American Educational Research Association

Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions, and Practice
Author(s): James A. Banks

Source: Review of Research in Education, Vol. 19 (1993), pp. 3-49
Published by: American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167339 .
Accessed: 15/09/2014 03:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Review of Research in Education.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Mon, 15 Sep 2014 03:43:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Chapter
1
Multicultural Education: Historical
Development,
Dimensions,
and Practice
JAMES A. BANKS
University
of
Washington,
Seattle
The heated discourse on multicultural
education, especially
in the
pop-
ular
press
and
among nonspecialists (Gray, 1991; Leo, 1990; Schlesinger,
1991),
often obscures the
theory, research,
and
developing
consensus
among
multicultural education
specialists
about the
nature, aims,
and
scope
of the field.
Gay (1992),
as well as Banks
(1989a),
has noted the
high
level of consensus about aims and
scope
in the literature written
by
multicultural education theorists.
Gay, however, points
out that there is
a tremendous
gap
between
theory
and
practice
in the field. In her
view,
theory development
has
outpaced development
in
practice,
and a wide
gap
exists between the two.
Gibson
(1976)
reviewed the multicultural education literature and iden-
tified five
approaches.
She noted how the
approaches
differ and how
they
overlap
and interrelate. In their review of the literature
published
11 years
later,
Sleeter and Grant
(1987)
also identified five
approaches
to multi-
cultural
education,
four of which differ from Gibson's
categories.
Sleeter
and Grant noted the lack of consensus in the field and concluded that a
focus on the education of
people
of color is the
only
common element
among
the
many
different definitions of multicultural education.
Although
there are
many
different
approaches,
statements of
aims,
and definitions
of multicultural
education,
an examination of the recent literature written
by specialists
in the field indicates that there is a
high
level of consensus
about its aims and
goals (Banks, 1989a; Bennett, 1990; Nieto, 1992;
Pa-
rekh, 1986;
Sleeter &
Grant, 1988; Suzuki, 1984).
A
major goal
of multicultural
education,
as stated
by specialists
in the
field,
is to reform the school and other educational institutions so that
students from diverse
racial, ethnic,
and social-class
groups
will
expe-
rience educational
equality.
Another
important goal
of multicultural edu-
cation-revealed in this literature-is to
give
both male and female stu-
dents an
equal
chance to
experience
educational success and
mobility
3
4 Review of Research in
Education,
19
(Klein, 1985;
Sadker &
Sadker, 1982).
Multicultural education theorists
are
increasingly
interested in how the interaction of
race, class,
and
gender
influences education
(Banks, 1989a;
Grant &
Sleeter, 1986; Sleeter, 1991).
However,
the
emphasis
that different theorists
give
to each of these vari-
ables varies
considerably.
Although
there is an
emerging
consensus about the aims and
scope
of
(Banks, 1992),
the
variety
of
typologies, concep-
tual
schemes,
and
perspectives
within the field reflects its
emergent
status
and the fact that
complete agreement
about its aims and boundaries has
not been attained
(Baker, 1983; Banks, 1988a; Bennett, 1990; Garcia,
1991;
Gollnick &
Chinn, 1990).
Because of its forensic and
polarized
na-
ture,
the current acrimonious debate about the extent to which the his-
tories and cultures of women and
people
of color should be
incorporated
into the
study
of Western civilization in the nation's
schools, colleges,
and universities has
complicated
the
quest
for sound definitions and clear
disciplinary
boundaries within the field
(Asante, 1991;
Asante &
Ravitch,
1991; Ravitch, 1990; Schlesinger, 1990).
GOALS AND SCOPE
There is
general agreement among
most scholars and researchers
that,
for multicultural education to be
implemented successfully,
institutional
changes
must be
made, including changes
in the
curriculum;
the
teaching
materials; teaching
and
learning styles;
the
attitudes, perceptions,
and
behaviors of teachers and
administrators;
and the
goals, norms,
and cul-
ture of the school
(Banks, 1992; Bennett, 1990;
Sleeter &
Grant, 1988).
However, many
school and
university practitioners
have a limited con-
ception
of multicultural
education, viewing
it
primarily
as curriculum re-
form that involves
changing
or
restructuring
the curriculum to include
content about ethnic
groups, women,
and other cultural
groups.
This con-
ception
of multicultural education is
widespread
because curriculum re-
form was the main focus when the movement first
emerged
in the 1960s
and 1970s
(Blassingame, 1972; Ford, 1973)
and because the multicultur-
alism discourse in the
popular
media has focused on curriculum reform
and
largely ignored
other dimensions and
components
of multicultural
education
(Gray, 1991; Leo, 1990; Schlesinger, 1990, 1991).
If multicultural education is to become better understood and
imple-
mented in
ways
more consistent with
theory,
its various dimensions must
be more
clearly described, conceptualized,
and researched. Multicultural
education is
conceptualized
in this review as a field that consists of the
five dimensions formulated
by
Banks
(1991a, 1992).
The dimensions are
based on his
research, observations,
and work in the field from the late
1960s
(Banks, 1970) through
1991
(Banks, 1992).
Because of the limited
scope
of this review, no
attempt
is made to
comprehensively
review the
Banks: Multicultural Education 5
research in each of the five dimensions.
Rather,
a selected
group
of studies
in each of the dimensions is reviewed.
Race, ethnicity, class, gender,
and
exceptionality-and
their interaction-are each
important
factors in mul-
ticultural education.
However,
this review focuses on racial and ethnic
groups.
It is not
possible
within one review to examine each of the other
variables in sufficient
depth.
THE DIMENSIONS OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION
The dimensions of multicultural education used to
conceptualize,
or-
ganize,
and select the literature for review in this
chapter
are
(a)
content
integration, (b)
the
knowledge
construction
process, (c) prejudice
reduc-
tion, (d)
an
equity pedagogy,
and
(e)
an
empowering
school culture and
social structure. Each of the dimensions is defined and
illustrated,
and a
brief overview of each
major
section of the
chapter
is
presented.
The
interrelationship
of the five dimensions is discussed later.
Content
Integration
Content
integration
deals with the extent to which teachers use ex-
amples, data,
and information from a
variety
of cultures and
groups
to
illustrate
key concepts, principles, generalizations,
and theories in their
subject
area or
discipline.
In
many
school
districts,
as well as in
popular
writings,
multicultural education is viewed
only
or
primarily
as content
integration.
The
widespread
belief that content
integration
constitutes the
whole of multicultural education
might
be an
important
factor that causes
many
teachers of
subjects
such as mathematics and science to view mul-
ticultural education as an endeavor
primarily
for social studies and lan-
guage
arts teachers.
The historical
development
of content
integration
movements is dis-
cussed, beginning
with the historical work of
George Washington
Williams
(1882, 1883),
the first African-American historian in the United States
(Franklin, 1985).
The
early
ethnic studies
movement,
which
began
with
Williams,
continued
quietly
until the ethnic studies movement of the 1960s
and 1970s
began.
The rise and fall of the
intergroup
education movement
is also described in this section.
Knowledge
Construction
The
knowledge
construction
process
describes the
procedures by
which
social, behavioral,
and natural scientists create
knowledge
and how the
implicit
cultural
assumptions,
frames of
references, perspectives,
and
biases within a
discipline
influence the
ways
that
knowledge
is constructed
within it
(Berger
&
Luckman, 1966; Gould, 1981; Harding, 1991; Kuhn,
1970). When the
knowledge
construction
process
is
implemented
in the
Education,
19
classroom,
teachers
help
students to understand how
knowledge
is cre-
ated and how it is influenced
by
the
racial, ethnic,
and social-class
po-
sitions of individuals and
groups.
This section describes how the dominant
paradigms
about ethnic
groups
that were established
by
mainstream social scientists were
challenged by
revisionist social scientists in the 1960s and
1970s; many
of these revi-
sionists were scholars of color
(Acufia, 1972; Blassingame, 1972; Ladner,
1973),
whereas others were not
(Daniels, 1988; Genovese, 1972; Levine,
1977).
Literature that illustrates how
paradigm
shifts are
taking place
and
describes models that can be used to teach students to understand the
knowledge
construction
process
is also described in this section.
Prejudice
Reduction
The
prejudice
reduction dimension of multicultural education describes
the characteristics of children's racial attitudes and
strategies
that can be
used to
help
students
develop
more democratic attitudes and values. Re-
searchers have been
investigating
the characteristics of children's racial
attitudes since the 1920s
(Lasker, 1929).
Since the
intergroup
education
movement of the 1940s and 1950s
(Miel
with
Kiester, 1967; Trager
&
Yarrow, 1952),
a number of
investigators
have
designed
interventions to
help
students to
develop
more
positive
racial attitudes and values. This
section
briefly
reviews selected studies on the characteristics of children's
racial attitudes and studies that describe the results of interventions de-
signed
to
help
students to
acquire
more democratic racial attitudes
(Banks, 1991b).
Equity Pedagogy
An
equity pedagogy
exists when teachers use
techniques
and methods
that facilitate the academic achievement of students from diverse
racial,
ethnic,
and social-class
groups.
This section consists of a review of se-
lected studies of
approaches, theories,
and interventions that are
designed
to
help
students who are members of low-status
population groups
to
increase their academic achievement
(Delpit, 1988; Ogbu, 1990; Shade,
1989).
The literature reviewed in this section is discussed within a historical
context. The kinds of theories that have been constructed to
help
teachers
develop
more effective
strategies
for use with students of color and low-
income students have varied
throughout
time. In the
early 1960s,
the
cultural
deprivation paradigm
was
developed (Bloom, Davis,
&
Hess,
1965; Davis, 1948/1962; Riessman, 1962).
The cultural difference
theory
emerged
in the 1970s and
challenged
the cultural
deprivationists (Baratz
&
Baratz, 1970; Ginsburg, 1972;
Ramirez & Castafieda, 1974). Today,
the
"at-risk"
conception
has
emerged,
which is akin to the cultural
depri-
vation
paradigm (Cuban, 1989; Richardson, Casanova, Placier,
& Guil-
foyle, 1989).
Empowering
School Culture
The
concept
of an
empowering
school culture and social structure is
used in this
chapter
to describe the
process
of
restructuring
the culture
and
organization
of the school so that students from diverse
racial, ethnic,
and social-class
groups
will
experience
educational
equality
and cultural
empowerment (Cummins, 1986). Creating
an
empowering
school culture
for students of color and low-income students involves
restructuring
the
culture and
organization
of the school.
Among
the variables that need to be examined in order to create a
school culture that
empowers
students from diverse ethnic and cultural
groups
are
grouping practices (Braddock, 1990; Oakes, 1985), labeling
practices (Mercer, 1989),
the social climate of the
school,
and staff
expectations
for student achievement
(Brookover, Beady, Flood,
Schweitzer,
&
Wisenbaker, 1979).
This section reviews literature that
focuses on institutionalized factors of the school culture and environment
that need to be reformed in order to increase the academic achievement
and emotional
growth
of students from diverse
ethnic, racial,
and social-
class
groups.
Limitations and
Interrelationship
of the Dimensions
The dimensions
typology
is an
ideal-type conception
in the Weberian
sense. It
approximates
but does not describe
reality
in its total
complexity.
Like all classification
schemas,
it has both
strengths
and limitations.
Ty-
pologies
are
helpful conceptual
tools because
they provide
a
way
to or-
ganize
and make sense of
complex
and
disparate
data and observations.
However,
their
categories
are interrelated and
overlapping,
not
mutually
exclusive.
Typologies
are
rarely
able to
encompass
the total universe of
existing
or future cases.
Consequently,
some cases can be described
only
by using
several of the
categories.
The dimensions
typology provides
a useful framework for
categorizing
and
interpreting
the extensive and
disparate
literature on
diversity
and
education.
However,
the five dimensions are
conceptually
distinct but
highly
interrelated. Content
integration,
for
example,
describes
any ap-
proach
that is used to
integrate
content about racial and cultural
groups
into the curriculum. The
knowledge
construction
process
describes a
method in which teachers
help
students to understand how
knowledge
is
created and reflects the
experiences of
various ethnic and cultural
groups.
Content
integration
is a
necessary
but not sufficient condition for the
Education,
19
knowledge
construction
process (i.e.,
content
integration
can take
place
without the
knowledge
construction
process).
Teachers
can,
for
example,
insert content into the curriculum about Mexican Americans without
help-
ing
students to view the content from Mexican-American
perspectives.
However,
the
knowledge
construction
process
cannot be included in the
curriculum without content
integration
first
taking place.
Some of the
publications
examined for this review crossed several of
the
categories. Cooperative learning techniques
can
help
students to in-
crease their academic
achievement,
as well as to
develop
more
positive
racial attitudes.
Consequently,
some
cooperative learning
studies can be
categorized
as both
equity pedagogy
and
prejudice
reduction
strategies
(Aronson
&
Bridgeman, 1979; Slavin, 1985).
Criteria for
selecting
studies in each of the five dimensions included
the extent to which the
study
or
publication (a)
is a
prototype
of the
particular
dimension
being discussed; (b)
has been influential in the
field,
as determined
by
the extent to which it is cited and has contributed to
the theoretical and
empirical growth
of the
field;
and
(c)
has
promise,
in
my judgment,
of
contributing
to the future
development
of
theory,
re-
search,
and
practice
in multicultural education.
CONTENT INTEGRATION
The literature on content
integration
focuses on what information
should be included in the
curriculum,
how it should be
integrated
into the
existing curriculum,
and its location within the curriculum
(i.e.,
whether
it should be
taught
within
separate
courses or as
part
of the core curric-
ulum).
Another
important
issue discussed in this literature is who should
be the audience for ethnic content
(i.e.,
whether it should be for all stu-
dents or
primarily
for students of
color).
An exhaustive
body
of literature exists that describes the various de-
bates, discussions,
and curricula that focus on the
integration
of content
about ethnic
groups
and women into
school, college,
and
university
cur-
ricula
(Banks, 1991c;
Butler &
Walter, 1991; Lauter, 1991).
The
scope
of
this section is limited
primarily
to a
description
of the literature that fo-
cuses on the
integration
of content about racial and ethnic
groups
into
the curriculum. The literature that describes the effects of curricular ma-
terials on students' racial and ethnic attitudes is reviewed in the section
that discusses the
prejudice
reduction dimension.
The Need for a Historical
Perspective
It is
important
to view the movements
by
ethnic
groups
to
integrate
school, college,
and
university
curricula with ethnic content from a his-
torical
perspective (see Table 1).
A
historical
perspective
is
necessary
to
TABLE 1
Landmark Events and Publications in the Historical
Development
of Ethnic
Studies and Multicultural Education
Year(s) Event/publication
1882-1883
History
of the
Negro
Race in America
by George Washington
Williams
1896 The
Suppression
of the African Slave Trade to the United States of Amer-
ica 1638-1870
by
W. E. B. DuBois
1899 The
Philadelphia Negro by
W. E. B. DuBois
1915 The Association for the
Study
of
Negro
Life and
History
is founded in
Chicago
1916 The Journal of
Negro History begins publication
1921 The Associated Publishers is established
1922 The
Negro
in Our
History by
Carter G. Woodson and Charles C.
Wesley
1929 Race Attitudes in Children
by
Bruno Lasker
1930 Mexican
Immigration
to the United States
by
Manuel Gamio
1933 The Mis-Education of the
Negro by
Carter G. Woodson
1936
Eugene
Horowitz's
study
of
young
children's attitudes toward the
Negro
1937 The
Negro History Bulletin,
designed
for
schools,
begins publication
1939
Negro
Education in Alabama: A
Study
in Cotton and Steel
by
Horace
Mann
Bond;
first
reported study by
Kenneth B. and Mamie P. Clark on
young
children's racial attitudes
1941
Deep South:
A Social
Anthropological Study
of Caste and Class
by
Al-
lison
Davis,
Burleigh
B.
Gardner,
and
Mary
R. Gardner
1944 An American
Dilemma:
The
Negro
Problem and Modern
Democracy by
Gunnar
Myrdal
with Richard Sterner and Arnold Rose
1945 Democratic Human Relations:
Promising
Practices in
Intergroup
and In-
tercultural Education in the Social
Studies,
16th
yearbook
of the Na-
tional Council for the Social
Studies,
edited
by
Hilda Taba and William
Van
Til;
Black
Metropolis:
A
Study
of
Negro
Life in a Northern
City by
St. Clair Drake and Horace R.
Cayton
1947 A review of research on
intergroup
education is
published
in the Review
of Educational Research
by Lloyd
A.
Cook;
first edition of From
Slavery
to Freedom: A
History
of
Negro
Americans
by
John
Hope
Franklin
1950
College Programs
in
Intergroup
Relations
by Lloyd
A.
