Multicultural Education in the United States

Abstract

The United States of America represents a contradictory context for the consideration of cultural diversity in an education system. On the one hand, the Civil Rights Movement and legal decisions have enabled considerable progress to be made in the matter of the right to a quality education for ethnic minorities. On the other hand, the school still suffers from the relics of slavery and racial segregation, because racial mixing remains weak. In this chapter, we will first examine the historical circumstances in the emergence of multiculturalism.

1 Introduction

The United States of America represents a contradictory context for the consideration of cultural diversity in an education system. On the one hand, the Civil Rights Movement and legal decisions have enabled considerable progress to be made in the matter of the right to a quality education for ethnic minorities. On the other hand, the school still suffers from the relics of slavery and racial segregation, because racial mixing remains weak. In this chapter, we will first examine the historical circumstances in the emergence of multiculturalism. We then situate the consideration of cultural diversity between the Civil Rights Movement and legal decisions. We will also deal with the evolution of multicultural education and the schooling of ethnic minorities in the country. Finally, we will examine the appropriate contribution of critical pedagogy to multicultural education.

2 How Multiculturalism First Appeared in the United States

The appearance of multicultural education in the United States is the outcome of a long and complicated process written into the country’s earliest and contemporary history. To begin with, one must consider that the racial question was always a central feature in the political and intellectual debate in the United States. The scientific references that we will mention, the social and political events, the commitment on the part of some associations or celebrities illustrate the constancy of this theme in national debates. It is possible to identify a few paradoxes in this national context. Myrdal (1944) has, for example, shown that if the White population tended to believe in a profound equality, the discriminatory treatment reserved for the Black population demonstrates that between the ideal and reality there was a huge gulf. In this same line of thought, Price (1992) called into question the application of “American values”.

It is therefore very important to take into consideration the context when examining the development of intercultural approaches in education in the United States. First, one can say that the country had been founded on the triple foundation: “slavery/colonization/immigration”. White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) institutions and language provided the foundation for living together upon which successive waves of immigrants had to integrate and assimilate. The WASP culture dominated and still dominates to a great extent the country’s social, economic and political life. It is interesting to note, for example, that up to the present time John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Barack Obama and Joe Biden remain the only American presidents who were “non-WASP”.

We will see that slavery, already dealt with earlier in this book, has had a major influence upon the country’s cultural composition. However, one must also consider the different waves of immigration, fundamentally European, taking place between 1880 and 1920. These events launched a new policy, principally based on the wish to assimilate the newcomers who were required to adapt to the existing mores. The expression “melting pot” described this intention to “transform the immigrants from different ethnic and religious groups into Americans sharing a common culture, and developing common attitudes, values and ways of life” (Bisin & Verdier, 2000, p. 955).

The question of racial segregation also had an impact on the context in which multicultural approaches in education developed. The expression “separate but equal” reflected a policy for the separation of individuals following a Supreme Court decision (when dealing with the Plessy v. Ferguson affair).¹ Public life was thereafter governed by racial segregation. Such policies led to numerous disparities (educational, social and economic) to the detriment of the minorities.² Moreover, internal terrorism in the form of lynching and racial discrimination guaranteed that the Blacks were kept in a state of racial subjection and fear (Connor & Ferri, 2018).

This manner of managing ethnocultural differences dominated the United States until the emergence of the Civil Rights Movement on the political scene during the 1950s and 1960s, which thrust the combat for equality and opposition to residential and educational segregation to the fore. The emergence of multiculturalism in the American education system therefore forms part of the struggle by civil society against inequalities for access to education confronting the stereotypes reflected in educational curricula and institutions, while combatting the mediocre quality of—separate—education provided to ethnic and cultural minorities.

In the United States, the concept ‘multicultural’ pulls in two directions: One toward a celebration of diversity and individuality; and another toward the creation of a national curriculum that is paradoxically both pluralistic yet culturally unifying. In view that the United States is undergoing clear demographic shifts and changes in student population, and in view that education institutionally serves to both shape and to enable a dynamic citizenry, multicultural education in the United States is in need of sustained support and, indeed, expansion (Bal, 2016, p. 187).

