Public Education

In preparation for the 2020 presidential elections, there is much discussion about expanding free education. In thinking about this I reflected back to things I have heard and read over the years on this topic. The earliest was the introduction to public education in China under Kublai Khan, a grandson of Genghis Khan, the founder of the Mongol Empire in the thirteenth century. The Mongols had a disdain for aristocracy and in China only children of the aristocracy were educated. In part to annoy them the Mongol conquerors made education available to peasants though I believe they were more interested in creating a larger pool of educated people to draw on to help administer China. They already were bring in administrators from different parts of their empire including Arabs, Tibetan monks and Hindus and Christians from neighboring areas. Genghis Khan recognized the value of education to his empire and along with doctors and clergymen; teachers were not required to pay taxes. Later, in the early seventeenth century England was expanding its empire around the globe and thus created an enormous challenge. To administrate these conquered lands they need a pool of people who could write clearly and add a column of numbers. To meet this challenge they instituted public education where the focus was primarily penmanship and basic math. Education’s primary goal has always been the development of a work force appropriately skilled to meet the challenges of the current times. As societies progressed with technologies becoming more complex and commercial and military interactions around the globe expanding, penmanship and basic math was insufficient. To meet the growing challenges, public education was expanded to teach more complex mathematics and a better understanding of the world and children are now being schooled for free from K through 12. Schools were set up to also teach various trade skills. And, by the way, while schools have the ear of the children why not also teach them to be better citizens of whatever political structure exists in their countries. But again, the main driver is still to the training of a workforce. So here we are. Technologies have advanced, the world’s population has grown and interactions became more complex. The current public education system does not adequately prepare the newly needed workforce. One argument is that free education is a gift is to those receiving it. Though there are benefits to them in that it allows them a better living and life. However, as in the past, preparation of this workforce is a benefit to the society as a whole and thus it was determined that the cost should be borne by the all. The challenge before us is to figure out how to prepare our workforce for the new skills required and what kind of education structure is needed and how to develop it. There is no question that the current K-12 is not adequate and I don’t believe extending it to include community colleges, as they stand, is enough. As in the past, whatever the structure, preparation of a workforce is a societal benefit and therefore should be paid for the society as a whole. I heard or read somewhere that the skills valued in the future will be interpersonal relations, problem solving and creativity. Some of these may be able to be taught but I believe some may just be inherent characteristics of individuals. Also one may still ague whether a liberal arts education is needed in the workforce. Certainly training for the providers of education and those who keep the workforce healthy is needed. And even if liberal arts is not directly required, that training still benefits the society in that people thus educated allow us to have facilities and services that make life more interesting and enjoyable and probably should also be paid for by the society as a whole.