home

**//Shudak, N. (2010). Diversity in teacher education: A double helix. Academic Questions, 23(3):348-355 //**  media type="file" key="Wheelock College- Students comment on Diversity.flv" width="450" height="450" align="center" In his article Shudak explores data from different sources, which converge on diversity in teacher education. The author examines different views, shared by theoreticians in the field, and develops his own model of diversity which, in his view, acts as //a double helix // in teacher education.  Shudak argues that appearance of this theory owns to freedom, which schools of education have got in designing their education programs. Teacher educational institutions started to act independently in relation to [|diversity] out of a concern that school education teachers lack [|“cultural competence”]and that it eventually brings to teacher underachievement. Cultural competence, which can be read as knowledge about students’ backgrounds and frames of reference, is taken as a core critique of this theory. Since the late 1970s, the theory has become very popular and has been widely deployed in educational publications.  Shudak thoroughly examines the most recent works dwelling on the question and generates his own diversity model which consists of two helices, or strands - the descriptive and the normative- and a bonding agent. In his opinion, the descriptive strand reflects demographical changes, taking place in society, and issues of self- identification, while the normative strand deals with action which should be taken by the society to recognize this identity. Cultural matching, which serves a bonding agent, is defined by Shudak as theory and practice of partnership between minority students and teachers who share the same cultural backgrounds. As some theoreticians in educational field think, lack of such matching between teachers and students in terms of skin color, culture, language and life experiences make preservice teachers fail. Conversely, collaboration and understanding between teachers and students coming from the same social and cultural background, promotes higher results and achievements.  In search for explanation of the theory of diversity Shudak relates to some publications dominating in the educational field and discusses the pertinent points of view. Shudak refers to Gloria Ladson-Billings (2005) who treats social and cultural isolation between students and teacher as a real problem. Gloria Ladson-Billings determines that this demographical and [|cultural mismatch]is severely harmful and fraught with danger as further increase in students’ diversity is inevitable while teacher education forces will more or less stay the same. Therefore, white women will prevail in teacher education with even more diverse student population. Shadak quotes Ladson-Billings as bringing examples of cultural matching: in her view, a black teacher teaching black students or a black teacher teaching white students fit in with the theory of diversity; a white teacher teaching white students does not conform to it.  As Shudak states, Ladson-Billings’ position is widely supported by Melnick and Zeichner (1998) who connect the theory of diversity with the demographic situation and find white teaching force an obstacle for breaking social and cultural barriers between teachers and students. According to their prognoses, in the nearest future students will be entirely different in backgrounds from their teachers and thereby, teacher schools will prepare ‘white, monolingual, middle class to teach in an increasingly diverse student body composed of many poor students of color’. Melnik and Zeichner conclude that teaching programs are not aimed at preparing teacher students for understanding the needs of minority students and thus, should be completely altered. Elinor Brown (20040 couples in her views with Melnick and Zeichner claiming that cultural and social mismatches between teachers and their students can be damaging to students’ learning experiences.  Further on, Shudak makes the inference that if a problem of cultural mismatch exists, attempts should be made to bridge the gap between white teachers and diverse students. In terms of the theory of diversity, it could be done by accepting the cultural and social surroundings of minority students- the normative helix of diversity. Shudak brings to the knowledge the views of Chance, Morris and Rakes (1996) who consider that future teachers should change their expectations and be aware of cultural and social realities and beliefs which children of poverty and color share. Balswin, Buchanan and Rudisill (2005) think that this awareness, provided by [|special teacher preparation program], will be a primary means of exploring and recognizing the issue of diversity. However, everybody agrees that it will not be an easy task.  Shudak views these special programs as a kind of treatment that teacher students should undergo for being prepared to teach in diverse classrooms. As expected, this preparation will aim at altering cultural borders of white teacher to match the borders of diverse students. However, as Shudak notes, these programs are not grounded on teaching education strategies but put an accent on ‘empathizing with the oppressed and marginalized’. Thus, these are white teachers who must undergo transformation of their views and perceptions during this preparation treatment. The model presented by Shudak acts the following way: the descriptive strand of the helix, the demographic change, results in increasing racial, economic and linguistic diversity while the teacher population remains mostly white. This contradiction requires decision and taking action to recognize this diversity. Eventually, it leads to necessity to change teachers’ perceptions of their white students through special training programs integrated to teacher schools curriculum. However, Shudak notes that research literature in the field brings neither evidence of the damaging effects of cultural mismatch between white teachers and diverse students nor proof of students’ improved accomplishments.  Shudak refers to metaphorical use of double helix to convey the idea that demographic changes require changes in white teachers’ perceptions and call for taking actions; in their turn, taking actions calls for recognizing and ratification of these cultural differences. In Shudak’s view, such diversity acts as racial prejudice. // __My reflections:__ I am strongly sure that diversity must not be a reason for ‘empathizing with the oppressed and marginalized’. Having decided to become a citizen of a certain country people have agreed to accept its cultural and traditional norms and treat them with respect. It does not mean that they should distance themselves from their national backgrounds; moreover, preservation of their native language and culture is an issue of personal importance. However, to become a citizen is to become a part of this society and to live in accord with its norms and rules. In my opinion, diversity should not mean separation and confrontation; on the contrary, diversity presupposes understanding and adaptation, assumption of new social and cultural values and norms, no matter what color, race or language people share. It should be true to black and white, to newcomers and to old-times, as there is something they have accepted to share, love and respect together- the country where they live. // //**Summary of the topic: **//

Understanding and acceptance of students’ diversity and showing proper respect to everyone is a common point of all the participants in the discussion. They fully recognize that knowing students’ cultural backgrounds is a basic element for communication which eventually improves the overall learning atmosphere. In Aleen’s opinion, the acceptance of the “other” also involves the willingness to be open, which, in her opinion, is a teachable set of behaviors. Aleen holds the view that Ministers of Education and educational authorities should take action and responsibility for raising awareness of this diversity among teachers.

Anna brings to light the issue of language for improving communication. She claims that it is not the skin color or nationality which create social and cultural mismatches but mainly the language as a means of interaction. Anna advocates that teachers should make an attempt to learn the languages their students speak. She assumes that if teachers could speak the language of their pupils the problems of underachievement and some behavioral troubles could be avoided, or at least decreased.

Lousianne believes that bringing the issue of students’ diversity in teacher training is insufficient if not completely ignored. She recognizes that sometimes teachers’ unawareness of cultural mismatches leads to class conflicts and the price which is later paid is a loss of control. In Louisianne’s view, the best way out is learning about students' backgrounds. Knowledge about students’ mentality and cultural diversity will let teachers to use it as a tool for teaching them acceptance, understanding and respect to everybody who is different.

Nassrin supports Sudak’s points of view and she finds the idea of students’ underachievement as a result of cultural differences illogical. However, she underlines that collaboration and understanding between teachers and their diverse students are highly important.

In conclusion, recognizing students’ cultural and social diversity is a necessary condition for successful learning. Still, I argue that teachers’ diversity has also the right to existence and it should not be altered in order to accept students’ diversity. In this regard, double helix is not the best model for solving the problem.