The End of Schooling; J. K. Williams

John K. Williams THE END OF SCHOOUING FEW people in western democracies are happy with their state-school systems. Teachers are unhappy, believing that they are not appreciated by the community and are puppets con trolled by failed teachers who have engineered an escape into the pro tected, bureaucratic worlds of ad ministration, curriculum develop ment, and educational research. Parents are unhappy, lamenting their children's lack of basic skills and tired of helping their offspring prepare countless "projects" about dinosaurs or the environment. Em ployers are unhappy, having failed to exorcise a strange desire for sec retaries who can spell and office workers who, communing with their The Reverend Doctor John K. Williams has been a teacher and currently does freelance writing and lec turing in Australia. calculators to determine the product of 30 and 20, se~se that an answer of 1.5 might suggest that the wrong button has beenj pressed. Academics are unhappy, asserting that first-year college students are barely able to produce coheren~ essays.

Educationalists are not slow to proffer excuses for such a state of affairs. Schools, ~t is pointed out, are expected to solveinearly all social ills, ranging from ~enereal disease to disrespect for tQe environment. Lit tle school time r~mains for such trivia as reading, writlng, or arithmetic. Maybe. None.heless, the average Australian parent and taxpayer had cause for concern when a massive research progra¢ carried out by the Australian Council for Educational Research discovered, among other disturbing facts~ that 27% of 13,000 children tested. could not, after at 566 THE FREEMAN September least six years of schooling, divide 56 by 7 and that 20% could not com prehend the simplest of newspaper stories. The Swedish people have witnessed the steady erosion of the Swedish University Entrance Cer tificate, which once almost guaran teed admission to any European university, to the point where it rarely satisfies the entrance re quirements of such a university. A recent volume edited by Gerald Ber baum (Schooling in Decline; Mac millan, 1979) testifies to "wide spread disillusionment about the effectiveness" of state-controlled, compulsory schooling in the U.K.

The U.S.A. tells a similar tale. There, such tests as the Iowa Tests for Basic Skills and the Scholastic Aptitude Test reveal that good stu dent performance in the 1930s dete riorated sharply in the late 1940s, improved slightly in the decade 1953-1963, declined rapidly from 1964 until 1978, and showed a mod est improvement in 1979-1980. The massive overall decline is not confined to particular States, re gions, or population groups; is not caused by an increasing number of students taking the tests (the "spread" of scores does not widen); and cannot be attributed to statisti cal random chance. An increased "drop out" rate cannot be postulated as the reason for the decline: the most able of students are registering deI clining scores; they also have declined at late elementary and junior high school grades where atten dance is compulsory. Unfortunately, debates on school ing tend to focus upon incidentals.

"Progressive" methods of teaching are attacked or defended. Teachers are sometimes condemned for lazi ness and ineptitude, sometimes hailed as heroic souls attempting an impossible task devised by people who have, since their own school days, never been thrust into a class room. Both a shortage and a glut of educational technology have been blamed by those troubled about schooling. What is rarely discussed is the in stitution of compulsory, state~con trolled schooling as such. It is widely agreed that this institution is the backbone of a civilized, democratic society. Yet a perusal of its history is disturbing. Espoused by Martin Luther Effectively, the case for such schooling was launched in the six teenth century by Martin Luther. "I maintain," he wrote, "that the civil authorities are under obligation to compel the people to send their chil dren to school. ... If the government can compel such citizens as are fit for military service to bear spear and rifle, to mount ramparts, and per form other material duties in time of war, how much more has it the right to compel the people to send 1982 THE END OF SCHOOLING 567 their children to school, because in this case we are warring with the devil, whose object it is secretly to exhaust our cities and principalities of their strong men."

Luther's argument is simple. He knows the truth: Satan is waging war against humanity. He knows that weapons are necessary for victory against Satan: an ability to read the Bible and an acceptance of Luther's theological views. Men and women holding views contrary to those of Luther and instructing, or support ing schools which instruct, their children in these views are corrupt ing their children and subverting a godly State. Since error has no "rights" those in possession of "the, truth" must correct such parents and compel them to send their children to schools where they will be in structed in the tenets of the "true faith" and enabled to read their Bi bles. Melanchthon, a disciple of Luther, drew up in 1528 an edict demanding that every town in Germany estab lish at public expense a school where conscripts in the war against Satan could be prepared for battle. In Ge neva another Protestant reformer, John Calvin, was similarly making a case for schools where all children were to be instructed in the "true faith" and "in the languages and worldly sciences" which served as a necessary preliminary for such in struction. Like Luther, Calvin was supremely confiq.ent that his posses sion of "the trutli" gave him warrant to override the wishes and desires of parents who did not share his be liefs.

