Pedro Noguera’s (2003) City Schools and the American Dream
On page 52, Noguera discusses the Ogbu/Fordham study about race and education and their conclusions about “oppositional identities” and the perception of educational institutions as locations of forced assimilation. In what ways can schools force assimilation onto students? In what ways do students react to this process of assimilation?
Noguera suggests that schools can counteract oppositional attitudes and underachievement through multicultural education. What are some advantages of promoting cultural diversity in education? Is there a danger of putting minority students at a disadvantage by underexposing them to “mainstream culture” that they may have to deal with in college? Is there a happy medium?
- by Jessica/Jessie/Dan/Jarreau
I believe that one of the most obvious ways that schools can force assimilation on students is through the curriculum in school. Many scholars have complained that schools rely on the mainstream culture and they promote this while at the same time ignoring the various culture who need to learn from this material. Whether it is using examples and names in textbook that are foreign to minority students or referring to an example of American history that immigrant students are unaware of, schools are promoting assimilation by connecting all students through one curriculum.
In this way, as we saw in “School Colors” students, students are sometimes impelled to react negatively to school because they find it to be a place where they feel that their own self and culture are being ignored. Why should they participate in an institution that will not even acknowledge their existence in the system? Minority students don’t understand how they can be part of the diversity in America yet this is not reflected in the curriculum taught in schools. As a result they rebel and lose interest in school which hurts their chances of performing in high school and in attending college. Assimilation is a harmful idea to them because it ignores who they are and where they came from and this is one of the main reasons why schools are failing in gaining and retaining the interest and participation of minorities in the classroom.
On the other side, as the Ogbu/Fordham study suggests, minorities who do achieve in the classroom feel that they have fallen for a trap set by the administration and are considered as “acting white.” They see school, much like the curriculum, as being a place that is centered around mainstream American ideas so even if they do succeed, they still see it as conforming to a culture that is different from their own. Some minorities may be able to succeed but even then they feel that their education is not their own and that it is borrowed from the mainstream culture.
I completely agree with the points that Stany made above. The curriculum that a school utilizes has the potential of forcing assimilation onto students, that is, assimilation to the mainstream “white” culture. And in doing so, minority students may feel like they are at a loss – they don’t get to learn about their history, their people, or their culture. Furthermore, if the schools have predominantly white teachers, that is another subtle way that it forces assimilation onto its student body. In the movie, “School Colors,” one Latino student made the comment that she wished there were more Latino teachers who could teach her and her Latino peers about their own culture and history. There’s something about a Latino teacher being a role model whom she can connect to more than a white teacher.
A way for the schools to expand their curriculum and make students more culturally aware and thus not reinforce the mainstream culture, is for the school to adopt a curriculum that includes a topic like “world studies” or “world cultures.” This policy would require students to take classes in various cultural departments and expose themselves to other racial groups’ histories and customs and beliefs – examples: Chicano Studies Program, African American Studies Program, Asian American Studies Program. It could be an effort to reduce minority students’ feelings of alienation, and also complaints of other students’ or the school’s ignorance to their existence. Otherwise, if the minority students continue to struggle with finding their place and identity in the school setting, I agree with Stany that they will begin to lose interest in school and in achieving. If only they felt more connected to the school and the curriculum that the school provides, they maybe wouldn’t equate achieving with “acting white,” and instead include the task of achieving as part of their culture and own personal values.
I agree with Stany’s and Alison’s posts regarding the curriculum of the school as a strong tool for assimilation. The curriculum is focused on the history of the dominant culture in which marginalized groups are often invisible in American history, literature and music. For students from marginalized groups, there is this sense of disconnect from the lessons being taught in class and one’s own developing sense of identity. The student does not gain an understanding of his or her history or culture, but that of another culture. However, the culture cannot be considered foreign to the students as being in America that culture permeates their everyday existence. This leads to the question of multicultural diversity in education.
