The Battle for Diversity in Education, Ideology, and Politics

From: Nili Kirschner
Email: nili@cats.ucsc.edu
Course: Psych 100G: Issues of Diversity in Developmental Psychology
College: University of California, Santa Cruz
Instructor: Eugene Matusov
ClassWeb: http://www.ematusov.com/psych100G
ChildrenObservations: No
Date: 13 Dec 1996
Time: 19:00:00
Remote Name: ss1-pc41.ucsc.edu

Abstract

The postmodern world is moving towards universal acceptance of a diverse approach to education. Recent anthropological, sociological, and psychological studies have uncovered remarkable variation in the way people teach and learn (Griffin & Cole, 1984; Luria, 1976; Rogoff, 1995). Yet despite this trend towards diversity, most American schools have resisted policy reform and changes in the classroom (Cuban, 1993). This resistance is plausibly an attempt to maintain the present social structure in America. The meritocratic schooling system is instrumental in reproducing the hierarchical social structure of our society (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Roby, 1972). Not until we change the underlying foundations of American society will we be able to institute educational reform and make diversity a universal premise.

Paper

In recent times, technology, mass communication, science, culture, and the findings of the social sciences have combined to put us in an historically unique context. People on every corner of the globe are gaining access to the knowledge and practices of other societies. We are starting to de-ethnocentrize the canons of social and psychological theory; diversity is becoming a more prominent topic of study, particularly in field of education and schooling.

Psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists have discovered great variation in styles of teaching and learning both across and within a given culture. Theories of education such as "scaffolding" (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) have been revealed as culturally specific (Griffin & Cole, 1984). It seems that the only thing that is universal about the way people teach and learn is the fact that it is diverse. Yet with the construction of a "global village" and the increasing access to other cultures via mass media and computer technology, are diversity and universality destined to merge? It seems that as we draw nearer to widespread acceptance of diversity, this premise itself becomes a form of universality.

Recent decades have witnessed the emergence of new theories of learning and education. Cognitive paradigms that were formerly regarded as universal have been shown to be, in fact, a product of a unique cultural and historical context. Psychologists Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) developed the concept of scaffolding as "the basis for a theoretical model of the teacher in informal education" (Greenfield, 1984, p.118). Until recently, this model of teacher-student interaction was believed to be a universal pattern of learning; the discovery of other patterns of instruction such as guided participation (Rogoff, 1995) proved that the scaffolding model is not generalizable to all cultures.

Soviet psychologist Alexander Luria's landmark study of formal reasoning across cultures also changed the face of educational theory (1976). His findings challenged the Western assumption that the syllogism is the universal paragon of rational thought and reasoning. His studies of illiterate cultures showed that cognitive processes are embedded within one's sociohistorical context and cannot be judged by a universal standard. He also showed that formal schooling itself impacts the ways in which people think and learn.

These theoretical innovations were facilitated by a philosophical movement towards Soros' (1995) notion of reflexivity. The realization that thought and reality are intertwined - that how we think about something impacts that object itself - has transformed the former belief that there is one right way of doing things into a quest for learning from diversity. Rather than fitting actual learning processes into preconceived theories and models, educators and researchers are uncovering the interdependence of theory and reality.

Theoretical changes in favor of a diversity approach herald the collapse of scientific and moral "truths" that have been part of the current ideological hegemony of the Western world. It should follow, then, that there be a shift from adult-run classrooms where the teacher supposedly has all the answers, to a classroom in which everyone is expected to have something to contribute, everyone's voice is heard and valued. Students and educators from diverse background have things to learn from and teach to one another. There is no room in post-modern classroom for the narrow definition of an ideal student - the white, middle class, English-speaking mold (DeLashmutt & Braund, 1996).

Today's classrooms must focus on the construction of knowledge as opposed to its discovery; this new attitude challenges the assumption that there is a universal "truth" just waiting to be uncovered. This more collaborative learning environment involves aspects such as social interaction, individual exploration of subjects, room for creativity, and acknowledgement of different learning styles. Traditional education had the goal of taking individuals and pouring them in to a culturally-defined mold. The post-modern classroom has a new mission: to strive for diversity, equality, and tolerance through inclusion, acceptance, and the broadening of horizons.

However, the changes mentioned above are far from universally implemented. In his book How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms 1880-1990, Larry Cuban (1993) discusses the ways many American schools have resisted the trend towards a more diverse and inclusive perspective on learning. He cites John Dewey as describing this resistance as "largely atmospheric", meaning that attitudes towards educational policy are often a function of one's surroundings. For example, teachers in rural, conservative, homogenous communities may lack the administrative support, funding, and cultural experience to bring diversity into the classroom.

Aside from lack of support and funding, educational reform is further inhibited by the prevailing assumption that the teacher loses control over the students in non-traditional classroom settings. For example, collaborative learning, which depends on a pluralistic form of discussion, is a threat to the authority of teachers who are accustomed to traditional, adult-centered classroom organization. Cuban also points out that the traditional classroom setup is more convenient and efficient for teachers with limited time and increasing class sizes, conditions which are a hallmark of American public schools.

Yet with an imminent shift toward diversity on the horizon, how long can schools resist change? In light of the recent findings that diversity and collaborative styles of learning can be beneficial to students, the questions arise: Why is there resistance to change? Why are school districts so hesitant to fund and support teachers in making the transition to non-traditional schooling? To answer these questions, it is necessary to look beyond educational institutions and examine the societal superstructure as a whole.

