WHAT SHOULD BE TAUGHT; WHO SHOULD BE TAUGHT?

PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

Submitted By Edward W. Evans III 18 January 2012

Industrialization, urbanization, and centralization all came with the Union victory, and with the evolution of American economic and cultural practices came a large expansion of public schools. In the 1890s the average national school year grew from 132 to 144 days and schools became the largest part of a typical town or city budget.1 By 1900, the United States boasted a 90% adult literacy rate, nearly 240,000 students enrolled in approximately 1,000 colleges and universities nationwide, and a global leading 16,000,000 elementary and secondary school students.2 With the establishment of the Federal Childrens Bureau under President Taft and the passage of the Keating-Owen Act in 1916 outlawing child labor, these numbers only grew in the early twentieth century.3 With increasing numbers and growing budgets came heightened attention and scrutiny paid to public education in America at the dawn of the twentieth century. William Reese writes in Americas Public Schools: From the Common School to No Child Left Behind, even the South joined in national debates about the nature, purposes, and destiny of the common school in a world of cities, factories, and commercialized agriculture.4 Thus began a century long debate relating to public education in America pillared on two loaded questions; who will be taught, and what will they be taught. The manifestation of both of these questions over the course of the twentieth century reflected the political and social battles of the ages, but in some cases show how recycled debates can last well beyond their origins. The rising spotlight on public education brought a national debate at the turn of century

William J. Reese, Americas Public Schools: From the Common School to No Child Left Behind (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), 78.
2

2. John Milton Cooper, Jr, Pivotal Decades: The United States, 1900-1920, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990), 3
3

3.
4

Ibid., 151, 214 Reese, 78

4.

on what secondary students should be taught. Was a more practical curriculum, championed by the Manuel Training Movement, in the best interest of the public, or was a stronger connection between high schools and colleges more appropriate? In their book The Failed Promise of the American High School, 1890-1995, David Angus and Jeffrey Mirel write, educational professionals were split on the question, some arguing that manual training allowed public schools to trainfor a broader range of occupationsand others seeing it asoutside the scope of legitimate public interest.5 The Manual Training Movement was minimized further in 1892 when the National Education Association published a report by a collegiate dominated study of American high schools complete with curricular recommendations. The Committee of Ten, led by the president of Harvard, Charles W. Eliot, concluded that the role of the high school was for intellectual and cultural training and largely ignored manual training in its study.6 Following this significant recommendation from a respected group of educators, albeit university level educators, a shift toward academics and high achievement occurred. While social critics such as William Bagley, Ellwood Cubberly, and historian Charles Beard all complained of collegiate domination of high school practice, Angus and Mirel downplay the control that universities had over high school curriculum and instead focus on the general loss of local control this debate produced. They write: We agree that the report was a watershed document but not for the reasons historians traditionally have given, namely, that it shaped high school curriculum for a generation or more and that it highlighted the domination of colleges over high schools. Rather, we see the report as a crucial first step toward the professionalization of curriculum planning and as a direct assault on the control of high school curricula by lay boards of education.7
5

5. David L. Angus and Jeffrey Mirel, The Failed Promise of the American High School, 1890-1995, (New York: Teachers College Press, 1999), 7
6

6.
7

Reese, 185 Angus and Mirel, 9

Regardless of the actual control universities had on high school curriculum and development, enrollment in universities was growing, and newly arrived immigrant groups saw colleges and education in general as their ticket to wealth and prosperity in America. In 1900 there were 519,251 high school aged students enrolled in American public high schools. No doubt due in part to the immigration boom of the age, there were nearly 1,900,000 students enrolled in secondary schools by 1920.8 Jewish immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe filled classrooms, and by 1910 had the largest percentage of working class people over the age of sixteen still in school. By 1916, Hunter College and City College had enrollments of forty four and seventy three percent Jewish, respectively, and by 1920 Harvard was twenty percent Jewish.9 While college was not the ultimate destination for a majority of American students until much later, the commitment to higher education and greater standards by Jewish Americans shows greater role formal and centralized education was taking in American business and culture. While the amount of time one would spend in school varied greatly from region to region and person to person, the need for an educational system with standards and models was recognized by all. The problem, however, remained; what should students be taught? Edited by Henry Geitz, German Influences on Education in the United States to 1917 articulates the problem, the definition of certain school forms and the discovery of their connections with each other was one of the most difficult problems of both educational theory and practical organization that national education system suitable for all adolescents faced.10

