Bruno: You Call It Indoctrination, I Call It Effective
The problem with these GSEs dedicated to training already-affiliated teachers is that they are "focused primarily on ideological & cultural indoctrination," according to Baker, who points specifically to one of Relay's instructional videos that I've discussed before.
It's fine if Baker is skeptical of the merit of Relay's program, but describing it as a form of indoctrination seems to me to confuse aesthetic objections for substantive criticisms.
After all, one person's indoctrination is another person's effective instruction.
I received my teacher training from one of those traditional graduate schools of education at a flagship state university and you could probably describe that training as involving a lot of cultural and ideological indoctrination. In particular, you could say that over my time there - two years! - I was "indoctrinated" into the (stereotypical) culturally progressive, ideologically constructivist educational paradigm.
On the other hand, you could just say my instructors thought they were preparing me to be a teacher in the best way they knew how. The former description sounds ominous and inherently objectionable, but the latter description admits of more opportunities for a substantive discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of my teacher training.
And so it is with Relay-type ed schools, which as far as I can tell are not indoctrinating their students any more than my ed school indoctrinated me.
As someone who thinks teacher training could use a lot of work, I'm all in favor of a meaningful debate about the merits of different programs. The language of "indoctrination", though, is probably more ideologically loaded than the curricula at our schools of education. - PB (@MrPABruno) (image source)