(Re)Imagining the future of multicultural education: reinvesting, reorienting, and reshaping multicultural education

1.1 Reinvesting in the future of Multicultural Education

In higher education, the relevance of our area of expertise is intrinsically tied to the influx of revenue from student admissions and successful grant acquisitions. Hence, a strategic approach to reinvesting in ME involves the introduction of certifications or certificates in multicultural education to augment student enrollment. Recognizing that culturally responsive teaching constitutes a fundamental component of most teacher certification examinations and formal evaluations is imperative (Young et al. 2018; Young and Young 2023). However, aspiring educators across various disciplines and grade levels often encounter challenges when attempting to implement culturally responsive teaching practices, as indicated by consistently lower performance in the culturally responsive teaching domain of edTPA (Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE) 2015). This trend is further evidenced by the average scores and specific item-based self-efficacy beliefs in preservice teacher culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy (CRTSE).

The implementation of a certifications or certificate track can serve multiple purposes:

1. It would allow individuals genuinely interested in multicultural education to possess tangible evidence of their readiness as a multicultural educator.

2. It would facilitate the integration of more multicultural coursework into teacher education programs, thereby generating additional revenue.

3. It would enable employers and educational institutions to identify educators specializing in multicultural education, potentially transforming the perception of the value of this specialization as these educators’ secure positions within their respective school districts.

Besides leveraging certification and enrollment initiatives to foster higher education funding, it is crucial to establish ourselves as a dynamic force in securing grants.

Higher education is in a constant state of evolution and transformation, bringing forth new expectations and responsibilities for multicultural education. A crucial aspect to consider for the future of multicultural education is how our discipline can retain its relevance and competitiveness, particularly as the field increasingly emphasizes the fiscal impacts of our scholarly endeavors. This includes activities such as securing grants and boosting student enrollments. To illustrate, the U.S. Department of Education allocated $540 million for the 2019 fiscal year to support science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education, including computer science. These funds are often earmarked for enhancing exposure and representation in STEM fields. “Understanding that STEM content areas are indubitably influenced by culture, it is essential for those who want to increase access to STEM to understand how dissonance between school culture and discipline culture may impact underrepresented groups’ engagement with STEM content” (Hinnant-Crawford 2016, p. 251). However, non-multicultural education scholars typically oversee and review STEM grants when, arguably, ME scholars are amongst the best suited for the task. Historically, our field has yet to be perceived as a sustainable grant-acquiring entity. However, in the face of an unstable financial market threatening higher education, we must reinvest in our future.

Multicultural education boasts a rich history of theoretical development, model formulation, and dedicated community and student advocacy. Nevertheless, a glaring challenge lies in the paucity of grant-worthy concepts and initiatives originating from ME scholarship. This challenge is particularly concerning, as substantial progress often hinges on empirical research fueled by grant funding. Furthermore, to present a compelling case for expanding faculty positions within ME, we must furnish administrators and policymakers with a pragmatic rationale to justify these investments. Advocating for additional faculty lines becomes increasingly challenging when we fail to generate financial assets equivalent to, or at least closely resembling, those achieved by our counterparts in other academic disciplines. However, we must recognize the unique challenges inherent to this endeavor. The fields of STEM education have attracted considerable attention from policymakers and funding agencies, presenting numerous opportunities for STEM education scholars to secure external funding (Salzman and Lieff Benderly 2019). Nevertheless, they also face formidable competition for these financial resources. Consequently, we must strategically reposition our scholarship and practices to enhance their appeal to policymakers and funding agencies.

Ensuring equitable and accessible education for an increasingly diverse population is paramount, making funding for ME a national priority. Students from marginalized and minoritized backgrounds often experience adverse educational outcomes, and addressing this issue is crucial. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that many grant opportunities are directed toward fields closely linked with issues of inequity, such as the overrepresentation of students of color in special education, the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields, and the challenges of poverty in early childhood education (Ford et al. 2023; Young et al. 2020). These research endeavors frequently secure grants without demonstrating a solid foundation in multicultural principles and theories, thereby perpetuating a persistent problem that the field of multicultural education needs to give adequate attention.

