Critical Race Structuralism: The Role of Science Education in Teaching Social Justice Issues in Urban Education and Pre-Service Teacher Education Programs

Abstract

Using critical race structuralism (CRS), a new contribution, as well as primary and secondary data, this article explores the role of science in teaching social justice issues in urban education. In the United States, a teaching workforce, which is predominately White, middle class, and female, intersects with an increasingly diverse student population, creating a need for culturally responsive teaching practices, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), and science, technology, engineering, arts, and math (STEAM) classes. An investigation of existing literature reveals the need for greater emphasis on environmental racism and social justice as they pertain to students living in low-income and urban communities. Our findings reveal that CRS can be utilized in a collective effort to transform teacher education programs and teacher pedagogy, to effectively address environmental racism and other social justice issues in urban schools and communities.

Keywords

critical race structuralism science education urban education urban communities social justice pre-service teachers environmental racism students of color culturally responsive pedagogy

Visit any high school science classroom in the United States and the odds are the teacher is White, is middle class, has obtained a bachelor or master’s degree in natural science, and is teaching in a diverse school (Atwater et al., 2014; Bell & Hopson, 2017; Bennett et al., 2019; B. A. Brown, 2019; DeMarrais & LeCompte, 1998; Ford & Airhihenbuwa, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1999; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2018a). According to the U.S. Department of Education’s NCES (2018a), 80% of science teachers in the United States are White and 55.5% are female. This is illustrated below in Table 1.

Table 1.

Percent Distribution of Teachers in the United States During the 2015–2016 School Year by Race.

Teacher race/ethnicity	Percent/total	Percent in science classrooms
White	80.2	82.5
Black	6.4	4.7
Hispanic	8.5	6.4
Asian	2.3	3.4
Pacific Islander	0.3	0.1
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.5	0.7
Two or more races	1.8	2.1

Source. U.S. Department of Education, NCES (prepared June 2018).

Note. NCES = National Center for Education Statistics.

In addition, as shown in Figure 1, the student population demographics indicate that 47% of students are White and 53% are minority. By the year 2027, the U.S. Department of Education projects that the percentage of White students will decrease to 45% and minority students will total 55% of the nation’s schools (NCES, 2018a). As the science teaching workforce remains homogeneous, the student demographic has become increasingly diverse. While teaching content in isolation, science teachers generally teach from their own culture and worldview, which can be problematic when teaching diverse students in urban schools (Dimick, 2012; Gay, 2018; E. King & Butler, 2015; Ladson-Billings, 1999). Figure 1 illustrates the shift in K–12 public school enrollment.

Figure 1.

Percent of student enrollment in the United States during the 2018–2019 school year and 7-year projection.

According to NCES (2018a), the science teacher workforce demographic will change very little over the next decade, continuing the trend of White, middle-class, female teachers in urban schools and science classrooms (Atwater, 1989; Bell & Hopson, 2017; DeMarrais & LeCompte, 1998; Ford & Airhihenbuwa, 2010).

According to Pigliucci and Boudry (2013), “Science refers to the disciplines investigating natural phenomena and individual human behavior and to some of the disciplines studying human societies” (p. 63). Pigliucci and Boudry (2013) further explains that pseudoscience exists outside the scientific community of knowledge and abandons documented and established scientific, historical, and literary principles. Hansson (2008) continues, “pseudo-science fits within the category of non-scientific doctrines and practices, including science denial(ism) and resistance to facts” (p. 1). Per Hansson (2008) and in the purview of the preponderance of scientific evidence, continental drifts created the rift valley in Africa and divided the continents into the geological wonders we are a part of today. At the foot of the Mountain of the Moon in modern-day Ethiopia, the first humans worshiped the god Hapi (B. Brown et al., 1923; Diop, 1974). Africa is the birthplace of civilization and along the 4,000-mile-long Nile River, rich, abundant resources and fertile agriculture were cultivated by the people who built the archeological marvels of pyramids found in ancient Kemet (later called Egypt; B. Brown et al., 1923; Watson & Wiggan, 2018), and wrote the first manuscripts of philosophy and religion, respectively, in The Teachings of Ptahhotep, 2300 BCE, and The Book of Coming Forth by Day and Night, 2000 BCE (Ash & Wiggan 2015; B. Brown et al., 1923; Hilliard et al., 1987).

In U.S. schools, history has been told from a European perspective. However, critical race structuralism (CRS) challenges the master narrative and provides a framework for inclusion. It also provides a lens through which to view the history of humanity, which reveals that there is more variation within racial groups than there is across racial groups (Lieberman et al., 2003; Martin & Yeung, 2003). Old Hansson ideology is being challenged with scientific and biological sciences, which indicate that all of humanity shares 99.9% of the same deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA; Lieberman et al., 2003; Martin & Yeung, 2003; A. Nelson, 2016). Thus, race is a social construction, yet it has very powerful consequences in schools and society.

Western academy is generally premised on Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad 850 BCE, as the beginning of intellectual thought (Ash & Wiggan, 2015; B. A. Brown et al., 1923). This positioning buries the rich, vibrant history of other civilizations, and Africa in particular, as precivilization or as having primitive societies. However, the narrative of humanity and the cradle of civilization, written text, universities, where civilization stretched from Ethiopia to Egypt, and sacred books predating 850 BCE, challenge old hegemonic narratives (B. A. Brown et al., 1923; Diop, 1974).

Traditionally, the master narrative has attributed little value to non-European contributions (Cobern & Loving, 2001). As Audre Lorde (1984) notes, “for the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change” (p. 112). Western hegemony and ideology have undermined the ancient cultural traditions and practices associated with agricultural, medicinal, and architectural customs of minority and indigenous groups (Cobern & Loving, 2001; Wiggan, 2010). The paradox is that the earliest known scientist is a man named Imhotep, who was a Black African who lived in 2600 BCE in ancient Egypt or Kemet, the original name of the country, which means “Land of the Blacks” (Watson & Wiggan, 2018). See Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Image of Imhotep.

Imhotep wrote what is the oldest known medical or science manuscript in the world, “The Imhotep Medical Papyrus,” which was in 1862 renamed the “Edwin Smith Papyrus” (Watson & Wiggan, 2018). The renaming of the manuscript points to the power and privilege of those who are able to usurp and suppress non-European contributions. Unfortunately, there is no mention of Imhotep in the K–12 public school curriculum or science classrooms, and although a Black person wrote the first science and medical manuscript on the human record, there are very few Black science teachers.

As NCES (2018a, 2018b) data indicate, White females are completing education programs at a higher rate than minority students (Yuan, 2018). Science teachers are in high demand across the nation as urban school districts place underqualified teachers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), and science, technology, engineering, arts, and math (STEAM) classrooms (Johnson & Sondergeld, 2020; J. E. King & Swartz, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 1999). Thus, this investigation explores the following research question:

Research Question 1: What is the role of science education in teaching social justice topics among pre-service teachers in urban schools?

First, the article discusses the theoretical frameworks of critical theory, critical race theory (CRT), and structuralism, which are synthesized into a new framework and contribution to the field, CRS. CRS provides a lens to inform pre-service teachers in urban schools on how science can be used to raise awareness and to disrupt oppressive practices surrounding social justice issues in urban communities. Next, the article delineates the five principles/tenants of CRS. The methods used in the research study are then outlined, followed by a review of relevant literature. The article provides a novel approach to teaching social justice through science for pre-service and in-service teachers in urban schools. The findings of this study are crucial to the field of urban education.

