Sarah Warsco Midterm Exam Question #1 Labaree identifies the three goals of public schools as democratic equality, social

efficiency, and social mobility. Each of these goals promotes different aspects of education and drives constant reform. According to Labaree the goal of democratic equality is based on the argument that a democratic society cannot persist unless it prepares all of its young with equal care to take on the full responsibilities of citizenship in a competent manner (42). Therefore, democratic equality drives education as a public good that must have equal opportunity and equal outcomes for all. Social efficiency, on the other hand, is based on the concept that in order to maintain our society, schools must cost effectively produce well trained individuals to replenish the workforce. Like the goal of democratic equality, the goal of social efficiency views education as a public good, but it differs from democratic equality in that it does not require equal opportunity (in fact, it is more financially efficient to ignore equal opportunity and funnel students into the most convenient track) and must have unequal outcomes for students in order to fulfill the needs of the workforce. Finally, the goal of social mobility stems from the American ideal that education serves as a main tool to move up the social ladder. This promotes a view of education as private good rather than a public good unlike democratic equality and social efficiency. However, like social efficiency, social mobility requires unequal outcomes for students although it differs from social efficiency by requiring equal opportunity. Consequently, the three goals of education both support and contradict each other at the same time. Although there are many agendas influencing education, I believe Labarees goals accurately identify the overarching impetus behind American education. Nearly every justification, criticism, or suggested reform of education can be traced back to one of Labarees goals. Although they may not overtly identify these goals, most critics, politicians, tax payers, and consumers of education have firmly based their opinions around one or more them. Education is routinely discussed as a way to improve ones life, ensure Americas continued economic dominance, or sculpt responsible citizens. These themes of education fit neatly into Labarees goals of democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. The main argument of Labaree is that the goal of social mobility has become increasingly prominent to the detriment of the educational system. He claims that the focus on social mobility has increased credentialism and inequity in the educational system. He states that, unlike democratic equality and social efficiency, social mobility focuses on the credential rather than the actual learning. In addition, he believes that social mobility encourages the upper class to create a system that favors their children while hindering the children of the middle and working classes. I disagree with Labarees analysis. Credentialism becomes a problem when the meaning of an accomplishment is diminished because the standards have been lowered, the frequency of the accomplishment has risen, or a combination of both. While social mobility may focus more on the credential than the actual learning as a means to success, that success is only possible if the credential is strongly associated with a high level of learning. Therefore, credentialism is antithetical to social mobility. If the credentials lose meaning, they also lose power. Rather than being a product of social mobility, credentialism is, in fact, more closely related to democratic equality. It is the emphasis on equal outcomes associated with democratic equality that drives the meaning of credentials down. If everyone has a high school diploma, it no longer means anything. In

addition, as schools are pressured to produce equal outcomes at ever higher levels of education, the standards are continually lowered in order to ensure that all students are capable of reaching the desired outcome. By blaming social mobility as the cause of inequity in our schools, Labaree over simplifies the issue and contradicts his theoretical concept of social mobility. In order to have the meritocracy on which social mobility is based, it by definition must have equal opportunity for all. Blaming social mobility for inequity then is contradictory. If exit the realm of the ideal in which Labarees goals are based, then the reality of social mobility combined with human greed does indeed contribute to inequity, but it is not the underlying cause. I suggest that the focus on social efficiency is more accurately the cause of inequity. Both social efficiency and social mobility require a stratified schooling system, but only social efficiency encourages unequal opportunity. The cheapest, most time efficient way of training a new workforce is the pigeon hole students into the jobs of their parents. The definition of social efficiency is to replicate the workforce. It is only possible to replicate the workforce by replicating the social structure. The current movement away from government to the private sector is a result of the goal of social efficiency. Education according to the goal of social mobility is unprofitable as a private business because it takes huge amounts of resources to create equal opportunities. While Labarees goals are excellent tools to try to grapple with the educational system in America, his analysis of the goals oversimplifies and contradicts his framework. Social mobility is not the root of all problems in education. In addition, democratic equality is more present in Americas educational system than Labaree suggests. Despite the analysis, the goals themselves are extremely useful and insightful. Question #2 Kozols article supports Gorskis approach to multicultural education rather than Paynes. The numerous inequities that Kozol reports clearly show that there are systemic inequities in the educations our students receive. Systemic problems require a solution that addresses all aspects of education. They cannot be resolved using only teaching strategies or discrete policies. Kozol writes, The promulgation of new and expanded inventories of what works, not matter the enthusiasm with which theyre elaborated, is not going to change this [the inequity of education] (14). Creating social justice is not merely a matter of closing an achievement gap or improving teaching, it requires equality of opportunity in all areas of education. Paynes approach to multicultural education (although she does not claim to be a multiculturalist, her method has been adopted as multicultural) does not address systemic inequities in education. She merely offers practical advice on teaching low income students. Her nine strategies can be applied to any student regardless of gender, class, ethnicity, or culture. In fact, many of the strategies are common sense advice. The few strategies that focus on issues particular to students without means or outside the dominant culture offer quick fixes merely accommodate the inequity rather than try to change it. Payne never acknowledges systems of power and dominance in our schools. In fact, her entire aim is to improve scores, not to combat inequity, as the subtitle suggests, Nine strategies help raise the achievement of students living in poverty. Her strategies are probably very helpful to inexperienced teachers, but as Kozol states, if we did not have a deeply segregated system in which more experienced instructors teach the children of the privileged and the least experienced are sent to teach the children of minorities,

these practices would not be needed and could not be so convincingly defended (10). Paynes approach is therefore not multicultural education, but just one more prescribed teaching method. In contrast, Gorski focuses his entire article on combating systemic inequities in education. Rather than give specific teaching techniques, Gorski provides a system within which one can evaluate any teaching practice or policy to ensure that it promotes multicultural education and social justice. Gorski focuses on the fact that there is still much that is unequal in society, and it must be addressed. His concern about the whitening of multicultural education reflects Kozols concern that many refuse to confront racial segregation in schools calling primarily African-American schools diverse instead of segregated. The deeply rooted problems catalogued by Kozol require an in depth analysis of the entire educational system from the broad scope of government policy and funding to the smallest details of individual lessons and classroom rules. Gorskis specific guidelines for practicing authentic multicultural education may not be applicable in every situation as they are more geared toward the creation of workshops and lesson plans, but they at least get educators and policy makers thinking about the power dynamics involved in education and the continuing need for focus on social justice. Question #4 Bowles and Gintis argue that the educational system replicates relationships of dominance and sub-ordinance by the reproduction of consciousness. They claim that force alone is not enough to maintain the current class system. The upper class can only maintain dominance if the lower classes are unable or unwilling to unify in opposing the system. School, therefore, must reproduce a sub-dominant group that will not, or perhaps cannot, challenge those in dominance. It does this by rewarding behaviors that fragment the consciousness of subordinate groups and promote submissiveness and penalizing behaviors that jeopardize the current social status. Another aspect of Bowles and Gintiss argument is the correspondence principle, or the idea that individuals from each social class receive different educations in order to prepare them for jobs that will keep them in the same social class. For example, they claim that upper income students receive educations that encourage critical thinking and independence while lower income students receive educations that emphasize critical thinking while lower income students receive educations that emphasize rule following and submission to authority. While there clearly is some truth to the correspondence principle, Bowles and Gintiss portrait of the interplay between dominant and non-dominant groups and the reproduction of consciousness is much more antagonistic than reality. Inequalities in our educational system exist, but many of them are not the result of intentional oppression. Inequities in school funding are mainly the result of an outdated funding structure. Working class students are more likely to be put in poor performing schools because school quality greatly impacts property values which impacts school funding. The working class generally cannot afford to live in areas with good school districts. They instead live in areas with lower property values and consequently less school funding. Because working class students generally have fewer resources at home, they are often at a disadvantage in school. Consequently, they are put in the lower tracks which at least to a certain extent must have less critical thinking and more rule following in order to cover the required material in the time frame given. The correspondence between income level and school track is not a matter of conscious oppression, but more a lack of recognition of adversity. This is not to say that racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination do not exist, it is only to point out that we do not have a caste society the likes of which Bowles and Gintis depict.

