The aim of education?  Egads!  What a jumble of theories, politics, camps and positions!  Who can make any sense of it?  Well, let's look at the "research"!  But whose research?  Read the experts!  Which experts?  Are there not research and experts for all seasons?  And hurrah for that, for public debate about education is politics, and politics that ain't messy is dead.  So, what to do?

A few months ago, I had a chat with a neighbor, an excavator by occupation.   I asked him about the aim of education.  "Well," he said without hesitation, "I guess the same as ever: to teach kids to be decent people who can make their way in the world."

I'm not sure that I could do much better than that.  Beyond the breezy common sense of the excavator's description lie the deep waters of philosophical inquiry: one could, and many have, devoted lifetimes in the pursuit of understanding what education is or ought to be.  And anyway, my excavator keeps good company.  Ted Sizer, for one, speaks of much the same thing in his emphasis of the dual purposes of school---education of the intellect and an education in character.  The trick, of course, is in getting there.  Perhaps this is as good a place as any to voice some of my assumptions about the "getting there."

1. Recognize limits and set achievable goals. 

Do not be carried away in florid rhetorical boasting of idealized and unattainable institutions.  We complain as educators that the public expects too much of and little understands what we do.  Well why shouldn't they?  The rhetoric of education often rings with the bombast of presumed pedagogical omnipotence. 

2. Recognize the individual as the central object of education. 

Try as we may for balance, one must still declare one side or the other, whether to approach education from a societal perspective, or the personalistic.  Should the real objective be a better, more just, "transformed" society?  The training of armies of "good citizens?"  Or should the primary focus be upon the nurturing and preparation of kids, one at a time,  for successful lives as decent people in the world as they will find it.

I opt for the latter, but not without some misgivings: its ramifications involve a rejection of some cherished icons in a democratic tradition that runs from  to Rousseau to Dewey to the myriad variations of American Progressivism.  It is a tradition that sets education as the engine of social transformation.  Infused with nobility of spirit and the spirit of crusade, it has always claimed the moral high ground, depicting opponents as Scrooge-like defenders of the status quo. 

Placing the needs of the individual student at the center becomes incompatible with much of the Progressive tradition in the same way that responsible parenting often is in conflict with it.  For example, Bill and Hillary's commitment to social responsiblity was embarrassingly compromised by their decision to enroll Chelsea at a private Quaker school; that decision, however, is easily understood by  parents everywhere, most of whom would do exactly the same if given the chance. 

I see two main problems with social transformation as an obective of schooling:
first, that it doesn't usually work; and second, it aggravates the political tension already inherent in public schooling.  Once we embrace a political agenda, however well meant, we open the door to ideological civil war.  Do we really want schools to function as centers of indoctrination at the service of whatever political ideology currently prevails?  The ongoing fight should be to keep politics out of the school.  It is not a fight that will ever, could ever, be "won"; it is more like the sea dikes of the Dutch, or the timeless struggle to provide sustenance for one's own. 

Ironically, our best contribution, as educators, to meaningful long-term social progress might be in an emphasis on the individual student, the inherent conservatism of this notwithstanding.  It is a paradox addressed by E.D. Hirsch, who makes the point that, "the goals of political liberalism require educational conservatism."  Education will transform society, anyways.  It always has: literacy changed the world; compulsory public education changed the American social landscape.  The best route to social change may not be that which seems most direct.  Let us as educators hold to a simple faith: that leading children to knowledge of themselves and their world is enough, and is the most genuine long-term path to social transformation. 
 
3. Recognize the central role of the teacher.

Since the early years of public schools, and the conscious efforts of people to model schools after industry (Taylor!), there has been a tendency toward mechanizing education.  Too often, our discussions about curricula, pedagogy and school administration center on systems and process, while people stand on the periphery: teachers portrayed as reactionary dolts (and students in one of two species--little eager beavers or felons-in-training.)  We make teachers subordinate to systems and institutions.  A logical conclusion we might draw from many educational trends today is that teachers are just filling in till we develop computers good enough to take over.  Classroom of the future: a computer and a cop.
The notion of school  as we know it is fairly new; not surprisingly, it roughly coincides with the Industrial Revolution.  The idea of the teacher, however, is as old as human society.  I am not at all sure what school  ever did for me; but I am sure that my life was forever altered by a few wonderful teachers.  Read old books and you'll discover a recurring scene: a man or a woman, often old men and women, guiding youth toward understanding:  The Teacher.   The modern portrayal of "teachers" is less flattering: dull, bureaucratic drones struggling through humiliating daily routines, hoping merely to cope, to survive another year.  This startlingly different image of the teacher appears more or less at the same time as the emergence of schools.  What has happened to the teacher?

Want excellence?  Hire great teachers and support them like crazy.  Fill the school with many different kinds of teachers.  Forget about all the formal credentials, at least till they mean something.  Make the hiring process the heart of the administrative agenda: put applicants through the same kind of intense scrutiny normally reserved for capital expenditures in “brick and mortar”---after all, a new teacher represents a million dollar long-term investment.  Look for people who can inspire, who bring strong and diverse personal and professional experience into the school.