Intercultural Education, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2014.886357

Multiculturalism and education for citizenship in a context of neoliberalism Christine E. Sleeter*

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 08:39 22 April 2014

College of Professional Studies, California State University, Monterey Bay, Seaside, CA, USA Multicultural education usually arises from a concern that schools prepare young people for constructive public participation as citizens in a diverse society that is struggling with equity issues. Conventional multicultural education, which I will critique, tends to assume a liberal conception of citizenship that is based on individualism and a simplistic analysis of how power works. I will argue that the growing reach of neoliberalism requires reframing multicultural education and citizenship education. Neoliberalism can be understood as a ‘restoration of elite power’ in which increased privatization and market competition is eroding a sense of the public, linking education more firmly to the needs of large corporations, and facilitating the flow of wealth and power to a small global elite. Multicultural education conceptualized as a political project of social justice that embraces a diverse public, and that links local with global struggles for equity and human rights, offers a potential counter-narrative to neoliberal education, and a rich framework for considering citizenship. Keywords: multicultural; education; citizenship; neoliberalism; human rights

Introduction Schools globally are finding immigration, as well as already existing racial and ethnic diversity, to pose challenges. In part, these are academic challenges (i.e. how to help diverse students to become academically successful, given various forms of institutional racism that support a dominant national language and culture). They are also social challenges involving citizenship preparation for a multicultural democracy. The complexity of the social challenge can be illustrated with a controversy near my home. As a part of the process of opening a new elementary school, the school board of a predominantly Mexican American school district selected what has become a highly controversial name for the school. In the US, citizens of school districts select school names, which often honor heroes. In this case, the school board selected the name of a Mexican American who lived during the 1800s. From the Mexican American community’s perspective, he was a hero who protected Mexican land from white aggression and defended Mexican American culture, but was unjustly convicted of murder by an all-white jury. From the white community’s perspective, he was a violent bandit and an inappropriate role model for students in a community that is plagued by gang violence. The controversy surrounding this issue raises a host of questions about citizenship, perspective, race, and racism, who has the right to name reality, and cultural vs. political citizenship (Wozniacka 2013). As Banks (2004, 12) argued, *Email: [email protected] © 2014 Taylor & Francis

2

C.E. Sleeter

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 08:39 22 April 2014

A significant challenge facing educators in nation-states throughout the world is how to respect and acknowledge the community cultures and knowledge of students while at the same time helping to construct a democratic public community with an overarching set of values to which all students will have a commitment and with which all will identify.

For teachers in societies that are becoming increasingly diverse, the question becomes how to prepare their students as citizens who can engage with complex issues in a way that reflects equity and justice. Democracy and diversity are messy concepts that cannot be packaged up neatly; conflicts in experiences, points of view, histories, and specific interests cannot be reduced to standardized formulas and narratives, nor can their resolutions be reduced to steps to follow. Most teachers need help learning to analyze and guide students through difficult issues of public life, and cannot be expected to simply figure out how to do so on their own. Based on an analysis of citizenship education in the Netherlands, for example, Bron and Thijs (2011) noted a large gap between policy intentions and what teachers actually do. Further, based on a literature review of citizenship education in the US, Cotton (2001) noted that teachers are not only ill-prepared to teach it, but also to share power with students and to address controversial issues. In addition, citizenship curricula too often are poorly conceptualized, meaningless to students, shallow, textbook-bound, and disconnected from current local and global issues. In what follows, I first consider what it means conceptually to connect multicultural education with citizenship education. Then I examine three central issues involved in planning multicultural citizenship curricula. Finally, I briefly illustrate what active multicultural citizenship education can look like for students at different age levels. Multicultural citizenship Multicultural education and citizenship education can be powerful when connected (Banks 1997), but often they are not. Diversity studies too often stress learning about the other rather than engaging with or learning to work in solidarity with diverse others. Goal statements for citizenship education tend to be lofty but vague, giving little specific guidance to teachers (Cotton 2001). The ideal of cosmopolitan citizenship, which stresses common humanity across national borders and cultural differences, also tends to be vague, offering teachers too little guidance for how to link local concerns and identities with humanity as a whole (Osler 2011). The ascendance of neoliberalism (Harvey 2005) makes even less straightforward what it means to connect multiculturalism with citizenship. Liberalism upholds individual rights, freedoms, and private ownership of property within the rule of law. Citizenship conceptualized through liberalism emphasizes the relationship between individuals as citizens of nation-states and the official law-making process, focusing on rights and responsibilities such as voting, with the assumption that everyone has roughly equal opportunity to participate. Neoliberalism, born in the context of reduced and stagnating fortunes of the super-rich during the 1940s and 1950s, links the rule of law with the needs of capital, prioritizing the market over citizenship and democracy. As a result, as Macedo, Dendrinos, and Gounari (2003) put it, ‘the market itself becomes democracy’ (114), and shopping is equated with voting. Neoliberalism linked with neo-conservatism becomes

