Stotsky, Sandra. (1999). Losing our Language: How Multiculturalism Undermines our Children's Ability to Read, Write & Reason. Reviewed by Amani Hamdan, University of Western Ontario

Stotsky, Sandra. (1999). Losing our Language: How Multiculturalism Undermines our Children’s Ability to Read, Write & Reason. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books. Pp. 316 ISBN 1-893554-48-1 Reviewed by Amani Hamdan Althouse College, University of Western Ontario August 12, 2005 In Losing our Language: How Multiculturalism Undermines our Children’s Ability to Read, Write & Reason, Stotsky provides a cogent criticism of consideration given to multiculturalism in the curriculum for K-12 schools. The book, which consists of eleven chapters, discusses the current education system in the United States, particularly elementary school textbooks. The central focus of the book is critiquing initiatives that provide diverse readings and different perspectives presented in non-mainstream literature. Stotsky approves the initial promotion of multiculturalism which “stresses the positive contribution of minority groups in the United States and on a balanced portrayal of a variety of cultures around the world” (p.xi). Yet, according to Stotsky, the contemporary version of multiculturalism “promoted in our universities and schools of education seek to 'close young people off into identities already ascribed to them'” (p. xi). Is it true that multicultural education “fosters an animus against what are perceived as Western values, particularly the values placed on acquiring knowledge, on analytical thinking, and on academic achievement itself” (p.xi)? This question was overlooked by Stotsky and those in her camp. I argue that the inclusion of other than mainstream literary traditions allows students to recognize the “complexity of ethnic writer’s positioning within a wide range of cultures and subcultures” (Grobman, 2001), thus widening their analytical perspectives. Moreover, Stotsky’s perception of multicultural education seems to overlook the inclusive definition of multicultural education. It is defined as an idea, a process and an educational reform movement that incorporates the idea that all students regardless of their language, race, ethnicity, religion, social class, cultural background, gender, and sexual orientation should have an equal opportunity to achieve in school (Banks, 2004). Yet, with the politics of some educational institutions, some students (usually mainstream, white middle class) have more of a chance to succeed than others. Stotsky seems to blame multiculturalism for students’ poor reading and writing abilities. Every chapter begins with a passage that supports the author’s argument against employing multiculturalism in the school reading curriculum. Stotsky describes how reading is taught in elementary schools; she analyzes primary readers produced by major textbook publishers. She writes that reading textbooks “published by educational publishers (such as Scott Foresman, Silver Burdett Ginn, and Houghton Mifflin) today portray a broad array of social groups, both historical and contemporary, both within and outside this country [the United States].” (p.262) According to Stotsky, including other cultures’ literacy products, with their assumed limitations, hinders students in the United States from thinking analytically. Yet, multicultural education surely cannot be blamed for the loss of English literary language, as the author claims. Stotsky focuses mainly on teacher education, characterizing it as the primary source of an “anti-intellectual tide” (p. xviii). She suggests that the reason for this tide is employing the work of multicultural education advocates work such as James Banks and Carl Grant. Taking into account that by the year 2020, one of every two students in the United States will be a person of color (Banks, 1991), how would Stotsky’s argument be valid? According to Banks (1994), education must reflect this change by creating classrooms that encourage students of all ethnic and cultural groups to develop their talents to the fullest. Multicultural education should not, however, merely address literacy. To promote equity, educators should help students explore their own cultures and contribute to intercultural understanding. Stotsky’s argument is not strong enough to challenge the importance and the need to teach literacy from a multicultural perspective. Additionally, if some of the well-intended choices that we make as teachers and advocates of multicultural education may lead to stereotyping, complacency, and/or defensiveness among our students as a result of teaching from multicultural literary aspect, our efforts should be geared towards researching how to avoid unintended consequences when utilizing multicultural literacy rather than eradicating the whole approach. Stotsky claims that school knowledge should be separate from the political and social issues. She cites a number of scholars to prove that multicultural education has a social and political agenda. “Again we see quite clearly that the current goals of multicultural education are social and political, not academic.” (p.236) As an advocate of critical multicultural education, I do not deny this claim. Indeed, I contend that many supporters of multicultural education (such as James