ABSTRACT
Teaching for social justice in a standards-driven social studies classroom can be challenging. However, the authors believe that there does not have to be a choice between meeting standards versus meeting the needs of students. Through semistructured interviews with four current social studies practitioners, the authors found similarities in the language the teachers used to describe the role of standards in their classrooms, teachers' perceptions of context as being important to the tension between teaching for social justice and teaching to standards, and the ways that perception impacted how they negotiated that tension. The authors offer social studies teachers an alternate conceptual frame for viewing social justice instruction in terms of methods rather than content.
    Keywords: social justice, social studies, standards, teacher practices
    In today's testing environment, standards, benchmarks, and indicators are familiar terms to high school social studies educators. Nevertheless, standards do not have to be a barrier to teaching social justice. Through dialogues with teachers, we have learned that there is room to negotiate teaching to standards and teaching for social justice and that they are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary if educators conceptualize social justice instruction in terms of methods rather than content.

Standards versus Social Justice
    Because of standardized state tests and national mandates such as the No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Congress 2001), standards-centered curricula tend to drive many social studies classrooms.
    At the high school level, teachers race to cover mountains of content, hoping their charges will memorize the right terms for true/false or multiple-choice exams. There can be no time for exploring the roots of the war in Iraq when students will face tests asking them to choose between the definitions of despotism and absolute dictatorship. Whereas it might be possible to teach some of these terms and other items in the context of world issues, the sheer number required by testing standards prohibits taking the time to do so (Wood 2004, 40).
    Is this standards-centered curriculum in direct contrast to social justice? Teaching for social justice may reflect how a teacher understands social justice. Based on the literature of key scholars in the field, social justice means the following:

* Justice should begin with the concepts of domination and oppression, which highlight issues of decision making and culture as well as the importance of social group differences; therefore, social justice is the elimination of institutionalized domination and oppression, because only basic institutional change can rectify the deep injustices in our society (Young 1990).

* Justice is a preferred relationship between institutions and human beings and is tied to the notion of rights and impartiality with an ethic of caring (Noddings 1999).

* A just society is one in which everyone affected by a decision has a part in making that decision (Greene 1998).

    Whereas the concept of justice is political (Young 1990) and individualized based on teachers' understandings of social justice, what occurs within and between schools is complex. Social justice may be remade constantly in the praxis of teaching for social justice (Tyson and Park 2006).

Teachers and Standards
    There does not have to be a choice between meeting standards and meeting students' needs. Caring and rigor are complementary in social justice education (LaBoskey 2006). Second, standards can be generative in that they can be agents of change (Bednarz 2004). Moreover, standards help to produce new curricula (Haines 2005). Last, educators can use standards as tools to improve classroom instruction (Avery, Kouneski, and Odendahl 2001).
    So why is there a perceived tension between standards and teaching for social justice? Standards can be problematic for educators when they teach a historical event, such as the controversial legacy of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), from a single perspective (Hess 2005). There are claims that the pedagogy of teaching to the test renders students' lives and communities invisible, subjugating the equity and social justice agenda to a standards-driven classroom (Hall et al. 2004). Moreover, teaching to standards can limit the content of a curriculum, simplifying what can be or is taught to students if, in an attempt to regulate curricular and instructional decisions, teachers prioritize coverage of material over critical-thinking skills (Wong et al. 2003).
    Nevertheless, standards and testing are merely two of several factors that shape classroom instruction (Firestone and Mayrowetz 2000; Grant 2003). External pressure to raise students' test scores has some effect on course content but much less influence on teachers' instructional strategies than other factors, such as the goals of policymakers for curriculum and assessment, the design of the tests themselves, and learning opportunities for teachers (Firestone and Mayrowetz 2000).

Methods
    Semistructured interviews were conducted with two white female educators and two white male educators, all practitioners in the field of social studies. Andrea and Michael were newer teachers with five or less years of experience, whereas Joe and Mary had each taught for approximately fifteen years. The 1,900 students at Andrea's urban public high school reflected a range of socioeconomic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds. At Michael's school, many of its 1,000 students came from working-and middle-class families, with more than half of the students at this urban public high school identifying as African American and the majority of the remaining students identifying as white. Joe taught at a private, all-male, and mostly white suburban high school with 1,500 students; Mary's suburban public high school had a predominantly white, upper-middle-class student population of 2,400.

Findings
    There were similarities in the language the teachers used to describe the role of standards in their classrooms, their belief that context was important to the tension between teaching for social justice and to standards, and how that impacted their negotiation of the tension.

