Teacher Education and Special

Education: The Journal of the Teacher

Education Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children
http://tes.sagepub.com/

Multicultural Education: Powerful Tool for Preparing Future General and Special
Educators
Festus E. Obiakor
Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children 2001 24: 241
DOI: 10.1177/088840640102400308

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://tes.sagepub.com/content/24/3/241

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Teacher Education Division of the Council of Exceptional Children

Additional services and information for Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://tes.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://tes.sagepub.com/content/24/3/241.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 1, 2001

What is This?

Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012

Multicultural Education: Powerful Tool for
Preparing Future General and Special
Educators
Festus E. Obiakor

Abstract: Teacher preparation programs continue to be challenged to respond to individual and collective
growth of their students. One method that has been suggested by scholars and educators is the infusion of
multicultural education in all pedagogical activities. The infusion debate in Colleges of Education across
the nation has not been without controversy. While proponents believe multicultural education has an
equalizing effect on teacher education programming, opponents believe it is balkanizing, un-American,
and antiquality. To this effect, two critical questions deserve attention. Do teacher educators actually under-
stand the powerful connection between multicultural education and education as a whole? Do they also
understand the impact that the lack of such knowledge has on the inappropriateness of service delivery sys-
tems to learners who come from different cultural, linguistic, and racial backgrounds? This article responds
to these questions while presenting ideas for educators willing to assist multicultural learners in maximiz-
ing their fullest potential in inclusive settings.

is an inevitable phenomenon, yet opponents of multicultural education appear

Change
historically, it has without
never come
controversy. The critical question that comes
to mind is, Where would the Socratic ques-
tion-and-answer method be today without
the risk taken by Socrates to challenge the
wealthy Sophists who were more interested
in maintaining the status quo than in chal-
lenging the Athenian youth to maximize their
fullest potential? Though his ideas seemed
innovative and far-reaching, he was accused
of impiety to the gods and of corrupting the
Athenian youth. He became a great equalizer
who wanted the masses to be involved in the
socioeducational discourse of his time (Sagal,
1983). Proponents of multicultural education
seem to have a similar equalizing effect-
they challenge the status quo to educate all
persons from different cultural, linguistic,
and racial backgrounds. Like the Sophists,
to be more interested in assimilating all per-
sons in spite of cultural differences and per-
sonal idiosyncrasies. In the face of these con-
flicting views, many of today’s children with
atypical manifestations are improperly identi-
fied, unfairly assessed, disproportionately
placed, and misinstructed (Artiles & Trent,
1994; Grossman, 1998; Ladson-Billings, 1994;
Obiakor, 1999a, 1999b). For instance, stu-
dents who look, learn, talk, and behave dif-
ferently are involved in educational pro-
grams that frequently fail to assist them in
maximizing their potential (Ford, Obiakor, &
Patton, 1995; Obiakor & Algozzine, 1995;
Obiakor, Schwenn, & Rotatori, 1999; Obiakor
& Utley, 1997; Rotatori & Obi, 1999; Winzer
& Mazurek, 1998).
It appears that the issue of human dif-
ference has continued to intrigue teacher

