Ted Sizer on Religion in Schools

I've written previously about Ted Sizer, intellectual giant of the past decades' attempts at school reform.

Near the end of the second section of Horace's Compromise, titled "The Program," in a chapter titled "Character: Decency," Sizer makes some awesome comments about the role of religion in schools (particularly as it relates to the notion of character education).

Excerpts:

Pg. 126-127, in the wake of recounting a conversation with a senior at a Baptist school who had shared with Sizer the conversation she had with Jesus about him wanting her to be a teacher:

One might conclude that the girl was unsophisticated, that her family, community, and school had shielded her from much of the world. One might guess that, initially at least, she would be very troubled in a Socratic discussion, in any situation where she might be pressed toward relative rather than absolute values. However, one can say as much about many students in firmly secular public schools.

Pg. 127-129, the following masterstrokes in the midst of a larger discussion of how flimsy the church-state separation really is, and how religion is essential to education:

The neat legalisms about Jefferson's putative wall between church and state find no place in reality, save at the extremes.

Individualism, compassion, the sense of obligation for service to one's community, and a belief in literacy all have, surprising though it might seem to some, religious roots.
Few educators like to be reminded of this. The unconscious Protestant Christian bias of many public schools is often visible only to Jewish or Catholic families. Indeed, it was this bias which more than anything led to the establishment of a coherent system of Catholic schools in the late nineteenth century, and the current growth of Jewish day schools arises from an analogous sense of bias in the public sector. [Written, I remind you, in the early '80s.]

The argument about the existence of a "religion" called "secular humanism" is not a silly one. ... to argue that "unfettered" scientific or social scientific inquiry is unconnected with religion is plausible only if one gives a remarkably narrow definition to religion, essentially relegating it to the status of a mystery.

The message of this bit of current history is to remind educators of the religious element in all schooling. ... By pretending there is a wall between religious issues and their schools, public school people remove themselves from the argument about the ways that religion must properly exist in their schools, and they leave the field open to unchallenged religious enthusiasts. ... [I]t increases the need for legalistic precision in an area where deliberate ambiguity may be a virtue.

He concludes the chapter (pp. 129-130):

Reasonable people can disagree about the implications of even such a moderate and limited concept as dignity. ...
The line between originality and incivility is a fuzzy one, as is that between freedom and vulgar intrusiveness. Inexperienced adolescents trying their wings - working up a new cheerleaders' routine or staging a play - will test that line. It is all right for John Updike to use the word "fuck" in a short story that is assigned in class, but not all right for the students to use it in their play. Most people enjoy surprising others, and adolescents are no exception. They often like to give a bit of a shock to old folk. Look at us. Listen to our freedom.
No one learns how to calibrate the limits of offensiveness without practice. Good character reflects skills at such calibrating. Allowing students opportunities to learn these skills requires patience and a toleration of more offensiveness than many adults can stomach, particularly those older people who have limited self-confidence (who have shaky calibration skills of their own) or who are being hammered by outside critics. Where to draw lines depends on values about which thoughtful people can seriously disagree.