Look over my summary of Labaree (2a in Course Documents). Are there any major purposes of schooling left out by
Labaree? At the end, he states his worry that it seems hard to push back
against today's tendency to see education as a private good...do you share his concern?
For me this connects with something that I thought was a really interesting tidbit in the Ayers reading where he said that education is paid for by the public with the intention of creating workers who benefit the private sector. Ie when we don't focus on creating good citizens, just smart/trained people, we are not giving the public a return on their investment because we are training students to work in the private sector and not give back to their community. In a way I feel like Labaree is, in some parts, saying the exact opposite of that, that everyone benefits from competent workers in the private sector even if their jobs are not necessarily for the public benefit (ie a salesperson or accountant).
ReplyDeleteBoth points of view make sense to me. I think where the two authors can agree is that we need to make good citizenship more of a focus in education. When your students are caring and compassionate people, they are more willing to learn and help each other learn, so it works out for everyone regardless of their goals. Teaching children to care about their community is intrisically beneficial to the public.
Some of the purposes of schooling Labaree left out that we talked about in class are the more practical ones: childcare and food. As a grand concept school is about education, but for a lot of people without a lot of money, it is a practical solution to immediate problems like "who is going to watch my kids while I work" and "how will my kids be fed".
Education is, fundamentally, in this country, meant to be a public good until adulthood. That comes into question when adults start positing which kids should be further educated (who deserves scholarships? Who will do the most?) and which kids should be left behind or given less attention, like when policymakers defund inner-city schools because they have less faith that the children there will meet their definition of success and therefore don't think they should have the same quality of education. I think this way of thinking, of seeing education as an investment, is only moral when the return is for the benefit of the public, not furthering a policy maker's individual agenda. Ideally, education creates citizens who will deepen the bonds of community we have in our society while also having the skills to innovate and invent new things.
Taylor Petty
I think that the Labaree article provides a unique perspective on the purposes of education because I had never thought about the major purposes of schooling in terms of these three categories, but they make a lot of sense to me logically. I can see how disagreement on the purpose of education can create dysfunction in the education system because there isn’t a shared vision and the motivations differ.
ReplyDeleteI have seen aspects of each of the three purposes of schooling in the education system. I think that social efficiency is the purpose that I have seen most frequently. In the county I grew up in there was this increasing trend of incorporating more real world skills, as well as vocational training programs and specialty centers to prepare students for jobs.
However, I feel like American society is individualistic by nature and extremely achievement oriented, which I believe will make it challenging to push back against the tendency to see education as a private good. Individual achievements whether in school or in career are being reinforced with praise, admiration, more status, and money, which I think continues the cycle of encouraging more pursuit of credentials.
Additionally, I think that the education system itself has become more achievement oriented with the requirements of standardized testing. I think that because of how much standardized testing has been integrated into the public education system in American, and how scores on standardized test affect funding, the focus has been shifted from acquisition of knowledge to the goal of achieving certain scores.
Social mobility reminded me of the recent college admissions scandals that seem to be becoming more frequent these days. What baffles me is how much money people are willing to pay to increase the chances of a student getting into competitive schools. This illustrates just how much some are willing to invest in individual interest and it directly undermines the idea of equality or the common good.
Additionally, when looking at the goals of education, certain phrases such as equal access strike me as interesting, simply because equality can mean different things to different people. Also, social mobility seems to favor people who are already in power, or who have the resources to increase the likelihood of success in school. Power and wealth are hard to push back on, especially in American society where race makes the dynamic even more complex.
I thought that Labree’s three categories for how we view the purpose of education were both very true and very telling. From what I have seen, those three categories are constantly at odds with each other in the educational system. We are constantly pushing for higher education and social mobility, but are also always pushing people to be able to get jobs, while also wanting people to become good citizens. Those three categories rarely sit well with each other, so then we easily get lost in trying to navigate through them, instead of focusing on the kids and on quality education.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be very telling as well. It was easy to see where the American education system’s priorities lie: in furthering the whole (and the “American Dream”), and not the individual. These observations also seemed to stem from more privileged schools; like Taylor said above, Labree’s observations do leave out functions such as providing childcare, food, a safe space, and other necessities for the children. If a school has to be more focused on providing basic needs, their philosophy of education and educational focuses have to be different than those in a more privileged area.
Brittney D. here:
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading the summary of Labaree, he did a great job of describing and explaining the purposes of schooling. Unfortunately, he left out that the purpose of schooling is to build social relationships amongst students. I was pleased to see that I too shared similar concerns as Labaree. A major concern of mine is that “ students' are brought under the same roof, but experiences there differ widely.” Throughout the school year, this has been one of my greatest challenges because I have witnessed students being grouped together and verbally labeled because of their levels of understanding. For example, the capabilities of gifted students have been compared to other peers. Students abilities are often measured by whole group interaction versus individual performance.
