Sakui Malakpa

Toward Cultural Pluralism in Education

The field of education gains enormously from other fields and disciplines.  Consequently, plans, policies and methodologies aimed at maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of education should not ignore relevant fields and disciplines.  For example, economics of education emphasizes many pertinent concepts and concerns; these include (A) human resource development for both individual and socio-economic advancement, (B) the process by which education is produced, (C) The distribution of education among competing groups and individuals, (D) a consideration of how much should be spent by society or any of its components on education, (E) the maximization of efficiency and effectiveness in such expenditures, and (F) the selection of types of educational activities which benefit from resource allocation in education (Harbison & Myers, 1965; Davis, 1980; Gurwitz, 1982).  As it focuses on these areas, economics of education increases its contribution to education by employing strategies such as cost-benefit or benefit-cost analysis (Lewis, Bruiinks, Thurlow & McGrew, 1988; Woodhall, 1970), resource-cost, cost-efficiency and internal rates of return (Davis, 1980; Zodhiate, 1980; Poignant, 1967 Psacharapoulos, 1973).

Equally important to the field of education are the humanist and existentialist postulates which emphasize the development of the whole being and the advancement of his or her environment and culture (Frick, 1971; Schilling, 1986; Miller, 1984).  From these perspectives, education has two major purposes: (A)  to help and individual become the best of whatever he or she can be (Vansickle, 1990; Jones, 1986; Farmer, 1984), and (B) to transmit culture (Chiang, 1986; Zialcita, 1990).

The emphasis on economics and culture is brought under one umbrella by the view that the real yardstick of development is the extent to which development and its corollaries satisfy “the socio-cultural needs of individuals and the community” (Makatiansar, 1979, p.11).  In other words, the true purpose of education is to improve lives and enhance culture ( Education, 1980;  Puri, 1992).  This truism notwithstanding, a questionnaire survey finds that cultural education is not emphasized in many countries.  Rather, educational systems aspire to assimilate cultures regarded as weak, inferior or subordinate (Puri).

In light of the foregoing finding and given the revelation that cultural enhancement complements education’s goals of personal and socioeconomic development, this work will discuss cultural assimilation as a failure of education to include and enhance the cultures of varied groups in the population.  This discussion will focus on Africa in general but specifically on Liberia with regards to the assimilation practices of settler groups and missionary organizations.  Given the drawbacks of assimilation, the paper presents cultural pluralism and the educational method of multicultural education as viable alternatives to assimilation.  It is contended that by emphasizing this alternative in a post-war curriculum, Liberia will reap the benefits of a stronger and holistic education, increased cultural enhancement through education and a heightened sense of inter-ethnic group respect.

Cultural Assimilation

The importance of enhancing culture through education is accentuated because of the relevance and complexity of culture itself.  In essence, culture is a people’s entire way of living.  Goodenough (1987) defines it as a way of perceiving, believing, evaluating and behaving.  LeVine (1984) also regards culture as a shared organization of ideas that includes “the intellectual, moral and aesthetic standards prevalent in a community” (p.84).  Moreover, it is contended that culture gives us our identity through our words, actions, postures, gestures, tone of voice, facial expressions, emotions, and techniques of defense (Hall, 1977).

Despite the invaluableness of every culture, some “dominant cultures” have engaged in cultural assimilation.  In brief, this is a process through which cultural and ethnic groups regarded as “weak,” “inferior,” or “subordinate” are absorbed gradually into a dominant culture.  The process ascribes to the “melting pot” or “amalgamation” theory which implies that once a group is absorbed, it loses its cultural patterns and becomes a part of the dominant culture (Gordon, 1964; Haring & McCormick, 1990).  In this regard, the dominant group is not concerned with the maintenance of a common culture but a culture that is common to all (Williams, 1989).  Stated differently, inherent in the process of cultural assimila­tion is the notion that diverse cultural groups should be merged into a single culture with common lifestyle, values, language, and cultural practices (Haring & McCormick, 1990).

