approaches to multicultural education in preservice teacher education: philosophical frameworks and...

87

0042-0972/01/0600-0087$19.50/0 � 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

The Urban Review, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2001

Approaches to Multicultural Educationin Preservice Teacher Education:Philosophical Frameworks and Modelsfor Teaching

Charles Jenks, James O. Lee, and Barry Kanpol

The authors in this article connect teacher education to multiple theoretical frameworksaround the ongoing debate and issues of multicultural education. Connecting conserva-tive, liberal, and radical theories of multicultural education particularly to preserviceteachers, the authors argue that a more eclectic theoretical avenue must be striven andstruggled for if there exists any hope in transforming schools, particularly, as they note,in urban environments. Practical avenues are discussed that promote such a multi-layered interpretive/analytical approach to social change.

KEY WORDS: multicultural education; urban renewal; philosophical frameworks.

INTRODUCTION

Leaders in the field of multicultural education generally agree that little sig-nificant progress has been made in developing teaching practices and curricu-lum that meet the needs of culturally, racially, and socially diverse classrooms(Grant and Sleeter, 1994). Research shows that most teachers display commonteaching practices that fail to address the diverse learning styles of their stu-dents who differ culturally, racially, and socially (Yeo, 1997; Nieto, 1996; Kan-pol and McLaren, 1995; Darder 1991; Sleeter, 1992; Grant and Sleeter, 1986;Goodlad, 1984; Cuban, 1984; Everhart, 1983). Issues of equity and excellencewith respect to a diverse student population are assumed by many teachers to benonissues, whether they teach in urban or suburban schools. In fact, in suburbanschools in which the population in basically white and middle-class, multi-cultural education is often viewed as unnecessary. As one assistant superinten-

Charles Jenks, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Augusta State University; James O. Lee, Ed.D., As-sistant Professor, Saint Joseph’s University; Barry Kanpol, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Saint Jo-seph’s University.

Address correspondence to Dr. Barry Kanpol, Chair, Department of Education, Saint Joseph’sUniversity, 500 City Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19131-1395.

88 THE URBAN REVIEW

dent in a rather affluent Pennsylvania school district put it when asked aboutthe usefulness of multicultural workshops for her staff, “We don’t need any ofthat as we don’t have too many minorities and most of our teaching staff iswhite.” Ironically, this school district’s vision statement included teaching aboutand promoting diversity.

School districts such as this one, with little cultural and racial diversitywithin its student body and teaching staff, are usually ill equipped to achievethe goals of multicultural education, even when well intentioned. Moreover, theassumption that multicultural education is only important if the school district’spopulation is itself diverse represents a misunderstanding of the importance ofproviding all students, especially those who have been raised with strong An-glocentric cultural and social values, with the understandings and competenciesnecessary to contribute to achieving the goal of a democratic multiculturalsociety.

Within the multicultural literature, Banks defines the goal of multiculturaleducation as that of helping students “develop cross-cultural competencywithin the American national culture, with their own subculture and withinand across different subsocieties and cultures” (Banks, 1994, p. 9). The devel-opment of such competency involves knowledge of cultural and racial differ-ences and issues; the critical examination of one’s own beliefs and valuesregarding culture, race, and social class; and an understanding of how knowl-edge, beliefs, and values determine one’s behavior with respect to minoritygroups. In its more radical or critical form, cross-cultural competency canpromote the development of students who are social reformers, working for amore just and democratic society in which power and resources are moreequitably distributed.

However, unless educators are themselves cross-culturally competent, stu-dents will not become so, at least not as the result of their schooling. Amajority of teachers are white, middle-class, and monolingual and bring littleintercultural experience from their largely suburban and small-town back-grounds (Zeichner and Hoeft, 1996). In addition, they often uncritically ac-cept ability tracking, forms of traditional instruction that appeals to a narrowrange of learning styles, and curricula that exclude contributions of minoritygroups. Many do not believe that minority students are capable of learninghigh-level concepts or achieving excellence, subscribing, instead, to a com-pensatory skill-and-drill approach to learning. They often assume that deci-sions about what is important for students to know and how it can best betaught are culturally neutral issues and that there are generic principles ofgood teaching that apply regardless of cultural context. Typically, they do notexamine the cultural content of educational activities and may give preferen-tial treatment to students whose cultural backgrounds are most like schoolnorms. LaBelle’s examples are helpful here:

APPROACHES TO MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 89

The way . . . in which the teacher responds to student behavior, the often subtledistinctions made between the sexes, the nature of the classroom control mechanisms,the topics and issues chosen for classroom study, the schedule of activities in terms ofthe amount of time devoted to particular aspects of the school day, the spatial organi-zation of the classroom, and the rewards and punishments meted out are . . . culturalloaded and . . . transmit messages [that] reinforce certain student behaviors and dis-courage others. (LaBelle, 1976, p. )

Some will find this indictment of educators too harsh. They will point toprograms already in the schools whose goals are multicultural education, evenin suburban, middle-class, largely Anglo schools. Nevertheless, as we shall seebelow, too many of these programs reflect a conservative or liberal approach tothe topic that, by themselves, are inadequate to the task of teaching students tobe cross-culturally competent. They are “exposure” or cosmetic efforts that failto address the culpability of the dominant culture in perpetuating inequity anddo not provide students with the knowledge and skills necessary to work for amore just society.

