Vol. 32, No. 1, 2008, 40

When Oppression and Liberation Are the Only Choices: The Representation ofAfrican Americans within State Social Studies Standards

Wayne Joumell, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

AbstractThis study seeks to understand the ways nine states represent African Americans within their

standards for U.S. History. Previous research on the effects of high-stakes assessment on social studieseducators suggests teachers align their instruction with information found in state standards. Therefore, anunderstanding of the way African Americans are represented in state standards may lead to a betterunderstanding of how teachers portray African American histdry in their classrooms. The states included inthe study, California, Georgia, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, andVirginia, all annually assess students and teachers though end-of-course assessments. For each set ofstandards, all references to African Americans were coded and then categorized. Additionally, allreferences to individual African Americans were noted and analyzed for patterns. The results suggest thatthe states tend to focus on instances and individuals associated with African American oppression orliberation and largely avoid societal and cultural contributions. Therefore, it is suggested that statesreframe their standards to include more explicit references to cultural accomplishments of AfricanAmericans.

Introduction

While No Child Left Behind may onlymeasure student performance in reading, andmathematics, most states have restructured theirsocial studies curricula in the spirit of standards-based instruction. Several states include socialstudies in their assessments of schoolperformance, which are based on end-of-coursestudent examinations that measure contentknowledge. Therefore, despite the lack ofnational attention, social studies educators haveexperienced the same narrowing of curriculum astheir more heralded counterparts (Ross, 2006).

Such restrictive practices areproblematic for a discipline often engaged inpolitical debates about the inclusion of particularvoices. As Fore's (1998) *account of theadoption of the Virginia Standards of Learningfor social studies depicts, the 'politics ofeducation are often heated, yet the process ofdeveloping standards is often selective. Toooften, the voices of a few speak for everyone.The resulting curriculum serves as anauthoritative view of history as seen from thelens of the middle-class, male, European-American majority. Such a revelation is by nomeans new. However, standards-basededucation has intensified these issues by forcingteachers to align their instruction to the masternarrative in order to ensure student success onstandardized assessments.

Although no curriculum can be entirelyinclusive, the political decisions that perpetuatethe traditional canon in public education too

often exclude the voices of marginalizedAmericans in society. LaSpina (2003), in astudy of textbooks, argues that this distortion inrepresentation translates to a grand narrative thatcontinuously places minority groups in positionsof victimization and oppression. Others echosimilar arguments regarding the way educatorsoften portray minorities and indigenous groupsin the classroom (Alridge, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2003; Loewen, 1996). Although theissue of representation is a global phenomenon(Ahonen, 2001; Al-Haj, 2005), within the UnitedStates, the most intense debate regards theteaching of American history.

Proponents of the traditional version ofAmerican history point to repeated references ofthe plight of Native Americans and African-Americans as examples of diversity within thecurriculum. To that end, Epstein (1998) asks afundamental question regarding the nature ofminority inclusion in U.S. History curricula;should marginalized groups be included for theircontributions to the economic, cultural, andpolitical fabric of our nation, or should theyserve as both reminders and exemplars ofhistorical oppression in the United States? Tofocus exclusively on the latter leaves gapingholes in the minority narrative, forcing studentsto view members of traditionally oppressedgroups as significant only during times ofoppression or liberation. While struggles forfreedom and equality should not be dismissed,

Made available courtesy of LumiText Publishing: http://www.thejssr.com/ ***Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from LumiText Publishing.

This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures may be missing from this format of the document.***

Vol. 32, No. 1,2008, 41

standards should also focus on explicit waysminorities have helped shape our modem nation.

That question serves as the focal pointfor this research. This study analyzes nine statesocial studies standards based on theirrepresentation of African-Americans in theirU.S. History curricula. These nine states,California, Georgia, Indiana, New York, NorthCarolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, andVirginia, represent diverse geographic andcultural influences. Additionally, these ninestates all incorporate end-of-course assessmentsthat hold teachers and students accountable forcontent knowledge. Using these state standards,I seek to answer the following questions: a) howdo the respective standards represent the historyof African-Americans in the United States? b) towhat extent do the standards place African-Americans in positions of victimization oroppression, as opposed to celebrating theircontributions to American society? and c) howdo the standards attempt to individualizeAfrican-Americans in American history? Theanswers to these questions will aid indetermining differences among states in theirdepictions of African-Americans in Americanhistory and will provide insight into the inclusionof African-Americans in the master narrativeoften utilized in public education.

