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?)?
Anise Robinson: I do not think there is much hope for push back against the idea of education as a private good. Our society is so motivated for self and we start the idea of being competitive at a very young age. When students get into schools they are constantly comparing themselves against a peer. Everyone seems to want to be better and do better than the next person because we are taught to think we will be competing with that other student. We learn we will be competing for a spot in gifted education that we will be competing to get into college, and we will be competing for spots in graduate school, and will be competing with others for jobs. We are always thinking about how to get ahead for ourselves. We all want what is best for us, our family, and we want to take care of our own needs. Because of the society we live in I don’t think there will be room for push back. America is built on the idea that we pull ourselves up by our boot straps to get where we want. There doesn’t seem to be anything about that implies we should be trying to serve the public good or that our education should serve a public interest.
I definitely agree with you Anise about our society being motivated for ourselves. It is always about “me” and what can I do to get ahead of this other person. This is exactly what they will have to face when they get out of school and have to fight for a job. It is true that in the early part of elementary school students begin learning about how to compete in many different forms. In the elementary setting this can happen in many ways, such as, competing for a role in a school play, getting into TAG/GT, being in a certain math or reading group, being the teachers’ special helper, etc. With that being said, I do not think there will be any push back against the notion of education as a private good- at least not for a while.- Alison Greci
This is so true about how are society teaches students to be competitive. Student’s were not motivated what would really motivate students to do better. If students didn't compete against each other to get in the gifted classes or the best grade in the class then why work so hard in classes. Students are taught that the American dream is built on hard work will get you far. I do feel that education is both a private and public good though. Elementary school, middle school and high school are all public goods that all students receive. If students want the better education then that is when they pay for it and go to private school. College is a private good because you have to pay for it and get accepted to it. College should be free for all students that want to go. Andrew
Anise, I completely agree with what you have said, especially the following; “Our society is so motivated for self and we start the idea of being competitive at a very young age. When students get into schools they are constantly comparing themselves against a peer.” When I read this, I immediately thought of my five year old niece who is currently in Kindergarten. She is naturally very competitive, and none of us have taught her to be this way. Whenever I visit and ask her about school, she tells me how she does better than one of her classmates in this subject, and better than another in gym class and so on. When it comes to playing games, often times she makes a big deal about winning. We have to tell her that it isn’t always about winning, and that it is ok to lose. I have no idea where she has learned this, but it is interesting to see at such a young age. To me, this shows that our society is very competitive, and children adapt this early in their lives. I don’t think it’s a bad thing, because as many have talked about in their posts, we often have to be competitive when it comes to grades, school, sports, and jobs. That is just the nature of our society, and I do not see that changing. -Stacy Anderson
Oscar “Nick” Zubieta I have to agree with Anise with the thought that there is no hope to push back against the notion of education as a private good, at least not in this country. I have lived in other countries and experienced different forms of education. I really believe that there is a higher chance for those schools to promote education as a public good. Not only is it available for everyone but it is not only for the good of one individual. Education is promoted so that everyone can benefit. This concept of private education just shows the selfish nature that some educational systems and societies have. It is sometimes sad to see how teachers give up on students who are not as competitive as other students. Since we live in such a competitive society, we constantly want to “one up” someone and even teachers notice this, sometimes pinning students against each other. This should not be the goal of education. We should strive to improve the societies in which we live, not just a selected few.
I think any of the other major purposes of schooling that I can think of, or ones that we discussed as a group on the first night of class, easily fall into the one of the categories listed by Labaree. As for his conclusion, I doubt there is any hope of a push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good. After all, what’s wrong with a little healthy/friendly competition? I would assume that, like myself, many people work harder when there is something up for grabs such as a job, a prize, or even just one’s sense of pride. I wonder how much the notion of education as a social mobility impacts performance (both the work ethic of teachers and the receptivity of students) in the public areas of democratic equality and social efficiency. If people are going into education with an “in it to win it” mindset, then wouldn’t everyone also become an even more capable citizen and more skilled worker because of that drive and hard work? I suppose the real issue here for me isn't the idea of education as a private good, but rather ensuring that the competition actually remains healthy and friendly in the pursuit of social mobility. School counselors, I think this is one of the many reasons why we need you!!!
I do not think there is any hope for the push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good. It would be ideal to teach education mostly about public goods to prepare our students to be good citizens and trained workers, but as Anise said we learn about the idea of being competitive at a very young age. Therefore the groundwork is pretty much set to teach education as a private good. Today, life is mostly about competing, whether in sports or for work. Students are being prepared to keep up with the competitions they are faced with in the real world. They need to know how to keep up with their competitors to live the life that we live now. Of course I do not think that this is for the better of our country, and I do believe as a future teacher I should also prepare my students for the public good as well. --Breck Ricca
I agree with you Breck. The emphasis we put on competition is not "healthy" in my opinion. But as you and Anise said, we are all taught that we need to compete with others in order to succeed starting at a young age. I am so un-competetive that I often loose out on things, but to me, it makes me happier. I do not want to be forced to basically fight with another person, that just isn't how I am. I want to teach my students to go for what they want in life, but i really wish there was another way to succeed. I do think that I will need to get over my fear of competition to help my students, because they will inevitably need to be competitive for something in their lives. I do get that for some people, it helps them work for and reach a goal. Our society is just so focused on themselves getting ahead, I really don't see any push-back happening. -Sarah Angles
I don't know if I totally agree with Labaree's viewpoints on the major purposes of schooling. I think that he approaches the topic from a more practical standpoint, whereas I think the purposes of school should be practical, but also more philosophical, too. I think that the purpose of a school should also be to do things like educate students not just on their country, but the world at large. I think a student should leave the education system with a broader sense of understanding about global issues and enough training and knowledge to potentially be qualified to better the world as a whole. I think Labaree's theory makes the education system seem like an assembly line that punches out ideal citizens and workers--by looking at it that way, I feel that the potential for creativity and innovation is decreased.
