Critical and emerging discourses in multicultural education literature: a review.

Kirova, Anna

INTRODUCTION

Multicultural education in Canada was conceived as a response to cultural pluralism in society. It is linked to immigration and represents a shift in Canadian social policy that parallels dramatic shifts in immigration policy (Ghosh and Abdi 2004). As a result of Canada's historical immigration patterns and policies, as well as public responses to immigration, Canadian social and educational institutions differ significantly from those of other immigrant-receiving countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and France, among others. Although these unique patterns influenced the singular development of Canadian educational policies, research, and practices (Lund 2003), a noticeable cross-fertilization of theoretical frameworks has developed in these countries, both in their implications for multicultural education practices and the critique of these practices. Mitchell (2001) states that most contemporary liberal thought in educational theory deems that democratic practice in Western education occurs in and through communal efforts to work through problems in an essentially multicultural student body. She points out that "within this theoretical framework, by virtue of collective, plural education, Americans and Canadians simultaneously endorse both democratic possibility and the ongoing maintenance of national unity and identity" (68).

In Canada, educational institutions are seen as having the obligation to provide continuity and content to the ongoing dialogue about the nature of multiculturalism and the management of diversity (Elliston 1997). Indeed, periodically, educational reforms are identified as one of the initiatives needed for the integration of immigrants into majority-language institutions (Kymlicka 2001).

In the past decade, however, concern has increased among the general public, researchers, and practitioners that schools are poorly equipped to cope with increased diversity and that instead of playing a role in facilitating equity and belonging, they may become locations that foster isolation and replicate racialized forms of injustice (Wideen and Barnard 1999). The fact that racism in schools is persistent and is afflicted with denial and defensiveness (Dei 2005); that stereotyping Tamil youth, for example, with the gang label or Paki name-calling; and the pervasiveness of gendered Islamophobia and the politics of veiling women point not only to how the negative stereotypes constitute violence to bodies in the post-9/11 context (Zine 2004), but also raise the general question of how effective multicultural education is in integrating minority students. Recent attention to the challenges faced by second-generation immigrant youth (e.g., Filipino-Canadian youth) who still experience a sense of dislocation and restrictions on belonging enforced by daily racism in the Canadian system (Pratt 2002) provides evidence that multiculturalism is unable to provide protection from the sense of exclusion.

Furthermore, the expectation that multicultural education policies and practices will result in equal participation of all students in education and thus allow for equal participation in the public and economic spheres has been challenged by the fact that visible-minority students' dropout rates exceed those of the Canadian-born (Derwing et al. 1999; Watt and Roessingh 2001) and that some racial groups are overrepresented in the criminal system (Wortley 2003). Furthermore, a number of studies (Li 1998; Gee and Prus 2000; Kazemipur and Halli 2003) show that "non-White origin creates a penalty for visible minorities in the labour market" (Li 1998, 126). The findings of these studies indicate that the idea of liberal multiculturalism has not been achieved if measured by household income, and, as a result, racialized groups are more highly represented among the poor than are White Canadians (Galabuzi 2005).

The ability of multicultural education to become a vehicle for achieving justice, liberty, and equality that pervade the social, economic, and political life of society (Giroux 2001) has been challenged since its inception. The purpose of this article is threefold. First, to examine the critical discourses in the academic literature on multicultural education pointing to the major conceptual flaws in multicultural education theory that have led to practices that have achieved effects opposite to the intent of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Second, to identify some of the suggestions being made in the context of the post-multiculturalism discourse defined as alternatives to multiculturalism (Vertovec, n.d.) on how to address these flaws in multicultural education theory and practice. And, third, to discuss some possible implications of the key findings of the review for multicultural education.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

In order to identify and articulate the most common criticisms of multicultural education, a critical review and analysis were conducted of the English-language academic education literature. The focus was on journal articles, books, dissertation abstracts, book reviews, reports, policies, and other documents. Databases researched included ERIC, Academic Search Premier, Proquest, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Some repetition eventually became evident, and saturation was reached in these sources.

The keyword searches were multicultural * or post-multicultural * with multiple other search terms that were variable, for example, critic * or critique *, or problem * (the asterisk ending on a keyword expands the search to include other endings) and the limits of years between 1996 and 2006. Some seminal works prior to this period were also included in this article in order to provide an historical context for more recent criticisms.

Each search began with a broad base, and limits were added and combined to produce a manageable dataset. The initial search produced sixty salient pieces. For the purposes of this article, from this data set, forty-eight academic peer-reviewed articles, four books, seven book reviews, and five reports that focused on a theoretical critique of multicultural education, rather than on providing evidence of racism, discrimination, and the failure of immigrant students or the need to improve teacher preparation programs in order to meet the needs of the diverse student body, were analyzed in depth.

Analysis of the above sources enabled the identification of the most common theoretical perspectives which most of the authors have used to critique various aspects of multicultural education in the past ten years: antiracism, critical pedagogy, and critical race theory. These theoretical perspectives emerged as oppositional discourses to mainstream multicultural education theory, policies, and practices and thus provide a distinct yet somewhat overlapping array of criticisms or concerns about multicultural education.

Following a brief historical overview of multicultural education in Canada, the criticisms articulated in the English-language literature about the problems of multicultural education are organized into three major sections. The first focuses on the criticisms of multicultural education; the second focuses on emerging propositions in the post-multiculturalism discourse on potentially productive directions for multiculturalism policy and multicultural education. The third section provides a summary of the key findings of the review of literature and discusses some implications for multicultural education.

A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION IN CANADA

The emergence of multicultural education in the Canadian educational system is influenced by the implementation of the 1971 federal Multicultural Policy statements (James 2003; James and Shadd 2001), the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the 1988 Canadian multiculturalism Act. From its inception, multicultural education is linked to the goals of the original federal multiculturalism policy, which promotes ethnocultural retention, fosters appreciation of the cultural heritages of others, and assumes increased intergroup harmony (Lund 2003).

Willinsky (1999) identifies the effect of the Multiculturalism Act on education as follows:

* Government sponsorship of cultural community groups, ethnic events, and related school programs, creating a hyphenated mode of being among the nation's citizenry

* Initiation of heritage language programs in a number of Canadian communities, extension of Anglo-North-American traditions of English literature to a new range of voices and experiences, and inclusion of non-European inventors, scientists, and mathematicians in mathematics and science lessons

* Implementation of anti-racist programs to help students deal with the racism they encounter in school and community

A major problem of the implementation of Canadian multicultural education is that "the Multiculturalism clause [of the federal Multicultural Policy] for education is vague" and that the "lack of federal control over education, and provincial legislation in general, has limited federal ability to influence education in this direction to any meaningful degree" (Ghosh and Abdi 2004, 45). Because education is a provincial responsibility, multiculturalism as a federal policy is interpreted differently by the provincial educational authorities and is translated into varying forms of educational policies. Currently, five provinces have officially accepted multiculturalism in education, with Saskatchewan being the first to implement this policy in 1975, followed by Ontario in 1977, and Quebec with its own intercultural education perspective. The other two provinces are Alberta and Manitoba.