In the merging of two cultures through assimilation, the dominant culture determines the terms of assimilation.  Thus, members of subordinate groups have little or no choice; if they want to share in the dreams and successes of society, they must assimilate.  Furthermore, the dominant group decides the extent to which members of the subordi­nate group can assimilate.  For example, in the United States where the melting pot theory was advocated directly and indirectly (Gordon, 1964), until 1967, miscegenation laws in many states prevented people of color from marrying whites or others of European backgrounds (Williamson, 1980; Gollnick & Chinn, 1994).

In essence, assimilation is a form of societal oppression.  Hence, the education system maximizes its weakness and inefficiency when it perpetuates or fails to address this phenomenon.  This is because school culture, a micro culture of the greater society, often shares some of the traits of the dominant culture.  In this partnership, the school fails when it often function not only to confirm and privilege students from dominant classes but also “through exclusion and insults, to disconfirm the histories, experiences and dreams of subordinate groups” (Giroux, 1989, p. XXX).  This has been the case of most school systems in Africa.

Cultural Assimilation Through Education in Africa

Following explorers, European missionaries flocked to Africa as they deemed the civilization and Christianization of the Africans as “the white man’s burden” (Fanfuwa & Aisiku, 1982; Rodney, 1971).

In accordance with their mission, missionaries built churches not only to proselytize but also to assimilate the Africans into an European way of life.  However, as the missionaries were only minimally successful in converting adults, they focused heavily on African children for whom they built schools as a means of educating, Christianizing and civilizing.  Through this process, they condemned the children’s belief patterns as well as their music and other art forms.  To illustrate, Chidwiti, a dance in Chama District, Northern Province in Zambia, was condemned as immoral and a work of the devil (Nkunia, 1979).

Unlike missionaries, colonizers in Africa whose mission included territorial expansion, exploitation, profiteering and civilization, ruled by coercion and manipulation.  For example, they drew national boundaries without regards for ethnicity and traditional geographic boundaries (Carew, 1992).  In addition, they pitted ethnic groups against each other thereby rendering them weak and of no threat to the colonial power.  Moreover, they established schools to “educate” and “civilize” the Africans.  Ultimately, this meant assimilating the Africans into European culture.

Cultural Assimilation in Education in Liberia

Like the rest of Africa, western oriented schools in Liberia were started by missionaries.  In Liberia, however, there were two types of Missionaries; one group was comprised of those who, although part of the settler community, saw their mission as one of Christianizing and civilizing, not that of nation building (Kulah, 1994).  Another group of missionaries included those who were affiliated with foreign churches and missionary boards.  As the work of these groups accompanied or followed the establishment of settler communities and subsequent political entities, it contributed to the assimilationist and civilizing efforts of the settler community.

The dual process of assimilation and civilization In Liberia was an open adoption method by which the indigenous people were admitted into “the preferred class”.  To enter this class and eventually become citizens, the indigenous people had to give up their traditional religions, become Christians, and adopt the western code of dress.  Thus, E. W. Blyden, the world renowned Liberian educator and writer, and other perspicacious individuals were vehemently opposed when they suggested that Liberia college–a Baptist institution and later, the University of Liberia–and other schools be established in the hinterland.  Through this method, Blyden reasoned, the nation’s educational system could adopt indigenous languages and some valuable aspects of the local cultures (Lynch, 1971).

As the assimilation policies and practices were codified into law (e.g. the adoption of western code of dress), the settlers employed varied assimilation strategies.  Dunn and Johnson-Sirleaf (1992) outline some of these strategies:  (A)  The apprenticeship system which was meant to socialize both recaptives and indigenous people into settler culture by bringing them under the guardianship of settler families, (B)  education through civilizing-Christianizing ethos, (C)  settlement policies, including the creation of settler communities within “native jurisdictions” to foster a civilizing influence, (D)  Interior administration and indirect hierarchical rule imposed on the indigenous people inhabiting the hinterland, regardless of the extent to which such a rule was compatible or incompatible with traditional institutional structures, and (E)  unification and integration policies which ironically, saw pluralist expressions as a threat to national unity.