Because schools are ill prepared to support Banks’s goal of multiculturaleducation and often lack the interest and commitment to change, the importanceof teacher education at the preservice level becomes paramount. Teacher educa-tion programs in colleges and universities must make the commitment to en-couraging the kind of transformative learning in preservice educators that even-tually will result in powerful multicultural programs for students. Preserviceteachers must learn, for example, how to use culturally sensitive strategies andcontent; to recognize the cultural underpinnings of their own logic and thoughtas well as those of others; and to understand how cultural and linguistic differ-ences may explain what in the past have been labeled as learning disabilities.Only in this way will they enter the profession able to provide equitable oppor-tunities for academic success, personal development, and individual fulfillmentfor all students.

In too many cases, however, prospective teachers are still being prepared toteach in “idealized schools that serve white, monolingual, middle-class childrenfrom homes with two parents” (Ladson-Billings, 2000, p. ). King (1991) de-scribes many of these teachers as possessing a “dysconscious” racism, definingthe term as “an uncritical habit of mind (including perceptions, attitudes, as-sumptions, and beliefs) that justifies inequity and exploitation by accepting theexisting order of things as given” (p. 135).

Nevertheless, multicultural teacher education, like all effective education,must be developmentally appropriate. As the above words of the assistant su-perintendent make clear, many educators are not ready to embrace culturallysensitive teaching. Some will concede the importance of a “Black HistoryMonth” or a unit on the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II but

90 THE URBAN REVIEW

fail to recognize their own misunderstandings, naıvete, or prejudice regardingthe role of cultural and racial differences in educating all students for excel-lence in a democratic society. Therefore, preservice teacher education programsmust be sensitive to such issues as their students’ motivation to learn, theirprior knowledge about diversity, differences in their learning styles, and differ-ences in the cultural values they bring to class. Teacher education fails when itputs on ideological blinders and enacts a hidden curriculum that emphasizesignorance and guilt, even suggesting moral turpitude.

Our goal in what follows is to present guidelines for teacher education thatsupport the development of cross-cultural competency. We do so in the contextof a spectrum of possible starting points for students, recognizing the develop-mental nature of the transformative learning involved. We begin by presentingthree philosophical frameworks within which to consider multicultural educa-tion—conservative, liberal, and critical—providing brief examples from thework of Grant and Sleeter (1997) of what these frameworks might look like inschools. Each framework describes an approach which can now be found in theschools to a greater or lesser degree. We then present Banks’ taxonomy ofspecific models with their connections to the three frameworks and suggest howinstructors of preservice teachers can use them to encourage their students to,first, better understand and critically examine their own philosophy and, sec-ond, consider how the specific models of curriculum and pedagogy can guidetheir decision making in teaching multiculturalism. The goal is transformativelearning for preservice teachers—a prerequisite for the realization of Banks’sgoal. Finally, we discuss the various components of teacher education programsin relation to these philosophical positions and specific educational models.

THREE FRAMEWORKS FOR MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION

The literature on multicultural education generally divides itself into threetheoretical frameworks: conservative, liberal and critical (McLaren, 1994;Webster, 1997). We will differentiate among these three frameworks and citeexamples from the work of Grant and Sleeter to provide further understandingof each.

A. Conservative Multiculturalism

Conservative multiculturalists assume that the conditions for justice alreadyexist and need only be evenly apportioned. Laws such as those for equal oppor-tunity are created to ensure that social and cultural life will live up to constitu-tional and democratic principles. Schools assimilate students into the main-stream culture and its attending values, mores, and norms. Conservativemulticulturalists ignore the importance of difference in favor of an ideology of


cultural homogeneity. While frequently using such language as success for all,inclusion, empowerment, and equity, they do so within the context of an as-sumed assimilatory educational process in which differences are expected tolargely melt away and, therefore, in which specific cultures are often ignoredand not included (Kozol, 1991).

While conservative multiculturalists purport to support the goals the abovelanguage represents, they believe such ends are attained in an open, free, andcompetitive market economy where minority groups simply have to “pull them-selves up by their bootstraps.” A conservative multicultural agenda in educationcan be summarized with the following questions that support the paradigm:How do we Americanize minorities (bring them into the mainstream culture)?How do we prepare them for a competitive economy? How do we standardizecurriculum so as to give opportunities for all to compete openly for goods andservices?

Clearly, a conservative multiculturalism has ideological roots in a marketlogic, one that tends to bypass the complex issue of cultural inclusionary prac-tices. The goals of excellence and equity in education are then predicated onstudent participation in a free market of competition, opportunity, survival ofthe fittest, and upward social mobility. Predictors of success are primarily statis-tical, comparative measures, such as grades and SAT scores—the ultimate logicconstructed by an ideology that places heavy emphasis on social control andcompetition (Kanpol, 1994). The conservative agenda includes a commitmentto the same academic standards for all students and the belief that culturaldifferences need not play a significant role in their achievement.

