I am a state education official. For nearly 15 years I have been in a position that has enabled and indeed required me to take an active part in debates over goals and practices in public education. I am also an evangelical and am constantly made aware that many of the most thoughtful fellow believers have serious questions about the whole public education enterprise.
Controversy “goes with the territory,” and we educators could not do our job well if advocates for the rights of poor children, minority children, girls, and children with special needs were not constantly raising issues and demanding a response. An education official who starts hiding from such pressures has reached the saturation point and should look for less demanding work.
What is troubling about the concerns raised by evangelicals, though, is that they are not getting through. I read the education press as well as the religious press, and I consult with my counterparts in a dozen other states. I have found virtually no understanding of what evangelicals are saying about public schools, or why they are upset. I have heard no discussion of what the phenomenon of thousands of new schools says about the way we have been doing our business.
It may be, indeed, that the fact that many of the most concerned evangelicals simply take their children out of public schools rather than stay and struggle for change has permitted us in the education establishment the luxury of not listening. Those concerned about racial injustice in schools did not (with few exceptions) start alternative schools; they demanded that public schools become more just. Those concerned that Hispanic children were dropping behind and dropping out demanded bilingual education and support services in public schools; they did not create alternative Hispanic schools instead. Those concerned that girls were being taught to limit their aspirations did not pull them out of the public schools; they demanded that schools become sensitive to the messages they give. These groups demanded change, and public schools—slowly, ponderously—responded.
Evangelicals And Other Believers
There is, of course, no reason why evangelicals and other believers should not provide private schools for their children. American society has always allowed that alternative, though generally refusing to provide public tax support for such schools—unlike most other Western democracies. Faith and virtue are nurtured in community, and many parents make great sacrifices to provide a Christian (or Jewish, or Moslem, or—in my neighborhood—Sufi) educational community for their children.
Other evangelicals, though, are not ready to be “gathered out of the world” but want to be leaven mixed through the whole loaf, and they want that for their children as well. While they do not share the easy optimism of those who believe that schools and other human efforts will “bring the kingdom” in some secularized form, they are sure that God’s hand is not too short to work in and through a public school. In particular, they are not willing to abandon the millions of children who will attend public schools in any case.
This is an issue on which I have profound respect for both sides. My remarks, though, are directed only to the second group, to those who as parents or as concerned citizens have a “burden” for the public schools and a concern about the course they have followed in recent years.
I want to suggest that evangelicals have not raised their concerns in a form to which public educators can relate. Indeed, to a substantial extent the form in which the concerns have been expressed has made it easy to reject them out of hand as not legitimate for public schools to deal with in view of the “separation of church and state.” I will suggest how to translate a major evangelical concern into the accepted language of policy and practice within public education—what can be done now, within present structures and laws.
Curriculum Review
“Public schools don’t give any information about our Christian heritage or the importance of religion in people’s lives; if they do give any, it’s as examples of narrow-mindedness and intolerance. I want my children to have solid instruction in our religious tradition.”
If this is your concern (and presumably you have taken the trouble to get some information about what is actually being taught), you can approach it on the basis of the concern of public educators with fairness. Let the principal or teacher know that you are not trying to impose a “Christian curriculum,” but that you want the materials and instruction to present the contributions of Christians to American life in a fair perspective, and to stress the role of faith in the lives of believers as they would have explained it themselves.
Emphasize that you have exactly the same concern that black parents have, that their children be told about the contributions and special perspectives of black Americans. You might add (especially if you are black) that the role of black Americans simply cannot be understood without appreciating the black churches. The same point can be made about Hispanics, and about the crucial role of churches and parachurch organizations in the emergence of women into public life in the nineteenth century.
In brief, stress that you want both history and current events presented in a fair and comprehensive perspective in all parts of the curriculum. Use the analogy with other groups (of course, the groups overlap) that have been successful in obtaining “multicultural, gender-fair” curriculum. Suggest that the process for responding to your concern be exactly parallel to that which many schools and school systems have used in recent years: curriculum review committees made up of teachers and other staff, with outside participation to assure that there is a sensitivity to various special concerns. If there are such committees already, suggest that their mandate and their membership be expanded to enable them to deal with issues of the representation of religious faith in the curriculum.
