Tolerance should be a priority in schools

Simon Marcus Gower, Executive Principal, High/Scope Indonesia School, Jakarta

It is rare indeed that education and the world of school systems makes international headlines but recently, there can be little doubt that, the French system of education has gained renown the world over.

Or perhaps it would be more accurate to state that a certain amount of infamy has been achieved. The controversy surrounding France's ban on the wearing of religious apparel in schools has been much discussed and reported. But in a very real sense this issue strikes at the heart of education and systems of education the world over.

All over the world debates rage about the successes and failures of education. Consistently critics complain that schools are failing and that standards are falling. The drive for higher standards is consistently associated with the aim of achieving high test scores and a misplaced association of success with higher grades and students passing standardized tests.

The shallowness of such assessments of the success, value and worth of schools and schooling systems is practically pitiful -- not least because it misses one of the most critical concerns and factors in any system of education or formalized schooling -- namely what is the social worth and benefit of attending school?

France has chosen to follow a policy that, for many people, would be seen as being counterproductive in developing and enhancing social worth and benefit. If only viewed from the perspective of personal freedom and choice France's ban would be considered as being of a questionable nature but in a wider context such a ban has to be viewed as an unfortunate, if not a negative, act towards civil liberties and diversity in society.

The social worth and benefit of attending school is surely a result of being able to mix and socialize with peers, juniors and seniors and adults in the form of teachers. If, as unfortunately often seems to be the case for many people, the value of attending school is solely predicated on the notion of academic development, the passing of exams and graduation, then it might be said that schools have no social purpose and so children might just as well stay home and study alone.

Of course there are factors that preclude the notion of children simply staying home and gaining an exclusively home- based education but the choice of "sending" a child to school should be carefully considered.

There are relatively few people in the world that could manage or even afford to maintain their child's education exclusively in the home. The vast majority of people follow the norm of sending children to a formal school setting but surely a significant, if not vital, element in that decision is that children will gain exposure to a wider society.

But what does that mean -- exposure to a wider society? It evidently means people beyond the immediate family circle; people that are essentially, on first meeting anyway, strangers but people that may become friends.

Alternatively, the people met in school may not necessarily become friends; they may just be acquaintances but this is acceptable. This would be a model for the life ahead in which sometimes we make friends; sometimes we remain more distant from people but can still say that we have met them and know of them.

Whether people become friends or merely acquaintances in school is, naturally, dependent upon many, many factors but these are human, natural factors of interaction, involvement and discernment. The way in which we interact in schools should not, though, be based upon prejudice. Prejudice is to conclude in ignorance and ignorance is not something that schools should be advancing. But ignorance can fester and breed if we are not careful and if we misstep in our actions or policy-makings we may unwittingly spread ignorance.

Ignorance, it is probably reasonable to state breeds on a concoction of insufficient knowledge and understanding mixed with elements of fear and doubt. This veritably wicked combination can create an environment ripe for intolerance which in turn will only breed more ignorance.

Our ignorance of difference and intolerance toward difference has been, throughout human history, one of our most damaging and devastating problems. Today too, the dangers that the world faces from conflict and strife are significantly borne out of ignorance of the other; ignorance and intolerance of difference.

Difference, though, should not be viewed as something that might or even should be feared. Difference is a wonderful, even beautiful, aspect of humanity. Diversity should be a great joy and a great opportunity for learning, the growth of understanding and the quashing of ignorance.

Schools must surely be at the center of this effort. Diversity is there to behold in every classroom. Every child has differences whether subtle or profound that can be learnt from and should be understood as much as possible.

Choosing to ban the wearing of religious apparel seems to speak to eliminating difference. It seems to suggest that school students should look the same even though they are observably and self-evidently not. It simply makes no sense to hide away difference and so suppose that by doing so you are increasing the chances of harmony.

A Muslim student that is not allowed to wear her head scarf in school is still a Muslim child. It has been argued that a child wearing a head scarf to school is representative of religious zeal that would be construed unacceptable; this seems quite a stretch.

Is it acceptable to think that demanding conformity and denying that child opportunity to make a choice is going to prevent that child from being a religious zealot? Is it not also likely that child is the victim of zealot-like behavior that restricts, confines, denies and unflinchingly imposes its will regardless of and uncaring of individual choice?

Schools must promote individual choice within the context of a caring and participative society. Understanding and tolerance have to be foundation stones of any society and indeed school. A school that would exclude or hide away diversity is surely a school that is existent in a fallacy; pretense -- that is not recognizant of the realities of our beautifully diverse world.

In Indonesia, it has been possible recently to meet teachers who have asked whether it is acceptable for them to wear their jilbab. Perhaps they have been concerned by the news from France. But no overtones of zealous religiosity have been observed and so only intolerance would lead to any denial of their right to wear what they choose to.

The opinions expressed above are personal.