goals of public education

Building Better Schools

Bill honig– positive support of public schools.

The Big Picture The Three Goals of Public Education

by Bill Honig

Goal 1: Job Preparation

National and international tests have shown that our country has much work to do if we are to stay competitive and fulfill the promise of good jobs awaiting students upon graduation. For more about the problem of low performance, see Have High-Stakes Testing and Privatization Been Effective?

The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy; the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics; and the frameworks, curricula, and materials based on these standards have identified college and career preparation as a primary goal of public education. Yet it is important to recognize that math and reading scores offer only limited information about a student’s readiness for college and career. Other subject areas are equally important, as are twenty-first-century skills like communication, collaboration, and creativity, particularly in solving unique problems. Also essential are the inter- and intrapersonal skills of perseverance, social intelligence, and knowing how to learn.

The Common Core State Standards; the new Next Generation Science Standards; and recent standards-based mathematics, language arts, science, and history-social studies frameworks have all begun to encourage the broadening of instruction. New standards and frameworks also emphasize the importance of being well read and having deep knowledge across disciplines. These supporting documents now incorporate the practices of problem solving, explanation, modeling, written and oral communication and discussion, and collaboration.

Goal 2: Active Civic Participation

Things are more dismal on the education-for-democracy front. Many reformers have so enshrined the importance of choice, privatization, and job preparation that they ignore the widely accepted purposes that have traditionally sustained free, public education in this country. From the very beginning of our experiment in democracy, from early champions like Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams, civic education and nation building were major reasons people supported public schools. They were, after all, called “free common schools”; people widely endorsed the ideal of all students having a shared sense of national identity. Unfortunately, this view of education has recently fallen on hard times. Leon Botstein, president of Bard College, has written a splendid article on this point. For more on the subject, also see the report coauthored by Stanford professor William Damon and the wonderful section on the history of public education in Dana Goldstein’s book, The Teacher Wars : A History of America’s Most Embattled Profession . See also the opinion piece in The Seattle Times by former US representative George R. Nethercutt Jr. on some of the bipartisan national efforts encouraging civic engagement.

Currently, several national efforts are under way that focus on revitalizing civic education. Among these are the iCivics organization, founded by retired US Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools, which produced an excellent report , Guardian of Democracy: The Civic Mission of Schools. The report identifies six proven practices of effective civic education:

Classroom Instruction Provide engaging instruction in civics and government, history, economics, geography, law, and democracy that goes beyond rote memorization.
Discussion of Current Events and Controversial Issues Incorporate discussion of current events and issues—local, national, and international—especially those that are relevant to students’ lives.
Service-Learning Design and implement programs that provide students with the opportunity to apply what they learn through performing community service linked to the formal curriculum and classroom instruction.
Extracurricular Activities Give students opportunities to work together toward common goals outside the classroom.
School Governance Help students learn responsibility by giving them a voice in the management of their schools and classrooms.
Simulations of Democratic Processes Encourage students to participate in simulations of democratic processes and procedures such as formal debates, voting, mock trials, or Model United Nations.

Aligned with these six research-based practices, the History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools has been designed to make civic education relevant and meaningful for young people. My colleagues and I recognize that each generation must be persuaded of the benefits of democracy and the need to guard against the erosion of its principles and protections. Understanding how our democracy evolved is a crucial educational goal. The framework has many suggestions for making abstract concepts concrete—free speech, press, and religion; free, fair elections, and a broad franchise; due process; and the rule of law. Students grasp the importance of these constitutional guarantees when they are examined in the context of the historic abuses they remedied. The framework gives equal weight to examples from world history in which human rights were systematically destroyed by totalitarian governments such as those headed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot—despots who overthrew or ignored democratic rule with terrible consequences for their populations and the world. The framework also calls for students to learn about current dictators who squelch democratic development or impose authoritarian rule.

Making civic education relevant is particularly important when discussing current events and controversial issues. If we want students to become involved and register to vote when they are 18, schools must help them understand how their act of voting contributes to preserving our democracy. I witnessed an interesting example of this need during a visit to an inner-city 12th-grade class in Sacramento. When I asked how many were 18, about two-thirds of the 30 students raised their hands. This is how the conversation unfolded:

“How many of you 18-year-olds are registered to vote?” Only two raised their hands.

“Why not,” I asked the others.

“Because it doesn’t matter.”

Given that it is extremely rare for a contest to be won by a single vote, the students were too streetwise and too savvy to believe the shibboleth that one person’s vote could determine the outcome of an election. I agreed but offered a counterargument. Voting is a collective pact with fellow citizens, especially those who want the same things you want. If members of your group all agree to vote, then your positions will be better represented; if you stay home, people with different interests will certainly prevail.

The students thought my argument made sense, but they said no one had made that case to them before. This perfectly illustrates the need for convincing the next generation that it takes their personal involvement to sustain a democracy. At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin to ask him what sort of government the delegates had proposed—a monarchy or a republic. Franklin responded: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.” That sentiment is just as true today.

Florida is among several states that have passed bipartisan legislation supporting efforts that bolster civic education. In California, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson sponsored the California Task Force on K–12 Civic Learning, which produced a blueprint for action in the state and a follow-up Power of Democracy website. I was privileged to serve on the task force. Key players from the group are now organizing county committees composed of educators, political representatives, and business leaders to advocate for greater inclusion of civic education in schools. Civic education needs to be reinstated as a major aim of our schools.

Goal 3: Leading a Full Life

Discussion of the third important purpose of education—to enrich every child’s life—has virtually disappeared from public discussion about schooling. Historically, it was one of the major rationales for providing a liberal education for all in the sense of helping students reach their potential and develop crucial character traits. Fareed Zakaria recently offered a detailed explication of this idea in his book In Defense of a Liberal Education . See also the previously cited section in Goldstein’s The Teacher Wars.

Daniel DeNicola contends that a liberal education has transformative power. In his Learning to Flourish: A Philosophical Exploration of Liberal Education , he interprets it through the lens of five paradigms:

Transmission of our culture since cultural ideas, literature, stories, and our core values are potent tools to help our children live a richer, more rewarding life, build character, and assist them in becoming what used to be called “a good person”
Self-actualization or helping each student reach his or her potential and develop unique talents and interests
Understanding how the world works and how the people in it interact, especially in the area of developing perspective
Engagement with the world, which includes the type of democratic participation discussed earlier, and encouragement of both individual and collective participation; and
The skills of learning including self-monitoring, working in groups, being able to judge the quality and reliability of information, and understanding how different disciplines view the world

DeNicola combines these five into the general goal of helping each student learn to flourish. Evaluating school quality based solely on the results of reading and math tests distracts us from this worthy aim. In his book, DeNicola also rebuts critics of the liberal arts who negatively influence educator and public attitudes by claiming, among other things, the illegitimacy of a common cultural heritage.

MindShift, the always thought-provoking website sponsored by KQED in San Francisco, recently published an article about Scott Seider’s book Character Compass: How Powerful School Culture Can Point Students to Success. The article explains how Seider determined which character education strategies had the greatest success: “Seider gave students at all three schools a character survey at the beginning of the school year and again at the end with questions meant to measure empathy, integrity (strengths he defines as moral character), perseverance, daring/courage (which he defines as performance character), social responsibility and school connectedness (which he defines as ethical character).” Seider found that perseverance and school connectedness produced the best results.

Marc Tucker, president of the National Center for Education and the Economy, is another eloquent advocate for a broader approach to public education. In a blog , he explains why economic preparation is not enough:

But I want much more than that [education for jobs]. I want graduates who have a good command of the great sweep of history, who not only know what happened at critical junctures in history but who understand the interplay of factors that produced those turning points and can draw from that understanding of history the implications for the conflicts and choices the United States must now deal with. I want students who understand how and why liberty and freedom developed in some societies and not others, how fragile that achievement can be and what it takes to preserve freedom and democratic government when it is under attack. I want students who are not only familiar with the greatest works of art that humans have ever created, but have also gained the skills needed to create art and play music themselves. I want students who are good not just at solving problems someone else has defined for them, but who can frame problems for themselves in forms that make those problems solvable. I want graduates who will take the initiative and get it done without the need of detailed supervision. I want students who are good team members and good leaders. I want students who know the difference between right and wrong and who will do what is right whether or not anyone is looking. I want students who can think for themselves, who can think out of the box, who can look at a complex problem and solve it by bringing to bear an angle of vision on that problem that is fresh and original. I want graduates who are eager to learn from others but not cowed by authority. I want graduates who are not afraid to be wrong, but who work hard at getting it right. I want students who are not only tolerant of others who are different but who value those differences. I want graduates who set high standards for themselves and never give up until they reach them. I want students who are ambitious but will stop to help others who need help. I want graduates who think of themselves not as consumers but as contributors.

The idea of broadening educational goals has become much more widespread. If we were to use all three goals of education as the drivers of school improvement efforts, our approach to building better schools would shift dramatically. Recognizing that the true measures of success go beyond scores on tests has significant implications. It means we must adopt proven strategies to upgrade curriculum, enhance classroom instruction, rethink assessments, and altogether re-envision accountability.

Recent Developments

7/30/2016 Character and moral education should be an important part of our children’s education. http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/students-broken-moral-compasses/492866/

BBS Companion Article

The Big Picture Have High Stakes Testing and Privatization Been Effective?

Reference Notes

Botstein, L. (2015, Spring). Are We Still Making Citizens? Democracy 36 . http://www.democracyjournal.org/36/are-we-still-making-citizens.php?page=2

Rigoglioso, M. (2013, Nov 26). Schools Not Inspiring Students to Participate in Civic Life, Stanford Scholar Says. Stanford News . http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/november/civics-education-report-112613.html

Goldstein, D. (2014). The Teacher Wars: A History of America’s Most Embattled Profession . New York: Doubleday.

Nethercutt Jr., G. (2016, Mar 13). Civic Knowledge and Engagement Are Critical to Our Republic. The Seattle Times . http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/civic-knowledge-and-engagement-are-critical-to-our-republic/

iCivics. https://www.icivics.org/

Gould, J. (ed.). (n.d.). Guardian of Democracy: The Civic Mission of Schools. Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools. http://www.civicmissionofschools.org/the-campaign/guardian-of-democracy-report

California Department of Education. (2016, Jun). History-Social Studies Framework for California Public Schools (Draft). http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/hs/cf/sbedrafthssfw.asp

California Task Force on K-12 Civic Learning. (2014, Aug). Revitalizing K–12 Civic Learning in California: A Blueprint for Action. California Bar Foundation. http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/civicedinitiative.asp

Power of Democracy. http://www.powerofdemocracy.org/

Zakaria, F. (2015). In Defense of a Liberal Education . New York: W. W. Norton.

DeNicola, D. R. (2012). Learning to Flourish: A Philosophical Exploration of Liberal Education. New York and London: Continuum/Bloomsbury.

Schwartz, K. (2016, Feb 1). What Character Strengths Should Educators Focus On and How? http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2016/02/01/what-character-strengths-should-educators-focus-on-and-how/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+kqed%2FnHAK+%28MindShift%29

Seider, S. (2012). Character Compass: How Powerful School Culture Can Point Students Toward Success . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Tucker, M. (2016, Oct 8). What Does It Mean to Be an Educated Person Today? http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2015/10/what_does_it_mean_to_be_an_educated_person_today.html?r=1667465392 See also a must-read article by Robert Pondiscio about the importance of historical, cultural, and civic knowledge: Pondiscio, R. (2016, Jan 19). Ten Things Every American Should Know. http://edexcellence.net/articles/ten-things-every-american-should-know?utm_source=Fordham+Updates&utm_campaign=a03b3a8a64-012415_LateLateBell1_21_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d9e8246adf-a03b3a8a64-71491225&mc_cid=a03b3a8a64&mc_eid=ebbe04a807 For an account of how regressive governors are taking the opposite position and cutting funds for liberal arts at the college level, see Cohen, P. (2016, Feb 21). A Rising Call to Promote STEM Education and Cut Liberal Arts Funding. The New York Times. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/business/a-rising-call-to-promote-stem-education-and-cut-liberal-arts-funding.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=1&referer See also Tucker, M. (2015, Apr 30). How Should We Gauge Student Success? The Accountability Dilemma. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2015/04/how_should_we_gauge_student_success_the_accountability_dilemma.html

2 thoughts on “ The Big Picture: The Three Goals of Public Education ”

i agree with what it says about voting, and that it does matter.

This artical is mainly about public education

Policy Dialogue: The Meaning and Purpose of Public Education

From the History of Education quarterly (Volume 64, Issue 1), published by Cambridge University Press , a thoughtful, in-depth conversation about public education between Carol Burris and Johann Neem.

Carol Burris : If you ask one hundred Americans, “What is the purpose of public education?” you’re probably going to get at least ten different answers. There’ll be some similarities, but some answers will be quite different. In the beginning, the purpose was to create a literate American citizenry to be able to participate in democracy. Our founders realized that if they were going to give citizens the ability to actually shape government through elections, they had to have some knowledge base on which to make decisions. Academic achievement has also always been a big part of the purpose of public education. There have been other purposes as well, such as job training, which is once again becoming very popular. And there has even been the custodial function of schools, which we saw very clearly during COVID-19. When schools closed, education did not stop, but lots of parents were quite upset because they were dependent on the public education system to take care of their kids while they worked.

How has public schooling changed over the years? At its beginning, formal education was reserved for the elite. In 1892, the Committee of Ten decreed that education was for college preparation, mostly for white, male Protestant citizens. When the influx of European immigrants began, schools started to take on different functions: training in language, training in Americanism—learning what it is to be an American—and job training, from which emerged systems of tracking and ability grouping. Around the 1950s, the comprehensive high school predominated and we tried to create schools that were all things for all people. Then, in the early 2000s, there was a serious move to make schools more rigorous, focusing on college for all. And now the pendulum is swinging back to job training. So, there’s never been one purpose. And I don’t think there ever will be.

Johann Neem : I think you’re right about a lot of that. I think the question, then, is: What is it, at a moment like this, that justifies the common school model, the public school model? And I think, going back, as you said, to the founding, the preparation of citizens was one of the primary arguments to justify the expansion of public schooling. And the other public one, which is worth talking about, is socialization, or as you put it, learning to be an American. And I think that was also one of schools’ public functions in a diverse society. How do you bring people together in common institutions so they see themselves as members of the same people? After all, it wasn’t just in the United States that the expansion of public schooling and the formation of nation-states went hand in hand. And so those are two fundamental public purposes. I think you’re right. The civic purposes are threatened by the focus on work preparation and things like that. But I think even the socialization function is something we’re fighting over today. A lot of people in the education world are a little bit uncomfortable with the idea that part of their job is to take a diverse society and forge a common nation. So, both public purposes are threatened from different places. And I think we need those public purposes, they’re really important. I agree with you.

One of the things I found interesting about the nineteenth century is that, from the very beginning, the public schools took off, not because everybody wanted to create educated citizens, or everybody wanted to create a common American nation, but because there was a kind of overlapping consensus among a diverse set of stakeholders. There was an overlapping consensus that everybody benefits from these schools in different ways. Parents may have one set of goals. Students may have another. Teachers and educators may have a set of goals. Policymakers may have a set of goals. But there was enough overlap to sustain new institutions and build a very large number of stakeholders. And I think that’s the secret to why public schools have been so successful. The overlapping consensus between all these different stakeholders is that schools really matter to helping us get what we want. We’re all invested in them.

Carol Burris : I agree. And that’s what’s being threatened. That’s what upsets me the most. And it’s by design. Take Neal McCluskey, the education freedom director of the libertarian Cato Institute—the argument he makes for school choice is that we need it because we are so diverse. He argues that we will have wars within our schools if we don’t allow people to choose schools that reflect their values and their values alone. And I find that incredibly frightening because what it creates is Balkanization. Look at all of the major conflicts that we see now in Israel and Palestine, Iraq, and in the past in Northern Ireland. They happen when one faction or religion declares, “Here is my group; this is my set of beliefs, and I want nothing to do with that group and their set of beliefs.”