I agree with you Emily. I think we are very focused on one aspect of teaching and put more importance on the competition of winning throughout children's educational years. I think we are missing the bigger picture in that we need to teach our students about the world around us and how to live. Labaree just hits the surface on what education is and what it should be. There are some people who do not value education at all and see it as a waste of time. I believe times are definitely changing and hopefully education will be viewed entirely different. I think the competition aspect of education is good. I think we all need to feel that in order to push ourselves even further. I also think that we need to put our focus on more critical thinkers and have our students become more independent as students.
I agree with you Courtney about the idea that competition aspect of education is good. I think that it forces student to strive to do better and carry this sense of competition into the world where it is such a competitive market. In order to get jobs, for example, where numerous people are competing, a person has to make themselves better and seem to stand out from the rest in order to be noticed. Establishing this at a young age, I think helps students understand that they must have the desire to better themselves. Because of this, I think people focus more on how they can better themselves which would make it hard to push back against education as a private good. The value of education to some, as you said Courtney, I think determines how one uses school as a private good and that may be why it has become an increasingly private good. I do also agree with Labaree addressing the major purposes of school because it seems to be very logical, but at this day in time, to what extent is it 100% practical and being done in our schools?-Shaina Parm
I think the Labaree article does a good job of outlining the major purposes of schooling. Perhaps there could have been more emphasis on helping each student reach his/her full level of humanity as discussed by Ayers. I also really loved Emily's point that Labaree left out the goal of preparing students to be equipped with knowledge on global issues and a desire to better the world. However, I think Labaree makes some excellent points as well. I particularly agreed with his assertion: “… I argue that the central problems with American education are not pedagogical or organizational or social or cultural in nature but are fundamentally political. That is, the problem is not that we do not know how to make schools better but that we are fighting among ourselves about what goals schools should pursue. Goal setting is a political, and not a technical, problem.” (p. 40).
I think this speaks to the question of whether there is any hope to push back against the predominate notion of education as a private good. In essence, if we are to push back against this notion, then we must do so in the political arena. When I think about it in this way, I am not sure how hopeful I am. Unfortunately, teachers often have no political clout, and the prevailing attitude of our society is a private one: me, me, me; get ahead and acquire more (material things.) In my opinion, we (or majority America) sadly tend to care the most about ourselves, As Anise point out, and people of our “own group.” In our country, the people in power and their children are doing just fine. Meanwhile, our society successfully fails others. Even still, I hold out hope that those of us who want to see our educational system as a means to truly provide everyone with a rich education will be able to at least make small changes along the way toward a greater revolution. -Bernadette Hawkins
Well in a way I think Labaree has ommitted Ayers view of education as a means to humanize the individual. The Democratic Equality purpose as described by Labaree addresses the need to prepare individuals to be citizens of the Republic. The Social Efficiency purpose focuses on the vocational value and the need to prepare students for the workplace. The Social Mobility purpose focuses on students as educational consumers and the value of credentialing as a way to advance, compete and "get ahead". I see a great deal of the Social Mobility at play in our schools. Curriculum tracking, AP courses, and on the college level... honors college programs... etc.....creates stratified learning environments that are exclusionary. It's disconcerting...... I'm not sure how to push back . I think the private good notion has many influences that have contributed to the state of our current educational system. I would be hesitant lay sole blame on our capitalistic system when other styles of economies and other forms of governments offer far fewer opportunities for it's citizens..... Rhonda
I do not think we can push back against the notion of education as a private good for the reasons stated above. Our society is built around winning, losing, and competing. Is this a good thing or bad thing, well it really depends on how you look at it. I like competition because it has made me work harder for something that I really want. The problem with competition a lot of the times is the manner in which people get to where they want to be. So it does have its pros and cons. I know I said we can not push back but it would be nice. The idea of developing better citizens and have equality would be great. I like the sound of everyone getting an opportunity no matter the gender, race, or nationality. I like the fact that everyone would also be working together to build a strong community. Maybe someday we can have this kind of education but the way the system is set up now I just do not see it happening any time soon. Marshall Ramey
Kristin Walton: I think on a small scale, teachers, counselors, aides, and specialty teachers such as P.E./coaches, art teachers, etc. are the people in the trenches, with sleeves rolled up, getting down to business, forming relationships with kids, hearing their stories, and discovering how each child can apply knowledge to their individual lives. They are the people helping children learn how to apply traits/themes for the social good, such as empathy, service, and justice. On another level, at the top, the administrators, policy makers, standard-setters, these are the people who create a sense of education for the individual good, in which students and teachers are in competition with each other in areas of performance, whether they mean to create this or not. So in conclusion, I feel that our American public-education system had different realms and purposes, and on the micro-level students are able to apply knowledge for the social good and think beyond themselves. However, on a macro-level, there comes a point in time when each student see his own grades and test scores and knows how his/her education is valued against others.
