MULTICULTURALISM IN THE ARMY. REFLECTIONS

Rafael Sanchez-Barriga Marin

This paper was completed and submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master Teacher Program, a 2-year faculty professional development program conducted by the Center for Faculty Excellence,

United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, 2014.

1. CULTURE AND SELF IN MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION: REFLECTIONS ON DISCOURSE, TEXT, AND PRACTICE, Diane M. Hoffman

Even though there is actually a debate concerning the nature and goals of multicultural

education, multiculturally teaching practices, and curricula, are in fact rapidly becoming

a part of the school experience for many American children. At the same time, critics

rise up regarding the delivery and implementation of multicultural education broadly

defines, as well as the texts and discourses to teach multicultural perspectives.

While accepting that some forms of multicultural education can contribute to larger

goals of educational and societal justice, to the author is arguable that current concepts

with regards to multiculturalism lack a critical self-awareness about basic culture, self

identity, and difference.

It goes without saying that there are diverse perspectives on multiculturalism in the

States, and the difference of perception upon the topic all over the world, many certain

stances seem to have fundamental assumptions about the nature of the self, culture,

and identity. On the other hand multicultural education per se as a solution to face with

problems with regards to pluralism appears most developed in the US and other nations

within the Western cultural sphere of influence.

It seems to the author of the essence to become more aware of how the elements of

that symbolic order are constituted in order to move toward a more self-awareness

multiculturalism with greater potential.

Hallways in schools have been promoting multiculturalism for many years. This proofs

the American effort to face a reality. They were clearly aimed at promoting an

awareness and understanding of multiculturalism. The question posed by the author is

whether it the posters hung on the walls are either promoting an ideological conformity,

we must think in the same way, or an inherent openness and flexibility.

Background: Problematizing Multiculturalism. As a first step it would be necessary to

consider the four trends in the criticism of multiculturalism.

A conservative stance when political and philosophical issue arises due to the tension

which exit between an emphasis on pluralism: diversity and the need for defining a

common society.

A second opinion, with regards to multiculturalism, sees as a comprehensive program

which doesn’t meet stated goals or expectations. As expressed in concerns about

efforts to multiculturalize curricula buy adding ethnic content, this critique focuses on

how valuable goals are defeated or undermined in practice.

The third approach is one that takes issue with the increased normalization of

multicultural discourse and its resultant failure to establish categories of knowledge or

relations of power.

The last one deals with the need to identify the underlying assumptions, meanings, and

orientations of multiculturalists discourse and practice.

Culture as recipe. Anthropologists have criticized the way the concept of culture has

been simplified and reified to fit multiculturalist’s discourses that support visions of

personal, ethnic, or national cultural identity that are fixed, essentialized, stereotyped,

and normalized.

The normative acceptance leads to views of culture that ignore the realities of fuzzy

borders and mutual interface and interdependency.

Culture as Essentialized Difference. Many faces juxtaposed against a larger unifying

background image such as the globe stressed out the concept of diversity and its flip

side: unity.

Difference is thereby diluted or made to support overarching frameworks of shared

values or world view firmly enshrined in that existential space called culture.

Culture as category. The most important characteristic of culture as it is presented in

multicultural discourse is its categoricalness.

The learning process encourages teacher and students alike to think of culture in terms

of categories of food, behavior, language, government, and so forth. This emphasis on

culture as category is far from unique in multicultural education. The culture as category

approach is reinforced throughout by lists of disparate practices identified by various

cultural labels.

Problems of Practice. Although is preferable to have entrenched positive views o f those

one does not understand to having prejudiced or negative views, simple, reified, and

categorical approaches to culture undermine the importance of more accurate and

complete knowledge about different cultural ways of life.

Valuing diversity also poses another practical problem: who or what qualifies for

inclusion in diversity? How can we really celebrate diversity without drawing artificial

boundaries or engaging in cultural simplification? Reification?

Culture and identity. Some givens in multicultural education reveal a troubling

universalism and Western-centrism. In that notion of identity, including the ways person

and self are conceptualized and attendant notions such as self-esteem, are simply not

the same in all cultures or ethnic groups, and differences in concepts of self are among

the most profound influences on cultural and social phenomena.

Identity as Property and Choice. The relationship between person and culture is one of

possession: no one owes identity as if it were a house, car or some tangible asset.

Despite the assumed political usefulness of his notion from the point of view of at least

some minority group members, the ownership formulation can also been seen as a

reflection of the mainstream American materialism and the property rights that make

ethnicity compatible with the dominant economic structure of American society.

Toward Reformulating Multicultural Discourse. From a more practical perspective,

reforms in multicultural teacher education might address the following key issues:

teaching and learning about culture, pedagogy, and critical perspectives.

Teacher preparation must move beyond that individualism of stage models, it also

eschew the over-emphasis on self-esteem building as well as that genre of multicultural

teaching the primary aim of which is to inculcate proper attitudes through various self-

celebratory, self assertive, explore-your-heritage sorts of exercise that often relies on

reified and categorical approaches to culture.

Teacher must be given exposure to the various existing critiques of multicultural

education and be encouraged to develop new one.

2. MULTICULTURALISM: THE RANGE OF TEACHER APPROACHES. John A.Zahorik and Raymond Novak

The authors of this article focus on an important reflection: the extent of multiculturalism

implementation.

Models of Multicultural Teaching .First of all they account for the different approaches

which exist in the educational wise. They distinguished various types of methods

according to the use of education. From the use of a education of the culturally

difference, education about cultural pluralism to promote cross-cultural understanding,

education for cultural pluralism to preserve cultures, bicultural education to help

multicultural students acquire language skills , through the use of multiculturalism as the

normal human experience in which students are taught how to function in many cultural

contexts in our multicultural society.