3 The Civil Rights Movement and Legal Decisions

In 1954, a judgement by the Supreme Court in the celebrated affair of “Brown v. Board of Education” agreed that schooling based on racial separation was unjust and unequal. This judgement, extremely important in the history of education in the United States, opened a breach in de facto segregation that had affected Black American children and therefore drew particular attention to their schooling.

An examination of the laws adopted in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement shows the educational theme’s omnipresence (Table 1).

Table 1 Laws and legal decisions following the Civil Rights Movement in the United States

In the United States, during the period preceding the Civil Rights Movement, the poor school performance of Black children was typically explained by the theory of socio-cultural handicap. According to this theory, the educational difficulties of children in popular classes were attributable to a lack of socio-cultural resources (language deficit, cultural poverty, weak intellectual development, etc.). Recognition of the heritage and cultural experience of Black children was never admitted. This theory placed the blame for these children’s educational difficulties on the children themselves (and their parents), but does not become involved in calling into question an educational institution based on segregation and inequality. This theory was widespread during the 1950s.

The beginning of the 1960s was marked by the Civil Rights Movement’s stunning development conducted by the African-American community, with Martin Luther King as its principal leader. In reality, this movement formed part of the long struggle for equality carried out by Black Americans. Indeed, from the beginning of the twentieth century numerous Black American intellectuals had contributed to the theoretical and practical conception of multicultural education. Du Bois (1903) had described the African-American identity using terms such as double-consciousness or double identity (two-ness). He was indefatigable in fighting for equality for all American citizens, while affirming that the twentieth century’s principal problem was that of racial divisions. He was among the founding members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the most powerful organization for civil rights in the United States.

Malcolm X, for his part, represented a more radical and Afro-centric attitude. Faced with the reticence of White Americans about any gesture in favour of multiculturalism, Malcolm X fought for the birth of radical Black nationalism, which in his eyes was the only way to overturn the status quo of racial inequality. He converted to Islam and battled within the Nation of Islam organization (Malcom X, 1965).

Martin Luther King symbolized a clearly multicultural and pacifist position. He is well known for his famous speech “I have a dream …”, in which he called for the end of the Black community’s oppression and institutionalized racism. The Black Reverend Jesse Jackson now carries the flame of the historical combat by cultural minorities for equal rights.

The Civil Rights Movement aimed at obtaining social, political and educational rights for the Black minority equivalent to those of the majority of the population of European origin. Let us recall that the African-Americans in the United States have family roots going back much further than most of the descendants of European migrants. The development of this resistance movement by Black populations, as well as the movements for women’s rights and popular protests against the war in Viet Nam, resulted in an agreement about the need for public formal education to reflect and promote the contribution of all cultural and ethnic groups in American society. In 1964, the vote of laws enabling Black Americans to enjoy rights similar to those of the remainder of the population (Civil Rights Act) had a major impact in the progressive acceptance of cultural pluralism in educational institutions.

While the Black Americans struggled for equal rights, other cultural and social minorities joined the same fight for equality and the recognition of their heritage and their cultural particularity. The Chicanos (Mexican-Americans who had always lived in the south-west of the United States) and the Hispanics (Spanish-speaking Latin American immigrants), for example, demanded the right to use Spanish in educational institutions after decades of Anglo-Saxon domination. The Chicano movement “El Partido Nacional de la Raza Unida” (The National United People’s Party) had an important influence at the beginning of the 1970s by deciding the issue of several local elections in southern Texas (Estrada, Garcia, Macías, & Maldonado, 1981).

In the United States, multicultural education is clearly associated with the Civil Rights Movement. African-American researchers and educators working with all the civil rights movements represented the principal source of support for the partisans of multicultural education. The action of African-Americans and other minority groups protesting about discriminatory practices of which they were the victims in public institutions marks the start of multicultural education (Banks, 1981). Banks (1981) stressed the development of multicultural education during teacher training and in curriculum design. Nieto (2000) explored the way in which social, political and educational factors worked together to have a negative influence on the school careers of pupils belonging to certain ethnic groups. This author also described the impact on education of discrimination, racism, school policies, socio-economic status, ethnicity, gender, teacher training and expectations, as well as language. Finally, Nieto (2000) proposed the concept of “cultural equity” as a pillar of multicultural education.

