The highest purpose of public schools ought to be civic education

Three purposes have historically guided American public schools: social mobility (preparation for higher social positions), social efficiency (preparation for the workforce), and civic education (preparation for self-governance in a democratic society). Recently, a fourth purpose has emerged: social justice (emancipation of the oppressed). Although some features of these purposes overlap with others, they are ultimately in tension.  

Without a clear vision for the end of an education—to get a job, to climb the social ladder, to understand and participate in a democracy, or emancipation from oppression—developing a coherent path for how to organize the content of public schools becomes impossible. When it comes to choosing a curriculum, establishing cohesive methods of teaching and learning, or setting standards that are distinct and measurable, there can be only one highest purpose—telos—of public schools. 

The proper telos of public schools is civic education because it is the one purpose that will accomplish all the others.

This was my central argument in an article I had published in City Journal. But how might a school establish civic education as the highest purpose? What educational philosophy should guide such a school?  

There are two primary educational philosophies that can guide schools in how to prioritize civic education as the telos, while satisfying the other three purposes: traditional and progressive education. Generally, the former focuses on the transmission of historical and cultural knowledge, and the latter focuses on student experience and practicing democracy. Although they are often thought of as mutually exclusive, when the purpose of school is preparation for self-government in a liberal democracy, these two philosophies are mutually reinforcing.

Traditional

Traditional education provides students with the knowledge of Western history and culture necessary to make informed decisions about public matters. Classical schools, for example, offer a traditional, liberal arts education. A core element of this approach is the transmission and discussion of ideas that have withstood the test of time, along with the knowledge that has defined our institutions and culture. Through a common set of texts, human nature, the factors that have shaped our modern-day society, and America’s cultural heritage are taught. 

E.D. Hirsch, Jr., education scholar and founder of the Core Knowledge Foundation, was also devoted to the notion that Americans should read a common set of texts. His mission was to ensure that all citizens could speak a common language, which he called cultural literacy. And his life's work focused on curating what ought to be read in the early grades of school to accomplish that goal. He reasoned that having a shared language in English doesn't necessarily mean we understand each other; we must also understand the language of our culture. To achieve this goal, Hirsch advocated that educators “impart a core knowledge that is the same for all.” 

While there are multiple ways to implement this approach, an education steeped in the roots of our shared history and culture operates as a "leveling function," as Roosevelt Montás argued in his book Rescuing Socrates. Montás posits that a liberal arts education brings students from different socioeconomic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds to an equal level of understanding of our shared cultural heritage. Hirsch made a similar argument when he wrote that: "Millions of Americans now inhabit a well-established national culture and public sphere. Those who are proficient in that language and culture are on average the best communicators and the wealthiest citizens. [...] Those who have not mastered it suffer loss of opportunity." In other words, an education devoted to core knowledge about one’s history and cultural heritage is emancipatory and paves the way for social mobility. 

A liberal arts education also helps students determine their place in society. It aims to help people cultivate their minds and hearts, as politics professor Jenna Silber Storey notes, "to better understand these real if mysterious ends to which we are inclined while remaining humbly aware of the inability of any human being to grasp them in full." The ends being the good, true, and beautiful. Because no single person can fully grasp these ends, classical schools and other liberal arts programs employ the Socratic method as their pedagogical approach. Through such an approach, students contemplate the texts they read together by addressing the big questions, such as how do we know what we know, and asking questions of each other. This is not dissimilar  from elements of the progressive approach to education.

Progressive 

Progressive educators focus on the application of knowledge and the production of new knowledge. John Dewey, a philosopher and psychologist who heavily influenced progressive education, thought that the young should be acquainted with the past in a way that they could appreciate the present and create more and better ideas. For Dewey, practicing the scientific method was a means for students to experience applying knowledge and develop new knowledge and possibilities for societal growth. According to Dewey, an educator in this sort of classroom must be "intelligently aware of the capacities, needs, and past experience of those under instruction,” and use that knowledge to develop plans and projects.

Essentially, he argues that once students have the knowledge of how our democratic society and culture came to be, they can then practice democracy and prepare for how to exercise freedom and act in a self-governing society. For Dewey, democratic life was not only about civic and economic conduct, it also consisted of habits of problem-solving, compassionate imagination, creative expression, and civic self-governance. All of these can be practiced in the classroom.

Diana Hess and Paula McAvoy, scholars of Dewey, hold up discussion-based classrooms as an ideal method for practicing democracy, which is similar to the Socratic method of liberal arts education. They stress the importance of deliberating the question—how should we live together—in their book Controversy in the Classroom: The Democratic Power of Discussion. Hess and McAvoy illustrate how teachers can go about organizing the experience of discussion, and how students can practice democratic decision-making, through, for example, mock legislative sessions and Supreme Court trials. Students first understand the purpose of democratic institutions and how they function and then practice deliberation for how we should live together.

The traditional model of education teaches students to read, write, and think about ideas, while the progressive model allows students to exercise their abilities. Both of these are necessary for maximal participation in a self-governing society. A proper civic education demands that public schools both transmit knowledge and aid students in learning about themselves. Students must spend time in school contemplating the big questions of life: Who am I? What am I going to do about it? What's worth doing? And how should we live together? These questions prompt young people to think deeply about their place in the world as they mature toward adulthood. 

To be sure, elements of traditional and progressive education are at odds, and people are right to criticize scholars like Dewey who degrade the value of a liberal arts education. But, taken together, traditional and progressive education can prepare young people for self-government in a free society. Students need to gain knowledge and practice applying it.