550 Fall 2007

Theory and Research in Social EducationFall 2007, Volume 35, Number 4, pp. 550-572© College and University Faculty Assemblyof National Council for the Social Studies

Civic Multicultural Competence: Searching for Common Ground in Democratic Education

Jonathan Miller-LaneMiddlebury College

Tyrone HowardUniversity of California, Los Angeles

Patricia Espiritu HalagaoUniversity of Hawaii, Manoa

AbstractDuring the past several decades, multicultural education has become an inte-gral part of the social studies as a means to authentically prepare students for living in an inclusive and democratic society. Topics traditionally omitted, such as race, ethnicity, culture, social class, and gender, are now included. Yet, while multicultural education has helped to bring such topics into the social studies discourse, social studies has generally fallen short of taking a more critical ap-proach to the preparation of citizens. In this work we review the professional literature in multicultural education and social studies education to clarify the distinctions between the fields. Then, we investigate the nexus between the two where we find reason for hope in a time when national political discussion is often polarized. We propose the notion of civic multicultural competence as a concept that challenges scholars and educators to move forward towards better preparing students for life in a multicultural, global society.

IntroductionBoth social studies and multicultural education have been guided

by a commitment to create schools and, ultimately, a society that gener-ates equitable opportunities for citizens regardless of their differences (Banks, 2003; Evans, 2004; Grant & Sleeter, 1986; Parker, 2003). Yet, de-spite this shared goal the two fields have often seemed to talk past each other rather than speak in unison regarding what civic education should include (Banks, 1996; Boyle-Baise, 1996; Gay, 1997; Parker, 1997b). In this article, we first review the diverse curricular approaches in both social

Fall 2007 551

studies and multicultural education. Then we identify areas where the two fields diverge and call for a critical reconceptualization of shared areas of convergence that we name civic multicultural competence (CMC). We have intentionally not called this reconceptualization “multicultural civic competence,” since it is our belief that the word multicultural must become the subject that the word civic modifies. Until this conceptual shift takes place within the field of social studies, multicultural educa-tion will continue to be seen as something one adds to civic education, rather than the very manifestation of civic competence. Civic multicul-tural competence draws on existing scholarship from both fields and attempts to direct efforts towards better preparing students for life in a multicultural society that has always been, and is becoming ever more, intertwined with the entire world.

A comparison of the National Council for Social Studies (NCSS) (2001) position paper entitled Creating Effective Citizens and the defini-tion of multicultural education stated by the National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME) (2003) is instructive in revealing the major tenets of each field. The NCSS position paper states that the primary purpose of public schools is to ensure that students have the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to assume “the office of citi-zen” in a democratic republic. To accomplish this goal students should “participate in citizenship education activities” and have multiple op-portunities to “apply” civic knowledge to real world problems (NCSS, 2001, p. 2). Seen in this light, the teaching of history is essential for its ability to inform responses to current problems.

While the NCSS statement may appear worthy and unassailable to many social studies teachers, when approached from the point of view of historical exclusion rather than historical inclusion the limits of the NCSS statement are highlighted. As Evans (2003) has documented, con-ceptions of citizenship have shifted over time, and the “office of citizen” has expanded and contracted with these shifts. As a result, groups and individuals who have historically been excluded from the “office” may believe that they are still not fully included as citizens and that concepts such as democracy, equality, freedom, and justice have little to do with their daily lives as citizens (Banks, 1993, 1997). This perspective of tradi-tional exclusion underlies the definition of multicultural education from NAME (2003). The first paragraph of the NAME statement reads:

Multicultural education is a philosophical concept built on the ideals of freedom, justice, equality, equity, and human dignity as acknowledged in various documents, such as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, constitutions of South Africa and the United States, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations. It affirms our need to prepare students for their responsibilities in an interdependent world. It recognizes the role

552 Fall 2007

schools can play in developing the attitudes and values necessary for a democratic society. It values cultural differences and affirms the pluralism that students, their communities, and teachers reflect. It challenges all forms of discrimination in schools and society through the promotion of democratic principles of social justice (p. 1).

While the position paper from NCSS states that “the actions of every person make a difference,” the NAME statement is more ex-plicit about the need for the rights of each individual and the need for each person’s human dignity to be honored. Embedded in the NAME statement is the understanding that meaningful and inclusive discus-sion about civic education should be mindful of how past deeds have significantly shaped contemporary beliefs and attitudes about what it means to be a democratic citizen living in a diverse society. The NAME statement is also more global in that it references both the South Afri-can constitution and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights as founding documents for multicultural education, while the social studies statement refers only to the founding documents of the United States. The fourth sentence of the NAME statement stresses the idea that diversity is the norm in the United States. In other words, to investigate diversity we need only to look in our classrooms and communities.

Both the NCSS and NAME position statements share a deep com-mitment to the role of education in the preparation of citizens. The dif-ferences between these two statements can be understood as a difference of urgency rather than end goals. In the NCSS statement, there is little sense of citizens’ rights in crisis, but rather the sense that democracy is in need of constant renewal by each generation. The NCSS statement ap-pears to presume that all citizens feel equally enfranchised to assume the office of citizen. The NAME statement calls for multicultural education to be embedded in all aspects of schools’ functioning and for individu-als to challenge racism and the many forms of injustice that permeate current society. The work is urgent precisely because all citizens do not feel sufficiently enfranchised to believe that the office of citizen is open to them. Renewal is insufficient when a fair and equitable system does not exist. It is the sense of urgency embedded in the NAME statement to create an equitable society that leads us to call for civic multicultural competence – that is, to call on social studies educators to place multi-cultural competence at the center of civic-mindedness.

In the following sections of this article, we organize the scholar-ship of social studies and multicultural education to shed light on areas of convergence and divergence. Both are broad and far-ranging fields, and to make sense of them we lean heavily on the work of previous scholars. We conclude the article by providing examples that serve to define civic multicultural competence as a means to link theory and practice in a constructive manner.

Fall 2007 553

Intersections of Multicultural and Social Studies Education

To depict points of convergence and divergence between the two fields, we have created an x-y graph that intersects two continuums. The first continuum, the “x” axis, is the critical/non-critical continuum that Parker (2003) employed to analyze curricular and extracurricular approaches within social studies. The second continuum or “y” axis is the unity/diversity tension in democratic life that many civic and mul-ticultural education scholars have identified (Banks, 1996, 2000; Butler, 2001; Gay, 1997; Gutmann, 1990, 2004; Gutmann and Thompson, 1996; Hahn, 1998; Parker, 2003; Walzer, 1997; West, 2001, 2004). To be clear, we are not employing this graphic to suggest that one continuum is the dependent variable and the other the independent variable, nor are we attempting to pit one field against the other. Rather, we are using this graph to illustrate areas of convergence and divergence.

