August 21, 2023

In the recent Hollywood movie, Oppenheimer, an ideological battle between socialism or communism and loyalty to country rages in the head of the protagonist. In one of the most famous lines of the movie, when challenged about the disconnect between an intellectual embrace of communism, the right to unionize which he denied the Manhattan Project scientists, and patriotism to a country dedicated to capitalism, Robert Oppenheimer responds, “Why limit yourself to just one dogma?”.  Though glib, this is a perfect response from a scientist because it recognizes that theory has its limits and must be tested;  a recurring theme in the movie as well. There is a faint underlying fear that their atomic explosion might unleash a “chain of events” that actually destroys the world. It is a concern beyond the scope of theory to resolve. Oppenheimer rates that probability at near zero but not zero. The ultimate irony as the movie concludes is that it is not the science that unleashes that cascade, but humans themselves in utilizing the knowledge of the Manhattan Project.

Sitting in that theatre and seeing this drama unfold, my mind turned to independent schools and education in general, but not today’s world of education or schools. It was the contemporaneous drama unfolding at the time of the events portrayed in the movie. This was the story of two ideologies or dogmas that entered the consciousness of educators and schools between the 1930s and early 1950s, transmitted by the Progressive Education Association.  These ideologies were the Learner-Centered (led by the likes of John Dewey), and the Social Reconstruction or Justice ideology (led by George Counts). As I wrote in the article Why DEIJ is desperately seeking a curriculum date? the clash between these two progressive ideologies was terminal and “by 1955, the Progressive Education Association had failed to reconcile its differences and collapsed”. The result of this schism was the forceful return of the two traditionally embedded curriculum ideologies, the Scholar Academic, based on the transferred cultural and scientific knowledge emanating from the Colleges, and Social Efficiency, focused on the employable skills required by an industrial society. In the 1950s, it was the Scholar Academic ideology that led to the comeback of STEM, spurred by the space race. In the 1980s, it was the rapid spread of Social Efficiency ideology with standardization, ignited by the fears generated by Ronald Reagan and other critics of the “failings” of public education. Only a few educational models prevailed from the progressive education era, with the best examples being the Waldorf and the Montessori systems. The modest impact is not unusual. New ideologies are often pitted against the conventional wisdom, fighting to infuse themselves into current practice, but losing the fight and thus losing potential support from those who stood to gain the most. Apropos of Oppenheimer, it is often radioactive fallout that results from progressive change.

To be honest, I love a good ideology. It’s a way to make sense of the world and it often provides a lens that can provide clarity. Ideologies are generally digestible and therefore particularly appropriate and understandable by students. Many independent schools are in the throes of embracing a number of controversial newer ideologies offered by NAIS and widely discussed in its People of Color Conference. Topics have included gender ideology, critical race theory, intersectionality, and social justice. Our open 2024 Heads’ and Teachers’ surveys will provide data on how embedded these ideologies are in the thinking of educators, and in the Programs. 

This piece takes the 2021 Pat Bassett (former NAIS President) and Sanje Ratnavale article, 12 Questions Before Your Anti-Racism Plan Blows Up, to another ideological level: to look at likely indicators of success and to use an anthropological lens as a framework for these indicators, particularly if you are planning on betting the farm, as it were.  Here are the essential questions behind my approach:

1. Have you maintained your community allyships?
   
   A good ideology for a school with diverse communities and families should be grounded in the notion of intersectionality: it can form the basis for community support or allyship and includes not just those who might be the victims of its injustices. There is deep value alignment around injustice, freedom, and equality. That value alignment must go beyond self-interest so that the ideology prevails when push comes to shove. Examples in the wider world include the alliance around LGBTQ issues, the alliances against unfair immigration policies, the marginalization and unfair treatment of women, and, of course, anti-racism.  
   
   So here are some specific global scenarios that spark concern about the ideologies currently in full swing at independent schools. I would call them emerging cracks in intersectionality.

