Racialized disparities in curricular tracking have long been ascribed to narrow tests that create a hierarchy of perceived ability. Consequently, teachers are urged to reject deficit views of ability and embrace more expansive techniques to reveal and respond to the real-life needs of students, especially those from minoritized groups. Paradoxically, these tools, upheld as equity strategies today, had prior careers racializing populations along a hierarchy of perceived needs. That hierarchy, which gave a humanitarian basis for curricular tracking, continues to produce racializing effects today.
Purpose:
This article rethinks how teachers are taught to distinguish the real-life needs of students from marginalized communities. As a history of the present, it examines how demographic distinctions in health-related needs emerged historically and became tied to lower track science and mathematics instruction. We ask: To what extent do current strategies persist in dividing populations and prescribing distinct pedagogies? Have the normalizing impulses of past tools been removed or rearticulated in recent reforms that promote educational and health equity?
Research Design:
We first analyzed articles reviewed as exemplary of culturally responsive science and mathematics education to identify techniques recommended to uncover students’ real-life needs. Next, we compared these techniques with similar tools promoted in early 20th-century U.S. science and mathematics education journals, when these fields began distinguishing types of students and matching them with distinct tiers of instruction.
Conclusions:
Despite key shifts over the century (e.g., from treating inherent pathologies to redressing inequities), similar tools operate as humanitarian techniques today. That is, they classify populations as having “immediate needs” for intervention in daily life that preempt “future needs” for academic preparation. The resulting hierarchy of perceived needs orders students and subject matter from applied relevance to abstract rigor. This yields four dangers: (1) positing target students and families as not-yet-capable of self-direction, (2) prioritizing for target groups an applied and often lower prestige curriculum with consequences for their academic trajectories, (3) depoliticizing systemic inequities as problems of attitude adjustment, and (4) depoliticizing mainstream science and mathematics education by isolating sociopolitical concerns as compensatory interventions. We argue that school science and mathematics are not unique in these respects but epitomize risks present whenever social scientific tools offer an ostensibly neutral basis for seeing and sorting difference.
AbdulrahimN. A.OroscoM. (2019). Culturally responsive mathematics teaching: A research synthesis. The Urban Review, 52(1), 1–25.
2.
AdamsJ. D.WeinsteinM. (2020). Sylvia Wynter: Science studies and posthumanism as praxes of being human. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 20(3), 235–250.
3.
AndressJ.EvansW. (1925). Health and good citizenship. Ginn.
4.
AyalonH.GamoranA. (2000). Stratification in academic secondary programs and educational inequality in Israel and the United States. Comparative Educational Review, 44(1), 54–80.
5.
BakerB. (2001). In perpetual motion: Theories of power, educational history, and the child. Peter Lang.
6.
BangM.MedinD. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008–1026.
7.
BangM.WarrenB.RoseberyA. S.MedinD. (2012). Desettling expectations in science education. Human Development, 56(5–6), 302–318.
8.
BayerE.ClarkB. M. (1920). Health and a happy new year. General Science Quarterly, 4(3), 419–426.
9.
BeattyB.CahanE. D.GrantJ. (Eds.). (2006). When science encounters the child: Education, parenting, and child welfare in 20th-century America. Teachers College Press.
10.
BrownJ. C. (2017). A metasynthesis of the complementarity of culturally responsive and inquiry-based science education in K–12 settings: Implications for advancing equitable science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(9), 1143–1173.
11.
BrownJ. C.CrippenK. J. (2016). The knowledge and practices of high school science teachers in pursuit of cultural responsiveness. Science Education, 101(1), 99–133.
12.
BrownellH. (1917). Some of the pedagogy of general science. General Science Quarterly, 1(3), 140–145.
13.
BullockE. C. (2020). More than just potential: Troubling success counternarratives in mathematics education research. In GrantC. A.WoodsonA. N.DumasM. J. (Eds.), The future is Black: Afropessimism, fugitivity, and radical hope in education (pp. 117–125). Routledge.