Figure 1. Intersections of Multicultural and Social Studies Education

Banks (1997Dilworth (2004)Parker (2003)Ross (2001)

Monroe (1997)

Gagnon (1989)Finn (2003)Ravitch (1992)

Sykes & Billingsley (1992)Schlesinger (1991)

“X” Axis: The Critical-Non-Critical ContinuumThe Critical-Non-Critical continuum distinguishes between curricula

that seek to define or present the status quo from curricula that seek to critique the status quo. For example, a non-critical study of the Bill of Rights might examine the content of the first ten amendments and the story of how they were ratified by the original thirteen states. A critical study would do the same, but would also interrogate the specific conditions under which they were written, and examine who was excluded and through whose eyes the entire story was being told. Howard’s (2004) work in which he engaged in “critical conversations” with secondary students that enabled students to problematize race and the historical legacy of racism would be an example of a critical curriculum. By creating a continuum, we are able to highlight differences within and between the two fields.

Diversity

Unity

Non-CriticalCritical

554 Fall 2007

“Y” Axis: The Unity-Diversity ContinuumThe unity-diversity tension derives from the commitment to

maintain a common political framework that allows cultural diversity to flourish. Citizens in a multicultural democracy such as the United States hold at least two identities in constant tension: a political identity that connects each person to the rights and responsibilities of democratic life in a single nation-state, and a cultural identity (or multiple cultural identities) comprising each person’s other identifications regarding culture, race, ethnicity, class, or sexual orientation (Banks, 1993, 1996, 2001a). Different scholars’ approaches to the preparation of citizens are illuminated by seeing this tension as a continuum with “unity” at one end and ‘diversity” at the other.

Each end of the continuum represents a different vision of the United States and the extent to which all citizens have been included in the office of citizen. Those on the unity end generally stress the story of the United States as an accomplished democracy that has steadily and persistently become more inclusive (Finn, 2003; Gagnon, 1989; Glazer, 1997; Schlesinger, 1991; Ravitch, 1990). This end of the continuum em-phasizes that the social studies curriculum should stress the story of how the common political framework emerged. Hence, the emphasis of civic education should be on the telling of a particular story and ensuring that the true heroes of U.S. history (i.e., the founders) are known and recalled by all citizens (Rochester, 2003). Unity advocates believe that a shared national narrative defends us against the danger of diversity that, in its attempt to honor all stories, destroys the com-mon narrative that has held the nation together. This unity perspective has dominated social studies curricula and instruction (Barr, Barth, and Shermis, 1977; Evans, 2004; Ross, 2001).

A recent example of how a unity approach might shape the re-sponse to civic curricula is Spalding and Bobb’s (2005) endorsement of President George W. Bush’s call for ending all federal funding for the Center for Civic Education. Writing for the Heritage Foundation, a think tank in Washington D. C. considered a key source of policy development for the Bush administration, Spalding and Bobb argue that while civic education is critically important, the Center for Civic Education has lost its moorings and that its We The People program is misguided:

…In recent years, the CCE has moved beyond its core mission and curriculum. The addition of several new programs marks an important shift away from civics education as knowledge to-ward civics as an activity. The CCE’s program for middle school students, “We the People: Project Citizen,” requires students to choose a public policy problem in their community and propose a solution to it. The methodology of the project suggests to students that governmental action is the default solution to community

Fall 2007 555

problems—a danger that is inadequately addressed in the cur-riculum. The project promises to enhance students’ “tolerance” and “feelings of political efficacy” rather than to enhance their concrete civics knowledge. In general, a certain softness pervades many of the CCE’s most recent publications—a softness in which the virtues esteemed by the Founders as requisite for republican government, such as courage, temperance, wisdom, and justice, are supplanted by more sentimental “values” like tolerance or political efficacy. This approach to teaching American history is typical of the predominant “social studies” model in American K–12 education (p. 6).

In the above passage we see criticism of the emphasis on participation that both the Center for Civic Education and the National Council for the Social Studies endorse, not because it does not go far enough to ad-dress injustices, but rather, Spalding and Bobb (2005) argue, because it seeks resolution for those injustices in the wrong place—the government rather than the private sector. Furthermore, the authors argue that there is a need for essential “concrete civic knowledge” that is being ignored by efforts to stress “soft values” such as political efficacy. Spalding and Bobb reference the “Founders” as the essential source of critical virtues needed for citizens—hence the need to be sure to tell that story.

At the other end of the unity-diversity continuum are those who speak of democracy in the United States as a promise unfulfilled and a goal towards which the nation should strive. From this point of view, the story of the United States is one in which each cultural group has had to struggle for the political rights that were denied them from the start. Thus, they believe the social studies curriculum must highlight the unequal opportunities and the injustices that reflect the unfinished project of realizing the United States’ ideals of freedom and justice. The goal is to inspire a renewed commitment to inclusion. The nation’s progress on the path towards democracy is measured by the extent to which marginalized groups increase access to power in all its forms: economic, social, political, and cultural (Apple, 1996, 2004; Banks, 1996a, 1996b, 2001; Harding, 1990; Gay, 1997, 2001; Greene, 1988; hooks, 1992, 1995, 2000, 2004; Parker, 2003; Ross, 2001). Someone with a diversity perspective would likely respond to Spalding and Bobb (2005) that it is difficult to imagine an individual who has been historically excluded from the office of citizen arguing that political efficacy is a “soft value” or that one should embody “temperance” in the face of centuries of intentional exclusion.

The unity-diversity continuum helps reveal how scholars and educators might agree on a goal—equal rights for all—and disagree on what schools should be doing about achieving that goal. Scholars may agree in principle that historical knowledge in the preparation

556 Fall 2007

of citizens and “justice” is important, but that agreement creates new questions. Whose history should be taught, and from what perspective? Given that everything cannot be taught, what and who should be left out? Should the teaching of justice have a narrative of ever-increasing inclusion in the office of citizen (Finn, 2003), or the counter-narrative of specific, purposeful ways in which laws have been written to exclude specific ethnicities, as Jacobsen (2002) has chronicled? Answers to these questions reflect fundamental beliefs regarding how far along the unity-diversity continuum the nation has walked, and, therefore, how urgent the situation is regarding what should be done about citizens who are not yet enfranchised to assume the office of citizen.