There is evidence to show that the above strategies were effective.  In 1920, Jones, at the request of the Phelpe-Stokes Fund, conducted a survey of education in Liberia.  Among other things, he found that Americo-Liberians made virtually no substantial contribution to education in the country.  Rather, they were interested in secretarial science and the like (Berman, 1972).  As a result, Jones recommended, inter alia, that education in Liberia emphasized agriculture and the indigenous cultures. Despite this, in 1923, another survey by Sibley (commissioned by the Phelpe-Stokes Fund at the request of the Methodist Church) arrived at findings similar to the 1920 survey.  He therefore reiterated Jones’ recommendations (Berman, 1972).

A major characteristic of assimilation by the settler dominated political system was the ignoring, contradiction or repudiation of recommendations, research findings, and even government proclamations, policies and plans regarding the inclusion of indigenous people and their cultures into the national education system.  For example, the 1920 and 1923 surveys of education in Liberia were part of an effort to establish the Booker Washington Institute.  Based on the recommendations emanating from these studies, in 1927, Kakata was selected as a suitable site for BWI because of it fertile land and its closeness to native villages.  However, when the school was eventually established, the recommendations were largely ignored.  This rejection of research findings was documented in 1939 when, at the request of the State Department, the U.S. minister in Liberia prepared a report on the situation at BWI.  Among other things, the minister reported that the school heavily leaned toward colonial education policies in British West Africa (Berman, 1972).

Another criticism of the situation at BWI referred to the school’s extreme western orientation.  To be specific, BWI was modeled after Tuskegee and controlled by foreign philanthropists and clergymen who felt they knew what the Liberians needed more than the Liberians themselves (Berman).  This problem was therefore beyond the control of school administrators and the government.

Apart from the situation at BWI, in 1953, the first major research was conducted in Liberia to formulate a course of study regarding the unique socioeconomic and cultural needs of education in Liberia.  However, the curriculum formulated from this study devoted twice as much time to art and music than to mathematics and science.  Moreover, the social studies programs were external in nature as they emphasized training in European and American ways of life (Sawyer, 1980).

The condemnation of local cultures also obviated the inclusion of such cultures in to the curriculum.  For instance, beginning in 1944, the government attempted to indigenize the curriculum.  However, this effort could not succeed because the indigenous people’s methods of education, socialization, and the like were condemned as primitive practices carried out “by backward people” (Varpilah, 1982, p.264).  Because of this crippling ethnocentrism, the 1962 establishment and subsequent expansion of a curriculum center did not make much difference; the curriculum still did not reflect a true Liberian culture (Varpilah).

Beyond curricula, the educational agenda set forth in Liberia’s socioeconomic plans have been contradicted in so far as education and indigenous cultures are concerned.  (See, among many others, The National socioeconomic Plan of Liberia, 1976-80; The Indicative Manpower Plan of Liberia, 1972-80) (Ministry of Planning, 1976; 1972).  On one hand, these plans call for the conservation and promotion of indigenous cultures alongside the provision of universal basic education.  On another hand, however, the educational programs which ensue are not consistent with the plans’ pronouncements.  For example, the education system generally continues to ignore indigenous cultures.  Moreover, schools established in the hinterland experience the highest rates of teacher and material shortages (Sawyer, 1980).  Additionally, non-governmental schools established in the hinterland receive very minimal government subsidy.  The lion share of such subsidies (79%) go to schools established in Montserrado County.  Of that amount, Ricks Institute alone traditionally received 27.5% (Sawyer, 1980).

Outside of the field of education, the Unification Policy was another attempt by government to assimilate the indigenous people into the center.  This was “coercive unity” which left many issues unresolved, including the notion of self-determination and equal access to the state and its resources (Dunn & Johnson-Sirleaf, 1992).

In short, ample evidence shows that the Liberian settler community made a conscious and concerted effort to assimilate and “civilize” the indigenous population whose cultures and traditional practices were stigmatized as primitive.  This assimilationist goal was pursued with fervor, including the development of varied strategies, the ignoring of research results and subsequent recommendations, and even the contradiction of public proclamations, policies and plans.