To illustrate, funding agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), often support educational interventions to mitigate gender and racial disparities in mathematics state assessments. Appropriately, agencies like NSF insist on having mathematics education scholars and methodologists as part of these project teams. Paradoxically, these same agencies and review panelists often need to pay more attention to the inclusion of multicultural scholars with expertise in addressing the very inequities the project aims to rectify. This discrepancy highlights the need for a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to grant allocation in ME.

In recently funded research, particularly in education, projects frequently draw on theories originating from STEM education or educational psychology. However, theories and frameworks rooted in ME could be more suitable. To address this issue, there should be a concerted effort to advocate for increased representation of multicultural scholars on grant review panels. Equally important is the active involvement of multicultural education scholars when approached. Apart from securing financial support, it is imperative to establish robust collaborations with core content specialists, thereby utilizing our knowledge and proficiency in ME.

Our expertise is indispensable for core content specialists aiming to meet the diverse needs of all learners. Nevertheless, as scholars in ME, we must contend that we have yet to make significant progress in many aspects of educational equity. This is primarily because core content area specialists have yet to allow us to participate actively. While it is essential for mathematics, science, and English Language Arts specialists to be cognizant of and incorporate multicultural education principles into their practices, the mere implementation of certain habits or principles does not automatically confer expertise in this field. For instance, I use qualitative and quantitative research methods, but that alone does not qualify me as an expert. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to help our colleagues understand that we appreciate their efforts to foster inclusivity and support social justice. However, we also need them to be mindful of not inadvertently sidelining our scholarship and expertise during this process.

The marginalization of our field as a grant-procuring discipline demands urgent attention. Although forming partnerships remains a valid strategy, we must shield our distinct talents, gifts, and knowledge from being undermined by the prevailing notion that “we are all multicultural educators.” Instead, our collective endeavor should focus on integrating multicultural principles into our work. As committed multicultural scholars, we possess specialized training to confront equity, diversity, and social justice issues effectively. Highlighting this fundamental aspect is crucial to fostering enduring partnerships with well-established grant-procuring disciplines.

Furthermore, ME scholars must demonstrate ingenuity in pursuing grants. While federal funding typically takes precedence in most departments and colleges, considering our unique standing in the field, exploring alternative funding sources, including private foundations and business entities with a history of funding research aligned with our professional pursuits, is essential. Additionally, we should remain open to smaller grant opportunities that can be utilized to gather pilot data, serving as evidence for the viability of large-scale projects.

Finally, identifying specific educational problems reveals a critical need for multicultural approaches and investigations, demanding attention and intervention. These challenges are intricate, stemming from ever evolving and sometimes conflicting factors, often rendering them challenging to discern and address. Factors such as race, class, gender, and language, among other cultural dimensions, form the basis of structural biases that propagate inequity, yet they have not been comprehensively acknowledged as such. To garner support from funding agencies and policymakers, redefining these issues and their interconnected complexities is imperative. A holistic perspective that considers long-term implications is vital in addressing the progression of inequity. Advocating for equitable outcomes concerning national security, public health, and other pressing concerns is paramount, especially given how seemingly minor challenges can escalate due to negligence within the field. Ultimately, a fundamental shift in the ME paradigm can be achieved through strategic reinvestment, realigning its focus with the demands of today’s diverse and tense societal landscape. Consequently, reinvestment efforts within the ME domain can manifest in various forms; however, we propose that prioritizing enrollment initiatives and proactive grant procurement represent the most viable strategies.

1.2 Reorienting the field of Multicultural Education

A reorientation of ME is necessary in the face of a growing and increasingly diverse society demanding an explicit scholarly and professional identity based on measurable credentials and qualifications (Banks 1997). The essence of the human experience lies in our capacity to teach and learn. Across various human societies, the formalization and structuring of these processes have materialized through various means, including books, schools, curricula, and teacher licensure. Regrettably, in the United States and other societies impacted by the ravages of European colonialism, these educational structures were tainted by the ideologies underpinning the dehumanization of marginalized groups - a core aspect of colonial practices.

