Rushgreen is under the patronage o f Educate Together and the ethical curriculum (Learn Together) which it promotes contains strand units such as:
Exploring Human Rights, Promoting Equality, Exploring the Democratic Process, Activating Equality through Positive Action, Knowledge and Awareness o f Environmental Issues, Activation of Responsibility and Stewardship and Exploring the Important Celebrations Associated With Such Belief Systems (Educate Together 2004, pp.27-43). An analysis of this document suggests that Educate Together’s philosophy is underpinned by concepts and values typical o f liberal education:
democracy, children’s rights, equality o f opportunity and respect, critical openness, critical thinking skills and open-mindedness, citizenship, and the celebration o f
diversity (Halstead, 2005, pp.112-118). When asked whether he thought Educate Together’s ethos was incompatible with critical multiculturalism, Oliver replied,
“Philosophically yes, almost certainly, but in practice I don’t think that Educate Together’s espousal o f liberal multiculturalism in its ethos cramps or resists a school doing critical multicultural things'’ (Oliver Flynn, Interview 3).
Theoretically, liberal and critical models o f multicultural education are highly incompatible. They vary in terms of focus - liberal models tend to focus on culture which is narrowly conceptualised as something than can be learned about and understood by exploring the cuisine, customs and festivals o f ethnic and cultural groups in exotic locales, while critical multiculturalism focuses on the critical analysis o f power asymmetries and on structural inequities. Similarly, both vary depending on how they conceptualise what it means to be “critical”, with liberal models tending to focus on critical thinking skills and critical models focusing on critical pedagogy. Burbules and Berk (1999) state that, “Critical thinking’s claim is, at heart, to teach how to think critically, not how to think politically; for critical pedagogy, this is a false distinction” (p.55). In general, liberal models o f multicultural education foreground concepts such as democracy, citizenship, children’s rights and personal autonomy; while critical models foreground concepts such as critical consciousness and a critical deconstruction o f the knowledge construction process.
Classifying multicultural practice at Rushgreen is far from straightforward. It is acutely nuanced and tensions, contradictions and fault lines are apparent at every level. At an institutional level, there is evidence o f elements o f critical multicultural practice. Under Oliver’s leadership, critique, reflection, action and democratic practice have become the cornerstones o f this approach. Oliver is familiar with
162
critical theory and has proactively sought to tackle power asymmetries within the school. Recognising that structurally generated inequalities can be reinforced through the school’s policies and practices, he has actively endeavoured to formulate structures that promote equity and facilitate students’ academic success in the school.
In this regard, the school avoids practices such as ability grouping and streaming, employs a wide variety o f teaching methodologies, engages in student assessment and uses this data to lobby and fight for additional supports, and recognising the importance o f augmenting students’ social, political and cultural capital brings students to cultural and educational events to which they normally wouldn’t have access.
Cognisant of the ramifications o f institutional racism, the school proactively promotes antiracism and is vigilant at all times to ensure practice in the school is equitable - an importance feature of critical multiculturalism. The school adopts a praxis oriented approach to policy development and teachers regularly engage in critique, reflection, discussion and debate.
At classroom level, a more liberal approach to multicultural education is evident. Here, while the focus is on human rights and citizenship education rather than on culture and the celebration o f diversity, this human rights focus still firmly roots the school’s approach within a liberal paradigm. Counter to critical multiculturalism, knowledge is accepted as neutral and apolitical and the teachers do not seek to help students develop Critical Consciousness, nor do they seek to help students to understand how power influences their lives and shapes their identities or to question what social groups benefit from the propagation o f current knowledge systems and the maintenance of the status quo. Rather, similar to liberal multicultural practice, the focus at classroom level is on developing empathy and
increasing awareness o f other cultures and o f social injustices rather than encouraging students to become critically engaged politicised citizens who actively and collectively challenge the status quo. It is possible that the foregrounding o f liberal conceptualisations of human rights and democracy detracts attention away from critical and political engagement.
As has been highlighted throughout the chapter, a number o f fault lines are evident between aspects of the school’s policy and practice and critical multicultural theory. Fault lines are also evident between aspects o f the school’s policy and practice. Indeed, such ruptures are quite typical in the field o f multicultural education - as has been highlighted in chapter two. Smith (1987) argues that the identification o f fault lines can be advantageous for an institution. She states that fault lines “direct attention to a possible set o f questions that may not have been posed or a set o f puzzles that do not yet exist in the form o f puzzles” (as cited in Rusch, 2004, p. 18). While confronting fault lines is not an easy task, the structures through which these fault lines can be addressed are already in place in Rushgreen.
The presentation of the aforementioned fault lines in this case study report provides the impetus for a phronetic cycle of critique, reflection and action in the school.
Many examples have been presented in this report which attest to the principal’s and sta ffs willingness to engage in critical reflection and to modify practice accordingly.
4.14 Conclusion
Rushgreen endeavours to promote a critical multicultural approach to intercultural education. Oliver defines intercultural education as,
164
. . . a whole school process in the same way as child centred education is a whole school process. Everything - from the manner in which staff understand how to work together, through to how a teacher in his or her classroom behaviourally manages the children, through to the support that the teachers are given to develop pedagogies that are less autocratic and more democratic - All o f those things are necessary for intercultural education and they are all I think whole school issues (Oliver Flynn, Interview 1).
Oliver’s conceptualisation of intercultural education as “a whole school process” is redolent o f national (NCCA, 2005; Smyth et al., 2009) and international conceptualisations (Nieto, 2004a; Banks, 2006, 2011; May, 1994; Lea, 2010).
Viewed as a philosophy rather than a series o f lessons that can be tacked on to the existing curriculum, intercultural education underpins the culture, ethos, policy and practice at Rushgreen. It is evident in the taught curriculum, hidden curriculum, pedagogic strategies, instructional materials, professional development opportunities and the physical environment of the school.
Current practice at the school appears to be an amalgam of elements from both liberal and critical multiculturalism. The school is endeavouring to promote a critical multicultural approach but is currently constrained by a wide variety o f structural constraints including Educate Together’s liberal ethos, a lack o f critical awareness and confidence in this area and a deficit o f critical literacy and critical discourse analysis skills at teacher level. Promoting a critical multicultural approach is an ongoing endeavour and an ongoing struggle which demands constant critical reflection, negotiation, action and evaluation. Recognising this, Oliver states critical multicultural education is “a process and w e’re just not there yet”.