241
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012
educators. To a large measure, teacher
preparation programs have been challenged
to respond to individual and collective
growth (American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education, 1994; Council for
Exceptional Children, 1993; Kozol, 1991;
National Commission on Excellence
Education, 1983; Palmer, 1998; Pedersen,
1991; Obiakor, 1993a, 1993b; Utley,
Delquadri, Obiakor, & Mims, 2000; Wald,
1996). To buttress this growth, legislative
efforts have been made at governmental lev-
els. Consider a few examples. In 1964, there
was the Civil Rights Act; and in 1965, there
was the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. In 1973, there was Section 504
of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act; and in
1975, there was the Education of All
Handicapped Children’s Act, which was later
reauthorized as the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990. An
amendment of IDEA (IDEA 97) was promul-
gated to reemphasize the balance between
school safety and procedural safeguards of
students. While these legislative efforts have
been well-meaning, they have failed to mate-
rialize to equal educational opportunities for
many students who come from different cul-
tural, linguistic, and racial backgrounds (see
Grossman, 1998; Hilliard, 1995; Midgette,
1995; Obiakor, 1999b). As a consequence, it
behooves teacher educators to prepare
future educators who will look for multidi-
mensional methods to reach all students in
inclusive settings.
In the U.S. today, individuals from dif-
ferent cultural and racial backgrounds no
longer want to be invisible in classrooms,
schools, and communities-their plights can
no longer be ignored by teacher preparation
programs. Mendenhall (1991) made a case
for multicultural education when he noted
that &dquo;the more everyone in a group knows
and understands the same set of social val-
ues, the less interpersonal problems will
result between group members&dquo; (p. D7). He
added that the changing demography is now
a reality and that &dquo;by the year 2010 it will be
a reality for the entire American work place&dquo;
(p. D7). To this effect, two critical questions
deserve attention. Do teacher educators actu-
ally understand the powerful connection
242
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012
between multicultural education and educa-
tion as a whole? Do they also understand the
impact that the lack of such knowledge has
on the inappropriateness of their service
delivery systems to students who come from
different cultural, linguistic, and racial back-
in grounds ? This article responds to these ques-
tions while presenting ideas for future edu-
cators willing to assist multicultural learners
in maximizing their fullest potential in inclu-
sive settings.
Multicultural Education:
Conceptualizations and Meanings
It has become increasingly apparent that
many students who come from different cul-
tural, linguistic, and racial backgrounds have
been misidentified, misassessed, miscatego-
rized, misplaced, and misinstructed (Baca &
Cervantes, 1991; Ford et al., 1995; Grossman,
1998; Obiakor, 1996). In addition, there is a
plethora of evidence to support the fact that
traditional teacher preparation programs
have not been successful in producing the
quality of educators required to improve out-
comes for culturally diverse learners with
and without exceptionalities (Ewing, 1995;
Ford, 1992; Obiakor, 1993a; Obiakor & Utley,
1997; Trent, 1995; Utley et aI., 2000; Wald,
1996). today’s schools, general and special
In
educators seem ill-prepared, unprepared,
frustrated, and without the necessary skills in
their teaching repertoire for implementing
innovative instructional programs that facili-
tate the inclusion of all students. As it
appears, culturally diverse learners are the
majority in some of the largest school dis-
tricts in the country (Grossman, 1995;
Ladson-Billings, 1994). According to Ladson-
Billings, they &dquo;represent 30 percent of the
public school population. In the twenty
largest school districts, they make up over 70
percent of total school enrollment&dquo; (p. x).
Ironically, the composition of general and
special education professionals does not
reflect this changing ethnic and language
composition of children served in schools
(Grossman, 1998; Obiakor et al., 1999; Utley
et al., 2000). The interesting question
becomes, How prepared are America’s gen-
eral and special educators to respond to
challenges posed by the changing demogra-
phy ?No doubt, the response lies in the abil-
ity teacher preparation programs to incor-
of
porate multicultural education, yet this infu-
sion has been viewed as expensive,
unnecessary, unfair, and antiquality
(D’Souza, 1991; Sowell, 1993).
When infused properly, multicultural
education should enhance quality teacher
education, especially when it exposes stu-
dents to maximum learning and dimensions
of problem solving. It should acquaint indi-
viduals with divergent viewpoints and multi-
ple voices to societal discourse. Additionally,
it should remove limits set on how culturally
diverse learners are defined, understood, and
valued. To a large measure, multicultural
education capitalizes on the resources and
endowments of all individuals and fosters
pragmatic efforts to discover what has made
the U.S. the greatest democracy in the world
(Banks, 1999; Gollnick & Chinn, 1990;
Ladson-Billings, 1994; Obiakor, 1994). About
a decade ago, Gollnick and Chinn explained
that:
An overall goal of multicultural educa-
tion is to help all students develop their
potential for academic, social, and voca-
tional success. Educational and voca-
tional options should not be limited by
sex, age, ethnicity, native language, reli-
gion, class, or exceptionality. Educators
are given the responsibility to help stu-
dents contribute to, and benefit from,
our democratic society. Within our plu-
ralistic society, multicultural education
values the existing diversity, positively
portrays that diversity and uses that
diversity in the development of effective
instructional categories for students in
the classroom. In addition, multicultural
education should help students think
critically about institutionalized racism,
classism, and sexism. (p. iii)
The above definition of multicultural
education is comprehensive and confirms
the legitimacy of its infusion into existing
educational, psychological, and counseling
programs. This legitimacy has made multi-
cultural education an inevitable force worthy
of complementing major theoretical frame-
works like humanistic education, behaviorist
education, and cognitive educational
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012
approach (Fowers & Richardson, 1996;
Pedersen, 1991). As Pedersen pointed out:
Multiculturalism is a pervasive force in
modern society that acknowledges the
complexity of culture. During the past 20
years, multiculturalism has become rec-
ognized as a powerful force, not just for
understanding &dquo;exotic&dquo; groups but also
for understanding ourselves and those
with whom we work in a complicated
social context. Multiculturalism has
gained the status of a general theory,
complementing other scientific theories
to explain human behavior. (p. 6)
Based on Pedersen’s statement, one can
argue that multicultural education teaches
future teachers to experiment and experi-
ence, the very essence of education. Dewey
(1958), in his classical book, Philosophy of
a concept of education
Education, proposed
that has been corroborated by many multi-
cultural scholars and educators. He stated
that:
Education must have the tendency, if it
iseducation, to form attitudes. The ten-
dency to form attitudes which will
express themselves in intelligent social
action is something very different from
indoctrination.... There is an interme-
diary between aimless education and the
education of inculcation and indoctrina-
tion. The alternative is the kind of edu-
cation that connects the materials and
methods by which knowledge is
acquired with a sense of how things are
done; not by impregnating the individual
with some final philosophy, whether it
comes from Karl Marx or from Mussolini
or Hitler or anybody else, but by
enabling him [her] to so understand
existing conditions that an attitude of
intelligent action will follow from social
understanding. (p. 56)
The above propositions by Dewey
(1958), Pedersen (1991), and Gollnick and
Chinn (1990) make the convincing connec-
tion between general education, special edu-
cation, and multicultural education. In addi-
tion, they highlight the importance of
multicultural education as a multiethnic infu-
sion model that values the history, language,
