A recent study released by Daniel Buck of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) alleges that leading graduate schools of education in the United States are increasingly prioritizing activist training and critical theory over traditional teaching methods and classroom management. Buck’s review of syllabi from prominent education programs found a strong emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, as well as critical and progressive theory frameworks, with comparatively less focus on pragmatic instructional techniques and classroom management skills.
Explainer The Controversy Over DEI In Education: Legal Battles and Policy Shifts
The findings have brought renewed attention to a growing debate over whether teacher preparation programs are equipping future educators with the practical skills needed for effective classroom teaching, or whether they are advancing a particular ideological agenda. This debate is taking place amid ongoing scrutiny of the influence of higher education institutions on K-12 classrooms, with critics arguing that the ideological leanings of graduate education programs can shape the broader education system and, ultimately, the experiences of students in public schools.
Findings From the AEI Study
Buck’s analysis focused on course materials and syllabi from several top graduate schools of education, including the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), California State University Northridge (CSUN), and the University of Texas at Austin. According to Buck, UCLA’s program instructs future teachers to “embody a social justice agenda” and to “mirror the diverse, caring, anti-racist, socially responsible learning communities.”
At CSUN, Buck cited readings such as “Integrating Feminist Theory, Pedagogy, and Praxis into Teacher Education” and “Queering Elementary Education: A Queer Curriculum for 4th Grade.” These readings, according to Buck, reflect a focus on integrating progressive social theories into teacher training. The University of Texas at Austin’s syllabi included texts like “Is an Antiracist and Decolonizing Applied Linguistics Possible?” and began with land acknowledgements, warning about “an onslaught of political attacks around issues of race, gender and sexuality.”
Buck argued that these examples demonstrate a systemic focus on activism and immutable characteristics, such as race and gender, rather than preparing teachers for the practical realities of the classroom. He wrote, “That these critical texts appear so frequently, often without any degree of traditional or practical balance, presents to the outsider a concerning picture about the state of these institutions.”
The study suggests that the prevalence of critical theory and DEI content in graduate education programs may come at the expense of coursework on classroom management, lesson planning, and evidence-based instructional strategies. Buck contends that this imbalance could leave new teachers less prepared to address the day-to-day challenges of teaching diverse groups of students.
Impact on Teacher Certification and K-12 Classrooms
According to Buck, many state and district policies encourage or require teachers to earn master’s degrees from these graduate programs. He noted that two states mandate a master’s degree for full teacher licensure, and that 90 percent of the nation’s largest school districts offer higher pay to teachers with advanced degrees. This, Buck argues, creates a strong incentive for teachers to enroll in graduate programs, regardless of whether those programs emphasize practical teaching skills or ideological content.
Buck cited research suggesting that advanced degrees do not guarantee teacher quality and may even correlate with lower effectiveness in the classroom. He argued that the current system incentivizes teachers to pursue graduate programs that emphasize ideology over instructional skills, potentially to the detriment of student learning outcomes.
“These institutions not only teach the teachers, but they also largely control who can become a teacher to begin with. They are training the indoctrinated to go forth and convert America’s children,” Buck wrote in his report.
The influence of graduate education programs extends beyond teacher preparation, as the content and values imparted in these programs can shape the culture and priorities of K-12 schools. Critics of the current system argue that a focus on activism and critical theory may distract from the core mission of helping students achieve academic success.
Calls for Reform and Response
In response to his findings, Buck recommended reducing certification requirements that tie teacher licensure and pay to graduate degrees. He argued that loosening these requirements would broaden the pool of prospective teachers and put pressure on education schools to reform their curricula to place greater emphasis on practical teaching skills. Buck also called for ending federal loan support for programs he described as focused primarily on critical theory and activist training.
Supporters of DEI and critical theory in teacher preparation have not responded directly to Buck’s report. However, proponents of these approaches often argue that addressing systemic inequities and preparing teachers for diverse classrooms are essential components of modern education. They maintain that understanding issues of race, gender, and social justice is critical for teachers working in increasingly diverse school environments.
Buck concluded that significant change is unlikely unless the influence of graduate education programs on teacher certification is reduced. He suggested that reforming teacher preparation and certification requirements could help ensure that future educators are better equipped with the practical skills needed for effective classroom instruction, rather than being primarily trained in ideological frameworks.
The debate over the role of activism and critical theory in teacher education is likely to continue, as policymakers, educators, and the public weigh the best ways to prepare teachers for the challenges of today’s classrooms.
