next »

[luis]

I think it ought to be absolutely uncontroversial that students' dispositions should play a role in whether they are deemed capable of teaching or not.  The question is not whether we should be in the business of evaluating dispositions, but whether our perceptions of ideological differences play a role in how we evaluate dispositions.  I'm inclined to believe that ideology does have an effect, albeit not as large one as Horowitz and others would argue.

Student x might be--for example--a conservative Christian fundamentalist who thinks interracial marriage is undesirable, that gay people are condemned, and so on, and yet be entirely qualified to teach in school.  So long as x practices professionalism--educators have to act tolerant even when they are not--, x should be able to teach.  But the moment x starts behaving like Regional's teachers (read his post above), then x has lost--in my opinion--a right to teach.

By the very same token, I think that liberals like ourselves (I guess I am speaking mostly to liberals) have a responsibility to be tolerant and respectful of ideas that are not our own, and must resist the temptation to make the classroom into a place in which liberal values are instilled.  I would love to teach others to be tolerant--after all, I am a member of a minority group, I have homosexual friends and family whom I respect and love, and I am not religious, let alone Christian--, but in general I don't think it would be appropriate for me to fight, from a position of authority in the classroom, against the conservative fundamentalism of my students' parents.

On the other hand, conservative criticism of ideology in the classroom is quite disingenuous, I believe.  For, if liberal values are not to be advertised and promoted in the classroom, neither should conservative values.  The pledge of allegiance, in particular--and forget the silly "under God" clause for a second--, is an affront to the idea that the classroom is not a place for indoctrination.

----------

PS: someone above mentions that conservative teachers are more tolerant of minority sports.  Surely, his or her evidence is anecdotal.  My experience as an immigrant has been quite different.

[Phil Bralich]

Whether one is left or right, the only reason that someone would want to use disposition as a critieria is because they want to use their personal prejudices to exclude people & opinions they don't like from their classrooms or fields.  It certainly would have nothing to do with justice or reason and, more often than not, I am sure it is soundly grounded in a resentment of being questioned -- perhaps being effectively challenged by a youthful mind or student who was supposed to be more condescending to the received view and practiced presentation of the authority in the front of the classroom.  

There is no rational way that teachers can make determinations of disposition in the short period of time that they know these young, maleable, possibly rebelious young adults without recourse to a pretense to "wisdom," "a better grade of life experience," "sainthood," "enlightenment" or other equally unmeasurable qualifications to do so.  And this perhaps is the real goal.  Tired of being held accountableto sane standards, they want to build their hubris into the system.  

Any professional educators  hoodwinked by a grade on "disposition" should be ashamed of themselves and should take some to introspect and discover what it is they don't like about the students who they are abusing in this manner or the positions they espouse.  They should be especially careful to note the possibilty that the right wing positions of the students could be as much a youthful rebellion against them as were the youthful rebels of the left against their preceding generation.  

You can no more grade these students on disposition or exclude these students from being a teacher than you can run Newt Gingrich out of his Professorship.  It should be just as difficult to run out a card carrying Nazi as it would be to run out a card carrying communist.  Using disposition as a grading device to remove those one may find challenging is just as useful for either side and it should be stopped.  Those who are doing it on the left will likely find it occurring on the right soon thereafter.  From then it will never be a matter or reason that determines success.  It will solely be those dispositions with the greatest numbers at that time.  The Rational, Reasoned, and Creative witll be replaced by the Irrational, Emotional, and Destructive.  

Phil Bralich

[David Murray]

What's most disturbing to me is the way that gatekeepers can disguise political attitudes as "professional qualifications," 'with very few outside checks. I saw something similar happen in English departments, as political attitudes became enshrined as phony "fields of expertise" (and thereby exempted from debate), allowing hiring committees to respond, "Your politics? Of course we aren't interested in job candidates' politics! I'm offended at the idea....it's just that we need an expert in post-colonial queer theory, and your qualifications don't fit the bill."

[MB, college professor]

After going over the previous postings related to the topic, I have one question that does not seem to have been addressed by my colleagues who note "the leftist ideology." If we were to stick to the concept of teaching as a simple set of strategies to use (like a laundry list) in a non-contextualized manner, how could we ensure that by "teaching the right way" we solve the problems in society? Extrapolating that kind of reasoning, what is it that we have to do "the right way" to eliminate such societal issues? In other words, going back to the idea of teaching "the good old fashion way," can can we even conceive of "fairness" by teaching all students in a rather uniform, "scientific" way? One answer to that question (actually favoring that viewpoint) is to consider our students as "tabula rasa" ... Where is the fairness in that then?

