4 E D U C AT I O N C A N A D A I C A N A D I A N E D U C A T I O N A S S O C I A T I O N

In his book by the delightfully ambigu-ous title The End of Education, NeilPostman observes that when peopletalk about public education, the con-versation is usually on “means” andrarely on “ends”.1 There is an elementof truth to this. Unless we believe thatpurposes of public education areutterly uncontroversial or entirely set-tled, or perhaps irrelevant, a host ofquestions will come to mind. Are thepurposes of public education whatthey should be and how might weknow?; how are they arrived at?;whose purposes are we talking aboutanyway?; could public education dowithout purposes or is this an incoher-ent notion?; and so on.

In this essay I shall assume that“public education” means “publicschooling”, ie, schooling (K-12) fundedand controlled by government, univer-sally accessible, formally concernedwith learning and bringing it about inothers. I shall also assume that talkabout “purposes” in the present con-text is understood to be talk aboutwhat schools are for, that is, about the“ends” schools serve, or their primaryreasons for being.

In broaching this topic I thought ituseful to determine what various min-istries of education in Canada regardthe contemporary purposes of publicschooling to be. My informal surveyincluded seven provincial and two ter-ritorial ministries.2 In what follows Ipresent a sketch of the findings, thenoffer a short critical commentary andconclude with my own analysis of howpurposes or goals of schooling couldbe characterized.

I wish to commentspecifically on the“relativistic” way inwhich the goals ofschooling appear tobe conceptualizedby the ministries.Invariably the goalsare presented asthough they are ofequal importanceor worth and there-fore all equallycentral to whatschooling is for.This way of thinkingis problematic.

the language of goals exclusively.Alberta’s (overall) goal is to developthe knowledge, skills and attitudesthat will prepare students for “life afterschool”. British Columbia identifiesthree goals: intellectual development,human and social development, andcareer development. Nova Scotia andOntario express basically similar goals:all-round development of students,cognitively, affectively, socially, cultur-ally, morally, and physically, and theacquisition of skills, knowledge andattitudes necessary to find gainful andsatisfying employment and to be activeand valued or contributing members ofsociety. Saskatchewan’s ministry listsnine goals ranging from basic cognitiveskills, career and consumer decisions,growing with change and membershipin society to self-esteem, positive life-style and spiritual development.

Purposes of Public EducationPhilosophical ReflectionsDOUGLAS STEWART

IFour of the ministries in my sample(Manitoba, New Brunswick, North-west Territories, Nunavut) use the lan-guage of mission rather than goals inidentifying what they believe schoolsare for. Despite the diversities in his-tory, geography and culture of theregions these ministries represent,their mission statements are remark-ably similar. To paraphrase NewBrunswick’s, which is typical, the pur-pose of schooling is to have each student develop the attributes neces-sary for life-long learning, achieve per-sonal fulfilment, and contribute to aproductive, just and democratic com-munity. One ministry in this group,Manitoba, specifically includes a refer-ence to producing “an educated citi-zenry” and a “skilled and adaptableworkforce”. Another, Northwest Terri-tories, includes a goals statement (inaddition to its mission) in which thephysical, emotional, social, intellectu-al and spiritual dimensions of growthare identified as goals for schooling toachieve in partnership with familiesand communities.

The other five ministries in the sam-ple (Alberta, British Columbia, NovaScotia, Ontario and Saskatchewan) use

All the ministries in this secondgroup go to varying lengths to spellout their goals statements in moredetail. B.C.’s ministry, for example,identifies the abilities to reason andthink independently, to analyze infor-mation critically, and to acquire basiclearning skills and knowledge under itsgoal of “intellectual development”;and a sense of identity and socialresponsibility as citizens, workers andpotential parents, an understanding ofdiversity, and respect for other’sbeliefs, all under “human and socialdevelopment”. Saskatchewan placesthe abilities to make informed con-sumer choices and adapt to shifts inemployment patterns and technologyunder its goal of “career and consumerdecisions”; personal responsibility,duties of democratic citizenship, themoral virtues of honesty, compassion,fairness and respect for others’ rights,and working for greater social justice,all under “membership in society”;and, understanding the purpose andworth of human existence and devel-oping a knowledge of God under “spir-itual development”. Nova Scotia fea-tures six areas of learning “essential”to achieving its goals – aestheticexpression, citizenship, communica-tion, personal development, problemsolving and technological develop-ment. And Alberta’s expanded list ofgoals includes an understanding of theacademic disciplines, the virtues ofrespect, fairness, honesty, caring, andloyalty, a commitment to democraticideals, critical and creative thinking,competence in using information tech-nologies, respect for cultural diversity,healthful lifestyles, and managing timeto complete a task.

