Curriculum Theory or Theory-lite? The Mongoose Idly Watches as the Serpent Eats Itself Originally published in Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, 2, 2 (1996), pp. 65-70. Dennis Earl Fehr, Ed.D.

In one sense this paper addresses the debates of recent decades between two groups in the curriculum theory field known variously as reconceptualists and progressives, critical theorists and moderates, or—the terms I use here—radicals and liberals. In a larger sense, this paper addresses the fact that, while these debates engage the minds of the moderate and the radical left, Chester Finn, the Educational Testing Service, and the Christian Coalition are busily scripting the public school curriculum, and have been doing so, blissfully unhindered, for years. As I write this, I observe that the public school agenda is making yet another shift to the right.

This is not to say that the arguments which divide the left are academically invalid. (But, as the paraphrases at the top of this paper illustrate, groups on both left and right may blend legitimate points with unfair characterizations. One sometimes senses an element of macho: “My argument is bigger and longer than yours.”) Nor is this to say that the two groups are preoccupied with them. It is to say that, in light of America's grand educational scheme, they are unimportant. It is also to say that, to the degree that they divert talent from overcoming the rightist agenda, these debates serve school children poorly.

The traditional model of the ideological continuum (whether within curriculum theory or within society writ large) posits three balanced camps: liberals on the left, moderates in the center, and conservatives on the right. What one observes today are four imbalanced camps: Christian conservatives occupy the far right, and often work in concert with traditional conservatives, who occupy the moderate right. Liberals occupy the moderate left, and radicals occupy the far left. In terms of ideological real estate, radicals and liberals combined control enough turf to create balance and perhaps even take the advantage. Yet the Democrats are in such disarray that I note with irony the recent efforts of some to form a third political party as I grow increasingly uncertain that there are still even two.

Likewise in the education field, the two camps on the right are more in synchrony than the two on the left. The consequences are apparent in legislative chambers as well as on local and state school boards—despite the fact that as many points of agreement exist on the left as on the right. Part of this is simply the succumbing of the large middle to the tug of gravity from the louder side. As the middle drifts rightward, curricular elements tagged as too conservative yesterday are accepted today. The rabid right is hot-rodding the curriculum as the lethargic left fumbles for its car keys.

I envision an academic community divided into two ideologically balanced camps, the left and the right, each making its case in the free market of ideas. Hence, I wish to direct the attention of both radicals and liberals to the reality of children's daily experience in the schools: curricula dictated by standardized tests, teacher-proof lesson units, Euro-centric versions of history, skills-based learning, lifeless textbooks, the banishment of sex education, a renewed emphasis on vocational education, the heralding of `cultural literacy,' and so on, all steeped within a Christocentric ethos that will guide our Satan-enslaved society toward the Christian Right's forty-acres-and-a-700-Club-membership utopia. Ideological balance indeed.

Studying church-and-state blends in the history of the United States might temper the stridency of Christian extremists. In the 1940s blood was spilled in Philadelphia over which version of the Bible was to be used for classroom devotions. Thirty years later a conflict known as “The Bible War” divided Cincinnati. A series of such events led the Supreme Court to rule in the 1960s that prayer, and Bible reading as an act of worship, were inappropriate in the public schools.

The radical right insists that creationism is legitimately taught in the science lab. Galileo and Copernicus were persecuted for being accurate; creationism is the equivalent of saying the sun revolves around the earth. The radical right reminds us that, since the removal of formalized prayer from the schools, social ills have increased and SAT scores have declined. This fallacy of logic is known as post hoc ergo proptor hoc--if two events occur sequentially, the former must have caused the latter. Society has declined in some ways—religious bigotry and homophobia are up—and improved in others—life expectancy and standards of living have risen. Prior to 1962 the SAT was taken almost exclusively by upper class, well-educated students. Today it is taken by a true cross section of America's school-aged children. Yes, the scores have gone down. Obviously working class kids do not pray as hard as rich kids do. The radical right even seeks to end Halloween, our culture's one holiday that is only for children.