The truth of our educational system is that our economic structure is pyramidal and consequently we must produce workers of varying levels of education. We need both Wal-Mart employees and neurosurgeons in order to survive. In addition, Wal-Mart employees and neurosurgeons should not be paid the same wage. If one makes a mistake a human life is lost, if the other makes a mistake a billion dollar company loses a negligible amount of profit. Anyone can stock shelves, only a rare few can perform surgery. Since the pyramidal structure of our economic system cannot be changed, the pyramidal structure of our educational system must remain. The issue is that currently our educational system is often sorting students based on social class, skin color, gender, and sexuality rather than ability and motivation. In addition, there are massive discrepancies in funding between schools. If schools lack the funding to address the needs of the working class, they are forced to relegate those students to lower tracks in the hopes that the slower pace might make up for the lack of resources. A grossly underfunded school serving mainly impoverished students cannot create the high quality programs found in upper class schools. Yes, the rich, white, male, heterosexual protestant generally receives the best education in our society, but that is not the result of a conspiracy of oppression, and it can be changed. Question #8 I believe that multicultural education is a philosophical system within which all institutional and educational practices are designed in order to combat structures of power and dominance and promote the recognition and acceptance of multiple perspectives. Carl Grant defines multicultural education similarly. He states, Multicultural education is a philosophical concept and an educational process. It is a concept built upon the philosophical ideals of freedom, justice, equality, equity, and human dignity (4). Christine Sleeter adds to that stating, An intellectually rigorous multicultural curriculum teaches students to identify assumptions, perspectives, vested interest, and viewpoints within multiple bodies of thought (179-180). Multicultural education cannot and should not be simply a way to teach other cultures, a chance to recognize Black History Month and move on. It must encompass all aspects of education. Grant writes, Multicultural education is a total process; it cannot be truncated (5). An educator cannot simply include more cultural references and call their teaching style multicultural. Instead, an educator must constantly reevaluate all of their practices to ensure that they are not reinforcing structures of power and dominance in their school. Gorski states, The implementation of small changes within a traditional classroom or school system does not constitute multicultural education (165). He continues, [comprehensive school reform] must be based on a continual critical analysis of institutional power and privilege. It is only when the structures of power are understood that educational inequities can be eliminated, and it is only through teaching students to recognize the many viewpoints of an issue that they can advocate for their own social justice. In order to have true multicultural education, all students must be afforded equal educational opportunity which I define as a state in which all students have the same likelihood to succeed in school given their innate abilities. This does not suggest the same educational experience for each individual student. In fact, it requires extra resources to be allocated to students who may lack certain benefits associated with race, class, gender, or culture. As Kozol points out, many working class children cannot afford to go to preschool. They often have less access to adult attention, books, crayons, and other aspects important to child development. Consequently, these children start their public education already behind their peers. Stevens

points out, one of the enduring concerns of the liberal ideal of equality has been that historical inequalities not be perpetuated from generation to generation (6). The social class of a students parents, must not affect a students likelihood of educational success. If a child is to truly have an equal educational opportunity, the disadvantages, or perceived disadvantages associated with class, race, gender, or other quality unrelated to innate ability must be compensated for. That may mean extra resources, or it may mean changing the system. Therefore an equal educational opportunity is only possible through the philosophical system of multicultural education as it is only when structures of dominance have been removed that students can be educated to their full potential. In order for students to navigate the pyramidal structure of our educational system based on merit, they must be freed from the inequities associated with class, race, gender, and sexuality. As Stevens states, education cannot be neutral or objective.It will reflect the values and ideologies of those in power (4). It is the goal of multicultural education to illuminate how those in power have shaped our values and ideologies and ensure that those values and ideologies do not put individuals who are not in power at a disadvantage. It is the goal of multicultural education to ensure equal educational opportunity.