The system of public education exists philosophically and theoretically upon the foundation that the purpose of education is being formed in virtue. The good, the true, and the beautiful were once the foundation of the liberal arts, and in fact, the definition of the liberal arts.
If the common good exists as something more than a set or collection of private goods, then it stands to reason that some baseline education in the liberal arts ought to be a matter for public concern. That is to say, it is a worthy matter for significant public funding. This contention is irrespective of other arguments that could be had about subsidiarity, or parental rights and duties.
Knowledge itself is a part of the common good, because it does not diminish when it is shared. What is known to be true benefits those who do not know that a particular thing is true, and also those who take great pains to deny that a particular thing is true.
It is a red herring to use the content of public school curricula in the United States today to attack the basic philosophical foundation for public education. The content of what should be taught to children and young adults is a separate discussion from whether a significant public investment should be made.
In fact, I assert that an individualistic, technocratic, and ultimately inhuman ideology drives most of the criticism of public education today, and is itself contrary to the idea of the liberal arts. Consider how much of the "conservative" critiques are explicitly in economic terms. What is most "efficient" in terms of the market economy is not necessarily synonymous with what is best in terms of being formed in virtue. I do not even consider that a "market-based" approach is appropriate. We should be a bunch of raving socialists on this point in particular, because whether this effort costs "too much" is a function of what we are trying to accomplish. Anything that casts people in exclusively economic terms is contrary to their flourishing, and to the flourishing of all of us together.
If the common good exists as something more than a set or collection of private goods, then it stands to reason that some baseline education in the liberal arts ought to be a matter for public concern. That is to say, it is a worthy matter for significant public funding. This contention is irrespective of other arguments that could be had about subsidiarity, or parental rights and duties.
Knowledge itself is a part of the common good, because it does not diminish when it is shared. What is known to be true benefits those who do not know that a particular thing is true, and also those who take great pains to deny that a particular thing is true.
It is a red herring to use the content of public school curricula in the United States today to attack the basic philosophical foundation for public education. The content of what should be taught to children and young adults is a separate discussion from whether a significant public investment should be made.
In fact, I assert that an individualistic, technocratic, and ultimately inhuman ideology drives most of the criticism of public education today, and is itself contrary to the idea of the liberal arts. Consider how much of the "conservative" critiques are explicitly in economic terms. What is most "efficient" in terms of the market economy is not necessarily synonymous with what is best in terms of being formed in virtue. I do not even consider that a "market-based" approach is appropriate. We should be a bunch of raving socialists on this point in particular, because whether this effort costs "too much" is a function of what we are trying to accomplish. Anything that casts people in exclusively economic terms is contrary to their flourishing, and to the flourishing of all of us together.
Comments