Proposal: an anti-bias and ecological model for multicultural education.

The early childhood community has led efforts to develop materials and resources to support children's unique heritages and diverse experiences (Derman-Sparks, 1989; Neugebauer, 1992; York, 1991). While recognizing that education programs should validate all children and their families, educators have relied on a traditional multicultural model that limits their ability to explore the full range of diversity. It is time to propose a new model--one that recognizes the differences among traditional racial and cultural groups, acknowledges the variability within these groups and enables us to explore the uniqueness of people whose heritages and experiences do not fit into any traditional racial or cultural category.

Traditional Model

The traditional model of anti-bias and multicultural education views the child as the product of culture (Figure 1). Or, to put it another way, children's sets of experiences and their world outlook are totally predetermined by their culture. "Culture forms the prism through which members of a group see the world and create shared meaning" (Bowman, 1989, p. 2). Children's values, traditions and expectations are predetermined by their religion, attitudes about family and, sometimes, a long history of persecution and oppression. Children are then viewed as a product of their community's culture: African American, Native American, Asian, Hispanic or European. According to this model, all black children are supposedly the products of a collective black cultural context and Native American children all "see the-world" in the same way. This model stresses culture, group membership and shared attributes. Individual identity and self-esteem are based on a sense of belonging to and pride in one's cultural group.

[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The traditional multicultural education model in the United States teaches children about the values, celebrations, histories, traditions and art forms of five traditional cultural groups: European, African American, Latino, Asian American and Native American (Ramirez & Ramirez, 1994). Teachers are urged to help each child connect with his/her heritage, and to help each child feel positive about the group to which he/ she belongs. Multicultural curricula include books and other materials that reflect each of these groups (Ramirez & Ramirez, 1994). The child develops a sense of self-esteem and identity through knowledge of and identification with his/her cultural group.

This traditional model has many shortcomings. It perpetuates stereotypes: if every child from the same culture sees the world through the same prism, then all children from one culture must be the same. The traditional model does not allow for the tremendous diversity to be found within traditional cultural groups (Wardle, 1994a; West, 1992). A child who can trace his/her heritage directly to the original Spanish settlers of northern New Mexico has a different cultural context from a Latino child living in inner-city Los Angeles. A black child whose family has just immigrated to the United States from Belize has a very different set of experiences from a child of black college professors at Harvard.

Many Latin Americans have parents who are German, Polish, Austrian or Swiss. They speak Spanish and live in a Hispanic culture, yet are blond and have blue eyes. A member of Argentina's current national soccer team, for example, is a third-generation Irish descendent with red hair and freckles. Others residents of these Hispanic countries belong to specific minority groups.

William Cross (1985) questions the notion that young minority children's self-esteem is based on pride in and a sense of belonging to their cultural and racial group. Cross's research shows that positive self-esteem is more likely to be based on how the child sees himself as an individual, not how he sees himself in reference to racial groups or communities. Personal identity reinforced by positive responses to the individual child is more important than group identity.

Also, it is impractical, if not impossible, to teach about the multitude of cultures in our world (Gomez, 1991). According to Valeria Lovelace (1994), this difficulty is the reason Sesame Street's "Race Project" does not explore the identities of biracial children. Clearly, Lovelace adheres to the traditional model of multicultural education. Furthermore, some children's experiences do not fit into any of the traditional cultural groups. Transracially adopted children, biracial children and some foreign children, for example, cannot be placed into any of the five traditional groups (Wardle, 1988a, 1993, 1994b). Curricula that use the traditional model as the basis for classroom activities and material selection do not reflect these children's experiences, and sometimes actually force them to deny part of their heritage (York, 1991).

Many people claim multicultural education is divisive, and that it creates ethnocentric curricula, segregation and alternative histories. Most books that address multicultural education portray a power conflict between whites and people of color (McCracken, 1993; Ramirez & Ramirez, 1994). The traditional model lends itself to these criticisms, and sometimes does create hostility among students from different cultural groups. Furthermore, it gives ammunition to those who believe the sole purpose of multicultural education is to devalue the majority culture.

Finally, the problem of content must be addressed. Educators should not assume that what they teach is more important than how they teach. A traditional focus on content led to the development of state-mandated curricula and national social science texts that did not represent the backgrounds of non-white students and children of recent immigrants. Consequently, discussions about multicultural education are often debates about what content should and should not be taught (e.g., the current debate on the national standards for social science content and Colorado's new state standards).