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 08:39 22 April 2014

Intercultural Education

3

especially repressive when members of the far-right attempt to thwart democracy through means such as voter suppression. Simply adding diversity onto liberal or neoliberal conceptions of citizenship usually means adding identification with culture and community to the individual – nation-state relationship, acknowledging diverse sub-cultural identifications and commitments, as well as (perhaps) current impacts of past histories of exclusion, and claims to group rights that complement individual rights and national unity (Kymlicka 1995). Such conceptions attempt to connect unity with diversity, and uphold civic equality among diverse individuals as a national value. Cultural differences are to be tolerated respectfully, but people are to be treated the same. By teaching young people to acknowledge culturally diverse groups and to handle disagreement as well as the right to disagree, one assumes that societies can work toward civic equality of their citizens. Liberal and neoliberal conceptions of multicultural citizenship, however, are limited in four ways. First, they overemphasize the primacy of national identity and the nation-state, marginalizing those who have faced oppression historically. Such conceptions undervalue people’s cultural identifications and attachments, assuming these to be relatively unimportant, diminishing over time; and they ignore structural barriers that marginalized groups encounter (Banks and Nguyen 2008). Dominant groups can usually equate national citizenship with their own racial or ethnic identity, an equation that is much less straightforward for marginalized groups and immigrants. For example, Ladson-Billings (2004) points out that while US American identity is commonly equated with being white, many people of color, who have experienced long histories of oppression by whites, see little basis for solidarity with them, and therefore prioritize their own ethnic identity over a national identity. In addition, many people of color make citizenship commitments on the basis of common concerns people of color share globally, placing ethnic and international commitments above national commitments. Similarly, writing with reference to Italy, Love and Varghese (2012) draw attention to challenges of Black Italians, as well as children of immigrants, to be seen and treated as ‘real’ Italian citizens. Further, the discourse of individual rights and responsibilities has paved the way for emphasizing individual responsibility for one’s own welfare and one’s ability to claim citizenship, thus divesting the nation-state and corporate leaders from concern for people’s well-being (Schinkel and Van Houdt 2010). Second, increasing transnational migrations due to globalization are resulting in more and more people who legally, or at least functionally, do not live and/or work where they hold citizenship. In the US, roughly eleven million undocumented immigrants who are citizens of another country (mainly Mexico) live and work due largely to globalization processes that have restructured rural economies elsewhere. Debates about citizenship and the law do not capture why people immigrate without papers and the realities they find themselves in as a result. Some authors and activists use the term ‘cultural citizenship’ to refer to ways in which excluded or undocumented communities question, disrupt, and remap what it means to participate as a citizen (Benmayor 2002). As Castles (2004) points out, ‘The idea of the citizen who spent most of his or her life in one country and shared a common national identity is losing ground’ (18). Not only are people relocating across borders on a massive scale, but transnational corporations, global organizations, international law, and regional configurations such as ‘European citizenship’ are reducing national sovereignty (Hansen 2000).

