You have to admire their courage. Instead of following the conventional wisdom that says that issues with religious overtones are best brushed aside because they produce no-win solutions, Modesto City Schools faced theirs with surprising results.
The trouble began when Modesto City Schools, a district serving more than 33,000 students in central California, started crafting new policies guaranteeing an environment free of discrimination and harassment for all students and staff. Convinced that their current policies were insufficient to address the needs of their growing community, the district included sexual orientation in a new tolerance statement.
When administrators returned from a Bay Area conference sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Network in San Francisco, protests broke out. Critics accused the district of using the public schools to promote homosexuality. They claimed that the new policy would require "sensitivity training" by gay activists.
Rather than scuttle the policy or ignore the critics, administrators and school board members decided to help their community tackle one of the most divisive issues of our day. Through a common ground approach, Modesto Schools found that they could not only work through the issue, but also make their community stronger in the process.
It's Not Just About Bible Reading
We're all familiar with this advice: Don't discuss politics, sex, and religion with friends—and never with a community of strangers. But many districts are discovering that they cannot ignore controversial issues.
The 1963 Supreme Court decision outlawing state-sponsored school prayer and Bible reading fundamentally changed how our society deals with religious issues. By ending the almost 200 years of governmental preference for Protestant Christianity, the decision ushered in an era of increasing tension between religious conservatives and public educators. In the ensuing years, court cases, the association of the education establishment with liberal causes, and the frequent misapplication of the principle of separation of church and state have caused numerous conflicts.
Recently, falling test scores, controversial reform initiatives, and the campaign for school choice have extended the concerns of the religious community far beyond prayer and Bible reading to virtually every area of school curriculum and policy. Figure 1 shows the four basic concerns that many religious parents have with public education and how the concerns apply to school life.
Figure 1. Public Education Concerns of Religious Conservatives
We should not dismiss these concerns as irrational or politically motivated. The transition from a religious- to a secular-based society has not been smooth. In the process, says Stephen Carter (1993), society's institutions have trivialized religious institutions. Warren Nord (1995) tells us that school curriculums have unnecessarily ignored religious solutions for societal ills and have substituted purely secular ones.
It is easy to see why many in the Christian community view the court actions of the last 35 years as a national repudiation of their faith. Religious pluralism did not emerge from public debate and legislative action, but by lawsuit and court decision. Though religious neutrality does provide a fair platform for our diverse society, no one has helped members of our society understand or appreciate how it works in public education. In other words, although lawyers have made the case in courts, no one has explained it in our living rooms or schoolhouses.
But in the last five years, we have gained a new platform for school districts to navigate through religious issues and find solutions that can actually bring communities closer together. In 1994, the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University published Finding Common Ground, edited by Charles Haynes and Oliver Thomas. Working with legal advisors from education and advocacy groups on the left and the right, Haynes and Thomas helped forge a consensus that clarifies what religious liberty means and how it can be implemented successfully in public education.
This common ground thinking provides a legal and historical map through the minefields of the so-called culture wars. Unfortunately, many school districts either don't know it exists or don't know how to use it to disarm conflicts in their districts. Modesto found out just in time.
The Modesto Model
- Face issues head on. Instead of running from controversy, Modesto chose to make their schools safe and to work with their community. In March 1997, the Board of Education adopted a Statement of Principles that provided the basis for a safe school environment.
- Invite all stakeholders. To implement that policy, the board appointed a committee of 115 people, including 11 students and 33 members representing a broad cross section of the community. Although it is risky to work with such a large and politically diverse committee, the failure to include representation from every constituency always backfires: Charges of unfairness lead to greater community conflict.Meeting from late spring 1997 into early fall, the committee, true to fears, became mired in political conflict. Progress had all but stopped. That's when some members had their first exposure to common ground thinking at a First Amendment Center workshop in Sacramento.
- Get training. Hopeful that common ground thinking would give new direction to the district, Modesto invited Charles Haynes to present a common ground workshop for the committee. In preparation, Superintendent James Enochs wrote to the committee: [This workshop] is at once a means of bringing people to a common starting point, despite their previous differences, and a means of proceeding with a civic framework.The training did not disappoint. Participants said that the workshop saved the process and provided the framework not just for consensus, but also for unanimity. How? According to Haynes, Everyone agreed that no student should be harassed or discriminated against in a public school—whatever his or her race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. And just as important, everyone acknowledged that such agreement doesn't require "acceptance" of the religion, philosophy, or lifestyle of others.They had found common ground. To reflect that shared understanding, the committee recommended changing the name of the policy from "Principles of Tolerance, Respect, and Dignity" to "Principles of Rights, Responsibility, and Respect." It passed unanimously.