symbols, behaviors, beliefs, and events that
243
have molded individuals (see Figure 1
below). Directly related to this model is the
multicultural inclusive model that appreci-
ates, in practical terms, what a truly inclusive
classroom entails (see Figure 2 below). This
is why there is a call for a shift in paradigm
to respond to demographic changes. In other
words, a truly inclusive classroom should be
a multicultural classroom and/or a coopera-
tive classroom where parents work collabo-
ratively with parents, teachers work collabo-
ratively with teachers, parents work
collaboratively with teachers, teachers work
collaboratively with parents, students work
collaboratively with students, and teachers
work collaboratively with students. If these
models are properly infused in teacher
preparation programs, &dquo;new&dquo; and experi-
enced educators will value multicultural edu-
cation in the total schooling process. As
Nieto (1996) put it succinctly:
Figure 1. The Multiethnic Infusion Model
244
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012
Multicultural education is a process of
comprehensive school reform and basic
education for all students. It challenges
and rejects racism and other forms of
discrimination in schools and society
and accepts and affirms the pluralism
(ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, eco-
nomic, and gender, among others) that
students, their communities, and teach-
ers represent. (p. 307)
Opposing Viewpoints
As indicated, the infusion of multicul-
tural education has not been without contro-
versy in teacher preparation programs. From
the critics’ perspectives, infusing multicul-
tural competencies in general and special
education is in conflict with the basic goals
of U.S. schools, which are to (a) teach tradi-
tional value-oriented skills to students, (b)
increase &dquo;quality&dquo; through higher test scores,
(c) participate in the shared national culture,
 Figures 2 The Multicultural Inclusive Model
(d) promote allegiance to the values of the
nation, (e) become competent in English,
and (f) ensure national unity (Ceasar, 1998;
Chavez, 1998; D’Souza, 1991; Ravitch,
1991-1992; Schlesinger, 1992; Sowell, 1993).
D’Souza argued that acknowledging cultural
differences is divisive and will destroy
European-based heritages in the U.S. In his
opinion, multicultural programs create a
&dquo;monolithic ideological focus that places
minority sentiments on a pedestal while
putting majority ones on trial&dquo; (pp. 214-215).
Ravitch emphasized the threatening nature of
multicultural education to America’s unity.
She indicated that the inclusion of other his-
tories and cultures in educational curricula
causes &dquo;ethnic chauvinism&dquo; (p. 11). Similarly,
Schlesinger noted that when multicultural
education is carried to the extreme, the
emphases on cultural differences usually
have serious negative ramifications, which
include (a) the rejection of the vision of uni-
fying individuals from all national origins
into a single nation and culture, (b)
decreased interests in integration and assim-
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012
ilation, and (c) increased levels of segrega-
tion and separatism among ethnic and racial
groups.
In his opposition to multicultural educa-
tion, Sowell (1993) reiterated that American
education is undermined by dogmas that
have little to do with quality education. He
noted that &dquo;while it is undoubtedly true that
there are many negative factors at work in
many low-income neighborhood schools,
especially those in the inner-city shelters and
barrios, that does not automatically explain
away the declining academic performances
of American schools in general&dquo; (p. 9). This
point has been supported by some scholars
who have advocated (a) understanding dif-
ferent minority groups (Ogbu ~ Simon,
1998), and (b) reframing educational and
psychological programs for multicultural stu-
dents (Obiakor & Barker, 1993). For
instance, C~gbu and Simon wrote:
Structural barriers or discriminations in
society and school are important deter-
minants of low school achievement
among minorities. However, they are not
245
 the sole cause of low school perfor-
mance, otherwise all minorities would
not do well in school since all are faced
with such discriminations.... It is true
that cultural and language differences do
cause learning problems. But cultural
and language difference explanations do
not account for the school success of
some minority groups that face similar
discontinuities as do others that are less
successful. (p. 161)
Many opponents of multicultural educa-
tion have wondered if it enhances liberal
democracy in the U.S. With regard to this
issue, Caesar (1998) concluded that multicul-
tural education is a major threat that perpet-
uates a perverse psychology. He explained
that &dquo;people of different groups thus vie in
an unseemly process to claim that they have
been oppressed-even in cases when they
manifestly have not been. The real differ-
ences among various groups are thus over-
looked&dquo; (p. 155). In the same dimension,
Chavez (1998) added:
The more diverse we become racially
and ethnically, the more important it is
that we learn to tolerate difference-and
also to celebrate what we all have in
common. Whether we come to the
United States voluntarily or involuntarily,
we all choose to live here now. And
more people want to live here than any-
where else in the world. No other coun-
try accepts as many immigrants as we
do. Surely, even those who criticize our
so-called Eurocentric society must admit
that it has something to offer or there
would not be such long lines of those
waiting to get in-very few of them
European, by the way. (p. 167)
Responding to Anti-Muilticulturalists
It is apparent that multicultural educa-
tion has attracted many opposing view-
points. While their views appear enticingly
patriotic, they lack the visionary knowledge
of the demographic changes and challenges
that are taking place in classrooms, schools,
and communities. Is it any wonder that there
are calls for shifts in paradigms and powers
in this new millennium? Gay (1994) summa-
rized that opponents of multicultural curric-
246
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012
ula reforms have focused on negative social
consequences associated with teaching
about ethnic and cultural pluralism and not
on overall benefits of educating all students.
To a larger measure, they seem to downplay
visible and invisible voices in the sociocul-
tural arenas of the nation. As Obiakor and
Utley (1997) pointed out, &dquo;the recognition of
these multiple voices highlights multiple
capabilities, competencies, and intelligences
that individuals bring to classrooms, colleges,
and communities&dquo; (p. 102).
Even those who oppose the infusion of
multicultural education in general and spe-
cial education agree, at some level, that we
need to understand each other if we are
going to succeed as a competitive but com-
passionate society (Fowers & Richardson,
1996; Steele, 1990). For instance, Steele, an
African American scholar with conservative
viewpoints, noted that:
The condition of being Black in America
means that one will likely endure more
wounds to one’s self-esteem than others
and that the capacity for self-doubt born
of these wounds will be compounded
and expanded by the Black race’s repu-
tation of inferiority.... Black skin has
more dehumanizing stereotypes associ-
ated with it than any other skin color in
America, if not the world. When a black
presents himself in an integrated situa-
tion, he knows that his skin alone may
bring these stereotypes to life in the
minds of those he meets and that he, as
an individual, may be diminished by his
race before he has a chance to reveal a
single aspect of his personality. (p. 36)
The
question then should be, Is it actually
educationally productive to ignore important
human strengths and values in the U.S., a
country that prides itself as the greatest
democracy in the world? The
quest for visi-
bility by culturallydiverse persons has not
been uncommon in educational, socioeco-
nomic, and political affairs of the nation.
Earlier, Ralph Ellison (1972), in his classic
book, Invisible Man, addressed this issue
when he asserted:
I am aninvisible man. No, I am not a
spook like those who haunted Edgar
Allan Poe; nor am I one of your
 Hollywood-movie ectoplasms. I am
man of substance, of flesh and bone,
fiber and liquids-and I might even be
said to possess a mind. I am invisible,
understand, simply because people
refuse to see me. Like the bodiless heads
see sometimes in circus sideshows, it
you
is as though I have been surrounded by
mirrors of hard, distorting glass. When