Despite the differences among multicultural educational policies across Canada, a synthesis of the components of multicultural education identifies three specific goals: "1. equivalency in achievement; 2. more positive intergroup attitudes; and 3. developing pride in heritage" (Kehoe and Mansfield 1997, 3). These goals are to be achieved using a number of strategies including, but not limited to, teaching English as a second language while encouraging retention of heritage languages; removing ethnocentric bias from the curriculum; providing information about other cultures, which follows the criteria of teaching about similarities, institutionalizing in-school cultural celebrations as well as those of the Anglo-Celtic majority; and acquainting all students with their own and other cultures through the exchange of literature, art, dance, food, clothing, folk rhymes, religion, and so forth.

The Report on the State of the Art of Multicultural Education in Canada led by Keith A. McLeod from 1992 to 1996 identifies the following major tasks in the field of education: (a) to develop a more inclusive conceptualization and (b) to improve curriculum and pedagogy. The report stresses that the current climate has reopened the debate on multiculturalism and Canadian identity (Elliston 1997). From a Canadian perspective, the future of multiculturalism, as McCreath (1997) suggests, needs to be seen in the context of the question of "whether there is a future for Canada" (24). Although the concept of multiculturalism in the multiculturalism Act is seen as valid, it is described as untried in education (ibid.). Similarly, most recently Ghosh and Abdi (2004) conclude that multicultural and intercultural education programs only theoretically give access to all ethnocultural groups and that these programs have not resulted in equal participation in the educational or economic spheres. Thus they claim "Canadians cannot afford to ignore the implications of a failed multicultural policy, and now face a challenge of redefining meaning in the quest for peace and collective prosperity" (139).

CRITICISMS OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION

The first criticisms of multicultural education come from anti-racist theorists, who are typically seen as holding opposing views to those of multiculturalists, particularly in the UK (Brandt, 1986; Troyna, 1987), in the US (Nieto 1992; Perry and Fraser 1993; Sleeter and Grant 1998), and in Canada (Dei 1996; Tator and Henry 1991). Anti-racist education theorists stress that multicultural education ignores racial differences and racial discrimination and falls to challenge the organizational structures of institutions as a basis for this discrimination. The debate between the two views on the focus of multicultural education is described as harmful (Tomlinson 1990) because it diverts educators' attention from making practical curriculum changes.

The gap between theory and practice is also identified as a major weakness of multicultural education by critical pedagogy theorists (Brown and Kysilka 1994; Cole 1986; May 1994; Wilhelm 1994). Although Canadian anti-racism education connects with critical pedagogy and African-centered pedagogy (Dei 1996), the boundaries between anti-racism and multicultural education are clearer at the level of rhetoric than of pedagogical practice (Carrington and Bonnett 1997).

The gap between theory and practice is not the only weakness in the field of multicultural education. The existence of conceptual differences regarding multiculturalism held by antiracist, anti-discrimination, human rights, languages, and intercultural and transcultural advocates and the fact that each claims that his/her view or interpretation is correct creates one of the most critical challenges of multicultural education (McLeod 1997) as it results in confusion and frustration among educational practitioners. In their review of multicultural education research from 1990 to 2001, Grant et al. (2004) confirm an earlier description of the field as "troubled" (185), which is traced to "conceptual confusion, research epistemological bias, funding, [and] research acceptance in the academy" (200). Kincheloe and Steinberg (1997) describe the field as involving conservative, liberal, pluralist, left-essentialist, and critical multiculturalism, and McLaren (1997) adds to the list critical/resistance and revolutionary multiculturalism.

The review of the academic literature related to multicultural education critiques presented here indicates that the field is still divided in terms of conceptualization of the main theoretical categories including culture, power, agency, race, identity, social class, oppression, and difference. Divisions among the three theoretical perspectives reviewed in this article--anti-racism, critical theory, and critical face theory--result partly from varied histories and are variably motivated and positioned among scholars with diverse political agendas. Nevertheless, there are some commonalities among these critical perspectives which are outlined in the following sections.

Emphasizing Exoticized, Knowable (Other) Cultures Solidifies the Boundaries Between Majority and Minority Cultures

As noted above, multicultural education in Canada is premised partly on the idea of the importance of preserving heritage. Critics point out that this emphasis results in "reductive striving for cultural simplicity and knowability" (Walcott 1997, 122). The need for learners to "study 'foreign' cultures, participate in multicultural days or go on field trips to 'cultural communities' and community centres" (Pon 2000, 284) is viewed by multicultural educators as a remedy for the racism and ethnic hostilities that stem from people's lack of familiarity with other cultures (Gosine 2002).

Teaching students about the similarities and differences of many cultures is encouraged. Activities tend to focus on cultural celebrations, and thus remain at the superficial level of food, dance, and music represented in the "pinata curriculum or the snowshoe curriculum" (Hoffman 1996, 550). Multicultural education is defined as the celebration of difference on special occasions or dates, which is typically accomplished as an add-on to the regular curriculum. As a result, the practice of multicultural education is characterized by folklorization.

Critics (Stables 2005; Troyna 1987) argue, however, that increased knowledge of other groups might, in fact, enhance the feeling of difference, may not necessarily lead to critical examination of the dominant culture, and thus does not encourage dialogue among groups about how to work through differences. In some instances, as Flecha (1999) shows, the emphasis on the concept of difference can also be used, as in the case of the Neo-Nazis in Europe, for the development of hate programs.

Another outcome of the emphasis by multicultural education on cultural heritage, critics argue, is that the concept of culture is simplified and reified to fit multicultural discourses that support visions of personal, ethnic, or national cultural identity that are fixed, essentialized, stereotyped, and normalized (Bateson 1994; Perry 1992; Musgrove 1982; Turner 1993; Wax 1993). However, "the tendency to view non-Western cultures as stable, tradition-bound, timeless entities shifts us dangerously back toward viewing others as beings who are profoundly and inherently different from ourselves" (Perry 1992, 52). Difference, then, is not only assumed in multicultural educational theory and practice, but is created in relation to the "norm." Therefore, treating cultures as discrete units strengthens the boundaries between majority and minority cultures. Not surprisingly, then, as Mitchell (2001) suggests, non-White, non-Western "citizens" cannot be part of the nation-building project because the nation is constituted by their exclusion.

