bs_bs_banner

Misplaced Multiculturalism: Representations of American Indians in U.S. History Academic Content Standards
curi_604 497..509

CARL B. ANDERSON Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

ABSTRACT
This qualitative textual analysis investigates the ideological lenses through which U.S. History content standards for grades 512 for Arizona and Washington frame interactions between American Indians and European Americans during U.S. national development. The studys multiperspective critical conceptual framework interrogates the standards not only on the basis of inclusion of American Indians in curriculum content, but also on the different ways in which this inclusion challenges, problematizes, or disrupts simplistic social representations in curriculum documents. The analysis reveals stark differences between how the respective state education policy makers conceptualize American IndianEuropean American interactions. In Arizona historical content is the curriculum, while in Washington historical content informs the curriculum, which is geared toward critical reectiveness about public policy issues. Both standards documents ultimately fall short in promoting critical thinking about American IndianEuropean American interactions because they succumb to separate pratfalls of multicultural inclusion orthodoxy. Arizona policy makers tend to shoehorn content on American Indians into a singular and simplistic narrative of U.S. economic, political, and social development, while Washington policy makers tend to construct articial social binaries to create an accessible and relevant narrative template. The standards documents exemplify the zero-sum nature of curricular politics, wherein we can learn as much about a societys ascendant values from what gets excluded from the curriculum as from what gets included in the curriculum.

Over the past several decades advocates of multiculturalism have succeeded in winning a larger share of space in U.S. History curricula for the Indigenous population of the United States (hereafter American Indians). History textbooks have increasingly come to acknowledge that Europeans did not discover what is now the United States and that American Indians were and still are diverse both in tribal afliation and custom. Many textbooks have even recognized the role of European explorers and settlers in decimating American Indian populations through genocidal practices
2012 by The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto Curriculum Inquiry 42:4 (2012) Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK doi: 10.1111/j.1467-873X.2012.00604.x

498

CARL B. ANDERSON

(Fitzgerald, 1979; Loewen, 1995; Moreau, 2003). At the same time, much of this content on American Indians is constructed as a curricular sidebar, ancillary to the central narrative of U.S. national development. This heroes and holidays model (Rains, 2006) emphasizes the cultural contributions of American Indians to a much greater extent than it does the ways in which U.S. governmental relations with American Indians fundamentally shaped the course of Americas ascendancy into an economically and politically inuential nation-state. There is a long-standing and fundamental disjuncture both in school curricula and in U.S. society generally between the documented historical record on American Indian affairs and how most European Americans would like to remember this history. Thelen (1989) argues that in each construction of a memory, people reshape, omit, distort, combine, and reorganize details from the past in an active and subjective way. They mix pieces from the present with elements from different periods of the past (p. 1120), while Lowenthal (1989) contends that nostalgia tempts people to see the past less as precedent than as alternative: not just what has happened but what could happen, an option still open (p. 1279). U.S. History curriculum documents have typically idealized prominent American Indians, such as Sacagawea and Pocahontas, who satisfy multicultural inclusion concerns but perhaps more importantly sustain a master narrative of racial reconciliation between European Americans and American Indians (McBeth, 2003). U.S. History curricula have also valorized resistance leaders like Tecumseh and Chief Sitting Bull who can be appropriated as symbols of tragic nobility in the face of the inevitable march of European American westward settlement and technological progress (Sayre, 2005). Kammen (1991) maintains that we arouse and arrange our memories to suit our psychic needs (p. 9), and European Americans psychic needs in the late 20th and early 21st centuries seem to revolve around legitimization of conquest through diverse racial inclusion. Given this context it is important to investigate more deeply how academic content standards frame American IndianEuropean American interactions within a larger context of U.S. national development. This type of analysis is especially relevant given the ongoing and dynamic political and cultural disputes involving American Indian rights, particularly in the western portions of the United States. BACKGROUND The social studies eld has long been mired in an existential crisis about its purposes and goals. Scholars have been unable to resolve the problem of what subject matter constitutes the core of the social studies, and researchers have created and perpetuated a false dichotomy between historycentered social studies and issues-centered social studies (Evans, 2001; Whelan, 2001). The crux of this debate revolves around epistemological tensions over the very purposes of historywhether it should be deployed

