Culturally Conscious Curriculum

Abstract

This case study outlines the struggle for desegregation and the adoption of culturally responsive curricula in the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) as it attempted to balance state politics and federal court oversight. The case offers a detailed illustration of the political and legal events that led up to the adoption, elimination, and reinstatement of the TUSD Mexican American Studies (MAS) program. With a focus on social justice and the power of culturally relevant curricula, educational leaders are encouraged to consider these events from the perspective of different stakeholders in evaluating future policy alternatives for MAS in Tucson.

Keywords

culturally conscious curriculum social justice school desegregation

Case Narrative

Introduction

Bonilla-Silva (2002) argued that color blindness is the “dominant racial ideology of the post-civil rights era” (p. 42). Unlike the explicit racism of the Jim Crow era, the “color blind racism” that emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s was more subtle, “apparently non-racial, and institutionalized” (Bonilla-Silva, 2002, p. 42). Color-blind ideology is based on two main ideas: that because we live in a postlegal segregation society, racism no longer exists, or is at least significantly less than it was in the Jim Crow era, and that any current racial disparities are specific to individuals or particular communities (Cammarota, 2014). Because color-blind ideology does not acknowledge persistent and continued racism, “avoidance of racial terminology” (Bonilla-Silva, 2002, p. 43) is a key functional component. However, for marginalized students, this often results in a failure to connect with their teachers and the curriculum, and feelings of isolation. Cammarota (2014) argued, “Denying the existence of racism may connect to the realities of those who live above and beyond oppressive circumstances but often fails to capture the experiences of students of color” (p. 80).

In Tucson, Arizona, a community struggling with racial turmoil, the school district adopted culturally relevant pedagogical programs as a means to engage students with the curriculum by more closely aligning it with their cultural and racial experiences. The program designed for (but not exclusive to) Latina/o students was rolled out in 1997. After years of academic success, the program is still facing ardent political opposition by those arguing for a “color-blind” curriculum. This learning exercise focuses on the adoption, implementation, and political fight over the Tucson Unified School District’s (TUSD) Mexican American Studies (MAS) Program.

History of School Desegregation Litigation

Following decades of litigation concerning desegregation of institutions of higher education and unequal K-12 public school systems, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), the Supreme Court reconsidered the “separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). After reviewing evidence of the negative effects of de jure segregation on Black students, the Court determined that the “separate but equal” doctrine no longer had a place in public education and that de jure segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (U.S. Constitution amend. XIV). A decision of that magnitude required more guidance from the Court—How were segregated school systems to go about the business of desegregating? The Court issued a follow-up opinion in Brown v. Board of Education the following year (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka [Brown II], 1955). In that opinion, the Court gave very general guidance, ordering de jure segregated school systems to desegregate “with all deliberate speed” (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka [Brown II], 1955, p. 301).

The vague nature of this directive was intended to provide time and flexibility for segregated school systems to desegregate in a thoughtful manner. However, in practice, the ambiguity made enforcement difficult in K-12 school districts and states that opposed desegregation. Some took years, or decades in the most extreme circumstances, to dismantle their segregated school systems, forcing the Court to provide more specific guidance. In Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968), the Court compelled districts operating dual schools systems “to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch” (pp. 437-438). Thereafter, “unitary status” became the goal of school districts under a federal desegregation order; until a school district receives unitary status, it is subject to federal district court oversight. To earn unitary status, the school district must establish that “the vestiges of past discrimination [have] been eliminated to the extent practicable” (Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 1991, p. 238). A district must prove to the federal court that it has desegregated and is operating a single unified school system in specific areas, including student assignment, faculty and staff assignment, extracurricular activities, transportation, and facilities (i.e., Green factors; Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 1968).