they approach me they see only my sur-
roundings, themselves, or figments of
their imagination-indeed, everything
and anything except me. (p. 3)
Observations by Ellison and Steele provide
great rationale for the infusion of multicul-
tural education in teacher preparation pro-
grams. As indicated in Figures 1 and 2, the
multiethnic infusion model describes the
global connection between the U.S. and the
world-this global connection is evident in
the interactions between Asian Americans,
Hispanic Americans, African Americans,
Anglo Americans, and Native Americans, the
original settlers. Can teacher preparation pro-
grams be meaningful when they ignore one
of these entities and the culture, history, lan-
guage, symbols, behaviors, beliefs, and
events that transcend individual strengths
and weaknesses? Consider the case of
Garcia, a brilliant college student (Case 1).
Garcia was the only minority student
his college education class. He tried
participate in class and interact with his
Anglo American peers and professor. His
professor, a 15-year veteran, indicated
how he was a democrat who voted for
all liberal issues. From time to time, he
indicated that he did not believe in this
&dquo;bilingual stuff.&dquo; He wondered why
everyone wanted to immigrate to the
United States. Garcia was rarely asked a
question in class, but when he tried to
answer or ask a question, his classmates
looked at each other and smiled. His
professor and classmates found him
assertive and none of them wanted to do
a group project with him. His professor
did not encourage collaborative group
work and advised him to be careful
about how he was perceived by others.
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012
a Garcia’s case reveals the plight of an &dquo;invisi-
ble&dquo; Hispanic American college student in
the eyes of his professor and classmates. It is
easy to rationalize that the college professor
has the academic freedom in his classroom.
While this rationalization may be correct,
there are many dynamics operating in this
college classroom. Interestingly, these
dynamics have serious implications for mul-
ticultural teacher preparation. The following
questions deserve to be posed:
1. How can the potential of Garcia be
maximized in such a class?
2. How prepared are Garcia’s classmates
(the future teachers) to respond to
demographic changes in school and
society?
do many minority teacher edu-
3. Why
cation students have similar experi-
ences as Garcia in college?
4. How prepared is Garcia’s professor to
recruit and retain minority students,
faculty, and staff in his department or
college?
5. How prepared is Garcia’s professor to
shift his instructional paradigm to
respond to demographic changes?
Consider another
case of Charles, a bril-
liant Native American student in his 5th-
grade class (Case 2). This case magnifies
how what happens to students in public
schools is a direct result of how teachers are
in prepared in preservice and inservice pro-
to grams.
Charles was the only Native American
and minority in his fifth grade class of 19
students, in a suburban school. He per-
formed very well in class. His teachers
(two White females) consistently gave
group work in reading to the students.
On each occasion, Charles wanted to
read with a partner, and his classmates
told him that they already had partners.
His teachers never encouraged a change
in this trend. Sadly, the only person who
read alone was Charles, and it never
seemed to bother his teachers and class-
mates.
This appears to be a typical classroom in
some of today’s schools. As indicated, this
scenario gets at the core of why multicultural
247
education must be infused in teacher prepa-
ration programs. The following questions
appear pertinent to this issue:
1. How can Charles maximize his fullest
potential in such a class?
2. What psychological and self-concept
issues play themselves out in this
class? Why should Charles, at a very
young age, be confronted with these
issues?
3. Why do Charles’ teachers not
age collaborative learning?
4. What underlying racial assumptions
are operating in Charles’ class?
5. prepared are Charles’ teachers to
How
shift their instructional paradigms to
respond to cultural, linguistic, and
racial differences?
Proponents and opponents of multicul-
tural education would agree that having the
knowledge is not enough for &dquo;new&dquo; and
experienced teachers. Knowledge must be
followed by action and change. To be
abreast of the times, future teachers must be
prepared by offering courses that provide
skills in (a) consultation, collaboration, and
cooperation; (b) interventions specific to stu-
dent
developmental stages; (c) operational
self-concept development; (d) multicultural
learning and teaching; and (e) problem solv-
ing and/or conflict resolution (Obiakor,
1999a; Obiakor et al., 1997). Additionally,
proponents and opponents would agree that
all students will benefit when future educa-
tors are taught to:
1. Educate themselves in things that they
do not know the role of the
(e.g.,
news media).
2. Avoid negative assumptions about
gender, culture, socioeconomic
race,
status, and disability.
3. Integrate a wide variety of cultures
into their teaching or programming to
reflect the worldview.
4.
Develop creative ideas (e.g., play, art,
poetry, and music) that foster class-
room and community interactions.
5. Value and celebrate differences in
themselves and those that students
bring to class.
6. Create a least-restrictive atmosphere
that empowers parents, staff, and
248
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012
administrators.
7. Include culturally diverse individuals
in projects and assignments.
8. Create bridges that connect different
people and events.
9. Allow students or program partici-
pants to maximize their fullest poten-
tial.
10. View the classroom as a machine,
which when fine-tuned can do won-
encour- derful things.
Personal Experiences: Challenging
Assumptions
To rationalize the importance of multi-
cultural education in teacher education pro-
grams, I have used our son’s personal expe-
riences in his kindergarten classroom a few
years ago (Obiakor, 1998). Though his expe-
riences were with one teacher, they cumula-
tively demonstrate how underprepared, ill-
prepared, or unprepared many professionals
are in dealing with issues affecting individu-
als from different cultural, linguistic, and
racial backgrounds. Put another way, his
experiences portray the dangers of unrealis-
tic expectations in classroom, school, and
community programs. It seems, from his
experiences, that such expectations invari-
ably lead to stereotypic labels, prejudicial
behaviors, racist manifestations, and illusory
conclusions.
As stated earlier on, our son’s experi-
ences were with one teacher (Teacher X), an
Anglo American female who had more than
20 years of teaching experience. These expe-
riences were so negative that we (the par-
ents) had to finally pull him out of the school
to prevent further intellectual and self-con-
cept destruction. For purposes of clarity, his
experiences have been arranged in the form
of two critical cases (see Cases 3 and 4
below). Each case projects negative encoun-
ters that would have had devastating ramifi-
cations had we continued to have him edu-
cated in the teacher’s very restrictive
environment.
Teacher X was teaching Alphabets A-Z
to her kindergarten class. Around this
time, students were taught words that
associated with the alphabets (e.g., &dquo;a for
 apple,&dquo; &dquo;b for ball,&dquo; &dquo;c for cat,&dquo; and &dquo;d for
dog&dquo;). In my first Parent Teacher
Conference, Teacher X remarked that
our son was performing at grade level;
however, she indicated that she had
some serious concerns. She asked:
&dquo;Have you ever thought about putting
your son in a ’Chapter One’ program?&dquo; I
pretended to lack the knowledge about
&dquo;Chapter One&dquo; programs and responded:
&dquo;What does ’Chapter One’ mean? Why
did you think he needs such a program?&dquo;
She responded: &dquo;He is quiet. I have
taught for many years. I know the red
flags for students who have academic
and behavioral problems.&dquo; I responded:
&dquo;I am glad he is quiet. I asked him to be
quiet and focused in school.&dquo; She noted:
&dquo;Well, take advantage of ’Chapter One’
program because it is a program for stu-
dents from &dquo;poor&dquo; and &dquo;disadvantaged&dquo;
backgrounds, and for students from cul-
turally and linguistically diverse back-
grounds.&dquo; Judging from our conversa-
tion, Teacher X had very low
expectations of our son, her years of
experience notwithstanding. Even
though our son is an African American,
he is neither &dquo;poor&dquo; nor &dquo;disadvantaged.&dquo;