Grant and Sleeter (1997) provide the label culturally different for the conser-vative approach to multiculturalism. Social mobility leading to equality comesfrom assimilation that requires the elimination of certain differences or deficitsin knowledge, skills, and values that are barriers to the acquisition of better-paying jobs. The teacher’s job is to bridge the “gaps” that exist between themainstream culture and that of the “culturally different” through remedial edu-cation that inculcates mainstream American know-how. This includes attendingto differences in learning styles, making connections to home and community,and identifying differences in skill levels and language proficiency. Differencesare recognized with the intent of establishing pride and helping minority stu-dents understand what the mainstream culture expects and thereby to learn toconform to an Anglo schooling norm. Many elementary and secondary teacherssupport this conservative approach, believing that rapid assimilation into themainstream culture is in the best interests of minority students. It is the positionadopted by English immersion proponents who are opposed to bilingual pro-grams.

The argument that this approach is in the best interest of minority childrencan at times appear deceptively enlightened. For example, if the work of Lisa

92 THE URBAN REVIEW

Delpit is taken out of context, the conservative position might cite as supportiveher view regarding access to “codes of power” (1995). Delpit believes minoritystudents must have the access to these codes that, for example, speaking Stan-dard English provides. Students must learn how to make it through the “gate-keeping points” established by the dominant culture. But Delpit rejects the con-servative agenda that ignores the effects on minorities of the “culture of power”and argues strongly against any action that negates children’s knowledge oftheir culture and heritage, calling for teachers to embrace the reality of diver-sity. She believes that minority children must learn to “play the game” in main-stream society in order to be eventually positioned to help bring about a changein the distribution of power—a goal that the conservative position rejects.

One might argue that conservative multiculturalism is a contradiction interms, especially since its goal is a kind of melting-pot “uniculturalism.” Nev-ertheless, as we shall see below in the work of Banks, conservative multi-culturalists often recognize cultural, racial, and social differences in the contextof their “contributions” to American society, though the latter are consideredmarginal, with little impact on social and political institutions.

B. Liberal Multiculturalism

The liberal approach to multicultural education accents the need for diversityand cultural pluralism and the acceptance and celebration of difference. Equityand excellence are achieved through acceptance, tolerance, and understanding(Banks, 1994). While humanistic and progressive in intent, this approach nev-ertheless masks the conflicts and contradictions inherent in our society, ignoringwhat at times seem like irreconcilable and divisive identity issues revolvingaround race, class, and ethnicity. Moreover, insufficient consideration is givento power constructs, control issues, and “official” knowledge, which stand inthe way of achieving equity and excellence by denying political power. Ratherthan these barriers to equality of opportunity being dealt with as part of apotentially transformative curriculum, the emphasis is primarily on a humanis-tic affirmation of democratic ideals and the naıve belief that a curriculum com-mitted to such ideals will bring about change.

Indeed, associations such as the National Association for Multicultural Edu-cation (NAME), although progressive in intent, still view equity and excellencefrom the vantage point of a “feel-good” approach in which diversity is achievedthrough a humanistic agenda that promotes tolerance and acceptance but payslittle attention to the role of the dominant culture in preventing equality andexcellence for all.

The liberal perspective in education is most apparent in curriculum contentsuch as African-American history month, teaching units that study, for example,the Japanese internment during World War II, and celebrations of different


world cultures. Focus upon cultural differences, repression, and struggle againstgreat odds typifies the liberal approach, complemented by the celebration of theuniqueness of individual cultures. Like the conservative approach, liberal multi-culturalists assume that laws and policy decisions will bring about excellenceand equity within the dominant culture and free-market economy. By failing totake what may be confrontational political action, liberal multiculturalists re-main supportive of the dominant culture and its hegemonic power, even while,unlike conservatives, their liberalism compels them to celebrate differencesto the extent that they champion equal opportunity and reject the melting-potconcept.

Grant and Sleeter describe a human relations approach to multiculturalismfor schools that attempts to promote acceptance of diversity through intergroupeducation based on the sharing of feelings and values—a liberal agenda basedon the goal of culturally different students living together harmoniously. Differ-ent groups are studied with the intent of establishing acceptance, mutual re-spect, and friendships among their members. Curriculum emphasizes stereotyp-ing, name calling, and cooperative learning activities and projects. A schoolmight, for example, mobilize students and the community in food donationprojects. Grant and Sleeter point out how this liberal approach unfortunatelyincludes a limited analysis of why inequities exist in the first place, as well assimplistic conceptions of culture and identity. An approach focused on “let’s getto know each other better” sidesteps, or is ignorant of, the root causes of racismand inequality.

C. Critical Multiculturalism

The critical multiculturalist believes that issues of equity and excellence can-not be effectively addressed without posing difficult but essential questions:Under what conditions and by whom are concepts of equity and excellenceconstructed? What do they look like for different groups and in different cir-cumstances? Can all groups benefit equally from a particular construction ofthese concepts? What happens when different groups and individuals viewthese concepts differently? How can equity and excellence be achieved in asociety in which historically the dominant culture has determined their mean-ing? The critical approach seeks justice by focusing on the relationships be-tween equity and excellence, on one hand, and race, ethnic, and class configura-tions, on the other hand. It believes that leaving these matters to the processesof free-market competition and upward social mobility will only deny theachievement of justice.

For the critical multiculturalist, knowledge is not value-free but shaped cul-turally, historically, ethnically, and linguistically. In Giroux’s words, knowledge“never speaks for itself, but rather is constantly mediated through the ideologi-

94 THE URBAN REVIEW

cal and cultural experiences that students bring to the classroom” (1988, p.100). Put another way, “the act of knowing is integrally related to the power ofself-definition” (1995, p. 133).

