8
Conceptualisations of multicultural education among teachers: Implications for practice in universities and schools Dilys Schoorman a, * , Ira Bogotch b,1 a Department of Curriculum, Culture and Educational Inquiry, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA b Department of Educational Leadership, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA article info Article history: Received 16 November 2008 Received in revised form 10 July 2009 Accepted 29 October 2009 Keywords: Critical multicultural education Teacher education Universityeschool partnerships Teacher conceptualisations Multicultural researcher School-wide implementation abstract This study examined teachers' conceptualisations of multicultural education (MCE) within the setting of a laboratory school afliated with a university campus in south eastern USA. This unique setting provided the researchers with an opportunity to study multiculturalism as a whole-school construct and in terms of how universities teach multicultural education. The analysis of data collected from a school-wide survey and group interviews with teachers revealed a) the importance of how language is used in teachers' conceptualisations of MCE, b) patterns of congruence and divergence in these conceptualisa- tions and c) the implications of these conceptualisations for the teaching of MCE in universities and its implementation as school-wide practice. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Public schools and colleges of education around the world are increasingly being challenged to become multiculturalin the manner in which they think about the teaching and learning process, especially as education systems attempt to address the needs of traditionally marginalised populations (Hill & Allen, 2004; Moodley, 2004) or of recent immigrant or refugee populations (Figueroa, 2004; Schalk-Soekar & Van de Vijver, 2008). Within the USA, where this study is conducted, this challenge is supported by increased scholarship in multicultural education (MCE), a eld that emerged in the aftermath of the nation's Civil Rights Movement. While the eld, theoretically and normatively, addresses a broad array of topics e curriculum, pedagogy, policy analysis, teacher/student attitudes, leadership, educational access and achievement for diverse groups e it tends, empirically, to be narrowly focused on individual class- rooms, specic content areas, lessons, and/or grade levels. Further- more, studies of MCE within schools typically occur with an explicit focus on culturally diverse or under-served populations. The purpose of this study was to shift the focus of discussions of MCE practice from individual classrooms, individual teachers, and specic courses and grade levels, to the context of MCE as a whole- school implementation. We chose to study this topic at our uni- versity's kindergarten-grade 8 laboratory school, an environment that has welcomed the conduct of research and also has a notable reputation for academic excellence. University Lab School (ULS; a pseudonym) has received state report card grades of A for the previous ve years and was a recipient of the Federal Government's Blue Ribbon distinction. In choosing our own university lab school we wished to underscore the fact that MCE should be undertaken in all types of school/university contexts, and e fullling the purposes of a lab school within the university e this study would, therefore, inform our own practices as university teachers and researchers (Cochran-Smith, 2006; Cochran Smith & Lytle, 1995). This investi- gation by professors in teacher education and educational leader- ship respectively, sought to address the theory into practiceconcerns that have typically been associated with university class- rooms generally and multicultural education, specically (Gay, 1995; Sleeter & Bernal, 2004). As such, it was important that we went to teachers in our own university lab school (64% of whom were graduates of the university; 75% of the teachers had taken university coursework in MCE) to ascertain the extent to which their university courses in MCE were relevant to their daily realities as teachers. Our investigation was guided by the following two questions: - How do U.S. school teachers conceptualise the notion of multicultural education (MCE) as it relates to their work * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 561 297 3003; fax: þ1 561 297 2925. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Schoorman), [email protected] (I. Bogotch). 1 Tel.: þ1 561 297 3558. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate 0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.047 Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1041e1048

Conceptualisations of multicultural education among teachers: Implications for practice in universities and schools

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Conceptualisations of multicultural education among teachers: Implications for practice in universities and schools

lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1041e1048

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Conceptualisations of multicultural education among teachers:Implications for practice in universities and schools

Dilys Schoorman a,*, Ira Bogotch b,1

aDepartment of Curriculum, Culture and Educational Inquiry, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USAbDepartment of Educational Leadership, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 16 November 2008Received in revised form10 July 2009Accepted 29 October 2009

Keywords:Critical multicultural educationTeacher educationUniversityeschool partnershipsTeacher conceptualisationsMulticultural researcherSchool-wide implementation

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 561 297 3003; faxE-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Sch

(I. Bogotch).1 Tel.: þ1 561 297 3558.

0742-051X/$ e see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.047

a b s t r a c t

This study examined teachers' conceptualisations of multicultural education (MCE) within the setting ofa laboratory school affiliated with a university campus in south eastern USA. This unique setting providedthe researchers with an opportunity to study multiculturalism as a whole-school construct and in termsof how universities teach multicultural education. The analysis of data collected from a school-widesurvey and group interviews with teachers revealed a) the importance of how language is used inteachers' conceptualisations of MCE, b) patterns of congruence and divergence in these conceptualisa-tions and c) the implications of these conceptualisations for the teaching of MCE in universities and itsimplementation as school-wide practice.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Public schools and colleges of education around the world areincreasingly being challenged to become “multicultural” in themanner inwhich they thinkabout the teachingand learningprocess,especially as education systems attempt to address the needs oftraditionallymarginalised populations (Hill & Allen, 2004;Moodley,2004) or of recent immigrant or refugee populations (Figueroa,2004; Schalk-Soekar & Van de Vijver, 2008). Within the USA, wherethis study is conducted, this challenge is supported by increasedscholarship inmulticultural education (MCE), afield that emerged inthe aftermath of the nation's Civil RightsMovement.While thefield,theoretically and normatively, addresses a broad array of topics e

curriculum, pedagogy, policy analysis, teacher/student attitudes,leadership, educational access and achievement for diverse groupse it tends, empirically, to be narrowly focused on individual class-rooms, specific content areas, lessons, and/or grade levels. Further-more, studies of MCEwithin schools typically occur with an explicitfocus on culturally diverse or under-served populations.

