In this post, please provide: 1. one takeaway (one specific thing that you learned from a very quick read of the article and; 2. Ask a question about something you didn’t understand or that you’d like to know more about.
Cady Ayers: Before reading this article, I already had the impression that the "main purpose" of attending school is to prepare you to become a functioning person in society, but I didn't really know the layers to that generalized purpose. Labaree's quote, "most educational consumers have shown preference for a school system that provides an edge in the competition for jobs more than for one that enriches academic achievement" provided more insight on the title of this article. The consumers that were once citizens would rather pay for the potential of a better-paying career than to be more knowledged, per say. Now for my question: How would the transition back to citizens from consumers be possible at this point?
Mack Mboh :) One thing I learned from this article is the mission of schools place in society has changed over time. I had always assumed the mission was to provide an education to students, but as always there is going to be money involved. Why? Can there be a balance of citizens to consumers? I may have missed this in the article if this was already answered.
Before I read the article, I believed education was separated from the 2 parties we know as republican and democratic. Now, I believe it's not separated at all. Education was built of republican values then, with certain visions like becoming a “civic minded citizen” and allowing the building of a republican community. Now, the education system has changed into a democratic education system which is very interesting. The goals, like social efficiency and Democratic equality, have been shown drastically in college but why is it that once students want to find jobs that articulate their degrees, it's physically and mentally hard to do so? Is it because reforms are not being passed to where students can use resources to help them, or is it because the education system isn't able to split both political mindsets to see what could be done better?
Emma Finn- Before reading, I knew that the American education system has people focused more on getting a degree rather than to want to gain knowledge. What I didn't know that the education system was built on republican values to prepare students for their economic contribution to society. I am interested in what groups of people disagreed with the values of the early education system.
One key takeaway from the reading was the idea that although school has become more accessible and important in society, overtime, students have had less of a desire to go to school for learning, and more to gain human capital; looking better on the job market, and to be eligible to make the most money. I also very much enjoyed how often the article called out how flawed the American education system is, and even made the point that bad teaching isn't always the reason a student doesn't learn. I wish the article talked more about how primary school is mandated, and if that affects the attitudes of students going forward. Additionally, whether or not the expectation held on students by guardians, of going to college, affects a student's desire to learn.
Riley Baber: When I thought of the purpose of schooling I always thought it was to educate students on subjects such as math and reading. Obviously, right? But no, I learned how the primary purpose of schooling has changed overtime and most likely will continue to. I'd like to learn more about this topic and how schools may cater to the "market" in the future.
One key take away that I got from the article is that the American education system is extremely fragmented. The decentralized nature of our school system makes it hard to implement adequate reforms and address systemic disparities. This makes overcoming challenges, allocating resources, opportunities, etc. harder.
If we created a centralized schooling system, would that make it easier or harder to address these issues?
One thing that stood out to me when reading this article was how American education system is damaged. When thinking about the school systems and getting an education it is unfortunately, way more complex. Which not only makes it harder for the people in charge but most importantly the students.
Danny Trainham: The article "From Citizens to Consumers" explained the foundation of the American school system, and how it shifted from a political perspective to an economic one. I learned that democratic equality, which views education as a mechanism for producing capable citizens, and social efficiency, the idea that education develops productive workers, are both collectivist goals that benefit the United States. These two goals are founded on political interest, implying that education curriculum and enrollment should be universal and available to all. However, this ideology is not represented in our economic society. Social mobility allows individuals to improve their social position by gaining credentials needed for high-paying jobs. This third goal of education is individualist and focused on a hierarchical structure. The economic aspect of education causes some students to have better opportunities than others, contrasting the political foundation/viewpoint. What would occur if our school system provided equal access to higher education for everyone? Would universities eventually become crowded and offer limited resources? What would happen to our economy if all citizens had access to high-paying jobs?
Alistair here: One thing I learn is that the goal to expand higher education has always placed new students at the bottom and older students at the top; from elementary to high school, even to college and post graduate work, showing a sense of seniority and goalpost pushing per se. This system promotes social mobility within education itself, setting a bar higher every time we welcome in other learners.
