Reflections on multicultural education: A teacher's experience

Multicultural education raises fundamental questions about the nature of schooling and social studies education. To what extent should schools reinforce prevalent perspectives about society; or, should schools challenge the existing norms of society? This question lies at the center of education in a democratic society. Multicultural education, more than any other curricular initiative in the past two decades, causes educators to confront fundamental questions directly.

Multicultural education is curriculum rooted in critique. As Nieto (1992) contends, "Multicultural education is a process of comprehensive school reform and basic education for all students. It challenges and rejects racism and other forms of discrimination in schools and society and accepts and affirms pluralism" (p. 4). Banks (1996) argues that multicultural education is not just a course of study, but a way of recentering educational discourse that focuses attention upon groups otherwise beyond the realm of traditional curricula.

Grant and Sleeter (1998) examine five approaches to teaching about diversity: teaching culturally different students, human relations, single-group studies, multicultural education and social reconstruction. Though these approaches are somewhat unique, each is premised on the notion that existing curricula need to be reformulated. An important premise in most of the scholarship about multiculturalism is clear: "...the belief that schools in a society can and should prepare citizens to work actively and collectively on problems facing society" (Grant & Sleeter, 1998, p.253).

A curriculum of critique this forceful and challenging to fundamental assumptions about schools and society was sure to cause a significant backlash. One of the most prominent controversies occurred in the New York City schools over the curricular framework, "One Nation, Many Peoples" (1991). Political ideology, pedagogy and notions of the common good were intertwined in this far-reaching debate that transcended social studies teachers and classrooms, yet placed them at the heart of the dispute.

The multicultural education movement had its share of critics. Schlesinger's provocative book, The Disuniting ofAmerica (1992), warned that ethnic factionalism and disintegration, phenomena that he asserted were promoted by multicultural education, would result from schools emphasizing differences. He wrote:

The ethnic revolt against the melting pot has reached the point, in rhetoric at least.. of a denial of the idea of a common culture and a single society. If large numbers of people really accept this, the republic would be in serious trouble. (p. 133)

Jackson (1991), writing in the "One Nation, Many People" report, criticized multicultural education as, "...poor strategy, poor history, and poor logic.. to bemoan the 'Anglo' culture..." while operating within it (p. 39).

As the debate over multiculturalism progressed, I worked with an English teacher, Nancy Bennett, to develop a course entitled Multicultural Studies at Hunterdon Central Regional High School in Flemington, New Jersey, in 1994. Flemington is a suburb in western New Jersey, a bedroom community that sits roughly equidistant between New York and Philadelphia. The school is remarkably homogenous, with 95 percent of the students identifying as white, Christian, and middle-class. Hunterdon Central, due in part to its homogeneity, had no openly ethnic, racial, or religious conflicts in the early 1990s. This fairly affluent high school sits in the shadows of two large, metropolitan cities, but was far removed from the battle over multiculturalism that was unfolding simultaneously in New York City.

The model that we adopted resembles Grant and Sleeter's (1998) multicultural education framework, as evidenced by the range of groups studied and the methods employed (e.g., social action). This model is premised on an affirmation of cultural pluralism, with the following goals:

1. Promote an understanding and appreciation of cultural diversity;

2. Promote alternative choices for people with full affirmation oftheir race, gender, disability, language, sexual orientation, and social class background;

3. Help all children achieve academic success;

4. Promote awareness of social issues involving the unequal distribution ofpower and privilege... (p. 164-65)

The course was designed to challenge our students to reflect upon systemic power inequities that had benefited many of them directly. In this sense, the course tended to be reconstructive and critical of contemporary society. Table One (see next page) summarizes the course objectives, content outline, methodologies and assessment strategies of Multicultural Studies.

As Table One illustrates, the students were required to engage in a social action project over the course of the semester. The requirements for this activity were twofold: students had to work with people who were unlike themselves and the organization for whom they worked had to have a social justice orientation. Students in the class who were white, for example, worked in an after school program to provide tutorials for economically disadvantaged African-American youths. Social action activities in the course facilitated growth and learning. Students were working with people with whom they would otherwise have little or no contact, while simultaneously challenging their own assumptions about issues of equity in society.