Desegregation and the MAS Program in Tucson

Historically, Tucson has had a racially diverse school system, serving White, Black, Native American, and Latina/o communities. Whites began to move into certain parts of TUSD in larger numbers from the 1950s until well into the 1970s, isolating other groups and making neighborhood schools more homogeneous. In 1974, Black and Latina/o students filed class action lawsuits against TUSD, claiming that TUSD maintained a “tri-ethnic segregated school system” (Mendoza v. Tucson School District No. 1, 1980, p. 1341), used discriminatory tracking practices, had inferior curricula and facilities for non-White students, had discriminatory hot lunch programs, and failed to serve students’ linguistic and special learning needs.

Following the 1977 trial, the federal district court issued its opinion in June 1978. It held that the state violated federal law and TUSD was operating a segregated school system for Blacks and non-Blacks but it found no such separate system for Latina/o students (Mendoza v. Tucson School District No. 1, 1980). The district court ordered TUSD to create a desegregation plan focusing on nine particular schools.

After the opinion was issued, the parties filed posttrial motions and entered into settlement discussions. All parties (including the U.S. Department of Justice) were able to come to an agreement regarding the issues of the case. In the settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement), TUSD agreed to add three schools to the nine schools already in the desegregation plan, to review and amend student assignments and discipline, and to make additional program improvements. The Settlement Agreement was designed to remedy past discrimination and lay out the rights and responsibilities of the parties as they moved toward unitary status, which at the time was anticipated to take approximately 5 years.

As part of its desegregation efforts and pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, in 1978 TUSD created an ethnic studies program (Ethnic Studies), which supported culturally relevant programs in African American Studies, Pan-Asian Studies, and Native American Studies. It was not until 1997, in response to community pressure, that TUSD adopted a MAS program to support what was then, and remains today, its largest student demographic group (TUSD, 2014). MAS was designed to support Latina/o student achievement by bolstering students’ cultural and intellectual identities. Specifically, it aligned “curriculum with state standards in history, humanities, and the social sciences; however the program supplement[ed] the state-required content with materials that [spoke] directly to the experiences of Mexican American students” (Cammarota, 2009, p. 121). That is, it was a color-conscious, not color-blind approach. MAS successfully increased student achievement over seven cohorts of students (Acosta, 2013a) and increased the graduation rate for Latina/o students to 90%, with 80% of those students continuing on to college (Cammarota, 2012).

Positive Momentum Meets Conservative Politics

While TUSD was making some positive changes by providing culturally relevant curriculum, the political climates in Arizona and Tucson became more hostile to Mexican Americans. Beginning in the 1980s, the Arizona State Legislature passed laws establishing English as the state’s official language, eliminating bilingual education (2001), intially rejecting the adoption of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, and permitting racial profiling and detainment of individuals suspected to be undocumented expatriates.

It was within this political environment that TUSD was working to adhere to the 1978 Settlement Agreement. While the Settlement Agreement initially proposed a 5-year period for TUSD to earn unitary status, it took much longer than anticipated; in fact, it was “more than 25 years . . . before [TUSD] did so—and then only in response to the district court’s 2004 sua sponte order directing the parties to show cause why the court should not declare [TUSD] unitary and terminate its jurisdiction” (Fisher v. Tucson Unified School District, 2011, p. 1137). TUSD finally applied for unitary status in 2005. In its Petition for Unitary Status and Termination of Court Oversight, TUSD claimed that it had shown a “good faith commitment and eliminated the vestiges of discrimination to the extent practicable by measure of the Green factors” (Fisher v. Tucson Unified School District, 2011, p. 1138). The district court did not issue its preliminary findings until August 2007.

