Final Draft

Colorado Teacher Education 2000
A Review of Four Institutions

 

A Report of
The National Association of Scholars

David Warren Saxe
Principal Investigator
The Pennsylvania State University
Member,. Pennsylvania State Board of Education

April 2000

National Association of Scholars
221 Witherspoon Street, Second Floor
Princeton, New Jersey 08542‑3215
609‑683‑7878
609‑683‑0316 FAX
www.nas.org

 

[horizontal lines (e.g., above) indicate large deletions between excerpts. See unabridged & unedited version for material deleted in this version.]

The institutional review/results follow an introductory section on the nature of higher education in 2000, particularly examining the role of NCATE in teacher accreditation and the role of a particular set of views about social justice in shaping teacher education programs. The introductory section is presented for those not familiar with higher education as well as background for reading the institutional reviews and results.

The chart found on the following page is supplied as an overview of the comparison between essential thinking, which the author takes as the mindset for SB 99‑154 and the Colorado Model Content Standards, and progressive thinking, which the author takes as the mindset for present theory and practice in teacher education.

Comparison between Essentialist and Progressive Approaches to Education

Descriptor	Essentialist Pedagogy	Progressive “Social Justice” Pedagogy
Content	Identified core curricula	Open‑ended, self‑selection
Methods	Direct instruction, cognitive base, textbooks, grades, memory base.	Indirect instruction, constructivism, discovery learning, metacognitive, multiple intelligences, whole language, cooperative learning, . individualized instruction
Assessment	Objective testing, empirical data, standardized tests	Prefer “authentic individuated” assessment, relying on such devices as portfolios
Compatibility	Eclectic, pragmatic, content oriented	Uses terminology of “inclusion,” but is generally closed to viewpoints that don’t equally “affirm” diverse cultures
Primary Emphasis of Curriculum	Basics (knowledge/skills) in history, civics, geography, math, science, and language arts	All curricula must emphasize or be based on issues of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and ablism, among other related themes
Support in Higher Education	Rarely supported in schools of education	Endorsed by most schools of education and typically supported by university and administrators
Leading Theorists	Diane Ravitch, ED Hirsch, Jr, Chester E, Finn, Jr,, William Bennett	John Dewey, Paulo Freire, Howard Gardner, James Banks
Authority for action	State and Federal Law	Progressive education theory

 

Colorado Teacher Education 2000:
A Review of Four Institutions

Preface

Any review of teacher education requires a context; this means getting at the nitty‑gritty of what’s behind educational reform. At the outset, we must agree (or have faith) that no party to the educational process is intentionally seeking to harm the education or educational opportunities of children. However, it must be understood that every approach to educational reform involves certain costs and benefits as well as consequences, some of which may be unintended.

This review is from a teacher educator with more than a dozen years in higher education plus another ten years of experience as a teacher in basic education (much of that experience in suburban schools with few minorities, with the balance in an urban school with a large majority of minority population). This reviewer is also a member of a state board of education and is therefore, like the sponsors of this project, a practitioner in the process of policy making. Finally, this reviewer is a historian of education, who has studied various reforms in education over the past 100 years. These experiences have conditioned me to look beyond rhetoric and posturing to drive at the core of issues.

Introduction‑Progressive Pedagogy and the Pursuit of Social Justice

To understand the state of Colorado teacher education, I believe it is necessary to understand what passes as conventional educational theory and practice. It is not very difficult to identify what separates current teacher education from the past. If anything it is an overwhelming sense of obligation to advance educational theory and practice based on three related ideas: diversity, multiculturalism, and social justice. This latter idea, social justice, essentially encompasses the others and is the most powerful of the three.

There once was a time when educators had a clear mandate simply to teach the three Rs, together with occasional doses of traditional Judeo‑Christian morality. No longer. A primary aim of current pedagogy is to shape and change the way children (and citizens) think about race, gender, sexual orientation, and the environment, among other connected ideas. It seeks to determine the way people think about traditional values, religious convictions, and other moral and personal issues. This aim directs the way teachers and students think about content, skills, and moral dispositions (the essentials of schooling). In practice, social justice advocates are not merely seeking justice for certain perceived minority groups; they are seeking to change the whole of society in accord with their world view.

In order to make sense of this review, the reader must understand the progressive concept of social justice as it is applied in higher education (and collaterally directed at public schools) as well as understand more traditional approaches to education as applied through state law and regulation. To comprehend the distinctive feature of social justice pedagogy it would be well to compare it to its onetime rival in the public schools, essentialism.

While essentialism has a larger political relevance, the preparation of minds equipped to exercise the responsibilities of free citizenship, it is not partisan. Essentialism highlights objectivity, the search for truth, intellectual pluralism, and the importance of essential knowledge and skills. In schools, essentialism centers on direct and proven instructional methods where teachers are fully knowledgeable and skillful in the teaching of particular subject matter. Finally, essentialism places a premium on basic skills, discipline based knowledge, and scholastic achievement. Most importantly, though stigmatized by its opponents as “conservative,” there is nothing in essentialism that marks a child or teacher as a political conservative or that would prevent a child or teacher from holding any of a wide range of views. The same cannot be said for social justice pedagogy.