The purpose of this study was to shift the focus of discussions ofMCE practice from individual classrooms, individual teachers, and

: þ1 561 297 2925.oorman), [email protected]

All rights reserved.

specific courses and grade levels, to the context of MCE as a whole-school implementation. We chose to study this topic at our uni-versity's kindergarten-grade 8 laboratory school, an environmentthat has welcomed the conduct of research and also has a notablereputation for academic excellence. University Lab School (ULS;a pseudonym) has received state report card grades of A for theprevious five years and was a recipient of the Federal Government'sBlue Ribbon distinction. In choosing our own university lab schoolwewished to underscore the fact thatMCE should be undertaken inall types of school/university contexts, ande fulfilling the purposesof a lab school within the university e this study would, therefore,inform our own practices as university teachers and researchers(Cochran-Smith, 2006; Cochran Smith & Lytle, 1995). This investi-gation by professors in teacher education and educational leader-ship respectively, sought to address the ‘theory into practice’concerns that have typically been associated with university class-rooms generally and multicultural education, specifically (Gay,1995; Sleeter&Bernal, 2004). As such, itwas important thatwewentto teachers in our own university lab school (64% of whom weregraduates of the university; 75% of the teachers had takenuniversitycoursework inMCE) to ascertain the extent towhich their universitycourses inMCEwere relevant to their daily realities as teachers. Ourinvestigation was guided by the following two questions:

- How do U.S. school teachers conceptualise the notion ofmulticultural education (MCE) as it relates to their work

Page 2: Conceptualisations of multicultural education among teachers: Implications for practice in universities and schools

D. Schoorman, I. Bogotch / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1041e10481042

within the contexts of (a) the classroom and (b) the school asa whole?

- What are the implications of these teacher conceptualisationsof MCE for the teaching of MCE in the university teachereducation and educational leadership programs?

2. Theoretical framework

Scholars have identified many different approaches to theimplementation of multicultural education in schools, eachapproach linked to different philosophical orientations (Banks,2001b; Duarte & Smith, 2000; Grant & Sleeter, 2006; Ladson-Bill-ings, 2004; McLaren, 1994; Nieto, 1994; Sleeter & Grant, 2003).Many of these approaches are presented in typologies that repre-sent a continuum that ranges from compensatory or tokenisticefforts, followed by those that address specific ethnic or culturalgroups with an emphasis on prejudice reduction, to more critical/transformative efforts that seek to address the systemic inequitieswithin the education and society (see Table 1). It is efforts con-ceptualised within this final approach, critical/transformative, thatundergird the courses in MCE offered at the university. How suchefforts are internalised by teachers in the school practice is thefocus of the first research question of this study. Table 1 belowsummarises this continuum of approaches.

Efforts emerging from a critical/transformative approach arevariously labelled as multicultural and social reconstructionist(Sleeter & Grant, 2003), anti-racist (Grinter, 2000), critical multi-culturalism (McLaren, 1994), critical pedagogy (Freire, 1996; Kin-cheloe, 2004; McLaren, 2006), and social justice pedagogy (Bell,1997; Bigelow, Christensen, Karp, Miner, & Peterson, 1994; Wie-deman, 2002). Collectively, these theories/practices assert thateducation is not neutral, but rather is a political process and thatMCE, should not be limited to the instrumental purpose of work-force development but rather should facilitate critical democraticcitizenship through the representation of multiple perspectives inall facets of curriculum and school practice. In the context ofteacher education, critical MCE should facilitate conscientisationamong teachers that would inspire efforts towards changing(rather than preserving) the status quo. Theorists call attention tocomprehensive, school-wide implementation of multiculturalism,including curriculum content, instruction, schoolecommunityrelationships and teachers, as well as the necessary link betweeneducation and democracy.

MCE as school-wide practice, requires multifaceted efforts.Banks (2001a) identified five dimensions of MCE that serve as

Table 1Approaches to multicultural education.

Theorists Compensatory efforts Multiethnic efforts Critical efforts

Banks(2001b)

Contributionsapproach

Additive approach Social actionTransformativeapproach

Sleeter andGrant(2003)

Teaching the exceptionaland culturallydifferent

Human relations Multiculturaland socialreconstructionistapproach

Single group studiesMulticulturaleducation approach

Nieto(1994)

Tolerance Respect Affirmation,solidarityand critique

Acceptance

Nieto(2003)

Social justice

McLaren(1994)

Conservative/corporatemulticulturalism

Liberalmulticulturalism

Criticalmulticulturalism

Left liberalmulticulturalism

a starting point for our discussions and analyses of school-basedpractices. These dimensions include: 1) content integration, inwhich Banks (2001b) identified incremental levels ranging fromthe tokenistic “Contributions Approach” and the fragmented“Additive Approach” to the integrative “Transformative Approach”and decision-making oriented “Social Action Approach”, 2) theknowledge construction process, that examines the bias of class-room knowledge by asking, “Whose knowledge is presented?” and“For whose benefit or loss? 3) prejudice reduction highlighting theneed for positive and constructive cross-cultural interactions, 4)equity pedagogy emphasizing culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay,2000; Irvine & Armento, 2000) and dialogic approaches toinstruction, re-conceptualizing the role of the teacher as a reflectivedecision maker (not a de-skilled transmitter of knowledge), and 5)the total school culture that addresses the “hidden curriculum” thatunderlies the school's demographics (both faculty and studentdiversity), labelling and grouping practices and participation inschool-based decision making. Whereas the previous four dimen-sions pertain to individual classes, this dimension draws attentionto MCE as a whole-school phenomenon.

Previous studies of teacher perceptions of MCE have revealedthat the term multicultural education evokes a wide range of con-ceptualisations and these, in turn, link to how teachers implementMCE in school-based practice (Fong & Sheets, 2004). Those whoseconceptualisations were grounded in social justice viewed theirroles as teachers as activists, who worked collaboratively, ratherthan in the isolation of their classrooms, andwhose rangeof concernextended to issues of inequity both within and outside the school(Leonard & Leonard, 2006; McCall, 1995; Montano, Lopez-Torres, &DeLissovoy, 2002). Yet, as Greenman and Kimmel (1995) warned,most teachers continue to view MCE in terms of ethnic studies andhuman relations approaches, equating cultural difference withparticular groups of students, even after receiving universityinstruction about the relationships between education and themany meanings of diversity (see also Larke, 1990; Zimmerman,2006). Zimmerman's (2006) study confirms teachers' comfort withsimplistic view of diversity that highlights the celebratory ratherthan the critical or transformatory approaches to MCE, while Bell's(2002) results reveal that teachers' beliefs about their raciallyneutral social positions and colour blind ideology prevented themfrom addressing racism or affirming their students' diversity.

