The anti-communism that was so influential in West Germany was one of the main reasons why the idea of a comprehensive school for all children was considered so radical that it was beyond the realm of the politically conceivable and feasible – and apparently still is. Katharina Sass traces the lines of division and shows why things turned out differently in Norway, and why a school system was able to emerge that, if it does not overcome social class differences, at least relativizes them.
*
The idea of a common school for all children is an old one. In the 19th century, many social liberals and social democrats in Europe called for such a ‘common school.’ Proponents of the comprehensive school were concerned with social progress, access to education for all social classes, and equal opportunity, but also with equalizing living conditions in urban and rural areas, limiting the power of the church and strengthening the state, and promoting national unity and solidarity.
Norway was the first country to introduce a five-year public primary school for all children in 1896 and a seven-year public primary school in 1920. This was initially under the influence of social liberalism, and from 1920 onwards under the initiatives of the growing social democracy. From the 1950s to the 1970s, the common youth school was introduced, replacing the previously segmented secondary school system. Today, all children attend elementary and junior high schools in their neighborhoods from grades one through ten.
Social class differences in the school system
Grades were gradually abolished in the seven-year primary school. However, there was a political battle in the 1970s over grades in junior high school, which ended in a defeat for the Labor Party, so grades still exist in junior high school. Grades in the tenth grade determine the choice of upper secondary school. Social class differences are also reproduced in the Norwegian school system, especially in the transition to upper secondary school and higher education. Nevertheless, children stay together for the first ten years of school and the vast majority of them enjoy going to school. Cooperation, respect and community are at the forefront of education – across all social differences.
The school system in Germany, on the other hand, is internationally known for dividing children at a very early age into different types of schools, which differ markedly in terms of curriculum and social composition. An extreme example of this is the ‘Hauptschule/Mittelschule,’ which today segregates children from the lowest social strata and from immigrant backgrounds. Social problems are obviously exacerbated by such a system in ‘hotspots.’ However, grammar schools are also highly socially selective – in the other direction.
Although Germany regularly scores poorly in international studies on equal opportunity, hardly any politicians dare to question this early selection and segmentation. Why is this so? Why did attempts in the 1970s to introduce a comprehensive school system based on the Nordic model in the West German states fail? And how did the Norwegian Labor Party manage to forge an alliance for youth school reform in the 1950s-1970s?
Cleavage structures in Norway and Germany
The short answer is that the key lies in the different cleavage structures in the two countries. Cleavages (in the sense of political sociologist Stein Rokkan) are persistent political lines of conflict that have material foundations and are expressed in ideological-cultural and political-organizational terms. In the post-war decades, the class cleavage, the opposition between the working class and the owners of capital, was the most dominant cleavage in Norway and West Germany. But it was by no means the only one.
There were and are also strong urban-rural and center-periphery divisions in Norway, which fostered the development of a strong political center. This center (consisting of the agrarian Center Party, the Social Liberal Party and the small Christian Democratic Party) represented mainly the rural and religious population, but also parts of the elementary school teaching profession and the liberal women’s movement. The Labor Party was able to forge alliances with these parties and social groups.
In school policy, for example, this meant compromising on the centralization of small rural schools. The comprehensive school was not so important to the representatives of the periphery, but the expansion of education in the countryside was. The Labor Party appeared to be a more reliable partner than the conservatives of the urban upper class. Social-democratic reformers also joined forces with advocates of rural dialects on language policy. Together they promoted ‘New Norwegian,’ which was introduced at the end of the 19th century as an alternative written language based on the dialects to the Danish-influenced urban written language.
As a result, children in Norway are still encouraged to speak their local dialect in school, and textbooks must be published in both written languages. The demands of the women’s movement for coeducation and equal curricula for the sexes were also integrated into the Labor Party’s program early on. There were conflicts between the Labor Party and the rural Christian milieus over the role of religious education and the funding of the few private Christian schools. However, these conflicts did not jeopardize the youth school reform.
State vs. church
In West Germany, on the other hand, it was the CDU that represented social groups similar to the Center in Norway, i.e. the religious rural population, the Catholic elementary school teachers, and the Catholic women’s movement (such as the Association of Catholic German Women Teachers). The CDU was able to form a stable, cross-interest alliance with these groups. This can only be understood in the context of the state-church cleavage that already dominated politics in Prussia. The Protestant Prussian state was at odds with the Catholic Church and political Catholicism in the form of the Center (the Catholic party, which had a strong labor wing). It is true that the CDU was founded after World War II as an interdenominational alliance. Nevertheless, the CDU was still considered ‘their’ party by the Catholic population.
