Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict
Media
Part of Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict
- Title
- Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict
- extracted text
-
Curriculum as a Site of Political
and Cultural Conflict
FABIO ROJAS
Abstract
Schools are both political and academic institutions. This essay explains the different
ways that schools generate conflict because people dispute the content of the school
curriculum. This essay begins by noting that schools require the approval of political
elites and the public. Without such support, schools can’t operate. Also, schools lend
legitimacy to particular ideas, which means that people will fight over the content of
classroom instruction. The essay then discusses how social movements target schools
and the factors contribute to successful curricular challenges in schools.
Prior research has focused on uncovering the inherently political nature of school
curricula. These researchers produce case studies of conflict over the curriculum.
Research also focuses on how political actors target schools and try to enact change.
There is also a growing literature on bureaucratic dynamics. Scholars now focus
on the administrative response to protest and the demand for educational reform.
I conclude by outlining new directions for research. Specifically, researchers should
ask about the relationship between academic reform movements and broader social
movements. For example, do most mass movements target schools? How much curricular conflict is unique to the educational system? I also suggest that researchers
should examine the “spill out” of protest from schools to the larger society.
CURRICULUM AS A SITE OF POLITICAL AND CULTURAL CONFLICT
Schools are places of conflict as well as learning. The decision to teach one
topic means that other topics are not taught. For this reason, the curriculum,
what teachers and professors choose for their classes, is an inherently political thing. Contention over the curriculum reflects competing social, political,
and intellectual agendas. Not surprisingly, the curriculum is often the site of
political struggle.
Curricular conflict has often appeared in the social science literature on
schooling. The great sociologist Emile Durkheim described the different
ways that church leaders tried to influence the early universities of Europe
(Durkheim, 2006). Cobban (1971) later described how medieval college
students staged revolts against professors who they thought were not
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
teaching the proper materials. Early in the twentieth century, Willard Waller
(1970) wrote about the conflict between highly educated teachers and less
educated parents, who fought over what happened in their children’s
classes. However, by the late twentieth century, much less attention was
given to the curriculum by social scientists. Leading education researchers
in sociology, political science, and other fields, did not pay much attention
to the struggles over what was taught in schools and colleges. The study of
the curriculum was treated as a question for practitioners and their allies in
schools of education.
This situation reversed itself in the 1990s during the “culture wars,” a time
when writers and intellectuals fiercely debated the merits of school curricula.
There were many issues at stake. Political liberals thought that schools devalued or marginalized the intellectual accomplishments of women and minorities (Bryson, 2005). Conservatives thought they needed to defend Western
culture by insisting on the superiority of canonical works. The new attention given to the politics of school curricula encouraged social scientists to
investigate the history of educational reform movements and understand
how politics shapes education through the curriculum. The result is a new
wave of scholarship that examines the push and pull between schools and
the political forces that try to mold them.
Research on school reform and conflict resulted in a new framework for
understanding how curricula are written. This new framework rests on a few
key observations. First, schools are organizations. This means that schools are
organized settings for accomplishing tasks, such as educating young people (Bidwell, 1965). An insight from contemporary organization theory is
that bureaucracies are very sensitive to their environment because they need
resources for survival. Thus, educational institutions can, in certain circumstances, be very responsive to political forces, because they are often public
entities (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Second, political actors must translate their
ideas into documents, policies, and classroom practices (Binder, 2002; Rojas,
2007). This gives teachers, administrators, and students another opportunity
to shape school curricula.
SCHOOLS AS ORGANIZATIONS
One of the distinctive features of educational research after the 1960s is the
emphasis on the organizational context of schooling (Bidwell, 1965). One of
the key arguments from that literature is that schools are often subject to the
same types of influences as other organizations. They are set up as hierarchies
with managers; they are subject to government regulation; and they seek
legitimacy in an attempt to secure resources from their constituents (Meyer
& Rowan, 1977).
Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict
3
Schools have multiple masters, which means that they attract conflict
in many ways. There is top-down conflict. American public schools, for
example, were subject to the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act. The federal
government mandated that schools assess their performance in terms
of standardized tests. This law triggered conflict over school curricula
(e.g., Menken, 2006). There is also bottom-up social change. For example,
college students have frequently demanded that professors teach courses on
multiculturalism (Rojas, 2007; Yamane, 2001).
