Joanna

Liao
Honors 232
Final Paper

An Examination of Educations Components of Who, What, and Why

Introduction

I had fun going to school. It gave my curious mind several opportunities for
adventures. Though I enjoyed school, I had little faith in the system. Society gave me the
impression that education was a silly profession and schools were forever flawed. I
sometimes find it amusing that I now am interested in examining the exact system I was
originally so hesitant about.

This particular course gave me a wider look on issues in education and, more
importantly, how to talk about them. It was all built upon one major question: Who gets
What and Why? The Political and Moral Context of Education and Schooling.

With this larger question in mind I shall explore the following topics: The What in
question, who gets the what, why do some have more than others, who the most
important people in education should be, why change is difficult, and why the Ideal situation
matters.

The What In Question

Primarily what will be discussed is education. However, the term opportunities
will be used as well.

What exactly is education? And how does this differ from school? Some may ask,
Is there a difference? while others may ask, Does it matter? There is a critical distinction
however, one that must be made before going into the details of discussion.

Education is learning anytime and anywhere.

Schooling is a formal institution where education occurs.
What is the purpose of education in schools? People used to think it was the job of
the school to keep kids interested. Historically there were phases in curriculum, such as a
focus on practical life skills, letting students decide what to study, or learning a certain skill
set. I disagree. In terms of specific aspects that should be addressed, I believe in teaching
students what they do not know. While I believe children to be perfectly capable in learning
whatever is given to them, they have limited knowledge in what the world has to offer.
Therefore it is up to the school to inform students of these opportunities, and in the words
of Roger Soder, for teachers to teach students.
However, the purpose is much larger than just the curriculum or the specifics. There
is a much larger context that is being missed. Education reflects and propagates the political
regime it is in; it has a political component, a political context. In the United States this
means schools support our Democracy. Roger Soder lays out several key conditions for a
Democracy in his piece Education for Democracy. These include Trust, Knowledge of
Rights, and Recognition of the Tension Between Freedom and Order, amongst nine others.
What attention should be drawn to is the condition of recognizing the difference between a

persuaded audience and a more thoughtful public. A political regime can be established but
will not last very long if there are not people who will propagate and support the system.
This relates back to schooling because many people conclude that it is the public schools
that have access and impact on the most number of people, a place where they are most
likely to learn these Democratic conditions and characteristics. Thus Soder hits the mark
when he writes, The Fundamental purpose of schools, on this view, is to teach children
their moral and intellectual responsibilities for living and working in a democracy.
The political context and a more thoughtful public may be nice ideas to contemplate.
But the importance of this is critical. Leaders use persuasive rhetoric. In despotism leaders
can persuade with speeches, like the familiar this is for your benefit or your leader is your
friend. Or they persuade by brute strength, like a demonstration of tanks and firepower and
executions. There are many other forms of persuasion despotisms partake in. Point is, the
people have no choice but to give in and follow their leaders. They may believe themselves
to be content, but in reality they simply do not know better. They act as a persuaded
audience that is lulled by their leaders voices. In school they are likely taught to act as such,
learning about how their leaders are compassionate and kind (or perhaps ruthless and
terrifying), and to be submissive obedient, and docile. They will learn whatever qualities are
fit for a subject of that political context.
Leaders in a Democracy must use a different sort of persuasion. There must be
relationships built between the people and the leaders, a relationship of open discussion and
trust. But this trust is an aware trust. What I mean by this is that the public has knowledge of
their rights and knows what they seek in a Democracy. Thus when they listen to their leaders
they can observe if the leader is talking and taking them in a direction they want to go. They
do not follow blindly without first critically thinking and discussing the situation or their
opinions. This is why a more thoughtful public is critical for the political context of a
Democracy. Otherwise the Democracy would cease to exist and morph into something else.
As a thoughtful public, one thing to keep in mind is that context matters. Just as I
wrote, the political context plays a large role in defining the purpose of schools. It is just as
we define a problem and a solution. Depending on how a situation is observed will influence
how a problem is identified. Defining the problem will influence what the adequate solution
is. If we observe the following issues issues as a condition of, say, racial diversity, and not as
a problem then no work will be done. If we identify the issues as an economic problem, then
increasing funding is one solution. It is an intricate relationship, one of many that must be
kept in mind when examining education and schooling in todays society.

Who gets How Much of the Cake?

I once read an article about a school in the 1970s. Located in St. Louis, Illinois the
school infrastructure was usually dilapidated; the surrounding community was mostly lower
class. The students and staff at the school were one-hundred percent African American at
that time. The background of students varied from poverty to a select middle class few, with
the socioeconomic backgrounds reflected in how they dressed.


Compare this to a school in a middle class, close-knit community. There is a racial
diversity amongst students and staff though socioeconomic status does not differ as much,
meaning students arrive dressed in weather appropriate clothes.