Language of Limitation and Force
    The teachers in this study defined teaching for social justice in terms of topics and, therefore, felt restricted. They spoke overwhelmingly of standards as being limiting in some way. In fact, the descriptive and often figurative language the teachers chose was particularly significant. For example, Joe claimed that topics must be tied to a standard rather than connected to or reflected in standards, and he described the state's Academic Content Standards for Social Studies as "a terrible document." Andrea described the standards as limiting, directly linking them to her state's graduation test. She claimed, "I can't go that far [in teaching social justice]. ... [W]ith the pressures of the [state test], you can only do so much" arid "we don't have time to really talk about [social studies]." Mary described teaching to standards as "the push" to do so. She went on to say, "Unfortunately, standardized tests rule the day, and so you know, it sort of bleeds out into other areas that aren't even [state] graduation test affiliated." She perceives tests as powerful because they "rule the day," and the effect is like an open wound, bleeding out into other courses. Last, Michael claimed that social justice topics were "slowly being squeezed out" by his state's graduation test and that "as the stakes are raised, many teachers, especially in social studies, are forced to skip sections of the text so that more time can be spent covering the standards, benchmarks, and indicators of the [state test]." The sense of being squeezed out and forced to skip sections reflects the pressure this teacher feels. The raised stakes are indicative of the value that people--other than classroom teachers and their students--place on standardized tests

Dependence on Context
    The teaching context was important because educators perceived that standards were emphasized in some contexts more than others, increasing teacher tension. Therefore, context seemed to play a role in the teachers' beliefs about whether they actually taught social justice. For example, Joe taught in an all-male, private Catholic high school. He claimed:

I think a place like a Catholic school is so easy to integrate social justice. ... The freedom that I have, I can do just about anything, whereas the freedom you might have as a history teacher in a public school is really, really limited when it comes to teaching social justice because the question then becomes what specifically are you talking about.

    He viewed public school teachers as haying greater limitations placed on them, whereas he viewed his elite, private school setting as providing more freedom. Similarly, Mary, who worked in a predominantly white, suburban, and affluent school district, described the aggressive and competitive context in which she must teach. "You know, but that's also part of the whole environment even though neither of my courses are related to things like [state] testing, you know that certainly is, I mean that's the push. Everything's about testing and standardized testing." The context of her social studies department and the school atmosphere in general was about teaching for testing.

Educators' Perceptions of Social Justice
    The language educators used and the context in which they taught for social justice informed their perceptions of social justice approaches and methods. The educators in this study worked from the following assumptions:

* Teaching for social justice is a new, nontraditional approach.

* Teaching for social justice is professionally risky, creating upheaval in and out of the classroom.

* Teaching for social justice means teaching from multiple perspectives.

* Teaching social justice battles mis-education.

    What these assumptions have in common is that they show educators focused on the approach--how they taught something as opposed to what they taught. As a consequence, the educators' perceptions of standards impacted how they negotiated teaching for social justice. When they talked about social justice, they emphasized the how rather than the what. These teachers held certain assumptions about what it meant to teach for social justice in their classrooms. For example, when asked about teacher resistance to teaching for social justice, Joe claimed the following:

I think you have a lot of social studies teachers who are tied to the content and that's not part of the content of the textbook. We are textbook driven; history is a textbook-driven course and to get people to jump out of that and ... look at it differently is something that is not done. It's the old "sage on the stage" teaching method and definitely any high school that you go to, that's what you're going to see in history class. History teachers love history; they don't necessarily love teaching it, but they don't want to change what it means to be a history teacher or social studies teacher.

    Joe believed that to teach for social justice, a social studies teacher must not be driven by a textbook and instead must try something new and give up traditional teaching methods, ultimately changing what it means to be a social studies teacher. He continued, "Are you teaching morality? Well, whose morality? Are you teaching your church's morality? So, it's such a slippery slope." He assumed that the teaching of morality and social justice are equivalent, or at least perceived to be one and the same.
    In describing what her social studies department and community at large preferred, Mary claimed, "It's a 'don't rock the boat' kind of approach." Her remark implied that teaching for social justice would cause some upheaval. For example, she suggested teaching it this way:

So you kind of gotta do it on the covert. [laughs] Well, and even that, if you can do it on the covert and not in a way where kids don't feel like they're scared of what you're trying to get them to ponder, because once you do--and if kids start to go home and tell their parents that, you know, you're questioning their core--you know, then you're done, or at least your life becomes more difficult for a significant amount of time until ... things calm down.

    In this way, Mary perceived that social justice teaching questions a student's core, which should be done without scaring him or her. Otherwise, the results may cause some upheaval and negative professional consequences.
    According to Andrea, teaching social justice was about teaching sides. Andrea gave the following example:

Imperialism is in the standards. When you teach imperialism, you need to teach both sides ... [and] instead of saying, well, "Africans were savages and then the Europeans came"--you flip it and say "Ninety percent of the conflict today is probably caused by imperialism."