The overwhelming body of evidence indicates that the origins of the modern U.S. educational system were not rooted in the promotion of humanization but rather in the reinforcement of dehumanizing practices (Kliebard 2002). The explicit design of the early foundations of the modern U.S. educational system, as early as the 1870s, was to undermine the humanity of previously enslaved Black individuals, Eastern, and Southern European immigrants, as well as Native communities. This disturbing reality, hidden within the fabric of U.S. educational policy, was laid bare in crucial policy documents, including the Committee of Ten (1893) and the Cardinal Report (1913), both of which were products of the National Education Association (NEA) and significantly influenced the trajectory and quality of education. These documents advocated for a model of education that prescribed the educational path based on individuals’ perceived social status and cultural background, thus perpetuating existing societal hierarchies.

To foster a more comprehensive understanding of the intricate tapestry of experiences within the history of education in American society, a profound grounding in the various perspectives and narratives of diverse populations is essential for those engaging in the field of ME (Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995). Given the cyclical nature of historical patterns in the nation, it becomes imperative for ME to define its unique scholarly and professional identity, effectively breaking free from the shadows of a tainted past and contributing positively to the future trajectory of education in the United States.

During the early 1900s, the concept of ME had yet to take shape. However, biology, anthropology, and psychology scholars have long put forward theories of human racial differences, attempting to establish connections between skin color and intellect, morality, and work ethic. In his work “Sociology and the Race Problem: The Failure of a Perspective,” James McKee observed that the emerging field of sociology further integrated dehumanizing notions into American politics and education by embracing racism as a valid research framework. Additionally, Kliebard (2002) highlighted that “the new science of sociology provided reformers with a solid foundation for pursuing an educational policy based on racial and ethnic typologies” (p. 29). He pointed to the influential role these social sciences played in shaping U.S. educational policies, which led to the establishment of an educational system stratified along racial, ethnic, and economic lines, relegating certain cultural groups, branded as “lazy,” “shiftless,” “untrustworthy,” and lacking in “thrift,” to an inferior education.

One prominent voice emerged as W.E.B. Du Bois, as evidenced in his 1899 publication, “The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study.” This seminal work is a cornerstone in developing the academic discipline of race and ethnicity, which later evolved into ME in the 1960s. Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize that Du Bois’ attempts to portray the Black community of Philadelphia in a humane light were met with resistance from US policymakers. Additionally, his advocacy for a justice-centered approach to Black education was explicitly rejected by educational policymakers (Anderson 1988; Kliebard 2002). Consequently, the US education system has consistently sidelined a humanizing and justice-oriented educational framework. In this tension-laden environment, it becomes imperative for multicultural educators to redefine our teaching and learning methods to center around the humanization of marginalized individuals, groups, and cultures. This necessitates comprehensive training for ME scholars in sociology, anthropology, psychology, and even biology, rooted in critical perspectives and epistemologies (Anderson 1988; Kliebard 2002).

Toward this goal, it is perhaps most urgent to crystalize what counts as multicultural expertise beyond one’s training. Specifically, it is essential to determine which educational, instructional, and life experiences serve as indicators of one’s preparedness to engage in ME research, teach at both undergraduate and graduate levels, and apply multicultural leadership theory to effect systemic transformations in support of diversity, equity, and justice within universities. The absence of explicit qualifications for instructors in the field of ME has led many colleges to assign these courses to faculty members who need more expertise, treating them merely as a means to fill course schedules (Young 2017a). Consequently, individuals lacking the requisite knowledge are often allowed to teach undergraduate ME courses, mirroring the marginalization experienced by the students that ME scholars aim to assist. Addressing the current challenges provides an initial opportunity to delineate the critical components of profound and comprehensive multicultural expertise needed to transform multicultural education. Accordingly, we must combat the marginalization of multicultural expertise by reshaping pedagogy, methodology, scholarship, and advocacy in the field. This necessitates advocating for more stringent university credentialing processes for instructors of ME courses.