Educational institutions also encourage conflict because of their highly visible role in modern nations. Schools are supposed to teach what is moral and
correct, they are supposed to train people for the labor force, they certify who
may hold certain jobs, and they create distinctions and honor within society.
Not surprisingly, schools attract criticism from many quarters. Some political
movements claim that schools are immoral and need to teach religious values (e.g., social conservatives). Other movements want a particular group to
be represented in the curriculum (e.g., ethnic studies activists). These critics
often focus on the curriculum because that is what students are exposed to
in the classroom.
POINTS OF CONTACT BETWEEN THE POLITICAL AND
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
This admittedly brief sketch of school politics indicates the different ways
that political activists try to alter or change curricula. Some political movements opt to work through the state. Political activists want government
officials to mandate that certain ideas be taught. This is a highly effective
tactic in some regions. For example, the State of Texas chooses textbooks for
the entire public school system. This system for selecting textbooks creates a
large incentive for political conflict. Those who can influence the state’s textbook committee can reach millions of children. Another tactic is for activists
to win election or appointment to the state’s educational bureaucracy. This is
a common tactic among American social conservatives, who often sit on local
school boards and try to have their school adopt textbooks with sympathetic
points of view.
In contrast, other movements opt to work “from the bottom up.” Rather
than take control of the state educational bureaucracy, they recruit students
and instructors. This coalition may work in a variety of ways. They may stage
a college campus protest, or they may produce a rival textbook.
There is a third source of conflict. The desire for curricular change may come
from within the teaching profession. Conflict over the curriculum may erupt
when educators promote a new method or topic. For example, some American language arts instructors in the 1990s believed that reading was best
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
taught through “whole language” methods, which was, for some students,
superior to phonics. Once whole language gained some popularity among
teachers and policy makers, there was a contentious debate.
WHERE AND HOW THE CONFLICT HAPPENS
The struggle over school curricula can happen at many sites. First, political
actors may focus on teaching materials. Numerous studies examine how
different people try to have their ideas represented in textbooks. One
strategy is simply to write a new textbook. This is a very common tactic
employed by movements that have a heavy investment in education. For
example, there are pro-Creationist textbooks, pro-Afrocentric textbooks,
textbooks that represent a “people’s” perspective on history, and so forth
(Binder, 2002). Another strategy is to insist that existing texts be modified
and that instructors “teach the controversy” rather than exclude a particular
idea (Graff, 1993).
Second, curricular conflict may happen within an educational bureaucracy.
As noted before, political movements may seek to hold power over schools
through elected positions. Indeed, many of the most notorious curricular
disputes in American education involved elected leaders, such as the 1925
Scopes monkey trial and 1996 Ebonics controversy. In each case, the board
of education sought to influence what was taught in schools. In the former
case, there was an attempt to prohibit the teaching of evolution. In the latter
case, Oakland city officials suggested that it might be valuable for teachers to
legitimize Black Vernacular English. Educational officials are often lobbied
by others as well. For example, conservative activists in recent years have
asked that colleges have a “balanced curriculum” presenting their views
(Binder & Wood, 2012).
Third, curricular conflict may happen within schools, inside classrooms,
and faculty lounges. The dispute may be mild in character, as teachers or
professors debate the need for new ideas or pedagogical practices. In other
cases, the dispute may be extremely contentious. The 1960s provide many
vivid examples of college campus protests. A common complaint was that
the college curriculum was either racist or sexist, and needed to include more
material by women and minorities. These protests could escalate dramatically, leading to riots and campus shut downs (Rojas, 2006, 2007, 2010).
Fourth, the curriculum may be discussed in the broader public sphere. Intellectuals, the media, and politicians may choose to focus on what is taught in
schools. The 1990s provided an excellent example of this type of conflict. The
“culture wars” were essentially an argument about the validity of minority
Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict
5
culture (e.g., Bryson, 2005; Graff, 1993). Some argued that books by minorities deserved a place next to the classic texts of Western civilization. There
were others who argued that the notion of “canon,” a list of books that merited continued study because of their impact and excellence, was biased in
favor of European culture. Pushing back against this argument, traditionalists published a number of books arguing in favor of a canon and questioning
the authors that were proposed to be part of a new canon. While many scholars took part in these arguments, so did many policy makers and “public
intellectuals.”