MISPLACED MULTICULTURALISM

499

primarily as subject matter to be mastered, or whether it should be used primarily as a resource to guide classroom inquiry into relevant social issues. Advocates of each model tend to champion the merits of their own approach while demonizing the other side, but scholars have typically not considered the possibility that the supposed benets of each approach might actually be detrimental to students critical-thinking capabilities in the social studies. This study investigates the degree to which U.S. History academic standards imply critical-thinking approaches toward studying American IndianEuropean American relations. Education policy makers from the two states included in this analysis, Arizona and Washington State (hereafter referred to as Washington), take very different approaches toward framing historical content for students. Policy makers from both states embed distinct History strands within their comprehensive social studies standards documents, but Arizona policy makers adopt a straightforward chronological approach to representing History content, while Washington policy makers deploy historical events mainly as examples to frame debates and discussions among students about contested social issues. On the surface these differing representations convey the notion that Arizona policy makers favor a subject mastery curricular model, while Washington policy makers favor an inquiry-based model. This study interrogates this assumption by addressing the following research questions: How do the standards for Arizona and Washington represent interactions between American Indians and European Americans? In what ways do the standards interrogate and challenge dominant hegemonic master narratives of history in schooling and society? The study mainly seeks to advance the scholarly literature on school curriculum by probing reviewed standards not only on the basis of inclusion of American Indians in curriculum content, but also on the extent to which this inclusion challenges, problematizes, or disrupts simplistic social representations in U.S. History curricula. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK This study employs a multiperspective critical conceptual framework to engage with contested issues of social identity in U.S. History curricula. The frameworks primary purpose is to interrogate and challenge dominant hegemonic master narratives of history in schooling and society, although the framework does not seek to replace one biased narrative with an equally biased counternarrative. In contrast, this framework is grounded in a conception of history as a socially constructed enterprise that privileges rather than discourages multiple interpretations of historical phenomena. The frameworks critical component also seeks to better understand the

500

CARL B. ANDERSON

interplay of social representations and social justice in U.S. History curricula. Many critically oriented scholars argue that normative Eurocentric epistemologies in the social studies tend to marginalize and delegitimize the experiences of people of color (Alridge, 2006; Carlson, 2003; Journell, 2008; Kincheloe, 1993; Ladson-Billings, 2003; Lintner, 2004). This studys critical lens builds especially on the work of scholars who have identied delegitimization projects through textual analyses, especially Anyon (1979) and Apple (1992). Anyon (1979) maintains that the school curriculum has contributed to the formation of attitudes that make it easier for powerful groups, those whose knowledge is legitimized by school studies, to manage and control society (p. 382), while Apples notion of legitimate knowledge speaks to the inherently ideological nature of social studies texts. More recently, in a review of U.S. History textbook research, VanSledright (2008) discovered persistent patterns of inclusion:
The story is primarily populated with champions of politics (presidents especially), business (entrepreneurs and CEOs and their technological advancements), and military campaigns (generals). The cast is decidedly Eurocentric, with preferences leaning toward an anchoring in the accomplishments of Anglo-Saxon men. (p. 113)

If Stanley (2010) is correct that schooling has functioned, in general, to transmit the dominant social order, preserving the status quo (p. 17), then it is incumbent upon social studies educators to investigate the complicity of U.S. History curricula in perpetuating social inequalities. METHODS This qualitative textual analysis investigates the U.S. History academic standards for grades 512 for Arizona and Washington. The two states were selected for two primary reasons. First, both states have historically had a sizable American Indian presence and so the issue of American Indian representation in social studies is particularly relevant in these cases. One particularly intriguing subplot of the 2010 Arizona immigration reform debates was the place of ethnic studies courses in social studies curricula. Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne pushed for, and in May 2010 won, a ban on courses that are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnicity. Horne focused his criticism on the Tucson Unied School Districts (TUSDs) ethnic studies courses that teach the states English and social studies standards through the lenses of Mexican American, African American, or American Indian culture, alleging that the courses promote a destructive ethnic chauvinism and advocate resentment toward a particular race or class of people (Zehr, 2010). In Washington, a persistent ideological debate revolves around the place of tribal history in social studies curricula. In 2004 the Washington State

