Public Schools Best Fulfill Dr. King's "Purpose of Education"

What is the purpose of education?

Is it to train the next generation of workers?

Or is it to empower the next generation of citizens?

Is it to give children the skills necessary to meet the needs of business and industry?

Or is it to provide them the tools to self-actualize and become the best people they can be?

In today's world, our leaders continue to insist that the answer to the question is the former corporate training model. Knowledge is only valuable if it translates to a job and thus a salary.

But we didn't always think that way.

As another Martin Luther King Day is about to dawn this week, I'm reminded of the man behind the myth, a person who clearly would deny this materialistic view of learning.

When we think of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we usually think of the towering figure of the Civil Rights Movement who gave the "I have a dream" speech during the March on Washington in 1963.

However, as a teacher, I find myself turning to something he wrote in 1947 when he was just an 18-year-old student at Morehouse College.

While finishing his undergraduate studies in sociology, he published an essay in the student paper called "The Purpose of Education."

Two sections immediately jump off the page. The first is this:

"We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character-that is the goal of true education. The complete education gives one not only power of concentration, but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate. The broad education will, therefore, transmit to one not only the accumulated knowledge of the race but also the accumulated experience of social living."

So for King it wasn't enough for schools to teach facts. It wasn't enough to teach skills, math, writing, reading, history and science. The schools are also responsible for teaching children character - how to be good people, how to get along with each other.

It's a worthy goal.

But 2018 contains a far different educational landscape than 1947.

When King wrote, there were basically two kinds of school - public and private. Today there is a whole spectrum of public and private each with its own degree of self-governance, fiscal accountability and academic freedom.

On the one side we have traditional public schools. On the other we have fully private schools. And in the middle we have charter, voucher and home schools.

So which schools today are best equipped to meet King's ideal?

Private schools are by their very nature exclusionary. They attract and accept only certain students. These may be those with the highest academics, parental legacies, religious beliefs, or - most often - families that can afford the high tuition. As such, their student bodies are mostly white and affluent.

That is not King's ideal. That is not the best environment to form character, the best environment in which to learn about people who are different than you and to develop mutual understanding.

Voucher schools are the same. They are, in fact, nothing but private schools that are subsidized in part by public tax dollars.

Charter schools model themselves on private schools so they are likewise discriminatory. The businesses who run these institutions - often for a profit - don't have to enroll whoever applies. Even though they are fully funded by public tax dollars, they can choose who to let in and who to turn away. Often this is done behind the cloak of a lottery, but with no transparency and no one checking to ensure it is done fairly, there is no reason to believe operators are doing anything but selecting the easiest (read: cheapest) students to educate.

Charter schools have been shown to increase segregation having student bodies that are more monochrome than those districts from which they cherry pick students. This is clearly not King's ideal.

Homeschooling is hard to generalize. There is such a wide variety of experiences that can be described under this moniker. However, they often include this feature - children are taught at home by their parent or parents. They may or may not interact with their academic peers and the degree to which they meet and understand different cultures is variable to say the least. They may meet King's ideal, but frankly the majority of them probably do not.

So we're left with traditional public schools. Do they instill "intelligence plus character"?

Answer: it depends.

There are many public schools where children of different races, nationalities, religions, and creeds meet, interact and learn together side-by-side.

Students wearing hajibs learn next to those wearing yarmulkes. Students with black skin and white skin partner with each other to complete class projects. Students with parents who emigrated to this country as refugees become friends with those whose parents can trace their ancestors back to the Revolutionary War.

These schools are true melting pots where children learn to become adults who value each other because of their differences not fear each other due to them. These are children who not only learn their academics as well - if not often better - than those at competing kinds of schools, but they also learn the true face of America and they learn to cherish it.

This is the true purpose of education. This is the realization of King's academic ideal and his civil rights dream.

However, this is not the case at every public school.

While there are many like this, there are too many that are increasingly segregated. In fact, in some areas our schools today are more segregated than they were at the time of Dr. King's assassination.

These are schools that get the lion's share of resources, that have the newest facilities, the widest curriculum, the most affluent clientele.

So, no, not even all public schools meet this ideal. But those that don't at least contain the possibility of change.

We could integrate all public schools. We could never integrate our charter, voucher and private schools. That goes against their essential mission. They are schools made to discriminate. Public schools are meant to be all inclusive. Every one could meet King's ideal, if we only cared enough to do it.

Which brings me to the second section of King's early essay that pops off the page:

"The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals."

Seventy one years ago, King was warning us about the situation we suffer today.

When we allow academics to be distinct from character and understanding, we put ourselves at the mercy of leaders with "reason, but with no morals."

We put ourselves and our posterity in the hands of those like President Donald Trump, the fruit of a fully private education.

Racism and privilege become the defining characteristics of a class without character, in King's sense.

If we want to reclaim what it means to be an American, if we want to redefine ourselves as those who celebrate difference and defend civil rights, that begins with understanding the purpose of education.

It demands we defend public schools against privatization. And it demands that we transform our public schools into the integrated, equitable institutions we dreamed they could all be.