patricia ramsey multicultural education a source book, second edition source books on education,...

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION:A SOURCE BOOK (SECOND EDITION)

THE SOURCEBOOKS ON EDUCATION SERIES

Case Studies in Educational PsychologyFrank Adams

Creating High Performance Classroom GroupsNina Brown

Religion and Schooling in Contemporary America: Confronting Our CulturalPluralismJames C.Carper and Thomas Hunt

Parents and Schools: A Source BookAngela Carrasquillo and Clement London

Teaching English as a Second Language: A Resource GuideAngela Carrasquillo

African-American ScenebookKathryn Marguerite Ervin and Ethel Pitts Walker

Children of Addiction: Research, Health and Public Policy IssuesHiram E.Fitzgerald,Barry M.Lester, and Barry Zuckerman

History of Early Childhood Education: A HistoryBlythe Hinitz and V.Celia Lascarides

Practicing What We Preach: Preparing Middle Level EducatorsCharlene Johnson, LindaMorrow, Toni Sills-Briegel, and Samuel Totten

Images of Mainstreaming: Educating Students with DisabilitiesClayton Keller andRobert McNergney

Early Intervention: Cross-Cultural Experiences With a Mediational ApproachPninaKlein

At-Risk Youth: Theory, Practice, and ReformRobert F.Kronick

Project Head Start: Models and Strategies for the Twenty-First CenturyUra JeanOyemade and Valora Washington

Multicultural Education: A Source Book, 2nd ed.Patricia G.Ramsey and LeslieR.Williams (with Edwina B.Vold)

Advanced Educational Foundations for Teachers: The History, Philosophy and Culture ofSchoolingDonald K.Sharpes

Educating Young Adolescents: Life in the MiddleMichael J.Wavering

MULTICULTURALEDUCATION

A SOURCE BOOK (SECONDEDITION)

PATRICIA G.RAMSEY AND LESLIER.WILLIAMS WITH EDWINA BATTLE

VOLD

ROUTLEDGEFALMER

NEW YORK & LONDON

Published in 2003RoutledgeFalmer

29 West 35th StreetNew York, NY 10001www.routledge-ny.com

Published in Great Britain byRoutledgeFalmer

11 New Fetter LaneLondon EC4P 4EE

www.routledgefalmer.com

Copyright © 2003 by RoutledgeFalmer

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.

“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collectionof thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”

RoutledgeFalmer is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in anyform or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,

without permission in writing from the publishers.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ramsey, Patricia G.Multicultural education: a source book/Patricia G.Ramsey and Leslie R.Williams

with Edwina B.Vold.–2nd ed.p. cm.—(Source books on education)

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-8153-1744-1 (Print Edition)

1. Multicultural education—United States. I. Williams, Leslie R., 1944–II. Vold,Edwina Battle. III. Title. IV. Source books on education (RoutledgeFalmer (Firm))

LC1099.3.R35 2002370.117–dc212002068312

ISBN 0-203-42863-3 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-44128-1 (Adobe eReader Format)

In Memory of Richard Villedrouin

Contents

Acknowledgments vii

Preface viii

Chapter 1: The Evolution of Multicultural Education: ASociopolitical Perspective

1

Annotated Bibliography 45

Chapter 2: The Social, Political, and Economic Contexts ofChildren’s Development and Learning

61


Chapter 3: Multicultural Curriculum and Teaching 147


Chapter 4: Multicultural Teacher Education 207


Chapter 5: Trends, Obstacles, and Future Possibilities ofMulticultural Education

265

Index 287

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge with heartfelt thanks several individuals whohave been instrumental in the final shaping of the second edition of this work.

First, we extend our deep appreciation to Nadjwa E.L.Norton, who read theemerging manuscript with the clear eye of a teacher grounded in intensivemulticultural classroom practice, as well as with her new perspectives ofmulticultural teacher educator and educational researcher. We thank her for herclarity and forthrightness.

We gratefully acknowledge the panel of experts and the audience whocritiqued portions of the manuscript for an interactive symposium entitledNavigating the Tides and Currents of Multicultural Education: A Conceptual Map forAnalyzing the Divergent Perspectives and Trends of the Field presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association in New Orleans onApril 3, 2002. The panelists responding to the authors (including Edwina BattleVold) were Celia Genishi, A.Lin Goodwin, Michelle G.Knight, and NadjwaE.L.Norton. The audience was composed of multiculturalists working in thenational and international spheres.

Our special thanks go to Joseph Miranda, Nicole Ellis, and our other editors atRoutledgeFalmer who with patience and grace saw us through to the end of thischallenging project.

L.R.W. & P.G.R.

Preface

This source book contains essays and annotations about many aspects ofmulticultural education. The authors define multicultural education as process-oriented learning experiences that foster educational equity, awareness of andrespect for the diversity of our society and world, and commitment to create amore just and equitable society for all people. Multicultural education, therefore,is relevant to all children and their families; all teaching, curricular, andadministrative decisions; and every aspect of local and national educational policy.

The concept of multicultural education has evolved over the past 35 years.From the desegregation and the ethnic studies movements of the 1960s and 1970semerged a recognition that all children must learn to live in a diverse world. In themiddle 1970s the term multicultural education began to appear in the literature, aseducators articulated its definition and implications for teaching practice. The firstedition of this book, published in 1989, focused on the development ofmulticultural education during and after 1976. In the years since its publication,the field of multicultural education has grown in both breadth and depth. Manymovements that were once distinct from multicultural education, such as criticaltheory, environmental education, and gay and lesbian rights, have now comeunder the multicultural umbrella. The focus of the field has also shifted fromappreciating and integrating cultural and racial diversity to profoundly criticizinglong-standing economic, social, and political injustices that affect children’slearning and prospects and the quality of their schools.

As the field of multicultural education has expanded, the numbers of materialsrelated to it have grown exponentially. Most publishing houses now have severalmulticultural titles and some have whole series dedicated to these issues. Teachersand teacher educators are confronted by burgeoning arrays of multiculturaleducational materials, including journals, curricula, activity books, children’sliterature, posters, and props. Most recently, a number of websites, list-serves, andonline resources have added even more possibilities.

The vitality and variety in the field of multicultural education are inspiring andexciting, but to us, as authors attempting to convey an overview of the field, theyalso posed a daunting challenge. As we surveyed publishing catalogues, journalarticles, websites, and conference programs, we often felt as though we weretrying to carry an ocean in a tea cup. We struggled with how to include enoughmaterial to give a broad and accurate view of the field and, at the same time, to

keep the volume readable and affordable so that it would be accessible to a widerange of people. We finally settled on making this book an entry point, ratherthan an exhaustive review of all available materials. Rather than an ocean, wecame to see it as a port, a point of departure, where the reader could get anoverview of the field and some guidance for exploring the many differentdimensions of the field. That resolved, we then had to make many decisionsabout what to include, which, of course, raised the questions of “Which port?”and “Who are the travelers?” The issues of multicultural education so pervade oursociety that there are an infinite number of potential entry points. Moreover, allpeople embark with particular life experiences and perspectives that influencetheir initial interests and long-term aspirations for exploring the vast seascape ofmulticultural education. The journeys themselves are all different and have nofixed course or destination. One could start with an analysis of the lyrics ofpopular music, a critique of local and national educational policies, or narrativesof students and teachers, to name just a few of the possibilities. Inevitably, thechoices that we made in this book reflect our own backgrounds and priorities,which we will describe briefly in the next paragraph.

Three of us participated in writing this volume. Patricia Ramsey and LeslieWilliams were the coauthors, equally dividing tasks and responsibilities throughoutthis project. Edwina Battle Vold had been a coauthor of the first edition, but dueto her recent retirement wanted a less active role and, therefore, served as aconsultant, rather than as a coauthor, on this second edition. All of us aremembers of the academy, and the world that we know best is that of academicwriting—scholarly books, journals, and research reports. Yet because we areformer early childhood teachers and currently (or, in the case of Vold, untilrecently) teacher educators, we were drawn to books that blended scholarlyconcerns with practical applications, rather than ones devoted to purely theoreticaldebates. As baby boomers who learned about computers relatively late in life,websites, list-serves, and chat rooms were less familiar, and we learned a lot in theprocess of writing this book but still feel most comfortable with the world ofprint. We each grew up in distinct familial, cultural, and economic contexts thathave shaped our individual views. However, we all came of age in the 1950s and1960s, and many of our beliefs were born in and shaped by the Civil Rights andFeminist Movements that continue to influence our worldviews today. Two of us(Ramsey and Williams) are Whites who grew up in the Northeast, and one of us(Vold) is a southerner of African descent, so our experiences of the Civil RightsMovement and racial privilege have differed considerably. All of us are middle-class heterosexual women with no identified disabilities, so in these aspects ourperspectives are shaped by our privilege and relative comfort with the status quo.With this volume, we are attempting to introduce the reader to the vast field ofmulticultural education, but must acknowledge that, despite our efforts to beobjective and inclusive, we inevitably view the field through our particular lensesand can provide only one of many possible entry points. Still, we hope thatreaders will be able to use this book to embark on a journey that will in turn

ix

broaden their own horizons and deepen their critical awareness of the worldaround them.

The limits of our backgrounds and perspectives were often reflected in ourdiscussions and decisions about language. Like many authors of books and articlesabout multicultural education, we were often stymied by the lack of adequateterms to describe diversity and injustices that embody respect for different groupsand resistance movements, yet also reflect the reality of past and presentdiscrimination. There is no shared lexicon, and across texts the same term maymean different things or different terms are used to mean the same things. In ourstruggles to find terms that reflected an authentic multicultural perspective, weoften had to make compromises. For example, we tried to avoid using the termminority to refer to racial and ethnic groups that traditionally have been excludedfrom equal participation in educational, social, economic, and political arenas inAmerican society. It has a pejorative tone and, in terms of global demographics(and, increasingly, those of the United States), it is inaccurate. Groups that havebeen viewed as “minority” comprise a greater proportion of the world’spopulation than do the “majority” Whites. At the same time a number of authorsthat we reviewed use the term minority, and, because it is often not explicitlydefined, we could not substitute another word without risk of changing themeaning of what they are saying. As a result, we used it occasionally whenreferring to works of authors who use it.

Throughout this volume we have tried to use terms carefully and, when wehave felt that they might be ambiguous, to define them as precisely as possible.However, we could not define every single term, and some may appear in the textthat seemed clear to us, given our own perspectives and assumptions, but thatmay in fact carry multiple meanings that result in ambiguity or confusion.Moreover, the meaning of terms vary across groups and over time; what ismeaningful at this point may not be so in a few years. Terms that were oncepreferred may later be seen as pejorative or condescending and vice versa. Thestruggle to find terms and meanings is part of the multicultural conversation thatwill continue far beyond the publication of this book. We hope that ourdiscussions and definitions, inadequate and time-bound as they are, willcontribute to the evolution of a language that reflects a more just world.

This book includes theoretical, research, and practical information related tothe multicultural education movement in general and its implementation of amulticultural perspective in early childhood and elementary school classrooms inparticular. The first two chapters reflect the authors’ conviction that effectivemulticultural education must be grounded in an understanding of its relation toother social and political movements and in an ability to make curriculumdevelopmentally appropriate or accessible. Chapter 1 is a description of thephilosophical roots of multicultural education and the sociopolitical context of itsevolution; it is useful to anyone interested in the history and current trends of themovement. The second chapter reviews research on the social, cultural, andeconomic contexts of children’s lives and the development of children’sawareness and understanding of racial, cultural, social class, gender, sexual

x

orientation, and ability similarities, differences, and identities. This review isrelevant for anyone working with or raising children, including families, teachers,and therapists. The next two chapters discuss applications of multiculturaleducation in educating children and preparing teachers. Chapter 3 describes therange of curricula, programs, and teaching strategies designed for early childhoodand elementary classrooms and offers several ways of categorizing and evaluatingthem that also can be used to analyze curricula for different age groups. Theannotations for this chapter include only programs that follow most closely thedefinition of multicultural education that has guided the writing of this book.Chapter 4 analyzes the evolving policies and guidelines for multicultural teachereducation and reviews studies that have measured the implementation andeffectiveness of multicultural initiatives in teacher education. In the final chapter,the authors review the evolution of different aspects of the movement describedin the earlier chapters, discuss current challenges to multicultural education, andpredict possible future trends. Chapters 1, 4, and 5 are relevant to multiculturaleducation in all institutions and with students at all ages. Chapters 2 and 3 aremore specifically focused on the early childhood and elementary years.

Although the primary focus of this book is the multicultural educationmovement in the United States, some materials from other countries—specifically,Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom—werereviewed and are referenced in the essays. Annotations, however, are limited tomaterials that are written in English and are available to readers in this country.References were identified through a number of searches, including ERIC,PSYCHINFO, OVID, Library of Congress, publishers’ lists, conferenceproceedings, and many other sources. Although the essays cover all topics relatedto multicultural education described previously, the annotations are limited toones that reflect the orientation defined in the introductory paragraph of thispreface. To ensure accessibility, annotations are also limited to books and articlesthat are available in print. Unpublished dissertations, research reports, andgovernment documents are not annotated.

Chapters 1–4 consist of an essay reviewing the major issues, historical changes,and related research in its topical area and between 30 and 50 related annotatedsources. The annotations are organized alphabetically in each chapter and includefull publication information. Each annotation consists of a brief summary of themajor points of the resource and, in many cases, a commentary on how it relatesto the major issues of the field. In some instances, specific suggestions about howa resource might be used are also included. Chapter 5 consists of an essay alone.

We have written this book with the hopes that it will be useful for bothundergraduate and graduate students of education who are interested in learningmore about the history, controversies, and current status of the field ofmulticultural education. Likewise, teachers and school administrators who want tolearn more about the field and start making some practical changes in theirschools will also find the book helpful. Families may be able to use this book tosee more clearly the challenges that they are experiencing raising and educatingchildren in a complicated and inequitable society and to gain some ideas for

xi

addressing these issues with their children and their teachers. Scholars in the fieldsof education and psychology who are not yet familiar with the field ofmulticultural education will find this book a useful guide to further literaturereviews.

Our goals in writing this book were, first, to draw together a wide range of topicsand resources and to put them into a meaningful context. Second, we wanted toprovide an overview of the history, current status, and future possibilities ofmulticultural education. Third, by providing extensive annotated bibliographies,we sought to encourage readers to pursue their interests further. Above all, wehope that everyone involved with children—educators, families, communitymembers, and teacher education faculty and students—will engage in ever deeperconversations about the challenges and possibilities of raising and teachingchildren to savor diversity and challenge injustice.

xii

1The Evolution of Multicultural

Education: A Sociopolitical Perspective

Over the past 30 years, the field of multicultural education in the United Stateshas become recognized as one of the avenues of school reform. Stronglysupported by some constituents and opposed by others, multicultural educationhas different connotations, according to the lenses through which it is viewed,and its scope and content have continued to be issues of debate. It has grown froma relatively defined domain to a widely inclusive one. The field has engenderededucational practices, elaborated theory, and, recently, informed a range ofresearch efforts. Whether one agrees or disagrees with its premises, an importantpart of one’s professional life as a teacher or teacher educator today is knowledgeof the forms and content of multicultural education. This text aims to provide aguide for teachers and teacher educators who are interested in either anintroduction to this complex field or an opportunity to extend their knowledge.

The roots and evolution of multicultural education reflect the sociopoliticalcontext in which it has developed in the United States. In this chapter we reviewthe social, political, and educational policies that have both encouraged and

I dance in and out of circles, spaces and thoughtsGlad to be invited into yoursFor often I find myself tapping and twirlingMy way, my words, into your worldsUnwelcoming to meBut I know I shan’t wait to be invitedFor by some I never willAnd if I stop this movementThis leaping, shuffling, sashaying in and outOf your conversationsI will, my people will, you and I—We—all will dieThe slow death perpetuated byThat disease, dis-ease, di-sease of oppressionThat multiculturalism seeks to fight.

NADJWA E.L.NORTON (2002)

thwarted the multicultural movement and its antecedents. Current trends andcontroversies and future directions are also discussed. In addition, to place thisevolution in a broader perspective, we conclude by describing briefly themulticultural movements in several other countries.

DEFINING GROUPS AND TERMS

Before discussing the history of multicultural education, we need to definecommonly used, yet often confused, terms: race, ethnicity, and culture. The wordrace is popularly used to refer to biological and genetic traits that distinguish oneamong populations that have originated from different regions. In the past fewhundred years, three broad racial groups have been commonly identified—Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. However, racial divisions and oppressionoften occur within these groups, such as the Nazi view that all non-Aryans, evenif members of the Caucasoid race, were racially inferior. Throughout humanhistory, “racial” distinctions, even in the absence of any pronounced physicaldifferences, have been used by dominant groups to justify the subjugation,enslavement, or both, of other groups (e.g., the Romans considered the Britonsless than human and fit only to be slaves).

Smedley (1993) offers the following analysis that illustrates how in the UnitedStates the concept of race has been intimately tied to economic and socialopportunism for the past 400 years. Before the English began to come to NorthAmerica, they had developed a notion of the “savage other” when they wereconquering the Irish during the 16th century. This belief crossed the Atlantic withthe colonists and enabled them to justify their genocide of the Native Americansin the 17th and 18th centuries. Driven by the desire to gain control over the landand derive income from it as quickly as possible, the colonists needed slaves andso adapted their concepts of the “savage other” to justify the enslavement ofAfricans. The Framers of the Constitution and other early statesmen of the UnitedStates created elaborate and contradictory ideologies in order to permit slavery ina new society predicated on individual rights. Throughout the 18th and 19thcenturies many “scientific” reports and the popular press supported the notionthat Africans were a race apart. These “reports” illustrated the extremes to whichscholars would go to justify slavery and economic and educational discrimination.During the waves of immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries, these racializedviews were extended to support the exclusion, mistreatment, or both of certain(particularly Asian) groups.

We now know that there is more intrarace than interrace genetic variability(Quintana, 1998) and that there are no valid biological bases for distinguishing racialgroups. However, in the United States (and many other countries) racialdistinctions continue to be socially constructed and widely believed. Recent“scientific” works such as The Bell Curve (Hernstein & Murray, 1994) oftenmisrepresent findings or disconnect them from their social, political, andeconomic contexts in order to “prove” the genetic basis of racial superiority andinferiority. Despite the lack of any scientific evidence of biological differences, the

2 MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION

content and significance of racial categories continue to be defined by social,economic, and political forces (Omi & Winant, 1986). Racial categories, in turn,influence the social status and life prospects of families and children, those whoare racially privileged and those who are targets of discrimination.

Ethnicity refers to “primarily sociological or anthropological characteristics, suchas customs, religious practices, and language usage of a group of people with ashared ancestry or origin” (Quintana, 1998, p. 28). Ethnic groups remainidentifiable within the larger cultural environment for a variety of reasons, such astheir recent arrival, discrimination practiced by the larger society, by their ownchoice—or any combination of these. In addition to sharing common culturalroots, members of ethnic groups often have similar physical characteristics andoccupy the same socioeconomic status. Ethnicity, like race, implies a degree ofsocial isolation from the mainstream. People may choose to live in communitieswith families similar to themselves and discourage intermarriage or other forms ofoutside contacts (e.g., the Amish communities), they may be marginalized andexcluded from the dominant group (e.g., African Americans), or both of thesemay occur.

The status of ethnic groups shifts with changing social and politicalcircumstances. For example, early in the 20th century, Irish immigrants wereconsidered by the American “mainstream” to be a distinct and despised ethnicgroup. Now their descendants are fully assimilated (Quintana, 1998). In contrast,many (but definitely not all) Mexican Americans have continued to live inseparate communities and neighborhoods for several generations and are often thetarget of prejudice and discrimination. Some groups (e.g., Chinese Americans,Native Americans) are described in both racial and ethnic terms; others such asAfrican Americans are almost always referred to in terms of race (Phinney, 1996).

Virtually every person has been socialized by a culture and in many cases bymore than one. Cultures may be defined by many factors, such as national origin,gender, religion, occupation, geographic region, sexual orientation, generation,abilities or disabilities, and leisure activities. In the United States most peoplebelong to several cultural groups. The extent to which a person identifies with aparticular group is often a matter of individual preference and life history, and itfrequently shifts across contexts and with developmental and historical changes(Gollnick & Chinn, 1998). Each culture has a particular way of perceiving,evaluating, and behaving (Goodenough, 1976). It “imposes order and meaning onour experiences. It allows us to predict how others will behave in certainsituations” (Gollnick & Chinn, 1998, p. 4). All children, to varying degrees,absorb the values of their immediate culture(s). Even those who reject theirculture are reacting to the mores they learned. With the exception of somegroups (such as those defined by sexual orientation), cultural groups do notnecessarily experience the prejudice and social distance from the dominant groupthat many racial and ethnic groups do (Phinney, 1996).

In this volume we distinguish among race, ethnicity, and culture, as defined in thepreceding paragraphs. However, many authors use these terms differently and in

THE EVOLUTION OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 3

some cases interchangeably. When reviewing resources and materials, readersneed to ascertain how writers are defining and using these terms.

THE HISTORICAL, SOCIAL, AND POLITICALCONTEXT OF THE ROOTS OF

MULTICULTURALISM

The historical and current trends in multicultural education reflect the disparatehistories and status of racial, ethnic, and cultural groups in this country. Peoplehave entered the continent now called “North America” under a variety ofcircumstances. The most common theory (although alternative ones are currentlyemerging) is that the earliest human inhabitants migrated from Asia over an icemass (where the Bering Strait now exists) that connected Asia and the NorthAmerican continent during an ice age or another time when the sea receded.When people first migrated to the Americas is a topic of much debate (Banks,1991). As groups came, however, they settled in different locations all over NorthAmerica, and many continued to move into Central and South America.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, a series of European invasions decimated anddominated the native populations. Driven by a quest for gold and a desire to bringChristianity to the “New World,” the Spanish and Portuguese conquered muchof what we now call South and Central America, Mexico, Texas, and California.Beginning in the 17th century, waves of settlers from Northern and WesternEurope came to the eastern seacoast of North America. Often escapingpersecution and poverty, they came to settle and build better lives for themselves.However, their obsession for “conquering the wilderness” and their assumptionsof racial superiority wreaked havoc on the lives of the native people. Despitestrong resistance from many groups, the Europeans, armed with guns, took overthe ancestral lands of virtually all of the “Indian” (a misnomer that reflected thegeographical confusion of the earliest European explorers) Nations, destroyingtheir communities and livelihoods. Thus, from the 16th century onward, theinhabitants of all the countries in the Americas have been divided betweenconquerors and conquered.

Some groups came to live within the boundaries of the United States by force,rather than by choice. The Europeans brought enslaved people from Africa whoentered the United States in bondage, endured more than 200 years of slavery,and are still the targets of racially driven discrimination. As the United Statesexpanded, the Mexicans who lived north of the Rio Grande and in Californiabecame a conquered people. For some indigenous people, it was the second timethat they were so subjugated.

Immigrants from southeastern Europe who came in the late 19th and early 20thcenturies often encountered discrimination. However, they were able to fit intothe rapidly expanding industrial base of the economy and to some extent fulfillthe dreams of a better life that had led them to leave their home countries.Laborers from Asian countries, particularly China, were encouraged to immigratein order to provide cheap labor. However, unlike their European counterparts,


Asian workers were not allowed to bring in their wives and families and wereexpected to return to their homelands when their labor was no longer needed.

The history of each group is complex and fraught with hardships and losses (seeTakaki, 1993), but some groups have been able to attain a higher level ofacceptance and success in the dominant society than others. Throughintermarriage and educational and occupational achievement, White ethnics, whomay retain some symbolic ethnic identity, have become indistinguishable fromthe older northern European immigrants (Alba, 1990). The lines of assimilationand advantage follow a clear pattern; people who look most similar to the settlersfrom Northwestern Europe enjoy the benefits of a system of racial privilege,whereas those who look the most different are excluded and disadvantaged(Tatum, 1992). One compelling example is that during World War II, when theUnited States was at war with both Japan and Germany, large numbers ofJapanese Americans were put into concentration camps, but very few GermanAmericans were. According to Ogbu (1978), it is not only a person’s race, butalso the circumstances in which people came to be in this country that accountfor the patterns of disadvantage. He makes the distinction between voluntaryimmigrants and involuntary minorities.

Despite many hardships, voluntary immigrants willingly came to the UnitedStates for positive reasons and were free to create their own communities and todevelop resources to survive in their new country. Most voluntary immigrants(especially those from Europe) were able to gain the skills and education neededto become productive participants in the economic system. The first generationoften created communities of people from the same country (in some cases, eventhe same village) that provided support systems, a sense of continuity, and a bufferagainst the dislocation and discrimination that newcomers often experienced.Parents or other family members in these groups encouraged their children topursue their education and to get good jobs; after one or two generations, manyof these groups were assimilated into the dominant society.

The involuntary minorities were conquered (Native Americans, MexicanAmericans) or brought in as enslaved people (African Americans). They did nothave the freedom to create their own communities (in fact, Native Americancommunities were systematically destroyed, and African American families wereoften separated), to attend school, to find jobs, and to carve out a place in thedominant society. Despite many reform movements and legislative attempts toeliminate discrimination against these groups, they are still overly representedamong the poorly educated, unemployed, and marginalized (García Coll et al.,1996; Gibbs, Huang, & Associates, 1989).

Ogbu’s distinctions are very useful as an overview, but do not capture some ofthe subtle variations among the experiences of different groups. The critiques andlimitations of his categories will be discussed in chapter 2.


EDUCATIONAL RESPONSES TO DIVERSITY INTHE UNITED STATES

The contradictions, inequities, and conflicts that have characterized the social andpolitical responses to racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity have emerged ineducational responses as well. Like the politicians, educators have struggled withthe contradiction between the espoused principles of equality and the realities ofracial advantage and disadvantage. Reflecting the volatile sociopolitical context,they have also vacillated and disagreed about focusing on individuals versusfocusing on particular groups, about encouraging assimilation into the mainstreamversus maintaining group identities, and about protecting the status quo versuspressing for social change.

For most of the history of the United States, the dominant educationalideology has stressed individual achievement and success and has ignored thecultural, economic, and social contexts of the students. At the same time, thequality of schools and availability of educational resources have varied widely acrossgroups. Thus, despite the rhetoric of individual achievement and equalopportunities, schools have played vastly different roles in children’s and theirfamilies’ lives (e.g., the contrast between all-White and all-Black schools in theSouth before desegregation; between the boarding schools that attempted to stripNative American children of their culture and community and the elite boardingschools that prepared White European males to take their places as business andpolitical leaders).

Despite the ideals of equal educational opportunity that accompanied theirestablishment, public schools have generally reflected and maintained the statusquo, by ensuring that students are trained to assume their place in the social andeconomic hierarchy (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). Schools in middle-classcommunities prepare students to enter college and prestigious professions; those inpoor communities train students for menial work. At some periods and by somepeople, education has been seen as an instrument of social reform and eventransformation (e.g., the hope that desegregating schools would lead to a raciallyequalized and integrated society). However, at state and local levels, conservativeforces geared toward maintaining the status quo have usually (although notalways) prevailed.

The goals of educating children who are not part of the dominant group havereflected the conflicts between full assimilation and the maintenance of groupidentities, and between the principles of equality and the practices ofdiscrimination. These tensions have been expressed at a number of differentjunctures in the educational history of the United States. According to Tyack(1995), over the past century, educational strategies have included discriminatingagainst particular groups and relegating them to no or very poor schools; separatingchildren into classes to fit their perceived or actual needs (such as vocationaleducation); pressuring children and families to assimilate into the mainstreamsociety; desegregating schools to secure full educational rights for all children;ignoring differences (i.e., pretending that all children are alike, regardless of theirbackgrounds, which is often called the “color-blind” approach); compensating for


real or presumed lacks (as in programs such as Head Start for poor children);celebrating differences by honoring contributions of diverse groups; and preservingcultural and linguistic differences (through programs such as bilingual educationand use of Afrocentric curriculum).

Assimilation of White Ethnics from the 18th throughthe Early 20th Centuries

Immigrants have always faced the question of how much to assimilate into theirnew culture and how much to maintain their native cultures and languages.Likewise, host countries and communities vacillate between keeping immigrantsoutside of the mainstream and pushing them to fully assimilate.

In the United States the attitudes toward immigrants have varied across groupsand historical periods. During the 18th and 19th centuries, when most of theimmigrants were coming from Northern and Western Europe (Britain, Holland,Germany, and Scandinavia), linguistic diversity was tolerated in churches,newspapers, and public and private schools (Baker & Jones, 1998). During thistime, bilingual and native language education for White ethnics, particularlyGermans, flourished in many states (Rothstein, 1998). As the numbers ofimmigrants from Southern, Eastern, and Central Europe increased in the late 19thcentury, however, their predecessors from Northern and Western Europe beganto restrict immigration and to pressure all newcomers to assimilate into theirdefinition of the United States. German schools had been tolerated during the19th century, but during and after World War I, the German language wasperceived to be a “distinct menace to Americanism” (Cox, 1919, cited inRothstein, 1998), and native language programs were banned in many states. Insome locales, however, native language instruction continued (e.g., in Louisiana,English did not replace French as the required school language until 1950).

Starting in the late 1800s, concern about the “foreign” influence resulted inseveral declarations by the National Education Association, demandingcompulsory “Americanization” of the “new” (from Southeastern Europe)immigrants, who were seen as morally and intellectually inferior to the “old”immigrants (from Northwestern Europe). Not coincidentally, the Pledge ofAllegiance was written and circulated at this time (Tyack, 1995).

The assimilationist ideology assumed a more positive image in the myth of the“melting pot,” in which all cultures would be amalgamated to create the newAmerican. This term originated with Israel Zangwill’s play, performed onBroadway in 1909. One of the characters says:

America is God’s crucible, the great Melting Pot where all races of Europeare melting and reforming! Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I seethem at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty hatreds and rivalries, butyou won’t be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of Irishmen andEnglishmen, Jews and Russians—into the Crucible with you all! God ismaking the American…. The real American has not yet arrived. He is only


in the Crucible, I tell you—he will be the fusion of all races, the commonsuperman. (Zangwill, 1907, p. 37)

The underlying assumption was that all people, those from Northern and WesternEurope and those from other racial and ethnic groups, would mix and result in asuperior new American model. In reality, however, the new immigrants wereexpected to fit into the established Anglo American order. Moreover, as illustratedin the previous quotation, Latin Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans,and Native Americans were not and could not be part of the mix.

In the early 20th century, educational efforts to assimilate and “Americanize”immigrants varied from harsh programs that were designed to separate and evenalienate children from their parental cultures and languages, to more humanitarianefforts to support children and families as they made a gradual transition into theirnew society. Although this latter approach was more respectful of differences, it wasstill geared to assimilation (Tyack, 1995).

The pressure to assimilate became more intense when World War I “broughtto a boil nativist anxiety about ‘foreign colonies’ and…unassimilated aliens withinthe nation” (Tyack, p. 15). Cultural diversity was seen as a national crisis, andmany institutions, including schools, joined forces to eradicate adult immigrants’loyalties to national origins and to ensure that their children were patriotic to theUnited States (Tyack, 1995). Soon after World War I—in 1921 and 1924—lawslimiting immigration were passed.

In the 1920s and 1930s, the growth of totalitarian regimes in Europe and theirperceived threat to democracy gave rise to the next wave of pressure onAmericans to emphasize and glorify their common history, values, and traditionsand to renounce their ancestry in favor of values and behaviors of the dominantAnglo-Saxon group in the United States. In the face of some of the harshAmericanization policies in many schools, some writers in the 1920s espousedcultural pluralism and advocated honoring and preserving cultural traditions.Horace Kallen, a philosopher, argued that America’s pluralistic nature was itsattraction and strength. He denounced the Anglo conformity and the melting potideologies. He was convinced that Americans could live in several culturalenvironments, moving in and out freely from group to group. Pluralism wasfluid; it would not lead to the tribalization of society, but would provide unitythrough diversity (Kallen, 1924). However, like the melting pot ideology acouple of decades earlier, cultural pluralism at that time did not include AfricanAmericans, Asian Americans, Latinos, or Native Americans.

Kallen’s cultural pluralism did not become a dominant social and educationalideology in the 1920s. However, in the 1930s, after immigration had been slowedand restricted by the laws of 1921 and 1924, educators did not feel as pressured tostrip immigrant children of their cultures in order to “Americanize” them. Manythen adopted a culturally pluralistic approach that incorporated tolerance and evencelebration of cultural differences in the service of a more gradual and humaneassimilation (Tyack, 1995). Within this movement, however, an ideological splitdeveloped between preserving strong ethnic identities versus teaching children to


understand and appreciate other groups in order to reduce intergroup conflict. Thisdisagreement has echoed in many diversity movements throughout the 20thcentury and underlies many of the current controversies about multiculturaleducation.

The Quest for Racial Educational Equality and theIntergroup Education Movement (1930s–1960s)

African Americans were excluded from mainstream educational opportunities inthe late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, despite the complete lack ofsupport or acknowledgment from the dominant culture, a number of African

Figure 1.1 Assimilation Patterns through the Early 20th Century


American scholars have had a profound effect on the scholarship of AfricanAmerican studies and on multicultural education (Banks, 1996). Early AfricanAmerican writers such as W.E.B.DuBois (1896/1973, 1899/1973) and CarterWoodsen (1921, 1933, 1935) created a corpus of literature on the history ofAfrican Americans that uncovered and challenged many of the myths andmisinformation that prevailed in the White version of the history of the UnitedStates. Later these writings formed the base of the African American ethnicstudies movement and ultimately influenced the thinking of the early leaders ofthe multicultural education movement.

As discussed in the previous section, educational leaders in the early 20thcentury focused on the question of how to assimilate White ethnic groups andlargely ignored the educational plight of African Americans and other “caste-likeminorities” who were assumed to be nonassimilable into the mainstream ofsociety (Tyack, 1995). However, this exclusive view began to be challengedduring the 1930s and 1940s. First, during the Depression in the 1930s, WPAactivists became aware of the lack of schools for African Americans and othermarginalized groups and formed centers and institutes that provided them withsome training. Then, when World War II began, many African Americans couldnot serve in the armed forces because they had not completed the minimumeducational requirements, so the Army began a remedial literacy program (Tyack,1995).

At the end of World War II, the postwar euphoria and quest for a nationalsense of loyalty and belonging were marred by racial discord. Discontent fromcenturies of discrimination was transformed into a determination to effect changeby a new Black American sense of purpose brought about by the participation of“Negro” soldiers in the war. These Negro soldiers had fought to make the worldfree and safe for democracy and resisted being relegated to second-class statusupon their return to the United States. The rising expectations of the Negrosoldiers and their demands for equality gave rise to competition between Whitesand other racial groups for housing and employment. The NAACP was formedand began to press for more rights, including educational desegregation.

In the 1950s schools were called upon to provide equal education and toincrease interracial understanding; for the first time the inclusion and education ofAfrican Americans were on the national agenda. Brown v.Board of Education ofTopeka, Kansas, in 1954 most directly challenged discriminatory educationalpractices against Black Americans. It is considered the most pivotal event since the15th Amendment (1870), which granted all Americans the right to vote. TheCivil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race,color, and national origin in schools and places of employment that receivefederal funds, was the first major attempt of the federal government to establish anational policy that acknowledged the coexistence and rights of all groups insociety (Hiatt, 1981).

The growing racial tensions and the commitment of progressive educators tocreate integrated schools gave rise to the Intergroup Education Movement, anational project directed by Hilda Taba (1955) for elementary and secondary


schools. Its instructional activities included units on various ethnic groups,exhortation against prejudice, intergroup get-togethers, and the elimination ofbooks containing stereotyped images and text. The educational program wasbased on the assumption that factual knowledge about racial and ethnic groupswould lead to mutual intergroup respect and acceptance (Banks, 1981).

Figure 1.2 Quest for Racial Equality (1930s–1960s)

Although its program was used widely in urban schools for more than adecade, the Intergroup Education Movement failed to become broadlyinstitutionalized. Banks (1988, p. 9) posited six reasons why: First, mainstreamAmerican educators never internalized the ideology on which intergroupeducation was based. Second, they never understood how the IntergroupEducation Movement contributed to the major goals of American schools. Third,


most American educators saw intergroup education as a reform project for schoolsthat had open racial conflict and not for their “smoothly functioning” andnonproblematic (and monoracial) schools. Fourth, racial tension in the cities tookmore subtle forms in the 1950s, leading most American educators to believe thatthere was no longer any need to reduce racial conflict and problems. Fifth,intergroup education remained on the periphery of mainstream education andfaced discontinuance when the special funds that financed it ended. Sixth, theleaders of the Intergroup Education Movement never developed a well-articulated and coherent philosophical position that revealed how it wasconsistent with the major goals of American schools and with American values. Ina more recent analysis, Banks (1996) also points out that the Intergroup EducationMovement was started by White professionals who were responding to a nationalcrisis of escalating racial tensions. Because the leaders had no long-term ties toAfrican American and other oppressed communities, the movement faded whenthe sense of crisis faded and the leaders moved on to other educational endeavors.

Ethnic/Single-Group Studies and the Education of the“Culturally Different” Movements (1960s–1970s)

In the early 1960s, African Americans and other racial and ethnic groups began toassert their demands more forcefully for equality and their identities. The CivilRights Movement, with its sit-ins, demonstrations, and marches, highlighted theracial tensions between Blacks and Whites and the disparities betweeneconomically advantaged and disadvantaged citizens. Many groups refused tosuccumb to the myriad of local, federal, and state agencies that definedsocialization as acquiescence and deculturalization (Bernier & Davis, 1973). Withincreased awareness of inequities in employment, housing, and education,oppressed groups demanded an end to overt discrimination and segregation. TheAfrican American slogans of “Black Pride” and “Black Is Beautiful” were soonadapted by Native Americans and Hispanic Americans. Inspired by the works ofBetty Friedan (1983) and Simone De Beauvoir (1952), women (primarily Whiteand middle to upper middle class) also became aware of their limited educationaland employment opportunities and organized the Women’s Liberation Movementto push for change. The Immigration Act of 1965 removed many of the previousrestrictions and, in particular, opened the way for the immigration of largenumbers of families from Asian and Latin American countries. This change hashad a profound effect on the racial and ethnic composition of the United Statesand has fueled much of the interest in multicultural education.

The ethnic revitalization movement that arose from the influx of newimmigrants and the demands of marginalized groups already here resulted in thepassage of the Ethnic Heritage Studies Act in 1965. This act authorized schools toprovide all children with the opportunity to study racial and ethnic minoritygroups in the United States. Schools, colleges, and universities received monies todevelop and implement supplementary educational materials. Curricula wereadapted to reflect the cultural heritage and contributions of many previously


ignored groups (Banks, 1988, 1991). However, the material about racial andethnic groups was often simply appended to the existing curricula, rather thanchanging its underlying perspectives and assumptions. Moreover, much of theinformation was superficial, emphasizing the four F’s—Facts, Foods, FamousPeople, and Festivals (Boyer, 1985; Cole, 1986)—and avoided any directchallenges to the status quo.

In colleges and universities, administrators and faculty created courses andprograms (and rarely, departments) in African American studies, Asian Americanstudies, Latino/Hispanic Studies, Native American studies, and Women’s Studies.These efforts were designed to redress the acknowledged educational inequitiesand to respond to the demands of groups who were challenging higher educationto eliminate racism and sexism. These programs provided opportunities forscholars from different groups to study their own histories and culture and tochallenge the stereotypes and historical inaccuracies widely accepted in themainstream society. The earlier writings by African American scholars such asBethune in McCluskey & Smith (1999), DuBois (1896/1973, 1899/1973),Hurston (1978, 1979), and Woodsen (1921, 1922) were rediscovered and morewidely read (Banks, 1996). These programs were the sites of exciting scholarshipand social action and often served as havens for faculty and students of color whowere marginalized at predominately White institutions. However, they wereusually funded by soft money and therefore were vulnerable. Moreover, thesereforms did not change the overall structure and curriculum of the academy andhad little impact on the education of the White students and the institutions as awhole.

During the same period that ethnic/single-group studies (Sleeter & Grant, 1999)were appearing, educational programs espousing an opposite approach arose fromthe inauguration of the War on Poverty and Head Start. Most of these programswere developed on the premise that poor and minority children and young adultswere coming from “culturally deprived” homes and communities and neededspecial programs to compensate for the deficits in their backgrounds (e.g., Gray &Klaus, 1966; Greenberg, 1969). Federally funded community action projects(CAPs) gave communities the power to define and support these programs.However, the available resources were too limited to begin to reach—let alone,change—the roots of the problems they sought to eradicate. These communityefforts to develop programs to address the needs of specific groups of childrengave rise to programs described by Sleeter & Grant (1999) as teaching theexceptional and culturally different, which involves adapting existing curricula tomake them more accessible to a particular group of children, but not changingtheir fundamental orientation. In the early 1970s, theorists and practitioners beganto question the deficit orientation that underlay these efforts (Baratz & Baratz,1970; Valentine, 1971). Subsequent critics have pointed out that programs aimedtoward teaching the “culturally different” were based on faulty premises thatignored the dynamics of power and oppression related to cultural differences(Giroux & McLaren, 1994; Fennimore, 2000).


During the late 1960s and early 1970s, as schools and businesses were beingdesegregated, the ethnic/single-group studies approach began to lose some of itsappeal. It had been a strong educational movement, but it had its limitations,which were threefold (Foerster, 1982). First, it was perceived to be divisivebecause members of particular ethnic groups or other single groups often studiedtheir own cultural histories and contributions to the exclusion of those of othergroups. Second, it focused on the experiences of particular groups, but did notdeal with political and economic realities of racism and other forms ofdiscrimination. Third, it failed to directly challenge European Americanethnocentrism and superiority.

Figure 1.3 Ethnic and Women’s Studies Challenge the European American Perspective(1960s–1970s)


Despite its limitations, the ethnic/single-group studies movement did have asignificant impact on education, in that it served as a primary stage for developingawareness and appreciation for contributions of African Americans and other racialand ethnic groups, as well as of women, gays, and lesbians who had beenexcluded from the traditional monocultural educational programs and earlierversions of culturally pluralistic education. Ethnic/single-group studiesrepresented the first real attempt to provide students with a more realistic andrelevant curriculum of American society (Boyer, 1985; Foerster, 1982). Unlikeprograms specifically oriented toward ethnic/single-group studies, however,programs oriented toward teaching the culturally different and exceptionalpopulations (and the deficit views that often accompany them) have generallybeen longer-lived, and some continue in school settings to the present day.

Multicultural Education Movement (1970s–1980s)

During the middle of the 1970s, many groups, especially African Americans, werefinding that the promised full participation in mainstream American society stilleluded them. Desegregation efforts were getting bogged down in lengthy courtbattles, and children were spending hours riding school buses instead of gettinghigh quality education. Leaders of these groups demanded change and morecontrol of all institutions, including the schools that affected their lives and thoseof their children. They also denounced assimilation into White schools andinstitutions as both unattainable and undesirable.

In the face of this disillusionment, a number of authors revived the term culturalpluralism. Unlike the 1920s version that focused only on White ethnics, the newcultural pluralism explicitly focused on African Americans, Latino Americans,Asian Americans, and Native Americans. In 1971 the National Coalition forCultural Pluralism asserted that all cultural, racial, and ethnic groups in Americansociety have the right to mutually coexist and have the freedom to maintain theirown identities and lifestyles, while providing for their future existence within theconfines of the dominant culture (Stent, Hazard, & Rivlin, 1973).

Over this period several authors wrote extensively about pluralism as a socialand philosophical ideology (Banks, 1988; Baptiste, 1979; Itzkoff, 1970; Stent,Hazard, & Rivlin, 1973). One writer (Hunter, 1973) described American societyas a molecule—it has properties and characteristics unique to its substance, and itexists only as long as its atoms are working together to maintain its existence.Each of the atomic units preserves its own unique characteristics, but the largermolecular structure does not survive without its contributing atoms. Ramirez andCastaneda (1974) extended the concept of cultural pluralism and developed theirphilosophy of cultural democracy, which assumes that persons have legal, as wellas moral, rights to remain identified with their own ethnic group, values,language, home, and community, while they learn skills to function in the socialand economic mainstream.

During the middle and late 1970s and early 1980s, a number of prominentAfrican American scholars, many of whom had been influenced by the African


American scholarship developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Banks,1996), took the lead in defining and promoting multicultural education. Amongthem were James Banks, Carl Grant, Geneva Gay, Gwendolyn Baker, and JamesBoyer. They were soon joined by authors from a range of ethnic groups, includingPrentice Baptiste, Christine Bennett, Philip Chinn, Carlos Cortes, Y vonne DeGaetano, Louise Derman-Sparks, Ricardo Garcia, Donna Gollnick, HildaHernandez, Frances Kendall, Nathan Little Soldier, Sonia Nieto, Valerie OokaPang, Patricia Ramsey, Running-Grass, Christine Sleeter, Edwina Vold, DinahVolk, Leslie Williams, and Stacy York.

The implementation of this new concept of pluralism took the form ofmulticultural education. It was neither an “add on” curriculum nor compensatory

Figure 1.4 Multicultural Education (1970s–mid-1980s)


in design. Its purpose was to sensitize all individuals toward ethnic and racialdifferences and to increase individual awareness of cultural traditions andexperiences. Another goal was to help all individuals understand that their ownrace and culture, including language and socialization experiences, had value andcould and should exist on an equal basis with mainstream American values andexperiences. Cultural pluralism or cultural democracy was the unifying element inmulticultural education and was evident in the philosophical statements ofschools, colleges, and universities, although implementation tended to lag farbehind such statements. Grant’s (1978) description of the process of implementinga multicultural education program reflects the following goals of cultural pluralismor cultural democracy:

1. Staffing patterns and compositions throughout the organizational hierarchyreflect the pluralistic nature of American society.

2. Curricula are appropriate, flexible, unbiased, and incorporate thecontributions of all cultural groups.

3. The different languages of cultural groups are seen as assets, not deficiencies.4. Instructional materials are free of bias, omissions, and stereotypes; are

inclusive, rather than supplementary; and show individuals from differentcultural groups portraying different occupational and social roles (p. 47).

The basic document from which the definitions of multicultural education in theUnited States evolved in the 1970s and 1980s was the “No One ModelAmerican” statement adopted in 1972 by the American Association of Collegesfor Teacher Education (AACTE). It states that multicultural education:

values cultural pluralism. It rejects the view that schools should seek to meltaway cultural differences or the view that schools should tolerate culturalpluralism. Instead, multicultural education affirms that schools should beoriented toward the cultural enrichment of all children and youth throughprograms rooted to the preservation and extensions of cultural alternatives….Multicultural education recognizes cultural diversity as a fact of life inAmerican society, and it affirms that this cultural diversity is a valuableresource that should be preserved and extended…. Multicultural educationreaches beyond awareness and understanding of cultural differences. Moreimportant than the acceptance and support of these differences is therecognition of cultural differences and an effective education program thatmakes cultural equality real and meaningful. (AACTE, 1973, p. 264)

Multicultural education was included in the National Council for theAccreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards as early as 1977. Thisdocument defined multicultural education as “a process of preparing individualsfor the social, political and economic realities that they will experience inculturally diverse and complex human encounters. Through this process, the


individual develops competencies for perceiving, believing, evaluating, andbehaving in different cultural settings and becomes more responsive to theconditions of all humans, the cultural integrity of the individual and the diversityof the society” (p. 14). This definition of multicultural education has been used formore than two decades by all colleges and universities offering teacher educationprograms that are evaluated and accredited by NCATE. How the definitions andcriteria related to multicultural NCATE standards have evolved since 1977 isdiscussed in chapter 4 of this book.

Many variations of the previous definition and associated terms have surfacedsince the AACTE statement “No One Model American.” In the 1970s and 1980sthe following terms were commonly used: multicultural education, ethnic studies,multicultural studies, multiracial education, and education that is multicultural. Theirdefinitions overlapped in some cases, but diverged in others.

Multicultural education was and is the most frequently used term in the UnitedStates (e.g., AACTE, 1973; Baker, 1979; Banks, 1988, 1991, 1999; Banks &Banks, 1995; Gollnick & Chinn, 1998; Gold, Grant & Rivlin, 1977; NCATE,1977/2000; and Ramsey, 1987/1998). The authors who have used this termsupport Baptiste and Baptiste’s definition (1980) of multicultural education as thetransference of the recognition of a pluralistic society into a system of education.At its most sophisticated level, it exists as a product, a process, and a philosophicalorientation guiding all who are involved in the educational enterprise.

Multicultural studies has been used in the literature on multicultural education.Although James Boyer (1985) uses the term multicultural studies, he gives equalattention, as does Baptiste, to content and process as essential elements that mustbe drawn from the historical and sociological heritage of various ethnic groups.This approach addresses the similarities, as well as the differences, within theframework of equal respect for these traits. Its purpose is to fill the void created bythe long exclusion of cultural, racial, and ethnic minority groups.

Multiethnic education is probably the second most widely used term in theliterature, next to multicultural education. Two of the most widely read advocates ofmultiethnic studies are James Banks and Geneva Gay. Banks (1999) describesmultiethnic studies as an educational process concerned with modifying the totaleducational environment to reflect the ethnic diversity of American society and toensure equal educational opportunity for all.

Multiracial education has been used by educators who find the term multiculturaleducation limiting and prefer to emphasize the institutionalized racism thatcharacterizes our society (Katz, 1982; Sarap, 1986). They point out that byfocusing on cultures, multicultural education avoids the confrontations, anger, andguilt inherent in issues of racism and injustice. Multiracial education highlightsdiscrimination, power differences, and access to resources that profoundly affectthe lives of children and families who are marginalized.

Education that is multicultural is a creation of Carl Grant (1978), an early advocateof the multicultural perspective. Grant rejected the term multicultural educationbecause he felt that multicultural as an adjective limited its meaning and suggestedthat it was an educational specialty, as opposed to the totality of one’s education.


Education that is multicultural supports cultural diversity and individualdifferences, and it permeates the total curriculum and school environment.

In a later publication Sleeter and Grant (1987) expanded the term and conceptof education that is multicultural to include social reconstructionism. The change in thephrase underscored the emphasis on social action to challenge existing structuralinequities. This approach places more emphasis on helping students gain a betterunderstanding of oppression and inequality and ways in which social problems canbe eliminated (Suzuki, 1984). The Anti-Bias Curriculum, written by LouiseDerman-Sparks and associates and published in 1989, was one of the earliestexamples of how the social reconstructionist approach can be applied in theclassroom. This book was—and still is—very widely used in early childhoodclassrooms and is reflected in the National Association for the Education ofYoung Children (NAEYC) Accreditation standards.

Figure 1.5 Multicultural Education Mid-1980s–2000s. Social Reconstructionismand Critical Pedagogy Resisting Social and Economic Oppressions


Sleeter and Grant articulated the differences in approaches and the politicalmessages that the approaches embody in 1987 and more fully developed them intheir book Turning on Learning (Grant & Sleeter) in 1989. Their typology ofmulticultural education included the categories of teaching the culturally different,human relations (intergroup studies), single-group studies (ethnic studies), multiculturaleducation, and education that is multicultural and social reconstructionist. The typology wasfurther updated in 1994 and 1999 (Sleeter & Grant, 1994/1999). These terms andapproaches are discussed in more detail in chapter 3.

As the field of multicultural education was developing, an equally powerful andsignificant evolution was also taking place in bilingual education. Although thisvolume does not focus on that area, readers need to be aware of the distinctionsand similarities between multicultural and bilingual education, as well as the waysin which the two movements have intersected and diverged.

Bilingual Education

Bilingual education has had a separate, but at some points a similar, history to theantecedents of multicultural education. Like multicultural education, it has alsodrawn controversy (Brisk, 1998). Baker and Jones (1998) and Ovando (1999)describe the following four periods in the history of bilingual education, assummarized in this section.

In the Permissive Period (1700s–1800s) when most of the immigrants were fromNorthern and Western Europe, linguistic diversity was tolerated or simplyignored. Native language schools, churches, newspapers, and social institutionswere established in a number of states. There were public schools that taught inGerman in the Atlantic states, Midwest, and Oregon; in Swedish, Norwegian, andDanish in the Midwest; Dutch in Michigan; Czech in Texas; Spanish in theSouth-west. The autonomy of local school boards, the remoteness of many ruralschool districts, and the need to compete against private ethnic schools all played arole in the acceptance, or at least tolerance, of bilingual and native languagepublic schooling during this early period.

The Restrictive Period (1880s–1950s) began when the composition ofimmigrants shifted from Northern and Western Europeans to Southern, Eastern,and Central Europeans. Increasing fear of foreign languages and influences led tothe Nationality Act (1906), which made speaking English a requirement for U.S.citizenship. By 1923, 34 states had passed English-only instruction laws, whichusually meant that non-English speakers were placed in classrooms where onlyEnglish was used and were expected to “sink-or-swim.” Family members wereoften told not to speak their native languages at home, as this would interferewith the children’s acquisition of English (Rodriguez, 1981). This approach hasbeen called the “submersion approach.” During the first half of the 20th century,the pressure to “Americanize” immigrants was spurred on by the two WorldWars, which exacerbated distrust of foreign influences and roused a patrioticconformity, as described earlier in this chapter.


The Opportunistic Period (1950s–1980s) began when the inadequacies in U.S.foreign language instruction became evident during and after World War II.Ironically, during this time, resources were poured into foreign languageinstruction, whereas children who already spoke other languages were forced togive them up and learn English. During the 1960s, however, this attitude beganto change with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and with the 1965Immigration Act, which allowed large numbers of Asians and Latin Americans toenter the United States. Interest in bilingual education was particularly strongamong exiled Cubans who had fled Castro’s regime but fully intended to returnto Cuba and, therefore, wanted their children to learn Spanish as well as English.In 1968 the Bilingual Education Act was passed; for the first time in Americaneducational history the federal government affirmed the value of students’ homecultures and languages and enabled them to start learning other subjects in theirnative languages before becoming proficient in English. In 1972, Title VII of theElementary and Secondary Education Act provided grants for bilingual educationprograms, along with Title IX of the Ethnic Heritage Studies Act, whichexplicitly advocated the study of minority cultures by all students.

The policies on bilingual education received much of their impetus from theresearch of Ramirez and Castaneda (1974) that demonstrated how language andcognitive styles influence children’s learning. In 1974 the Lau v.Nichols courtdecision affirmed that children who spoke Chinese had the right to use theirnative language as an educational tool to gain equal access to education andeconomic success. This decision was expanded in 1980 to include all childrenwhose native language was other than English. The 1975 Lau Remedies specifiedthat bilingual education should be implemented in all districts with at least 20limited English proficient (LEP) students of the same language background andthat programs should both teach English and support the continued developmentof the children’s native language. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, manybilingual programs were developed. They varied greatly in terms of how muchnon-English instruction was included, whether or not students were encouragedto maintain their first language, and whether or not monolingual English speakerswere included (i.e., two-way bilingual programs). Despite the federal support ofbilingual education during this time, it was controversial and had many detractors(see Crawford, 1999).

With the election of President Reagan and the Republican Congress in 1980and the general shift toward more conservative values, bilingual education enteredthe Dismissive Period (1980s–Present). Riding a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment,political activists in Washington and in many states and communities advocated fora return to the submersion or sink-or-swim methods of teaching English andrapid assimilation of immigrants into the mainstream language culture (seeCrawford, 1999, for a detailed description). The debate of how long childrenshould remain in bilingual classes became more vociferous and in 1998culminated in the passage of Proposition 227 in California, which stipulated thatEnglish (not native languages) should be the primary language of instruction,regardless of students’ English proficiency levels. The Clinton administration


prevented the complete decimation of bilingual education, but propositionssimilar to 227 are currently being considered or proposed in a number of states.Despite compelling research demonstrating that students do benefit from bilingualeducation, particularly late-exit programs designed to maintain the first language,as well as teach English (e.g., Brisk, 1998; Crawford, 1999; Cummins 1996;Thomas & Collier, 1996), the public attacks continue. They are often based onbiased or misinformed assumptions about the purpose of bilingual education andthe processes of second language acquisition. Ignoring the many factors thatcontribute to school failure, such as frequent moves and poverty, critics ofbilingual education have blamed it for the high rate of school failure of LEPstudents, even though most of them have not been enrolled in bilingualprograms.

Although multicultural education and bilingual education share some commonroots and viewpoints, they developed separately and rarely were seen ascomplementary until recently. Multicultural education grew out of the CivilRights Movement and the failures of desegregation. Bilingual education, on theother hand, rose out of the needs of increasing numbers of immigrants after 1965.In some communities the new arrivals and people who had been marginalized forgenerations had to compete for jobs and housing, creating tensions betweengroups allied with bilingual education and those favoring multicultural education.Moreover, the goals of the two movements were incompatible in some respects.Multicultural education was oriented to bringing together people from differentgroups, whereas bilingual education often meant keeping specific language groupsseparated from the mainstream and from other racial and ethnic minorities. In themid-1980s and early 1990s, however, authors began to make the connectionbetween the two (e.g., Nieto, 1992; Ramsey, 1987; Williams, De Gaetano,Harrington, & Sutherland, 1985), and bilingual programs began to be seen asrelated to and, in some cases, integral to multicultural education.

Multicultural Education in the 1990s and 2000s

During the 1990s the demographics of the United States shifted, and, for the firsttime, a third of the students enrolled in schools in the United States came fromgroups defined as “ethnic and racial minorities” (NCES, 1993). As the schoolpopulations have become more diverse, teachers and administrators have found thattheir former ways of operating do not work any more. Thus, many practitionerswho may not have been interested in multicultural education in the 1970s and1980s started coming to multicultural workshops and courses and searching forresources to help them adapt their teaching to the changing populations and issuesin their communities (Sleeter, 1996). Although many practitioners confrontingthese challenges initially are more interested in the teaching the culturally differentapproach, their experiences often push them to adopt a more critical stance (e.g.,Alvarado, Derman-Sparks, and Ramsey, 1999). The needs and interests of manypractitioners have fueled the surge of multicultural books and materials, whichwill be discussed in chapter 3.


From the late 1980s through the turn of the century, multicultural educationhas undergone several changes. In Multicultural Research: A Reflective Engagementwith Race, Class, Gender and Sexual Orientation (Grant, 1999), a number ofprominent scholars in the field write about their own research and the evolutionof their thinking about multicultural education. The stories are fascinating andprovide an excellent “window” on the diversity of ideas and experiences that ledpeople to multicultural education and have influenced its recent development. Asillustrated by Grant’s book, there are too many new ideas, critiques, anddirections to include all of them in this chapter. However, the following trendsappear to be most profoundly influencing the shape of multicultural education atthe beginning of the 21st century.

The scope of multicultural education has broadened since the 1970s. First, asmulticultural theorists analyzed the power dynamics and interactions of race andclass, they soon began either implicitly or explicitly to include a focus on socialclass and economic discrimination. Second, with the rise of the feministmovement, writers began to see that gender too was a source of powerdifferentiation that cut across race, culture, and class and it, too, became part ofthe conversation. Third, as described earlier in this chapter, issues related tobilingual education were incorporated starting in the late 1980s. Fourth,multiculturalists started to address the educational and occupationalmarginalization of people with special needs and explore how it intersected withother oppressions. With changing legislation, culminating with the passage of theIndividuals with Disabilities Educational Act in 1990, more children withdisabilities were “included” in regular classrooms. As teachers struggled with thechallenges of creating truly inclusive classrooms, these concerns were woven intoa number of multicultural curricula during the 1990s. Most recently, gay, lesbian,bisexual, and transsexual activists and their allies have drawn attention to thehomophobia that pervades our society and is often expressed in violence. Thiscircumstance has underscored and supported the introduction of sexualorientation as a theme in multicultural education. As discussed in more detail inchapters 2 and 3, the addition of sexual orientation to the topics addressed bymulticultural education has been a source of considerable contention both withinand outside of the field.

Some writers (e.g., Gay, 1983) earlier expressed concern about expanding thescope of multicultural education, because it might diffuse the original purpose ofmulticultural education and distract students and teachers from the intransigentracism that still permeates our society. Indeed, as one critic asked, “If we couldnot get it right when we were focusing only on race and culture, how are wegoing to get it right when we are focusing on all these other factors?” (Vold,2002). However, others have argued persuasively (e.g., McCarthy, 1995; Sleeter& McLaren, 1995a) that race and ethnicity need to be considered in the contextof social class, gender, and disabilities, because all of these dimensions interact inindividuals’ lives, and oppressions are linked. Cornel West makes a compellingcase for “forging bonds of trust between various communities of resistance”(Editors of Harvard Educational Review, 1996, p. 362) and, in particular, for


including gay and lesbian activists. As West and other authors have pointed out,true social justice requires the elimination of all biases and inequities; as long asone group is the target of discrimination, then others are vulnerable. Change willnot occur unless all groups join forces to demand equity for everyone. Theconvergence and interplay among these factors are discussed in more detail inchapter 2.

Other writers (e.g., Ramsey, 1998; Running-Grass, 1994) have furtherexpanded the definition of multiculturalism by making the connection betweenthe exploitation of people and the destruction of the natural environment,especially the link between environmental degradation and poverty (e.g., theconcentration of highly polluting factories and destructive agricultural practices inpoor communities and countries). For example, 36.7% of African Americanchildren in the United States show evidence of low-level lead exposure, whileonly 6.1% of European American children do (Jackson, 1999). The discrepanciesin political power between affluent White towns and poor communities of colorare glaringly evident in the fact that three out of the five largest hazardous wastefacilities in the United States are located in African American and LatinoAmerican communities (Fruchter, 1999). Moreover, in areas inhabited byWhites, the Environmental Protection Agency levies fines for hazardous wastethat are 500% higher than the penalties charged for the same violations incommunities of color (Fruchter, 1999). These discrepancies mean that toxicsubstances that directly affect children’s development (e.g., lead) are morecommon in impoverished communities, posing yet another risk factor for poorchildren.

Related to the connections between multicultural education andenvironmental degradation are growing concerns about how competitiveconsumption (e.g., the media-inspired competition to have the latest clothes,fanciest cars, etc.) affects interpersonal and intergroup relationships (e.g., Giroux,1999; Ramsey, 1998; West, 1993). Children grow up craving more and morecommercial products, and they are learning to evaluate themselves and others bytheir ownership of various products, a preoccupation that contradicts efforts topromote interpersonal intergroup acceptance and respect. To effectively engagestudents in critical thinking and in developing respectful interpersonal andintergroup connections, teachers need to help students critique and resist the lureof consumerism.

It is important to note that at least one movement has gone in the reversedirection from the expansion of the multicultural perspective. Afrocentrism,inspired by the writings of Molefi Asante (1987), pulls multiculturalism towardthe focus on single groups and their issues. The Afrocentric Movement grew outof the disillusionment that many African Americans felt as the earlier promises ofthe Civil Rights Movement and multicultural education failed to materialize(Sleeter & McLaren, 1995a). The continued high rates of failure of AfricanAmerican students in Eurocentric schools gave rise to a desire to createAfrocentric education—programs based on African traditions, epistemologies, anddiscourse. Several Afrocentric schools were started to serve African American


children—in some cases, only boys (e.g., Murrell, 1992). This movement iscontroversial because it raises concerns about separatism, exclusion, andresegregated school systems. However, some reports (Murrell, 1992) show thatstudents have a high rate of success in these programs and argue that for somechildren, Afrocentrism is the best way to instill positive identities and desire toachieve. Some writers (e.g., Nieto, 1999; West, 1993) who are sympathetic to themotivation and rationale for Afrocentric education raise the question of whetherAfrocentrism is not simply replacing the Eurocentric dogma with another one.Others point out that it does not represent the lived experience of AfricanAmerican youth (Perry, 1993). For example, hooks (1995) critiques the patriarchalvalues reflected in some Afrocentric writings and curricula. She also questions theutopian images of an African paradise of Black kings and queens that “erase theexperiences of servants and slaves in the interest of presenting contemporary blackfolks with superheroic models of black subjectivity…[and] deflect attention awayfrom the need to transform the existing society” (hooks, 1995, pp. 243–244).

Multicultural education also has been profoundly changed by the explicitincorporation of critical pedagogy, teaching that is aimed at students recognizinginjustices, taking a stand, and actively challenging inequities. Inspired by the LatinAmerican liberation movements and in particular by the work of Paulo Freire(1970), critical pedagogy gained some acceptance among progressive educators inthe United States during the 1980s (Sleeter & McLaren, 1995a). From thebeginning, multicultural education had a critical stance and a liberatory potential(Apple, 1977; Gay, 1983). However, many of the multicultural programs andguides published in the 1970s and 1980s focused on celebrating superficialcultural differences (e.g., foods, costumes, and dances) and fostering intergroupconnections, while glossing over or completely ignoring the inequities of powerand economics that defined people’s lives. One critic described these commonmulticultural practices as a “tourist curriculum” (Derman-Sparks et al., 1989).Sleeter and Grant (1987) asserted that ignoring the inequities undercut the maingoal of multiculturalism, which is to create a more equitable society.

Two edited volumes that were published in the early 1990s, EmpowermentThrough Multicultural Education (Sleeter, 1991) and Multicultural Education, Crit icalPedagogy and the Politics of Difference (Sleeter & McLaren, 1995b), contain manyessays that demonstrate the link between multicultural education and criticalpedagogy and how they mutually enhance each other. Many of those authors andothers maintain that multicultural teaching is a political act and that to teachauthentically from this perspective, teachers need to participate in larger socialjustice movements. In 1992 Sonia Nieto first published Affirming Diversity (latereditions, 1996 and 2000a), which placed critical pedagogy at the center ofmulticultural teaching and provided many examples of how critical multiculturaleducation can be implemented in schools. Writing from a critical multiculturalperspective, authors (e.g., Giroux, 2000; McLaren, 2000) have continued toarticulate the differences among conservative, liberal, and insurgent or criticalmulticulturalism. They assert that in order to have a profound effect on the livesof all people, multiculturalism must be seen as a political and liberatory


movement that is centered on the complexities and conflicts inherent in allpeople’s experiences and identities, but as especially salient in those of people whohave been oppressed. Moreover, its ultimate aim must be to liberate people fromthe bonds of oppression in its many subtle and overt forms by challenging theforces and structures that maintain these inequities.

The emphasis on critical pedagogy has been accompanied by a renewed focuson activism, reflecting the early roots of multicultural education in the Civil RightsMovement. In her book Multicultural Education as Social Activism, Christine Sleeter(1996) points out the limitations of seeing multicultural education only as therapyfor the psychological diseases of racism, sexism, stereotypes, and low self-esteem.She also argues that multicultural education is not simply teaching techniques oran academic discourse. She proposes that multicultural educators need to learn toshare their power and join social movements that are organized by localcommunity leaders. In particular, Sleeter advocates that teachers work as allieswith children’s families and other members of their communities in order topressure schools to serve the children better, to advocate for their communities inthe broader political realm, and to teach their students to think and act politicallyand to advocate for themselves and other marginalized people.

In a symposium at the American Educational Research Association (April2000), Christine Sleeter asserted that what ultimately defines criticalmulticulturalism is “how power is represented, how systems and structures ofdomination are discussed (or not), [and] how collective identities are negotiated”(p. 1). This derivation is based on the premises of a critical theory of history,economics, and politics (Giroux & McLaren, 1994; Sleeter & McLaren, 1995b)that places inequities in distribution of the world’s resources at the heart of humanimpulses toward exclusion and inclusion. Thus, the central issue in this system ofthought concerns the uses and abuses of power through social constructions suchas social class, racial divisions, and gender politics.

Speaking on the same panel at AERA 2000, Sonia Nieto (2000b) extended thediscussion to consider critical pedagogy as systematic and conscious questioning ofthe structures that govern society and suggested six important contributions ofcritical pedagogy to the education of children and youth: (1) It affirms students’cultures, without trivializing them (focusing on deeper dynamics of cultures,rather than on surface characteristics); (2) it challenges hegemonic knowledge(such as metanarratives created by dominant groups to explain or describe theexperience of oppressed peoples); (3) it complicates pedagogy (so there no longercan be seen only one right way to teach); (4) it challenges the simplistic focus ofsome forms of multicultural education on self-esteem (as the operative factor inbreaking bonds of oppression); (5) it encourages “dangerous discourses” that nameand challenge inequities; and (6) it recognizes that multicultural education alonecannot overcome the powerful influences that are causing society to beincreasingly stratified and individuals to be increasingly alienated. Criticalpedagogy moves against a tendency to essentialize different groups of people, toassume that all members of a group are the same in characteristics or experience.


A third trend in multicultural education appearing in the late 1990s is a push toexamine the identities and assumptions of White people. Because multiculturaleducation began in response to educational inequities experienced by AfricanAmericans and other marginalized groups, educators initially focused on makingclassrooms more responsive to the needs and interests of children of color andthose who were new to this country. After conducting many workshops, teachingeducation courses, and running inservice institutes, many writers began to see thatone of the major obstacles to implementing multicultural education was overt andcovert White resistance (e.g., Sleeter, 1992). Well-meaning White teachers wereunable to see and critique their own assumptions and privilege. Their tacit andunconscious acceptance of the status quo prevented them from trulyunderstanding and embracing multicultural perspectives and goals. Spearheadedby Peggy McIntosh (1995), White authors (e.g., Howard, 1999; Sleeter, 1994)have examined how White people exercise their unearned privileges and howthey develop and maintain assumptions that the White way is universallysuperior. Janet Helms (1990) has developed a theory about the racial identitydevelopment of Whites that is discussed in more detail in chapter 2.

A fourth trend has been the development of a body of literature that reviewsand synthesizes the many different theoretical frameworks, research initiatives, andpractices that comprise multicultural education. In 1995 James and Cherry Bankspublished the Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education. This comprehensivevolume includes chapters by many of the prominent scholars in multiculturaleducation and offers excellent resources on a number of topics related to the historyand changing context of multicultural education, the educational experiences ofdifferent racial and ethnic groups, multicultural approaches in schools and inhigher education, and international perspectives on multicultural education. Thepublication of this volume was pivotal because, for first time, many of the issues,nuances, and different interpretations of multicultural education and therelationships among them appeared in the same work and could be reviewed inconjunction with each other.

From the appearance of that work through the beginning of the 21st century,research in the field has continued in three directions, (1) empirical investigationsof program presence, implementation, and effects, including exploration of issuesof student and teacher access and achievement; (2) empirical and interpretiveinvestigations of the beliefs and conceptions of teachers and teacher educatorsregarding multicultural educational aims and practices; and (3) development oftheory in the areas of identity, critical pedagogy, and several variations of post-modern thought, including feminist and reconstructionist interpretations. Specificexamples of this work are discussed in chapter 3 and 4.

CONTROVERSIES AND CRITICISMS

The multicultural education movement has been the target of criticism from boththe left and the right since its inception in the early 1970s (e.g., Bullivant, 1986;Glazier, 1983; Ivie, 1979; Sarap, 1986). Attempts to gain full acceptance have


been hampered by confusion and debate over the meaning of multiculturaleducation, its philosophical basis, and its viability as a process for bringing aboutequity in society. According to Banks (1986), this confusion and debate should beexpected. He states:

[Because] multicultural education…deals with highly controversial andpoliticized issues such as racism and inequality [it] is likely to be harshlycriticized during its formative stages because it deals with serious problemsin society and appears to many individuals and groups to challengeestablished institutions, norms and values. It is also likely to evoke strongemotions, feelings and highly polarized opinions. As it searches for its raisond’être, there [are] bound to be suspicions and criticisms. (P. 222)

Analyses of the criticisms and controversies that prevailed in the 1990s can befound in reviews by Nieto (1995) and Sleeter (1995). The following section is abrief reprise of their main points. Multicultural education has been criticized fromboth the right and the left, leading one of the authors of this book to coin theterm frontlash and backlash. First, we will consider criticisms that have beenarticulated by the conservatives on the right end of the political spectrum andthen those by the progressives on the left end.

Conservatives have been vitriolic in their criticisms of multicultural education.Unlike the writings of the multicultural theorists that have been directed towardan academic audience, those of conservative critics (e.g., Bloom, 1987; D’Souza,1991; Hirsch, 1987; Schlesinger, 1992), who represent the views of groups whohave power and prestige, have often been directed toward the popular press,including trade books, and have had exposure in widely disseminated magazinessuch as Time and Newsweek. Therefore, they have had a big impact on how thegeneral public defines multicultural education, even though most of theconservative critics have responded to only selected aspects—often the mostextreme or questionable practices—of multicultural education (Nieto, 1995;Sleeter, 1995). Their criticisms fall into three broad categories: the divisive natureof multicultural education, its glorification of nonmainstream cultures, and itsfocus on groups instead of on individuals (Nieto, 1995). These are discussed inmore detail further on.

Many critics (e.g., Ravitch, 1990a, 1990b; Schlesinger, 1992) have warned thatfocusing on the cultures, values, and histories of particular ethnic and racialgroups, instead of on the European intellectual roots that they see as the core ofAmerican intellectual life, will create a spirit of divisiveness leading to separate andsegregated groups that will be pitted against one another and will destroy anysense of shared national unity. In making this argument, they focus onAfrocentrism and other separatist movements within multicultural education.Some conservatives (e.g., Ravitch, 1990b) advocate a pluralistic multiculturalcurriculum that includes the experiences and histories of many groups in thiscountry, but leaves unchallenged the inequities and oppression that exist. Othercritics express concern that valuing all cultures will lead to an excessive cultural


relativism where there are no universal principles (Bloom, 1987) and that civilsociety will deteriorate into moral anarchy.

Ethnic Cheerleading has been a term used by critics who feel that multiculturaleducation sentimentalizes and glorifies cultures outside of the mainstreamEuropean American and European canon. Writers (e.g., Bloom, 1987; Hirsch,1987) dismiss much of the scholarship of women’s studies and ethnic studies asshoddy and biased and claim that rigorous scholarship is being destroyed by theonslaught of politically motivated writings. Conservative writers often describemulticultural educators as “extremists” and “thought police” and use other sinisterterms (see Sleeter, 1995) to undermine the credibility of multicultural educationand to stir up public outrage. Olneck (2000) attributes these criticisms to aconservative effort to retain control of the cultural capital, the hierarchy ofcultural values, in schools and the country. He analyzes several conservativeeducational reform movements and shows how they are geared toward codifyingcultural capital and keeping it in the hands of the dominant class.

The criticism that multicultural education focuses too much on groups andignores individual differences rests on the conservative belief that all individuals inthe United States have an equal chance to succeed in schools and in their jobs andthat their level of success depends solely on individual effort and talents.Conservatives dismiss multiculturalists’ arguments that racism, sexism, andeconomic disadvantage impede access and progress. They point to individualsuccess stories as proof that anyone who wants to and who works hard can “makeit.” Conservatives posit that the underachievement of “minority” students can beameliorated by rigorous courses and assessments that will ensure that they havethe skills to achieve in the real world. Minority students are not well served,conservatives claim, by a multicultural curriculum that focuses on students’ racialidentity and pride and their distant cultural roots at the expense of basic skills.

Members of fundamentalist religions have articulated slightly different criticismsof multicultural education, but also have echoed the arguments of the politicalconservatives. The Christian religious right has taken particular issue with themulticultural position that affirms world religions, because it poses a threat to theconservative Christian tradition that they see as fundamental to the integrity ofthe United States. They also deplore the inclusion of nontraditional lifestyles andthe explicit acceptance of homosexuality as undermining the moral fiber of thecountry. Many Hasidic Jews and fundamentalist Muslims in America viewmulticulturalism as a challenge to their desire to live their lives in separate butequal communities. Some writers on the religious right also see multiculturalismas an elite perspective of college and university liberals who are unfamiliar andeven callous toward the well-being of working-class and poor people, many ofwhom belong to a variety of fundamentalist churches.

It should be made clear at this point, however, that strong, fundamentalallegiance to one’s religion does not necessarily imply rejection of multiculturalprinciples and practices. Some of the strongest voices in the multiculturalmovement are persons with deep commitment to fundamental religious beliefsand who regard their multicultural work as an enactment of their religious ethic.


Sleeter (1995) points out that many of the conservative attacks on multiculturaleducation are based on highly publicized events and writings and are taken out ofcontext. By and large, most conservative critics do not make any reference toestablished multicultural theorists and researchers such as James Banks, GenevaGay, Carl Grant, and Sonia Nieto, but instead refer to the extreme positions (e.g.,the anti-Semitism and separatism advocated by some Afrocentric scholars andactivists) that are not representative of the multicultural movement. In theirassurances that equal opportunity and success will come to those who work hard,conservatives fail to acknowledge the growing inequality that frames many people’slives in the United States, as jobs go overseas and wealth becomes more and moreconsolidated in the hands of a few.

Sleeter also points out that conservatives assume that their point of view ispolitically neutral, in contrast to that of “politically motivated” multiculturalism.They are unable or unwilling to see that all educational philosophies and curriculaembody political values. Sleeter advocates that multiculturalists learn how to do abetter job of “selling” multicultural education to the public and to be sure thatthey keep their focus on the big and important issues, without getting sidetrackedinto defending the extreme positions that the conservatives portray as mainstreammulticultural education.

Nieto (1995) notes that many teachers, even those who are sympathetic to thegoals of multicultural education, echo the conservative criticism that multiculturalprograms fail to address issues of educational rigor, accountability, and equity. Sheurges that multicultural educators address these criticisms by focusing on raisingthe achievement level of all students and ensuring that all students learn the skillsnecessary to succeed in the larger society. Olneck (2000) echoes these sentiments:“Multiculturalists have to publicly identify their enterprise with standards andacademic excellence…. They must also insist on inclusion in the statemechanisms formulating and implementing those efforts [to improve the quality ofeducation]” (p. 337).

Critics from the left have taken multicultural education to task for being toosoft and avoiding the hard issues, such as exploitation, oppression, and structuralinequalities in the system (Giroux, 1992; Mattai, 1992; McCarthy, 1990a, 1990b;McLaren, 1997; Olneck, 1990). As mentioned before, many of the practicalapplications of multicultural education have focused on superficial culturaldifferences and have avoided issues such as power and economic inequities. Withtheir traditional emphasis on social class analysis, writers on the left have viewedthe focus on race and culture as diversions from the real issues of economic powerand control. They argue that many programs practice cultural pluralism, yet leavehierarchical and discriminatory structures and practices unchallenged and avoiddivisive subjects such as racism and social class differences.

Another criticism is that the potential of multicultural education to transformschools and teaching has not been tapped. Critics (e.g., Nieto, 1995) point outthat the status quo and “White studies” have remained intact, with a few addedmulticultural activities such as multicultural potluck dinners or a few weeks spentstudying “other” cultures. In a similar vein, skeptics (e.g., Popkewitz, 1988) fault


multicultural education for seeking psychological solutions (e.g., adaptingcurriculum to different learning styles, reducing individual prejudice) to complexand entrenched social, political, and economic problems. They feel that theseefforts only deflect attention from the root of the real problem of deep structuralinequalities.

Still others (e.g., JanMohamed & Loyd, 1987) argue that multiculturaleducation is assimilationist because it still expects people of color to conform to acommon culture, even though that culture embraces multiculturalism. Theypoint out that many of the proposed activities in these programs trivialize anddecontextualize cultural traditions and values and perpetuate, rather thanchallenge, stereotypes.

The emphasis in multicultural education on encouraging multiple perspectiveshas concerned some authors (e.g., Nieto, 1995), who fear that all points of view,even those hostile to the main intent of multicultural education (such as thosethat assert that the Holocaust is a myth), might be given equal and noncriticalweight. Uncritical acceptance of all points of view may rob the movement of itsmoral center and critical analysis.

The use of terms such as race and culture has been criticized by some writers (e.g.,Heath, 1995), because these “essentialize” specific groups, reduce individuals’multifaceted lives and personalities to a single attribute, and assume all membersof a particular group are the same. Moreover, organizing children in terms of raceand culture potentially leads to stereotyping and ignores the current reality thatmany people have mixed racial and cultural heritages and live in and identify withdiverse communities (Heath, 1995). Thus, they have multiple identities that needto be recognized (see chapter 2 for more on this).

Sleeter (1995) points out that like the conservative critics, many of theprogressive critics rest their case on inaccurate and selective reading ofmulticultural theorists and researchers. In many cases, critics ignore large bodies ofresearch by people central to the field and base their arguments on materials thatare not representative. For example, Diane Ravitch’s version of multiculturaleducation (1990a, 1990b), which is criticized as assimilationist and conservative bymulticulturalists, is used by the left to support its argument that multiculturaleducation is just another assimilationist program. Some critics have based theirarguments on those of the British antiracist critiques of the British multiculturaleducation movement, inaccurately assuming that the movements in the twocountries are identical.

Sleeter also notes that many of the critics on the left are White males whodiscount the writings of scholars of color who have developed the field ofmulticultural education. She makes the point that White male scholars, because oftheir racial privilege, are more able to advance arguments about structuralinequalities in the society than are scholars of color, who often occupy moremarginal and tenuous academic positions. Moreover, multiculturalists arecommitted to working with teachers and administrators who have a wide rangeof political beliefs—even in a single school. To engage this population,multiculturalists need to use more measured and conciliatory language than the


radical left might use in colleges and universities. However, all that being said,Sleeter suggests that multicultural education strengthen its analysis of racism,social class and capitalism, and the patriarchal system. Both Nieto and Sleeteradvocate that in addressing these criticisms, critical pedagogy must be madecentral to the multicultural endeavor and that structural inequalities form the baseof the content of what is taught.

Another controversy in the field centers around what constitutes convincingand sound research on multicultural education, a discussion paralleling disputesabout research in education in general. Advocates of quantitative research methodshave favored surveys to produce statistics in such areas as the number of highereducational institutions in a state or region that have incorporated multiculturalelements or perspectives into their teacher education programs (e.g., Vold &Pattniak, 1998) or experimental or quasi-experimental designs that are intended toassess the effects of particular multicultural interventions through administrationof pre- and postmeasures (e.g., Aboud, 1993). Such work has drawn onparadigms of knowledge that underlie the social sciences of sociology andexperimental psychology, with their assumption of linear cause-and-effectrelationships among variables. Although these methods can provide an overviewof patterns of implementation and effects, they cannot capture the complexity ofinteractions in real-life situations such as classrooms (Graue & Walsh, 1998).

A number of multicultural educational researchers have utilized qualitativeresearch methods originating in anthropology, clinical psychology, and other fieldsof study. Using participant interviews and extensive observations in naturalisticsettings, they create narrative portraits or case studies that illustrate transactionalrelationships among a variety of complex factors in the implementation ofprograms or outcomes for children, teachers, or both (e.g., Alvarado et al., 1999;Delgado-Gaitan, 1990; Levine, 1993; and Marsh, 1992). These studies providecompelling stories of struggles by individuals and by groups. However, as criticsof qualitative work point out, they cannot be generalized to other situations orreplicated (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1996).

As research agendas have evolved, many educational researchers, includingmulticulturalists, are being increasingly attracted to seeing these two apparentlycontradictory research methodologies as endpoints on a continuum, with effectiveinquiry proceeding at a wide variety of points on that span. They argue that thefullest picture of the phenomena under investigation comes from the use ofmultiple means (Graue & Walsh, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). It appears likelythat future research in multicultural education will reflect these multiple modalities.

The controversies around multicultural education in the United States reflectour nation’s particular history of invasion and immigration. Other countries havedistinctive patterns in the origination and use of multicultural education inrelation to their own histories and changing populations. Review of the evolutionand trends in those countries is instructive in understanding multiculturalism asmore than a North American phenomenon. As will be seen in the next section, itis increasingly a global concern.


MULTICULTURALISM IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Examination of trends in multicultural education in other countries, such as theUnited Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, Russia, and Japan, reveals theefforts of educators in those countries to respond to various forms of diversity inschools and to develop cultural pluralism as a social ideology. Although societalchanges toward cultural pluralism and concurrent educational changes towardmulticultural education have come from different histories and are occurring intime frames different from those in the United States, the sequences throughwhich educational practices and policies are passing do seem to have someparallels worth noting.

The move toward multicultural education in other countries generally appearsto have begun with recognition of changing demographics in the populations ofcountries where immigration has been a prominent feature (such as Australia andthe United Kingdom); where there is a recent history of catastrophic conflict,long-standing religious divisions, a history of xenophobia, or some combination ofthese (as in Japan, the United Kingdom and Ireland, Russia, and Germany); orwhere old divisions of language and culture are tied to the balance of power andcontrol of resources (as in Canada) (Allan & Hill, 1995; Dmitriyev, 1999;Figueroa, 1995; Friessen, 1993; Hoff, 1995; Moodley, 1995; Shoji, 1991).Tensions arising from these circumstances have often led to compensatoryeducational programs, an emphasis on intergroup education or human relationstraining, a move to a period of ethnic awareness, or any combination of these.

In the United Kingdom, for example, the demise of the British Empire afterWorld War II brought to Britain’s shores large numbers of formerly colonizedpeople of color who were fleeing the destabilized settings of their countries oforigin, seeking better economic or educational opportunities for their families, orboth. Figueroa (1995) describes this change in the United Kingdom’s populationand cites numerous studies documenting a rise in overt racism1 from the 1950sthrough the early 1990s. Assimilationist and acculturationist educational trends ofthe 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s (teaching the culturally different approaches that wereaimed at improving academic performance) began giving way in the late 1970s tothe need for all people to recognize and acknowledge the diversity of cultures inBritain (Schools Council, 1981). “Cultures,” however, were still primarilydescribed in racial terms, and the interventions designed were of the intergrouprelations variety, aimed at defusing racial tensions and reducing the incidence ofrace riots, which were becoming increasingly common (Figueroa, 1995).

In contrast, in Japan massive immigration and its resulting tensions have notbeen dominant motifs. The events of the Second World War, and especially theincalculable devastation of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, led somegroups of Japanese educators to develop peace education programs founded onprinciples of intergroup relations and conflict resolution (Shoji, 1991).Recognizing that such dispositions must be instilled in children at a very youngage, some works such as Shoji’s are directed toward parents. However, advocatesalso argue that peace education should be continued throughout the children’sformal schooling. The key goals are acceptance of personal and group


responsibility for aggressive actions against others, facing squarely and truthfullythe horrors of war, and teaching “more about the world,” about humanity andessential similarities, as well as the differences, of people in other countries (Shoji,1991, p. 60). Although ethnic differences among Japanese do exist (particularly inreference to a large Korean-Japanese population), they have not beensystematically addressed in the small body of multicultural educational literaturepresently found in Japan. There is, however, increasing attention being paid tothe characteristics of “returnee children,” who have lived abroad and thenreturned to Japan with some changes in their cultural repertoires (Mori, 1999).

In Canada, still another pattern led to educational programs that emphasizedintergroup relations and ethnic identity study. The primary motivating factorswere the historic conflict between English- and French-speaking citizens, therecognition of the rights of the “First Nations” (indigenous peoples), and thecontinuous stream of immigration that has shaped the country since themid-1800s (Moodley, 1995). In Canada, addressing the complexities ofmulticulturalism and bilingualism (some would say, multilingualism) has been tiedto the evolution of Canadian identity and Canada’s political systems and crises,such as the threatened secession of the province of Quebec (Friessen, 1993;Moodley, 1995). Reduction of tension through intergroup relations programs(including bilingual language opportunities in some Canadian provinces) andcultural maintenance through ethnic studies were the first lines of defense againstpossible disintegration of the Canadian union (Friessen, 1993; Moodley, 1995;Samuda, 1986).

