Search results

“Multiculturalism” is a troubled concept, in a political as well as in a scholarly sense. What has triggered this paper is the authors’ experience of the hardships involved in understanding the power structures embedded in societies termed “multicultural”; we find ourselves equipped with a set of conceptual tools that are confusing, and with policy makers that compound that confusion. This presentation takes as its point of departure the tension engendered at the interface between popular democracy ground rules and minority rights, and turns in its second part to current political vocabulary in Norway. Thematically, the discussion moves from the intricacies of “cultural rights” to a closer look at the bias implicit in the benevolent phrase “fair terms of integration.” The suggestion is that hidden underneath the niceties, we find the unavoidable and seemingly unspeakable dilemmas of a welfare state confronted with non-economic, humanitarian principles. Let us be clear about one thing, however; the aim of this presentation is not to solve problems, but to face them.

Based on the aforementioned data, the risk index (RI) identifies the percentage of all students of a given racial/ethnic group in a given disability category. The RI is calculated by dividing the number of students in a given racial/ethnic group served in a given disability category (e.g. LD) by the total enrollment for that racial/ethnic group in the school population. The 1998 OCR data revealed risk indices for all racial/ethnic groups that were higher for LD than those found for MR. The NRC (2002) report stated that, “Asian/Pacific Islander have placement rates of 2.23%. Rates for all other racial/ethnic groups exceed 6%, and for American Indian/Alaskan Natives, the rate reached 7.45%” (p. 47). The second index, odds ratio, provides a comparative index of risk and is calculated by dividing the risk index on one racial/ethnic group by the risk index of another racial/ethnic group. In the OCR and OSEP databases, the odds ratios are reported relative to White students. If the risk index is identical for a particular minority group and White students, the odds ratio will equal 1.0. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicate that minority group students are at a greater risk of identification, while odds ratios of less than 1.0 indicate that they are less at risk. Using the 1998 OCR placement rates, the LD odds ratio for American Indian/Alaskan Natives is 1.24, showing that they have a 24% greater likelihood of being assigned to the LD category than White students. Odds ratios for Asian/Pacific Islander are low (0.37). For both Black and Hispanic students, the odds ratios are close to 1.0. The third index, composition index (CI), shows the proportion of all children served under a given disability category who are members of a given racial/ethnic group and is calculated by dividing the number of students of a given racial or ethnic group enrolled in a particular disability category. Two underlying assumptions of the CI are that the sum of composition indices for the five racial/ethnic groups will total 100%, and baseline enrollment of a given racial/ethnic group is not controlled. More specifically, the CI may be calculated using the percent of 6- through 21-year old population with the racial/ethnic composition of IDEA and U.S. census population statistics. For example, if 64% of the U.S. population is White, 15% is Black, 16% is Hispanic, 4% is Asian, and 1% is American Indian these data not interpretable without knowing the percentage of the racial/ethnic composition with IDEA. Hypothetically, IDEA data may show that of the 6–21 year olds served under IDEA, 63% are White, 20% are Black, 14% are Hispanic, 2% are Asian, and 1% is American Indian. To calculate disproportionality, a benchmark (e.g. 10%) against which to measure the difference between these percentages must be used. If the difference between the two percentages and the difference represented as a proportion of the group’s percent of population exceeds +10, then the racial/ethnic group is overrepresented. Conversely, if the difference between the two percentages and the difference represented as a proportion of the group’s percent of the population is larger than −10, then, the racial/ethnic group is underrepresented.

Education needs to be viewed in a holistic manner; it does not end when one simply acquires a degree or a job. Education creates human beings, shapes them into what they are and influences their behavior and attitude toward life. It contributes to creating a long-lasting effect on people’s mind and attitude. Developing a curriculum is not an easy task as it involves various dimensions of life, and one of them is to inculcate the idea of inclusivity and multiculturalism in the minds of young learners and help them to become effective leaders in the future. The process of teaching, delivery of lessons, assessment, evaluation and various pedagogical approaches needs to be aligned to deliver multicultural education. Society’s values, beliefs and goals should be translated into a curriculum that is relevant and connects students to society. Humanizing education to instill values that supports inclusivity and equality should be built around the cultural context synthesizing opinions and facts derived from the work of researchers and academics. This book aims to review research work conducted by academics across the world. Authors argue how social justice education and inclusion should be an inherent part of the curriculum. Strategies and tools are suggested that can strengthen the learning abilities of students and create an attitude of appreciation toward inclusivity. Case studies and interventions that have been effective are cited from Africa to the USA and UK, which can help create an intentional design of a classroom environment supporting multiculturalism. The book illustrates the importance of appropriate curriculum development involving all stakeholders and the integration of multicultural education in the curriculum. Concepts such as Ubuntu and academic freedom toward leadership development have also been stressed in this book.