Nida Hadi here: In the reading, Citizen to Consumers, the history and origin of our public school systems However, interestingly I learned that the primary object of creating such institutions was for the mere purpose of political interests: to create informed citizens with the knowledge and spirit to maintain the republic that is our country through “civic virtue” and to rather prevent the rise of self-interested motives or factionalism against it, and how that rationale shifted to a more market approach based on social efficiency and mobility as well as human capital. However, I also never realized how contradictory the promotion of “liberal democracy” in institutions are. On the one hand, we want to promote this idea of individua agency and autonomy but do not want to risk the integrity and principles or our economy. We want to advocate for social equality, but we do not want to threaten and have it conflict with private interest, etc. I think those contradictories reflect the very condition and our education system in which Labaree describes as “highly accessible but radically unequal.” I’m reminded of that as we live in a country where the quality of your education is determined by what zip code you live in. In other words, because our education system is extremely decentralized at both the federal, state, and local level, inequality in the quality of education. Most of our schools are funded by our local governments who rely on property tax revenue. Depending on the district and neighborhood, one child is from, determines the quality of education he or she receives. In addition to the inherent form of capitalism deeply embedded within our educational systems, is also this idea of meritocracy. That if you work hard, you will reap the benefits and succeed in reaching social mobility. However, our education systems inadvertently overlook the systemic structural barriers in achieving those goals. This ultimately raises the question: Can an equitable education system exist?
One thing I took away from this article was how confusing the school system is. The American School System has many programs that are highly accessible, so no matter what someone chooses to do, they can do it. What the system is mainly focused on, of course, is fine. But when it comes to racism or anything of the sort, they pay no attention to it. Which leads to my question, why? Why don't they do anything about it?
Claire Cook: After this reading, one thing I learned is the deeper and different meaning that school has today. I always knew that we go to school to learn, but after reading this I realized that school is there more for preparing us for the workforce. I also realized how the school system still has many issues within it, and will most likely continue to change as it has throughout the years. One thing I’d like to know more about is if anyone has an interpretation for where education is headed? If we have any idea based on the history of education, current education, and current day individuals realizing the issues in our system currently.
Elise Ginn My initial thoughts on schools were that they teach people things that are not learned in everyday life and that can help them further their education. This article taught me that schools decisions used to be heavily influenced by politics and that its progressed into being influenced by marketing and promoting "civic virtues". I am curious why the schools were specifically surrounded by Republican visions and ideas rather than another party?
Mia S: I appreciate the fact that the article acknowledges the fact that there are different experiences within schools. Just because people are in the same grade, or the same "kind" of school (private, public, etc.), not everyone is going to have the same experience. With that being said the meaning of school has in fact evolved and the reading captures that aspect really well. With the amount of schools growing day by day, so are the kinds of experiences.
This is something that I already knew but it always surprises me to learn about the depth of the issue, how much our education system fails us, and continues to fail us. One thing that I don't understand is if we are still using formations of public schooling from the nineteenth century, why is it such a big debate that there needs to be change? Is that not obvious? I would also like to learn more about the movements mentioned on page 15.
Something that I really took away from this reading is how school systems have changed and progressed overtime into what they are now. I noticed how the idea of education has shifted from teaching people how to be functioning members of society to individual opportunity, this idea of education not just working towards goals of democracy and capitalism. On the other hand, I would like to better understand the shifts from education being a more "public good" to a "private good." I wonder how this change has affected the quality of education for different people and communities, and has it worsened inequality in the system?
The U.S. education system stands out for its accessibility, pioneering in providing universal elementary, secondary, and higher education early on. Yet, this system is highly decentralized, involving numerous school districts, which results in considerable disparities in educational results. Even though education is widely available, American students tend to perform at or below average in global assessments, pointing to challenges in maintaining educational quality and uniformity.
Why have modern school reform efforts resulted in continually declining education outcomes over the last 30 years?