In several of the countries surveyed, this period of emphasis on compensatoryeducation, intergroup relations, ethnic studies, or any combination of these wasfollowed by more inclusive educational movements, identified by such terms asinterculturalism or intercultural education, as in Canada and Germany (Friessen, 1993;Hoff, 1995; Moodley, 1995; Samuda, 1986); multicultural education, as in Australiaand the United Kingdom (Allan & Hill, 1995; Foster & Stockley, 1984; Figueroa,1995; Modgil, Verma, Mallick, & Modgil, 1986); or multiculturalism in Canada,Australia, and Russia (Allan & Hill, 1995; Dmitriyev, 1999; Hoff, 1995; Lee,1983; Moodley, 1995; Samuda, 1986). These efforts, like the parallel movementsin the United States, emphasized the celebration and acknowledgment of humansimilarities and differences in culture as the “normal human experience”(Goodenough, 1976, p. 4). The work was aimed at all children in the educationalsystem, not only at those who were “culturally different,” on the premise thatactive recognition of one’s own culture and that of others leads to more humaneinteractions between individuals and groups and a movement from tolerance toacceptance and mutual respect. Thus the work was intended to move beyond thegoals of the earlier programs into the realm of transformation of the self.

In Australia, for instance, where there had been a strong resistance by WhiteAustralians to the changing demographics of the country, programs had aimed atthe assimilation of immigrants to Western European (and, specifically, Britishorigination) standards. In 1972, however, these standards gave way rapidly to amulticultural education approach (Allan & Hill, 1995). The approach included


ethnic studies and intergroup relations (or promotion of “interethnic harmony”),as well as “community languages” and bilingual programs. However, it alsoemphasized the infusion of broad multicultural perspectives throughout thecurriculum to promote enhanced self-concepts and “an awareness of thecontribution which people of many different cultural backgrounds have made andare making to Australia” (New South Wales Department of Education, 1983, p. 4).It was expected that through these processes, the old vision of a “White Australia”would be eclipsed.

Germany has had an even more entrenched history to transform, as it hasworked to reinvent itself from the profound racism and anti-Semitism graphicallyexpressed during the Second World War and the daunting challenges ofreunifying the East and West Germanys into a single nation (Hoff, 1995). Seeingitself as a monocultural society has made facing its centuries-old xenophobiadifficult. Despite these resistances, a multicultural educational movement arosefrom the mid-1970s through the 1980s. It was motivated by a perceived need forreestablishment or reinforcement of cultural identity for “guest workers”2 and thefew immigrants who actually make it through the exceedingly narrow door ofGerman naturalization, as well as for the ethnic Germans who prior to WorldWar II lived in various parts of Eastern Europe. Although the first decade of themovement was clearly compensatory and assimilationist, with a strong Germanlanguage emphasis that aimed at social adjustment of the “culturally different,”more recent work has focused on recognizing and honoring the cultural pluralismthat actually exists in Germany today, in spite of the insistence of many Germanson Germany’s being a nonimmigration, monocultural nation.

Thus, the initial impetus for multicultural educational reform in a spectrum ofcountries, as occurred in the United States, seems to have been the politicalneeds, first, to reduce hostility toward people designated as minorities, migrants, orimmigrants, and, second, to enable them to succeed within the existing schoolsystems. In some countries, such as Australia and Germany, schools initiallyresponded with programs designed to silence racial and ethnic voices that raisedan unwelcome vision of a culturally diverse society. At the same time, theyattempted to increase the academic success rate of children from various racial andethnic groups that differed from the country’s “mainstream” (Allan & Hill, 1995;Hoff, 1995). In some cases, such as in Canada and Germany (Hoff, 1995;Moodley, 1995), the issue of language and the use of bilingual or second languageapproaches stimulated the emergence of multiculturalism (Hoff, 1995; Moodley,1995; Samuda, 1986). This latter circumstance calls attention to the politicaldimensions of the historically separate but parallel development of bilingual andmulticultural education in the United States.

During the 1980s and 1990s, however, discouragement with a lack of clearprogress toward improving educational and employment prospects for children onthe margins of the mainstream society led some educators in the countries thatwere surveyed toward a more radical, social reconstructionist position. In theUnited Kingdom, for instance, moderate multiculturalism was challenged as earlyas the 1970s by an antiracist educational movement that was clearly


reconstructionist in intent (Figueroa, 1995). This movement was reproduced inAustralia a decade later (Allan & Hill, 1995). In Germany, strong conservativeresistance to the characterization of Germany as culturally diverse sparked a pulltoward a radical multicultural (reconstructionist) educational approach (Hoff,1995).

In the 1990s and early 2000s, an even stronger impetus for educationalintervention was located in the escalation of conflicts surrounding long-standingreligious divisions and the powerful belief systems associated with them (as inNorthern Ireland, the Balkan countries, the Middle East, and the Philippines).Although this was not a new phenomenon (religion having been at the heart ofmany cultural confrontations across the centuries), its renewal and ferocityrefocused many multiculturalists on the connections between such conflicts,histories of economic and political exploitation, and the distribution of resources.Such realizations have strengthened the interest of some multicultural theorists inacademic circles across the world in social reconstructionist approaches to the field(AERA Symposium Audience Participation, 2002). As is seen in succeedingchapters of this source book, however, that interest may be widening rather thannarrowing gaps between theory and practice.

As in the United States, in other countries both the right and the left havecritiqued multicultural movements. Progressive shifts have given rise toconservative reactions. For example, in Australia support for multiculturaleducation was formally withdrawn in 1986 (Allan & Hill, 1995). In some placesthe ultraconservative resistance has been violent. In Germany, racially motivatedattacks escalated sharply in the mid-1990s (Hoff, 1995). At the same time, thepersistence of racism and social injustices (in such areas as access to educationalopportunities and culturally valid educational assessment) and inequitabledistribution of economic resources (as political changes favor affluent segments ofsociety over those at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale) have moved theagenda in some countries (such as the United Kingdom and Germany) towardmore progressive definitions of multiculturalism. These more progressive visionsof appropriate educational programs are aggressively oppositional or “anti” inapproach (as in “antiracist” or “antisexist”). However, as in the United States, arenewed conservatism in education is presently reducing activity in themulticultural arena. Due to economic downturns in a number of countries,governments are withdrawing their financial support of multicultural programsand renewing the goals of assimilation as a strategy for training needed workers toshore up faltering economies. It remains to be seen which of these two forces—progressivism or conservatism—will become the dominant motif in futuremulticultural efforts.

SUMMARY

Multicultural education began in the early 1970s in the United States, but itsroots extend back to the earliest invasion of European settlers. As our society haschanged demographically and politically, educational theorists and practitioners


have struggled to meet multiple and often contradictory needs and pressures.During the past hundred years, many educational reform movements have comeand gone, and each one has left a legacy. Multicultural education, with its broadgoals of respect and equity for all people, has been able to absorb the best of earliermovements and to change to accommodate new facets and forces of political andsocial change.

The current forms of multicultural education in the United States began with agoal of appreciating racial and cultural differences and recognizing similarities.Over the past 3 decades, it has broadened its scope to respond to an increasedawareness of the connections among many layers and strands of discriminationand exclusion in this country. It has also shifted from focusing on helpingindividuals and groups to “get along” to a more hard-hitting critical analysis ofthe structural inequalities that inevitably create disparities and foment animosityamong groups. In a sense, the movement has gone from a naive faith thateducation alone and improved intergroup relationships could resolve broader anddeeper social and economic inequities, to an understanding that more definitiveaction is needed to reshape and eliminate entrenched patterns of exclusion andoppression. As the movement has matured, theorists and practitioners have cometo realize that the social, political, and economic contexts that gave rise to themulticultural movement must themselves be changed, and that multiculturaleducators must become activists in those efforts.

Multicultural education in several other countries has followed a similar courseto that experienced in the United States, although differences in histories andcultural composition have created variations in progress that may yield usefulinsights to thoughtful observers. One of those insights is recognition of what maypossibly be a worldwide trend toward renewed educational conservatism at thebeginning of the 21st century. Multiculturalists will need to take such tendenciesinto account in their continuing work, to develop new strategies to meet thatcircumstance.

The following chapters describe in more detail how social, political, andeconomic contexts influence children’s lives and their understanding of diversity(chapter 2); the myriad curricula and programs that have been developed to meetthe goals of multicultural education in its many forms (chapter 3); and the ways inwhich teacher educators are trying to prepare the next generations of teachers toteach from a multicultural perspective and to deal effectively with the complicatedand conflicted demands of teaching children in this context (chapter 4). The finalchapter describes some of the current political and social issues and trends thatwill challenge or enhance the continued development and implementation ofmulticultural education. Finally, we share a vision of the future of multiculturaleducation and what it could accomplish at this moment in time.


Notes

1 . Although race is not the only form of diversity manifesting itself in Britain, it hasbeen the salient dimension affecting policies aimed toward social justice over thepast 50 years in that country (Figueroa, 1995).

2 . “Guest workers” are migrants from other countries, who are supposed to reside onlytemporarily in Germany while doing particular work.

REFERENCES

AACTE (American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education). (1973). No one modelAmerican: A statement on multicultural education. Journal of Teacher Education, 24,264.

Aboud, F.E. (1993). A fifth grade program to reduce prejudice. In K.A.McLeod (Ed.),Multicultural education: The state of the art (pp. 20–27). Toronto, Canada: University ofToronto Press.

AERA (American Educational Research Association) Symposium Audience Participation.(2002). Audience participation in an interactive symposium entitled Navigating thetides and currents of multicultural education: A conceptual map for analyzing the divergentperspectives and trends of the field presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans.

Alba, R.D. (1990). Ethnic identity: The transformation of White America. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Allan, R., & Hill, B. (1995). Multicultural education in Australia: Historical developmentand current status. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research onmulticultural education (pp. 763–777). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Alvarado, C., Derman-Sparks, L., & Ramsey, P.G. (1999). In our own way: How anti-biaswork shapes our lives. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf.

Apple, M.W. (1977). Justice as a curricular concern. In C.A.Grant (Ed.), Multiculturaleducation: Commitment, issues, and applications. Washington, DC: ASCD.

Asante, M.K. (1987). The Afrocentric idea. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Baker, C., & Jones, S.P. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education.

Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Baker, G.C. (1979). Policy issues in multicultural education in the United States. Journal of

Negro Education, 48(3), 253–266.Banks, J.A. (1981). Education in the 80’s: Multiethnic education. Washington, DC: NEA.Banks, J.A. (1986). Multicultural education and its critics: Britain and the United States. In

S.Modgil, G.Verma, K.Mallick, & C.Modgil (Eds.) Multicultural education: Theinterminable debate (pp. 221–231). London, UK: Falmer.

Banks, J.A. (1988). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Banks, J.A. (1991). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Banks, J.A. (1996). The African American roots of multicultural education. In J.A.Banks

(Ed.). Multicultural education: Transformative knowledge and action (pp. 30–45). NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.


Banks, J.A. (1999). Introduction to multicultural education (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.

Banks, J.A., & Banks, C.A. M. (Eds.) (1995). Handbook of research on multicultural education.New York: Macmillan.

Baptiste, H.P. (1979). Multicultural education: A synopsis. Washington, DC: University Pressof America.

Baptiste, M.L., & Baptiste, H.P.(1980). Competencies toward multiculturalism. In H.P.Baptiste & M.L.Baptiste (Eds.), Multicultural teacher education: Preparing educa tors toprovide educational equity (pp. 44–72). Washington, DC: American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education.

Baratz, S.S., & Baratz, J.C. (1970). Early childhood intervention: The social science base ofinstitutional racism. Harvard Educational Review, 40(1), 29–50.

Bernier, N.R., & Davis, R.H. (1973). Synergy: A model for implementing multiculturaleducation. Journal of Teacher Education, 24(4), 266–271.

Bloom, A.C. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the

contradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books.Boyer, J.B. (1985). Multicultural education: Product or process? Kansas City, KS: Kansas Urban

Education Center.Bullivant, B. (1986). Towards radical multiculturalism. In S.Modgil, G.Verma, K.Mallick,

& C.Modgil (Eds.), Multicultural education: The interminable debate (pp. 33–47).London, UK: Falmer.

Cole, M. (1986). Teaching and learning about racism: A critique of multiculturaleducation in Britain. In S.Modgil, G.Verma, K.Mallick, & C.Modgil (Eds.),Multicultural education: The interminable debate (pp. 123–147). London, UK: Falmer.

Crawford, J. (1999). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice (4th ed.). LosAngeles, CA: Bilingual Education Services.

Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society.Ontario, CA: California Association of Bilingual Education.

De Beauvoir, S. (1952). The second sex. New York, NY: Vintage.Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children’s education.

New York, NY: Falmer.Derman-Sparks, L., & A.B.C.Task Force. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools for empowering

young children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of YoungChildren.

Dmitriyev, G.D. (1999). Multicultural education. Moscow, Russia: Teachers’ ProfessionalLibrary.

D’Souza, D. (1991). Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex on campus. New York, NY:Free Press.

DuBois, W.E. B. (1973). The Philadelphia negro: A social study. Milkwood, NY:KrausThompson. (Original work published 1899.)

DuBois, W.E. B. (1973). The suppression of the African slave trade to the United States ofAmerica 1638–1870. Milkwood, NY: Kraus-Thompson. (Original work published1896.)

Editors of Harvard Educational Review. (1996). Cornel West on Heterosexism andTransformation: An Interview. Harvard Educational Review, 66(2), 356–367.

Fennimore, B.S. (2000). Talk matters: Refocusing the language of public schooling. New York,NY: Teachers College Press.


Figueroa, P. (1995). Multicultural education in the United Kingdom: Historicaldevelopment and current status. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.) Handbook ofresearch on multicultural education (pp. 778–800). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Foerster, L. (1982). Moving from ethnic studies to multicultural education. The UrbanReview, 14, 121–126.

Foster, L., & Stockley, D. (1984). Multiculturalism: The changing Australian paradigm.Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury.Friedan, B. (1983). The feminine mystique. New York, NY: Norton.Friessen, J.W. (1993). The politics of multiculturalism in the United States and Canada.

Multicultural Education Journal, 11(1), 2–8.Fruchter, J. (1999). Linking social justice concerns with environmental issues. ZPG

Recorder (Special Issue on Kid-Friendly Cities), 31(4), 10–11.García Coll, C., Lamberty, C., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H.P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B.H., &

Vazquez Garcia, H. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmentalcompetencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891–1914.

Gay, G. (1983). Multiethnic education: Historical developments and future prospects. PhiDelta Kappan, 64, 560–563.

Gibbs, J.T., Huang, L.N., & Associates. (1989). Children of color: Psychological interventionswith minority youths. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Giroux, H.A. (1992). Post-colonial ruptures and democratic possibilities: Multiculturalismas anti-racist pedagogy. Critical Critique, 21, 5–40.

Giroux, H.A. (1999). The mouse that roared: Disney and the end of innocence. Lanham, MD:Rowman & Littlefield.

Giroux, H.A., & McLaren, P. (1994). Between borders: Pedagogy and the politics of culturalstudies. New York, NY: Routledge.

Glazier, N. (1983). Ethnicity and education: Some hard questions. Phi Delta Kappan, 64,386–389.

Gold, M.J., Grant, C.A., & Rivlin, H. (Eds.). (1977). In praise of diversity: A resource book formulticultural education. Washington, DC: Association of Teacher Educators.

Gollnick, D.M., & Chinn, P.C. (1998). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (5th ed.).Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Goodenough, W.H. (1976). Multiculturalism as the normal human experience.Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 7(4), 4–7.

Goodwin, W.L., & Goodwin, L.D. (1996). Understanding quantitative and qualitative researchin early childhood education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Grant, C.A. (1978). Education that is multicultural—Isn’t that what we mean? Journal ofTeacher Education, 29(1), 45–49.

Grant, C.A. (Ed.). (1999). Multicultural research: A reflective engagement with race, class, gender,and sexual orientation. London, UK: Falmer.

Grant, C.A., & Sleeter, C.E. (1989). Turning on learning: Five approaches for multiculturalteaching plans for race, class, gender, and disability. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Graue, M.E., & Walsh, D. (1998) Studying children in context: Theories, methods, and ethics.London, UK: Sage.

Gray, S.W., & Klaus, R.A. (1966). Before first grade: The early training project for culturallydisadvantaged children. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Greenberg, P. (1969). The devil has slippery shoes: A biased biography of the Child DevelopmentGroup of Mississippi. New York, NY: Macmillan.


Heath, S.B. (1995). Race, ethnicity, and the defiance of categories. In W.D.Hawley &A.W.Jackson (Eds.), Toward a common destiny: Improving race and ethnic relations inAmerica (pp. 39–70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Helms, J. (1990). Black and white racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. West-port, CT:Greenwood.

Hernstein, R.J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in Americanlife. New York, NY: Free Press.

Hiatt, D. (1981). The law of minorities in the United States from 1620 to 1980. InW.Sims & B.B.de Martinez (Eds.), Perspectives in Multicultural Education (pp. 17–51).New York, NY: University Press of America.

Hirsch, E.D., Jr. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. New York,NY: Houghton-Mifflin.

Hoff, G.R. (1995). Multicultural education in Germany: Historical development andcurrent status. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multiculturaleducation (pp. 821–838). New York, NY: Macmillan.

hooks, b. (1995). Killing rage: Ending racism. New York, NY: Henry Holt.Howard, G. (1999). We cannot teach what we do not know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.Hunter, W.A. (1973). Cultural pluralism: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Journal of Teacher Education, 24(4), 262.Hurston, Z.N. (1978, 1979). Their eyes were watching God: A novel. Urbana: University of

Illinois Press.Ivie, S.D. (1979). Multicultural education: Boon or boondoggle? Journal of Teacher

Education, 30(1), 23–25.Itzkoff, S.W. (1970). Cultural pluralism and American education. Scranton, PA: International

Textbook.Jackson, J.F. (1999). What are the real risk factors for African American children? Phi Delta

Kappan, 81(4), 308–312.JanMohamed, A., & Loyd, D. (1987). Introduction: Toward a theory of minority

discourse. Cultural Critique, 6, 5–12.Kallen, H. (1924). Culture and democracy in the United States. New York, NY: Boni and

Liveright.Katz, P.A. (1982). Development of children’s racial awareness and intergroup attitudes. In

L.G.Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education (pp. 17–54). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

Lee, M.K. (1983). Multiculturalism: Educational perspectives for the 1980’s. Education,103, 405–409.

Levine, L. (1993). “Who says?” Learning to value diversity in school. In F.Pignatelli &S.W.Pflaum (Eds.), Celebrating diverse voices: Progressive education and equity. (pp. 87–111). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.

Marsh, M.M. (1992). Implementing antibias curriculum in the kindergarten classroom. InS.Kessler & B.B.Swadener (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum:Beginning the dialogue (pp. 267–288). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Mattai, P.R. (1992). Rethinking multicultural education: Has it lost its focus or is it beingmisused? Journal of Negro Education, 61(1), 65–77.

McCarthy, C. (1990a). Race and curriculum. London, UK: Falmer.McCarthy, C. (1990b). Race and education in the United States: The multicultural

solution. Interchange, 21(3), 45–55.


McCarthy, C. (1995). The problem with origins: Race and the contrapuntal nature of theeducational experience. In C.E.Sleeter & P.L.McLaren (Eds.), Multicultural educa tion,critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference (pp. 245–268). Albany: State University ofNew York Press.

McClusky, A.T., & Smith, E.M. (Eds.). (1999). Mary McLeod Bethune: Building a betterworld: Essays and selected documents. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

McIntosh, P. (1995). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming tosee correspondences through work in women’s studies. In M.L.Anderson &P.H.Collins (Eds.), Race, class, and gender: An anthology (pp. 76–87). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary multiculturalism: Pedagogies of dissent for the new millennium.Boulder, CO: Westview.

Modgil, S., Verma, G., Mallick, K., & Modgil, C. (Eds.). (1986). Multicultural education:The interminable debate. London, UK: Falmer.

Moodley, K.A. (1995). Multicultural education in Canada: Historical development and currentstatus. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multiculturaleducation (pp. 801–820). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Mori, M. (1999). The views of Japanese yochien (kindergarten) teachers on diversity,multicultural education, and the influences of foreign and returnee children: Towardexpanding the horizon of multicultural education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Teachers College, Columbia University.

Murrell, P. (1992). Afrocentric immersion: Academic and personal development of AfricanAmerican males in public schools. In T.Perry & J.W.Fraser (Eds.) Freedom’s plow:Teaching in the multicultural classroom (pp. 231–259). New York, NY: Routledge.

NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education). (1977). Standards forthe accreditation of teacher education. Washington, DC: Author.

NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education). (2000). NCATE2000 standards revision. Electronic Address: http://www.ncate.org/specfoc/2000stds.pdf.

NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics). (1993). America’s teachers: Profiles of aprofession. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement.

New South Wales Department of Education. (1983). Multicultural education policy statement.Sydney, Australia: Government Printer.

Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. WhitePlains, NY: Longman.

Nieto, S. (1995). From brown heroes and holidays to assimilationist agendas:Reconsidering the critiques of multicultural education. In C.E.Sleeter & P.L.McLaren(Eds.), Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference (pp. 191–220).Albany: State University of New York Press.

Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (2nd ed).White Plains, NY: Longman.

Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York,NY: Teachers College Press.

Nieto, S. (2000a). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (3rded.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Nieto, S. (2000b). Critical multiculturalism and student voices. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.


No one model American: A statement on multicultural education. (1973). Journal ofTeacher Education, 24, 264.

Norton, N.E.L. (2002). Unpublished poem offered as part of a panelist response in aninteractive symposium entitled Navigating the Tides and Currents of MulticulturalEducation: A Conceptual Map for Analyzing the Divergent Perspectives and Trends of theField presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans.

Ogbu, J.U. (1978). Minority education and caste. New York, NY: Academic Press.Olneck, M. (1990). Symbolism and ideology in intercultural and multicultural education.

American Journal of Education, 98(2), 147–174.Olneck, M. (2000). Can multicultural education change what counts as cultural capital?

American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 317–348.Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1986). Racial formation in the United States. New York, NY:

Routledge & Kegan Paul.Ovando, C.J. (1999). Bilingual education in the United States: Historical development and current

issues. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Perry, I. (1993). “I am still thirsty”: A theorization on the authority and cultural locationof Afrocentrism. In T.Perry & J.W.Fraser (Eds.), Freedom’s plow: Teaching in themulticultural classroom (pp. 261–270). New York, NY: Routledge.

Phinney, J.S. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean?American Psychologist, 51, 916–927.

Popkewitz, T.P. (1988). Culture, pedagogy, and power: Issues in the production of valuesand colonialization. Journal of Education, 170(2), 77–90.

Quintana, S.M. (1998). Children’s developmental understanding of ethnicity and race.Applied and Preventive Psychology, 7, 27–45.

Ramirez, M., & Castaneda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognitive development andeducation. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Ramsey, P.G. (1987). Young children’s thinking about ethnic differences. In J.Phinney &M.Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialization: Pluralism and development (pp. 56–72). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ramsey, P.G. (1987). Teaching and learning in a diverse world: Multicultural education for youngchildren. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ramsey, P.G. (1998). Teaching and learning in a diverse world: Multicultural education for youngchildren (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ravitch, D. (1990a). Diversity and democracy: Multicultural education in America.American Educator, 14(1), 16–20, 46–68.

Ravitch, D. (1990b). Multiculturalism: E pluribus plures. The American Scholar, 59(3), 337–354.

Rodriguez, R. (1981). Hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriguez. Boston, MA:Godine.

Rothstein, R. (1998). Bilingual education: The controversy. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(9), 672–678.

Running-Grass. (1994). Towards a multicultural environmental education. MulticulturalEducation, 2(1), 4–6.

Samuda, R. (1986) The Canadian brand of multiculturalism: Social and educationalimplications. In S.Modgil, G.K.Verma, K.Mallick, & C.Modgil (Eds.), Multiculturaleducation: The interminable debate (pp. 101–109). London, UK: Falmer.


Sarap, M. (1986). The politics of multicultural education. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan.Schlesinger, A.M., Jr. (1992). The disuniting of America. New York, NY: Norton.Schools Council. (1981). Education for a multiracial society: Curriculum and context (pp. 5–13).

London, UK: Author.Shoji, M. (1991). Peace education: A guide for parents. Hiroshima, Japan: Hiroshima Peace

Culture Foundation.Sleeter, C.E. (Ed.) (1991). Empowerment through multicultural education. Albany: State

University of New York Press.Sleeter, C.E. (1992). Keepers of the American dream. London, UK: Falmer.Sleeter, C.E. (1994). White racism. Multicultural Education, 1, 5–8, 39.Sleeter, C.E. (1995). An analysis of the critiques of multicultural education. In J.A.Banks &

C.A.M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 81–94). NewYork, NY: Macmillan.

Sleeter, C.E. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. Albany: State University ofNew York Press.

Sleeter, C.E. (2000, April). Critical multiculturalism and curriculum analysis. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Sleeter, C.E., & Grant, C.A. (1987). An analysis of multicultural education in the UnitedStates. Harvard Education Review, 57, 421–444.

Sleeter, C.E., & Grant, C.A. (1988). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approachesto race, class, and gender. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice/Hall.

Sleeter, C.E., & Grant, C.A. (1994). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approachesto race, class, and gender (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice/Hall.

Sleeter, C.E., & Grant, C.A. (1999). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approachesto race, class, and gender (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice/ Hall.

Sleeter, C.E., & McLaren, P.L. (1995a). Introduction: Exploring connections to build acritical multiculturalism. In C.E.Sleeter & P.L.McLaren (Eds.), Multicultural education,critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference (pp. 5–32). Albany: State University of NewYork Press.

Sleeter, C.E., & McLaren, P.L. (1995b). Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and thepolitics of difference. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Smedley, A. (1993). Race in North America: Origin and evolution of a world view. Boulder, CO:Westview.

Stent, M.D., Hazard, W.R., & Rivlin, H. (1973). Cultural pluralism in education: A mandatefor change. New York, NY: Appleton-Century Crofts.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures fordeveloping grounded theory. London, UK: Sage.

Suzuki, B.H. (1984). Curriculum transformation for multicultural education. Education andUrban Society, 16, 294–322.

Taba, H. (1955). With perspectives on human relations: A study of peer group dynamics in aneighth grade. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. Boston, MA: Little,Brown.

Tatum, B.D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racialidentity development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 1–24.

Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V. (1996). Language-minority student achievement and programeffectiveness. NABE News, 19(6), 33–35.


Tyack, D. (1995). Schooling and social diversity: Historical reflections. In W.D.Hawley &A.W.Jackson (Eds.), Toward a common destiny: Improving race and ethnic relations inAmerica (pp. 3–38). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Valentine, C.A. (1971). Deficit, difference, and bicultural models of Afro-Americanbehavior. Harvard Educational Review, 41(2), 137–157.

Vold, E.B. (2002). Panelist response in an interactive symposium entitled Navigating theTides and Currents of Multicultural Education: A Conceptual Map for Analyzing theDivergent Perspectives and Trends of the Field presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Vold, E.B., & Pattniak, J. (1998). Expected multicultural education outcomes in teachereducation and the NCATE factor. Preparing teachers for diverse student populations and forequity (pp. 97–107). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

West, C. (1993). Race matters. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Williams, L.R., De Gaetano, Y., Harrington, C.C., & Sutherland, I.R. (1985). ALERTA:

A multicultural, bilingual approach to teaching young children. Menlo Park, CA: Addison—Wesley.

Woodsen, C.G. (1921). The history of the negro church. Washington, DC: AssociatedPublishers.

Woodsen, C.G. (1922). The negro in our history. Washington, DC: Associated Publishers.Woodson, C.G. (1933). The mis-education of the negro. Washington, DC: Associated

Publishers.Woodson, C.G. (1935). The story of the negro retold. Washington, DC: Associated

Publishers.Zangwill, I. (1907). The melting pot. New York, NY: Macmillan.

CHAPTER 1ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alba, R.D. (1990). Ethnic identity: The transformation of White America. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Using data from interviews of more than 500 people, the author shows howthe national origins of White Americans have diminished in functionalimportance. With the prevalence of intermarriage among many White ethnicgroups, ethnic identity is primarily expressed through symbols such as preparingand eating certain foods and attending occasional festivals or parades, which do notaffect people’s daily lives. One exception to this trend is Jewish Americans, whohave maintained closer cultural and religious connections to their ethniccommunity. Despite their assimilation in practical terms, many EuropeanAmericans do have an interest in studying their family history and identifyingthemselves in terms of their immigrant forebears and their European roots.

Aptheker, H. (1993). Anti-racism in U.S. history: The first two hundred years. Westport, CT:Praeger.

In this volume, the author illustrates through many quotations from historicaldocuments (e.g., speeches, sermons, and written political arguments) thatarguments against enslavement and other forms of abuse of African people were


debated at the national and local levels from the earliest arrival of the Europeansin North America, well before the Civil War. Although these voices rarelyprevailed, especially in the South, they do show how people, both Black andWhite, resisted the efforts of wealthy landowners to legitimize and maintain theinstitution of enslavement.

Asante, M.K. (1987). The Afrocentric idea. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.In this provocative book, which inspired many Afrocentric educational

programs, Asante critiques the Eurocentric myth of the universality of Westernthought and culture and points out how even critics of Eurocentric culture andstudents of African cultures are still bound by their Eurocentric paradigms andperspectives. Throughout the book, Asante contrasts Afrocentric and Eurocentricrhetorics. He describes the former as circular: seeking to interpret and understand;the latter is linear, with the inherent goals of predicting and controlling.According to Asante, the Eurocentric rhetoric is based on goals of individualismand territoriality and assumptions that some people have more knowledge thanothers. These functions require that a distance be maintained between the speakerand the audience (such as teachers and pupils, actors and audience). In contrast,the purpose of Afrocentric speech is to create a collective experience of harmonyand, at its best, ecstasy that unites all participants emotionally and spiritually.Asante gives a detailed account of how the African American community hasdrawn on African traditions to develop the rhetoric of resistance.

Banks, J.A. (1991). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.This has been a popular textbook in courses for preservice and inservice

teachers for the past several years. The first chapter is most relevant to this set ofannotations because it includes definitive descriptions of multicultural education,ethnic studies, multiethnic education, and global education, and the goals andobjectives of each. The chapter also provides statistics on the immigrant/minoritypatterns and trends in the United States, which illustrate the urgent need torespond to an increasingly diverse school population. (See the annotation inchapter 3 for information about other chapters of this book.)

Banks, J.A. (Ed.) (1996). Multicultural education: Transformative knowledge and action. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

This edited volume contains many fascinating chapters that document strugglesfor human freedom and dignity since the late 19th century, which created the rootsof and continue to guide the current multicultural education movement. Thebook has five parts, each with several chapters. The first part focuses on thehistorical and theoretical roots of multicultural education. The second oneincludes case studies of early scholars from different ethnic groups whocontributed to these earlier phases of the movement. The work of women ofcolor and how they faced and challenged the triple oppressions of race, gender,and class are the primary focus of the third part (although there is also a chapteron the civil rights activities of Eleanor Roosevelt). The chapters in the fourth part


analyze the Intergroup Education Movement and early research on racialattitudes. The chapters in the fifth part connect the past and present and portraythe transformations that schools must undergo in order to fulfill the promise ofthe multicultural education movement.

Banks, J.A. (1999). An introduction to multicultural education (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.

In a concise and accessible text, Banks synthesizes and summarizes the goals,definitions, and conceptual bases of multicultural education that he has drawnupon in his prolific body of work in the field over several decades. Although thetext is oriented toward grappling with the processes and problems of curriculartransformations in school settings, the first two chapters and portions of others layout a conceptual landscape of multicultural education as it appeared to the authorin the 1990s. They also provide demographic and other data that illuminate therecent sociocultural context of the movement.

Banks, J.A. (2001). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching.Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

This work is of particular interest as it represents the current thinking of ascholar-educator with over thirty years intensive experience in the field ofmulticultural education. The book evolved from the third edition of Banks’widely read Multiethnic education: Theory and practice (last published in 1994) and isa rich study of the expansion and consolidation of one person’s thinking about amovement that is undergoing rapid change. Banks, over the years, has developeda number of models to explicate the evolution and trends within multiculturaleducational theory and practice. In this volume, he brings those revised andexpanded descriptive systems together in a highly informative account of thehistorical and philosophical foundations of the field. The second half of the bookis devoted to the transformation of theory into various forms of practice (see theannotation of this work in chapter 3).

Banks, J.A., & Banks, C.A.M. (Eds.) (1995). Handbook of research on multicultural education.New York: Macmillan.

This comprehensive volume includes chapters by many of the prominentscholars in multicultural education and offers excellent resources on a number oftopics related to the history and changing context of multicultural education, theeducational experiences of different racial and ethnic groups, multiculturalapproaches in schools and in higher education, and international perspectives onmulticultural education. The publication of this volume was pivotal because forthe first time many contexts, issues, dilemmas, and different interpretations ofmulticultural education were all in the same place and could be reviewed inconjunction with each other. Several individual chapters from this volume areannotated in this sourcebook.

Banks, J.A., & Banks, C.A.M. (Eds.) (2001). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives(4th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.


This edited work presents an overview of the issues characterizing multiculturaleducation at the beginning of the 21st century. Drawing on the expertise ofprominent scholars in the field, the editors have included chapters on social class,religion, gender, language, and ability/disability, as well as their more usual focuson race and ethnicity. One stream of thought in the larger field of multiculturaleducation is that the fullest meaning of the multicultural movement must beenacted in the context of school reform. Subscribing to that view, the editorsconclude the work with chapters on the relationships between student learningand school reform, and on the power of parent/community/school collaborationsin changing prospects for children and youth. The implications of these concernsfor curriculum and teaching are noted in an annotation of this work in chapter 3.

Baptiste, H.P., Jr. (1979). Multicultural education: A synopsis. Washington, DC: UniversityPress of America.

Baptiste’s now historic text provides a broad view of the forms thatmulticultural education took prior to 1979. The history of multicultural educationin the United States provided by the author gives additional detail not oftenfound in descriptions from that period of the historical development ofmulticultural education. The synopsis has selected annotations of multiculturaleducation resources that are of interest in the present day because they reveal theassumptions, concepts, and priorities that were prominent in the movement duringthe 1970s. The book also includes a glossary of terms that shows how thedefinitions of particular terms have evolved.

Boyer, J.B. (1985). Multicultural education: Product or process? Kansas City, KS: Kansas UrbanEducation Center.

This book provides the reader with a description of the multicultural educationapproach as it was being discussed in the 1980s. The author offers definitions ofmulticultural education that were prevalent in the mid-1980s and shows how thefield had developed up to that point. Within the developmental phases heidentifies, he describes various legislative efforts that attempted to resolvedifficulties resulting from racial and ethnic inequities in the educational systems inthe United States. The author provides a multicultural education model thatengages both product and process and extends beyond the compensatoryapproach that typified earlier multicultural educational curricula.

Brisk, M. (1998). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

The first chapter in this volume provides a brief history of the debates overbilingual education in the United States and an overview of the different modelsof bilingual education practiced here and in other countries. In subsequentchapters the author describes in detail how the school performance and languageuse of individuals are influenced by family, school, and social situations, which, inturn, are imbedded in and profoundly affected by the larger social and economiccontexts. Most of the book is devoted to guidelines and discussions related tocreating schools, curricula, and instruction that focus on the needs and assets of


bilingual students, but are potentially effective for all students. Brisk emphasizesthat bilingual education cannot and should not be seen as an isolated movementbut is an integral part of any efforts to improve the quality of education for allchildren.

Bullivant, B. (1986). Towards radical multiculturalism. In S.Modgil, G.Verma, K.Mallick,& C.Modgil (Eds.), Multicultural education: The interminable debate (pp. 33–47).London: Falmer.

This chapter illustrates some of the debates between the multicultural educationand antiracist movements in England during the 1980s. Throughout the chapter,Bullivant argues that multiculturalism and pluralism are inadequate conceptualbases for improving the education of ethnic and racial minorities in England. Hecritiques these terms as utopian concepts that ignore the power differentials andconflicts related to race, class, and gender. He argues that a multiculturalcurriculum does nothing to equalize educational opportunities and life chances ofracial and ethnic minority children. He proposes instead a more politicized andpower-sensitive ideology that he calls “radical multiculturalism.” The work isinteresting in the present day for its anticipation of a rising tide of socialreconstructionist positions in the field and the antiracist movement in England, inparticular.

Crawford, J. (1999). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory and practice (4th ed.). LosAngeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services.

This volume examines the history, politics, theories, and practice of bilingualeducation. Now in its fourth edition, this book has been a standard resource forstudents of bilingual education for over a decade. The chapters on history andpolitics show how bilingual education has been a part of American education forhundreds of years, yet has always been contested. In this edition, Crawford showsin detail how the conservative takeover of Congress and the White House in the1980s influenced the legislation and funding for bilingual education.

Duarte, E.M., & Smith, S. (Eds.) (2000). Foundational perspectives in multicultural education.New York: Longman.

According to the editors, the purpose of this volume is to ask the question“Multicultural education—what for?” rather than “How?” and to compare andcontrast the many answers to that question. In the chapters, authors write fromseveral different perspectives, each with a distinct image of the purpose andphilosophy of multicultural education. The first section includes writings thatemphasize an ethnic studies perspective. In the second section, authors write aboutmulticulturalism with a focus on antiracism. The third section consists of threeessays that advocate critical multiculturalism, in which critical theory andpedagogy play a central role. The final section focuses on liberal democraticmulticulturalism, which is a critique of the postmodernist criticalmulticulturalism. Each section of the book has an introduction, in which theeditors delineate the main arguments of the chapters and show how they overlapand differ from each other. This book provides a comprehensive overview of the


arguments for and against the many different perspectives in the currentmulticultural conversation.

Fennimore, B.S. (2000). Talk matters: Refocusing the language of public schooling. New York:Teachers College Press.

In this volume, Fennimore illuminates and critiques the language of deficit anddamage that has permeated discussions about children and families, especiallythose who are poor and otherwise marginalized. She points out that thisorientation has undermined the goal of educational equity by creating lowexpectations for children’s achievement on the part of both teachers and students.The author proposes that teachers and administrators transform their language,policies, and daily practice to a focus on students’ potential and promise. Thebook includes many examples that illustrate how deficit-oriented language can betransformed into an ethic of respect and true democracy.

Foerster, L. (1982). Moving from ethnic studies to multicultural education. Urban Review,14, 121–126.

This article highlights some of the factors that brought about the diminution ofthe ethnic studies movement in the 1970s. They included the lack of commitmentof teachers, who had little time and guidance to prepare thoroughly forimplementation and had little input into the development of goals and materials;the fact that ethnic studies were added on to, rather than infused into, the existingcurriculum; and disagreement about what should be included in the curriculum,who the curriculum should be for, and when the curriculum should beimplemented. The author concludes that multicultural education can succeed andendure if it has a broad constituency and adds a meaningful dimension to theeducation of all students.

Foster, L., & Stockley, D. (1984). Multiculturalism: The changing Australian paradigm.Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

This book offers a historical interpretation of multiculturalism in Australia priorto the mid-1980s. The first part provides a theoretical framework by which thereader can analyze the development of the status of multiculturalism during thatearlier time. The second and third chapters chronicle Australian events that take usfrom the early 20th century into the 1980s and through various governmentleaderships. The final chapters provide the reader with an assessment of theeffectiveness of the concept of multiculturalism in Australia and the assumptionsunderlying the multicultural policy to that moment in time. Through the use ofcase studies, the authors show how the hidden structures, such as the logic ofAustralian capitalism in conjunction with social class and location of power, haveimpeded the effective implementation of multicultural policies. Their conclusionis especially interesting in light of the withdrawal of public support formulticultural education in Australia in the late 1990s.



In this early article on the historical development and future prospects ofmultiethnic education, Gay weaves a descriptive picture of the beginnings ofmultiethnic education and the sociopolitical atmosphere that prevailed from thelate 1960s into the 1980s. She also expounds on the criticisms levied againstmultiethnic education from inside and outside the educational community. Sheconcedes that multiethnic educational goals have expanded, and that multiculturaleducation has grown into conceptual maturity. However, she warns proponents ofthe danger of broadening the scope of multicultural education to includeexperiences of women, the handicapped, the aged, and the poor. At that point intime, the author considered that with certain cautionary procedures, there wouldbe a future for multiethnic education, though it might be uncertain and lesspolitically motivated than in its beginning years.

Giroux, H.A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York,NY: Routledge.

In this book of essays, Giroux argues that education is inevitably political andthat we need to critically examine all aspects of schooling to uncover theprivileges, exclusions, and hegemonic assumptions that prevail. He points out thatmany multicultural efforts are superficial and support the privileging of Europeanroots and the marginalization of “others.” To truly transform schools, accordingto Giroux, we have to move these voices from the center to the margins and thevoices of the disenfranchised from the margins to the center. Giroux argues forcritical pedagogy as a space where postmodern feminism, antiracism, and otheranti-oppression movements can join in debate and solidarity to engage in trulydemocratic education dedicated to social justice.

Giroux, H.A. (2000). Insurgent multiculturalism and the promise of pedagogy. In E.M.Duarte & S.Smith (Eds.), Foundational perspectives in multicultural education (pp. 195–212).New York, NY: Longman.

In this chapter Giroux points out that struggles of subordinated groups toredefine the culture and to challenge the narrow political power base in theUnited States reflect the true patriotic and democratic ideals of this country. Hethen delineates his view of critical multiculturalism, which he calls “insurgentmulticulturalism.” First, cultural differences are not simply tolerated, but serve toexpand the discourse and practice of democratic life. Second, representations ofall groups in the media must be critically interrogated, including the “invisible”dominance of Whites. Third, identities need to be viewed as complex expressionsof the continua of similarities and differences that reflect the multiple bordercrossings of people’s lives. Fourth, insurgent multiculturalism must forge linksbetween the educational enterprise and struggles to correct imbalances ofpolitical, social, and economic power (e.g., institutional racism) that affecteveryday lives.

Glazer, N. (1983). Ethnicity and education: Some hard questions. Phi Delta Kappan, 64,386–389.


In this critical analysis of the pluralist orientation, the author discusses thepitfalls of how America responds to ethnicity. There is a bit of reminiscing aboutthe way it used to be when immigrants arrived and were quickly assimilated by theschooling received. He points out the dangers inherent in seeking policies tosupport perceived language barriers of speakers of Black English or Spanish-speaking immigrants who are divided in their support of bilingual, biculturalprograms. As a critic of multicultural education, Glazer asserts that valuingcultural pluralism may be one of the causal factors in the general decline of self-confidence in the virtues of American society and its world domination andrespect.


This classic book, now in its fifth edition, has been a useful resource since itsfirst edition was published in 1983. The heart of the book is the authors’descriptions of seven microcultures, including ethnicity and race, social class,religion, gender, language, abilities, and age. They point out that thesedimensions interact in individuals’ development and in the dynamics of the largersocial environment. Each chapter focuses on a specific microculture and describeshow it affects people’s lives (e.g., the role of social class in determining children’seducational opportunities), demonstrates how it interacts with other dimensions ofdifference (e.g., the interaction of religion and gender roles), and illustrates theeducational implications for working with children who have had specificexperiences and are developing attitudes related to that dimension. Each chapterincludes examples and questions to stimulate readers’ reflections about their ownlives and attitudes and challenges them to think of how they might approachspecific classroom dilemmas.

Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.In this book, written several decades ago, Gordon identifies and defines three

social ideologies that became the basis for much of the discussion leading up tothe inception of the multicultural movement. They included the ideologies ofAnglo conformity, the “melting pot,” and cultural pluralism. Anglo conformity isa philosophic belief that demands that immigrants completely renounce theirancestry in favor of the behavior and values of the dominant Anglo-Saxon group.The “melting pot” concept implies a biological and sociological merger of culturalgroups into a unique American model. Cultural pluralism argues for themaintenance of unique identities of cultural groups involved in limited integrationand interaction in political and economic life in the United States.

Grant, C.A. (1978). Education that is multicultural—Isn’t that what we mean? Journal ofTeacher Education, 29(1), 45–49.

In this article, Grant introduced the term education that is multicultural, whichbecame the basis for much discussion about the nature of multicultural educationduring the 1980s. He argues that the term education that is multicultural implies thatthe whole educational enterprise is based on multicultural principles, whereas the


term multicultural education suggests that it is only an offshoot, a specialty, or asmall part of the overall educational system. He argues that the former termimplies a more profound and pervasive reform and is a more acceptable conceptfor education in a racially and culturally pluralistic society. In later works, Grantcombined this term with the term social reconstructionism, making it even moreexplicitly oriented toward social and economic critique and change.

Grant, C.A. (Ed.) (1999). Multicultural research: A reflective engagement with race, class, gender,and sexual orientation. London, UK: Falmer.

In this volume a number of prominent scholars in the field of multiculturaleducation write about their own research and the evolution of their thinkingabout multicultural education. The stories are fascinating accounts of thesociopolitical and personal factors that influenced the course of the writers’ livesand that led to their commitment to multicultural issues. The stories also reflectthe different phases of the multicultural movement described in chapter 1. Manyauthors are people of color; others have experienced discrimination because oftheir gender, sexual orientation, or social class. All had moments of despair anddisorientation that opened up questions and moved them to take on issues ofinequity as their lives’ work. Collectively, these stories provide an excellentwindow on the diversity of ideas and experiences that characterize thecontemporary trends in multicultural education.

Hawley, W.D., & Jackson, A.W. (Eds.) (1995). Toward a common destiny: Improving race andethnic relations in America. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

This edited volume includes a comprehensive review from a number ofperspectives of race and ethnic relations in the United States. The first partprovides a historical and international context for studying and improving theserelations. The second section contains several chapters on how people developtheir ethnic and racial identities and attitudes. The third section is devoted toreports about educational strategies that have been effective in improving race andethnic relations. The final part summarizes what has been learned in previousprograms and proposes new research questions. Several of the chapters provideexcellent reviews of the research in particular fields and many challengecommonly held assumptions and paradigms.

Katz, J.H. (1980). Multicultural education: Games educators play. Integrated Education. 18,101–104.

The author describes the realities of racism in American society and points outthat multicultural education could eradicate these racist attitudes and beliefs, but hasnot yet done so. The author delineates various reasons why multiculturaleducation has remained more rhetoric than practice. These reasons are outlined asgames that educators play, such as the definition game, the tokenism game, theescape game, and the divide-and-conquer game. She offers suggestions forpreventing administrators and other policy makers from sabotaging multiculturalefforts and moving instead toward more substantive progress. Although this article


was written more than 2 decades ago, it still resonates with current critiques ofsuperficial responses to issues related to diversity.

May, S. (Ed). (1999). Critical multiculturalism: Rethinking multicultural and anti-racist education.London, UK: Falmer.

In this thoughtful and complex edited work, scholars from six countries(Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, South Africa, and the UnitedStates) examine the effects of recent curricular theory on ways that multiculturaland anti-racist education are currently considered in their homelands. Mostparticularly, the effects of critical pedagogy and postmodern teaching strategies onways of thinking about culture are considered, and issues of identity are viewedthrough the lenses of hybridity theory and increasing globalization. As the authorsrepresent varying political traditions themselves and work in differingsociohistorical contexts in the countries where they are located, the workprovides important and intriguing comparisons in the ways that culture and itsdynamics are understood in several different areas of the world. This text is not an“easy read,” as it depends on the readers’ familiarity with present-day curriculumtheory. It does, however, represent well one end of the spectrum of socialreconstruction thinking in the field.

McLaren, P. (2000). White terror and oppositional agency: Towards a criticalmulticulturalism. In E.M.Duarte & S.Smith (Eds.), Foundational perspectives inmulticultural education (pp. 213–241). New York, NY: Longman.

In this chapter McLaren identifies four forms of multiculturalism that arecurrently practiced. He critiques conservative or corporate multiculturalism for itsassimilationist approach and tendency to blame oppressed groups for not living upto the invisible norm of Whiteness. He dismisses liberal multiculturalists formasking their oppressive universalistic humanism with analyses of unequalopportunities. Left-liberal multiculturalists, according to McLaren, essentializecultural groups and separate them from historical and social contexts. McLarenadvocates a critical and resistance multiculturalism, in which diversity is affirmedwithin a transformative political agenda for social and economic justice.

Nieto, S. (1995). From brown heroes and holidays to assimilationist agendas:Reconsidering the critiques of multicultural education. In C.E.Sleeter & P.L.McLaren(Eds.), Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference (pp. 191–220).Albany: State University of New York Press.

In this chapter, Nieto reviews the criticisms of multicultural education fromboth the right and left ends of the political spectrum. She comments on thesecriticisms, raises other questions about common multicultural assumptions andpractices, and urges readers to constantly evaluate common educational practicesand to guard against seeking simplistic solutions to complex problems. In responseto the criticism from both the right and the left, Nieto advocates a criticalmulticultural education that focuses on two central goals that have sometimesbeen neglected in the discussions about multicultural education: “raising theachievement of all students and providing them with an equal and equitable


education and giving students the opportunity to become critical and productivemembers of a democratic society” (p. 200). She concludes that we need to movebeyond romantic and vague notions of equality to proving that all students canbecome active learners and citizens.

Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (3rded.). New York, NY: Longman.

Nieto’s text presents the complex interrelationships among various dimensionsof difference (race, culture, language) through case studies in which young peoplereflect on their encounters with schooling where such dimensions became salient.Nieto relates these reflections to structural and organizational issues that canfacilitate or impede the educational success of diverse students. The final part ofthe book addresses broadening and deepening the definition of multiculturaleducation in guidelines for school reform. The author provides examples ofpractice that meet the criteria of resistance of oppression and reconstruction ofaffirmative approaches in teaching and learning.

Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1986). Racial formation in the United States from the 1960s to 1980s.New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

The authors argue that race is central to American politics, culture, and historyand that the state both shapes and is shaped by lines of racial advantage anddisadvantage. Before presenting their own paradigm, Omi and Winant analyzeand critique earlier theories of race, including ones that focused on ethnicity,social class, and nationhood. Their theory of racial formation rests on the notionthat race is not a fixed attribute, but a complex of social meanings that aretransformed by political struggle and defined by the state. They analyze theprofound changes in racial meanings and politics that occurred in the 1960s and1970s, in which the dominance of Whites was recognized and challenged.However, they point out that the failure of those movements to create trulyradical democratic political structures provided a space for the emergence of right-wing populist movements in the 1980s that have reinvigorated the racist policiesand practices that are inherent in the American way of life.

Ovando, C.J., & McLaren, P. (Eds.) (2000). The politics of multiculturalism and bilingualeducation: Students and teachers caught in the crossfire. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

This edited volume contains essays by a range of multicultural and bilingualeducational theorists and researchers who question the assumptions underlying thecommon practices of the field. The political dimensions of teaching and learningare identified through such concerns as metaphors used in writing about diversity,the intersections between social class and construction of race, and the place ofreligion in conceptions of multiculturalism. Several of the essays discuss bothimplicit and explicit linkages between bilingualism and multiculturalism. Thecontributing authors also undertake analyses of the complex social contextsaffecting educational decision making that supports or opposes those movements,by identifying and responding to the fields’ most current critiques.


Perry, I. (1993). “I am still thirsty”: A theorization on the authority and cultural locationof Afrocentrism. In T.Perry & J.W.Fraser (Eds.), Freedom’s plow: Teaching in themulticultural classroom (pp. 261–270). New York, NY: Routledge.

The author critiques Asante’s advocacy of Afrocentric theories and education asnegating the full experience of African Americans by stressing the purity andsuperiority of a single culture (African) over others. Using extensive quotes fromrap artists, Perry illustrates the varied roots of African American imagery, music,and art and disputes Asante’s reliance on a singular African culture. She alsoargues that the active learning and creation of new forms of self-expression thatmany young African American artists are engaged in are more meaningful andliberatory than is an ideology re-created from a lost history.

Ramirez, M., & Castaneda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognitive development andeducation. New York, NY: Academic Press.

In this classic volume on bicultural development, the authors advocate thatschools follow a philosophy they call “cultural democracy,” in order to provide asystem where students from diverse populations can function in two cultures.They review the research on bicultural identity and bicognitive development tosupport their arguments. In the chapter on the “Ideology of Assimilation,” theauthors describe the myth behind the evolving sociopolitical ideologies of the“melting pot” and Anglo conformity and reveal the resulting conflicts theseideologies produce in Mexican American students.

Rothstein, R. (1998). Bilingual education: The controversy. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(9), 672–678.

The author traces the controversies about bilingual education during the 19thand 20th centuries. He points out that bilingual education has always been part ofthe educational landscape in the United States and has always been contested.Some immigrant groups have insisted on having their children taught in theirhome languages and other groups have pressed for full assimilation. Many of thearguments on both sides are echoed in the current controversies. Similar totoday’s debates, historical events and the political climate, rather than educationalprinciples, have determined the fate of bilingual education. For example, the anti-German sentiment fomented by World War I led to the abolishment of mostbilingual German programs, just as anti-immigrant fervor is fueling the currentmovement to eliminate bilingual education.

Serow, R.C. (1983). Schooling for social diversity: An analysis of policy and practice. New York,NY: Teachers College Press.

This book is an examination of educational trends in American society that havecontributed to changes in attitudes and behaviors about diverse groups. Thehistorical review of American society’s treatment of racial and ethnic differencesilluminates the role that schools have played in inculcating these social beliefsthrough political socialization and racial relations. In Serow’s chapter onmulticultural education, the sections on outcomes for students, schools, andsociety underscore multicultural education as a process. They also reiterate the


importance of the commitment of teachers and administrators in ensuring thesuccess of multicultural education. The final chapter points out how theconservative social and political movements of the 1980s, which had just begun atthe time, and the resulting shift of budget priorities away from social programscould have a devastating effect on multicultural education.

Sims, W., & de Martinez, B.B. (Eds.) (1981). Perspectives in multicultural education. NewYork, NY: University Press of America.

This book was a product of the Ethnic Studies Heritage Act and was designedto increase teachers’ awareness of levels of cultures and lifestyles of individualsfrom different cultural groups. It is an edited volume that contains four sections:Foundations of Multicultural Education, Approaches to Multicultural Education,Teaching Strategies, and Lesson Plans. The second chapter in section 1, the Lawand Minorities in the United States from 1620 to 1980, provides a description ofsignificant legislative policies and court decisions that affected the implementationof educational programs with a multicultural perspective. The legislation isinclusive of acts that relate to Black Americans, Chinese Americans, JapaneseAmericans, and Native Americans. Chapter 3 describes controversial issuesregarding schooling and its psychological effects upon minorities.

Sleeter, C.E. (Ed.) (1991). Empowerment through multicultural education. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

This edited volume was one of the earliest to explicitly put issues of power inthe center of the multicultural movement. The authors in the book contrastempowering oppressed people with the benevolent, yet often debilitating, effortsto help them. The first section has four chapters that illustrate how schools disablemany students, especially those from less privileged groups. The chapters in thesecond section illustrate strategies for empowerment that are based on theexperiences, strengths, and goals of individuals and groups who are oppressed.The final section contains two chapters that discuss how the principles ofempowerment operate or can potentially operate in teacher education programs.

Sleeter, C. (1995). An analysis of the critiques of multicultural education. In J.A.Banks &C.A.M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 81–94). NewYork, NY: Macmillan.

In this review Sleeter summarizes and analyzes the critiques of multiculturaleducation from both the right and the left ends of the political spectrum. Sheincludes many quotes from different authors that capture the vitriolic, as well asthe reasoned, tones of the debates. In her analysis she points out the political andsocial perspectives of the authors and the political ends of some of the criticisms.She notes that we need to take the criticisms seriously, even when we disagree,because they do point out weaknesses in the movement and a failure tocommunicate its intent and practice to a wider audience. She makes suggestionsfor responding to these criticisms and shows how they may offer ways tostrengthen the conceptual base and public support for multicultural education.


Sleeter, C. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. Albany: State University of NewYork Press.

According to Sleeter, this collection of essays connects “political andpedagogical issues with personal experiences and reflections” (p. 15), in order toalign multicultural education with its original mission of challenging oppressionand creating a more democratic, equal, and just society. The author points outthat multicultural education has its roots in political struggle, yet has often beendiverted into more superficial curricula and practices that unintentionally protectand support the status quo. Sleeter emphasizes how race, gender, and social classplay out for everyone, but particularly for White women. Although writing froma feminist perspective, Sleeter is wary about the power that White middle-classwomen have in defining gender issues, often failing to examine their racialprivilege. In the penultimate chapter, the author presents her vision ofmulticultural educators who work as allies with children’s families and othermembers of their communities to pressure schools to better serve their children,to advocate for their communities in the broader political realm, and to teachtheir students to think and act politically on behalf of themselves and othermarginalized people.

Sleeter, C.E., & McLaren, P.L. (Eds.) (1995). Multicultural education, critical pedagogy and thepolitics of difference. Albany: State University of New York Press.

This volume contains a number of essays that explore the dynamics of diversityand challenge the generally accepted parameters and assumptions of multiculturaleducation. The authors critique the dominant ideologies in schools that serve alimited (privileged) group of children. The authors also challenge the commonpractices of multiculturalism that often ignore its multiple contexts,contradictions, and far-reaching implications. The first part of this volumecontains chapters on the need to understand the concept of difference in itshistorical, racial, and gendered context. The chapters in the second part describepedagogies and theories that illustrate the complex intersections of the dynamics ofclass, race, and gender. The final section is devoted to putting these pedagogiesinto action and to stimulating social transformation through critical self-awareness.

Smedley, A. (1993). Race in North America: Origin and evolution of a world view. Boulder, CO:Westview.

This book traces the development of the concept of “race” in North Americaand shows how intimately it has been tied to economic and social opportunism forthe past 400 years. Smedley shows how the English came to North America, witha notion of the “savage other” that had justified their efforts to conquer the Irish.This belief became the justification for the genocide of the Native Americans, theenslavement of Africans, and the exclusion of many immigrant groups. Smedleydescribes in detail how the Framers of the Constitution created elaborate andcontradictory ideologies in order to justify slavery in a new society predicated onindividual rights. Many quotes from “scientific” reports and popular press articleswritten before, during, and after the Civil War, which vehemently asserted that


Africans were a race apart, show the extremes to which scholars went in order tojustify slavery, exclusion, and discrimination. Smedley ends the book in acautiously optimistic tone by pointing out that serious scientists no longer supportthe idea of inherent racial differences. This fascinating book illustrates the extentto which race is a cultural and social construct and how it has been used incontradictory, opportunistic, and vicious ways throughout the history of theUnited States.

Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. Boston, MA: Little,Brown.

In this fascinating book Takaki compares and analyzes the experiences of manydifferent groups from a multicultural perspective. Responding to conservativeconcerns that cultural pluralism will be a disuniting force for the country, heshows how groups had varied experiences, but within shared contexts, and arguesthat knowing each other’s histories is a uniting force. The stories, which includemany examples and quotes from firsthand accounts, illustrate how all Americanshave unique histories and many come from different shores, yet all are “entitled todignity” (p. 15). Divided into four approximate historical periods, the book tracesthe histories of discrimination, oppression, and resistance of the American Indians;enslaved people from Africa; conquered Mexicans; and finally Irish, Jewish, andAsian immigrants.

Tyack, D. (1995). Schooling and social diversity: Historical reflections. In W.D. Hawley &A.W.Jackson (Eds.), Toward a common destiny: Improving race and ethnic relations inAmerica (pp. 3–38). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

This chapter provides a comprehensive review of the different educationalstrategies developed in the 20th century to address the needs of diverse students.Tyack illustrates how a number of educational reforms reflected the prevailingracist and exclusionary social beliefs. He also shows how world events (e.g.,World War I) and shifting political tides often dictated social and educationalpolicy. By including a number of movements and cross-movements, the authorillustrates the complexity of public opinion and the related educational reforms.This chapter is discussed in considerable detail in chapter 1 of this book.


2The Social, Political, and Economic

Contexts of Children’s Development andLearning

Portions of this chapter have been adapted by permission of the publisher fromRamsey, P.G., Teaching and Learning in a Diverse World: Multicultural Education forYoung Children. (2nd Edition) (New York: Teachers College Press, © 1998 byTeachers College, Columbia University. All rights reserved.)

To engage children in multicultural learning, teachers and families need tounderstand how social and economic forces influence children’s developmentand, in turn, how children learn about the world. This review is organizedaround two questions: First, how does membership in particular racial, cultural,socioeconomic, gender, sexual orientation, and ability groups affect the quality ofchildren’s lives, their interactions with peers and teachers, and their futureprospects? Second, how do children develop their understanding, attitudes,identities, and behaviors related to these dimensions?

Before beginning this review, however, we need to note the biases and limits ofthe research and theories that will be included. Most of the studies about the effectsof different social and economic circumstances on development and aboutchildren’s developing attitudes have been done by researchers trained in traditionalchild development theories and methodologies. These theories and methods arederived from the work of early psychologists who, by and large, were European orNorth American men (e.g., Erikson, Freud, Piaget, Hall, and Skinner) and whowrote from positions of racial, economic, and gender privilege. Moreover, thedevelopmental theories based on their work reflect the Euro pean American idealof individualism and independence. Therefore, the primary developmental goalshave been the progress of individual children toward becoming self-sufficient andself-fulfilled adults and less on the formation of close relationships with theirfamilies and communities, which are valued in more collaborative cultures.

Developmental theorists and researchers have also tended to ignore the contextof children’s lives and have assumed that developmental goals, stages, and phasesare universal—the same for all children in all situations. The developmental“norms” that have emerged from these traditional theories have advantagedEuropean and European American middle-class families because they are based onresearch done on children from these populations. As a result, children from otherbackgrounds are often judged “deficient” because their developmental profiles donot match the norms established by this relatively small and privileged segment ofthe world’s population.

One might argue that with all these flaws and limitations, all research derivedfrom these theories and methods should be dismissed. However, this body ofresearch has also provided much valuable information about how children changeas they mature. Although we cannot generalize these patterns to all children, wecan use them to challenge adult-oriented assumptions about how childreninterpret information and to develop skills at observing and listening to children.

Over the past two decades, researchers have begun to challenge theuniversalistic assumptions underlying child development theories and theinterpretation of research outcomes. The 1980s and 1990s saw the publication ofseveral books and research reviews that interpreted minority children’sdevelopment and behaviors within their own contexts and represented a shiftaway from earlier work that measured them with the norms, paradigms, andmethods based on studies of White children. Some of these books include:Beginnings: The Social and Affective Development of Black Children (Spencer,Brookins, & Allen, 1985); the Child Development Special Issue on Minority Children(1990); Children of Color (Gibbs, Huang, & Associates, 1989); and Family Ethnicity(McAdoo, 1993). Also, many researchers are beginning to use qualitative methodssuch as case studies and ethnographies, which capture much more fully thecontexts and individual nuances of children’s development. Moreover, asdevelopmentalists become more critical of the homogeneous images of children,they are shifting away from using comparisons of children growing up underdifferent conditions to arrive at deficit-oriented conclusions. Currently, the thrustof much comparative research is to provide information that can be used toadvocate for greater social and economic equity for children and their families.

In short, rather than “throw the baby out with the bath water,” we argue thatdevelopmental theories and research can contribute to our understanding ofchildren’s lives and thinking. However, we must read them critically, apply themcautiously, and use them as a base to develop theories and research methods thatpush beyond their limits. Several authors who are reviewed in this chapter makethese same arguments and illustrate them with their own work.

SOCIETAL DIVISIONS AND CHILDREN’SDEVELOPMENT

Everyone in the United States lives in multiple worlds, such as work, home,community, school, social club, and church. A person may have a number ofidentities and behavioral repertoires that reflect her or his race, gender, class,country of origin, religion, sexual orientation, occupation, recreational pursuits,and ability/disability status. All people shift among contexts and adapt theirbehaviors accordingly. For instance, children learn to behave one way withneighborhood friends and another way in their classrooms. They come to expectstore clerks to treat them differently than their families do. However, somechildren experience more discontinuities between school and home than doothers. These gaps are exacerbated when children are the targets of negativestereotypes and assumptions. Moreover, resources among groups vary enormously;


although some families are able to provide their children with an abundance ofopportunities and services, others raise their children in extreme financial andmaterial deprivation.

As mentioned earlier, mainstream child development theory has traditionallyignored the contexts of social class, culture, ethnicity, and race (García Coll et al.,1996). Yet to work with children from diverse backgrounds and to understandthe full range of their developmental potential, we need to understand whataspects of development are universal, which ones are individual, and which onesare environmental. Bowman and Stott (1994) point out that, except in conditionsof extreme sensory and social deprivation, all children, regardless of backgroundand child-rearing goals, establish mutually satisfying social relationships and waysof organizing and integrating their perceptions and categorizing new information.They also learn how to speak and perhaps to write a particular language and howto think, imagine, and create. Individual physical differences such as sensitivity topain, distractibility, timing of onset of puberty, and body build play a formative rolein children’s development. However, Bowman and Stott point out that alldevelopmental phases and individual traits become meaningful only in the contextof the child’s social life. Children learn how to express their emerging needs andskills in ways that fit the resources, values, and expectations of their group, whichin turn are influenced by the larger social and economic context.

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986) framework for analyzing children’sdevelopmental context is a useful tool for analyzing how the environment defineschildren’s experiences and prospects. He identified the following four concentriccircles:

1. The microsystems of the family, school, and neighborhood;2. The mesosystems, which include the relationships between elements in the

microsystem such as those between the family and school, neighborhood andschool, and home and neighborhood;

3. The exosystems, which are institutions that have power to affect the child’slife, but the child does not participate in them; they include familyworkplaces, school and planning boards, welfare and unemployment policies,and funding;

4. The macrosystems, which include cultural values, the ideology of the socialgroup, and social attitudes such as discrimination against particular groups,and the emphasis on individualism and competition.

García Coll et al. (1996) elaborate on this framework and present an integrativemodel for studying the developmental outcomes and competencies of childrenwho do not fit the middle-class European American child developmental“norms.” The authors point out that researchers and educators need to analyzechildren’s development within the larger context of social stratification, whichincludes racism, prejudice, discrimination, oppression, and segregation, and themore local expressions of social stratification, such as quality of schools, access tohealth care, and resources available in neighborhoods. Although García Coll et al.

THE SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC CONTEXTS CHILDREN’S D EVELOPMENT 63

do not dispute the deleterious effects of social, political, and economicdisadvantages, they argue against pathologizing groups of people and point outthat communities, families, and individuals develop adaptive cultures,competencies, and strategies to overcome and resist the effects of discrimination.García Coll et al. advocate that people working with or studying children expandtheir definitions of developmental competencies to include abilities such asfunctioning in more than one culture and coping with racism, discrimination, andsegregation. In a similar vein, Swadener and Lubeck (1995) cogently argue againstthe “at risk” analysis of poor families and families of color. The chapters in theiredited volume offer vivid and compelling examples of how families struggle andsucceed in the face of daunting odds.

The following sections will review research that shows how the contexts ofrace, ethnicity, culture, social class, gender, sexual orientation, and abilities anddisabilities influence the lives of children and their families and affect theirdevelopmental course. For the purpose of imposing some organization on thischapter, these dimensions are discussed in separate sections. However, as will bereiterated throughout the chapter, they interact and cannot be viewed as isolatedphenomena. Moreover, the definitions of the categories change over time andvary across context and individuals and thus need to be continually reviewed andcritiqued.

The Influences of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture

In chapter 1 we talked about Ogbu’s (1978) distinction between involuntaryminorities, those who came to be part of the United States by enslavement orconquest (e.g., Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, andPuerto Rican Americans) and voluntary immigrants, groups who came willingly(although often because of poverty, persecution in their homelands, or both) tothe United States to make better lives for themselves. The history and currentcircumstances of groups reflect these different statuses, which in turn affect familiesand children.

Involuntary minorities, which Ogbu (1978) calls “caste-like minorities,”continue to suffer discrimination in all areas of their lives and have a morerestricted range of options in education, employment, housing, and avenues tosuccess in the mainstream society (García Coll et al., 1996; Gibbs et al., 1989).Discrimination in employment is especially destructive because it consigns largegroups of people to lives of poverty and the attendant risks that will be discussedin the section on the economic context of development. The constant debilitatingconfrontation with racism and prejudice, such as being ignored or followed byretail clerks, has been described as MEES (mundane extreme environmentalstress) (Peters, 1985). Needless to say, these conditions and stresses profoundlyaffect all aspects of family life and children’s developing view of the world. Thedisproportionate representation of involuntary minorities in the ranks of theunemployed, homeless, and incarcerated is a chilling testimony to theintransigence of racism. West (1993) hones in on the psychological costs of


discrimination with his devastating picture of the “nihilism of black Americans”:“the lived experience of coping with a life of horrifying meaninglessness,hopelessness, and…lovelessness…a numbing detachment from others and a self-destructive disposition toward the world” (p. 14). However, in the face of thesepressures and adversities, many communities, families, and individuals createstructures and cultures that have enabled them to resist, survive, and even toflourish under these oppressive circumstances (García Coll et al., 1996).

Attitudes toward education may vary across involuntary minority or voluntaryimmigrant groups (Gibson & Ogbu, 1991). Many voluntary immigrants come tothis country to take advantage of the educational system and see school as themeans to success in their new society. The involuntary minorities, on the otherhand, often view schools as another tool of subjugation. Some children feel thatthey must deny their family and community loyalties, language, andconversational styles in order to succeed in school (Fordham, 1988). Moreover,based on the experiences of their families and neighbors, they may conclude thatthey will not get good jobs, regardless of their efforts in school. Faced with theseconflicts and disincentives, many students (especially adolescents) withdraw fromthe education that is available to them. As an example, Matute-Bianchi (1991)found that Mexican students whose families immigrated to the United States toimprove their educational and job prospects did better in school and were morefavorably regarded by the teachers than were the Mexican American studentswhose families had lived (as involuntary minorities) in the United States forseveral generations.

Tharp (1989) and Ladson-Billings (1994) challenge Ogbu’s bipolar distinctionsand point out that many members of involuntary minority groups excel and thatnot all voluntary immigrants have successful school experiences. Tharp (1989)points out that cultural discontinuity between home and school affects almost allgroups who have recently entered the country, as well as long-term involuntaryminorities. If these discontinuities are exacerbated by stereotyping, discrimination,and economic hardships, then the gap between home and school is even harder tocross. Thus, a child whose mother has come from France to be a visiting professorat a prestigious university is less likely to have the same debilitating experience asa child who is viewed as a “wetback” or other unwanted intruder by thecommunity. The 1994 vote in California to disenfranchise and exclude illegal andlegal immigrants is a vivid illustration of the strength of these exclusionary forces.

The racism experienced by many voluntary immigrants from Asia alsochallenges Ogbu’s theory. Chan and Hune (1995) describe the history of Asianimmigrations and point out how racial discrimination has meant that AsianAmericans, many of whom have lived in the United States for many generations,are still seen as outsiders and excluded from the mainstream. They note that beingdesignated as the “model minority” has isolated Asian American groups and madethem the target of resentment and violence. Moreover, this “status” has allowedthe dominant society to congratulate itself on being open and receptive to “good”immigrants, to blame less successful groups for their own failures, and to ignoremany problems and injustices that affect Asian Americans. For example, statistics


suggest that, overall, Asian Americans have higher incomes than Whites.However, when broken down into specific ethnic groups, they reveal that highpercentages of some groups (e.g., Cambodians and Hmong) live below thepoverty line. Moreover, when controlled for level of education, income statisticsshow that Asian Americans who complete college earn lower wages and holdfewer managerial and supervisory positions than do European Americans withsimilar educational backgrounds.

The term Asian American reflects the process of racial formation in which thepowerful groups determine the content and status of racial groups. The dominantEuropean American society lumped Asian Americans into a single group, ignoringthe wide differences in their histories and cultures. Illustrating how groups cantake advantage of adversity, diverse groups such as Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinosused this term that was forced on them, came together in the 1960s and created apanethnic identity of Asian American, and developed organizations around thisidentity in order to gain some political and economic clout (Chan and Hune,1995).

In addition to racial and ethnic divisions that reflect inequality anddiscrimination, cultural values influence all aspects of children’s development andtheir progress in school. To work effectively with children from diversebackgrounds, teachers need to be aware of the parameters and implications ofcultural differences and to understand how their own cultural backgrounds haveinfluenced their views of children, education, and goals for the society as a whole.

Cultures exist on two levels: the explicit culture, which includes the culturalexpressions and symbols, such as buildings, clothes, food, tools, holidaycelebrations, rituals, crafts, artifacts, and dance and music; and the implicit culture,which are the values, meanings, and philosophies that underlie the overt symbols(Garcia, 1990). For example, shopping malls and home shopping networks in theUnited States are explicit expressions of our culture’s implicit passion for newnessand competitive consumption. In earlier times, the construction of elaboratetemples to the rain gods in Mexico and many other arid regions (explicit)reflected the people’s concerns and beliefs (implicit) related to the arrival of theannual rainy season.

Central to many cultural values and beliefs is the relationship between peopleand the natural world. For example, the European American perspective is that“natural resources” are there to be exploited, used, and enjoyed by people. Thisattitude contrasts sharply with the Native American view that we are all part ofthe same ecosystem—plants, animals, water, land forms, and humans—and that noone species has the right to dominate or destroy the lives and habitats of others(Allen, 1992). These differences obviously have a profound effect on how peopleinterpret and present information and establish their educational priorities.

Spatial, temporal, and quantitative relationships also develop in cultural andeconomic contexts. In the United States and most other industrialized market-based economies, time, space, and value are precisely defined and are measured bystandard units such as hours, feet, and dollars. In traditional societies, they arelikely to be measured in a more relative, cyclical, and continuous fashion and


within the context of the natural cycle of the day or year and immediate humanneeds (Allen, 1992). Again, many implications for educational goals and practicesflow from these differences.

How families want their children to grow up is defined by cultural values thatinfluence every detail of sleeping, feeding, playing, and schooling routines. In ananthology of cross-cultural research, Greenfield (1994) describes how cultures andchild-rearing strategies vary along the continuum between independence andinterdependence. Members of more individualistic cultures (at the independenceend of the continuum) share resources with their immediate nuclear family, butnot with the larger community; are less willing to subordinate their personal goalsto those of a collective; feel personally responsible for their successes and failures;and experience some degree of separation and distance from their communities.In collectivist cultures (at the interdependence end of the continuum), membersemphasize the implications of their own behavior for others; share resources withtheir community; emphasize harmony; are controlled by shame; and feel that theyare an integral part of their community life (Hui & Triandis, 1986).

Reflecting these differences, many cross-cultural studies illustrate how familiesacross different backgrounds vary in their child-rearing goals and strategies (e.g.,Gonzalez-Ramos, Zayas, & Cohen, 1998) and discipline practices (e.g., Kobayashi-Winata & Power, 1989) and how different cultural values and childrearing andteaching priorities affect children’s play patterns (e.g., Farver, Kim, & Lee, 1995;Farver & Shin, 1997; Roopnarine, Lasker, Sacks, & Stores, 1998; Whiting &Edwards, 1988; Whiting & Whiting, 1975) and emotional development (Farver,Wells-Nystrom, Frosch, Wimbarti, & Hoppe-Graff, 1997). At the same time, weneed to be cautious about assuming that cultural differences are associated withparticular styles of child rearing. In a comparison of middle-class Anglo-Americanand Puerto Rican mothers and infants, Harwood, Schoelmerich, Schulze, &Gonzalez (1999) found that mothers generally behaved in ways that wereconsistent with their cultural goals and attitudes, which, in turn, reflecteddifferences along the individualistic and collectivist continuum. However, withingroups, individual family members’ behaviors also varied, underscoring the effectsof situational and intragroup differences.

Teachers working with children from different ethnic groups need to learnabout the cultural roots of the children in their classrooms and understand how thecourse of development varies among different cultures (De Gaetano, Williams, &Volk, 1998). However, in this process they must keep in mind that cultures arenot static, that they are always evolving as people respond to new conditions andinfluences. The relationships between ethnic groups and the dominant culturealso change and vary over time and place. Thus, although we need to learn aboutdifferent cultural beliefs and practices, we also need to critically examine theavailable information and decide if and how it applies to the particular childrenand families we are working with.

In the United States most developmental and educational theories andrecommendations reflect an individualistic culture and support the notion thatchildren should grow up to become self-sufficient and to be able to build their


own lives, often hundreds or thousands of miles away from their families.Teachers’ praise and criticism often reflect these goals. Unlike expectations inmore collectivist cultures (Valdés, 1996), children in the dominant culture in theUnited States are expected to pursue their own interests and rarely play a majorrole in their family’s welfare (Whiting & Edwards, 1988). Obviously, this strongcultural pull toward independence can create a dissonance for children andfamilies who have different values.

When the values, learning goals, and social expectations differ between homeand school, children, family members, and teachers often miscommunicate andfail to develop good working relationships. Tharp (1989) describes fourdimensions of cultural differences that may account for children’s discomfort andunderachievement in classrooms: the social organization (e.g., emphasis on peercooperation vs. individual accomplishments); the conventions and courtesies ofspeech (e.g., the length of time one waits for a response, rhythms of speech, andresponses); patterns of cognitive functioning, in particular the difference betweenverbal/analytic and visual/holistic thinking; and motivation, (e.g., responses topraise and affection). Delgado-Gaitan and Trueba (1991) vividly portray howcultural discontinuity can disrupt children’s learning in their ethnographic studyof Mexican American children’s daily life in a U.S. school. Children’s behaviorsat school are often misinterpreted by teachers and peers who do not understand achild’s culture. For example, children who are taught to quietly respect adultsmay be seen as withdrawn or unmotivated when compared with their outspoken,attention-seeking European American peers. Cultural differences can createmisunderstandings between teachers and family members who may have differentexpectations and aspirations for children (e.g., Gonzalez-Ramos et al., 1998).Teachers’ expectations about attendance and the completion of homework andprojects, which reflect the goals of individual academic achievement, can createconflicts for children from cultures where helping family members is a highpriority. Cultural discontinuity also psychologically affects children, and schoolshave the potential to either support or undermine students’ attempts to functionin two worlds (Phelan & Davidson, 1993).

In addition to having to negotiate different cultural expectations, children ofrecent immigrants also experience the dislocation and confusion that accompaniesleaving the familiar and coping with a whole new set of rules, languages, andschool structure. In her book The Inner World of the Immigrant Child, Igoa (1995)eloquently describes the initial confusion, exhaustion, and fear that immigrantchildren feel and the different stages that they go through to become morecomfortable with their new surroundings. Often their families cannot provide theneeded support because they themselves are also overwhelmed by dislocation,working long hours to make enough money to survive, or both. Immigrants whohave already attended school in their home country have to adjust to the curriculaand teaching practices in the U.S. schools as well (Macias, 1990). When workingwith children who have recently arrived in this country, teachers can helpchildren maintain a sense of continuity between their former country and theirnew homes with pictures, stories, and familiar objects (Igoa, 1995). A full


discussion of bilingual education is beyond the scope of this book, but teacherscan apply bilingual practices (see Soto, 1991, for a review) in their work withimmigrant children.

Teachers’ misreading of cultural styles and practices is not limited to children ofrecent immigrants. Townsend (1999) found that White teachers oftenmisinterpreted African American children’s social conventions and goals, such asstage-setting before beginning a game, verbal volleying, and preference forcooperative work. Teachers often misunderstand these routines and actions,assuming that children are avoiding work or acting aggressively, and therebycreate tense and in some cases hostile environments that isolate and alienate theirAfrican American students.

In contrast, cultural relevance and continuity can promote children’s schoolparticipation and achievement. The success of children who participated in theKamehameha Early Education Project (KEEP), in which the teachers adaptedtheir teaching methods to be more compatible with the culture of the NativeHawaiians, illustrates the benefits of maintaining cultural continuity, whilesupporting children learning new skills to function in the larger community(Tharp, 1989).

Teachers also need to be aware of how cultural discontinuity affects families, tounderstand the interpersonal and intrapersonal tensions that arise when childrenbegin to be drawn toward their new culture and peers. They can help childrenlearn to negotiate between two cultures but may need to change their practices inorder to be more accommodating and empowering to a wider range of childrenand families (Delgado-Gaitan & Trueba, 1991; Phelan & Davidson, 1993). Toplay this role, they also need to see and work with the strengths and positiveaspects of their families and their ethnic communities (Valdés, 1996). Much of theliterature about ethnic differences presents a “pathologized” view of families asdisorganized and overwhelmed by the adjustments to a new society. In fact,however, many families have extended kinship and fictive kinship networks thatprovide social and financial support. Many groups have social and religiousorganizations that give the community an identity and provide families with asense of security and continuity. These organizations are potential resources forfamilies, and teachers should be aware of them and support families’ participationin them.

Finally, race, culture, and ethnicity must be seen as “dimensions along whichindividuals and samples vary, rather than as categories in which individuals can beclassified” (Phinney, 1996, p. 919). As Phinney points out, individuals within anygroup may differ considerably in terms of how much they identify with, believein, and express the cultural values of their group and how they negotiate betweentheir group and the dominant society.

The Socioeconomic Context and the Effects of Poverty

The socioeconomic context of children’s lives is germane to multiculturaleducation in many ways. First, it profoundly defines children’s lives. To teach


responsively, teachers need to recognize how social class—the access that familieshave to goods and services—affects the daily lives and long-term welfare offamilies and their children. Second, economic inequality is inextricably boundwith race and ethnicity. Although many poor children are European Americans,children from the groups that have been described previously as “caste-likeminorities” have a much higher likelihood of being poor. Eighty percent of allchildren living in census tracts with higher than the national average ofunemployment, high school dropouts, single-parents, welfare recipients, andpoverty are African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos (McLoyd, 1998).Moreover, poor Whites are likely to live in rural or suburban areas, not in thehighly concentrated areas of poverty (the inner cities) where most poor people ofcolor live. Because of housing discrimination, even middle-class AfricanAmericans often live in areas with high rates of poverty, which makes them morevulnerable to crime and to “losing” their children to the alienation and bitternessthat prevail in many poor communities (Cross, 1995). Third, we cannot talkseriously about racial and cultural diversity without recognizing the attendanteconomic and power disparities. To become activists for social justice, teachersand children need to recognize and challenge the inequitable distribution ofresources within the United States and between the United States and the rest ofthe world.

A number of authors have documented the dramatic increase in children livingin poverty during the past 30 years (e.g., Edelman, 1986; Huston, 1991; McLoyd,1998; Thompson & Hupp, 1992). The statistics show that during the 1980s thenumber of children growing up in very poor (deprived) households and in veryaffluent (luxurious) households increased, whereas the number of children growingup in “frugal” (i.e., working class) or “comfortable” (i.e., middle class) householdsdeclined. In other words, more children are now living at the extremes ofdeprivation and affluence. Currently, 20% of the children under the age of 18 livein poverty (Children’s Defense Fund, 1996). Most analysts attribute this trend tothe economic changes in this country that have reduced the numbers of well-paid,semiskilled, and low-skilled jobs; welfare “reform” that eliminated or drasticallycut back programs that supported poor families; tax “reforms” that favor thewealthy and penalize poor and working-class families; and the changes in familyconfigurations that have resulted in higher numbers of female-headed households,which usually have lower incomes than two-parent households. This last “cause”is also an effect, as the lack of well-paid jobs in poor communities has reduced thenumber of “marriageable men” (men who are gainfully employed and canprovide for their families) (Wilson, 1987), so that more women are raisingchildren conceived outside of marriage. The absence of job and marriageprospects may also make early pregnancy and child rearing seem like the mostappealing and meaningful life course to adolescent girls.

The increase in poverty during the 1970s and 1980s gave rise to a new wave ofresearch about poverty and how it affects children. According to Huston,McLoyd, and García Coll (1994), this new research is distinct from earlierresearch in the following ways: it (a) reflects a more differentiated view of poverty;


(b) has shifted from simply describing effects of poverty to analyzing why theyoccur; (c) includes multiple levels of analysis, such as the communities andschools, as well as children and families; and (d) has expanded from the earlierfocus on the effects of poverty on cognitive development to includesocioemotional functioning. The 1994 Child Development issue on children andpoverty contains many of these newer studies. Several longitudinal studies in thisvolume distinguish transitory poverty (a short-term decline in living standards dueto divorce or job loss) from persistent poverty (an ongoing state of poverty withno prospects of change). Although both present hardships to families, the latter ismost damaging, because children in those families may grow up in moredepressed neighborhoods and with fewer role models who offer hope that there isa place for them in the mainstream (Huston, 1991; McLoyd, 1998). Notsurprisingly, given the relationship between race and employment patterns,families of color are more likely than White families to be chronically poor.

McLoyd and Ceballo (1998) have analyzed and critiqued the ways in whichpoverty and socioeconomic status (SES) are measured. They point out that simplylooking at family income does not take into account factors such as availabilityand cost of services (often much more expensive in poor neighborhoods); jobprestige and security; access to housing and mortgages; and inherited wealth,which is much more common among European American families and can helpfamilies weather temporary job loss and unexpected expenses. The currentpoverty index is also outdated and does not reflect regional variations (McLoyd &Ceballo, 1998).

The competitive consumerism that currently prevails in the United Statesaggravates economic disparities. Even if people have sufficient food and shelter,they often “feel poor,” which affects their psychological functioning (McLoyd &Ceballo, 1998) and can lead to shame and, in some cases, violence (Vorrasi &Gabarino, 2000). Consumerism, class, race, and gender intersect in someparticularly damaging ways. A disproportionally high percentage of White males arein the upper-income groups and a disproportionally high percentage of African,Asian, and Latino Americans and White women are in the low-income groups.However, the one place in which all people in our society are welcome toparticipate is in purchasing goods—assuming that they have the money. Forpeople excluded from other avenues of success and satisfaction, “with a limitedcapacity to ward off self-contempt and self-hatred” (West, 1993, p. 17), purchasingpower is their only power and may become an exaggerated source of self-esteemand sense of well being. Merchandisers, fully aware of these dynamics, oftenmount intensive advertising campaigns in poor communities (Nightingale, 1993).Consumerism not only places families under great economic pressure, but as West(1993) points out, the market morality, in which the only goals are the short-termpleasures that are delivered by the media and conspicuous consumption, alsoundermines the morality and social responsibility of communities. The seductiveimages of consumerism “contribute to the predominance of the market-inspiredway of life over all others and thereby edge out nonmarket values—love, care,service to others—handed down by previous generations” (West, 1993, p. 17).


“It is the intrusion of white ‘consumer capitalism’ into black life that has beenresponsible for the erosion of community and political solidarity” (Haymes, 1995,p. 31).

Being poor does not inevitably by itself impair development (Brooks, 2000;Thompson, 1992; Vorrasi & Gabarino, 2000). However, the commonconsequences of growing up in poverty—malnutrition, inadequate health care(including prenatal), exposure to toxins and diseases, unsafe living conditions,frequent moves, parents or other family members who may either be addicted todrugs or be overwhelmed by trying to survive against terrible odds, and pooreducational facilities—do pose enormous risks for children. The ways in whichpoverty contributes to poor health and developmental delays are myriad and havebeen documented in numerous studies (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997;Thompson & Hupp, 1992). The interviews and stories in Cook and Fine (1995),Kozol (1995), and Polakow (1993, 2000) put a personal face on these grimstatistics by vividly and poignantly illustrating the hardships of poverty and theheroic struggles of families trying to secure a decent life and future for theirchildren in the face of daunting odds.

Another outcome of poverty is homelessness. Without a permanent home,families have difficulty providing support for their children’s education and allother aspects of their development (Stronge, 1992). Many children without homesface bureaucratic and logistic barriers to attending school (e.g., lack of a permanentaddress and reliable transportation). Once they get to school, peers and teachersoften stigmatize them, and their families often cannot provide a quiet space forthem to complete homework assignments. Because they move frequently, thesechildren also have frequent disruptions in their schooling.

Violence is “as American as apple pie,” and all communities have their share ofit, but it is especially pervasive in poor communities (McLoyd & Ceballo, 1998)and it has a devastating effect on children and their families, especially AfricanAmerican males, who are the most common victims of violence. In their book onthe effects of violence on children, Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny, and Pardo(1992) found that compared to their peers in low-violence areas, preschoolers inhigh-violence communities were often clingy and fearful; school-age childrentended to be more aggressive; and adolescents were more precocious—engagingin sexual promiscuity and using drugs at an early age. Across all ages, children inthese communities had higher than usual levels of learned helplessness, grief andloss reactions, school problems, delayed moral development, feelings ofhopelessness and futurelessness, and identification with aggressive people, objects,or both. However, children whose families were able to provide a secure basethat buffered them from the effects of violence were less likely to develop thesesymptoms.

