Reform Through the Lens of Demographics

I believe that Harold Hodgkinson's article entitled Demographics: Teachers Should Know can be interpreted by both teachers as well as future teachers (like me) in a variety of ways, some that are enlightening, as well as in some that I believe are not altogether helpful.

My overall view of Hodgkinson's article is that it can be used in a positive way by teachers that read it, especially those who have no real experience or knowledge of cultures and ethnicities outside of their own. The article should be eye opening to teachers in that it points out the varying lenses through which people interpret and understand the world, a concept that is core to good teaching in that it allows teachers to frame their methods and strategies accordingly. It points out that environment, beliefs, values, what is seen as important to individuals, etc. all comprise how that individual approaches and sees the world, as well as their own place in that world. In this way, it forces teachers to question their own beliefs and expectations, as well as realize that their interpretation of a certain situation can be, and is often, totally different from the interpretation that their students have of that same situation. I think Hodgkinson succeeds in raising cultural awareness and sensitivity, which in turn will cause teachers to be more effective in the classroom.

My qualms with reading any demographics study coincide with some poignant points that Hodgkinson himself raises in the piece. The way that demographic data is collected is in a survey style, whereby people themselves decide what race, ethnicity, social class, etc. they consider themselves to be a part of. The reason I bring this issue to light is because I believe, like the Annenberg Institute article points out, that people are agentive. When filling out a survey that deals with loaded notions of race, ethnicity, class (issues that I believe are intimately tied to power relationships and issues of access), people have contrasting interests and will answer the survey in a way that serves these interests. These interests are constantly shifting and may, infact, be contradictory.

As Hodgkinson points out, the concept of "race" and grouping people according to race is not helpful. Although it is significant in terms of politics, justifying who has access to goods and why, and in the history of our country, it has NO biological basis. More importantly I believe that using the concept of race is dangerous, as throughout history it has justified mass murder, from the Jews in World War II, the genocide in Rwanda in 1993, to the present tragedies occuring in the Darfur region of Sudan. While Hodgkinson would agree that racial identity is problematic, he finishes his article by stating that rather than considering race, teachers should consider ethnic or national origin.

To me, the problem with ethnic origin or nationality is the same as that of race. While it may be helpful to teachers to consider the different home lives and values that students may have, equating certain ethnicities with certain values or beliefs will force teachers to have certain expectations. For example, Hodgkinson says that knowing that a student is "Cuban or Panamanian" tells teachers a lot more. Consider the different beliefs, values, religions, that conprimise the American population. I don't think it is helpful to try and understand one sort of "American psyche" or "American belief system" in that their is enormous variation between Americans themselves. This holds for Panamanians, Cubans, and Chinese also. Immigrants from other countries come to this country with contradictory ideas, beliefs, from different economic classes, etc.

While Hodgkinson deconstructs terms such as "Hispanic" and "Asian" he still uses them at the end of his article. For example, he has a sort of "us" versus "them" writing style in saying things such as, "Americans believe in the future as if it were a religion....Many immigrants have a sophistication sense of the past that puts us to shame." This statement may seem harmless, but to me it immediately raises red flags. This type of dichotomizing, lumping Americans into one, comprehensive category and stating the beliefs of that category is very limiting. Defining groups of very different people into neat, cookie-cutter categories is not useful in that it causes people, for example, the teachers who read this article, to expect certain behaviors and beliefs from what they consider "Americans" or "Chinese" or "Native Americans", which may or may not be the actual case.

Now that I have thrown my criticism out their, I still think that Hodgkinson's article is helpful for teachers. Perhaps instead of teachers evaluating the general categories of"Cubans" or "Panamanians" in their classroom, they should understand the specific circumstances of the Cubans or Panamanians who comprise the local community in which they teach. This involves the teachers becoming familiar with and actively participating in the community where they are teaching. Overall, Hodgkinson sheds light on cultural understanding. I believe that these incidents of understanding need to be specific; to a certain time, place, and set of circumstances.

While I have some problems with the article, I believe that it offers up hope in that it challenges former dominant models of teaching which are predominantly aimed towards white, middle-class values. It forces teachers not only to recognize and reflect upon their own cultures, but it also works towards beginning to offer up a style of successful teaching that can be accessible to "minority" populations. Only by first becoming aware of our own biases as well as the biases of an institution can we begin to make meaningful, successful changes.