Welcome to the online space we will use to extend our classroom community...
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
January 22… 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?)?
He defiantly covers a lot of topics. I particularly agreed with his statement about schools role to create civil minded induviduals so they "to(o) (can) participate intelligently as adults in the political process that shapes their society"
I would like to focus my comment on two issues that he did not address (though these two issues are not the main point of his claim).
He neglects to bring up special education and the effectiveness of private schools and charter schools. - Students with mental and physical disabilities are the most unrepresented group in America, and in the world. While every other group, minority, society, religion, or age group has its own set of lobbiest or activist, The mentally disabled do not have a voice to bring up their concerns. while this may not seem directly related to his article, I feel it is important to bring up because of the increasing role public schools are having in the ways of special education. the class sises are getting larger while the rooms are getting smaller. I think any conversation on where our schools should be going should include an extensive look at special education. While I agree with his idea of an equal full education for all students, Mentally disabled students should have an altered program that fulfills their specific needs as much as possible.
Also, On the issue of Charter schools. I think a qualitative and quantitative look at the affect of these schools should be done to see how they change the game for public schools and what they are trying to achieve.
Reflecting off of Kurt’s comment; I agree students with mental and physical disabilities are underrepresented. Personally I think it is selfish but logical why this is so. The public school system is controlled by “Politics” since democracy is said to be our type of government the public is far less likely to elect someone with a mental or physical disability because elected government officials are glorified positions. They tend to always look sharp and distinguished for the public eye almost like business movie stars. Since usually people from this “group” are not elected the issue is not as often addressed as say minorities’ rights or equal opportunities for both sexes. Although I think that it is human nature to address the issues most relative to one’s self. I feel that this is wrong but I am also grateful for what we have now. In some countries children deemed mentally or physically disabled are killed at a young age. Acceptance is a hard thing for humans to do it takes time and effort but I am confident one day society will be accepting of all “groups” of people. What I found interesting about Labaree’s “Competing Purposes of Schools” was how he broke down the three main ways you can view public education. These were; Democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. Democratic equality means all students receive equal care with an emphasis on citizenship and relative equality. Social efficiency means the economic responsibilities are passed down from generation to generation and the incoming generation must be able to confidently execute for the well-being of our economy. Social mobility means the schools are used to provide a competitive edge for desirable jobs. I believe education today is a mix of all three of these with a focus on social mobility. With an exponentially growing population and decreasing amount of jobs the emphasis on excelling in school is increasing. The better worker you are the better job position you can receive and more capital can be earned. Many students competing can put out large quantities of exceptional work and can push our economy back up to the top on the worlds list. Although this is not for the betterment of all it goes along with the saying “You get out of it what you put into it” and doesn't allow those not willing to put forth the status quote of effort to leech of those that go above and beyond.
I believe Labaree covers the major purposes of school, I don't see any other major purpose being left out. Before reading the article, I thought of schools as a means of getting an education so an individual could get a good occupation one day - didn't think about the smaller aspects in the school system. After reading the article I see how the three major purposes of schools play a role in how the education system is being shaped.
I agree with his conclusion that schools viewed from the private good has won over the public good. In other words, private good (self interest) has won over public good (social aims). Schools are programming the kids into getting better and better credentials. At the end of the semester the grade received may matter more than comprehension of the material. In the previous article we read, Count wants schools to become the institutions for social change or good. This would fall under the public good which Labaree states has lost out to private good.
Major changes happen when a situation is bad. I don't think politicians or others view the education system to be so bad that a major reconstruct of the education system takes place. Currently, with all of the turmoil, I don't see any hope for the public good view triumphing.
I found Labaree’s description of the competing purposes schools have served over the years to be very accurate. The one purpose I might add to is the idea than an education can help a child develop his/her own sense of self and/or identity through learning what matters to them and what interests the child. Having less to do with how schooling relates to preparation for an adult world and obtaining a job (Labree’s description of “exchange value”) this purpose is more of an examination of how an education improves the quality and depth of our lives, regardless of level of prestige we reach in the work force or the preparation we have for entering the work force.
Labaree’s conclusion that the school, which was originally designed to be a public good, is becoming increasingly privatized is seemingly very true. Until reading this article I had not thought much about how my “public” education was not as open minded as it appeared to be, and how in some ways represents the idea that an education is a consumer’s commodity. In my high school, I took part in the International Baccalaureate diploma program. Some aspects of the program were incredibly helpful, especially the writing skills I developed. However, a lot of what the IB diploma stands for resembles the markers of “tracking” and “exchange value” that Labaree describes as issues that are born from the social mobility goal. My classes were designed to allow me to pursue the highest attainable status I could graduate with as an individual. In addition, I found myself subscribing to the behavior of “is this on the test and if not, then it isn’t important” that Labaree outlines. I was picking out only the things I needed to know in order to get the grade. In other words, I was using the learning process in exchange for a grade in exchange for a college admission.