MISPLACED MULTICULTURALISM

501

House Education Committee passed a bill requiring that the State Superintendent of Public Instruction collaborate with social studies teachers and tribal specialists to develop a model curriculum for Washington tribal history, and that school districts electing to implement a tribal history curriculum would be compelled to work with the federally recognized tribe or tribes closest to the district (Students Should Study, 2004). The tribal history requirement, originally conceived by Representative John McCoy, Washingtons only American Indian lawmaker, was surprisingly opposed by many American Indians, especially landless tribes who resented the fact that only recognized tribes would receive coverage in the curriculum (Kamb, 2005). Consequently, an amended and watered-down bill passed in spring 2005 that altered the language of the tribal history initiative from require to encourage to shall consider including information on the culture, history, and government of the American Indian peoples who were the rst inhabitants of the state (Washington State Substitute House Bill 1495). Second, while both states social studies standards documents are structurally similar, there is a clear difference between how the respective state policy makers conceptualize historical study. Both states have a single social studies standards document that separates content into distinct disciplinary strands (Arizona Department of Education, 2005; State of Washington Ofce of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2008). This studys analysis focuses solely on what Arizona policy makers label the American History and what Washington policy makers label the History strands of social studies content. Only the standards for grades 512 were analyzed because in both states fth grade represents the rst year in which the historical development of the United States is a substantive area of curricular focus. The key distinction between the two documents is that Arizona policy makers largely organize historical content chronologically and as subject matter to be mastered, while Washington policy makers organize historical content according to a social issues framework that emphasizes the connections between an historical event or idea and its present-day implications. These contrasting curricular approaches offer a unique opportunity to investigate practical manifestations of the persistent epistemological tensions in history education and to explore how these approaches address issues of American Indian representation in social education. The standards were qualitatively analyzed by drawing on the work of James Wertsch (1998, 2004) and Catherine Cornbleth (1998), each of whom have identied a default master narrative of U.S. national development. Wertsch (2004) distinguishes between specic narratives and schematic narrative templates in history:
Specic narratives are the focus of history instruction in schools and deal with mid-level events that populate textbooks, examinations, and other textual forms found in that context. In contrast, schematic narrative templates involve a much more abstract level of representation and provide a narrative framework that is compatible with many instantiations in specic narratives. (p. 51)

502

CARL B. ANDERSON

Wertsch (1998) describes the typical schematic narrative template of U.S. national development as the quest for freedom construct in which progress on political and social equality in the United States has proceeded in a more or less linear fashion. Cornbleth (1998) advances a similar template of the United States as imperfect but best, in which there is a sense of inevitable movement; things just happen without explanation or reasons being offered. Problems exist and are resolved, more or less, but there is little or no hint of human suffering, agency, conict, or struggle (p. 629). Both the quest-for-freedom and imperfect but best narrative frameworks advance a simplistic understanding of national development that tends to avoid persistent political and social discord between social groups. The reviewed standards were coded according to how faithfully they adhered to the progressive narrative template described above. A standard was coded as progressive if it primarily focused on gradual but inevitable democratic progress on American IndianEuropean American relations. In contrast, a standard was coded as discordant if it signicantly challenged or questioned the singular master narrative of the United States as a land of inevitably expanding freedom/equality over time for American Indians. While analyzing the data it became clear that a third category was also apparent: contributory standards, which focused primarily on praising or reinforcing the historical cultural, social, political, and economic contributions of American Indians. After coding the data I calculated the relative percentages for each category by state. Finally, it is important to emphasize two points about the limitations of this study. First, school curricula operate on many different levels, and state-level academic content standards do not necessarily represent what is actually taught in schools. While content standards are typically prescribed through top-down educational bureaucracies, individual teachers also typically enjoy a degree of autonomy in implementing what Costigan and Crocco (2004) call the enacted curriculum. State-level content standards are thus one important indicator of what gets taught in U.S. History classrooms, but certainly not the only indicator. Second, this study focuses solely on U.S. educational contexts. That said, this studys analysis of American Indian representation has important implications for the North American context as a whole, and especially for Canada, which has experienced similar ideological controversies over treatment of First Nations groups in school curricula (Seixas, 2000). AMERICAN INDIAN REPRESENTATION IN ARIZONAS STANDARDS Almost all of the reviewed Arizona standards adopt contributory (43%) and progressive (43%) orientations, while very few adopt a discordant (14%) orientation. Arizonas standards are largely content driven; most focus on the historic contributions of American Indian individuals and groups, as