Social Justice and Science Education

Kevin Kumashiro, founder of the Center for Anti-Oppressive Education and Work at the National Education Association, argues that merging the fundamentals of teaching and education with social justice is the best form of advocacy (Kumashiro, 2015). He states,

Science is perhaps most viciously attacked when it betrays itself and refutes its own legacies of perpetuating or at least complying with neoliberalism, imperialism, etc. For these reasons, teaching and studying STEM alongside critical studies that trouble the very things being taught are all the more vital for our democracy . . . STEM education has much to contribute to social-justice education, and vice versa. (Kumashiro, 2018, p. 6)

Similar to Kumashiro, Bullard and Johnson (2000) define social justice as a belief in human equality, especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among social groups. As illustrated in Table 1 and Figure 1, the racial and cultural mismatch in the student and teacher demographics in K–12 public schools provides the context for the lack of diversity in the field of education and for science education in particular. Race, class, gender, sexuality, language, culture, and so forth, are all factors that demonstrate the need for diversity training in teacher education programs (Ladson-Billings, 1999). As such, CRS is proposed as a new contribution to the field, which helps to address the crucial diversity and social justice needs in teacher preparation programs. CRS also guides our analysis and discussion on the role of science in teaching about environmental racism and other social justice issues that disproportionately affect urban areas.

Theoretical Framework

Critical Theory

Critical theory is a theoretical framework developed by German neo-Marxists such as Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Jürgen Habermas among others, and can be traced back to social theorists George Hegel and Karl Marx (Knapp, 1986; Lemert, 2014/2016; Morrison, 2006). Marx was a conflict theorist and materialist who was influenced by Hegel, an idealist (Knapp, 1986; Lemert, 2014/2016; Morrison, 2006). During the rise of capitalism in Europe, Marx formulated his conflict theory to explain the relationship between the working class he called proletariats, and the wealthy factory and land owners, which he designated as the bourgeoisie (Knapp, 1986; Lemert, 2014/2016). Marx argued that as proletariats become aware of their oppressive conditions, it would lead to social change. In Marx’s view, the oppressed would rise up in revolution and demand a change in the social, economic, and political structure of society (Sabia, 1988). This materialist conflict would be an ongoing process (Lemert, 2014/2016; Morrison, 2006). Marx attributed all human oppression to economics and ownership of the “modes of production” or systems of capitalism, and his solution would require the removal of inequities and the creation of a socialist economic and political system that allowed greater access for the proletariats (oppressed nonowners; Morrison, 2006).

Based on this view, a neo-Marxist, Max Horkheimer created the Institute for Social Research or The Frankfurt School as it was called, at the University of Frankfurt in Germany (Horkheimer, 1982). The Frankfurt School consisted of a group of scholars who sought to explain why Marx’s concept of revolution had not occurred (Sabia, 1988). In Horkheimer’s view, Marx’s assertion of a proletarian revolution in The Communist Manifesto was not realized because he underestimated the ability of capitalism to maintain the status quo. In addition, the proletariats were further controlled by religious ideology and the notion of being obedient, modest, and accepting traditions (Horkheimer, 1982; Lemert, 2014/2016; Sabia, 1988). Thus, critical theory is a theoretical framework developed by Horkheimer and other scholars like Theodor W. Adorno and Jürgen Habermas who shared a common aim of exposing and dismantling sources of oppression in society, in pursuit of greater liberation and human freedom. The Frankfurt School criticized Marx for failing to emphasize the role of noneconomic forces that contribute to social oppression, and for undertheorizing the power of the dominant group’s ideology over the working class (Lemert, 2014/2016). Critical theory differs from traditional social theory, in that, its goal is not only to critique and understand the sources of oppression in society, but to bring about change in the social conditions of the oppressed (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1997; Horkheimer, 1982; E. Nelson, 2011). As noted in the Dialectic of Enlightenment (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1997), one of the primary concerns of The Frankfurt School was the rise of mass culture and the use of technology to distribute cultural products such as music and film on a large scale (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1997). However, where critical theory did not necessarily have a sharp focus on racial and ethnic relations, a key feature of the U.S. social landscape, researchers like Derrick Bell (1980, 1995, 2004), Bell and Bell (1976), Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic (2017), and Kimberlé Crenshaw (2002) made key refinements to the framework to make race a central issue, introducing CRT (Crenshaw, 2002; Martinez, 2014).

CRT

CRT is an interpretive framework used to advocate for racial and social justice, and to mobilize marginalized groups to create racial equity, and social and political change (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Posited by Derrick Bell, a constitutional scholar, CRT was developed to examine society and culture as they relate to race, power, and the legal system (Bell, 1980; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Bell’s concept of interest convergence is a key tenet of CRT (Bell, 1980), which explains racial progress or justice in relation to the legitimating interest of the dominant group (Bell, 1980; Crenshaw, 2002; Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Although CRT was not originally created as a framework to specifically examine education, it has evolved to become a transformative theory with a social justice lens through which racial disparities in urban schools are framed (Caldwell, 1996; Donner & Ladson-Billings, 2005; Martinez, 2014; Matsuda, 1991; Mertens, 2014). For more than four centuries, race and racism have been rooted in the U.S. social, economic, and political systems. It is also embedded in the legal system and every institution, including education and the state-mandated high-stakes testing (Crenshaw, 2002; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Thus, if the goal of critical theory is human emancipation, then the goal of CRT is the enfranchisement of humanity who have been oppressed based on racialization, social stratification, and cultural domination by the ruling class (Alexander, 2012; Bell & Hopson, 2017; Dei & Lordan, 2016; Lorde, 1984).

A transformational theme of CRT is the tenet of counternarratives against racism. As such, it agitates against and deconstructs Eurocentrism, whiteness, and hegemonic indoctrination in school processes (Ighodaro & Wiggan, 2011; J. E. King & Swartz, 2014). It helps to liberate against hegemony, or cultural dominance of one group over all others, and racialization in schools and society (DeMarrais & LeCompte, 1998; Gramsci, 1971). In this sense, CRT antiracial and anticolonial praxis mitigates against power and privilege, and hegemonic social and educational institutions (Crenshaw, 2002; Morrell et al., 2013; Paris & Alim, 2017). CRT examines society and culture as they relate to race and power, but focuses less attention on relationships with—and within—social institutions, as structuralism does.

Structuralism

Structuralism is a theoretical framework based on a system of relationships between social groups and social structures (Althusser, 2006; Hall, 1985; Lemert, 2014/2016). Originating in the field of linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure is generally recognized as the founder of modern structuralism (Saussure et al., 1966). Per Saussure et al. (1966), the structure of language represents the most concise example of structuralism.

Saussure explains that the linking of names and objects to form language is a complex psychological process involving the associative bonding of symbol and name in the human brain, to form a linguistic sign (Lemert, 2014/2016). He suggests there is no basis for assigning a particular meaning to a sound image other than the fact that it is culturally associated with that particular meaning. As seen through the lens of critical theory (CT) and CRT, language can be considered as a tool of oppression by the ruling class (B. Brown, 2019; Dei & Lordan, 2016; Ford & Airhihenbuwa, 2010). Saussure proposes that language is an unchangeable and accepted norm that is inherited from previous generations (Althusser, 2006; B. Brown, 2019; Hall, 1985; Lemert, 2014/2016). This dominant culture indoctrination assigns meaning to images and determines their relationship to other images (Eagleton, 1996). In this sense, Black can be conjured as violent or evil, and White as good and purity. For example, the Merriam-Webster (2019) dictionary defines Black as relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin, relating to African American people or their culture, dirty, soiled, connected with or invoking the supernatural and especially the devil, characterized by grim, distorted, or grotesque satire; and White as free from color; being a member of a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin; characteristic of, or consisting of, White people or their culture; free from spot or blemish; free from moral impurity; innocent; favorable; fortunate (Merriam-Webster, 2019). In this sense, individuals are not free to impose linguistic meaning as it is derived by the social group to which they belong (B. Brown, 2019; Lemert, 2014/2016). According to Brown (2019), “it is the culture of power and the customs associated with that culture that determine the linguistic norms that signal intelligence” (p. 26).

