Who Does School “belong” to and to Whom Should It? Education at the Service of the State or the Local Community

The organization of education systems

The basic structure of education most commonly found in countries from the US to most European states includes a system of basic education that is accessible to and obligatory for every citizen. Education varies from country to country, in terms of the structure of supervision and its organization. This centrally managed approach exists, for example, in Poland, the Czech Republic, France, and Ireland. In Germany and Spain, education is the responsibility of relevant organs of administrative units or the federal states. In Sweden and Finland, though, education remains entirely the responsibility of the provinces, namely parents’ councils that exist there, which appoint and supervise directors and decide on content passed on to their children. Which system works best and is the most effectively implemented concept of comprehensively educating young people?

Student, think like us

“Fish and children have no voice” – or, if you prefer, “Kids should be seen and not heard.” Significantly, these sayings in Polish and English mean basically the same thing and show a similar attitude towards children. “To sit quietly and listen,” one wants to say; however, uncritical and humble listening in class is a thing of the past, and the teacher has long needed to be more creative with lessons than just sticking to the lecture format. However, it’s not over methodology but about content that one can conduct deep reflections, especially in the context of needs among students and their parents. It’s no a secret that each country, despite its declared neutrality of worldview, pursues its specific ideological policy. It’s usually doing so for reasons of wanting to be reelected or win votes from a majority sharing a given worldview. Forcing ideological issues into curricula seems to have nothing to do with learning to think critically or acquiring the ability to make decisions about one’s views. After all, people in Texas have a different philosophy of life and opinion on a given subject, and so do inhabitants of New York City. Varsovians’ views differ from inhabitants of the Subcarpathia region in the south. As with government, so with school and a curriculum. These varied approaches raise legitimate concerns about young people’s futures.

Read also:

School is ours!

The school, as a key institution when it comes to educating future generations, has great potential to become the center of life in local communities. One school, Bowie High School in Maryland, clearly emphasizes that as an educational unit, it shapes its students who then, as a result of this process, have the need and ability to shape their community, protect it, and care for its future. This is especially evident in small towns. Unfortunately, there aren’t many places where the interests of the majority living in a given area are being pursued. And we’re talking about the upbringing and education of their children. When we realize that in centrally managed systems there’s little space for adapting content that’s being taught, we’re probably justified in objecting. After all, most schools in the world are public institutions (from the Latin publicus, meaning “universal,” “social”), and societies are rarely unified when it comes to varied views. Hence the correct conclusion seems to be that school should be for everyone, not just for those who identify with mainstream thought as presented by authorities elected by the majority (but not all!) of those who’ve voted.

Sterile curriculum

Is it possible, then, to adapt the content of teaching so as not to direct students in any way into a single, fixed pattern of thinking a ruling majority presents at a given moment? Republicans or Democrats in the US – that dualistic political system isn’t too complicated of a situation. But in countries with a multi-party system, political struggle is much more fierce and refining the choice of methods often results in grabbing up ideological issues. Of course, this isn’t about pulling in that misunderstood issue of political correctness. It’s more about adapting a young human’s mind to critical thinking, teaching openness about others’ opinions, and tolerance. Also properly understood, so we’re not exposed to any similar ostracism from students as adults in the future, when they’ll take over with imposing ideologies and tug the reins of the state, while we occupy the last rows as retirees. It’s also about letting children grow up in reality, without unnecessary fear. They must be allowed to decide what they believe and what they don’t, with their parents’ help, who should direct their children’s moral system authoritatively and shield them from cognitive dissonances that discrepancies between home and school upbringings generate.

Program for acceptance

It seems justifiable to free school from central management. Wouldn’t this bring measurable benefits to local communities? Of course, the school that exists in a given place brings together people of different views, yet the individualization that’s being so loudly cherished could find its expression using Scandinavian schooling as the template. Why is the far north a model on a global scale today in the dimension of primary education? First is the decentralization that’s already been suggested. Schools in those countries report directly to parents’ councils, which appoint and dismiss school principals. Parents thus influence who works in their child’s school, and thus indirectly influence the content being taught. Of course, there is a universal-framework program, but it’s the basis and covers only key competences to be acquired at school age. It’s not hard to imagine how much school has “grown together” with the local community there. As parents are given agency, they also feel responsibility, so the phenomenon is marginal of utter indifference to the fate of anybody’s child at school. Parent-teacher meetings, charity actions, and other undertakings unite and gather the majority of adults interested in education and the public upbringing of their children.

Is everyone ready for this?

Reforming the education system is a very responsible and significant operation. It has a severe impact on the most important element of this structure, which is to say students. It would be enough to say that Finland’s last reform of its education system took place in the 1990s, therefore the organization of teaching appears to be effective and stable. In cases where the government is directly responsible for education, major changes take place almost every term. And previously implemented ones can be observed for some time and you have to wait to be able to assess the legitimacy of their introduction. There are many benefits – but the question is, does every society expect such a system? Maybe the treatment of a school where it’s enough to drop the child off and pick them up, the rest will be done by teachers, appeals to some communities. Of course, this mustn’t be generalized about, but it’s hard to understand how so few take the example from the exemplary Finnish system, given its measurable, concrete effects. Is taking greater responsibility for educating the child a bigger challenge that involves devoting time and energy? Aren’t those the best resources to invest?

Give us back the school!

An additional problem that centrally managed education systems will face is developments in the information society. No one needs to be convinced of the fact that information is the most desirable resource in today’s world. Therefore, children are increasingly learning what they want. It’s enough to compare the ease of memorizing a stanza from the national bard’s poem and some mocking song heard on TikTok. The attractiveness of the material can’t be compared, but there’s something about it that one gets into a child’s consciousness and the other doesn’t, and perhaps it’s not about the content, but about the attractiveness of the message. Therefore, it’s extremely important to shift from a frontal attitude towards the student and choose instead the partnership approach, a domain where communication doesn’t include violence, but kindness and friendliness. They’re very favorable conditions for acquiring knowledge and growing.

We still have a lot ahead

There will be plenty of experiments with education. It’s clear, though, that the world is changing at a rate much, much faster than, for example, in the previous century. Therefore, it’s worth considering letting responsibility for children be their parents’ realm, who better recognize the needs of their kids because they’re observing them every day. Perhaps then, education systems will keep pace with the challenges of the present-day world.