MISPLACED MULTICULTURALISM

503

well as the ways in which American Indians t into a progressive master narrative of national development. Eighth-grade students are expected to describe Arizonas contributions to the [World War II] effort (Arizona Grade 8 Concept 8: PO 5), including the roles of American Indian Code Talkers and Ira Hayes, who was a Pima American Indian and one of the U.S. Marines pictured in the iconic Iwo Jima ag-raising photograph. High school students are expected to analyze how the new national government was created (Arizona High School Concept 4: PO 4), including the contributions of the Albany Plan of Union inuenced by the Iroquois Confederation, in addition to the contributions of the Articles of Confederation, Constitutional Convention, and Bill of Rights. Arizonas standards also integrate what might otherwise be considered discordant material into progressive meta-frameworks of national development. This phenomenon can be seen in two Arizona high school standards:
Assess how the following social developments inuenced American society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: Civil Rights issues (e.g., Womens Suffrage Movement, Dawes Act, Indian schools, lynching, Plessy v. Ferguson); changing patterns in Immigration (e.g., Ellis Island, Angel Island, Chinese Exclusion Act, Immigration Act of 1924); urbanization and social reform (e.g., health care, housing, food & nutrition, child labor laws); mass media (e.g., political cartoons, muckrakers, yellow journalism, radio); consumerism (e.g., advertising, standard of living, consumer credit); Roaring Twenties (e.g., Harlem Renaissance, leisure time, jazz, changed social mores). (Arizona High School Concept 7: PO 2) Analyze events which caused a transformation of the United States during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: Indian Wars (e.g., Little Bighorn, Wounded Knee); Imperialism (e.g., Spanish American War, annexation of Hawaii, Philippine-American War); Progressive Movement (e.g., Sixteenth through Nineteenth Amendments, child labor); Teddy Roosevelt (e.g., conservationism, Panama Canal, national parks, trust busting); corruption (e.g., Tammany Hall, spoils system); World War I (e.g., League of Nations, Isolationism); Red Scare/Socialism; Populism. (Arizona High School Concept 7: PO 3)

The Dawes Act, Indian Schools, Little Bighorn, and Wounded Knee exemplify how narrative frameworks inuence how students interact with historical content. The examples cited above, as well as content on lynching, Plessy v. Ferguson, the Chinese Exclusion Act, child labor, and the Red Scare/Socialism, may be perceived as controversial or problematic in light of U.S. revolutionary ideals of liberty and equality, but as specic narratives they may instead serve as noteworthy mile markers on a more or less linear march of social progress. These events remind us that full social equality did not always exist in the United States, as we reexively assume it does now, and that we should at least have passing familiarity with the struggles of people back then. All of the content outlined in the preceding two standards can arguably be subsumed under the quest-for-freedom template because the most important point for students to remember is that although the United States has never been a perfect country, the country is perpetually trending toward that perfection.

504

CARL B. ANDERSON

AMERICAN INDIAN REPRESENTATION IN WASHINGTONS STANDARDS In contrast to the largely contributory and progressive orientations of Arizonas standards, half of Washingtons 22 reviewed standards reect a discordant orientation, while the other half are either progressive (36%) or contributory (14%). Washingtons discordant standards tend to cover localized controversial public issues, while its contributory and progressive standards tend to address more nationalized historical content. Contributory Washington standards ask students to examine how native peoples helped the colonists establish survival skills in their new environment (Washington Grade 5 4.2.2) and evaluate the efforts of Russell Means and the American Indian Movement regarding the honoring of treaty rights in the United States (Washington Grade 12 4.2.1). Both standards address large-scale issues such as early European settlement of the United States and the broad American Indian Movement (AIM) rather than issues specically relevant to American IndianEuropean American relations in the Pacic Northwest, and they are contributory because they focus more on the overall contributions of American Indians to national development than on specic contested issues. The rst standard advances the quest-forfreedom narrative by representing American Indians as passive facilitators of progress rather than as active political stakeholders in U.S. settlement. The second standard could potentially be discordant because Russell Means and AIM were attempting to assert American Indian rights in the face of perceived long-standing political duplicity by European Americans, but as written the standard is contributory because it represents Means and AIM as symbolic archetypes of civil rights protest. According to the dictates of multicultural inclusion, coverage of the Civil Rights Movement must encompass representatives of all politically relevant social groups, and in this case AIM and Red Power are equivalent in the curriculum to the Black Panthers and Black Power or the Chicano Movement and Brown Power: corresponding exemplars of radical social protest detached from their unique ideological critiques of European American hegemony. In these cases the authors of the standards tend to manipulate potentially discordant conict to t within the quest-for-freedom and imperfect but best narrative templates. On the other hand, Washington policy makers tend to represent more localized content in a discordant manner. Policy makers expect sixth-grade students to examine how the history of Tse-whit-zen, an ancient burial ground and native village in Port Angeles, helps us understand the current conict over use of the land (Washington Grade 6 4.4.1), eleventh-grade students to examine how local tribes used the court system to regain their sovereign rights (Washington Grade 11 4.2.2), and twelfth-grade students to critique different positions on the Boldt decision based on an analysis of the Stevens treaties (Washington Grade 12 4.4.1). These standards deploy