Assimilation by Missionaries and Church Establishments

Missionaries and organized churches to Liberia saw, as part of their mission, the need to assimilate and civilize the indigenous people.  Accordingly, they ignored, even condemned the cultural practices of the people in preference for western education and civilized ethos.  Naturally, this extricated the people from the ventures of the missionaries.  For example, Sibley’s survey of 1923 found the work of missionaries to be artificial, superficial and out of touch with the communities in which they were established (Berman, 1972).

Despite initial difficulties, missionaries were determined to succeed.  Toward this end, they established church schools to attract the young.  In these schools, however, the missionaries went beyond education and even Christianization; they condemned the students’ cultural practices in an attempt to turn the students into little Euro-Americans completely extricated from their cultural heritage.  Of course, this method was later resented vehemently by products of mission schools.  (See Awori, 1975.)

The condemnation of Liberian cultural practices was exemplified by early Lutheran missionaries to Liberia who, like missionaries to parts of Africa, said one thing and did another.  On one hand, they promised to preserve all the African customs and traditions that were consistent with Christianity.  On the other hand, they “launched a frontal attack on almost every aspect of traditional African life–including ancestor reverence, use of charms and fetishes, belief in pantheon of spirits, traditional bush schools and traditional medicine men, divination, trial by ordeal, and polygyny” (Bradford, 1994, p.16).  They discouraged traditional music, dance, rituals, festivals and secret societies (Bradford).

Kulah (1994) discusses the assimilationist tendencies of other churches in Liberia.  Specifically, he focuses on their theological seminaries, giving brief but very relevant historical backgrounds and pointing out their disdain for African cultural practices in preference for general gravitation toward Euro-American ways of life.  Because of this gravitation, in general, Liberian pastors are not prepared to deal with the people on issues such as sacrifice, dream interpretation and the relationship between the living and the dead.  Rather, some pastors are told that “the best way to help people become better Christians is to help them deny and forget their religious backgrounds” (Kulah, 1994, p.103).

As he maintains that theological seminaries in Liberia are too loyal to the curricula handed them by Christian churches both inside and outside the country, Kulah (1994) insists that Liberian pastors need a Biblically sound and culturally oriented theological education.  This possibility, however, is impeded by several factors relevant to the discussion of assimilation.  First, achieving this goal is difficult because pastors are told that denying, even condemning one’s cultural background is synonymous to being a good Christian and a good pastor.  Problematic also is the condemnation of the traditional religion that gave the forefathers security, peace, confidence and stability.  Condemning the culture therefore makes it difficult for many Liberian theologians to direct the people to the invaluable characteristics of the culture and subsequently apply such characteristics in the interpretation of the Gospel for a richer Christian life (Kulah, 1994).  In addition, a clear delineation of cultural characteristics is difficult to attain in the attempt to include essential elements of the culture into Christian life as a means of making Christianity relevant to the people (Kulah).

Drawbacks of Assimilation

In many ways, the process of assimilation is detrimental to the group being absorbed.  For example, partial assimilation splits people into two cultures with different behaviors and expectations in each cultural milieu.  They are coerced into this bicultural role in order to be allowed to work, go to school or participate effectively in both communities (Gollnick & Chinn, 1994).  This is exemplified by the dilemma of a Liberian who becomes a Christian when his or her community practices African traditional religions.  On one hand, the church places a moratorium on his or her participation in African traditional religious practices.  On the other hand, the community of which he or she is a part demands the Christian’s participation in African religions.  This demand is based on the individual’s membership in the African family which requires him or her to be loyal to the community despite his or her exposure to other religions (Kulah, 1994).

As opposed to partial assimilation, a complete and successful assimilation leads to the disappear­ance of a cultural group distinct from the dominant culture; this is the goal of amalgamation and the essence of the melting pot theory.  Furthermore, assimilation denies the cultural and socio-political contributions of “subordinate” groups in society (Gordon, 1964; Williamson, 1980; Haring and McCormick, 1990).

The process of assimilation suppresses and eventually eradicates the values, meanings and histories of whole cultures (Williams, 1989).  It forces members of subordinate groups to relinquish their cultural and ethnic identities.  Likewise, assimilation denies the democratic notion of equal participation.  In other words, cultural groups regarded as weak or politically and culturally subordinate are not allowed to form and flourish free from the oppression of others in society (Appleton, 1983).