Challenges

An initial challenge that we encountered was negative student reactions to learning about human diversity. These reactions were manifest in a direct manner through class activities such as inquirybased lessons. In the unit on African Americans, for example, students were asked to generate a list of stereotypes which was intended to create a dialogue about these stereotypes and the means by which these impressions have been perpetuated. The culmination of this activity was viewing and responding to a film addressing stereotypes about African Americans, titled Ethnic Notions. Unfortunately, as the stereotypes were offered for analysis, some ofthe students laughed hysterically and made derisive remarks. This caused a vitriolic reaction by those who were trying to analyze the stereotypes thoughtfully, expressing how offended they were that other students were making light of these derogatory statements.

This activity, ill conceived and since removed from the course, illustrated the reflexive nature of some students' prejudices. We quickly realized that the curriculum based on critique that we had developed would provoke hostility and stir deepseated prejudices among certain students. While there were episodes of tension, most activities were well received. We had fewer negative student reactions to difference as the course progressed, largely due to our own growing experience and a greater degree of acceptance of differences demonstrated by subsequent groups of students.

Additional problems that we encountered were more typically pedagogic in nature: lack of materials to draw upon and lack of time to prepare given the breadth of content. When we first started teaching the Latino unit, for example, we found there was not a great deal to draw upon that illustrated the lived experiences of Latinos in the contemporary United States. We relied upon literature, such as excerpts from The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros. We attempted to use material about the phenomenon of drop-out rates and problems with bilingual education that particularly affected the Latino community, particularly from the database Ethnic Newswatch, but most of these materials were not "classroom-ready" and took a great deal of reworking.

We struggled to find common preparation time, especially in the initial years of teaching the course. Our preparation period was not nearly enough time, despite the fact that it took away all of our prep time from our other classes. Phone conversations, after school conferences and weekend meetings were commonplace. There was simply too much for two teachers to find, learn, adapt, and implement effectively, working within the constraints of the regular school day.

One problem, beyond the trials and tribulations of day to day teaching, was a challenge to a significant unit in the course of study: Lesbian and Gay People. Representatives ofa fundamentalist Christian church in the community heard of the lesbian/gay unit and challenged its inclusion in the course of study. We were asked by the superintendent and director of curriculum to provide details about the rationale for the inclusion of this unit and copies of materials used in this unit. A coalition of concerned community members asked for permission to invite a guest speaker to our class from the Harvest organization based in Philadelphia. This organization claims that it can "rehabilitate" people who are lesbian or gay through Christian fellowship.

This challenge culminated in a boisterous meeting involving my co-teacher, both the social studies and English supervisors, the director of curriculum, and me. We basically agreed to disagree about whether this unit should be included. The representatives of the church argued that we were validating a social group that is "aberrant," thus influencing students towards acceptance of "abnormal" sexuality. They were seeking permission to have a guest speaker from Harvest in the class. We indicated that we would not invite speakers whose express purpose was to discredit identity groups from an outsider's perspective, as there was no precedent for doing so in any other unit of study. The superintendent upheld the decision and the challenge ended there.

Successes

Despite occasional setbacks in the development of the course, students, parents and the school community generally viewed it as a success. The reactions of students were generally glowing when they had completed the semester. One student remarked in our course evaluation, "What I thought to be just one more elective turned out to be one of the most positive learning experiences of my life." Many students claimed that it was the best course of their high school careers, as it allowed them to see the wide range of diversity that exists in their own society. As one student indiGated, "Multicultural Studies offers a comfortable environment to get together and talk about social issues that may not be addressed in other classes." Some individuals most deeply affected told us that the course had changed their life, offering them educational and career guidance. One student, for example, worked with autistic children because of the social action requirement in the course. She continued in this area, taking a degree in special education with an emphasis in autism.

The course was also successful in how it became diffused in the wider curriculum of the school. Teachers in the social studies, English, world languages, andhealth/physical education departments incorporated materials, literature, and activities that were piloted in Multicultural Studies. The English department, for example, altered its curriculum offerings, requiring each first year student to read a multicultural novel. This trend was a bit frustrating as many of our students came to us having already encountered a particular activity. We took solace in the fact, however, that, as Banks (1996) asserted, our course was contributing to transforming the climate and curriculum of the school.

The overwhelming majority of parents were extremely supportive ofthe class; many writing in the finalization of the portfolio how valuable the class was for their child. One of the highlights of this parental interaction was making contact with a mother who is a paraplegic. Her heartfelt life-story and vivid anecdotes helped our students to see the challenges of living with a disability. She became our most valuable speaker, as evidenced by this student's reflection: "One speaker gave the class a wonderful lesson on how to treat the handicapped and not make them feel like second class citizens. I always think ofthat lesson when I walk into a public place without seeing handicapped ramps or other necessary accommodations."