1.3 Reshaping Multicultural Education programs

Finally, intentional equity-focused pedagogical practices must be reshaped to ensure empirical grounding and sustainability. The development of this asset-based mindset among teachers does not solely begin upon entering the teaching profession; instead, it is acquired through a series of interconnected courses and field experiences within a teacher’s education program. Neglecting these crucial components in teacher education programs subtly communicates to preservice teachers, especially the predominant group of White preservice teachers, that their limited expectations of students, viewed through a deficit lens, are acceptable (Milner et al. 2003; Sleeter 2017). The effectiveness of how teacher education programs integrate content, subject, and multicultural knowledge as fundamental objectives dictates the proficiency of preservice teachers in instructing culturally diverse students.

As defined by Banks and Banks (1995), equity pedagogy encompasses the teaching strategies and classroom environments designed to facilitate effective learning for students from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. This approach aims to equip students with the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes to function successfully within a just, humane, and democratic society (Banks and Banks 1995, p. 152). For teachers to effectively employ culturally responsive strategies, they must undergo intentional immersion in these practices during their teacher education program. This immersion is achieved through two interconnected methods. Firstly, it involves fostering continuous engagement with a diverse student body comprising various cultural, linguistic, ethnic, and economic backgrounds. Secondly, it entails establishing classroom environments centered on cooperative learning, which enables educators to scrutinize the role of knowledge as capital, the construction of knowledge, and to critically reflect on the production of knowledge for the betterment of society (Banks 1994; Smith 2009). To effectively engage with children from diverse backgrounds and communities, preservice teachers must fully understand the historical and contemporary factors that shape every aspect of education.

Multicultural educators offer preservice teachers the opportunity to critically examine issues pertaining to race, gender, class, nationality, and language and their impact on students’ educational experiences. For many preservice teachers, college represents their first encounter with a classroom environment where they can deconstruct concepts related to privilege, capitalism, oppression, and equity as they relate to their education and the education of the students, they engage with during their clinical field experiences. In order to maintain a sustained and meaningful dialogue among preservice teachers, they must address their personal biases and grapple with curriculum and content biases that often harm historically marginalized students. This process is crucial for fostering a more equitable and inclusive educational environment. It is crucial to provide elements of multicultural education as praxis for teachers serving the K-12 population and graduate students working in K-12 schools or aspiring to become teacher educators in higher education. This should be accomplished through dedicated courses and professional development opportunities. Critical methods are utilized in courses with a multicultural focus to facilitate student-centered learning. These methods offer students numerous opportunities to reflect, interpret, critique, and engage in discourse about contemporary and historical issues of inequity, both globally and locally (Kincheloe et al. 2011). The course content is structured in a scaffolded approach to uncover for pre-service teachers and graduate students the methods of exploring and analyzing issues related to multiculturalism (Rojas and Liou 2021). This gradual approach also serves to clarify how current constructs and issues converge, impacting the educational prospects of students from diverse cultural, linguistic, economic, and ethnic backgrounds. Attaining this objective necessitates the transformation of multicultural education, bringing it to the forefront of societal discourse and guaranteeing that disadvantaged students reap its rewards.

For the prominence of multicultural education-related concerns in society, advocates of this approach must present their research through various outlets, primarily publications. In academic circles, the preferred mode of dissemination has traditionally been through peer-reviewed journals with a significant impact factor, which serves as the standard for showcasing one’s research. Given the interdisciplinary nature of multicultural education, which encompasses diverse concepts and theories, and the intricate components within the educational sphere that hinge on the valuation or devaluation of cultures, scholars, as well as aspiring researchers, need to align their research with the community’s needs, the suitability of the chosen journal, and the target audience.

Moreover, existing research has often adopted a deficit-based framework, emphasizing the issues within education as a collective challenge rather than problematizing them in a manner that validates students and their communities, for graduate students enrolled in doctoral programs that aim to produce comprehensive research on historically marginalized communities, whether, on a national or global scale, it is imperative to focus on methodologies that critically evaluate entrenched historical systems and institutions. This approach should foster solutions or recommendations from a collaborative, interdisciplinary perspective.