This report is written from the point of view of an essentialist looking into an educational world largely committed to social justice pedagogy. My criticisms of social justice pedagogy as applied in higher education are presented for the benefit of government officials and policy makers.

What all parties know is that the State of Colorado has taken legislative action in presenting a standards based/performance‑based K‑12 educational program. The State of Colorado has also taken legislative action to institute standards‑based/performance‑based teacher education programs. Finally, the State of Colorado has asserted that it will close down any teacher education program that fails to comply with state approved laws, policies, or regulations. What is not widely understood outside of academia is the fact that recent state actions are fundamentally inconsistent with existing teacher training programs committed to social justice pedagogy. The four Colorado Institutions reviewed here (Mesa State College, University of Colorado at Boulder, University of Northern Colorado, and Metro State) are no exceptions. As a preface to this review, it is therefore necessary to distinguish social justice pedagogy from the essentialist educational approach.

Comparison between Essentialist and Progressive Approaches to Education

Descriptor	Essentialist Pedagogy	Progressive “Social Justice” Pedagogy
Content	Identified core curricula	Open‑ended, self‑selection
Methods	Direct instruction, cognitive base, textbooks, grades, memory base.	Indirect instruction, constructivism, discovery learning, metacognitive, multiple intelligences, whole language, cooperative learning, . individualized instruction
Assessment	Objective testing, empirical data, standardized tests	Prefer “authentic individuated” assessment, relying on such devices as portfolios
Compatibility	Eclectic, pragmatic, content oriented	Uses terminology of “inclusion,” but is generally closed to viewpoints that don’t equally “affirm” diverse cultures
Primary Emphasis of Curriculum	Basics (knowledge/skills) in history, civics, geography, math, science, and language arts	All curricula must emphasize or be based on issues of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and ablism, among other related themes
Support in Higher Education	Rarely supported in schools of education	Endorsed by most schools of education and typically supported by university and administrators
Leading Theorists	Diane Ravitch, ED Hirsch, Jr, Chester E, Finn, Jr,, William Bennett	John Dewey, Paulo Freire, Howard Gardner, James Banks
Authority for action	State and Federal Law	Progressive education theory

What is Social Justice Pedagogy?

Marilyn Cochran‑Smith’s article “Learning to teach for social justice” in the Ninety‑eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (1999) is as good a starting point for answering this question as any found in the literature. I purchased my copy of this work at the campus bookstore at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Smith begins her definition of 64 social justice” with this statement:

Although not completely synonymous in the literature, the terms “teaching and teacher education for social justice” or “ … social change” or “social responsibility” bear a strong resemblance to one another … I use these terms more or less interchangeably to signify the following argument: Teachers cannot fix the problems of society by “teaching better,” nor can teachers alone, whether through individual or group efforts, alter the life chances of children they teach, particularly if the larger issues of structural and institutional racism and inequity are not addressed. (116).

Note that Smith’s evolving description of social justice reverses the conventional wisdom about what a teacher should be trying to do by “teaching better”: that is, to make a difference in a single child’s life. Smith minces no words as she explains that

As a teacher committed to social justice, I have steadfastly insisted that there are no recipes, no best practices, no models of teaching that work across differences in schools, communities, cultures, subject matters, purposes, and home‑school relationships. I have eschewed narrowly focused “methods” courses, claiming that teaching for social change is not a matter of method … Instead I have emphasized that the teacher is an intellectual who generates knowledge, that teaching is a process of co‑constructing knowledge and curriculum with students, and that the most promising ways of learning about teaching … are based on inquiry within communities rather than training for individuals (114‑15).

For Smith (who has captured the social justice rhetoric in full), there can be no canon of subject matter, no prescription of program, no state directed “standards” to be applied to all children, and most importantly, no “training for individuals” for would‑be teachers in advance of actual instruction. Readers will note that precise and/or prescriptive state standards run contrary to the conviction that there are “no models of teaching that work across differences in schools.” If state standards are incompatible with social justice pedagogy, what are teachers to do? Smith answers,

Underlying all versions of the argument [for social justice] is the idea that teaching and teacher education are fundamentally political activities and that it is impossible to teach in ways that are not political and not value‑laden … Part of teaching for social justice, then, is deliberately claiming the role of educator as well as activist based on political consciousness and on ideological commitment to diminishing the inequities of American life (116).

Others agree with Smith. Edith Guyton (2000) writes, “If we want social justice in our society and in our schools, we have to consider what teacher education for social justice means. How we educate our teachers can foster or impede social justice.” In other words, if “we” do not “educate” for social justice, we fail. David Berliner (1999) is more direct. Noting the work of Thomas Barone, Berliner argues

Besides knowledge and skills we ordinarily teach, we owe our students an ideology. Not our personal ideology, necessarily, but an ideology, one that is compatible with the best thinking we have about children, teaching, learning and schooling. When we have trained a teacher who has that kind of ideology, we hold that we have developed a strong professional educator (italics in the original].