Review of Related LiteratureThe Nature of Standards-Based Assessment inSocial Studies

Testing has become an effective wayfor all levels of government to controlcurriculum (Mathison & Fragnoli, 2006). In thedecades following A Nation at Risk, the publicincreasingly placed blame on teachers for studentdeficiencies, prompting legislators to proposestandards as a way of maintaining quality withinpublic education (Fore, 1998). One argument forstandards is that they provide a starting point forteachers and students in the hope that basicstandards will help close the achievement gap,leading to higher achievement among Americanstudents as a whole (Mathison, Ross, & Vinson,2006). Yet, over a decade after states first begandrafting curriculum standards, many havequestioned the ability of standards to promoteeducational equality (Darling-Hammond 2004;2006; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Ryan, 2004).Moreover, Ravitch (1996) argues that standardsallow for curriculum equality by providing acoordinating function for states. In theory,standards should ensure that students are

learning comparable information in alldisciplines regardless of where they reside.

Within social studies, the impact ofstandardization remains debatable. Ross (2006)dismisses the perceived impact of standards insocial studies by making a distinction betweenthe formal and enacted curriculum. While heacknowledges that standards have narrowed theformal curriculum, Ross postulates that mostteachers simply use standards as a frame ofreference and enrich the formal curriculum withtheir own ideals and methods. In most cases,according to Ross, this enacted curriculumdiffers considerably from basic state standards.

Others disagree, claiming that increasedpressure to ensure students demonstrate contentknowledge on state assessments has blended theformal and enacted curriculum (Vogler & Virtue,2007). The literature is filled with examples ofsocial studies teachers 4bandoning preferredteaching methods in favor of rote memorizationof required content (Grant, 2001; 'Kahne,Rodriguez, Smith, & Thiede, 2000; van Hover &Pierce, 2006; Segall, 2003; Vogler, 2005; Yeager& van Hover, 2006). In perhaps the most tellingexample, van Hover and Pierce (2006) monitoredfirst-year history teachers and found that as theyear progressed, the teachers lost their idealisticapproaches to instruction and began obsessingabout the ramifications of state assessments. Theteachers soon changed their instruction from astudent-centered, discussion-oriented style to onecharacterized by rote memorization and biweeklyquizzes of content knowledge.

Sleeter and Stillman (2005) suggest thatthe amount of information required by statesaffects teacher autonomy. The authorsdistinguish, between what they call strong andweak framing. The former limits teacherinfluence by narrowly defining topics and listingcopious amounts of information in an effort tocontrol variances in content from teacher toteacher. Weak framing presents topics broadly,includes only key facts, and allows for morecurriculum decisions at the classroom level.Extreme framing in either direction is notdesirable; standards that are framed stronglylimit teachers' creativity and influence, whileweakly framed standards create gaps that may betoo wide for teachers to fill on their own. Giventhe apparent influence standards have on socialstudies teachers' actions, the way individualstates frame their standards may act as the mostsalient determinant of the way certain topics arehandled in the classroom.

Vol. 32, No. 1, 2008, 42

Benefits of Diversity within the Curriculum

Multiculturalism is part of a liberalphilosophy of education that seeks to challengethe civic republicanism of traditional Americancurricula by promoting diversity and tolerance(Abowitz & Hamish, 2006). Liberals vieweducation as a forum for expanding horizons,deliberating over issues, and understandingvalues different from one's own (Gutmann,1987; Gutmann, 2004). This is not to say thatconservatives oppose ideas of diversity;however, conservatives feel that patriotism andknowledge of the traditional canon best promotethe national interest and should supersede issuesof culture (Holmes, 2001; Ravitch, 2006).

Ogbu (1992) argues that the type ofcurriculum taught in schools is particularlyimportant to minority students. Ogbu (1987,1992) supports this claim by making adistinction between voluntary and involuntaryminorities. He defines the former as thoseimmigrants who willingly entered the UnitedStates in a search for th6 American dream of abetter life. The latter are groups, such as AfricanAmericans and Native Americans, who wereforceffully oppressed or brought to this nationagainst their will. Ogbu (1992) contends thatinvoluntary minorities often face problems inschool based on the clash between their homeculture and the mainstream culture taught inpublic education. He advocates a curriculum ofinclusion, although one that does not simply callattention to cultural deficiencies or oppression,such as slavery or forced relocation. 'Instead; amulticultural curriculum that promotes culturalaccomplishments may make involuntaryminorities more comfortable with educationalinstitutions by giving those students a feeling ofrepresentation and agency within the classroom.

Multicultural education does notexclusively benefit students of color. Wills(1996) argues that Whiie students also benefitfrom understanding minority voices and culture.Such an understanding allows White students tobetter understand current racial issues. Too oftenWhite students cannot empathize with minorityconcerns, either because they live and attendschool in predominately segregated areas or theyhave never experienced the multitude of issuesthat marginalize people of color on a daily basis(Marri, 2005).

