In my introductory blog, I suggested that four questions need to be asked about contemporary education and schooling . In an abridged form they are as follows:
· What is the purpose of education?
· How best can educational leaders support teachers in being genuine educators?
· How do structural features (e.g. school size and teacher load, etc.) either enhance or undermine the educative project?
· How do we best use the potential of Schools 2.0 in the service of education?
You will find that this blog is structured—by way of its categories—to pursue each of these different paths, although I hope you will also see that they are intimately inter-related.
In this blog, I want to begin the “purpose of education” thread by trying to make the case for the importance of asking core philosophy questions before addressing issues of implementation. Here goes!
One of the most remarkable things about contemporary schooling is the near absence of any serious consideration whatsoever as to why we send our children to school—what purposes we have in mind, what aspirations we want to fulfill. I suspect that one reason for this is that the purpose of schools is almost universally regarded as uncontroversial and therefore taken for granted, i.e. that schools are presumably meant to, in some fashion, prepare people for jobs, or perhaps even for life. With this supposedly understood and accepted, the most topical questions in education become not “why?”, but “how” (implementation), and “what”, (curriculum).
While there is much good work that has been done—and will continue to be done—on curriculum (what), and implementation strategies (how), I think there are a number of very good reasons to pay close attention to purpose as the very first order of business in either starting a new school or rethinking an existing one.
First, while the purpose of education may seem by many to be obvious and uncontroversial—e.g. to teach people things in order (perhaps) to prepare them for future careers—there is, in fact, a rich range of divergent possibilities that compete for consideration. To be ignorant of these possibilities—or to make no conscious decision concerning their application—is to fail to understand and appreciate the full scope and potential of education.
Second, one’s understanding of the purpose of education shapes one’s approaches to curriculum and methodology. This can play itself out in subtle ways in schools: in the courses that make it into the curriculum; in the instructional methods adopted by teachers; in the priorities a school attaches to arts, athletics, academics, service, leadership; and even in the approach to student discipline. When a school is being mindful about its purposes, these permeate every feature of its culture. When, as is more often the case, it simply takes its purposes for granted, then a kind of “default culture” ensues in which issues of curriculum, methodology, program balance, and even student discipline become matters of management rather than purposeful direction.
A third reason to begin by establishing a very clear idea of purpose is that the work of schools requires a tremendous amount of commitment and effort. Teachers will stay up late to review student work; administrators will work weekends to make sure everything is in order; parents will volunteer time to raise funds and assist with programs; and the students themselves will pour their heart and soul into their studies. If there is no clear and robust sense of purpose underlining all of this, then the effort and the commitment will eventually wane. There will be a sea change: a move from having a sense of participating in a great and eminently worthwhile undertaking to simply “getting through school”. Human beings—teachers, administrators, parents and students alike—need to understand and embrace the meaning in something in order to give it their full engagement. If anything requires full engagement, it is the task of education. And in this case, having clarity of purpose is the yeast that leavens the bread.
But there is as yet an even more important reason to pay close attention to purpose. If we never ask why we are doing something, we never open up opportunities for us to think about things differently. And if we lose the capacity to think about things differently, we stagnate-or worse, we fail to exercise our full powers.
Imagine, for example, if you asked a car manufacturer—innocently—what a car is. It is not hard to imagine his or her incredulous look, and then a perfunctory description of something with four wheels, a chassis and an engine, etc. Now imagine you asking why we have cars in our society and why they always end up having four wheels, a chassis and an engine, etc. If our manufacturer answers that “cars have always been this way” then this indicates, again, either an inability or unwillingness to address the question.
Imagine, on the other hand, a car manufacturer who has the ability and inclination to address the why questions. Imagine them pondering the practical, aesthetic, psychological purposes that cars have and then wondering aloud whether there might be a different way to address these needs and wants. I suspect that it is something like this kind of thinking that can sometimes lead to the “breakthrough innovation”—the decision to do something entirely different that sets (or re-sets) the direction of the industry.
Now imagine asking this same set of questions about computers, or universities, or architecture, or the legal system…. or indeed about schools? What puzzles and inspirations might occur?
It is precisely this capacity to articulate substantive purposes, and then to look at current practices in light of those purposes, that will enable us to constantly refine and improve both purpose and practice.
In the course of these blogs, I am going to be asking questions about school leadership, the structure of schools, and the potential of Schools 2.0. We are, as such, going to move through sometimes turbulent waters. What will be needed, therefore, is a firm hand on the tiller—that is, a very good sense of where we are going and why.
Some Questions
Is it true, in your experience, that most schools are preoccupied with the logistics of “How” (implementation) and “What” (curriculum) to the exclusion of serious consideration given to the core purpose of the undertaking? What is on the agenda of most staff and parent meetings? What professional development opportunities, if any, are there for staff—either individually or collectively—to examine core principles of education? When someone wants to raise questions about core principles, how is this typically received?
If it is true that little or no time is given to an examination of purpose, why is that? Is this a feature of modern institutions in general, or is it peculiar to schools? If it is a feature of modern institutions in general, then what is it about contemporary society that encourages us to be so profoundly unreflective? If this is a feature of schools in particular, what are the forces in play that cause us to run “madly off in all directions”?
Is it true that a purpose-driven school will yield a better quality of education?
Are independent schools any better at focusing on purpose than public schools? Put differently, is it the case that independent schools have more opportunity to be purpose-driven because they do not have to meet the wider purposes of a general public? Can a public school be mission-driven in the same way that some independent schools claim to be?
What, if anything, does a school’s “mission statement” have to do with articulating a substantive purpose of schooling? How, if at all, do “mission statements” really impinge upon day-to-day practice in schools?
Next Blog
In my next blog I will offer the first part of what I think is a credible candidate for “the purpose of education”. You will find, perhaps surprisingly, that I am going to draw upon the classical ideal of a liberal education as a strong foundation upon which to build a coherent view of what education could be.