I led a high school for years that I loved. It was a very special place because it was diverse. It was diverse in terms of race. It was also diverse in terms of religion and socioeconomic status, and it was well funded. And in that school, kids got to know each other well, and when we eliminated tracking in the school, so that every classroom was a microcosm of the school, amazing things started to happen socially and intellectually for the children. What worries me so much about the school choice movement is that sense of shared community, of getting to know “the other” well, is exactly what we’re losing when school becomes a preferred commodity. You’re shopping for a school that aligns with your beliefs and aligns with your preferences and culture. You lose it all.

Johann Neem : That’s exactly right. One of the arguments that advocates of privatization make is just that: we’re too diverse to be a nation so we should be able to choose schools based on parents’ values. And one of the things I truly believe is that in a democracy as diverse as ours, common institutions that have an integrative function are essential. People must see each other as fellow citizens and empathize with each other.

This is the great danger of school choice, but the same danger also comes from progressive channels within the public schools, where I think a lot of educators are uncomfortable talking about the “we” in Americans. So, you’ll find statements like, “This holiday belongs to these people,” or “This is a white thing,” or “This is a Latino thing,” and so on. I have two concerns about that. One is that it threatens our capacity to tolerate, respect, and celebrate our diversity while also seeing ourselves as one people with shared traditions and rituals—and even books. The other thing I worry about is that it weakens the argument you just made when it’s coming from within the schools. In a sense, this discourse within the public schools creates the same outcomes that the parents’ rights advocates and privatizers are seeking to create in the school choice movement. Instead, I really think that we need to revive language about the commonness of the common schools, not at the expense of respecting diversity, but with the goal of becoming comfortable again with the fact that the schools are also important in forging a common Americanness. We are a diverse society, but we also need to share some things to be a people.

Carol Burris : I 100 percent agree. And it’s interesting that you said that. My granddaughter is in New York City, where she attends New York City public schools. They presently have school choice at the high school level within the public school system. And it’s a nightmare to navigate. You can’t just go to your neighborhood school anymore. So, now you’re talking about children as young as thirteen traveling. Most are schools based on interest. A school that’s for kids who want to be airplane pilots. A school for kids who want to be ferry captains and scuba divers. And the schools have different themes, or philosophies, much as you described. One school in the city has very progressive values on the website, talking more about social-emotional learning than about academics, stating that they’re against profit. My granddaughter wants a typical comprehensive high school not too far away, and in the world of choice, that is hard to find. Then you have to contend with admission preferences and lotteries in order to get in.

At the end of the day, the real outcome of “school choice” is that the parents really don’t have all that much choice. There are lotteries. There are themes. There are admission preferences. There’s screening and testing. It’s not as though they say, “Okay, this is your choice. And this is the choice of three hundred families who didn’t get the school. We’re going to open up three hundred new seats.” They don’t do that. The market system, whether it is public, charter, portfolio, voucher, just pushes kids around. The idea of a neighborhood high school where all kids of all interests, of all political backgrounds, of all religious backgrounds are welcome—it’s starting to disappear.

Johann Neem : I think that’s right. I find it interesting how you framed it, because, even as you were talking, I was thinking about how fortunate I feel to live in a town small enough that you just send your children to your neighborhood school, and you don’t have the agony of choice. The choice regime in New York, as you’ve described it, forces parents to start thinking about schooling as a private good for their child. The choice process privatizes education internally, because if I had to choose the school my child attended, I’d be doing things to game the system. I’d be doing all sorts of things to figure out the best way to move my child ahead. And as a parent, that’s totally natural. In fact, one of the things we parents ought to do is be our children’s advocates. But with losing the sense of the common school comes a loss of balance. I worry that the moment we liberate ourselves from that common framework, we will see new forms of inequality, as well as the kind of segregation you’re talking about. Not just by race, but class, party, ideology, religion, and more. I find my neighborhood school wonderful in certain ways and imperfect in other ways. But as a parent I’m invested in that neighborhood school, and through my investment, I’m invested in the other people who live around me. And this is what makes it a public good.

Carol Burris : For sure. And it also has an effect on the schools themselves. I was a high school principal for many years, and what I concentrated on was the improvement of the school and taking care of the kids. But in the world of school choice, you also have to be a marketer, right? Because now, as anybody who’s ever run a school knows, the quality markers of the school—whether they be test scores, college acceptance rates, or suspension rates—all of those different quality markers are also a reflection of who is attending your school and how many high-needs kids you have. So now, as a principal, you’re also trying to come up with ways to kind of game the system. How am I going to be more attractive to more involved families? To families that are maybe a little bit more affluent and can donate money to my underfunded school? To the parents of higher-achieving children that will raise overall test scores? And to many parents, it feels like The Hunger Games . They’re trying their best to get their child into a good school, whether it be a charter school, or a private school, or a public school. What are the admissions criteria? What can I do to get my child to go to the school that I think is the best fit? And what that does to the system over time is that parents become less invested in local school improvement and more invested in school choice.

Our kids grew up on Long Island, and the particular school district we lived in was not the best by far. But it was okay. So I became invested in that school district and its improvement. I got involved in the PTA. I ran for the school board. I served as school board president, and along with other parents, we did everything we could to make the school better. Now, looking back, if somebody had come to me back then and said, “Hey, listen, here’s school choice. You don’t have to work so hard to improve your local school. You can send your child to this district or that district or this private school, and we’ll pay for it.” As a young mom and a busy mom, I might have taken the chance. But what are the long-term effects of choice systems? Now, we’ve created this system where people think of public schools as a large, leaky boat, and pundits are shouting, “Oh, the boat is sinking!” So we start throwing out these life rafts, be they online schools, charter schools, voucher schools, and the emphasis is no longer on trying to right the ship, but to escape it.

Johann Neem : Yes, yes! And you’ve hit on two key points that are really important to me. When I was writing Democracy’s Schools , I came across a quote from Horace Mann, who basically said, if you allow parents to start to opt out, particularly parents of means, then you’re going to end up with pauper schools. You’re going to end up with schools where the public option becomes a charity model. And if you look around at certain parts of the world, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, you’ll find that families that are middle-class or above basically opt out of the public system. As a result, the public system cannot rival these private schools. And it seems weird to me that people want to import that model to the US, where we have such a robust public system.

The thing you said about stakeholders is really important, because I don’t think public schools took off in the nineteenth century because people heard Thomas Jefferson, or Horace Mann, or Catharine Beecher and said, “Ah! I want to do what they said!” I think they wanted to send their own kids to the public schools because they saw benefits accruing to their neighbors’ kids. And as more children went to the public schools, people became more supportive of paying taxes. People became stakeholders because they went through the schools alongside their neighbors, and their children and grandchildren followed them. So, they wanted to reinvest in those schools.

One of the things I’ve realized is we think commitment to public education is a given, but our commitment to public education in America is as fragile as our commitment to almost any other public good. And what the privatizers are slowly doing in places like Arizona is they’re offering people those life rafts you’ve described and are trying to create stakeholders in the alternative system. The moment enough people have vouchers, or access to schools outside the public system, the common schools will start to wither. We’ll all be in life rafts, and the ship will go down. Supporters of privatization know that as long as the majority of Americans are invested in the public school system, they can’t shake it. But if they attract enough potential stakeholders who are interested in an alternative system, a different kind of regime, those stakeholders will begin investing in the school choice system. And then they can start to finally take down the public schools, which had been too popular to challenge for generations.

Carol Burris : You’re absolutely right! That is the intent, and they’re not hiding it. And as all of these different groups, like Moms for Liberty, create all of these storms, dustups, and crises that really don’t exist, the intent is to undermine public schools. Arizona is a prime example, and it’s becoming more and more difficult to sustain the public school system there. A few years ago, I went down to Arizona. This was even before the real expansion of the voucher system, but they had a huge charter school sector, a lot of it run by for-profit schools. I met with a superintendent who was doing everything he could to keep the integrity of his public schools. He told me about a conversation that he had had with a local politician, a member of the legislature. He wouldn’t give me the name, but I have absolutely no reason to doubt the quote that he shared with me. He asked the legislator, “Do you even see a purpose for public schools?” And the legislator looked at him and said with a straight face, “Well, somebody has to take out the garbage.” Now, that is a chilling quote that I’ve never forgotten. I think about that quote. Was he saying that the public schools take out the garbage? In other words, that their purpose is to deal with kids that no one wants? Or did he see the role of the public schools as raising the children who will take out the garbage? Perhaps he meant both. It shows the incredible cynicism and the disdain of some school choice advocates, the absolute disdain for the public school system.

Johann Neem : When I think about privatizers, they’re not all one group. There are capitalists trying to make money by getting access to public funds. There are honest pluralists, even if I disagree with them, who in some ways are echoing the arguments of pluralists on the political left. They’re echoing advocates of multiculturalism, but they’re using radical pluralism to push school choice rather than trying to achieve diverse communities within the public system. And then there are those who don’t think well of public institutions, as your quote suggests. They think we only need public institutions to deal with the so-called remainders. And they believe anybody, any family worth their salt, should be able to buy all other goods on the market. The idea that education is such a fundamental public good that no matter who you are in terms of wealth or color, or religion, or anything, you belong in these institutions with other people—that idea doesn’t even compute. And if you don’t believe that public goods are things everyone should share, and they’re just for those who can’t afford to buy them on the market, that’s a really scary proposition. It really flies in the face of the postrevolutionary ideals with which we started our conversation—that public schools offer public goods and everybody should be participating and contributing and benefiting from them.

Carol Burris : Yeah. You kind of wonder what the endgame is, too. When I try to figure it out, I often look back to the writings of Milton Friedman, who, in many ways, started this movement along with the segregationists. He didn’t believe that the public should even be paying for public education. When you listen carefully to Betsy DeVos and the libertarians who have been pushing this school choice system, they’re also pushing what they call “backpack funding,” or “money follows the child.” The concept works like this: here’s a figurative backpack, and we’re going to put money in it to educate your child. Now, parent, you go and shop. Think about some of the people that are pushing this idea. They are not people who are fond of paying taxes—just the opposite. So, one of my greatest fears is that over time, we will begin to view the real endgame: when we move to a fully school-choice system, then politicians who are very tax adverse, as many on the right are, will vote to reduce the funding that is in that backpack until we have a K-12 system that will be similar to college. Some will be able to afford it; some won’t. And I worry for the poorest kids, for the kids that nobody wants, for the kids with behavior issues, the kids with special needs; they will be left in a broken public school system. And that public school system will look like a very large room with kids staring at computers and somebody standing by the door with their arms crossed, preventing them from getting out.

Johann Neem : Yeah—rather than this American institution where everybody goes. In fact, for many Americans, one of the few things we still share is the experience of going to public school. And for those who don’t have the resources or the support, it offers civic inclusion rather than charity. No, I’m with you. I do wonder: what do we do at this moment? Your work, which advocates public schools and criticizes false claims about the success of alternative models, is one of the answers to that question. And I’m so grateful for that. But I also worry that we’re in a moment when trust in almost all American institutions has been declining for decades. So, one thing to be careful about is saying this is all about public schools, when it’s also about corporations. It’s also about universities. It’s also about government. It’s also about any institution that has seen declining trust across the board. How do you build that trust?

One of my fears is that the public schools themselves are not the best at doing that these days, and one of the reasons, I think, is that they have become more partisan. I worry about the public schools being identified with a party—the Democratic Party—rather than being viewed as common institutions that Democrats and Republicans generally agree on, even when they disagree on many other things. Both parties used to rally people around local public institutions: “Let’s support our public schools. Let’s support our public school teachers. Let’s support the local team. Let’s support the local club. Let’s support these things.” Now there’s a wedge. And I don’t think it’s just caused by Republicans. I think we have seen a kind of leftward turn among education schools and public school teachers that in some ways provides evidence that the schools are becoming more tied to a party. That is very dangerous, because one of the things I think that sustained schools was that they were not partisan institutions—they were these institutions in which everyone had an investment. So, what do we do about that? That’s an honest question.

Carol Burris : It’s something that troubles me as well. I do think that some of it, though, is regional. For example, if you go into rural areas, Republican rural areas, there’s still strong support for public schools. And I tend to think that, if anything, the politics of the schools probably are more conservative than progressive. But I also agree. I cited that example before about a New York City public high school whose values align with those of the political left. And it may be the only high school in the city that has those values, but eventually, that school will show up in the New York Post . Then it’s going to show up on Fox News. And then suddenly, here’s what will wind up happening: it will be taken up by people like Corey DeAngelis, or Betsy DeVos, and then all public schools will be painted in that way. And it’s interesting, I remember sharing this particular school’s website with a friend who is quite committed to public schools, and her remark was, “We are so good at handing people the rocks to throw at us.”

Maybe it’s a reflection of my age, or reflection of my experience, but I do think that every public school should be a place that welcomes every child. That means that it welcomes all children, not only based on ability, race, and ethnicity, but also on values. And there should be a place, in the social studies classes of a public school, to debate, right? To debate capitalism versus socialism, progressivism versus conservatism. But when a school’s website only shows one sliver of that, that becomes problematic. I do think that it would be helpful for public schools to sometimes take a deep breath and reflect on the fact that their parents come from all different places, that their faculty may hold various political opinions, and work hard to make sure that everyone, no matter their belief system, can comfortably send their child to the school, and not feel as though anybody is trying to push them one way or the other. That’s what we want for learners: to be critical thinkers, to be exposed to different ideas, and then to come up with their own conclusions.

Johann Neem : Where do we go next? We’ve covered a lot of ground.

Carol Burris : Well, there’s one thing we haven’t really touched upon, and that is the voucher system in the United States. I find it fascinating that it is so incredibly irresponsible. There are other countries that do have public funding for private schools. I’m going make a contrast now with Ireland. I have relatives who live there, as well as friends, and the Irish system is a very unusual system. It emerged as religious schooling, and most Irish schools today are run by religious organizations. You could think of it almost like a massive voucher system where the government is giving money, but education is being delivered by religious institutions. But here’s one of the critical pieces that is so lacking in the new voucher systems that we’re seeing popping up everywhere in the US: in Ireland, the government’s Department of Education controls the curriculum. They determine what the curriculum is; they determine the standards. They determine the testing. There are laws that protect students’ rights to enroll in these schools. They’re not allowed to discriminate. Even if it’s a Catholic school, you can’t just discriminate based on race, on wealth, on learning ability, on religion, or LGBTQ status.

And in other countries, where they do have a voucher system and they’re giving money to private schools, the schools themselves are more public. The strings that are attached are designed to not exclude students. The schools themselves are inspected. They’re regulated. The teachers are certified. And as for the financing of homeschooling, I don’t know of any other country that is even beginning to entertain that. So, when the voucher proponents in the US implement these systems, and then point to other places in the world where there are vouchers, what they’re not saying is how regulated those systems are, and how many guardrails are in place.

In contrast, when you take a look at the systems that are being pushed in the US now, the ESA systems—the Education Savings Account and the Education Scholarship Account—they are systems without guardrails. They are systems with no real comparative testing and evaluation measures. Not that I’m a big fan of standardized testing, but if you are going to require it of public and charter schools, why not voucher schools? There are now systems where parents receive the money and the parents are buying trampolines or going to theme parks. Now micro-schools are popping up—schools in people’s homes—it is just this incredibly loose, unregulated system that has no comparison anyplace in the world. To me, it is absolutely frightening, because I think we are going to find a sizable proportion of children presumably being educated who are not actually being educated at all. And as money flows into some of these micro-schools and homeschools, it’s going to be more and more difficult to even ascertain whether these children are being properly cared for. Because I can tell you, as a former principal, one of the functions of a public educator is that of a mandated reporter. Child abuse exists, and when you start to create systems where parents can grab money and then keep their kids home, you’re inviting all kinds of possible problems, in some cases not only educational neglect, but also physical and psychological abuse and neglect.

Once the system starts loose, it becomes very difficult to tighten and regulate. Look at charter schools. There is a difference between the original intent of the charter school movement, and what the movement became. And as people fight for regulations for charter schools, they encounter stiff resistance. You cannot just put in these ESA Programs willy-nilly, and then go back later and try to put in guardrails, especially given the vested interests that we talked about before. You’re not going to be able to do it, and I think it’s incredibly frightening.