Although there is evidence that courses in MCE in teachereducation programs have a positive impact on pre-service and in-service teachers' views (Edwards & Kuhlman, 2007; Wiggins, Follo,& Eberly, 2007), our analysis was also informed by the limitationswith teacher education programs that explain mounting evidenceof individual teachers' failure to apply the MCE knowledge theylearned in their teacher education programs (Ahlquist, 1992; Holm& Nations-Johnson, 1994; Leonard & Leonard, 2006; Sleeter, 1992;Zimmerman, 2006). These limitations include a ‘diversity orienta-tion’ rather than a ‘justice orientation’ in most teacher educationcourses related to MCE (Wiedeman, 2002), a perception ofuniversity courses in MCE as dealing with “grandiose, wonderful,utopian ideas” that were unrelated to the “here and now” practicalreality of teachers and students in public schools (Fong & Sheets,2004, p. 14), a paucity of social justice oriented experientialopportunities (Montano et al., 2002), and the lack of recognition byteacher educators of the developmental progression in multicul-tural education among teachers (Fong & Sheets, 2004) e it takestime to develop what Leonard and Leonard (2006) identified as thethree diversity dispositions required of teachers: culturalconsciousness, intercultural sensitivity, and commitment to socialjustice. The stress of having to address complex issues of diversitybased on education received through teacher education programsthat marginalised or isolatedMCE, instead of making such concerns

Page 3: Conceptualisations of multicultural education among teachers: Implications for practice in universities and schools

D. Schoorman, I. Bogotch / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1041e1048 1043

“front and center” (Nieto, 2000) and integrated throughout thecurriculum (Brown, 2004; Zimmerman, 2006), made teachers viewMCE as “just another forced ‘set of standards’”with which they hadto comply (Fong & Sheets, 2004, p. 13).

As researchers, we were mindful that any efforts implementedshould be developmentally appropriate to the institutional context(Gay, 2001) and should be viewed as an ongoing and comprehen-sive school reform process committed to making counter-hege-monic educational praxis integral to the standard operatingpractices of the educational institution (Schoorman, 2000). Ourperspective was that teachers (individually) and the school (asa collective) collaborate on a “journey” towards an ideal that no onereaches but where significant steps had been taken. The multipleapproaches and dimensions of MCE have allowed us to “map out”the field in order to contextualise the different pathways thatteachers and the school might have taken.

3. ULS as a research setting

As noted previously, the ULS, a kindergarten to grade 8 (K-8)school system with an emerging dual enrollment High School(Wright & Bogotch, 2006), had achieved a high state-level rankingand accolades over the past five years in recognition of its academicsuperiority. Over this same five-year period, the ULS had under-gone a number of significant administrative, structural, and culturalchanges. A new administration was hired to change ULS froma successful, elite laboratory school that catered to the children ofprofessors and prominent residents of the area to one in which thestricter enforcement of a school lottery admissions system, whichcalled for a student body that mirrored the state's population, bothracially and economically, resulted in significant shifts in thedemographics of the student population. At the time of the study,the school comprised 637 students, of whom 49% were categorisedas White, 23% Black and 22% Hispanic, representing an approxi-mately 18.6% and 16% increase over two years in total students, andthose qualifying for free and reduced lunch respectively. For thefirst time in the school's history, there were students admitted whocould not read at or beyond their grade level. These demographicchanges, colliding with the demands to maintain a level ofacademic excellence expected by the school's community and thestate's and federal government's accountability measures, sparkedan exodus of veteran faculty who could not re-commit to the newvision and populations of the school. As a result, the ULS facultyprofile dramatically changed from being almost exclusivelya veteran lab school faculty to now a younger, less experiencedfaculty, creating a veteran-novice gap on each grade-level team. Atthe time of this study, the number of teachers had increased by 35%over the previous two years, with only 6 teachers with more thanten years of experience at ULS in contrast to 23 teachers who hadless than three years' experiences at ULS.

Table 2Summary of survey responses.

Survey items Means1 ¼ Strongly disagree6 ¼ Strongly agree

Multicultural education is primarily for classes/schools that have diverse cultural groups.

1.8

Multicultural education is primarily a means ofensuring “politically correct” thought/actionwithin the educational setting.

2.1

The purpose of multicultural education is to promotethe self-esteem of diverse populations

3.9

Multicultural education is an approach to teachingthat requires us to provide equitable educationfor all students.

5.3

Multicultural education is inherently “good” education. 5.3

4. Method

This study was grounded in critical multiculturalism (Kincheloe&McLaren, 2005) and, as such, was designed to support a perceivedULS need (see Hostetler, 2005; Taylor, 1997) and to be criticallyreflexive about university-based multicultural education. Under-taken as a response to university, college, and school administra-tors' invitation for more universityeschool collaborative research,and to the school principal's observation that diversity was anevaluation criterion of the school and the teachers' performances,we sought to “situate” the multicultural practices of the school ande by implication e the university, within the broader contexts oftheory and research in critical multiculturalism.

Data was collected through a survey of all classroom teachers(N ¼ 33), administered at the school's opening professional devel-opment meeting, and through interviews with grade-level teams.The survey focused on the educational experiences of the teachersand their prior knowledge and perceived relevance of concepts inMCE in both close-ended questions using a Likert-like scale andopen-ended questions. The survey items are presented and resultsare reportedfirst as descriptive statistics inTable 2 (in Section 5.1) aswell as integrated into the discussions of overall findings.

The grade-level interviewswere conductedwith the cooperationof the principal, who recommended the group interviews duringteachers' planning time. Each interviewbeganwith an inquiry aboutthe convenience of this meeting time, and an offer to re-schedule.A total of 27 teachers participated in seven grade-level team inter-views (middle school teachers, grades 6e8, met as one team.) Theinterviewswere semi-structured and phenomenological in purpose(Fontana & Frey, 2005), and focused on the broad question: “Whatdoes multicultural education mean to you in your day to day realityas teachers?”Wefollowedupbyasking the teams todescribeMCEatthe classroom andwhole-school level. Based on the teachers' initialresponses, we probed for more specifics on the role of curriculum,students' and teachers' cultural background, school policy, thecommunity and conceptions of citizenship to explore howMCEwas(and was not) conceptualised. The meeting ended with askingteachers to respond to key terminology e “social justice,” “democ-racy,” “equity”e as they discussed howMCEwas conceptualised bythem, their grade level and the school as a whole.

