Copyright 2013 by the National Art Education Association

Studies in Art Education: A Journal of issues and Research

2013, 54(4), 294-309

"These findings
suggest that
art education
is deeply
imphcated
in the
production and
maintenance
of social
inequalities."

Theoretical Considerations for Art

Education Research With and About
"Underserved Populations"
AMELIA M . KRAEHE
University of North Texas

JONI B. ACUFF
The Ohio State University

Though it is widely used, the concept of "underserved" is sorely

undertheorized in art education. Before the field of art education
can effectively address the persistent educational disparities across
different sociocultural and economic groups, we need deeper
understandings of entangled sociocultural and political processes
that create and conceal underservedness. The term "underservedness"
moves us away from conceiving of populations, and instead draws
attention to cultural articulations and material conditions that
prevent certain groups from fully accessing and benefiting from
the resources and opportunities for effective education, including
high-quality art experiences. In this article, the authors discuss four
theoretical perspectivescritical race theory, intersectionality,
critical multiculturalism, and social justice educationthat can
foster nuanced analyses and cogent explanations of art education in
the context of underservedness. The discussion focuses on key tenets
of these theoretical perspectives, important points of tension and
synergy, and their relevance for art education research.

Correspondence regarding this article may be sent to the authors at

Amelia.KraeheOunt.edu andjoniettaboyd@gmail.com

294

Kraehe ancJ Acuff/Theoretical Considerations for Art Education Research

ore than a decade after the introduction of No Child Left Behind,

there continue to be concerns that not

all students are well served by the current educational system.Though rhetoric about closing
the quality-of-service gap (Hilliard, 2003) typically has pertained to "core" academic content
areas. The President's Comnnittee on the Arts
and the Humanities released a report in 2011
that built a case for directing educational policies toward redressing longstanding inequities in arts education. The report argued that
"students in schools that are most challenged
and serving the highest need student populations often have the fewest arts opportu-

& Degge, 1980; Slivka, 2011; Young, 2011). Of

these and other pioneering scholars, some have
focused on one or more social category (e.g.,
race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, ability,
age, nationality, immigration status, language,
culture, and religion) while others have tended
to speak more broadly of the social construction and institutionalization of difference(s) and
inequality within art education. Additionally,
recent studies have demonstrated the presence of racial, economic, and gender gaps in art
achievement (Keiper, Sandene, Persky & Kuang,
2009) and access to learning opportunities in
art (Rabkin & Hedberg, 2011). These findings
suggest that art education is deeply implicated
in the production and maintenance of social
inequalities.

nities" (President's Comnnittee on the Arts

Today, school art teachers, supervisors, and

policymakers as well as art educators in out-ofschool settings are faced with questions of how
ment reflected the Obama adnninistration's
to conceptualize and respond to these dispariincreasing awareness and recognition of the
ties. We, the authors, believe that art education
negative effects that curriculum and budget
research influences how our field understands
compression have had on arts education
and articulates the way particular children and
for many public school students, especially
communities have been served inequitably.'
"underserved populations" (Duncan, 2009).
unfortunately, it has not been uncommon for
While critical questions of access and quality
these inequities to receive cursory treatment in
analyses and interpretations. The way art eduof arts education for low-income and minority
cation research has been conducted with and
students has gained more national attention
about "underserved populations" has implica(e.g., Catterall, 2012), there have been numerous
tions for the preparation of future art teachers
art educators, researchers, and art education
and scholars, construction of K-12 art curriculum
scholars who have urged the field to consider
and standards, funding of community-based
the relevance of sociocultural, economic, and
and art museum programs, and our ability as
political influences on art learning, curriculum,
a field to advocate for continued relevance in
teaching, and policy (e.g., Ballengee Morris,
2013; Bey, 2011 ; Cahan & Kocur, 1996; Chalmers, public education.
2002; Check, 2004; Collins & Sandell, 1992;
We are mindful of the potential conseDaniel & Stuhr, 2006; Delacruz, 1996; Eisenhauer,
quences for our use of the term "underserved"
2007; Freedman, 1987; Garber, 2004; Grigsby,
as it may contribute to the production of
1977; Knight, 2006a, 2006b; Lee, 2012; McFee
another essentializing category that reduces

and the Humanities, 2011, p. 32). This state-

Studies in Art Education I Volume 54, No. 4

295

and conflates the heterogeneous situations

and incommensurate experiences of individuals
belonging to differently minoritized groups. In
this moment, however, we believe that the term
can still be usefully, though cautiously, deployed
in highlighting an area of much-needed research
in the field of art education. "Underserved"often
subsumes multiple groups under one label. It is
used synonymously with terms such as urban,
inner city, diverse, at risk, and low SES (socioeconomic status) (Bell, 2007). An example of this
can be found in The College Board's National
Task Force on the Arts in Education's (2009)
publication of policy recommendations. In this
report, issued in support of increasing access to
high-quality arts education, the authors used
"underserved" to mean a range of identities and
situations.These included minority students, students attending schools with high percentages
of low-income and minority groups, students
attending schools with low college attendance
rates, first-generation college students, and
students who are homeless or in foster care. A
number of art education studies have employed
these terms (Bennett, 2011 ). Some may prefer to
use "underserved" as politically correct identity marker in the place of outdated terms (e.g.,
"deprived") or heavily critiqued categories (e.g.,
"at risk"). It is possible that "underserved" is used
in lieu of more specific conceptssuch as race,
social class, and sexualitywhen there is a lack
of knowledge of their meanings.
Our goal in this article is to consider how
the field of art education might develop more
complex understandings and theorizations
of underservedness in research and practice.^
While we recognize its potentially problematic
uses, we invoke the discourse of "underserved"
as a way to call attention to an undertheorized
area of research in art education. Our discussion in this article is, therefore, oriented toward
understanding "underserved"as a historical and
political category that signifies a set of material conditions and cultural articulations within
social, political, and economic institutions.