Social justice to such teacher educators as Smith, Guyton, Barone, and Berliner is not just an academic term for helping unfortunate and poor minority children; it is an idea that is closely linked to a set of beliefs that are directly connected to politics and a preferred political order.

Given our constitutional constraints, there is at least one major obstacle for Smith and company; before we let our social justice infused teacher educators and their mimics march off to battle all that ails our communities and nation, we should ask, who appointed the social justice brigade to charge windmills at the state’s expense? If one wants to “deliberately claim” a role as an official agent of social change, is it not necessary to secure the people’s mandate first? In the past if a social crusader sought “social change” (that is, without the people’s mandate), he or she worked as a private citizen through churches and other private institutions.

The educator’s self‑proclaimed calling to social justice is not a political activity in the conventional sense. Professor Smith of Boston College was not elected by the citizens of Massachusetts to proselytize social justice to her captive and naive audience. Moreover, Smith’s requirement that teaching and teacher education be rooted in social justice is also not a political conclusion reached by the good citizens of Massachusetts. In fact, no part of social justice theory and practice is in any way connected to the electorate. None of the theories and practice of social justice pedagogy has been put to citizens for a vote or even put to students for a vote. If the advocates of such pedagogy are in error or cause harm or abuse with so‑called social justice theory and practice, the people cannot punish or “vote” any of them out of office, for they have the protection of “academic freedom” and perhaps tenure and are therefore completely immune to any accountability to the people they pretend to serve.

On whose authority do social justice advocates operate? Smith answers,

Teaching for social justice is based on critical understandings of the larger social, historical, and political dynamics of teaching and schooling. These understandings are drawn from several different but interrelated political and intellectual movements, some more than a century old and others emerging more recently‑ European critical social and economic theory (for example the works of Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, and the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory); the American civil rights movement and subsequent efforts to develop multicultural, anti‑racist, and/or culturally relevant pedagogy, struggles for liberatory education in Latin America, particularly as conceptualized in the literacy work of Paulo Freire; North American critical educational theory; and critical ethnographic, sociocultural, and gender studies of language, learning, and schooling.

In sum, social justice theory is certainly not something from Dorothy’s Kansas or any other public venue where “social theory” is based upon fundamental liberties identified in such documents as the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the United States Constitution.

Given this, what precisely do social justice pedagogues want? Again, Smith answers,

social justice is animated by several basic premises. Schools (and how “knowledge,” “curriculum,” “assessment,” and “access” are constructed and understood in schools) are not neutral grounds but contested sites where power struggles are played out … [where] schools and schooling help perpetuate dominance for dominant groups and oppression for oppressed groups … Curriculum and instruction are neither neutral or natural. The academic organization of information and inquiry reflects contested views about what knowledge is of most value … [T]eaching about social justice is teaching that is openly committed to a more just social order … [the] kind of pedagogy that is intended to help students understand and prepare to take action against social and institutional inequities that are embedded in our society (117‑18).

Social justice pedagogy isn’t just an intellectual adventure; it’s a lifetime responsibility for everyone involved from teacher educators to student teachers to their future students to parents and all citizens. And this social change is provided without any political wrangling, agitating, campaigning, compromises, politicians, or having to get those pesky majorities. The primary and secondary classroom provides a clear and open road.

Putting aside Professor Smith and her Colorado social justice brigades, what is the traditional justice position? The opposite of social justice is found in state and federal law where constitutional principles and individual rights forbid the imposition of any ideology or dogma, and insist on the inculcation of the basic knowledge and skills that enable students to make their own intellectual choices.

The Connection to Colorado

How does the tension between social justice and traditional justice relate to schools? Has Smith and company’s social justice pedagogy affected Colorado’s public schools and its higher education system? And what has all this to do with Colorado’s teacher education programs? In a word, everything.

The review at hand contrasts two forces, the state through its elected and appointed officials who are constrained to follow state and federal laws on the one hand, and, on the other, a teacher education establishment that finds the law less important than its own transcending conception of social justice. The state has the authority to loosen the hold of ideology and return higher and basic education to its traditional mission of fostering free thought and useful knowledge. The time has come for it to begin exercising that authority.

State sponsored education is inherently a conservative activity in the positive, preservative, nonpolitical sense. From the great pool of available knowledge and skills, the state selects a body of preferred knowledge and skills to impart to children. This body of knowledge and skills is delineated in state standards. While the selection of items may have some general goals in mind, such as the fostering of democratic citizenship, no state standard should direct a child’s beliefs toward any particular orthodoxy.

Nonetheless, state standards should be specific and detailed, outlining and explaining what all children of the state are to know and be able to do. Such standards should make clear the subject matter that every educator in the state should be teaching, make clear to local and state officials what shall be assessed and who shall be accountable for the results of state and local assessments. State standards, so defined, ought also to imply accountability for all partners in the public educational system, including and specifically local schools and teacher education institutions. State standards without specificity and accountability serve no vital state purpose and provide no assurances to the public.

Certainly, many schools serve their children well and, with or without state standards, teachers and administrators of such schools will continue to provide outstanding educational programs.

