Education is Not the Private Property of Governments

The unprecedented controversy in recent weeks surrounding UNESCO's 2030 document (Education for Sustainable Development) has opened the file on education in Iran and the role of the government in this area to public scrutiny for the first time. Behind the political debates surrounding this document and its fate in Iran, a fundamental question can be raised: what is the role of a government in the educational system today, and what type of responsibility and legitimacy do official institutions have in educating the youth of a country? Do governments around the world use their official tools and political power to impose a specific ideology and philosophy on the educational system? At the same time, one can ask what the position and role of civil society, teachers, educational experts and researchers, families, and the youth themselves are in decision-making regarding the type of education that shapes the future of the next generation and society. The tragedy of the unfortunate UNESCO document is that the one-sided discussions currently taking place against the UNESCO 2030 document in official media are, in a way, the response of those in charge to these important questions. Ayatollah Khamenei, in his speech on May 6, 2017, clearly called for the abandonment of the UNESCO document due to its promotion of a 'damaging, destructive, and corrupt Western lifestyle' and its incompatibility with religious principles and Iran's higher education documents. These remarks, which had a wide reflection in the electoral atmosphere of those days, have led Friday prayer leaders and other clerics, as well as officials close to Mr. Khamenei, to actively enter the field in recent weeks to denounce UNESCO and the document accepted by about 190 countries worldwide. It is evident that in this ideological monologue, there is no room for a serious and critical discussion about the state of education in Iran and the reasons and details of the gaps between Iran's official educational policies and the UNESCO document. This narrative also applies to the numerous studies conducted on the state of education in Iran, the results of Islamicization, its failures, and major challenges, which have no place in the current discussion. Even government officials accused of 'quietly implementing' the UNESCO document tend to defend themselves and deny parts of it rather than engage in challenging discussions about the contentious issues and real problems of Iran's educational system. In another approach, it can be said that behind all these insults and unfair, reductive confrontations regarding the unfortunate UNESCO document lies an important political message. This shared message relates to the exclusive mission and role that all stakeholders believe the government has in the field of education. For them, education is the private property and exclusive domain of the state, which decides what is good and desirable education, how to prepare the new generation for the future, what should be learned, and what should not be taught. In short, the state, in this view, is the owner and teacher of the nation and is responsible for educating the youth in the way it deems appropriate. The relationship between the state and education has been discussed since the universalization of education worldwide. Since the rise of nationalistic policies from the 18th century onwards in various regions of the world and the increasing role of the state and official institutions in the public sphere, education has also been added to the realm of governmental affairs. The emergence of a new player called the national state in the field of education was accompanied by a decrease in the influence of religious institutions that had traditionally been responsible for educating people in religious and traditional schools for centuries. Contemporary education also had new responsibilities and had to participate in shaping and developing national identity beyond local or religious identities. In this context, education served to form nations and collective identities and to train citizens and human resources in line with the overarching goals of society and the economy of the country. The secularization of education and curricula and their connection to the needs of society and citizens was also a result of this historical shift and the transfer of educational power to the state. This understanding of the state's comprehensive intervention in the field of education has gradually undergone serious transformation in recent decades with the empowerment of civil society, the specialization of various educational fields, and advancements in research in this area. In a comparative view at the global level, it can be said that in many countries, the central role of the state or official national and local institutions in various educational matters has significantly decreased, and part of the power in this field, especially regarding curricula and content, has been delegated to educational system actors. The gradual transfer of some educational power from the state to civil institutions and educational system actors has posed a political, cultural, and practical challenge in the experiences of various countries. Some consider the state’s ownership of schools and the funding of education by the state as a justification for the legitimacy of state intervention in education. However, what the state spends on education is, in fact, the people’s money, and the provision of educational funding by the state is not a justification for imposing a specific understanding of education from above in the name of public interest. Others view the democratic essence of government and its representation by society as the basis for the legitimacy of state intervention. However, even democratic political legitimacy does not allow the state to consider itself the teacher of the young generation and to impose the direction of education exclusively on society. The main task of democratic governments is to implement policies, ensure civil and scientific participation in the formulation of overarching educational policies, oversee their effective implementation, and address inequalities and discrimination while considering the relationship between education, society, and the economy. Democratic transformation in education means that the state does not own citizens and public opinion to educate the young generation as it wishes. In an increasing number of countries, curricula and teaching methods are prepared by specialized groups, experts, researchers, and representatives of teachers, with the state granting itself less right to intervene in their work. Delegating curriculum preparation to specialized groups and researchers has led to educational content being less propagandistic and one-sided, allowing students from a young age to become familiar with scientific inquiry, questioning, relativism, and critical thinking. In this view, the goal of schools and universities is not to instill an ideology, train obedient youth who follow the government, or brainwash the young generation, but to create an environment for open, creative, and participatory education. In fact, part of the democratic process and the opening of a society also relates to this open education and the existence of freedom of conscience and thought in educational environments and the involvement of civil forces in shaping the future of the next generation. In Iran, the effective intervention of the state in the years following the Constitutional Revolution led to the emergence and growth of modern education and the expansion of schools in all regions of the country. At the same time, the state educational system throughout the 20th century served in various forms as a political tool for governments to promote their ideology and justify their legitimacy. The experience after 1979 in Iran in the field of education and the unilateral and coercive intervention of the state bears a strong resemblance to other ideologically closed governments that used schools as tools for brainwashing the young generation. Since 1979, the trend of non-participatory state intervention in educational affairs has accelerated to the extent that the Islamic Republic openly considers education as its main tool for engineering society, culture, and the youth. If in the earlier periods, governments justified their intervention in education mainly from a political perspective, since 1979, the Islamic Republic has claimed a dual religious-political legitimacy for itself and considers itself to have a sacred mission to educate the people 'Islamically.' In this view, the main actors in the educational system, from teachers, mothers, and fathers to experts and researchers in various educational fields, have no right to intervene in the details and content of education, and the state is the exclusive decision-maker regarding the direction of education and curricular content. The experience after 1979 in Iran in the field of education and the unilateral and coercive intervention of the state bears a strong resemblance to other ideologically closed governments that used schools as tools for brainwashing the young generation. In these governments, there was also a belief in the exclusive role of the state in education as the teacher of the masses, and any form of democratic civil, professional, or independent academic oversight was impossible. With such a perspective, Ayatollah Khamenei, instead of inviting civil and scientific participation in an open and critical discussion regarding the UNESCO document, issues a directive from above to abandon it. For him and all those who have entered the field in criticism and opposition to the UNESCO document in recent weeks, the participation of society, experts, researchers, and educational system actors in determining the content and methods of education in schools is unimaginable. The open, participatory education and democracy are part of the tragedy of the Iranian educational system, where the government considers itself the exclusive owner of it. The one-sided and non-participatory debate surrounding education in Iran and the UNESCO document in Friday prayers, military barracks, and political propaganda platforms, rather than in educational institutions, universities, independent specialized groups, and credible meetings, reflects another aspect of this understanding of education in Iran. Education in the 21st century should serve the expansion of freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and religious beliefs, and the training of questioning, creative, free-thinking, and critical citizens. Education that opposes fanaticism, closed-mindedness, hostility towards different others, and blind obedience, and promotes a culture of coexistence among various identities and cultures among the youth. Creating such education is possible with the participation of civil society, independent and free media, academic environments, and educational system actors. For this reason, removing the monopoly of education from the hands of the state is part of the struggle for an open society and democracy in any country. No government has the legitimacy or exclusive right to educate the young generation. The education of the young generation belongs to the main actors in the educational system and the entire society.