An Alternative for Liberia

Liberia’s secular and religious education systems–with their Euro-American programs, policies and practices–were largely assimilationist in conviction, orientation, and scope.  Consequently, the histories and cultural practices of the nation’s ethnic groups were largely ignored.  Hence, the nation’s education system failed in enhancing local cultures.  This is probably why, until recent signs of improvements, cultural practices, indigenous names and even dishes were the targets of derision.  Such attitude heightened ethnic sensitivity and probably paved the way to the debacle the country faces today.

The preceding likelihood is grounded on inferences drawn from other nations.  For instance,  racist and assimilationist policies which forced black school children in South Africa to learn Afrikaans, the language of the ruling minority white, was the key basis of the Sweto demonstration by black children, which unfortunately ended in a blood bath.  Subsequently, Africans’ resentment of Afrikaans and other assimilation practices swelled.  This intensified the black people’s struggle for equal educational, social and other services.

Like South Africa, for a long time, the education system in the United States ignored the histories and cultures of ethnic groups.  Rather, the system emphasized an amalgamation orientation which was resented by ethnic groups.  This resentment fueled the struggle for social equality and the recognition of the contributions, histories, cultures and equality of ethnic groups.

The foregoing indicates that, whether through the greater society or the micro culture of the school, assimilation is unacceptable especially since it seeks to suppress, exclude and/or absorb some members of society.  Hence, a society which insists on assimilation only invites fiery resentment from the targets of this process.  This resentment and a struggle for equality will not be abated until there are convincing orientations toward pluralism.

To achieve maximum success, it is impelling that the gravitation toward pluralism begin in the schools; that is, there must be inclusive and democratic method of providing educational services for a cross section of the population. For example, by no means have South Africa and the United States achieved a social utopia.  However, resentment of assimilation and a consequent gravitation toward cultural pluralism have contributed immensely to the education and social systems of these countries.  In South Africa, African languages are major subjects in the schools.  Likewise, in the United States, multicultural education is emphasized in almost every education district with an eye on the histories and contributions of the nation’s varied ethnic, national and racial groups.  This provides greater awareness of the groups concerned, strengthens the curriculum and paves the way to a inclusive society and a broad-based education system. Similarly, in the post-war era, Liberia, with 17 ethnic groups, can strengthen its education system and enhance inter-ethnic group understanding and respect by embracing cultural pluralism and multicultural education.  It is therefore necessary to take a cursory look at these concepts.

Cultural Pluralism

This concept ascribes to the “salad bowl” or in the Liberian sense, “soup pot” theory which recognizes and appreciates the presence, importance and contribution of every group and individual in society.

Accordingly, the educational goal of cultural pluralism is twofold: (A) to promote equality among groups in society, and (B) to allow individuals to maintain their cultural identities as they participate in the macro culture of society (Gollnick & Chinn, 1994).  Toward this end, Pratte (1979) offers three stringent criteria for pluralism: diversity, equality and behavioral commitment to the same.

Pluralism also promotes the existence and enhance­ment of people’s common cultures (Walters, 1992).  This is not a mere extension or subjective interpretation of what a group means, feels or believes.  Rather, it is the maintaining of a people’s identity by allowing them, as a group, to articulate, interpret and enhance their own meanings, values and methods.

The relevance of cultural pluralism makes it imperative that it be included in the school curriculum.  This will be a recognition that the cultural backgrounds of both dominant and non-dominant or oppressed groups in society are rich and worthy of preservation and transmission (Haring and McCormick, 1990).  It further implies that, like dominant groups,  indigenous or oppressed groups have a lot (if not more) to offer (Teasdale, 1992).

Cultural pluralism in education implies that society is strengthened and enriched by different cultural groups.  This is articulated lucidly in the policy statement by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, AACTE:

To endorse cultural pluralism is to endorse the principle that there is no one model American.  To endorse cultural pluralism is to understand and appreciate the differences that exist among the nation’s citizens.  It is to see these differences as a positive force in the continuing development of a society which professes a wholesome respect for the intrinsic worth of every individual.  Cultural pluralism is more than a temporary accommodation to placate racial and ethnic minorities.  It is a concept that aims toward a heightened sense of being and of wholeness of the entire society based on the unique strengths of each of its parts (AACTE, 1973, p.246).