Therefore, the histories and narratives of subordinate groups must be a partof the school curriculum if their members are to engage in personally meaning-ful learning and if equity and excellence are to be properly served. Curriculummust be transformative, and educators as critical multiculturalists must enterinto a democratic dialogue with each other to develop programs that promotecritical reflection and inclusionary knowledge.

Critical multiculturalists believe that schools impose standards on childrenthat reinforce the power relationships and social stratification of American soci-ety. Curriculum policy, for example, is usually committed to white, middle-class values that deny to the powerless and disenfranchised equal access toknowledge. When those in power determine educational policy, whether they beprofessional commissions, governmental agencies, or school district authorities,the result, argues the critical multiculturalist, is a standardization around contentthat effectively excludes the voices and experiences of those not in power. Anot-so-hidden curriculum is created that reflects the social inequalities of thesociety the schools serve, in spite of cultural celebrations of difference spon-sored by liberal educators.

Grant and Sleeter present three models of multiculturalism for schools that,taken in order, become increasingly critical in their structure: single-groupstudies, cultural pluralism, and social reconstructionist. The first of these fo-cuses on one group at a time and seeks to explain why a particular group hasexperienced discrimination within society. With the goal of increasing the statusof the group, single-group studies endorse education that develops a criticalconsciousness in students regarding the need for change for the identifiedgroup. The classroom would include displays reflecting the culture and contri-butions of the group and speakers from the group would be invited to addressthe class to “tell their story.” Important distinctions are made among groups; forexample, Asians are not lumped together but are considered separately—clearly, Cambodians and Laotians do not have the same history as Chinese andJapanese. Superficial similarities are put aside in favor of significant distinc-tions.

The second model, cultural pluralism, embraces, as its name suggests, cul-tural pluralism and social equality in society and the schools. The metaphorsof “tossed salad” or “mosaic” replace “melting pot,” and the curriculum ex-amines the perspectives and contributions of several different groups. Ratherthan being limited to the study of particular minority groups, the goal is toreduce prejudice by helping students adapt to as much diversity as possibleand to learn the importance of power equity and social justice for all groups.


Rejecting a dominant Anglo mainstream, the goal is equitable power distribu-tion in the school as well as the society. As a form of critical multicultural-ism, it is more inclusive in its focus than targeting just a single-group study,even though the latter may attempt to cover many groups over the course ofseveral years of study.

The social reconstructivist approach is the most visionary and critical ofGrant and Sleeter’s models. It directly challenges students to become socialreformers and commit to the reconstruction of society through the redistribu-tion of power and other resources. The curriculum teaches social action skills,promotes cultural pluralism and alternative life styles, and has students an-alyze oppression with the intent of eventually, if not immediately, taking ac-tion to work for a more democratic society. Unlike the liberal human relationsapproach, which focuses on how individuals can get along with each other,social reconstructivism focuses on how groups can change structures. In thisregard, community action projects are important, and active learning takescenter stage.

BANKS’ MODELS OF MULTICULTURALCURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGY

In order to come to a better understanding of how the three theoreticalframeworks discussed above can be translated into specific programs for theschools, the multicultural curriculum and pedagogy models of Banks (1994) areextremely useful. They demonstrate how elements of all three frameworks canwork both alone and in combination to move schools toward a curriculum char-acterized by both equity and excellence. Thus, they complement the models ofGrant and Sleeter briefly described above.

Some of Banks’s four models blur the distinctions among the frameworks;others overlap; and still others reflect just one of the three. Taken together, theyoffer a variety of approaches—several eclectic—to moving schools toward amulticulturalism that is transformative in its inclusion of the voices and experi-ences of all students. The options provided suggest different starting points forpreservice students to consider; how they might be incorporated into a teachereducation program is discussed below following the discussion of Banks’s fourapproaches.

Banks labels his four approaches “contributions,” “additive,” “transforma-tive,” and “social action.” Each is discussed below, and in each case, the modelis related to the three philosophical frameworks and to Grant and Sleeter’smodels of multiculturalism in order to describe more fully the relationship be-tween the philosophical positions and their translation into educational pro-grams in the schools.

96 THE URBAN REVIEW

A. Contributions

As the name suggests, the “contributions” approach to multicultural educationemphasizes what minority groups have contributed to society. Therefore, it in-cludes elements of both the conservative and liberal frameworks. The dominantculture recognizes the special qualities of diversity that have made America richerand more interesting. Black History Month, International Food Day, and the studyof ethnic festivals and the heroes of different cultures are included in a curriculumthat otherwise and primarily is devoted to the contributions of Western whitemales to the dominant culture. Conservatives who support this approach willargue that there is representation in the curriculum of most minority groups andthat students are therefore learning about other cultures.

To those who question the commitment of this approach to multiculturaleducation, implementers will point to specific places in the curriculum whereattention is paid to minority groups. They might say, for example, “We have aworld cultures course,” or “We teach a unit on the American Indians that avoidsstereotyping,” or “We have an American history unit that includes the contribu-tions of women.” The argument is that the school has accommodated the studyof ethnic, racial, and gender differences.