The hardships of poverty create conditions that can undermine families’ effortsto raise their children and prepare them for school. For example, welfare lawsenacted in the 1990s that force women with young children to work haveresulted in many poor infants, toddlers, and preschoolers spending their earlychildhood years in substandard and even dangerous child-care centers and daycare


homes (Polakow, 2000). Given the well-established link between quality of earlychildhood care and school success, these arrangements may undermine children’seducational prospects (Polakow, 2000) and erase any benefits of havinga“working” parent.

Poverty also puts enormous stress on families. McLoyd and Wilson (1992)analyze how poverty influences family processes and puts children at risk fordepression, low self-confidence, peer conflict, and conduct disorders. Severalarticles in the 1994 Child Development Special Issue on Poverty and Childrendemonstrate how conditions of poverty affect families, which then react to theirchildren in less positive ways. For example, economic stress can cause parentaldepression and marital and family conflict, which can spill over into conflicts withchildren (Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994; Eisenberg, 1996). GarcíaColl et al. (1996) point out that in response to social stratification, oppressedfamilies and communities often develop adaptive cultures—goals, values,attitudes, and behaviors—that “set members apart from the mainstream” (p. 1904)and in turn create gaps between home and school cultures.

This mismatch sometimes interacts with school personnel’s negative perceptionsof poor children. Teachers often classify children by their socioeconomicbackgrounds and base their expectations of the children accordingly (Bigelow,1995; Gollnick & Chinn, 1998). In one famous study, Rist (1970) observed akindergarten teacher divide the children into ability groups by the eighth day ofschool; the groups corresponded with their social class backgrounds. These samegroups continued to exist through the next two years, illustrating how formativethis early assessment was in children’s subsequent learning.

The poor quality itself of the schools can further undermine the education ofpoor children. In an analysis of teacher attitudes and practices in low- and high-income schools, Harvey (1980) found that teachers of low-income children wereconcerned about their students, but not optimistic about their futures. Theydiscouraged active behavior, used directive teaching techniques, and stressed basicskills. The teachers in the middle-class schools encouraged active and independentlearning; emphasized science and art, as well as basic skills; and were morepositive and optimistic about their students. Polakow (1993) points out that“programs organized for children of poverty are designed to provide theminimum amount of the least expensive instruction allowed under federal andstate guidelines” (p. 149). Teachers, working within these constraints, find itdifficult to see children who are living in extremely difficult circumstances aschildren “at promise,” not “at risk,” and they often resent them (Polakow, 1993).Using a broad range of sociological and economic data, Bowles and Gintis (1976)describe how social class distinctions are maintained in public schools, despitetheir mission to equalize opportunities. Lubeck’s (1985) comparison betweenHead Start and middle-class preschool programs demonstrates how soon thisdifferentiation begins. The devastating inequalities between the public schools inaffluent communities and those in poor communities (Kozol, 1991) ensure thatchildren from different income groups do not obtain equal educations.


All these factors contribute to compromised education for children in poorcommunities. In a large longitudinal study, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates (1994) foundthat 60% of the children in the lowest income group were identified as havingsevere conduct disorders, three times the percentage of children in the otherincome groups. Whether these statistics reflect the actual behavior of the children,the misperceptions of the school personnel, the inadequacy of the schools, or somecombination of all of them, the fact is that the majority of children in the lowestincome group in this study had difficulty in school.

The high rate of school failure among children who are poor is especiallyironic and frustrating because Stipek and Ryan (1997) found that across all racialgroups, economically disadvantaged preschool and kindergarten children enteredschool equally optimistic of school success and as motivated to do well in schoolas their middle-class peers were. However, they were already behind the middle-class children in academic skills and so, despite their willingness and expectationto do well, they came in with an academic disadvantage, which, along with theother pressures described in this section, eventually eroded their optimism andmotivation. Even more frustrating are the heroic efforts that families make toprepare their children for school (Chaney, 1994) and to keep them in school(Cook & Fine, 1995; Polakow, 1993). However, they often cannot prevailagainst the economic and social forces that pressure their children to turn awayfrom school. The fact that many members of their families work in dead-end andmenial jobs is not lost on the children and may undermine their confidence thatschool can help them have a better life. Children whose parents feel positivelyabout their jobs tend to feel better about their competence in school (Morehouse& Sanders, 1992).

Despite the grim statistics and obstacles, many children raised in poorcommunities succeed in school and in life. Unfortunately, these “resilient”children and their positive outcomes have not been the focus of as muchresearch, so we know less about how children resist and overcome economicdisadvantage (Gramezy, 1992). McLoyd (1998) urges that this line of research bevigorously pursued to learn what environmental supports are most critical and toapply that information to design more effective interventions. Werner (1989)identified three types of protective factors: dispositional attributes of the child,such as activity level and sociability; emotional support from family members; andexternal support systems, such as school, church, and community groups.Gramezy (1992) found that schools that were characterized by high expectations,strong management, good disciplinary control, expectations that students takeresponsibility, clear reward systems, and available out-of-school activities wereassociated with lower levels of delinquency, even when the level of poverty of theneighborhood and the intellectual capabilities of students were the same.

The protective factors identified in a number of studies give some direction forhow practitioners can effectively work with families and schools to provide theoptimal environments for children growing up in poverty. We also need toidentify and build on the developmental competencies of “disadvantaged”children, such as their abilities to function in different value systems and to deal with


racism and social stratification (García Coll et al., 1996). Furthermore,neighborhoods have to be judged not only by what resources they lack, but alsofor ways that they support families and children, such as in providing a sense ofethnic belonging or a buffer against prejudice in the larger community (GarcíaColl et al., 1996).

The Gender Divide

Unlike racial, cultural, and class differences, which often result in physicalseparation such as distinct neighborhoods and different schools, most males andfemales in the United States spend much of their lives interacting with eachother. Cross-sex relationships of children and adolescents are often characterizedby avoidance, hostility, or both, but in the context of expectations of futurepositive ties. At the same time, the common roles of males and females and theiraccompanying power differentials create divisions and inequities. The question ofwhy these roles emerge in almost all societies is a complex one and beyond thescope of this book. The fact remains that in the United States, despite a great dealof legal and attitudinal change, women are still disproportionally relegated tomore subordinate and low-paying positions in the family and in almost allorganizations, including schools, businesses, and nonprofits. At an early age (inpreschool) most children in the United States learn stereotypic beliefs and attitudesabout sex roles that affect a wide range of behaviors, psychological constructs, andaspirations, including peer interactions, memory skills, self-identity, self-esteem,and social, educational, and vocational goals (Bigler, 1997).

One reason that gender roles are so intransigent is because of the prevalent useof gender in our society to divide and differentiate people (Bem, 1981, 1983).These distinctions are learned from an early age. From the time children are born,their toys, clothes, books, and television programs are gender-typed. Despitemany legal and educational efforts to mitigate gender inequities, girls and boys arestill not treated equally in schools (see Sadker & Sadker, 1995, for manycompelling examples). Girls are often overlooked by teachers and not encouragedto excel, particularly in math and science and in physically challenging activities.They do, however, learn to be nurturing and emotionally expressive and often aremore skilled at maintaining personal relationships than boys are. Boys, on theother hand, are encouraged to be aggressive, to excel, to take physical risks, andto mask their emotions. They are both the best students and the worsttroublemakers (Sadker & Sadker, 1995); boys potentially grow up to take leadershippositions and to earn more money than their female counterparts, but at the sametime, they are at more risk than girls to fail in school or to engage in violent anddangerous activities. Several recent books (e.g., Garbarino, 1999; Kindlon &Thompson, 1999; Kivel, 1999; Pollack, 1998) attest to the emotional toll on boyscaught between the traditional values of masculinity and the feminist emphasis onsensitivity and openness. Thus, while girls have been more materiallyshortchanged in schools and workplaces, both sexes suffer the effects of rigid sex-role expectations.


Gender-related assumptions and inequities also intersect with race, culture, andclass. Stereotypes of males and females intersect across race (e.g., Asian “Chinadolls” vs. African American “Aunt Jemimas”). The flexibility and rigidity of sexroles are influenced by cultural norms. In traditional communities, male andfemale work roles tend to be more rigidly defined than in industrializedeconomies (Whiting & Edwards, 1988). Some people may feel conflictedbetween their culture and their ideas about gender. Anzaldua (1987) reflected onthis “borderland” in her efforts to form an identity that encompassed both herMexican heritage, with its emphasis on traditional sex roles, and the feministideals that she had learned in the United States. Socioeconomic status also affectsfemale and male roles. For example, middle-class college-educated womenmanagers may enjoy more equal relationships with male colleagues (at least,officially) than working-class chambermaids or women factory workers who aresupervised by men.

The interplay among gender, race, culture, and class may vary across situations.A wealthy White woman, by virtue of her race and class, may be treated withdeference by shopkeepers and service people, but may have little power withinher family. Likewise, an African American male factory worker may besubjugated at his job and excluded from many educational and careeropportunities, yet may command considerable respect in his immediatecommunity. The dynamics among these distinctions are complex and begin toaffect relationships at a young age, as illustrated in two ethnographic studies ofprimary school children, one in England (Connolly, 1998, Racism, GenderIdentities and Young Children) and the other in the United States (Gallas, 1998,Sometimes I Can Be Anything).

Sexual Orientation

Most people in this country are not judged by their sexual practices, but lesbiansand gay men are often exclusively judged by their choice of sexual partners and byothers’ assumptions about their sexual practices, even if these factors are irrelevantto the issue at hand. A woman can go through life working and living alongsideothers, but as soon as people find out that she is a lesbian, her sexual practicesbecome public knowledge and, to many, her defining feature. This distinction isexacerbated by the fact that many people are rabidly homophobic— way out ofproportion to the extent to which someone else’s sexual practices might possiblyaffect their own lives. This vehemence is reflected in the pervasiveness ofhomophobic insults and in the violence directed toward lesbians and gay men,which obviously affect the quality of their lives.

In the United States homosexuality is less hidden than it was 2 or 3 decadesago. Now there are a number of networks and publications for and by gay peoplein many different occupations (Casper, Cuffaro, Schultz, Silin, & Wickens, 1996).Still, in most schools sexual orientation is rarely mentioned and often activelyavoided. In one study, teachers who were recognized for their multicultural andantibias teaching and skills in discussing sensitive issues around race, class, and


gender with children admitted that they often avoided the topic of homosexuality(Alvarado, Derman-Sparks, & Ramsey, 1999).

Like gender, sexual orientation intersects with race, culture, and class. Inparticular, the quality of life for lesbian women and gay men is heavily influencedby the attitudes of their culture toward homosexuality. In more homophobiccultures, they must go to greater lengths to conceal their sexual orientation ormake the choice to leave their home community. Social class also plays a role.Lesbian women and gay men with secure professional jobs are less vulnerable thanthose who are marginally employed. However, even in the most open-mindedsettings, they are still at risk for being the targets of discrimination and violenceand often have to be more restrained and cautious in their personal conversationsand relationships than their heterosexual peers do.

The pervasive homophobia in our society is absorbed by many children andcan undermine their development in a number of ways. Given the age of childrenthat this book is primarily concerned with (preschool through sixth grade), moststudents are probably not yet acting on their sexual orientation. However, manychildren may have questions about their sexuality and some may be beginning toidentify themselves as gay. If homophobia is the norm in their school, then theymay avoid seeking out relevant information or discussing their concerns withschool personnel and peers. Homophobic insults (often not fully understood bythe children who are making them) are common in the elementary grades andeven some preschools. Homophobia is often imbedded in children’s definitions ofthemselves as members of their particular gender and, in some cases, ethnicgroups. As mentioned in the section on gender differences, children often excludeand criticize their peers who do not conform to sex-role norms. One way thatthese norms are enforced is by labeling these children as gay or lesbian inderogatory terms. Thus, homophobia and rigid sex-roles often mutually reinforceeach other.

Homophobic attitudes also hurt children by marginalizing those who have gayor lesbian family members. If their parents and their families’ lifestyles are disparagedor ignored, these children face conflicts in loyalties similar to those of childrenwho cross racial, cultural, and class boundaries between home and school.Ironically, well-intentioned efforts to close the gap between home and school(e.g., celebrations of Mother’s and Father’s Days) may create some difficulties forchildren of gay and lesbian parents (as well for as children being raised by singleparents and grandparents).

Abilities and Disabilities

How we define abilities and disabilities and respond to them is, to a large extent,culturally and economically determined. For example, in a society wherelivelihood and social prestige depend on cooperating with other group members,a person lacking social skills may be seen as more “disabled” than someone whocannot read. In our society, where rationality and empiricism are valued, peoplewho “hear voices” are labeled emotionally disturbed; in a more spiritual and


mystical society, people with these conditions or with epilepsy might be highlyregarded as seers blessed by divine wisdom (Fadiman, 1997). Although manydisabilities have some physical basis, the cultural disjuncture between schools andchildren can contribute to academic and social difficulties that result in diagnosesof disability (Brown, 1998; Franklin, 1992; Odom et al., 1996), leading to theoverrepresentation of children from marginalized groups in special educationprograms (Hilliard, 1992). Moreover, to get optimal placements and services fortheir children with disabilities, families must be able to advocate, to negotiatebureaucracies, and to transport children to remedial programs and specialists.Clearly, families who have more financial and educational resources are in abetter position to get the best services for their children.

Until the 1970s, children with clearly identified disabilities (e.g., cerebral palsy,mental retardation) were usually placed in special classrooms and isolated from their“typical” peers. Those children with milder disabilities, such as specific learningdisabilities or attention deficit disorder, usually remained undiagnosed andstruggled to keep up in regular classrooms. After the 1970s, and particularly sincethe passage of PL 94–142, and PL 99–457, the principle of offering childrenservices in the “least restricted environment” has guided efforts to ensure that “allchildren, no matter how diverse their needs, should expect to be served in theregular education setting that they would attend at any specific age” (Sheridan,Foley, & Radlinski, 1995, p. 42).

Originally referred to as “mainstreaming” and more recently as “integration”or “inclusion,” these efforts have often resulted in children spending all or part oftheir time in regular classrooms. Often an aide is assigned to work with anindividual or a group to provide support so that these children can keep up withthe academic demands of the classroom. In some cases, especially for more severedisabilities, children attend special classrooms to get help in academic areas andspend the rest of their time (often during less academic activities, such as art, gym,and music) in their regular classroom.

With the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act in 1990,people with disabilities are entering all institutions and organizations of oursociety. Thus, another changing demographic in our society is the increasedvisibility of people of all ages with disabilities. However, people with disabilitiesare still often stereotyped, marginalized, and treated unjustly, so attitudes towardabilities and disabilities are germane to multicultural education (Gleason, 1991).

The movement to include children with disabilities in regular classrooms hasbeen lauded by many, but also has been controversial. The financial and timedemands on schools and teachers have spawned some resistance. Teachers oftenfeel overwhelmed trying to attend to a variety of “special needs,” as well as theneeds of the whole class, especially if they lack training in working with childrenwith disabilities and do not have adequate support in their schools (Gemmell-Crosby & Hanzik, 1994). Without training (which should include opportunitiesfor teachers to identify and challenge their assumptions about children withdisabilities), teachers often feel pity and have lower expectations for children withdisabilities and unwittingly undermine children’s self-esteem and willingness to try


hard in school (Clark, 1997). Even teachers who are knowledgeable about andembrace the principle of inclusion find that their implementation is constrainedby time, lack of resources, space, staff, and materials (Odom, McConnell, &Chandler, 1993). Some parents, even though they support the concept ofinclusion, also have concerns (Diamond, Hestenes, & O’Connor, 1994). Thosewith “typical” children may worry that their children will be shortchangedbecause teachers are spending so much time with children with special needs.Parents of children with disabilities sometimes express the fear that their childrenand they themselves will be socially excluded or that their children will not getthe services that they need in a regular classroom.

The results of many studies show that children with disabilities are oftensocially isolated in their regular classrooms (Diamond, Le Furgy, & Blass, 1993;Gerber, 1977; Goodman, Gottlieb, & Harrison, 1972; Iano, Ayers, Heller,McGettigan, & Walker, 1974; Nabors, 1995; Pearl et al., 1998; Sheridan, Foley,& Radlinski, 1995; Taylor, Asher, & Williams, 1987). In fact, there is someevidence that children with disabilities become more isolated over course of theschool year (Diamond et al., 1993; Guralnick & Groom, 1987), demonstratingthat merely having contact with each other does not break down the barriersbetween those with and without disabilities. Even in preschool, typicallydeveloping children tend to seek out their classmates without disabilities morethan those with disabilities (Nabors, 1997). Interestingly, children with disabilitiesoften do not “see” their rejection, indicating to teachers and interviewers aperception of a higher level of social acceptance than is evident from their peers’assessment (Helper, 1994). Sometimes efforts to support children with disabilitiesmay interfere with their social integration. Many children with severe disabilitieshave paraprofessional aides who work with them one-on-one in the classroom.Although teachers and parents value this support, the presence of an aide mayconvey a negative message about the competence of the child and may interferewith child-child interactions.

The social impact of a disability can be affected by gender, race, culture, andsocial class. Girls with learning disabilities have the lowest status in classrooms(Helper, 1994; Juvonen & Bear, 1992). Juvonen and Bear speculate that becausegirls are usually expected to be more competent both academically and socially,girls with learning disabilities may be viewed as especially deviant and aretherefore excluded. Boys may also be more inclusive because they tend to play inlarger groups that have more fluid boundaries than girls’ smaller, more intimategroups do (Nabors, 1997). In some classrooms, the isolation of children withdisabilities may be exacerbated if they are racially or culturally a minority in thatparticular setting. In particular, if they and their parents speak a language otherthan English, they may have difficulty communicating with teachers and otherchildren, and their parents and teachers may not be able to form a closepartnership because of a lack of a shared language (Hanson, Gutierrez, Morgan,Brennan, & Zercher, 1997). As mentioned before, parents with few financialresources may not be able to provide the services and equipment that theirchildren need, which may slow down their progress and keep them isolated.


Social isolation, however, is not inevitable and may be over-reported. Evenchildren who may be quite isolated from the social mainstream often have onefriend who serves as a social buffer and provides companionship (Juvonen & Bear,1992). Social acceptance also may vary by both the situation and the nature ofdisability. For example, children are more likely to ignore or reject peers withorthopedic limitations when they are planning or doing physical activities(Harper, Wacker, & Cobb, 1986). On the other hand, children who cannot hearcan still engage in physical activities and have alternative means of communicationthat their classmates often enjoy learning (Swadener & Johnson, 1989). In onestudy, children who had mild disabilities interacted with their peers withoutdisabilities as frequently as the children in the latter group interacted with eachother (Guralnick, 1980). In another study, third- and fourth-graders with learningdisabilities showed a considerable increase in numbers of reciprocal friends fromfall to spring (Vaughn, Elbaum, & Schumm, 1996). In contrast, children may feelmore impatient with classmates who emotionally or cognitively cannot contributeto the flow of ideas and fantasies.

Young children frequently explain that they dislike their classmates withdisabilities because they are disruptive, aggressive, or both (Nabors & Keyes, 1995;Roberts & Zubrick, 1992), which suggests that children with behavioral andemotional disabilities may be particularly likely to be rejected. In some cases,children with disabilities who appear to be accepted by their peers on sociometricmeasures are overrepresented in antisocial peer groups and are underrepresentedin prosocial groups. In these cases, contacts with peers without disabilities mayundermine rather than support the development of social skills (Pearl et al.,1998).

When children of different abilities do play together, their interactions are oftenstrained and unequal. For example, when developmentally delayed children playwith typically developing peers, they engage in fewer cooperative activities thanoccurs between peers without disabilities (Siperstein, Brownley, & Scott, 1989).Even when children have similar interaction patterns and, at the outset, appear tobe developing equal relationships, children with disabilities often get left behindwhen the play becomes more complex and requires more advanced social andcognitive skills (Guralnick, Connor, Hammond, Gottman, & Kinnish, 1996).Some children without disabilities express a willingness to accept peers withdisabilities as long as they are in a subordinate position, but reject them as equalsor leaders (Miller, 1984). As they get older, children without disabilities also tendto assume a caretaking role with their peers with disabilities, rather than developand maintain reciprocal friendships (Salisbury & Palombar, 1998).

Most of the current educational programming for children with disabilities restson the assumption that they should be assimilated as much as possible into theworld of typical children and adults. These goals reflect a cultural bias that allchildren should become adults who can live self-sufficiently, be gainfullyemployed, and be integrated as much as possible into the mainstream society.They do not necessarily fit the priorities of families who assume that their childrenwith disabilities will continue to be cared for by the extended family (Harry,


1998). Moreover, placing social assimilation into the world of typical peers at thecenter of educational efforts may limit social opportunities, in particular theformation of long-term and reciprocal relationships between peers withdisabilities (Harry, Park, & Day, 1998).

Children’s development and their future prospects are profoundly affected bytheir environments, which inevitably reflect many social, political, and economicdisparities in our country that often exacerbate each other. Anyone who workswith children needs to be alert to how the racial, cultural, economic, gender,sexual orientation, and ability divisions in our society potentially affect the lives ofchildren. At the same time we need to view these general patterns cautiously andcritically, in order to avoid erroneous assumptions about individuals and particularcommunities.

As teachers work to create multicultural classroom communities, they mustdeal not only with the environmental forces that affect children’s lives, but alsowith the attitudes that children themselves develop as they experience thesepressures. We will turn our attention to these processes in the next section.

CHILDREN’S RESPONSES TO DIFFERENCES

As our society becomes more ethnically diverse and more economically polarized,teachers face the challenge of how to present and explore issues of diversity andinequality in meaningful, authentic, and hopeful ways with young children. Tosupport these efforts, this review summarizes some of the past and current researchon children’s understanding of race, culture, social class, gender, sexualorientation, and disabilities.

The first part of this review will focus on the extensive research that has beendone on children’s responses to racial differences. The research on children’sunderstanding of cultural differences will be discussed in the second part of thisreview. The next two sections will look at ethnic perspective taking and racialand ethnic identity development. The fifth section will review the research onchildren’s understanding of economics and social class. In the final three sections,research on children’s awareness and behaviors related to gender, sexualorientation, and abilities/disabilities will be reviewed. Although racial, cultural,economic, gender, sexual orientation, and ability/disability differences are treatedseparately in this review, as they were in the first section of the chapter, people’sperceptions of racial differences are often associated with both cultural and classdifferences (Rex, 1986). Likewise, children’s responses to gender and abilitydifferences are affected by social and economic status, cultural attitudes towardmales and females, and various kinds of disabilities. Thus, children’s responses tothese dynamics in real life are more complex and varied than those that emergewhen they are studied separately. Adding to this complicated picture, children’sreactions also occur along different dimensions, including cognition, affect, andbehavior. As will be seen, these responses interact in many different and oftencontradictory ways.


Reviewing the research on attitudinal development reveals again the tensionbetween general patterns and individual and situational differences. We have triedto synthesize the research to show coherent developmental patterns, but theyshould be considered a backdrop for examining individuals’ development, ratherthan universal expectations that apply to all children.

Children’s Responses to Race

As described in chapter 1, the concept of “race” is murky and contradictory, yetbecause it is such a prominent category in our society many researchers haveattempted to study how children view race. Children’s racial awareness andrelated cognitive and affective processes have been studied in a number ofdifferent populations and with a wide variety of methods. Because there are somany studies, and the findings and methods are often complex and contradictory,the annotations following this essay primarily include reviews of research andchapters that discuss the most salient and consistent findings, rather thanindividual research reports.

During the 1940s and 1950s, a number of studies of children’s racial awarenessand attitudes appeared to demonstrate that segregation and discrimination had anegative effect on African American children’s identity and self-conceptdevelopment (e.g., Clark & Clark, 1947; Goodman, 1952). These studies wereincorporated into arguments for integrating public schools in the 1954 Brown v.Board of Educa tion (Topeka, Kansas) Supreme Court decision. The research in thisperiod also paralleled the post-World War II Intergroup Education Movement byfocusing on the development of intergroup attitudes and possible sources ofprejudice. Goodman’s book Race Awareness in Young Children, published in 1952,has an extensive review of the research during this period. Duckitt (1992)describes the history of the study of prejudice from the 1920s through the 1980sand shows how the evolving theories and research paradigms reflected thehistorical shifts described in chapter 1.

In the years following the 1954 Supreme Court decision, a number ofresearchers studied the social dynamics of desegregated schools and the conditionsthat either fostered or undermined positive intergroup relationships (e.g.,Patchen, 1982; St. John, 1975; Schofield, 1981, 1989; Singleton & Asher, 1977;Slavin, 1980). As discussed in chapter 1, the growing recognition thatdesegregation did not necessarily lead to successful integration (during the 1970s)contributed to the shift toward multicultural education and gave rise to increasedresearch on the complexities of racial awareness and attitudes. The studies of thisperiod are characterized by a variety of approaches and multiple methods, asexemplified by Porter’s (1971) study and Williams and Morland’s (1976) series ofstudies. Several reviews organize and summarize this research (Brand, Ruiz, &Padilla, 1974; Katz, 1976, 1982).

Despite numerous studies, our knowledge about children’s reactions to racialdifferences is still incomplete and fragmented. Most research in the United Stateshas compared European American and African American children’s responses to


same- and cross-race dolls, pictures, and classmates. Only recently haveresearchers begun to include a broader range of subjects and to measure relationsamong members of other groups and to examine the processes that underliechildren’s cross- and same-race responses.

Children’s responses to racial differences involve a complicated set of cognitive,affective, and behavioral dimensions (García Coll & Garcia, 1995; Katz, 1976,1982; Sigelman & Singleton, 1986). Although development is continuous in all ofthese dimensions, each process may be influenced by different learningexperiences, so that there is not complete congruence among cognitive, affective,and behavioral responses. Rosenfield and Stephan (1981) suggest that racialclassifications depend on cognitive development; affective responses reflectsocialization influences, which include parents, siblings, peers, and the media; andbehavioral preferences are determined by situational factors, such as the frequencyand circumstances of contact between groups. For instance, children may developcross-racial friendships by having contact with individual peers, yet learn negativeattitudes about that group as a whole from the media and adults. In this case, thebehaviors and attitudes appear to be in conflict. Several theories and studiessuggest that as children get older, their attitudes become more rigid and theirresponses become more consistent across cognition, affect, and behavior (Katz,1976; Milner, 1983; Ramsey, 1991a).

Cognitive Dimensions

Infants have been observed to notice differences between individual people(Thurman & Lewis, 1979) and consistently react to racial differences by 6 months(Katz & Kofkin, 1997). By ages 3 to 4, most children have a rudimentary conceptof race (Katz, 1976) and can easily identify, match, and label people by racialgroup (e.g., Clark & Clark, 1947; Goodman, 1952; Porter, 1971). During theirelementary school years, children elaborate their concepts of race as they begin toassociate social information with the physical attributes that they see (Katz, 1976).As this shift occurs, they rely less on color cues and begin to grasp the socialconnotations of racial distinctions (Alejandro-Wright, 1985). The onset andaccuracy of racial awareness appear to be related to amount of contact withpeople from different racial groups (Katz, 1976; Ramsey, 1991b; Ramsey &Myers, 1990). Children growing up in multiracial environments generally learnracial labels and distinctions sooner than those in monoracial settings.

Children are capable of distinguishing different skin colors and perhaps otherfacial features, but race is not necessarily that prominent in their views of thesocial world. In one study, both Black and White preschool and early elementaryschool children classified people by sex most often, then by race, and then by age(McGraw, Durm, & Durnam, 1989). The salience of race in children’sperceptions of themselves and others may vary according to children’s socialmilieu, their majority or minority status, and the extent and kinds of contacts theyhave with other racial groups (Ramsey, 1983; Ramsey, 1991b; Ramsey & Myers,1990; Rotheram & Phinney, 1987).


Children’s understanding of racial differences changes as they get older, asillustrated in their questions about race (Derman-Sparks, Higa, & Sparks, 1980).Preschoolers tend to ask very concrete questions about skin color differences, suchas why they occur and whether they are permanent. Six- and seven-year-oldsoften speculate about more complicated situations, such as how to define the raceof biracial children. They also ask more explicit questions about the inequitiesassociated with racial differences, such as the negative and unequal treatment ofsome groups in the media.

Children’s explanations of racial differences also reflect their changingknowledge of physical phenomena (A.Clark, Dembo, & Hocevar, 1980; Ramsey,1986b). At first, children attribute the differences to the actions of the supernaturalor a powerful other (“God made her that way”). Then, children explaindifferences with arbitrary causality (“I went to sleep and woke up Black”). At thethird phase, children give inaccurate physical explanations (“He was born inAfrica”). Finally, children are able to see that “some people are born that way”and that racial characteristics are inherited from their biological families.

A number of studies have suggested that children probably do not understandthat race is an irrevocable characteristic until after they have acquired genderpermanence (usually between ages 4 and 6), the realization that the physicalcharacteristics of gender are not going to change, despite haircuts and dresschanges (Katz, 1976, 1982; Ramsey, 1987; see Ocampo, Bernal, & Knight, 1993,for a review). Gradations in skin color may make racial distinctions moreconfusing (as indeed they are) than the more clearly defined genital distinctionbetween boys and girls. Young children often confuse skin color differences withcolor transformations that they either observe or experience, such as sun tanning,painting, and dyeing, in which colors usually change from lighter to darker.However, after conducting a set of studies in which preschoolers accuratelypredicted the race of older children and adults based on their parentage and theircharacteristics as babies and young children, Hirschfield (1995) concluded thatpreschoolers do understand that race is an inherited and unchangeablecharacteristic. Moreover, according to Hirschfield, they have a relativelysophisticated view of race that does not rest simply on physical characteristics, butalso includes the elaborated views of race found in the popular culture. Thesefindings clearly diverge from earlier ones and raise some provocative questionsabout the nature of children’s racial cognitions that will continue to be exploredin future studies.

In the 1990s some researchers (e.g., Bigler & Liben, 1993; Hirschfield, 1994,1995; Ramsey & Myers, 1990, Ramsey, 1991a) turned their attention to theprocesses underlying children’s racial cognitions. The two Ramsey studiesdemonstrated that the salience of race varies across situations (e.g., whether a childis sorting pictures of other children or identifying who he or she is) and that thesepatterns vary across communities with different racial compositions. Bigler andLiben have focused on individual differences and found that children with morerigid classification systems in general had stronger stereotyped images of AfricanAmericans and Whites and remembered stereotyped descriptions and stories


accurately, but forgot or distorted counterstereotyped ones. This finding has somepotential for reducing stereotyping. In a later study children who learned to makemultiple and flexible categorizations of both social and nonsocial items improvedtheir recall for counterstereotyped information (Bigler, Jones, & Lobliner, 1997).

Affective Dimensions

Evaluative concepts are incorporated into a child’s rudimentary awareness of race,but how they change over time is the source of some debate. Based on earlierstudies, researchers concluded that attitudes become more consolidated andelaborated with age (Goodman, 1952; Katz, 1976; Milner, 1983; Porter, 1971). Intheir review, Brand et al. (1974) concluded that affective reactions, either positiveor negative, are formed at an early age and become stronger, but do not changemuch as children mature. However, more recent reviews and studies (Aboud,1987; 1988; Doyle & Aboud, 1993) suggest that racial prejudice decreases withage, as children develop their abilities to see other perspectives and to differentiateamong individuals in different groups. In a similar vein, García Coll and Garcia(1995) argue that increased ability to empathize with others mitigates prejudice.Still other researchers (e.g., Black-Gutman & Hickson, 1996; Hirschfield, 1994)conclude that racial prejudice increases with age.

Identifying variables that contribute to the formation of ethnic-related attitudeshas also been difficult and has revealed disparate trends. Some researchers havefocused on personality traits (e.g., Allport, 1954) and others on situational factors,such as heterogeneity and degree of upward mobility (Rotheram & Phinney,1987) and attitudes in the local community. Interestingly, Aboud and Doyle(1996) did not find strong relationships between children’s racial attitudes andthose of their parents and friends. They speculate that children participate in fewconversations about race and therefore have little knowledge about how theirparents and friends feel about race and simply assume that others feel the sameway that they do. However, parents may indirectly influence children by theirown social patterns (e.g., choosing to live in a racially diverse or isolatedneighborhood, forming or avoiding interracial friendships), which express theirunconscious racial views. Children also absorb attitudes from printed andelectronic media that often reflect prevailing stereotypes (Cortes, 2000; Milner,1983). Attending monoracial schools is related to higher levels of cross-racedistrust (Rotenberg & Cerda, 1994) and aversion (Holmes, 1997), whereasattending multiracial schools may help children develop more cross-race trust andacceptance (Rotenberg & Cerda, 1994).

Affective responses to racial differences have been typically measured withforced-choice tasks, in which children are asked to select the doll, puppet,drawing, or photograph that matches certain positive or negative descriptions.(e.g., “Show me the smart/stupid boy”) (e.g., Clark & Clark, 1947; Rohrer,1977). One of the most commonly used methods is the Preschool Racial AttitudesMeasure (PRAM II) that was developed by Williams, Best, Boswell, Matson, andGraves in 1975. It consists of 24 color drawings depicting pairs of African


American and White men, women, boys, and girls. Children are presented with24 short vignettes, 12 depicting positive characteristics and 12 depicting negativeones. For each story the subject is shown one of the pictures and has to indicatewhether the story is about the African American or White person in the picture.Children’s affective reactions have also been measured with tests in whichchildren express their preferences for objects colored black and white (e.g.,Williams & Morland, 1976) or select potential “friends” from a multiracial groupof photographs, dolls, or puppets (e.g., Porter, 1971; Ramsey, 1991 a). Thesemethods have provided a lot of valuable information and are relatively easy toadminister. However, they have been criticized (Aboud & Skerry, 1984; Sigelman& Singleton, 1986; Troyna & Hatcher, 1992) for possibly exaggerating the level ofracial bias and relying on adult-generated distinctions that may or may not berelevant to children’s own social categories and preferences.

The pervasiveness of pro-White bias in our society influences children’sintraracial attitudes, as well as intergroup ones. In one study (Averhart & Bigler,1997) African American children showed a positive bias toward photographs ofAfrican Americans with lighter skin tones over those with darker skin tones whenchoosing potential teachers, neighbors, and playmates. They also rememberedstories that depicted darker-skin African Americans in a negative light and lighter-skin ones in a positive light better than they recalled stories that illustrated thereverse (counterstereotyped) images. The examiner rated each subject’s skin colorand then asked the subject how he or she would rate his or her own skin color.Several subjects rated their own skin color as lighter than the tones selected by theexaminer and almost no one rated his or her own skin darker than the examiner did.In other words, the children showed a positive bias toward lighter skin in theirself-perceptions, as well as in their preferences for and stereotypes of others.

Children’s actual friendship choices in multiracial classrooms have also beenanalyzed for patterns of racially related preferences on sociometric assessments.When asked who their favorite classmates are, children most often choose same-gender peers, and there is little evidence of same-race preference during thepreschool years (Jarrett & Quey, 1983) and early elementary grades (Singleton &Asher, 1977). However, a trend toward increasing racial cleavage does show upduring the elementary and high school years (Asher, Singleton, & Taylor, 1982;Schofield, 1989).

Across all ages, White children tend to have stronger same-race preferencesthan their African American classmates do (Fox & Jordan, 1973; Newman, Liss, &Sherman, 1983; Ramsey & Myers, 1990; Rosenfield & Stephen, 1981; Stabler,Zeig, & Johnson, 1982). Conversely, Black children’s patterns reflect morecrossrace acceptance (Graham & Cohen, 1997; Hallinan & Teixeira, 1987;Ramsey & Myers, 1990). White children’s own-race preferences are reinforcedby social attitudes, making Whites more at-risk for developing own-race bias intheir friendships.

Racial proportions in classrooms also are related to cross-race acceptance(Kistner, Metzler, Gatlin, & Risi, 1993). In one elementary school where thenumbers of Black and White children were fairly equal, children of both racial


groups expressed overall positive views of their cross-race classmates (althoughthey tended to reject their cross-sex ones). In the other schools with unequalproportions, the children (especially the girls) who were minorities in classrooms(regardless of their minority/majority status in the society as a whole) were morelikely to be rejected.

Behavioral Dimensions

There have been relatively few studies of children’s actual cross-racial behavior,and the findings about younger children are mixed. Porter (1971), Singleton andAsher (1977), and Urberg and Kaplan (1989) observed few signs of cross-raceavoidance or antagonism in children’s play partners. However, in other studies(Finkelstein & Haskins, 1983; Fishbein & Imai, 1993; Ramsey & Myers, 1990),preschool and kindergarten children, especially White children, played more withtheir own-race peers.

During the elementary years, racial cleavage often increases as children absorbmore of the prevailing social attitudes, and the awareness of “us” versus “them”becomes more established (Katz, 1976). For example, one study of friendshipclusters showed that in third- and fourth grade classrooms where the ratio ofAfrican Americans to European Americans was 1:2, African American boysconsistently ended up in a multiracial cluster of boys who were frequently introuble, and the African American girls were either peripheral members of acluster or were virtually socially invisible in the classroom (Farmer & Farmer,1996). This trend continues, and accounts of interracial contacts in middle schoolsand high schools show how vehemently and explicitly many (not all) youth avoidand discourage others’ cross-race contacts (Patchen, 1982; Schofield, 1989;Ulichny, 1994).

However, this trend toward racial cleavage is not inevitable. Howes and Wu(1990) found that in a very diverse setting, the third-graders had more cross-ethnic contacts than the kindergartners did. With sustained cross-group contact,some children become friends with individuals in another group, although theymay still have negative attitudes toward the group as a whole (Schofield, 1989). Aseries of studies on racially integrated cooperative learning teams suggest thatchildren who participate in these groups have significantly more cross-ethnicfriendships (Slavin, 1995), as long as the cooperative activities are structured toensure that all members contribute in positive ways and that their roles do notsimply re-create the patterns of domination that occur in the larger society (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Miller, 1992).

Children’s attitudes and behaviors toward racially different peers are complexand sometimes contradictory, as illustrated in two ethnographic studies done inGreat Britain. In a study of 8 to 10-year-old children in predominately Whiteschools in Britain, Troyna and Hatcher (1992) found that two contradictoryforces drove cross-racial relationships in peer groups: on one hand a striving forracial equality and a commitment to antiracism: and on the other racist ideologiesand blatant name-calling. White children clearly knew that racial names were


hurtful and often used them in the flow of name-calling and competition fordominance that prevailed in their schoolyards. At the same time, some of thesesame children had close cross-race friendships and verbally argued for racialequality. Wright (1992) describes in detail the racial harassment that occurred infour primary schools (children from 3 to 8 years old). In her analysis, sheconcluded that the White children were bent on distinguishing themselves fromother groups and creating a status hierarchy, in which the Asian children (mostlyPakistanis) were at the bottom. The classroom observations illustrated howteachers often reinforced the marginalization of children of color with theirstereotyped assumptions and differential treatment of them. In severaldiscouraging episodes, teachers’ attempts to include more multicultural materialbackfired and led to more, rather than less, ridicule of the children of color.

In summary, despite contradictions and gaps in the research on children’s racialawareness and attitudes, a few themes have emerged over many studies. Childrenare not color blind; at an early age they notice race and absorb and begin to expressracially defined images and assumptions that are present in their socialenvironment. Initially, children may be wary about people who look differentfrom themselves, and this fear is often fueled by racial isolation and exposure tonegative stereotypes. Young children’s behaviors toward classmates do notnecessarily reflect these feelings, and children’s developing abilities to take others’perspectives may mitigate them. However, as children approach adolescence, theybegin to form more own-ethnic ties and identities and often use stereotypes andexclusion of other groups to consolidate their in-group loyalties. Across all ages,White children are most at-risk for developing cross-race biases and aversions. Asmentioned before, these patterns are not universal, but can provide a backdropfor identifying individual responses and how they reflect the interaction betweenchildren and their environment. More research, similar to the two ethnographicstudies described earlier, is needed to understand how these processes actuallyunfold.

Children’s Responses to Cultural Differences

Very few researchers have examined children’s understanding of culture. Onereason for the lack of research in this area is the difficulty in designing appropriatemeasures because culture is not as concretely visible as race. Furthermore, mostyoung children do not grasp the relationships among nations, national origin, andcultural traditions and behaviors. Piaget and Weil (1951) found that childrenunder 6 could not conceptualize the hierarchical relationships among town, state,and country. Lambert and Klineberg (1967) noted that 6-year-olds had only avague notion of what a nation was. At the same time, when confronted withpractical manifestations of cultural diversity—in particular, language differences—children respond appropriately. For example, bilingual preschoolers switchbetween languages, depending on the language being used by their currentplaymates and the particular fantasy roles they are enacting (Orellana, 1994). Inmultilingual settings, children often gravitate toward same-language peers as


friends (Doyle, 1982). Preschoolers notice language differences and often associateunfamiliar languages with racially different people and unfamiliar clothing anddwellings (Hirschfield & Gelman, 1997). However, they usually do not have acoherent understanding of the sources and connections among these differences.Some children assume that language is an inherent and unchangeable propertylike race (Hirschfield & Gelman, 1997), yet assert that a person’s culture changeswhen that individual puts on and takes off culturally specific clothing (Aboud,1987).

Although young children have not developed a concept of culture, their socialexpectations and behaviors are influenced by it from the time they are born(Longstreet, 1978), as illustrated in cross-cultural differences in children’scommunicative strategies (Corsaro, 1994; Farver & Shin, 1997), emotionaldevelopment, and play behaviors described earlier. In elementary school, childrenwho are exposed to different cultural groups begin to form expectations about thebehaviors of other ethnic groups (Quintana, 1998; Rotheram & Phinney, 1987).When they are 8 or 9, they begin to understand that familiar explicit culturalexpressions (e.g., foods, dress, holidays) may be unique to their own family andcommunity and are not necessarily universal (Carter & Patterson, 1982).

A Developmental Model of Ethnic Perspective Taking

Quintana (1998) has developed a model of the levels in ethnic perspective-takingability that synthesizes a number of cognitive and affective trends found in theresearch on children’s responses to race and culture. His model describes childrenat four levels and is based on Selman’s (1980) theory of social perspective taking.

At Level 0 (ages 3–6), children make affective distinctions between races, basedon the prevailing pro-White, anti-Black bias in society. These evaluations do notappear to be related to parents’ explicit attitudes (as described earlier) and seem tobe immune to parents’ direct ethnic socialization when it contradicts the prevailingsocial attitudes. During this period, children become aware of racial differencesand develop a naive biological understanding about racial attributes (Hirschfield,1995), but tend to describe them in idiosyncratic ways, suggesting that they do nothave reliable racial categories. They are beginning to integrate their perceptualand affective understandings and are likely to exaggerate intergroup differences andto minimize intragroup ones. Because of their level of cognitive development,young children often exaggerate the intergroup differences and minimize theintragroup ones (Aboud, 1988; Katz, 1976; Tajfel, 1981) and have a hard timeseeing that people can be simultaneously the same and different. As a result,young children often make prejudiced statements that echo prevailing stereotypes,but do not necessarily reflect their feelings for children whom they actually knowfrom other groups.

At Level 1 (ages 6–10 years), children develop a literal understanding ofethnicity. They shift from relying on visible racial cues and begin to understandthe more cultural aspects of ethnicity such as language, food, and ancestry. At thisage, they have a fairly concrete view of ethnicity (e.g., “I am Mexican American


because I eat American food and Mexican food” [Quintana, p. 35]). Racial andethnic bias declines during this period, as children become more aware of others’perspectives and can see cross-group similarities and within-group differences asfound by Doyle and Aboud (1993).

Children at Level 2 (ages 10–14) are becoming aware of the subtle and socialaspects associated with race and ethnicity, such as segregation, discrimination, anddifferences in wealth. They also realize that ethnicity has social consequences andreport that ethnicity plays a role in determining friendships, especially at theacquaintanceship phase. As children more fully understand the social consequencesof ethnic differences, they feel more mistrustful of peers and adults from otherethnic groups.

Finally, adolescents at Level 3 develop an active ethnic-group consciousnessthat shapes their group loyalty and motivates them to learn more about their ownethnic group(s) and to express their ethnic identity. At this point, children areaware of prejudices against their own group and often emphasize intergroupdifferences and express stereotypes about other groups. Quintana points out thatto be effective, interventions with children must respond to the children’s currentdevelopmental capacities and social priorities.

Racial and Ethnic Identity

As they are growing up, children synthesize the divergent pressures andcontradictory messages about their group(s) and their relationships with thedominant social forces and develop a racial and ethnic identity that optimallyembodies a fully developed sense of belonging to a particular group (Spencer &MarkstromAdams, 1990). For White children, the process of developing positivefeelings about their group is often effortless and unconscious because being Whiteis usually portrayed as “the norm” in the United States. However, fewer acquire acritical awareness of the dominant roles of Whites.

In contrast, children of color have a more painful and complicateddevelopmental path to positive ethnic and racial identities. They often have tosynthesize negative stereotypes with their positive feelings about their particulargroup(s) and overcome the pull to identify with the dominant group. At the sametime, they, unlike their White counterparts, more readily develop a sophisticatedand critical understanding of the inequities and power dynamics of the socialorder.

The research in this area is extensive and falls into three main categories. First,developmental psychologists, often using a Piagetian frame of reference, havestudied how children (ages 2–10) become aware of race and ethnicity and beginto identify themselves as members of their particular group. Second, otherresearchers, expanding on Erikson’s theory of identity formation (1963), havearticulated stages of ethnic identity formation that occur during adolescence.Finally, social psychologists and sociologists have studied ethnic identity in adultpopulations and how it is affected by contact with other groups (see Phinney,1990, for a review). Taken together, these models provide the following overview


of the development of racial and ethnic identities. However, it is important tokeep in mind that researchers of racial identity have focused on many differentgroups with different histories and often have used different methods, whichmakes it difficult to draw firm comparisons and conclusions (Spencer &Markstrom-Adams, 1990).

According to Aboud (1987), who has based her work on Piagetian theory,children’s ethnic identity follows a sequence that is parallel to the development ofgender identity. Children first develop an awareness of race and ethnicity, thenbegin to identify themselves as belonging to a particular group, and finally achieveracial and ethnic constancy. In a review of the research on the development ofgender, racial, and ethnic identities, Ocampo, Bernal, and Knight (1993)concluded that children develop ethnic awareness (ages 5–10) and self-identification (ages 7–10) well after they have gone through these stages withgender (ages 2–3; 4–5) and race (ages 4–5; 3–7). Both ethnic and racial constancy(ages 8–11) are achieved quite a bit later than gender constancy (ages 5–10).Hirschfield’s (1995) more recent findings (described earlier in this chapter) thatpreschoolers recognize that race is immutable have raised some questions aboutthe late development of racial constancy. However, his studies have focused onchildren’s abstract understanding of race as it applies to others and not on children’sunderstanding of their own identity. Thus, the implications of his findings forracial identity development are not clear at this point.

Phinney and her colleagues (Phinney, 1989, 1993; Phinney & Alpuria, 1990),who have based their research on Erikson’s theory of identity formation (1963),found that adolescents go through three stages: unexamined ethnic identity, ethnicidentity search, and achieved ethnic identity. Although the timing varies considerablyand is influenced by many factors, Phinney (1993) concludes that high school isoften a time when adolescents shift from Stage 1 to Stage 2. Many collegestudents and other young adults are in the process of gaining a more solid ethnicidentity (Stage 3).

A number of studies and theories on adult racial identity development havecome from a sociological and social-psychological perspective. The most wellknown of these theories is that of William Cross (1985, 1987, 1991), whoidentified five stages in achieving Nigrescence, the point at which AfricanAmericans have a clear and positive identity and a commitment to work toimprove conditions for all Blacks. Although this theory is based on research onBlack adults, similar stages have been identified in studies of other marginalizedgroups.

The first stage is called preencounter, in which people accept the dominantgroup’s negative views of their own group and the dominance and “rightness” ofthe Whites. They may feel that they have been accepted by Whites and that theyhave been able in their own lives to transcend racism—to be the exceptions.Alternatively, they may deny that they are members of a marginalized group.Often at this stage people internalize the negative stereotypes and the blamingthe-victim ideology of the dominant group, which can lead to a sense of hopelessnessand victimization. At the next stage, called encounter, individuals may encounter


racist events or peers and teachers who have more critical views of society, whichforce them to see the racism that they have formerly denied and cast a harsh lightof reality on former illusions of being accepted by Whites. With thisdisillusionment—often accompanied by anger and bitterness—people then enterthe immersion/emersion stage, in which they immerse themselves in their owngroup, often rejecting all symbols of White dominance and avoiding contact withWhites. On college campuses students advocating ethnically separate dorms,meeting places, and dining halls reflect this stage of racial identity development.During this time, people often immerse themselves in the literature, music, art,politics, and history of their group, which contributes to the formation of apositive racial identity. As pro-Black, pro-Asian, or pro-Latino attitudes shift frombeing anti-White to being more expansive and less defensive, people enter thestage of internalization, in which they develop a healthy and stable racial andethnic identity. At this point, they are able to maintain their close connectionswith their own racial community and develop equal and reciprocal relationshipswith Whites and other groups. These relationships have a different basis thanthose at the preencounter stage. No longer are people denying their race in orderto be accepted by Whites, but they are engaging in a mutually determinedrelationship. The final stage, according to Cross’s paradigm, is internalization-commitment. Now the strength of a person’s racial identity is translated into acommitment to challenge the status quo and to work to address the inequities ofour society.

The process is more complex than this linear stage theory suggests. Often, peoplewho have achieved a positive racial identity find that some years later, they stillhave vestiges of their preencounter selves and may again go through animmersion/emersion stage as they lay these assumptions to rest. Some people mayalso get into the immersion stage and never get past the anger anddisillusionment. Even people with very strong positive identities still have toperform a high-wire balancing act. They need to recognize the realities of racismand protect their identities from the daily insults and assaults of discrimination, yetthey need to avoid the pull toward bitter isolation and oppositional identities inwhich all beliefs and actions are driven by being “anti-White” (Cross, 1995).Cross concludes that a positive racial identity has three functions: to provide adefense against racism, to form positive affiliations with the Black community,and to bridge ethnic differences in order to function in multiracial andmulticultural environments and to take advantage of opportunities and resourcesin the larger society.

Although it is hard to make systematic comparisons, due to methodological andsample differences, there is some evidence that the developmental course of racialand ethnic identity formation may vary across groups and across historical periods.As mentioned previously, in studies done several decades ago, African Americanchildren stated that they were White (Clark & Clark, 1947; Goodman, 1952), andthese responses were interpreted as indications that Black children wished thatthey were White and therefore had low self-esteem. Cross (1985, 1987, 1991)argues that these studies measured reference group orientation, not personal self-


esteem or identity, and suggests that the “misidentification” may be an attempt toresolve the contradiction between feeling personally valued, yet disparaged by thelarger social world because of their group membership. Studies that have beendone after the 1960s suggest that the positive images of Blacks, now more evidentin schools and in the media, may be reducing this dissonance. More recent studiesshow that African American children usually express a Black reference grouporientation (e.g., Cross, 1985; Farrell & Olson, 1982). Aboud and Doyle (1993)found that White Canadian preschoolers were more accurate than their Black peersin their racial self-identification, but in elementary school the Black Canadianchildren had stronger racial identities than their White classmates. Phinney andTarver (1988) also found that among middle-class eighth-graders, AfricanAmerican girls were more likely to be committed to developing an ethnic identityand were more aware of prejudice than their White classmates were.

Despite these positive trends, individuals in Ogbu’s caste-like minorities stillexperience many barriers to developing positive racial and ethnic identities(Garcia & Hurtado, 1995; Spencer & Markstrom-Adams, 1990). They often haveto contend with value conflicts between their own group and the dominantsociety, prevailing negative stereotypes of their group, and lack of guidance onhow to deal with discrimination. They have to develop the cognitive and socialflexibility to shift between two (or more) cultures and also to stand outside ofthem. Sometimes children resolve these conflicts by adopting the values of thedominant European American culture and denying their ethnic heritage, whichresults in identity confusion. Fordham (1988) has described in detail how someAfrican American students, confronted by the challenge of maintaining their tieswith their community and succeeding in school, go to great lengths to deny theirrace in order to achieve academically, hide their academic success from theirpeers, or do both.

Researchers of racial and ethnic identity have traditionally focused on children,adolescents, and adults who are members of identified “minority” groups.However, more recently, educators and psychologists have recognized thatEuropean Americans are developing (often unconsciously) White racial identitiesthat have far-reaching implications for their views of people of color and theircommitments to a more just society (McIntosh, 1995; Sleeter, 1994; Tatum,1992). Because White children and adults potentially can go through their wholelives without experiencing racial discrimination, many do not directly confront thefact that they are members of a racial group, let alone recognize that in thecontext of worldwide demographics, they are a racial minority. Often Whitepeople consider themselves the norm (e.g., “I’m just a normal/regularAmerican”) and therefore assume that other ways of life and worldviews aredeviant or exotic. Many educators (e.g., Sleeter, 1994; Tatum, 1992) advocatethat Whites, especially White teachers, reflect on their own racial identity and theextent to which they are racially advantaged, benefiting from living in a racistsociety in which Whites enjoy many unearned privileges (Tatum, 1992).

At this time no studies have been done that focus explicitly on White identitydevelopment in children. However, Janet Helms (1990) has described stages of


White identity development in adults. At Stage 1, which is called the contact stage,people do not understand racism as a system of advantage, but rather as individualand obvious acts, such as cross burnings, and are naive about their own role inmaintaining this unequal system of privilege. Often they have very limitedcontact with people outside of their own group and believe the prevailingstereotypes. Many Whites never go beyond this stage. At some point, a Whiteperson may have an experience such as developing a close working relationshipwith a person of color or taking a course or reading a book that exposes thatindividual to new information that challenges the old comfortable assumptionsand sets off the second stage of disintegration. People at this stage often feeluncomfortable and guilty and begin to become aware of the racism that prevailsin the media and other institutions. They may begin to confront the racistattitudes of their friends and families.

Often, the pervasiveness of racism (especially when people begin to identify itssubtle manifestations) and the resistance of fellow Whites tempt people toreintegrate and return to their familiar assumptions, sometimes with a vengeance(“Yeah, I went through that bleeding heart liberal stage of thinking that thesystem was to blame, but now I know better. Some people just won’t helpthemselves and want to live off of my taxes!”). Given the prevalence of thesemessages in the media and in the White culture, it is easy for Whites to retreatfrom the harsher truths of racism. Unlike people of color, they have the option ofignoring it (McIntosh, 1995). One particularly strong pull toward this retreat isWhite bonding (Sleeter, 1994), typically conversations in which Whites oftenmake snide remarks about people of color—sometimes directly and sometimesindirectly or “coded”—as a way of creating a sense of solidarity.

Some individuals, however, may have other experiences that force them tocontinue their journey toward a more complete understanding of racism and mayenter the pseudo-independent stage. They may begin to more deeply questionassumptions about White superiority, but may still act in ways that perpetuate thesystem. Some White people at this stage try to deny their racism by attempting toaffiliate with Blacks or other marginalized groups, who may understandably besuspicious of those persons’ motives and inconsistencies and avoid contact. At thispoint, learning about other Whites who have struggled with their own racism andhave participated in antiracist movements can help Whites see that they can feelgood about being White in the context of challenging the social and economicinequities of our society (Tatum, 1992; 1994; see also Aptheker, 1993; Stalvey,1989; Virginia Durr’s biography in Colby and Damon, 1992). People engaged inthis process are at the immersion/emersion stage of racial identity development. Thefinal stage articulated by Helms is that of autonomy, when people have a clear andpositive sense of themselves as White and actively participate in antiracistmovements as a way of expressing their White identity.

For many people, racial and ethnic identities are more complex than simplyidentifying with one group (Root, 1992). Increasingly, children have parents fromtwo different ethnic or racial groups or both; some families have immigrated;others, through adoption or blended families, have a birth identity that does not


match the community and family in which they are growing up. Also, manypeople feel caught between the traditions of their cultures, which provide a senseof community and continuity, and the demands and appeals of morecontemporary ways of life and ideologies.

In some communities biracial children and adults face the additional challengesof having to confront negative attitudes toward interracial marriages and, in manycases, mutual antagonism between their two identity groups. Maria Root’s bookRacially Mixed People in America (1992) contains many examples of how peoplehave experienced and negotiated these tensions and pressures. In one chapter,Kich (1992) outlines three stages of the identity development of biracial youthand adults that are somewhat parallel to the two theories just described. UnlikeCross’s and Helms’ theories, these stages are tied to developmental changes inchildren. However, adults may also pass through similar phases. The first stageinvolves becoming aware of differentness and dissonance and confronting questionsabout self-definition. In some cases, individuals find that their biracial backgroundsare devalued by both groups. The next stage, struggle for acceptance, often occursduring adolescence and is characterized by conflicts in loyalties—between familiesand friends, between communities, between different groups of friends, or anycombination of these. During this time, people may feel that they need to chooseone part of their identity and to reject the other one, but then feel diminished by“passing” as something they are not. Difficult as this stage is, it is also a time whenpeople can learn how to understand multiple points of view and how tosuccessfully negotiate between groups. Often they do a lot of self-exploration andlearn about the lives of other interracial people in the United States and otherparts of the world, similar to people in Cross’s immersion stage. Self-acceptance andassertion of an interracial identity is the third and final stage and often emerges in lateadolescence and early adulthood. At this point, people have developed a stableself-acceptance of themselves as biracial, bicultural, or both; no longer feelthreatened by questions about their background; and fully embrace and expresstheir multiracial selves. As an example, Anzaldua (1987) uses her autobiographyand stories of her family to illustrate the complexities and dilemmas of growing upon the geographic and psychological border between Texas and Mexico.

All of these theories of racial identity development describe several paralleltrends. People confront their illusions; deal with the anger, disillusionment, anddisequilibrium that result; and then use information about their own group andthe larger society to develop more secure and realistic identities and acommitment to change the conditions that made this development so hard in thefirst place. At some points in the process, people may need to work in their ownracial/ethnic groups. This separation often gives rise to fears of permanentsegregation, but it provides a safe space for people to explore and confront theirideas and feelings.

The trajectory of racial identity development, which sounds linear and welldefined in the models and theories described in this section, is in fact more like aspiral. Some people may recycle through the same stage(s) several times; noteveryone passes through all of these stages in the prescribed order. Changing


contexts and new events and movements may make people revert back to earlierstages or more deeply examine their assumptions. For more detailed accounts ofhow people move through these phases, see Derman-Sparks and Phillips (1997)and Tatum (1992). Attaining a fully developed and positive ethnic and racialidentity involves great personal struggle. However, these models offer hope—hopethat everyone can at least try to transcend and challenge his or her racist attitudesand environments. Although we can never eliminate the effects of racism fromour hearts and minds and lives, we can struggle to overcome their mostdeleterious effects.

Children’s Understanding of Economics and SocialClass

Understanding social class differences involves learning about a number ofdifferent concepts, such as the role of money, the status of occupations, theavailability of jobs, and inherited wealth. Most researchers have found thatpreschool and elementary children have only rudimentary knowledge of theseprocesses (Harrah & Friedman, 1990), so most studies of children’s understandingof economics and social class have focused on children over the age of 8 (Furnham& Stacey, 1991).

Dittmar and Van Duuren (1993) have developed a social constructionistframework that provides an explanation of children’s acquisition of knowledgeabout economics. Their model combines a cognitive developmental perspectivewith a functionalist approach, which posits that children simply absorb prevailingeconomic beliefs. They theorize that, as children develop their cognitive capacities,they are actively constructing their knowledge and attitudes about the economicworld through observations of and interactions with their social environments,including the media, peers, schools, stores, and families’ work experience. Basedon a cross-age and cross-social class study of children’s economic beliefs, Dittmarand Van Duuren conclude that “cognitive and linguistic abilities clearly affect thecomplexity of information and processes that children can comprehend andcommunicate, but the content of their economic beliefs and values is shaped bythe dominant, socially shared meaning systems in their environment and culture”(p. 60).

In the United States and other countries that have market-based economies,money is one concrete aspect of the economic system that children see, hear about,and begin to handle at a fairly early age. Between the ages of 3 and 5, children’sunderstanding of money goes through a series of stages (Berti & Bombi, 1981)that reflects both their developing cognitive capacities and their experiences.Initially, they only have a vague awareness that money is related with buying andoften conclude that the change their families receive back from shopkeepers is theirsource of income. Then they learn that people must pay when they buy things,but they assume that all money is of equal value. In the third stage, children areaware that specific coins and bills have different names and numbers attached tothem, but do not understand the value in relation to buying power. Finally,


children learn that sometimes the available money is insufficient to purchase whatthey want. Following this early period, children’s understanding of money beginsto reflect concrete operational thinking (Edwards, 1986; Furth, 1980). Elementaryschool children begin to apply their early understanding of mathematicalrelationships between goods and money and often assume that there has to be arigid one-to-one correspondence between the number of coins and the number ofarticles. With more experience in selecting and purchasing items, children learnthat bills and coins have particular values and that goods have specific prices, andthey may begin to plan their purchases and save their money for specific items.

Understanding how the economic system works is even more challenging thanlearning about the values of specific bills and coins. Many preschool children havelittle awareness of the mechanics of the economic system (Berti, Bombi, & Lis,1982). Even at ages 6 and 7, children’s view of economics consists of visiblemonetary transactions (Furth, 1980; Jahoda, 1979). Harrah and Friedman (1990)asked children about money, salaries, prices, and taxes and found that 8-year-oldshad only a fragmentary and rudimentary understanding of the economic system;11-year-olds had more knowledge; but only the 14-year-olds had a grasp of theoverall system of the economy and how all the pieces fit together. More detailedinformation about how children develop their understanding of the economy andthe world of work can be found in Furnham and Stacey’s 1991 volume YoungPeople’s Understanding of Society, especially in the chapters “Economics and Trade”and “Work and Employment.” It is important, however, to keep in mind thatmost of the studies have been done in industrialized and capitalistic countries. Thecourse of children’s development related to understanding economics may varyacross countries and according to the economic roles of their families. Forexample, children who are actively engaged in their families’ livelihood (e.g.,helping with farming or selling) may develop a more sophisticated view of theeconomy much earlier than other children.

Measuring children’s understanding of social class is complicated, especially foryounger (preschool and early elementary school) children. Some indices of socialclass, such as education and occupational prestige, may not be visible andmeaningful to them, but more concrete clues, such as differences in clothing,homes, and particularly possessions, are potentially salient to them. Studiesconducted in the United States have revealed that many children are concernedabout possessions and possession-related rules (Dawe, 1934; Ramsey, 1987).Furby (1979) asserts that children’s possessiveness initially arises out of a universalneed to control their immediate worlds, but the developmental course of thesedesires and behaviors depends on the child’s interactions with the social systems inthe environment. In some settings a child may be reprimanded for defending anobject (e.g., “We share everything with each other”); in another one, thatbehavior may be supported (e.g., “She had it first”), so that children learnculturally specific ways of relating to possessions (Navon & Ramsey, 1989).Children being raised in consumer-oriented societies, who have manyexperiences with stores and the media that expose them to considerable


information about the availability and desirability of goods, may be particularlylikely to develop heightened concerns about possessions.

Leahy (1983), who conducted a major research project (720 subjects, ages 6through adolescence, in the United States) on children’s views of social class,suggests that after the preschool period, children’s understanding of social classgoes through three stages. Early elementary school children are likely to bothdescribe and explain poverty and wealth in observable concrete terms, such asnumber of possessions and type of residence. When they are around 10 years ofage, children begin to refer to people’s psychological traits, such as motivation(e.g., willingness to work), in their explanations for the unequal distribution ofresources. Finally, adolescents are capable of seeing the role of the social andeconomic structure in the unequal distribution of wealth, although very few ofthem in the study offered these explanations. As children get older, they alsomake the connection between having a job and getting money and learn moreabout the status and financial benefits associated with specific occupations(Furnham & Stacey, 1991). Although children are not able to grasp the causes ofwealth and poverty until adolescence, economic status is often internalized intochildren’s career aspirations at an early age (De Lone, 1979).

As children learn about the sources of economic disparity, they appear toabsorb the prevailing attitudes about the value of wealth. Even preschoolers assumethat rich people are happier and more likable than poor people (Naimark, 1983;Ramsey 1991b). In one study, only a few young children tried to answerquestions about whether or not it was fair that some people had more money thanothers, but those who did said that it was not fair (Ramsey, 1991b). Anothergroup of young children suggested that the rich should share with poor people(Furby, 1979). Leahy (1983) and Furby (1979) found that elementary schoolchildren also advocate equality, but older children and adolescents are more likelyto justify inequalities by claiming that poor people get what they deserve (Leahy,1990). Taken together, these findings illustrate how children in our society aredeveloping their understanding of the economic system in the context of one ofthe intransigent contradictions of our society: the ideal of democratic equalityversus the emphasis on economic competitiveness and individualism thatinevitably results in some people being disadvantaged. According to Furnham andStacey (1991), many mechanisms are in place to ensure that children absorb thenotion that unequal distribution of wealth is justifiable and even desirable. Theseinclude the need for economic resources in order to survive, which means thatone is not likely to voluntarily give them up; the influence of money andproperty on the government and all other institutions; the conservative influenceof the mass media; people’s fear of major change and loss of the familiar way oflife; the lack of any vision of how things could be different; expectations ofupward mobility; and the justification for inequalities that are attributed toindividual or group pathologies. Furnham and Stacey point out that many peopleexpress discontent with economic inequalities, but very few actually supportegalitarian reforms.


The hyperconsumerism that has become a national preoccupation during thepast few decades in the United States has made it even more difficult to raisechildren’s consciousness about the unequal distribution of wealth, especially forthose children who are economically advantaged. We have little formal researchabout the effects of growing up in a consumerist society “that constantly tells itscitizens that they should not be content with their current condition” (Burnett &Sisson, 1995). However, children are exposed to thousands of advertisements andhundreds of product-driven television shows and movies and inevitably arelearning to judge products by newness (Driscoll, Mayer, & Belk, 1985) andwhether or not a product is “in.” Psychologists have expressed concern thatchildren are learning to relate to physical objects, especially toys, in terms ofgetting and having instead of using and enjoying them (Kline, 1993). Children arealso learning to identify and judge themselves and others as consumers andowners, not as creators (Kline, 1993). Unlike earlier times, their power lies notwith contributing to the welfare of the family or creating games and fantasies, butwith getting the resources (usually, by pressuring their parents) to purchase newtoys and clothes. This preoccupation with purchasing new toys, clothes, andmedia-related materials undermines efforts to help children critique economicinequities and develop ways to distribute resources more equitably.

In terms of the relations between rich and poor, Leahy (1981), Naimark andShaver (1982), and Ramsey (1991b) found that younger subjects assumed that richand poor people were more dissimilar than similar. Because young children oftenhave difficulty coordinating simultaneous similarities and differences, they aremore likely to see the two groups as dichotomous, particularly after they havesorted them into distinct classes (Leahy, 1981). Naimark and Shaver (1982) foundthat despite their assumptions of dissimilarity, the youngest subjects assumed thatthe rich and poor could be friends, which suggests that they had not yet learnedabout the impact of economic differences on social relationships.

Because a person’s status in the economic structure affects his or her access toresources and perspective on the system, subjects from different SES groups mayvary in their responses to questions about social class. No cross-SES differenceswere noted in a study with preschoolers (Ramsey, 1991b), but they have beenseen in older children’s criteria (Naimark, 1983) and explanations (Leahy, 1981)for social class distinctions. In a study of Scottish children, Emler and Dickinson(1985) found that middle-class subjects justified inequality of resources more thanthe working-class children did, which reflected their social classes’ interests.Dittmar and Van Duuren (1993) found that social class differences in children’sexplanations of economic inequality diminished as children approachedadulthood. Working-class adolescents appeared to absorb the dominant middle-class views that prevailed in the schools and aligned their beliefs accordingly.

Virtually no studies have been done on the effects of social class on children’sintergroup contacts. A few older studies have identified social class differences inchildren’s social behaviors (e.g., Gottman, Gonso, & Rasmussen, 1975; Spivak &Shure, 1974) that might affect intergroup interactions, but whether or not SES isa point of division between children has not been directly observed. One pilot


study (Kang & Ramsey, 1993) of peer interactions in a racially and economicallydiverse third grade showed that children separated more by SES than by race. Ananalysis of children’s conversations revealed that children’s topics of conversationoften reflected different levels of affluence (e.g., dancing lessons, skiing, events ina certain neighborhood) that may inhibit cross-SES contacts.

In summary, based on the studies reviewed in this section, young children havea limited understanding of the economic system and social class differences, buteven in preschool they are developing some categories and, more important,feelings about rich and poor people that may lay the groundwork for laterattitudes. Living in a society where consumerism is so highly valued may makechildren in our society more vulnerable to evaluating themselves and others interms of their wealth and possessions. One clear developmental trend is thatchildren initially state that unequal distribution is unfair, but soon they come toaccept it and to blame poor people for their poverty. This pattern has implicationsfor multicultural education. We must find concrete and meaningful ways to helpchildren recognize and resist the assumptions that support economic inequalities.Given the complexities of these issues and the difficulty of eliciting children’s ideasabout them, we need many more studies that examine the processes by whichchildren absorb economic assumptions and how those differ across contexts.

Children’s Responses to Gender Differences

A number of researchers (e.g., Bem, 1981, 1983; Martin & Halverson, 1981) haveproposed that children develop gender schema, theories about the characteristicsof males and females that influence how children interpret information. Genderschema often embody stereotypes and are self-perpetuating. Mapley and Kizer(1983) found that when children were presented with information that violatedtheir expectations of gender roles, they were less likely to remember it than theywere information that was congruent with their stereotypes (e.g., several childreninsisted on calling a male nurse “Dr. Brown”). However, children may vary inthe degree to which their stereotypes influence their interpretations. As found instudies of children’s racial stereotypes, children who learn to use more flexible andmultiple classifications express fewer gender stereotypes and can remembercounterstereotypic gender information better than their peers who are more rigidand unidimensional classifiers (Bigler & Liben, 1992).

Bigler (1997) has criticized earlier measures of sex typing and has beendeveloping more refined procedures. She points out that many previous studieshave failed to distinguish among the target of sex typing (self vs. others; adults vs.children), the form of sex typing (attitudes vs. knowledge), and the domain of sextyping (e.g., occupations vs. play activities) and to appropriately adapt measures forsubjects of different ages. Bigler has developed a new measure—Children’sOccupation, Activity, and Trait (COAT)—that has separate scales for thedifferent domains of sex typing. Furthermore, it has two forms: one to assess sex-typed beliefs about others, referred to as Attitude Measure (COAT-AM); and oneto assess sex-typed beliefs about oneself, a Personal Measure (COAT-PM). As this


more refined and comprehensive measure is used in research studies, we will learnmore precisely how children’s sex-typed cognitions and attitudes develop andinteract.

Similar to the pattern of racial stereotypes found by some researchers (e.g., Doyle& Aboud, 1993; García Coll & Garcia, 1995), children’s sex-typed stereotypesincrease during the preschool years, peak in early elementary school, and thendecline during the middle-elementary school years (Signorella, Bigler, & Liben,1993). Bigler (1997) speculates that this decrease in stereotyping may be linked tocognitive development, in particular to the ability to make multiple classificationsand to comprehend gender constancy. As with Doyle and Aboud’s (1993)findings about the development of racial attitudes, the decline in stereotyping mayalso reflect an increased ability to see others’ perspectives and to distinguishindividual differences in the other group.

In their interactions with peers, most children clearly prefer their same-sexpeers. Studies of their hypothetical and actual playmate choices demonstrate thispattern over and over. Bigler (1995) reported that some elementary school boyswhom she interviewed refused to name one girl whom they disliked because theyhated all of the girls in their classrooms. Cross-gender avoidance begins beforepreschool and becomes more entrenched during the early childhood years(Ramsey, 1995). Gender segregation continues to increase during the elementaryyears and is reaffirmed by children’s engagement in “border work” between thetwo groups (Thorne, 1986). These interactions include contests (e.g., boys’ andgirls’ spelling-bee teams), cross-sex chasing games that sometimes include a threatof kissing or pollution rituals (e.g., giving cooties to each other), and invasions inwhich one group (usually the boys) disrupts the play of the other.

Maccoby (1986) suggests several reasons for this widespread and intractablepattern of gender cleavage. With early socialization, children learn to enjoysextyped activities and are attracted to peers who share their preferences. As allteachers and families know, preschool girls tend to congregate in the art andhousekeeping areas, and boys engage in more physically active play with blocksand trucks. In elementary school playgrounds, boys usually play vigorous physicalcontact games, whereas girls tend to have conversations and to play games thatrequire more precise physical skills and social coordination, such as jump rope.Children may also be drawn to same-sex peers because they are more confidentof what to expect in terms of play, conversational styles, and activity preferences.For example, boys and girls approach conflicts differently, as vividly illustrated inSheldon’s (1990) observations of how disputes over a plastic pickle differed acrossa group of boys and a group of girls. As children spend more time in gender-segregated play, each group forms its own culture with clearly definedcharacteristics. Finally, based on a study in which same-sex toddler pairs interactedmore readily than cross-sex pairs did, even when all gender cues were minimized,Maccoby (1986) proposes that there may be basic inherent same-sexcompatibilities that do not depend on socialization.

Regardless of its precise origin, gender cleavage quickly becomes self-perpetuating. Children engage in sex-typed play that brings them into more


contact with same-sex peers. They also quickly learn that peer acceptancedepends on conforming to sex-typed roles. The rigid gender-typed roles thatchildren learn also create difficulties for children who do not fit the norms.Children who prefer cross-gender roles and activities (e.g., girls who like scienceand sports and, especially, boys who enjoy dolls and cooking) are often rejectedand ridiculed by both children and adults, especially as they enter elementaryschool (e.g., Damon, 1977; Sadker & Sadker, 1995). As they get older, childrenfind it increasingly difficult to maintain cross-sex friendships because they getteased and accused of “liking” someone of the opposite sex or being a member ofthat group (Thorne, 1986).

Because children readily divide themselves by gender, teachers oftenunintentionally support and reinforce this segregation by using gender as a way oforganizing their classes into sides for contests, lines for going to lunch, and soforth (Thorne, 1986). In a comparative study, Bigler (1995) found that inelementary classrooms explicitly organized by gender (e.g., boys’ and girls’ teamsand lines), children developed more gender-stereotyped views of occupations andmore rigid assumptions about the homogeneity of males and females than didtheir peers in classrooms where gender differences were not emphasized.Interestingly, when a similar experiment was done using T-shirt colors (in someclassrooms children were organized by colors and in others they were not), thesame effect occurred. It may be that when a difference along any dimension—beit gender, race, or color of T-shirt—becomes functional, it begins to influencechildren’s grouping patterns and social decision making, with children developinga consistent bias favoring their own group over the other group (Bigler, Jones, &Lobliner, 1997).

Many teachers and researchers have tried to break down the gender divide andto encourage boys and girls to be friends. In a number of studies, children initiallyresponded to the rewards, praise, or new activities and played with more cross-sexpeers, but after the intervention was over, they reverted back to their same-sexclassmates (e.g., Maccoby, 1986; Serbin, Tonick, and Sternglanz, 1977; Swadener& Johnson, 1989). In some settings, however, boys and girls manage to interact ina reciprocal and productive fashion. Thorne (1986) noted that the boys and girlsshe observed worked together productively in situations in which mixed-sexgroups were formed by the teachers and were engaged in absorbing tasks. Oftenneighborhood groups, extracurricular activities, and sports teams provide settingsin which boys and girls can collaborate. Although children are unlikely to do a lotof spontaneous cross-sex socializing, they can learn to work together and torespect each other if provided with appropriate incentives and support.

Children’s Understanding of Sexual Orientation

To prepare for writing this section, we did several computer searches for studiesabout children’s understanding of sexual orientation and attitudes towardhomosexuality and came up with almost nothing. Because so many people arevehemently opposed to any mention of homosexuality in schools, it is virtually


impossible to explicitly interview children on this topic. Thus, we have very littleinformation to help us to anticipate children’s questions and to counteract theirhomophobic attitudes.

Despite this silence, families of preschoolers often express concern about theirchildren’s future sexual orientation when they see them dressing in other-sexclothing, especially boys who dress in female attire (Casper et al., 1996). Moreover,young children often have questions about adult relationships and who can bemembers of a family. When children assign play roles, they often argue over whois the mommy or the daddy and frequently discuss whether or not there can betwo (or more) mommies or daddies. Preschoolers still have a fairly flexible idea offamily membership, but often quickly learn from families, teachers, older peers,and the media that families can only have one mommy and one daddy (which, ofcourse, eliminates lots of families besides gay and lesbian couples). When teacherscreate a space for children to talk about different kinds of families, children asyoung as kindergartners often demonstrate a fairly sophisticated understanding ofgay and lesbian relationships and other kinds of family constellations that differfrom the stereotypic heterosexual nuclear family (Casper et al., 1996).

This point is well illustrated in Chasnoff and Cohen’s (1996) educationalvideotape entitled It’s Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School. The videorecords conversations between teachers and students from six elementary andmiddle schools across the country, in which concepts and attitudes abouthomosexuality are explored as part of schoolwide curricula on social justice.Although it is clear that many children come to class with stereotypes abouthomosexuality and gay/lesbian life, it is also impressive to see how childrenworking with a reflective teacher can identify the issues of justice involved andrecognize the human lives at risk from intolerance.

Unfortunately, opportunities for children to talk about sexual orientation andrelated issues are rare because most teachers avoid or are actively discouraged fromany discussions on the topic. In New York City, the multicultural curriculumcalled Children of the Rainbow was rejected, largely because it included a smallsegment on respecting families with gay and lesbian parents. Likewise, some ofthe most vitriolic attacks against the Anti-Bias Curriculum (Derman-Sparks, et al.,1989) focused on a few sentences in the curriculum that spoke to ways in whichteachers could help children avoid developing anti-gay biases.

Abilities and Disabilities

Many teachers are frustrated that the children with disabilities who are placed intheir classrooms do not become part of the social mainstream. These concerns arevalid; as mentioned before, many studies show that children with disabilities areoften isolated and rejected in their mainstream classroom. One contributing factoris the negative views that children without disabilities hold toward their peerswith disabilities. Thus, we need to understand more fully how children developtheir ideas and attitudes related to disabilities and abilities. A number of recentstudies have greatly increased our knowledge about children’s awareness and


attitudes related to disabilities (see Diamond & Innes, 2001, for a review) and arereviewed in this section.

Children’s level of awareness and understanding varies across type of disability(Conant & Budoff, 1983; Diamond, 1993; Diamond & Hestenes, 1996) and theirexperiences with people with disabilities. Children learn about orthopedic andsensory disabilities during their early childhood years (DeGrella & Green, 1984;Diamond & Hestenes, 1996). They often notice orthopedic disabilities earliest,because of the visibility of the equipment that is associated with them, such ascrutches or wheelchairs; whereas they are least aware of mental retardation orpsychological disturbances. Preschoolers also can be confused about theimplications of sensory or language disabilities (Diamond & Hestenes, 1996). Thisvariability in children’s understanding about different disabilities is not surprisingbecause children often interpret disabilities on the basis of their own experience(Diamond & Innes, 2001). For example, they can compare blindness with notbeing able to see in a dark room or orthopedic impairments with having troublewalking across sand (Conant & Budoff, 1983), but they may not be conscious ofhow they use language or how their senses are related to each other. Moreover,most young children rarely think about how their cognition and emotionsfunction and therefore have little context for understanding emotional orcognitive disabilities (Nabors & Keyes, 1995).

Children often have misconceptions about the causes of disabilities. They oftenexplain disabilities by the equipment that children use (Diamond & Innes, 2001)(e.g., “He can’t walk because he has a wheelchair”). Alternatively, they assumethat disabilities are related to immaturity (e.g., “He hasn’t learned to walk yet”) orsome kind of illness, injury, or other trauma (e.g., “She broke her leg and can’tuse it.” “He had a really bad earache and now can’t hear.”) (Diamond, 1993;Diamond & Hestenes, 1996; Sigelman, 1991).

Children’s attitudes toward people with disabilities shift during their preschooland elementary school years. Preschoolers often state that they could be friendswith peers with disabilities (Diamond & Hestenes, 1996). However, from ages 3to 6 children become more biased against persons with disabilities (De Grella &Green, 1984). From second to fourth grade this trend continues (Goodman,1989), as children become more aware of specific peers and form more stable andexclusive friendships. Children entering elementary school are often concernedabout how their skills compare with others’. As they begin to notice that certainclassmates cannot do some of the physical or academic activities that form thecontext of peer interactions, they may seek them out less often.

As interactions between children with and without disabilities decline, theyhave less common ground on which to build friendships, so that the children withdisabilities become increasingly isolated. Children with emotional and cognitivedisabilities may be the most at risk for social exclusion. Some emotionaldisabilities cause children to act unpredictably, which may cause their peers todistrust and avoid them. For example, children with impulse control problemsoften are seen as “bad” by their peers, who interpret the actions as misbehavior.Children also cannot understand the parameters of cognitive and language


disabilities and tend to make more generalized negative assumptions about peerswith mental retardation than about peers with a physical disability (Diamond,1994). Children are more accepting toward their peers who have disabilities thatare no fault of their own (e.g., specific physical disabilities) than they are towardpeers perceived as having more responsibility for their disability (e.g., obesity,poor impulse control) (Diamond & Innes, 2001). As they get older, children aremore likely to reject peers who are labeled and are treated in ways that make themstand out (Milich, McAnnich, & Harris, 1992). Thus, teachers and specialists needto avoid using labels and to administer medications and services in unobtrusiveways.

From the fourth to sixth grade, children become more positive toward peoplewith disabilities (Condon, York, Heal, & Fortschneider, 1986; Miller, 1984).Possibly during this period, when children develop more awareness of others’perspectives and experiences, they rethink their stereotypes about disabilities andcan distinguish individuals from group stereotypes, as found in children’s laterracial attitude development. During this later period, girls tend to be moreaccepting of peers with disabilities than boys are, which may reflect the fact thatgirls are more comfortable in nurturing roles, whereas boys tend to judge eachother on physical prowess (Hazzard, 1983). These same gender differences alsoemerged in a study of children’s reflections on their experiences of being “specialfriends” with peers with disabilities, in which the girls had more positiverecollections of helping and caring for their friends than the boys did (Kishi &Meyer, 1994). This pattern suggests that acceptance of people with disabilitiesoften may rest not on respect for people with disabilities, but on a patronizingview of them as “different, helpless, and distressed individuals who deserve pity”(Hazzard, 1983, p. 137). In their longitudinal case studies, Grenot-Scheyer,Staub, Peck, and Schwartz (1998) found that during the elementary school years,some relationships between peers with and without disabilities shifted fromreciprocal friendships to lopsided caretaking relationships. Often, friends ofchildren with disabilities were pushed into this role by teachers and peers whorelied on them to communicate with and accompany the child with disabilities.

Despite these drawbacks, the movement to integrate children with disabilitiesinto regular classrooms clearly has advantages. Many studies show that childrenwith disabilities thrive both socially and academically in inclusive settings (seeDiamond & Innes, 2001). Moreover, typical children also benefit; they becomemore sensitive to other people and more accepting of differences (Diamond,Hestenes, Carpenter, & Innes, 1997; Favazza & Odom, 1997). In some cases theyalso develop more confidence and a greater sense of efficacy by being able to assistpeers with disabilities. The downside of these benefits, however, is the tendencyfor children without disabilities to treat their peers with disabilities as morehelpless than they are and to “do things for [them] rather than with [them]”(Salisbury & Palombar, 1998). Teachers need to help children understand thenature and parameters of specific disabilities and help children distinguishrespectful and appropriate support from intrusive or demeaning services.Furthermore, teachers need to find ways to draw everyone’s attention to the


strengths of children with disabilities (e.g., a blind child might teach her peershow to identify objects by their sense of touch). Finally, in our enthusiasm forinclusion we need to be sure that we are not forcing a one-way assimilation, as hasbeen done to many ethnic groups. Programs for children with disabilities shouldnot be focused solely on their becoming assimilated into their nondisabled peers’world. They should also include opportunities for children to form relationshipswith peers with disabilities and to enjoy being members of those groups as well.

SUMMARY

Children are profoundly influenced by their social and physical environments.Teachers must be aware of the social, cultural, and economic contexts ofchildren’s lives in order to develop appropriate teaching practices and curriculafor specific children, as well as to forge productive partnerships with families.

Children also learn about racial, cultural, gender, socioeconomic, and abilitydifferences from a myriad of interactions, experiences, and sources throughouttheir childhood. They do not fully understand the causes and implications of thesevariations until they reach adolescence or adulthood. However, throughout theirchildhood, they absorb prevailing views and draw conclusions that affect theirperceptions and feelings about themselves and other individuals and groups. Thedevelopmental trends described in this review are not universal, but they canprovide a starting point for teachers to explore how their particular children’scognition, attitudes, and behavior are developing and how specific contexts andexperiences shape them. These insights can, in turn, help educators design andimplement curricula and strategies to address these issues in a meaningful waywith their children.

REFERENCES

Aboud, F. (1987). The development of ethnic self-identification and attitudes. InJ.S.Phinney & M.J.Rotherman (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialization (pp. 32–55).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aboud, F. (1988). Children and prejudice. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.Aboud, F.E., & Doyle, A. (1993). The early development of ethnic identity and attitudes.

In M.E.Bernal & G.P.Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission amongHispanics and other minorities (pp. 47–60). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Aboud, F.E., & Doyle, A. (1996). Parental and peer influences on children’s racialattitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3/4), 371–383.

Aboud, F.E., & Skerry, S.A. (1984). The development of ethnic attitudes: A critical review.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 3–34.

Alejandro-Wright, M.N. (1985). The child’s conception of racial classification: Asociocognitive development model. In M.B.Spencer, G.K.Brookins, & W.R.Allen(Eds.), Beginnings: The social and affective development of Black children (pp. 185–200).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Allen, P.G. (1992). The sacred hoop: Recovering the feminine in American Indian traditions.Boston, MA: Beacon.

Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Alvarado, C., Derman-Sparks, L., & Ramsey, P.G. (1999). In our own way: How anti-bias

work shapes our lives. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf.Anzaldua, G. (1987). Borderlands/La frontera: The new Mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt

Lute.Aptheker, H. (1993). Anti-racism in U.S. history: The first two hundred years. Westport, CT:

Praeger.Asher, S.R., Singleton, L.C., & Taylor, A.R. (1982). Acceptance versus friendship: A

longitudinal study of racial integration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

Averhart, C.J., & Bigler, R.S. (1997). Shades of meaning: Skin tone, racial attitudes, andconstructive memory in African American children. Journal of Experimental ChildPsychology, 67, 363–388.

Bem, S.L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. PsychologicalReview, 88, 354–364.

Bem, S.L. (1983). Gender schema theory and its implications for child development:Raising gender-schematic children in a gender-schematic society. Journal of Women inCulture and Society, 8, 597–616.

Berti, A.E., & Bombi, A.S. (1981). The development of the concept of money and itsvalue: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 52, 1179–1182.

Berti, A.E., Bombi, A.S., & Lis, A. (1982). The child’s conception about means ofproduction and their owners. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 221–239.

Bigelow, B. (1995). Dumb kids, smart kids, and social class. Rethinking Schools, 10(2), 12–13.

Bigler, R.S. (1995). The role of classification skill in moderating environmental influenceson children’s gender stereotyping: A study of the functional use of gender in theclassroom. Child Development, 66, 1072–1087.

Bigler, R.S. (1997). Conceptual and methodological issues in the measurement ofchildren’s sex-typing. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 53–69.