Labaree’s article focuses on schooling as a public good for the benefit of society, as a public good for the propulsion of democracy, and as a private good for the growth of the economy, but it leaves out one huge idea: Schooling as a positive, healing, and growing environment for our children, while they are children. As I say that, however, I wonder if that even is a major goal for our educational system in the eyes of society. It is indeed what I wish it were. It seems that our educational system focuses so much on the future- on forming star adult citizens, but it doesn’t focus on the day-to-day enrichment of each individual’s unique mind. I wonder- If we focused solely on delivering the joy and fulfillment of learning something new, something of interest each and every day to our children, wouldn’t it in turn produce the most desirable results?
ReplyDeleteAll personal opinions aside, I think that Labaree didn’t touch on that because it simply isn’t one of our society’s goals of public education, although it is a nice idea. I did find his outline of alternative goals for education enlightening and somewhat worrying. I surely see all three goals and their counterproductive tendencies in play in today’s schooling.
I strongly share Labaree’s concern that our society tends to see education as a private good, and I agree with Anna’s comment that, unfortunately, the “american society is individualistic by nature and extremely achievement oriented,” which makes it difficult to push back against that tendency. In my opinion, a shift in our societal values would be an integral catalyst to a positive change in our educational system.
Andrea C
ReplyDeleteLabaree’s three purposes of school seem to be enough. I believe most Americans think of school in terms of job preparation. Most jobs require a high school diploma or GED and that seems to support the social efficiency purpose. It could be argued that the job a person has is linked to their social position. Some jobs in certain fields are seen as being more prestigious or jobs that pay more money are perceived as more socially acceptable which could tie into social status which would support the social mobility purpose. I‘m sure there are some people who think in terms of school for the purpose of turning out good citizen and I would agree with them. I don’t think most people give a thought to the purpose of school. I had not.
I agree that it would seem hard to push back against today’s tendency to see education as a private good. I think of it this way. Most people want the best private goods they can get. Why wouldn’t most people want the best education they can get. It seems the problem is most people who in positions to make decisions about paying for schools, do not advocate for the investment in quality of schools for everyone.
I overall agree with what Labaree says about the purposes of an education but he left out the reasons that people in poverty bring their children to school. One reason is because parents need a place for their children to go. Other reasons could be the parents aren’t educated so they cant educate their children, the only meals they get are at school, and parents need a break from their kids.
ReplyDeleteBased off of my experience so far I have witnessed that one of the reasons some parents put them in school is because that’s the only safe place they have for their child to learn, grow, and excel in life. Their community or neighborhood may not be the well suited area for a child to grow up , so they take heed in the public education. The child may have to be around prostitution, drugs, gangs, and etc at home but when theyre at school they see that there is more to life than that.
Some parents just aren’t educated. Its hard to educate your child if you haven’t had any type of education yourself. With that being said some parents send them to school so that they learn things and even learn more than what their parents know. A lot of parents want their child to be better than them and to go farther than they did in life. Just because a parent isnt educated doesn’t mean theyre bad, they just want more for their child than what they had, and the only way for them to give them that is by allowing them to go to school to get an education.
The common reason as to why some family bring their child(ren) to school is because there isn’t any food at home and they only get to eat when they are at school. Its very unfortunate that the children and their families go through it ,but in order to make sure their child is fed they bring them to school.
The way our education is set up now, well at least in public schools primarily in Richmond is that the children are being taught how to pass the tests(SOLS, Benchmarks, Pals, etc). I know that when it comes to private good the higher the test scores are in a specific school the more benefits it bring. For instance, If I was a student at a school who had a great reputation for 90% or more of their students passing their tests, there would be more resources available to me, more funding for activities, and more ways to incorporate hands on learning outside the classroom. I understand the concept of standardized testing but it brings a lot of negative impacts as well, especially for the students who aren’t the best test takers or have a learning disability. If we can go back to the underlying purpose of an education to give the child the tools to be a well-rounded member of society by: giving an overall basic knowledge of the 4 major content areas, tools on how to be a citizen in this society and succeed, and the importance of giving back then there will be a big turnaround. Teaching the test is not going to help a child once they’ve graduated and are in the real world. Giving them the tools to live in society, figure out what/who they want to be, and truly make something of themselves will allow them to become successful in life.
