How Anti-Racism Lessons INCREASE Pupil Intolerance: They Cause Animosity To Other Cultures
Dutch study finds discussing sensitive ethnic concerns can be counter-productive.
- Education Secretary Michael Gove under fire over plans to stop teaching teenagers about multicultural topics.
|
Children who are given anti-racism lessons in school are more likely to be intolerant outside the classroom, a major study found yesterday.
It said accusing white pupils of racism causes animosity, and discussing sensitive ethnic concerns such as honour killings paints minority group children in a bad light.
The survey said children who live in mixed neighbourhoods are often free of hostility towards other racial groups.
Counter-productive: A Dutch study has found children who are given anti-racism lessons in school are more likely to be intolerant outside the classroom.
But it found that ‘when more attention in class is being paid to the multicultural society, the liberalising effect of positive contact in class on youngsters’ xenophobic attitude decreases’.
The project carried out in the Netherlands comes at a time of controversy over the place of multiculturalism – which blames Britain for historic racism and demands the encouragement of minority cultures – in the national curriculum and teaching in British schools.
Education Secretary Michael Gove has been under fire from Left-wing academics over plans to stop teaching teenagers about topics such as ‘the wide cultural, social and ethnic diversity of Britain from the Middle Ages to the twentieth century and how this has helped shape Britain’s identity’.
Instead, in future pupils will be taught much more British history. The study, published in the European Sociological Review, was based on a survey of 1,444 pupils aged 14 and 15 in ten schools in the city of Nijmegen.
Education Secretary Michael Gove has come under fire from Left-wing academics over plans to stop teaching teenagers about multicultural topics
The teenagers, drawn from different class and racial backgrounds, and with differing academic abilities, were questioned on their attitudes to those from different ethnic backgrounds and about multicultural teaching in their schools.
It said boys tended to be more intolerant of other groups than girls, and intolerance was greatest among those with strong religious or ethnic identity, among those from Turkish or Moroccan backgrounds, and those with the lowest educational achievements.
But it said the teaching of multiculturalism had an ‘unexpected negative effect’.
It added: ‘The impact of positive inter- ethnic contact in class disappears or even reverses when multiculturalism is more emphasised during lessons. Discussing discrimination and the customs and habits of other cultures during lessons affects the youngsters’ xenophobic attitudes indirectly.’
The report added that bad feelings among minority groups could be generated by discussion of topics such as honour killings or female circumcision. Animosity could also be caused by ‘a one-sided offender- victim approach to racism’.
The findings echo the views of Bradford head teacher Ray Honeyford, who was driven from his job nearly 30 years ago over his claim that multicultural teaching was harming pupils.
Mr Honeyford said that pupil performance was hindered by ‘the notion of the multi-racial curriculum urged by the authorities, and of making colour and race significant, high-profile issues in the classroom’.
Patricia Morgan, an author on the family and education, said yesterday: ‘If you rub children’s noses in their supposed racism, they resent it.
‘Pupils are being accused of things they haven’t thought or done. Multiculturalism attempts to manipulate children’s thoughts, beliefs and emotions, it amounts to indoctrination, and it doesn’t work. It is counter-productive.
‘This study shows that when people try to manipulate children’s minds, it bounces back on them.’
Thank You Daily Mail and Mr Doughty
Cultural Competence
In 1997, the former California Department of Mental Health, formed a Cultural Competence Task Force (subsequently changed to the Cultural Competence Advisory Committee) to begin developing the first set of cultural competence plan standards, to address the needs of multicultural communities by implementing culturally and linguistically competent mental health services. The 35 member team charged with developing the initial cultural competence standards, worked in partnership with the California Mental Health Directors Association and community partners inclusive of mental health consumer and family members. This was the first endeavor of its kind in the nation, recognized for pioneer leadership by the Georgetown University Cultural Competence Center. Since 1997, three evolutions of the plan have been developed and implemented culminating in the most recent version, the Cultural Competence Plan Requirements (CCPR).
The CCPR establishes further standards and criteria for the entirety of the California County Mental Health System, including Medi-Cal services, Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), and Realignment as part of working toward achieving cultural and linguistic competence. Each county must develop and submit a cultural competence plan consistent with these CCPR standards and criteria (per California Code of Regulations, Title 9, Section 1810.410). This plan shall address all mental health services and programs throughout the County Mental Health System. This CCPR seeks to support full system planning and integration and includes the most current resources and standards available in the field of cultural and linguistic competence. It is intended to move county mental health systems toward the reduction of mental health service disparities identified in racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and other unserved/underserved populations. The CCPR works toward the development of the most culturally and linguistically competent programs and services to meet the needs of California’s diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic communities in the mental health system of care.
Eight criteria were developed to encompass the CCPR and assist county Mental Health Plans (MHPs) in identifying and addressing disparities and inequities across the entire mental health system. Those eight criteria are as follows:
- Criterion I: Commitment to Cultural Competence
- Criterion II: Updated Assessment of Service Needs
- Criterion III: Strategies and Efforts for Reducing Racial, Ethnic, Cultural, and Linguistic Mental Health Disparities
- Criterion IV: Client/Family Member/Community Committee: Integration of the Committee Within The County Mental Health System
- Criterion V: Culturally Competent Training Activities
- Criterion VI: County’s Commitment To Growing a Multicultural Workforce: Hiring and Retaining Culturally and Linguistically Competent Staff
- Criterion VII: Language Capacity
- Criterion VIII: Adaptation of Services
These eight criteria are a mechanism to examine where MHPs lie on the scale of cultural competence. Having used the criteria to form a logic model, the CCPR’s development and inclusion of the eight criteria allow MHPs to implement cultural and linguistic competence in a variety of settings and move toward operationalizing the concept of cultural competence.
Read more from California:
The State that's $127.2 Billion in Debt
‘This study shows that when people try to manipulate children’s minds, it bounces back on them.’
Suicidal Ideations By The Numbers; Counseling Is WORSE Than Even Zoloft
And HOW much more of this Counterproductive Psych Con are you going to get the BILL for, America?
