Cross Curricular Contexts, Themes And Dimensions In Primary Schools

Gajendra K. Verma

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• eBook ISBN: 9781135721787
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The final volume of four, the authors, all specialists in the areas of the curriculum, consider how the concerns of ethnic groups may be addressed within the framework of the National Curriculum. Despite the indecision surrounding the structure, content, pedagogy and assessment of many components of the primary school curriculum, it remains that the multicultural nature of the population and of schools will develop. These developments and their educational implications must be considered if the educational system is to respond adequately.

Part 1
Educational Equality and Cultural Pluralism in Primary Education: Cross-curricular Perspectives

Chapter 1
Cultural Diversity in Primary Schools: Its Nature, Extent and Cross-curricular Implications

Gajendra K.Verma

Context

The papers in the present volume focus on issues related to cross-curricular dimensions, skills and themes. The authors of these papers have analysed the issues from the point of view of cultural, religious and linguistic characteristics of primary schools. It is clear from their analyses that, unless the debate about shared values and different values in society is explicitly acknowledged and resolved, the concept of cultural diversity remains rhetorical and ineffective in the delivery of the curriculum. Many of the pedagogic issues related to plurality in the educational system are still unclear, although the contributors to the present series show that progress has been, and can be made.

Cultural diversity has been a fact of life in the countries of East and West, North and South for many centuries. The implication of this has been the presence within nation states of a number of cultural, ethnic or racial groups. Since the process of migration and the history of different nations vary considerably, the cultural profile of different regions within any particular country also varies. However, contemporary recognition of the value of cultural, linguistic and religious diversity and their educational implications are international and more recent (Lynch, Modgil and Modgil, 1992a,b,c,d).

By the nineteenth century, cultural diversity in European countries was already marked in terms of differences in the religious, linguistic and ethnic profiles of their inhabitants. Political and social forces attempted to acculturate divergent and sometimes conquered cultural groups into the dominant culture and language. Even the post-World War I settlement, which made deliberate efforts to create culturally homogeneous nation states, failed to eliminate diversity and, in some cases, it served to accentuate the diversity. In spite of the fact that certain countries tried to integrate their divergent cultural groups within the dominant culture, many European nation states have allowed ethnic minorities to retain their distinctive cultures which often varied significantly from that of the dominant group. Others have signally failed so to do: to wit, the former Yugoslavia.

It must be acknowledged that in any society it is rare to find that the population is homogeneous. Most societies are now demographically pluralistic (particularly since World War II), characterized by the presence of two or more distinct groups of communities which are differentiated in terms of language, religion, ethnic characteristics and/or cultural heritage. In spite of such diversity, many countries have failed to recognize and support the heterogeneity of its citizens. The aim of ‘unity in plurality’ represents an ideal more readily espoused in rhetoric than worked towards in reality.

Notwithstanding such tendencies towards homogenization, considerable differences in value orientation can still be found between the European countries. Nationalism, for instance, is still much stronger in some countries than in others. Inglehart (1990) found that in 1985 72 per cent of all Greeks said they were ‘very proud to be Greek’ and 64 per cent of all Spaniards were ‘very proud to be Spanish’. This contrasts quite sharply with only 33 per cent of the Portuguese being ‘very proud to be Portuguese’ and not more than 20 per cent of all (West) Germans saying that they were ‘very proud to be German’. One should keep in mind, however, that important differences in outlook also exist within each of these countries. These differences are aspects of continuing socialization processes.

Inglehart also compared religious and moral attitudes in various countries. 53 per cent of the French describe themselves as a ‘religious person’ as opposed to 84 per cent of the Italians. In the Netherlands 22 per cent of the population thinks ‘homosexuality can never be justified’, as opposed to 65 per cent in the United States. Also in the Netherlands 11 per cent of the population think that ‘a woman needs children in order to be fulfilled’; in France the corresponding percentage is 71. What common values might enable any country work towards ‘unity in plurality’?