David Labaree’s examination of American education reveals three competing objectives: democratic equality (preparing informed citizens), social efficiency (training skilled workers), and social mobility (promoting individual advancement). The first two perspectives regard education as a public good, while the third treats it as a private commodity, placing greater value on credentials than on actual knowledge. These conflicting goals lead to tensions, such as those between political ideals and economic realities, public rights and private rights, and the concepts of equality and inequality. The increasing emphasis on social mobility undermines democratic equality and civic virtue, creating a culture of competition and stratification. Labaree points out that the education system struggles to effectively meet any of its goals due to these contradictions, ultimately promoting credentialism as a substitute. He argues that it is crucial to restore education’s fundamental purpose—preparing individuals for active political engagement and meaningful work—to tackle these systemic challenges.
Jordan Dent: Something that I took away from this reading were the concepts of “social efficiency”, “democratic equality”, and “social mobility” as goals for the education system. As an economics major, we mainly focus on social efficiency , but as a professor once told me, a good economist would also care about welfare. I think that it can be easy to get wrapped up in one goal especially if you aren’t directly living in it and therefore feeling the immediate effects. This also reminded me a lot of the debate of if education is really just a form of signaling (for jobs, etc) or something that makes one more productive. I had never really thought about how people view education until I started having these conversations. Does education really have to be one or the other? A form of learning and enrichment or a form of human capital building for the workforce. This also brings in a whole new conversation when thinking about how socioeconomic status and more might effect the perceived good outcomes of getting an education.
Something that stood out to me was how the author described our education system as extremely advantageous and expansive; however, the students' performance is mediocre at best. And the statement that most students are concerned with the degree and its' edge in job competition, rather than the content and integrity of the education of the degree itself. It really opened my eyes to the relationship that students have with their education and the dynamic that this sort of created especially in terms of the job satisfaction of people in the workforce. Workers across the country spend a majority of their time providing labor; yet they are tired of it. I think money has such a prevalence over the lives of American people that we base most of our decisions on that foundation alone; and our personal aspirations get put off to the side. When I was in the process of choosing a degree to study, most people told me to pick something that made the most money. And when I decided on Psychology and Education, there were some wayward looks, and questions such as, "What are you planning to do with that?" And honestly, my only plan was to just make sure I was satisfied in the future. Maybe, our academic performance lacks the vigor and vitality to match the brilliance of our education system due to the skewed motivation to be in school in the first place. I believe students should be in school to deeply study what their heart is interested in; whatever that may be--the science of star molecules, the history of number systems, bone art, etc. There really is so much to learn, and such an expanse of ideas within everyone; it would be really interesting to see what would happen if our system supported this kind of enrichment. Capitalist idealism has seeped into our education system. And my question is, what can we do to repair the relationship that people have with their job? How can we be sure that people are doing what they actually want to do in life instead of simply doing something that will get them the most dollars? There is also the idea that work should not be related to a person's' individual "purpose in life" to keep a less interpersonal exchange between money and time; which is absolutely valid as well and I would be interested to learn more about this sentiment.
Halie Murphy- One thing that I took away from this article is that often the school system is having to navigate balancing the various ideologies that it is based from. I learned that the republican versus liberal views can cause the public education system to not work as it is intended. I did wonder though how other countries operate their school systems and how adopting some of those systems could impact our own.
One thing that struck me as interesting was that we currently use a democratic approach to our schooling system. I have never really thought of the style of schooling provided but just thought of it in a more negative way I suppose. I have often thought of the system as a pump to push our children through and indoctrination. I also am frustrated to find out later in life just how much they do not include about the truth and darker history, push ideals, and really brainwash our children in a sense.
Deborah Mattos - Something I learned from this article is our education system was built on republican values so that when the children come out they are ready to contribute to our economy. In a way it can be seen through how children are nowadays about secondary education, not really wanting to actually learn, but just get good grades to eventually get a good job. A question I have is how does our schooling system differ from that of other countries, and why do they excel in things that we do poorly at?