Teachers ‘reports of multicultural teaching. The goal of cultural adjustment is to have

students learn the established curriculum. The teacher presents the regular content and

skills identified for the particular grade level and subject are without additions related to

multiculturalism. The techniques or methods the teacher use to present curriculum are

altered because of the multicultural composition of the class.

In cultural embellishment teaching, the teacher also seeks to have students learn the

established curriculum but in addition he or she has a secondary goal of having

students come to understand various aspects of different cultures for either assimilation

or pluralism purposes.

Regarding cultural integration, the teachers, according to the authors, tend to have

traditional goals, but also multicultural goals, usually stressing pluralism. Teachers who

support this type of teaching seek to infuse multicultural topics into the regular

curriculum whenever possible. The multicultural topics are integral aspects of the

lesson. The instructional approach can vary but often involves group projects, problem-

solving tasks, and personal responses.

The last type of teaching, cultural analysis integrates the regular curriculum and

multiculturalism. Its help, somehow, students gain a deeper understanding of

multicultural topics and acquire skills and attitudes necessary for creating a just society.

Present State and Future Needs. Teaching is being influenced by the multicultural

nature of the students, but the influence is far from uniform. Some of the teachers have

made only instructional changes while others have changed both their instruction and

their curriculum. The cultural adjustment teachers are teachers whose changes are

almost instructional. Some of these changes may be counterproductive.

Implicit in the behavior of cultural adjustments teachers is the belief that the most

important service they can provide for multicultural students is to help them acquire

basic knowledge and skills

3. TEACHING “MULTICULTURAL” PERSPECTIVES: ALL NOT PRESENT AND ACCOUNT FOR. Bruce McKenna

Teaching effectiveness hinges on many factors. One of them, and is that the author is

focused on, is the relative inability of a class to affect its students. Many students have

learned how they might successfully resist, either actively or passively, the best efforts

of any teacher. Best teachers are no less likely to be accomplished at this than ‘worst”

students, those who get lower grades. A good grade point average can be achieved by

disassociating the process from knowledge as much as possible.

Teaching course that students see as fulfilling requirements but otherwise not

necessarily beneficial to their education is always difficult and almost always results in a

class room experience quite different from those courses with which students are

engaged more fully.

The great distance between even the most carefully syllabus and the actual experience

of being a student or teacher in class is often attributed to the competence of the

students.

What the author suggest us to focus on is the difference generated by the presence of

the speaker and listener. The interaction between the two is a different experience than

the solitary activity of reading. Whether I wish to applaud or condemn what I experience,

my response is stronger and more immediate. The classroom experience is so

dramatically different from reading and writing because of the experience of human

beings, because we come together.

Teachers can communicate so much more information more effectively with their mere

presence. It is this difference that makes teaching courses with many perspectives more

of an explosive situation. The best and the worst moments can be generated by the

actual presence of the teacher and student together.

This is a matter which has particular significance when teaching courses which touch

upon matters of race and ethnicity, gender and class, and such courses have grown

greatly in numbers the last few decades. Topic which are close to concepts as

multiculturalism etc.

Avoidance and confrontations are too often part and parcel of many cultural courses. As

per the author more and more courses in many fields of study are deliberately trying to

present not just an alternative, not just ideas from one resisting group versus ideas from

the dominating one, but ideas from a whole range of peoples.

The growth in multicultural courses is seen by some as an effort to disable the efforts of

successful programs focusing on single culture, and some do have just such an

intention. Remaining apart in an effort to resist dominating forces is not sound strategy.

We must better find common strategies in our efforts to resist the dominating culture.

4. WINNING HEARTS AS WELL AS MINDS? TEACHING MULTICULTURAL HISTORY IN THE 21ST CENTURY. Jama Lazerow

This article accounts for the pressing issues in multicultural education at an institution

that prides itself on preparing students to work with all of the nation’s children and

families. Many teachers bring up the frustration and successes in confronting and

overcoming the racist attitudes of some of their students. One question then come

forcefully to mind: are we ready to open minds or to change them?

According to the author American education has never been value free. The creation of

the public school system in the pre-civil war period was in great measure the product of

an explicit attempt by certain groups to inculcate. Protestant, republican, and capitalist

values in a rapidly expanding and increasingly diverse population. Early colleges and

universities were hardly immune to such political pressures. Today, it is the fashion to

blame the Left (the so-called politically correct”) for the politicization of education, for

seeking converts to a particular belief system rather than teaching “the basics”.

The author show clearly his stance against the idea of proselytizing for a certain point of

view or set of values even though, it might be suggested, student who will one day work

with diverse populations of children and families need certain values to do their jobs.

The author is for promoting the method of inquiry usually denominated “critical thinking”.

Effective teaching must engage the effective as well as the cognitive processes of the

learner: it must speak to the heart as well as the head. There is a difference between

teaching to the heart and trying to change. We ought to be encouraging independent

though rather than any particular brand of thought, even if the issue in question is

something as popularly valued as opposition to racism. Though difficult, we ought to be

teaching students to think, not what to believe.

Promoting thought rather than belief in the classroom is especially problematical today

because of the current flap over “political correctness”.

While fear expressed in some teachers that in some of its forms multiculturalism

endangers the republic itself may seem exaggerated, such sentiments reflect a very real

struggle for the hearts as well as the minds of Americans.

In author’s opinion the main that conservative stance has with regards to the demand

for a multicultural curriculum is that those demands are explicitly critical, in both form

and content.

