| An Analysis of SB 2042
> >Christine Sleeter >California State University Monterey Bay > >(This is a draft, for presentation at CCTE on October 18, 2002) > >California, the most culturally diverse state in the U.S., leads the >nation in developing a comprehensive system of content standards and >testing. Very detailed curriculum standards were developed during the >1990s. In 2001, legislation was passed to create a seamless web of >curriculum standards specifying subject matter content in every discipline >K-12 and disciplinary subject matter university coursework for teacher >preparation, in addition to standards for teacher credentialling and >teacher induction. Teacher preparation programs had been publicly cast as >"abysmal," "so the state decided to do for its [87] teacher programs what >it did for K-12 instruction: construct a framework of standards that lay >out what teachers must know and do" (Hardy, 2001). > >There are indeed crises facing California schools. In this paper I will >argue, however, that California's current reform effort has serious >deficiencies that exacerbate some problems and simply ignore others. A >caveat is in order. I do not believe that standards in and of themselves >are necessarily bad. Strongly encouraging schools to set challenging >academic standards for historically underserved children is very >important; broad standards that serve as benchmarks can help do that. >Problems arise, however, when standards become exceedingly prescriptive, >and when testing is used as the main tool of school improvement. This >paper will focus specifically on four problems with reforms in teacher >education: silencing of debates about multicultural curriculum, promoting >anti-intellectualism, creating a hierarchy of authority that locates >communities at the bottom, and substituting an ideology of individual >responsibility for addressing structural inequities. > >Silencing debates about whose knowledge is most worth teaching in a >multicultural society > >The last 35 years have witnessed vibrant debates about whose knowledge >should be in the curriculum, beginning with the ethnic studies movement of >the 1960s, followed by the women's studies movement, the disability >studies movement, and exciting work in various other critical cultural >studies. These movements challenged the dominant epistemology that assumes >that knowledge produced scientifically is universal and has no particular >location in lived experience. This assumption has produced the "view from >nowhere" that proclaims itself to be true everywhere (Code, 1993). >Dominant narratives in curriculum historically distorted, ignored, or >undermined oppressed groups; scholars from marginalized communities have >critiqued the embedded interests and worldview in those narratives (e.g., >Said, 1994), constructed counter-narratives, and proposed various >frameworks, models, and materials for reconstructed curricula (Banks & >Banks, 1995; Sleeter & Grant, 2003). > >Now, in an abrupt turn away from these debates and the fruits of this >recent scholarship, California's new academic content standards and >teacher preparation standards have taken debates over what to teach off >the table. During the 1990s, the state adopted content standards and >frameworks in the following areas: reading/language arts, history and >social science, mathematics, natural science, and visual and performing >arts. The new standards for teacher preparation and teacher induction make >clear repeatedly that the role of teacher education is to prepare teachers >to teach the state-adopted content standards using state adopted >materials, and that teachers will be evaluated based on their >demonstration of competence is delivering this curriculum. > >The phrase "State-adopted academic content standards" appears 34 times in >the Professional Teacher Preparation document, and 26 times in the >Professional Teacher Induction Program document. In the Multiple Subject >Subject Matter Standards, the term "state content standards" appears only >11 times, but 29 of the document's 60 pages outline what they are. Content >students study in the disciplines at the university level is to be aligned >with the state-adopted academic content standards. By contrast, the >phrases "culturally relevant", "multicultural," or "justice" appear in >neither the Professional Teacher Preparation document nor the Professional >Teacher Induction Program document. "Bilingual" appears only once in a >footnote, and "culture" appears only 9 times total in both combined. This >is one indicator of the extent to which debates about whose knowledge >should be taught have been silenced. > >Since the state-adopted content standards now drive the K-12 curriculum, >teachers' undergraduate subject matter preparation, and the focus of >credential and induction preparation, it is important to examine them >critically. Elsewhere, I have examined the History-Social Science >Framework and Standards for California Public Schools in relationship to >seven analytic constructs found in ethnic studies, women's studies, and >other critical studies (Sleeter, in press). They include: centering >narratives, social construction of theory, colonialism, liberation from >subjugation, social construction of identities, voice through the arts, >and strengths of oppressed communities. > >My conclusion was that despite a surface appearance of being >multicultural, the History-Social Science Framework and Standards for >California Public Schools is organized in a way that strongly prioritizes >experiences and perspectives of traditional white, mostly