The contributions approach attempts to sensitize the majority white cultureto some understanding of minority groups’ history as a part of the Americanexperience. However, without an accompanying active change agenda, it mayin fact support Grant and Sleeter’s conservative culturally different model andits goal of a melting-pot, homogeneous culture. The contributions model oftensettles for a kind of cosmetic multiculturalism—one that allows administratorsand teachers to say, “We’ve taken care of that issue” when questioned, forexample, by activist community groups. In its feel-good and humanistic ap-proach it does have liberal qualities; unfortunately, many schools never getbeyond it to a study of the issues of power and disenfranchisement.

B. Additive

Once again, the name suggests this model’s approach to multiculturalism.Additive refers to the adding on of multicultural material in order to addresswhat has been heretofore ignored. For example, an English teacher may decideto teach Alice Walker’s The Color Purple in addition to the traditional Westernliterary canon because she believes that the African-American experience, asrepresented in fiction, has been unfairly ignored. This approach shares bothconservative and liberal elements: conservative when its importance is viewedprimarily as a perfunctory gesture toward fairness; liberal when its importanceis viewed as a substantive addition to a study of the diversity of the Americanexperience and when sufficient curricular time is devoted to doing so.


Additive suggests that there is more to teach, not less. The danger is that ifthe material becomes an official part of the curriculum, it may be given shortshrift—or not be taught at all—by teachers who fail to accept its importance,thinly disguising their feelings by claiming that there is not enough time in theyear to teach everything required. Part of the conservatism of the additive ap-proach may be, then, the potential unwillingness of the school or department tomake the teaching manageable if not inviting by providing adequate space inthe curriculum to give the new material its due. In such instances, the text orunit may easily remain of lesser importance in the eyes of many teachers andstudents.

The additive model resonates with Grant and Sleeter’s human relations andsingle-group studies models only if it is approached seriously and substantively,rather than perfunctorily. That is, if what is added becomes the basis for aserious study of human relations or the study of a particular minority groupwith the goal of developing greater understanding and acceptance of the group,then it contributes to the goals of these two models.

C. Transformative

Rather than simply adding on to the curriculum, the transformative approachrequires that the internal structure of the curriculum be changed to incorporatethe fabric of the racial, ethnic, and social experiences of different minoritygroups. For example, a unit on the family would consider family experiences ofa variety of families representing different cultures and family groupings. Thestudy of the Civil War would consider issues of race, class, and gender ineq-uities. Units of study are constructed around different perspectives and points ofview so that students learn a critical stance with respect to issues, including thevalues and assumptions of their own cultures. The goal is a transformation ofstudents’ perspectives regarding issues of equity and justice.

The transformative approach to multicultural education is primarily criticalin its emphasis on an examination of underlying cultural assumptions, its studyof diversity in relation to the dominant culture, and its democratic goal of edu-cating for equity and justice. Students learn to be reflective, to adopt differentperspectives, and to understand how what they are taught—the knowledge thatschooling offers—has been shaped historically, ethnically, culturally, and lin-guistically. In its concern for dealing seriously with issues of injustice and in-equality, rather than merely giving them lip service, the approach also incorpo-rates some liberal values. However, the liberal faith in the ability of societalinstitutions as currently constituted to bring about substantive change sets itapart from the transformative approach.

The emphasis of the transformative approach on using diversity as a primarytouchstone for the development of curriculum will alienate many teachers. In

98 THE URBAN REVIEW

communities where minority representation or tolerance for existing diversitywithin the community is low, such an approach will inevitably fail. Manyschools will not embrace this model until they and their communities havethemselves been transformed and accept diversity as a major theme in the de-velopment of curriculum and in the teaching that occurs in the classroom.

Banks’s transformative model echoes Grant and Sleeter’s cultural pluralismand social reconstructionist models. All three have as their ultimate goal thetransformation of society through an understanding of how knowledge andpower operate in society and through learning to work to bring about socialjustice. Differences are more a matter of degree: Grant and Sleeter’s culturalpluralism and Banks’s transformative models involve less of an action-orientedapproach in their efforts to work for tolerance, acceptance, and equity than doesGrant and Sleeter’s social reconstructionist model or—as we shall see below—Banks’s social action approach.

D. Social Action

Social action is an extension of the transformative approach and echoes it.Rather than merely studying the issues through a restructured curriculum, socialaction calls for student action to deal with injustice and inequity. Students carryout research/action projects, and they suggest ways that change can be initiated.Through their work, they see how the dominant culture perpetuates inequalityand how even they are responsible for supporting oppressive institutions. Mostimportant, teachers encourage students to be heard on local diversity issues andto become actively involved in groups that work for change. One learns bydoing, and until the learner becomes actively involved in the issues, knowledgeremains largely inert and impotent, and how it is constructed is at best onlydimly understood. Community-based learning is becoming a more popular cur-riculum component; the social action model views such learning as a tool forimplementing critical skills to bring about change.

In its commitment to working for transformative change in local commu-nities, social action is a form of critical multiculturalism. Many liberals wouldfail to endorse the model because of its direct confrontation of hegemonic insti-tutions as instruments of oppression and guardians of the status quo. Whileliberal multiculturalists endorse curriculum projects whose goals are increasedtolerance and understanding of minority groups, many would not support stu-dent projects that seriously question the commitments of social institutions toprinciples of democracy and that call for students to directly confront and chal-lenge such institutions.

Nor would many middle-class communities support the social action model.Individual teachers in the past have been persecuted if not fired for taking whatare viewed as radical positions regarding issues of social justice and equity.


