So, what is the purpose of education? — jastopher

If I hoped to be a teacher, the answer to that question would be - because there are things I know, feel, see, and understand that I want to show others. I want them to have a chance to see the world that I can see. To me, a lot of what goes on on this forum has a similar motivation.

To a relatively small percentage of students, I think the purpose of education is the reciprocal of that I've expressed for the teacher. It's a chance to learn more about the world away from everyday life. To learn skills and identify talents.

To most students, I think it's what they do because they're expected to. It's a job really.

For society? I'll let our social philosophers speak to that.

The purpose of education is to increase human capital.

Taming Mind and Body, nothing more.

So, what is the purpose of education? — jastopher

To modify the behavior of those being educated.

it's useful to spend a moment on what a teacher is, if you suppose that educating is something that teachers do. And as an administrator, you'd be several cuts above average if you paid lip service to that distinction - if you paid it any attention at all!

A teacher is a person in possession of a body of knowledge, with the skill to impart that knowledge to people who.... I have to pause here. The skill to impart, in its particulars, depends on who the students are. For present purpose, let's leave it this way: ...to impart that knowledge to students.Both educating and teaching are names for imparting that knowledge.

That leaves two questions for/about the prospective teacher: do they know? Can they do?

What I'd like to hear from a candidate is a very simple statement of what he or she intends to teach, thinks important to teach, and why.

Are you intentionally assuming that there is only one purpose for education as opposed to a variety of different purposes?

A teacher is a person in possession of a body of knowledge, with the skill to impart that knowledge to people who.... I have to pause here. — tim wood

I do that often as well, pause to take a deep breath. That is a reasonable take on what a teacher is supposed to be. But it goes way beyond that.
You have to be a mother, father, baby sitter, big brother sometimes as well. You also have to be a student, things change from day to day and you should be keeping up. Paying the students for doing their jobs is a job in itself, you have to be an accountant almost. You have to be a project manager to keep all of the little bits and pieces together and running smoothly and up to standards. Plus good understanding of the educational laws is most useful. Etc, etc, etc.
And you have to work hard at staying human and same.

What I'd like to hear from a candidate is a very simple statement of what he or she intends to teach, thinks important to teach, and why. — tim wood

I try to give my students basic knowledge that will be useful in everyday life. And a lot of them think that it is too much because "the information is available on google, so why should I learn it".

Taming Mind and Body, nothing more. — Pacem

I agree that formal education has a civilising mission, but civilising for whom? Is 'taming' merely the imposition of majority societal norms upon the individual being educated?

To modify the behavior of those being educated. — Sir2u

This is true, but so general as to be useless.

What I'd like to hear from a candidate is a very simple statement of what he or she intends to teach, thinks important to teach, and why. — tim wood

I was assuming that a candidate would have the necessary technical knowledge to teach their subject. Also, the core curriculum is usually decided by government policy so regarding intention, there's not a great deal of room for manoeuvre.

Are you intentionally assuming that there is only one purpose for education as opposed to a variety of different purposes? — LD Saunders

No, but my hope is that a teacher would at least have thought about the question and would thus have at least one answer.

I try to give my students basic knowledge that will be useful in everyday life. And a lot of them think that it is too much because "the information is available on google, so why should I learn it". — Sir2u

Indeed. Knowing 'how' or 'why' is not the same as knowing where to look for information.

I'll take a stab.

The primary purpose of education is to inspire a lifelong love of learning in the student and a corresponding awareness of the possible limitations of knowledge. (the exemplary case here would of course be Socrates)

In this sense, education (at its best) is not limited to learning about specific things - however useful that information may be - but, more importantly, it involves the development of a particular way of being, one which is marked by passion, amazement, humility, etc., etc.,

It's a good question. I was never asked anything that general in any interview I attended for a position in the field, but if I were I'd give a two-fold answer. First of all, ideally, the primary purpose of education is to develop and nurture the individual along the lines of his or her major talents while providing a broad base of shared skills and abilities that allow he or she to function productively and happily (in a holistic rather than simply a commercial sense) in society. However, in practice, education often functions primarily to produce individuals who fit into predetermined social slots that allow them to be productive in society (in a commercial rather than a holistic sense) regardless of their major talents or abilities.

I saw the latter philosophy at work in the last university I worked at where engineering/science and business accounted for over 75% of all courses and was growing in proportion, while the arts and humanities, and social sciences that made up the rest were continually shrinking away. Students then were being funneled into courses for economic reasons irregardless of who they were as people and who they wanted to become. Sad.

So, what is the purpose of education? — jastopher

I notice you ask what it is, and not what it ought to be.

Education is an indoctrination into a world that forbids creativity, individuality, and promotes conformity through competition and measurement of 'progress'. It is the industrial production of adults depressed into compliance with a vacuous and self-destructive world of production/consumption.

Well maybe I'm exaggerating a wee bit. But there is a process goes on in schools round here that manages to take endlessly curious explorers and questioners and endlessly enthusiastic creators and actors at 5 yrs old, and turns them by age 11 into sullen resentful disinterested refuseniks. Some few escape...

I feel like this is like my post, but with a red hot chili pepper thrown in. :)

Spice up your life! :fire:

I wanted specifically to respond to @Eric's stab. One only needs to inspire a lifelong love of learning after it has been destroyed. It is the natural condition of children.

https://anewkindofhuman.com/creative-genius-divergent-thinking-test/

:pray: And I guess you may have seen Ken Robinson's Ted Talk.

I wanted specifically to respond to Eric's stab. One only needs to inspire a lifelong love of learning after it has been destroyed. It is the natural condition of children. — unenlightened

Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind!

To restore that natural curiosity and love of learning after it's been strangled to death through traditional schooling by middle childhood.

The purpose of education is twofold: it is to induct a child into the ways of the world on the one hand, and into the ways of the child's people, on the other.

To give children a stock of general facts about the natural world (a rough or preparatory sketch, to be fleshed out with their own experience), and to give children the tools to be able to interact with the social world around them, so that they can learn to communicate, interact and co-operate with others of their tribe in ways they understand.

It is basically to install a child's brain with the collective wisdom of the tribe up to that point, so that it has something to work with, a structure to both rely on and repair (even contribute to the perpetuation of) as it goes.

There's some debate about whether the process of education should lean more towards rote learning or more towards the eliciting of creativity. I think that depends on the personality type of the child. But again one might ask: go with the grain or against the grain? Should we get "square" kids to do fingerpainting and creative types to buckle down and learn their multiplication tables? Or the other way round? Min-max, or bring all faculties to some sort of balance? Again, this is when it gets down to the judgement of teachers, who know more intimately the psychology and character of the particular children they're teaching.

As a head-teacher, — jastopher

You ought to know. Let's hear it!

No, but my hope is that a teacher would at least have thought about the question and would thus have at least one answer. — jastopher

Such a question cannot be answered in a short interview. Given that teacher training is little more than a box ticking exercise I imagine you'd be happy with a rehearsed stock answer.
Do you really think that ANY candidate had no answer, or have you not taken the trouble is assess the power of your position, in intimidating candidates with such a question, and failed to notice several potentially excellent teachers along the way ?

Such a question cannot be answered in a short interview (1). Given that teacher training is little more than a box ticking exercise (2) I imagine you'd be happy with a rehearsed stock answer (3).
Do you really think that ANY candidate had no answer, or have you not taken the trouble is assess the power of your position, in intimidating candidates with such a question (4), and failed to notice several potentially excellent teachers along the way (5) ? — charleton

So many assertions, so little time.

You ought to know. Let's hear it! — charleton

I don't know anything, but I have my preferences.

Short answer; the purpose of school education is about providing the wherewithal to optimise both positive and negative liberty according to the ability and needs of the student within a framework of societal norms.

This video is just about the worst thing ever to have happened to pedagogy. It's total nonsense.

OK, well, maybe you can say why you think that's the case.

It's the kind of thing that parents, politicians and school administrators watch and then think that they understand what goes on in schools without having to go to the trouble of doing any real research. It has set up a straw man with the teaching profession as the enemy of the student that has been almost impossible to eradicate. Its success has prompted a sect-like army of management consultants masquerading as education gurus to descend upon insecure management teams and feast upon their limited budgets. It is to education what cosmeceuticals are to science. It is fucking dire because its message is so infantile and easy to understand that it is immensely more attractive than reality.

You have to be a mother, father, baby sitter, big brother sometimes as well. You also have to be a student, things change from day to day and you should be keeping up. Paying the students for doing their jobs is a job in itself, you have to be an accountant almost. You have to be a project manager to keep all of the little bits and pieces together and running smoothly and up to standards. Plus good understanding of the educational laws is most useful. Etc, etc, etc.
And you have to work hard at staying human and same.

I try to give my students basic knowledge that will be useful in everyday life. — Sir2u

This goes to the skills, depending on the students - they could range from the innocent first grade to the surly eighth grade to the defeated or otherwise disengaged senior, to the motivated and incentivized, including adult learners in night school. And you forgot two: salesman and manipulator

If "basic knowledge that will be useful in everyday life" is all you have to offer, then you have a problem. Most students are already masters of their lives - we might well call it mere survival - but it's what gets them through their days. It's what they trust and know, even if it amounts to their making virtues of their vices. On the basis of your description, I doubt that you have much to offer there.

I commend to you reflection on what real teachers know, and how they teach. Which is admittedly to say that many public schools in the US are not good or even appropriate places for most real teachers, but are rather for people like those you describe above.

But if a person believes that there are a number of purposes for education, like training people for jobs, getting people to think critically, creating a desire for life-long learning, an excuse for Keynesian spending, etc., etc., and you ask the person to only pick a single purpose, that could be a reason that someone struggles with your question. It would certainly stump me, as I cannot think of a single purpose for education, although I can think of a number of different purposes behind education.

optimise both positive and negative liberty — jastopher

Sounds a bit like word salad to me. At best weasel words.
If my teacher tells me to stand on my head with a fish in my bum, and I refuse, then I will be responding negatively to their suggestion; if I accept the instruction that would be positive.

Education is to push societal norms, by examination, otherwise there is no growth or change. Education is to preserve and extend knowledge. To allow each student to gather knowledge and skills to the best of their ability, and by pushing their potential to new lengths. It is to make students aware of 'norms' and to teach them critical skills to examine those norms so that they can thrive is an ever changing world, socially, economically, and artistically.