Cook;
The Au-
thoritarian
Personality by
T. W. Adorno et al.
1951
Intergroup
Relations in Teacher Education
by Lloyd
A. Cook
1952
Intergroup
Education in Public Schools
by
Hilda
Taba,
Elizabeth H.
Brady,
and John T.
Robinson; They
Learn What
They
Live:
Prejudice
in
Young
Children
by
Helen G. Trader and Marian R.
Yarrow;
Race
Awareness in
Young
Children
by Mary
Ellen Goodman
1954 The Nature of
Prejudice by
Gordon W.
Allport
1962 Social-Class Influences
Upon Learning by
Allison
Davis
1965
Compensatory
Education for Cultural
Deprivation by Benjamin
S. Bloom,
Allison
Davis,
and Robert Hess
1966
Equal
Education
Opportunity by
James Coleman et al.
1972
Inequality:
A Reassessment of the Effect of
Family
and
Schooling
in
America
by Christopher
Jencks et al.
1973 No One Model American
(American
Association of
Colleges
for Teacher
Education); Teaching
Ethnic Studies:
Concepts
and
Strategies,
Na-
tional Council for the Social Studies 43rd
yearbook,
edited
by
James
A. Banks
1974 Cultural
Democracy, Bicognitive Development,
and Education
by
Manuel
Ramirez and Alf redo
Castaheda;
The Next Generation: An
Ethnography
of Education in an Urban
Neighborhood by
John U.
Ogbu;
Students'
Right
to Their Own
Language,
a
position
statement
by
the National
Council of Teachers of
English
(continued)
Education,
19
TABLE 1
(continued)
Year(s) Event/publication
1975 Adolescent
Prejudice by
Charles Y.
Glock,
Robert
Wuthnow,
Jane A.
Piliavin,
and Metta
Spencer, sponsored by
the Anti-Defamation
League
of B'nai B'rith
1976 Curriculum Guidelines for Multiethnic
Education,
a
position
statement
issued
by
the National Council for the Social
Studies; Race, Color,
and
the
Young
Child
by
John E. Williams and J. Kenneth Morland-a
syn-
thesis of research conducted in the late 1960s and 1970s on
young
children's racial attitudes
1977 Multicultural Education:
Commitments,
Issues and
Applications,
ed-
ited
by
Carl A.
Grant, published by
the Association for
Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development;
Pluralism and the American Teacher: Issues
and Case
Studies,
edited
by
Frank H. Klassen and Donna M.
Gollnick,
published by
the American Association of
Colleges
for Teacher Edu-
cation; Pluralism in a Democratic
Society,
edited
by
Melvin M. Tumin
and Walter
Plotch, sponsored by
the Anti-Defamation
League
of B'nai
B'rith;
Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Education,
issued
by
the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher
Education,
includes a
requirement
for multicultural education in teacher educa-
tion
programs
1983
Ways
with Words:
Language,
Life and Work in Communities and Class-
rooms
by Shirley
Brice Heath
1985
Beginnings:
The Social and Affective
Development
of Black
Children,
edited
by Margaret
B.
Spencer,
Geraldine K.
Brookins,
and Walter R.
Allen
1988 The Education of Blacks in the
South,
1860-1935
by
James D. An-
derson
1989 A Common
Destiny:
Blacks and American
Society,
edited
by
Gerald
D.
Jaynes
and Robin M.
Williams, Jr.,
National Research Council
report
1991 Shades of Black:
Diversity
in African-American
Identity by
William E.
Cross,
Jr.
provide
a context for
understanding
the
contemporary developments
and
discourse in multicultural education and to
effectively
restructure
schools,
colleges,
and universities to reflect multicultural issues and concerns.
Contemporary
reformers need to
understand,
for
example, why
the in-
tergroup
education movement of the 1940s and 1950s
ultimately
failed
(Cook, 1947;
Taba &
Wilson, 1946)
and
why early
ethnic studies leaders
such as Woodson
(1919/1968),
DuBois
(1935), Wesley (1935),
and Franklin
(1947),
and their
successors,
were able to
quietly
continue the
early
ethnic
studies movement with
publications, research,
and
teaching
from the turn
of the
century
to the
1960s,
when the new ethnic studies movement
began.
At least a
partial explanation
is that the
early
ethnic studies movement
was sustained
by
ethnic
self-help organizations
such as the Association
for the
Study
of
Negro
Life and
History (ASNLH;
now the Association
for the
Study
of Afro-American Life and
History)
and the Associated
Publishers-two
organizations
cofounded and headed
by
Woodson. The
Associated Publishers
published many important
and seminal works
by
and about African-American scholars such as Woodson
(1919/1968),
Wes-
ley (1935),
and Bond
(1939).
African-American schools and
colleges
were
the
major
consumers of Black
scholarship during
the first decades of the
20th
century.
Ethnic
community support might
be essential for
sustaining
interest in ethnic studies and multicultural concerns over the
long
haul.
Further
investigations
are needed to determine the different fates of the
early
ethnic studies and the
intergroup
education movements.
African Americans led the movement that
pushed
for the
integration
of ethnic content into the curriculum
during
the 1960s and 1970s. Con-
sequently,
it is
appropriate
to
provide
a brief historical discussion of the
movement to
integrate
the curriculum with ethnic
content, using
African
Americans as a case
study.
The
Early
Ethnic Studies Movement
The Black studies movement that
emerged
in the 1960s and 1970s has
historical roots in the
early
national
period (Brooks, 1990; White, 1973;
Woodson, 1919/1968).
It is more
directly
linked to the work in ethnic
studies research and the
development
of
teaching
materials
by
African-
American scholars such as Williams
(1882-1883),
Woodson and
Wesley
(1922),
and DuBois
(1935, 1973).
Scholars such as
Williams, Wesley,
Woodson,
and DuBois created
knowledge
about African Americans that
could be
integrated
into the school and
college
curriculum. Educators
such as Woodson and
Wesley (1922)
worked to
integrate
the school and
college
curriculum with content about African Americans
during
the
early
decades of the 20th
century.
Brooks
(1990, p. 75)
discusses the
early history
of schools for African-
American children. He
points
out that from
slavery
to
today,
Black edu-
cation has been characterized
by desegregation
in the colonial and
early
national
periods,
a
push
for
segregation
in the
early 1800s,
a movement
toward
desegregation during
the 1950s and
1960s,
and another
swing
to-
ward
segregation today.
The first
public
schools that were
organized
in Massachusetts and Vir-
ginia
in the 1640s were
desegregated (Brooks, 1990; White, 1973;
Wood-
son, 1919/1968). However,
because of the discrimination that African
Americans
experienced
in these
schools, they
took the
leadership
in es-
tablishing separate
schools for their children. When the
city
of Boston
refused to fund
separate
schools for African-American children in
1800,
the Black
community
set
up
its own schools and hired the teachers. In
1818,
the
city
of Boston started
funding separate
schools for African-
American children. The first schools established for African Americans
in the South after the Civil War were
segregated by
laws formulated
by
White
legislators.
Separate
schools for African Americans
proved
to be a mixed
blessing,
Education,
19
especially
in the southern states and later in northern cities. In the
South,
African-American schools and other institutions were
separate
and un-
equal.
African-American schools were
unequal
in terms of
expenditures
spent per pupil,
the salaries of teachers and
administrators,
and the
quality
and newness of textbooks and other
teaching
materials
(Anderson, 1988;
Bond, 1939).
Although separate
Black
public
schools in the South had African-Amer-
ican teachers and
administrators,
their schools
boards, curricula,
and text-
books were White controlled and dominated.
Consequently, integration
of the curriculum with content about African Americans was
problematic.
In his influential
book,
Mis-Education
of
the
Negro,
Woodson
(1933)
stated that schools and
colleges
were
miseducating
African Americans
because
they
were
taught
about
European
civilization but not about the
great
African civilizations and cultures of their own
people.
He described
what he felt were the harmful effects of
neglecting
Black
history
and
civilization on the
thinking
and self-esteem of African-American
youth.
From 1920 until his death in
1950,
Woodson
probably
did more than
any
other individual to
promote
the
study
and
teaching
of African-Amer-
ican
history
in the nation's schools and
colleges.
He
spent
most of his
career
writing histories, editing journals,
and
building
ASNLH. Woodson
taught high
school in
Washington, D.C.,
from 1909 to
1918,
and received
his doctorate in
history
from Harvard in 1912. He was one of the founders
of ASNLH and established the Journal
of Negro History
in 1916. He also
established the Associated
Publishers,
a
subsidiary
of
ASNLH,
in
1921,
which
published
a score of histories about African
Americans, many
of
them written
by
Woodson and his historian
colleagues.
Woodson's books were
widely
used in African-American
high
schools
and
colleges.
He started
Negro History
Week
(now
National Afro-Amer-
ican
History Month)
in 1926 to
promote
the
study
and
teaching
of African-
American
history
in the
elementary
and
secondary
schools. In
1937,
he
started
publishing
the
Negro History
Bulletin to
provide
historical ma-
terials for use
by elementary
and
secondary
school teachers. Other
early
African-American
scholars,
such as Williams
(1882-1883),
DuBois
(1935),
Wesley (1935), Quarles (1953),
and
Logan (1954), played key
roles in
creating
the
scholarship
needed to
develop teaching
materials for the
schools and
colleges. However,
none of these scholars were as
directly
involved as Woodson was in
promoting
the inclusion of content about
African Americans into the curriculum of the nation's schools and col-
leges.
The
Intergroup
Education Movement
The
intergroup
education
movement, although
not a direct link to the
work of
early
African-American scholars such as Woodson, Wesley,
DuBois,
and
Logan,
is an
important precedent
to the ethnic studies move-
ment that
emerged
in the 1960s and 1970s. The
intergroup
education move-
ment is linked to the work of these scholars because content about reli-
gious, national,
and racial
groups
was one of the variables it used to reduce
prejudice
and discrimination
(Cook
&
Cook, 1954; Trager
&
Yarrow,
1952).
It is linked to the
contemporary
multicultural education movement
because it shared
many
of the
goals
of
today's
movement and
experienced many
of the same
problems (Taba
&
Wilson,
1946; Banks, 1988b).
The social forces that
gave
rise to the
intergroup
education movement
grew
out of the
consequences
of World War
II.
The demands of the war
created
job opportunities
in the North and the West that were not available
in the South.
Consequently, many
African
Americans,
Mexican Ameri-
cans,
and Whites
living
in rural areas
migrated
to northern and western
cities to find
jobs
in war-related industries. Ethnic and racial tension de-
veloped
as
Anglos
and Mexican Americans in western cities and African
Americans and Whites in northern cities
competed
for
jobs
and
housing.
These tensions resulted in a series of racial incidents and riots that stunned
the nation.
Intergroup
education
emerged
as an educational
response
to the racial
and ethnic tension in the nation
(Taba, Brady,
&
Robinson, 1952).
One
of its
major goals
was to
help
reduce
prejudice
and create interracial
understanding among
students from diverse
national,
religious,
and racial
groups (Cook
&
Cook, 1954;
Taba &
Wilson, 1946).
Several national
organizations,
such as the
Progressive
Education Association
(Locke
&
Stern, 1942),
the National Council for the Social Studies
(NCSS;
Taba &
Van
Til, 1945),
and the American Council on Education
(Cook, 1950),
sponsored projects, activities,
and
publications
in
intergroup
education.
Projects
and activities were
developed
for both
elementary
and
secondary
schools
(Taba
et
al., 1952),
as well as for teachers
colleges (Cook, 1951).
Many
of the
intergroup
education
publications,
like multicultural edu-
cation
publications today,
were
practical
sources that described
ways
to
set
up
an
intergroup
relations center
(Clinchy, 1949),
identified
objectives
and methods for schools
(Vickery
&
Cole, 1943),
described curricula and
units for schools
(Taba, 1950, 1951, 1952),
and described
intergroup
edu-
cation
programs
and
projects
in
colleges
and universities
(Cook, 1951).
Some of these
publications
were based on
intergroup
theories
developed
by
social scientists such as Louis Wirth
(1928)
and Gordon W.
Allport
(1954).
Some of the nation's
leading
social scientists and
philosophers partic-
ipated
in the
development
of theoretical ideas about the reduction of in-
terracial tensions
during
the
intergroup
education era. Louis
Wirth,
the
University
of
Chicago sociologist,
and Gordon W.
Allport,
the Harvard
Education,
19
social
psychologist,
contributed
chapters
to a book edited
by Lloyd
A.
Cook
(1952),
a
leading intergroup
educator. Wirth's
paper
was titled
"Freedom,
Power and Values in Our Present
Crisis"; Allport's
was called
"Resolving Intergroup
Tension: An
Appraisal
of Methods."
Alain
Locke,
the African-American
philosopher
of Howard
University,
coedited a
background
book on
intergroup
education for the
Progressive
Education Association
(Locke
&
Stern, 1942).
This
comprehensive
book
on race and culture consists of
reprinted
articles
by
some of the
leading
social scientists of the
day, including
Ruth
Benedict,
Franz
Boas,
John
Dollard,
E. Franklin
Frazier,
Melville J.
Herskovits,
Otto
Klineberg,
Ralph Linton,
and
Margaret
Mead.
Allison
Davis,
the noted African-American
anthropologist
at the Uni-
versity
of
Chicago,
wrote a
chapter
for NCSS's 16th
yearbook.
Davis was
coauthor of
Deep
South: A Social
Anthropological Study of
Caste and
Class,
a classic
study
of an old southern
city (Davis, Gardner,
&
Gardner,
1941).
The
chapter
is titled "Some Basic
Concepts
in the Education of
Ethnic and Lower-Class
Groups."
Davis
urged
social studies teachers to
teach students
"a devotion to democratic
values,
and
group disapproval
of
injustice, oppression,
and
exploitation" (Taba
& Van
Til, 1945, p. 278).
He also believed that teachers should teach social action: "Teach the
underprivileged
child to learn to
help organize
and
improve
his com-
munity" (p. 279).
The fact that scholars of Davis's and Locke's stature
contributed to books on
intergroup
education
sponsored by
educational
organizations
indicated that some of the
leading
social science scholars
of the 1940s believed that
they
should become involved in a
major
social
problem facing
the nation and the schools.
Several landmark studies in race relations were
published during
the
intergroup
education era. Jewish
organizations,
such as the American
Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation
League
of B'nai
B'rith, spon-
sored several of these studies. One
important
factor that contributed to
the rise of the
intergroup
education movement was anti-Semitism in West-
ern
nations,
which reached its
peak
in
Germany during
World War
II.
Jewish
organizations
were
especially
interested in
taking
actions and
sponsoring
research that would ease racial tension and conflict.
They
were
poignantly
aware of the destructive
power
of ethnic hate
(Wyman, 1984).
In
1950,
The Authoritarian
Personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik,
Levinson,
&
Sanford, 1950)
was
published.
In this landmark
study,
the
authors
identify
the
personality
factors that contribute to the formation
of
prejudice. Although they overemphasize personality
factor
explana-
tions of
prejudice
and
give
insufficient attention to structural
factors,
their
study
remains an
important
one.
Allport's
seminal
study,
The Nature
of Prejudice,
was
published
in
1954. In this book, Allport
formulates his influential
principles
about
ways
to create effective
intergroup
interactions. He states that effective contact
situations must be characterized
by equal-status, cooperative
rather than
competitive interactions,
and
by
shared
goals.
Positive interracial contact
must also be sanctioned
by
authorities.
Allport's principles
are
highly
influential in social science research
today
and
provide
an
important
theo-
retical base for the work of researchers such as Cohen
(1972),
Aronson
and
Bridgeman (1979),
and Slavin
(1985).
Important
theoretical and research work related to children's racial
attitudes was also
completed during
the
intergroup
education
period.
The
Anti-Defamation
League
of B'nai B'rith
sponsored
an
important study by
Goodman that was
published
in 1952. This
study provided
evidence that
supported
earlier
findings by
researchers such as
E.
L. Horowitz
(1936),
R.
E.
Horowitz
(1939),
and a series of studies
by
Kenneth B. and Mamie
P. Clark
(1939a, 1939b, 1940, 1947).
These studies established the
pos-
tulate that
preschool
children have racial awareness and attitudes that
mirror those of adults.
Intergroup
educators wanted to
help
students to
develop
more demo-
cratic racial attitudes and values
(Cook, 1947;
Taba &
Wilson, 1946).
Investigations designed
to determine the effects of curricular interven-
tions on students' racial attitudes were an
important part
of the
intergroup
education movement.
Significant
intervention studies conducted
during
this
period
include those
by Trager
and Yarrow
(1952)
and
by Hayes
and
Conklin
(1953).