Once each grade-level/team interview was completed, weengaged in multiple levels of analysis, beginning with a thematicanalysis of each interview through the use of the dimensions andapproaches to MCE as sensitising concepts (Patton, 1990). There-after, the data was triangulated across of sources (i.e., grade-levelteams) andmethods (i.e., closed and open-ended surveys and groupinterviews), as we looked for convergence and divergence amongthe teachers' responses. In keeping with the principles of analysisgrounded in critical multiculturalism, the four general patterns thatemerged from the data (see Results), represented what was explic-itly said, as well as what was not said, interpersonal dynamics of thegroups represented by silences as well as the more vocal, andcontradictions among conceptualisations across contexts. Thediscussion of the results highlight our reflexivity as universityinstructors as we address the findings in terms of their implicationsfor improvements in university-based instruction, not merelylimiting it to school-based improvements.

5. Results

The findings of our study will reveal the patterns of convergenceand divergence of the individual and collective conceptualisationsof multicultural education held by the teachers at ULS. In this

Page 4: Conceptualisations of multicultural education among teachers: Implications for practice in universities and schools

D. Schoorman, I. Bogotch / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1041e10481044

section, we will present the findings in terms of four observationsemerging from the data from the survey instrument and across thegrade-level team interviews: 1) There was collective agreementamong teachers on the central principles of MCE as measured bythe survey; 2) Meanings ascribed to MCE were inherent in thelanguage teachers used; 3)While there weremultifaceted practicesobserved across the school, they occurred in isolation from oneanother; 4) Teachers' conceptualisations of MCE were culture-based rather than power-based.

5.1. Collective agreement on central principles

The survey of teachers revealed that e as a collective e the ULSstaff was aware of the central principles of MCE as presented in thecourses offered at theuniversity.Of the33 teachers, 25of them(75%)had had a course in MCE. Their responses to the survey items aboutMCE demonstrated remarkable congruency across individualsexcept with respect to the relationship of MCE and self-esteem (seeTable 2 below). Collectively, the ULS teachers rated the statementthat MCE was “primarily for classes and schools that have diversecultural groups” (presented in multicultural undergraduate coursesas a myth) very low (1.8), with 30 teachers rating it as a 1 or 2(Strongly disagree or disagree) on a six point scale,while statementslinkingMCE to providing “equitable education for all students” or tobeing “inherently ‘good’ education” received the highest ratings(5.3). This teacher survey revealed that 100% of the ULS facultyassociatedMCEwith “goodeducation;”94%associatedMCEwith theterm “equity;” 60% associated it with “students' self-esteem.”

In the open-ended survey questions about what they remem-bered learning about MCE, the ULS faculty viewedMCE as a positiveconcept, associated with words and phrases such as “fairness,”“respect,” “acceptance,” “encouragement,” “a way of thinking,” “allstudents are comfortable,” “good teaching,” “social and emotionalgrowth,” and “awareness.” Only three teachers noted on the surveythat their multicultural coursework was not relevant or applicableto their current work (e.g., “Honestly, I do not remember much. It[MCE] was in the beginning of my graduate career”). A quantitativeanalysis of the open-ended questions revealed that 60% of theteacher responses highlighted cultural, ethnic, linguistic differ-ences, which should be used to create an integrated environment ofawareness, respect, fairness, and a “way of thinking.” For example,one teacher wrote, “That in order to be effective, multiculturaleducation has to be part of the overall atmosphere, culture andbeliefs throughout the school environment.” Another wrote: “Thatthere are biases inherent to individuals, cultures, and societies thatmust be recognised and addressed to ensure equity in education forall students.” The remaining 40% expressed their knowledge eitherin terms of what MC was not, e.g., not food, not one month out ofa year; or they focused on specific projects or subject areas, e.g.,literature, stories, oral country reports, ESOL, or art projects.

What the survey data underscored was a congruence ofperspectives among the teachers across the school as to the philo-sophical orientation towards the specific principles of MCE e

especially the efficacy and association with good education ingeneral; however, there was considerable variance in what theteachers told us about how they applied MCE principles to class-room and school-wide practices. In other words, the teachersplaced high on the MCE continuum of principles as reviewed in theliterature, yet utilised very limited understandings in both teacherestudent interactions in and outside of classrooms.

5.2. Meanings inherent in the language used

During the subsequent team interviews with teachers, wediscovered that the language used to describe teaching practicewas

central to understanding teachers' conceptualisations of multicul-tural education. The most commonly occurring term in teacherdiscussions of MCEwas ‘diversity’. It was the key term that was usedby the principal when she agreed to allow our study to go forwardin the school. “Diversity is one of our benchmarks and we will beevaluated on it. So this study will help us address our evaluation.”Teachers used the term ‘diversity’ to describe the changing demo-graphics of the school and the relevance of MCE within thatcontext. It is also important to notewhowas included in the label of‘diverse’. Among elementary grades, the focus was on the newdemographic of students joining the school; there was limitedfocus on students of the ‘mainstream’ in such discussions. Fewteachers (n ¼ 3), and these were teachers who were culturally‘different’ from themainstream, included themselves in discussionsof diversity and the implementation of multicultural practice intheir classes. Thus, despite the disagreement on the survey itemthat linked MCE with primarily diverse cultural groups, teachers'discussions of the meaning of MCE in their experiences focusedquite significantly on such cultural differences. Most were quick toview such diversity in positive terms, with statements such as, “Ourschool is like the United Nations.”

When discussing the specific terms presented at the end of eachinterview, in all grade-level teams, the term ‘Social Justice’ elicitedlaughter or a smile but very little follow-up conversation. Theteachers openly acknowledged that it was something more typicalof university coursework (i.e., a word that professors use), but itheld little meaning for them in their daily work at school. While‘social justice’ was clearly linked with university classes, the term“democracy” appeared to be more relevant. Teachers nodded toindicate that it did have meaning for their work in schools, but thetypical response, “Yeah, we do that” precluded any concretediscussions of how it applied. Despite the strong survey responseagreement with the concept of ‘equity,’ teachers did not use it in theinterviews, except when introduced by the researchers. At whichpoint, however, teachers discussed it in the context of assistingstudents who were ‘different’ in meeting the academic expecta-tions for success at that grade level. Their efforts were described interms of maintaining individual portfolios, monitoring, assess-ments and progress reports for these students.

