




































           Curriculum and the 1970s Culture Wars: Man: A Course of Study 

 

Carolyn A. Weber      Julie Marie Frye         Connie Ables-Rigsbee 
Indiana University     Indiana University      Franklin College 

 

Jesse Goodman 

Indiana University 
 

 The recent “culture wars” (Hunter 

1991) in the United States has not been kind 

to the K-12 curriculum found in our public 

schools.  As Rorty (1999) noted, 

conservatives have come to dominate what 

we teach our pre-college age children.  

Conflicts over reading and writing, history, 

mastery learning, sex and drug education, 

high stakes testing, and the predetermination 

and standardization of content have resulted 

in the near complete demise of progressive 

pedagogy and curriculum development in 

our public schools.
1
 While many educators 

wait for the pendulum to swing back 

towards a more thoughtful and progressive 

pedagogy, Apple and Whitty (2002) argue 

that it may have swung too far to ever 

return.  Even with the election of a 

progressive President who has rejected the 

conservative foreign, health care, and 

economic policies of the Bush 

administration, Obama seems little 

interested in changing the direction of K-12 

education in our society.  As Dillon (2009, 

A1) stated, “We have watched the continued 

allocation of federal funding to expand the 

usage of students’ test scores to evaluate 

teachers (and schools).”   No Child Left 

Behind (NCLB) continues under the Obama 

administration which significantly threatens 

a return to more intellectually engaging 

curriculum and pedagogy in our public 

schools.  We continue to see the 

trivialization of learning through the 

“deskilling” of teachers, the push to “cover” 

(skim) the topics being taught (i.e., the 

“skipping stone” curriculum), and an over-

dependence on rote memorization of facts.  

Due to the hegemony of conservatism, 

educational practice over the last three 

decades (and especially during the last Bush 

administration), progressive teachers and 

administrators are now considered an 

endangered species by some (e.g., Hayes 

2006).  A few education professors (e.g., 

Cochran-Smith 2004; Zeichner 2009) have 

fought this extinction of progressive ideals 

and practices through teacher education and 

doctoral programs, but their impact on the 

elementary teaching and curriculum has not 

been extensive.  With the threat of extinction 

lurking, progressive educators need to 

protect and reproduce the rich curriculum 

for which they stand.  One way education 

historians can help these efforts is to revisit 

examples of progressive curriculum.  They 

can serve as a reminder of the good fruit that 

is produced when our focus is on student 

inquiry, intellectual engagement, and depth 

of knowledge.  Man: A Course of Study 

(MACOS) deserves such a revisiting.  In 

response, this paper will first provide a brief 

review of the historical context and content 

of MACOS.  Next, we describe the MACOS 

curriculum, explore the controversies that 

surrounded the use of this curriculum, and 



41 

 

then speculate on what lessons might be 

learned from this historical event. 

  

Historical Context 

 After the Soviets launched Sputnik 

in 1957, the United States responded in 

many ways, including a call for major 

reform of public school curriculum.  People 

were frightened by the prospect of a world 

dominated by the Soviet Union, and looked 

to public schools to change their curricula in 

ways that would promote the sciences as 

potential occupational goals for the next 

generation.  However, rather than look to 

educators for generating this curricula, the 

federal government called upon scientists to 

create radically new and exciting K-12 

curricula for their respective fields (e.g., 

chemistry, physics, biology).  Although 

concerned about how much freedom they 

would have to create these curricula, many 

scientists were drawn into this project by the 

high esteem the government placed upon it 

and the substantial funding that came with 

these curriculum grants (Rudolph 2002).  

They wanted curricula that would not only 

provide students with information, but more 

importantly, saw knowledge as a catalyst for 

intellectual engagement and activity 

(Rudolph 2002).  In general, they wanted to 

reproduce, as much as possible, the 

experiences of being a scientist.  As Schwab 

(1963) noted, these new courses were to be 

based upon students engaging in inquiry 

projects and depth of study over merely 

covering material. 

 As one might expect, social scientists 

did not want to be left out of this 

government project, and they successfully 

lobbied for inclusion.  One of the leading 

social scientist of the day, Dr. Jerome 

Bruner, recruited a number of social 

scientists and educators in order to create a 

radically new social studies curriculum.  

Peter Dow (personal communication, May 

29, 2009) stated that Bruner not only wanted 

to provide knowledge of the social world to 

children, but more importantly, give 

students opportunities to “be” social 

scientists.  Like their natural science 

colleagues, Bruner wanted to create 

curricula that encouraged students to make 

observations, think deeply about these 

observations, engage in thoughtful 

discussions with their peers based upon this 

thinking, and conduct inquiries that would 

lead to insights about humanity (Dow 1991).  

In addition, Bruner advocated for a social 

studies curriculum that would teach students 

comparative analytic skills concerning 

diverse societies, and how to thoughtfully 

examine the individual’s role within these 

societies (Dow 1991).  With this emphasis 

on diverse societies and the self, developers 

of this new social studies had high hopes 

that by creating this curriculum they would 

give children opportunities to reflect upon 

what being human means and the state of the 

human condition.  

 As we (Goodman 2006) and others 

(e.g., Gabbard 2008) have discussed, the 

country was also in the early stages of what 

became a powerful “conservative 

restoration.”  Hursh (2008) noted, this 

movement represented a “backlash” to the 

“new left” radicalism of the late 1960s/early 

1970s (e.g., Elbaum 2002; Garfinkle 1995; 

Gitlin 1993; Isserman & Kazin 2000; 

Kurlansky 2004; Rorty 1998).  Political 

ideas, policies, and officials that use to be 



42 

 

considered “moderate” or “centrist” were 

recast as “liberal” or “radical” (e.g., Easton 

2000, Wallerstein 1995).  Within the 

political realm of society this backlash 

included events as Richard Nixon’s 

“southern strategy” that successfully 

incorporated the conservative Democrats 

into the Republican Party, the subsequent 

election of Ronald Reagan (and for 

educators the publication of A Nation at 

Risk), which in turn set the stage for the 

“dixification” of the U.S. economy and 

culture (Cummings 1998) and the election of 

George W. Bush.  Other examples of this 

restoration included: the rise of conservative 

and fundamentalist, Christian talk radio such 

as Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, Gordan 

Liddy, and Dr. Laura and conservative 

television networks such as Fox News and 

shows such as The O’Rielly Factor, Hannity, 

and Glenn Beck (Andersen 1995; Durham &  

Kellner 2001); the establishment of 

numerous well funded, conservative “think 

tanks” and institutions such as the Heritage 

Foundation, John Olin Foundation, Hudson 

Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and 

Free Congress Foundation (Stefancic & 

Delgado 1996); and the public promotion of 

conservative intellectuals such as Milton 

Friedman, William Bennett, and Chester 

Finn.  Local and state school boards were 

particular targets for conservatives, and their 

agenda included policies such as public 

supported vouchers for children going to 

private schools, high stakes testing, 

legislation of curriculum content (i.e., 

standards), emphasis on drilling and 

memorization of facts, internal racial 

segregation through tracking, the deskilling 

of teachers, and a deepening of “savage 

inequalities” (Kozol 1992) related to the 

inequitable resources provided children of 

wealthy versus impoverished children (e.g., 

Apple 2001; Miller 1995).  Conflicts over 

sex education (e.g., Laker 2006; Moran 

2000), history and religion (e.g., 

Zimmerman 2002), and evolution (e.g., 

Humes 2007) began to emerge across the 

country.  As previously mentioned, one of 

the first conflicts arose over the MACOS 

curriculum.  However, before exploring this 

struggle and what can be learned from it, we 

review a few more details of this innovative 

program of study. 

