A few years ago, then U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett unleashed upon an unsuspecting nation his blueprint for a “dream high school” governed by an “ideal” core curriculum, which he was gracious enough to provide. Bennett’s comments sent shock waves through the educational and lay community. People everywhere rushed to compare their local high schools to the Bennett ideal, and bestowed lavish praise on those that best measured up.

Even the critics granted Bennett his basic premise, and differed for the most part on details of what the curriculum should contain.

Now as far as I’m concerned, Bennett William is as entitled as anyone to let us know what his dream school looks like. He is a qualified professional with long and distinguished public service, and his views certainly deserve a respectful hearing. The problem I have is with the implication, strengthened by Bennett’s powerful position as dispenser of trainloads of money, that Bennett’s dreams has to become the nation’s model as well. If you looked closely, you could see the armies of grants applicants all over the country positioning their strategies around the flattering satisfaction at Bennett’s wish.

The truth is that the millions of youngsters growing up in America today are entering a world more varied than any other in history, and becoming even more complex every year. No one, however brilliant, has the foggiest idea what the future holds, or how we will get there. It is absurd on the face of it to think that any one model, any single form, is appropriate for the education of children. Let Bennett propose one ideal, and let others throughout the land propose theirs, but what the Secretary of Education should really be saying in his official capacity as promoter of the national welfare is that we should encourage and sponsor as great a variety as possible of different types of schools, based on the dreams and ideals of as many thoughtful educators as are available, and let the public, and history, choose freely among them. Pluralism should be the goal, not slavish imitation of one man’s blueprint for success.

It is no small irony that a Republican administration which loudly proclaims its belief in diversity, in local control, and in decentralization of power, should condone the notion that a single ideal format, emanating from Washington, is suitable for everyone, everywhere. Is there really as little difference between democrats and republicans as this example might indicate?

I think we should let Secretary Bennett know that we appreciate the careful thought he has given to the question of schooling for the young, and we respectfully, but most emphatically, disagree with his fundamental premise that models exist for nationwide emulation. Diversity should be the guiding principle in these days of rapid change, and from the experience we gain in time by observing alternative possibilities we may eventually discern the outlines of the forms that will serve us well in the future.

[Is There an “Ideal School” for the Nation?, EDUCATION IN AMERICA, Daniel Greenberg, THE SUDBURY VALLEY SCHOOL PRESS - http://www.sudval.org/ - 1987 - http://books.google.com/books?id=YQn_BA76TF4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Education+in+America:+a+view+from+Sudbury+Valley++Daniel+Greenberg&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false ]