Focusing on the content of traditional multicultural groups can result in a "tourist approach" (Derman-Sparks,1987) to multicultural education and very inappropriate teaching methods (Bredekamp, 1987). This focus emphasizes the cultures, leading to arguments concerning which culture is most important and who is competent to teach each culture. Consider the debate about who should teach bilingual Spanish/ English classes. In a California district, for example, protests erupted when bilingual teachers were hired from Spain. And what happens if a conflict exists between two minority groups? Such jockeying for a favored position tends to make the child's needs secondary, even though multicultural education's purpose is to support the total heritage of each child.

We should instead focus on recognizing the unique set of experiences each child brings to school, and learning how we can utilize those experiences to help him or her achieve the utmost self-esteem and academic success. When we let adult content and political ends become more important than children's needs, we fail as educators.

The Anti-Bias and Ecological Model

An anti-bias and ecological model requires educators to present a multicultural foundation that teaches all children to accept one another (Gomez, 1991). It should enable each child to associate positive feelings with multicultural experiences and to feel included and valued (Dimidjian, 1989). It also provides a much simpler framework for teaching with a multicultural perspective.

In this model, the child is the focus, rather than the culture. Educators should recognize the variety of contexts that affect each child's experiences and point of view. The individual child exists within his/her own dynamic context, or milieu, which includes a variety of experiences that interact with each other to produce a unique environment (Johnson, 1990). This model is built on previous models by Jones (1985) and Wardle(1992),which themselves were developed to study the psychological functioning of African Americans and biracial children, respectively.

The resulting model recognizes that children clearly experience integrated contexts, not a series of distinct, opposing factors "ones, 1987; Wardle,1992). The overlapping circles depicted in Figures 2 and 3 represent the weight, or power, of each contextual factor that differs from situation to situation, from child to child, and is dependent on the interaction between two or more factors. This model assumes that children interact on their contextual environments. Thus, each child will experience the same context differently.

[Figures 2 & 3 ILLUSTRATIONS OMITTED]

Factors/Contexts

Two groups of significant factors come into play. Group A factors are the traditional areas addressed in most anti-bias curricula (Derman-Sparks,1989; Neugebauer,1992; York, 1991): race, culture, gender and disability (see Figure 2). Our society has traditionally viewed these factors as having a preferred side, and one or more sides that can be inferior, dominated and/or persecuted. They are also individual characteristics that cannot be changed.

Group B factors are what Bronfenbrenner (1989) calls ecological components: family, community end social-economic status (S.E.S.) (see Figure 3). These factors have a powerful effect on the other factors' influence. Anti-bias activities must be directed toward these factors. Children cannot change their race, culture, gender or disability. Family, school and community, however, can help them feel positive about these personal characteristics.

It should not be assumed that A factors are more important than B factors. All the factors interact in a variety of unique ways, and their influence changes as children develop. Factors group together in different ways to affect children's development in different ways. For example, race, gender and S.E.S. can have such a strong impact on a child's development that they sometimes override other factors.

Group A Factors (Figure 2)

Race/Ethnicity. Although racial groups do not represent pure biological categories, society does attach significance to differences of physiognomy (Wilson,1984). The assumption is that racial contexts affect an individual's identity (Wilson, 1984). Until quite recently, however, scholars studied race and culture separately. Many countries still separate race and culture (Wilson, 1984).

Culture. Culture includes family traditions, religion, holidays, heroes, music, ideals and beliefs, primary language and national origin. Cultures operate as contexts because they fix meanings over time, and each culture has the capacity to fix meaning differently (Johnson, 1990). The separation of the cultural category from the racial category allows for distinctions among American blacks, first-generation blacks from Africa and Caribbean blacks; direct descendants of original Spanish settlers, Puerto Rican immigrants in New York, first-generation immigrants from Brazil and Mestizos from Mexico; third-generation Chinese Americans and first-generation Hmongs, Cambodians and Vietnamese. It also allows us to appreciate the rich differences in the customs, religions, art, dance, houses and languages of the various Native American nations (Sample, 1993).

Gender. This distinction is obvious. Many cultures still respond very differently to girls and boys, beginning in infancy. Early childhood programs, curricula and experiences treat the genders in distinct ways (Wardle, 1990). More boys are diagnosed with learning disabilities, and girls are less likely to succeed in math and science. The students in special education programs are predominantly boys.