IIThere is of course much that could bediscussed here with respect to what isincluded in the ministries’ goals andwhat is not, the degrees of concurrenceor disparity across the ministries’ goals,what procedures or processes are fol-lowed in framing the goals, whetherany rationale is provided for the goals

The conception of“education” astransformative andempowering…implies the develop-ment and enlarge-ment of human consciousness orawareness of theworld, of “seeing”or looking at theworld with new andenriched perspec-tives that transcendthe local and particular, and thatenable individualsto achieve a greatermeaning and senseof who they are andhow they relate tothe world.

C A N A D I A N E D U C A T I O N A S S O C I A T I O N I E D U C AT I O N C A N A D A 5

selected, and so on. For instance, morethan a few eyebrows will be raised overthe inclusion of “spiritual develop-ment” as a goal of public schooling,and some will wonder why there are noreferences in the goals to “nationalidentity” and none or very few to “careand concern for the natural environ-ment”. Others may want to know towhat extent democratic procedureswere actually followed in framing thegoals. Were any of the constituenciespublic schooling serves – parents,communities, employers, post-sec-ondary institutions – consulted, and ifso, were their views taken seriously,and how was it decided what weightshould be given their views? Were oth-ers such as philosophers of educationwhose professional training lends itselfto an analysis of goals and their justifi-cation brought into the picture, or wasthe process a wholly internal affairwithin the ministries themselves?

Interesting and important as thesequestions are, they are not the focus ofmy immediate concern. Instead I wishto comment specifically on the “rela-tivistic” way in which the goals ofschooling appear to be conceptualizedby the ministries. Invariably the goalsare presented as though they are ofequal importance or worth and there-fore all equally central to what school-ing is for. This way of thinking is prob-lematic.

For ease of discussion, suppose weplace the goals the ministries presentinto broader categories to which theynaturally seem to gravitate. These wemay characterize as follows: (a) the goodor well-being of the individual (eg., life-long learning; development of individ-ual potential intellectually, socially,emotionally, physically; self-esteem;healthful lifestyles: etc); (b) the publicgood or the good of society (good citizen-ship; commitment to democraticideals; respect for law and legitimateauthority; respect for cultural diversity;etc); (c) vocational preparation (a skilledand adaptable workforce; technologi-cal literacy; etc); and (d) the economicgood (a competitive economy within a

global market). In a relativist world, allfour categories would be deemedequally valid. We would not be able toprioritize the categories or claim thatsome are more critical or vital to whatschooling is about than are others – forinstance that category (a) could be moreimportant than categories (c) or (d).

This situation will not bear criticalscrutiny. It first of all glosses over thepossibility that some of the categoriesmay actually be incompatible or atodds with others and thus not mutual-ly achievable. It has been argued, forexample, by the Canadian philosopherof education, Kieran Egan, that thesocietal goal of schooling ((b) above),especially if characterized as “social-ization”, would be a barrier to theachievement of a goals category like(a). The assumption here is thatsocialization, with its intent of teach-ing children and youth to conform tosocietal norms, beliefs and practices,would conflict with the achievement ofindependent thought and judgment oropen-mindedness which are central tothe achievement of the “individualgood” (category (a)).3 If true, howboth goals could be equally importantis unclear. On the other hand, thepost-modern philosopher, RichardRorty, has argued that of all the avail-able candidates for goals of schooling,socialization can be the only legitimateone.4 This too plays havoc with theparity question.

The relativist approach would alsoseem to deny the possibility of havingrational and equitable grounds foradjudicating the various competingdemands that are placed on schooling.Nor does it seem to square with actualpractices of schooling in which unequaltime, effort and emphasis is intention-ally devoted to the pursuit of differentgoals. I think most teachers have agood sense of the prioritization ofwhich I speak. Otherwise it would bedifficult to explain their oft-expressedfrustration at being unable to do whatthey have been trained to do — whichis to teach and help bring about learn-ing in students that promotes their

EN BREF La plupart des ministères de l’Éducation présentent leurs buts demanière relative, c’est-à-dire, sans spécifier de buts individuels ou des catégoriesd’objectifs à atteindre. En présentant tous les mandats de l’éducation sur unmême pied d’égalité, ils ignorent la possibilité que certains de ces mandats puis-sent être incompatibles. Le but premier de l’éducation devrait être de favoriserl’apprentissage des enfants et des jeunes, et ce, d’un point de vue transformateuret habilitant. Si nous arrivons à bien remplir cette fonction, les autres objectifs –social et professionnel par exemple – seront atteints par défaut puisque cesautres dimensions du développement humain sont fondamentalement cognitives.