I believe Labaree outlined most of the general purposes for education, but I think there may be one more: the notion of education as developing students to become life-long learners. This may fall under the category of social mobility, but I am not really sure. As far as hope for any push back, I would have to agree with most of the other posts I read. Our society and culture is so me-oriented that most people look at education and figure out what they can get out of it. Unfortunately, this often times includes some of the key players such as administrators and teachers. I certainly hope that there will be hope for change in education, but I know that t will involve the concerted effort of many to accomplish this goal. -Michelle Blowers
Michelle I agree with you on the first part, I think the whole notion Labaree's article misses the true point of schooling, for students to be critical thinkers. If we make education student based and not 'what we want for society' then we will develop well rounded citizens that will be able to make choices for their own future. I believe that we are in the middle of pushing back against education as a private good. The school system is has always been designed to press out a factor style results for our society. Even today, the buzz word of 21st century learner is another product of the system that will produce 21st century factory workers. However the education system is being rocked at it's core because of advancements in communication and that sets us into the best period of push back against the private goods theory. In chapter four of Ayers book he says how all leaders want citizens who comply with the government. But notice today we have an ugly (for better) political debate because so many people have been educated in understanding the premise of a democratic society and are using the information to better the world. If we continue to educate for the betterment of the child then all of society will become stronger because we will be making life long learners instead of factor workers. John Portelle
I think that Michelle also has a good point. Our education system is very "me-oriented," which has attributed to a society where competition and inequality are normal. Perhaps wanting students to become life-long learners is more of a philosophy of education (I'm not sure); however, it is a goal that would strengthen our children to make meaningful contributions to society and like Emily and Melanie said, it would be good for the good of humanity as a whole. It should be that we focus our attentions on students as learners and not as factory products or competitors. I am not sure if there is hope for the underlying principles of the prevailing notion of education to go away--I do see that in many ways, there has been progress made to move more towards the other two goals of education that Labaree discussed. Although there seems to be progress, it is slow and perhaps does not actually address the deeper ideas behind social mobility--perhaps it will not go away, but the hope is that there could be alternative values and goals to go up against it more plainly. -Amanda Lee
Melanie Woods: I think that perhaps Michelle and John have hit upon the answer for just how some of the competing goals of education may be reconciled to one another. I think that our education should be both for public and private good; that our goal should be both to better our world and to offer personal enrichment to our students. However, Larabee's described goals for education are too narrow. As Emily said, our eye to the public good should be not only for the good of our own democratic society, but also for the good of humanity as a whole. Similarly, our focus on the private good should not be on equipping students to make more money, but on equipping students (as Michelle and John said) to learn on their own, to be enriched with knowledge for both their own sakes (because personal enrichment is valuable) and for the sakes of others. Likewise, preparing students for the workplace is both practical and good for society, but shouldn't we be exposing them first to the possibilities, and then letting them decide on the vocation that they themselves feel is a good fit? This too can have both a public and private goal. So, I don't agree with Larabee that having both public and private goals necessarily sets us up for failure. That having been said, I do think this dog eat dog competitive society that we live in poses obstacles to these goals. How can we teach children to live for the good of others when they are surrounded by examples of how they should be living for themselves? It is not private good as I would define it,but private pursuit of wealth that has caused this tension. The social mobility goal is supposedly one that promotes equal access, but unless the quality of public schools becomes uniform and higher education is offered to all, there is no real equality of access. Even those of us that want to promote the public good over the pursuit of wealth find ourselves making decisions that are not in keeping with our own philosophies. We believe that all children have the right to an equal education, but when it comes to our own children, we frequently make decisions about our living locations based on the reputation of the area schools. We say that we want all students to have the same opportunities, but since we know that things are not equal, we tend to perpetuate the circumstances by making sure, as Anise said, that our own families get what is best for them.
I don't agree with Labaree that we have to push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good, mainly because I do not view his three goals of education as incompatible. At my high school, for example, students could seek early credentials in areas like nursing or mechanical work, but students who did so did not miss out on classes like government or English that push towards democratic equality, for example. They still knew the importance of a high school diploma, so they took and passed the core classes, but instead of taking band, newspaper, or advanced gym as electives, which aren't exactly designed with the goals of democratic equality or social efficiency in the first place, they chose classes that would provide clear help in the job market.
Fields like nursing and mechanics are not going to shrink in size any time in the near future, and students who took advantage of those programs at my high school live much better financially than most people I know who went to college, including me, and because of the rest of their schooling, they are no less full members of our society in terms of how they can interact in or contribute to it.
I think Labaree covered three excellent purposes of schooling, however he left out one in my opinion. He left out the notion that education humanizes an individual. I feel all of his purposes were for the greater good of society. None of the purposes focused on the gains the individual would have and how they could grow. Instead, all focus was put on how that individual can learn in order to better society. I do not think there is hope for push back against education being a private good. Like other classmates have said, our society is far too competitive for this to happen. For example, this week we started gifted testing at the elementary school I am interning at. The grade level we started with is second grade. SECOND Grade for gifted testing! The idea of testing second graders to be "gifted" is insane. The school is not testing the students because the students WANT to be tested. Every student sitting in our room this morning taking the test complained about how long it was, how many more questions, when are we going to be done. If we were to ask for the student's permission to test them I would guarantee at least half would say no. Hey Johnny, want to come sit in a room for three hours and take a long test? Probably not. So why then do we do it? Because the parents want it. The parents want to say they have a "gifted" student. With parents pushing for their child to be the best at such a young age, it's hard for children to not be competitive. As long as society (parents) keep pushing for competition between the children I do not believe there will ever be hope that education will be viewed as a way to help the public. -Tiffany Morris
Troy This topic goes along with a lot about what we talked about last class when we discussed the difference between educating students to be well rounded citizens or teach them the business like traits of America. We can help students become smart and caring individuals or teach them the "all about me" strategy that has proven to work by certain individuals. America in my opinion is all about competition whether its sports, movies, technology, music, and the driving force behind it seems to be money. I do not think education is a private good until college because of tuition and the competiveness of getting in. It seems to me as if the school systems are based on providing a free education until students graduate or turn 18, but when the time for the next step comes, students aren't provided with free education and must have some sort of drive to get into various colleges. Most of the time this college is recommended because of the studies that show the increased pay for college graduates. So we provide a public good to students most of their lives and when its time for college its a go or get a job for the rest of your life scenario which doesn't seem fair.
I think that one of the main purposes of schooling that Labaree left out was to teach children how to be tolerant of different opinions and perspectives. Although I agree with him that a democratic equality society is a valuable goal of school, I feel like we first need to deal with the way students view themselves and each other. In my opinion main purpose of school is to teach us how to deal with situation internally and externally. That is both and public and private good if done correctly.
In our society, because it is so competitive, education will always be looked at a private good. But because more people of striving to reach with private good, the results of it are in many times for the betterment of the public as a whole.