male Americans, >and that obscures historic and contemporary processes of U.S. and European >colonialism, and institutionalized racism. Its purpose is to attempt to >detach young people from their racial and ethnic cultural moorings and >connect them to a national and state identity that is decidedly rooted in >European culture, and that champions individuality and the expansion of >capitalism. In agreement with Symcox (2002), I found this set of academic >content standards to reflect a highly assimilationist ideology, despite a >veneer of pluralism. > >I have not analyzed content standards in the other subject areas for whose >knowledge they champion. I am outraged, however, that after 35 years of >research and political agitation to rethink knowledge from multicultural, >ethnic, gender, and other critical perspectives, the state has simply >announced that there is now consensus around what young people should >know, when an analysis of this set of standards disputes that claim. >Further, I am outraged that the state, through SB 2402, has configured the >role of teachers and teacher educators as deliverers of that knowledge. > >Promoting anti-intellectualism > >Wiggins and McTighe (1998) argue that the best curricula aim toward deep >understanding of rich ideas. Such curricula help students to "uncover" >ideas rather than cover content; such curricula promote intellectual >engagement of both teachers and students. They argue that the curriculum >planning process should begin with teachers identifying the most enduring >and rich ideas in a given subject area, and complex thinking that students >might learn to engage in, in the context of those ideas. Similarly, using >the term "generative topic" to refer to enduring ideas, Wiske (1998) >argues that the most enduring and rich ideas around which to build >curriculum four characteristics. Generative topics are: > >"Central to a domain or discipline. Curriculum built around generative >topics engages students in developing understandings that provide a >foundation for more sophisticated work in the domain or discipline. . . . > >"Accessible and interesting to students. Generative topics are related to >students' experiences and concerns. . . . >"Interesting to the teacher. . . .A teacher's passion, curiosity, and >wonder serve as a model of intellectual engagement for students who are >just learning how to explore unfamiliar and complex terrain with >open-ended questions. > >"Connectable. Generative topics are readily linked to students' previous >experiences (both in and out of school) and to important ideas within and >across disciplines. They often have a bottomless quality, in that inquiry >into the topic leads to deeper questions." > >Planning curriculum around generative topics or enduring ideas, if taken >seriously, treats teachers, teacher educators, and students as thoughtful >intellectuals. The teacher is framed as an intellectual guide who is at >the same time an active learner, driven by her or his own curiosity and >passions. Students are framed as curious and purposeful learners whose >inquiries begin with their own interests and questions. The curriculum is >a meeting ground for intellectual exploration within and across >established disciplines and intellectual work of scholarly forbears. > >Now contrast this vision of curriculum as intellectual pursuit with >examples from the new SB 2042 Induction Standards. Five of the standards >specify the content of a two-year induction program, detailing 38 program >elements that describe what a teacher completing Induction should be able >to demonstrate. Some of the elements are fairly focused practical skills, >such as: >18(b) Each participating teacher implements accident prevention strategies >within the classroom and the school site. > >Others are packed with connected and layered complex skills and >understandings. Consider these two examples: > >17(a) Each participating teacher develops knowledge and understanding of >the background experiences, languages, skills, and abilities of his/her >students and applies appropriate pedagogical practices that provide >equitable access to the core curriculum and enable all students to meet >the state adopted academic content standards and performance levels for >students. > >20(f) Each participating teacher demonstrates recognition and assessment >of the strengths of students with disabilities and of students who are >gifted and talented, as well as their social and academic needs, and how >to plan instructional and/or social activities to further develop these >strengths. > >One could design an entire graduate-level course around each of these two >elements, with each course "uncovering" several generative topics embedded >within each element. But there are 38 elements, leading teacher educators >toward a content coverage model rather than "uncoverage," and toward >curriculum planning as juggling elements in the standards rather than as >identifying central ideas for intellectual exploration. >At CSUMB, we are in the process of wrestling with dilemmas posed by the >Induction standards, in relationship to the Master of Arts in Education >program. Do we attempt to interface our existing MA in Education program >with the Induction standards in order to make it an attractive program to >teachers? If so, do we incorporate all 38 elements into the program? How >can we do that without having the Induction Standards take over the >substance of the program? One preliminary draft attempted to cluster the >38 elements into three new graduate courses: a course focusing on >collaboration