Most of these studies
support
the
postulate
that multi-
cultural
lessons, activities,
and
teaching materials,
when used within a
democratic classroom
atmosphere
and
implemented
for a
sufficiently long
period, help
students to
develop
more democratic racial attitudes and
values. Studies both
prior
to and
during
this
period
established that chil-
dren internalize the attitudes of adults that are institutionalized within the
structures and institutions of
society (Clark
&
Clark, 1947; Goodman,
1952; E.
L.
Horowitz, 1936).
Important
textbooks and
reports published during
the
intergroup
edu-
cation era include those
by
Locke and Stern
(1942),
Cook
(1950),
Taba
et al.
(1952),
and Cook and Cook
(1954),
which reveal that
intergroup
educators
emphasized
democratic
living
and interracial
cooperation
within mainstream American
society.
The ethnic studies movements that
both
preceded
and followed the
intergroup
education movement
empha-
sized ethnic
attachment, pride,
and
empowerment.
The focus in inter-
group
education was on intercultural interactions within a
shared,
com-
mon culture
(Cook, 1947;
Taba &
Wilson, 1946).
The
Early
Ethnic Studies and
Intergroup
Education Movements
Compared
Woodson
(1933)
and DuBois
(1973)
were concerned that African Amer-
icans
develop knowledge
of Black
history
and culture, and a commitment
Education,
19
to the
empowerment
and enhancement of the African-American com-
munity.
This was in contrast to the
emphasis
in
intergroup
education,
which
promoted
a weak form of
diversity
and the notion that
"we
are
different but the same."
The Sleeter and Grant
(1987) typology
consists of five
categories: (a)
teaching
the
culturally different, (b)
human
relations, (c) single-group
studies, (d)
multicultural
education,
and
(e)
education that is multicultural
and social reconstructionist. Most of the literature and
guides
that were
produced during
the
intergroup
education era can be classified as human
relations. In this
approach, according
to Sleeter and Grant
(1987, p. 426),
multicultural education is
"a
way
to
help
students of different back-
grounds communicate, get along
better with each
other,
and feel
good
about themselves."
Like the human relations books and materials examined
by
Sleeter and
Grant that were
published
in the 1970s and
1980s, intergroup
education
materials devote little attention to issues and
problems
such as institu-
tionalized
racism, power,
and structural
inequality. However,
unlike most
of the human relations materials examined
by
Sleeter and
Grant,
some
of the materials
published during
the
intergroup
education
period
are
based on theories
developed by psychologists
and social
psychologists
(Taba, 1950, 1951;
Taba &
Wilson, 1946).
The
intergroup
education
publications
and
projects emphasized
inter-
racial
harmony
and human relations. The
early
ethnic studies advocates
endorsed ethnic
empowerment
and what Sleeter and Grant call
"single-
group
studies."
Thus,
the aims and
goals
of the
intergroup
education and
ethnic studies movements were
quite
different. The ethnic studies move-
ment
emphasized
the histories and cultures of
specific
ethnic
groups (sin-
gle-group studies).
Taba and Wilson
(1946)
identified the
following
focuses
in
intergroup
education:
concepts
and
understandings
about
groups
and
relations, sensitivity
and
goodwill, objective thinking,
and
experiences
in
democratic
procedures.
The racial
backgrounds
and cultural
experiences
of the leaders of the
two ethnic studies movements and those of the leaders of the
intergroup
education movement were
important
factors that influenced the
goals,
aims,
and nature of these movements. Most of the influential leaders of
the
early
ethnic studies movement in the United States and the one that
emerged
in the 1960s and 1970s were
people
of color. Most of the leaders
of the
intergroup
education movement were White liberal educators and
social scientists who functioned and worked within mainstream
colleges,
universities,
and other institutions and
organizations.
Hilda Taba
(who
taught
at the
University
of
Chicago
and directed the
Intergroup
Education
in
Cooperating
Schools
Project
for the American Council on
Education)
and Lloyd A. Cook (who taught
at Wayne State
University
and directed
the
College Programs
in
Intergroup
Relations
project)
were the most
pro-
lific and noted
intergroup
education leaders.
The different cultural
experiences, perceptions,
and values of the lead-
ers of the ethnic studies and
intergroup
education movements
significantly
influenced their
perceptions
of the
goals
of
citizenship
education and the
role of ethnic content in instruction. Ethnic studies scholars and educators
probably
endorsed a more
pluralistic
view of
citizenship
education than
did
intergroup
educators because
they
worked and functioned
primarily
outside mainstream institutions and believed that
parallel
ethnic institu-
tions were essential for the survival and
development
of ethnic
groups
in
the United States. The
experiences
of most
intergroup
educators in main-
stream institutions influenced their view that assimilation into mainstream
culture and its institutions was the most
appropriate way
to resolve ethnic
tensions.
The
history
of the
early
ethnic studies and
intergroup
education move-
ments and an
analysis
of current curriculum reform efforts reveal that
movements related to the
integration
of ethnic content into the curriculum
move
cyclically
from a
single-group
to an
intergroup
focus. The fact that
single-group
studies movements continue to
emerge
within a
society
with
a democratic ethos
suggests
that the United States has not dealt suc-
cessfully
with the American dilemma related to race that
Myrdal (with
Sterner &
Rose, 1944)
identified
nearly
50
years ago.
The Ethnic Studies Movement of the 1960s and 1970s
An
important
vision within the
intergroup
education
ideology
was in-
terracial
harmony
and
desegregation.
Another name for the movement
was intercultural education.
Intergroup
education
emerged
when the na-
tion was
sharply segregated along
racial lines and was
beginning
its efforts
to create a
desegregated society.
The
early goal
of the civil
rights
move-
ment of the 1960s was racial
desegregation. However, many
African
Americans had
grown impatient
with the
pace
of
desegregation by
the
late 1960s. Imbued with racial
pride, they
called for Black
power, sep-
aratism,
and Black studies in the schools and
colleges
that would con-
tribute to the
empowerment
and advancement of African Americans
(Car-
michael &
Hamilton, 1967).
When the civil
rights
movement
began,
the
intergroup
education move-
ment had
quietly
died without a
requiem.
The
separatist ideology
that
emerged during
the 1970s was antithetical to the
intergroup
education
vision. The America envisioned
by
most
intergroup
educators was a na-
tion in which ethnic and racial differences were minimized and all
people
were treated
fairly
and lived in
harmony.
During
the late 1960s and
early 1970s,
sometimes in strident
voices,
African Americans, frustrated with deferred and shattered
dreams, de-
Education,
19
manded
community
control of their
schools,
African-American teachers
and
administrators,
and the infusion of Black
history
into the curriculum.
At the
university level, frequent
demands included Black studies
pro-
grams
and
courses, heritage
rooms or
houses,
and Black
professors
and
administrators.
During
this
period,
there was little demand for the infusion
of ethnic content into the core or mainstream curriculum-that demand
would not
emerge
until the 1980s and 1990s.
Rather,
the demand was
primarily
for
separate
courses and
programs (Blassingame, 1971; Ford,
1973; Robinson, Foster,
&
Ogilvie, 1969).
As
schools, colleges,
and universities
began
to
respond
to the demand
by
African Americans for curriculum
changes,
other ethnic
groups
of
color that felt victimized
by
institutionalized discrimination in the United
States
began
to demand similar
programs.
These
groups
included Mexican
Americans,
Puerto
Ricans,
American
Indians,
and Asian Americans. A
rich
array
of
books, programs, curricula,
and other materials that focused
on the histories and cultures of ethnic
groups
of color were
edited, written,
or
reprinted
between the late 1960s and the
early
1970s.
One
important development during
this
period
was the
reprinting
of
books and research studies that had been written
during
the
early
and
more silent
period
of ethnic studies. A few of these
publications
had re-
mained in
print
for
many years,
and had been best-sellers at all-Black
colleges;
such books were John
Hope
Franklin's
popular history,
From
Slavery
to
Freedom,
first
published
in
1947,
and The Souls
of
Black Folk
by
W. E. B.
DuBois,
first
published
in 1953.
However,
more
frequent
was the
reprinting
of
long-neglected
works
that had been
produced during
the earlier
period
of ethnic studies.
George
Washington
Williams's
History of
the
Negro
Race in America
(1882-1883)
was reissued
by
Arno Press in 1968.
Important
earlier works on
Hispanics
reprinted during
this
period
included the book
by Carey
McWilliams
(1949),
North
from
Mexico: The
Spanish-Speaking People of
the United
States,
which
provides
an informative overview of
Hispanic groups
in the
United States. Manuel Gamio's
(1930)
Mexican
Immigration
to the United
States is a well-researched
description
of the first wave of Mexican im-
migrants
to the United States. Two
important
earlier works on
Filipino
Americans were also reissued
during
this
period: Filipino Immigration
to
the Continental United States and
Hawaii, by
Bruno Lasker
(1931),
and
Brothers Under the
Skin, by Carey
McWilliams
(1943).
More
important
than the books that were
continually printed
or re-
printed
was the new
crop
of
publications
that focused
primarily
on the
struggles
and
experiences
of
particular
ethnic
groups.
The
emphasis
in
many
of these
publications
was on
ways
that ethnic
groups
of color had
been victimized
by
institutionalized racism and discrimination in the
United States. The
quality
of this rash of books varied
widely.
Some were
more
carefully
researched than others.
However, they
all
provided per-
spectives
that
gave
Americans new
ways
to view the
history
and culture
of the United States.
Many
of these books became
required reading
in
ethnic studies courses and
degree programs. Among
the
significant
books
of this
genre
are
Japanese Americans, by Harry
H. L. Kitano
(1969);
The
Story of
the Chinese in
America, by Betty
Lee
Sung (1967); Occupied
America: The Chicano's
Struggle
Toward
Liberation, by Rudy
Acufia
(1972);
Custer Died
for
Your Sins: An Indian
Manifesto, by
Vine
Deloria,
Jr.
(1969);
and The Rise
of
the Unmeltable
Ethnics, by
Michael Novak
(1971),
a
highly
rhetorical and
ringing plea
for
justice
for White ethnic
groups
such as
Poles, Italians, Greeks,
and Slavs.
The Evolution of Multicultural Education
The
intergroup
education movement is an
important
antecedent of the
current multicultural education movement but is not an actual root of it.
The current multicultural education movement is
directly
linked to the
early
ethnic studies movement initiated
by
scholars such as Williams
(1882-1883)
and continued
by
individuals such as DuBois
(1935),
Wood-
son
(1919/1968),
Bond
(1939),
and
Wesley (1935).
The
major
architects of
the multicultural education movement were
cogently
influenced
by
Af-
rican-American
scholarship
and ethnic studies related to the other ethnic
minority groups
in the United States.
Baker
(1977),
Banks
(1973), Gay (1971),
and Grant
(1973, 1978)
have
each
played significant
roles in the formulation and
development
of mul-
ticultural education in the United States. Each of these scholars was heav-
ily
influenced
by
the
early
work of African-American scholars and the
African-American ethnic studies movement.
They
were
working
in ethnic
studies
prior
to
participating
in the formation of multicultural education.
Other scholars who have
helped
to fashion multicultural education since
its
inception
were also influenced
by
the African-American ethnic studies
movement, including
James B.
Boyer (1974),
Asa Hilliard III
(1974),
and
Barbara A. Sizemore
(1972).
Scholars who are
specialists
on other ethnic
groups,
such as Carlos E.
Cortes
(1973;
Mexican
Americans),
Jack D. Forbes
(1973;
American In-
dians),
Sonia Nieto
(1986;
Puerto
Ricans),
and Derald W. Sue
(1981;
Asian
Americans),
also
played early
and
significant
roles in the evolution of
multicultural education.
The first
phase
of multicultural education
emerged
when educators who
had interests and
specializations
in the
history
and culture of ethnic mi-
nority groups
initiated individual and institutional actions to
incorporate
the
concepts, information,
and theories from ethnic studies into the school
and teacher education curricula.
Consequently,
the first
phase
of multi-
cultural education was ethnic studies.
Education,
19
A second
phase
emerged
when educators
interested in ethnic studies
began
to realize that
inserting
ethnic studies
content into the school and teacher education curricula was
necessary
but not sufficient to
bring
about school reform that would
respond
to the
unique
needs of ethnic
minority
students and
help
all students to
develop
more democratic racial and ethnic attitudes. Multiethnic
education,
the
second
phase
of multicultural
education, emerged.
Its aim was to
bring
about structural and
systemic changes
in the total school that were de-
signed
to increase educational
equality.
A third
phase
emerged
when other
groups
who viewed themselves as victims of the
society
and the
schools,
such
as women and
people
with
disabilities,
demanded the
incorporation
of
their
histories, cultures,
and voices into the curricula and structure of the
schools, colleges,
and universities. The
current,
or
fourth, phase
of mul-
ticultural education consists of the
development
of
theory, research,
and
practice
that interrelate variables connected to
race, class,
and
gender
(Banks
&
Banks, 1993;
Grant &
Sleeter, 1986).
It is
important
to note
that each of the
phases
of multicultural education exists
today. However,
the later
phases
tend to be more
prominent
than the earlier
ones,
at least
in the theoretical
literature,
if not in
practice.
During
the
1970s,
a number of
professional organizations,
such as the
American Association of
Colleges
for Teacher Education
(AACTE),
the
National Council of Teachers of
English (NCTE),
and
NCSS,
issued
po-
sition statements and
publications
that
encouraged
schools to
integrate
the curriculum with content and
understandings
about ethnic
groups.
In
1973,
AACTE
published
its brief and
widely quoted statement,
No One
Model American. That same
year,
the NCSS 43rd
yearbook
was titled
Teaching
Ethnic Studies:
Concepts
and
Strategies (Banks, 1973).
The
following year,
NCTE
(1974)
issued Students'
Rights
to Their Own Lan-
guage.
An
early
landmark conference on multicultural education
through
competency-based
teacher education was
sponsored by
AACTE in 1974
(Hunter, 1974).
In
1976,
NCSS
published
Curriculum Guidelines
for
Mul-
tiethnic Education
(Banks,
Cortes,
Gay, Garcia,
&
Ochoa, 1976).
This
publication
was revised and reissued in 1992 with a title
change ("Cur-
riculum Guidelines for Multicultural
Education";
NCSS Task
Force,
1992).
Several landmark
developments
in the
emergence
of multicultural edu-
cation occurred in 1977. The Association for
Supervision
and Curriculum
Development (ASCD) published
a book on multicultural education
(Grant, 1977).
That same
year,
AACTE
published
Pluralism and the
American Teacher: Issues and Case Studies. This book resulted from its
conference series on the
topic
that was
supported by
a
grant
from the
U.S. Office of Education
(Klassen & Gollnick, 1977). AACTE, using
the
grant funds,
established the Ethnic
Heritage
Center for Teacher Educa-
tion,
its unit that
sponsored
the conferences and the book. One of the
most influential
developments
that occurred
during
the
early emergence
of multicultural education was the issuance of Standards
for
the Accre-
ditation
of
Teacher Education
by
the National Council for Accreditation
of Teacher Education
(NCATE)
in 1977. These standards
required
all of
its member teacher education
institutions,
which consisted of about 80%
of the teacher education
programs
in the United
States,
to
implement
components, courses,
and
programs
in multicultural education. The stan-
dards were later issued in revised form
(NCATE, 1987).
Many professional
associations,
school
districts,
and state
departments
of education
published guidelines
and teacher's
guides
to
help
school
districts
integrate
groups
into the
elementary
and
high
school curriculum. The United Federation of Teachers
published
Puerto Rican
History
and Culture: A
Study
Guide and Curriculum Outline
(Aran, Arthur, Colon,
&
Goldenberg, 1973).
This curriculum
guide,
like
most materials
produced by professional organizations,
school
districts,
and commercial
publishers during
this
period,
focused on one ethnic
group.
Publications and materials that focused on more than one ethnic
group
were
developed
later. One of the first
publications
to recommend
a multiethnic
approach
to the
study
of ethnic
groups
was the NCSS 1973
yearbook (Banks, 1973).
The
guides
and books
published during
this
pe-
riod varied in
quality. Many
were
produced quickly,
but others
provided
teachers with sound and
thoughtful guidelines
for
integrating
their cur-
ricula with ethnic content.
Research
Developments
Since the 1960s
A rich
array
of research in the social
sciences, humanities,
and edu-
cation
focusing
on
people
of color has been
published
since 1960. Much
of this research
challenges existing interpretations, paradigms, assump-
tions,
and
methodologies
and
provides important
data on
long-neglected
topics (Gates, 1988; King
&
Mitchell, 1990; Slaughter, 1988).
The three
decades between 1960 and 1990 were
probably
the most
productive
re-
search
period
in ethnic studies in the nation's
history.