14.
BulmerM.BalesK.SklarK. K. (1991). The social survey in historical perspective 1880–1940. Cambridge University Press.
15.
BuxtonC. A. (2006). Creating contextually authentic science in a “low-performing” urban elementary school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 695–721.
16.
CaldwellO. W. (1904). Is the biology course for college entrance requirement best for those who go no further?School Science, 4(1), 15–22.
17.
CaldwellO. W. (1940). Elementary science for different ability levels. Science Education, 24(3), 133–138.
18.
ChinnP. W. U. (2006). Preparing science teachers for culturally diverse students: Developing cultural literacy through cultural immersion, cultural translators and communities of practice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 367–402.
19.
CravensH. (1993). Before Head Start: The Iowa Station & America’s children. University of North Carolina Press.
20.
DepaepeM.SimonF. (1996). Paedagogica historical lever or mirror in the making of the history of education?Paedagogica Historica, 32(2), 421–450.
21.
DowningE. R. (1923). The teaching of hygiene and sanitation. School Science and Mathematics, 23(7), 613–623.
22.
DowningE. R. (1925). Teaching science in the schools. University of Chicago Press.
23.
Du BoisW. E. B. (1906). The health and physique of the Negro American. Atlanta University Press.
24.
EisnerH. (1939). The challenge of the slow pupil. The Mathematics Teacher, 32(1), 9–15.
25.
ElhuffL. (1916). Relation of general science to later courses in physics and chemistry. General Science Quarterly, 1(1), 17–22.
26.
EpsteinS. (2007). Inclusion: The politics of difference in medical research. University of Chicago Press.
27.
FendlerL.MuzaffarI. (2008). The history of the bell curve: Sorting and the idea of normal. Educational Theory, 58(1), 63–82.
28.
FoucaultM. (1991). Questions of method. In BurchellG.GordonC.MillerP. (Eds.), The Foucault effect (pp. 73–86). University of Chicago Press.
29.
FoucaultM. (1992). “Society must be defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976 (MacyD., Trans.). Picador.
30.
GoldstonM. J.NicholsS. (2009). Visualizing culturally relevant science pedagogy through photonarratives of Black middle school teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(2), 179–198.
31.
GonzálezG. G. (2013). Chicano education in the era of segregation. University of North Texas Press.
32.
GreerB.MukhopadhyayS. (2012). The hegemony of mathematics. In SkovsmoseO.GreerB. (Eds.), Opening the cage: Critique and politics of mathematics education (pp. 229–248). Sense.
33.
GrierN. M. (1920). The present day status and the future of public school physiology. General Science Quarterly, 5(1), 43–48.
34.
GutsteinE.LipmanP.HernandezP.de los ReyesR. (1997). Culturally relevant mathematics teaching in a Mexican American context. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 709–737.
35.
HackingI. (1990). The taming of chance. Cambridge University Press.
36.
HackingI. (2007). Kinds of people: Moving targets. Proceedings of the British Academy, 151, 285–318.
37.
HammondL.BrandtC. (2004). Science and cultural process: Defining an anthropological approach to science education. Studies in Science Education, 40, 1–47.
38.
HansenH. K. (2015). Numerical operations, transparency illusions and the datafication of governance. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(2), 203–220.
39.
HorwoodM. P. (1921). Public health surveys. Wiley.
40.
HunterG. W. (1924). The value of surveys in biological science. School Science and Mathematics, 24(8), 823–828.
41.
HunterM. R. (1947). Adapting the study of biology to the ability and the needs of slow-learning pupils. School Science and Mathematics, 47(6), 544–548.
42.
IdelandM. (2018). Science, coloniality, and “the great rationality divide”: How practices, places, and persons are culturally attached to one another in science education. Science & Education, 27(7–8), 783–803.
43.