Sharese Williams:
ReplyDeleteThe Labaree summary was very interesting to read and I felt that the three components all intersected with many other topics of the education system. I understand the intention of preparing citizens, equipping with them the tools, and then sending them out into the world, but that would be the perfect or ideal society. On the other hand, I do feel that democratic equality, is one of the most important components because it advocates for equal access in education, which has not yet been achieved.
Education is universal and it’s a common attribute that all citizens are required to be a part of, up until high school. Once high school is finished, I thought about the expectation to continue to higher ed, which is affected by costs and the decision to attend college. Higher education is equivalent to money which leads to debt and the social context of understanding services as FAFSA or having parents pay for their students’ education, which could potentially put their family in debt. I then thought about how Labaree stated “schools simultaneously promote equality and adapts to inequalities”. It is a large contradiction to teach our students that we have equal rights as Americans while in our society, it is the complete opposite. I understand that these are issues that won’t change overnight, but they are still relevant and real to those in our world.
Lastly, social mobility is a very interesting component because most jobs are who you know and not what you know. Many jobs require degrees or some type of education, but it still reflects on that individuals’ social skills and engagement with the interviewer. A key component for American education should be social competence because that’s what our students need in order to thrive and be successful in a society. When children come to school, that could be one of their first interactions with their peers. Overall, I liked the article and it made me realize different aspects in the world of education.
Overall, I think the purposes for education Larabee listed cover primary purposes across the country. I do share his concern because it does often seem as if the practical and private benefits of education are more easily explained. Using education to foster democratic equality is not easily quantifiable and the results and benefits are not always seen as clearly. I also am thinking about the conclusion pointing to the failure of education to carry out any of its goals effectively. On a larger scale, issues with schools may be because they are trying to achieve too many goals at once, however, then, I believe schools would not be striving to better serve their students if they were to lessen their scope or focus on one purpose of education.
ReplyDeleteSheryon here:
ReplyDeleteI think one point that should be made is that there is some content that needs to be taught in schools (other than for extra/” fill-in” electives) about how to survive in society. I thought it was very interesting on Wednesday when someone brought up the point that schools are like assembly line; this was also a point that was also in the summary. They are taught the basic skills to be working adults for companies and that is pretty much it. Many students are losing their individuality by this cookie cutter type learning happening in schools. They are even missing out on important information; for example, financing classes or cooking classes. Many people don’t even know how to make a good budget or make a decent meal to eat (other than the microwave), but they know how to figure out the slope of a line or how to create a haiku. I’m not saying that these things aren’t important, but at the same time I feel that there are certain skills that are needed to be a functional adult. I think that with today’s education it is all about what the individual can do for everyone else and not what can be done for them.
I think that Labaree does a fair job at describing all the different kinds of schooling. There are many different kinds, but he is able to condense them down into three main kinds. For example, the democratic education would include things like public schools and programs that are free and open to anyone. In the public programs, everyone has access to them and the goal is to push you to higher education. The social efficiency education would include things like the Tech Center programs or the trade schools. The social mobility education includes things like private schools, boarding schools and the public school specialty or governor’s programs. An argument could be made saying that these types of education don’t leave a lot of room for the artsy folk who need a freer spirited education, but I would say that those types of programs could fall into the social efficiency category because those students would be getting trained to work in their particular field, that could be music, art or plumbing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of his concerns; specifically, how we are focusing on preparing students for work, but remain committed to a thorough general education. In class we talked about the school system being like an assembly line and while I was reading this section of the summary I was reminded of that. It seems like no matter what part of the system you are in, you are constantly being prepared for what’s next. For example, when learning something in middle school the teachers will say “well in high school you’re going to need to know how to do this” or in high school the teachers will say “you’re going to need to know how to do this in college or the real world”. The claim to be preparing us for what’s next and eventually work, but the education is still very broad and not specific to what we will actually need to know in the real world and not a specific job sector.