The context that I want to place it in is one of identity development. An important thing for every individual is to construct a healthy identity for themselves. The Ogbu & Fordham study brought up by Noguera about the feeling of being a traitor because of one’s success is an identity I see as being in crisis. For minority students, there are two or more cultures that they have to negotiate in such as way so that do not conflict with each other. Noguera’s son is an example of someone who has become comfortable with his identity. More than anything, I feel the role of cultural diversity in education is this aid in identity development. Cultural diversity provides something to place into the context of the dominant culture to finds ways to co-exist with each other in some form. Even if one were to fully identify with their ethnicity more than being American as with the students in the film or vice-versa, it is difficult to avoid the other. Especially when dealing with the dominant culture because it is so pervasive. Without doing so, there is this constant anger at the dominant culture, which can both be mentally unhealthy and unproductive in working for change.
I completely agree that expanding the curriculum in schools to include some form of “multicultural studies” is both an amazing and necessary idea. I think one of the problems that encourages this idea of “oppositional identities” is the fact that many minority students are schooled in systems that don’t affirm them as people. If the only African American studies you receive at school is one day on slavery, the impression that lasts is one that says my people were oppressed and now they aren’t worth more than five minutes in a history class. This lack of affirmation is certainly one of the aspects that leads to the ostracizing of minorities who perform at high levels because why should you be capable or allowed to enjoy learning about something that has very little to do with you in your world now.
I think schools fall into very dangerous patterns of what they do teach you in high school regarding minority studies. The established Native American curriculum will include Squanto and Thanksgiving. The established curriculum on black students will include slavery, Martin Luther King, and Toni Morrison, to the point where many young people (including the black students) will leave high school thinking that Dr. King was all there was to the Civil Rights movement or that Toni Morrison is the beginning and the end of black literature. We short-change our youth when we “package” minorities for them and send them on their way.
I think another thing to examine is the question of once we have established studies specific to races in high schools where do we go from there? In “School Colors,” we saw that Berkley High has an African American Studies Program, which I think is vital for the black students, but if other students rarely or never take these courses they will still leave school with the “package deal.” I think to help counter that, a multicultural studies type course would be most effective it were required, say to freshman, in the way that P.E. or Health class is required in many high schools now because I think the danger in multicultural studies can come when one minority leaves high school knowing all about themselves and everyone else leaves knowing absolutely nothing about them.
I’m not sure that their is a way to “underexpose” minority students to the mainstream culture…at least not yet. I think even if schools establish these new programs minorities will still be getting mainstream influences from all sides, in the media as well as in their schools and will therefore be sufficiently prepared to enter into college.
The discussion so far has been really interesting. I like what everyone has been suggesting about ways to improve curriculum. In case you have time you should look into this article someone sent me about a decision made by the Arizona legislator about public school curricula.
Click here for more info
This debate is clearly a relevant and timely one.
I agree with the comments above that multicultural education needs to be incorporated into both public and private schools. The Perry,Steele, Hillard article talks about creating “identities of achievement” in which the promotion of a simultaneously cultural and academic curriculum would be fostered among students. As students learn about the history and achievements of their own culture, they will realize that their history is equal to excellence. This will counteract the idea of “acting white” by introducing a historical account of academic importance and achievement throughout different races. Will this type of education underexpose students to mainstream culture? If these types of programs became more popular, the idea of what is “mainstream” would have to change. If more students began reading and studying about a variety of cultures, multicultural education would need to be adopted into standardized tests and collegiate rubrics. Not only would students of color learn more about who they are, but students of all cultures would learn more about one another and hopefully have a deeper appreciation not only for other cultures, but their fellow human beings.
I’m glad Yaa mentioned the African American Studies program featured in School Colors, but I definitely think that’s the wrong approach to developing a “multicultural education.” Even if it is executed more effectively than it was at Berkeley High (e.g. “You are not American, you are African”), I still think it creates unnecessary divisiveness. It might work in college, but at the high school level, I think it requires far too much bravery of a student to have to “cross” racial lines to learn about an underrepresented history or culture. I found myself empathizing with the students enrolled in the African American classes, but also with the white student who had no clue how he was supposed to “act.”