In the future, I think the only way we can refocus the goals of education to re-orient it toward learning and acquiring skills will be to put less pressure on grades as a means to access higher education. In addition, focus in each classroom should be less about learning as a means to an end but rather as a skill to maintain throughout life. However, as Labaree describes, it will be very difficult to sway people, especially parents, from using grades as a way of determining and boasting about their child’s success. In the same way, the school’s hands are tied as they are in constant battle of trying to provide an equal education while still providing resources for deemed “gifted” students to be challenged.
I felt that Labarsoee’s article was very thorough in covering the goals for American education. But I too agree with Stewart’s comment that special education should be given more attention; this was something that I did not think of initially, but it is really something that we should all think about. Other than that, I do not feel that there is anything too significant from the top of my head that I could add that would be different or new from what Labaree mentioned. If there is one thing I could add, it could be that another goal of education should also be to increase our understanding of the world around us, especially in terms of how other countries function and how their citizen participation differs and resembles ours. We should also understand how nations all over the world have and continue to influence one another. In terms of what I think of his conclusion, I do think we can make education more public and less private; however, I do not believe this transition can be quick. It may take a very long time to bring this kind of change, and I am not entirely sure that the notions of education of being a private good will ever really go away. Criteria such as letter grades, class rank, AP credentials, and SAT scores have been a part of our educational system for a long time, and I feel that those things will still continue to exist. I also feel that some opportunities will always be more readily available to some people and less available to others, because social status also plays a huge role in our society. I am not saying that people of lower social status will not be able to find a good education, but it will be more difficult for them. Therefore, we should work harder on giving all our students a fair chance to be exposed to all kinds of opportunities, no matter what background or financial status they have. I also believe we can work on giving less stress to competition and teach students to not just pay attention to their own education efforts, but really help and work with others as well. There is nothing wrong with aiming high, but we can teach them to not be so worried about the letter that defines their grade, and have more concern about what they really get out of what they learn. I also wish the competition among schools could decrease as well, and that more focus be given to what the school best addresses your interests and not just the school’s name. So although making education less privatized will not be a quick task, I think there is hope of showing students how to enjoy what they learn, to learn as much as they can, and to use what they learn to make some kind of difference in the world around them, no matter how big or small.
The intrinsic value of school seems to have been somewhat left out by Labaree. The three purposes of schools that get mentioned are preparing students to be workers, citizens, and socially successful, but I didn’t particularly feel as though the idea of going to school to simply start learning to learn was left out. As an elementary education major, that is very unsettling.
I agree with the majority of my classmates above in seeing eye to eye with Labaree’s conclusion that education is becoming more and more privatized, meaning ought after solely for self-interest, within our system of education. I think the only way to truly address is the reexamine the process in which we do ask students to learn and to reassess the entire idea of grading and assessing students in that way. Laura’s post really stuck out to me in that area and I could really relate to her experience in high school, though mine was not exactly the same.
I think the author left out two major purposes of schooling other than the ones he discussed in his article. The first purpose he left out, I would like to call Learning Efficiency, or having public schools available to all who want to learn for the sake of learning things they are interested in and to learn how to learn which is a very useful skill down the road. The other major purpose of schooling I would like to call Diversification Initiative, or the purpose of schools in introducing a diverse group of people who you are forced to be around and learn to cope with difficult personalities and learn socialization skills among different types of people. It is very useful to be accustomed to dealing with all types of people and personalities and very important for schools to produce young adults who are able to handle whoever and whatever comes to them after schooling.
Reflecting back on the author's conclusion, I think that schools have always been a private good and will continue to be a private good, even if it is causing issues of stratification in the system. The way the social system is set up right now, school is definitely seen as a way to make one's position in life better than where they were at before, therefore the focus is primarily the the student making good enough grades and achieving the success he or she needs in order to become a more affluent well off member of society. Having education be considered a private good is both good and bad. It's bad because those who remain close to the bottom of the social and economic pyramid tend to stay there and its very rare to rise all the way to the top from the bottom. However, schools being a private good is beneficial because it gives individuals an opportunity to get out of the educational system what they put into it and gives them hope for a better life as long as they put good effort into it and make good grades. However, I wish that the problem of those at the bottom not being able to get to the top very easily would be addressed and that a more egalitarian school system be put in place to help those who are seen as at the bottom of the social and economic pyramid. But I guess in today's capitalistic and anti communist and socialist world, this would be a hard thing to get going.