Bigler, R.S., Jones, L.C., & Lobliner, D.B. (1997). Social categorization and the formationof intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 68, 530–543.

Bigler, R.S., & Liben, L.S. (1992). Cognitive mechanisms in children’s genderstereotyping: Theoretical and educational implications of a cognitive-basedintervention. Child Development, 63, 1351–1363.

Bigler, R.S., & Liben, L.S. (1993). A cognitive-developmental approach to racialstereotyping and reconstructive memory in Euro-American children. ChildDevelopment, 64, 1507–1518.

Black-Gutman, D., & Hickson, F. (1996). The relationship between racial attitudes andsocial-cognitive development in children: An Australian study. DevelopmentalPsychology, 32, 448–456.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and thecontradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowman, B.T., & Stott, F.M. (1994). Understanding development in a cultural context. InB.L.Mallory & R.S.New (Eds.), Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices:Challenges for early childhood education (pp. 119–133). New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.


Brand, E.S., Ruiz, R.A., & Padilla, A.M. (1974). Ethnic identification and preference: Areview. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 860–890.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as context for human development.Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742.

Brooks, S. (2000). Poverty and environmentally induced damage to children. In V.Polakow (Ed.), The public assault on America’s children: Poverty, violence and juvenile injustice(pp. 42–58). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Brown, N. (1998). The impact of culture on the education of young children with special needs.Paper presented at the biennial meeting of Organization Mondiale pour 1’EducationPrescolaire, August, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Burnett, M.N., & Sisson, K. (1995). Doll studies revisited: A question of validity. Journal ofBlack Psychology, 21(1), 19–29.

Carter, D.B., & Patterson, C.J. (1982). Sex roles as social conventions: The development ofchildren’s conceptions of sex-role stereotypes. Developmental Psychology, 18, 812–824.

Casper, V., Cuffaro, H.K., Schultz, S., Silin, J.G., & Wickens, E. (1996). Toward a mostthorough understanding of the world: Sexual orientation and early childhoodeducation. Harvard Educational Review, 66(2), 271–293.

Chan, K.S., & Hune, S. (1995). Racialization and panethnicity: From Asians in America toAsian Americans. In W.D.Hawley & A.W.Jackson (Eds.), Toward a common destiny:Improving race and ethnic relations in America (pp. 205–233). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chaney, C. (1994). Language development, metalinguistic awareness, and emergentliteracy skills of 3-year-old children in relation to social class. Applied Psycholinguistics,15, 371–394.

Chasnoff, D., & Cohen, H. (1996). It’s elementary: Talking about gay issues in school(videotape). San Francisco, CA: Women’s Educational Media.

Child Development. (1990). Special Issue on Minority Children, 61(5).Child Development. (1994). Special Issue: Children and Poverty, 65(2).Children’s Defense Fund. (1996). The state of America’s children. Washington, DC: Children’s

Defense Fund.Clark, A., Dembo, M.H., & Hocevar, D. (1980). The role of cognitive development in

children’s explanations and preferences for skin color. Developmental Psychology, 16,332–339.

Clark, K.B., & Clark, M.P. (1947). Racial identification and preference in Negro children.In T.M.Newcomb & E.L.Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 169–178).New York, NY: Free Press.

Clark, M.D. (1997). Teacher response to learning disability: A test of attributionalprinciples. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 69–79.

Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives of moral commitment. NewYork, NY: Free Press.

Conant, S., & Budoff, M. (1983). Patterns of awareness in children’s understanding ofdisabilities. Mental Retardation, 21(3), 119–125.

Condon, M.E., York, R., Heal, L.W., & Fortschneider, J. (1986). Acceptance of severelyhandicapped students by nonhandicapped peers. Journal of the Association for Personswith Severe Handicaps, 11(3), 216–219.


Conger, R.D., Ge, X., Elder, G.H., Lorenz, F.O., & Simons, R.L. (1994). Economicstress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. ChildDevelopment, 65, 541–561.

Connolly, P. (1998). Racism, gender identities and young children: Social relations in a multi-ethnic, inner-city primary school. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cook, D.A., & Fine, M. (1995). Motherwit: Childrearing lessons from African Americanmothers of low income. In B.B.Swadener & S.Lubeck (Eds.), Children and families “atpromise”: Deconstructing the discourse of risk (pp. 118–142). Albany: State University ofNew York Press.

Corsaro, W.A. (1994). Discussion, debate, and friendship processes: Peer discourse in U.S.and Italian nursery schools. Sociology of Education, 67, 1–26.

Cortes, C.E. (2000). The children are watching: How the media teach about diversity. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

Cross, W.E. (1985). Black identity: Rediscovering the distinction between personalidentity and reference group orientation. In M.B.Spencer, G.K.Brookins, &W.R.Allen (Eds.), Beginnings: The social and affective development of Black children (pp.155–171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cross, W.E. (1987). A two-factor theory of Black identity: Implications for the study ofidentity development in minority children. In J.Phinney and M.J.Rotheram (Eds.),Children’s ethnic socialization (pp. 117–133). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cross, W.E. (1991). Shades of Black. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Cross, W.E. (1995). Oppositional identity and African American youth: Issues and

prospects. In W.D.Hawley & A.W.Jackson (Eds.), Toward a common destiny: Improvingrace and ethnic relations in America (pp. 185–204). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Damon, W. (1977). The social world of the child. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Damon, W. (1980). Patterns of change in children’s social reasoning: A two-year

longitudinal study. Child Development, 51, 1010–1017.Dawe, H.C. (1934). An analysis of two hundred quarrels of preschool children. Child

Development, 5, 139–157.De Gaetano, Y., Williams, L.R., & Volk, D. (1998). Kaleidoscope: A multicultural approach

for the primary school classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill.De Grella, L.H., & Green, V.P. (1984). Young children’s attitudes toward orthopedic and

sensory disabilities. Education of the Visually Handicapped, 16(1), 3–11.Delgado-Gaitan, C., & Trueba, H. (1991). Crossing cultural borders. New York, NY:

Falmer.De Lone, R.H. (1979). Small futures: Children, inequality, and the limits of liberal reform, New

York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Derman-Sparks, L., & A.B.C.Task Force. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools for empowering

young children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of YoungChildren.

Derman-Sparks, L., Higa, C.T., & Sparks, B. (1980). Children, race and racism; How raceawareness develops. Interracial Books for Children Bulletin, 11, 3–9.

Derman-Sparks, L., & Phillips, C.B. (1997). Teaching/learning anti-racism: A developmentalapproach. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Diamond, K.E. (1993). Preschool children’s concepts of disability in their peers. EarlyEducation and Development, 4(2), 123–129.

Diamond, K.E. (1994). Evaluating preschool children’s sensitivity to developmentaldifferences in their peers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14(1), 49–62.


Diamond, K.E., & Hestenes, L.L. (1996). Preschool children’s conceptions of disabilities:The salience of disability in children’s ideas about others. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education, 16(4), 458–475.

Diamond, K.E., Hestenes, L.L., Carpenter, E.S., & Innes, F.K. (1997). Relationshipsbetween enrollment in an inclusive class and preschool children’s ideas about peoplewith disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17(4), 520–536.

Diamond, K.E., & Innes, F.K. (2001). Young children’s attitudes toward peers withdisabilities. In M.Guralnick (Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 159–178). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

Diamond, K.E., Le Furgy, W., & Blass, S., (1993). Attitudes of preschool children towardtheir peers with disabilities: A year-long investigation in integrated classrooms. Journalof Genetic Psychology, 154, 215–221.

Dittmar, H., & Van Duuren, M. (1993). Human nature beliefs and perceptions of theeconomic world. Journal of Foundation of Organizational Research (spring), 49–62.

Dodge, K.A., Pettit, G.S., & Bates, J.E. (1994). Socialization mediators of the relationbetween socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Development, 65,649–665.

Doyle, A. (1982). Friends, acquaintances, and strangers. In K.H.Rubin & H.S.Ross (Eds.),Peer relationships and social skills in childhood (pp. 229–252). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Doyle, A., & Aboud, F.E. (1993). Social and cognitive determinants of prejudice inchildren. In K.A.McLeod (Ed.), Multicultural education: The state of the art (pp. 28–33).Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Driscoll, A.M., Mayer, R.N., & Belk, R.W. (1985). The young child’s recognition ofconsumption symbols and their social implications. Child Study Journal, 15(2), 117–130.

Duckitt, J. (1992). Psychology and prejudice. American Psychologist, 47(10), 1182–1193.Duncan, G., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds.). (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York,

NY: Russell Sage.Edelman, M.W. (1986). Families in peril: An agenda for social change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Edwards, C.P. (1986). Promoting social and moral development in young children: Creative

approaches for the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Eisenberg, A. (1996). The conflict talk of mothers and children: Patterns related to culture,

SES, and gender of child. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(3), 438–452.Emler, N., & Dickinson, J. (1985). Children’s representation of economic inequalities: The

effects of social class. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 191–198.Erikson, E.H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.Fadiman, A. (1997). The spirit catches you and you fall down. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus,

& Giroux.Farmer, T.W., & Farmer, E.M. Z. (1996). Social relationships of students with

exceptionalities in mainstream classrooms: Social networks and homophily.Exceptional Children, 62(5), 431–450.

Farrell, C., & Olson, J. (1982, April). Kenneth Clark revisited: Racial identification in light-skinned and dark-skinned Black children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

Farver, J.M., & Shin, Y.L. (1997). Social pretend play in Korean- and Anglo-Americanpreschoolers. Child Development, 68(3), 544–556.


Farver, J.M., Welles-Nystrom, B., Frosch, D.L., Wimbarti, S., & Hoppe-Graff, S. (1997).Toy stories: Aggression in children’s narratives in the United States, Sweden,Germany, and Indonesia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(4), 393–420.

Farver, J.M., Kim, Y.K., & Lee, Y. (1995). Cultural differences in Korean- andAngloAmerican preschoolers’ social interaction and play behaviors. Child Development,66, 1088–1099.

Favazza, P., & Odom, S.L. (1997). Promoting positive attitudes of kindergarten-agechildren toward people with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 405–418.

Finkelstein, N.W., & Haskins, R. (1983). Kindergarten children prefer same-color peers.Child Development, 54, 502–508.

Fishbein, H.D., & Imai, S. (1993). Preschoolers select playmates on the basis of gender andrace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 303–316.

Fordham, S. (1988). Racelessness as a factor in Black students’ school success: Pragmaticstrategy or Pyrrhic victory? Harvard Educational Review, 58(1), 54–84.

Franklin, M.E. (1992). Culturally sensitive instructional practices for African-Americanlearners with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59(2), 115–122.

Fox, D.J., & Jordan, V.B. (1973). Racial preference and identification of Black, AmericanChinese, and White children. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 88, 229–286.

Furnham, A., & Stacey, B. (1991). Young people’s understanding of society. New York, NY:Routledge.

Furby, L. (1979). Inequalities in personal possessions: Explanations for and judgementsabout unequal distribution. Human Development, 22, 180–202.

Furth, H.G. (1980). The world of grown-ups: Children’s conceptions of society. New York, NY:Elsevier.

Gallas, K. (1998). “Sometimes I can be anything”: Power, gender and identity in a primaryclassroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Garbarino, J. (1999). Lost boys: Why our sons turn violent and how we can save them. NewYork, NY: Free Press.

Garbarino, J., Dubrow, N., Kostelny, K., & Pardo, C. (1992). Children in danger: Copingwith the consequences of community violence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

García Coll, C.T., & Garcia, H.A. (1995). Developmental processes and their influence oninterethnic and interracial relations. In W.D.Hawley & A.W.Jackson (Eds.), Toward acommon destiny: Improving race and ethnic relations in America (pp. 103–130). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-bass.

García Coll, C., Lamberty, C., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H.P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B.H., &Vazquez Garcia, H. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmentalcompetencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891–1914.

Garcia, E., & Hurtado, A. (1995). Becoming American: A review of current research onthe development of racial and ethnic identity in children. In W.D.Hawley &A.W.Jackson (Eds.), Toward a common destiny: Improving race and ethnic relations inAmerica (pp. 163–184). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Garcia, R.L. (1990). Teaching in a pluralistic society: Concepts, models, and strategies (2nd ed.).New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Gemmell-Crosby, S., & Hanzik, J.R. (1994). Preschool teachers’ perceptions of includingchildren with disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation andDevelopmental Disabilities, 29(4), 279–290.

Gerber, P.J. (1997). Awareness of handicapping conditions and sociometric status in anintegrated preschool setting. Mental Retardation, 15, 24–25.


Gibbs, J.T., Huang, L.N., & Associates. (Eds.) (1989). Children of color: Psychologicalinterventions with minority youths. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gibson, M.A., & Ogbu, J.U. (Eds.). (1991). Minority status and schooling: A comparative studyof immigrant and involuntary minorities. New York, NY: Garland.

Gleason, J.J. (1991). Multicultural and exceptional student education: Separate but equal?Preventing School Failure, 36(1), 47–49.


Gonzalez-Ramos, G., Zayas, L.H., & Cohen, E.V. (1998). Child-rearing values oflowincome, urban Puerto Rican mothers of preschool children. DevelopmentalPsychology, 29(4), 377–382.

Goodman, H., Gottlieb, J., & Harrison, R.H. (1972). Social acceptance of EMR’sintegrated into a non-graded elementary school. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,76, 412–417.

Goodman, J.E. (1989). Does retardation mean dumb? Children’s perceptions of the nature,cause, and course of mental retardation. Journal of Special Education, 23, 313–329.

Goodman, M. (1952). Race awareness in young children. Cambridge, MA: AddisonWesley.Gottman, J.D., Gonso, J., & Rasmussen, B. (1975). Social interaction, social competence,

and friendship in children. Child Development, 46, 708–718.Graham, J.A., & Cohen, R. (1997). Race and sex as factors in children’s sociometric ratings

and friendship choices. Social Development, 6(3), 355–372.Gramezy, N. (1992). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes

associated with poverty. In T.Thompson & S.C.Hupp (Eds.), Saving children at risk:Poverty and disabilities (pp. 45–60). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Greenfield, P.M. (1994). Independence and interdependence as developmental scripts:Implications for theory, research, and practice. In P.M.Greenfield & R.R.Cocking(Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 1–37). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grenot-Scheyer, M., Staub, D., Peck, C.A., & Schwartz, I.S. (1998). Reciprocity andfriendships: Listening to the voices of children and youth with and withoutdisabilities. In L.H.Meyer, H-S.Park, M.Grenot-Scheyer, I.S.Schwarz, & B.Harry(Eds.), Making friends: The influences of culture and development (pp. 149–167). Baltimore,MD: Paul Brookes.

Guralnick, M.J. (1980). Social interactions among preschool children. Exceptional Children,46, 248–253.

Guralnick, M.J., Connor, R.T., Hammond, M.A., Gottman, J.M., & Kinnish, K. (1996).The peer relations of preschool children with communication disorders. ChildDevelopment, 67, 471–489.

Guralnick, M.J., & Groom, J.M. (1987). The peer relations of mildly delayed and non-handicapped preschool children in mainstreamed playgroups. Child Development, 58,1556–1572.

Hallinan, M.T., & Teixeira, R.A. (1987). Opportunities and constraints: Black-Whitedifferences in the formation of interracial friendships. Child Development, 58, 1358–1371.

Hanson, M.J., Gutierrez, S., Morgan, M., Brennan, E.L., & Zercher, C. (1997). Language,culture, and disability: Interacting influences on preschool inclusion. Topics in EarlyChildhood Special Education, 17(3), 307–336.


Harper, D.C., Wacker, D.P., & Cobb, L.S. (1986). Children’s social preferences towardpeers with visible physical differences. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11(3), 323–342.

Harrah, J., & Friedman, M. (1990). Economic socialization in children in a midwesternAmerican community. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 495–513.

Harry, B. (1998). Parental visions of “una vida normal/a normal life”: Cultural variationson a theme. In L.H.Meyer, H-S.Park, M.Grenot-Scheyer, I.S.Schwarz, & B.Harry(Eds.), Making friends: The influences of culture and development (pp. 47–62). Baltimore,MD: Paul Brookes.

Harry, B., Park, H-S., & Day, M. (1998). Friendships of many kinds: Valuing the choice ofchildren and youth with disabilities. In L.H.Meyer, H-S.Park, M.Grenot-Scheyer,I.S.Schwarz, & B.Harry, (Eds.), Making friends: The influences of culture and development(pp. 393–402). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

Harvey, M.R. (1980). Public school treatment of low-income children: Education forpassivity. Urban Education, 15, 279–323.

Harwood, R.L., Schoelmerich, A., Schulze, P.A., & Gonzalez, Z. (1999). Culturaldifferences in maternal beliefs and behaviors: A study of middle-class Anglo andPuerto Rican mother-infant pairs in four everyday situations. Child Development, 70(4), 1005–1016.

Haymes, S.N. (1995). Race, culture, and the city: A pedagogy for Black urban struggle. Albany:State University of New York Press.

Hazzard, A. (1983). Children’s experience with, knowledge of, and attitude towarddisabled persons. Journal of Special Education, 17(2), 131–139.

Helms, J. (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. Wesport, CT:Greenwood.

Helper, J.B. (1994). Mainstreaming children with learning disabilities: Have we improvedtheir social environments? Social Work in Education, 16(3), 143–154.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Miller, N. (Eds.). (1992). Interaction in cooperative groups.Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Hilliard, A.G. (1992). The pitfalls and promises of special education practice. ExceptionalChildren, 59(2), 168–172.

Hirschfield, L.A. (1994). On acquiring social categories: Cognitive development andanthropological wisdom. Man, 23, 611–638.

Hirschfield, L.A. (1995). Do children have a theory of race? Cognition, 54, 209–252.Hirschfield, L.A., & Gelman, S.A. (1997). What young children think about the

relationship between language variation and social difference. Cognitive Development,12, 213–238.

Holmes, R.M. (1997). Children’s use of social distance: The effects of race and gender. ChildStudy Journal, 27(2), 129–144.

Howes, C., & Wu, F. (1990). Peer interactions and friendships in an ethnically diverseschool setting. Child Development, 61, 537–541.

Hui, C.H., & Triandis, H.C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-culturalresearchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225–248.

Huston, A.C. (1991). Children in poverty: Developmental and policy issues. InA.C.Huston (Ed.), Children in poverty: Child development and public policy (pp. 1–22).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Huston, A.C., McLoyd, V.C., & García Coll, C. (1994). Children and poverty: Issues incontemporary research. Child Development, 65, 275–282.


Iano, R.P., Ayers, D., Heller, H.B., McGettigan, J. K, & Walker, V.S. (1974). Sociometricstatus of retarded children in an integrative program. Exceptional Children, 40(4), 261–211.

Igoa, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.Jahoda, G. (1979). Construction of economic reality by some Glaswegian children.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 115–127.Jarrett, O., & Quey, L. (1983, April). Cross-racial acceptance and best friend choice in racially

balanced kindergarten and first-grade classrooms. Paper presented at the biennial meeting ofthe Society for Research in Child Development, Detroit, MI.

Juvonen, J., & Bear, G. (1992). Social adjustment of children with and without learningdisabilities in integrated classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 322–330.

Kang, B., & Ramsey, P.G. (1993). The effects of gender, race, and social class differences onchildren’s friendships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Atlanta, GA.

Katz, P.A. (1976). The acquisition of racial attitudes in children. In P.A.Katz (Ed.),Towards the elimination of racism (pp. 125–154). New York, NY: Pergamon.

Katz, P.A. (1982). Development of children’s racial awareness and intergroup attitudes. InL.G.Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education (pp. 17–54). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

Katz, P.A., & Kofkin, J.A. (1997). Race, gender, and young children. In S.Luthar,J.Burack, D.Cicchetti, & J.Weisz (Eds.), Developmental perspectives on risk and pathology(pp. 51–74). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kich, G.K. (1992). The developmental process of asserting a biracial, bicultural identity. InM.P.Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 304–317). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Kindlon, D., & Thompson, M. (1999). Raising Cain: Protecting the emotional lives of boys.New York, NY: Ballantine.

Kishi, G.S., & Meyer, L.H. (1994). What children report and remember: A six-year follow-up of the effects of social contact between peers with and without severe disabilities.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19(4), 277–289.

Kistner, J., Metzler, A., Gatlin, D., & Risi, S. (1993). Classroom racial proportions andchildren’s peer relations: Race and gender effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 446–452.

Kivel, P. (1999). Boys will be men: Raising our sons for courage, caring, and community. GabriolaIsland, BC, Canada: New Society.

Kline, S. (1993). Out of the garden: Toys and children’s culture in the age of TV marketing.London, UK: Verso.

Kobayashi-Winata, H., & Power, T.G. (1989). Child rearing and compliance: Japanese andAmerican families in Houston. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(4), 333–356.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York, NY: Crown.Kozol, J. (1995). Amazing grace: The lives of children and the conscience of a nation. New York,

NY: Crown.Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Lambert, W.E., & Klineberg, O. (1967). Children’s views of foreign peoples. New York, NY:

Appleton-Century-Crofts.


Leahy, R. (1981). The development of the conception of economic inequality:I.Descriptions and comparisons of rich and poor people. Child Development, 52, 523–532.

Leahy, R. (1983). The development of the conception of social class. In R.Leahy (Ed.),The child’s construction of inequality (pp. 79–107). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Leahy, R. (1990). The development of concepts of economic and social inequality. NewDirections for Child Development, 46, 107–120.

Longstreet, W.S. (1978). Aspects of ethnicity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Lubeck, S. (1985). Sandbox society: Early education in Black and White America. London: Falmer.Maccoby, E.E. (1986). Social groupings in childhood: Their relationship to prosocial and

antisocial behavior in boys and girls. In D.Olewus, J.Block, & M.Radke-Yarrow(Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior (pp. 263–284). New York, NY:Academic Press.

Macias, J. (1990). Scholastic antecedents of immigrant students: Schooling in a Mexicanimmigrant-sending community. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 21, 291–318.

Mapley, C.E., & Kizer, J.B. (1983). Children’s process of sex-role incongruent information: “Thenurse’s name was Dr. Brown.” Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society forResearch in Child Development, Detroit, MI.

Martin, C.L., & Halverson, C. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing andstereotyping in children. Child Development, 52, 1119–1134.

Matute-Bianchi, M.E. (1991). Situational ethnicity and patterns of school performanceamong immigrant and nonimmigrant Mexican-descent students. In M.A.Gibson &J.U.Ogbu (Eds.), Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of immigrant andinvoluntary minorities (pp. 205–247). New York, NY: Garland.

McAdoo, H.P. (Eds.) (1993). Family ethnicity: Strength in diversity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.McGraw, K.O., Durm, M.W., Durnam, M.R. (1989). The relative salience of sex, race,

age, and glasses in children’s social perception. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 150(3),251–267.

McIntosh, P. (1995). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming tosee correspondences through work in women’s studies. In M.L.Anderson & P.H.Collins (Eds.), Race, class, and gender: An anthology (pp. 76–87). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

McLoyd, V.C. (1998). Changing demographics in the American population: Implicationsfor research on minority children and adolescents. In V.C.McLoyd & L.Steinberg(Eds.), Studying minority adolescents: Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical issues (pp.3–28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McLoyd, V.C., & Ceballo, R. (1998). Conceptualizing and assessing the economiccontext: Issues in the study of race and child development. In V.C.McLoyd &L.Steinberg (Eds.), Studying minority adolescents: Conceptual, methodogical, and theoreticalissues (pp. 251–278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McLoyd. V.C., & Wilson, L. (1992). The strain of living poor: Parenting, social support,and child mental health. In A.C.Huston (Ed.), Children in poverty: Child developmentand public policy (pp. 105–135). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Milich, R., McAnnich, C.B., & Harris, M.J. (1992). Effects of stigmatizing information onchildren’s peer relations: Believing is seeing. School Psychology Review, 21(3), 400–409.

Miller, M. (1984). Social acceptability characteristics of learning disabled students. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 17(10), 619–621.

Milner, D. (1983). Children and race. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.


Morehouse, M.J., & Sanders, P.E. (1992). Children’s feelings of school competence andperceptions of parents’ work in four socio-cultural contexts. Social Development, 1(3),185–200.

Nabors, L. (1995). Attitudes, friendship ratings, and behaviors for typically developing preschoolersinteracting with peers with disabilities. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of theSociety for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.

Nabors, L. (1997). Social interaction among preschool children in inclusive child carecenters. Applied Developmental Science, 1(4), 162–167.

Nabors, L., & Keyes, L. (1995). Preschoolers’ reasons for accepting peers with and withoutdisabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 7(4), 335–355.

Naimark, H. (1983, April). Children’s understanding of social class differences. Paper presentedat the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Detroit,MI.

Naimark, H., & Shaver, P. (1982). Development of the understanding of social class. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association,Washington, DC.

Navon, R., & Ramsey, P.G. (1989). Possession and exchange of materials in Chinese andAmerican preschools. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 4, 18–29.

Newman, M.A., Liss, M.B., & Sherman, F. (1983). Ethnic awareness in children: Not aunitary concept. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 143, 103–112.

Nightingale, C.H. (1993). On the edge: A history of poor Black children and their Americandreams. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Ocampo, K.A., Bernal, M.E., & Knight, G.P. (1993). Gender, race, and ethnicity: Thesequencing of social constancies. In M.E.Bernal & G.P.Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity:Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 11–30). Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Odom, S.L., McConnell, S.R., & Chandler, L.K. (1993). Acceptability and feasibility ofclassroom-based social interaction interventions for young children with disabilities.Exceptional Children, 60(3), 226–236.

Odom, S.L., Peck, C.A., Hanson, M., Beckman, P.J., Kaiser, A.P., Lieber, J., Brown,W.H., Horn, E.M., & Schwartz, I.S. (1996). Inclusion at the preschool level: Anecological systems analysis. Social Policy Report of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, 10(2 & 3), 18–30.

Ogbu, J.U. (1978). Minority education and caste. New York, NY: Academic Press.Ogbu, J.U. (1982). Socialization: A cultural ecological approach. In K.M.Borman (Ed.),

The social life of children in a changing society (pp. 253–267). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Orellana, M.F. (1994). Appropriating the voice of the superheroes: Three preschoolers’bilingual language uses in play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 171–193.

Patchen, M. (1982). Black-White contact in schools: Its social and academic effects. WestLafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Pearl, R., Farmer, T.W., Van Acker, R., Rodkin, P.C., Bost, K.K., Coe, M., & Henley,W. (1998). The social integration of students with mild disabilities in generaleducation classrooms: Peer group membership and peer-assessed social behavior.Elementary School Journal, 99(2), 167–185.

Peters, M.F. (1985). Racial socialization of young Black children. In H.P.McAdoo &J.L.McAdoo (Eds.), Black children: Social, educational, and parental environment (pp. 159–173). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


Phelan, P., & Davidson, A.L. (1993). Renegotiating cultural diversity in American schools. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

Phinney, J.S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents.Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34–49.

Phinney, J.S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research.Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499–514.

Phinney, J.S. (1993). A three-stage model of ethnic identity development in adolescence.In M.E.Bernal & G.P.Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission amongHispanics and other minorities (pp. 61–79). Albany: State University of New York Press.


Phinney, J.S., & Alipuria, L. (1990). Ethnic identity in college students from four ethnicgroups. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 171–183.

Phinney, J.S., & Tarver, S. (1988). Ethnic identity search and commitment in Black andWhite eighth graders. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8(3), 265–211.

Piaget, J., & Weil, A.M. (1951). The development in children of the idea of the homelandand of relations to other countries. International Social Science Journal, 3, 561–578.

Polakow, V. (1993). Lives on the edge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Polakow, V. (2000). Savage policies: Systemic violence and the lives of children. In V.

Polakow (Ed.), The public assault on America’s children: Poverty, violence and juvenile injustice(pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Pollack, W. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York, NY:Random House.

Porter, J.D. (1971). Black child, White child: The development of racial attitudes. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Quintana S.M. (1998). Children’s developmental understanding of ethnicity and race.Applied and Preventive Psychology, 7, 27–45.

Ramsey, P.G. (1983). Young children’s responses to racial differences: Sociocultural perspectives.Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, Detroit, MI.

Ramsey, P.G. (1986). Racial and cultural categories. In C.P. Edwards with P.G. Ramsey,Promoting social and moral development in young children: Creative approaches for the classroom(pp. 78–101). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ramsey, P.G. (1987). Young children’s thinking about ethnic differences. In J.Phinney &M.Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialization: Pluralism and development (pp. 56–72). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ramsey, P.G. (1991a). Making friends in school: Promoting peer relationships in early childhood.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ramsey, P.G. (1991b). The salience of race in young children growing up in an all-Whitecommunity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 28–34.

Ramsey, P.G. (1995). Changing social dynamics of early childhood classrooms. ChildDevelopment, 66, 764–773.

Ramsey, P.G., & Myers, L.C. (1990). Young children’s responses to racial differences:Relations among cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. Journal of AppliedDevelopmental Psychology, 11, 49–67.

Rex, J. (1986). Race and ethnicity. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Rist, R.C. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling

prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 40, 411–451.


Roberts, C., & Zubrick, S. (1992). Factors influencing the social status of children withmild academic disabilities in regular classrooms. Exceptional Children, 59(3), 192–202.

Rohrer, G.K. (1977). Racial and ethnic identification and preference in young children.Young Children, 32, 24–33.

Roopnarine, J.L., Lasker, J., Sacks, M., & Stores, M. (1998). The cultural contexts ofchildren’s play. In O.Saracho & B.Spodek (Eds.), Play in early childhood (pp. 194–219).Albany: State University of New York Press.

Root, M.P. (Ed.). (1992). Racially mixed people in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Rosenfield, D., & Stephan, W.G. (1981). Intergroup relations among children. In S.S.

Brehm, S.M.Kassin, & F.X.Gibbons (Eds.), Developmental social psychology (pp. 271–297). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rotenberg, K.J., & Cerda, C. (1994). Racially based trust expectancies of Native Americanand Caucasian children. Journal of Social Psychology, 134(5), 621–631.

Rotheram, M.J., & Phinney, J. (1987). Introduction: Definitions and perspectives in thestudy of children’s ethnic socialization. In J.Phinney & M.J.Rotheram (Eds.),Children’s ethnic socialization: Pluralism and development (pp. 10–28). Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1995). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York,NY: Simon & Schuster.

Salisbury, C.L., & Palombar, M.M. (1998). Evolving relationships in an inclusiveelementary school. In L.H.Meyer, H-S.Park, M.Grenot-Scheyer, I.S.Schwarz, & B.Harry, (Eds.), Making friends: The influences of culture and development (pp. 81–104).Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

Schofield, J.W. (1981). Complementary and conflicting identities: Images and interactionin an interracial school. In S.R.Asher & J.M.Gottman (Eds.), The development ofchildren’s friendships (pp. 53–90). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Schofield, J.W. (1989). Black and White in school: Trust, tension, or tolerance. New York,NY: Teachers College Press.

Serbin, L.A., Tonick, I.J., & Sternglanz, S.H. (1977). Shaping cooperative cross-sex play.Child Development, 48, 924–929.

Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Processes,13, 5–31.

Sheridan, M.K., Foley, G.M., & Radlinski, S.H. (1995). Using the supportive play model:Individualized intervention in early childhood practice. New York, NY: Teachers CollegePress.

Sigelman, C.K. (1991). The effect of causal information on peer perceptions of childrenwith physical problems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12, 237–253.

Sigelman, C.K., & Singleton, L.C. (1986). Stigmatization in childhood: A survey ofdevelopmental trends and issues. In G.Becker, L.M.Colema, & S.Ainley (Eds.), Thedilemma of difference: A multidisciplinary view of stigma (pp. 185–208). New York, NY:Plenum.

Signorella, M.L., Bigler, R.S., & Liben, L.S. (1993). Developmental differences in children’sgender schemata about others: A meta-analytic review. Developmental Review, 13, 147–183.

Singleton, L.C., & Asher, S.R. (1977). Peer preferences and social interaction among third-grade children in an integrated school district. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69,330–336.


Siperstein, G.N., Brownley, M., & Scott, C.K. (1989). Social interchanges between mentallyretarded and non-retarded friends. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Societyfor Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO.

Slavin, R.E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315–342.Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning and intergroup relations. In J.A. Banks &


Sleeter, C.E. (1994). White racism. Multicultural Education, 1 (spring), 5–8, 39.Soto, L.D. (1991). Understanding bilingual/bicultural young children. Young Children, 46

(2), 30–36.Spencer, M.B., Brookins, G.K., & Allen, W.R. (Eds.) (1985). Beginnings: The social and

affective development of Black children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Spencer, M.B., & Markstrom-Adams, C. (1990). Identity processes among racial and

ethnic minority children in America. Child Development, 61, 290–310.Spivak, G., & Shure, M.B. (1974). Social adjustment of young children. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.Stabler, J.R., Zeig, J.A., & Johnson, E.E. (1982). Perceptions of racially related stimuli by

young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54(1), 71–77.Stalvey, L.M. (1989). The education of a WASP. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Stipek, D.J., & Ryan, R.H. (1997). Economically disadvantaged preschoolers: Ready to

learn but further to go. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 711–723.St. John, N.H. (1975). School desegregation: Outcomes for children. New York, NY: John

Wiley & Sons.Stronge, J.H. (Ed.) (1992). Educating homeless children and adolescents: Evaluating policy and

practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Swadener, E.B., & Johnson, J.E. (1989). Play in diverse social contexts: Parent and teacher

roles. In M.N.Block & A.D.Pellegrini (Eds.), The ecological context of children’s play (pp.214–244). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Swadener, B.B., & Lubeck, S. (1995). Children and families “at promise.” Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. New York, NY: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Tatum, B.D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racialidentity development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 1–24.

Tatum, B.D. (1994). Teaching White students about racism: The search for White alliesand the restoration of hope. Teachers College Record, 95, 462–276.

Taylor, A.R., Asher, S.R., & Williams, G.A. (1987). The social adaptation ofmainstreamed mildly retarded children. Child Development, 58, 1321–1334.

Tharp, R.G. (1989). Psychological variables and constants: Effects on teaching and learningin schools. American Psychologist, 44, 349–359.

Thompson, T. (1992). For the sake of our children: Poverty and disabilities. InT.Thompson & S.C.Hupp (Eds.), Saving children at risk: Poverty and disabilities (pp. 3–10). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Thompson, T., & Hupp, S.C. (Eds.). (1992). Saving children at risk: Poverty and disabilities.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Thorne, B. (1986). Girls and boys together…but mostly apart: Gender arrangements inelementary schools. In W.W.Hartup & Z.Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development(pp. 167–184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Thurman, S.K., & Lewis, M. (1979). Children’s responses to differences: Some possibleimplications for mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 45, 468–470.

Townsend, B.L. (1999). Social friendships and networks among African American childrenand youth. In L.H.Meyer, H-S.Park, M.Grenot-Scheyer. I.S.Schwarz, & B.Harry,(Eds.), Making friends: The influences of culture and development (pp. 225–241). Baltimore,MD: Paul Brookes.

Troyna, B., & Hatcher, R. (1992). Racism in children’s lives: A study of a mainly-Whiteprimary school. London: Routledge.

Ulichny, P. (1994). Cultures in conflict. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Urberg, K.A., & Kaplan, M.G. (1989). An observational study of race-, age-, and sex-heterogeneous interactions in preschoolers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,10, 299–311.

Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families andschool. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B.E., & Schumm, J.S. (1996). The effects of inclusion on the socialfunctioning of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(6),598–608.

Vorrasi, J.A., & Gabarino, J. (2000). Poverty and youth violence: Not all risk factors arecreated equal. In V.Polakow (Ed.), The public assault on America’s children: Poverty,violence and juvenile injustice (pp. 59–77). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Werner, E.E. (1989). High-risk children in young adulthood: A longitudinal study frombirth to 32 years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 72–81.

West, C. (1993). Race matters. Boston, MA: Beacon.Whiting, B.B., & Edwards, C.P. (1988). Children of different worlds: The formation of social

behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Whiting, B.B., & Whiting, J.W. M. (1975). Children of six cultures: A psychocultural analysis.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Williams, J.E., Best, D., Boswell, D., Matson, L., & Graves, D. (1975). Preschool racial

attitude measure II. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 3–18.Williams, J.E., & Morland, J.K. (1976). Race, color and the young child. Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina Press.Wilson, W.J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Wright, C. (1992). Race relations in the primary school. London: David Fulton.


Aboud, F.E. (1988). Children and prejudice. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.This volume includes a comprehensive review of several decades of research on

the nature of prejudice in children, how it develops, and factors that influence thecourse of that development. The author critiques many studies for using measuresthat are not reliable or valid and using cross-sectional, rather than longitudinal,designs, making it difficult to separate age and cohort effects. She points out that


the field in general lacks coherent theoretical constructs. In the last chapter theauthor describes her social-cognitive developmental theory of prejudice, based ona Piagetian framework, and illustrates how it can explain many of the confusingfindings in previous research. According to this theory, children’s prejudice mayincrease up until they are about 7 years old. Then, in conjunction with new andemerging cognitive abilities, they are able to see others’ perspectives and todistinguish individuals from groups, and they become less prejudiced. How thisdevelopment unfolds depends on the social values that children learn. The bookconcludes with implications of this theory for work with children in classrooms toreduce prejudice.

Anzaldua, G. (1987). Borderlands/La frontera: The new Mestiza. San Francisco, CA: AuntLute.

Throughout this book, the author criss-crosses many borders—geographic,temporal, national, ethnic, spiritual, linguistic, and literary—and illustrates thecomplexity of growing up in the borderlands between Texas and Mexico. Theauthor weaves together her autobiography and the history of the Aztec migrationsfrom North America to Mexico and now back to North America, and thespiritual commingling of Aztec and Christian faiths. The themes of oppression andexploitation are compellingly and devastatingly expressed in poems and stories ofcontemporary farm workers and legendary figures. The author also brings acontemporary feminist critique to the patriarchal traditions of her home culture.She eloquently articulates the need to tolerate ambiguity and contradictions andexpresses confidence that out of these struggles will come a new consciousness.The writing itself illustrates this inclusiveness and flexibility by continuouslyshifting between Spanish and English and between prose and poetry. Althoughthe book focuses on the experience of a Mexican American woman, thecomplexities and contradictions that it explores are relevant to anyone who is“caught in the spaces between the different worlds she inhabits” (p. 20).

Bernal, M.E., & Knight, G.P. (Eds.) (1993). Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission amongHispanics and other minorities. Albany: State University of New York Press.

This edited volume addresses a number of issues related to the ethnic identitiesof minorities, especially of Mexican Americans. In the first section, several authorsdescribe different stages and processes of identity development. The secondsection focuses on how ethnic identity is transmitted across generations and howdifferent family experiences and orientations affect this process. In the thirdsection, the authors offer two integrative approaches to the formation andtransmission of ethnic identity. The final chapter is dedicated to looking at thesocietal implications of ethnic identities.

Bigler, R.S. (1997). Conceptual and methodological issues in the measurement ofchildren’s sex typing. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 53–69.

The article critiques the conceptual assumptions and methodological confusionthat has typified a great deal of the research on children’s sex-typing. In particular,theorists and empiricists have failed to distinguish among the target (e.g., self vs.


other), the form (e.g., knowledge vs. attitudes), and the domain of sex-typing (e.g.,occupations vs. activities). The author introduces a new measure, COAT-AM(Children’s Occupation, Activity, and Trait Attitude Measure), which wasdesigned to provide a firmer conceptual base for research and more precisemeasures of children’s sex-typing.

Bigler, R.S., Jones, L. C, & Lobliner, D.B. (1997). Social categorization and the formationof intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 68(3), 530–543.

This study provides compelling evidence that when social categories arefunctional and are used by adults to make distinctions among children (e.g., usedto organize children into groups), they can affect intergroup attitudes. In this case,the social categories were T-shirt colors that had no intrinsic meaning to thechildren. However, the children in rooms where the teachers grouped anddistinguished them according to T-shirt color showed more samegrouppreferences and cross-group avoidance than children in classrooms where the T-shirt colors were not mentioned by the teachers (although all the children in thestudy were required to wear either blue or yellow T-shirts). The fact that thisarbitrary and temporary division affected social preferences demonstrates thestrong influence that adult attitudes and school divisions (e.g., tracking) potentiallyhave on children’s intergroup attitudes and friendship patterns.

Bigler, R.S., & Liben, L.S. (1993). A cognitive-developmental approach to racialstereotyping and reconstructive memory in Euro-American children. ChildDevelopment, 64, 1507–1518.

This study focused on the cognitive dimension of stereotyping. Euro-Americanchildren heard several stories, some that supported common racial stereotypes andothers that were counterstereotyped, and then were asked to recall the details ofthe stories. Their responses differed by how much of each type of story(stereotyped or counterstereotyped) they recalled. They also did a task in whichthey classified nonsocial objects in as many different categories as they could. Theresults showed that that among this group of children, those who had bettermultiple classification skills (i.e., ability to classify the same object in manycategories) were more likely to recall counterstereotyped information aboutdifferent racial groups than their peers were. In a second part of the study, thechildren were trained in multiple classification skills using nonsocial objects, andthe children’s ability to retain counterstereotypic information improved. Thisstudy suggests that teaching multiple classification skills may be one way to makechildren more resistant to stereotypic assumptions and information.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and thecontradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

In this classic text, the authors demonstrate that the U.S. educational system is ameans of supporting the current economic system, rather than a source of socialchange. They support their thesis by showing how educational reform historicallyhas been driven by the economic needs of businesses (e.g., the need to trainfactory workers as the Industrial Revolution began), rather than by the ideal of


providing each child with equal educational and occupational opportunities. Theypoint out that schools have never reduced inequality, but have simply reproducedit. Their analysis lends support to the social reconstructionist perspective byshowing that true educational reform cannot occur outside of the context ofprofound social and economic changes.

Bowman, B.T., & Stott, F.M. (1994). Understanding development in a cultural context. InB.L.Mallory & R.S.New (Eds.), Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices:Challenges for early childhood education (pp. 119–133). New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.

The authors address the question of what aspects of development are universaland which ones are defined by cultural context. They assert that all children,regardless of background, develop mutually satisfying social relationships, ways ofintegrating their perceptions and categorizing new information, and the abilitiesto speak and perhaps to write a particular language and to think, imagine, andcreate. Individual physical differences, such as sensitivity to pain, distractibility,timing of onset of puberty, and body build, also play a formative role in children’sdevelopment. However, the authors point out that all developmental phases andindividual traits become meaningful only in the context of the child’s social lifeand cultural context.

Carrasquillo, A.L. (1991). Hispanic children and youth in the United States. New York, NY:Garland.

This resource book is a compilation of statistics and summaries of studies aboutmany aspects of the lives of Hispanic children and their families, including familystructures, housing, education, health, juvenile delinquency, and youthemployment. One limitation is that throughout most of the book Hispanics aredescribed as a single group, although the author does include a chapter delineatingthe histories and demographics of different Hispanic groups. This global treatmentof all Hispanics and a tendency to make sweeping causal statements underminesthe usefulness of the book in some places. The author uses compelling statistics toshow the relation between the devastation of poverty and urban living and thedismal educational and employment prospects for many Hispanic children. Thisbook helps to bring these problems into sharper focus, but tends to portrayHispanic families as victims. Except for a list of advocacy groups at the end, theauthor overlooks the many social, political, and economic movements that haveresisted the structures that have given rise to these conditions.

Chan, K.S., & Hune, S. (1995). Racialization and panethnicity: From Asians in America toAsian Americans. In W.D.Hawley & A.W.Jackson (Eds.), Toward a common destiny:Improving race and ethnic relations in America (pp. 205–233). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

The authors of this chapter describe the history of different Asian groups andthe emergence of the panethnic construct of “Asian American.” They point outthat the coalition of many Asian groups has given the Asian American communitymore political and economic clout than it might have had if the groups had


remained separate. However, tensions between individual groups andpanethnicity remain and, as the numbers within each group grow, thiscollaboration may be challenged. The authors argue that racial relations in theUnited States are no longer bipolar Black/White, but are multiracial, and that thesocial order is being contested among racial minorities, as well as between racialminorities and the White majority.

Child Development. (1990). Special Issue on Minority Children, 61(5).This issue of Child Development, edited by McLoyd and Spencer, contains 4

review articles on developmental outcomes of ethnic minority children and 19research reports on studies that have as their subjects children from specific ethnicgroups. The latter include studies on children’s academic achievement, schoolcompetence, peer interactions, social expectations, gender roles, high-riskbehaviors, and family dynamics. This issue of Child Development was a landmarkbecause it represented a shift toward looking at children typicallyunderrepresented in the research literature within their own contexts, not simplycomparing them with their White counterparts. This volume also provided aforum for assessing the current state of research on minority children, identifyingthe gaps, and setting future goals for both research and funding.

Child Development. (1994). Special Issue: Children and Poverty, 65(2).This special issue of Child Development contains 29 articles that report on

research about the effects of poverty on families and children; the kinship andcommunity support available to families living in poverty; the health and nutritionof poor children; the roles of school and day-care centers in aggravating orameliorating conditions related to poverty; family mediators of the effects ofpoverty; and evaluations of particular social, medical, and educationalinterventions with poor families and their children. The volume contains manyexcellent sources of new information. Many of the studies are longitudinal and allof them are more complex analyses than studies done in the 1960s, which weremore linear and tended to focus on single outcomes such as IQ. This volume isnoteworthy, as it is an attempt to address the criticisms of the field of childdevelopment for ignoring the social and economic contexts of development andrelying exclusively on White, middle-class subjects.

Comer, J.P. (1988). Maggie’s American dream. New York, NY: Plume.This story is a fascinating and inspiring account of Maggie Comer’s journey

from a childhood of extreme poverty to becoming the mother of five outstandingchildren, who have all become distinguished professionals, dedicated to workingfor social justice. The first part of the story is told in Maggie’s words, and thesecond part is by her son James Comer, a well-known psychiatrist and leader ofeducational reform. The story personalizes the effects of racism and economicdeprivation on children and vividly portrays how limited the options for Blackfamilies were in the early 20th century. However, it also illustrates the strength offamilies in the face of adversity and contradicts the view of poor African


Americans as passive victims. This book is an excellent resource for teaching childdevelopment and family relations, as well as providing new information about themuchneglected history of African Americans in the early part of the 20th century.

Connolly, P. (1998). Racism, gender identities and young children: Social relations in a multi-ethnic, inner-city primary school. New York, NY: Routledge.

This book is based on a qualitative study of 5- and 6-year-old children in amultiracial, urban primary school in England. The author observed the childrenfor a year and a half, interviewed them in groups, and interviewed families,teachers, and community people. The result is a fascinating, yet disturbing,account of how children are learning and applying racial beliefs in their everydaypeer relationships and how teachers’ and administrators’ racial beliefs permeatetheir teaching and, in particular, their disciplinary practices. Four chapters focuson the complex development of ethnic and gender identities of Black and SouthAsian boys and girls. They also include classroom observations that illustrate howschool-based efforts to foster positive identities and peer relationships often haveunintended negative effects.

Cross, W.E. (1985). Black identity: Rediscovering the distinction between personalidentity and reference group orientation. In M.B.Spencer, G.K.Brookins, &W.R.Allen (Eds.), Beginnings: The social and affective development of Black children (pp.155–171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cross reviews 161 Black identity studies that were conducted between 1939and 1977. He articulates the distinction between assessments of group referenceorientation, in which race or color is an explicit attribute of the stimulus materialsand scoring technique, and measures of personal identity, which focus onuniversal personality elements. He tabulates the number of studies that fit intoeach or both categories and then analyzes the previous conclusions drawn fromthese studies in light of this distinction. He argues that Blacks have had aconsistently high sense of self-esteem and have had a multifaceted reference grouporientation. He concludes that the Black Movement in the later part of the 20thcentury did not change Blacks’ personal self-esteem, but did increase the degreeof Black reference group orientation. He concludes that reference grouporientation is related to value systems, political posture, and likelihood of joininga collective struggle, but not to personal self-esteem.

Cross, W.E. (1991). Shades of Black. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.In this hard-hitting critique, Cross argues that earlier studies that showed that

African American children had lower self-esteem because they preferred Whitedolls to Black dolls were measuring reference group orientation, not personal self-esteem or identity. He suggests that children’s “misidentification” as White may bean attempt to resolve the contradiction between feeling personally valued, yetdisparaged because of group membership. His account of the research, how it wasdone and interpreted, illustrates how difficult it is to change the course of an areaof research, once people have become committed to a certain set of assumptions—in this case, the pathology of “Negro self-hatred.” Cross discusses in detail the


relationship between reference group orientation and personal identity and pointsout that attaining a strong Black identity (he uses the term Nigrescence) changesone’s values, priorities, and orientation to both the Black and the Whitecommunity, but does not change one’s personality or personal identity. In the lastsection of the book Cross provides a detailed account of the different stages onthe path to attaining a strong Black identity.

Delgado-Gaitan, C., & and Trueba, H. (1991). Crossing cultural borders. New York, NY:Falmer.

This ethnographic study portrays how cultural discontinuity can disruptchildren’s learning. By observing Mexican American children as they wentbetween home and school, the authors provide vivid details about how children’sinterest in learning was often undermined by school rules and teaching practicesthat were either unfamiliar or contrary to the way that children and adultsinteracted at home. The examples illustrate how some children quickly developedan antagonistic relationship with the school. The authors point out that mostteachers are ill-prepared to work with children from another culture and thateven well-intentioned efforts to be more responsive usually give way to enforcingthe rules and routines.

De Lone, R.H. (1979). Small futures: Children, inequality, and the limits of liberal reform. NewYork, NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

The main theme of this book is that social and economic justice cannot bebrought about by social reforms such as educational improvement, but requires thateconomic and social structures be changed to provide more equitable futures forchildren. The author illustrates how the unequal distribution of wealth ensuresthe inequality of children’s opportunities, despite legislative reform. Of particularrelevance to multicultural educators are his accounts of how children developtheories of social reality that reflect the lives of adults in their families andcommunities. In several poignant examples, he shows how at an early agechildren’s future aspirations are based on the educational and employmentconstraints and opportunities that they see in their immediate families andcommunities.

Diamond, K.E., & Hestenes, L.L. (1996). Preschool children’s conceptions of disabilities:The salience of disability in children’s ideas about others. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education, 16(4), 458–475.

In this study, preschoolers without disabilities who were enrolled in inclusiveclassrooms (i.e., ones that included at least one or two children with identifieddisabilities) were interviewed about different disabilities and their effects. Thetasks included sorting photographs to see how salient specific disabilities were incomparison to gender and age differences. The children were then asked questionsabout a series of photographs of children with different disabilities. The resultsrevealed that most of the children were aware of physical disabilities and howthey might affect children’s lives. Close to half of the children noticed sensorydisabilities, but were less clear about their consequences. No children recognized


cognitive or emotional disabilities. These findings suggest that young childrenunderstand disabilities better when they can actually see physical evidence (e.g., awheel-chair) and relate them to their own experiences (e.g., “He can’t run like Ican”).

Diamond, K.E., Hestenes, L.L., & O’Connor, C.E. (1994). Integrating young childrenwith disabilities in preschool: Problems and promise. Young Children, 49(2), 69–75.

This review gives an overview of the legal changes related to early interventionand shows how they have affected practice in preschools. The authors describeappropriate practices for successfully integrating children with disabilities andconclude that thoughtful, well-executed programs are beneficial for children withand without disabilities. They describe optimal administrative and teachingpractices and advocate activity-based interventions as the most effective avenuefor supporting cognitive, language, motoric, and social skills of young childrenwith disabilities.

Diamond, K.E., & Innes, F.K. (2001). Young children’s attitudes toward peers withdisabilities. In M.Guralnick (Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 159–178). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

This review synthesizes a number of studies about the development ofchildren’s attitudes about people with disabilities. The authors show how thesedeveloping attitudes are similar to the development of racial and gender attitudes,yet also are distinct. They describe how children’s reactions differ across specificdisabilities. The last part of the chapter includes summaries of recent studies onthe effects of various interventions and educational strategies to improve the socialinclusion of children with disabilities. The authors suggest a number of effectivestrategies, including: positive and sensitive adult attitudes toward children withdisabilities, high frequency of peer contact in cooperative situations, minimizationof the social disruptions and conspicuousness (e.g., therapies are done in theclassroom and other children can participate), and opportunities for children totalk about disabilities and develop strategies to include children with disabilities ingames and conversations (e.g., all sitting at the same height as a child in awheelchair).

Doyle, A.B. & Aboud, F.E. (1995). A longitudinal study of White children’s racialprejudice as a social-cognitive development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41(2), 209–228.

In this longitudinal study the researchers used the Preschool Racial AttitudeMeasure (PRAM II), a multiple response racial attitude measure (MRA), andseveral other measures to assess 47 White children’s prejudice toward Blackpeople at the age of 6 and again when they were 9. An additional group of 40 9-year-olds was tested one time. In the assessments children use pictures of peoplerepresenting different racial groups to designate which racial group they associatewith particular positive and negative adjectives and feelings. The findings revealedthat favorable-White and unfavorable-Black evaluations did not decline with age,but unfavorable-White and favorable-Black evaluations did increase. The authorsconcluded that as children get older, they do not necessarily reduce their ingroup


bias, but they do strengthen their counter-prejudice attitudes. Children also beginto perceive more interracial similarities and intra racial differences and accept thevalidity of racially different perspectives. Overall, the authors found thatdevelopmental shifts were more predictive of prejudice than individualdifferences.

Edelman, M.W. (1986). Families in peril: An agenda for social change. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

This famous and passionate analysis showed how the changing economic andemployment patterns devastated many children and their families and led to thewithdrawal of government programs for poor families that occurred in the 1980s.Edelman points out that although Black families are disproportionately affected,childhood poverty has increased in all racial and ethnic groups. She suggests somevery specific goals and strategies for ameliorating specific problems, such as teenpregnancy, and for developing more effective social programs for families. Thisbook, written in 1986, was highly publicized at the time. Unfortunately, a decadeand a half later, conditions for many families have worsened and solutions seemeven more elusive.

Edwards, C.P. (1986). Promoting social and moral development in young children: Creativeapproaches for the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

This book describes and illustrates the early development of children’sunderstanding about different aspects of their social environment—specifically,age, gender and sex roles, race, culture, family, friends, economic institutions(including the economic system and occupations), rules, and authority. The bookis based on a Piagetian framework, and for each area, the author describes specificcognitive developmental shifts that children may experience as they learn moreabout these phenomena. Each chapter also includes suggested activities called“thinking games.” Reflecting a constructivist approach to learning, they aredesigned both to reveal how children think about these aspects of theirenvironment and to challenge those assumptions. Teachers can use theseexamples to develop their own activities to address any number of issues.

Fordham, S. (1988). Racelessness as a factor in Black students’ school success: Pragmaticstrategy or Pyrrhic victory? Harvard Educational Review, 58(1), 54–84.

In this article Fordham describes in detail how African American students areconfronted by the challenge of maintaining their ties with their community andsucceeding in school. The gap between the Black fictive kinship system and theindividualistic competition of schools forces students to choose one orientation oranother. This ethnographic study shows how six African American students (threemales and three females) go to great lengths either to deny their race in order toachieve academically or to hide their academic success from their peers. Femalestudents, in particular, tend to become “raceless.”

Furnham, A., & Stacey, B. (1991). Young people’s understanding of society. New York, NY:Routledge.


The authors review the literature on how children understand different facets ofsociety. This volume includes chapters on politics and government, economicsand trade, work and employment, sex and gender, religion, race, law and justice,and social class. The authors view the development of understanding in theseareas from a Piagetian perspective (stage theory), but also stress the influence ofthe sociocultural context of children’s upbringing. Many of the studies they citeare ones with adolescents, but they often refer to the earlier stages of these concepts.The chapters on children’s understanding of economics and employment areparticularly interesting because little has been written about this area ofdevelopment. The chapters on race and social class are somewhat dated and do notrepresent the full range of recent research.

Furth, H.G. (1980). The world of grown-ups: Children’s conceptions of society. New York, NY:Elsevier.

In this major research project the author interviewed 195 British children, ages5 through 11, about their understanding of communities, societal roles, money,stores, schools, bus systems, and government. The author found that childrenappear to go through four stages of societal understanding, from personalisticinterpretations of social institutions to a more systematic framework. Transcripts ofthe children’s responses are included, to provide the reader with specific examplesof how children perceive and process social information during the childhood years.

Gallas, K. (1998). “Sometimes I can be anything”: Power, gender and identity in a primaryclassroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

The author, who teaches first and second grades, shares 4 years of observationsof children’s interactions, conversations, and stories to show how they developtheir ideas about gender, race, and power. The author also traces thedevelopment of particular children and groups over that time span. Theobservations are vivid and filled with fascinating and sometimes disturbing quotesand actions. Collectively, they reveal the complexities and nuances of children’sthinking and feelings, which are often blurred in quantitative and short-termassessments of children’s attitudes.

Garbarino, J., Dubrow, N., Kostelny, K., & Pardo, C. (1992). Children in danger: Copingwith the consequences of community violence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

This book illustrates how community violence affects children’s developmentand mental health. The authors compare children living in high-violenceneighborhoods with those living in war-torn areas such as Palestine andMozambique. However, they point out that in the latter situations, ideology givessome meaning to events, and families and neighbors unite to protect themselvesfrom an invading or dominating group. In contrast, the violence in neighborhoodsin this country is often random and meaningless. Using case studies, the authorsshow how violence disrupts families and thwarts children’s psychologicaldevelopment. To counteract these effects, the authors advocate high-quality earlychildhood programs with stable and dedicated staffs that are committed toteaching in developmentally appropriate ways and providing children and their


families with a refuge from the violence. They offer guidelines for setting upprograms and training teachers to work with children in high-violence areas.However, they also point out that these programs are expensive and that they canonly enhance children’s resilience; they do not change the conditions of theirlives.

García Coll, C., Lamberty, C., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H.P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B.H., &Vazquez Garcia, H. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmentalcompetencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891–1914.

The authors elaborate on Bronfenbrenner’s framework (1979, 1986) andpresent a comprehensive and integrative model for studying the developmentaloutcomes and competencies for minority children. They analyze children’sdevelopment within the context of social stratification that at the national levelincludes racism, prejudice, discrimination, oppression, and segregation and at thelocal level is evident in schools, neighborhoods, and health care. The authorsdescribe the community, family structures, and cultures that evolve in response tothe demands and inhibitions of living in an economically disadvantaged tier ofsociety. Although they do not dispute the deleterious effects of social, political,and economic disadvantages, the authors caution researchers and practitioners toavoid pathologizing minority groups and instead focus on how communities,families, and individual children develop strengths and strategies to overcome andresist these hardships.

Gibbs, J.T., Huang, L.N., & Associates (Eds.) (1989). Children of color: Psychologicalinterventions with minority youths. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

This edited volume provides excellent overviews of families, children, andadolescents from six different ethnic groups: Chinese American, JapaneseAmerican, American Indian, African American, Mexican American, Puerto RicanAmerican, Southeast Asian refugees, and biracial families. Written primarily forclinicians, the chapters offer many insights into how culture and oppression affectfamily issues and children’s behavioral patterns. The authors show howpractitioners unfamiliar with particular groups commonly misinterpret behavior.Specific examples from clinical cases make the book compelling and very readable.Many of the issues and suggestions apply to schools, as well as to clinical settings(e.g., establishing trust, rapport).

Gibson, M.A., & Ogbu, J.U. (Eds.) (1991). Minority status and schooling: A comparative studyof immigrant and involuntary minorities. New York, NY: Garland.

In this volume John Ogbu’s well-known distinction between voluntaryimmigrants and involuntary minorities is examined in a series of studies in theUnited States, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, and Britain. Collectively, thesestudies illustrate how, in many different countries, involuntary minorities arethwarted by generations of discrimination, job ceilings, and unfair treatment andcome to view education as another tool of subjugation on the part of thedominant group. Many youths from these backgrounds see the experiences oftheir parents and other relatives and conclude that they will not have good jobs,


regardless of their efforts in school. The voluntary immigrants, on the other hand,view education as a benefit and a way to get ahead. When they experiencediscrimination and racism, they see them as barriers to overcome in their quest fora better life. Several research studies illustrate how these differences emerge evenwhen the groups share cultural roots and physiological characteristics.

Greenfield, P.M., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (1994). Cross-cultural roots of minority childdevelopment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

This edited volume contributes to the current critical examination of thecultural bias in developmental theories and research by showing how developmentand socialization are expressed in ancestral cultures and reexpressed in new socialcontexts. The studies in this volume are a departure from the usual “compare andcontrast” view of cross-cultural studies, in which non-Western groups arecompared to the Western “norms.” Instead, the authors of these studies (whorepresent groups from all over the world and within the United States) use thesedifferences to challenge the assumptions of universality that underlie manydevelopmental theories. Specific groups represented in the volume are Native andMexican Americans within the United States; Africans, living in Africa and inEurope; and Korean, Chinese, and Japanese families living in their homecountries and in the United States.

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words; Language. New York, NY: Cambridge UniversityPress.

This well-known ethnographic study compares children’s language learningacross three communities: a working-class African American community, aworking-class White community, and a middle-income racially mixedcommunity, all located in the southeastern part of the United States. Heathconcludes that it is not the quantity of talk, but the kind of talk in homes andcommunities that makes the difference in children’s adjustment to the languagedemands of school. The author points out ways in which schools could change toincorporate the language experiences of a broader range of children.

Helms, J. (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. West-port, CT:Greenwood.

In this book, Helms identifies and analyzes several stages of White racialidentity that are somewhat parallel to Cross’s stages of Black racial identity. In theUnited States many Whites can live out their lives without ever confrontingracial issues and may never go through any of these stages. Others, however, mayhave an experience or relationship that makes them aware of racism, and theywill begin to confront the reality of racism and the realization that they are thebeneficiaries of unearned racial privilege. In the face of resistance and rejection bytheir White friends and families, some may retreat back to ignoring race or evenespousing racist beliefs. Others, on the other hand, go on to identify with Whiteantiracists and to take pride in the history of White resistance to racism. Withthese more secure White identities, they can become antiracist activists—


challenging the stereotypes and assumptions about White superiority that theyabsorbed while growing up.

Hirschfield, L.A. (1995). Do children have a theory of race? Cognition, 54, 209–252.In this article the author challenges the view that young children classify other

people based only on superficial and observable differences (e.g., skin color). Hereports on five studies done with predominately White children ages, 3 to 7, inwhich children matched pictures of adults and children that differed by race. bodytype, and occupation. Together, the results suggest that young children aredeveloping theories about race that reflect some of their emerging ideas aboutbiology. In particular, they appear to understand that some characteristics areinherited and permanent (e.g., skin color) and others (e.g., occupation) are not.These findings raise questions about the common assumption that young childrendo not yet understand that race is a permanent physical characteristic.

Holmes, R.M. (1995). How young children perceive race. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.This book describes an ethnographic study of children’s conceptions about race

and how it influences their social relationships. The author (European American)was a participant observer in five kindergarten classes with a total of 102 children:44 African American, 42 European American, 12 Latino, and 4 who belonged toother groups. During her hours in the classroom the author observed the childrenplay together and engaged them in conversations and drawing activities thatfocused on children’s ideas about various dimensions of racial differences andsimilarities. In contrast to studies that have used experimental or forced choicemethods in which children respond to predetermined stimuli and labels, this studyreveals children’s own conceptualizations about race in their natural settings.Holmes includes examples of conversations and drawings to illustrate the varietyand complexity of children’s thinking about race and how it influences their senseof self, categorization of people, and ideas about friendship, romance, andprocreation. The author found that, with rare exceptions, the children whom sheobserved and talked with had positive cross-race beliefs, were comfortableinteracting with children from different racial groups, and often espoused racialharmony. She attributes these positive feelings to the fact that the children wererelatively young and not yet influenced by prevailing negative racial attitudes andstereotypes and had the benefit of ongoing positive interracial encounters inschool.

Huston, A.C. (Ed.) (1991). Children in poverty: Child development and public policy. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.

This edited volume addresses three questions: Why are so many children in ourcountry growing up in poor families? What are the effects of poverty onchildren’s physical, cognitive, social, and emotional development? What role canpublic policy and policy research play in preventing or alleviating the devastatingeffects of poverty? Central to the book is the contention that public policies areusually judged on economic outcomes (e.g., reduction in the number of welfare


recipients) and very rarely in terms of outcomes for children (e.g., how doparents’ return to the workforce affect their children?) The first chapter describesthe rise in poverty in the 1980s and makes a distinction between transitory andpersistent poverty. Some chapters focus on circumstances that often lead tochildren being raised in poverty, such as female-headed households andadolescent parenting. Others illustrate how poverty affects family processes andmental and physical health. The final chapters describe successful programs andstrategies to alleviate the effects of poverty. However. all the authors stress theintractability of the problem and the need to go beyond simplistic questions,methods, and analyses in planning and evaluating programs.

Igoa, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.This volume is a personal account of a teacher who experienced many

dislocations in her own life and went on to work with students who are theoffspring of recent immigrants. She describes children’s experiences of beinguprooted from one culture and transplanted into another and the confusion,exhaustion, and fear that accompany learning a whole new set of rules, languages,and school expectations. Igoa articulates the different stages that children gothrough as they become more comfortable with their new surroundings and howteachers can work with children and families to help them maintain a sense ofcultural continuity and psychological safety as they adjust to school.

Katz, P.A. (Ed.) (1976). Towards the elimination of racism. New York, NY: Pergamon.This book contains 11 essays that address several major issues, theories, and

research findings on racial attitude development and change prior to 1976. Theauthors represent a number of fields, including psychology, sociology,communications, and government. The book is divided into three sections. Thefirst part includes three essays that summarize several theoretical viewpoints aboutthe factors that account for the acquisition and maintenance of negative racialattitudes. In the second section, research on the modification of individual racialattitudes and behavior in children and adults is reported. The final section focuseson institutional racism, such as employment patterns and resistance to legal reform.

Katz, P.A. (1982). Development of children’s racial awareness and intergroup attitudes. InL.G.Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education (pp. 17–54). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

This chapter is a review of theories and research about the course of thedevelopment of children’s racial attitudes. Based on research prior to 1982, itincludes a discussion of the developmental forerunners of racial attitudes and acritique of commonly used measurements of racial awareness. The authordelineates and compares some of the environmental factors that influence thecourse of racial attitude development, including reinforcement, direct instruction,and child-rearing styles, and the psychological factors, such as perception,cognition, and personality. The author compares racial attitude acquisition withthe development of other attitudes, such as sex roles, and proposes a sequence ofeight overlapping stages that span the preschool and elementary years.


Leahy, R.L. (1983). The development of the conception of social class. In R.L.Leahy(Ed.), The child’s construction of inequality (pp. 79–107). New York, NY: AcademicPress.

The author reviews several theories and previous research on the developmentof the concept of social class. He then proposes a Piagetian-based cognitive-developmental theory to explain how children learn about social class. A study of720 children from the ages of 6 through adolescence illustrates how children’sconcepts of social class progress through qualitatively different stages. Theparticipating children answered questions about their concepts of wealth andpoverty, their explanations for inequality, and their ideas about individualmobility and social change. Leahy describes the levels of awareness andunderstanding of social class and illustrates them with quotations from theinterview transcripts.

Leahy, R. (1990). The development of concepts of economic and social inequality. NewDirections for Child Development, 46, 107–120.

In this article, Leahy uses a Piagetian framework to explore a developmentalprogression of children’s explanations for social class differences. Based on severalstudies with children from different age, race, and social class groups, he identifiedthe following pattern in children’s explanations. Children from ages 6 to 11 relyon physical evidence (e.g., mentioning that poor people do not have food). Earlyadolescents (11–14) emphasize work, effort, and education as reasons for theunequal distribution of wealth and say that the rich should help the poor. Olderadolescents, who are capable of seeing the effects of unfair systems, use equityarguments (people should get paid for how hard they work) to justify the unequaldistribution of wealth. They also are more fatalistic about the persistence ofpoverty, stating that it is inevitable. As they get older, both Black and Whitestudents, across all social classes, increasingly justify the existing unequaldistribution of resources.

Lubeck, S. (1985). Sandbox society: Early education in Black and White America. London: Falmer.In this ethnographic study, the author compares two preschool classrooms: one

is a Head Start program for low-income children and the other one is a tuition-based program for middle-class children. Working as a participant observer over aperiod of a few months, the author observed and recorded the ways in which theteachers structured the programs and the actions of the children. She analyzed theobservations by comparing the two programs on the following dimensions:allocation of time, use of space, structure and use of activities and materials, andpatterns of teacher-child interactions. In her analysis, she concluded that thecultures of the two communities were transmitted in many subtle ways throughteaching practices.

Macias, J. (1990). Scholastic antecedents of immigrant students: Schooling in a Mexicanimmigrant-sending community. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 21, 291–318.


Macias, J. (1992). The social nature of instruction in a Mexican school: Implications forU.S. classroom practice. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 10,13–25.

In these two articles, Macias describes classrooms in a small community inMexico that is the hometown of many immigrants to the United States.Compared with classrooms in the United States, the Mexican classrooms hadfewer materials, but more children and more social interactions among them andbetween teachers and children. This socially oriented milieu reflects the daily lifeof the community, which involves a great deal of face-to-face interactions as peopleshop, visit, and work. Macias discusses how U.S. classrooms, with their emphasison individual work and quiet order, are strange environments for children fromMexico and may lead to poor adjustment and underachievement. Theseoutcomes are particularly ironic because the elementary curriculum in MexicanPrimarias is more rigorous than the curriculum in the United States. Thesedetailed accounts of how schools in another country differ from schools in theUnited States may help teachers to rethink their assumptions about the nature ofeducation and to recognize the challenges that immigrant children face as theyadjust to a new educational system.

McAdoo, H.P. (Ed.) (1993). Family ethnicity: Strength in diversity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.This edited volume is a compilation of studies about different families living in

the United States, including African American, Latino American, NativeAmerican, Muslim, and Asian American families. The chapters each describe aparticular study or an area of family life (e.g., the care of the elderly), so they arenot parallel reviews of different groups. However, common experiences emergeacross a number of chapters: the disruptive effects of immigration anddiscrimination on family life; cultural clashes between the dominant culture andethnic groups and how families navigate in two worlds; the intergenerationalconflicts that often arise as a result of these clashes; and the strengths andresourcefulness with which families have met these challenges. The underlyingquestion is, how do families find the balance between maintaining their ethnicidentity and succeeding in the dominant culture? This book was written from aclinical perspective, but the insights are applicable to schools and teachers. Theone drawback of this book is that in some of the chapters, the references aresomewhat dated.

McIntyre, T., & Silva, P. (1992). Culturally diverse child rearing practices: Abusive or justdifferent? Beyond Behavior, 4(1), 8–12.

This article describes ways in which teachers and families sometimesmisinterpret each others’ actions due to different culturally defined ideas aboutappropriate discipline techniques and ways of caring for children. The numerousexamples are helpful, in that they force the reader to recognize assumptions thatare common in the teaching profession. The authors suggest that teachers learn asmuch as they can about the child-rearing practices of their families and usecommunity people as sources of information to avoid drawing erroneousconclusions about families’ discipline practices.


McIntosh, P. (1995). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming tosee correspondences through work in women’s studies. In M.L.Anderson and P.H.Collins (Eds.), Race, class, and gender: An anthology (pp. 76–87). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

This article was first published in 1988 as a working paper and, since then, hasbeen widely used for teaching White students to recognize the racial privilegethat they enjoy, but often do not see. The author uses her awareness of maleprivilege that she has experienced as a woman to identify 46 ways in which shedaily benefits from her status as a White person. Using her own life, she describeshow, at every juncture, her unearned racial advantage has smoothed the way andallowed her freedoms and access to resources that are denied people of color. Sheacknowledges that for most of her life, she was oblivious to these advantagesbecause they seemed to be the norm. At the conclusion of the chapter, McIntoshapplies the same scrutiny to her heterosexual advantage, illustrating that this modelcan be applied to many dimensions of advantage and disadvantage.

McLoyd, V.C. (1998). Changing demographics in the American population: Implicationsfor research on minority children and adolescents. In V.C.McLoyd & L.Steinberg(Eds.), Studying minority adolescents: Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical issues (pp.3–28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

This chapter provides a comprehensive review of the changing demographics ofthe United States and the resulting inadequacies of current research practices. Theauthor emphasizes that researchers need to develop new research frameworks thatreflect a greater diversity of experience and new strategies for collectingmeaningful and authentic data. The chapter has a list of research priorities thatincludes developing culturally relevant frameworks, studying mediators of raceand ethnicity effects, and identifying norms relevant to minority groups andprecursors to problematic development and resilience. It concludes with a list ofstrategies for increasing the quantity and quality of research on minority children.

McLoyd, V.C., & Ceballo, R. (1998). Conceptualizing and assessing the economiccontext: Issues in the study of race and child development. In V.C.McLoyd &L.Steinberg (Eds.), Studying minority adolescents: Conceptual, methodological, and theoreticalissues (pp. 251–278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

The author describes how socioeconomic status and poverty are measured andreported and critiques the simplistic and outdated measures that are often used.These methods typically ignore factors such as inherited wealth, stability of familyincome, and source of income, which affect families’ economic stability. Severalexamples in the chapter illustrate how the complicated and intransigentinteraction between race and economic status affects all aspects of family life andinfluences not only the level of economic success (e.g., income), but the financialliabilities faced by families living in different circumstances (e.g., the availabilityand cost of services in different neighborhoods).

Meyer, L.H., Park, H-S., Grenot-Scheyer, M., Schwartz, I.S., & Harry, B. (Eds.). (1998).Making friends: The influences of culture and development. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.


This edited volume contains many chapters that cumulatively present a wide-ranging analysis of the experiences of children with disabilities and how theirdevelopmental status and cultural contexts influence their social and academic lives.Several chapters focus on preschool and elementary age children and others focuson adolescents. Most of the chapters are based on qualitative studies of particularchildren and classrooms that portray the challenges that children, families, andteachers face across many situations and in different cultural settings. A fewchapters illustrate how particular strategies can improve the quality of children’sschool lives and the connections among families, children, and schools. Severalauthors criticize common assumptions and practices for their cultural bias anddeficitoriented view of people with disabilities.

Mirza, H.S. (1992). Young, female and Black. London: Routledge.This ethnographic study of Black girls in two British schools shows how the

persistence of inequality in British society forms and limits their education andoccupational aspirations. The descriptions of the covert and overt racism of theteachers are compelling and may help readers to examine their own attitudes. Theauthor’s accounts of failed attempts to institute multicultural and antiracistcurriculum by naive and well-intentioned “crusaders” are also instructive, as theyillustrate how this work cannot be done without a clear understanding of thecommunities and the issues involved.

Nabors, L. (1997). Social interaction among preschool children in inclusive child carecenters. Applied Developmental Science, 1(4), 162–167.

This study of 70 children revealed that children both with and without specialneeds preferred playing with children without disabilities. White boys and AfricanAmerican boys and girls were more likely to play in groups that included one ormore children with disabilities than White girls were. The author advocates thatchildren’s interactions be observed more systematically and longitudinally toascertain the extent to which children with disabilities are or are not integratedinto their social groups and how these relationships change. She also urges thatthe effects of teachers’ interventions to promote more social interaction amongchildren with and without disabilities be systematically analyzed.

Ogbu, J.U. (1978). Minority education and caste. New York, NY: Academic Press.In this classic analysis of African Americans’ educational performance, Ogbu

attributes higher than average failure rates to the caste system in this country thatrelegates African Americans to a subordinate status in this society. He describeshow this system influences both the quality of education available to Blacks andtheir performance in schools, as an adaptation to that system. He discusses theeducational experiences of other groups that are also caste-like minorities in theUnited States and in other countries, although not necessarily racially distinct fromthe more privileged members of the society. He concludes by discussing thepolicy implications of his interpretation of Blacks’ school performance.


Phelan, P., & Davidson, A.L. (1993). Renegotiating cultural diversity in American schools. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

The chapters in this book are based on the Spindlers’ work on cultural therapy.Each describes a specific psychological and social dilemma presented by theincreasing cultural diversity in our schools, such as the question of first languagemaintenance, students’ needs to negotiate several worlds, the cultural influence onperceptions of self and others. teachers’ assumptions about students from differentgroups, the effects of tracking, and distant family-school relationships. Severalchapters also propose strategies for dealing with some of the disjunctures betweenstudents and schools, including cultural therapy and closer collaborations betweenfamilies and schools.


In this article, Phinney argues that ethnic categories vary over time, context,and individuals and that we need to consider them as dimensions, rather thancategories. She points out that, psychologically, three aspects of ethnicity are mostrelevant: the cultural values, attitudes, and behaviors associated with specificethnic groups; the extent to which a person identifies with an ethnic group; andexperiences associated with minority status (discrimination, exclusion,powerlessness). Ethnicity is a complex and multidimensional construct, andmembers of particular groups may vary from each other along these threedimensions and may also change over time.

Phinney, J.S., & Rotheram, M.J. (Eds.) (1987). Children’s ethnic socialization: Pluralism anddevelopment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

This edited volume has been widely used and provides a good overview of theresearch in ethnic socialization done prior to 1987. The 15 chapters cover severalaspects of this process, including the individual variables of cognition,identification, language, and behavior and the environmental ones of minoritystatus and sociohistorical context. Taken together, the essays address a wide rangeof issues that are germane to young children, school-aged children, andadolescents. The editors conclude that ethnic group differences, the socioculturalcontext of these differences, the status of one’s group, and developmental stagesall contribute to the individual variations in the ethnic socialization of children.

Polakow, V. (1993). Lives on the edge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.In this book Polakow explores the historical images of childhood and especially

the plight of poor children in past centuries in both Europe and the UnitedStates. She then reports on her interviews with 15 Black and White singlemothers about their struggles to raise children with very little financial oremotional support. The stories and quotations vividly portray the unremittingstruggles with poverty, homelessness, and the welfare bureaucracy that thesewomen face while trying to raise their children. Their hope and determination inthe face of all these odds is inspiring. The book also includes classroomobservations of the children that illustrate the inadequacy and low expectations


that characterize education for children from poor families. Several poignantexamples also show how teachers and peers alike stigmatize poor and homelesschildren.

Polakow, V. (Ed.) (2000). The public assault on America’s children: Poverty, violence and juvenileinjustice (pp. 59–77). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

This edited volume contains chapters that detail the many ways that unjustsocial and educational policies damage poor children. Three chapters areparticularly relevant to young children. The introductory chapter describes thedevastating effects of the 1990s welfare laws that force mothers to place theirchildren in substandard and developmentally damaging day care centers. Thesecond chapter describes how poverty conditions lead to environmentally inducedhealth problems for children, especially tuberculosis, asthma, and lead poisoning.In the third chapter, the authors describe the risk factors associated with povertythat are the most damaging for children growing up in poor communities. Theremainder of the chapters focus on the criminalization of children who areincreasingly tried and punished as adults, the zero-tolerance policies at schools,and the inadequacy of the juvenile justice system. Throughout these chapters theauthors illustrate in devastating detail and case studies how these policies areapplied more stringently to poor children and children of color. They also showhow these punitive measures can destroy the lives of young people for minorinfractions and unintentional mistakes.

Procidano, M.E., & Fisher, C.B. (Eds.) (1992). Contemporary families: A handbook for schoolprofessionals. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

This edited volume provides brief, but comprehensive, summaries of researchto the early 1990s on families from a range of configurations, backgrounds, andcircumstances. In particular, it includes chapters on dual-wage families, singleparents, and step families; Latino, African American, and Korean Americanfamilies; and families in stressful situations, such as living in poverty, experiencingthe death or serious illness of a family member, or caring for vulnerable familymembers such as a chronically ill or learning disabled child. Each chapter providesan overview of studies about that particular family issue and how it affectschildren at different ages and the relations between families and schools. Eachchapter’s concluding section on “Implications for School Professionals” offerssuggestions for how school professionals can work more effectively with theparticular group in question. This handbook provides useful background andguidance, but readers should be cautious about overgeneralizing the information.

Quintana, S.M. (1998). Children’s developmental understanding of ethnicity and race.Applied and Preventive Psychology, 7, 27–45.

Quintana describes a developmental model of ethnic perspective-taking abilitythat is based on Selman’s (1980) stages of social perspective taking andincorporates many research findings about children’s ethnic and racialunderstanding. For each age range, he describes the trends in children’s cognitiveand affective development at that time and their implications for children’s


understanding and feelings about race and ethnicity. His model suggests thatchildren shift from a rudimentary awareness to a concrete and literal view ofethnic differences. Then children come to understand the subtle distinctions andthe consequences of ethnic divisions and finally form active ethnic group identities.The author points out that throughout this process children struggle to makesense of information and experiences that reflect the contradictions and inequitiesthat underlie cross-ethnic and racial relations in this country.

Ramirez, M., III. (1983). Psychology of the Americas: Mestizo perspectives on personality andmental health. New York, NY: Academic Press.

In this classic critique of European psychology, Ramirez contrasts the origins,roles, and assumptions of European and Mestizo psychologies and asserts thatrelying only on Euro pean psychology limits our understanding of non-Europeanpeople and leads to a deficitoriented view of them. The author describes thephilosophical, social science, and theoretical foundations of Mestizo psychology.In contrast to the focus on decontextualized individual development of Europeanpsychology, Mestizo psychology has a phenomenological orientation, whichinvolves viewing people in a more holistic way and in the context of their cultural,social, historical, and economic environments. Ramirez proposes models ofresearch and mental health treatment that are based on a synthesis of Europeanand Mestizo psychologies.

Root, M.P. (Ed.) (1992). Racially mixed people in America. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.This edited volume includes 26 essays written by authors who are, for the most

part, from racially mixed backgrounds. Together, the essays examine both thesociological and the psychological dimensions of what it means to be raciallymixed in a racially divided society. These essays challenge many prevailingassumptions about race and raise questions about how it is used as a variable inpsychological and sociological research. Several of the chapters are portraits ofhow the racial contradictions and confusions in this country affect individuals wholive with these dilemmas all the time. They also illustrate how the experience ofbeing multiracial is also a source of strength and flexibility.

Rosenfield, D., & Stephan, W.G. (1981). Intergroup relations among children. In S.S.Brehm, S.M.Kassin, & F.X.Gibbons (Eds.), Developmental social psychology (pp. 271–297). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

In this chapter, the authors review the cognitive, affective, and behavioralcomponents of racial attitudes and present findings from a study on the effects ofdesegregation on elementary schoolchildren’s self-esteem and on their racialattitudes and contact patterns. The authors also include findings from severalstudies done prior to 1980 that identified the following factors that contribute topositive intergroup relations: school and classroom structures that encouragepositive, cooperative intergroup contact; an educational climate that is conduciveto interethnic contact; community and family support for integration; andindividuals’ capabilities to form positive interpersonal relationships.


Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York,NY: Simon & Schuster.

This book has become a classic for its detailed, yet readable, analysis of the manyways that girls are shortchanged in schools. Observations and interviews withstudents, parents, and teachers reveal the pervasiveness of sex bias in alleducational settings, from elementary school through college. The authorsillustrate how sexism is often hard to detect because gender biases influence theunconscious perceptions and actions of even relatively aware and well-meaningadults. The book includes a chapter on the “Miseducation of Boys,” which showshow sexism adversely affects boys as well as girls.

Schofield, J.W. (1989). Black and White in school: Trust, tension, or tolerance. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

This book is the report of a 3-year longitudinal ethnographic study of students,teachers, and administrators in a recently desegregated middle school. Usingextensive observations and interviews, the author describes how teachersunconsciously resegregated students and how students avoided cross-race contactsand relationships. The author also analyzes the complex interplay between raceand gender in students’ relationships with each other. Based on the changes in cross-race behaviors and relationships that occurred during the 3 years of the study, theauthor expresses cautious optimism that desegregation can potentially facilitatecross-race understanding and respect.

Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning and intergroup relations. In J.A.Banks &C.A.M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 628–634). NewYork, NY: Macmillan.

This chapter provides an overview of the almost 2 decades of research on theeffects of cooperative learning on intergroup relations. The author describes thedifferent models of cooperative learning that have been used and summarizes theresearch that has evaluated their impact on cross-ethnic relationships. Heconcludes that ethnically mixed, cooperatively learning groups definitely increaseintergroup friendships. According to his analysis, not only do the children withinthe cooperative groups become friends, but their friends who were not in thegroups also develop more intergroup friendships through their contacts withgroup participants.

Sleeter, C.E. (1994). White racism. Multicultural Education, 1 (spring), 5–8, 39.In this article Sleeter points out that most Whites are silent on the issue of

racism and advocates that Whites, especially White teachers, reflect on their ownracial identity and the extent to which they enjoy many unearned racial privileges(advantages that come their way only because they are White, not because of anyeffort they have made). She describes many subtle ways in which Whites pressureeach other to engage in “racial bonding” against people of color. She notes thatantiracist Whites are often rejected by their families and friends, leading some toretreat from their new awareness and commitment and to return to their familiarracist beliefs.


Slonim, M.B. (1991). Children, culture, and ethnicity: Evaluating and understanding the impact.New York, NY: Garland.

This resource book is a series of essays and annotated bibliographies thatillustrates how culture and ethnicity influence children’s lives. The first fivechapters are discussions about how culture and ethnicity affect families. Theauthor, who writes from a medical and social service background, also has achapter on the implications of how different child-rearing patterns and valuesinfluence the interactions of health, education, and social service practitionerswith families from different cultures. The last four chapters are brief overviewsand lists of references related to Asian cultures, Hispanic American cultures, Blackcultures, and European cultures. These chapters provide some useful guidance interms of identifying intergroup and intragroup distinctions. However, as theauthor cautions, they should not be read as definitive accounts about particulargroups, but simply as an introduction to the widely varied individual and groupdifferences that make up our society.

Soto, L.D. (1991). Understanding bilingual/bicultural young children. Young Children, 46(2), 30–36.

This review describes the demographic changes and the increasing numbers ofbilingual children in the schools, particularly in preschools and early elementarygrades. It includes explanations of commonly used terms and programs andchallenges common misconceptions about bilingual learners. The author gives anoverview of successful approaches for teaching bilingual children and, based onthat information, provides a list of guidelines for early childhood teachers.

Spencer, M.B., Brookins, G.K., & Allen, W.R. (Eds.) (1985). Beginnings: The social andaffective development of Black children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

When it was first published, this volume represented a significant departurefrom the vast majority of research about ethnic groups at that time because itcontained studies of Black children that were conceptualized and conducted fromthe perspective of the social ecology of the Black families, rather than bycomparing them to White middle-class “norms.” This edited volume has 17 essayson topics related to the development of Black children. The first part focuses onthe traditional treatment of Blacks in research studies and on the social contextvariables that have a differential impact on Black and White children. The secondsection consists of several research reports and reviews that articulate Black-specific patterns in areas such as sociodramatic play, test performance, teacher-child relationships, and coping strategies. The next section includes five essays oncognitive, personality, and social factors in the development of African Americanchildren’s identities. In the fourth part, there are three chapters on Black families.The final section is a summary of the major points raised in this volume andimplications for research and social policy.

Spencer, M.B., & Markstrom-Adams, C. (1990). Identity processes among racial andethnic minority children in America. Child Development, 61, 290–310.


This review is a synthesis of many studies on the identity processes amongchildren of racial and ethnic minorities. The authors show how bothdevelopmental and environmental perspectives must be considered to adequatelyunderstand the processes of how children in these groups develop healthyidentities. The authors describe some of the barriers to positive racial and ethnicidentities that are experienced by children of Ogbu’s caste-like minorities. Thereview concludes with a series of recommendations to foster healthy identityformation among ethnic and racial minorities, many of which reflect the goals ofmulticultural and antibias education.

Stevens, R.J., & Slavin, R.E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects onstudents’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational ResearchJournal, 32(2), 321–351.

