January 24...Labaree’s Competing Purposes of Schools
Are there any major purposes of schooling left out by Labaree? What do you make of his conclusion (Is there any hope to push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good?)?
Labaree raises some very interesting points on the purposes of schooling in the United States and overall, I think he covers the major goals. Many of his ideas are concrete with specific outcomes of schooling rather than intangible ideas. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire says a part of schooling is to give creative power to the working class people who may not have much say in the government so they can be agents of social change. While this idea is slightly brushed in Labaree’s “democratic equality” goal I do think one of the major purposes of schooling is specifically to train the brain to question our reality and the world we live in (to create social changes).
In today’s America, I wish that I had some hope to see pushback against the predominant notion of education as a private good. However, with the political climate of today (especially with the nomination of Betsy DeVos for the Secretary of Education), that hope seems very far away. The political spectrum and mainstream ideologies of the United States are too narrow to push equal and quality education as a public good for everyone as this supports a socialist ideology. Like Labaree mentions, even though our schools are technically a free public service (a socialist approach), the clash of this with capitalism (schools providing social mobility for students) makes it almost impossible to exercise this supposedly equal public service. However, most of the people with power to change this do not take active steps to do so as they benefit from the system. So unless the entire political system changes to accommodate for more radical ideas other than western/liberal democracy (tied to capitalism), it’s quite unlikely that the notion of education as a private good is going to change.
I think Labaree focused more on purposes of school that affect society and not the actual person. I do think education is important for how things happen in the world around us, but I also think we shouldn't forget about the benefits of education for the individual. Such as keeping out of trouble, feeling better about themselves, having a purpose, feeling like apart of something. Yes, these do lead up to the whole idea of making society a better place, but I don't think it hurts to look at things from the individual side and not just the societal side.
I agree with most of Labaree says in his conclusion. He brought up good points. I personally would like to get away from the idea that education is a private good. It is much more than that. I believe there is hope to push back against this notion.
Currently being flooded with a million thoughts about our education system and the history of the values such system was built on. It's maddening. Labaree successfully touched on many of the schooling purposes. During our first class we touched on the 3 goals in some form. The 3 goals being democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. My only argument would be that schooling was/is a form of instilling the dominant culture on to student of the non-dominant culture. This is something that was not talked about as a goal. It could have been an unintended consequence of the educational structure, yet I believe it was intended. For instance, when I think about this process I can only remember about the instances Native Americans were striped of their culture. Native student were forced to reframe from speaking their languages and practicing a number of tradition. Our society has been developed on many values that need to be debunked and actually are in the process of being dismantled.
I agree with Labaree's conclusion. There are hopes to change the education system and making it a public good. Shifts are occurring in our educational policies with attempts of being more inclusive, yet maintaining it competitiveness. As Labaree had mention in his work, there needs to be dialog in the policy making sectors about values and needs for our education system before efforts are made to reform policies. We want to avoid the cyclical pattern of issue.
The three main purposes that Labaree details in this article all deal very much with society and how schooling determines how the student will fit into it. Democratic equality fosters one's commitment to their society, social efficiency aims to teach students how to contribute to it, and social mobility shows students where they stand in the hierarchy of it. What Labaree does not discuss is what school can teach students about themselves an individuals. Each student enters their education with a different set of experiences and knowledge, but they also all leave with a different set regardless of receiving the same education as countless other students. This diversity lies at the heart of many of the contradictions Labaree points out amongst the educational goals. Students come to school not only to learn about society, but how they can be different from it and inspire change in it. Instead of learning how to fit into the current world, they can learn how to shape it into their own vision. It is because of this that I have hope that we can push back against the private good mindset. While, in the current political climate, it seems bleak for any positive change in our educational system, it still is a system that can be changed if the right, passionate people decide to work at it.
Labaree’s article captures some main points in which we are all still debating and expressing concern for today. Education in itself is a power in which all individuals should have access too and should be represented more as a public good than a private good because in itself, education is a right in which every individual is entitled. Labaree’s point of “democratic equality” is important especially in today’s climate because regardless of ones socioeconomic status, background, ethnicity, etc., every individual has the right to be treated equally and justly while receiving an education. In addition, it really stood out to me when Labaree is discussing “social efficiency” and how “private training as a public good” is beneficial for the nation and individual. In our educational system today, they do not teach skills thoroughly or view any form of skilled career as highly as they should. These educational paths are beneficial for the whole nation as well as for the individual due to the fact that these careers are just as necessary and important as any other. By viewing private training as a public service, we are bettering the workforce and working to educate and substantiate the importance and necessity of skills. In working to do these things, I believe that the individual will gain the education that is fit for and right for them as well as for the nations workforce.
I do agree with Labaree’s conclusion in that as an educational system we need to focus on the individual and work to view education as a public good. I believe that there is hope to push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good if we as educators and citizens speak our opinions. However, at this moment in time it can be seen as disparaging due to the current climate of the political system.
I think that Labaree’s article brought up some interesting points and overall did a good job at outlining the main points of the purpose of education in regards to how it affects society. Democratic equality emphasizes preparing children to play constructive roles in a democratic society through equal treatment and access of education. Democratic equality also focuses on citizenship training to “ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship” (National Education Goals Panel, 1995, p.11). I agree with this, yet I believe that students should also learn to use their minds well, so that they may benefit in regards to personal growth. Similarly, social efficiency and mobility also focus on a student may better fit into societies workforce and economic position. I do agree that this is important of education to prepare students for society, yet I believe it is just as important for education to foster development of students as individuals personally. Although the future seems bleak about change, I still agree with Labaree’s conclusion and transitioning the education system from a private to a public good. I believe we know what needs to be changed and how to better our education system, yet it is a matter of collectively working together to come to a solution to change and push back.
