Should public schools in a democracy prepare students for what is or what should be?
This question has been asked repeatedly by reformers since John Dewey’s “Pedagogic Creed” appeared in 1897. The question continues in reformers’ quest for KIPP-like schooling for poor children of color or those reformers who swear by common core standards making U.S. schools competitive with Shanghai and Singapore, and, of course, advocates for transforming schools into high-tech havens. Don’t forget those who see schools as agents for reducing obesity in children.
Finally, add those champions of “critical pedagogy” to that list of what public schools in a democracy should be doing. Beyond preparing students with the language, social, and academic skills for a highly competitive labor market (e.g., KIPP, Common Core Standards), “critical pedagogy” and its various incarnations seek to equip low-income minority students with the language skills and academic content to analyze the culture and structures of power in the U.S. and use both to gain access to equal opportunities and alter the trajectories of their lives with confidence rather than embarrassment (see Ball and Alim pdf Preparation, Pedagogy, Power, and Policy). Proponents of Black English, for example, (see PDF Critical_language_awareness ) state that “[o]ur pedagogies should not pretend that racism does not exist in the form of linguistic discrimination. Nor should they pretend that linguistic profiling does not directly affect the personal and family lives of our students who speak marginalized languages.” An arsenal of sociolinguistic approaches exists to answer the question: “How might the vernacular of African American children be taken into account in efforts to help them do better in schools?” John Rickford at Stanford has spelled out different strategies and their classroom applications. All of these efforts seek to disprove that low-income minority African American, Hawaiian, Mexican American language practices brought into classrooms are deficits; they can be, in the hands of knowledgeable and skilled teachers–strengths.
That mission requires schools to attack political, social, and economic inequalities. For that to occur, a critical mass of teachers holding these beliefs in their heads and possessing the requisite language and literacy knowledge and skills to engage children and youth have to be in classrooms. State and district leaders, teacher education institutions, and reliable funding also have to be mobilized to support teachers and schools as the vanguard in creating a better society.
For those who look to the past for lessons, the history of school reform could easily discourage those current reformers who press schools to be agents of social justice. John Dewey felt the glow of reform ebb after leaving his beloved Laboratory School at the University of Chicago. Prior efforts before World War I, in the 1930s and then in the 1960s to move schools to be in the front lines of making a better society ran aground (see 03-ERv33n5_Kantor-Lowe)
But looking to the past can be dispiriting–which is probably why many reformers spurn history. For those who argue that “rather than harming linguistically profiled and marginalized students, our goal should be arming them with the silent weapons needed for the quiet … wars that are waged daily against their language and person,” the Ann Arbor (or Black English) court decision in 1977 and the Ebonics episode in the Oakland (CA) school district in the early 1990s speak to the uphill road facing them in the second decade of the 21st century. (see PDF Critical_language_awareness)
What John Dewey unleashed in the last years of the 19th century with his Creed and the unrestrained enthusiasm of pedagogical progressives then and civil rights reformers to transform school and classroom in order to make a better, more just society has motivated generation after generation of reformers to see the school as tip of the lance in making societal change (see social_justice_-ok). Those selling “21st Century Skills,” “college for all,” KIPP, charter schools, common core standards, and pay-4-performance, however, want schools to prepare children and youth for what is, not for what society should be. These advocates have seen, and continue to see schools as boot camps for society as it is. They often say that they seek equality of opportunity in dominating the landscape of reform since John Dewey worked in his University of Chicago Laboratory School.
Yet each generation of reformers has contained those who also see public schools as instruments of social change that can make the lives of marginalized children far better than now exist. They are hardy and tough-minded; they do not let the facts of the past cloud their dreams nor halt their efforts. The question, then, remains open as it was a century ago: What role should public schools in a democratic society play?