This article was downloaded by: [DUT Library]On: 07 October 2014, At: 07:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Equity & Excellence in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueee20

Teaching for Social Justice and K-12Student Outcomes: A ConceptualFramework and Research ReviewAlison George Dover aa University of Massachusetts Amherst ,Published online: 11 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Alison George Dover (2009) Teaching for Social Justice and K-12 StudentOutcomes: A Conceptual Framework and Research Review, Equity & Excellence in Education, 42:4,506-524, DOI: 10.1080/10665680903196339

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10665680903196339

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

EQUITY & EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION, 42(4), 506–524, 2009Copyright C© University of Massachusetts Amherst School of EducationISSN: 1066-5684 print / 1547-3457 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10665680903196339

Teaching for Social Justice and K-12 Student Outcomes: AConceptual Framework and Research Review

Alison George DoverUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst

Redressing educational inequity requires taking a comprehensive and systemic approach to educationreform, a practice increasingly framed as “social justice (in) education.” However, while state andfederal accountability mandates require any reform intended for K-12 classroom implementation tohave a demonstrable impact on student achievement, published accounts of classroom-level “teachingfor social justice” are widely varied and scantly evaluated. This article examines the conceptualfoundations of teaching for social justice, presents a concrete framework for teaching for socialjustice in K-12 classrooms, and examines how elements of teaching for social justice are supported byexisting research on secondary students’ academic, behavioral/motivational, and attitudinal outcomes.In conducting this review, the author hopes to provide both a rationale for teaching for social justicein K-12 classrooms and a foundation for future empirical research on how doing so affects studentoutcomes.

Educational inequity is a fundamental challenge facing contemporary educators. Students’academic achievement, attendance, access to challenging coursework, engagement, participationin extracurricular activities, behavior, and even their likelihood of committing suicide have allbeen linked to their race, class, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation (e.g. see Barton, 2003;Darling-Hammond, 1994, 1995, 2005; Irvine, 1990; Kosciw, Diaz, & Greytak, 2007; Kozol,1991; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Mayer, Mullens, & Moore, 2000; National Center for EducationStatistics, 2007; Villegas and Lucas, 2002; Wenglinsky, 2000). Likewise, any thorough analysisof the United States public education system reveals a system wrought with structural inequity.Laws tying public education funding to local property taxes, for example, ensure students inwealthier communities have access to superior schools, teachers, and educational opportunities(Kozol, 1991; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Students in suburban districts, which developed aspredominantly white due to racially-based and racist housing practices during the 1950s and1960s (Sacks, 1994; Villegas & Lucas, 2002), have more qualified and more experienced teachers,smaller class sizes, safer and better equipped school buildings, increased access to advanced levelcoursework, and more comprehensive library, computer and science facilities than do students inmore racially diverse urban districts (Barton, 2004; Darling-Hammond 1994, 1995, 2005; Kozol,1991; Solorzano & Ornelas, 2002; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Once at school, the effects of these

Address correspondence to Alison George Dover, University of Massachusetts Amherst, School of Education, 385Hills South, Amherst, MA 01003. E-mail: alisongeorge@gmail.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 507

societal inequities are magnified by hegemonic classroom practices that reproduce and reinforcethe cultural and educational traditions of white, middle-class communities at the expense of non-dominant cultures’ educational traditions (e.g., see Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Grande,2004; King, 2005; Lee, 2005; Love, 2004 for discussion). The effect of these inequities onstudent outcomes is so profound that many scholars have shifted their focus from an assessmentof “achievement gaps” to an analysis of systemic inequities (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 2006; Lee,2005; Love, 2004).

In response to these concerns, multiple theorists have addressed the importance of addressingequity and justice in K-12 settings (e.g., Banks, 1995; Cochran-Smith, 1991, 1997, 1999, 2004;Grant & Sleeter, 2007; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 2006; Lalas, 2007; Nieto, 1999,2002; Oakes & Lipton, 2003; Villegas & Lucas, 2002); other researchers have analyzed theimpact of teacher preparation programs on graduates’ readiness to interrupt social injustice inthe classroom (e.g., Cross, 2003; Lopez, 2003; Poplin & Rivera, 2005; Shakman et al., 2007;Sleeter, 2001; Swartz, 2003), and made recommendations to ensure that beginning teachers arewell-prepared to effectively facilitate student learning through the use of justice-oriented practices(e.g., Poplin & Rivera, 2005). Related bodies of research focus on strategies for preparing otherschool personnel, including school leaders (e.g., see Marshall & Oliva, 2006; McKenzie et al.,2008; Weissglass, 2003) and school counselors (e.g., see Bemak & Chung, 2005; Constantine &Yeh, 2001) to promote social justice and equity in schools.

However, while practitioner authored accounts of K-12 teachers’ attempts to teach for so-cial justice in a variety of content areas and school environments have become increasinglycommon (e.g. Ayers, Hunt & Quinn, 1998; Bigelow et al., 1994, 2001; Blum, 2004; Darling-Hammond, French, & Garcıa-Lopez, 2002; Gau, 2005; Gutstein & Peterson, 2005; Harper, 2005;Kumashiro, 2000; Lalas, 2007; Lee, Menkhart, & Okazawa-Rey, 2002; Singer, 2006), there isgreat variability across these accounts, and scant evaluation of their impact on specific academic,behavioral/motivational, and attitudinal outcomes (see Kelly & Brandes, 2008; Poplin & Rivera,2005). Indeed, in their analysis of more than 20 years of published research on social justiceteacher education, Grant and Agosto (2008) note that existing research, with few exceptions,“lacks attention to definition, context, and assessment” (p. 194), while other researchers citevague, contextually specific, and widely variant conceptualizations of teaching for social justice(Carlisle, Jackson, & George, 2006; North, 2006; Shakman et al., 2007; Thomas, 2007) and anoverabundance of small-scale, narrowly-focused, qualitative studies that make it difficult to gen-eralize about outcomes (Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Shakman et al., 2007; Sleeter, 2001). Thesephenomena are self-reinforcing, as the lack of consensus regarding the dimensions of teachingfor social justice inhibits empirical research regarding its impact. The need for such research isespecially salient, given the current climate of state and federal standardization and accountabilitymandates, such as those imposed by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2002), which requirea “scientifically-based” (p. 1549) rationale for any classroom-level interventions.

Additionally, when considering research related to teaching for social justice, it is important toacknowledge the implicit politics of both “traditional” and social justice-oriented education policy(for discussion, see Freire 1970/2002; Villegas & Lucas, 2002) and research (Griffiths, 1998). Inthe current system, social justice educators, along with other advocates of equity oriented reform,are charged with “proving” the imperative for, and efficacy of, their interventions, while thoseinvested in maintaining the status quo have no such burden; published criticisms of social justiceeducation are generally commentaries claiming social justice education is unnecessary, ill-suited

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

508 GEORGE DOVER

to the goals of public education, and politically biased (e.g., Will, 2006; Wilson, 2005; see alsoGriffiths, 1998; Wasely, 2006 for discussion).