1. • President Trudeau and Muslims. In June, President Trudeau, very much an intersectionality-driven progressive leader on causes ranging from feminism to LGBT issues started to receive condemnation from Muslims around the world. Muslim parents had been boycotting gay pride events at schools in Canada, and a teacher in Edmonton had not taken kindly to that behavior.  This audio recording advancing his perceived requirements of intersectionality was the spark;  “It goes two ways. If you want to be respected for who you are, if you don’t want to suffer prejudice for your religion, your color of skin, or whatever, then you better give it back to people who are different from you. That’s how it works”. President Trudeau blamed right-wing American politics for the outrage and the controversy, further fueling the firestorm. Muslim parents wanted Trudeau to know that their support of him, the support of anyone, is dependent upon respect for their fundamental values.
   • Gay Comedians and Transgender.  Comedy is often a place where social commentary reflects emerging views. I am talking about gay comedians who are taking aim at the trans community, despite the close relationship in our general understanding of T and LGB. I heard that hostility at gay clubs toward transgender individuals perceived as those who have yet to realize or admit that they are essentially gay, and again last week when I heard a lesbian comedian go after pronouns as the domain of “teenagers”. I think it is safe to say that the gay community is starting to see that their interests may not be aligned with the proponents of gender ideology. After the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, gay rights seemed to be on a positive trajectory, but the intersectionality of gay rights with gender ideology in schools, along with the growth of transgenderism, is now forcing a divide. As parents and politicians set off for a fight over traditional notions of gender, gay rights are caught in the middle. Just like the Muslims in Canada.  The important question is how deep that support will be as cracks appear in intersectionality.  You may find your answer in the comedy clubs of San Francisco, but it’s better if you find a way to stress test it with your community.
   • White Flight from Asians. Why do so many Asians do so well academically and end up in the top 10% of their California high school academic ranking lists, a performance that gives them preferences in the highly competitive UC system? A recent study from Princeton University established these accomplishments were not wild imaginings from wealthy parents in liberal neighborhoods; they were real fears based on statistical realities. White parents were pulling their kids out of schools with increased Asian enrollments and placing them in schools with smaller Asian populations. And all this, no less, in the beating heart of progressive California, in Silicon Valley near Apple HQ. Do your parents really value a level playing field for college admissions, and are any of your ideologies asking them to choose an altruistic ideology over their self-interest?
     
     

     The Asian parents and students who took Harvard and the University of North Carolina to court were very clear about where they stood when it came to ideology around affirmative action. They were not interested in the arguments around diversity or historic injustice. Nor were the white Silicon Valley parents interested in diversity (similar to those who fled public school integration for independent schools decades ago). A level playing field in college admissions is the trajectory we seem to be moving toward (without legacy preferences, fewer sports admits, less focus on wealthy extra-curriculars, more experience-laden college essays, and more preference for low socio-economic status) and so it is worth being sure how attached your parents are to ideologies that may disadvantage those families seeking opportunity for their kids.

   • Resistance to DEI ideologies from STEM educators. One thing we notice from our surveys, not a criticism, is the singular resistance from STEM educators to discussing any ideology. Oppenheimer said this, too: “There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek any evidence, to correct any errors.” It would be worth looking hard at the ideologies that you are promoting to see how they sit with the different academic communities at your school. While all academic disciplines worry about too many burdens as a teacher,  the math and science educators in our surveys cited being fed up with polarization at school. It is my guess that a scientific backlash is building towards gender ideology, even critical race theory, and maybe all social ideologies. It may be driven by the lack of psychological safety for free expression, inquiry, or exploration, or it could be deeper. That is not a good place to be when you are finding it difficult to hire teachers.
     
     

     In summary, test the ideologies you have unleashed into your community. Do not think of intersectionality as an ideology in itself. Think of it as a self-measurement tool.