Critics in Canadian education academic literature trace the above outcome of multiculturalism back to Trudeau's (1971) pluralistic notion of the Canadian "mosaic" that is still "the favored metaphor of Canadian education administrators and policy makers when seeking to underline the pluralistic nature of their national culture and society" (Carrington and Bonnett 1997, 412). They show that despite the commitment of educational and social policies in promoting "race" and ethnic equality, responses at the provincial level have been varied, and developments in practice have been uneven. Comparing race equity education in Ontario and British Columbia, for example, Carrington and Bonnett observe that regional devolution ensures varied responses to multiculturalism at the provincial level that result in uneven developments in praxis and so "it may be erroneous to conceive of just one Canadian mosaic" (412).

A related criticism of multiculturalism is that in the mosaic metaphor, and in other popular representations of diversity such as quilts, salads, tapestries, and so forth that purport to recognize difference, the unity of cultures is a given. "Difference is thereby diluted or made to support overarching frameworks of shared values or worldview firmly enshrined in that privileged existential space called 'culture'" (original emphasis, Hoffman 1996, 550).

By Renaming the Difference from Racial to Cultural, White Dominance is Reproduced

Overemphasis on culture has ideological ramifications as it shifts the naming of difference from racial to cultural. This, critics point out, represents a shift in the epistemic site of racism. Willinsky (1999), for example, suggests that "renaming the difference" (95) obscures the important social processes that shape education, and thus "it falls to make clear the relationship between racial and cultural difference" (97). Renaming the difference also results in changing the common code for racial difference in Canada, which is currently cultural difference (original emphasis, Schick and St. Denis 2005): a quality that racial minority children, especially Aboriginal children, are said to have and that is given as the reason for any lack of school success.

Other critics (Bannerii 2000; James and Shadd 2001) also challenge multicultural education for equating race with ethnicity and culture. For them, in the multicultural perspective, race is no more salient than ethnicity in matters of socio-economic and political inequalities. Thus, insofar as racial inequality is seen to exist, multicultural educators play down structural explanations in favor of explanations about cultural differences (Pon 2000). According to Ghosh and Abdi (2004), rejection of the biological definition of race and consequent cultural conceptions of face, "indicates a shift in the strategies of racism from overt to covert forms" (58). They assert that using the official Canadian expression to refer to non-White groups, namely visible minorities, clearly indicates that"minorities are defined by skin colour in a society where whiteness is taken to be the norm" (58).

The shift from racial to cultural difference is viewed as serving the "ideology of racelessness" which is consistent with a "national mythology that Canada is not a racist country" (Backhouse 1999, 14). Schick and St. Denis (2005) also assert that forgetting about the salience of race is not merely a passive letting go. They stress that a multicultural approach to education sanctions the ignorance of racializing systems, including the production of White identities and the taken-for-grantedness of racial dominance. Multiculturalism, therefore, "has failed to question the norm of whiteness and the domination of white culture by making it invisible. By remaining concealed, and removing the dominant group from race and/or ethnicity, the focus on difference is depoliticized" (Ghosh and Abdi 2004, 34), and asymmetrical relations of power are maintained. Cultural difference rhetoric, then, connects educational failures to the Other by de-emphasizing how dominant (White) identities are implicated in the production of difference.

Multiculturalism's View of the Self/Culture Relationship Reiterates the Cultural Hegemony Associated with Eurocentrism

The essentialized views of culture assumed in multicultural education lead to understanding self/cultural identity and self-esteem as fundamentally the same in all cultures and ethnic groups (Hoffman 1996). This view is found both in Taylor's (1994) and in Kymlicka's (1995) conceptualizations of self as a property of human nature animated by those human qualities assumed to be universal. In multicultural education theory and practice, it is assumed that "there is a one-to-one relationship between self and culture characterized by a clear, fixed commitment to a particular cultural or ethnic identity" (Hoffman 1996, 557). The argument goes further to suggest that the ownership formulation of identity as something one has (i.e., "all students have an ethnic identity" or "every student has a culture") represents the relationship between person and culture as one of possession, which reflects notions of property rights and makes ethnicity compatible with the dominant economic structure of society. This argument is supported by Appiah's (1997) assertion that most of the social identities that make up our diverse society do not actually have independent cultures that need to be represented in school curricula. He maintains that what are frequently coded as cultural identities are, in fact, social identities that cannot be understood as independent cultures. Thus by being told that everyone should have a clear ethnic or cultural identity, minority children are not only forced to choose their identity, but also to "live within separate spheres defined by the common culture of their race, religion, or ethnicity" (34). Similarly, Ghosh and Abdi (2004) state that for visible minorities, the self-definition not only brings a sense of discomfort, but also produces conflict in identity formation because they are forced to define themselves and because "traditions are being reconstructed through fragmentation" (71). In their critique of multicultural education, critical race education theorists trace the notion of property in the historical construction of Whiteness in relation to the concept of individual rights--the so-called "property issue" (Ladson-Billings 1995, 1998).

Related to the self/culture property assumptions are identity politics as a response to minority cultures' demands for political and cultural recognition that are articulated with the supposition of the authenticity of minority identity assumed to be an already formed or pre-given stable identity constructed in relation to Whiteness. When "recognition" is understood and practiced as a form of tolerance, it masks or even reiterates the cultural hierarchization associated with Eurocentrism (Cornell and Murphy 2002).

Multiculturalism's Culturalist Ideology Reinforces Existing Inequalities

Critical theorists challenge multicultural education for its obsessive concern with culture, which they claim masks political and socio-economic conditions that contribute to real inequity in contemporary plural societies, thereby making multiculturalism a safe way of sidestepping the important issues. Cole (1986), May (1994), McLaren (1995), McCarthy (1994), and Watkins (1994), among others, claim that, because it often occurs in the absence of a transformative political agenda, this culturalist orientation can serve only to reinforce the dominant Western ideology that supports existing inequalities. For example, in his early critique of multicultural education discourses, Giroux (1983) stated that power and domination were sometimes "reduced to misunderstandings that can be corrected by providing accurate information" (31). Thus, critical theorists (Giroux; McCarthy 1994; McLaren 1995) assert that multicultural education locates discrimination in individuals' lack of sensitivity and knowledge and assumes that it can be changed by efforts to reduce prejudice, promote cultural awareness and knowledge, and achieve equal accessibility. As a result, multicultural education views these measures as substitutes for structural change, which in turn leaves the status quo intact.

In contrast, anti-racist education challenges systemic racism, which consists of the policies and practices of organizations that directly or indirectly operate to sustain the advantages of people of certain "social races" (Henry et al. 2000). Antiracist is defined as an "action-oriented strategy for institutional, systemic change to address racism and the interlocking systems of social oppression" (Dei 1996, 25). However, as Willinsky (1999) points out, although "the move from multicultural to anti-racist education is a promising step in pursuit of how collectives are constructed" what remains is "the history of the learned investment in the significance of the differences and divides among humankind" (393).

Critical race educational theorists also argue that equity of opportunity is meaningless to children from unequal conditions with unequal social capital. Schools thus reinforce existing inequalities when they ignore social differences that affect learning and achievement. Moreover, because both educational institutions and teachers possess the all too important intercultural competence in varying degrees (Bennet 2001), some students are not treated equally in a system that perpetuates the dominant culture, values, and norms through its curriculum and organization.

