Posted on 02/07/2005 9:21:51 AM PST by robowombat
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Ill Disposed K.C. Johnson, Brooklyn College–CUNY
Over the last decade, a new requirement has emerged in teacher-training programs around the country. According to the standards outlined by the National Council for Accreditation in Teacher Education (NCATE), prospective teachers must possess the "knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn." We can easily identify "knowledge" and "skills." But what exactly is "dispositions" theory? And why should people outside of the Education establishment be very much concerned about it?
In its 2000 statement of standards, NCATE defined dispositions as "the values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence behaviors towards students, families, colleagues, and communities and affect student learning, motivation, and development as well as the educator's own professional growth." By 2002, the national accrediting agency was also mentioning a new definition: requiring would-be teachers to hold a prescribed set of beliefs on issues that the education school or department deems important -- such as a commitment to diversity or social justice.
"For example," the accrediting agency's 2002 assessment document noted, if an education department has "indicated that a commitment to social justice is one disposition it expects of teachers who can become agents of change, then it is expected that unit assessments include some measure of a candidate's commitment to social justice."
To repeat: the national accrediting agency for education schools and departments has said that it's acceptable for prospective public school teachers to be evaluated on the basis of their political beliefs.
Annual conferences of education professors and administrators devoted to dispositions made this point clear, with presentations based on such claims as: "One of the most difficult, but important, dispositional perceptions to cultivate in a pre-service teacher is that of teacher as a catalyst for social reform." "Education is inherently a moral enterprise. Therefore, we need teachers who possess knowledge and discernment of what is good or virtuous, who have the courage to act on their beliefs, who are committed to justice, and who truly care about students, parents, and society." Educational equity requires cultivating "awareness that different cultures may require different teaching practices. However, the need for different teaching strategies or practices cannot be accommodated when teachers are not aware of or sensitive to what those needs are." A brief look at how education schools have applied the "dispositions" standard reveals how easily this requirement can become a tool for professors -- in a field notorious for its lack of intellectual diversity -- to screen out potential public school teachers who hold undesirable political beliefs. Education schools from UNLV to Teachers College to George Mason to IUPUI to Brooklyn College all have some sort of requirement linking dispositions to demonstrating a "commitment to social justice."
Yet deciding what constitutes "social justice" is an inherently political, not educational, judgment. Many people, for instance, consider opposition to abortion a litmus test of a person's "commitment to social justice." Others might argue -- indeed, many in Congress do argue -- that social justice is not possible without a commitment to retaining the traditional family structure, or increasing the role of religion in American life, or even restructuring the tax code to create more of an ownership-based society. Yet I strongly doubt that the vast majority of education school professors would deem any of these policies as showing support for social justice.
In its most pernicious form, dispositions theory is a tool for education schools to ensure that the next generation of public school students is educated solely by those teachers who have accepted their professors' ideological agenda. Perhaps state legislators might want to look hard at this issue.
Translation: Teach homosexual acceptance and engagement or don't teach at all.
From the NCATE web site:
"Candidates in all programs must successfully complete a series of courses that explore the histories and cultures of the major racial and ethnic groups in the country and how culture impacts teaching and learning."
Which means that teachers-in-training will have to spend more time in pseudo-courses (gender/womyn's/black studies) than in rigorous academics.
(The quote is from a link on http://www.ncate.org/boeTraining/mod4_concept_frame/diversity.asp . You have to register to see this page.)
They've had a liberal litmus test for years. All they're doing now is formalizing it further. They will never admit it, but anybody with conservative personal convictions and an unwillingness to promote immorality and socialism will be effectively barred from the teaching profession.
A lawsuit would have to wait until an aggrieved party is actually hurt by the implementation of this policy, eg. denied his/her civil right to equal employment opportunity with consequent loss of income, etc. However, nothing prevents interested parties from sending out lawyers' letters now. A little sabre rattling can go a long way.
not "will" - have/are
Will you settle for "have been, are and will be"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.