By using the analogy with other concerns and by talking about what you want to see included rather than what you want taken out, you can avoid identification as a “book burner” or censor. As your concern is addressed, of course, you can help the curriculum review committees be sensitive to anything that is offensive, as well as to the elements that are lacking.
If there are assigned books that present Christianity in an unfavorable light (which may occur in the upper grades), do not demand that they be removed from the curriculum without careful consideration. There are a number of reasons why this is wise. In the first place, attempted banning of a book can produce damaging community polarization as well as extended litigation under the First Amendment; all of your other goals could be sidetracked. In the second place, Christians should not be defensive about their past and continuing problems, about the sins that have always been committed in the name of religion. We certainly do not want to give our children the impression that we insist on covering up weaknesses that they are, or will be, very much aware of. In the third place, the continued use of materials critical of Christianity provides the best possible basis for insisting that the other side be told as well, thus opening the way to inclusion of materials that otherwise might be considered “too religious,” and to a dynamic discussion of religious concerns and convictions.
Only in recent years have many come to see that not mentioning religion gives the impression that it is not worth mentioning, that it has no real significance. Keep in mind, then, that a story that includes a believer as an unsympathetic and intolerant character may be a way to encourage serious discussion of the importance of faith in people’s lives, provided that it is paired—as fairness demands—with another story giving a different message. A curriculum review process is an opportunity to assure that such balance is maintained.
By analogy, after “sex stereotypes” had been purged from most materials, the teachers who wanted to discuss such issues in class found themselves bringing out the older books in which stereotypes were central in order to stimulate reactions. So do not be too quick to demand that materials be dropped; consider whether their continued use, with appropriate discussion of their limited or biased perspective, may not serve your goals better.
It is possible to assure that the Christian heritage and its impact upon human lives and upon our nation is presented fairly and in a positive manner in the schools. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that this is appropriate and desirable so long as the school is not “indoctrinating” the children. A good case can be made—and you should make it—that not presenting the role of faith in general and of Christianity in the United States is a form of indoctrination in a one-sided secularistic view of the world. The fact that public schools have responded to the demand for “multicultural, gender-fair” curriculum strengthens your argument that fairness demands that religious faith also not be ignored.
Studying About Religion
The federal courts have made it clear that there can be study of the Bible and of the history and beliefs of Christianity in public schools, but only if the purpose is secular and the methods used appropriate to that purpose. Thus a course could be offered in “the Bible as literature,” for example, but the teacher for such a course must be selected by the usual procedures (not by local churches), and the instruction must avoid anything approaching “indoctrination”—what evangelicals might call “discipling.”
Such a course would be even more secure from legal attack if it covered other religious traditions as well, though there is nothing inappropriate about giving special attention to those that have shaped our history and literature, that have the greatest impact upon American life, and that are familiar to students from their daily lives. It would be normal for a public school in Hawaii to devote more attention than usual to Buddhism, and for one, most of whose students are Jewish, to lay particular stress on Jewish beliefs and customs. By the same token, it would be a false “neutrality” for a school, most of whose students are Protestant or Roman Catholic, to ignore that fact.
Some Roman Catholics and evangelicals have objected to courses in public schools that treat the Bible from an “objective” perspective, arguing that it is a sacred book and should not be studied in the same way as uninspired literature, nor taught except by those appointed by and accountable to a community of faith. “Debunking” the Bible would clearly be just as inappropriate and unprofessional as proselytizing, but there should be no problem with presenting the beliefs and intentions of its human authors with respect while taking no position on its authority. Such a truly neutral though sympathetic presentation of the content of Scripture should be welcomed by evangelicals, in light of the widespread ignorance—even among those youth (and adults) who go to church—of the basics of the Bible. Would it not be preferable if students were well acquainted with the content of Scripture, so that instruction under church auspices could draw upon a prior knowledge of the basics? Should not evangelicals support anything that makes students feel that religion is important and interesting to learn about?
Released Time
Another way to provide religious instruction in conjunction with public schools is through “released time,” under the auspices of local churches. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld released-time instruction so long as it takes place elsewhere than in the school, it appears that fewer and fewer churches are taking advantage of this permission.