For the rural population that voted for the CDU, the expansion of education was definitely an issue. The CDU therefore pursued an educational policy based on a compromise between the classes: the establishment of secondary modern schools and grammar schools, especially in rural areas, the founding of evening high schools, the extension of compulsory schooling, and, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, even a willingness to experiment with comprehensive schools. At the same time, the CDU fought for the preservation of Catholic private schools and against the far-reaching centralization of rural schools, which was in line with the interests of the Catholic women’s movement and the rural population.
The CDU was also initially closely associated with the Verband Bildung und Erziehung (VBE), which had its roots in the Catholic elementary school teachers’ movement, although the VBE gradually emancipated itself from the CDU and did not become part of the anti-reform movement of the late 1970s. With the economic turnaround of the mid-1970s, the CDU’s willingness to reform waned, and the interests of the upper social classes became more prominent. In education policy, the conservative philologists’ association became the CDU’s mouthpiece. In North Rhine-Westphalia, the CDU spearheaded an anti-comprehensive school reform movement that collected 3.6 million signatures, especially in rural and Catholic areas.
“Emotional anti-communism”
In addition to the state-church cleavage, there was another line of division that played a crucial role in West Germany and ensured the hegemony of the CDU: the communist-socialist cleavage (i.e., the division of the labor movement and trade unions into different wings after World War II against the backdrop of the division of Germany into the FRG and GDR). Decisions of incompatibility, expulsions and disciplinary proceedings against communists in the trade unions and against SPD members who collaborated with communists, as well as the infamous ‘professional ban,’ were an expression of this line of division. They weakened the SPD and the trade unions from within, because there was a dispute about them.
Related to this was anti-communism, which was central to the ideology of both the Social Democratic leadership and the upper and middle classes represented by the CDU. At the same time, the idea of a comprehensive school in Germany was associated with the left wing of the labor movement and discredited as ‘communist’ or ‘socialist.’ The fact that the GDR had introduced a comprehensive school system added to the resentments and fears.
The dominant “emotional anti-communism” (Mitscherlich/Mitscherlich) prevented a rational discussion of the reform idea of a comprehensive school (and other left-wing reform ideas) in many social groups. The idea of a common school for all children was – and apparently still is – considered by many people in Germany to be so radical that it is beyond the realm of political thought. It is amusing to note that in Norway, the revolutionary wing of the early workers’ movement for a long time found the idea of a common school rather too modest and instead wanted a school that was less oriented to bourgeois educational ideals and more to the interests of the workers’ movement. To this day, there is a discourse in Norway’s social democracy that practical skills and practical activity should be valued in schools. In Germany, on the other hand, even the differentiated comprehensive school, in which children are again divided into ability groups (a practice that was abolished in the Norwegian youth school in the early 1970s), is considered by many to be too radical.
Extending common schooling for all children
In summary, the different cleavage structures in Norway and Germany fostered different political coalitions. In Norway, the Labor Party’s reform alliance included the rural and religious population, primary school teachers, and the women’s movement. In Germany, the CDU was able to rally mainly the rural Catholic population, the Catholic elementary school teachers and the Catholic women’s movement.
What does this mean for the situation in Germany today? It would probably be necessary to (re)inspire the political center for the idea of extending the common school time for all children, if such a reform is to have a chance. Historically, the last time this succeeded was in 1920, when the Catholic center and the social liberals supported the introduction of elementary school as a common school for all children. In the 1960s and 1970s, at least parts of the FDP supported the idea of prolonged comprehensive schooling.
The Left Party is currently the only party to support such reforms in its manifesto. The GEW and the VBE are also in favor. In some circles within the Greens and the SPD (and possibly even the FDP?), the idea of comprehensive schools is still being bandied about. In the CDU, the comprehensive school no longer seems to be as dramatic an enemy as it once was. At the same time, there is a clear need in many circles to first recognize that the school system in Germany is not conducive to the preservation of democracy and social cohesion, but instead promotes the social exclusion of numerous population groups and thus anti-democratic tendencies.
The most realistic option for educational reform in the western states is probably an extension of the common elementary school, followed by a two-tier school system. In those states that already have a two-tier system, we could move to a ten-year primary and secondary school for all. Such reforms could appeal to young parents who want their children to have a longer childhood. However, we can learn from history that broad alliances for a more child-friendly and democratic school are needed to change the status quo.
Editor’s note: Katharina Sass interviewed numerous veterans of German and Norwegian school policy for her book “The Politics of Comprehensive School Reforms” (Cambridge University Press, 2022). In the book, she not only takes a closer look at the comprehensive school issue, but also at conflicts over religious issues, urban-rural conflicts, conflicts over girls’ education, Norwegian language policy and German anti-communism in school policy. The book is available under an open access license here.