Multicultural Education

This is the educational strategy which is designed to fulfill and extend the concept of cultural pluralism in schools. With this strategy, the cultural backgrounds of students are used to develop effective classroom instruction as well as an accepting school environment (Gollnick & Chinn, 1994).

Multicultural education ascribes to the concept of cultural relativism; this is an attempt to describe and convey the values and practices of a society from the viewpoint of the members of that society (Teasdale, 1992).  Likewise, this educational strategy expands the concept of pluralism.  For example, it focuses on culture, not ethnicity alone.  By so doing, it recognizes the impacts of race, gender, class, age, geographic region, physical or sensory disability, etc., on one’s participation in society (Gollnick & Chinn, 1994).

In a multicultural curriculum, “education” is not limited to information from canonized textbooks nor does the “common culture” dwell exclusively on blind glorification of the past.  Rather, the curriculum includes information from various aspects of the culture.  At the same time, curriculum developers continue to study, analyze and critique the culture allowing students to use the information to build for a future yet unimaginable (Walters, 1992).

In developing a multicultural curriculum, “culture” is seen as a process, not a possession nor a product.  As such, the curriculum highly values the insights and input of the different groups represented in both the classroom and the greater society.  This approach enable students to benefit from varied perspectives (Walters).

Multicultural education is based on several concepts views, and assumptions, including: (A)  the view that all students do benefit from exposure to different people, beliefs and ideas; (B)  the provision of an opportunity for students to relate to, and evaluate new perspectives; (C)  the conviction that there is value in promoting cultural diversity; (D)  the notion that schools should be a model for promoting human rights and respect for cultural diversity; (E)  the view that social justice and equality should be of paramount importance in the design and delivery of curriculum; (F) the assertion that attitudes and values for the continuation of a democratic society can be promoted in the schools; and (G)  the idea that schooling can promote the knowledge, disposition and skills needed for proper redistribution of power and income among cultural groups (Haring & McCormick, 1990; Gollnick & Chinn, 1994; Teasdale, 1992).

An educator involved in multicultural education is encouraged to understand relationships and interactions among groups.  This requires familiarity with the sources and impacts of racism, sexism, tribalism, discrimination, oppression, power and powerlessness, equality and inequality, and stereotyping.  Hence, components of multicultural education include ethnic studies, global studies, bilingual education, women studies, human relations, value clarification, special education, and urban studies.  These are presented in two formats: (A) as integrated components of cultural education or (B) through cultural education as a separate discipline (Puri, 1992; Gollnick & Chinn, 1994).

A successful multicultural education program includes several basic characteristics.  For instance, The composition of the teaching staff reflects the make-up of the general population and the curriculum is unbiased, avoiding sexism, racism, ethnocentrism, and the like (Simon, 1989).  Furthermore, it addresses the importance of culture alongside both the reality and richness of cultural differences.  In addition, students are allowed to use their cultural backgrounds, experiences, and voices to develop new skills and explore the subject matter critically (Simon).

Multicultural education places demands on teachers which should be met if they are to work effectively with a culturally diverse group of students.  For example, they are to give up the self-image of people who know and can disseminate everything important.  Rather, they need to encourage and acknowledge differences of opinion, language, culture, ability, race and gender.  These differences should be celebrated as logical sources for teaching and learning (Walters, 1992).

Additionally, teachers are encouraged to examine their own prejudices and presumptions (Teasdale, 1992).  As teachers work with students from varied ethnic and cultural backgrounds, it is also important that they be aware of different learning styles and characteristics.  In like manner, teachers are encouraged to know their own cultural backgrounds.  This assertion is based on the conviction that the extent to which one understands, respects and appreciates other cultures depends on the degree to which the person is rooted in his or her own culture (Puri, 1992).