The remainder of this article, therefore, offers a concrete framework for “teaching for socialjustice” in K-12 classrooms that is supported by existing research related to students’ academic,behavioral/motivational, and attitudinal outcomes. In doing so, I centralize empirical studies thataddress the narrowest possible interpretation of “student achievement,” for example, academicachievement as measured by test scores and other quantitative indicators. This emphasis is notintended to endorse conservative or score-based constructions of student success, but rather tosupplement the literature base regarding how teaching for social justice enables teachers to bothmeet state and federal mandates and promote additional positive student outcomes. It is my hopethat this article will serve as a springboard for increasingly comprehensive dialogue and researchrelated to outcomes associated with teaching for social justice in K-12 classrooms1 .

TEACHING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

In framing a model of teaching for social justice in K-12 classrooms, it is important to ac-knowledge the ongoing debate regarding the multiple meanings of “social justice” in education(see De Lissovoy, 2008; Fraser, 1997; Gerwitz, 1998, 2006; Grant & Agosto, 2008; Griffiths,1998; North, 2006; Young, 2006 for discussion). Young, for example, notes a conflict betweenparadigms of justice that focus narrowly on distribution without examining decision makingpower, division of labor, dominant norms, and freedom of cultural expression, while North(2006) identifies central tensions related to theorists’ emphases on redistribution or recognition,sameness or difference, and differentiating macro-microlevel forces or linking macro-/microlevelforces. While it is beyond the scope of this article to attempt to resolve those tensions (for suchanalysis, see De Lissovoy, 2008; Fraser, 1997; Gerwitz, 1998, 2006; Grant & Agosto, 2008;Griffiths, 1998; North, 2006, 2008; Young, 2006), I do wish to situate my discussion within thisdebate.

Elsewhere, colleagues and I (Carlisle et al., 2006) define social justice education “as the con-scious and reflexive blend of content and process intended to enhance equity across multiple socialidentity groups (e.g., race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ability), foster critical perspectives,and promote social action” (p. 57) and centralize the importance of examining multiple schooldomains for their attention to five key principles: Inclusion and Equity; High Expectations; Re-ciprocal Community Relationships; System-Wide Approach; and Direct Social Justice Educationand Intervention. While some theorists centralize one specific aspect of social justice—or, asthis piece does, a single educational domain (classroom teaching)—comprehensive social jus-tice education requires taking a “both/and” approach to the multiple emphases described above(see Carlisle et al., 2006; De Lissovoy, 2008; Gerwitz, 2006).The framework presented by thisarticle, therefore, is intended as a classroom-based component of a more systemic approach toreform.

Moreover, in transitioning between school- or district-wide models and classroom level“teaching for social justice,” it is necessary to address the impact of state and federal ac-countability mandates. Any attempt to teach for social justice in K-12 classrooms is intrinsi-cally linked with specific K-12 academic content (e.g., science, mathematics, English LanguageArts) and faces additional scrutiny regarding its relationship to K-12 learning theory, impact on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 509

FIGURE 1 Principles of Teaching for Social Justice in K-12 Classrooms.

students’ content-knowledge, and other standardized academic outcomes, especially at the sec-ondary level (for discussion, see Kelly & Brandes, 2008; Poplin & Rivera, 2005; Shakmanet al., 2007). The following six principle framework for teaching for social justice (see Figure 1),therefore, seeks to integrate aspects of multiple equity and justice oriented reforms with re-search related to practices that positively impact students’ academic, behavioral/motivational,and attitudinal outcomes.

This framework is a K-12 focused adaptation of Cochran-Smith’s (1999, 2004) six principlesof socially-just teacher education, and is grounded in principles of social justice education (e.g.Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 1997, 2007; Carlisle et al., 2006; Lalas, 2007; Poplin & Rivera, 2005;Shakman et al., 2007), culturally responsive education (e.g., Gay, 2000; Gonzalez et al., 2005;Irvine & Armento, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1995a, 1995b; Murrell, 2000, 2001; Villegas & Lucas,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

510 GEORGE DOVER

FIGURE 2 Conceptual and pedagogical foundations of teaching forsSocial lJustice.

2002), multicultural education (e.g., Banks, 1995; Grant & Sleeter, 2007; Nieto, 1999, 2002,2004; Sleeter & Grant, 1999; Suzuki, 1984), critical pedagogy (e.g., Frankenstein, 1990; Freire,1970/2002), and democratic education (e.g., Dewey, 1916/2007; Parker, 2003; Westheimer &Kahne, 2004; Woodruff, 2005). Though each of these reform traditions has unique roots and cen-tral emphases, they share a commitment to promoting social and educational equity and justice.Moreover, the practical applications of these philosophies are frequently intertwined and overlap-ping. As such, my discussion does not attempt to strictly demarcate the limits of each tradition butdoes reference the specific elements of “teaching for social justice” drawn from each approach(see Figure 2). Limited versions of such a demarcation can be found in Wiedeman (2002) andGrant and Agosto (2008); future examination of the contributions of and tensions across thesephilosophies is indicated.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 511

TEACHING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND K-12 STUDENT OUTCOMES

A key aim of this article is to provide a foundation for researchers interested in examining howteaching for social justice affects student outcomes. While the preceding six principle frameworkfor teaching for social justice applies across K-12 classrooms, the following research synthe-sis centralizes research regarding academic, behavioral/motivational, and attitudinal outcomesassociated with teaching for social justice in secondary (8–12) environments. For analyses ofoutcomes associated with elements of teaching for social justice in the primary grades, see Brocket al. (2007) and CASEL (2003).

Due to the limited availability of large scale qualitative and quantitative research on “teachingfor social justice” as a cohesive practice, I include research on individual components of teachingfor social justice within this review. This research is organized into three somewhat overlappingcategories, based on individual studies’ emphasis on teachers’ pedagogical approach, ideologicallocation, or use of social justice oriented curriculum. Specifically, I evaluate: (a) outcome researchrelated to teacher expectations and classroom pedagogy (Principles 1, 2, and 3); (b) outcomeresearch related to constructivism, cultural responsiveness, and family engagement (Principles2, 4, and 5); and (c) outcome research related to explicit instruction on oppression, equity, andactivism (Principle 6). Following my review of research related to these three categories, I focuson research examining teaching for social justice as a cohesive practice.

Finally, in considering the following review, it is important to note that there is variance amongequity-oriented approaches to reform (e.g., see Thomas, 2007; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004), thatstudents’ educational experiences are shaped by an array of school- and community-based factors,and that any analysis that only examines classroom-level curricular and pedagogical interactionsis necessarily incomplete (Carlisle et al., 2006). Future research exploring outcomes associatedwith social justice education practice in multiple educational domains, such as policymaking,administration, and community-relations, is indicated (Carlisle et al., 2006).