MISPLACED MULTICULTURALISM

505

legalistic and adversarial language to indicate that discord is inherent to the narrative. While the previously cited standard that asks students to examine how native peoples helped the colonists establish survival skills in their new environment (Washington Grade 5 4.2.2) suggests a signicant degree of cross-cultural cooperation, Washingtons discordant standards imply that American Indians and European Americans are fundamentally competitors for scarce resources. The authors of Washingtons discordant standards also imply a social scientic approach to historical analysis that encompasses the economic, political, and social antecedents of American IndianEuropean American conict. This conict-based, social issues approach to history, however, also involves important curricular trade-offs. The case study approach that Washington policy makers favor, while promoting engagement with and analysis of ostensibly relevant historical issues, also potentially substitutes one form of minutiae for another. By expecting students to master the history of the Tse-whit-zen, the Stevens Treaties and the Boldt decision, and competing interpretations of the Makahs whaling claims, the standards beg the question of historical signicance. It is important for students to be able to draw upon historical evidence to weigh competing viewpoints and defend a position, but Washington policy makers do not justify why these parochial examples are sufcient to strengthen students broader historical understandings. The danger here is that by focusing so intently on the details of the case students will be unable to connect the details to the larger American political, economic, social, and cultural context that shaped these events. Seixas (1993) maintains that given too much interpretive leeway, students may construct and reinforce untenable views of the past and of their place in historical time (p. 320). Last, the social issues orientation of Washingtons standards may encourage teachers and students to conceptualize U.S. history through a prism of fragmentation, in which there is little common ground between American Indians and European Americans and ideological conict is both inevitable and intractable. This balkanization of the curriculum (Schlesinger, 1992) may be successful in avoiding eurocentrism by exposing students to multiple perspectives on history, but it also potentially inhibits the ability of students to apply synthesis perspectives to U.S. national development and to think critically about why social issues are contested at all. As the above analysis reveals, well-intentioned efforts to engage students in critical thinking sometimes have problematic unintended consequences. DISCUSSION This studys ndings reveal some stark differences between how Arizona and Washington education policy makers conceptualize the goals of historical study. In Arizona historical content is the curriculum and ostensibly is to be learned for its own sake, while in Washington historical content

506

CARL B. ANDERSON

informs the curriculum, which is geared toward reectiveness and criticalthinking capabilities, especially about issues of public policy. At the same time, both standards documents fall short in promoting critical thinking about American IndianEuropean American relations in U.S. history because they each succumb to a unique pratfall of multicultural inclusion orthodoxy. Arizona policy makers tend to shoehorn content on American Indians into a singular and simplistic narrative of U.S. economic, political, and social development. The reviewed Arizona standards tend to adopt what Levstik (2000) calls a code of silence about controversial aspects of U.S. history, particularly around American IndianEuropean American relations. Relatively few standards represent the United States as a nation of, in Epsteins (2009) phrase, limited progress marked by struggle, racism and inequality (p. 2). The standards documents more typically assimilate potentially discordant content into quest-for-freedom and imperfect but best narrative templates. Washington policy makers, on the other hand, tend to deploy historical content largely to contextualize locally relevant current events. This social issues approach may implicitly encourage teachers and students to construct articial social binaries to create an accessible and relevant narrative template of perpetual conict. Though one of the goals of historical study should certainly be to better understand the present, the approach taken by Washington policy makers tends toward what Wineburg (2001) labels presentism, or using history to suit present-day needs. Wineburg describes presentism as our psychological condition at rest, a way of thinking that requires little effort and comes quite naturally (p. 19). Presentist constructions of history are ultimately problematic because they tend to inhibit historical understanding of complex social issues. It is not surprising that the reviewed standards reect curricular tradeoffs because various stakeholders expect school curricula to address a host of contradictory concerns. Cornbleth and Waugh (1995) argue that U.S. citizens have traditionally harbored unrealistic expectations for what schools can and should accomplish, as schools are called on to resolve societal problems ranging from racial segregation to family breakdown to lagging competitiveness in the global economy (p. vi). Politically motivated interest groups have taken advantage of this popular conception of the schools as panaceas for various economic and social ills by attempting to map their ideological agendas onto social studies curricula particularly, and in this sense the seemingly paradoxical nature of curriculum policy is not coincidental. The school curriculum is an inherently bounded construct, so curriculum policy work necessarily involves choices and trade-offs about what a society deems most important for its children to learn. Questions about what and whose perspectives should be included in the curriculum are not merely academic, for the question of whose cultural and moral values will emerge as dominant in any society is hardly a trivial matter (Kliebard, 2004, p. 290).