Johann Neem : Oh, I agree. This is the irony. There are some advocates of school choice and voucher programs who recognize what you are saying about the importance of putting in guardrails, but that is certainly not happening in parts of the country where the presumption is that you need government out of the way.

As a citizen in a democracy, I have a right to have a role in shaping a curriculum through local representation in my school board or through my state representative, and I want to know that the public part of public schooling is happening in all of these schools that receive funding from tax monies. I want to know, not just about the quality of learning, but also that students are learning certain subjects, that we’re graduating people who understand science, who understand history. I want to know that about all schools, and I wouldn’t want to know any less about schools funded by a voucher system. But knowing these things would require, in a sense, more centralization than exists in the system we’ve built, from the local neighborhood school on up. It’s an interesting question about whether that kind of system could produce a more centralized bureaucracy than we have now. But you’re right, we have an obligation as a public to ensure that all children in the United States are getting a good quality education, an education that prepares them to participate in our common life regardless of where they go to school. And that’s a real challenge given American diversity, and given the inequalities. It’s going to become an even bigger challenge in a system where you have rampant school choice.

Carol Burris : Yes. Take the original ESA program in Arizona. I looked at it a few years back—I was absolutely appalled. Parents did not have to provide any evidence of learning, no evidence at all. All they had to do to get the money for the next year was to spend the money that they had received the year before. Parents are issuing high school diplomas in these systems. Are they competent to do it? Some of them probably are, but others probably not.

Think about the libertarians who were advocating for school choice years ago. They were romanticizing what education looked like at the very beginning of our country, when there were charity church schools, when kids were educated at home or weren’t being educated at all. They saw that as the model. And it’s amazing to me that rather than moving our society forward, we’re trying to return to seventeenth-century structures when it comes to schooling.

You start to wonder sometimes, because so many of the people who are so in favor of this unregulated, willy-nilly school choice system are also people who didn’t respect the last election. Although you and I might say that we want a well-educated citizenry for a well-functioning democracy, these systems are being pushed by people who perhaps don’t want people to be well-educated at all. You remember Trump’s famous quote: “I love the undereducated.”

Johann Neem : But I think we have to remember that trust in a democracy has to be earned. This is where, to the extent that I am critical of the education establishment, I’m critical because I think, like you said, that educators too often give their opponents the rocks to throw. I think we, and that includes professors, have to earn the trust of citizens. I think Trump wasn’t so much saying to voters, “I love the poorly educated,” as “I know that you don’t trust the educated to take care of your values, to take care of your economic interests, to take care of your country.” And for public schools to make it, we who are advocates of public schools and think they’re fundamental institutions, need to show that we do deserve that trust.

We can show that public schools are effective. There are lots of studies to show they’re more effective than private schools when you correct for socioeconomic status. But we also have to show that they’re not going to be places that, as we talked about earlier, are overly partisan or unwelcoming to certain groups; we have to show that everybody belongs and that these are mainstream institutions. And I think political partisanship is intentional in some of the ways teachers are professionalized today in schools of education, where they are learning to see their schools, and themselves, as remaking America along progressive lines. So I think we must be aware that there is a tension there. Mainstream Americanism doesn’t mean racism. But it also may not mean always being “anti-racist.” It means embracing a world where there are complex issues and the school doesn’t have one position on everything, as you said earlier. Because I worry that the schools are generating distrust in a world that’s already distrustful and polarized. And the public schools are so important that anything that starts to tip the scales towards privatization frightens me.

Carol Burris : I don’t disagree with you. But how do you do that? I was once on a group call that was discussing the reopening of schools near the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. The group was making the argument that we shouldn’t reopen schools until an extensive list of other social issues were addressed, and as a former principal, I was thinking, “I’ve got to get off this call, because we need to reopen schools and get children back in.” So, how do you convince people who are committed to all of those causes to say, “Hey, public education is in trouble.” We’re going to lose it. We need to all keep our eye on the prize, which is keeping the American public invested in public schools. How do we do that?

Johann Neem : Well, first, we say what you just said. I mean it. I agree that it’s a real challenge. It’s a challenge when educators don’t see the distinction between partisan values and the political values of a democracy, including the broadly political purposes of public education, the preparation of citizens for critical thinking, the cultivation of a shared national identity, the promotion of equality, respect for diversity. And I think that what has happened on the left and the right is eerily similar, where if you don’t agree with my left-leaning partisan values, you must be opposed to social justice. Or you must be a racist. And the right has its own version with its reaction to libraries, where if you don’t agree with my list of books to ban, you must not care about religion or family values. It’s not just a one-sided problem.

We need to find a way to promote the broad political purposes of public education. That is what holds us together. And there’s no reason why you can’t have a conservative history teacher or a liberal history teacher. Those are not the criteria. There is a lot of shared ground among Americans of all backgrounds. When you poll Americans on questions of history and politics, they are not really that far apart.

We need a sense of moderation and balance. I do find that when you look at education school curricula, or the admissions criteria, student teachers almost have to agree with a set of partisan ideas to be considered a good teacher. We need to pull back on that and say that the work of public schools is broadly political, so we have to be careful about the difference between broadly political ideas and partisanship on both sides. To have a common school, we don’t want education coming from the right any more than from the left. And it is hard, because we’ve created a dynamic where sometimes we don’t see the right’s responses as reflecting anything that’s real. I think we have to be honest that sometimes they are. Even if their responses may not seem appropriate in the light of our own values, it’s not because they have no facts on their side—they do observe things that make them lose trust. They’re not reacting to nothing—the reactions are coming from something. And if our goal is the protection of public schools, we have to start by acknowledging that not all criticism is in bad faith, that people are often responding to deeply felt concerns. There are a lot of bad-faith actors out there. So why not respond to those who are responding to something with some good faith?

Carol Burris : Yes, I think you’re right, and I think it’s an incredibly sensible response. Unfortunately, sensible solutions don’t seem to be winning the day. What I would say to people who believe that the school should be the place to teach very progressive ideals is if in doing that, you wind up losing many families who are politically conservative, you’re never going to achieve your goal. You want them in the tent. You want their children to hear this. It’s part of the reason you see these Christian nationalist academies popping up—and they are, along with charter schools. It’s like the old song, “How Ya Gonna Keep’em Down on the Farm (After They’ve Seen Paree?)” You have groups of parents that don’t want their kids to see “Paree.” They only want them exposed to one set of values—their values. Young people, they’re so open. They are just naturally liberal. They are naturally progressive. And if all of the kids in your community who come from conservative homes are now in religious schools or in homeschools or in right-wing charter schools, they’re never going to be exposed to more progressive ideals that you might have in your public school.

You need to keep that tent open so that kids have an opportunity to become tolerant of others and their point of view.. Our middle daughter attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She was appalled by the anti-Semitic attitudes that she encountered there from kids whom she considered to be friends. And when she would talk to them about it, what she found was that they were never exposed to Jewish families. So they believed all of these stereotypes that they had heard. If we make our public schools places that conservative parents and parents on the right feel they need to avoid, their children will never be exposed to different cultures, to different religions and races, and they’ll not have that opportunity to grow as accepting and tolerant Americans.

Johann Neem : I think that’s right. So, it brings us full circle. The only thing I would add is that it goes both ways. As a professor, and someone who works in education circles, I’ve often been around progressives who have stereotypical images of conservatives in general, and they don’t interact with conservatives often. And their stereotypes of what people are like don’t always hold true. So I have two worries. One is that the public school system will come to an end if conservative families feel they need to withdraw, because their departure would represent a significant loss of stakeholders. The other worry is that if the schools truly do become bastions of progressivism, it’s not just the conservatives who won’t be exposed to progressive ideas—we’ll all become more Balkanized, as you put it earlier. Both progressives and conservatives will end up in echo chambers of their own. And that is not preparation for living in a diverse democracy, where it is important to respect people who come from all walks of life. We’d lose the capacity to teach that respect, which I think is a shared value between progressives and conservatives alike. So it affects everyone.

Carol Burris : It does cut both ways. I don’t disagree at all.

Johann Neem : I didn’t think you would.

Carol Burris : You know, we’re at this Humpty Dumpty moment for public schools, and if we don’t recognize it, and keep Humpty up on the wall, we’re not going to be able to put the pieces back together again—just like the system in Chile and some other places that have followed this model and seen dramatic declines in public school enrollments, stagnant test scores in literacy and mathematics, and widening achievement gaps between children from higher- and lower-income families. And we’re getting very, very close to that tipping point. So, I think a lot of honest conversations have to be had.

Johann Neem : That’s also a great name for a book: Keep Humpty on the Wall.

Readers wishing to comment on the content are encouraged to do so via the link to the original post.

Find the original post here:

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

60 11.2 The Competing Goals of Public Education: A Historical Perspective

Frontloading activity.

Before continuing the reading, take some time to review the history of American public education and write on the following questions:

What are one or two goals of public education over the course of American history?
Do the original goals of Thomas Jefferson and Horace Mann still inform public policy for education? Why or why not?

David Labaree (1997), an educational historian, argued that there had been three overarching goals of public education in the United States since the inception of public education in the 1800s: 1) democratic equality, 2) social efficiency, and 3) social mobility. A democratic equality goal aims at educating an engaged citizenry capable of actively participating in a democratic society. A social efficiency goal aims at educating young people to help the economic success of the country. Finally, a social mobility goal aims at educating young people for people to “gain a competitive advantage in the struggle for competitive social positions” (p. 42). Two of these goals—democratic equality and social efficiency—can be defined as public goods or goods that benefit society as a whole, whereas the social mobility goal positions education as a private resource or commodity. Each of these goals, Labaree argued, tacitly guides the direction of public education policy. At times, these three goals compete against the other goals’ inherent aims, i.e., public goods versus private goods. In some cases, such as social mobility, there are internal contradictions, or aporias, within a single goal’s overall aims. For example, families with higher socioeconomic status tend to protect and ensure their children’s social status, creating gatekeeping mechanisms to limit access to educational opportunities. However, families in lower socio-economic strata seek to expand equitable access to educational opportunities to advance their children’s economic and social well-being. In either case, social mobility goals envision education as a private and limited resource.

Consolidating Understanding Activity

The following podcast and webinar further elaborate Labaree’s model of public education goals and describe how each goal competes with one another. As you listen to the podcast’s first twenty minutes, paraphrase each of the three goals and give concrete examples of each goal.

After listening to the previous podcast, watch David Labaree’s webinar up to minute 26:20. As you watch, take notes on the ways Labaree elaborates on how the goals compete with one another.

In what ways does each goal compete with one another?
In what ways does the tension between public and private goods manifest themselves in real-world situations?

Take note of the internal contradictions of social mobility goals:

What are the gatekeeping mechanisms that influence who gets access to certain classes like Advanced Placement?
In what ways do the internal contradictions of social mobility manifest themselves in real-world situations?

Review this chapter and videos on the periods of educational history. Return to your original ideas on what you thought were/are the goals of public education in the U.S. Write on the following questions:

Give one example of each of Labaree’s educational goals from this chapter or the linked videos.
Which of Labaree’s goals most resemble your own thesis on the goals of public education?
Which of Labaree’s goals best fits your own personal goal for education as a student? Explain.
Which of Labaree’s goals best fits your emerging philosophy of education? Explain.

Introduction to Education Copyright © 2021 by Shannon M. Delgado and Sarah Mark is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

8.2 The Competing Goals of Public Education: A Historical Perspective

Frontloading activity.

Before continuing the reading, take some time to review the history of American public education and write on the following questions:

What are one or two goals of public education over the course of American history?
Do the original goals of Thomas Jefferson and Horace Mann still inform public policy for education? Why or why not?

David Labaree (1997), an educational historian, argued that there have been three overarching goals of public education in the United States since the inception of public education in the 1800’s: 1) democratic equality, 2) social efficiency, and 3) social mobility. A democratic equality goal aims at educating an engaged citizenry capable of actively participating in a democratic society. A social efficiency goal aims at educating young people to help the economic success of the country. Finally, a social mobility goal aims at educating young people in order for people to “gain a competitive advantage in the struggle for competitive social positions” (p. 42). Two of these goals—democratic equality and social efficiency—can be defined as public goods, or goods that benefit society as a whole; whereas the social mobility goal positions education as a private resource, or commodity. Each of these goals, Labaree argued, tacitly guides the direction of public education policy. At times, these three goals compete against the inherent aims of the other goals, i.e., public goods versus private goods. In some cases, such as social mobility, there are internal contradictions, or aporias, within a single goal’s overall aims. For example, families with higher socio-economic status tend to work to protect and ensure their children’s social status, which creates gatekeeping mechanisms to limit access to educational opportunities. However, families in lower socio-economic strata seek to expand equitable access to educational opportunities in order to help advance the economic and social well-being of their children. In either case, social mobility goals envision education as a private and limited resource.

Consolidating Understanding Activity

The following podcast and webinar further elaborate Labaree’s model of public education goals as well as describe how each goal competes with one another. As you listen to the first twenty minutes of podcast, paraphrase each of the three goals and give concrete examples of each goal.

After listening to the previous podcast, watch David Labaree’s webinar up to minute 26:20. As you watch, take notes on the ways Labaree elaborates on how the goals compete with one another.

In what ways does each goal compete with one another?
In what ways does the tension between public and private goods manifest themselves in real-world situations?

Take note of the internal contradictions of social mobility goals:

What are the gatekeeping mechanisms that influence who gets access to certain classes like Advanced Placement?
In what ways do the internal contradictions of social mobility manifest themselves in real-world situations?

Give one example of each of Labaree’s educational goals from this chapter or the linked videos.
Which of Labaree’s goals most resemble your own thesis on the goals of public education?
Which of Labaree’s goals best fits your own personal goal for education as a student? Explain.
Which of Labaree’s goals best fits your emerging philosophy of education? Explain.

Share This Book

Make your reading count!

You Earned a Ticket!

Which school do you want to support?

1. Education is…
2. Students...
3. Teachers
4. Spending Time...
5. Places For Learning
6. The Right Stuff
7. And a System…
8. …with Resources…
10. So Now What?

Purpose: What is Education For, Really?

So… what should we want from schools.

By age five or six, American children begin their formal education. The process consumes a huge fraction of their waking hours through adulthood. Taxpayers commit enormous sums to support this system. Families organize their lives around the bell schedule . Why do we do it?

In This Lesson

Why are schools important, what is the purpose of public education, what is ed100’s big picture, ▶ watch the video summary, ★ try the chapter discussion guide.

At an individual level, of course, the "why" of education is almost meaningless. School is compulsory. It's what we're expected to do! Also, education is the only path to a job that pays a living wage. (Remember the old saying: "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance!")

The remarkable, revolutionary idea behind universal public education is that all young people are worth investing in.

At a societal level, the remarkable, revolutionary idea behind universal public education is that all young people are worth investing in, for reasons that are both philosophical and practical. We have a shared stake in an educated society and an educated electorate. Our society values the individualistic ideal that a person's place in the pecking order should be earned rather than inherited. Everyone should have a shot.

The public education system, even with its flaws, is our biggest collective investment in our society. It is crucially important for public health, through universal vaccination . It is an expression of our belief in social mobility, and in the potential of each person to contribute something to this world we share. It is essential to the social commitment to preserve a survivable planet.

If that doesn't move you, most folks agree that they would rather pay for schools than for jails or soup kitchens.

Since the beginning of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has reminded all of us that schools also play an important role for adults. It's hard to work when the kids aren't in school, right?

The high level goals are easiest to agree on: we all want our children to emerge from their school years healthy, prepared for college, work, and citizenship.

Bill Honig, a former Califonia Superintendent of Public Instruction and founder of the Consortium of Reading Excellence (CORE), suggests that public education has three purposes : job preparation, active civic participation, and leading a full life. A 2016 poll found that 45% of Americans think the main purpose of education is preparing students academically, 25% believe it is preparing them for work, and 26% believe it is preparing them to be good citizens.

As a whole, we want schools to help our children realize their potential. We expect students to be armed with certain fundamental skills such as literacy and numeracy.