RESEARCH RELATED TO INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS OF TEACHINGFOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

Outcomes Associated with Teachers’ Expectations and Classroom Pedagogy

Teaching for social justice requires that teachers have high expectations of their students andthemselves (Carlisle et al., 2006; Cochran-Smith, 1999, 2004; Poplin & Rivera, 2005), focus onstudents’ development of academic skills (Darling-Hammond, French, & Garcia-Lopez, 2002;Poplin & Rivera, 2005; Shakman et al., 2007), and foster learning communities within theirclassrooms (Cochran-Smith, 1999, 2004; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). The following discussionprovides an overview of student outcomes associated with each of these aspects of teaching forsocial justice.

Copious research demonstrates that teachers’ expectations, as well as their social identityrelated biases, impact the academic achievement of their students (e.g., Aronson, 2004; Dee,2007; Devine, 1989; Ferguson, 1998, 2003; Irvine, 1990). Muller, Katz, and Dance (1999) andBenner and Mistry (2007) demonstrated that students’ self-expectations and sense of academiccompetence are correlated with their perceptions’ of their teachers’ expectations, with Muller

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

512 GEORGE DOVER

et al. (1999) noting that students who are African American, Latino, or designated as “learningdisabled” or “ESL” are especially vulnerable to teachers’ negative assessments of their potential.This is compounded by effects of tracking, as students with marginalized social identities aresignificantly less likely to have access to challenging coursework, inquiry-based instruction, oracademic enrichment activities (Oakes & Lipton, 2003; Reid, 2004; Solorzano & Ornelas, 2002).Other research (e.g., Aronson et al., 1999) finds that the effects of stereotype threat are mostprofound among students with a high degree of investment in academics, limiting the academicpotential of even the highest achieving students from marginalized groups. Likewise, whenteachers’ expectations of students are high, the students demonstrate higher levels of academicachievement and engagement (Gay, 2000; Irvine, 1990; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Lucas, Henze, &Donato, 1990; Nieto, 2004; Oakes & Lipton, 2003; Villegas & Lucas, 2002).

Research also demonstrates that teachers’ sense of responsibility and efficacy, that is, theirsense of their own responsibility for and effectiveness at promoting student learning, profoundlyimpacts student achievement. In one of the largest studies on the topic, Lee and Smith (1996)analyzed longitudinal data on nearly 12,000 students and 10,000 teachers from 820 high schoolsacross the United States. Their study found a statistically significant positive correlation betweengains in student achievement, as measured by standardized test scores, and teachers’ sense ofresponsibility for students’ academic success or failure in mathematics, reading, history, andscience. Furthermore, they noted that race- and class-based gaps in achievement were smallerin schools where teachers took a high level of responsibility for student learning, leading themto conclude that “schools where most teachers take responsibility for learning are environmentsthat are both more effective and more equitable” (p. 130). Similarly, Goddard, LoGerfo, and Hoy(2004) found the collective efficacy of a school’s faculty to be the strongest predictor of studentachievement after controlling for socioeconomic status, minority enrollment, urbanicity, size,and prior student achievement, while Hoy, Tarter, and Hoy (2006) found a school’s “academicoptimism” (comprised of its academic emphasis, collective faculty efficacy, and the faculty’s trustin students’ and parents’ interest in learning) to be a statistically significant predictor of studentachievement, even after controlling for socioeconomic status and prior student achievement.

In the classroom, teachers for social justice create learning communities that encourage aca-demic and social cooperation among students. Rooted in democratic education, cooperative learn-ing methods have a solid foundation in educational research, and are associated with increasedstudent achievement and literacy development (e.g., Cochran-Smith, 1997; Rodriguez, Jones,Pang, & Park, 2004; Waxman & Tellez, 2002; Wenglinsky, 2000), self-confidence (e.g., Hanze& Berger, 2007), motivation, engagement, and sense of belonging in academic settings (e.g.,Rodriguez et al., 2004; Tatum, 1997). Recent research (e.g., Hanze & Berger, 2007) suggests co-operative learning has the greatest effect on students with previously low academic self-concepts,underscoring its importance for low-performing and otherwise traditionally excluded students.

In addition to teachers’ belief in their students’ ability to achieve academic success, teachingfor social justice requires teachers to focus on specific academic skills, providing scaffoldingwhere necessary to enhance student learning (Cochran-Smith, 1999, 2004; Villegas & Lucas,2002). This emphasis directly contradicts critics’ accusations that social justice education is too“touchy-feely” and insufficiently focused on students’ knowledge and skill development (Will,2006) and is supported by research on trends in teaching for social justice. For example, in arecent qualitative study tracking social justice-oriented teacher candidates’ perspectives aboutteaching through their first year of teaching, Shakman et al. (2007) found student learning to be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 513

candidates’ central focus, while Poplin and Rivera (2005) argue for the simultaneous emphasisof social justice ideologies and strong teaching skills within all social justice oriented teacherpreparation programs.

Even those educational researchers and policymakers without an explicit emphasis on “socialjustice in education” note the relationship between aspects of teaching for social justice andstudents’ development of academic skills. For example, in her review of research on adolescentliteracy, Meltzer (2002) notes the importance of responsive and inclusive learning environments,teaching literacy in context, student-centeredness, and promoting student collaboration as ameans of increasing students’ literacy development. Similarly, the National Council of Teachersof English (NCTE, 2007) recommends teachers emphasize multiple and social (interactional)literacies and multicultural perspectives in order to maximize students’ literacy development.Finally, several studies document specific skill-based outcomes associated with teaching forsocial justice (e.g., Cammarota, 2007; Gutstein, 2003, 2007, discussed later), and reviews of “bestpractices” in education are increasingly incorporating this research into their recommendations(e.g., NCTE, 2007).

Outcomes Associated with Family Engagement, Constructivism, and CulturalResponsiveness

Teachers for social justice engage students’ families and employ constructivist and culturallyresponsive curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment measures in their effort to acknowledge, value,and build upon students’ existing knowledge and interests and their familial, cultural, and lin-guistic resources (Cochran-Smith, 1999, 2004). They connect school-based learning to students’out-of-school lives and engage students’ parents, families, and other members of the communityas partners in learning (Irvine & Armento, 2001; Lalas, 2007; Villegas & Lucas, 2002).

Critics of these emphases routinely endorse a canonized or “essential” body of content-knowledge and question whether culturally responsive education is necessary and appropriatefor public school settings (e.g., Hirsch, 1996; Sykes, 1995). However, culturally responsiveand socioculturally-centered teaching has been shown to positively impact student achievement,participation, motivation, self-esteem, sense of belonging in educational environments, identitydevelopment, and attitudes about learning among racial and linguistic minority students (e.g., Gay,2000; Irvine, 1990; Ladson-Billings, 1995a, 1995b; Lucas et al., 1990; Oyserman, Harrison, &Bybee, 2001; Rodriguez et al., 2004; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Waxman& Tellez, 2002). Moreover, culturally responsive teaching is well aligned with accepted socialand cognitive learning theories, which indicate that all children’s learning is dependent on theirability to connect new information to their existing knowledge (e.g., Anderson, 1984; Newmann,Marks, & Gamoran, 1996). By increasing the relevance of curricular content, culturally responsiveteachers enhance students’ opportunities to learn.