Even with the enormous benefits that race-specific studies have for students of that particular race, I can’t envision that as the multicultural high school education I would want every student to have. High school is the last chance we have to force cultural exposure onto students before they potentially move off into the working world and leave education permanently. This exposure might be labeled as “forced assimilation,” but I see it differently. If multicultural education is developed in the right way, minority students won’t equate success with “selling out” or “acting white.” “Forced assimilation” won’t mean a forced adoption of the same cultural standards as the majority, but it will mean a forced exposure to a variety of different cultures. Rather than expanding the curriculum into multiple sets of curriculum – one for every race – we should only be concerned about expanding one curriculum, using it to incorporate more cultures without losing a sense of unity. I think this can be done as Yaa suggests by making it a required “World Cultures” course like P.E. or health.
I definitely agree with the goods points everyone brought up previously – about the harmful effects of a Eurocentric curriculum that ignores students’ racial and cultural identities, its influence in student’s decision to rebel academically because they don’t want to “sell out” or see no relevance to their lives, chose to rebel, etc.
I think that the idea of “forced assimilation” that Noguera points out is problematic in that such approaches are too much founded on the idea of integration towards a colorblind society. Post Brown v. Board of Education and school integration, everyone seemed to think that would solve the problems of unequal access and opportunity in education, the achievement gap, etc. And we all know that, of course that wasn’t the case — de jure desegregation did not equate with de facto desegregation; in fact, segregation was and still continues perhaps not by law but because of continuing economic, political, and social conditions that perpetuate the existing stratified hierarchy of privilege and power (i.e. poverty, inequalities in funding, teacher quality, etc and all other factors were identified in class last week).
Returning to the question of whether or not cultural diversity in education (which everyone definitely did a good job pointing out the advantages) might “underexpose” students to a mainstream culture they will need to navigate through college and in the working world – I don’t think so at all. I don’t think so because first, “mainstream culture” and the inherent power/privilege hierarchy that dictates it already affects so many other sectors of society (media, politics, country’s economy, etc) that transforming educational curriculum will be a refreshing and tremendously needed change. Second, if multicultural education is done right (I like the idea of all students having to take required classes on various ethnic studies/history courses) and all students become aware of the histories of struggle, oppression, and resiliency of these communities, it may help to foster two things – improved consciousness and understanding of these power structures and the complexities involved in race/ethnicity/social class/gender issues, and also the promotion of interethnic coalition building and partnerships to address these issues. Understanding these incredibly complex issues may become a source of empowerment for students and individuals, as opposed to thinking of it as “selling out” or “acting white.”
I also definitely agree with Yaa about how problematic it can be when multicultural education is gone about in the wrong way – I think you called it “packaged” curriculum or the “package deal,” where minority groups’ histories are reduced to these almost tokenized figures in society. Though not to belittle the tremendous impact of Dr. MLK Jr and Toni Morrison and such, I think it’s these histories of struggle are a lot deeper than what mainstream society portrays it as and that many of the issues these historic leaders have been fighting still exist today. On this note, I think it is also important for multicultural education to also avoid falling on the other end of the spectrum by being too ___-centric as well – for example, a curriculum that focused too much on the struggles of only one particular community, complete validated of course but often in doing so it can ignores other communities’ shared struggles. This can potentially isolate ethnic groups from each other rather than promote needed interethnic coalitions and solidarity. I don’t know if I articulated that very well…but our conversation goes to show just how incredibly complex and multilayered these issues are (that is definitely the feeling I had after watching School Colors…we are all still struggling with these very same issues as when the documentary was made in the early 1990’s).
This chapter hits home with me. I am that student that he describes on page 52. I am that immigrant student that other researchers say are immune to insidious association between race and achievement. There are many reasons for this, one was ilustrated by Noguera on the same page. He states that “having been raised in societies where people of their race or ethnic group are the majority, they typically have not been subjected to socialization processes that lead them to see themselves as members of subordinate or inferior groups.” I lived in LA from age 7-9 and in Miami from 9-23. There is a huge difference between the two cities and how minorities both viewed themselves, how societies saw them and how whether they excelled in academia. I think socio-economic status needs to be considered more heavily in this study. It makes a huge impact when you look at immigrants.