In fact, his cultural and linguistic back-
grounds are similar to those of middle to
upper class White children. Interestingly,
not only did our son know his alphabets
and word associations, he could read at
first grade level when he was in kinder-
garten. Additionally, he had been grow-
ing up in university environments.
Based on Case 3 above, it is apparent
that Teacher X prejudged our son, the child
of highly educated immigrant minority par-
ents. As Ogbu’s (1978) original work indi-
cated, immigrant minorities combat racism
and discrimination not from a &dquo;victim&dquo; per-
spective-they do not view racism as an ulti-
mate barrier toward educational success
(Ogbu & Simon, 1998). Members of similar
minority groups cannot be put in one &dquo;box.&dquo;
As stated, our son is neither &dquo;poor&dquo; nor &dquo;dis-
advantaged.&dquo; It was denigrating for the
teacher to label him and prescribe solutions
based on the presumed label. What would
have happened to other less informed par-
ents from different cultural and linguistic
backgrounds?
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012
Every 12 noon on each school day, we
picked up our son from his kindergarten
classroom to his day care facility. One
afternoon, my wife picked up our son
and half-way to the day care, he began
to cry. She wondered why he was cry-
ing-she thought that he detested going
to the day care. To her greatest surprise,
it was not a day care problem but a
classroom problem with Teacher X. He
said: &dquo;Mommy, the teacher did not give
me stamps. She gave stamps to every-
one. I did my work very well, but she
failed to put stamp on my paper.&dquo; My
wife asked: &dquo;What kind of stamp are you
talking about?&dquo; He responded: &dquo;Mommy,
it is the smiling face stamp you put on
people’s paper when they do good
work.&dquo; The more he talked about it, the
more he cried. This became a big crisis
for him! My wife alerted me of the crisis
that our son was experiencing. I called
the Principal of the school to know why
our son was not given stamps by
Teacher X. Instead of giving me a par-
ent-friendly answer, the Principal told
me that Teacher X had many years of
experience. I told her that I wanted to
&dquo; talk to Teacher X, and that I did not
want to know her years of experience.
She brought Teacher X to the telephone.
She was surprised that I called to know
why she failed to give stamps to our son.
According to her: &dquo;I did not give stamps
to your son because we were rushing
late. Well, your son has to learn that you
do not get whatever you want in life.&dquo; I
responded: &dquo;Why should you teach me
how to raise my child instead of teach-
ing him how to maximize his fullest
potential?&dquo; Sadly, our son continues to
remember this negative experience!
Case 4 above reveals a teacher who is
struggling with issues of culture and race.
Such explicit or implicit behaviors can have
devastating effects on children and youth. It
is the job of teachers and service providers to
enhance self-knowledge, self-esteem, and
self-ideal. Surely, the teacher failed to under-
stand the influence of collaborative/consulta-
tive actions in working with parents. No mat-
ter what the teacher’s intention was, she
should have treated our son fairly. The fact
that our son has not forgotten this experi-
ence says a lot about the destructive influ-
249
ence of the teacher’s behavior. When prop-
erly examined, our interactions with our
son’s teacher failed to lend themselves to
positive collaborative and consultative ven-
tures. Our son was not empowered and we
were not empowered as responsible parents.
By error ordesign, she failed to value our
culture. This ill-conceived behavior fre-
quently leads to parental attrition in school
programs (Simpson, 1996). It is easy to sim-
plify the complexities of the problem as a
case of a cruel and ignorant person for
whom a dose of multicultural education
might not make a difference. Some critical
questions are important at this juncture. Can
the society condone an ignorant medical
doctor who consistently gives wrong dosages
of medication? Why should Teacher X be any
different? While I do not advocate cultural
imposition on our son’s teacher, she does
deserve to learn how unrealistic expectations
affect culturally diverse students and their
families. It is well-documented that teachers’
prejudicial expectations lead to biased iden-
tifications, discriminatory assessments, dis-
proportionate placements, and &dquo;iatrogenic&dquo;
interventions (i.e., solving problems that do
not exist) (Grossman, 1998; Hilliard, 1995;
Obiakor, 1998, 1999b).
Beyond Rhetoric: Vision for the New
Millennium
Based on Cases 1-4 discussed above,
is important that educators value the
strengths, gifts, and talents of their students.
They fail themselves and their students when
they do not empower them. As it appears,
multicultural education has become a pow-
erful tool for preparing general and special
education teachers in this new millennium
(Rotatori & Obi, 1999). Even with the best
intentions, teachers in the aforementioned
cases lacked the knowledge of what to do! In
this new millennium, to educate multicultural
learners in inclusive settings, it is imperative
that teacher educators prepare their future
practitioners to (a) understand general and
special education, (b) rethink assessment
and instructional strategies, and (c) practice
what is learned and preached (Obiakor,
2000; Obiakor & Williams, 2000).
250
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012
Understanding General and Special
Education
The aims of multicultural education are
very similar to those of general and special
education, yet many culturally diverse learn-
ers find themselves in very restrictive class-
room environments. In this new millennium,
whether students are in general or special
education programs, teachers must (a) stim-
ulate them intellectually by presenting them
with novel ideas, (b) assist them in maximiz-
ing their full potential by understanding their
strengths and weaknesses, (c) prepare them
for the future by focusing on their positive
energies, (d) create nurturing environments
by empowering them, (e) collaborate and
consult with their parents by regarding them
as equal partners, and (f) provide support
mechanisms for growth and development by
becoming problem solvers. The idea must
not be to create or give labels and hope that
students match their labels. The idea must be
to have the courage to educate all children
for life (Debruyn, 1984; Kohl, 1988; Palmer,
1998).
For multicultural learners with excep-
tionalities, general and special educators
must understand their multidimensional
classroom, school, and community values
(see Figures 1 and 2). These learners some-
times confront expectations that are counter-
productive to their sacred existence as
human beings (Banks, 1999; Obiakor, 1994;
it
Siccone, 1995). As a result, they are fre-
quently at risk of (a) misidentification, (b)
discriminatory referral and assessment, (c)
undue processes and
procedures, (d) disem-
powerment, (e) misinstruction, and (f)
improper inclusion/exclusion in educational
programming (Ford et al., 1995; Grossman,
1998; Obiakor & Schwenn, 1995, 1996;
Obiakor & Utley, 1997; Utley & Obiakor,
1997; Winzer & Mazurek, 1998). As Winzer
and Mazurek indicated:
Special education can no longer be con-
cerned solely with the nature of a dis-
abling condition and appropriate inter-
vention strategies tailored for a particular
disability. With the composition of the
school-aged population shifting to
encompass more students from cultur-
ally diverse backgrounds, bilingual
 homes, and economically disadvantaged
families, the need for special services in
the schools increases, and special educa-
tors must consider broader range of
a
characteristics that include
specifically
(but are certainly not restricted to) cul-
tural and linguistic difference. Today and
in the future, schools must develop pro-
grams, teaching methods, and resources
to teach a diverse body and improve
special education service delivery for
exceptional learners from a wide variety
of cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
(p. 1)
Rethinking Assessment and
Instructional Strategies
As it appears, multidimensional prob-
lems call for multidimensional solutions. In
this new millennium, there must be shifts in
power and paradigms on how multicultural
students are identified, assessed, placed, and
instructed. It is dangerous to prejudge stu-
dents’ capabilities, strengths and weak-
nesses. Gardner (1993) stated that general
and special educators must &dquo;recognize and
nurture all of the varied human intelligences,