Disability. For the purposes of this article, disability is what a child views as a disability--in him/herself and/ or others. This includes obvious physical disabilities along with speech problems, mental challenges, learning disabilities and behavioral issues.

Group B Factors (Figure 3)

Family. In the language of Johnson (1990), the family clearly is a context. The most critical influence on young children is the family (Wardle, 1992). Family diversity can mean two working parents, teen parents, adoptive parents (including transracial adoption), foster parents, single parents (male or female), blended families, interracial and interethnic families, families that combine divergent religious beliefs, extended family support, grandparents raising their grandchildren and gay families. Parenting style (authoritarian, authoritative or permissive) and family dysfunction or abuse are also included in this factor.

Technology also affects this ecological component--primarily TV, movies and music videos, but also home computers. TV's influence can be totally absent (Amish and Hutterite children and some poor children), controlled (in terms of content and amount) or uncontrolled, developmentally inappropriate and dominating.

While religion is placed under the cultural factor in this model, the family is the prime vehicle through which children receive their religious context. Families that mix religions (Jewish/Protestant, etc.) have a different effect on children from those that do not, or families that practice no religion.

Social-Economic Status. It could be argued that this factor belongs under the A factors in recognition of the tremendous discrimination that exists against the poor. It could also be argued, however, that this status can and does change, either improving or worsening.

Poverty clearly has a long-standing impact--thus the term, "culture of poverty." Welfare status, middle-class culture and professional households (regardless of income) all act as strong ecological factors. Some families have been welfare recipients for generations; others have a long heritage of college education. Homeless children's experiences are distinct from those of an Appalachian child from a poor family.

Community. Community encompasses a vast array of factors. It includes a child's geographical location and type of community (rural, urban, suburban, etc.). A Native American reservation, a bedroom community, and integrated and segregated neighborhoods represent different community contexts, as do intentional religious communities--Hutterite, Amish, Mennonite and New Age.

Schools, child care centers, churches, Head Starts, colleges, recreational opportunities, health centers, gangs and soccer teams help identify a community. Media also plays a part.

Advantages of the Anti-Bias and Ecological Model

The anti-bias and ecological model allows us to concentrate on each individual child. It acknowledges that every child has a unique culture (Gomez, 1991), and ensures that each child will feel included and valued (Dimidjian, 1989). By concentrating on the child, the family and the family's education expectations, we can begin to tailor and individualize multicultural programs for each child. This approach is totally consistent with the individual perspective advocated by developmentally appropriate practice (Bredekamp, 1987). It also discourages stereotyping and prevents expectations that children who belong to the same cultural groups will act the same way, share the same interests and play with children from their "group" (Wardle, 1988b).

Role of Teacher and School

How can a teacher respond to all these factors, and the range within factors? How can the school environment be arranged to support children whose set of experiences can differ so dramatically? How can we provide child care settings that are responsive to such a range of diversity? And how can we teach our children to respect and appreciate the variability of other children, both inside and outside the classroom?

We must always go back to the child. Instead of trying to learn everything about every community, culture and home, the teacher should combine an enlightened knowledge of cultural, gender and individual differences with a constant ability to "read" the child. If a child does not seem to respond to certain stories or is uneasy in certain activities, find out why.

This approach will require a radical change in teaching methods and in the way many teachers are trained. Traditionally, we expect children to adapt to the needs of the classroom, curricula and teacher. If something did not work, we tried to change the child or labeled the child with a disability (Wardle, 1990). Now we must change our entire approach. The teacher must also "read" the family and community. What encourages a family to come to the program? What keeps them away? What do they expect the program to do for their child? What materials do they want their children to use? (York, 1991).

A good teacher must be able to use the framework of this model to effectively support each child in the classroom and challenge his/her own cultural and individual framework. This model can be effectively used by a sensitive, well-trained teacher. Clearly this model challenges the notion that a black teacher is the only person who can adequately teach black children and only a Native American teacher can teach a Native American child. That notion leads to segregated classrooms; in one instance, a Head Start teacher from one Native American tribe was considered an inappropriate teacher for children from another tribe (Wardle, 1991).

