The Intertwined Moral, Democratic, Political Classroom

The concept of the classroom, whether it be a classic schoolroom, a birthright trip to Israel, or a summer camp program, is not merely a neutral space for knowledge transfer. Rather, it is a deliberate, pedagogical environment designed to socialize individuals and shape the particular society and culture they are engaged in. Throughout the history of education, the terminology around the “whys” of the classroom have changed, reflecting the prevailing theories of each era. This development can be understood as an intertwining of three deeply connected models: the moral classroom, the democratic classroom, and the political classroom. Even though the moral, democratic, and political classrooms are often presented as distinct eras or philosophies, it may be better to think of them as a continuum where each layer builds upon, rather than completely replaces, the last. This progression moves from shaping individual character (the moral classroom) to fostering collaborative governance (the democratic classroom) to engaging in deliberation over controversial, societal power structures (the political classroom).

The moral classroom represents an early, often foundational, phase in educational history. Edmunson, Tatum, and Slate (2009) explain that character-driven education goes as far back as Ancient Greece, where a truly educated person was one who demonstrated myriad virtues such as decency, goodness, and honor (p. 3). This notion that a fundamental purpose of education is character development carried forth throughout the centuries and became a guiding principle amongst pedagogues in the United States. The 19th-century desire to instill Protestant moral values and build a unified national identity led textbooks to stress moral development and universities to state good morals as one of their primary goals. Even John Dewey, the father of the democratic classroom, held that students must be able to draw from humanity’s collective morality (Edmunson et al., 2009). The primary goal of the moral classroom, as a place for character formation through teaching virtue, patriotism, and obedience, was thought to prepare the individual to be a productive member of society. To argue, however, that the moral classroom is merely an historical perspective or that we have evolved away from it is clearly errant. For example, in recent years, the concept of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) has taken up the clarion call of character development in education (Edmunson et al., 2009). Plus, as Chazan (2022) fairly points out, even today we are in need of the moral classroom:

The twenty-first century is proving to be a painfully vivid setting, highlighting the need for moral education and a moral way. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that moral education continues to be one of the central pressing and eternally important elements of the life and work of the world of education (p. 33).

In 1916 John Dewey wrote Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, and the notion of the democratic classroom was born. In it, Dewey argues that schools should reflect society both in its values and also in its modalities; therefore, in a democracy, the classroom should be teaching democratic practices: negotiating, respecting opposing views, and participating in shared decision-making (Dewey, 1916). Unlike the moral classroom, the democratic classroom doesn't just tell students to be good; rather, it practices the process of building a healthy, shared society. Nearly a hundred years later, Noddings (2013) is still advocating for the democratic classroom. She argues that our current system, driven by test scores and lesson conformity, does nothing to create “intelligent, dedicated citizens” (p. 22). Our democracy is in need of more deliberative people; if we do not encourage a deliberative process in our schools, our democracy will be lacking. According to Noddings, this means teaching controversial issues, giving students more opportunities to interact with people that they don’t usually work with, and, perhaps most importantly, offering students choices. If we want adults who are able to make choices, we have to offer students chances to make choices. What is a democracy other than a community of choice making?

Diana Hess and Paula McAvoy dive into the idea of "the political classroom" in 2014 in their book, The Political Classroom: Evidence and Ethics in Democratic Education. In it, they argue that schools must be sites where students discuss controversial issues to learn how to live together in a democracy. While Hess and McAvoy readily uphold the necessity for democratic principles in our education systems, they take the concept of the democratic classroom to a new level when they argue, “that schools are, and ought to be, political sites” (p. 4). The democratic classroom highlights the shared aspect of living in a democracy: how to make decisions together that will affect everyone. The political classroom acknowledges that the whole may not always be able to come to a consensus; therefore, it guides students on how to "weigh evidence, consider competing views, form an opinion, articulate that opinion, and respond to those who disagree” (p. 5). Hess and McAvoy understood that not every teacher embraced the political realities of the classroom; more importantly, they were well aware that not every teacher was capable and/or well trained in guiding discussions of controversial political issues. They found, however, that in the classes where teachers were ready and able to host such discussions, the students were "more likely to engage in political discussions with people with whom they disagree ideologically, and [were] more interested in listening to opinions different from their own” (p. 46). 

Much of the scholarly discussion around the political classroom has been in reference to school subjects that are inherently political, such as social studies. One might wonder how a math class might become a political classroom or, quite frankly, if it ever should. Is all education political and, therefore, every classroom a political space? No. Teaching proper knife skills in cooking class or the quadratic equation in math class or the nature of ionic bonds in science class has no particular political weight that needs to be addressed. English teachers can instruct students on how to parse a sentence without having to consider the political implications, and, according to Hess and McAvoy, even an AP social studies teacher can teach effectively without having to constantly wade into controversial political discussions (pp. 56-57). Nevertheless, there is a value-laden aspect to education in the very building blocks of what and how the institution offers the students as options for learning. While the cooking class may not seem political, the school had to allocate resources to make cooking available, presumably not putting those resources into other possible classes. Plus, there are the choices that the teacher makes for the cooking class while choosing which recipes or highlighting which ingredients. All of these choices reflect the political nature of the community. 