2. Have your ideologies damaged any core educational pillars?
   
   Ideologies evolve, and some just disappear, but your core educational values persist. These include a commitment to free and critical thinking, excellence as a standard that is independent of ideology, and a safe and thriving community knit around the safety of childhood as a special time to grow. The one I am most concerned about is the psychological safety of children to think freely without fear. Potential compromise of core educational values was the reason we started Intrepid Ed News. We saw a void in the fair critique of independent school issues and an underground desire for such authenticity—how many articles like this written recently on the research around hormone treatment by a former Head of School have you seen on an association blog?
   
   Only 11.9% of Heads in our 2022 survey felt that there was psychological safety and freedom of speech for opposing views at their school! Our new 2024 surveys ask this question again, including teachers as well as Heads—stay tuned. This statistic alone should be considered a five-alarm fire for any school. Critical thinking requires free expression, but the Social Justice movement at independent schools has intentionally or unintentionally dampened that. 
   
   Some DEI practitioners over the last decade have become more and more emboldened, arriving at independent schools fired up by the ideological rise of critical race theory. In the wake of the Black Lives Matter demonstrations, a great deal of energy and money was poured into social justice education. And with that education came the agenda that, given the challenge of righting historic injustices, there would be blame to spread around, and the affluent white population of our school communities were early and easy targets.  Today the froth of ideological activism has cooled and DEI practitioners at independent schools are more disconsolate, realizing that their paths are constrained by the ethos of exclusivity and elitism that underlies an education that is not free. Furthermore, many teachers are paying lip service to a process dismissed as political and polarizing, leaving the DEI folks with no clear path into the curriculum.
   
3. Have the dogmas and ideologies found a path from content to skills?
   
   The business of learning is the formulation of an interplay between content and skills that through reinforcement, practice, and perhaps sequence leads to transferable growth. This is what is known as curriculum, and it requires an assessment framework that provides feedback at the core around achievement. What is interesting about the latter-day critical race theorists (like Kendi and Crenshaw) is that they saw this need clearly. The earlier founders of critical race theory in the 1970s and 80s did not. The father of critical race theory, Derrick Bell, took an inquiry-based approach 50 years ago with his famous fictional case studies (Faces at the Bottom of the Well, well worth the read). Bell did not see anti-racism as the foundation for a curriculum of its own: he relied on the timeless experiences of critical thinking and reflection to drive acceptance; modern CRT advocates have taken a decidedly curricular approach by defining the skills that need to be developed, the most famous being Kendi’s requirement of activism to be an anti-racist, not merely being anti-racist in essence. This is interesting since it unabashedly advocates for a curriculum with a specific historical narrative and action plan (exactly what they have been railing against).  What do your school, your DEI team, and your Board see as the purpose of ideologies in the curriculum? Are they content to be integrated into timeless skills, like critical thinking, which requires free expression and free inquiry, or are we moving to outcome-driven political beliefs as part of an ideological curriculum?
   
   It’s a dangerous time to be an independent school because we are living in a world that is moving quickly against many of the things independent schools have stood for in terms of market purpose. It’s the exact problem that Caitlin Flanagan identified in her Atlantic article “Private Schools Have Become Truly Obscene”. Many independent schools have embraced ideologies that have aimed to give themselves a higher purpose and this is undoubtedly a noble goal. However, it is one that has its limits in an education context, because schools tread a fine line between indoctrination and independent thought. Community flare-ups come out of nowhere: it might be Black@xyz school one day on Instagram, and tomorrow it could be Asian@ or Muslim@ or Male@. A statement of ideological support might be a quick redemptive bandaid, but it has its consequences. Free thought is, after all, why we are called independent schools, free particularly from government-imposed ideologies that flow more easily into the public school system. Some schools have followed new ideologies blindly without looking at the “likely chain of events”, to use the recurring theme in the movie Oppenheimer. It is time to take stock of the buffet of ideologies on which we have been feasting. The three questions in the previous paragraphs offer a path to authentic recalibration and accountability.

You may also be interested in reading more articles written by Sanje Ratnavale for Intrepid Ed News.