Though Labaree was very thorough in his evaluation of the goals and purposes of education, I do believe there are some important components of education that were left out. Once particular purpose of education for me is self-discovery. Self-discovery would fall under the category of a private good, but I also feel that self-discovery can ultimately lead to being a public good. I say this because self-discovery leads individuals to find their passions and pursue them. Having a career in something you are passionate about undoubtedly makes you more effective in that role. Being the most effective worker in a particular job sector does, in turn, benefit the public sector. Education can assist students in self-discovery because education unveils strengths, weaknesses, and new and exciting topics that one was blind to.
As far as Labaree's conclusion to push back against social mobility and education as a private good, I feel that this is easier said than done. I agree that education as a private good has lead to overcredentialing and credential inflation and all of the other negative effects Labaree listed, but I also feel that it would be nearly impossible to push back against this. Labaree said that education responds to the socioeconomic structure of society and I feel that, for now, our society is ran by a group of individuals that have benefited from social mobility and have no vested interest in changing that. It all goes back to privilege and privileged individuals not being willing to give up power in order to have a more equal society.
After, reading the first couple of lines in this article I immediately thought this was just another article bashing public schools. Lately, public school education is the target of so many things happening in our country and even our city. In this article, Labaree shares three goals democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. Each goal described how schooling plays a part in determining how students will find themselves in the marketplace. Education was viewed as a great tool to have when seeking higher education, better jobs, or simply choosing to be innovative. Education could literally mold and change a persons' destiny. As far as education is considered, I believe everyone should have access to an education. I believe that most of our dreams and ambition were recognized in the midst of obtaining an education. In the past, education played a valuable part in helping students reach those dreams. If, an individual attended a particular college is was almost a guarantee to help them get certain jobs. When I attend college it was important to choose what college you attended, some colleges had outstanding reputations. The same could be said about school districts. When I was attending high school Richmond Public Schools, was the district to attend school. Now, there is a rush to live in the county, or attend private schools. Today, schools struggle with overcrowding, SOL scores, accreditation, and etc. Labaree seemed to have compiled information the school system and created terms to reflect America's viewpoint on the state of schooling system. I do agree that the education system should be a public good. I am hopeful that we can come together collectively and push back this idea of private good. Labaree expressed the educational system best in this statement, "the problem is not that we don know how to make schools better but that we are fighting among ourselves about what goods school should pursue."
While Labree explains the 3 purposes of schooling, I think there should have been another purpose about one self. It's very obvious that we want the greater good for the society, but it is also so great to be the best version of yourself and realizing what you can do. Education is the only thing that provides any individual with that power. Therefore, education should never be a private good because we need to allow everyone to have access to education. As long as you live in the U.S., the free country, anyone should be granted access to education.
Labaree's piece began with the argument that problems with American education are not primarily pedagogical, organizational, social, or cultural, but political. Ironically, my TEDU 537 class had discussed the role politics play in the efficiency of schools. Labaree brings up three goals which have "exerted considerable impact without succeeding in eliminating the others....[and] at times served to undermine the others": democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. Democratic equality focuses on the idea that all students should be well-equipped with broad knowledge as citizens in pursuit of protecting democracy; it’s an explanation as to why our curriculum doesn’t narrow its focus to more career-oriented classes and workshops (more in line with Laberee’s concept of social efficiency). America often references a “classlessness” myth, which would be ideal, but “equal treatment” as well as “equal access” has yet to be done without bumps and hurdles. For one thing, it’s blatantly obvious schools aren’t equal or fair, considering the existence of lower-income schools versus affluent schools. Social mobility may try to provide more opportunities for one to rise in their career field or maintain it, focusing more on self-progression as opposed to maintaining the current class and economic structure of society. I of course agree that education should be a public good, but see many similarities from my own experiences in the school system. IB and GT programs often indirectly caused students to be competitive with one another. There was also a clear socio-economic divide in the students who were able to complete these programs versus the ones in typical or remedial classes, with a few exceptions. The structure as we see it now offers exclusive privileges to school districts and families who can afford it, such as test prep classes, tutoring, and other incentives. No Child Left Behind has helped in further ostracizing low income districts from affluent districts by removing needed funding from low-income schools. I fear that the current pick for Secretary of Education will only further promote school as a means of profit with charter schools.
Labaree's conclusion brings about an important point. Over the years, education has evolved into something that pretty much creates labels among its students depending on what grades they earn. The idea of meritocracy teaches students that they are solely in control of the quality of their grades--you get what you work for, basically. And we have come to learn that this is not entirely true. Some fail to realize that many students come into school already at a disadvantage. Whether it be their racial background, socio-economic status, or even the school district they are zoned for, some things are just out of their control. Sure everyone has access to higher education, but that doesn't mean that every student has been presented with the same opportunities that would make them exceptional candidates for higher education (or even some jobs).
With that being said, I would agree with one of my fellow classmates in adding "the self" or " serving the individual" to Labaree's purpose of education. As we know, each student is different, but often times school systems focus more on teaching to the masses. Some students are slower at grasping material, while some students just aren't motivated. Like my cooperating teacher once told me (she's a high school Chemistry teacher), every student has the ability to learn chemistry and do well in it. However, the districts expect every student to learn the same amount of material at the same pace--which is not realistic. So I think our jobs as future educators is to put in that extra effort and do what we can to make sure every student is able to do their best. Find out what works for them. In addition, it will also be our jobs to find our students' "sparks." Every student has one. And just as soon as an instructor is able to see what makes their students excited/passionate, they will be more able to guide them in the right direction.
Something I noticed was missing from Labaree was the aspect of socialization. Social efficiency is mentioned, but I'm thinking more related to making friends, the hidden curriculum, social norms and discovery of the individual. His conclusion seems limited, because it focuses on the relationship between the student and the expectations society sets or provides. Teachers, coaches, peers, parents and other members of the scholastic community actively seek to avoid these counterproductive contradictions.