The Top-Left Quadrant: Critical-DiversityMulticultural education scholars and practitioners can be placed

on the x-y graph based on their epistemological beliefs and values about people and society (Sleeter, 1992), and they are generally concentrated in the upper half of our x-y axis with most in the top-left quadrant. Schol-ars within multicultural education can be categorized as representing a conservative, liberal, and critical multicultural perspective (Jenk, Lee, and Kanpol, 2001). Sleeter and Grant (2003) further subdivide the field into five approaches: teaching the exceptional and culturally different, human relations, single-group studies, multicultural education, and education that is multicultural and reconstructionist.

The views and approaches of the critical multiculturalists can be placed in the far left of this quadrant. Sleeter & Grant (2003) identify the “multicultural and social reconstruction approach” as the most critical and visionary with its focus on critique and democratic citizen-ship. Students are simultaneously encouraged to deconstruct society and “critique modern culture” and are pushed to reconstruct a world that is more just and equitable. Freire (1985) describes this critique of existing powers as “conscientization,” where “people should learn to question society, see through versions of truth, and become empowered to envision, define, and work toward a more humane society” (cited in Sleeter & Grant, 2003, p. 197). These approaches are committed to explicitly addressing structural inequality and include critical pedagogy (hooks, 1994; McLaren, 1991, 1997; Sleeter & McLaren, 1995), emancipa-tory pedagogy (Gordon, 1985), anti-racist pedagogy (Lee, 1994), and anti-oppressive education (Kumashiro, 2001).

The liberal approach to multicultural education would be placed midway along the critical/non-critical continuum near the intersection of the unity-diversity continuum. The term “liberal” suggests openness and broad-mindedness not bound by orthodoxy or tradition. A liberal multicultural education emphasizes cultural pluralism and diversity. However, this manifests in varying degrees. Moderate liberalists tend to advocate a multicultural education that uses safe practices and a

Fall 2007 557

“feel-good approach” to attain self-acceptance and tolerance. Sleeter & Grant (2003) describe this as the “human relations” approach, which concentrates on the affective domain in the classroom to create harmony between different groups. One aim of the human relations approach is to reduce prejudice and discrimination, although the emphasis on relationships and tolerance falls short of critiquing culture within a sociopolitical context (Nieto, 2004).

Most multicultural education scholars can be situated between the liberalists and critical multiculturalists. Sleeter and Grant (2003) have positioned the “single studies approach” and “multicultural education approach” between these two camps. Both approaches are liberal in that they question the status quo, although the single studies approach focuses on teaching about the experiences of one particular group in-depth. Examples of Sleeter and Grant’s “multicultural education ap-proach” include the foundational work of multicultural scholars such as Banks (2002, 2002), Bennett (2003), Gay (2000), and Nieto (2004). Banks’ (2002) five dimensions of multicultural education - content integration, knowledge construction, equity pedagogy, prejudice reduction, and empowering school culture - are viewed as a starting point to look at the breadth and depth of multicultural education scholarship. Nieto’s (2004) list of “multicultural is” and Bennet’s (2003) “core values and goals” also present a holistic approach to defining the parameters of multicultural education. Widely referenced and cited, these scholars’ conceptual frameworks are considered to be the mainstream of mul-ticultural education.

The category of liberal and critical multiculturalism also includes culturally compatible instruction (Jordan, 1985); culturally congru-ent instruction (Au & Kawakami, 1994); culturally relevant teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1992); or culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2000). Though termed differently, these pedagogical approaches emphasize that students of diverse backgrounds do not succeed academically because of a mismatch between home and school culture. Gay (2000) makes the case that “culture counts”; culturally responsive teaching draws on the cultural references of its students in developing and implementing curriculum, instruction, and interaction. This peda-gogical approach can be considered a critical extension of the “human relations approach.”

Within the field of multicultural education are scholars who ques-tion the premises, rationale, and practices of multicultural education. Depending on one’s political ideology and position on the x-y graph, multicultural education is either overdoing it or not doing enough to eradicate an inequitable school system (Sleeter, 2001). Radical leftists, in the far corner of the top-left quadrant, argue that multicultural educa-tion is not doing enough to eradicate inequities in schools and attack the field for being too conservative and narrow in scope. They find that the

558 Fall 2007

movement focuses on curriculum reform and pedagogy and does not adequately address the larger issues of social justice and equal access to educational resources (Sleeter & Grant, 2003). They would like to see the canon incorporate more issues and groups because the field tends to focus too much on race and ethnicity, particularly the perspectives and experiences of African Americans and European Americans. It does not address class or gender issues in much depth and has made few strides to include other marginalized issues like disability, multi-ethnic populations, sexuality, and religion (Nieto, 2004; Sleeter, 2001). Furthermore, fewer studies focus on “multiple, intersecting social constructs” between variables such as race, class, and gender (Grant, Elsbree & Fondrie, 2004, p. 200).

The field of multicultural education is also critiqued for primarily being conceptual and lacking cogent examples of empirical research (Gay, 1992). Although Grant, Elsbree, & Fondrie (2004) note an increase in research studies that look at multicultural education that is social reconstructionist in nature, there are few examples of research with methodological practices that model transformative pedagogy and social action. In addition, the field claims little research showing how multicultural education has a direct correlation to student academic achievement (Banks, 2002). While the critique of this final group is methodological rather than conceptual, epistemologically it fits within the top-left quadrant. In the final section of this paper we attend to this critique by offering specific examples of practice that embody the notion of civic multicultural competence.

Social studies scholars and practitioners in this top-left quadrant would be those who endorse the diversity vision of the United States in combination with a curriculum that stresses critical inquiry regard-less of the method of instruction. Asante (1990, 1996, 1998), a founding father of the Afro-Centric curriculum, called for African American students to be told the story of their own people as a fundamental narrative of United States history. Harding (1990) has called for the Civil Rights Movement to form the backbone of U.S. history courses for all students. Zinn (1995) argues that a “people’s history” should be told. The work of Crocco and Davis (1999) regarding the pivotal role of women in U.S. history and in the social studies profession also provides an inclusive framework for the teaching of U.S. history. Bernard-Powers’ (2001) critique of the persistence of gender inequities both in history itself and in the manner that history is taught within social studies also fits here. For these scholars, a critical reading of the struggles, achievements, and stories of every person ennobles the historical narrative and reminds contemporary readers that the United States is an unfinished project.

