My Example

Truency in schools has become an issue of late. To try and uncover the causes for this, I will use 2 benchmarks: Lawrence Kohlberg's 6 Stages of Moral Development, and Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of needs theory. Based on this, I will look at the positives and negatives of four world views and their answers to the problem. The four world views I will look at include Conservative-Authoritarianism, Liberal-Leftism, Libertarian-Objectivism, and Marxism. I have chosen these particular views as 2 can be described, in practice, as 'libertarian' (Libertarian-Objectivism and Liberal Leftism), and 2 as 'authoritarian' (Conservative Authoritarianism and Marxism). Conversely, 2 of these theories (Liberal-leftism and Marxism) are, politically, left wing while the other 2 (Conservative Authoritarianism and Libertarian Objectivism) are right wing.

First, I will introduce the 2 benchmarks I will use.

Lawrence Kohlberg's theory suggests that everyone has a preffered moral decision making level. The 2 pre-conventional levels (level 1 & 2) see the subject make decisions either on what suits them with no connection to consequence (level 1), or based on a 'what's bad is what hurts me, what's good is what's good to me' (level 2) moral code. The 2 conventional levels (3 & 4) see either a peer group pressure mentality (level 3), or a respect for rules because they are rules (level 4) mentality. Finally, the post conventional moral levels see a concern for the greater good (level 5), and absolute selflessness (level 6, please note this level is exceedingly rare).

Abraham Maslow noted that certain needs take preceedence over others. That if, for example, if you're thristy and someone has you in a choke hold, the need for oxygen will take preceedence over the need for water. And thus a 'hierarchy of needs' emerges, with higher needs not being taken into consideration, or totally fulfilled, until lower needs are met. At the bottom of the table we have phisiological needs - the need for food, water, shelter, rest, sleep, activity... the physical things we need to survive. Above this are our needs for safety and security. Third, we have love and belonging needs, and fourth we have self esteem needs. Once all these needs are fulfilled, an individual can self-actualize.

Conservative - Authoritarianism suggests that students who skip school should be punished with detention, suspension, or even expulsion. By putting forward a strong set of rules, you appeal to people of level 2 morality. Similarly, by catching out the leaders of peer groups you appeal to people of level 3 morality. And, finally, a rigidly enforced set of rules appeals to people at level 4 morality; and thus overall in a Kolbergian sense Authoritarianism works reasonably well. However, it does little to appeal to level 1 students, who need to be shown that school is a positive experience, and it does little if the student is at level 5 and making a legitimate protest about the school, its policies, and broader social issues. Furthermore, under Maslow's theories, we can assume that going to school is a higher level need, and such an authoritatian stance doesn't redress the underlying problems. In fact, quite the opposite, it may force the student into dealing with a teacher or a social situation that makes the matter worse (if the underlying problem is within the school). If it's outside the school, the problem may manifest itself in other ways (for example misbehavior in class, drug use, etc.) and create a field of still salient past depravations that can lead to later life neurosis. Finally, these solutions can only be administered ex post facto or after the fact.

Liberal - leftism suggests that we provide alternatives for students, and treat underlying social problems. In many regards, this solution is the 'opposite' to Conservative-Authoritarianism, and has the opposite strengths and weaknesses. If administered correctly, in cases where the truancy is a manifestation of a deeper underlying problem, liberal leftism can provide a better solution. Liberal leftist solutions can be delivered not just ex post facto, but also in futuro (for the future), and thus in some cases pre-empting the act of truancy. Similarly, more alternatives would make school more attractive to student's at Kohlberg's level 1 & 5. We can also assume that, if truancy were still against school rules, people at level 4 morality would still stay in school, even i policing was minimal (but with big protests of "Johnny skipped school, and here I am following the rules, and I have to do more work, while he doesn't! He should be PUNISHED!"). However, level 2 students would still, in many cases, skip school; quite possibly more often than under authoriarian-conservativism. Similarly, level 3 students would also end up more likely to be truant than if they were under an authoritarian-conservative admininstration.

Please note I consider myself liberal-leftist.

The Libertarian-Objectivist solution says that if students want to be truant, we should let them, but they have no right to complain after the fact. Truant students without the self discipline and motivation to stay at school tie up the resources of school bodies and administrations; if they want to go, let them! This is quite a different outlook to the others proposed on this site; it suggests maximinzing the educational opportunities of students who want to learn, and at higher levels may be a good theory to consider. It is interesting to note that where private schools have much higher retention rates than state schools, the drop-out rate at university is a lot higher than from state schools at university; this has been linked to the 'silver spoon' mentality of many private schools, as opposed to state schools which place much higher emphasis on libertarianesque self reliance. However, the question at hand is how do we minimize truancy, and under both Kohlberg's and Maslow's theories this theory performs poorly. From not treating Maslow's underlying causes, to not providing any reason (bar self motivation) for anyone at level 4 and under to go to school.

Finally, we have the Marxist view on schooling. A Marxist would point out that traditional schools are there to create the 'prolitarian subordination to authority' mentality in students, and are really nothing but undemocratic 'worker factories'. It is interesting to note that Cuba, a socialist society, has been praised by the IMF and World Bank for its education standards. Where Marxist planned economies have had a terrible track record, socialist states do often achieve better education standards than comparable capitalist states. However, this can be attributed to the fact that, under capitalist societies, there is a constant downward pressure on GDP per capita spending on education (contributed through taxes), and higher emphasis on investment in industry. In Marxist societies, however, control of industry is political, and political actions are often centered around keeping the party in power, and therefore (as education spending is usually popular amongst citizens) there is a constant upward pressure on per capita GDP spending. So effectively we have education prioritized at the economic and industrial wellbeing of the state.

That said, the Cuban government has implemented several interesting programs that could be carried over into a liberal leftist education system. For instance, there is greater student input into cirriculum and assessment of teachers, and the school, by students. Similarly, programs like Pioneeros teach civics in a practical sense, through vote counting and the like.

Considering what has been discussed here, the best solution appears to be post-modern. The effectiveness of libertarian-objectivism vs. traditional liberalism and conservativism in education is an essay in itself, as is the evaluation of Marxist elements in education. An effective education system needs to effectively evaluate a truant student and decide whether the best course of action is one of punishment, or if there is an underlying problem that may need counselling or other support to overcome. Certainly though, the application of Marxist and Liberal alternatives in education is a possibility that may pre-empt truantism.