Multicultural Education is Assimilationist in Creating National Citizenship and Identity

In reviewing the role of the school in revealing national Canadian culture and identity, Diakiw (1997) indicates that the discussion is fraught with dangers because Trudeau proclaimed in 1971 in the House of Commons that "while we have two official languages, we have no official culture, no one culture is more official than another." In defence of multiculturalism, Diakiw stresses that this proclamation has "contributed to a backlash manifested in the Reform Party, Quebec Separatism, and a fundamentalist resurgence across Canada" (27). However, Diakiw agrees with the view of critical theorists that "multiculturalism posits a serious thereat to the school's traditional task of defending and transmitting an authentic national history, a uniform standard of cultural literacy, and singular national identity" (Giroux 1992, cited in Diakiw, 27).

Critical theorists argue that multicultural education theory creates problems, contradictions, and dilemmas for members of minority groups living in a liberal democracy. There are two reasons for this. First, liberal democracy is based on principles of liberal theory regarding the importance of respecting individual rights and individual actions, but multicultural education tends to focus on group rights and actions. Second, they argue that multicultural education theory directs minority group members into "trying to belong to [both] their cultural community and national community" (Rosaldo 1989, 44). This has created dilemmas and difficulties for people who find it difficult to reconcile some of the cultural norms and values of two communities. In turn, this contributes to self-alienation and consequent problems with citizenship and national identity.

Similarly, the promotion of a homogeneous vision of Canada, regardless of the diversity of its citizens, is identified by Strong-Boag (2002) as a sign of Canada's inability to address the shortcomings of citizenship education based on universal citizenship. In her view, women, Native people, and working-class people have suffered exclusion from this kind of citizenship education that has resulted in even greater inequalities for these groups. A similar critique is offered by Cecille dePass and Shazia Qureshi (2002) who explore how people of color exist in the spaces between citizen and non-citizen in Canadian society. They reject the term visible minority in favor of people of color, viewing the former as an externally imposed definition and the latter as a self-selected terra for self-definition.

The primary challenge to existing models of citizenship education in Canada is identified by Hebert and Wilkinson (2002) as the need to respect differences while identifying and nurturing commonalities. Thus, although acknowledging that certain individuals and groups experience limited sociopolitical participation in liberal democracies, Hebert and Wilkinson suggest that social cohesion is both a desirable goal and a nebulous concept that may never be fully resolved because societies and human beings are always in a state of flux. However, they suggest that research on citizenship in Canada lacks coordination and has been undertaken largely as a result of "personal preferences, interests, affinities, and whims" and has been "subject to continuous ideological winds" (228).

It is important to emphasize that none of the sources reviewed here suggests dismissing the idea of multiculturalism as a desired characteristic of educational theory or practice. On the contrary, the emerging post-multiculturalism discourse in the academic education literature offers theoretical suggestions about rearticulating the main concepts of multicultural education in order to reflect their complexity and to create an education system that is inclusive of all students. The key postulations of the post-multiculturalism discourse are presented in the following section.

EMERGENT POST-MULTICULTURALISM DISCOURSE ON MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION

In addition to identifying the main criticisms of multicultural education, the review of the academic literature reveals an emerging post-multiculturalism discourse that indicates some significant shifts in understanding and articulating central concepts such as culture, power, and cultural, national, and civic identity. Similar trends are also observed in the literature outside the field of education. For example, in her recent comparison of Canadian multiculturalism and Quebec interculturalism policies, Nugent (2006) observes that in the last ten years, the initial emphasis on difference that was strongest in the 1988 Multiculturalism Act has shifted to a stronger focus on integration, civic participation, social justice, and national security (Abu-Laban 1999; Kymlicka 2001; Labelle 2005). In addition, in the latest annual report on the implementation and direction of the Act, identity is defined as belonging and attachment to Canada rather than to any particular subgroup in the country (Canada 2004; Abu-Laban and Gabriel 2002; Nugent 2006). The following section outlines trends in post-multiculturalism discourse in the English-language academic education literature.

The Shift in Understanding Culture and Cultural Difference

As indicated above, one of the main criticisms of multiculturalism and multicultural education is that culture is simplified and reified to fit multicultural discourses that support visions of personal, ethnic, or national cultural identity that are fixed, essentialized, stereotyped, and normalized. This, in turn, solidifies the boundaries between cultures and, by extension, between cultural groups. To address this issue, the current conceptualization of culture is drawn from cultural studies (Hall 1996; Williams 1976) and critical anthropology (Clifford 1988, 1992). Culture is defined as the whole way of life of a society or group in a particular period and as a dynamic, rather than static, phenomenon (Hartman 1997). Human culture is now understood as "both historical ('backward-looking') and dynamic ('forward-looking')" (Shi-Xu 2001, 283). Culture is also seen as being able to "re- and trans-form itself" (283). From this point of view, the purpose of multicultural education now is "to create possibilities in confronting the views in which we see the world" (Ghosh and Abdi 2004, 31), and, thus, it represents a site of struggle.

Ghosh and Abdi (2004) maintain that postmodern thought resists the idea of culture as an organizing principle that creates borders around ethnicity, class, and gender. Such borders falsely homogenize cultures within a culture. Building on Bhabha's (1994) notion of the third space, they suggest developing broader horizons where we negotiate new ideas and vocabularies to enable us to make comparisons partly through transforming our own standards. They describe the third space as one of renegotiation of cultural space that offers the opportunity to create conventions and practices in and between varied modes of meaning. It is a harmonization of cultures, not their dissolution, disappearance, or disintegration. The fusion of cultures in the third space, then, does not mean difference-blindness or homogenization; rather, it emphasizes identity because individuals see the world from their own perspectives and have multiple identities, some of which may be contradictory. Therefore, validating cultural, social, and gender differences and developing individual identities should be the focus of multicultural education.

Gosine (2002) suggests that adopting a critical, non-essentialist approach to cultural difference in schools would provide students with theoretical tools to challenge the racist discourses that construct exoticized and stigmatized 'Others' and help them to develop a more complex and thorough understanding of racism and its interplay with other social statuses such as ethnicity, class, and sexual orientation.

The Shift in Understanding Cultural and Ethnic Identities

Gosine's (2002) review of conceptions of racial identity construction identified a theoretical shift in education-related scholarship. That is, rather than treating these concepts as fixed, discrete, and easily represented entities (Fordham and Ogbu 1992), they are now viewed as hybrid and contradictory concepts continually produced and reproduced in relation to shifting constellations of knowledge (e.g., racializing discourses) and power in the larger society (James 1996; Yon 2000). However, he warns, the dangers of arguing for such a perspective may cause a fall into a fragmented universe of situated identities and forms of consciousness that make it seemingly impossible to think about group-based identities, issues, mobilization, or interventions (Collins 2000; Diawara 1993). Overemphasizing hybridity and the associated blurring of ethnoracial boundaries can also result in playing down the bitter tensions that arise in conflicts between marginalized and dominant groups, thereby misrepresenting the nature of Canadian racism (Loomba 1998).

