The devolution of curriculum, diversity, justice and learning to 21st century schooling and education in the United States are germane in a contention and premise that there is a global perspective to all change strategies for inclusive learning. This perspective is global in the respect that we are all connected by smart devices which draw us all together in virtual worlds of reality and learning from this communitarian experience. The epistemology of education is more than tangential assumptions about class warfare between Occupy-Wall-Streeters (OWL) and the One-Percent! Education stakeholders are cognizant of the reality that imperialist wantonness by domestic enterprising corporations’ aim meticulously to supplant their opus of mercantilism into the hallways of schools and exploit education consumers over the globe. We are not alone just look at what’s happening in Europe, Asia and the Mideast.

    The obvious distinction and not at all an innocuous one is attributed to the peculiarity of social power exercised by free enterprise---laissez-faire---to encapsulate institutions to preserve political and economic status quo. Much of the resistance to emerging multinationals’ strategies for inclusiveness and change are suggestive of primitive cultures’ soteriophobia---fear of dependence on others---with past colonizing exploitation into the consciousness of their most vulnerable prodigy: the children. It doesn’t transgress our imagination to hear recipient populations---schools, families, faith-based organizations---reckoning for cultural, communal and participatory engagement to safeguard becoming dispensable and culpable assistants in their annihilation.

    Therefore it behooves the collectives and collaterals of education and schooling policy to travail for an advocacy of intervention, accountability and sense-making to override a propensity for a “…deviation-amplifying feedback loop…” (Weick, 1993, p. 646). Change in schooling and education are handled differently by multinationals and local and internal stakeholders (such as community, family, students and; education leaders and teachers). Where they both converge is in their relationship to construct sustainable learning systems for a corpus of human capital.

    Amidst the fervor cause by political grandstanding testing the waters of resources and damages to national economic interests by immigration, terrorism and technological innovations meanwhile the face of the “ugly” American worker has changed. There are a list of permutations or formerly silenced narratives that are not infinite or bounded by extraneous forces such as globalization which is the “…restructuring and extension of networks of money, technologies, people and ideas and of their articulations with real spaces at different scales” (Rizvi as cited in Lam, 2006, p. 214). The essence of this essay is to describe the perspectives that accompany globalization that are not constrained in xenophobic conceptualizations about culture and learning: curriculum, diversity, justice and education-for-all.

    We live in the best-of-times and the worst-of-times because of technological innovations never before in history has society been as far reaching and destined for unforeseen life discoveries to transcend geopolitical borders “…To Go Boldly Where No Man Has Gone Before!” A historical analysis of the trek of schooling’s curriculum is far less optimistic consigned with the popular belief that education programs are boxcars on a collision course loaded with “other folks” children. Delpit (1988) explains this predicament of abusive acculturation by schooling policies where attenuation is on the “…culture of the upper and middle classes---of those in power” (p. 283). The priority of a school’s curriculum is transformed into a data-based tracking fixed on a learner’s class ranking or racial identity without leveling opportunities for actual participation in the design, development and implementation of meaningful instruction activities.

    Borrowing a stanza from Irving Berlin’s patriotic God Bless America’s “…Stand beside her and guide her…” are conflated with corporate downsizing, rightsizing and hostile take-over of learners’ motivation, interest, and choice to engage in situational learning. So far this discourse has illuminated the extant of immigration and globalizations’ catharsis by multinational corporations restructuring of the commonplaces of curriculum: student, teacher and society. They rethink patriotism as not confined by geopolitical boundaries hermetically locked in continental drift but amassed facilitators of “transnational social field[s]” (Levitte & Glick Schiller, as cited in Lam, 2006, p. 224). After traveling several times to South America, Brazil and Argentina, specifically, it always amused me how we make mockeries out of ourselves when we say “I’m from America” to be chided as being from the “States”.

