Tyrone Howard begins an article from 2003’s Theory Into Practice by talking about the inherent need for the development of culturally sensitive teaching methods. The growing diversity of the population in the United States will require teacher training to fundamentally alter to include new or updated “skills and knowledge” that will allow teachers to “effectively educate today’s diverse student population.”
On the surface, few would question the veracity of Howard’s claim; the idea that the public education system has an implied obligation to promote the achievement of the greatest outcomes for the greatest number is one that may be assumed as embedded in the ethos of American culture. And while, pragmatically, his argument is one that is difficult to deny, I would like to question his very first assertion that “…the nation must be prepared to make the necessary adjustments to face the changing ethnic texture of its citizens.”
If the nation does not meet Howard’s stated challenge – the culturally sensitive education of a diverse student population – what will happen? What assumptions are being made about the public education system that might deserve investigation in the opening paragraphs? Is it the case that the normative role of the public education system is the culturally sensitive, culturally aware presentation of legislatively prescribed curricula?
Throughout the twentieth century, one can look to the development of standardized testing and its concomitant critiques to see that the intent of these types of exams was to remove any effect of a heterogeneous testing population. This may not, on the surface, seem like an insidious attempt at homogenizing the population, there are more explicit examples of education being used as a tool of assimilation. The Ford Motor Company ran an “English School” for immigrant workers wherein a Melting Pot commencement ceremony was held with graduates emerging from a staged pot to represent their “graduation” into American culture. And although it seems likely that one would be hard pressed to find a public school with a melting pot as part of their commencement exercises, there are still wildly polarizing debates on the role of the Pledge of Allegiance and whether or not it ought be compulsory in public schools.
All of that is to say that there is some evidence to suggest that – at least at some point, to some group of people – the normative role of the public education system was in fact quite the opposite of providing a culturally sensitive platform for the creation of critical thinking young adults with a mind framed in the impressions of social justice; it was to assimilate, inculcate, and create a very specific set of values often framed in terms of nationalism and patriotism.
To be clear here, I agree with Howard’s article. I find it to be well-presented, thoughtful, and thoroughly cited with material to support the assertion that race (and culture) matters, and that in order to ensure that public schools meet the needs of newly and increasingly diverse populations, there must be an “upstream” attempt to prepare teachers to meet the demands of the students that are and will continue to be in their classrooms.
I did find, however, that the opening paragraphs, and the assumptions therein, provided a fantastic opportunity to pause and analyze the complications of scholarly writing. We will be engaged in a highly specialized field of inquiry with an audience that is likely speaking the same professional language and operating from the same frame of reference as we are. Must we be careful to draw out and justify the assumptions implicit in our writings? Are we to assume that each reading of our work is to be subject to a fine-toothed exegesis that may reveal we have failed to justify a premise in our argument? Or may we assume that our shared frameworks and language influence an understanding of the “spirit” of our writing?
Quite clearly, there is a fantastic component of Access from the Access, Excellence, Impact theme here: is the public education system in the U.S. one that is inherently designed to provide access (and therefore impact) to all students on terms that most effectively meet their needs and help them achieve, or is it a tool of assimilation and inculcation? For my own purposes, the most interesting part of this read for me was that I was immediately disarmed by the “wait, is that right?” question I had when beginning the article, and the subsequent attempt at trying to figure out to what standard we will be held.
Sources:
Howard, T.C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.
Stephen Taylor
Stephen received undergraduate degrees in General Studies, Computer Science, and Philosophy; earned an MBA from Humboldt State University, and studied English Literature as a graduate student at Harvard University. He is a professional member of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and a regular member of the American Philosophical Association.