The advancement of globalization around the world shifted South Korea’s rapid change into a multicultural society. As a result, the characteristically homogenous school environment in Korea has seen an increase in students from diverse cultural backgrounds. Currently, the total number of multicultural students is 109,387 (1.9%), a large comparative shift from previously when there were solely Korean students in classrooms. In addition, multicultural areas with schools where over 50% of students are multicultural are increasing in Korea. However, because of the national curriculum guidelines in Korea, all classrooms operate in the same way regardless of student backgrounds. The language barrier and other cultural differences pose difficulties for multicultural students to keep up in coursework. Overall, schools that are accustomed to the traditional national curriculum have difficulties in school reform regardless of the changes in student demographics ratio. However, in an endeavor for school reform, the Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education has designated for school reform multicultural international innovation schools where multicultural students make up over 30% of the students. These schools have at least 50% autonomy in curricula, whereas other Korean schools have to follow the national school curricula. There are three elementary school curricula designed as multicultural international innovation schools in Gyeonggi-do. This article examines school reform in a multicultural society by focusing on how three primary schools are designated as multicultural international reform schools.
Insil Chang and Lydia Harim Ahn
Etta Hollins, Jamine Pozú-Franco, and Liliana Muñoz-Guevara
The central purpose for teaching is advancing the quality of life on planet earth through the organized transmission of intergenerational collective and cumulative knowledge combined with further developing the academic and intellectual capacity of the present generation for building upon and extending existing knowledge, as well as developing new knowledge. Teaching supports the development of the whole person academically, intellectually, physically, psychologically, and socially. This includes developing the ability to take care of one’s self and to support the needs of family and community. Competence for classroom teaching requires consistently demonstrating adequate subject matter knowledge, professional knowledge, and knowledge of learners for facilitating the growth and development of learners from diverse cultural and experiential backgrounds, and learners with special needs. Knowledge of learners includes familiarity with the home and community cultures, the resources available in the local community, prior knowledge from within and outside school, the research and theory about child and adolescent growth and development, and the aspirations and challenges embraced by both students and their communities. Teacher preparation programs purposefully designed to support transforming urban schools and communities contextualize professional knowledge and practice for teaching students from cultural and ethnic groups that have been traditionally underserved, isolated, oppressed, who live in poverty or urban areas, or who have experienced cultural and linguistic imperialism. Purposeful teacher preparation provides candidates with a well-designed, interrelated, and developmentally sequenced progression of professional knowledge and learning experiences that foster the development of deep knowledge for learner growth and development. Examples of purposefully designed teacher preparation programs ensure that candidates have deep knowledge of their personal cultural heritage and language. In the teacher preparation program, candidates learn to make connections between the school curriculum and the cultural traditions, values, practices, and ancestral knowledge from their personal cultural heritage. Candidates learn to apply their understanding of these connections in developing pedagogy and learning experiences for students with whom they share a personal cultural heritage and ancestral knowledge. Through this process candidates learn principles of teaching practice that can be transferred to teaching students with a different cultural heritage and ancestral knowledge. Learning to apply specific principles of practice across cultural groups is developed through shared experiences with peers in the teacher preparation program from different cultural groups and through engaging in guided teaching experiences with students from different cultural groups. Important goals embedded within this approach to teacher training are preserving and restoring the cultural heritage of students and improving the quality of life in the local community and the nation.
Candace Schlein, Elaine Chan, and JoAnn Phillion
There is a need to move from a policy curricular perspective to a pragmatic orientation of the curriculum so that issues of teaching and learning may sharpen into focus in relation to learning interactions between teachers and students. An experiential perspective on the curriculum through narrative inquiry would contribute significantly to the existing literature. Further work highlighting students’ and teachers’ lives serves to underscore natural overlaps between cross-cultural and multicultural vantages on research in education. Narrative inquiry work in the areas of multicultural curriculum and cross-cultural curriculum are seminal for supporting a vision emphasizing experience. Data drawn from experiential research that combines multicultural curriculum and cross-cultural curriculum may inform policy and practice from a contextualized vantage. Narrative inquiries that adopt multicultural and cross-cultural lenses represent tremendous potential for extending educator professional development and enhancing understanding of students’ school experiences.
The words diversity and multiculturalism are ubiquitous in the contemporary educational lexicon. They are certainly hallmarks in many educational conversations. Recent trials, tribulations, and triumphs in the areas of diversity and multiculturalism are not without historical context or educational precedent. The evolution of diversity and multiculturalism in the United States has been and continues to be a struggle. The lofty language that is immortalized in the United States Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance promises all U.S. citizens the right to life, liberty, safety, happiness, and so forth. However, this promise has not always been kept for all U.S. citizens. The full recognition of one’s rights in the United States has depended on one’s race/ethnicity, gender, social class, religious beliefs, ability status, and so forth. Consequently, the United States has also denied, ostracized, and oppressed groups of people based on these same aforementioned identities (e.g., slavery, segregation, sexism, etc.). This resulted in amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the American Civil Rights Movement, and the Women’s Rights Movement, as well as others. These movements were no panacea; they simply weakened overt manifestations of bias, and allowed for more nuanced, covert, and/or institutionalized forms of bias. The elimination of overt bias also creates the illusion of success. People begin to think that the problems are solved because they are not obvious anymore. This highlights the need for diversity and multiculturalism in order to identify and expose covert bias and remind people that the struggles of the past are not just part of history; they undergird the problems we face today (e.g., achievement gaps, disproportionate discipline, and misidentification for special education). Ultimately, diversity/multiculturalism has the ability to provide a kind of interconnectedness among people by having them face the perplexing problems of equity, equality, social identity, and personal philosophy. Embracing and understanding diversity/multiculturalism is the key to unlocking its transformational power.