Banks, George Die, Homi Bhabha and Merry Merryfield) would agree with this. Nonetheless, this aspect of multicultural education does not make it is less academic. The social, political and academic are elements of any curriculum, and thus one cannot overlook the fact that curriculum is a political and social document (Apple & Beyer, 1988), as well as academic. Stotsky is not alone in her camp. Others, such as American scholars Alan Bloom and E.D. Hirsch, have long time advocated monoculturalism in the American textbook. An analogy can be drawn between Bloom’s work and Closing of the American Mind, which is not philosophically different from Stotsky’s book. This book claims that multiculturalism undermines the students’ abilities to read, write and reason. Similarities can be drawn from the two titles. While Bloom’s position in Closing of the American Mind (1987) is that allowing other cultures prominent places in the United States would entail regression to inferior ways of living, E.D. Hirsch’s Cultural literacy: what every American needs to know offers a less presumptuous and more pragmatic reason for diminishing cultural difference in the United States. Inasmuch as a nation’s strongest bond is a common cultural core, multiculturalism weakens national solidarity (1987, xv). Indeed, in reading Stotsky’s book one may think that it is an expansion of Hirsch’s argument, a longstanding argument of the myth of ‘common culture’ built on the superiority of Western patriarchal culture. The ultimate aim is not to improve reading, writing and reasoning abilities of students but the aim is towards monoculturalism that supports the status quo and operates from an assimilation and acculturation perspective. Therefore, Stotsky’s effort is part of an organized trend supported by scholars who employ a different rationale for opposing the need to teach from a critical multicultural perspective. Unlike Stotsky, as an educator I argue for the need to teach pre-service teachers of a diverse society such as Canada and the United States from a critical multicultural perspective. Stotsky alleges that multicultural education has a “race-based political agenda, one that is anticivic and anti-Western in its orientation” (p. 7). She continues, “it is a corrosive ideology that now pervades most American school textbooks, at all grade levels, and that revolves around racial and sexual stereotypes,” (p. 7). This pessimistic view of multiculturalism is unjustified. Critical multicultural education, which involves analyzing racism to its core, is indispensable in North America’s schools today. However, the conservatism that is becoming predominant today in American culture is the problem confronting cultural differences and multicultural literacy in American schools. As an educator who strongly supports multicultural education, I understand her plea against the unwanted negative aspects of multicultural education. However, I also find her rationale in opposing multicultural literacy in American schools frustrating. Teaching from a multicultural perspective is not the reason behind poor scholastic performance. Instead, I contend that teaching for inclusion and from a critical multicultural perspective promotes progress towards a just and pluralistic society. Stotsky ignores the fact that reading is a social process in which students are affected with and by their multicultural and multilingual environment and diverse social context. Yet, the book's format is simple and the language is comprehensible. Each chapter begins with a passage followed by an examination of the relevant literature and research and concludes with recommendations for policy change. The author provides a coherent thesis, and despite her strong advocacy of mono-culturalism and a narrow definition of multiculturalism in education, her analytical tone in the book should be considered as a good example of why we should move forward in our support of multicultural literacy in school textbooks. Stotsky’s critique serves as a useful illustration when teaching about the oppositional view of multiculturalism in the school curriculum. It is also helpful to enrich the discussion of the need to include multicultural literacy in elementary schools. References Grobman, L. (2001). Toward a multicultural pedagogy: Literary and nonliterary traditions. MELUS: The Journal for the Society of the Multi-Ethnic Literature of the United States, 26(1). 221-240. Apple, M., & Beyer, L. (Eds.). (1988). The Curriculum: Problems, Politics and Possibilities. New York: SUNY State University of New York Press. About the Reviewer Amani Hamdan is currently pursuing her PhD at the Faculty of Education at the University of Western Ontario. Her research interests are the education of immigrant Arab Muslim women, critical multicultural education, Muslim's representation in Canadian schools and curriculum. Amani received her MAED in 2002 from the Mount Saint Vincent University and researched global education in Canadian schools. Amani volunteered to teach at Islamic schools in London and also worked as a volunteer to help new immigrants from Arab Muslim nations. Amani teaches the multicultural education courses for pre-service teachers at the University of Western Ontario. She can be reached at amanihamdan2004@yahoo.ca. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.