WHAT IS SCHOOL FOR?

 Covid has interrupted a year or more of  the continuity of education withe unknown consequences for the children affected,  but it helps them  appreciate the importance of engaging in school;  an appreciation that is difficult to convey in any other way. Perhaps the major benefit of the Covid epidemic is recognizing that American schools are not appreciated or supported.  

Today's NYT  (9/4/22) has a special section on schools (https://www.nytimes.com/section/todayspaper#sundayreview).  Contributors ask is school for: "everyone",  "social mobility", "learning to read",  "care", "us" (minorities),  "merit", "wasting time and money", "making citizens",  "hope", "connecting to Nature", "becoming school activists", and 12 teachers comment on the situation of public schools.  A simple answer is that schools are the institution of a complex society to prepare the younger members to take on the adult roles of the society.  This answer fits with all societies, large and small,  a necessary social function of every community. A problem with this answer is that not all children engage with school in the same way, or receive the same benefits,  and so schools prioritize what they provide to students with inconsistent results.   The many purposes of school that the writers identify are all included in the education of private funded schools,  so it seems clear that the question of priorities is not about what schools should do,  but what schools should be paid to do, and who should pay?  

The simple answer,  like private schools,  is that the local community should agree on what to pay for their schools, and what to provide in services and instruction.  Property taxes and school boards seem to answer this problem until it becomes clear that many services can only be provided effectively in large school populations,  and so "unified school districts" extend over large regions and conflicting interests impact school boards.  This should solve the problem of size and scale but it doesn't.  People complain about the cost of schools and blame teacher's salaries (and their unions) and the lack of adequate teachers,  but the bottom line is really money and exclusion.  Despite efforts to integrate and balance districts with different economic groups,  school districts still are separated by their included population, and parents intentionally move to areas and districts with "a better class of people" and "better schools".  This is a racial and social class issue,  but it is really a money issue: people do not want to dilute their school taxes to include people who pay less for their schooling.  This issue has never been effectively solved anywhere in the country.

But even better funded school systems are having trouble affording a wide range of educational services.  The disappearance of arts,  music, and other "special programs" indicates that in order to prioritize the "three Rs" other educational components must be sacrificed.  Though teachers get the blame,  it is hard to imagine that this low paid group is really the problem.  

The deeper problem is capitalism and "human resources".  Any society that is solely motivated by the accumulation of capital and the ROI (return on investment) of capital,  will see "human resources" not as a separate source of value but as a component in the process of ROI.  This is obvious to anyone who has ever worked in a large corporate setting, but is often unappreciated by the general public.  For the average homeowner,  the tax that pays for schools is a cost of ownership with no direct ROI.  Yes, it helps property values,  but these are varying and unpredictable and cannot compensate for the accumulated loss in taxes.  Does anyone ever say: "I want to pay more school taxes to improve the quality of public education in my region."? If they have,  I have not found any record of it.

The most ludicrous intervention is Federal Education policies.  The idea that a small group of bureaucrats in Washington DC can intuit how to distribute income tax money  to differentially benefit multiple school systems is ridiculous.  The assumption that Federal Education policies insure a general level of quality education is a laudable ideal with no evidence that it has ever been accomplished.  Placing deVos as the head of Education in the last administration is a clear indication that at least some people see this as merely an opportunity for facilitating private investment.

What is School For?  is part of a greater issue in contemporary society: What are children for?  It appears that the major role of children and teens is to become socialized to consume goods and services that drive the economy, to train them to become aggressive consumers by having them watch as much advertising as possible,  and buying, or motivate their parents to buy, as much disposable product,  including media,  as possible.  The tasks of preparing children to become leaders,  scientists,  spiritual guides,  and most important,  effective parents,  are secondary.  This is also how youth are exploited in for profit education programs that pretend to provide alternative education opportunities,  but are empty promises.  (Not all, but most are.)

Recent US history exemplifies leaders whose major priority is enriching themselves,  and this is also characteristic of many of the wealthiest in our country who care more about putting their money into super-yachts and grand estates,  and not  returning wealth to enhance the education of the society, as occurred in earlier generations.  America has succeeded in educating a group of people to believe that the only important value is accumulating more capital.  I do not think this is a long term basis for any society.