While the author is not sympathetic to the conservative critique, he does think that in the

field of history multiculturalism presents certain potential dangers to the educational

process. Among those dangers are the following uses of history that are sometimes

advanced under the multicultural label: the inculcation of self-esteem, the derivation of

lessons from the past, the creation of myth, the invention of heroes and villains, the

promulgation of something called Historical Truth that can be apprehend and,

presumably, maintained for all time.

Regarding the college level, the author clarifies what is in his opinion the worst aspect of

the current trends in multiculturalism. That is, the notion held by some that it is valuable

as an approach to knowledge because it endangers belief in certain beneficial social

values. We ought not to evaluate our students based on how well the assimilate

teacher’s values. In his opinion what is really valuable in multicultural history is the

critical method itself, out of which it emerged: that method has the singular virtue of

being fiercely skeptical, allowing for the questioning of all orthodoxy, in whatever form.

For the teacher, objectivity is an ultimately elusive goal and neutrality an undesirable

one.

5. IDENTITY AND CITIZENSHIP: SOME CONTRADICTIONS IN PRACTICE. Heather Piper and dean Garrat.

Many currents forms of anti-racist and multicultural teaching, whilst well-intentioned,

nevertheless serve to fix identities of children in ways which inhibit their agency and

reinforce stereotypes. They are therefore counterproductive.

The author explores some of the tensions that exit, but are seldom articulated, between

understandings and expressions of identity and citizenship. The author accepts that

tensions and contradictions are not necessarily bad, but by making them explicit we are

better able to consider their consequences. There is a suggestion regarding a

consideration of such tensions and how they may enhance rather than impair the

learning experiences of young people, since this can lead to a deeper understanding of

issues through processes that are both challenging and critical. Teaching of citizenship

has a direct impact on the identities of many students, and this impact is top down, and

rarely benign.

While multicultural and anti-racist teaching has in recent times received considerable

attention, some aspects arguably tend to take for granted values and assumptions of

the enlightment tradition, with its western principles.

Some teachers claim that “multicultural/equal opportunities approaches have tended to

focus upon the negative effects that education has had upon the educational

performance. Anti-racist/social justice approaches have more often emphasized the role

that education has had in reproducing structural inequality through its preferential

treatment of white and ethnic majority pupils.

Such teaching overlooks the importance of the international and interlingual character of

a global citizen, which occurs in spite of increasing globalization, where international

mobility has facilitated the “cross-culturalization” of citizens and a strengthening of

ethnic communities.

The author argues that current discourses, which inevitably lead to the celebration of

difference in classrooms situations, can have significant and sometimes unintended

negative consequences.

It is apparent that the author’s preference is to allow space for leaky and fluid identities

that change over time and place to be a privilege for all children and young people, and

this should be allowed for and not inhibited in classroom practice. Human condition of

prejudice results, at least partly, from the tendency for individuals to collect and put up

markers of identity to distinguish their collective self from that of others. It is necessary

though to alert teachers and others to the idea that the location and promotion of

standpoints on behalf of others, which appears to be an intended by-product of

multicultural teaching, is not appropriate.

With regards to identity and culture, the author argues that the relationship between

people and society is interminably reflexive, and identity inevitably includes both being

and becoming, position and positioning, and past and present. The notion of being and

becoming is at the nexus of a relationship between epistemological and ontological

issues that we consider next.

As conclusion what is really argued here is that the teaching of citizenship context

needs a more careful and critical assessment of the ways that culture and ethnicity are

re-created in the classroom situation.

6. THE NATURE OF MULTICULTURAL TEACHING AND LEARNING IN AMERICAN SOCIETY. Martin Haberman The purpose of multicultural teaching is to prepare Americans for functioning on three

levels: as individuals, as members of some subgroup or subculture, and as effective

participants in the general American society. In this first introduction to the theme the

author provides an obvious description of the intent of multiculturalism. In that regard

actually the article is not contributing. However in author’s opinion this model rejects the

notion that sub-cultural differences must be melted away and if this is not possible, such

diversity should merely be tolerated.

Conflicts and tensions among the three realms of required learning should be regarded

as natural consequences.

An educationally healthy society is one which provides the social groups residing within

that general culture with learnings that support a balance between group and individual

needs. Individual learning refers to the enhancement of personal differences. Group

learnings refer to the development of commonalities which support the larger society.

Individual learning is necessary for personal survival and growth. Group learnings are

required for successful functioning in the larger society.

Another way, in author’s opinion, to view this balance is to consider the need of

individuals to perform specialized and differentiated roles in all successful educational

systems. As these different functions contribute to the group survival it becomes

obvious that some degree of individual difference in capacity and performance is a

group asset.

In relation to this group-individual balance, American society can be characterized as a

general setting with shifting and consistent social characterized as a general, with

shifting and inconsistent social boundaries. American society is the general

environmental and social setting within which all subgroups must effectively interact.

From an educational health point of view, there are three levels of learning required-

whether the unit of analysis is the individual, the subgroup or the larger society. These

three levels are:

Level I: Individual enhancement which reflects the range of human potentialities.

Level II: Knowledge, skills, behaviors, and values for participation in some

subgroup B.

Level III: Knowledge, skills, behaviors, and values for participation in the larger

society.

There are no educationally healthy individuals conceived in isolation from their

subgroup and from the larger American society. Similarly, there is no healthy larger

society, without different subgroups agreeing with some of the society’s basic value

orientations and challenging others.

