There was a fascinating set of papers delivered at the recent Education 20/20 Speaker Series presented by the Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank addressing education policy. Living in a private school world, I have been largely out of the loop on public education policy debates. So I was intrigued to learn more about the state of the discussion. The February 12 session featured two papers. Eliot Cohen made a case for teaching history from the standpoint of patriotism as a means to promote civic and moral virtue. Yuval Levin traced the utilitarian policies of the 90s and 2000s and proposed a return to character education as a hallmark of conservatism’s chief interest in educational policy. Both presentations touch on the ideas of moral character and civic duty, which are certainly worth further consideration.
Cohen proposes a return to teaching patriotic history. He does a good job of nuancing what this means, especially in light of the charged environment of today’s identity politics. He recollects his own upbringing on the Landmark Histories series and books like Johnny Tremain by Esther Forbes. In these works he finds a “fascination with the American past.” There is a quality of civic education that American history can promote, without in any way denying the “darker side of American history, too.” He sees how teaching history with patriotic value would benefit society. “Patriotic history is a kind of glue to civil society, it’s not just about feeling good about who you are, it’s about holding the country together.” Cohen holds up Lincoln’s “Lyceum Address” as a paradigm. Good, critical reflection on America’s history can promote “affection for America and what it stands for” regardless of racial, ethnic or religious background.
Cohen traces several trends that today work against a patriotic approach in the teaching of history. First, he identifies a tendency to privilege “subaltern” history. While there is the need to promote knowledge of underprivileged people groups, Cohen cautions against a read of history as simply power and dominance. The ideals of, say, the framers of the constitution are worthy of admiration, forming something that can knit together society despite the social and political differences that divide us. Second, he notes an emphasis on transnational history. Universal historical concepts are obviously worthwhile to study, but they have all too easily ignored the connection of universals to actual nation states. Third, Cohen identifies how there has been an attempt to do history without politics, warfare or diplomacy; again tracing universal concepts without having the delve into localized conflicts. Finally, he notes that history, especially at the university level, has become so fractured into subdisciplines that scholarship doesn’t speak to the broad matter of citizenry. In light of these trends, he calls for a return to balance so that patriotic citizenship enters once again into the study of history.
As a history teacher, I found this paper to be insightful about the current state of affairs. It is difficult to find a high school history textbook that connects its readers to a sense of their citizenship. History ought to connect to a student’s understanding of their own role in society so that he or she can enter into civic discourse. Cohen considers the United States an exceptional country with an exceptional mission of enduring value. A student who gains this kind of perspective from historical study is well positioned to actually serve and meet the needs of society. Formational ideas like these enliven and personalize historical instruction.
The second paper, delivered by Yuval Levin, was focused predominantly on educational policy debates in the 1990s and where they are heading today. He chronicles the major policy strategies of the left and right establishments then as centering around a bipartisan agreement on quantifiable test results. By tracking test results, the US could measure student achievement against foreign competition, particularly in light of America’s falling status in education globally. Test results also gave a method to hold teachers accountable, on the assumption that holding teachers’ feet to the fire would improve academic achievement. This tethering of educational policy to standardized test scores “resulted in a very clinical approach,” meaning that character and citizenship, hallmark issues for conservatives, were sidelined as major policy issues.
Levin delineates the political perspectives of the left and right as they respond to major crisis issues. The left tend to champion the underprivileged whereas the right tend to champion social order. (I’m reminded of Jordan Peterson’s understanding of personality traits, with liberals being high in openness and conservatives being high in order.) Thus when it comes to education, the left will call for access to education for the underprivileged often seeing political controversies as a matter of oppressed vs. oppressor. The right, on the other hand, will see the removal of character and citizenship from educational policy as a threat to the well being of institutions that uphold social order, such as the family, religious communities, service organizations or corporations. The right, then, sees political controversies framed as civilization vs. barbarism. Thus when it comes to education policy controversies today, issues have become more stratified around these ideologies. Furthermore because the bipartisan compromise of 1990s focused so heavily of measurable outcomes, both sides compromised their distinctive values, actually making it more difficult to find common ground now.
As a conservative, Levin calls for policy makers to bring character and civics back into schools, because education is not just about test scores. In the Q&A that follows, Levin addresses the difficult question about character in the public school setting. Who decides what ethical values are normative? Levin suggests that the difficulty of making decisions about ethical norms should not dissuade policy makers from championing their core educational ideals.
Both papers intersect on this idea of moral character and civic duty. Education without these ideas seems to omit much of what educators throughout the ages felt was education’s fundamental aim. Plato, for instance, in his Protagoras states:
“Education and admonition commence in the first years of childhood, and last to the very end of life. Mother and nurse and father and tutor are vying with one another about the improvement of the child as soon as ever he is able to understand what is being said to him. He cannot say or do anything without their setting forth to him that this is just and that is unjust; this is honourable, that is dishonourable; this is holy, that is unholy; do this and abstain from that.”
The Works of Plato (Simon & Schuster 1956), 213.
Moral conduct and right living are the signs of a person who is well educated. We might marvel at the intellect of our latter day wiz kids who can code new apps for our iPhones, but I think we equally mourn the loss of public virtue that comes as a result of educational policy focused solely on standardized test achievement. Education ought to offer more than job skills and marketable credentials. Benjamin Franklin in his Proposal for the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania (1747) included in students’ studies the following:
“Morality, by descanting and making continual Observations on the Causes of the Rise or Fall of any Man’s Character, Fortune, Power, &c . mention’d in History; the Advantages of Temperance, Order, Frugality, Industry, Perseverance, &c. &c. Indeed the general natural Tendency of Reading good History, must be, to fix in the Minds of Youth deep Impressions of the Beauty and Usefulness of Virtue of all Kinds, Publick Spirit, Fortitude, &c.”
One can hear his experiment in personal virtue explained in his autobiography lurking in the background of this program of study. Moral character and civic duty stand at the center of Franklin’s vision of a virtuous, civil society built on popular sovereignty and natural human rights.
I might be tempted to be self-congratulatory, dwelling as I do in the private education sector, to see the public school system mired as it is in an impasse of policy debate. The temptation for all of us in education, even in private Christian education, is to lose sight of this moral vision of education. There are lessons to be planned, papers to be graded, students to manage, and a host of attendant duties that make teaching more than a nine-to-five job. It is imperative, though, that we not lose sight of our highest aims as educators. Cultivating moral character and civic duty in our students begins with us teachers caring about these values, calling our students to a consideration of these values, and orienting our classrooms around these values.
The national education policy debates are instructive. I look forward to upcoming Education 20/20 speakers at the Fordham Institute. You can learn more about the events here. In the future, I hope to learn more about other education policy think tanks. The more liberally-minded Lumina Foundation recently came to my attention, potentially offering a different perspective on the state of current education policy. Educational renewal is something that is important to us here at Educational Renaissance, thus we look back at important ideals from the past while connecting to the currents of educational thought today.