[CW]

The hypocrisy behind these "disposition" screenings is staggering.  Reminds me of a Dean's advisory committee I was at before the last presidential election.  Everyone was using meeting time to moan about Bush and one colleague even suggested that the country's conservative bent was due to a failure in the schools.  The bottom line is that these great thinkers who supposedly encourage students to be "open-minded" define open-mindedness as their tendency to agree with their worldviews.  I used to think higher education made people immune from irrational thought, but I was obviously wrong.

[L]

Isn't it also appropriate to look at the "habits of mind" that candidates bring to the teaching task?  How can we assess curiosity, persistence with a student, attention to detail, and love for learning?

As I consider assessing dispositions of future teachers, I believe that I need to be thinking about more than a student's "upbeat" nature or ability to smile in the face of 3rd graders off task.

How will we pass along a love of learning, a sense of purpose about teaching, or any desire to find out more if we are not possessed of these habits of mind?

[Linda, Instructor]

The question is, should the personal beliefs of a prospective teacher impact the ability to earn teaching certification?  In my opinion, the answer is yes and no.  On one hand, being liberal, conservative, Christian, male, gay, or whatever shouldn't matter.  I try to keep my own political and religious beliefs out of classroom discussions because I think the teacher's views can be the elephant in the corner.  It's still possible to entertain many sides of an argument or discussion without declaring one's beliefs, although I know that there are some who consider this a weak position.  Nevertheless, I don't think it is ever appropriate for a professor to try to force ideas on students.  It doesn't matter if the professor is liberal or conservative.  Open discussion and mutual respect should always be the order of the day.

As far as this relates to prospective teachers, I think that if the professors of teacher education observe that an ed. major is trying to exert this kind of pressure in the classroom and does not allow a variety of viewpoints to be aired, they have an obligation to speak up.  In that case, personal beliefs might include the idea that forcing one's opinions on others is appropriate.

[%sig%]

[The Emperor's Clothes]

TBD wrote:

"'I'm a decided liberal, but I think ideological acid tests
should not be used...I'm convinced that an open approach has a better chance of creating active, engaged citizens than a prescriptive approach. I think the "beat on their heads" approach frequently has paradoxical effects as students react to the instructor’s ideological arrogance. " '

Thank you TBD. I am decidedly more center-right in politics, and I couldn't have said it better. I believe in fiscal conservatism, and mostly conservative social values (not all), but I do not believe that those ideas should be forced on children in a classroom. Whatever happened to people figuring things out for themselves, with kids "finding themselves?" We only limit our children and ourselves if we do not allow open debate of ideas and values.

What if a teacher-in-training makes an unorthodox argument in class? For instance, suppose an education professor is discussing the implications of the establishment clause for public school teachers and asks the students to write a paper about it.  One of this professor's students argues in her paper that she is theoretically opposed to the ban on teaching any one religion in public schools, advocating instead that the Free Exercise Clause provides for her religious freedom to advocate for Christianity? What then? Should this person be allowed to earn teacher certification when she has made it know that she has a problem with the separation of church and state in the classroom? The fact is, this student has only argued for the case against church and state separation, but has not actually gone into a classroom and preached Christianity. She made an argument supporting a theory, and nothing more. Should she then be dismissed from the program for merely advancing an argument that the professor does not agree with?  I think if you say yes, she should be dismissed from the program, you are guilty of being a closed-minded slave to orthodoxy, and worse, of being an oppressor yourself.  

I have a very liberal aunt who is currently pursuing a Masters in Teaching and even she is regularly astonished at the amount of "bull***t" she encounters in her curriculum. She has been in the program for a year and she says she has yet to be exposed to any real methods and strategies for doing any actual teaching. So much of the material has been of this silly, childish PC nature, and she says her professors are constantly pushing the "social justice" agenda referred to in this piece. How can we expect such programs to produce quality teachers when they do not teach them how to teach?  
 
 Teaching the subjects is the first and foremost duty of teachers, so the focus of teacher education programs needs to get away from all the social engineering and back on the teaching of the subject matter. Most everything else in the teacher ed. curriculum should either contribute to teaching of the subjects, or be removed from these programs. There is simply no place for ideological cheerleading in the education of our teachers.

[The Emperor's Clothes]

Linda, thank you for your very reasonable, sane, smart, and fair answer.  You are a credit to your profession.

