Redefining Multicultural Education

Ghosh, Ratna. (2002). (2nd Ed.). Scarborough, ON: Nelson Thomson Learning.

1. Multicultural Education (pp. 1-22)

Ghosh criticizes the liberal perspective of multicultural education in that it attempts to accommodate other ethnocultural groups within a dominant educational framework of a monocultural pedagogy. In lieu of ethnic cultures she stresses multicultural education should emphasize the politics of difference such that difference is considered a right, views and experiences of all students both dominant and minority are incorporated in class, and differential treatment of students with dissimilar experiences. Besides, Ghosh puts an emphasis on identity development as a critical element of multicultural education. The teacher's role is, she asserts, to create unity within the diversity by helping stuents interpret their multiple social relations that contribute their identity construction. By unity within diversity she means "to integrate a positive ethnic and gender identity at the individual level with a national Canadian identity" (p.8) and states that the success of multiculturalism depends on this ability. [Why identity construction is a critical part of multiculturalism and why towards a Canadian identification?]

Ghosh states that multicultural education also challenges objective universal knowledge and thus curricula, i.e. how are students with different backgrounds affected by the dominant curriculum? How can those students become active participants in learning process?

Radical theories focus on structural discrimination that originates from the view of homogeneous student population. Based on these theories, Ghosh stresses that class is the first factor of student's failure and seconds the argument that education reinforces class differences (p. 13, Berstein, 77; Bourdieu & Passeron, 77; Bowles & Gintis, 1976). Besides she notes that the structure and process of education classify students, thus dumping a large number of students into special-education classes or dropping out of school. The problem is not individuals but the school system to which many do not fit, she argues. Therefore she underlines that the goal of multicultural education at the institutional level is to provide an equal chance to all students to develop their full potential by offering different needs to different students.

3. A Framework for a Redefined Multicultural Education (p. 39-67)

"Besides being an act of knowing, education is alos a political act. That is why no pedagogy is neutral" (Shor & Freire, 1987, p. 13; as cited on p. 40).

Bourdieu (1979, Symbolic Power, Critique of Anthropology, 4, 77-85) refers the maintenance of dominant-group power both in school and in society as symbolic violence (as cited on p. 57). Ghosh argues that traditional pedagogy techniques and content make minority students feel unworthy and "culturally deprived" and lose selt-esteem. Noting an important role that schools play in constructing self-esteem, Ghosh proposes involvement of parents in school activities as a good way of developing positive self-concept. (p.57).

*Shor, I. & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

4. The School Environment (pp. 69-86)

Ghosh continues to criticize the exclusion of parents of ethnic/racial minority and working-class students from the educational environment. It is, Ghosh argues, because of "culturally embedded perceptions of and communication difficulties with school administration and teachers" (p. 74). Ghosh stresses that this communication gap, which is reiterated elsewhere in the book as an important issue in anti-racist education, should be bridged such that parents and school share a shared responsibility for education, for example, by seeking cultural and linguistic translators and the assistance from community leaders.

With regard to school discipline, Ghosh contests that the symbolic violence (Bourdieu & Passeron, 77) that results from a school environment of rules, test and punishment based on manipulation and subordination causes a "performance strike" (Shor & Freire, 1987, p. 127), and writes, "this takes the form of passivitiy and rebellion: refusing to perform and do homework, using bad labguages, missing classes, dropping our literally or figuratively (passivity), using drugs and alchol, and engaging in crime. Passivity is not a natural condition of childhood; it is proviked, and can produce aggression" (p. 79).

*Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J.C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.

5. Teacher Education and Classroom Interactions (pp. 87-109)

Ghosh contests that pre-service teacher education in North America is far behind changing society in the multicultural environment, thus leaving most of multicultural education to individual teachers' ad hoc initiatives due to their situation or their own moral imperatives. Among several factors that influence this reluctance to change, Ghosh writes teacher themselves have tended to avoid discussing politically controvertial issues, which resulted in taking nonracist/nonsexist approach rather than anti-racist/anti-sexist strategy, and "neutralize inequality and mask unequal power relations" (p. 90).

Ghosh continues to argue that teachers who believe in transformative education dare not "rock the boat" for fear of losing their jobs and stresses that the system has little incentive for teacher to undertake changes (p. 92).

"Students come in as curious individuals. The manner in which traditional education tends to subdue and silence children is well documented" (Holt, 1982; Kozol, 1991; cited on pp. 102-103).

*Holt, J.C. (1982). How children fail. NY: Delta/Seymour Lawrence.
*Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequlaities: Children in American Schools. NY: Crown Publications.

6. Teaching Strategies and Evaluation (pp. 111-125)

With regard to a neutral approach taken by teachers with concern of indoctrination, Ghosh stresses that teachers must address the fundamental values of justice, fairness and respect. Taking a neutral approach, in other words, avoiding discussion of racism and sexism, under the guise of avoiding indoctrination, she argues, is harmful and evasive becasue neither school nor society is neutral. She writes, "A 'neutral' approach is a stance that serves to perpetuate inequality. While the teacher must protect divergent views, teaching is designed to bring about certain outcomes. Tacism and sexism are wrong; to say so is not indoctrination" (p. 121).