Summary and Conclusion

Hitherto, both secular and religious education in Liberia directly or indirectly engaged in cultural assimilation.  This process is based on the conviction that the cultural practices, beliefs, methods, etc., of certain groups are inferior and therefore members of such groups should become a part of the dominant culture.  This is a pompous ethnocentric concept which denies the democratic equality and cultural contributions of non-dominant groups in society.  Hence, cultural pluralism is suggested as a viable alternative for education in the post-war era. This is a means of acknowledging, appreciating and enhancing various cultural groups and practices in society.  Multicultural education is the method by which the goals and objectives of cultural pluralism can be addressed in the school curriculum.  This educational strategy stresses the significance of society’s varied cultures.  Consequently, it exposes students and teachers to cultural and group differences, emphasizing such differences as sources of teaching and learning.  By this method, no cultural groups are warded out of the school system by arbitrary fences which limit, exclude and demean.  Rather, as cultural groups and entities are allowed to develop, they contribute enormously to the macro culture which, in turn, becomes better, stronger and generally inclusive.  This leads to incalculable positive social consequences.

References

AACTE (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Commission on Multicultural Education).  (1973).  No one model American.  Journal of Teacher Education, 4, 264.

Appleton, N. (1983).  Cultural pluralism in education:  theoretical foundations. New York: Longman.

Awori,T.  (1975).  The revolt against the civilizing mission:  Christian education in Liberia.  In.  E. H. Bremen (Ed.)  African reaction to missionary education.  New York:  Teachers College Press, Columbia University. p.120.

Berman, E.  (1972).  Tuskegee-In-Africa.  The Journal of Negro Education, XLI (2), 99-112.

Bradford, R. L. (1994).  A brief history of the Lutheran Church in Liberia: From dependency to independence, 1860-1965.  The Liberian Studies Journal, XIX (1), 12-19.

Carew, G. M. (1992).  Development theory and the promise of democracy:  The future of post-colonial African states.  Africa Today, 40 (4), 31-53.

Chiang, L. (1986).  Is our understanding of the hidden curriculum hidden from us?  (Paper presented at the conference of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australia, Armidale, Australia, Sept. 1-7.)

Davis, R. G. (1980)  Planning education and development:  (V. II)  Models and methods for systematic planning of education. Cambridge:  The Center for Studies in Education and Development, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Dunn, D. E. & Johnson-Sirleaf, E.  (1992).  Liberia:  An action memorandum.  Atlanta:  The Carter Center of Emory University.

Education:  Sector policy paper.  (1980).  Washington, DC:  The World Bank.

Fanfuwa, A. B. & Aisiku, J. U. (Eds.)  (1982).  Education in Africa:  A comparative survey. London: George, Allen & Urwin.

Farmer, R. (1984).  Humanistic education and self-actualization theory.  Education, 105 (2), 162-172.

Frick, W. B. (1971).  Humanistic philosophy: interviews with Maslow, Murphy, and Rogers.  Columbus:  Merrill.

Giroux, H. A. (1989).  Teachers as intellectuals: toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Gramby, MA.: Bergin and Garvey.

Gollnick, D. M., & Chin, P. C. (1994).  Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (4th Edition).  New York:  Merrill & Macmillan.

Goodenough, W.  (1987).  Multi-culturalism as the normal human experience.  IN.  E. M. Eddy & W. L. Partridge (Eds.)  Applied anthropology in America (2nd edition). New York:  Columbia University Press.

Gordon, M. M.  (1964).  Assimilation in American life: the role of race, religion and national origin. New York:  Oxford University Press.

Gurwitz, A. S. (1982).  The economics of public school finance. Cambridge:  Ballinger Publishing.

Hall, E. T. (1977).  Beyond culture. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press.

Harbison, F. & Myers, C.  (1965).  Manpower and education. New York:  McGrew-Hill.

Haring, N. & McCormick, L. (Eds.) (1990).  Exceptional children and youth (5th edition). Columbus:  Merrill.

Jones, B. O. (1986).  Teaching basic skills for the information age.  Unicorn Journal of the Australian College of Education, 12 (2), 75-80.

Kulah, A. F.  (1994).  Theological education in Liberia:  Problems and opportunities.  Lithonia:  SCP/Third World Literature Publishing House.