Hughes et al. (2004) completed the most comprehensive quasi-experimental study on culturallyresponsive teaching to date in their analysis of the impact of culturally responsive teaching in fourpilot elementary, middle and high schools in West Virginia. Although Hughes et al. did not findoverall increases in achievement among pilot school students, they did find that culturally respon-sive teaching had several significant impacts on student outcomes. Specifically, they found thatthe students of teachers who both attended professional development seminars and used culturally

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

514 GEORGE DOVER

responsive teaching methods were significantly more likely to (a) be on-task individually and asa group, (b) have better attitudes about school, (c) spend more time engaged in either teacher- orstudent-led instructional activities, (d) be offered increased learning opportunities, and (e) receive“higher quality” instruction (as measured by a standardized assessment of classroom pedagogyand curricular materials) than any other study population. While Hughes et al. did not conducta longitudinal analysis, these students’ increased time-on-task, engagement, positive attitudes,and improved quality of teaching suggests that ongoing assessment would reveal demonstrableachievement gains.

Culturally responsive teaching also includes an emphasis on building relationships with andengaging students’ parents, families, and communities. The positive effects of familial involve-ment on student outcomes are well documented, with increases in familial involvement havinga demonstrated impact on students’ grade point averages (Jeynes, 2003), ability to meet aca-demic standards (Marschall, 2006), literacy development (Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins, & Weiss,2006), school attendance (Sheldon, 2007), likelihood of graduating from high school (e.g. An-guiano, 2003), educational aspirations (Hill et al., 2004), and ability to manage school relatedstress (Falbo, Lein, & Amador, 2001), as well as other academic, behavioral/motivational, andattitudinal outcomes (Kreider, Casp, Kennedy, & Weiss, 2007).

In a recent mixed-method study of 370 Chicago area schools, 161 of which were designated ashaving “above average” Latino enrollment, Marschall (2006) demonstrated that school-initiatedefforts to involve parents, teacher cultural/community awareness, and parental involvement,whether considered individually or collectively, significantly impacted students’ grade point av-erages and standardized test scores. Marschall’s results also indicate that school effort and teacherawareness have a greater impact on student achievement than the resultant parental involvement,suggesting that the mere act of attempting to cultivate school-community relationships leads toincreased student achievement. As noted by Kreider et al. (2007), the positive effects of familialinvolvement are self-reproducing because “when families of diverse backgrounds are involved atthe school level, teachers become more aware of cultural issues and, in turn, become more likelyto engage and reach out to parents in meaningful and effective ways” (p. 3).

Outcomes Associated with Explicit Instruction about Oppression, Equity, andActivism

The final set of emphases of teaching for social justice focuses on instruction about educationaland societal oppression, equity, and activism. Unlike other models of education reform, teachingfor social justice renders explicit the problems plaguing U.S. educational systems and seeks topromote reform by engaging students in “developing critical habits of mind, understanding andsorting out multiple perspectives, and learning to participate in and contribute to a democraticsociety by developing both the skill and the inclination for civic engagement” (Cochran-Smith,2004, p. 159; see also Darling-Hammond, 2002; Lalas, 2007). In the classroom, teachers forsocial justice acknowledge the relationships between social and educational inequity and students’educational experiences and help students critique, mitigate, and redress inequitable conditions,emphasizing principles of empowerment, agency and activism (Cochran-Smith, 1999, 2004;Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). This set of emphases distinguishes teaching for social justice fromother urban education reforms, including those focused on raising standards, encouraging diverse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 515

pedagogical techniques, improving teacher quality, engaging families, or enhancing culturalrelevance (Lalas, 2007; Rothstein, 2004).

Although some teachers and teacher educators fear that explicit instruction about oppression,equity, and activism will prove “too controversial” (Gau, 2005; Nieto, 1999), research indicatesthat most parents and students support socially just content and policy. For example, nationallyrepresentative studies conducted on behalf of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network(GLSEN, 2001) indicate that the majority of parents are “in favor” of curricular, extracurricular,policy-based, and professional development programs that provide “positive information about”gay, lesbian and transgender people, promote tolerance, and end anti-gay harassment, with levelsof support ranging from 50% to 90% across religious, racial, and geographic communities.Likewise, Rose and Gallup’s (2000) random telephone survey found that 76% of adults feltschools should place “more emphasis” on “racial and ethnic understanding and tolerance” thanthey currently do. A subsequent survey (Rose & Gallup, 2006) found that 88% to 96% ofrespondents considered closing the achievement gap as “very” or “somewhat” important, with57% holding schools responsible for doing so.

Researchers have taken an array of approaches to quantifying the impact of explicit instructionabout oppression, equity, and activism. Many practitioners have focused on anecdotal accountsof their students’ response to social justice oriented lesson plans (e.g., Bigelow et al., 1994,2001; Blum, 2004; Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2002), while others have presentedqualitative and quantitative data related to students’ motivation and engagement (e.g., Smialek,2007) and their attitudes about diversity and racial prejudice (e.g., Hogan & Mallot, 2005; Levyet al., 2005). Another body of research focused on the relationship between social and emotionallearning programs and student achievement has demonstrated that addressing attitudinal factorspositively impacts student achievement (e.g., CASEL, 2003; Durlak & Weissberg, 2007). Agrowing body of research on teaching for social justice as a cohesive process (discussed below)examines a range of achievement, behavioral/motivational, and attitudinal outcomes associatedwith explicit instruction about oppression, equity, and activism as part of comprehensive curricularand pedagogical practice.

In one such example, Rodriguez et al. (2004) evaluated a six-week summer science enrichmentprogram intended to make minority first-generation college bound and/or low- income tenth-gradestudents “conscious of the social and political marginalization of minorities that have resultedin their underrepresentation in higher education, and especially in math and science . . . [and]see their current efforts to develop as scholars and leaders as a way to transform not onlythemselves but their communities” (p. 47). In addition to teaching specific mathematics andscience content, program staff explicitly address educational and societal power differentials,asking questions, such as, “[W]ho benefits and who loses, by these conditions and acts?” (p.47), and helping students move toward “participation and involvement in school and society” (p.48). Quantitative and qualitative data for four separate cohorts of students revealed statisticallyand numerically significant increases in students’ scores on the Test of Integrative Process Skills(TIPS), an assessment designed to measure competence and skill development in math andscience. Likewise, focus group data highlighted improvements in students’ sense of academicbelonging, appreciation for diversity, sense of educational and social power, sense of academiccompetence, and ability to effectively express themselves in diverse environments. Additionally,several focus group participants compared their experience in the Science Enrichment Programto previous experiences in non-social justice-oriented academic outreach programs, and noted

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

516 GEORGE DOVER

the importance of the six-week summer program’s emphasis on diversity and justice as central totheir “immensely more positive experience” (p. 52). While the conditions of Rodriguez et al.’sstudy vary from those present in traditional public high schools (e.g., students applied for entryinto the program, were involved in non-academic residential activities, and received extensivecontent-specific instruction), the strong academic and attitudinal outcomes associated with theprogram, combined with students’ anecdotal mention of the importance of instruction related tooppression and power, suggest that school-based research on explicit instruction on oppression,equity, and activism may prove fruitful.