State standards in this context mirror the work of high achieving schools by extending to all public schools the best academic and accountability practices.

The happy news for citizens of Colorado is that excellent state standards have been established. Of equal importance, the state through its elected and appointed officials has demonstrated the will to ensure alignment of State K‑12 educational standards to teacher education programs. A complete restructuring of teacher licensing has been ordered and all effected institutions have been called upon to respond to the new demands for performance‑based teacher education or lose teacher‑ licensing privileges. The path selected by state officials is the only one likely to achieve good results, but it is not for the naive or timid.

The Review

This informal and independent review of four selected teacher education institutions is based upon materials supplied by the institutions as well as on‑site observations. Assessments and observations of individual institutions were then matched to existing and proposed state policies and practices.

This report includes:

•    background on issues and initial problems to resolve;

•    separate assessments of teacher education programs (Mesa, CU, UNC, and Metro) that support teacher licensure. Each separate assessment shall include general operation comments and observations, specific program recommendations, and suggestions for each institution’s role in teacher education;

•    identification and assessment of those program elements that are either unrelated and/or marginally related to Colorado’s K‑ 12 content standards;

•    assessment of strengths and weaknesses of teacher education programs as they relate to selected performance standards outlined in Colorado SB 154;

•    recommendations for performance measures, evaluation tools or approaches to assess the redesigned programs;

•    recommendations for state assistance and/or acceleration of existing efforts to guide transition present programs to the new performance‑based model; and

•    specific assessment and recommendations for social studies K‑12 teacher education.

 

Initial Problems:
National Accreditation and Colorado Mandates?

The first problem to resolve is the. relationship between Colorado’s teacher education institutions and national accreditation agencies. All four institutions under review had either recently undergone, are preparing for, or have applied for review by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). While at one time NCATE (or other national accreditation) was necessary, at present the Colorado Commission on Higher Education is silent on any institutional requirement for accreditation outside of regular State educational agencies.

Given that the state is silent on national accreditation, the issue is plain: individual institutions should satisfy Colorado licensure requirements before they can invite NCATE to campus for an independent review. But what if the current NCATE accreditation is at odds with Colorado’s standards‑based education requirements?

The larger issue is the proper role and benefit of seeking national accreditation, to wit: Does NCATE really satisfy the needs of Colorado?

In theory, national accreditation offers a measure of assurance that Colorado teacher education programs meet the “national standards” of NCATE.

The question is whether accreditation with NCATE‑or any other “national” or “regional” agencies‑is compatible with fidelity to state policies and requirements.

The issue of applying NCATE mandates raises the issue of “Which master does an institution follow,” the State of Colorado or NCATE? This question is rendered more complex by the fact that NCATE defers to a host of special interests groups when determining whether an institution is compliant in specialized areas of teacher training.

The question then requires not only an examination of NCATE but each of the following organizations: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AABPERD); American Library Association (ALA); Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI); Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT); Council for Exceptional Children (CEC); Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCQ; International Reading Association (ARA); International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE); International Technology Education Association/Council on Technology Teacher Education (ITEA/CTTE); National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC); National Association of School Psychologists (NASP~, National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS); National Council for Teachers of English (NCTE); National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM); National Middle School Association (NMSA); and National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).

Consequently, to pass NCATE one must not only satisfy NCATE stipulations, one must also receive clearance from each one of these associations. It must be noted that many of the NCATE organizations reflect national and even international interests and, as such, are not responsible to the voters of Colorado. A thorough examination of NCATE and these organizations are beyond the scope of this report; however, certain impressions on the nature of NCATE and these other groups are in order.

It is important to note that no academic‑subject matter specialists are associated with NCATE reviews. This suggests that the first order of business is to satisfy the pedagogical and social justice requirements of like‑minded teacher organizations rather than to ascertain whether or not a given program is competently covering a given subject matter area. Given that K‑12 state standards rely heavily on content/subject matter, any assessment of teacher education programs that excludes specific attention to content/subject matter concerns is significantly deficient.

NCATE Characteristics

Why is NCATE accreditation sought? NCATE is as much a means for boosting a program’s institutional influence as it is a quality control device. Institutions seek NCATE approvals not merely as affirmations of “program quality” set against a national measure, but also as leverage to solicit additional funding and resources from campus administrations. Thus, an NCATE conditional denial can be useful in securing targeted resources to boost a program’s budget.

Three characteristics of NCATE that especially warrant attention:

•   NCATE has tacit endorsements and affiliations with a number of influential organizations, among them the National Education Association, the Holmes Group, and the National Commission of Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF). NCATE officials, including its president Arthur Wise who is a board‑level member of NCTAF, are active in these and similar associations.

•   NCATE accredits approximately one‑half of all teacher educators and according to educational researcher J.E. Stone, is the “de facto” leader in establishing national teacher education standards.

•   NCATE champions educational reform that reflects the progressive “social justice” pedagogical outlook.

NCATE is unquestionably the largest and most influential teacher training accreditor in the nation, able to establish the outline of a national teacher education curriculum in all subject areas despite its lack of state or local governmental mandate. NCATE’s influence has thus worked to diminish real diversity in teaching and learning.