Based on information that I have gathered in my short experiences in public schools, I think that students should be shown the side of schooling that teaches them to be a part of a community. I think that schools as a whole should focus more on community involvement, cultural celebration, and cultural understanding. One of the important purposes of school is to expose children to socialization of other students, so more emphasis should be placed on who exactly they are getting to know. Students should also be given more opportunities to learn about community service and involvement. Community involvement is so important because that is how students learn to talk about each other and their stories, so that more students can learn compassion and empathy for others. Labree does discuss social mobility to an extent, but the idea of how different students will achieve social mobility while others do not, is something that I think should be explored more throughout the article.
Labree points out three clear and convincing purposes for education that I think can be seen and argued for easily when looking at the education system in America today. I also agree that although these are goals that governments and school systems posit, I do not see them being fulfilled for the majority of students. Social mobility and democratic equality can be greatly helped by education, but that level of education must first be equal for all students at all schools, which is not the case most of the time. Additionally, many teachers and school systems push students to a traditional 4-year college, and little vocational training is offered. This hinders the goal of social efficiency. It seems Labree is strictly interested in the goals of education and how they adversely or positively affect society. I agree with some earlier posts by my classmates that, indeed, there are benefits to individuals that Labree seems to have overlooked, such as individual self-fulfillment and achievement. However, it seems his lack of commentary on this is because he simply doesn’t believe that the current goals of education were meant to serve the individual other than to make him more useful to society and to give him the ability to climb the socioeconomic ladder.
I agree with Labree’s conclusion and hope that there will be an opportunity to shift the goals of education so that it becomes a public good. However, I think the real problem lays in the fact that the people making policy decisions about our education system often have no experience with it other than that they were maybe products of the public education system, if they weren't in private schools. The current pick for Secretary of Education also makes this change seems impossible for the next four years if she is confirmed. Although educators can work on an individual level everyday to reach their students and encourage this change, I do not think that this shift will be possible on a national scale until the way that we make policy decisions changes.
What I gathered from this article, is that Labaree focuses on goals for American education that mostly relate to his the education system functions with society. This was actually really interesting for me to read because I haven't really thought about the education system in that manner. The goals focus on democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility which I think are all very important to be a functioning member in today's society and to get a job, but I think school should be more than that. It shouldn't be all about learning just to get job, because that might not be the path for everyone. I think a major purpose of education that might have been left out was just how to better the individual and grow. As far as the conclusion, I feel like so much pressure is put on the skills needed to compete for a job(which don't get me wrong, a majority of people go to school to get a job) but I think it is so much more than that, especially at the elementary level. And I definitely have hopes for the push back against the idea that education is a private good, because I definitely believe everyone should get a chance at having an education.
Labaree's article was intriguing and left me really analyzing the goals and purposes he shared. While I agree with his competing purposes of education (democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility), I personally believe he left out the individuality of students. More specifically what each individual has to offer whether it be because of experience or interest, what each individual's goals and ideas are and how they can make a difference. I hope that with the concerns and controversies laid out in this article that we can push back against the notion of education as a private good. Regardless of socioeconomic status, diversity, etc., education should serve as a pubic good. We as teachers should strive for inclusion and not let the competition or merit and grades aspect take over. I think the focus of students as individuals is often overlooked, but we as future educators can change this--we can help with the push back.
While reading this article written by David Labaree, I found myself nodding and agreeing with almost everything he said. The three distinguishable educational goals that he talks about (democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility) are spot on, and as an up and coming teacher this probably sounds crazy for me to say, however, I do not think that he left out any other major purposes of schooling. Schooling these days (PreK-12th grade) tends to be 100% about preparing the students for jobs. There is no room, no time, to make schooling about the individual. In order to succeed in todays society (and even back in the day), one must have basic skills, and that is what the schools are doing. And because it is necessary for each member of society to have those skills, I do believe that schooling should remain public, and not become private. If schools become predominantly private, fewer people are going to be able to afford to attend, which in return will effect both the political roles (talked about in the democratic equality rule) and the market roles (talked about in both the social efficiency and social mobility rules). So, as a future teacher and an active member in society, I do believe that we can (and will) push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good.
In this article, Labaree presents what he believes the three alternative purposes of education are: to promote democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. I think it is safe to say that he covers the major goals, but if I had to include a fourth, I would add promoting individual development. Providing a focus on self-improvement and personal growth puts an emphasis on emotional and cognitive development—more of a whole-child approach—that can also be related back to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The emphasis on social mobility exists in our society, and Labaree concludes by stating that change is possible. I agree with this possibility, and I think that in order to make that change, we have to push for reform at the policy-making level and at a personal level. I am not sure how we would initiate this change, but I hope that we can find a way together.
Public goods in education are seen as democratic equality, which states that in order to create capable citizens, we must have a rich education. This includes citizen training, equal treatment and equal access. This is an important component because equal treatment creates a safe classroom environment and students can feel apart of a shared community. When these are met in the school system,it gives students the opportunity to succeed, regardless of race, religion or socio economic status. I believe a major purpose left out of schooling is focusing on students as individuals. School is stressful and hard at times, so putting in place stress management or just an overall time in the day to talk about their feelings or concerns. It may not seem like a big deal to some, but it can create a big difference in a student and how they perform in school, as well as their relationships.If we only focus on education as a private good, it starts to become what we can do for consumers instead of the citizens. This makes it harder for the lower to make their way to the top, therefore contradicts democratic equality. This is something that can be negative in our education system. His conclusion states that even though all students are given the opportunity for higher education, their social benefits are classified. He also states that although students are under the same roof, they all bring their own unique and different experiences.