Cammarota (2007) found similar outcomes in his preliminary evaluation of a social justiceeducation project based at an Arizona high school. The Social Justice Education Project (SJEP)was a sub-curriculum within a high-school level course on Chicano history and emphasized criticaltheory and social justice-oriented participatory action research. Although 14 of the 17 studentsenrolled in the course had previously been identified as “at risk” and in need of remedial education,the course engaged them in dialogue about “advanced level” topics (including hegemony, socialreproduction, micro-aggression, interest conversion, and intersectionality), a critical analysis oftheir own schooling, and participatory research methodology. Although Cammarota does notquantitatively assess the relationship between students’ participation in the SJEP and their overallacademic success, survey data indicates that 93% of students felt that participation in the SJEPmade them more likely to graduate from high school and that all students felt that participationin the SJEP improved their writing and reading skills (p. 94). However, the study, as published,does not include sufficient data to validate a correlative relationship. Additional research relatedto this project is warranted in order to comprehensively measure student outcomes associatedwith the SJEP.

In their larger, quantitative examination of the relationship between instruction about oppres-sion and student achievement, McGlone and Aronson (2007) examined the impact of instructionabout gender-related stereotype threat on mathematics Graduate Record Examination The studylooked at test scores of 128 college students: (a) students who received a “control message”encouraging perseverance; (b) students who received a “suppression” message describing stereo-type threat and instructing them to suppress associated thoughts; and (c) students who receiveda “replacement” message describing stereotype threat and presenting an alternative personallyrelevant positive stereotype. Although gender-based achievement gaps were found among allstudy populations, the size of the gap was largest in the “suppression” group and smallest in the“replacement” group; indeed, the “replacement” group was the only group in which there wasno statistically significant difference between male and female students’ test scores. Among theirconclusions, McGlone and Aronson found that while merely forewarning students about stereo-type threat was more likely to aggravate than alleviate self-consciousness, the negative effects ofstereotype threat can be alleviated by instruction that both acknowledges and contradicts negativestereotypes. Moreover, since there was no significant variance in males’ performance across thethree study groups, their study found that countering stereotype threat enhanced female students’performance without negatively impacting the performance of male students.

Although no one has yet attempted parallel research among high school students, McGlone andAronson’s (2007) study provides a strong argument in favor of school-based analysis of societaland educational inequity. Research demonstrates that high school students are familiar with socialidentity-based negative stereotypes (Reid, 2004; Rodriguez et al., 2004) and that this knowledgeaffects their performance. McGlone and Aronson’s findings suggest that teaching about stereotype

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 517

threat as a phenomenon, coupled with the suggestion of personally relevant counter-messages,may counteract the negative effects of stereotype threat without negatively affecting privilegedstudents. While additional school-based research regarding this trend is warranted, McGloneand Aronson’s findings suggest that teaching about oppression, equity and activism is likely topositively impact the academic achievement of marginalized students.

RESEARCH ABOUT TEACHING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICEAS A COHESIVE PROCESS

A growing body of literature addresses teaching for social justice through pre- and in-serviceteachers’ publication of their experience teaching in a variety of content areas and school envi-ronments. For example, Singer (2006) describes teaching for social justice in her ninth gradeEnglish classes; Gutstein and Peterson (2005) provide models relevant to teaching mathe-matics in grades 5–12; Harper (2005) describes her use of socially just literature in middleschool; Blum (2004) describes teaching a high school class on race and racism; and Ayers etal. (1998), Bigelow et al. (1994, 2001), Christensen (2000), Darling-Hammond et al. (2002),and Lee et al. (2002) gather models from multiple grade levels and academic disciplines. Ad-ditional teacher-authored accounts of (and specific lesson plans for) teaching for social justiceare available through a number of online clearinghouses, including www.teachingtolerance.org,www.glsen.org, www.edliberation.org, www.radicalteacher.org, and www.rethinkingschools.org.While these resources provide essential curricular, philosophic, and pedagogical informationabout the scope of teachers’ attempts to teach for social justice, they fail to provide sufficientanalysis of student outcomes to meet the needs of teachers and researchers constrained by stateand federal accountability mandates. Moreover, few, if any, of these publicly available teacheraccounts of teaching for social justice evaluate the relationship between proposed curriculumand content-based standards and many are described as being taught in charter, independent, andother non-traditional schools.

There is, however, one recently published peer reviewed study that quantitatively as-sesses the impact of standards-based teaching for social justice on students’ academic, behav-ioral/motivational, and attitudinal outcomes. Gutstein (2003, 2007) evaluates student outcomesassociated with standards-based teaching for social justice among 28 urban Latino seventh andeighth grade students. His findings offer compelling data regarding the positive implications ofteaching for social justice for students’ academic and attitudinal outcomes. For the purposesof his study, Gutstein defines teaching for social justice as having three goals: (a) helping stu-dents develop social and political consciousness, (b) helping students develop a sense of agency,and (c) helping students develop positive social and cultural identities. Gutstein also includesmathematics-specific goals among his primary foci, namely, students’ development of (a) theability to use mathematics to understand and impact their sociopolitical context; (b) “mathemat-ical power,” or the ability to

confidently engage in complex mathematical tasks . . . draw on knowledge from a wide variety ofmathematical topics . . . [be] flexible and resourceful problem solvers . . . work productively andreflectively . . . communicate their ideas and results effectively . . . [and] value mathematics andengage actively in learning it. (Gutstein, 2003, p. 45)

and c) positive dispositions toward mathematics.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

518 GEORGE DOVER

In conducting his analysis, Gutstein relied on both qualitative and quantitative indicators, in-cluding students’ performance on standardized tests, mathematical problem sets, and unit exams.All data related to student outcomes was triangulated from multiple data sources, including class-room observation, student interview data, student survey data, collected student work and journalreflections, and students’ test scores. Among his findings, Gutstein (2003, 2007) identified a rangeof academic outcomes, including: (a) an increase in students’ development of mathematical poweras measured by tests, quizzes, projects, and class work; (b) an increase in students’ confidence intheir mathematical abilities as measured by student survey data; (c) an increase in students’ abilityto apply mathematical reasoning and problem solving skills to real-world contexts as measuredby in-class project work; and (d) students’ ability to pass eighth grade mathematics courses andstandardized tests. Gutstein (2003, 2007) also noted two key attitudinal outcomes, including: (a)students’ increased sense of the usefulness of mathematics as measured by student surveys; and(b) students’ increased sociopolitical consciousness as evidenced by classroom observation anddiscussion.