296

policies, and practices that prevent particular

groups of people from fully accessing and benefiting from the resources and opportunities for
effective, high-quality education.
This discussion sets the stage for reconceptualizing how we imagine, construct questions,
conduct our analyses, and develop interpretations about art education for and with "underserved" groups. We consider the significance
of four theoretical directions for conducting
art education research with and about "underserved" groups. They include critical race theory,
intersectional methodology, critical multiculturalism, and social justice education. While
the terminologies may be appropriated into art
education discourse, the analytic force of these
frameworks is rarely actualized in reports of art
education research, policies, and practice-based
inquiries. We focus on the potential of these
four theoretical lenses to support art educators, art education policymakers, and researchers in conducting situational, relational analyses
of underservedness that illuminate how race,
gender, class, and sexuality play out as socially
constructed categories of difference as well as
material relations of power (Apple, 1979/2004).
The situational and relational analyses imagined through these frameworks aim to show the
linkages between (1) micro-level experiences
in art classrooms and art teacher preparation
programs, (2) meso-level or institutional state
art education standards and national art education policies, and (3) diffuse macro-level societal
and discursive structures that maintain inequality. These multi-level analyses, we believe, are
crucial in increasing our knowledge about how
best to serve all learners effectively and equitably in art education.
The renriaining sections of this article describe
the key tenets and assumptions of each of the
four theoretical positions.Then, we interpret the
relevance of these theoretical positions for art
education research conducted with and about
"underserved populations," describing fruitful
ways each theoretical position may inform art

Kraehe and Acuff /Theoretical Considerations for Art Education Research

education inquiries. The conclusion considers important points of tension and synergy
between these theoretical bodies.

Critical Race Theory

Art education, as in other fields in education,
often has attempted to address the causes of
educational inequality without adequately theorizing race and racism as a fundamental part of
educational and social processes in the United
States (Desai, 1996, 2010b; Knight, 2006b).
Proponents of critical race theory (CRT) have
insisted that race is a key part of understanding
and transforming the educational system today
(Gillborn, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 2009; LadsonBillings & Tte, 1995). In the 1970s and 1980s,
CRT emerged from the work of mostly minoritized scholars within legal studies (Bell, 1987;
Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 1995;
Harris, 1993) and made its way into education
in the 1990s (Yosso, Parker, Solrzano, & Lynn,
2004). This scholarly movement grew out of concerns that racial injustice persisted even though
the Civil Rights Movement brought about incremental changes by providing equality under the
law for Blacks. Whites continued to disproportionately occupy positions of power and benefit
from unearned advantages produced out of
the social and economic legacy of slavery and
subsequent history of legalized racial oppression. Discontent with the slow advance of racial
equality, critical race scholars and practitioners
have the shared goal of social transformation.
No singular statement summarizes the work
of critical race scholars. Yet, important discernable strands across various writings have significance for enhancing art education research and
practice. One important position within CRT has
been that racism plays a central role in United
States society. Contemporary forms of racism
have been subtler than inthepre-Civil Rights era
and, usually, have operated under the guise of
neutrality. Knight (2006a) explained, "Whiteness
is perhaps the foremost unmarked and thus
unexamined category in art education... White

is assumed to be the human norm. Moreover,

when Whiteness goes unexamined, racial
privilege associated with Whiteness goes unacknowledged" (p. 323). White Euro American
experiences often have been the standard by
which all other racial groups' experiences are
measured, thus, the experiences and interests of
Whites are normalized.
Whiteness and other forms of normalized
privilege frequently has been invoked in art
education research that does not recognize the
influence of power relations and participants'
socio-historical location (demographic or otherwise) in the analysis and interpretation of data.
By not attending to these contextualizations in
research and reporting, art education research
has obscured the racial and cultural specificity of
our collective art education knowledge and has
risked inappropriate generalization of research
findings across all groups. CRT has explicitly
sought to develop its conceptual constructs out
of the experiences and stories of people of color
in order to destabilize the presumed neutrality
and universality of Whiteness.
Racism may operate indirectly through institutional rules and routines. As Lynn and Parker
(2006) stated, "the ideology and assumptions
of racism are ingrained in the political and
legal structures as to be almost unrecognizable" (p. 260) to members of the dominant
group. This often has happened when the policies and norms of educational institutions have
appeared "fair in form but have a disproportionately negative impact on racial minority groups"
(p. 260). Racism also has been enacted through
face-to-face microaggressions, where everyday
insults, exclusions, and slights are transacted
between individuals and groups (Lewis, 2003).
Thus, racism may manifest within the everyday actions and interactions of art education
(Sanders, Hutzel, & Miller, 2009).
Another key tenet of CRT has held that racism
is inextricably linked to all other forms of social
inequality, including sexism, elitism, heterosexism, ableism, xenophobia, and others. CRT has

. Studies ir) Art Education I Volume 54, No. 4

297

expanded into related theoretical strands such

as Latin@crit (Latcrit), Asiancrit, Tribalcrit, critical whiteness studies, critical race feminism, and
Queer-crit (Bernai, 2002; Carbado, 2002; Delgado
& Stefancic, 1998; Haney Lpez, 1996; Wing,
1997; Yosso, 2005). These multiple directions in
CRT have pointed to intersecting identities and
shifting axes of oppression, privilege, and injustice, "where not one category (e.g., race, socia'l
class, sexual orientation) dominates, but where
there are multiple ways in which they operate...
and can become potential avenues of solidarity"
and sociopolitical activism (Lynn & Parker, 2006,
p. 262). CRT has introduced a set of imperatives
for scholarship that requires us to think more
relationally and systemically about our practices and policies in art education. It has redirected research about curriculum, for example,
away from analyzing an individual lesson, curricular unit, teacher, or classroom as an entity
unto itself Instead, a CRT analysis would embed
that individual lesson, curricular unit, teacher
and student narratives, and classroom interactions in a broader context of institutional and
discursive practices and societal arrangements
that may help to maintain racial privilege and
subordination.
While several recent publications have provided a CRT perspective on education in general,
our reading of the literature has indicated little
research published using CRT in art education.
In seeking to understand and redress underservedness, CRT could enable us to attend to racialized inequality in education on multiple levels.
For example, future critical race studies in art
education might foreground the construction
of race, racism, and other forms of oppression in
art education at an interpersonal level. This kind
of research might be framed around questions
such as:
How do minoritized students experience
and make sense of race and other markers of
identity in the art classroom?
How do art students and teachers of
different racial backgrounds perceive.