Beyond the practical matters, however, we also expect schools to help transform children into adaptable, decent, and broadly capable adults. Things can change. In an evolving society and a rapidly evolving job market , we cannot pretend to know exactly what skills a child really needs.

This idea is far from new. The headmaster of Eton school, William Johnson Cory, explained his views on the matter in 1861. Imagine the passage below being read by Albus Dumbledore…

"At school you are not engaged so much in acquiring knowledge as in making mental efforts under criticism..."

At school you are not engaged so much in acquiring knowledge as in making mental efforts under criticism... you go to...school not so much for knowledge as for arts and habits; for the habit of attention, for the art of expression, for the art of assuming at a moment's notice, a new intellectual position, for the art of entering quickly into another person's thoughts, for the habit of submitting to censure and refutation, for the art of indicating assent or dissent in graduated terms, for the habit of regarding minute points of accuracy, for the art of working out what is possible in a given time; for taste, for discrimination, for mental courage and mental soberness.

— William Johnson Cory , Headmaster at Eton, 1861

This lesson concludes the introductory chapter of Ed100. The core lessons of Ed100 are organized into ten chapters with a big picture in mind: "Education is Students and Teachers Spending Time in Places for Learning with the Right Stuff in a System with Resources for Success. So Now What?"

We have created many resources to help leaders make use of Ed100 — have a look at our toolbox !

The next lesson will shift the focus to students.

Updated March 2020, December 2020, July 2022

Which of the following is MOST TRUE about the purpose of universal public education?

Answer the question correctly and earn a ticket. Learn More

Questions & Comments

To comment or reply, please sign in .

Gail Arenberg October 1, 2019 at 3:26 pm

Michael berger september 27, 2020 at 11:07 pm, francisco molina august 13, 2019 at 12:36 am, leeann corral january 21, 2024 at 5:58 pm, jeff camp - founder march 27, 2018 at 12:09 pm, caryn-c september 18, 2017 at 11:59 am, rachele latham november 4, 2016 at 9:36 am, carol kocivar october 28, 2016 at 12:43 pm, jeff camp - founder july 30, 2016 at 10:35 pm, mark macvicar april 20, 2015 at 11:54 pm, jeff camp - founder april 21, 2015 at 12:34 am, jenzteam february 27, 2015 at 7:56 am, brandi galasso february 8, 2015 at 9:39 pm, dianna m february 5, 2015 at 12:19 pm, jeff camp - founder february 5, 2015 at 6:23 pm, greg wolff march 9, 2011 at 3:52 pm, education is….

Education is… Overview of Chapter 1
California Context Are California’s Schools Really Behind?
International Context Are U.S. Schools Behind the World?
Economic Context Schools for Knowledge Work
Bad Apples The High Social Costs of Educational Failure
Wishful thinking Grade inflation and cognitive biases
Progress Are Schools Improving?
History of Education How have Schools Changed Over Time?
Purpose What is Education For, Really?

Sharing is caring!

Password reset.

Change your mind? Sign In.

Search all lesson and blog content here.

Not a member? Join now.

We will send your Login Link to your email address. Click on the link and you will be logged into Ed100. No more passwords to remember!

Share via Email

Or Create Account

Your Email Address

Ed100 Requires an Email Address

Language of Preference

Can't find school? Search by City or contact us . More than one school? Select the school of your youngest child enrolled in K-12. No School? Type "No School" and click the "Next" button.

Are you one of the leaders in a PTA, PTSA, PTO or Parent Group?

Great! Please tell us how you help:

You will be going to your first lesson in

Your Ed100 Team

Hmm. Looks like you are already a user. We can send you a link to log into your account.

8. History of American Education

8.2 the competing goals of public education: a historical perspective, frontloading activity.

Before continuing the reading, take some time to review the history of American public education and write on the following questions:

What are one or two goals of public education over the course of American history?
Do the original goals of Thomas Jefferson and Horace Mann still inform public policy for education? Why or why not?

Consolidating Understanding Activity

After listening to the previous podcast, watch David Labaree’s webinar up to minute 26:20. As you watch, take notes on the ways Labaree elaborates on how the goals compete with one another.

In what ways does each goal compete with one another?
In what ways does the tension between public and private goods manifest themselves in real-world situations?

Take note of the internal contradictions of social mobility goals:

What are the gatekeeping mechanisms that influence who gets access to certain classes like Advanced Placement?
In what ways do the internal contradictions of social mobility manifest themselves in real-world situations?

Give one example of each of Labaree’s educational goals from this chapter or the linked videos.
Which of Labaree’s goals most resemble your own thesis on the goals of public education?
Which of Labaree’s goals best fits your own personal goal for education as a student? Explain.
Which of Labaree’s goals best fits your emerging philosophy of education? Explain.
Foundations of Education. Authored by : SUNY Oneonta Education Department. License : CC BY: Attribution

Our Mission

What Is Education For?

Read an excerpt from a new book by Sir Ken Robinson and Kate Robinson, which calls for redesigning education for the future.

What is education for? As it happens, people differ sharply on this question. It is what is known as an “essentially contested concept.” Like “democracy” and “justice,” “education” means different things to different people. Various factors can contribute to a person’s understanding of the purpose of education, including their background and circumstances. It is also inflected by how they view related issues such as ethnicity, gender, and social class. Still, not having an agreed-upon definition of education doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it or do anything about it.

We just need to be clear on terms. There are a few terms that are often confused or used interchangeably—“learning,” “education,” “training,” and “school”—but there are important differences between them. Learning is the process of acquiring new skills and understanding. Education is an organized system of learning. Training is a type of education that is focused on learning specific skills. A school is a community of learners: a group that comes together to learn with and from each other. It is vital that we differentiate these terms: children love to learn, they do it naturally; many have a hard time with education, and some have big problems with school.

There are many assumptions of compulsory education. One is that young people need to know, understand, and be able to do certain things that they most likely would not if they were left to their own devices. What these things are and how best to ensure students learn them are complicated and often controversial issues. Another assumption is that compulsory education is a preparation for what will come afterward, like getting a good job or going on to higher education.

So, what does it mean to be educated now? Well, I believe that education should expand our consciousness, capabilities, sensitivities, and cultural understanding. It should enlarge our worldview. As we all live in two worlds—the world within you that exists only because you do, and the world around you—the core purpose of education is to enable students to understand both worlds. In today’s climate, there is also a new and urgent challenge: to provide forms of education that engage young people with the global-economic issues of environmental well-being.

This core purpose of education can be broken down into four basic purposes.

Education should enable young people to engage with the world within them as well as the world around them. In Western cultures, there is a firm distinction between the two worlds, between thinking and feeling, objectivity and subjectivity. This distinction is misguided. There is a deep correlation between our experience of the world around us and how we feel. As we explored in the previous chapters, all individuals have unique strengths and weaknesses, outlooks and personalities. Students do not come in standard physical shapes, nor do their abilities and personalities. They all have their own aptitudes and dispositions and different ways of understanding things. Education is therefore deeply personal. It is about cultivating the minds and hearts of living people. Engaging them as individuals is at the heart of raising achievement.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” and that “Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Many of the deepest problems in current systems of education result from losing sight of this basic principle.

Schools should enable students to understand their own cultures and to respect the diversity of others. There are various definitions of culture, but in this context the most appropriate is “the values and forms of behavior that characterize different social groups.” To put it more bluntly, it is “the way we do things around here.” Education is one of the ways that communities pass on their values from one generation to the next. For some, education is a way of preserving a culture against outside influences. For others, it is a way of promoting cultural tolerance. As the world becomes more crowded and connected, it is becoming more complex culturally. Living respectfully with diversity is not just an ethical choice, it is a practical imperative.

There should be three cultural priorities for schools: to help students understand their own cultures, to understand other cultures, and to promote a sense of cultural tolerance and coexistence. The lives of all communities can be hugely enriched by celebrating their own cultures and the practices and traditions of other cultures.

Education should enable students to become economically responsible and independent. This is one of the reasons governments take such a keen interest in education: they know that an educated workforce is essential to creating economic prosperity. Leaders of the Industrial Revolution knew that education was critical to creating the types of workforce they required, too. But the world of work has changed so profoundly since then, and continues to do so at an ever-quickening pace. We know that many of the jobs of previous decades are disappearing and being rapidly replaced by contemporary counterparts. It is almost impossible to predict the direction of advancing technologies, and where they will take us.

How can schools prepare students to navigate this ever-changing economic landscape? They must connect students with their unique talents and interests, dissolve the division between academic and vocational programs, and foster practical partnerships between schools and the world of work, so that young people can experience working environments as part of their education, not simply when it is time for them to enter the labor market.

Education should enable young people to become active and compassionate citizens. We live in densely woven social systems. The benefits we derive from them depend on our working together to sustain them. The empowerment of individuals has to be balanced by practicing the values and responsibilities of collective life, and of democracy in particular. Our freedoms in democratic societies are not automatic. They come from centuries of struggle against tyranny and autocracy and those who foment sectarianism, hatred, and fear. Those struggles are far from over. As John Dewey observed, “Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife.”

For a democratic society to function, it depends upon the majority of its people to be active within the democratic process. In many democracies, this is increasingly not the case. Schools should engage students in becoming active, and proactive, democratic participants. An academic civics course will scratch the surface, but to nurture a deeply rooted respect for democracy, it is essential to give young people real-life democratic experiences long before they come of age to vote.

Eight Core Competencies

The conventional curriculum is based on a collection of separate subjects. These are prioritized according to beliefs around the limited understanding of intelligence we discussed in the previous chapter, as well as what is deemed to be important later in life. The idea of “subjects” suggests that each subject, whether mathematics, science, art, or language, stands completely separate from all the other subjects. This is problematic. Mathematics, for example, is not defined only by propositional knowledge; it is a combination of types of knowledge, including concepts, processes, and methods as well as propositional knowledge. This is also true of science, art, and languages, and of all other subjects. It is therefore much more useful to focus on the concept of disciplines rather than subjects.

Disciplines are fluid; they constantly merge and collaborate. In focusing on disciplines rather than subjects we can also explore the concept of interdisciplinary learning. This is a much more holistic approach that mirrors real life more closely—it is rare that activities outside of school are as clearly segregated as conventional curriculums suggest. A journalist writing an article, for example, must be able to call upon skills of conversation, deductive reasoning, literacy, and social sciences. A surgeon must understand the academic concept of the patient’s condition, as well as the practical application of the appropriate procedure. At least, we would certainly hope this is the case should we find ourselves being wheeled into surgery.

The concept of disciplines brings us to a better starting point when planning the curriculum, which is to ask what students should know and be able to do as a result of their education. The four purposes above suggest eight core competencies that, if properly integrated into education, will equip students who leave school to engage in the economic, cultural, social, and personal challenges they will inevitably face in their lives. These competencies are curiosity, creativity, criticism, communication, collaboration, compassion, composure, and citizenship. Rather than be triggered by age, they should be interwoven from the beginning of a student’s educational journey and nurtured throughout.

From Imagine If: Creating a Future for Us All by Sir Ken Robinson, Ph.D and Kate Robinson, published by Penguin Books, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2022 by the Estate of Sir Kenneth Robinson and Kate Robinson.

Commentary | Education

The Goals of Education

Commentary • By Rebecca Jacobsen and Richard Rothstein • December 4, 2006

Share this page:

[THIS ARTICLE ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE PHI DELTA KAPPAN 88 (4), DECEMBER 2006.]

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) holds all elementary schools, regardless of student characteristics, accountable for achieving proficient student scores in reading and math. By demanding that schools report achievement for racial, ethnic, and economic subgroups, the accountability system aims to shine a light on schools that “leave children behind.”

At first glance, this approach seems reasonable. But few who debate the details of implementation have considered how this accountability system has begun to shift how we think about what schools should do. By basing sanctions solely on math and reading scores, the law creates incentives to limit — or in some cases to eliminate entirely — time spent on other important curricular objectives. This reorientation of instruction disproportionately affects low-income and minority children, so achievement gaps may actually widen in areas for which schools are not now being held accountable.

The shift in curricular coverage is also at odds with the consensus about the goals of public education to which Americans historically have subscribed. More surprisingly, it is also starkly at odds with the apparent intentions of school board members and state legislators, who are responsible for implementing the policy, and with the intentions of the public whom these leaders represent. We will discuss the evidence with regard to these intentions later in this article. For now, let us begin by documenting the goal displacement stimulated by NCLB.

The federal government’s periodic national survey of teachers demonstrates the curricular shifts. In 1991, teachers in grades 1 to 4 spent an average of 33% of their classroom instructional time on reading. By 2004, reading was consuming 36% of instructional time. For math, average weekly time went from 15% to 17%. Meanwhile, time for social studies and science decreased. Since 1991, instructional time spent on social studies went from 9% to 8%, and time spent on science went from 8% to 7%. 1

These seemingly small average changes mask a disproportionate impact on the most disadvantaged students. The Council for Basic Education surveyed school principals in several states in the fall of 2003 and found that principals in schools with high proportions of minorities were more likely to have reduced time for history, civics, geography, the arts, and foreign languages so that they could devote more time to math and reading. In New York, for example, twice as many principals in high-minority schools reported such curricular shifts as did principals in mostly white schools. In high-minority elementary schools, 38% of principals reported decreasing the time devoted to social studies (usually meaning history), but in low-minority schools only 17% reported decreasing such time.2

A 2005 survey by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) found that 97% of high-poverty districts had new minimum-time requirements for reading, while only 55% of low-poverty districts had them. 3 The CEP had previously found that, where districts had adopted such minimum-time policies, about half had reduced social studies, 43% had reduced art and music, and 27% had reduced physical education. 4

Thus, although NCLB aims to narrow the achievement gap in math and reading, its unintended consequence is to widen the gap in other curricular areas. This is how one former teacher describes her changed classroom activities:

From my experience of being an elementary school teacher at a low-performing urban school in Los Angeles, I can say that the pressure became so intense that we had to show how every single lesson we taught connected to a standard that was going to be tested. This meant that art, music, and even science and social studies were not a priority and were hardly ever taught. We were forced to spend ninety percent of the instructional time on reading and math. This made teaching boring for me and was a huge part of why I decided to leave the profession. 5

These distortions did not begin with NCLB. They developed gradually in the 1990s as states implemented similar accountability policies. A 2001 analysis by researchers at the University of Colorado found positive effects of higher math and reading standards, but these gains were offset by losses in other areas, especially in activities that developed citizenship, social responsibility, and cooperative behavior. One Colorado teacher reported:

Our district has told us to focus on reading, writing, and mathematics. . . . In the past I had hatched out baby chicks in the classroom as part of a science unit. I don’t have time to do that. I have dissected body parts, and I don’t have time to do that. . . . We don’t take as many field trips. We don’t do community outreach like we used to, like visiting the nursing home or cleaning up the park because we had adopted a park and that was our job to keep it clean. Well, we don’t have time for that anymore.6

Some from outside the world of education have expressed concern about these developments. In testimony before a U.S. Senate committee, the historian David McCullough observed, “Because of No Child Left Behind, sadly, history is being put on the back burner or taken off the stove altogether in many or most schools, in favor of math or reading.”7 Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day

O’Connor now co-chairs a “Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools,” which laments that, under NCLB, “as civic learning has been pushed aside, society has neglected a fundamental purpose of American education, putting the health of our democracy at risk.”8 And U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.) has reacted to the insufficient attention civics receives in public schools by successfully sponsoring legislation requiring that every educational institution in the nation teach about the federal Constitution each September 17. It can hardly be considered a reasonable solution to have Congress mandate specific days of instruction for each of the many education goals now being deemphasized under the testing pressure of NCLB.

The growing national diabetes epidemic also shows how accountability for math and reading alone can exacerbate inequity in other important aspects of schooling. On average, blacks are 60% more likely to have diabetes than whites of similar age. (The incidence of the disease is even higher for Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans. 9 One cause of this epidemic, though not the only one, is the decline in physical activity among young people, particularly minority youths. This, in turn, results partly from the substitution of greater test preparation in math and reading for gym classes. Black elementary school children are 50% more likely to be overweight than their white peers, while white children are twice as likely as black children to take part in organized daily physical activity.