Gutstein (2003) notes several limitations to his study, namely that he was unable to isolateacademic outcomes associated with his use of social justice-oriented curriculum (“real worldprojects”) from outcomes associated with his use of other mathematics curriculum (“Mathematicsin Context” [MiC]). However, since comprehensive teaching for social justice is an integratedpedagogical, ideological, and curricular approach to teaching that includes the implementation ofrigorous content-based curriculum, I—and to a lesser degree, Gutstein—argue that his integrationof social justice oriented and MiC curriculum in no way diminishes the power of his findings.Other limitations of Gutstein’s study include his focus on honors-track students, who would havelikely met academic success regardless of their participation in his classes (p. 59) as well as hisrecognition that some students may have given survey responses reflecting what they thought hewanted to hear. However, Gutstein’s research nevertheless conclusively demonstrates that it ispossible to teach for social justice in a standards-based, academically rigorous environment andto do so in a way that promotes positive academic and attitudinal outcomes.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Redressing educational inequity requires a comprehensive and systemic approach to publiceducation reform (Carlisle et al., 2006). Teaching for social justice is the attempt by classroomteachers to use their position in the classroom to affect meaningful change within and despitecurrent educational conditions and mandates. To this end, teachers for social justice: (1) assumeall students are participants in knowledge construction, have high expectations for students andthemselves, and foster learning communities; (2) acknowledge, value, and build upon students’existing knowledge, interests, and cultural and linguistic resources; (3) teach specific skills andbridge gaps in students’ learning; (4) work in reciprocal partnership with students’ families andcommunities; (5) critique and employ multiple forms of assessment; and (6) explicitly teach aboutactivism, power, and inequity in schools and society. This conceptualization is an adaptation ofCochran-Smith’s (1999, 2004) six principles of pedagogy and is grounded in principles of socialjustice education, culturally responsive education, multicultural education, critical pedagogy, anddemocratic education, as discussed above.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 519

In addition to meeting the political goals of equity-oriented education reform, aspects ofteaching for social justice have been linked with positive academic (e.g. Goddard et al., 2004;Irvine, 1990; Lucas, Henze, & Donato, 1990; Marschall, 2006; McGlone & Aronson, 2007), be-havioral/motivational (e.g., Hanze & Berger, 2007; Hughes et al., 2004), and attitudinal studentoutcomes (e.g. Cammarota, 2007; Oyserman et al., 2001; Rodriguez et al., 2004), and initial re-search regarding teaching mathematics for social justice (Gutstein, 2003, 2007) seems promising.However, meeting the sometimes conflicting aims of standardized education and social justiceeducation has proven challenging for teachers (Carlson, 2007; Shakman et al, 2007). Addi-tional research documenting, analyzing, and evaluating methods of teaching for social justice instandards-based environments is warranted (Carlisle et al., 2006; Grant & Agosto, 2008; Kelly& Brandes, 2008).

In order to be practically applicable within the context of stringent state and federal testingmandates, this research must specifically examine how the practice enables teachers to meet andexceed narrow definitions of student achievement (e.g., students’ standardized test scores). Thathaving been said, I also see the need for an ongoing redefinition of “student achievement” tomore broadly encompass the wide range of academic, behavioral/motivational, and attitudinalcriteria upon which schools and students are assessed. Research that examines, for example,the relationships among multiple outcomes, such as students’ sense of personal agency, levelof academic engagement, standardized test performance, and post-secondary success will likelyprovide additional insight into the longitudinal impacts of social justice oriented reform.

NOTE

1. For additional discussion regarding the academic and political implications of relying upon test scores asthe primary marker of student achievement, see Barton (2004), Egan (2003), Pedulla et al. (2003), Orfieldand Kornhaber (2001), and Scott (2004).

REFERENCES

Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (1997). Preface. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversityand social justice: A sourcebook (pp. xv–xvii). New York: Routledge.

Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed). New York:Routledge.

Anderson, R. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 13(9), 5–10.Anguiano, R. P. V. (2003). Families and schools: The effect of parental involvement on high school completion. Journal

of Family Issues, 25(1), 61–85.Aronson, J. (2004). The threat of stereotype. Educational Leadership, 62(3), 14–19.Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When white men can’t do math:

Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 29–46.Ayers, W., Hunt, J. A., & Quinn, T. (Eds.). (1998). Teaching for social justice: A democracy and education reader. New

York: The New Press.Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A.

M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 3–24). New York: Macmillan.Barton, P. E. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap: Baselines for tracking progress. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing

Service.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

520 GEORGE DOVER

Barton, P. E. (2004). Why does the gap persist? Educational Leadership, 62(3), 8–13.Bemak, F., & Chung, R. C. (2005). Advocacy as a critical role for urban school counselors: Working toward equity and

social justice. Professional School Counseling, 8(3), 196–202.Benner, A. D., & Mistry, R. S. (2007). Congruence of mother and teacher educational expectations and low-income

youth’s academic competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 140–153.Bigelow, B., Christensen, L., Karp, S., Miner, B., & Peterson, B. (Eds.). (1994). Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching

for equity and justice, Volume 1. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.Bigelow, B., Harvey, B., Karp, S., & Miller, L. (Eds.). (2001). Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for equity and justice,

Volume 2. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.Blum, L. (2004). A high school class on race and racism. Radical Teacher, 70(1), 4–10.Brock, L., Nishida, T., Chiong, C., Grimm, K., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. (2007). Children’s perceptions of the classroom

environment and social and academic performance: A longitudinal analysis of the “responsive classroom” approach.Journal of School Psychology, 46(2), 129–149.

Cammarota, J. (2007). A social justice approach to achievement: Guiding Latina/o students toward educational attainmentwith a challenging, socially relevant curriculum. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(1), 87–96.

Carlisle, L. R., Jackson, B. W., & George, A. (2006). Principles of social justice education: The social justice educationin schools project. Equity and Excellence in Education, 39(1), 55–64.

Carlson, D. L. (2007). Examining the embedded assumptions of teaching for social justice in a secondary ur-ban school: A case study. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 5(1). Retrieved July 15, 2009, fromhttp://www.urbanedjournal.org/articles/article0033.pdf

Christensen, L. (2000). Reading, writing, and rising up: Teaching about social justice and the power of the written word.Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 61(3), 279–310.Cochran-Smith, M. (1997). Knowledge, skills and experiences for teaching culturally diverse learners: A perspective for

practicing teachers. In J. J. Irvine (Ed.), Critical knowledge for diverse teachers and learners (pp. 27–88). Washington,DC: AACTE.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1999). Learning to teach for social justice. In G. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: Ninety-eighth yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 114–144). Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2003). Safe and sound: An educational leader’s guide toevidence-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs. Chicago: Author.