298

understand, and respond to racism and

other forms of subordination inside the art
classroom?
How are racial discourses deployed within
art curriculum?
What explains the low participation of
students of color and low-income students
in college-bound tracks of advanced art
courses?
How do racism and other interlocking
systems of oppression play out in art teacher
education programs and art colleges?
Critical race studies in art education might
also reveal institutional and historical racial
injustice. CRT could help our field answer questions such as:
How do conditions for art teaching and
learning differ between schools with
divergent student demographics?
How is learning in art impacted by the
inequitable distribution of certified art
teachers?
What barriers exist for recruiting and
admitting students of color and low-income
students into the art teaching profession?
How do preservice art teacher preparation
programs (mis)educate future teachers for
how to successfully teach students of color?
How does race or ethnicity inform the
epistemologies that undergird art education
research and evaluation?

Intersectionality
Rooted in multiracial feminist theories and
queer theory (Anzalda, 1999; Collins, 1990;
Combahee River Collective, 1983; Crenshaw,
1991; hooks, 1990; McCall, 2005), intersectionality is another important perspective to incorporate into art education research. Intersectionality
is not entirely new to art education. Almost
20 years ago. Hicks (1994) critiqued static and
homogenizing definitions of community that
were prevalent in many well-meaning efforts
to teach about diversity in art education. Other
art education scholars, artists, and art critics

Kraeheand Acuff/Theoretical Considerations for Art Education Research

drawing from feminist and womanist perspectiveshave also been attuned to intragroup
differences, in particular, experiential differences
In gender oppression as it intersects with racial
inequality (Daniel, 1996; Piper, 2003), heteronormativity (Desai, 2003; Honeychurch, 1995;
Mercer, 1991), and ableism (Blandy, 1996).
Intersectionality can be understood as a
methodological orientation to research. Choo
and Ferre (2010) identified three different foci
in current approaches to intersectionality in
research: group-centered, process-centered,
and system-centered. Intersectional methodology that is group-centered has recognized and
valued difference within any shared identity.
Group-centered interpretations have focused
on including the perspectives of "multiply-marginalized" (p. 131) groups and individuals who
experience various forms of subordination and
discrimination based on their overlapping social
locations (e.g.. Black females, gay working-class
White males, and first-generation Asian lesbian
women). A process-centered practice has highlighted what Choo and Ferre termed "analytic
interaction; a nonadditive process, a transformative interactivity of effects" (p. 131). This means
that different identity markers (e.g., race, class,
gender, sexuality, nationality, age, ability, etc.)
can and do inform each person or group's perceptions, experiences, privileges, and oppressions not as discrete factors operating in isolation
but, rather, at the same time. Social categories
of race, class, gender, sexuality, and others are
mutually constitutive; that is, they are not simply
added together as discrete sets of experiences
(race + class + gender + sexuality) but, instead,
they overlap and comingle. This can produce
"the absence of clear edges" (Daniel, 1996, p. 80)
in how individuals make sense of identities and
the effects of institutional inequalities. Processcentered intersectionality must, according to
Choo and Ferre (2010), "problematize relationships of power for unmarked categories, such as
whiteness and masculinity" (p. 131), as well as
heteronormativity (Desai, 2003; Honeychurch,

1995). The third consideration for intersectionality research has been the extent to which
researchers give "institutional primacy" (Choo &
Ferre, 2010, p. 131) to any single axis of oppression and marginalization.
Intersectional approaches to inquiry can
help art education research and pedagogy to
generate more complex understandings of how
social formations (e.g., race, gender, class, sexuality) shape individual and shared experiences
of members of historically marginalized (underserved) and dominant (abundantly served)
groups. As a methodological lens, intersectionality also may support the development of
explanations of the role art education practices
and policies play in reproducing and challenging social inequalities. There have been some
recent studies in art education that illustrate
sensitivity to intersectionality as a methodological approach to research and classroohn inquiry.
One example is a self-study conducted by Cosier
(2011) with a group of art education students.
Cosier described how she and her students
analyzed and interpreted hidden visual cultural
narratives within popular film representations of
Black girls. She and her students explored how
the construction of Black girlhood was more
than simply the addition of two discrete identities (race + gender). Critical reflections helped
students further examine the heteronormative
assumptions and class-based norms running
throughout many hegemonic femininities. Race,
gender, sexuality, and class were dynamically
and inextricably threaded together.
Kraehe (2012) also took an intersectional
approach in her ethnographic research on the
co-emergence of beginning art teachers' social
and professional identities. Her comparative
study of six art teachers' identities eschewed
essentializing, linear notions of art teacher
learning and development. By focusing on the
structural and cultural interplay of race, sexuality, class, and nationality in the process of negotiating what it means to become and be an art
teacher, Kraehe illuminated how prospective art

Studies in Art Education I Volume 54, No. 4

299

teachers' multiple social locations comingle to

influence their ideological stances and teaching
commitments. Both Cosier (2011) and Kraehe
(2012) challenged the field of art education to
think relationaliy about underservedness and
illustrated the complexities and contradictions
that are obscured by apolitical and decontextualized discussions of "underserved populations."

Critical Multicultural Education

Multicultural education is an educational
reform that was conceived during the Civil
Rights movement. Its goal was to provide
all studentsregardless of gender, race, and
classan equal opportunity to learn in school
(Banks & Banks, 1989). This movement was an
answer to the call for education that acknowledged and reflected the experiences, histories,
cultures, and perspectives of people of color.
Over time, other historically victimized groups
such as women, people with disabilities, senior
citizens, and those who identify as gay or
lesbian also sought equitable resources and fair
treatment.
Multicultural education theory has often
been critiqued for its uninspiring translation
into art education policy and practice (Chin,
2011; Desai, 2000; Kader, 2005; Kraehe, 2010;
Wexler, 2007).This view has stemmed from misinterpretations of multiculturalism's most basic
principles (Gay, 1995). Scholars have argued
that the transformative pulse undergirding multicultural education theory has been neglected
(Nieto, Bode, Kang, & Raible, 2008; Sleeter &
Bernai, 2004); this is problematic, as its historical roots are grounded in a critical analysis of
power and structural change (Banks, 2004; Gay,
2004). Simply put, some approaches to multiculturalism have failed to identify power and
privilege as chief concepts for interrogation.
Education criticalists have named this "liberal
multiculturalism" (May & Sleeter, 2010; McLaren,
1995). Fortunately, some art education scholars,
artists, and art critics have rejected this diluted
version of multiculturalism (Durham, 1986;