As TUSD awaited a decision on its motion for unitary status, political tensions rose in Tucson. In 2006, Dolores Huerta, the renowned civil rights activist, spoke with TUSD students and faculty. During her speech, she made the statement that “Republicans hate Latinos.” Her statement, which likely resonated with many students, set into motion a series of unfortunate political events. Then Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, sent his Deputy Superintendent, Margaret Garcia Dugan, to refute Huerta’s allegations. Garcia Dugan, who is herself Latina, was met with silent protests from students (Acosta, 2013a, 2013b). Subsequently, Horne began investigating TUSD, particularly MAS. Horne sought to eliminate MAS by challenging its curriculum. While he did not personally visit any MAS classrooms, review the MAS curriculum, obtain supporting evidence, or attempt to understand the pedagogical principles driving MAS, Horne claimed that MAS fostered ethnic solidarity and anti-Americanism. Horne was disturbed by the MAS color-conscious approach, and campaigned for a reversion to a color-blind ideology. In 2007, Horne requested that the TUSD school board eliminate MAS. The board denied the request, finding no evidence to support Horne’s claims. Not easily dissuaded, Horne initiated a media campaign against MAS, using local and national media outlets. He proclaimed that MAS curricula and pedagogy were “un-American” and oppositional to mainstream (particularly White, middle-, and upper-class) norms and values (Horne, 2007, para. 1), and called on the public to help him eliminate Ethnic Studies in TUSD, particularly MAS.

Horne also sought to challenge MAS in the Arizona legislature; for example, Senate Bill (SB) 1108 proposed to “eliminate ethnic studies programs and ethnic-based organizations from state-funded education” (O’Leary & Romero, 2011, p. 9). While SB 1108 was never enacted, the issue remained on the political agenda. In 2009, Horne’s friend Senator John Paton introduced SB 1069, similar to SB 1108. This proposed bill was not passed, but it would resurface.

Meanwhile, the district court issued its preliminary findings in TUSD’s application for unitary status in 2007. In its decision, the district court used a two-pronged test, looking at if TUSD complied in good faith with the Settlement Agreement and made a good faith effort to eliminate the vestiges of de jure segregation. At that time, the district court concluded that there was not sufficient evidence of good faith effort to comply with the Settlement Agreement or to eliminate the vestiges of past discrimination and ordered TUSD to compile a comprehensive report of its compliance. After receiving reports from TUSD and the plaintiffs, the district court failed to find sufficient evidence of a good faith effort on behalf of TUSD to eliminate past de jure segregation. However, despite these conclusions, the district court determined that TUSD should be awarded unitary status, arguing that “given the facts of this case, successful desegregation will exist when the School Board is accountable to the public for its operation of the District in compliance with the . . . principals of equity” (Fisher v. United States, 2008, p. 1167). The Post-Unitary Status Plan was submitted to and approved by the district court, and in 2009 the federal desegregation order was lifted. In justifying its decision, the district court stated that it had a responsibility to “guard the public against future injury and to restore true accountability to the public education system by returning it to the control of local authorities as soon as possible” (Fisher v. Tucson Unified School District, 2011, p. 1141).

The gap in district court oversight allowed lawmakers to pass legislation harmful to MAS. In May 2010, despite significant protests in Tucson, House Bill (HB) 2281 was signed into law. HB 2281 prohibits educational programs that “promote the overthrow of the United States government; promote resentment toward a race or class of people; are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group; advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals” (HB 2281, 2010, p. 1). Programs found to be in violation of the law lose 10% of annual state funding. Regarding the passage of HB 2281, Kunnie (2010) noted, “Arizona has seen fit to pass legislation that represses and violates the right of all students to understand the actual history of the US and by extension the Americas and the world” (p. 19). In spite of the TUSD and the plaintiffs’ reports to the contrary, Superintendent Horne issued an independent finding that MAS constituted a violation of HB 2281, forcing TUSD to choose between MAS and continued state funding. Members of the TUSD community responded with shock and outrage. Students protested and took over a meeting of the TUSD school board. A group of students, parents, and teachers filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of HB 2281.

Republican John Huppenthal (a close political ally of Horne) took over as the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2011. Huppenthal hired Cambium Learning to conduct a private (and costly) audit of MAS. The Cambium Learning report concluded that MAS did not violate HB 2281; instead, it found that MAS was contributing to the academic success of Latina/o students. In contravention to this report, Huppenthal issued his own report citing the opposite conclusion.

