My Big Fat Unqualified Teacher
High school seniors in New York rejoice! There's no reason for you to spend time writing all those awful college essays anymore, thanks to a ruling from the New York State Appellate Court. The case was McConnell vs. Le Moyne College, and at stake was a private university's right to deny admission based on subjective criteria.
Story from the Syracuse Post-Standard
Scott McConnell hopes to one day shape the minds of young students. He applied to Le Moyne's school of education. Part of his submission was a paper that he'd written for a course he took prior to matriculation that not only displayed a mediocre grasp of the written language, but also detailed McConnell's desire to see corporal punishment brought back to the classroom, and a refusal to participate in integration or multicultural activities. Le Moyne College, that Jesuit Catholic bastion of rampant liberalism, denied McConnel matriculation.
Well, NO SHIT. He's unfit to teach. Why would a school of education admit him?
Well, as it turns out, because the New York State Appellate Court decided that Le Moyne must "reinstate petitioner into the program forthwith."
From McConnell's lawyer:
Did you catch that? Evidently, a prospective teaching student can't be rejected from a program for such flimsy reasons as openly advocating an illegal form of classroom management and disavowing fundamental educational principles held by the school. Writing a paper that states one's disdain for the school's educational values and a desire to participate in activities rejected by the school, the law, and society at large is not a sound basis for one to be refused access to a teaching degree and certification. What if McConnell had written that he believed that teachers should be allowed to engage in sexual relations with their students, or that teaching literacy was unnecessary in the classroom? Would those be considered subjective and inappropriate reasons for Le Moyne to reject him from the program? Where would the court propose the line be drawn? Such things are apparantly missing from the decision.
Le Moyne's decision had absolutely nothing to do with "political correctness". Being politically correct is simply a matter of semantics. Had McConnell called multicultural students "blackies, spics and slants", or expressed a desire to "whup some poor ghetto kid's ass", then he would be guilty of political incorrectness. Political incorrectness isn't about what you say, but how you say it. The issue here is that most educators, including the admissions staff at Le Moyne, would say McConnell's values make him suprememly unqualified to be in the same room with someone else's child, much less to become a certified teacher. The desire to hit a child isn't politically incorrect. It's a psychosis. Refusing to participate in multicultural education isn't politically incorrect, it's educationally irresponsible. Le Moyne was not only in their rights to deny him matriculation, but, as an institution responsible for training future licensed educators, upheld their responsibility to the children who will one day be charged to the teachers they graduate.
The greater issue here is that this decision sets a precedent that, if not overturned, basically denies the right of a private college or university to admit students based on anything but the most objective, statistical data. If a school can't refuse to admit a student based on the contents of a paper submitted to the school, how can they refuse admittance based on application essays, teacher recommendations, interview, or any other subjective evidence of the prospective student's ability to succeed at the school? Should the sum of a student's qualifying criteria be his SAT score and grade point average? This decision seems to imply that it should.
This is just another wake-up call to those of us who still value intellectualism and classical education. The social conservatives like to claim they're under attack, but they never seem to lose any ground. Universities are filled with highly educated people, and highly educated people are statistically inclined to lean slightly left from the center. This isn't a new development, nor is it an indication that social conservatives are persecuted. Private Universities offer an education, and are seldom reserved about revealing the values they prize. Why, then, do so many socially conservative students apply to liberal-leaning schools and then expect the school to change for them? Evidently because the legal system will side against the schools, against classical education, and in favor of right-wing nutbags who write papers filled with poorly-written brainpiss and expect to be welcomed with open arms.
This country, as a culture, has already turned dangerously in the direction of ignorance and anti-intellectualism. That an argument about "intelligent design" being taught as science could even occur is evidence enough of this, as is a trusted president who spent his days at Yale (as a legacy) drinking, partying, and earning "gentleman's C's" instead of learning to pronounce difficult words like "nuclear". This kind of swing to the far right has occurred before, but fortunately the university system remained unscathed, producing well-educated, open-minded critical thinkers who could correct the trend. Now the far right is after the Universities, and they're winning battles. The implications for the future are staggeringly frightening.
Aside from being a paper that in no way exemplifies a college-level writing ability, especially from someone planning on teaching others, this makes it pretty clear that McConnell not only believes in these tenets, but plans to implement them in his classroom.
This idiot may one day teach your children, and there's nothing that a certifying school of education can do about it.
Anybody else making a mental note of where your suitcases are?
Story from the Syracuse Post-Standard
Scott McConnell hopes to one day shape the minds of young students. He applied to Le Moyne's school of education. Part of his submission was a paper that he'd written for a course he took prior to matriculation that not only displayed a mediocre grasp of the written language, but also detailed McConnell's desire to see corporal punishment brought back to the classroom, and a refusal to participate in integration or multicultural activities. Le Moyne College, that Jesuit Catholic bastion of rampant liberalism, denied McConnel matriculation.
Well, NO SHIT. He's unfit to teach. Why would a school of education admit him?
Well, as it turns out, because the New York State Appellate Court decided that Le Moyne must "reinstate petitioner into the program forthwith."
From McConnell's lawyer:
"The guy wrote a paper that was, frankly, politically incorrect. I hope (the decision) tells the colleges that they can't do this kind of thing. ... The colleges can't use their notions of political correctness. They have to use objective criteria for whether he's a good student or not."