NCATE “approved” educational ideas include such things as:

•    Constructivist teaching and learning models

•    Hands‑on‑learning

•    Indirect instruction

•    Cooperative learning

•    Discovery learning

•    Holistic learning

•    Learn‑by‑doing,

•    Critical thinking

•    Metacognition

•    Interdisciplinary teaching

•    Life‑long teaming

•    Child‑centered schooling

•    Whole‑language

•    Social studies

•    Multiple intelligences

•    Multi‑aged classrooms

•    Authentic assessments

•    Portfolio assessments

•    Affirmative action

•    Multiculturalism.

•    Diversity enhanced curricula

•    Social justice

Educational ideas disfavored by NCATE include such things as:

•    Individual responsibility for teaming

•    Focused academic subject teaching

•    Direct instruction

•    Drill and memory work

•    Competition among students

•    Phonics

•    Arithmetic

•    Calculator‑free mathematics

•    Facts

•    Listening

•    History‑based citizenship instruction

•    Rote teaming

•    Broad coverage

•    Textbook‑based instruction

•    Core/essential content and skills

•    Grades

•    Standardized testing

•    Vouchers and charter schools

In comparing these two lists (by no means exhaustive), what is interesting is the amount of agreement teacher education institutions demonstrate with the NCATE “approved” list. Conversely, there is a strong measure of agreement between NCATE and teacher education institutions on what educational ideas should not receive attention. The agreement does not end here; when the various NCATE program approval associations are added, it is very clear which model(s) of education is considered appropriate and which is not. in sum, NCATE is decidedly not latitudinarian about the range of teacher training programs it is willing to endorse.

This program review of the four Colorado teacher education institutions reveals a very tight pattern of institutional consistency on teacher education models. There are some minor differences, for example with respect to the placement of students teachers in what are called “professional development schools,” yet on the whole the Colorado teacher education system displays a remarkable degree of agreement on fundamentals.

There are teacher educators who subscribe to the writings of Paulo Freire, Howard Gardner, John Dewey, James Banks, and other progressive theorists, but oddly enough there are no scholarly representatives of such competing theorists as E.D. Hirsch, Jr., William Bagley, Chester E. Finn, Jr., Lynne Cheney, Diane Ravitch, or William C. Bennett.

If a math teacher wanted to learn about Saxon Math, a successful competitor to the curriculum of the National Council for the Teachers of Mathematics, he would be hard pressed to find well-informed parties among Colorado’s college and university teacher educators. Moreover, if a history teacher wanted to learn about viable alternatives to the popular “Three Worlds Meet” theory, she would be equally hard pressed to find well‑informed parties.

It would seem a first obligation of disinterested teacher education to attend to all the major positions taken by contemporary American educational writers and theorists. It also seems counterintuitive that teacher educators would not strive to explore “what works” as their prime institutional directive. For example, it is odd that the essentialist. (and very much alive) EJ:). Hirsch, Jr. and the dozen plus thriving core knowledge schools in Colorado, and approximately 1,000 nationwide, attract no notice among Colorado’s schools of education. In contrast, the Marxist‑progressive Paulo Freire, with no claims to Colorado schools, is a favorite among teacher educators. During the week of one of my on‑site visits (March 3‑10, 2000), 1 noted that core knowledge charter and other charter fifth‑grade students earned some of the highest scores on a state mathematics exam. I asked faculty and administrators, was not that an important educational event? Upon further discussion, I asked just who among their faculty was studying the charter school and core knowledge movement? None could supply any names.

NCATE as a Political Institution

The problem of NCATE approvals is not limited to paradigm orthodoxy, NCATE is also a very politically motivated organization.

The proposed NCATE 2000 standards do not overtly proclaim an orthodoxy on pedagogical methods or content, but the emphasis they give to equity, diversity and social justice is very clear. Nearly every page of the NCATE program standards contains some message on these topics.

Researcher J.E. Stone (1999) has tracked down the meaning, explanation, and proposed application of these terms in the NCATE publication Capturing the Vision: Reflections on NCA TE’s Redesign:

Happily, for the interested observer, NCATE’s standards make reference to … Capturing the Vision that gets forth the “vision of quality” that (has guided] the development of NCATE’s standards. It was written by the parties who interpret and implement the standards, including representatives of NCATE’s Board of Examiners, its Unit Accreditation Board, and its Executive Committee.

Capturing the Vision was written to communicate “the larger purposes of accreditation” to “faculty in the institutions that seek accreditation.” It presents what amounts to an ordained interpretation for the NCATE standards that have been in use from 1987 to the present.

Capturing the Vision’s central message is that teacher‑training programs must “first and foremost” be “dedicated” to “equity,” “diversity,” and “social justice” ‑ egalitarian ideals widely approved within the teacher education community. It holds that teachers and administrators are morally obligated to promote social justice, in the same sense that physicians are obligated to promote health and lawyers obligated to seek justice.