St. Claire Drake
(1987, 1990), shortly
before his
death, completed
a massive two-volume
anthropological study,
Black Folk Here and There. Bernal's
(1987, 1991)
comprehensive
two-volume
work,
Black Athena: The
Afroasiatic
Roots
of
Classical
Civilization, challenges existing
historical
interpretations
about the debt that ancient Greece owes to
Africa,
and
supports
earlier
works
by
African and African-American scholars such as
Diop (1974)
and
Van Sertima
(1988). Many
of the
insights
from this new
scholarship
are
being incorporated
into the school, college,
and university
curriculum.
Education,
19
THE KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
The ethnic studies research and literature
published during
the 1960s
and 1970s
(Acufia, 1972),
like the ethnic studies
scholarship
in the
early
decades of the
century (DuBois, 1935; Woodson, 1919/1968), challenged
some of the
major paradigms, canons,
and
perspectives
established within
mainstream
scholarship (Blea, 1988; Gordon, 1985; Gordon, Miller,
&
Rollock, 1990; Ladner, 1973).
Ethnic studies
scholarship
also
challenges
some of the
key assumptions
of mainstream Western
empiricism (Gordon
&
Meroe, 1991).
The construction of
descriptions
and
interpretations
of the settlement
of the West and of
slavery
are two
examples
of how
people
of color have
been described and
conceptualized
in mainstream U.S.
history
and social
science. Frederick Jackson Turner
(1894/1989)
constructed a view of the
settlement of
European
Americans in the West that has
cogently
influ-
enced the treatment and
interpretation
of the West in
school, college,
and
university
textbooks
(Sleeter
&
Grant, 1991).
Turner described the land
occupied by
the Indians as a wilderness to which the
Europeans brought
civilization. He also
argued
that the wilderness in the
West,
which re-
quired
individualism for
survival,
was the main source of American de-
mocracy.
The view of the West that Turner constructed is one of an
empty
wilderness that lacked civilization until the
coming
of the
Europeans.
Although
revisionist historians have described the limitations of Turner's
theory,
its influence on the curricula of the nation's
elementary
and
high
schools,
and on
textbooks,
is still
cogent.
The treatment and
interpretation
of
slavery
within mainstream U.S.
scholarship provide
another
revealing example
of how ethnic
groups
of
color have been
depicted
in such
scholarship.
Ulrich B.
Phillips's
inter-
pretation
of
slavery
remained the dominant one from the time his book
was
published
in 1918 to the
1950s, 1960s,
and
1970s,
when the established
slavery paradigm
was revised
by
a new
generation
of historians
(Blassin-
game, 1972; Genovese, 1972; Stampp, 1956). Phillips's interpretation
of
slavery,
which is
essentially
an
apology
for southern
slaveholders,
was
one of the
major
sources for the
conception
of slaves as
happy, contented,
and
loyal
to their masters that dominated textbooks in the 1950s and 1960s
(Banks, 1969).
The
description
of the settlement of
Europeans
in the western United
States and the treatment of
slavery
in U.S.
scholarship
from the turn of
the
century
to the 1950s indicate the extent to which
knowledge
reflects
ideology,
human
interests, values,
and
perspectives (Habermas, 1971).
Yet,
a basic
assumption
of Western
empiricism
is that
knowledge
is ob-
jective
and neutral and that its
principles
are universal
(Kaplan, 1964).
Multicultural scholars (Acufia, 1972; Hilliard, Payton-Stewart,
& Wil-
liams, 1990; King
&
Mitchell, 1990)-like
critical theorists such as Ha-
bermas
(1971)
and Giroux
(1983)
and feminist
postmodernists
such as
Farganis (1986),
Code
(1991),
and
Harding (1991)-reject
these
assump-
tions about the nature of
knowledge.
Multicultural scholars maintain that
knowledge
reflects the
social,
cul-
tural,
and
power positions
of
people
within
society,
and that it is valid
only
when it "comes from an
acknowledgement
of the knower's
specific
position
in
any context,
one
always
defined
by gender, class,
and other
variables"
(Tetreault, 1993, p. 142).
Multicultural and feminist theorists
maintain that
knowledge
is both
subjective
and
objective
and that its sub-
jective components
need to be
clearly
identified
(Code, 1991; hooks, 1990;
King
&
Mitchell, 1990).
Multicultural theorists also contend that
by
claim-
ing
that their
knowledge
is
objective
and
neutral,
mainstream scholars
are able to
present
their
particularistic
interests and
ideologies
as the
universal concerns of the nation-state
(Asante, 1991;
Hilliard et
al., 1990).
According
to Gordon and Meroe
(1991, p. 28):
We often wonder if the
socially adapted
human
being,
who
happens
to be a
scholar,
is
truly
capable
of
discarding
her or his individual frame of reference when it comes to the
study
of a
subject
to which she or he has chosen to commit her or his life's work. This is a
precarious
and
dangerous
situation because too
many
times
"objectivity"
has served as a mask for the
political agenda
of the status
quo,
thus
marginalizing
and
labeling
the concerns of less em-
powered groups
as
"special
interests."
A number of
conceptualizations
have been
developed by
multicultural
and feminist theorists that are
designed
to
help
teachers
acquire
the in-
formation and skills needed to teach students how
knowledge
is con-
structed,
how to
identify
the writer's
purposes
and
point
of
view,
and
how to formulate their own
interpretations
of
reality.
Four
approaches
used to
integrate
ethnic content into the
elementary
and
high
school curriculum and to teach students about ethnic
groups
were
conceptualized by
Banks
(1989b): contributions, additive,
transfor-
mation,
and social action. The contribution
approach
focuses on heroes
and
heroines, holidays,
and discrete cultural elements. When
using
the
additive
approach,
teachers
append
ethnic
content, themes,
and
per-
spectives
to the curriculum without
changing
its basic structure. In the
transformation
approach,
which is
designed
to
help
students learn how
knowledge
is
constructed,
the structure of the curriculum is
changed
to
enable students to view
concepts, issues, events,
and themes from the
perspectives
of various ethnic and cultural
groups.
In the social action
approach,
which is an extension of the transformation
approach,
students
make decisions on
important
social issues and take action to
help
solve
them.
Tetreault
(1993) describes a model for
teaching
content about women
Education,
19
that is also
designed
to
help
students understand the nature of
knowledge
and how it is constructed. In this curriculum
model,
the teacher moves
from a male-defined curriculum to one that is
gender
balanced. The
phases
are as follows: contributions
curriculum,
bifocal
curriculum,
women's
curriculum,
and
gender-balanced
curriculum. In the contributions curric-
ulum,
a male framework is used to insert women into the
curriculum;
the
world is viewed
through
the
eyes
of women and men in the bifocal cur-
riculum; subjects
of
primary importance
to women are
investigated
in the
women's
curriculum;
and the
gender-balanced
curriculum
investigates
topics
and
concepts
that are
important
to women but also considers how
women and men relate to each other.
PREJUDICE REDUCTION
The
prejudice
reduction dimension of multicultural education is de-
signed
to
help
students
develop
more democratic
attitudes, values,
and
behaviors
(Gabelko
&
Michaelis, 1981; Lynch, 1987).
Researchers and
educators who are concerned about
helping
students
develop
more dem-
ocratic attitudes and behaviors have devoted much of their attention to
investigating
how children
develop
racial
awareness, preferences,
and
identification
(Clark, 1963; Katz, 1976; Milner, 1983; Phinney
& Roth-
eram, 1987).
This discussion is divided into two sections:
(a)
the nature
of children's racial attitudes and identities and
(b)
the modification of
students' racial attitudes.
The Nature of Children's Racial Attitudes
A common belief
among elementary
school teachers is that
young
chil-
dren have little awareness of racial differences and
positive
attitudes to-
ward both African Americans and Whites.
Many
teachers with whom I
have worked have told me that because
young
children are unware of
racial
differences, talking
about race to them will
merely
create racial
problems
that do not exist. This common observation
by
teachers is in-
consistent with
reality
and research.
During
a
period
of
nearly
50
years,
researchers have established that
young
children are aware of racial differences
by
the
age
of 3
(Phinney
&
Rotheram, 1987; Ramsey, 1987)
and have internalized attitudes toward
African Americans and Whites that are established in the wider
society.
They
tend to
prefer
white
(pinkish colored)
stimulus
objects,
such as dolls
and
pictures,
to brown dolls and
pictures,
and to describe white
(pinkish)
objects
and
people
more
positively
than brown ones.
Early
studies
by
Lasker
(1929)
and Minard
(1931)
indicate that
young
children are aware of racial differences and that children's racial attitudes
are formed
early
in life. Studies
by E.
L. Horowitz
(1936)
and R. E.
Horowitz
(1939)
indicate that both African-American and White
nursery
school children are aware of racial differences and show a
statistically
significant preference
for Whites. The Horowitzes
interpreted
their find-
ings
to mean that the African-American children in their studies evidenced
self-rejection
when
they
showed a White bias in their
responses
to stim-
ulus
objects
and
pictures.
In a series of
pioneering
studies conducted between 1939 and
1950,
Kenneth B. and Mamie P. Clark confirmed the
findings
of the Horowitzes
and
gave
considerable
support
to the
self-rejection paradigm
first for-
mulated
by
the Horowitzes
(Cross, 1991).
The Clarks are
usually
credited
with
originating
the
self-rejection paradigm; however,
Cross states that
the
Horowitzes,
and not the
Clarks,
created the
paradigm. Nevertheless,
the famous Clark studies
gave
the
its widest vis-
ibility
and
credibility.
In the series of studies conducted
by
the
Clarks,
African-American
nursery
school children were the
subjects;
the stimuli were brown and
white
(pinkish)
dolls. The Clarks studied racial
awareness, preference,
and identification
(Clark
&
Clark, 1939a, 1939b, 1940, 1947). They
con-
cluded that the children in their studies had accurate
knowledge
of racial
differences,
sometimes made incorrect racial
self-identifications,
and
often
expressed
a
preference
for white. The Clarks concluded that
many
of the African-American children in their studies evidenced
self-rejection.
The
associated with the Clarks has had a
cogent
influence on research and the
interpretation
of research on children's
racial attitudes and self-esteem for
nearly
a half
century.
A series of
sig-
nificant and influential studies
during
the
1950s, 1960s,
and 1970s con-
firmed the
early
studies
by
the Horowitzes and the Clarks
(Morland, 1966;
Porter, 1971;
Radke &
Trager, 1950;
Williams &
Morland, 1976)-that
young
children are aware of racial differences and that both African-
American and White children tend to evidence a white bias.
The
has been
strongly challenged during
the last
decade on both
methodological
and
interpretative grounds (W.
C.
Banks,
1976; Cross, 1991; Spencer, 1987). During
the 1980s and
1990s, Spencer
(1982, 1985, 1987)
and Cross
(1985, 1991) developed concepts
and theories
and conducted research that
challenge
the
interpretation
that the Horo-
witzes and the Clarks used to
explain
their
findings. They
have made a
useful distinction between
personal
and
group identity
and have reinter-
preted
the
early findings,
as well as their own research
findings,
within
this new
paradigm.
An
important group
of studies
by Spencer
(1982, 1985, 1987)
indicates
that
young
African-American children can
distinguish
their
personal
and
group
identities.
They
can
express high
self-esteem and a white bias at
the same time. She formulates a
cognitive theory
to
explain
these
findings:
Education,
19
African-American children often make white bias choices because
they
have learned from the wider
society (a cognitive process)
to make these
choices,
not because
they reject
themselves or have low
self-concepts.
In other
words,
the children are
choosing
the
"right"
answer when asked
to select the white or colored stimulus. Research
by
Banks
(1984) supports
the
postulate
that African-American children make choices related to race
that indicate that
personal
and
group identity
are
distinguished.
Cross
(1991)
also
provides strong
theoretical and
empirical
evidence to
support
this
conceptual
distinction.
The Modification of Children's Racial Attitudes
Studies
designed
to
modify
children's
racial attitudes have been con-
ducted at least since the 1940s
(Agnes, 1947; Jackson, 1944). However,
the literature that describes the characteristics of children's racial atti-
tudes is much richer than the modification literature. In two recent com-
prehensive
reviews of the modification
literature,
Banks
(1991b,
in
press)
identifies four
types
of modification studies:
(a)
curricular intervention
studies, (b)
reinforcement
studies, (c) perceptual
differentiation
studies,
and
(d) cooperative learning
studies.
Curricular studies are the earliest
type
of intervention
studies; they
date
back to the
intergroup
education
period
of the 1940s
(Agnes, 1947;
Jack-
son, 1944).
In their
studies, Agnes
and Jackson concluded that
reading
materials about African Americans
helped
students
develop
more
positive
racial attitudes.
However,
most of the
early
studies have serious meth-
odological problems.
One of the most
well-designed
and
important
studies
of the
intergroup
education
period
was conducted
by Trager
and Yarrow
(1952). They
found that a democratic curriculum had a
positive
effect on
the racial attitudes of both students and teachers.
Hayes
and Conklin
(1953)
also found that an intercultural curriculum had a
positive
effect on
the racial attitudes of students. The
experimental
treatment took
place
over a
2-year period. However,
the
description
of the intervention is im-
precise.
Studies of the effects of
units, courses,
and curriculum materials have
also been conducted
by
Fisher
(1965);
Leslie and Leslie
(1972); Yawkey
(1973); Lessing
and Clarke
(1976);
Litcher and Johnson
(1969); Litcher,
Johnson,
and
Ryan (1973);
and
Shirley (1988).
Most of these studies
pro-
vide evidence for the
postulate
that curricular materials and interventions
can have a
positive
effect on the racial attitudes of students.
However,
the studies
by Lessing
and Clarke
(1976)
and Litcher et al.
(1973)
had no
measurable effects on the racial attitudes of students.
In an
important study,
Litcher and Johnson
(1969)
found that multieth-
nic readers had a
positive
effect on the racial attitudes of
second-grade
White students. However, when
they replicated
this
study using photo-
graphs
rather than readers
(Litcher
et
al., 1973),
no
significant
effects
were attained. The
investigators
believe that the shorter duration of the
latter
study (1
month
compared
with
4)
and the different ethnic
compo-
sitions of the cities in which the studies were conducted
may explain
the
conflicting findings
in the two studies. In
summarizing
the effects of cur-
riculum intervention
studies,
Banks
(1991b, p. 464)
concludes:
The studies .
. .
indicate that curriculum intervention can
help
students to
develop
more
positive
racial attitudes but . . .
the effects of such interventions are
likely
not to be con-
sistent.
...
The inconsistencies
may
be due in
part
to the use of different measures to assess
attitude
change
and because the duration of the interventions has varied
widely.
The duration
of the intervention has
rarely
been varied to determine the effects.
Williams and his
colleagues
have conducted a series of reinforcement
studies with
young
children since the 1960s
(Williams
&
Edwards, 1969;
Williams &
Morland, 1976).
These
experiments
are
designed
to reduce
white bias in
young
children. In the
typical design
of these
experiments,
the children are
given pictures
of black and white animals or
objects
and
are reinforced for
choosing
the black
objects
or animals and for
describing
them
positively.
When
they
choose the white
objects
or
animals, they
receive
negative
reinforcement or no reinforcement. Williams and his
colleagues (Williams, Best, Wood,
&
Filler, 1973;
Williams &
Edwards,
1969)
have found that these
types
of interventions reduce white bias in
children and that the children's
responses
are
generalized
from
objects
and animals to
people. Laboratory
reinforcement studies
by
other re-
searchers have
generally
confirmed the
findings by
Williams and his col-
leagues (Hohn, 1973;
Parish &
Fleetwood, 1975; Parish, Shirazi,
& Lam-
bert, 1976).
Katz and her
colleagues
have conducted a series of studies that have
examined the
perceptual components
of the racial attitudes of
young
chil-
dren. In one
study
she confirmed her
predictions
that
young
children can
more
easily
differentiate the faces of
in-group
members than the faces of
out-group
members and that if
young
children are
taught
to differentiate
the faces of
out-groups, prejudice
is reduced
(Katz, 1973).
She and Zalk
(Katz
&
Zalk, 1978)
examined the effects of four different interventions
on the racial attitudes of second- and
fifth-grade
White students:
(a) per-
ceptual
differentiation of
minority group
faces, (b)
increased
positive
ra-
cial
contact, (c)
vicarious interracial
contact,
and
(d)
reinforcement of the
color black. Each of the interventions reduced
prejudice.
However,
the
most
powerful
interventions were vicarious contact and
perceptual
dif-
ferentiation.
Most of the research on
cooperative learning
has been conducted since
the 1970s.
Cooperative learning
studies tend to
support
the
postulate
that
cooperative learning situations, if based on the
principles
formulated
by
Education,
19
Allport (1954),
can increase the academic achievement of
minority
stu-
dents and
help
all students to
develop
more
positive
racial attitudes and
cross-racial
friendships (Aronson
&
Bridgeman, 1979; Cohen, 1972;
Slavin, 1979, 1985).
