A lot of attention has been paid to the ongoing fight over whether conservative views get "equal time" on college campuses. But it is probably the standards set for teaching public school teachers (who go on to teach the vast majority of children) that are more important, and more ripe for controversy. We need to be vigilant! From a
column in US News:
The cultural left has a new tool for enforcing political conformity in schools of education. It is called dispositions theory, and it was set forth five years ago by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education: Future teachers should be judged by their "knowledge, skills, and dispositions." What are "dispositions"? NCATE's prose made clear that they are the beliefs and attitudes that guide a teacher toward a moral stance. That sounds harmless enough, but it opened a door to reject teaching candidates on the basis of thoughts and beliefs. In 2002, NCATE said that an education school may require a commitment to social justice.
Oh, the humanity! Social justice?!? What an outrage. @@
Continued below...
NCATE vehemently denies that it is imposing groupthink, but the ed schools, essentially a liberal monoculture, use dispositions theory to require support for diversity and a culturally left agenda, including opposition to what the schools sometimes call "institutional racism, classism, and heterosexism."
[...]
Another battle over dispositions theory has been unfolding at Washington State University's college of education. The college threatened to terminate a student, Edward Swan, 42, for failing four "professional disposition evaluations." Swan, a religious man of working-class background, has expressed conservative opinions in class. He opposes affirmative action and doesn't believe gays should adopt children. His grades are good, and even his critics say he is highly intelligent. One teacher gave Swan a failing PDE after spotting the statement "diversity is perversity" in Swan's copy of a textbook.
What an ass. I surely wouldn't want this jerk teaching my kids!
Judy Mitchell, dean of the college of education, said the school would continue using the PDEs. A reporter asked her if Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia would pass a PDE if he were a student at the college. "I don't know how to answer that," Mitchell replied.
David French, president of FIRE [a right wing outfit masquerading as a "civil liberties" group], then jumped in. "I commend the dean for her honesty," he said. "But the answer is alarming because Scalia shouldn't fail any 'character' test because of his beliefs."
I actually think he should fail such a test. But I'll acknowledge that this sets up a bit of a conundrum for those of us in this field (I'm currently working toward certification as a math teacher) in terms of justifying using these standards across the country, even in red states.
I wouldn't dispute at all that, at least in my experience, the teacher education field has a heavy liberal lean, and I'm grateful for it. I can see, of course, how the other side could complain that this is "unfair". But then in practical terms, I can't see how we can allow for "diverse ideologies" in the teaching profession when this would allow people to be teachers and represent opinions that involve racial intolerance and so on. I think Washington State was absolutely right to be reluctant to certify someone who writes that "diversity is perversity".
But again, it would be good to have an argument ready if needed, to justify these standards beyond "well, we liberals are right and you conservatives suck". Sure, it happens to be true, but we need something that can't be attacked as simply taking a partisan political view (one that doesn't even control the government) and forcing it on every teacher at every public school in the country. Can anyone think of a good one?