January 20… Labaree’s Competing Purposes 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?)?
Sarah Lisk: Labaree presented a lot of arguments about why schools exist in social, cultural and political contexts. However, thinking back, I realize that there is no argument thoroughly explored as to the real benefits for students. Sure, he discussed how students see education as a stratified pyramid to climb, collecting grades, credits and other merits along the way to project themselves further ahead in our hierarchal society. But I feel like these reflections boast more of upper-level intents rather than those of elementary students. What is the purpose of schooling children at such a young age? Does Labaree believe that they too are aware of societal gains to be made as a result of their academic performances? He does remark at one point in the article about teaching students to be good citizens, and how the definition of a “good citizen” has changed over time; but is that the primary goal, to shape students into model citizens to then catapult into the increasingly competitive field of learning? I feel like Labaree made several good arguments, many of which led me off on tangents examining his claims in application to my own educational experiences. As to whether there is any hope to retaliate against the notion of education as a private good, in reality, if it is possible, it will take a number of years. I believe that society has become so fixated on personal growth and achievement (I myself can be grouped in as such), and to reconstruct public thought to embrace the achievements of groups and entities rather than individuals will be difficult to break in. However, though I may be overly optimistic, I don’t believe it’s impossible as long as there’s strength and support of evidence that education, as a public good, is more beneficial to the future of our society.
The purposes of schools that Labaree mentions in his article are democratic equality (preparing people for political roles and to be good citizens), social efficiency (preparing people to carry out economic roles with competence), and social mobility (education serves as a way for individuals to either maintain their station in life or to move upwards). When the institution of schools first came into being, their main objective was to instill American political and moral values into their students. And today we still promote American ideals and patriotism in schools through things like, for example, the Pledge of Allegiance. Today, a major purpose of schools is to prepare people for the workforce and to become economic assets for society. Lastly, schools, theoretically, can provide a platform for people to move from their current economic class to a higher one. These three main reasons, I believe, are the functions that schools serve in our society.
When looking at education through the lens of social mobility, Labaree states that education is seen as a private good. This means that education is seen as a commodity in which individual students can obtain and use to have an advantage in life. The importance is securing that advantage. So as a student, it is more important to have the grades, the degrees, and the highest GPA rather than the actual knowledge that schools has taught you. When you go out into the real world, employers are going to look at your credentials and assume that because of your credentials, you are qualified for the job. They won’t know that you might have skipped most of your classes this one semester, learned absolutely nothing, but by luck ended up with all A’s and B’s. They just see the A’s and B’s on the transcript and based on that, think you must have learned a lot. One of the first things that needs to change if we, as a society, are going to get away from the idea that education is a private good is the notion that the credentials matter more than the knowledge obtained. We have to stop saying things like, “ I just need an A I in this class so that I can move on and get my degree.” And that’s something that is so engrained into our minds that I think it will be very hard to get away from that mentality. Also, we live in a society that is all about personal growth and achievement and making something of yourself. Some people immigrate to this country for that exact reason. We, as a society, focus so much on what the individual has achieved, what an individual possesses physically, etc. that we would have to change our entire way of thinking. But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. It will just take a lot for that change to occur.
Rachel Bennett: Labaree’s three purposes of schools (democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility) all have their pros and cons. In the democratic equality purpose, it is imperative we provide all students with a fair and equal education in order to prepare students to become competent citizens. Since democratic equality is rooted within the perspective of the citizens, education is a public good that is designed to prepare students for roles rooted in politics. In the social efficiency approach, it is argued that the economic future of our country depends on the academic readiness of students who attend our schools. This approach explains the relationship between a productive and competent worker and a healthy and striving economy. For this approach to prosper, citizens must invest in students in order to guarantee a productive workforce. The social mobility approach explains how some students are given a “better chance” of succeeding in the workforce and working more desirable positions because of an education system that is distributed unequally. In this approach, education is a private good that encourages individual competition for the more enviable jobs. The purpose of schooling I feel as if I understand the most is the social efficiency purpose. Growing up I was always told I would graduate high school and then proceed to go to college because that was the only way I would get a “good job.” This purpose is interesting to me because everyone goes to school and knows they are going to eventually graduate school and get a job. We have been told from a very young age the importance of education for our future endeavors. In this approach, it is stated that preparing skilled workers is important because everyone benefits from skilled and competent workers. One purpose that was not touched upon in this article is the purpose of babysitting/child care. Teachers are constantly seen as “glorified babysitters” to many of the public. Parents who work full-time are much more likely to send their children to a free public school while they are at work than they are to spend money on a full-time babysitter. As for Labaree’s conclusion, I do believe there is hope to push back against the notion of education as a private good. Teachers and students see the problems faced in public schools and they are able to develop new practices to implement for a positive change in the public school system.
Labaree’s article explained many strong points regarding his beliefs towards the purposes of education in our society today. In my opinion, Labaree did not exclude anything specific from his article rather I believe it is unfair to assume there are only three main purposes of education. I believe that purposes of education vary from school to school, and even from classroom to classroom. Each and every teacher present in our school system today teaches in a way that benefits his or her own beliefs towards education.
One aspect I strongly agreed with in Labaree’s article was in regards to equal treatment. Over the years our school systems have done an outstanding job in regards to meeting this factor’s need. Examples provided by Labaree were included but not limited to taking the bible out of school curriculum, taking out gender stereotypes in textbooks and removing discriminatory practices in the classroom. I so strongly agree with this aspect of the article because our society is rapidly changing and our school curriculum has to keep up with such changes to equally treat everyone present in our current society.
Labaree stated various examples of how our education system has been formed into a private good not equally granted to every individual. I believe that this statement was a valid point when he explained how schooling has turned into competitions between students to achieve the highest GPAs, test scores and class rankings. I believe that this is a realization that people outside of the school systems do not truly understand the weak importance of such rankings. In my opinion true education and learning is not achieved by test scores or class rankings, it results from self-improvements from the beginning of the school year till the end. When looking at a sheet of paper listing specific achievements and rankings it does not include the progress that one student has made throughout the school year. I believe that this is one of the biggest flaws in our school system today but I am not positive how this is going to change with the demands of teachers to meet the required test scores. As future teachers we need to learn effective ways to teach students the required curriculum to meet the needs of testing while also providing instruction that is beneficial for true learning and achievement.
Labaree’s article made me think about the American Educational system in ways I hadn't thought of before. Most of my classroom experience has been focused on how we meet student’s needs, and how teachers are expected to document and assess almost everything. When I think about the state of our education, I immediately think that politics are to blame. Politics play a huge role, but it isn’t just politicians making decisions, it is also parents, teachers, etc. This article did a good job of showing how complicated it can be to accommodate everyone’s views on education.
His conclusion states that he feels the biggest threat to education is the dominance of the social mobility goal. I would like to gain more information and personal experience to see if it is really more dominant, but I agree that it could have a negative impact on our education system and economy. One quotes in the article that really bothered me was, Pg. 72 “The credentials market becomes the place where the aspirations raised by education meet the cold reality of socioeconomic limits.”
Thus meaning, if we are focused on our own value and the value of what education can do for us, then most people will hit a wall where they lose motivation or can’t find a job. How does that impact teachers who are supposed to give students aspirations to succeed and do better?
I think the one piece that is missing is critical thinking. This stems from the classroom standpoint and a teachers perspective. Teaching critical thinking skills can have a positive effect on all three goals by preparing students to be active citizens, play a political role in society, and think for themselves in a social role.
When looking at the major purposes of school that Labaree discusses, I believe that he fails to mention some of the basic needs that children are exposed to in school systems. One of the most important is social interaction. In order for children to be able to grow up and function in society, they need to be able to have healthy relationships with their peers. As they grow up, most of their social interactions will take place in the school setting. Other major purposes of school should involve proper nutrition and teaching children about personal hygiene. Older students should be exposed to things such as managing bank accounts, establishing credit and buying homes. I believe those in the education system are more concerned about the competition of American students and students in foreign countries. I believe that if schools changed their focus a bit, students may start to perform better as a whole. I agree with Labaree on his idea of the education system as a private good. The education system can easily be compared to the ideas of natural selection. Those who perform well will succeed and those who struggle will be left behind. Changes need to to made to shift towards making education a public good. More focus needs to be made on the individual versus a whole. Labaree is correct in saying that many of the issues in education contradict one another. But, I believe that it is a give a take.Sacrifices have to be made in order for improvement to take place.
Labaree’s article defines three uses of the education system. All three are centered on building a citizen for the general US population. While that is well and good, and I do agree that education is political in nature and for the near future will continue to be that way, I think having the education system like this does a disservice to its students and the culture the students are growing up and joining. It lacks imagination, dealing with difference, and looking outside of the box.
By limiting our students to these three uses of school, I do not think we do make better citizens. These students expect things unrealistically. After school you will no longer be graded, lots of the way the US is run and how people achieve are not based on grades or equality. Yes, equality should be in schools, I am not arguing against that. I am saying that students need to understand what will be expected of them.
More importantly with these goals that Labaree discusses students are not allowed to be imaginative. Imagination can be used in all sectors of the government and how I believe most successful people achieve their “greatness.” Students are given a disservice by limiting these goals to only these three. It isolates and takes away fundamental principles that school should be based on. I don’t anticipate a change soon but I hope for one.