Cohen
(1972) emphasizes
the
importance
of
providing
students with
experiences
that will
prepare
them for
equal-status
inter-
actions
prior
to
assigning group
tasks to students from different races.
Her research indicates that if this is not
done,
both
minority
and White
students will
expect
the White students to dominate the
group
situation.
She calls this
phenomenon
interracial interaction
disability
and has dem-
onstrated that
pregroup
treatment activities can enable African-American
students to
experience equal
status in
group
situations with Whites
(Cohen, 1972;
Cohen &
Roper, 1972).
EQUITY PEDAGOGY
When the civil
rights
movement
began
in the
1960s,
much attention was
focused on
poverty
in the United States. In The Other
America,
Michael
Harrington (1962)
stirred the nation's conscience about the
plight
of
poor
people
in the United States. Educational
concepts
and theories
developed
that reflected the national concern for low-income citizens and were de-
signed
to
help
teachers and other educators to
develop teaching
tech-
niques
and
strategies
that would
improve
the academic achievement of
low-income students.
The Cultural
Deprivation Paradigm
The educational
theories, concepts,
and research
developed during
the
early
1960s reflected the dominant
ideologies
of the
time,
as well as the
concepts
and theories used in the social sciences to
explain
the behavior
and values of low-income
populations.
Social scientists
developed
the
culture
of poverty concept
to describe the
experiences
of low-income
populations (Lewis, 1965).
In
education,
this
concept
became known as
cultural
deprivation
or the
disadvantaged.
Cultural
deprivation
became
the dominant
paradigm
that
guided
the formulation of
programs
and
ped-
agogies
for low-income
populations during
the 1960s
(Bereiter
&
Engel-
mann, 1966;
Bloom et
al., 1965; Crow, Murray,
&
Smythe, 1966;
Riess-
man, 1962).
A
paradigm
can be defined as a
system
of
explanations
that
guides
policy
and action
(Kuhn, 1970).
When a
paradigm
becomes established
and dominates
public discourse,
it becomes difficult for other
systems
of
explanations
to
emerge
or to become institutionalized. When one
para-
digm replaces another,
Kuhn
states,
a scientific revolution takes
place.
However,
in education and the social
sciences, rarely
does one
paradigm
replace
another. More
typically,
new
paradigms compete
with established
ones and
they
coexist. At various times in the
history
of the education
of low-income
populations
since the
1960s, particular paradigms
have
been dominant at different times.
However,
the educational
landscape
is
usually
characterized
by competing paradigms
and
explanations.
A
paradigm
is not
only
a
system
of
explanations,
it is also a
perspective
on
reality
and reflects the
experiences, perceptions,
and values of its
creators
(Code, 1991; Harding, 1991).
The cultural
deprivation
theorists,
unlike the
geneticists (Herrnstein, 1971; Jensen, 1969),
believe that low-
income students can attain
high
levels of academic achievement but that
socialization
experiences
in their homes and communities do not enable
them to attain the
knowledge, skills,
and attitudes that middle-class chil-
dren
acquire
and that are essential for academic success. Cultural
dep-
rivation theorists
consequently
believe that the
major
focus of educational
reform must be to
change
the students
by enhancing
their
early
sociali-
zation
experiences.
Cultural
deprivation
and
disadvantaged
theorists believe that the school
must
help
low-income students to overcome the deficits that result from
their
early family
and
community experiences.
The focus on the deficits
of low-income children often
prevents
cultural
deprivation
theorists from
seeing
their
strengths.
The
emphasis
on the students' deficits also does
not allow the
deprivationists
to
seriously
consider structural
changes
that
are needed in schools.
When it
emerged,
the cultural
deprivation paradigm
was the most en-
lightened
and liberal
theory
about
educating
low-income
populations
of
the
day.
Some of the nation's most eminent and committed social sci-
entists contributed to its formulation. Allison Davis did
pioneering
work
on the education of low-income students
(Davis, 1948/1962).
Davis was
one of the
organizers
of the landmark Research Conference on Education
and Cultural
Deprivation,
held at the
University
of
Chicago
in June of
1964. Some of the nation's most eminent educators and social scientists
participated
in this
conference, including
Anne
Anastasi,
Basil
Bernstein,
Benjamin
Bloom,
Martin
Deutsch,
Erik
Erikson,
Edmund W.
Gordon,
Robert
Havighurst,
and Thomas
Pettigrew.
In the book based on the
conference,
Bloom et al.
(1965, p. 4)
defined
culturally deprived
children:
We refer to this
group
as
culturally disadvantaged
or
deprived
because we believe the roots
of their
problem may
in
large part
be traced to their
experiences
in homes which do not
transmit the cultural
patterns necessary
for the
types
of
learning
characteristic of the schools
and the
larger society.
The Bloom et al.
(1965)
book was
highly
influential
among
educational
leaders.
Another influential book resulted from a conference held 2
years
earlier
Education,
19
at Teachers
College,
Columbia
University,
led
by
A.
Harry
Passow
(1963),
who edited the book Education in
Depressed
Areas. Like the
Chicago conference,
the Teachers
College
conference included
papers by
some of the nation's
leading
social scientists and
educators, including
David P.
Ausubel,
Kenneth B.
Clark,
and Robert J.
Havighurst.
Probably
the most influential book
published
for teachers was The Cul-
turally Deprived
Child
by
Frank Riessman
(1962),
which was used
widely
in teacher
preparation
and in-service
programs.
He told teachers to re-
spect
low-income students and
pointed
out that he
thought culturally
de-
prived
was an
inappropriate
term but was
using
it because it was
popular.
He wrote: "The term
'culturally deprived'
refers to those
aspects
of mid-
dle-class culture-such as
education, books,
formal
language-from
which these
groups
have not benefited"
(p. 3). Implicit
in this statement
is the
assumption
that a student must be middle class to have a culture.
The Cultural Difference Theorists
When the 1970s
began,
a new
group
of scholars
strongly challenged
the
explanations
and values that underlie the cultural
deprivation paradigm.
Some of the critics of the cultural
deprivationists
used
powerful language
in their
critiques (Baratz
&
Baratz, 1970; Ryan, 1971).
Head Start
pre-
school
programs
were funded
generously during
the war on
poverty
of
the 1960s. The most
popular
educational models used in these
programs
were based on the cultural
deprivation paradigm.
One of the most com-
mercially
successful of these
programs
was marketed as
Distar,
and was
popularized by
Bereiter and
Engelmann (1966).
In a
highly
influential
article
published
in the Harvard Educational
Review,
Baratz and Baratz
(1970) argued
that
many
of these
programs
and models were an
expression
of institutional racism.
Ryan (1971)
stated that middle-class
professionals
were
blaming
the
poor,
who were victims.
The critics of the cultural
deprivationists
constructed a different ex-
planation
for the school failure of low-income students.
They
contend that
these students are not
having
academic success because
they experience
serious cultural conflicts in school. The students have rich cultures and
values,
but the schools have a culture that conflicts
seriously
with the
cultures of students from low-income and ethnic
minority groups (Hale-
Benson, 1982; Shade, 1982).
In
developing
their
concepts
and theories about the rich cultures of
low-income students and students of
color,
the cultural difference theo-
rists make use of ethnic culture far more than do cultural
deprivationists
(Ramirez
&
Castafieda, 1974).
The cultural
deprivationists
focus on social
class and the culture of
poverty
and tend to
ignore
ethnic culture as a
variable. The cultural difference theorists
emphasize
ethnic culture and
devote little attention to class.
Ignoring
the ethnic cultures of students
has evoked much of the criticism of the cultural
deprivationists.
The lack
of attention to social class is
problematic
in the cultural difference lit-
erature
(Banks, 1988b).
Cultural difference theories have
developed
lists
of cultural characteristics
designed
to
help
teachers build on the cultural
strengths
of ethnic students
(Hale-Benson, 1982; Ramirez
&
Castafieda,
1974). However,
the lists become
problematic
when teachers
interpret
them as static characteristics that
apply
to all members of the ethnic
group
(Cox
&
Ramirez, 1981).
The most influential work related to the cultural difference
paradigm
deals with
learning styles, teaching styles,
and
language (Heath, 1983).
In their seminal
book,
Ramirez and Castafieda
(1974)
delineate two
major
types
of
learning styles, field independent
and
field
sensitive.
They
de-
scribe theoretical and
empirical
evidence to
support
the
postulate
that
traditional Mexican-American students tend to be more field sensitive in
their
learning styles
than
Anglo
students. The
school, however,
most often
uses a
field-independent teaching style. Consequently,
Mexican-Ameri-
can students tend not to achieve as well as
Anglo
students. Ramirez and
Castafieda state that the school should
help
all
students, including
Mex-
ican-American and
Anglo students,
to become
bicognitive
in their
learning
styles.
Theories similar to the one described
by
Ramirez and Castafieda have
also been formulated
by
Hale-Benson
(1982)
and Shade
(1982, 1989).
Hale-
Benson
(1987, p. 123),
for
example,
states that the African-American
child,
more than the
Anglo child,
tends to be
"highly affective, expresses
herself or himself
through
considerable
body language
...
[and]
seeks to
be
people
oriented." Shade
(1982),
in a
comprehensive
review
article,
summarizes an extensive
body
of research that
supports
the cultural learn-
ing style concept.
In a
study by
Damico
(1985),
African-American children
took more
photographs
of
people
and
Anglo
children took more
photo-
graphs
of
objects,
thus
confirming
her
hypothesis
that African-American
students are more
people
oriented than
object
oriented and that
Anglo
children are more
object
oriented.
Kleinfeld
(1975, 1979)
has
spent
much of her career
researching
the
characteristics of effective teachers of Native American students. She has
become
skeptical
of the
learning style concept
and its usefulness in in-
struction. After
they
reviewed the few studies of the educational effects
of
adapting
instruction to Native American
learning styles,
she and Nelson
(Kleinfeld
&
Nelson, 1991, p. 273)
conclude that
"virtually
no research
has succeeded in
demonstrating
that instruction
adapted
to Native Amer-
icans' visual
learning style
results in
greater learning."
The few weak
studies reviewed
by
Kleinfeld and Nelson do not constitute a sufficient
reason to abandon the
learning style paradigm. However,
the
paradigm
is a contentious one. Both its advocates and its critics are
strongly
com-
mitted to their
positions.
Education,
19
The
controversy
about
learning style theory
and research is difficult to
resolve. Banks
(1988b)
examined the research literature on
learning style
to determine the extent to which
learning style
is a variable related to
class and
ethnicity.
He concluded that the issue is a
complex one,
and
that class
mobility
mediates but does not eliminate the effects of ethnic
culture on the
learning
characteristics of Mexican-American and African-
American students.
Some researchers believe that the best
way
to understand the
learning
characteristics of students of color is to observe and describe them in
ethnographic studies,
rather than
classifying
them into several brief cat-
egories.
These researchers believe that thick
descriptions
of the
learning
and cultural characteristics of ethnic
minority
students are needed to
guide
educational
practice. Important
and influential
ethnographic
studies of
the cultural characteristics of students of color have been conducted
by
researchers such as
Ogbu (1974),
Heath
(1983),
and
Philips (1983).
Since the
1960s,
cultural difference theorists have done rich and
pi-
oneering
theoretical and
empirical
work on the
language
characteristics
of ethnic
minority
students. Prior to the
1960s,
most teachers considered
the version of
English spoken by
most low-income African Americans as
an abnormal form of standard
English.
Within the last three
decades,
linguists
have
produced
a rich
body
of literature that documents that Black
English (Ebonics)
is a
legitimate
communication
system
that has its own
rules and
logic (Heath, 1983; Labov, 1969; Smitherman, 1977;
F. Wil-
liams, 1970). Spanish-speaking
children were
prohibited
from
speaking
their first
language
in schools of the Southwest for
many
decades. How-
ever,
research in recent decades has revealed that it is
important
for the
school to
recognize
and make use of children's first
languages (Ovando
&
Collier, 1985).
The Rebirth of the Cultural
Deprivation Paradigm
The
history
of the ethnic studies and
intergroup
education movements
indicates that ideas related to these movements
reemerge cyclically.
We
can observe a similar
phenomenon
in cultural
deprivation.
The cultural
difference
paradigm
dominated discourse about the education of ethnic
groups throughout
much of the late 1970s and the
early
1980s.
However,
since the late 1980s the cultural
deprivation/disadvantaged conception
has
been exhumed and
given
new life in the form of the novel
concept
"at-
risk"
(Richardson
et
al., 1989; Slavin, Karweit,
&
Madden, 1989).
Like
cultural
deprivation,
the definition of at-risk is
imprecise.
The term is
used to refer to students who are different in
many ways (Cuban, 1989).
One of the reasons that at-risk is
becoming popular
is that it has become
a
funding category
for state and federal educational
agencies.
When a
term becomes a
funding category,
it does not need to be defined
precisely
to attain wide
usage
and
popularity.
One reason that at-risk is
politically
popular
is that it can be used to refer to
any population
of
youth expe-
riencing problems
in school.
Consequently, every
interest
group
can see
itself in the term.
Yet,
the term is a
problematic one,
as Cuban
(1989)
points
out in a
thoughtful
article.
However,
it is
becoming increasingly
popular among
both researchers and
practitioners (Richardson
et
al.,
1989;
Slavin et
al., 1989).
The term
disadvantaged
has also
reemerged
from the 1960s.
Disadvantaged
children are the
subject
of a recent and
informative book
by Natriello, McDill,
and Pallas
(1990).
AN EMPOWERING SCHOOL CULTURE AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE
The four dimensions of multicultural education discussed above-con-
tent
integration,
the
knowledge
construction
process, prejudice reduction,
and an
equity pedagogy-each
deal with an
aspect
of a cultural or social
system:
the school.
However,
the school can also be
conceptualized
as
one social
system
that is
larger
than its interrelated
parts (e.g.,
its formal
and informal
curriculum, teaching materials, counseling programs,
and
teaching strategies).
When
conceptualized
as a social
system,
the school
is viewed as an institution that "includes a social structure of interrelated
statuses and roles and the
functioning
of that structure in terms of
patterns
of actions and interactions"
(Theodorson
&
Theodorson, 1969, p. 395).
The school can also be
conceptualized
as a cultural
system (Bullivant,
1987)
with a
specific
set of
values, norms, ethos,
and shared
meanings.
A number of school reformers have used a
systems approach
to reform
the school in order to increase the academic achievement of low-income
students and students of color. There are a number of
advantages
to
ap-
proaching
school reform from a holistic
perspective.
To
effectively
im-
plement any
reform in a
school,
such as effective
prejudice
reduction
teaching, changes
are
required
in a number of other school variables.
Teachers,
for
example,
need more
knowledge
and need to examine their
racial and ethnic
attitudes; consequently, they
need more time as well as
a
variety
of instructional materials.
Many
school reform efforts fail be-
cause the
roles, norms,
and ethos of the school do not
change
in
ways
that will make the institutionalization of the reforms
possible.
The effective school reformers constitute one
group
of
change agents
that has
approached
school reform from a
systems perspective.
This
movement
emerged
as a reaction to the work of Coleman et al.
(1966)
and Jencks et al.
(1972);
their studies indicate that the
major
factor influ-
encing
student academic achievement is the social-class
composition
of
the students and the school.
Many
educators
interpreted
the research
by
Coleman et al. and Jencks et al. to mean that the school can do little to
increase the academic achievement of low-income students.
Brookover (Brookover
& Erickson, 1975) developed
a social
psycho-
Education,
19
logical theory
of
learning
that states that students internalize the
concep-
tions of themselves that are institutionalized within the ethos and struc-
tures of the school. Related to Merton's
(1968) self-fulfilling prophecy,
Brookover's
theory
states that student academic achievement will in-
crease if the adults within the school have
high expectations
for
students,
clearly identify
the skills
they
wish them to
learn,
and teach those skills
to them.
Research
by
Brookover and his
colleagues (Brookover
et
al., 1979;
Brookover &
Lezotte, 1979)
indicates that schools
populated by
low-
income students within the same school district
vary greatly
in student
achievement levels.
Consequently,
Brookover attributes the differences
to variations in the school's social structure. He calls the schools in low-
income areas that have
high
academic achievement
improving
schools.
Other
researchers,
such as Edmonds
(1986)
and Lezotte
(1993),
call them
effective
schools.
Brookover and his
colleagues (Brookover
et
al., 1979;
Brookover &
Lezotte, 1979)
have identified the characteristics that differentiate effec-
tive from ineffective schools. Staff in effective or
improving
schools em-
phasize
the
importance
of basic skills and believe that all students can
master them.