Educational segregation, legally forbidden since 1954, has become once again a problem in the United States. It is, in fact, the suburbanization movement, in other words the relocation of middle and affluent classes to the outer suburbs of urban areas, that has resulted in the ethnic separation of populations and the return of racial homogeneity in the composition of school classes. This phenomenon illustrates the relative failure of multicultural approaches in their attempt to disrupt and then improve unequal ethnic relations.

Further to the problem of residential segregation, affluent people often send their children to private schools, usually located in the same suburbs where the middle and affluent classes (mainly White) have taken up residence in order to flee the violence, ghettos and the insecurity associated with city centres. Racial homogenization of residential areas and schools presents major obstacles in the improvement of the Black communities’ destiny. The phenomenon of removal to the affluent suburbs, also called “White flight”, has led to racial heterogeneity losing the little territory that had been gained in the wake of laws and initiatives following the Civic Rights Movement.

It is possible to say that the emergence of multicultural education in the United States is associated with the mobilization of some communities that have been historically marginalized and discriminated against. This mobilization has been followed up by legal, educational and social measures designed to improve cultural diversity and increase equity (Darling-Hammond, 2015; Noblet, 1993).

4 The Evolution of Multicultural Education and the Schooling of Ethnic Minorities

From its origins until the present time, several principles have shaped multicultural education and its implementation. One could say that there is a willingness for a global change, but adapted to the different structures of education systems that underlie the conception of multicultural education. One of the first directions of change to be established concerned the content of teaching. For Banks (1993), one of the most influential authors on this subject, curricula must include multicultural education. This means that such elements should not be added piecemeal, but should form an integral part of the official educational curriculum. One may observe, for example, that the movements launched in the 1960s in the United States allowed some groups to gain more visibility in the school and this happened, particularly, through the modification of educational curricula which had largely been based on the WASP heritage. These measures contributed to giving a positive image to the minority cultural groups themselves. They also encouraged the emergence throughout the United States of studies aimed at particular ethnocultural groups. It was at this epoch that African-American studies, Latino studies and studies on gender were introduced throughout the country (Kahn, 2008).

If the objective of multicultural education is not new, it should be said that it is still relevant today. Spring (2017) put forward the idea that considering different cultures and promoting them, as well as an understanding of inequalities, should be some of the themes included in educational planning and in the teaching proposed for the pupils. Today, multicultural education becomes a way of promoting the pedagogical content allowing pupils to learn to live in a diverse, global world in constant turmoil (NAME, 2018).

The second axis in the development of multicultural education that we will deal with concerns the relationship between the educational partners. Banks (1993) mentions the reduction in prejudice, as well as education for equity as key elements of multicultural education. In this same vision, Spring (2017) highlights the fact that an understanding of the way in which a pupil’s culture may be different from that of other pupils is a significant element in multicultural education.

Furthermore, the question of equity already raised by Banks (1993) and the objective of combatting discrimination, as well as social justice (NAME, 2018), show that multicultural education should not only be dealt with in the classroom and in the school: it should also be part of the education system and society as a whole.

Finally, multicultural education (according to its most recent definitions) should form part of the training and preparation of pupils to live in a diverse society. For NAME (2018), they should be prepared for the responsibilities that they will have to face in an interdependent world; they should also acquire attitudes, knowledge and competences for living in the company of different cultures.

It can therefore be noted that throughout its history, multicultural education has adopted different forms and has focused on different objectives. One could then say that it has taken shape through three different phases: (1) modifications to textbooks and curricula so as to include the contribution of minority cultures; (2) calling into question the idea of cultural handicap, very much in fashion until the beginning of the 1970s, and used to explain the poor educational performance of children belonging to ethnic minorities; and (3) public policies designed to reduce educational segregation, particularly through the mixing of pupils using school transport so as to obtain multi-ethnic classes.

