Every once in a while I come across something that takes me to the point where I don’t know whether I should laugh or cry. Sadly, these moments tend to come almost exclusively from the right-wing these days. Today, it’s the resurrection of the theory that our educational system is being taken over by Marxists.

First, I will grant that there are several educational theorists in the Ivory Tower that are probably Marxists. But, like anything else in the world of educational academia, theories get watered down severely on the path to implementation, with the most radical theorems ending up in the circular file. Let’s not forget that there are still school boards out there, and there are still parents that bother to attend meetings and loudly voice their opinions when it comes to the education of their little darlings. That said, truly radical change in the educational system of this country will never happen in a single leap – ever.

Now, to address some of the absurdities mentioned in the article that was brought to my attention this morning:

Some of the basic tenants of critical pedagogy are:

ALL education is inherently political…

A social and educational vision of justice and equality should be the foundation for all education

Race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, and physical ability are important domains of oppression

The purpose of education is the alleviation of oppression and human suffering

Schools must not hurt students–good schools don’t blame students for their failures

Good schools don’t judge the beliefs students have about their life’s experiences

Part of the role of any educator involves becoming a researcher into social oppression

Education must promote emancipatory change

First, the term is “tenets”, not “tenants”, but maybe showing a command of the English language isn’t a prerequisite when it comes to writing a critique on educational theory in some people’s minds. Nitpicking aside, let’s start with the first tenet: “ALL education is inherently political”. Other than the fact that I find it comical that someone who is bothering to complain about the theories in the first place on political grounds is saying this, this is recognition of the condition of life in general. Life is political, even in the classroom. Anyone who doubts that doesn’t remember their school years, and if they have children, don’t know what in the world goes on during each school day. Cliques are the “political groupings” in the school setting, and every person in the school carries their personal political baggage with them each and every day. If educators would attempt to ignore that fact, they would lose their ability to teach because none of the students would think that they have any sense of reality. Only the Kindergarten and maybe the First Grade teachers would manage to have enough respect from their students to teach even a single concept. (Stating that from experience, since my youngest child is currently in Second Grade, and I am already seeing the signs of politicking amongst his classmates.) Divorcing politics from education would be an attempt to deny the very nature of human beings – we are political by nature, in that we seek the approval of others in our actions, naturally gravitate toward like-minded individuals, and avoid those that are “too” different.

The next one is bothersome to say the least. “A social and educational vision of justice and equality should be the foundation for all education.” Why anyone at this point in this nation’s development would find this objectionable is disturbing. However, I’ll grant a little bit of understanding simply because there’s a buzz phrase in there – social justice. That is a term that has become bastardized, and is obviously being taken in the context of organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (or at least I hope that’s the case.) In educational theory, this is typically considered on a much smaller scale, particularly in practice. It is meant to encourage educators and administrators to treat all students equally within the school environment. Students should know that if they do something wrong, no matter what all of them will receive the same treatment – conversely, the same treatment if they do something right. There should be no “special treatment” that isn’t specifically attached to circumstances that are beyond the students’ control – i.e., students with disabilities such as autism may not end up with the same punishment as other students for acting up in the classroom, but that’s only because such actions are biologically beyond the control of the student. The goal of this tenet is that students will go out into the world with a reasonable sense of what is right and wrong – at least that’s a very basic analysis of it.

“Race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, and physical ability are important domains of oppression.” Denying reality is a certain guarantee that students will not take educators seriously. The reality of society is that race, class, gender, sexuality, religion and physical ability can be oppressive. There are still situations where these circumstance affect the way society treats individuals. Education is called the great equalizer because it is meant to help individuals overcome real or perceived barriers to success. These are the “perceived” barriers. And that also addresses the next one: “The purpose of education is the alleviation of oppression and human suffering.” Education is meant to open doors of opportunity, and that alleviates oppression and suffering.

Objections to this next one infuriate parents of children that need even the slightest bit of educational support. “Schools must not hurt students–good schools don’t blame students for their failures.” Contrary to what some people might think, this isn’t about coddling students that have the ability to do well, but are just not trying. This is about recognizing when students are not learning because they need to be taught in a different way from their peers. Special education, tutoring, individual educational plans, and all of the rest of the various educational support programs are being addressed here. This is merely recognition of the fact that not all students learn the same way, and that it is important to assist students that have different needs – not ignore them, and let them fail.

This next one is probably objectionable only part of the time. “Good schools don’t judge the beliefs students have about their life’s experiences.” It’s probably bad to avoid judging students when their beliefs and experiences are different – look out if anyone judges students that happen to agree with the ones that believe in this nonsensical view of educational theory.

“Part of the role of any educator involves becoming a researcher into social oppression.” Educators more often than not won’t have a clue about the problems faced by their students. There are the exceptions – ones that had “been there, and done that.” But for the rest, educators need to know where their students are coming from, or they will lose credibility. Call it “researched empathy” if you like. Bottom line is that an upper-middle-class white teacher will not be effective in an inner-city classroom unless that teacher takes the time to learn about what the students’ lives are really like. Conversely, that same teacher teaching in an affluent, mostly white suburban school will not be able to teach students about what they will probably encounter in the “real world.” Oh, I forgot. Class and race are never oppressive, right?

Finally, “Education must promote emancipatory change.” The greatest gift of freedom is the ability to expand one’s world through education. Education itself is meant to be freeing. Learning how to do a job frees one from the oppression of occupational mediocrity or failure. To put it in more capitalistic terms, if our nation as a whole is better educated, we can emancipate ourselves from the oppression of being ranked as less than number one in business and technology. We can free ourselves of the need for social programs outside of caring for retired citizens and veterans (disabled or not, since there is no way we can ever honestly repay them for their service.)

That said, for all the screaming that educational theories such as this are “Marxist” and will sap this nation of its strength, the arguments fall flat in the face of what the real goals are. Educational equity is not the enemy – it is the path to greatness. If it wasn’t, why was “No Child Left Behind” so important? NCLB wasn’t nearly as effective as anyone had hoped. The ones in the Ivory Tower sat down and worked on ways to make it better, and we ended up with theories like this. Evaluating them in the context of the world of politics is bluntly ludicrous. Although everything is political, the political world is not equipped to evaluate these theories fairly. They are meant to be evaluated in the context of educational scholarship. These tenets are merely a recognition of the laundry list of shortcomings of our educational system as a whole. Some of the tenets should be applied and implemented in all schools – some shouldn’t. All of them should be kept in mind when it comes to making decisions on how to manage our educational systems. One thing that isn’t mentioned is the one thing that all educators and administrators do when it comes to evaluating theories like this – they take what they know would be useful to them and implement it, and leave the rest, either permanently, or for future consideration. They recognize that there is no such thing as a “one size fits all” theory out there for our schools. Perhaps that’s why NCLB didn’t do so well.