Recent dramatic changes in the business world have caused some critical theorists (Grossberg 1992) to explore the effects of the new economic formations on cultural practice and, consequently, identity. The new work order, or post-capitalism, indicates a shift "from a focus on production to a focus on consumption" (Helfenbein 2003, 14). This in turn creates a "culture based in part on the transfer of information from consumer to producer and vice versa, less meaningful borders, and a well hidden gap between the rich and the poor" (14) in which identity is defined by patterns of consumption.

Helfenbein (2003) argues that schools in general must change in order to prepare young people for the new work order and that multicultural education in particular "needs to address the changing nature of identity in a globalized technologically connected world" (14). Articulating the novel life conditions, subjectivities, and identities of youth; cultivating new multiple literacies as a response to new technologies and the challenges of globalization and multiculturalism; and proposing a radical reconstruction and democratization of education to counter the trend toward the imposition of a neoliberal business model on education are the three major tasks of the new critical pedagogy according to Kellner (2003). He emphasizes, however, that reconstruction of education should not fulfil the agenda of capital and high-tech industries, but should "radically democratize education in order to advance Deweyan and Freirean conceptions of the development of individuality, the promotion of citizenship and community, and the strengthening of democratic participation in all modes of life" (62).

The Shift in Understanding Citizenship and Civic and National Identity

In educational discourse, critical theorists such as Giroux (1991), Dryzek (1996), and Kincheloe (2001) emphasize that "democratic citizenship needs to be 'multidimensional ... often unconventional' and often should be waged 'against the state, and apart from the state'" (Dryzek, 36). Critical reconstructionists, too, tend to advocate "types of civic knowledge that unmask and derail official and state-sponsored 'fairy tales'" (Abowitz and Harmish 2006, 673). They also advocate for a critical civic curriculum that will foster civic identity by embracing the values and skills of questioning, rethinking, and confronting when necessary powerful democratic institutions, including the government and state-sponsored schooling (Giroux 2003) when they are not working on behalf of all citizens. This process of learning the actual workings of political life instead of mere facts about it would lead to the development of public agency (Boyte 1994).

Willinsky (1999) connects culture to nation and points that just as Boas used the "new conception of culture to weaken the racial boundaries that were used to set people apart, the term nation is now being used to fortify national borders" (101). It is expected that teachers become "border crossers" (Giroux 1992, 11) in order to provide diverse students with a sense of history, identity, and the commonplaces of Canada's culture and identity (Diakiw 1997).

Hebert and Wilkinson (2002) call for the development of a conceptual framework for analyzing citizenship that will "be modified and enriched as necessary to enclose all unforeseen aspects of citizenship," that will allow us to "grasp the overall meaning of citizenship," and whose "full development is achieved when saturation is reached" (233).

Ghosh and Abdi (2004) suggest that a "syncretic national identity" (88) can be achieved in Canada if the notion of critical pedagogy is extended beyond minority groups, and promoting democratic values is combined with school, classroom, and curriculum reorganization, and a revisioning of teacher-student, student-student, and home-school relationships. This in turn can lead to a change in the we-they configuration and the construction of an inclusive us. They point to the need for the emergence of a new kind of citizenship that allows "the expression of the multiple identities that we possess" (87). Ghosh and Abdi recognize that especially in heterogeneous societies, a unifying political culture is viewed as a force against disintegration. They suggest that political culture and citizenship in postmodern democracies "involve the interconnection between the national and the global, such as the citizen of any one country and citizens of the world, in a transnational interdependency" (88).

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS

I reiterate that the purpose of this review is to examine both the criticisms of multicultural education and some of the suggestions being made in the context of "post-multiculturalism" discourse on how to overcome the unintended negative consequences of multicultural education outlined in the introduction. This concluding section summarizes the key findings of the review and discusses the implications of these findings for multicultural education.

Before discussing any possible implications of the findings of this review for the future of multicultural education, an explanation is needed about the choices made in approaching the task of reviewing the critical discourses in the multicultural education literature. The attempt to identify common points made by the various critical theorists about the main flaws of multicultural theory and practice is not driven by a desire to ignore the differences among these theorists and theoretical perspectives. Nor is it driven by the desire to simplify and reduce to points the complex and multilayered debates that have emerged over time and in response to particular events in and outside the field of education. Rather, the attempt is aimed at making a connection between the weaknesses of multicultural education theory that most critics have identified and the suggestions made in relation to these weaknesses. Thus, the points presented in the following two sections do not claim to represent all criticisms of multicultural education from all critical perspectives. Rather, what follows is a summary of the main points made collectively by the critics of multicultural education reviewed for this article and how it is suggested that these flaws can be addressed so that multicultural education can become inclusive and better equipped to meet the challenges of the contemporary global social, political, and economic climate.

Summary of the Main Points Made by the Critics of Multicultural Education

Based on the commonly identified issues with multicultural theory and practice, the following main critical points are noted in the reviewed sources.

* Multicultural education is based on the view of culture as a stable, tradition-bound, and timeless entity, the unity of which is given and thus within-culture variations are ignored. By focusing on the preservation of cultural heritage, culture is simplified and reduced to knowable elements such as food, dance, and dress that students can and should learn about. Differences among cultures are emphasized, which leads to strengthening of the boundaries between majority and minority cultures rather than to a genuine dialogue among cultural groups.

* In the multicultural education framework, cultural identities are viewed as already formed, pre-given, and fixed. Thus they are constructed as essentialized, stereotyped, and normalized in relation to Whiteness. By adopting this view of cultural identity, multicultural education forces visible-minority students to choose an identity defined by the common culture of their race, religion, or ethnicity.

* Multiculturalism's definition of culture and its view of a self-culture relationship emphasizes diversity based on essentialized difference in which the role of the dominant (White) culture in the production of "difference" is not problematized. By presenting the relationship between person and culture as one of possession, which reflects property rights, multicultural education makes ethnicity compatible with the dominant capitalist structure of society.

* Renaming difference from racial to cultural is a shift from overt to covert forms of racism that serve the ideology of racelessness consistent with Canadian national mythology. Multicultural education has failed to make clear the relationship between racial and cultural difference or to question the norm of Whiteness and the dominance of White culture as making it invisible.

* Multiculturalism has not liquidated systemic racism or served as a substitute for structural change. By depoliticizing the difference, a culturalist ideology of multicultural education not only hinders the achievement of equitable distribution of economic and social benefits, but also reinforces existing inequalities.