The interviews thus called into question the teachers' perspec-tives that emerged through the survey. It appeared that whenpresented with key ideas on paper, teachers responded in a mannerthat represented critical multicultural perspectives (i.e., theydemonstrated an awareness of key philosophical principles ofMCE); however, the interviews revealed that they had not suffi-ciently internalised some of these ideas to discuss them in thecontext of their daily experiences as teachers. It also demonstratedthe extent to which teachers viewed certain concepts as havingrelevance solely to university contexts with limited applicability toreal life classrooms or schools.

5.3. Multicultural practices are multifaceted but isolated

Another pattern that emerged with regard to the meaning ofmulticultural education centered around examples of its imple-mentation. The interview data revealed that each grade-level teamidentified at least one dimension of MCE in their implementation.

5.3.1. Multicultural education as “strategies”for differentiated instruction

This was the sole conceptualisation of MCE in two grade-levelteams, a dominant theme in another, and was mentioned by allexcept one team. In three grades MCE was viewed as instructionlinked explicitly with “ESOL strategies” or to strategies for workingwith students with disabilities. This conformed to a compensatory

Page 5: Conceptualisations of multicultural education among teachers: Implications for practice in universities and schools

D. Schoorman, I. Bogotch / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1041e1048 1045

perspective, similar to Sleeter and Grant's (2003) ‘Teaching theexceptional and culturally different’ approach. A fourth teamrequested information on “strategies” for addressing ‘controversial’topics. In this case, although MCE was still seen in terms of“strategy” it was not confined to working with students perceivedas ‘different.’ One team discussed the implementation of MCE interms of broader pedagogical approaches (e.g., reflectiveness;viewing issues from an ‘outsider’ perspective; learning how toworkwith each other). This team also engaged in critical self-reflectionon their own decision making, commenting on the practice ofability grouping that they had instituted two years previously andexpressed concerns about the social impact of this labelling.

5.3.2. Multicultural education as “teachable moments”Another of the conceptualisations that emerged from teachers'

discussions was a view of multicultural education as learningopportunities external to the planned curriculum that resulted in“teachable moments” e unexpected, unplanned for instruction. Atone grade level, where teachers had grown up in a differentcountry, they reported that such opportunities arose when theydiscussed their differences in pronunciation or spelling. Teachersnoted that they affirmed that it was “OK to be different” and thisoften led students to disclose, “I speak Creole” or “I like Junkanoomusic.” Teachers at other grade levels also discussed students'accents and their international background as a facet of multicul-turalism in their grades. While these teachers noted that theirstudents were able to see differences positively, they also notedthat such spontaneous discussions had to be cut short because they“had to move on” with the lesson. A different type of teachablemoment was highlighted by one teacher in another team whonoted concern about students engaging in name-calling and the in-class efforts to address it. This resulted in re-organizing classseating and grouping so that all students would work with oneanother.

These teachable moments reflected multiple dimensions ofMCE. They demonstrated teachers' instructional flexibility (equitypedagogy) and efforts at prejudice reduction through the facilita-tion of the acceptance of self and others. Their impact on thecontent of the curriculum remained minimal, with examples moretypical of the contributions approach and where the impromptudiscussions always remained secondary to the formal curriculum.

5.3.3. Multicultural curriculum contentResponses to the question on how the curriculum (i.e., text-

books, mandates, etc.) supported their efforts in multiculturaleducation reflected Banks' multiple levels of curricular integrationas represented in the following examples: discussions of accents,vocabulary from different languages and international music in oneteam (contributions approach); Black History Month curriculumtopics in another team (additive approach); reading curriculumthat represented literature from and about diverse cultures ina third team (transformative approach); Social Studies as anexamination of “doing what was right for the world” in a fourthteam (social action approach). In two grades what was treated as“multicultural” was predominantly ‘international’ education, witha focus on different nations, particularly those for whom there wasa connection among the teachers. Except for the discussion ofJunkanoo music, there was less explicit reference to curriculumcontent that emerged from students' interests or backgrounds. Theinterconnection between multicultural education and the curric-ulum ranged from the notion that it was extraneous to the formalcurriculum (“This is good, but we have tomove onwith the lesson”)to the fact that it was “Not something that we teach in one lesson.”Teachers in only one team discussed a range of types of multicul-tural lessons: focus on specific cultures (Astronomy and the Maya),

explicit “MC connections” presented in the Science textbook,having students examine issues from multiple perspectives (Whydoesn't anybody do it the way we do?), the critique of Eurocentrichistory, global citizenship, community service, being not afraid toask questions and the value of being open with one another.

As we combined the multiple conceptualisations of MCE withinand across the grade-level data, it became evident to us that all fivedimensions of MCE identified by Banks were present in the schoolin varying degrees of complexity. The dimension of content inte-gration was represented, ranging from the impromptu discussionsof ‘surface’ culture to the planned integration of cultural content inthe formal curriculum (especially in reading) to the critical exam-ination of divergent perspectives (less widely represented, but stillpresent.) Equity pedagogy was represented in the concerns fordifferentiated instruction, and the instructional flexibility repre-sented by the use of ‘teachable moments.’ Prejudice Reduction wasseen in the concerns about name-calling that had been witnessed.Interestingly enough, the team below this grade level (as well asanother team) noted that their students were “colour-blind” andthat one did not see the cliques that emerged in the next level atthis grade level. Another team commented on the fact that studentsdid not “make a lot of hateful comments” during the school day, but“were getting nasty after school” a discrepancy that was immedi-ately attributed to the level of structure in each context. It appearedapparent that the potential for cross-cultural acceptance of theimpromptu teachable moments discussed by lower grade teamwasinadequate and unsustained at subsequent levels. The knowledgeconstruction process, where teachers address the bias of thecurriculum was less represented in the interviews. Nevertheless,there were discussions of Eurocentric curriculum bias, encouragingstudents to ask questions, and the need for strategies for addressingcontroversial topics.

