I hate criticizing work that I admire, or the people who deliver it, but this “paternalism” debate needs a wake-up call. If you’re new to the topic, you can start by reading a brief summary of David Whitman’s book in The New Paternalism is the Old Education.
This impressive project, embodied in these schools we’re calling “paternalistic,” is being weighed down by a misunderstanding of politics/communication. In an effort to tout the virtues of a paternalistic system, education reformers run the risk of doing more harm than good, partly because they don’t get it, partly because they haven’t a clue what they’re up against, and partly because they stink at political strategy.
First, let’s make sure we understand what we’re all calling “paternalism.”
Courtesy of Michael Umphrey at the Montana Heritage Project, Whitman describes it:
“Paternalistic schools teach character and middle-class virtues like diligence, politeness, cleanliness, and thrift. They impose detentions for tardiness and disruptive behavior in class and forbid pupils from cursing at or talking disrespectfully to teachers. But the new paternalistic schools go further than even strict Catholic schools in prescribing student conduct and minimizing signs of disorder. Pupils are typically taught not just to walk rather than run in the hallway—they learn how to walk from class to class: silently, with a book in hand. In class, teachers constantly monitor whether students are tracking them with their eyes, whether students nod their heads to show that they listening, and if students have slouched in their seats.”
I’d argue that decency isn’t a “middle-class virtue,” but I understand Whitman’s intent.
George Will has a shorter, applied definition:
“Paternalism is the restriction of freedom for the good of the person restricted. AIPCS acts in loco parentis because Chavis, who is cool toward parental involvement, wants an enveloping school culture that combats the culture of poverty and the streets.”
The education folks who are excited by the promise of schools like AIPCS – and there’s a lot to be excited about – desperately want to see this model expand into underserved/troubled areas. I don’t blame them; when we identify success, we need to replicate it with all deliberate speed.
Unfortunately, that excitement comes with a desire for pretty packaging, hot marketing sells and appealing slogans.
Dumb move, education reformers.
Check the comments on the articles I’ve linked to at the end of this piece – the projects that Whitman describes have received names like “Real School,” “Total School, “Elite School” and “Relentless School.”
They’re all wrong. Proponents of these systems need to call them “school” and leave it at that.
The issue here is in re-framing the debate. Education reformers on both sides want to put their successes in their own terms and then sell those terms to willing communities – there’s nothing wrong with that. But the projects Whitman describes are re-definitions [in my opinion, traditional definitions] of how we think about public schools. If we think this model is what school should be, we need to call it “school.”
In reading George Will’s piece, you’ll notice that he’s not an evangelical marketer of paternalism. He acknowledges [rightly] the paternalism, but he also knows that an attempt to re-frame the debate is useless. Try as hard as you want, folks – the progressive education left will re-frame ten times more effectively.
Check out Kevin K. Kumashiro’s The Seduction of Common Sense: How the Right Has Framed the Debate on America’s Schools:
“Timely, accessible, and thoroughly researched, The Seduction of Common Sense exposes the insidious nature of current educational reforms and offers promising directions for anti-oppressive change.”
It’s an embarrassing treatise from a second-rate scholar and third-rate thinker, but no matter. You’ll see in its 100+ painful pages that the progressive left is so committed to re-framing the education debate, and so skilled and shameless at it, that they’ll pull a switcheroo and project their actions onto you.
News flash: The progressive left in education will always be one step ahead of the right in re-framing, at least in my lifetime. For a host of reasons well beyond the scope of this blog or post, they’re better at it. That can’t be helped.
If we want paternalistic schools to succeed and spread, we have to take back the word “school” – and then we have to associate it with demonstrable successes like what Whitman and others have detailed. The more we extend ourselves from that original word, the easier it is for the progressive left to re-frame, criticize and deconstruct. The closer we are to the simple, basic truth, the more the progressive left re-framing looks like unwarranted derision – and the less effective they’ll be.
“Paternalism” is going to get eaten alive. Save it for pointy-headed cocktail parties and book chapters no one will read – it is an interesting academic discussion, no doubt.
But when you’re talking to parents, voters, teachers, and otherwise normal people, for the love of God, just call it “school.”
FURTHER READING:
The Long Term Effects of Paternalism [Going to the Mat]
What if Paternalism Boosts Achievement the Wrong Way? [Thoughts on Ed Policy]
Jay is from Mars, Stafford is from Venus [Flypaper]
What’s In a Name? [Core Knowledge]
George Will: “Paternalistic” is Right [Flypaper]
Total schooling: Is that what KIPP offers? [Gotham Schools]
Naming names: Paternalism, meet political correctness [Flypaper]
Total schooling [Joanne Jacobs]
School Where You Can Belong [Montana Heritage]
Where Paternalism Makes the Grade [George F. Will, Washington Post]
An Interview with David Whitman: On Sweating the Small Stuff [EdNews.org]
{ 1 trackback }
{ 0 comments… add one now }