This is particularly the case for oppressed groups, who are often ascribed false titles of deviants, lazy, unintelligent, and so forth, by their oppressors and as evident in the definitions of Black and White (Althusser, 2006; Hall, 1985). Similarly, human behavior can be explained by social structures, systems, and institutions that arise from labels. Thus, although CT and CRT place less emphasis on social structures, structuralism can make an important and necessary synthesis with both frameworks.

Of interest, Louis Althusser’s version of structuralism incorporates Marxist thinking regarding the notion of the State as the apparatus that operates to maintain the interests of the ruling class. Thus, it is situated well with CT and CRT. In Ideology and the State Ideological Apparatuses (2006), Althusser proposes that labor power requires the reproduction of skills to perform and reproduce the repressive ideology used by the ruling class for the exploitation of the working class. Althusser refers to the State as the repressive state apparatus (RSA; Althusser, 2006). He proposes that the RSA operates through force or coercion, and consists of private institutions such as the government, military, and prisons (Althusser, 2006). In addition to the RSA, Althusser introduces a second state apparatus, the ideological state apparatus (ISA), which includes public institutions such as education, religion, culture, and politics. In the context of CT and CRT, ISA is a necessary and powerful tool of analysis as it explains the ways the state maintains repressive ideology. The RSA works first by repression through force or coercion, whereas ISA is created first through ideology and then by repression (Althusser, 2006). The ISA teaches the skills necessary for the production of labor while also maintaining repressive ideology.

From an ISA perspective, schools generally condition students to work and perform the duties of the capitalist state (Althusser, 2006). In the purview of urban schools, the curriculum and teacher pedagogy can be instruments of RSA and ISA. Schools teach students how to perform the labor dictated by the ruling class (Hall, 1985). Thus, in this sense, ISA creates a false sense of individual autonomy, while shaping and controlling human behavior. Although CT places emphasis on the oppressed and CRT emphasizes racialization of minority groups who are dominated by the ruling class, structuralism explains the process through RSA and ISA. Thus, CRS combines tenants of CT and CRT to formulate a more precise and expansive theoretical framework to explain, advocate, and create greater agency to mediate environmental racism, and in support of social justice issues.

CRS

CRS is a theoretical framework that explains racial and ethnic relations in social and institutional systems in terms of patterns and relationships between race, culture, gender, and social structures (Alexander, 2012; Bell & Hopson, 2017; Bullard, 2000; Caldwell, 1996; Crenshaw, 2002; Meyer, 2000; Taylor et al., 2009). CRS is evidenced in places such as schools, districts, urban cities, and government. It is an important contribution to research because it provides a social and institutional examination of structural racism, bias, and prejudice. CRS brings a timely analysis and discussion on racial and ethnic relations as today’s society begins to cycle back into segregation and the pervasive constructs of racial boundaries (Bullard, 2000; Caldwell, 1996; Ighodaro & Wiggan, 2011;Meyer, 2000; Taylor et al., 2009). CRS is composed of five tenants: (a) critical analysis of societal structure; (b) address dominant cultural indoctrination in education practices and policies; (c) utilize social justice to advocate for equitable representation, access, and resources; (d) synergize institutional change by being a catalyst for deconstructing racism and bias; and (e) engage in intercultural collaborative communication and actions of change. These principles delineate the cause , which is the aim of CRS.

From a CRS lens, this investigation directly confronts social and educational inequities by combining tenets of critical theory, CRT, and structuralism. Education often does not provide the safe space needed for deep conversations surrounding race, class, and gender where there may be repercussions or reprisals for raising these issues (Bell & Hopson, 2017; Caldwell, 1996; Crenshaw, 2002; Taylor et al., 2009). Instead, in urban schools, students often experience curriculum violence (Ighodaro &Wiggan, 2011), which is the “deliberate manipulation of academic programming in a manner that ignores or compromises the intellectual and psychological well-being of learners” (Ighodaro &Wiggan, 2011, p. 2). In this sense, researchers, educators, social scientists, professionals, and students have an opportunity to use CRS to begin a dialogue and create action in shared work, play, educational, and living spaces (Bell & Hopson, 2017; Gay, 2018; Ighodaro &Wiggan, 2011; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). If we are willing to put CRS to work, moving forward together for progress rather than for political correctness is a difficult and challenging notion, yet it may be a viable source of hope for the nation.

CRS helps frame racial and ethnic relations in the United States. It explains one of the most pressing social issues in the country (Ighodaro &Wiggan, 2011; J. E. King & Swartz, 2014; Kozol, 2005). Cases such as Trayvon Martin (2012), Michael “Mike” Brown (2019), Freddie Gray (2015), the “Charleston Nine” (2015), Sandra Bland (2015), Philando Castile (2016), George Floyd (2020), among others, have brought much attention to racial and ethnic relations (Castile, 2016; Craig et al., 2018; Frazier, 2019; Oswald, 2019; Pincus & Ehrlich, 2019; Stone, 2018). The nation has only progressed as far as the thoughts, language, and actions of its youth, and what they experience in their lives. Children generally experience the world in ways that adults may not experience or understand directly. They may even tell truths and speak regarding what they see, hear, feel, and absorbed without the filters of adult or societal expectations. As Saussure suggests, children assign particular meaning to images that they are culturally associated with. Saussure proposes that language, which could be used as a form of protest, is inherited from previous generations and consequently brought to life through individual actions (Althusser, 2006; Hall, 1985; Lemert, 2014/2016). As seen through the lens of CRS, language can be considered as a tool of oppression or liberation to give voice to social justice issues such as environmental racism (Dei & Lordan, 2016; Ford & Airhihenbuwa, 2010; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). In this sense, CRS has the potential to address the environmental crisis in landfills, water, and waste systems that disproportionately affects urban and minority communities.

Method

In the following, we explore environmental justice concerns that disproportionately affect people living in urban communities in the United States and around the world. The investigation also explores teacher education programs as sites where racial awareness, exposure, and culturally responsive pedagogy and curriculum must be embraced. The reports, articles, and books referenced in this study provide national student and teacher demographics in K–12 public schools—to demonstrate the disparities that exist in public education in urban communities in the United States, while also addressing the discriminatory practices associated with environmental justice issues.

Using secondary data analysis, the U.S. Department of Education’s NCES database was searched for the most recent data on teacher and student demographics in K–12 public schools (Johnston, 2017; NCES, 2018a, 2018b). According to Johnston (2017), “secondary data analysis is the analysis of data that was collected by someone else for another primary purpose” (p. 1). Johnston affirms that the abundance of “archived” primary data and the ease by which they can be accessed, has made the use of secondary data analysis more prevalent. In this work, data were analyzed to determine the percentage distribution of teachers and students by race/ethnicity and gender in K–12 public schools in the United States in 2018 (NCES, 2018b).