8. Jurgen Herbst, The Once and Future School: Three Hundred Fifty Years of American Secondary Education, (Psychology Press, 1996), 136
9

9. Ronald Takaki, A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America, (New York: Back Bay Books, 1993), 287
10

10. Henry Geitz, ed. German Influences on Education in the United States to 1917, (Washington: German Historical Institute, 1995), 28

Conservatives sought a system centered on academic and intellectual training; if the purpose of the school was not to train the mind, then what was its purpose? Curricular statistics clearly show a very academically focused program being typical in the majority of American high schools.11 Progressives, and other critics of early twentieth century academics, still questioned the relevance of this rigid, exclusively academic, high school curriculum. Reese states Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, critics of public education asserted that high schools were isolated from life, taught an irrelevant curriculum, and failed to adopt the latest pedagogical methods. At the turn of the century, Mr. Dooley, the creation of humorist Peter Finley Dunne, had quipped, if you can find anything the boy doesnt like, put it into the curriculum. The dead hand of the past hovered over the nations secondary schools, and social-efficiency advocates as well as child-centered progressives bemoaned the power of tradition in the peoples college. Complaints about college domination and resistance to reform continued in the 1940s, when the high school became a mass institution in many communities.12 The differences between progressive and conservative education is also articulated by David Tyack in The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education when he writes, meeting the needs of children and cooperation distinguished the new education from the old and predisposed them to praise what they called progressivism. They sawa traditional education that had outgrown its inspiration and calcified its routines13 There were roughly 11,000,000 foreign born people in America in 1900, or fourteen percent of the total population, including millions of school aged children.14 With drastically evolving demographics, progressives sought to change the way educators thought about teaching and the purpose of

11

11. Herbst, 133

12 13

Reese, 193-194

13. David B. Tyack, The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974), 196.
14

14. Cooper, 8

school with curricular experimentation focused on educating the whole child. This caused citizens to clash over the direction of not just schools, but society itself. While progressives called for education to become more humane and democratic, conservatives continued to champion academic achievement and business like efficiency.15 As Reese writes, both camps believed themselves to be the righteous faction, and both realized the political and social importance of their struggle. Middle-class club women, socialist leaders, left-wing labor leaders, liberal settlement house workers, and those inspired by religious ideas such as the social gospel, which called for social action in Jesus name to help the poor, assumed they were fighting for the best interests of the child, as did the business elites and professionals they often quarreled with.16 The figure who reflects the best in what both philosophies valued from the first half of the twentieth century is John Dewey. A prolific scholar who published thousands of speeches, pamphlets, books, articles, etc. on a hoist of social issues, Dewey is widely regarded as the father of progressive education. Tony W. Johnson and Ronald F. Reed, in their Philosophical Documents in Education, describe Deweys My Pedagogic Creed as, Deweys gift to scholars.17 On education, Dewey writes, this educational process has two sides-one psychological and one sociological-and that neither can be subordinated to the other, nor neglected without evil results following.18 Despite a historical legacy of liberal progressivism, Dewey largely represented the common ground between the two dominant factions within the curricular struggles of the early twentieth century. Combining the results orientation of the
15

15. Reese, 121

16

16. Reese, 138

17

17. Tony W. Johnson & Ronald F. Reed, ed. Philosophical Documents in Education, 3rd Edition, (Boston: Pearson, 2008), 101
18