Labaree's article was very thorough in its outlooks of three major goals of education. The three goals he mentions (democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility) are all very prominent in education systems today, as well as very contrasting in what they support as far as the purpose of education. That being said, it would be nearly impossible to impose one of these goals at school (the hardest being the contrast between efficiency and mobility; I would argue that democratic equality can be woven into curriculum in the way we address citizenship and civics) without upsetting and disrupting a large portion of our population. The only purpose of schooling that I thought was obvious that Labaree fails to reflect on is the socialization aspect. I would not put socialization as a main goal, however, but think that its aspects and benefits are implicitly in place- how can they not be? How do we become contributing members of society if we do not work with each other in school, and learn effective ways to communicate? While it is not an expressive goal, socialization happens in all forms of public and private schooling (except certain instances of homeschooling), while you could argue any of the three goals Labaree mentions are in place. Labaree fails to mention the effect schooling as a general institution has on society. I believe that it is unlikely that the predominant notion of education as a private good is going to change, just by the nation of our government and economy and the striking differences (diversity) we have in the United States. On page 54 of the article, Labaree points out that elite parents have the most to gain from from the distinctions that a stratified educational system offers. He goes on in the next two pages to put that into a students’ perspective: that a problem with the social mobility goal is that knowledge doesn’t matter, and instead the credentials received are more valued. I thought of that then from an example of the efficiency goal: I am a tax paying adult, and if I was not invested in the job of teaching, would I still want my tax money going to pay for public education? The answer is yes, because we know that not everyone can afford private education and that having educated colleges, peers, and neighbors benefits me (the consumer) as well as society to function more smoothly. That being said, the hierarchy of education is what is mainly going to hold education back as a private good. Labaree points out that an Ivy league degree is worth more than a degree from a community college or university, and until education becomes and equal access to all, the private good is going to stay in place.
I agree with Jessi, that the only thing missing is education on one's self. The article discussed three purposes/ideologies of what education should be for a child and their future, but I think it's important for teachers and the education system to help a child explore their greatest potential. We think about education as an institution to instill democratic ideals, further our economic standing, etc. but I think it's important to see the students as people who should have some say over what and how and what they study.
I think that education should be a public right funded by the government, since it is the biggest investment in the future of this country we can make. I agree that change is possible in the system that we have today. However, it's looking pretty bleak due this tumultuous political climate. I trust the system, and I generally trust people to rally behind what is right and fight for equality.
I agree with above comments from my peers that a key point the article missed is an individualized approach. I feel as if this article discusses education on a broad topic of "the whole," as in the whole society/community. Rather, I think if education was able to switch with enough work and effort behind it, to look at education in terms of for an individual and what it means to further their future/better their life. From there, I feel we could achieve all goals wanted such as training better workers and creating more capable citizens. This is because the value of education and what it means is different from one individual student to the next. Some go into education with different end goals. If the student was able to tailor their own education to fit their goals/wants/needs it would create for more meaningful education rather than having students slip through the cracks because the precedent was set by someone other than them who has an alternative agenda.
I agree with others that felt the Labaree article did not touch on a social aspect, which is important when thinking about education. By social, I mean being social with others and having the ability to be a part of society, i.e. the classroom and school, as well as society outside of school. I think it is important for students to see themselves as having the ability to be a part of society and voice their opinions among their peers and with their teachers.
I also feel that education should be a public good. When things become too privatized, people can be left out. I also think that if schools were to become too privatized then it would not solve any of the issues that public schools are currently facing, instead it would just push them to the side. In order to solve the problems being faced by public schools or make changes, people need to voice their opinions and take a stand for public education.
I feel that Laboree focused mainly on the ideas of education as a society versus the individual. Education benefits the individual in many ways including, self esteem, self expression through creativity, and keeping students out of trouble by giving them a place to be and a routine to follow. I also agree with Ashley and feel that students need to have the ability to be part of a society. I agree with many others and feel that education should be a public good. Schools being privatized will cause more trouble rather than solving issues. It would push the current issues to the side, as Ashley mentioned, instead of facing it and working to fix things. It is up to educators and students to take a stand. Most of the policy makers have no experience with education so it is up to us.
I feel that Labaree did not focus on the aspect of developing the individual itself. A purpose of education that is not often thought of is developing yourself as an individual which can intentionally impact society on a minor scale. I believe education can be considered majorly a public good as well as a private good.Through the education system students learn who they are themselves and how they can be a valuable part of society and give their input. Labaree did have compelling points, but I feel that he only focused on education as what it gives to society rather than how it benefits the individual.
As I mentioned in class, this article made me think about the inflation of higher ed. I wish someone could help me understand this idea more. It seems that students are pushed towards a bachelors when it seems it is no longer a distinguishing factor in the hunt for gainful employment, but maybe that's where the individual self finally emerges? And thus is more of an education in identity? Who knows.
I'm sorry I missed the opportunity to comment BEFORE class. My bad. I enjoyed hearing my classmate's thoughts on this amazingly complex subject. Is public education for the benefit of an individual, for society, or both? I tend to fall on the side of the individual although I would think that education is more easily organized if done with society in mind, as the individual is infinitely unique. Should education be tailored for each individual in our society? Is this even possible if it were to be desired? This leads me to think that, technically speaking, education must be designed with the overall society in mind. I felt while reading the Labaree article a great sense of awe in amount of information contained within. Almost every paragraph had a moment of thought provocation to the extent that I found it very difficult to finish; I was constantly forced to pause and consider the ideas, not from a theoretical angle, but from what might be the outcome of the application of the ideas to the real world. Kudos to Dr. Larabee for his ambition in this article. Sunny
The three major goals of schooling Labaree talks about in his article encompasses the purpose of education well, however, like many others in our class commented, I believe schools should also strive to cater to learning and performing social skills. Social skills are just as important as learning how the world works, because without adequate social skills, none of the other three goals can be achieved. This purpose can be seen as a private and public good because it benefits the individual as well as the group. The individual is able to acquire skills to communicate and interact with the world around them, and these groups of individuals will be able to work together towards a better future for our country. I agree with the areas schools should focus on that Emily Pope mentions in her post: community involvement, cultural celebration, and cultural understanding. These components are critical to creating a generation who are able to care, accept, and understand one another. I can be an extreme optimist and idealist (so what I’m saying might not be realistic), however, I believe in the good of people, and believe that education is the key to social change. Although the political future of education doesn’t look very hopeful, I have hope that we’ll be able to push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good. It might take some time, but as society changes and grows, I’m sure the goals of schools will shift.