Next, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycInfo, Science Direct, and WorldCat databases were searched using the time period 1989 to 2019. The key terms used in the search included structural racism and science, race and science, racism and science, environmental racism, social justice and science, water quality, environmental justice, environmental toxins, low-socioeconomic communities and environmental justice, science education, urban education, social justice, culturally responsive pedagogy, structuralism, multiculturalism, pre-service teachers, and social justice. The searches yielded more than 350 abstracts.

Content analysis was then utilized to analyze abstracts. According to Krippendorff (2018), content analysis is an “investigative tool” that researchers use to analyze data and to draw analyses from that data. Abstracts that discussed the demographics of science teachers and students in U.S. urban schools, culturally responsive teaching practices, inequities associated with environmental justice, racialization of lead poisoning, and STEM education and social justice were selected for the literature review (Caldwell, 1996; Cochran-Smith, 2004; Esposito & Swain, 2009; Gay, 2002; Kumashiro, 2015; Pellow, 2016; Yuan, 2018).

The reference sections of the articles and books reviewed for this investigation provided a rich source of additional works related to the theme of CRS. Journals such as the Journal of Higher Education; Journal of Science Teacher Education; Teaching and Teacher Education; Urban Education; Urban Review; Race, Ethnicity, and Education; The American Scholar; Science Education; and the International Journal of Science Education were among those examined for relevant material. In our analysis, we also included data on toxic land (chemical pesticides), global CO₂ emissions (G7 meeting report, climate change), toxic water—Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) report on sewage and waste products, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) report on lead in drinking water, as well as the case in Flint, Michigan.

Literature Review

Social Justice Through Science

Teacher preparation programs have the opportunity and responsibility to train teacher candidates to use science education as a social justice tool in urban schools (Ash, 2015; Atwater et al., 2014). Studies by Dimick (2012) and Szostkowski and Upadhyay (2019) discuss the components of science education programs used to teach social justice in urban schools. Dimick studies social justice education in the case study of a high school environmental science class. Using a student empowerment framework, Dimick examines the impact of an environmental action project on the creation of social, political, and academic empowerment. The project targets an environmental problem within the urban Black community in which the students live. Dimick notes, “when students reflected on their work, the ‘boundaries’ of what they thought possible for their projects broadened into deeper understandings of what they could accomplish by doing and using science” (p. 1009).

Szostkowski and Upadhyay (2019) explore the intersection of social justice, morality, and healing in science education. Szostkowski and Upadhyay define equity as “fairness,” and posit that equity in science education incorporates tenets of CRT and morality. They further add that reflection on the history and past prejudices in science are critical to understanding the difficulty in attaining equity in science education. In the study, Szostkowski and Upadhyay highlight racism in science, and the use of Henrietta Lacks’ (HeLa) cells in biomedical research without her or her family’s knowledge. This is also reflective of how teachers are trained.

Historically, teacher education and professional development have focused on expanding individual teacher practices (Ball, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2012). Prior to the 1990s, emerging alternatives to traditional training models did not change significantly (Newmann, 1991). National reforms in curriculum standards required a shift in teaching practices to increase student achievement as measured through standardized testing (Newmann, 1991). Since then, teachers’ roles have evolved as they are now tasked with the responsibility of becoming reformers and social justice advocates (Atwater et al., 2014; Ball, 2000; French, 2019; Gay, 2018). Using CRS, as change agents, teachers in urban schools have the opportunity to address cultural domination in education practices and policies. Teacher disposition, visions, and views are crucial aspects in capacity building, which could also have implications for STEM (Ferguson, 2008; Little, 1993). As Dimick (2012) notes,

Science educators recognize that issues of equity within their field include creating more equitable access and opportunity for students, particularly among students from communities that have been marginalized . . . in science education. (p. 992)

Per Dimick, science teachers recognize issues of equity and access in STEM and STEAM for students from marginalized communities. These are still national concerns and appropriate reforms are needed.

Founded in 1848, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the world’s largest multidisciplinary science society. AAAS contends that science teachers should understand that all students deserve equal and fair treatment, opportunities, and authentic problem-based science education (Barton, 2000; Sleeter, 2001; Southerland, 2000). However, there still remains a gap between the Western, contemporary representation of science, and multicultural education, which this article helps to bridge (Atwater, 1989; Tate, 1997; Watson & Wiggan, 2018). STEM fields lack minority representation and CRS calls for the scientific community to address this and other diversity-related issues. Brown states,

The stereotypes about who can become a scientist do not merely exits in television, but have been reinforced for generations in the general social milieu. These stereotypes indirectly reference a perception of who should not be a scientist. If white, awkward men are scientists, then are cool Latinx women immediately out of consideration? (p. 5)

This is also reflected in STEM or STEAM content and teacher pedagogy (Barton, 2000; Sleeter, 2000, 2001). In this sense, science is often taught in isolation of other contents, and taught through the cultural perspective and worldview of the teacher (Dimick, 2012). To disrupt these oppressive practices would require the “science curriculum to be reconceived to include teaching knowledge about science, instead of merely teaching scientific knowledge” (Southerland, 2000, p. 302). In the purview of social justice education scholarship, Dimick (2012) identifies three characteristics or purposes of social justice in science education as addressing “issues of equity, social justice curricula and pedagogy, and socially just interrelations” (p. 992).

In this sense, CRS fills a gap in pre-service teacher programs by incorporating multicultural content in science education, and pre-service teacher programs. According to Cobern and Loving (2001), “multicultural science will better serve the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds and will help to change the culturally corrosive effect that Western science has had on non-Western cultures” (p. 55). In addition, CRS targets groups that are largely understudied in science fields—such as urban dwellers and minorities. CRS provides a framework that allows these groups to resist the mythos of government and industry, which lay claim that toxic land and water do not exist in public communal spaces and schools (Berman et al., 2019; Bullard, 1996; Cembalo et al., 2019; Crane, 2019; Kashyap et al., 2019). As a historical reference, Bullard (1996) note

A new form of environmental activism has emerged in communities of color. Activist have not limited their attacks to well-publicized toxic contamination issues but have begun to seek remedial action on neighborhood disinvestment, housing discrimination and residential segregation . . . and other environmental problems that threaten public safety. (pp. 6–7)

To Bullard’s (1996) point, is clean air, water, and land a basic human right? Does the physical environment have a formative influence on one’s physical, mental, and emotional development? Environmental activists in communities of color have broadened their focus on issues of public safety beyond environmental toxins.

Almost 50 years have passed since the first Earth Day was held in 1970, which drew attention to unequal protection and environmental discrimination (Bullard, 1996). According to Cutter (1995), “a healthy environment is a basic right of all of the Earth’s inhabitants, a right reaffirmed by the Rio Declaration of the United Nations in 1992 . . . yet environmental risks are unevenly distributed within and between societies” (p. 111). Environmental inequities persist today as deeply rooted racial divides are a part of the U.S. social landscape (Berman et al., 2019; Bryant & Mohai, 2019; Bullard, 1996; Cembalo et al., 2019; Crane, 2019; Cutter, 1995; Kashyap et al., 2019). The mismanagement of natural resources and toxic contamination of the environment, which includes chemical pollution of soil, water, and oil spills, have left many urban and minority city dwellers in perils (Crane, 2019; Kashyap et al., 2019). This has also had an enduring impact on access to clean water.

Findings

Data Presentation

In the following section we present the data sources used in this study. These data sources include national and global data as indicated below including toxic land (chemical pesticides), global CO₂ emissions (G7 meeting report, climate change), toxic water (CDC report, sewage, waste products), and levels of lead in drinking water (EPA report).

Toxic Land

Advocacy for a healthy environment is not a new pursuit, as it was the focus of Rachel Carson’s (1962) groundbreaking work, Silent Spring. This work brought national attention to the environmental risks associated with the brazen use of chemical pesticides in the United States after World War II. As Carson explains, researchers knew for some time of the dangers associated with chemical pesticides such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), dicofol, and methomyl, among others, but failed to openly share this information with U.S. citizens (Kashyap et al., 2019; Krebs et al., 1999). It was Carson’s belief that money and power were the driving forces behind the government’s lack of regulation over the companies responsible for the production and marketing of harmful chemical pesticides. Carson’s work regarding the use of pesticides is an example of how science and social justice work can be used to address destructive environmental practices and create institutional change. Carson’s studies were disruptive to the repressive ideology of the government and chemical companies that profited from the widespread use of chemical pesticides (Carson, 1962; Hajnal, 2019). Similarly, the 2018 G7 meeting in Quebec, Canada, highlighted environmental issues the current U.S. government (2019) will not acknowledge (Paletta et al., 2019). Kirton and Warren (2018) note,

This strong success flowed from the shocks of extreme weather events that exposed the vulnerability of all G7 countries, especially the powerful United States and Japan as the meetings unfolded . . . Success was also spurred by the failure of the slow moving, siloed UN institutions and processes to meet these urgent, global needs on time, although Halifax made only incremental and incomplete advances on climate change due to the resistance of the United States. (p. 1)

Figure 3 below underscores Kirton and Warren (2018) point, and illustrates the global impact of pollution.

Figure 3.

Annual carbon dioxide emissions per country—2017.

Although the G7 meeting addressed some of the issues that the science community has raised, there is still a high level of disregard. In connection to low-income minority communities, Bullard (2000) discusses the methods used to allow CO₂-emitting companies such as Chevron (Richmond Refinery), General Chemical West, ExxonMobil, Aramco, British Petroleum, Gazprom, Shell, among others, to operate near low-income and minority communities.

Bullard (2000) affirms that environmental and land-use regulations are loosely enforced near urban communities. Low-socioeconomic Black neighborhoods are often primarily inhabited by renters who lack financial resources and agency. As a result, this prevents community members from advocating for equitable environmental protection (Bullard & Johnson, 2000; Dillon, 2014; Sampson & Winter, 2016; Vasudevan, 2019). Thus, CRS allows for a critical analysis regarding discriminatory environmental practices that affect minority communities. These practices are not limited to land, but extends to all aspects of the environment, including water: the source of life.

Toxic Water

According to the CDC (2016) report, Meeting the MDG Drinking Water and Sanitation Target, across the United States, quality drinking water is less accessible in low-income and urban communities. Relatedly, Crane (2019) finds that lead poisoning in children from contaminated water has long been recognized as a serious clinical and public health problem, especially in large and older urban cities. Yet, very little has been done. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, between 1955 and 1960, approximately 50 cases of lead poisoning were reported yearly, and from 10% to 20% of diagnosed patients died within 5 years of their diagnosis (Crane, 2019). Many of those who survived lead poisoning had permanent damage to their central nervous system, and frequently suffered from mental illness and intellectual disabilities (Ingalls et al., 1961).

In this sense, CRS calls for agency and advocacy for equitable representation of those who may not have the capacity to represent themselves. For example, in Flint, Michigan, lead poisoning from contaminated water is associated with elevated blood lead levels in children (Day et al., 2019; Forrer et al., 2019; Hanna-Attisha et al., 2016; see Table 2). Laidlaw et al. (2016) found that most low-income and minority students in Flint had high levels of lead in their blood (Laidlaw et al., 2016), which affects school achievement. See Table 2.

Table 2.

Demographic Comparison of the Time Periods Before (Pre) and After (Post) Water Source Change From Detroit-Supplied Lake Huron Water to the Flint River, by Area: Flint, Michigan, 2013 and 2015.

Characteristics	Outside of Flint		All Flint		High WLL Flint		Lower WLL Flint
Characteristics	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
Gender, %
Male	51.6	49.5	48.6	52.9	47.6	54.4	49.1	52.3
Female	48.4	50.5	51.4	47.1	52.4	45.6	50.9	47.7
Race/ethnicity, %
African American	24.3	24.5	69.4	70.6	74.9	78.8	67.0	66.9
Other categories	75.7	75.5	30.6	29.4	25.1	25.1	33.0	33.1
Age, years, M	1.89	1.83	2.09	2.06	2.06	2.02	2.11	2.07
Overall socioeconomicdisadvantage score	−0.83	−0.98	2.94	2.88	2.18	2.39	3.28	3.10

Source. Hanna-Attisha et al. (2016).

Note. No statistically significant differences were found in any pre–post value within any of the four geographical areas. WLL = water lead level.

As illustrated in Table 2, the population demographics of Flint are predominantly African American, particularly in the city limits where high levels of lead are found in drinking water (Forrer et al., 2019). Lead poisoning and contaminated waters are also associated with intestinal track diseases and diarrhea.

Relatedly, according to the CDC (2016), globally, an estimated 801,000 children below 5 years of age die from diarrhea annually. This amounts to 11% of the 7.6 million deaths of children below the age of 5, and means that about 2,200 children are dying every day from diarrheal illness. In this sense, CRS advocates for underrepresented groups locally and globally, and calls for the intercultural collaboration to create institutional and environmental change. Much like Flint, 80% of the world’s population is facing threats to water supplies with large amounts of domestic sewage and waste containing toxicants, derbies, solid waste, oil, plastic litters, and bacterial contaminants, which cause water pollution (Kounina et al., 2019; Liboiron et al., 2018; Sankhla et al., 2018). Worldwide, millions of people are infected with neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), many of which are water and/or hygiene related (Sankhla et al., 2018). Similar to the case of Flint, these diseases are most often found in places with unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation (EPA; UNDESA, 2016). Even low levels of lead in the blood of children can result in stunted physical growth, hyperactivity, hearing and sight problems, anemia, and learning and behavior problems. In rare cases, ingestion of lead can cause seizures, coma, and even death (CDC, 2016).

Fink et al. (2011) found a connection between child health and access to water and sanitation. The researchers concluded that lack of clean, potable water, and sanitation increases the risk of neonatal, postneonatal, and child mortality risks; and developmental stunted physical and intellectual growth (Fink et al., 2011; Kounina et al., 2019; Liboiron et al., 2018).

Implications

As a result of use, growth, and climate change, by 2025, 1.8 billion people worldwide who live in areas with water scarcity, will equal two thirds of the world’s population living in water-stressed regions (UNDESA, 2016). The challenge we face as we head into the future is how to effectively conserve, manage, and distribute a quality water supply. Currently, race, class, and region are determinants of who has access to clean water, free of toxins, including lead (Group, 2016; Kounina et al., 2019; Rist & Dahdouh-Guebas, 2006).

Water fountains are symbolic of equity in American society, communities, and schools. In our Jim Crow past, water fountains were an iconic barrier to racial equity, as Blacks were not permitted to drink from White water foundations (Alexander, 2012). “Whites Only” signs were positioned along walls, designating and notifying non-Whites they were not allowed to drink from White water fountains (Alexander, 2012). Today, the signs are no longer displayed on the walls, but the inequity exists in a more lethal method, poisoning minority children with lead, in water, which creates intellectual impairment and disabilities (Bouchard et al., 2011; Lambrinidou et al., 2010). Pellow (2016) compares the abuse associated with environmental racism to the violence, which has become the focus of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. Pellow (2016) notes,

This is a connection that many scholars might not make at first glance because police brutality and environmental politics would appear to be only tangentially related, but I argue they are in fact closely intertwined and that we must explore their myriad connections in order to excavate the roots of racist violence . . . The questions I explore here include: How can Black Lives Matter’s emphasis on police violence against African American communities inform our understanding of the scourge of ecological burdens facing those same communities? (p. 2)

Educators, including pre-service teachers, can positively affect scientific discourse by using CRS to frame contemporary social issues and movements, which helps nurture greater social justice advocacy (Pellow, 2016; Southerland, 2000). This can be achieved through purposeful curriculum development, lesson planning, and teaching for socials justice.