Christian extremists are accumulating a track record of deceit. Their practice of running “stealth candidates” in local elections subverts the democratic process by presenting these candidates as something other than they are. Members of the Cleveland TN chapter of Concerned Women for America, a religious right organization, check out offending books from the public library and do not return them. No doubt some contain the dreaded f-word: freedom. And of course there is Pat Robertson's now-famous quote: “The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians” (Clarkson and Porteous, 1993). This lunacy must stop.

At its worst, unfettered conservative Christian influence on public education can contribute to a climate of terrorism from within (Flinn, 1995). Am I resorting to hyperbole? Let us see. The Bible-based rationales of conservative Christian groups are common knowledge. Many members of these groups are born-again Biblical literalists who believe the world has entered the “end times,” a period scripted by the Book of Revelations. Until recently these zealots believed that the Soviet Union and its Arab cohorts were the Gog and Magog of Ezekiel and Revelations, tandem Satanic forces intent on resisting the restoration of Israel and other components of “God's final plan.” The demise of the Soviet empire has created an apocalyptic identity crisis: Who really is The Beast? Nominees include Saddam Hussein, the Trilateral Commission, the Masons, an international cabal of cold-blooded Jewish financiers, computers, Blacks, foreigners, the Internal Revenue Service, immigrants, the United Nations, Bill and Hillary and, finally, the entire U. S. government itself.

Members of some militia groups believe that the serial numbers behind interstate road signs are coded messages that function as route guides for enemy forces. Some believe the federal government plans to insert a biochip beneath the skin of every American. These chips, inscribed with the number 666 (the mark of the Beast as described in Revelation 13:18), will be used as tracking devices. According to numerous media reports, Timothy McVeigh, a suspect in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, believes that such a chip was implanted in his buttocks during Operation Desert Storm. (Those who embrace these beliefs fail to note that the cosmic events of Revelation are orchestrated by God, who issues no call to arms to humans.)

Just as it is inappropriate to lay the entire blame for society's ills at the door of the school, so it is naive of educators to claim that the schools play no role in perpetuating those ills, or that the schools cannot play a role in their remediation. Teachers who tell their students racist or sexist jokes, or what religion they follow, or who condone violence as conflict resolution, contribute to rightward ideological drift. By speaking against the right on curricular issues, the two left-leaning camps can do much to influence this state of affairs. Yet, this discussion is not a call for liberals and radicals to make peace on all issues. We observe moderates and conservatives on the right working effectively with each other on points of agreement as they engage in impassioned argument over points of dispute. My proposal is that leftist camps divert greater energy toward speaking with a common voice on issues about which they agree. Entrenched points of disagreement on the left can remain entrenched without impeding a united leftist effort to soften the influence of the right on public education.

This grip may be the most insidious problem facing education today. Arguably it is more serious than drug abuse, school violence, or the dropout rate, since these problems control only what one cannot learn. When students are stoned, or suspended, or drop out of school, they cannot learn—a grievous problem indeed. However, the radical right, because it is authoring the curriculum itself, controls what is learned by those who avoid drugs, behave appropriately, and stay in school—those who overcome the impediments to learning that confront many young people. Yet one would not sense the magnitude of this problem from the scant attention it receives from the left in the professional literature. And when I attend professional conferences, I am struck by the lack of attention the problem receives from my leftist colleagues, both liberal and radical. When he was a member of the Continental Congress, John Adams cautioned against a future Congress that would be governed by “. . . noise not sense, by meanness not greatness, by ignorance not learning, by contracted hearts not large souls” (Wall, 1995). Now is the time for the keenest minds on the left to resist the right more than they resist each other.

References

Clarkson, F., & Porteous, S. (1993). Challenging the Christian right: The activist's Handbook. Great Barrington MA: Insititue for First Amendment Studies. p. 281.

Flinn, F. K. (April 30, 1995). Toward Self-inflicted Armageddon? Houston Chronicle, Section F, p. 1.

Wall, J. M. (April 5, 1995). In the Public Interest. Christian Century, p. 355.