Sherri Jones As simple as it may sound, I think the initial purpose of school is literacy. The ability to read, write, and communicate is essential when it comes to education. One thing I think Labaree failed to mention is that students have to literate. Without these basic functions the chances of a person being any use to any political party or service would be drastically small. When the question was asked during class, what is the purpose of public schools, I thought just on the surface. I answered with “to provide the basic necessities for students to come into the workforce to keep the world we live in functioning.” I never thought about it as deep as this article expresses. I think Labaree has valid points that he expressed throughout this article. I do agree with him that the social mobility is pushed more than the other two goals of education. I believe this article was written over a decade ago and even today some things he stated back then are still true. Although “public” schools or government funded schools are still around, today they are more charter schools and private schools. This phenomena is not only in grade school, this is happening at the college level as well. The article stated that if social mobility was going to be the dominant goal and push for private goods, then why is the public benefiting off of it? Why does the “public” get to control the outcome of a private good? I personally have nothing against private schools and charter schools. However, how can we give “all” children equal opportunity when schools are being built in better cities, with better teachers, and better access and opportunities? Is the word “all” used simply because no one can be denied from government education? Well I would hope no one would be denied being that the purpose of the education they will obtain is to better society. I appreciate the different perspectives that was thoroughly shown in this article, however as I read repeatedly about the end results of whether the education was going to affect the consumer, the taxpayer, the community, or just the world in general, I question where this society is going. As the times have changed, some things remain the same. As a nation, we must first understand where this country is going in the future. Do they really value education and all of facets that come with it? Do they value the ones who render their services to these students to obtain the education as much as they value the product of education? What is really important in this society today? I believe we must understand the global goals first and then work our way down to the ones who will help to keep it functioning. These things aren’t possible, but there must be some type of order in how we approach these goals and attempt to find a balance.
Labaree asserts that there are three basic purposes of schooling. I feel that he was pretty inclusive in his descriptions of each one, but I think there is more overlap within them than he described. I don’t believe that just one of these premise is the ‘end all’ regarding the purpose of American education, rather a combination of them all. Parts of social efficiency really resonate with me. I think our schools are doing a HUGE disservice to students by providing every student with broad/common educations. As Labaree asserts social efficiency focuses on stratification, groups, and tracking. Although I am aware of the negative connotations, especially with the word tracking I think diversity in our educational approaches and options are extremely important. Labaree says that, “Nothing can be more impractical, from this perspective, than the kind of general education promoted by democratic equality, in which graduates would emerge as an undifferentiated group with a common set of broad competencies that are not easily adapted to a sharply differentiated skill-demand…” I firmly believe that learners are all very unique individuals and a common mold or standard will not work for everyone. Without stratification, grouping, or tracking we are assuming that all students have the same goals, desires, learning styles, skill sets, etc. It is almost the same concept as claiming to be “color blind” in regards to race. Learners differences and similarities need to be acknowledged because it is who they are! So, “push back” for me manifests in advocacy. I advocate for my students and their families. I think part of my charge is to also teach my students to advocate for themselves, know themselves and be able to talk about their goals and desires. I guess my push back is giving the power to my students and their families in regards to their education.
I think that Labaree expressed really great points about the goals of the educational system in America. I thought he did a great job supporting these goals through historical perspectives. I cannot add to the goals, democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility, addressed in this article. Before reading this article, I thought of the educational system as being from a complete political agenda. As I read the article, I reflected on my own teaching and the vision I had when I first set out to become a teacher. My intent was to teach students math, as well as how to be better students who contributed to the larger society in some way. I envisioned all students as being capable of achieving anything they desired, putting all students at a level playing field. It has become very difficult to view education as a public good, especially with the current goals of education coming from a mostly social mobility focus, but I hang on to hope that it is possible. In order for education to be viewed as a public good, there must be changes to the system and the goal that is in focus needs to change from a primarily social mobility aspect.
While reading the Labaree reading, I noticed that there was very little emphasis on education as an independent value to an individual, and more emphasis on how education furthers an individual’s career or future. We can still see the fundamental value of educating the youth in countries where education is not as encouraged - Pakistan for example. Labaree makes mention of education as a way to become socially mobile, to succeed in desirable roles, but does not mention the possibility of a students’ self-worth or fulfillment that may come from a decent education. Each approach introduced in the article has a goal, but educating oneself may be the goal itself. I believe Labaree makes an appropriate and valid point that most Americans view education in these three main approaches (democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility). I believe that if there is hope in pushing back against the motion of education as a private good, it begins in changing the way we approach education as a whole.
Shane Perry The idea that the US public education system has only three overarching goals is a fairly reductionist analysis; it appears that Labaree parsed out the education system in a way that is both convincing and explanatory, but that is rather simplistic and academic. The goals of a complex system with a remarkable amount of diversity (both historically and at present), if boiled down to three 'contradictory' themes, should be supplemented by other goals. Labaree's analysis, in my opinion, is far too economical and sociological, and he excludes the goals of education that take into account the more human elements of the educational experience; for example, two major goals of the educational system that Labaree neglects are the process of identity construction (which includes acculturation and socialization) and the process of constructing a workable meaning out of the world. Although these preceding goals are natural, continual processes of life (and would exist, albeit less effectively, if the public schooling system did not exist), there is also another goal of public schooling that offers solution to a problem especially important due to the 21st century zeitgeist that emphasizes rapid change, globalization, and connectivity; the students of the present will inherit and be a part of an unimaginable world, and to ensure that that world is not a dystopian (or, I do not quite think it exaggeratory to say, nonexistent) one, they must be able to adjust to radically-accelerated change and be able to solve new and long-standing problems quickly. I do think that the goal of social mobility will continue to be strong in some senses; students will continue to seek education for the sake of occupations, there will be specific educational requirement of jobs, and there will be a stratification that largely reinforces the socioeconomic hierarchy present in our society today. But, as Labaree notes, the other two goals are ubiquitous and always embattled with the social mobility, and I think (as much as I hate to praise it) there is a great lean towards democratic equality that has been addressed since this article's publication in the standards movement, and particularly Common Core State Standards; these steps towards common curricula (as abhorrent as they might be in many regards) could be seen as steps towards commonality of values and education (the testing of the standards [i.e. NCLB], however, could be seen as an example of structural stratification). As well, curricular tracks have remained relatively unchanged over the years, and will likely stay in place, meaning that social efficiency is full-strength. The goals will battle.
I found this article by Labaree to be extremely insightful and engaging. He brings to light many issues within the realm of education and presents three intriguing purposes of schooling in democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. One purpose of schooling that I believe should be mentioned is education for the purpose of self-enlightenment and/or self-worth. Going to school for the purpose of gaining knowledge, whether that is from a liberal arts curriculum or specialized education, is a purpose that should be focused on across all levels of schooling. Education towards a means of educating individuals seems to not be at the forefront of our schooling system, which is an unfortunate reality. I unfortunately think that hope to push back against education as a private good is not realistic from where we stand currently in society. There will have to be a change at a higher level, not just at the educational level, before meaningful progress can be made in this realm. As Labaree expanded on in this article, within social mobility, the primary aim of education is to exchange it for something more valuable, like a job. When I went to college, and even went on to graduate school, I was asked many times “What job do you want to get with that major?” or “What will you do with that degree?” Not once did anyone ask, “What do you wish to learn while pursuing your degree?” Society assumes that dedicating time and money to an education is to serve the primary purpose of obtaining a more desirable job. As school is currently structured, social mobility is at the forefront and democratic equality and social efficiency have taken a backseat to the privatization of education. The consequences of a capitalist, heavily privatized economic system are becoming more apparent, as a report released today revealed that the top 1% will control more than half of the world’s wealth by 2016. Maybe this harrowing statistic will help produce a movement at a higher level that will reverberate down to the realm of education to change what is now molded to reflect the private sector back to a more of a focus on it as a public good.
I appreciated how in this article Labree made an effort to not only describe the goals of the public education system, but also those goals through three different perspectives; the citizen, the taxpayer, and the consumer. I believe that Labree writing only about political perspectives has a lot to say about the American public education system and where our priorities as a nation lie. For example, I personally believe that meeting social needs would be a great goal to include. Obviously this is not a universal goal of our education system currently, but what if it was? How would our education system change if there was a shift from democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility to self-actualization? Would it negatively affect our economy? Or would it have a positive influence? Would placing an emphasis on social needs of the consumer eliminate the idea of education as a private good?
I like to read about school systems from other countries, how they work, and how they are different from the United States. One of my favorite school systems is in Finland (it also happens to be one of the most successful). Reading this article made me think a lot about the Finnish school system and how they do push back against education as a ‘private’ good. For example, students and schools are not ranked in Finland - students are give narrative feedback on areas they do well and points of improvement and schools receive funding based on financial need. There are not SATs or ACTs, Finnish students have the option, however, to take the matriculation exam - it ‘s purpose is simply to assess their problem-solving, analysis skills and writing abilities. There are also education systems where students are ‘tested’ in what would be their 8th grade year to determine if they be more successful continuing on to a trade school or college prep in their 9th grade year. Thus pushing back on the American myth that people with degrees always make more many than people in trades. While I am not saying this would be a ‘fix’ for the American education system, I do believe that there are ways that our system can begin to move away from the concept of education being a private good.