Those who define education too narrowly make the term synonymous with schooling. In

addition, they engage in two other kinds of over-specification which are even more

limiting. First, they rank order the stated objectives of public schools so that basic skills

become either the paramount goals, or the pre-requisites for achieving all other goals.

Second they trend to delegate some responsibilities.

The model stated by the author outlines three levels of learning as necessary for fully

functioning in American society. As a result, the number of constituencies that this

model defines as educationally disadvantaged is increased. Individuals who do not fully

develop their distinctive talents (Level I learnings) are not only underdeveloped as

people but unable to contribute all that they might to the general society. Those who do

not learn to fully participate in their own subgroup are similarly underdeveloped and

educationally disadvantaged. Finally those who might appear to be doing well in level III

learning may actually be unprepared to function in American society. Effectiveness in

society depends on much more than having attained minimal skills levels in a few

basics.

7. A DEVELOPING MODEL OF TEACHERS EDUCATING THEMSELVES FOR MULTICULTURAL PEDAGOGY. Dorothy Heard

The experience of working with teachers toward their own personal multi-cultural

education and toward democratic multicultural arts pedagogical practices lead the

author to several conclusions, most of which were new.

It is generally assumed that teachers, like all human beings are motivated to learn grow

and change. And that multicultural environment educator is proactive for good arts

teaching and learning for a democratic society. For some of them this took the form of

preference, advocacy, development, adoption and practice of a multicultural education

that was limited to sound facts about ethnic arts and histories.

Indeed, it is generally agreed that introducing students to cultural art forms unfamiliar to

them is not only valuable and important, but very necessary.

Some teachers admired and fully adopted the aesthetic and social democratic deals of

multicultural education. These were teachers who not only wanted to introduce their

students to new and different art forms, but teachers who were also very concerned

about the real day-to-day practice of critically challenging their own and their students'

understandings about teaching and learning the arts for a multicultural democracy.

Good teaching involves pedagogical inquiry, interpretation and the creating of

understanding and knowledge without unjust sacrifices from either individuals or

cultures. Good multicultural teaching must combine a high level of self-expression with

total self-commitment to moral democratic actions toward students' creation of arts

knowledge and their questioning of existing arts knowledge. Some teachers who had

personally witnessed or known inequity and its effects found themselves in conflicted

states about democratic multicultural education and art. Some of those teachers found it

convenient to agree with those who assumed positions of power and who said that

there were no inequities in education or society. These teachers denied their own first-

hand knowledge and experience of real inequities and thus lowered their feelings of

discomfort at being in disagreement with those who claimed positions of power. There

were also teachers who knew that inequities existed but choose to risk, accept, and

more importantly, to embrace discomfort in order to morally, freely and effectively live,

teach and create within such a dilemma. These teachers confronted the real

possibilities of what it means to disagree and potentially expose themselves to reprisals

and uncertainty in order to educate themselves and arrive at an enlightened position

about teaching arts for a democracy. Such teachers showed responsibility to and for

their students and society through responsibility to themselves.

The strategies of multicultural teachers must be sharply focused on creating democratic

atmosphere within which all students, including students of European descent, minority

ethnic students of color, female students and students from different economic

circumstances can learn that they have rights and responsibilities and can be taught

how to claim their rights and take charge of their responsibilities. Widespread

misconceptions about race, class and gender, and actions based upon such

misconceptions, make democratic multicultural education a necessary part of the

schooling of all students. Multicultural teachers must help students learn that there is no

white race, no black race, no yellow race, no red race, no brown race.

Teachers' adopted “democratic” multi-cultural positions involved: taking and making

opportunities to develop, expand and create a coherent critical approach to art

knowledge, schooling, race, class and gender; modifying beliefs about the purposes of

teaching in order to effect democratic student learning and social outcomes; and

visualizing an equal society through education institutional change. When teachers took

a "democratic" opportunities perspective to teaching and learning at their schools they

began to expand their teaching behaviors to not only include, but to functionally treat

differences as a positive quality that exists among students, faculty, administrators and

parents in their schools and communities. When they focused on outcomes for a

democratic multicultural arts education, some teachers recognized past and present

inequities in all aspects of the arts and in education, and began to think about and plan

for ways to make the future aesthetically diverse and equitable. As part of their change

process some teachers also engaged in visualizing an ideal democratic multicultural

arts education by querying those who share their educational contexts and discussing

how to bring such a vision into reality.

8. A RESEARCH INFORMED VISION OF GOOD PRACTICEIN MULTICULTURAL TEACHER EDUCATION: DESIGN PRINCIPLE. Kenneth M.Zeichner, Carl Grant, Geneva Gay, Maureen Gillette, Linda Valli, Ana Maria Villegas.

The design principles described in this article represent one view of good practice in

multi-cultural preservice teacher education. The principles are organized into three main

categories: (a) those emphasizing issues of institutional and programmatic reform, (b)

those addressing issues related to personnel (staff and students), and (c) those

focusing on issues of curriculum and instruction in teacher education programs.

The institutional context shapes both students experience and program possibilities,

diversity and multicultural education will not be valued without the strongest

commitment at the institutional level. This commitment should be explicitly spelled out in

the institution's mission statement, formal policies, and daily procedures.

1.The mission, policies, and procedures of the institution reflect the values of diversity

and multicultural education.

These policies and procedures include recruitment, support, and retention of faculty,

staff, and students of color, a multicultural core curriculum, service to a diverse

community, and numerous multicultural experiences for students and their teacher

educators. Evidence of institutional commitment to diversity would be found in concrete

plans with adequate resources for affirmative action, student recruitment, and faculty

mentoring and development. Technological and other innovative ways of recruiting and

diversifying the campus would be in place. Faculty and staff would be adequately

rewarded and funded for engaging in multicultural activities.