I thought the Labaree’s article was very thoughtful and interesting. In this article, Labaree portrayed education in three different approaches that the public could perceive education. Those perspectives were the democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. Although I thought all of these approaches to be accurate I also believe that he left out the fact that education could also be used to facilitate social change. Through the diffusion of numerous outlooks on how society should operate, the education system does in fact have the ability create new social standards due to the fact that many constantly being exposed to different perspectives and outlooks. Commonly I believe this would be referred to as the rebellious youth and I believe our education system has quite a bit to do with it.
In reference to his conclusion I also agree with the fact that education being viewed, as a commodity is commonly how the public perceives our education system. Turning this around is possible however; it will take time and widespread acknowledgment from the public.
Labaree covers most of the main intended purposes of schooling; however I think he neglects to discuss the secondary things that you are taught in schools - including social skills and cultural norms. While I agree with his divisions of pure academic education in to either democratic equality, social efficiency, of social mobility, I think that they do not take in to account the difference between the goals of a school systems and the actual outcome of a model of education. I think in reality, the democratic equality category is the one that best fosters the secondary things students learn in schools, because the focus is on schooling for the sake of learning (though the nationalistic side of this model troubles me - doesn’t the idea that our schools should create proud American citizens defeat the idea of equal opportunities, since students are taught that Americans are the most desirable type of citizens? Though maybe this is an antiquated model and was only really necessary during the Whig/common schools time period.), while in the other two models, schooling is a means to an end, and something that must be completed. This means that students are then “pushed through the system,” which does not foster individual curiosity and exploration. This mentality I think translated in to changing a student’s personality; school is a huge influence on a child’s and young adult’s life.
Social efficiency and social mobility schools I think a more uniform kind of people - those more inclined to be pragmatic and calculating, as opposed to leaders and risk-takers. These kinds of people I think would also be more conservative, and so not as open to innovation (both innovation within the school system and innovation in society in general).
I think the only hope to, “push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good,” is to dramatically change the structure of the education system. The social mobilizing methods of normalized grading, for example, exemplify the problems that face the system: students must compete among their peers to be “the best,” even if an entire classroom is either brilliant or below average. This means that the credentials students acquire are artificial, and have no real value in comparison to their perceived value. Students from a young age are shown that everything is a competition, and that everything is assigned a value to be traded for other things. This again I think translates in to who the student is as a person - does this then mean that students of this system assign arbitrary values to things like friendship or experiences that can then be “traded” for something better?
I agree with Jordan in the sense that the author fails to mention the purpose of education as a way to diversify the lives of students and introduce important social skills. Understanding and acceptance comes with diversification, something that is important to become a functional citizen, but also to become a functional person in all aspects.
I enjoy that the article brings vocational education into the spectrum of social efficiency. I went to a technical high school that was available by lottery system to students from all across the county. While it was first created as a vocational high school strictly providing career skills classes to students pursuing only a high school diploma with hopes of directly entering the workforce, it has now become an accomplished high school that prepares students both for college and the workforce, allowing them to leave high school with skills that prepare them for a career and an education that prepares them for citizenship. While it's not perfect, I believe the idea of education as less private, individualized good lies in the combination of vocational and credential learning and teaching.
The notion of education being a private good results in undemocratic opportunities. Democracy is built upon the idea that everyone has certain equalities, where it is defined in this country as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It becomes problematic when someone who has the freedom to become a doctor can be straddled by constraints of the economy and resources and not be able to achieve this goal due to the private cost of the education that goes towards that specialized field. Education is a common good and universal net that was put forward through social movements democratically. While I think that there is hope to dismantle the private sector, there would have to be a mass change of thought among people. If everyone had a competitive mindset, those with socio-economic privileges would ultimately be the “winners” and continuity fuel the ruling class and perpetuate their ideals. But if a more communal mindset could take hold, theoretically everyone would benefit. Of course, getting rid of a competitive mindset much easier said than done as it’s been ingrained in us since we entered school. It was a pretty rude awakening for me to realize how individualistic it is. From day one it seems as though we’re pinned against classmates to see who can get into the best college, get the best scholarship, to become the best doctor. Competing vigorously against each other to see who can help others the best doesn’t quite make sense to me. While yes, there should be certain qualifications that should be met especially in the health field, I think that there should be a better system in place that allows for people to get wherever they want to go in life without it being survival of the fittest. Education should not make us capitalists by nature. Coming back to the first question, the author does not really mention how students can un-learn this competitive nature and take on a more civil ethic. Assuming that a new system could ever take hold, the ideals that a public school is founded upon might not penetrate socially.
When I think of the purpose of school, the first thing that comes to my mind is learning. School is a place for students to learn what they need to be successful in society. I feel like Labaree tries to hit on this with his three main goals of our educational system, but to him it may not be a major purpose in which I feel like that is the number one purpose of schools.
Recalling Labaree’s conclusion, I agree completely. Our education system has drifted to a private good, in which it’s every man for himself. Standardized test, grades, gifted programs, etc. are all designed to put one student ahead of the other, to make him/her stand out. They also cause a student to pile information into their head, only to forget them later. That’s what I believe has caused this drift from public good to mostly private good. It’s not about learning material, but more so about who scores the highest on an exam. Another thing that interests me is how Labaree speaks of this same drift from political to economic that Count spoke of. Even though they were written in two different times, I agree even more now, because it was brought up twice. Our education system has shifted from equal opportunity to what makes our economy more efficient.
Like Labaree said, the goals of the education system contradict each other, and it decreases their effectiveness. At the end of the day, the goal of the education should be simply to learn.
Although I feel as though Labaree hits some key purposes and goals of education, he left out a major purpose. Labaree focuses on three key points which are democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. I agree more or less with all three of these issues, however, I believe he left out a key purpose. Like many of my classmates, I think that Labaree left out that it is important for students, especially in early education, to be socialized among their peers. At an early age students are the most malleable and impressionable, therefore, it is crucial that students begin to intermix with others socially and culturally. Further, I believe this can only be done effectively in public schools, not charter schools or private schools. Typically, in public schooling you come into contact with others from all over the spectrum of socio economic status, race, etc. This enables a student to become more socially and culturally diverse, which I think is a key aspect that Labaree fails to mention. Unfortunately I believe Labaree’s conclusion is very accurate. He discusses the privatization of schools, meaning that the school is based on the individual, not the general wellbeing and success of the class or student body. I believe this occurs to a lesser extent in primary school because there is less competition. In high school the idea of private education is extremely prevalent. Especially when taking advance courses in AP or IB, education is completely individualized. There are not any group projects and few class discussions. A student in advance courses competes with others to be the best, to get the highest grade and to do the best on the IB or AP exam. Very little focus is on the class as whole, only the individual student.
I thought Labaree presented a point about current schooling that is often ignored. There is no doubt that the three major purposes of schooling he mentions are true and present nowadays. Having gone to a public international school, I believe Labaree might have left that kind of schooling out of his discussion. International schooling might deem to be different, therefore I believe it would be beneficent to study them as well.
Schooling has become very geared towards making the students nowadays geared to attaining status rather than actually learning. I personally experienced that in school. I remember the focus being on who gets the best grades and who is the top student rather than the focus being to make sure everything learns the material well. That saddens me because as much as it is great to have high grades and all, that really should not be the center of education. The goal should be to ensure everyone learns everything. I do not think it would be very difficult to achieve such education in schools nowadays. I understand many will say it is very difficulty, but we have to do something we cannot just stand by and ignore such changes in education.
I agree with Labaree when he says that students who have the necessary resources will succeed while the others may be left behind. We are conformed to believe that we all will get a job and succeed when we grow up. Who says "When I grow up, I want to be a failure"? Growing up we all say that we want to become doctors, lawyers, and other cliched white collar careers. But that is a wrong perception on education and success. Statistically speaking, those who come from high-income families have a higher successful rate than those who come from low-income families. Is it because rich people are smarter than poor people? Or perhaps because rich people have access to more resources than the poor ones and IQ no longer has relation to salaries. We can't rely on the same education system of standardized tests to assess students. Because that is just setting the system up for failure. There are students who are poor test-takers but that doesn't mean they have a lower intelligence level than the one's who are better test-takers. A student with a higher IQ with test anxiety may not score as well a student who has a slightly lower IQ but uses all tactics that define a "good test-taker". Therefore,
Stewart Bova,
ReplyDeleteHe defiantly covers a lot of topics. I particularly agreed with his statement about schools role to create civil minded induviduals so they "to(o) (can) participate intelligently as adults in the political process that shapes their society"
I would like to focus my comment on two issues that he did not address (though these two issues are not the main point of his claim).
He neglects to bring up special education and the effectiveness of private schools and charter schools. - Students with mental and physical disabilities are the most unrepresented group in America, and in the world. While every other group, minority, society, religion, or age group has its own set of lobbiest or activist, The mentally disabled do not have a voice to bring up their concerns. while this may not seem directly related to his article, I feel it is important to bring up because of the increasing role public schools are having in the ways of special education. the class sises are getting larger while the rooms are getting smaller. I think any conversation on where our schools should be going should include an extensive look at special education. While I agree with his idea of an equal full education for all students, Mentally disabled students should have an altered program that fulfills their specific needs as much as possible.
Also, On the issue of Charter schools. I think a qualitative and quantitative look at the affect of these schools should be done to see how they change the game for public schools and what they are trying to achieve.
Reflecting off of Kurt’s comment; I agree students with mental and physical disabilities are underrepresented. Personally I think it is selfish but logical why this is so. The public school system is controlled by “Politics” since democracy is said to be our type of government the public is far less likely to elect someone with a mental or physical disability because elected government officials are glorified positions. They tend to always look sharp and distinguished for the public eye almost like business movie stars. Since usually people from this “group” are not elected the issue is not as often addressed as say minorities’ rights or equal opportunities for both sexes. Although I think that it is human nature to address the issues most relative to one’s self. I feel that this is wrong but I am also grateful for what we have now. In some countries children deemed mentally or physically disabled are killed at a young age. Acceptance is a hard thing for humans to do it takes time and effort but I am confident one day society will be accepting of all “groups” of people.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting about Labaree’s “Competing Purposes of Schools” was how he broke down the three main ways you can view public education. These were; Democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. Democratic equality means all students receive equal care with an emphasis on citizenship and relative equality. Social efficiency means the economic responsibilities are passed down from generation to generation and the incoming generation must be able to confidently execute for the well-being of our economy. Social mobility means the schools are used to provide a competitive edge for desirable jobs. I believe education today is a mix of all three of these with a focus on social mobility. With an exponentially growing population and decreasing amount of jobs the emphasis on excelling in school is increasing. The better worker you are the better job position you can receive and more capital can be earned. Many students competing can put out large quantities of exceptional work and can push our economy back up to the top on the worlds list. Although this is not for the betterment of all it goes along with the saying “You get out of it what you put into it” and doesn't allow those not willing to put forth the status quote of effort to leech of those that go above and beyond.
Craig Luskey
Stewarts comment*
DeleteI believe Labaree covers the major purposes of school, I don't see any other major purpose being left out. Before reading the article, I thought of schools as a means of getting an education so an individual could get a good occupation one day - didn't think about the smaller aspects in the school system. After reading the article I see how the three major purposes of schools play a role in how the education system is being shaped.
ReplyDeleteI agree with his conclusion that schools viewed from the private good has won over the public good. In other words, private good (self interest) has won over public good (social aims). Schools are programming the kids into getting better and better credentials. At the end of the semester the grade received may matter more than comprehension of the material. In the previous article we read, Count wants schools to become the institutions for social change or good. This would fall under the public good which Labaree states has lost out to private good.
Major changes happen when a situation is bad. I don't think politicians or others view the education system to be so bad that a major reconstruct of the education system takes place. Currently, with all of the turmoil, I don't see any hope for the public good view triumphing.
Faisal Ali
I found Labaree’s description of the competing purposes schools have served over the years to be very accurate. The one purpose I might add to is the idea than an education can help a child develop his/her own sense of self and/or identity through learning what matters to them and what interests the child. Having less to do with how schooling relates to preparation for an adult world and obtaining a job (Labree’s description of “exchange value”) this purpose is more of an examination of how an education improves the quality and depth of our lives, regardless of level of prestige we reach in the work force or the preparation we have for entering the work force.
ReplyDeleteLabaree’s conclusion that the school, which was originally designed to be a public good, is becoming increasingly privatized is seemingly very true. Until reading this article I had not thought much about how my “public” education was not as open minded as it appeared to be, and how in some ways represents the idea that an education is a consumer’s commodity. In my high school, I took part in the International Baccalaureate diploma program. Some aspects of the program were incredibly helpful, especially the writing skills I developed. However, a lot of what the IB diploma stands for resembles the markers of “tracking” and “exchange value” that Labaree describes as issues that are born from the social mobility goal. My classes were designed to allow me to pursue the highest attainable status I could graduate with as an individual. In addition, I found myself subscribing to the behavior of “is this on the test and if not, then it isn’t important” that Labaree outlines. I was picking out only the things I needed to know in order to get the grade. In other words, I was using the learning process in exchange for a grade in exchange for a college admission.
In the future, I think the only way we can refocus the goals of education to re-orient it toward learning and acquiring skills will be to put less pressure on grades as a means to access higher education. In addition, focus in each classroom should be less about learning as a means to an end but rather as a skill to maintain throughout life. However, as Labaree describes, it will be very difficult to sway people, especially parents, from using grades as a way of determining and boasting about their child’s success. In the same way, the school’s hands are tied as they are in constant battle of trying to provide an equal education while still providing resources for deemed “gifted” students to be challenged.
Laura Zoellner
I felt that Labarsoee’s article was very thorough in covering the goals for American education. But I too agree with Stewart’s comment that special education should be given more attention; this was something that I did not think of initially, but it is really something that we should all think about. Other than that, I do not feel that there is anything too significant from the top of my head that I could add that would be different or new from what Labaree mentioned. If there is one thing I could add, it could be that another goal of education should also be to increase our understanding of the world around us, especially in terms of how other countries function and how their citizen participation differs and resembles ours. We should also understand how nations all over the world have and continue to influence one another. In terms of what I think of his conclusion, I do think we can make education more public and less private; however, I do not believe this transition can be quick. It may take a very long time to bring this kind of change, and I am not entirely sure that the notions of education of being a private good will ever really go away. Criteria such as letter grades, class rank, AP credentials, and SAT scores have been a part of our educational system for a long time, and I feel that those things will still continue to exist. I also feel that some opportunities will always be more readily available to some people and less available to others, because social status also plays a huge role in our society. I am not saying that people of lower social status will not be able to find a good education, but it will be more difficult for them. Therefore, we should work harder on giving all our students a fair chance to be exposed to all kinds of opportunities, no matter what background or financial status they have. I also believe we can work on giving less stress to competition and teach students to not just pay attention to their own education efforts, but really help and work with others as well. There is nothing wrong with aiming high, but we can teach them to not be so worried about the letter that defines their grade, and have more concern about what they really get out of what they learn. I also wish the competition among schools could decrease as well, and that more focus be given to what the school best addresses your interests and not just the school’s name. So although making education less privatized will not be a quick task, I think there is hope of showing students how to enjoy what they learn, to learn as much as they can, and to use what they learn to make some kind of difference in the world around them, no matter how big or small.
ReplyDeleteNavami Ravindra
The intrinsic value of school seems to have been somewhat left out by Labaree. The three purposes of schools that get mentioned are preparing students to be workers, citizens, and socially successful, but I didn’t particularly feel as though the idea of going to school to simply start learning to learn was left out. As an elementary education major, that is very unsettling.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the majority of my classmates above in seeing eye to eye with Labaree’s conclusion that education is becoming more and more privatized, meaning ought after solely for self-interest, within our system of education. I think the only way to truly address is the reexamine the process in which we do ask students to learn and to reassess the entire idea of grading and assessing students in that way. Laura’s post really stuck out to me in that area and I could really relate to her experience in high school, though mine was not exactly the same.
-Sarah Meier
I think the author left out two major purposes of schooling other than the ones he discussed in his article. The first purpose he left out, I would like to call Learning Efficiency, or having public schools available to all who want to learn for the sake of learning things they are interested in and to learn how to learn which is a very useful skill down the road. The other major purpose of schooling I would like to call Diversification Initiative, or the purpose of schools in introducing a diverse group of people who you are forced to be around and learn to cope with difficult personalities and learn socialization skills among different types of people. It is very useful to be accustomed to dealing with all types of people and personalities and very important for schools to produce young adults who are able to handle whoever and whatever comes to them after schooling.
ReplyDeleteReflecting back on the author's conclusion, I think that schools have always been a private good and will continue to be a private good, even if it is causing issues of stratification in the system. The way the social system is set up right now, school is definitely seen as a way to make one's position in life better than where they were at before, therefore the focus is primarily the the student making good enough grades and achieving the success he or she needs in order to become a more affluent well off member of society. Having education be considered a private good is both good and bad. It's bad because those who remain close to the bottom of the social and economic pyramid tend to stay there and its very rare to rise all the way to the top from the bottom. However, schools being a private good is beneficial because it gives individuals an opportunity to get out of the educational system what they put into it and gives them hope for a better life as long as they put good effort into it and make good grades. However, I wish that the problem of those at the bottom not being able to get to the top very easily would be addressed and that a more egalitarian school system be put in place to help those who are seen as at the bottom of the social and economic pyramid. But I guess in today's capitalistic and anti communist and socialist world, this would be a hard thing to get going.
- Jordan Hiegel
I thought the Labaree’s article was very thoughtful and interesting. In this article, Labaree portrayed education in three different approaches that the public could perceive education. Those perspectives were the democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. Although I thought all of these approaches to be accurate I also believe that he left out the fact that education could also be used to facilitate social change. Through the diffusion of numerous outlooks on how society should operate, the education system does in fact have the ability create new social standards due to the fact that many constantly being exposed to different perspectives and outlooks. Commonly I believe this would be referred to as the rebellious youth and I believe our education system has quite a bit to do with it.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to his conclusion I also agree with the fact that education being viewed, as a commodity is commonly how the public perceives our education system. Turning this around is possible however; it will take time and widespread acknowledgment from the public.
Labaree covers most of the main intended purposes of schooling; however I think he neglects to discuss the secondary things that you are taught in schools - including social skills and cultural norms. While I agree with his divisions of pure academic education in to either democratic equality, social efficiency, of social mobility, I think that they do not take in to account the difference between the goals of a school systems and the actual outcome of a model of education. I think in reality, the democratic equality category is the one that best fosters the secondary things students learn in schools, because the focus is on schooling for the sake of learning (though the nationalistic side of this model troubles me - doesn’t the idea that our schools should create proud American citizens defeat the idea of equal opportunities, since students are taught that Americans are the most desirable type of citizens? Though maybe this is an antiquated model and was only really necessary during the Whig/common schools time period.), while in the other two models, schooling is a means to an end, and something that must be completed. This means that students are then “pushed through the system,” which does not foster individual curiosity and exploration. This mentality I think translated in to changing a student’s personality; school is a huge influence on a child’s and young adult’s life.
ReplyDeleteSocial efficiency and social mobility schools I think a more uniform kind of people - those more inclined to be pragmatic and calculating, as opposed to leaders and risk-takers. These kinds of people I think would also be more conservative, and so not as open to innovation (both innovation within the school system and innovation in society in general).
I think the only hope to, “push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good,” is to dramatically change the structure of the education system. The social mobilizing methods of normalized grading, for example, exemplify the problems that face the system: students must compete among their peers to be “the best,” even if an entire classroom is either brilliant or below average. This means that the credentials students acquire are artificial, and have no real value in comparison to their perceived value. Students from a young age are shown that everything is a competition, and that everything is assigned a value to be traded for other things. This again I think translates in to who the student is as a person - does this then mean that students of this system assign arbitrary values to things like friendship or experiences that can then be “traded” for something better?
Manon Loustaunau
I agree with Jordan in the sense that the author fails to mention the purpose of education as a way to diversify the lives of students and introduce important social skills. Understanding and acceptance comes with diversification, something that is important to become a functional citizen, but also to become a functional person in all aspects.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy that the article brings vocational education into the spectrum of social efficiency. I went to a technical high school that was available by lottery system to students from all across the county. While it was first created as a vocational high school strictly providing career skills classes to students pursuing only a high school diploma with hopes of directly entering the workforce, it has now become an accomplished high school that prepares students both for college and the workforce, allowing them to leave high school with skills that prepare them for a career and an education that prepares them for citizenship. While it's not perfect, I believe the idea of education as less private, individualized good lies in the combination of vocational and credential learning and teaching.
Taylor Thornberg
The notion of education being a private good results in undemocratic opportunities. Democracy is built upon the idea that everyone has certain equalities, where it is defined in this country as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It becomes problematic when someone who has the freedom to become a doctor can be straddled by constraints of the economy and resources and not be able to achieve this goal due to the private cost of the education that goes towards that specialized field. Education is a common good and universal net that was put forward through social movements democratically.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think that there is hope to dismantle the private sector, there would have to be a mass change of thought among people. If everyone had a competitive mindset, those with socio-economic privileges would ultimately be the “winners” and continuity fuel the ruling class and perpetuate their ideals. But if a more communal mindset could take hold, theoretically everyone would benefit. Of course, getting rid of a competitive mindset much easier said than done as it’s been ingrained in us since we entered school. It was a pretty rude awakening for me to realize how individualistic it is. From day one it seems as though we’re pinned against classmates to see who can get into the best college, get the best scholarship, to become the best doctor. Competing vigorously against each other to see who can help others the best doesn’t quite make sense to me. While yes, there should be certain qualifications that should be met especially in the health field, I think that there should be a better system in place that allows for people to get wherever they want to go in life without it being survival of the fittest. Education should not make us capitalists by nature.
Coming back to the first question, the author does not really mention how students can un-learn this competitive nature and take on a more civil ethic. Assuming that a new system could ever take hold, the ideals that a public school is founded upon might not penetrate socially.
Katie Ketcham
When I think of the purpose of school, the first thing that comes to my mind is learning. School is a place for students to learn what they need to be successful in society. I feel like Labaree tries to hit on this with his three main goals of our educational system, but to him it may not be a major purpose in which I feel like that is the number one purpose of schools.
ReplyDeleteRecalling Labaree’s conclusion, I agree completely. Our education system has drifted to a private good, in which it’s every man for himself. Standardized test, grades, gifted programs, etc. are all designed to put one student ahead of the other, to make him/her stand out. They also cause a student to pile information into their head, only to forget them later. That’s what I believe has caused this drift from public good to mostly private good. It’s not about learning material, but more so about who scores the highest on an exam. Another thing that interests me is how Labaree speaks of this same drift from political to economic that Count spoke of. Even though they were written in two different times, I agree even more now, because it was brought up twice. Our education system has shifted from equal opportunity to what makes our economy more efficient.
Like Labaree said, the goals of the education system contradict each other, and it decreases their effectiveness. At the end of the day, the goal of the education should be simply to learn.
Arielle Preston
Although I feel as though Labaree hits some key purposes and goals of education, he left out a major purpose. Labaree focuses on three key points which are democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. I agree more or less with all three of these issues, however, I believe he left out a key purpose. Like many of my classmates, I think that Labaree left out that it is important for students, especially in early education, to be socialized among their peers. At an early age students are the most malleable and impressionable, therefore, it is crucial that students begin to intermix with others socially and culturally. Further, I believe this can only be done effectively in public schools, not charter schools or private schools. Typically, in public schooling you come into contact with others from all over the spectrum of socio economic status, race, etc. This enables a student to become more socially and culturally diverse, which I think is a key aspect that Labaree fails to mention.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I believe Labaree’s conclusion is very accurate. He discusses the privatization of schools, meaning that the school is based on the individual, not the general wellbeing and success of the class or student body. I believe this occurs to a lesser extent in primary school because there is less competition. In high school the idea of private education is extremely prevalent. Especially when taking advance courses in AP or IB, education is completely individualized. There are not any group projects and few class discussions. A student in advance courses competes with others to be the best, to get the highest grade and to do the best on the IB or AP exam. Very little focus is on the class as whole, only the individual student.
-Rachel Hudgens
I thought Labaree presented a point about current schooling that is often ignored. There is no doubt that the three major purposes of schooling he mentions are true and present nowadays. Having gone to a public international school, I believe Labaree might have left that kind of schooling out of his discussion. International schooling might deem to be different, therefore I believe it would be beneficent to study them as well.
ReplyDeleteSchooling has become very geared towards making the students nowadays geared to attaining status rather than actually learning. I personally experienced that in school. I remember the focus being on who gets the best grades and who is the top student rather than the focus being to make sure everything learns the material well. That saddens me because as much as it is great to have high grades and all, that really should not be the center of education. The goal should be to ensure everyone learns everything. I do not think it would be very difficult to achieve such education in schools nowadays. I understand many will say it is very difficulty, but we have to do something we cannot just stand by and ignore such changes in education.
-Mohamed Ibrahim
I agree with Labaree when he says that students who have the necessary resources will succeed while the others may be left behind. We are conformed to believe that we all will get a job and succeed when we grow up. Who says "When I grow up, I want to be a failure"? Growing up we all say that we want to become doctors, lawyers, and other cliched white collar careers. But that is a wrong perception on education and success. Statistically speaking, those who come from high-income families have a higher successful rate than those who come from low-income families. Is it because rich people are smarter than poor people? Or perhaps because rich people have access to more resources than the poor ones and IQ no longer has relation to salaries.
ReplyDeleteWe can't rely on the same education system of standardized tests to assess students. Because that is just setting the system up for failure. There are students who are poor test-takers but that doesn't mean they have a lower intelligence level than the one's who are better test-takers. A student with a higher IQ with test anxiety may not score as well a student who has a slightly lower IQ but uses all tactics that define a "good test-taker". Therefore,