Without denying their symbolic influence, these three directions have had a relatively modest impact on the country’s schools, particularly on educational desegregation which has persisted and continues until the present time due to residential segregation. If the Whites are no longer able legally to prevent the Blacks from sending their children to the same schools, they may leave the multicultural districts of large towns and install themselves in increasingly remote suburbs.

Figure 1 sums up the principal multicultural phases of the school in the United States and gives examples of how they were achieved.

Fig. 1

The three multicultural phases of the school in the United States

Still on the subject of the evolution of multicultural education in the United States, it can be stated that the 1970s represented an important watershed in their development (Gay, 1983). This change took place both in the curriculum and in teaching. As mentioned earlier, curricula began incorporating the contribution of ethnic minorities, since most states acted upon recommendations designed to integrate diversity into educational programmes. There was also a significant effort to revitalize the cultural and linguistic heritage of Amerindian pupils. It was during this period that the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) recommended the inclusion of multicultural education in teacher training. This body, responsible for teacher training, included diversity as one of the six evaluation standards employed at that time.

However, during the 1980s, following the publication of the report Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), multicultural education was marginalized in favour of educational reforms oriented towards educational standards with an assimilationist orientation and Anglo-conformism (Washburn et al., 1996). The priority objective established by this report was that the United States’ school should regain its place in international comparisons of school performance. Schools had been accused of not providing the pupils with the necessary competences and knowledge enabling the United States to participate favourably in global economic competition. Furthermore, multiculturalism had been accused of only serving the particular interests of ethnic minorities (Sleeter, 2018).

However, demographic realities eventually forced educational decision-makers to turn their attention once again to paying serious attention to de facto multicultural plurality in the American school (Koppelman, 2008). For example, numerous American towns already have a majority of pupils belonging to ethnic minorities. As shown in Fig. 2, by 2060 White pupils will only represent 34% of enrolment.

Fig. 2

Source Adapted from Putman, Hansen, Walsh, and Quintero (2016)

The evolution of the pupil population’s composition.

The United States has traditionally been labelled as a nation of migrants. Immigration is the motor which has fashioned and refashioned the country. It has also been a passionate individual, societal and political adventure, which has taken place in a complicated juxtaposition of social, economic, religious, political and cultural transformations, involving the immigrants and their descendants, and the country in its entirety (De Melendez & Beck, 2018).

The 2014 census painted a complete panorama of cultural and ethnic diversity in the United States. Not only did it illustrate evolution in the country’s diversity, but it also drew attention for the first time to the emergence of multiracial and multi-ethnic groups calling themselves “multicultural”: 8 million inhabitants described their heritage as multiracial. By 2060, the proportion of people declaring two or more races will reach 19% of the population (De Melendez & Beck, 2018).

In 2015, babies belonging to ethnic minorities represented 50.2% of births and pupils belonging to these minorities for the first time overtook the number of White pupils (De Melendez & Beck, 2018).

Cultural diversity presented in demographic data does not give a true picture of the level of learning and school performance. Figure 3 displays the principal differences in the level of education associated with ethnicity. Even if all ethnic groups have improved their performance between 2006 and 2016, the differences between them remain significant. The Whites and the Asians have the highest levels of performance, while the Blacks and the Hispanics have the lowest. More than 60% of Asians aged between 25 and 29 years of age have obtained a first university degree, while for the Blacks and Hispanics this proportion is around 20%.

Fig. 3

Source Adapted from Synder, Brey and Dillow (2018)

The percentage of individuals between 25 and 29 years of age according to their level of education and their race/ethnicity in 2006 and 2016.

When comparing school completion, the Hispanics have improved their performance between 2006 and 2016, even if 20% of them still do not complete the secondary school course. As far as higher education is concerned, the percentage of White individuals with a first university degree or higher in 2016 is about twice that of Blacks and Hispanics. The Asians represent the group with the highest level of education in the country.