Equally noteworthy is what Capturing the Vision overlooks. It says nothing about matters that might be thought the core of teaching‑namely teaching’s role in producing student achievement. For that matter, the standards themselves do not address the issue either. Rather, what Capturing the Vision does make clear is that faculty willingness to accept certain sociopolitical views is critical to an institution’s efforts to become accredited “. . . we are convinced that units living the three themes will not have difficulty in meeting NCATE’s standards. By implication, programs failing to adopt NCATE’s views may have difficulty.

Plainly, Capturing the Vision and NCATE’s standards conceive of teaching as an activity concerned as much or more with social reform than student achievement. 1

What do these pronouncements mean for teacher education? First, if reasonable people conclude that such topics as “multiculturalism:’ “diversity,” “equity,” and “social justice” are political issues that precipitate strong differences of opinion among citizens, and if NCATE and its associations subscribe to certain clear positions on these issues, then we must conclude that NCATE is hardly a disinterested apolitical agency. And if this is true, it follows that in order to receive NCATE approval, teacher educators must submit to fixed positions on “diversity,” “cultural diversity,” and “diverse learners.”

The charge of political proselytizing is no minor issue. Precisely because opposing positions exist on questions such as the nature of justice, the state should insist on a general posture of political neutrality. Unfortunately, this is radically at variance with the approach to pedagogy that drives NCATE accreditation.

Nevertheless, if the methods and theories of education prefer‑red by NCATE had demonstrably positive effects on children’s learning, a case might still be made for NCATE accreditation. But sadly, this is not the case either.

What the Public Wants from Teacher Education

A recent Public Agenda study reported that there is a significant gap between what teacher educators want for children and what parents want. As a group, according to the study, parents want orderly schools that emphasize academic fundamentals and student achievement. Teacher educators, according to the report, are less concerned with order and academics than with something called learner‑centered teaching.

Learner‑centered teaching places a premium on student‑directed learning and discovery‑oriented activities where teachers act as “facilitators,” not classroom leaders. Again, J.E. Stone (1999) observes

If … all teacher training is brought under the auspices of NCATE, virtually all teachers will be trained by programs that emphasize the professorate’s aims, not the public.

The gap between teacher‑educators and the public is neither transient or recent … . Although obscured by jargon and muting methods, the core difference is that the public takes a learning‑ centered or results‑orientated view of education while teacher‑educators take a learner‑centered. or process‑orientated view.

NCATE’s standards do not explicitly call for learner‑centered teaching but they plainly adhere to a learner‑centered vision of education. In this view, schooling cannot be expected to succeed without greater equity, diversity, and social justice in American society and thus teacher training must be infused with rightminded social and political values. In other words, NCATE and teacher education programs that follow NCATE’s standards infuse teacher training with social and political idealism because their learner centered pedagogical doctrine requires it.

NCATE and the teacher‑education community are the primary keepers of the learner centered faith. NCATE’s leaders are published proponents of learner‑centered teaching. NCATE’s approved programs lean heavily toward indoctrinating teachers in an educational perspective rather than training in effective pedagogy. In short, the teacher training programs accredited by NCATE teach educators that their time and energy should be dedicated primarily to learner‑ centered teaching and secondarily to results. 2

Institutional Reviews

 

University of Colorado at Boulder

The University of Colorado at Boulder is recognized as one of the premier universities in the West and one of the leading public institutions of higher education in the nation. The School of Education is also recognized as an institution of high regard as reflected in recent US and World Reports surveys. As compared with the other Colorado institutions reviewed, CU’s teacher education programs housed in the School of Education appear to have greater resources, a higher caliber of students, faculty with greater research vitas, better facilities, and overall greater academic and field-placement opportunities.

Given the many advantages that CU provides for its teacher education programs, the citizens of Colorado should expect that teacher education programs at CU be a model for the state, if not the region and nation. For all the positives that CU has to offer, unfortunately there are problems here that are so significant that a mere “revision” is unlikely to correct them.

There can be little doubt that CU’s School of Education has made a strong commitment to social justice pedagogy . Indeed, its former “Education Library” has been renamed “Equity, Diversity & Education Library.” That may suit the professional teacher organizations and NCATE, but the idea that “Education” has third billing to “Equity” and “Diversity” clearly signals that School of Education’s priorities are far removed from educational priorities of the State of Colorado.

Nothing short of a miraculous transformation can reverse the patently overt ideological proselytizing that goes on in the name of teacher education at CU. More than any other reviewed institution, CU’s teacher education programs are the most politically correct and stridently committed to the social justice model.

The review of CU teacher education is based primarily on a close examination of. (1) CU prepared NCATE documents used for NCATE accreditation; (2) three gateway courses required for both elementary and secondary licensure; (3) books lists and books found in CU book store for course use; and (4) an informal discussion with CU College of Education administrators.

CU’s NCATE materials are thorough and quite comprehensive. Clearly dedicated and competent individuals committed to securing NCATE accreditation produced these documents. It might also be said that CU’s teacher education administrators and faculty wholeheartedly accept NCATE’s social justice positions. The School of Education, however, maintains its own mission statement independently of NCATE and that mission statement quite clearly mandates a social justice-based program.

