In 鈥淪traight Talk with Rick and Jal,鈥� Harvard University鈥檚 Jal Mehta and I examine the reforms and enthusiasms that permeate education. In a field full of buzzwords, our goal is simple: Tell the truth, in plain English, about what鈥檚 being proposed and what it means for students, teachers, and parents. We may be wrong and we will frequently disagree, but we鈥檒l try to be candid and ensure that you don鈥檛 need a Ph.D. in eduspeak to understand us. Today鈥檚 topic is Oklahoma鈥檚 America-First Assessment.
Rick: Jal, let鈥檚 talk about Oklahoma鈥檚 new teacher test. This summer, outgoing Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters, who is stepping down to become the , that the state would be rolling out a new test for would-be teachers from New York and California, intended to screen out 鈥渨oke indoctrinators.鈥� The 50-question test, developed by PragerU, the teacher鈥檚 role, American government, religious freedom, and gender-related issues. In unveiling the test, Walters explained that it would reflect a 鈥渧ery America-first approach鈥� in response to New York and California standards that he regards as 鈥渁ntithetical鈥� to Oklahoma鈥檚.
I should preface things by saying I鈥檓 hugely sympathetic to the impulse here鈥攖hat I think there are big issues with teacher preparation and there frequently is an ideological tilt in teacher standards. But I鈥檓 not sure the test is an especially good way to address those concerns. When it comes to civics, for instance, test-takers are asked how many Senators there are, to name the 鈥渢wo parts鈥� of Congress, and to identify the first three words of the U.S. Constitution. I came away unsure just how much those sorts of questions actually accomplish.
Anyway, here鈥檚 my take. First, I find the exercise misguided. For starters, conservatives have spent years decrying the illiberal politicization of teacher preparation and the ideological bias baked into licensure. Heck, I was a quarter-century ago鈥攊t was a part of what got me chased out of the University of Virginia鈥檚 school of education. Those on the right have argued that teacher assessment should not be in the business of policing right-think. So, it鈥檚 enormously frustrating to see a red state settle for performative right-wing illiberalism at a time when there鈥檚 finally the opportunity and political will to pursue more substantive reform.
Second, it鈥檚 fair for Walters to note that all the criticism of teacher preparation and licensure hasn鈥檛 yielded reform鈥攖hat things have only gotten worse. Ed. schools were already aggressively policing aspiring teachers for the 鈥渞ight鈥� dispositions two decades ago, and, in the past decade, this morphed into heavy doses of 鈥渁nti-racism鈥�; DEI; and declarations that age-old notions of merit, hard work, and discipline were inequitable and 鈥減roblematic.鈥� So, if more measured pushback didn鈥檛 deliver, there鈥檚 a case for stronger medicine. But it鈥檚 hard to make the case that this is it.
Third, despite the featuring some dumb questions and dubious answers, there are also plenty of reasonable ones. Many of the questions are things every teacher should be able to answer. For instance, it鈥檚 wholly appropriate to ask, 鈥淪hould teachers be allowed to express their own political viewpoints in the classroom in order to persuade the students to adopt their point of view?鈥� If the dumb questions and loaded answers were excised, and if the test were administered to teachers coming from more than two states, this would feel a lot less like a political exercise.
Fourth, I鈥檝e long argued that we need fewer licensure barriers to teaching, except perhaps for those related to scientifically anchored pedagogy. We should make it easier for prospective teachers to apply for teaching positions and for schools and systems to hire based on determinations of merit. A red state chief seeking to bust up the teacher-licensure cartel could go that way. Instead, I fear this whole thing pulls us in the wrong direction. I鈥檓 curious to hear your take, my friend.
Jal: Well, I took the test. And I passed! It includes questions like 鈥淲hat is the fundamental biological distinction between males and females?鈥� (answer: chromosomes and reproductive anatomy), and 鈥淲hy is the distinction between male and female important in areas like sports and privacy?鈥� (answer: 鈥渢o preserve fairness, safety, and integrity for both sexes.鈥�) It is less like a test on being an effective teacher and more like a test on contemporary conservative talking points. I don鈥檛 think it would actually screen anyone out. Rather, it signals which points of view are welcome in Oklahoma. Since I don鈥檛 think there should be a political litmus test for teachers, I find this to be a pretty odious idea.