Clearly, society has strong biases toward each factor of this model--from race to income to community to religion. Thus,any program adapting this model must engage, to some extent, in anti-bias activities and consciousness raising (Derman-Sparks, 1989).

Schools and child care centers must know about the children, community and families they are serving before purchasing curriculum materials. Furthermore, because curriculum materials still tend to support socially accepted points of view, program administrators may have to develop their own materials.

Curriculum materials, classroom activities and community outings must address all seven factors in a way that conveys the variability within each factor. A lesson about communities, for example, can focus on the dynamics of a small farm community, a Native American reservation, integrated segments of a large city or a Mexican neighborhood. As part of this activity, a class might study various dwellings, including apartments, mobile homes, hogans and homeless shelters.

Equal value should be given to all aspects of any factor. When teaching about the various religions in a community, each religion--be it Quaker, Jewish, atheist or Methodist--must be taught with the same respect and deliberation. The program must support exploration of the variability within each factor, regardless of whether the program is religiously, ethnically, racially or economically homogeneous or diverse.

Conclusion

The traditional multicultural model has served well to heighten the recognition that all children should be exposed to the rich contribution of all Americans, and that we must support the history, heritage and culture of each child in our programs. We have been sensitized to the injustices and biases that have hurt people from specific cultural, gender and disability groups. We were inspired to develop curricula that celebrate each of these traditional cultures. Now, however, we must move beyond this traditional model. The anti-bias and ecological model described in this article enables us to see the child as a product of important factors, including but not limited to--culture. We can examine every factor that affects the child's set of experiences, and allow each of our children to develop to their full potential.

References

Bowman, B. T. (1989). Educating language--minority children. ERIC Digest. Urbana, IL: ERIC Publications.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children birth through age 8. (rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989, April). The developing ecology of human development. Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, KS.

Cross, W. (1985). Black identity: Rediscovering the distinction between personal identity and reference group orientation. In M. B. Spencer, G. K. Brooklin, & W. R. Allen (Eds.), Beginnings: The social and affective development of black children (pp.155-172). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Derman-Sparks, L. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools for empowering young children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Dimidjian, V. J. (1989). Holiday, holy days, and wholly dazed. Young Children, 44(6), 70-75.

Gomez, R.A. (1991). Teaching with a multicultural perspective. ERIC, EDO-PS-91-11.

Johnson, S. (1990). Toward clarifying culture, race, and ethnicity in the context of multicultural counseling. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 18, 41-50.

Jones, A. (1985). Psychological functioning in Black Americans: A conceptual guide for use in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 22, 363-369.

Lovelace, V. (1994, April). Personal communication with F. Wardle.

McCracken, J. B. (1993). Valuing diversity: The primary years. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Neugebauer, B. (1992). Alike and different. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Ramirez, G., & Ramirez, J. L. (1994). Multiethnic children's literature. Albany, NY: Delmar.

Sample, W. (1993). The American Indian child. Child Care Information Exchange, 90, 39-44.

Wardle, F. (1988a). Kids benefit from exposure to other cultures. Denver Parent, 2, 20.

Wardle, F. (1988b). Who am I? Responding to the child of mixed heritage. PTA Today, 13(7), 7-10.

Wardle, F. (1990). Are we short-changing boys? Child Care Information Exchange, 79, 48-51.

Wardle, F. (1991). Problems with Head Start's multicultural principles. Unpublished paper. Denver, CO.

Wardle, F. (1992). Biracial identity: An ecological and developmental model. Denver, CO: Center for the Study of Biracial Children.

Wardle, F. (1993). Interracial families and biracial children. Child Care Information Exchange, 90, 45-48.

Wardle, F. (1994a). Diversity module. In F. Wardle (Ed.), Staff training modules for CDA candidates in Children's World Learning Centers. Golden, CO: Children's World Learning Centers.

Wardle, F. (1994b). What about the other kids in the neighborhood? New People, 4(5), 10-19.

West, B. (1992). Children are caught--between home and school, culture and school. In B. Neugebauer (Ed.), Alike and different. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Wilson, A. (1984). Mixed race children in British society: Some theoretical considerations. British Journal of Sociology, 35(1), 42-61.

York,S. (1991). Roots and wings. St. Paul, MN: Toys'n Things Press.

Francis Wardle is Director, Resource Development & Training, Children's World Learning Centers, and Adjunct Faculty, University of Phoenix, Arizona.