I agree. Determined social goods ought to remain in public hands, at least in my opinion.

Very interesting. I am sure the most impirtant public goods and services like education, scientific work, health provision and simolar can't really survive in free market circumstances.

I agree. Determined social goods ought to remain in public hands, at least in my opinion.

In pre-democratic times education was a tool that helped the aristocracy distinguish itself. Education was an aspect of leisure and leadership.

The educated leader knew music, astronomy, mathematics, and other studies that WERE NOT USED TO MAKE MONEY.

To study such things was a testament that the educated were not the menial and the mean.

Education was distinguishing. The educated were the un-calloused.

They studied to "know" ... not to "make money" ... and certainly NOT to be servants to the masses of humanity ...

Democracy alters this moral outlook.

Democracy is the political veneer of a commercial nation. Democracies are producing and trading nations where everyone works. Everyone counts.

In democracies the idea of EDUCATING TO DISTINGUISH is replaced by EDUCATION AS JOB TRAINING

So every student looks to learn, not to improve character, nor to be distinguished, but to help them make a living.

Of course, we still teach from the old trivium and quadrivium, as an atavistic hold-over from an earlier era.

The free market in either outlook responds to the needs of the customer.

When, during the Middle-Ages, the customers were the children of the wealthy looking to be made more distinguished, - to be educated was to know things one did not have to know.

Today, the market is being asked to respond to the new crop of customers.

The new customers are the children of the demos --- everyone's offspring - , the bright, the dim, the motivated, the lazy, all have to be pushed through a system where they can get some sort of diploma certifying that they are educated (trained?) in something?? Anything??

So, when culture demands that everyone go to school ... and when schooling is being converted into job-training ... what will be made the need for "science" or the definition of "education?"

My guess: Where the sciences provide job-opportunities, they will be pursued.

But the study of science solely as a basis for deeper understanding, or philosophy to be a studied for those seeking life's meaning??? These things will only interest the few. They have become insignificant.

Democracy is a culture where we all only have to do one-thing well, and we can trade for everything else we need.

If all I know is how to deliver mail or lay carpets, I can live well. I need now know anything more. CAN AMERICAN BE SMART IF ALL AMERICANS ARE DUMB?

Maybe? They are specialists anyway... untrained in many things.

In an Aristocracy the deeply knowledgeable educator may have been highly sought after. In an aristocracy an Aristotle may have been esteemed more than a juggler or lyre player.

But in a democracy, those who can entertain the MANY are most valued. So the baseball player or the musician is more known, better paid, and esteemed than any philosopher or scientist.

So we all live well, better than kings.

It may be that all I know how to do is put on roofs, and all you know how to do is repair cars, and all the next guy knows how to do is be a chemist working at finding ways to make more long lasting paint colors .... and we're all rich enough to do well.

What any democracy lacks in Aristotle's they make up for in Edison's.

Great thoughts, S.M. Feitz. But can we afford "universal learning" today at all? Or soecialization is the key to development?

Hello,

I strongly suggest Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (Bourdieu, 1990). The French philosopher gives an incredible critique of educational system as a way to reproduce social inequalities. I am not sure that he specifically addresses neo-liberalism but he definitively defines how the educational system embedded social divisions and reproduces them through symbolic power and cultural capital. I think this work can be a useful framework for reading the reality and carry out an analysis for answering your inquiry.

Thank you Michele Bianchi I'll check it out.

Mirna Leko-Šimić There is no doubt that the average man or woman today knows far more about the world than the average person from almost any other time in history. We are surrounded by both art and information with our televisions, radios, cell phones and computers. But when we discuss the idea of production, wealth and trade we are usually not discussing general education but "specialization."

The richest countries are also the most complex societies. To make a pencil involves an innumerable series of importing and exporting steps taking place across nations. No individual makes a pencil. No individual makes an automobile or a toaster.

So each of us takes up a position doing one narrow set of tasks (like only teaching physics or only putting hat bands on hats), and we earn a good living from this and we trade for everything else we desire.

So what does a hat band installer need to know?

So we can and do afford "universal learning" -- that is, we all can afford to send our kids to school for years to learn very little of what they are actually interested in, and even less about what they might need to know to make a living.

There is fantastic wealth available in society, combined with the years we set aside for schooling, the question remains, what should we teach? What should people know and why should they know it?

Universal learning is endorsed.

I recommend the following issue of Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education for some commentary from various perspectives on this issue. Many of the issues raised affect all educational disciplines: http://act.maydaygroup.org/volume-18-issue-1/

I particularly point out the article by Henry Giroux (his keynote address at the MayDay Group colloquium 30 held in London, Ontario, Canada in June 2018).