Labaree raises some very interesting points on the purposes of schooling in the United States and overall, I think he covers the major goals. Many of his ideas are concrete with specific outcomes of schooling rather than intangible ideas. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire says a part of schooling is to give creative power to the working class people who may not have much say in the government so they can be agents of social change. While this idea is slightly brushed in Labaree’s “democratic equality” goal I do think one of the major purposes of schooling is specifically to train the brain to question our reality and the world we live in (to create social changes).
ReplyDeleteIn today’s America, I wish that I had some hope to see pushback against the predominant notion of education as a private good. However, with the political climate of today (especially with the nomination of Betsy DeVos for the Secretary of Education), that hope seems very far away. The political spectrum and mainstream ideologies of the United States are too narrow to push equal and quality education as a public good for everyone as this supports a socialist ideology. Like Labaree mentions, even though our schools are technically a free public service (a socialist approach), the clash of this with capitalism (schools providing social mobility for students) makes it almost impossible to exercise this supposedly equal public service. However, most of the people with power to change this do not take active steps to do so as they benefit from the system. So unless the entire political system changes to accommodate for more radical ideas other than western/liberal democracy (tied to capitalism), it’s quite unlikely that the notion of education as a private good is going to change.
I think Labaree focused more on purposes of school that affect society and not the actual person. I do think education is important for how things happen in the world around us, but I also think we shouldn't forget about the benefits of education for the individual. Such as keeping out of trouble, feeling better about themselves, having a purpose, feeling like apart of something. Yes, these do lead up to the whole idea of making society a better place, but I don't think it hurts to look at things from the individual side and not just the societal side.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of Labaree says in his conclusion. He brought up good points. I personally would like to get away from the idea that education is a private good. It is much more than that. I believe there is hope to push back against this notion.
Currently being flooded with a million thoughts about our education system and the history of the values such system was built on. It's maddening. Labaree successfully touched on many of the schooling purposes. During our first class we touched on the 3 goals in some form. The 3 goals being democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. My only argument would be that schooling was/is a form of instilling the dominant culture on to student of the non-dominant culture. This is something that was not talked about as a goal. It could have been an unintended consequence of the educational structure, yet I believe it was intended. For instance, when I think about this process I can only remember about the instances Native Americans were striped of their culture. Native student were forced to reframe from speaking their languages and practicing a number of tradition. Our society has been developed on many values that need to be debunked and actually are in the process of being dismantled.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Labaree's conclusion. There are hopes to change the education system and making it a public good. Shifts are occurring in our educational policies with attempts of being more inclusive, yet maintaining it competitiveness. As Labaree had mention in his work, there needs to be dialog in the policy making sectors about values and needs for our education system before efforts are made to reform policies. We want to avoid the cyclical pattern of issue.
The three main purposes that Labaree details in this article all deal very much with society and how schooling determines how the student will fit into it. Democratic equality fosters one's commitment to their society, social efficiency aims to teach students how to contribute to it, and social mobility shows students where they stand in the hierarchy of it. What Labaree does not discuss is what school can teach students about themselves an individuals. Each student enters their education with a different set of experiences and knowledge, but they also all leave with a different set regardless of receiving the same education as countless other students. This diversity lies at the heart of many of the contradictions Labaree points out amongst the educational goals. Students come to school not only to learn about society, but how they can be different from it and inspire change in it. Instead of learning how to fit into the current world, they can learn how to shape it into their own vision. It is because of this that I have hope that we can push back against the private good mindset. While, in the current political climate, it seems bleak for any positive change in our educational system, it still is a system that can be changed if the right, passionate people decide to work at it.
ReplyDeleteLabaree’s article captures some main points in which we are all still debating and expressing concern for today. Education in itself is a power in which all individuals should have access too and should be represented more as a public good than a private good because in itself, education is a right in which every individual is entitled. Labaree’s point of “democratic equality” is important especially in today’s climate because regardless of ones socioeconomic status, background, ethnicity, etc., every individual has the right to be treated equally and justly while receiving an education. In addition, it really stood out to me when Labaree is discussing “social efficiency” and how “private training as a public good” is beneficial for the nation and individual. In our educational system today, they do not teach skills thoroughly or view any form of skilled career as highly as they should. These educational paths are beneficial for the whole nation as well as for the individual due to the fact that these careers are just as necessary and important as any other. By viewing private training as a public service, we are bettering the workforce and working to educate and substantiate the importance and necessity of skills. In working to do these things, I believe that the individual will gain the education that is fit for and right for them as well as for the nations workforce.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Labaree’s conclusion in that as an educational system we need to focus on the individual and work to view education as a public good. I believe that there is hope to push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good if we as educators and citizens speak our opinions. However, at this moment in time it can be seen as disparaging due to the current climate of the political system.
I think that Labaree’s article brought up some interesting points and overall did a good job at outlining the main points of the purpose of education in regards to how it affects society. Democratic equality emphasizes preparing children to play constructive roles in a democratic society through equal treatment and access of education. Democratic equality also focuses on citizenship training to “ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship” (National Education Goals Panel, 1995, p.11). I agree with this, yet I believe that students should also learn to use their minds well, so that they may benefit in regards to personal growth. Similarly, social efficiency and mobility also focus on a student may better fit into societies workforce and economic position. I do agree that this is important of education to prepare students for society, yet I believe it is just as important for education to foster development of students as individuals personally.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the future seems bleak about change, I still agree with Labaree’s conclusion and transitioning the education system from a private to a public good. I believe we know what needs to be changed and how to better our education system, yet it is a matter of collectively working together to come to a solution to change and push back.
