We, the people, appear to understand that the linchpin of each American's necessary apprenticeship in democracy is a qualified, caring, competent classroom teacher, Mr. Goodlad points out. The role of Presidents and governors is to cheer us on, not to mislead us with the mythology of school reform. RECENTLY, colleagues and were more than a little startled by a letter to the editor of one of our local newspapers. It had been wryly captioned Civic Spirit, and it read as follows: Our son recently finished 90 hours of community service. The crime to fit this punishment? He just happens to be a graduating senior. We believe community service is a wonderful way for drunk drivers, juvenile delinquents - any member of society who has cost the community pain, money, etc. - to pay back a little of what they owe. Is it appropriate for productive, high-achieving high school students to be required to do more punishment than the average teenage burglar? In our opinion, any teenager who stays out of trouble is contributing to their community. Presumably, the couple writing this letter assumed that they had performed their civic duty by bringing a high-achieving student into the world. Their son, in turn, had taken care of his community responsibilities through academic achievement. am reminded of a quite different letter to a newspaper editor reporting the behavior of an aging woman at an open meeting of a state's budget committee. Exasperated by the repeated cuts in allocations for schools, she stood up and spoke out in protest. The committee's chairman interrupted her. You are a schoolteacher, assume. No, am not, she replied. Then you must have a daughter or son who is. No, do not. Surely, grandchildren in school? I have no children, she replied, have to live with everyone else's children. THE HARD AND TOUGH AND THE SOFT AND TENDER These two letters illustrate a long-standing tension regarding the purposes of our schools. At the turn of the 19th century into the 20th, William James referred to the and tough and the and as the warp and woof in the fabric of American social and political ideology. He saw the need for balancing the two. But they have tended to be out of balance, with one rising and the other falling in cycles of two to three decades, with schooling following several years behind. The rhetoric of school purpose has been relatively stable, however. The dozen or so goals that surface again and again in commissioned reports and district guidelines for schools have consistently embraced personal, social, vocational, and academic attributes. In 1987 Mortimer Adler wove the rhetorical fabric this way: for duties of citizenship is one of three objectives for any sound system of public schooling in our society. Preparation for earning a living is another, and the third is preparation for discharging everyone's moral obligation to lead a good life and make as much of one's self as possible.1 Poll after poll and study after study have revealed that we want all three. Nonetheless, reform era after reform era - each politically driven - puts policy and practice out of balance. Adults with quite ordinary academic records invent the past in exhorting schools to be hard and tough, as schools supposedly were for them. Educating the whole child is frequently viewed as the dangerous notion of woolly-headed progressive educators. Indeed, it is not so much the substance of reform cycles but more the side effects that do harm. Whether soft and tender or hard and tough, school reforms fade and die, frequently from their own excesses. But their side effects live on as eduviruses that add cost to the system and create roadblocks to the serious redesign and sustained improvement we need. …
Read full abstract