ONLINE LECTURE SERIES
Sharpening the View of Diversity: Five
Leadership Imperatives
by Linda Orozco, Ph.D.
©All Rights Reserved (2000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diversity. If the new millennium has a motto, promise or threat,
"diversity" would be it. From media reports, to student
enrollments; from immigration to crime and poverty; our nation is
keenly aware of the diversification of the country. Do we
celebrate the Latino explosion in popular music, cringe at the
drastic drop in minority enrollments in the UC system; hang our
heads in shame at the 'railroading' by police of minority
suspects in Los Angeles? Good? Bad? Blessing? Or threat? An
individual's perspective on 'diversity' depends a great deal on
their vantage point.
Pollyanna Perspective
With increasing diversity across the country, there are growing
efforts by mainstream Americans to support and believe a
simplified, 'Pollyanna' perspective. This perspective embraces
the concept of Americans as - all just one people, one race-
human. We should view each other and ourselves as the same, not
different. (Marks, 2000) This 'Pollyanna' perspective has been
the foundation for dismantling affirmative action, racial
preferences, and placing emphasis on a color-blind society. Then,
as Rodney King recommended, we could all "Just get
along". This perspective embraces the fairness of treating
everyone alike, encouraging Americans into the melting pot, and
promoting an Americana perspective with a subtle message of
English-only simplicity. But Pollyanna is dead; if she ever lived
at all. Where was 'Pollyanna' when Americans profited from or
turned their heads during slavery, during Chinese immigration to
build western railroads, or during our country's shameless
massacre of Native Americans? No, we cannot resurrect nor cling
to Pollyanna now, as if she were a lifeboat for Americans in the
stormy seas of diversity. This perspective has never effectively
represented the American consciousness in action, nor does it
today.
This author still remembers believing the 'Pollyanna'
perspective. We are all people, the same, equal. My rose-colored,
Pollyanna glasses were lost when I was 8 years old. This change
didn't come because I was a brilliant or particularly gifted
child. This insight came when I was old enough to notice others'
reactions to me. Those 'Pollyanna' glasses weren't exactly lost;
more accurately stated, they were torn away by others. To others,
I looked different. The southern California 'surfer look' was not
my look. Instead my skin was olive, my eyes deep-brown and
slanted, and my hair dark as charcoal. Certainly not the
commercialized 'All American' look. But I was All-American, a
fourth-generation American. But that didn't matter in the eye of
the beholder. Instead, the comment, 'Go back to where you came
from', was my awakening at 8, that America wasn't color-blind.
Race and ethnicity are man-made constructs, they ARE in the eye
of the beholder. (Hodgkinson, 1995) Throughout their lives,
Americans that do not fit a commercialized 'American look'
receive demeaning, divisive, and racist comments and questions by
their fellow Americans. Minority members know these
comments/questions well. They include 'Where did you come from?',
'How did they learned to speak English so well?' or 'You don't
look American'. No, Americans do not see each other as the same,
as equal. We are not now, nor have we ever been a color-blind
society.
Census 2000
The current U.S. Census is the best example of our country's true
non-Pollyanna consciousness. We aren't just ALL Americans- we are
'racially distinct'- according to Census 2000. Each American is
categorized into one of five races:
• White
• Black or African American
• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
And, there was one question for EVERYONE to answer on Hispanic
origin- yes or no.
Sounds simple enough. The little boxes accompanying these options
represent you and I. Little boxes, according to Congress and
Thomas Jefferson's original intent of the Census, to define,
quantify, and count the American population in ways Congress sees
useful. (Baron, 1995) Useful? The census is meant to be useful.
But what is the purpose of KNOWING the number of Native Hawaiians
and NOT knowing the number of Italian-Americans? What is the
value in knowing the number of Black Americans when 25% of the
WHITE population is darker than 25% of (light-skinned) blacks?