I agree with Anise and several others who wrote about how competitive children and adults are, and therefore it has creeped into our schools. But, I also believe that we are hard-wired for competition, or you could think of it as in our DNA. Our initial ancestors (I’m talking about the beginning of homo sapiens) had to be competitive or else they would die. It may not be that cut and dry now, but to a certain extent there are still people and children who need to be competitive in order to survive in our society. Having said that, I also agree with many of the posts that discussed the unhealthy competition in our schools and society and that it becomes more about “me and how much better I am than you”, and less about “me to the point of surviving and then let’s think about everyone else”. I would like to be an optimist and think that we can push back against the idea of education as a private good. In our society where we are seeing more wealth with less people, and more poverty with more people, I think there are many people who believe we have taken the individualism aspect too far and it is not really helping us in the long run. So, perhaps we may see a shift in the pendulum where the thinking turns to education as more of a public good.-Caren
Holly Sin: Although Labaree’s article has highlighted different school of thoughts and expectations on schooling; however, I agree with Michelle on helping students to become life-long learners and with John on critical thinkers as some of the missing purposes from the article. I think there is hope to push back education as a private good because Labaree, some of us and other people recognize the many problems of transforming education into a consumer commodity. As cliché as it may sound, being aware of a problem is the first step toward a solution. It’s not going to be easy to find a balance between private and public good but it is something that can be changed and done. We are part of our society and we have a choice to make things better. We may not see the change that we want in our lifetime, as Ayer said, but it is still important to work toward the change for the betterment of our society and future generation.
We live in a society that preaches its values of consumerism - the more you get the better you are. The ads on TV and on street corners scream it everyday. Whoever has the nicest car is envied the most, gets the most beautiful women, gets more respect in the workplace. "More than our neighbor" is what our society tells us we want. While this isn't directly related to Labaree's views on the purposes of school and the implied friction it creates, it shows that our society is rooted in competition between its fellow citizens. It is not the goal of schools to become a private good, it is what society requires of it. While, as educators, we might have this vision of our jobs creating a better and brighter future for our children and our country, we must realize that those whom we teach are constantly bombarded with the idea that it is a top priority to be better than their neighbor, their coworkers, their peers.
The friction this creates cannot be a surprise; the goal of creating a better and stronger society becomes frustrated when its citizens are focussed on becoming "better" than each other. The way education is viewed through that lens is a way to get a step ahead. The grades are what set students apart and what help students get into better colleges to get better jobs. It's these grades and the desire to be better that overpower a purer purpose of education.
This is not to say that there is no hope for a push back against this idea that education must be a private good. It is simply to say that there is a deeper problem that must be addressed. Perhaps our schools could even be the place to start.
I really like your point about trying to create a stronger society and how difficult that is when the members of the society are simultaneously trying to get ahead of each other. It reminds me of coaches talking about it everyone is trying to get the most goals for themselves, the team will suffer. The recognition that schools serve public interest is important. Though they obviously serve private interests as well, there is no doubt that the largest beneficiary of public education is the public itself.
I like your conclusion. I think that schools are the perfect place to work for change. Our system in schools is one of competition. The SATs, IQ tests, and many entrance exams are norm referenced. You don't have to get everything right, you just have to do better than the other guy. It's a weird system. Let's all join hands, hug for a bit, and work together! But seriously, let's change the way schools work and see what happens.
Labaree makes a good case for his three primary goals of education, and their fairly incompatible nature. The thing that stood out to me as perhaps missing, though probably just not explicitly stated, is the purpose of schools for committing students to education. Labaree states that “Equal access has come to mean that every American should have an equal opportunity to acquire an education at any educational level”. (p. 46) Most likely within this realm of purpose is the idea that children need to learn how to learn. Young students are taught ways in which they can meet their educational needs, and figure out their own goals. Education teaches students how wide their academic interests can span. It helps students realize their interests and gives them the tools to pursue them. I think this is one of the most important goals of education, and I think Labaree would probably include it in the realm of Democratic Equality.
It is odd to me that the predominant notion exists that education is mostly a private good. I have never personally challenged the idea myself, mostly because I have never really thought about it. Though education is obviously beneficial to those receiving the education, it is also publicly necessary that people fill the roles that education provides. We need police officers that are trained in defense and justice. We need people who are trained in food and environmental safety. The list is almost endless. Without education to these individuals, the public would suffer.
I don’t think pushing against this notion is impossible, but it will be a challenge. There is a certain, almost communistic, ring to “education for individuals for the public good.” People are scared of that sort of thing. There is a dominant mindset that that which we do for ourselves should be exclusively to our benefit. If I work hard, it should be for me. However, if everyone took the time to think about it thoroughly, the public benefit of education is clear.
I also think that Labree has done a good job of defining the prevailing attitudes towards education and I'm torn as to whether there is any hope to push back "against the predominant notion of education as private good." My inner idealist says that of course there is hope. You don't need reasons for hope, or else it wouldn't be hope.
That being said, current American outlooks and attitudes makes this particular hope a narrow one. I took a class in global ethics and world religions last semester and many students rattled off long rants about the selfishness of America. I had to wonder though: why is this surprising? Have we ever been any different? Has anybody? If self-interest is necessarily immoral, or is the problem that we are simply self-interested to immoral extremes?
This has been a common debate in American politics lately- is this a place where it's everyone for themselves, a true dog eat dog world? Or do we hold onto the liberal democratic tradition, do we have faith in and care for our fellow citizens? I am very proud to have a president that espouses populism and mutual responsibility, but am terrified of the foaming-at-the-mouth insistence that it's every man for himself, period, the end. I hold hope, because the alternative is much too depressing, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for education to be anything greater in scope than a private commodity, just like everything else is.
