Assignment B #3

Katherine Crawford Garrett wrote the piece, “IgnoringDiversity, Undermining Equity.”  In it, she opens up about her trials and tribulations with the National Council onTeacher Quality (NCTQ), and what she did to take a stand against this organization and the limitations they seek to implement on collegiate teacher programs.  When Katherine first began teaching at the University of New Mexico (UNM), she made changes to the syllabus which she inherited; these changes included adding new multicultural textbooks and assignments on power and privilege amongst other things.  Based on these changes, the schools rating by the NCTQ changed.  According to the dean of academics at UNM, the “NCTQ found these additions “distracting” and questioned whether I was prioritizing the “five pillars of reading instruction” as outlined by the National Reading Panel (NRP) report.” 

            I had to read this several times before it really soaked in – this entity that rates the quality of teaching programs lowered the rating of UNM because they taught aspiring teachers about diversity, equity, and inclusiveness (DEI)?  What it seems the NCTQ was able to pull on to make this happen was that fact that the texts Katherine used were not considered by them to be “strong.”  The problem with this however, is that the “NCTQ gives no credit to syllabi that address working with readers from different racial, cultural, economic, or linguistic backgrounds.”  How can this be?  One of the leading organizations for rating teaching programs in America does not recommend any texts that address DEI are considered to be strong?  That is correct.  They recommend books as strong that strictly focus on the mechanics of teaching and behavior management.  Unfortunately, “this mirrors the approach to reading instruction currently at place in schools across the United States, one that remains unsuccessful in producing literate students capable of participating in a democratic society.”  When I read this, I could not help but think back to our reading from last week by Finn that talked about the different types of literacy students get.

            In the end, Katherine stuck with her changes and wrote a blog post condemning the NCTQ that many teachers and professors applauded her for.

            When I was reading this article I thought a lot about what we are forced to teach our students based on state testing.  For English teachers specifically, there is very little leeway in the readings they must teach each year – most of which surround the works of dead, white writers.  But why does it have to be this way? 

            Similar to the NCTQ, the makers of MAP, PARCC, RICAS, and other organizations control lots of power in deeming a school as performing or not performing.  For years they have gotten to choose what they want on these tests and what students need to learn in order to succeed on them.  The way that this changes is that teachers across the country begin to use their voices, just as Katherine did, and speak out about what their students are missing out on due to state testing.  We need to post on social media.  We need to get politicians to take it up as a cause.  We need to make learning more about our students – because right now, that’s often the last thing learning is about.