Studies on African Americans in highschool U.S. History courses support thesenotions. In separate studies, Epstein (1998;2000) observed that African American and

White students differed in their opinions ofsalient issues in American history. While bothgroups viewed Martin Luther King Jr. as animportant figure, White students tended to nameGeorge Washington and John F. Kennedy incontrast to Harriet Tubman and Malcolm X, whowere listed by. the African American students.Similarly, African American students cited theCivil Rights Movement, Civil War, and slaveryas significant events in American history, whileWhite students chose the Civil War, Declarationof Independence, and Revolutionary War.Additionally, in a study of African Americanyouth and their perceptions of citizenship, Cooksand Epstein (2000) report that few AfricanAmerican students believe equality exists in theUnited States based on what they see, both insociety and in the classroom.

Various methods of teaching Americanhistory have framed the history of AfricanAmericans differently. The most widely usedmodel suggests that African Americans struggledto overcome governmental and societaloppression. This model acknowledges thehorrific conditions placed on African Americans,but argues that democratic notions of individualrights and equity led the fight for freedom. Asecond perspective views the fight for equality asan ongoing process, indicative of a flaweddemocratic system that nonetheless strives forperfection. This model often looks beyondspecific instances of oppression in an effort toavoid framing injustice as time-specific. A third,seldom used, method is teaching Americanhistory from an African American perspective.This method presupposes that curricula is Euro-centered and advocates White supremacy, whichmust be counterbalanced by avoiding thetraditional canon completely (Epstein, 1998).Finally, others advocate a critical race theoryapproach that attempts to challenge majorityviewpoints based on a study of the legaloppression of minority groups. Critical racetheory urges teachers to treat oppression as asocially constructed ideology that panders to thewill of the majority (Lintner, 2004). In practice,however, most standards do not fall neatly intoone of these prescribed theories. Therefore,depictions of African Americans in Americanhistory tend to vary from state to state.

Vol. 32, No. 1, 2008, 43

MethodData Collection

I analyze nine states identified by areport for the Department of Education as havingestablished end-of-course student assessments inU.S. History. These states annually measurestudent and teacher performance using formalexaminations, and many of the assessments havegraduation implications for students (EducationCommission of the States, 2002). Since thesestates hold teachers accountable for studentknowledge, they offer the best representation ofhow formal curriculum can effectively influenceinstruction that students receive in the classroom(Vogler & Virtue, 2007).

The nine states listed by the report andused in the present study are: California,Georgia, Indiana, New York, North Carolina,Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginii.I accessed each state's standards for U.S. Historyfrom their respective state department ofeducation website, focusing only on secondarycurriculum. Five of the states (GA, IN, NC, SC,and VA) teach U.S. History as a one year course,usually during the junior year of high school.Three states (CA, OK, and TX) split U.S.History into two courses, using Reconstructionas the dividing point. The first half is taught ineighth grade with the concluding portion taughtin eleventh; I used both sections of the course foranalysis. Finally, New York divides their U.S.History curriculum into two sections labeled"intermediate" and "commencement" with nohistorical dividing point Instead, New Yorkencourages teachers to focus on various themesas students progress through high school. Onelimitation of this study is that I rely solely on thestandards as they are portrayed on the respectivestate's department of education website. Thisdoes not take into account any supplementalinformation states or districts give' theirAmerican history teachers.

Analysis

The analysis of each set of standardsfocused on two main aspects. Using aninterpretive framework (Schwandt, 1994; 2003),I looked for patterns within the data *regardingthe representation of African Americans. Ideveloped 13 categories, which can be seen inTable 1, and then coded all references to AfricanAmericans in each state's standards ascorresponding to a specific category. Eight ofthe categories dealt with instances of oppression

or emancipation. The remaining categoriescelebrated African American achievements andcontributions or, in the cases of affirmativeaction and African American associations, dealtwith modem issues affecting African Americans.

I then noted all references to AfricanAmerican individuals within each of thestandards. A total of 28 African Americans werementioned within the combined nine statestandards. I then noted instances where the sameperson was mentioned in more than one set ofstandards in order to better compare -thepersonalization of African Americans among thevarious states. Table 2 lists each individual andthe *corresponding state(s) in which they werementioned.

