The book, published by Oxford University Press, aims to address a lacuna between educational policy and liberal political theory.

[3][a] Levinson writes that the intent of liberal education is to maximize individual autonomy in successive generations, particularly by "cultivating the 'capacity' to exercise liberty".

[8] The work aimed to address a lack of literature between educational policy and liberal political theory, with the intent to serve both constituencies.

[9][10] The aim of liberal education is to teach children the skills, habits, knowledge, and dispositions for them to be thoughtful, mature, self-assured individuals who map their path in the world with care and confidence, take responsibility for their actions, fulfill their duties as citizens, question themselves and others when appropriate, listen to and learn from others, and ultimately lead their lives with dignity, integrity, and self-respect—i.e.

[6] Levinson proposes that citizenship education can provide the "cultural coherence" that may be missing from a "detached" school[6]—which would be a diverse community that prioritizes "critical thinking, tolerance, and reflectiveness".

[12] She argues for a constitutional mandate to establish the "autonomy-promoting aim of education" regardless of public support, and asks for a "culture change".

[14] Her argument is that the limited worldviews resulting from "excessive paternalism" consequently stunt children's ability to develop adult autonomy or make rational decisions.

[6] Haydon considered her book "an important contribution" to liberal theory and wrote that "it would be a loss to political philosophy" if she continued her work as a schoolteacher in lieu of an academic career.

[14] Alexander linked Walzer and Levinson's views on parental school choice as more about "choosing 'schoolmates than schoolbooks'", to the detriment of "cultural cohesion" and for reasons unrelated to educational quality.

[19] Alexander recommended the book for "all public educators" for its thoughts on the role of school privatization, homeschooling, and voucher programs.

[16] De Ruyter was unsure about edge cases of autonomy, such as whether being closed-minded to the prospect of a pierced belly button would make her a less autonomous person in Levinson's view.

[26] De Ruyter concluded that "autonomy imposing schools" would be more harmful than respectful and "autonomy-friendly ... reduced plural environments", as a child would be better off in an imperfect pluralist than a homogenous fundamentalist classroom.

[29] They added that her evaluation of public education across several countries did not account for supranational influence and that she did not engage the potential issues endemic to integrating heteronymous illiberals.

The panel, led by James Dwyer, included William Galston, Fran Schrag, Yuli Tamir, and a response from the author.