(Hodgkinson, 1995) Can we draw some valuable conclusions when
lumping together blacks from South Central Los Angeles with
recent black immigrants from Kenya? What conclusions can be drawn
by grouping recent Brazilian immigrants and third generation
Mexican-Americans-- when we can expect neither to speak Spanish,
have the same education level, or cultural experience? But
Congress wants this data to be useful. Will it? Or will it drive
Federal agendas and bean-counters to further a simplistic,
inaccurate, divisive perspective of non-white Americans? Will
conclusions reached with data from Census 2000 match the U.S.
Census Bureau's [ http://www.census.gov/
] own Mission statement:
"To be the preeminent collector of timely, relevant, and
quality data about the people and economy of the United
States."? (Census, 2000, ¶ Facts)
Certainly the quality of the data collected will be in question
since the idea of race is a man-made construct. Racial and ethnic
classifications have no basis in science or anthropology.
(Etzioni, 1999; Hodgkinson, 1995) Further, the racial categories
on the U.S. Census have changed each and every time the Census
has been conducted since 1790. Hodgkinson (1995) has referred to
the use of race as more like 'science fiction that science'. New
categories are invented or old ones combined. Americans have
accepted this 'fluid' view of race quite naturally, as if it were
a scientific categorization. It isn't. And data collected on race
has historically been used to the benefit of the user, in spite
of the blatant and inaccurate generalizations derived. (Baron,
1998)
Blending Colors and Categories
If the prior discussion didn't undermined one's comfort level
with racial and ethnic classifications, then America's growing
mixed marriages will. As recent as 1967, sixteen states in
America had laws restricting black/white marriages. (White, 1997)
In that year, the Supreme Court struck down such laws. But before
and after that date, multiracial marriages and their offspring
have populated our country.
One of twelve marriages in 1995 (8.4%) were mixed, either by race
or ethnicity. Current estimates indicate that over 50% of third
generation Mexican Americans marry non-Hispanic whites; while
even more Asian Americans do. (Etzioni, 1999) Intermarriage
between blacks and non-blacks is less frequent but rising
consistently. Over the past 20 years, black-white marriages have
more than quadrupled. In 1990, there were an estimated 1.5
million interracial marriages. In fact, these groups are growing
consistent with the trend set by every European-origin group as
well. In America, European-origin Americans marry outside their
group by over 50%. (Glazer, 1996) For the first time, Census
2000, will acknowledge the growing population of Americans
identifying themselves as mixed racially/ethnically by allowing
them to check more than one category on the Census survey.
Refusal
So the Census' questions on race/ethnicity, and our efforts to
keep classifying Americans along these lines continues to defy
science, logic and purpose. Our government agencies, social
programs and even schools haven't caught on to this fact yet; but
many Americans have. There appears a growing trend by Americans
to refuse to categorize themselves in such a way. In 1998, 13,575
students filing applications at the eight University of
California campuses refused to provide racial/ethnic data. This
was an increase of 153% over the previous year. (Marks, 2000)
Also, personnel directors in school districts across the country
are discovering an increased trend by applicants to select
"Refuse to State" on racial/ethnic questions.
Cultural Fluidity
Certainly, Americans are diverse. Our physical appearance, food,
clothing, music, customs and cultures include a global
perspective of varying intensities. Each American can identify
some personal ancestral heritage, but relate to it in varying
degrees. Recent immigrants are more likely to have the strongest
cultural ties to homelands far away. Some Americans are intensely
connected to their heritage finding themselves defined as
"more Irish than others" (fill in the culture). Other
parents (and grandparents) find their second and third generation
American children losing connections and ownership to preferences
for a culture's customs, music, food, language, etc.. (Nieto,
1996) In addition, some Americans are gliding easily across their
own cultural borders to embrace another culture, and find
themselves referred to as 'honorary Hispanics, Swedes, or
Italians', for example.
