This article examines a case of curriculum conflict in order to understand how the social studies curriculum is changed by such conflicts. In the case, a small group of activists challenged a local sixth grade history curriculum, which claimed that the WWII internment of Japanese Americans was a mistake. Activists claimed that the internment was motivated by military necessity, and they wanted the social studies curriculum to include this perspective. Eleven semi-structured interviews with curriculum challengers and supporters were analyzed deploying a sociological lens called frame analysis. Findings suggest that the historical context of the community set the stage for the social studies curriculum conflict. The success of challengers to change curriculum depended upon their ability to construct frames that aligned with professional educators and the community where the curriculum was taught.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonB. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Revised and extended ed., 2nd ed.). New York: Verso.
2.
AnyonJ. (1979). Ideology and U.S. history textbooks. Harvard Educational Review, 49, 361-386.AppleM. W. (2000). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
3.
BaxterJ. (2002). Competing discourses in the classroom: A poststructuralist discourse analysis of girls' and boys' speech in public contexts. Discourse and Society, 13(6), 827-842.
4.
BinderA. J. (2000). Why do some curricular challenges work while others do not? The case of three Afrocentric challenges. Sociology of Education, 73(2), 69-91.
5.
BinderA. J. (2002). Contentious curricula: Afrocentrism and creationism in American public schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
CamiciaS. P. (2007a). Deliberating immigration policy: Locating instructional materials within global and multicultural perspectives. Theory and Research in Social Education35(1), 96-111.
7.
CamiciaS. P. (2007b). Teaching the Japanese American internment: A case study of social studies curriculum contention (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 2007). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database, (Publication No. AAT 3275853).
8.
CarbaughD. A. (2005). Cultures in conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
10.
EisnerE. W. (2002). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
FosterS. J. (2006). Whose history? Portrayal of immigrant groups in U.S. history textbooks, 1800-prcsent. In FosterS. J. & CrawfordK. A., (Eds.), What shall we tell the children? International perspectives on school history textbooks (pp. 155-178). Greenwhich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
12.
FosterS. J., & CrawfordK. A. (Eds.). (2006). What shall we tell the children? International perspectives on school history textbooks. Greenwhich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
13.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.
14.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard University Press.
15.
HabermasJ. (1994). Struggles for recognition in the democratic constitutional state (NicholsenS. W. Trans.). In TaylorC. & GutmannA., (Eds.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 107-148). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
HertzbergH. W. (1981). Social studies reform, 1880-1980. Boulder, CO: Social Science Education Consortium.
17.
HessD. (in press). Controversy in the classroom. London: Routledge.
18.
HessD., & StoddardJ. (2007). 9/11 and terrorism. “The ultimate teachable moment" in textbooks and supplemental curricula. Social Education, 71(5), 231-236.
19.
KatrielT., & NesherP. (1986). Gibush: The rhetoric of cohesion in Israeli school culture. Comparative Education Review, 30(2), 216-231.
20.
KingJ. E. (2004). Culture-centered knowledge: Black studies, curriculum transformation, and social action. In BanksJ. A. & BanksC. A. M., (Ed.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 349-378). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
21.
KlandermansB. (2002). How group identification helps to overcome the dilemma of collective action. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(5), 887-900.
22.
LoewenJ. W. (1996). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got wrong. New York: Simon and Schuster.
23.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
24.
MishlerE. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard University Press.
25.
NashG. B., CrabtreeC., &DunnR. E. (1997). History on trial: Culture wars and the teaching of the past. New York: A. A. Knopf.
26.
OakesJ. & LiptonM. (2002). Struggling for educational equity in diverse communities: School reform as social movement. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 383-406.
27.
SchweberS. (2006). Fundamentally 9/11: The fashioning of collective memory in a Christian school. American Journal of Education, 112,392-417.
28.
SimonB. & KlandermansB. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56(4), 319-331.
29.
SnowD. A.WordenS. K., RochfordE. B., & BenfordR. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464-481.
30.
SpringJ. H. (2003). Educating the consumer-citizen: A history of the marriage of schools, advertising, and mediaMahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
SpringJ. H. (2005). Conflict of interests: The politics of American education (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
32.
TarrowS. G. (1998). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
TetreaultM. K. T. (1986). Integrating women' s history: The case of United States history high school books. The History Teacher, 19(2), 211-262.
34.
Tumer-VorbeckT. (2006). Representations of family in curriculum: A poststructural analysis. In SegallA., HeilmanE.E. & ChcrryholmesC.H. (Eds.), Social studies: The next generation (pp. 153-169). New York: Peter Lang.
35.
TurnerV. (1980). Social dramas and stories about them. Critical Inquiry, 7(1), 141-168.
36.
WertschJ. V. (2002). Voices of collective remembering. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
WestheimerJ. (2006). Politics and patriotism in education. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(8), 608-620.
38.
WillinskyJ. (1998). Learning to divide the world: Education at empire' s end. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
39.
YinR. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
40.
ZimmermanJ. (2002). Whose America?: Culture wars in the public schools. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard University Press.