LeVine, R. A. (1984).  Properties of culture: an ethnographic view.  In.  R. A. Schweder & R. A. LeVine.  Culture theory:  essays on mind, self, and emotion (p.67-87.New York:  Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, D. R., Bruiinks, R. H., Thurlow, M., & McGrew, K.  (1988).  Using benefit-cost analysis in special education.  Exceptional Children, 55 (3), 203-214.

Lynch, H. R. (Ed.)  (1971).  Black spokesman:  Selected published writings of E. W. Blyden. New York:  Humanities Press.

Makatiansar, M. (1979).  Preservation and further development of cultural values.  Cultures, 6 (3), p.11.

Malakpa, S. W. G.  (1994).  Cultural assimilation in education: Drawbacks and alternatives.  (Submitted for publication.)

Marrow, A. J. (1982).  Humanistic history.  Community College Social Science Journal, 4 (3), 22-25.

Miller, M. D. (1984).  Principles and the philosophy of vocational education. (Special Publication Series No. 48).  Columbus:  National Center of Publications.

Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs.  (1972; 1976).  Monrovia:  Author.

Nkunia, B. S. C. (1979).  African art between past and future.  Cultures, 6 (9), p.49.

Poignant, r.  (1967).  The relation of educational plans to economic and social planning. Paris:  UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.

Pratte, R. (1979).  Pluralism in education: conflict, clarity and commitment. Springfield, IL:  Thomas.

Psacharapoulos, G. (1973).  Returns to Education, An International Comparison. San Francisco: Jossey‑Bass.

Puri, P. (1992).  Cultural and intercultural aspects of education:  a new responsibility for teachers. (Paper presented at the UNESCO international conference on education, Geneva, Switzerland, Sept. 14-19.)

Rodney, W.  (1974).  How Europe underdeveloped Africa. Washington: Howard University Press.

Sawyer, A.  (1980).  Imbalances of educational opportunities and the implications for national development.  Liberia Educational Review, 1 (1), 25-48.

Schilling, D. E. (1986).  Managing motivational needs of the gifted and talented.  G/C/T 9 (3), 2-5.

Senchuk, D. M. (1984).  Philosophical studies in education (Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Ohio Valley Philosophy of Education Society, Cincinnati, OH, Nov. 19-20.)

Simon, R. I. (1989).  Empowerment as a pedagogy of possibility.  In. H. Holtz, I. Marcus, J. Dougherty, J. Michaels, & R. Peduzzi (Eds.)  Education and the American dream:  conservatives, liberals and radicals debate the future of education (p.134-146).  Gramby, MA:  Bergin and Garvey.

Teasdale, G. R. (1992).The contribution of education to survival of small indigenous cultures. (Paper presented at the UNESCO international conference on education, Geneva, Switzerland, Sept. 14-19.)

Vansickle, R. L. (1990).  The personal relevance of the social studies.  Social Education 54 (1), 23-27.

Varpilah, F. S. (1982).  Trends in curriculum development in Liberia.  In.  Bude, U. (ED.)  The Berchiet report:  Curriculum development in Africa. Manzini, Swaziland:  German Federation for International Development.

Walters, K. (1992).  Whose culture? whose literacy?  In.  D. Murray (Ed.)  Diversity as resource: redefining cultural literacy (p.3-25).  Bloomington, IL:  Pantagraph.

Williams, R. (1989).  The idea of a common culture.  In. R. Gable (Ed.)  Resources of hope:  culture, democracy and socialism (p.32-38).  London: Verso.

Williamson, J.  (1980).  New people: miscegenation and mulattoes in the United States.  New York:  New York University Press.

Woodhall, M. (1970).  Cost-benefit analysis in educational planning. Paris:  UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.

Zialcita, F. (1990).  Nick Joaquin:  A portrait of the existentialist as a Filipino.  World Englishes, 9 (2), 215-223.

Zodhiates, P.  (1980).  Project analysis–Benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness.  In.  Davis, R. G. (Ed.)  Planning education and development:  (V. II)  Models and methods for systematic planning of education.  Cambridge:  The Center for Studies in Education and Development, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Copyright © 1996 Sakui Malakpa