On So-Called ‘School Choice’ “The bitter truth is that American schools have become a reflection of the nation itself: divided by race, class and aspiration -- and all too often animated by no higher calling than the selfish preservation of the status quo.” Time Magazine; Sept.16, 1991
Time magazine recently asked the question that is fast becoming both the most immediate question we face in our culture, and the question we face most ultimately -- How should the young be educated? It should not surprise us to be reminded that this was the original question asked by ancient philosophers. It remains the key question today because the answer could open doors to a future which is still and always our potential. It is difficult for those of us who have been through our modern western system of education to imagine an answer to this most difficult of questions. But the answer exists, despite our current lack of vision, to be found right where the ancients told us we would find it -- where all truth resides -- in the soul.
The answer offered most recently, and examined in this recent article, goes under the banner of “school choice.” An ironic name, considering that the effects of such a program -- which promises to revitalize education by distributing vouchers for $2500 or so worth of education to parents who will then decide where to spend them -- would be to allow parents ever greater measures of control over what their children do and do not learn. It is theorized that this increase in parental choice, along with the introduction of the profit motive into the system, will create incentive for the improvement of the existing system as well as for the development of new kinds of schools. “Choice changes the psychology of it,” argues Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, “People need to know they can walk away from bad schools.”
Now this is certainly a true statement, and one we must keep in mind in whatever educational formula we come up with. But it is questionable whether this particular arrangement will accomplish the desired goal, and not simple create schools that end up “selling” knowledge, like the sophists of ancient Greece. Such a system could soon become one which caters to the status quo beliefs and values of wealthy parents, who would thus continue to have greater influence over our schools than their fair share. Meanwhile, so-called underprivileged children would continue to loose out, for their underprivileged would remain a systematic disadvantage which disregards their needs at every turn, a problem that can only get worse in a system which sees first to the needs of the class that can pay for what it wants to learn. Such a laissez faire educational system would ultimately end up aiming at appeasing the often biased interests of parents, interests which unfortunately, in a world so full of insecurities and power imbalances as ours, are not always identical to the needs of children. Taken too far, this system would easily lead to a perversion of truth, and could not simultaneously teach children to think for themselves.
As opposed to this so-called school choice method, or any of the other options currently at our disposal, I would propose a form of interactive moral education, called here deep education.. It is a method which would hold the source of wisdom to be inside the child, perhaps beneath habits of acceptance and obedience, and would regard teachers and students alike as simply learners. In this conception, excellence would not find itself in competition with equality, contrary to contemporary practice. Rather, this form of excellence would seem to be at the very heart of any truly ideal conception of equality. I feel it is the ambiguity with which we use these terms that allows us to see them as opposed to one another, rather than complementary and necessary to one another. For instance, when we talk about excellence, and consider the classical liberal argument behind our conception of it, we can see that it is freedom about which we speak, the freedom to grow into our highest potentials. In this conception of freedom we cannot mean freedom to infringe upon the freedoms of others, for this would be violating the very principle we espouse. Likewise, when we talk about equality, we do not mean sameness, for sameness implies equal deserts which, in a species that makes conscious choices and thus has moral autonomy, is an unreasonable expectation. Rather, when we talk about equality we mean fairness, for people have to be free to suffer and enjoy the consequences of their choices, good and bad, lest they discontinue learning altogether. Thus, in a fair world, excellence means equality of freedom itself. These together form a kind of justice (an inside-looking-out kind) that might reasonably be called karma.
Thus, we might hold justice to be among the chief criteria for excellence in education. If treated with fair consideration, which again is not equal as in same, but equal as in fair amounts of freedom, there is no structural reason that every person cannot grow into his or her own best self -- which is not to say that every person will, only that every person can who so chooses. Choice, and its complement, responsibility, are the essence of karmic justice.
An educational system, to be both excellent and equally fair, needs to be based on something other than its appeal to parents. It would need, rather, to be based on its appeal to children themselves. Here is where the “choice” really matters. Now some might jump to the conclusion that we mean by this “entertainment,” but let’s give children more credit. To make school more interesting we need only examine what children are truly interested in, and to find this, I suggest that we begin by offering them truly good options, indeed all options, then watching them as they proceed through them. A radical idea, although one wonders why it should be. Have we ever bothered to actually ask children what they think? Or do we simply assume that we have all the answers? Are we so arrogant as to believe -- in this age of multiplying problems -- that we have nothing to learn from the young? That they have nothing to learn from one another? We are very good at telling them what to do and what to think, but are we so certain that we are not simply teaching them how to repeat the mistakes of the past?