and all of the combinations of intelligences&dquo;
(p. 12). They must begin early to create mul-
ticultural environments that build multidi-
mensional
self-concepts of students
(Obiakor, 1994; Siccone, 1995). For example,
Siccone suggested that a teacher asks him-
self/herself the following instructional ques-
tions :
0 Am I tailoring my curriculum so that it
is relevant to my students-their inter-
ests and ambitions as well as their cul-
tural identity?
0 Am I aware of my students’ various
learning styles, and do my teaching
strategies reflect this awareness?
0
Are the books and other materials I
use reflective of diversity―ethnicity,
culture, race, class, gender, age,
&dquo;handicapping&dquo; conditions, and so
forth?
0
Are the images on the walls, bulletin
boards, and so forth also reflective of
diversity? (p. 187)
To shift paradigms in this new millen-
nium, teacher preparation programs must
reevaluate their standardized entry and exit
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012
tests.They must practice what they preach.
By doing, they help their future teachers
so
to avoid illusory conclusions about multicul-
tural students who look, learn, talk, and
behave differently. They must teach students
to authenticate their assessments by docu-
menting students’ behaviors in a variety of
learning and teaching situations (see Figures
1 and 2). Such documentations must (a) be
culturallysensitive (Hilliard, 1995; Midgette,
1995); (b) include nontraditional assessment
methods such as work samples, student
interviews, and student journals (Armstrong,
1994; Erickson, 1992; Karr & Wright, 1995;
Mehring, 1996); and (c) be related to non-
prejudicial instructional and intervention
strategies (Banks, 1999; Grossman, 1998;
Obiakor, 1994, 1998).
Practicing What is Learned and
Preachcd
As stated earlier, teacher educators must
practice what they preach. In this new mil-
lennium, they must use divergent techniques
to prepare future educators who will, in turn,
use divergent techniques to teach these
learners with exceptionalities. To look for
the &dquo;magic pill&dquo; that can cure educational
problems of multicultural learners is not real-
istic. Educators must be trained to value indi-
vidual and cultural differences (Ford et al.,
1995; Obiakor, 1994, 1997; Obiakor &
Algozzine, 1995; Obiakor & Utley, 1997); and
they must be aware of emotional first-aids
needed to address crises confronting their
students (Obiakor, Campbell-Whatley,
Schwenn, & Dooley, 1998; Obiakor, Darling,
& Ford, 2000; Obiakor et al., 1997). In this
regard, preservice and inservice programs
can be very beneficial. It is nonproductive to
spend time bemoaning the existence of mul-
ticultural education as a new paradigm-this
new paradigm can be taught, learned, and
put into proper practical perspectives. In the
words of Price (1991):
I wonder, frankly, how we can bemoan
the phenomena of tribalization and mul-
ticulturalism in our society if we are
doing so little to eliminate the economic
and educational disparities which fuel
them. The appropriate antidote for
increased separatism is a culture of
251
 inclusiveness which would infuse every
facet of our society. To my mind, the
blame for balkanization rests more with
those who have the power to include
but won’t, and less with those on the
outside who are barred entry. (p. 8)
To this end, efforts must be made to recruit,
retain, graduate and place multicultural stu-
dents in teacher preparation programs
(Obiakor & Utley, 1997; Ward, 1996).
Traditional models have failed to produce
practitioners who understand the possible
interactions between exceptionalities and
cultural diversities. According to Obiakor and
Utley, &dquo;it is the professional responsibility of
teacher educators to help prospective teach-
ers expand their knowledge, beliefs, and atti-
tudes toward people who differ from them&dquo;
(p. 105).
It is common knowledge that poorly
prepared teachers teach poorly. Even when
people know what they have been taught,
they sometimes find it difficult to apply them.
When multicultural students are taught by
teachers who do not understand their cul-
tures, symbols, or values, the whole concept
of individualized educational programming
fails (see Figures 1 and 2). Additionally,
when instructions lack practical pedagogical
power and appear divorced from students’
realities, they suffer. As a consequence, in
this new millennium, general and special
educators must be taught to (a) know who
they are and who their students are, (b) learn
the facts when they are in doubt, (c) change
their thinking, (d) use resource persons (e.g.,
parents, guardians, and community mem-
bers), (e) build self-concepts, (f) teach with
multidimensional techniques, (g) make the
right choices, and (h) continue to learn (see
Obiakor, 1994). To make classroom teaching
multicultural in inclusive settings, potential
teachers must put practical perspectives on
what they have learned (Banks, 1999; Gay,
1992; Grossman, 1998).
Conclusion
In this article, I have presented multicul-
tural education as a powerful force for
preparing future general and special educa-
tors. To many scholars and educators, multi-
252
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012
cultural education complements other theo-
ries of learning, and to a large extent, needs
to be studied, learned, and practiced.
Proponents of multicultural education
believe it highlights equality in educational
programs; and opponents believe it creates
divisions, balkanization, tribalization, and
disunity. However, both parties agree that
something must be done to fix the picture of
U.S. education in today’s changing world.
The important question becomes, &dquo;Can we
combine equity and quality in teacher prepa-
ration programs for general and special edu-
cators ?&dquo; The answer is, &dquo;Yes.&dquo; My hunch is
that quality without equity is as dangerous as
equity without quality. As a result, general
and special educators must be trained to
rethink their ways of identification, assess-
ment, and instruction. In practice, they must
infuse multicultural activities in their assess-
ment and instructional programs in order to
reach all students, classrooms, schools, and
communities. As Banks (1999) concluded:
Multicultural education is needed to help
all of the nation’s future citizens to
acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and
skills needed to survive in the twenty-first
century. Nothing less than the nation’s
survival is at stake. The rapid growth in
the nation’s population of people of
color, the escalating importance of non-
White nations such as China and Japan,
and the widening gap between the rich
and the poor make it essential for our
future citizens to have multicultural liter-
acy and cross-cultural skills. In the
twenty-first century, a nation whose citi-
zens cannot negotiate on the world’s
multicultural global stage will be tremen-
dously disadvantaged, and its very sur-
vival may be imperiled. (p. 34)
References
American of Colleges for
Association
Teacher Education. (1994). Teacher education
pipeline 111: Schools, colleges, and departments of
education enrollments by race, ethnicity, and gen-
der. Washington, DC: Author.
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences
in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Artiles, A. J. & Trent, S. C. (1994).
Overrepresentation of minority students in special
education: A continual debate. Journal of Special
Education, 27, 410-437.
Baca, L. M., & Cervantes, H. T. (1991).
Bilingual special education (ERIC Digest #E496).
Reston, VA: The ERIC Clearinghouse on
Handicapped and Gifted Education, Council for
Exceptional Children.
Banks, J. A. (1999). An introduction to mul-
ticultural education (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Ceaser, J. (1998). Multiculturalism and
American liberaldemocracy. In A. M. Melzer, J.
Weinberger, & M. R. Zinman (Eds.),
Multiculturalism and the American democracy
(pp. 139-156). Lawrence, KS: University Press of
Kansas.
Chavez, L. (1998). Civic education
changing society. In A. M. Melzer, J. Weinberger,
& M. R. Zinman (Eds.), Multiculturalism and the
American democracy (pp. 165-172). Lawrence,
KS: University Press of Kansas.
Council for Exceptional Children (1993). CEC
policy on inclusive schools and community set-
tings. Reston, VA: Author.
DeBruyn, R. L. (1984). Upholding the tenets
of education. The Master Teacher, 15, 1.
Dewey, J. (1958). Philosophy of education.
Ames, IA: Littlefield, Adams & Co.
Duvall, L. (1994). Respecting our differences:
A guide to getting along in a changing world.
Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
D’Souza, D. (1991). Illiberal education: The
and sex on campus. New York:
politics of race
The Free Press.
Ellison, R. (1972). Invisible man. New York:
Vintage Books.
Erickson, M. T. (1992). Behavior disorders of
children and adolescents: Assessment, etiology,
and intervention (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Ewing, N. J. (1995). Restructured teacher
education for inclusiveness: A dream deferred for
African American children. In B. A. Ford, F. E.
Obiakor, & J. M. Patton (Eds.), Effective education
for African American exceptional learners: New
perspectives (pp. 189-207). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Ford, B. A. (1992). Multicultural education
training for special educators working with
African American youth. Exceptional Children, 59,
107-114.
Ford, B. A., Obiakor, F. E., & Patton, J. M.
(1995). Effective education of African American
exceptional learners: New perspectives. Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.
Fowers, B. J., & Richardson, F. C. (1996,
June). Why is multiculturalism good? American
Psychologist, 51, 609-621.
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences:
The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gay, G. (1994). At the essence of learning:
Multicultural education. West Lafayette, IN:
Kappa Delta Pi.
Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (1990).
Multicultural education in a pluralistic society
(3rd ed.). New York: Merrill.
Grossman, H. (1995). Teaching in a diverse
society. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Grossman, H. (1998). Ending discrimination
in special education. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
Hilliard, A. S. (1995). Culture, assessment,
and valid teaching for the African American stu-
dent. In B. A. Ford, F. E. Obiakor, & J. M. Patton
in a (Eds.), Effective education of African American
exceptional learners: New perspectives (pp.
ix-xvi). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Karr, S., & Wright, J. V. (1995). Assessment:
Proper use for persons with problem behaviors.
In F. E. Obiakor & B. Algozzine (Eds.), Managing
problem behaviors: Perspectives for general and
special educators (pp. 63-95). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Kohl, H. (1988). Growing minds: One
becoming a teacher. New York: Harper
Touchbooks.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities:
Children in Americau schools. New York: Crown.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeep-
ers: Successful teachers of African American chil-
dren. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lake, R. (1990, September). An Indian
father’s plea. Teacher Magazine, pp. 48-53.
Mehring, T. A. (1996). Authentic assess-
ment—The link to special education. In A. F.
Rotatori, J. O. Schwenn, & S. Burkhardt (Eds.),
Advances in special education: Assessment and
psychopathology issues in special education (Vol.
10, pp. 177-200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mendenhall, M. (1991, October 3).
"Diversity" more than buzzword for workplace.
The Chattanooga Times, p. 27.
Midgette, T. E. (1995). Assessment of African
American exceptional learners: New strategies and
perspectives. In B. A. Ford, F. E. Obiakor, & J. M.
Patton (Eds.), Effective education of African
American exceptional learners: New perspectives
(pp. 3-26). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
National Commission on Excellence in
Education (1983).
A nation at risk: The imperative
for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The
sociopolitical context of multicultural education
(2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
253
 Obiakor, F. E. (1999a). Beyond the steps:
Multicultural study guide. Dubuque,
Kendall/Hunt.
Obiakor, (1993a). Multiculturalism:
F. E.
Critical issue teacher education programs.
facing
In Bueno Center for Multicultural Education
Monograph Series (Vol. 9, No. 1) (pp. 1-16).
Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.
Obiakor, F. E. (1993b). Opportunity and
choice in higher education: Perspectives of
African American scholars. Journal of the
Southeastern Association of Educational
Opportunity Programs Personnel, 12, 31-44.
Obiakor, F. E. (1999b). Teacher expectations
of minority exceptional learners: Impact on "accu-
racy" of self-concepts. Exceptional Children, 66,
39-53.
Obiakor, F. E. (1994). The eight-step multi-
cultural approach: Learning and teaching with a
smile. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Obiakor, F. E. (1997, Spring). Shifting para-
digms: Responding to cultural diversity in teacher
preparation programs. DDEL News, 7, 6-7.
Obiakor, F. E. (1998). Racism in the class-
room: Lessons from real life "personal" cases.
Emporia, KS: Emporia State University.
Obiakor, F. E. (1999). Beyond the steps:
Multicultural study guide. Dubuque,
Kendall/Hunt
Obiakor, F. E. (2000, April). Infusing multi-
cultural models in teacher education programs:
Visions for the new millennium. Paper presented
at the International Convention of the Council for
Exceptional Children, Vancouver, Canada.
Obiakor,
F. E. (1996). Self-concept:
Assessment and intervention for African American
learners with problems. In N. Greg, R. S. Curtis, &
S. F. Schmidt (Eds.), African American adoles-
cents and adults with learning disabilities: An
overview of assessment issues (pp. 15-28). Athens,
GA: The University of Georgia/Roosevelt Warm
Springs for Rehabilitation, Learning Disabilities
Research, and Training Center.
Obiakor, F. E., & Algozzine, B. (1995).
Managing problem behaviors: Perspectives for gen-
eral and special educators. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Obiakor, F. E., & Barker, N. C. (1993). The
politics of higher education: Perspectives for
African Americans in the 21st century.
Western Journal of Black Studies, 17, 219-226.
Obiakor, F. E., Campbell-Whatley, G.,
Schwenn, J. O., & Dooley, E. (1998). Emotional
first-aids for exceptional learners. In A. F.
J. Schwenn, & S. Burkhardt (Eds.), Advances in
O.
special education: Issues, practices and concerns
in special education (Vol. 11, pp. 171-185).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Obiakor, F. E., Darling, S., & Ford, B. A.
IA: (2000, April). Managing crises of suburban stu-
dents: What general and special educators must
know. Program Chair Invited Session presented at
the International Convention of the Council for
Exceptional children, Vancouver, Canada.
Obiakor, F. E., Mehring, T. A., & Schwenn, J.
O. (1997). Disruption, disaster, and death:
Helping students deal with crises. Reston, VA: The
Council for Exceptional Children.
Obiakor, F. E., & Schwenn, J. O. (1995).
Enhancing self-concepts of culturally diverse stu-
dents: The role of the counselor. In A. F. Rotatori,
J. O. Schwenn, & F. W. Litton (Eds.), Advances in
special education: Counseling special populations
(Vol. 9, pp. 191-206). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Obiakor, F. E., & Schwenn, J. O. (1996).
Assessment of culturally diverse students with
behavior disorders. In A. F. Rotatori, J. O.
Schwenn, & S. Burkhardt (Eds.), Advances in spe-
cial education: Assessment and psychopathology
issues in special education (Vol. 10, pp. 37-57).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Obiakor, F. E., Schwenn, J. O., & Rotatori, A.
F. (1999). Advances in special education:
Multicultural education for learners with excep-
tionalities. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
IA: Obiakor, F. E., & Utley, C. A. (1997).
Rethinking preservice preparation for teachers in
the learning disabilities field: Workable multicul-
tural strategies. Learning Disabilities Researcb &
Practice, 12, 100-106.
Obiakor, F. E., & Williams, D. (2000, March).
Using cases to infuse multicultural models in
teacher preparation programs: Visions for the new
millennium. Paper presented at the 12th Annual
School of Education Research Conference,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee,
WI.
U. (1978). Minority education and
Ogbu, J.
caste: The American system in cross-cultural per-
spective. New York: Academic Press.
Ogbu, J. U., & Simon, H. D. (1998).
Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-
ecological theory of school performance with
some implications for education. Anthropology
and Education, 29, 155-189.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach:
Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life.
The San Francisco:Jossey Bass.
Pedersen, P. R. (1991). Multiculturalism as a
generic approach to counseling. The Journal of
Counseling and Development, 70, 6-12.
Rotatori, Price, H. B. (1991, Fall). Multicultural educa-
tion: The debate. Humanities in the South, pp.
1-8.
Ravitch, D. (1991-1992). A culture in com-
mon. Educational Leadership, 49
, 8-11.