Multiculturalism, in theory and practice, has become an important educational phenomenon in today's schools, colleges, and universities. It seeks inclusive avenues that equalize opportunities for all individuals (Sue, 2004). To a large measure, it incorporates multiple voices, including those of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) persons and communities in solving local, national, and global problems. As it appears, CLD learners are the majority in some of the largest school districts in the United States (Grossman, 1995, 1998; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Obiakor, 2004; Obiakor & Beachum, 2005). For instance, Ladson-Billings (1994) noted that these learners “represent 30 percent of the public school population. In the twenty largest school districts, they makeup over 70 percent of total school enrollment” (p. x). This revelation is particularly important today, especially because the composition of educational professionals and service providers still does not reflect the changing cultural and linguistic compositions of children in schools (Obiakor, 2007, 2008). At some levels, rather than progressive measures of desegregation, we are seeing retrogressive measures of resegregation. While this might not be a necessarily bad idea for some urban schools, the progressive goals of the 1954 Brown versus the School Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas case have somehow failed (Obiakor & Utley, 2004).

In schools across the nation, several strategies have proven to yield positive outcomes for multicultural students, especially those with special needs. For example, the responsiveness to intervention program (RTI) was implemented to aid English language learners in California (Boswell, 2005). The RTI program was fueled by the notion that even after implementing the best practices in schools a lot still deserved to be done. Students needed more intervention. Hence, in addition to existing interventions, fourth- and fifth-grade students still struggling spent an extra 45min of instruction with a speech and language pathologist or resource specialist over a nine-week period. As a result of this intervention, these students gained more than a year's growth in reading (Boswell, 2005). Furthermore, after the first year of the program, only 4 of the 63 participating students were referred for special education services. According to Boswell, in 2005, this program received the Golden Bell Award by the California School Board Association. In addition to programs like RTI, another intervention is administering effective mentoring and tutoring programs. Mentor programs have proven to be very successful in decreasing absenteeism and increasing academic achievement in students. Gensemer (2000) noted that peer mentor programs in elementary schools can increase the use of critical thinking skills, improve interpersonal skills, and increase the use of conflict resolution skills. Students learning from each other have proved to be very successful. Barone and Taylor (1996) contended that cross-cultural tutoring enhances students’ self-esteem, academic learning time, and sense of responsibility.

The establishment and implementation of a relatively strict immigration regime in Norway has taken place within a vocabulary of equality, humanity, social justice and decency. One aspect is an insistence on a “restricted and controlled” immigration in order to protect a state of equality in Norway and avoid the emergence of a new “underclass.” Another is the stress on Norway’s humanitarian traditions and the rich country’s responsibility towards people in need, also globally. A whole rhetoric has evolved where immigration politics appears as a matter of decency, somehow apart from the more pragmatic tug-of-wars affecting other fields of politics. On the one hand, a “restricted and controlled” immigration is necessary in order to protect certain moral qualities of Norwegian society. But on the other, immigration politics has also appeared as an indicator of the moral qualities of the Norwegian nation-state thus requiring “decent policies” in order not to threaten the image of a nation embodying such moral qualities.

What drives this diffusion process? One neo-institutional answer to this question is that new models of nationhood, organization, and social identity exist in the larger world environment (Meyer, 2009, p. 36ff). Because they are external, these “identities” and models can be adopted without huge costs and without necessarily entailing the reorganization of society or actors’ personalities. Thus the models of modern society can spread quickly because they are relatively easy to assume and because they have high legitimacy in the international environment. Conformity produces instrumental rewards as well. And it also signals to significant “other” nations and international bodies that a nation has accepted modernity and its responsibilities (see Boli & Thomas's discussion, 1999). Thus, foreign aid, loans, and credit may flow quickly to those developing countries that enact modern institutional structures like mass education and democratic elections.