While ME graduate students’ post-graduate aspirations may differ (i.e., some may want to serve as a consultant, policy advocate, or work in K-12 administration rather than enter the professoriate), each individual must be provided with the requisite coursework, capabilities, and understanding of how to conduct research, and how to successfully publish a manuscript. The process of writing a manuscript varies based on a couple of factors; the type of manuscript (i.e., empirical, theoretical/conceptual, or practitioner-focused); the audience the manuscript is intended for; the acceptance rate of the outlet; and the timeline for which the author is trying to have their publication hit the press. Having an awareness of each component greatly enhances a graduate students’ ability to increase the likelihood of their work being accepted (after multiple revisions of course) and published.

University faculty, irrespective of tenure status, are responsible for creating genuine opportunities for graduate students to engage in structured research and writing tasks (Lechuga 2011). Certain critical practices and intricacies of drafting and revising manuscripts can only be fully grasped when students receive guidance from experienced faculty members (Maher et al. 2014). Determining authorship and understanding the associated commitments are concealed aspects of academia that should be included in the trial-and-error approach for ME graduate students. Consequently, having supportive faculty mentors who can offer multiple chances for students to experience the demands of various authorship positions, such as first, second, or third, will enhance their capacity to collaborate effectively within and beyond their academic department.

Moreover, it is imperative to carefully assess how well the idea aligns with graduate students’ short-term and long-term career goals, especially for ME scholars. A deficiency in the ability to produce high-quality manuscripts and a lack of in-press or published manuscripts upon completion of the program may hinder a student’s prospects in the academic domain (Mitchell et al. 2023). Manuscripts remain the primary currency in the academic realm, and the absence of these crucial assets may impede a graduate’s success. Institutions, departments, and faculty members that overlook this crucial aspect in the development of a graduate student are undoubtedly doing a disservice to both the individuals and the broader academic community.

While publishing manuscripts holds significant value in academia, service is often regarded as less prestigious and a direct rival to time that could otherwise be devoted to research. Nevertheless, the absence of service – defined as active involvement in activities that heighten awareness, foster knowledge acquisition, or champion systemic reforms within one’s professional domain – stymies efforts to rectify persistent societal structural issues and inequalities. Consequently, active participation in initiatives that benefit local communities, the department, the institution, and the world becomes imperative despite the challenging task of maintaining a delicate equilibrium between mandated research, teaching, and service. Multicultural educators perceive service as a potent catalyst for effecting change. Nevertheless, the acknowledgment accorded to service is disproportionately lower than that for conducting research, finalizing publications, or securing grant funding. Thus, the pivotal question arises: How can scholars reframe perceptions of ME advocacy and service as commendable pursuits on par with the aforementioned academic productivity benchmarks?

Scholars in the field of ME need to consider both the execution of their service activities and how these efforts can seamlessly translate into endeavors that contribute to their academic standing, including research, publications, teaching, and grants. For instance, when organizing workshops for local schools focusing on implementing equitable policies and practices related to school discipline, it is essential to engage in constructive dialogues with school administrators. These conversations should revolve around conducting research to assess the professional development’s impact on participants’ attitudes and disciplinary outcomes for students. Properly executed research in this context can be a valuable asset.

A guest presentation during a department or university meeting could trigger discussions concerning a collaborative grant project emphasizing a specific university initiative or mission. Moreover, the concept of service should encompass team-building collaborative projects, fostering collegiality, and establishing a precedent for graduate students in the department. These projects are designed to align with the individual research needs of the participating faculty. Service, though often undervalued in higher education metrics, can be a gateway to initiating teaching, publications/research, or grants. This perspective renders it invaluable for promoting social change within a social justice framework and cultivating future scholars with a critical consciousness. Ultimately, this process contributes to one’s professional validation. Hence, reshaping ME programs is crucial for advancing this indispensable field of study.