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 08:39 22 April 2014

4

C.E. Sleeter

A third limitation of liberal and neoliberal conceptions of multicultural citizenship is their reliance on fixed racial/ethnic and gender categories, which become taken for granted as natural, and their tendency to essentialize the culture that is connected with categories. Liberalism upholds protections against discrimination and provision of some level of common welfare, making use of and inscribing into law categories of people. For example, in the US, I am classified as white, which ascribes characteristics to me that supposedly differentiate me from people classified as Asian or African-American. However, while categories themselves have been socially constructed, and are continually reconstructed in the context of struggle over material conditions, their material basis is lost when viewed as natural. Reddy (2000), for example, argued that the meaning of the South African racial category ‘Colored’ depends on who has the power to name. Although people of European descent tied racial categories to biology, those classified as ‘Colored’ are, by definition, not 100% some other category. But because over time racial categories structured access to resources, the category of Colored acquired a material basis – it became ‘real.’ But when challenging huge economic disparities that colonialism created, the category ‘Colored’ tends to fracture strategic identities people use politically: ‘black,’ ‘African,’ or ‘working class’. Conceptions of multicultural citizenship must address complex ‘politics of culture and identity and the differential sources of solidarity across and within specific forms of identity’ that people take up when struggling for justice (Torres 1998, 423). Who can be regarded as a citizen is often limited in the wake of nation-building, when culture is essentialized and tied with assumed biological categories. Moon (2010), for example, points out that the one-blood and one-culture myth in Korea, constructed historically as a tool for nation-building, undermines the cultural and citizenship rights of transnational migrants, perhaps most poignantly in the case of international marriages in which non-Korean born wives struggle to be seen and treated as Korean citizens. Hansen (2000) makes a similar argument in his analysis of calls for European citizenship, which he notes is bolstered by an essentialized version of European culture, history, and civilization that excludes those of nonEuropean ancestry, and those who are not Christian. A fourth limitation of liberal and neoliberal conceptions of multicultural citizenship is their failure to analyze how power is actually used, thereby allowing attention to formal participation structures and processes to substitute for active democratic processes, and attention to the needs of capital to replace development of democracy. According to Hyslop-Margison and Sears (2006), following the economic crisis of the 1970s and 1980s in Europe, economic needs eclipsed democratic citizenship as appropriate objective for schooling, and ‘the role of citizen within this milieu became one of political conformity rather than political engagement since the neoliberal social structure was dictated almost entirely by market logic’ (HyslopMargison and Sears 2006, 2). The interests of the nation were increasingly equated with interests of the corporate class, thus weakening democracy. For subordinate groups, however, the task is one of reclaiming power and participation through collectivist grassroots activism, rather than one of becoming included in systems run by the dominant group. Based on an analysis of the history of racial power in the US and Brazil, respectively, Ladson-Billings (2004) and Gonçalves e Silva (2004) show how formal participation structures were created in the context of exclusion and conquest, which dominant groups continue to use to further their own advantage. Conceptions of multicultural citizenship need to embrace collective action aimed at

Intercultural Education

5

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 08:39 22 April 2014

defending rights and claiming power using organic grassroots participation processes. Multicultural citizenship must not only directly interrogate capitalism and its role in structuring inequality, but also consider collective democratic participation beyond individual participation in formal structures.

Central issues in planning multicultural citizenship education pedagogy Multicultural citizenship education, viewed as a political project of social justice that embraces a diverse public, links local with global struggles for equity and human rights and offers a potential counter-narrative to neoliberal education. Teaching multicultural citizenship education, however, requires grappling with three central issues. First, what is the relationship between citizenship and human rights? An international consensus panel in the US recommended that the teaching of human rights should underpin citizenship education in multicultural nation-states (Banks et al. 2005). Citizenship education and human rights education, however, are not the same thing, requiring educators to grapple with their connections. Hung (2012) explains that to be a citizen and have rights of a citizen, one must be a member of political community. But immigrant community residents, documented or undocumented, are not necessarily political citizens with rights. Human rights as understood in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on the other hand, are universal and do not depend on citizenship status, but are nonetheless routinely violated among marginalized peoples. Bajaj (2011) distinguishes among three models of human rights education for citizenship that derive from different situations people experience in a diverse societies and points in time. Human Rights Education for global citizenship emphasizes national and international frameworks for rights, and the individual in relationship to the nation-state and global political order, de-emphasizing affiliation commitments based on ethnicity, transnationalism, or other community configurations. Human rights education for coexistence emphasizes developing unity alongside diversity in culturally plural nation-states, building mutual understanding through contact, and respecting collective rights; it de-emphasizes concerns of the most marginalized communities, as well as the complex identities discussed earlier. Human rights education for transformative action emphasizes addressing historic and ongoing violations of rights through grassroots power mobilization aimed toward social justice, de-emphasizing formalized processes as well as cultural assimilation within the nation-state. Bajaj’s model is a useful way for educators to clarify their thinking about how citizenship, diversity, and human rights connect. A second issue is engaging students in grappling with diversity and power. How can working with diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity as well as immigration status, help students value democracy and learn to participate constructively? Many educators fear that opening up consideration of issues such as racism and exclusion will be emotional and divisive, particularly when the students themselves are diverse. Research on the impact of diversity experiences in higher education is helpful here. Researchers have studied democracy outcomes of higher education, defined as:

6

C.E. Sleeter

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 08:39 22 April 2014

 citizenship engagement (the extent to which students are interested in trying to influence society and participate in the political structure),  racial/cultural engagement (the extent to which students are willing to participate in activities that promote racial understanding),  compatibility of differences (the extent to which students believe that diverse groups share some common values and can learn to handle conflict constructively), and  perspective-taking (the ability to see the world from someone else’s perspective). Researchers have found that university students gain in democracy outcomes when there is (1) opportunity for interaction among peers from different backgrounds, particularly informal interaction outside the classroom, and (2) inclusion of diversity in curriculum that is designed to teach explicitly about race and ethnicity (Gurin et al. 2002, 341). This body of research provides a helpful way forward for working with young people to help them connect active democracy with diversity. Third, what pedagogical model(s) enable students to ‘learn about the ways in which people in their community, nation, and region are increasingly interdependent with other people around the world and are connected to the economic, political, cultural, environmental, and technological changes taking place across the planet’ (Banks et al. 2005, 11), while learning not only about democracy but also how to practice it (Banks et al. 2005)? Attempts to prompt students to think about citizenship on multiple levels, and to learn how to participate in a democracy, have pedagogical implications. One implication is the need to start local. In a study exploring the relationship between conceptualizations of citizenship education and pedagogy in the UK, Osler (2011) found that although policy documents stress teaching rights and responsibilities in relationship to the nation-state, teachers emphasized citizenship at the local level, mainly because students best learn citizenship when they become involved in local community projects. Further, it was not clear to the teachers how to connect students’ everyday lives with broad national citizenship, and teachers lacked materials that would help them make such connections. Indeed, Kahne and Sporte (2008) found that pedagogical processes focused directly on local problems and opening dialog about controversial issues related to democratic processes had a positive impact on commitments to civic participation of students from low-income communities and communities of color. Another implication is to involve students in democratic participation within the school and classroom. Cotton (2001) noted that researchers have ‘identified higher levels of democratic values among students in more democratic school environments’ (Cotton 2001) as well as in classrooms that demonstrate respect for student ideas and in which teachers use democratic processes. Researchers find considerable support for active learning, particularly strategies that engage students in discussion, role-playing and perspective-taking, projects such as letter-writing, mock trials, and other ways of engaging students directly in active democratic behaviors. Critical thinking is essential; too much civics education is centered on low-level mastery of facts, which, in an absence of critical thinking, does not teach students to analyze problems, sift through evidence, and make reasoned judgments about issues. The challenge of beginning at the local level is connecting students with broader community, national, and global political entities.

Intercultural Education

7

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 08:39 22 April 2014

Taking these complexities and issues into consideration, what might an active multicultural citizenship education look like in practice?

Examples of practice The framing sketched out above suggests citizenship education as helping young people learn to name forms of injustice (as well as justice) in their own lives and analyze their roots. It suggests helping them learn to grapple with tensions between cultural diversity, political rights, and human rights, and learn to hear multiple perspectives about complex social issues. Finally, it suggests engaging young people in active, collaborative democratic processes at the classroom, school, and community levels, in which they act on real equity issues they experience. Two examples illustrate classroom practice.

With young children Kathy was a first-grade teacher of Mexican immigrant students in a low-income community (see Sleeter 2005). A foundation of her practice was class meetings, which regularly provided space for discussion of student concerns, and in which students learned to take charge of problem-solving. Many problems students brought to class were interpersonal, but some were political. Kathy explained to me that children regularly hear adults discuss political issues at home and want to know more. She encouraged students to ask questions about such issues, believing that school is where questioning should be encouraged. Kathy designed and taught an interdisciplinary thematic unit on Monterey County agriculture. She told me that, agriculture directly affects the lives of my students. Out of my twenty students, most have at least one parent who is employed in agriculture or an agriculture-related industry such as vegetable packing. The parents’ income and work schedules are determined by the crops and the large companies which grow them. (Sleeter 2005, 112)