Noguera touched upon this subject but I think it needs to be explored further. A major equalizer is immigration. Most immigrants from non-bordering countries are of higher socio-economic status in their own countries and can afford to leave. When they get here they find that they have to start over and re-achieve much of the success they had in their home countries. There are no contacts, they are not part of the professional networks, most likely have to re-validate degrees and/or get licenses to practice. They immediately drop a couple of notches in the socio-economic ladder. However, the foundation still exists and the children of these parents have the task of fitting in while also not necessarily feeling like a minority.
Looking at the questions posted, multicultural education is important factor. However the danger of encouraging ethnocentricism, as we saw in School Colors needs to be considered. In order to do that there should a base requirement for all students regardless of race and ethnicity. Ignorance is the base for racism. Our students should be required to learn about all races and ethnicities.
Assimilation is a trick subject. Can one assimilate without losing ethnic identity? I feel I am an example of that, however it is not an easy task. In the least.
In terms of wether there is a danger of underexposing students to the mainstream culture, it is more of an issue of having students stay in school and complete the requirements. If certain students perform better without exposure to the mainstream culture, then there is not much harm. As Noguera notes, many minority students fear “acting white” and are often ostracized by their peers if they perform in school. Constrastingly, in School Colors, minority students were questioned more if they were seen around white students and individual performance did not seem to cause students to be ridiculed. It is interesting how Noguera notes that most schools are never neutral on race related matters and that a “clear and firm racial hierarchy is in place.” This hiearchy was evident in School Colors as minority students were placed in the low track classes and white students were placed in the high track classes. In this case, the problem is not that black students are being underexposed to mainstream society but that they are expected to underperform.
I definitely see the value of classes that incorporate the culture of their students in the curriculum. For example, I had maybe 5 paragraphs dealing with Asian Americans in my high school U.S. history textbook. Internment was a footnote of our World War II lesson. Had I been able to learn some Asian American history, I probably would have been much more engaged in my school work. However, I agree with Ikira that there needs to be requirements across the board so students learn about minority experiences even if they aren’t part of that group. I would add, though, perhaps students can be given the opportunity to further explore certain topics either by taking electives or having a pick of research topics in a history class.
As for the underexposure question, I don’t think the model Noguera is suggesting underposes students to “mainstream culture.” First, it is simply impossible to avoid this mainstream culture with television, the Internet and its numerous portals for information dissemination, movies, the radio, etc. Second, Noguera seems to be arguing for an inclusion of minority experiences, validating those histories rather than replacing everything we know about American culture with them. Third, in the same vein as what Michael said, even if underexposure is a risk, it’s probably a risk worth taking given the research on immigrant students and academic performance. Noguera observes that immigrant students from various national backgrounds tend to be disassociated by the mainstream expectations of their race, and therefore are more willing to “conform” to the standards necessary for succeeding in school.
The strand so far brings up several key points in thinking about race and education: oppositional identity, achievement, quality teaching, curriculum, and in general multicultural education. On the latter, I am wondering what your thoughts are on the purpose of multicultural education. How, when, and where did ME begin? How has it evolved? It sounds like (from the article Dan included in his comment) that there is a backlash. Why? What do you think is happening? Why is it relevant to our study of youth, schools, and race in film?
I just want to add a quick comment about the “underexposure” issue that a lot of people have already remarked upon. I liked what Henry said about an inclusive curriculum, not one that replaces mainstream with minority, because I think this is what Nogeura was speaking to, and the only realistic option to pursue. While I don’t think that underexposure is likely, I do think it is dangerous to claim that even if schools neglect what is mainstream, there are enough outside influences to provide that instruction. It seems to me that these other/outside mediums of exposure to mainstream culture are exactly where the problem lies, the problematic representation of what is mainstream. Therefore, schools need to be committed to “mainstream” education, but with inclusive policies that will ultimately redefine what mainstream means. If we leave it up to tv and movies to teach mainstream, we let the misrepresentation continue.
On another note, based on my own experiences, I think another way to look at multicultural education is by use of the students themselves, so that education is not simply a curriculum of combined cultures, but a pedagogic style that emphasizes interracial/ethnic interaction and communication in order for the learning to be stimulated by the students themselves. I thought about this because I attended an international high school and while I only took 2/3rds a year of history in all 4 years, my understanding of racial and ethnic identity was much more developed by my classmates and social relations among the student body. In the context of American schools, the detracking attempts shown in School Colors demonstrated the benefits of mixed (race and ability) classes, which created avenues to cross these borders in a way very real and relevant to the students themselves.
Multicultural Education has been mentioned in all the previous posts, but to tell you the truth, I had never heard of such a program before. Maybe I just settled for what they taught me in school, and accepted it as the norm. And honestly, I don’t know how effective it would be. I know that my little brothers, as well as my older brother have the attitude mentioned Noguera’s book towards achievement. It’s the “white” thing to do to succeed. Would they have the same attitude if their classes were taught by Mexican teachers or if the courses were on Mexican issues? I’m not sure. I do feel, though, that it might make the situation worse in terms of segregating the schools more. For example, at Berkeley High School, the majority of students taking the African American Studies courses were African-American. Why would, let’s say, a Latino or a white student be interested in that kind of class? the only effective way of making sure it wasn’t this way, is if all students were required to take such classes. Sometimes, though, this might be overwhelming. I do not agree with the idea that programs, like MEChA, should be eliminated or unfunded. All students should have the choice of learning about their own culture, especially if it’s at their own time.
I really enjoyed reading Noguera’s chapter on the role of schools in reducing racial inequality. Mostly because although I am not Black, I am a Latina/Asian that has developed “oppositional identities” that has led me to feel that my educational institution has somewhat forced assimilation on me. Like I wrote in my schooling autobiography, I have attended schools from opposite ends of the spectrum: I went to a public urban elementary school in the South Bronx and later attended a prestigious private independent school in New York City’s Upper East Side. Going to a predominantly white school where I was one of two hispanics in the graduating class of 2007, I cannot really say that I have experienced what a multicultural education. Most of the courses were about white, european culture and when two Black students tried to petition for more African-American literature in our English classes, they got turned down because “enough” diverse literature was already incorporated into our curriculum (i.e. one book per year).
Like Noguera’s example of Joaquin, I did have a rough transition going from public to private education. I had retained some neighborhood friends and I, like Joaquin, was struggling to find a balance between my desire to succeed academically and my need to remain “loyal” to my culture and friends. After guidance from the deans at my school, I was able to get back on track. I learned to “adopt the cultural norms” accepted in my particular school and in the process, learned to identify more with a different culture. This is the way I reacted to that change in schooling, but I, like Noguera know many students who are able to assimilate just enough to excel academically and still are able to retain excessive pride in their culture.
To touch on what Jess S mentioned previously about the existence of cultural student groups, I can say that I do agree that cultural groups should be funded in institutions and that cultural studies should not really be mandatory. I know that my high school had tried to increase cultural awareness by incorporating Latin American history into the required curriculum. Even as Latina, I did not find the class to be of any interest and many students gave complaints. Later on, it was evident that the existence of a cultural group provided an fun outlet for people who are truly interested in increasing their cultural awareness to do so. I agree with Jess when she says that everyone should have a CHOICE to learn about their culture and no, I do not think that promoting cultural diversity in a minority student’s education is not putting them in danger of being underexposed to mainstream culture. Mainstream culture has such a powerful influence already in the media and the media really exposes minority groups to Americana that even with an increase of cultural awareness in their institutions, they will still be prepared for possible stereotyping and racism in the professional field as adults.
I really like where Esther was going with her comment on detracking and its effectiveness in bringing together high- and low-achieving students as shown in School Colors. It has been fairly well established that detracking (or heterogeneous grouping) serves to raise the bar for underachieving minority students, and with the necessary support these individual respond well to a more demanding learning environment. However these students often do not carry their own weight in group projects and assignments, and their higher-achieving classmates take note of this. In drawing a comparison between these heterogeneous classes and mandatory cultural studies classes, minority students who find themselves more engaged to be learning about their own culture can serve as an asset to other students who are interested in other cultures but are simply just looking to fulfill a graduation requirement (which is a whole other issue in itself). As we have discussed, underachieving minority students are much more motivated to learn when the subject matter deals with their people, their history, and the resulting gratification of achievement can outweigh the feeling of “acting white” while providing a valuable cultural perspective to white classmates (or those of other races). The hope is that this acknowledgement of academic achievement as a value, regardless of race, will persist in other endeavors as well, supporting the assertion by Noguera that race and culture do not determine academic performance.