In 2009, the plaintiffs appealed TUSD’s unitary status to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a July 19, 2011 order, the Ninth Circuit determined that the district court was in error by granting TUSD unitary status. The court found that TUSD failed to act in good faith in its enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and its efforts to eliminate the vestiges of past, de jure segregation. Noting that partial unitary status on some of the Green factors may be appropriate in areas where TUSD satisfied the good faith requirements, the court of appeals reversed the award of unitary status and remanded the case back to the district court for further review and oversight.

With the case back under its supervision, on January 6, 2012, the district court appointed University of Maryland professor emeritus Willis D. Hawley as Special Master to facilitate the development a new unitary status plan for TUSD. In creating the unitary status plan, the parties were instructed to focus on the Green factors and other specific issues from the Settlement Agreement. However, by 2012, TUSD had formally eliminated MAS classes to avoid financial penalty for violating HB 2281. Students, parents, teachers, and community members demanded that MAS be immediately reinstated. Before allowing TUSD to reinstate, Dr. Hawley ordered a study be conducted to measure the impact of MAS on student achievement. The MAS Impact Analysis confirmed that students who participated in MAS experienced greater academic achievement (Cabrera, Milem, Jaquette, & Marx, 2014), reinforcing the findings of previous reports from TUSD, Mendoza, and Cambium Learning. Based on the results of the MAS Impact Analysis, the district court required programming similar to MAS be included as part of the unitary and post-unitary status plans.

In February 2013, the parties were able to agree on a proposed unitary status plan that included strategies for addressing issues with student and faculty assignment, academic achievement of designated groups of students (Black and Latina/o students), discipline, resource allocation, and administrative accountability (Fisher v. Lohr, 2013). (Some of these issues are Green factors, others stem from Brown.) A significant strategy included the incorporation of culturally relevant and color-conscious curricula. If TUSD complies with the terms of the unitary status plan, it can move for a declaration of partial or full unitary status for the 2016-2017 school year. While culturally responsive curriculum is currently protected by federal court oversight, it remains vulnerable. HB 2281 is still an active law in the state. Arizona’s political leaders are still wary of culturally relevant curricula, particularly for that which is targeted to Latina/o students. Before ending his term as State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Huppenthal issued a notice of noncompliance with HB 2281 to TUSD (Huppenthal, 2015). His successor, Diane Douglas, also a color-blind advocate, took office on January 5, 2015. She vowed to “keep the ball rolling” (Grow, 2015, para. 8) on the notice issued to TUSD by Huppenthal. With Douglas at the helm, the future of ethnic studies in TUSD and across the state appears to be at risk without federal oversight.

Teaching Notes

This case study outlines the struggle for desegregation and the adoption of culturally responsive curricula in TUSD as it attempted to balance state politics and federal court oversight. It offers a detailed illustration of the political and legal events that led up to the adoption, elimination, and reinstatement of the TUSD MAS program. With a focus on social justice and the power of culturally relevant curricula, educational leaders are encouraged to consider these events from the perspective of different stakeholders in evaluating future policy alternatives for MAS in Tucson.

The MAS program and the new culturally relevant curricula create opportunities for new paths, new futures for students who encompass bilingualism, biculturalism, and family/community wisdom. As is evident by the case narrative, racism is a dominant theme surrounding TUSD’s ethnic studies program. As suggested by Diem, Ali, and Carpenter (2013), for some time, racism has been maintained as a dominant force in school policy, and “educational leadership has been slow to address the ways in which anti-racist curricula and pedagogy should be woven into the coursework of aspiring school leaders” (p. 9). This case outlines a contemporary, race-based dilemma that has occurred in one of our nation’s school districts. In the Suggested Learning Experiences detailed below, aspiring school leaders are tasked with debating and discussing the issues surrounding race-based policies (unitary status, post-unitary status, and state law). The problem they address is how to create policies to best serve students and families, and other stakeholders of TUSD, within the boundaries of Juan Crow,¹ color-blind state politics. We ask students and instructors to consider their position at the crossroads of opportunity and the status quo. The need for appropriate, powerful, and compassionate leadership in this case is clear.

