Crisis in the Relationship Between the Government and the Educational System in Iran

For years, there has been talk of the crisis, damages, and major problems of the educational system in Iran, but things continue to revolve around the same issues, and no one among the officials can or wants to take serious steps to improve the situation. In fact, we are facing a kind of paralyzing stagnation in education, and the prospect of positive change in this area is bleak. The main damage comes from the ideological interference of the government. The main educational crisis in Iran over the past four decades has been the extensive interference of the government in all educational matters and the attempt to use schools and universities as tools for religious goals. The Islamic Republic views the educational system as an ideological apparatus that must raise a compliant and submissive generation, or in the words of Kamran Daneshjoo, the Minister of Science during Ahmadinejad's era, 'followers of the Ahl al-Bayt' and 'soldiers of Imam Zaman.' All programs, textbooks, and educational activities serve this ideological goal. For four decades, the government has imposed its ideological policies on Iranian education in an authoritarian and unilateral manner, in the name of the interests of religion and the revolution. The extensive and exaggerated presence of religious topics and political ideological propaganda in textbooks such as Persian, history, social education, and lifestyle can be seen in a simple comparison between Iran and other countries. While internationally, about eight percent of educational time is dedicated to religious issues, in Iran, this figure is officially close to 16 percent and, in reality, about 25 percent. The main educational law in Iran (the Fundamental Transformation Document of Education) clearly prioritizes purification over education, and the training of a creative, questioning, and dynamic generation suitable for the 21st century is overshadowed by religious and ideological education. The inefficacy of the educational system and the failure of compulsory and authoritarian education in raising a generation with a government religious culture is something that is not hidden from anyone. A glance at the cultural gap between the youth and the government reveals the clear failure of a harsh ideological education. This reality is not hidden from the eyes of government officials either. They openly express concern about the inefficacy of the educational system in raising a loyal generation or the deviant behaviors of the youth and their distancing from government culture. However, a significant portion of government officials, instead of critically analyzing four decades of barren, tedious, and unattractive educational policies and confronting this failed educational philosophy, insist on intensifying propaganda and brainwashing. For them, education is not a national issue but a playground and an exclusive domain of government intervention, and it is the government that decides the educational direction and what education is suitable for the youth. In short, in revisiting the evaluative experience of the past four decades in Iran, one of the fundamental questions returns to the role of political power in the educational system and the type of responsibility and legitimacy of official institutions to intervene in the education of a country's youth. The question is whether 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, the question arises about the position and role of teachers, experts, and researchers in the educational field, families, the youth themselves, and civil society in decision-making regarding the type of education that shapes the future of the next generation and society. In a comparative view, it should be noted that governments in a large number of countries are the main or exclusive providers of educational costs, and from this perspective, many might argue that the government has a special right to impose its ideology and value system on schools. Contemporary history shows that the extensive presence of the government in education accelerated with the development of the educational system in industrialized countries. Since the 18th century, during the rise of nationalistic policies in various parts of the world and the increasing role of the government and official institutions in the public sphere, education has also been added to the realm of governmental affairs. The emergence of a new actor called the national government in the field of education was accompanied by a decrease in the activity and influence of religious institutions that had been responsible for educating people in religious and traditional schools for centuries. Modern education had new responsibilities and had to participate in shaping the national identity of all residents of a country beyond local or religious identities. Modern education served the formation of nations and collective identities and the training of 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 from religious institutions to the government. However, such transformations did not mean that the educational system was merely a subordinate and obedient apparatus of the government but rather one of the essential public services in society that belongs to its citizens. The comprehensive intervention of the government in the field of education in recent decades has gradually undergone serious transformation with the gradual empowerment of civil society, the specialization of various educational fields, and research advancements in this area. In a comparative view at the global level, it can be said that in many countries, the central role of the government or national and local official institutions in educational affairs has significantly diminished, and a significant portion of power in this area, especially regarding the content of lessons, teaching methods, and local management, has been transferred to educational system actors. The gradual transfer of part of the educational power from the government to civil institutions and educational system actors is also considered a sign of democratizing society and the educational system. This process has not progressed uniformly in all countries, and authoritarian governments strive to monopolize power in the field of education. Some consider the state ownership of schools and the funding of education by the government as one of the reasons for the legitimacy of government intervention in education. However, what the government spends on education is actually the money of the people, and the provision of educational funding by the government is not a justification for imposing a specific understanding of education from above in the name of religious or ideological interests. Others see the democratic essence of the government and its representation by society as the reason for the legitimacy of government intervention. However, even democratic political legitimacy does not allow the government 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 shaping and formulating major educational policies, supervise their proper implementation, increase the efficiency of the system, reduce inequalities and discriminations, and pay attention to the relationship between education and the status of contemporary humanity, society, and the economy. Democratic transformation in the field of education means that the government does not own the youth and the collective conscience to educate the youth as it wishes. It is true that educational discourse and programs worldwide are somewhat aligned with the prevailing order in society. However, at the same time, educational spaces are open and democratic, and critical dialogue and thinking are part of educational activities, and civil society and researchers can freely critique and examine education. In an increasing number of countries, curricula and teaching methods are prepared by independent specialized groups, experts, researchers, and representatives of teachers, and the government grants itself less direct intervention in their work. Assigning the preparation of curricula to specialized groups and researchers has resulted in educational content being less propagandistic and one-sided, and students from a young age become familiar with scientific approaches, inquiry, relativism, and critical thinking. In this view, the goal of schools and universities is not to indoctrinate a closed ideology from above in an authoritarian manner, to raise obedient youth who follow the government, or to brainwash the youth, but to provide the grounds for open, creative, and participatory education. In fact, part of the democratic nature 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 the fate of the next generation. In Iran, the effective intervention of the government 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 was variously a political tool for governments to promote their ideology and justify their legitimacy. Since 1979, the trend of non-participatory government intervention in educational affairs has accelerated unprecedentedly, to the extent that the Islamic Republic explicitly considers education its main tool for engineering society, culture, and the youth. The Islamic Republic claims a dual religious-political legitimacy for itself and believes that in the name of religion, it has a sacred mission to educate the people 'Islamically.' In this paternalistic 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 government is the exclusive decision-maker regarding educational policies and curricula. The experience of Iran after 1979 in the field of education and the authoritarian and unilateral intervention of the government bears a strong resemblance to other ideologically closed regimes that used schools as tools for brainwashing the youth. In these governments, there was also a belief in the exclusive role of the government in education as the teacher of the masses, and any form of democratic civil, professional, or academic oversight independent of the government was impossible. The exclusive dominance of the Islamic government over the educational system has prevented Iranian society and academic circles from having the opportunity for civil and scientific participation in an open and evaluative discussion about the numerous crises and damages of the educational system, and we witness a kind of political deadlock in this area. Education in the service of humanity, democracy, and social progress. Recent global experiences show that progressive and adaptable education to the spirit and needs of the times must primarily serve the training of questioning, creative, free-thinking, critical citizens and also promote freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and religious beliefs. Education that is incompatible with fanaticism, closed-mindedness, hostility to the different other, and blind obedience expands the culture of coexistence among diverse identities among the youth. Creating such education is possible with the participation of civil society, independent and free media, academic environments, and educational system actors. This is why removing the monopoly of education from the hands of the government and other governmental institutions is part of the struggle for an open society and democracy in any country. No government should have the exclusive right to impose a specific type of education on the youth.