with professionals and community, a course focusing on >assessment, and a course focusing on equity pedagogy in diverse >classrooms. The latter course was assigned 18 program elements, two of >which are 17(a) and 20(f) above. In the same course, which the Induction >standards specify as focusing mainly on strategies for delivering the >state-adopted curriculum using adopted-curriculum materials, teachers >would also be expected to > >17(d) includes appropriately in classroom instruction the history and >traditions of the major cultural and ethnic groups in California society. > >and > >17(e) examines his/her beliefs, attitudes, and expectations related to >gender and sexual orientation, and creates gender-fair, bias-free learning >environments. > >The biggest dilemma is how to help teachers complete certification, and at >the same time retain space for intellectual pursuits that are not defined >by the state, but rather stem from interests and questions of teachers and >ourselves as teacher educators. > >In an analysis of teacher credentialling standards in Wisconsin, Popkewitz >(1991) showed how the language of regulation extends state control over >teaching, through four mechanisms. First, the more regulations >proliferate over multiple aspects of a teacher education program, the less >autonomy teachers, teacher educators, university faculty, and school >administrators have to make decisions for themselves. Second, >politically-constructed state standards themselves represent an amalgam of >different concerns, beliefs, and ideals. Rhetorically the standards lend >themselves to multiple interpretations, reflecting ideals cherished by a >variety of constituencies, which leads very diverse constituencies to >accept them. But third, real differences in values and visions that are >embedded in the standards' language are cast as administrative procedures >for everyone to follow rather than as deep differences in values and >viewpoints. And fourth, the regulations are so packed with specifics that >they crowd out many important debates about diversity, justice, and human >learning, while filling teacher education programs with a presumed >universal prescription about what it means to teach. > >What we are experiencing is intellectual de-skilling. Apple (1993) >explains that when complex work is broken into atomistic elements, workers >lose control over and sight of the larger complexities and the whole of >their work. Educators are de-skilled when the wisdom and judgment that >they acquire through experience and study is sidelined, as they are forced >into implementing a plethora of specific requirements developed by someone >else. In a brilliant analysis of a teacher's experience with a scripted >reading program, for example, Meyer (2002) portrays the struggle a highly >experience reading teacher faced when her knowledge and experience was >replaced by a district-mandated reading program. As a university faculty >member, over the past twenty years I have experienced thoughtful >discussions among teacher education faculty about how to prepare teachers >being replaced by procedural discussions about how to meet state >regulations. Intellectual deskilling is taking the form of curriculum >planning based on examining and drawing on one's own professional >experience, knowledge, and research, replaced by cutting and pasting >detailed standards, in which fairly little room is left for rich >intellectual engagement. > >I now have a vision -- or a nightmare -- of teachers of the future >experiencing their entire education, from kindergarten through graduate >school, as having been defined by state standards, and their studies >chosen for them, and framed more in terms of content coverage than >uncovering rich ideas. And, in the most diverse state in the nation, all >teachers will have been dipped into the same narrow and shallow well of >knowledge. It is possible that teachers of the future will not even >envision curriculum as intellectual engagement, but rather as test >preparation. > >Hierarchy of authority, with communities at the bottom > >Children who historically have tended to be least well served by schools >are children of color and children from economically poor communities. >Scholars from such communities have developed rich bodies of research >examining issues and problems in schooling, and successful teaching in >specific historically underserved communities. Ladson-Billings' (1994) >study of eight successful teachers of African American children is >particularly helpful, since it synthesizes key elements of the teachers' >pedagogy that the teachers saw as central to their work. Their >relationship with the children's parents and the African American >community was central to their pedagogy. Although most of the teachers >were African American, all of them were committed to the community's >aspirations for its children, were able to make their teaching practice >culturally relevant to the children. They also were able to interpret >problems parents faced in their own lives through a socio-political lens >rather than a cultural deficit lens. > >Although educators generally advocate forming partnerships with parents, >strong and collaborative partnerships between schools and parents of color >or parents who are poor are the exception rather than the rule. Many >educators believe that such partnerships are rare because the parents are >not capable of making decisions about education and may not value >schooling. > >However, I and others such as Ladson-Billings (1994) believe that these >assumptions reflect and reproduce