    For her, teaching for social justice meant to teach from a different perspective. In fact, Andrea believed that not teaching from a different perspective was an incorrect way to teach. She claimed that social justice teaching was akin to battling miseducation:

If somebody misteaches it, and teaches it as the Europeans came in and ... civilized the savages, or they teach it like ... [the Europeans] went to go get stuff that they needed, well then ... it's miseducation. So I really think that we're trying to battle a miseducation issue.

Implications
    The classroom practices of the four social studies teachers discussed in this article were shaped by their perceptions of state and national standards--a finding that holds implications for all social studies practitioners. If social studies teachers are to help students become participatory and just citizens, then teaching for social justice is a valid and important classroom practice that deserves encouragement and support. Having this essential practice pushed aside or overlooked because of pressures linked to student testing is unacceptable, especially given that state and national social studies standards actually address several social justice topics. For example, as part of social studies standards for high school students, study of the nineteenth century typically requires examination of child labor and the social effects of urbanization. In addition, when students learn about imperialism, teachers should include information about the exploitation of African resources. Clearly, child labor, urbanization, and the exploitation of resources exemplify social justice issues.
    Granted, some states offer greater opportunities for educators to teach to the standards while also teaching for social justice. For example, Ohio's social studies standards expect ninth-grade students to "analyze the results of political, economic, and social oppression and the violation of human rights including: a. The exploitation of indigenous peoples; b. The Holocaust and other acts of genocide, including those that have occurred in Armenia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Iraq" (Ohio Department of Education 2003, 60). One of the many goals for Ohio's high school seniors is for them to be able to "describe the intended and unintended effects of human modifications to the physical environment and weigh the costs and benefits of alternative approaches to addressing environmental concerns (e.g., alternative sources of energy, mass transportation systems, or farmland and wetland preservation)" (Ohio Department of Education 2003, 71). However, even with opportunities such as these, teachers in this study mentioned that prepping students for their state's graduation test required them to emphasize some topics while limiting others, leading to only superficial discussions on many social justice issues.
    What would happen if social studies teachers reframed how they view teaching for social justice and, as mentioned in the previous section, came to conceptualize social justice instruction in terms of methods rather than content? By adopting the perspective that social justice is an approach rather than a topic, educators could teach every historical era, event, or topic through a social justice lens. Standards would no longer be a barrier because teaching for social justice would be present in every standard or benchmark. For example, teachers might approach the computer age by examining the political implications of who initially gained access to this technology and who did not and comparing these findings with today's users and nonusers of digital technologies. Teachers could easily become more familiar with the digital divide through such texts as Toward Digital Equity: Bridging the Divide in Education (Solomon, Allen, and Resta 2003) or The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society (Van Dijk 2005) and engage their students in document-based activities that examine the viewpoints of both users and nonusers.
    What would happen if social studies teachers reframed how they view teaching for social justice and came to conceptualize social justice instruction in terms of methods rather than content?
    This strategy or approach fits well with the National Council for the Social Studies' (NCSS 1994) recommendation that social studies teachers should use not one but multiple perspectives. "To stimulate and challenge students' thinking, teachers should expose them to many information sources that include varying perspectives on topics and offer conflicting opinions on controversial issues" (NCSS 1994, 167). Whereas some teachers might interpret teaching with multiple perspectives to be related to content, we frame it here as an instructional method. For example, when comparing and contrasting traditional, market, command, and mixed economies, a multiple-perspectives approach means that students study how various peoples within each of these systems experience that system. Not only would students read a text or view a video reflecting a wealthy landowner's perspective, they would also learn how that system affected the food and housing of a factory worker. Or, an educator might engage students in brainstorming about economic globalization and the advantages and disadvantages it bestows, allowing students to discover how different life experiences lead people to form divergent perspectives. As a teacher guides students in comparing the perspectives of those in power with the disempowered, and as the inequities within a system become exposed, social justice is taught. Regardless of which social studies standard the educator addresses, instruction that consistently and fairly incorporates multiple perspectives is teaching for social justice.
    How might teachers' concerns about limited time and a textbook-driven curriculum be negotiated? Perhaps one answer is to help teachers realize that there are actions they can take to address these two realities. For example, supplementing an existing lesson plan with a document or video that presents the views of members of a disenfranchised group would not demand the same time span required for creating a new lesson plan. Thus, time-pressured teachers could begin teaching for social justice or enhance their ongoing efforts by using small increments of their planning time to insert alternate primary source documents into established instructional units. Another action can occur at the departmental level, with various social studies teachers within a school contributing one or more social justice teaching materials to the social studies department. These supplemental materials would then be available on a loan basis to all members of the department. For those teachers heavily dependent on the textbook, yet receptive to teaching for social justice, this community bank of resources might serve to lessen that dependency and diversify their lesson plans. Again, thinking how versus what opens up multiple possibilities for teachers interested in bringing a social justice perspective into their classrooms.
    Teachers, then, need to rethink how they conceptualize teaching for social justice. An important first step would be recognizing the link between teaching for social justice and creating knowledgeable and just citizens in a democracy. Second, educators must strive to represent multiple perspectives in their classroom instruction. By teaching the perspectives of the most powerful and vulnerable within societies, students can better appreciate the complexity of history, government, and economics and understand there is work yet to be done as our society continually strives to be truly just and equitable.