ResultsOppression and Emancipation versus Cultureand Contribution

Among the nine state standards, Iuncovered numerous references to AfricanAmericans. Much of the content overlappedfrom state to state; however, each staterepresented African Americans in their own way,as shown in Table 1. Therefore, instead ofsimply listing ways in which the states differ, Iwish to -synthesize the overall depictions ofAfrican Americans in the standards of theseparticular nine states, with the understanding thatthe subsequent accounts do not attempt to list ordescribe every instance pertaining to AfricanAmericans. Instead, I seek to portray commonthemes of representation using the categorieslisted in Table 1. (See Table 1 at the end of thistext)

The only topics explicitly mentioned ineach of the state standards are slavery,segregation, and the Civil Rights Movement, allof which focus on the struggles of AfricanAmericans to gain equality. While all of thestates address slavery, they appear to do sothrough different means. The majority of statesfocus on the geographical and legal implicationsof slavery, such as the Missouri Compromise of1820, the Compromise of 1850, and the DredScott v Sanford decision. Only three states placeslavery in a historical context. Georgia andVirginia both highlight 1619 as the first timeAfrican slaves were brought to the colonies.Both states also include descriptions of theterrible journey through the Middle Passage from

'Africa to the New World. Those two states arejoined by California in describing how slavesfactored into the decisions of the founding

Vol. 32, No. 1, 2008, 44

fathers when framing the Constitution asevidenced by the 3/5 Compromise. Oklahomaaddresses the plight of slaves during theAmerican Revolution. New York takes a stanceunique to the rest of the states in that they call forteachers to describe chattel slavery as a humanrights violation.

Treatment of segregation and the CivilRights Movement occurs in a similar fashion asstates focus on the implementation of Jim Crowlaws following the end of Reconstruction. Thestates then highlight the legal decisions in bothPlessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board ofEducation before progressing into the nonviolentprotests of Martin Luther King Jr. and theeventual signing of the Civil Rights and VotingRights Acts in the mid 1960s. However, onlyfour states, California, Indiana, North Carolina,and South Carolina, address competing factionsof the Civil Rights Movement. All four statesinclude Malcolm X and his contradictory stancesto the leadership of King. None of the statesinclude more militant approaches to the CivilRights.Movement such as the Black Panthers.

Inclusion of cultural contributions from'African Americans appears less uniform amongthe states. The Harlem Renaissance is mentionedby seven states, but beyond the 1920s, AfricanAmerican contributions receive noticeably lessattention. Only four states highlight theselflessness of African Americans aiding anation that deemed them second class citizens.North Carolina and California include theBuffalo Soldiers that helped police the West afterthe Civil War. California and Virginia highlightthe bravery of the Tuskegee Airmen duringWorld War 11, while both Indiana and Virginiaalso acknowledge the willingness of AfricanAmericans to enter the workforce during WorldWar II to aid the wartime economy.

While five states include references toAfrican American organizations, their inclusionis largely limited to the National Association forthe Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).Only Indiana, in addition to the NAACP,mentions the Congress of Racial Equality andthe National Urban League as powerful groupslobbying for the interests of African Americans.Modem African American issues andcontributions receive arguably the,least amountof attention among the standards. Despiteongoing debate over the merits of affirmativeaction in the United States, only four states deemthe issue salient enough for inclusion in theirstandards. Moreover, only North Carolinaincludes accomplishments of African Americans

beyond the Civil Rights Movement. Theyinclude the entry of Clarence Thomas to theSupreme Court and Colin Powell as the firstAfrican American Secretary of State.

Inclusion of Individuals

The inclusion of African Americanswithin the standards varies considerably amongthe states. Table 2 includes all AfricanAmericans found within the nine state standardsand the respective states in which they are found.(See Table 2 at the end of this text)

Martin Luther King Jr. and FrederickDouglass are the most cited African Americansin the nine standards, with eight and sevenmentions each, respectively. Beyond those twoindividuals, the individual with the highestnumber of citations is W.E.B. Dubois with five.Even among civil rights activists, individualrecognition appears far from uniform. RosaParks only receives mention in four states,placing her alongside Booker T. Washington,Malcolm X, and Thurgood Marshall. Yet, otherrecognizable activists such as James Farmer, IdaB. Wells, James Meredith, and StokleyCarmichael are only included in one or twostates' standards.

A similar phenomenon occurs withabolitionists. Douglass is mentioned seven timesbut the number of African American abolitionistsmentioned beyond Douglass sharply declines.Harriet Tubman, David Walker, and SojournerTruth all are mentioned in two states. Incontrast, there are more references to Nat Turner,who led a bloody insurrection in 1831, than anyof the abolitionists except Douglass. Otherleaders of failed slave revolts, Gabriel Prosserand Denmark Vesey, are mentioned in Virginiaand California, respectively.

Focusing on the individual states,Georgia, New York, and Texas, only associateKing with the Civil Rights Movement of the1960s, failing to include other individuals thatcontributed to the effort. Oklahoma does noteven mention King; instead the state makes asweeping reference to de jure and de factopolicies affecting African Americans after WorldWar II. Similarly, Georgia, Oklahoma, andVirginia only reference Douglass as the soleAfrican American influence on the abolitionistmovement. Indiana and South Carolina do notinclude Douglass or any other African Americanabolitionists.

References to individuals whoinfluenced American culture and society receive

I

Vol. 32, No. 1, 2008, 45

considerably less attention from the states.Langston Hughes sets the standard withreferences in four states. While the HarlemRenaissance is mentioned by seven of the states,few references to individual efforts during thatperiod are mentioned by those states. OnlyHughes and Zora Neale Hurston are mentionedin more than one state, with Hurston onlyreferenced in California and North Carolina.Other Harlem Renaissance artists and writers,Louis Armstrong, Claude McKay, and CounteeCullen, are only included in one set of standardseach. It is also noteworthy that four statesinclude Thurgood Marshall, although for hiswork as lead council for the NAACP in theBrown case, not for his appointment as the firstAfrican American Supreme Court justice.Finally, only Georgia includes Jackie Robinsonbreaking the color barrier of the nationalpastime, arguably one of the strongest statementsagainst segregation prior to the Brown decision.

Discussion

These results are not meant to drawcomparisons among the states included in thestudy. Trying to create perfect standards is afutile endeavor as no set of standards can ever beentirely inclusive. Moreover, standards do notserve as the only narrative present in aclassroom. For example, Oklahoma nevermentions Martin Luther King Jr. by name intheir standards, yet it seems unreasonable foreven the poorest of teachers to explain the CivilRights Movement without mentioning King'sinfluence.

However, teachers can, and routinelydo, teach the Civil Rights Movement withoutmentioning important contributions of otherindividuals, such as Stokley Carmichael,Malcolm X, and even Rosa Parks. Therefore,instead of scrutinizing individual states over theirspecific lack of inclusion, the more useful way todiscuss these results is by looking at overallpatterns relating to the representation of AfricanAmericans in state standards. If, as studies(Grant, 2001; van Hover & Pierce, 2006; Volger,2005; Yeager & van Hover, 2006) suggest,teachers adapt their instructional methods toalign with content found in state standards, thenan understanding of how states depict AfricanAmericans provides a better understanding ofhow African Americans are represented inclassrooms.

To answer the question posed byEpstein (1998) presented at the beginning of this

paper, African Americans in state standards areoften represented as either oppressed or fightingto free themselves from oppression. All of thestates cover slavery, segregation, and the fightfor civil rights, as they all should. However,states mention these hardships without equalrecognition of cultural, political; or economicachievement by African Americans. It does notseem coincidental that the two individualsdisplayed most prominently within these statesare a civil rights leader and an abolitionist.While King and Douglass deserve their placealongside Hamilton, Lincoln, and Roosevelt,where are the African American equivalents toThoreau, Edison, and Ruth? African Americanauthors, entertainers, and inventors often are nothousehold names, and this study suggests thatsuch ignorance may be partly influenced by theversion of American history students learn inschool.

This representation of AfricanAmericans also creates several pedagogicalconcerns. As Ogbu (1992)'contends, minoritystudents have a vested interest in how they canidentify with the curriculum. If all students seein their history classes are instances of AfricanAmerican oppression or liberation, they may feelthat the plight of African Americans in theUnited States is nothing more than a constantstruggle for freedom. As the study by Cooks andEpstein (2000) shows, African Americanstudents observe at an early age that society doesnot always treat everyone equally; they do notneed their history courses to constantly reinforcethat notion. Instead, students need their historycurriculum to also highlight examples whereAfrican Americans contributed both to societyand the overall American experience. Suchinstances allow students to realize that they havea voice and can succeed despite the actions ofthose in power. Hearing how individuals likeHurston or Jackie Robinson flourished evenwithin the confines of segregation can inspirefuture generations of African Americans toaspire to greatness.

From a historical perspective, the waystates represent African Americans may createissues in historical understanding for all students.First, only three states provided a historicalcontext for chattel slavery. Students need tounderstand why slaves were brought to thecolonies and how their initial interactions in theNew World influenced the way AfricanAmericans would be treated for the next twocenturies. Waiting until the invention of thecotton gin to talk about slavery sends the

Vol.' 32, No. 1, 2008, 46

message to students that slavery occurred out ofimmediate necessity. While the cotton ginelevated the demand for slaves, plantations in theSouth had become economically dependent onslavery over a century earlier.

Similarly, the fact that only one state,New York, specifically decrees chattel slavery asa violation of human rights sends a mixedmessage to students, particularly when studyingexamples of modem human rights violations.When students hear modem events, such as theHolocaust or genocides in African nations,described as human rights violations and notslavery, it suggests that the institution of slaverywas less significant or not as terrible as thesemore recent events. In other words, most statesportray slavery as an undesirable occurrence inAmerican history that was eventually rectified,albeit following a bloody conflict. This versionof history does not question the morals of thosewho both owned slaves and permitted slavery tolegally exist.