This slackening of willingness to take on religious education for public school students whose parents wish it is unfortunate, since the proliferation of alternatives to regular classroom instruction in recent years might in fact make it easier to arrange released time. The difficulty was always what to do with the students who did not go to a released-time program. Putting them in a study hall while other students were allowed out of the building seemed unfair, and it also required teacher time to supervise. Simply continuing classroom instruction created problems of how the children excused for released time would catch up; in practice, it generally meant repeating lessons—to the boredom of teachers and those students who did not go to released-time classes.
Today, by contrast, enrichment, remedial, or advanced work options are commonplace in elementary as well as secondary schools, and those proposing a released-time program for religious instruction would be wise to present it as another such option. If some students are leaving the school for classes at a planetarium, why should others not go to a church? If the seventh period of the day is used for minicourses, why not allow religious instruction as one of them?
The major difficulty with released time, I fear, is that we may provide such inept instruction that students will compare it unfavorably with their school’s teaching. Alternatively, we may be so concerned—lacking the disciplinary authority of the school—to make it “relevant” that the religious value is very limited; the latter seems to have occurred commonly in the public school religion classes in Britain and the Netherlands. It may be that the proliferation of Christian schools will increase the availability of skilled teachers who have thought through the teaching of religion and could offer released-time classes for public school students.
Christian Enrichment
A limitation of classes about religion and traditional released-time courses is that they do not relate the gospel effectively to what students are learning in school, thus leaving the secularization of education unaffected. Most parochial and other religious schools set out, by contrast, to teach every subject from a perspective informed by faith, and this is what many believers seek for their children. Can this be achieved without abandoning the public schools?
One approach worth exploring is deliberate efforts by Christian parents or groups of parents to provide supplemental instruction that parallels that which is offered in school, developing a distinctive Christian perspective. This might mean, for example, an extra half-hour of homework time each evening, reviewing the assigned readings and discussing the material in the light of faith. The subjects that lend themselves best to this approach are social studies, reading, and health at the elementary level; and English, civics, history, and portions of science at the secondary level. Such discussions could be precious time and could also enable the student to “give an account of his faith” in the classroom.
A recent article about the astonishing academic progress of Washington, D.C., students from Japan observes that the mothers purchase an extra set of the schoolbooks their children are assigned in order to prepare each day to help them with their homework. Should evangelicals give similar close attention to what is presented to their children, in order to supplement and correct it each evening? After all, the pilgrimage through life requires the ability to weigh the messages the world continually throws at us, and to correct them from the perspective of faith. How can this ability be better learned than through confronting and working through, with the help of parents, the messages that come from the school?
It is important to stress here that parents should not assume that much of what they will find in the curriculum will be objectionable. For most parents, the real problem most of the time will be with what is left out, and it should be possible to supplement textbooks that have been bleached of much of interest to Christians without undermining confidence in the classroom teacher.
Summary
The multitude of court rulings and the restrictions written into state and federal constitutions do not mean that Christian parents must either use nonpublic schools or subject their children to an education in which their faith is ignored or subtly denigrated. There are a number of approaches that may be used without seeking to polarize a community or impose Christian practices or perspectives on children whose parents object. Each of those that I have mentioned is analogous to practices with a “secular purpose” that are already well established in public education.
These practices include:
• Curriculum review and modification or enrichment to ensure fairness;
• Optional minicourses around issues of interest to some students and staff;
• Educational enrichment programs occurring outside of school during school hours;
• Homework assistance by parents or groups of parents.
By suggesting variations on practices with which school administrators are already familiar, and by identifying their concerns with those of other groups accommodated by public education in the interest of fairness, evangelicals could make substantial progress in meeting their educational goals for their own children. At the same time, they can increase the capacity of public schools to respond to the pluralism of our society.
My suggestions have to do, essentially, with fairness and with choice. Religion should in no sense be “favored” in our public schools (that would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion), but religion and those for whom religious faith and practice are central should be treated fairly. To some extent, this can be done through enriching the present curriculum and making it more balanced. This is a minimal agenda that every believer has a right to insist upon, in the name of fairness and of teaching professionalism.
If we may deplore the fact that our postmodern society is incoherent with respect to values, we may also celebrate the fact that many of our contemporaries are searching for values and belief for themselves and their children. There can be no better place to meet a secularized society with tolerance and respect, but also with clarity about our essential convictions, than in the public schools.
