Almost all teachers would agree they want to “Build positive relationships with students and families and provide instruction to students on building and maintaining positive peer relationships in the educational learning setting.” It's also good to affirm that we want to "consider alternative perspectives." If that were the beginning, middle, and end of these proposed guidelines, I would not be writing at this time.

 

There's a difference between “considering” alternative perspectives and “affirming … all dimensions of diversity” as these guidelines would require. For instance, some cultures believe in evolution, some in creation, some in marriage after college, some in early marriage, some in no marriage, some in sexual purity, and some reject binary views of sexuality. Affirming “all dimensions of diversity” sounds like the prevailing thinking, but an examination of any detail quickly reveals no one actually believes every idea from every diverse person is to be equally accepted. No one agrees with everything in every culture and sub-culture. Further, if everyone accepted every idea, then there would be no more diversity. Why, then, is the Virginia Board of Education mandating that be so?

 

Every year teachers are required to undergo sexual harassment training that gets quite specific about limits and boundaries around student relationships with any staff outside school or school activities. These draft cultural competency guidelines specifically call for “cultivating relationships beyond the classroom anchored in affirmation, mutual respect, and validation.” Who thinks that's a good idea?

 

The draft cultural competency guidelines “require continuous reflection, attention, and practice over time” among the four “interrelated” domains. The first domain is Self-Reflection. Teachers are to be evaluated based on how well they “acknowledge and continually examine personal lived experiences, the influence of dimensions of diversity on them and how that influence manifests itself in their own experiences.” It used to be that teachers simply taught the curriculum. If they agreed with everything, great. If they disagreed with parts of it, they kept that to themselves, taught the curriculum anyway, and moved on. These guidelines seem structurally built to no longer accept that, but instead to surface and address such previously-quiet dissent: you either agree with and affirm all dimensions of diversity, or your teacher evaluation may reflect poor performance.

 

Teachers are also to “Provide opportunities for students to be active contributors in solving relevant local, state, national and global community challenges.” This sounds like lobbying. There was already the recent bill to give students time to lobby outside the classroom. These guidelines could bring lobbying inside the classroom in the name of cultural competency.

 

As the guidelines recognize, “The term cultural competency was used in the authorizing legislation, but was not defined there.” The Board is relying on academic literatures as its basis for the four domains of cultural competency. Therefore, the Board is well within its purview to make significant changes to these domains as currently written.

 

At a minimum, I suggest removing the first domain of self-reflection. Who is anyone in the state hierarchy to evaluate a teacher based on how well the evaluator supposes the teacher has reflected on themselves?

 

Domain II, pedagogy and practice, the part about actual teaching in the classroom, is where the focus should be, and I suggest removing the reference to “all dimensions of diversity” as they may contradict, not make sense, or violate community or moral norms.

 

The problem with Domain III is the universal acceptance part. This either defies logic, or leaves whoever has power with a large club for minimizing any dissent. The school environment has never been chartered with accommodating every element of every culture. The purpose of the school environment is to accommodate the learning of the curriculum. Until every element of every culture is part of the curriculum, the learning environment only need be sufficient to accommodate already-required learning.

 

I suggest removing the last domain on community engagement. The community should come to the schools and have their input. It is not for the schools to push acceptance and affirmation of “all dimensions of diversity” on the community.