I think that the most challenging aspect of Mexican American culture can be seen in their collectivist mindset. Although collaboration can be seen as one of the aspects of learning, individual assessment might be difficult in such cases. Another factor can be seen in maintaining a balance between the accommodations that students should go through and maintaining their cultural values. In that regard, “it is very important that these students keep their culture, keep their language, and not become a world of all one culture”.
For the teacher to be able to accommodate the cultural aspects, those aspects should be identified. In that regard, for Mexican Americans, a good approach can be seen through conducting home visits and getting acquainted with the local community, as well as identifying the skills that students developed at home (The Education Alliance at Brown University, 2003, p. 62). Considering that Mexican American families are patriarchal, the communication patterns of teachers also must take a patriarchal role. Communicating with communities, it should be stated that despite the patriarchal nature of Mexican American families in particular, and Latina families in general, in which fathers are the decision-makers in the family, teachers will likely have to communicate with mothers as they are mostly concerned with parenting. Fathers, on the other hand, are responsible for taking care of the family financially (Chang & Liou, 2009, p. 16).
Identifying the students’ cultural background and values, the teacher “should help students to articulate their cultural assumptions and values and to compare them with the assumptions and values of the school and the dominant culture” (Weinstein, Tomlinson-Clarke, & Curran, 2004, p. 33). In the context of religion, it should be stated that Mexican American children are more inclined to adopt the religious beliefs of their parents, and thus, contradicting values might pose a conflict between the culture at school and at home for the children. In that regard, the teacher shall learn from the community what “restrictions are there concerning topics that should not be discussed in school?” (Weinstein, Tomlinson-Clarke, & Curran, 2004, p. 31).
Another suggestion can be seen through utilizing students’, parents’, and/or communities’ funds of knowledge, which can be identified through the visits (Perez, 2004, p.282). As for differentiating collectivist and individual mindsets, I think that the best approach is to establish a difference between cases when either approach is preferred or condemned. For example, cheating should be clearly defined, with cases in which collective work can be considered cheating should be clearly articulated to students (Trumbull & Rothstein-Fisch, 2009, p. 325.) In other cases, collective work should not be condemned, being a part of students’ culture at home. A conflict between the culture at home and school might lead to that the school might recognize students’ strengths as weaknesses, putting students at disadvantage and lowering their academic expectations (Perez, 2004, p.86).
References
Chang, N.-Y., & Liou, T.-Y. (2009). A study of Latino Parenting Culture and Practices: Listening to the Voices of Latino Parents. Hsiuping Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 12, 1-36.
Perez, B., & McCarty, T. L. (2004). Sociocultural contexts of language and literacy (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
The Education Alliance at Brown University. (2003). Culture, Family, and Community. The Diversity Kit. Web.
Trumbull, E., & Rothstein-Fisch, C. (2009). Cultures in Harmony. In M. Scherer (Ed.), Engaging the Whole Child: Reflections on Best Practices in Learning, Teaching, and Leadership (pp. 321 – 328). Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.
Weinstein, C. S., Tomlinson-Clarke, S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward a Conception of Culturally Responsive Classroom Management. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 25-38.