In 2014, the drop-out rates for Asians (1.0%) and Whites (5.2%) between 16 and 24 years of age were lower than their Black (7.4%) and Hispanic (10.6%) classmates; the drop-out rate for Blacks was inferior to that of Hispanics. The drop-out rate for those individuals possessing two races or more (2.7%) was lower than that for Whites, Blacks, Hispanics and Amerindian/Native Alaskans (15.7%), although not remarkably different from that of Asians. The drop-out rate for Amerindians and Native Alaskans was not noticeably different from that of their Hispanic and Pacific Islander homologues, but actually above that for all the other racial/ethnic groups (McFarland, Stark, & Cui, 2014).

Between 1974 and 2014, the school drop-out rate decreased for White, Black and Hispanic young people aged 16–24 years. Over this period, the drop-out rate for Whites dropped from 11.9 to 5.2%, while that for Blacks decreased from 21.2 to 7.4%. In 1974, the rate for abandoning studies for Hispanics was 33.0%, and there was no particular trend between 1974 and 1990. Subsequently, this rate dropped to 32.4% in 1990 and 10.6% in 2014 (McFarland, Stark, & Cui, 2014).

Ultimately, one can say that, over recent years, despite an improvement in some educational indicators, for young people with ethnic minority backgrounds a persistent gap remains between them and White/Asian students.

As we have already remarked earlier, school segregation is linked to residential segregation, while the lack of ethnically mixed schools in the United States is probably the most alarming phenomenon and a major obstacle to the introduction of intercultural approaches in the United States.

Figures 4 and 5 show, on the one hand, the evolution of enrolment according to ethnicity and, on the other, the evolution according to ethnic origin of schooling in schools with at least 75% of pupils belonging to ethnic minorities (McFarland et al., 2017). The most evident trend in Fig. 4 is White pupils losing their majority. By 2026, there will be almost the same number of White pupils as Black, Hispanic and Asian pupils combined.

Fig. 4

Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Non-fiscal Survey of Public Elementary and Secondary Education”, 2004–2005 and 2014–2015; and National Elementary and Secondary Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity Projection Model 1972 through 2026. See: Digest of Education Statistics 2016, Table 203.50

The distribution of pupils (%) enrolled in primary or secondary public schools by race/ethnicity, in autumn 2004, 2014 and by projection in autumn 2026.

Fig. 5

Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey”, 2004 and 2004–2015. See Digest of Education Statistics 2006, Table 93 and Digest of Education Statistics 2016, Table 216.50

The percentage of pupils in public primary schools enrolled in schools with at least 75% of pupils from minority groups, by race/ethnicity: for autumn 2004 and autumn 2014.

Figure 5 highlights the spread of school segregation, because since 2014 almost 60% of Black and Hispanic pupils attended schools with more than 75% of pupils belonging to ethnic minorities. This figure shows that White pupils generally attend schools where they are the majority and the same is true of Black and Hispanic pupils.

5 The Theories of Critical Pedagogy and Social Justice

Critical pedagogy emerged during the 1980s, but its origins lie in the Civil Rights Movement (Cho, 2013).³ By proposing in the first instance a “macro” analysis of the school, this trend has called into question, among other things, the egalitarian myth on which it is based, but also its instrumentalization (the school as a means for …) (Cho, 2013). However, a “micro” analysis of the school had also been pursued. The creation of the curriculum or the hidden curriculum have been, amongst other things, subjected to criticism aimed at showing that the school reproduced inequalities (economic or social) (Cho, 2013). The principal objective of this theory is not to express a criticism of the school, but more to inspire structural change within it and in society. This is how Cho (2013) defined it:

The fundamental objective of critical pedagogy is to construct schools and an education which function as agents for change. Through schools, critical pedagogy attempts to build more egalitarian power relations, to make the learners’ voices heard, and to inspire a critical conscience, and all this with the goal of promoting social change (Cho, 2013, p. 1).

