By Marion Brady
Cocoa, Florida USA

On June 17, 1744, commissioners from the English colonies of Maryland and Virginia negotiated a treaty with the Native Americans of the the Six Nations at Lancaster, Pennsylvania. As part of the deal, the Native Americans were invited to send boys to William and Mary College.

The next day, the Indians sent back an answer:

"We know that you highly esteem the kind of learning taught in those Colleges, and that the Maintenance of our young Men, while with you, would be very expensive to you. We are convinced that you mean to do us good by your proposal; and we thank you heartily. But you, who are wise, must know
that different Nations have different conceptions of things and will therefore not take it amiss, if our Ideas of this kind of Education happen not to be the same as yours. We have some Experience of it. Several of our young People were formerly brought up at the College of the Northern Provinces; they were instructed in all your Sciences; but when they came back to us, they were bad Runners, ignorant of every means of living in the woods . . . neither fit for Hunters, Warriors, nor Counsellors, they were totally good for nothing.

"We are, however, not the less oblig'd by your kind offer, tho' we decline accepting it; and to show our grateful Sense of it, if the Gentlemen of Virginia will send us a Dozen of their Sons, we will take care of their
Education, instruct them in all we know, and make Men of them."

A fair judge would have to say that the Indians' proposal was the more thoughtful of the two. The colonists said, "We'll send your boys to school." The Indians said, "We'll turn your boys into men," and defined what being a man meant. What the colonists' offer lacked that the Indian offer made clear was the purpose of instruction.

When it comes to aims and purposes, America's education reform movement hasn't moved much beyond the thinking of the Maryland and Virginia commissioners. Ask a dozen reformers what they think is the overarching purpose of schooling, and the response will be a dozen long pauses. Press the issue and pulled from distant memories of an education course may come a vague, general statement such as, "To prepare students for democratic citizenship," or some version of the Business Roundtable's contention that the main aim of education is to improve America's competitive position in the world economy.

Given public education's importance, its long history, the scrutiny it gets and the vast amounts of money invested in it, it may be hard to believe that the question of purpose wasn't settled long ago. Such, however, is the case.
There's general agreement that the young should be taught the 3 R's, but that's where consensus ends.

The consequences of a lack of purpose aren't hard to find. A John Leo editorial in U. S. News and World Report titled, The New Trivial Pursuit" spells out one of them:

"U.S. News and World Report's college guide is a fine bit of work, a useful tool for students and parents. But there is one thing it does not attempt to do: explain what is actually being taught on campuses . . .

"Colleges are unsure of their mission, buffeted by consumer pressures and ideological forces, and unwilling to say what a sound education might consist of. As a result of this confusion and drift, campuses are increasingly at the mercy of fads and trends."

Leo then illustrates his point. The University of Wisconsin offers a course in soap operas. Students at Duke can sign up for "The Physics, History, and Techniques of Juggling." Courses about vampires are available at several big-name universities. A hot craze is food studies. It's popular with students who like to eat, talk about what they're eating, and assure themselves of a passing grade.

School committees write reform curricula; television productions examine education reform; books on the subject make best-seller lists; uncounted articles and editorials praise and criticize reform; candidates win elections with education-reform proposals; students take battery after battery of standardized tests / high-stakes tests that have life-altering consequences - and behind all the words and images lies no clear philosophical position on the purpose of it all.

Common sense says the reform journey should begin with a destination in mind. It doesn't.