Did you catch that? Evidently, a prospective teaching student can't be rejected from a program for such flimsy reasons as openly advocating an illegal form of classroom management and disavowing fundamental educational principles held by the school. Writing a paper that states one's disdain for the school's educational values and a desire to participate in activities rejected by the school, the law, and society at large is not a sound basis for one to be refused access to a teaching degree and certification. What if McConnell had written that he believed that teachers should be allowed to engage in sexual relations with their students, or that teaching literacy was unnecessary in the classroom? Would those be considered subjective and inappropriate reasons for Le Moyne to reject him from the program? Where would the court propose the line be drawn? Such things are apparantly missing from the decision.
Le Moyne's decision had absolutely nothing to do with "political correctness". Being politically correct is simply a matter of semantics. Had McConnell called multicultural students "blackies, spics and slants", or expressed a desire to "whup some poor ghetto kid's ass", then he would be guilty of political incorrectness. Political incorrectness isn't about what you say, but how you say it. The issue here is that most educators, including the admissions staff at Le Moyne, would say McConnell's values make him suprememly unqualified to be in the same room with someone else's child, much less to become a certified teacher. The desire to hit a child isn't politically incorrect. It's a psychosis. Refusing to participate in multicultural education isn't politically incorrect, it's educationally irresponsible. Le Moyne was not only in their rights to deny him matriculation, but, as an institution responsible for training future licensed educators, upheld their responsibility to the children who will one day be charged to the teachers they graduate.
The greater issue here is that this decision sets a precedent that, if not overturned, basically denies the right of a private college or university to admit students based on anything but the most objective, statistical data. If a school can't refuse to admit a student based on the contents of a paper submitted to the school, how can they refuse admittance based on application essays, teacher recommendations, interview, or any other subjective evidence of the prospective student's ability to succeed at the school? Should the sum of a student's qualifying criteria be his SAT score and grade point average? This decision seems to imply that it should.
This is just another wake-up call to those of us who still value intellectualism and classical education. The social conservatives like to claim they're under attack, but they never seem to lose any ground. Universities are filled with highly educated people, and highly educated people are statistically inclined to lean slightly left from the center. This isn't a new development, nor is it an indication that social conservatives are persecuted. Private Universities offer an education, and are seldom reserved about revealing the values they prize. Why, then, do so many socially conservative students apply to liberal-leaning schools and then expect the school to change for them? Evidently because the legal system will side against the schools, against classical education, and in favor of right-wing nutbags who write papers filled with poorly-written brainpiss and expect to be welcomed with open arms.
This country, as a culture, has already turned dangerously in the direction of ignorance and anti-intellectualism. That an argument about "intelligent design" being taught as science could even occur is evidence enough of this, as is a trusted president who spent his days at Yale (as a legacy) drinking, partying, and earning "gentleman's C's" instead of learning to pronounce difficult words like "nuclear". This kind of swing to the far right has occurred before, but fortunately the university system remained unscathed, producing well-educated, open-minded critical thinkers who could correct the trend. Now the far right is after the Universities, and they're winning battles. The implications for the future are staggeringly frightening.
"I am still the same person I was the day I wrote that paper, and I'll be the same person until the day I die. I'll be more cautious when I write papers, but my views won't change. There's nothing P.C. about me." -Scott McConnell, January 2006
"My classroom management philosophy is based upon strong discipline and hard work. I feel that a child's main purpose of attending school is to learn, not play games or distract other students. I do not feel that multicultural education has a philosophical place or standing in an American classroom, especially one that I will teach. I also feel that corporal punishment has a place in the classroom and should be implemented when needed. I also feel that to maintain classroom management students should work by themselves, unless reading is involved. Also, I do not believe that seat work is busy work. I base my philosophy of classroom management upon the pre-1960's learning when discipline was present in the learning environment." - Scott McConnell, Introduction to "Philosophy regarding Classroom Management", April 2005 (grammatical errors his, emphasis mine)
Aside from being a paper that in no way exemplifies a college-level writing ability, especially from someone planning on teaching others, this makes it pretty clear that McConnell not only believes in these tenets, but plans to implement them in his classroom.
This idiot may one day teach your children, and there's nothing that a certifying school of education can do about it.
Anybody else making a mental note of where your suitcases are?
posted by Zafrod at 11:51 AM
2 Comments:
"I am still the same person I was the day I wrote that paper, and I'll be the same person until the day I die. I'll be more cautious when I write papers, but my views won't change. There's nothing P.C. about me." -Scott McConnell, January 2006
Woah-HO. I find this one of McC's most terrifying quotes. Here is an educator saying that he has nothing to learn--he's always going to be the same person and never change his opinion no matter what. He says this before he goes into a program that's supposed to teach him how to teach. Not only does Scotty boy have no intention of learning at LeMoyne, he seems to have no intention of learning anything ever again. Most real educators understand that learning is a joyful lifetime experience. I wonder how Scott will pass this on to his students since he obviously doesn't understand it himself.
I also worry about having someone in the classroom who is so certain about his viewpoints. There's nothing more frustrating to a student than a teacher who can't or won't say "I'm wrong" and "I'm sorry" when it is necessary--and certainly it is eventually necessary. You can't teach for a lifetime and never be wrong.
All I can say is that I hope this fool has brought himself enough negative publicity to ensure that he never gets a job. Let's face it, most schools don't want to hire someone with a history of suing educational institutions. What terrifying thing might Scott do if he got, say, a hangnail on the job!?
Well said, ka. I think the check on conservatism in the past has been the University system. I keep thinking this trend might be turning around, but if they get their claws into the college students... I dunno. I'm worried. No doubt about that.
Post a Comment
<< Home