State Schools hi Prussia The first natiqnal system of com pulsory state-cqntrolled education emerged in Pru~sia. Kings Freder ick William I, Frederick the Great, and Frederick' William III suc ceeded, by the nineteenth century, in discouraging! non-state schools, establishing an ~laborate system of state-controlled $chools, and placing the supervision of such schools un der the direction of the Minister of the Interior. In 1810 State certifica tion of teachers iwas instituted and in 1812 children were prohibited from leaving sc:ij.ool until they had passed a State-s~t and State-admin istered examination. A complex bu reaucracy checking on schools and presiding over tflis examination of necessity emerged. Once again the "rightness" of such educational consqription seemed self evident. Rulers 'knew what was in the best interest$ of the ruled, hence recalcitrant parernts whose vision of the "good life" (or themselves and their children was not in accord with their "real" well-being could coer cively be corrected by the State.

A rationale fo:r, this had been pro vided by the eighteenth-century philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau.

568 THE FREEMAN September Calvin and Luther claimed to know "the truth" because God had re vealed it. Rousseau did not claim such privileged access to the deity, but he postulated a reality which, in its wisdom and beneficence, ex ceeded the knowledge and goodness of any individual person or group of people. Over and above the many "wills" of individuals, valuing and seeking different goals, there ex isted a "general will." An intellec tual elite was able to determine the edicts of that "general will" and, by virtue of that knowledge, coercively implement those edicts. Rousseau's "General Will" Although frequently depicted in texts dealing with the philosophy of education as an advocate of child centered learning, Rousseau's edu cational philosophy in truth de pends upon the existence and au thority ofthis "general will." In Emile Rousseau does, it is true, depict the ideal educational system in terms of a child who, freed from the con straints of an adult's will, explores nature and its necessities (which, being "natural" constraints will not be resented) and thereby learns all he needs without being directed by any person.

Yet this is but part of the story. Emile has a tutor. His task it is to create situations in which nature will "teach" his charge precisely what he, the tutor, wishes it to teach. With a complacency bordering upon cyni cism' Rousseau notes that "[there] is no subjection more perfect than that which retains the appearance of lib erty" and that "[no] doubt [the pu pil] ought not to do anything but what he wants to do, but he ought not want to do anything but what you want him to do; he ought not to take a single step that you have not foreseen." By systematically "hiding his hand" the tutor avoids any clash between his own will and that of the child. The pupil thus equates his will and the tutor's will. He is thereby conditioned to equate his own will with the "general will." The nineteenth-century philoso pher G. W. F. Hegel went further. The State, through which the "gen eral will" found expression, was the earthly manifestation of the "Abso lute" or "God." Liberty was found by individuals who recognized the State "as their own substantive mind" and took the objectives of the State as "their own end and aim."

Freedom in the U.S. Compared with this exalted no tion of the State, the view of govern ment set forth in the U.S. Declara tion of Independence and Constitution seemed pedestrian and simplistic. The authors of these doc uments perceived liberty in terms of the rights of individuals and groups to formulate, and strive to realize, any noncoercive vision of the "good 1982 THE END OF SCHOOLING 569 life." The important but limited role of government was to enjoy a mo nopoly of coercive power and to use that power against individuals or groups who sought to impose their vision of the "good life" coercively upon others. Freedom was equated with the liberty of individuals, not the rule of the majority. Given such an understanding of government, schooling was purely private. The early colonists, usually refugees from religious persecution, naturally established schools which would impart their faith to their children. In addition to such schools parents, tutors, and non-denomina tional private schools saw to the ed ucation of children. It would seem that they were, in terms of basic lit eracy, remarkably effective: those who, in the early and mid nine teenth century sought to establish a state-controlled system of schooling did not, in their voluminous writ ings, refer to any widespread illit eracy which had to be combatted.