However, projects that bring students together with community leaders whorecognize the need for change, even when these leaders reflect a liberal beliefin the basic worth or integrity of the institutions they represent, can be produc-tive of a truly transformative education.

Social action is very similar to Grant and Sleeter’s social reconstructivistmodel in its emphasis on developing the commitment and critical skills to takeaction for the cause of social justice. Both models address oppression and socialinequality with the aim of reconstructing society to better serve democraticaims.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHER EDUCATION:THE NEED FOR TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING

As noted in the introduction, the primarily white and middle-class teachersin our nation’s schools are ill prepared in knowledge, skills, and attitude toteach for equity and excellence in multicultural classrooms. They cannot teachfor cross-cultural competency when they lack it themselves. Teacher educationprograms intent on changing this situation must recognize the necessity of pro-viding learning experiences that increase the likelihood that preservice teacherswill undergo transformative learning regarding multicultural education.

We recommend that the curriculum for preservice teachers include an under-standing of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the philosophical frame-works and specific multicultural models presented above because doing so cancontribute to learning that is transformative in provoking a reconceptualizationof multicultural education. Such understanding can stimulate critical reflectionregarding one’s own philosophical position, moral commitment, and readinessto teach for equity and excellence. For it is through study and self-reflectionwhen confronted with perspectives that challenge preconceived assumptionsthat significant changes in beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge can occur.

Preservice teachers can locate their own current views of multicultural edu-cation at some point on the spectrum of conservative to critical philosophicalframeworks and models. Questions to consider are these: Which of thesemodels best represents the experience of multicultural education that I encoun-tered in my own schooling? What is my current philosophy regarding multi-cultural education, and what are its implications for my teaching? Do any of themodels challenge me to critically examine my current position and my concep-tion of pedagogy for teaching students who differ racially, culturally, and so-cially? What do I need to learn in order to better prepare myself to teach inmulticultural classrooms? The considerations that these questions entail are ex-plored below as part of our discussion of how the above philosophical frame-works and teaching models can be incorporated into the curriculum of preser-vice education.

100 THE URBAN REVIEW

Preservice teachers with little multicultural experience need to acquire theappropriate knowledge and skills, but they also must reconceive their role asteachers by recognizing the primary importance of diversity in all of their edu-cational decision making, from determining student readiness for learning, todesigning curricula, selecting instructional materials, assessing performance,and developing appropriate programs and teaching techniques. Approachingteaching in this way is very different from assuming that a context-neutral,mainstream pedagogy and curriculum are appropriate for all students. It is anapproach that is very much grounded in Banks’s transformative models andGrant and Sleeter’s cultural pluralism.

When preservice teachers study the models presented above, they will assessthe strengths and weaknesses of each based on their own philosophical positionregarding multiculturalism. To suggest that ideally the instructor’s goal is tomove students toward a critical philosophical framework is, of course, to revealour biases regarding what approach best serves teaching for a just and demo-cratic society. But whether preservice teachers actually change their beliefs candepend in part on the impact that preservice education has on their prior knowl-edge and attitudes. As suggested in the introduction, highly ideological ap-proaches that strongly favor a critical philosophy may meet with resistance.Nevertheless, by asking preservice teachers to consider the teaching and learn-ing implications of such models as, on one hand, the culturally different andcontributions models (primarily conservative approaches) and, on the otherhand, the reconstructivist and social action models (primarily critical ap-proaches) preservice teachers will better understand the choices available andcan critically examine their own viewpoints and those of the schools in whichthey will teach.

Teacher education programs must also include field experiences in urbansettings in which students directly observe the need for multicultural educationand pedagogy in schools with diverse student populations. For many white andmiddle-class college students this is a new experience—one that forces them toseriously consider whether the learning needs of all students are being appro-priately served and how to adapt the content of instruction and teaching style tostudents’ cultural and individual learning preferences. Assignments in coursesthat accompany such field experiences should focus on these issues so thattheory and practice are interrelated. Field experiences will confront preserviceteachers with concrete examples of the multicultural models presented above,making them real and compelling in revealing their relative effectiveness inserving the goals of equity and excellence. Students who have had a variety offield experiences often report amazement at the culturally insensitive attitudesof some teachers—even, at times, minority teachers, who advocate the cultur-ally different model and teach to remediate “deficiencies,” or who promote the


contributions model, in which minority cultures are only occasionally cele-brated.

Teacher education programs should also require students to work closelywith individual minority students in tutorial relationships in order that they maygain a more sensitive and concrete understanding of how culture shapes learn-ing styles and of the importance of giving all student more choices about howthey will learn. The strengths and weaknesses of the different curriculum andpedagogical models will become more apparent as preservice teachers begin tounderstand the learning needs of individual minority students.

Preservice courses should also include experience with Banks’s transforma-tive approach to multiculturalism by helping teacher candidates develop teach-ing units that educate students about minority groups, racist views, and theinequities of political and social institutions. For some preservice teachers, thistask may not be a comfortable one, especially if they are more disposed to aless critical approach to multiculturalism. But by requiring students to assume acritical stance in curriculum development, teacher educators encourage theirstudents’ appreciation of its importance in supporting what are primarily criticalapproaches to teaching.