In addition, as students attempt to create policy, we ask they appreciate the power of the student-led protests in Tucson. These Mexican American youth challenged the power structure and rejected the dominant deficit narrative. These student protesters were not calling for their schooling to be “reframed,” but perhaps “unframed.” Thus, as students of educational leadership consider this case, we ask they also consider how schooling is done, or “framed,” for those who have been marginalized by the education system, as well as other social, political, and economic systems. Certainly, unframing will require transparency and open dialogue by all groups, and working across sectors of people and policy. To leverage the platform, educators must think about how policies from different sectors (social, economic, political, educational, etc.) intersect and interact, rather than assume they are mutually exclusive. Thus, we ask students to consider unframing and “how leadership can challenge inequities and empower families from diverse communities through engagement in the lived experiences of marginalized communities and students” (Dugan, Ylimaki, & Bennett, 2012, p. 63).

Regarding segregation and desegregation—the highlighted policies in this case, Orfield (2007) suggested, “federal courts need to seriously consider their rush to terminate desegregation plans that are working, judicial actions that push school systems back toward patterns of segregation that produce neither equal opportunity nor preparation for a multiracial society” (p. 295). Thus, we ask education leadership students to critique the breach of trust between the state politicos and the TUSD community, and the student body. How can successful collaboration between stakeholder groups occur? Importantly, students should acknowledge that “local control” has historically supported segregation when contemplating the future end of federal oversight.

If we are to get beyond racism, we must talk about it. Orfield (2007) noted that ignoring issues of race has only resulted in increased segregation. Thus, we ask students to consider how schools can serve as ideal locations for discussions on race to take place. As Diem et al. (2013) have suggested, “The rapidly shifting context of public schooling suggests [education leaders] must realize their roles as competent facilitators of critically-oriented conversations” (p. 9). What elements need to be in place for these race-related conversations to be successfully facilitated? How can dialogue, understanding, and healing be created and maintained?

Problem: What Should Be Done With TUSD’s Ethnic Studies Program (Given the Past and Douglas’ Threat From the State)?

Suggested Learning Experiences

Although these learning activities are geared toward students of educational leadership, they may also be appropriate for students of policy, politics of education, school–community relations, public administration, and political science.

Here, we include three stakeholder personas for teams of students of educational leadership to consider regarding the future of TUSD’s ethnic studies program. Dividing students into teams will facilitate the activities detailed later.

Stakeholder Persona Team 1: You are the new Superintendent of TUSD, and you are a Tucson native.

Questions for Stakeholder Team 1 to consider:

What are your needs?

What are your concerns?

What are your goals as a superintendent and the culturally relevant curriculum?

What are your options and alternatives?

What is politically and legally feasible for you?

What is your recommended/proposed course of action and why?

What leadership style(s) best help(s) you accomplish these goals?

Stakeholder Persona Team 2: You are a community activist from Tucson and a parent with one child in Chavez Middle School and another child in Huerta High School, both TUSD schools.

Questions for Stakeholder Team 2 to consider:

What are your needs?

What are your concerns?

What are your goals?

What are your options and alternatives?

What is politically and legally feasible for you?

What is your recommended/proposed course of action and why?

What theory of activism and/or learning guides your decision making and strategy and why?

Stakeholder Persona Team 3: You are the new principal of Huerta High School in TUSD. Huerta High serves a majority Latina/o student body, as well as a significant percentage of Black students (73% Latina/o, 20% Black, 7% Other).

Questions for Stakeholder Team 3 to consider:

What are your needs?

What are your concerns?

What are your goals?

What are your options and alternatives?

What is politically and legally feasible for you?

What is your recommended/proposed course of action and why?

What leadership style(s) do you intend to apply to obtain your goals and why?

Suggested Class Activities

Note: Instructors and students may want to watch the Precious Knowledge documentary before engaging in learning activities if it is available.

