Sent by Dr. Mark H. Shapiro on 01-14-2008:
I did a quick check of the Teacher Education Program at Harvard's Graduate School of Education. Only 8 of the 54 credits required in the program focus on "diversity." It looks to me that Greene and Shock have done an extremely poor job of sorting out the facts in their article.
Could it be that they have some preconceived notions about ed schools that aren't entirely accurate? I agree that there is room for improvement, but lying about what the ed schools do is not the way to fix the problems.
Sent by Aliza Libman on 01-13-2008:
It is certainly true that many classes in many teacher ed programs are fluffy at best. As a teacher who slept through many such classes, I know that I learned more from a math teaching placement than from a math teaching class. Teacher ed needs to put teachers in classrooms (diverse or otherwise) so they can practice what they preach. The best teacher ed programs give prospective teachers as much face time as possible with real children being taught by excellent teachers.
Sent by Hal Bowman on 01-11-2008:
Don't count course titles, which is meaningless. A better metric would be how much instruction in each subject education students get as part of their certification programs. An elementary teacher needs instruction on teaching several subjects, including math. A secondary teacher would get his or her math skills from the math department, but would need training in math pedagogy from the ed school. Look at instruction time in techniques and compare it to time spent on multiculturalism. It might be best to also note the number of students in the various programs: a lot more high school teachers get trained at big state schools than at Stanford and the like.
A good education requires balance. Students should learn to appreciate a variety of cultures, sure, but they also need to know how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide. Judging from the courses that the nations leading education colleges offer, however, balance isnt a goal. The schools place far more emphasis on the political and social ends of education than on the fundamentals.
To determine just how unbalanced teacher preparation is at ed schools, we counted the number of course titles and descriptions that contained the words multiculturalism, diversity, inclusion, and variants thereof, and then compared those with the number that used variants of the word math. We then computed a multiculturalism-to-math ratioa rough indicator of the relative importance of social goals to academic skills in ed schools. A ratio of greater than 1 indicates a greater emphasis on multiculturalism; a ratio of less than 1 means that math courses predominate. Our survey covered the nations top 50 education programs as ranked by U.S. News and World Report, as well as programs at flagship state universities that werent among the top 50a total of 71 education schools.
The average ed school, we found, has a multiculturalism-to-math ratio of 1.82, meaning that it offers 82 percent more courses featuring social goals than featuring math. At Harvard and Stanford, the ratio is about 2: almost twice as many courses are social as mathematical. At the University of Minnesota, the ratio is higher than 12. And at UCLA, a whopping 47 course titles and descriptions contain the word multiculturalism or diversity, while only three contain the word math, giving it a ratio of almost 16.
Some programs do show different priorities. At the University of Missouri, 43 courses bear titles or descriptions that include multiculturalism or diversity, but 74 focus on math, giving it a lean multiculturalism-to-math ratio of 0.58. Penn States ratio is 0.39. (By contrast, the ratio at Penn States Ivy League counterpart, the University of Pennsylvania, is over 3.) Still, of the 71 programs we studied, only 24 have a multiculturalism-to-math ratio of less than 1; only five pay twice as much attention to math as to social goals.
Several obstacles impede change. On the supply side, ed-school professors are a self-perpetuating clique, and their commitment to multiculturalism and diversity produces a near-uniformity of approach. Professors control entry into their ranks by determining who will receive the doctoral credential, deciding which doctoral graduates get hired, and then selecting which faculty will receive tenure. And tenured academics are essentially accountable to no one.
On the demand side, prospective teachers havent cried out for more math courses because such courses tend to be harder than those involving multiculturalism. And the teachers know that their future employerspublic school districtsdont find an accent on multiculturalism troubling. Because public schools are assured of ever-increasing funding, regardless of how they do in math, they can indulge their enthusiasm for multiculturalism, and prospective teachers can, too.
Accrediting organizations also help perpetuate the emphasis on multiculturalism. In several states, law mandates that ed schools receive accreditation from the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). NCATE, in turn, requires education programs to meet six standards, one entirely devoted to diversity, but none entirely devoted to ensuring proper math pedagogy. Education schools that attempt to break from the cartels multiculturalism focus risk denial of accreditation.
Ensuring quality math instruction is no minor matter. The Programme for International Student Assessments latest results paint a bleak picture: U.S. 15-year-olds ranked 24th out of 30 industrial countries in math literacy, tying Spain and surpassing only Greece, Italy, Portugal, Mexico, and Turkey, while trailing Iceland, Hungary, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and all of our major economic competitors in Europe and Asia.
The issue isnt whether we should be teaching cultural awareness in education colleges or in public schools; its about priorities. Besides, our students probably have great appreciation already for students from other cultureswhore cleaning their clocks in math skills, and will do so economically, too, if we dont wise up.
Jay P. Greene is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is also the endowed head of the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, where Catherine Shock is a research associate.