Discussion/Relevance of Teacher Training

CRS can help to foster discussion and dialogue about science and social justice issues in teacher education. It provides a relevant lens for developing science education curriculum in urban schools. CRS also challenges the European historical construct of discovery and whiteness as norm through the use of multicultural curriculum development and culturally responsive pedagogy (Bell, 1995; B. Brown, 2019; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). It also deconstructs traditional, dominant societal perspectives and historiography of the beginning of civilization and written language. CRS exposes pre-service teachers and students to the historical truths of Pangea: out of one continent, many (Murphy & Nance, 2008; Rogers et al., 2004). Pangea was a supercontinent that encompassed the land masses of the earth during prehistoric global creation (Stampfli et al., 2013). Many states and urban school districts are implementing new innovative programming designed to bring about transformation, social equity, and academic opportunity, which could bridge science and multicultural education gaps, and could increase academic competencies in STEM and STEAM (Esposito & Swain, 2009; Yuan, 2018). Multicultural science standards are slowly penetrating urban classrooms and teacher education programs (Dimick, 2012; Skiba et al., 2016).

As Bell and Hopson (2017) notes, “Prejudice is taught. It is active. It is learned” (p. 92). If racism is taught, perhaps it can be unlearned through antiracism education and culturally responsive pedagogy (Crenshaw, 2002; Tate, 1997). CRS could potentially help to create greater agency in urban schools and the broader society, and build collective consciousness and foster change in institutional practices (Alexander, 2012; Kozol, 2005; Memmi, 2000; Paris & Alim, 2017; Tate, 1997).

The principles of CRS can be applied to help create change. Programs using CRS may center on academic achievement, restorative practices, multiculturl enrichments, and science classrooms across content areas using culturally responsive teaching practices. In light of CRS, interactions and intercultural collaboration with teachers and peers in urban schools create a context of shared experiences and inclusion (Barrier-Ferreira, 2008). To close the social and environmental racism gaps, positive and productive educational experiences need to entail a balance of opportunities to engage social justice topics, which must be taught in teacher education programs (Darling-Hammond, 2012). Culturally responsive curriculum development and lesson planning in STEM can help in this area. An engaging educational experience allows for growth and development, while nurturing the intellectual and emotional needs of diverse learners, which is also conducive to improving student learning outcomes in STEM classrooms (Atwater, 1989). In this sense and through CRS, Ladson-Billings (2014) addresses the needs of diverse student populations through culturally responsive teaching, which includes high expectations for all students, respecting diversity, and using students’ home culture as pedagogical tools. Effective pre-service teacher education and professional development for teachers in urban schools should be designed to ensure a coherent, comprehensive system of teaching and learning for professionals, which in turn should be reflected in individual teacher practices, science classroom opportunities, and student engagement in environmental and social justice (Atwater, 1989).

From a CRS perspective, pre-service programs should have courses surrounding science and social justice topics or STEM and social justice topics, professional development, and field experiences in urban communities that are affected by environmental racism or other forms of science-related racism. Those who prepare pre-service teachers and develop teacher preparation programs must expose teacher candidates to environmental justice issues in urban communities. Similarly, school teachers in STEM classrooms must empower their students to become advocates of environmental equity, and to work toward making clean air, water, and land a basic human right.

In conclusion, we found that CRS can be used in pre-service teacher programs and for professional development opportunities in science to develop curricula connecting STEM and STEAM to multicultural education. We recommend that teacher preparation programs provide opportunities for teachers to study science-related topics as social justice issues, and to gain exposure to environmental justice in urban communities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Greg Wiggan

Author Biographies

Greg Wiggan is professor of Urban Education, adjunct professor of Sociology, and Affiliate Faculty Member of Africana Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. His research addresses school processes that promote high achievement among African American students and other underserved minority student populations.

Michelle B. Pass is a senior lecturer and Laboratory Director in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and a PhD Candidate in Curriculum & Instruction, Urban Education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her areas of interest are persistence, self-efficacy, and science identity among African American STEM majors.

Sonja R. Gadd is a PhD candidate in Curriculum & Instruction, Urban Education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research addresses alternative schools and school discipline.

References

Adorno

Horkheimer

(1997). Dialectic of enlightenment. Verso.

Alexander

(2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New Press.

Althusser

(2006). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). In Aradhana

Gupta

(Eds.), The anthropology of the state (pp. 86–11). Blackwell.

Ash

(2015). Science as a critical method for deconstructing diversity discourse: Towards an anti-racist teacher education [Doctoral dissertation]. University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

Ash

Wiggan

(2015). Science as a critical method for deconstructing diversity discourse: Towards an anti-racist teacher education. In Drakeford

(Ed.), The race controversy in American education (pp. 129–161). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing.

Atwater

(1989). Including multicultural education in science education: Definitions, competencies, and activities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1(1), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03032129

Atwater

Russell

Butler

(Eds.). (2014). Multicultural science education: Preparing teachers for equity and social justice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/97894-007-7651-7

Ball

(2000). Preparing teachers for diversity: Lessons learned from the U.S. and South Africa. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(4), 491–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742051X(00)00007-X

Barrier-Ferreira

(2008). Producing commodities or educating children? Nurturing the personal growth of students in the face of standardized testing. The Clearing House, 81(3), 138–140. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.81.3138-140

10.

Barton

(2000). Crafting multicultural science education with preservice teachers through service-learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(6), 797–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270050167189

11.

Bell

(1980). “Brown v. Board of Education” and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93(3), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340546

12.

Bell

(1995). Who’s afraid of critical race theory? University of Illinois Law Review, 1995, 893–910.

13.

Bell

(2004). Silent covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the unfulfilled hopes for racial reform. Oxford University Press.

14.

Bell

(1976). Serving two masters: Integration ideals and client interests in school desegregation litigation. Yale Law Journal, 85, 470–516. http://search.proquest.com/docview/59697281/

15.

Bell

Hopson

(2017). Talking Black and White: An intercultural exploration of twenty-first-century racism, prejudice, and perception. Lexington Books.

16.

Bennett

J. S.

Driver

M. K.

Trent

S. C.

(2019). Real or ideal? A narrative literature review addressing White privilege in teacher education. Urban Education, 54(7), 891–918.

17.

Berman

Ballogg

Erdal

(2019). Integrating public health in land reuse and redevelopment. Journal of Environmental Health, 81(6), 36–39.

18.

Bouchard

Sauvé

Barbeau

Legrand

Brodeur

Bouffard

Bouchard

(2011). Intellectual impairment in school-age children exposed to manganese from drinking water. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(1), 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1002321

19.

Brown

B. A.

(2019). Science in the city: Culturally relevant STEM education. Harvard Education Press.

20.

Brown

Thoth Hermes

Kaḳemna Ptahhotep . (1923). The wisdom of the Egyptians: The story of the Egyptians, the religion of the ancient Egyptians, the Ptahhotep and the Ke’gemini, the “Book of the dead,” the wisdom of Hermes Trismegistus, Egyptian music, the Book of Thoth. Brentano’s. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/miun.agw3164.0001.001

21.