As Americans, we enjoy a rich cultural heritage of international
flavor. But each American gravitates towards their own personal
cultural identity- sometimes unlike any other. Tiger Woods, the
superstar golfer, has referred to himself as a 'Cablinasian'- a
self-described acronym reflecting his one eighth Caucasian,
one-fourth black, one-eighth American Indian, one-fourth Thai and
one-fourth Chinese roots. (White, 1997) This is another reason
why the American population is difficult to categorize with
racial/ethnic labeling. And it is also the reason why this
labeling fails to provide purposeful information to define the
country's population and doesn't give rise to a direction for
improving the American life-style.
Prejudice and Discrimination
This doesn't mean our country is free of discrimination, racism,
prejudice, stereotyping, and fear of others different than
ourselves. Tiger Woods may be a wealthy professional golfer, but
that fact did not deter fellow golfer, Fuzzy Zoeller, from
stereotyping him and condemning him by his 'blackness'. (White,
1997) Many question whether the death of unarmed West African
immigrant, Amadou Diallo, by New York police officers' 41 shots
would have occurred at all if he had been white-skinned. Current
events and the growth of hate-crimes and the resulting need for
anti hate-crime legislation serve as reminders that many
Americans continue to judge each other by physical appearance and
identification.
America's Identity Crisis
So where does that leave diversity in America? The Pollyanna
perspective of a color-blind society that ignores cultural,
social and physical diversity doesn't fit. Yet, Americans defy
categorization along racial and ethnic boundaries. So why
continue to measure 'diversity' with flawed definitions,
inaccurate measures, and with erroneous results? From
kindergarten enrollment forms, to job applications, to U.S.
Census surveys the use of racial and ethnic categorizations is an
antiquated concept. This process continues to disappoint, divide,
distract, and undermine opportunities to seek true measures of
diversity in the American population that hold weight and promise
in our efforts to fulfill the American dream for everyone. The
country is rich in the diversity of cultures and identities. The
energy and effort expended on racial and ethnic categorizations
would be better spent on constructs that directly impact quality
of life issues, public policy issues, and future directions for
services and resources.
There are social, cultural and legal elements that unify
Americans and all residents of the United States. These are a
commitment to democracy, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of
Rights, and a continued support for mutual tolerance. (Etzioni,
1999) As educators, our task is to build upon these common
elements for the students and the country that we serve. Our goal
is also to seek solutions to the obstacles encountered in
delivering quality educational services to each student entering
the schools.
NEW View of Diversity - The Leader's Lens of Five
Educational Imperatives
Diversity, in educational environments, must be re-focused on
five imperatives. The following five imperatives of diversity
re-channel energy and efforts away from current obsessive and
erroneous practices of racial/ethnic categorizations. Instead,
these five define diversity in a manner leading toward positive
and productive outcomes in the education of all students.
Summarized as DIVERSITY = VALUE. These imperatives are 1)
Diversity is a Valued Asset, 2) Diversity is Acceptance, 3)
Diversity in Learning, 4) Diversity is Unfolding, and 5)
Diversity is Economic.
DIVERSITY = VALUE
V = Valued Asset
A = Acceptance
L = Learning
U = Unfolding
E = Economic
1 - Diversity is a Valued Asset
Should educators and school leaders be concerned if schools
reflect and contain only students from homogeneous groups? Are
there advantages for students and/or schools with more diverse
populations? Is there a 'compelling interest' for schools to
strive to achieve a diverse student body in the interest of their
organizational goals? School vouchers, schools of choice, charter
schools, magnet schools, desegregation, ethno-centric schools-
these are the current potpourri of educational options. But is
there value in schools that contain diversity? Or asked
differently, are there advantages that diverse schools have over
homogeneous ones?
Most of the recent literature and debate on diversity continue to
revolve around affirmative action, racial preferences,
discrimination, and other measures to repair past discriminatory
practices. These are 'remedial' measures. This writer encourages
the view of school diversity from a different angle - valued
asset.
Major demographic projections estimate that the United States
will contain 50% 'minority' members by the year 2050. Would the
country be better served if schools were maintained as
homogeneous institutions of learning across racial/ethnic lines?
IF "separate but equal" ARE created equal; then how do
'segregated-equals' compare to diverse schools? In the last two
decades, little research has focused in this direction. Certainly
educators, school leaders, attorneys, legislators, and
politicians have focused time and energy on promoting or
defending the 'remedial' measures discussed above. But a handful
of researchers have focused on diversity as a 'valued asset'.
Patricia Gurin's research studied the positive effects of
diversity upon students' educational experiences. (Friedl, 1999)
Although her study was conducted on college students at the
University of Michigan, her findings are valuable to K-12
educators. She concluded that students in more diverse
educational environments:
+ showed greater engagement in active thinking processes
+ demonstrated growth in intellectual engagement and motivation
+ demonstrated growth in intellectual and academic skills
The most comprehensive study to date on the value of diversity in
education was conducted by Alexander. (Friedl, 1999) He concluded
that there were two outcomes of school diversity:
+ cultural awareness
+ student's commitment to promoting racial understanding
William Bowen and Derik Bok studied the past five decades of
affirmative action college admissions in their recent book, The
Shape of the River. One of their conclusions stated,
"...there is no mistaking the predominantly favorable
impression that students of all races share about the value of
diversity in contributing to their education". (Friedl,
1999, p. 44)
Finally, in their 1999 report, "Compelling Interest:
Examining the Evidence on Racial Dynamics in Higher
Education" (Schrag, 1999), several prominent civil rights
leaders concluded:
+ students attending integrated colleges/classes are exposed to a
wider spectrum of ideas and views, learning more and becoming
more open to others
+ graduates of diverse campuses are more likely to live in
integrated communities
Certainly more research needs to be conducted to continue to
validate this perspective of diversity as valued asset. However,
educational leaders are in key positions to promote these
advantages and capitalize on this asset.
2 - Diversity is Acceptance
Schools face the responsibility of teaching tolerance,
understanding, acceptance, and communication in our increasingly
diverse world. Assuring quality education for all students is a
promise educators must keep. Educators must address the special
task of preparing student to live in their diverse community,
country and world. Promoting civility, respect and working
relationships in our diverse society should be a major goal of
schools.
Aggressive, pro-active programs of acceptance and tolerance can
have a positive impact on the social skills of all students.
(Barta and Winn, 1996) These measures must be implemented in
local schools throughout the country to equip students with the
social experiences needed to live successfully with others.
Developing learning environments free of bias and prejudice must
be accompanied by formal programs, lessons, and experiences in
communication, problem-solving, conflict management, and
collaboration.
In taking responsibility and advocating for the educational needs
of all learners, no single solution exists. Instead educators
should embrace the concept that educating learners to live in a
diverse world means embracing diverse solutions. (Kameenui, 1993)
Multicultural education is one such solution. Two goals of
multicultural education are increasing academic achievement and
promoting greater sensitivity to cultural differences. (Dunn,
1997) Another solution in teaching acceptance and tolerance of
diversity is global education. All learners are part of a larger
world population, with all the accompanying needs, issues and
complexities. Education and schools better serve students if they
assist them to become truly 'world citizens' as no previous
generation has before them. Global education assists students in
addressing many education, societal, and world issues. Three
promising practices include:
a. emphasizing interdisciplinary concepts
b. modeling inquisitiveness and skepticism
c. stressing participatory learning (Byrnes, 1997)
3 - Diversity in Learning
Each student brings to school their own individual set of
experiences, culture, and frame of reference. Developing teaching
and learning practices specifically for racial or cultural groups
is ineffective, stereotypical, and harmful. Stereotyping has no
place in public education. "Researchers have clearly
established that there is no single or dual learning style for
the members of any cultural, national, racial, or religious
group." (Dunn, 1997, p. 74) Instead, instruction must be
designed to respond to students' learning styles. These learning
styles vary by student. The most successful learning experiences
for students are those which incorporate an understanding of the
student's strengths and weaknesses, motivational and learning
styles, and personal experiences with high quality content.
Gardner reminds educators that there is a host of
'intelligences'. In order for a particular intelligence to
develop, three conditions must be present:
a. the individual must have the opportunity to learn
b. the culture must place value on the intelligence's development
c. the individual must place value on developing intelligence
Each student's intelligences develop differently, without regard
to race and ethnicity. Educators are encouraged to address both
students' multiple intelligences and cultural influences on
learning. The process of teaching and learning is more effective
as educators understand this concept. Learning experiences that
are individualized and culturally responsive allow students to
learn at their own rate, provide positive reinforcement, and
assist students in reaching their full potential. (Reiff, 1997)
A well-developed, comprehensive plan for addressing cultural
diversity in learning is reviewed by Wardle. She encourages
educators to, "... 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." (Wardle, 1996, p. 153)
Her Anti-Bias and Ecological Model addresses components of
culture, race, gender, and disability combined with additional
factors of family, community, and socio-economic status. Each of
these aspects influence student learning, and provide a larger
framework for teaching each student effectively. Thus, diversity
can enhance learning and can be used effectively in increasing
student success.
4 - Diversity is Unfolding
Diversity factors are unfolding, fluid, and evolving.
Researchers are regularly discovering factors of diversity
directly impacting educational effectiveness. There is a growing
wealth of research looking at indicators of diversity that have
direct connections to the work of educators and school leaders.
By addressing appropriate indicators of diversity, the teaching
and learning process can be enhanced, and student success
increased. There are a variety of diversity factors affecting
student learning. A few include recent immigration, English
language proficiency, single-mother household, lower than normal
birth weight, gender, family income, parent education level,
rural vs. urban, and family mobility. Each of these factors
provide researchers with a wealth of data quite important in
constructing effective instructional practices.
Arroyo, Rhoad and Drew (1999) conducted recent research on
student under achievement. After studying over 100 articles
related to this topic, they identified 41 specific factors. They
found these factors could be categorized into areas of 1)
community and cultural influences, 2) family and peer
relationships, 3) inappropriate student behavior. They conducted
further research and filtered the list down to 10 top influences
associated with under achievement in urban settings. Several of
the 10 factors are directly related to this topic of diversity.
This is the focus educators should be following, specifically
addressing areas of diversity related to student performance.
These factors also cut across racial and ethnic boundaries to
more accurately reflect diversity impacting student performance
and success in education. Their study found the following:
+Curriculum relevance - students' perceptions of how meaningful
and usable the content material and instructional methods are in
their personal lives
+Disengagement - lack of student involvement in/identification
with school community
+Confidence in ability - student's belief/expectation that they
can learn academic material and be successful in school
+High mobility - student's transfer from school to school in
course of a year or more
+Parent expectations - parent's performance standards and goals
for students, and their active engagement
+Level of parent education - number of years parents have had
formal education
+Poverty or low income - poverty falling below poverty standards
results in student under achievement
By continuing to discover, quantify and address different types
of appropriate diversity factors, educators may better serve the
students in today's schools.
5 - Diversity is Economic
There is one single factor of diversity that is a major index
of social disadvantage. That factor is economics. Poverty has a
major, devastating effect on student learning. It crosses all
ethnic, cultural and racial boundaries. Hodgkinson (1995) stated,
"...poverty is a more pervasive index of social disadvantage
that is minority status." (p. 176) For example, research
from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS)
demonstrated that the wealthiest 25% of white, black, Hispanic,
and Asian 8th graders excelled in math by levels to two, three,
and four times better than their racial counterparts in the 25%
poorest range.
Poverty negatively impacts student learning for blacks in urban
Detroit to blondes in Appalachia. Although larger percentages of
minority populations are poor, by sheer numbers, most poor
children are white. Unfortunately, a whopping 37% of America's
wealth is owned by only 1.5% of the people, while 25% of our
youngest children live in poverty. (Hodgkinson, 1995) And the
number of poor children has grown consistently.