In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control noted that 20% of black children in elementary schools were overweight, compared to 14% of white elementary-schoolers. 10 Not surprisingly, 47% of whites in fourth to eighth grades (the years of NCLB testing) participate in organized daily physical activity, while just 24% of blacks do so. 11 Meanwhile, 18% of black high school students and 12% of white high school students are overweight. 12 From 2001 to 2003, as academic standards were raised and high school exit exams developed, the proportion of white high school students participating in daily physical education was essentially unchanged, but the proportion of blacks participating in daily physical education declined substantially.13

It is clear that black students, whose academic performance, on average, is lower and who have been enrolled, on average, in fewer academic courses, are more likely to be affected by increased academic requirements. But because black students are less likely to have opportunities to participate in out-of-school sports, they also are more dependent on adequate physical education programs in school to protect their health. Overall, considering both in- and out-of-school exercise, the CDC found that, in 2003, 65% of white high school students participated in a sufficient amount of strenuous physical activity (such as playing basketball or soccer, running, swimming laps, bicycling fast, dancing fast, or engaging in similar aerobic activities) for good health, while only 55% of black high school students did so.14

NCLB’s role in distorting the curriculum is not unrecognized by those who promoted and continue to support the law. Consequently, some may be having second thoughts. Robert Schwartz, for example, was the founding president of Achieve, Inc., the joint business/governors’ group that was largely responsible for the testing and accountability demands that culminated in NCLB. He now writes:

The goal of equipping all students with a solid foundation of academic knowledge and skills is leading to an undue narrowing of curricular choices and a reduction in the kinds of learning opportunities for academically at-risk students that are most likely to engage and motivate them to take school seriously. This is a painful acknowledgment from someone who considers himself a charter member of the standards movement.15

But other NCLB supporters take pride in how the curriculum has been reshaped by testing, notwithstanding the loss of attention to important, but nontested, subjects. Responding to a report by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation showing how NCLB’s focus on math and reading has led schools to diminish the time devoted to science instruction, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings boasted, “I’m a what-gets-measured-gets-done kind of gal,” and claimed that the solution was to test science as well. 16 Yet, while science tests are to be added to NCLB in 2007-08, schools will not be held accountable for the results. Even in the unlikely event that tests created for informational purposes only would serve as incentives to redirect teaching time back to science, the Spellings approach says nothing about the many other areas of knowledge and behavioral traits that are being dropped from curricula by schools held accountable only for math and reading.

A Historical Perspective

The current overemphasis on basic academic skills is a historical aberration. Throughout American history, we have held a more expansive set of goals for our public schools.

When the Founders endorsed the need for public education, their motives were mostly political. Learning to read was less important than, and only a means toward, helping citizens make wise political decisions. History instruction was thought to teach students good judgment, enabling them to learn from prior generations’ mistakes and successes and inspiring them to develop such character traits as honesty, integrity, and compassion. The Founders had no doubt that schools could produce students who exhibited these traits, and it would never have occurred to them that instruction in reading and arithmetic alone would guarantee good citizenship.

In 1749 Benjamin Franklin proposed that Pennsylvania establish a public school that should, he said, place as much emphasis on physical as on intellectual fitness because “exercise invigorates the soul as well as the body.” As for academics, Franklin thought history particularly important, because “questions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, will naturally arise” as students debate historical issues “in conversation and in writing.” Students, Franklin insisted, should also read newspapers and discuss current controversies, thereby developing their logic and reasoning.

George Washington’s goals for public schools were also political and moral. In his first message to Congress, he advocated public schools that would teach students “to value their own rights” and “to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority.” His farewell address warned that, because public opinion influences policy in a democracy, “it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened” by schools that teach virtue and morality. He wanted to go even further, but his speechwriter (Alexander Hamilton) cut from the farewell address a plea for a national public university that would encourage tolerance of diversity, bringing together students of different backgrounds to show them there is no basis for their “jealousies and prejudices.”17

Thomas Jefferson, the Founder most often linked with education in the public mind, thought universal public education needed primarily to prepare voters to exercise wise judgment. He wanted not what we now call “civics education” — learning how government works, how bills are passed, how long a President’s term is, and so on. Rather, Jefferson thought schools could prepare voters to think critically about candidates and their positions and then choose wisely. Toward the end of his life, he proposed a public education system for the state of Virginia:

To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business; to enable him to calculate for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and accounts in writing; to improve, by reading, his morals and faculties; to understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either; to know his rights; to exercise with order and justice those he retains, to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor and judgment; and in general, to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed.18

As the 19th century progressed, the earliest labor unions insisted that public schools promote social reform. Anticipating by nearly two centuries our contemporary accountability policies, union leaders of the time feared that public schools for the poor would include only basic reading and arithmetic and not the more important intellectual development that could empower the working class.

In 1830, a workingmen’s committee examined Pennsylvania’s urban public schools, which mostly served the poor while rich children attended private schools. The committee denounced the urban schools for instruction that “extends [no] further than a tolerable proficiency in reading, writing, and arithmetic.” The committee added: “There can be no real liberty without a wide diffusion of real intelligence. . . . Education, instead of being limited as in our public poor schools, to a simple acquaintance with words and cyphers, should tend, as far as possible, to the production of a just disposition, virtuous habits, and a rational self governing character.” Equality, the committee concluded, is but “an empty shadow” if poor children don’t get an “equal education . . . in the habits, in the manners, and in the feelings of the community.”19

In 1837, Horace Mann was elected secretary of the newly created Massachusetts Board of Education and thereafter wrote 12 annual reports to encourage support for public schools. One report stressed the importance of teaching vocal music. Another, following Mann’s visit to Europe, concluded that universal basic education in reading and arithmetic did not alone ensure democratic values. Prussian students were literate, after all, but supported autocracy. Mann concluded that schools in a democracy could not be held accountable for academics alone but must inculcate democratic moral and political values so that literacy would not be misused. In his last report, Mann articulated a list of goals for education that included health and physical education, intellectual (academic) education, political education, moral education, and religious education (by which he meant teaching the ethical principles on which all religions agreed).

As schooling expanded in the early 1900s, the federal Bureau of Education commissioned a 1918 report, the Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. Although some contemporary academic historians have popularized the notion that the Cardinal Principles turned American education away from academic skills, this is an exaggeration. In fact, the commission that produced the document asserted that “much of the energy of the elementary school is properly devoted to teaching certain fundamental processes, such as reading, writing, arithmetical computations, and the elements of oral and written expression” and that the secondary school should be devoted to the application of these processes. 20 But the document argued that academic skills were not enough; it continued in the tradition of the Founders and educators like Horace Mann by urging a balanced approach to the goals of education.

As its first goal, the commission listed physical activity for students, instruction in personal hygiene, and instruction in public health. Its second goal was academic skills. Third was preparation for the traditional household division of labor between men and women. Fourth was vocational education, including the selection of jobs appropriate to each student’s abilities and interests, as well as maintenance of good relationships with fellow workers.

Like the Founders, the commission emphasized in its fifth goal the need for civic education: preparation to participate in the neighborhood, town or city, state, and nation. The Cardinal Principles report devoted more space to civic education than to any other goal, stressing that schools should teach “good judgment” in political matters and that students can learn democratic habits only if classrooms and schools are run by democratic methods. Even the study of literature should “kindle social ideals.”

The sixth goal was “worthy use of leisure,” or student appreciation of literature, art, and music. And last, the seventh goal, ethical character, was described as paramount in a democratic society. It included developing a sense of personal responsibility, initiative, and the “spirit of service.”21

Two decades later, the National Education Association (NEA), then a quasi-governmental group that included not only teachers but all professionals and policy makers in education, was considering how public schools should respond to the Great Depression. Its 1938 report, written by a federal education official, set forth what it called the “social-economic goals” of American education.

Echoing Horace Mann’s reflections following his visit to Prussia, the NEA report proclaimed: “The safety of democracy will not be assured merely by making education universal”; in other words, simply by making all Americans literate. “The task is not so easy as that. The dictatorships [Germany, Italy, Japan, and the Soviet Union] have universal schooling and use this very means to prevent the spread of democratic doctrines and institutions.”22 Teaching democratic values and habits had to be an explicit focus of schools and could not be assumed to flow automatically from proficiency in reading and math. The essential ability to distinguish between demagogues and statesmen “demands the ability to read accurately, to organize facts, to weigh evidence, and to separate truth from falsehood.” Schools, it went on, should also develop students’ morality: justice and fair dealing, honesty, truthfulness, maintenance of group understandings, proper respect for authority, tolerance and respect for others, habits of cooperation, and work habits such as industry and self-control, along with endurance and physical strength.

The report argued that school time for social studies should be increased and should include room for a broad background in social and economic history, as well as ongoing discussion of current affairs. “Good teaching demands that pupils be habituated in weighing the evidence on all sides of a question,” it said. Schools should also develop a commitment to promote social welfare and ideals of racial equality. School-sponsored extracurricular and community activities might be the most effective ways of reaching these goals, the report said.

Prefiguring our contemporary dilemmas, the 1938 report went on to warn:

Most of the standardized testing instruments [and written examinations] used in schools today deal largely with information. . . . There should be a much greater concern with the development of attitudes, interests, ideals, and habits. To focus tests exclusively on the acquisition and retention of information may recognize objectives of education which are relatively unimportant. Measuring the results of education must be increasingly concerned with such questions as these: Are the children growing in their ability to work together for a common end? Do they show greater skill in collecting and weighing evidence? Are they learning to be fair and tolerant in situations where conflicts arise? Are they sympathetic in the presence of suffering and indignant in the presence of injustice? Do they show greater concern about questions of civic, social, and economic importance? Are they using their spending money wisely? Are they becoming more skillful in doing some useful type of work? Are they more honest, more reliable, more temperate, more humane? Are they finding happiness in their present family life? Are they living in accordance with the rules of health? Are they acquiring skills in using all of the fundamental tools of learning? Are they curious about the natural world around them? Do they appreciate, each to the fullest degree possible, their rich inheritance in art, literature, and music? Do they balk at being led around by their prejudices?23

This broad consensus that schools should be accountable for more than just the basic skills was also supported by the conservative economist Milton Friedman, who in 1955 first called for vouchers to permit any student to attend any public or private school. But unlike today’s privatization advocates (who claim him as their intellectual father), Friedman specified that schools participating in his plan must meet minimum goals established by the public. He distinguished between outcomes that exclusively benefit students themselves (in higher earnings) and outcomes that benefit the community, for which all schools should be accountable. Friedman wrote, “A stable and democratic society is impossible without widespread acceptance of some common set of values and without a minimum degree of literacy and knowledge on the part of most citizens.” In elementary school, “the three R’s cover most of the ground,” but secondary schools must show that they train students “for citizenship and community leadership” as a condition of receiving public funds.24

Shortly after Friedman’s call, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund convened leaders from many fields to make public policy recommendations. Nelson Rockefeller (subsequently New York’s governor and Gerald Ford’s vice president) chaired the overall project, with Henry Kissinger (who later served as secretary of state) as its staff director. The Rockefeller Report, as it was known, asked, How “may we best prepare our young people to keep their individuality, initiative, creativity in a highly organized, intricately meshed society? . . . Our conception of excellence must embrace many kinds of achievement. . . . There is excellence in abstract intellectual activity, in art, in music, in managerial activities, in craftsmanship, in human relations, in technical work.”25

The Rockefeller Report recognized that testing would gain importance for sorting future scientists and leaders. But, the panel warned, “Decisions based on test scores must be made with the awareness of the . . . qualities of character that are a necessary ingredient of great performance[:] . . . aspiration or purpose . . . courage, vitality or determination.”26

For the last 20 years, lawsuits have argued that states have an obligation to finance an “adequate” education, and state courts have had to define what this means. True to American traditions, the courts have proposed definitions that extend far beyond adequacy as measured by test scores alone.

The earliest decision in this line of cases was issued in 1976 by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which found a constitutional requirement for the state to provide a “thorough and efficient education” that enables graduates to become “citizens and competitors in the labor market.” The court later elaborated:

Thorough and efficient means more than teaching

. . . skills needed to compete in the labor market. . . . It means being able to fulfill one’s role as a citizen, a role that encompasses far more than merely registering to vote. It means the ability to participate fully in society, in the life of one’s community, the ability to appreciate music, art, and literature, and the ability to share all of that with friends.27

These are goals sought by wealthy districts, the court said, and must be pursued in low-income urban areas as well.

Three years later, in 1979, the West Virginia Supreme Court issued a decision that became a model for other states. It defined a “thorough and efficient” education as one that develops “the minds, bodies, and social morality of its charges to prepare them for useful and happy occupations, recreation, and citizenship.” Then, following closely Thomas Jefferson’s language of nearly 200 years before, the court required its legislature to fund a school system that would develop “in every child” the capacities of

(1) literacy; (2) ability to add, subtract, multiply and divide numbers; (3) knowledge of government to the extent that the child will be equipped as a citizen to make informed choices among persons and issues that affect his or her own governance; (4) self-knowledge and knowledge of his or her total environment to allow the child to intelligently choose life work — to know his or her options; (5) work-training and advanced academic training as the child may intelligently choose; (6) recreational pursuits; (7) interests in all creative arts, such as music, theater, literature, and the visual arts; (8) social ethics, both behavioral and abstract, to facilitate compatibility with others in this society.28

The Kentucky Supreme Court followed with a similar ruling, one subsequently cited by many other state courts.

Balanced Accountability

We should not conclude from this review that the exclusive emphasis of NCLB on basic academic outcomes is entirely new. There have been previous efforts to assert the primacy of academic training. Yet most Americans have wanted both the academic focus and the social and political outcomes. Holding schools accountable only for math and reading is an extreme position, which rarely has enjoyed significant support.

Last year, we attempted to synthesize these goals for public education that had been established over 250 years of American history. We defined eight broad goal areas that seemed to be prominent in each era, although certainly emphases changed from generation to generation. We then presented these goals to representative samples of all American adults, of school board members, of state legislators, and of school superintendents, and we asked the respondents to assign a relative importance to each of the goal areas. 29 Average responses of all adults, board members, legislators, and superintendents were very similar. Table 1 shows how the surveyed groups of Americans would structure an accountability system if its aim was to hold schools responsible for achieving a balanced set of outcomes.

TABLE 1. Selected Americans’ Views on Relative Importance of Public School Goals

*Respondents were asked to rate the relative importance of each goal area by assigning percentages to each. If a respondent’s choices summed to more or less than 100%, the software program rejected this error and asked for a revised set of choices so that the sum would equal 100%. The percentages shown are simple averages of the average responses for each of the four surveyed groups — U.S. adults, school board members, state legislators, and school superintendents.

What is most curious about these survey findings is that they take account of the goals of state representatives and school board members, two groups of public officials who have been aggressive in the past two decades about establishing school accountability systems that expect performance only in basic skills. This gap between the preferences that respondents expressed in our surveys and the educational standards established through political processes reflects a widespread policy incoherence.

American schools should be held accountable for results. But an accountability system consisting almost exclusively of standardized tests is a travesty and a betrayal of our historic commitments. What would an accountability system look like if it created incentives for schools to pursue a balanced set of goals ?

Such a system would certainly include standardized tests of basic academic skills, but it would also include some standardized measures in other areas. For example, tests of physical fitness (measuring things like upper body strength) and simple measures of body weight should be added to shed light on the efficacy of schools’ physical education programs. Under a balanced accountability system, schools that sacrifice essential physical education for excessive drill in math and reading would lose their incentives to undertake such distorted practices.

A balanced accountability system would also make use of measures that are more difficult to standardize but equally valid. Student writing and analysis of contemporary issues, as well as student performances in the arts, in scientific experimentation, and in debates, would also be included. School accountability does not require such assessments of every student every year. A random sample of students, drawn periodically, would suffice.

Accountability also requires less immediately assessable measures that nonetheless are reflections of school adequacy. Shouldn’t we judge a school’s civics program by whether young graduates register and vote, participate as volunteers in their communities, or contribute to charity? Shouldn’t we judge the adequacy of students’ literacy instruction as much by whether, as young adults, they read for pleasure and to stay well informed as by whether, as young children, they scored well on tests of decoding? Shouldn’t we judge the adequacy of students’ physical education by whether, as young adults, they exercise regularly?

