At the root of the of the disagreement about merging schools may be competing concepts on the purpose of public education. While we may all mostly agree about what schools do, it seems that there are very different concepts on the what, why, and who behind the purpose of public education.

Schools have been around for a very long time. American public education – universal basic education for all – had its beginnings in Massachusetts in the early 1800s. A lot has changed since then; but the basic concept – that local taxation should provide for the basic education of all children – began just about 200 years ago. It was a sensible and successful arrangement, partly because everybody agreed about what it was for. It was for the betterment of the community. It was to make the community a better place.

Today, if you were to ask a random sampling of taxpayers what the local public school was for, you would probably have to ask many subjects before anyone would say anything about the community. Most would probably begin with some version of the “it’s for the kids’ future” trope. Now, I, of course, would disagree strenuously (using evidence and research results!) with the view that a merger would make for improved futures for our students. But in a more fundamental sense, I would argue that the real disagreement traces back to that confusion about what schools are for: about the purpose of public education.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no argument with the concept that there are many benefits of public education that are focused on the students. It is perfectly appropriate for the specifics of education to be student centered. It is a good and appropriate goal for our schools to work to graduate students that are college and career ready. What we are getting wrong – and what our predecessors 200 years ago understood better than we do – is the “why”, the “what for”, and the “for whom” of public education.

First, let’s look at the “what for.” What is public education preparing students for? I submit that we have become way too specific in our aspirations and expectations. While we may be preparing students to have the capacity to take the next steps toward becoming electricians, or electrical engineers, or theoretical physicists; it isn’t the public school’s role to teach the specifics of any of those professions. It is the school’s role to prepare students to be competent and engaged members of the community. The capacity to choose a specific profession may naturally follow from that community focused, sound, basic education; but that career focus is not the root purpose of a public school education. The true purpose is to build a solid future for the community.

Similarly, we have gone astray in addressing the question of “why”. Too often, it seems, the “why” is so that students can escape. We are educating our kids to leave their communities behind. There is something terribly wrong if we can’t see a bright future without the requirement of an exodus. Sure, there will be some who will choose to leave; it has always been so. But to make that the goal is ridiculous and self defeating. By educating students to leave, we are committing a kind of societal suicide. It follows that the only sound and sensible “why” has to be for the good of the local community.

Finally, who is public education for? There is only one reasonable answer: it is for all of us, communally. Students need public education so they can become contributing members of the community. Communities need public education because it will help us continue to have the carpenters, lawyers, mechanics, teachers, farmers and health-care workers that we need for our communities to thrive (as well as baristas, librarians and social media specialists!) And, realistically, public schools in turn require the support of their communities. Reforging a community focus could be a great strategy for increasing public support for public education right here in our own communities.

I am struck by how many of the individuals active in the “no” response to the proposed merger are people who have multiple generations of family members with experience as active participants in our communities. I don’t think that is a coincidence; nor do I think that it involves an unreasonable attachment to the past. It is, rather, a result of that genuine focus on the good of the community. Yes, I and others opposed a merger because we have not been shown evidence that demonstrates clear advantages for students or taxpayers. That is a negative reason; a reason based on a lack. The community based reason is a stronger and deeper reason; and it is a reason based on prosperity. Local communities thrive when they have local schools, and when those local schools are deliberately working to build community. These nurtured communities then in turn work to build better schools. We need that positive feedback loop; not the negative, community diminishing loop that merged schools too often produce. Local schools build community.