The top-left quadrant would also be the home of John Dewey (1916, 1938), Harold Rugg (1921, 1923), Shirley Engle (1947, 1960),

Fall 2007 559

Donald Oliver (1957), and the MACOS (Man: A Course of Study) Cur-ricula developed at Harvard University by Jerome Bruner and others in the 1960s. While there is much that distinguishes each of these curriculum projects, there were significant omissions regarding an analysis of the role of women and the presence of institutional racism. Nonetheless, in each instance the move was towards a more critical examination of topics that were limiting the nation’s ability to fulfill its original promise. Dewey’s emphasis on the need to attend to both the interests of the student and the issues or problems of the time as a method to meaningfully engage the democratic project move him to the left on the x axis and upwards on the y axis. Similarly, Harold Rugg’s series of textbooks in the 1930’s was clearly at the critical end of the continuum, and his attention to existing injustices showcased not only the diversity of the nation but injustices that still existed. Engle’s emphasis on decision making as the critical skill of citizenship and Oliver’s stress on engaging in public policy discussions reflect a similar desire to engage students in a critical examination of the time in which they happened to live. MACOS combined many of these elements in presenting an historical context from which to use the tools of social science to examine critical issues. While participation advocates such as Oliver (1957), Johnson and Johnson (1979, 1988), Hess (2002), Apple (1996), and Parker (2001, 2003) stress different pedagogical approaches, they share a commitment to critical inquiry and an understanding of the United States as an unfinished project and would also be at home in the top left quadrant.

This analysis of social studies would be remiss if we did not identify scholars within the field who have argued that social studies education cannot realize its goals without a major reconceptualization of critical tenets in the field. Thus, these works would also be placed in the top left quadrant. Banks’ (2002) work on multicultural education, Parker’s (1997b) notions of democracy and difference, and Dilworth’s (2004) work on multicultural citizenship education all serve as exem-plars upon which we build this work. The works of Ross (2000, 2006a), Ross and Pang (2006b), Pang (2001), Yoon Pak (2002), and Kahne and Westheimer (2006) would also fall within this classification.

The Top-Right Quadrant: Non Critical-Diversity Multicultural scholars and practitioners in this quadrant are the

conservative multiculturalists who generally believe that U.S. society is “good and just” and that structures are in place to uplift low-perform-ing students. Sleeter & Grant (2003) label this conservative approach as “teaching the exceptional and culturally different.” Hirsch (1988) has argued that students of disadvantaged backgrounds lack cultural literacy; therefore, the teacher’s role is to bridge the gap between a student’s home culture and mainstream knowledge and skills. Eng-

560 Fall 2007

lish-only proponents endorse this viewpoint to help language minority students succeed in the classroom. Some might argue that subscribing to this cultural deficiency and “melting pot” model is antithetical to multicultural education. But, at the very basic level, this approach ac-knowledges difference, which contrasts with teachers who advocate a “color-blind and neutral approach” to teaching.

Within the field of social studies, the top-right quadrant rep-resents an unusual combination and is sparsely populated. Delpit’s (1995) work comes close. She argued that students must be explicitly taught the rules and norms of the dominant culture in order to be-come knowledgeable about the history that created the unjust system in which they live. Only then will students be able to utilize that knowledge for their own gain. But, ultimately, her complex critique of existing practice is too critical to fit in this quadrant. Monroe (1997), on the other hand, is a better fit, although she is not solely a social studies scholar. Her work with the Frederick Douglas Academy is non-critical in its emphasis on traditional skills and knowledge. How-ever, the very rationale for her approach—to create opportunities for students in under-resourced neighborhoods as a means to fulfill the original promise of equal opportunities—places her in the Diversity rather than the Unity half of the graph.

The Bottom-Right Quadrant: Non Critical-UnityThis quadrant represents an important point of divergence be-

tween social studies and multicultural education. There simply are no multicultural scholars and practitioners in this quadrant; the field exists to challenge the unity perspective represented here. However, in social studies this is where the “citizenship transmitters” (Barr, Barth and Shermis, 1977) would be located, and this is where both Evans (2004) and Ross (2000, 2006) have argued that the majority of social studies curriculum and instruction resides despite the curricula battles that have raged over the last century. In this quadrant, the fact that the nation was formed only when African Americans were considered 3/5 of a human is less significant than the Fourteenth Amendment 150 years later and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. While injustices did and do exist, the storyline of U.S. history is one of achievement and inclu-sion (Rochester 2003).

The bottom right quadrant would also be where the American Historical Association’s (AHA) Committee of Seven (1899), later com-mittees (1908, 1909b, 1910), and Snedden’s (1914) work would be placed. The AHA argued for the essential role of history in the social studies as the provider of both the nation’s narrative and good models of citizen-ship that students should emulate. Snedden argued that history was not the proper vehicle for the transformation of students into citizens and called for the social sciences to be at the heart of social studies.

Fall 2007 561

Still, while the AHA and Snedden disagreed on method, both shared a commitment to non-critical citizenship induction.

The critique of multicultural education from this quadrant asserts that multicultural education is selfish and ill-directed (Sleeter, 2001). Critics seem to believe that a “multicultural mafia” aims to convince students of color that they have been victimized and to make money as diversity specialists (Sykes & Billingsley, 1992). It is a divisive move-ment that contrasts with the goal of education to assimilate students into the mainstream (Ravitch, 1992; Schlesinger, 1991). Critics warn that, although multicultural education programs may make minority students may feel good about themselves, they will not provide the tools for these students to “make it” academically in the real world (Ravitch, 1990).

The Bottom-Left Quadrant: Critical-Unity Social studies is again on its own in this quadrant, and there are

few residents. Perhaps the most notable is Gagnon (1996), who has long advocated for a history curriculum that lauds the achievements of Western Civilization (unity) while requiring students to examine the root causes, effects, and shortcomings of those achievements (critical). In his memorable phrase, “historical knowledge is the precondition for political intelligence” (p. 242), Gagnon worries that leaping into con-temporary problems without a deep grounding in historical knowledge leads to shallow analysis and leaves students with opinions but no basis on which to support them. Furthermore, he argues that a com-mon historical narrative must be provided to give students a common starting point for understanding the nation’s origins. The bottom left quadrant is also represented by former Secretary of Education William Bennett’s lesson plan for Federalist Paper #10. His analysis is critical in its attempt to examine the assumptions and ideas that led Madison to his conclusion regarding the role of factions in a representative democracy, but Bennett’s commitment to the accomplishment story limits the extent of the critique. Ravitch’s (2003) more recent critiques of both the left and the right’s misguided attempts to control students’ access to “good literature” also fits here, although her emphasis on the centrality of the traditional texts of Western Civilization would place her near the vertical axis.