Bryant

Mohai

. (2019). Race and the incidence of environmental hazards: A time for discourse. Westview Press.

22.

Bullard

(1996). Environmental justice for all. In Bullard

(Ed.), Environmental justice and communities of color (pp. 3–22). Sierra Club Books.

23.

Bullard

(2000). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality (3rd ed.). Westview Press.

24.

Bullard

Johnson

(2000). Environmentalism and public policy: Environmental justice: Grassroots activism and its impact on public policy decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00184

25.

Caldwell

(1996). Review of critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement (Book Review). Columbia Law Review, 96(5), 1363–1374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1123408

26.

Carson

(1962). Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin Company.

27.

Cembalo

Caso

Carfora

Caracciolo

Lombardi

Cicia

Cembalo

(2019). The “Land of Fires” toxic waste scandal and its effect on consumer food choices. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(1), 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16010165

28.

Centers for Disease Control. (2016). Meeting the MDG drinking water and sanitation target: The urban and rural challenge of the decade. https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/global/wash_statistics.html

29.

Cobern

Loving

(2001). Defining “science” in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85:13.0.CO;2-G

30.

Cochran-Smith

(2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. Teachers College Press.

31.

Craig

Rucker

Richeson

(2018). The pitfalls and promise of increasing racial diversity: Threat, contact, and race relations in the 21st century. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(3), 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417727860

32.

Crane

(2019). Distribution, toxic potential, and influence of land use on conventional and emerging contaminants in urban stormwater pond sediments. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 76(2), 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-019-00598-w

33.

Crenshaw

(2002). The first decade: Critical reflections, or “a foot in the closing door.” (Critical Race Studies). UCLA Law Review, 49(5), 1343–1372.

34.

Cutter

(1995). Race, class and environmental justice. Progress in Human Geography, 19(1), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259501900111

35.

Darling-Hammond

(2012). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. Wiley.

36.

Day

O’Shay-Wallace

Seeger

Mcelmurry

(2019). Informational sources, social media use, and race in the Flint, Michigan, Water Crisis. Communication Studies, 70(3), 352–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2019.15675

37.

Delgado

Stefancic

(2017). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York University Press.

38.

DeMarrais

LeCompte

(1998). The way schools work: A sociological analysis of education (3rd ed). Longman.

39.

Dillon

(2014). Race, waste, and space: Brownfield redevelopment and environmental justice at the Hunters Point Shipyard. Antipode, 46(5), 1205–1221. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12009

40.

Dimick

(2012). Student empowerment in an environmental science classroom: Toward a framework for social justice science education. Science Education, 96(6), 990–1012. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1112231480/

41.

Diop

C. A.

(1974). The African origin of civilization myth or reality. Lawrence Hill Books.

42.

Donner

Ladson-Billings

(2005). Paradigms and perspectives in contention. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.

43.

Eagleton

(1996). Who’s who and where’s where: Constructing feminist literary studies. Feminist Review, 53, 1–23. http://search.proquest.com/docview/61514603/

44.

Esposito

Swain

(2009). Pathways to social justice: Urban teachers’ uses of culturally relevant pedagogy as a conduit for teaching for social justice. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 6(1), 38–48.

45.

Ferguson

(2008). If multicultural science education standards existed, what would they look like? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(6), 547–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9108-5

46.

Fink

Günther

Hill

(2011). The effect of water and sanitation on child health: Evidence from the demographic and health surveys 1986–2007. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40(5), 1196–1204. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr102

47.

Ford

Airhihenbuwa

Ford

(2010). Critical race theory, race equity, and public health: Toward antiracism praxis. American Journal of Public Health, Supple, 100(Suppl. 1), S30–S35. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.171058

48.

Forrer

McKenzie

Milano

Davada

Harrington

Breakenridge

Hill

S. W.

Anderson

(2019). Water crisis in flint Michigan—A case study. Journal of Business Case Studies (Online), 15(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.19030/jbcs.v15i1.10282

49.

Frazier

J. W.

(2019). Race and place: Equity issues in urban America. Routledge.

50.

French

K. R.

(2019). The paradox of teaching for social justice: Interest convergence in early-career educators. Urban Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085919850259

51.

Gay

(2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. http://search.proquest.com/docview/62218926/

52.

Gay

(2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.

53.

Gramsci

(1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. ([1st ed.].). International Publishers.

54.

Group

(2016). 12 toxins in your drinking water. https://www.globalhealingcenter.com/

55.

Hajnal

P. I.

(2019). The G7/G8 System: Evolution, role and documentation. Routledge.

56.

Hall

(1985). Signification, representation, ideology: Althusser and the post-structuralist debates. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 2(2), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295038509360070

57.

Hanna-Attisha

Lachance

Sadler

Champney Schnepp

(2016). Elevated blood lead levels in children associated with the flint drinking water crisis: A spatial analysis of risk and public health response. American Journal of Public Health, 106(2), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.303003

58.

Hansson

(2008). Philosophy and other disciplines. Metaphilosophy, 39(4-5), 472–483.

59.

Hilliard

A. G.

Williams

Damali

(1987). The teachings of Ptahhotep: The oldest book in the world. Blackwood Press.

60.

Horkheimer

(1982). Critical theory. Continuum.

61.

Horkheimer

(1982). Egoism and the freedom movement: On the anthropology of the bourgeois era. Telos, 1982(54), 10–60.

62.

Ighodaro

Wiggan

(2011). Curriculum violence: America’s new civil rights issue. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

63.

Ingalls

Tiboni

Werrin

(1961). Lead poisoning in Philadelphia, 1955–1960. Archives of Environmental Health, 3(5), 55–579.

64.

Johnson

C. C.

Sondergeld

T. A.

(2020). Outcomes of an integrated STEM high school: Enabling access and achievement for all students. Urban Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920914368

65.

Johnston

M. P.

(2017). Secondary data analysis: A method of which the time has come. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3(3), 619–626.

66.

Kashyap

Sharma

Uniyal

(2019). Distribution of heavy metals in habitation land-use soils with high ecological risk in urban and peri-urban areas. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 1(0), 1–14.

67.

King

Butler

B. R.

(2015). Who cares about diversity? A preliminary investigation of diversity exposure in teacher preparation programs. Multicultural Perspectives, 17(1), 46–52.

68.

King

J. E.

Swartz

E. E.

(2014). “Re-membering” history in student and teacher learning: An Afrocentric culturally informed praxis. Routledge.

69.

Kirton

Warren

(2018, September). Making history in Halifax: The performance of the G7 environment ministers’ meeting in 2018. http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/evaluations/kirton-warren-making-history-in-halifax.pdf

70.

Knapp

(1986). Hegel’s universal in Marx, Durkheim and Weber: The role of Hegelian ideas in the origin of sociology. Sociological Forum, 1(4), 586–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01107338

71.

Kounina

Margni

Henderson

Jolliet

(2019). Global spatial analysis of toxic emissions to freshwater: Operationalization for LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(3), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1476-2

72.

Kozol

(2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. Crown Publishing Group.

73.

Krebs

Wilson

Bradbury

Siriwardena

Krebs

(1999). The second Silent Spring? Nature, 400(6745), 611–612. https://doi.org/10.1038/23127

74.

Krippendorff

(2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.

75.

Kumashiro

(2015). Against common sense: Teaching and learning toward social justice. Routledge.

76.