2. The institution is committed to multicultural teacher education. This principle

highlights the importance of a dual and simultaneous commitment: to teacher education

on the one hand and to multicultural education on the other. Teacher education is held

in low regard at many institutions of higher education. Curriculum fragmentation,

inadequate faculty reward structures, excessive faculty workloads, and inequitable

funding formulas jeopardize the operation of quality teacher education programs

3. The teacher education program is a living example of multicultural education. The

power of informal teaching, or the "hid-den curriculum," is a recurrent theme in teacher

education. Both research and conventional wisdom validate the assertion that teachers

teach as they were taught. Frequently, graduates of teacher education programs mimic

or imitate the instructional and interactional styles of their teacher educators. If teacher

education students are to be taught with the conviction that multiculturalism is valuable

and necessary, diversity should be visibly evident in everything that symbolizes the

value orientations of the students' schools, colleges, and departments of education.

4. Admissions requirements to teacher education programs include multicultural as well

as academic criteria. Currently, students are admitted to teacher education programs

largely on the basis of grade point average and scores on tests of academic skills.

Because of the limited impact that formal teacher education programs can have on

attitudes, beliefs, and values developed over a lifetime, it is necessary to broaden and

enhance admissions criteria to also consider personal characteristics of candidates that

are related to their potential success in working with culturally diverse learners.

Examples of a faculty commitment to developing greater competence in multicultural

teacher education include regular participation in professional development

opportunities related to multicultural education, research and writing that addresses

and/or includes multicultural education, faculty involvement in the larger community in

multicultural contexts, and support for the recruitment of diverse faculty and students.

6. Multicultural perspectives permeate the entire teacher education curriculum, including

general education courses and those in academic subject matter areas. Evidence from

research and wisdom from best practice points out that in order for teacher education

students to both understand and implement a multicultural perspective in their classes

and during their field experiences, such a perspective should permeate the entire

curriculum of their teacher education programs including courses taken outside of their

schools, departments, and colleges of education.

7. The program fosters the understanding that teaching and learning occur in socio-

political contexts that are not neutral but are based on relations of power and privilege.

Educational policies are often based on the belief that the classroom and school

contexts pro-vide equal opportunities for all children. These policies imply those children

and their families simply take unequal advantage of the opportunities afforded them.

This belief is misguided and dangerous. It denies the reality that schools and class-

rooms themselves have cultures that can be more hospitable to some groups and

individuals than others. This principle contends that no social context is neutral. The

contexts of classroom, school, local community, and society are constantly negotiated

within preexisting and unequal relations of power and privilege. Race, ethnicity, gender,

and social class are closely related to the distribution of power and privilege in these

various contexts. In schools, these unequal power relations are manifested in some

groups and students being favored more than some others-often in subtle and

unintentional ways. An understanding of these unequal power relations can help

teachers overcome a "blame the victim" and a "cultural deficit" orientation toward

students and their families so that they can restructure schooling and classroom

processes to be more responsive to a culturally diverse student population.

8. The program is based on the assumption that all students in elementary and

secondary schools bring knowledge, skills, and experiences that should be used as

resources in teaching and learning, and that high expectations for learning are held for

all students. Research in cognitive science shows that learning is not the simple act of

accumulating new facts and skills, as is popularly believed. In order to move beyond

rote memorization to achieve understanding, students need to reorganize and re-

configure what they already know about a topic or concept. Students' prior knowledge

and experience, both personal and cultural, are critical resources for learning. Schools

and classrooms, however, generally are not organized to accommodate diversity in

students' background knowledge and experiences.

9. The program teaches prospective teachers how to learn about students, families, and

communities, and how to use knowledge of culturally diverse students' backgrounds in

planning, delivering, and evaluating instruction. Because teaching entails helping

students build bridges between what they already know and the new knowledge and

skills to be learned, it is essential that teachers be familiar with their students'

background knowledge and experiences, including their beliefs about topics relevant to

the curriculum. This familiarity with the students should not to be limited to their school

knowledge, however. To make the culture of the class-room inclusive of all students,

teachers must understand the way life is organized in the com-munities where the

children live.

10. The program helps prospective teachers reexamine their own and others' multiple

and inter-related identities. Every person has multiple identities that are formed through

a unique and complex intersection of race, ethnicity, social class, gender, language,

religion, sexual orientation, and ability. In order for prospective teachers to become

effective teachers in our multicultural society, they must first understand their own

identities as complex multidimensional people in a multicultural society

11. The program provides carefully planned and varied field experiences that explore

sociocultural diversity in schools and communities. School and community field

experiences in a variety of cultural settings that can provide all prospective teachers

with opportunities to develop greater intercultural teaching competence are important

components of multicultural teacher education. Under some conditions, however, these

experiences can serve to strengthen and reinforce the stereotypes and prejudices about

"others" that prospective teachers often bring to them.

12. The program helps prospective teachers develop the commitment to be change

agents who work to promote greater equity and social justice in schooling and society.

The goal of a multicultural teacher education program is to help prospective teachers

become change agents who can impact power relationships through curriculum,

instructional practices, and individual and collective action toward more just personal

and structural relationships in schools, districts, and communities.

