What is the goal of school education?
This is a foundational question that demands an answer. Organizations are complex entities with moving and disparate parts. Schools are no exception. Facilities, insurance, safety, technology, admissions, marketing, communications, and development are all essential functions of school operations, and I have yet to even mention academics.
Each department of the school must be aligned toward a singular purpose, what we call the school’s mission. This mission must answer the question: What is the goal of school education?
To consider a response, let us turn to philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff (b. 1932), whom I have interacted with in the past here. In 1992, Christian Schools International (CSI) invited Wolterstorff to deliver the keynote address at the organization’s inaugural international conference. Although the assigned topic for his session was curriculum, the philosopher made the case that in order to make good decisions about educational content, one must first be clear on the aim of the educational process. What are we trying to accomplish? Or, what is the goal of school education?
In this article, I will explore Nicholas Wolterstorff’s observation that there are four approaches to answering this question that are vying for first place in the American educational scene. Although he made this observation over thirty years ago, I believe there is relevance to his analysis today. In order to teach with an aim that is thoroughly Christian, we must be cognizant of competing approaches, and ultimately adopt a framework grounded in biblical theology and shaped by the classical Christian tradition.
The Socialization Approach
The first approach, according to Wolterstorff, is the socialization view, according to which “the fundamental goal of school education is to enable and dispose the student to occupy effectively some combination of approved social roles” (Educating for Life, Baker Academic, 2002, p. 260). These roles typically fall within the range of economical to political. The result is a graduate prepared to function and contribute as a member of society within these spheres.
One example of the economic socialization approach would be author Horatio Alger (1832-1899). An American fiction writer from the 19th century, Alger championed the “rags to riches” genre in which hard-working youths earned access to the security of the middle class. The vision of the good portrayed in Alger’s stories is economic stability. Alternatively, a political socialization approach is exemplified through the writings of Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826). Like his fellow Founding Fathers, Jefferson heralded democracy as the best political system and that this system could only prevail through an educated citizenry.
In both examples, the goal of school education is to prepare the individual to successfully inhabit respectable social roles.
The Acculturation Approach
The acculturation approach to defining the goal of school education emphasizes the transmission of one’s cultural inheritance. Those who subscribe to this view assume that “immersing the student in the cultural heritage will imbue him or her with certain fundamental values” (260). For example, teaching Shakespearen plays will promote particular cultural values about the complexities of relationship, love, duty, and courage. Likewise, sharing with students the fascinating life story of Galileo will inspire them with values of scientific inquiry, observational discovery, and the courage to stand up for truth even in the face of punishment.
A lead exponent of this approach would be Allan Bloom (1930-1992), a classicist and champion of Great Books from the University of Chicago. In The Closing of the American Mind (Simon and Schuster, 1987), Bloom argues that relativism in higher education was disabling students from thinking critically. His solution is to ground moral education in western civilization’s foundational texts, thereby shaping students with the ability to think critically and pursue objective truth.
The Individualization Approach
The third approach is the individualization view, which holds that the goal of school education is the development of the individual. The idea here is that the individual, not society and not one’s cultural heritage, is the ultimate good. Inspired by the Romanticism of the 19th century, the emphasis of the individualist approach is to equip each individual to express herself in a way that is true to who she is inside.
It should be no surprise to anyone that this view is alive and well today. Though not featured as prominently in education circles per se, it is impossible to escape American culture’s emphasis on the individual. Flowing downstream from this emphasis, the goal of school education becomes to promote the growth of each individual student and steamroll inhibitions to this growth.
Perhaps the preeminent figure of this approach is Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), a precursor of Romanticism. In Emile, Rousseau spells out his views on education through the fictional upbringing of an aristocratic boy named Emile. Emile is raised in accordance with his developing mind rather than through a standard educational process. The idea here is that a child is basically good and perfected through nature. The chief obstacle to this development is society, which must therefore be kept at bay through a child’s developmental years.
The Social Criticism Approach
The final approach to answering the question, “What is the goal of school education?”, is what Wolterstorff identifies as the social criticism approach, which holds that the goal is to teach students to be critics of society when it fails to live up to ethical ideals of justice, peace, love, compassion, and democracy. Now, with current news headlines about the ideologization of education through critical theory, it is interesting to note that Wolterstorff observed the emergence of this approach over 30 years ago.
While there is clearly a leftist bent to the social criticism aim of education, which primarily conceives of reality in terms of matrices of power, it is worth clarifying that social critique in itself is not inherently marxist. The British abolitionist William Wilberforce, for example, made it his life’s ambition to improve the moral climate of Victorian English society and bring the Trans-Atlantic slave trade to an end. Likewise, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., famously led the American civil rights movement, referring often to scripture in his efforts to correct the injustice and inequality present in American society in the mid 20th century.
The difference between the beliefs of these two men and critical theorists today is fundamentally a clash in worldview. Whereas Wilberforce and King believed in objective truth grounded in God’s very existence, postmodern critical theory abandons the possibility of objective truth, reducing all developments in society to a struggle for power.
Which Approach? What Goal?
Interestingly, I see elements of all four approaches in classical Christian education circles today. The socialization approach is present when we hearken back to classical antiquity and the idea of preparing future citizens and statesmen. The acculturation approach is present when we speak about seeking to preserve and pass on the treasures of western civilization. The individualization approach is at work when we seek to cultivate wisdom, virtue, and a love of learning in each student, instilling them with habits and knowledge that will enable them to thrive as individuals. And the social criticism approach is at work when we talk as Christians about impacting the world for Christ, equipping our graduates to pursue professions that will enable them to promote a free and flourishing society.
Wolterstorff himself admits that Christian education is not a species of any of the approaches above (261). He writes,
The Christian vision, by contrast, sees the human good as achieved only by the right ordering of our relationships–with God, with society, with nature, with the legacy of human culture, and yes, with oneself…Christian education is inspired by the vision of development, healing, and delight in all these relationships.
Educating for Life (Baker Academic, 2002), 262.
Education for a New Community
In the Bible, we see relationships at the center of God’s creative act as well as the primary victim in humanity’s Fall. In the early chapters of Genesis, God commands both plants and animals alike to be fruitful and multiply on the earth. When we read “Let the earth sprout,” “Let the waters swarm,” and “Let the earth bring forth,” we get the sense that God’s newly created world is intended to be a home for life, relationship, and community. Like a family on moving day, there is a sense of joyful urgency to move in and fill the place up, as family members look forward to making new memories together.
When we read about the creation of humanity, we see a similar mandate to be fruitful and multiply with the added instructions to exercise dominion over creation, both creatures and plant life. Adam himself is given the task of naming the animals, that is, to implement meaningful differentiation between the creatures to make it possible to live in community. God even uses His own breath to give life to Adam, an intimate move to be sure, as he becomes a living creature. Soon after, God creates Eve from Adam for “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18). Simply put, activity of relationship and community is all over the place in the earliest days of God’s newly created world.
Soon after, however, the Fall dismantles this community, disrupting relationships between God, humanity, and creation. Adam and Eve are commanded to leave the garden, the home within the home, signifying a new post-fall era of broken relationship and homelessness. The remaining corpus of scripture points to this post-fall reality and the redemptive intervention of God through the person and work of Jesus Christ to repair this ruin and restore these relationships. The first step of repair occurs between God and humanity as atonement and forgiveness of sin is provided, followed by a subsequent movement of repair regarding human relationships and a renewed sense of caring for creation. The church is the seedling of this new community, a small glimpse of what life under God’s rule is like, albeit only a foretaste of the perfection to come.
Conclusion
This all leads me to suggest that the proper goal of school education, from a classical Christian education perspective, is to support the church in its calling to live out its identity as the people of God, seeking to bring healing and restoration to broken relationships through the gospel of Jesus Christ. To achieve this goal, society must be governed and well-supported (the socialization approach), the best of cultural heritages must be carried forward (the acculturation approach), individuals must receive intentional discipling (the individualization approach), and society ills must be combated (the social criticism approach).
This pluriform goal of school education requires educators to make use of all resources available to them, both in terms of breadth of curriculum and scope in historical development. Modern education’s prioritization on the practical for future job security simply will not suffice in the light of the aims above. Nor will its preoccupation with the here and now at the expense of teaching the great wisdom of the past. Thus, my thesis: a truly Christian goal of school education will be cognizant of the varying approaches described in this article, while utilizing a framework grounded in biblical theology and shaped by Christian tradition.