As Japanese society diversifies with an influx of foreigners, multicultural education has a critical role to play in achieving educational equity and affirming cultural diversity of students from various cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds. Since the 1980s, Japanese scholars and educators have introduced, interpreted, and reappropriated multicultural education from the West, and have developed the field in conjunction with different education genres (e.g., human rights education, Dowa education, Zainichi Korean education, and education for international understanding). Scholars often use the term multicultural coexistence education (tabunka kyosei kyoiku) to discuss the role of education to realize a society of multicultural coexistence. Contemporary debates and controversies regarding multicultural education focus on the “3F” (namely, food, festival, and fashion) approach, the absence of social justice perspectives, its narrow scope, and the invisibility of majority Japanese. Although the concept of multicultural education was imported from the West relatively recently, when the number of newcomer students increased in public schools during the early 1990s, Japan has its own versions of multicultural education, such as Dowa education and Zainichi Korean education. These forms of multicultural education policies and practices, which were primarily developed in the Kansai area, take a somewhat progressive approach toward achieving educational equity and reducing discrimination against minorities. Today, multicultural education is often associated with education for newcomer students. Although the national government has provided remedial education (e.g., Japanese language and adaptation classes) under the notion of equal treatment, numerous nonformal education sites have played critical roles in achieving equity and empowering newcomer students. Multicultural education policies and practices remain peripheral in Japan at the national government level; nevertheless, grass-roots movements have emerged where local governments, nonprofit organizations (NPOs), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), concerned teachers, researchers, minority youth and parents, and community organizers are attempting to transform assimilative education policies and practices into more equitable and inclusive ones. With the rise of multicultural coexistence (tabunka kyosei) discourse, Japanese society is taking incremental steps toward achieving the goals of multicultural education.
John E. Petrovic and April Caddell
Multicultural education was born of racial and ethnic minority groups’ struggles to have their experiences, cultures, and ways of life recognized in dominant institutions. In schools, it means teaching the cultures, histories, values, and perspectives of different cultural groups, especially those of historically marginalized peoples. Since this approach can take perniciously shallow forms, educators have sought to incorporate the ideals of critical pedagogy and antiracism to inform a practice of “critical multicultural education.” Critical pedagogy rejects claims that knowledge is politically neutral and posits education and teaching as political acts. Informed by critical theory, critical pedagogy seeks to awaken students to the social, cultural, political, and economic milieu in which dominant forms of knowledge are constructed and through which power functions. A goal of critical pedagogy is for students to understand the way that injustice manifests and is reproduced and, ideally, to engage in praxis—critical reflection and action—toward societal transformation. Antiracist scholarship has sought to switch discussion of race and racism away from minority groups and, instead, to analyze white racism and whiteness as integral features of dominant institutions. It connects to critical theory in several ways, foremost of which is the position that racism was born of capitalist social relations. Like critical pedagogy, antiracist education seeks to understand, reveal, and counter structural forms of oppression. As such, antiracist education can be more widely presented as anti-Xist education, that is, antisexist, antiableist, antiheterosexist, and so on. In other words, the importance of antiracist education, as informed by critical race theory, lies not only in centering issues of race and racism. Black feminist scholars, for example, also point to the concern of the “intersectionality” of race, class, gender, and other sites of oppression. Lastly, unschooling also links to critical theory to the extent that traditional schooling represents and promotes the opposite of freedom and critical self-reflection. From a Marxian standpoint, unschooling understands the material reality of schools as manipulative, not convivial, and as reproductive of the status quo, not transformational. Compulsory, competitive schooling, according to this view, undermines learning and, instead, focuses on production, consumption, and spectation. Unschooling, instead, puts the power, responsibility, and, importantly, freedom for learning in the hands of the learner. Born of and informed by a number of different social movements (civil rights movements; women’s liberation, gay, and lesbian rights movements; indigenous rights movements; etc.), critical multicultural education, then, stands as multiculturalism plus both collective and individual empowerment for responsible, critical engagement against structural forms of oppression.