The fifth dimension identified by Banks, an empowering schoolculture, emerged as somewhat of an enigma in this study. Despitestrong convergence of teacher perspectives on the survey items anda positive overall outlook towards diversity, the interviews yieldedevidence of a lack of systemic coherence of conceptualisation andimplementation of multicultural education across the school.Despite the presence of the multiple dimensions of implementa-tion within the school, each grade in highlighting a differentdimension, appeared to operate in isolation of one another, whichprecluded an integrated, school-wide approach to multiculturalpractice. Furthermore, despite efforts to recruit members of diversecultural backgrounds into the student body and the staff, it wasunclear how these demographic shifts had enhanced the schoolculture significantly.

5.4. MCE as culture-based, not power-based

While the previous sections relating to the meaning of MCEemerged from a consideration of what teachers said, this sectiondraws on what was not said or said less frequently, and theimplications of such silences for teaching practice. Evident in thediscussions of multicultural practice was the tendency to be ideo-logically and philosophically driven towards non-controversialissues of representation, exemplified by the mention of accents,music and culture-specific literature; less represented were criticalreflections on power and privilege in school policy and practice inthe context of diversity. Although one team asked for guidance inaddressing controversial topics, and another teacher noted that“equity” was an issue that was “more something the school put onpaper rather than practiced”, critical perspectives were less evidentin the interview data. Only one team actually wrestled with themulticultural appropriateness of a policy that their group hadimplemented. The tendency for multicultural education to be

Page 6: Conceptualisations of multicultural education among teachers: Implications for practice in universities and schools

D. Schoorman, I. Bogotch / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1041e10481046

viewed as ‘additive’ curriculum, or ‘reactive’ pedagogy rather thancritical pedagogy emerged for us as researchers, as a concern to behighlighted for the school, and a potential facet of future profes-sional development.

Another observation common to all but two teams was thedominance of senior faculty in the interviews. There were timeswhen we pointedly asked questions of the newer, and more silentteachers only to have the seniors take over the responsibility ofresponding. It was unclear to us if this was a form of “protecting”the newer teachers from the “tough questions of the outsiders” orwhether it was a more typical pattern of communicating. Evenrequests for materials/strategies came from veteran teachers,rather than the newer ones. Also interesting were two exchangesthat we had with faculty members outside of the group interviewsthat contradicted what was presented within the grade-levelinterviews. In each case, the faculty member presenting an alter-nate and critical perspective was either new and/or of colour. Thiswas an indication to us that, at least for these two teachers, theculture of the school did not allow for alternate viewpoints. Thesilencing of new comers, whose experiences with classes inmulticultural education were more recent, was a concern.

6. Discussion

The themes regarding language use, the multiple dimensions ofmulticultural practice and the avoidance of critical perspectivesyield several implications for school practice and for programs inteacher education and educational leadership.

6.1. Language matters: re-examining the connectionsbetween our words and our practice

The language used by the teachers represented narrow e and,within the USA, dated e perspectives of MCE through references tostudent demographics as the rationale for instructional efforts.Such a perspective is typically linked to a conceptualisation of MCEas compensatory, targeted for students of ‘non-mainstream’ back-grounds, rather than an undertaking relevant for all groups thatwould interrogate issues of power and privilege. Diversity thusframed as demographics was non-inclusive of whiteness, rarelywent beyond issues of “surface” culture, and except for one team,did not include diversity of perspectives as normal and/or essentialto intellectual growth. The use of ‘diversity’ to indicate “otherness”also extended to the manner in which ‘equity’ was used. Mostteachers used the term ‘equity’ to mean giving students an equalchance at success. Yet the implementation of this idea frequentlytook the form of “assimilationist” practice where efforts towardsequity were discussed in terms of addressing the ‘deficits’ ofstudents of colour and of less privileged backgrounds, with nomention (or interrogation) of the ‘privilege’ which is central to thelives of the majority of students and the basis of inequity.

These findings yield several implications for practice at theuniversity level. The first is the need to emphasise that MCE is notlimited to being about or for the “culturally different” (Sleeter &Grant, 2003) or guised as compensatory programs in the context ofimmigrant or refugee education, to the exclusion of social justiceeducation for students of privilege. It is crucial that contemporaryMCE moves beyond patronizing efforts that ultimately decultur-alise or re-colonise, and serves as a catalyst for emancipatory praxisas Freire (1996) intended. We also need to use terms and conceptsin university classes that have real meaning in the everyday lives ofteachers (Fong & Sheets, 2004). Making a tighter connectionbetween concept and reality will require that concepts such associal justice (Bogotch, 2002) or democracy in education arelearned as practical and meaningful to the teaching process.

Furthermore, if teachers are to ‘move beyond’ narrow discussions of“diversity” that focus primarily on assimilating culturally margin-alised students, it is important for university professors to:explicitly interrogate the privileging of this term in county, stateand national mandates (e.g., the dropping of ‘social justice’ butretention of ‘diversity’ in its standards by the leading accreditor ofteacher education programs in the USA), critically examineeducational laws and policies that directly impact marginalisedgroups in order to understand the injustices of colonial and otherhistories of domination that typically underlie mandates for equity,and recognise that diversity is neither necessary nor sufficient (seeCenter for the Humanities, 1970; Nieto, 1994) in the implementa-tion of critical multiculturalism.

6.2. Moving beyond fragmentation: the sumof the parts do not make the whole

The findings underscore the need for each of Banks' dimensionsto be addressed, not merely as isolated classroom-based or teacher-specific undertakings, but also as school-wide practices. Theimplications of this observation are significant for programs in bothteacher education and educational leadership. Teacher educationprograms tend to emphasise the individual teacher and his/herclassroom, typically in isolation from the rest of the school, payinglimited attention to equipping teachers with the sense of collectiveconsciousness as they engage inmulticultural practice. Connectionswith the whole-school tend to be approached as issues of compli-ance with school policy. Educational leadership programs, on theother hand, are explicitly geared towards building collective iden-tity among all teachers (and other stakeholders) in the school.However, in these contexts, discussions of MCE tend to be relegatedissues of demographic diversity; maintaining “the numbers” withregard to the population of the school or the achievement ofunderrepresented groups on standardised tests, providing teacherswith no opportunities to engage in ongoing, collective interroga-tion of their conceptualisations of multicultural principles andpractices.