characterized as having a cognitive core. In the case of emotion, for instance,

the cognitive core is associated withour appraisals of situations. My feel-ings of jealousy are precipitated by my“seeing” someone else as possessing orreceiving something to which I claim aright; my feelings of fear, by “seeing”situations as dangerous or threaten-ing. In experiencing emotion, cogni-tion is necessarily present, though itspresence clearly does not exhaust allthere is to the experience. A “feeling”side is very much present too. As forthe case of moral development, unlessone has a concept, for example, of“other persons” as possessing beliefs,desires, aspirations, and as capable offorming plans, being hurt or disap-pointed, etc., the scope of moral-socialgrowth is decidedly limited as well.

Putting this accent on the develop-ment of mind recognizes and acknowl-edges that mind is basic or fundamen-tal to human development in its vari-ous dimensions and that, if schoolingis to be primarily an institution of“education”, it needs to place a con-certed effort on heightening the con-sciousness or awareness of individuallearners, and empowering them withgreater meaning. It is also a reminderthat to achieve a greater differentiat-ed-ness of consciousness (or meaning-fulness), a progressive “initiation” oflearners into the achievements of thehuman mind and spirit that are avail-able to us will be required.

Many of these achievements areembodied in what are variously called“traditions of thought and feeling”,“forms of knowledge and understand-ing” or “the conversations of human-kind”.5 They include: the natural sci-ences and technology, the human orsocial sciences, mathematical under-standing, the expressive or fine artsand literature, moral capacity andunderstanding, philosophical reflec-tion, and so on. Moreover, each ofthese traditions or conversations hasits own forms of discourse, that is, itsdistinctive languages and concepts,judgments and claims, sentiments,methods of inquiry, evaluation proce-dures, etc, and the more progressschooling makes in getting our chil-dren and youth on the inside of these“conversations”, the greater the aware-ness and understanding they will haveof the world, themselves and others,and thus the more fully human they

individual well-being and the socialgood. This frustration stems largelyfrom external pressures placed onthem to deal with various personal,familial, and justice issues studentsbring to school, and which teachersare ill-equipped to handle, diminishingthe time and energy left for their pri-mary mission.

The popularity of relativism withministries is most likely due to theirdesire to avoid judgments of value thatare necessarily involved in any prioriti-zation process. In this way, ministriesnot only escape the more difficult taskof having to justify why some goals ofschooling may be more important orcentral than others, but also to escapethe criticism to which they would besubjected were they to favour somegoals more than others.

IIII shall argue in this section that the pri-mary goal of schooling is the educationof children and youth, and that if weget this right the other goals will moreor less take care of themselves.

In saying this, I am drawing upon aconception of “education” as transfor-mative and empowering. It is one thatimplies the development and enlarge-ment of human consciousness orawareness of the world, of “seeing” orlooking at the world with new andenriched perspectives that transcendthe local and particular, and thatenable individuals to achieve a greatermeaning and sense of who they areand how they relate to the world. If“education” then is the primary goal,it would follow that the chief reasonfor schooling is to heighten each learn-er’s consciousness or awareness of theworld; and since “mind” or “intellect”is characterized essentially as con-sciousness or awareness, one couldconclude further that the chief end ofschooling is the development of mindor intellect.

I am well aware that this way of put-ting the matter can be easily misinter-preted; but I hasten to add I am notarguing that schooling is or should bean elitist institution or that it shouldconcentrate on the intellectual devel-opment of children and youth at theexpense or to the exclusion of theirsocial, emotional or moral develop-ment. Nothing in fact could be furtherfrom the truth, for these other dimen-sions of human development all are

will become.This task of “educating” the young

is not an easy one (though no one tomy knowledge has ever said it was).The “conversations” of our humaninheritance may initially seem strangeand remote to children, and not easilyaccessible. The skills of literacy andnumeracy, the intellectual and moraldispositions and attitudes involved inthe conversations are themselves chal-lenging and require steady guidanceand practice. Educating requires timeand patience. It is truly a life-long,enriching endeavour of which school-ing is one of the most critical legs ofthe journey.6 The ministries who iden-tified “life-long learning” as a goal ofschooling – if by that they mean thedevelopment of dispositions and atti-tudes necessary to keep learning going– have recognized a truth.

Earlier I claimed that if the “educa-tion” of children and youth is beingadequately addressed, the other goalsof schooling will more or less take careof themselves. It is time to clarify whatI mean.