This article reports on a 2-year study of a full-school cooperative model, inwhich academically delayed students were fully integrated into all the classroomsand cooperative learning strategies were used across a number of subject areas.Teachers also worked together in cooperative groups, and parents were involvedin school decision making. After 2 years, the academically delayed students weremore advanced in all academic areas and were more socially accepted than werecomparable students at the control schools, which were demographically similarbut did not use the cooperative model.

Stronge, J.H. (Ed.) (1992). Educating homeless children and adolescents: Evaluating policy andpractice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

This volume begins with an essay that describes the history of homelessness inthe United States and shows how the current wave of homelessness is uniquebecause many more families with children are affected. The subsequent chaptersin the first part describe the myriad of problems associated with educatingchildren who are homeless, such as the lack of access to schools, frequent schooltransfers, stigmatization, and the pressures on families merely to survive. The nexttwo parts of the book focus on changes in educational policies and practices thatwould provide good educational experiences for children of homeless families.The authors advocate maintaining close teacher-parent communication andfrequent contacts between schools and shelter staffs. They also recommendeducational practices that emphasize emotional support, positive socialrelationships, and individualization. Above all, teachers and principals must learnabout homelessness and must genuinely welcome these children into theirclassrooms. The book concludes with a strong statement about the urgent need tomake profound social and economic changes to eliminate homelessness.

Swadener, B.B., & Lubeck, S. (Eds.) (1995). Children and families “at promise.” Albany:State University of New York Press.

This edited volume is based on the premise that the “at risk” label is a “highlyproblematic and implicitly racist, classist, sexist, and ableist…model which locatesproblems or ‘pathologies’ in individuals, families, and communities rather than ininstitutional structures that create and maintain inequality” (p. 3). The book has


three sections. The first one provides a historical and political context for theemergence and critique of the term at risk. The second section consists of fourstories of students and families who have struggled against enormous odds to resistand overcome their oppressive circumstances. The final section contains four casestudies of successful school programs that are based on the ideology of “atpromise,” rather than “at risk.” Together, these chapters reveal the biases thatunderlie the “at risk” analysis of poor families and families of color. Readers willalso find hope and inspiration in the vivid and compelling examples of howfamilies and teachers can overcome daunting challenges and create classrooms andlearning partnerships that enable children to fulfill their “promise.”

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. New York, NY: Cambridge UniversityPress.

As a social psychologist, the author examines the research in cross-groupperceptions, attitudes, and behavior that was done in Europe and the UnitedStates prior to 1980. In particular, he focuses on the interplay of individualpsychology and relationships with the dynamics of the larger social context. Hedescribes a number of his own studies on prejudice in both children and adults,which analyze how perceptual judgment, the status of being an insider versus anoutsider, and intergroup conflict affect the formation and maintenance of socialstereotypes.

Tharp, R.G. (1989). Psychological variables and constants: Effects on teaching and learningin schools. American Psychologist, 44, 349–359.

The author describes four dimensions of cultural differences between homecommunities and schools that may account for the discomfort andunderachievement manifested by some children from cultures that differ from thedominant culture. They are: the social organization (e.g., emphasis on peercooperation vs. individual accomplishments); sociolinguistics, which include theconventions and courtesies of speech (e.g., the length of time one waits for aresponse, rhythms of speech, and responses); patterns of cognitive functioning(e.g., the difference between verbal/analytic and visual/holistic thinking); andmotivation (e.g., responses to praise and affection). Tharp illustrates how theeffectiveness of specific educational practices depends on the cultural context inwhich they occur and argues that educators should endeavor to increase thecultural compatibility between home and school. At the same time, they alsomust support the development of new skills so that all children (includingmembers of the dominant group) can function in a wider range of modalities andsettings.

Thompson, T., & Hupp, S.C. (Eds.) (1992). Saving children at risk: Poverty and disabilities.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

This edited book focuses on the relationship between poverty and disabilities.First, it includes an analysis of the causes of the increase of childhood povertyduring the 1980s. Then, drawing from a number of different studies, the authorscollectively demonstrate how the inadequate health care available to poor people


has contributed to the rise of developmental delays and deficits associated withlow birth weight and poor prenatal and early infant care. The authors also pointout that the health-care system in the United States focuses on remediation,rather than on prevention, and is more expensive and serves people less well thanhealth care that is directed toward wellness. A number of programs designed tooffset the negative effects of poverty on children’s development are described,although the authors caution that single-focused and short-term programs are noteffective. They argue for comprehensive and integrated health and educationprograms to ensure that all children in this country grow up with a chance for aproductive life.

Troyna, B., & Hatcher, R. (1992). Racism in children’s lives: A study of mainly-White primaryschools. London: Routledge.

This book describes the data collected by the two authors during their 2-yearstudy, in which they observed and interviewed children from ages 8 to 10 inpredominately White schools in Britain. The authors describe in detail therelationships between Black and White children and the harassment that Blackchildren routinely experience. They illustrate through case studies of individualchildren and groups how the peer culture both exacerbates and ameliorates racism.Children’s concerns with fairness mitigate their racist views, yet their desires todominate their peers heighten them. These dynamics, which reflect the largernational and local cultures, are played out repeatedly in interactions among thechildren and in their comments to the interviewers. The children and the authorscriticize traditional “multicultural” teaching for avoiding issues of racism andpower and unintentionally stigmatizing children of color and antagonizing Whitechildren.

Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families andschools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

This ethnographic study of 10 Mexican immigrant families reports on howthey decided to come to the United States and how they arrived and adjusted tolife in their new country. The stories vividly portray the stresses of relocation onfamily life and the determination with which families create new economic andsocial structures. The disjunctures and misunderstandings between the schools andthe families are explored. The author challenges the popular belief that poorLatino parents do not care about the children’s education and explains why manyschool and parent programs do not work. She provides suggestions for how schoolstaffs can work with the strengths of families to develop more effective andcollaborative programs.

West, C. (1993). Race matters. Boston, MA: Beacon.In this series of essays Cornel West recasts the issues of race in our society. He

critiques both the liberal position of blaming the plight of African Americans onracist economic and political structures and the conservative position of blaming iton the pathology of individuals. He asserts that both positions are too narrow toencompass the complexities of racial issues in this country and that social and


economic structures and individuals’ behaviors are inseparable. West advocates a“politics of conversion,” which is a commitment at the local level to collectivesocial responsibility and morality directed to changing the structural inequalitiesof this country, much like the freedom fighters of the mid–1990s.

Williams, J.E., & Morland, J.K. (1976). Race, color, and the young child. Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press.

The authors begin this book with a discussion of the way racial differenceswere treated in this country in laws, religion, literature, and the social sciencesthrough the early 1970s. They then discuss many studies that they did since theearly 1960s, in which they examined the development and modifications of racialattitudes, with a particular emphasis on the role of the symbolic meanings attachedto different colors. In their reports, the authors describe numerous instrumentsthat they used to measure reactions to the colors black and white and raciallyrelated attitudes, acceptance, preferences, and classifications. The authors alsodiscuss the relationships among these processes and integrate them into atheoretical model to explain the development of racial bias in young children.

Wright, C. (1992). Race relations in the primary school. London: David Fulton.In this ethnographic study, the author describes in detail the racial harassment

that she observed in four primary schools (among children from 3 to 8 years old)in the United Kingdom. In her analysis, she concludes that the peer cultureembodies a status hierarchy in which White children distinguish themselves fromother groups, particularly from the Asian children (mostly, Pakistanis) who are atthe bottom of the hierarchy. The classroom observations illustrate how teachersoften exacerbate the marginalization of children of color with their stereotypedassumptions and differential treatment of them. In several discouraging episodes,teachers attempted to include some multicultural material. However, their effortsbackfired and led to more ridicule of the children of color.


3Multicultural Curriculum and Teaching

The evolution of multicultural curriculum and teaching resources guidingclassroom work with young children (ages 3 to 12) has paralleled, reflected, and,in some cases, challenged the broader social, political, psychological, andeducational movements within our society, which were discussed in the first twochapters of this source book. As awareness and sensitivity regarding issues ofcultural diversity have increased, educators’ interest in incorporating multiculturalapproaches into educational settings has also grown.

Throughout the history of multicultural education, educational commentatorshave offered several ways of describing or categorizing multicultural curriculumand teaching approaches and resources. Such categories can aid teachers,administrators, and other curriculum specialists in discerning which materialsreflect or extend their vision for their centers, schools, or classrooms. This chaptersummarizes and comments on the most commonly cited descriptions andcategories presently used to guide the selection of curriculum and teachingresources for teachers. It then discusses the trends in curricular research that mayaffect future directions in the field of multicultural curriculum and teaching.Annotations in the bibliography that concludes the chapter provide details on aselection of teaching resources, educational programs, and curricula now availableto early childhood centers and elementary schools, with reference to the themeshighlighted in this commentary. To understand these descriptions fully, it ishelpful to look first at the larger contexts in which the curricular materials haveappeared, especially at the contexts of multicultural curriculum reform.

APPROACHES TO MULTICULTURALCURRICULUM REFORM

The move toward infusion of multicultural perspectives throughout curriculumand teaching practices in child care and educational settings for young childrenhas not always been a straightforward one, nor has it proceeded to the samedegree of implementation in every instance. For many practitioners andadministrators, the move has involved a slow deconstruction of past practices, firstthrough accretion of new or different perspectives, and possibly followed by areconstruction of programs through reconsideration and realignment of basicpurposes and practices. In his description of multicultural curriculum reform

movements, James Banks (1999, p. 31) identifies four levels of practice, which aredistinguished by the degree of integration of multicultural content and processesand the ultimate aims of the approach:

Level 1 The Contributions Approach (focusing on heroes, holidays, and discretecultural elements). An example of this approach would be the celebration ofMartin Luther King Day as an event without integration of the history andmeanings behind that day into the activities done with the children acrosssubjects throughout the year. Another example would be the promotion ofmulticultural food fairs, commonly held in schools, without the children’sstudy of the significance of these foods in the past and present lives of thegroups who originated them.

Level 2 The Additive Approach (adding content, concepts, themes, andperspectives to the curriculum without changing the curriculum’s structure).This approach might be seen in the addition of books by authors of color toan existing list of required readings in a literature program, withoutexamination of their import for the total construction of the program.

Level 3 The Transformational Approach (changing the structure of thecurriculum to enable students to view concepts, issues, events, and themesfrom the perspective of diverse ethnic and cultural groups). Here teachers andschool administrators examine the whole curriculum and expand or reshapethe content to represent multiple points of view, with awareness of the issuesof power and oppression that influence what content is considered mostvaluable and of greatest use to children living within a particular society. Anexample of this approach in an upper elementary classroom would be movingfrom a cursory look at “slavery” in the antebellum southern United States(where it has sometimes been implied in curriculum that being a slave was anaccepted part of a social order) to beginning to understand the dynamics of“enslavement” (where a formerly free people were subjected to a terribleoppression that many resisted and fought to overcome). Such a change drawsupon what is now known of the actual history of the event, the roles playedby both oppressors and oppressed, and the ethical dimensions pursued by bothAfrican American and European American resisters.

Level 4 The Social Action Approach (enabling students to make decisions onimportant social issues and take action to help solve them). Examples of thisapproach would be kindergartners’ working under their teacher’s guidance tomake new classroom rules to ensure that both boys and girls have access to alldifferent types of materials in their classroom and sixth-graders studyingconsumerism as a way of reexamining what impels them to see brand nameclothing as a marker of social success.

Curricular resources produced during the first decades of the multiculturalmovement more commonly (though not exclusively) reflected the first twolevels, whereas more recent resources tend toward the second two. Teacherresource books from the 1970s and early 1980s, for instance, might offer projectsor units that draw upon an art motif from a particular cultural group oracknowledge African American inventors for an exhibit during a particular monthor week (e.g., Kuska & Linse, 1987; Perl, 1983; Schubert & Bird, 1976, 1977).


More recent teacher resource books, however, tend to focus on the complexprocesses that teachers and schools need to undergo in order to see and work withthe cultural knowledge and experience that the children bring with them to theclassroom, identify resources that work with these different perspectives acrossvarious subject areas, and enable children to address the injustices that they see (eg.,De Gaetano, Williams, & Volk, 1998; Derman-Sparks, et al., 1989; Kendall, 1996;Nieto, 2000; Ramsey, 1998; Timms, 1996). All four levels of implementation,with their implied goals, may still be represented in current resources andpractices, however.

One might argue that these four approaches to multicultural curriculum reformparallel in an interesting way the history of the multicultural movement, asdiscussed in chapter 1 of this book. It also has been observed that the fourapproaches echo a common course of professional development undertaken bymany teachers and administrators as they grapple with the knowledge, skills, anddispositions that are needed to teach from a multicultural perspective (seechapter 4). Teachers or administrators who are just beginning to consider thedemands of multicultural teaching may be more likely to be attracted to resourcesreflecting the first two levels, which are less challenging to the status quo (as notedby Derman-Sparks & Phillips, 1997; Goodwin, 1997), whereas teachers oradministrators with more experience in the area and a developing vision oftransforming fundamental curriculum structures may find resources focusing onthe second two levels to be more useful for that purpose (Williams & Ryan,2000). Thus, assessment of teachers’ or administrators’ own levels of developmentacross these four areas and current goals or desired outcomes around issues ofmulticulturalism might help them understand what kinds of resources speak totheir immediate perceived curriculum and teaching needs.

PROCESSES OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTFOR USE OF CURRICULUM AND TEACHING

RESOURCES

A common and persistent vision of the nature of curricular resources is that theyprimarily provide activities and materials that teachers can use in their classrooms.This idea of curriculum as a collection of activities comes from a view of teachersas technicians who simply implement or transmit programs and plans created byothers, “experts” in curriculum design (Freire, 1970; Schoonmaker & Ryan,1996). A more current and constructivist view of the nature of teachers andteaching, however, acknowledges the vital role that teachers play as curriculummakers in their own classrooms and highlights the interplay between teacherawareness and both curriculum content and teaching strategies (Freire, 1970;Schon, 1983; Williams, 1996).

One could argue that what applies to curriculum and teaching in general applieseven more forcefully to multiculturally oriented curriculum and teaching; that theteachers’ role—and, by extension, the preparation of teachers to use multiculturaleducational approaches—is critical to their success. In her analysis of the

MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM AND TEACHING 149

theoretical foundations for preparing teachers to be multicultural educators,Kendall (1996) draws upon the work of Wurzel (1988), who describes sevenstages in the development of an individual’s multiculturalism. These stages havediscernible parallels with the development of racial identities described by Cross(1995) and Helms (1990), as previously discussed in chapter 2 of this volume. Theparallels suggest that a very complex process is entailed in becoming anauthentically multicultural teacher, a process that involves self-transformation asmuch as acquisition of professional proficiency.

According to Wurzel, initially, persons who have lived without any contactwith persons racially, culturally, or otherwise different from themselves are in thestage of monoculturalism. At this point of departure, people have no awareness thatvalue and belief systems, traditions and life practices, and even the common materialelements of people’s day-to-day lives can validly differ from one another. Kendallpoints out that the underlying assumption here is that there is only one correctperspective and that variation is fundamentally deviant. In relation to Banks’s(1999) description of levels of implementation of multiculturalism described earlier,it can be surmised that teachers in this stage do not implement a multiculturalcurriculum in any form, as they do not recognize its validity or importance inpromoting development and learning in children.

The second stage Wurzel describes is that of cross-cultural contact. At this point,teachers may have had some limited exposure to people whose cultures1 aredifferent from their own and may regard those experiences positively. Thinkingagain of Banks’s description, one can imagine their relating their experiences tothe kinds of exposure that they consider good for the children in their classroomsand consequently using the contributions approach—highlighting the achievementsof a famous person from a specific cultural group or introducing cultural elementssuch as particular foods or music from that group. Thus, curricular resources thatemphasize such contributions may have a particular appeal at this stage of a teacher/caregiver’s work.

Not all cross-cultural contact may be experienced as so benign, however, andteachers/caregivers may be propelled into Wurzel’s third stage, cultural conflict, bythe realization of challenges to their own beliefs and values in the contacts theyhave had. Teachers may feel confused about what content is worth pursuing (a“standard” curriculum or one with multicultural additions). If teachers feel lockedinto a particular curriculum plan or do not feel supported in their efforts by theirsupervisors and administrators, they may not proceed beyond this point in theirdevelopment of a multieultural approach. Here we can see the relationship of theefforts of individual teachers to reform efforts underway in their school or centeror to initiatives emphasized in their school districts. Persistence may require asense of community or shared efforts.

When teachers do persist, however, they generally enter Wurzel’s fourth stageof movement toward multiculturalism—educational interventions. In this stage,teachers or caregivers seek new information to extend what they have previouslyknown. They are aware that culturally specific knowledge exists (or even thatknowledge may be constructed differently in different cultures), and they seek to


expand their knowledge base. Now one imagines an attraction to professionaldevelopment that focuses on elements of a culture with which they are becomingfamiliar, and they might also be likely to draw on teacher resources that focus onspecific cultural groups. In their choices of curriculum content and strategies fortheir classrooms, teachers may consequently move into the additive approach to themulticultural curriculum implementation that Banks describes.

With any serious expansion of one’s knowledge base, however, comes anotherset of challenges. One may learn that what one has always held to be true (acherished image of the fair and equal treatment of all cultural groups in theUnited States, for example) is not in fact the case. Such revelations are likely topropel teachers into disequilibrium, Wurzel’s fifth stage toward multiculturalism. Ahost of emotions may again be invoked, as teachers discover new realities and theways that these have affected both their own lives and those of the children whomthey teach. As they struggle with these, one can suppose that they may becomeinterested in curricular resources supplying multiple perspectives on issues, in acontinued effort to expand their knowledge and transform their thinking aboutthe dynamics of cultures both in their society and in their educational and carepractices.

Wurzel’s sixth stage is awareness. As teachers work through their disequilibrium,they understand that it is not enough to add cultural elements to an existingcurriculum, but that the curriculum must be redesigned from the bottom up, withfull attention to the inclusion of multiple perspectives and experiences, varyingconstructions of knowledge, and a range of strategies that supports thedevelopment and learning of the children in their classrooms. At this juncture, itseems likely that teachers may begin using the transformative approach described byBanks and be attracted to resources emphasizing that approach.

Finally, the seventh point on Wurzel’s continuum is the achievement ofmulticulturalism. At this stage, thought and action are united beyond the acts ofteaching and learning in classrooms to connect directly to activism within thelocal, national, or global community in service of social justice. Teachers andtheir students focus on and take action against oppressive forces (such as povertyand homelessness) affecting the prospects of current and future generations. It isobvious that teachers in this stage are aligned with Banks’s description of the socialaction approach to curriculum implementation and would seek resources with thatorientation.

Works on multicultural preservice and inservice teacher preparation areexamined in chapter 4 of this source book. However, it is important to point outthat preparation (including the growth and development described earlier) doesnot end in such programs. Many of the current curriculum and teaching resourcesintended for immediate use by practicing early childhood and elementary teacherscontain descriptions of processes that teachers must undertake in order to effectdeep-seated changes in themselves, their teaching environments, and theprospects for the children they teach. Thus, most current curricular resources forteachers are intended to be transformational, as much as informative.


Although some variation exists in the particulars described to prepare people toteach from a multicultural perspective, there appears to be widespread agreementon certain elements. The foundation for multicultural practice is generally seen tobe teachers’ examination of their own belief systems around issues of race,culture, class, gender, sexual orientation, ability/disability, and other diversitiesand their consequent expectations for children (Bennett, 1999; De Gaetano,Williams, & Volk, 1998; Derman-Sparks, et al., 1989; Garcia, 1999; Kendall,1996; Miller-Lachman & Taylor, 1995; Nieto, 2000; Ramsey, 1998;SaponShevin, 1999). The expectation here is that teachers will confront a lack ofspecific kinds of knowledge and skills, as well as bias, within themselves. Theywould then work vigorously to overcome both those insufficiencies and theirnegative feelings, with full awareness of ways these might otherwise influencetheir practice.

The formation of a community of effort in partnership with parents and withother teachers, as well as with the children in the class, is identified as anotherfactor vital to the success of the approach (De Gaetano, Williams, & Volk, 1998;Hernandez, 1989; Miller-Lachman & Taylor, 1995; Ramsey, 1998; Robles deMelendez & Ostertag, 1997; Rogovin, 1998; Sapon-Shevin, 1999; Williams, DeGaetano, Harrington, & Sutherland, 1985). The intention is to build a fund ofcultural knowledge that goes beyond the experience of any one person to groundboth curriculum content and teaching strategies.

A third process commonly cited is that of reenvisioning the classroomenvironment to reflect the daily life experiences and cultural knowledge that thechildren, parents, and teachers bring with them into the classroom (Davidman &Davidman, 1997; De Gaetano, Williams, & Volk, 1998; Kendall, 1996;MillerLachman & Taylor, 1995; Robles de Melendez & Ostertag, 1997; Timms,1996; Williams, De Gaetano, Harrington, & Sutherland, 1985). This effortrequires a careful survey of all representations of diversity in instructional materialsand room decorations, as well as opening up the possibilities of furniture typesand placements and classroom arrangements to ascertain that they positivelycontribute to, rather than counter, the aims of the multicultural approach.

A corollary to the examination of instructional materials is careful study of thecontent of the texts used by children in each field of study—literature, socialstudies, science, mathematics, art, music, and others—to see that they are accurate(have not left out part of or distorted the story told, in order to represent adominant interest) and, whenever possible, represent multiple perspectives onissues under consideration (Banks, 1996; Bennett, 1999; Davidman & Davidman,1997). Controversies cited in chapter 1 have frequently revolved around thisendeavor.

Building on preparation of the classroom environment and curriculum content,the processes of curriculum planning, implementation, and assessment of studentlearning must be given rigorous attention in classrooms that use multiculturalapproaches (Bennett, 1999; Davidman & Davidman, 1997; De Gaetano, Williams,& Volk, 1998; Goodwin, 1997; Robles de Melendez & Ostertag, 1997;SaponShevin, 1999; Timms, 1996; Williams, De Gaetano, Harrington, &


Sutherland, 1985). Although traditional planning procedures can be applied toteach from a multicultural perspective, more variables need to be factored into theplanning process, such as differences in developmental status, learning styles, andvarying frames of reference for interpretation and application of concepts andskills being learned.

By varying frames of reference, we mean the cultural histories, particularelements of culture, and the day-to-day lived experience that children bring withthem into the classroom. Teachers may not know the cultural information mostrelevant to particular individuals (or shared by members of a specific group); andresources that provide descriptions of common cultural motifs for various ethnic,religious, regional, or other groups may be particularly helpful at such a moment.Information about specific groups is included in a number of the resourcesannotated at the end of this chapter; in many instances in the texts, the samplelearning activities for children that are provided also reveal specific elements ofculture. One needs to be careful in using such materials, however, so as not toover-generalize and stereotype in an effort to be culturally responsive. The bestcorrective for this possibility is to involve parents, other members of a particularcommunity, or both in the integration of specific cultural content (Rogovin,1998).

Finally, exploration of the processes of developing the self as an advocate forchildren, for parents, and for curriculum reform are now beginning to appear inteacher resource works (De Gaetano, Williams, & Volk, 1998; Pang, 2000;Ramsey, 1998). The intention is to move toward addressing the larger issues ofsocial justice and caring through an expanded vision and practice of education.This area is often tied to the development of critical thinking skills and theexercise of skills in conflict resolution.

Varying levels of professional development do seem to relate to the levels ofcurriculum reform outlined by Banks (1999), as previously noted. They alsoappear to be tied transactively to the immediate goals or desired outcomes andlong-range intentions of multicultural educational practice.

GOALS AND PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATIONSOF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION

Banks (1999) suggests that the goals of the four approaches can be viewed throughthe lenses of the following five dimensions, which reveal the complexity ofmulticultural education:

1. Content Integration

Content integration deals with the extent to which teachers use examples andcontent from a variety of cultures and groups to illustrate key concepts, principles,generalizations, and theories in their subject area or discipline.

2. Knowledge Construction

The knowledge construction process relates to the extent to which teachers helpstudents understand, investigate, and determine how the implicit cultural


assumptions, frames of reference, perspectives, and biases within a disciplineinfluence the ways that knowledge is constructed within it.

3. An Equity Pedagogy

An equity pedagogy exists when teachers modify their teaching in ways that willfacilitate the academic achievement of students from diverse racial, cultural,gender, and social-class groups. This includes using a variety of teaching styles thatare consistent with the wide range of learning styles within various cultural andethnic groups.

4. Prejudice Reduction

This dimension focuses on the characteristics of students’ racial (or other) attitudesand how they can be modified by teaching methods and materials.

5. An Empowering School Culture and School Structure

Grouping and labeling practices, patterns of sports participation and academicachievement, and the interactions of the staff and the students across ethnic andracial lines are among the components of the school culture that must be examinedto create a school culture that empowers students from diverse racial, ethnic, andcultural groups.

These five dimensions show up in different proportions in various curricular andteaching resources, ranging from superficial treatment to being fully represented inany particular work. Some resources may focus on one or two of the dimensions(Banks, 1996; King, Chipman, & Cruz-Janzen, 1994), whereas others may treat awider range (Gollnick & Chinn, 1998; Kendall, 1996), and some may include aswell dimensions not considered by Banks (De Gaetano, Williams, & Volk, 1998;Nieto, 2000; Ramsey, 1998). Dimensions beyond those Banks discusses includeidentity formation and other psychological processes that affect personal growthand development (Tatum, 1997; Timms, 1996) and political processes that affectsocietal growth and development (Ovando & McLaren, 2000; Timms, 1996).

It is helpful to think about how these five dimensions of multicultural practicerelate to the four levels of curricular reform that Banks identified. One mightimagine that the first two dimensions (content integration and knowledgeconstruction) would be present to some degree in all four levels (contribution,additive, transformational, and social action), but would appear with increasingintensity from the first to the fourth levels. The remaining three dimensions(equity pedagogy, prejudice reduction, and empowering school culture and schoolstructure) would intersect most completely with the third and fourth levels.

The goals of multicultural practice implicit in Banks’s approaches anddimensions are reflected in another way of categorizing curriculum and teachingresources that originated in work done in 1987 by Christine Sleeter and CarlGrant. Review of a large number of resources then available revealed at least fivephilosophical positions related to overall purposes and goals of multiculturalcurriculum and teaching resources. Subsequent continuation of that review hasconvinced those authors that the typology remains valid.

In their most recent iteration of their categorization, Sleeter and Grant (1999)have refined their explanation of: (1) education of the exceptional and culturallydifferent child (intended for racial, ethnic, ability/disability, or other groups that are


not achieving at a high level and aimed toward assimilation of those populations);(2) single group studies (formerly called “ethnic studies” by these authors, whichmay be intended for all students or ethnic minorities only and which treatparticular groups as distinct entities in separate curricular segments); (3) humanrelations (focusing on intergroup cooperation for all children); (4) multiculturaleducation (designed for all children and emphasizing the positive, adaptive value ofcultural pluralism, while encouraging children’s competence in more than onecultural system); and, finally, (5) education that is multicultural and socialreconstructionist (a more fully articulated orientation toward change of the deepstructures of society that foster unequal relationships among distinct groups). Thefifth is the most far-reaching of the approaches and speaks to a focus on socialjustice. Like the fourth, it implies infusion of a multicultural perspectivethroughout the entire curriculum. The first three formulations, on the other hand,are more likely to take the form of self-contained or “add-on” curricularactivities. The fourth and fifth approaches have been increasingly represented inthe literature over the decade of the 1990s.

It should be noted that in educational resources that represent each orcombinations of these approaches, there is variation in the terminology used todescribe the orientation of the work. The range of designations (multicultural,multiracial, multiethnic, etc.) previously discussed in chapter 1, with theirparticular connotations, appears in the curricular writings just as it does in theworks on policy.

The annotations at the end of this chapter examine teachers’ guides, manuals,books, and other resources published primarily over the last 20 years for use inearly childhood and elementary school settings, which are intent on fosteringcultural pluralism and multicultural competence in children and teachers. For themost part, we have chosen to include works oriented toward both the positive,adaptive value of cultural pluralism and its potential to create social change. Someresources (especially those we consider to have been seminal in the field) docontain elements of the three other approaches as well. Valid assessment of thesuitability of these resources for use in a particular classroom or district iscontingent upon an understanding of the range of possibilities that the materialsrepresent. Each resource can be examined not only according to its purposes, butalso in relationship to the issues and dilemmas inherent in multicultural educationtoday.

ISSUES AND DILEMMAS

Aside from basic definitions of the type of resource each publication represents,there are other issues to consider in a review of available curriculum and teachingresources. One is the various authors’ understanding of what constitutes culture.These differing concepts of culture affect the ways that ideas of race, gender, andother variables are constructed in the writings. Another issue is the view presentedof language and linguistic variations. Still other issues involve the nature andavailability of the literature on religion, social class and socioeconomic status, ability/


disability, and sexual orientation, as well as the positioning of global education andinternational multicultural movements.

Definition of Culture

Like definitions of curriculum, delineation of the elements of culture may run thegamut from broad processes that encompass both a group’s past (its heritage andtraditions) and that group’s present living circumstances (its responses to therequirements of living today), to narrow conceptualizations of culture as a fixedset of customs or “folkways.” As discussed in chapter 1, the authors believe thatthe former view of culture as an inclusive and dynamic expression of life is themore accurate and useful construct.

Materials and resources that draw upon culture as a process in understandinghuman experience generally can be adapted effectively for whatever culturalgroups are represented in a classroom. In contrast, resources that view cultureonly in terms of its specific expression for a particular group may be found to beless versatile, with content requiring total reconstruction in order to address anyother cultural group. Moreover, resources relying on such a high degree ofspecificity in content may be especially prey to stereotypic representations, asintragroup variation is obscured and readers lose sight of the fact that there is oftenmore variation within a group than there is between groups. Process approachesto the definition of culture, on the other hand, highlight the constructive tensionbetween the characteristics of individuals and group tendencies, revealing cultureas a continuous construction of mind and spirit.

How specifically race and gender are acknowledged in writings as major dynamicsat play in the classroom and in the larger society also hinges on the broadness ofthe definition of culture. How children and adults interact with and respond toindividuals or groups according to race, gender, or both, is deeply intertwinedwith culturally shaped and deep-seated attitudes and beliefs. The power of thesemotifs is discussed at length in chapter 2 of this source book. When such dynamicsare not recognized as part of culture, authors tend to sidestep them as major issuesin multicultural education. On the other hand, when authors recognize thepower of race (e.g., Watkins, Lewis, & Chou, 2001) and gender (e.g., Wrigley,1992) as key issues of multiculturalism, their work often appears under theumbrella of anti-bias education; in the United States particularly but alsoprominently in the United Kingdom, proponents of anti-bias education havesometimes seen themselves as moving beyond multicultural education. There hasbeen a long-standing debate as to which subsumes the other (Blum, 1999;Gillborn, 1995).

Linguistic and Other Variations

Another issue in multicultural educational materials is the degree of attention paidto language and linguistic variations as aspects of cultural diversity (see chapter 1).Although multicultural programs are not necessarily bilingual in instructional


practice, and bilingual programs may or may not be multicultural in orientation,the two elements cannot logically be divorced from one another. Language isgenerally understood by multiculturalists to be one of the expressions of culture(De Gaetano, Williams, & Volk, 1998; Hernandez, 1989; Nieto, 2000), and thedeep structures of a culture determine when, where, and with whom particularlanguage variations may be employed. Some literary, educational, andpsychological theorists, however, see language as the source and shaper of culture(Bahktin, 1981; Dewey, 1938; Vygotsky, 1978) through the social constructionof reality. By implication, language thus becomes a critical issue in multiculturalwork.

In the United States at the present time, however, bilingual education andmulticultural education have differing political connotations, according to thedegree to which the retention of languages other than English has highlightedboth the separateness of particular groups and their unequal opportunity in thesociety in which they are embedded. Although this source book has not reviewedmaterials that are exclusively bilingual in orientation, a number of the programsand curricula in the annotated bibliography include or allude to bilingual options.

Religion

Specific mention of religion as an aspect of multicultural education appeared intexts only rarely through the 1980s. By the early 1990s, however, religion beganto be recognized explicitly as another major factor in the politics of difference. Inthe United States, one of the reasons for this delay and caution in themulticultural education literature undoubtedly had to do with the issue ofseparation of church and state and avoidance of being perceived as “teachingreligion” in the public schools. In the most current works (e.g., Uphoff, 2001), thestance taken is descriptive of populations defining their identities by religion, andnoting educational implications and curricular resources for teaching about religion(rather than teaching religion). Proponents of this approach (AERA SymposiumAudience Participation, 2002) have pointed out that religion is a major divisivefactor in current world conflicts as well as a major force for peace, and that itshould be a prime concern of multicultural education. The issue of what contentshould appear in treatment of the issue remains controversial in the United States,however.

Social Class and Socioeconomic Status

The issues in treatment of social class and socioeconomic differences in the multiculturaleducation literature revolve around use of deficit versus difference paradigms. Aspreviously discussed in chapter 1, in the 1960s and 1970s the cultural deficithypothesis in education was linked to the development of curricula; and povertywas identified as a major cause of deficits in children’s knowledge, skills, andattitudes related to equipping children for school success. The deficit paradigmframes children as being at risk for school failure and advocates a compensatory


approach to education. Such an approach is contrary to the aims of multiculturaleducation (which sees children as possessing cultural knowledge and skills) andtherefore, from a multicultural point of view, creates a tension in both curriculummaking and implementation. According to the deficit paradigm, poor childrenneed “basic skills” and direct instruction, whereas children from more affluentfamilies benefit from enriched curricula and childcentered teaching-learningprocesses. Each of these educational experiences is tied to lesser or greater taxbases for public schooling as discussed in some of the multicultural educationalliterature. Anyon (2001), for example, addresses the disparity in resources forsupport of education between many inner city and suburban schools. The tensionproduced by this disparity and calls for the fundamental change of social structuresthat foster it (as well as other oppressive forces) are main focuses of multiculturalliterature written from a social reconstructionist perspective (eg, McLaren, 1997;Sleeter, 1996; Sleeter & McLaren, 1995).

Ability/Disability

What has been true for treatment of social class and socioeconomic status in themulticultural educational literature has also been true in the introduction of theconcerns of ability/disability. Historically, the field of special education related todisability was rooted in behavioral psychology and reflected a deficit orientation,as previously noted in chapter 2. As in the case of social class, children were oftendescribed in the literature as being at risk for delayed development, school failure,or both. From the 1980s to the present day, however, a new cadre of specialeducational scholars, researchers, and practitioners (e.g., Fahey & Reid, 2000;Reid, 1988) who see issues of ability/disability as a vital part of multiculturalpractice, have oriented their work toward the constructivist positions inpsychology also characteristic of most multiculturalists. These educators seechildren at promise for growth and development and for a successful experience inschool, rather than at risk. They often work toward changing school structuresthat inhibit opportunities for children with special needs. This new paradigm isaligned with the aims of the multicultural and social reconstructionist approaches toeducation.

Sexual Orientation

Attention to the area of sexual orientation is relatively new in the field ofmulticultural education; in the United States, it remains one of its mostcontroversial elements, as was noted in chapter 1. Our review of childdevelopment literature in chapter 2 revealed that to the present moment,relatively little research has been done on the development of young children’sawareness and understanding of sexual orientation Consequently, there has notbeen the same tradition in early childhood education of a developmentalfoundation for curriculum construction around the concerns of this area. Thecircumstance of controversy is also due, however, to continued opposition from


members of the religious and political right, who see sexual disposition as a moralissue that should not be addressed in schools. The strong sentiments againstinclusion of the area in texts on multicultural education for young children isreflected in the paucity of educational resources located for review by the authorsof this source book. Only a few of the multicultural educational texts identified inour review contained sections explicitly discussing sexual orientation (e.g.,Cushner, McClellend, & Safford, 2000; Gollnick & Chinn, 1998), and thosesections tended to be brief. By and large, the focus in the works is on antibiasstrategies for combating homophobia (e.g., Derman-Sparks, 1989). As a result ofthis difficulty in locating resources containing a more extended treatment, thearea of sexual orientation is not as fully represented in the annotations in thissource book as we imagine it will be in future editions.

Global Education and International Multicultural Movements

Global education and the multicultural educational movements in variouscountries throughout the world that preceded, paralleled, or followed those in theUnited States have not generally been well recognized in texts published in theUnited States. At the turn of the present century, global education and the relatedfocus on environmental education as an aspect of multiculturalism began makinginroads in the field (e.g., Diaz, Massialas, & Xanthopolous, 1999; Ramsey, 1998;Spring, 2000; Swiniarski, Breitborde, & Murphy, 1999). At the same time,however, the vast literature on multicultural education in other parts of the worldhas remained relatively untapped by educators in the United States. This may bedue on the one hand to recognition that the movements are rooted in varyingcultural and national histories and may be driven by different imperatives fromthose in the United States, as previously noted in chapter 1. On the other hand,one can posit that the lack of awareness has been due to a persistent ethnocentrismin the United States and a general lack of facility of much of the English-speakingAmerican population with languages other than its own. At this point in time,however, it seems self-evident that cross-national exchange of information andexperience would strengthen multicultural educational movements wherever theyappear.

CRITERIA FOR SELECTING MULTICULTURALRESOURCES

Use of a multicultural perspective requires that curriculum and teaching resourcesthat are chosen either be complementary to existing practice (thus refiningongoing work), or that they serve as vehicles for innovation and change. In eithercase, the articulation and coherence of the materials and methods selected, andthe ways those will impact upon what Sarason (1982) calls the “internalregularities” of the classroom or school, must be examined. Many of the resourcesannotated at the end of this chapter contain criteria for use in reviewing resourcesand tailoring them to the purposes of a particular classroom.


Criteria for Examining Print and Other ActualResources

A number of works contain lists of children’s literature that meet the authors’criteria for excellence in multicultural presentation (Beaty, 1997; Miller-Lachman& Taylor, 1995; Schniedewind & Davidson, 1998; Tiedt & Tiedt, 1999). Someworks identify materials for children’s use in other areas as well, such as music(Sapon-Shevin, 1999) or social studies teaching social justice (Allen, 1999;Schniedewind & Davidson, 1998). Authors select these works for inclusion in thelists, but the criteria that the works reflect are not always made explicit.

To remedy that problem, many of the current works include checklists thatteachers can use to assess the presence of multicultural elements in their classroomenvironments De Gaetano, Williams, & Volk, 1998; Kendall, 1996; Robles deMelendez & Ostertag, 1997), multicultural representation in children’s literature(Beaty, 1997), and the cultural appropriateness of teaching strategies being used(Irvine & Armento, 2000; Kellough, 2000).

Virtual Resources

As technology rapidly advances, the field of multicultural education has expandedto the Internet. A wide variety of websites have appeared that offer knowledgeabout specific cultures, processes for conceptualizing multicultural curricula,interactive multicultural pedagogies, opportunities for dialogue and discussion,and links to multicultural organizations and associations (Gorski, 2001). As withprint materials, these resources vary greatly regarding their validity and reliabilityand must be assessed by using rigorous criteria. In an excellent summary of availablevirtual multicultural resources, Gorski (2001) provides such criteria and warnsagainst inadvertent seduction of “surfers” into substandard, inauthentic, andcontent-poor sites. Internet users must maintain a critical stance and a clear visionof the goals and intentions of their multicultural practice when selecting materials.

Criteria for Assessing the Suitability of ParticularMaterials in Relation to Educational Aims and Intentions

To date, no lists of criteria have been located that explicitly match teachers’ aimsor multicultural orientations with particular curricula or teaching resources. Forthat reason, three checklists are provided in this section to assist educators inmaking those determinations. The lists are not exhaustive, and readers of thissource book can expand them or use them as a base to create morecomprehensive ones of their own.

The selection and adaptation of materials involve three processes. First, teachersand program administrators need to identify the orientation of the materials anddecide whether or not they fit with their multicultural educational aims. Second,they need to analyze the fit between the materials and the needs and resources oftheir particular program, classroom, or both. Finally, materials must be scrutinized


for their overt and covert messages and the extent to which they convey andsupport an authentic multicultural perspective.

Identification of Orientation or Approach

1. Are the materials intended to be used particularly with children from under-represented populations, to enable those children to succeed in school?(Education of the culturally different or exceptional children)

2. Do the materials focus entirely on the culture of a specific ethnic or otheridentified group? (Single group studies)

3. Is the primary purpose of the material to encourage intergroupcommunication and cooperation among all the children? (Intergroup relations)

4. Do the materials emphasize the positive, adaptive value of multiculturaleducation and its appropriateness for all children? (Multicultural education)

5. Do the materials address power differences between groups and advocatechanges in societal structures that inhibit full political, economic, and socialparticipation for all peoples? (Education that is multicultural and socialreconstructionist)

6. Are the materials self-contained, or do they promote infusion of amulticultural perspective throughout the total curriculum/program?

Suitability of Use of Resources for a Particular Setting

1. What are the purposes or goals of the resource from the author’s point ofview? How well do they mesh with your program/classroom orientation andgoals?

2. For what population was the resource designed? What view of the child as alearner is assumed? How appropriate are the materials for your particularpopulation of children and families?

3. What sorts of learning activities are proposed, and how will they support,challenge, or both support and challenge your current program or curriculum?

4. What teaching strategies are advocated, and how will they articulate with thetotal program or curriculum? How well do they match the experience, skills,and interests of the teachers?

5. What learning materials are recommended for use in the classroom? To whatextent can existing materials be used? If necessary, how easily can you find orpurchase the recommended materials?

6. What mechanisms are suggested for evaluating the effectiveness of theprogram? Are these assessment strategies feasible for your program?

7. Are the teachers interested in and enthusiastic about the materials? Whatpreparation for teachers or other staff is needed to make good use of thisresource? What amount of time and money would be needed to provideadequate preparation?


Assessment of the Multicultural Perspective in Specific Materials

1. Do the materials contain positive messages about members of differentcultural, ethnic, racial, social class, gender, sexual orientation, and abilitygroups? Are they free of pejorative or stereotyped images?

2. Are illustrations of the characters in the materials natural in appearance? Arethey accurate? Are different groups equally represented in the illustrations ofa particular material?

3. Are people from different groups represented as equals in terms of abilities,strengths, emotional responses, experiences, and so on? Does the authoravoid a condescending or patronizing tone when portraying people whohave suffered from oppression?

4. Are the lifestyles of many groups depicted as equally valuable?5. Do the terms used to describe identity group members convey positive

images of individuals?6. When portraying groups that have been oppressed, do the authors emphasize

each group’s strengths and history of resistance? Do they avoid portrayingpeople as victims?

Although, as has been noted, a great number of curriculum and teachingresources presently exist, and more schools and individual teachers appear to beusing them, there is not a long tradition of research in the field to demonstrate theeffects on children, teachers, or communities of the use of multiculturalapproaches to teaching and learning. Still, there is at least a beginning of thedocumentation of effects that should be considered.

PROGRAM AND CURRICULUM RESEARCH

Although most multicultural programs include suggestions for program orcurriculum evaluation, little has been published that uses those suggestions informal research on the implementation or impact of particular multiculturalprograms or curricula. In 1987 Sleeter and Grant noted the absence of research inmulticultural education and remarked that the research base for multiculturaleducation has been drawn from other sources, such as child development studiesand anthropological works. Almost a decade later, Grant and Tate (1995) echoedthese words, in noting, “From the 1960s to the early 1990s was a period whenmulticultural theorists devoted much, if not most, of their attention to preparingessays and writing books defining and describing multicultural education, anddeclaring and celebrating it as a field of scholarship. As we head into the 21stcentury…scholarship in the area of multicultural education research must takecenter stage” (p. 161). This overview discusses some of the reasons why themulticultural education research is so sparse and so complicated and describes someof the few relevant studies that have been done in early childhood and elementary


school settings. Research on multicultural teacher education is described inchapter 4.

Obstacles and Complexities of Multicultural EducationResearch

In their review of research issues related to multicultural education, Grant andTate (1995) note several barriers to doing multicultural education research: (a) Asa group, education faculty lack the experience (many completed their doctoratesprior to the multicultural education movement), ethnic diversity (93% areWhite), and epistemological backgrounds (typically, they have been trained to doquantitative and hypothesis-driven research that does not capture the complexitiesof multicultural work) to conduct multicultural research and to prepare graduatestudents to do it; (b) the pervasive Eurocentrism and belief in the United States asa meritocratic society limit researchers’ abilities to critically examine the powerrelationships that define the prospects of many groups of people in this country;(c) the lack of funding for multicultural education research has resulted in fewgraduate students being trained to do this kind of research (in particular, funds todo the long-term and multifaceted evaluations that would capture the complexityof multicultural education do not exist); and (d) the conceptual confusion aboutwhat multicultural education is has led to many contradictory interpretations thathave impeded efforts to develop comprehensive and coherent research programs.Sleeter and Grant (1987, 1999) suggested that another factor may be the fact thatmulticultural education programs have never received much federal funding andso programs were not required to conduct evaluations.

The complexity of multicultural education gives rise to the question of whatkind of research is appropriate and meaningful. Grant and Tate (1995) make adistinction between “research on multicultural education” and “multiculturaleducation research.” The former reflects traditional educational research, in whichthe effects of a particular curriculum are assessed by “objective” pre- and posttestsor observations. The authors are critical of this orientation because it is morelikely to support an assimilationist orientation in which researchers evaluatemulticultural programs and materials for their effectiveness in helping childrenadapt to and achieve in school, but accept the status quo of schools and society.“Multicultural education research,” on the other hand, is oriented towardstudying justice and power relationships in schools from a number of perspectives.Its underlying premise is that race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and abilities/disabilities influence the relationship between knowledge and power. Theprimary goal is to apply this information to achieve equity, human dignity, andpluralism, rather than assimilation. Grant and Tate cite as one example of thislatter type of research Grant and Sleeter’s (1986) ethnographic study of the powerrelations in a racially mixed and inclusive (in terms of special needs) junior highschool. Others are Proweller’s (1999) ethnographic study of the socialconstruction of White racial identity among adolescent girls in a private school


setting, and Katz’s (1999) ethnographic exploration of the relationship betweenLatino immigrant middle school students and their teachers.

We argue that multicultural research needs to reflect both of these orientations.To gain political and academic support for multicultural education and tounderstand whether and how various approaches work, we need to assess theextent to which teachers actually implement multicultural curricula and practicesand, in turn, how children, families, schools, and communities respond to theseefforts. These assessments, however, need to include an analysis of how theexisting power relationships affect the implementation of multicultural educationand the extent to which multicultural initiatives change and challenge the statusquo. For example, a study similar to Grant and Sleeter’s ethnography of thejunior high school (1986) might be expanded to analyze how the powerrelationships change when teachers, parents, children, administrators, or anycombination of these groups begin to shift toward a multicultural perspective.

Doing good multicultural education research, good research on multiculturaleducation, or some combination is a daunting task. In a volume edited by Grant(1992), Research and Multicultural Education: From the Margins to the Mainstream, theauthors of the chapters, drawing on numerous experiences and situations,illustrate both the importance of doing research related to multicultural educationand the barriers that thwart it.

Research Studies

The few studies of programs for preschool and elementary school children arealmost all ethnographies or case studies; an extensive review of the literaturerevealed no published quantitative studies. In some cases, these case studies areteachers’ accounts of their work in their own classrooms, which does raise thequestion of researcher bias (Grant & Tate, 1995). At the same time, thesenarratives offer rich firsthand data about the subtleties of teacher-child interactionsand children’s responses to the various curricular approaches. The perspectivesand goals of the programs analyzed in these studies represent several of theapproaches delineated by Sleeter and Grant (1987, 1999). In some cases theprograms are a blend of two or more categories.

Education for the Exceptional and Culturally Different

Some studies analyze curricula and teaching practices that fit the category ofeducation for the exceptional and culturally different. Probably the best-knownand most carefully documented one is the KEEP project (the KamehamehaElementary Education Project) (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). In the original study,classrooms in Hawaii were adapted to make them more compatible with nativeHawaiian culture. For example, cooperative peer learning centers (usually, threeto five mixed-sex children) replicated the self-managed, peer-orientedinteractions that children were accustomed to at home and in their communities.The children who were in the KEEP schools gained many more academic skills


than did their peers in the regular public schools. Although many factors mighthave contributed to this effect, Tharp and Gallimore conclude that culturalcompatibility is a significant factor. When the study was expanded to includechildren on a Navajo reservation and in the Los Angeles schools, the researcherslearned that adaptations had to reflect the subtle differences between groups. Forexample, in the Navajo schools, the cooperative groups that were successful in theHawaiian schools did not work until the teachers instructed the children to workin same-sex pairs, which was more compatible with the social patterns in Navajohomes and communities. The authors conclude that education should be based onsound educational and development theory and practices, but that theimplementation should reflect the local culture.

King, Chipman, and Cruz-Janzen (1994) used microethnographic methods todescribe the implementation of the “Circle Never Ends” curriculum designed byeducators in an intertribal urban setting for Native American preschool children.The curriculum consisted of nine units centered around Indian legends andteaching models that move in emphasis from self to family and tribalcommunities, to aspects of the physical, living, and regional world, and finally tomembership in “the wide world.” The researchers observed lesson preparationand the classroom environment, the characteristics of the teachers and teachingstrategies used, the use of daily learning centers and weekly “cultural circles,”during which specific cultural content was presented, and parent involvement.Following the children through kindergarten to the first and second grades, theresearchers found that the children’s engagement in the public schoolkindergarten appeared depressed, indicating that they were experiencing a formof culture shock; by the time they reached second grade, however, 67% of thechildren were performing at or above grade level. They interpret these results asvalidating the preschool curriculum’s emphasis on positive self image andproviding foundations for subsequent academic success. They do not note,however, what percentage of the children from the same community hadachieved grade-level performance prior to the introduction of the preschoolprogram.

Also writing from the framework of teaching the culturally different, Igoa (1995),using observations and interviews, documents how specific techniques havehelped immigrant children adjust to life and schools in the United States. Forexample, children make filmstrips to express the pain at leaving their homes andthe hardships of adjusting to new customs, people, and language. Igoa also describeshow children find a sense of security when they create their own places in theclassroom by surrounding themselves with pictures and artifacts from theirhomeland. Hayes, Bahruth, and Kessler (1991) describe how children of MexicanAmerican migrant workers who initially were well below grade level becameenthusiastic and skilled writers through journal writing and journal dialogues withtheir teacher.


Human Relations Approach

In the 1970s, many researchers studied children’s racial attitudes and the effects ofparticular interventions. Although these studies were done by childdevelopmentalists and social psychologists, not by multicultural educators, they doprovide some insights into the potential effects of multicultural education onindividual children’s racial attitudes and cross-group peer relationships. In a reviewof this research on children’s attitudes, Banks (1991) concluded that three methodshave the most promise to change (particularly White) young children’s own-racepreferences: reinforcement of positive feelings about the color black; perceptualtraining to learn how to differentiate faces of members of less familiar groups; andcooperative learning in mixed ethnic/racial groups. In a review of the effects ofcooperative learning on cross-group relationships, Slavin (1995) stated that whenthe conditions of role equality (Allport, 1954) have been met, relationshipsbetween students of different ethnic groups improve. In fact, cooperative learninghas resulted in strong intergroup friendships, as well as in more amicable contacts.Not only have children in the same cooperative groups become friends, but cross-ethnic friendships outside of the groups also increased. Slavin speculates that onceone cross-group friendship is formed, then friends of both parties get to knoweach other and in some cases become friends.

In a study of two day-care centers, Swadener (1988) found that in both centersthe formal and informal curricula supported children’s appreciation of individualdifferences and acceptance of their peers with disabilities (both centers had anumber of children with disabilities) and flexible gender roles. The sociometricdata showed that the children generally accepted their peers with disabilities andcross-ability interactions increased during the year. The observations includedmany examples of children challenging each other on gender stereotypes andnegotiating flexible roles in their dramatic play. Thus, the curricular and teachingpractices were successful in increasing children’s acceptance of individualdifferences and gender role flexibility. However, the teachers did not include asmany activities related to racial or cultural differences and did not directly addressissues related to oppression or inequality. Thus, the curriculum in both centers fitthe category of human relations, rather than multicultural or socialreconstructionist education. Swadener reports some of the teachers’ reasons forthese limitations. They felt that they could not provide authentic and meaningfulactivities about groups that were not represented in the school; they were unsureof how to make that information meaningful to young children; and they workedlong hours at low pay and did not have the time to do the research andcurriculum development to support these kinds of efforts.

Aboud (1993) studied the effects of a curriculum called More Than Meets theEye, which was based on a human relations approach of reducing individualprejudice and heightening children’s ability to differentiate among members ofdifferent groups. The impact was gauged using pre- and posttests that measuredchildren’s ability to differentiate members of other racial groups, their racialpreferences, and their preference for cross-ethnic classmates. The children in theclassroom in which the curriculum was implemented were compared to a similar


control group. The first group showed significant improvement on differentiatingmembers of other groups and a slight increase in cross-race preferences. Childrenof color in the experimental group also showed an increase in positive feelingstoward their own group. These changes were not found in the control group.

Over the past decade a number of researchers have studied the effects ofprograms designed to increase the social integration of children with disabilities ininclusive classrooms. Although not formally labeled “multicultural research,”these interventions and assessments do add to our understanding of factors thatpromote interpersonal connections among people who are often isolated fromeach other (i.e., the human relations approach). The findings from these studiescumulatively provide helpful guidelines for enhancing relationships among allchildren, whether they are separated by race, gender, social class, or ability levels.These studies and guidelines are reviewed in the next few paragraphs.

A recurrent theme in this body of research is that adults play a crucial role in thesocial inclusion of children with disabilities. The findings of a number of studies(Bronson, Hauser-Cram, & Warfield, 1997; Odom, Jenkins, Speltz, & DeKlyen,1982; Odom et al., 1996; Sheridan et al., 1995; Stevens & Slavin, 1995) providesome guidelines for how teachers and parents can facilitate a more completeintegration of children into the social life both inside and outside of classrooms.

First, when adults obviously enjoy interacting with children with disabilitiesand support interactions between them and their peers, the children withdisabilities are more a part of the classroom social life.

Second, adults can facilitate interactions by closely monitoring the level ofsocial integration, providing activities to develop social skills and positive peerrelations, explicitly instructing children who lack social skills, subtly supportingchildren as they play together, providing a variety of activity contexts so thatchildren can interact at different levels (e.g., working side by side versus activelycooperating), and providing enough academic support to ensure that children donot flounder and get frustrated.

Third, activities and classrooms that are structured around cooperative learningare more conducive to integration than competitive ones are. One study (Putnam,Markovchick, Johnson, & Johnson, 1996) showed that children with disabilitieswho attended traditional classes were more negatively perceived by theirnondisabled peers by the end of the year, whereas the opposite trend was true inclassrooms organized around cooperative groups. In fact, a full-school cooperativemodel that supports cooperative learning in all subject areas and closecollaborations among teachers and parents appears to be optimal (Stevens &Slavin, 1995).

Fourth, children should be identified by everyone, including themselves, as fullmembers of the group and integral parts of all activities. To support this goal,absences for special help should be done sparingly and in ways to minimizedisruption (which obviously argues against extensive “pull-out” programs).

Fifth, participation in after-school activities and group friendship activities (e.g.,Forest & Lusthaus, 1989) enables children to develop more common ground withtheir peers, to develop their friendships. Sheridan et al. (1995) give many detailed


examples of how changing the environment to accommodate children withdisabilities helps them academically and socially. In their review of research on theintegration of children with disabilities in preschools, Diamond et al. (1994)conclude that when it is thoughtfully done, integration benefits children with andwithout disabilities. Children with disabilities make significant cognitive,linguistic, motoric, and social gains, and their peers learn to be less prejudiced andmore responsive and helpful to others.

Social Reconstructionism

In a couple of studies, the themes of empowerment and social reconstructionismare woven into the approach of educating the culturally different. Delgado-Gaitan(1990) studied 20 Mexican American families for 3 years and described whathappened when the parents organized and began to participate more in theschools and to collaborate with the teachers as equals. The first part of the bookdetails some of the shortcomings of the literacy program in the schools and thepower differentials between teachers and parents. The author then describes howthe Spanish-speaking parents formed a group that worked with teachers andadministrators to make the schools more culturally compatible for their children.This study is both an analysis of existing power relationships and an account ofthe effects of an intervention that challenged those dynamics. It combines bothresearch on multicultural education and multicultural education research.

Another study documents how Mexican American parents became politicallyactive change agents in their community and were able to make the schools moreculturally accessible to their children (Trueba, Rodriguez, Zou, & Cintron,1993). The authors describe how parents got involved in local elections, becamemembers of the local school board, and influenced the schools to become moreculturally accessible to their children. The book includes a description of a localschool that has bilingual and Spanish immersion classes and to some extentfollows a social reconstructionist model of education. The one drawback of thebook is that it does not address the larger issues of inherent discrimination andracism in the political system and could be interpreted to imply that the currentdemocratic system is equitable, which contradicts the social reconstructionist view.

A classroom teacher who is able to blend culturally compatible, humanrelations, and social reconstructionist approaches is the subject of another study(Levine, 1993). The narratives from the kindergarten-first grade classroomillustrate how the teacher creates a safe space for all children in the classroom toexpress and compare their perspectives and to challenge the “authority” of thewritten word and social conventions. The analysis captures some of the subtleways that the teacher fosters these conversations. Unfortunately, the study doesnot include any data about how the children changed during the year, so we donot know the extent to which this pedagogy affected their ways of thinking aboutdifferences and equity.

A few studies of classrooms or schools describe the effects of an explicit socialreconstructionist approach. Goodman (1992) provides a firsthand illustration of


how the goals of critical democracy can be implemented in an elementary school.From detailed field notes of interactions between staff and among staff andstudents, he illustrates how the tensions between individual freedom andcommunity emerge and are resolved in ways that support power sharing andcritical thought among all children and adults in the school. The work in theschool demonstrates how teachers and children can create a democraticcommunity that is both idealistic and functional. The school described in this bookis a small independent school, and it is not clear whether or not these methodswould work in other sites, especially in large public schools. However, the bookcontains many thought-provoking examples of the complexities and possibilitiesof teaching from the vantage point of critical democracy.

May (1994) uses a detailed ethnography to describe the particular form that aprimary school in New Zealand took to give children and families from Maori,other Pacific cultures, and British backgrounds access to shared power in theteaching/learning process. In the New Zealand educational experience of the pastcentury, Maori and other Pacific island children have historically exhibiteddepressed academic performance in the typical schools of the region. To counterthis trend, the faculty and parents of the Richmond Road Primary School workedtogether to create bilingual cohorts across the school that worked with fullrealization of the connection among language, culture, and school achievement.Cultural content representative of the several groups whose children attended theschool was infused throughout the curriculum. Traditional hierarchies ofadministrators, teachers, and parents were restructured into partnerships forchildren’s learning. The results showed a clearly discernable rise in readingachievement across the populations of the school. A review team from the localeducation authority criticized the school’s results and processes, however, findingthem to be below standards they had expected. The school personnel took issuewith that report and raised concerns about old constructs being used to evaluatenew approaches. This debate captures one of the key concerns in research onmulticultural educational practices—that of the appropriateness of studentassessment and program evaluation instruments.

On a much smaller scale is a teacher’s documentation of her efforts toimplement the Anti-Bias Curriculum (Derman-Sparks et al., 1989) in a raciallymixed kindergarten in the Midwest (Marsh, 1992). The teacher describes theorganization of the year and the major themes that she addressed, including topicssuch as immigration, conflict resolution, cooperation, peace, Native Americans,and friends from around the world. Marsh then uses excerpts from children’sconversations and from her own journal to describe children’s responses to thecurriculum. According to these excerpts, some of the children became moreaware of injustices and began to take actions such as protesting the lack of AfricanAmerican crossing guards and organizing a peace march. This kind ofobservational study is very helpful because it can show more precisely howchildren actually respond to anti-bias curricula. In future studies that use thismethodology, it would be helpful to have more systematic accounts of howindividual children changed, in order to ascertain whether or not the curriculum


influenced all the children or only a few. Another extension of this kind ofresearch would be follow-up studies to assess the long-term effects of the Anti-Bias Curriculum.

The task of analyzing existing power relationships in schools and assessing theeffects of multicultural curricula and teaching practices is daunting. No one studycan possibly capture all of the dimensions of the status quo or all aspects ofpedagogical innovations. Moreover, what works in one setting may not work inanother one; the context of each study is critical. Authentic multiculturaleducation research will require that faculty members at schools and universitiesdevelop more truly collaborative relationships. The outside researcher/expert froma university cannot grasp the subtle, contradictory, and elusive powerrelationships at a school as well as a member of the community can. Nor can anoutsider gain a true picture of the day-to-day life in the classroom to understandhow children and parents respond to the curriculum and process it over time.Thus, teachers, children, and parents must play active roles as researchers, not justas passive subjects. University researchers will need to become involved in a muchmore immediate and encompassing way than traditional researchers have.

The complexities of multicultural education demand large-scale and long-termstudies. However, at this point, the small-scale descriptive studies, as exemplifiedby some of the ones reported in this chapter, may be the most realistic way toproceed (Banks, 1991). Teachers and teacher educators can work together todescribe and analyze what is occurring in specific classrooms. As we accumulatethese separate databases, generalities will emerge and, it is hoped, will point theway to more comprehensive research studies.

SUMMARY

Existing resources on multicultural programs, curricula, and teaching strategies canbe characterized according to their approaches, dimensions, and philosophicalorientation to multicultural education. In many of the resources available today,authors have strongly emphasized the processes that teachers must go through inorder to teach from an authentically multicultural perspective, moving from anearlier assumption of teacher as technician to a recognition and fullacknowledgment of teachers as curriculum makers and reflective practitioners. Thischange moves the level of multicultural curriculum and teaching into thetransformative and social justice modes advocated by Banks (1999).

Broadly conceived, the works discussed in this chapter represent the translationinto educational practice of the philosophies and policies discussed in chapter 1and the understanding of child development reviewed in chapter 2 of this sourcebook. Definitions of culture and incorporation of other aspects of humanvariation strongly influence the overall applicability of each work and need to beexamined closely by potential users of the works. Consumers using particularresources should be aware of the many possibilities that these works can representand, consequently, select those that best suit their intent.


Note

1 . In this description, as throughout this source book, the terms culture and culturalshould be interpreted broadly to include not only ethnicity, but also race, gender,class, religion, sexual orientation, and ability/disability.

REFERENCES

Aboud, F.E. (1993). A fifth grade program to reduce prejudice. In K.A.McLeod (Ed.),Multicultural education: The state of the art (pp. 20–27). Toronto, Canada: University ofToronto Press.

AERA (American Educational Research Association) Symposium Audience Participation.(2002). Audience participation in an interactive symposium entitled Navigating theTides and Currents of Multicultural Education: A Conceptual Map for Analyzing theDivergent Perspectives and Trends of the Field presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Allen, J. (Ed.) (1999). Class actions: Teaching for social justice in elementary and middle school.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Anyon, J. (2001). Inner cities, affluent suburbs, and unequal educational opportunity. In

J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (4th ed.)(pp. 85–102). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Bahktin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of TexasPress.

Banks, J.A. (1991). Multicultural education: Its effects on students’ racial and gender roleattitudes. In J.P.Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning(pp. 459–469). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Banks, J.A. (1996). Multicultural education, transformative knowledge, and action: Historical andcontemporary perspectives. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.


Beaty, J.J. (1997). Building bridges with multicultural picture books. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Bennett, C.I. (1999). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice (2nd ed.).Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Blum, L. (1999). What is “racism” in antiracist education? Teachers College Record, 100(4),860–880.

Bronson, M.B., Hauser-Cram, P., & Warfield, M.E. (1997). Classrooms matter: Relationsbetween the classroom environment and the social and mastery behavior of five yearold children with disabilities. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 331–348.

Cross, W.E. (1995). Oppositional identity and African American youth: Issues andprospects. In W.D.Hawley & A.W.Jackson (Eds.), Toward a common destiny: Improvingrace and ethnic relations in America (pp. 185–204). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cushner, K., McClelland, A., & Safford, P. (2000). Human diversity in education: Anintegrative approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Davidman, L., & Davidman, P.T. (1997). Teaching with a multicultural perspective: A practicalguide (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.


De Gaetano, Y., Williams, L.R., & and Volk, D. (1998) Kaleidoscope: A multiculturalapproach for the primary school classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children’s education.New York, NY: Falmer.

Derman-Sparks, L. & Phillips, C.B. (1997). Teaching/learning anti-racism: A developmentalapproach. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Derman-Sparks, L. & A.B.C. Task Force, (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools for empoweringyoung children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of YoungChildren.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.Diamond, K.E., Hestenes, L.L., & O’Connor, C.E. (1994). Integrating young children

with disabilities in preschool: Problems and promise. Young Children, 49(2), 69–75.Diaz, C.F., Massialas, B.G., & Xanthopolous, J.A. (1999). Global perspectives for educators.

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Fahey, K.R., & Reid, D.K. (2000). Language development, differences, and disorders: A

perspective for general and special education teachers and classroom-based speechlanguagepathologists. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Forest, M., & Lusthaus, E. (1989). Circles and maps: Promoting educational equality for allstudents. In S.Stainback, W.Stainback, & M.Forest (Eds.), Educating all students in themainstream of regular education (pp. 43–58). Baltimore, MD: Basic Books.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury.Garcia, R.L. (1998). Teaching for diversity. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational

Foundation.Gillborn, D. (1995). Racism and anti-racism in real schools. Buckingham, UK: Open

University Press.Gollnick, D.M., & Chinn, P.C. (1998). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (5th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.J.Gonsier-Gerdin, J. (1995). An ethnographic case study of children’s social relationships in a full

inclusion elementary school. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society forResearch in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.

Goodman, J. (1992). Elementary schooling for critical democracy. Albany: State University ofNew York Press.

Goodwin, A.L. (1997). Historical and contemporary perspectives on multicultural teachereducation: Past lessons, new directions. In J.E.King, E.R.Hollins, & W.C.Hayman(Eds.), Preparing teachers for cultural diversity (pp. 5–22). New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.

Gorski, P.C. (2001). Multicultural education and the Internet: Intersections and integrations.Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Grant, C.A. (Ed.). (1992). Research and multicultural education: From the margins to themainstream. Washington, DC: Falmer.

Grant, C.A., & Sleeter, C.E. (1986). After the school bell rings. Philadelphia: Falmer.Grant, C.A., & Tate, W.F. (1995). Multicultural education through the lens of the

multicultural education research literature. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.),Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 145–166) New York, NY:Macmillan.

Hayes, C.W., Bahruth, R., & Kessler, C. (1991). Literacy con carino. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.


Helms, J. (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. West-port, CT:Greenwood.

Hernandez, H. (1989). Multicultural education: A teacher’s guide to content and process. NewYork, NY: Merrill.

Igoa, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.Irvine, J., & Armento, B.J. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Lesson planning for elementary

and middle grades. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Katz, S.R. (1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their teachers, and the

structures of schooling. Teachers College Record, 100(4), 809–840.Kellough, R. (2000). A resource guide for teaching: K–12 (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Merrill/Prentice Hall.Kendall, F.E. (1996). Diversity in the classroom: New approaches to the education of young children

(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.King, E.W., Chipman, M., & Cruz-Janzen, M. (1994). Educating young children in a diverse

society. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Kuska, G. & Linse, B. (1987). Live again our mission past (3rd ed.). Larkspur, CA: Arts Books.Levine, L. (1993). “Who says?” Learning to value diversity in school. In F.Pignatelli &S.

W.Pflaum (Eds.), Celebrating diverse voices: Progressive education and equity (pp. 87–111).Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.

Lynch, James. (1981). Teaching in the multicultural school. London: Ward Lock Educational.Marsh, M.M. (1992). Implementing anti-bias curriculum in the kindergarten classroom. In

S.Kessler & B.B.Swadener (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum:Beginning the dialogue (pp. 267–288). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

May, S. (1994). Making multicultural education work. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary multiculturalism: Pedagogies of dissent for the new millennium.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Miller-Lachman, L. & Taylor, L.S. (1995). Schools for all: Educating children in a diverse society.

Albany, NY: Delmar.Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (3rd

ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.Odom, S.L., Jenkins, J.R., Speltz, M.L., & DeKlyen, M. (1982). Promoting social

interaction of young children at risk for learning disabilities. Learning DisabilityQuarterly, 5, 379–387.

Odom, S.L., Peck, C.A., Hanson, M., Beckman, P.J., Kaiser, A.P., Lieber, J., Brown,W.H., Horn, E.M., & Schwartz, I.S. (1996). Inclusion at the preschool level: Anecological systems analysis. Social Policy Report of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, 10(2 & 3), 18–30.

Ovando, C.J., & McLaren, P. (2000). The politics of multiculturalism and bilingual education.Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Pang, V.O. (2000). Multicultural education: A caring-centered, reflective approach. Boston, MA:McGraw-Hill.

Perl, L. (1983). Piñatas and paper flowers: Holidays of the Americas in English and Spanish. NewYork, NY: Clarion.

Proweller, A. (1999). Shifting identities in private education: Reconstructing race at/in thecultural center. Teachers College Record, 100(4), 776–808.

Putnam, J., Markovchick, K., Johnson D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1996). Cooperativelearning and peer acceptance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of SocialPsychology, 136, 741–752.


Ramsey, P.G. (1998). Teaching and learning in a diverse world: Multicultural education for youngchildren. (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Reid, D.K. (1988). Teaching the learning disabled: A cognitive developmental approach. Boston,MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Robles de Melendez, W. & Ostertag, V. (1997). Teaching young children in multiculturalclassrooms: Issues, concepts, and strategies. Albany, NY: Delmar.

Rogovin, P. (1998). Classroom interviews: A world of learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Sapon-Shevin, M. (1999). Because we can change the world: A practical guide to building

cooperative, inclusive, classroom communities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Sarason, S.B. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, MA: Allyn &

Bacon.Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York,

NY: Basic Books.Schniedewind, N., & Davidson, E. (1998). Open minds to equality: A sourcebook of learning

activities to affirm diversity and promote equity (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Shubert, B. & Bird, M. (1976, 1977). Culturally based activities for K–6 Children (American

Indians, Black History, Alaska and Hawaii, Chinese, Mexican [in separate volumes]). SanJose, CA: Reflections & Images.

Schoonmaker, F. & Ryan, S. (1996). Does theory lead practice? Teachers’ constructsabout teaching: Top-down perspectives. In J.A.Chafel & S.Reifel (Eds.) Advances inearly education and day care, v. 8 (pp. 117–152). Greenwich, CT: Jai.


Slavin, R.E. (1979). Integrating the desegregated classroom. Educational Leadership, 37 (3),322–324.

Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning and intergroup relations. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 628–634). NewYork, NY: Macmillan.

Sleeter, C.E. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. Albany State University of NewYork Press.

Sleeter, C.E., & Grant, C.A. (1987). An analysis of multicultural education in the UnitedStates. Harvard Educational Review, 57(4): 421–444.

Sleeter, C.E. & Grant, C.A. (1999). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approachesto race, class, and gender. (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Sleeter, C.E., & McLaren, P.L. (1995). Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politicsof difference. Albany State University of New York Press.

Spring, J. (2000). The intersection of cultures: Multicultural education in the United States and theglobal economy (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Stevens, R.J., & Slavin, R.E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects onstudents’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational ResearchJournal, 32(2), 321–351.

Swadener, E.B. (1988). Implementation of education that is multicultural in earlychildhood settings: A case study of two day-care programs. Urban Review, 20(1): 8–27.

Swiniarski, L.A., Breitborde, M., & Murphy, J. (1999). Educating the global village: Includingthe young child in the world. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.


Tatum, B.D. (1997). “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” and otherconversations about the development of racial identity. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schoolingin social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tiedt, P.L., & Tiedt, I.M. (1999). Multicultural teaching: A handbook of activities, informationand resources (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Timm, J.T. (1996). Four perspectives in multicultural education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Trueba, H.T., Rodriguez, C., Zou, Y., & Cintron, J. (1993). Healing multicultural America:

Mexican immigrants rise to power in rural California. New York: Falmer.Uphoff, J.K. (2001). Religious diversity and education. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks. (Eds.),

Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (4th ed.) (pp. 103–121). New York, NY:John Wiley and Sons.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Ed. byM.Cole et al. Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Watkins, W.H., Lewis, J.H., & Chou, V. (Eds.) (2001). Race education: The roles of historyand society in educating African American students. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Williams, L.R. (1996). Does practice lead theory? Teachers’ constructs about teaching:Bottom-up perspectives. In J.A.Chafel & S.Reifel (Eds.), Advances in early educationand day care, v. 8 (pp. 153–184). Greenwich, CT: Jai.

Williams, L.R., De Gaetano, Y., Harrington, C.C., & Sutherland, I.R. (1985). ALERTA:A multicultural, bilingual approach to teaching young children. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Williams, L.R., & Ryan, S. (2000). Hearts and minds: Addressing multiculturalism in aninservice teacher education program requiring mutual development of teachers andteacher educators. In E.B.Vold (Ed.), Preparing teachers for diverse student populations andequity (pp. 230–272). New York, NY: Kendall-Hunt.

Wrigley, J. (Ed.) (1992). Education and gender equality. London, UK: Falmer.Wurzel, J.S. (1988). Multiculturalism and multicultural education. In Toward

multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (pp. 1–13). Yarmouth, ME:Intercultural Press.


Entries in this bibliography are arranged alphabetically within two broadcategories: (1) resources on curriculum content and teaching strategies for theclassroom, and (2) research reports and commentaries on the effects of variousforms of multicultural education. For the most part, the works selected forinclusion in this listing embody a multicultural perspective, a socialreconstructionist perspective, or both in their guidance, although a few resourcesthat utilize other perspectives are also included. Their content is summarizedbelow, with special attention to issues raised and descriptions provided in thischapter.


Curriculum and Teaching Classroom Resources

Allen, J. (Ed.) (1999). Class actions: Teaching for social justice in elementary and middle school.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

This book contains a set of compelling essays written by teachers who haveworked together and separately to enable the children they teach to challenge“life as usual” around issues of injustice and inequity that appear in the students’immediate world. Written from a strong, social reconstructionist position, the workis full of examples taken from the teachers’ classrooms of children encounteringand, with teacher assistance, facing up to the demands of democratic action. Thetext also records the teachers’ frustrations with efforts that proved less thansuccessful, and details the teachers’ reflections on their practice and on their ownpreparation as teachers as they work toward transforming obstacles to equitableteaching and learning. Of special interest to practitioners interested in socialstudies and the social sciences are the descriptions of the demands of creatingauthentically democratic learning communities and the pressures felt by childrenand adults alike when disagreeing with a majority opinion.

Arora, R.K., & Carlton, G.D. (Eds.) (1986). Multicultural education: Towards good practice.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

This edited volume explores the British multicultural educational experiencethrough the mid-1980s, with a variety of chapters devoted to examples ofcurriculum applications. The chapters written by Arora (on curriculum processesfor the primary grades), Collicot (multicultural approaches to mathematics), Watts(science education from a multicultural perspective), and Klein (on choice ofmulticultural resources) all offer suggestions useful to teachers of primary andupper elementary schoolchildren. The emphasis throughout the work is onchallenging societal structures that promote continuing discrimination andinequality of opportunity in culturally diverse populations.

Baker, G.C., Brody, M., Beecher, C., & Ho, R.P. (1977). Modifying curriculums to meetmulticultural needs. In D.E.Cross, G.C.Baker & L.J.Stiles (Eds.), Teaching in amulticultural society (pp. 22–36). New York, NY: Free Press.

In this early work, the authors trace the ways that classroom curricula can bereformulated to reflect a multicultural perspective suitable for use with all children.The authors recommend, first, the establishment of a knowledge base through useof such resources as children’s books and increasingly available audiovisualmaterials (carefully reviewed ahead of time for accuracy in presentation andavoidance of stereotyping). Their second step is selection of teaching strategies,and their third, the choice of a curriculum design that reflects, at a deep level, thegoals the teacher wishes to achieve. The authors contend that existing curriculacan be modified into successful multicultural presentations, but that closeattention must be given to the articulation of each of the curricular elements, sothat the children experience a coherent whole. Examples of applications spanningthe elementary school years are provided to illustrate the points made.


Banks, J.A. (1991). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Banks’s fifth edition of his classic work represents a shift away from single

group studies to permeation of ethnic studies throughout the curriculum, as anaspect of total curriculum reform. Banks provides specific historical andsociological information on a wide variety of Native American (including NativeHawaiian), African American, European American, Hispanic American, and AsianAmerican ethnic groups. Use of the information in teaching strategies, aimed atthe primary and intermediate grades (as well as at the upper grades and highschool) across subject areas, is illustrated through descriptions of appropriatelearning activities. The book is rich in resources pertaining to each of the groupsconsidered.

Banks, J.A. (2001). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching.Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

This work was previously annotated in chapter 1 for its strong focus onfoundations of the field. The book evolved from the third edition of Banks’widely read Multiethnic education: Theory and practice (last published in 1994). Overthe years, James Banks has developed a number of models to explicate theevolution and movements within multicultural educational theory and practice.Building on these, Banks examines the requirements for knowledge constructionand curriculum reform, including references to encourage further inquiry into thecultures of specific groups. He follows with two sections on teaching strategies tobuild effective decision-making and social action skills and a section on the theory,research, and practice of prejudice reduction. In a section of the book devoted tothe role of gender, language, and intergroup relations in culture, a chapter byRicardo Garcia adds to the multidimensionality. While Banks is generally knownfor his work in secondary education, many of the principles examined in thisbook can be adapted well to the context of elementary and middle schools. TheMulticultural Educational Program Checklist found in the appendix of the bookis a helpful tool for all grade levels.

Banks, J.A., & Banks, C.A.M. (Eds.) (2001). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives(4th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

This edited volume was earlier annotated in reference to its discussion of theissues of multicultural education. It also contains, however, sections that directlyaddress curriculum construction and teaching strategies. Jean Anyon’s chapter(Part II, Chapter 4) offers teacher guidelines for addressing issues of social class andprovides a list of “helpful books” for teaching about social justice. James Uphoff(Part II, Chapter 5) has a similar section of educational implications for dealingwith religious differences; and David and Myra Sadker outline a dozen strategiesfor creating gender-fair classrooms (Part III, Chapter 6). James Banks suggestsguidelines for teaching multicultural content (Part IV, Chapter 10), while CarlosOvando (Part IV, Chapter 12) has a section called “Addressing Language Needsin the Multicultural Classroom.” All of Part V is devoted to discussions ofexceptionality in relation to the multicultural classroom, with attention to bothdisabilities and giftedness.


Beaty, J.J. (1997). Building bridges with multicultural picture books for children 3–5. Columbus,OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Using the multicultural approach of appreciating and celebrating differences,Beaty demonstrates a variety of ways to infuse multicultural picture booksthroughout the early childhood curriculum. The author’s premises are that youngchildren tend to bond with picture book characters that they perceive to besimilar to themselves, and that such bonding can extend children’s growth in alldomains of development. Among the issues of multiculturalism addressedthroughout the book are ethnicity, race, exceptionalities, language differences,and care of the earth’s environment. The text is rich with examples of curriculumplanning strategies and classroom activities; and it fully recognizes the role of theteacher as curriculum maker, while advocating a child-centered perspective. Eachchapter concludes with lists of additional possible activities for children, suggestedfurther readings for teachers, and recommended children’s picture books on thesubject of that chapter. Frequently, musical sources, identification ofrecommended manipulatives, sources of consumable supplies, and identificationof appropriate computer resources are also included.

Bennett, C.I. (1999). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice (4th ed.).Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

The author examines the conversion of theory into practice throughconsideration of the definitions, assumptions, and goals that underlie multiculturaleducation. Beginning with a presentation of the kinds of knowledge needed byteachers to implement a multicultural perspective, Bennett moves to suggestionsof teaching strategies that make use of such knowledge and provides specificexamples of infusion of cultural content across curriculum areas. Although thebook is designed largely for use by secondary school teachers, there are sufficientexamples of applications in upper elementary grades to make the work a valuableaddition to the resources of teachers of middle school children. Bennett’sdiscussion of the dynamic between individual and group (cultural) differences andher review of teachers’ possible misperceptions of children’s behavior areespecially thought-provoking.

Berman, S., & LaFarge, P. (Eds.) (1993). Promising practices in teaching social responsibility.Albany: State University of New York Press.

This book, written by and for teachers, illustrates innovative classroompractices that have been effective in teaching social responsibility to children of allages. Collectively, the chapters demonstrate children can learn to workcooperatively, disagree and debate, resolve conflicts, and create positive classroomcommunities. The authors write from many different perspectives and providehelpful examples of how teachers can integrate global and local social justice issuesthroughout the curriculum, including science, math, the arts, literature, and socialstudies. The chapters contain detailed descriptions of teachers’ goals and plans andobservations of children’s responses to specific activities, which provide a close-upview of how the ideals of social responsibility play out in real classrooms.


Brandt, G.L. (1986). The realization of anti-racist teaching. London: Falmer.An early social reconstructionist text drawing upon a “Black Third World

definition of social reality in racist British society and a Black tradition andcritique of White European scholarship….” the author contends that the present-day writings of much of the multicultural education movement do notfundamentally address the deep social structures that continue to disenfranchisepeople of color in Western societies. After discussing the sociohistoricalbackground to their current debates in Britain and analyzing the contexts forreorientation to antiracist education, Brandt illustrates how common lessons canbe prepared to reflect an antiracist point of view. In this, he feels that he movesbeyond the simpler demands of multicultural education itself. Similarly, Brandtexamines the reformulation of teaching strategies to eliminate bias in subtlerforms of classroom communication.

Byrnes, D.A., & Kiger, G., (Eds.) (1992). Common bonds: Anti-bias teaching in a diversesociety. Wheaton, MD: ACEI

The essays in this edited volume are intended both to “identify various formsof cultural diversity and suggest ways that teachers can build inclusive classroomenvironments” (p. 7). The dimensions of difference that are explored are race,ethnicity and culture, religious diversity, ability differences, social class differences,language diversity, and gender equity. Each essay encapsulates major issues aroundits topic, provides practical suggestions for teachers, and lists resources for teachersand the children they teach. The examples of activities range from those forelementary and middle schoolers to those more appropriate for secondary schoolteaching. Also included in several of the chapters are case studies of practice thatexamine the dynamics of teacher/student interactions. The work ends with achecklist for diversity in the classroom that addresses curriculum materials,teaching strategies, and teacher/student behaviors.

Casper, V., & Schultz, S.B. (1999). Gay parents/straight schools: Building communication andtrust. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Open and comfortable acceptance of gay parents has not been typical in manyschools and classrooms in the United States. Issues of sexual orientation havegenerally been avoided in curriculum development as well. This text offerspathways to overcoming those circumstance by building accurate bases ofknowledge and strengthening anti-bias approaches to communication betweenteachers and parents. The authors see the pivotal point for authentic contact as theestablishment of trust, and they develop that central motif throughout the work.Topics include exploration of children’s conceptions of family and sexualorientation, adults’ points of view, ways disclosure might appear incommunications, and implications for curriculum. The book concludes withguidelines for action to support children and families.

Cech, M. (1991). Globalchild: Multicultural resources for young children. Menlo Park, CA:Addison—Wesley.


On the surface, this activity book looks very much like a classic “touristapproach” to multicultural education. Seasonal activities from different countriesand groups within Canada are the core of the book and could be implemented insuperficial ways. However, the book does contain quite a lot of usefulinformation about different traditions and artifacts. If used as a resource book, notas a guide to multicultural education, it is potentially useful. Unfortunately, mostof the references and suggested children’s books are quite dated, which limitstheir usefulness and casts some doubt on the information in the book.

Chud, G., & Fahlman, R., with R.Baker & P.Wakefield. (1985). Early childhood educationfor a multicultural society: A handbook for educators. Vancouver, BC: Western EducationDevelopment Group, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia.

This is a one-volume program resource for administrators and teachers workingat the preschool level. The authors lay the foundations for program developmentin the attitudes, knowledge, and skills of the adults delivering educational servicesto culturally diverse children. Moving from teacher introspection to strategies forworking with families and making home-school connections, they illustrateconcrete ways to foster second-language acquisition and continued developmentin the physical, emotional, social, and intellectual domains. Preparation of theclassroom environment and the content of learning activities are derived fromanalysis of the cultural traditions brought by individual children to the classroomand from attention to the children’s present, everyday experience. Concepts andskills arising from these sources are arranged into thematic presentations. Teachingstrategies aimed at confronting prejudices and stereotyping are also included.

Clegg, L.B., Miller, E., & Vanderhoof, W.Jr. (1995). Celebrating diversity: A multiculturalresource. New York, NY: Delmar.

For teachers seeking specific information on ways people of different cultures inthe United States celebrate holidays and other events in their lives, this resourceoffers a useful compilation. Designed for teachers of intermediate elementary andmiddle school, the book is arranged in a month-by-month sequence that reflectsthe rhythm of a typical school year. The authors provide background informationon events and suggest a range of possible activities for the children. “Culture” inthis work is defined almost exclusively as ethnicity and national origin; thus thedimensions of difference that relate to antibias and equity issues are not addressedexcept sporadically and incompletely.

Cook, R.E., Tessier, A., & Klein, M.D. (2000). Adapting early childhood curricula for childrenin inclusive settings (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Cushner, K., McClelland, A., & Safford, P. (2000). Human diversity in education: Anintegrative approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

The authors have provided a work that includes aspects of teaching the exceptionaland culturally different and human relations orientations, although their dominantapproach to education is multicultural. The book contains both social science andhistorical backgrounds for understanding issues related to “the sources of culturalknowledge”: race, sex/gender, health, ability/disability, social class and social


status, ethnicity/nationality, religion/spirituality, geographic location, age,sexuality, and language. It introduces the concepts of social networks and howthey may be applicable to teaching communities of learners in diverse settings. Inthe chapters on practice, attention is given to early childhood anddevelopmentally appropriate practice, as well as classrooms for older children,creating inclusive classrooms responsive to children’s health and ability/disabilityneeds, fostering collaborative approaches to learning (particularly as these relate togender and sexual orientation), and focus in the classroom on race, ethnicity/nationality, and region as manifestations of a global community. The text utilizesthought-provoking case studies and “critical incidents” as examples of the kindsof opportunities and dilemmas that teachers confront in their present-day work.Each chapter ends with both print and virtual site references/resources. (See theannotation in chapter 4 for Cushner’s accompanying workbook for teacherpreparation.)

Davidman, L. & Davidman, P.T., (2001). Teaching with a multicultural perspective: A practicalguide (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.

This text is designed for students entering the teaching profession and/ornovice teachers seeking specific and practical guidance on ways to integrate amulticultural perspective through the totality of the teaching/learning experiencein their K–12 classrooms. Multicultural in overall orientation, the authorsconsciously emphasize “the historical and contemporary relationship betweenmulticultural education and the ongoing development of our democratic society”(p. xi). Thus, a particular concern of the work is addressing educational equity(with renewed attention to gender equity as an important part of the whole). Thetext provides a multitude of organizational devices, such as observation guides andchecklists, to help beginning teachers keep clearly in mind the many dimensionsof multicultural infusion throughout the curriculum. A special feature of the workis a set of profiles of eight educators considered by the authors to be exemplary intheir multicultural practice. The text also includes examples of lesson plans, units,and other planning models, and abundant print and virtual resources.

De Gaetano, Y., Williams, L.R., & Volk, D. (1998). Kaleidoscope: A multicultural approachfor the primary school classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Kaleidoscope illustrates a process for integrating cultural content acrossdevelopmental domains and subject areas at each grade level (kindergartenthrough grade three) by building on the cultural knowledge that all children bringwith them to the classroom. Representing both multicultural and socialreconstructionist approaches, the text begins with cultural and developmentalframeworks for identifying and observing children’s frames of reference, and thenillustrates ways of using this information in preparing the classroom environment,designing learning activities, selecting teaching strategies, and assessing children’sprogress. Issues of language development and a dual language approach toteaching and learning are also addressed in a dedicated chapter. The final twochapters include involving parents as partners in their children’s education andpreparing teachers as advocates in addressing issues of social justice that affect


children both in and outside the classroom. Guidance on observing youngchildren, directions for constructing learning materials that can be adapted to thelocal environment and culture, and a program implementation checklist appear inthe text’s appendices.