Lessons Learned

Reflecting back over the past seven years of teaching Multicultural Studies, there are a variety of important lessons learned that I would offer to those considering such a course. The first and most important lesson is that you must realize that you will be "preaching to the choir" if the course is an elective. The vast majority of our students came in predisposed to accepting diversity, curious to learn more about the apparent differences in lifestyles. It is important to reach out and involve those that might otherwise ignore such a course (see Grant & Sleeter, 1998).

As the saying goes, time is of the essence. This adage aptly applies to our experiences, as there was simply never enough time to adequately prepare Multicultural Studies. This problem was more pronounced in the first two years of the course, but was always an issue with which we had to contend. Time was consumed not only by the daily preparation and evaluation that is inherent in teaching, but also by the necessary reflection and creative thinking in team teaching this type ofclass. After each class, for example, we would rank the class on a 1 to 10 scale, and then discuss the various strengths and weaknesses ofour pedagogy. This usually led to changes in future lessons and revisions of existing materials for the next class. This reflective process was a rewarding growth experience, but it consumed much of our time.

The course was part of a larger movement in the community towards diversifying the curriculum. After the implementation of our class, an international students club, a school-wide exchange with an inner city school, and a club for students struggling with sexual identity (despite another community challenge)were implemented. While we do not take credit for these initiatives, we recognize that Multicultural Studies promoted an ethos of acceptance of diversity thathadpreviously been lacking in the school.

The notion of what constitutes a "culture" was highly problematic in teaching the course. Multiculturalism compels practitioners and scholars alike to use a concept (i.e., "culture") to describe a categorization of human behavior and belief that exists only as a social construction (see Fiereman, 1990; Carneiro da Cunha, 1995). We struggled with phrases like "There is a tendency for..." in describing communities in the context of the United States that are not easily defined or necessarily distinct. We guided our students away from making deterministic, formulaic predictions of individual behavior and belief solely based upon affiliation with a group. Multiculturalism is founded upon a recognition of the necessary social meaning of identity, however, requiring its use.

Teaching multicultural studies can be detrimental to acceptance of diversity if it describes values and behaviors of individuals as representative of the entire group. When "culture" is reified and stereotypes are sanctified in the classroom, the discourse becomes excessively narrow and unrealistic. It is crucial to engage students in a discussion about the inherent weaknesses in generalizations and categorizations, illustrating the multiple streams of discourse that exist in any social group. The pedagogical trick in teaching multiculturalism effectively is to employ social categories and identities because of their shared meaning, but at the same time, promote a healthy skepticism of the very notion of identity.

Should the aims of social studies education be socially reproductive or reconstructive? This is a fundamental proposition that sits at the core of our conversations about multiculturalism. It is important to be cognizant of how you are answering this question when implementing a course in multicultural studies. The answer to this inquiry will indeed be highly contextual. For Hunterdon Central Regional High School, Multicultural Studies tended towards a reconstructivist course of study. The course raised issues and addressed content that had previously been omitted from the curriculum, while requiring students to become active in their community on concerns of social justice. What seems to emerge from this case, however, is that transformative curricula can be effectively implemented, if done thoughtfully, with extra time and effort and a commitment on the part of the teachers to continue their own learning.

References

Banks, JA (1996). The canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural education. In JA Banks(Ed.)Multicultural education:Transformative knowledge and action. (pp. 3-29). New York: Teachers College Press.

Carneiro da Cunha, M. (1992). Custom is not a thing, it is a path: Reflections on the Brazilian Indian Case. In Adbullah Ahmed An-Naim (Ed.) Human rights in cross-cultural perspectives:A quest for consensus. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Feierman, S. (1990). Peasant intellectuals. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Grant, C.A. & Sleeter, C.E. (1998). Turning on learning: Five approaches to multicultural teaching plans-forrce,class, genleranddiverty. Princeton, NJ: Merrill of Prentice Hall.

Nieto,S. (1996).Affirningdiversity. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.

One nation, many peoples: A declaration of cultural interdependence. (1991). NewYork: Reportofthe New York State Social Studies Review and Development Committee.

Schlesinger, A.M. (1992). The disuniting ofAmerica: Reflections on a multicultural society. NewYork: W.W. Norton & Co.

- William Gaudelli is an assistant professor of social studies education in the College of Education at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.

Copyright Caddo Gap Press Summer 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved