Kyla Swanson

Professor Joldersma

Education 398-B

Final Paper

10 May 2019

Purpose of Education

Introduction

Within the United States of America, education is seen as a right. In fact, the United

Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists education as one of their human rights. On

the Youth for Human Rights website, the right to education is listed as number twenty-six

saying; “Education is a right. Primary school should be free. We should learn about the United

Nations and how to get on with others...” (Youth for Human Rights). Not only is education

viewed as a right, but the US government has been heavily involved in the formation of

American schooling. I often wonder if there was some catalyst that launched this education

movement forward. What made the American people value education? According to the

Education Law website, the General Court of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay passed the Olde

Deluder Satan Act in 1647. In section two of that act, it states, “when any town increased to one

hundred families or households, a grammar school would be established with a master capable of

preparing young people for university level study” (Education Law). However, the

Massachusetts Bay Colony was not unique in its concern for education: other colonies also gave

unrestricted aid through land grants and appropriations of money. These early acts by the

colonies, and support from the Federal Congress, “forged a partnership in public education that
continues to this day. This partnership has thrived despite the absence of any explicit reference to

education in the Constitution” (Education Law). Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court and the

state courts have consistently ruled that education is a function of the states.

The Olde Deluder Satan Act of 1647 claims that education must prepare young people for

the university level study, perhaps this was viewed as the purpose of education? Based on these

historical facts, it can be concluded that education was and still is a vital part of American life—

so much so that it has become a requirement for all children to receive an education. When the

early colonies decided to create an Act, enforcing education to be a part of children’s daily lives,

what influenced this decision? Why did they view education to be a vital part of a child’s

upbringing? I believe their purpose for education went deeper than preparing young people for

the university level. Throughout the years, there have been several studies, theories, and opinions

on what the purpose of education is. In this essay, I make my arguments from the perspective

that the purpose of education is this: to provide all students opportunities to do justice with the

hope of creating a good society. I will be exploring several different viewpoints on what the

purpose of education is, and ultimately will argue why education ought to fulfill the said

purpose.

Exploring Different Purposes of Education

Before developing my own purpose, several other viewpoints were explored, which has

helped me gain a better understanding of what education is for and has been for. David F.

Labaree introduces two competing visions of the purposes of education that have shaped

Swanson 2
American public schools. He states, “from one perspective, we have seen schooling as a way to

preserve and promote public aims, such as keeping the faith, shoring up the republic, or

promoting economic growth” (Labaree, 381). This vision, this purpose, views education as a way

to promote societal norms. Another perspective views education to “advance the interests of

individual educational consumers in the pursuit of social access and social advantage” (Labaree,

381). This perspective views education as a tool to be used to climb the social and economic

ladder. Thus, the more educated you are, the more power you have. These two competing

perspectives can be traced back to the colonial period—where they have been evolving since.

Labaree argues that “over time the public mission of American schools shifted from keeping the

faith, to preserving the republic, to stimulating the economy, and finally to promoting social

opportunity” (Labaree, 381).

Gert Biesta engages the readers of his essay, What is Education for? On Good Education,

Teacher Judgement, and Educational Professionalism, with a radical statement. Biesta argues

against the learnification of education by saying, “the point of education is not that students

learn” (Biesta, 76). This claim brought me to the edge of my seat, wondering how the author

would justify this ghastly opinion. Many discussions about education have fallen into the habit of

using the language of learning in an abstract and general sense. What Biesta wants us to consider

is that “the point of education is that students learn something, that they learn it for a reason, and

that they learn it from someone” (Biesta, 76). Education needs to engage with questions of

content, purpose, and relationships.

Thus far, several of these purposes have emphasized the academic aspect of education—

how can academics further one’s intelligence and position in society. However, what about

Swanson 3
compassion, what about the ability to empathize with those around you? Rebecca Martusewicz

argues her definition of education in her essay Letting Out Hearts Break: On Facing the

“Hidden Wound” of Human Supremacy as this, “our willingness to experience compassion in the

face of others’ suffering and thus by an ethical imperative, and seek to expose psycho-social

processes of shame as dark matters that inferiorize and subjugate those expressing such

compassion for the more-than-human world” (Martusewicz, 31). How must our education

system change so that we may educate our children in a way that “opens up our capacities to love

the world—the whole world—to the point of heartbreak, that is to the point of real embodied

distress or agony” (Martusewicz, 32)? According to this author, education must teach us to be

willing to be in an ethical relationship with the world. A relationship that “begins from a

willingness to ask questions and make decisions regarding the well-being of self and others”

(Martusewicz, 33). Education must be a relationship between cultural, political, economic, and

historical systems. It must inform members of our society on the abuses and exploitations they

cause.

People have created these purposes for education, as the “question of purpose is the most

fundamental one for the simple reason that if we do not know what it is we are seeking to

achieve with our educational arrangements and endeavors, we cannot make any decisions about

the content that is most appropriate and the kind of relationships that are most conducive”

(Biesta, 77). Thus, I have presented these various theories of what the purpose of education is,

and personally, I have come to the conclusion of my previously stated purpose: Education exists

to provide all students opportunities to do justice with the hope of creating a good society. We

need to focus on normative questions about good education—what education ought to be for

rather than focusing on effective education or excellent education. The word excellent suggests

Swanson 4
comparisons—grading schools with each other, leaving behind what is not excellent. But what is

a good education? If education is not good already, how can we make it good? How can we

reform education so that it serves its purpose?

What makes education good?

Often, the word good is used in our vernacular to describe a variety of situations, objects,

and people. Yet what makes something good, and who has the authority to declare this “thing” as

good? The Merriam-Webster dictionary has several definitions for the word good, as it is used in

countless situations and meanings. However, the definition that I thought worked best was “to be

desired or approved of”.

The purpose of education, in my words, includes the idea of creating a good society, thus

we need to determine what makes a society good and how education can influence that. Michael

Walzer begins his essay, What is “The Good Society?”, with a conversation between him and a

hypothetical philosophical friend. Walzer argues that there are multiple versions of a good

society, which vary depending on culture and values. His desire is that all societies that have

been produced may co-exist. Yet this co-existence requires “that each society recognize the

rights of others: the right to a place in the world, the right to organize a common life, the right to

pursue goodness according to the local lights...the good society is constituted by the peaceful co-

existence of all the societies that aim at goodness” (Walzer, 75). Furthermore, Walzer claims,

“...surely what is most distinctive about humanity is its creative power—to think, imagine,

speculate, argue, and disagree. So men and women will imagine different good societies, argue

Swanson 5
about their political and economic arrangements, and disagree about which one is best” (Walzer,

74). This is a radical, a substantial, difficult project to be carried out. However, this is where

education has a vital role. Education has the potential to inspire men and women who are

activists to seek out movements that are hostile to authoritarianism and hierarchy, who create

associations with members who support and value each other, and become part of communities

that work to understand how differences can unite. As a future educator, this is something I want

to practice—informing our students that they have a voice and they deserve to be listened to. Our

students have a role in making our society better.

I believe education should strive to teach students to fight for a good society, to recognize

what is keeping that society from being good, and how they can achieve this ideal. Education is

influenced by society and society is influenced by education. Therefore, education should strive

to make the society around it good, and society should do what they can do make education

good. Societal structures heavily influence education—they can make it good or segregated.

However, if the purpose of education is to offer opportunities to all, we need to reevaluate certain

structures preventing said purpose from being a reality.

School and Societal Structures: Help or Hinder?

“Would it not be possible...to adapt this child of foreign peasants less to education, and

adapt education more to the child?” (Deschenes, Cuban, Tyack, 526). Rarely do we mold our

education to fit the psychology, traditions, environment of children who come from various

places in the world. According to Mismatch: Historical Perspectives, written by Deschenes et al,

Swanson 6
there have been number of “problem” students—students “who did not learn efficiently what

educators sought to teach; who misbehaved or were truant and delinquent; or who fell behind,

were not promoted, and dropped out” (Deschenes et al, 526). Over the years, educators have

sought reasons as to why these students could not succeed in school. The conclusion always put

the blame on the student—saying they had a character deficit, lack of morality, slow. Never once

did we consider how to better adapt education to the child. So, what about these children? Does

the purpose of education apply to them as well? I believe the purpose of education ought to offer

opportunities to all, however, several students are being left behind. These are the students who

did not fit the mainstream mold; “they did not meet the schools’ expectations for success. As we

see it, these differences between schools and students is based on a mismatch between structure

of schools and the social, cultural, or economic backgrounds of students identified as problems.

It is not a problem of individual or cultural deficit, as many educators have argued, but this

mismatch has had serious consequences for both individuals and groups of students” (Deschenes

et al, 527).

According to Pedro A. Noguera, a school’s purpose in the American society is to “sort

children based on various measures of their academic ability and [to] place them on trajectories

that influence the economic roles and occupations they will assume as adults”. Schools also play

a role in “socializing children by teaching the values and norms that are regarded as central to

civil society and the social order”. Social conventions are taught through “implicit and explicit

means and by instilling a sense of what it means to be normal in students” (Noguera, 344).

Lastly, Noguera suggests that schools operate as “institutions of social control, providing an

important custodial function with respect to the care and movement of children” (Noguera, 344).

Further along in his article, Noguera says that the “socialization process that accompanies the

Swanson 7
sorting makes it possible for students to accept the education trajectory set for them...and see

their future adult roles as positions they have earned” (Noguera, 344). Students have come to

believe that their grades create a future for them that they deserve. There will always be students

who have figured out that their grades and behavior do not set them up for a successful job, and

these students understand that school is not working for them. Therefore, it is more likely they

will cause trouble and disturbance in school. But what are we doing for these students? Rather

than dealing with the deeper systematic issues causing their behavior, we punish the student

themselves leading them to believe there is something fundamentally wrong with them. Schools

focus so much of their time disciplining these students rather than changing the school structure

to support these students.

John Dewey introduces the idea of schools as communities—they should resemble what

real life will be like, how students can contribute to their communities, and seek justice in their

communities (Deschenes et al, 542). Education needs to prepare students to be active members

of the community. Yet, we cannot forget about the students who are marginalized within the

school and community. This mismatch is an injustice, just one of the many injustices' education

should prepare students to face head-on.

What is Justice?

In my purpose for education, I stated that education ought to prepare students to do

justice. Meaning, maintaining justice where justice is already present. However, education

should extend beyond maintaining justice—we as teachers should show students how they can

Swanson 8
seek justice. By seeking justice, an individual is struggling towards achieving justice in places

where injustice is present. Yet what is “justice” and how does one achieve it?

One cannot discuss justice without unpacking the idea of shalom. Nicholas Wolterstorff

has a vision of the human flourishing promised in the coming Kingdom. Shalom is a vision of

human flourishing, of people living in right relationships with God, themselves, each other, and

nature—and taking delight in such relationships. With Shalom, creation finds security in the

community around them. Shalom calls us to celebrate creation—it involves redeeming it. When

something or someone needs redeeming, it means they were at one point, broken. This is where

we are called to seek justice. Creation is broken, there is pain, suffering, woundedness, and we

are called to struggle to bring about human flourishing. Shalom is the call to address these

injustices. We are agents and heralds of Christ; thus, our mission is to bring justice to the world.

We are called to help the widows, orphans, aliens, those who suffer and have no voice of their

own in our world. Yet we are to do this not out of our own self-interest, not because we are kind

and good, but because of those around us. We seek justice because of God’s love for us and

creation.

Wolterstorff’s ideas regarding shalom are influential when facing current issues and

problems. Shalom does not neglect certain people groups or places in the world, therefore we

must shift our mindset away from the West forming the economic core while developing

countries form the periphery. Thus, “striving for justice would include deliberately developing an

international, global consciousness for those of us involved in Christian higher education”

(Wolterstorff, Joldersma, Stronks, xiv). Education in North America must pay attention to the

world system in which we are a part of. Education must strive to develop an international

Swanson 9
consciousness in students so that they may discern “this oppressive structure that dominates

global relations” (Wolterstorff et al, xiv). Education ought to exist so that students may become

aware of these issues and instill in them a desire and knowledge on how to seek justice where

injustice resides. However, teaching from a restorative justice perspective is challenging. It

requires students, and teachers, to face stereotypes and biases.

The Restorative Justice in Education approach discusses ways in which we can foster

responsibility, healing, and hope in schools. This approach shows educators how and why we

must teach students about justice. There are three components that form the foundation of the

Restorative Justice approach: creating just and equitable learning environments, nurturing

healthy relationships, and repairing harm and transforming conflict. Furthermore, this approach

honors the inherent worth of all. This is what education must do as well. It must teach and

prepare students to honor the worth of all humans in this diverse and interconnected world.

According to Katherine Evans and Dorothy Vaandering, authors of The Little Book of

Restorative Justice in Education, education must seek to empower learners of all ages to live out

their capacity for being human and relational. I believe part of being human includes celebrating

the diversity of those around you, building relationships that bridge barriers, and honoring the

worth of all people. We need to seek justice for all people because all people are worth it, as they

too are children of God.

What does it mean to be a Person?

Swanson 10
 I have always used the words ‘human’ and ‘person’ interchangeably. Yet I am starting to

realize not everyone does. After reading Doornbos and Ikaheimo’s articles, I understand the

complexity of those words and the meaning they carry. Yet do we really need both words? Can

we not say that all humans are persons and all persons are humans? Why two separate

categories? To answer those questions, we need to define a ‘person’. What does it mean to be a

person? According to Doornbos et all, persons are bodily beings. Therefore, persons are

embodied. With embodiment comes independence and dependence. Often times, we correlate

being independent with being stronger, more capable, and therefore more valuable. We all strive

for some independence—independence is a valuable attribute. I believe we all can be

independent in some aspect; we can have independence from our “surroundings and can interact

with them in ways that are satisfying and meaningful to [us]” Doornbos says. However, we must

not ignore that persons are all dependent as well. Being a bodily being means relying on one's

surroundings. Doornbos puts it this way; “Dependence is universal. We are dependent on the

ground on which we walk and on the air we breathe...we also depend on the other people and the

social institutions that provide the context within which we act and live”. When talking about

personhood, and what defines personhood, it may be easy to create a definition to exclude people

with disabilities. Ikaheimo asks, “Can impairments compromise someone’s personhood, or are

we persons completely independently of our abilities?”. How about how others perceive us? Is

being a person independent of the perceptions and attitudes of others?

Furthermore, education struggles to prepare students for the diversity of this world and

the benefits that come from a society you can depend on. Education in the United States has an

individualistic mindset—how can I make it on my own? I am smart and clever, and I work hard,

therefore I deserve this success. Yet what about those students who fall into the “misfits”

Swanson 11
category and do not benefit from the structures of education? What about students who have

disabilities and have been labeled as weak and unworthy? This is where we, as a society, have

fallen short. Therefore, this is where we, as a society, should encourage our students to seek

justice. Ikaheimo talks about the interpersonal status concept of personhood or being seen as a

person by others. While we may not deny we are all human, many are not treated as persons. In

other words, we do not give some humans recognized value. When someone strays from our idea

of an ‘average’ human, they are not given the same respect or recognition. Yet do we equate all

humans as persons? Do all humans deserve recognized value? Yes. Everyone deserves to be seen

as a person. Everybody deserves to have a moral status—to be treated with respect. All humans

have value because they are made in the image of God. Education ought to prepare students for

the diversity found in those around us, furthermore, how that diversity should be celebrated and

respected. An aspect of seeking justice is creating a safe space for all humans to flourish.

However, if we take a look at our schools today, they are not safe spaces for a multitude

of students. Our call to justice includes those who suffer daily injustice—something that is

experienced by students who identify as homosexual. Thus, shouldn’t our call to seek justice also

include actively creating spaces that welcome and celebrate LGBT+ students? In an essay

written by Clarence Joldersma, it is found that many students in Christian schools, who identify

as LGBT+ felt a tension between their personal identity and the religious beliefs of the school.

There is a disconnect with how Christian schools may present themselves, and how they act upon

those claims. Joldersma, in the essay Doing Justice Today: A Welcoming Embrace for LGBT

Students in Christian Schools, offers three examples of what doing justice in schools looks like.

First, we must work to include “the specific language of sexual orientation and gender

expression in the school’s non-discrimination and anti-bullying policies” (Joldersma, 42).

Swanson 12
Second, “doing justice involves providing professional development for teachers and other staff

members on effective intervention strategies in order to create safer climates in schools”

(Joldersma, 42). Lastly, it involves “recognizing that the professional staff and official school

policies need help from the students themselves” (Joldersma, 42). Listening to the students and

asking them for help, seems to go against everything that the education system stands for,

however, if we are to teach our students that they have a voice, we must do our part by listening

when they are inspired to use it for change. We must recognize our students as individual

persons with unique gifts and valuable opinions.

Conclusion

Providing opportunities for all students to do justice in their communities comes with its

challenges. Although it seems like a lot of work, seems like we are going nowhere, it still

matters. We cannot fail to recognize the injustices in our educational and societal structures do

not belong. We cannot simply accept that the way things are will always be this way. We must

keep asking what purpose education ought to serve and how well it is serving that purpose. The

status quo should never satisfy—there must be a personal longing to disrupt the normalcy of

injustices that linger in the daily lives of those around us. Joldersma explains this feeling as

transcendence, an experience “that disrupts our satisfaction with status quo practices,

experienced as a pull that things ought to be different” (Joldersma, 2014, 9). There is a personal

obligation that is felt, an obligation to close the gap, even though that bridge seems impossible to

build. However, in this moment comes a second disruption—an experience of hope. Despite the

roadblocks and obstacles, humans will experience this conviction that overcoming

Swanson 13
impossibilities is possible. (Joldersma, 2014, 10). While we cannot see the outcome of our work

now, we still desire for something good to come, we are hoping for things we cannot see at this

moment. For me, to hope is to teach. I teach because I have hope that those students, every single

one of them sitting in my classroom has the potential to seek justice in this world. As Joldersma

states; “The hopefulness of this hope is not for the student but for the world. Hope for the

refugee, the war victim, the underemployed; for vulnerable ecologies and decimated resources.

The very act of teaching itself signals that these situations are not hopeless, that present

inequalities and behaviors are not ironclad” (Joldersma, 2014, 59). I will keep fighting to make

what education ought to be, what education is. I will keep fighting to ensure that education seeks

justice and creates a society where all humans and other creatures may flourish.

Works Cited

Articles 16-30, United Nations Declaration of Human Rights : Youth For Human Rights Video.

(n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2019, from https://www.youthforhumanrights.org/what-are-

human-rights/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/articles-16-30.html

Swanson 14
Biesta, G. (2015). What is Education For? On Good Education, Teacher Judgement, and

Educational Professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75-87.

doi:10.1111/ejed.12109

Deschenes, S., Cuban, L., & Tyack, D. (2001). Mismatch: Historical Perspectives on Schools

and Students Who Dont Fit Them. Teachers College Record, 103(4), 525-547.

doi:10.1111/0161-4681.00126

Doornbos, M. M., Groenhout, R. E., & Hotz, K. G. (2005). Transforming Care A Christian

Vision of Nursing Practice. , 52-65.

Education Law - History. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2019, from

https://law.jrank.org/pages/6347/Education-Law-History.html

Evans, K., & Vaandering, D. (2016). The little book of restorative justice in education: Fostering

responsibility, healing, and hope in schools. NY, NY: Good Books.

Joldersma, C. W. (2014). Calling and Inspiration. A Levinasian Ethics for Educations

Commonplaces,7-21. doi:10.1057/9781137415493_2

Joldersma, C. W. (2016). Doing justice today: A welcoming embrace for LGBT students in

Christian schools. International Journal of Christianity & Education, 20(1), 32-48.

doi:10.1177/2056997115617950

Kristiansen, K., Shakespeare, T., & Vehmas, S. (2010). Arguing about disability: Philosophical

perspectives. London: Routledge.

Swanson 15
Martusewicz, R. (2014). Letting Our Hearts Break: On Facing the "Hidden Wound" of Human

Supremacy. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 19, 31-44.

Noguera, P. (2003). Schools, Prisons, and Social Implications of Punishment: Rethinking

Disciplinary Practices. Theory Into Practice, 42(4), 341-350. doi:10.1353/tip.2003.0048

Walzer, M. (2009). What Is "The Good Society"? Dissent, 56(1), 74-78. doi:10.1353/dss.0.0019

Wolterstorff, N. (2004). Educating for shalom: Essays on Christian higher education. Grand

Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

Swanson 16