Principals
are assertive instructional leaders and
discipli-
narians and assume
responsibility
for the evaluation of the achievement
of basic skills
objectives. Also,
staff members
accept
the
concept
of ac-
countability,
and
parents
initiate more contact than in
nonimproving
schools.
Edmonds
(1986),
who was a
leading
advocate of effective schools as
an antidote to the doom that often haunts
inner-city schools,
identified
characteristics of effective schools similar to those formulated
by
Brookover and his
colleagues. Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston,
and
Smith
(1979)
studied 12
secondary
schools in an urban section of London.
They
concluded that some schools were much better than others in
pro-
moting
the academic and social success of their students. Effective
schools researchers have conducted a
large
number of studies that
provide
support
for their
major postulates. However,
some educators have a num-
ber of concerns about the effective schools
movement, including
the use
of standardized tests as the
major
device to ascertain academic achieve-
ment
(Bliss, Firestone,
&
Richards, 1991; Cuban, 1983; Purkey
&
Smith,
1982).
Comer (1988)
has
developed
a structural intervention model that in-
volves
changes
in the social
psychological
climate of the school. The
teachers, principals,
and other school
professionals
make collaborative
decisions about the school. The
parents
also
participate
in the decision-
making process.
Comer's
data indicate that this
approach
has been suc-
cessful
in
increasing
the
academic achievement of low-income, inner-city
students. He started the
program
in New
Haven, Connecticut,
that is now
being implemented
in a number of other U.S. cities
using private
foun-
dation
support.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Research
The historical
development
of multicultural education needs to be more
fully
described. Careful historical
descriptions
and
analyses
will
help
the
field to
identify
its links to the
past, gain deeper insights
into the
problems
and
promises
today,
and
plan
more
effectively
for the future. Studies are needed to determine the details of the
teaching
of African-American
history
in the schools and
colleges
from the turn of
the
century
to the 1960s. Studies are also needed to determine the extent
to which the
intergroup
education movement intersected with the ethnic
studies tradition initiated
by George Washington
Williams in 1882 and
continued
by
his successors until the new ethnic studies movement
began
in the 1960s. The role of African-American
institutions,
such as
churches,
schools, sororities, fraternities,
and women's
clubs,
in
promoting
the
study
and
teaching
of African-American
history
also needs to be re-
searched.
The broad outlines of the
early
ethnic studies movement related to
African Americans have been described here. Studies are needed that will
reveal the extent to which
scholarship
and
teaching
sources about other
ethnic
groups,
such as American Indians and Mexican
Americans,
were
developed
from the turn of the
century
to the 1960s and 1970s.
A
comprehensive history
of the
intergroup
education movement is
needed. We also need to determine the extent to which
intergroup
edu-
cation
practices
became institutionalized within the
typical
school. The
publications
reviewed for this
chapter
indicate that
intergroup
education
was often
implemented
as
special projects
within schools that were lead-
ers in their cities or districts.
Many
of the nation's schools were
tightly
segregated
when the movement arose and
died, especially
in the South.
The
geographical regions
in which
intergroup
education
project
schools
were
located,
as well as the
types
of
schools,
are
important
variables that
need to be
investigated.
Other
important
issues that warrant
investigation
are:
(a)
the reasons
why
the movement had failed
by
the time the new ethnic studies move-
ment
emerged
in the
1960s,
and
(b) why
its
leaders,
such as Hilda
Taba,
Lloyd
A.
Cook,
and William Van
Til,
did little work in
intergroup
edu-
cation after the mid-1950s.
Seemingly, intergroup
education was not a
lifetime commitment for its eminent leaders. In the
1960s,
Taba became
a
leading expert
and researcher in social studies education. However,
in
Education,
19
her
posthumously published book,
coauthored with Deborah Elkins
(Taba
&
Elkins, 1966), Teaching Strategies for
the
Culturally Disadvantaged,
Taba
incorporated concepts
and
strategies
from the
intergroup
education
project
that she directed in the
1940s,
funded
by
the National Conference
of Christians and Jews and
sponsored by
the American Council on Edu-
cation.
Intergroup
education
concepts
and aims also had a
significant
influence on her famous social studies curriculum
(Taba, 1967).
This cur-
riculum focuses on
thinking, knowledge, attitudes, feelings,
and
values,
as well as on academic and social skills. These
components
are similar
to the aims that Taba stated for
intergroup
education in an article she
coauthored with Harold W. Wilson
(Taba
&
Wilson, 1946).
Empirical
studies need to be undertaken of each of the five dimensions
of multicultural education described in this
chapter.
Content
integration
studies, using
both interview and
ethnographic techniques,
should de-
scribe the
approaches
that teachers use to
integrate
their curricula with
ethnic
content,
the
problems they face,
and how
they
resolve them. The
major
barriers that teachers face when
trying
to make their curricula mul-
ticultural also need to be identified.
The
knowledge
construction
process
is a fruitful
topic
for
empirical
research. Most of the work related to this
concept
is theoretical and
philo-
sophical (Code, 1991; Gordon, 1985; Harding, 1991).
This
concept
can be
investigated by
interventions that
present
students with documents de-
scribing
different
perspectives
on the same historical
event,
such as the
Japanese-American internment,
the Westward
Movement,
and Indian Re-
moval. Studies could be made of teacher
questions
and student
responses
when
discussing
the
conflicting
accounts.
Both studies that describe students' racial attitudes and intervention
studies
designed
to
modify
them need to be conducted. A literature search
using ERIC, PsychLit,
and Sociofile revealed that few intervention stud-
ies related to children's racial attitudes have been conducted since 1980.
Most of the studies related to children's racial attitudes reviewed here
were conducted before 1980. Since
1980,
there has been little
support
for
research in race
relations; consequently,
there are few studies.
Perhaps
multicultural researchers could
implement
small-scale observational stud-
ies funded
by
civil
rights organizations.
Jewish civil
rights organizations
funded a number of
important
studies
during
the
intergroup
education
era.
Research related to effective
teaching strategies
for low-income stu-
dents and students of color
(equity pedagogy)
needs to examine the com-
plex
interaction of
race, class,
and
gender,
as well as other variables such
as
region
and
generation (Grant
&
Sleeter, 1986).
The
rising
number of
outspoken
African-American
conservatives,
such as Carter
(1991),
Sowell
(1984), Steele
(1990), and Wortham (1981), should
help
both the research
and wider
community
understand the enormous
diversity
within the Af-
rican-American
community.
Conservative Mexican-American
writers,
such as
Rodriguez (1982)
and Chavez
(1991),
reveal the
ideological
and
cultural
diversity
within the Mexican-American
community.
Since the
1960s, diversity
within U.S. ethnic
minority groups
has in-
creased
greatly,
as a
significant
number of African
Americans,
Mexican
Americans,
and Puerto Ricans have
joined
the middle class and the exodus
to the suburbs
(Wilson, 1987).
White
flight
has become middle-class
flight.
A
sharp
class schism has
developed
within ethnic
minority
communities
(Wilson, 1987). Consequently,
research on
people
of
color-especially
studies on
learning styles
and their cultural characteristics-that does not
examine class as an
important
variable is not
likely
to result in
findings
that are
helpful
and
generalizable.
Practice
The most
important implication
of this research review is that multi-
cultural education must be
conceptualized
and
implemented broadly
if it
is to
bring
about
meaningful changes
in
schools, colleges,
and universities.
Several serious
problems
result when multicultural education is
concep-
tualized
only
or
primarily
as content
integration.
Teachers in
subjects
such as mathematics and science
perceive
multicultural
education,
when
it is
conceptualized only
as content
integration,
as
appropriate
for social
studies and
language
arts teachers but not for them.
When multicultural education is
narrowly conceptualized,
it is often
confined to activities for
special days
and
occasions,
such as Martin Lu-
ther
King's birthday
and Cinco de
Mayo.
It
may
also be viewed as a
special unit,
an additional book
by
an African-American or a Mexican-
American
writer,
or a few additional lessons. The
knowledge
construction
dimension of multicultural education is an essential one.
Using
this con-
cept,
groups
is not
merely
added to the curriculum.
Rather,
the curriculum is
reconceptualized
to
help
students understand
how
knowledge
is constructed and how it reflects human
interests,
ide-
ology,
and the
experiences
of the
people
who create it. Students them-
selves also create
interpretations. They begin
to understand
why
it is
essential to look at the nation's
experience
from diverse ethnic and cul-
tural
perspectives
to
comprehend fully
its
past
and
present.
The research reviewed in this
chapter
indicates that children come to
school with
misconceptions
about outside ethnic
groups
and with a white
bias.
However,
it also indicates that students' racial attitudes can be mod-
ified and made more democratic and that the racial attitudes of
young
children are much more
easily
modified than the attitudes of older students
and adults
(Katz, 1976). Consequently,
it
suggests
that if we are to
help
students
acquire
the attitudes needed to survive in a multicultural and
Education,
19
diverse
world,
we must start
early. Beginning
in
kindergarten,
educators
need to
implement
a
well-conceptualized
and
sequential
curriculum that
is multicultural.
A school
experience
that is multicultural includes
content,
examples,
and realistic
images
of diverse racial and ethnic
groups. Cooperative
learn-
ing
activities in which students from diverse
groups
work to attain shared
goals
is also a feature of the
school,
as well as simulated
images
of ethnic
groups
that
present
them in
positive
and realistic
ways.
Also essential
within such a school are adults who model the attitudes and behaviors
they
are
trying
to teach. Actions
speak
much louder than words.
Jane Elliott
(as
described in
Peters, 1987)
has attained fame for a sim-
ulated lesson she
taught
on discrimination that is described in the award-
winning documentary
The
Eye of
the Storm. One
day
Elliott discriminated
against blue-eyed children;
the next
day brown-eyed
children
experienced
the
sting
of
bigotry.
In
1984,
11 of her former third
graders
returned to
Riceville, Iowa,
for a reunion with their teacher. This event is described
in another
documentary,
A Class
Divided,
in which the students describe
the
power
of a classroom
experience
that had taken
place
14
years
earlier.
Elliott,
who
taught
third
grade
in an all-White
town,
was moved to act
because of the racial hate she observed in the nation. Racial incidents are
on the rise
throughout
the United States
(Altbach
&
Lomotey, 1991).
The
research reviewed in this
chapter,
and in two
previous
reviews
(Banks,
1991b,
in
press),
can
help empower
educators to act to
help
create a more
democratic and
caring society.
Jane Elliott acted and made a
difference;
she is a
cogent example
for us all.
REFERENCES
Acufia,
R.
(1972). Occupied
America: The Chicano's
struggle
toward liberation.
San Francisco: Canfield Press.
Adorno,
T.
W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson,
D.
J.,
&
Sanford,
R. N.
(1950).
The authoritarian
personality.
New York: Norton.
Agnes,
M.
(1947).
Influences of
reading
on the racial attitudes of adolescent
girls.
Catholic Educational
Review, 45,
415-420.
Allport,
G. W.
(1954).
The nature
ofprejudice. Cambridge,
MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Altbach,
P.
G.,
&
Lomotey,
K.
(Eds.). (1991).
The racial crisis in American
higher
education.
Albany:
State
University
of New York Press.
American Association of
Colleges
for Teacher Education.
(1973).
No one model
American.
Washington,
DC: Author.
Anderson,
J. D.
(1988).
The education
of
Blacks in the
South,
1860-1935.
Chapel
Hill:
University
of North Carolina Press.
Aran, K., Arthur, H., Colon, R.,
&
Goldenberg,
H.
(1973).
Puerto Rican
history
and culture: A
study guide
and curriculum outline. New York: United Fed-
eration of Teachers.
Aronson, E.,
&
Bridgeman,
D.
(1979). Jigsaw groups
and the
desegregated
class-
room: In
pursuit
of common
goals. Personality
and Social
Psychology
Bulletin,
5,
438-446.
Asante,
M. K.
(1991).
The Afrocentric idea in education. Journal
of Negro
Edu-
cation, 60,
170-180.
Asante,
M.
K.,
&
Ravitch,
D.
(1991).
Multiculturalism: An
exchange.
The Amer-
ican
Scholar, 60,
267-276.
Baker,
G.
(1977).
Multicultural education: Two
preservice approaches.
Journal
of
Teacher
Education, 28,
31-33.
Baker,
G.
(1983). Planning
and
organizing for
multicultural instruction. Menlo
Park,
CA:
Addison-Wesley.
Banks,
J. A.
(1969).
A content
analysis
of the Black American in textbooks. Social
Education, 33, 954-957,
963.
Banks,
J. A.
(1970). Teaching
the Black
experience:
Methods and materials. Bel-
mont,
CA: Fearson.
Banks,
J. A.
(Ed.). (1973). Teaching
ethnic studies:
Concepts
and
strategies (43rd
yearbook). Washington,
DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
Banks,
J. A.
(1984).
Black
youths
in
predominantly
White suburbs: An
explor-
atory study
of their attitudes and
self-concepts.
Journal
of Negro
Education,
53,
3-17.
Banks,
J. A.
(1988a).
Multiethnic education:
Theory
and
practice (2nd ed.).
Bos-
ton:
Allyn
and Bacon.
Banks,
J. A.
(1988b). Ethnicity, class, cognitive,
and motivational
styles:
Re-
search and
teaching implications.
Journal
of Negro Education, 57,
452-466.
Banks,
J. A.
(1989a).
Multicultural education: Characteristics and
goals.
In J. A.
Banks & C. A. M. Banks
(Eds.),
Multicultural education: Issues and
per-
spectives (pp. 2-26).
Boston:
Allyn
and Bacon.
Banks,
J. A.
(1989b). Integrating
the curriculum with ethnic content:
Approaches
and
guidelines.
In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks
(Eds.),
Multicultural edu-
cation: Issues and
perspectives (pp. 189-207).
Boston:
Allyn
and Bacon.
Banks,
J. A.
(1991a).
The dimensions of multicultural education. Multicultural
Leader, 4,
5-6.
Banks,
J. A.
(1991b).
Multicultural education: Its effects on students' ethnic and
gender
role attitudes. In J. P. Shaver
(Ed.),
Handbook
of
research on social
studies
teaching
and
learning (pp. 459-469).
New York: Macmillan.
Banks,
J. A.
(1991c). Teaching strategies for
ethnic studies
(5th ed.).
Boston:
Allyn
and Bacon.
Banks,
J. A.
(1992).
Multicultural education:
Approaches, developments,
and
dimensions. In J.
Lynch,
C.
Modgil,
& S.
Modgil (Eds.),
Cultural
diversity
and
the
schools,
Vol.
1,
Education
for
cultural
diversity: Convergence
and diver-
gence (pp. 83-94).
London: The Falmer Press.
Banks,
J. A.
(in press).
Multicultural education for
young
children: Racial and
ethnic attitudes and their modification. In B.
Spodek (Ed.),
Handbook
of
re-
search on the education
of young
children. New York: Macmillan.
Banks,
J.
A.,
&
Banks,
C. A. M.
(Eds.). (1993).
Multicultural education: Issues
and
perspectives (2nd ed.).
Boston:
Allyn
and Bacon.
Banks,
J.
A., Cortes,
C.
E., Gay, G., Garcia,
R.
L.,
&
Ochoa,
A.
S. (1976).
Curriculum
guidelines for
multiethnic education.
Washington,
DC: National
Council for the Social Studies.
Banks,
W. C.
(1976).
White
preference
in Blacks: A
paradigm
in search of a
phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83,
1170-1186.
Baratz,
S.
S.,
&
Baratz,
J. C.
(1970). Early
childhood intervention: The social
science base of institutional racism. Harvard Educational
Review, 40,
29-50.
Bennett,
C.
I. (1990). Comprehensive
(2nd ed.).
Boston:
Allyn
and Bacon.
Education,
19
Bereiter, C.,
&
Engelmann,
S.
(1966). Teaching disadvantaged
children in the
preschool. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Berger,
P.
L.,
&
Luckman,
T.
(1966).
The social construction
of knowledge:
A
treatise in the
sociology of knowledge.
Garden
City,
NY:
Doubleday.
Bernal,
M.
(1987, 1991).
Black Athena: The
Afroasiatic
roots
of
classical civili-
zation
(Vols. 1
&
2).
New
Brunswick,
NJ:
Rutgers University
Press.
Blassingame,
J. W.
(Ed.). (1971).
New
perspectives
in Black studies. Urbana:
University
of Illinois Press.
Blassingame,
J. W.
(1972).
The slave
community:
Plantation
life
in the ante-
bellum South. New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Blea, I. I. (1988).
Toward a Chicano social science. New York:
Praeger.
Bliss,
J.
R., Firestone,
W.
A.,
&
Richards,
C. E.
(Eds.). (1991). Rethinking ef-
fective
schools: Research and
practice. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bloom,
B.