18. Jo Ann Boydston, ed. John Dewey: The Early Works 1895-1898, vol. 5, (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1972), 84-95

conservatives with the whole child approach of progressives, Dewey embodied the best of both philosophies. Reese writes, Throughout his lectures, Dewey presented familiar criticisms of public schools. Teacher authority and student passivity, he said, dominated. Textbooks were ubiquitous and contained knowledge far removed from childrens interests or experience. Teachers told children what pages to memorizeand received a grade.Children were far removed from the activities that had produced the worlds accumulated knowledge, and textbooks presented material that was also fairly remote from their immediately lives. Eliminating the mechanical teaching found in many schools did not mean dispensing with knowledge which was critical for all citizens in a democracy, but discovering new pedagogical strategies.19 This focus on new strategies to meet the interests and needs of students grew even further during the Depression, New Deal, and World War II era of the 1930s and 1940s. As the Great Depression crashed the youth labor market, an enormous rise in high school enrollment forced school leaders to get creative. The Great Depression era marks the first time public schools solicited federal aid for education, and forced districts to display to the government how they were meeting the needs of this swelling population of older students. Curriculum specialists became common in larger school districts, and formal attention was being paid to the individual experiences of students. Data collection became the norm, and an unintended consequence of increased federal aid in exchange for whole child education was a testing and data bubble never seen before. Reese writes, By the 1930s and 1940s, graded school systems in particular had gathered large amounts of empirical data on their students. There were achievement tests, Stanford-Binet scores, classroom grades, and statistics on everything from childrens height to incidence of chicken pox.20 In the competition for federal aid, schools began to adopt some of the recommendations of old progressives in ways not seen in decades prior, while reaffirming some classic conservative goals.21 Reese sums up the ongoing debate over what to teach and how
19

19. Reese, 138 20 Reese, 170

21

to do it in the 1930s well when he writes, While these additional assessments added to the statistical profile of children and please many reformers-whether efficiency minded or child centered-this development actually reinforced tradition.The new report cards were more intrusive since they recorded childrens assessments beyond academic achievement. But they were fully compatible with traditional mainstream education.22 With the introduction of federal aid to education, the dominant question of the times slowly but surely shifted from what to teach to who to teach. While the struggle over what should be taught certainly continued throughout the Eisenhower-Reagan years, major education debates in the thirty to forty years immediately following World War II were reserved for who should be taught in our public schools and what behaviors should be allowed. Citing the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, many school policies relating to student practices were deemed unconstitutional in the years between World War II and the release in 1983 of A Nation at Risk by the Supreme Court. Perry A. Zirkel explains in Decisions That Have Shaped U.S. Education, The right to an education in the United States derives from state-not federallaw, but the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees all citizens equal protection under both state and federal law; this guarantee of equal protection includes prohibiting discrimination in U.S. public schools.23 The most significant, both in terms of the historical legacy it represents and its effect on future court cases is Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). On this, Zirkel writes, A long line of more than thirty subsequent Supreme Court decisions have dealt with the implications of the Brown ruling. Today, the clear unconstitutionality of segregation by law or policy reminds us of the significant impact of the

21. Angus & Mirel, 58

22

22. Reese, 178 Perry A. Zirkel, Decisions That Have Shaped U.S. Education, Educational Leadership Magazine, December 2001/January 2002, 6
23

Brown decision.24 Cases such as Lau v. Nichols (1974), Board of Education v. Rowley (1982), and Plyler v. Doe (1982) all echo the equal protection clause qualifier Brown made famous. Reese analyzes Browns place in history when he writes, The black movement for equality and justice ultimately encouraged other marginalized groups to demand their rights. It blazed the trail for the advocates of children with special educational needs, gender equality, and ethnic group consciousness, which accelerated after black power became more influential within the civil rights movement in the mid1960s. The Brown case also had influence beyond the world of education, since it was a major legal precedent that helped undermine segregation in other areas of public life.25 In the fifteen years prior to the Brown decision, lawyers from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had won a series of significant court decisions regarding race and segregation. Laura A. Belmonte writes in Speaking of America, In Smith v Allwright (1944), the Court outlawed white primaries in the South. In Shelley v. Kramer (1948), the Court prohibited racially restrictive covenants. In Sweatt v. Painter (1950) and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950), the court struck down segregation in graduate schools.26 Similarly, the U.S. Circuit Court of Southern California declared segregation of Mexican children unconstitutional in the 1946 Mendez v. Westminster decision. This directly led the California state legislature to repeal section 8003, which had permitted districts to segregate Indian, Chinese, and Japanese students.27 With momentum and legal precedent, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down Plessy v. Ferguson and the notion of separate but equal. It was not as universally received as it was voted on. President Dwight Eisenhower