Constantine, M. G., & Yeh, C. (2001). Multicultural training, self-construals, and multicultural competence of schoolcounselors. Professional School Counseling, 4(3), 202–207.

Cross, B. E. (2003). Learning or unlearning racism: Transferring teacher education curriculum to classroom practices.Theory into Practice, 42(3), 203–209.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). The current status of teaching and teacher development in the United States. New York:Teachers College.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Inequality and access to knowledge. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbookof research on multicultural education (pp. 465–483). New York: Macmillan.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2002) Learning to teach for social justice. In L. Darling-Hammond, J. French, & S. Garcia-Lopez(Eds.), Learning to teach for social justice (pp. 1–7). New York: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). New standards and old inequalities: School reform and the education of African Americanstudents. In J. E. King (Ed.), Black education: A transformative research and action agenda for the new century (pp.197–224). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

Darling-Hammond, L., French, J., & Garcia-Lopez, S. (Eds.). (2002). Learning to teach for social justice. New York:Teachers College Press.

De Lissovoy, N. (2008). Conceptualizing oppression in educational theory: Toward a compound standpoint. CulturalStudies < = > Critical Methodologies, 8(1), 82–105.

Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in school and low-income children’sliteracy: Longitudinal associations between and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 653–664.

Dee, T. (2007). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. The Journal of Human Resources, 42(3), 528–554.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 521

Devine, P. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 56(1), 5–18.

Dewey, J. (1916/2007). Democracy and education. Montana: Kessinger.Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The impact of after school programs that promote personal and social skills.

Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.Egan, K. (2003). Testing for what? Educational Leadership, 61(3), 27–30.Falbo, T., Lein, L., & Amador, N. A. (2001). Parental involvement during the transition to high school. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 16(5), 511–529Ferguson, R. F. (1998). Teacher’s perceptions and expectations and the black-white test score gap. In C. Jencks & M.

Phillips (Eds.), The black-white test score gap (pp. 273–371). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Ferguson, R. F. (2003). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations and the black-white test score gap. Urban Education,

38(4), 460–507.Frankenstein, M. (1990). Incorporating race, gender, and class issues into a critical mathematical literacy curriculum.

Journal of Negro Education, 59(3), 336–347.Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition. New York: Routledge.Freire, P. (1970/2002). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Gau, T. R. (2005). Learning to teach mathematics for social justice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Wisconsin-Madison.Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network. (2001). Talking about respect: A+ messages for those working to create safe

schools for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. New York: Author.Gewirtz, S. (1998). Conceptualizing social justice in education: Mapping the territory. Journal of Education Policy, 13(4),

469–484.Gewirtz, S. (2006). Towards a contextualized analysis of social justice in education. Educational Philosophy and Theory,

38(1), 69–81.Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). High school accountability: The role of perceived collective efficacy.

Educational Policy, 18(3), 403–425.Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities

and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Grande, S. (2004). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Grant, C. A., & Agosto, V. (2008). Teacher capacity and social justice in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S.

Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduringquestions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 175–200). New York: Routledge.

Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. (2007). Doing multicultural education for achievement and equity. New York: Routledge.Griffiths, M. (1998). Educational research for social justice: Getting off the fence. Buckingham, UK: Open University

Press.Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino school. Journal for Research

in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 37–73.Gutstein, E. (2007). “And that’s just how it starts”: Teaching mathematics and developing student agency. Teachers

College Record, 109(2), 420–428.Gutstein, E., & Peterson, B. (2005). Rethinking mathematics: Teaching social justice by the numbers. Milwaukee, WI:

Rethinking Schools.Hanze, M., & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: An experimental

study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction,17(1), 29–41.

Harper, K. A. (2005). Reading against the grain: Teaching for Social Justice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, BostonCollege.

Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Parent academicinvolvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence.Child Development, 75(5), 1491–1509.

Hirsch, E. D. (1996). The schools we need and why we don’t have them. New York: Doubleday.Hogan, D. E., & Mallot, M. (2005). Changing racial prejudice through diversity education. Journal of College Student

Development, 46(2), 115–125.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

522 GEORGE DOVER

Hollins, E., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In M. Cochran-Smith &K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, J. C., & Hoy, A. W. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 43(3), 425–446.

Hughes, G. K., Cowley, K. S., Copley, L. D., Finch, N. L., Meehan, M. L., Burns, R. C., et al. (2004). Effects of aculturally responsive teaching project on teachers and students in selected Kanawha County, WV, Schools. (ERICNo. 484 925).

Irvine, J. J. (1990). Black students and school failure: Policies, practices, and prescriptions. New York: Greenwood.Irvine, J. J., & Armento, B. J. (Eds.). (2001). Culturally responsive teaching: Lesson planning for the elementary and

middle grades. Boston: McGraw Hill.Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement.

Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202–218.Kelly, D. M., & Brandes, G. M. (2008). Equitable classroom assessment: Promoting self-development and self-

determination. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education, 39(1), 49–76.King, J. E. (Ed.). (2005). Black education: A transformative research and action agenda for the new century. Mahway,

NJ: Erlbaum.Kosciw, J. G., Diaz, E. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2007). The 2007 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of

lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Crown.Kreider, S., Casp, M., Kennedy, S., & Weiss, H. (2007, Spring). Family involvement in middle and high school students’

education. Harvard Family Research Project: Family Involvement Makes a Difference, No. 3. Retrieved October 12,2009, from http://www.hfrp.org/content/download/1340/48835/file/fi adolescent.pdf

Kumashiro, K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 25–53.Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into

Practice, 34(3), 159–165.Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal,

32(3), 465–491.Ladson-Billings, G. (2006) From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools.

Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.Lalas, J. (2007). Teaching for social justice in multicultural urban schools: Conceptualization and classroom implication.

Multicultural Education, 14(3), 17–21.Lee, C. D. (2005). The state of knowledge about the education of African Americans. In J. E. King (Ed.), Black education:

A transformative research and action agenda for the new century (pp. 45–72). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.Lee, E., Menkart, D., & Okazawa-Rey, M. (2002). Beyond heroes and holidays: A practical guide to K-12 anti-racist,

multicultural education and staff development. Washington, DC: Teaching for Change.Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gain in achievement for early

secondary school students. American Journal of Education, 104(2), 103–147.Levy, S. R., West, T. L, Bigler, R. S., Karafantis, D. M., Ramirez, L., & Velilla, E. (2005). Messages about the uniqueness

and similarities of people: Impact on U.S. black and Latino youth. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 714–733.Lopez, G. R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory perspective. Educational Admin-

istration Quarterly, 39(1), 68–94.Love, B. J. (2004). Brown plus 50 counter-storytelling: A critical race theory analysis of the “majoritarian achievement

gap” story. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37(3), 227–246.Lucas, T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990) Promoting the success of Latino language minority students: An exploratory

study of six high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 60(3), 315–340.Marschall, M. (2006). Parental involvement and educational outcomes for Latino students. Review of Policy Research,

23(5), 1053–1076.Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (2006). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Mayer, D. P., Mullens, J. E., & Moore, M. T. (2000). Monitoring school quality: An indicators report. Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 523

McGlone, M. S., & Aronson, J. (2007). Forewarning and forearming stereotype-threatened students. CommunicationEducation, 56(2), 119–133.