OUTCOMES OF CONFLICT
The outcomes of curricular conflict are diverse. The party in a curricular conflict may achieve much, or all, of what they wanted. Darwinian biologists
are one example of an extremely successful actor in a curricular conflict. At
first, Darwinian theory was strongly opposed by intellectual and educational
elites. However, by the mid twentieth century Darwinian theory was dominant not only in professional biology, but also in most schools and colleges.
The success of Darwinian biology in American education is so overwhelming
that skeptics have had to set up their own schools outside of the mainstream
school and university system.
Then, there are cases where the impact was moderately successful. Ethnic studies in post-secondary education is one such example. Students succeeded in having Ethnic Studies established as a legitimate, if controversial,
discipline within the university system. However, relatively few universities adopted Ethnic Studies programs and most of them are concentrated
in wealthier, higher status research universities. Furthermore, enrollment in
Ethnic Studies majors remains very low (Rojas, 2007).
Then, there are cases where reformers fail to achieve much noticeable level
of success. Recently, the intelligent design movement has argued that physical scientists should teach the idea that the biological organisms, and other
complicated natural phenomena, may be due to conscious design, an idea at
odds with contemporary biology or astronomy. So far, these ideas are rarely
found in mainstream schools or colleges. The stigma attached to them is so
much that it is newsworthy when a university scientist reveals himself to be
a proponent of intelligent design.
Much contemporary research investigates the factors that lead the success
in curricular conflict. For example, numerous scholars have focused on culture (Arthur, 2011; Binder, 2002; Rojas, 2007). If a reformer can appeal to
widely accepted values within a school, they are more likely to have their
ideas adopted. This appeal to culture has been used to explain why creationists are not successful, while ethnic studies are somewhat more successful. In
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
the late twentieth century, ethnic studies reformers merely had to argue that
Black history, for example, was within the scope of American history and was
valuable for students. In contrast, the adoption of creationism would require
that schools abandon their commitment to Darwinian biology.
Other scholars discuss tactics and strategy. In a study of college protest, it
was found that nonviolent tactics were more likely to lead to the creation of
Ethnic Studies programs. The argument that was offered was that concessions to disruptive protestors delegitimized college administrators. In contrast, nonviolence balanced the need for students to have their arguments
heard without making it difficult for administrators to maintain a semblance
of control over the campus.
RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Despite the growth in studies of curricular disputes at the primary,
secondary, and post-secondary levels, there are important unanswered
questions. First, very little attention has been given to the genesis of curricular conflict. Sometimes, curricular conflict follows broader social trends. The
fight over creationism is one theater in a larger political dispute in America
between modernists and Biblical literalists. However, there are other sources
of curricular conflict, such as marginalized intellectuals. How successful
are non-educators in influencing the content of curricula? This is a largely
unanswered question in the social science literature, which is surprising
given that think tanks routinely promote educational reform.
Second, there is relatively little analysis of the discursive elements of curricular conflict. That is, we have very little evidence about the ways that educators, intellectuals, and students talk about the need to change the curriculum.
Given that cultural resonance is such an important factor in the settlement of
curricular disputes, it is surprising that little attention has been given to how
people talk about school reform.
Third, there needs to be much more attention given to the effects of curricular conflict on the rest of society. Once again, multiculturalism provides
is an insightful example. The dispute over the Western canon resulted in
highly charged debates in the mass media. To some extent, multiculturalism was a successful reform effort. It is somewhat common for colleges to
have multicultural course requirements and many professors use multiculturalist materials in other courses. There is surprisingly little research on the
long-term impact of these courses. Some studies measure the increase in liberal attitudes among students in enrolled in multicultural course, but they
do not compare them with similar students who did not take the course,
nor have there been any long term studies of older adults who enrolled in
multicultural courses.
Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict
7
REFERENCES
Arthur, M. M. L. (2011). Student activism and curricular change in higher education. Surrey, England: Ashgate.
Bidwell, C. E. (1965). The school as a formal organization. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 972–1022). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Binder, A. (2002). Contentious curricula: Afrocentrism and creationism in American public
schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Binder, A., & Wood, K. (2012). Becoming right: How campuses shape young conservatives.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bryson, B. (2005). Making multiculturalism: Boundaries and meaning in U.S. English
departments. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Cobban, A. B. (1971). Medieval student power. Past & Present, 53, 28–66.