 

The Beginnings of MACOS 

 After watching early implementation 

trials of the Physical Science Study 

Committee’s (PSSC) curriculum, Bruner 

became determined to create a course in the 

social sciences (Dow 1991).  What gave him 

academic momentum was more than just his 

established career as a cognitive 

psychologist.  He wanted to connect two of 

the main topics within the field of social 

studies education: the interest in the self’s 

relationship to society and the need for 

intellectually engaging, inquiry-focused 

curricula and pedagogy.  He was particularly 

interested in the possibility of relatively 

young children engaged in sophisticated 

intellectual activity.  His rationale was: if 10 

and 11 year olds can conduct thoughtful 

inquiries around a substantive topic (e.g., the 

nature of humanity), then educators could 

make similar efforts for older children.  As a 

result, he focused his team on developing a 

fifth grade social studies curriculum (Kraus 

1977).  According to Dow (personal 

communication, May 29, 2009), Bruner 



43 

 

selected this target audience to determine if 

children could learn inquiry skills that were 

often associated with advanced college-aged 

students.  He decided to do this through the 

social science lens of anthropology. 

 

 

The Curriculum Team: Bruner, 

Practicing Educators, and Respected 

Scholars 

 After Bruner took a sabbatical to 

teach public school fifth graders, he was 

well-positioned to be the “architect” of a 

new curriculum aimed at the intellectual 

engagement of this age group (Evans, 2004 

p. 126).  Because the curriculum 

development project was well-funded by the 

federal government, with contributions of 

well over four million dollars, Bruner was 

able to sign on like-minded, creative experts 

to contribute to the MACOS curriculum 

with the promise that they could design 

something completely different from what 

had been previously taught in social studies 

classrooms (Kraus 1977). 

 Differing from the other federally 

funded curriculum development projects in 

which scientists were sole designers, Bruner 

partnered with elementary school teachers in 

the writing of an anthropology curriculum 

for 10 and 11 year-olds.  One educator, Peter 

Dow, became especially interested in 

Bruner’s efforts.  Dow (1991) claimed that 

“Hearing Bruner…deepened my conviction 

that collaboration between scholars and 

teachers could improve the process of 

schooling” (4).  

 In addition to educators, Bruner 

sought assistance from a number of his 

Harvard colleagues in the anthropology 

department (Lutkehaus 2008).  He asked 

these anthropologists to help him “find 

better ways to bridge the gap between the 

organizing conjectures of [anthropology] 

and the developing intelligence of the 

young” (Dow 1991, 72).  Thus, they were 

not serving just as content experts, but also 

were fully invested in the pedagogical goals 

of MACOS.  The team agreed that the best 

way to teach social studies was not through 

the recitation of surface-level facts, but 

through looking at one discipline in great 

depth (Dow 1991).  This would allow 

students to reach a broader understanding of 

curriculum concepts.  

  After much discussion, the 

anthropologists suggested that the following 

three questions be at the core of the MACOS 

curriculum: 1) What is human about 

(wo)man?  2) How did humans become who 

they are?  3) How can one become more 

human? (Kennedy 1973).  To help students 

explore these questions, MACOS focused on 

a re-creation of the Netsilik Indians’ 

traditional lifestyle, thus providing an in-

depth study of humans in a pre-modern 

environment.
2
   

 

The MACOS Curriculum 

Bruner’s team of scholars and 

educators worked from 1963 to 1969 in 

developing the materials for MACOS: 24 

student booklets, nine volume teachers’ 

guides, 16 color films with natural sound; 

five filmstrips; four audio records; three 

simulation games; Eskimo cards; and 23 

maps, posters, and photomurals (Kraus 

1977).  They also carefully wrote these 

materials in ways that reflected a 

progressive approach to pedagogy including, 



44 

 

but not limited to: offering fascinating and 

informative visual and reading materials, 

having students make observations and 

speculations about this material, and 

regularly involving students in reflective 

exercises, frequently asking students to draw 

connections between the curriculum and 

their own lives.    

Perhaps the most innovative concept 

was introduced by ethnographer Balikci’s 

film which gave students the opportunity to 

view a pre-modern culture without a narrator 

explaining what was taking place in the 

films.  Instead, Balikci designed the films to 

ask students to summarize and interpret the 

unique, cultural rituals and other activities 

viewed, while also reflecting on their own 

cultural beliefs and identity.  As previously 

mentioned, an integral part of the curriculum 

was reflection.  Daily, students were 

encouraged to organize their thoughts of 

newly introduced concepts and ideas and 

share them aloud (Laird 2003). 

MACOS designers wanted to ensure 

that teachers modeled life-long-learning for 

their students.  Thus, receiving this 

curriculum also required teachers to 

participate in training sessions in which they 

would discuss its core ideas and receive 

additional resources and strategies for 

classroom use.  As Wolcott (2007, 199) 

explained, “In addition to summer institutes, 

MACOS teachers in each district gathered 

for a day or two of inservice training several 

times throughout the school year.”   It was 

not acceptable for teachers to merely read 

through the teachers’ manuals and use them 

verbatim.  Instead, manuals were designed 

to deepen and enrich teachers’ knowledge of 

the subject matter as well as stimulate their 

curiosity and intellect.    

For the MACOS team, it was 

important to stress that this curriculum was 

to be “scientific,” or more specifically, 

anthropological.  Professional development 

sessions revealed that MACOS wanted 

teachers and their students to learn about 

their own culture through studying one that 

was far removed from their daily lives.  This 

in-service training would often raise subtle 

issues for teachers to consider.  For 

example, the curriculum was never intended 

to critique the “American values” (as critics 

claimed), but rather provide them with 

opportunities to understand the role values 

played in the construction of culture and 

how the size, history, geography (cultural 

and natural), and economics of a given 

culture influences its values (Laird 2003).  

In responding to critics, Dow (1991, 192) 

explained this position by claiming 

“Schools…should concern themselves with 

the growth of the mind, not with the 

transmission of belief.”  According to Dow 

(personal communication, May 29, 2009), 

teachers found these training sessions to be 

beneficial in terms of not only understanding 

what should be taught, but also for their own 

intellectual engagement. 

 

The Controversy 

While Sputnik encouraged the idea 

that schools needed to do more to prepare 

students for the space age, American 

education did not change quickly, and 

politicians had much to say about that 

change.  As Dow (1991, 8) explained, 

“Historically, we have been more concerned 

about promoting democratic values, 



45 

 

transmitting universally accepted skills like 

the three R’s, and socializing the young into 

useful lives within their local communities 

than about cultivating the intellect.”  The 

mood Sputnik created changed this 

orientation towards reform very briefly, but 

soon the old ideas of value transmission and 

surface level knowledge returned.   

The MACOS curriculum developers 

conducted a pilot study during the summer 

of 1966 to work through any problems.  

They tested the textual content and teacher 

participants revealed potential concerns.  

Dow (1991, 68) explained that this 

inappropriate content illustrated a chasm 

between “scholars preparing materials and 

[those] who were using them.”   However, 

most of these concerns related to the level of 

abstract thought required of students rather 

than the topics found in the curriculum.   

As Dow noted in an interview, some 

teachers also questioned if students could 

understand the number of different concepts 

(e.g., evolution, cultural values, myths, 

rituals, modernism) explored in MACOS.  In 

response to these concerns, MACOS 

designers did make a few alterations to the 

curriculum.  This feedback, however, 

completely overlooked possible critiques 

that eventually emerged from politicians, 

conservative community activists, and 

parent allies.  Perhaps the reason for this 

lack of foresight was, in part, due to the fact 

that the teachers involved in the pilot study 

shared Bruner’s progressive views towards 

teaching and learning.  Unfortunately, the 

creators never anticipated the previously 

mentioned conservative backlash that was 

taking place in the United States during the 

1970s, and would soon focus its attack on 

the MACOS curriculum.  

One of the first signs of the 

mounting conservative backlash in the 

United States was manifested by political 

attacks against MACOS.  The controversy 

began with conservatives voicing objections 

to a number of progressive pedagogical 

activities from the late 1960s, and included, 

“a distrust of federally sponsored curriculum 

innovation, an increased involvement of 

parents in curriculum choices, and a demand 

for a return to the ‘basics’ of reading, 

writing, mathematics, history, and Judeo-

Christian values” (Dow 1991, 178).  

Because MACOS was anything but the basic 

or conservative, “The historical timing for 

MACOS…could not have been worse.  

Caught in the crossfire between social 

upheaval, a counterculture movement, and a 

new-conservative reaction, cognitive 

processes and relativistic social studies were 

doomed from the start” (Goetz 1992, 520).  

At its peak in 1972, MACOS was taught to 

over 400,000 students; however, by 1975 it 

was at the forefront of the argument in 

Congress about the federal government’s 

control over education.  Distancing itself 

from the cultural debate, the National 

Science Foundation withdrew the majority 

of MACOS funding (Laird 2003).  By the 

late 1970s MACOS barely existed inside 

American schools.   

As the program director, Dow was 

responsible for defending MACOS to 

Congress in 1975.  Upon reflection, he 

(1991, 5) realized that in the United States 

(and probably most, if not all, other 

countries), “Decisions about educational 

reform are driven far more by political 



46 

 

considerations, such as the prevailing public 

mood, than they are by any systematic effort 

to improve instruction.”  Within the political 

arena of society where traditional values 

came face to face with what conservatives 

considered to be shocking and immoral 

lessons of MACOS, conventional values 

prevailed.  Many United States’ politicians 

and citizens were not ready to accept 

MACOS’ respect for and understand of a 

hunting/gathering culture as a way for young 

people to comprehend our own modern 

society.  Consequently, MACOS received 

intense criticism from conservatives.  They 

raised a number of concerns that resulted in 

an emotionally charged attack on 

progressive curricula and learning 

experiences that continues up to the present.   

Various interest groups and 

individuals fueled opposition against 

MACOS, ranging from right-wing 

extremists to those with educated concerns.  

Challengers included parents, ministers, 

textbook critics, and politicians.   In 

particular, MACOS foes found a national 

voice in Arizona Representative John 

Conlan who used his House Committee on 

Science and Technology membership to 

undermine MACOS in Congress.
3
 This 

committee had partial control over the 

National Science Foundation’s budget.  

According to Dow (1991), instead of 

introducing MACOS during a subcommittee 

meeting as typically done when a member 

has a concern about a particular 

appropriation, Conlan waited until the full 

committee’s meeting and then viciously 

attacked the curriculum.  Dow (1991) 

claimed Conlan did this with the full 

knowledge that fellow committee members 

knew little or nothing about MACOS.  Very 

few members of Congress actually studied 

the material, even after Conlan railed against 

it (Dow 1991).   

Conlan’s first amendment to end 

funding for MACOS failed after Missouri 

Congressman Symington “recounted the 

history of Conlan’s opposition to the course, 

describing his various political maneuvers, 

including the latest amendment, as a strategy 

for circumventing a solution already agreed 

to by the National Science Foundation” 

(Dow 1991, 214).  However, progressive 

educators were not able to celebrate long, as 

a more conservative amendment passed 

which required “congressional review of all 

NSF grant proposals every thirty days” 

(Dow 1991, 215).  As a result, during the 

next round of approved grants, Conlan was 

determined to terminate financial support of 

MACOS.  As noted by Kraus (1977), 

Conlan argued that MACOS: 1) taught 

children to accept senilicide and female 

infanticide; 2) required children to view 

excessive blood and gore in scenes of killing 

and butchering animals; 3) condoned 

inappropriate sexual behavior such as trial 

marriages, polygamy and polyandry, wife 

swapping, and bestiality; 4) treated religion 

as myth; 5) promoted the teaching of 

evolution as fact; and 6) excused instances 

of murder and other acts of revenge.  While 

many concerns were inaccurate or 

exaggerated, others had some merit.  

However, as will be discussed below, even 

these were often exaggerated and 

misleading.  Unfortunately, with the 

exception of a few congressmen, no one at 

the time seemed interested in whether or not 

these charges were accurate, half truths, or 



47 

 

outright lies.  Our analysis suggested that 

there were three types of criticisms that 

doomed this innovative curriculum. 

Misleading and Scandalous Criticisms 

Many of the controversies raised had 

no validity; in fact, opposition was raised by 

people who had not even read all (or 

possibly any) of the MACOS materials and 

thus jumped to erroneous conclusions.  As 

Kraus (1977) explained, many of the 

criticisms were sensationalized.  For 

example, a Floridian Baptist minister argued 

MACOS taught children about sex which 

horrified his followers (Dow, 1991).  He 

jumped to this conclusion after learning that 

the MACOS teachers’ manual encouraged 

classrooms to have “live animals such as 

grasshoppers, mealworms, crickets, gerbils, 

or mice in the classroom so that pupils could 

observe life cycle stages, including the birth 

of offspring” (Dow 1991, 179).  The sheer 

shock value of claiming that MACOS was 

teaching ten-year-olds about sex was enough 

to generate fear and anger among many who 

had not read any of the course materials.   

Similar to the example above, most 

of the criticisms that fueled controversy 

were based on information that was not 

mentioned in books to which pupils had 

access.  Most of this information was found 

exclusive in teachers’ manuals as 

explanatory and background information for 

adults, not intended for students.  For 

example, one of the most sensationalized 

charges was that the MACOS curriculum 

legitimized cannibalism which was 

mentioned in the teacher’s manual, Talks to 

Teachers.  Tuneq, a Netsilik who, during a 

famine, chose to: 

save his own life by eating his wife.  

At first he only cut small pieces from 

her clothing and ate them…The wife 

knew that the spirits had said her 

husband should eat her, but she was 

so exhausted that it made no 

impression on her. … she ran for her 

life, and then it was as if Tuneq saw 

her only as a quarry that was about to 

escape him; he ran after her and 

stabbed her to death… Tuneq’s 

brother Itqilik ate his younger 

brother….his younger brother was 

frostbitten in both feet so that he was 

unable to walk.  Gangrene set in, and 

as his feet were quite numb, Itqulik 

cut them off his living brother and 

ate them (Rassmussen 1968, 91).   

 

Obviously, modernist values do not endorse 

cannibalistic activity.  Yet, it was not in any 

way part of the students’ curriculum and 

was intended only for teachers’ background 

knowledge as a way to illustrate the 

differences between modern American 

society and this isolated culture where 

survival was often extremely difficult.  Its 

purpose was to enhance teachers’ 

understanding of the complexities embedded 

in anthropology.  

 Similar to cannibalism, the topics of 

divorce, trial marriage, polygamy, 

polyandry, and wife-swapping are only 

mentioned in Talks to Teachers.  The issues 

of divorce and trial marriage within the 

Netsilik community were described as 

“common as long as there [were] no 

children, and there [were] women who 

[went] through seven or eight trial marriages 

before they finally settle[d] down” 



48 

 

(Rassmussen 1968, 108).  Polygamy was 

also acceptable in the Netsilik culture: “If a 

man has more than one wife it is 

consequently always a sign of good standing 

and especial skill as a hunter” (Rassmussen 

1968, 109).  A common practice among 

Netsilik women was polyandry: “it [was] no 

rare occurrence for a woman to have two 

husbands…these marriages [seldom] run 

smoothly, especially if the men are young, 

for it very often ends in one of them being 

killed” (Rasmussen 1968, 109-110). Finally, 

wife-swapping occurred in Netsilik 

communities for: 

 

men who usually follow one another 

at a song festival. [They] are 

considered to be so closely 

associated that not only after the 

ceremony but at all times when they 

feel inclined they can exchange 

wives…if a man is about to set out 

on a long journey – perhaps to trade- 

and his wife is with child, sick or in 

some other manner unfit to go with 

him, he can borrow the wife of his 

iglua (song-fellow) to accompany 

him, giving his own in exchange 

(Rassmussen 1968, 110). 

 

These five controversial topics would be 

difficult to defend if they were found as 

directions for living in students’ textbooks.  

If teachers used the instructor guides as 

originally intended, students would never 

have been exposed to this information.  

Critics seemed to suggest that if teachers 

had this information, they would pass it onto 

their students.  They implied that the 

discussion of these issues in Talks to 

Teachers was, in fact, an endorsement of 

these practices rather than as an illustration 

of how diverse cultures live by different 

values based upon their environment.  

Suggesting otherwise was a gross (and 

purposeful) misreading (or non-reading) of 

the materials. 

 

Exaggerated Concerns 

 Some of the grievances Conlan and 

others raised were technically valid, in that 

they did exist in the MACOS student 

materials; however, the substance of these 

concerns was greatly exaggerated.  For 

example, bestiality is found in the student 

books as critics noted.  However, their 

implication was that MACOS materials 

somehow encouraged this type of sexual 

activity.  Although no images or discussion 

of bestiality was presented as something the 

Nestilik Indians did, it was mentioned in the 

discussion of their myths.  For example, the 

story of Kiviok, a man who traveled “from 

village to village, taking animals as wives” 

(Kraus 1977, 74) was presented as a myth.  

MACOS was clearly not suggesting that the 

Nestilik Indians actually engaged in this 

sexual practice.  Yet, this charge was made 

many times against MACOS.  What is 

particularly disturbing was that many 

elementary, social studies texts published 

similar myths at the time, but only MACOS 

was singled out for criticism.  For example, 

Greek myths tell the story of Zeus changing 

into a bull to seduce Europa, a young 

woman, and changing into an eagle to 

kidnap Ganymede, a young male.  In this 

regard Greek myths were no different than 

the Netsilik myths, just more culturally 

familiar.  Again, the opponents to MACOS 



49 

 

exaggerated the inclusion of this 

controversial topic for political and religious 

reasons, and these exaggerations had only 

the slightest connection to the full truth.  In 

response, these myths were “quietly eased 

out of the program” by MACOS curriculum 

developers even before some of the public 

complaints about the myths began, and yet 

this exaggeration continued to be widely 

expressed (Wolcott 2007, 200).  The 

MACOS adversaries cared little and only 

intensified their campaign to remove it from 

schools.   

 Similar to bestiality, senilicide also 

appeared in students’ books.  However, the 

portrayal of this act in the course was very 

different than how those arguing against 

MACOS presented it.  In the materials, the 

choice by an elderly woman to remain 

behind so that the rest of her family could 

survive a hunting journey was done as an act 

of community/family survival and not as a 

systematic death ritual (Kraus 1977).  

Opponents misrepresented the story 

pretending the woman was brutally forced 

into staying behind against her will (Kraus 

1977).   

 Even though it was the choice of the 

old woman to remain behind, MACOS 

curriculum developers were sensitive to the 

presentation of senilicide to students.  

Teachers not prepared to discuss this 

cultural practice were carefully trained 

through the teachers’ manuals.  Senilicide 

was presented in a chapter of Talks to 

Teachers as a common way of life for the 

Netsilik, where the elderly were culturally 

expected to commit suicide once their 

children or grandchildren would have to care 

for them: “old people, who can no longer 

keep themselves, prefer to put an end to 

their life by hanging rather than drag 

themselves through life in poverty and 

helpless old age” (Rassmussen 1968, 92-93).   

Netsilik peoples believed that senilicide was 

“how it is, and we see no wickedness in it” 

(Rassmussen 1968, 94).  In explaining this 

practice, it was noted that “they do this 

merely not only to rid [one] life that is no 

longer a pleasure, but also to relieve their 

nearest relations of the trouble they give 

them” (Rassmussen 1968, 95).  Given this 

careful discussion, MACOS developers 

were surprised it was used as ammunition 

against them, and had a difficult time 

responding to the charge that MACOS 

“supported” the killing of old people (Dow, 

personal communication, May 29, 2009). 

  Conlan made another exaggerated 

criticism that the MACOS films contained 

gore and excessive blood in scenes of killing 

and butchering animals.  Upon careful 

review of the films, we and others (e.g., 

Wolcott 2007) found a couple of hunting 

scenes with some (but not excessive) blood; 

however, these encompassed only an 

extremely small fraction of screen time.  

Curriculum opponents presented this “gore” 

as if it were much more frequent and 

detailed (Kraus 1977).  These films were a 

realistic portrayal of what hunting actually 

involved.  While there were elements that 

supported conservatives’ concerns within 

the student materials (i.e. bestiality, 

senilicide, and excessive gore and violence), 

our careful review of the curriculum did not 

support these attacks. 

 One might think in light of these 

criticisms that the creators of MACOS were 

completely insensitive to conventional 



50 

 

family values of American citizens.  

However, this accusation is inaccurate.  

During the design of MACOS, content was 

removed because the developers were 

concerned that certain aspects would be too 

controversial.  For example, they chose not 

to use videos of African Bushmen because 

they were “half-naked” even though the 

teachers and students spoke highly of these 

films in early reviews (Dow 1991, 122).  

The other films were also carefully made 

and edited to avoid unnecessary attacks.  

Nevertheless, in their attempt to create an 

intellectually engaging curriculum, the 

MACOS scholars did make some ironically 

naive decisions. 

   

Valid Concerns 

 A couple of the issues on Conlan’s 

“hit list” did have some validity.  With 

hindsight, one might have cautioned against 

the MACOS section in which the practice of 

female infanticide was presented even 

though teachers were trained to discuss it 

thoughtfully with students.  The children’s 

books explained that the custom of killing a 

female child, not promised in marriage, was 

done so with great sorrow and difficulty in 

order to save the rest of the family from 

starvation during harsh winters (Kraus 

1977).  However, trying to help young 

children understand the justification for 

killing female children for whatever reason 

was bound to cause objections.  While this 

criticism was fostered by conservatives, one 

can imagine contemporary feminists also 

objecting to the presentation of this 

information unless the killing of female 

babies was overtly condemned in the 

materials.  There are clearly other points of 

information found in MACOS that one 

might consider inappropriate for young 

children.  However, the conservative attacks 

were designed to destroy this curriculum 

rather than modify its content in order to 

make it more suitable for children’s 

sensitivities. 

As previously mentioned, Dow 

defended MACOS in his role as project 

director.  For example, in 1971 he was asked 

to debate two critics on an Arizona radio 

station, where the radio host was also 

against teaching MACOS.  Dow’s (1991, 

191) reaction to this debate illustrated the 

difficulty of advocating for a curriculum that 

many simply would not tolerate and had no 

real interest in understanding:  

 

The debate with Musselman and Day 

and Stuart proved to be more 

thought-provoking and less painful 

than I had feared.  Although serious 

dialogue was impossible, since my 

opponents were close-minded and 

fanatically rigid in their views, I 

admired their perseverance and their 

devotion to what they believed. 

 

Dow noted that Musselman and Day 

diverged from most of the detractors in that 

they had actually read and studied the 

MACOS materials, as well as other works 

by Bruner (Dow 1991).  They also made 

Dow think about what MACOS included 

and why.  He left the confrontation 

questioning why they had included some of 

the more controversial information and 

images and if these were good educational 

decisions.  While these topics of controversy 

may have been interesting and important, in 



51 

 

reflection, Dow (May 29, 2009) questioned 

if their inclusion in MACOS was necessary 

to foster students’ intellectual engagement.     

 If the creators had considered more 

carefully how their content might be 

received by the general public or even 

teachers, would they have been able to avoid 

some of the major controversies?  The 

expressed goals of MACOS creators 

certainly were not controversial.  As Dow 

(1991, 56) stated, it was hoped that MACOS 

would “stress those features of the Western 

tradition that would help young people 

comprehend the philosophical roots of 

American democratic beliefs and 

institutions.”  However, these beliefs were 

likely connected to American scholarly 

values of making warranted assertions 

without regard for the social implications of 

this information.  While this ideal is central 

for scholarship, MACOS educators would 

have done well to be more sensitive to the 

intended audience of this curriculum.  In any 

case, these goals were overshadowed by 

these controversies.  Even though most 

criticisms were unfounded, misleading, or 

exaggerated, MACOS was successfully 

removed from schools. 

  

Lessons Learned 

A return to this controversial 

curriculum has given us opportunities to 

consider what might be learned from 

MACOS and the political struggle that 

surrounded its implementation.  Although 

many implications can be explored, due to 

space limitations we focus our attention on 

three of what we consider the most 

important for progressive-thinking educators 

who work in schools or teacher education 

programs.  

 

Substantive Curriculum Development 

As several scholars (e.g., Apple 

2001; Gabbard 2007; Meier & Wood 2004; 

Ravitch 2009; Sunderman, Kim & Orfield 

2005) have noted, NCLB has forced many 

educators to focus all of their attention on 

getting students to improve their scores on 

math and language arts standardized tests.  

The curriculum in this environment rarely 

encourages teachers to engage their students 

intellectually as they emphasize test taking 

preparation.  In addition, many elementary 

schools in an effort to avoid being declared 

“failures,” have narrowed the official 

curriculum and all but eliminated social 

studies, science, and art (e.g., Boyle-Baise, 

Hsu, Johnson, Serriere & Stewart 2008). 

 The punitive outcomes for schools 

whose students fail to perform on 

standardized tests keep teachers in 

professional development training focused 

on teaching to the test.  National funding is 

focused on a narrow definition of 

“scientific-based” teaching methods.  

Teachers and curriculum developers are 

rarely encouraged to stimulate children’s 

curiosity, reflection, imagination, 

synthesizing abilities, or analytical 

reasoning.  Exploring interesting topics in 

the social or natural sciences is extremely 

limited in this age of accountability and test 

scores.  Children are almost never asked to 

understand the unfamiliar or delve into 

questions such as what it means to be human 

as MACOS curriculum encouraged.  

Ironically, perhaps more than ever (due to 

globalization and the need for greater 



52 

 

democracy and social justice), young people 

would benefit from intellectually engaging 

materials that teach them to speculate about 

the world around them; inquire about 

cultural beliefs; and learn to develop their 

own conclusions based on a diversity of 

resources.  We would be wise to teach them 

that it is okay to question basic cultural 

assumptions and the nature of the human 

condition.  Despite its unpopularity, 

educators would do well to resist the current 

myopic view of school curriculum.  We 

realize that in current school climate, 

teachers and curriculum designers must take 

risks and must exercise their civic courage 

in order to provide our children with a 

substantive education.  Fortunately, there are 

still teachers and other educators willing to 

go beyond drilling and testing of utilitarian 

skills and help children develop their powers 

of thought and intelligence (e.g., Boyle-

Baise, Bernens-Kinkead, Coake, 

Loudermilk, Lukasik, Podany; Johnston-

Parsons in press). 

   

Anticipating Controversy 

 The mere idea of significantly 

changing the pre-established curriculum and 

substantively reforming the way curriculum 

is taught is controversial in and of itself.  

Teachers are often overwhelmed by the 

constant stream of new “programs” they 

must adopt each school year.  When schools 

change from one curriculum to another – or 

alter how things are taught, teachers often 

feel frustrated and threatened.  What was 

wrong with the “old” way and the “old” 

curriculum?   Do I have to design new 

curriculum or teach in different ways?  Do I 

have to learn new information and concepts?  

In the case of MACOS, many teachers said 

“yes” to these and other questions.  Years 

later, Dow recognized this dynamic.  He 

(1991, 4-5) claimed that “By challenging 

many of the conventional assumptions about 

both the content and methodology of 

instruction, [curriculum developers] 

threatened teachers, alienated publishers, 

and confused parents.”   This oversight 

caused more problems than the MACOS 

team ever expected.  Progressive educators 

would do well to approach curriculum 

reform by collaborating with practicing 

educators and the public at large in order to 

be successful.  We might learn from 

Bruner’s mistake of gathering a team of 

people with few diverse pedagogical or 

social values or experiences.  

 While most educators would value 

Harvard scholars and well-respected 

scientists as contributors to the curriculum, 

their expertise was not necessarily the most 

crucial in terms of developing a successful 

elementary social science curriculum.  Their 

ideas and feedback failed to take into 

consideration the conservative backlash that 

might occur.  While the MACOS team did 

make some important revisions, like editing 

out the half-naked African Bushman from 

the curriculum, their efforts were not 

enough.  Without diverse feedback on a 

curricular project, its impact is unpredictable 

because of the highly political nature of 

education.  MACOS designers did not really 

“consider the social and political 

ramifications of their work” (Dow 1991, 

30), and in our interview with Dow, he once 

again remarked “how politically naive we 

were” (personal communication, May 29, 

2009). 



53 

 

 This naiveté begs the question: 

Could MACOS have avoided the 

controversies it generated?  Certainly, if the 

MACOS designers had sought out reactions 

from a more politically diverse group of 

individuals, they might have avoided some 

of its more inflammatory content.  For 

example, this feedback might have 

suggested that MACOS was geared at the 

wrong age group.  One must ask if there 

would have been the degree of controversy 

if MACOS was taught as an elective, high 

school anthropology course, rather than a 

fifth grade required social studies class.  

Others might have pointed out that an 

anthropology course in the fifth grade would 

replace the traditional focus on American 

history for these children.  The insight of 

educators with more diverse ideologies or 

those working in non-academic 

environments, particularly on the teachers’ 

manual, might have illuminated the 

controversial components of the curriculum 

that could have been more competently 

explained, defended, or revised.   For 

example, the curriculum was accused of 

questioning sacred cannons of Christianity 

in the name of moral relativism which might 

have been prevented or defended more 

successfully if the creators of MACOS had 

been more fully prepared.  Getting this more 

diverse feedback might have forewarned the 

MACOS scholars about the turbulent 

political and religious temperatures of the 

politicians, teachers, and the communities of 

the time.   Perhaps more diverse feedback 

would have provided the makers of MACOS 

with ideas to avoid a public protest that 

“wanted a more traditionally ‘American’ 

and authoritative perspective fed to 

students” (Evans 2004, 144).   As Wolcott 

(2007, 200) stated, “The initial inclusion of 

such potentially controversial material (e.g., 

the Kiviok myth) illustrates the blinders 

toward public criticism that those connected 

with the program tended to wear at the 

time.”   

 However, in light of the conservative 

restoration and backlash that has emerged in 

reaction to the 1960s new left (and now the 

Obama administration), it can be argued that 

MACOS was doomed from the beginning.  

If nothing else, its support of biological 

evolution would have been a cause for 

controversy.  The United States is, when it 

comes to education, much more 

conservative than it was during the turbulent 

1960s/70s.  One lesson progressive 

educators would do well to learn is to 

recognize that our nation has a large, well 

organized and financed, conservative 

activist group, which often appeals to basic 

fears and prejudices of Americans.  Creating 

an effective discourse to counter this 

conservative ideology is crucial if education 

in our public schools is ever to become more 

stimulating and meaningful.  Progressive 

educators are known for our sensitivity to 

other cultures; it is time we consider our 

own when creating curriculum.  This 

sensitivity is especially needed when it 

comes to children.  As Luker (2006) 

insightfully notes in her study of the culture 

wars over sex education, although most 

progressive thinking citizens and educators 

believe that it is best to expose children to 

scientific and modernist cultural ideals (e.g., 

democracy, social justice, tolerance, 

diversity), conservatives view much of our 

modern society with trepidation and believe 



54 

 

they must protect their children from evil 

and sinful ideas and images.  In our 

imperfect democracy, we would be wise to 

take these fears and ideas into consideration 

when creating thoughtful and intellectually 

engaging curricula.  Had the MACOS 

creators thought more about the content they 

were presenting to these young children and 

focused more on the types of learning 

experiences they wanted children to have, or 

developed the materials for teenagers, these 

controversies might have been avoided and 

MACOS might still be with us today.  

However, as previously mentioned, it is also 

very possible that the creators of MACOS 

could do nothing to protect their work in 

light of the larger socio-political 

conservative trends of the times. 

   

Preservation of Materials 

  A final lesson to be learned from the 

MACOS experience concerns the possibility 

that excellent ideas which are out of step 

with the times may be lost to future 

generations.  Educators, and more 

specifically school administrators, are 

known for adopting a given instructional 

program one year only to adopt a different 

program the following year.  As Kliebard 

(1970) demonstrated long ago, being aware 

of our curricular history is extremely 

important. What happens to discarded 

curricula, such as MACOS, that might not 

have had adequate time to be successful in 

our schools’ quest to improve the education 

of our children?  After 1975, when it was all 

but eradicated from the public schools, the 

MACOS curriculum spent decades in Dow’s 

basement with little interest from educators 

or scholars (personal communication, May 

29, 2009).  Morrissett (1975) noted, instead 

of building upon MACOS’ innovation, 

educators ignored what they had once 

believed to be a very successful curriculum.  

This abandonment was (is) indicative of the 

way in which the censorship of the social 

studies curriculum affected the national 

climate in terms of decreasing their 

“optimism about the climate for innovation” 

(Morrissett, 1975).   Yet forty years later, 

our review of the materials point to a clear 

indication of the intellectual value MACOS 

had. 

  More than being just a template to 

revise anthropological or an inquiry-based 

curriculum, MACOS represents an historical 

battleground where progressive educators 

struggled for academic freedom.  Educators 

need opportunities to view historical, 

controversial teaching materials to make 

sense of the battles between traditionalists 

and progressives.  During the last three 

decades progressive educators have 

completely failed to articulate ideas that 

illustrate the value and benefits of inquiry 

based pedagogy and intellectually engaging 

curricula.  Perhaps future generations of 

progressive educators and scholars will be 

more successful if they study what happened 

to MACOS and other progressive curricula 

and instructional programs.  If libraries are 

to be repositories of our cultural past, 

protectors of our cultural heritage, 

collections like MACOS need to be 

preserved in academic libraries whose 

collections are published in WorldCat and 

that boast flexible interlibrary loan policies 

(Cloonan 2007).  These preservation efforts 

will play an important role for future 

educators and scholars who are interested in 



55 

 

progressive pedagogy.  Furthermore, this 

may be the only way to teach the next 

generation of curriculum designers and 

scholars how to anticipate similar attacks on 

future progressive efforts.  Without 

preserving collections like MACOS, the 

lessons learned are merely waiting to be 

discovered in the basements and cellars of 

progressive educators who stand alone in 

their belief in the power of intellectually 

engaging curriculum.  If Hayes (2006) has 

correctly predicted the extinction of 

progressive educators, then the special 

collections of academic libraries are the final 

remnant for progressive ideals to firmly take 

root in American public education. 

 

Conclusion 

 Although one can understand why 

the creators of MACOS were unprepared for 

the culture war that erupted in the late 

1970s, we have few illusions of such 

activities today.  As previously mentioned, 

conservatives have clearly taken over 

control of the public school curriculum.  

This control has been solidified through the 

creation of State Standards by elected 

members of State Boards of Education, and 

as previously mentioned, high stakes testing.  

However, conservatives have not stopped 

their efforts to completely dominate what 

children are taught in our schools.  For 

example, the Texas Board of Education 

recently passed new textbook Standards 

which minimized (at first the effort was to 

eliminate) any mention of Thomas 

Jefferson’s support for the “separation 

between church and state” and reduced 

many references to people of color who 

have contributed to our nation’s and other 

nation’s democracy and social justice.  This 

development is particularly problematic 

given the power Texas has in influencing the 

content of textbooks across the nation 

(McKinley 2010).  Similarly, Arizona 

recently passed a law that forbids the 

teaching of ethnic studies in public schools 

(Santa Cruz 2010).  Given the political 

nature of school curriculum, and the 

conservative attitudes that dominate our 

electorate, it is, perhaps, not surprising that 

MACOS was only one effort in what has 

become a movement to eliminate all 

progressive curricula or pedagogy from our 

children’s schooling. 

 MACOS was one of the most 

intellectually engaging and meaningful 

curriculum ever created for public schools.  

Although the curriculum did not overtly 

condemn cultural practices that most United 

States’ citizens find disturbing, the 

criticisms were by and large misleading and 

unfair.  In particular, MACOS asked 

students to explore fundamental questions of 

what it means to be human; how cultures 

have changed over the centuries, and the 

relationships and commitments we have 

towards each other.  It did not merely 

provide information for students to 

memorize and regurgitate, but rather, used 

information to foster students’ powers of 

imagination, speculation, analysis, synthesis, 

and curiosity.  It did not tell students what to 

think or value, and this fact alone, was 

disturbing to our more conservative citizens.  

Its complete removal from our public 

schools was unfortunate and unjustified.  

MACOS is exactly the type of curriculum 

that in a democracy, even an imperfect 

democracy such as our own, educators 



56 

 

should build upon.  However, if curricula, 

such as MACOS, are ever going to find their 

way into American public schools, then 

educators and scholars will have to articulate 

ideas in ways that avoid unnecessary 

controversies and in ways that the public at 

large find important and appealing. 



57 

 

 

Notes 

 
1
 One curricular struggle that 

conservatives have failed to win is the battle 

over teaching evolution versus “intelligent 

design” or “creationism” in science classes 

(Humes 2007).  Although the courts have 

prevented the latter pseudo-sciences from 

being officially recognized and taught, many 

teachers teach as little evolution as possible 

to avoid conservative attacks.  In addition, 

the Obama administration has supported 

comprehensive instead of “absence only” 

sex and drug education, but here, too, the 

impact on most classroom curricula has been 

minimal.  Of course, as recent efforts by 

conservatives in Texas and Arizona 

illustrate, many conservatives still believe 

that our K-12 schools are too “liberal” (e.g., 

McKinley 2010; Santa Cruz 2010). 

 

 
2
 MACOS also had students study 

animals to help children understand humans’ 

basic relationship to other mammals, other 

pre-agricultural people such as the Bushmen 

as a way to draw comparisons between early 

and modern humans. 

 

 
3
 Dow (1991) suggests that Conlan 

might have used MACOS as a way to 

further his own political future.  Whether or 

not Conlan authentically believed that this 

curriculum would be harmful to students or 

if he was just trying to make political gains 

at its expense is difficult to confirm.  Most 

likely, there were elements of both in his 

decision to lead the attack against MACOS. 

  

 

 

References 

Andersen, R. 1995.  Consumer culture and 

TV programming.  Boulder, CO: 

Westview Press. 

Apple, M. 2001.  Educating the "right" way: 

Markets, standards, God, and 

inequality. New York: 

Routledge/Falmer Press. 

Apple, M. & Whitty, G.  2002. Structuring 

the postmodern in education policy.  In 

D. Hill. (Ed.), Marxism against 

postmodernism in educational theory.  

Lanham: Lexington Books. 

Boyle-Baise, L., Hsu, M., Johnson, S., 

Serriere, S., Stewart, D. 2008.  Putting 

reading first: Teaching social studies in 

elementary classrooms.  Theory and 

Research in Social Education, 36 (3), 

233-255. 

Boyle-Baise, M., Bernens-Kinkead, D., 

Coake, W., Loudermilk, L., Lukasik, 

L., Podany, W. (in press).  Social 

Studies as a verb: Teaching students to 

become informed, think it through, and 

take action.  Social Studies and the 

Young Learner.  

Cloonan, M. V. 2007. The moral imperative 

to preserve. Library Trends, 55, 746-

755.  

Cochran-Smith, M. 2004.  Walking the road: 

Race, diversity, and social justice in 

teacher education.  New York: 

Teachers College Press. 

Cummings, S. 1998).  The dixification of 

America: The American odyssey into 

the conservative economic trap.  

Westport, CT: Praeger Press. 



 

58 

 

Dillon, S. 2009, August 17.  Dangling 

money, Obama pushes education shift.  

New York Times, p. A1. 

Dow, P. 1991.  Schoolhouse politics: 

Lessons from the Sputnik era.  

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  

Durham, M. &  Kellner, D. 2001.   Media 

and cultural studies.  Malden, MA: 

Blackwell Publishers. 

Easton, N. 2000.  Gang of five: Leaders at 

the center of the conservative crusade.  

New York: Simon & Schuster. 

Elbaum, M. 2002.  Revolution in the 

air: Sixties radicals turn to Lenin, Mao 

and Che.  New York: Verso. 

Evans, R. 2004. The social studies wars: 

What should we teach the children? 

New York: Teachers College Press. 

Gabbard, D. 2008.  Knowledge & power in 

the global economy.  New York: 

Lawrence Erlbaum Press. 

Garfinkle, A. 1995.  Telltale hearts: The 

origins and impact of the Vietnam 

antiwar movement.  NY: 

Macmillan/St. Martin's Press. 

Gitlin, T. 1993.  The sixties: Years of hope, 

days of rage.  New York: Bantam 

Books. 

Goetz, W.W. 1992. The rise and fall of 

MACOS: A blip on the historical 

screen? Theory and Research in Social 

Education, 22 (4), pp. 515-522. 

Goodman, J. 2006.  Reforming schools: 

Working within a progressive tradition 

during conservative times.  Albany, 

NY: State University of New York 

Press. 

Hayes, W. 2006.  The progressive education 

movement: Is it still a factor in today’s 

schools? Lanham: Rowman & 

Littlefield Education. 

Humes, E. 2007.  Monkey girl: Evolution, 

education, religion, and the battle for 

America’s soul. New York: Harper 

Press. 

Hunter, J. 1991.  Culture wars: The struggle 

to define America.  New York: Basic 

Books. 

Hursh, D. 2008.  Neoliberalism.  In D. 

Gabbard’s (Ed.), Knowledge & power 

in the global economy, pp. 35-44.  

New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Press. 

Isserman, M. & Kazin, M. 2000.  

America divided: The civil war of the 

1960s.  New York: Oxford University 

Press. 

Kennedy, C. 1973.  Curriculum materials 

analysis system, readability formulae 

and MACOS:  A colloquium paper.  

Unpublished Colloquium Paper, 

Indiana University. 

Kliebard, H. 1970.  The Tyler rationale.  

School Review 78 (2), 259-272. 

Kozol, J. 1992.  Savage inequalities: 

Children in America's schools.  New 

York: Harper Publications. 

Kraus, L. 1977.  Curriculum, public policy, 

and criticism: an analysis of the 

controversies  surrounding Man: A 

course of study.  Unpublished 

dissertation. University of Texas. 

Kurlansky, M. 2004.  1968: The year that 

rocked the world.  New York: 

Ballantine Books. 

Laird, C. 2003.  Through these eyes [DVD].  

USA: Documentary Educational 

Resources. 

Luker, K. 2006.  When sex goes to school: 

Warring views on sex and sex 

education since the sixties.  New York: 

Norton Press. 

Lutkehaus, N. 2008.  Putting “culture” into 

cultural psychology: Anthropology’s 



 

59 

 

role in the development of Bruner’s 

cultural psychology. Ethos, 36 (1), pp. 

46-59. 

McKinley, J. March 13, 2010.  Texas 

conservatives win curriculum change.  

New York Times, p. A10. 

Meier, D. & Wood, G. 2004.  Many children 

left behind: How the No Child Left 

Behind Act is damaging our children 

and our schools.  Boston: Beacon 

Press. 

Miller, R. 1995.  Educational freedom for a 

democratic society: A critique of 

national educational goals, standards, 

and curriculum.  Brandon, VT: Great 

Ideas in Education Press. 

Moran, J. 2000.  Teaching sex: The shaping 

of adolescence in the 20
th

 century.  

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 

Press. 

Morrissett, I. 1975.  Curriculum information 

network, fourth report: Controversies 

in the classroom.  Social Education, 

29, 246-252.  

Rassmussen, K. 1968.  The Netsilik 

Eskimos. In Talks to teachers I (pp. 

86-119). Cambridge, MA: Education 

Development Center.  

Ravitch, D. (2009.  The death and life of the 

great American school system: How 

testing and choice are undermining 

education.  New York: Basic Books. 

Rorty, R. 1998.  Achieving our country: 

Leftist thought in twentieth-century 

America.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press. 

Rorty, R. (1999.  Philosophy and social 

hope.  New York: Penguin Books. 

Rudolph, J. 2002.  Scientists in the 

classroom: The Cold War 

reconstruction of American science 

education. New York: Palgrave Press. 

Santa Cruz, N. May 12, 2010.  Arizona bill 

targeting ethnic studies signed into 

law.  Los Angeles Times. 

Schwab, J. (1963.  Biology teachers’ 

handbook.  New York: John Wiley and 

Sons. 

Stefanic, J. & Delgado, R. 1996.   No mercy: 

How conservative think tanks and 

foundations changed America's social 

agenda.  Philadelphia: Temple 

University Press. 

Sunderman, G., Kim, J., & Orfield, G. 2005.  

NCLB meets school realities: Lessons 

from the field.  New York: Corwin 

Press. 

Wallerstein, I. 1995.  After liberalism.  New 

York: The New Press. 

Wolcott, H.F. 2007.  Reflections from the 

field: the middlemen of MACOS. 

Anthropology and Education 

Quarterly, 38 (2), pp. 195-206. 

Zeichner, K. 2009.  Teacher education and 

the struggle for social justice.  New 

York: Routledge Press. 

Zimmerman, J. 2002.  Whose America: 

Culture wars in the public schools.  

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 

Press. 