Prospective teachers should also become knowledgeable regarding curricu-lum publications that can assist them in teaching multicultural issues. For ex-ample, Teaching Tolerance, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is anexample of a program designed to help teachers become more effective in ad-dressing intolerance and racism. Included are teaching units such as “TheAmerican Civil Rights Movement” and “The Shadow of Hate,” along with aTeaching Tolerance magazine. Most important, it includes training in the teach-ing of tolerance. An important activity would be to have students determinewhich of the multicultural models presented above programs of this kind sup-port, analyzing them for their strengths and weaknesses.

By designing their own units and evaluating prepackaged programs, studentswill become more skilled in making judgments about effective curriculum andpedagogy. The philosophical frameworks and specific teaching models canserve as useful lenses through which to both design and evaluate teaching.

Students should also gain practice using highly interactive instruction thatappeals to many learning styles, such as heterogeneous grouping, cooperativelearning, discovery learning, and peer tutoring. These methods need to be con-sidered in relation to culture-specific contexts, not merely as generic methodsthat can be equally successful with all students. In their sensitivity to the needsof particular groups, they support liberal and critical approaches to multiculturaleducation. Microteaching is a useful format, and students should be required todemonstrate how what they are teaching addresses the needs of diverse stu-dents. Along with the experiences discussed above, such pedagogy should be


infused throughout the teacher education curriculum rather than being dealtwith through an additive approach that merely appends it to existing courses orpacks it into one required course that purports to deal with all of multiculturaleducation.

Multicultural infusion is a key component of a teacher education programthat aims for transformative learning. Cross-cultural competency is not devel-oped in any one course or in an academic vacuum. It depends on studentshaving cultural knowledge, direct intercultural experiences, and the opportunityto reflect on those experiences. It is both personal and interpersonal, cognitiveand affective. For this reason, a multicultural program for aspiring teachersmust not be limited to the education department or school of education. Thelarger college or university is able to provide for speakers, campus organiza-tions, and community projects that present opportunities for cross-cultural com-munication and a sharing of opinions that promote cultural pluralism and trans-formative educational models. Departments can incorporate a multiculturalperspective into many of their courses and include a social justice componentthat, by making connections between course concepts and experiential learningin the community outside the institution, takes a reconstructivist or social actionapproach to multicultural education.

It is particularly fortunate if the instructors of preservice courses have under-gone transformative learning in their own understanding of the curriculum andpedagogy that best serves multicultural education. Cochran-Smith (2000) dis-cusses just such a transformation in her own instruction that resulted fromrather dramatic self-revelations concerning the inadequacy of her approach tothe subject of racism—an approach that she had assumed addressed the topicsignificantly and meaningfully through much philosophically critical readingand in-class discussion of the issues. She warns against courses that privilegepedagogy drawn from the theories and practices developed primarily by whiteteachers and scholars of child development, language learning, and progressiveeducation. Ironically, she comes to realize that the subtle message of her coursehad been that progressive pedagogy was culturally neutral, even though she hadbeen emphasizing through a critical approach that all aspects of schooling weresocially and culturally constructed (p. 178)!

Cochran-Smith (2000) recommends the inclusion of theories of practice de-veloped by and about people of color, along with “rich and detailed analyses ofsuccessful teachers of urban children, particularly poor children of color, whouse a variety of pedagogies.” (p. 179). Her own transformative learning in-cludes becoming convinced that “reading and writing accounts about race andracism that get personal, as well as reading more intellectualized argumentsabout these issues, is vital to preservice teacher education” (p. 173). Theseinclude the narratives of her own students. When the preservice curriculum isviewed critically as “racial text,” transformative learning is encouraged, for


racism becomes a central issue in the course and is dealt with on close andpersonal levels, not just through “distant and academic” prose. Moreover, sucha curriculum, evolving out of a critical philosophy, involves helping studentsunderstand that schools are always “sites for institutional and collective strug-gles of power and oppression, not neutral backdrops for individual achievementand failure” (p. 174).

In her inclusion of the narratives of minority teachers and students, as wellas the theories of the dominant professional educational culture, Cochran-Smith’s curriculum has evolved in a manner that demonstrates that the knowl-edge we have about effective teaching is socially and culturally constructed andtherefore context-dependent, rather than a set of uniform prescriptions that canignore racial, ethnic, and social differences. In addition, by involving preserviceteachers in their own construction of such knowledge, her pedagogy increasesthe likelihood of their experiencing transformative learning regarding equityand excellence in schools, including the recognition of the importance of usingcritical multicultural approaches in curriculum development and teaching prac-tices.

Cochran-Smith’s course underscores the importance of a critical approach toteacher education because of the three philosophical positions presented above;it has the greatest potential for transforming understanding and attitudes. Forexample, when students recognize that the work of professional educationaltheorists is itself culturally constructed knowledge, they are in a better positionto accept the legitimacy of the cultural knowledge of minority students. Also,they are usually compelled to critically assess their own mental “constructions”or schemas of what constitute authoritative and perceptive accounts of the livesof minority students and the curriculum and pedagogy that is most appropriatefor them.