Additionally, the lack of inclusion ofprominent African Americans often sends asimplistic message to students regarding thenature of African American history. When statesonly focus on Frederick Douglass and MartinLuther King Jr., they portray monumental eventssuch as the abolition of slavery and the CivilRights Movement as being the sole work ofdynamic individuals. Students need to know thatsuch movements were the result of actions ofordinary Americans, White and Black, and thatthey sought leadership from multiple sources.Failing to mention factions of the Civil RightsMovement suggests that all African Americanseagerly followed King's lead when, in fact, manybelieved King's nonviolent tactics did notprogress the movement quickly enough. Perhapsthe greatest example of the diverse nature ofleadership during the Civil Rights Movementcame during the celebration of Rosa Parksfollowing her death in 2005. Parks became thefirst woman and second African American to liein state at the Capitol, yet only four states felt herworthy of inclusion in their standards.

Finally, the lack of emphasis on modemAfrican American issues sends the message tostudents that racial inequality ended with theVoting Rights Act of 1965. Recent events, suchas criticism of the government in the wake ofHurricane Katrina, suggest otherwise. As Wills(1996) and Marri (2005) both note, the greatestbeneficiaries of increased attention to modemAfrican American issues may be White studentswho may have never considered effects of racism

and prejudice on society. While their parentsand grandparents may have memories of asegregated society, our current generation ofstudents has lived in an "equal" society theirentire lives. By understanding how far AfricanAmericans have come in the relatively shorthistory of the United States, White students maydevelop a better understanding of current issuessuch as affirmative action.

Even with this knowledge, trying tomake standards more inclusive remains a loftygoal. States wish io maintain flexibility overwhat their students learn, which will alwayscreate variances in information from state tostate. Occasionally, as in the case of Oliver Hillin the Virginia standards, these differences seekto illustrate important issues or individualspertaining to that state's history. Yet, withrespect to fundamental elements of Americanhistory, a common narrative is desirable.Students in Oklahoma should have the sameknowledge of the Civil Rights Movement asstudents in California. However, such a goalcannot exist without instituting *a nationalcurriculum, a position that I do not advocate, nordo I think is politically feasible. Instead, statesshould lean to the side of caution whendeveloping history standards and avoid standardsthat are weakly framed (Sleeter & Stillman,2005). While standards should not be framed sostrongly that they stifle teacher creativity, theyshould be extensive enough that teachers areforced to promote a minimum level of diversitywithin their classroom. Based on the currentstudy, states should specifically include morereferences to cultural contributions of AfricanAmericans to counter the instances of oppressionand liberation that already exist. AfricanAmericans have long constituted an influentialportion of American culture, a fact that should becelebrated and evidenced to our students withintheir history curriculum.

Conclusion

An analysis of nine states thatincorporate end-of-course standardizedassessments revealed discrepancies in therepresentation of African Americans within theirAmerican history curricula. States tend to focuson instances of oppression and subsequentstruggles for freedom, with slavery, segregation,and the Civil Rights Movement receiving themost attention among all of the states.References to cultural contributions andinfluential African Americans receive

Vol. 32, No. 1, 2008, 47

considerably less attention. While this studydoes not attempt to understand, how AfricanAmericans are depicted in individual classrooms,research on the effect of state standards on socialstudies teachers suggest that facts, includedwithin standards receive more attention thaninformation not included on standards.Consequently, the way African Americans arerepresented in state standards may influence theway teachers portray African American historyto their students. Therefore, states arerecommended to include more references toAfrican American culture and societalcontributions in order to provide students with anunderstanding of African American history thatgoes beyond oppression and liberation.

Listing of State Standards

California Department of Education. (1998).United States history and geography:Continuity and change in the twentiethcentury. Retrieved March 18,2007,fromhttp://www.cde.ca.gov/be/Stlss/hstgrade11.asR

California Department of Education. (1998).United States history and geography:Growth and conflict. Retrieved March18, 2007, from:http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/hst.rade8-asR

Georgia Department of Education. (2004).United States history. Retrieved March18, 2007, fromhttp://public.doe.kl2.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/United%20 States%20Historv.pdf?p=6CC6799F8Cl371F6B985B806C1C09177A3D24FF76068D24BC55F816AE7C44437&TMpe-D

Indiana Department of Education. (2006). UnitedStates history. Retrieved March 18,2007, fromhttp://www.doe.state.in.us/standards/does-SocialStudies/2006-SS-USHistory.doc

New York Department of jEducation. (1996).Learning standards for social studies.Retrieved March 18, 2007, fromhttp://www.emsc.nvsed.gov/ciai/socst/pub/sslearn.pdf