I enjoyed this article by Labaree because it allowed me to think and wonder about things I haven't thought about before in regards to schooling and education. However, Labaree did leave out important purposes of schooling. All his purposes of schooling seemed to focus on preparing the future citizens of this country. His purposes were democratic equality (schools should focus on preparing citizens), social efficiency (they should focus on training workers), and social mobility (they should prepare individuals to compete for social positions). Labaree forgot to mention that the purpose of schooling is to gain knowledge, to discover each your capabilities and how you can contribute to this world, to teach how to interact with others, to teach fairness and equality, and to have students go after their dreams and what they truly believe in. Unfortunately, schooling today is just geared towards passing your tests, getting good grades, moving up through the grades, going to college, finishing school so then you can get a good paying job. Students worry more about memorizing information so they can do well on a test then actually absorbing the content to be learned. I believe that there is hope in pushing back against the motion of education as a private good. However, in order for that hope to exist, we need to value education more. Education is undervalued and it is greatly shown by how society views teachers. Hopefully, in the upcoming years, there would be positive change.
In his article, Labaree boils down the purpose of the American education system to three main goals including democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. Although these three goals still remain prominent within American schools, I also feel as though Labaree’s views neglect other important purposes or goals when considering education within the scope of modern society. For instance, today’s society is structured in a manner that requires significant amounts of interaction with others, especially within the work environment. Because of the social world we live in, a common goal of modern classrooms is to provide students with the intrapersonal skills needed to be successful. I believe that currently a lot of focus in the classroom is given to teaching effective teamwork, leadership, active listening, and strong communication skills, all of which lead to the development of strong individuals capable of being successful and productive in our social community.
Furthermore, in the article Labaree discusses how the education system’s goal of social mobility leads to education becoming a private good of the individual as opposed to a public good that benefits society as a whole. He describes educational achievements and merits as cultural currency that can eventually be exchanged for a higher paying job. While reading his article, I personally felt as though Labaree exhibited a very negative approach to how the education system is designed and down played any positive effects that having an education system in which one can earn merits and credentials may provide. I think his explanation of this educational goal mirrors the common attitude of today’s society; strong competition in order to become better than your neighbor. If society allows factors such as grades and GPA’s to be about competition and self-gain then education will undoubtedly continue to be a private good. Additionally, this will also keep the focus of school on simply earning these merits as opposed to actually learning the material. While I do agree with Labaree’s views on how earning credentials currently leads to education as a private good, I still feel as though they have a helpful role in education and rather a societal shift of attitudes regarding such factors is where the answer lies. Personally, I think educational merits help students set goals and provide them with something tangible to work towards. They also depict a student’s progress, which can be a strong motivation for continuing to work hard. Instead of considering things such as grades as offering an educational advantage over peers, they should be thought of as tools to help reflect on one’s own education and achievement in order to continue to improve. I think that when society is able to avoid seeing education and its opportunities for earning as a breeding ground for individual competition, it will no longer equate to a private good.
I find a lot of truth in Labaree’s discussion of the three major purposes to education. His thoughts about there being a democratic equality push, where the ultimate goal is for students to gain an understanding of themselves as citizens of a larger community is a purpose I can see has lessened in importance over the years. And for education to be a public good promoting a student’s role as an active, equal citizen, are ideas I think still hold true for some school systems, especially those with a military or religious backing. I also feel the focus on social efficiency creates a lot of purpose in school systems providing their students and economy with the goods, services, and knowledge to promote business and job availability. I can also understand the feeling that the ultimate goal or purpose of schools has largely moved towards this idea of social mobility, where the focus has shifted from community citizenship and economic stability toward individual gains and credentials. I am saddened however to see little discussion on the goal or purpose of education to be more of a qualitative one as opposed to a quantitative one. From an elementary perspective, awards, certificates, academic achievements, and degrees, all feel so insignificant and irrelevant. And if this is really the ultimate goal, to achieve higher and higher level credentials, awards, and merits, where does the fundamental learning of elementary classrooms fall on the list of priorities and purpose. I think Labaree’s three major purposes of schooling are absolutely relevant but I do feel we are still missing a key component to the purpose of education. Personally I think educations greatest purpose is to enlighten and empower individuals not to gain a piece of paper to frame and hang on their wall, but to broaden their horizons, to help them better understand themselves and the community they are a part of, and to give them the tools to discover their most effective and beneficial place within that community. I am bothered that education is so political, economic, and individualized for the sake of merit, diplomas, certifications, or degrees. And as page 68 illustrates, by allowing social mobility to take precedence over a deeper appreciation for education and the opportunities real learning can bring to an individual, “we are producing students who are well schooled and poorly educated,” students who know how to work the system to pass the test, but really don’t bother to learn, inquire, and understand the material within the test. I feel elementary classrooms work very hard to inspire and encourage students to as question to investigate and to enjoy the process of learning and understanding the world and each other and I am bothered that these are not also strong goals and purposes of our education systems.
I would agree with Labarees conclusion that these three main goals he outlines can be and often are contradictory of each other, that no one purpose or goal has a shot at bettering our education system before another contradicts and takes away from the success and strategies of another. It is also clear that not one purpose can become more important or impactful than another without losing out on great qualities of the others. What I do feel is one important remedy to tie these goals together harmoniously and to move away from the idea that education is solely a private good is to instill at the elementary level, a strong sense of community and self-awareness. Without an understanding of civic virtue and one’s community history, we can’t effectively take part in and appreciate the free and just nature of our democratic system. Without social efficiency we cannot make educated decisions about what degree or vocational program we might want to pursue. And without a goal or purpose of our own, we will continue to reach for merits and credentials and degrees in hopes that this will guarantee us some sort of “nice job,” all while having little regard for our place in the community and how our knowledge, passions, or understandings can better our lives along with our communities success. Self-awareness and community appreciation and involvement can hold the key to exposing students to career paths, personal talents, and interests that only improve the purposes and goals of democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility.
While Labaree emphasizes that the three points to schooling are democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility, these points are not always executed within our public schools. So many students feel as though they are simply competing to stay ahead, only to not feel the shame and embarrassment of failure. In our highly competitive world today, so many students simply “do” because it is expected, not because it is something that they necessarily understand or are passionate about.
Something that Labaree is missing in this article is the creation of empathy within our students. I believe that once students start viewing each other not as competitors for opportunities but as humans working together to make our planet better, empathy will be created. When students respect each other in the school setting, they can go out into the world and respect others simply based on the fact that they we are all human and we all go through trials and have insecurities. . The public (and private school) contains students who are all different. The more people that you meet (especially with younger students) the more you learn about others. If we could all see people for who they are regardless of race, socioeconomic status, or gender, we would be able to work and respect each other. I think that this is the most important lesson that we can teach our students, to be empathetic.
I believe when our students become empathetic towards each other, our society will shift from being individual, selfish beings to socially active individuals working towards creating a society where equality is truly implemented. While we should all have personal goals and dreams, I do believe that working together with mutual respect is the only way that we can achieve that. When we can see beyond physical aspects of others and learn to work respectfully together, education will be viewed as a public good rather than a private good.
What struck me as I was reading Labaree's article was the fact that of all the goals for American education that he explored (democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility), none seem to stress the benefits cognitive and emotional development of students can have on both individuals and society at large. While I find interesting his central argument that many shortcomings of our school systems stem from the inevitable conflict that arises between various viewpoints about the nature and purpose of education, I do not fully agree with it. I believe there may be room for all of these philosophies, and more, to coexist within a necessarily complex entity like our public schools.
In fact, none of the ideas that Labaree presents can stand alone; for our schools to be effective they must benefit both the student (private good) and our society {public good). Does this create tension? Sure, but to the degree that it does so it is obligatory and useful tension. American students (should) spend at least thirteen years in the education system, which ought to give them ample opportunity to explore both how they see themselves as individuals and how they fit into the world around them. This is not to say, of course, that they will have arrived at any decisive conclusions regarding these issues upon completion of high school. I, for one, was far from it. But my education laid the foundation upon which my future has been built, and while I will now be able to serve the community as a teacher and maintain my middle class status on my sweet educator salary, I believe that the greatest benefits that I received from my schooling were that I developed into a more thoughtful and conscientious human being.
It seems that each of the goals that Labaree explores, if it were the sole focus of our education system, would create lackluster or deficient human beings. I, for one, do not want our next generation to grow up to become conformists (democratic equality), worker drones (social efficiency) or cutthroats (social mobility). Schools should be showing students how to be good people, giving them the knowledge necessary to make good career choices (including vocational options), and teaching them how to both compete and work together within our capitalist culture.
Is there currently too much emphasis on education as a private good? Well, yes, but only to the extent that one's education is seen as coming at the expense of someone else's. Frankly, highlighting self-interest is a key component in developing intrinsic motivation within students. I believe in moderation and balance in all things, and therefore that schools should be molding students into well-rounded human beings by helping them realize their potential as both individuals and as members of a functioning society.
Labaree highlights and argues the three popular goals of the American education system: democratic equality, social efficiency and social mobility. While these are all valid points in education as a whole, he neglects to mention the effects that the political side has on the individual learning child. I feel as if the article is focused more on higher education and the outcome of being thrown into the work force, rather than the importance of skill building with a solid primary education in order to get there. Students are constantly comparing themselves to their classmates, when they are each on an individual journey with a different goal in mind. The article stresses democratic equality within schools, but is contradictory to the fact that each student has a different experience. Society today lacks a sense of community, and while I try to remain optimistic that education will one day be seen as a public good, the reality is that we are all out for personal gain and experience.
I feel that the three major purposes of school Labaree argues (democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility) are all well and good, but should not be the only three purposes of schooling. All of these goals promote the students as good citizens, but I feel it can sometimes lack individuality and promoting the best of each individual student and his or her specific gifts and talents. In this case, schooling is not individualized and focused enough for students in my opinion. But, at the same time, school is revolved around individual gains in things like grades and coming in "1st place." Here, education is saw as a private good, and this is going to be very hard to redirect focus to a more community based notion of education. I feel that it is possible (although will take a LOT of time and dedication from everyone) to shift the ideas of school from a private good to a public good. But, in order to do this, maybe we can start focusing more on using school as a way to find out students' gifts and talents and promote those to be used to better their community and society, rather than promote individuals' good grades and success as a personal gain that really doesn't affect the people around them.
Labaree made an interesting point that I agree with, which is that "...people in different positions, adopting different perspectives, on the purposes of education." It would seem impossible to come to a consensus for the goals that all schools should pursue, because there are so many schools in different areas, with different needs, led by people with different perspectives, which means not everyone can settle on one goal. Whether something be a private good or a public good, you can't make everyone happy. Every individual has their own dilemmas which will cause them to have different perspectives on what should be done to make schools better.
I personally think that the first two goals (democratic equality and social efficiency) are important to integrate into teaching, but the last goal (social mobility) seems that it is doing more harm than good. I find democratic equality important because a nation cannot be a peaceful nation without people understanding the importance of equality and responsibility. This idea highlights the goals for the original building of schools, which said "schools could help counteract the growth of selfishness....dedication to public good." And social efficiency is important because in order for there to be a stable economy, students must realize that having a job will allow them to support themselves and they should strive for great things. A way to help students figure out how they can benefit the economy/nation would be to bring awareness to them. Integrating awareness of issues that people are faced with in the country, or even in the world, can inspire them to make a difference or just figure out what they might want to do in the future!
That is one thing that Labaree didn't mention (I don't think he did anyways...). He didn't talk about the importance of enhancing awareness of issues in the world to students. Integration of this could provide an opportunity for students to become active citizens and possibly even make them more socially efficient (that is, if they plan on pursuing these issues further in the future and/or making a career out of it).
Social mobility was the goal I had an issue with, because that's where things seem to become unequal/unfair for people who don't have the money or resources available to them to get the experiences/schooling they need. I do think it is extremely important for schools to provide gifted classes, lower level classes, etc., because that can allow the students to find education important, more interesting, and help them improve/reach their full potential. But when they are pushed to a point where learning is losing its value because they are just trying to "win" and have the best grades or go to the "best school," the value of learning decreases, which makes for less socially efficient (future) workers and maybe even less understanding of how to be democratically equal. In order to make this goal more of a public good, rather than a private good, maybe teachers can bring awareness of “higher education” to students by explaining scholarships, grants, etc.? I’m stuck when it comes to a solution for that…
Labaree talks quite thoroughly about 3 purposes of education: to prepare students to take part as active citizens, to provide the skills necessary to step into jobs that will keep a healthy economy going, and to provide a way to move up in the world through the acquisition of the appropriate credentials (at least for those that have the means and start at the appropriate social class to do so). However, he does not really address the purpose of the individual gaining knowledge because they have been taught to value knowledge and education for what it is, not as a means of trading it for a good job or high status, but to be well informed and educated in order to help breakdown the values that have caused the stratification and hierarchy that has had such a devastating impact on our society for so long. Even though through social efficiency and democratic equality education is described as a public good, I think they both are still really just working towards maintaining our current economy and political structure that holds a certain piece of the public above the rest(at least in practice if not in theory). They don’t really address the need to work towards changing that structure because it is broken, which takes much more than preparing students to be good citizens and giving them job skills to step into the economy as it is to keep it going.
I agree with Labaree that the social mobility goal has become the more dominant goal of the three. When the main goal of education is to serve the individual and their ambitions, and these ambitions have been molded and shaped by the meritocratic ideology that is widespread in our society, you are not going to produce a student who values education and learning in order to better themselves and their society, but only values it as a means of exchanging it for status, and thus continuing to permit the social hierarchy that already exists. But yet we say that we want to teach students to want to learn and appreciate knowledge, not just for the grade, or to get them to the next rung on the ladder. However, despite what we want for our students, we are deciding to not address the goal that has created this individualistic mind frame.
Labaree’s conclusion really resonated with me, when he talked about the extreme contradiction of the goals, and the problem that this presents. It is, and will always be impossible to create democratic equality in education, when at the same time we are working to make sure there is this extreme competition between students allowing those who are in the right social class to continue to remain there by exchanging their credentials for a nice big piece of the pie, whereas those who are in the wrong social class remain behind. I think the problem with so much of our conversation about reform is that it’s based mainly on this competition. It always starts off with, “America was once the leading nation in ________, and now we are number__________, behind X, Y and Z countries.” We are so concerned with our standing in the world, and how we can get ahead or remain on top, that I think it is not going to be possible to change the idea of education as a private good, unless we address this obsessive need for competition. This ideology does not permit students or encourage them to value education and the acquisition of knowledge for the knowledge itself, to be invested in the learning process, except for the purpose of gaining prestige and holding on to their high social status.
I very much agree that there must be a balance in the educational system, between the three goals. The possibilities for betterment must be made available to everyone, not only those that already have the advantage. Labaree talks about how the social mobility goal puts groups in conflict with one another, like the lower class pushing for better education and opportunities for their children, and the upper class holding onto the high ground that they already have “…by preserving their monocultural neighborhood school...” I think if we are to push back against the idea of education as a private good, we must open up these opportunities of social mobility to everyone. If we are to teach multiculturalism and the acceptance of all races and cultures, we cannot need to fight against these monocultural communities. It’s true we cannot just eradicate certain goals, but we need them all to play an equal part, truly for the good of the public, and not one of them can be a private good. With the American values and ideologies being what they are, and competition and credentialism being so deeply entrenched in our society, this might seem like an impossible goal, but I think them more we work on balancing the goals, and changing them towards all viewing education as a public good, the closer we will get to achieving the right balance.
Labaree made me evaluate how I personally thought about the education system and what I consider to be the "root" issues when considering its flaws. In the first few paragraphs he outlines all of the typical arguments, and it was interesting to see what I agreed with and what my "go-to" assumptions were. I like his assertion that the problems are overall tied to something political and it was easy to understand his reasoning.
In this article, Labaree made schools seem almost factory-like when talking about different goals that they set out to achieve, treating students like a product that need to meet certain standards to be considered functional. The "goal" that bothered me the most (and I see this is true for a few of my classmates) is the idea of social mobility. While I do believe that a good school should prepare you for a good job, for example, if you went to Harvard or Yale, I would expect you to do well while job searching, but we need to consider more than just academic merit in this situation. Not everyone is going to have the opportunity or funds to attend Ivy League schools, and even those who still attend college at another accessible university maybe be stigmatized because it doesn't seem legitimate enough (Community College) or because it isn't up to the standards of other Ivy League schools.
I really believe that the idea of social mobility is something that was taught to a lot of people my age and ingrained in us from a very early age. As early as 7th grade I was told and pressured that college was the goal, and that it would be a competitive process, but that it would ensure my future. I think this is dangerous for a number of reasons, not only for its issues pertaining to inequality but also its deceptive nature. Higher education can definitely help you get a job, but as we are seeing in the recent job market, it does not ensure anything.
Like most of my classmates, I was most moved by the social mobility goal. I personally view education as more of a public good than a private good, probably because of the profession I’ve chosen; and maybe my view will change when I become a parent. I can appreciate the desire for your children to have more and do more than you were able to in life (the American Dream). However, I think of education from a practical standpoint, that we are creating our future community and there’s no room for selfishness in that mission. The problem is, most people do not think like this, and that creates tension. If the goal is to get ahead then you must leave others behind. Therefore, public schooling cannot be a private good. Why would you want to pay for other’s success and your failure? Or why would you pay if you’re not receiving any personal reward (i.e. a person without school aged children)? It’s like playing the lottery, it just doesn’t make sense. As Labaree states in the beginning of the article, everyone has their own opinion about what needs to change in order to fix the education system; but it’s my personal opinion that the problems stem from a much deeper place and requires a shift in personal and cultural values. Consequently, I don’t see much hope in making a change without some strong convincing and possible political change. So, how do we work with this as teachers? On a side note: I’m excited to look for these goals in Obama’s State of the Union Address tonight. I’m curious to see if he sides with one, or incorporates all three goals into his education mission. Lauren Macdonald
Sarah Lisk:
ReplyDeleteLabaree presented a lot of arguments about why schools exist in social, cultural and political contexts. However, thinking back, I realize that there is no argument thoroughly explored as to the real benefits for students. Sure, he discussed how students see education as a stratified pyramid to climb, collecting grades, credits and other merits along the way to project themselves further ahead in our hierarchal society. But I feel like these reflections boast more of upper-level intents rather than those of elementary students. What is the purpose of schooling children at such a young age? Does Labaree believe that they too are aware of societal gains to be made as a result of their academic performances? He does remark at one point in the article about teaching students to be good citizens, and how the definition of a “good citizen” has changed over time; but is that the primary goal, to shape students into model citizens to then catapult into the increasingly competitive field of learning? I feel like Labaree made several good arguments, many of which led me off on tangents examining his claims in application to my own educational experiences. As to whether there is any hope to retaliate against the notion of education as a private good, in reality, if it is possible, it will take a number of years. I believe that society has become so fixated on personal growth and achievement (I myself can be grouped in as such), and to reconstruct public thought to embrace the achievements of groups and entities rather than individuals will be difficult to break in. However, though I may be overly optimistic, I don’t believe it’s impossible as long as there’s strength and support of evidence that education, as a public good, is more beneficial to the future of our society.
Leily Geng:
ReplyDeleteThe purposes of schools that Labaree mentions in his article are democratic equality (preparing people for political roles and to be good citizens), social efficiency (preparing people to carry out economic roles with competence), and social mobility (education serves as a way for individuals to either maintain their station in life or to move upwards). When the institution of schools first came into being, their main objective was to instill American political and moral values into their students. And today we still promote American ideals and patriotism in schools through things like, for example, the Pledge of Allegiance. Today, a major purpose of schools is to prepare people for the workforce and to become economic assets for society. Lastly, schools, theoretically, can provide a platform for people to move from their current economic class to a higher one. These three main reasons, I believe, are the functions that schools serve in our society.
When looking at education through the lens of social mobility, Labaree states that education is seen as a private good. This means that education is seen as a commodity in which individual students can obtain and use to have an advantage in life. The importance is securing that advantage. So as a student, it is more important to have the grades, the degrees, and the highest GPA rather than the actual knowledge that schools has taught you. When you go out into the real world, employers are going to look at your credentials and assume that because of your credentials, you are qualified for the job. They won’t know that you might have skipped most of your classes this one semester, learned absolutely nothing, but by luck ended up with all A’s and B’s. They just see the A’s and B’s on the transcript and based on that, think you must have learned a lot. One of the first things that needs to change if we, as a society, are going to get away from the idea that education is a private good is the notion that the credentials matter more than the knowledge obtained. We have to stop saying things like, “ I just need an A I in this class so that I can move on and get my degree.” And that’s something that is so engrained into our minds that I think it will be very hard to get away from that mentality. Also, we live in a society that is all about personal growth and achievement and making something of yourself. Some people immigrate to this country for that exact reason. We, as a society, focus so much on what the individual has achieved, what an individual possesses physically, etc. that we would have to change our entire way of thinking. But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. It will just take a lot for that change to occur.
Rachel Bennett:
ReplyDeleteLabaree’s three purposes of schools (democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility) all have their pros and cons. In the democratic equality purpose, it is imperative we provide all students with a fair and equal education in order to prepare students to become competent citizens. Since democratic equality is rooted within the perspective of the citizens, education is a public good that is designed to prepare students for roles rooted in politics. In the social efficiency approach, it is argued that the economic future of our country depends on the academic readiness of students who attend our schools. This approach explains the relationship between a productive and competent worker and a healthy and striving economy. For this approach to prosper, citizens must invest in students in order to guarantee a productive workforce. The social mobility approach explains how some students are given a “better chance” of succeeding in the workforce and working more desirable positions because of an education system that is distributed unequally. In this approach, education is a private good that encourages individual competition for the more enviable jobs.
The purpose of schooling I feel as if I understand the most is the social efficiency purpose. Growing up I was always told I would graduate high school and then proceed to go to college because that was the only way I would get a “good job.” This purpose is interesting to me because everyone goes to school and knows they are going to eventually graduate school and get a job. We have been told from a very young age the importance of education for our future endeavors. In this approach, it is stated that preparing skilled workers is important because everyone benefits from skilled and competent workers. One purpose that was not touched upon in this article is the purpose of babysitting/child care. Teachers are constantly seen as “glorified babysitters” to many of the public. Parents who work full-time are much more likely to send their children to a free public school while they are at work than they are to spend money on a full-time babysitter. As for Labaree’s conclusion, I do believe there is hope to push back against the notion of education as a private good. Teachers and students see the problems faced in public schools and they are able to develop new practices to implement for a positive change in the public school system.
Erin Luhmann:
ReplyDeleteLabaree’s article explained many strong points regarding his beliefs towards the purposes of education in our society today. In my opinion, Labaree did not exclude anything specific from his article rather I believe it is unfair to assume there are only three main purposes of education. I believe that purposes of education vary from school to school, and even from classroom to classroom. Each and every teacher present in our school system today teaches in a way that benefits his or her own beliefs towards education.
One aspect I strongly agreed with in Labaree’s article was in regards to equal treatment. Over the years our school systems have done an outstanding job in regards to meeting this factor’s need. Examples provided by Labaree were included but not limited to taking the bible out of school curriculum, taking out gender stereotypes in textbooks and removing discriminatory practices in the classroom. I so strongly agree with this aspect of the article because our society is rapidly changing and our school curriculum has to keep up with such changes to equally treat everyone present in our current society.
Labaree stated various examples of how our education system has been formed into a private good not equally granted to every individual. I believe that this statement was a valid point when he explained how schooling has turned into competitions between students to achieve the highest GPAs, test scores and class rankings. I believe that this is a realization that people outside of the school systems do not truly understand the weak importance of such rankings. In my opinion true education and learning is not achieved by test scores or class rankings, it results from self-improvements from the beginning of the school year till the end. When looking at a sheet of paper listing specific achievements and rankings it does not include the progress that one student has made throughout the school year. I believe that this is one of the biggest flaws in our school system today but I am not positive how this is going to change with the demands of teachers to meet the required test scores. As future teachers we need to learn effective ways to teach students the required curriculum to meet the needs of testing while also providing instruction that is beneficial for true learning and achievement.
Holly Whitt:
ReplyDeleteLabaree’s article made me think about the American Educational system in ways I hadn't thought of before. Most of my classroom experience has been focused on how we meet student’s needs, and how teachers are expected to document and assess almost everything. When I think about the state of our education, I immediately think that politics are to blame. Politics play a huge role, but it isn’t just politicians making decisions, it is also parents, teachers, etc. This article did a good job of showing how complicated it can be to accommodate everyone’s views on education.
His conclusion states that he feels the biggest threat to education is the dominance of the social mobility goal. I would like to gain more information and personal experience to see if it is really more dominant, but I agree that it could have a negative impact on our education system and economy. One quotes in the article that really bothered me was, Pg. 72 “The credentials market becomes the place where the aspirations raised by education meet the cold reality of socioeconomic limits.”
Thus meaning, if we are focused on our own value and the value of what education can do for us, then most people will hit a wall where they lose motivation or can’t find a job. How does that impact teachers who are supposed to give students aspirations to succeed and do better?
I think the one piece that is missing is critical thinking. This stems from the classroom standpoint and a teachers perspective. Teaching critical thinking skills can have a positive effect on all three goals by preparing students to be active citizens, play a political role in society, and think for themselves in a social role.
When looking at the major purposes of school that Labaree discusses, I believe that he fails to mention some of the basic needs that children are exposed to in school systems. One of the most important is social interaction. In order for children to be able to grow up and function in society, they need to be able to have healthy relationships with their peers. As they grow up, most of their social interactions will take place in the school setting. Other major purposes of school should involve proper nutrition and teaching children about personal hygiene. Older students should be exposed to things such as managing bank accounts, establishing credit and buying homes. I believe those in the education system are more concerned about the competition of American students and students in foreign countries. I believe that if schools changed their focus a bit, students may start to perform better as a whole. I agree with Labaree on his idea of the education system as a private good. The education system can easily be compared to the ideas of natural selection. Those who perform well will succeed and those who struggle will be left behind. Changes need to to made to shift towards making education a public good. More focus needs to be made on the individual versus a whole. Labaree is correct in saying that many of the issues in education contradict one another. But, I believe that it is a give a take.Sacrifices have to be made in order for improvement to take place.
ReplyDeleteForgot to add my name^Lindsy Wyatt
DeleteLindsay Meredith:
ReplyDeleteLabaree’s article defines three uses of the education system. All three are centered on building a citizen for the general US population. While that is well and good, and I do agree that education is political in nature and for the near future will continue to be that way, I think having the education system like this does a disservice to its students and the culture the students are growing up and joining. It lacks imagination, dealing with difference, and looking outside of the box.
By limiting our students to these three uses of school, I do not think we do make better citizens. These students expect things unrealistically. After school you will no longer be graded, lots of the way the US is run and how people achieve are not based on grades or equality. Yes, equality should be in schools, I am not arguing against that. I am saying that students need to understand what will be expected of them.
More importantly with these goals that Labaree discusses students are not allowed to be imaginative. Imagination can be used in all sectors of the government and how I believe most successful people achieve their “greatness.”
Students are given a disservice by limiting these goals to only these three. It isolates and takes away fundamental principles that school should be based on. I don’t anticipate a change soon but I hope for one.
Sherri Jones
ReplyDeleteAs simple as it may sound, I think the initial purpose of school is literacy. The ability to read, write, and communicate is essential when it comes to education. One thing I think Labaree failed to mention is that students have to literate. Without these basic functions the chances of a person being any use to any political party or service would be drastically small.
When the question was asked during class, what is the purpose of public schools, I thought just on the surface. I answered with “to provide the basic necessities for students to come into the workforce to keep the world we live in functioning.” I never thought about it as deep as this article expresses.
I think Labaree has valid points that he expressed throughout this article. I do agree with him that the social mobility is pushed more than the other two goals of education. I believe this article was written over a decade ago and even today some things he stated back then are still true. Although “public” schools or government funded schools are still around, today they are more charter schools and private schools. This phenomena is not only in grade school, this is happening at the college level as well. The article stated that if social mobility was going to be the dominant goal and push for private goods, then why is the public benefiting off of it? Why does the “public” get to control the outcome of a private good? I personally have nothing against private schools and charter schools. However, how can we give “all” children equal opportunity when schools are being built in better cities, with better teachers, and better access and opportunities? Is the word “all” used simply because no one can be denied from government education? Well I would hope no one would be denied being that the purpose of the education they will obtain is to better society.
I appreciate the different perspectives that was thoroughly shown in this article, however as I read repeatedly about the end results of whether the education was going to affect the consumer, the taxpayer, the community, or just the world in general, I question where this society is going. As the times have changed, some things remain the same. As a nation, we must first understand where this country is going in the future. Do they really value education and all of facets that come with it? Do they value the ones who render their services to these students to obtain the education as much as they value the product of education? What is really important in this society today? I believe we must understand the global goals first and then work our way down to the ones who will help to keep it functioning. These things aren’t possible, but there must be some type of order in how we approach these goals and attempt to find a balance.
Marci Bennett
ReplyDeleteLabaree asserts that there are three basic purposes of schooling. I feel that he was pretty inclusive in his descriptions of each one, but I think there is more overlap within them than he described. I don’t believe that just one of these premise is the ‘end all’ regarding the purpose of American education, rather a combination of them all.
Parts of social efficiency really resonate with me. I think our schools are doing a HUGE disservice to students by providing every student with broad/common educations. As Labaree asserts social efficiency focuses on stratification, groups, and tracking. Although I am aware of the negative connotations, especially with the word tracking I think diversity in our educational approaches and options are extremely important. Labaree says that, “Nothing can be more impractical, from this perspective, than the kind of general education promoted by democratic equality, in which graduates would emerge as an undifferentiated group with a common set of broad competencies that are not easily adapted to a sharply differentiated skill-demand…” I firmly believe that learners are all very unique individuals and a common mold or standard will not work for everyone. Without stratification, grouping, or tracking we are assuming that all students have the same goals, desires, learning styles, skill sets, etc. It is almost the same concept as claiming to be “color blind” in regards to race. Learners differences and similarities need to be acknowledged because it is who they are!
So, “push back” for me manifests in advocacy. I advocate for my students and their families. I think part of my charge is to also teach my students to advocate for themselves, know themselves and be able to talk about their goals and desires. I guess my push back is giving the power to my students and their families in regards to their education.
Erin Casey
ReplyDeleteI think that Labaree expressed really great points about the goals of the educational system in America. I thought he did a great job supporting these goals through historical perspectives. I cannot add to the goals, democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility, addressed in this article. Before reading this article, I thought of the educational system as being from a complete political agenda. As I read the article, I reflected on my own teaching and the vision I had when I first set out to become a teacher. My intent was to teach students math, as well as how to be better students who contributed to the larger society in some way. I envisioned all students as being capable of achieving anything they desired, putting all students at a level playing field. It has become very difficult to view education as a public good, especially with the current goals of education coming from a mostly social mobility focus, but I hang on to hope that it is possible. In order for education to be viewed as a public good, there must be changes to the system and the goal that is in focus needs to change from a primarily social mobility aspect.
While reading the Labaree reading, I noticed that there was very little emphasis on education as an independent value to an individual, and more emphasis on how education furthers an individual’s career or future. We can still see the fundamental value of educating the youth in countries where education is not as encouraged - Pakistan for example. Labaree makes mention of education as a way to become socially mobile, to succeed in desirable roles, but does not mention the possibility of a students’ self-worth or fulfillment that may come from a decent education. Each approach introduced in the article has a goal, but educating oneself may be the goal itself. I believe Labaree makes an appropriate and valid point that most Americans view education in these three main approaches (democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility). I believe that if there is hope in pushing back against the motion of education as a private good, it begins in changing the way we approach education as a whole.
ReplyDeleteShane Perry
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the US public education system has only three overarching goals is a fairly reductionist analysis; it appears that Labaree parsed out the education system in a way that is both convincing and explanatory, but that is rather simplistic and academic. The goals of a complex system with a remarkable amount of diversity (both historically and at present), if boiled down to three 'contradictory' themes, should be supplemented by other goals. Labaree's analysis, in my opinion, is far too economical and sociological, and he excludes the goals of education that take into account the more human elements of the educational experience; for example, two major goals of the educational system that Labaree neglects are the process of identity construction (which includes acculturation and socialization) and the process of constructing a workable meaning out of the world. Although these preceding goals are natural, continual processes of life (and would exist, albeit less effectively, if the public schooling system did not exist), there is also another goal of public schooling that offers solution to a problem especially important due to the 21st century zeitgeist that emphasizes rapid change, globalization, and connectivity; the students of the present will inherit and be a part of an unimaginable world, and to ensure that that world is not a dystopian (or, I do not quite think it exaggeratory to say, nonexistent) one, they must be able to adjust to radically-accelerated change and be able to solve new and long-standing problems quickly.
I do think that the goal of social mobility will continue to be strong in some senses; students will continue to seek education for the sake of occupations, there will be specific educational requirement of jobs, and there will be a stratification that largely reinforces the socioeconomic hierarchy present in our society today. But, as Labaree notes, the other two goals are ubiquitous and always embattled with the social mobility, and I think (as much as I hate to praise it) there is a great lean towards democratic equality that has been addressed since this article's publication in the standards movement, and particularly Common Core State Standards; these steps towards common curricula (as abhorrent as they might be in many regards) could be seen as steps towards commonality of values and education (the testing of the standards [i.e. NCLB], however, could be seen as an example of structural stratification). As well, curricular tracks have remained relatively unchanged over the years, and will likely stay in place, meaning that social efficiency is full-strength. The goals will battle.
I found this article by Labaree to be extremely insightful and engaging. He brings to light many issues within the realm of education and presents three intriguing purposes of schooling in democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. One purpose of schooling that I believe should be mentioned is education for the purpose of self-enlightenment and/or self-worth. Going to school for the purpose of gaining knowledge, whether that is from a liberal arts curriculum or specialized education, is a purpose that should be focused on across all levels of schooling. Education towards a means of educating individuals seems to not be at the forefront of our schooling system, which is an unfortunate reality.
ReplyDeleteI unfortunately think that hope to push back against education as a private good is not realistic from where we stand currently in society. There will have to be a change at a higher level, not just at the educational level, before meaningful progress can be made in this realm. As Labaree expanded on in this article, within social mobility, the primary aim of education is to exchange it for something more valuable, like a job. When I went to college, and even went on to graduate school, I was asked many times “What job do you want to get with that major?” or “What will you do with that degree?” Not once did anyone ask, “What do you wish to learn while pursuing your degree?” Society assumes that dedicating time and money to an education is to serve the primary purpose of obtaining a more desirable job. As school is currently structured, social mobility is at the forefront and democratic equality and social efficiency have taken a backseat to the privatization of education. The consequences of a capitalist, heavily privatized economic system are becoming more apparent, as a report released today revealed that the top 1% will control more than half of the world’s wealth by 2016. Maybe this harrowing statistic will help produce a movement at a higher level that will reverberate down to the realm of education to change what is now molded to reflect the private sector back to a more of a focus on it as a public good.
Erika Morck
ReplyDeleteI appreciated how in this article Labree made an effort to not only describe the goals of the public education system, but also those goals through three different perspectives; the citizen, the taxpayer, and the consumer. I believe that Labree writing only about political perspectives has a lot to say about the American public education system and where our priorities as a nation lie. For example, I personally believe that meeting social needs would be a great goal to include. Obviously this is not a universal goal of our education system currently, but what if it was? How would our education system change if there was a shift from democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility to self-actualization? Would it negatively affect our economy? Or would it have a positive influence? Would placing an emphasis on social needs of the consumer eliminate the idea of education as a private good?
I like to read about school systems from other countries, how they work, and how they are different from the United States. One of my favorite school systems is in Finland (it also happens to be one of the most successful). Reading this article made me think a lot about the Finnish school system and how they do push back against education as a ‘private’ good. For example, students and schools are not ranked in Finland - students are give narrative feedback on areas they do well and points of improvement and schools receive funding based on financial need. There are not SATs or ACTs, Finnish students have the option, however, to take the matriculation exam - it ‘s purpose is simply to assess their problem-solving, analysis skills and writing abilities. There are also education systems where students are ‘tested’ in what would be their 8th grade year to determine if they be more successful continuing on to a trade school or college prep in their 9th grade year. Thus pushing back on the American myth that people with degrees always make more many than people in trades. While I am not saying this would be a ‘fix’ for the American education system, I do believe that there are ways that our system can begin to move away from the concept of education being a private good.
Worod Hamill
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this article by Labaree because it allowed me to think and wonder about things I haven't thought about before in regards to schooling and education. However, Labaree did leave out important purposes of schooling. All his purposes of schooling seemed to focus on preparing the future citizens of this country. His purposes were democratic equality (schools should focus on preparing citizens), social efficiency (they should focus on training workers), and social mobility (they should prepare individuals to compete for social positions). Labaree forgot to mention that the purpose of schooling is to gain knowledge, to discover each your capabilities and how you can contribute to this world, to teach how to interact with others, to teach fairness and equality, and to have students go after their dreams and what they truly believe in. Unfortunately, schooling today is just geared towards passing your tests, getting good grades, moving up through the grades, going to college, finishing school so then you can get a good paying job. Students worry more about memorizing information so they can do well on a test then actually absorbing the content to be learned. I believe that there is hope in pushing back against the motion of education as a private good. However, in order for that hope to exist, we need to value education more. Education is undervalued and it is greatly shown by how society views teachers. Hopefully, in the upcoming years, there would be positive change.
Olivia Horne:
ReplyDeleteIn his article, Labaree boils down the purpose of the American education system to three main goals including democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. Although these three goals still remain prominent within American schools, I also feel as though Labaree’s views neglect other important purposes or goals when considering education within the scope of modern society. For instance, today’s society is structured in a manner that requires significant amounts of interaction with others, especially within the work environment. Because of the social world we live in, a common goal of modern classrooms is to provide students with the intrapersonal skills needed to be successful. I believe that currently a lot of focus in the classroom is given to teaching effective teamwork, leadership, active listening, and strong communication skills, all of which lead to the development of strong individuals capable of being successful and productive in our social community.
Furthermore, in the article Labaree discusses how the education system’s goal of social mobility leads to education becoming a private good of the individual as opposed to a public good that benefits society as a whole. He describes educational achievements and merits as cultural currency that can eventually be exchanged for a higher paying job. While reading his article, I personally felt as though Labaree exhibited a very negative approach to how the education system is designed and down played any positive effects that having an education system in which one can earn merits and credentials may provide. I think his explanation of this educational goal mirrors the common attitude of today’s society; strong competition in order to become better than your neighbor. If society allows factors such as grades and GPA’s to be about competition and self-gain then education will undoubtedly continue to be a private good. Additionally, this will also keep the focus of school on simply earning these merits as opposed to actually learning the material. While I do agree with Labaree’s views on how earning credentials currently leads to education as a private good, I still feel as though they have a helpful role in education and rather a societal shift of attitudes regarding such factors is where the answer lies. Personally, I think educational merits help students set goals and provide them with something tangible to work towards. They also depict a student’s progress, which can be a strong motivation for continuing to work hard. Instead of considering things such as grades as offering an educational advantage over peers, they should be thought of as tools to help reflect on one’s own education and achievement in order to continue to improve. I think that when society is able to avoid seeing education and its opportunities for earning as a breeding ground for individual competition, it will no longer equate to a private good.
Madison here!
ReplyDeleteI find a lot of truth in Labaree’s discussion of the three major purposes to education. His thoughts about there being a democratic equality push, where the ultimate goal is for students to gain an understanding of themselves as citizens of a larger community is a purpose I can see has lessened in importance over the years. And for education to be a public good promoting a student’s role as an active, equal citizen, are ideas I think still hold true for some school systems, especially those with a military or religious backing. I also feel the focus on social efficiency creates a lot of purpose in school systems providing their students and economy with the goods, services, and knowledge to promote business and job availability. I can also understand the feeling that the ultimate goal or purpose of schools has largely moved towards this idea of social mobility, where the focus has shifted from community citizenship and economic stability toward individual gains and credentials. I am saddened however to see little discussion on the goal or purpose of education to be more of a qualitative one as opposed to a quantitative one. From an elementary perspective, awards, certificates, academic achievements, and degrees, all feel so insignificant and irrelevant. And if this is really the ultimate goal, to achieve higher and higher level credentials, awards, and merits, where does the fundamental learning of elementary classrooms fall on the list of priorities and purpose.
I think Labaree’s three major purposes of schooling are absolutely relevant but I do feel we are still missing a key component to the purpose of education. Personally I think educations greatest purpose is to enlighten and empower individuals not to gain a piece of paper to frame and hang on their wall, but to broaden their horizons, to help them better understand themselves and the community they are a part of, and to give them the tools to discover their most effective and beneficial place within that community. I am bothered that education is so political, economic, and individualized for the sake of merit, diplomas, certifications, or degrees. And as page 68 illustrates, by allowing social mobility to take precedence over a deeper appreciation for education and the opportunities real learning can bring to an individual, “we are producing students who are well schooled and poorly educated,” students who know how to work the system to pass the test, but really don’t bother to learn, inquire, and understand the material within the test. I feel elementary classrooms work very hard to inspire and encourage students to as question to investigate and to enjoy the process of learning and understanding the world and each other and I am bothered that these are not also strong goals and purposes of our education systems.
Madison here again, to finish :)
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Labarees conclusion that these three main goals he outlines can be and often are contradictory of each other, that no one purpose or goal has a shot at bettering our education system before another contradicts and takes away from the success and strategies of another. It is also clear that not one purpose can become more important or impactful than another without losing out on great qualities of the others. What I do feel is one important remedy to tie these goals together harmoniously and to move away from the idea that education is solely a private good is to instill at the elementary level, a strong sense of community and self-awareness. Without an understanding of civic virtue and one’s community history, we can’t effectively take part in and appreciate the free and just nature of our democratic system. Without social efficiency we cannot make educated decisions about what degree or vocational program we might want to pursue. And without a goal or purpose of our own, we will continue to reach for merits and credentials and degrees in hopes that this will guarantee us some sort of “nice job,” all while having little regard for our place in the community and how our knowledge, passions, or understandings can better our lives along with our communities success. Self-awareness and community appreciation and involvement can hold the key to exposing students to career paths, personal talents, and interests that only improve the purposes and goals of democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility.
Elise Matsuura:
ReplyDeleteWhile Labaree emphasizes that the three points to schooling are democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility, these points are not always executed within our public schools. So many students feel as though they are simply competing to stay ahead, only to not feel the shame and embarrassment of failure. In our highly competitive world today, so many students simply “do” because it is expected, not because it is something that they necessarily understand or are passionate about.
Something that Labaree is missing in this article is the creation of empathy within our students. I believe that once students start viewing each other not as competitors for opportunities but as humans working together to make our planet better, empathy will be created. When students respect each other in the school setting, they can go out into the world and respect others simply based on the fact that they we are all human and we all go through trials and have insecurities. . The public (and private school) contains students who are all different. The more people that you meet (especially with younger students) the more you learn about others. If we could all see people for who they are regardless of race, socioeconomic status, or gender, we would be able to work and respect each other. I think that this is the most important lesson that we can teach our students, to be empathetic.
I believe when our students become empathetic towards each other, our society will shift from being individual, selfish beings to socially active individuals working towards creating a society where equality is truly implemented. While we should all have personal goals and dreams, I do believe that working together with mutual respect is the only way that we can achieve that. When we can see beyond physical aspects of others and learn to work respectfully together, education will be viewed as a public good rather than a private good.
David Reams
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me as I was reading Labaree's article was the fact that of all the goals for American education that he explored (democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility), none seem to stress the benefits cognitive and emotional development of students can have on both individuals and society at large. While I find interesting his central argument that many shortcomings of our school systems stem from the inevitable conflict that arises between various viewpoints about the nature and purpose of education, I do not fully agree with it. I believe there may be room for all of these philosophies, and more, to coexist within a necessarily complex entity like our public schools.
In fact, none of the ideas that Labaree presents can stand alone; for our schools to be effective they must benefit both the student (private good) and our society {public good). Does this create tension? Sure, but to the degree that it does so it is obligatory and useful tension. American students (should) spend at least thirteen years in the education system, which ought to give them ample opportunity to explore both how they see themselves as individuals and how they fit into the world around them. This is not to say, of course, that they will have arrived at any decisive conclusions regarding these issues upon completion of high school. I, for one, was far from it. But my education laid the foundation upon which my future has been built, and while I will now be able to serve the community as a teacher and maintain my middle class status on my sweet educator salary, I believe that the greatest benefits that I received from my schooling were that I developed into a more thoughtful and conscientious human being.
It seems that each of the goals that Labaree explores, if it were the sole focus of our education system, would create lackluster or deficient human beings. I, for one, do not want our next generation to grow up to become conformists (democratic equality), worker drones (social efficiency) or cutthroats (social mobility). Schools should be showing students how to be good people, giving them the knowledge necessary to make good career choices (including vocational options), and teaching them how to both compete and work together within our capitalist culture.
Is there currently too much emphasis on education as a private good? Well, yes, but only to the extent that one's education is seen as coming at the expense of someone else's. Frankly, highlighting self-interest is a key component in developing intrinsic motivation within students. I believe in moderation and balance in all things, and therefore that schools should be molding students into well-rounded human beings by helping them realize their potential as both individuals and as members of a functioning society.
Alexandra Hall:
ReplyDeleteLabaree highlights and argues the three popular goals of the American education system: democratic equality, social efficiency and social mobility. While these are all valid points in education as a whole, he neglects to mention the effects that the political side has on the individual learning child.
I feel as if the article is focused more on higher education and the outcome of being thrown into the work force, rather than the importance of skill building with a solid primary education in order to get there. Students are constantly comparing themselves to their classmates, when they are each on an individual journey with a different goal in mind.
The article stresses democratic equality within schools, but is contradictory to the fact that each student has a different experience. Society today lacks a sense of community, and while I try to remain optimistic that education will one day be seen as a public good, the reality is that we are all out for personal gain and experience.
Ciara Pinero
ReplyDeleteI feel that the three major purposes of school Labaree argues (democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility) are all well and good, but should not be the only three purposes of schooling. All of these goals promote the students as good citizens, but I feel it can sometimes lack individuality and promoting the best of each individual student and his or her specific gifts and talents. In this case, schooling is not individualized and focused enough for students in my opinion. But, at the same time, school is revolved around individual gains in things like grades and coming in "1st place." Here, education is saw as a private good, and this is going to be very hard to redirect focus to a more community based notion of education. I feel that it is possible (although will take a LOT of time and dedication from everyone) to shift the ideas of school from a private good to a public good. But, in order to do this, maybe we can start focusing more on using school as a way to find out students' gifts and talents and promote those to be used to better their community and society, rather than promote individuals' good grades and success as a personal gain that really doesn't affect the people around them.
Kasey McDonald
ReplyDeleteLabaree made an interesting point that I agree with, which is that "...people in different positions, adopting different perspectives, on the purposes of education." It would seem impossible to come to a consensus for the goals that all schools should pursue, because there are so many schools in different areas, with different needs, led by people with different perspectives, which means not everyone can settle on one goal. Whether something be a private good or a public good, you can't make everyone happy. Every individual has their own dilemmas which will cause them to have different perspectives on what should be done to make schools better.
I personally think that the first two goals (democratic equality and social efficiency) are important to integrate into teaching, but the last goal (social mobility) seems that it is doing more harm than good. I find democratic equality important because a nation cannot be a peaceful nation without people understanding the importance of equality and responsibility. This idea highlights the goals for the original building of schools, which said "schools could help counteract the growth of selfishness....dedication to public good." And social efficiency is important because in order for there to be a stable economy, students must realize that having a job will allow them to support themselves and they should strive for great things. A way to help students figure out how they can benefit the economy/nation would be to bring awareness to them. Integrating awareness of issues that people are faced with in the country, or even in the world, can inspire them to make a difference or just figure out what they might want to do in the future!
That is one thing that Labaree didn't mention (I don't think he did anyways...). He didn't talk about the importance of enhancing awareness of issues in the world to students. Integration of this could provide an opportunity for students to become active citizens and possibly even make them more socially efficient (that is, if they plan on pursuing these issues further in the future and/or making a career out of it).
Social mobility was the goal I had an issue with, because that's where things seem to become unequal/unfair for people who don't have the money or resources available to them to get the experiences/schooling they need. I do think it is extremely important for schools to provide gifted classes, lower level classes, etc., because that can allow the students to find education important, more interesting, and help them improve/reach their full potential. But when they are pushed to a point where learning is losing its value because they are just trying to "win" and have the best grades or go to the "best school," the value of learning decreases, which makes for less socially efficient (future) workers and maybe even less understanding of how to be democratically equal. In order to make this goal more of a public good, rather than a private good, maybe teachers can bring awareness of “higher education” to students by explaining scholarships, grants, etc.? I’m stuck when it comes to a solution for that…
Amy
ReplyDeleteLabaree talks quite thoroughly about 3 purposes of education: to prepare students to take part as active citizens, to provide the skills necessary to step into jobs that will keep a healthy economy going, and to provide a way to move up in the world through the acquisition of the appropriate credentials (at least for those that have the means and start at the appropriate social class to do so). However, he does not really address the purpose of the individual gaining knowledge because they have been taught to value knowledge and education for what it is, not as a means of trading it for a good job or high status, but to be well informed and educated in order to help breakdown the values that have caused the stratification and hierarchy that has had such a devastating impact on our society for so long. Even though through social efficiency and democratic equality education is described as a public good, I think they both are still really just working towards maintaining our current economy and political structure that holds a certain piece of the public above the rest(at least in practice if not in theory). They don’t really address the need to work towards changing that structure because it is broken, which takes much more than preparing students to be good citizens and giving them job skills to step into the economy as it is to keep it going.
I agree with Labaree that the social mobility goal has become the more dominant goal of the three. When the main goal of education is to serve the individual and their ambitions, and these ambitions have been molded and shaped by the meritocratic ideology that is widespread in our society, you are not going to produce a student who values education and learning in order to better themselves and their society, but only values it as a means of exchanging it for status, and thus continuing to permit the social hierarchy that already exists. But yet we say that we want to teach students to want to learn and appreciate knowledge, not just for the grade, or to get them to the next rung on the ladder. However, despite what we want for our students, we are deciding to not address the goal that has created this individualistic mind frame.
Amy continued:
DeleteLabaree’s conclusion really resonated with me, when he talked about the extreme contradiction of the goals, and the problem that this presents. It is, and will always be impossible to create democratic equality in education, when at the same time we are working to make sure there is this extreme competition between students allowing those who are in the right social class to continue to remain there by exchanging their credentials for a nice big piece of the pie, whereas those who are in the wrong social class remain behind. I think the problem with so much of our conversation about reform is that it’s based mainly on this competition. It always starts off with, “America was once the leading nation in ________, and now we are number__________, behind X, Y and Z countries.” We are so concerned with our standing in the world, and how we can get ahead or remain on top, that I think it is not going to be possible to change the idea of education as a private good, unless we address this obsessive need for competition. This ideology does not permit students or encourage them to value education and the acquisition of knowledge for the knowledge itself, to be invested in the learning process, except for the purpose of gaining prestige and holding on to their high social status.
I very much agree that there must be a balance in the educational system, between the three goals. The possibilities for betterment must be made available to everyone, not only those that already have the advantage. Labaree talks about how the social mobility goal puts groups in conflict with one another, like the lower class pushing for better education and opportunities for their children, and the upper class holding onto the high ground that they already have “…by preserving their monocultural neighborhood school...” I think if we are to push back against the idea of education as a private good, we must open up these opportunities of social mobility to everyone. If we are to teach multiculturalism and the acceptance of all races and cultures, we cannot need to fight against these monocultural communities. It’s true we cannot just eradicate certain goals, but we need them all to play an equal part, truly for the good of the public, and not one of them can be a private good. With the American values and ideologies being what they are, and competition and credentialism being so deeply entrenched in our society, this might seem like an impossible goal, but I think them more we work on balancing the goals, and changing them towards all viewing education as a public good, the closer we will get to achieving the right balance.
Julianna Lopez
ReplyDeleteLabaree made me evaluate how I personally thought about the education system and what I consider to be the "root" issues when considering its flaws. In the first few paragraphs he outlines all of the typical arguments, and it was interesting to see what I agreed with and what my "go-to" assumptions were. I like his assertion that the problems are overall tied to something political and it was easy to understand his reasoning.
In this article, Labaree made schools seem almost factory-like when talking about different goals that they set out to achieve, treating students like a product that need to meet certain standards to be considered functional. The "goal" that bothered me the most (and I see this is true for a few of my classmates) is the idea of social mobility. While I do believe that a good school should prepare you for a good job, for example, if you went to Harvard or Yale, I would expect you to do well while job searching, but we need to consider more than just academic merit in this situation. Not everyone is going to have the opportunity or funds to attend Ivy League schools, and even those who still attend college at another accessible university maybe be stigmatized because it doesn't seem legitimate enough (Community College) or because it isn't up to the standards of other Ivy League schools.
I really believe that the idea of social mobility is something that was taught to a lot of people my age and ingrained in us from a very early age. As early as 7th grade I was told and pressured that college was the goal, and that it would be a competitive process, but that it would ensure my future. I think this is dangerous for a number of reasons, not only for its issues pertaining to inequality but also its deceptive nature. Higher education can definitely help you get a job, but as we are seeing in the recent job market, it does not ensure anything.
Like most of my classmates, I was most moved by the social mobility goal. I personally view education as more of a public good than a private good, probably because of the profession I’ve chosen; and maybe my view will change when I become a parent. I can appreciate the desire for your children to have more and do more than you were able to in life (the American Dream). However, I think of education from a practical standpoint, that we are creating our future community and there’s no room for selfishness in that mission. The problem is, most people do not think like this, and that creates tension. If the goal is to get ahead then you must leave others behind. Therefore, public schooling cannot be a private good. Why would you want to pay for other’s success and your failure? Or why would you pay if you’re not receiving any personal reward (i.e. a person without school aged children)? It’s like playing the lottery, it just doesn’t make sense.
ReplyDeleteAs Labaree states in the beginning of the article, everyone has their own opinion about what needs to change in order to fix the education system; but it’s my personal opinion that the problems stem from a much deeper place and requires a shift in personal and cultural values. Consequently, I don’t see much hope in making a change without some strong convincing and possible political change. So, how do we work with this as teachers?
On a side note: I’m excited to look for these goals in Obama’s State of the Union Address tonight. I’m curious to see if he sides with one, or incorporates all three goals into his education mission.
Lauren Macdonald