Hodgkinson (1995) continued on the effects of poverty, "...
the furor some whites showed when informed that their children
would have to go to school with minority children is mild
compared to the reaction of upper- and middle-income parents (of
any race or ethnic background) when told that their children will
have to go to school with poor children (of any race or ethnic
background)." (p. 176)
But the issue of poverty in America and it's affects on student
learning are not just a calculation of simple statistics. The
diversity of economics includes other facets of poverty.
Concentrated poverty
'Concentrated poverty' is the presence of pervasive poverty in a
geographic area or neighborhood. The U.S. Census Bureau refers to
these neighborhoods as 'extreme poverty areas' (census tracts)
where at least 40% of the residents live in poverty.
Concentrated poverty is directly related to student failure. Not
just school failure for poor students, but school failure for
students who are NOT poor. In a congressional mandated, four-year
study, concentrated school poverty was directly related to lower
student performance on every educational outcome measured.
Education Week, reported, "school poverty depresses the
scores of all students in schools where at least half of the
students are eligible for subsidized lunch, and seriously
depresses the scores when more than 75% of students live in
low-income households." (Concentrated poverty, 1998, p. 1)
Concentrated poverty puts ALL students in the school at risk of
school failure, regardless of income. That is the staggering,
cancer-like effect of concentrated poverty.
Between 1970 and 1990, the number of people living in
concentrated poverty grew from 4.1 million to 8 million, with
almost one-third of that number being children. In addition,
these areas of 'concentrated poverty' are twice as likely to be
in urban areas, and black children are far more likely to live in
concentrated poverty. This is an additional economic factor to be
considered by educational leaders in the development of
educational policy, budget development and delivery of services.
Accumulated Wealth
Disparities in family assets, rather than simple income, is one
variation of this economics focus. It is also the focus of Yale
sociologist, Dalton Conley. In Conley's book, Being Black, Living
in the Red: Race, Wealth, and Social Policy in America, he
explains continuing black-white inequalities by family assets,
not family income.
He highlights that the 'causal starting point' is the difference
in wealth and property in the United States. (Miller, 1999, p.
A15) Conley found that while the average income for black
families is more than half that of white families, the average
white family holds assets worth seven times that of the average
black family. This statistic demonstrates the strength and
persistence of economic advantage. He concludes that "Wealth
inequality, more than any other statistic I know, demonstrated
the gap between blacks and whites." (Miller, 1999, p. A15)
It is difficult to argue with this newly emerging, yet often
ignored area of economic difference in America.
Social scientists have long confirmed that even with similar
levels of annual income, black high school graduates are far less
likely to finish college that white high school graduates.
Differences in accumulated assets may be the reason, particularly
when black families have significantly lower levels of wealth
than similar-income white families.
In 1984, government agencies began collecting data on wealth,
instead of only income. This is an additional perspective of
economic diversity that should not be overlooked in education.
Conley concludes that, "Having parents with wealth is the
best advantage you can have." (Miller, 1999, p. A15) With
time, the wealthy get richer, and the gap widens with each
generation.
Generational poverty
Generational poverty is defined as poverty lasting for two
generations or more. The importance and impact of accumulated
assets was discussed earlier. While some families have
accumulated assets and have enjoyed the benefits such assets
provide over generations; other families have experienced poverty
on a continuing basis over multiple generations. This concept of
generational poverty broadens the perspective of economics from a
single dimension, to a multi-dimensional construct.
Payne (1997) analyzed the effects of generational poverty on
educational attainment and success. Her research provides
educators with an additional lens for understanding the
devastating effect of this type of poverty on students and
families. Poverty, particularly generational poverty, impacts
learning. This includes the detrimental effect of generational
poverty on student's cognitive structures necessary for learning,
for example- story structures of cause and effect, prediction,
consequences, and control of impulses. Other considerations
include establishing relationships that motivate students to
learn, and understanding the hidden rules of the middle class
agencies including schools.