However to quickly look at the other side of the coin, we must not forget any negative implications of a mandated curriculum, such as a possible backlash from involved parents who feel that these classes are unnecessary and may hinder their children from completing honors and AP courses. To reconcile with such complaints from students or parents, I like Rachel’s idea of incorporating all curricula into one required cultural studies course, which if successful would create and maintain a sense of cross-cultural unity. In a racially-divided school such as Berkeley High (as evidenced by how the crowd was seated at the football game), it must implement a multicultural curricula that, in my opinion, would better prepare students for living the real world than the “mainstream culture” that is already exposed to them in everyday media.
I think there is an oft-accepted dichotomy between teaching “the mainstream” and “multiculturalism.” In some ways, the more that the two are conceptualized in opposition to each other, the more that marginalized identities will continue to remain in the periphery. The well-intentioned rhetoric of “diversity” can far too often be reduced to a form of tokenism, with the struggles of people of color far too often taught with a “… , too.”
I’m a CSRE major, and as far as I’m concerned, what I’m learning about is as core, essential, canonical as any “mainstream” courseload. In high school, I had the privilege of taking African American studies courses. Consequently, I know a lot more about Yoruba traditions than I do about the history of Protestantism, but does that mean that my knowledge set is the result of a “diverse” education? I think that African American studies, ethnic studies, etc. need to be understood AS “mainstream,” as part of the critical understanding of society and social relations in America. Certainly, “multicultural” pedagogy may lack the concentration of Eurocentric cultural capital that we may see in the higher echelons of the West, but it is a cultural capital that better reflects the society that we’ve always lived in, and helps develop a humanistic self-awareness that had always been incomplete.
I think that the process of de-marginalizing may also help remedy the problematic if sympathetic “oppositional culture” that Noguera references. Just yesterday, California Rural Legal Assistance lawyer Jose Padilla discussed the idea of humility. To paraphrase, Padilla said that it is important to have the kind of humility that says that you are no more important than anyone else, but also that no one else is more important than you. In School Colors, I noted a certain amount of narrow nationalism from students of color that was, while empowering, very disturbingly essentialist at times and rhetorically ineffective for community coalition-building. I think that Padilla’s notion of humility is important here: in the process of mental de-colonization, it is important to recognize the legitimacy of Western knowledge, but on exactly equal footing with African American knowledge, Latin@ knowledge, Asian American knowledge, etc. To understand all of these perspectives as part of the American narrative, on equal and non-tokenistic footing, is vastly important.
I’m not sure if I’m not making any sense, though. I kinda just woke up from a nap.
So I pretty much agree with everything that Karen had to say. I did pick up on one particular aspect of her comment though. She mentioned Jess S’s comment on mandatory cultural studies classes. I feel that cultural studies classes should not be mandatory, however I do feel that cultural studies should be incorporated within required classes.
For example, in everyday math we use Arabic numerals, the Mayan concept of zero, and Syrian and Lebanese algebraic notations and equations, however in math classes the only thing being taught is math. Students aren’t aware that math isn’t the white man’s invention. Courses are only taught from one vantage point and not all students connect with that view point.
Another example of integrated cultural studies would be implemented in the obvious location of History class. At the Cesar Chavez Commemoration, Edward James Olmos came and gave the key address. He asked if we could name one national hero that we had learned about at some point in our lives in school, who was of Latino descent and born in America. No one had an answer. He repeated the question and substituted Native American, Asian, and African American for Latino. He went on to say that without Martin Luther King Jr. there would not be any minority “hero” that every student in a United States school learns about for at least one day a year. How often in required American History classes to students learn about the Japanese internment camps or Geronimo’s flight? We are taught about Lewis and Clark and their momentous journey, but when Sacajawea is mentioned, it is only in reference. Why are the African American children of Thomas Jefferson not listed along with his children from his wife?
In my experience, the curriculum that is taught throughout the country is highly “whitewashed” and only looks at a situation from one position. Instead of making cultural studies classes mandatory, schools should integrate cultural information into regular classes which would be a much better way of exposing students, especially unwilling ones, to alternate cultures.