May 23 (post #1)…The Competing Purposes/Aims of Schools
Are
there any major purposes of schooling left out by Labaree? What do you make of
his conclusion (Is there any hope to push back against the predominant notion
of education as a private good?)?
Kurt here...zdr/tg;hlamsdvft.hsdfkuavmcs.lkdmsc.dlth
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this article as it helped establish a historical framework under which education has functioned in the US. The competing goals of education all made sense to me in their own ways and I found myself aligning and realigning my own opinions repeatedly throughout the text. Ultimately I am inclined to say that I believe the overarching goal of education (if we were to have to choose one of the three presented) should be democratic quality. That being said, I can see why the goals of efficiency and mobility have proven useful and in many ways are more powerful bargaining chips when deciding how funding and resources should be allocated throughout the system.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if any of you know what is happening to the School district of Philadelphia, but the system there is being turned upside down right now. There is a major reform under way that was recently announced which includes the privatization of the entire district. The School reform commission (SRC) plans on closing many schools over the next 5 years (I forget the exact number but I know it was 50+) and having 40% of students in charter schools by 2017. The remaining public schools that do stay open will be developed into "achievement networks" that will be managed privately by the highest bidders. Autonomy is being offered to individual schools that are considered high performance in exchange for high levels of accountability. This overhaul has me upset for obvious reasons. When reading Labaree I couldn't help but grow fearful of what these market driven business practices will do to the district over time. I worry that in an attempt to gain autonomy schools will do whatever they can to decrease their enrollments of students who tend to preform lower on testing, like ESL, low income, or or students with IEPs. I would like to see more push back against the commodification of education but when you see an entire district in a major metropolitan area become completely privatized, it makes you wonder how far we will go in the name of mobility.
The situation that you detailed in Philadelphia is frightening, and I hope it does not catch on. As more punishments and restrictions are placed on schools based on poor test scores, the schools are pushed further and further down a path that they will not be able to recover from. If the local, state, and federal governments are so in favor of boosting scores, they should allocate funds to struggling schools, instead of punishing them.
DeleteAfter some consideration, I can see the pros and cons of each goal detailed in Larabee’s article. Democratic equality seems beneficial and civically conscious, yet idealistic. Social efficiency seems practical, yet narrow-minded and exclusive. Social mobility seems great in abstraction (hard work pays off) yet, in reality results in the subordination of learning in favor of credit-acquiring.
ReplyDeleteIn these circumstances, when there are contrasting ideals pitted against one another, I almost always favor a compromise. Ideally, school systems should work to embody each of these goals. Such a synthesis between democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility, should be written into a school’s credo, with goals such as fostering the civic growth of future political participants, providing career training for those seeking an entry into the work force, and ensuring the development of students at a competitive level. A complete realignment would have to be put in place in order to combine all three goals, because as Larabee argued, social mobility is the most dominant goal in American schools.
A good degree means a good job which means a high socioeconomic standing. This is an unavoidable fact of American society, and I really don’t have a problem with it to some extent. But, the increasing prevalence of the social mobility goal in schools is disturbing. As a future social studies teacher, I fear for the liberal arts curriculum. Will history be phased out in favor of increasing emphasis on boosting math or science proficiency? I see the value in social studies – how history can help individuals see cultural trends and think critically. But, those skills are not as quantifiable as other subjects. Unfortunately, I feel that the social mobility goal will continue to dominate in schools until some drastic change (perhaps scaling down the importance of standardized tests) is put in place.
I too can see useful principals within each goal. The problem with compromise is how to incorporate multiple goals when the foundations of the different goals are mutually exclusive. How do we promote equality and mobility at the same time? If we conceive of the pool of potential credentials as finite, there can not be equality without forgoing the ability to provide a multitiered workforce to an already stratified social structure. And if we conceive of the pool of credentials as infinite and achievable via mobility then we end up with credential inflation and an over educated, under employed workforce. Compromise sounds reasonable in theory but I feel like it leaves us between a rock and a hard place. Would it be better to choose one goal and at least be able to achieve success in a limited aspect, than to pursue multiple goals simultaneously and risk failure in all areas?