A balanced accountability system also requires school inspections that cannot be organized from Washington, D.C. Teams that visit schools for accountability purposes should differ from today’s accreditation teams by including, in addition to professional educators, political appointees, members of the business community, and representatives of labor and community groups. These teams should judge not only the quality of school facilities, but also the quality of instruction. They should examine whether students are engaged in the kind of group activities likely to develop the teamwork so valued by employers. They should observe classroom discussions to determine if these are likely to develop the kind of critical thinking that leads to intelligent voters.

Today, we are a long way from establishing an accountability system that is true to American traditions and to our contemporary goals for public schools. We could move toward such a system, but NCLB is taking us in the opposite direction.

1. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Teacher Data File; 1990-91 Public School Teacher Data File; 1993-94 Public School Teacher Data File; 1999-2000 Public School Teacher Data File; 1999-2000 Public Charter School Teacher Data File; and 2003-04 Public School Teacher Data File.

2. Claus von Zastrow, with Helen Janc, Academic Atrophy: The Condition of the Liberal Arts in America’s Public Schools (Washington, D.C.: Council for Basic Education, 2004); and additional data provided through personal correspondence with von Zastrow.

3. From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act (Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy, 2006), Figure 4-A, p. 97.

4. From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 3 of the No Child Left Behind Act (Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy, 2005), Table 1-1, p. 22.

5. Jacquelyn Duran, “An Adequate Teacher: What Would the System Look Like?,” term paper, Teachers College, Columbia University, Course ITSF 4151, December 2005.

6. Grace Taylor et al., A Survey of Teachers’ Perspectives on High-Stakes Testing in Colorado: What Gets Taught, What Gets Lost (Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California, September 2001), p. 30.

7. Sam Dillon, “From Yale to Cosmetology School, Americans Brush Up on History and Government,” New York Times, 16 September 2005, p. A-14.

8. “Call to Action,” Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools, 17 April 2006, www.civicmissionofschools.org .

9. “National Diabetes Fact Sheet,” National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 31 January 2005, www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/estimates.htm .

10. Allison A. Hedley et al., “Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity Among U.S. Children, Adolescents, and Adults, 1999-2002,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 16 June 2004, pp. 2847-50.

11. “Physical Activity Levels Among Children Aged 9-13 Years — United States, 2002,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 22 August 2003, Table 1, www.cdc.gov/mmwr .

12. “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2003,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 May 2004, Table 58, www.cdc.gov/mmwr .

13. “Participation in High School Physical Education — United States, 1991-2003,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 September 2004, pp. 844-47, www.cdc.gov/mmwr .

14. “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2003,” Table 50.

15. Robert B. Schwartz, “Multiple Pathways — And How to Get There,” in Richard Kazis, Joel Vargas, and Nancy Hoffman, eds., Double the Numbers: Increasing Postsecondary Credentials for Underrepresented Youth (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Press, 2004), p. 26.

16. Michael Janofsky, “Report Says States Aim Low in Science Classes,” New York Times, 8 December 2005.

17. Joseph J. Ellis, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation (New York: Knopf, 2001), p. 154.

18. Thomas Jefferson et al., “Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Fix the Site of the University of Virginia, etc., ” in Roy J. Honeywell, ed., The Educational Work of Thomas Jefferson (New York: Russell and Russell, 1964), Appendix J, pp. 248-60.

19. John Mitchell (Chairman, Joint Committee of the City and County of Philadelphia), “Public Education,” The Working Man’s Advocate, 6 March 1830, cited in Lawrence A. Cremin, The American Common School: An Historic Conception (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1951), pp. 34-35.

20. Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Education, Department of the Interior, Bulletin No. 35, 1918), pp. 11-12.

21. Ibid., pp. 11-16.

22. Educational Policies Commission, The Purposes of Education in American Democracy (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association of the United States and the American Association of School Administrators, 1938), p. 16.

23. Ibid., pp. 153-54.

24. Milton Friedman, “The Role of Government in Education,” in Robert Solo, ed., Economics and the Public Interest (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1955), pp. 123-44.

25. The Pursuit of Excellence: Education and the Future of America — The “Rockefeller Report” on Education (New York: Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Special Studies Project Report V, 1958), pp. 14, 16.

26. Ibid., p. 29.

27. Abbott v. Burke II, 119 N.J. 287; A.2d 359 (1990), Supreme Court of New Jersey, decided June 5, as corrected June 14.

28. Pauley v. Kelly, 162 W.Va. 672; 255 S.E.2d 859 (1979), 705-6, 877.

29. Because giving weights to eight categories is too cognitively complex a task for a telephone interview, respondents worked over a secure website or, if they were not computer literate, over a device provided to them that could be attached to their television sets. A full description of the survey methodology and detailed results will appear in a forthcoming publication by the authors.

Richard Rothstein is a research associate of the Economic Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. Rebecca Jacobsen is a doctoral candidate at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, N.Y.

[THIS ARTICLE ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE PHI DELTA KAPPAN 88 (4), DECEMBER 2006.]

See related work on Student achievement | Accountability | Education

See more work by Rebecca Jacobsen and Richard Rothstein

Sign up to stay informed

New research, insightful graphics, and event invites in your inbox every week.

See related work on Student achievement , Accountability , and Education

Track EPI on Twitter

What is the Goal of the American Education System?

When we discuss the uses of technology in the classroom, the conversation inevitably turns to the theme of reform within the education system. The two concepts are conceivably joined at the hip, two peas in a pod: Ed-Tech = Ed-Reform.

I don’t think this is quite right. For me, introducing technology into the classroom has various use cases (automating administrative processes for teachers to free up more time for real teaching, creating richer content-based experiences, connecting local students to the entirety of the world around them) that add up to something more akin to the modernization of the learning experience. Advanced technologies are increasingly becoming commonplace within the pure act of surviving in the 21st Century.

Reform, however, has more to do with the learning experience itself. What should we be teaching? How do we think about accountability? How do we balance standards with the complexities of population diversity? Undoubtedly, technology is typically an offshoot of this dialogue, a tool through which much of this reform can be delivered and administered. But they are not the same thing.

Reform is a big fancy buzzword that floats around one particular concept: what are we trying to get out of this educational experience, and how do we adjust the current system to reflect these changes? In the United States education system, we have kids under our control until they are 18 years old. By the time they are 18, what is it that we would like them to have accomplished and be positioned to accomplish in the future?

Before any logical debate can take place regarding reform, we first need to determine what the point of public education is in the first place. It seems obvious on the surface, but my guess is the deeper we delve into this narrative, the more differentiated the opinions will be.

Are we trying to produce happy adults? Are we trying to produce the next generation workforce? Are we trying to produce active, informed citizens capable of navigating a complex democracy? Perhaps simply “college readiness?” Are we simply trying to “beat” China (or South Korea, or Finland, or whoever)? Is it something in between?

So, I decided to ping an array of informed voices on this very subject and compile a set of responses from these diverse individuals within the education world. I asked two questions:

In your opinion, what is the current goal of the American Public Education System?

What should be the goal of the American Public Education System?

Here are some of the responses I have gathered so far (more to come in Part II). By all means, please feel free to contribute your own thoughts in the comments section below, or even shoot me an email for potential use in the followups to come:

From Paul Smith, Head of Marketing at LearnSprout , former Fourth Grade teacher

Over the last thirteen years since NCLB the American education system has shifted away from the broad goal of preparing students for life, to the specific goal of preparing students for college.

I’ve typed and deleted and typed and deleted my answer here... The answer to this question should be simple, but it’s not. I’m not sure if it’s wise to have a singular goal for public education since we know from experience that diversity has been the key to our success. That being said, I think it would be wise for us to establish a national mission statement.

We recently went through this exercise for LearnSprout and the process revealed a great deal. It invoked deep, prolonged late-night discussions and many beers were consumed. It forced us to reflect on what our combined strengths were and revealed discrepancies in our individual aspirations for the company. Through the process we ultimately landed on something that serves as a constant touchstone and influences every decision we make.

This is the conversation we should be having about education in the U.S. Instead we’re lost in the weeds, arguing about tactics without a strategy or mission. ( The US DOE has their own but it doesn’t speak to the purpose of public education.) Wouldn’t it be great to have folks like Arne Duncan, Diane Ravitch, Sugata Mitra, Ken Robinson, Michelle Rhee, Geoffrey Canada and Randi Weingarten all on a joint task force to take on this question and come up with a mission statement we all could agree with? Perhaps that’s naive on my part, but it’s worth a shot IMO.

Here’s my attempt:

To develop in all students the core knowledge requisite for an independent life.
To help students realize and develop their strengths while improving upon their weaknesses.
To help students understand our commonality while celebrating individualism.
To develop respect for history and tradition while cultivating a shared desire to challenge the status quo.
To cultivate divergent thinking instill a creative spirit.
To engender a sense of patriotism, balanced with a global world view.

From Matt Greenfield, Managing Partner of Rethink Education , former Professor of English at Bowdoin College and the CUNY system

1. I think most Americans would agree with me that the goal of the American public education system is to prepare students to be responsible, healthy, engaged, self-aware citizens and experts in the performance of a socially useful task. We disagree about how to achieve this goal.

2. I think the goal does not need to be changed. I do think, though, that the system needs modify its methods: learning needs to be more personalized, more active, more collaborative, more global, and more closely tied to the passions and expertise of students. Technology can help us get there, not by replacing teachers but by freeing teachers to spend more time with small groups and individual students. One-on-one instruction will continue to be the gold standard in education.

From Allison McKinnon, K/1 teacher in the Greater Rochester public school system

I believe the current goal of the american public education system is to raise the academic standards in the United States through the implementation of the common core standards. The belief is, by raising standards and helping students develop critical thinking skills, students will achieve greater academic success and perform better on standardized tests, ultimately raising the United States educational ranking in the world. Unfortunately, the increased frequency of poor quality standardized assessments does not truly reflect student achievement and cognitive ability.

The goal should be to provide teachers with high quality professional development to implement the common core in a dynamic an interactive manner and not rely on standardized tests to rank students, teachers, schools, districts and states.

From John Katzman, founder of The Princeton Review , 2U , and Noodle.org , regarding the second question

To turn out students who, over the next 30 years, are economic successes, good citizens, and happy people. Each of those things is highly measurable, and any short-term metric that doesn’t durably predict those long term metrics is worthless.

From Peter Mili , 2013 NEA Foundation Massachusetts Teacher of Excellence and a Pearson Foundation 2013 Global Learning Fellow In your opinion, what is the current goal of the American Public Education System? What should be the goal of the American Public Education System?

I’d say there is a fair amount of consensus with this partial list, that our American Public Education System should strive towards in educating our students to

• be prepared to participate in our democracy, • be responsible citizens, • acquire ‘21st century skills’, • be globally competent, • think critically, • read and write, • and be quantitatively literate.

As a practitioner, I’m fearful, along with many colleagues, that these goals and all that is involved in achieving them is currently being compromised by the policies of accountability and undesirable consequences that are in place. One result is that what happens in schools is to focus on what is easily measured by the assessments for ‘accountability’ such as (arithmetic, spelling, comprehension), at the expense of other skills and understandings that are not easily measured (such as responsibility, collaboration, global competence, critical thinking).

From Betty Bardige , Early Childhood Consultant, Author & Advocate

Today, the central aim of our public education system seems to be: To prepare (some) students to succeed in the worlds of work and continuing (higher) education. (I said “some” because our system is not equitable.)

In a democracy, the central aim of public education needs to be to create an informed, involved, critically-thoughtful citizenry committed to the long-term welfare of the community and the collective pursuit of a just, healthy, and inclusive society. In a country that is founded upon the shared value of equal opportunity, all children must have access to an education that enables them to be full and productive participants in civic, social, economic, and community life. In today’s world, that means promoting global knowledge, cross-cultural communication and competence, wide-ranging curiosity, and the ability to use a variety of technologies to continue to develop knowledge, expertise, and new perspectives and to actively participate in knowledge creation and civic discourse. It also means building emotional as well as cognitive intelligence.

The Common Core , which promotes critical and creative thinking, deep content knowledge, analytic and problem-solving skills, and effective communication in a variety of forms and contexts

From a child’s perspective, the aim of education is to engender and satisfy curiosity and to build the knowledge and skill needed for self-chosen individual and collaborative pursuits.

At the Mailman-Segal Institute for Early Childhood Studies , the preschool curriculum is based on 5 “c’s: communication, cooperation, creativity, concept development, and critical thinking. The curriculum incorporates other important c’s as well: culture, community, curiosity, content knowledge (in a wide range of areas that interest children), and coping strategies, along with the ongoing development of physical competence and health-promoting habits. That’s a pretty good list of educational aims.

We’ve built our education system upside down, with narrow “college and career ready” aims and easily tested skills at the top driving and often crowding out the broader “whole child” aims that - according to extensive research - are actually critical to achieving college and career readiness. Ellen Galinsky’s book, Mind in the Making , summarizes these “seven essential life skills:" focus and self-control, perspective-taking, communicating, making connections, critical thinking, taking on challenges, and self-directed, engaged learning.

Several years ago, I participated in a conference on “Quality Education as a Civil Right,” convened by the Algebra Project , the Young People’s Project , and Howard University . The conference brought together educators (pre-K - 12), academics, civil rights activists, and students from across the U.S.. There was a surprising amount of consensus among the various groups as to what constituted a “quality education.” Although they used different words, all groups called for an approach that balanced building knowledge and skills needed to obtain satisfying work at good wages with opportunities to pursue individual passions and curiosity and a values-based commitment to community responsibility and social justice.

The opinions expressed in Reimagining K-12 are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

A teacher talking with students in a ramshackle one-room schoolhouse in 1940.

America’s founders believed civic education and historical knowledge would prevent tyranny – and foster democracy

Professor of American History, Università di Torino

Disclosure statement

Maurizio Valsania does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

The majority of Americans today are anxious; they believe their democracy is under threat .

In fact, democracies deteriorate easily. As was feared since the times of Greek philosopher Plato , they may suddenly succumb to mob rule . The people will think they have an inalienable right to manifest their opinions – which means to state out loud whatever passes through their minds. They will act accordingly, often violently. They will make questionable decisions .

Democracies may pave the way to tyrants. Self-serving leaders will appear. They will seek to rewrite national history by purging it of complexity and inconvenient truths . They will capitalize on the widespread frustration and profit from the chaotic situation.

Should these leaders seize power, they will curtail the people’s participation in politics. They will discriminate based on race, sex or religion. They will create barriers to democratic participation by certain constituents , including moral tests or literacy tests .

So, one way democracies degenerate is because of cunning leaders. But democracies crumble also because of the people themselves. As an intellectual historian , I can assure you that the specter of an ignorant populace holding sway has kept many philosophers, writers and politicians awake.

The American founders were at the forefront in the battle against popular ignorance. They even concocted a plan for a national public university .

A portrait of Thomas Jefferson in his later years, wearing a black jacket, white shirt and looking dignified, as befits a president.

No democracy without education

Baron Montesquieu , a French philosopher who lived from 1689 to 1755, was a revolutionary figure. He had advocated the creation of governments for the people and with the people. But he had also averred that the uneducated would irremediably “act through passion.” Consequently, they “ ought to be directed by those of higher rank, and restrained within bounds .”

The men known as America’s Founding Fathers, likewise, were very sensitive to this issue. For them, not all voters were created equal. George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton trusted the people – “the people” being, for them, white property-owning males , of course. But only if and when they had a sufficient level of literacy.

Thomas Jefferson was the most democratic-minded of the group. His vision of the new American nation entailed “a government by its citizens, in mass, acting directly and personally, according to rules established by the majority .”

He once gauged himself against George Washington: “The only point on which he and I ever differed in opinion,” Jefferson wrote, “was, that I had more confidence than he had in the natural integrity and discretion of the people .”

The paradox was that, for Jefferson himself, the “natural integrity” of the people needed to be cultivated: “ Their minds must be improved to a certain degree .” So, while the people are potentially the “safe depositories” for a democratic nation, in reality they have to go through a training process.

