Discursive differences in teaching the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision and the preservation of narratives of American progress

Abstract

This qualitative case study research explores the discursive practices of three White secondary US history teachers while teaching about the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Supreme Court decision. Using critical discourse analysis as a methodology, this study examines teachers’ use of naming, verb tense and presupposition to explore the subtle differences in meaning conveyed to students about the Brown decision and how these differences correspond with teachers’ historical knowledge and beliefs about the goal and role of teaching history. In revealing these discursive differences in historical narratives, this study demonstrates how master narratives of American progress rooted in hegemonic Whiteness are upheld or disrupted, and sometimes both. This study supplements existing research about the teaching and learning about the history of Brown and raises questions about the different historical narratives presented to students even when purportedly covering the same topics.