DeleteSocial mobility will remain the driving goal. That is simply the nature of the beast at this time – a beast being fed by standardized tests. But, that should not deter us from trying to integrate the better aspects of the other two goals into the school systems. Democratic equality and social efficiency will be subordinated to social mobility based on today’s culture, but they can be integrated. Based on Labaree’s explanation of the goals, they are mutually exclusive, but with a paradigm shift they can be complimentary, we just have to look at it differently. For example, schools could offer career tech tracts and academic tracts, with students being placed in each by preference as opposed to test scores (mobility and efficiency combined with student choice). There could be a life skills class, informing students about voting, setting up bank accounts, how to pay your taxes, or how to prepare for a job interview (This class could be based solely on participation, a break from the cut-throat grading associated with social mobility). Stratification and competition are inevitable, as is the current status of credit-accumulating, but that should not deter us from trying new options.
DeleteWhat about me?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, I found myself thinking about what role I would play as a teacher, especially in a high school. The social mobility ideal is focused on the pushing of students towards a college career that will improve their status. Is Labaree suggesting that my focus should not be to push my students, most of whom will come from a low socioeconomic background, with social mobility in mind? In a perfect world students would be motivated to learn for the sake of learning and funding would be allocated to education because we want an educated society.
Unfortunately, because of Credentialism and the ever increasing importance that society places on higher education, education as a private good will remain dominant. Learning to move forward is the name of the game. I feel we would have to lessen the importance of higher education, in order to increase the importance of democratic equality and social efficiency. But, does that take away the role of motivator from the teaching profession? Does the social mobility ideal provide the atmosphere for a teacher to make the biggest difference?
Jonathan,
DeleteI found myself thinking along similar lines. Credentialism creates a sense that the best and most qualified people are those who pursue a traditional form of higher education. As a result, the merit of the educational system, specifically the high schools, is often contingent upon how many students per year are shipped off to a four year college or university. As Lamboree pointed out, and Ryan mentioned, a degree equates to social mobility. As educators, we should want all of our students to have the ability to be socially mobile.
However, every student will not attend a four year college or university. There are other forms of higher education that may or may not be more well-suited to individual students. Unfortunately, credentialism has devalued many other educational options and limited the social mobility the students who pursue those options can achieve. How do we as teachers present all options to students, without accidentally implying that some students are intellectually worth more than others?I would like to some way to balance encouraging pursuit of collegiate higher education, while simultaneously presenting and encouraging other options to students. However, how does that happen as teachers without us feeling as if we are socially immobilizing students? We can create an environment in the classroom that their is no difference in rank between them, but isn't that unrealistic when we live in a society that will value them according to the letters following the comma behind their names?
I will begin by asserting that I am a raging idealist. I felt a major purpose of schooling was overlooked in this article: the development of a culture of learning. Labaree spoke of learning being undercut by the mobility goal but did not mention learning being a goal unto itself.
ReplyDeleteIs there any hope for the goal of making students into learners?
Labaree mentioned in passing in the very beginning that some think there is a cultural problem negatively affecting public schools. There is some truth to that, but the cultural problem I see is in the schools themselves, as the culture that ought to be fostered in public schools is a love of learning, not competition. If we could just teach students how to learn then they could go out into the world, work the job that suits them, and read and listen and absorb and develop throughout their lives, allowing their careers to develop with them. They would be motivated to do extra training courses to make them better at their jobs, interested in current events and political issues in our democracy- they would be good workers and informed citizens.
Labaree mentioned that one of the results of America’s focus on social mobility is the freedom for people who have left the education system to get back in. If this were to remain the case and students who had passed through primary and high school had been imbued with a love of learning instead of an ulcer from competing, a student could leave high school, try out a job and through that experience learn about himself/herself, then research and learn about what occupation would be preferable, and then pursue the higher education specifically necessary for that occupation. Credentials could be meaningful and specific, instead of increasingly inflated and general.
I am not saying that this is realistic, and I don't know how it could be achieved, I just think its an admirable goal.
While reading this article, I found myself personalizing the content throughout – not an uncommon phenomenon for me. I was raised in a household that stressed education for the sake of education, rather than any goals of employment or citizenship. I feel this idea was left out of the discourse: the intrinsic value and power of knowledge. This philosophy infects my goals for teaching. I'm passionate about the Sciences and about learning new things, and I want to pass on that passion. I have no concept whether this will yield better citizens, good workers, or social climbers. I'm hoping for people who enjoy going outdoors and thinking about clouds and rocks, and who feel compelled to ask “Why?” and “How?” about nearly everything they encounter.
ReplyDeleteI have always assumed that if you engender excitement for learning in people, eventually something will stick that will then lead to a career/lifestyle (a quick reread of that sentence makes me feel very PollyAnna-esque, all dewy eyed, but so be it). I also note that Emily beat me to the punch on this, so I'll just heartily agree.
While I can see the advantages in designing a system that focuses on any one of the goals of citizenship, specific job training, or climbing the ladder, it seems like any system that was explicitly laid out with such a objective in mind would fail students in the other categories. What good in the 21st century is a purely idealistic patriot, a singular-minded worker bee, or a person solely driven by his or her own ambition? The first wouldn't be able to sustain him/herself, the second would have no inner-drive, and the third is probably the cause of the current financial woes of this country. I agree with Christina and Ryan that there must be some melding of the three ideals such that they complement, rather than clash.
It seems like a major (and unlikely) step in solving inequality of school experience would be to equally fund every school in the country; I can't see that flying amongst the wealthier districts, as it would mean, probably, less $$ per student for them, and I can't see today's big-government fearful congress and electorate going for it, simply on principle. However, of the three hierarchies that Labaree mentions, the vast difference in schools (public K-12, especially), seems starkest in terms of social injustice. If all students were offered the same quality of education, as defined by dollar amount – teachers who were paid the same (based upon living standards in the area), the same equipment and facilities, etc - it would HAVE to make a difference, no?
I have to take issue with one idea that felt implicit to me in this article: modern students who enroll in Vo-Tech programs do so because they lack the aptitude for more academic pursuits, and that this relegates them to a life of servitude and lower-middle class life. I grew up in rural VA, and can think of many (more than I can count on two hands) friends who wanted to be mechanics/plumbers/carpenters, went to the technical school, and who have carved out lives better than their parents' (or, from a financial/social mobility perspective, the one I have, whilst holding a Bachelor's and a Master's degree). I can't speak to their citizenship, but I know that they're socially mobile, and most of them never spent a day in formal education after high school.
I also found myself trying to contemplate the motivation of the student's we're likely to encounter. At one point, Labaree claims (and backs himself with citations) that lower income students see no hope in education for social mobility and that there is weak competition in inner city schools, perhaps we can, instead, make them into good citizens and effective members of the workforce. I don't know whether I fully believe this to be written in stone. However, as I said, however, I'm just looking to create a bunch of sky-watchers, rock collectors, and muck-rakers.
I'm glad you made the point about how vocational programs are portrayed in this article. There is certainly a place in our education system for vocational programs, and the reality is, as much as I am sure we all hate to admit it, higher education is not for everyone. That is not to say that all students should have the opportunity to pursue higher education, or that those students who chose voc-tech programs do so because they lack the academic ability. Rather, some students face an immediate need (or desire) to obtain a job after high school, and voc-tech programs help with this. And these programs can provide ample opportunity for social mobility. Like you, I know plenty of people who went into "trades" and have created lives better than their parents. It will be interesting to see if this changes in the long term as the economy changes.
DeleteJosh,
DeleteYou should most definitely read "Five Miles Away: A World Apart," the book by James Ryan. In it Ryan discusses financial disparities across school systems, and even within districts. However, what I was most surprised to learn and what I think might interest you in light of your comments, is that some inner-city schools have more money at their expenditure than surrounding suburban schools. According to Ryan, sometimes, not always, lack of financial resources is not the problem, but instead ill-managed financial resources are. I wonder where RPS stands financially, and how that impacts us as teachers.
I have no real profound statement to make, just wanted to throw it out there
I think its important to reflect on what you mention here regarding the assumed value of accumulating credentials and its intrinsic relationship with social mobility. It was once the case that if you went to college, and especially graduate school, you were golden. All our lives this status quo was repeated to us and we all grew up in a culture that told us if we want to be successful we have to go to college, and even further implied that not only was college a prerequisite to success, but that a degree would guarantee such successes. The world is obviously very different then it used to be and it is o longer true that college grads have ample opportunities for gainful employment. I have several friends who chose other paths besides college. Some are retail managers, some are tradesmen, and a couple are professionals who got there credentials via a diploma program in stead of a 4 year degree (such as an RN). Most of these people are far more social mobile than I am (if based on income and asset accumulation). To this point having a Bachelors and a Masters degree has not opened up the endless possibilities I once thought it would. Don't get me wrong, I do not regret going to college and I feel extremely fortunate for having the opportunity to future my education because I enjoy learning and I place a high personal value on that education. However, changing economies and dynamic markets makes one question the presumed class structure associated with vo-tech versus higher ed.
DeleteLike Christina, I found myself changing my opinions with each point the author made as I read this text. Prior to reading this article, I had always viewed education as a tool for social mobility, and I had never seen any negative aspects of this perspective. However, this article really brought to light the inherent issues of viewing education in terms of social mobility, as this perspective views education as a private, rather than public, good. This perspective results in a system where credentials are valued more greatly than knowledge. I think that each of the three perspective serves their own purpose. Ultimately, public education is funded by taxpayer dollars, and in order to retain that funding stream, education must be seen as a public good, and its value must be presented in terms that will convince the public to continue funding it. In this respect, it makes more sense to present the goals of education as social efficiency. The reality is, as terrible as it seems, it is far easier to convince the public to increase funding when you present data that relates directly to future economic input or graduation rates in relation to incarceration rates. However, as teachers, we probably don't want to view education in this manner. But then how do we view it? Social mobility dictates that we place importance on grades and credentials, which is not ideal, but it is ultimately what people are looking for. Democratic equality is a noble goal, and it would be wonderful if we could view education in that light, but I think ultimately it is too idealistic to be realistic. So, where does that leave us?
ReplyDeleteThis is Krystal
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily 100% about how the Labaree overlooked the development of a culture of learning. Learning is definitely one of the main purposes of schooling. However on pages 55-56, it states that, “…Students of all levels quickly come to the conclusion that what matters most is not the knowledge they learn in school but the credentials they acquire there.” Basically, students are more concerned about getting good grades rather than actually learning the content. Unfortunately I was one of those students too. Luckily my attitude towards learning changed before I went off to college. I have also been able to see this first hand through my substitute teaching experience. I have had students tell me to my face that they really don’t care about learning the material and they just need a B in the class. From these experiences, I hope as a future educator that my passion for learning now can be spread to my students.
I honestly believe that there is probably no hope to push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good. Although this would be nice, it probably will not happen anytime soon. We see this education as a “private good” seen across the nation in many school districts. Christina’s example of what is going on in the Philadelphia Public School System is a prime example.
Before I begin to attempt to analyze potentially major purposes of schooling that have been omitted by Labaree, I would like to state that I thoroughly enjoyed this read and felt it was a more than adequate description of the differing ideologies of education in the United States. Labaree seems to shy away from many social and cultural "learning" experiences and instead grounds his arguments in a very traditional idea of what should be learned through school. He does mention "healthy social development" in his notes however, he chooses not to expand in great detail on how each of his three goals may or may not impact social growth. This observation is not meant to be a criticism but in the age of the Internet and increasing ease of international collaboration, perhaps focus on social prowess vs credentialism will begin to become an issue. No matter which of his goals or combination of them you personally ascribe to the human growth and development patterns may have a larger impact on the success of the system. Perhaps at the current juncture we have lost sight not only making effective workers but also effective citizens. Do we truly care about the well being of our neighbors, or has the selfish nature of the capitalistic market penetrated too deeply? Education is becoming more and more a economic privilege. As we market and obtain degrees like trophies on our walls, education loses the power to stand alone as the great equalizer.
ReplyDeleteI'll begin by saying that I, for the most part, agree with the deficiencies that were noted in the earlier posts about what Labaree left out. I tend to agree with Christina in the shifting of perspectives, now that I have the terminology to describe the goals and driving forces behind public education, but I would go even further with Emily's observations. To elaborate more, the competition and competitiveness that is brought along because of the social mobility model of things really shortchanges the students of what they could really be getting out of education besides the educational capital that will distinguish them. I am a firm believer in teaching critical thinking skills as opposed to only teaching specific traits- if you teach students to learn and to think through things thoroughly, then they would have better chances at excelling in all subjects than the very focused few that social efficiency offers. I don't know if I would call it necessarily a culture of learning, but I think what Emily describes should be at least a part of the goals that are in place and because it isn't more problems are created in the shortcomings of different approaches than solutions. I liked the article's background because I really hadn't thought of the school system in these terms and it is interesting to see where I fall and where those before me in my family fall along the goals and then I step back to see how much that social mobility model has permeated my own life with a mix of the other two somewhere or other, as a current US citizen that was born outside of the country. Social mobility and efficiency it seems are the driving forces for a lot of immigrants, because they come at an extreme disadvantage and have to make do as far as opportunities go and that is another interesting point that I didn't get too much out of the article. I don't think it really qualifies as a major purpose of school, but I do believe that integration into society- not just as citizens and participants in the job markets, but integration into a community that is beyond the merit- has been left behind as a mode of thinking. As far as Ryan's point goes- if we were to integrate all three of these approaches there may be a better chance for the student to succeed under many sets of situations and circumstances (hence the whole critical thinking bit that I support). Social mobility as a focus probably isn’t going anywhere, though, and even knowing that creates problems for me in the sense of the levels of stratification and the weight of educational resources, but I guess that is just a personal hang-up about the situation as a whole.
ReplyDeleteWhile I have been attending school all my life, I never thought about what the benefit was. And I think that that is one of the weaknesses of Labaree’s article; not taking into consideration that these ideals of social mobilization, good citizenship, and social efficiency are not what students necessarily think about even though that may be the agenda of their school system. Students typically attend schools because it is the norm and aren’t thinking about, at least not early on, about the benefits of attending school, though their parents and other adults are much more conscious of this fact.
ReplyDeleteThere is something wrong with the way education has been made competitive in this country. Labaree mentions that funding gifted programs for instance severely undercuts funding and opportunities for other programs. All of this pushing and pulling of educational goals, argues Labaree, leaves us with a crippled system that doesn’t work for anyone. I think this is somewhat true and though I realize the point that Labaree is trying to convey, I disagree with the fact that competition in our schools hasn’t been beneficial or productive. I think in a lot of ways competition is good for many students, but in our culture it has developed into something uncontrollable. I think inevitably what is wrong in our culture is that our capitalist society has taken over every aspect of life, even learning starting from kindergarten. There are even “Ivy-league” kindergarten schools that many parents choose to send their kids to, though I highly believe that kindergarten provides all students with the certain amount of basics necessary in order to start kids’ learning. I mean, what could the kids be possibly learning in some of these elite kindergarten schools? Foreign language maybe or philosophy? Really, there is only so much learning that needs to take place at a certain level.
Though I believe that pushing toward certain norms and ideals of the three American educational goals is ultimately beneficial, there does need to be a balance of such competition. Education is not something that can be viewed as having a single purpose or goal, but rather education is just education which will help us figure out our interests and goals in life as individuals. We shouldn’t be forced to pick and choose between the three institutionalized American educational goals.
Labree's "essay" exploring three alternative goals for American education provided me with a broader outlook on education. After completing the article I felt as Emily and Wenda have stated that a missing element is learning for the sake of learning and knowing. I am a proponent of lifelong learning and feel the rush of intellectual stimulation from learning new things without always having to have an end goal in mind – such as obtaining a job or degree.
ReplyDeleteI found myself seeing valuable aspects in each of the stated goals and thinking that taking elements of democratic equality, social efficiency and social mobility and thoughtfully combining them could result in the ultimate solution. The conflicts cited and examined caused me to reexamine my own views, especially on the social mobility aspects of education. The prevailing view in my own personal experience was that first and foremost education - which had been legally denied to certain elements of society based on race - was the main goal for individuals and families. Generations that saw a good education as means of attaining material wealth and status sacrificed and struggled to make available opportunities for their children to obtain an education to have a better life to move out of the conditions they were relegated to. Labree's historical perspective and comments on the current status of education show some holes in the social mobility argument. My own personal experiences with situations in communities and in society have lead me to rethink the value of education as the main route for social mobility.
As noted earlier, the logic we have so often relied upon with the students we will be working with will need to be addressed (adjusted) as we attempt to find ways to address their individual needs and interests in obtaining an education.
Through the perspectives of the article, I agree that the view of education as a private good will continue to guide conversations and policies. I believe that prevailing will be unfortunate as society continues to search for real solutions and a direction for public education.
I am just the opposite of an idealist, which can be positive and quite unfortunate at times, and realistically speaking getting students to learn just for the passion of learning will not happen in every subject. I mean, I look at myself. I love learning about History, English, Linguistics, or any type of Cultural Studies -- those are the subjects I pursue with passion and vigor. I will not sit down in a Math class and perform well just for the sake of learning. I never have, and, unfortunately, probably never will. I perform well in those classes for the grade; because I know it will credentially benefit me in the future to perform well. In college that it is okay. I filled my classes with as many humanities courses as I could and thoroughly enjoyed myself. My professors knew I was enrolled in the course because of a personal passion for learning the subject material presented. However, in middle school and high school that will not be the case. State and federal mandates require students to take courses that they could not care less about, and as a result no matter how hard I try every student will not leave my class an Indiana Jones or the main character from those AWFUL Librarian movies.
ReplyDeleteWithout grades, certain students would just skip my class and hangout for another block in Josh's Earth Science class or Krystal's Biology class. However, with the focus on grades being what it is, I am presented with the opportunity to try and change those students minds. The students will show up for the grades, but I can show them that Social Studies isn't for the birds, and at the very least change their perspective on the worth of the humanities. This way when they do go on to whatever later on in life, they have respect for subjects they didn't like; hopefully, this can put my and Ryan's fear about the future decimation of Social Studies and courses similar to it at bay.
So in a way, I disagree with Labaree's views that social mobility as the primary focus of education is entirely negative. Without credentialism, students might only actively participate in courses that interested them. Even in a perfect world, no one is interested in everything. With it, as flawed as it might be, I am given the opportunity to reach out to students who might otherwise not care, and maybe even create respect for Social Studies where it wasn't present before.
Yes, the system is ridiculously messed up, but before we attempt to scrap the entire thing, let's also look at the positive aspects of it. This way when we do try to rennovate it from the ground up we can attempt to keep what was beneficial from the original plan.
I think Danny makes a really important point here. What motivates many students? Getting out of school and moving forward. I could not wait to leave my (perceived at the time) hick town and hick high school behind and go to college. That's why I tried in many of my classes, not because I cared about the topics, but because I wanted out.
Delete