300

Lippard, 2000; LaMarr, 1984; Luna, 1990; MesaBains, 1996; Stuhr, Ballengee Morris, & Daniel,
2008). Critical multicultural discourse has drawn
from the activist origins of multiculturalism by
centering the critical analysis of power (Banks,
2004; Rios & Stanton, 2011). May and Sleeter
(2010) asserted that critical multiculturalism
"provides the best means by which to integrate
and advance various theoretical threads" (p. 10)
that address power relations and are potentially
transformative even outside of the traditional
classroom. These "theoretical threads" include,
but are not limited to, CRT, social justice theory,
critical theory, feminist theory, and queer theory
(e.g., Ballengee Morris, 2013).
Three developing tenets of critical multicultural education have guided this rerouting. Of
primacy has been the act of unmasking and
deconstructing the assumed neutrality of the
concept of "civism." The perceived definition of
civism has been a "universal, neutral set of cultural values and practices that underpin the
public sphere of the nation-state" (May, 1999,
p. 30; see also May & Sleeter, 2010). However,
civism has been far from neutral because the
dominant group has established its values and
practices. The expense of civism, for minorities,
has been a loss of ethnic, cultural, and linguistic
habitus.
Another key tenant of critical multicultural
education has been the positioning of cultural
differences within the wider nexus of power
relations. Critical multicultural education has
claimed that the knowledge of the dominant
culture is normalized and universalized. Its
goal has been to uncover how alternative cultural knowledge comes to be subjugated and
to support educators in recognizing and utilizing the differing cultural frames of reference
that learners bring to the classroom (Desai,
2003; Stuhr, Ballengee Morris & Daniel, 2008;
Young, 2011). Simultaneously, critical multicultural education has contested the cultural
capital allocated to dominant social position
as a result of wider hegemonic power relations

Kraehe and Acuff/Theoretical Considerations for Art Education Research

(May, 1999; May & Sleeter, 2010). Lastly, critical

multicultural education has desired to "maintain
a reflexive critique of specific cultural practices
that avoids the vacuity of cultural relativism, and
allows for criticism (both internal and external
to the groups), transformation, and change"
(May, 1999, p. 33).This principle has supported a
more fluid, complex, interconnected conception
of culture wherein people are encouraged to
engage dynamically with all ethnic and cultural
backgrounds, especially their own.
Art education scholars can ground their
practice and/or research in critical multicultural
education theory in order to identify and question institutional power, the creation of culture,
the ownership of knowledge, and educational
and community resources (May, 1999). Critical
multicultural education can help art education
researchers indict hegemonic epistemologies
and pedagogies (Freir, 1970). Helfand (2009)
suggests:
Asking questions about how we have
learned to think and construct knowledge
within a Western paradigm leads us to
explore how we are shaped by our culture.
Ouestions about thought and knowledge
guide us deeper to where we can theorize
about the forces sharing our history or
identity, (p. 92)
Here, Helfand challenged us to question
"objectivity" and normalized knowledge. This
suggestion has been particularly helpful for art
education, as "objectivity" is common in many
areas of our field. For example, Acuff, Hirak, and
Nangah (2012) asserted that there has been a
Master Narrative leading most histories of art
education, leaving out various cultural perspectives and defining historical significance
around very few voices. These accounts of the
history of art education have been standardized. Fortunately, various art education scholars have, commendably, offered literature that
attempts to counter these insular, controlled
histories. Their writing has articulated invisible
histories and silenced narratives in art education

(Bolin, Blandy, & Congdon, 2000; Slivka, 2011)

and also has suggested strategies that may
combat the stagnant, seemingly objective art
education history (Acuff, Hirak, & Nangah, 2012).
These scholarly efforts have been noteworthy;
however, much of this work has yet to identify,
dissect, and act against the structural inequalities in place that create and sustain the Master
Narrative in the first place (Fine, 1994). These
more foundational investigations are necessary,
as they are directly related to the formation and
maintenance of underservedness.
To consider the query, "how should the
concept of underserved be interpreted and
addressed in art education theory and practice,"
art education scholars need to first recognize
and acknowledge how "underserved" groups
have become the underserved groups.^ Certain
knowledge and ways of knowing have been
accepted and universalized (Helfand, 2009).
Therefore, undoubtedly, those whose cultural
knowledge has been least revered will continue
to maintain the position of underserved, as they
will consistently have to work within the confines of the established, dominant knowledge
paradigm that is different from their own. By
continuously disseminating myopic historical
renderings of art education, we have played an
active role in writing minority groups out of the
development of our field. In order to address
the concept of underserved in art education
theory and practice, we should recognize and
challenge the oppressive positioning of certain
groups of people and their knowledge. Critical
multicultural education guides art education
research in moving toward such a goal.
Critique of power has been at the core of
critical multicultural education. From a research
perspective, it has guided the development of
relevant questions and strategies for denormalizing dominant ways of knowing (Freir, 1970).
Critical multicultural education theory has
incited explicit questions such as, "Is it true?...
Who says so? Who benefits most when people
believe it is true? How are we taught to accept

Studies in Art Education I Volume 54, No. 4

301

that it is true? What alternative ways of looking

at the problem can we see?" (Sleeter & Grant,
2007, p. 260). Applying these inquiries to art
education research may translate into questions
such as:
Whose knowledge, culture, and educational
experiences have been subjugated in art
education (research, curriculum, history)?
How does such subjugated knowledge
become normalized and whom does it
benefit?
How does subjugated knowledge inform art
education practices?
Are we cognizant of the consequences
of using rationality as the foundation of
knowledge?
What (or who) is our transformative work
aiming to transformthe people or the
system?
If art educators fail to consider these structural questions and others like them, we must
realize that our practices and programs that
focus on and provide experiences for the"underserved" may indeed be hegemonic, thus, sustaining the underservedness of groups.

Social Justice Education

Bell (2007) wrote, "social justice education is
both a process and a goal" (p. 1). Social justice
has been multidimensional in that it is a goal
found within multicultural education theory as
well as CRT, feminism, (dis)ability studies, critical
theory, postcolonial theory, and queer theory
(North, 2008). There have been myriad theoretical frameworks often associated with social
justice education. However diverse its theoretical trajectories, key concepts have existed
around which the discourse of social justice education is organized: the equitable distribution
and fair allocation of rewards, resources, and
punishments (Bell, 2007; Tyler & Smith, 1995)
and the recognition of difference and diverse
epistemologies (Cochran-Smith, 2010; North,
2008). Because social justice promotes respect
for difference, access, fair treatment, and equal

302

opportunities for everyone, its goal has been

the liberation for all people (Freir, 1970; hooks,
1994).
Historically, social justice has been especially
important for those outside the dominant population because such groups of people disproportionately bear the effects of discrimination and
unequal resources (Tyler & Smith, 1995). Social
justice education has helped to focus on structural change; it has rejected and countered the
deficit model (Valencia, 1997) that identifies
minorities and "underserved" groups as incapable of educational and economic success due
to race, culture, or personal agency or desire
(Bell, 2007). Thinking of groups of people in
these reductionist terms has supported racial
and socioeconomic hierarchies. Social justice
education has supported the assertion that,
regardless of race, culture, or community, with
equal access, individuals will be self-determined,
develop their full capacities, and have a sense of
agency (Bell, 2007).
A social justice education framework has
helped researchers attend to the ways in which
art unites with the emancipatory goals of
social justice (Dewhurst, 2011; Garber, 2004).
Engagements with art and visual material culture
have illuminated sources of alienation and strategies for working against forces that structure
and legitimate inequality (e.g.. Carpenter, 2010;
Desai, 2010a; Dewhurst, 2010; Kraehe & Brown,
2011). Often, this has focused on raising awareness of social issues and "giving voice" to the
experiences of those on the margins of society.
A social justice orientation to art education
research should, at the same time, interrogate
the extent to which art education policies and
practices do or do not provide students and
teachers with opportunities to participate in a
democratic process, acquire historical and cultural knowledge with which to (re)contextualize
present disparities, and question imposed ideas
and commonsense assumptions (Freir, 1970;
hooks, 1994; King, 2006).

Kraehe and Acuff /Theoretical Considerations for Art Education Research

Like critical multicultural education, social

justice education has recognized and critiqued
power as an issue to be addressed. Bell (2007)
suggested that we must establish "a 'power with'
versus'power over'paradigm for enacting social
justice goals" (p. 2). Art educators, researchers,
and policy makers should consider this claim
when working within the context of underservedness. It is imperative that we identify how
this "power over" model exists in our research
and classrooms in various permutations.
For example, consider Discipline-Based Art
Education (DBAE). The debate over its practice is
longstanding, well-researched, and extensively
documented (see Chalmers, 1987; Davenport,
1990; Delacruz & Dunn, 1995; Eisner, 1988; jagodzinski, 1997; Stinespring, 2001; Wilson, 2003).
As research has matured, the perception has
been that support for the skill-driven approach
has decreased. However, in spring semester
2012, approximately two out of three preservice
teachers enrolled in Joni Acuff's Secondary Art
Education Methods course reported that their
cooperating teachers employed strictly DBAE
curriculum versus issue- or concept-based
(Acuff, personal communication. May 2, 2012).
Brooks and Thomas (2005) critiqued such a
stringent focus. They argued that when the
focus is more on discipline-based curriculum to
the exclusion of the social curriculum, it is to the
detriment of our students. This lack more significantly has impacted the students of low socioeconomic status because they often
depend on teachers to bridge the gap
between their own cultural capital and
the mainstream cultural and social
perspectives. For these vulnerable
and often disenfranchised students,
the larger the incongruence between
the predominant cultural capital of
their schools and themselves, the less
effectively the teaching of the explicit
curriculum can stimulate their learning,
(p. 49)
,0

Consequently, all students have not been

provided equitable educational opportunities. DBAE may be reaffirming the "power over"
model of learning (Cahan & Kocur, 1996).
Social justice education theory has allowed
us to ask questions about how underserved students make sense of their immediate world and
construct explicit, sustainable knowledge that is
practical and relevant (Brooks & Thomas, 2005;
Duncan-Andrade, 2005) to their lives. Social
justice art education has required us to ask what
is needed to achieve social justice and provide
an equitable education to all learners. To do so
has meant understanding that underservedness
is directly relational to lack of resources, access,
and opportunities. Social justice education
theory may help art educators to identify how
to disrupt or reinforce inequalities.

Conclusion
These four distinct theoretical bodies open
up fruitful directions for art education scholars, researchers, and educators whose work is
situated within the context of difference and
inequality. In many instances, it may be advantageous and appropriate to draw from more
than one of these theories, given their shared
critique of unequal power relations and desire
for a more just society. That said, art educators
should heed Butler's (1992) admonition that any
effort to synthesize or group theoretical positions is also a potentially dismissive "gesture of
conceptual mastery"that works "to colonize and
. domesticate these theories under the sign of
the same" (p. 5). With this is mind, our final discussion spotlights salient points of tension and
overlap between CRT, intersectionality, critical
multiculturalism, and social justice education.
Critical race scholarship has exposed education as a site where race is constructed and
becomes a central discriminating and organizing force. While race and (anti)racism have been
at the fore in CRT, an intersectionality lens has
contributed to race-oriented and gender-oriented explanations of oppression and inequality

Studies in Art Education I Volume 54, No. 4

303

through its analysis of intragroup diversity. By

assuming multiplicity, fluidity, and interdependency of group identification and subjugation,
intersectionality has guarded against determinisms that assume a priori the form oppression
may take In people's lives. These two aforementioned theories have provided correctives
for a multiculturalism that would reduce issues
of power and inequity to the level of cultural
awareness and tolerance (Desai, 2003). The critiques notwithstanding, multiculturalism has
retained a great deal of theoretical and practical
currency because of Its long history of theory
and activism in the arts, media, and education.
Critical multiculturalism has been successful in
disrupting the presumed ameliorative effects of
these sacred cultural institutions, showing that
the knowledge produced and disseminated in
these spaces is capable bf disabling learners and
communities as much as enabling them.
Broadly speaking, justice has been the
underlying aim of CRT, intersectionality, and
critical multiculturalism. Alternately, social
justice scholars have drawn from concepts and
methodologies developed within these three
theoretical areas. Social justice education has
distinguished itself by emphasizing the systemic
or societal nature of unjust situations or events,
building capacities, and developing strategies
for resistance and transformation. This overt
emphasis on participation in justice-driven,
socially engaged activity has been a defining
feature of social justice education. In contrast to
CRT, intersectionality, and critical multiculturalisni, the rhetoric of social justice education has
been appealing in its expansiveness, giving few
clues for the kinds of injustices that fit under its

304

rubric. In some instances, the discourse of social

Justice education has been used to describe art
projects about a social issue (e.g., environment,
homelessness, war). In these instances, inquiries and artmaking about the social issue often
avoid essential questions about which groups
benefit, who is left out, and how it got to be this
wayquestions that get at the core of inequality and underservedness. Understanding the
systems of advantage and disadvantage that
hold asymmetrical relations of power in place
are necessary for imagining alternatives, building solidarity across groups, and engaging in
strategic art interventions that help to dismantle the social, political, economic, and discursive
structures of underservedness. Anything less in
the name of social justice education may make
us feel good for a little while. Like a bandage at
the surface of a festering wound, it will do little
to foster individual transformations or societal
solutions that many who choose to work with
"underserved populations"seek.
As a field and as individual researchers, art
education and art educators must recognize
the possibility of complicity in underservedness
in ways that have not been considered. In our
own research endeavors, these four framings
have helped to heighten our perceptivity and
reflexivity toward unequal power relations and
privilege, as well as forms of creative agency and
resistance. Bringing these perspectives into our
scholarship as art education researchers and
teacher educators has also enabled us to move
closer to living out the rhetoric of social change
that has inspired so much of our work and of
many others.

Kraehe and Acuff/Theoretical Considerations for Art Education Research

REFERENCES
Acuff, J. B., Hirak, B., & Nangah, M. (2012). Dismantling a master narrative: Using culturally responsive pedagogy
to teach the history of art education. Art Education, 65(5), 6-11.
Anzalda, G. (1999). Borderlands: The new mestiza=La frontero (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books.
Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rded.) New York, NY: Routledge. (Original published 1979)
Ballengee Morris, C. (2013). Critical race, multicultural art education. In N. Addison & L. Burgess (Eds.), Debates in
art and design education (pp. 43-50). New York, NY: Routledge.
Banks, J. A. (2004). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks & C.
A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 3-49). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. (1989). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bell, D. (\987). And we are not saved: The elusive quest for racial Justice. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bell, L A. (2007). Theoretical foundations of social Justice. In M. Adams, L A. Bell & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for
diversity and social Justice [pp. 1-15). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bennett, R. S. (2011). Reproduction of White privilege in visual art education (Master's thesis. University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/29759
Bernai, D. D. (2002). Critical race theory. Latino critical theory, and critical raced-gendered epistemologies:
Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, S(l ), 105-126.Bey, S. (2011 ). Aaron Douglas and Hale Woodruff African American art education, gallery work, and expanded
pedagogy. Studies in Art Education, 52(2), 112-126.
Blandy, D. (1996). Gender reconstruction, disability images, and art education. In G. Collins & R. Sandell (Eds.),
Gender issues in art education: Content, contexts, and strategies (pp. 71-77). Reston, VA: National Art Education
Association.
Bloch, M. N., & Popkewitz, T. S. (2000). Constructing the parent, teacher, and child: Discourses of development. In
L. D. Soto (Ed.), The politics of early childhood education (pp. 7-32). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Bolin, P, Blandy, D., & Congdon, K. (Eds.). (2000). Remembering others: Making invisible histories of art education
visible. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Brooks, J. G., & Thomas, E. G. (2005). Social justice in the classroom. Educational Leadership, 63(1), 48-52.
Butler, J. (1992). Contingent foundations: Feminism and the question of postmodernism. In J. Butler & J. W. Scott
(Eds.), Feminists theorize the political (pp. 3-21). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cahan, S., & Kocur, Z. (1996). Contemporary art and multicultural education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Carbado, D. W. (2002). Straight out of the closet: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. In F Valdes, J. M. Culp &
A. P Harris (Eds.), Crossroads, directions, and a new critical race theory (pp. 221-242). Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Carpenter, B. S. (2010). Embodied social Justice: Water filter workshops as public pedagogy. In J. A. Sandlin, B.
D. Schultz & J. Burdick (Eds.), Handbook of public pedagogy: Education and learning beyond schooling (pp.
337-340). New York, NY: Routledge.
Catterall, J. S. (2012). The arts and achievement in at-risk youth: Findings from four longitudinal studies. Research
Report #SS. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts.
Chalmers, G. (1987). Beyond current conceptions of discipline-based art education./^rf duc3f/on, 40(5), 58-61.
Chalmers, G. (2002). Celebrating Pluralism six years later: Visual transculture/s, education, and critical multiculturalism. Studies in Art Education, 43(4), 293-306.
Check, E. (2004). Queers and art education in the war zone. Studies in Art Education, 45(2), 178-181.
Chin, C. (2011 ). Critiquing commonly available multicultural art education resources. International Journal of
Education through Art, 7(3), 299-313.
Choo, H. Y, & Ferre, M. M. (2010). Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: A critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities. Sociological Theory, 28(2), 129-149.

Studies in Art Education I Volume 54, No. 4

305

Cochran-Smith, M. (2010). Toward a theory of teacher education for social justice. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman,
M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second ir\ternational handbook of educational change (vol. 3) (pp. 445-458). New
York, NY: Springer.
Collins, G., & Sandell, R. (1992). The politics of multicultural art education. Art Education, 45(6), 8-13.
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Boston,
MA:Unwin Hyman.
Combahee River Collective. (1983). The Combahee River statement. In B. Smith (Ed.), Home girls: A black feminist
anthology {pp. 272-282). New York, NY: Kitchen Table/Women of Color Press.
Cosier, K. (2011 ). Girl stories: On narrative constructions of identity. Visual Arts Research, 37(2), 41 -54.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of
color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241 -1299.
Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (Eds.). (1995). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed
the movement. New York, NY: The New Press.
Daniel, V. A. (1996). Womanist influences on curricular ecology. In G. Collins & R. Sandell (Eds.), Gender issues in art
education: Content, contexts, and strategies (pp. 79-88). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Daniel, V. A., & Stuhr, P L. (2006). Voices of color: Art and society in the Americas. Studies in Art Education, 47(4),

363-377.
Davenport, iVl. (1990). Discipline-based art education: Issues from the feminist perspective. Art Papers, 14{5), 7-11.
Delacruz, E. M. (1996). Approaches to multiculturalism in art education curriculum products: Business as usual.
Journal of Aesthetic Education, 30(1), 85-97.
Delacruz, E., & Dunn, P (1995). DBAE: The next generation. Art Education, 48(6), 46-53.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (Eds.). (1998). The Latino/a Condition: A critical reader. New York: New York University
Press.
Desai, D. (1996). Multicultural art education and the social reality of race: A historical perspective. Journal of
Mu!ti-cultural and Cross-cultural Research in Art Education, 14,19-39.
Desai, D. (2000). Imaging difference: The politics of representation in multicultural art education. Studies in Art
Education,41(2), ^^4-^29.
Desai, D. (2003). Multicultural art education and the heterosexual imagination: A question of culture. Studies in
Art Education, 44(2), 147-161.
Desai, D. (201 Oa). Unframing immigration: Looking through the educational space of contemporary art. Peabody
Journal of Education, 85(4), 425-442.
Desai, D. (201 Ob). The challenge of new colorblind racism in art education,/Art fducflf/on, 63(5), 22-28.
Dewhurst, M. (2010). An inevitable question: Exploring the defining features of social justice art education. Art
Education, 63(5), 6-M.
Dewhurst, M. (2011). Where is the action? Three lenses to analyze social justice art education. Equity and
Excellence in Education, 44(3), 364-378.
Duncan, A. (2009, August 18). U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan reinforces importance of the arts in schools
[Press release]. Retrieved from www.ed.gv/news/pressreleases/2009/08/index.html
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (2005). Developing social Justice educators. Educational Leadership, 62(6), 70-73.
Durham, J. (1986). Self portrait. [Mixed Media]. In S. Cahan & Z. Kocur (Eds.), Contemporary art and multicultural
education (p. 64). New York, NY: Routledge.
Eisenhauer, J. (2007). Just looking and staring back: Challenging ableism through disability performance art.
Studies in Art Education, 49( 1 ), 7-22.
Eisner, E. (1988). The role of discipline-based art education in America's schools. Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for
Education in the Arts.
Elhoweris, H., Mutua, K., Alsheikh, N., & Holloway, P (2005). Effect of children's ethnicity on teachers' referral and
recommendation decisions in gifted and talented programs. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 25-31.
Feinstein, J. (1993). The relationship between socioeconomic status and health: A revlewof literature. The
Mitbank Quarterly, 71(2), 279-322.

306

Kraehe and Acuff /Theoretical Considerations for Art Education Research

Fine, M. (1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y Lincoln
(Eds.), i-iandbook of qualitative research (pp. 70-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Freedman, K. (1987). Art education as social production: Culture, society, and politics in the formation of curriculum. In T. S. Popkewitz (Ed.), The formation of school subjects: The struggle for creating an American institution
(pp. 63-84). New York, NY: Falmer Press.
Freir, P (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum.
Garber, E. (2004). Social justice and art education. Visual Arts Research, 30(2), 4-22.
Gay, G. (1995). Bridging multicultural theory and practice. Multicultural Education, 3(1 ), 4-9.
Gay, G. (2004). Curriculum theory and multicultural education. In J. A. Barik & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of
research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 30-49). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gillborn, D. (2005). Education policy asan act of white supremacy: Whiteness, critical race theory and education
reform. Journai of Education Policy, 20(4), 485-505.
Grigsby, J. E. (1977). Art and ethnics: Background for teaching youth in a piuraiistic society. Dubuque, IA: W. C.
Brown.
Haney Lpez, I. F (1996). White by law: The legal construction of race. New York: New York University Press.
Harris, C. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106,1709-1795.
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2005). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and
disability in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Helfand, J. (2009). Teaching outside whiteness. In S. Steinberg (Ed.), Diversity and multiculturalism: A reader (pp.
77-96). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Hicks, L. (1994). Social reconstruction and community. Studies in Art Education, 35(3), 149^156.
Hilliard, A. (2003). No mystery: Closing the achievement gap between Africans and excellence. In T. Perry, C.
Steele & A. Hilliard (Eds.), Young, gifted and Black: Promoting high achievement among African-American
students (pp. 131-165). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Honeychurch, K. G. (1995). Extending the dialogues of diversity: Sexual subjectivities and education in the visual
arts. Studies in Art Education, 36(4), 210-217.
hooks, b. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender and cuitural politics. Boston, MA: South End.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as a practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge.
jagodzinski,j. (1997). The nostalgia of art education: Reinscribing the master's narrative. Studies/fi/lrtEc/ucot/on,
38(2), 80-95.
Kader, T. (2005). SchoolArts: DBAE and multicultural art education in the united States of America. International
Journai of Education through Art, /(I), 65-84.
Keiper, S., Sandene, B. A., Persky, H. R., & Kuang, M. (2009). The nation's report card: Arts 2008. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. NCES 2009-488. Retrieved from
http://nationsreportcard.gov/arts_2008
King, J. E. (2006). "If justice is our objective": Diaspora literacy, heritage knowledge, and the praxis of critical
studyin'for human freedom. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Wiley-Blackweil),
105(2), 337-360.
Knight, W. (2006a). E(raced) bodies in and out of sight/cite/site. The Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, 26,
323-347.
Knight, W. (2006b). Using contemporary art to challenge cultural values, beliefs, and assumptions. Art Education,
59(4), 39-45.
Kraehe, A. M. (2010). Multicultural art education in an era of standardized testing: Changes in knowledge and
skill for art teacher certification in Texas. Studies in Art Education, 5/(2), 162-175.
Kraehe, A. M. (2012). Creating art, creating selves: Negotiating professional and social identities in preservice
teacher education (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from The University of Texas Digital Repository. (2152/
ETD-UT-2012-08-6100)
Kraehe, A. M., & Brown, K. D. (2011 ). Awakening teachers' capacities for social justice with/in arts-based inquiries.
Equity and Excellence in Education, 44(4), 488-511.

Studies in Art Education I Volume 54, No. 4

307

Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). Race sf/7/ matters: Critical race theory in education. In M. W. Apple, W. Au & L. A. Gandin
(Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of critical education (pp. 110-122). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ladson- Billings, G., & Tte, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1 ),
47-68.
LaMarr, J. (1984). They're going to dump it where?!?. [Monoprint]. In S. Cahan & Z. Kocur (Eds.), Contemporary art
and multicultural education (p. 76). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class and cultural capital in
family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(^ ), 37-53.
Lee, N. (2012). Culturally responsive teaching for 21 st-century art education: Examining race in studio art
practice. Art Education, 65(5), 48-53.
Lewis, A. (2003). Race in the schoolyard: Negotiating the color line in classrooms and communities. Piscataway, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Lippard, L. (2000). Mixed blessings: New art in a multicultural America. New York, NY: The New Press.
Luna, J. (1990). The artifact piece. [Performance and Mixed Media]. In S. Cahan & Z. Kocur (Eds.), Contemporary art
and multicultural education (p.81). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lynn, M., & Parker, L. (2006). Critical race studies in education: Examining a decade of research on U.S. schools.
The Urban Review, 38(4), 257-290.
May, S. (1999). Critical multiculturalism: Rethinking multicultural and antiracist education. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer
Press.
May, S., & Sleeter, C. (2010). Critical multiculturalisrn: Theory and praxis. New York, NY: Routledge.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3),
1771-1800.
McFee, J. K., & Degge, R. (1980). Arf, culture, and environment: A catalyst for teaching. Dubuque, lA: Kendall Hunt.
McLaren, P L. (1995). White terror and oppositional agency: Towards a critical multiculturalism. In C. E. Sleeter &
P L. McLaren (Eds.), Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference (pp. 33-70). Albany:
State University of New York.
Mercer, K. (1991 ). Skin head sex thing: Racial difference and the homoerotic imaginary, in Bad Object-Choices
(Ed.), How do I look? Queerfilmand video (pp. 169-222). Seattle, WA: Bay Press.
Mesa-Bains, A. (1996). Teaching students the way they learn, in S. Cahan & Z. Kocur (Eds.), Contemporary art and
multicultural education (pp. 31 -38). New York," NY: Routiedge.
Nieto, S., Bode, P., Kang, E., & Raible, J. (2008). identity, community, and diversity: Retheorizing multicultural
curriculum for the postmodern era. In M. Connelly (Ed.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction
(pp.176-197). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
,'
Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
North, C. (2008). What is all this talk about "social justice"? Mapping the terrain of education's latest catchphrase.
Teachers College Record ;;0(6), 1182-1206.
Piper, A. (2003). The triple negation of colored women artists. In A. Jones (Ed.), Feminism and visual culture reader
(pp. 239-248). London, England: Routledge.
Pitts, M. (2008). The voting rights act and era of maintenance. Alabama Law Review, 59(4), 903-985.
President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities. (2011, May). Reinvesting in arts education: Winning
America's future through creative schools. Washington; DC: Author.
Rabkin, N., & Hedberg, E. C. (2011 ). Arts education in America: What the declines mean for arts participation.
Research Report if 52. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts.
Rios, F., &Stanton, C. R. (2011). Understanding muUicultural education: Equity for all students. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Sacks, P (2007). Tearing down the gates: Confronting the class divide in American education. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Sanders, J. H. Ili, Hutzel, K., & Miller, J. M. (2009). White folk in Black spaces. Journal of Cultural Research in Art
Education,27,^32-^^3.

308

Kraehe and Acuff/Theoretical Considerations for Art Education Research

Sleeter, C. E., & Bernai, D. D. (2004). Critical pedagogy, critical race theory, and antiracist education: Implications
for multicultural education. In J.A. Bank & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural
education (2nd ed.) (pp. 240-258). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (2007). Turning on learning: Five approaches for multicultural teaching plans for race,
class, gender, and disability. New York, NY: Merrill.
Slivka, K. (2011 ). Art, craft, and assimilation: Curriculum for Native students during the boarding school era.
Studies In Art Education, 52(3), 225-242.
Stinespring, J. (2001 ). Preventing art education from becoming a handmaiden to the social studies. Arts
Education Policy Review, 702(4), 11-18.
Stuhr, P., Ballengee Morris, C, & Daniel, V. A. H. (2008). Social justice through curriculum: Investigating issues
of diversity. In R. Mason &T. Esca (ids.). International dialogues in art education (pp. 81-95). Bristol, England:
Intellect Books.
The College Board's National Task Force on the Arts in Education. (2009). Arts at the core: Recommendations for
advancing the state of arts education in the 21st century. Retrieved from http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/
publications/19
Tyler, T., & Smith, H. (1995). Social justice and social movements. Institute of Industrial Relations Working Paper, 67.
Valencia, R. R. (1997). Conceptualizing the notion of deficit thinking. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), The evolution ofdecit
thinking (pp. 1-12). London, England: Falmer Press.
Vanfossen, B., Jones, J., & Spade, J. (1987). Curriculum tracking and status maintenance. Sociology of Education,
60(2), 104-122.
Wexler, A. (2007). Museum culture and the inequities of display and representation. Visual Arts Research, 33(1 ),
25-33.
Wilson, B. (2003). Of diagrams and rhizomes: Visual culture, contemporary art, and the impossibility of mapping
the content of art education. Studies in Art Education, 44(3), 214-229.
Wing, A. K. (1997). Critical race feminism: A reader. New York: New York University Press.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race
Ethnicity and Education, 8(1 ), 69-91.
Yosso, T. J., Parker, L, Solrzano, D., & Lynn, M. (2004). From Jim Crow to affirmative action and back again: A
critical race discussion of racialized rationales and access to higher education. Review of Research in Education,
28,1-25.
Young, B. (2011). Arf, culture, and ethnicity. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Original published
1990.
ENDNOTES
1 Throughout this article, usage of "we" refers to the authors.
2 We find the notion of "underservedness" to be more generative than "underserved populations."The latter
term conjures a logic for"populational reasoning/'which, according to Bloch and Popkewitz (2000), conceives and constructs subjects by transposing the effects of historical and structural injustices into presumed
identities and qualities of an individual or group. Thus, the discourse of "underserved populations" inscribes
particular kinds of personhood. As a move against the characterization and treatment of children, families, and
communities as populations to be measured, categorized, ordered, and pathologized, the discourse of underservedness opens up possibilities for investigating the social and cultural processes by which privilege, status,
power, and respect are unequally distributed within art and art education.
3 Sociologists of education and others in the social science fields offer empirical data that connects various systemic influences, such as healthcare access, curriculum tracking, and redistricting, to status maintenance and
persistent inequality (see Elhoweris, Mutua, Alsheikh, & Holloway, 2005; Feinstein, 1993; Harry & Klingner, 2005;
Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Noguera, 2003; Pitts, 2008; Sacks, 2007; Vanfossen, Jones, & Spade, 1987). These factors
pervade all activities in daily living, including art education.

Studies in Art Education I Volume 54, No. 4

309

Copyright of Studies in Art Education is the property of National Art Education Association
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.