Short Activities

Activity A: Create a mock town hall meeting. Divide class by stakeholder teams and then ask each team to consider, debate, and discuss future options for TUSD’s ethnic studies program.

Activity B: Conduct a whole-class conversation prompted by a single stakeholder.

Activity C: Create an out-of-class writing assignment with the option of any of the stakeholder personas. Upon return to class, students should defend their chosen stakeholder position. Additional questions to consider for this exercise may include the following: Why do you think this stakeholder position is best? Why did you choose this particular stakeholder position? What are the major issues this stakeholder will confront in their educational desires for TUSD? What are the best way(s) for this stakeholder to address these issues and why?

Major Project or Teaching Unit

Designing and implementing a plan for the future of TUSD and ethnic studies: (Preparation step: The instructor must proactively identify and invite four to five volunteers from outside of the class who will serve as mock school board members. These individuals could be faculty members and/or graduate students). This major project/teaching unit is designed to be completed in four unique steps. Time allotments for completion of each step and its various components should be thoughtfully planned by the instructor. We recommend 3 to 4 weeks for the completion of all four steps.

Step 1: Team creation

Create small teams for each “stakeholder” group: superintendent, community activist/parent, and principal. Ask each team to research their stakeholder position and work together to respond to the respective guiding questions. Each team will present their responses in a five- to seven-page paper. The instructor will provide feedback on this written work.

Step 2: Proposal preparation

Teams use the written document and feedback from Step 1 to create a proposal for the mock TUSD school board. Each proposal must include a curriculum plan for Ethnic Studies, assuming that HB 2281 is upheld as constitutional. Team members must remain cognizant of the history and the controversy regarding Ethnic Studies and the larger politics at play in Arizona. Teams should prepare to present their proposal and arguments to the mock school board. The instructor can require that proposals be presented as formal, oral presentations or as more casual remarks.

Step 3: Present to the mock TUSD school board

Mock school board members (volunteers) will review each team’s proposal and hear any oral arguments from teams (each team will be allotted 20 min to present oral arguments to the mock school board). The mock school board will deliberate and weigh the options for 1 hr. After deliberation, the mock school board will reconvene and vote to adopt or amend the proposal they feel is best suited for TUSD. The mock school board will then return their decision to the stakeholder teams and adjourn.

Step 4: Implementation of plan approved by mock school board

All stakeholder teams work collaboratively to create an implementation plan based on the decision of the mock school board. The implementation plan must include the following items:

Goals.

Actions to achieve goals.

Time frame and timeline for implementation, for each action.

Summation of duties and responsibilities for particular positions.

Explanation of legality (How does the plan comply with HB 2281 or the post-unitary status plan and also align with the missions of the Ethnic Studies Program and TUSD?)

Statement regarding how the plan will be sustained.

Useful Resources for Instructors and Students Regarding TUSD and MAS

TUSD: http://tusd1.org/contents/distinfo/deseg/index.asp

Information on Precious Knowledge documentary: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/precious-knowledge/

Information on HB 2281: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281s.pdf

Horne’s open letter to the citizens of Tucson: http://nau.edu/uploadedFiles/Academic/CAL/Philosophy/Forms/An%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Citizens%20of%20Tucson.pdf

Cambium Learning Report: http://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/Ethnic%20studies%20audit%20summary.pdf

Huppenthal’s notice of noncompliance with HB 2281 to TUSD: http://archive.azcentral.com/persistent/icimages/news/TUSD%20Notice%20of%20Noncompliance%201-2-2015.pdf

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.

Notes

Author Biographies

Ann E. Blankenship, JD, PhD, is an assistant professor of educational leadership at The University of Southern Mississippi. Her research interests include educational law and policy, specifically teacher employment law and equality of educational opportunity. She is affiliated with the Research Initiative on Social Justice and Equity (RISE).