24

24. Zirkel, 6-7

25

25. Reese, 227

26

26. Laura A. Belmonte, Speaking of America Volume II: Since 1865, 2nd Edition, (Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth 2007), 695
27

27. Takaki, 388

openly criticized the decision, commenting that courts could not change hearts and culture, and southern politicians publicly declared that white and black children would never attend school together.28 Doris Kearns Goodwin calls the defiant and often violent refusal of the South to comply with Brown, which generated mounting support in other parts of the country an alterer of the context of the civil rights movement.29 James Patterson notes that as late as 1964, only one percent of black children in southern states attended schools with white children, and by 1978, twenty one of the twenty nine largest school districts in the United States had a majority black population. He writes, the numberof black public school students who attended predominantly black schools was higher in 1980 than it had been in 1954.30 Despite these unsavory facts and statistics, the Brown decision remains one of the most significant decisions in Court history, with both major symbolic and tangible consequences for numerous marginalized groups with American education. In 1950, approximately two percent of all black folks from Mississippi had earned a high school diploma, and $122 and $32 were spent per capita on the education of white and black students annually, respectively.31 By 1970, national statistics show thirty one percent of black Americans over the age of twenty five had completed high school, and by 1980 that number had grown to fifty one percent.32 Patterson also notes that by the 1990s and 21st Century, most black students had to access sharply improved educational opportunities and resources than generations prior.33 While still not statistically at
28

28. Reese, 229

29

29. Doris Kearns Goodwin, Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream, (New York: St. Martins Griffin 1991), 146
30

30. Patterson, 15-23

31

31. Reese, 229

32

32. Patterson, 19
33

33. Patterson, 314

10

the same level as their Caucasian colleagues, successes and gains for black students have been steady since the Brown decision in 1954. Where Brown is even more significant is the precedent it sets for other minority and disenfranchised groups. Increased access to American public institutions is a hallmark of the Warren and Burger courts, and the increased educational rights of students with limited English proficiency, learning disabilities, and/or illegal immigrant status all have their foundations in Brown and the cases leading up to it. Lau v. Nichols held that schools must take affirmative steps to quell language deficiencies of students who are not native English speakers. As Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits federally funded programs from discriminating on basis of national origin, it was deemed illegal to not actively take steps to ensure appropriate access to public education, even for non-English speakers.34 Rachel F. Moran of the University of California summarizes the plaintiffs claims when she writes, After Brown, special programs were mandated for those with physical, mental, and other educational handicaps. [Defendants] should not discriminate against students of Chinese ethnicity with language handicaps35 In True American: Language, Identity, and the Education of Immigrant Children, Rosemary C. Salomone writes, Lau v. Nichols remains the most substantive Court ruling to squarely address the meaning of equal educational [opportunities]36 Special Education students as well as children of illegal immigrants also benefitted from the legacy of Brown with a pair of Court decisions in 1982. In Board of Education v. Rowley,

34 35

Zirkel, 7

35. Rachel F. Moran, The Untold Story of Lau v. Nichols, in Espaol en Estados Unidos y Otro Contextos de Contacto: Sociolingustica, Ideologa, y Pedagoga, ed. Manel Corte and Jennifer Leeman, (Iberoamericana Editorial, 2009), 277-285
36

36. Rosemary C. Salomone, True American: Language, Identity, and the Education of Immigrant Children, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 2010), 119