S., Davis, A.,
&
Hess,
R.
(1965). Compensatory
education
for
cultural
deprivation.
New York: Holt.
Bond,
H. M.
(1939). Negro
education in Alabama: A
study
in cotton and steel.
Washington,
DC: The Associated Publishers.
Boyer,
J. B.
(1974).
Needed: Curriculum
diversity
for the urban
economically
disadvantaged.
Educational
Leadership, 31,
624-626.
Braddock,
J. H.
II. (1990). Tracking
the middle
grades:
National
patterns
of
group-
ing
for instruction. Phi Delta
Kappan, 71,
445-449.
Brookover,
W.
B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J.,
&
Wisenbaker,
J.
(1979).
School social
systems
and student achievement: Schools can make a
difference.
New York:
Praeger.
Brookover,
W.
B.,
&
Erickson, E. (1975). Sociology of
education.
Homewood,
IL:
Dorsey.
Brookover,
W.
B.,
&
Lezotte,
L. W.
(1979). Changes
in school characteristics
coincident with
changes
in student achievement. East
Lansing:
Institute for
Research on
Teaching, College
of
Education, Michigan
State
University.
Brooks,
R. L.
(1990). Rethinking
the American race
problem. Berkeley:
Uni-
versity
of California Press.
Bullivant,
B. M.
(1987).
The ethnic encounter in the
secondary
school. New York:
The Falmer Press.
Butler,
J.
E.,
&
Walter,
J. C.
(Eds.). (1991). Transforming
the curriculum: Ethnic
studies and women's studies.
Albany:
State
University
of New York Press.
Carmichael, S.,
&
Hamilton,
C. V.
(1967).
Black
power:
The
politics of
liberation
in America. New York:
Vintage.
Carter,
S. L.
(1991). Reflections of
an
affirmative
action
baby.
New York: Basic
Books.
Chavez,
L.
(1991).
Out
of
the barrio: Toward a new
politics of Hispanic
assim-
ilation. New York: Basic Books.
Clark,
K. B.
(1963). Prejudice
and
your
child. Boston: Beacon Press.
Clark,
K.
B.,
&
Clark,
M. P.
(1939a).
The
development
of consciousness of self
and the
emergence
of racial identification in
Negro preschool
children. Journal
of
Social
Psychology, 10,
591-599.
Clark,
K.
B.,
&
Clark,
M. P.
(1939b). Segregation
as a factor in the racial iden-
tification of
Negro preschool
children. Journal
of Experimental
Education, 8,
161-163.
Clark,
K.
B.,
&
Clark,
M. P.
(1940).
Skin color as a factor in racial identification
and
preference
in
Negro
children. Journal
341-358.
Clark,
K.
B.,
&
Clark,
M. P.
(1947).
Racial identification and
preference
in
Negro
children. In T. M. Newcomb &
E.
L.
Hartley (Eds.), Readings
in social
psy-
chology (pp. 169-178).
New York:
Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Clinchy, E.
R.
(1949). Intergroup
relations centers. New York:
Farrar,
Straus &
Company.
Code,
L.
(1991).
What can she know? Feminist
theory
and the construction
of
knowledge. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell
University
Press.
Cohen,
E. G.
(1972).
Interracial interaction
disability.
Human
Relations, 25,
9-
24.
Cohen, E. G.,
&
Roper,
S. S.
(1972).
Modification of interracial interaction dis-
ability:
An
application
of status characteristics
theory.
American
Sociological
Review, 37,
643-657.
Coleman,
J.
S., Campbell,
E. G., Hobson,
C.
J., McPartland, J., Mood,
A.
M.,
Weinfeld,
F.
D.,
&
York,
R. L.
(1966). Equality of
educational
opportunity.
Washington,
DC: U.S. Government
Printing
Office.
Comer,
J. P.
(1988). Educating poor minority
children.
Scientific American, 259,
42-48.
Cook,
L. A.
(1947). Intergroup
education. Review
of
Educational
Research, 17,
267-278.
Cook,
L. A.
(1950). College programs
in
intergroup
relations.
Washington,
DC:
American Council on Education.
Cook,
L. A.
(1951). Intergroup
relations in teacher education: An
analytical study
of intergroup
education in
colleges
and schools in the United States:
Functions,
current
expressions,
and
improvements. Washington,
DC: American Council
on Education.
Cook,
L. A.
(Ed.). (1952).
Toward better human relations. Detroit:
Wayne
State
University
Press.
Cook, L.,
&
Cook,
E.
(1954). Intergroup
education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cort6s,
C.
E. (1973). Teaching
the Chicano
experience.
In J. A. Banks
(Ed.),
Teaching
ethnic studies:
Concepts
and
strategies (pp. 181-199). Washington,
Cox,
B.
G.,
&
Ramirez,
M.
III. (1981). Cognitive styles: Implications
for
teaching
ethnic studies. In J. A. Banks
(Ed.),
Education
for
the 80s: Multiethnic edu-
cation
(pp. 61-71). Washington,
DC: National Education Association.
Cross,
W.
E.,
Jr.
(1985).
Black
identity: Rediscovering
the distinction between
personal identity
and reference
group
orientation. In M. B.
Spencer,
G. K.
Brookins,
& W. R. Allen
(Eds.), Beginnings:
The social and
affective
devel-
opment of
Black children
(pp. 155-171). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cross,
W.
E.,
Jr.
(1991).
Shades
ofBlack: Diversity
in
African
American
identity.
Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Crow,
L.
D., Murray,
W.
I.,
&
Smythe,
H. H.
(1966). Educating
the
culturally
disadvantaged
child:
Principles
and
programs.
New York: David
McKay.
Cuban,
L.
(1983).
Effective schools: A
friendly
but
cautionary
note. Phi Delta
Kappan, 64,
695-696.
Cuban,
L.
(1989).
The "at risk" label and the
problem
of urban school reform.
Phi Delta
Kappan, 70,
780-801.
Cummins,
J.
(1986). Empowering minority
students: A framework for interven-
tion. Harvard Educational
Review, 56,
18-36.
Damico,
S. B.
(1985).
The two worlds of school: Differences in the
photographs
of Black and White adolescents. The Urban
Review, 17,
210-222.
Daniels,
R.
(1988).
Asian America: Chinese and
Japanese
in the United States
since 1850. Seattle:
University
of
Washington
Press.
Education,
19
Davis,
A.
(1962).
Social class
influences upon learning. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University
Press.
(Original
work
published 1948)
Davis, A., Gardner,
B.
B.,
&
Gardner,
M. R.
(1941). Deep
South: A social an-
thropological study of
caste and class.
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Deloria, V.,
Jr.
(1969).
Custer died
for your
sins:
An Indian
manifesto.
New York:
Avon.
Delpit,
L. D.
(1988).
The silenced
dialogue:
Power and
pedagogy
in
educating
other
people's
children. Harvard Educational
Review, 58,
280-298.
Diop,
C. A.
(1974).
The
African origin of
civilization:
Myth
or
reality.
New York:
Lawrence Hill.
Drake,
St. C.
(1987, 1990).
Black
folk
here and there
(Vols. 1
&
2).
Los
Angeles:
University
of
California,
Center for Afro-American Studies.
DuBois,
W.
E. B.
(1935).
Black reconstruction. New York:
Harcourt,
Brace.
DuBois,
W.
E.
B.
(1953).
The souls
of
Black
folk.
New York: The Blue Heron
Press.
DuBois,
W. E. B.
(1973).
The education
of
Black
people:
Ten
critiques,
1906-
1960. New York:
Monthly
Review Press.
Edmonds,
R.
(1986).
Characteristics of effective schools. In U. Neisser
(Ed.),
The school achievement
of minority
children
NJ: Erl-
baum.
Farganis, S. (1986).
The social construction
of
the
feminine
character.
Totowa,
NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
Fisher,
F.
(1965).
The
influence of reading
and discussion on the attitudes
of fifth
graders
toward American Indians.
Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation,
Univer-
sity
of
California, Berkeley.
Forbes,
J. D.
(1973). Teaching
Native American values and cultures. In J. A.
Banks
(Ed.), Teaching
ethnic studies:
Concepts
and
strategies (pp. 201-225).
Washington,
Ford,
N. A.
(1973).
Black
studies:
Threat -or-
challenge.
Port
Washington,
NY:
Kennikat Press.
Franklin,
J. H.
(1947).
From
slavery
to
freedom:
A
history of Negro
Americans.
New York:
Knopf.
Franklin,
J. H.
(1985). George Washington
Williams: A
biography. Chicago:
Uni-
versity
of
Chicago
Press.
Gabelko,
N.
H.,
&
Michaelis,
J. U.
(1981). Reducing
adolescent
prejudice:
A
handbook. New York: Teachers
College
Press.
Gamio,
M.
(1930).
Mexican
immigration
to the United States: A
study of
human
migration
and
adjustment. Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Garcia,
R. L.
(1991). Teaching
in a
pluralistic society: Concepts,
models,
strate-
gies (2nd ed.).
New York:
Harper/Collins.
Gates,
H.
L.,
Jr.
(1988).
The
signifying monkey:
A
theory of African-American
literary
criticism. New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Gay,
G.
(1971).
Ethnic
minority
studies: How
widespread?
How successful? Edu-
cational
Leadership, 29,
108-112.
Gay,
G.
(1992).
The state of multicultural education in the United States. In K.
Adam-Moodley (Ed.),
Education in
plural
societies: International
perspectives
(pp. 47-66). Calgary, Alberta,
Canada:
Detselig.
Genovese, E. D.
(1972). Roll, Jordan,
roll: The world the slaves made. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Gibson,
M. A.
(1976). Approaches
to multicultural education in the United States:
Some
concepts
and
assumptions. Anthropology
and Education
Quarterly, 7,
7-18.
Ginsburg,
H.
(1972).
The
myth of
the
deprived
child: Poor children's intellect and
education.
Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Giroux,
H. A.
(1983). Theory
and resistance in education. South
Hadley,
MA:
Bergin
and
Garvey.
Goodman,
M. A.
(1952).
Race awareness in
young
children. New York: Collier.
Gollnick,
D.
M.,
&
Chinn,
P. C.
(1990).
Multicultural education in a
pluralistic
society (3rd ed.). Columbus,
OH: Merrill.
Gordon,
E. W.
(1985).
Social science
knowledge production
and the Afro-Amer-
ican
experience.
Journal
117-133.
Gordon, E. W.,
&
Meroe,
A. S.
(1991).
Common
destinies-Continuing
dilem-
mas.
Psychological Science, 2,
23-30.
Gordon, E. W., Miller, M.,
&
Rollock,
D.
(1990). Coping
with communicentric
bias in
knowledge production
in the social sciences. Educational
Researcher,
19,
14-19.
Gould,
S. J.
(1981).
The mismeasure
of
man. New York: Norton.
Grant,
C. A.
(1973).
Black studies materials do make a difference. Journal
of
Educational
Research, 66,
400-404.
Grant,
C. A.
(Ed.). (1977).
Commitments, issues,
and
applications. Washington,
DC: Association for
Supervision
and Curriculum
Development.
Grant,
C. A.
(1978).
Education that is multicultural: Isn't that what we mean?
Journal
of
Teacher
Education, 29,
45-48.
Grant,
C.
A.,
&
Sleeter,
C. E.
(1986). Race, class,
and
gender
in education re-
search: An
argument
for
integrative analysis.
Review
of
Educational
Research,
56,
195-211.
Gray,
P.
(1991, July 8).
Whose America?
Time, pp.
12-17.
Habermas,
J.
(1971). Knowledge
and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hale-Benson,
J.
(1982).
Black children: Their
roots,
culture and
learning styles
(Rev. ed.).
Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University
Press.
Hale-Benson,
J.
(1987).
Black children: Their
roots, culture,
and
learning styles.
In J. B. McCracken
(Ed.), Reducing
stress in
young
children's lives
(pp.
122-
129). Washington,
DC: National Association for the Education of
Young
Chil-
dren.
Harding,
S. (1991).
Whose science? Whose
knowledge? Thinking from
women's
lives.
Ithaca,
NY: Cornell
University
Press.
Harrington,
M.
(1962).
The other America. New York: Macmillan.
Hayes,
M.
L.,
&
Conklin,
M. E.
(1953). Intergroup
attitudes and
experimental
change.
Journal
of Experimental Education, 22,
19-36.
Heath,
S. B.
(1983). Ways
with words:
Language, life,
and work in communities
and classrooms. New York:
Cambridge University
Press.
Herrnstein,
R. J.
(1971).
1.
Q.
in the
meritocracy.
Boston:
Little,
Brown.
Hilliard,
A. G.
III. (1974). Restructuring
teacher education for multicultural im-
peratives.
In W. A. Hunter
(Ed.),
Multicultural education
through competency-
based teacher education
(pp. 40-55). Washington,
DC: American Association
of
Colleges
for Teacher Education.
Hilliard,
A. G.
III, Payton-Stewart, L.,
&
Williams,
L.
O. (Eds.). (1990). Infusion
of African
and
African
American content in the school curriculum.
Morristown,
NJ: Aaron Press.
Hohn,
R. L.
(1973). Perceptual training
and its effect on racial
preference
of
kindergarten
children.
Psychological Reports, 32,
435-441.
hooks,
b.
(1990). Yearning:
Race,
gender,
and cultural
politics.
Boston: South
End Press.
Education,
19
Horowitz, E.
L.
(1936).
The
development
of attitude toward the
Negro.
In Ar-
chives
of Psychology (No. 104).
New York: Columbia
University.
Horowitz,
R.
E. (1939).
Racial
aspects
of self-identification in
nursery
school
children. Journal
of Psychology, 7,
91-99.
Hunter,
W. A.
(Ed.). (1974).
Multicultural education
through competency-based
teacher education.
Washington,
DC: American Association of
Colleges
for
Teacher Education.
Jackson,
E. P.
(1944).
Effects of
reading upon
the attitudes toward the
Negro
race. The
Library Quarterly, 14,
47-54.
Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane,
M.
J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns,
B.,
&
Michelson,
S.
(1972). Inequality:
A reassessment
of
the
effect of family
and
schooling
in America. New York: Basic Books.
Jensen,
A. R.
(1969).
How much can we boost
IQ
and scholastic achievement?
Harvard Educational
Review, 39,
1-123.
Kaplan,
A.
(1964).
The conduct
of inquiry: Methodology for
behavioral science.
San Francisco: Chandler.
Katz,
P. A.
(1973). Perception
of racial cues in
preschool
children: A new look.
Developmental Psychology, 8,
295-299.
Katz,
P. A.
(Ed.). (1976).
Towards the elimination
of
racism. New York: Per-
gamon.
Katz,
P.
A.,
&
Zalk,
S. R.
(1978).
Modification of children's racial attitudes.
Developmental Psychology, 14,
447-461.
King,
J.
A.,
&
Mitchell,
C. A.
(1990).
Black mothers to sons:
Juxtaposing African
American literature with social
practice.
New York: Peter
Lang.
Kitano,
H. H. L.
(1969). Japanese
Americans: The evolution
of
a subculture.
Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Klassen,
F.
H.,
&
Gollnick,
D. M.
(Eds.). (1977).
Pluralism and the American
teacher: Issues and case studies.
Washington,
DC: Ethnic
Heritage
Center for
Teacher Education of the American Association of
Colleges
for Teacher Edu-
cation.
Klein,
S. S.
(Ed.). (1985).
Handbook
for achieving
sex
equity through
education.
Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University
Press.
Kleinfeld,
J.
(1975).
Effective teachers of Eskimo and Indian students. School
Review, 83,
301-344.
Kleinfeld,
J.
(1979).
Eskimo children on the
Andreafsky.
New York:
Praeger.
Kleinfeld, J.,
&
Nelson,
P.
(1991). Adapting
instruction to Native Americans'
learning styles:
An iconoclastic view. Journal
of
Cross-Cultural
Psychology,
22,
273-282.
Kuhn,
T.
S. (1970).
The structure
of scientific
revolutions
(2nd ed., enlarged).
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Labov,
W.
(1969).
The
study of
nonstandard
English. Urbana,
IL: National Coun-
cil of Teachers of
English.
Ladner,
J. A.
(Ed.). (1973).
The death
of
White
sociology.
New York:
Vintage
Books.
Lasker,
B.
(1929).
Race attitudes in children. New York:
Holt,
Rinehart & Win-
ston.
Lasker,
B.
(1931). Filipino immigration
to the continental United States and Ha-
waii.
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Lauter,
P.
(1991).
Canons and contexts. New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Leo,
L.
(1990,
November
12).
A
fringe history
of the world. U. S. News and
World
Report, pp.
25-26.
Leslie,
L.
L.,
&
Leslie,
J. W.
(1972).