Anise Robinson: I do not think there is much hope for push back against the idea of education as a private good. Our society is so motivated for self and we start the idea of being competitive at a very young age. When students get into schools they are constantly comparing themselves against a peer. Everyone seems to want to be better and do better than the next person because we are taught to think we will be competing with that other student. We learn we will be competing for a spot in gifted education that we will be competing to get into college, and we will be competing for spots in graduate school, and will be competing with others for jobs. We are always thinking about how to get ahead for ourselves. We all want what is best for us, our family, and we want to take care of our own needs. Because of the society we live in I don’t think there will be room for push back. America is built on the idea that we pull ourselves up by our boot straps to get where we want. There doesn’t seem to be anything about that implies we should be trying to serve the public good or that our education should serve a public interest.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you Anise about our society being motivated for ourselves. It is always about “me” and what can I do to get ahead of this other person. This is exactly what they will have to face when they get out of school and have to fight for a job. It is true that in the early part of elementary school students begin learning about how to compete in many different forms. In the elementary setting this can happen in many ways, such as, competing for a role in a school play, getting into TAG/GT, being in a certain math or reading group, being the teachers’ special helper, etc. With that being said, I do not think there will be any push back against the notion of education as a private good- at least not for a while.- Alison Greci
DeleteThis is so true about how are society teaches students to be competitive. Student’s were not motivated what would really motivate students to do better. If students didn't compete against each other to get in the gifted classes or the best grade in the class then why work so hard in classes. Students are taught that the American dream is built on hard work will get you far. I do feel that education is both a private and public good though. Elementary school, middle school and high school are all public goods that all students receive. If students want the better education then that is when they pay for it and go to private school. College is a private good because you have to pay for it and get accepted to it. College should be free for all students that want to go. Andrew
DeleteAnise, I completely agree with what you have said, especially the following; “Our society is so motivated for self and we start the idea of being competitive at a very young age. When students get into schools they are constantly comparing themselves against a peer.” When I read this, I immediately thought of my five year old niece who is currently in Kindergarten. She is naturally very competitive, and none of us have taught her to be this way. Whenever I visit and ask her about school, she tells me how she does better than one of her classmates in this subject, and better than another in gym class and so on. When it comes to playing games, often times she makes a big deal about winning. We have to tell her that it isn’t always about winning, and that it is ok to lose. I have no idea where she has learned this, but it is interesting to see at such a young age. To me, this shows that our society is very competitive, and children adapt this early in their lives. I don’t think it’s a bad thing, because as many have talked about in their posts, we often have to be competitive when it comes to grades, school, sports, and jobs. That is just the nature of our society, and I do not see that changing.
Delete-Stacy Anderson
Oscar “Nick” Zubieta
DeleteI have to agree with Anise with the thought that there is no hope to push back against the notion of education as a private good, at least not in this country. I have lived in other countries and experienced different forms of education. I really believe that there is a higher chance for those schools to promote education as a public good. Not only is it available for everyone but it is not only for the good of one individual. Education is promoted so that everyone can benefit. This concept of private education just shows the selfish nature that some educational systems and societies have. It is sometimes sad to see how teachers give up on students who are not as competitive as other students. Since we live in such a competitive society, we constantly want to “one up” someone and even teachers notice this, sometimes pinning students against each other. This should not be the goal of education. We should strive to improve the societies in which we live, not just a selected few.
I think any of the other major purposes of schooling that I can think of, or ones that we discussed as a group on the first night of class, easily fall into the one of the categories listed by Labaree. As for his conclusion, I doubt there is any hope of a push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good. After all, what’s wrong with a little healthy/friendly competition? I would assume that, like myself, many people work harder when there is something up for grabs such as a job, a prize, or even just one’s sense of pride. I wonder how much the notion of education as a social mobility impacts performance (both the work ethic of teachers and the receptivity of students) in the public areas of democratic equality and social efficiency. If people are going into education with an “in it to win it” mindset, then wouldn’t everyone also become an even more capable citizen and more skilled worker because of that drive and hard work? I suppose the real issue here for me isn't the idea of education as a private good, but rather ensuring that the competition actually remains healthy and friendly in the pursuit of social mobility. School counselors, I think this is one of the many reasons why we need you!!!
ReplyDelete- Amanda Hayes
I do not think there is any hope for the push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good. It would be ideal to teach education mostly about public goods to prepare our students to be good citizens and trained workers, but as Anise said we learn about the idea of being competitive at a very young age. Therefore the groundwork is pretty much set to teach education as a private good. Today, life is mostly about competing, whether in sports or for work. Students are being prepared to keep up with the competitions they are faced with in the real world. They need to know how to keep up with their competitors to live the life that we live now. Of course I do not think that this is for the better of our country, and I do believe as a future teacher I should also prepare my students for the public good as well.
ReplyDelete--Breck Ricca
I agree with you Breck. The emphasis we put on competition is not "healthy" in my opinion. But as you and Anise said, we are all taught that we need to compete with others in order to succeed starting at a young age. I am so un-competetive that I often loose out on things, but to me, it makes me happier. I do not want to be forced to basically fight with another person, that just isn't how I am. I want to teach my students to go for what they want in life, but i really wish there was another way to succeed. I do think that I will need to get over my fear of competition to help my students, because they will inevitably need to be competitive for something in their lives. I do get that for some people, it helps them work for and reach a goal. Our society is just so focused on themselves getting ahead, I really don't see any push-back happening.
Delete-Sarah Angles
I don't know if I totally agree with Labaree's viewpoints on the major purposes of schooling. I think that he approaches the topic from a more practical standpoint, whereas I think the purposes of school should be practical, but also more philosophical, too. I think that the purpose of a school should also be to do things like educate students not just on their country, but the world at large. I think a student should leave the education system with a broader sense of understanding about global issues and enough training and knowledge to potentially be qualified to better the world as a whole. I think Labaree's theory makes the education system seem like an assembly line that punches out ideal citizens and workers--by looking at it that way, I feel that the potential for creativity and innovation is decreased.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Emily. I think we are very focused on one aspect of teaching and put more importance on the competition of winning throughout children's educational years. I think we are missing the bigger picture in that we need to teach our students about the world around us and how to live. Labaree just hits the surface on what education is and what it should be. There are some people who do not value education at all and see it as a waste of time. I believe times are definitely changing and hopefully education will be viewed entirely different. I think the competition aspect of education is good. I think we all need to feel that in order to push ourselves even further. I also think that we need to put our focus on more critical thinkers and have our students become more independent as students.