These 'hidden rules' refer to differences between the poor and
middle classes. Schools, government agencies, and business all
operate within the guidelines of, in Payne's words, middle class
'hidden rules'. "Hidden rules are the unspoken clueing
systems that individuals use to indicate membership in a
group." (Payne, 1997, p. 246) These include concepts of
relationships, achievement, and decision-making. For example,
Payne presents a perspective of the different driving forces of
decision-making for three levels of income: poor- survival,
relationships, and entertainment; middle class- work and
achievement; and wealthy- social, financial, and political
connections. Her premise rests on the driving forces of each
economic condition, and the resulting choices individuals and
families make. Continuing, long term generational poverty
perpetuates the continuing mismatch between the poor and the
agencies (middle class) designed to help them.
Conclusion
Simplistic perceptions of diversity have no place in today's
educational environment. Educational leaders must be prepared to
lead our country's schools toward inclusive practices which
effectively embrace, celebrate, assess, and capitalize on our
country's increasing diverse population. Leaders must be prepared
to direct the focus and attention on diversity into areas of
accuracy, productivity, and purpose. Our changing country and
world will depend on the leadership we demonstrate in creating
one purposeful society for all.
Sharpening the view of diversity requires attention to five
leadership imperatives in education. These re-channel energy and
efforts away from past divisive practices toward positive and
productive outcomes for educating of all students. As the new
millennium begins, these five leadership imperatives hold value
for educational leaders.\
DIVERSITY = VALUE
V = Valued Asset
A = Acceptance
L = Learning
U = Unfolding
E = Economic
References
Arroyo, A. A., Rhoad, R., & Drew, P. (1999). Meeting
diverse student needs in urban schools. Preventing School
Failure, 43(4), 145.
Baron, D. (1995). How to be a person, not a number, on the U.S.
Census. Chronicle of Higher Education, April, 3, 1998, B8.
Barta, J. & Winn, T. (1996). Involving parents in creating
anti-bias classrooms. Children Today, 24(1), 28-31.
Byrnes, R. S. (1997). Global education's promise: Reinvigorating
classroom life in a changing interconnected world. Theory into
Practice, 36(2), 95-101.
Census 2000. (2000). U.S. Census Bureau, United States,
http://www.census.gov/.
Concentrated poverty. (1998). Education Week, Special Report:
Quality Counts '98,
http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc98/challenges/poverty/po-n.htm.
Dunn, R. (1997). The goals and track record of multicultural
education. Educational Leadership, 45(7), p. 74-77.
Etzioni, A. (1999). The monochrome society. Public Interest,
Fall, 42.
Friedl, J. (1999). Needed: Documentation on how affirmative
action benefits all students. Change v31 n4. (July-August, 1999);
40.
Glazer, N. (1996). The hard questions: Race for the cure. New
Republic, 215(15), 29.
Hodgkinson, H. L. (1995). What should we call people? Race, class
and the census from 2000. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), 173-179.
Kameenui, E. J. (1993). Diverse learners and the tyranny of time:
Don't fix blame; Fix the leaky roof. The Reading Teacher, 46(5),
376-383.
Marks, M. A. (2000). Outside the ethnic box. Tribalism has
backfired-How about restoring the idea of one nation? Los Angeles
Times Magazine, February 20, 2000, 14-17, 36.
Miller, D. W. (1999). A ghetto childhood inspires the research of
a Yale sociologist. Chronicle of Higher Education, March 19,
1999, A15.
Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context
of Multicultural Education. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Payne, R. (1997). Working with students and adults from poverty.
Instructional Leader X(6), Texas Elementary Principals and
Supervisors Association, 244-248.
Reiff, J. C. (1997). Multiple intelligences, cultures and
equitable learning. Childhood Education, 73(5), 301-305.
Schrage, P. (1999). The diversity defense. American Prospect
Sept, 57.
Wardle, F. (1996). Proposal: An anti-bias and ecological model
for multicultural education. Childhood Education, 72(3),
152-156..
White, J. E. (1997). I'm just who I am: Mixed race Americans.
Time, 149(18), 32-37.