Kurt here:
ReplyDeletedlfgjd;lgjdlkjg/
Cady Ayers:
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this article, I already had the impression that the "main purpose" of attending school is to prepare you to become a functioning person in society, but I didn't really know the layers to that generalized purpose. Labaree's quote, "most educational consumers have shown preference for a school system that provides an edge in the competition for jobs more than for one that enriches academic achievement" provided more insight on the title of this article. The consumers that were once citizens would rather pay for the potential of a better-paying career than to be more knowledged, per say. Now for my question: How would the transition back to citizens from consumers be possible at this point?
Mack Mboh :)
ReplyDeleteOne thing I learned from this article is the mission of schools place in society has changed over time. I had always assumed the mission was to provide an education to students, but as always there is going to be money involved. Why? Can there be a balance of citizens to consumers? I may have missed this in the article if this was already answered.
Before I read the article, I believed education was separated from the 2 parties we know as republican and democratic. Now, I believe it's not separated at all. Education was built of republican values then, with certain visions like becoming a “civic minded citizen” and allowing the building of a republican community. Now, the education system has changed into a democratic education system which is very interesting. The goals, like social efficiency and Democratic equality, have been shown drastically in college but why is it that once students want to find jobs that articulate their degrees, it's physically and mentally hard to do so? Is it because reforms are not being passed to where students can use resources to help them, or is it because the education system isn't able to split both political mindsets to see what could be done better?
ReplyDeleteYuritzy Martinez
DeleteEmma Finn-
ReplyDeleteBefore reading, I knew that the American education system has people focused more on getting a degree rather than to want to gain knowledge. What I didn't know that the education system was built on republican values to prepare students for their economic contribution to society. I am interested in what groups of people disagreed with the values of the early education system.
One key takeaway from the reading was the idea that although school has become more accessible and important in society, overtime, students have had less of a desire to go to school for learning, and more to gain human capital; looking better on the job market, and to be eligible to make the most money. I also very much enjoyed how often the article called out how flawed the American education system is, and even made the point that bad teaching isn't always the reason a student doesn't learn. I wish the article talked more about how primary school is mandated, and if that affects the attitudes of students going forward. Additionally, whether or not the expectation held on students by guardians, of going to college, affects a student's desire to learn.
ReplyDeleteRiley Baber:
ReplyDeleteWhen I thought of the purpose of schooling I always thought it was to educate students on subjects such as math and reading. Obviously, right? But no, I learned how the primary purpose of schooling has changed overtime and most likely will continue to. I'd like to learn more about this topic and how schools may cater to the "market" in the future.
Talia Gose:
ReplyDeleteOne key take away that I got from the article is that the American education system is extremely fragmented. The decentralized nature of our school system makes it hard to implement adequate reforms and address systemic disparities. This makes overcoming challenges, allocating resources, opportunities, etc. harder.
If we created a centralized schooling system, would that make it easier or harder to address these issues?
One thing that stood out to me when reading this article was how American education system is damaged. When thinking about the school systems and getting an education it is unfortunately, way more complex. Which not only makes it harder for the people in charge but most importantly the students.
ReplyDeleteDanny Trainham:
ReplyDeleteThe article "From Citizens to Consumers" explained the foundation of the American school system, and how it shifted from a political perspective to an economic one. I learned that democratic equality, which views education as a mechanism for producing capable citizens, and social efficiency, the idea that education develops productive workers, are both collectivist goals that benefit the United States. These two goals are founded on political interest, implying that education curriculum and enrollment should be universal and available to all. However, this ideology is not represented in our economic society. Social mobility allows individuals to improve their social position by gaining credentials needed for high-paying jobs. This third goal of education is individualist and focused on a hierarchical structure. The economic aspect of education causes some students to have better opportunities than others, contrasting the political foundation/viewpoint. What would occur if our school system provided equal access to higher education for everyone? Would universities eventually become crowded and offer limited resources? What would happen to our economy if all citizens had access to high-paying jobs?
Alistair here:
ReplyDeleteOne thing I learn is that the goal to expand higher education has always placed new students at the bottom and older students at the top; from elementary to high school, even to college and post graduate work, showing a sense of seniority and goalpost pushing per se. This system promotes social mobility within education itself, setting a bar higher every time we welcome in other learners.
Nida Hadi here: In the reading, Citizen to Consumers, the history and origin of our public school systems
ReplyDeleteHowever, interestingly I learned that the primary object of creating such institutions was for the mere purpose of political interests: to create informed citizens with the knowledge and spirit to maintain the republic that is our country through “civic virtue” and to rather prevent the rise of self-interested motives or factionalism against it, and how that rationale shifted to a more market approach based on social efficiency and mobility as well as human capital. However, I also never realized how contradictory the promotion of “liberal democracy” in institutions are. On the one hand, we want to promote this idea of individua agency and autonomy but do not want to risk the integrity and principles or our economy. We want to advocate for social equality, but we do not want to threaten and have it conflict with private interest, etc. I think those contradictories reflect the very condition and our education system in which Labaree describes as “highly accessible but radically unequal.” I’m reminded of that as we live in a country where the quality of your education is determined by what zip code you live in. In other words, because our education system is extremely decentralized at both the federal, state, and local level, inequality in the quality of education. Most of our schools are funded by our local governments who rely on property tax revenue. Depending on the district and neighborhood, one child is from, determines the quality of education he or she receives. In addition to the inherent form of capitalism deeply embedded within our educational systems, is also this idea of meritocracy. That if you work hard, you will reap the benefits and succeed in reaching social mobility. However, our education systems inadvertently overlook the systemic structural barriers in achieving those goals. This ultimately raises the question: Can an equitable education system exist?
Excuse the typos
Delete
ReplyDeleteOne thing I took away from this article was how confusing the school system is. The American School System has many programs that are highly accessible, so no matter what someone chooses to do, they can do it. What the system is mainly focused on, of course, is fine. But when it comes to racism or anything of the sort, they pay no attention to it. Which leads to my question, why? Why don't they do anything about it?
Claire Cook:
ReplyDeleteAfter this reading, one thing I learned is the deeper and different meaning that school has today. I always knew that we go to school to learn, but after reading this I realized that school is there more for preparing us for the workforce. I also realized how the school system still has many issues within it, and will most likely continue to change as it has throughout the years. One thing I’d like to know more about is if anyone has an interpretation for where education is headed? If we have any idea based on the history of education, current education, and current day individuals realizing the issues in our system currently.
Elise Ginn
ReplyDeleteMy initial thoughts on schools were that they teach people things that are not learned in everyday life and that can help them further their education. This article taught me that schools decisions used to be heavily influenced by politics and that its progressed into being influenced by marketing and promoting "civic virtues". I am curious why the schools were specifically surrounded by Republican visions and ideas rather than another party?
Mia S:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the fact that the article acknowledges the fact that there are different experiences within schools. Just because people are in the same grade, or the same "kind" of school (private, public, etc.), not everyone is going to have the same experience. With that being said the meaning of school has in fact evolved and the reading captures that aspect really well. With the amount of schools growing day by day, so are the kinds of experiences.
This is something that I already knew but it always surprises me to learn about the depth of the issue, how much our education system fails us, and continues to fail us. One thing that I don't understand is if we are still using formations of public schooling from the nineteenth century, why is it such a big debate that there needs to be change? Is that not obvious? I would also like to learn more about the movements mentioned on page 15.
ReplyDeleteTola Reasons:
ReplyDeleteSomething that I really took away from this reading is how school systems have changed and progressed overtime into what they are now. I noticed how the idea of education has shifted from teaching people how to be functioning members of society to individual opportunity, this idea of education not just working towards goals of democracy and capitalism. On the other hand, I would like to better understand the shifts from education being a more "public good" to a "private good." I wonder how this change has affected the quality of education for different people and communities, and has it worsened inequality in the system?
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. education system stands out for its accessibility, pioneering in providing universal elementary, secondary, and higher education early on. Yet, this system is highly decentralized, involving numerous school districts, which results in considerable disparities in educational results. Even though education is widely available, American students tend to perform at or below average in global assessments, pointing to challenges in maintaining educational quality and uniformity.
Why have modern school reform efforts resulted in continually declining education outcomes over the last 30 years?
Charlie Campbell!
