Alfie Kohn's April 1998 Kappan article, "Only for My Kid: How Privileged Parents Are Undermining School Reform," contains a great deal that is easy to agree with. Why would sensible yuppie parents, liberal or otherwise, want to destroy the golden youth of their children by forcing them to compete in the short-term memorization of trivia, thereby making them elitist, self-centered nerds?

Kohn presents a full plate of meat and vegetables, containing much insight and truth. The little capsule of philosophic cyanide is barely visible within the mashed potatoes.

The most direct way to negate Kohn is to point out that his is an exact reformulation of John Dewey's theory, first expressed in 1899 with the publication of The School and Society. With clear understanding, Dewey pointed out that, at least since medieval times, the distinguishing difference between aristocrats and peasants lay in the body of knowledge that aristocrats share and peasants do not. Dewey's implied objective was to abolish social classes through the schools, and he correctly recognized two options: 1) give aristocratic knowledge to everyone, or 2) make believe that no one needs it. Incredibly, Dewey decided on the second course.

The yin and yang of educational theory has always turned on the question of whether all normal people possess the inherent mental capacity to learn what any aristocrat must know or whether they don't. I, perhaps Thomas Jefferson, and anyone who hopes to see the ultimate success of the school and of democracy must believe that all people do. Francis Galton; the social Darwinists; the classical socialists; Nazis; Christians (in remote tradition); alas, many libertarians; and the fools who wrote The Bell Curve believe otherwise.

If one believes in the inherent mental inequality of humans, two options again exist. Aristotle argued logically that it would be folly to allow admittedly inferior individuals to share the privileges of the elite. One could therefore argue that the natural role of the weak is to be exploited by the powerful, thereby benefiting both.

A more sanguine view would hold that all humans are entitled to the same dignity and respect by virtue of the fact that they are humans. Unfortunately, this approach cannot be supported without assumptions that rest on faith. In modern educational theory, E. D. Hirsch, Jr., has called these assumptions "quasi-religious."

Since the days of Descartes and Spinoza (and of Plato), these assumptions have largely, if vaguely, rested on an article of faith that equates God with the "collective mind of Man." Christian fundamentalists have more recently come to call the belief "secular humanism." John Rawls, B. F. Skinner, Howard Gardner, and Steven Pinker have all attempted to support this approach with "scientific" underpinnings. Of course, they have failed.

Alfie Kohn faults our schools for accepting our "attenuated sense of community" and blames our "ethic of individualism." But only individual minds can think or learn. Groups can't. As far as objective science can deduce, neurons must somehow be physically interconnected in order to function in an integrated fashion. Neither the assumption of a nonmaterial spirit nor the putative function of the "linguistic community" of modern utopian philosophers can alter this fact.

Kohn's main ire is aimed at the belief that the schools should have a transmission-based, "bunch o' facts" curriculum. He scatologically excoriates the attempt to effect the "transmission" of the knowledge necessary to function successfully in society as "Preparation H" (because one needs it to get into Harvard). The notion that society can advance once its young people are bereft of a firm grounding in the past is malignant.

Kohn systematically chooses to misinterpret the instincts of the more sensible public. Parents who desire to segregate their children from the chaos of schoolrooms that are run for "operant conditioning" rather than for instruction are disparaged for their "greed and self-centeredness." While making the blatant assumption that minorities are incapable of learning our nation's culturally necessary knowledge, he has the unmitigated gall to imply that people who refuse to accept his view are racists.

It seems very difficult for most people to realize that a successful school -- or a successful society -- does not have to depend on whose "religious" assumptions dominate in the culture wars. The self-interest of individuals clearly dictates that they become knowledgeable, orderly, cooperative, polite, and law abiding.

I wish we could compromise with Alfie Kohn. If he would agree to allow letter grades, I would agree to limit such grades to A or F. Students are either on their way to full literacy, full numeracy, and full citizenship, or they're not. All children are different, but all children have identical educational needs. At the point where individuals begin to legitimately differentiate their respective knowledge, we begin to speak of educational options, not needs.

Public schools must address the educational needs of all children. In a democracy, the children and their families must decide their own options, as well as the articles of faith upon which their religions and their outlooks on life rest.

~~~~~~~~

By Robert V. Rose, M.D.

ROBERT V. ROSE, M.D., is a retired internist who resides in Kennesaw, Ga.