Such an approach as proposed here -- a system of education based on dialogue with and between children about the dialogue with and between the sages of the ages -- would take seriously and thereby enhance the self-knowledge, empathy, individuality, creativity, and intrinsic motivation of each and every child. In the process it would promote the development of the unique specialness of all, not as they are compared to one another, but as they are compared to their own personal best selves. It is critical that we remember that there is an excellence for every individual being, the same task or skill which is a mediocre accomplishment for one child, can amount to an excellence of the most brilliant kind for another. The difference in these approaches to the concept of excellence is merely how we measure it, which is to say, from what point of view, i.e. from the outside looking in by competition between individuals, or from inside the individual looking out and relative to that person’s own inherent potential and criteria. From this view, excellence is potential in every person, indeed, every task, not merely for the few, but for every person, and indeed, every living thing. It cannot help but be a more excellent education system that recognizes, and Plato would say, remembers this. Only a method that regards individuals with proper dignity can hope to strengthen that dignity and promote self-respect.
Since such a respectful method would encourage comparisons between accepted value and true value, it is unlikely that it would be subsidized by those who don’t want their values questioned. Thus, here seems perhaps the most likely place to start -- by allowing and even encouraging the questioning of rules, questions we normally discourage, despite the fact that we know the rules to be made by the relatively privileged, and too often specifically to protect their privilege. Where education is concerned, it is more often for the sake of efficiency than for the sake of learning that rules are enforced. The rules of education and of society in general deserve and cannot but benefit by the scrutiny, if not the outright defiance, of those they are meant to control. After all, it’s only fair: if they are good rules, they will have good reasons, and reflective children (as opposed to reflexive ones) will discover these for themselves. If they are not good rules, then they shouldn’t be there in the first place. Such self-determination could not help but give rise to a more intelligent democracy than we ourselves have proved to be.
Time magazine recently asked the question that is fast becoming both the most immediate question we face in our culture, and the question we face most ultimately -- How should the young be educated? It should not surprise us to be reminded that this was the original question asked by ancient philosophers. It remains the key question today because the answer could open doors to a future which is still and always our potential. It is difficult for those of us who have been through our modern western system of education to imagine an answer to this most difficult of questions. But the answer exists, despite our current lack of vision, to be found right where the ancients told us we would find it -- where all truth resides -- in the soul.
The answer offered most recently, and examined in this recent article, goes under the banner of “school choice.” An ironic name, considering that the effects of such a program -- which promises to revitalize education by distributing vouchers for $2500 or so worth of education to parents who will then decide where to spend them -- would be to allow parents ever greater measures of control over what their children do and do not learn. It is theorized that this increase in parental choice, along with the introduction of the profit motive into the system, will create incentive for the improvement of the existing system as well as for the development of new kinds of schools. “Choice changes the psychology of it,” argues Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, “People need to know they can walk away from bad schools.”
Now this is certainly a true statement, and one we must keep in mind in whatever educational formula we come up with. But it is questionable whether this particular arrangement will accomplish the desired goal, and not simple create schools that end up “selling” knowledge, like the sophists of ancient Greece. Such a system could soon become one which caters to the status quo beliefs and values of wealthy parents, who would thus continue to have greater influence over our schools than their fair share. Meanwhile, so-called underprivileged children would continue to loose out, for their underprivileged would remain a systematic disadvantage which disregards their needs at every turn, a problem that can only get worse in a system which sees first to the needs of the class that can pay for what it wants to learn. Such a laissez faire educational system would ultimately end up aiming at appeasing the often biased interests of parents, interests which unfortunately, in a world so full of insecurities and power imbalances as ours, are not always identical to the needs of children. Taken too far, this system would easily lead to a perversion of truth, and could not simultaneously teach children to think for themselves.
