This book compares two challenges made to American public school curricula in the 1980s and 1990s. It identifies striking similarities between proponents of Afrocentrism and creationism, accounts for their differential outcomes, and draws important conclusions for the study of culture, organizations, and social movements. Amy Binder gives a brief history of both movements and then describes how their challenges played out in seven school districts. Despite their very different constituencies--inner-city African American cultural essentialists and predominately white suburban Christian conservatives--Afrocentrists and creationists had much in common. Both made similar arguments about oppression and their children's well-being, both faced skepticism from educators about their factual claims, and both mounted their challenges through bureaucratic channels. In each case, challenged school systems were ultimately able to minimize or reject challengers' demands, but the process varied by case and type of challenge. Binder finds that Afrocentrists were more successful in advancing their cause than were creationists because they appeared to offer a solution to the real problem of urban school failure, met with more administrative sympathy toward their complaints of historic exclusion, sought to alter lower-prestige curricula (history, not science), and faced opponents who lacked a legal remedy comparable to the rule of church-state separation invoked by creationism's opponents. Binder's analysis yields several lessons for social movements research, suggesting that researchers need to pay greater attention to how movements seek to influence bureaucratic decision making, often from within. It also demonstrates the benefits of examining discursive, structural, and institutional factors in concert.

Teaching is a lifelong challenge, but the first few years in the classroom are typically a teacher's hardest. This expanded collection of writings and reflections offers practical guidance on how to navigate the school system, form rewarding relationships with colleagues, and connect in meaningful ways with students and families from all cultures and backgrounds.

This book illustrates how the Louisiana state apparatus historically dictated educational exclusion through its infamous Jim Crow policies of racial segregation.

From the fights about the teaching of evolution to the details of sex education, it may seem like American schools are hotbeds of controversy. But as Jonathan Zimmerman and Emily Robertson show in this insightful book, it is precisely because such topics are so inflammatory outside school walls that they are so commonly avoided within them. And this, they argue, is a tremendous disservice to our students. Armed with a detailed history of the development of American educational policy and norms and a clear philosophical analysis of the value of contention in public discourse, they show that one of the best things American schools should do is face controversial topics dead on, right in their classrooms. Zimmerman and Robertson highlight an aspect of American politics that we know all too well: We are terrible at having informed, reasonable debates. We opt instead to hurl insults and accusations at one another or, worse, sit in silence and privately ridicule the other side. Wouldn’t an educational system that focuses on how to have such debates in civil and mutually respectful ways improve our public culture and help us overcome the political impasses that plague us today? To realize such a system, the authors argue that we need to not only better prepare our educators for the teaching of hot-button issues, but also provide them the professional autonomy and legal protection to do so. And we need to know exactly what constitutes a controversy, which is itself a controversial issue. The existence of climate change, for instance, should not be subject to discussion in schools: scientists overwhelmingly agree that it exists. How we prioritize it against other needs, such as economic growth, however—that is worth a debate. With clarity and common-sense wisdom, Zimmerman and Robertson show that our squeamishness over controversy in the classroom has left our students woefully underserved as future citizens. But they also show that we can fix it: if we all just agree to disagree, in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

Winner of the 2018 Exemplary Research in Social Studies Award presented by the National Council for the Social Studies Many social studies teachers report feeling apprehensive about discussing potentially volatile topics in the classroom, because they fear that administrators and parents might accuse them of attempting to indoctrinate their students. Wayne Journell tackles the controversial nature of teaching politics, addressing commonly raised concerns such as how to frame divisive political issues, whether teachers should disclose their personal political beliefs to students, and how to handle political topics that become intertwined with socially sensitive topics such as race, gender, and religion. Journell discusses how classrooms can become spaces for tolerant political discourse in an increasingly politically polarized American society. In order to explore this, Journell analyzes data that include studies of high school civics/government teachers during the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections and how they integrated television programs, technology, and social media into their teaching. The book also includes a three-year study of preservice middle and secondary social studies teachers' political knowledge and a content analysis of CNN Student News.

A thorough exploration of the issues in teaching controversial issues in classroom, drawing on international case studies sharing teachers' and pupils' experiences.

In this book Apple explores the 'conservative restoration' - the rightward turn of a broad-based coalition that is making successful inroads in determining American and international educational policy. It takes a pragmatic look at what critical educators can do to build alternative coalitions and policies that are more democratic. Apple urges this group to extricate itself from its reliance on the language of possibility in order to employ pragmatic analyses that address the material realities of social power.