Hugh Chapman of New Gloucester is taking political science classes at SMCC.. 

I would like to contribute to the recent dialogue between of Rep. Marc Malon (“Reaffirming a commitment to Maine’s students,” Aug. 22) and Rep. Quentin Chapman (no relation, “Republicans are taking the right approach on education,” Sept. 14) regarding the debate on public education, particularly the content of its curricula.

First, I’d like to give my appreciation for their time writing those op-eds. In the age of social media, it is a relief to see the thoughts of our representatives elaborated through clear writing.

Neither Republican nor Democratic affiliates need be reminded of the importance inherent to this debate, as we are discussing a subject no less personal than the fulfillment of the next generation’s potential and livelihood. And now, we are looking at two vastly different futures for education: one Republican, and the other Democratic.

In this debate, an important distinction must be made within the structures of each party. Each has two parts: their establishment at large and the individuals that form their political base.

Party establishments are inherently self-interested. These establishments serve as ideological homebases for the people. However, as establishments, they are required to protect their influence, increase their numbers and uphold a good reputation. Thus, they are prone to ulterior, power-seeking motives that lie beyond their original ideological purposes — such as the depreciation of the opposing party or desire for political power.

On the other hand, party affiliates — those regular citizens who identify themselves as either Democrats or Republicans — are, in vast majority, people of good faith. Regular citizens, as humans, do exhibit self-serving tendencies, but this is of a different nature; most individuals are not orchestrating means of gaining national or state power and influence.

In partisan politics, the negative feelings one has for a party establishment often leak into their feelings for its affiliates; one who notices a party’s ulterior motives is often tempted to associate this self-interest with all its affiliates as well. This is a great lapse in judgment.

While the policy goals and narratives made by each party do appeal to their affiliates’ ideals, these ulterior motives are “tacked on” by the party and disregarded rather than supported by affiliates. It would be a waste to discount the ideals of an ideology simply because of the self-interest of its party. For this reason, one must distinguish the goals and narratives of the party from the ideals of the affiliates.

Looking at the ideals of individuals as separate from their party, conservatives prefer a minimalistic education that provides focused mastery over the fundamentals, chiefly literacy and mathematics, with ideological education left as a private matter. Their hopes are to increase the next generation’s core skills, reduce redundant student workload and keep children free from forceful ideological influences.

Meanwhile, progressives prefer an expansive approach that provides broad familiarity over a diverse set of studies, particularly in the social sciences. Their hope is that it would raise awareness for wider societal and ideological issues, give representation to all walks of life and combat race and gender bias.

Each party has developed narratives and policy goals around education that align with their respective ideology, but the self-interested motives of each party’s establishment have resulted in artifacts. For example, the narrative that “liberal” sexual topics are being taught to young children has been exaggerated by the Republican Party, and the same is true for the Democratic Party’s notion that conservatives merely want to suppress liberal topics in education.

Separating these narratives created (and distorted) by each political party from the thoughts of their respective affiliates, both the progressive and conservative educational ideals are in good faith. Furthermore, all citizens have a right to have their trust and tax dollars placed into an educational system that earns their confidence.

Two ways exist to reach this end: curricula that is adaptable to the varying needs of a diverse population or set curricula that integrates both progressivism and conservativism. The most effective answer lies in a combination thereof. Maine needs an education system that furnishes curricular adaptability and integration.