Schooling is an important agent of socialization. Sociologist Randall Collins (1979) argues that the most fundamental purpose of education is to prepare students for their social and cultural positions within society. Pierre Bourdieu's thesis about the unequal distribution of cultural capital and the perpetuation of social inequality provides a theoretical framework for understanding the relationship of education to the social structure in America (Bourdieu & de Saint-Martin, 1974; Bourdieu, 1977).

The educational system of a society can be viewed as a means of reinforcing, perpetuating, and legitimating the configuration of that society. Sociologists Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (1976) maintain that American schools' basic function is to reproduce a hierarchically organized class society. Sociologist Pam Roby (1972) also documents how the pyramidal economic structure of capitalist societies such as America has shaped and influenced the development of educational institutions.

In the video Preschool in Three Cultures (Tobin, Wu, & Davidson, 1989), a typical day of preschool is shown in Japan, China, and the United States. The structure of each school, from classroom setup to teacher involvement to curricula, clearly reflected the political configuration of the governments of each society. In China, conformity and the ability to think, work, play, and perform necessary daily activities as part of a group were emphasized. These traits are particularly useful in an overcrowded, communist society such as China. In the United States, the democratic, capitalist paragons of individuality and responsibility were fostered.

Even within one culture, there are differences (Cookson & Persell, 1985; Lareau, 1987; Roby, 1972). In America, children of working class families often attend public schools, where they are taught unquestioning obedience to authority and are shown their place in society(Schwartz, 1996). Often they are relegated to remedial or vocational classes, while middle class children are geared towards college preparatory skills and courses (Roby, 1972). Upper class children often attend elite private schools in which a totally different set of values is fostered: leadership and entrepreneurial thinking (Cookson & Persell, 1985).

The meritocratic model of American schools prepares children for their place in a democratic, capitalist society (Raboy et al, 1996). It would not be useful in a democracy for everyone to excel in math or biology or art, because our society is limited in how many mathematicians, scientists, and artists we need for optimum social and economic production (Matusov, personal communication).

Level of education has also been linked to voting participation (Lipset, 1995). The more education one has, the more likely one is to vote. If the people receiving the best educations are predominately white, upper class Americans, then voting patterns serve to maintain the upper class political hegemony and to continue to shut out voices of discontent from the less affluent members of society.

Formal education is instrumental in maintaining the current social structure. Resistance to change in schooling, in any society, is an attempt to perpetuate that society's present political and ideological practices. In order to promote a more diverse way of teaching and learning, we must first examine which social structures are obstructing the road to change. Without ideology and politics to legitimate traditional forms of education, it will be easier to implement educational reform in favor of a diverse perspective.

REFERENCES

Bourdieu, P. & de Saint-Martin, M. (1974). The school as a conservative force: Scholastic and cultural inequalities. In J. Eggleston (ed.), Contemporary Research in the Sociology of Education. New York: Harper & Row.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel & A. Halsey (Eds.), Power and Ideology in Education. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.

Collins, R. (1979). The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification. New York: Academic Press.

Cookson, P.W. & Persell, C.H. (1985). Privilege and the importance of elite education. Preparing For Power: America's Elite Boarding Schools. New York: Basic Books,Inc.

Cuban, L. (1993). How Teachers Taught: Consistency and Change in American Classrooms, 1880-1990. New York: Longman.

DeLashmutt, G. & Braund, R. (1996). The Postmodern Method, Education (Ch. 6). http://www.crossrds.org/doteduc.htm

Greenfield, P.M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff and J. Lave (Eds.) Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Griffin, P. & Cole, M. (1984). Current activity for the future: the Zo-ped. In B. Rogoff and J. Wertsch (Eds.), New Directions for Child Development, 23: 45-63. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: the importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60 (2): 73-85.

Lipset, M. (1995). The conditions of the democratic order: Economic development and democracy. Political Man (Part I, Ch.2). http://www.spc.uchicago.edu/~wwwssr1/PRELIMS/Political/pomisc2.hmtl

Luria, A. (1976). Cultural Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Matusov, E. (1996). personal communication from lecture for "Issues of Diversity in Developmental Psychology"; University of California, Santa Cruz.

Raboy, M., Bernier, I., Sauvageau, F., & Atkinson, D.(1996). Cultural development and the open economy: A democratic issue and a challenge to public policy. Canadian Journal of Communication. http://hoshi.cic.sfu.ca/calj/cjc/BackIssues/19.3/raboy.hmtl

Roby, P.(1972). Women and higher education. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 404: 118-139.

Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, apprenticeship. In J.V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, A. Alvarez (Eds.) Sociocultural Studies of Mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schwartz, J. (1996) Toward a democratic socialism: Theory, strategy, and vision. http://www.dsausa.org/Lit/vision2.html

Soros, G. (1995). The failed philosopher (interview with B. Wien). In G. Soros, B. Wien, & K. Koenen (eds.) Soros on Soros: 209-236. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Tobin, J., Wu, D. & Davidson, D. (1989). VIDEO: Preschool in Three Cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. Fourth Wave Productions.

Wood, D.J., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17: 89-100.

Last modified January 12, 1997