[The Emperor's Clothes]

> > Some education schools have begun evaluating their students
> not
> > only on their academic work, communication skills, and
> > classroom practice, but also on their "dispositions," such as
> a
> > commitment to "social justice" and sensitivity to "white
> > privilege."

What about the privileges of Oprah Winfrey, Kofi Annan, Condoleezza Rice, Richard D. Parsons (CEO of Time Warner), Brigida Benitez (Partner in major law firm with clients in the top 50 of the Fortune 500), Stanley O'Neal (COO of Merrill Lynch), Ken Chenault (CEO of American Express), Alberto Gonzalez, Shaquille O'Neal, Tiger Woods, Denzel Washington, Wesley Snipes, Morgan Freeman, Edward James Olmos, Whoopi Goldberg, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Jesse Jackson, Representative Maxime Waters, Representative John Conyers, Mayor Anthony Williams, Mayor Ray Nagin, Senator Daniel Akaka, Jennifer Lopez, Eddie Murphy, 50 Cent, P Diddy, (and countless other very rich hip hoppers).... None of these people are white, but all are quite privileged by the standards of most reasonable people.
 
Some of these professors need to start recognizing that this isn't pre-1950's America anymore. A lot has changed and a lot of groups have come a long way. Yes, there is still much that could be better, but to act as if America is automatically an abysmal place for anyone who isn't white  is really ridiculous at this point in our history.

[Worried for the Future]

"There is simply no compelling evidence for widespread liberal indoctrinination beyond the anecdotal complaints of individuals with their own agendas. In my own, admittedly anecdotal experience, conservative students who join the chorus of Horowitz and Fox news can never produce specific examples to support their claims of bias."




I find this high-handed dismissal of a serious and pervasive problem as "anecdote" astonishing.  I also have to wonder at the contradictory claim that no specific examples of political indoctrination have been cited: What then is the "anecdotal experience" you derisively mention?



This is very the heart of the problem and why David  Horowitz's ABOR exists: If people in the schools arrogantly refuse to even acknowledge the problem of political abuse in the classroom, there is no choice but to impose accountability on them from outside.


BTW, these "anecdotes" have in fact been quantified in a recent study, though I have to research to recall who carried out that study: In that study, roughly half of all undergraduates stated that they feel obliged to parrot narrow political views in order to get good grades from leftist instructors. The only solace I have is to see that people are waking up to the abuse, and many of us are doing our best to fight it from within the classroom.

[Rick Norwood, Professor, ETSU]

One favorite tactic of many so-called conservatives is the ol' bait & switch trick.  

The bait is political correctness.  They point out that colleges of education require of their students an attitude which indicates that, when they graduate and become teachers, they will not discriminate against children who are Black or Jewish, female or poor.

The switch is that they go on to pretend that colleges of education discriminate against students who oppose abortion and gun control.  There is no evidence for this.  All of the documents specify what kind of attitudes are unacceptable -- racist or sexist attitudes.  So why are both abortion and gun control so prominent in the article, and in the complaints of conservatives.

The answer is obvious: because it is hard to defend the right to be racist and sexist.

[Rick Norwood, Professor, ETSU]

"BTW, these "anecdotes" have in fact been quantified in a recent study, though I have to research to recall who carried out that study..."

In other words, you have an anecdote that says the complaints are more than just anecdotes.

[Observer]

I am encouraged by the balanced responses in this forum.  I'm surprised, however, that no one has noted the self-concept/competency disconnects that have been verified time and again.  Put most simply, our students have better self-concepts than those of the students of many other nations, but they perform at a lower level.  I certainly don't believe that our children should be brutalized, but I believe that they are brutalized, in a sense, when they are not required to master basic material.  There is a strong touchy/feely dimension to 'disposition' testing, one that squares with other ed/establishment practices.  Can't our students be treated humanely and lovingly and also learn mathematics, science, history and grammar?  If they are self-confident and self-possessed as a result of true competency, would this not be a good thing?

[LitProf]

Dr. Norwood:

The terms "racist" and "sexist" are, I believe, part of this disconnect.

If by racist and sexist beliefs, you meant something like: "Blacks should not have the right to vote; Women should not be allowed to wear slacks; those who aren't property owners shouldn't be allowed to attend universities" -- if those are the racist and sexist beliefs that you mean, then we are in agreement and I could understand a case being made to deny teaching certification to students who professed those beliefs.  

However, those terms tend to morph into something more like this: "Racist=not supportive of affirmative action; =not a member of the ACLU; =opposed to racial quotas; =pro welfare reform; Sexist=opposed to gay marriage; =opposed to NOW's agenda."