The effects of a student centered
special
curriculum
upon
the racial attitudes of sixth
graders.
Journal
of Experimental
Education, 41,
63-67.
Lessing,
E.
E.,
&
Clarke,
C.
(1976).
An
attempt
to reduce ethnic
prejudice
and
assess its correlates. Educational Research
Quarterly, 1,
3-16.
Levine,
L. W.
(1977).
Black culture and Black consciousness:
Afro-American folk
thought from slavery
to
freedom.
New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Lewis,
0.
(1965).
La vida: A Puerto Rican
family
in the culture
of poverty-San
Juan and New York. New York: Random House.
Lezotte,
L. W.
(1993).
Effective schools: A framework for
increasing
student
achievement. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks
(Eds.),
Issues and
perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 303-316).
Boston:
Allyn
and Bacon.
Litcher,
J.
H.,
&
Johnson,
D. W.
(1969). Changes
in attitudes toward
Negroes
of White
elementary
school students after use of multiethnic readers. Journal
of
Educational
Psychology, 60,
148-152.
Litcher,
J.
H., Johnson,
D.
W.,
&
Ryan,
F. L.
(1973).
Use of
pictures
of mul-
tiethnic interaction to
change
attitudes of White
elementary
school students
toward Blacks.
Psychological Reports, 33,
367-372.
Locke, A.,
&
Stern,
B. J.
(Eds.). (1942).
When
people
meet: A
study
in race and
culture contacts. New York:
Progressive
Education Association.
Logan,
R. W.
(1954).
The
betrayal of
the
Negro.
New York: Collier.
Lynch,
J.
(1987). Prejudice
reduction and the schools. New York: Nichols.
McWilliams,
C.
(1943).
Brothers under the skin. Boston:
Little,
Brown.
McWilliams,
C.
(1949).
North
from
Mexico: The
Spanish-speaking people of
the
United States.
Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Mercer,
J. R.
(1989).
Alternative
paradigms
for assessment in a
pluralistic society.
In J. A. Banks & C. A. Banks
(Eds.),
Multicultural education: Issues and
perspectives (pp. 289-304).
Boston:
Allyn
and Bacon.
Merton,
R. K.
(1968).
Social
theory
and social structure. New York: The Free
Press.
Miel, A.,
with
Kiester, E.,
Jr.
(1967).
The
shortchanged
children
of
suburbia:
What schools don't teach about human
differences
and what can be done about
it. New York: The American Jewish Committee.
Milner,
D.
(1983).
Children and race.
Beverly Hills,
CA:
Sage.
Minard,
R. D.
(1931).
Race attitudes
of
Iowa children. Iowa
City: University
of
Iowa.
Morland,
J. K.
(1966).
A
comparison
of race awareness in northern and southern
children. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 36,
22-31.
Myrdal, G.,
with the assistance of
Sterner, R.,
&
Rose,
A.
(1944).
An American
dilemma: The
Negro problem
and modern
democracy.
New York:
Harper
&
Row.
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.
(1977).
Standards
for
the accreditation
of
teacher education.
Washington,
DC: Author.
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.
(1987).
NCATE
standards,
procedures,
and
policies for
the accreditation
of professional
edu-
cation units.
Washington,
DC: Author.
National Council for the Social Studies Task Force on Ethnic Studies.
(1992).
Curriculum
guidelines
for multicultural education. Social
Education, 56,
274-
294.
National Council of Teachers of
English. (1974).
Students'
right
to their own
language. Urbana,
IL: Author.
Education,
19
Natriello, G., McDill, E. L.,
&
Pallas,
A. M.
(1990). Schooling disadvantaged
children:
Racing against catastrophe.
New York: Teachers
College
Press.
Nieto, S. (1986).
Excellence and
equity:
The case for
bilingual
education. Bulletin
of
the Council on Interracial Books
for Children, 17,
3-4.
Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity:
The
sociopolitical
context
of
multicultural
education. New York:
Longman.
Novak,
M.
(1971).
The rise
of
the unmeltable ethnics. New York: Macmillan.
Oakes,
J.
(1985). Keeping
track: How schools structure
inequality.
New
Haven,
CT: Yale
University
Press.
Ogbu,
J. U.
(1974).
The next
generation:
An
ethnography of
education in an urban
neighborhood.
New York: Academic Press.
Ogbu,
J. U.
(1990). Overcoming
racial barriers to
equal
access. In J.
I.
Goodlad
& P.
Keating (Eds.),
Access to
knowledge:
An
agenda for
our nation's schools
(pp. 59-89).
New York: The
College
Board.
Ovando, J.,
&
Collier,
V. P.
(1985). Bilingual
and ESL classrooms:
Teaching
in
multicultural contexts. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Parekh,
B.
(1986).
The
concept
of multicultural education. In S.
Modgil,
G.
Verma,
K.
Mallick,
& C.
Modgil (Eds.),
Multicultural education: The inter-
minable debate
(pp. 19-31). Philadelphia:
The Falmer Press.
Parish,
T.
S.,
&
Fleetwood,
R.
S. (1975).
Amount of
conditioning
and
subsequent
change
in racial attitudes of children.
Perceptual
and Motor
Skills, 43,
907-
912.
Parish,
T.
S., Shirazi, A.,
&
Lambert,
F.
(1976). Conditioning away prejudicial
attitudes in children.
Perceptual
and Motor
Skills, 43,
907-912.
Passow,
A. H.
(Ed.). (1963).
Education in
depressed
areas. New York: Teachers
College
Press.
Peters,
W.
(1987).
A class divided: Then and now
(Expanded ed.).
New
Haven,
CT: Yale
University
Press.
Philips,
S. U.
(1983).
The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and
community
on the Warm
Springs
Indian reservation. New York:
Longman.
Phillips,
U. B.
(1918).
American
Negro slavery.
New York: D.
Appleton
& Com-
pany.
Phinney,
J.
S.,
&
Rotheram,
M. J.
(Eds.). (1987).
Children's ethnic socialization:
Pluralism and
development. Beverly Hills,
CA:
Sage.
Porter,
J. D. R.
(1971).
Black
child,
White child: The
development of
racial at-
titudes.
Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University
Press.
Purkey,
S.
C.,
&
Smith,
M.
S. (1982).
Too soon to cheer?
Synthesis
of research
on effective schools. Educational
Leadership, 40,
64-69.
Quarles,
B.
(1953).
The
Negro
in the Civil War. New York: Da
Capo
Press.
Radke,
M.
J.,
&
Trager,
H. G.
(1950).
Children's
perceptions
of the social roles
of
Negroes
and Whites. Journal
of Psychology, 29,
3-33.
Ramirez, M.,
&
Castafieda,
A.
(1974).
Cultural
democracy, bicognitive
devel-
opment,
and education. New York: Academic Press.
Ramsey,
P. G.
(1987). Young
children's
thinking
about ethnic differences. In J.
S.
Phinney
& M. J. Rotheram
(Eds.),
Children's ethnic socialization: Pluralism
and
development (pp. 56-72). Beverly Hills,
CA:
Sage.
Ravitch,
D.
(1990). Diversity
and
democracy:
Multicultural education in America.
American
Educator, 14,
16-48.
Richardson, V., Casanova, U., Placier, P.,
&
Guilfoyle,
K.
(1989).
School chil-
dren at risk. New York: The Falmer Press.
Riessman,
F.
(1962).
The
culturally deprived
child. New York:
Harper
& Row.
Robinson,
A.
L., Foster,
C.
C.,
&
Ogilvie,
D. H.
(Eds.). (1969).
Black studies
in the
university.
New York: Bantam.
Rodriguez,
R.
(1982). Hunger of memory:
The education
of
Richard
Rodriguez:
An
autobiography.
Boston: David R. Godine.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J.,
&
Smith,
A.
(1979). Fifteen
thousand hours:
Secondary
schools and their
effects
on children.
Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University
Press.
Ryan,
W.
(1971). Blaming
the victim. New York:
Vintage.
Sadker,
M.
P.,
&
Sadker,
D. M.
(1982).
Sex
equity
handbook
for
schools. New
York:
Longman.
Schlesinger, A.,
Jr.
(1990, Summer).
When ethnic studies are un-American. Social
Studies Review: A Bulletin
of
the American Textbook
Council, pp.
11-13.
Schlesinger, A.,
Jr.
(1991).
The
disuniting of
America:
Reflections
on a multi-
cultural
society. Knoxville,
TN: Whittle Direct Books.
Shade,
B. J.
(1982).
Afro-American
cognitive style:
A variable in school success?
Review
of
Educational
Research, 52,
219-244.
Shade,
B. J.
(Ed.). (1989). Culture, style,
and the educative
process. Springfield,
IL: Charles C Thomas.
Shirley, O.
L. B.
(1988).
The
impact of
multicultural education on
self-concept,
racial
attitude,
and student achievement
of
Black and White
fifth
and sixth
graders. Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation, University
of
Mississippi.
Sizemore,
B. A.
(1972).
Social science and education for a Black
identity.
In J.
A. Banks & J. D. Grambs
(Eds.),
Black
self-concept: Implications for
education
and social science
(pp. 141-170).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Slaughter,
D. T.
(Ed.). (1988).
Black children and
poverty:
A
developmental per-
spective.
San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Slavin,
R.
E. (1979).
Effects of biracial
learning
teams on cross-racial
friendships.
Journal
of
Educational
Psychology, 71,
381-387.
Slavin,
R. E.
(1985). Cooperative learning: Applying
contact
theory
in
desegre-
gated
schools. Journal
of
Social
Issues, 41,
45-62.
Slavin,
R.
E., Karweit,
N.
L.,
&
Madden,
N. A.
(1989). Effective programs for
students at risk. Boston:
Allyn
and Bacon.
Sleeter,
C. E.
(Ed.). (1991). Empowerment through
multicultural education. Al-
bany:
State
University
of New York Press.
Sleeter,
C.
E.,
&
Grant,
C. A.
(1987).
An
analysis
of multicultural education in
the United States. Harvard Educational
Review, 7,
421-444.
Sleeter,
C.
E.,
&
Grant,
C. A.
(1988). Making
choices
for
multicultural education:
Five
approaches
to
race, class,
and
gender. Columbus,
OH: Merrill.
Sleeter,
C.
E.,
&
Grant,
C. A.
(1991). Race, class, gender,
and
disability
in current
textbooks. In M. W.
Apple
& L. K. Christian-Smith
(Eds.),
The
politics of
the
textbook
(pp. 78-110).
New York:
Routledge.
Smitherman,
G.
(1977).
Talkin and
testifying:
The
language of
Black America.
Boston:
Houghton
Mifflin.
Sowell,
T.
(1984).
Civil
rights:
Rhetoric or
reality?
New York: William Morrow.
Spencer,
M. B.
(1982).
Personal and
group identity
of Black children: An alter-
native
synthesis.
Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 106,
59-84.
Spencer,
M. B.
(1985).
Cultural
cognition
and social
cognition
as
identity
cor-
relates of Black children's
personal-social development.
In M. B.
Spencer,
G.
K.
Brookins,
& W. R. Allen
(Eds.), Beginnings:
The social and
affective
de-
velopment of
Black children
NJ: Erlbaum.
Spencer,
M. B.
(1987).
Black children's ethnic
identity
formation: Risk and re-
Education,
19
silience of castelike minorities. In J. S.
Phinney
& M. J. Rotheram
(Eds.),
Children's ethnic socialization: Pluralism and
development (pp. 103-116).
Bev-
erly Hills,
CA:
Sage.
Stampp,
K. M.
(1956).
The
peculiar
institution:
Slavery
in the antebellum South.
New York:
Vintage.
Steele,
S.
(1990).
The content
of
our character: A new vision
of
race in America.
New York: St. Martin's Press.
Sue,
D. W.
(Ed.). (1981). Counseling
the
culturally different: Theory
and
practice.
New York:
Wiley.
Sung,
B. L.
(1967).
The
story of
the Chinese in America. New York: Macmillan.
Suzuki,
B. H.
(1984).
Curriculum transformation for multicultural education. Edu-
cation and Urban
Society, 16,
294-322.
Taba,
H.
(1950).
With a
focus
on human relations: A
story of
the
eighth grade.
Washington,
DC: American Council on Education.
Taba,
H.
(1951). Diagnosing
human relations needs.
Washington,
DC: American
Council on Education.
Taba,
H.
(1952).
Curriculum in
intergroup
relations: Case studies in instruction.
Washington,
Taba,
H.
(1967).
Teacher's handbook
for elementary
social studies. Palo
Alto,
CA:
Addison-Wesley.
Taba, H., Brady,
E.
H.,
&
Robinson,
J. T.
(1952). Intergroup
education in
public
schools.
Washington,
Taba, H.,
&
Elkins,
D.
(1966). Teaching strategies for
the
culturally
disadvan-
taged. Chicago:
Rand
McNally.
Taba, H.,
& Van
Til,
W.
(Eds.). (1945).
Democratic human relations
(16th year-
book). Washington,
Taba, H.,
&
Wilson,
H.
(1946). Intergroup
education
through
the school curric-
ulum. Annals
of
the American
Academy of
Political and Social
Science, 244,
19-25.
Tetreault,
M. K.
(1993).
Classrooms for
diversity: Rethinking
curriculum and
pedagogy.
In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks
(Eds.),
Issues and
perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 129-148).
Boston:
Allyn
and Bacon.
Theodorson,
G.
A.,
&
Theodorson,
A. G.
(1969).
A modern
dictionary of
soci-
ology.
New York: Barnes & Noble.
Trager,
H.
G.,
&
Yarrow,
M. R.
(1952). They
learn what
they
live:
Prejudice
in
young
children. New York:
Harper
and Brothers.
Turner,
F. J.
(1989).
The
significance
of the frontier in American
history.
In C.
A. Milner
II (Ed.), Major problems
in the
history of
the American West
(pp.
2-34). Lexington,
MA: D. C. Heath.
(Original
work
published 1894)
Van
Sertima, I. (Ed.). (1988).
Great Black leaders: Ancient and modern. New
Brunswick,
NJ:
Rutgers University,
Africana Studies
Department.
Vickery,
W.
E.,
&
Cole,
S. G.
(1943).
Intercultural education in American
schools:
Proposed objectives
and methods. New York:
Harper
& Brothers.
Wesley,
C. H.
(1935).
Richard Allen:
Apostle of freedom. Washington,
DC: The
Associated Publishers.
White,
A. 0.
(1973).
The Black
leadership
class and education in antebellum
Boston. Journal
of Negro
Education, 42,
505-515.
Williams,
F.
(Ed.). (1970). Language
and
poverty: Perspectives
on a theme. Chi-
cago:
Markham
Publishing Company.
Williams,
G. W.
(1882-1883). History of
the
Negro
race in America
from
1619
to 1880:
Negroes
as
slaves,
as
soldiers,
and as citizens
(2 vols.).
New York:
G. P. Putnam's Sons.
Williams,
J.
E., Best,
D.
L., Wood,
F.
B.,
&
Filler,
J. W.
(1973). Changes
in the
connotations of racial
concepts
and color names: 1963-1970.
Psychological
Reports, 33,
983-996.
Williams,
J.
E.,
&
Edwards,
C. D.
(1969).
An
exploratory study
of the modifi-
cation of color and racial
concept
attitudes in
preschool
children. Child De-
velopment, 40,
737-750.
Williams,
J.
E.,
&
Morland,
J. K.
(1976). Race, color,
and the
young
child.
Chapel
Hill:
University
of North Carolina Press.
Wilson,
W. J.
(1987).
The
truly disadvantaged:
The inner
city,
the
underclass,
and
public policy. Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Wirth,
L.
(1928).
The
ghetto. Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Woodson,
C. G.
(1968).
The education
of
the
Negro prior
to 1861. New York:
Arno Press.
(Original
work
published 1919)
Woodson,
C. G.
(1933).
Mis-education
of
the
Negro. Washington,
DC: The As-
sociated
Publishers.
Woodson,
C.
G.,
&
Wesley,
C. H.
(1922).
The
Negro
in our
history. Washington,
DC: The Associated Publishers.
Wortham,
A.
(1981).
The other side
of
racism: A
philosophical study of
Black
race consciousness. Columbus: Ohio State
University
Press.
Wyman,
D. S.
(1984).
The abandonment
of
the Jews: America and the
Holocaust,
1941-1945. New York: Pantheon.
Yawkey,
T. D.
(1973).
Attitudes toward Black Americans held
by
rural and urban
White
early
childhood
subjects
based
upon
multi-ethnic social studies materials.
Journal
164-169.
Manuscript
Received
February 5,
1992
Revision Received June
22,
1992
Accepted July 10,
1992

American Educational Research Association

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Educational Research Association

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Educational Research Association

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions, and Practice

Author(s): James A. Banks

You might also like