Leslie Ann Locke, PhD, is an assistant professor of educational policy and leadership at the University of Iowa. Her research interests include social justice, schooling for students from historically marginalized groups, and equity-oriented education policy. She is affiliated with the Research Initiative on Social Justice and Equity (RISE).

References

Acosta

(2013a). Dangerous minds in Tucson: The banning of Mexican American Studies and critical thinking in Arizona. Journal of Educational Controversy, 8(1), 1-18.

Acosta

(Interviewee). (2013b, October 17). Interview with Curtis Acosta on October 17, 2013 at Western Washington University [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebzgIIdw3Dk

Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991).

Bonilla-Silva

(2002). The linguistics of color blind racism: How to talk nasty about Blacks without sounding “racist.” Critical Sociology, 28(1-2), 41-64.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (Brown), 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955).

Cabrera

N. L.

Milem

J. F.

Jaquette

Marx

R. W.

(2014). Missing the (student achievement) forest for all the (political) trees: Empiricism and the Mexican American Studies controversy in Tucson. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 1084-1118.

Cammarota

(2009). The generational battle for curriculum: Figuring race and culture on the border. Transforming Anthropology, 17, 117-130.

Cammarota

(2012). TUSD MAS ban: Educational sovereignty in the wake of state repression. Journal of Reading Education, 37(2), 5-6.

10.

Cammarota

(2014). Challenging colorblindness in Arizona: Latina/o students’ counter-narratives of race and racism. Multicultural Perspectives, 16, 79-85.

11.

Diem

Ali

Carpenter

(2013). “If I don’t use the word, I shouldn’t have to hear it”: The surfacing of racial tensions in a leadership preparation classroom. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 16(4), 3-12.

12.

Dugan

Ylimaki

Bennett

(2012). Funds of knowledge and culturally responsive leadership: Transforming a failing school in a postcolonical border context. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 15(3), 56-65.

13.

Fisher v. Lohr, Unitary Status Plan, 4:74-cv-00090-DCB (Feb. 20, 2013).

14.

Fisher v. Tucson Unified School District, 652 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

15.

Fisher v. United States, 549 F.Supp.2d 1132 (D. Ariz. 2008).

16.

Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 U.S. 430 (1968).

17.

Grow

(2015, January 5). Rage against the machine defy ethnic studies ban, says Arizona schools chief. Rolling Stone. Retrieved from http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/rage-against-the-machine-defy-ethnic-studies-ban-says-arizona-schools-chief-20150105

18.

HB 2281. (2010). State of Arizona. Arizona House of Representatives. Retrieved from http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281s.pdf

19.

Horne

(2007). An open letter to the citizens of Tucson. Retrieved from http://nau.edu/uploadedFiles/Academic/CAL/Philosophy/Forms/An%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Citizens%20of%20Tucson.pdf

20.

Huppenthal

(2015). Notice of noncompliance. State of Arizona Department of Education. Retrieved from http://archive.azcentral.com/persistent/icimages/news/TUSD%20Notice%20of%20Noncompliance%201-2-2015.pdf

21.

Kunnie

(2010). Apartheid in Arizona? HB 2281 and Arizona’s denial of human rights of peoples of color [Special issue: Defending ethnic studies in Arizona]. The Black Scholar, 40(4), 16-26.

22.

Mendoza v. Tucson School District No. 1, 623 F.2d 1338 (D. Ariz. 1980).

23.

O’Leary

A. O.

Romero

A. J.

(2011). Chicana/o students respond to Arizona’s anti-ethnic studies bill, SB 1108: Civic engagement, ethnic identity, and well-being. Aztlan: A Journal of Chicano Studies, 36(1), 9-36.

24.

Orfield

(2007). Conclusion. Challenges for this generation: Integration and social transformation. In Frankenberg

Orfield

(Eds.), Lessons in integration: Realizing the promise of racial diversity in American schools (pp. 291-296). Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

25.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

26.

TUSD. (2014). TUSD stats. Available from http://tusdstats.tusd1.org/

27.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV.