Thosewho are traditionallymarginalizedremainoutsiders,called upon as "experts"tospeak with their own voices and educate the norm, and then finally deemed not-rational because they speak from a visible (i.e., a non-dominant)standpoint.Furthermore,the life experiences of traditionallymarginalizedstudents,such asthose of students of color with racism, can bring a historical and personal con-nection to the lessons on oppression that those who fit the mythical norm typi-cally do not have. Personalexperiences as people not privileged on the basis ofrace can exceed the expectations of a pedagogy that relies on rationality andthat represses other ways of knowing and relating. Such lessons serve to Otherstudents who cannot be engaged by a pedagogy that presumes to address themythical norm.39

Disruptiveknowledge, in other words, is not an end in itself, but a means toward thealways-shiftingend/goal of learningmore. For example, novels from writersofcolor have traditionallybeen used to teach students about different cultures, orto give students entry into different cultural experiences (O'Neill, 1993). Theproblem with such a use of novels comes when students believe that, after"understanding"the novel, they will "understand"the representedculture orgroup

The second kind of knowledge is about the Otherbut encourages a distortedand misleading understandingof the Other that is based on stereotypes andmyths. In other words, the second kind of knowledge is partial, i.e., biased.Students learn or acquire this second form of knowledge both outside and in-side of school. Outsideof school, for example, studentsare learningaboutqueersfrom sensationalistand stereotypicalaccounts in the media and popularculture(Lipkin, 1995); they are learning about Asian American men and women fromexoticized portrayalsin films and television (Okihiro, 1994); and they are learn-ing about the "proper"roles for girls or women and boys or men from theirfamily, their communities, the popular press, and so forth (Willis, 1977;McRobbie, 1978). But even inside school, students learn little that challengesthese stereotypes and misrepresentations.For example, students learn little ifanythingaboutthe gay liberationmovementin history textbooks (Lipkin, 1995);they see few portrayalsof queers in health textbooks, and many of these only inthe context of sexually-transmitteddisease (Whatley, 1992); they hear and/orengage in few discussions about queers, except when makingjokes or disparag-ing comments, and since these often go unchallengedby the teacher, they con-sequently learn that it is acceptable to denigratequeers (Unks, 1995); boys inparticularlearn that normalcydoes not include queer sexualities (Epstein, 1997;Mac an Ghaill, 1994).

earlier)

This approach alone, however, has its limitations. There are at least three.First, educators cannot focus only on the treatmentof the Other, and ignoreother ways in which oppressionplays out in schools. In fact, by conceptualizingoppressionin terms of the marginalizationof the Other (and not in terms of the29

Concerning queer students: ratherthan assume that all students are hetero-sexual and sexually "innocent"-which is not to say asexual but ratherfragilelyheterosexual(Watney, 1991)-and for that matter,that studentscan, should, ordo leave their sexuality outside of school, educators need to acknowledge andaddress the fact that students do bring sexuality into schools for a variety ofreasons, such as to resist norms (Walkerdine, 1990) and to denigrate Others(Epstein & Johnson, 1998), and that studentsare not all heterosexual(some arequeer, some are questioning)

he viability of our proposal depends not onwhether standards exist but on their substance.Our framework is grounded in the beliefs that asalient role of schools is to promote a more equi-table and just society and that diversity is wor-thy of affirmation. It is therefore compatiblewith accountability systems that give seriousattention to principles of access, equity, anddiversity in education. Most professional orga-nizations and government agencies that havedeveloped standards for the preparation ofteachers do in fact address these principles intheir standards. Our proposal offers an oppor-tunity to test the sincerity of their commitment.

rs, including the children’s parents.For instance, when teaching about immigrationin the United States, a New York City teacher weknow invited the parents of several children inher class who had immigrated to this country toshare their immigrant experiences with the stu-dents. In doing this, the teacher not onlystrengthened the co

But schools are far from being the impartialsettings they are believed to be. Built into thefabric of schools are curricular, pedagogical,and evaluative practices that privilege the afflu-ent, White, and male segments of society. Theprocess through which we have been socializedinto thinking that biased practices—such asinstructional tracking—are impartial and natu-ral has a powerful impact on our thinking. And,our belief in the meritocracy is further strength-ened by the fact that some individuals fromoppressed groups do manage to succeed aca-demically despite the limited probability oftheir doing so. As a result, most people tend toexplain academic success and failure on thebasis of individual characteristics of the learnerrather than institutionalized discrimination.Such explanations are offered by prospectiveteachers no less than by others (Davis, 1995)

But even when they are highly knowledgeableabout their students, teachers may not be able tomake productive use of what they know with-out some frameworks for interpreting this infor-mation—frameworks that come largely from agrounding in academic disciplines during theirundergraduate education. From historycourses, for example, prospective teachers needto learn about the enslavement, conquest, andcolonization of people of color as well as theirongoing struggle for liberation. Exposure to theliterature of different groups can give futureteachers access to the rich texture of people’slives—their hopes, aspirations, dreams, disap-pointments, pains, and joys. From socio-linguistics courses, they can learn that all variet-ies of language are complex and governed byrules. Courses in anthropology can reinforce thefact that, although discernable patterns for cul-tural groups exist, culture is dynamic and variesamong individuals within a group and acrosscommunities within a larger cultural group.

ric of schools are curricular, pedagogical,and evaluative practices that privilege the afflu-ent, White, and male segments of society. Theprocess through which we have been socializedinto thinking that biased practices—such asinstructional tracking—are impartial and natu-ral has a powerful impact on our thinking. And,our belief in the meritocracy is further strength-ened by the fact that some individuals fromoppressed groups do manage to succeed aca-demically despite the limited pr

esses along the way. They need “afine sense of historical agency” (Apple, 1996,p. xviii) that allows them to see that schoolshave become more equitable over time and thatchange is a slow process. Thus, as teacher edu-cators we must go bey

current inequalities