MISPLACED MULTICULTURALISM

507

The notion of curricular trade-offs also implies a zero-sum political arena wherein we can learn as much about a societys ascendant values from what gets excluded from the curriculum as from what gets included in the curriculum. In recent years the increasing prevalence of antiracist, social justice, and critical global curricular orientations among educational scholars committed to a radical critique of the tenets of multiculturalism has raised the political stakes of social studies curriculum development. May and Sleeter (2010) argue that in conventional multiculturalism the focus is on getting along better, primarily via a greater recognition of, and respect for, ethnic, cultural, and/or linguistic differences (p. 4), but while this curricular focus may be convenient and efcient, it abdicates any corresponding recognition of unequal, and often untidy, power relations that underpin inequality and limit cultural interaction (p. 4). In a similar vein, Giroux (2000) contends that in its conservative and liberal forms multiculturalism has placed the related problems of white racism, social justice, and power off limits, especially as these might be addressed as part of a broader set of political and pedagogical concerns (p. 196). The authors of social studies standards documents, including policy makers, have consistently adapted to the often-contradictory social pressures on the curriculum by carving out a path of least resistance that above all seeks to avoid offending. Non-European Americans typically appear prominently in standards documents, but teachers and students are usually not given the tools to critically analyze persistently discordant relations between social groups in U.S. history. The compromise curricular stance, although seemingly crafted to appeal to the largest demographic possible, might somewhat paradoxically end up completely satisfying very few. Political conservatives may tend to nd the compromise curriculum problematic because they believe that the standards deemphasize U.S. political traditions to satisfy a multicultural inclusion criterion. Political liberals and critical scholars, meanwhile, may tend to nd the compromise curriculum equally as problematic because they believe it promotes a linear consensus narrative that deemphasizes critical thinking about social relations in U.S. history. Despite, or perhaps because of, this epistemological angst, we too often settle for curricula that fail to help students think more critically about their social world. As this studys ndings suggest, hegemonic historical narratives, for all of their shortcomings, cannot easily be dislodged. REFERENCES
Alridge, D. P. (2006). The limits of master narratives in history textbooks: An analysis of representations of Martin Luther King, Jr. Teachers College Record, 108(4), 662686. Anyon, J. (1979). Ideology and United States history textbooks. Harvard Educational Review, 49(3), 361386. Apple, M. W. (1992). The text and cultural politics. Educational Researcher, 21(7), 419.