Similarly, those advocating state controlled schooling in the U.K. did not defend their cause by reference to widespread illiteracy among the poorest. Indeed Professor E. G. West has pointed out that in early nine teenth-century England a fright ened government imposed steep taxes upon paper to discourage the poor from exercising their capacity to read by communing with such volumes as Tom Paine's Rights of Man. "Here ... we have," writes West, "the par adox of a public: managing to edu cate itself into l~teracy competence from personal motives and private resources, despit~ the obstacle of an institution called government which eventually begins to claim most of the credit of the educational suc cess" (Education and the State: A Study in Political Economy; London, 1970). Precisely ~he same situation held in Australia where the case mounted for state-controlled school ing in no way qepended upon any alleged illiteracy cursing the poor est (and again it is worth noting that radical political!groups produced a multitude of pamphlets directed to the poorest-pr~sumably poor but literate).

Social Benefits ~f Schooling: The Views of HoraceMann The key to the case for state-con trolled schooling which so excited intellectuals was the belief-not unlike the belief!of Luther and Cal vin-that they, an elite, were in the possession of a 'i'truth" which obli gated them to direct, guide, and if necessary correct the views of the masses. By link~ng Rousseau's no tion of the "general will" to "major ity rule" nineteenth-century U.S. intellectuals beHeved that they had discovered in th~ "will of the major ity" (as, of COUI1se, interpreted by themselves) a r~ality marked by a wisdom and a goodness not to be 570 THE FREEMAN September found elsewhere. Schooling con trolled by that "will" would result in nothing but good for the community. Horace Mann, one of the foremost advocates of state-controlled school ing in the U.S.A., was not perturbed that the growth of the state-con trolled system of schooling in Prus sia he so admired had been paral leled by a growth in militarism and despotism. He was confident that the "quiet, noiseless development of mind" nurtured by that system would, in time, lead to "the people [asserting] their right to a partici pation in their own government."

Indeed the benefits Mann. asserted would flow from state-controlled schooling to the community ex ceeded the blessings Luther and Calvin expected would be enjoyed by their godly commonwealths. "[N]ine tenths of the crimes in the penal code would become obsolete; the long cat alogue of human ills would be abridged; men would walk more safely by day; every pillow would be inviolable by night; property, life, and character held by a stronger tenure; all rational hopes respecting the future brightened." That such a system of schooling would be expensive did not deter its advocates. Asked John Quincy Ad ams, "Shall monarchies steal a march on republics in the patronage of that education on which a republic is based?" He answered his own ques tion: "On this great and glorious cause let us expend freely, yes, more freely than on any other." Adams' advice that a nation should "expend freely" upon a state-con trolled system of schooling has been heeded, and not only in the U.S.A.

Most developed nations are pouring ever-increasing sums of money into their schools. Yet, as already noted, it would seem that the community is receiving less and less for its in vestment. Whilst some people still perceive, with Mann, the school as the remedy for all social ills, the ex pectations of the majority are more modest. They expect the school to train their children in basic skills, educate their children in the habits of critical and creative thought, so cialize their children, and mind their children. Planned Conditioning, Lack of Education Schools do succeed in "minding" children, keeping them "off the streets" where they might "roam" (whereas adults "walk") or "loiter" (whereas adults "stand"). They suc ceed in "socializing" children, al though the current wisdom would have it that such must not involve conditioning children in patterns of behavior specified by an adult.

(Whether this lack of planned "con ditioning" simply leads to random "conditioning" by the mob, and ex plains why teachers in some U.S. and U.K. schools are demanding guards 1982 THE END OF SCHOOLING 571 and "danger money," is an interest ing speculation.) Blandly to assert that state-con trolled schooling neither trains nor educates overstates the case: doubt lessly those of us who can read must acknowledge the truth of the bumper sticker asserting "If you can read this, thank an elementary teacher" and number among our benefactors such teachers. (Fortunately, those who cannot read are unable to de code the bumper sticker and con clude that they should blame an el ementary teacher!) Yet the fact is that too many children are showing fewer and fewer skills after invest ing more and more of their years in schools consuming larger and larger sums of taxpayers' money. A mas sive empire has been spawned, ruled by a priesthood of administrators, research workers, curriculum devel opers, "resource personnel," and bu reaucrats. They, not children, have proved the beneficiaries of compul sory, state-controlled education.

