Think
about our list of reasons for having public schools in light of the Labaree
article…does the list jibe with his three categories? Has he left anything out?
Any other thoughts?
The article by David Labaree was indeed interesting, and built upon our conversation of the topic "What is the purpose/aim of public schools?" To be honest, in some ways it's hard to explicitly say the specific purposes/aims of public school and to differentiate their merits apart from charter and private schools.
One of the main purposes that we came up with was that public schools are "needed to nourish democracy," which coincides with one of the alternative goals Labaree mentioned: democratic equality. Interestingly, one could argue that an abstract-ish answer like that isn't what public schools should be for, and that public schools should focus on job creation exclusively. Labaree summed up this position well when he wrote "...the citizen and the taxpayer (or employer) place value on education because they consider the content of what is learned there to be intrinsically useful "(Labaree 54). Unfortunately, people who subscribe to this idea would likely frown upon music and art classes because of their lack of concrete employment value. While the job creation position is obviously limiting, it at least infers the chance of social mobility, as long as a student is willing to work hard.
Because public schools are "owned" by the community as a whole, another good feature is the theoretical lack of religious or political dogma in the classroom. That is not something that a public or charter school necessarily has. Specific subjects, such as science, probably benefit from this the most because religious dogma may interfere with teaching subjects such as evolution or anthropogenic global warming.
I was reading the other posts and rereading my post---I wanted to double check my page reference and all of the sudden I was unable to open the article from my email. It won't let me read the article again. I hate computers haha.
David Labaree’s article, “Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational Goals,” delves into the intricacies of the American educational system, specifically honing in on the various perspectives surrounding the problems of the American school system. In reading this article I found it extremely hard to find any holes in his argument, indeed, I believe his assertion “that the central problems with American education are not pedagogical or organizational or social or cultural in nature but are fundamentally political,” is spot on. Even more, his point is well made when he contends that like most things in American history, education has systemically become defined as something that promotes equality, but hypocritically adapts inequality. To prove this point further, Labaree points to three contradictory purposes, which encompasses the entirety of his work: democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. At best, Labaree’s unblemished statement found on page forty-three gives an excellent summation when he comments, “I argue that incoherence and ineffectiveness are important consequences of this standoff among conflicting goals, which in part help explain many of the problems afflicting American schools. But I argue that the most significant problems with education today arise from the growing dominance of one goal over the other” (43).
Yet in reading this article, questions did come to mind. On page forty-five Labaree states that a second goal for schools has been the pursuit of equal treatment, and I cannot help but wonder whether this goal is even plausible. Can education ever be equal? And even if everyone received an “equal education” does that then make them equal? Also, is it just me or do we agree that the word “public” often has bad implications and there exists a stigma behind the word. Thus, as Labaree comments on page seventy-three, does viewing public education as a public good somehow make the educational system less than? I look forward to hearing what you guys think about this topic.
I definitely think there is a stigma behind the word "public" too. I think its viewed as for people who can't afford to pay for that service. Being able to tell people your children are in private school shows you have money and status in society. I think it makes people feel like they stand out.
Also I don't think education can be equal. There will always be areas of higher income that will have access to certain materials that the lower income areas will not. Plus there are such different home lives and varying parent involvement that even with equal education it still becomes unequal in the end.
I agree that, especially in the City of Richmond, public has negative connotations. However, in my mind, the word private has negative connotations in that it aligns with the social mobility approach to education. All the affluence that goes into those schools doesn't make those children better people, it just turns them into people who have money and believe they are better than those who attend public schools.
I think that education will never be equal because certain schools will always have something that another school doesn't have. Also, the communities and homes of student from different socio-economic backgrounds have varied views on the value of education and promote schoolwork outside of school in different ways. I believe that there is a need to bring the classroom into communities outside of school to attempt to lessen the gap in education in the home as well.
Labaree lists democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility as purposes for education. The class list we created seems to fit within these three categories although social mobility was not an overarching theme in our responses. I find this interesting because we grew up in a time when the American educational system was becoming increasingly competitive and the value of education seemed to be placed in what the reward will be (getting into a good school, studying in a competitive field, gaining a job that pays well, etc.). Honestly, these were some of the reasons I had for going to college.
One of the most interesting points that Labaree makes is the competing agenda of the three goals. Is there a way for all three goals to be carried out harmoniously? If not what goal should we consider the highest priority? Labaree says the dilemma of trying to maintain Jeffersonian idea of political equality without hindering the economy’s productivity has stumped generations of educational reformers (pg. 41). I wonder if there will ever be an “answer” to this problem.
Some of our justifications for public schools fit neatly into Labaree’s three categories (e.g., employment, nourishing democracy), while others did not adhere so readily to his goals (e.g., addressing social problems, necessary for innovation). In my opinion, the motivations for -and services provided by- public education might be more complex than the three categories outlined in the article.
The three “goals” in American education described by Labaree are democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. The author describes the first two as primarily concerned with the public good, while social mobility is concerned with private good or individual benefits. However there are arguments made throughout the article that indicate overlaps exist between each goal. For example, the social efficiency model promotes the production of workers to meet the needs of employers, which in a sense serves both the private and public good. Furthermore, there is an intersection between democratic equality and social mobility that is evidenced by the progressive movements of the 20th century that allowed women and minorities to effectively join the political process through education.
The author argues that the three motivations conflict with one another, undermining the overall efficiency of our educational system. Thus according to Labaree, our society must choose where our priorities lie. But I disagree. To suggest that these three motivations exist within the American educational system seems correct, but to say that we must choose a direction may be a fool’s errand. Our purpose in education should be at least three fold: producing informed voters that are employable, while also providing opportunities for social mobility. Unfortunately, for some students attending inner city schools the result of graduation may be none of the above. One can certainly graduate high school in this day and age without being an informed voter, without likelihood of gainful employment, and without prospects for social mobility.
I don't think Labaree's point is to say that as a society, we must choose one justification over the others, because that's simply not realistic. My understanding is that Labaree uses the three categories as a framework for understanding the motivations behind public education, which are actually multi-faceted and draw upon all three categories. However, in recent history, we have overemphasized social mobility to the point that it has caused many problems in education (graded hierarchies, stratification of opportunities, expanding inequalities between institutions, meritocratic schooling only for upper-middle class students).
A number of our reasons we listed in class for having public schools fall in line with Labaree's educational goals. It seems we drew more from the democratic equality model. We mentioned that education was a universal right, and that public schools allowed for equal opportunity and a space for coming together. These seem to be some of the key points for equal treatment and equal access under the domestic equality argument.
I thought the social mobility argument was interesting. Not sure if this happens but it seems a bit selfish that anyone would hone in solely on social mobility as a goal for schools. I see that goal producing some very cutthroat, rude and heartless individuals. If you are only in school to have the advantage to compete for the best jobs then where does that leave room for you to build up others and to help the community grow as a whole. It gave me the image of people just stepping on others to get to the top not caring about those at the bottom and not understanding why those at the bottom can’t get to the top too. We all want a competitive advantage but I think receiving an education is about more than that.
The list that we compiled in class absolutely aligns with Labaree’s article, however only singularly, in the case of the democratic equality approach. A few additions to our list can be debatably categorized under the social efficiency approach (i.e., necessary for innovation and skills that transfer to life). However these reasons might align with the latter, the way in which I attribute these approaches to our future students is not in the sense of social efficiency, but rather through the democratic equality approach to education. If our students are provided with an equally exceptional education, then they will go on to higher education and aid in the betterment of society, diversifying the way in which those who believe in the other two approaches to education view the white collar world. Social efficiency is an aim to prepare workers for the world of those who believe in social mobility. Social mobility is a way for the rich to become even more affluent and, if I can be honest, disgusts me. Both of these approaches to education are in existence to benefit the rich and I believe that they go hand in hand in the private realm of education.
As I read this article, I was reminded of something that Kurt said in class on Monday, which is that we have a tendency to want to categorize our reality. So, naturally, when I saw Labaree's list of three justifications for public education, I was giddy. "Yay! Someone figured it out and I can write it down in a numbered list!" But of course, reality does not fit neatly into just one of these boxes; in fact, the American education system is more likely strewn across all three justifications of democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility.
I am struck by Labaree's argument that social mobility is now the dominant justification for public education, and has been for several decades. Further, Labaree proposes that this overemphasis of social mobility is at the root of many contemporary problems in education. As much as I want to say that I want to educate for democratic equality, I cannot disentangle myself from the effects of social mobility on my own education. I have always been driven by performance: I want to go to the best schools, I want to graduate with honors, and I want to get A's. RTR is a competitive program, and I think there is some clout that comes with that. Reading this article, I'm a bit disgusted--to borrow Kendra's word--that social mobility could be the predominant justification for American education, and even more so because I recognize that it has been a driving force behind my own education, whether I want it to be or not.
I wonder, though, what would it look like for American society to recommit to the ideals of democratic equality? It seems from reading your posts that democratic equality is agreed to be a more noble pursuit than social mobility or even social efficiency, and perhaps a heavier dose of democratic equality would do a great deal to counteract any damages done by over-influence of social mobility.
The article written by Labaree explains tree alternative goals for American education systems. These goals are democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. Some of the purpose in the list we created in the class can be categorized under democratic equality such as equal opportunity, needed to nourish democracy, and socialization. It was very interesting to read this article, and as I was reading it, I was reminded of personal incidents that best describe democratic equality and social mobility.
In Korea, all parents are required to pay tuition to send their children to public middle and high schools. My parents paid school tuition, school uniform, school textbooks, transportation fee, etc while I was attending 7th grade in Korea. In fact, there are many countries in Asia and Africa that require students to pay to attend public secondary school. When I started attending 9th grade in America, I was thankful that America provides education to all students without requiring tuition or fee. There are plenty of resources for students, and students have equal access to these resources. I was so sure that democratic equality goal is deeply embedded in public schools.
However, at the same time, I witness social mobility taking place in school more and more. I believe that social mobility is more visible in suburban school district such as Northern Virginia. There are more “stratified structure’ within each schools that certain individuals are selected to be part of gifted and talented programs, Advanced Placement classes, IB programs, National Honor Society, etc. The parents and students both demand schools to provide more special programs for their own interests. During my senior year in high school, I had been accepted into Virginia Tech, but not James Madison University. I made a phone call to admissions office to ask why I had not been accepted into James Madison University. The representative looked over my information and explained that I did not take enough AP classes. He sounded as if the admissions committee made the decision based on the number of AP classes I had taken during my high school years. This incident shows that society itself is promoting social mobility to students more and more, and this is very unfortunate.
Honestly, I don’t agree with the social mobility goal. I don’t think that schools should exist to “provide students with the educational credentials to get ahead in the structure” as it states in page 50. However, I also see the merit in social mobility as it provides opportunities for students to be more challenged academically. However, I do believe that public schools should exist for public goods, not necessarily for private goods.
Kurt here...Nice to meet you all!
ReplyDeleteThe article by David Labaree was indeed interesting, and built upon our conversation of the topic "What is the purpose/aim of public schools?" To be honest, in some ways it's hard to explicitly say the specific purposes/aims of public school and to differentiate their merits apart from charter and private schools.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main purposes that we came up with was that public schools are "needed to nourish democracy," which coincides with one of the alternative goals Labaree mentioned: democratic equality. Interestingly, one could argue that an abstract-ish answer like that isn't what public schools should be for, and that public schools should focus on job creation exclusively. Labaree summed up this position well when he wrote "...the citizen and the taxpayer (or employer) place value on education because they consider the content of what is learned there to be intrinsically useful "(Labaree 54). Unfortunately, people who subscribe to this idea would likely frown upon music and art classes because of their lack of concrete employment value. While the job creation position is obviously limiting, it at least infers the chance of social mobility, as long as a student is willing to work hard.
Because public schools are "owned" by the community as a whole, another good feature is the theoretical lack of religious or political dogma in the classroom. That is not something that a public or charter school necessarily has. Specific subjects, such as science, probably benefit from this the most because religious dogma may interfere with teaching subjects such as evolution or anthropogenic global warming.
I was reading the other posts and rereading my post---I wanted to double check my page reference and all of the sudden I was unable to open the article from my email. It won't let me read the article again. I hate computers haha.
DeleteDavid Labaree’s article, “Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational Goals,” delves into the intricacies of the American educational system, specifically honing in on the various perspectives surrounding the problems of the American school system. In reading this article I found it extremely hard to find any holes in his argument, indeed, I believe his assertion “that the central problems with American education are not pedagogical or organizational or social or cultural in nature but are fundamentally political,” is spot on. Even more, his point is well made when he contends that like most things in American history, education has systemically become defined as something that promotes equality, but hypocritically adapts inequality. To prove this point further, Labaree points to three contradictory purposes, which encompasses the entirety of his work: democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. At best, Labaree’s unblemished statement found on page forty-three gives an excellent summation when he comments, “I argue that incoherence and ineffectiveness are important consequences of this standoff among conflicting goals, which in part help explain many of the problems afflicting American schools. But I argue that the most significant problems with education today arise from the growing dominance of one goal over the other” (43).
ReplyDeleteYet in reading this article, questions did come to mind. On page forty-five Labaree states that a second goal for schools has been the pursuit of equal treatment, and I cannot help but wonder whether this goal is even plausible. Can education ever be equal? And even if everyone received an “equal education” does that then make them equal? Also, is it just me or do we agree that the word “public” often has bad implications and there exists a stigma behind the word. Thus, as Labaree comments on page seventy-three, does viewing public education as a public good somehow make the educational system less than? I look forward to hearing what you guys think about this topic.
Stevara
DeleteI definitely think there is a stigma behind the word "public" too. I think its viewed as for people who can't afford to pay for that service. Being able to tell people your children are in private school shows you have money and status in society. I think it makes people feel like they stand out.
Also I don't think education can be equal. There will always be areas of higher income that will have access to certain materials that the lower income areas will not. Plus there are such different home lives and varying parent involvement that even with equal education it still becomes unequal in the end.
Kendra:
DeleteI agree that, especially in the City of Richmond, public has negative connotations. However, in my mind, the word private has negative connotations in that it aligns with the social mobility approach to education. All the affluence that goes into those schools doesn't make those children better people, it just turns them into people who have money and believe they are better than those who attend public schools.
I think that education will never be equal because certain schools will always have something that another school doesn't have. Also, the communities and homes of student from different socio-economic backgrounds have varied views on the value of education and promote schoolwork outside of school in different ways. I believe that there is a need to bring the classroom into communities outside of school to attempt to lessen the gap in education in the home as well.
Labaree lists democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility as purposes for education. The class list we created seems to fit within these three categories although social mobility was not an overarching theme in our responses. I find this interesting because we grew up in a time when the American educational system was becoming increasingly competitive and the value of education seemed to be placed in what the reward will be (getting into a good school, studying in a competitive field, gaining a job that pays well, etc.). Honestly, these were some of the reasons I had for going to college.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most interesting points that Labaree makes is the competing agenda of the three goals. Is there a way for all three goals to be carried out harmoniously? If not what goal should we consider the highest priority? Labaree says the dilemma of trying to maintain Jeffersonian idea of political equality without hindering the economy’s productivity has stumped generations of educational reformers (pg. 41). I wonder if there will ever be an “answer” to this problem.
Brendan here.
ReplyDeleteSome of our justifications for public schools fit neatly into Labaree’s three categories (e.g., employment, nourishing democracy), while others did not adhere so readily to his goals (e.g., addressing social problems, necessary for innovation). In my opinion, the motivations for -and services provided by- public education might be more complex than the three categories outlined in the article.
The three “goals” in American education described by Labaree are democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. The author describes the first two as primarily concerned with the public good, while social mobility is concerned with private good or individual benefits. However there are arguments made throughout the article that indicate overlaps exist between each goal. For example, the social efficiency model promotes the production of workers to meet the needs of employers, which in a sense serves both the private and public good. Furthermore, there is an intersection between democratic equality and social mobility that is evidenced by the progressive movements of the 20th century that allowed women and minorities to effectively join the political process through education.
The author argues that the three motivations conflict with one another, undermining the overall efficiency of our educational system. Thus according to Labaree, our society must choose where our priorities lie. But I disagree. To suggest that these three motivations exist within the American educational system seems correct, but to say that we must choose a direction may be a fool’s errand. Our purpose in education should be at least three fold: producing informed voters that are employable, while also providing opportunities for social mobility. Unfortunately, for some students attending inner city schools the result of graduation may be none of the above. One can certainly graduate high school in this day and age without being an informed voter, without likelihood of gainful employment, and without prospects for social mobility.
Brendan,
DeleteI don't think Labaree's point is to say that as a society, we must choose one justification over the others, because that's simply not realistic. My understanding is that Labaree uses the three categories as a framework for understanding the motivations behind public education, which are actually multi-faceted and draw upon all three categories. However, in recent history, we have overemphasized social mobility to the point that it has caused many problems in education (graded hierarchies, stratification of opportunities, expanding inequalities between institutions, meritocratic schooling only for upper-middle class students).
Stevara
ReplyDeleteA number of our reasons we listed in class for having public schools fall in line with Labaree's educational goals. It seems we drew more from the democratic equality model. We mentioned that education was a universal right, and that public schools allowed for equal opportunity and a space for coming together. These seem to be some of the key points for equal treatment and equal access under the domestic equality argument.
I thought the social mobility argument was interesting. Not sure if this happens but it seems a bit selfish that anyone would hone in solely on social mobility as a goal for schools. I see that goal producing some very cutthroat, rude and heartless individuals. If you are only in school to have the advantage to compete for the best jobs then where does that leave room for you to build up others and to help the community grow as a whole. It gave me the image of people just stepping on others to get to the top not caring about those at the bottom and not understanding why those at the bottom can’t get to the top too. We all want a competitive advantage but I think receiving an education is about more than that.
Kendra
ReplyDeleteThe list that we compiled in class absolutely aligns with Labaree’s article, however only singularly, in the case of the democratic equality approach. A few additions to our list can be debatably categorized under the social efficiency approach (i.e., necessary for innovation and skills that transfer to life). However these reasons might align with the latter, the way in which I attribute these approaches to our future students is not in the sense of social efficiency, but rather through the democratic equality approach to education. If our students are provided with an equally exceptional education, then they will go on to higher education and aid in the betterment of society, diversifying the way in which those who believe in the other two approaches to education view the white collar world.
Social efficiency is an aim to prepare workers for the world of those who believe in social mobility. Social mobility is a way for the rich to become even more affluent and, if I can be honest, disgusts me. Both of these approaches to education are in existence to benefit the rich and I believe that they go hand in hand in the private realm of education.
Hey guys, it's Molly.
ReplyDeleteAs I read this article, I was reminded of something that Kurt said in class on Monday, which is that we have a tendency to want to categorize our reality. So, naturally, when I saw Labaree's list of three justifications for public education, I was giddy. "Yay! Someone figured it out and I can write it down in a numbered list!" But of course, reality does not fit neatly into just one of these boxes; in fact, the American education system is more likely strewn across all three justifications of democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility.
I am struck by Labaree's argument that social mobility is now the dominant justification for public education, and has been for several decades. Further, Labaree proposes that this overemphasis of social mobility is at the root of many contemporary problems in education. As much as I want to say that I want to educate for democratic equality, I cannot disentangle myself from the effects of social mobility on my own education. I have always been driven by performance: I want to go to the best schools, I want to graduate with honors, and I want to get A's. RTR is a competitive program, and I think there is some clout that comes with that. Reading this article, I'm a bit disgusted--to borrow Kendra's word--that social mobility could be the predominant justification for American education, and even more so because I recognize that it has been a driving force behind my own education, whether I want it to be or not.
I wonder, though, what would it look like for American society to recommit to the ideals of democratic equality? It seems from reading your posts that democratic equality is agreed to be a more noble pursuit than social mobility or even social efficiency, and perhaps a heavier dose of democratic equality would do a great deal to counteract any damages done by over-influence of social mobility.
Daisy Chung
ReplyDeleteThe article written by Labaree explains tree alternative goals for American education systems. These goals are democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. Some of the purpose in the list we created in the class can be categorized under democratic equality such as equal opportunity, needed to nourish democracy, and socialization. It was very interesting to read this article, and as I was reading it, I was reminded of personal incidents that best describe democratic equality and social mobility.
In Korea, all parents are required to pay tuition to send their children to public middle and high schools. My parents paid school tuition, school uniform, school textbooks, transportation fee, etc while I was attending 7th grade in Korea. In fact, there are many countries in Asia and Africa that require students to pay to attend public secondary school. When I started attending 9th grade in America, I was thankful that America provides education to all students without requiring tuition or fee. There are plenty of resources for students, and students have equal access to these resources. I was so sure that democratic equality goal is deeply embedded in public schools.
However, at the same time, I witness social mobility taking place in school more and more. I believe that social mobility is more visible in suburban school district such as Northern Virginia. There are more “stratified structure’ within each schools that certain individuals are selected to be part of gifted and talented programs, Advanced Placement classes, IB programs, National Honor Society, etc. The parents and students both demand schools to provide more special programs for their own interests. During my senior year in high school, I had been accepted into Virginia Tech, but not James Madison University. I made a phone call to admissions office to ask why I had not been accepted into James Madison University. The representative looked over my information and explained that I did not take enough AP classes. He sounded as if the admissions committee made the decision based on the number of AP classes I had taken during my high school years. This incident shows that society itself is promoting social mobility to students more and more, and this is very unfortunate.
Honestly, I don’t agree with the social mobility goal. I don’t think that schools should exist to “provide students with the educational credentials to get ahead in the structure” as it states in page 50. However, I also see the merit in social mobility as it provides opportunities for students to be more challenged academically. However, I do believe that public schools should exist for public goods, not necessarily for private goods.