In the public conversations surrounding schooling and education in the United States, seldom is a discussion focused specifically on learning or teaching. Swaths of stories published in the media echo the same witless “debates” characterized by passionate diatribes from sleek “ed reformers,” party-line talking points parroted by laughably out of touch talking heads, and well-meaning complaints from furious PTA members: arguments for or against high stakes standardized testing; disagreements over the efficacy (or the political and ethical underpinnings) of the Common Core State Standards; clamor over the benefits and costs of charter systems taking over traditional public schools; legal action threatened over school dress code violations. As these conversations flirt across newspaper and blogs like tabloid headlines, though, veteran educators themselves are pointing to the proverbial elephant lumbering around the edges of the room: we desperately need a national discussion about the purpose of education in this country.

Outside Decision Makers

Not unlike other fields that have become overtly politicized - medicine, for example - education is brimming with non-experts who are at the ready with studies and statistics (or readying a shovel to bury the studies and statistics, as is sometimes the case) to support a litany of opinions all while teachers, students, and families grow increasingly weary of politics replacing professional vigor.

On the other hand, the public has seen politicians spin a single statistical measure to mean two different things at different times as convenience dictates. Compare, for example, Secretary Duncan’s reaction to NAEP scores from two different years - the first reaction from 2013 after rising scores…

It is particularly heartening that reading scores for eighth graders are up, after remaining relatively flat for the last decade… while progress on the NAEP continues to vary among the states, all eight states that had implemented the state-crafted Common Core State Standards at the time of the 2013 NAEP assessment showed improvement in at least one of the Reading and/or Mathematics assessments from 2009 to 2013 — and none of the eight states had a decline in scores.

— Arne Duncan, 2013

… and the second in 2015 after stagnating and sagging scores:

Big change never happens overnight. I’m confident that over the next decade, if we stay committed to this change, we will see historic improvements.

— Arne Duncan, 2015

Certainly this type of rhetorical sidestepping is expected, but the real point I take issue with is the very level at which the national discourse exists in the first place. The biggest problem I have with the partisan debate that includes Arne Duncan’s above comments, for example, is that the debate can only be meaningful if we’ve first established clear first principles about education. And we most certainly haven’t.

First Principles

Let me be clear: these discussions about testing, teacher pay, etc. are not inherently without merit. But as with many armchair-style debates (think two former high school athletes arguing about a coaching call while watching an NFL game on Thanksgiving), the mainstream discourse on education is farcical at best.

Put shortly: we are missing the point.

This is to say that, when it really comes down to it, we’re really not sure what education is for in the first place and, worse yet, we don’t even realize it. For all the talk about state standards, rigor, grit, and all the other jargon, no one is leading a real conversation about what the point of all this is to begin with.

Sports fans trading blows over an unthinkable oversight by a pro football coach is good fun, but when it comes to education this existential carelessness is less boorish and more dangerous. The stakes are the future itself: our children’s lives and the world they will inherit. If we collectively permit ourselves to take a wanton, uninformed, or maligned approach to developing our basic cultural position about the fundamental purpose of education, then we are building the foundation of the country’s future on sand rather than stone.

Imperative Rather Than Idealistic

In technological and geopolitical terms we will soon be arriving at a crossroads at which we will have the capability to question our entire educational paradigm. Why go to school at all if all information is freely and easily accessible? Is there a purpose to schooling beyond information acquisition? What is the discrete significance of a college degree if degrees become ubiquitous? Which jobs are the least likely to be automated and shouldn’t we steer students away from those careers?

If we have not grappled with the first principles of education before we attempt to confront the barrage of problems the coming decades will bring, we are gravely failing our children and grandchildren.

While it may seem idealistic to believe that the country could agree upon a tangible and useful set of first principles about education, I hold that it is not a matter of ideals but rather a matter of necessity. After all, great thinkers and educators have, for their own part, shared more or less common first principles for centuries.

The ultimate end of education is not a perfection in the accomplishments of the school, but fitness for life; not the acquirement of habits of blind obedience, and of prescribed diligence, but a preparation for independent action. We must bear in mind that whatever class of society a pupil may belong to, whatever calling he may be intended for, there are certain faculties in human nature common to all, which constitute the stock of the fundamental energies of man. We have no right to withhold from any one the opportunities for developing all their faculties.

— Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, 1819

It should not be surprising that without a clearly defined philosophy of education from within the teaching profession that outside parties will substitute their own external motivation. Until such time as we are working towards a well-defined common goal, we allow our profession to be subject to external political forces.

Rebuilding Education

To be sure, I am not calling for a national curriculum or conformity to a single philosophy of education. On the contrary, I believe that there are many potentially successful systems that we can build as educators. Indeed it is clear that education systems that empower local decision makers (principals, teachers, and school leaders) to make decisions for themselves and for their local constituents are preferable to those top-down systems that impose a factory model of learning. It is inevitable, though, that the best of these methodologies and pedagogies will share a common student-centered foundation.

Rebuilding education takes us to the very core of our humanity and, in some sense, to build a school is to define what it means to be human. Authentic education is organic, fluid, messy, continuous, and ongoing. Education should serve to unfold (as opposed to “building”) mature adults that are thoughtful, introspective, well-adapted, competent, insightful, creative, and curious. It should serve to develop human potential within the context of cultivating a nuanced, thoughtful mind in a resilient, robust body.

As a teacher I want to develop students who are thoughtful and reflective but also decisive and deliberate. Who are physically capable and, in their own way, athletically inclined. Who are patient with themselves and with others yet eager to improve. Who are both skilled and aware that they are only scratching the surface. Who understand that creativity and innovation are iterative processes - not lightning strikes of enlightenment.

Rebuilding education takes us to the very core of our humanity and, in some sense, to build a school is to define what it means to be human.

And so I am calling on educators and policy makers: before we can craft specific policies that are equitable and reasonable, let us establish clearly a set a of first principles for education. What is the purpose of education in America? Why do we send students to school? Which fields are worthy to be taught in school? Should we be preparing students for careers that meet the job market or is school for creating thinkers who will in turn mold the job market themselves? Is organized physical education for a subset of our students or is it a critical part of the educational process? What about exposure to the performing arts and fine arts? Should we demand that children emerge from school as “college ready” or is college not for everyone?

Orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano. Fortem posce animum mortis terrore carentem.
You should pray for a healthy mind in a healthy body. Ask for a stout heart that has no fear of death.

— Juvenal, Roman Poet

With some luck, these inquiries will inspire further questions and reflection and guide some of the issues I hope to touch on in this blog.