Kincheloe (2008) identified several characteristics of critical pedagogy. The first relates to the founding of this theory on matters concerning social justice, equity and autonomy (Kincheloe, 2008), The second is based on the idea that all educational choices have political roots: the author mentions above all those that favour society’s dominant groups (Kincheloe, 2008). However, one must recognize that the educational techniques arising from critical pedagogy are themselves eminently political. Finally, the third characteristic established by Kincheloe (2008) refers to a reduction in human suffering. This is attributable to the historical foundation of critical pedagogy in a tradition that analysed the relationships of power and oppression.

The theory of critical pedagogy, as well as the theory of social justice in education, gave rise to the development of various types of pedagogy all designed to give the pupils autonomy, to reduce inequalities and to create just societies … Here are a few examples:

Alim and Paris (2017) proposed a “culturally sustainable pedagogy”, which reinvented schools as spaces where various heterogenous practices are not only promoted, but also sustained and employed. By fundamentally reforming the goal of education, this pedagogy demands a critical and liberating vision of schooling, which redirects the blame for the children’s learning crisis to oppressive school and social systems.

Gay (2010) describes a “culturally relevant pedagogy”, originally developed by Ladson-Billings (1995), and of which the “cornerstone” is “critical analysis of the society” (Schmeichel, 2012, p. 225). This pedagogy aims at the following three objectives: successful schooling for all pupils; the development of their cultural competence; and their critical appraisal of society and its organization (Ladson-Billings, 1995). This theory is based on the willingness to participate in making all pupils autonomous, the enhancement of their cultural identities, the development of their critical consciousness, and to make them actors of change in the society (Gay, 2010).

In this same order of ideas, Sleeter (2018) estimates that multicultural education is more than an assemblage of reform strategies for the school curriculum; it is also a combat zone for power in order to define the objectives and the processes of education in a diverse and unequal world.

6 Conclusion

It should be borne in mind that multicultural education would not have appeared in the United States without the perseverance and energy exercised by the Civil Rights Movement. Remarkable progress was accomplished, such as public bilingual education, the acceptance of cultural diversity in curricula and educational activities, making educational institutions responsible for the integration of children who were different and affirmative action. Nevertheless, the most notable failure is the persistence and even the worsening of social segregation. Moreover, a conservative movement increasingly influences educational reforms by emphasizing the quality of education based on educational achievement rather than attaining the multicultural school.

The advent of multicultural education in North America clearly represented an attempt to boost the learning success of children belonging to cultural minorities and to take advantage of the already existing cultural plurality in schools (Joshee, Peck, Thompson, Chareka, & Sears, 2016). As Banks (1991) has suggested, the principal objective of multicultural education is education for liberty. It must assist pupils to develop the know-how, knowledge and attitudes necessary for them to participate fully in a democratic and free society. Multicultural education encourages liberty, the skills and competences necessary to cross our own ethnic and cultural frontiers in order to establish interactions with other cultures and groups. It is encouraged by an open conception of national identity in which the contribution of all cultural groups is acknowledged.

There is an important difference between North America and Europe in the conception of national identity. In the New World, until recently immigration was considered as one element making up the nation. The expressions “melting pot” and “nation of migrants” show that the role of immigration in economic prosperity has been appreciated for a long time, by both public opinion and most politicians.

For the sake of comparison, there existed in Europe until recently a consensus that a national community of destiny was one of its founding myths reflected in statements such as “Our ancestors, the Gauls” in France and “William Tell” in Switzerland. As stated by Race (2017), multiculturalism assumes different forms in different parts of the world. One major distinction is between New World countries, which subscribe to multiculturalism as a nation-integrating formula, and Europe, where multiculturalism is exclusively a property of minorities, with immigrants holding a central but ambiguous and increasingly contested role in it.

However, with the election of Trump in the United States, Hispanic demography has become inescapable on the political scene. In parallel, the wall under construction to halt immigration arising from Latin America has allowed a relative coincidence in European and North American attitudes. Indeed, we observe that migrations from the South are viewed as a threat by part of the population in both Europe and North America.

Finally, this chapter, by describing the evolution of multicultural education, as well as the way it has been defined, has illustrated the flexibility of this concept. It has evolved over time as a reflection of social events and its assumption by different partners. One question raised by the analysis of its development concerns the issues of its implementation in educational policies.