Derman-Sparks, L., & the A.B.C.Task Force (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools forempowering young children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education ofYoung Children.

This book blends theory and practice into a very accessible tool for teachers toimplement anti-bias teaching, which embodies the multicultural education andsocial reconstructionist approaches. It had a major impact on early childhoodmulticultural education for several reasons. First, it linked various sources ofoppression, including race, gender, class, and disabilities. Second, it introducedthe idea of teaching young children to be critical thinkers and social activists.Third, it criticized many of the popular multicultural efforts for being superficialand “touristy.” Each chapter of the book provides background information onrelated developmental and social issues and then provides a comprehensive list ofactivities and environmental considerations. Throughout the book, the authorsemphasize the need for teachers and administrators to constantly monitor theirown attitudes and to work closely with families and community people.

Ford, D.Y., & Harris, J.J. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.

This volume is one of the first to bring together the fields of gifted andmulticultural education in a work designed for teachers. The text draws on thefoundations of both fields (using multicultural and human relations or antibiasapproaches and concept-based or theme-based lessons to promote thinking skills)to present a strong rationale for their connection and mutual enhancement.Although the discussion of educational principles clearly applies to the full K–12grade range, the many examples of curriculum that the authors provide featureplanning geared to elementary and middle school children. The many suggestionsfor classroom activities included in chapters 4 and 5 of the text illustrate howmulticultural perspectives can be integrated across subject areas. Issues of studentassessment and program evaluation are raised throughout the work, bringing to thefore one of the major complexities of multicultural practice and research. Policyimplications derived from the questions of curriculum and assessment are alsodiscussed.

García, R.L. (1984). Countering classroom discrimination. Theory into Practice, 23, 104–109.

Garcia provides strategies for countering stereotypes of gender, race, ethnicity,or social class that arise in societies due to ignorance, unpleasant incidents, folkwisdom socialization, hard times, or internal colonialization. Garcia’s premise isthat teachers can make a difference for themselves and the children they serve by,first, honestly examining their own attitudes and beliefs and, subsequently,recognizing the extent of their own ethnocentrism. Stereotypes caused by


ignorance, hard times, and folk wisdom socialization may be countered byproviding accurate information. Stereotypes arising from unpleasant incidents orcolonialism may be best addressed through simulations or other forms of roleplay. Most important, teachers can counter discrimination by expectingexcellence from all their students and can support that expectation by maintaininghigh standards of performance.

García, R.L. (1990). Teaching in a pluralistic society: Concepts, models, and strategies (2nd ed.).New York, NY: HarperCollins.

This book contains useful and accessible social scientific and historicalbackground information on issues related to social class, race, ethnicity, culture,gender, religion, and disabilities. It also has a few chapters that provide overviewsof different pedagogical models and strategies for teaching children from differentcultural and language backgrounds and for promoting positive intergrouprelationships. In general, this book reflects the teaching exceptional and culturallydifferent children and the human relations approaches.

Gay, G. (1979). On behalf of children: A curriculum design for multicultural education inthe elementary school. Journal of Negro Education, 48, 324–340.

Gay explores mechanisms for integrating a multicultural perspectivethroughout the elementary school, so that it becomes totally integrated into allsubject and skill areas addressed. Beginning with a powerful rationale for changeof orientation in the elementary school toward active recognition of culturaldiversity, Gay proceeds to examine the implications for practicing that point ofview. She looks at each of the elements of curriculum design (diagnostic techniques,skills to be mastered, content and materials, learning activities, teaching behaviors,and evaluation procedures) in relation to each other and in relation to the wayseach should reflect a multicultural approach. Specific procedures for carrying outthe process of integration are described.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY:Teachers College Press.

The author, who has been active in the multicultural educational movementsince the 1970s, brings her extensive expertise to bear in a current account ofteaching strategies that are effective with learners across ages (from kindergartenthrough teacher education programs), and representing the wide cultural, racial,ethnic, social class, gender, and ability diversity that is typical of many NorthAmerican classrooms today. Rooting her work in the concept of caring, Gayrelates cultural responsiveness to recognition of different communication andlearning styles, the power of cultural diversity in curriculum content, and theinvolvement of the learners’ larger communities in the successful teaching of bothchildren and adults. A special feature of this work is the author’s weaving ofdescriptions of theory and research with accounts of practice, so that each can beseen as reflections of the other. Her use of story in this endeavor is particularlypowerful as a medium for both recording past efforts and imagining future


possibilities; and she offers her own teaching story to encourage her readers’reflection on the evolving nature of multicultural practice.

Gollnick, D.M., & Chinn, P.C. (1998). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (5th ed.).St. Louis: Mosby.

This is a resource book devoted largely to the provision of detailed backgroundinformation on the specifics of cultural pluralism (religion, language, ethnicity,gender, etc.) needed in order for teachers successfully to implement multiculturalteaching strategies. Gollnick and Chinn explore the complexity of each dimensionof diversity, with attention to intragroup as well as cross-group variation. Thecumulative effect is to sensitize the reader to the issues and to clarify questionsone should ask when preparing to teach in culturally diverse circumstances. Thefinal chapter of the work discusses instructional strategies, suggesting generalguidelines helpful to teachers who are beginning to initiate the approach in theirclassrooms.

Goodman, J. (1992). Elementary schooling for critical democracy. Albany: State University ofNew York Press.

Goodman provides a firsthand account of how the goals of critical democracycan be implemented in an elementary school. The author places this work in thehistorical tensions between individualism and community that have prevailed inthis country. From detailed field notes of interactions between staff members andamong staff members and students, he describes how these tensions emerged andwere resolved in ways that support power sharing and critical thought among allchildren and adults in the school. The work in the school is inspiring because itdemonstrates how teachers and children can create a democratic community thatis idealistic, but also functional. The author concludes that the “life-affirmingintellectual and emotional connection that existed among the teachers andstudents gave substance to [the school’s] democratic ideology and practice” (p.178). All aspects of teaching, from discipline to curriculum planning, are describedthrough examples of how teachers and children attempted to resolve particularsituations and dilemmas. The school described in this book is a small independentschool, and the author cautions readers about the applicability of theseexperiences to other sites. However, the book contains many thought-provokingexamples of the complexities of teaching from the vantage point of criticaldemocracy.

Grant, C.A., & Sleeter, C.E. (1989). Turning on learning: Five approaches for multiculturalteaching plans for race, class, gender, and disability. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

In this book, the authors offer very concrete illustrations of their fiveapproaches to multicultural education: teaching the exceptional and culturallydifferent; human relations; single group studies; multicultural education; andeducation that is multicultural and social reconstructionist. By showing howlesson plans can be changed to reflect these different approaches, the authorsclarify the distinctions between the different approaches. They also demonstrate


how almost any lesson, regardless of topic and age, can be adapted to have amulticultural perspective.

Gorski, P.C. (2001). Multicultural education and the Internet: Intersections and integrations.Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

While many current texts include virtual listings in their resource sections, thisis the first text to appear that is devoted entirely to examination of multiculturaleducational sources on the Internet. This very useful text enables novices to “surfthe net” to locate sources and discover tools both to enhance classroom teachingand learning and to transform curriculum. It also offers guidance on evaluating theworth of particular multicultural education websites. Throughout the text, sitesgermane to specific aspects of multicultural teaching are identified, and tools forsearching even more widely are described.

Hamilton, D.S., Flemming, B.M., & Hicks, J.D. (1990). Resources for creative teaching in earlychildhood education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

This activity book contains information and instructions for a number ofactivities that can support a multicultural approach, particularly for differentholiday traditions. Although the authors list a number of multicultural goals at thebeginning of the book, the activities are not presented in that context and couldbe misused to portray unfamiliar groups as exotic holiday celebrants. A number ofthe music activities are songs and “parodies” that have been written by the thirdauthor—usually, new words set to familiar tunes. It is unfortunate that the authorsused these invented songs, rather than using songs that reflect various culturaltraditions.

Hayes, C.W., Bahruth, R., & Kessler, C. (1991). Literacy con cariño. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

The authors describe how one group of fifth-grade children of MexicanAmerican migrant farm workers overcame their poor academic records andexperiences and learned to enjoy writing through journal writing and journaldialogues with their teacher. This account includes many examples of thechildren’s writing and shows how the children became more fluent during thecourse of the year. The authors present an encouraging view of how writing canbe used to engage and teach children who have not had much previous academicsuccess and thus represent the teaching the exceptional and culturally differentapproaches. Writing is also an excellent tool to foster children’s critical thinking.However, the writing projects were limited to descriptions of such topics as one’sfamily, research about specific animals or countries, or fantasies about aliens. Theauthors do not raise the question of using writing to analyze the oppression theirfamilies had experienced.

Hernandez, H. (2001). Multicultural education: A teacher’s guide to linking context process, andcontent (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

The second edition of Hernandez’ text continues the richness of demographicinformation that characterized her earlier work. Intended for both elementary and


secondary teachers, the book makes a special contribution in its attention to the“hidden curriculum,” through which values are transmitted in the classroom.Hernandez adopts an anthropologically based definition of culture as referring to“the complex processes of human social interaction and symboliccommunication” (p. 20). For Hernandez this definition highlights issues ofethnicity and race, language differences, variations in learning styles, anddifferences in ability (both special and gifted education). Concerned that earlierwork focused on the processes of multicultural practice sometimes at the expenseof academic content, the author in this new edition makes the linkages of the twomore evident in expanded sections on development of a multicultural curriculum.Also emphasized are connections between classrooms, homes, neighborhoods, andcommunities as the contexts that imbue new concepts with personal meaning forstudents.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (2002). Multicultural education and human relations. Boston,MA: Allyn & Bacon.

This text is unusual in that it devotes itself entirely to developing teachers’ skillsin the human relations approach to multicultural education. Moving from thepremise that teachers must work closely with themselves to develop theknowledge and skills needed for expert human relations, the authors have devotedthe first part of the work to information and exercises for self-exploration andgrowth. The second half of the work applies these concepts and skills to teachers’use of them in the classroom. Long known for their work in the area ofcooperative education, Johnson and Johnson see cooperative learning as a majorsite for developing positive human relations across cultural identity groups. Thekinds of interactions they suggest are applicable to children in the upper range ofelementary school, as well as middle and high school. The text offers manyexamples of planning and evaluation procedures for classroom activities.

Kendall, F.E. (1996). Diversity in the classroom: New approaches to the education of young children(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Originally using Barber and Shapiro’s developmental-interaction approach tocurriculum formulation in combination with Taba’s emphasis on promotion ofhuman relations as the foundation for curriculum development, Kendall expandsher theoretical base in this second edition to include the perspectives of Vygotsky,Cole, and Gardner, emphasizing the cultural contexts of development, learning,and thinking. Her curriculum guidelines offer specific suggestions of ways toteach about race, culture, and gender within classrooms serving young children.Kendall’s goals are to reduce bias and promote affirmation of one-self and othersthrough attention to the selection of learning materials and reflective planningwithin each of the traditional early childhood curriculum areas (blockbuilding,language experiences, art activities, etc.). Examples of unit planning are provided,along with a variety of resource lists. This work uses the multicultural educationapproach.


King, E.W. (1990). Teaching ethnic and gender awareness: Methods and materials for theelementary school. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

King supports the positive recognition of pluralism in American society byintroduction of multiethnic and gender studies from the early primary throughthe upper elementary school years. The first half of the book offers a rationale forthe study, provides background information on ethnic diversity and theintersection of gender with learning, and describes basic teaching strategies thathave been demonstrated to be effective in multiethnic and gender-sensitivepresentations. The second half of the work contains many examples of activities(ascending in order from kindergarten to those appropriate for the upperelementary grades) that reflect and draw upon children’s increasing sophisticationregarding individual and group variation. King notes that the design of learningactivities must attend carefully to children’s developmental levels, in regard toboth their cognitive processes and their socioemotional responses. That awarenessis illustrated through the specification of objectives for the sample activities andthrough the choice of teaching materials in each instance.

King, E.W., Chipman, M., & Cruz-Janzen, M. (1994). Educating young children in a diversesociety. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

In this text, the authors expand King’s longstanding interest in ethnicity andgender to include issues of social class and exceptionality. Designed for teachers ofchildren from 3 to 8 years of age, the authors take a multicultural approach thatemphasizes the development of a positive self-image, knowledge of one’s owncultural heritage, and anti-bias techniques for prejudice reduction in the attitudes andbehaviors of young children, as well as encourage incorporation of globaleducation, or “education for an interdependent world” (p. 197). Of specialinterest to early educators is the attention given to blending developmentallyappropriate practice (DAP) with a multicultural orientation. Included in thedescription of particular curricular approaches are accounts of ethnographicresearch done on the implementation of an early childhood program created forNative American children and families, and naturalistic qualitative research in abilingual early childhood classroom.

Kitano, M.K. (1980). Early education for Asian American children. Young Children, 35(2),13–26.

Kitano reviews cultural factors and learning characteristics associated withchildren of Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean, Hawaiian, andSamoan descent and reports on a study designed to determine Asian Americanchildren’s learning styles and competencies prior to their entrance in publicschool. Drawing implications from the work for education, the authors reject the“cultural deficit” hypothesis in favor of the “cultural difference” model (theapproach now known as teaching the exceptional and culturally different, and reiteratethe importance of changing teaching practices to meet the child’s needs. Theyalso point out that teachers from the North American mainstream tend to viewAsian Americans as a monolithic group, whereas substantial cultural differences doexist among the various Asian groups. Likewise, the differences that exist for


individuals within a group must also be acknowledged, so that stereotyping can beavoided.

Klein, G. (1985). Reading into racism: Bias in children’s literature and learning materials. London:Routledge & Kegan.

Klein offers an analysis of the many ways in which children’s literature andlearning materials can shape children’s attitudes about themselves and otherpeople. Criteria for selecting materials and ways of developing skills for evaluatingmaterials for children are explored, as well as strategies for removing bias from theteaching and learning experiences), Klein is particularly intriguing in the ways sheidentifies bias appearing in materials across subject areas and in her clarification ofunderlying issues in content presentations that are misleading to the learner.

Lewis, B.A. (1991). The kids’ guide to social action: How to solve the social problems you choose—and turn creative thinking into positive action. Minneapolis,: Free Spirit.

This book is filled with examples and practical suggestions for engaging youngpeople in social justice advocacy. The author begins with a story that illustrateshow children can have an impact on their communities, and then continues withexercises to help children find a focus for their involvement that both fits theirconcerns and represents current situations. She next provides practical tips on“power skills,” which include telephoning and writing (to legislators, newspapers,and funding sources), interviewing, testifying and giving speeches, creating andcirculating petitions, writing proposals, fundraising getting media coverage, andmaking proclamations. The third section includes an explanation of how laws atthe local, state and national levels are initiated and changed, as well as advice onhow to write resolutions and lobby legislators. The fourth part has an extensivelist of resources. The stories in the book portray children of all ages taking actionin the interest of social justice. Photographs, and samples of letters, posters, andphone conversations accompany the stories, making the book fun to read and thesocial action seem feasible.

Lynch, J. (1983). The multicultural curriculum. London: Batsford Academic & Educational.This book presents an overall program design for introduction of a

multicultural perspective into the public school across grade levels. AlthoughLynch describes the circumstances of the British school system in particular, manyof the processes he details would be equally applicable in the United States. Inaddition to providing a well-articulated rationale for use of a multiculturalperspective in education, he outlines a framework for constructing a multiculturalcurriculum that would be most helpful to program planners and offers guidelinesfor actions to assist planners through the maze of decision-making that is part ofthe overall process. Guidance for individual teachers in the form of suggestedapproaches, teaching strategies, and planning procedures is also included.

McCracken, J.B. (1993). Valuing diversity: The primary years. Washington, DC: NAEYC.McCracken develops the vision of developmentally appropriate practice

popularized by the National Association for the Education of Young Children


(NAEYC) into curriculum implications for the primary school years. Combiningmulticultural and human relations approaches in the early elementary schoolclassroom, she explores criteria for the selection of learning materials, ways toprepare the classroom environment to attend to human diversity, and ways toinfuse both teaching strategies and curriculum with content that both reflects andextends children’s individual and cultural experience. In addition to supportingchildren’s self-esteem and respecting individual and group differences, teachers areencouraged to design activities that promote social problem-solving and conflictresolution and to teach cooperation as a viable means for addressing difficultissues.

Miller-Lachman, L., & Taylor, L.S. (1995). Schools for all: Educating children in a diversesociety. Albany, NY: Delmar.

This resource for K-8 teachers first offers descriptions of the changingdemographics of the United States and issues affecting children of color inAmerican schools, and then provides detailed practical guidance in two areas—cooperative learning activities and whole language approaches to literacy. Writtenfrom the perspective of a multicultural approach to education, the work focuses onrecognition and active appreciation of cultural and ability/disability differences.Chapters are devoted to selecting multicultural materials for the classroom,strategies for using multicultural materials, and the school-home-communitypartnership essential for effective program implementation. The authors provideabundant examples of learning activities and instructional strategies. The infusionof multicultural perspectives across subject areas is also discussed.

Multicultural Perspectives (an official journal of the National Assocation for MulticulturalEducation). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

This journal is published four times a year and includes a broad range of articlesand reviews about many aspects of multicultural education, both in the UnitedStates and in other countries. Each issue has several sections. It typically beginswith a one-page introduction to the articles in that issue. The first section,“Advancing the Conversation,” contains articles that have theoreticalorientations, introduce new concepts related to multicultural education, or doboth. The second part is “Multicultural Windows Through Art, Music, andMedia Images” and reviews current movies or music for the extent to which theysupport or undermine multicultural goals. Part III, “Creating MulticulturalClassrooms,” contains more applied articles, typically descriptions of particularcurricula or programs that teachers, administrators, or both have implemented.Part IV of the journal is called Multicultural Library and includes in-depthreviews of recent mulitcultural textbooks and literature and poetry. Part V, Guideto New Resources, contains several brief descriptions and reviews of newlypublished resources. The sixth section, called “Technology,” profilesmulticultural websites, Internet discussion groups, and other uses of the newtechnologies to support multicultural education. The final section, “Guide toNew Resources,” contains the names and publishing information of a large number


of new resources related to many different dimensions of multicultural education.Each resource is briefly described and reviewed.

Neugebauer, B. (1992). Alike and different: Exploring our humanity with young children (rev.ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education for Young Children.

The 23 entries in this book are short, and each addresses a particular aspect ofteaching in increasingly diverse classrooms. The first section offers backgroundinformation about anti-bias curriculum, the differences that children notice, andways of creating a multicultural environment in the classroom. The secondsection addresses ways of meeting the needs of a wide variety of children, such asthose newly arrived in this country, children with physical impairments, and thoseidentified as gifted. The third section addresses ways of getting more diverse staff,and the fourth section deals with working with families and seeing issues from thefamilies’ perspectives. The fifth section addresses how the changing society affectsprograms and how teachers can mitigate some of the inevitable conflicts anduncertainties. The final section provides criteria for selecting books and materials,along with resource lists of books to use with children and resource books for adults.

Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (3rded.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Using case studies of individual students and a comprehensive overview ofeducational research, Sonia Nieto analyzes the multiple reasons why students,particularly those in subordinate groups, often fail in school. Her analysis includeshistorical, economic, and political dimensions, as well as a critique of educationalpractices. The case studies reveal how adolescents experience schools and teachersand provide clear examples of why practices such as antiracism, multiculturaleducation, and critical pedagogy are essential to students’ success. The bookpresents a very balanced picture and does not simply advocate a single perspectivebut engages readers in the process of examining their own views, their practice,and the work and lives of their students in a critical and supportive way.

Odom, S.L. (Ed.) (2002). Widening the circle: Including children with disabilities in preschoolprograms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

This informative work treats the many aspects of inclusion of young childrenwith disabilities in preschool programs, demonstrating an ecological, family- andcommunity-centered approach to the topic. Each chapter provides a clearrationale, background information on the issue being discussed, and practicalimplications or recommendations for teachers. Successful inclusionary practicerequires that families and teachers develop close and trusting relationships, theclassroom teachers collaborate with each other and other professionals offering thechildren specialized services, and community resources be well tapped for thebenefit of children and families. All of these dimensions are addressed thoughtfullyin relevant chapters. Chapter 10, which treats the influence on preschoolinclusion of cultural and linguistic diversity, is of special interest to the emergingvision of disabilities studies as one aspect of multicultural education.


Pang, V.O. (2001). Multicultural education: A caring-centered, reflective approach. Boston, MA:McGraw-Hill.

This text is one of the first in the field explicitly to integrate the concept ofcaring into a description of multicultural educational theory and practice.Although sharing many elements in common with the social reconstructionistperspective, caring-centered multicultural education is distinguished, in the author’sview, by a shift in focus from a political arena to one of mutual caring and trustembodying “key values of empowerment, compassion, justice, equity, andcommunity” (p. 80). This view sees both teachers and children as responsible forlearning and entails constant effort toward sharedpower in all aspects of the work.It undertakes transformation from the inside out toachieve aims of equity. Theauthor addresses teachers across the full range of elementary to secondary settings,with examples of classroom environments, curriculum content, and student/teacher interactions that illustrate the elements of caring in a multiculturallearningand teaching context. In the concluding chapter of the book, she presents sixdimensions for implementation of caringcentered multicultural education—(1)understanding the ethic of caring, (2) reviewing and eliminating prejudice anddiscriminaion, (3) understanding the impact of culture, (4) learning to utilizeculturally relevant teaching, (5) blending and integrating social justice and caringinto teaching and the school, and (6) designing and implementing classroom andschool change. Each of these is informed by caring as a sense of deep connectionwith individuals and communities.

Perry, T., & Fraser, J.W. (Eds.) (1993). Freedom’s plow: Teaching in the multicultural classroom.London: Routledge.

This is an edited volume that addresses many theoretical and practical issues inteaching from a multicultural perspective. A particular strength of the volume isthe inclusion of teachers’ narratives about their efforts, successes, and challenges ofteaching from a multicultural perspective. The volume also includes moretheoretical writings from well-known commentators, such as Maxine Greene andbell hooks, who provide a reflective and broad perspective that complements theconcrete and immediate narratives by teachers in the schools. The volume has fourparts: The first part is written by the editors and provides a theoretical andhistorical argument for the restructuring of schools to become multicultural. PartII includes five chapters, in which teachers from different ethnic, racial, and classbackgrounds and teaching in a range of schools reflect on the practice ofmulticulturalism. The third section is a series of essays that are oriented to helpingteachers expand their perspectives and seek new information and curricula. PartIV addresses issues of power and structure and what must be done to makeschools an effective part of the struggle toward social justice.

Ramsey, P.G. (1982). Multicultural education in early childhood. Young Children, 37(2),13–24.

Discusses four common misconceptions about multicultural education—namely, that multicultural education should focus on information about othercountries and cultures, that multicultral education is only relevant in classrooms


that are obviously culturally or racially diverse or both, that there should be asingle set of goals and curriculum for multicultural education, and thatmulticultural education can be simply added on to an existing curriculum.Ramsey challenges each misconception and provides alternative learning activitiesto introduce the concept of diversity to young children. The importance ofcreating connections and continuity with children’s previous experience and ofteacher preparation in the form of examination of one’s own attitudes andassumptions is emphasized.


Building on the first edition of the work published in 1987, the author hassubstantially reorganized, expanded, and reoriented the text to include research-based descriptions of the racial, economic, cultural, gendered and sexuallyoriented, and ability oriented contexts of young children’s learning. Thesecontexts are then used as powerful backdrops for practical applications ofmulticulturalism in classrooms for young children Included in the discussion ofclassroom appplications are suggestions of ways to challenge that status quo isschools around issues of literacy and communication, details of acknowledgementand protection of the natural environment and of the preparation of amulticultural learing environment within classrooms, and ways to develop criticaland supportive communities of learners. The text has a strong, socialreconstructionist orientation and focuses on advocacy skills as a major aspect ofclassroom teaching and teacher/parent communication.

PattyKids can make a difference (newsletter). P.O. Box 54, Kittery Point, ME.This newsletter is published four times a year. Its purpose is to help young

people understand the root causes of hunger and poverty and to inspire them totake action. Each newsletter includes four to six articles about projects done inclassrooms or in whole schools that are geared toward ending hunger and povertyin the immediate community, in the United States, or in other regions of theworld. Students or teachers write the articles that offer practical examples of howyoung people can make a difference. The projects range from collecting food,clothing, and money, to organizing information forums to bring some issue to theattention of the wider community, to working with local homeless shelters orfood banks. The purpose of these projects is not simply to perform communityservice, but to learn about the causes behind the problems and participate inadvocacy and long-term solutions.

Rethinking Schools: An Urban Educational Journal. Published four times a year. 1001 E. KeefeAvenue, Milwaukee, WI 53212.

This nonprofit independent newspaper advocates the reform of elementary andsecondary schools, especially around the issues of equity and social justice. Thefocus is on urban schools, but the issues and curricular ideas are applicable to allschools. The editorial policy states, “We stress a grassroots perspective combiningtheory and practice and linking classroom issues to broader policy concerns. We


are an activist publication and encourage teachers, families, and students to becomeinvolved in building quality public schools for all children.” The scope of thearticles ranges from commentaries on national policies to descriptions of specificclassroom activities. The journal exemplifies the best of critical pedagogy byproviding trenchant analyses of educational policies and reforms and new books,movies, and curricula, yet it offers hope and encouragement in the inspiringaccounts of classroom practices and community actions that have made adifference in the lives of children at the local and national levels. Each issue alsohas annotated lists of new recommended resources, which include children’sbooks, resources for teachers, and books on broader social and economic issuesthat affect schools and families.

Robles de Melendez, W., & Ostertag, V. (1997). Teaching young children in multiculturalclassrooms: Issues, concepts, and strategies. Albany, NY: Delmar.

The authors state “the purpose this book is to provide a plan for earlychildhood professionals for development and teaching of a multiculturalcurriculum” (p. vii). Part I of the work addresses the theory and socialfoundations of multicultural education, and Part II examines past and currentissues of the field. The aim of both of these sections of the work is to groundearly childhood educators in the context, the initiatives, and the compellingimpetus for multicultural practice in today’s world. Part III builds on thisinformation to present practical guidelines for teachers and ideas for classroomimplementation. The authors personify the pursuit of multicultural practicethrough “Barbara,” a kindergarten teacher facing the common demands anddilemmas of early childhood teaching. Prominent in her consideration is meetingthe intention of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) as supported by theNational Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Eachchapter in the third part offers examples of the planning and evaluation ofclassroom activities, as well as management strategies, descriptions of classroomoccurrences for reflection, and identification of resources for further exploration.

Rogovin, P. (1998). Classroom interviews: A world of learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.For teachers who wish to develop resources for teaching and learning based on

the cultural and experiential knowledge of the communities in which they work,this book is an essential tool. The work is devoted to the elements that go intothe formation of an instructional partnership with parents. Powerfully illustratinghow information acquired from interviews with parents can be used to create afull curriculum for elementary school children, Rogovin shares the strategies andtechniques that go into the creation of teacher/parent bonds and mutual supportin the educational enterprise. The work is infused with a sense of respect forparents and recognition of the unique knowledge they bring to the classroom.Rogovin describes how to conduct interviews in a comfortable way and how totransform what is learned from them into an inquiry-based curriculum forprimary age children. Her focus is on making meaning with children throughconnecting them with the living funds of knowledge that surround them.


Sapon-Shavin, M. (1999). Because we can change the world: A practical guide to buildingcooperative, inclusive classroom communities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Focusing on several kinds of diversity—racial, ethnic, family, ability/disability,gender, and social class—this text addresses ways to establish and maintainpractices from prekindergarten through middle school that include all children ina cooperative classroom learning community. The author’s approach is tohighlight six values (courage, inclusion, value, integrity, cooperation, and safety)captured by the acronym “civics,” and representing a core curriculum rooted insocial studies. All learning areas and subjects appear under the larger civicsumbrella, with the aim of developing students who accept one another, includeothers different from themselves, and have the skills and convictions to supportthemselves and others in advocacy for a just society. In addition to abundantsuggestions for learning activities and detailed descriptions of teaching strategies, aspecial feature of this text is its many annotations of children’s picture books andother literature, music, and games that illustrate and foster the concepts ofcooperation and community.

Schniedewind, N., & Davidson, E. (1998). Open minds to equality: A sourcebook of learningactivities to affirm diversity and promote equity (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

This remarkably rich resource for elementary, middle, and high school teacherscontains a process for addressing issues of social justice that permeate everyday lifein and out of classrooms. Focusing on a social reconstructionist approach addressingracism, sexism, classism, ageism, heteorsexism, anti-Semitism and other religiousoppression, ableism, and language differences, the authors advocate following foursteps to confront these debilitating forces in our society: (1) create an inclusive,trusting community where students appreciate diversity in the classroom; (2)enable students to empathize with others’ life experience and explore why andhow inequality based on difference exists; (3) Help students examinediscrimination in the institutions in their lives and see how it has affected them;and (4) empower students to envision and create changes to foster greater equality(pp. 2–3). A wide variety of sample activities and suggested materials areprovided.

Seeley, V. (Ed.). (1993). Globe multicultural literature collection: Plains Native Americanliterature. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Globe.

The 16 writings of Native American authors in this book span the periodbetween 1830 to 1993 and include stories, poems, plays, speeches, and folk tales.Together, the writings provide a view of the diverse experiences of the PlainsIndians as they coped with the conquest by the Europeans and the long aftermathof current poverty and dislocation. Because many books about Native Americansare written by outsiders, this volume offers a muchneeded voice from the inside.The stories are written for elementary or junior high students, but could beadapted for younger children. The themes are appealing and relevant to childrenof all ages and from many backgrounds. Equivalent volumes by Seeley exist forChinese American and Mexican American literature



This book presents an approach to designing inclusive classrooms in which playis the central means to enhancing the development of all children, especially thosewith special needs. The first part of the book provides a historical and philosophicalbackground for this model, methods for identifying the range of needs andstrengths of children, and guidelines for adapting programs to enable children todevelop to their full potential. The second part of the book consists of four casestudies that illustrate how this model has worked with children having a range ofdevelopmental needs. The many observations and creative ideas make this volumea rich resource for teachers and students of child development and early education.

Stern-LaRosa, C., & Bettmann, E.H. (2000). Hate hurts: How children learn and unlearnprejudice. New York, NY: Scholastic (with the Anti-Defamation League).

This book is written for parents and other laypeople working with childrenfrom infancy through adolescence. In the first section the authors give a briefdescription of how children at different ages respond to differences and then discussthe perceptions of various dimensions of human differences, including race,gender, sexual orientation, religion, culture, and ability. They also have a chapteron why people hate and how parents can respond. The second part of the bookfocuses on how children perceive and react to hateful acts at different ages. Thissection also has chapters on the different expressions of hate, including name-calling, joking, excluding, and violence. For each action, the authors discusspossible responses that parents and children can make. The final section of thebook describes strategies that parents and children can use to challenge hatefulcontent and actions in schools, in the media (television, movies, and books), onthe Internet, and in their communities. The book also includes a list oforganizations and websites dedicated to counteracting prejudice and promotingjustice. This book is very accessible and is filled with lively examples that willenable families and children to recognize themselves in these situations and feelempowered to act. The book includes some references to research, but most ofthe examples are based on personal experiences of the authors and people whomthey have worked with. This book is written from the human relations orientation,in that it stresses individual acts of hate and individual responses to them and doesnot discuss or challenge the social and economic structures that support prejudiceand discrimination.

Suzuki, B.H. (1984). Curriculum transformation for multicultural education. Education andUrban Society, 16, 294–322.

This article advocates a social reconstructionist approach to the reformulation ofcurriculum. Arguing that the permeation of multicultural ideas throughout theeducational experience cannot do other than address societal change, the authorsuggests goals for students and teachers and ten guiding principles for transformingtheory into educational practice—namely, (1) starting where people are byincorporating children’s experiences into the planning of learning activities; (2)


helping people decenter (from their own ethnocentric perspectives); (3)approaching curriculum transformation as a long-term process; (4) viewingmulticultural education as integrative, comprehensive, and conceptual in scope;(5) producing changes in the teaching practices and social structures of a classroom,as well as in curriculum content; (6) raising issues that are personally relevant tostudents; (7) helping students increase their academic achievement throughsensitive and relevant teaching approaches and materials; (8) involving families andutilizing multicultural community resources; (9) dealing with the social andhistorical realities of American society; and (10) exhibiting care, understanding,concern, and sensitivity toward students. Suzuki concludes with a discussion ofthe policy implications of those principles for teacher education programs and foreducational research, as well as for curriculum making.

Swiniarski, L.A., Breitborde, M., & Murphy, J. (1999). Educating the global village: Includingthe young child in the world. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

The focus of this book, for early childhood teachers, is on the need for globaleducational approaches with young children. Citing the International Rights ofthe Child formulated by the United Nations, the authors look at the commonelements of childhood from international, multicultural, and inclusiveperspectives, focusing on the dimensions of culture and exceptionality asplatforms for development and learning. The first part of the book establishes therationales for multicultural and inclusive education to meet the needs of today’sdiverse learners. The second part offers specific teaching and curriculumconstruction strategies around such world issues as hunger and poverty, violenceand the media, war and violence, teaching peace, and breaking the cycle ofconsumerism. These are brought together in the presentation of model curriculumthemes and discussion of the research that teachers can do in their own classroomsto refine their practice.

Tiedt, P.L., & Tiedt, I.M. (2002). Multicultural teaching: A handbook of activities, informationand resources (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

This book is designed for use by primary and upper elementary schoolteachers.Tiedt and Tiedt’s orientation is toward child-centered teaching, preferably inopen settings, although their suggestions could be applied in more traditionalsettings as well. Acting on their understanding of the goals of multiculturaleducation, such as esteem, empathy, and equity, the authors begin by illustratingthe processes for infusing multicultural perspectives into the curriculum andcreating interdisciplinary thematic learning experiences that address multiculturalaims. They then move on to present extended examples of infused,interdisciplinary practice, using learning about one’s own or other cultural oridentity groups as points of focus. The book alternates between providing specificinformation on a wide variety of cultural/linguistic/identity groups andillustrating the use of that information in sample classroom activities. Theprocedures a teacher might use to present the activities are woven into theactivity descriptions, and extensive resource and classroom materials lists appear inthe appendix at the end of the work.


Teaching Tolerance. (1997). Starting small. Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty LawCenter.

This book accompanies a videotape of the same name that offers six scenarios ofmulticultural early childhood (pre-kindergarten through grade three) classroompractice. This text provides a description of each scenario and guidelines fordiscussion. Teachers who volunteered for the video project exemplify differentapproaches to multicultural practice with young children, with different aims(such as addressing issues of skin color, promoting conflict resolution, or reducingbias/misinformation about persons living with handicapping conditions) anddifferent strategies (such as conversation, constructive art projects, and the use ofpuppetry). Commentaries by well-known educators, including Vivian GusseyPaley and Alvin Poussaint, highlight the importance of treating multiculturalissues early in children’s educational experience.

Timm, J.T. (1996). Four perspectives in multicultural education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Using the concept and experience of personal or group identity as a focal

point, Timm examines its construction from the point of view of culture,psychology, education, and the political forces shaping multiculturalism in theUnited States. The text first identifies and provides specific descriptions of manytypes of cultural, racial, and ethnic diversity that are presently part of America’sreality and then examines psychological processes, such as cultural or learningstyles and the development of prejudice, that may emerge in the context ofcontact across these differences. The 12th chapter of the work, in which theauthor provides guidelines for multicultural classrooms, ties all of the perspectivesraised into considerations in curricular content (cultural information), combatingbias through pedagogy (focus on social issues), and behavioral processes (such ashome/school relationships and attention to the ethics of care). Examples are givenfrom early childhood through high school settings, with particular emphasis onuses of literature and social studies.

Villa, R.A., & Thousand, J.S. (Eds.) (1995). Creating an inclusive school. Alexandria, VA:ASCD.

This edited collection contains essays from theorists and practitioners on thehistory and foundations of inclusion and on current practices that support anddevelop children with special needs in the regular classroom. Covering the rangefrom kindergarten to Grade 12, the text provides not only historical informationand rationales for inclusion, but descriptions of promising practices that fosterinclusive education and processes for adapting curriculum in inclusive classrooms.A distinctive and especially useful feature of the text is the presence of periodicessays between the contributed chapters entitled “Voice of Inclusion….” Each ofthese describes a particular child and tells his or her story of inclusion in aclassroom or school. References to relationships with families appear acrosschapters, but there is not a specific chapter that explores this important aspect ofinclusionary practice. Likewise, cultural context and its relation to the processesof inclusion are not specifically addressed.


Whitney, T. (1999). Kids like us: Using persona dolls in the classroom. St. Paul, MN: RedleafPress.

Using a technique made popular in the Anti-Bias Curriculum (Derman-Sparks, etal. 1989), this work provides a step-by-step introduction to the use of personadolls in the early childhood classroom. The premise is that young children canconsider and confront differences among themselves most easily by listening toand interacting with stories featuring dolls that embody particular characteristics.Storytelling is presented in five steps—introducing the dolls, setting up thesituation, identifying feelings, discussion and problem-solving, and resolving thestory. The author illustrates differences in the presentations for different agegroups and offers advice on the planning and researching of doll stories. Thiswork is most effectively used in conjunction with the broader concerns presentedby the Anti-Bias Curriculum.

Williams, L.R. (1987). Teaching from a multicultural perspective: Some thoughts on usesof diversity. In F.S.Bolin & J.M.Falk (Eds.) Teacher renewal: Professional issues, personalchoices, pp. 139–147. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

This chapter introduces the use of a multicultural perspective to teachers whomay not have been familiar with it previously. Williams examines the benefitsthat are likely to result from an incorporation of the perspective, ways to developthe approach within existing curricula in the schools, and possibilities forevaluation of both implementation of the process and its impact upon children inclassrooms. Examples are given of infusion of a multicultural perspectivethroughout learning activities at the early childhood and elementary school levels,as well as suggestions of principles to follow in selecting materials for classroomuse.

Williams, L.R., De Gaetano, Y., Harrington, C.C., & Sutherland, I.R. (1985). ALERTA:A multicultural, bilingual approach to teaching young children. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

This work is a guide for early childhood teachers, administrators, staffdevelopers, and family involvement workers wishing to infuse a multiculturalperspective throughout an educational program for 3- to 5-year-olds. Designedfor use in diverse settings (public school, Head Start centers, private school, daycare, etc.), ALERTA is organizing into nine levels of program implementation,moving from information-sharing among the adults in the program, to processesfor determining cultural and community content of activities, to planning andorganizing of the curriculum, to specific teaching strategies, and, finally, totechniques of assessment and evaluation. For each level of implementation,background information is provided, and staff/parent development exercises aredescribed. Examples of applications to activities for children are given to illustratethe various levels of implementation, and resources for ongoing programdevelopment are suggested. The processes presented can be utilized with anycultural or linguistic group.


Wolfgang, A. (1977). The silent language in the multicultural classroom. Theory intoPractice, 26, 145–152.

This article alerts teachers to possible difficulties in communication with theirstudents, which may be caused by three types of nonverbal behavior—proxemics,kinesthetics, and paralinguistics (i.e., use of space and distance in relation toobjects and other people, use of gesture and facial expression, and use of soundfeatures, such as tone of voice and pauses). All three types of behavior areunderstood as culturally acquired repertoires used to enhance or intensify verbalexchanges. Oriented to the Canadian immigration circumstance, but withexamples clearly applicable to the United States as well, the author provides sixstrategies for moving from awareness of one’s own nonverbal behaviors (and theirpossible effects on others), to creating a classroom atmosphere sufficientlyreassuring to enable students to develop cross-cultural communication skills.

York, S. (1991). Roots and wings: Affirming culture in early childhood programs. St. Paul, MN:Redleaf.

This work draws on a variety of texts to create an accessible and clear plan forimplementing one form of multicultural education in the early childhoodclassrooms. Geared toward early childhood educators who may not have beenpreviously familiar with or utilizing multicultural practices, the book introduceselements of multicultural practice and encourages teachers to work in partnershipwith parents and with each other to create a curriculum that reflects the culturalheritages of children in the program. The work unfolds with attention to theclassroom environment, activities for teaching children about culture, treatmentof holidays, and confronting cultural and racial prejudices. A variety ofworksheets for teachers are included to aid in planning processes. As the workdefines culture as ethnicity, it does not attend to other kinds of differences. Itsorientation is for the most part multicultural, although it does use elements of thehuman relations approach as well in work around issues of prejudice.

Zamora, G.R. (1985). Nuevo amanecer/New dawn. Lincolnwood, IL: National TextbookCompany.

This is a set of three manuals that contains a detailed management system toenable early childhood staff members to put a multicultural program into place intheir classroom or center. It includes ways to assess…are presented to assess thechildren’s incoming knowledge and skills, record their ongoing acquisition ofskills and concepts, and select or plan learning activities on the basis of thatinformation. Communication with families and their participation in the carryingout of the classroom activities, as well as other forms of community involvement,are encouraged through the use of informative notes sent home with the childrenand conversations during home visits. The manuals offer plans for arrangement ofclassrooms, selection of materials, teaching strategies, and sample learningactivities, and are oriented toward the approach of teaching the exceptional andculturally different.


Research Reports and Commentaries

Aboud, F.E. (1993). A fifth grade program to reduce prejudice. In K.A. McLeod (Ed.),Multicultural education: The state of the art (pp. 20–27). Toronto: University of TorontoPress.

In this chapter Aboud describes the curriculum materials called More ThanMeets the Eye and discusses her findings about the appropriateness of thecurriculum and the impact that it had on the children. The curriculum was basedon a human relations approach of reducing individual prejudice and heighteningchildren’s ability to differentiate among members of different groups. The impactwas assessed using pre- and posttests that measured children’s ability todifferentiate members of other racial groups, their racial preferences, and theirpreference for cross-ethnic classmates. The children in the experimental classroom(in which the curriculum was implemented) were compared to a similar controlgroup. The first group showed significant improvement in differentiatingmembers of other racial groups and a slight increase in cross-race preferences.Children of color in the experimental group also showed an increase in positivefeelings toward their own group. These changes were not found in the controlgroup.

Aboud, F.E., & Fenwick, V. (1999). Exploring and evaluating school-based interventionsto reduce prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 767–786.

This article describes three studies that measured the impact of differentstrategies to engage children and adolescents in discussions about race geared toreducing prejudice. The first study evaluated an 11-week program for fifth-graderscalled More Than Meets the Eye. Through teacher-led class discussions and the useof vignettes about children from different backgrounds, students learned to seeand attend to individual differences in order to challenge stereotyped assumptionsthat all members of a group are the same. Results indicated that the program wasmost effective in reducing levels of prejudice in high-prejudiced White children.In the second study, White children between the ages of 8 and 11 participated indiscussions in which high- and low-prejudiced children were paired to discusspositive and negative evaluations of different racial groups. Transcripts ofconversations revealed that low-prejudiced students frequently challenged theirhigh-prejudiced partners; in posttests, the latter’s views showed a shift toward lessprejudiced assumptions. The final study indicated that with the use of simulatedconversations, college students can learn to interrupt and challenge racistconversations. All three of these studies reflect a human relations approach andemployed an experimental paradigm in which pre- and posttests were used to assessthe effects of a particular intervention. Collectively, these findings suggest thatcarefully constructed conversations among peers and simulation experiences canhelp to reduce prejudice and enhance the likelihood of students’ challengingracist comments.


Banks, J.A. (1991). Multicultural education: Its effects on students’ racial and gender roleattitudes. In J.P.Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning(pp. 459–469). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Banks provides a review of research on racial attitudes and on genderstereotypes, based on work primarily done in the 1970s (when these areas ofresearch were most active). The author concludes that, in terms of improvingcross-racial attitudes (in particular, the ownrace preferences of White children),three methods had the most promise: reinforcement of positive associations withthe color black, perceptual training to teach children to differentiate among facesof members of less familiar groups, and cooperative learning in mixed ethnic/racial groups. He also notes that some curricula—in particular, books thatcontradict gender stereotypes—may help children to acquire more flexible viewsof male and female roles.

Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento: California Association forBilingual Education.

In this book the author briefly reviews research on minority children’s languageproficiency, bilingualism, and academic development. The author develops amodel that explains why school success eludes children from some groups morethan those from others. Central to the text is the theme that children must feelempowered in order to learn, and that many social and historical forces ensurethat certain groups are victimized. The author makes the point that in order forteachers to empower their children, they themselves must engage in criticalthinking and be willing to challenge authority. The author describes a number ofprograms that have been effective in reversing patterns of failure among bilingualchildren, but shows how critics undermine the efforts of bilingual educators bypromulgating “disinformation” about the effects of bilingual education. Theauthor also points out that the current levels of racism in this country and thecontinuing exploitation of poor countries by rich nations perpetuate the second-class status of certain groups in this country.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children’s education.New York, NY: Falmer.

This study of 20 Mexican American families for 3 years illustrates both some ofthe short-comings of local schools and the strengths of families in engagingchildren in literacy activities. The book includes an analysis of parent-teacherrelationships and shows how the parents’ lack of power affected their children’slearning. The author then describes how the Spanish-speaking parents formed agroup that worked with teachers and administrators in the local schools to makethe schools more culturally congruent with their children’s home lives. This studydemonstrates how making schools more culturally compatible can also involveempowering both children and their parents.

Gimmestad, B.J., & De Chiara, E. (1982). Dramatic plays: A vehicle for prejudicereduction in the elementary school. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 45–49.


The authors describe a study designed to reduce prejudice among fourth-,fifth-, and sixthgraders by incorporating of dramatic plays about four ethnic groups(Black, Hispanic, Jewish, and Chinese) into the classroom curriculum. Theexperimental children worked in racially/ethnically mixed groups on tasksassigned in relation to reading and enacting four plays (one on each of the fourethnic groups). Pre- and posttests of knowledge about attitudes toward the fourgroups yielded statistically significant results when the performances of theexperimental children were compared with those of the controls. The authorsconclude that when small, ethnically heterogeneous groups of children worktogether on a task where some measure of success is forthcoming, the groupmembers are likely to develop positive attitudes toward each other.

Grant, C.A., & Tate, W.F. (1995). Multicultural education through the lens of themulticultural education research literature. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.),Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 145–166). New York, NY:Macmillan.

In this chapter, the authors make a distinction between “research onmulticultural education” and “multicultural education research.” The formerreflects traditional educational research, in which the effects of a particular reformor innovation are assessed by “objective” pre- and posttests. “Multiculturaleducation research,” on the other hand, is oriented to studying justice and powerrelationships in schools. This research includes multiple voices and explores therelationship between knowledge and power in schools from a number ofperspectives. The authors point out that research in either of these categories issparse. They offer several explanations for this gap.

Grant, C.A. (Ed.) (1992). Research and multicultural education: From the margins to themainstream. Washington, DC: Falmer.

This edited volume is a testimony to both the significance and the challenges ofmulticultural education research. Several chapters illustrate the complexities ofconducting authentic multicultural research, particularly when the researcher isfrom a background other than those of the population being studied. Thechapters also illustrate the need to include many perspectives in efforts to assessenvironments and intervention efforts. Most of the chapters are discussions aboutthe challenges of doing research, rather than reports of actual studies, but severalauthors draw on a number of research experiences to provide some helpfulguidelines and caveats to researchers embarking on multicultural educationresearch.

Hawley, W.D., & Jackson, A.W. (Eds.) (1995). Toward a common destiny: Improving race andethnic relations in America. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

This edited volume includes a comprehensive review from a number ofperspectives of race and ethnic relations in the United States. The first partprovides a historical and international context for studying and improving theserelations. The second section contains several chapters on how people developtheir ethnic and racial identities and attitudes. The third section is devoted to


reports about educational strategies that have been effective in improving race andethnic relations. The final part summarizes what has been learned in previousprograms and proposes new research questions. Several of the chapters provideexcellent reviews of the research in particular fields, and many challenge commonlyheld assumptions and paradigms.

Levine, L. (1993). “Who says?” Learning to value diversity in school. In F.Pignatelli &S.W.Pflaum (Eds.), Celebrating diverse voices: Progressive education and equity (pp. 87–111). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

This study provides a close look at how a classroom teacher is able to blendculturally relevant, human relations, and social reconstructionist approaches. Thenarratives from an ethnically diverse, inner-city, kindergarten/first grade classroomillustrate how a teacher creates a safe space for all the children in the classroom toexpress and compare their perspectives and to challenge the “authority” of thewritten word and social conventions. The author includes observations ofchildren’s discussions and reading groups to show how the teacher modelsparticipatory democracy by encouraging children to question and elaborate on thestories that they read. He also teaches children to respect each other’sbackgrounds and perspectives as they discuss their different interpretations ofstories that often reflect their particular experiences. The observations illustratehow White middle class children often try to dominate discussions by claiming tohave the “official” information and how teachers can intervene to create a moreequitable and mutually respectful environment in which all perspectives arehonored and taken seriously.

Marsh, M.M. (1992). Implementing anti-bias curriculum in the kindergarten classroom. InS.Kessler & B.B.Swadener (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum:Beginning the dialogue (pp. 267–288). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

In this account of implementing an antibias curriculum, Marsh describes theorganization of the year and the major themes that she was addressing, whichinclude topics such as immigration, conflict resolution, cooperation, peace,Native Americans, and friends from around the world. Marsh then uses excerptsfrom children’s comments and conversations and her own journal to describe howthe children responded. Overall, the curriculum appears to have made somedifference in children’s views. Near the end of the year, some of the childrenwere clearly more aware of injustices and began to initiate actions such asprotesting the lack of African American crossing guards and organizing a PeaceMarch.

May, S. (1994). Making multicultural education work. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.This critical ethnography provides a detailed account of “one unusually

successful multicultural and multilingual school” (p. ix) in New Zealand. Theprimary school described in the study was conceived by its Maori principal asexemplifying the partnership between the Maori and British cultures set forth inthe 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. The treaty implied shared power, and educators atthis school have worked to make that vision a reality in the educational process.


The first half of the book provides the theoretical framework for the study, solidlybased in a critical pedagogy and a social reconstructionist approach to multiculturaleducation. The second half describes the school’s location and organization; itspedagogy, curriculum, and assessment procedures; and its evidence of educationaleffectiveness. Of particular interest are the substantial gains in readingachievement among children who started the program with literacy skills farbelow those expected for their age.

Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning and intergroup relations. In J.A.Banks &C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 628–634). NewYork, NY: Macmillan.

For almost two decades, Slavin and his colleagues have studied the effects ofcooperative groups on a number of developmental outcomes. In this review,Slavin states that when the conditions of contact theory have been met,relationships between students of different ethnic groups have become moreamicable. In fact, cooperative learning has resulted in strong intergroupfriendships, as well as in simply more amicable relationships. Not only do childrenin the same cooperative groups become friends, but cross-race friendships outsideof the groups have also increased after the cross-ethnic cooperative groups wereinstituted. Slavin speculates that once one cross-group friendship is formed, thenfriends of both parties also get to know each other and go on in some cases tobecome friends.

Sleeter, C.E., and Grant, C.A. (1987). An analysis of multicultural education in the UnitedStates. Harvard Education Review, 57, 421–444.

In this seminal article Grant and Sleeter provide the reader with a thoroughreview and analysis of literature that addresses multicultural education from theUnited States and other English-speaking countries. The review covers articlesthat deal with policy, purposes and goals, models, curriculum, instructionalprocesses, teacher education, research, and critiques of multicultural education.Of interest to most advocates of multicultural education is the typology ofmulticultural purposes and goals. The authors categorized the approaches toeducation that are found in the literature into five areas: Education for the CulturallyDifferent, Ethnic Studies, Human Relations, Multicultural Education, and EducationThat Is Multicultural and Social Reconstructionist. Their discussion of the weaknessesof each approach provides much insight into the need for more clarity, morespecificity in ways they are to be implemented, and research on the outcomes ofsuch conceptual changes in educational practices in society. These categories havebeen widely used in the literature into the 21 st century.

Swadener, E.B. (1988). Implementation of education that is multicultural in earlychildhood settings: A case study of two day-care programs. Urban Review, 20(1), 8–27.

This ethnographic study of two day-care centers reveals that in both centers,both the formal and the informal curricula supported children’s appreciation ofindividual differences and acceptance of their peers with disabilities (both centers


had a number of children with disabilities) and flexible gender roles. The datashow that cross-ability interactions increased during the year and that childrenfrequently challenged each other on gender stereotypes. The author concludesthat the curricula and teaching practices were successful in increasing children’sacceptance of individual differences and gender role flexibility. However, shenoted that the teachers did not include as many activities related to racial orcultural differences and did not directly address issues related to oppression orinequality. Thus, the curriculum in both centers fit the category of humanrelations, rather than that of multicultural or social reconstructionist education.

Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schoolingin social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

The authors critique current education practices and describe their model,which they call assisted performance. Based on Vygotsky’s theory, they proposethat educators support students to perform at their highest potential level (zone ofproximal development). Most germane to multicultural education are thechapters in which the authors describe use of the well-known KEEP project (theKamehameha Elementary Education Project), which involved schools for nativeHawaiian children, on a Navajo reservation in Arizona, and in Los Angeles. Thisresearch project was designed to assess the effects of using culturally compatibleeducational practices.

Trueba, H.T., Rodriguez, C., Zou, Y., & Cintron, J. (1993). Healing multicultural America:Mexican immigrants rise to power in rural California. New York, NY: Falmer.

The authors describe how Mexican American parents became politically activein their community, were elected to the local school board, and used theirinfluence to make schools more culturally accessible to their children. Although itis an account of the parents’ gaining political power and taking on decision-making responsibilities in the community, the book does not address the largerissues of inherent discrimination and racism in the political and economic system.In fact, it might lead readers to assume that any group could organize and becomea political force—in other words, that the current democratic system works,which contradicts the social reconstructionist view.


4Multicultural Teacher Education

The development of multicultural teacher education in the United States hasreflected the same movements influencing teacher education in general from 1975through the turn of the millennium, including renewed attention to therecruitment and retention of teachers, focus on the design and evaluation ofteacher education programs, and rising concern regarding the preparation ofteacher educators (e.g., Edelfelt & Raths, 1999; Goodlad, 1999; Goodwin, 1991).Simultaneously, however, multicultural teacher education has struggled with thepolitical dimensions of multiculturalism that have slowly but steadily appeared incurriculum and teaching resources for classroom teachers (see chapter 3), and itsbroad intentions have been both supported and challenged by newly arisingprogram accreditation and state teacher certification standards that embodyparticular visions of ways to address diversity in student populations in thepreparation of teachers (Futrell & Witty, 1997).

The issues affecting teacher education in general reflect the permeability of thefield to societal pressures. The last 2 decades of the 20th century broughtcontinued criticism of the educational system, with concomitant dissatisfactionwith programs of teacher education (Darling-Hammond, 1984; Holmes Group,1986; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; Passow, 1984).Massive teacher shortages projected for the opening decade of the 21st century(Bolin & Sawyer, 1994; Darling-Hammond, 1984; Goodwin, 1991; Sears,Marshall, and OtisWilborn, 1994) materialized, and a tide of “alternate routes” toteacher certification arose in response to the length of time needed to prepareteachers through the traditional sequences (Natriello & Zumwalt, 1992, 1993).Teacher educators and policy makers have subsequently expressed concern overthe quality of these alternatives and have sought improvement of traditionalprograms through the reform of programs within higher educational institutions(Darling-Hammond, 1995).

Changing societal visions of the purposes and conduct of education have alsostrongly impacted the directions followed by teacher education programs.Cochran-Smith (2000) sees a progression of questions driving teacher educationfrom the 1960s to the present day, moving from (1) concerns about attributes(what traits characterize good teachers and good programs?); to (2) focus oneffectiveness (what strategies and processes are used by effective teachers and howmight those be best nurtured in prospective teachers?); to (3) attempts to identify

the knowledge base (what knowledge, skills, and dispositions do teachers need?)needed to teach specific subject areas and to provide a foundation for effectivepractice; and, most recently, to (4) the question of the desired outcomes of teachereducation. The concern regarding outcomes encompasses not only the questionsof “What for?” and “For whom?” but also the issues of documentation,demonstration, measurement of such outcomes, or any combination of these. Afurther concern addresses the relationship of these issues to those of recruitmentof a more diverse pool of candidates to programs of teacher education andretention of what little variation in the pool of teachers in service already exists.

Focus on the design and evaluation of teacher education programs hasinevitably led to debate on the preparation of faculty (the “teachers of teachers”)in schools of education (see whole issue, Journal of Teacher Education, 50[5], 1999).Confusion over the provinces of the PhD and the EdD degrees and their relativeattention to the requirements of educational research and teaching practice haverevealed the intransigence of many colleges of education in changing their visionof the academic pursuits of their faculty. For some faculty, connection to the dailylife of teaching children and youth is tenuous.

Clearly, these larger movements in teacher education have affected and willcontinue to affect multicultural teacher education (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Thefield has certainly suffered from the same ill-defined mission and body of studyand from the program incoherence (Goodlad, 1990) that has afflicted teachereducation in general. Multicultural teacher education, however, also has had tobattle entrenched, unself-conscious racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia thatover the decades first took the form of assumed biological (genetic) or moralinferiority, or both, of populations originating outside of northwestern Europeand of women and gay/lesbian people (Goodwin, 1997; Tatum, 1992). Insubsequent years, these oppressions appeared again in teacher education programsin the form of the deficit hypothesis, wherein populations were seen as lackingthe knowledge, skills, and attitudes that were assumed to characterize White,middle-class people in the United States. Only relatively recently has the view ofcultural difference, rather than deficit, allowed exploration of multiculturalapproaches to teacher preparation (Goodwin, 1997; Martin, 1995; Derman-Sparks & Phillips, 1997; Irvine, 1997).

At the same time, the fluid nature and rapid expansion of the domains ofmulticultural education itself has made the definition and full articulation ofprinciples within multicultural teacher education programs elusive. One couldargue, however, that the fresh visions required to reconstruct teacher educationfrom a now many-faceted multicultural perspective have contributed to reshapingstructures that had been formerly resistant to change, including accreditationstandards, preservice and inservice program content, and expectations ofoutcomes of programs of preparation on subsequent practice.

Thus, interactions between the directions of teacher education in general andthose of multicultural education have contributed to the distinctive character ofmulticultural teacher education. This chapter explores some of the particular formsof multicultural teacher education and examines areas still under development in


the field. Whereas the previous chapter focused on resources for early childhoodand elementary classroom teachers, this present commentary and the annotationsthat follow highlight resources for teacher educators.

Understanding the emphases appearing in resources for multicultural teachereducators requires consideration of several recurring themes: (1) the differingneeds of preservice and inservice teachers and the forms of multicultural teachereducation best suited to meet those needs, (2) the impact of the distinctive historyof multicultural teacher education on present programs of preparation, (3) thechallenges of evolving standards for teacher education, (4) the variation inpublished goals and guidelines for the field of multicultural teacher education, (5)the controversies surrounding integration of multicultural perspectives intoundergraduate liberal arts programs (regarded by those following the HolmesReport [1986] recommendations as foundational for the graduate teachereducation to follow), and (6) the relatively undeveloped nature of research in thearea of multicultural teacher education.

THE ARENAS OF MULTICULTURAL TEACHEREDUCATION: PRESERVICE AND INSERVICE

PROGRAMS

As with teacher education in general, the literature on multicultural teachereducation does not always make a clear distinction between the arenas of preserviceand inservice teacher education. The implementation of a multicultural perspectivein teacher education does, however, face different challenges in the two types ofprograms.

Preservice teacher education programs may consist of 4 years of undergraduatestudy, during which students take liberal arts courses as part of a liberal arts majorwith an education minor, resulting in a BA degree, or an education major thatresults in a BS degree (an alternative no longer accepted by many states). In the1980s the Holmes Report (1986) advocated that all preservice teacher educationbe done at the graduate level, and a number of colleges and universities respondedwith fifth-year or Master’s-only preservice education programs. Colleges ofeducation or universities geared preservice MA programs toward applicants withliberal arts undergraduate backgrounds, and many current preservice teachereducation programs are of this type.

Although graduate preservice teacher education programs have the advantagethat candidates (teacher education students) are more mature and are now likelyto have a solid liberal arts background, they do reduce the amount of time thatcandidates can be exposed to the concept of multicultural education and relatedtopics. In particular, candidates are likely to have completed their undergraduateliberal arts program with little awareness of the need to have a broad base ofcultural literacy in order to be effective teachers (King, Hollins, & Hayman,1997), unless deliberate attention was given to incorporation of multiculturalcontent throughout their liberal arts program. As will be seen further on,however, the introduction of multicultural perspectives into undergraduate liberal

MULTICULTURAL TEACHER EDUCATION 209

arts programs has not been without controversy (Sleeter, 1996), and students maystill enter their graduate programs of teacher preparation without a firmgrounding in issues of diversity (Banks, 1991).

With their limited experience, preservice candidates may also come to teachereducation programs with stereotypic views about particular groups that need to beaddressed (Goodwin, 1997; Irvine, 1997; Lawrence & Bunche, 1996; Martin,1995; Tatum, 1992). At the same time, relatively young undergraduate orgraduate preservice candidates are often developing their own identities and arevery anxious about their own teaching skills. This self-preoccupation may make itdifficult for them to think about broader educational issues or address the needs ofdiverse groups (Sleeter, 1996; Titone, 1998).

Serious attention to the requirements of multiculturalism in preserviceeducation programs provides the opportunity for candidates to be exposed tomulticultural perspectives in many different ways, such as through developmentof reflective practice, interdisciplinary and multiple media approaches, fieldexperiences in diverse settings associated with course work, or any combinationof these (Goodwin, 1997; Merryfield, 2000). If a comprehensive multiculturalapproach is integrated into the 4 years of undergraduate liberal arts study and issubsequently reinforced in the graduate program of preservice teacher education,there is clearly more potential to effect attitudinal change and development ofrelated knowledge and pedagogical skill than if there is minimal or tangentialexposure to issues of diversity in teaching and learning.

Inservice education of practicing teachers also poses some particular challenges(Cochran-Smith, 1997). As staff development, inservice teacher education isfrequently done on site in single sessions, with a number of instructors used fordifferent workshops over time. This structure often results in a fragmented andincomplete experience (Nixon, 1985) and makes it difficult for participants tohonestly and thoroughly explore their own attitudes and to have experiences thatchallenge them. Another form of inservice teacher education that is offered incolleges or universities at the MA level of study has more continuity. However,typically, graduate classes meet only once a week, late in the afternoon andevening, and therefore may not always be conducive to extended discussions ofissues (Williams & Ryan, 2000). Furthermore, inservice education at the MA leveloften does not provide a vehicle for teachers to grapple with the challenges posedby their particular situations, due to a lack of direct connection between thecollege or university and the teachers’ ongoing practice, so teachers feel frustratedby what they may perceive as lack of relevance to their situation (Cochran-Smith,1997). Because inservice teachers are often in situations that they themselvescannot change, they may see inservice courses and other experiences as focusingonly on surface issues, rather than on the roots of some difficulties (Johnson,1999; Lea, 1999). On the other hand, practicing teachers enter inservice teacherdevelopment programs with more experience and fewer “survival” concerns thancharacterize preservice candidates. Thus, practicing teachers may be able to makemore immediate use of the available opportunities (Baker, 1994).


Although the aims of multicultural teacher education are the same forpreservice candidates and inservice teachers, the forms through which they areimplemented must take into account the past exposure, specific needs,experiences, and strengths of the participants. Through an extensive review of theliterature, Zeichner (1993) proposed a number of elements that he considers to bethe hallmarks of effective multicultural teacher education, with those needs,experiences, and strengths in mind. The elements include, among others, (1) useof biography, (2) attention to attitudinal change, (3) provision of diverse fieldexperiences, (4) opportunity to increase cultural knowledge, (5) development ofethnic and cultural identities, (6) teaching about the dynamics of prejudice andracism and how to deal with them in the classroom, and (7) curriculum that givesmuch attention to sociocultural research knowledge about the relationshipsamong language, culture, and learning. In a review of literature on multiculturalteacher education that incorporates Zeichner’s elements, however, Ladson-Billings(1995) does note that although these elements are frequently mentioned in theworks she reviewed, there has yet been found “little empirical evidence tosupport their validity” (p. 753). There also has not been systematic exploration ofwhich forms might better serve preservice or inservice teacher education. It isnotable that Zeichner’s compilation in the early 1990s gave no attention to thedevelopment of a sense of social activism as a key element of multicultural teachereducation. As will be seen further on, however, recent work in these areas isaddressing that gap.

TYPES OF IMPLEMENTATION

Another distinction that is sometimes blurred in the multicultural teachereducation literature is whether the descriptions that are provided of multiculturalteacher educational practice, at either the preservice or the inservice level, refer to(1) infusion of multicultural content, processes, and perspectives into courses inspecific disciplines or subject areas; (2) particular courses dedicated to study of theissues inherent in multicultural education; (3) practica, student teaching, or otherfield experiences conducted in diverse settings; (4) structural changes affecting theoverall design of the teacher education program; or (5) some combination ofthese (Melnick & Zeichner, 1997). Which of these arenas is being studied hasimplications for the kinds of studies done, the methods used for research, and theeffects sought. Particular forms for implementing multicultural teacher educationhave varied over time and according to the possibilities of specific programs, butthe trend has been toward a combination of two or more of the previous forms.With the advent of the newest program accreditation standards (NCATE, 2000)and further moves toward an outcomes-based orientation (Cochran-Smith,2000), one may surmise that the most likely future scenario will be full structuralchange of teacher education programs to infuse multicultural concernsthroughout all the experiences offered. This possibility is supported by the trendsevident over time in the history of the field.


HISTORY OF MULTICULTURAL TEACHEREDUCATION

Prior to the inception of the Civil Rights Movement in the mid-1950s, very littleattention was being given to issues of diversity in the preparation of teachers. Thefundamental assumption was that assimilation of both teachers and children to theteaching and learning norms that were assumed to be part of White middle-classsociety was the desired aim of teacher education, and that any deviation from thatassimilation on the part of “minority” learner populations denoted an inability toperform that was probably genetic (biological) in origin (Goodwin, 1997; Tatum,1992). The one exception to that deficit-oriented attitude was found in theIntergroup Education Movement, a teacher education effort that focused on easingracial tensions, which were occasioned by the return of Black and White GIs to asociety segregated by race and class at the end of World War II (Taba, Brady, &Robinson, 1952). The Intergroup Education Movement (as discussed inchapter 1) can be seen as one of the first challenges to the then pervasive genetic-deficit hypothesis.

Awareness of the interaction of societal contexts with children’s learning anddevelopment began in the 1960s with research in education that offered analternative hypothesis, that of environmental, rather than genetic, deficit (Gray &Klaus, 1966; Hunt, 1961). In this version, differences in achievement amongchildren were due to lack of access to learning materials and limited growth-producing experiences, leaving the children with a “cultural deficit.” Therefore,teachers needed to be prepared to remediate the deficits, and teacher educationcenters began to offer brief inservice training for teachers in recently desegregatedsettings. The formats ranged from 1-day workshops to institutes of several weeks’duration.

With the inception of Teacher Corps and other federal programs in the late1960s, the model of a field-based internship was introduced. Several schools ofeducation began to incorporate community-based programs in which preserviceteachers worked in culturally diverse or poor communities, or in those that wereboth poor and culturally diverse (Dumais and Teacher Corps Associates, 1982;Fox and Teacher Corps Associates, 1986). These programs, however, werelimited to students who selected them and were not usually part of undergraduateprograms, so that they did not represent a broad reform in teacher education (Baker,1994). It has been suggested by one of the original participants in the New YorkCity Teacher Corps project, however, that ultimately the work did have deepeffects. Many of the leaders of the emerging multicultural teacher educationmovement of the next decade had begun their careers in Teacher Corps(Fromberg, Personal Communication, 2001).

The need for all teachers to be multicultural in their approach became moreapparent in the 1970s, with the introduction of a third hypothesis for thedepressed achievement of “minority” populations—that of “cultural difference”(Baratz & Baratz, 1970; Valentine, 1971)—and the passage of the Ethnic HeritageAct, the National Origins Desegregation Act, the Racial Desegegration Act, andthe Lau v.Nichols Decision of 1973. At this point in time, inservice teacher


development sessions began to include such topics as intergroup relations, conflictmanagement, understanding cultural and linguistic differences, and improvingschool and community relations. Teacher “training” rarely consisted of acomprehensive approach in which all of these areas were incorporated (Goodwin,1997).

In 1977, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education(NCATE) also revised its standards to mandate a multicultural perspective in allteacher education programs. All of these initiatives implied the need for specifictraining of teachers to recognize and respond to the particulars of culturaldifferences in the populations they would teach, to enable children to bridge thegap between the cultures of their home and that of the school. Baptiste & Baptiste(1980) framed these teacher education needs in terms of the competency-basedteacher education movement that was growing in strength in the same period.

To support these reforms, several model teacher preparation programs werefunded and implemented; and a number of publications in the late 1970s andearly 1980s provided guidelines and models for the implementation of theNCATE standards (Gollnick, Osayande, & Levy, 1980; Klassen & Gollnick,1977) in ways that celebrated diversity, rather than seeking to remediate it—asignificant departure from the motivation that had undergirded earlier iterationsof preparing teachers to teach the “culturally different.” This trend was furtherreinforced in the 1980s when a school reform movement in the United Statesbegan to gather strength (Darling-Hammond, 1984; Passow, 1984), andimplications for the preparation of teachers began to be articulated (HolmesReport, 1986) that related to changing the structures of teacher educationprograms. During the late 1980s and into the early 1990s, model programs formulticultural teacher education were also implemented in other countries.

Model programs aside, during the 1980s most of the references to multiculturalteacher education in the literature were reviews that criticized the fragmented andsuperficial modifications employed by many teacher education programs to meetthe NCATE standards. Authors, both here and abroad, pointed out that there wasan increasing need for a multicultural perspective in all areas of education, butthat little real change had occurred. They advocated more profound reforms tomake teacher education programs genuinely multicultural (for reviews of thesecritiques of the 1980s, see Ladson-Billings, 1995, and Zeichner, 1993).

In the late 1980s and the 1990s, “reconceptualists” who were thinking aboutthe content of the care and education of young children, as well as about theeducation of elementary school children, began to interject their concerns intothe general school reform debate (Kessler & Swadener, 1992; Lubeck, 1994; Silin,1994). By the mid-1990s those concerns became crystallized into a call for a socialreconstructionist stance in multicultural teacher education (Grieshaber &Cannella, 2001; Nieto, 1997, 2000; Ramsey, 1998; Sleeter, 1996). Thesediscussions, in turn, began to affect accreditation standards for teacher educationinstitutions (NCATE, 2000), state teacher certification requirements (eg., NewYork State Education Department, 1999, for teacher credentialing in New York;Walton & Carlson, 1997, for teacher credentialing in California), guidelines for


program/curriculum development (ACEI, 1998; Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992,1995; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; NAEYC, 2001), and the position statementsof major professional organizations (AACTE, 1999; Gayton & Byrd, 1999).

Transformation of such requirements and guidelines into fully articulatedmulticultural teacher education programs, however, has lagged behind thesestatements, and rigorous research on the effects of the efforts is still in theintermediate stages of development (Banks & Banks, 1995; Irvine, 1997; King &Castanell, 2001; King, Hollins, & Hayman, 1997; Martin, 1995). Major obstaclesto realization of the vision, as noted previously, include inadequate preparation ofteacher education faculties for implementing multicultural teacher educationprograms (Cochran-Smith, 1997; Melnick & Zeichner, 1997; Williams & Ryan,2000), the inadequate preparation of all teachers for confronting the dynamics ofracism and other exclusions that affect teaching and learning (Derman-Sparks &Phillips, 1997; King & Castenell, 2001; Scheurich, 1993), low rates ofrecruitment and retention of people of color in teaching and higher educationalfields (Goodwin, 1997; King & Castenell, 2001), and the kinds of support neededto make that retention possible (Bolin & Sawyer, 1994). Still, some progress ineach of the areas noted here has been made that offers direction for futuredevelopment, and in a parallel fashion teacher education accreditation standardshave continued to evolve in recognition of the complex and changing nature ofthe field, as will be discussed in the next section.

THE EVOLUTION OF NCATE STANDARDS FORMULTICULTURAL TEACHER EDUCATION (1977–

2000)

Multicultural education was mandated to be an integral part of teacherpreparation in the 1977 standards of the National Council for the Accreditationof Teacher Education (NCATE). References to multicultural education appearedin standards on governance, faculty, students, resources, and long-range planning.The major reference from that period (NCATE, 1977) reads as follows:

2.1.1 Multicultural EducationMulticultural education is preparation for the social, political, and

economic realities that individuals experience in culturally diverse andcomplex human encounters. These realities have both national andinternational dimensions. This preparation provides a process by which anindividual develops competencies for perceiving, believing, evaluating, andbehaving in differential cultural settings. Thus, multicultural education isviewed as an intervention and an ongoing assessment process to helpinstitutions and individuals become more responsive to the humancondition, individual cultural integrity, and cultural pluralism in society.

Provision should be made for instruction in multicultural education inteacher education programs. Multicultural education should receive


attention in courses, seminars, directed readings, laboratory and clinicalexperiences, practicum, and other types of field experiences.

Multicultural education could include but not be limited to theexperiences which: (1) promote analytical and evaluative abilities toconfront issues such as participatory democracy, racism and sexism, and theparity of power; (2) develop skills for values clarification, including thestudy of the manifest and latent transmission of values; (3) examine thedynamics of diverse cultures and the implications for developing teachingstrategies; and (4) form a basis for the development of appropriate teachingstrategies.

Standard: The institution gives evidence of planning formulticultural education in its teacher education curricula includingboth the general and professional studies components. (p. 16)

In the mid-1990s, NCATE undertook a substantial revision of the standards(NCATE, 1997) and restated its concern for multicultural awareness andinstructional practice in the following manner:

Standard I.D. The unit ensures that teacher candidates acquire andlearn to apply the professional and pedagogical knowledge andskills to become competent to work with all students. (p. 17)

This standard was elaborated through a series of indicators that included undersection I.D.2 attention to “different student approaches to learning for creatinginstructional opportunities adapted to learners from diverse cultural backgroundsand with exceptionalities” (p. 17).

The NCATE standards were redeveloped in the late 1990s to reflect an evenmore pervasive and expanded multicultural stance. The current formulation(NCATE, 2000) reads:

Standard 4. Diversity: The unit (school or department of education)designs, implements and evaluates curriculum and experiences forcandidates to acquire the knowledge, skills, and dispositionsnecessary to help all students learn. These experiences includeworking with diverse higher education and school faculty, anddiverse and exceptional students in P–12 schools. (p. 15)

The supporting explanation for the standard reveals the considerations that haveshaped its new form:

America’s classrooms are becoming increasingly diverse; over one-third ofthe students in P–12 classrooms are from minority groups. An increasingnumber of students are classified as having a disability. At the same time,minority teachers are less than 15 percent of the teaching force. As a result,


most students do not have the opportunity to benefit from a diverseteaching force. Teacher candidates need to develop competencies forworking with students from diverse backgrounds and with exceptionalitiesto ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn. Regardlesswhether they live in areas with great diversity, candidates must developknowledge about the diversity in the United States and the world,dispositions that respect and value differences, and skills for working indiverse settings.

One of the goals of this standard is the development of educators whocan help all students learn and who can teach from a multicultural andglobal perspective. Therefore, the unit provides opportunities for candidatesto understand the roles of diversity and equity in the teaching and learningprocess. Coursework, field experiences, and clinical practice are designed tohelp candidates understand the influence of culture on education and beable to develop meaningful learning experiences for all students. Candidateslearn about exceptionalities and inclusion as well as gender differences andtheir impact on learning. Competencies, including dispositions, are drawnfrom the standards of the profession, state, and institution; they are clear tocandidates and are assessed as part of the unit’s performance assessmentsystem. (pp. 16–17)

Comparison of the earlier and later content of the standards reveals a broadeningin the definition of multiculturalism to include not only issues of race, class, andgender, but also other diversities, exceptionalities, and global (international, cross-cultural) awareness. Furthermore, the rubric articulating the new standardaddresses not only the design, implementation, and evaluation of teachereducation curriculum and experiences, but also provision of a diverse teachereducation faculty, identification and preparation of diverse teacher candidates, andfield experiences and clinical practice in schools serving diverse P–12 (preschoolthrough grade 12) populations. Clearly, the new standard reflects a changingimage of the goals of multicultural teacher education toward a broader descriptionof what constitutes diversity and inclusion, but it stops far short of advocatingcritical pedagogy and a social reconstructionist approach.

PUBLISHED GOALS AND GUIDELINES FORMULTICULTURAL TEACHER EDUCATION

Over the past two decades a number of articles and books have articulated thegoals of multicultural teacher education, and several have also provided guidelineswith varying levels of specificity. Most of those from the early 1980s to the early1990s typify Sleeter and Grant’s (1987/1999) categories of the human relationsapproach and multicultural education (see chapter 3), rather than their socialreconstructionist category. From approximately the mid-1990s onward, however,the more radical social reconstructionist position has begun to appear in goal


statements and guidelines with greater frequency (Irvine, 1997; King, Hollins, &Hayman, 1997).

The Evolving Nature of the Goals and Guidelines

Similar to the goals represented in curriculum and teaching resources for teachersreviewed in chapter 3, the goals and guidelines for multicultural teacher educationvary in terms of their focus, breadth, and level of specificity. Once again, a reviewof the evolution of these goals and guidelines over time is instructive. In 1977,Banks stressed the need for teacher education to foster students’ understanding ofmultiethnicity and their commitment to a multicultural perspective, reflecting thefocus on teacher attributes that was current in teacher education in general.Responsive to the emphasis on effectiveness and the competency-based teachereducation also prominent in that time period, Gay (1977) delineated more specificattitudinal, cognitive, and skill components of multicultural teacher education.Using a similar competency-based framework, Baptiste and Baptiste (1980)identified 11 specific multicultural competencies, each with several relatedrationales, instructional objectives, enabling activities, and assessments. Gay (1983)discussed the need for prospective teachers to learn how to adapt materials andteacher styles to be relevant to and effective with a wide range of children and toimpart a multicultural perspective to all children. Other writers (e.g., Hayes, 1980)described skills specific to effectively communicating with and involving thecommunity. Kohut (1980) addressed the issue of field experiences and ways inwhich options can be broadened so that students will have a wider range ofexperiences. Another pioneer comprehensive source was Guidelines forMulticultural Teacher Education by Klassen, Gollnick, and Osayande (1980). Theauthors described ways in which institutional governance, curriculum, facultymembers, students, and resources should be changed in order to provide anenvironment supportive of multicultural teaching and learning.

In the creation of their guidelines, all of these works drew on goals latercharacterized by Sleeter and Grant (1987, 1999) as teaching the culturally different,human relations, and multicultural education (see chapter 3 for definitions of theseapproaches). Considering the emerging goals of multicultural education (as theywere presented in the mid–1970s), Grant (1977a) expressed concern aboutwhether or not a multicultural perspective was compatible with the specificcompetencies, accountability, and production that characterized competency-based teacher education.

Ten years later, Bennett (1988) developed another type of guidelines for teachereducation. Focusing on development of a necessary knowledge base, Bennett’smodel had four areas to be included in programs of teacher preparation: (a)knowledge of historical perspectives and current cultural differences; (b)understandings of culture that lead to intercultural competence; (c) attitudes thatembody a commitment to reduce racism, prejudice, and discrimination; and (d)skills in teaching multicultural students. Over the decade that followed, authorsincreasingly emphasized a fundamental reorientation of both preservice and


inservice teachers toward social reconstructionist goals to address in teacher educationthe subtler issues of power and privilege that impact prospects for equitableteaching and learning (Bennett, 1995; Derman-Sparks & Phillips, 1997; hooks,1993; King, Hollins, & Hayman, 1997; Irvine, 1997; Nieto, 2000; Sleeter, 1992,1994, 1995). This reorientation had echoes of the earlier focus in teachereducation in general on teacher attributes (in this case, the attributes of opennessto difficult questions and willingness to engage in often painful discussions in theservice of confronting injustice).

Presently, Banks (1999) also reflects this interest in attributes and earliermovements by stressing community involvement in the planning anddevelopment of courses and programs and the need for the faculty to be bothrepresentative of diversity and genuinely committed to a multiculturalperspective. Melnick & Zeichner (1997), Scheurich (1993), and Williams & Ryan(2000) describe faculty development programs that are designed to facilitate theimplementation of multicultural teacher education at the individual andinstitutional levels.

It is notable that texts on multicultural teacher education have thus far includedonly limited discussion of the renewed attention in teacher education in generalon standards, or an outcome orientation to the preparation of teachers. Those thatdo (e.g., Futrell & Witty, 1997; Walton & Carlson, 1997) are descriptive ofstandards movements, their use in specific programs, or both, but do notchallenge the appropriateness or adequacy of the standards-based orientation inaddressing the equity concerns of multicultural education.

In addition to emphases on teacher attributes, teaching effectiveness,development of relevant knowledge bases, and outcomes that appear in articlesand books focusing specifically on preservice teacher preparation and inserviceteacher education, several recent multicultural resource books for teachers haveincluded sections that discuss processes that teachers must undertake to enactmulticultural educational practice (e.g., Banks, 1999; De Gaetano, Williams, &Volk, 1998; Ramsey, 1987/1998). Obviously, these processes also are importantto consider in the preparation of teachers in teacher education programs; they areequally essential for the development of multicultural teacher educators and forthe transformation of educational institutions as a whole.

Essential Processes to Transform Teachers, TeacherEducators, and Educational Institutions

Current guidelines addressed to multicultural teacher educators speak to the needfor prospective and practicing teachers to learn to monitor their own biases,assumptions, and belief systems and to rethink them in the light of issues of socialjustice. Pang, Anderson, and Martuza (1997), for example, see transformativelearning, experiential learning, problem-posing dialogues, provision of theoreticalframeworks for learning and teaching, continual theory/practice connections, andthe development of trusting relationships as key elements of the professionaldevelopment process for teachers and teacher educators. In addition to the


exploration of biases, Irvine (1997) and Smith (1998) discuss the development ofthe knowledge bases needed for teachers (and teacher educators) to enact amulticultural practice. It is expected that through such work, prospective andpracticing teachers and teacher educators will develop a clear commitment topresenting a realistic portrayal of society and will approach all children andcandidates preparing to be teachers with an enabling attitude (Goodwin, 1997).

Goodwin (1997) relates such elements to the transformation of institutionsthrough a series of processes, including autobiography and personal history,connection through context, confronting new realities, reflection/reassessment,reconstruction, and return to autobiography, linking the professionaldevelopment activities of candidates (prospective teachers in teacher educationprograms), practitioners (practicing teachers in public and private schools), andfaculty (in schools of education, i.e., institutions). Pang, Anderson, & Martuza(1997) explore how consortia of institutions can work to transform themselvesthrough pooling their resources, and Peretti (1997) examines the effects ofredesigned field experiences on both candidate development and the evolution ofthe associated institutions.

This orientation originally assumed that teacher educators themselves were ableto do this analysis in their own work. Prior to the early 1990s, however, therewas not much evidence in available publications of such work among teachereducators. More recently, individual teacher educators have begun to address theneed to face the shortcomings in their own previous preparation in multiculturaleducation (Derman-Sparks & Phillips, 1997; Dilworth, 1992; Williams & Ryan,2000), and recent works on multicultural teacher education frequently callattention to the continuing needs of teacher educators (King, Hollins, &Hayman, 1997). In terms of a more collective concern, issues of multiculturalismin teacher preparation began moving outside of caucuses and special interestgroups in the mid-1990s to become a prominent part of the main agenda at theannual meetings of professional associations such as ATE (the Association ofTeacher Educators) and AACTE (the American Association of Colleges forTeacher Education).

From early on, writers strongly emphasized that teachers needed to be skilled atinterpreting words, gestures, and behaviors of people from other cultures and to beable to convey information and feelings in ways that are appropriate to specificcultural groups. Poor cross-cultural communication skills can create discomfort,disrupt interactions, and inhibit child-teacher and family-teacher relationships(Kleifgen, 1987). Mitchell and Watson (1980) identified several potential sourcesof cultural conflict between families and schools and described how learningabout family values and lifestyles, individual styles of learning, and culturallyrelated verbal and nonverbal communication enables teachers to be moreprepared to ease children’s transitions into school. More recently, the sameconcerns have been emphasized in works focusing on the needs of children ofspecific ethnicities and linguistic backgrounds (eg., Dillard, 1997; Hilliard, 1997;Nieto and Rolon, 1997; Pang, 1997). In response to these concerns, currentthinking suggests that teacher educators, when considering crossracial and cross-


ethnic communication, must focus (both for their teacher education students andthemselves) on the power of language (i.e., choice of descriptors andterminology) in influencing perceptions about the capabilities of members ofvarious races or ethnic groups (Fennimore, 2000).

The need to recruit and retain teacher education students from more diversebackgrounds is emphasized by Sleeter (1994) and King & Castenell (2001). Theydescribe changes that need to be made in recruitment, admissions, retention, andpostgraduate placement policies, in order to meet this goal. Likewise, the need torecruit and retain teacher education faculty from diverse backgrounds is beingemphasized in professional standards publications (Gayton & Byrd, 1999;NCATE, 2000).

Another notable process being undertaken by some undergraduate institutionsof higher education and teacher educators over the decade of the 1990s wasstrongly influenced by the Holmes Report (1986)1 and also reflected the emphasison the development of a knowledge base that appeared in the early 1990s. Theinfusion of multicultural perspectives into the undergraduate liberal arts courseswas seen to be foundational for graduate-level teacher education. Banks (1987)argued that these courses should be designed to provide students with ameaningful context for understanding both the lifestyles and life chances of variousethnic groups. Another example of focus on infusion of multiculturalism intoundergraduate studies is an edited volume by Baskauskas (1986) that includesessays on how to incorporate a multicultural perspective into a range of college-level social science courses.

Because of the far-ranging implications of the movement to integratemulticultural perspectives into the liberal arts, special attention is given to it in thefollowing section. Although obvious import exists for the possible effects of suchefforts on potential teachers, there is also a tantalizing glimpse here of the visionsof multiculturalists for the development of society as a whole.

MULTICULTURAL PERSPECTIVES IN THELIBERAL ARTS

Students at the undergraduate level spend a great deal of their time taking coursesin the liberal arts. These courses potentially play a significant role in shapingstudents’ perceptions of society, economics, and the nature of knowledge. Yetrarely are the liberal arts discussed in articles and books on multicultural teacherpreparation. This review is written in the hope of closing that gap.

In the 1990s, controversies about “political correctness” on college campusesbrought attention to efforts to make the liberal arts more reflective of andresponsive to the diverse views and voices in this country and in the world. Fromthe promulticultural forces, college curricula were often portrayed as theimpenetrable domain of DWM (Dead White Men), taught by traditionalists whotenaciously cling to outdated beliefs. From the conservative perspective (e.g.,Bloom, 1987; D’Souza, 1991), college curricula were being taken over by ethnic,gay, and feminist studies.


In 1992, Change magazine conducted a survey of multicultural initiatives at 270colleges and universities that were stratified to be representative of Americanhigher education (including 2-year and 4-year institutions, both public andprivate) (Levine & Cureton, 1992). The responses showed that issues related todiversity and inequities were high on the agendas of most colleges and universitiesand that change was occurring, but not at the expense of more traditionalsubjects. Of the 196 respondents (73% of the total sample), three-quarters of thedeans reported that they talk about multiculturalism frequently or continually.

