I suggest we consider this quetion from a differnet perspective. In providing educational opportunites, who are the intended beneficiaries? In other words, ffor whose benefit are educational 'systems' designed; the individuals themselves, their societies or the organisations that provide the opportunities. These groups are not distinct from each other. Each has to make decisions in the context of the other two.

With regards to curriculum design, let's go back to its roots. The word education comes from the stem, 'educe' which means, to bring or draw out. The original idea was not to put knowledge into learner's heads, it was to identify people's strengths and to maximise them. If we do that, then we will have societies that have individuals that are maximising their potentials. How these individuals then interact to build societies and what kind of societies they will build will be governed by the principles of 'self-organising systems': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Gert Biesta In "Good education In times of measurement" talks about the "learnification of education". It is, among other things, a way to transform a right for the individual to have education into a duty of the individual to learn. Or, another way to give public money to the private corporations.

Education "belongs" to the student, or, for minors who consent to their parents authority, to the parents of the student. It is not any of society's business how a student chooses to obtain or engage in education.

The primary customer of Education is the student & the society is the secondary beneficiary through student's useful contribution. Hence curriculum has to be society's need-based.

I believe the student is the one and only customer. The student will likely wish to "contribute" to society, as a way of providing for himself. Therefore it would be wise for schools to offer products (curricula and teaching venues...) which, in students' estimation, will allow them to work or be employeed to their own benefit. A school which fails to do this will not get customers. If schools do this (try to satisfy individual students, their customers) then it will indirectly benefit society. But I would not want society per se, as a decision making body, to collectively have any supervisory power over schools or their curricula.

I agree education belongs to the student as the main customer. However, we also need to think on the environment that supports education does not only belongs to the student but to the parents, teachers and the community.

Education is a right for every citizen in the whole world ,,, however , due to the various educational systems all over the world ,, we have come a cross some problems wherein the financial affairs , sponsorship or or pay has become a vital cause in achieving education in many countries ,,, there are countries in which education costs a lot and not all families are able to pay the tuition s for their children ,- so they either drop out from very stage ,,,or do not go to school at all ,,,others complete their schooling and can not join the university ,,hence , a large number of intelligent people are deprived of getting their rights in pursuing their undergraduate and postgraduate education due to the financial matters ,,,

Another problem which face millions of citizens all over the world of the deprivation of education is the disasters which happen in many countries such as wars , earthquakes , floods ,,,etc ,, which results in the loss of the parents or the elder siblings ,,thus the young survivors find themselves responsible for their younger siblings and so they will not be able to join the schools ,,

Poverty of course comes under the first cause as well as the second cause most of the time ..

As for the curriculum , teacher education and training ,, availability of school buildings , budget allocated for schools ,, audio- visual aids ,,books ,,, all these also constitute quite a large percentage in hindering the educational process ,,

I would finally like to add that EDUCATION is the right for each and every single human being in the glob and whoever to blame about the deprivation of any person - it is the governments and the political systems all over the whole world ,,

I believe in that giving education to people is as important as giving them food ..

Education is for all and it should be free ,,,,

I am a literacy educator, working with adults in Ottawa, Canada. I believe that education belongs to the community - and that we benefit individually from our engagement in education and then, in turn contribute the expression of our knowledge and experience back into community. (Like this question and answer format...)

A person cannot become educated without the interactions of others, and that comes from a community. As we become more educated we may experience more in-depth interactions within a changing array of communities.

I believe strongly, and have been guided by the premise that learning from and with other people also builds community. This may be a reflection of my own learning style, however, I do believe it to be true for others as well. We remember and engage with people and places where we have shared the process of learning. This strengthens and builds community.

Francisco, may I ask,

why do you ask this question?

@ Suzanne Hale - Your question: Why do I ask this question? This question came about from experiences, observations of practices, and personal beliefs of what an education is.

I believe that education is for the greater good of the community. Education is not teaching or learning about knowledge that people can talk about but they do not practice it. Any discipline of education should be a means to transform people into ethical people of the society. The Chinese term is "cho ren." Cho means to make, to construct, or to do. Ren means person or being. Cho Ren can be interpreted to be humane or to be a good person. The idea of being the solution in contrast of being the problem is an image of Cho Ren. The education should therefore be a means to Cho Ren.

I also believe that teacher should facilitate and INSPIRE students. The teaching and learning process is a means for teacher and students to interact, form a community of co-teacher and co-learners, develop their skills (first), learn (construct or acquire) knowledge (then), know what is right and wrong (ethics), and believe that individually, the co-teacher and co-learner have a mission in their life. Hopefully, the education process refines and molds their vision to achieve their mission.

Given these personal beliefs, I have experienced and observed situations that seem wrong from my personal perspective:

1. Incompetent administrators rely on teacher's evaluation. If they believe that the evaluation helps, then they should have committed to invest efforts (directly or indirectly) so that the instruments are properly constructed, that the results are properly analyzed; that lessons are really learned; and that implementation plans designed and implemented to learn from the supposedly insights provided by the evaluation. However, my experiences and observations indicate that these were not the case.

2. The emphasis on teacher evaluation reveals that high scores are carrots and low scores on the evaluation are sticks. Some teachers make the evaluation their points to give students high grades (with or without money exchanged) expecting that their evaluation would be high. This is an undesirable consequence of relying on teacher's evaluation.