The purpose of this review, however, is not to resolve how closely, or to what extent at all, CU’s NCATE materials match NCATE requirements. Rather, it asks how closely does CU’s teacher education program subscribe to social justice theory and practice and to what extent are these practices antithetical to the educational policies and requirements of the State of Colorado?

CU claims that its teacher education is consistent and in compliance with both State of Colorado policies and requirements AND NCATE’s mandates. In my view, given the performance-based direction of the State of Colorado, CU’s claim will be difficult to maintain, as an examination of CU documents reveals.

University of Colorado at Boulder Overview

Findings: Program, Courses, Personnel, Colorado Connection

•    Program: Overtly NCATE and consumed with social justice theory and practice

•    Courses: Overtly progressive with excessive proselytizing, most courses stridently indoctrinate students with social justice pedagogy

•    Personnel: Consistently NCATE and thoroughly well versed in social justice pedagogy

•    Colorado Connection: Some courses specifically reference Colorado educational requirements, but the real driving force is social justice theory and practice.

Recommendations:

1.   Immediately eliminate the proselytizing‑indoctrination of students in the ideology of social justice throughout the School of Education.

2.   Consider the immediate suspension of CU’s teacher education program and the referral of all interested students, faculty, and administrators to the University of Northern Colorado or some other appropriate regional college or university.

3.   Suspend indefinitely NCATE accreditations, and redesign the School of Education as the State’s educational research facility primarily responsible for studying the condition and function of Colorado education.

Mission and Themes of CU’s School of Education

In CU’s report to NCATE, we find that

Three School of Education themes connect our research, teaching, and outreach mission and support the conceptual framework: educational diversity, equal educational opportunity, and research‑based school practices. These themes guide faculty research agendas and hiring processes; focus student course work, experiences, and assessments; and shape the School of Education‑public school collaborations (UC Continuing Report, NCATE, Submitted December 23, 1998, page 2)

The State of Colorado’s explicit interests in “Knowledge of Standards and Assessment” and ties to Colorado’s Model Content Standards are NOT noted as part of the “mission and themes of the School of Education.” Instead, it is CUs very different social justice themes that “‘guide faculty research agendas and hiring processes; focus student course work, experiences, and assessments; and shape the School of Education‑public school collaborations.” In other words, CU’s School of Education seemingly discriminates against anyone who does not share its “mission and themes” statement. CU’s School of Education’s faculty hiring decisions, faculty research agendas, and student course work are all directed by its mission and themes.

Does social justice ideology appear in CU’s School of Education documents and programs? The answer is an unqualified yes. CU’s NCATE Continuing Report reads: “Issues of equity, and equality of educational opportunity, and social justice [my italics] in a democratic society inform each class session.”

I found no evidence that issues as presented by the State of Colorado, Model Content Standards, or Teacher Performance Standards “inform each class session.”

Examination of Gateway Courses

Gateway Courses for CU Teacher Education

Three courses are common to elementary and secondary teacher education programs: EDUC 3013, Proseminar I: Becoming a teacher; EDUC 3023, Proseminar II: Schools culture and society; EDUC 4513, Proseminar III: Education and practice. These gateway courses set the tone for the student’s educational experience as well as cultivate the developing teacher candidate’s philosophy of education. An analysis of these courses explains why these courses stand as NCATE models of consistency. They also explain why these courses are incompatible with state regulations.

In matters of education, the State cannot permit K‑12 educational programs to be directed toward the creation of one particular opinion at the expense of others. Public education cannot be devoted to minting new Republicans, Democrats, Independents, or any other partisan outlook or affiliation. Public education is first and last an institution of the American people as a whole, wherein every child is trained in the basics of citizenship and in the essentials of preferred content and skills. Whatever political affiliations a child may take upon adulthood should be his or her exclusive decision. The State simply has no authority or legitimate interest in prescribing the ideological beliefs of any child.

In reviewing NCATE’s program standards, and its referrals to other national and international teacher associations, it seems clear to this reviewer that political considerations at CU overshadow educational ones. Namely, CU offers a decidedly radical orientation, guided by so-called “social justice” pedagogy. An examination of the following courses serves as proof of this assertion.

 

Recommendations for Citizenship Education Instruction
in History‑Geography‑Civics‑Economics

Since the 1920s, in many school systems, the term social studies education has been associated with citizenship education (Saxe, 1992). Before the 1920s, history instruction comprised what passed as citizenship education. As noted earlier, the National Council for the Social Studies is the organization responsible for reviewing NCATE folios in social studies.

As social justice, diversity, and multiculturalism came to define most K‑1 2 teacher education programs, NCSS responded by also embracing social justice, diversity, and multiculturalism. While its devotion to social justice pedagogy has enhanced NCSS as a leader in these areas, it has simultaneously disqualified it as an objective, disinterested promoter of citizenship education.