* Promoting a homogeneous vision of Canada regardless of its citizens excludes certain individuals and groups from participation in liberal democracy by forcing both non-White and White students to fit into existing structures of society. Such an assimilationist agenda in education leads to self-alienation and consequent problems with citizenship and national identity.

Summary of the Main Points Emerging from the Post-Multicturalism Discourse

Based on the identified shifts in the post-multiculturalism theoretical perspectives, the following main shifts are noted in the reviewed sources.

* There is a shift in defining culture that is now understood as both historical and dynamic and as being able to re-form and transform itself. Adopting a critical, non-essentialist approach to cultural differences that enables students to challenge racist discourses and to develop understanding of complexities of both culture and racism is suggested.

* The creation of a third space as one of negotiation of cultural space that offers opportunities for practices in and between varied modes of meaning, or a fusion of cultures, is seen as a space where multiple, even contradictory, cultural identities can exist. The focus of education is suggested to be on validating students' cultural, social, and gender differences and developing identities.

* There is a shift in defining cultural and racial identities, which are now viewed as hybrid and/or contradictory concepts continually produced and reproduced in relation to shifting configurations of knowledge and power in society.

* The concept of identity is also seen as reflecting the new globalized economy where identity is defined by patterns of consumption. Education is called to address not only the global consumer identity, but also the changing nature of a globalized, technologically connected world. Radical democratization of education, promotion of citizenship and community, and strengthening of democratic participation in all modes of life are suggested.

* Democratic citizenship, defined as multidimensional, is achieved through critical civic curricula that will foster civic identity and public agency. A national identity can then be syncretic, allowing for the expression of the complex multiple identities of individuals.

Discussion and Implications for Multicultural Education

Given the continued heated debate in the English-language academic education literature about which theoretical perspective of multicultural education is best equipped to lead the field in the future,'it seems appropriate to heed Ladson-Billings' (2004) suggestion that "current ideas about the terra multicultural must give way to new expressions of human and social diversity.... [We] must reconceptualize views of difference that are often forced to operate in old social schemes" (50).

As the review presented here shows, when binaries are overemphasized, complex phenomena are simplified, leaving no room for individual variations and nuances Of experience and often reproducing the status quo. Current multicultural education practices in Canada based on ethno-racial distinctions (i.e., curricula essentializing knowledge about Other cultures and celebrating them) have not contributed to the elimination of racism or the unequal treatment of minority, non-White students. Neither have they led to a critical examination of the dominant White, middle-class, Eurocentric culture.

However, the review also shows that the complexity of the issues identified as problematic in multicultural theory makes it difficult to formulate a unified multicultural education mission that speaks to the multiplicity of identities, fluidity of culture, negotiation of power in the cultural space, and the new politics of difference based on universal dignity and equality. It is even more difficult to organize and implement such a mission, especially in the absence of a federal multicultural education policy. Therefore, education ministries across the provinces need to take it upon themselves to re-examine how better to integrate disparate and marginalized voices into the privileged domain and to reinvest in employment equity such that the presence and concerns of minorities are introduced into the classroom by closing the visible-minority gap. In other words, a commitment to ensuring that non-Christian, non-White, non-native English- or French-speaking teachers are well represented in the public school system is critical for providing nodal points of immediate cross-cultural and multi-ethnic identification for students outside the so-called Canadian majority. In this process, opportunity to develop stronger consultative partnerships between communities and educational ministries should not be overlooked as an effective and cost-efficient means of infusing alternative epistemologies into curricula. If essentializing and misrepresentational trends are observed in curricula, the inclusion of minority cultures in the early stages of the deliberative process and maintaining mechanisms of consultation throughout the implementation process will enhance the power of the spirit of multiculturalism by activating it as metaphor and mobilizing it as praxis. This will also serve to counter the intuitive and lived barriers between those within the system and those outside it.

The shifts in post-multicultural education discourse are reflected in the choices of metaphors for describing or labelling multicultural Western societies. Understanding and acknowledging the complexities of the contemporary world is seen in the change in how typical mainstream metaphors like salad bowl, social fabric, mosaic, and family of the nation that tend to define each individual or group as distinct and somehow fixed or unchangeable in relation to the other ingredients are shifting toward new metaphors such as jazz as introduced by Ornette Coleman (in Ladson-Billings 2004). The new metaphors attempt to capture the complexity of human beings who change in every context and the resulting intergroup variations that constitute the singularity of each [individual's or group's] identification. They also attempt to capture multiculturalism as an evolving relational process rather than as a static policy construct.

In the Canadian context, multiculturalism needs to be conceived of as a global societal project of which institutionalized education is only one component. Heterogeneity of the student body is a fact that education as an institution must address in order to participate in the reevaluation, rearticulation, and renegotiation of the meaning of national unity in the democratic state.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Dr. Joe Garcea of the department of Political Science at the University of Saskatchewan and Dr. Lloyd Wong of the department of Sociology at the University of Caigary for their constructive feedback on this article. I also thank the research assistants, Carolina Cambre and Peter Petrov, who worked with me on this project. The Department of Canadian Heritage, Multiculturalism Branch, and the Prairie Metropolis Centre are also gratefully acknowledged for their financial support of the project.

WORKS CITED

Abowitz, Kathleen Knight, and Jason Harnish. 2006. Contemporary Discourses of Citizenship. Review of Educational Research 76.4: 653-90.

Abu-Laban, Yasmeen. 1999. The Politics of Race, Ethnicity, and Immigration: The Contested Area of Multiculturalism. In Canadian Politics, ed. J. Bickerton and A-G. Ganon, 463-83. Peterborough: Broadview.

Abu-Laban, Yasmeen, and Christina Gabriel. 2002. Selling Diversity: Immigration, Multiculturalism, Employment Equity, and Globalization. Peterborough: Broadview.

Appiah, Kivame A. 1997. The Multiculturalism Misunderstanding. New Review of Books 44.15: 30-36.

Backhouse, Constance. 1999. Color Coded: A Legal History of Racism in Canada, 1900-1950. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bhabha, Homi. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.

Bannerji, Himani. 2000. The Dark Side of the Nation: Essays on Multiculturalism, Nationalism, and Gender. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.

Bateson, Mary C. 1994. Peripheral Visions. New York: Harper Collins.

Bennet, Christine. 2001. Gentes of Research in Multicultural Education. Review of Educational Research 71.2: 171-217.

Boyte, Harry. 1994. Review of Civitas: A Framework for Civic Education. Teachers College Record 95: 414-18.

Brandt, Godfrey L. 1986. The Realization of Anti-Racist Teaching. Lews, UK: Falmer Press.

Brown, Susan, and Marcella Kysilka. 1994. In Search of Multicultural and Global Education in Real Classrooms. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 9.3:313-16.

Canada. 2004. Annual Report on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 2003-2004: Canada's Diversity: Respecting Our Differences. Ottawa: Canadian Heritage.