It has been argued that education has evolved from the moral classroom to the democratic classroom to the political classroom. This argument may seem sound—if we were to evaluate the evolution of education merely by the historical timeline. Although discussions of controversial political issues were de rigueur in Aristotle’s Lyceum and Plato’s Academy and—one could easily argue—the guilds in Medieval Europe followed a protocol based on shared decision-making and experiential learning that feels very similar to the democratic classroom (Basti, 1986). The term "evolution," however, suggests an inherent bettering from one model to the next. In fact, the political classroom is not inherently better than the democratic classroom, which is not inherently better than the moral classroom. Rather, the three models are complimentary to one another and should be considered enhancing each other. For example, a political classroom that ignores basic respect (moral) will fail to foster safe dialogue. Similarly, a democratic classroom that ignores the political realities of injustice (political) becomes a shallow, polite exercise in apathy. The educator who is able to intertwine the moral with the democratic and the political effectively is able to both nurture and challenge their students into becoming good people who are also prepared to be active, good citizens.

Last spring I began developing a 7-week course for 9th and 10th graders on Israel: The Ideal and the Real. This course is meant to help students find space for both their “ideal Israel” and a “real Israel.” Session 1 begins with some classic texts expressing the idealized Israel (from Psalms, the siddur, the haggadah, Hatikvah, and the Israeli Declaration of Independence) as well as travel posters from different eras encouraging people to visit Israel. In sessions 2 and 3, students explore real narratives from Israelis through podcasts, videos, and essays. The 4th session invites students to consider narratives from the “other” side using poems, interviews, and maps. Come session 5, there is a departure from the Middle East as we dissect the ideals that the United States was founded upon and take some time to reconcile those ideals with the reality we live in; an important conversation of the day is around the joy of living in the US even though we may be disappointed that we have not upheld all of these ideals. In sessions 6 and 7, I ask the students to take this same principle that we applied to the US and consider the joy and disappointment we are allowed to feel about Israel; we ask the question, “Why can’t Israel live up to our ideal?” and we unpack the idea of moving beyond the honeymoon stage in order to find space to love Israel with her imperfections.

Throughout this semester, I have been thinking about how, in many ways, this 9th and 10th grade course is an example of the intertwined moral, democratic, and political classroom. 

There are a number of instances, in the course, where the curriculum leans heavily into the moral classroom:

• In session 1, when we unpack the words of our ancestors crying out for a return to Jerusalem, it is hard to deny the pull of “group pride, comradery, and loyalty” as Durkheim described as the social elements of moral education (Chazan, 2022).

• Sessions 2-4 are designed to foster empathy and respect for a multiplicity of narratives.

• Session 7, as students are invited to reconcile their joys and disappointments around Israel, there is an emphasis on a number of the core concepts of SEL: self-awareness, self-management, and relationship skills.

The democratic classroom can be found in a couple of examples during the course where students are given the opportunity to choose their engagement and are encouraged to participate in shared decision-making:

• In session 3, students are given multiple sources in multiple mediums with which to engage; while they are asked to engage with, at least, one source, they are not expected to engage with every source or, even, every medium.

• The map exercise, in session 4, asks students to negotiate with a fellow classmate to create a narrative through the piecing together of different maps.

• Session 5 includes an activity where the entire class, together, distills the ideals that the US was founded on into a single, simple mission statement.

At its core, the course is political, and many of the lessons are built on the principles of the political classroom in order to foster open discussion around difficult topics:

• There is a debate in session 5 (that I am considering adding protocols to) about American exceptionalism.

• During session 6, students research and share with each other controversial rulings that the UN has made regarding Israel. The class then has the opportunity to discuss which ones they would vote yes or no on.

Intertwining all three classrooms has unfurled a course on Israel that encourages the students to relate emotionally, intellectually, and critically to both an ideal and a real notion of Israel. In the end, however, education is about relationships. The success of this course ultimately lies in the health of the relationships between the teacher and students and amongst the students as well. When I taught this class last year, all of the relationships were strong. I plan on teaching it again next year with a group that is not as cohesive. I am already contemplating how I might prepare them in the weeks before to be able to enter into this space ready for the moral and the democratic and the political conversations that lay ahead.

Bibliography

M. Basti (1986). The English Guild Method of Learning. Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, 3. https://teachersinstitute.yale.edu/curriculum/units/files/86.03.01.pdf 

B. Chazan (2022). “What is ‘Moral Education’?” In Principles and Pedagogies in Jewish Education. Palgrave Macmillan.

J. Dewey (1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. Macmillan Publishing.

S. Edmonson, R. Tatman & J. R. Slate (2009). “Character Education: An Historical Overview.” International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 4(1)

D. Hess & P. McAvoy (2014). The Political Classroom. Routledge.

N. Noddings (2013). Education and Democracy in the 21st Century. Teachers College Press.