254

Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012

 Rotatori, A. F., & Obi, S. O. (1999).
Directions for the future: Empowering the cultur-
ally diverse exceptional learners. In F. E. Obiakor,
J. O. Schwenn, & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Advances
in special education: Multicultural education for
learners with exceptionalities (pp. 233-242).
Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Sagal, P. T. (1983). Introducing philosophy: A
Socratic dialogue. Las Cruces, NM: Dialogos Press.
Schlesinger, A. M. (1992). The disuniting of
America: Reflection on a multicultural society.
New York: Norton.
Siccone, F. (1995). Celebrating diversity:
Building self-esteem in today’s multicultural class-
rooms. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Simpson, R. L. (1996). Working with parents
and families of exceptional children and youth:
Tecbniques for successful conferencing and col-
laboration (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Sowell, T. (1993). Inside American educa-
tion: The decline, the deception, the dogmas. New
York: The Free Press.
Steele, S. (1990, October 3). The "unseen
agent" of low self-esteem. Education Week, p. 36.
Trent, S. (1995). Teacher preparation: The
missing link in behavior management. In F. E.
Obiakor & B. Algozzine (Eds.), Managing prob-
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at HINARI on June 10, 2012
lem behaviors: Perspectives for general and special
educators (pp. 207-239). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Utley, C. A., Delquadri, J. C., Obiakor, F. E.,
& Mims, V. (2000). General and special educators’
perceptions of teaching strategies for culturally
and linguistically diverse students. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 23, 34-50.
Utley, C. A., & Obiakor, F. E. (1997).
Addressing diversity in special education research
(ERIC/OSEP Digest #E561). Reston, VA: The ERIC
Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted
Education, Council for Exceptional Children.
Wald, J. L. (1996). Diversity in the special
education training force. NCPSE News, 1, 1 & 6.
West, C. (1993). Race matters. New York:
Vintage books.
Winzer, M. A., & Mazurek, K. (1998). Special
education in multicultural contexts. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Festus E. Obiakor, Ph.D., is Professor,
Department of Exceptional Education at the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
Wisconsin—Milwaukee, Milwaukee,
WI 53202 (414) 229-4666 (W) (414) 229-5500
V7
(Fax) Email.-
Email: fobiakor@uwm.
fobiakor@uwm.edu edu
255