This is an interesting point. I don't think multicultural education divides a nation, but rather promotes understanding, respect and inclusion by recognizing and valuing different perspectives. A strong and confident culture does not fear diversity because it embraces it. I think the belief that recognizing multiple cultural narratives weakens national unity actually stems from cultural insecurity. Inclusion does not mean division; on the contrary, it can strengthen societies by promoting dialogue, empathy and mutual respect. Unity is not uniformity, but coexistence in diversity.

This sentence effectively summarizes the broad and fundamental objectives of multicultural education. It emphasizes the need for individuals to develop the knowledge, attitudes and skills necessary to adapt to multiple cultural contexts. In an increasingly interconnected world, the ability to engage meaningfully with diverse perspectives is essential. However, despite the importance of this goal, the challenge lies in how education systems implement it. Multicultural education is often seen as an add-on to the curriculum rather than an integral part of it. For multicultural education to be truly effective, it must go beyond superficial inclusiveness and actively challenge prejudice to develop genuine intercultural understanding. Schools must create spaces where students can learn about different cultures.

I am pleased to know that the progress made since the civil rights and women's rights movements has been a real challenge and reshaped many aspects of the mainstream curriculum. However, while the dominance of the mainstream curriculum may not be as complete and rigid as it once was, it remains in many ways. Western male-centered narratives continue to influence the way history, literature, and other subjects are taught. The increase in many diverse perspectives remains superficial rather than transformative, often using marginalized voices as additions to the curriculum rather than integral parts of it. I think that real progress requires not only inclusiveness but also a fundamental shift in the structure and value of knowledge in education.

I fully agree with the author's call for this article not to view difference as a defect or a deviation from the norm. The idea of building a new society in which every person, especially children, are recognized for their rich potential, strengths, dignity, and advantages is one that I believe is truly transformative. By redefining difference as something that enriches society, rather than something to be corrected or feared, we can begin to break down harmful stereotypes and prejudices. This shift in perspective not only empowers marginalized groups, but also creates a more inclusive and supportive environment for everyone.

This stereotype makes me sad that we should pursue a more inclusive and compassionate learning environment. Teachers should do the same, instead of defining their students as poor simply through stereotypes and academic performance. A student should be judged from many perspectives, and one-sided evaluations will only affect a student's future!

This passage raises a longstanding and serious issue of the overrepresentation and inaccurate identification of students of color in special education. It makes me wonder why this is the case. Special education is supposed to help students who need extra support to thrive, but if these students are being misclassified or if the quality of education they are receiving is poor, is special education really working as it should? Even sadder is the fact that this trend has been going on for four decades, affecting generations of students, making their learning environment less conducive, and further diminishing their chances for the future. Perhaps unconscious bias on the part of teachers, socio-economic factors, etc. play a role in this, but whatever the cause, the education system should be more equitable and ensure that all students receive the support that is truly right for them, rather than being misclassified or overlooked because of race or poverty.

Although T.J. was placed in a small class under his I.E.P. (Individualized Education Program), it didn't make it any better. In fact, adapting to a new environment can be a challenge in itself, and small class sizes are not always appropriate for every student's needs. In contrast, a classroom of 30 students may have felt more natural and comfortable for T.J. because it was more in line with the general learning environment and may have reduced his anxiety during the adjustment process. I think the key to special education is not just small class sizes, but finding the most developmentally appropriate way to provide support and resources that truly meet their needs.

I think this passage clearly reveals the many challenges faced in the universalization and implementation of special education. Although students are entitled by law to appropriate special education support, the reality is that large numbers of students are not receiving the individualized instruction they deserve. This reflects not only problems with resource allocation, but also systemic management shortcomings, such as chronic technical failures in the computer systems used to track interventions, making it impossible for the education sector to even keep track in real time of whether students are receiving the necessary support. In addition, while overall graduation rates have improved, graduation rates for special education students remain low, indicating that the current education system has not yet achieved true equity. Effective implementation of special education requires more funding, management optimization, and professional training for educators to ensure that every student receives the support and resources they need.

I think that silence is inherently hurtful because it does not convey support and respect for the LGBTQ+ community. In the absence of formal discussion or acknowledgement, students may perceive LGBTQ+ identities as unacceptable or even something to be ignored. Similarly, neutrality can sometimes be seen as a form of neglect by failing to stand up to prejudice and discrimination. In educational settings, if we don't actively advocate for LGBTQ+ students and challenge harmful stereotypes, then this “neutrality” is actually a tacit endorsement of disrespect. Schools should therefore actively promote a culture of inclusion where every student feels respected and understood, rather than exacerbating their marginalization through silence.

Totally wrong! Education and schools are supposed to be about shaping minds, fostering critical thinking, and creating an environment that embraces diversity, not imposing some fixed sexual orientation or gender norm. Education is supposed to be a place for people to broaden their horizons and understand different perspectives, so why set up the premise that everyone is heterosexual by default? If schools only reinforce a single concept of gender and sexual orientation, I think this defeats the true meaning of education and ignores the diversity of the real society. Therefore, true education should be open and allow students to freely explore, understand and respect different identities, rather than passively accepting a single, imposed norm.

I think that heterosexism and heteronormativity not only marginalize non-heterosexual identities, but also reinforce rigid gender binaries. By assuming that heterosexuality is the norm, these beliefs perpetuate strict notions of what it means to be a “man” or a “woman” and reinforce gender stereotypes. This is problematic because it limits people's understanding of gender and sexuality, forcing individuals into predefined roles rather than allowing them to freely express their identity.

I think this accurately reflects the mindset of many Asian parents who prioritize academic success. For them, dating in high school is often seen as a distraction that could jeopardize their child's academics and future opportunities. Interestingly, however, once their children enter college, their expectations suddenly shift. Dating, once strictly forbidden, suddenly becomes something parents encourage, sometimes even hoping their child will find a serious relationship soon. I think this reflects a broader culture that emphasizes stability and long-term planning, where academic success comes first, but once education is seen as “secure”, marriage and family life are also highly valued.