Have you ever stopped to consider why we have schools and what purpose they serve? Looking back at our history can help. In 1848, Horace Mann, Father of Public Education, began what we know today as public-supported schooling, although only for white students. This movement would later come to create many battles.
Prior to Mann, Thomas Jefferson wanted schools to “advance the best and the brightest.” So in 1779, he promoted a kind of public schooling that would provide basic education for white boys and girls — and then through a competitive model, further the education for those white boys who would go on to serve in leadership roles.
Mann, on the other hand, viewed education as “the great social equalizer of the conditions of men,” where the benefits of schooling would result in more opportunities for more students. Certainly, we can acknowledge that when students have access to a well-funded quality education, social mobility can occur, as Mann suggested. However, due to our present inequitable funding formula, many districts are hugely under-resourced.
This affects all of schooling: curriculum, student services, teaching staff and administration, materials and facilities. Because roughly 90% of school funding comes from local and state taxes, reflecting local and state wealth, school quality for students and their families is impacted simply because of the zip code.
For example, one of the highest spending districts is in New York at $63,000 per pupil, while one of the lowest spending districts is in Mississippi at $8,200 per pupil. North Dakota and Minnesota rank just below the national average of $17,620 per pupil. We can see how these spending differences greatly affect opportunities and social advancement for many students.
Race compounds these disparities. Districts serving the most students of color receive, on average, $2,200 less per pupil than districts serving mostly white students.
It is important to know, too, that all 38 first-world economies fund their primary and secondary education from their national wealth or regional redistribution, making for equally funded schools. Maybe it is time for our country to join this progressive group. Achievement and opportunity gaps close when money is equitably spent on schooling. This is particularly true for students from low-income families.
Competing answers to the purpose of school question
What is the purpose of school? Is it becoming proficient in reading, writing and computation? A North Dakota legislator believes schools should only teach reading, writing and arithmetic and not anything controversial or divisive. Is this what schools should be about? Many Americans believe schools should help students critically examine controversial topics and learn how to participate thoughtfully in a democratic society. How about a humanistic purpose where the whole person is developed, from their intellect to their emotions, and from their empathy to internal motivation?
The answers quickly multiply. Many believe that acquiring cultural values are essential, while others think schools should help students learn to be allies for students different from themselves. Building social-emotional competence and preparing a skilled workforce are also considered important.
Whether parents and guardians should have the right to choose the kind of schooling their child receives is a controversial topic today. Some want students to challenge unjust systems and think critically about what they are learning.
In 21st century America, STEM learning is considered important. Meeting students’ basic needs, such as food, clothing, medical care and dental care is needed today more than ever. But programs like SNAP and Medicaid, designed to support these needs, are being cut by the President.
Because schools are asked to serve so many purposes, the debate is ultimately about values. Arguments about ideology, citizenship, equality, race, gender, religion, morality, government’s role and economic preparation all shape how we think about the purpose of school.
President Trump continues to dismantle the Department of Education. He has moved 118, and is planning to move another 30 education agencies or offices outside the DOE, while establishing the first federal voucher program allowing parents to use tax credits to pay for private school tuition and related costs. Twenty-three states have opted into this program, including North Dakota. These two actions weaken public education through curbing the federal government’s role.
The economic preparation purpose has received a boost through Career Academies. There are dozens in Minnesota (one in Moorhead) and 13 in North Dakota. The new Grand Forks Career Impact Academy was built at a cost of $30.5 million. These specialized academies mostly provide industry-specific training to help prepare students to meet workforce needs. Should schools help solve workforce shortages?
It’s obvious that schools are continually asked or required to serve multiple purposes. Two questions are important: Who decides? And what should schools do? Just as significant is the question, how many purposes should schools be expected to achieve?
The big five purposes can be summarized as citizenship, employment, equity, enculturation and becoming a whole person (humanistic). Schools need more help. Certainly, organizations who are already helping are great, but more help is needed — for example, to provide more school-based food pantries.
Historical roots and federal policy
Important events in U.S. history show how the purpose of school has changed. The Old Deluder Satan Act was the first compulsory school law passed in Massachusetts in 1647. It made towns responsible for education and stressed reading so students could read the Bible and foil Satan. The mid-1800s saw the Common School Movement create a public school system through tax funding, professional teacher training, grade levels, common curricula and state boards of education. Today, Capstone Academy, a Fargo private school, is challenging North Dakota’s authority to regulate teacher licensing. The academy argues that parents should decide what is best for their children, not the state, and that teacher licensing rules used in North Dakota since 1879 violate that right. Yet the 10th Amendment gives states broad authority over public education.
I strongly support public education after a 41-year career as a public school teacher, professor of education and dean. Parents certainly have the right to choose private schools for their children, but that choice should not weaken public education in any way.
Two major federal policy changes in the 1950s addressed who receives schooling and what schools should do. The 1953 Brown v. Board of Education decision aimed to desegregate schools and expand equal opportunity. Sadly, 73 years later, these goals remain unmet: about half of U.S. students attend schools that are 75% to 100% racially segregated. The 1958 National Defense Education Act made education a national security issue after the Soviet launch of Sputnik. It focused on science, math and foreign languages helping the United States compete during the Cold War.
This raises the question: Should national security be a purpose of public education? I say no. The act permanently changed these subject areas in schools. Today in the U.S. there are 700+ specialized Science Technology Engineering Mathematics (STEM) schools.
Since the 1980s, debates over the purpose of school have centered on issues, like culture wars (curriculum battles about race and gender), excellence versus equity issues (standards/high stakes testing and equal opportunity) and parental rights (school choice). President Trump continues to reshape public education through his stands on these issues — for example, downplaying difficult U.S. historical content, like slavery; ending Diversity-Equity-Inclusion policies and practices; and expanding school choice.
Free public schooling for all has developed unevenly over more than 200 years. The nation’s founders believed democracy depended on educating ordinary citizens. President John Adams (1797-1801) said education for every class of people, including the poorest, should be supported by the public. President Johnson (1963-1969) later said that full educational opportunity should be a national goal. Still, the government’s role in schooling, especially the federal role, remains debated, especially at the executive branch. President Jefferson, in 1806, proposed a constitutional amendment to allow federal aid for public education.
Over time, access to schooling has expanded from white boys to white girls, students of color and students with disabilities. This is an important civil rights achievement. A key American purpose of public education is to serve all students, not just some students, and then prepare these young people to be active citizens. Unfortunately, this goal remains unfinished.
Today’s conflicts over school purposes
Consensus about the purposes of school remains divided. Citizens, educators and policy makers have supported varied schooling purposes. These differences have led to enduring disagreements and conflict.
Today we are at a tipping point, with plenty of push from President Trump regarding the role of politically-charged topics such as school-choice, privatization, achievement, funding, control, choice, race, class and gender play in schools’ purposes. These tensions have grown so pervasive that about one third of 300 superintendents surveyed reported their staff being threatened regarding some of these topics.
Basic education, developing individual capabilities and preparing students for democratic citizenship were important goals of early universal and free public schools and should continue today. Over time, changing national priorities inspired numerous schooling purposes — for example, preschool, meal programs, socio-emotional learning, physical education, instructional technology and vocational training.
Many Americans want schools to do it all: academic, social, civic, vocational and economic purposes, including nutritional programs. Currently nine states, including Minnesota, offer free lunch to all students. In North Dakota, disagreement over this change is centered on funding, as legislators simply cannot agree. State voters, then, will decide in November 2026 on a constitutional amendment that would allow free lunches for all students. The evidence is overwhelming that students perform better in school when they are well fed and physically healthy.
Schools do not have the capital or personal resources to achieve all of these ends. It is time for more for-profit and non-profit organizations, businesses, communities, individual citizens, state governments and the federal government, to step-up and fully support the many purposes now expected of schools.
Disagreements about schools often reflect deeper conflicts over their purpose. Recently, nearly 300 bills seeking to restrict instruction on race and racism, sexual orientation and gender identity, politics and topics in American history have been proposed nationwide, with 64 enacted.
Take this example. Imagine North Dakota students studying America’s legal, education and employment systems to consider whether they promote racial inequality. Students would research a wide variety of sources; analyze them for equality, fairness and discrimination; and debate various perspectives for each system. Later they would discuss what they learned, why it matters to democratic citizenship and what questions remain. Finally, students would share this information with their state legislators. Sadly, this critical thinking lesson would violate North Dakota HB 1508, which prohibits instruction based on the idea “that racism is systemically embedded in American society.”
Conclusion: a shared responsibility
Schools’ purpose cannot be limited to a single skill, subject, or political ideology. Schools should help students explore broad areas of knowledge, use their creativity and imagination, think critically about important questions, develop empathy, build relationships, strengthen internal motivation and prepare to participate in a changing democracy. If we expect schools to provide every student with a quality education, we must be honest about the values behind those expectations, the resources needed to meet them and the shared responsibilities all stakeholders must accept.