Carrington, Bruce, and Alastair Bonnet. 1997. The Other Canadian "Mosaic": "Race" Equality Education in Ontario and British Columbia. Comparative Education 33.3:411-31. http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/ publication.cfm?id=65#745

Clifford, James. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

--. 1992. Traveling Cultures. In Cultural Studies, ed. Cary Nelson, Paula A. Treichler, and Lawrence Grossberg, 96-117. New York-London: Routledge.

Cole, Mike. 1986. Teaching and Learning about Racism: A Critique of Multicultural Education in Britain. In Multicultural Education: The Interminable Debate, ed. S. H. Modgil et al., 123-147. London: Falmer.

Collins, Patricia. H. 2000. What's Going On? Black Feminist Thought and the Politics of Postmodernism. In Working the Ruins: Feminist Poststructural Theory and Methods in Education, ed. E. A. S. Pierre and W. S. Pillow, 41-73. New York: Routledge.

Cornell, Drucilla, and Susan Murphy. 2002. Anti-Racism, Multiculturalism, and the Ethics of Identification. Philosophy and Social Criticism 28.4: 419-49.

Dei, George J. 1996. Anti-Racism Education: Theory and Practice. Halifax: Fernwood.

--. 2005. Resisting the Gated Community: Responding to Diversity and Difference En Route to Excellence in Our Schools. Orbit 35.3: 34-36.

dePass, Cecille, and Shazia Qureshi. 2002. Paradoxes, Contradictions, and Ironies of Democratic Citizenship Education. In Citizenship in Transformation in Canada, ed. Yvonne Hebert, 112-134. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Derwing, Tracey M., Emily DeCorby, Julia Ichikawa, and Kama Jamieson. 1999. Some Factors that Affect the Success of ESL High School Students. Canadian Modern Language Review 55: 103-132.

Diakiw, Jerry. 1997. The School's Role in Revealing the Commonplaces of Our National Culture and Identity: A Multicultural Perspective. http://caslt.org/research/multicult.htm

Diawara, Manthia. 1993. Black Studies, Cultural Studies, Performative Acts. In Race, Identity, and Representation in Education, ed. C. McCarthy and W. Crichlow, 262-267. New York: Routledge.

Dryzek, John. S. 1996. Democracy in Capitalist Times: Ideals, Limits, and Struggles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elliston, Inez. 1997. Reforming Education for Diversity. In The State of the Art National Study. Report #4. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Flecha, Ramon. 1999. Modern and Postmodern Racism in Europe: Dialogic Approach and Anti-racist Pedagogies. Harvard Educational Review 69.2: 150-71.

Fordham, Signithia, and John U. Ogbu. 1992. Black Students' School Success: Coping with the Burden of Acting White. In Seeing Ourselves: Classic, Contemporary, and Cross-Cultural Readings in Sociology, ed. J. J. Macionis and N.V. Benokraitis, 287-303. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Galabuzi, Grace-Edward. 2005. Factors Affecting the Social Economic Status of Canadian Immigrants in the New Millenium. Canadian Issues, spring: 53-57.

Gee, Ellen, and Steven Prus. 2000. Income Inequality in Canada: A Racial Divide. In Perspectives in Canada: A Reader, ed. M. A. Kalbach and W. E. Kalbach, 238-56. Toronto: Harcourt Canada.

Ghosh, Ratna, and Ali A. Abdi. 2004. Education and the Politics of Difference: Canadian Perspectives. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.

Giroux, Henry A. 2003. The Abandoned Generation: Democracy beyond the Culture of Fear. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

--. 1991. Beyond the Ethics of Flag Waving: Schooling and Citizenship for Critical Democracy. Clearing House 64.5: 305-9.

--. 1992. Border Crossing: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. New York: Routledge.

--. 1993. Living Dangerously: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Difference. New York: Peter Lang.

--. 2001. Public Spaces, Private Lives: Beyond the Culture of Cynicism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

--. 1983. Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.

Giroux, Susan S. 2003. Reconstructing the Future: Du Bois, Racial Pedagogy and the Post-Civil Rights Era. Social Identities 9.4: 563-98.

Gosine, Kevin. 2002. Essentialism versus Complexity: Conceptions of Racial Identity Construction in Educational Scholarship. Canadian ]ournal of Education 27.1:81-100.

Grant, Carl, Anne R. Elsbree, and Suzanne Fondrie. 2004. A Decade of Research: The Changing Terrain of Multicultural Education Research. In Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, ed. James A. Banks and Cherry A. McGee Banks, 184-207. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grossberg, Lawrence. 1992. We Gotta Get Out of This Place: Popular Conservatism and Postmodern Culture. London: Routledge.

Hall, Stuart. 1996. Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms. In What Is Cultural Studies: A Reader, ed. J. Storey, 31-48. London: Arnold.

Hartman, Geoffrey. 1997. The Fateful Question of Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hebert, Yvonne, and Lori Wilkinson. 2002. The Citizenship Debates: Conceptual, Policy, Experiential, and Educational Issues. In Citizenship in Transformation in Canada, ed. Yvonne Hebert, 112-134. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Helfenbein, Robert J. 2003. Troubling Multiculturalism: The New Work Order, Anti-Essentialism, and a Cultural Studies Approach to Education. Multicultural Perspectives 5.4: 10-16.

Henry, Frances, Carol Tator, Winston Mattis, and Tim Rees. 2000. The Color of Democracy and Racista in Canadian Society. Toronto: Harcourt Brace.

Hoffman, Diane M. 1996. Culture and Self in Multicultural Education: Reflections on Discourse, Text, and Practice. American Educational Research Journal 33.3: 545-69.

James, Carl E. 2001. Multiculturalism, Diversity, and Education in the Canadian Context: The Search for an Inclusive Pedagogy. In Global Constructions of Multicultural Education: Theories and Realities, ed. C. Grant and J. Lei, 175-204. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

--. 1996. Race, Culture, and Identity. In Perspectives on Racism and Human Services Sector: A Case of Change, ed. C. E. James, 15-55. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

--. 2003. Seeing Ourselves: Exploring Race, Ethnicity, and Culture. 3rd ed. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.

James, Carl E., and Adrienne Shadd, eds. 2001. Talking about Identity: Encounters in Race, Ethnicity, and Language. Toronto: Between the Lines.

Kazimapur, Abdolmohammed, and Shiva S. Halli. 2003. The New Poverty in Canada: Ethnic Groups and Ghetto Neighbourhoods. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.

Kehoe, John, and Earl Mansfield. 1997. The Limitations of Multicultural Education and Anti-Racist Education. http://caslt.org?research/multicult.htm

Kellner, Douglas. 2003. Toward a Criticai Theory of Education. Democracy and Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy 9.1: 51-65.

Kincheloe, Joe L. 2001. Getting beyond the Facts: Teaching Social Studies/Social Sciences in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Peter Lang.