racism. Placing control over education >decision-making in the hands of a largely white middle-class body of >professionals reproduces exclusion of insights and knowledge of >communities of color and poor communities. Consider Delpit's (1995) advice >in her discussion of preparing teachers to teach "other people's" children: >I propose that a part of teacher education include bringing parents and >community members into the university classroom to tell prospective >teachers (and their teacher educators) what their concerns about education >are, what they feel schools are doing well or poorly for their children, >and how they would like to see schooling changed. I would also like to >see teacher initiates and their educators go out to community gatherings >to acquire such firsthand knowledge. It is unreasonable to expect that >teachers will automatically value the knowledge that parents and community >members bring to the education of diverse children If valuing such >knowledge has not been modelled for them by those from whom they learn to >teach. (p. 179) > >Despite the rapidly growing diversity of children in the schools, teachers >and those entering the teaching profession continue to be >disproportionately white. In California, in academic year 2000-2001, 43% >of children in the schools were Latino, 36% were white, 8% were African >American, and 8% were Asian. At the same time, only 13% of teachers were >Latino, 74% were white, 5% were African American, and 4% were Asian >(Educational Demographics Office, 2001). The teaching profession reflects >and is peopled by white communities, very disproportionately. > >Surveys of preservice students repeatedly and consistently report that a >large proportion of white preservice students bring to their teaching very >little cross-cultural background, knowledge and experience, and bring >stereotypic beliefs about children and communities of color (Barry & >Lechner, 1995; Gilbert, 1995: Larke, 1990; Law & Lane, 1987; McIntyre, >1997; Schultz, Neyhart & Reck, 1996; Smith, Moallem & Sherrill, 1997; Su, >1996, 1997; Valli, 1995). Preservice students of color tend to bring a >richer multicultural knowledge base to teacher education than white >students, and more commitment to multicultural teaching, social justice, >and providing children of color with an academically challenging >curriculum (Ladson-Billings, 1991; Rios & Montecinos, 1999; Su, 1996, >1997). Thus, if California intends to build a teaching force that places >strong relationships with children's parents and communities central to >pedagogy, intense work is needed to both recruit a more diverse teaching >force, and prepare all teachers to build community relationships >cross-culturally. >Research on how best to prepare preservice teachers to do this is >fragmented and fairly inconclusive. > >However, community-based learning appears to make more of a difference >than any other kind of intervention (Sleeter, 2000-2001). When white >educators have described their own process of learning to teach >cross-culturally, they have described community-based learning as crucial, >in some cases much more important than their formal teacher education >program (Merryfield, 2000; Sleeter, 1996; Smith, 1998; Weiner, 1993; Yeo, >1997). When carefully-structured, intense, community-based immersion >experiences have been studied, researchers have reported a powerful impact >on participants, both white and of color (Aguilar & Pohan, 1998; Canning, >1995; Cooper, Beare & Thorman, 1990; Mahan & Stachowski, 1990; Mahan & >Stachowski, 1993-4; Marxen & Rudney, 1999; Melnick and Zeichner, 1996; >Noordhoff & Kleinfeld, 1993; Stachowski & Mahan, 1998). In a particularly >relevant study, Noordhoff and Kleinfeld (1993) documented the impact of >Teachers for Alaska on preservice students' teaching practice. They >videotaped students teaching short lessons three times during the program, >and found students to shift very strongly from teaching as telling, to >teaching as engaging students with subject matter, using culturally >relevant knowledge. > >The new SB 2042 standards recognize students' families and communities, >but in only a limited fashion. Teachers are expected to learn to >communicate with students' families and communities, particularly about >student academic progress. Teachers are also supposed to include cultural >traditions and community values in the classroom. At the same time, the >preservice program is so short and packed that is very difficult to >structure substantive community-based learning into it. Not only is >community-based learning not a required part of teacher preparation or >induction, it simply does not fit very well in an already crowded >curriculum. >Further, SB 2042 does not mention the community as a collaborator in >planning teacher education at the preservice or induction levels. At the >preservice preparation level, the university is expected to collaborate >with the local educational authorities (such as county offices of >education and school districts) and subject matter specialists. At the >induction level, the teacher education team is required to know content >standards, expected performance levels for students, and teacher >development; the team does not need deep familiarity with the children's >communities. > >Thus, the role of children's communities as partners in decision-making, >and as a context for teacher professional learning, has been >circumscribed. Teachers are encouraged to look to the state, to subject >matter professionals, and to "scientifically-based research" for guidance >on