Having grown up on a farm, she believed everyone should know where food comes from and situate that knowledge within a vision of environmentally sustainable farms that ordinary people can afford. She was deeply concerned about ‘the conflict between what agriculture has become in this country and what it can be,’ in which large corporations control agriculture and dominate ‘land use, water use and availability, pesticide use, and economic and political power.’ She commented, ‘So many of my students’ parents work in agriculture, yet so few can be farmers’ (Sleeter 2005, 113). Within the unit, Kathy taught critical analysis of the political context in which students’ families lived and worked. For example, to compare large-scale corporate farms and small family farms, she invited a parent with experience working in agriculture in both the US and Mexico to come and describe the nature of work in both places. The class studied the history and struggles of the United Farm Workers, particularly the work of local organizers, and immigration issues connected with agriculture. Kathy brought a complex political analysis to the study of these issues. While she anticipated that students made most sense out of that which was familial and local, she periodically connected these local issues with broader concepts of

8

C.E. Sleeter

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 08:39 22 April 2014

citizenship, rights, immigration, and global economic restructuring, figuring that the political and citizenship education she taught in school complemented activist politics within the immigrant community. With secondary school students The Social Justice Education Project (SJEP) in Tucson, Arizona was part of a broader Mexican American/Raza Studies program. SJEP was a four-semester high school curriculum in history, government, and literature. It was based on a model of ‘critically conscious intellectualism’ that has three components: (1) an academically rigorous curriculum that is standards-aligned, culturally and historically relevant to students, and focused on social justice issues, (2) critical pedagogy in which students develop critical thinking and critical consciousness, creating rather than consuming knowledge, and (3) authentic caring in which teachers demonstrate deep respect for students as intellectual and full human beings (Cammarota and Romero 2009). One of its major purposes was to help Mexican American youth, most from very poor neighborhoods and some who were undocumented, to claim education as a tool to address problems and needs in their communities – in other words, to become educated activist citizens. As Cammarota and Romero (2009) described, teachers utilized a ‘funds of knowledge’ approach to gather knowledge from students’ homes. They documented cultural practices used for everyday survival, then integrated what they learned into curriculum. The curriculum used McIntyre’s (2000) three principles that guide participatory action research: (a) collective investigation of a problem; (b) the reliance on indigenous knowledge to better understand that problem; and (c) the desire to take individual and/or collective action to deal with the identified problem. Using qualitative research methods, students designed and carried out community-based research projects in which they gathered data about manifestations of racism, using social science theory to analyze patterns in their data. Students then proposed solutions to problems. Students gave formal presentations based on their research to the community, as well as to academic and youth conferences; some of their recommendations led to actual changes. For example, one student’s research on the loss of language and culture in education led to engagement in language issues for his own immigrant community. Tucson schools addressed problems students documented such as replacing missing urinals in the boys’ bathrooms, repairing falling tiles in the gym ceiling, and updating books in the library. Students also learned empathy for the struggles of those outside their immediate social group. In the context of protests around Ethnic Studies in Tucson, students learned ‘technological cultural citizenship’ in which social networking media, such as texting, played a key role in student organizing efforts (Otero and Cammarota 2011). Conclusion The task of preparing students as citizens in diverse societies is complex, particularly under neoliberalism. Yet, it is necessary for strengthening participatory democracy and giving substance to ideals of equity and justice. As educators, we have a choice: We can, by default, prepare young people to accept the status quo, or we can dive into the complicated and messy business of educating for multicultural citizenship. I believe that the latter is not only important, but infinitely more interesting.

Intercultural Education

9

Notes on contributor Christine E. Sleeter, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1982), is Professor Emerita in the College of Professional Studies at California State University, Monterey Bay, where she was a founding faculty member. She has also served as a visiting professor at Victoria University in New Zealand, San Francisco State University, San Jose State University, and the University of Washington, Seattle. Her research focuses on anti-racist multicultural education and multicultural teacher education, and she is developing a new area, critical family history. She has published over 100 articles in edited books and journals such as Urban Education, Teaching and Teacher Education, Race, Ethnicity and Education, and Curriculum Inquiry, and her theorizing about disability was featured in a special issue of Disability Studies Quarterly. A recent book is Creating Solidarity across Diverse Communities (with Encarnación Soriano, Teachers College Press, 2012).