North Carolina Department of Education. (2004).United States history. Retrieved March18,2007, fromhttp:/Iwww.gcsnc.com/depts/curriculum/TIA/Social%20Studies%20and%20Historv/U.S.%20History.pdf

Oklahoma Department of Education. (2002).Priority academic student skills.Retrieved March 18, 2007, fromhttp://www.sde.state.ok.us/home/defaultie.html

South Carolina Department of Education.(2005). United States history and theConstitution. Retrieved March 18, 2007,fromhttp://ed.sc.gov/agency/offices/cso/standards/ss/documents/8INEZSocialStudiesStandhrds-Unit6dStates.doc

Texas Department of Education. (1997). Texasessential knowledge and skills for socialstudies. Retrieved March 18, 2007,fromhttp://www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapterl 13/index.html

Virginia Department of Education. (2001).

Virginia and United States history.

Retrieved March 18, 2007, fromhttp://www.pen.kl 2.va.usNDOE/Instruction/History/hist 1 .pdf

References

Abowitz, K. K., & Harnish, J. (2006).Contemporary discourses of citizenship.Review of Educational Research, 76,653-690.

Ahonen, S. (2001). Politics of identity throughhistory curriculum: Narratives of thepast for social exclusion-or inclusion?Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33, 179-194.

Vol. 32, No. 1, 2008, 48

Al-Haj, M. (2005). National ethos, multiculturaleducation, and the new historytextbooks in Israel. Curriculum Inquiry,35, 47-71.

Alridge, D. P. (2006). The limits of masternarratives in history textbooks: Ananalysis of representations of MartinLuther King Jr. Teachers CollegeRecord, 108, 662-686.

Cooks, J., & Epstein, T. (2000). Dissin'democracy? African Americanadolescents' concepts of citizenship.Journal of,Social Studies Research,24(2), 10-20.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards,accountability, and school reform.Teachers College Record, 106, 1047-1085.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Securing the rightto learn: Policy and practice forpowerful teaching and learning.Educational Researcher, 35(7), 13-24.

Education Commission of the States. (2002).State policy review of high school endof course assessment programs.Retrieved March 18, 2007, fromhttp://www.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp?doeument=http%3AA%2F%2Fwww%2Enashonline%2Eorm%2Fcontent%/`2FEOCReport%/o2Epdf

Epstein, T. (1998). Deconstructing differences inAfrican-American and European-American adolescents' perspectives onU.S. history. Curriculum Inquiry, 28,397-423.

Epstein, T. (2000). Adolescents' perspectives onracial diversity in U.S. history: Casestudies from an urban classroom.American Educational ResearchJournal, 37, 185-214.

Fore, L. C. (1998). Curriculum control: Usingdiscourse and structure to manageed6cational reform. Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 30, 559-576.

Grant, S. G. (2001). An uncertain lever:Exploring the influence of state-leveltesting in New York State on teachingsocial studies. Teachers CollegeRecord, 103, 398-426.

Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education.Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Gutmann, A. (2004). Unity and diversity indemocratic multicultural education:Creative and destructive tensions. In J.A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity andcitizenship education: Globalperspectives (pp. 71-96). New York:Jossey-Bass.

Holmes, M. (2001). Education and citizenship inan age of pluralism. In D. Ravitch & J.P. Viteritti (Eds.), Making goodcitizens: Education and civil society(pp. 187-212). New York: YaleUniversity Press.

Kahne, J., Rodriguez, M., Smith, B., & Thiede,K. (2000). Developing citizens fordemocracy? Assessing opportunities tolearn in Chicago's social studiesclassrooms. Theory and Research inSocial Education, 28, 311-338.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2003). Lies my teacher stilltells: Developing a critical raceperspective toward the social studies. InG. Ladson-Billings (Ed.), Critical racetheory perspectives on social studies:The profession, policies, andcurriculum (pp. 1-11). Greenwich, CT:Information Age Publishing.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From theachievement gap to the education debt:Understanding achievement in U.S.schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7),3-12.

LaSpina, J. A. (2003). Designing diversity:globalization, textbooks, and the storyof nations. Journal of CurriculumStudies, 35, 667-696.

Lintner, T. (2004). The savage and the slave:Critical race theory, racial stereotyping,and the teaching of American history.Journal of,Social Studies Research,28(1), 27-32.

Vol. 32,No. 1, 2008, 49

Loewen, J. W. (1996). Lies my teacher told me:Everything your American historytextbook got wrong. New York: Simonand Schuster.

Marri, A. R. (2005). Building a framework forclassroom-based multiculturaldemocratic education: Learning fromthree skilled teachers. Teachers CollegeRecord, 107, 1036-1059.

