The social and political context of diversity

¶ … Changing Social and Political Education System

The social and political context of diversity as it applies to education seems to be in a point of confusion. The conservative movement in favor of the English only classroom in publicly funded schools has been fueled by the terrorist events that occurred in September of 2001. Those same events also fuel the cause of diversity in education in both a social and a historical sense. Though these two issues are not by any means the same they do reflect attention in very separate areas of educational trend setting. Even before the September 11th events occurred the backlash toward multicultural education had taken a strong hold on the political perspective.

Ron Unz, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur who in 1998 helped push forward California Proposition 227 mandating English-only instruction, for example, has broadened his horizon. Unz's new target: the broader "multicultural agenda." He is quoted, for instance, in an August editorial in the Orange County Register in California, as saying that developments in California "will destroy the credibility of a lot of these activists who support the full multicultural agenda." (Pardini 2000)

The perspectives of each camp reflect ideas that may have already been employed before a national attach changed our cultural world-view. On the conservative side, those advocating renewed vigilance of patriotism and Americanism, can be seen in the xenophobic ideal of requiring an English-only learning environment, almost regardless of immigration rates and societal needs. In the other camp the recognition of September 11th as a wake up call for the American education system to embark on the teaching of a more multicultural nature, clearly not an old ideal. The world has more global communication than ever before and both perspectives reflect a fear of the effect this might have on the American culture.

Although there might be renewed xenophobic currents in the country, educators say it is more important than ever to teach how the United States is viewed in other countries, because the world has never been more tied together by economic, cultural and other forces. The changes must be long-term, they say, unlike past bursts of interest in countries where the United States had relatively short-term involvements (Strauss 2001).

Though emotionally compelling and even statistically forthright the "English For the Children" site and movement seems to have been politically reinforced by the current national feeling of fear. Isolationism is a natural response to such a public display of our open nature making us an easy target. The rejection of native language education may be statistically realistic and even debatably fair by some standards. The Perspective of Diane Ravitch in "Now is the Time to Teach Democracy," though well spoken and very educated seem to be using the emotion of the September 11th events to charge "multicultural" education as a bad idea, claiming that world history is somehow not part of what is meant by the use of "multicultural" in the education system.

If curriculum reformers agreed on more time for the study of world history, that would be a major improvement in all of our schools. However, what they have in mind is not more world history but more "multiculturalism," more attention to our own racial and ethnic differences (Ravitch 2001).

Teaching principles of democracy and foundational American cultural ideals is not only important it is crucial. The ideal of tolerance is also a part of American foundation, though Ravitch deems the teaching of tolerance after such an event somehow makes the educated unable to judge good from bad of individual action. Ravitch charges proponents of multicultural education as blaming the victim by the implication that our being unaware of the hatred of our culture in some regions as a causation of our fate.

In "Obituary: The Bilingual Ed. Act, 1968-2002," James Crawford makes the alarming observations of a political perspective of the uncharged nature of the elimination of the Bilingual education act and the establishment of the Title III as a part of a larger education reform act, No Child Left Behind. The alarm unfolds as the fiduciary nature of the reforms spell out a reflection of fear-based funding, sanctioned by low test scores, that although increases in total is expected to be spread further in a non-converse manor. "Annual English assessments will be mandated, "measurable achievement objectives" will be established, and failure to show academic progress in English will be punished" (Crawford 2002). Crawford also brings up another very relevant point in the fiduciary allocation changes that will allow individual State education systems, arguably political and dependant on propriety, to determine what qualifies as the "Scientific Research" that determines the needs and growth of non-native English students. All of this and a much more detailed accounting of the trend away from bilingual education can be seen on Crawford's "Language Policy Web Site & Emporium."

The many perspectives of the social and political context of diversity in education goes far to prove the deeply complex nature of these issues. James Crawford sees the division surrounding the issue of bilingual education and in turn diversity in our education system and our culture to be a split between political and social agents.

Advocates for English as the official language, who successfully exploited anti-immigrant attitudes in the 1980s and 1990s, find themselves increasingly isolated. As more American communities get accustomed to diversity, bilingualism no longer arouses the fears it once did. Yet these trends have not translated into political support for bilingual education. Virtually no prominent leaders seem willing to step forward to defend native-language programs. Clearly they sense the unpopularity of a pedagogy that is widely viewed as an impediment, not a means, to acquiring English.