists

knowledge will continue to influence the extent to which educators refuse to give up claims of privileged access and secure comforts of hegemonic school practices. To accomplish this shift, we should consider replacing current countersocialization educational practices with the human agency—the educator’s most noble aim being presented the civic crown and the ability to empower the students being taught. Delpit reminds educators that it is a gift and privilege to teach other people’s children. Building on a democratic social order aligned with culturally responsive education and social reform is educators’ civic responsibility. The dissonance between the real and imagined distance between curriculum theory and practice remains under debate. However, to overcome the myriad barriers that perpetuate culturally unresponsive pedagogical practices, it will take more than the dearth of scholarship alone to uphold the principles aligned with eliminating social injustices. These injustices perpetuate misconceptions about children from marginalized populations and encourage oversimplified solutions. The cultivation of power and critical agency occurs in a space in which commitment, passion, and reflection link knowledge to action. Pedagogy is the space that provides references to understanding how learning is linked to wider social, political, cultural, and economic forces. Educators should embrace the fundamental goal to create curriculum that promotes democratic ideals and possibilities. The collective wisdom of scholars in the curriculum field should imagine the realities of postmillennial movements toward local democratization, global markets, technology, and ethics. Educators live in an era of globalization, internationalism, ecological consciousness, and corporate consolidation. Educators cannot make revolutionary transformation within America’s educational system without transforming their sense of self. Those committed to social change, human agency, and a call to action speak in personal ways to create nurturing and humane schools for the 21st century. Concerned educators need to do the right thing for children. Viewing civic responsibility as a social movement for oppressed communities suggests as educators, they recognize the complicities of social change and collectively pursuing human agency. Christa Boske

See also Critical Theory; Freire, Paulo; Postmodernism

Further Readings Capper, C., Frattura, E., & Keyes, M. W. (2000). Meeting the needs of students of all abilities: How leaders go beyond inclusion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (Superintendent of Documents Catalog No. FS 5. 238.38001). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ladson-Billings, G. J. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 35, 465–491. McLaren, P., & Kincheloe, J. L. (Eds.). (2007). Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? New York: Peter Lang.

Curriculum Reconceptualists Over the past century, the field of curriculum studies has been shaped by a variety of practices and perspectives regarding the purposes of education and the kinds of studies and experiences that would best support those purposes. Influenced by political and cultural change, as well as by emerging philosophical and psychological theories of knowledge and learning, the American curriculum has been in a state of change and ferment. What resulted were a number of approaches to curriculum reform—each advanced by its own distinct group of curricularists—as well as a field of study characterized by vigorous debate about the aims, functions, practices, theories, and understandings of curriculum. Among the most controversial efforts to reform curriculum studies, beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, were those of a group of scholars and theorists (William Pinar, Dwayne Huebner, James Macdonald, Janet Miller, Michael Apple, Herbert Kliebard, and others) who became known as the curriculum reconceptualists. Although the term reconceptualists was considered by Pinar to be a misnomer, it did define the