Mathison, S., & Fragnoli, K. (2006). Strugglingfor good assessment in social studieseducation. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), Thesocial studies curriculum: PurJ)oses,problems, and possibilities (3 ed., pp.197-215). Albany: State University ofNew York Press.

Mathison, S., Ross, E. W., & Vinson, K. D.(2006). Defining the social studiescurriculum: Influence of and resistanceto curriculum standards and testing insocial studies. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), Thesocial studies curriculum: Pur_Toses,problems, and possibilities (3 ed., pp.99-114). Albany: State University ofNew York Press..

Ogbu, J. U. (1987). Variability in minorityschool performance: A problem insearch of an explanation. Anthropology& Education Quarterly, 18, 312-334.

Ogbu, J. U. (1992). Understanding culturaldiversity and learning. EducationalResearcher, 21(8), 5-14, 24.

Ravitch, D. (1996). The case for nationalstandards and assessments. TheClearingHouse, 69, 134-135.

Ravitch, D. (2006). Should we teach patriotism?Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 579-581.

Ross, E. W. (2006). The struggle for the socialstudies curriculum. In E. W. Ross (Ed.),The social studies curriculum:Purposes, problems, and possibilities(3rP ed., pp. 17-36). Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Ryan, J. E. (2004). The perverse incentives ofthe no child left behind act. New YorkLaw School Review, 79, 932-982.

Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist,interpretivist approaches to humaninquiry. InN. K. Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitativeresearch (pp. 118-137). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Schwandt, T. A. (2003). Three epistemologicalstances for qualitative inquiry:Interpretivism, hermeneutics, aid socialconstructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape ofqualitative research: Theories andissues (2nd ed., pp. 292-331). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Segall, A. (2003). Teachers' perceptions of theimpact of state-mandated standardizedtesting: The Michigan EducationalAssessment Program (MEAP) as a casestudy of consequences. Theory andResearch in Social Education, 31, 287-325.

Sleeter, C., & Stillman, J. (2005). Standardizingknowledge in a multicultural society.Curriculum Inquiry, 35, 27-46.

van Hover, S., & Pierce, E. (2006). "Next yearwill be different:" Two first-year historyteachers' perceptions of the impact ofVirginia's accountability reform ontheir instructional decision-making.Journal of Social Studies Research,30(2), 38-50.

Vogler, K. E. (2005). Impact of a high schoolgraduation examination on socialstudies teachers' instructional practices.Journal of Social Studies Research,,29(2), 19-33.

Vogler, K. E., & Virtue, D. (2007). "Just thefacts ma'am": Teaching social studiesin the era of standards and high-stakestesting. The Social Studies, 98, 54-58.

Wills, J. S. (1996). Who needs a multiculturaleducation? White students, U.S. history,and the construction of a usable past.Anthropology & Education Quarterly,27, 365-389

Vol. 32, No. 1, 2008, 50

Yeager, E. A., & van Hover, S. (2006). Virginiavs. Florida: Two beginning historyteachers' perceptions of the influence ofhigh-stakes tests on their instructionaldecision-making. Social StudiesResearch and Practice, 1, 340-358.

Table Page

Table 1

CA GA IN NC NY OK SC TX VAHistorical Beginnings of Slavery in U.S. X X X XGeographical and Legal Implications of Slavery X X X X X X X XSlave Revolts X X XSlavery and Human Rights XEmancipation X X X X X X XSegregation/Opposition/Legal End X X X X X X X X XHarlem Renaissance X X X X X X XContribution to Labor and War Efforts X X X XCivil Rights Movement X X X X X X X X XFactions of Civil Rights Movement X X X XAfrican-American Associations X X X X XAffirmative Action X X X XPost-Civil Rights Contributions X

Table 2

CA GA IN NC NY OK SC TX VALouis Armstrong XStokley Carmichael XCountee Cullen XFrederick Douglass X X X X X X XW.E.B. Dubois X X X X XJames Farmer XMarcus Garvey X XOliver Hill XLangston Hughes X X X XZoraNeale Hurston X XMartin Luther King Jr. X X X X X X X XMalcolm X X X X XThurgood Marshall (NAACP lawyer) X X X XClaude McKay XJames Meredith XRosa Parks X X X XColin Powell XGabriel Prosser XA. Philip Randolph XJackie Robinson XClarence Thomas XSojourner Truth X XHarriet Tubman X XNat Turner X X I XDenmark Vesey XDavid Walker X XBooker T. Washington X X X XIda B. Wells X I X

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: When Oppression and Liberation Are the Only Choices:The Representation of African Americans within StateSocial Studies Standards

SOURCE: J Soc Stud Res 32 no1 Spr 2008

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.uni.edu/