In order for schools to address the challenges of cultural diversity and inequality in education they must be prepared to perform an analysis of teachers’ culturally responsive dispositions. Many educators lack understanding about multiculturalism and prescribe to biases or make assumptions that hinder the development of an inclusive learning environment. Teachers need to confront their perceptions and beliefs, rather than circumvent issues of race, culture, and poverty. Their self analysis about teaching culturally different students will assist in the development of skills necessary to meet the challenges of a culturally diverse school environment.
The modification of classroom instruction to respond positively to the home culture of students is known as being culturally responsive (Erickson, 1987). According to Phuntsog, recent studies have suggested that academic success of students from culturally diverse backgrounds will improve if instruction is responsive to their cultural and linguistic experiences (1999). The cultural mismatch of students with their teachers has allowed for the achievement gap to widen between minority students and their peers. The only way to combat this challenge is to properly prepare teachers to teach content in a varied medium that is easily received by all students. Teaching is not “one size fits all”. Instead effective teaching requires that educators use students’ experiences and cultural backgrounds as a segue way to further develop their academic skills.
Cultural responsive teaching can lessen the effects of cultural mismatch among teachers and students. “A cultural mismatch among African American school students and their teachers, due to diverse values, norms, and expectations, often provokes inappropriate teacher response to student conduct, thereby inciting disruptive student behavior” (Berger, 2006). For example, a student who recently transferred from an urban high school in Washington, DC to a suburban school in Columbia, South Carolina is experiencing cultural mismatch with his teachers. He is comfortable with teachers that have similar backgrounds in urban education, but does not relate to the class structure or teaching style of the instructors that do not understand his culture. As a result, there is miscommunication between teacher and student which leads to him having several disciplinary referrals and feeling excluded from his learning environment. In the end, he may become another casualty to the school system that failed to provide an environment that validated his identity or that was safe and secure for learning. Culturally responsive teaching recognizes the influence of culture, language, race, and socio-economic status that labels students as different from the majority yet provides a framework to make them apart of the learning environment (Phuntsog, 1999).
How can teachers transition from ‘just’ teaching diverse ethnic and socio-economic groups, to becoming responsive to the identity, cultural background, and experiences of the learner? It is going to require a systemic change in the way schools and teachers views culture, learning, language, and instruction. In addition, they will have to determine if they will continue to prescribe to the “melting pot” philosophy, where students are expected to assimilate into the dominate culture; or, alter their beliefs so that they are aligned with the philosophy of cultural pluralism. The latter celebrates diverse languages, cultures, and perspectives and views a multicultural setting as an oasis of opportunity. Schools must be willing to facilitate teacher professional development programs which operate under the premises that cultural diversity is not a liability, but rather, the foundation from which lesson planning and instruction beget (Phuntsog, 1999).
References
Berger, V. (2006) Does caring matter? A qualitative study of urban African American
alternative school students' perceptions of their school experiences, past and present?, Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences,vol. 67, no. 03, pp. 823
Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school success: The politics and culture of
educational achievement. Anthropology & Educational Quarterly, 18, 335-356.
Phuntsog, N, (1999). The Magic of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy: In Search of the
genies lamp in multicultural education. Teacher Education Quarterly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hot Topic: Should religion be banned from schools?
ReplyDeleteAmerican schools are very selective about what is made a part of the curriculum nowadays. While we can teach about intense global conflicts, different cultures, major tragic historical events and other ‘sensitive subjects,’ many people reject the idea of incorporating religion. However, it seems as if religion has to be discussed when learning about certain cultures or countries in order to fully understand material. It is impossible to teach about India without speaking of Hinduism, or talk about conflicts between Israel and Palestine without mentioning Judaism. Still, the ideas of religion are normally not taught until students are in high school or college. For some people, religion is a large part of who they are and how they live their lives. From a young age I was always interested in learning about the religions that my friends practiced, for I wanted to know why they celebrated Hanukah or Diwali. Through learning I became more understanding, and actually more interested in learning about other such holidays, religions and cultures. While some are opposed to teaching about religion in schools, teaching might be the key to creating more globally aware and open-minded citizens.
In 1963, the trial of Abington Township School District vs. Schempp made it illegal for school officials from leading or organizing prayer in American schools (Haynes, 2003, 1). However, this did not mean that religion was banned from the classroom entirely. It simply meant what it said; school faculty could not lead prayers. Students were still allowed to pray individually or in small groups, could discuss their religion and could wear things like crosses, stars of David, and other religious emblems. Still, it seems that ever since then, religion has been almost ‘left out’ of schools, so it would seem that each district was neutral. When the decision of Abington Township School District vs. Schempp was made in 1963, there was no intention of removing the discussion of religion from schools (Haynes, 2003, 1). Actually in the Schempp case, Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark even went as far as to say, “It might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization …. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be affected consistently with the First Amendment” (Haynes, 2003, 1). So, it seems clear to me that religion was not removed from the classroom, just certain types of prayer were. In fact, Justice Clark suggests that education calls for students to learn about religion, the history of it, and how it has impacted civilization (Haynes, 2003, 1). I, too, agree that religion is something that has such a great impact on global history, and should be embraced by teaching it.
The problem, however, with teaching religion is that teachers may be biased when presenting certain religions. Still, it should be expected that good teachers can teach about cultures and religions without including their personal opinion. Teaching religion should be just like teaching history, you are teaching facts, not personal opinions. If a teacher can successfully present curriculum about religion without biased, it can be highly beneficial for students. Young children tend to be more open-minded than adults who set their minds on certain stereotypes. By teaching about how each religion is unique and special, children are likely to be interested in learning about them, just as they would typically be when learning about new countries and cultures. Using literature in younger grades to teach about holidays of other religions promotes awareness and understanding. More than likely there are books out there that can teach more about religion without getting into the political aspects of it.
Our nation is truly a melting pot, filled with numerous ethnicities, religions and cultures. By making our children aware of such things in schools, they are more likely to get a more accurate portrayal of groupings, rather than watching the news or hearing harsh stereotypes and derogatory terms being thrown around. Religion is a great thing, and should not be looked down upon. I’m sure that many fear that teaching religion in school means teaching about God and Christianity. But just like teaching about countries and cultures, it is important to teach about as many as possible. This can mean touching on the religions practiced within the school or about a variety of religions in general. Still, I truly believe, the more that we know about the ‘unfamiliar’ the more likely we are to accept it.
ReplyDeleteAs Supreme Justice Tom Clark mentioned, religion is an important thing to consider in education (Haynes, 2003, 1). It has been around for centuries, and will continue to be until the end of time, so there is no reason to overlook it. With proper consideration, and discussion within districts and schools, room in the curriculum can be made to teach more about a variety of religions, cultures and nations. There is a great big world out there, and our students are not only a part of it now, but they will be in charge of it down the road. As educators, we should be committed to teaching them not only curriculum, but also about the types of people they will come in contact with. As said, people gravitate to the familiar, so we should be committed to making them familiar with as many things as possible. By doing this, students are more likely to use their knowledge to build opinions, rather than creating prejudices based upon the media’s portrayal of different religions.
References
Haynes, C. C. (2003). Supreme Court’s 1963 school-prayer decision didn’t ban school prayer. First Amendment Center. Retrieved from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org /commentary.aspx?id=11563