Though Labaree was very thorough in his evaluation of the goals and purposes of education, I do believe there are some important components of education that were left out. Once particular purpose of education for me is self-discovery. Self-discovery would fall under the category of a private good, but I also feel that self-discovery can ultimately lead to being a public good. I say this because self-discovery leads individuals to find their passions and pursue them. Having a career in something you are passionate about undoubtedly makes you more effective in that role. Being the most effective worker in a particular job sector does, in turn, benefit the public sector. Education can assist students in self-discovery because education unveils strengths, weaknesses, and new and exciting topics that one was blind to.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Labaree's conclusion to push back against social mobility and education as a private good, I feel that this is easier said than done. I agree that education as a private good has lead to overcredentialing and credential inflation and all of the other negative effects Labaree listed, but I also feel that it would be nearly impossible to push back against this. Labaree said that education responds to the socioeconomic structure of society and I feel that, for now, our society is ran by a group of individuals that have benefited from social mobility and have no vested interest in changing that. It all goes back to privilege and privileged individuals not being willing to give up power in order to have a more equal society.
After, reading the first couple of lines in this article I immediately thought this was just another article bashing public schools. Lately, public school education is the target of so many things happening in our country and even our city. In this article, Labaree shares three goals democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. Each goal described how schooling plays a part in determining how students will find themselves in the marketplace. Education was viewed as a great tool to have when seeking higher education, better jobs, or simply choosing to be innovative. Education could literally mold and change a persons' destiny. As far as education is considered, I believe everyone should have access to an education. I believe that most of our dreams and ambition were recognized in the midst of obtaining an education. In the past, education played a valuable part in helping students reach those dreams. If, an individual attended a particular college is was almost a guarantee to help them get certain jobs. When I attend college it was important to choose what college you attended, some colleges had outstanding reputations. The same could be said about school districts. When I was attending high school Richmond Public Schools, was the district to attend school. Now, there is a rush to live in the county, or attend private schools. Today, schools struggle with overcrowding, SOL scores, accreditation, and etc. Labaree seemed to have compiled information the school system and created terms to reflect America's viewpoint on the state of schooling system. I do agree that the education system should be a public good. I am hopeful that we can come together collectively and push back this idea of private good. Labaree expressed the educational system best in this statement, "the problem is not that we don know how to make schools better but that we are fighting among ourselves about what goods school should pursue."
ReplyDeleteWhile Labree explains the 3 purposes of schooling, I think there should have been another purpose about one self. It's very obvious that we want the greater good for the society, but it is also so great to be the best version of yourself and realizing what you can do. Education is the only thing that provides any individual with that power. Therefore, education should never be a private good because we need to allow everyone to have access to education. As long as you live in the U.S., the free country, anyone should be granted access to education.
ReplyDeleteLabaree's piece began with the argument that problems with American education are not primarily pedagogical, organizational, social, or cultural, but political. Ironically, my TEDU 537 class had discussed the role politics play in the efficiency of schools. Labaree brings up three goals which have "exerted considerable impact without succeeding in eliminating the others....[and] at times served to undermine the others": democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. Democratic equality focuses on the idea that all students should be well-equipped with broad knowledge as citizens in pursuit of protecting democracy; it’s an explanation as to why our curriculum doesn’t narrow its focus to more career-oriented classes and workshops (more in line with Laberee’s concept of social efficiency). America often references a “classlessness” myth, which would be ideal, but “equal treatment” as well as “equal access” has yet to be done without bumps and hurdles. For one thing, it’s blatantly obvious schools aren’t equal or fair, considering the existence of lower-income schools versus affluent schools. Social mobility may try to provide more opportunities for one to rise in their career field or maintain it, focusing more on self-progression as opposed to maintaining the current class and economic structure of society.
ReplyDeleteI of course agree that education should be a public good, but see many similarities from my own experiences in the school system. IB and GT programs often indirectly caused students to be competitive with one another. There was also a clear socio-economic divide in the students who were able to complete these programs versus the ones in typical or remedial classes, with a few exceptions. The structure as we see it now offers exclusive privileges to school districts and families who can afford it, such as test prep classes, tutoring, and other incentives. No Child Left Behind has helped in further ostracizing low income districts from affluent districts by removing needed funding from low-income schools. I fear that the current pick for Secretary of Education will only further promote school as a means of profit with charter schools.
Labaree's conclusion brings about an important point. Over the years, education has evolved into something that pretty much creates labels among its students depending on what grades they earn. The idea of meritocracy teaches students that they are solely in control of the quality of their grades--you get what you work for, basically. And we have come to learn that this is not entirely true. Some fail to realize that many students come into school already at a disadvantage. Whether it be their racial background, socio-economic status, or even the school district they are zoned for, some things are just out of their control. Sure everyone has access to higher education, but that doesn't mean that every student has been presented with the same opportunities that would make them exceptional candidates for higher education (or even some jobs).
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, I would agree with one of my fellow classmates in adding "the self" or " serving the individual" to Labaree's purpose of education. As we know, each student is different, but often times school systems focus more on teaching to the masses. Some students are slower at grasping material, while some students just aren't motivated. Like my cooperating teacher once told me (she's a high school Chemistry teacher), every student has the ability to learn chemistry and do well in it. However, the districts expect every student to learn the same amount of material at the same pace--which is not realistic. So I think our jobs as future educators is to put in that extra effort and do what we can to make sure every student is able to do their best. Find out what works for them. In addition, it will also be our jobs to find our students' "sparks." Every student has one. And just as soon as an instructor is able to see what makes their students excited/passionate, they will be more able to guide them in the right direction.
Something I noticed was missing from Labaree was the aspect of socialization. Social efficiency is mentioned, but I'm thinking more related to making friends, the hidden curriculum, social norms and discovery of the individual. His conclusion seems limited, because it focuses on the relationship between the student and the expectations society sets or provides. Teachers, coaches, peers, parents and other members of the scholastic community actively seek to avoid these counterproductive contradictions.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBased on information that I have gathered in my short experiences in public schools, I think that students should be shown the side of schooling that teaches them to be a part of a community. I think that schools as a whole should focus more on community involvement, cultural celebration, and cultural understanding. One of the important purposes of school is to expose children to socialization of other students, so more emphasis should be placed on who exactly they are getting to know. Students should also be given more opportunities to learn about community service and involvement. Community involvement is so important because that is how students learn to talk about each other and their stories, so that more students can learn compassion and empathy for others. Labree does discuss social mobility to an extent, but the idea of how different students will achieve social mobility while others do not, is something that I think should be explored more throughout the article.