13. The program teaches prospective teachers how to change power and privilege in

multicultural classrooms. "Example" is the most powerful conduit of meaning in

teaching. Therefore, the best way to teach how to redistribute power and privilege in

culturally pluralistic classrooms is for it to be demonstrated in teacher education

classrooms. Teacher educators should use their own classrooms as "laboratories" in

which they share the power and privilege of their position with their students. These are

symbolized by their claims to scholarly expertise, authority to make unilateral decisions

about what and how students will learn, opportunities provided for student participation

in classroom activities, and the right to evaluate students' performance. Each of these

can become a test case for the redistribution of power in the teacher education

classroom. The issue of exclusive expertise can be reconstructed by students and

instructors engaging in collaborative, cooperative, and partnership teaching and

learning.

14. The program draws upon and validates multiple types and sources of knowledge. A

broad approach to the utilization of the knowledge and expertise about schools and

communities that is held by many different stakeholders is employed in the program.

The knowledge of expert teachers, other school staff members, and members of the

local community and business sector is integrated into the teacher education program

along with the academic knowledge that is typically included in the teacher education

curriculum. Hiring community members and/or school staff as adjunct teacher education

program faculty is one example of how teacher education programs have accessed

practitioner knowledge.

9. MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION:BEYOND THE RETHORIC. Diane E.Newby, Karen L.Swift, Robert G.Newby.

Among the important issues now facing education is that of preparing all students to live

and work in a society that is changing dramatically - that is rapidly becoming more

diverse in its populations and more global in its scope. Critical thinkers, flexible

leadership, many concepts arise as a result of these new challenges. Demographers

predict that persons of color and women will comprise 80 percent of new entrants to the

labor force by the year 2020.

In author’s opinion it is becoming increasingly urgent that we help those populations to

acquire needed skills. At the same time, it is imperative a transformation of the total

curriculum in order to help all students acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and skills that

will improve the quality of life and social conditions for future generations. So it is

necessary to implement curricula that reduce prejudices, improve intergroup interaction,

and develop programs of an intercultural nature with a global perspective. In that our

students are members of an expanding pluralistic global society and that the fabric of

our society will become even more diverse in the future, we can no longer afford to be

provincial in our perspectives and approaches.

This approach involves organizing the school staff into small groups to promote collegial

interchange and action. Study groups provide a collaborative environment for teachers

possessing varying knowledge and skills. Self-regulating working teams is another

viable approach. It is grounded in a framework which emphasizes the leadership theory

that those closest to the point of implementation become involved in designing plans

and strategies that will move the organization closer to its vision and goals. The benefits

of self-regulating work teams are many. They involve educators at all levels of the

school organization. In addition, they emphasize outcomes while team members create

their own processes. Moreover, educators share numerous skills and have relative

autonomy along with adequate information to make decisions. These are just a few

approaches for designing and implementing a curriculum that is multicultural.

10. CONSTRUCTING THE MARGINS: OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM SETTLEMENTS. Dennis L. Carlson

The author argued that multicultural education may be understood as emerging from,

and related to, broad-based settlements between dominant and oppositional power

blocs and social movements. As such it provides one of the primary terrains of struggle

over the cultural construction of identity and community. Particularly during the past two

decades of growing neoconservatism in U.S. politics and culture, the progressive and

democratic potential of multicultural education has been circumscribed or blocked. Even

in conservative times, however, multicultural education has provided an important space

for progressive work in schools, and its contradictions provide an important basis for

critiquing what is and visioning what could be. What directions is multicultural education

likely to take in the nineties? That, of course, depends on which social movements are

able to organize a power bloc and discourse on school reform that constructs a new

hegemonic "common sense." At this point, neoliberalism (constructed primarily around

elements of the business community, organized labor, the women's movement, the civil

rights movement, the gay and lesbian rights movement) does not appear to imply a

fundamental break with neoconservative educational policy, although it does provide

more room for maneuvering. Neoliberals also appear to be more receptive to extending

multicultural education in public schools to include some discussion of gay and lesbian

identity and rights. At the same time, the neoliberal power bloc is a very fragile one and

its discourse deeply contradictory. It is heavily driven by economic rationales and

agendas that privilege the interests and perspectives of multinational capitalism, yet it

does not wish to further alienate labor leadership and rank-and-file workers and it is

committed to extending the agendas of the new identity politics movements of gender,

race, and sexuality while at the same time not encouraging more backlash that plays

into the interests of New Right groups. As African Americans, Hispanics, and other

minorities have become more discontented with the lack of substantive progress made

in overcoming inequities and discriminatory practices over the past few decades, an era

of relative quiescence and political stability is giving way to an age of not only "talking

back" but "acting up. Within this volatile cultural and political context, democratic and

progressive forces will need to articulate a persuasive new commonsense discourse

that is consistent with the changing times in which we live. In conclusion it is of the

essence, for the author, a commitment to multicultural education as central to the

mission of public education and as integrated throughout the "core" curriculum. The

implication is that we view clashes of interests, beliefs, and values among students and

school staff as positive, in that they provide a mechanism for hearing all voices,

negotiating across difference, and staying responsive to the unique interests and

perspectives of all involved parties. A politics of difference also implies offering students

and parents more choice among schools, curriculum programs, and approaches to

instruction.

11. CONCLUSIONS. REFLECTIONS The American society is experimenting deep major changes in its culture. From its birth,

the nation sought a governmental system which was able to unite 13 colonies with

different interests and aspirations but, in essence, colonies that saw the union as the

only possible way to defeat the British power and survive afterwards.

The new American government inherited Anglo-Saxon tenets that, without a doubt,

were present in the redaction of the American Constitution: the organization in states,

counties, and towns, freedom, the three levels of power, and so forth.

The American Republic showed up as the haven for those ones who fought for

democracy and liberty. A new nation claiming for freedom in which the only merit was

the talent. The “American dream” was born.