DeleteDavid Labaree’s examination of American education reveals three competing objectives: democratic equality (preparing informed citizens), social efficiency (training skilled workers), and social mobility (promoting individual advancement). The first two perspectives regard education as a public good, while the third treats it as a private commodity, placing greater value on credentials than on actual knowledge. These conflicting goals lead to tensions, such as those between political ideals and economic realities, public rights and private rights, and the concepts of equality and inequality. The increasing emphasis on social mobility undermines democratic equality and civic virtue, creating a culture of competition and stratification. Labaree points out that the education system struggles to effectively meet any of its goals due to these contradictions, ultimately promoting credentialism as a substitute. He argues that it is crucial to restore education’s fundamental purpose—preparing individuals for active political engagement and meaningful work—to tackle these systemic challenges.
ReplyDeleteRosalyn Harper!
DeleteJordan Dent: Something that I took away from this reading were the concepts of “social efficiency”, “democratic equality”, and “social mobility” as goals for the education system. As an economics major, we mainly focus on social efficiency , but as a professor once told me, a good economist would also care about welfare. I think that it can be easy to get wrapped up in one goal especially if you aren’t directly living in it and therefore feeling the immediate effects. This also reminded me a lot of the debate of if education is really just a form of signaling (for jobs, etc) or something that makes one more productive. I had never really thought about how people view education until I started having these conversations. Does education really have to be one or the other? A form of learning and enrichment or a form of human capital building for the workforce. This also brings in a whole new conversation when thinking about how socioeconomic status and more might effect the perceived good outcomes of getting an education.
ReplyDeleteSomething that stood out to me was how the author described our education system as extremely advantageous and expansive; however, the students' performance is mediocre at best. And the statement that most students are concerned with the degree and its' edge in job competition, rather than the content and integrity of the education of the degree itself. It really opened my eyes to the relationship that students have with their education and the dynamic that this sort of created especially in terms of the job satisfaction of people in the workforce. Workers across the country spend a majority of their time providing labor; yet they are tired of it. I think money has such a prevalence over the lives of American people that we base most of our decisions on that foundation alone; and our personal aspirations get put off to the side. When I was in the process of choosing a degree to study, most people told me to pick something that made the most money. And when I decided on Psychology and Education, there were some wayward looks, and questions such as, "What are you planning to do with that?" And honestly, my only plan was to just make sure I was satisfied in the future. Maybe, our academic performance lacks the vigor and vitality to match the brilliance of our education system due to the skewed motivation to be in school in the first place. I believe students should be in school to deeply study what their heart is interested in; whatever that may be--the science of star molecules, the history of number systems, bone art, etc. There really is so much to learn, and such an expanse of ideas within everyone; it would be really interesting to see what would happen if our system supported this kind of enrichment. Capitalist idealism has seeped into our education system. And my question is, what can we do to repair the relationship that people have with their job? How can we be sure that people are doing what they actually want to do in life instead of simply doing something that will get them the most dollars? There is also the idea that work should not be related to a person's' individual "purpose in life" to keep a less interpersonal exchange between money and time; which is absolutely valid as well and I would be interested to learn more about this sentiment.
ReplyDeleteHalie Murphy-
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I took away from this article is that often the school system is having to navigate balancing the various ideologies that it is based from. I learned that the republican versus liberal views can cause the public education system to not work as it is intended. I did wonder though how other countries operate their school systems and how adopting some of those systems could impact our own.
One thing that struck me as interesting was that we currently use a democratic approach to our schooling system. I have never really thought of the style of schooling provided but just thought of it in a more negative way I suppose. I have often thought of the system as a pump to push our children through and indoctrination. I also am frustrated to find out later in life just how much they do not include about the truth and darker history, push ideals, and really brainwash our children in a sense.
ReplyDeleteThis entry by Rob Horvath
DeleteDeborah Mattos -
ReplyDeleteSomething I learned from this article is our education system was built on republican values so that when the children come out they are ready to contribute to our economy. In a way it can be seen through how children are nowadays about secondary education, not really wanting to actually learn, but just get good grades to eventually get a good job. A question I have is how does our schooling system differ from that of other countries, and why do they excel in things that we do poorly at?