6.3. Building community in the context of diversity

A perhaps unexpected finding of this study e that effectivemulticultural practice at a school-wide level was mediated by thepower dynamics of the communications patterns among theteachers e underscores the crucial role that organisationalcommunication plays within successful organisational cultures.The silencing of new teachers (and the new teachers' acceptance ofthis role) and the imbalance of participation evident in our inter-views, revealed an organisational culture that was not used toexamining underlying power dynamics, even within their ownteams. The focus on diversity as a function of demographics alsoprecluded the valuing of diverse perspectives among teammembers and across of grade-level teams. It became apparent thatthere were fewmechanisms for communication across grade levelsto facilitate a broader discussion of diverse perspectives. In fact, themost critical perspectives emerged from the team of teachers withthe largest number of members, who were used to dealing withdiversity of specialisation among the different subject areas. Ina school context of veteran dominated teachers, such a findingmight not be as surprising; but as we noted, ULS had few veteranteachers.

This finding has several implications for schools and universi-ties. These include the need for all teachers to re-conceptualisetheir own role, to move beyond dutiful transmitters or activetransformers of curriculum within classroom settings to becomeactive leaders within their school as they advocate for and support

Page 7: Conceptualisations of multicultural education among teachers: Implications for practice in universities and schools

D. Schoorman, I. Bogotch / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1041e1048 1047

ongoing change and growth within the school as a social system(Harris & Muijs, 2004). Preparation for such practice needs to beginwithin university classes and be supported through administrativepractice and leadership values that not merely encourage, butrequire democratic practice and decision making among teachers.This is not unlike the requirement of class participation that isquite common in teacher education and educational leadershipclassrooms. A transfer of those requirements (e.g., contribute todiscussions without dominating them, actively elicit the partici-pation of colleagues who are silent/silenced, consciously contributeto a climate that is welcoming of diverse perspectives) to actualschool-based organisational practice could make the curriculum ofuniversity courses and the pursuit of multiculturalism withinschools more authentic. The site of the school as an “apprenticeshipin democracy” (Sleeter &McLaren,1995)e a concept emphasised inUS university classes in MCE with reference to students' experi-ences e should be viewed as integral to the experiences of teachersas well, in the pursuit of multiculturalism at the school level.

7. Conclusions

This study focused on understanding MCE as it operated ona school-wide basis. As the results show,while all grade-level teamsvalued multicultural education and exemplified its dimensions,teachers' conceptualisations seemed to reveal that the conceptoperatedprimarilyat the individual classroom level andeffortswerelargely compensatory rather than critical. Clearly, universityprofessors and the educators in the schools that they serve need tore-conceptualise and re-emphasise MCE as an empowering schoolculture, rather than as isolated and fragmented efforts. To this end,models ofMCE and examples ofmulticultural practice need tomovebeyond highlighting the work of individual teachers as classroom-based practitioners, but also re-define teachers as leaders whoinspire collective efforts across the school in a broad-based,systematic effort towards critical multiculturalism.

What should be noted is that the findings with regard to thefragmentary and isolated efforts within the school, actually repre-sent a school that is both typical and unique. The school is typical inthat its teachers respond to the concept of multicultural educationaccording to the terms and ideas that best fit into and emerge fromtheir lived reality: accreditation standards, evaluation criteria and/or administrative mandates. It is typical in that most schools, andeven the scholarship within multicultural education itself, focusmore on multicultural education as classroom practice, rather thanas school-wide practice. This school is unique because it appearedthat all teachers were sincerely committed to the idea[s] of multi-culturalism, welcomed diversity (even though such was narrowlydefined), and implemented multicultural practice in at least one ofthe dimensions. The challenge remains to bring the many percep-tions of MCE across the grade levels into focus so that a dialogueabout commitment, experiences and growth may emerge for theconcept of multiculturalism as a whole-school phenomenon.

Simultaneously, the challenge for teacher education and educa-tional leadership programs, that are organised largely separate fromone another, is to work harder to integrate the valuable theory ofmulticultural education with the practical realities of teachers andadministrators. This can be done by professors recognizing therealities of classrooms and schools as teachers respond to multi-culturalism from amore “pragmatic” perspective and byworking toincorporate these authentic experiences into their theory buildingefforts. Furthermore, by integrating the emphases of each field ofstudy, efforts in MCE in teacher education programs could begin toinclude school-wide practice, emphasizing the need for teacherleadership in the pursuit of MCE. Teacher leadership, thoughunderrepresented in the literature on MCE in teacher education,

underscores the central commitment of social justice activists tomove beyond educational practices confined to one's own class-room, and to facilitate multicultural education as collective praxiswithin the broader contexts of one's community, whether that bethe school, neighborhood or beyond. This applies to professors too,who can ground their research/service in the everyday realities ofteachers in their communities, working alongside them in thepursuit of social justice and educational equity. Educational lead-ership programs, which are already focused on whole-school prac-tice, could re-conceptualise MCE beyond considerations of diversity(as demographics), and compliance with state mandates (asaccountability), to embrace the curricular and instructional imper-atives typically emphasised in critical multicultural practice butstruggled over by teachers in isolated classrooms.

If multicultural education is indeed an ideal “towards whichhuman beings work but never fully attain” through “a reformmovement” that is “an ongoing process” (Banks, 2001a, p. 4), wemust necessarily see the efforts of the teachers at ULS, as well as theinsights learned by professors through this study, as vital steps ona journey. Each step must be valued for what has been achieved,while being mindful of the “next steps” to be taken. It is in this lightthat we hope the findings of this study will be read and discussed.

References

Ahlquist, R. (1992). Manifestations of inequality: overcoming resistance in a multi-cultural foundations course. In C. A. Grant (Ed.), Research and multiculturaleducation (pp. 89e105). London: Falmer.

Banks, J. A. (2001a). Multicultural education: characteristics and goals. In J. A. Banks,& C. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (4th ed.).(pp. 3e30) New York: Wiley.

Banks, J. A. (2001b). Approaches to multicultural curriculum reform. In J. A. Banks,& C. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (4th ed.).(pp. 225e246) New York: Wiley.

Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams,L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook(pp. 3e15). New York: Routledge.

Bell, L. A. (2002). Sincere fictions: the pedagogical challenges of preparing whiteteachers for multicultural classrooms. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(3),236e244.

Bigelow, B., Christensen, L., Karp, S., Miner, B., & Peterson, B. (1994). Creatingclassrooms for equity and social justice. In: Rethinking our classrooms, Vol. 1.Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. (pp. 4e5).

