Paramount Purpose of Education

• What is the real purpose of school?
• Is our education system still about human flourishing?
• What happens when academic achievement becomes the sole purpose of schooling?
• Why we need compelling narratives, not just better test scores.

---

Over the past couple of weeks I’ve spent time at conferences and in mentoring sessions with school leaders where a common thread in all of the conversations has linked back to thinking about what the ‘why’ of education – whether that is our personal ‘why’ as educators, the ‘why’ of our individual schools (most often represented in the vision, mission and values of the school) or the ‘why’ of our system as a whole (i.e. what is the purpose of schools and schooling?)

Understanding the purpose of what we do is critically important for us as individuals, as schools and as a system. It is the thing that gives us the motivation for pursuing what we do and provides a vision for what we are aspiring to achieve. Without a strong sense of belief in the ‘why’ of what we’re doing, our work risks becoming purely transactional.

Many years ago I read, and was extremely influenced by, Neil Postman’s The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. In it Postman argues that the ultimate goal or purpose of education is to provide students with a narrative – a sense of purpose and meaning that helps them understand their place in the world and motivates them to contribute to society. (I’d argue that in this we mustn’t forget that this same sense of narrative is important for educators also!)

Postman criticises modern education systems for lacking compelling, unifying narratives and for focusing too much on economic utility (e.g., job preparation) rather than deeper cultural and moral purposes. He suggests that when schools lack a guiding narrative, education becomes fragmented, uninspiring, and unable to foster a cohesive society.

I found the alternative narratives (or “gods” as he refers to them) put forward by Postman in his book really useful – he argues that any of these could restore meaning to education, such as:

• The Spaceship Earth narrative — emphasizing stewardship of the planet.
• The Fallen Angel narrative — highlighting the history of human error and the value of learning from mistakes.
• The American Experiment narrative — focusing on democratic ideals and civic engagement.
• The Law of Diversity narrative — celebrating cultural pluralism and the richness it brings.
• The Word Weavers/The World Makers narrative — underlining the power of language and storytelling in shaping reality.

Ultimately, Postman sees education not just as preparation for work or college, but as a cultural and moral enterprise that helps young people make sense of the world and their role in it. This resonates strongly with my personal beliefs about the purpose of schooling, and I see this reflected in other places such as the OECD’s work on Education for Human Flourishing.

So it was with interest that I this week I read through the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) and the press release of the Hansard record of the bill being introduced to parliament earlier this year. In part 1 of the document (Amendments to Part 3 – primary and secondary education) there is a statement that reads:

Clause 8 replaces section 127, which sets out the objectives of boards in governing State schools. New section 127(1) provides that the paramount objective of a board in governing a school is to ensure that every student at the school is able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement.

My attention was drawn to this singular focus on education achievement – with no mention of the broader outcomes we might imagine to be important in a mature and future-focused education system, as proposed by Neil Postman.

So I did a little digging and found that before the Education and Training Act 2020, the governing legislation for schools was the Education Act 1989. This Act didn’t specify a singular “paramount” objective in quite the same way, but it included purposes and objectives that guided the operation of schools and the role of boards of trustees.

For instance, section 75 of the 1989 Act stated:

“A school’s board has complete discretion to control the management of the school as it sees fit, subject to the general law of New Zealand.”

The Act generally emphasised self-governance, equity, and access, but it didn’t explicitly articulate the highest purpose of governance in terms of educational achievement. However, the National Education Guidelines (NEGs) and National Administration Guidelines (NAGs) provided more detailed direction. The NEGs included statements like:

“The highest standards of achievement, through programmes which enable all students to realise their full potential as individuals, and to develop the values needed to become full members of New Zealand’s society.”

So while “highest standards of achievement” was part of the language, it sat alongside other aims like individual potential and social participation.

The Education and Training Act 2020 replaced the 1989 Act and modernised the legal framework. Section 127(1) of the Education and Training Act 2020 stated:

“The board’s primary objectives in governing a school are to ensure that— (a) every student at the school is able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement; and (b) the school—(i) is a physically and emotionally safe place for all students and staff; and (ii) gives effect to relevant student rights; and (iii) takes all reasonable steps to eliminate racism, stigma, bullying, and any other forms of discrimination.”

Here, we start to see a stronger framing of educational achievement as the “primary” objective, supported by other social and rights-based responsibilities.

The current amendment proposes to elevate educational achievement even further, changing “primary objectives” to a “paramount objective”:

“The paramount objective of a board in governing a school is to ensure that every student at the school is able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement.”

So it would appear that this language signals a prioritisation of academic achievement above all else, which raises questions for me about how other responsibilities (such as student wellbeing, equity, Te Tiriti obligations, and inclusion) are weighted or integrated.

The evolution of the ‘paramount purpose’ being proposed may be summarised in the following table:

Period	Statement of Purpose / Objective	Focus
Pre-1989	Highly centralised system; no clear statutory objective for boards.	Uniformity, access.
1989–2020	Local governance under the Education Act 1989; NEGs and NAGs referenced achievement and full potential.	Self-governance, broad aims including potential and values.
2020–2024	“Primary objectives” under the Education and Training Act 2020.	Balanced: achievement, wellbeing, rights, anti-discrimination.
Proposed Amendment	“Paramount objective” is educational achievement.	Singular prioritisation of achievement.

This narrowing of purpose – from a broader, more holistic conception of education to a singular focus on academic achievement – is deeply concerning from my perspective. While striving for every student to achieve their best academically is indeed important, making this the paramount objective risks sidelining the many other functions and responsibilities of education that are essential to developing human potential and sustaining a healthy, cohesive, and future-oriented society.

A national education system is not – and should never be – just a mechanism for producing test scores or future workers. Education is a cultural, civic, and moral endeavour. It is about equipping young people not only with knowledge and skills, but with the capacity to participate meaningfully in society, to care for others and the planet, to express themselves, to navigate complexity, and to live fulfilling lives. These are the foundations of human flourishing, and they cannot be reduced to academic outcomes alone.

Indeed, when education is framed solely in terms of achievement – especially narrowly defined academic achievement – we risk diminishing students’ diverse strengths, cultural identities, and aspirations. We also risk reducing schools to transactional institutions that deliver content, rather than communities that nurture curiosity, creativity, empathy, resilience, and critical thought.

International frameworks such as the OECD’s vision of Education for 2030 — which centres on developing “the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that enable individuals to contribute to and benefit from an inclusive and sustainable future” – offer a more balanced and future-focused view. This aligns closely with Postman’s call for education to offer compelling narratives: stories that help young people see purpose in their learning and their lives.

Economic growth may be one outcome of a well-functioning education system, but it should not be the sole justification for its existence. If we ask instead, “What kind of people and society do we want to cultivate?” we arrive at a very different set of priorities – ones that reflect a deeper and more enduring purpose.

The question we must keep returning to is: what is the ‘why’ of education? For educators. For schools. And for our system as a whole. If we lose sight of this, we risk building a system that is efficient but empty – technically sound but morally adrift.