- Formulate and approve policy. The impetus for the common ground workshop allowed committee members to do in the next two months what they had not been able to do in the previous six. They drew up guidelines and standards to implement the Statement of Principles and reported them to the board with unanimous approval. The committee's guidelines are now being implemented successfully.Community members on the committee also provided a bridge to their various constituencies, helping them understand the process and why the final document is in the best interest of every parent, student, and staff member.
- Train staff and the community to understand the process. In fall 1998, I was in Modesto to help train certificated managers in common ground thinking. I found people committed to learning how to implement it on every school site and in staff relationships with parents and members of the community. All teachers in the district have had training in common ground thinking by the First Amendment Center.
Modesto City Schools. Principles of Rights, Responsibilities, and Respect to Ensure a Safe School Environment
What Common Ground Thinking Does
- Common ground thinking removes educators from arbitrating social conflicts. For too long, advocacy groups have tried to use the vast resources of public education to advance their social agendas. Prior to 1963, the agenda was weighted toward a Judeo-Christian ethic. After 1963, secularists gained the upper hand. No wonder conflicts continue. Educators who face so many academic challenges and behavioral issues resent being asked to referee the culture wars. But they don't have to. In fact, by allowing themselves to be political pawns to enforce the will of whatever group is in vogue, they let schools become centers for indoctrination, not education.The process in Modesto was successful because it acknowledged community differences about homosexuality. We don't have to condone one another's views to treat one another with civility.
- [[[[[ **** LIST ITEM IGNORED **** ]]]]]
- Common ground thinking switches the dialogue from what I want for my child to what is fair for all children, including mine. On cultural issues, parents are emotionally charged to wage war for what they think is best for their child. In a common ground environment, they come to recognize that others have as much right to that expectation as they do. Very quickly, the dialogue moves from narrow-minded self-interest to solutions that are fair for every family in the district. I've seen it happen in discussions on sexual education, holiday celebrations, and school reform.Don't think that a one-day common ground workshop in Modesto made anyone abandon positions on social issues. Its value was to give each person a way to assess and appreciate those differences. Members were able to unanimously endorse a solution—not because it contained every detail they wanted, but because, on balance, it was fair to all.
- Common ground thinking eliminates confusion, suspicion, and anger generated by advocacy groups. The bitter emotion of the culture wars is fostered by fears inculcated by advocacy groups on both sides of the debate. During a two-day period, I addressed a conference of health educators and a convention of the Christian Coalition. At the first, I heard one speaker say: "Anyone who opposes condom distribution to high school students is unthinking, uncaring, and demagogic."At the Christian Coalition conference, I heard: "We know that sex education is not designed to reduce sexual activity but to encourage it!" I don't find either statement true for the vast majority of people, but both audiences acknowledged the respective ideas with vigorous applause.Highly visible, well-funded advocacy groups on the right and the left attempt to raise funds by raising fears. They have more to gain by intensifying the conflict than by winning the peace. A common ground environment allows people to discover that the other side is not as irrational as they have been led to believe. That's why districts should not make these decisions for the "good of the community," but should invite the community to be part of the process.
- Common ground thinking recognizes the priority of the family in faith and values. The Supreme Court has consistently said that Congress can open its session with prayer, whereas schools cannot, because public education is a gathering of captive minors. Parents must control their children's religious upbringing and must be able to instill in them their values.If public education is to survive into the next millennium, we will have to take seriously the role of parents and to recognize that if schools cannot be used to indoctrinate students into a religious faith, then they also cannot be used to defy parental values.
It Can Work for You
What happened in Modesto is not unique. Other districts have seen common ground thinking pull them back from the brink of hostility and fragmentation. Groups in one southern Arizona community, deeply divided over the implementation of a new HIV/AIDS curriculum, had traded accusations in the local paper for eight months. After a common ground workshop, two dozen people from every segment of the community developed in six hours a framework that has since been implemented successfully.
Later, I received a note from the superintendent: Some board members were sure that we would find no resolution to the conflict. They expected all-out confrontation. You proved them wrong. We have the ugly events behind us. We now count several former protesters among our most eager supporters.
The community found a safe place to discuss the issues face-to-face. Common ground thinking works not because people agree, but because they learn how to live together, despite their deepest differences.