Bogotch, I. (2002). Educational leadership and social justice: from practice totheory. Journal of School Leadership, 12(2), 138e156.

Brown, E. L. (2004). What precipitates change in cultural diversity awareness duringa multicultural course: the message or the method. Journal of Teacher Education,55(4), 325e340.

Center for the Humanities. (1970). Eye of the storm. (video). Mount Kisco, NY: Centerfor the Humanities.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). The future of teacher education: ten promising trends(and three big worries). Educational Leadership, 63(6), 20e25.

Cochran Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1995). Foreword. In S. E. Noffke, & R. B. Stevenson(Eds.), Educational action research: Becoming practically critical (pp. viieviii).New York: Teachers College Press.

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

Edwards, S., & Kuhlman, W. (2007). Culturally responsive teaching: do we walk ourtalk? Multicultural Education, 14(4), 45e49.

Figueroa, P. (2004). Multicultural education in the United Kingdom: historicaldevelopment and current status. In J. A. Banks, & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on multicultural education (2nd ed.). (pp. 997e1026) San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Fong, A., & Sheets, R. H. (2004). Multicultural education: teacher conceptualisationand approach to implementation. Multicultural Education, 12(1), 10e15.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2005). The interview: from neutral stance to politicalinvolvement. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook ofqualitative research (3rd ed.). (pp. 695e727) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed (New revised 20th anniversary ed.).New York: Continuum.

Gay, G. (Fall 1995). Bridging multicultural theory and practice. MulticulturalEducation 4e9.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Culturally responsive teaching.New York: Teachers College Press.

Gay, G. (2001). A multicultural school curriculum. In C. Grant, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.),Campus and classroom: Making schooling multicultural (2nd ed.). (pp. 31e45)New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Page 8: Conceptualisations of multicultural education among teachers: Implications for practice in universities and schools

D. Schoorman, I. Bogotch / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1041e10481048

Grant, C., & Sleeter, C. (2006). Doing multicultural education for achievement andequity. New York: Routledge.

Greenman, N., & Kimmel, E. (1995). The road to multicultural education: potholes ofresistance. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(5), 360e368.

Grinter, R. (2000). Multicultural or anti-racist education? The need to choose. InE. M. Duarte, & S. Smith (Eds.), Foundational perspectives in multiculturaleducation (pp. 135e154). New York: Longman.

Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2004). Improving schools through teacher leadership. Berk-shire, UK: Open University Press.

Hill, B., & Allen, R. (2004). Multicultural education in Australia. In J. A. Banks, &C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.).(pp. 979e996) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Holm, G., & Nations-Johnson, L. (1994). Shaping cultural partnerships: the readi-ness of pre-service teachers to teach in culturally diverse classrooms. InJ. O'hair, & S. J. Odell (Eds.), Partnerships in education: Teacher education year-book II (pp. 85e101). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.

Hostetler, K. (2005). What is “good” educational research? Educational Researcher,34(6), 16e21.

Irvine, J., & Armento, B. J. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Lesson planning forelementary and middle grades. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Kincheloe, J. (2004). Critical pedagogy: Primer. New York: Peter Lang.Kincheloe, J., & McLaren, P. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative

research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitativeresearch (3rd. ed.). (pp. 303e342) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2004). New directions in multicultural education: complexities,boundaries and critical race theory. In J. A. Banks, & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Hand-book of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.). (pp. 50e65) San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Larke, P. J. (1990). Cultural diversity awareness inventory: assessing the sensitivityof preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 12, 23e30.

Leonard, P., & Leonard, L. (2006). Teachers and tolerance: discriminating diversitydispositions. The Teacher Educator, 42(1), 30e62.

McCall, A. (1995). Constructing conceptions of multicultural teaching: life experi-ences and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(5), 340e350.

McLaren, P. (1994). White terror and oppositional agency: towards a criticalmulticulturalism. In D. T. Goldberg (Ed.), Multiculturalism: A critical reader(pp. 45e74). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

McLaren, P. (2006). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foun-dations of education (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Montano, T., Lopez-Torres, L., & DeLissovoy, N. (2002). Teachers as activists: teacherdevelopment and alternate sites of learning. Equity & Excellence in Education,35(3), 265e275.

Moodley, K. (2004). Challenges for post-apartheid South Africa: decolonizingeducation. In J. A. Banks, & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research onmulticultural education (2nd ed.). (pp. 1027e1040) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nieto, S. (Spring 1994). Affirmation, solidarity and critique: moving beyond toler-ance in multicultural education. Multicultural Education, 9e12, 35e37.

Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: some thoughts on transformingteacher education for a newcentury. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3),180e187.

Nieto, S. (2003). Profoundlymulticultural questions. Equity and Opportunity, 60(4), 6e10.Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury

Park: Sage.Schalk-Soekar, S. R. G., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2008). The concept of multicultur-

alism: a study among Dutch majority members. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 38(8), 2152e2178.

Schoorman, D. (2000). What really do we mean by internationalization? Contem-porary Education, 71(4), 5e11.

Sleeter, C. (1992). Keepers of the dream: A study of staff development and multiculturaleducation. London: Falmer.

Sleeter, C., & Bernal, D. D. (2004). Critical pedagogy, critical race theory, and anti-racist education: implications for multicultural education. In J. A. Banks, &C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.).(pp. 240e258) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (2003). Making choices for multicultural education: Fiveapproaches to race, class and gender (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Sleeter, C., & McLaren, P. (1995). Multicultural education, critical pedagogy and thepolitics of difference. New York: SUNY Press.

Taylor, D. (1997). Many families, many literacies: An international declaration ofprinciples. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Trade.

Wiedeman, C. R. (2002). Teacher preparation, social justice, equity: a review of theliterature. Equity and Excellence in Education, 35(3), 200e211.

Wiggins, R. A., Follo, E. J., & Eberly, M. B. (2007). The impact of a field immersionprogram on pre-service teachers' attitudes toward teaching in culturally diverseclassrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 653e663.

Wright, D., & Bogotch, I. (2006). High school: erasing borders. Journal of CollegeAdmission, 193, 18e24.

Zimmerman, L. W. (2006). Teacher perceptions of multicultural education in theUnited States. Mountain Rise, 3(2) [online].