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 08:39 22 April 2014

References Bajaj, M. 2011. “Human Rights Education: Ideology, Location, and Approaches.” Human Rights Quarterly 33 (2): 481–508. Banks, J. A. 1997. Educating Citizens in a Multicultural Society. New York: Teachers College Press. Banks, J. A. 2004. “Introduction: Democratic Citizenship Education in Multicultural Societies.” In Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global Perspectives, edited by J. A. Banks, 3–16. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Banks, J. A., and D. Nguyen. 2008. “Diversity and Citizenship Education: Historical, Theoretical, and Philosophical Issues.” In Handbook of Research in Social Studies, edited by L. S. Levstik, and C. Tyson, 137–154. New York: Routledge. Banks, J. A., C. A. M. Banks, C. E. Cortés, C. L. Hahn, M. J. Merryfield, K. A. Moodley, S. Murphy-Shigematsu, A. Osler, C. Park, and W. C. Parker. 2005. Democracy and Diversity: Principles and Concepts for Educating Citizens in a Global Age. Seattle: Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington. Benmayor, R. 2002. Narrating Cultural Citizenship. Social Justice 29 (4): 96–121. Bron, J., and A. Thijs. 2011. “Leaving It to the Schools: Citizenship, Diversity and Human Rights Education in the Netherlands.” Educational Research 53 (2): 123–136. Cammarota, J., and A. Romero. 2009. “A Social Justice Epistemology and Pedagogy for Latina/o Students: Transforming Public Education with Participatory Action Research.” New Directions for Youth Development 2009 (123): 53–65. Castles, S. 2004. “Migration, Citizenship, and Education.” In Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global Perspectives, edited by J. A. Banks, 17–48. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cotton, K. 2001. Educating for Citizenship. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Lab. http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c019.html. Gonçalves e Silva, P. B. 2004. “Citizenship and Education in Brazil.” In Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global Perspectives, edited by J. A. Banks, 185–218. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gurin, P., E. L. Dey, S. Hurtado, and G. Gurin. 2002. “Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on Educational Outcomes.” Harvard Educational Review 72: 330–366. Hansen, P. 2000. “‘European Citizenship’, or Where Neoliberalism Meets Ethno-culturalism.” European Societies 2 (2): 139–165. Harvey, D. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Hung, R. 2012. “Being Human or Being a Citizen? Rethinking Human Rights and Citizenship Education in the Light of Agamben and Merleau-Ponty.” Cambridge Journal of Education 42 (1): 37–51. Hyslop-Margison, E. J., and E. M. Sears. 2006. Neoliberalism, Globalization, and Human Capital Learning: Reclaiming Education for Democratic Citizenship. Dordrecht: Springer. Kahne, J. E., and S. E. Sporte. 2008. “Developing Citizens: The Impact of Civic Learning Opportunities on Students’ Commitment to Civic Participation.” American Educational Research Journal 45 (3): 738–766.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 08:39 22 April 2014

10

C.E. Sleeter

Kymlicka, W. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ladson-Billings, G. 2004. “Culture versus Citizenship.” In Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global Perspectives, edited by J. A. Banks, 99–126. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Love, S. V., and M. M. Varghese. 2012. “Race, Language, and Schooling in Italy’s Immigrant Policies, Public Discourses, and Pedagogies.” International Journal of Multicultural Education 14 (2): 1–19. http://ijme-journal.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/491/746. Macedo, D., B. Dendrinos, and P. Gounari. 2003. The Hegemony of English. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. McIntyre, A. 2000. “Constructing Meaning about Violence, School, and Community: Participatory Action Research with Urban Youth.” The Urban Review 32 (2): 123–154. Moon, S. 2010. “Multicultural and Global Citizenship in the Transnational Age: The Case of South Korea.” International Journal of Multicultural Education 12 (1): 1–19. http:// ijme-journal.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/261/392. Osler, A. 2011. “Teacher Interpretations of Citizenship Education: National Identity, Cosmopolitan Ideals, and Political Realities.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 43 (1): 1–24. Otero, L. R., and J. Cammarota. 2011. “Notes from the Ethnic Studies Home Front: Student Protests, Texting, and Subtexts of Oppression.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 24 (5): 639–648. Reddy, T. 2000. Hegemony and Resistance: Contesting Identities in South Africa. Aldershot: Ashgate. Schinkel, W., and F. Van Houdt. 2010. “The Double Helix of Cultural Assimilationism and Neo-liberalism: Citizenship in Contemporary Governmentality.” The British Journal of Sociology 61 (4): 696–715. Sleeter, C. E. 2005. Un-standardizing Curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press. Torres, C. A. 1998. “Democracy, Education, and Multiculturalism: Dilemmas of Citizenship in a Global World.” Comparative Education Review 42 (4): 421–447. Wozniacka, G. 2013. “Tiburcio Vazquez School in California Named after Bandido Ignites Controversy.” Huff Post Education, February 5. www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/ tiburcio-vasquez-school-i_n_2396024.html.