Kumashiro

(2018). Foreword to special issue: Why and how STEM education matters in social justice movements. The Journal of Educational Foundations, 31(1/2), 5–7. http://search.proquest.com/docview/2120668231/

77.

Ladson-Billings

(1999). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race theory perspective. Review of Research in Education, 24(0), 211–247.

78.

Ladson-Billings

(2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

79.

Ladson-Billings

(2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84.

80.

Ladson-Billings

Tate

(1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47.

81.

Laidlaw

Filippelli

Sadler

Gonzales

Ball

Mielke

Laidlaw

(2016). Children’s blood lead seasonality in Flint, Michigan (USA), and soil-sourced lead hazard risks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(4), 358–358. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13040358

82.

Lambrinidou

Triantafyllidou

Edwards

(2010). Failing our children: Lead in US school drinking water. NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 20(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.2190/NS.022010eov

83.

Lemert

(2004/2016). Social theory: The multicultural and classic readings (4th ed.). Westview Press.

84.

Liboiron

Tironi

Calvillo

Liboiron

Tironi

Nelson

(2018). Toxic politics: Acting in a permanently polluted world. Social Studies of Science, 48(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/030612718783087

85.

Lieberman

Kirk

R. C.

Littlefield

(2003). Perishing paradigm: Race—1931–99. American Anthropologist, 105(1), 110–113. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2003.105.1.110

86.

Little

(1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737015002129

87.

Dei

G. J. S.

Lordan

(2016). Anti-colonial theory and decolonial praxis. Peter Lang Incorporated, International Academic Publishers.

88.

Lorde

(1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Crossing Press.

89.

Martin

J. L.

Yeung

K. T.

(2003). The use of the conceptual category of race in American sociology, 1937–99. Sociological Forum, 18(4), 521–543. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SOFO.0000003002.90428.c2

90.

Martinez

A. Y.

(2014). Critical race theory: Its origins, history, and importance to the discourses and rhetorics of race. Frame, 27(2), 9–27. http://www.tijdschriftframe.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Frame-27_2-Critical-Race-Theory.pdf

91.

Marya

Rapp

(2019, April). Global CO₂ emissions hit a record high last year. These countries are to blame. https://fortune.com/longform/global-co2emissions-2018/

92.

Matsuda

(1991). Voices of America: Accent, antidiscrimination law, and a jurisprudence for the last reconstruction. Yale Law Journal, 100(5), 1329–1407. https://doi.org/10.2307/796694

93.

Memmi

(2000). Racism. University of Minnesota Press.

94.

Merriam-Webster (2019). Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/

95.

Mertens

(2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (4th ed.). Sage.

96.

Meyer

S. G.

(2000). As long as they don’t move next door: Segregation and racial conflict in American neighborhoods. Rowman & Littlefield.

97.

Morrell

Dueñas

Garcia

López

(2013). Critical media pedagogy: Teaching for achievement in city schools. Teachers College Press.

98.

Morrison

(2006). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of modern social thought. Sage.

99.

Murphy

Nance

(2008). The Pangea conundrum. Geology, 36(9), 703–706. https://doi.org/10.1130/G24966A.1

100.

National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2018a). Percent distribution of teachers in the United States during the 2015-2016 school year by race. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_209.10.asp

101.

National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2018b). Percent of student enrollment in the U.S. during the 2015-2016 school year and 7-year projection. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=65

102.

Nelson

(2016). The social life of DNA: Race, reparations, and reconciliation after the genome. Beacon Press.

103.

Nelson

(2011). Revisiting the dialectic of environment: Nature as ideology and ethics in Adorno and the Frankfurt School. Telos-New York, 155(155), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.3817/0611155105

104.

Newmann

(1991). Promoting higher order thinking in social studies: Overview of a study of 16 high school departments. Theory & Research in Social Education, 19(4), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1991.10505645

105.

Oswald

(2019). Race and ethnic relations in today’s America. Routledge.

106.

Paletta

Fava

Ubertini

Bastioli

Gregori

La Camera

Douvan

(2019). Universities, industries and sustainable development: Outcomes of the 2017 G7 environmental ministerial meeting. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 19, 1–10.

107.

Paris

Alim

(2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.

108.

Pellow

D. N.

(2016). Toward a critical environmental justice studies: Black Lives Matter as an environmental justice challenge. Du Bois Review, 13(2), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X1600014X

109.

Pigliucci

Boudry

(2013). Philosophy of pseudoscience reconsidering the demarcation problem. University of Chicago Press.

110.

Pincus

Ehrlich

(2019). Race and ethnic conflict: Contending views on prejudice, discrimination, and ethnoviolence (2nd ed.). Westview Press.

111.

Rist

Dahdouh-Guebas

(2006). Ethnosciences–A step towards the integration of scientific and indigenous forms of knowledge in the management of natural resources for the future. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 8(4), 467–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9050-7

112.

Rogers

Santosh

Rogers

Santosh

(2004). Continents and supercontinents. Oxford University Press.

113.

Sabia

D. R.

(1988). Rationality, collective action, and Karl Marx. American Journal of Political Science, 32(1), 50–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111309

114.

Sampson

R. J.

Winter

A. S.

(2016). The racial ecology of lead poisoning: Toxic inequality in Chicago neighborhoods, 1995-2013. Du Bois Review, 13(2), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X16000151

115.

Sankhla

M. S.

Kumari

Sharma

Kushwah

R. S.

Kumar

(2018). Water contamination through pesticide & their toxic effect on human health. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 6(1), 967–970.

116.

Saussure

Bally

Sechehaye

Riedlinger

Baskin

(1966). Course in general linguistics (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill.

117.

Skiba

Ormiston

Martinez

Cummings

(2016). Teaching the social curriculum: Classroom management as behavioral instruction. Theory into Practice, 55(2), 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1148990

118.

Sleeter

(2000). Chapter 6: Epistemological diversity in research on preservice teacher preparation for historically underserved children. Review of Research in Education, 25(1), 209–250. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X025001209

119.

Sleeter

(2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052002002

120.

Southerland

(2000). Epistemic universalism and the shortcomings of curricular multicultural science education. Science and Education, 9(3), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008676109903

121.

Stampfli

Hochard

Vérard

Wilhem

Vonraumer

(2013). The formation of Pangea. Tectonophysics, 593, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2013.02.037

122.

Stone

(2018). Race and ethnicity. In Ryan

J. M.

(Ed.), Core concepts in sociology. Wiley.

123.

Szostkowski

Upadhyay

(2019). Looking forward by looking back: Equity in science education as socially just and morally healing action. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(2), 335–353.

124.

Tate

(1997). Chapter 4: Critical race theory and education: History, theory, and implications. Review of Research in Education, 22(1), 195–247. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X022001195

125.

Taylor

Gillborn

Ladson-Billings

(Eds.). (2009). Foundations of critical race theory in education. Routledge.

126.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) (2016). International decade for action: Water for life 2005-2015. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/index.shtml

127.

Vasudevan

(2019). An intimate inventory of race and waste. Antipode. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12501

128.

*Watson

Wiggan

(2018). The genius of Imhotep: Lessons from a high achieving urban minority school. Teaching and Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.001

129.

Wiggan

(2010). Afrocentricity and the black intellectual tradition: Carter G. Woodson, W. E. B. Du Bois, and E. Franklin Frazier, Journal of Pan African Studies, 3(9), 128–151.

130.

Yuan

(2018). Preparing teachers for diversity: A literature review and implications from community-based teacher education. Higher Education Studies, 8(1), 9–17.