IdelandM.MalmbergC.WinbergM. (2011). Culturally equipped for socio-scientific issues? A comparative study on how teachers and students in mono- and multiethnic schools handle work with complex issues. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1835–1859.
44.
JohnsonP. G. (1940). The sciences need the social studies. School Science and Mathematics, 40(8), 708–715.
45.
KilpatrickW. H. (1921). The wider study of method. General Science Quarterly, 6(1), 277–284.
46.
KirchgaslerC. (2019). The end(s) of inclusion: Ungrounding globalization and “the migrant” in dialogue with hospitality. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 42(5), 648–664.
47.
KirchgaslerC. (in press). The orders of order: Curriculum design and haunting life’s efficiencies. In TrifonasP.JaggerS. (Eds.), Handbook of curriculum theory and research. Springer.
48.
KirchgaslerK. L. (2017). Scientific Americans: Historicizing the making of difference in early 20th-century U.S. science education. In PopkewitzT. S.DiazJ.KirchgaslerC. (Eds.), A political sociology of educational knowledge: Studies of exclusions and difference (pp. 117–132). Routledge.
49.
KirchgaslerK. L. (2018). Moving the lab into the field: The making of pathologized (non)citizens in U.S. science education. Curriculum Inquiry, 48(1), 115–137.
50.
KirchgaslerK. L. (2020). Dangers of “making diversity visible”: Historicizing metrics of science achievement in U.S. education policy. In FanG.PopkewitzT. S. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy studies (Vol. 2, pp. 331–349). Springer, Singapore.
51.
KirchgaslerK. L. (2022). Science class as clinic: Why histories of segregated instruction matter for health equity reforms today. Science Education, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21756
52.
KochE. H. (1913). The comprehensive examination in mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 6(2), 64–79.
53.
KriegerN. (2014). Epidemiology and the people’s health: Theory and context. Oxford University Press.
54.
LeeO.BuxtonC. A. (2010). Diversity and equity in science education: Research, policy, and practice. Teachers College Press.
55.
LeeS. Y. (2021). Seeing the difference: Anticipatory reasoning of observation and its double gesture in teacher education. Curriculum Inquiry, 50(5), 378–399.
56.
LeonardoZ.BroderickA. A. (2011). Smartness as property: A critical exploration of intersections between Whiteness and Disability Studies. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2206–2232.
57.
le RouxK.SwansonD. (2021). Toward a reflexive mathematics education within local and global relations: Thinking from critical scholarship on mathematics education within the sociopolitical, global citizenship education and decoloniality. Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 323–337.
58.
LongG. (2012). Doctoring freedom: The politics of African American medical care in slavery and emancipation. University of North Carolina Press.
59.
López LópezL. (2019). Refusing making. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 16(2), 161–174.
60.
LybargerM. B. (1987). Need as ideology: A look at the early social studies. In PopkewitzT. S. (Ed.), The formation of school subjects (pp. 176–189). The Falmer Press.
61.
MartinD. B. (2009). Researching race in mathematics education. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 295–338.
62.
MeisterM. (1948). Outlook in science education. The Science Teacher, 15(3), 105–107, 132.
63.
MojeE. B.CollazoT.CarrilloR.MarxR. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498.
64.
MollL. C.AmantiC.NeffD.GonzalezN. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.
65.
MorrisonJ. C. (1938). Can we adapt arithmetic instruction to the needs of all the children?The Mathematics Teacher, 31(8), 373–378.
66.
NabritS. M. (1944). Human ecology of Georgia. Science Education, 28(4), 208–216.
67.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1940). The place of mathematics in secondary education. Columbia University, Teachers College, Bureau of Publications.
68.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to action: Ensuring mathematical success for all.
69.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
70.
NxumaloF.rossk. m. (2019). Envisioning Black space in environmental education for young children. Race Ethnicity and Education, 22(4), 502–524.
71.
OakesJ. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). Yale University Press. (Original work published 1985)
72.