DeleteI agree with you Courtney about the idea that competition aspect of education is good. I think that it forces student to strive to do better and carry this sense of competition into the world where it is such a competitive market. In order to get jobs, for example, where numerous people are competing, a person has to make themselves better and seem to stand out from the rest in order to be noticed. Establishing this at a young age, I think helps students understand that they must have the desire to better themselves. Because of this, I think people focus more on how they can better themselves which would make it hard to push back against education as a private good. The value of education to some, as you said Courtney, I think determines how one uses school as a private good and that may be why it has become an increasingly private good. I do also agree with Labaree addressing the major purposes of school because it seems to be very logical, but at this day in time, to what extent is it 100% practical and being done in our schools?-Shaina Parm
DeleteI think the Labaree article does a good job of outlining the major purposes of schooling. Perhaps there could have been more emphasis on helping each student reach his/her full level of humanity as discussed by Ayers. I also really loved Emily's point that Labaree left out the goal of preparing students to be equipped with knowledge on global issues and a desire to better the world. However, I think Labaree makes some excellent points as well. I particularly agreed with his assertion: “… I argue that the central problems with American education are not pedagogical or organizational or social or cultural in nature but are fundamentally political. That is, the problem is not that we do not know how to make schools better but that we are fighting among ourselves about what goals schools should pursue. Goal setting is a political, and not a technical, problem.” (p. 40).
ReplyDeleteI think this speaks to the question of whether there is any hope to push back against the predominate notion of education as a private good. In essence, if we are to push back against this notion, then we must do so in the political arena. When I think about it in this way, I am not sure how hopeful I am. Unfortunately, teachers often have no political clout, and the prevailing attitude of our society is a private one: me, me, me; get ahead and acquire more (material things.) In my opinion, we (or majority America) sadly tend to care the most about ourselves, As Anise point out, and people of our “own group.” In our country, the people in power and their children are doing just fine. Meanwhile, our society successfully fails others. Even still, I hold out hope that those of us who want to see our educational system as a means to truly provide everyone with a rich education will be able to at least make small changes along the way toward a greater revolution.
-Bernadette Hawkins
Well in a way I think Labaree has ommitted Ayers view of education as a means to humanize the individual. The Democratic Equality purpose as described by Labaree addresses the need to prepare individuals to be citizens of the Republic. The Social Efficiency purpose focuses on the vocational value and the need to prepare students for the workplace. The Social Mobility purpose focuses on students as educational consumers and the value of credentialing as a way to advance, compete and "get ahead".
ReplyDeleteI see a great deal of the Social Mobility at play in our schools. Curriculum tracking, AP courses, and on the college level... honors college programs... etc.....creates stratified learning environments that are exclusionary. It's disconcerting...... I'm not sure how to push back . I think the private good notion has many influences that have contributed to the state of our current educational system. I would be hesitant lay sole blame on our capitalistic system when other styles of economies and other forms of governments offer far fewer opportunities for it's citizens..... Rhonda
I do not think we can push back against the notion of education as a private good for the reasons stated above. Our society is built around winning, losing, and competing. Is this a good thing or bad thing, well it really depends on how you look at it. I like competition because it has made me work harder for something that I really want. The problem with competition a lot of the times is the manner in which people get to where they want to be. So it does have its pros and cons. I know I said we can not push back but it would be nice. The idea of developing better citizens and have equality would be great. I like the sound of everyone getting an opportunity no matter the gender, race, or nationality. I like the fact that everyone would also be working together to build a strong community. Maybe someday we can have this kind of education but the way the system is set up now I just do not see it happening any time soon.
ReplyDeleteMarshall Ramey
Kristin Walton: I think on a small scale, teachers, counselors, aides, and specialty teachers such as P.E./coaches, art teachers, etc. are the people in the trenches, with sleeves rolled up, getting down to business, forming relationships with kids, hearing their stories, and discovering how each child can apply knowledge to their individual lives. They are the people helping children learn how to apply traits/themes for the social good, such as empathy, service, and justice. On another level, at the top, the administrators, policy makers, standard-setters, these are the people who create a sense of education for the individual good, in which students and teachers are in competition with each other in areas of performance, whether they mean to create this or not. So in conclusion, I feel that our American public-education system had different realms and purposes, and on the micro-level students are able to apply knowledge for the social good and think beyond themselves. However, on a macro-level, there comes a point in time when each student see his own grades and test scores and knows how his/her education is valued against others.
ReplyDeleteI believe Labaree outlined most of the general purposes for education, but I think there may be one more: the notion of education as developing students to become life-long learners. This may fall under the category of social mobility, but I am not really sure. As far as hope for any push back, I would have to agree with most of the other posts I read. Our society and culture is so me-oriented that most people look at education and figure out what they can get out of it. Unfortunately, this often times includes some of the key players such as administrators and teachers. I certainly hope that there will be hope for change in education, but I know that t will involve the concerted effort of many to accomplish this goal.
ReplyDelete-Michelle Blowers
Michelle I agree with you on the first part, I think the whole notion Labaree's article misses the true point of schooling, for students to be critical thinkers. If we make education student based and not 'what we want for society' then we will develop well rounded citizens that will be able to make choices for their own future. I believe that we are in the middle of pushing back against education as a private good. The school system is has always been designed to press out a factor style results for our society. Even today, the buzz word of 21st century learner is another product of the system that will produce 21st century factory workers. However the education system is being rocked at it's core because of advancements in communication and that sets us into the best period of push back against the private goods theory. In chapter four of Ayers book he says how all leaders want citizens who comply with the government. But notice today we have an ugly (for better) political debate because so many people have been educated in understanding the premise of a democratic society and are using the information to better the world. If we continue to educate for the betterment of the child then all of society will become stronger because we will be making life long learners instead of factor workers.
DeleteJohn Portelle
I think that Michelle also has a good point. Our education system is very "me-oriented," which has attributed to a society where competition and inequality are normal. Perhaps wanting students to become life-long learners is more of a philosophy of education (I'm not sure); however, it is a goal that would strengthen our children to make meaningful contributions to society and like Emily and Melanie said, it would be good for the good of humanity as a whole. It should be that we focus our attentions on students as learners and not as factory products or competitors.
DeleteI am not sure if there is hope for the underlying principles of the prevailing notion of education to go away--I do see that in many ways, there has been progress made to move more towards the other two goals of education that Labaree discussed. Although there seems to be progress, it is slow and perhaps does not actually address the deeper ideas behind social mobility--perhaps it will not go away, but the hope is that there could be alternative values and goals to go up against it more plainly.
-Amanda Lee
Melanie Woods:
ReplyDeleteI think that perhaps Michelle and John have hit upon the answer for just how some of the competing goals of education may be reconciled to one another. I think that our education should be both for public and private good; that our goal should be both to better our world and to offer personal enrichment to our students. However, Larabee's described goals for education are too narrow. As Emily said, our eye to the public good should be not only for the good of our own democratic society, but also for the good of humanity as a whole. Similarly, our focus on the private good should not be on equipping students to make more money, but on equipping students (as Michelle and John said) to learn on their own, to be enriched with knowledge for both their own sakes (because personal enrichment is valuable) and for the sakes of others. Likewise, preparing students for the workplace is both practical and good for society, but shouldn't we be exposing them first to the possibilities, and then letting them decide on the vocation that they themselves feel is a good fit? This too can have both a public and private goal. So, I don't agree with Larabee that having both public and private goals necessarily sets us up for failure. That having been said, I do think this dog eat dog competitive society that we live in poses obstacles to these goals. How can we teach children to live for the good of others when they are surrounded by examples of how they should be living for themselves? It is not private good as I would define it,but private pursuit of wealth that has caused this tension. The social mobility goal is supposedly one that promotes equal access, but unless the quality of public schools becomes uniform and higher education is offered to all, there is no real equality of access. Even those of us that want to promote the public good over the pursuit of wealth find ourselves making decisions that are not in keeping with our own philosophies. We believe that all children have the right to an equal education, but when it comes to our own children, we frequently make decisions about our living locations based on the reputation of the area schools. We say that we want all students to have the same opportunities, but since we know that things are not equal, we tend to perpetuate the circumstances by making sure, as Anise said, that our own families get what is best for them.
I don't agree with Labaree that we have to push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good, mainly because I do not view his three goals of education as incompatible. At my high school, for example, students could seek early credentials in areas like nursing or mechanical work, but students who did so did not miss out on classes like government or English that push towards democratic equality, for example. They still knew the importance of a high school diploma, so they took and passed the core classes, but instead of taking band, newspaper, or advanced gym as electives, which aren't exactly designed with the goals of democratic equality or social efficiency in the first place, they chose classes that would provide clear help in the job market.
ReplyDeleteFields like nursing and mechanics are not going to shrink in size any time in the near future, and students who took advantage of those programs at my high school live much better financially than most people I know who went to college, including me, and because of the rest of their schooling, they are no less full members of our society in terms of how they can interact in or contribute to it.
I think Labaree covered three excellent purposes of schooling, however he left out one in my opinion. He left out the notion that education humanizes an individual. I feel all of his purposes were for the greater good of society. None of the purposes focused on the gains the individual would have and how they could grow. Instead, all focus was put on how that individual can learn in order to better society.
ReplyDeleteI do not think there is hope for push back against education being a private good. Like other classmates have said, our society is far too competitive for this to happen. For example, this week we started gifted testing at the elementary school I am interning at. The grade level we started with is second grade. SECOND Grade for gifted testing! The idea of testing second graders to be "gifted" is insane. The school is not testing the students because the students WANT to be tested. Every student sitting in our room this morning taking the test complained about how long it was, how many more questions, when are we going to be done. If we were to ask for the student's permission to test them I would guarantee at least half would say no. Hey Johnny, want to come sit in a room for three hours and take a long test? Probably not. So why then do we do it? Because the parents want it. The parents want to say they have a "gifted" student. With parents pushing for their child to be the best at such a young age, it's hard for children to not be competitive. As long as society (parents) keep pushing for competition between the children I do not believe there will ever be hope that education will be viewed as a way to help the public.
-Tiffany Morris
Troy
ReplyDeleteThis topic goes along with a lot about what we talked about last class when we discussed the difference between educating students to be well rounded citizens or teach them the business like traits of America. We can help students become smart and caring individuals or teach them the "all about me" strategy that has proven to work by certain individuals. America in my opinion is all about competition whether its sports, movies, technology, music, and the driving force behind it seems to be money. I do not think education is a private good until college because of tuition and the competiveness of getting in. It seems to me as if the school systems are based on providing a free education until students graduate or turn 18, but when the time for the next step comes, students aren't provided with free education and must have some sort of drive to get into various colleges. Most of the time this college is recommended because of the studies that show the increased pay for college graduates. So we provide a public good to students most of their lives and when its time for college its a go or get a job for the rest of your life scenario which doesn't seem fair.
Shiquana:
ReplyDeleteI think that one of the main purposes of schooling that Labaree left out was to teach children how to be tolerant of different opinions and perspectives. Although I agree with him that a democratic equality society is a valuable goal of school, I feel like we first need to deal with the way students view themselves and each other. In my opinion main purpose of school is to teach us how to deal with situation internally and externally. That is both and public and private good if done correctly.
In our society, because it is so competitive, education will always be looked at a private good. But because more people of striving to reach with private good, the results of it are in many times for the betterment of the public as a whole.
I agree with Anise and several others who wrote about how competitive children and adults are, and therefore it has creeped into our schools. But, I also believe that we are hard-wired for competition, or you could think of it as in our DNA. Our initial ancestors (I’m talking about the beginning of homo sapiens) had to be competitive or else they would die. It may not be that cut and dry now, but to a certain extent there are still people and children who need to be competitive in order to survive in our society. Having said that, I also agree with many of the posts that discussed the unhealthy competition in our schools and society and that it becomes more about “me and how much better I am than you”, and less about “me to the point of surviving and then let’s think about everyone else”. I would like to be an optimist and think that we can push back against the idea of education as a private good. In our society where we are seeing more wealth with less people, and more poverty with more people, I think there are many people who believe we have taken the individualism aspect too far and it is not really helping us in the long run. So, perhaps we may see a shift in the pendulum where the thinking turns to education as more of a public good.-Caren
ReplyDeleteHolly Sin: Although Labaree’s article has highlighted different school of thoughts and expectations on schooling; however, I agree with Michelle on helping students to become life-long learners and with John on critical thinkers as some of the missing purposes from the article. I think there is hope to push back education as a private good because Labaree, some of us and other people recognize the many problems of transforming education into a consumer commodity. As cliché as it may sound, being aware of a problem is the first step toward a solution. It’s not going to be easy to find a balance between private and public good but it is something that can be changed and done. We are part of our society and we have a choice to make things better. We may not see the change that we want in our lifetime, as Ayer said, but it is still important to work toward the change for the betterment of our society and future generation.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a society that preaches its values of consumerism - the more you get the better you are. The ads on TV and on street corners scream it everyday. Whoever has the nicest car is envied the most, gets the most beautiful women, gets more respect in the workplace. "More than our neighbor" is what our society tells us we want. While this isn't directly related to Labaree's views on the purposes of school and the implied friction it creates, it shows that our society is rooted in competition between its fellow citizens. It is not the goal of schools to become a private good, it is what society requires of it. While, as educators, we might have this vision of our jobs creating a better and brighter future for our children and our country, we must realize that those whom we teach are constantly bombarded with the idea that it is a top priority to be better than their neighbor, their coworkers, their peers.
ReplyDeleteThe friction this creates cannot be a surprise; the goal of creating a better and stronger society becomes frustrated when its citizens are focussed on becoming "better" than each other. The way education is viewed through that lens is a way to get a step ahead. The grades are what set students apart and what help students get into better colleges to get better jobs. It's these grades and the desire to be better that overpower a purer purpose of education.
This is not to say that there is no hope for a push back against this idea that education must be a private good. It is simply to say that there is a deeper problem that must be addressed. Perhaps our schools could even be the place to start.
I really like your point about trying to create a stronger society and how difficult that is when the members of the society are simultaneously trying to get ahead of each other. It reminds me of coaches talking about it everyone is trying to get the most goals for themselves, the team will suffer. The recognition that schools serve public interest is important. Though they obviously serve private interests as well, there is no doubt that the largest beneficiary of public education is the public itself.
DeleteI like your conclusion. I think that schools are the perfect place to work for change. Our system in schools is one of competition. The SATs, IQ tests, and many entrance exams are norm referenced. You don't have to get everything right, you just have to do better than the other guy. It's a weird system. Let's all join hands, hug for a bit, and work together! But seriously, let's change the way schools work and see what happens.
Labaree makes a good case for his three primary goals of education, and their fairly incompatible nature. The thing that stood out to me as perhaps missing, though probably just not explicitly stated, is the purpose of schools for committing students to education. Labaree states that “Equal access has come to mean that every American should have an equal opportunity to acquire an education at any educational level”. (p. 46) Most likely within this realm of purpose is the idea that children need to learn how to learn. Young students are taught ways in which they can meet their educational needs, and figure out their own goals. Education teaches students how wide their academic interests can span. It helps students realize their interests and gives them the tools to pursue them. I think this is one of the most important goals of education, and I think Labaree would probably include it in the realm of Democratic Equality.
ReplyDeleteIt is odd to me that the predominant notion exists that education is mostly a private good. I have never personally challenged the idea myself, mostly because I have never really thought about it. Though education is obviously beneficial to those receiving the education, it is also publicly necessary that people fill the roles that education provides. We need police officers that are trained in defense and justice. We need people who are trained in food and environmental safety. The list is almost endless. Without education to these individuals, the public would suffer.
I don’t think pushing against this notion is impossible, but it will be a challenge. There is a certain, almost communistic, ring to “education for individuals for the public good.” People are scared of that sort of thing. There is a dominant mindset that that which we do for ourselves should be exclusively to our benefit. If I work hard, it should be for me. However, if everyone took the time to think about it thoroughly, the public benefit of education is clear.
I also think that Labree has done a good job of defining the prevailing attitudes towards education and I'm torn as to whether there is any hope to push back "against the predominant notion of education as private good." My inner idealist says that of course there is hope. You don't need reasons for hope, or else it wouldn't be hope.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, current American outlooks and attitudes makes this particular hope a narrow one. I took a class in global ethics and world religions last semester and many students rattled off long rants about the selfishness of America. I had to wonder though: why is this surprising? Have we ever been any different? Has anybody? If self-interest is necessarily immoral, or is the problem that we are simply self-interested to immoral extremes?
This has been a common debate in American politics lately- is this a place where it's everyone for themselves, a true dog eat dog world? Or do we hold onto the liberal democratic tradition, do we have faith in and care for our fellow citizens? I am very proud to have a president that espouses populism and mutual responsibility, but am terrified of the foaming-at-the-mouth insistence that it's every man for himself, period, the end. I hold hope, because the alternative is much too depressing, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for education to be anything greater in scope than a private commodity, just like everything else is.
-Nathaniel Dominy