The immigration was rampant during the first decades after its birth. As the number of

emigrants rose radically their adaptation was distressing and painful.

Initially the American society reacted to this phenomenon melting the different cultures,

customs, and even ethics in the so-called “American Pot”.

This attitude made a significant difference with Europe since the old continent was still

reluctant to house different cultures and traditions whereas the new American continent

commenced to favor the spirit of expansion.

During the last decades of the 20th century new waves of emigrants arrived in the

American shores from Latin America, the Caribbean area, Africa and Asia.

The 20th century was the era of telecommunications and eased the adjustment of these

emigrant generations to the society. The transformation of the world into a global

community was driving many people to the idea that merging cultures might not be the

final solution.

This new situation, with an ever-changing society dictating new rules to cohabit, has

provoked confusion. The American society has been boomed with many different

concepts such as multiculturalism, racism, and diversity in a little while. Time is required

to assimilate all these new tendencies.

The United States of America is an unique position to become the actual battlefield at

which a solution to this problem is found: how to unite a nation through its diversity?.

If we look up the concept multiculturalism into a dictionary we may conclude that

multiculturalism has more to do with “preservation of identities and cultures” than with

“melting”. Yet I do not think that the solution lies on the mere description of concepts but

further agreements.

First of all the solution of the dilemma requires to abandon extremes stances.

Second of all people need to know the history of the nation and spot and place the most

important historic events in a proper manner.

Some followers of the “melting pot” concept agree that “multiculturalism” poses a threat

to the stability of the American society. Other than refusing upon the pros of

multiculturalism, the supporters of such a stance deny that multiculturalism is attainable

from a modern society. It is simple a cause of unsteadiness and the effect for the

society would be to collapse after many years of stability.

On the other hand followers of multiculturalism consider that “melting pot” is a racist –

selfish concept.

The American nation, and this is unarguable, was founded by a white community with

European heritage. Tradition, culture and language, all them were mere consequences

of a fact: America was a European colony. Yet the necessity of manpower to shape the

American aspirations and the principle of freedom, bedrock of the American

Constitution, was going to shake the foundations of the nation.

The first problem was the African-American culture. Slaves were incorporated to the

American society without their consent. Once the American society decided to abolish

slavery, Afro-Americans called for a place in the society. Their role was obviously going

to change and they seek to have the same civil rights as the rest, their own

opportunities. A new age kicks off and not only recuperating their culture was

demanded but the study of others.

Whilst complaints were rampant, the economical development of the States attracted

other minorities whereas the boom of the industry and the GDP demanded more

manpower with low salaries.

Multiculturalism was trendy topic and not because American people wanted a debate. It

was a consequence of the desire of Americans to place their nation at the top of the

worldwide ranking.

America had the “pot”, that’s to say, the frame at which different incoming cultures could

merge away. The American Constitution, the American democracy provides the “pot”

whereas the respect to the law is the only requirement for new generations.

The fact that the States keeps the same political organization, language, constitution

and that individuals belonging to minorities have taking on important responsibilities in

the structure of the Nation, proves that the “pot” is not cracked.

Yet this is not the aim of the debate.

The debate is upon whether America is facing properly the emigration phenomenon or

is turning a blind eye.

Incomers represent an important source of manpower for those non-qualified jobs at low

cost. This situation results in different lobbies defending extreme positions. Out of their

demands education is the most important. If we think carefully it makes sense. They

want for their kids what they couldn’t get.

Aside from the language, which is the basic element of the “pot”, both positions had had

trouble understanding each other.

Conservative stance envisions the multiculturalism as a strike against the American

values, its foundations. A more liberal position defends the right of anyone else to

preserve the culture and identity, even above the unity.

The American educational system has been the spearhead of multiculturalism.

Supportive positions saw the necessity to change a society starting by the roots and

realized that if education was the bedrock of a modern society it would be the first battle

to fight.

Either curriculums or new staff became a proof of the American commitment to make a

solid and truly change in the mentality of the citizens.

The US Army, especially West Point, have experimented this change. Either this

change is a mere pipe dream or a reality in the American educational system, the Army

tried to anticipate any problem which may disturb the coexistence of different cultures

and identities.

The fact that the Army is supposed to set an example as an organization before the

citizens played a factor, as well, pushed the Army further. The goal was for the Army not

to let down those who put their trust upon its. Sexual harassment, drug or alcohol

abuse, or racial discrimination began to obsess the military brass, sometimes with a

lack of guidelines or intent.

West Point has implemented many changes in the curricula during these last decades

in order to be part of this collective effort.

The learning of foreign languages, numerous activities abroad, increasing number of

foreign teachers either civilians or militaries, and the increase in the total number of

cadets from minorities are examples of this change of mentality.

In my opinion, however, we cannot expect that the Army is a valid example of “melting

pot”. The Army is out of the debate.

Traditionally the Army has rallied people with different heritage, culture and even

language. From mercenaries through aristocrats the Army has been able to unite

soldiers and officers under a unique law. Within the Army, the “pot” now is not actually

the language but the creed, a moral code. Values as pride, honor, loyalty, discipline and

so forth are internationally recognized and applicable in any circumstance.

Can we expect the Army to allow external cultural signs in its soldiers? Do the Army

have to fuel the “melting-away “cultural process?

The learning of a language per se doesn’t guarantee the cultural understanding.

Culture is a broader concept which encompasses the language, not the other way

around. Without a doubt, the language is the first visible barrier to get over with. Yet the

history, religion and traditions usually provide more keys to really understand the

mentality of a nation.