Durkheim, E. (2006). The evolution of educational thought: Lectures on the formation and
development of secondary education in France. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Graff, G. (1993). Beyond the culture wars: How teaching the conflicts can revitalize American education. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Menken, K. (2006). Teaching to the test: How no child left behind impacts language policy, curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual
Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 30,
521–546.
Meyer, John W., & Rowan, Brain (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal
structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Rojas, F. (2006). Social movement tactics, organizational change, and the spread of
African-American Studies. Social Forces, 84, 2139–2158.
Rojas, F. (2007). From black power to black studies: How a radical social movement became
an academic discipline. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rojas, F. (2010). Power through institutional work: Building academic authority in
the 1968 Third World Strike. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1263–1280.
Waller, W. (1970). On the family, education, and war: selected writings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Yamane, D. (2001). Student movements for multiculturalism: Challenging the curricular
color line in higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
FABIO ROJAS SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Fabio Rojas is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Indiana University.
He is the author of From Black Power to Black Studies: How a Radical
Social Movement Became an Academic Discipline (2007, The Johns Hopkins
University Press) and an advice book for graduate students and tenure
track professors called Grad Skool Rulz: Everything You Need to Know
about Academia from Admissions to Tenure (2011, Smashwords Press).
With Michael T. Heaney, he is the author of Party in the Street: The Antiwar Movement and the Democratic Party after 9/11 (2015, Cambridge
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
University Press). His academic research addresses political sociology,
organizational analysis, and computer simulations. He spent the 2008–2010
academic years as a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research
at the University of Michigan. Click here to go to his personal web site
http://www.fabiorojas.net/.
RELATED ESSAYS
Learning Across the Life Course (Sociology), Jutta Allmendinger and Marcel
Helbig
Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Rationalization of Higher Education (Sociology), Tressie McMillan Cottom
and Gaye Tuchman
Higher Education: A Field in Ferment (Sociology), W. Richard Scott
Institutional Contexts for Socioeconomic Effects on Schooling Outcomes
(Sociology), Herman G. van de Werfhorst
-
Curriculum as a Site of Political
and Cultural Conflict
FABIO ROJAS
Abstract
Schools are both political and academic institutions. This essay explains the different
ways that schools generate conflict because people dispute the content of the school
curriculum. This essay begins by noting that schools require the approval of political
elites and the public. Without such support, schools can’t operate. Also, schools lend
legitimacy to particular ideas, which means that people will fight over the content of
classroom instruction. The essay then discusses how social movements target schools
and the factors contribute to successful curricular challenges in schools.
Prior research has focused on uncovering the inherently political nature of school
curricula. These researchers produce case studies of conflict over the curriculum.
Research also focuses on how political actors target schools and try to enact change.
There is also a growing literature on bureaucratic dynamics. Scholars now focus
on the administrative response to protest and the demand for educational reform.
I conclude by outlining new directions for research. Specifically, researchers should
ask about the relationship between academic reform movements and broader social
movements. For example, do most mass movements target schools? How much curricular conflict is unique to the educational system? I also suggest that researchers
should examine the “spill out” of protest from schools to the larger society.
CURRICULUM AS A SITE OF POLITICAL AND CULTURAL CONFLICT
Schools are places of conflict as well as learning. The decision to teach one
topic means that other topics are not taught. For this reason, the curriculum,
what teachers and professors choose for their classes, is an inherently political thing. Contention over the curriculum reflects competing social, political,
and intellectual agendas. Not surprisingly, the curriculum is often the site of
political struggle.
Curricular conflict has often appeared in the social science literature on
schooling. The great sociologist Emile Durkheim described the different
ways that church leaders tried to influence the early universities of Europe
(Durkheim, 2006). Cobban (1971) later described how medieval college
students staged revolts against professors who they thought were not
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
teaching the proper materials. Early in the twentieth century, Willard Waller
(1970) wrote about the conflict between highly educated teachers and less
educated parents, who fought over what happened in their children’s
classes. However, by the late twentieth century, much less attention was
given to the curriculum by social scientists. Leading education researchers
in sociology, political science, and other fields, did not pay much attention
to the struggles over what was taught in schools and colleges. The study of
the curriculum was treated as a question for practitioners and their allies in
schools of education.
