Multicultural Education

Education has always been "contested territory," with conflicting and divergent interests competing for dominance. The history of public education in the United States is filled with conflicting demands over what should be taught, how, and by whom. Nieto (1996) described schooling as "a dynamic process in which competing interests and values are at work every day in complex and often contradictory ways" (p. 8). A key difference between service learning and multicultural education is that the latter grew out of an explicitly political movement for civil rights and is often accused of having a political agenda. This does not mean, however, that service learning is not political. Too often the term politics is believed to have negative connotations, and discussion of political motives in a movement or perspective is discouraged.

This relationship between interests, conflict, and power provides a context for the approach this book advocates of combining multicultural education with an activist component. Thus, while the original impetus for multicultural education emerged from a clearly political perspective (and has been unfairly maligned because of this), much of service learning also grew out of a different, but equally definitive, political ideology about the world. This ideology includes assumptions made by those in the field of service learning about the relationship between the individual and society, the role of democracy, the meaning of justice and compassion in alleviating suffering in the world, and about power, conflict, and group interest.

Christine Sleeter ( 1996) pointed out that one way to view multicultural education is as "a form of resistance to oppressive social relationships" (p. 10). Emerging from the civil rights movements of the 1960s, multicultural educators who focus on social justice as a goal have increasingly emphasized the role that oppression and social power play in perpetuating inequitable social arrangements. I follow Adams, Bell , and Griffin ( 1997) and use the term oppression rather than discrimination, bias, or prejudice "to emphasize the pervasive nature of social inequality woven throughout social institutions as well as embedded within individual consciousness" (p. 4).

Both the process and the goal of equal participation of all groups in society is the purpose of multicultural education. Sleeter and Grant's ( 1987) review of approaches to multicultural education is helpful in identifying the method used by those who claim to be multicultural educators. Teaching the Culturally Different focuses on the perceived needs of children of color or others who do not fit the standard cultural norm and emphasizes assimilation as a desirable goal. Human Relations emphasizes intergroup dynamics and "getting along' with others while avoiding broader issues of conflict. Often this approach can be identified by language that emphasizes similarities rather than differences. Each of these first two approaches stems from a political perspective based on a unitary view of society ( Morgan, 1986). In this view, individuals are united under an umbrella of common interests, conflict is seen as negative and destructive, and the role of power differentials is largely ignored.

Although each of these four approaches to multicultural education can offer valuable strategies and perspectives for creating more equitable educational structures, they do not address underlying causes of social inequity. The fifth approach, Social Reconstructionist Multicultural Education, teaches directly about oppression, discrimination, social justice, and how to take action against these inequities. As Banks ( 1991) noted, "The knowledge that is institutionalized within the schools and the larger society neither enables students to become reflective and critical citizens nor helps them to participate effectively in their society in ways that will make it more democratic and just" (p. 125).