ReplyDeleteLabree points out three clear and convincing purposes for education that I think can be seen and argued for easily when looking at the education system in America today. I also agree that although these are goals that governments and school systems posit, I do not see them being fulfilled for the majority of students. Social mobility and democratic equality can be greatly helped by education, but that level of education must first be equal for all students at all schools, which is not the case most of the time. Additionally, many teachers and school systems push students to a traditional 4-year college, and little vocational training is offered. This hinders the goal of social efficiency. It seems Labree is strictly interested in the goals of education and how they adversely or positively affect society. I agree with some earlier posts by my classmates that, indeed, there are benefits to individuals that Labree seems to have overlooked, such as individual self-fulfillment and achievement. However, it seems his lack of commentary on this is because he simply doesn’t believe that the current goals of education were meant to serve the individual other than to make him more useful to society and to give him the ability to climb the socioeconomic ladder.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Labree’s conclusion and hope that there will be an opportunity to shift the goals of education so that it becomes a public good. However, I think the real problem lays in the fact that the people making policy decisions about our education system often have no experience with it other than that they were maybe products of the public education system, if they weren't in private schools. The current pick for Secretary of Education also makes this change seems impossible for the next four years if she is confirmed. Although educators can work on an individual level everyday to reach their students and encourage this change, I do not think that this shift will be possible on a national scale until the way that we make policy decisions changes.
What I gathered from this article, is that Labaree focuses on goals for American education that mostly relate to his the education system functions with society. This was actually really interesting for me to read because I haven't really thought about the education system in that manner. The goals focus on democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility which I think are all very important to be a functioning member in today's society and to get a job, but I think school should be more than that. It shouldn't be all about learning just to get job, because that might not be the path for everyone. I think a major purpose of education that might have been left out was just how to better the individual and grow. As far as the conclusion, I feel like so much pressure is put on the skills needed to compete for a job(which don't get me wrong, a majority of people go to school to get a job) but I think it is so much more than that, especially at the elementary level. And I definitely have hopes for the push back against the idea that education is a private good, because I definitely believe everyone should get a chance at having an education.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLabaree's article was intriguing and left me really analyzing the goals and purposes he shared. While I agree with his competing purposes of education (democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility), I personally believe he left out the individuality of students. More specifically what each individual has to offer whether it be because of experience or interest, what each individual's goals and ideas are and how they can make a difference. I hope that with the concerns and controversies laid out in this article that we can push back against the notion of education as a private good. Regardless of socioeconomic status, diversity, etc., education should serve as a pubic good. We as teachers should strive for inclusion and not let the competition or merit and grades aspect take over. I think the focus of students as individuals is often overlooked, but we as future educators can change this--we can help with the push back.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this article written by David Labaree, I found myself nodding and agreeing with almost everything he said. The three distinguishable educational goals that he talks about (democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility) are spot on, and as an up and coming teacher this probably sounds crazy for me to say, however, I do not think that he left out any other major purposes of schooling. Schooling these days (PreK-12th grade) tends to be 100% about preparing the students for jobs. There is no room, no time, to make schooling about the individual. In order to succeed in todays society (and even back in the day), one must have basic skills, and that is what the schools are doing. And because it is necessary for each member of society to have those skills, I do believe that schooling should remain public, and not become private. If schools become predominantly private, fewer people are going to be able to afford to attend, which in return will effect both the political roles (talked about in the democratic equality rule) and the market roles (talked about in both the social efficiency and social mobility rules). So, as a future teacher and an active member in society, I do believe that we can (and will) push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, Labaree presents what he believes the three alternative purposes of education are: to promote democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. I think it is safe to say that he covers the major goals, but if I had to include a fourth, I would add promoting individual development. Providing a focus on self-improvement and personal growth puts an emphasis on emotional and cognitive development—more of a whole-child approach—that can also be related back to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
ReplyDeleteThe emphasis on social mobility exists in our society, and Labaree concludes by stating that change is possible. I agree with this possibility, and I think that in order to make that change, we have to push for reform at the policy-making level and at a personal level. I am not sure how we would initiate this change, but I hope that we can find a way together.
Public goods in education are seen as democratic equality, which states that in order to create capable citizens, we must have a rich education. This includes citizen training, equal treatment and equal access. This is an important component because equal treatment creates a safe classroom environment and students can feel apart of a shared community. When these are met in the school system,it gives students the opportunity to succeed, regardless of race, religion or socio economic status. I believe a major purpose left out of schooling is focusing on students as individuals. School is stressful and hard at times, so putting in place stress management or just an overall time in the day to talk about their feelings or concerns. It may not seem like a big deal to some, but it can create a big difference in a student and how they perform in school, as well as their relationships.If we only focus on education as a private good, it starts to become what we can do for consumers instead of the citizens. This makes it harder for the lower to make their way to the top, therefore contradicts democratic equality. This is something that can be negative in our education system. His conclusion states that even though all students are given the opportunity for higher education, their social benefits are classified. He also states that although students are under the same roof, they all bring their own unique and different experiences.