This situation reversed itself in the 1990s during the “culture wars,” a time
when writers and intellectuals fiercely debated the merits of school curricula.
There were many issues at stake. Political liberals thought that schools devalued or marginalized the intellectual accomplishments of women and minorities (Bryson, 2005). Conservatives thought they needed to defend Western
culture by insisting on the superiority of canonical works. The new attention given to the politics of school curricula encouraged social scientists to
investigate the history of educational reform movements and understand
how politics shapes education through the curriculum. The result is a new
wave of scholarship that examines the push and pull between schools and
the political forces that try to mold them.
Research on school reform and conflict resulted in a new framework for
understanding how curricula are written. This new framework rests on a few
key observations. First, schools are organizations. This means that schools are
organized settings for accomplishing tasks, such as educating young people (Bidwell, 1965). An insight from contemporary organization theory is
that bureaucracies are very sensitive to their environment because they need
resources for survival. Thus, educational institutions can, in certain circumstances, be very responsive to political forces, because they are often public
entities (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Second, political actors must translate their
ideas into documents, policies, and classroom practices (Binder, 2002; Rojas,
2007). This gives teachers, administrators, and students another opportunity
to shape school curricula.
SCHOOLS AS ORGANIZATIONS
One of the distinctive features of educational research after the 1960s is the
emphasis on the organizational context of schooling (Bidwell, 1965). One of
the key arguments from that literature is that schools are often subject to the
same types of influences as other organizations. They are set up as hierarchies
with managers; they are subject to government regulation; and they seek
legitimacy in an attempt to secure resources from their constituents (Meyer
& Rowan, 1977).
Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict
3
Schools have multiple masters, which means that they attract conflict
in many ways. There is top-down conflict. American public schools, for
example, were subject to the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act. The federal
government mandated that schools assess their performance in terms
of standardized tests. This law triggered conflict over school curricula
(e.g., Menken, 2006). There is also bottom-up social change. For example,
college students have frequently demanded that professors teach courses on
multiculturalism (Rojas, 2007; Yamane, 2001).
Educational institutions also encourage conflict because of their highly visible role in modern nations. Schools are supposed to teach what is moral and
correct, they are supposed to train people for the labor force, they certify who
may hold certain jobs, and they create distinctions and honor within society.
Not surprisingly, schools attract criticism from many quarters. Some political
movements claim that schools are immoral and need to teach religious values (e.g., social conservatives). Other movements want a particular group to
be represented in the curriculum (e.g., ethnic studies activists). These critics
often focus on the curriculum because that is what students are exposed to
in the classroom.
POINTS OF CONTACT BETWEEN THE POLITICAL AND
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
This admittedly brief sketch of school politics indicates the different ways
that political activists try to alter or change curricula. Some political movements opt to work through the state. Political activists want government
officials to mandate that certain ideas be taught. This is a highly effective
tactic in some regions. For example, the State of Texas chooses textbooks for
the entire public school system. This system for selecting textbooks creates a
large incentive for political conflict. Those who can influence the state’s textbook committee can reach millions of children. Another tactic is for activists
to win election or appointment to the state’s educational bureaucracy. This is
a common tactic among American social conservatives, who often sit on local
school boards and try to have their school adopt textbooks with sympathetic
points of view.
In contrast, other movements opt to work “from the bottom up.” Rather
than take control of the state educational bureaucracy, they recruit students
and instructors. This coalition may work in a variety of ways. They may stage
a college campus protest, or they may produce a rival textbook.
There is a third source of conflict. The desire for curricular change may come
from within the teaching profession. Conflict over the curriculum may erupt
when educators promote a new method or topic. For example, some American language arts instructors in the 1990s believed that reading was best
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
taught through “whole language” methods, which was, for some students,
superior to phonics. Once whole language gained some popularity among
teachers and policy makers, there was a contentious debate.
WHERE AND HOW THE CONFLICT HAPPENS
The struggle over school curricula can happen at many sites. First, political
actors may focus on teaching materials. Numerous studies examine how
different people try to have their ideas represented in textbooks. One
strategy is simply to write a new textbook. This is a very common tactic
employed by movements that have a heavy investment in education. For
example, there are pro-Creationist textbooks, pro-Afrocentric textbooks,
textbooks that represent a “people’s” perspective on history, and so forth
(Binder, 2002). Another strategy is to insist that existing texts be modified
and that instructors “teach the controversy” rather than exclude a particular
idea (Graff, 1993).