Jefferson was adamant, almost obsessive: the young country should “ illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large .” More precisely, let’s “give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits.”

“ Educate and inform the whole mass of the people,” he kept repeating. It was an axiom in his mind “that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that too of the people with a certain degree of instruction .”

Education had direct implications for democracy: “Wherever the people are well-informed,” wrote Jefferson , “they can be trusted with their own government.”

A national university

In 1787, Benjamin Rush , the Philadelphia doctor and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, published an “Address to the People of the United States.”

One of his main topics was the establishment of a “ federal university ” in which “every thing connected with government, such as history – the law of nature and nations – the civil law – the municipal laws of our country – and the principles of commerce – would be taught by competent professors.” Rush saw this plan as essential, should an experiment in democracy be attempted.

The top floor of the red brick Congress Hall in Philadelphia.

George Washington stressed the same idea. At the end of his second term as president, in December 1796, Washington delivered his Eighth Annual Message to the Senate and the House of Representatives. He wished to awaken Congress to the “desirableness” of “ a national university and also a military academy” whose wings would span over as many citizens as possible.

In his message, Washington embraced bold positions: “The more homogeneous our citizens can be made,” he claimed, “the greater will be our prospect of permanent union.”

Democracy’s ‘safe depositories’

A national university homogenizing the American people would likely be ill-received today anyway. We live in an age of race, gender and sexual awareness. Ours is an era of multiculturalism , the sacrosanct acknowledgment and celebration of difference.

But Washington’s idea that the goal of public education was to make citizens somewhat more “homogeneous” is worth reconsidering.

Were President Washington alive today, I believe he would provide his recipe for the people to remain the “safe depositories” of democracy. He would insist on giving them better training in history, as both Rush and Jefferson also advised. And he would especially press for teaching deeper, more encompassing political values.

He would say that schools and universities must teach the people that in their political values they should go beyond separate identities and what makes them different.

He would trust that, armed with such a common understanding, they would foster a “permanent union” and thus save democracy.

[ Understand what’s going on in Washington. Sign up for The Conversation’s Politics Weekly .]

Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
Alexander Hamilton

Case Management Specialist

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

The need for civic education in 21st-century schools

Download the full report

Subscribe to the Center for Universal Education Bulletin

Rebecca winthrop rebecca winthrop director - center for universal education , senior fellow - global economy and development @rebeccawinthrop.

June 4, 2020

14 min read

Americans’ participation in civic life is essential to sustaining our democratic form of government. Without it, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people will not last. Of increasing concern to many is the declining levels of civic engagement across the country, a trend that started several decades ago. Today, we see evidence of this in the limited civic knowledge of the American public, 1 in 4 of whom, according to a 2016 survey led by Annenberg Public Policy Center, are unable to name the three branches of government. It is not only knowledge about how the government works that is lacking—confidence in our leadership is also extremely low. According to the Pew Research Center , which tracks public trust in government, as of March 2019, only an unnerving 17 percent trust the government in Washington to do the right thing. We also see this lack of engagement in civic behaviors, with Americans’ reduced participation in community organizations and lackluster participation in elections , especially among young voters. 1

Many reasons undoubtedly contribute to this decline in civic engagement: from political dysfunction to an actively polarized media to the growing mobility of Americans and even the technological transformation of leisure , as posited by Robert D. Putnam. Of particular concern is the rise of what Matthew N. Atwell, John Bridgeland, and Peter Levine call “civic deserts,” namely places where there are few to no opportunities for people to “meet, discuss issues, or address problems.” They estimate that 60 percent of all rural youth live in civic deserts along with 30 percent of urban and suburban Americans. Given the decline of participation in religious organizations and unions, which a large proportion of Americans consistently engaged in over the course of the 20th century, it is clear that new forms of civic networks are needed in communities.

As one of the few social institutions present in virtually every community across America, schools can and should play an important role in catalyzing increased civic engagement. They can do this by helping young people develop and practice the knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors needed to participate in civic life. Schools can also directly provide opportunities for civic engagement as a local institution that can connect young and old people alike across the community. To do this, civic learning needs to be part and parcel of the current movement across many schools in America to equip young people with 21st-century skills.

To date however, civic education experts argue that civic learning is on the margins of young people’s school experience. The 2018 Brown Center Report on American Education examined the status of civic education and found that while reading and math scores have improved in recent years, there has not been the commensurate increase in eighth grade civics knowledge. While 42 states and the District of Columbia require at least one course related to civics, few states prioritize the range of strategies, such as service learning which is only included in the standards for 11 states, that is required for an effective civic education experience. The study also found that high school social studies teachers are some of the least supported teachers in schools and report teaching larger numbers of students and taking on more non-teaching responsibilities like coaching school sports than other teachers. Student experience reinforces this view that civic learning is not a central concern of schools. Seventy percent of 12th graders say they have never written a letter to give an opinion or solve a problem and 30 percent say they have never taken part in a debate—all important parts of a quality civic learning.

The origins of civic education

The fact that children today across the country wake up in the morning and go to school five days a week for most of the year has everything to do with civic education. The idea of a shared school experience where all young people in America receive a standard quality education is inextricably linked to the development of the United States as a national entity and the development of citizens who had the skills and knowledge to engage in a democracy.

In the early 1800s, as the country struggled to navigate what it meant to be a democratic republic, school as we know it did not exist as a distinguishing feature of childhood. Even almost midway into the century—in 1840—only 40 percent of the population ages 5 to 19 attended school. 2 For those who did attend, what they learned while at school was widely variable depending on the institution they attended and the instructor they had. Several education leaders began advocating for a more cohesive school system, one in which all young people could attend and receive similar instruction regardless of economic status, institution, or location. Chief among these leaders was Horace Mann, often referred to as the “father of American education,” who argued that free, standardized, and universal schooling was essential to the grand American experiment of self-governance. In an 1848 report he wrote: “It may be an easy thing to make a Republic; but it is a very laborious thing to make Republicans; and woe to the republic that rests upon no better foundations than ignorance, selfishness, and passion.”

The rise of reading, math, and science

The Common Schools Movement that Mann helped establish and design was the foundation of our current American education system. Despite the fact that the core of our education system was built upon the belief that schooling institutions have a central role to play in preparing American youth to be civically engaged, this goal has been pushed to the margins over time as other educational objectives have moved to the forefront. Reading, math, and science have always been essential elements of a child’s educational experience, but many educationalists argue that these subjects were elevated above all others after the country’s “Sputnik moment.” In 1957, the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik, the first space satellite, made waves across the U.S. as Americans perceived they were falling behind academically and scientifically. A wave of reforms including in math, science, and engineering education followed. Improving students poor reading and math skills received particular attention over the last several decades including in President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act. A focus on ensuring American students get strong STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) skills continues to be an ongoing concern, as highlighted by President Obama’s 2013 Educate to Innovate plan focused on improving American students performance in STEM subjects.

The case for incorporating 21st-century skills

Civic learning experts, however, are not the only ones concerned about the perceived narrow focus on reading, math, and science in American schools. In recent years, there has been a growing movement for schools to help students develop “21st-century skills” alongside academic competencies, driven in large part by frequent reports of employers unsatisfied with the skills of recent school graduates. Business leaders point out that they not only need employees who are smart and competent in math and reading and writing, they also need people who can lead teams, communicate effectively to partners, come up with new ways to solve problems, and effectively navigate an increasingly digital world. With the rise of automation , there is an increasing premium on non-routine and higher order thinking skills across both blue collar and white collar jobs. A recent study of trends in the U.S. labor market shows that social skills that are increasingly in demand 3 and many employers are struggling to find people with the sets of skills they need.

Advances in the science of learning have bolstered the 21st-century skills movement. Learning scientists argue that young people master math, reading, and science much better if they have an educational experience that develops their social and emotional learning competencies—like self-awareness and relationship skills which are the foundation of later workplace skills—and puts academic learning in a larger, more meaningful context. One framework, among many, that articulates the breadth of skills and competencies young people need to succeed in a fast-changing world comes from learning scientists Kathy Hirsh-Pasek and Roberta Golinkoff. Their “6 Cs” framework , a variation on the prior “4 Cs” framework, is widely used and argues that schools should focus on helping young people develop not just academically, but as people. As all learning is fundamentally social, students must learn to collaborate , laying an important foundation for communication —an essential prerequisite for mastering the academic content in school that provides the specific topics around which students can practice critical thinking and creative innovation , and which ultimately will help develop the confidence to take risks and iterate on failures.

This movement for 21st-century skills has powerful allies and growing momentum even while the movement itself is comprised of an eclectic collection of organizations spread across the country with a wide range of interests and multiple missions for their work. However, a central thread is that the standardized approach to education, the legacy of Horace Mann’s Common Schools movement, is holding back student learning. Teacher-led instruction, for example, will never be sufficient for helping students learn to collaborate with each other or create new things. Active and experiential learning is required, which is harder to standardize as the specifics must be adapted to the particular communities and learners.

Civic learning as an essential 21st-century skill

This focus on mastering academic subjects through a teaching and learning approach that develops 21st-century skills is important but brings with it a worldview that focuses on the development of the individual child to the exclusion of the political. After all, one could argue that the leaders of the terrorist organization ISIS display excellence in key 21st-century skills such as collaboration, creativity, confidence, and navigating the digital world. Their ability to work together to bring in new recruits, largely through on-line strategies, and pull off terrorist attacks with relatively limited resources takes a great deal of ingenuity, teamwork, perseverance, and problem solving. Of course, the goals of Islamic extremists and their methods of inflicting violence on civilians are morally unacceptable in almost any corner of the globe, but creative innovation they have in abundance.

What the 21st-century skills movement is missing is an explicit focus on social values. Schools always impart values, whether intentionally or not. From the content in the curriculum to the language of instruction to the way in which teachers interact with students, ideas around what is good and what is bad are constantly being modeled and taught. While a number of competencies that are regularly included in 21st-century skills frameworks, like the ability to work with others, have implicit values such as respect for others’ perspectives, they do not explicitly impart strong norms and values about society. Of course, as long as there has been public education there has been heated debate about whose values should be privileged, especially in relation to deeply held religious and cultural beliefs. From the teaching of evolution and creationism to transgender bathrooms, debates on values in public schools can be contentious.

In a democracy, however, the values that are at the core of civic learning are different. They are foundational to helping young people develop the dispositions needed to actively engage in civic life and maintain the norms by which Americans debate and decide their differences. The very nature of developing and sustaining a social norm means that a shared or common experience across all schools is needed. While civic learning has been essential throughout American history, in this age of growing polarization and rising civic deserts, it should be considered an essential component of a 21st-century education.

Civic learning defined

The term civic learning evokes for most Americans their high school civics class in which they learned about the U.S. Constitution, the three branches of government, and how a bill becomes a law. This knowledge and information is essential—after all how can young people be expected to actively participate in democracy if they are unaware of the basic rules of the game?—but it is by no means sufficient. There is an emerging consensus across the many scholars and organizations that work on civic learning that imparting knowledge must be paired with developing civic attitudes and behaviors. For example, CivXNow , a bipartisan coalition of over one hundred actors including academic and research institutions, learning providers, and philanthropic organizations, argues that civic education must include a focus on:

Civic knowledge and skills: where youth gain an understanding of the processes of government, prevalent political ideologies, civic and constitutional rights, and the history and heritage of the above.
Civic values and dispositions: where youth gain an appreciation for civil discourse, free speech, and engaging with those whose perspectives differ from their own.
Civic behaviors: where students develop the civic agency and confidence to vote, volunteer, attend public meetings, and engage with their communities.

There is also emerging evidence suggesting a correlation between high quality civic learning programs and increased civic engagement from students. As the 2011 Guardian of Democracy: The Civic Mission of Schools report highlights, students who receive high quality civic education are more likely to “understand public issues, view political engagement as a means of addressing communal challenges, and participate in civic activities.” The outcomes are equally as influential on civic equality, as there is evidence to suggest that poor, minority, rural, and urban students who receive high-quality civics education perform better than their counterparts.

Civic learning delivered

The crucial question is how to deliver high-quality civic learning across American schools. Researchers in civic learning have reviewed a wide range of approaches and the evidence surrounding their effectiveness. Experts identified a menu of six specific approaches , which was later updated to ten, that if implemented well has been demonstrated to advance civic learning. These range from teaching young people about civics to creating learning opportunities for practicing civic behaviors.

Classroom instruction, including discussing current events and developing media literacy skills, is needed for developing civic knowledge and skills, whether it is delivered as a stand-alone course or lessons integrated into other subjects. Many in the civics education community are advocating for more time devoted to civics from the elementary grades through high school and the corresponding teacher professional development and support required to make this a reality.

However, for developing civic dispositions, values, and behaviors, the promising practices identified by the civic learning experts are very similar to those required to develop 21st-century skills in part because many of the competencies in question are essentially the same. For example, strong communication skills contribute to the ability of students to speak up at meetings and strong collaboration skills enable them to effectively work with others in their community. Indeed, the Center for Educational Equity at Teachers College notes that “civic and political values are a subset of the values that young people should learn, and there are no sharp lines separating the civic/political domain from others.”

Hence, the range of teaching and learning experiences needed to develop civic behaviors and needed for 21st-century skills are similar. They include experiential learning approaches, such as service learning where students work on a community project alongside organizations or extracurricular activities where students learn to work together in teams. Experiential learning can also include simulations of democratic procedures or, better yet, direct engagement in school governance and school climate initiatives. In communities where there is limited opportunities for civic engagement, schools can themselves model civic values by becoming the place where community members gather and connect with each other.

Uniting the 21st-century skills and civic learning movements

A movement for 21st-century skills that does not include in a meaningful way the cultivation of democratic values is incomplete and will not prepare young people to thrive in today’s world. Given what is at stake in terms of civic engagement in America, uniting the powerful push for 21st-century skills with the less well-resourced but equally important movement for civic learning could prove to be an important strategy for helping schools fill the civic desert vacuum and renew the social norms that underpin our democratic form of government. In the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, “Civic education, like all education, is a continuing enterprise and conversation. Each generation has an obligation to pass on to the next, not only a fully functioning government responsive to the needs of the people, but the tools to understand and improve it.”

Better communication, support: New Brevard school board District 4 candidate talks goals

After 18 years as a flight attendant, mom Crystal Kazy is ready to take on a new challenge: Brevard's Ditrict 4 seat on the school board.

"As a mother of two (Brevard Public Schools) students, I have had time to witness the accomplishments and the failures of District 4 leadership," she said. "I would like to run for this office to address the failures and weaknesses that I have witnessed."

Kazy, the mother of two high schoolers, filed to run for school board on April 26. She's the third candidate to file to run against incumbent board member Matt Susin, who filed to run for the District 4 seat again in June of 2023. Avanese Taylor, mom of a high schooler and an active duty member of the Navy , filed in December 2023. Max Madl, a high school senior at Viera High , filed in January.

Kazy's goals: improve school security, provide more mental health resources, give better support for all BPS staff, and implement better water purification systems at schools located near Patrick Space Force Base.

School safety: better communication needed

Safety and security is the area Kazy is most passionate about, she said. While the district does an "exemplary job" in this area, she said, she feels there are problems when it comes to communication about threats and incidents from administration to students and parents.

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

"It is so critical for principals to convey information, without divulging security safety sensitive related information, in such a manner that comforts the parent to know that their child is safe without being dismissive," she said.

Senior assassins safety: Are your kids playing 'senior assassins'? Brevard police departments offer safety tips

Kazy feels that when incidents arise, the communication between administrators and parents differs from school to school, with some schools providing facts about an incident while others keep all details vague. Students' educational records are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, though it doesn't necessarily cover the details of a safety-related incident.

Transparent communication is something the board should be a leader on, Kazy said.

"I believe it's entirely possible for a school board member to represent the district and to lead and to demonstrate that we are serious about the communication, and we're not trying to conceal or hide anything," she said.

Increase support for teachers, support staff

Kazy wants to see more support not only for teachers, but also for staff members like custodians and bus drivers.

"Obviously, we love our teachers, but there are support staff (members) that need more recognition," she said.

