In class we spent a lot of discussion time delving through the different definitions of what multicultural education means to us. Although the conversation was very insightful, I feel we may have neglected a main part of the story on multicultural education. We spoke much on the curricula aspect, which is important, but I wonder if there is something bigger than changes in a few textbooks or having teachers adopt new teaching techniques which intend to "appreciate diversity". In fact I am saying that the issue is so much bigger than the methods stated. The Name article provides a more accurate description for where I stand on Multicultural Education. It states "Multicultural education is a process that permeates all aspects of school practices, policies and organization as a means to ensure the highest levels of academic achievement for all students... It prepares all students to work actively toward structural equality in organizations and institutions by providing the knowledge, dispositions, and skills for the redistribution of power and income among diverse groups."
In all I feel the most powerful piece of that statement addresses a history of oppression and disenfranchisement faced by people of color in the US when it says that multicultural education should supply students with the skills for the REDISTRIBUTION OF POWER AND INCOME among diverse groups. Schooling and education now make it very clear who is in power. With the creation of multicultural education and the deconstruction of our current education system comes the responsibility of granting "all men" the rights granted by the ideals of freedom and equality that the US stands on. Understanding that multicultural education is about the redistribution of power allows us to begin to tackle issues of racism which are at the basis of current inequalities.
In the interview done with Sleeter in the Anderson reading, she addresses the issue of racism and why multuculturalism, at it's core, is a struggle against racism, and must go beyond an appreciation of diversity. She speaks on the issue of white privelege which is also a topic we didnt didn't address. So it is the fact that from the conception of this nation that power was created and meant for one set of people. Aurdre Lorde calls this set of people the mythical norm and describes it like this- “In
www.case.edu/president/
You highlight well the point that thses articles make about white privelege functioning as something of an obstacle for fairly redistributed power and access to education. Looking at this dimension of institutional bias tempts me to question what other inequalities need to be deconstructed in education. Sexism? Heterosexism? Ablism? Some of these are harder to see and thus more difficult to tackle in a multicultural education.
ReplyDeleteWhite privilege is, indeed, a topic that needs to be addressed on multiple levels. I think you're right in saying that access and equity are two highly important notions that need attention. Who re-distributes this "power" though? And if power is to be redistributed, then who will determine how/who gets what? That's what everybody has been trying to do all along and yet...
ReplyDeleteThis is where the situation becomes more complicated. Ideally, it is the duty of those in power, to attend classes like this and become educated on matters that affect society. They must take action in order for this to be successful. The question is why would one in power choose to give it up for the sake of being fair and equal?
ReplyDelete