Second, curricular conflict may happen within an educational bureaucracy.
As noted before, political movements may seek to hold power over schools
through elected positions. Indeed, many of the most notorious curricular
disputes in American education involved elected leaders, such as the 1925
Scopes monkey trial and 1996 Ebonics controversy. In each case, the board
of education sought to influence what was taught in schools. In the former
case, there was an attempt to prohibit the teaching of evolution. In the latter
case, Oakland city officials suggested that it might be valuable for teachers to
legitimize Black Vernacular English. Educational officials are often lobbied
by others as well. For example, conservative activists in recent years have
asked that colleges have a “balanced curriculum” presenting their views
(Binder & Wood, 2012).
Third, curricular conflict may happen within schools, inside classrooms,
and faculty lounges. The dispute may be mild in character, as teachers or
professors debate the need for new ideas or pedagogical practices. In other
cases, the dispute may be extremely contentious. The 1960s provide many
vivid examples of college campus protests. A common complaint was that
the college curriculum was either racist or sexist, and needed to include more
material by women and minorities. These protests could escalate dramatically, leading to riots and campus shut downs (Rojas, 2006, 2007, 2010).
Fourth, the curriculum may be discussed in the broader public sphere. Intellectuals, the media, and politicians may choose to focus on what is taught in
schools. The 1990s provided an excellent example of this type of conflict. The
“culture wars” were essentially an argument about the validity of minority
Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict
5
culture (e.g., Bryson, 2005; Graff, 1993). Some argued that books by minorities deserved a place next to the classic texts of Western civilization. There
were others who argued that the notion of “canon,” a list of books that merited continued study because of their impact and excellence, was biased in
favor of European culture. Pushing back against this argument, traditionalists published a number of books arguing in favor of a canon and questioning
the authors that were proposed to be part of a new canon. While many scholars took part in these arguments, so did many policy makers and “public
intellectuals.”
OUTCOMES OF CONFLICT
The outcomes of curricular conflict are diverse. The party in a curricular conflict may achieve much, or all, of what they wanted. Darwinian biologists
are one example of an extremely successful actor in a curricular conflict. At
first, Darwinian theory was strongly opposed by intellectual and educational
elites. However, by the mid twentieth century Darwinian theory was dominant not only in professional biology, but also in most schools and colleges.
The success of Darwinian biology in American education is so overwhelming
that skeptics have had to set up their own schools outside of the mainstream
school and university system.
Then, there are cases where the impact was moderately successful. Ethnic studies in post-secondary education is one such example. Students succeeded in having Ethnic Studies established as a legitimate, if controversial,
discipline within the university system. However, relatively few universities adopted Ethnic Studies programs and most of them are concentrated
in wealthier, higher status research universities. Furthermore, enrollment in
Ethnic Studies majors remains very low (Rojas, 2007).
Then, there are cases where reformers fail to achieve much noticeable level
of success. Recently, the intelligent design movement has argued that physical scientists should teach the idea that the biological organisms, and other
complicated natural phenomena, may be due to conscious design, an idea at
odds with contemporary biology or astronomy. So far, these ideas are rarely
found in mainstream schools or colleges. The stigma attached to them is so
much that it is newsworthy when a university scientist reveals himself to be
a proponent of intelligent design.
Much contemporary research investigates the factors that lead the success
in curricular conflict. For example, numerous scholars have focused on culture (Arthur, 2011; Binder, 2002; Rojas, 2007). If a reformer can appeal to
widely accepted values within a school, they are more likely to have their
ideas adopted. This appeal to culture has been used to explain why creationists are not successful, while ethnic studies are somewhat more successful. In
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
the late twentieth century, ethnic studies reformers merely had to argue that
Black history, for example, was within the scope of American history and was
valuable for students. In contrast, the adoption of creationism would require
that schools abandon their commitment to Darwinian biology.