As opposed to this so-called school choice method, or any of the other options currently at our disposal, I would propose a form of interactive moral education, called here deep education.. It is a method which would hold the source of wisdom to be inside the child, perhaps beneath habits of acceptance and obedience, and would regard teachers and students alike as simply learners. In this conception, excellence would not find itself in competition with equality, contrary to contemporary practice. Rather, this form of excellence would seem to be at the very heart of any truly ideal conception of equality. I feel it is the ambiguity with which we use these terms that allows us to see them as opposed to one another, rather than complementary and necessary to one another. For instance, when we talk about excellence, and consider the classical liberal argument behind our conception of it, we can see that it is freedom about which we speak, the freedom to grow into our highest potentials. In this conception of freedom we cannot mean freedom to infringe upon the freedoms of others, for this would be violating the very principle we espouse. Likewise, when we talk about equality, we do not mean sameness, for sameness implies equal deserts which, in a species that makes conscious choices and thus has moral autonomy, is an unreasonable expectation. Rather, when we talk about equality we mean fairness, for people have to be free to suffer and enjoy the consequences of their choices, good and bad, lest they discontinue learning altogether. Thus, in a fair world, excellence means equality of freedom itself. These together form a kind of justice (an inside-looking-out kind) that might reasonably be called karma.
Thus, we might hold justice to be among the chief criteria for excellence in education. If treated with fair consideration, which again is not equal as in same, but equal as in fair amounts of freedom, there is no structural reason that every person cannot grow into his or her own best self -- which is not to say that every person will, only that every person can who so chooses. Choice, and its complement, responsibility, are the essence of karmic justice.
An educational system, to be both excellent and equally fair, needs to be based on something other than its appeal to parents. It would need, rather, to be based on its appeal to children themselves. Here is where the “choice” really matters. Now some might jump to the conclusion that we mean by this “entertainment,” but let’s give children more credit. To make school more interesting we need only examine what children are truly interested in, and to find this, I suggest that we begin by offering them truly good options, indeed all options, then watching them as they proceed through them. A radical idea, although one wonders why it should be. Have we ever bothered to actually ask children what they think? Or do we simply assume that we have all the answers? Are we so arrogant as to believe -- in this age of multiplying problems -- that we have nothing to learn from the young? That they have nothing to learn from one another? We are very good at telling them what to do and what to think, but are we so certain that we are not simply teaching them how to repeat the mistakes of the past?
Such an approach as proposed here -- a system of education based on dialogue with and between children about the dialogue with and between the sages of the ages -- would take seriously and thereby enhance the self-knowledge, empathy, individuality, creativity, and intrinsic motivation of each and every child. In the process it would promote the development of the unique specialness of all, not as they are compared to one another, but as they are compared to their own personal best selves. It is critical that we remember that there is an excellence for every individual being, the same task or skill which is a mediocre accomplishment for one child, can amount to an excellence of the most brilliant kind for another. The difference in these approaches to the concept of excellence is merely how we measure it, which is to say, from what point of view, i.e. from the outside looking in by competition between individuals, or from inside the individual looking out and relative to that person’s own inherent potential and criteria. From this view, excellence is potential in every person, indeed, every task, not merely for the few, but for every person, and indeed, every living thing. It cannot help but be a more excellent education system that recognizes, and Plato would say, remembers this. Only a method that regards individuals with proper dignity can hope to strengthen that dignity and promote self-respect.
Since such a respectful method would encourage comparisons between accepted value and true value, it is unlikely that it would be subsidized by those who don’t want their values questioned. Thus, here seems perhaps the most likely place to start -- by allowing and even encouraging the questioning of rules, questions we normally discourage, despite the fact that we know the rules to be made by the relatively privileged, and too often specifically to protect their privilege. Where education is concerned, it is more often for the sake of efficiency than for the sake of learning that rules are enforced. The rules of education and of society in general deserve and cannot but benefit by the scrutiny, if not the outright defiance, of those they are meant to control. After all, it’s only fair: if they are good rules, they will have good reasons, and reflective children (as opposed to reflexive ones) will discover these for themselves. If they are not good rules, then they shouldn’t be there in the first place. Such self-determination could not help but give rise to a more intelligent democracy than we ourselves have proved to be.