9. Commonality vs. Variety
The “common schools” movement of the mid-19th century aspired to create an expansive network of locally run public schools that served all students equally. These schools were meant to be “common,” as in similar regardless of where you were. Since all kids need to learn the same stuff, let’s create effective, cookie-cutter schools to do just that. This was codified over time through an array of state policies that standardized elements of K–12 schooling, for instance related to what was taught, when it was taught, and by whom it was taught. Eventually there were state rules on teacher and principal qualifications, building specs, textbook purchasing, discipline, and more. Go to five randomly selected public elementary schools across America, and you’ll quickly observe just how alike they are.
From the start, American higher education lacked this commonality gene. Some colleges prepared students to be ministers, some wanted to produce elite public leaders, others wanted to produce corporate leaders, and still others wanted to help their states’ agricultural communities. Some developed to teach just men, others just women. Some taught the Great Books, others focused on job-readiness. Some prize the liberal arts and humanities, and others are dominated by business schools or the sciences. Some are Catholic, some Lutheran, some secular. Some serve tens of thousands; others serve a fraction of that.
These two different approaches influence not just policy and practice but also what we mean by tradition, custom, and identity in educational institutions.
These different approaches also help us understand why “school choice” is simply assumed in higher ed . . . and why it can be radioactive in some K–12 circles.