Carl A. Grant and Thandeka K. Chapman
Multicultural education (MCE) is a foundation of curriculum studies with an extensive history of debate and progress that harkens back to the earliest formations of public education in the United States. MCE can be viewed as both a philosophical and a pedagogical concept. As a philosophical concept, MCE is rooted in the ideals and values of democracy, social justice, equality, equity, and the affirmation and equal recognition of human diversity. MCE critiques the monocultural curriculum and ethos of the current and prevailing Eurocentric system of education and other racist structures in the United States. As a pedagogical philosophy of democracy, MCE advocates inclusion and promotes equal educational opportunity for all. MCE considers diversity to be one of the greatest strengths of the United States and regards free association and communication as valuable to human development. As a pedagogical philosophy of democracy, MCE is not static, and, although the ideology and conceptual lenses—equality, equity, social justice—remain firmly in place, the framing of MCE has been modified to welcome concepts other than race, socioeconomic status, and gender, and to facilitate deliberate discussions of power and privilege. MCE as a pedagogical philosophy of democracy seeks a fair playing field for all students and does not advocate the superiority of one culture or one group of students over the others. Although Black scholars at the turn of the 20th century consistently discussed the need for greater curriculum diversity and the recognition of contributions by people of color, forms of MCE in K-12 and higher education primarily evolved from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. During the Civil Rights Era, advocates challenged the primacy of whiteness in textbooks and argued for accuracy in reporting the history and culture of African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics. In addition, ethnic studies courses became a part of the curriculum at numerous high schools and colleges, and ethnic studies departments and programs were established at several universities. It was during this period of social reform that the K-12 MCE movement began to emerge. Multiculturalists argue for a curriculum that takes the child’s experience into account: a culturally relevant curriculum that is fluent and authentic in the design to meet the needs and interests of students and to prepare them for citizenship and the workforce. A multicultural curriculum should include content, multiple perspectives, visuals, critical questioning, and the practice of democracy. The field of education research and practice has evolved to a focus on social justice as curriculum. Social justice education reframes the curriculum to concentrate on past and present political events and societal perspectives that highlight issues of oppression and marginalization from institutional and structural positions, moving away from a focus on the interrelated nature of individuals and groups embedded in the foundations of MCE. Similarly, the revival of K-12 Ethnic Studies is a notable outgrowth of critical multicultural spaces. Ethnic studies courses attempt to bridge students’ lived experiences and the historic and current experiences of Americans to deconstruct and reconstruct school content, teachers’ pedagogical practices, and the hidden curriculum of whiteness and white privilege. As MCE continues to evolve, the related philosophy, concepts, and outcomes remain a vital component of the American curriculum.
Arts-based pedagogies hold incredible promise for education. Arts-based pedagogies provide unique, compelling pathways for teaching and learning that can permit entry to and support the success of all students regardless of gender, race, sexuality, religion, linguistic diversity, ability level, socioeconomic status, and other identity categories. Arts-based pedagogies can form the foundation of a transdisciplinary educational approach that centers contemporary understandings of multiple and multimodal literacies and meaning-making strategies useful to teachers across disciplines and in more integrated teaching and learning contexts. Crucially, when implemented through a critical framework, arts-based pedagogies can be equity-based pedagogies, allowing for the translation of research, teaching, and learning into awareness, understanding, creation, and activism.
Carlos Alberto Torres
The emergence of post-national citizenships questions the principles and values as well as the rights and responsibilities in which national citizenships were founded. Does this new reality reflect a crisis of classical liberalism and particularly of its neoliberal declination facing the new challenges of globalization and diversity? Multiculturalism, one of the answers to the dilemmas of citizenship and diversity shows signs of crisis. In these context concepts such as cosmopolitan democracies and global citizenship education have been invoked as solutions to the possible demise of the regulatory power of the nation-state and failed citizenship worldwide. The implementation of the Global Education First Initiative (GEFI) in 2012 by the UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon sets a new program for education where Global Citizenship Education is predicated as a resource to enhance global peace, sustainability of the planet, and the defense of global commons.
Peer-led and youth-led sex education primarily involves young people teaching other young people about sex, sexuality, and sexual health. This approach gained in popularity during the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s–1990s, as community organizations sought to address the unique sexual health needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth, many of whom had been underserved in traditional sex education spaces. Since then, peer-led and youth-led sex education pedagogies have been implemented by researchers, educators, and community organizations working across a range of sites around the globe. Peer-led and youth-led sex education generally draws on assumptions that young people are better situated than adults to talk to their peers about sexual health and/or to model positive sexual health behavior. However, some have noted that this perspective constructs young people as a homogenous group and ignores the ways in which sexuality and sexual health intersects with other social factors. Furthermore, there is a general lack of consensus across interventions around who constitutes a “peer” and what constitutes “peer-led” sex education, resulting in the development of interventions that at times tokenize young people, without engaging them in meaningful ways. As a result, evaluations of many peer- and youth-led sex education pedagogies suggest that even as these pedagogies improve young people’s knowledge of sexual health-related topics, they often don’t result in long-term sexual health behavior change. However, many evaluations of peer- and youth-led sex education pedagogies do suggest that acting as a peer educator is of immense benefit to those who take on this role, pointing to the need for program developers to reconsider what effective sex education pedagogy might look like. A “social ecology” or “systems thinking” approach to youth sexual health may provide alternative models for thinking about the future of peer-led and youth-led sex education. These approaches don’t task peer- and youth-led sex education with the sole responsibility of changing young people’s sexual health-related outcomes, but rather situate peer-led sex education as one potential node in the larger confluence of factors that shape and constrain young people’s sexual health.