Cochran-Smith provides a potentially powerful critical approach that speaksto the transformative and cultural pluralism models, pointing the way to socialreconstructivist and social action positions and eventual cross-cultural compe-tency. Nevertheless, teacher education students who bring highly conservativeor liberal positions regarding multicultural education to the college or universityclassroom and are challenged to assess these positions may not move to a morecritical position during the course of their preparatory work. The concern is, ofcourse, that once they are out in the schools, they will have little opportunity tohave their positions challenged, unless school leadership does so through ongo-ing multicultural professional development efforts. For this reason, the impor-tance of experiential as well as academic experiences during preservice teachereducation is underscored if students are to begin to become cross-culturallycompetent. Students need field experiences, one-on-one work with minority stu-dents, and experience with social justice projects in order for the study of theissues of multicultural education to become more than abstract concepts that


fail to touch their emotional and moral lives and, therefore, lack the potentialfor transformative learning.

As recognized above, communities are often not sympathetic to those whoteach for social action and the transformation of an unjust society. Ongoingsupport for such teachers is important—especially for those who are new toteaching and lacking in political skills. Schools of education can be helpful bysponsoring study councils and forums within the community that center onsocial justice topics and that bring together parents and teachers, as well as byoffering multicultural seminars and resources to teachers both on campus and inregional meetings sponsored by academic and professional associations. Butyoung teachers must be sensitive to what can and cannot be accomplished ininstitutions that support the status quo; one of the key points of this paper hasbeen to provide preservice teachers with a knowledge of a range of positionsregarding multiculturalism, in part so that they can be smarter politically thanthey might otherwise be. At times, teachers can be most effective by usingmaterials and designing teaching units that raise the important questions regard-ing issues of social justice without being didactic and potentially inflammatory.Often, it is by presenting multiple perspectives and encouraging a diversity ofviewpoints in the classroom that young teachers—and experienced ones, too!—can best support transformative and social action goals.

CONCLUSION

We are recommending that the philosophical frameworks and specific multi-cultural models presented here be used in preservice programs in ways that willprovide both the interpretive lenses and some of the language that will helpstudents better prepare for teaching for a more just society. Moreover, the per-ceptive student will come to recognize that the models themselves are culturallyconstructed by their authors and therefore subject to the same kind of criticalanalysis that can produce transformative learning. Students can move back andforth between the academic and the experiential, with the work of Banks,Grant, and Sleeter providing interpretive value systems with which to developcross-cultural competency and a personal pedagogy committed to equity andexcellence for all students. By doing so, they will be learning to serve the goalof creating a more democratic society.

REFERENCES

Aronowitz, S., and Giroux, H.A. (1985). Education Under Siege. South Hadley, MA: Bergin &Garvey.

Banks, J. (1994). An Introduction to Multicultural Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Cochran-Smith, (2000). Blind vision: Unlearning racism in teacher education. Harvard Educational

Review 70(2).


Cuban, L. (1984). How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms. NewYork: Longman.

Darder, A. (1991). Culture and Power in the Classroom—A Critical Foundation for Bi-CulturalEducation. New York: Begin & Garvey.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: NewPress.

Everhart, R. (1983). Reading, Writing, and Resistance—Adolescence and Labor in Junior HighSchool. Boston: Routledge & Kegan.

Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed New York: Seaburg Press.Giroux, H. (1993). Living Dangerously. New York: Perter Lang.Gollink, D., and Chinn, P. (1994). Multicultural Education in a Pluralistic Society. New York:

Merrill.Goodlad, J. (1984). A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future. New York: McGraw Hill.Grant, C., and Sleeter, C. (1993). Making Choices for Multicultural Education. New York: Merrill.Grant, C., and Sleeter, C. (1997). Turning on Learning 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-

Prentice Hall.Kanpol, B. (1994). Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.Kanpol, B., Jenks. C., and Nicoteria, C. (1997). Multiculturalism in Pennsylvania—Where Are We

and Where Are We Going? Harrisburg: Penn State Institute for State and Regional Affairs.Kanpol, B., and McLaren, P. (1995). Critical Multiculturalism: Uncommon Voices in a Common

Struggle. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.King, J. (1991). Dysconscious racism: Ideology, identity, and the miseducation of teachers. Journal

of Negro Education, pp. 133–146.Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. New York: Crown.Kozol, J. (1994). Amazing Grace New York: Crown.LaBelle, T. J. (1976). An anthropological framework for studying education. In J. I. Roberts and

S. K. Akinsanya (eds.), Educational Patterns and Cultural Configurations: The Anthropology ofEducation, pp. 67–82. New York: David McKay.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Preparing teacher for diversity: Historical perspectives, current trends,and future directions. In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes (eds.), Teaching as the LearningProfession: Handbook of Policy and Practice, pp. 86–87. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Laren, P. (1994). Life in Schools. New York: Longman.McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary Multiculturalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education. New

York: Longman.O’Hair, M.J., and Odell, S. (1993). Diversity and Teaching. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Southern Poverty Law Center (1998a). Intelligence Report, Issue 89. Montgomery, AL.Southern Poverty Law Center (1998b). Teaching Tolerance. Montgomery, AL.Webster, Y. (1997). Against the Multicultural Agenda: A Critical Thinking Approach Westport, CT:

Praeger.Yeo, F. (1997). Inner City Schools, Multiculturalism, and Teacher Education—A Professional Jour-

ney New York: Garland.Zeichner, K., and Hoeft, K. (1996). Teacher socialization for cultural diversity. In John Sikula,

Thomas J. Buttery, and Edith Guyton (eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. NewYork: Macmillan.

approaches to multicultural education in preservice teacher education: philosophical frameworks and...

Documents