The end of World War II was a turning point when ethnic minorities throughout the world started asserting their rights. They became conscious of the fact that their identities were being eroded because of assimilationist educational and social policies. This awareness caused them to challenge the disparity between the declared values of democratic societies and the realities of the operation of such policies. In 1994, the slogan of ‘ethnic cleansing’ used earlier to justify, for example, the wars in the Balkans, highlights an ever-present challenge to coexistence.

Over the last four decades or so the classical concept of a culturally homogeneous society has been challenged more openly. On the one hand there is the process of European integration—politically, socially and economically — which is likely to affect many of the rules and regulations and consequently citizens’ daily lives. On the other hand, cultural, religious and linguistic differences between groups have come under scrutiny. At this point it would be appropriate to consider what we mean by ‘culture’.

What is ‘culture’? Definition of the term ‘culture’ is both complex and problematic. A common ambiguity inherent in any discussion of culture is the interchangeable use of other terms when dealing with it, particularly within the educational context. For example, in order to meet the needs of a plural society, educational programmes have adopted certain strategies variously labelled as ‘multicultural’, ‘multiracial’, ‘intercultural’, ‘cross-cultural’, and ‘antiracist’ education. Such approaches to teaching have been supported by some and criticized by others. The relationship between cultural diversity and education has become an area of increasing controversy in Britain since the 1960s. It has generated debates and discussions about the nature of society and the functions of schooling. In a culturally diverse society such a debate inevitably involves issues such as value systems, religion, language and ethnic relations.

A review of the literature clearly demonstrates that many writers have not only oversimplified the analysis of the term ‘culture’ but have often approached it in a stereotypical way (Verma, 1986; Figueroa and Fyfe, 1993). For example, there has often been a tendency to define it primarily in terms of ethnicity, assuming homogeneity in any ethnic community or group. Culture is an evolving, dynamic and ongoing process, and not a static or unidimensional concept. It may be defined as the unique values, symbols, lifestyle, customs and other human-made components that distinguish one social group from another. Such socially determined constructs are themselves amenable to change in a rapidly changing world. It should also be stressed that individuals can belong to more than one social group, and consequently they can develop multiple group affiliations and loyalties.

As Clarke et al. (1981) put it:

A culture includes the ‘maps of meaning’ which make things intelligible to its members. These ‘maps of meaning’ are not simply carried around in the head: they are objectivated in the patterns of social organisation and relationship through which the individual becomes a ‘social individual’. (Clarke et al., 1981)

From this perspective culture is learned, communicated and shaped through individual attempts to master and participate in the life of the group. Thus, culture is constructed and reconstructed through the process of social interaction.

There are many aspects of an individual’s identity which develop through the socialization process. This process is influenced by family structures, schooling and experience in the wider society. These forces contribute to the development of an individual’s identity which consists of specific behaviours, values, lifestyles, attitudes and world views. Such components of identity may differ and sometimes come into conflict with the mainstream framework or ‘norms’. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that many of the conflicts that arise between the school and minority ethnic communities, and many of the cultural disparities that pupils experience, are caused by conflicting values, beliefs and behaviour (Pumfrey and Verma, 1990). Some ethnic and religious groups are socialized in homes and communities in which the sacred is valued more than the secular, and in which traditional cultural beliefs and religious values are strongly held. The attachments that people develop in this process contribute to the formation of cultural in-groups. The attitudes of the in-group towards the out-groups are formed on the basis of experience. The school plays a mediating role in this process.

In Britain, since the introduction of the National Curriculum in 1988, the concern which is taking prominence on the Muslim education agenda is the issue of freedom of religion. Muslims are gaining support from some non-Muslim groups and are pressing for the removal of religious inequalities within the educational framework of the Education Act for religious education and collective worship. At a recent conference, organized by the All-Parliamentary Group for Racial Equality and the Runnymede Trust, the issues of religious discrimination and inequality were discussed. In the conference statement which was published it says that ‘the multifaith nature of British society must be firmly anchored and reflected in the planning and development of religious education and collective worship, both locally and nationally’ (Yaseen, 1993).

