Schools of thought?

In 1918 the National Education Association established the following statement of goals titled, “The Purposes of Schools.” 

1). Provide child with a sense of ethics, ethical behavior and human relationships.

2). Teach child responsibility for his own health, independence in self-care.

3). Help child toward sensitivity to the responsibilities of citizenship.

4). Mastery of skills, teaching fundamental processes; the 3 Rs.

5). Learn to use leisure time well.

6). Encourage worthy human relationships, ability to function within family group.

7). It is appropriate to teach children how to make a living.

In 1960, the Education Policies Commission of the NEA superseded the 1918 version with: “The central purpose of the schools is to develop the rational powers of man. The basic elements of thinking and reasoning: English, math, science and history.” Whatever happened to ethics, responsibility, human relationships, etc.?

As Eda LeShan wrote in 1967 in “The Conspiracy Against Childhood”: “ Rather than increasing the opportunities for children and young people to get some guidance and directions in facing their own futures as men and women and citizens of a complex and frightening world, we are instead focusing increasing amounts of time and attention on academic skills.”

There was a time during the ’60s and ’70s that many of the education hierarchy decided that values were relative; that no one should tell you how to live and that it was, in a way, against civil rights to try to teach children universal ethical concepts and standards such as honesty, decency and responsibility. The educational powers-that-were stuck their heads in the sand and increasingly fractionated the child — and for some unconscionable reason — convinced themselves that a child could learn English, math, science and history in a values vacuum.

In the ’80s, things didn’t get much better. That decade can be remembered by the National Commission on Excellence in Education’s publication, “A Nation at Risk” — a chronicle of the times. Contained therein was virtually no evidence of concern for the whole child but only for “our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science and technological innovation being overtaken by competitors throughout the world.” Our education hierarchy, our politicians and our society as a whole seemed to have lost sight of the most important aspect of human being — of the qualities that are essential for preventing our culture from collapsing around us. The human doing has since been emphasized instead of the human being and that is where the weakness lies.

If anything, the sink or swim mentality has increased to this day. The Bush II administration’s misguided authoritarian proclamation, “No Child Left Behind,” with its singly focused, unrealistic expectations, turned out to be a nightmare for educators. As Dianne Raditch wrote in “The Death and Life of the Great American School System”: “When we define what matters in education only by what we can measure, we are in serious trouble. When this happens we tend to forget that schools are responsible for shaping character, developing sound minds in healthy bodies and forming citizens for our democracy, not just for teaching basic skills.”

The Obama administration’s “Race to the Top” wasn’t much better. A Los Angeles Times editorial at that time stated that some of Obama’s “fixes of the NCLB act could prove just as rigid and therefore as unrealistic as the original, which naively promised to make every student proficient. Also, “Obama’s plan doesn’t take into account local differences in student populations and resources.” They continued: “The first step toward graduating more students would be robust vocational education which has largely fallen by the wayside. The term ‘college ready’ is trendy to school reform, but many students aren’t interested in college, especially the ones more at risk and dropping out.” Do those who promote “college ready” actually believe that all students have the motivation and/or intellect to make it in college?

Will all of the aspects of a child’s growth and development ever again become the primary concern of our education hierarchy? Using the child as a means to an end — as a tool — with “our nation’s unchallenged preeminence” as a single focus is very short-sighted. But until their hearts (and ours) are in it, all of the tests and accountability in the world will do nothing but provide leaky lifeboats for a sinking ship.

“Education is learning what you didn’t even know you didn’t know.” — Daniel J. Boorstin.

Since 1984, Dorothy Dimitre has written more than 1,000 columns for various local newspapers. Her email address is gramsd@aceweb.com.