McKenzie, K. B., Christman, D. E., Hernandez, F., Fierro, E., Caper, C. A., Dantley, M., Gonzalez, M. L., Cambron-McCabe, N., & Scheurish, J. J. (2008). From the field: A proposal for educating leaders for social justice. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 44(1), 111–138.

Meltzer, J. (2002). Adolescent literacy resources: Linking research and practice. (ERIC No. ED 466 788). Providence,RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Education Laboratory at Brown University.

Muller, C., Katz, S. R., & Dance, L. J. (1999). Investing in teaching and learning: Dynamics of the student-teacherrelationship from each actor’s perspective. Urban Education, 34(3), 292–337.

Murrell, P. C., Jr. (2000). Community teachers: A conceptual framework for preparing exemplary urban teachers. Journalof Negro Education, 69(4), 338–348.

Murrell, P. C., Jr. (2001). The community teacher: A new framework for effective urban teaching. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2007. Retrieved October 5, 2007,from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007496.

National Council of Teachers of English. (2007). Adolescent literacy: A policy research brief. Illinois: Author.Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal

of Education, 104(4), 280–312.Nieto, S. (1999) Critical multicultural education and students’ perspectives. In S. May (Ed.), Critical multiculturalism:

Rethinking multicultural and antiracist education (pp. 191–215). London: Falmer.Nieto, S. (2002) Affirmation, solidarity and critique: Moving beyond tolerance in education. In E. Lee, D. Menkart, &

M. Okazawa-Rey (Eds.), Beyond heroes and holidays: A practical guide to K-12 anti-racist, multicultural educationand staff development. Washington, DC: Teaching for Change.

Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (4th ed.). New York: Longman.No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425.North, C. (2006). More than words? Delving into the substantive meaning(s) of “social justice” in education. Review of

Educational Research, 76(4), 507–535.North, C. (2008). What is all this talk about “social justice?” Mapping the terrain of education’s latest catchphrase.

Teachers College Record, 110(6), 1192–1206.Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (2003). Teaching to change the world (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Orfield, G., & Kornhaber, M. L. (Eds). (2001). Raising standards or raising barriers: Inequality and high-stakes testing

in public education. New York: Century Foundation.Oyserman, D., Harrison, K., & Bybee, D. (2001). Can racial identity be promotive of academic efficacy? International

Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(4), 379–385.Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York: Teachers College Press.Pedulla, J., Albrams, L., Madaus, G., Russell, M., Ramos, M., & Miao, J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated

testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers. Chestnut Hill, MA: NationalBoard on Educational Testing and Public Policy, Boston College.

Poplin, M., & Rivera, J. (2005). Merging social justice and accountability: Educating qualified and effective teachers.Theory into Practice, 44(1), 27–37.

Reid, K. S. (2004, May 12). Survey probes views on race. Education Week, pp. 1, 14–16.Rodriguez, J. L., Jones, E. B., Pang, V. O., & Park, C. D. (2004). Promoting academic achievement and identity

development among diverse high school students. The High School Journal, 87(3), 44–53.Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2000). The 32nd annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitude toward the

public schools. Retrieved March 7, 2005, from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kpol0009.htmRose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2006). The 38th annual Phi Delta KappaThe 38th annual Phi Delta Kappa. Retrieved

November 8, 2007, from http://www.pdkmembers.org/e-GALLUP/kpoll pdfs/pdkpoll38 2006.pdfRothstein, R. (2004). A wider lens on the black-white achievement gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(2), 104–113.Sacks, K. B. (1994). How did Jews become white folks? In S. Gregory & R. Sanjek (Eds.), Race (pp. 78–102). New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Scott, T. (2004). Teaching the ideology of assessment. Radical Teacher, (71), 30–37.Shakman, K., Cochran-Smith, M., Jong, C., Terrell, D., Barnatt, J., & McQuillan, P. (2007, April). Reclaiming teacher

quality: The case for social justice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Chicago, IL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4

524 GEORGE DOVER

Sheldon, S. B. (2007). Improving student attendance with school, family and community partnerships. The Journal ofEducational Research, 100(5), 267–275.

Singer, J. (2006). Stirring up justice: Writing and reading to change the world. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of

whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106.Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (1999). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class and

gender (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.Smialek, J. (2007). Social justice in the science classroom. Journal of Teacher Research, 1(1), 51–68.Solorzano, D. G., & Ornelas, A. (2002). A critical race analysis of Advanced Placement classes: A case study of

educational inequity. Journal of Latinos in Education, 1(4), 215–229.Suzuki, B. H. (1984). Curriculum transformation for multicultural education. Education and Urban Society, 16(3),

294–322.Swartz, E. (2003). Teaching white preservice teachers: Pedagogy for change. Urban Education, 38(3), 255–279.Sykes, C. J. (1995). Dumbing down our kids: Why American kids feel good about themselves but can’t read, write, or

add. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Tatum, B. D. (1997). “Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” And other conversations about race.

New York: Basic.Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Thomas, A. B. (2007). Supporting new visions for social justice teaching: The potential for professional development

networks. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 5(1).Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. Albany: State

University of New York Press.Wasely, P. (2006, June 6). Accreditor of education schools drops controversial “social justice” from its language. The

Chronicle of Higher Education, A13.Waxman, H. C., & Tellez, K. (2002). Research synthesis on effective teaching practices for English Language Learners.

(ERIC No. ED 474 821). Philadelphia, PA: Mid-Atlantic Laboratory for Student Success.Weissglass, J. (2003). Reasons for hope: You can challenge educational inequities. Principal Leadership (High School

Edition), 3(8), 24–29.Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton,

NJ: Educational Testing Service.Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational

Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.Wiedeman, C. R. (2002). Teacher preparation, social justice, equity: A review of the literature. Equity & Excellence in

Education, 35(3), 200–211.Will, G. (2006, Jan 16). Ed schools versus education. Newsweek, p. 98.Wilson, R. (2005, Dec 16). “We don’t need that kind of attitude.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A8–A11.Woodruff, P. (2005). First democracy: The challenge of an ancient idea. New York: Oxford University Press.Young, I. M. (2006). Education in the context of structural injustice: A symposium response. Educational Philosophy

and Theory, 38(1), 93–103.

Alison George Dover is a former high school English teacher and a current lecturer inSocial Justice Education at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Her research interestsinclude teaching for social justice in standards-based environments, social justice-oriented teacherpreparation, and English Language Arts curriculum studies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:40

07

Oct

ober

201

4