ReplyDeleteLabaree's article was very thorough in its outlooks of three major goals of education. The three goals he mentions (democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility) are all very prominent in education systems today, as well as very contrasting in what they support as far as the purpose of education. That being said, it would be nearly impossible to impose one of these goals at school (the hardest being the contrast between efficiency and mobility; I would argue that democratic equality can be woven into curriculum in the way we address citizenship and civics) without upsetting and disrupting a large portion of our population. The only purpose of schooling that I thought was obvious that Labaree fails to reflect on is the socialization aspect. I would not put socialization as a main goal, however, but think that its aspects and benefits are implicitly in place- how can they not be? How do we become contributing members of society if we do not work with each other in school, and learn effective ways to communicate? While it is not an expressive goal, socialization happens in all forms of public and private schooling (except certain instances of homeschooling), while you could argue any of the three goals Labaree mentions are in place. Labaree fails to mention the effect schooling as a general institution has on society.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is unlikely that the predominant notion of education as a private good is going to change, just by the nation of our government and economy and the striking differences (diversity) we have in the United States. On page 54 of the article, Labaree points out that elite parents have the most to gain from from the distinctions that a stratified educational system offers. He goes on in the next two pages to put that into a students’ perspective: that a problem with the social mobility goal is that knowledge doesn’t matter, and instead the credentials received are more valued. I thought of that then from an example of the efficiency goal: I am a tax paying adult, and if I was not invested in the job of teaching, would I still want my tax money going to pay for public education? The answer is yes, because we know that not everyone can afford private education and that having educated colleges, peers, and neighbors benefits me (the consumer) as well as society to function more smoothly. That being said, the hierarchy of education is what is mainly going to hold education back as a private good. Labaree points out that an Ivy league degree is worth more than a degree from a community college or university, and until education becomes and equal access to all, the private good is going to stay in place.
I agree with Jessi, that the only thing missing is education on one's self. The article discussed three purposes/ideologies of what education should be for a child and their future, but I think it's important for teachers and the education system to help a child explore their greatest potential. We think about education as an institution to instill democratic ideals, further our economic standing, etc. but I think it's important to see the students as people who should have some say over what and how and what they study.
ReplyDeleteI think that education should be a public right funded by the government, since it is the biggest investment in the future of this country we can make. I agree that change is possible in the system that we have today. However, it's looking pretty bleak due this tumultuous political climate. I trust the system, and I generally trust people to rally behind what is right and fight for equality.
I agree with above comments from my peers that a key point the article missed is an individualized approach. I feel as if this article discusses education on a broad topic of "the whole," as in the whole society/community. Rather, I think if education was able to switch with enough work and effort behind it, to look at education in terms of for an individual and what it means to further their future/better their life. From there, I feel we could achieve all goals wanted such as training better workers and creating more capable citizens. This is because the value of education and what it means is different from one individual student to the next. Some go into education with different end goals. If the student was able to tailor their own education to fit their goals/wants/needs it would create for more meaningful education rather than having students slip through the cracks because the precedent was set by someone other than them who has an alternative agenda.
ReplyDeleteI agree with others that felt the Labaree article did not touch on a social aspect, which is important when thinking about education. By social, I mean being social with others and having the ability to be a part of society, i.e. the classroom and school, as well as society outside of school. I think it is important for students to see themselves as having the ability to be a part of society and voice their opinions among their peers and with their teachers.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that education should be a public good. When things become too privatized, people can be left out. I also think that if schools were to become too privatized then it would not solve any of the issues that public schools are currently facing, instead it would just push them to the side. In order to solve the problems being faced by public schools or make changes, people need to voice their opinions and take a stand for public education.
I feel that Laboree focused mainly on the ideas of education as a society versus the individual. Education benefits the individual in many ways including, self esteem, self expression through creativity, and keeping students out of trouble by giving them a place to be and a routine to follow. I also agree with Ashley and feel that students need to have the ability to be part of a society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many others and feel that education should be a public good. Schools being privatized will cause more trouble rather than solving issues. It would push the current issues to the side, as Ashley mentioned, instead of facing it and working to fix things. It is up to educators and students to take a stand. Most of the policy makers have no experience with education so it is up to us.
I feel that Labaree did not focus on the aspect of developing the individual itself. A purpose of education that is not often thought of is developing yourself as an individual which can intentionally impact society on a minor scale. I believe education can be considered majorly a public good as well as a private good.Through the education system students learn who they are themselves and how they can be a valuable part of society and give their input. Labaree did have compelling points, but I feel that he only focused on education as what it gives to society rather than how it benefits the individual.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned in class, this article made me think about the inflation of higher ed. I wish someone could help me understand this idea more. It seems that students are pushed towards a bachelors when it seems it is no longer a distinguishing factor in the hunt for gainful employment, but maybe that's where the individual self finally emerges? And thus is more of an education in identity? Who knows.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I missed the opportunity to comment BEFORE class. My bad. I enjoyed hearing my classmate's thoughts on this amazingly complex subject. Is public education for the benefit of an individual, for society, or both? I tend to fall on the side of the individual although I would think that education is more easily organized if done with society in mind, as the individual is infinitely unique. Should education be tailored for each individual in our society? Is this even possible if it were to be desired? This leads me to think that, technically speaking, education must be designed with the overall society in mind.
ReplyDeleteI felt while reading the Labaree article a great sense of awe in amount of information contained within. Almost every paragraph had a moment of thought provocation to the extent that I found it very difficult to finish; I was constantly forced to pause and consider the ideas, not from a theoretical angle, but from what might be the outcome of the application of the ideas to the real world. Kudos to Dr. Larabee for his ambition in this article.
Sunny
The three major goals of schooling Labaree talks about in his article encompasses the purpose of education well, however, like many others in our class commented, I believe schools should also strive to cater to learning and performing social skills. Social skills are just as important as learning how the world works, because without adequate social skills, none of the other three goals can be achieved. This purpose can be seen as a private and public good because it benefits the individual as well as the group. The individual is able to acquire skills to communicate and interact with the world around them, and these groups of individuals will be able to work together towards a better future for our country. I agree with the areas schools should focus on that Emily Pope mentions in her post: community involvement, cultural celebration, and cultural understanding. These components are critical to creating a generation who are able to care, accept, and understand one another.
ReplyDeleteI can be an extreme optimist and idealist (so what I’m saying might not be realistic), however, I believe in the good of people, and believe that education is the key to social change. Although the political future of education doesn’t look very hopeful, I have hope that we’ll be able to push back against the predominant notion of education as a private good. It might take some time, but as society changes and grows, I’m sure the goals of schools will shift.