11

the Court declared that the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Acts mandate of free and appropriate education for all students meant school district must develop and provide individualized education programs (IEP) for all disabled students, and demonstrate educational benefit.37 In writing the majority opinion, Justice Rehnquist stated, In order to qualify for federal financial assistance under the Act, a state must demonstrate that it has in effect a policy that assures all handicapped children the right to a free appropriate public education.38 In Plyler v. Doe, the court asserted that the equal protection clause as it relates to education also applies to children in the United States illegally. In Constitution and Curriculum: Hermeneutical Semiotics of Cases and Controversies in Education, Law, and Social Science, James Anthony Whitson writes, Children are seen as having a right to equal opportunity to the benefits of educational experience which is at once socializing and enabling regardless of legal status. He quotes the Court decision when they write, It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today, it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days it is doubtful that any may be reasonably expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the State has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.39 To evaluate the effectiveness and legacy of Brown simply in the context of race and ethnic segregation is foolhardy and short sighted. Despite the alarmingly slow pace that many schools chose to desegregate at, and the self segregation that has happened in many areas as a result of government intervention, Brown v. the Board of Education blazed a path for every

37

37. Zirkel, 8 Charles J. Russo & Allan G. Osborne, Essential Concepts & School-Based Cases in Special Education Law, (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2007), 114 James Anthony Whitson, Constitution and Curriculum: Hermeneutical Semiotics of Cases and Controversies in Education, Law, and Social Science, (Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, 1991), 92
39 38

12

disenfranchised group in America. As the NAACP declared on the day of the decision, we look upon this memorable decision not as a victory for Negroes alone, but for the whole American people and as a vindication of Americas leadership in the free world.40 Through the 1950, 60s, and 70s, the dominating questions in regards to American public education shifted from what was being taught to who was being taught. But, when secretary of education Terrel Bell delivered A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform in 1983, the what question was suddenly thrust back into the educational and political spotlight. As James T. Patterson notes in Restless Giants: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore, the report ignited new calls for standards and higher achievement, largely echoing the calls from conservatives in the days of Dewey and progressivism.41 PDK/Gallup Polls conducted throughout the 1980s suggest strong public desires for many of the conservative practices bemoaned in the 1920s and 30s, such as required standards, standardized curriculum, and rigid testing.42 With both Presidents H.W. Bush and W. Bush, the focus from the federal government on standards and results is unparalleled. Citing flat lining SAT scores and the need for a more intelligent technologically savvy millennial generation, George H.W. Bush emphasized achievement and standards as the way to promote greater academic achievement. He believed that schools that enhance academic achievement promote American excellence.43 This conservative resurgence in curricular and pedagogical policy continued through the Clinton administration, and culminates with the passage of No Child Left Behind under President George
40

40. Takaki, 389

41

41. James T. Patterson, Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 33 Stanley Elam, How America Views Its Schools: The PDK/Gallup Polls, 1969-1994, (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1995), 32-35
43 42

43. Patterson, 239

13

W. Bush in 2002. Patterson writes, A focus on achievement-and on hard-nosed assessments via testing-developed bipartisan political support in the 1990s, leading conservatives as well as well as liberals to support a degree of federal oversight of public schools that Bush 41 scarcely could have imagined while he was president. In 1994, Congress passed a program, Goals 2000, which provided money to states for such purposes. A so-called No Child Left Behind Act, triumphantly signed by Bush 43 in January 2002, empowered the federal government to take an unprecedented role in public education44 Despite public support for these conservative educational initiatives, critics retort largely with the same counterpoints used when what to teach and how to teach it first became a national issue in the Age of Industry 100 years prior. In response to A Nation at Risk suggesting concrete standards and a more challenging curriculum, Robert Emmet Long writes in American Education, the proposals for uniformly rigorous standards mention their concern with the needs of all students, but show more concern for the needs of those who will go on to college and join the professions.45 Diane Ravitch, in The Death and Life of the Great American School System writes, Whereas the authors of A Nation At Risk concerned themselves with the quality and breadth of the curriculum that every youngster should study, No Child Left Behind concerned itself only with basic skills. A Nation At Risk was animated by a vision of good education as the foundation of a better life for individuals and for our democratic society, but No Child Left Behind had no vision other than improving test scores in reading and math. It produced mountains of data, not educated citizens.46 Despite specific circumstances changing with each generation, the debate over what should be taught in our public schools has remained largely unchanged over the course of the twentieth century and beyond. Conservative traditionalists have always promoted schools with rigorous standards and high measures of achievement in order to ensure excellence and
44