Last board meeting: Public to Brevard school board: Find and address root causes of increased discipline rates

She brought up concerns about teachers' salaries as well, referencing a recent report published by the National Education Association. With the average teacher salary being $53,098 in Florida, the Sunshine State ranks at No. 50 in the nation. The national average is $69,544.

"I know from being at school board meetings that there is room in the budget to increase teacher salaries ... and I plan to address that," she said.

Purify water at schools near Patrick Space Force Base

Kazy wants to put better water purification systems into areas impacted by Patrick Space Force Base and the "forever chemicals" in the area . It's something she's passionate about, as she was a narrator on the Spirit of Pennekamp boat tour at John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park prior to being a flight attendant. There, she spoke about conservation and the environment.

"That burning passion inside of me has not extinguished yet," she said. "I would like to see if there's room in the budget to do this, because we want the students to be able to have access to safer water ... at least while they're at school."

She's spoken to several environmentalists in the area, and together, they've collected data to show that this is a worthwhile investment, she said. If elected, she plans to advocate for higher end water purification very early on.

Empowering parents

From witnesses disrespectful exchanges at school board meetings to a lack of transparency from administrators at her childrens' school, communication has been an issue for Kazy. It's something she feels is her strong suit. While working for Delta Connection, she was an advocate for new hire flight attendants, assisting them in areas like navigating attendance grievances, how to pack a lunch bag so they could have healthy meals between flights and more.

"I really do enjoy communicating one-on-one with people, and really listening to the crux of the problem," she said. "I was always there to listen to the issue and seek resolution."

Because the race is nonpartisan, Kazy hopes to help parents across the political spectrum.

"I would love to empower parents to feel comfortable to speak up and to speak to me when there are problems," she said. "My goal is to assist every parent, regardless of their background, regardless of their political affiliation. It's just as if they were a passenger on my aircraft. No person is going to be more important just because of their political affiliation."

Finch Walker is the education reporter at FLORIDA TODAY. Contact Walker at [email protected] . X: @_ finchwalker .

Akron Public Schools reorganization plan cuts $24 million, 285 positions by July 1

A kron Public Schools administrators are proposing $24 million in cuts ahead of next year , including the elimination of 285 positions across the district.

Of the 285 positions, which represent just over 6% of staff in the district, about 170 will be reductions of people currently in jobs. The rest of the cuts will be achieved through attrition.

The Akron Education Association, which represents teachers and tutors, is losing about 200 positions, including 66.5 classroom jobs, 58 non-classroom jobs and 77 noncertified substitute teachers. Many of those substitute teachers were hired using stimulus dollars that will be expiring. The district will still have tutors funded through federal Title 1 dollars.

Superintendent Michael Robinson said the goal was to preserve as much classroom instruction as possible.

"The goal is to make sure that's the place we touch last," Robinson said.

The superintendent and his human capital department team presented the "Fiscal Reorganizational & Restructuring Plan" to the board's finance and capital management committee.

The full school board will vote Monday on the reductions in force. After that, employees will receive notice if they are impacted by the cuts. Employees could still be recalled later if enough people leave the district voluntarily or if enrollment shifts.

The $24 million was a higher number than had previously been shared publicly. Robinson had said he would "strive" to cut at least $15 million, which is about 4% of the district's budget.

Robinson said Monday that $15 million was the minimum for cuts, and they were not dependent on whether the district passes a levy.

"With or without a levy, we still may have to come back and make additional cuts," he said.

Class sizes may increase, he said, "and to the maximum, perhaps, if we are not able to get a levy."

The list of proposed cuts includes 16 administrators, although it's not clear if those are building administrators or central office staff. The list also includes 11 custodial, maintenance or transportation workers and 15 clerical or support positions.

Akron Education Association President Pat Shipe said the large number of cuts within the teacher's union was a concern.

"I am concerned with the amount of cuts made to AEA members and and teachers that directly affects student, and the very sparse cuts that are not even over all the bargaining units," she said. "Not that I want to see any of them cut, I want to make make it very clear, but it seems to be disproportionate."

Shipe said the impact would be larger class sizes for Akron students. And for employees, she said, it's already mid-May and they don't know if they will have a job in July.

"I'm concerned that it's at the last minute again, like so many things that are presented to the board," Shipe said. "When you have to notify people, these are employees, they have families, they're employees of the board. And they still have not been notified [in] the middle of May when there are major decisions that they have to be making."

From a dollar standpoint, departments that will see cuts over $1 million include College and Career Academies, the office of school improvement, curriculum and instruction, the office of special education, talent and organizational development, and student services. Safety and security will be cut by almost $500,000. The district has not yet named specific programs that will see reductions.

Robinson said his team "left no stone unturned in our efforts to ensure fiscal stability and operational efficiency."

"I tasked my team with conducting a comprehensive review, but also looking closer at what is working and what needs adjustments," Robinson said. "We have carefully evaluated what is working well, identified areas needing improvement and areas that we can no longer financially afford to continue. While these decisions are difficult, they are essential to ensure the ongoing progress of our school district."

The school board already committed to making the cuts in concept, approving a five-year forecast to submit to the state that promised to make the trims before the next fiscal year begins July 1.

Robinson has also previously said this would be the first of likely several rounds of cuts over the next two to four years in the district, which is facing declining enrollment and also the drop-off of federal stimulus dollars from the pandemic, which end in September. The district has also gone 12 years without passing a levy, despite inflation and new labor contracts that have increased costs. The state legislature also has not committed to fully implementing its new funding formula, which allocates more money to high-need districts like Akron over a period of years.

Monday's presentation also includes "over-staffing," additional, unplanned expenditures added to the budget in the last year and "too large of a facilities footprint."

The board has been weighing a levy request, possibly on the November ballot. But board members have also talked honestly about needing to rebuild trust in the community ahead of such an ask. Transparency, they have said, will be key to that trust.

Despite it being a committee meeting, which does not usually include public comment, the board took comments at the end of the presentation Monday, although those who spoke were there to do so on another topic.

Midway through the meeting, board members walked out of the room in a group because of a concern they had too many members present for a committee meeting. Reporters walked with the board members to where they gathered in a back room to speak with an attorney, although they had not declared a need for an executive session.

The board members permitted reporters to speak with the attorney, who explained the possible issue of having too many board members could be that it becomes a quorum for a regular meeting, and action could be taken in violation of Open Meetings Act law. No action was taken at the meeting, which resumed after board members appeared to decide the meeting could continue as is.

Contact education reporter Jennifer Pignolet at [email protected], at 330-996-3216 or on Twitter @JenPignolet.

This article originally appeared on Akron Beacon Journal: Akron Public Schools reorganization plan cuts $24 million, 285 positions by July 1

The Akron Public Schools Sylvester Small Administration Building, Monday, Feb. 12, 2024, in Akron, Ohio.

IMAGES

How To Achieve Educational Goals
3 Goals of education by hisgirl92
38 Examples of SMART Goals for Students (2022) (2022)
22+ SMART Teacher Goals Examples in 2023
Goals of Public Education Funds: Important or Very Important
Public education: concept, federal standards, stages of development, goals and objectives

COMMENTS

The Big Picture: The Three Goals of Public Education
Goal 2: Active Civic Participation. Things are more dismal on the education-for-democracy front. Many reformers have so enshrined the importance of choice, privatization, and job preparation that they ignore the widely accepted purposes that have traditionally sustained free, public education in this country.
PDF History and Evolution of Public Education in the US
These roles are an outgrowth of why public schools came into being and how they have evolved. This publication briefly reviews that history. For a look at how these historical purposes shape education today, see CEP's 2020 publication, For the Common Good: Recommitting to Public Education in a Time of Crisis, available at www.cep-dc.org.
What Is the Purpose of School?
Perhaps the most promising model is actually a bottom-up one. The community schools movement aims to build academic and social-service partnerships on school campuses. And a recent review of 19 ...
Policy Dialogue: The Meaning and Purpose of Public Education
The goal of NPE is to connect all those who are passionate about our schools - students, parents, teachers and citizens. We share information and research on vital issues that concern the future of public education at a time when it is under attack. ... Issue 1), published by Cambridge University Press, a thoughtful, in-depth conversation ...
11.2 The Competing Goals of Public Education: A Historical Perspective
Each of these goals, Labaree argued, tacitly guides the direction of public education policy. At times, these three goals compete against the other goals' inherent aims, i.e., public goods versus private goods. In some cases, such as social mobility, there are internal contradictions, or aporias, within a single goal's overall aims.
8.2 The Competing Goals of Public Education: A Historical Perspective
David Labaree (1997), an educational historian, argued that there have been three overarching goals of public education in the United States since the inception of public education in the 1800's: 1) democratic equality, 2) social efficiency, and 3) social mobility. A democratic equality goal aims at educating an engaged citizenry capable of ...
1.8 Purpose: What is Education For, Really?
Bill Honig, a former Califonia Superintendent of Public Instruction and founder of the Consortium of Reading Excellence (CORE), suggests that public education has three purposes: job preparation, active civic participation, and leading a full life. A 2016 poll found that 45% of Americans think the main purpose of education is preparing students ...
Mission of the U.S. Department of Education
Congress established the U.S. Department of Education (ED) on May 4, 1980, in the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88 of October 1979). Under this law, ED's mission is to: Strengthen the Federal commitment to assuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual; Supplement and complement the efforts of ...
PDF Why We Still Need Public Schools
ship in a democratic society). An emphasis on the individual goals of education is especially obvious in proposals to give families vouchers toward private school tuition—proposals that treat education as a private consumer good. This publication from the Center on Education Policy revisits the "public" missions of American public education.
8.2 The Competing Goals of Public Education: A Historical Perspective
Each of these goals, Labaree argued, tacitly guides the direction of public education policy. At times, these three goals compete against the inherent aims of the other goals, i.e., public goods versus private goods. In some cases, such as social mobility, there are internal contradictions, or aporias, within a single goal's overall aims.
4 Core Purposes of Education, According to Sir Ken Robinson
The author argues that education should expand our consciousness, capabilities, sensitivities, and cultural understanding. He proposes four core purposes of education: personal, cultural, economic, and social.
Public Education
Public education first gained a foothold in American in the 1830's. The goal of such education was to create a literate and productive citizenry with a common system of morals. Today, the ...
The Goals of Education
How NCLB and other accountability policies have shifted the curricular focus from other important subjects to math and reading. The article examines the evidence, the consequences, and the public opinion on the goals of public education.
What is the Goal of the American Education System?
1. I think most Americans would agree with me that the goal of the American public education system is to prepare students to be responsible, healthy, engaged, self-aware citizens and experts in ...
Begin With The End: What's The Purpose Of Schooling?
The country shifted by creating a new role for public schools: to prepare everyone for vocations. That meant providing something for everyone, with a flourishing of tracks and courses and ...
PDF Our Next Assignment: WHERE AMERICANS STAND ON PUBLIC K-12 EDUCATION
• Although preparing students academically is the most often cited goal of public education, Americans also believe that schools should prepare students to be good citizens and for work. While about half— 45 percent—of Americans believe that the main goal of public education should be to prepare students
Overview and Mission Statement
Overview and Mission Statement. ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. ED was created in 1980 by combining offices from several federal agencies. ED's 4,400 employees and $68 billion budget are dedicated to:
America's founders believed civic education and historical knowledge
But Washington's idea that the goal of public education was to make citizens somewhat more "homogeneous" is worth reconsidering. Were President Washington alive today, I believe he would ...
FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Actions to Build
Answering the President's call to action to get more adults in schools supporting students: The Department, AmeriCorps, and the Everyone Graduates Center at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) launched the National Partnership for Student Success (NPSS), a public-private partnership in Summer 2022 to meet the President's goal of bringing 250,000 new ...
The need for civic education in 21st-century schools
As the 2011 Guardian of Democracy: The Civic Mission of Schools report highlights, students who receive high quality civic education are more likely to "understand public issues, view political ...
What is the role of public education in the US?
Role of American public education. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chair Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said the role of American public education is "to teach reading, writing, arithmetic and what it means to be an American citizen" — a sentiment echoed by Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) in remarks during an unrelated event ...
PDF Public School Principals' Three Most Important Education Goals, by
In the 2015-16 NTPS, public school principals were asked to identify their top three most important education goals from a list of academic and social-emotional priorities. Overall, 72 percent selected "Building basic literacy skills," 69 percent chose "Encouraging academic excellence," and 54 percent placed "Promoting good work ...
Our Mission, Vision, & Values
The National Education Association. We, the members of the National Education Association of the United States, are the voice of education professionals. Our work is fundamental to the nation, and we accept the profound trust placed in us. Our Vision. Our vision is a great public school for every student. Our Mission
Mom, flight attendant files for Brevard school board's District 4 seat
After 18 years as a flight attendant, mom Crystal Kazy is ready to take on a new challenge: Brevard's Ditrict 4 seat on the school board. "As a mother of two (Brevard Public Schools) students, I ...
Communicating Policy
The Carsey School's Washington, D.C., Colloquium gives students front-row access to meetings with public policy institutions. Students learn about career paths across multiple sectors, discuss the current policy landscape, and connect with working professionals for networking and career building opportunities.
Lincoln Board of Education approves pay increases, designates
The Lincoln Board of Education Tuesday approved pay increases and designated Juneteenth as a paid holiday for Lincoln Public Schools employees. ... on our goal of providing an excellent education ...
How Public Interest Communication Can Improve the World
Public interest communications is a discipline that uses strategic communication to address social problems and create positive change. People who work in the field prioritize benefits to society over the interests of any one organization. The goal is to use communication to make people care about important issues and convince them to take action.
Akron Public Schools reorganization plan cuts $24 million, 285 ...
The Akron Public Schools board on Monday will hear the plan to cut millions of dollars from the district's budget ahead of next school year. The superintendent is presenting the "Fiscal ...
May 2024
The goal of the Massachusetts public K-12 education system is to prepare all students for success after high school. Massachusetts public school students are leading the nation in reading and math and are at the top internationally in reading, science, and math according to the national NAEP and international PISA assessments.
Portland Superintendent's Notebook: Final goals and summer plans as the
As we approach the close of the school year, Portland Public Schools is focused on some final goals. One is the successful passage of a school budget for the 2024-25 school year.

Building Better Schools

The Big Picture The Three Goals of Public Education

Goal 1: Job Preparation

Recent Developments

BBS Companion Article

Reference Notes

2 thoughts on “ The Big Picture: The Three Goals of Public Education ”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Policy Dialogue: The Meaning and Purpose of Public Education

60 11.2 The Competing Goals of Public Education: A Historical Perspective

Consolidating Understanding Activity

Share This Book

8.2 The Competing Goals of Public Education: A Historical Perspective

Consolidating Understanding Activity

Share This Book

You Earned a Ticket!

Purpose: What is Education For, Really?

In This Lesson

Which of the following is MOST TRUE about the purpose of universal public education?

Questions & Comments

Gail Arenberg October 1, 2019 at 3:26 pm

Sharing is caring!

Share via Email

Can't find school? Search by City or contact us . More than one school? Select the school of your youngest child enrolled in K-12. No School? Type "No School" and click the "Next" button.

8. History of American Education

Consolidating Understanding Activity

What Is Education For?

Eight Core Competencies

The Goals of Education

Sign up to stay informed

Track EPI on Twitter

What is the Goal of the American Education System?

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

America’s founders believed civic education and historical knowledge would prevent tyranny – and foster democracy

Disclosure statement

No democracy without education

A national university

Democracy’s ‘safe depositories’

Case Management Specialist

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

The need for civic education in 21st-century schools

Subscribe to the Center for Universal Education Bulletin

The origins of civic education

The rise of reading, math, and science

The case for incorporating 21st-century skills

Civic learning as an essential 21st-century skill

Civic learning defined

Civic learning delivered

Uniting the 21st-century skills and civic learning movements

Better communication, support: New Brevard school board District 4 candidate talks goals

School safety: better communication needed

Increase support for teachers, support staff

Purify water at schools near Patrick Space Force Base

Empowering parents

Akron Public Schools reorganization plan cuts $24 million, 285 positions by July 1

IMAGES

COMMENTS