Labaree outlines the three goals of education that make sense. Our schools aim for democratic equality, social efficacy, and social mobility. I think there is more of a focus on social mobility as a purpose in schools. I agree that our culture is centered on the individual as opposed to the group. I think the first two purposes are more features of collectivism, because in this culture the people are concerned with how society does as a whole, or public instead of individuals. As Labaree mentions, there is an interesting interaction between two of the goals, democratic equality and social mobility. Though the goals should work together to form the purpose of education, social mobility works for the individual and private good. Democratic equality aims for equal treatment, equal access to education, and dedication to the public, while social mobility focuses on a way for students to work harder and school focuses on what it can do for the individual. I think because of this, there are ways for families to focus more on credentials and competition. Many people have different advantages to this, which can be depending on who you are. Access to higher education is one way. Many schools are different from each other, and students have different experiences. I have also learned that standardized tests were easy in some schools, but some schools were barely passing. With social efficacy, students can be in trade schools, which Labaree mentions it as private training for the public good. Yet it has a strange relationship with social mobility. Though schools want our students to successfully move on possibly to higher education, the focus is on democratic equality and social efficacy as equally as social mobility. Kim
ReplyDeleteLabaree's article was very interesting, and I appreciate his stance on alternative goals for American education that have been at the root of educational conflict.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that schools should prepare students to become effective citizens, workers, and compete for social positions, I also believe that schools could prepare of assist students with many other things as well. Labaree's ideas would definitely help students in professional development areas, but what about building character and humanization? In an urban school, students are faced with many problems that carry on throughout their lives. Schools should not only prepare students as citizens, workers, and competitive positions, but also teach them how to deal with mental health issues, trauma, and interpersonal skills. A lot of these factors are swept under the rug in schools.
These issues are ones that I've noticed while doing my residency year, working in this same environment of students. Learning should be a meaningful experience that helps students cultivate their own identity, and become the person that they want to be, not who society says they should.
Na'Que Walker ^^^
DeleteWhile Labaree's purposes for schooling are agreeable, I feel that he left out some components. First and foremost, I believe that schools also have a social component for children to interact with others to gain social skills necessary for society. I also believe he did not consider the other end of the spectrum where students from poverty go to school as a means for their parents to have an adequate "babysitter" while they can go to work. This social aspect of interaction is important even though he does state social mobility as being prepared to compete for social positions. I get his purposes of schooling though. Substantial jobs require you to have a high school diploma/GED. To obtain such thing, you need to go to school. It is also against the law to not go to school. It was interesting to me where he stated that these goals represent the educational perspective of the citizen, the taxpayer, and the consumer. I feel that although the perspectives of each of these may have things in common, I do not think that they all agree that this is what education is about. Their perspectives will be different if asked in regards to demographics.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that schools should prepare students to become decent citizens, training workers, and competition for social positions, but I feel that education is so much more than that as well and should also do more with mental illnesses, inter/intrapersonal skills, etc. This goes into the other point on sharing Labaree's fear that it seems hard to push back against today's tendency to see education as a private good. I do fear this as a future teacher because I do not think some people know exactly the impact teachers and education has on individuals. It is not as cut and dry as this article may make it seem. It's not just, you go to school, you get an education, you go to work, you die (but that is how American education is set up). The individuality that plays into it along with the baggage people carry with them along with most jobs that make you really good money causes you to NETWORK ("it's about who you know, not what you know"). I mean I can go on and on about how education is much more than preparing someone to work in the future (although that is a component, an important one at that). This also reminds me of the factory aspect that we spoke about in class. How education is set up (especially in high school) to go from class to another as if you were on an assembly line. How education is, is catered to the private good aspect, but I feel that progressively it is changing (slowly, but surely), especially with people like myself and my fellow peers.
I found Labaree’s argument on the three aims of education interesting. Labaree points out that the 3 goals of the American education system (to prepare students for citizenship, prepare them for the workforce, and prepare them academically), as a unit, have not been carried out efficiently. Schools focus more on credentialing students as opposed to giving them the necessary skills and knowledge they need to be successful in the workforce and exercise their rights as citizens. The offering of electives and career technical courses, in my experience, do not give students the knowledge they need to successfully grocery shop and cook a meal and provide little actual job training.
ReplyDeleteI think Labaree does leave out the importance of a humanistic education where students learn to value themselves, other people, and their communities. School plays a large role in forming our personalities and the way we interact with other people as discussed in our reading for Wednesday’s class. I think that aspect of school should be accounted for when discussing what the purpose of school is and what it should be.
I don’t believe that Labaree left out any major purpose for schooling. Most other reasons can be grouped under one of the three main points that he described. For example, socialization can be grouped with democratic equality.
ReplyDeleteEducation for private good is not necessarily a bad thing, however this motivation for education should be reserved for higher education. Promoting social mobility in elementary and secondary schools seems out of place.
I feel that social efficiency should be the central focus of education. Or rather these objectives can be issued out in waves with social efficiency at the center of the timeline. Initiatives for democratic equality seems more fitted for elementary and middle school aged students. In this phase children are forming a since of national pride and loyalty to country. They are learning the social and political structure of the country- and how they fit into it. Social efficiency should be explored in secondary schooling. This is where students are beginning to discover their strengths and interests. They are aware of the social, political, and economic constructs of society and figuring out how they want to contribute/benefit. Thirdly, the focus on social mobility should be reserved for higher education. This is “how far” students want to take their education- “private training for public good”. More specialized occupations require higher education.