    Looking at diversity in schooling and education settings we must examine the theoretical framework and pedagogical philosophies enshrined in a historical analysis of global initiatives on transculturalism or multiculuturism (Lam, 2006). Within this socially reconstructive medium---the classrooms, boardrooms---are each different and the same because of learning and diversity---how we see ourselves effect what we learn---are the tacit contexts which comprise Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (Vasquez, 2006, p. 35). School integration in the early 60’s in the United States exacerbated the education dilemma by merging a “…cosmopolitan agenda of universalized instructional goals and content, delivered and met through standardized methods, resulting in controllably produced problem-solving competencies and the disciplining of differences” (Hershock, 2010, p. 33).. NCLB sponsorship by the Bush Administration along with its nuisances of misappropriations did not alleviate this contingent of teacher proof curriculums and data-driven instruction. For example separate-but-equal doctrines for teaching differential curriculum now outdated gravitated toward donning White masks on all students into a faceless classroom engrossed in the fallacy of equal opportunity.

    Another significant disarray of educational challenges occurs when schools and academic professionals address the concept of justice and fairness for learning strategies. For instance, expectations for delivery services attuned to the composite and individuated voices and belief systems are sensitized supposedly by demands for accountability and achievement successes. This leaves the question as to “accountable to who, what?” Routinely under performing schools are acquiescently left to burn in the sands by proving that they were prophesized to fail anyway, any day!

    Gundaker’s (2007) historical analysis of African Americans literacy progress during slavery and reconstruction held liberal Whites suspect even though outwardly they exemplified modifications in their studies and education. What does antebellum schools and today’s schools have in common is their abandonment of literacy programs--- “different strokes” for academic achievement among “different folks”---the disenfranchised, poor and marginal learner. This aporia ascends from the neoconservatist propaganda for school choice, savings from vouchers, charter schools and decentralization of government mandates on education. Such Just-Us platforms undermine the concept of justice and fairness for opportunity to learn by all students.

    Apologetically, this essay offers a modest snapshot of how globalization impact on curriculum, diversity, justice and inclusive learning allows a progressive and liberal education to prosper in the creation of viable citizens. I further stretched the envelope to suggest that if we are to ascribe for education-for-all we must not isolate our schooling curriculum into a corner of “Us” versus “Them”. The challenge for modern education programs is to not “give-up” on narrowing the class distinctions between industrial and third-world governments. As Delpit (1988) succinctly adds, “[t]he dilemma is not really in the debate over instructional methodology, but in communicating across cultures… [to] determin[e] what is best for [all] children and children of [the world]” (p. 296).

    However, the promise of this discourse was to introduce the process whereby curriculum, diversity, justice and inclusive learning strategies safeguard multinationals from becoming a myopic culture. The schools are the gatekeepers of secondary socialization (of which, the family is the primary socialization) and multinationals are the escritoire for change. As they conduct business as usual around the globe with this adventure is the rationale for self-preservation and an eagerness for organizational learning. Self-preservation coupled with the spirit of laissez-faire---inherent in Western capitalism---plant the seeds of democracy and freedom. Partly the tarrying in the Middle East---The Arab Spring---echoed a call for unity to the cause: meaningful curriculum (social planning), diversity (respect), justice (fairness) and inclusive learning (conformity with 21st century global perspectives for social and economic change.

Reference

Delpit, L.D. (1988, August). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating otherpeople’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298. Retrieved fromProQuest database.

Gundaker, G. (2007, July). Hidden education among african americans during slavery. TeachersCollege Record, 109(7), 1591-1612. Retrieved from Wilson Web database.

Hershock, P.D. (2010). Higher education, globalization and the critical emergence of diversity.Paideusis, 19(1), 29-42. Retrieved from

http://journals.sfu.ca/paideusis/index.php/paideusis/article/view/244/147

Hirschman, C. & Mogford, E. (2009). Immigration and the american industrial revolution from1880 to 1920. Social Science Research, 38, 897-920. Retrieved from

www.elsevier.com/locate/ssresearch

Lam, W.S. (2006). Culture and learning in the context of globalization: Research directions.Review of Research in Education, 30, 213-236.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4129773

Vasquez, O.A. (2006). Cross-national explorations of sociocultural research on learning.Review of Research in Education, 30, 33-64. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4129769

Weick, K.E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The mann gulch disaster.Journal of Administrative Science Quarterly, 3(4), 622-652. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.