As state governments across the nation began to write state content standards, many identified history, geography, civics, and economics as the subject areas that should be covered in K‑12 (see Saxe, 1998; and Saxe, 2000). Colorado is no exception on this score, and these four subject areas are required by state law. What is not required is the subject area “social studies.” ‑ In fact, there is no subject called “social studies” that exists apart from the teaching of history, civics, geography, and economics. As much as NCSS might want to claim the territory, social studies is not a subject identified by the State of Colorado for inclusion in K‑12.

What is NCSS social studies? NCSS defines social studies as

The integrated study of the social sciences and humanities to promote social competence. [It is] a school program that provides coordinated systematic study drawing upon such disciplines as anthropology, archeology, economics, geography, history, law, philosophy, political science, psychology, religion, and sociology as well as appropriate content from the humanities, mathematics, and natural sciences in a program whose primary purpose is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse democratic society in an interdependent world (NCSS, 1993).

That is a tall order, since just about every subject taught on campus is mentioned except animal husbandry and the arts (and these were probably intended). Certainly, Colorado did not intend to sanction such a broad “subject area.” In fact, competency in the fourteen areas noted, not to mention their sub‑fields, outlines an education surpassing that received by many of our most distinguished scholars. We probably have not had an American citizen adept in so many areas of expertise since Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

The State’s approach to the matter is more direct and limited: history, civics, geography, and economics. With this more feasible list, the State chose not to take the NCSS’s lead. Therefore, it follows that a more modest and descriptive term than social studies should be applied to this licensure area.

I am on record as not having a very high opinion of Colorado Model Content Standards in history (they earned a D in my 1998 Fordham report). Aside from my personal reservations, Colorado does have state standards in history, civics, geography (which earned Fordham’s highest marks), and economics. These mandated subjects contain important content and skills.

It is common sense, then, that teacher education programs for citizenship education be designed to deliver the knowledge and skill base necessary for the successful implementation of Colorado’s K‑12 Model Content Standards. With this established, teacher educators and content specialists should work out an agreement on the scope and sequence of content and skills to be transmitted to student teachers that is based on Model Content Standards in history, geography, civics, and economics. To distinguish these four subjects from the amorphous social stew of NCSS’s social studies, I recommend that they be defined by their high purpose: citizenship education.

I would not presume to write such a curriculum without consultation with Colorado educators. However, I offer these thoughts:

•    While specific courses in the subject fields are necessary, I would not think that every content and skill item needs to be treated in a course wholly devoted to it.

•    Subject matter and skill acquisition cannot and should not be confused with teaching competence. Teachers‑in‑training need to explore ways to put the content and skills to work in classroom situations. Ideally, teacher candidates acquire knowledge and skills that they later can apply. Each institution should develop the best practices for its student teachers and contexts. It is critical that new teachers be given opportunities to “make mistakes.”. This objective may be difficult to pursue “with children present.” Therefore, a built‑in “failure/success” feature should be added to teacher education assessment.

•    A good starting place for the identification of history content can be found in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) documents, published by the National Council for History Education, and the National Center for History in Schools’ 1992 Lessons From History: Essential Understandings and Historical Perspectives Students Should Acquire. Any source, however, that highlights content by race, class, gender, sexual orientation etc. should be treated with skepticism.

•    Citizenship education must be directly connected with the constitutional rights and responsibilities of the United States and Colorado.

•    History is the centerpiece of citizenship education. Students should major in history and minor in geography. They should also have required “concentrations” in economics and civics (political science).

•    The history major should focus on American history with special emphasis on at least these areas: the colonial and revolutionary periods, the Civil War, and contemporary history. A second focus should be Western Civilization as it influenced the foundations of our culture and our ideals of democratic citizenship. The need for course work on global history cannot be ignored. While the history taught should reflect the latest scholarship, it should not be directed by the ideology of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. Students should complete between 32 and 36 credits.

•    Geography, both physical and cultural, should encompass at least a minor of some 12 to 18 credits.

•    Economics should prepare teachers to understand the American and world economic system(s) including the micro and macro dimensions of economics. This might be covered in courses worth 3 to 6 credits, with targeted assignments in other courses.

•    Civics instruction should provide an understanding of our republic, its origins, form, and the function of government at the local, state, and federal levels. The emphasis should be on participatory citizenship informed by a thorough exploration of American constitutional principles. This area might also be covered in courses worth 3 to 6 credits, with targeted experiences in other courses.

•    Field experiences, including student teaching, should comprise 21 to 32 credits.

•    Other Teacher Education: methods in teaching history, geography, economics, and civics should take up 3 to 6 credits; while other pedagogy courses on assessment, classroom management, educational issues and concerns should comprise no more than 3 to 6 credits.

•    Total in major: 50 to 66 credits comprising history, 32 to 36 credits; geography, 12 to 8 credits; economics, 3 to 6 credits; and civics (political science), 3 to 6 credits.

•    Total in Teacher Education: 27 to 44 credits comprising field experiences 21 to 32 credits and 6 to 12 credits in pedagogy.

•    Balance in general education and electives: 24 to 54 credits (24 in an in‑depth major/minor program with lean general education requirements, to 54 with a lean teacher education program with rich general education requirements).

[References deleted]