Those concerned with the quality of schooling are forced, inexorably, to question state-controlled school ing. So are those who take pluralism seriously. If liberty is understood in terms of the rights of individuals to formulate, and strive to realize, their own noncoercive visions of the "good life," then state-controlled educa tion is anathema. What skills must be taught? Who is to say, for example, that reading, wri ting, and arithmetic are more valuable than catpentry? Could one not imagine a relligious group which regarded reading, writing, and arithmetic as sigtls of an evil, worldly wisdom? Does the majority have the "right" coercively:tocorrect this value judgment? If so, ,is it conceded that such a group, w~re it to constitute the majority of the populace, would have the "right" 'to make the teach ing of reading, writing, and arith metic a crime? Again, even! assuming total agreement as to i the value of liter acy, who is to spepify what books are read? Is Little Black Sambo a banned book or compul$ory reading? Are primary readers ,to depict "normal"

families or lesbi8in couples who have adopted or conceived by artificial in semination a child? A neutral teacher antiseptically presenting all con ceivable human life styles embodies a hidden, and therefore all-embrac ing, curriculum: the notion that value judgments are ~erely the idiosyn cratic expressions of individual tastes, a viewpoint which, although popular, is simPily unacceptable to most religious believers and many humanists. Returnto the MarketPlace Those concerned with the quality of schooling, and those concerned with individual ,liberty, are led by different routes' to one conclusion. Schooling must be returned to the 572 THE FREEMAN market place. Consumers, at long last, would be free to register dissat isfaction with incompetent schools and teachers by the withdrawal of paying custom and, conversely, would again learn to value compe tent teachers and schools. Diversity in schooling would be encouraged a diversity which can be dismissed as "divisive" only by people holding to an ideal of cultural homogeniza tion which is sadly anachronistic in a pluralistic society. Schools freely chosen and privately funded would become "mediating structures"

which, like churches, unions, corpo rations, and associations, foster a sense of identity and belonging; a reality which in a pluralistic and highly mobile society, is no longer fostered by "society as a whole." Restoring Personal Choice The market would encourage teachers to improve their profes sional skills, would indicate ap proaches to teaching which "work," and would stimulate creative people outside the present educational sys tem to devise and market learning materials which, because of their ef fectiveness, would be purchased by schools and teachers. Specialized schools developing particular skills could be created by gifted teachers, students spending only part of their educational day and educational dollar at such schools. The poorest, assisted by voluntary associations to pay school fees, would have re turned to them some control over their own decisions for their chil dren and thereby recover some of the self-esteem which a well-inten tioned State and its minions under mined when decisions once made by individuals and families were made for them by the "experts."

Most importantly, the dream of Martin Luther and John Calvin that they, an elite, could use the school system to impose their vision of the "good life" upon others would be ended. That dream evolved into a nightmare which flourished in Fas cist Italy and Nazi Germany, still curses the U.S.S.R. and other Marx ian countries, and threatens to en velop nations which once knew what liberty meant but are sleepwalking their way back into captivity by an allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present State. Those who still cherish liberty face the mammoth task of wresting con trol of schooling from the State and returning it, not to some abstraction called "the people," but to flesh and blood men and women whose visions of the good life vary and whose hopes for their children differ. Fortunately such people should be joined in this task by all who care about the qual ity of schooling available to their children and their children's chil dren. i A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN T'HE PUBLIC SCHOOL MONOPOLY IF, as Leonard Read has suggested, the "freedom philosophy" calls for the separation of school and state, we are in for a struggle that will last well into the next century. The sixteen essays collected by Robert B. Ever hart for his The Public School Mo nopoly: A Critical Analysis of Edu cation and the State in American Society, published by the Pacific In stitute for Public Policy Research of San Francisco and marketed by the Ballinger Publishing Company of 54 Church Street, Cambridge, Massa chusetts 02138, a Harper and Row subsidiary (583 pp., $30.00 cloth, $13.95 paper), offer little hope that government can be effectively de nied a licensing function that makes even the most independent of our private schools subject to political will.