teaching. > >Substituting an ideology of individual responsibility for addressing >structural inequities > >Schools exist in a social context. California, as a state context for >education, is highly stratified economically and politically, with gaps >between "haves" and "have nots" growing rapidly. Between the late 1970s >and the late 1990s, poverty rates in California grew dramatically, in >contrast to the rest of the U.S. While the U.S. poverty rate was 12% in >1979 and about 13% in 1997, in California it was about 10% in 1979 and 16% >in 1997. Most impoverished families were working poor, and an immigrant >headed almost half of the impoverished households (Johnson & Tafoya, >2000). In the U.S. at large in 1976, the wealthiest 1% of the population >owned 19% of the wealth of the country; by 1997, they owned 40% of the >wealth (Collins, Hartman and Sklar, 1999). > >These growing inequalities impact on schools in a variety of ways; an >obvious way is in the inadequate funding California schools have been >receiving since passage of Proposition 13. Preparing young people for >society must include advocacy for building a fair society for everyone. > >Racial and class stratification also permeates schooling itself, in >general. The Williams v. California court case, which was filed in May >2000, is attempting to challenges the worst of these discrepancies. >Organizations such as Justice Matters, the Applied Research Center, and >California Tomorrow have documented institutional racism in California's >schools, and repeatedly call for structural and systemic reforms to >address the following: access of students of color to college preparatory >courses and the upper track curriculum; ending racially unjust >disciplinary and expulsion policies; staffing schools with well-qualified >teachers who have high academic expectations for students of color and >students from economically poor backgrounds; reducing class size; building >school improvement plans around equity audits that disaggregate data by >race, sex, and social class; and using authentic assessment that can >richly capture students' capabilities. > >SB 2402, however, is built on a school reform model that champions >individual responsibility over structural reforms that address equality. >We can all describe the model. Curriculum is standardized and all >children across California are to be taught the same standardized >curriculum for their grade level, then tested on their mastery of it. >Teachers are to be taught that curriculum, then trained how to deliver it >to diverse student populations, and also tested on their mastery. Test >scores are to be reported by school, then schools rank-ordered based on >how much improvement they show relative to other schools that are similar >in socio-economic status. The scores are publicized, and low-performing >schools targeted for remediation. In addition, graduation from high school >will be connected to exit exam test scores starting in 2003-2004. Funding >is channeled into testing programs, and to the extent that it is >available, into incentives for raising test scores and assistance for >low-scoring schools. > >This reform model ignores many significant issues, such as overall funding >for schools, racism in expectations for learning, cultural mismatches >between teachers and students, the reduction of curriculum to test >preparation, and so forth. It also plays into forms of institutional >discrimination that are external to schools. For example, I have been told >informally more than once that realtors show housing to professional class >families based partially on the API of schools. To the extent that >neighborhoods are already segregated by class and race, API serves as an >indicator of so-called "desirable" and "undesirable" neighborhoods. > >SB 2042 specifically builds its definition of institutional discrimination >on AB 537. This assembly bill defines discrimination in individual terms, >making it a crime for "a person, whether or not acting under color of law, >to willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any >other person." As long as discrimination as seen in purely individual >terms, institutional discrimination need not be addressed. > >Within this context, then, school reform supports an ideology of >individual responsibility that ignores other structural and contextual >issues. It is the responsibility of individual teachers and individual >schools to raise student achievement within funding systems, teacher >recruitment and preparation systems, tracking systems, and systems of >home-school relations that already exist. The main elements of these >systems that have been changed are the content to be taught, and the use >of high-stakes testing. > >Conclusion > >I am challenging California's school and teacher preparation reforms >because I care about education, and particularly about quality education >for students from historically underserved communities. Many who support >the current reforms also care, but I believe that their analysis of what >the problems are, and what needs to be done, falls short. It is my hope >that this analysis will catalyze dialog and action. > >References > >Aguilar, T. E. & Pohan, C. A. (1998). A cultural immersion experience >to enhance cross-cultural competence. Sociotam 8 (1): 29-49. >Apple, M. W. (1993). Official knowledge. New York: Routledge. >Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A. M., Eds. (1995). Handbook of research on >multicultural education. New York: Macmillan. >Barry, N. H. & Lechner, J. V. 1995. Preservice teachers' attitudes about >and awareness