Let us consider the public good orthe good of society first. As we haveseen, it is normally understood toincorporate the notions of preparingyoung people to be decent citizens andcontributing members of society, con-cerned for social justice, committed todemocratic values and principles andto respecting cultural, racial, genderand other forms of difference. But thesocial knowledge, the skills of literacyand numeracy, the abilities to thinkcritically and independently, to beempathetic, to be co-operative andcare about the well-being of othersthat are among the componentsrequired to be decent citizens and con-tributing members of society are them-selves part of the learning objectivesthat are integral to “educating” in thetransformative sense. In other words,as schooling addresses its primary pur-pose of “education”, it is at the sametime addressing the social good or thegood of society.

A similar line of thinking applies tothe goal of vocational preparation aswell. In this case it is important to bearin mind that most new recruits intothe workplace will be trained by theiremployers on the job, and as a resultthere is no expectation that the skillsnecessary for specific types of workought to be honed by the school.

6 E D U C AT I O N C A N A D A I C A N A D I A N E D U C A T I O N A S S O C I A T I O N

What employers seem to want is abasic vocational preparation that willdispose young people to be open andwilling to learn on the job, be adapt-able, co-operative, treat others civilly,stay on task, persevere and (of course)meet acceptable levels of literacy andnumeracy. Once again these areamong the concerns of “educating”,and to the extent they are beingattended to in that respect, so is thegoal of basic workplace preparation.

One caveat I wish to enter here con-cerns the question of health and fit-ness, including nutrition and recre-ation. While it is understood to be anaspect of individual “well-being” andtherefore a legitimate part of the “edu-cational” goal of schooling, there aregood reasons why “healthful lifestyle”,as one of the ministries put it, shouldbe more prominently emphasized orunderlined and given “goals” status,even though most of the contentinvolved is “educational” in nature.The most recent considerations sup-porting this claim are the mountingconcerns over child obesity and physi-cal inactivity.

In summary, I have argued that“educating” children and youth, whichentails development of a differentiatedconsciousness and of the qualities of

mind and character entailed in suchdevelopment, is the primary goal ofschooling. The other named goals –the social, the vocational and health –are secondary goals in the sense theyare essentially derivative of the primarygoal. They are singled out to remind usthey have an importance in publicschooling and must not be over-looked, but they are not in themselveson a par with the school’s central mis-sion of “educating”.

There is still hope for the ministriesof education. They succeeded in men-tioning many of the constituents of“education” (in the transformativesense). But seldom if ever is the termeducation mentioned in their goalsstatements, and ironically, there seemsto be no consciousness of the transfor-mative sense of education, let aloneany sustained attempts to pull the var-ious components together into a morecoherent conception of education, norto realize that this is basically whatschools are for. H

DOUGLAS STEWART is Professor ofEducation (emeritus), University ofRegina, and immediate Past-Presidentof the Canadian Philosophy of Educa-tion Society.

I am not arguingthat schoolingshould … concen-trate on the intellec-tual development ofchildren and youthat the expense or to the exclusion oftheir social, emotion-al or moral develop-ment. Nothing infact could be furtherfrom the truth, forthese other dimen-sions of humandevelopment all arecharacterized ashaving a cognitivecore.

Notes

1 Neil Postman, The End of Education: Redefining

the Value of School (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,

1995).

2 Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,

Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and

Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and

Nunavut. This selection covers the four major

regions of Canada — Western, Central, Eastern,

and Northern. Goals statements for these

jurisdictions proved to be fairly accessible on

ministry websites (enter Education@Canada)

unlike those of Quebec, for example.

3 Kieran Egan, The Educated Mind: How Cognitive

Tools Shape Our Understanding. (Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press, 1997).

4 Rorty, Richard. “Education Without Dogma:

Truth, Freedom and our Universities” in

William Hare and John Portelli (eds). Philosophy

of Education: Introductory Readings, Revised 3rd

Edition (Calgary: Detselig, 2001): 107-16.

5 The metaphors of “initiation” and “conversa-

tions of humankind” come from political

philosopher, Michael Oakeshott. See Timothy

Fuller (ed.) The Voice of Liberal Learning: Michael

Oakeshott on Education (New Haven: Yale

University Press, 1989).

6 Elsewhere I have argued that schooling is an

integral phase in what I call the journey of

humanization. See my “Schooling as a Journey

in Humanization” in William Hare and John

Portelli, eds. Philosophy of Education: Introductory

Readings, 51-68.

C A N A D I A N E D U C A T I O N A S S O C I A T I O N I E D U C AT I O N C A N A D A 7