According to the survey, curricular innovations at that time fell into twodifferent categories. Over half of the responding institutions reported that ratherthan mounting new courses and eliminating traditional ones, faculties wereexpanding existing courses in their disciplines to include broader perspectives andto deal with issues of race, culture, class, gender, and sexual orientation (Levine &Cureton, 1992). A second common approach, reported by one third of therespondents, was a multicultural general education requirement (Levine &Cureton, 1992).

Disciplinary-Based Approach

The first approach most closely fit the infusion model (as described earlier) thatwas being advocated by many writers for multicultural education in primary andsecondary schools. The goal was to expose as many students as possible to textsand materials that represent the voices of women and people of color and othermarginalized groups (Fitzgerald & Lauter, 1995). An example of this kind ofinclusion was the Heath Anthology of American Literature (1990). The advantages ofthis model were that a multicultural perspective was incorporated throughout thecurriculum and visibly established multiculturalism as an institutional priority,which served to validate students who might otherwise feel marginalized(Fitzgerald & Lauter, 1995). However, one limitation of this approach was thatthese changes to the curriculum were often additive: a few new readings wereadded to a course without really challenging the paradigms and assumptions thatunderlie the course. Another issue was that the infusion of multiculturalperspectives varied across disciplines. According to Levine and Cureton’s findings,English, history, and the social sciences were ahead of the natural sciences in theirefforts to develop a more multicultural perspective. Thus, majors in some fieldswere more likely to be exposed to multicultural principles than were majors inother fields.

A variation on this approach and one that went further, in terms of developingstudents’ critical awareness, was to examine and critique more closely theassumptions underlying traditional material. For example, Shakespearean scholarshave usually dismissed the fact that Othello was Black as a mere distraction(Salway, 1991). Some scholars, however, began to use the play Othello to critiquethe construct of race expressed by Shakespeare and by interpreters of the playover the last 400 years.


The previously mentioned trends represent conscious attempts to move beyondwhat Banks (1999) described as the additive approach to multicultural curriculumdevelopment (see chapter 3)—simple additions of content to existing curricula—to a deeper level of effort, that is, structural transformation of the curriculum. Tomake the distinction between additive and transformative more clear, one canconsider how developmental psychology has been taught and the kinds ofchanges that have and could still be made. The field of developmental psychologyhas often been criticized for representing child development research findings andtheories as universal, even though they have been based primarily on Whitemiddle-class subjects (see chapter 2). One response, which reflects the additiveapproach, is to add material about “other groups” and compare and contrast thestyles and outcomes of child rearing. Unfortunately, experiences that do not fitthe White middle-class “norm” are often portrayed as the “other” or even asdeviant. A more transformative approach is to challenge the assumptionsunderlying the field of developmental psychology. For example, studying childrearing in cultures that value the development of interdependence andcollaborative skills, rather than independence and competitiveness (which underliemost Western developmental theories), enables students to identify and critiquethe cultural, historical, political, and economic forces that have shaped theassumptions underlying the field (Greenfield, 1995). Armed with this knowledge,students and faculty can also critique the educational and social policies thatreflect the traditional child development assumptions and become activists forchanging those policies that impose unfair burdens on particular groups.

Diversity Requirements

In the second approach, institutions required that students take a separate courseor series of courses with a multicultural focus. These courses were either electivesdrawn from a number of possible courses or required courses that were designedspecifically to address issues of multiculturalism. In some cases, traditional corecourses such as “Western Civilization” were revised to have a strongmulticultural focus.

Individual courses

To make this requirement politically acceptable across many departments,colleges often lumped together all “otherness” and allowed students to satisfy the“diversity requirement” with a course on U.S. minorities or on women or onnon-Western cultures (Butler & Schmitz, 1992), which allowed students to takecourses that did not necessarily challenge them to rethink their assumptions andworldviews (e.g., White women taking a course in women’s studies; studentstaking a course on the ancient history of a particular Chinese city) (Gaff, 1992).This pattern shows that when schools use existing courses to satisfy thisrequirement, the criteria for diversity courses should be discussed in light of theoverall multicultural goals of the institution and rigorously applied. Another


limitation of this approach is that students may simply “get the multiculturalrequirement over with” and not see how these issues are related to other courses,which also argues for a more in-depth and pervasive transformation of thecurriculum.

Sequence of courses

Some institutions have developed a sequence of courses that focuses onmulticultural issues. For example, one institution developed a year-longinterdisciplinary course for first-year students around the theme of “identity”(Gaff, 1992). During the first semester, students critically examined their ownbackgrounds and beliefs, and during the spring they engaged in a multidisciplinaryexploration of the African American experience in this country. Another college,which is predominantly White, developed a four-course Heritage Program thatall students took in their first 2 years (Smiley, Steege, & Tobin, 1993). Thissequence included a critical examination of Western intellectual traditions; anexploration of the encounter (colonization) between Europe and Africa from bothperspectives; an in-depth, interdisciplinary study of Japan; and, finally, an analysisof American culture through the eyes of writers who represent many differentethnic groups.

Reconstructing “Western Civilization”

With the changing demographics of colleges and universities and the emergenceof the new multicultural scholarship, students and faculty at a number ofinstitutions began to challenge the narrow scope of the traditional “WesternCivilization” requirement. Often in the past, the requirement consisted of two orthree courses that traced the history of ideas in the West or were built aroundstudying the “Great Books.” Many institutions either abandoned these courses orchanged them to reflect a broader and more critical perspective on WesternCivilization. The most well-known case was Stanford University’s shift from“Western Culture” to “Culture, Ideas, and Values.” Although this kind of reformwas being done in many institutions, the Stanford experience was unique, in thatit attracted vituperative media attention and served as a lighting rod for theneoconservatives (Fitzgerald & Lauter, 1995).

Multicultural Pedagogy

In addition to focus on changing the content of the curriculum, attention toauthentic multicultural pedagogy also arose during this period. This approachrequired learning new ways of teaching that are more open-ended and democratic(Gay, 1995; hooks, 1993; Yarbrough, 1992). The instructor is no longer the“expert,” but rather provides the resources and structures for students and facultyto learn together and challenge each others’ ideas. Bringing many cultures,histories, and perspectives into the classroom exposed the weaknesses and


injustices of traditional disciplines, and many faculty were afraid of the anger,conflict, and frustration that inevitably followed (Wilkerson, 1992). Althoughthese fears were real, many classes that were taught in this way were successful inengaging students in examinations of ideas, assumptions, and personal beliefs,which were both rigorous and intensely personal (e.g., Tatum, 1992; Yarbrough,1992). Given the racial, ethnic, and class tensions in our society, it was thought thatstudents need to learn how to talk constructively about these sensitive issues.Liberal arts courses were seen as having the potential to provide this kind ofexperience.

Barriers to Change

Resistance to incorporating a multicultural perspective in the liberal artscurriculum soon emerged at many colleges and universities. The NationalAssociation of Scholars (NAS), a group of conservative faculty members, activelyworked against multicultural initiatives across the United States. Even facultymembers who were willing and eager to rethink and revise their courses balked atacknowledging that their courses as currently taught reflected a politicalperspective (hooks, 1993). One way to gain this broader perspective was to havefrequent conversations with colleagues from other ethnic and SES backgrounds.As Sleeter (1992) said in her analysis of inservice teacher training, “PredominantlyWhite groups rarely develop the range of insights and commitments they need toaddress diversity constructively” (p. 209). The possibilities for interaction werelimited, however, as in the early 1990s 89.5% of the faculty from across allinstitutions of higher education in the United States were White, and thesituation would not change significantly over the decade to follow, given therelatively low numbers of new PhDs awarded to people of color (Boot, 1992). Anobvious strategy was to increase the number of PhD candidates of color byencouraging them at the undergraduate level to continue on to graduate school.However, the deep alienation that many students of color experience at mostpredominantly White campuses is a severe impediment to this approach.

Although this review has focused primarily on the curriculum and teachingforce at liberal arts institutions, the extracurricular, as well as the curricular, lives ofstudents of color are indicators of whether or not these institutions are becomingmore multicultural and may be decisive as to whether or not they pursueacademic careers. The alienation that many students of color feel is a vividreminder of the yawning gap between the goals and reality of multiculturalism oncollege campuses (e.g., Altbach and Lomotey, 1991). College administrators mustcontinue to lead efforts that include all segments of the population (students,support staff, faculty, administrators) in critically examining the assumptionsunderlying the college course of study, social life, structure of studentorganizations, traditions, and so on, to identify and change elements that makestudents of color feel uncomfortable and perpetuate the dominance and privilegeof the White students.


Toward Multicultural Liberal Arts Education

Liberal arts institutions of all kinds are still going through a painful reexamination.Although the considerations discussed earlier do not appear frequently in currentliterature, with varying degrees of reluctance, enthusiasm, naïveté, and wisdom,faculty are continuing to examine their curricula and pedagogy from (to many ofthem) new and challenging perspectives. One approach has been for colleges anduniversities to participate in regional coalitions and summer institutes (Wilkerson,1992) that can provide support and resources to faculty trying to change theircourses. Faculty, staff, and students engaged in this work also need to belong tosupport groups so that they can get support and reassurance when they need it.

It is striking that in the literature on multiculturalism and the liberal arts, teachereducation is seldom mentioned. Likewise, the numerous books and articles aboutmulticultural teacher education rarely include any mention of the liberal artsbackgrounds of the students taking teacher preparation courses. These two groupscould mutually support these changes. Education faculty, with their backgroundsin curriculum and pedagogy, can support and advise their colleagues in the liberalarts who are revising courses and trying out new ways of teaching. Liberal artsfaculty can provide their peers in education with information about histories,customs, literatures, technologies, and arts of different groups that can supportefforts to both address diverse educational needs and develop multiculturalcurriculum for elementary and secondary programs. Together, both groups coulduncover the hidden paradigms that form the basis of all disciplines—includingeducation—and identify how they reflect the perspectives and interests of thedominant cultural groups. Unfortunately, the status differential between liberalarts and education in colleges and universities makes such collaboration difficult.

The stakes are high, and now is the time for liberal arts institutions to searchfor interdisciplinary and creative ways of liberating their faculties and studentsfrom their worn-out and often untested assumptions about their fields and aboutsociety. The note struck by King and Ladson-Billings a decade ago still rings true:

If education is to contribute to more fundamental social change, teachersneed to develop critical perspectives about the society and multiculturalcompetence that help them value diversity, not just tolerate it [,] and whichhelp them oppose inequity rather than inadvertently perpetuate it. (King &Ladson-Billings, 1990, p. 17)

RESEARCH ON MULTICULTURAL TEACHEREDUCATION

In the first edition of this book in 1989, we commented on the lack of researchon the effects of various approaches to prepare students to teach from amulticultural perspective and the need to fill this gap. Since that time, however,the body of work has grown to a point that we see research on all aspects ofmulticultural teacher education as being in an intermediate stage—much more


fully developed than a decade ago, but still in need of expansion and refinement(Banks & Banks, 1995; Bennett, 2001; Grant, 1992, 1999; Grant & Tate, 1995).

Early research (from the 1970s through the early 1990s) focused on two areas—the degree to which teacher education programs had implemented strongmulticultural components and the effects that these innovations had had onpreservice and inservice teachers. Also important during this time period wereattempts to capture the broad effects of multicultural education though survey andinterview studies.

Later research (from the early 1990s to the present) has moved away from moreglobal concepts of effects to examine the effects of particular aspects, elements, orrepresentations in multicultural teacher education programs on the attitudes andbeliefs, cultural literacy and knowledge base, and practical skills of preservice andinservice teachers. Several of these works are intensive studies of particulardimensons of a multicultural teacher education program or of individual teachers’development proceeding from such efforts. Sources of data for these studiesinclude field observations, interviews, and self-reports in journals and other toolsfor reflecting on one’s personal and professional growth. Also prominant in thesearch for effects on programs and individuals was concern for appropriateassessments that could capture change over time in teaching from a multiculturalperspective. In this last category, the evolution has been from a focus oninstrumentation to attention to authentic records.

Implementation Studies

The first implementation studies were conducted soon after NCATE developedits multicultural guidelines in 1977. Several case studies of programs in the UnitedStates and in the United Kingdom illustrated how teacher education was beingchanged to incorporate a multicultural perspective. These accounts also providedinsights into some of the problems that impeded these reforms or renderedprograms ineffective, short-lived, or both.

In their edited volume, Klassen and Gollnick (1977) included case studies of sixteacher education programs. Five of the programs were at large publicuniversities, and one was at a regional center established to assist schools withproblems related to desegregation. All of these programs were comprehensive andoffered models of training that addressed the goals and guidelines described earlierin this chapter. Each description included a brief account of the history of theprogram, the clients that it served, and a projection of the future growth anddirections of the program. Some of the studies included descriptions of problemsthat had been encountered in the establishment of these programs.

A few years later, Gollnick, Oyasande, & Levy (1980) conducted 13 case studiesof programs that were considered exemplary and represented a variety ofinstitutions, ranging from small private colleges to large state universities. Eachcase study included descriptions of the institution, curricula, governance, facultyand students, and projections about the future strength and direction of theprogram.


According to the authors, each of these programs addressed the NCATE goals,although there was some variation in the extent to which they had integrated amulticultural perspective throughout their programs (Gollnick et al., 1980).Interestingly, the authors concluded that small colleges were more successful inintegrating multicultural education throughout the institution. Large universities,though often having more resources, were less flexible and had less involvementof the total faculty.

The authors felt that there were many strengths in these programs. First, theprograms were supported by the ethnic communities and local education agencieswith whom they worked. In terms of funding, most of the programs wereinitiated and maintained with “hard” monies from the institution. Almost all ofthe programs included field experiences and student teaching placements inculturally diverse settings. Administrative support for multicultural programs wasalso evident in the active recruitment of minority faculty members and in facultydevelopment programs that supported individuals’ efforts to develop skills inrelated areas and to conduct research and consulting projects in culturally diversecommunities. Finally, all the programs enjoyed the enthusiastic support of theirstudents.

The weaknesses that the authors identified suggested that a multiculturalperspective had not at that time been fully embraced by the institutions. First, fewof the institutions had faculties and student bodies that represented the ethnic/racial diversity of this country. Second, the multicultural programs were usuallyadjunct to, rather than fully integrated into, the core of the teacher educationprograms. Third, some administrators and faculty viewed multicultural educationas a fad that would soon disappear and did not give it serious attention. Related tothis, programs were often dependent on a few dedicated individuals who werepotentially jeopardizing their careers due to the amount of time they spent onpromoting and sustaining these programs. Finally, both short- and long-rangeplans seemed vague and did not use the needs assessments and evaluationprocedures that were available. The authors concluded that there was a great needfor research to assess what aspects of programs are most effective and to determinethe effect of these programs on teachers and students. Finally, no empirical datawere available to demonstrate whether or not these programs were effective inpreparing teachers to work in culturally diverse settings or to impart amulticultural perspective to children from all groups.

Despite their weaknesses, these programs were still exemplary in terms of theircomprehensiveness. Unfortunately, they were not typical. In a small survey donearound the same time (Olstad, Foster, & Wyman, 1983), most institutionsreported using only course work to meet the NCATE requirements. There werethree ways in which this coursework was structured: (1) a single course that wasrequired of all certification candidates, (2) electives from a list of approvedcourses, or (3) components in existing courses.

Even in a fairly comprehensive program in which multicultural education wasincorporated in a number of courses, Grant (1981) found that there was atendency for course instructors to repeatedly cover the same “safe” ground, such


as identifying bias in textbooks, and to avoid engaging students in morefundamental analyses. In a follow-up study, Grant and Koskela (1986) found thatthe quality of the course information had improved, in that students were exposedto a greater variety of multicultural concepts, but that very little attention wasgiven to the application and integration of multicultural perspectives in theclassroom. The authors emphasized that students needed to see teachers modelingthe implementation of multicultural education. Another problem in many schoolsof education is that faculty had little interest in incorporating a multiculturalperspective in their courses because they had neither the motivation nor theknowledge to do it (Moultry & Wayson, 1988).

The superficial approaches used by most teacher education programs in the1970s and early 1980s highlighted the complexity involved in implementing amulticultural teacher education program. A case study of the program at BradfordCollege in Sunderland Polytechnic Institute in England (Arora, 1986; Lynch,1981) illustrated the profound changes that must occur in the institutionalstructure, as well as in the content of courses, in order to offer training that isauthentically multicultural. Another example of the depth of thinking anddeliberation that is required to mount a truly multicultural program was illustratedin a case study of the process of designing a single course for students who weregoing to teach Native American children (Mathieu, 1978). During the planningperiod, the political and academic ramifications of the course created tensionsbetween members of different disciplines and constituents that were resolved onlyafter protracted deliberations.

A more recent review (Gollnick, 1992) of institutions undergoing NCATEreviews in the late 1980s showed that most institutions included multiculturalgoals in their mission statements. However, the NCATE evaluators were unableto detect where these were implemented in their curriculum. Only 13.6% of theprograms were in full compliance with the multicultural standards. Moreover,there was great variation among programs in terms of what aspects ofmulticultural educations they included or emphasized. Some focused on genderissues, some on prejudice reduction, others on multicultural curriculumdevelopment. Very few had a comprehensive program that would approachZeichner’s (1993) components of effective programs. The most common focuswas on knowledge about cultural groups and developing strategies for teaching theculturally diverse and exceptional students, Sleeter and Grant’s (1987) first approach.

Very few programs not located in urban areas had any significant fieldexperiences in which candidates worked with children who differed from thecandidates’ own backgrounds. Although one of the clear goals of the newNCATE standards is to increase the number of students of color who enter theteaching profession, the report concluded that institutions were having greatproblems ensuring cultural diversity in their student bodies and faculties.Recruiting plans were, in general, neither well developed nor fully implemented.

This variation in degree and type of implementation held true through themid-1990s. In review of research supportive of multicultural teacher educationfrom a social justice perspective, Pattnaik & Vold (1998) discuss their findings on


teacher competencies and expected outcomes of multicultural education inselected teacher education institutions. Within their own survey sample, theyfound minimal compliance with the standards set forth by the National Councilfor the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). The finding caused theauthors to raise the questions of whether NCATE’s multicultural standards makea difference in the quality of programs that prepare teachers for diversity, and whatdegree of consistency regarding issues of diversity within and between universitiesin the content knowledge, the critical experiences to develop multiculturalcompetencies and staffing practices should there be if institutions of highereducation are NCATE-approved and meet the NCATE standards.

Research on the Broad Effects of Multicultural Reformsin Teacher Education

The initial research on the broad effects of multicultural teacher education oninstitutions and teacher practice was sparse. Providing an example of this gap,Grant and Secada (1990) reviewed all of the multicultural teacher educationliterature published between 1964 and 1988. Out of 1,200 entries, only 23assessed the effects of multicultural teacher education initiatives or reforms. Theauthors found no studies on the recruitment of a diverse teaching force, 16 studieson preservice training, and 7 on inservice training. Moreover, only one of theprograms that was studied fit the category of having a social reconstructionistorientation. Grant and Secada called for a major research effort to study all aspectsof multicultural teacher education, including the recruitment of preserviceteachers of color, all teacher preparation courses and field work, and graduates’implementation of multicultural education in their classrooms.

The early studies of the effects of teacher education programs on students’attitudes, skills, and knowledge presented a mixed picture. Many students werepositively affected by multicultural modules in courses (e.g., Henington, 1981),but a sizable minority was not. Furthermore, there is evidence that the effectswere short-lived and were not supported by adequate skills and knowledge thatwould enable students to implement multicultural education. One longitudinalstudy (Bennett, 1988) showed that exposure to multicultural education had apositive effect on students, but was most effective with students who were open-minded at the outset of the course. Furthermore, without any subsequentinstruction, the initial knowledge and attitude gains were not maintained one yearlater.

In a large study of student teacher attitudes (Moultry & Wayson, 1988), themajority of the respondents (60–70%) expressed some awareness of issues relatedto diversity and had considerable empathy and concern for groups that havesuffered discrimination. However, 30–40% showed the opposite pattern. A littleover one half of the students indicated that they felt confident to teach in amulticultural classroom, whereas the remainder did not. Furthermore, there wasonly moderate interest in teaching in multicultural settings. Very few of therespondents knew elementary facts about the history, culture, and contributions


of the ethnic groups that are highly represented in American schools. Thus, evenif these preservice teachers wanted to broaden their curriculum, they did not havethe knowledge to support these efforts.

Larke (1990) studied the attitudes of students who already had had 3 years ofundergraduate courses, including one multicultural education course. Most of the51 subjects (all but 5 were White) were aware that they would be teaching studentsfrom backgrounds different from theirs, but only 20% of them preferred to workwith students from different cultures. The majority felt uncomfortable aboutchildren speaking languages and dialects other than standard English. Many alsoindicated that in their classrooms, they would not object to ethnic jokes andwould just ignore racial comments, rather than take a proactive stance againstracism and other forms of discrimination.

Grant and Grant (1985) did one of the most comprehensive studies ofmulticultural teacher education in the 1980s. They studied the effects of a 2-weekinservice institute for teachers and principals that followed a model of awareness,acceptance, and affirmation. They found that during the institute, the participantsdid change their attitudes concerning age, class, gender, disabilities, and race.Also, most of the participants gained more ideas about how to implementmulticultural/social reconstructionist ideas in their classrooms. However, their successin changing their curriculum varied, according to the subject matter that theywere teaching. Moreover, several participants commented that they had to spendso much time on basic skills in their classes that they did not have time toincorporate many new activities. In the follow-up study, the teachers who werepart of a“buddy system” (teachers and principles from the same school who hadall attended the institute) were more successful in implementing a multicultural/social reconstructionist perspective. This study suggests that teachers can change theirattitudes and practices, but that they need support and time to do it. It is alsonoteworthy that the participants of this study were all members of TeachersCorps and, therefore, as a group, might have been more favorably disposed tomulticultural education than most teachers are.

Field experiences in which teacher education students work with populationsthat are ethnically, racially, and economically different from themselves areconsidered a cornerstone of good multicultural teacher education (e.g., Zeichner,1993). However, we have little research that clearly supports these effects. Onelimitation inherent in fieldwork placements is that many cooperating teachers donot teach from a multicultural perspective, so that students who have learnedabout multiculturalism in their courses do not see how it can be applied in anongoing way in a classroom. In some cases, cooperating teachers might evendiscourage students from trying to implement multicultural curricula.

A study (Haberman & Post, 1990) of 227 White cooperating teachers revealedthat teachers in both urban and suburban schools were committed to teachingchildren to “tolerate” people different from themselves. They did not recognizethe impact of being a member of a marginalized group and focused only onhelping individuals learn to get along better. Almost none of them acknowledgedthe inequities in our society and the need to change them. Thus, even if they are


working with teachers who practice multicultural education, teacher candidatesare more likely to see models of the human relations approach and very unlikely tosee teachers teaching from a social reconstructionist approach.

Despite these limitations, it has been shown that fieldwork can stimulatecandidates to begin to challenge their assumptions. One example was amentorship program in which teacher education candidates mentored elementarystudents for a full academic year by doing tutoring, taking them out to social andsporting events, and having weekly contact even during the holidays (Larke,Wiseman, & Bradley, 1990). This experience was accompanied by weekly seminarsthat focused on multicultural issues and provided support and supervision.Comparisons of candidate attitudes before and after working with their menteesfor a year revealed that students changed from pitying their mentees and assumingthat they would have problems to seeing their strengths and enjoying warm,personal, and respectful relationships with them.

In another study (Cooper, Beare, & Thorman, 1990), teacher educationcandidates doing their student teaching near their college campus in Minnesotawere compared with their peers who chose to student teach in a school in SouthTexas. The results showed that the candidates who had taught in Texas weremuch more confident in their cross-cultural skills and multicultural competenciesthan were their peers who had stayed in Minnesota. Unfortunately, the study didnot include a pre-student teaching assessment, so we cannot rule out thepossibility that students who were more confident to begin with had chosen to goto Texas to do their student teaching.

In a comparison of candidates who did their student teaching overseas withtheir peers who did it close to their university in Indiana (Mahan & Stachowski,1990), the former group demonstrated that it had acquired a broader perspectiveand had used more community resources than the student teachers who hadstayed in Indiana. However, as with the previous study, we have no baseline datato rule out the possibility that the students who chose to student teach abroadwere more predisposed in these directions in the first place.

Despite these positive findings, sometimes field experiences reinforcecandidates’ stereotypes, as found by Haberman and Post (1992) in a study of 23White college sophomores who taught in a remedial summer program for low-income and minority children. Even when the field experiences are effective andstudents do undergo some attitudinal changes, most still do not acquire amulticultural perspective that embodies social change. As with the course workdescribed previously, most fieldwork experiences affect teacher educationcandidates in ways that are more congruent with Sleeter and Grant’s (1999)teaching the culturally different or human relations approaches (see chapter 3).

Very few studies have followed up on graduates of multicultural teachereducation programs, so the long-term effectiveness of these types of programs hasnot been evaluated. In one early study (Aotaki-Phenice & Kostelnik, 1983),candidates and graduates of an early childhood teacher preparation program werecompared. Both groups supported multicultural education, but there was nosignificant difference in their attitudes, which raises questions about the impact of


their training experiences. Although the effect on individuals may not have beenclear, participation in a multicultural program appears to have substantiallyimproved preservice teachers’ employment prospects (Mahan & Lacefield, 1982).In this study of 733 graduates of a teacher preparation program, those studentswho had taught in culturally diverse settings more often found the type ofteaching job that they wanted.

Dissatisfactions with the surface quality of the information coming from theimplementation and broad effects studies during the 1980s led the next generationof multicultural teacher education researchers to investigate alternativemethodologies from the 1990s to the present. Most particularly, model teachereducation programs that have been experimenting with a wide variety ofalternative pedagogies have recently been described and analyzed (Hale, 1991;Oakes & Lipton, 1999). Their intention has been to uncover less of the generaland more of the particular in details that could give definition to the results.Thus, attention has turned toward in-depth case studies and research on individualteachers exemplifying use of a multicultural perspective in their teaching.

Case Studies of Multicultural Teacher Education

Case studies of multicultural teacher education investigate specific processes thatwere undergone and particular effects experienced by program participants. Inthis form of inquiry, individuals’ responses to a program or course(s) or theirenacted practice are described qualitatively, rather than assessed in morequantitative and linear ways.

One of the most compelling examples of this type of research is Sleeter’sKeepers of the American Dream: A Study of Staff Development and MulticulturalEducation (1992). This ethnographic study of 30 teachers (26 White, 3 Black, and1 Mexican American) who participated in a 2-year multicultural educationinservice training program illustrates some of the barriers to becomingmulticultural educators. The accounts of the inservice training sessions reveal howteachers, even those who embrace the idea of multiculturalism, have trouble withovercoming their own backgrounds, professional training, and familiarperspectives to take a more critical stance toward society, schools, and their rolesin them. Sleeter concludes that to implement multiculturalism in schools, wemust diversify the teaching force and attract teachers who are risk-takers andpredisposed to challenge the status quo. However, she points out that mostschools are highly controlled and not compatible with risk-taking and innovation.Sleeter’s overall message is that creating truly multicultural schools will requirechanging institutions, as well as training individual teachers.

In another study, Tatum (1992) illustrates how college students (particularly,White students) can begin to change their basic assumptions about how societyworks. By creating a safe and confidential environment and stimulating studentdiscussions and reflective writings with films, readings, and role playing, Tatumwas able to help students begin to move through the stages described by Cross(1991) and Helms (1990), as mentioned in chapter 2. Lawrence and Bunche


(1996) did intensive case studies of five teachers who took a race-focusedundergraduate multicultural education course and documented subsequentattitudinal changes.

The difficulties of White teacher education candidates confronting their ownracism in a preservice education course were also studied by Cochran-Smith(1995). She used quotations from students’ autobiographies, reaction papers,letters, and discussions to analyze the complexities of maintaining open dialogueabout racism and teaching. The struggles of White students to define themselves asallies when they are the beneficiaries of unearned White privilege are alsoillustrated through the comments of the students. The author raises questionsabout the structure of teacher education courses and how teacher educators mayunwittingly and unintentionally be “uncertain” allies of students of color.

One of the most serious problems in teacher education today is the smallnumber of people of color, both in the field and entering the field, as mentionedpreviously in this chapter. Although this problem is widely acknowledged, almostno research has been done on programs aimed at recruiting and retaining studentsof color in teacher education programs. One study (Dillard, 1997) describes thepositive effects of an 8-week summer program designed to prepare undergraduatestudents of color for graduate school. The program involved a great deal of bothoral and written interactions to encourage students to explore their identities andaspirations. The instructor provided many experiences to give students honestinside knowledge of some of the barriers for students of color in the educationalsystem and how to overcome them. She also worked with students on how tomaintain their own identities and priorities and integrate them into their careersas educators. The data, which are primarily quotations from student conversationsand journals, illustrate how these experiences did help students develop theconfidence and commitment to pursue teaching as a career.

Bennett (2002) addresses the issue of recruitment and retention of teachers ofcolor in her description of Project TEAM at the University of Indiana. Using acombination of a pre- and postadministration of a questionnaire on ethnicidentity, interracial contact experience, and multicultural competence, as well asperiodic individual interviews, focus groups, and specific school courseassignments over several years of the program’s operation, Bennett and hercolleagues saw more than a 50% rise in the recruitment rate of prospectiveteachers of color on her campus, with a 92% graduation rate of those recruited.She attributes the success of the program to date to the creation of an atmosphereof support for the students and the teaching of knowledge and skills fosteringmulticultural competence.

Critical multiculturalists point out that a major issue in previous research onrecruitment and retention of teachers of color is that the voices of the teachersthemselves have not often been heard (Goodwin, Genishi, Asher, & Woo, 1997;Knight, in press; Meacham, 2000; Rosebud, 2001). The unique perspectives thatteachers of color bring to their teacher preparation programs and subsequently, totheir working lives are of vital importance in ascertaining ways to support futureteachers and to transform teacher education programs in ways that honor and


respect those teachers’ cultural knowledge, skills, and experience. Teachereducation programs must abandon deficit approaches in the education of teachersof color as surely as they abandon such approaches in the multicultural curriculathat they advocate for children in schools, and programs must create atmospheresof living and learning that are warmly receptive of the diversity of the studentbody. Thus, an important move in teacher education research is toward self-studyof the perceptions and knowledge of teachers of color.

Studies of Individuals’ Expertise in Practice andProfessional Development

One of the most recent research initiatives in multicultural teacher education is tostudy classroom practices of successful teachers working with children of colorand in classrooms that are diverse and to learn from these “experts” how they doit (Ladson-Billings, 1992). One advantage of this strand of research is that it shiftsthe relationship between practitioners and researchers from a hierarchical one to amore collaborative exploration of the connection between theory and practice(Ladson-Billings, 1995).

An example of this is Lipka’s (1991) study of a Yup’ik Eskimo teacher. In hisanalysis of a lesson, Lipka shows how practices that would be consideredinadequate by many Anglo teachers and teacher educators are much morecompatible for the Yup’ik children in the classroom. This study raises seriousquestions about the role of teacher education in preparing teachers to work withdiverse populations. Had the teacher followed “good educational strategies,” thelesson would not have worked.

Assessment Instruments/Procedures

A number of instruments have been used to measure teacher education candidateattitudes and knowledge. Because researchers have adapted existing instrumentsor have created their own, most of them are not in print, but could be obtainedby contacting specific authors. Bennett (1988) used a revised Social Distance Scaleto measure students’ reactions to members of 30 ethnic groups. She alsodeveloped a 30-item Multicultural Knowledge Test that uses true and falsequestions to determine the level of students’ knowledge about other groups. Amodified version of the Zeigler scale (1980) was used to assess Openness toHuman Diversity. With 23 Lickert scale-type items, the test measured levels ofreceptiveness to diverse groups, reactions to equity policies, and opinions aboutinterracial couples. Moultry & Wayson (1988) developed the MulticulturalTeaching Scale from several sources, including Grant (1977b), Halverson (1975),Noar (1974), and the California State Department of Education (1977). Cross-cultural programs often include assessment of knowledge, perception, and attitudechange to measure the effectiveness of the training (e.g., Renwick, 1980), whichalso might be adapted to measure both the short- and long-term impact ofmulticultural programs.


Villegas (1997) describes the development by the Educational Testing Service(ETS) of Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessments, one part of The PraxisSeries: Professional Assessments for Beginning Teachers that was developedlargely for use by state or agency personnel in the licensing of teachers, but can beused as well in the preparation of preservice teachers. Praxis III is a processdesigned to assess teacher performance through classroom observation and bothpre- and post observation conferences (semi-structured interviews with theteacher). The process consciously reflects a vision of teaching as encompassing fourcritical elements: (1) openness toward diversity and belief that all children canlearn; (2) awareness that teaching and learning occur in a sociocultural contextand subsequent choice of instructional procedures that recognize that context; (3)use of topics and examples from children’s daily lives within their families andcommunities to teach new content, drawing on children’s previous knowledge,and (4) using all of the above information in planning, implementing, andevaluating instruction. To guard against the external threat to validity posed bythis high inference system, ETS has instituted a rigorous 5-day training programfollowed by completion of at least one full assessment cycle in an actual classroombefore a candidate can be certified as an assessor.

In terms of assessing programmatic change, this review of the literature revealedonly one instrument designed specifically for that purpose. Klassen, Gollnick, andOsayande (1980) include specific questions to use in evaluations of teachereducation programs.

SUMMARY

There are a number of resources to guide teacher educators in the task of makingtheir teacher preparation programs multicultural. Guidelines, case studies, andcommentaries provide detailed descriptions of goals, methods, and potentialproblems. Unfortunately, relatively little research has been done on theeffectiveness of various models, so that setting priorities and gaining support forthe necessary funding and staffing are difficult tasks. In the very recent literature,however, there are signs that the effect of multicultural teacher education isbeginning to be studied in more systematic ways.

The tone of the writings has changed over the past three decades. In the late1970s a proliferation of materials enthusiastically predicted that teacher educationwould become multicultural. After the early 1980s, the tone became morecritical, as teacher educators recognized the difficulty of making meaningfulchanges in their institutions. The British critiques show some evidence of movingmulticultural teacher education toward the social reconstructionist perspective that isadvocated by Sleeter and Grant (1987). As with multicultural education as awhole, the youthful enthusiasm for the reform of teacher education that prevailedin the 1970s became the critical and thoughtful analysis of the 1980s and 1990s.

Three positive indicators relieve this otherwise grim outlook for multiculturalteacher education. First, the more recent writings recognize the depth andsubtlety of the personal, institutional, and societal changes required to make schools


truly multicultural, which may lead to more thoughtful and effective approaches.Second, these efforts are international in scope, and the exchange andcollaboration among teacher educators in several countries have the potential toenrich and accelerate the reform of teacher education. Third, many colleges anduniversities, alarmed at the increase in racism among their students, are initiatingefforts to incorporate a multicultural focus in their liberal arts curricula. Ifsuccessful, these reforms will support the goals of multicultural teacher education.

Note

1 . The Holmes Report took the position that teacher education should be pursued atthe graduate, rather than at the undergraduate, level and advocated strong liberal artsand science backgrounds for prospective teachers.

REFERENCES

AACTE (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education). (1999). Journal ofTeacher Education, 54 (5) (whole issue).

AACTE (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education). (2000). TeacherPreparation Star Chart: A self assessment tool for colleges of education. Virtual address:http://www.ceoforum.org/reports.cfm?RID=3.

ACEI (Association of Childhood Education International). (1998). ACEI Position Paper.Preparation of early childhood education teachers. Virtual address: http://www.udel. edu/bateman/acei/prepec.htm.

Altbach, P.C., & Lomotey, K. (1991). The racial crisis in American higher education. Albany,NY: State University of New York Press.

Aotaki-Phenice, L., & Kostelnik, M. (1983). Attitudes of early childhood educators onmulticultural/multiethnic education. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment, 4, 41–46.

Arora, R. (1986). Initial teacher training (A case study of a decade of change in Bradford).In R.Arora & C.Duncan (Eds.), Multicultural education: Towards good practice (pp. 161–181). London, UK: Routledge & Kegan.

Baker, G. (1983). Planning and organizing for multicultural instruction. Menlo Park, CA:Addison—Wesley.

Baker, G. (1994). Planning and organizing for multicultural instruction (2nd ed.). Menlo Park,CA: Addison-Wesley.

Banks, J.A. (1977). The implications of multicultural education for teacher education. InF.H.Klassen & D.M.Gollnick (Eds.), Pluralism and the American teacher (pp. 1–30).Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Banks, J.A. (1987). The social studies, ethnic diversity, and social change. Elementary SchoolJournal, 87, 531–542.

Banks, J.A. (1991). Teaching multicultural literacy to teachers. Teaching Education, 4, 135–144.



Banks, J.A., & Banks, C.A.M. (1995). Handbook of research on multicultural education. NewYork, NY: Macmillan.

Baptiste, M.L., & Baptiste, H.P. (1980). Competencies toward multiculturalism. In H.P.Baptiste, M.L.Baptiste, & D.M.Gollnick (Eds.), Multicultural teacher education: Preparingeducators to provide educational equity (pp. 44–72). Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Baratz, S.S., & Baratz, J.C. (1970). Early childhood intervention: The social science base ofinstituional racism. Harvard Educational Review, 40(1), 29–50.

Baskauskas, L. (Ed.). (1986). Unmasking culture: Cross-cultural perspectives in social andbehavioral sciences. Novato, CA: Chandler & Charp.

Bennett, C.I. (1988). The effects of a multicultural education course on preservice teachers’ attitudes,knowledge and behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanResearch Association in New Orleans, LA.

Bennett, C.I. (1995). Research on racial issues in American higher education. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 663–682). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Bennett, C.I. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of EducationalResearch, 71(2), 171–217.

Bennett, C.I. (2002). Enhancing ethnic diversity in a Big Ten university: A case study inteacher education. Educational Researcher, 31(2), 21–29.

Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Bolin, F.S., & Sawyer, R. (1994). Building on diversity: Exploring issues of teacher retention.

Proceedings of a roundtable on teacher retention held by the New TeacherRecruitment and Retention Project at Teachers College. New York, NY: TeachersCollege.

Boot, M. (1992). Minorities still underrepresented on campus but not in texts. ChristianScience Monitor (November 16).

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in earlychildhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of YoungChildren.

Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.). (1992). Reaching potentials: Appropriate curriculumand assessment for young children, vol. 1. Washington, DC: National Association for theEducation of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.). (1995). Reaching potentials: Appropriate curriculumand assessment for young children, vol. 2. Washington, DC: National Association for theEducation of Young Children.

Butler, J., & Schmitz, B. (1992). Ethnic studies, women’s studies, and multiculturalism.Change, 24 (February), 37–41.

California State Department of Education. (1977). Guide for multicultural education:Content and context. Sacramento, CA: Office of Intergroup Relations.

Casse, P. (1979). Training for the cross-cultural mind. Washington, DC: Society forIntercultural Education, Training and Research.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers:Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teachereducation. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 493–522.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1997). Knowledge, skills, and experiences for teaching culturallydiverse learners: A perspective for practicing teachers. In J.J.Irvine (Ed.), Critical


knowledge for diverse teachers and learners (pp. 89–126). Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2000). The outcomes question in teacher education. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Amrican Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Cooper, A., Beare, P., & Thorman, J. (1990). Preparing teachers for diversity: Acomparison of student teaching experiences in Minnesota and Texas. Action in TeacherEducation, 12(3), 1–4.

Cross, W.E. (1991). Shades of Black. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.D’Souza, D. (1991). Illiberal education. New York, NY: Free Press.Darling-Hammond, L. (1984). Beyond the commission reports: The coming crisis in teaching.

Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Darling-Hammond, L. (1991). Transforming school reform: Policies and practices for democratic

schools. New York, NY: NCREST.Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Inequality and access to knowledge. In J.A.Banks &

C.A.M.Banks (Eds.) Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 465–483). NewYork, NY: Macmillan.

De Gaetano, Y, Williams, L.R., & Volk, D. (1998). Kaleidoscope: A multicultural approach forthe primary school classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.


Dillard, C.B. (1997). Placing student language, literacy, and culture at the center of teachereducation reform. In J.E.King, E.R.Hollins, & W.C.Hayman (Eds.), Preparing teachersfor cultural diversity (pp. 85–96). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dilworth, M. (Ed.). (1992). Diversity in teacher education. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.Dumais, M.D., and Teacher Corps Associates. (1982). Investigating inservice: Program policy

and project practices (monograph). Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.Edelfelt, R.A., & Raths, J.D. (1999). A brief history of standards in teacher education. Reston,

VA: Association of Teacher Educators.Fennimore, B.S. (2000). Talk matters: Refocusing the language of public schooling. New York,

NY: Teachers College Press.Fitzgerald, A.K., & Lauter, P. (1995). Multiculturalism and the core curricula. In J.A.

Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 729–746). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Fox, G.T., and Teachers Corps Associates. (1986). Collaborating: An interactive study(monograph). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for TeacherEducation.

Fromberg, D.P. (2001). Personal communication, September 28, 2001.Futrell, M.H., & Witty, E.P. (1997). Preparation and professional development of teachers

for culturally diverse schools: Perspectives from the standards movement. In J.J.Irvine(Ed.), Critical knowledge for diverse teachers and learners (pp. 189–216). Washington, DC:American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Gaff, J. G: (1992). Beyond politics: The educational issues inherent in multiculturaleducation. Change, 24 (February), 31–35.

Gay, G. (1977). Curriculum for multicultural teacher education. In F.H.Klassen & D.M.Gollnick (Eds.), Pluralism and the American teacher (pp. 31–62). Washington, DC:American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.



Gay, G. (1995). Curriculum theory and multicultural education. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M. Banks(Eds.) Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 25–43). New York, NY:Macmillan.

Gayton, E. and Byrd, D. (1999). ATE (Association of Teacher Educators) Standards for fieldexperiences in teacher education. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.

Gentemann, K.M., & Whitehead, T.L. (1983). The cultural broker concept in biculturaleducation. Journal of Negro Education, 52, 118–129.

Gollnick, D.M. (1992). Multicultural education: Policies and practices in teachereducation. In C.A.Grant (Ed.), Research and multicultural education: From the margins tothe mainstream (pp. 218–239). Washington, DC: Falmer.

Gollnick, D.M., Osayande, K.I. M., & Levy, J. (1980). Multicultural teacher education: Casestudies of thirteen programs. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges forTeacher Education.

Goodlad, J. (1990). Better teachers for our nation’s schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 185–194.Goodlad, J. (1999). Whither schools of education? Journal of Teacher Education, 50(5), 325–

338.Goodwin, A.L. (1991). Problems, process, and promise: Reflections on a collaborative

approach to the solution of the minority teacher shortage. Journal of Teacher Education,42(1), 28–36.

Goodwin, A.L. (1997). Historical and contemporary perspectives on multicultural teachereducation: Past lessons, new directions. In J.E.King, E.R.Hollins, & W.C.Hayman(Eds.), Preparing teachers for cultural diversity (pp. 5–22). New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.

Goodwin, A.L., Genishi, C., Asher, N. & Woo, K.A. (1997). Voices from the margins. InD.M.Byrd & D.J.McIntyre (Eds.) Research on the education of our nation’s teachers:Teacher education yearbook V (pp. 219–241). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Grant, C.A. (1977a). Education that is multicultural and P/CBTE: Discussion andrecommendations for teacher education. In F.H.Klassen & D.M.Gollnick (Eds.),Pluralism and the American teacher (pp. 63–80). Washington, DC: American Associationof Colleges for Teacher Education.

Grant, C.A. (Ed.). (1977b). Multicultural teacher education: Commitments, issues andapplications. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Grant, C.A. (1981). Education that is multicultural and teacher preparation: Anexamination from the perspectives of preservice students. Journal of EducationalResearch, 75, 95–101.

Grant, C.A. (Ed.). (1992). Research and multicultural education: From the margins to themainstream. Washington, DC: Falmer.

Grant, C.A. (1999). Multicultural research: A reflective engagement with race, class, gender, andsexual orientation. London, UK: Falmer.

Grant, C.A., & Grant, G. (1985). Staff development and education that is multicultural andthe relationship between preservice campus learning and field experiences. BritishJournal of Inservice Education, 2(1), 6–18.

Grant, C.A., & Koskela, R.A. (1986). Education that is multicultural and the relationshipbetween preservice campus learning and field experiences. Journal of EducationalResearch, 79, 197–204.


Grant, C.A., & Secada, W. (1990). Preparing teachers for diversity. In W.R.Houston,M.Haberman, & J.Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 403–422).New York, NY: Macmillan.

Grant, C.A., & Tate, W.F. (1995). Multicultural education through the lens of themulticultural education research literature. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.),Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 145–166). New York, NY:Macmillan.

Gray, S., & Klaus, R.A. (1966). Before first grade: The early training project for culturallydisadvantaged children. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Greenfield, P. (1995). Profile: On teaching. SRCD Newsletter (winter), 3–4, 12.Grieshaber, S., & Cannella, G. (2001). Embracing identities in early childhood education:

Diversity and possibilities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Haberman, M., & Post, L. (1990). Cooperating teachers’ perceptions of the goals of

multicultural education. Action in Teacher Education, 12(3), 31–35.Haberman, M., & Post, L. (1992). Does direct experience change education students’

perceptions of low-income minority children? Midwestern Educational Researcher, 5, 29–31.

Hale, S. (1991). Pedagogy and Diversity. Center for the Study of Women Newsletter (pp.15–17): University of California, Los Angeles.

Halverson, C.B. (1975). Checking your schools for cultural pluralism. Evanston, IL: NationalCollege of Education, Center for Program Development in Equal EducationalOpportunity.

Hayes, S. (1980). The community and teacher education. In H.P.Baptiste, M.L.Baptiste, &D.M.Gollnick (Eds.), Multicultural teacher education’. Preparing educators to provideeducational equity (pp. 94–108). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges forTeacher Education.

Helms, J. (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. Westport CT:Greenwood.

Henington, M. (1981). Effect of intensive multicultural non-sexist instruction onsecondary student teachers. Educational Research Quarterly, 6(1), 65–75.

Hilliard, A.G. (1997). Teacher education from an African American perspective. InJ.J.Irvine (Ed.), Critical knowledge for diverse teachers and learners (pp. 125–148).Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI:Holmes Group.

hooks, b. (1993). Transformative pedagogy and multiculturalism. In T.Perry & J.Fraser(Eds.), Freedom’s plow (pp. 91–97). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hunt, J., M. (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York, NY: Ronald Press.Irvine, J.J. (Ed.). (1997). Critical knowledge for diverse teachers and learners. Washington, DC:

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.Johnson, L. (1999). “My eyes have been opened”: White teachers coming to racial consciousness.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Montreal, Canada.

Kessler, B.S., & Swadener, B.B. (1992). Reconceptualizing early childhood education: Beginningthe dialogue. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

King, J.E., Hollins, E.R., & Hayman, W.C. (Eds.). (1997). Preparing teachers for culturaldiversity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.


King, J.E., & Ladson-Billings, G. (1990). The teacher education challenge in eliteuniversity settings: Developing critical perspectives for teaching in a democratic andmulticultural society. European Journal of Intercultural Studies, 1, 15–30.

King, S.H., & Castenell, L.A. (Eds.). (2001). Racism and racial inequality: Implications forteacher education. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for TeacherEducation.

Klassen, F.H., & Gollnick, D.M. (Eds.). (1977). Pluralism and the American teacher.Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Klassen, F.H., Gollnick, D.M., & Osayande, K.I.M. (1980). Multicultural teacher education:Guidelines for implementation, vol. 4. Washington, DC: American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education.

Kleifgen, J.A. (1987). What can be learned from student-teachers’ cross-culturalcommunicative failures? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Washington, DC.

Knight, M. (in press). Finding our way: Challenging oppressive educational and societalpractices. In S.H.King (Ed.) The thought and practice of anti-racist teaching, New York,NY: Routledge.

Kohut, S. (1980). Field experiences in preservice professional studies. In H.P.Baptiste,M.L.Baptiste, & D.M.Gollnick (Eds.), Multicultural teacher education: Preparing educatorsto provide educational equity (pp. 73–93). Washington, DC: American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A culturallyrelevant approach to literacy teaching. Theory into Practice, 31, 312–320.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice, andpolicy. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multiculturaleducation (pp. 747–759). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Larke, P.J. (1990). Cultural diversity awareness inventory: Assessing the sensitivity ofpreservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 12(3), 23–30.

Larke, P.J., Wiseman, D., & Bradley, C. (1990). The minority mentorship project:Changing attitudes of preservice teachers for diverse classrooms. Action in TeacherEducation, 12(3), 5–11.

Lauter, P., Bruce-Novoa, J., Bryer, J., Hedges, E., Ling, A., Littlefield, D.F., Jr., Martin,W., Molesworth, C., Mulford, C., Paredes, R., Spillers, H., Wagner-Martin, L.,Wiget, A., & Yarbrough, R. (Eds.). (1990). The Heath anthology of American literature.Lexington, MA: D.C.Heath.

Lawrence, S.M., & Bunche, T. (1996). Feeling and dealing: Teaching White studentsabout racial privilege. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(5), 531–542.

Lea, V. (1999). Re-thinking Whiteness, re-thinking self: Enabling White teachers to question howrace informs their ideology, identity, and practice in the classroom. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal,Canada.

Levine, A., & Cureton, J. (1992). The quiet revolution: Eleven facts about multiculturalismand the curriculum. Change, 24 (February), 25–29.

Lipka, J. (1991). Toward a culturally based pedagogy: A case study of one Yup’ik Eskimoteacher. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 22, 203–223.

Lubek, S. (1994). The politics of developmentally appropriate practice. In B.Mallory &R.New (Eds.), Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for earlychildhood education (pp. 17–43). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.


Lynch, J. (1981). Multicultural education and the training of teachers: A case study. SouthPacific Journal of Teacher Education, 9, 43–54.

Mahan, J.M., & Lacefield, W. (1982). Employability and multi-cultural teacherpreparation. Educational Research Quarterly, 7, 15–20.

Mahan, J.M., & Stachowski, L. (1990). New horizons: Student teaching abroad to enrichunderstanding of diversity. Action in Teacher Education, 12(3), 13–21.

Martin, R.J. (Ed.). (1995). Practicing what we teach: Confronting diversity in teacher education.Albany: State University of New York Press.

Mathieu, D.J. (1978). Adoption and development of teacher certification requirement.Journal of American Indian Education, 18, 17–22.

Meacham, S. (2000). Black self-solve, language, and the teacher education dilemma: thecultural denial and cultural limbo of African-American preservice teachers. UrbanEducation, 34(5), 571–596.

Melnick, S.L., & Zeichner, K.M. (1997). Enhancing the capacity of teacher educationinstitutions to address diversity issues. In J.E.King, E.R.Hollins, & W.C.Hayman(Eds.), Preparing teachers for cultural diversity (pp. 23–39). New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.

Merryfield, M. (2000). How can on-line discussions and cultural consultants support equity anddiversity in teacher education? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Minister of Supply and Services. (1985). Cross-cultural awareness education and training forprofessionals: A manual. Edmonton, Alberta: Department of Education.

Mitchell, E. & Watson, M. (1980). Personal cultural orientations and educational practices.In H.P.Baptiste, M.L.Baptiste, & D.M.Gollnick (Eds.), Multicultural teacher education:Preparing educators to provide educational equity (pp. 154–176). Washington, DC:American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Moultry, M., & Wayson, W.W. (1988). Multicultural education among seniors in theCollege of Education at Ohio State University. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young Children). (2001). RevisedNAEYC Standards for Early Childhood Professional Preparation: Baccalaureate orInitial Licensure Level. Washington, DC: Author.

Natriello, G. & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Challenges to an alternative route for teachereducation. In A.Lieberman, (Ed.) The changing contexts of teaching (pp. 59–79) Ninety-first Yearbook, Part 1, The National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago, IL:The University of Chicago Press.

Natriello, G. & Zumwalt, K. (1993). New teachers for urban schools? The contribution ofthe provisional teacher program in New Jersey, Education and Urban Society, 26(1), 49–62.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperativefor educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education) (1977). Standards forthe accreditation of teacher education. Washington, DC: NCATE.

NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education) (1997). Standards,procedures, and policies for the accreditation of teacher education. Washington, DC: NCATE.

NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education) (2000). NCATE2000 standards revision. Virtual address: http://www.ncate.org/specfoc/2000stds.pdf.


New York State Education Department. (1999). Proposed new regulations on teacher educationto implement the new teaching policy adopted by the regents on July 16, 1998. Albany, NY:Office of Higher Education, Office of College and University Evaluation.

Nieto, S. (1997/2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education(2nd/3rd eds.). New York, NY: Longman.

Nieto, S., & Rolon, C. (1997). Preparation and professional development of teachers: Aperspective from two Latinas. In J.J.Irvine (Ed.), Critical knowledge for diverse teachersand learners (pp. 89–124). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges forTeacher Education.

Nixon, J. (1985). Teacher education. In J. Nixon (Ed.), A teacher’s guide to multiculturaleducation (pp. 152–169). New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.

Noar, G. (1974). The teacher and integration. Washington, DC: National EducationAssociation.

Oakes, J. & Lipton, M. (1999). Teaching to change the world. Boston, MA: McGraw HillCollege.

Olstad, R.G., Foster, C.D., &. Wyman, R.M. (1983). Multicultural education forpreservice teachers. Integrated Education, 21, 137–139.

Pang, V.O. (1997). Caring for the whole child: Asian Pacific American students. In J.J.Irvine (Ed.), Critical knowledge for diverse teachers and learners (pp. 149–188).Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Pang, V.O., Anderson, M.G., & Martuza, V. (1997). Removing the mask of academia:Institutions collaborating in the struggle for equity. In J.E.King, E.R.Hollins, & W.C.Hayman (Eds.), Preparing teachers for cultural diversity (pp. 53–70). New York, NY:Teachers College Press.

Passow, A.H. (1984). Reforming schools: A critical review of the national reports. New York, NY:ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Institute for Urban and MinorityEducation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Pattnaik, J., & Vold, E.B. (1998). Expected multicultural education outcomes in teachereducation and the NCATE factor. In E.B.Vold (Ed. Preparing teachers for diverse studentpopulations and for equity (pp. 97–110). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Peretti, D. (1997). Redesigning field experiences: From exposure to engagement. In J.E.King, E.R.Hollins, & W.C.Hayman (Eds.), Preparing teachers for cultural diversity (pp.192–206). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ramsey, P.G. (1987). Teaching and learning in a diverse world: Multicultural education for youngchildren. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.


Renwick, G.W. (1980). Evaluation handbook for cross-cultural training and multiculturaleducation. LaGrange Park, IL: Intercultural Network.

Rosebud, E. (2001). Untold stories: Implications for understanding minority preserviceteachers’ experiences. In S.H.King & L.A.Castenell (Eds.). (2001). Racism and racialinequality: Implications for teacher education. Washington, DC: American Association forColleges of Teacher Education.

Salway, J. (1991). Veritable Negroes and circumcised dogs: Racial disturbances inShakespeare. In L.Aers & N.Wheale (Eds.), Shakespeare in the changing curriculum (pp.108–124). New York, NY: Routledge.

Sarason, S.B. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.


Scheurich, J.J. (1993). Toward a White discourse on racism. Educational Researcher, 22(8),5–10.

Sears, J.T., Marshall, J.D., & Otis-Wilborn, A. (1994). When best doesn’t equal good:Educational reform and teacher recruitment (monograph of a longitudinal study). NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

Silin, J. (1995). Sex, death, and the education of children: Our passion for ignorance in the age ofAIDS. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Sleeter, C.E. (1992). Keepers of the American dream: A study of staff development andmulticultural education. Washington, DC: Falmer.

Sleeter, C.E. (1994). White racism. Multicultural education, 1, 5–8, 39.Sleeter, C.E. (1995). An analysis of the critiques of multicultural education. In J.A.Banks &


Sleeter, C.E. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. Albany: State University ofNew York Press.

Sleeter, C.E., & Grant, C.A. (1987). An analysis of multicultural education in the UnitedStates. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 421–444.

Sleeter, C.E., & Grant, C.A. (1999). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approachesto race, class, and gender (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Smiley, P, Steege, D.K., & Tobin, D. (1993). Diversity and the small college community:Negotiating multiculturalism through writing across the curriculum. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication,San Diego, CA.

Smith, G.P. (1998). Common sense about uncommon knowledge: The knowledge bases fordiversity. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Taba, H., Brady, E.H., & Robinson, J.T. (1952). Intergroup education in public schools:Experimental programs sponsored by the Project in Intergroup Education in Cooperating Schools—Theory, practice and in-service education. Washington, DC: American Council onEducation.

Tatum, B.D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racialidentity theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 1–24.

Tatum, B.D., Calhoun, W.R., Brown, S.C., & Ayvasian, A. (2000). Implementationstrategies for creating an environment of achievement. Liberal Education 18–25.

Titone, C. (1998). Educating the White teacher as ally. In J.L.Kincheloe, S.R.Steinberg,N.M.Rodriguez, & R.G.Chennault (Eds.), White reign: Deploying Whiteness in America(pp. 159–174). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin.

Valentine, C.A. (1971). Deficit, difference, and bicultural models of Afro-Americanbehavior. Harvard Educational Review, 41(2), 137–157.

Villegas, A.M. (1997). Assessing teacher performance in a diverse society. In A.L. Goodwin(Ed.) Assessment for equity and inclusion: Embracing all our children (pp. 261–278). NewYork, NY: Routledge.

Walton, P.H., & Carlson, P.E. (1997). Responding to social change: California’s newstandards for teacher credentialing. In J.E.King, E.R.Hollins, & W.C.Hayman (Eds.),Preparing teachers for cultural diversity (pp. 222–240). New York, NY: Teachers CollegePress.

Wilkerson, M.B. (1992). Beyond the graveyard: Engaging faculty involvement. Change, 24(February), 59–63.


Williams, L.R., De Gaetano, Y., Harrington, C.C. & Sutherland, I.R., (1985). ALERTA:A multicultural, bilingual approach to teaching young children. Reading, MA:AddisonWesley.

Williams, L.R., & Ryan, S. (2000). Hearts and minds: Addressing multiculturalism in aninservice teacher education program requiring mutual development of teachers andteacher educators. In E.B.Vold (Ed.), Preparing teachers for diverse student populations andfor equity (pp. 230–272). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Yarbrough, L. (1992). Three questions for the multicultural debate. Change, 24 (February),64–69.

Zeichner, K.M. (1993) Educating teachers for cultural diversity. East Lansing: Michigan StateUniversity.

Zeigler, S. (1980). Measuring inter-ethnic attitudes in a multi-ethnic context. CanadianEthnic Studies, III (3), 43–55.


Altbach, P.C., & Lomotey, K. (1991). The racial crisis in American higher education. Albany,NY: State University of New York Press.

The first part of this edited volume contains essays that describe a number ofracial issues on American campuses today. They include: (a) the currentprevalence of racism on campuses; (b) the inadequacy of various affirmative actionefforts in terms of recruiting and retaining undergraduate and graduate studentsand faculty of color; (c) the backlash of White students to what they perceive asspecial services and accommodations to students of color; and (d) the tensionsabout the role of ethnic studies and what to include in the core curriculum. Thesecond section includes four chapters that address the dilemmas and barriers thatfaculty of color experience, as well as the failure of White faculty to overcometheir own unconscious racist assumptions about students of color. The finalsection consists of four case studies of race relations at Columbia, Stanford,Arizona State, and Cornell. Each of these accounts illustrates the complicated andtenuous process of establishing college communities in which both diversity andcommunity are valued.

Alvarado, C., Derman-Sparks, L., & Ramsey, P. (Eds.) (1999). In our own way: How antibiaswork shapes our lives. St. Paul, MN: Readleaf.

This volume contains the stories of seven early childhood teachers whodescribe the personal and professional challenges and transformations that theyhave experienced being antibias educators. The teachers were interviewed indepth, and the chapters are based on the transcripts of those interviews. Theteachers come from many different racial, cultural, and economic backgroundsand work in a variety of settings; each story is unique. The teachers share,however, a commitment to teaching for social justice and have found the antibiaswork of Louise Derman-Sparks to be a source of inspiration and connection toother like-minded teachers. Following the seven stories, the editors describe


common themes in the teachers’ experiences and their implications for teachers,directors of programs, and teacher educators.

Baker, G. (1994). Planning and organizing for multicultural instruction (2nd ed.) Menlo Park, CA:Addison-Wesley.

Included in the work is a chapter that describes a model of teacher training thathas three phases: first, the acquisition of information about one’s own culturalidentity and other cultures; second, the development of a philosophy thatembodies a commitment to multicultural education; and third, the involvementin the implementation of multicultural instruction. The chapter concludes with10 imperatives for teacher training programs. In this second edition of the work,Baker includes research findings on program effectiveness and projects futureresearch needs to validate and expand emerging multicultural teacher educationpractices.

Baptiste, H.P., Baptiste, M.L., & Gollnick, D.M. (Eds.), (1980). Multicultural teachereducation: Preparing educators to provide educational equity. Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation of Colleges for Teacher Education.

This edited volume focuses on the improvement of teacher effectiveness. Theauthors review studies that have found that teachers often react differentially tochildren from diverse backgrounds, and describe how teachers can become moreeffective with a broader range of students if they increase their interpersonalawareness and skills. In contrast to the more conceptual approach of humanrelations training, this model provides specific skills in attending, responding,personalizing, and initiating with students. The authors discuss how the modelcan be integrated into a multicultural framework, and describe procedures anddelivery systems in higher education and inservice training. Another modeldiscussed by contributing authors posits teacher education as the sharedresponsiblity of the educational institution and the communities that willeventually employ the program graduates. The authors suggest that students havea variety of contacts and field experiences in order to learn about the subtle waysin which people in the community interact. Other contributors advance the thesisfurther by recommending use of student teaching programs in other countries andin a variety of communities across the United States as other ways that studentscan expand their knowledge of cultural diversity.

Banks, J.A. (1977). The implications of multicultural education for teacher education. InF.H.Klassen and D.M.Gollnick (Eds.), Pluralism and the American teacher (pp. 1–30).Washington, DC: ACCTE.

In this chapter, Banks discusses the distinctions among multicultural education,ethnic studies, and multiethnic education. He briefly reviews the research onteacher attitudes and delineates and critiques the assimilationist, pluralist, andpluralist-assimilationist ideologies. The chapter concludes with a discussion of thestages of emerging ethnic encapsulation, ethnic identity, biethnicity, andmultiethnicity and the curricular implications of each stage in teacher educationprograms.


Baptiste, M.L., & Baptiste, H.P. (1980). Competencies toward multiculturalism. In H.P.Baptiste, M.L.Baptiste, & D.M.Gollnick (Eds.), Multicultural teacher education: Preparingeducators to provide educational equity (pp. 44–72). Washington, DC: AACTE

The authors summarize the history to 1980 of various delivery systems andtechniques for training teachers to become more multicultural in their approach.They then describe in detail how the goals of multicultural teaching can be metby using the framework of competency-based teacher education and argue that thespecification of skills and the emphasis on mastery ensure a more systematicapproach in multicultural teacher education. The authors articulate 11competencies, divided into three phases: cultural pluralism, multiculturaleducation, and multiculturalism. For each competency the authors include arationale, instructional objectives, illustrative enabling activities, methods ofassessing the mastery of that competency, and a list of suggested courses thatpotentially lead to mastery.

Baskauskas, L. (Ed.). (1986). Unmasking culture: Cross-cultural perspectives in social andbehavioral sciences. Novato, CA: Chandler & Charp.

This edited volume includes seven essays on how to teach history, sociology,psychology, and geography from a multicultural perspective. The authorschallenge the notion that many of these areas are, by definition, multicultural andpoint out ways in which a proWestern bias is embodied in the basic theories andstructures of these fields. Each chapter includes a list of bibliographic and mediaresources that college faculty could use in their courses. Several chapters alsoinclude sample syllabi, examples of class discussions and activities, or all of these.

Bennett, C.I. (1995). Research on racial issues in American higher education. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 663–682). New York, NY: Macmillan.

The chapter reviews the research on many questions and issues relevant to raceon American campuses. The author first provides a very comprehensive overviewof the changes (between 1976 and 1991) in rates of high school completion,college participation, and enrollment in graduate and professional schools ofAfrican Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, andEuropean Americans. Along with the quantitative data, the author brieflydiscusses particular barriers, advantages, or both that each group has encountered.The chapter also includes a brief review of the resurgence of racism on Americancampuses and the tensions between academic freedom and multicultural reform.The chapter concludes with a section advocating “Democratic or IntegratedPluralism,” which embodies an activist stance among different groups of studentsand discusses creating college communities that accommodate many groups,rather than communities that expect one-way assimilation to the dominant Whiteculture.

Bennett, C.I. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of EducationalResearch, 71(2), 171–217.


This thoughtful article posits a typology of research in multicultural educationthat may be used in future descriptions of work in both multicultural educationand in multicultural teacher education. The author identifies 4 research clusterswith 3 strands each for a total of 12 strands. The 4 types are (1) curriculum reformresearch in which the field is examined in light of its sociocultural context, (2)research on equity pedagogy, which focuses on teaching practices, (3) research onpromoting multicultural competence in both prospective and experiencedteachers, and (4) research on issues of social equity in curriculum and teaching.The discussion of each type includes examples drawn from work done byeducational multiculturalists over the past two decades. The author also examinesgaps in the research literature and identifies possible future research directions.

Bennett, C.I. (2002a). Enhancing ethnic diversity in a Big Ten university : A case study inteacher education. Educational Researcher, 31(2), 21–29.

In this report of a longitudinal case study, the author addresses the issue ofrecruitment and retention of teachers of color in her description of Project TEAMin the undergraduate education program at the University of Indiana. Using acombination of a pre- and postadministration of a questionnaire on ethnicidentity, interracial contact experience, and multicultural competence, as well asperiodic individual interviews, focus groups, and specific school courseassignments over several years of the programs operation, Bennett and hercolleagues saw more than a 50% rise in the recruitment rate of prospectiveteachers of color on her campus, with a 92% graduation rate of those recruited. Inanalysis of the data on student perceptions, four major themes emerged—(1)creating a community on a predominantly White campus, (2) strengtheningethnic identity, (3) working for social justice through multicultural education, and(4) professional development and commitment to teaching. She also describes theprocesses used in initial recruitment of students to the program.

Casey, K. (1993). I answer with my life: Life stories of women teachers working for social change.London, UK: Routledge.

This work contains oral histories of women teachers who have worked forsocial change through their teaching. It uses the life histories of 33 women, fromthree groups: Catholic nuns, who teach in parochial schools and have beeninvolved in the social justice ministry; secular Jewish women, who werepolitically involved in the ‘60s and have taught in inner city schools; and Blackwomen, whose personal, political, and professional lives are dedicated to upliftingother African Americans. Their stories show how they became activists for socialchange and how they perceive their work. Interestingly, the impetus for engagingin social change grew out of early experiences, influential family members, andpolitical activity, not from courses in teacher education. Collectively, these storiesoffer an inspiring, yet down to earth, portrait of dedicated teachers who are doingthe real work of addressing issues of social justice in classrooms and show howthey maintain their commitment despite many hardships and obstacles.

Change. (1992). 24 (February), whole issue.


This issue of Change has a number of articles about multicultural initiatives anddilemmas in higher education. Among other articles is one that reports on asurvey that provides a very helpful overview of what colleges and universities aredoing in response to increased diversity on campus, and on the new scholarshipthat focuses on race, gender, class, and culture. Several articles address issues andprovide guidelines for implementing these changes, particularly in helping facultydevelop skills to teach in a more democratic and collaborative fashion.

Clark, C. & O’Donnell, J. (Eds.) (1999). Becoming and unbecoming white: Owning anddisowning a racial identity. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

This edited volume contains 12 autobiographical stories, in which antiracistactivists describe how they became aware of their White racial privilege andsubsequently struggled to develop ways of becoming authentic antiracists. Thestories are compelling accounts of how Whites grow up isolated from racialconcerns yet immersed in racist views. The writers describe the painful andmoving experiences and relationships that initially set them on paths to questiontheir racial privilege and work for social change. Several point out that thejourney is never over. Even after many years of antiracist work they still struggleto create positive antiracist White identities. The forthright accounts in this bookcan encourage White teachers and teacher education students to scrutinize moreclosely and critically their own lives, positions, and assumptions. The editors,however, do caution the readers that the search for meaningful White identitiesmust not become the center of the multicultural movement or related educationcourses. It should be seen as only one part of the struggle for social justice, andthe focus should continue to be on the experiences and social movements of peopleof color.

Cushner, K. (1999). Human diversity in action: Developing multicultural competencies for theclassroom. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

This wookbook for the preparation of preservice teachers accompanies theCushner, McClelland, and Safford text, Human diversity in education: An integrativeapproach (3rd ed) previously annotated in chapter 3. The workbook referencesactivities suggested at the end of each chapter of that text and illustrates ways forteacher education students to transform theoretical concepts into their practicalimplications for day-to-day teaching.

De Gaetano, Y., Williams, L.R., & Volk, D. (1998). Kaleidoscope: A multicultural approachfor the primary school classroom. Columbus: OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

As noted in the annotation of this work in chapter 3, Kaleidoscope illustrates aprocess for integrating cultural content across developmental domains and subjectareas at each grade level (kindergarten through grade three) by building on thecultural knowledge that all children bring with them to the classroom. Itrepresents both multicultural and social reconstructionist approaches and illustrates thepreparation and planning that teachers need to infuse a multicultural perspectivethrough the totality of their work. Integrated throughout the text are exercises for


teacher preparation, which can be used as part of a preservice or inservicepreparation program.


The authors present an analysis of a course that they developed for preserviceteacher education students that challenges White privilege and requires deepexamination of the biases and attitudes that prospective teachers bring to theclassroom. In addition to describing the course content, these teacher educatorsrelate their work to theory and research that examines racism in America, discussthe strengths and limitations of their approach to antiracist teaching, and suggestways that their course can be adapted to other college or universitycircumstances.

Fitzgerald, A.K., & Lauter, P. (1995). Multiculturalism and the core curricula. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 729–746). New York, NY: Macmillan.

This chapter uses case studies to describe the approaches that colleges anduniversities have used to bring a multicultural perspective to the general educationrequirements for undergraduates. The authors first give an overview of the historyof the general education requirements and core curricula and then identify threeparadigms of incorporating multicultural perspectives into the core curricula.First, using the example of the Heath Anthology of American Literature, they describehow faculty have attempted to expand the cultural base of textbooks and courseswithin specific disciplines. Second, Denison University’s adoption of a singlecourse “diversity requirement” is used to illustrate the motivations and tensionsinvolved in creating and requiring courses that address discrimination andoppression in the United States. Third, using Stanford University’s experience inexpanding the focus of its “Western Cultures” course, the authors discuss howcurricular reform is often imbedded in and shaped by political concerns.

Gay, G. (1977). Curriculum for multicultural teacher education. In F.H.Klassen & D.M.Gollnick, Pluralism and the American teacher (pp. 31–62). Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation of Colleges for Teacher Education.

In this chapter, Gay articulates the three curriculum components ofmulticultural teacher education. The first is the knowledge component, whichincludes the content of cultural pluralism (information about the historical andcontemporary experiences and contributions of diverse groups); the understandingof the philosophy of multicultural education; the awareness and interpretation ofclassroom dynamics, especially in relationship to ethnic differences amongchildren or between children and teachers; and information about ethnicmaterials. Second, the attitudes component embodies realistic views towardcultural diversity, enabling attitudes toward all children from all backgrounds,awareness of one’s own attitudes, and a sense of security about teaching aboutethnic diversity. Third, the skills component includes cross-cultural interactionalskills, the ability to critique and select multicultural curriculum materials, and the


skills to incorporate a wide range of cultures into the curriculum through a varietyof methods and materials.

Gay, G. (1983). Why multicultural education in teacher preparation programs?Contemporary Education, 54, 79–85.

The author argues that a multicultural perspective is essential for all teachers fora variety of legal, social, pedagogical, and psychological reasons. Teachers who areopen to diversity and are knowledgeable about ethnic differences are prepared toteach children from a variety of backgrounds. Gay states that until the early 1980slittle progress had been made on extending the data bases of sociology andpsychology to include ethnicity in a constructive way. She argues that preserviceteachers need to learn more about the wide range of possibilities in humanbehavior and that all teacher education courses must reflect a multiculturalperspective.

Gollnick, D.M. (1992). Multicultural education: Policies and practices in teachereducation. In C.A.Grant (Ed.), Research and multicultural education: From the margins tothe mainstream (pp. 218–239). Washington, DC: Falmer.

The author reviews the history of multicultural education, as well as theNCATE standards developed in the early 1990s. She then reports the (mostlydisappointing) results of a study that looks at the rate of full compliance with theNCATE standards for multicultural education. The study revealed that programsstill had very few faculty and students of color. In spite of the statements in theirmissions about the goals of multicultural education, most institutions showed verylittle evidence of any real change and progress in this area.

Gollnick, D.M., Osayande, K.I. M, & Levy, J. (1980). Multicultural teacher education: Casestudies of thirteen programs, vol. 2. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegesfor Teacher Education.

This series of case studies done in the 1970s describes a range of teacherpreparation programs at institutions ranging from small private colleges to largestate universities. Each account includes a description of the institution; thecomposition of students and faculty; a detailed description of the curricula atundergraduate and, where appropriate, graduate levels; resources available; andfuture directions of the program. The authors summarize the overall strengths andweaknesses of the programs in the final chapter.

Grant, C.A. (1981). Education that is multicultural and teacher preparation: Anexamination from the perspectives of preservice students. Journal of EducationalResearch, 75, 95–101.

In this study, 17 students who had received baseline instruction in multiculturaleducation were interviewed at the end of each of the three remaining semesters intheir teacher education program. Results showed that although the majority ofstudents had received some additional instruction in multicultural education, itscontent was limited to discussions of bias in materials and problems of racism inschools and society. Only a small number of students received any additional


instruction during their practicum, and only four students attempted to applythese concepts in their own teaching. Students appeared to be concerned aboutincreasing their own awareness and applying these principles only if they wereordered or encouraged to do so by school or university personnel. Grant arguesthat an intensive introduction to multicultural education is insufficient, that thisperspective needs to be infused into all levels of teacher preparation, and thatstudents should be placed in classrooms that will expand their understanding ofhuman diversity.

Grant, C.A. (1983). Multicultural teacher education—Renewing the discussion: Aresponse to Martin Haberman. Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 29–32.

In this study, 23 students in an elementary teacher education program werefollowed through their elementary preservice program. They were interviewedbefore and after their student-teaching semesters, and some were observed duringtheir student teaching. Although there was evidence that the students gainedsome multicultural knowledge from their courses, they applied very little of it intheir classrooms during student teaching. The authors attribute this failure to thefact that the courses did not emphasize practical applications enough and to thelack of models of good multicultural teaching in the schools.

Grant, C.A., & Secada, W. (1990). Preparing teachers for diversity. In W.R.Houston,M.Haberman, & J.Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 403–422).New York, NY: Macmillan.

This review focuses on the demographic discontinuity between studentpopulations and the teaching force. Grant and Secada conducted an ERIC searchof all of the multicultural teacher education literature published between 1964 and1988. Out of 1,200 entries, only 23 assessed the effects of multicultural teachereducation initiatives and reforms. They found no studies on the recruitment of adiverse teaching force, 16 studies on preservice training, and 7 on inservicetraining. They also matched the programs that were studied with the approachesdescribed by Sleeter and Grant (1987). Most of the programs fit the multiculturalapproach; only one of them could be considered social reconstructionist. Grantand Secada call for a major research effort and conclude with a list of ninerecommendations related to both subject matter and methodology of futureresearch.

Grieshaber, S. & Cannella, G.S. (Eds.). (2001). Embracing identities in early childhood education:Diversity and possibilities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

This edited work illustrates for both teacher educators and advanced educationstudents the application of critical multicultualism (including postmodern, radicalfeminist, and post-colonial perspectives) in both teacher education settings and inclassrooms for young children. The focus of the work is on the myriadconstructions of identity that affect the ways we teach and learn in our rapidlychanging society. The intention of the work is to enable teachers and teachereducators to reconsider many of the orthodoxies of the early childhood field, andto create new ways of thinking and acting that reflect the actual and constantly


shifting realities and complex consciousness of children today. Drawing from abody of work that has not always been fully accessible to the uninitiated reader,the authors succeed in speaking plainly about the themes that characterize thefield of critical multiculturalism and provide abundant examples throughnarratives and case studies of how this perspective manifests in teaching/learningtransactions.

Hollins, E.R., King, J., Hayman, W.C. (Eds.) (1994). Teaching diverse populations:Formulating a knowledge base. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

This edited volume focuses on preparing teachers to work with culturallydiverse populations. Fitting into the category of teaching the culturally different,this volume provides very specific illustrations of how teachers can effectivelyrelate children’s cultural and experiential backgrounds to their work in school andreasons why this is not the norm in public schools. The final section contains anumber of chapters that describe particular challenges and potentially promisingeducational practices for African American children.

hooks, b. (1993). Transformative pedagogy and multiculturalism. In T.Perry & J.Fraser(Eds.), Freedom’s plow (pp. 91–97). New York, NY: Routledge.

In this essay, hooks reflects on her experiences of becoming a more democraticteacher and more directly addressing issues of race, gender, and class with herstudents. She describes her efforts to work with other faculty members at OberlinCollege to get them to analyze and change their own teaching practices andcontent. Her account embodies an inspiring vision of how liberal arts educationcould become truly “liberatory.” hooks also analyzes the reasons that manyfaculty, even those who are supportive of multiculturalism in general, tenaciouslyresist making these changes themselves.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY:Routledge.

This already classic work explores critical multiculturalism through case studiesof teachers of color. The premise is that persistent inequity in education must beinterrupted through deliberate and consistent attention in enactment of one’s ownteaching practices to changing the structures of institutions that oppress. Thiswork examines teaching as a moral endeavor and documents how individualteachers can make a difference in the prospects for children’s lives. The authormakes clear, however, that individual action alone is not sufficient to surmountthe devastating damage done to whole populations of children within educationalsystems. The tranformation of teacher preparation programs is crucial insupporting the work of those who seek to reconstruct educational institutions.

Irvine, J.J. (Ed.). (1997). Critical knowledge for diverse teachers and learners. Washington, DC:American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

This work is devoted to identifying critical knowledge, skills and experiencesfor teaching culturally diverse learners in work with both preservice teachereducation students and practicing teachers in the field. Among the contributed


chapters are reflections on the preparation and professional development ofteachers from Latino, African American, and Asian Pacific American perspectivesand on the relation of such perspectives to the revision of standards for thepreparation of teachers. A feature of the work is that all chapters draw strongly onthe emerging research in multicultural teacher education to illustrate a changingtide in teacher preparation toward a critical, social reconstructionist consciousness.The tensions arising from the interactions of this stance with more traditionalviews of teacher education are highlighted, and the abundant references at the endof each chapter provide an excellent point of departure for persons wishing toinvestigate social reconstructionist positions.

King, J.E., Hollins, E.R., & Hayman, W.C. (Eds.). (1997). Preparing teachers for culturaldiversity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Focusing on paradigmatic models for preservice multicultural teacher education,this rich edited volume illustrates multiple ways to re-envison the preparation ofteachers. Each chapter draws upon theory and research to identify practicalimplications for tranforming preservice programs. The work is strongly orientedtoward social reconstructionist and social justice perspectives in identification of thedispositions, skills, knowledge, and attitudes that teachers need successfully toteach in culturally and linguistically diverse settings. In addition to delineating aknowledge base, the authors describe the kinds of experiences in both theuniversity classroom and the field to enable beginning teachers to work in aculturally responsive manner. Among the experiences emphasized are creatingcommunities of learners, narrative self-inquiry, and moving from exposure toengagement in field-based activities. The authors also stress the importance oftranforming academic institutions as well as individual teacher preparationprograms, to create environments that nurture and facilitate authenticallymulticultural teacher education.

King, S.H., & Castenell, L.A. (Eds.). (2001). Racism and racial inequality: Implications forteacher education. Washington, DC: American Association for Colleges of TeacherEducation.

The authors of this edited work focus squarely on racism as a major dynamic inpersistent inequities in educational systems and address the implications of thatcircumstance for teacher education programs. Among the topics treated are thepreparation of teachers of color in preservice programs, White resistance to equityin public education, and principles of anti-racist teacher education for bothpreservice and inservice teacher development. The authors use both theoreticalliterature and research reports to frame explicit and practical suggestions fortransformation of teacher education.

Klassen, F.H., & Gollnick, D.M. (Eds.). (1977). Pluralism and the American teacher.Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

This volume includes several essays that have been annotated separately. Thereare also six case studies of multicultural teacher education programs. Five of theprograms are in large public universities, and one is a regional center established


to assist public schools that were going through the desegregation process. Eachdescription includes a history of the program, an account of the clients it serves, adescription of the curricular components, and an assessment of future directions.In some cases, the authors include details about the problems that theyencountered in establishing and maintaining these programs.

Klassen, F.H., Gollnick, D.M., & Osayande, K.I.M. (1980). Multicultural teacher education’.Guidelines for implementation, vol. 4. Washington, DC: American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education.

The authors describe guidelines for the following components of teachereducation programs: governance, preservice curricula, faculty, students, resources,and evaluation. Each guideline is amplified with several questions designed toevaluate the degree to which a multicultural perspective is reflected in these areas,and the extent of its effectiveness. This monograph is designed to assist faculty andadministrators in assessing their current work and in developing goals for morefully implementing a multicultural orientation in their programs. There is onemajor omission in the faculty guidelines: Recruiting and hiring faculty fromdiverse backgrounds is only mentioned in the discussion of part-time faculty, notin that of the regular faculty.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice, andpolicy. In J.A.Banks & C.A.M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multiculturaleducation (pp. 747–759). New York, NY: Macmillan.

In this review chapter, Ladson-Billings discusses multicultural teacher educationin the context of the changes and limitations of teacher education in general. Shecategorizes the articles on multicultural teacher education according to Banks’sfive categories of content integration, knowledge construction, prejudice reduction, equitypedagogy, and empowering school structure. Ladson-Billings points out that morearticles have dealt with content integration (which has not been associated withsubstantive changes in classrooms) than with any of the other categories. Theauthor reviews some of the reforms designed to make teacher education moremulticultural, including writing autobiographies, restructuring field experiences,and using case studies of teachers who are effective with diverse learners.

Luke, A. (1986). Linguistic stereotypes, the divergent speaker and the teaching of literacy.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18, 397–408.

Although this article does not address teacher education per se, it doeshighlight an important issue for teachers that is often misunderstood or neglectedin teacher education programs. The author articulates the need for teachers to avoidjudging children on the basis of linguistic stereotypes. Instead, they shoulddevelop a sensitivity to the culturally specific communication patterns of thechildren they teach and incorporate these into their teaching, using a wholelanguage or language experience approach. Although he emphasizes the need forall children to learn standard English, the author states that this approach willdevelop children’s meta-linguistic awareness of the differences in patterns ofspeech and will facilitate their fluency in both ways of speech.


Lynch, J. (1981). Multicultural education and the training of teachers: A case study. SouthPacific Journal of Teacher Education, 9, 43–54.

In this article, Lynch advocates a permeation approach, rather than an additiveone, in terms of reforming teacher education curriculum to prepare students toteach from a multicultural perspective. He then describes the program at BradfordCollege, Sunderland Polytechnic Institute, England, that aims to train students topractice emancipatory education, rather than compensatory education. In the first2 years, all courses, including social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities, aretaught from a multicultural perspective and stress both the diversity of humanexperience and the common elements of all cultures. In the 3rd year, studentsconduct an in-depth study of school curricula from a multicultural perspective,and, in the final year, they engage in a critical appraisal of educational theories andresearch from a multicultural perspective. This comprehensive programemphasizes the reciprocal nature of learning and advocates “interlearning”between teacher and learner.

Lynch, J. (1986). An initial typology of perspectives on staff development for multiculturalteacher education. In S.Modgil, G.K.Verma, K.Mallick, & C.Modgil (Eds.),Multicultural education: The interminable debate (pp. 149–165). London, UK: Falmer.

In this critique of the state of multicultural teacher education in Britain in themid-1980s, Lynch points out that efforts at reforming teacher education havebeen limited to individual programs and minor curricular changes. He proposes amodel for faculty and staff development that employs both Gay’s components(knowledge, attitudes, and skills) and Bank’s stages of emerging ethnicity. Hestresses the need for teacher education in Britain to move from its predominantlyethnocentric orientation to an institutional and national commitment tomulticultural education.

Mahan, J.M., & Lacefield, W. (1982). Employability and multi-cultural teacherpreparation. Educational Research Quarterly, 7, 15–20.

This account of the development of guidelines for a course in American Indianstudies, which in the early 1980s was required of all new teachers in SouthDakota, articulates some of the dilemmas inherent in training teachers with amulticultural perspective. The author describes the initial tension betweenproviding teachers with information about American Indians that mightcontribute to a change in attitude and a focus on usable classroom skills. Theresulting guidelines emphasize practical applications, but also include content thatfamiliarizes teachers with both the history and the cultural background of specificNative American groups. This course is designed to enable teachers to criticallyevaluate curricula and to work effectively with Native American families.According to the authors, the most important component is the concept ofbicultural education; this emphasizes the incorporation of students’ backgrounds,rather than the deficit orientation of many compensatory education programs.Citing the works of Paulo Freire and Ivan Illich, the guidelines stress the need forteachers to learn how to stimulate learning in the context of reality as their Indianstudents experience it.


Martin, R.J. (Ed.). (1995). Practicing what we teacher: Confronting diversity in teacher education.Albany: State University of New York Press.

This edited work presents the accounts of teacher educators who are workingfrom social reconstructionist perspectives to address the dynamics of race, class, andgender in their university classrooms, while preparing teachers to do the same intheir classrooms in schools. The first part of the work presents alternative“templates” for considering the issues, different ways of conceptualizing theimpact of race, class, and gender on teaching and learning. The second parthighlights the importance of examining and using teacher biographies in thecreation of a tranformational teacher education practice; and the third partpresents spcific accounts of teacher educators’ examinations of their own attemptsto enact multicultural practice at the college and university level. Examples aregiven of both course designs and infusion models, and the descriptions treat workin both the university classroom and field placement settings.

Minister of Supply and Services. (1985). Cross-cultural awareness, education, and training forprofessionals: A manual. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Department of Education.

This manual uses a case study method as the basis for a cultural awarenessworkshop designed for educators and other professionals. By includingphotographs of the participants and transcripts from speeches, it, in itself, is a casestudy of how a series of workshops might be conducted. The seven case studiesinclude situations of failed communication, discrimination, or desire forinstitutional change. They occur in several settings, including a hospital, a union,a school, a police department, and different community organizations. Each casestudy is described in detail and is followed by suggested discussion guidelines.These are designed to help participants recognize common types of problems thatoccur over many situations and the potential impact of individual expectationsand the institutional climate.

Nixon, J. (1985). A teacher’s guide to multicultural education. New York: Basil Blackwell.This book includes a chapter on teacher education that is a critique of the

mid-1980s in England. The author discusses the problems of shifting educationalpolicy, a lack of diversity among educators at all levels, and the cynicism ofteaching faculties. He proposes that course content at both the preservice andinservice levels be designed to induce students to develop both the knowledgeand the commitment to teach from a multicultural perspective.

Olstad, R.G., Foster, C.D., & Wyman, R.M. (1983). Multicultural education forpreservice teachers. Integrated Education, 21, 137–139.

The authors studied the enrollment patterns of 515 teacher education studentswho were required to elect one course from each of the following categories: (1)the broad issues of socioethnic differences, and (2) courses that focus on specificsocioethnic groups. The enrollment patterns suggest that students tend to takecourses about their own ethnic or social group; hence, this course requirement failsto provide a broad multicultural perspective. The authors are especially dismayedat these findings, because many universities are attempting to use this model as a


means of incorporating a multicultural perspective. They suggest as an alternativethat institutions engage in the following process: First, define multiculturaleducation as it is approved by the institution; second, involve representatives ofdiverse communities in the planning and development process; and third,generate and implement a systematic plan for integrating a multiculturalperspective in all teacher education courses.