of multicultural teaching and learning. Teaching and >Teacher Education 11 (2): 149-161. >Canning, C. 1995. Getting from the outside in: Teaching Mexican >Americans when you are an "Anglo." The High School Journal 78(4): 195-205. >Code, L. 1993. Taking subjectivity into account. In L. Alcoff & E. >Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies, pp. 15-48. New York: Routledge. >Collins, C, Hartman, C. & and Sklar, H. (1999). Divided Decade: Economic >Disparity at the Century's Turn. Retrieved June 5, 2001 on the World Wide >Web: >http://www.ufenet.org/press/archive/1999/Divided_Decade/divided_decade.html >Cooper, A., Beare, P. & Thorman, J. 1990. Preparing teachers for >diversity: A comparison of student teaching experiences in Minnesota and >South Texas. Action in Teacher Education 12 (3): 1-4. >Delpit, L. (1995). Other people's children. New York: The New Press. >Educational Demographics Office (2001). Teachers by ethnicity; Students by >ethnicity, State of California, 2000-2001. Ed-Data. Retrieved on the World >Wide Web October 9, 2002, at http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us. >Gilbert, S. L. 1995. Perspectives of rural prospective teachers toward >teaching in urban schools. Urban Education 30 (3), p290, 16p, 2 charts. >Hardy, T. (2001). Teaching teachers to teach: In California, a massive >effort is under way to overhaul credentialing programs. Sacramento Bee >News, May 13. >Johnson, H. P. & Sonya M. Tafoya, S. M. (2000). Trends in family and >household poverty. California Counts 1 (3). >Ladson-Billings, G. 1991. Beyond multicultural illiteracy. Journal of >Negro Education 60(2): 147-157. >Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. >Larke, P. J. 1990. Cultural diversity awareness inventory: Assessing the >sensitivity of pre-service teachers. Action in Teacher Education 12 (3): >23-30. >Law, S. & Lane, D. 1987. Multicultural acceptance by teacher education >students: A survey of attitudes. Journal of Instructional Psychology >14(1): 3-9. >Mahan, J. M. & Stachowski, L. 1990. New horizons: Student teaching >abroad to enrich understanding of diversity. Action in Teacher Education >12(3): 13-21. >Mahan, J. M. & Stachowski, L. 1993-4. Diverse, previously uncited >sources of professional learning reported by student teachers serving in >culturally different communities. National Forum of Teacher Education >Journal 3 (1): 21-28. >Marxen, C. E. & Rudney, G. L. 1999. An urban field experience for rural >preservice teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, winter, 61-74. >McIntyre, A. 1997. Making meaning of whiteness. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. >Melnick, S. & Zeichner, K. 1996. The role of community-based field >experiences in preparing teachers for cultural diversity. In K. Zeichner, >S. Melnick & M. L. Gomez, eds. Currents of reform in preservice teacher >education (pp. 176-196). New York: Teachers College Press. >Merryfield, M. M. 2000. Why aren't teachers being prepared to teach for >diversity, equity, and global interconnectedness? A study of lived >experiences in the making of multicultural and global education. Teaching >and Teacher Education 16: 429-443. >Meyer, R. J. (2002). Phonics exposed. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. > >Noordhoff, K. & Kleinfeld, J. 1993. Preparing teachers for multicultural >classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education 9(1): 27-39. >Popkewitz, T. S. (1991). A political sociology of educational reform. >New York: Teachers College Press. >Rios, F. & Montecinos, C. 1999. Advocating social justice and cultural >affirmation. > Equity & Excellence in Education, 32 (3), p66, 11p, 4 charts. >Said, E. 1994. Culture and imperialism. London, Vintage. >Schultz, E. L., Neyhart, K. & Reck, U. M. 1996 Swimming against the tide: >A study of prospective teachers' attitudes regarding cultural diversity >and urban teaching. Western Journal of Black Studies 20(1): 1-7 >Sleeter, C. E. 1996. Multicultural education as social activism. Albany, >NY: SUNY Press. >Sleeter, C. E. (2000-2001). >Sleeter, C. E. (in press). State curriculum standards and the shaping of >student consciousness. Social Justice. >Smith, G. P. (1998). Who shall have the moral courage to heal racism in >America? Multicultural Education 5 (3): 4-10. >Smith, R., Mollem, M. & Sherrill, D. 1997. How preservice teachers think >about cultural diversity. Educational Foundations 11 (2): 41-62. >Stachowski, L. L.& Mahan, J. M. (1998). Cross-cultural field placements: >Student teachers learning from schools and communities. Theory into >Practice, 37 (2), p155, 8p >Su, Z. 1996 Why teach: Profiles and entry perspectives of minority >students as becoming teachers. Journal of Research and Development in >Education 29 (3): 117-133. >Su, Z. 1997 Teaching as a profession and as a career: Minority candidates' >perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education 13(3): 325-40. >Symcox, L. (2002). Whose history? The struggle for national standards in >American classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. >Valli, L. 1995. The dilemma of race: Learning to be color blind and color >conscious. Journal of Teacher Education, 46 (2), p120, 10p. >Weiner, L. 1993. Preparing teachers for urban schools. New York: >Teachers College Press. >Wiggins, & McTighe, (1998). Understanding by design. >Wiske, M. S. (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with >practice. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. >Yeo, F. L. 1997. Inner-city schools, multiculturalism, and teacher >education. New York: Garland.
|