Kincheloe, Joe L., and Shedey R. Steinberg. 1997. Changing Multiculturalism. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

--. 2001. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Labelle, Micheline. 2005. The Change of Diversity in Canada and Quebec. Policy Options 26.3: 88-93.

Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 1998. Just What Is Critical Race Theory and What's It Doing in a Nice Field like Education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 11.1: 7-24.

--. 2004. New Directions in Multicultural Education: Complexities, Boundaries, and Critical Race Theory. In Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, ed. James A. Banks and Cherry A. McGee Banks, 50-65. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

--. 1995. Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal 32.3: 465-91.

Li, Peter. 1998. The Market Value and Social Value of Race. In Racism and Social Inequity in Canada, ed. V. Satzewich, 115-130. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.

Loomba, Ania. 1998. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. London: Routledge.

Lund, Darren. 2003. Educating for Social Justice: Making Sense of Multicultural and Antiracist Theory and Practice with Canadian Teacher Activists. Intercultural Education 14.1: 3-17.

May, Stephen. 1994. Making Multicultural Education Work. Bristol: Longdunn.

McCarthy, Cameron. 1994. Multicultural Discourses and Curriculum Reform: A Critical Perspective. Educational Theory 44.1: 81-98.

McCreath, Peter L. 1997. Multiculturalism: Failed or Untried Concept. In State of the Art--National Study 199Z http://caslt.org?research/multicult.htm

McLaren, Peter. 1995. Critical Pedagogy and Predatory Culture: Oppositional Politics in a Postmodern Age. New York: Routledge.

--. 1997. Revolutionary Multiculturalism: Pedagogies of Dissent for the New Millenium. Boulder: Westview Press.

McLeod, Keith. 1997. Introduction: Multicultural Education. In The State of the Art--National Study 1997. http://caslt.org/research/multicult.htm

Mitchell, Katharyne. 2001. Education for Democratic Citizenship: Transnationalism, Multiculturalism, and the Limits of Liberalism. Harvard Educational Review 71.1: 58-78.

Musgrove, Frank. 1982. Education and Anthropology: Other Cultures and the Teacher. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Nieto, Sonia. 1992. Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education. ED361440.

Nugent, Amy. 2006. Demography, National Myths, and Political Origins: Perceiving Official Multiculturalism in Quebec. Canadian Ethnic Studies 38.3:21-36.

Perry, Richard J. 1992. Why Do Multiculturalists Ignore Anthropologists? Chronicle of Higher Education 38.26: 52.

Perry, Teresa, and Jim W. Fraser. 1993. Freedom's Plow: Teaching in the Multicultural Classroom. New York: Routledge.

Pon, Gordon. 2000. Beamers, Cells, Malls and Cantopop: Thinking through the Geographies of Chineseness. In Experiencing Difference, ed. C. E. James, 222-234. Halifax: Fernwood.

Pratt, Geraldine. 2002. Between Homes: Displacement and Belonging for Second Generation Filipino-Canadian Youth. http://www.riim.metropolis.net/virtual%20Library/2002/wp02-13.pdf

Rosaldo, Renato. 1989. Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon Press.

Schick, Carol, and Verna St. Denis. 2005. Troubling Nationai Discourses in Anti-Racist Curricular Planning. Canadian Journal of Education 28.3: 295-319.

Shi-Xu. 2001. Critical Pedagogy and Interculturai Communication: Creating Discourses of Diversity, Equality, Common Goals, and Rational-Moral Motivation. Journal of Intercultural Studies 22.3: 279-293.

Sleeter, Christine E., and Carl A. Grant. 1998. Making Choices for Multicultural Education: Five Approaches to Race, Class, and Gender. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley.

Stables, Andrew. 2005. Multiculturalism and Moral Education: Individual Positioning, Dialogue, and Cultural Practice. Journal of Moral Education 34.2: 185-197.

Strong-Boag, Veronica. 2002. Who Counts? Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Struggles about Gender, Race, and Class in Canada. In Citizenship in Transformation in Canada, ed. Yvonne Hebert, 112-134. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Tator, Carol, and Frances Henry. 1991. Multicultural Education: Translating Policy into Practice. Ottawa: Multiculturaiism and Citizenship Canada.

Taylor, Charles. 1994. The Politics of Recognition. In Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, ed. A. Gutmann, 25-73. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Tomlinson, Saily. 1990. Multicultural Education in White Schools. London: B.T. Batsford.

Troyna, Barry. 1987. Beyond Multiculturaiism: Towards the Enactment of Anti-Racist Education in Policy, Provision, and Pedagogy. Oxford Review of Education 13.3: 302-20.

Turner, Terence. 1993. Anthropology and Multiculturalism: What is Anthropology that Multiculturalism Should Be Mindful of? Cultural Anthropology 8.4: 411-29.

Vertovec, Steven. n.d. Pre-, High, Anti-, and Post-Multiculturaiism. Institute for European Studies. http://ies.bs/activities/multicult/vertovec-ies.pdf

Waicott, Rinaido. 1997. Black Like Who? Writing Black Canada. Toronto: Insomniac.

Watt, David L. E., and Hetty Roessingh. 2001. The Dynamics of ESL Dropout: Plus ca change .... Canadian Modern Language Review 58: 203-22.

Watkins, William H. 1994. Multicultural Education: Toward a Historicai and Political Inquiry. Educational Theory 44.1: 99-117.

Wax, Murray. 1993. How Culture Misdirects Multiculturalism. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 24.2: 155-75.

Wideen, Marvin, and Kathleen A. Barnard. 1999. Impacts of Immigration on Education in British Columbia: An Anaiysis of Efforts to Implement Policies of Multiculturalism in Schools. http://www.riim.metropolis.net/research/working/1998-99.html

Wilhelm, Ronald W. 1994. Exploring the Practice-Rhetoric Gap: Current Curriculum for African-American History Month in Some Texas Elementary Schools. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 9.2: 217-223.

Williams, Raymond. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana.

Willinsky, ]ohn. 1999. Curriculum after Culture, Race, Nation. Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 20.1: 89-103.

Wortley, Scott. 2003. What Are the Challenges and Where Should Public Policy Be Directed in Order to Produce Safe, Cohesive, and Healthy Communities? http://canada.metroplois.net/events/ottawa/wortley%20paper%201.htm

Yon, Daniel. 2000. Elusive Culture: Schooling, Race, and Identity in Global Times. New York: SUNY Press.

Zine, Jasmin. 2004. Dealing with September 12: Integrative Anti-Racism and the Challenge of Anti-Islamophobia Education. In Anti-Racism Education, ed. George Dei and Njoki Wane. Special Issue, Orbit 33.3: 39-41.

ANNA KIROVA is an associate professor in the department of Elementary Education at the University of Alberta and a domain leader for the Family, Children, and Youth federal research priority area with the Prairie Metropolis Centre. Her publications are in the area of global migration and education and immigrant children's social adjustment to school.