I have other experiences and observations. If opportunities permit, I will be happy to share them. Nevertheless Suzanne, your viewpoints and my viewpoints to education appear to be similar.

Yes, thank you for answering my question. I agree that the vessel of a program - how it is administered has a large effect on student success and outcomes. Ideally, an education program is protected by a solid and consistent administrative structure- on the outside - so that within the program there can be movement, risk and experimentation on behalf of students and teachers.

Education needs to flow, and that flow requires some outside protective structures.

Students may own their role in education, but in public education in the united states, technically the community own the process, but in reality it is a political entity offering little choice (taking charters etc. out of the equation) and thus the institution is pretty much in control. In private education there is more of a choice component, allowing for parents and students to "own" education, however the cost of education might be a funneling system perpetuating SES cycles.

@ Rene Wilson - On the basis of the reality, would it be possible to creatively CRAFT the curriculum of the course so that students can maximize their learning? This however presupposes that (1) the teachers are "teaching" qualified and (2) the teacher is passionate to put in more time despite of the big student-teacher ratio which could be unbearable to the teacher. On the other hand, how do we as teachers create the right awareness to the students and to motivate them to commit themselves to engage, assuming there is such good curriculum crafted for them?

To motivate the "at-risk" student, there needs to be an element of trust with an adult, preferably the classroom teacher. Some students are wrought with societal, emotional, and familial stressors, and therefore have no "room" for learning in their lives. The question then is how do we motivate said learners in our classrooms. How do we make learning content and assessments relevant to their lives? We see this with Erin Gruwell (portrayed in the movie Freedom Writers) where "at-risk" learners or un-teachable students share their stories, and their struggles are validated through literature and history. Students lower their affective filters and there is a culture of enthusiasm and trust in the classroom. Student voice replacing the percentage of teacher voice in the classroom is also helpful in creating student centered or "owned" learning. Collaborative conversations, and debates that are student generated and teacher facilitated not only allows for critical thinking but also autonomy over thoughts and beliefs, and the process by which they are developed and shared. Robert Marzano also advocates for students setting their own goals, and being part of the assessment process. Ongoing self-assessment, and student autonomy in learning styles, along with differentiated assessments that are directly aligned with individual goals, helps create a balance of student ownership in a government dictated paradigm.

@ Rene Wilson - Thank you for contributing an additional dimension, the "at-risk" or the "un-teachable" students. I have never encountered this segment of students or I might have but I might have perceived them to be immature or "hard-to-teach" students where I treated them as a third of the students under the S-shaped curved. What I do not know, I do not miss. But now that I know this dimension, I will have to learn more about it, like I am learning more at the cultural dimension. This is the advantage of being a life-long learner, we keep on learning... :-)

Rene, please point me to some literature or books. I have been reading the books of Robert Marzano. When students set their own goals, I call it empowerment. Thank you again.

@ Rishihesh Upadhyay - Hmmm, I like your answer which covers both. But then, if I may ask for your candid response, if students want to pass without studying, do we still treat the students as customers and follow what they want? In fact, your answer is valid, don't get me wrong. But, can we reflect deeper...?

Great question! We are living in a society where educational settings are remodelled all the time with the innovations of educational technology (and some hidden ideas about effectiveness). Meanwhile I commonly read/hear hear from authorities who claim "we don't need educational institutions". With the rise of Internet and all its benefits it seems like the meaning of education is moving, or is it transformed by modern worlds industry (Microsoft, Google etc.)

I read some of your answers, and find it interesting to see how education could be perceived as an academical sphere OR as a mean for industrial needs and people skilful in practice. Today though, I think education is influenced to a high extent by industrial needs, wherefore it frames education.

The suggested reading by Janet Lord (above) seems very interesting. I think I will read the proposed pdf or the original book ...

Personally, I was inspired by Louis Rosenblatt: "The Reader, The Text, The Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work". This is a model (Transactional model) for the reading process, wherein, an author presents a piece of written work -- important to consider that the author is not present, only the written words -- and a reader presents whatever life experience to the author's text-- they both "bring" something to the reading event. The result is what Rosenblatt termed "the poem". To me, it is the "transaction" between author and reader that develops a concept, that is at the heart of the educational process. Your term "belongs to", I believe, refers to a shared responsibility implied in the title of Rosenblatt's work, between the reader (learner), the text (the author's message), and the poem (resultant conceptualization). How much is brought to the point of transaction, and how much is taken away would belong to the participants, and, implied, the stakeholders involved. I feel the educator serves as a primary facilitator of these events,bring together the learner with that which is to be learned, the transaction events recurring ad infinitum. So, "belong" is not strictly "ownership" "to", but also, "in conjunction, in participation 'with'"...education, teaching and learning.

A refinement of my previous response: "...the educator serves as the primary facilitator..." is just one side of the coin: I feel that the learner is also just as equally a primary facilitator of the event, bringing wants and needs, and, of course, abilities and life experience. The idea "...ad infinitum..." I feel could describe a nice spiraling -- were the thing graphically represented. Both sides are supported by, and in turn, influence a spectrum of cultural elements --both the "bringing"and the "take away". Thus, a neat organic, individual, yet, universal symbiosis that we recognize as the positive dynamic educational process,in which, I think, is all shared.

The educator who is stuck in the mode of merely delivering content misses the point. That, as the unevenly motivated learner (and teacher!) moves through what we have established as the education process, there will be hits and misses that are so individualized that effective assessment of mere content acquisition becomes a problem beyond present calculation! "Content" represents a value -- how effectively the teacher, the learner, and the administrator together measure, and then match what each is bringing to the educational transaction -- that, I believe, is the measure we need to focus on. But this all occurs in the continuum of and confluence of the dynamics of personal and cultural development. Emerging economies need workers; nations need effective leadership; life issues need solutions: these are conclusive desires that can only be achieved, not by content alone, but how cognitive transactions between the individual humans are carried out. For example, I have discovered that there is a lot to be said for allowing for failure as a viable step in the educational process, not the end of the process; rather, a point of "re-cognition" before moving on. I think (I believe) Henry Ford said it best: "We don't know the facts. We learn the facts as we go along."

@ Jonathan Edward - Good insight - "The educator who is stuck in the mode of merely delivering content misses the point." Education should not be about the knowledge content. To the unenlightened, content seems to be the key. That is why, in underdeveloped country, the fact that the country is underdeveloped, is the emphasis on content such that school children carry or tag along very heavy school bags of their books. In a developed country, the emphasis is now "teaching less learning more." The current emphasis even shifts to skills development first and then knowledge acquisition second.

I agree that we need to focus on "educational transaction." For "life issues need[ing] solutions," the solution is not on "content alone" but on "how cognitive transactions between the individual humans are carried out." Thus, a focus on educational transaction is to develop the skill of generating solution (and not of solving problem) and "then" acquire the knowledge (the facts) needed to solve the problem.

Thank you also for the insight of "a point of 're-cognition' before moving on." :-)

As to motivating the unmotivated, I feel that the concept of "punishment" in education should be relegated to the scrap heap. This element is present, often hidden in many assessment systems. Also, I feel that the concept of "discipline" needs redefining -- much like "respect", bestowing such things is a fool's game. Think, instead, the slow, patient tasks of acquiring competencies, which are their own reward.

Many thanks for your insightful question.

Education is a process by which knowledge gets transferred to a person or a group. Beside mental development education provides social security for the poor. “Belong” is a very strong word. It also suggests the sense of control. That is, if education belongs to a group then its control also remains with that same group and therefore the relevant pedagogy may be tailored by them in such a manner that the poor people may be exploited. Therefore sovereignty related to education is a must for a nation. In terms of the present question therefore a nation should own its education and there should be a national policy that should determine the relevant curriculum

@ Anup Bandyopadhyay - I wonder if Education can "belong" to the state (the nation), the society, and the learners themselves. Some countries might micro-manage the education and therefore we could interpret the "belong" as that of the nation. But to leaders who macro manage the education, the idea of empowerment can broaden the idea of "belong" and guide students to be responsible for their learning to learn. :-)

@ Francisco Cua Before I continue the discussion may I request you to elaborate the portion of your answer "But to leaders who macro manage the education, the idea of empowerment can broaden the idea of "belong" and guide students to be responsible for their learning to learn. :-)"

@ Francisco Cua In my answer I assumed a nation (state) is administered by a democratically elected government where the citizens have the right to express their views on any matter on earth. I have not assumed a country ruled by a regimented group. Food and education are the two very important sectors that are the targets of all the power groups (multinational companies these days) because such control will enable them to establish control on the total economy of a country. I am always against any control on the national education policy from outside even in the name of consultancy. :-)

Education should belong to everyone. Students, teachers, parents and stakeholders in general. Only one comment: politicians should not interfere with students' education. They should not impose their personal agendas when they themselves are not the best example of education. In the end, what they wish is to tax individuals. Look at this:

@ Jose Lobo I quote from your answer "Only one comment: politicians should not interfere with students' education. They should not impose their personal agendas when they themselves are not the best example of education. In the end, what they wish is to tax individuals" I fully agree and would like to add . Multinational Companies should not interfere with students' education. They should not be allowed to execute their economic agenda at the cost of imposing " bad education"

The term "belong", as has been pointed out by several other respondents, is a very strong one, and to me, a bit confusing as to what is really being asked. However, taking cue from the line of discussion the other respondents have taken, I would say the "belonging" cannot be and actually should not be used as generalized term for all kinds of education. In my view the early education belongs more to the society as a whole (than any other stakeholder) as it is meant to shape the general approach to collective life and behaviors of the young in accordance with the codes (in vogue or desired) of the society. While the later education belongs more to the person getting it because it's an individual's free right to be what he/she wants to be as long as the important societal norms are adhered to. The government, I don't think it has any bigger role than a moderator/facilitator.

Both "education" and "teaching and learning" are in many ways active processes as one would say "I am involved in education" or "in teaching and learning". In such a complex interaction with so many contributors and recipients it is important to try to tie the question down.

If we are to consider the concept of ownership of Education we need to refine the focus are we thinking in term are the inputs, the processes engaged in or the outputs?

Given that we "might" clarify that we are talking in terms of the outputs as being the achievement of some demonstrable or measurable change in knowledge or behaviour that has resulted from the activity we still need to identify who owns that result? That comes back to the question not of who owns the process or the outcome but for whom is the process undertaken.

At a global level one might say the education is undertaken as an activity on behalf of as yet unborn generations, it is a cumulative and iterative process that seeks to inform current generations who will strive toward their own betterment and prosperity building the base for future growth of knowledge and improvement of circumstance.

At a national (governmental) level it often has the same ambition but is more closely tied to local agendas and economic realities.

From a local perspective we more often speak about the current generation and the capacity of gaining an education to empower individuals and communities to improve their circumstance or to realise ambitions weather we are referring to achieving a status job, base employment or fundamental freedoms and survival.

At a personal experience level; at the teacher to student relationship level, do I as teacher “own the product of my passion and labour” being the achievements of my class or student any more or less than the learner owns the knowledge and skills that they gain through their learning from and with me and from and through their experiences?

In my reality WE own education collectively and have, dependent on our context level of autonomy and position in the processes, varying degrees of shared responsibility toward the outcomes for the individual, the community, society and the species.

Teaching or learning belongs to no one and everyone who wishes to acquire it! It is for each and every person on this earth, who has the willingness to utilise one's intellectual capacities!

I have been blessed to find myself in a community that consistently has had the will and where withall to build and maintain high quality schools day after day. But this is (and rightly so) the result of a constant struggle among the stake holders expressing and defending their perceptions and their values to impact on the costly, inefficient process. But when a sports hero signs for a multi-million contract, when a corporate executive lands an incredible bonus, when the images of entertainment personalities' excesses flash on the tv screen, I can never resist, after remembering the students who walk out of my classroom, the cynical thought: where is my million? I have assumed (and I hope,maintain) conscionable ownership of my professional practice, and hope I could carry it on just as effectively in some other, less than perfect situation. I struggle to convey to my students and colleagues that what is happening is a means to an end, sure, but also a treasure of limitless fortune. My prayer -- admitting having the luxury of my blessed perspective -- is that the world would take conscionable ownership of education, despite the lack of guarantee of consistent, palpable, profitable returns on investment. I picked up a phrase -- "throw money at it" -- from an essay on what some people do with their wealth. Education is, I believe, one of the things in life that deserves to have money thrown at it. But, I believe, that is not likely.

Education belongs to everyone. Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today.

Education is a process. It is not tangible that one can own it. It is dynamic. If it will stay on a person, entity or organization then it stops the flow of knowledge from generation to generation. I believe we are now experiencing this "golden era" that education is really free. Education is for all.

Education belongs to everyone, you just have to fight for it!

Education belongs to all and it is for us all to contribute to it.

If a child belongs to you (any one of us), then it is your duty and privilege to contribute to his/her growth/ nurturing. Surely, it isn't the mindset of parents to think of benefiting from a child, but to give the best they can to his development and progress.

Similarly it is our privilege (as teachers etc) to give our best to Education:)

@ Miranda Yeoh - good insight. In fact, the latest assessment guide of the Department of Education in the Philippines include an item in assessment called empathy of 10% under knowledge (DepEd, 2012).

I adopted the guide and adapted the component in an assessment rubrics as follows:

2.4 Recognize emotions that other individuals experience. (total 10%) The breakdown is as follows:

2.4.1 Describe the emotion which other individual experiences as sympathy or compassion (2%)

2.4.2 Describe own feeling of comfort or anxiety in response to the experience of other(s). (2%)

2.4.3 Elaborate the empathy recognized. Explain how one (the self or others) reacts to the empathy. (2%)

2.4.4 Identify a culture and explain how individuals culturally react to other's feelings and experiences.

2.4.5 Draw an image about the empathy. How can it enhance the practice or theory?

Given the recognition of the empathy by the student and the facilitator, who whom do you think the education belong to? :-)

Reference

DepEd. (2012). Guidelines on the assessment and rating of learning outcomes under the K to 12 Basic Education curriculum. Retrieved 17 October 2012, from http://www.gov.ph/downloads/2012/09sep/20120905-DepEd-DO-0073-BSA.pdf

Education For All

Education belongs to the people. Education comes from the people and people give it back to generation to advance society.

Education is life for all to benefit.

To clarify the question, are there different apects of education belonging to different groups. Eg formal school education in early years. I know who I think it belongs to, cause I agree with everything said so far, but I also know that politicians and bureaucrats think it belongs to them and because they have the power, to some extent it does. Then there is tertiary education etc.

The question reads "To whom does "education" or "teaching and learning" belong to?" Before we answer this we must settle the meaning of the word "education". The question itself elaborates the concept by including the pair of words "teaching and learning". which suggests that it refers to the process of acquiring knowledge not about the change of state that happens to the learner who gains knowledge from this process. Yes I am considering a learner as a state machine and the word "education" refers to a state of the same. There could be another area of confusion. Even if we decide that the word "education" refers to a process it is not very clear from the question that whether it refers to a process related to the individuals or to some specific education system. The application domain of the process needs to be defined properly before the ownership(belonging) issue can be discussed.

@ Anup Bandyopadhyay - Good comment. May be I should modify my elaboration? The "teaching and learning" imply a transformation state of becoming lifelong (hopefully ethical) learners.

@ Francisco Cua If I have understood your new elaboration correctly I think you mean the change of state rather than the process itself. Therefore the word "Education" describes the ethical state of the learner. I dare to ask then how it can belong to some person or group and how we can comment that "If we know who owns education, probably we would know how to deal with education from a pedagogical viewpoint or from a curriculum design viewpoint". In this comment aren't we considering education as an entity (commodity) not a characteristic?

Regards

Perhaps we are really discussing the difference between education and schooling. They are often thought to be synonymous but rarelyis this true. So there are two questions To whom does education belong? And to whom should schooling belong?

Question: Does education belong to the society or even to the world?

Answer: The right to acquire an 'Education' / to be educated / should be one of the fundamental human rights! It belongs to the world in the same sense that air and water, reasonable living conditions, freedom from enslavement, freedom from evil domination by others, etc. belongs to the world and the individuals that live there ,

Question: Does education belong to the parents paying for it?

Answer: no the parents do not own the education. They may pay the school or the teacher. but the student is ultimately responsible for learning.

Question: Does education belong to the students?

Answer: The student may take his education 'to heart'..and believe in it and employ it for his/her own life but... The student doesn't OWN education in the sense that one owns clothing or object. Education is not a commodity. Education is not equivalent to buying a suit of clothes...One can not put it on and take it off. An education is a state of mind..a set of beliefs, a personal collection and ordering of information. One can not buy it like a bottle of tablets to be swallowed on each day.

Question: Or is education Profit and rightfully belong to the school engaging it for profit? Education is "not-for-profit". Teaching should be payment to the teachers on a 'for-profit' basis. This means paying someone for their teaching time and deployment of their skills and knowledge...in which case the teacher ought to be gaining profit. The administrators gain profit (salary) for their organizational skills.

Question: If we know who owns education, probably we would know how to deal with education from a pedagogical viewpoint or from a curriculum design viewpoint.

Answer: This assumes that 'he who pays the most' may impose his/her viewpoint/'knowledge'/propaganda' on the rest of the population. and those who can not afford to pay for it..remain ignorant. This means that the word pedagogical is demoted to mean brainwashing - what and how do you push into peoples minds in order to make them think/behave the way you want them to.

This is highly immoral in my view. The evils of the world are frequently promulgated by those parents and students who believe that money is more important than making efforts to learn from others on behalf of their own efforts. They apparently believe that they can buy 'education' by paying fees and brow-beating their teachers...It stands to reason that they should then merely find an institution that sells printed certificates. This price will go up and down like any commodity..We have already heard of these diploma factories.

This hollow 'education' is a farce. If we accept the commoditisation of knowledge, every aspect of life and society will decay. People's lives will become commodities...on a scale that suggests that some lives are more important than others...One may be a bright good person but if one doesn't drive the 'right' car...forget it....A person will starve to death for these reasons. If one can not afford to pay to learn the skills that makes it possible to improve one's own welfare..then we are all lost...it could have happened to one of you. or to your children. It behooves people to create and to live in a caring community - not an agglomeration of selfish individuals...

I have to say that this question upsets me greatly.

Are you suggesting that education is a commodity that should be brought and sold by those who afford it. If you do, then sit back and let the 1% in the richest country run your life....they will. with no tears about you.

"Does education belong to the society or even to the world?"

What? Does the question mean 'my education', or 'education as an abstract concept'? To whom do 'cars' belong? Well, my car belongs to me. I know that because I remember paying for it. Beyond that, I don't know what it means to talk about someone, or someones, "owning" education. Education is an activity. It's a service. Who owns cooking? Who owns the cleaning of swimming pools? It's not so much that the answer to these obtuse questions is 'nobody' as it is that the questions are just incoherent. If one were to say "yes, but what you do with your car might affect society, so maybe the answer isn't so simple, because everyone is a 'stakeholder' ", we would say that such a comment was a lot of silly sophistry. Yet similar comments made in the context of education pass for deep thinking. So, while education

"Does education belong to the parents paying for it? Does education belong to the students?"

Yes. The educational services paid for by a student belong to that student. If parents are paying for their child's educational service (that is, the parents are acting as agents of the student) then those services belong to the child and/or the parents.

"Or is education Profit and rightfully belong to the school engaging it for profit?"

I'll try really hard to apply the 'principle of charity' used in debates and rhetoric, and try to interpret this question in a way that renders it rational. The school and the teachers may be happy to see students getting educated, seeing them fulfilled, etc.. But, no, education is not a profit of the school. It has a benefit for the student. We could poetically call it a profit of the student, because the education increases the student's skills or intellectual capital. But we wouldn't normally call this a profit of the student. If the school profits by charging a little more than it would absolutely need to in order to barely stay afloat, so that it can reinvest this extra money in itself, to improve its services, or to pay dividends to its investors, then that extra money would be a profit. But that money isn't education.

" If we know who owns education, probably we would know how to deal with education from a pedagogical viewpoint or from a curriculum design viewpoint."

This, I agree with. Much is wrong with education precisely because we Don't recognize that an educational service belongs to the customer (the student who pays for it and/or the agents he appoints implicitly or explicitly, usually his or her parents). If government pays for it, then by all rights they should be doing it On Behalf of the student, and providing it as a gift. Too often government provides that gift with strings attached, in an economic environment in which the government schools have a defacto monopoly, and it uses this monoply as a way to impose various agendas.

Yes, education is something we can all benefit from.

Yes it is something that 'everyone can benefit from', but that doesn't mean that 'it belongs to everyone'.

Yes, it would be nice for schools and teachers to foster empathy. I think parents should strongly consider this in the educational services they purchase for their children.

I liked Mark Gould's comment.

I agree with Anup's distinction regarding the distinction between different meanings of "educations". I think the ideas I've expressed could be adapted to suit either meaning.

Regarding Jean Colson's comments, I think that education is not a right, but that the freedom to obtain education is certainly a right. But this is just for the same reason that the freedom to do Anything that doesn't entail theft or violence is a right. I liked many parts of her answer to the question (or comment) "if we know who owns education, probably we would know how to deal with education ...", except that I think the scenarios she mentions, of the powerful having too much sway over how education happens, is More likely to happen in the government-dominated system we have now than it would if education were free (not subject to government mandates and funding). I don't know whether she would agree with that or not.

I agree with Jose Lobo's statement that politicians should not have much of a role in shaping education. His out-of-place poster of Mitt Romney, oddly, depicts an understanding of money, the poor, and the economy that is not held by Republicans or conservatives, but it Does reach the sophistication of the monetary thinking that seems to be used by the Keynesians over at the White House and the Federal Reserve Bank.

I appreciate this thread and the thoughtful responses. As an Associate Dean, I am regularly confronted by students dissatisfied with their education stating that they are paying XX dollars for this education and they should be receiving something better. You may have heard this before as well. Rather than address this directly, I try to deflect this by focusing on the issue at hand and trying to address the confronting problem, but I must admit, it feels like a punch to the gut.

What I sometimes want to say is, "you know, it is a privilege for you to be here and we could have taken someone else's money" but that seems to miss the point, which I believe this question is driving at. Part of what is wrong with the capitalistic/imperialistic country we live in is that someone has to own something. We are losing our sense of civic duty and responsibility for the greater good, for social justice. Students buy a degree for status and ultimately to improve their wages, faculty are more entrepreneurs than public scholars, and promotions are based on impact factors of journals rather than impact on good for humankind. Evidence of this can be found in the decline of public funding for higher education and the increase in quick degree programs. So to whom does education belong? While I'd love to say everyone, the reality is that it belongs to big business and profit is quickly becoming the bottom line. Before you know it, faculty will receive tenure and promotion for bringing in the most money! Oh wait, we already do that.

Education BECOMES a profit to the person who earns it through hard work. One does not obtain an Education by paying for a certificate or for grades that are not really deserved..

Buying a degree by expecting high grades for little or no work is merely buying STATUS, not education.

Caveat emptor!

Would you undergo surgery preformed by a doctor who bought his degree and certificates?

Would you travel in an airplane or train that was maintained by people who bought their degrees or certificates?

Your system is broken because it does not supply the manpower requirements of the economy in which you live. The rest of the world is astonished that the world's largest economy can not educate a workforce with the skills base necessary to enable that economy to function and to grow.

Education is a process of gaining knowledge that has been accumulated throughout the history of mankind. Humanity owns this host of knowledge and therefore education should be an ancestral right for every individual. We should not allow any person or a group to claim its ownership. We should not allow any body even to raise this issue.

1. @ Frank Hummer

I suggest that you examine the reasons for the 'Glorious Revolution of 1688'. (Great Britain).

2. @ everyone

Education, defined as a methodical process of learning within an institution, can not be free from a source of financial support for that institution and it's teaching body. Some group or individuals some where, have to provide the money for building and maintaining physical institutions. Someone must pay for teaching hours and preparation, educational supplies, etc. The question was / is/ does one person pay for one person? Does one person pay for all? Or is there some way that the entire community can pay for all members of the community. IS this financial support a benefit for the members of the teaching body - or for the 'student body'? Should it be a benefit to both teachers and students?

In what eventually became the U.S.A. this sort of argument raged throughout the 17th, 18th centuries and well into the 19th century. It clearly continues into the 21st century. paraphrased..should all citizens have equal access to education..or should those who can pay have 'it all".

In 19th century United States, many people vigorously complained at having to pay taxes to support their local schools. At the same time it was quite common for many young people to remain illiterate. Young people's parents had to pay fees for primary and secondary schooling, as well as university education.

This was before public primary and secondary schools were created to benefit the 'ordinary person', as well as the famous 'Land Grant Universities' to train the farmers and mechanics - children of ordinary people ....what has happened here?

The argument was (is) that the welfare of the society was at stake if people were ignorant and illiterate.

Access to education should be free to students regardless of their personal economic and social situations - a fair method of ensuring that the population is literate and thoughtful is to educate them to read, write and understand mathematics at the very least. (This doesn't assume equal abilities will 'arrive'. This is about equal access to develop one's potential - whatever that may be.) Everyone should contribute via their taxes to the general welfare of the entire community, thus ensuring basic fairness to all. A child from a poor family should not be denied the right to go to school. Taxes distribute benefits to everyone in society.

Paying taxes does not contradict paying for private schools, nor does it legislate against an individual's right to choose to pay for a private school. Sometimes there is no choice but to pay additionally for a good educational institution.

The problem will come when the better education comes from schools that require parents to pay fees. If the the public schools are poorly supported , then the ordinary person is back to square one.

In this discussion, one needs to separate the behaviours of an adult community from the behaviours of children who usually only think of themselves - because they children.

Some students may regard their parents' efforts to provide for them as a form of 'a free lunch' that they are 'due' regardless of their behaviour (whether or not parents have paid taxes or fees for education). They may also believe, by extension, that like their parents, all adults owe them the same consideration. They need to realize that it is now their turn to be adult and take responsibility for their own lunches and to be responsible and to think of the welfare of others around them.

Thanks. I have looked into it, at your suggestion.

We all in this discussion possibly agreed that education is a fundamental right for every individual and therefore no body can be denied from getting education. No groups and/or individuals should ever be allowed to claim its ownership. However some logical contradictions were highlighted when the implementation issues are considered. We could have avoided discussion on such contradiction if it is an academic issue. Unfortunately this is not so.

Education is a process where knowledge gets transferred from teacher to his/her students. The process needs human as well as material resources that involve money. Who is going to pay for this? In today’s scenario what we find is that the children whose parents are capable of spending money for this purpose, gets education and therefore in practice the rich people are becoming the “owners” of education.

I really do not know how to combat this situation. Because it may be economically impossible to implement a totally Government sponsored education system even in primary level. We have to depend on private players and there the questions of profit, loss, finance etc. come in. Moreover these private parties, if they are part of large companies and/or MNC’s may try to impose control on the overall education system which may be a threat against humanity.

I feel a continuous monitoring from the civil societies is necessary and this only can give us a workable solution.

It only requires the agreement of the majority that education should be a right of everyone...and therefore supported by the contribution (taxes) from all who can afford it..the rich should afford more than the poor. But sometimes one has to start as a 'small' effort, funding by what ever means..The outcome of this funding, whether private or public, should focus on the quality of the personal outcomes of each student.  It should not be allowed to relapse into a money-making scheme for its funders.  That would be cheating its students. It is known to have happened and to happen to private institutions the world over.  If education is left to be organized solely by corporate entities who do not possess a mission of service but a mission of profit, it is no longer a service for the betterment of human existence. 

The corporate schools are often tempted to process people in the same way that they process objects. This is because they have concentrated on their core business plan on creating profit, not that of fostering enlightenment, personal development and skilling.

Society or rather, the citizens in a society should continuously be vigilant as to the quality of their education, the goal of universal access to education, and so on.  regardless of how education is funded.

I consider education, teaching & learning to be primary components of the set of human survival skills -- the relative "cost" might be a value put in terms of money. However, education is more akin to water and food and safety. Who owns those things? Does the King? Or does the Corporation? Or do the People? Depends...

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a concept that can be used for providing primary education to each and every children of a nation. It can be made mandatory for a business organization to spend a small portion of its profit for the development of primary education. Implementation should be made through independent groups controlled by civil societies. However, all such implementations should be under the control of a committee consisting of eminent educationist of the country.

I don't think corporations as such have any responsibility to provide education for anybody.  I think education is too important to be under the control of a committee consisting of eminent educators. Currently, in the United States at least, corporations are forced to provide education via the taxes they are forced to pay.

Dear Frank Hummer,

I quote from your answer "I think education is too important to be under the control of a committee consisting of eminent educators". Then who will control it, the Government? In that case there is a chnce of political biasing. In my answer what I wanted to emphasize is that the independent non political people should implement and control the education. That was the reason why I mentioned the role of civil society.

I do agree with you that it shouldn't be the government. So I may have misunderstood your comment. I just don't think that anybody needs to be in control of it in any sort of centralized way. I'm happy for various independent  groups of experts (or non experts )to compete for th)

something happened to the end of my last post. ... I'm happy for various independent  groups of experts (or non experts), who have no "control" over education, to compete freely, without government restriction, as they present education plans and materials to for the approval of the consumers of education, who are either the students or their agents (their agents are often their parents).

Today we in India are celebrating “Deepawali” the festival of light.

Wish you a happy “Deepawali”

May the millions of lamps illuminate your life with

prosperity and happiness.

I enjoyed looking up Deepawali on the web. I had never heard of it. It has a very beautiful intent behind it. I don't think we have anything analogous to it in mainstream western or U.S. culture. Thanks, Anup.

Frank, I am not sure if I agree with your notion of educationalists 'competing' for the approval of consumers of education. Who are those consumers? Students/pupils? ow would they decide what educational material or vision/approach to approve of? If you are for instance a first year student, just getting to know the field of your study, how would you decide what is good quality educational material? Let alone decide as a student on the right pedagogical approach or vision?

I'd say teachers should be the ones deciding on these things, as they are (supposed to) master the field they teach in. So they should be able to decide what good quality education entails. However....teachers are paid by the governemnt, and government funds educational institutions, meaning they have - willingly or unwillingly - a say in who education belongs to and what belongs in education.

I guess education does not belong to one group, whether they are experts, students or the governemnt. It belongs to many parties: the pupils/students and their parents, teachers, the government, society at large, and yes also corporations who not only pay tax but also benefit from a highly trained workforce.