At a deeper level, there are so many things wrong here that I鈥檓 not sure where to start. One angle is that this is another example of education being treated like a political football. Scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress are declining, schools are in need of fundamental reinvention, the teaching profession is in crisis, and yet we are again politicizing it in superficial ways rather than focusing on these core issues. A second angle is the problematic nature of contemporary American politics鈥擱yan Walters justified these tests by arguing that teachers from California and New York were engaging in liberal indoctrination of their students. We can debate the merits of that claim, but the education response should not be the conservative indoctrination of students. Indoctrination of any kind is anathema to the purpose of education, which is to help students to think, to develop their own views, and to challenge those views with alternate perspectives. If the governor of Oklahoma had championed this test, it would be par for the course, but the fact that it came from the state鈥檚 superintendent, whose focus should be more on education than on politics, is particularly shameful.
Schools are political entities. They are democratically governed, and thus it is misguided to assume there is a world where we can entirely 鈥渢ake the politics out of education.鈥� But if we want to improve the educational part, a little buffering may be in order. Oklahoma, like all the states in our nation, needs more good teachers. What makes a good teacher is not whether they are politically liberal or conservative but whether they know their subject and can open a child鈥檚 mind to new possibilities. Cutting their potential workforce in half is not a decision anyone can afford right now.
Rick: Can I stay with the California and New York thing for a minute? It really signals that the whole thing is a clumsy political stunt. Presumably, Walters did that on purpose: Targeting two high-profile blue states would make this pop more vividly on MAGA social media. But, for anyone who focuses more on education than messaging, it鈥檚 wholly self-defeating. If the point of the test is to protect Oklahoma鈥檚 students from the 鈥渨rong鈥� sort of teachers, then the test should apply uniformly. After all, teachers from other blue states, or even from red states, might not have the 鈥減roper views and values.鈥�
Given that I鈥檝e long been frustrated with the grouping that prevails in teacher training and licensure, I wish that I could push back on your characterization of the test. But I really can鈥檛. You鈥檙e right that it鈥檚 less a test of skills and knowledge than a screen for talking points. Indeed, Bellwether鈥檚 Andy Rotherham has aptly 鈥攐ne that鈥檚 less interested in what teachers know than in eliciting right-wing groupthink on questions of law, gender, and policy.
The is staggering. Heck, I can remember those long-ago days in 2023 when progressives and teacher 糖心动漫vlog patronizingly explained that requiring teacher-candidates to be trained to spot 鈥渨hite supremacy culture鈥� or to show competencies in 鈥渄iversity鈥� and 鈥渆quity鈥� wasn鈥檛 political鈥攖hat it was just sensible pedagogy. And I can remember Republicans railing against teacher education programs for their ideological litmus tests and progressive dogma. Now, that signal has gone forth to trade places. I鈥檝e got to believe we can do better.
For those who reject Oklahoma鈥檚 solution but think something has to be done about teacher preparation, any wisdom to share?
Jal: There is much we could potentially discuss around teacher licensure. Those of us who want to raise standards in the name of professionalization need to explain how we plan to do that in an era of . And those, like you, Rick, who have suggested that the solution is through tearing down these walls, need to account for the fact that alternative-certification pathways have grown substantially since your initial position paper in , without much evidence that doing so has improved results for students.
There is also a good debate to be had about the qualities and skills we should look for in teachers. In the book I co-authored with the University of California San Diego鈥檚 Sarah Fine, In Search of Deeper Learning, I found that the teachers most prized by students were those who had a different stance toward teaching and learning. They focused less on covering the material and more on inspiring lifelong learners in their fields; less about compliance and more about intellectual play; less about students simply receiving knowledge and more about students developing their own interpretations of key debates and dilemmas. Students felt intellectually respected by these teachers; the teachers were actually interested in what they had to say. How can we get more of these kinds of people in our classrooms? Now that鈥檚 something that a state superintendent of education should be thinking about.
Rick: With Walters stepping down to take on a new role, Oklahoma鈥檚 next chief has a chance at a reset. Like I鈥檝e said, I鈥檓 sympathetic to the impulse here. There are problems with teacher preparation and licensure. We can agree on that, even if we may disagree on the appropriate remedy. I would hope that a reset would include three things: It would apply to aspiring teachers from every state, including Oklahoma (suggesting that the exercise is more than a political stunt). It would overhaul the test, ditching the ideological trolling and Mickey Mouse questions while leaning into substantive questions about professional responsibility, civic knowledge, and things like the science of reading. And it would seize the opportunity to rethink fundamental assumptions about how Oklahoma approaches teacher preparation and licensure. Ultimately, I think Walters hit on a real problem but missed on the solution. Here鈥檚 hoping his successor can do better.