Olivares-PasillasM. C. (2017). Toward critical data-scientific literacy: An intersectional analysis of the development of student identities in an Introduction to Data Science course [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Los Angeles.
73.
PaulyP. J. (2000). Biologists and the promise of American life: From Meriwether Lewis to Alfred Kinsey. Princeton University Press.
74.
PetrinaS. (2006). The medicalization of education: A historiographic synthesis. History of Education Quarterly, 46(4), 503–531.
75.
PhilippyD. (2021). Ellen Richards’s home economics movement and the birth of the economics of consumption. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 43(3), 378–400.
76.
PopkewitzT. S. (2020). The impracticality of practical knowledge: A history of contemporary sciences of change that conserve. University of Michigan Press.
77.
PopkewitzT. S.FengJ.ZhengL. (2018). Calculating the future: The historical assemblage of empirical evidence, benchmarks & PISA. ECNU Review of Education, 1(1), 107–118.
RoseN. (2007). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press.
80.
RouvroyA. (2012). The end(s) of critique: Data-behaviourism vs. due-process. In HildebrandtM.De VriesE. (Eds.), Privacy, due process and the computational turn: The philosophy of law meets the philosophy of technology (pp. 143–168). Routledge.
81.
RudolphJ. L. (2005). Turning science to account. Isis, 96(3), 353–389.
82.
RuizV. (1991). Dead ends or gold mines? Using missionary records in Mexican-American women’s history. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 12(1), 33–56.
83.
SchorlingR.ClarkJ. R.RuggH. O. (1924). Modern mathematics, briefer course: A textbook in the fundamentals of general mathematics. World Book Company.
84.
SchullerK. (2018). The biopolitics of feeling: Race, sex, and science in the nineteenth century. Duke University Press.
85.
SchullerK.Gill-PetersonJ. (2020). Introduction: Race, the state, and the malleable body. Social Text, 38(2), 1–17.
86.
StanicG. M. A.KilpatrickJ. (1992). Mathematics curriculum reform in the United States: A historical perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 17(5), 407–417.
87.
StolerA. L. (2016). Duress: Imperial durabilities in our times. Duke University Press.
88.
TicktinM. (2014). Transnational humanitarianism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 43, 273–289.
89.
ValenciaR. R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. Taylor & Francis.
90.
ValenciaR. R.SuzukiL. A. (2000). Intelligence testing and minority students: Foundations, performance factors, and assessment issues. SAGE.
91.
WalkerH. M. (1925). What the tests do not test. The Mathematics Teacher, 18(1), 46–53.
92.
WarrenB.VossoughiS.RoseberyA. S.BangM.TaylorE. V. (2020). Multiple ways of knowing: Re-imagining disciplinary learning. In NasirN. S.LeeC. D.PeaR.McKinney de RoystonM. (Eds.), Handbook of the cultural foundations of learning (pp. 277–293). Taylor & Francis.
93.
WebsterJ. W. (1970). A science program for the disadvantaged child. Science Education, 54(1), 49–53.
94.
White House Conference on Child Health and Protection. (1930). Official proceedings. American Child Health Association.
95.
WhitmanW. G. (1920). Problems of civic science. General Science Quarterly, 5(1), 19–31.
96.
YolcuA. (2021). Reimagining the citizen and the nation in a globalised world: The case of mathematics education reforms in Turkey. Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 278–292.
97.
YolcuA.KirchgaslerK. L. (in press). Social (justice) mathematics: Racializing effects of ordering pedagogies and their inherited regimes of truth. Educational Studies in Mathematics.
98.
YolcuA.PopkewitzT. S. (2019). Making the able body: School mathematics as a cultural practice. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 51(2), 251–261.
99.
ZhengL. (2021). A performative history of STEM crisis discourse: The co-constitution of crisis sensibility and systems analysis around 1970. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 42(3), 337–352.
100.
ZiolsR.KirchgaslerK. L. (2021). Health and pathology: A brief history of the biopolitics of U.S. mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 108, 123–142.