Hi, Daniel.

The students are the consumers, except of course that for young students parents often act as their agents. The consumer decides which kinds of education materials/experiences they want the same way they decide a great many other important things. They review what's offered to them, and choose what they think is best for them.  For first year students in a field of study (this is likely college age, but I guess it could be high school age), they decide based on reputation. As in selecting anything for themselves, people do the best they can. They can change their mind if they don't get it right the first time.

I think teachers and/or their employer should decide how teachers teach, so I agree with you on that. Some teachers are paid by the government.

In your last paragraph, I don't so much disagree as I just think the question "who owns education?" is a funny kind of question. I don't know why we ask it, or what a coherent answer would look like. Education is a service that people purchase in one way or another. The entities you mention, pupils and their parents, teachers, corporations (and I guess the government, depending) all have reasons to be Interested in what kinds of educational services are available, but I wouldn't say that means that they "own" it. I don't remember what I wrote before in an earlier post, but I think I said that we don't ask thinks like "who owns home construction?" or "who owns food consumption" or "who owns the cleaning of swimming pools".  I'm being a little disingenuous here, in that I think what drives the question "who owns education" is an unstated assumption that many people have (I don't have it) which says that education is something that must be organized or centralized on societal levels to some extent, so that therefor someone or some group of someones need to be "in charge" of it. These people "in charge" of education would be something like the owners of it.

Hi Frank, thank you for your elaborate and interesting answer. I think that where we disagree possibly quite fundamentally is the very notion of education. In your argument I read a notion of education as something that is a commodity, a service to be used, in which market forces (demand of students, supply of educational institutions) regulates and guarantees the quality of education. Is is a quite common notion these days (reputation of universities and also secondary schools in the Netherlands have grown to be very important, althought what that reputation consists of is disputed), but one I quite fundamentally disagree with.

Education is not a commodity, no straightforward product to be bought or sold, but a very complex process between different parties, most notably the teacher and the student/pupil, with uncertain outcomes. It is almost a cliche these days to point to the work of Gert Biesta in this, but he explains this better than  ever could in his book 'the beautiful risk of education'.  Teaching is hard, learning is maybe even harder; and it is very hard to decide what is the 'best' way to learn while in the middle of learning. Deciding what is needed to be in education, asks for a well thought through idea of what actually is the goal of education. The answer to that question might well be something that is not easily captured in student test results or school reputation. As this is a complex matter I do indeed believe that it is something that needs to be organised (not necessarily centralised though) on a societal level as you put it. We have to take into account the question who is in charge of education and control it to some extent, to safeguard the sort of education that is needed for young people. 

I know I might be putting your comments a bit too much in a specific sort of way. If so I apologise, but I feel the discussion on what education is and who decides what it is, is interesting, and the market driven approach seems to be so dominant these days that it is often taken for granted in discussions. This is why I highlight it here.

Regarding your comments on 'who owns' education, you are probably right, it is not a well chosen term. One of the disadvantages of not being a native speaker I guess. Terminology aside, I fel it is very interesting to see who controls what is and what is not done or offered in education. In the same way as it is interesting to see who controls food production, as the interests of for instance companies producing certain food products are not necessarily the same as those of the consumers. Insight in that question is absolutely important in order to understand how and why certain things, like for instance education, are organised.

Hi Daniel.  Actually I think you did characterize my views very accurately and fairly. I don't think that you have oversimplified my views.

I think you are correct, in your second paragraph, in pointing out the many ways in which education is more complex than many of the things ("commodities") that we do allow (in some countries!) to simply be 'regulated' by market forces alone. I agree that a good school or good educational product isn't easily captured by student test results or school reputation (I know that I was the one who first mentioned reputation though, as a basis for choosing). But I think that things like test results and reputations are going to be in the mix of many pieces of information that people will decide upon in choosing a school. But it's very complex. 

But in spite of my sincere agreement with you about these things you are talking about, I just don't reach the same conclusion that there is any benefit to organizing education "on a societal level".  In a free market for education, of course you while have organizations -- grass roots public interest groups large and small, as well as publishing companies and schools themselves -- promoting different kinds of visions of what education should be like. Now if these kinds of entities are what we mean by "organizing at a societal level", then I think that level of organizing is just fine with me. These different organization are likely to all have experts in support of their separate visions.  And sometimes these experts will make claims which strongly disagree with each other. The only thing I would want to ensure is that all decisions regarding any particular individual's choice among these different educational offerings is made only by that individual or by an agent of that individual (parent or guardian.  The decision should never be made by anybody else.   I'm happy to have experts try to persuade individuals, but they should have no power to compel anyone to do anything about their education.   Summarizing, I just don't think that the complexity of education (complex in comparison to many other choices we make) changes that fact that people should be able to make their own choices regarding it.

Your example of food production is good. Yes, the interests of the food producers is not always in line with the interests of consumers.  That's why good food shopping requires a lot of vigilance.  I think that when shoppers are vigilant, you do see food producers trying to bring their offerings more in line with what consumers want (of course consumer preferences vary).

The thing I don't want is any kind of central control by a group of people (experts or not) who -- do not merely just have an influence on some of the educations services offered -- but who actually have governance over all of the educational services offered.  In the United States, we do have that sort of central control.