The Revisionists and the Traditionalists

My View

“The same ‘reality’ may appear quite different to diverse groups and individuals.” -David B. Tyack, The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education

Our public schools are a vision in the making. They are poetry, not in perfect meter but in the free-verse style of Walt Whitman, offering opportunities for choices, alternatives and expression. They are not perfect, but they are the soul of our country — the cornerstone of our democracy.

Amidst cries for an overhaul of America’s public education system, school administrators must be steadfast in their efforts to preserve the historical common purpose of schooling while promoting equal opportunity for all our children. Such efforts call for a renewed and aggressive leadership.

Two Reform Camps

Efforts to dictate public education come in large part from two camps: traditionalists and revisionists. As a former superintendent on the state and local levels, I have experienced attempts by both factions to direct the course of public education.

Traditionalists believe that the mission of schools is to create productive American citizens who demonstrate hard work, self-reliance and devotion to civic duty and who are prepared for gainful employment upon graduation. They believe that public schools open the door to success for all children.

Revisionists contend that public schools do not provide an equal education for all students, that they advance the middle- and upper-class students at the expense of the poor and minority students. Revisionists call for massive change in the education system to provide a wide array of programs to meet the varying needs of the diverse student population.

The traditionalists’ vision ignores the diversity of the student population as well as associated inequities in funding and limited opportunities for children who live in under-resourced settings. The revisionists acknowledge the changing student demographics and cite inadequate funding as the reason for schools’ apparent failure to meet the varied needs of large segments of the student population.

The conflict between these factions has eroded public confidence in our schools and hastened the growth of school choice systems.

Turning Tide

Both groups have worthy ideas. Therefore, it behooves education leaders to consider their ideas with a fair and open mind, selecting and blending those approaches that meet the needs of all their students.

Education leaders must modify instruction for diverse populations of students without creating extreme pluralism. They also must maximize their determination to promote equal funding based on state wealth and independence from political pressure.

For example, if we truly believe in providing an equal opportunity for all children to succeed in school, we must make early childhood education opportunities available, especially for disadvantaged children. In addition, these children must be taught in classes of 10–12 students, where it’s shown they make sufficient academic gains. Both strategies require substantial financial support. It is the moral obligation of school leaders to establish equity in schooling for all our children, regardless of cost.

Yes, our schools may need improvement, but they do not need to be dismantled. We may continue to hear negative criticism, face demands for wholesale reform and endure conflict over what needs to be done, but with forceful leadership from school administrators, we can maintain an effective public school system and establish an equal opportunity for all children to succeed. Our republic depends on it!