508

CARL B. ANDERSON

Arizona Department of Education. (2005). Social Studies Standard Articulated by Grade Level. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from http://www.ade.state.az.us/standards/ sstudies/articulated/SSStandard-full-05-22-06.pdf Carlson, D. (2003). Troubling heroes: Of Rosa Parks, multicultural education, and critical pedagogy. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 3(1), 4461. Cornbleth, C. (1998). An American curriculum? Teachers College Record, 99(4), 622 646. Cornbleth, C., & Waugh, D. (1995). The great speckled bird: Multicultural politics and education policymaking. New York: St. Martins. Costigan, A. T., & Crocco, M. S. (2004). Learning to teach in an age of accountability. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Epstein, T. (2009). Interpreting national history: Race, identity, and pedagogy in classrooms and communities. New York: Routledge. Evans, R. W. (2001). Teaching social issues: Implementing an issues-centered curriculum. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (Rev. ed., pp. 291309). Albany: State University of New York Press. Fitzgerald, F. (1979). America revised: History schoolbooks in the twentieth century. Boston: Little, Brown. Giroux, H. A. (2000). Insurgent multiculturalism and the promise of pedagogy. In E. M. Duarte & S. Smith (Eds.), Foundational perspectives in multicultural education (pp. 195212). New York: Longman. Journell, W. (2008). When oppression and liberation are the only choices: The representation of African Americans within state social studies standards. Journal of Social Studies Research, 32(1), 4050. Kamb, L. (2005, March 25). Duwamish take issue with history bill: Landless tribes say Proposal excludes them. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, p. B1. Kammen, M. (1991). Mystic chords of memory: The transformation of tradition in American culture. New York: Knopf. Kincheloe, J. L. (1993). The politics of race, history, and the curriculum. In L. A. Castenell, Jr. & W. F. Pinar (Eds.), Understanding curriculum as racial text: Representations of identity and difference in education (pp. 249262). Albany: State University of New York Press. Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum, 18931958 (3rd ed.). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Ladson-Billings, G. (2003). Lies my teacher still tells: Developing a critical race perspective toward the social studies. In G. Ladson-Billings (Ed.), Critical race theory perspectives on the social studies: The profession, policies, and curriculum (pp. 114). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Levstik, L. S. (2000). Articulating the silences: Teachers and adolescents conceptions of historical signicance. In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National and international perspectives (pp. 284305). New York: New York University Press. Lintner, T. (2004). The savage and the slave: Critical Race Theory, racial stereotyping, and the teaching of American history. Journal of Social Studies Research, 28(1), 2732. Loewen, J. W. (1995). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got wrong. New York: Touchstone. Lowenthal, D. (1989). The timeless past: Some Anglo-American historical preconceptions. The Journal of American History, 75(4), 12631280. May, S., & Sleeter, C. E. (2010). Introduction. Critical multiculturalism: Theory and praxis. In S. May & C. E. Sleeter (Eds.), Critical multiculturalism: Theory and praxis (pp. 116). New York: Routledge.

MISPLACED MULTICULTURALISM

509

McBeth, S. (2003). Memory, history, and contested pasts: Re-imagining Sacagawea/ Sacajawea. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 27(1), 132. Moreau, J. (2003). Schoolbook nation: Conicts over American History textbooks from the Civil War to the present. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Rains, F. V. (2006). The color of social studies: A post-social studies reality check. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (3rd ed., pp. 137156). Albany: State University of New York Press. Sayre, G. M. (2005). The Indian chief as tragic hero: Native resistance and the literatures of America, from Moctezuma to Tecumseh. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Schlesinger, Jr., A. M. (1992). The disuniting of America. New York: Norton. Seixas, P. (1993). The community of inquiry as a basis for knowledge and learning: The case of history. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 305324. Seixas, P. (2000). Schweigen! Die Kinder!: Or, does postmodern history have a place in the schools? In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National and international perspectives (pp. 1937). New York: New York University Press. Stanley, W. B. (2010). Social studies and the social order: Transmission or transformation? In W. C. Parker (Ed.), Social studies today: Research and practice (pp. 1724). New York: Routledge. State of Washington Ofce of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2008). Washington State K12 Social Studies Learning Standards. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from http://www.k12.wa.us/SocialStudies/pubdocs/SocialStudiesStandards.pdf Students should study tribal history. (2004, February 16). Seattle Post-Intelligencer, p. B5. Thelen, D. (1989). Memory and American history. The Journal of American History, 75(4), 11171129. VanSledright, B. (2008). Narratives of nation-state, historical knowledge, and school history education. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 109146. Washington State Substitute House Bill 1495, 59th Legislature (2005) (enacted). Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (2004). Specic narratives and schematic narrative templates. In P. Seixas (Ed.), Theorizing historical consciousness (pp. 4962). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Whelan, M. (2001). Why the study of history should be the core of social studies education. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (Rev. ed., pp. 4356). Albany: State University of New York Press. Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Zehr, M. A. (2010, May 19). Ethnic-studies classes subject to sharp curbs under new Ariz. Law. Education Week, 29(32), 24.

Copyright of Curriculum Inquiry is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.