I did a quick check of the Teacher Education Program at Harvard's Graduate School of Education. Only 8 of the 54 credits required in the program focus on "diversity." It looks to me that Greene and Shock have done an extremely poor job of sorting out the facts in their article.

Could it be that they have some preconceived notions about ed schools that aren't entirely accurate? I agree that there is room for improvement, but lying about what the ed schools do is not the way to fix the problems.

It is certainly true that many classes in many teacher ed programs are fluffy at best. As a teacher who slept through many such classes, I know that I learned more from a math teaching placement than from a math teaching class. Teacher ed needs to put teachers in classrooms (diverse or otherwise) so they can practice what they preach. The best teacher ed programs give prospective teachers as much face time as possible with real children being taught by excellent teachers.

Don't count course titles, which is meaningless. A better metric would be how much instruction in each subject education students get as part of their certification programs. An elementary teacher needs instruction on teaching several subjects, including math. A secondary teacher would get his or her math skills from the math department, but would need training in math pedagogy from the ed school. Look at instruction time in techniques and compare it to time spent on multiculturalism. It might be best to also note the number of students in the various programs: a lot more high school teachers get trained at big state schools than at Stanford and the like.