US Education, Zambia and the State - A Reflection

Life is too funny, sometimes. Like when I was at home reading a piece about the American educational system that got me thinking about the New Left, the rejection of the state, and the influence on education; and not 10 minutes later was sitting at a table in a pub and talking to some dear friends who have lived in Zambia for the last few years and have gotten to be really frustrated with the lack of a system.

The essay that got started on this train of thought was E. D. Hirsch's review of Diane Ravitch's new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System. I have issues, of course. I've balked at both Mr. Hirsch's and Ms. Ravitch's contributions to education theory and reform. If Mr. Hirsch represents the center, Ms. Ravitch's new book apparently (I think I'm going to have to actually read this one) has tossed her from his right to his left. He's not too thrilled with her swing, though he condescends to find some merit in her argumentation.

In truth, though, his review seems to be an embittered diatribe against what he frames as "child-centered" (as opposed to "community-centered") education. These are his terms, and he attempts to load them with all sorts of illegitimate connotations, but that's beside the point. The real point, for me anyway, is that I hate to admit it, but I think he's got a point . . . but I also feel that he only has a point if you accept his assumptions.

For instance, he claims that when the US moved (in the 1960s) to a "child-centered" education that sought to build on a student's intrinsic interests, test scores dropped. This, supposedly, means that education got worse. In fact, it wouldn't be that surprising, since a child would be learning what they wanted to and not what was necessarily on the test. (I think this sort of education takes a particularly sophisticated educator to pull off well too, so it's possible that good intentions got in the way of good education). But the real question is, why do we educate? Is it about the development of the human being? Or is it about the development of the community? Or is it about getting a job? Or is it about the economy? (Please note: these are four different questions NOT 2 different questions asked in different ways.) If we value the state, then the question we are looking to ask is #2 (for lefties like me, anyway - for other people it might be question #4 . . . but, let's not go there). If we think the state pernicious, we would go with #1 (or #3, depending, again).

So this line of thinking got me wondering about how education went from #3 to #1 in the 1960s and that got me thinking about my frustration with the New Left (not all that new, anymore, I guess) which started all this modern anti-statist stuff. The Old Left were good communists that saw the value of the state, but I guess Stalin killed the enthusiasm for the New Lefties. Making connections . . .

And then I got into a conversation about Zambia and how life is so unpredictable because the state has so little real legitimacy. As my friend said, people make the system work for them, which is understandable, but also is a problem since it means that the system doesn't really work at all. It becomes an abuse of power by those who can claim it.

Which now brings me back to the old debate between Hobbes and Locke: what is the purpose of government? Why do we have a state? Is it about creating a system of power to be used to create access to certain people? Or is it about creating a system that limits power? Ultimately, how do you have something called "The Rule of Law"? And how do you make sure that those laws respect the individual and uplift the community at the same time? These last questions assume a statist perspective, and the whole concept of public education, and arguably, education in general, assumes a statist perspective. Hirsch has irked me for a long time now, and it's a bitter pill to swallow (is that cyanide?), but perhaps I should pay him more mind.