Want wokeness out of schools? End woke teacher training – Fox News

Analysis of Current Educational Trends and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

A review of the current educational landscape in the United States indicates a significant debate regarding curriculum priorities and their alignment with global development objectives, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report analyzes the divergence between pedagogical approaches focused on foundational academic skills and those emphasizing social justice, and examines the implications for achieving SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Curriculum Focus and SDG 4 (Quality Education)

Divergent Approaches to Educational Content

Recent data highlights a critical challenge to achieving SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education. National assessments indicate declining proficiency in core subjects among students.

• Only 34% of high school seniors demonstrate proficiency in reading.
• Only 22% of high school seniors demonstrate proficiency in mathematics.

This situation has intensified the debate over the most effective pedagogical strategies. One perspective advocates for a renewed focus on fundamental academic skills to address these deficiencies directly. An alternative approach, prevalent in many educational institutions, integrates themes of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) into the curriculum, aiming to create a more socially aware and just learning environment.

Teacher Preparation Programs and SDG 4 Targets

The role of higher education institutions in shaping K-12 education is central to this discussion. An examination of teacher training programs at several universities reveals a strong emphasis on social justice frameworks, which can be seen as an attempt to address specific targets within the SDGs.

• University of Georgia: The Elementary Education program includes a required course on “Socio-Cultural Perspectives on Diversity,” with stated objectives to develop “anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic” and social justice advocacy skills.
• Columbia University: A course titled “Making Change: Activism, Social Movements and Education” uses movements such as the Chicago Teachers Union and Black Lives Matter at Schools as case studies.
• Other Institutions: Universities including Michigan State, the University of Maryland, and Arizona State offer courses focused on “Justice and Equity,” “social justice-oriented” teaching, and “Education for Social Transformation.”

A key concern is whether this focus on social advocacy adequately prepares educators to meet the primary targets of SDG 4, specifically those related to literacy, numeracy, and effective learning outcomes.

Intersection of Social Justice Pedagogy with SDG 5 and SDG 10

Promoting Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10) and Gender Equality (SDG 5)

The integration of DEI and social justice principles into education is directly linked to the objectives of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality). These initiatives aim to create inclusive learning environments that challenge discrimination and promote equity for all students.

• Curricula are designed to foster understanding of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
• Policies related to gender identity are being implemented in schools.
• Teacher training explicitly includes modules on anti-discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and class.

Challenges in Implementation

While these efforts align with the spirit of SDGs 5 and 10, their implementation has raised concerns about potential conflicts with other educational goals. Critics argue that the emphasis on political and social issues may detract from the core mission of academic instruction. The activities of teacher unions, which advocate for policies on gender identity and immigration, are cited as evidence of the increasing politicization of educational institutions, potentially undermining the goal of SDG 16 to build effective and accountable institutions.

Institutional Roles and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The Role of Teacher Unions and Higher Education

Teacher unions and university training programs are identified as key institutions influencing the direction of public education. Their advocacy for specific social and political agendas is seen as a significant factor in the current educational climate. This raises questions about institutional accountability and the primary function of schools in relation to SDG 16, which calls for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Recommendations for Institutional Alignment with SDGs

To better align educational practices with the comprehensive framework of the Sustainable Development Goals, the following actions are recommended:

1. Conduct a thorough review of teacher training programs to ensure they provide a balanced curriculum that equips educators with both the pedagogical skills for foundational learning (SDG 4) and the competencies for fostering inclusive classrooms (SDG 5, SDG 10).
2. Establish clear metrics to assess the impact of different pedagogical approaches on student academic achievement, particularly in literacy and numeracy.
3. Promote institutional neutrality within public schools to ensure they remain focused on their core educational mission, thereby strengthening their effectiveness and accountability as envisioned in SDG 16.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The article’s central theme is the state of education in the United States. It extensively discusses the content of teacher training programs, the curriculum taught in K-12 schools, and the resulting academic performance of students. It argues that a focus on “progressive ideology” is detrimental to providing quality education in fundamental subjects.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article directly engages with concepts and policies aimed at reducing inequality, such as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Critical Race Theory (CRT), and social justice advocacy. It critiques courses designed to develop “anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, anti-classist, anti-xenophobic” perspectives and mentions policies like “race-based hiring practices,” all of which are linked to the goal of reducing inequalities.
3. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • The article references issues related to gender equality by discussing “gender theory in schools,” “boys in girls’ sports,” and “radical gender identity policies.” It also notes that teacher training programs include “anti-sexist” and “anti-homophobic” advocacy, connecting directly to the principles of gender equality and non-discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article touches upon the governance and integrity of educational institutions. It describes schools as “incredibly politicized places” and criticizes the influence of public employee unions, such as the Chicago Teachers Union. The discussion of “restorative justice” policies that “eliminate discipline” also relates to the administration of justice and order within the institutional setting of schools.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 4 (Quality Education):
   • Target 4.1: “ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.” The article directly addresses the “effective learning outcomes” component by citing statistics that “only 34% of high school seniors could read proficiently, and only 22% of them rated proficient in math.”
   • Target 4.7: “ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including…human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace…and appreciation of cultural diversity.” The article debates the very nature of the knowledge and skills being taught. It critiques teacher training programs for focusing on “social justice,” “diversity, equity, inclusion,” and “feminist pedagogies” instead of what the author considers fundamental knowledge.
   • Target 4.c: “substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers.” The article’s primary argument is that teacher training programs are failing to produce qualified teachers, instead training them “to impart ideology rather than knowledge and skills.” It questions the qualifications of graduates from programs at universities like Columbia, Michigan State, and Arizona State.
2. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: “empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of…race, colour, ethnicity…” The article discusses DEI and CRT, which are frameworks intended to promote inclusion. It critiques courses that teach students to be “foot soldiers of the progressive movement” through “anti-racist…anti-xenophobic…advocacy.”
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory…policies and practices.” The article mentions the implementation of “DEI practices” and “race-based hiring practices,” which are policies directly related to this target, although it presents them in a critical light.
3. Under SDG 5 (Gender Equality):
   • Target 5.1: “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.” The debate over “boys in girls’ sports” and “radical gender identity policies” mentioned in the article is directly related to contemporary interpretations of non-discrimination on the basis of gender and sex.
4. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The article questions whether educational institutions are responsive to student needs or are driven by the political agendas of unions and activists. It highlights that “too many schools have become incredibly politicized places,” suggesting a failure of inclusive and representative governance.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Explicit Indicators:
   • Student Proficiency Levels: The article provides a direct indicator for Target 4.1 by stating, “On the latest Nation’s Report Card, only 34% of high school seniors could read proficiently, and only 22% of them rated proficient in math.” This is a quantitative measure of learning outcomes.
2. Implied Indicators:
   • Curriculum Content in Teacher Training: For Target 4.7 and 4.c, the article implies an indicator: the prevalence of certain topics in university curricula. It names specific courses like “Exploring Socio-Cultural Perspectives on Diversity” (University of Georgia) and “Education for Social Transformation” (Arizona State University) as evidence of a trend. The number or proportion of teacher training programs requiring such courses could be a measurable indicator.
   • Adoption of School Policies: For Targets 10.3 and 5.1, the article implies that the number of schools or districts implementing “DEI practices,” “restorative justice policies,” and “radical gender identity policies” serves as an indicator of the trends it is criticizing.
   • Political Demographics of Teachers: For Target 16.7, the article cites data from “Politics at Work” that “Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-to-1 in K-12 classrooms.” This ratio is used as an indicator of the political leaning of the teaching profession, which the author links to the politicization of schools.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: foxnews.com