Thus, if we take the word ‘culture’ to denote the meanings and understandings which are learned, shared and evolve in groups, then the educational system should be constructed to create an environment against a background accepting of other cultures, ethnicities, class, gender and communities. The culture of an educational institution should be a reflection of the culture of society. If a society is a plural one, this ought to be reflected in the culture of the educational environment. In this perspective, culture encompasses almost every aspect of human experience—it represents a more or less consistent pattern of thoughts, feelings and actions, and it is structured.

In Britain, 3.06 million people—approximately 1 in 20 of the population — belong to an ethnic minority. This represents 5.5 per cent of the total population. This also means that these people have different ethnic origins to the majority of British people. Since the 1950s, when the number of people coming to live in Britain from former colonies began to increase, debate has continued about how to ensure that they are accorded the same rights, accept the same responsibilities, and have access to the same opportunities as other people in all aspects of life (see Chapter 2 for ethnic analyses based on the latest census).

The educational responses since the 1960s to the presence of ethnic minorities in British schools have been analysed as movements through three overlapping models based, in turn, upon the concepts of assimilation, integration and cultural pluralism. In this process, many educational strategies and models have been adopted to deal with the disadvantaged position of many ethnic-minority groups within the educational system in general and in schools in particular. None of the models seems to have met the challenges that face the educational system, and consequently they have failed to change the ideological perceptions of British society as a whole.

As early as 1977 a Green Paper, Education in Schools: A Consultative Document (DES, 1977) stressed that the presence of ethnic- minority groups in Britain had implications for the education of all children. It suggested that all schools, whatever their ethnic composition, should give their pupils an understanding both of the multiethnic nature of British society and of Britain’s place in an interdependent world. The Green Paper further stated that Britain is a multicultural, multiracial society and that the curriculum of schools should reflect the realities of this new Britain. Despite this, many education authorities in areas where there were few minority pupils turned a blind eye to such suggestions and responded by saying that the wider multiethnic society had little relevance to their local teaching practice.

Two years later, in 1979, the government set up an independent inquiry to look into the education of children from ethnic-minority groups. There were two sets of issues which led to the creation of this inquiry. These were the problem of West-Indian underachievement and that of the presence in British schools of Asian children with distinctly different languages and cultures.

The interim report, produced under the chairmanship of Anthony Rampton, appeared in 1981 entitled West Indian Children in Our Schools (DES, 1981). This report had as its focus the circumstances and experiences of West-Indian children in Britain and tended to play down those of children from other ethnic-minority groups. In view of the media headlines that the Brixton, Toxteth and Bristol racial disturbances attracted at the time, the emphasis in the Rampton report was not surprising. Soon after the publication of the interim report, Rampton resigned and Lord Swann was appointed as the new Chairman of the Inquiry.

The interim report (DES, 1981) stated that:

the curriculum in all schools should reflect the fact that Britain is both multiracial and culturally diverse…the intention of multicultural education is simply to provide all children with a balanced education which reflects the nature of our Society…all heads should be prepared to develop a multicultural approach towards the curriculum. (DES, 1981)

Critics have always argued that the ethnocentric nature of much of what is taught in the classrooms has an adverse effect on both ethnic-minority and majority children. This restricts the development of the former’s self-concepts and reproduces prejudice.

Over the last twenty years there has also been a growing body of opinion that inappropriate assessment procedures are one of the major factors contributing to the disproportionate numbers of black and other minority children assessed as having learning difficulties and placed in special schools (Tomlinson, 1987). It is ironic that the increased per-capita investment in pupils’ education that this represented was largely counterproductive.

The Swann Report moved the main focus of the debate about cultural diversity, multicultural education and equal opportunity from issues concerning the education of specific ethnic-minority children to the issues concerning the relevant and good education of all pupils for a plural society (DES, 1985). It adv...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Other Titles in the Series
• Preface
• List of Tables and Figures
• List of Abbreviations
• Part 1: Educational Equality and Cultural Pluralism in Primary Education: Cross-curricular Perspectives
• Part 2: National Curriculum Cross-curricular Themes
• Part 3: Other Cross-curricular Dimensions
• Appendix 1: The Race Relations Act and Education
• Appendix 2: Sources and Lists of Recent Education and Curriculum-related Publications
• Appendix 3: Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966: Background and Current Administrative Arrangements
• Notes on Contributors