Ordinary life in the United States today is regularly shaped by all sorts of complicated corporate, governmental, and bureaucratic systems. Few like this, but fewer still are willing or able to reject the goods which systems of specialization provide. For some, the way to hold onto the ideal of ordinary citizens truly governing themselves despite this complexity, is “transparency.”
That “transparency” is a key component of modern democracy is undeniable. If the decision-making of those whom we elect stays invisible, it invites corruption and poisons our civic health. But like “democracy” itself, the concept of “transparency” can sometimes become a totem, a term used to advance a cause rather than a standard to assess what is actually taking place.
I think about this in connection with an education bill currently being debated in Topeka, titled in part the “Academic Transparency Act.” A recent defense of that bill by a couple of Kansas legislators strongly made the case that, as parents “have a right to know what their children are being taught” in public schools, it’s reasonable to require school districts to technologically guarantee “easy access to curricular materials that already should be available today,” concluding that “there are no enemies in transparency.” And in a sense, they’re absolutely right.
After all, no one likes being stuck in the bureaucratic darkness. When these legislators point out that “busy parents” often find the process of figuring out what is happening in their children’s classrooms “unclear, unfamiliar, and tedious,” anyone who has ever had to negotiate the complex systems around us (remember all the times you’ve longed to talk with a human being when calling about an insurance claim or a problem with your wireless plan) can surely sympathize.
And yet, the fact is that most teachers already bend over backwards to involve parents and help them through that process, with parent-teacher conferences, open houses, book fairs, and more. Given what is actually in the bill—requiring school districts to set up “transparency portals” to give parents online access to “each test, questionnaire, survey, or examination,” as well as explanations of the rationale behind each assignment, links to all the library materials used in any of the aforementioned assignments, and much more—it’s predictable that many see the bill as using “transparency” to express, instead, a simple distrust in educators themselves.
The bill won’t pass right now, thanks to strong Democratic opposition and dissents from some Republicans concerned about the intrusive governmental mandates it involves. But whether it dies or is snuck through as part of an appropriations bill, the complicated problem at its heart remains: in a world of busy specialization, it is unfortunately easy for a few people to embrace extreme accusations about what these legislators called “unhealthy ideas” in the public schools, and then turn to technological access instead of building trust as a solution.
Outside of a total embrace of home schooling, educators and parents will likely always see “the common good of the child”—as these legislators put it—somewhat differently, since their roles and responsibilities differ. That’s what life in a complex, pluralistic, specialized society unavoidably brings us. Technological transparency might smooth these frustrations, but given its costs, re-emphasizing instead the need for all to take the time to respectfully engage with one another, and trust in each others’ areas of concern and expertise, would surely be better.
Dr. Russell Arben Fox teaches politics in Wichita.