44. Patterson, 240

45

45. Robert Emmet Long, ed. American Education, (New York: H.W. Wilson Company, 1984), 81
46

46. Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education, (New York: Basic Books, 2010), 29-30

14

maximum results. Competition and free market intrinsic regulators will push students and teachers to do better and work harder, they will say. Progressives have always retorted that conservative educational models encourage detachment and inequality. They will say that it leaves many students behind and pushes an elitist agenda within public education. Regardless of who is right, if the twentieth century is a predictor for events in the future, then the debate over what is being taught and how it is being taught will continue well into the twenty first century.

Bibliography Angus, David L. and Jeffrey Mirel. The Failed Promise of the American High School, 18901995. New York: Teachers College Press, 1999. Belmonte, Laura A. Speaking of America: Readings in U.S. History. Belmont, CA:

15

Thomson/Wadsworth, 2007. Cooper, John Milton, Jr. Pivotal Decades: The United States, 1900-1920. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990. Elam, Stanley. How America Views Its Schools: The PDK/Gallup Polls, 1969-1994. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa, 1995. Geist, Henry, ed. German Influences on Education in the United States to 1917. Washington: German Historical Institute, 1995. Gimlin, Hoyt, ed. Education in America: Quality vs. Cost. Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1981. Goodwin, Doris Kearns. Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991. Graham, Hugh Davis. The Uncertain Triumph: Federal Education Policy in the Kennedy and Johnson Years. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Hamby, Alonzo L. Liberalism and Its Challengers: F.D.R. to Reagan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Herbst, Jergen. The Once and Future School: Three Hundred and Fifty Years of American Secondary Education. Psychology Press, 1996. Jeffrey, Julie Roy. Education for the Children of the Poor. Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1978. Johnson, Tony R and Ronald F. Reed, ed. Philosophical Documents in Education, 3rd Edition. Boston: Pearson, 2008. Long, Robert Emmet, ed. American Education. New York: The H.W. Wilson Company, 1984. Moran, Rachel F. The Untold Story of Lau v. Nichols. In Espaol en Estados Unidos y Otro Contextos de Contacto: Sociolingustica, Ideologa, y Pedagoga. Edited by Manel Lacorte and Jennifer Leeman. 277-285. Iberoamericana Editorial, 2009. Patterson, James T. Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Persico, Deborah A. New Jersey v. T.L.O.: Drug Searches in Schools. Springfield, NJ: Enslow, 1998. Quiram, Jacquelyn F, ed, Mei Ling Rein & Nancy R. Jacobs. Education-Reflecting Our

16

Society?. Wylie, TX: Information Plus, 1998. Ravitch, Diane, ed & Maris A. Vinovskis. Learning From the Past: What History Teaches Us About School Reform. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2005. Ravitch, Diane. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Test and Choice are Undermining Education. New York: Basic Books, 2010. Ravitch, Diane. The Troubled Crusade: American Education 1945-1980. New York: Basic Books, 1983. Reese, William J. Americas Public Schools: From the Common School to No Child Left Behind. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2005. Reese, William J. Power and the Promise of School Reform: Grassroots Movements During the Progressive Era. New York: Teachers College Press, 2002. Russo, Charles J and Allan G. Osborne. Essential Concepts & School Based Cases in Special Education Law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2007. Salomone, Rosemary C. True American: Language, Identity, and the Education of Immigrant Children. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010. Takaki, Ronald. A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America. New York: Back Bay Books, 2008. Tushnet, Mark V. Brown v. the Board of Education: The Battle for Integration. New York: Grolier, 1995. Tyack, David and Larry Cuban. Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Tyack, David, Thomas James, and Aaron Benavot. Law and the Shaping of Public Education, 1785-1954. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991. Tyack, David B. Seeking Common Ground: Public Schools in a Diverse Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Tyack, David B. The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974. Wilkinson, Harvie J. From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and School Integration, 19541978. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Zirkel, Perry A. Decisions That Have Shaped U.S. Education. Educational Leadership

17

Magazine, December 2001/January 2002.

18