The educational sector is, in itself, a pillar of progress in any society. It provides individuals with access to information thereby creating a knowledge base through which development can be achieved. However, some aspects, one of them being diversity, tend to influence the quality of and access to education for particular target groups. In his book, Diversity and Education: A Multicultural Approach , Michael Vavrus focuses on a multicultural approach towards understanding education. He addresses various aspects such as race and ethnicity, culture, socioeconomic class, language, religion, sexuality as well as gender. Vavrus shows an understanding of the vital role that the said factors play in determining the quality of education and experiences of students falling within some of the aspects of diversity stated. In particular, diversity puts pressure on the society to consider the needs of individuals belonging to a particular target group. Central to Vavrus’ argument is that the aspect of diversity is a focal point based on which educational policies are developed. Most importantly, the educational policies are structured in a manner to maintain or balance power relations between and among individuals.
Before delving into Vavrus’ ideology about the interlink between diversity and education, an understanding of the concept itself is required. Vavrus (2015) describes diversity stating that it “… does not cause social conflicts but is a lens through which narratives of assertion and denial of diversity claims become causes of social conflicts across a spectrum of worldviews” (p. 28). The description given demonstrates that being diverse is not only an independent aspect, in terms of causes of social conflicts, but is also inherent in human beings. Therefore, to Vavrus, diversity is used as the basis on which, based on a particular group’s claim to a power hierarchy, social conflict arises. In the education sector, for instance, inequality in terms of access to quality learning resources, both human and non-human, has been an ongoing issue in the past few years. Illuminating Vavrus’ conception of diversity, Roseanne L. Flores (2017) exposes her audience to the factors escalating the gap between the rich and the poor. One particular element she talks about in her article involves the differences in the quality of education between the rich and the poor. One ought to understand that economic wellbeing is, in itself, an aspect of diversity. Having clarified that, Flores (2017) describes the elusive dream that parents from poor neighborhoods have following the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2015. With parents having the “choice” to decide where their child will attend school, they are hoping that their choice of school “… will provide their children with a better education, with music and art, qualified teachers, small classes, and exposure to literature, an education they could never have imaged for their children” but, “Unfortunately, this ideal school does not exist” (Flores, 2017, p. 2). In this particular scenario, Flores is simply demonstrating that for the poor, quality education is not easily attainable as it is the case with the rich. Vavrus’ depiction of the concept of diversity reveals that poverty, as a diversity aspect, is used to determine the quality of education that children from poor families get.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In chapter two, Vavrus talks about three concepts, social conservatism, liberal multiculturalism and critical multiculturalism. In each aspect, there is a definition or rather conceptualization of factors such as equality and equity. The overall effect is that the meaning attached to the said elements tends to determine an individual’s orientation towards both diversity and difference. The implication is that in the context of education, for instance, social conservatists will treat diversity and difference in a manner unique to how liberal and critical multiculturalists would. In this regard, a discussion of how the three aspects affect the orientation of individuals towards diversity and the effect on education is warranted.
Social Conservatism
According to Vavrus “Social conservatism prioritizes the private sphere and guards private interests and identifies against encroachment from the public sphere” (p. 30). Further, the dominating belief is that a homogenous culture for a country is best when it comes to resource allocation and utilization. The idea is that demographic heterogeneity alongside state regulation of capitalism pose a huge risk against social cohesiveness and the root of Western civilization. As Vavrus further notes, the logic behind conservatism is that individuals are able to pursue their own interests based on one’s effort. The outcome is a society characteristic of differentials in educational attainment or standards of living following one’s individual merit. The key point is that diversity, for instance, being rich of poor, determines the quality of life or education one can acquire. In this regard, Vavrus corroborates Flores’ idea that the hope that poor parents have for better schools for their children remains vague. From a social conservatism perspective, the society is structured in a manner that those who have an advantage, for instance, the rich, are always the ones who have access to a higher standard of living or a high-quality education. Thus, Vavrus’ discussion of social conservatism helps clarify why there is a noticeable gap when it comes to educational attainment based on an evaluation of aspects of diversity. The argument is that belonging to a particular group renders one either vulnerable to low quality education or in a position of power where one can acquire a high-quality learning experience.
Liberal Multiculturalism
Vavrus states that liberal multicultural is the opposite of conservatism. The concept entails a focus on universalist ideologies whereby the aim is to moderate social conservatism through acknowledging diverse group identities. Thus, through the lens of liberal multiculturalism, an individual is part of the public sphere and is, in him or herself, a representation of more than one aspect of diversity. Therefore, one can notice that Vavrus’ conceptualization of liberal multiculturalism is meant to project the need to accept and value diversity differences between and among individuals. In the context of education, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2015 is a good example of a reaction towards social conservatism which has largely dominated the society. For instance, when it comes to access to high-quality learning resources, poor students find themselves struggling to even attend school regularly. Some are forced to look for jobs to help their parents at home following economic pressure. However, liberal multiculturalism, as Vavrus discusses, puts pressure on the government which is responsible for promoting the welfare of the public. In this regard, the book addresses the vital role that administrative bodies play or ought to play in ensuring that educational resources are not only of high quality, but also are easily accessible in the public sphere. Critical Multiculturalism
Compared to both social conservatism and liberal multiculturalism, critical multiculturalism addresses concepts such as knowledge construction, emancipatory actions, resistance, as well as power. Thus, while aspects of diversity are acknowledged by those in favor of critical multiculturalism, they are used as the basis for a revolution against what can be termed as the ruling class. For instance, blacks have, in the U.S., had far fewer chances to high-quality compared to the white majority. Therefore, from the lens of critical multiculturalism, as Vavrus describes, the black community will likely engage in emancipatory action to redeem itself from the disadvantaged position within which it belongs. Therefore, when it comes to education, being black is used as a way to advocate for aggressive action against an education system that is under strict criticism for its ineffectiveness in addressing the needs of disadvantaged populations. However, one ought to acknowledge that those in support of critical multiculturalism are focused on using whatever means possible to bring about reforms in the education sector. A major risk that exists is that reforms might be biased and focused on the needs of individuals representing targeted diversity aspects.
Final Reflection
In the education sector, as Vavrus discusses in his book, there are a number of factors that affect access to high-quality education. Diversity is Vavrus’ central point of focus. To elucidate the concept further, Vavrus gives the definition that diversity is merely representative of a platform on which individuals conjure social conflicts. He projects the idea that individuals form worldviews based on, for instance, the aspects of diversity they associate with or represent. That being the case, Vavrus is able to educate his readers that diversity is an independent concept which is, unfortunately, used to determine who has access to high-quality education or a higher standard of living. Vavrus does well in discussion different viewpoints that shape individuals’ orientation towards diversity. A discussion of the said ideologies helps the reader determine what his or her views are towards diversity and how they might fall within the three phenomena. Notably, Vavrus provides his audience with more of “why” and “how” to the current state of education in not only the United States, but also in other regions across the globe. Throughout the book, Vavrus supports his assertion that diversity, whether in education or other sector, is a concept through which narratives of assertion are made thereby promoting social conflicts.
References
Flores, Roseanne L. “The Rising Gap between Rich and Poor: A Look at the Persistence of Educational Disparities in the United States and Why We Should Worry.” Cogent Social Sciences , vol. 3, no. 1, Nov. 2017, doi:10.1080/23311886.2017.1323698.
Vavrus, M. J. (2015). Diversity & Education: A Critical Multicultural Approac h . Teachers College Press.