Other scholars discuss tactics and strategy. In a study of college protest, it
was found that nonviolent tactics were more likely to lead to the creation of
Ethnic Studies programs. The argument that was offered was that concessions to disruptive protestors delegitimized college administrators. In contrast, nonviolence balanced the need for students to have their arguments
heard without making it difficult for administrators to maintain a semblance
of control over the campus.
RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Despite the growth in studies of curricular disputes at the primary,
secondary, and post-secondary levels, there are important unanswered
questions. First, very little attention has been given to the genesis of curricular conflict. Sometimes, curricular conflict follows broader social trends. The
fight over creationism is one theater in a larger political dispute in America
between modernists and Biblical literalists. However, there are other sources
of curricular conflict, such as marginalized intellectuals. How successful
are non-educators in influencing the content of curricula? This is a largely
unanswered question in the social science literature, which is surprising
given that think tanks routinely promote educational reform.
Second, there is relatively little analysis of the discursive elements of curricular conflict. That is, we have very little evidence about the ways that educators, intellectuals, and students talk about the need to change the curriculum.
Given that cultural resonance is such an important factor in the settlement of
curricular disputes, it is surprising that little attention has been given to how
people talk about school reform.
Third, there needs to be much more attention given to the effects of curricular conflict on the rest of society. Once again, multiculturalism provides
is an insightful example. The dispute over the Western canon resulted in
highly charged debates in the mass media. To some extent, multiculturalism was a successful reform effort. It is somewhat common for colleges to
have multicultural course requirements and many professors use multiculturalist materials in other courses. There is surprisingly little research on the
long-term impact of these courses. Some studies measure the increase in liberal attitudes among students in enrolled in multicultural course, but they
do not compare them with similar students who did not take the course,
nor have there been any long term studies of older adults who enrolled in
multicultural courses.
Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict
7
REFERENCES
Arthur, M. M. L. (2011). Student activism and curricular change in higher education. Surrey, England: Ashgate.
Bidwell, C. E. (1965). The school as a formal organization. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 972–1022). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Binder, A. (2002). Contentious curricula: Afrocentrism and creationism in American public
schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Binder, A., & Wood, K. (2012). Becoming right: How campuses shape young conservatives.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bryson, B. (2005). Making multiculturalism: Boundaries and meaning in U.S. English
departments. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Cobban, A. B. (1971). Medieval student power. Past & Present, 53, 28–66.
Durkheim, E. (2006). The evolution of educational thought: Lectures on the formation and
development of secondary education in France. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Graff, G. (1993). Beyond the culture wars: How teaching the conflicts can revitalize American education. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Menken, K. (2006). Teaching to the test: How no child left behind impacts language policy, curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual
Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 30,
521–546.
Meyer, John W., & Rowan, Brain (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal
structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Rojas, F. (2006). Social movement tactics, organizational change, and the spread of
African-American Studies. Social Forces, 84, 2139–2158.
Rojas, F. (2007). From black power to black studies: How a radical social movement became
an academic discipline. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rojas, F. (2010). Power through institutional work: Building academic authority in
the 1968 Third World Strike. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1263–1280.
Waller, W. (1970). On the family, education, and war: selected writings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Yamane, D. (2001). Student movements for multiculturalism: Challenging the curricular
color line in higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
FABIO ROJAS SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Fabio Rojas is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Indiana University.
He is the author of From Black Power to Black Studies: How a Radical
Social Movement Became an Academic Discipline (2007, The Johns Hopkins
University Press) and an advice book for graduate students and tenure
track professors called Grad Skool Rulz: Everything You Need to Know
about Academia from Admissions to Tenure (2011, Smashwords Press).
With Michael T. Heaney, he is the author of Party in the Street: The Antiwar Movement and the Democratic Party after 9/11 (2015, Cambridge
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
University Press). His academic research addresses political sociology,
organizational analysis, and computer simulations. He spent the 2008–2010
academic years as a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research
at the University of Michigan. Click here to go to his personal web site
http://www.fabiorojas.net/.
RELATED ESSAYS
Learning Across the Life Course (Sociology), Jutta Allmendinger and Marcel
Helbig
Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Rationalization of Higher Education (Sociology), Tressie McMillan Cottom
and Gaye Tuchman
Higher Education: A Field in Ferment (Sociology), W. Richard Scott
Institutional Contexts for Socioeconomic Effects on Schooling Outcomes
(Sociology), Herman G. van de Werfhorst