November 4, 2016
CITIZENSHIP:
What's the point of education? : The idea has taken hold that state schools must treat all pupils equally, regardless of talent (Roger Scruton, 3 November 2016, The Spectator)
Why does the state take an interest in education? The prevailing view, at least since the end of the last war, has been that the state takes an interest in education because it is the right of every child to receive it. Hence the state becomes the universal provider, and as such must treat all its dependents equally, and make no special favours on grounds of wealth, talent or social status. From this, by a kind of creeping egalitarianism, we edge towards the conclusion that the state must make no distinctions, that children should not be sorted by their abilities and aptitudes, and that even exams should be downgraded or at least not made to look as though they were the final goal. When it comes to schooling, the educationists add, we, the experts, are bound to be better informed than the parents, who should feel no qualms in surrendering their children to the beneficent care of a state that acts always on our wise advice.The assumption has been, in other words, that education exists for the sake of the child. In my view the state takes an interest in education only because it has another and more urgent interest in something else -- namely knowledge. Knowledge is a benefit to everyone, including those who do not and cannot acquire it.
That's only a very partial answer:
"Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
Posted by Orrin Judd at November 4, 2016 12:48 PM