Every school, whether intentionally or not, teaches more than academic subjects. Simply participating in the daily life of a school, its routines and how it justifies and enforces them, its norms for relationships among pupils (of the same age and of different ages) and between youth and adults, the ways in which adults relate to one another (closely observed by their pupils), and a thousand other aspects of schooling teach lessons for life. Those lessons may be very positive, may be life-transforming for youth who come to school from difficult backgrounds, or they may be negative, teaching cynicism, manipulation, even cruelty.
Good schools in every country, it is fair to say, are characterized by a sense of mission and a well-defined understanding of the nature of human flourishing which in turn shapes a distinctive culture, a caractère propre, affecting not only the overt curriculum and teaching methods but also those habits and mores which teach so much. One of the best books about American schools, "The Shopping Mall High School," points out that
students of all kinds usually thrive by participation in institutions with distinctive purposes and common expectations. Magnet schools, examination schools, and schools-within-schools are expressions of the desire for communities of focused educational and often moral purpose. Because they are special places to begin with, teachers and students feel more special in them. Both are more likely to be committed to a purpose and the expectations that flow from it if they choose — and are chosen by — schools or sub-schools than if they are simply assigned to them. The existence of a common purpose has an educational force of its own, quite independent of the skills of individual teachers. It also helps good teachers do a better job and may soften the impact of less able teachers.
Paradoxically, the ability of school staff to form coherent communities expressing a shared understanding of education for life may be limited by efforts of government to require that they take on such agendas. It remains to be seen whether education officials can resist the temptation to set standards in such a form that they inhibit the distinctiveness which is a natural result of collaboration to shape the life of an individual school. Clear but limited outcome standards are what is needed. (more…)
The belief that a society or a nation can be unified - its barriers of religion, class, and race broken down - by bringing its children together in common schools that express a lowest-common-denominator vision of national life is a persistent theme throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, and has especially been evoked against schools created by immigrant groups to teach their children within their own religious tradition.
Critics like Jeff Spinner-Halev counter that pluralism is a positive social good, and allows individuals freedom to shape their own lives in terms of real choices:
A relentless diversity flattens the pluralism of society. … A pluralistic society is not a place where every institution mirrors the ethnic, racial, and gender composition of society. A pluralistic society has different kinds of groups with different kinds of memberships. … This kind of society will offer its members more choices than one that is diverse “all the way down.” … the irony of a diversity that is taken too far: eventually it makes society more homogeneous rather than heterogeneous. ... A society that has different institutions with different audiences, customers, clienteles, or students will be more pluralistic than a society where all the institutions are composed of the same people.
Advocates for an educational system that encourages non-government schooling argue that freedom in educational provision and the pluralism of the education provided requires the flourishing of alternatives to the schools operated by government, but only if these alternative schools are not compelled – or seduced – into adopting a pédagogie d’état which makes them essentially similar to government schools.
For the sake of freedom of conscience and of expression – itself founded on the principle of tolerance as well as ideological and philosophical principles of non-discrimination – no educational monopoly by the state can be justified within the democratic order. Freedom of conscience and expression are meaningless if children are subjected to mandatory indoctrination in a particular viewpoint selected by the state. (more…)
Editor’s note: Critics often suggest that expanding school choice to include private, faith-based schools will erode democracy. But noted school choice expert Charles Glenn says the evidence shows the opposite - that students are more likely to become engaged citizens if they attend schools where they feel a sense of belonging.
Jan De Groof and I are just finishing up the new edition, in four volumes, of "Balancing Freedom, Autonomy, and Accountability in Education," with chapters on 60 countries by experts from those countries. The first volume will consist of essays by a number of authors, each looking at one theme across the many nations. I just finished my contribution, on government-prescribed values in curriculum (it's attached below), and thought I would share a somewhat surprising finding:
They seem to make very little difference.
It is very common, I found, for governments to prescribe in detail how schools should promote citizenship and human rights. It is also common (though not universal) for governments to make provision for religious education in public schools, usually with an opt-out provision and sometimes with a choice between different religious traditions. When I compared these requirements with the results of the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study of 38 countries, however, I found little indication that they had an effect on the attitudes of the adolescents surveyed.
To get specific: In the Czech Republic, “at secondary school considerable attention may be given to topics such as citizenship, European citizenship, globalization, environmentalism and multiculturalism.” In Malta, there are unusually extensive curriculum requirements, insisting that “schools should serve as a testing ground for democracy in keeping with the declarations and treaties signed by Malta in the past, and with the constitutional obligations of the country. As key institutions within civil society, schools should foster among their students respect for others, and for the right of other people to enjoy freedom, peace, security and the benefits of a society governed by law and order. In a society that is increasingly becoming multi-cultural, the educational system should enable students to develop a sense of respect, co-operation, and solidarity among cultures.” In Latvia, schools are expected to foster “the development of a responsible, tolerant and democratic citizen of the state and Europe, as well as instilling the opinion that human life is the highest value.”
But countries that articulate such standards are not necessarily those in which human rights are most consistently respected. The ICCS survey found eighth graders in the Czech Republic, Latvia and Malta were considerably less likely than the average of other countries to express support for equal rights for ethnic and racial groups.
The same disconnect is evident when we look at countries like England that mandate religious education in public schools and yet have far lower rates of religious belief and practice than do the United States, which forbid it.
In short, the prescription, by government, of value-laden curriculum objectives does not seem effective, and indeed I argue in my essay that government control or intrusive oversight can work against its intended purpose, by cultivating a passivity on the part of teachers and students alike that is anything but a model of engaged citizenship.
Let me explain that a little. (more…)
Valerie Strauss recently reprinted a commentary on her Washington Post blog, Answer Sheet, from Ann Geiger, a former Orange County, Fla. school board member, who asserted that empowering parents to select their child’s school is undermining our country’s religious and social cohesion. Geiger quotes extensively from Ross Douthat’s recent New York Times column, in which he argues that the religious center in the United States is breaking apart and that this polarization has negative consequences for our democracy.
Geiger concurs with Douthat’s views and blames, in part, school choice for exacerbating this problem by allowing parents - especially immigrant parents - to focus on their personal needs instead of the greater good. Geiger writes that public education “was strongest when most agreed children educated together within public-funded, community-based schools was in the best interests of the individual child and society at large ... With many immigrant families flowing into the United States, often from countries with pronounced educational inequities, instead of hearing the traditional American value of children learning together as the foundation of a strong democracy and healthy society, they hear, look out for your own interests, your own child, your own world. This haunts and disturbs me. What are the long-term consequences if so many of our young families, native-born and immigrant, hear that message?”
While I agree social cohesion is an essential component of a healthy democracy, denying low-income and immigrant parents the freedom and resources to select their child’s school will weaken our common bonds, not strengthen them. But I acknowledge Geiger’s views have deep historical roots.
In the 1830s, state governments, which were controlled by Protestants, started assuming greater control of publicly-funded education in response to the influx of Catholic immigrants into Catholic schools. The goal of these mid-19th century Protestants wasn’t the nurturing of religious pluralism. They wanted to diminish Catholicism while enhancing their power and influence. (more…)