Conclusion
    Even with standards, benchmarks, and indicators, schools are ideal sites for promoting social change. The school is not a neutral site where teachers transfer objective knowledge to students regardless of social locations. Educators must consider the sociocultural implications with regard to knowledge production and the transfer of knowledge. "The pedagogical in this sense is about the production of meaning and the primacy of the ethical and the political as a fundamental part of this process" (Giroux 1992, 133).
    Whereas the standards-driven environment does not seem to be changing any time soon, we suggest that social studies educators focus on the how (teaching for social justice), rather than the what (standards). In this way, standards and teaching for social justice are not viewed as mutually exclusive but rather can be taught in cooperation with each other and perhaps even complement each other. Teachers can find ways to continue to teach for change and social justice, no matter how confining the standards may appear.

REFERENCES
    Avery, P. G., N. P. Kouneski, and T. Odendahl. 2001. Authentic pedagogy seminars: Renewing our commitment to teaching and learning. The Social Studies 92 (3): 97-101.
    Bednarz, S. W. 2004. U.S. world geography textbooks: Their role in education reform. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 13 (3): 223-38.
    Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. 1954. 347 U.S. 483.
    Firestone, W. A., and D. Mayrowetz. 2000. Rethinking "high stakes": Lessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record 102 (4): 724-49.
    Giroux, H. 1992. Resisting difference: Cultural studies and the discourse of critical pedagogy. In Cultural studies, ed. L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, and P. A. Treichler, 199-212. New York: Routledge.
    Grant, S. G. 2003. History lessons: Teaching, learning, and testing in U. S. high school classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Greene, M. 1998. Introduction: Teaching for social justice. In Teaching for social justice, ed. W. Ayers, J. A. Hunt, and T. Quinn, xxviixivi. New York: Teachers College Press.
    Haines, K. M. 2005. Voices across time. OAH Magazine of History 19 (4): 21-22.
    Hall, K., J. Collins, S. Benjamin, M. Nind, and K. Sheehy. 2004. SATurated models of pupildom: Assessment and inclusion/exclusion. British Educational Research Journal 30 (6): 801-17.
    Hess, D. 2005. Moving beyond celebration: Challenging curricular orthodoxy in the teaching of Brown and its legacies. Teachers College Record 107 (9): 2046-2067.
    LaBoskey, V. K. 2006. "Reality check": Teachers' lives as policy critique. Teachers and Teaching 12 (2): 111-22.
    National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). 1994. Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, DC: NCSS.
    Noddings, N. 1999. Care, justice, and equity. In Justice and caring: The search for common ground in education, ed. M. S. Katz, N. Noddings, and K. A. Strike, 7-20. New York: Teachers College Press.
    Ohio Department of Education. 2003. Academic content standards for K-12 social studies. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.
    Solomon, G., N. J. Allen, and P. Resta, eds. 2003. Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in education. Boston, MA: Pearson.
    Tyson, C. A. and S. Choon Park. 2006. From theory to practice: Teaching for social justice. Social Studies and the Young Learner 19 (2): 23-25.
    U.S.Congress.2001. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 107th Cong. P. L. 107-110.
    Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. 2005. The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Wong, K. K., D. Anagnostopoulos, S. Rut-ledge, and C. Edwards. 2003. The challenge of improving instruction in urban high schools: Case studies of the implementation of the Chicago Academic Standards. Peabody Journal of Education 78 (3): 39-87.
    Wood, G. 2004. A view from the field: NCLB's effects on classrooms and schools. In Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools, ed. D. Meier and G. Wood, 33-50. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
ADDED MATERIAL
    DELANE BENDER-SLACK is an assistant professor at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio. Her research interests include adolescent literacy, content-area literacy, and social justice. MARY PAT RAUPACH is an assistant professor at Kent State University-Stark in North Canton, Ohio. Her research interests include social studies education, urban schools, and race.