-Kira P.
I had never really thought about how schooling in America is pulled in those three different directions; the citizens, the taxpayer, and the consumer. The citizen wants democratic equality for our students to become effective citizens, then the taxpayer wants social efficiency, that our schooling should be preparing our students to go into the work force, and then the consumer wants the social mobility aspect, that our schools should prepare the students to compete for social positions. I feel like with these three points they cover the major purposes of schooling; the only thing that is not really covered is to give the child some stability and a safe space in life. School for some child is the only stable thing in their life if you take away school they will not have any means of food for that day, they will not have a safe place to go for 7 hours a day 5 days a week, and they may never experience having someone truly care about them. All of these aspects are crucial to a child having a chance in life. I do agree that it is hard to push back against today’s tendency to see education as a private good, because American’s tendencies are often very selfish so I do not know how we stop America from seeing the selfish side of schooling that is about what it can do for individual consumers. I also do not know how America can get away from the credentials being more important than what was actually learned. It’s extremely sad society is very focused on numbers normally so they just want to see good test scores but in reality, those students are really not actually retaining the majority of what they learn. I believe the school system in America has a very long way to go.
ReplyDeleteJustin here:
ReplyDeleteWhile I did not see and major purposes of education missing from Labaree’s paper I did notice a fallacy in it. The purpose to get students ready to work. While student are taught the necessary things to be able to think freely and to be able to succeed at a academic level. I do not see the school’s currently prepare students to be able to work in our social economic system. Student’s are prepared for to go to college and to seek more education, while the student’s who either have no interest in college or are not academically equipped are left behind. His purpose of school is listed to get students ready to work this should be the same for all students. Preparing students for jobs in trades that do not require higher education would prepare an alternative while still presenting the goal of having them give to our system.
I do share his concern about education only being scene as a private good. Education is a free service provided by tax dollars to prepare students to work in the system for them to be able to pay the taxes for the next students behind them. The system is set up as a private good to enable it to continue to function as a whole. The thought of a student as an individual is usually left behind as they are looked at as the next cog in capitalistic system.
Reading Labarees article I really do agree with what he claims are the major purposes of education. I like how he connected social mobility back to social efficiency and democratic equality. Without equality throughout education, everyone does not have the same opportunity to social mobility.
ReplyDeleteAs others have mentioned before, I also think that Labaree leaves out the humanistic aspect of education. School prepares youth to become productive members of society in many different ways other than becoming workers, taxpayers and consumers. Schooling provides students with everyday life skills that play a part in becoming a better member of society. For example, schooling teaches us good character values such as being caring, empathic, and honesty.
I do share Larrabee's concern that the purpose of education is now seen primarily as a private good (the exchange value for individual consumers). I think in today's current socio-political climate, we see this happening more and more. While many people on the left do wish to democratize education, there are still many politicians and American citizens who don't see the rising costs of higher ed as morally contentious and/or socially taxing, or that student debt is just a natural process of the exchange value laden in education.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's a matter of ethics when considering education as a private good, even while I side with the democratic purpose of education. After all, we know there are many people who just don't do well in school, or have never found much utility in what they have learned. I think people like this would likely only find school attractive if it is a private good, because then at least education is supposed to be working for them, and they can use it to advance their careers in ways that have not worked for them before. At least they have leverage, put another way. I don't believe this form of education-as-competition is an evil in itself or a necessary one, I just think its too rationalized for the the purpose to be communicated effectively.
Seth ^
DeleteJames here:
ReplyDeleteI don't think Labaree left anything out in terms of the aims for education and schools. As Kira above put, those outliers can be classified/grouped under one of the three big purposes, considering there is a sizable grey area as to what constitutes as a primary ethic of education.
This being said I do share his concern, as someone who has seen firsthand the sort-of business model schools operate on in that parents put their kinds through this institution (on top of providing additional resources to said institution) expecting some kind of result back: in this case, a learned child. Hence the entitlement to 'the best for (their) children' you would expect from a private good and why it seems everyone is more out for making sure their children succeed rather than everyone's in general. Not to say this sort of competition-based environment is entirely evil, but when it leads to high levels of stress on the part of students to push themselves hard to achieve an education, not because they want to learn but because they HAVE to for the sake of their economic futures, that's where I share Labaree's melancholy at the state of education. It's where I feel we, as educators in general, need to try to mitigate the most and help students realize their passion for learning while gradually meeting those expectations placed on them.