The activities abroad are useful tools. They let students without any previous

experience to break the ice. The immediate consequence is for them to gain insight into

the worldwide reality and acknowledge the importance of interacting with different

cultures. Their age, skills and background eases this process of adaptation to

international exposure.

The participation of foreign personnel in the Academy staff is, for certain, quite positive.

Foreign teachers, fully aware of the current status of the multiculturalism in the States,

can carry out an essential task. Not everybody is ready to fully understand the

weaknesses and strengths of this society and, similarly, those ones existing in their

Nation.

The mere comparison between both is a useful tool to be used when applying any

teaching method. The exposure to these teachers will help our cadets to understand the

reality of the world they live in and their limitations.

The increase in the number of cadets belonging to minorities is the consequence of the

guidelines coming from the higher. Obviously the Army cannot deny this evidence and

must come along hand in hand with the society it must protect to with some limits.

The American society is a reference but only provides a frame. Its courses of action with

regards to multicultural approaches are valid insofar as they provide references. Yet the

Army might take different directions.

Diversity is going to enrich an Army whilst this diversity widely accepts common rules

under the same law. Taking for granted the equality of opportunities, minorities are

included in a pre-arrange organization whose foundation and tradition can be modified

to a certain extent.

Minorities cannot expect the Army to respect their cultures above its regulations and

operational requirements.

Denying the influence of the phenomenon of multiculturalism would be a terrible mistake

though.

It is a fact that we need to “control” the changes in the organization to “host” these new

groups of our society reducing collateral damages on our operability. Nevertheless to

refuse to modify our model of leadership would be catastrophic.

Leaders, critical thinkers, must face realities when those ones are unavoidable.

Coalition forces in order to gain legitimacy and minorities co-existing in the American

Army are pure realities, plain and simple.

In conclusion I would say hence that the multiculturalism model in the Army has to be by

definition “Melting Pot”.

If we go through the Army values we will conclude that this is evident:

• Loyalty. Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army,

your unit and other Soldiers. Bearing true faith and allegiance is a matter of

believing in and devoting yourself to something or someone.

• Duty. Fulfill your obligations. Doing your duty means more than carrying

out your assigned tasks. Duty means being able to accomplish tasks as part of a

team.

• Respect. Treat people as they should be treated. In the Soldier’s Code,

we pledge to “treat others with dignity and respect while expecting others to do

the same.”

• Selfless Service. Put the welfare of the Nation, the Army and your

subordinates before your own. Selfless service is larger than just one person. In

serving your country, you are doing your duty loyally without thought of

recognition or gain.

• Honor. Live up to Army values. Honor is a matter of carrying out, acting,

and living the values of respect, duty, loyalty, selfless service, integrity and

personal courage in everything you do.

• Integrity. Do what’s right, legally and morally. Integrity is a quality you

develop by adhering to moral principles. It requires that you do and say nothing

that deceives others.

• Personal Courage. Face fear, danger or adversity (physical or moral).

Personal courage has long been associated with our Army. With physical

courage, it is a matter of enduring physical duress and at times risking personal

safety.

The respect, integration and even integrity of new cultures are implicit in these values.

Nevertheless going further, trying to modify our standards, when these standards were

set up according to operational requirements, might be a non-return mistake.

The excuse that these requirements are coming from the society is not always an

excuse.

The Army makes a place for itself between the radical multiculturalism and the “melting

pot”. The necessity to change mentalities is widely accepted among their members.

Either dealing with civil rights or multiculturalism Army members are in good disposition

to be educated and keep the educating process going.

The Army effort whether it is effective or not is provoking a positive predisposition. This

predisposition, sooner or later, is going to be decisive in the quest of a multicultural

Army which is cohesive and efficient.

Is the Army going to keep a model of integration different from that of the society?

This is actually the dilemma.

Politicians and many lobbies may push the Army to make decisions in a different

direction because traditionally the politic level finds easier to push the subordinated

military brass than other sectors of the society.

I don’t envision not only this Army but any Army else getting off scot-free.

Bibliography

CULTURE AND SELF IN MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION: REFLECTIONS ON DISCOURSE, TEXT, AND

PRACTICE, Diane M. Hoffman

TEACHING “MULTICULTURAL” PERSPECTIVES: ALL NOT PRESENT AND ACCOUNT FOR. Bruce

McKenna

WINNING HEARTS AS WELL AS MINDS? TEACHING MULTICULTURAL HISTORY IN THE 21ST

CENTURY. Jama Lazerow

MULTICULTURALISM: THE RANGE OF TEACHER APPROACHES. John A.Zahorik and Raymond Novak

IDENTITY AND CITIZENSHIP: SOME CONTRADICTIONS IN PRACTICE. Heather Piper and dean Garrat.

THE NATURE OF MULTICULTURAL TEACHING AND LEARNING IN AMERICAN SOCIETY. Martin

Haberman

A DEVELOPING MODEL OF TEACHERS EDUCATING THEMSELVES FOR MULTICULTURAL

PEDAGOGY. Dorothy Heard

A RESEARCH INFORMED VISION OF GOOD PRACTICEIN MULTICULTURAL TEACHER EDUCATION:

DESIGN PRINCIPLE. Kenneth M.Zeichner, Carl Grant, Geneva Gay, Maureen Gillette, Linda Valli, Ana Maria

Villegas.

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION:BEYOND THE RETHORIC. Diane E.Newby, Karen L.Swift, Robert

G.Newby.

CONSTRUCTING THE MARGINS: OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM

SETTLEMENTS. Dennis L. Carlson