In summary, from a review of the social studies and multicultural literature, we observe that while both fields have a strong, shared history of critical scholarship, there are two key points of divergence between the fields. First, the range of belief regarding whether the story of the United States should emphasize unity or diversity is far greater in social studies than in multicultural education. The traditional social studies curriculum has favored the unity story, while multicultural scholars and practitioners are far more likely to emphasize the place of diversity and

562 Fall 2007

to characterize the United States as an unfinished project. Second, the range of critical/non-critical approaches is greater in social studies than in multicultural education due to the traditional emphasis placed on the unity perspective within social studies. Multicultural scholars can generally be placed in the left half of the critical/non-critical continuum, with degrees of difference defined by the extent of critical inquiry. These two points of divergence may help explain why, despite the two fields’ shared commitment to the education of citizens, there are distinct dif-ferences regarding what needs to done and when. In the next section, we identify scholars and educators who are engaging in practices that identify common ground that might lead to a reconceptualization of the links between the two fields.

Civic Multicultural Competence: Seeking Points of Convergence

The contradiction between democratic theory and practice in U.S. history has been articulated by a multitude of scholars, from the early work of Myrdal (1944) and DuBois (1953) to more recent work by Takaki (1993), Banks (2004a), and others. Therefore, as we move toward a new notion of civic education and its manifestation, civic competence, it is vital that this notion be grounded in the multicultural fabric that shapes the nation. In a combined civic multicultural competence, being multicultural becomes central to being civic minded. This integrated approach reflects the argument made by the National Council for the Social Studies (2001) that an effective citizen embodies core democratic values, is knowledgeable about the people and history that have shaped local and national communities, and is actively engaged in issues that impact people at all levels of society.

Hence, civic multicultural competence is defined as the desire and ability to investigate diverse, problematic, and controversial is-sues in pursuit of a more inclusive, just, and equitable society. It is fostered through critical, inquiry-based, and collaborative study of the dynamic interplay between historical and contemporary conditions – whether local, national, or global – and by applying what is learned through authentic, self-motivated, and social justice-oriented acts. The tensions and disagreements encountered on the journey towards civic multicultural competence are inherent characteristics of life in a diverse, democratic, multicultural society and are welcomed as a rich source of new knowledge and understandings. Finally, deep care and com-mitment to the fundamental humanity of all people are foundational attributes of civic multicultural competence.

There are five points of convergence in the scholarship of research-ers and practitioners in social studies and multicultural education that illustrate civic multicultural competence. We have labeled them as follows:

Fall 2007 563

1. The meaning of citizenship2. The American experience and the other American experience3. Critical conversation4. Public space, differend, borderlands, and community build-

ing5. Practicing democracy, social justice, and social action

The Meaning of CitizenshipAccording to the NCSS standards (1996), civic education has

a significant role to play in educating students who know about the global community and the community in which they live, who care about those communities, and who have the skills necessary to engage and solve the pressing problems that every generation faces. The definition of multicultural education stresses similar links between a knowledge of one’s own history and the need to understand the larger world to which everyone is connected. To that end, educating for civic multicultural competence would require that students study various communities in all their diversity and complexity. The com-mon culture so dear to those on the unity/accomplishment end of the unity-diversity continuum would emerge from the recognition and embracing of ethnic and group affiliations of all citizens (Banks, 1997; Parker, 1997, 2003). Rather than return to an idealized notion of a unified identity based on one ethnic group, civic multicultural competence calls for scholars and practitioners alike to imagine a new, multi-textured common identity—one that recognizes the richness in cultural pluralism, and the deep diversity and human struggle within our histories and experiences.

From this perspective, the knowledge base necessary for civic multicultural competence provides the launching pad for seeking out, recognizing, and listening to people from various ethnic and racial backgrounds, social class categories, religious persuasions, and sexual orientations. The process is iterative and not linear. One need not have read the entire canon of Western Civilization before asking whether the conditions in one’s school or community or city are fair and equitable. Indeed, wanting to better understand how definitions of justice, fairness, and virtue have evolved will lead to an inquiry into the past in order to become better equipped to deal with current situations. The past may well take students into the readings of Plato and Aristotle, as well as W.E.B. DuBois, Carter G. Woodson, Gloria Anzaldua, and bell hooks. Thus, we maintain that while the term civic multicultural competence is a new and emerging term that we are attempting to operationalize, this concept is tightly connected to the work of a multitude of scholars who have grappled with this ten-sion for the past several decades (e.g., Banks, 1991; Gay, 2000; Parker, 1997a, 2001; Myrdal, 1944).

564 Fall 2007

American Experience and the Other American ExperienceDifferent groups and individuals within U.S. society have long

argued for more inclusive conceptions of citizenship, especially in the face of specific forms of exclusion. The complex quest of Japanese Americans to enter the office of citizen at a time when public sentiment was hostile toward their presence is a vivid example of the tension between the ideal and reality of citizenship that many Americans have experienced (Pak, 2002). Similarly, Okihiro (2001) argues that various binaries – racial (black vs. white), gender (female vs. male), or geo-graphical (east vs. west) – “privilege one over the other and thereby constitute hierarchies of difference and inequality” (p. xiv). Okihiro’s (1994, 2001) work describes how social constructions and historical nar-ratives create power differences that, in turn, make equality an elusive goal for many Americans.

Critical ConversationCivic multicultural competence is also centered on instructional

approaches that promote democratic dialogue or discussion that seeks multiple perspectives and counter- discourses to dominant ideological frameworks. Howard’s (2004) study of the use of “critical conversations” in secondary school classrooms that enable students to problematize race and dissect the historical legacy of racism shows how students can investigate difficult yet overlooked topics. Hess (2002) analyzes the use of controversial public issues (CPI) discussion to suggest how such critical conversations are important for prepar-ing students for civic discourse across sensitive topics. Such forms of structured discussion enhance students’ willingness to participate in the political world, improve critical thinking and interpersonal skills, and influence the development of democratic values such as tolerance of dissent and support of equality.

Pang and Gibson’s (2001) research on the views of four African American teachers’ conceptions of democracy and citizenship suggests that teachers of color are more likely to discuss critical topics like race, ethnicity, and class in their classrooms. As persons of color who expe-rienced discrimination in their own lives and schooling, these teachers were more sensitive to including role models of color and deliberately promoting equality and respect in the classroom. This research suggests that this new conceptualization of civic multicultural competence might resonate with those teachers who come from traditionally marginal-ized racial groups.

Public Space, Differend, Borderlands, Community BuildingThe reconceptualization of multicultural education and civic

competence should seek to create a space for what critical race theorists refer to as the differend. The differend occurs when the pursuit of justice

Fall 2007 565

is complicated by two competing explanations from various positions (Delgado and Stefancic, 2001). An acknowledgement of the existence of the differend leads to valuing the narratives of marginalized persons and allows them to tell their stories and offer a counter-script to the dominant paradigm. The differend affirms the need to create a neutral or “public space” for differences to be valued and discussed (Parker, 1997). Others have conceptualized this site for negotiation as “borderlands” (Anzaldua, 1999) and “community building” (Kaltsounis, 1997).

A growing number of scholars have affirmed the connection be-tween local “public good” and the world beyond the nation’s shores that was stressed in the NAME (2003) definition of multicultural education. Merryfield (2001, 2005) has called for social studies teachers to develop complex and inclusive rather than binary worldviews in order to en-gage students in the analysis of issues that affect local and international communities equally. Castles (2004) argues that since being a citizen is “central to an individual’s status and identity in the contemporary world” (p. 17), a comprehensive notion of citizenship must avoid dif-ferential exclusion – which would entail accepting immigrants not simply as underpaid workers and temporary guests but as full members of particular communities, with the right to participate politically and become part of the nation–state. Joshee (2004) has examined how federal policy in Canada has played an integral role in legislating programs, curriculum, and various mandates to create greater social cohesion across ethnic, cultural, and linguistic differences. This national identity is forged by looking forward and outward rather than looking solely to the past as a source of national identity. Moodley & Adam (2004) chronicled South Africa’s quest in the post-apartheid era to promote democratic principles in a deeply divided society still struggling with the remnants of racial strife. They documented South Africa’s efforts to develop political literacy that instills citizens with a knowledge and awareness of current issues and contemporary problems within local and global settings. In each of these instances, citizenship has required a global perspective that begins in one’s community and extends out-ward to the world.

Two essential ingredients of the global dimensions of citizenship are deep care and commitment to the fundamental humanity of all people. Gehlbach (2004) found that when high school students were encouraged to examine historical issues from the vantage points of others, and to empathize with other cognitive and emotional reactions to various situations, they developed a richer understanding of world history and improved their academic performance. The students came to understand that disagreement was normal and informative. Gehlbach’s work offers important implications for developing em-pathy and gaining greater awareness of human struggles, sacrifice, and connectedness.

566 Fall 2007

Practicing Democracy, Social Justice, Social ActionFinally, as Banks (1997) has argued, democrats are made, not

born. In order to be citizens in a democratic and global society, students must learn to “know, care, and act” (Banks, 2002). Civic multicultural competence culminates in combining these principles with the practices of democracy education (Wolk, 1998), social justice education or social action (Banks, 2002; Wade, 2001), and multicultural service learning (Boyle-Boise, 2002). It draws on civic education’s focus on teaching decision-making and collaboration skills, influenced by the critical orientation of social justice or social action education (Wade, 2001).

The critical form of social action or service learning that civic mul-ticultural competence promotes should be characterized as partnerships between privileged and marginalized groups with the goal of mutual sup-port and empowerment, and should not be confused with acts of “charity” that perpetuate dominant modes of power (Wade, 2001). As Boyle-Baise (2002) has argued, in partnerships all parties are seen as collaborators who have civic responsibilities to one another, resulting in “shared control” or an “equal, reciprocal, and mutually benefiting partnership” (p. 17).

One powerful example of putting “social action at the heart of social studies curriculum” (Wade, 2001, p. 29) is New York’s El Puente Academy for Peace and Justice, whose mission, along with the community, is to nurture student leadership for peace and justice (Capellaro, 2005). When studying the theme of health, for example, students focus on both an im-mediate issue – such as why Puerto Ricans have a higher rate of asthma compared to Dominicans – as well as on a larger issue, such as whether a nuclear waste disposal plant should operate near their school. In each instance, an investigation of a contemporary issue necessarily leads to an historical examination of why things are as they are. An understanding of deep content knowledge is nurtured through social action.

Halagao’s (2004) research with six college students suggested that when young adults learn about their ethnic history with the goal of teaching history, concepts, and critical thinking to middle school students, they have the potential to become empowered through the process of sharing their ethnic history. Similar to Tyson’s (2002) work with African American middle school students, this research shows that when students are personally invested in learning about themselves, they may feel a civic responsibility to their ethnic communities.

Conclusion

As we conclude this article, we would like to highlight the life, spirit, and work of the late Dr. Kipchoge Kirkland, who was the insti-gator and inspiration for the term civic multicultural competence. His work spanned the globe, touching the lives of African American high school students in Seattle, Washington, to children in South Africa.

Fall 2007 567

Kirkland placed himself at the heart of controversy, as witnessed by his efforts in the reconstructive work of Port Elizabeth, South Africa. He is most remembered for his deep commitment to human relationships and talent with the spoken word, which blended his ideas of “multicultural education, civic education, and curriculum and instruction.” Kirkland’s work fits within a growing group of artist-educators who blend their talents and academic abilities to inspire youth who have traditionally been marginalized. Spoken word activists, hip hop educators like Jeff Campbell from the Colorado HIP HOP Coalition, and other scholars (Loman, 2005; Meecham, 2005; Williams, 2005) use the cultural origins and methods of hip hop to inspire a social movement of cultural pride, economic empowerment and self-awareness. Their work showcases the need for innovative and culturally responsive strategies that cultivate civic multicultural competence and engage all of our youth.

This article stands on the shoulders of previous scholars who have sought to identify the connections between the fields of social studies education and multicultural education. These two fields of study are the only two in K-12 education that have the explicit responsibility to educate young people about living cooperatively in an increasingly fractured society. It is our hope that the concepts, issues, research, and challenges that we have identified will help to create and sustain a healthy discussion among both practitioners and researchers regarding how best to prepare individuals for the office of citizen. The search for common ground in democratic education leads us to look for new directions, better understandings, innovative pedagogy, and critical analysis about our current conditions and historical legacies. We be-lieve that an important step in that direction is to place multicultural competence at the heart of citizenship.

ReferencesAmerican Historical Association. (1899). Proceedings of Chicago meeting; Conference

on public school history teachers. Annual Report, 27-30.American Historical Association. (1908). Annual Report 1908, 65-71.American Historical Association. (1909b). The study of history in elementary schools: The

report of the Committee of Eight. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.American Historical Association. (1910). The study of history in secondary school: The

report of the Committee of Five. Annual Report 1910, 230-231.Anzaldua, G. (1999). Borderlands/La Frontera: The new Mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt

Lute Books.Apple, M. W. (1996). The hidden curriculum and the nature of conflict. In W.C. Parker

(Ed.) Educating the democratic mind (pp. 173-199). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Apple, M. W. (2004) Ideology and Curriculum (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Asante, M. K. (1998). The Afrocentric idea. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Au, K. H., & Kawakami, A. J. (1994). Cultural congruence in instruction. In E. R. Hollins

& J. E. King & W. C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching Diverse Population (pp. 5-24). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Banks, J. A. (1993). The canon debate: Knowledge construction and multicultural educa-tion. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 4 -14.

568 Fall 2007

Banks. J. A. (1996) Multicultural education, transformative knowledge & action: Historical and contemporary perspectives. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Banks, J. A. (1997). Educating Citizens in a Multicultural Society. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A. M. (2001). Handbook of research on multicultural education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Banks, J. A. (2001a). Citizenship education and diversity: Implications for teacher educa-tion. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 5-16.

Banks, J. A. (2001b). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan.

Banks, J.A. (2002). Introduction to Multicultural Education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Banks, J.A. (2003). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J.A. Banks. & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (4th ed., rev, pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Wiley.

Banks, J. A. (2004a). Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions, and Practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (Second ed., pp. 3-29). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Banks, J. A. (2004b). Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Barr, R., Barth, J., & Shermis, S. (1977). Defining the social studies. Washington, D. C.: National Council for the Social Studies.

Bell, D.A. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well. New York, NY: Basic Books.Bell, D.A. (1995). Racial realism-After we’re gone: Prudent speculations on America in a

post racial epoch. In R. Delgado (Ed.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge (pp. 2-8). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Bennett, C. (2003). Comprehensive Multicultural Education: Theory and Practice (Fifth ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bernard-Powers, J. (2001). The ‘Woman Question’ in citizenship education. In W.C. Parker (Ed.) Educating the democratic mind (pp. 287-308). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Boyle-Baise, M. (1996). Multicultural Social Studies: Ideology and Practice. Social Stud-ies. 87(2): 81-88.

Boyle-Baise, M. (2002). Multicultural service learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York, NY: Norton.Butler, J. E. (2001). Color-line to borderlands: The matrix of American ethnic studies.

Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Chavez, L. (1994). Demystifying multiculturalism. National Review, 26-33.Cordova, T., & Espiritu, P. C. (2001). Pinoy Teach: A multicultural curriculum exploring Filipino

history and culture (4th ed.). Seattle, WA: Filipino Youth Activities, Inc.Crocco, M. & Davis, O. l. (Eds.) (1999) Bending the future to their will: Civic women,

social education and democracy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Darder, A. Baltodano, M. Torres, R. D. (2003). The critical pedagogy reader. New York,

NY: Routledge.Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory. An introduction. New York, NY: New

York University Press.Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY:

The New Press.Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier.Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press.Dilworth, P.P. (2004). Multicultural citizenship education: Case studies from social studies

classrooms. Theory and Research in Social Education, 32(2), 153-186DuBois, W.E.B. (1935). The souls of Black folk. New York, NY: Blue Heron Press.Engle, S. H. (1947). Factors in the teaching of our persistent modern problems. Social

Education, 11, 167-169.

Fall 2007 569

Engle, S. H. (1960). Decision making: The heart of social studies instruction. Social Educa-tion, 24, 301-306.

Evans, R. W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Finn, C. (2003) (Ed.). Where did social studies go wrong? New York, NY : Fordham Insti-tute.

Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Gagnon, P. (1989) (Ed.). Historical literacy: The case for history in American education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Gay, G. (1992). The state of multicultural education in the United States. In A. Moodley (Ed.), Education in plural societies: International perspectives (pp. 47-66). Calgary, Alberta: Detselig Enterprises.

Gay, G. (1997). The relationship between Multicultural and Democratic Education. Social Studies. 88(1): 5-11.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gehlback, H. (2004). Social perspective taking: A facilitating aptitude for conflict reso-lution. historical empathy and social studies achievement. Theory and Research in Social Education, 32(1), 39-55.

Gordon, B. M. (1985). Toward emancipation in citizenship education: The Case of African American cultural knowledge. Theory & Research in Social Education, 12, 1-23.

Grant, C.A. & Sleeter, C.E. (1986). Race, class, and gender in education research: An argu-ment for integrative analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 195-211.

Grant, C., Elsbree, A. R., & Fondrie, S. (2004). A Decade of Research on the Changing Terrain of Multicultural Education Research. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (pp. 184-207). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Gutmann, A. (1990). Democratic education in difficult times. Teachers College Record, 92

(1), 8-20.Gutmann, A. (1999). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Gutman, A. (2004). Unity and diversity in democratic multicultural education: Creative

and destructive tensions. In J.A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global Perspectives (pp.71-96). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hahn, C. (1998). Becoming political: Comparative perspectives on citizenship education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Halagao, P. E. (2004). Holding up the mirror: The complexity of seeing your ethnic self in history. Theory and Research in Social Education 32(4): 459-483.

Harding, V. (1990). Hope and history: Why we must share the story of the movement. Maryk-noll, NY: Orbis Books.

Hess, D. (2002). Discussing controversial public issues in secondary social studies classrooms: Learning from skilled teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30, 10-41.

Hirsch, E. D. (1988). Cultural Literacy. New York, NY: Vintage Books.hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Howard, T. C. (2004). Does race really matter? Secondary students’ constructions of

racial dialogue in the social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 32(4) 484-502.

Jacobson, M. F. (2002). Whiteness of a different color: European immigrants and the alchemy of race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jackson, P. W. (1968). The teacher and the machine. Pittsburgh, PA; University of Pittsburgh Press.

570 Fall 2007

Jenks, C., Lee, J. O., & Kanpol, B. (2001). Approaches to Multicultural Education in Pre-service Teacher Education: Philosophical Frameworks and Models for Teaching. The Urban Review, 33(2), 87-101.

Jordan, C. (1985). Translating culture: From ethnographic information to educational program. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 16, 105-123.

Joshee, R. (2004). Translating culture: From ethnographic information to educational program. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 16, 105-123.

Kahne, J & Westheimer, J. (2006). Teaching democracy: What schools should do. In E. W. Ross (Ed.) The social studies curriculum: Purposes, Problems and Possibilities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Kaltsounis, T. (1997). Multicultural Education and Citizenship Education at a Crossroads: Searching for Common Ground. Social Studies. 88(1): 18-23.

Kirkland, K. (2003). Stepin’ up and representin’. In G. Gay (Ed.) Becoming multicultural educators. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral reasoning. In W. C. Parker (Ed.) Educating the democratic mind. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Kumashiro, K. (2001). “Posts” Perspectives on Anti-Oppressive Education. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 3-12.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Culturally Relevant Teaching. In C. A. Grant (Ed.), Research and Multicultural Education (pp. 106-121). Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press.

Lee, E. (1994). Taking Multicultural, Anti-racist education seriously. In B. Bigelow & L. Christensen & S. Karp & B. Miller & B. Peterson (Eds.), Rethinking our Classrooms: Teaching for Equity and Justice. Milwaukee, WA: Rethinking Schools.

Loman, N. (2005, April). Beats, rhymes and life: Using hip-hop culture to foster youth educational engagement. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

McLaren, P. (1991). Critical pedagogy: Constructing an arch of social dreaming and a doorway to hope. Journal of Education, 173(1), 9-34.

McLaren, P. (1997). Critical Pedagogy and predatory culture. New York, NY: Routledge.Meecham, S. (2004, April). I’m morpheus in this hip-hoop matrix: The industry, op-

pression and the word. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Merryfield, M. (2001). Moving the center of global education: From imperial worldviews that divide the world to double consciousness, contrapuntal pedagogy, hybridity, and cross-cultural competence. In W. B. Stanley (ed.), Critical issues in social studies research for the 21rst century, pp. 179-208. Greenwich, CT; Information Age Publishing.

Merryfield, M. (2006). Whose worldview? Representation and reality in the social studies. In C. Cherryholmes, E. Heilman, A. Segall (Eds.) Social studies: The next generation; Re-searching social studies in the Postmodern, pp. 217-222. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers.

Moodley, K.A. & Adam, H. (2004). Citizenship education and political literacy in South Africa. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp.159-183). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Monroe, L. (1997). Nothing’s impossible: Leadership lessons from inside and outside the classroom. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

Myrdal, G., Sterner, R., & Rose, A. (1944). An American dilemma: The Negro Problem and modern democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

National Association for Multicultural Education (2003). Multicultural education. Wash-ington, D.C.

National Council for The Social Studies (2001). Creating effective citizens. Washington, D.C.

Newmann, F. M. & Oliver, D. W. (1970). Clarifying public controversy: An approach to teach-ing social studies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.

Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Fall 2007 571

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in our schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Okihiro, G.Y. (1994). Margins and mainstreams: Asians in American history and culture. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Okihiro, G.Y. (2001). Common ground: Reimagining American history. Princeton, NJ: Princ-eton University Press.

Oliver, D. (1957). The selection of content in the social sciences. Harvard Education Review, 27, 271-300.

Oliver, Pak, Y. K. (2002). Wherever I go, I will always be a loyal American. New York, NY: Routledge-Falmer.

Pang, V. O. & Gibson, R. (2001). Concepts of Democracy and Citizenship: Views of African American Teachers. Social Studies. 92(6): 260-267.

Parker, W. (1997b). Navigating the Unity/Diversity Tension in Education. Social Studies 88(1): 12-18.

Parker, W. C. (2001a). Classroom discussion: Models for leading seminars and delibera-tions. Social education, 65(2), 111-115.

Parker, W.C. (2001b). Educating democratic citizens: A broad view. Theory Into Practice, 40(1), 6-13.

Parker, W. C. (2001c). Toward enlightened political engagement. In. W. B. Stanley (Ed.) Critical issues in social studies research for the 21rst century. Greenwich, CT: Informa-tion Age Publishing.

Parker, W.C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Parker, W.C. (2005). The education of citizens. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 655-657.Parsons, T, (1965). Full citizenship for the Negro American? A sociological problem.

Daedalus, 94(4), 1009-1054.Patrick, J. (1998). “”E Pluribus Unum”: What does it mean? How should we respond?”

Michigan Social Studies Journal. 10(1): 5-14Ravitch, D. (1990). Diversity and democracy: Multicultural education in American.

American Educator, 14(1), 16-20; 46-68.Ravitch, D. (1992). A culture in common. Educational Leadership, 49(4), 8-11.Ravitch (2003). The language police: How pressure groups restrict what students learn.

new York, NY: Random House.Rochester, J. M. (2003). The training of idiots: Civics education in America’s schools. In

Leming, J, Elington L. Proter-Magee, M. (Eds.) Where did social studies go wrong? New York, NY: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Ross, E.W. (2000). Redrawing the lines: The case against traditional social studies instruc-tion. In D.W. Hursh & E.W. Ross (Eds.), Democratic social education: Social studies for social change (pp. 43-63). New York: Falmer.

Ross, E. W. (Ed.) (2006a) The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems and possibilities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Ross, E. W. & Pang, O. (Eds.)(2006b). Race, ethnicity, education: Principles and practices of multicultural education. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Saxe, D.W. (1997). The unique mission of the social studies. In E. W. Ross (Ed.). The Social Studies Curriculum. (pp.39-55). New York, NY: State University of New York

Press. Schlesinger, A. (1991). The Disuniting of America: What we all stand to lose if multicultural

education takes the wrong approach. American Educator, 15(3), 21-33.Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (2003). Making Choices for Multicultural Education: Five Approaches

to Race, Class, and Gender (Fourth ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Sleeter, C., & McLaren, P. L. (Eds.). (1995). Multicultural Education, Critical Pedagogy, and

the Politics of Difference. New York, NY: State University New York Press.Sleeter, C. E. (2001). An Analysis of the Critiques of Multicultural Education. In J. A.

Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (pp. 81-96). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

572 Fall 2007

Spalding, M. & Bobb, D. J. (2005). Federalism and fiscal responsibility: A lesson in civics education. Backgrounder #1874. Washington. D. C.: Heritage Foundation.

Sykes, C., & Billingsley, K. L. (1992). Multicultural mafia. Heterodoxy, 1(5), 4-6.Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. New York, NY:

Little, Brown.Torres-Guzman, M. (1992). Stories of hope in the midst of despair: Culturally Responsive

Education for Latino Students in an Alternative High School in New York City. In M. Saravia-Shore & S. F. Arizu (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Literacy: Ethnographies of Com-munication in Multi-Ethnic Classrooms. New York, NY: Garland.

Wade, R. (2001). Social action in the social studies: From the ideal to the real. Theory Into Practice 40(1): 23-29.

Walzer, M. (1997). On toleration, New Haven, CY: Yale University Press.West, C. (2001) Race matters. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.West, C. (2004). Democracy matters. New York, NY: The Penguin Press.Williams, A. D. (2005, April). Critical hip-hop pedagogy: Paulo Freire and critical race

theory. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Canada.

Wolk, S. (1988). A democratic classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Zinn, H. (1995). A people’s history of the United States: 1492-present (revised). NewYork, NY:

HarperPerennial.

JONATHAN MILLER-LANE is assistant professor in the Department of Teacher Education at Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753.

TYRONE HOWARD is associate professor in the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095.

PATRICIA ESPIRITU HALAGAO is associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hononlulu, HI 96822.