Paley, V.G. (1979). White teacher. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.This personal account of a White teacher of an ethnically mixed kindergarten

provides many insights into the process of teachers recognizing and dealing withsubtle forms of prejudice. Written in a journalistic style, the book includesnumerous observations of children’s peer interactions and their contacts with theirteacher. Paley’s commentary describes her reactions, perceptions, and changes.This volume might be used effectively to stimulate teacher education students’discussion about their own feelings.

Pattnaik, J. & Vold, E.B. (1998). Expected multicultural education outcomes in teachereducation and the NCATE factor. In E.B.Vold (Ed.) Preparing Teachers for DiverseStudent Populations and for Equity (pp. 97–110). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

This chapter reports on a survey supportive of multicultural teacher educationfrom a social justice perspective. The authors discuss the research on competenciesand expected outcomes of multicultural education in selected teacher educationinstitutions. Within their own sample, they found minimal compliance with thestandards set forth by the National Council for the Accreditation of TeacherEducation (NCATE). In addition, the authors raise the fundamental questions:Do NCATE’s multicultural standards make a difference in the quality ofprograms that prepare teachers for diversity? If institutions of higher education areNCATE-approved and meet the NCATE standards, should there be a degree ofconsistency regarding issues of diversity within and between universities in thecontent knowledge and the critical experiences to develop multiculturalcompetencies and staffing practices? Although the results of the study do not fullyanswer each of the questions, they provide the reader with a stimulus fordiscussion and debate.


This book specifically addresses teachers’ readiness to implement a multiculturalperspective. Suggestions include exercises, questions, and experiences designed tohelp prospective or practicing teachers identify and challenge their own attitudesand learn more about the community and the specific children with whom theywork. Throughout the book, there is an emphasis on teachers’ questioning theirassumptions and critiquing the curriculum from a multicultural perspective.

Robinson, G.L.N. (1985). Crosscultural understanding. New York, NY: Pergamon Instituteof English.


To emphasize the complexity of culture, the author discusses its many visibleand invisible aspects and the multiple and subtle ways in which it influencesperceptions of ourselves and others. One chapter discusses the acquistion ofculture and cultural roles, and two others deal explicitly with forming positiveperceptions of other groups and modifying negative ones. The book concludeswith a discussion of the cognitive and attitudinal aspects of a multiculturalorientation. Throughout this volume, the author integrates psychological theoriesand research with practical applications.

Rodriguez, F. (1983). Mainstreaming a multicultural concept into teacher education: Guidelines forteacher training. Saratoga, CA: R & E.

In this practical guide, the author discusses some of the impediments toincorporating a multicultural orientation into teacher preparation programs, suchas conflicts among faculties and programs, conflicts between teacher educationprograms and local schools, and faculty resistance. He describes specific activitiesto engage faculty in the process of analyzing the current program and setting goalsto increase its multicultural orientation. The book contains several instruments forassessing programs and materials and for defining personal and departmental goals.There is a model workshop designed to facilitate these processes. The volumeconcludes with a comprehensive list of books, libraries, periodicals, andorganizations that are potential resources for teachers and teacher educators.

Saville-Troike, M. (1978). A guide to culture in the classroom. Roslyn, VA: NationalClearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

This classical monograph discusses several aspects of cultural influences onlearning and identity. The author cautions the reader about the prevalence ofunfounded assumptions about members of particular cultures and provides acomprehensive list of questions for educators to use to learn for themselves aboutspecific cultures and individuals who are members of the group. The author alsodiscusses the need for teachers to know sensitive ways of learning about culturaldifferences and teaching children from many groups.

Schoem, D., Frankel, L., Zuniga, X., & Lewis, E.A. (Eds.), (1993). Multicultural teaching inthe university. Westport, CT: Praeger.

This edited volume includes 23 chapters, each of which describes the author’sor authors’ efforts to teach particular courses from a multicultural perspective.Although some of these courses focus explicitly on issues of ethnicity, power, andgender, most of the chapters describe efforts to teach subjects such as biology,law, landscape architecture, mathematics, and so on, from a multiculturalperspective. These accounts are helpful because they provide clear guidelines andexamples of how professors can make real changes in their courses in disciplinesnot necessarily seen as “multicultural.” Most of the chapters are written in anengaging and honest style, with examples of ideas that worked and those that didnot. The chapters also represent a number of different interpretations of“multicultural teaching.” The final two chapters are discussions among the


authors and editors about some of the dilemmas that they have confronted intheir teaching from a multicultural perspective.

Sims, W.E. (1983). Preparing teachers for multicultural classrooms. Momentum, 14, 42–44.In this article, Sims advocates the infusion method of curriculum reform, rather

than the addition of one or two courses, as a means of meeting the originalNCATE requirement. He argues that this approach is both more effective andeconomical and demonstrates how the traditional sequence of teacher preparationcourses could be adapted to incorporate a multicultural perspective. He also listsspecific multicultural teaching competencies.

Sleeter, C.E. (Ed.). (1991). Empowerment through multicultural education. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

In this edited volume, empowering oppressed people is contrasted with thebenevolent and often debilitating efforts to help them. The first section has fourchapters that illustrate how schools disable many students, especially those fromless privileged groups. The chapters in the second section illustrate strategies forempowerment, in its many different aspects. The final section contains twochapters that discuss how empowerment operates or can potentially operate inteacher education.

Sleeter, C.E. (1992). Keepers of the American dream: A study of staff development andmulticultural education. Washington, DC: Falmer.

This ethnographic study of 30 teachers who participated in a 2-yearmulticultural education inservice training program illustrates some of the barriersto becoming multicultural educators. The accounts of the inservice trainingsessions reveal the ways in which teachers, even those who embrace the idea ofmulticulturalism, struggle with overcoming their own backgrounds, professionaltraining, and familiar perspectives to critically consider society and their role in it.The author follows particular teachers throughout the book, which enables thereader to understand their experiences and perspectives more fully. The changesthat do occur in their practice provide a hopeful picture of the effects of inservicetraining on individuals. However, Sleeter’s overall message is that creating trulymulticultural schools will require institutional, as well as individual, changes.

Sleeter, C.E. (1994). White racism. Multicultural Education, 1, 5–8, 39.In this short article, Sleeter describes the many subtle ways in which Whites

ignore racism, while continuing to enjoy the privileges it bestows upon them. Sheanalyzes how the ideology of individualism enables Whites to ignore the reality ofstatus differences between groups and to attribute success and failure to individualeffort. She also describes the phenomenon of White racial bonding, when Whites(often quite subtly and even unconsciously) support each other’s stance on raciallyrelated issues (such as affirmative action). Sleeter advocates that Whites form deeppersonal bonds with White antiracists and people of color.


Sleeter, C.E. (1995). Reflections on my use of multicultural and critical pedagogy whenstudents are White. In C.E.Sleeter & P.L.McLaren (Eds.), Multicultural education andcritical pedagogy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

This account of using multicultural and critical pedagogy with White studentsoffers a number of concrete suggestions about readings, assignments, and in-classexperiences to make students more critically aware of their social context andtheir privilege. Sleeter points out that even when students appear to change theirattitudes and their positions relative to others in the society, they often revert backto their assumptions when their self-interest is involved.

Villegas, A.M. (1997). Assessing teacher performance in a diverse society. In A.L. Goodwin(Ed.), Assessment for equity and inclusion: Embracing all our children (pp. 261–278). NewYork, NY: Routledge.

The author describes the development by the Educational Testing Service(ETS) of Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessments, one part of the PraxisSeries: Professional Assessments for Beginning Teachers, which was developedlargely for use by state or agency personnel in the licensing of teachers, but can beused as well in the preparation of preservice teachers. A process designed to assessteacher performance through classroom observation and both pre- andpostobservation conferences (semistructured interviews with the teacher), PraxisIII consciously reflects a vision of teaching as encompassing four critical elements:(1) openness toward diversity and belief that all children can learn; (2) awarenessthat teaching and learning occur in a sociocultural context and subsequent choiceof instructional procedures that recognizes that context; (3) use of topics andexamples from children’s daily lives within their families and communities toteach new content, drawing on children’s previous knowledge; and (4) using all ofthe previous information in planning, implementing, and evaluating instruction.To guard against the external threat to validity posed by this high inference system,ETS has instituted a rigorous 5-day training program, followed by completion ofat least one full assessment cycle in an actual classroom before a candidate can becertified as an assessor.

Williams, L.R., De Gaetano, Y., Harrington, C.C., & Sutherland, I.R. (1985). ALERTA:A multicultural, bilingual approach to teaching young children. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

The ALERTA curriculum is implemented though nine levels of activityundertaken by teachers to work with young children in a culturally responsivemanner. The keystone of the program is the first level, in which teachers developpartnerships with parents and other teachers by sharing specific aspects of theircultural backgrounds, recognizing each other’s contributions to a total teachingteam, and developing skills in a constructivist approach to teaching and learning.The book contains one chapter devoted to a variety of staff and parentdevelopment activities and also threads teacher preparation activities throughoutthe remaining chapters to illustrate the implementation of the program. Theprocess is geared to early childhood teachers who work at the inservice level of


preparation, but could also be used by teacher educators who supervise preserviceteacher preparation.

Williams, L.R., & Ryan, S. (2000). Hearts and minds: Addressing multiculturalism in aninservice M.A. program requiring mutual development of teachers and teachereducators. In E.B.Vold (Ed.), Preparing Teachers for Diverse Student Populations and forEquity. (pp. 230–272). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

In a field in which specific preparation of beginning teachers to work withindiverse educational contexts is still in its early stages, programs of preparation incolleges or universities of inservice teachers to accommodate diversity amongstudents in their classrooms are even less well developed. Focusing on the needfor such preparation of experienced teachers, this account of one inservice MAprogram for early childhood teachers at a university examines the kinds ofknowledge that inservice teachers bring with them to their advanced preparationsand explores ways to build on that knowledge to engage teachers in thedemanding work of culturally responsive teaching. The premise is that byconnecting affective responses to issues of cultural awareness and social justicewith the building of new professional knowledge and skills, teacher repertoirescan be effectively expanded. Included are summaries of three case studies ofteachers who were observed at work in their own classrooms from 9 months to ayear after graduation from the MA program and subsequently interviewed toassess what aspects of the MA program had been effective in promoting amulticultural approach to teaching and learning.

York, S. (1992). Developing roots and wings: A trainer’s guide to affirming culture in earlychildhood classrooms. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf.

This is the companion volume to Roots and wings: Affirming culture in earlychildhood programs previously annotated in chapter 3. Intended for personsimplementing inservice teacher development with a multicultural orientation, themanual provides both rationales and full descriptions of activities for teacherworkshops focusing on multicultural practice with young children. Manydifferent kinds of activities are presented, including icebreakers to warm upgroups, exercises to clarify major issues, and the planning and implementation of acurriculum for children that embodies the principles of cultural affirmation. Thetext also provides workship plans and examples of handouts to facilitate the variousteacher development activities.

Zeichner, K. (1993). Educating teachers for cultural diversity (special report). East Lansing,MI: Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

This comprehensive report focuses on training White, monolingual teachers toteach children with whom they do not share a similar background. The authorreviews the problem of the growing disparity between teachers and their studentsand the knowledge and skills that teachers need to work successfully with diversestudents. He then describes different models and strategies of preparing teachersand concludes that teachers need to learn how to study the children whom theyteach, rather than learn specific information about cultural groups that may or


may not be relevant to their particular children. He also emphasizes thatmulticultural teacher education is a lifelong process and that we need to take alonger view of teacher education and identify what kinds of experiences are mostuseful at different career stages. At the end of this paper, the author states that wedo not fully understand what occurs in multicultural teacher education and itslong-term effects. The report includes a list of “Key Elements in EffectiveTeaching for Ethnic and Language Minority Students” and “Key Elements ofEffective Teacher Education for Diversity.” The author, however, does cautionthe reader that these guidelines, though supported by some research, are notsupported by extensive data.


5Trends, Obstacles, and Future

Possibilities of Multicultural Education

The quantity and range of multicultural educational materials have grownexponentially during the last 3 decades. When the first edition of this textappeared in 1989, the authors noted that the number of multicultural educationalresources published in the 1980s had doubled in the last decade. In theintervening 12 years, the number has tripled or even quadrupled. Informalsurveys of professional conferences on educational research and practice reveal asimilar surge of interest in the topic of multicultural issues. Many state curriculumguidelines and teacher certification requirements include multicultural standards.Likewise, national organizations such as the National Council for Accreditation ofTeacher Education (NCATE) and the National Association for the Education ofYoung Children (NAEYC) include multicultural items in their accreditationstandards. Clearly, forces in our national experience are bringing multiculturalismto the fore, even as other pressures seek to diminish its impact.

This volume has sought to capture the major historical and current trends ofthe multicultural educational movement and, in doing so, to enable teachers andteacher educators to knowledgeably access a wide variety of resources relevant totheir work. Seeing the “past as prologue” to the future (Shakespeare, TheTempest), we began by describing the antecedents and origins of the field, thenmoved to analyzing its present, increasingly complex manifestations. In this finalchapter, we summarize these trends, make some tentative predictions, andconclude with a vision of how a community and a school could create amulticultural environment geared to advancing a more equitable and socially justworld for all people.

ROOTED IN THE SOIL OF CONTROVERSY

Multicultural education rose out of times of crisis and conflict in the UnitedStates and other Western societies. For 3 decades it has been a force for changeand has itself evolved and expanded in many directions. Its primary goals,however, have remained constant: to design systems of education that areculturally relevant and are inclusive, rather than exclusive; to ensure that allstudents leave school possessing the skills for social, academic, political, andeconomic success; to teach students to relate respectfully to others, perceiving and

appreciating both differences and commonalities; and to recognize, investigate,and actively challenge injustices.

Multicultural education by its very nature is responsive to events, movements,and demographic shifts and so has changed greatly over the past 30 years. Forexample, within hours after the attacks on the World Trade Center and thePentagon on September 11, 2001, multicultural e-mail lists and websites werefilled with suggestions and resources for teachers to help children cope with theemotional aspects of the crisis, to present their students with a range of worldperspectives on the causes of the attacks, and to counteract the thirst for revengeand rise in anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments that engulfed the countryfollowing the attacks.

The scope of multicultural education has broadened as new immigrants havearrived, as particular groups have experienced increasingly intense economic orsocial pressures (e.g., Arab and Muslim communities after the attacks in 2001) orhave become more aware of their marginal status, and as events have drawnattention to particular injustices. Global changes, such as the consolidation ofwealth in fewer hands, increased exploitation of underpaid workers in poorcountries, widespread environmental degradation, and massive migrations ofpeople displaced through war, famine, and poverty, have also expanded thecontext for thinking about social justice and diversity. At the local level, nationaleconomic and political movements, such as deregulation and welfare “reform,”often have an immediate impact on children’s lives (e.g., plant closures,homelessness), making issues of social and economic justice an inescapable part ofthe curriculum and classroom life (whether teachers acknowledge them or not). Asnew issues arise, the priorities and strategies of multicultural education shift andexpand, yet the underlying goals remain constant.

The breadth and fluidity of the movement have raised some concerns about thepotential diffusion of its identity and constituency. Some groups may feel thattheir priorities and perspectives will be lost in the vast array of issues that are onthe multicultural table. Teachers and administrators may conclude thatmulticultural education is too amorphous and all encompassing to learn about, letalone implement and evaluate.

On the positive side, however, expansiveness and openness mean that anyonewho is willing can find an entry point. People might enter the conversation becausethey are frustrated by their poor economic prospects compared to others who aremore racially privileged; they are tired of being teased for being “nerds;” they seethe pain and exclusion of their family members who are disabled; they areangered by watching their children torn between the cultures and languages ofschool and home; they are outraged that hazardous waste plants are being locatedin their working-class communities instead of at more appropriate sites in nearbyaffluent towns. Once engaged in the conversation of multiculturalism, thenpeople can see beyond their particular issues and find connections with those thatmay at first seem distant to their own.

The entry of new voices into the multicultural conversation has connectedmany people and movements, but it has also generated controversy within the


movement. For example, challenging homophobia is hard for multiculturalistswho belong to religions that denounce homosexuality. People who have suffereddiscrimination in the United States for many generations may have difficultyfighting for the rights of newly arrived immigrants. Equal rights for women mayconflict with traditional cultural values that some ethnic groups want to maintain.Although these tensions can be perceived as threatening to the solidarity of themovement, they in fact create the conditions for its continued growth.Multicultural education at its best creates a space for expressing conflicts; forexploring how different oppressions are distinct, yet connected; and forcollaborating to resist injustice in its infinite manifestations.

We should not be surprised that multicultural education, given its turbulentroots, has continued to be the focus of controversy from the outside as well. Inthe 1970s critics claimed that pluralism contained the seeds of separatism,aggravating problems for societies that were already characterized by racialfragmentation (Serow, 1983). These arguments were echoed in the 1990s byconservative critics (e.g., Ravitch, 1990a, 1990b; Schlesinger, 1992) and politicalmovements such as the successful referenda in California to deny rights toimmigrants and to curtail bilingual education.

Early critics also dismissed multiculturalism as naive in its assumption that a singleeducational movement might change a society steeped in assimilationism andinequity. Writing in 1983, Serow noted that racism in the United States was sowell entrenched that it was beyond the reach of the limited goals of multiculturaleducation. He even suggested that multicultural education might cause harm:

Since American society is unlikely to have changed substantially by the timethe alumni of today’s ethnic studies courses graduate, it seems pointless,even cruel to some observers to provide children with skills andorientations for a pluralistic society that does not and will not exist. Thus,multicultural education is…seen as distracting from the real needs ofminority students. (p. 102.)

Two decades later these criticisms still echo in conservative commentaries thatderide multicultural education as useless glorification of ethnic groups, and devoidof any rigorous academic work. Current writers on the left also echo these earliercritiques with their dismissals of multicultural education as an ineffectualdistraction that masks the deeper structural inequities of our society.

Despite these ambiguities and controversies, the multicultural movement hasprofoundly influenced our views of children and their families, the design andimplementation of curricula, and priorities and strategies for teacher education.The controversies, although difficult at times, are an essential part of multiculturaleducation. They force theorists, researchers, and practitioners at all levels tocritique their assumptions and practices and to become advocates and activists inthe transformation of educational, economic, and political institutions.

TRENDS, OBSTACLES, AND FUTURE POSSIBILITIES OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 267

EVOLVING VIEWS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

Multicultural education and complementary movements in developmentalpsychology have exposed many biases in traditional child development theory andresearch. These new perspectives have given rise to new theoretical and researchparadigms that look more closely at the contexts of human development andlearning and have forced a critical reexamination of assumptions about universaldevelopmental norms and priorities. As discussed in chapter 2, researchers,theorists, and teachers are beginning to see developmental variations as differencesthat reflect children’s experiences in their particular cultural, social, and economicmilieu, instead of as deficits, as has been the case in the past.

To teach from a multicultural perspective, teachers must see children withintheir contexts—that is, the collective experiences that children bring with them toschool and subsequently use to interpret what they are taught. Where childrenhave been raised; the objects, events, and people that have shaped their lives; andthe values and beliefs that they have absorbed constitute powerful frames ofreference. Whether or not children learn and value what is taught in schooldepends on how well the new information or skills relate to their previousunderstanding of their world and their perception of their future. Where little orno relationship exists, academic content and skills may be rejected as irrelevant.Recognizing the possible impact of children’s backgrounds requires that teachersand researchers be conscious of how the racial, cultural, economic, gender, andability divisions in our society potentially affect the lives of children. At the sametime, they need to view these general patterns cautiously and critically in order toavoid erroneous assumptions about individuals and particular communities. Asresearchers and teachers learn more about the effects of discrimination andeconomic inequities, they can use this information to advocate for equalizing thedistribution of resources and ending discriminatory practices.

Another aspect of children’s development that is relevant to multiculturaleducation is how children’s ideas and attitudes about differences evolve and whatpsychological and environmental factors affect them. The review in chapter 2illustrates how children learn about the assumptions, contradictions, andinequities that characterize our views about diversity. From a young age theyreadily notice physical differences and absorb stereotypes. They are often confusedby the discrepancies between their own experiences and prevailing attitudes. Asthey get older, children develop abilities to understand the perspectives of othersand to see individual differences that potentially counteract stereotyping.However, as they struggle to form their own identities and worldviews, manychildren become enmeshed in peer and popular cultures that may affirm in-groupsolidarity by claiming superiority and excluding outsiders. In a similar vein,research on children’s understanding and attitudes toward social class differencesreveals that, as they get older, many children in the United States shift fromcriticizing the unequal distribution of resources to accepting the status quo andblaming poor people for their deprivation.

To resist the lure of stereotyping and the acceptance of the status quo, childrenneed to become flexible and expansive thinkers who can see multiple points of


view, question and critique their own and others’ assumptions, and look beyondwhat is to what could be. All children construct their own worldviews as theymake sense of what they see, hear, and experience. To create meaningfulexperiences, teachers need to listen to and observe children carefully and developa deep understanding of what children know, think, and feel about these issues.

To promote a deeper understanding of this development, teachers andresearchers are beginning to collaborate to study the nuances of children’sdeveloping ideas and feelings about race, culture, social class, gender, sexualorientation, abilities and disabilities, and justice and power. With increasedinvolvement of children in social activism, we will also have a chance to learnwhat experiences influence children to become activists and how theirinvolvement changes as they get older. As collaborative research efforts gainmomentum, they will provide more refined and profound knowledge of howchildren process information and experiences. These insights in turn will facilitatethe design of more effective multicultural curriculum and teaching practices andprovide data for evaluating them.

TRENDS IN MULTICULTURAL EDUCATIONALCURRICULUM AND TEACHING

Currently, there is a tremendous amount of activity in the field of multiculturaleducation, with numerous books, articles, and websites about multiculturaleducation being produced each year. These materials cover the expanding rangeof concerns discussed in chapter 1 and express the several different goals andphilosophical orientations described in chapter 3.

In the early years of multicultural education, curriculum designers frequentlycreated materials that sought to maximize individual potential by makingmaterials more familiar to the children, following the approach of teaching theculturally and linguistically different (Sleeter & Grant, 1999). They also focusedon promoting intergroup and interpersonal relationships congruent with thehuman relations approach (Sleeter & Grant, 1999). The intended outcomes,ranging from improvement of academic performance to symbolic and functionalacceptance of diversity, assumed that changes in the attitudes and behavior ofindividuals would ultimately lead to broadly based social change. Yet as we havelearned from the last 3 decades of the multicultural education movement,individual efforts and changes have little impact in the absence of long-terminstitutional reforms.

As a result, recent multicultural curricula and programs have been moretransformative in their approach. They have sought to profoundly affect andreorient schools’ and teachers’ and children’s ideas and attitudes about theirworld. Many current authors write from a social reconstructionist position andinclude activities that draw children’s attention to inequities, rather than simplypromote appreciation of differences. Increasingly, multicultural educationalmaterials and resources include the content, values, and skills needed forindividuals and groups to participate in social change.


Another trend has been a move away from specific activity-based programs(sometimes referred to as the “cookbook” approach) to guidelines to helpteachers rethink and redesign all their curriculum themes and teaching practices,in order to weave in multicultural goals and perspectives throughout their work.The premise is that children of all ages can consider issues of diversity and equityin their day-to-day experiences, from developing an equitable way to decide whoshould be first in line for a kindergarten outing to challenging a middle school’stracking policies. With appropriate and meaningful materials and experiences,children at all developmental levels can learn to recognize and respect differentexperiences and perspectives and to keep them in mind in order to make moreinformed and fair decisions and to become advocates and allies to challengeassumptions, images, and policies that are biased and unfair.

A potent force in the evolution of multicultural programs and curricularresources for teachers in recent years has been the Internet. Providing rapid accessto information, it also has the potential in its informational capacity foroverlooking or minimizing the deep-seated processes required for more thansuperficial changes to curriculum. Authenticity and veracity of material onwebsites cannot be assumed. Children and teachers need to bring their criticalperspectives to their work with the Internet, just as they do with other media.

The proliferation of multicultural programs and resources is exciting andcreates the potential for authentic change. However, no program, curriculum,website, or teaching strategy will be ultimately successful unless attention is paidto the preparation of those persons responsible for using it. The real key tochange may lie in teacher education.

CHALLENGES IN THE DESIGN ANDIMPLEMENTATION OF MULTICULTURAL

TEACHER EDUCATION

Multicultural approaches to teacher education have evolved in ways that aresimilar to the curricular changes in multicultural programs for children. The earliestchanges in teacher education emphasized developing skills in interculturalcommunication, learning about different populations, and adapting the curriculumto meet their needs, all of which reflect the human relations and educating theexceptional and the culturally different approaches (Sleeter & Grant, 1999). Morerecent reforms have encouraged teachers and prospective teachers to reflect ontheir lives and to acknowledge and challenge their racial and economic positionsand privileges. The recent scholarship on the critical examination of Whitenesshas been an outgrowth of this work and has also provided insights to help Whiteteachers recognize their assumptions and reexamine their practices. This emphasison reflection has pushed many teachers and teacher educators from allbackgrounds to confront the dynamics of racial privilege and power (Howard,1999; McIntosh, 1995; Tatum, 1992) and to learn skills in conflict managementand advocacy (Andrzejewski, 1995; Fennimore, 2000).


Although many multicultural theorists have advocated making these criticalreflections an integral part of teacher preparation at all levels, implementation hasbeen slow. Teacher education differs from school curricular reform because it isregulated. Changes must be codified in statewide teacher certificationrequirements that are, in turn, influenced by national educational priorities.Because reforms at both the national and the state levels often lag far behind thethinking in the field, implementation of multicultural teacher education moves ata glacial pace.

Multicultural teacher education must also be seen in the context of shifts inteacher education in general. Efforts to incorporate a multicultural approach havereflected concurrent teacher education reforms. For example, some of the earliestmulticultural teacher education programs used the competency-based paradigmthat was in vogue in teacher preparation in the 1970s. More recent work in bothteacher education in general and multicultural teacher education in particular hasfocused on the concept of the reflective practitioner (De Gaetano, Williams, &Volk, 1998; Farber, 1995; Schon, 1983, 1987; Williams, 1996), the teacher asresearcher (Ballenger, 1999; Gallas, 1998; Martin, 1995), and teaching as caring(Pang, 2001). In addition, in multicultural teacher education, the impact andimplications of one’s own autobiography for pedagogy (particularly the issuespertaining to Whiteness in the United States) are strongly influencing (Montecinos,1995; Sleeter, 1995) the directions of the field. The present strong push towardoutcomes-based education in general teacher education (Cochran-Smith, 2000),in some ways reminiscent of the earlier competency-based approach, is nowbeginning to be felt in multicultural teacher education and may eventuallycounteract some of the promising movements.

Because of its comprehensive nature, implementing multicultural teachereducation requires a profound reform of all aspects of teacher preparation programs.One obstacle is that most teacher education programs are located in universitiesthat are also heavily regulated and resistant to change. Tenured faculty anddepartmental structures often impede efforts to create cross-disciplinary approachesto teaching from a multicultural perspective in both the liberal arts and in schoolsof education. Yet there have been substantial movements toward infusingmulticultural perspectives into the liberal arts (Muffoletto, 1995), as well as inundergraduate and graduate courses in education itself (Martin, 1995). Theseefforts require the involvement of other departments, the institution as a whole,and the community. Curriculum reform affects not only education courses, butcourses in all departments, especially those that provide foundation courses foreducation students (Mitchell, 1999). The recently revised NCATE standardsmandate that teacher preparation programs have course work, field placements,supervision, and mentoring all geared toward multicultural and inclusiveeducational practice (NCATE, 2000). These changes may force universities toovercome their inertia and take creative steps to provide truly multiculturalteacher education.

Another obvious factor in any educational reform is the faculty. Many schoolsof education have a disproportionate number of faculty from older generations,


especially at the higher ranks, who did not learn to teach and think from amulticultural perspective when they were undergraduate and graduate students(Goodwin, 1997). One can surmise that the limited multicultural preparation ofsuch faculty in turn curtails the range of courses and the representation ofperspectives that they can offer. To ameliorate this problem, serious recruitmentefforts should be employed to increase the numbers of faculty of color. Forexample, persons of color who have recently completed doctorates and who areinterested in teacher education, research, and policy might be encouraged andmentored into the profession through postdoctoral opportunities in college anduniversity schools of education (Affirmative Action Committee Initiative,Teachers College, Columbia University, 1997). Finally, new faculty, regardless ofracial, ethnic, or cultural background, should be selected for their commitment tomulticultural education (Goodwin, 1997).

The recruitment and retention of potential teachers and students of educationfrom diverse backgrounds are particular priorities for several reasons. First, it isincumbent upon institutions to practice educational equity in all of their policiesregarding admission. Second, we must prepare significant numbers of teachersfrom diverse backgrounds so that the schools will have staffs that reflect theincreasingly diverse student population. Third, the presence of participants fromdiverse backgrounds and with different points of view creates a more genuinelymulticultural learning environment for all students in teacher education programs.

However, all these efforts to recruit, prepare, and retain teachers who arecommitted to multicultural education and who represent diverse backgrounds arebeing undermined by the poor salaries, low status, and terrible workingconditions that define many teachers’ lives. As teachers’ salaries fall further andfurther behind, the task of attracting and keeping excellent teachers in classroomsbecomes more daunting. Schools of education should support teachers’ unionsand pressure local and national legislators to raise teachers’ salaries and professionalstatus and to improve the physical and emotional working conditions in schools.

FUTURE RESEARCH IN MULTICULTURALEDUCATION

One of the thorniest issues that we discussed in the first edition and that hasremained is the difficulty in measuring the implementation and impact ofmulticultural education. The breadth and fluidity of the transformations that itrequires defy the usual linear empirical model of pre- and posttesting. Moreover,the phenomena under consideration are interactive and can be studied only inrelation to the settings in which they appear. Unfortunately, most educationalresearch designs have historically ignored context in favor of the experimentalmodels, in order to get “clean” results. To assess both substantively andmeaningfully the implementation and effects of multicultural education,researchers need to use a combination of rigorously applied qualitative andquantitative methods. New qualitative research methodologies that involve in-depth studies (e.g., ethnographies, case studies, teacher portraiture done from the


perspective of the outsider looking in, and teacher narratives done from theperspective of the insider looking out) offer some promising directions for futureresearch.

To get a full picture of the effects and future possibilities of multiculturaleducation, researchers and practitioners from a range of disciplines and researchorientations need to collaborate in multifaceted investigations. For example, aproject examining the effects of implementing multicultural education in a schoolcould include studies of changes in organizational structures; administrative roles;classroom curricula; teachers’ attitudes and practices; teachers’ relationships withcolleagues and families; and children’s ideas, attitudes, friendship patterns, andsocial behaviors. To address these questions, this investigation would involveresearchers from several fields of education, psychology, and sociology. Researchprojects with this kind of interdisciplinary scope are rare, but they are sorelyneeded to further our understanding of the complexities of change and to developmore effective interventions.

The research possibilities are exciting yet daunting. It is hoped that in the nextfew years researchers, teachers, and students will combine forces and generate someexcellent studies. Some of the many questions about multicultural education thatneed to be addressed include the following:

1. We know a great deal about what school structures, teaching philosophies,practices, and curricula are most conducive to different students’ academicsuccess. However, this knowledge is rarely implemented. How do weencourage policy makers, administrators, and teachers to make acommitment to educational equity and to use the data that currently exist tobuild on children’s backgrounds and future goals in order to create truelearning environments? and to ensure that all students leave school possessingthe skills for social, academic, political, and economic success?

2. What individual actions and environmental conditions influence thedevelopment of children’s ideas, attitudes, and identities? How do theseinteractions change as children develop their cognitive, linguistic, affective,and social capacities and skills?

3. What are the short-term and long-term effects of particular multiculturalcurricula on children’s ideas and attitudes about social and economicdivisions and inequities and their ability and willingness to challengeoppressive practices? In particular, what learning materials and teachingstrategies most effectively promote the following orientations andcapabilities?

a. Positive racial, ethnic, social class, gender, sexual orientation, and ability/disability identities;

b. Ability to recognize and challenge stereotypes;c. Respect for those who are different from themselves along any dimension;


d. Multiple communication strategies that can facilitate cross-groupcommunication;

e. Conflict-resolution skills;f. Critical analysis of inequities and the status quo; andg. Activism in local and global efforts to eradicate discrimination and

inequities.

4. What are the short-term and long-term effects of multicultural teachereducation on preservice and inservice teachers’ attitudes and practice? Inparticular, what kinds of courses, readings, learning materials, mentoring, andfield experiences most effectively promote the following capabilities andbehaviors of teachers?

a. Openness and flexibility in response to children and families dissimilar toteachers by race, ethnicity, social class, gender, sexual orientation, andability;

b. Willingness to learn new information and to take risks;c. Motivation, knowledge base, and skills to create multicultural classrooms;d. Abilities and willingness to truly collaborate with colleagues, families, and

community people;e. Commitment to social justice and participation in movements for social

change; andf. Skills to advocate for social justice at local and national levels.

5. What experiences help teachers develop a multicultural orientation in boththeir professional and personal lives? How do they become activists andadvocates for social change? What experiences inspire and energize them?Which ones make them give up and retreat?

6. How can organizations change to be truly multicultural? What kinds ofleadership are needed? What experiences help or hinder institutionsbecoming progressive and activist communities? How do educationalinstitutions develop authentic collaborative partnerships with families andcommunities? Most important, how do individuals, institutions, and policymakers develop the commitment and the will to be truly multicultural?

Many other questions also are on the table. If multicultural programs, curricula,teaching strategies, and concomitant programs of teacher education are to becomemore effective and to gain political strength, this kind of research is a top priority.Federal and philanthropic monies should be sought for scholarly investigation ofprogram effects that uses contextually sensitive and relevant methods. To facilitatethe growth of multicultural education and to broaden the base of popularsupport, multiculturalists need to investigate the complexities of implementingmulticultural education and how teachers and children use it to change anddevelop.


OBSTACLES AND POSSIBILITIES FORMULTICULTURAL EDUCATION

As with all educational endeavors, the implementation and impact ofmulticultural education are influenced by the prevailing, yet ever-shifting, socialvalues, economic pressures, and political tides. In this section we will show howsome of these forces affect child rearing, schooling, and teacher education andhow they potentially undermine or support the implementation and impact ofmulticultural education.

The Influence of the Media

Children today are growing up in a media-saturated world, in which theycommonly spend hours each day (current studies indicate 3–4 hours/day)watching television and videos, playing video and computer games, and surfingwebsites (Comstock & Scharrer, 2001). Unfortunately, much of what children areseeing is contradictory to the goals of multicultural education. Many popularprograms and games contain racist, sexist, and homophobic images and glorifyforce and violence, reinforcing the notion that these are the only means to resolveconflicts (Levin, 1998). Children are learning to evaluate themselves and otherswith narrow criteria that reflect the current fad or star. Children are alsoinundated with messages that promote competitive consumerism and teach themthat inequality is fine, as long as you come out on top and are the first to get thenewest TV-related toy or item of clothing (Kline, 1993). A number of programs,including dramas, comedies, and talk shows, rely on humiliating others andpointless aggression to raise their ratings.

Of course, not all children react to these programs in the same way, nor dothey all mindlessly absorb these values (Cortes, 2000). However, teachers andfamily members frequently describe how these influences create resistance to thegoals and principles of multicultural education. Efforts to engage children incritiques of stereotypes pale in comparison to highly entertaining and technicallysophisticated shows that validate and reinforce stereotyped images. Respectingand appreciating differences seem absurd to children who are desperately trying tolook just like the current music or movie idol and delighting in programs inwhich characters routinely humiliate each other. When teachers try to encouragechildren to think about other points of view and to practice conflict resolutionskills, they need to contend with children’s fascination with weaponry andwrestlers. Challenging economic disparities may seem irrelevant to children whoare fascinated by all the products available on the Internet and worried that theirpeers will get the latest video game or hot clothing item before they do.

Teachers can potentially turn these negative influences into opportunities tocritique the images and messages on the media. Media literacy programs oftenengage children in activities that analyze shows for patterns that reinforcestereotypes, identify misleading commercial messages, and examine howcharacters resolve conflicts (Brown, 2001). Because the messages and values ofmany shows are so blatant, even young children can see and critique their intent.


Also, family members, teachers, and children can gain experience in social actionby writing letters to producers and organizing boycotts of sponsors of particularlybad pro grams (Levin, 1998). It is important that teachers and family members donot simply engage in wholesale bashing of the media, as children will resentcriticisms of their favorite shows and stop paying attention to adults. However,they can learn to be careful and critical viewers and, ideally, generate their owncriticisms.

The media also have enormous positive potential to expose children to people,ideas, places, and injustices that they would not know about if they did not viewthem on the Internet or television. In the coming years, multicultural curriculawill probably include a lot of media in all its forms, to broaden children’s criticalawareness of the world and to engage them in social change. Teachers and familymembers can use videos, movies, quality television programs, and websites toinitiate discussions with children on many multicultural topics. Moreover, themedia offer many ways of exploring and expressing ideas about issues. Makingvideos and websites about local, national, and international injustices andprogressive movements may become standard fare in multicultural education.

The Internet may prove to be especially powerful in the future. It already is avehicle for conversations and sharing of ideas and resources among peopleinterested in multicultural education and other social justice movements (e.g.,Brown, Cummins, Figueroa, & Sayers, 1998; Gorski, 2001). Teachers can getsupport and ideas from colleagues all over the world, and students cancommunicate directly with peers from all around this country and the world andfrom many different life circumstances. In this capacity the Internet maypotentially dissolve, or at least blur, boundaries and challenge students’ stereotypesabout people different from them in some way—be it language, culture,nationality, race, social class, gender, sexual orientation, or abilities/disabilities. Itcan be a democratizing influence because students can communicate with eachother without limitations posed by adults. Progressive groups have also used theInternet to quickly inform large numbers of individuals and groups about localand national issues and to galvanize support for progressive initiatives or resistanceto discriminatory and oppressive policies and practices. Children and teachershave been able to learn about and participate in local and international struggles.

The potential of the Internet, however, is not all positive. It is proving to be aneffective organizing tool for hate groups and other conservative forces that oftenmount strong opposition against multicultural education and other progressivemovements. It also provides endless entertainment and escapism and may distractstudents from looking at the world in more realistic and critical ways. Forexample, the commercialization of the Internet has enabled some students to bothearn money (trading stocks, swapping resources and products) and spend it on anenormous array of products without ever leaving their homes. Aside fromfostering children’s passion for consumption, these “faceless” transactions may alsoerode children’s sense of community and social responsibility. Finally, the cost ofcomputers and their lack of availability in some schools and public libraries havemeant that not all children and families have equal access to the Internet (sometimes


referred to as the “World White Web.”) This digital divide may exacerbate thegap and mutual isolation that already exists between affluent and poor families.

Economic Polarization

As described at length in chapter 2, another challenge facing children and familiesis the growing disparity between rich and poor, both globally and within theborders of the United States. Some children are growing up with virtuallylimitless resources to purchase whatever they want and may be “consumed byconsuming,” spending a great deal of time and thought on acquiring new items.On the other side, children growing up in impoverished and dangerouscircumstances may be so preoccupied with merely surviving that they cannotengage in school at any level, let alone tackle the complexities of diversity andsocial activism.

It is hard to see any positive influences that this growing economic polaritymight have on multicultural education. However, as these inequities havebecome more pronounced since the 1980s, many critics have raised their voicesand concern has broadened. As discussed in chapter 3, children in some schoolsare studying the problems of hunger, homelessness, and unequal use of resourcesin the world (e.g., Berman & LaFarge, 1993; Kids can make a difference). As theimpact of these inequities becomes more unbearable and inescapable, resistancemovements will grow. Multicultural education potentially is a vehicle to teachstudents how to investigate and challenge the many manifestations of economicpolarization.

Accountability and “High Stakes” Testing

The new wave of accountability and high-stakes testing (tests that determinegraduation from high school, school funding, and teachers’ job security) willinevitably affect the goals and implementation of multicultural education. On thepositive side, the tests and publicity surrounding failure rates are forcing teachersand administrators to pay attention to students who otherwise might “slip by”without mastering the curriculum. In this way, accountability potentially servesthe goal of ensuring that all children leave school possessing the skills for social,academic, political, and economic success.

However, at this point the accountability movement threatens to have achilling effect on a number of multicultural initiatives. Several telling examplescome from Texas, where the TAAS (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills) hasbeen in place since 1985 and has been the model that many states have followed.First, in order for skills to be “testable” for large numbers of students, they have tobe narrowly defined, simplistic, specific, and linear (e.g., memorizing historicaldates, instead of comparing different interpretations of a historical event) (Brady,2000). This focus is diametrically opposed to the multicultural goal of learninghow to critically analyze the complexities and ambiguities of the world. Second,the pressure on schools to perform well on these tests has given rise to mandates


to “teach to the test” and to use published test preparation courses that arereplacing the curriculum in some schools. This “noncurriculum” (McNeil, 2000,p. 730) takes all decision making about the curriculum out of the hands ofteachers and even principals and superintendents and puts it into the hands ofcompanies that design tests and test prep packages, often with very little or noinput from teachers. Thus, the opportunities to create curricula that are relevantto students’ lives, raise meaningful questions, and stimulate critical thinking areforeclosed.

Third, the tests exaggerate the educational inequities that already exist(McNeil, 2000). Because schools in poor communities with large populations ofstudents of color and recent immigrants tend to score lower on the tests, theirprincipals and superintendents are most likely to mandate the use of test prepmaterials to the exclusion of all else. Urban principals report hearing from theirsupervisors, “Don’t talk to me about anything else until the TAAS scores go up”(McNeil, 2000, p. 730). Thus, these students spend all their time doing rotememorization and practice drills, while their middle- and upper-class counterpartsstill have at least some time to engage in more substantive learning. McNeil tellsthe story of one literature teacher who had spent several years creating a richlibrary of Latino/a authors for her classes of predominately Latino/a students. Thestudents had become enthusiastically involved in reading these works andengaging in fairly sophisticated literary analyses. One day, the principal abruptlyordered the teacher to stop these scholarly endeavors and to devote all of her timeto the packaged test prep materials for the next 3 months.

Given the already fragile relationship between schools and many students ofcolor and poverty, limiting their classroom experiences to dull, repetitive testpreparation curriculum and high-stakes testing is likely to increase the drop-outrate of the very students these tests are supposed to help (Gratz, 2000). In a recentTexas court case, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fundpresented strong evidence that minorities were beginning to leave school ratherthan take the test (Pipho, 2000). Needless to say, this rise in the drop-out ratecompletely undermines the multicultural goal of ensuring that all studentsexperience school success and leave with skills that enable them to become activeand successful citizens.

Despite many reservations that multiculturalists have about high-stakes testing,we cannot simply resist the accountability movement. “[Multiculturalists] mustnot permit their very justified suspicions about the current reform movement toallow themselves to be positioned as obstacles to and outsiders from efforts toimprove the quality of education” (Olneck, 2000, p. 337). Teachers, researchers,and family members must get involved in the discussions about the tests, howthey are constructed and used, and try to get the most problematic aspectseliminated.

Ironically, the accountability movement may end up supporting the goal ofengaging students in social activism. The blatant political posturing that hasaccompanied the introduction of high-stakes testing and the exploitation of testscores to sell everything from test prep packages to real estate has made many


people aware of how schools have become political footballs and has spawnedconsiderable resistance. Many families, students, and teachers are resisting theimposition of these tests and are leading boycotts and protest marches (Gratz,2000). Thus, high-stakes testing may provide a proving ground for the nextgeneration of social activists.

Accountability for Teacher Education

Teacher education is being affected by a similar movement with the introductionor tightening of teacher certification tests in many states. Many of these tests havebeen criticized for measuring narrow skills that have dubious predictive power forsuccessful teaching. Moreover, they have become a particular barrier to peoplewho are not White, middle-class native English speakers and currently attendingcollege. Prospective teachers from other racial, ethnic, linguistic, social class, andage groups are discouraged from entering the profession, which clearly worksagainst the goals of diversifying the teaching force. This homogenization of theteaching force will be especially devastating in the next several decades, given thatby 2035 over half of the children attending schools will be from groups describedas “ethnic and racial minorities” (NCES, 1993).

The certification tests, the increased number of required courses, and the moveto limit teacher education to graduate programs (as discussed in chapter 4) areforcing teacher education faculty to rethink all aspects of their courses andfieldwork. These pressures may help foment some creative changes and result inbetter prepared and more effective teachers. However, without a heavycommitment to support prospective teachers who are in high school and college,adding requirements may simply reduce both the number and the diversity ofpeople entering the field. In particular, if working conditions, salaries, andprofessional status do not improve commensurate with the increasedrequirements, then people will stop entering the profession. Already, teachershortages exist in many states, resulting in underqualified staffs and larger classes.As usual, the burden falls most heavily on schools in poor communities that needskilled teachers the most. Many urban school districts are forced to hirenoncertified teachers, wiping out any gains made by raising the certificationstandards for teachers.

On the positive side, a serious teacher shortage may enable educators todemand substantially better pay and status, which ultimately would attract andretain a more skilled and diverse teaching force. Unfortunately, this positiveoutcome will only come about if teacher shortages are so severe that politiciansfinally have to pay attention. By that time, thousands of children, especially thosein poor communities, will have suffered irreparable academic harm.

SUMMARY

Multicultural education, like all facets of education at the turn of the century,faces daunting challenges and pervasive uncertainties. For the last 3 decades,


multiculturalism has thrived on social change and controversy and will continueto do so as long as the movement remains responsive to criticisms and new issuesthat arise. Throughout its history, new challenges and insights have createdtensions and discomfort, but, ultimately, they have given rise to more cogent andcoherent theories and more effective practices.

Today many educational endeavors are becoming frozen into standards andtests. Teachers and families are burdened and burned out by the challenges ofteaching and raising children in a society that favors violence, materialism, and theprofit of a few over the needs of many, as is manifested in every aspect of life,from school funding to children’s television commercials. Against this backdrop,it is ever more imperative that multiculturalists fight for excellent education andsocial justice with passion, openness, and sense of adventure.

A VISION FOR THE FUTURE

To end this volume, we would like to share one vision of how communities andschools can fully embrace the principles of multicultural education. We hope thatit will help readers see possibilities and work toward their own visions of howteachers, communities, and children can learn together.

As we approach the Toni Morrison School, we notice that it is a cluster of smallbuildings connected by enclosed porches. The classroom doors are open and communitypeople are free to come and go. A few older teachers recall the days when schools were lockedfortresses, designed to keep undesirable people out and the children in. But with the closecollaboration that has evolved between the school and the community, the loyalty andprotectiveness of community members ensure the safety of the classrooms.

These changes were not easy. At first teachers were resistant to the idea that “non-professionals” would be heavily involved in the schools and in the decisionmaking. Theyfound it hard to let go of the old models of parent education in which teachers “helpedparents do a better job raising their kids” Moreover, some parents, disgusted by children’spoor education, blamed and distrusted the teachers. Only after many months of discussion ingroups composed of parents, community leaders, and teachers, did everyone begin to listen toeach other and work toward true partnerships. Now all parties recognize the larger social andeconomic pressures affecting their thoughts and actions and see the benefits of collaborating toresist them. Still issues often come up, and the school council, composed of the principal, twoteachers, two parents, and two community representatives are responsible for mediatingconflicts and misunderstandings that arise.

Each day elders from the community come in to tell stories, tutor children, and sit withthem at lunch. Family members also frequently come by and eat lunch with their children.The days of noisy, unruly cafeterias are gone, as children now eat with community peopleand parents in their classrooms. Community activists frequently visit the classrooms and talkwith the children about their organizations and help teachers and children identify problemsand devise ways to improve their school and community.

Community and family volunteers, including high school students, make a point ofcoming in on Wednesday afternoons, which are the times when teachers meet in theirplanning groups or book clubs. For three Wednesday afternoons each month the teachers


meet in small planning groups composed of colleagues who work with children of similarages. In these meetings they pool ideas and resources, help each other think of activities, andcritically analyze prospective plans and outcomes of activities that they have alreadyimplemented. Often, faculty from the local university participate in these discussions. Theyand the teachers frequently collaborate to develop and assess new curricula. In some cases,teachers and teacher educators take turns running activities in the classrooms and observingthe children’s responses. A number of university students also participate by observing,interviewing children, or both, to provide more in-depth information about how childreninterpret and experience specific activities. The teachers, in turn, often serve as consultants orinstructors for university courses. A number of collaborative research projects have beencompleted and published, with teachers and teacher educators as coauthors. Some formerteachers at the school have gone on to earn doctorates and are now members of teachereducation faculties.

Each teacher also is a member of a book club, made up of faculty from different gradesand other school staff, including custodial and administrative staff. On the fourthWednesday of each month these groups meet to discuss a book that deals with some aspectof education or social justice that the members have all agreed to read.

As we wander in and out of classrooms, we notice that both teachers and childrenrepresent a wide range of racial and cultural backgrounds. The classroom reflects thisdiversity in many ways. Music and languages from all over the world can be heard. Theclassrooms are decorated with artifacts and photographs of people from different communitiesand regions of the world. They all contain books in several different languages and artmaterials, dramatic play props, and signs that represent a wide range of human cultures andexperiences. These materials are not simply museum pieces. The teachers introduce them tothe children by explaining how they are used and how they are similar to materials familiarto the children. Often, community people introduce these materials and tell the childrenstories about why a particular object is important in their culture. The children use them intheir art projects, dramatic play, and cooking and often comment about the objects’ particularproperties and similarities and differences. Likewise, songs and artworks are introduced inmeaningful ways. On occasion, White families have objected to this approach, arguing thatthey do not have a particular “culture,” and that their children feel badly not havinganything to contribute to the cultural life of the classroom. The teachers have worked with thesefamilies to help them identify special family traditions (that may or may not reflect theorigins of their ancestors), which they can share with the members of the class.

Members of the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades come frequently to the younger grades to bereading, writing, and math buddies. In one preschool classroom a preadolescent boy,resplendent in the latest “cool” clothes, is hunched over a small table, carefully recording a 3-year-old’s story about her cat.

The halls are filled with ever-changing displays of projects children have done on localand global issues. A third-grade class has a poster of photographs and interview excerpts froma group of workers recently laid off from a local factory that closed because labor costs werecheaper in another country. A reporter from a local television station came to interview thechildren in the class as part of a program on the effects of the factory closure. A preschoolclassroom has a display of photographs of its clean-up day, including several close-up shotsof the litter itself, with captions explaining how these items can harm local wildlife. The


class also has posted a copy of the letter the students sent to several companies, criticizingtheir nonbiodegradable and excessive packaging. A sixth-grade class is exhibiting itsmembers’ graphs, which illustrate the increasing inequities in the distribution of worldresources over the last 10 years. A fifth-grade class has a colorful poster of stereotypedimages from popular television programs, with commentaries from class members about eachimage. These students, too, have displayed letters that they have written to the networksabout their offensive messages and images. The family council has posted a list of companiesthat it is urging families to boycott because of poor labor or environmental practices, or both.The council also has a list of more socially conscious businesses (many that are local) that itis encouraging families to support. Family members frequently add names to the two lists.

Not surprisingly, many people in the community have been unhappy about the socialand economic critiques imbedded in these curriculum projects. Particularly at the beginning,several editorials in the local newspaper warned that children were “being indoctrinated byradicals, intent on overthrowing the government and our way of life.” However, theseattacks only spurred children, teachers, and families to work together to respond effectively totheir critics. They met with their critics, invited them to the school, and wrote letters to thenewspaper. They learned to raise issues in ways that demonstrated how everyone in thecommunity was affected. They also frequently, eloquently and imaginatively made the pointthat their goals of equity, justice, and participatory democracy were aligned with thefounding principles of the United States.

The classrooms are alive with conversations, as children work in cooperative groups andcollaborate on projects. They argue and debate, and sometimes the words get heated. Theteachers watch closely, but usually let the children negotiate and resolve their conflicts.Occasionally, teachers remind children to check the rules that they and their classmates havedeveloped to facilitate group communication and conflict management. In some groupschildren speak more than one language, and several native English speakers haltingly butearnestly explain their ideas in Spanish, French, or Khmer. The physical environment andthe activities are structured so that children with disabilities can easily and fully participate.In one class, all the children use sign as well as oral language, as they communicate withtheir two classmates who have hearing impairments. Several of the classrooms are empty,because the students and teachers have gone to community sites, where they routinely takelessons from local craftspeople, do community service, or study local issues and participate inactions to ameliorate them. Often the children take video cameras and create documentariesabout community members and institutions, to record how people confront and resistinjustice in its many forms. These videos are edited and refined and then put on the schoolwebsite to be shared with children all over the world. Children also learn to critiquecommercials and mainstream news reports for deceptive claims and biased reporting andinterpretations.

When the school day ends, many children stay to participate in a wide variety of sports,arts, and community service programs. University students, assisted by local high schoolstudents, serve as organizers and mentors for these projects. Often family members andcommunity people participate as well. The school is alive with music, conversations, andrunning feet into the late afternoon and early evening. Since these afternoon programsstarted, the amount of time that children spend watching television and playing video gameshas decreased significantly.


Family members also come to the school after hours for discussion groups and meetingswith teachers and administrators. They are routinely consulted about changes in schoolpolicies and curriculum and serve on personnel and curriculum committees. There are severalfamily book groups, much like the book groups of the school staff. Family members oftenattend in-service workshops if they are interested in particular topics. They sometimespresent workshops themselves about local community issues or about the history, culture, andcurrent circumstances of their particular group. As with the classrooms, the conversations arespirited and conflicts often arise. Yet through many years of working together, teachers,family members, and community people know how to listen to each other and think flexiblyand creatively as they dedicate themselves to working together toward creating a wonderfulschool and a just world for their children.

We conclude with the essence of this source book’s endeavor…its end, itsbeginning, the transformational circle.

I can not leave my selvesOutside these hollow walls, giant pillarsAnd ever climbing ivyThere is no door check for my racedSexualized, classed, sexed, ableized,Spiritualized, nationalized, linguicized identitiesBefore I get there, after I arrive, and evenAfter I leave,You seek to shut me outMake me other than what I amDesire some other meThat IWill notCan notChoose notTo beRather I speak, act, engageSeeking to ensure my survivalAnd if you are committed to me as I am to youChange for the both of usIs inevitable

Nadjwa E.L.Norton (2002)

REFERENCES

Affirmative Action Committee Initiative (1997). Unpublished document of the AffirmativeAction Committee of Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.

Andrzejewski, J. (1995). Teaching controversial issues in higher education: Pedagogicaltechniques and analytical framework. In R.J.Martin (Ed.), Practicing what we teach:


Confronting diversity in teacher education (pp. 3–26). Albany, NY: State University ofNew York Press.

Ballenger, C. (1999). Teaching other people’s children: Literacy and learning in a bilingualclassroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Berman, S., & LaFarge, P. (1993). Promising practices in teaching social responsibility. Albany,NY: State University of New York Press.

Brady, M. (2000). The standards juggernaut. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 648–651.Brown, K. (2001). Media literacy and critical television viewing in education. In D.G.

Singer & J.L.Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 681–697). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Brown, K., Cummins, J., Figueroa, E., & Sayers, D. (1998). Global learning networks:Gaining perspective on our lives with distance. In E. Lee, D. Menkart, & M.OkazawaRey (Eds.), Beyond heroes and holidays (pp. 334–354). Washington, DC:Network of Educators on the Americas (NECA).

Cochran-Smith, M. (2000). The outcomes question in teacher education. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Comstock, G., & Scharrer, E. (2001). The use of television and other film-related media.In D.G.Singer & J.L.Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 47–72).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cortes, C.E. (2000). The children are watching: How the media teach about diversity. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

De Gaetano, Y., Williams, L.R., & Volk, D. (1998). Kaleidoscope: A multicultural approachfor the primary school classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Farber, K.S. (1995). Teaching about diversity through reflectivity: Sites of uncertainty,risk, and possibility. In R.J.Martin (Ed.), Practicing what we teach: Confronting diversity inteacher education (pp. 49–64). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Fennimore, B.S. (2000). Talk matters: Refocusing the language of public schooling. New York,NY: Teachers College Press.

Gallas, K. (1998). Sometimes I can be anything: Power, identity, and gender in a primary classroom.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gorski, P.C. (2001). Multicultural education and the Internet’. Intersections and integrations.Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Goodwin, A.L. (1997). Historical and contemporary perspectives on multicultural teachereducation: Past lessons, new directions. In J.E.King, E.R.Hollins, & W.C.Hayman(Eds.) Preparing teachers for cultural diversity (pp. 5–22). New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.

Gratz, D.B. (2000). High standards for whom? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 681–687.Howard, G. (1999). We cannot teach what we do not know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.Kline, S. (1993). Out of the garden: Toys, TV, and children’s culture in the age of marketing.

New York City, NY: Verso.Levin, D. (1998). Remote control childhood: Combatting the hazards of media culture.

Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.Martin, R.J. (Ed.) (1995). Practicing what we teach: Confronting diversity in teacher education.

Albany: State University of New York Press.McNeil, L.M. (2000). Creating new inequalities: Contradictions of reform. Phi Delta

Kappan, 81(10), 729–734.


McIntosh, P. (1995). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming tosee correspondences through work in women’s studies. In M.L.Anderson & P.H.Collins (Eds.), Race, class, and gender. An anthology (pp. 76–87). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Montecinos, C. (1995). Multicultural teacher education for a culturally diverse teachingforce. In R.J.Martin (Ed.), Practicing what we teach: Confronting diversity in teachereducation (pp. 97–116). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Muffoletto, R. (1995). Thinking about diversity: Paradigms, meanings, and representation.In R.J.Martin (Ed.), Practicing what we teach: Confronting diversity in teacher education (pp.27–48). Albany: State University of New York Press.

NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education). (2000). NCATE2000 standards revision. Electronic address: http://www.ncate.org/specfoc/2000stds.pdf.

NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics). (1993). America’s teachers: Profiles of aprofession. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement.

Norton, N.E.L. (2002). Unpublished poem offered as part of a panelist response in aninteractive symposium entitled Navigating the Tides and Currents of MulticulturalEducation: A Conceptual Map for Analyzing the Divergent Perspectives and Trends of theField presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, LA.

Olneck, M. (2000). Can multicultural education change what counts as cultural capital?American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 317–348.

Pang, V.O. (2001). Multicultural education: A caring-centered reflective approach. Boston, MA:McGraw-Hill.

Pipho, C. (2000). The sting of high-stakes testing and accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 645–646.

Ravitch, D. (1990a). Diversity and democracy: Multicultural education in America.American Educator, 14(1), 16–20, 46–68.

Ravitch, D. (1990b). Multiculturalism: E pluribus plures. American Scholar, 59(3), 337–354.Schlesinger, A.M., Jr. (1992). The disuniting of America. New York, NY: Norton.Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Longman.Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Toward a new design for teaching and

learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Serow, R.C. (1983). Schooling for social diversity: An analysis of policy and practice. New York,

NY: Teachers College Press.Shakespeare, W. (1969). The tempest. Act 2, Scene 1, line 249. London, UK: Cambridge

University Press.Sleeter, C.E. (1995). Teaching Whites about racism. In R.J.Martin (Ed.), Practicing what we

teach: Confronting diversity in teacher education (pp. 117–130). Albany: State Universityof New York Press.

Sleeter, C.E., & Grant, C.A. (1999). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approachesto race, class, and gender (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: MerrillPrentice Hall.

Tatum, B.D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racialidentity theories in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 1–24.

Williams, L.R. (1996). Does practice lead theory? Teachers’ constructs about teaching:Bottom-up perspectives. In J.A.Chafel & S.Reifel (Eds.), Advances in early educationand day care, v.8 (pp. 153–184). Greenwich, CT: Jai.


Index

A.B.C.Task Force, 181Abilities, 77–80, 103–105, 155, 157–158Abound F.E., 85, 91, 93, 100, 120, 127,

165, 199Accountability, 277–279Acculturationist educational trends, 33Activism, 25Activity-based programs, 269Additive approach, 147, 150, 221Affirming Diversity (Nieto), 25African Americans, 68

Black nihilism, 64Cross’s theory of Nigrescence, 91–92racial educational equality and, 8–10

Afrocentric curriculum, 6Afrocentric Movement, 24, 28Alba, R.D., 44Allen, J., 175Allen, W.R., 61, 142Alpuria, L., 91Altbach, P.C., 244Alvardo, C., 245American Association of college for

Teacher Education (AACTE), 17–18,218

American Educational ResearchAssociation (AERA), 25

Anderson, M.G., 217–218Anti-Bias Curriculam (Derman-Sparks), 19,

103, 168–169Anti-bias education, 156, 158Anyon, J., 157Anzaldua, G., 75, 94, 120Aptheker, H., 44Arora, R.K., 176Asante, M.K., 24, 45

Asher, S.R., 86Asian Americans, as model minority, 65Assimilationist ideology, 4, 6–8, 30, 33,

266Association of Teacher Educators (ATE),

218At risk/at promise children, 158Australia, 34Awareness stage, 150

Bahruth, R., 164, 184Baker, C., 20Baker, G.C., 15, 176, 245Baker, R., 179Banks, C.A., 26, 47, 177Banks, J.A., 10–11, 15, 18, 26–27, 29, 45–

47, 147, 149–154, 165, 170, 176–177,200, 216–217, 219, 221, 245

Baptiste, H.P., 15, 18, 48, 212, 216, 245–246

Baptiste, M.L., 18, 212, 216, 245–246Baskauskas, L., 219, 246Bates, J.E., 73Bear, G., 79Beaty, J.J., 177Beecher, C., 176Beginnings: The Social and Affective

Development of Black Children (Spencer,Brookins, & Allen), 61

The Bell Curve (Hernstein & Murray), 2Bennett, C.I., 15, 177, 216, 232–233, 246–

248Berman, S., 178Bernal, M.E., 91, 120Best, D., 85

287

Bethune, M., 13Bettmann, E.H., 195Bigler, R.S., 84, 100–101, 120–121Bilingual education, 6, 20–21, 34, 68, 155

dismissive period (1980s-present), 20–21opportunistic period (1950s–1980s), 20permissive period (1700s–1800s), 20restrictive period (1880s–1950s), 20

Bilingual Education Act (1968), 20Black nihilism, 64Boswell, D., 85Bowles, S., 73, 121Bowman, B.T., 62, 123Boyer, J., 15, 18Boyer, J.B., 48Bradford College case study (UK), 227Brand, E.S., 84Brandt, G.L., 178Breitborde, M., 196Brisk, M., 48Brody, M., 176Brofenbrenner, U., 62Brookins, G.K., 61, 142Brown v. Board of Education, 10, 81Buddy system, 229Bullivant, B., 48Bunche, T., 232Bymes, D.A., 178

Canada, 33–34Cannella, G.S., 252Capitalism, 31Carlton, G.D., 176Carrasquillo, A.L., 123Case studies of multicultural teacher

education, 231–233Casey, K., 248Casper, V., 178Castaneda, A., 15, 20, 56Castenell, L.A., 219, 253Ceballo, R., 71, 136Cech, M., 179Chan, K.S., 65, 123Change (magazine), 220, 248Chasnoff, D., 103Child Development, 70, 124

Child Development Special Issue on MinorityChildren, 61

Child Development Special Issue on Poverty andChildren, 73

Children of Color (Gibbs, Huang, &Associates), 61

Children of the Rainbow, 103Child development

abilities and disabilities, 77–80Brofenbrenner’s theory of, 62–63gender divide and, 74–75norms of, 61, 63poverty effects, 69–74race, ethnicity, and cultural influences,63–69responses to differences, 80–105, 268abilities and disabilities, 103–105cultural differences, 88–89econonics and social class, 95–99ethnic perspective taking (Quintana’smodel), 89–90gender differences, 99–102race and ethnic identity, 81–88, 90–95sexual orientation, 102–103

sexual orientation, 75–77societal divisions and, 62–80socioeconomic context, 69–74theories of, 59–62, 267voluntary/involuntary immigrants, 63–65

Children’s literature, 159Children’s Occupation, Activity, and Trait

(COAT), 99Chinn, P.C., 15, 51, 183Chipman, M., 164, 187Christian religious right, 29Chud, G., 179“Circle Never Ends” curriculum, 164Civil Rights Act of 1964, 10, 20Civil Rights Movement, 12, 21, 24–25,

211Clark, C., 248Classism, 207Classroom environment, 152–153Classroom practices, 233Clegg, L.B., 179Clinton, J., 205

288 INDEX

Cochran-Smith, M., 207, 232Cocking, R.R., 130Cohen, H., 103“Color-blind” approach, 6Comer, J.P., 124Community action projects (CAPs), 13Connolly, P., 124Consumerism, 23, 71, 98–99, 275–276Content integration, 153Contributions approach, 147, 149Cook, D.A., 72Cook, R.E., 180Cortes, C., 15Crawford, J., 49Critical pedagogy, 24–26Crnic, K., 63, 129Cross-cultural contact, 149, 234Cross, W.E., 91–92, 94, 125, 149, 232Cruz-Janzen, M., 164, 187Cultural capital, 28Cultural conflict stage, 149–150Cultural democracy, goals of, 17Cultural heritage, 12Cultural pluralism, 7–8, 15–16, 32, 35, 155

goals of, 17Culturally different movements (1960s–

1970s), 12–13Culture, 30–31, 33

children’s development and, 63–68children’s responses to differences, 88–89defined, 1–3, 155–156explicit/implicit culture, 66

Cummins, J., 200Cureton, J., 220Curriculum;

see Multicultural curriculumCurriculum reform, 147–148, 152, 271;

see also Multicultural curriculum reformCurriculum research, 146, 161–169;

see also Program and curriculumresearch

Cushner, K., 180, 249

Davidman, L., 180Davidman, P.T., 180Davidson, A.L., 137

Davidson, E., 194De Beauvoir, S., 12De Chiara, E., 201De Gaetano, Y., 15, 181, 198, 249, 260De Lone, R.H., 126De Martinez, B.B., 56Deculturalization, 12Delgado-Gaitan, C., 68, 125, 167, 200Derman-Sparks, L., 15, 19, 95, 181, 245,

249Desegregation, 6, 13–15, 21, 82Development;

see Child developmentDiamond, K.E., 126, 167Dickinson, J., 99Disabilities, 77–80, 103–105, 154–155,

157–158Disciplinary-based approach, 220–221Discrimination, 6, 12, 63–65, 266Disequilibrium, 150Dittmar, H., 95, 99Diversity, 219

diversity requirements, 221–222educational responses to, 5–6NCATE standards for, 214–215

Dodge, K.A., 73Doyle, A.B., 85, 93, 100, 127Duarte, E.M., 49DuBois, W.E. B., 8, 13Dubrow, N., 72, 128Duckitt, J., 82

Economic polarization, 276–277Edelman, M.W., 127Educational equality, 16Educational history

Americanization efforts, 7, 8assimilation patterns/ideology, 7–8bilingual education, 20–21cultural pluralism, 8culturally different movements (1960s–1970s), 12–13dominant ideology of, 5ethnic/single-group studies, 12–13intergroup education movement(1930s–960s), 8–11

INDEX 289

multicultural education (1990s-present), 21–27multicultural education movement(1970s–1980s), 15–20racial educational equality, 8–11responses to diversity, 5–6social reform and, 6white ethnics (18th–20th c.), 6–8

Educational interventions, 150Educational Testing Service (ETS), 234Edwards, C.P., 127Elementary and Secondary Education Act,

Title v, 20Emler, N., 99Empowerment, 153Empowerment Through Multicultural Education

(Sleeter), 24English-only instruction, 20Environmental degradation, 23Environmental Protection Agency, 23Equity pedagogy, 153Erikson, E., 59, 90–91Ethnic cheerleading, 28Ethnic Heritage Studies Act (1965), 12, 20,

212Ethnic identity formation, 91Ethnic perspective-taking ability

(Quintana’s model), 89–90Ethnic and racial minorities, 21Ethnic/single-group studies, 12–13, 18, 20,

28, 34, 154Ethnicity

children’s development and, 63–69children’s responses to, 89–95defined, 1–2

European American ethnocentrism, 13,163

Exosystems, 63Experimental learning, 217Explicit culture, 66

Fahlman, R., 179Family Ethnicity (McAdoo), 61Feminist movement, 22Fennimore, B.S., 49Fenwick, V., 199Figueroa, P., 33

Fine, M., 72Fisher, C.B., 138Fitzgerald, A.K., 249Flemming, B.M., 184Foerster, L., 49Foley, G.M., 194Ford, D.Y., 181Fordham, S., 93, 128Foster, C.D., 257Foster, L., 50Frankel, L., 259Fraser, J.W., 190Freire, P., 24Freud, S., 59Friedan, B., 12Fundamentalist religions, 29Furby, L., 97Furnham, A., 96, 98, 128Furth, H.G., 128

Gallas, K., 128Gallimore, R., 164, 204Garbarino, J., 72, 128García Coll, C., 63, 70, 73, 84, 129García, R.L., 15,84, 182Gay, G., 15, 18, 29, 50, 182, 216, 250Gender and gender roles, 22, 74–75, 83–

84, 156Bigler’s measures of sex typing, 100children’s responses to, 99–102gender cleavage, 101

Germany, 34–36Gibbs, J.T., 61, 129Gibson, M.A., 129Gimmestad, B.J., 201Gintis, H., 73, 121Giroux, H.A., 50–51Glazer, N., 51Global education, 155, 158–159Gollnick, D.M., 15, 51, 183, 216, 226,

234, 245, 250, 253–255Gonzalez, Z., 67Goodman, J., 82, 168, 183Goodwin, A.L., 218Gordon, M., 51Gorski, P.C., 160, 184Gramezy, N., 73

290 INDEX

Grant, C.A., 13–15, 17–18, 20, 22, 24, 29,52, 154, 162–164, 183, 201, 204, 215–216, 227–229, 231, 234–235, 251

Grant, G., 229Graves, D., 85Greenfield, P.M., 66, 130Grenot-Scheyer, M., 105, 136Grieshaber, S., 252Guidelines for Multicultural Teacher Education

(Klassen, Gollnick, & Osayande), 216

Haberman, M., 230Hall, S., 59Halverson, C.B., 234Hamilton, D.S., 184Handbook of Research on Multicultural

Education (Banks & Banks), 26Harrington, C.C., 198, 260Harris, J.J., 181Harry, B., 136Harvey, M.R., 73Harwood, R.L., 67Hatcher, R., 87, 144Hawley, W.D., 52, 201Hayes, C.W., 164, 184Hayman, W.C., 252–253Head Start, 6, 13, 73Heath Anthology of American Literature

(Lauter, et al.), 220Heath, S.B., 130Helms, J., 26, 93–94, 130, 149, 232Hernandez, H., 15, 184Hestenes, L.L., 126Hicks, J.D., 184High stakes testing, 277–278Hirschfield, L.A., 84, 91, 130Ho, R.P., 176Hollins, E.R., 252–253Holmes, R.M., 132Holmes Report, 208, 212,219Homelessness, 72Homophobia, 75–76, 158, 207, 266, 275Hooks, b., 24, 252Housing discrimination, 70Howes, C., 87Huang, L.N., 61, 129

Human relations approach, 165–167, 215,230, 270

Human relations (intergroup studies), 20,154

Hune, S., 65, 123Hupp, S.C., 144Hurston, Z.N., 13Huston, A.C., 70, 132

Identity formation, 90–91;see also Racial identity

Igoa, C., 68, 132Immigrants, 4, 68

involuntary minorities, 4–5voluntary immigrants, 4

Immigration Act (1965), 12, 20Immigration laws, 7, 8Implementation studies, 226–228Implicit culture, 66Inclusion, 77Individuals with Disabilities Educational

Act (1990), 22, 78Inner World of the Immigrant Child (Igoa), 68Innes, F.K., 126Inservice teacher education, 208–210Instructional materials, 152Integration, 77, 82Intercultural education, 34Intergroup attitudes, 85Intergroup Education Movement, 8–11,

82, 211Intergroup relations, 160, 212International multicultural movements,

155, 158–159Internet, 269, 276Intraracial attitudes, 85Involuntary minorities, 4–5, 63–64Irvine, J.J., 218, 253It’s Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in

School (Chasnoff & Cohen), 103

Jackson, A.W., 52, 201Japan, 33Jenkins, R., 63, 129Johnson, D.W., 186Johnson, R.T., 186Jones, L.C., 121

INDEX 291

Jones, S.P., 20Juvonen, J., 79

Kallen, H., 8–8Kamehameha Early Education Project

(KEEP), 69, 164–164Kaplan, M.G., 86Katz, J.H., 52Katz, P.A., 133Katz, S.R., 163Keepers of the American Dream: A Study of

Staff Development and MulticulturalEducation (Sleeter), 231

Kendall, F.E., 15, 149, 186Kessler, C., 164, 184Kich, G.K., 94Kiger, G., 178King, E.W., 164, 186–187King, J.E., 224, 252–253King, S.H., 219, 253Kitano, M.K., 187Kizer, J.B., 100Klassen, F.H., 216, 226, 234, 253–255Klein, G., 187Klein, M.D., 180Klineberg, O., 88Knight, G.P., 91, 120Knowledge construction, 153Kohut, S., 216Koskela, R.A., 227Kostelny, K., 72, 128Kozol, J., 72

Lacefield, W., 256Ladson-Billings, G., 65, 210, 224, 255LaFarge, P., 178Lambert, W.E., 88Lamberty, C., 63, 129Language and linguistic variations, 155–

156Larke, P.J., 229Lau v. Nicholas, 20, 212Lauter, P., 249Lawrence, S.M., 232Leahy, R.L., 97–98, 133Levine, A., 220Levine, L., 203

Levy, J., 226, 251Lewis, B.A., 187Lewis, E.A., 259Liben, L.S., 84, 121Liberal arts education, 219–220, 224Limited English proficient (LEP), 20Lipka, J., 233Little Soldier, N., 15Lobliner, D.B., 121Lomotey, K., 244Lubeck, S., 63, 73, 134, 143Luke, A., 255Lynch, J., 188, 255–256

McAdoo, H.P., 61, 63, 129, 134McClelland, A., 180McCluskey, A.T., 13Maccoby, E.E., 101McCracken, J.B., 188Macias, J., 134McIntosh, P., 26, 135McIntyre, T., 135McLaren, P., 53–54, 58McLoyd, V.C., 70–71, 73–73, 135–136McNeil, L.M., 278Macrosystems, 63Mahan, J.M., 256Mainstreaming, 77Mapley, C.E., 100Markstrom-Adams, C., 142Marsh, M.M., 203Martin, R.J., 256Martuza, V., 217–218Matson, L., 85Matute-Bianchi, M.E., 64May, S., 53, 168, 203Media influences, 274–276MEES (mundane extreme environmental

stress), 64Melnick, S.L., 217Melting pot myth, 7–8Mesosystems, 62Meyer, L.H., 136Microsystems, 62Miller, E., 179Miller-Lachman, L., 188

292 INDEX

Minister of Supplies and Services (Canada),257

Minority students, 28–29Asians as “model minority,” 65caste-like minorities, 64, 69, 93

Mirza, H.S., 136Mitchell, E., 218Monoculturalism, 149More Than Meets the Eye, 165Morland, J.K., 82, 145Moultry, M., 234Multicultural curriculum ability/disability

and, 157–158culture and, 155–156evolution of, 146global education and internationalmovements, 158–159the Internet and, 269issues and dilemmas of, 155–159in liberal arts education, 219–220, 224linguistic and other variations, 156professional development and, 148–153religion and, 157sexual orientation, 158social class and socioeconomic status,157trends in, 268–269

Multicultural curriculum reform, 147–148additive approach, 147contributions approach, 147social action approach, 147–148transformational approach, 147

Multicultural education, 18, 20, 34in 1970s–1980s, 15–20in 1990s and 2000s, 21–27accountability and high stakes testing,277–279children/families, evolving views of,267–268controversies and criticisms, 27–32critical pedagogy and, 24–26current research in, 27, 31–32curriculum/teaching trends in, 268–269defining groups and terms, 1–3economic polarization and, 276–277ethnic cheerleading, 28evolution of, xii–1, 3–5

expanding scope of, 22–23frontlash/backlash criticism, 27–32fundamentalist religions/religious right,29goals and philosophical orientations of,153–155content integration, 153empowering school culture andstructure, 153equity pedagogy, 153knowledge construction, 153prejudice reduction, 153

historical perspective of, 3–4the media and, 274–276NCATE standards for, 213–215“No One Model American” statement(AACTE), 17–18obstacles, controversies, and possibilitiesof, 265–267, 274–279in other countries, 32–36trends and future possibilities of, 263vision for the future, 280–283

Multicultural Education, Critical Pedagogy andthe Politics of Difference (Sleeter &McLaren), 25

Multicultural education research educationfor exceptional/culturally different, 164–164human relations approach, 165–167obstacles/complexities of, 163–164“research on” vs. “multiculturaleducation research,” 163research studies, 164–169social reconstructionism, 167–169

Multicultural Education as Social Activism(Sleeter), 25

Multicultural Knowledge Test, 233Multicultural liberal arts education, 224Multicultural pedagogy, 222–224Multicultural Perspectives, 189Multicultural Research: A Reflective

Engagement with Race, Class, Gender andSexual Orientation (Grant), 22

Multicultural resources, criteria forselecting, 159–162;see also Teaching resources

Multicultural teacher education, 205–234accountability for, 279

INDEX 293

attributes approach, 207barriers to change, 224Bennet’s model, 216–217case studies of, 231–233challenges in design/implementation of,270–272disciplinary-based approach, 220–221diversity requirements, 221–222effectiveness of, 207evolution of goals/guidelines, 216–217history of, 211–213implementation of, 210–211individual courses, 221–222knowledge base and, 207multicultural pedagogy, 222–224NCATE standards, 213–215outcomes of, 207preservice and inservice programs, 208–210published goals and guidelines for, 215–219research on, 224–234assessment instruments/procedures,233–234Bradford College case study, 226case studies, 231–233effects of reforms, 25–231future research in, 272–274implementation studies, 226–228individuals’ expertise and, 233

sequence of courses, 222transformative processes, 217–219types of education, 210–211“Western Civilization” requirementand, 222

Multicultural Teaching Scale, 234Multiethnic/multiracial education, 18Murphy, J., 196

Nabors, L., 136Naimark, H., 98National Association for the Advancement

of Colored People (NAACP), 10National Association for the Education of

Young Children (NAEYC), 19, 263National Association of Scholars (NAS),

224

National Coalition for Cultural Pluralism,15

National Council for the Accreditation ofTeacher Education (NCATE) standards,17, 212–215, 226–228, 263, 271

National Education Association, 7National Origins Desegregation Act, 212Nationality Act (1906), 20Native Americans, 164, 169, 227Native language education, 6Neugebauer, B., 189Nieto, S., 15, 25, 27, 29, 31, 53–54, 189Nixon, J., 257“No One Model American” statement, 17–

18Noar, G., 234Norton, N.E. L., xii, 283

Ocampo, K.A., 91O’Connor, C.E., 126Odom, S.L., 190O’Donnell, J., 248Ogbu, J.U., 4–5, 63–65, 93, 129, 137Olneck, M., 28, 30Olstad, R.G., 257Omi, M., 54Ooka Pang, V., 15Osayande, K.I. M., 216, 234, 251, 255Ostertag, V., 192Ovando, C.J., 20, 54Oyassande, K.I. M., 226Padilla, A.M., 84

Paley, V.G., 257Pang, V.O., 190, 217–218Paraprofessional aides, 78–79Pardo, C., 72, 128Park, H-S., 136Patriarchal system, 24, 31Pattnaik, J., 228, 257PattyKids can make a difference (newsletter),

191Peck, C.A., 105Peretti, D., 218Perry, I., 54Perry, T., 190Personal growth and development, 154

294 INDEX

Pettit, G.S., 73Phelan, P., 137Phillips, C.B., 95, 249Phinney, J.S., 69, 91, 93, 137Piaget, J., 59, 88, 90–91Pledge of Allegiance, 7Pluralism, 15, 155, 266Polakow, V., 72–73, 137–138Porter, J.D., 82, 86Post, L., 230Poverty, 69–74;

see also Socioeconomic status (SES)Praxis III (ETS), 234Prejudice reduction, 153Preschool programs, 73Preschool Racial Attitudes Measure

(PRAM II), 85Preservice teacher education, 208–210Print resources, 159Problem-posing dialogues, 217Procidano, M.E., 138Professional development, 148–153;

see also Multicultural teacher educationawareness stage, 150cross-cultural contact, 149cultural conflict stage, 149–150disequilibrium stage, 150educational interventions, 150monoculturalism stage, 149multiculturalism stage, 150

Program accreditation standards, 211Program and curriculum research, 161–169

education for exceptional/culturallydifferent, 164–165human relations approach, 165–167obstacles and complexities of, 163–164research studies, 164–169social reconstructionism and, 167–169

Project TEAM, University of Indiana, 232Proposition 227 (CA), 21Proweller, A., 163

Quintana, S.M., 89–90, 138

Race, 30–31children’s development and, 63–70children’s responses to, 81–82

affective dimensions, 84–86behavioral dimensions, 86–88cognitive dimensions, 83–84

defined, 1–2, 156Preschool Racial Attitudes Measures(PRAM II), 85

Race Awareness in Young Children(Goodman), 82

Racial cleavage, 87Racial Desegregation Act, 212Racial educational equality (1930s–1960s),

8–11Racial identity, 26

biracial children, 94children’s responses to, 90–95Cross’s theory of Nigrescence, 91–92formation of, 90–92Helms’ white identity development, 93

Racially Mixed People in America (Root), 94Racism, 28, 30–31, 63, 65, 207, 266, 275Radlinski, S.H., 194Ramirez, M., 15, 20, 56, 140Ramsey, P.G., 15, 84, 98, 191, 245, 258Ravitch, D., 31Religion, 155, 157Research and Multicultural Education: From the

Margins to the Main-stream (Grant), 164Research studies, 164–164Researcher bias, 164Rethinking Schools: An Urban Educational

Journal, 191Rist, R.C., 73Robinson, G.L. N., 258Robles de Melendez, W., 192Rodriguez, C., 205Rodriguez, F., 258Rogovin, P., 192Root, M.P., 94, 140Rosenfield, D., 82, 140Rotheram, M.J., 137Rothstein, R., 56Ruiz, R.A., 84Running-Grass, 15Ryan, R.H., 73Ryan, S., 217, 262

Sadker, D., 140

INDEX 295

Sadker, M., 140Safford, P., 180Sapon-Shavin, M., 192Sarason, S.B., 159Saville-Troike, M., 258Scheurich, J.J., 217Schniedewind, N., 194Schoelmerich, A., 67Schoem, D., 259Schofield, J.W., 141School culture, 153School reform movement, xii, 212–213Schultz, S.B., 178Schulze, P.A., 67Schwartz, I.S., 105, 136Secada, W., 228, 251Seeley, V., 194Segregation, 12, 63, 95Separation, 6Separatist movements, 28, 266Serow, R.C., 56, 266Sexism, 28, 207, 275Sexual orientation, 22–23, 75–77, 155

children’s understanding of, 102–103multicultural curriculum and, 158

Shaver, P., 98Sheldon, A., 101Sheridan, M.K., 167, 194Shoji, M., 33Silva, P., 135Sims, W.E., 56, 259Single-group studies, 13–13, 20, 154, 160Singleton, L.C., 86Skinner, B.F., 59Slavin, R.E., 141–142, 165, 203Sleeter, C.E., 13–15, 18, 20, 24–25, 27, 29,

31, 57–58, 141, 154, 162–164, 183, 204,215–216, 219, 224, 227, 231–232, 235,259–260

Slonim, M.B., 141Smedley, A., 1, 58Smith, E.M., 13Smith, G.P., 218Smith, S., 49Social action/activism, 19, 25, 147–148,

151Social class, 31, 155

children’s responses to, 95–99

multicultural curriculum and, 157Social class differences, 30, 73, 76, 95Social Distance Scale, 233Social isolation, 79Social justice, 152, 228Social reconstructionist approach, 18–20,

36, 154, 157–158, 161, 167–169, 215,217, 228, 230, 235

Socialization, 12Societal growth and development, 154Socioeconomic status (SES), 98–99, 155

children’s responses to, 95–99economic polarization, 276–277multicultural curriculum and, 157poverty, 69–74

Soto, L.D., 142Special education programs, 77Spencer, M.B., 61, 142Stacey, B., 96, 98, 128Staub, D., 105Stephan, W.G., 82, 140Stereotyping, 31, 75, 78, 100, 105, 155,

161, 230Stern-LaRosa, C., 195Stevens, R.J., 142Stipek, D.J., 73Stockley, D., 50Stott, F.M., 62, 123Stronge, J.H., 143Submersion approach, 20Sutherland, I.R., 198, 260Sunderland Polytechnic Institute (UK),

227Suzuki, B.H., 195Swadener, E.B., 63, 143, 165, 204Swiniarski, L.A., 196

TAAS (Texas Assessment of AcademicSkills), 277

Taba, Hilda, 10Tajfel, H., 143Takaki, R., 58Tarver, S., 93Tate, W.F., 162–163, 201Tatum, B.D., 95, 232Taylor, L.S., 188Teach to the test, 277

296 INDEX

Teacher certification, 205, 270Teacher Corps, 211–212, 229Teacher education;

see Multicultural teacher education;Professional development

Teaching the culturally different, 20, 22,33, 231, 270

Teaching resources, 146, 148;see also Multicultural curriculumassessment of specific materials, 161–162criteria for assessing/selecting, 159–162identification of orientation/approach,160–161print and other resources, 159professional development processes and,148–153suitability of use in setting, 161virtual resources, 160

Teaching Tolerance (Southern Poverty LawCenter), 196

Tessier, A., 180Testing/high stakes testing, 277–278Tharp, R.G., 65, 67, 144, 164, 204Thompson, T., 144Thorne, B., 102Thousand, J.S., 197Tiedt, I.M., 196Tiedt, P.L., 196Timm, J.T., 196Townsend, B.L., 68Transformational approach, 147, 150–151,

217, 221Troyna, B., 87, 144Trueba, H.T., 68, 125, 205Turning on Learning (Grant & Sleeter), 20Tyack, D., 6, 59

United Kingdom, 32–33, 35, 156, 227Urberg, K.A., 86

Valdés, G., 144Van Duren, M., 95, 99Vanderhoof, W., Jr., 179Vazquez Garcia, H., 63, 129Villa, R.A., 197Villegas, A.M., 234, 260

Violence, 72Virtual resources, 160Vold, E.B., 15, 228, 257Volk, D., 15, 181, 249Voluntary immigrants, 4, 64Wakefield, P., 179

War on Poverty, 13Wasik, B.H., 63, 129Watson, M., 218Wayson, W.W., 234Weil, A.M., 88Werner, E.E., 73West, C., 23, 64, 71, 145White identity formation (Helms’ theory),

93Whitney, T., 197Williams, J.E., 82, 85, 145Williams, L.R., 15, 181, 197, 217, 249,

260–262Wilson, L., 73Winant, H., 54Wolfgang, A., 198Women’s Liberation Movement, 12Women’s studies, 13, 28Woodsen, C.G., 8, 13Wright, C., 87, 145Wu, F., 87Wurzel, J.S., 149–150Wyman, R.M., 257

York, S., 15, 198, 262Young People’s Understanding of Society

(Furnham & Stacey), 96

Zamora, G.R., 199Zangwill, I., 7Zeichner, K., 210, 217, 227, 262Zeigler scale, 233Zou, Y., 205Zuniga, X., 259

INDEX 297

patricia ramsey multicultural education a source book, second edition source books on education,...

Documents