This juxtaposition of schools is not uncommon. Looking across America, or even
across a town, schools can vary drastically. This is a prime introduction to the fact that not
everyone gets one hundred percent of the same thing; in this case that thing is education.
Not much has changed in many aspects over the years of schooling. Often times
people claim that issues, particularly when resources are involved, come back to the money
and being able to afford the cost. Many times in schools funding is a large issue. A dichotomy
between funding in upper class schools and those primarily serving lower class students can
be observed, particularly when the PTA fundraisers and donations are taken into account.
Stated blatantly, the rich often have more opportunities and access to education. The poor
have very little offered to them. Theres often times a lack of support, with the underlying
theme that these students are not good enough to succeed. This paired with the larger lack
of a payoff offers little motivation to these students for the few opportunities they have.

This does not sound equal. And it is not. However, equality is a key term to define, as
is equity. The urge to charge in the name of equal education for all children is noble, though
definitions do cause us to pause and think about what action we are exactly calling for.
First, equality: as Deborah Stone says through her chocolate cake analogy, equality
has many different levels and forms. Essentially it is having the same as everyone else. For
instance, equal access to school would mean everyone has the opportunity to go to school.
On the other hand it could be equal partition based on rank; for instance, the student that
has been in school for four years gets more one-on-one attention than a student with one
year of school. With all these twists on the term, sometimes it is not best to begin claiming
equality for all before thinking about the implications and potential detrimental
consequences.
Then there is equity: this is more along the lines of having different things but with
equal significance for separate people. For instance, food to a hungry person may have the
same value as a shower to someone who has been working in the mud all day. It also seeks
to give those without certain skills or those who are at a disadvantage an opportunity to
minimize that disadvantage and have more of an equal chance. For instance, a high school
drop out may not know how to write a resume or cover letter, so they take classes to know
how to do this, giving them the knowledge that their competitors have.
There are large inequalities and inequities and all around lack of balance for different
students in schools. But why is this so?

Why do Some have More than Others?

Throughout history there has been a consistent trend in beliefs that not everyone
should learn everything, for a variety of reasons. Charles Murray wrote about how too many
people were attending college and were not equipped with the skills or intelligence to deal
with the rigor of college. Burton Clark discussed the cooling out function of schools to help
students bring down their own expectations to realize they are better suited for something
else. This relates back to Murrays idea that people were not ready to handle college.

Hofstadter describes the Life Adjustment period where people discussing schooling reform
believed sixty percent of students were uneducable. Then there are quotes from the
Enlightenment Period, where people discussed giving everyone education but only the
amount they needed for their occupation; any more and they might rebel.
The general sentiment behind these beliefs has persisted to this day. It may or may
not have become an unconscious course of action. But why are the gaps still present and
why do we not like to talk about it? Following are some major factors.

Students are split by socioeconomic and class statuses. These divisions are typically
not intentional or deliberately put into action by one person. However, it is a sort of forced
self-segregation that occurs, with lower income families having limited options and then
moving to the cheaper housing neighborhoods where often times families are also in the
same class. Meanwhile wealthy families stay in their suburban neighborhoods on the other
side of town. This means a separation of resources and opportunities. For instance, look
back to the PTA fundraising example. As the saying goes, the rich get richer and the poor get
poorer.

This relates to the larger context of culture as a propagating factor in which students
receive what. If this way of viewing different socioeconomic classes becomes a defining
factor in how they are treated, and if no action is taken to level the playing field for different
classes then the culture will take on the attitude of the system. Once the culture is
established it sets a precedent for the community and the generations to come, leaving
them in the same position as before.

Above all I believe that race is one of the most crucial factors. Often times there are
accompanying racial demographics that go with socioeconomic class. Typically it is observed
that most living in the lower-income neighborhoods are minorities: African Americans,
Latinos, so on. Of course this is not true for all people of these demographics. There are
always exceptions to each situation. Or, in the case of John Ogbus writing, there can be
interesting distinctions between entire groups. Examine his concept of voluntary and
involuntary minorities. Involuntary minorities have moved against their will; for instance,
African Americans and the slavery trade or Native Americans and reservations. Meanwhile
the voluntary minorities typically came to America seeking a better life. This attitude
brought to the United States influences how they operate in society and how they adapt.
What is intriguing to note here from Ogbus text is how an African American student born
and raised in the States will be less likely to graduate high school or to put effort into school
and education while an immigrant from, say, the Middle East who chose to come over may
work hard and overcome adversities and go on to college and to become a citizen operating
in the everyday life of Democracy. So it not only comes to skin-color, but to the
accompanying culture, history, and also payoff.

The question that must be asked is do we want this current situation to continue?
Do we want to limit the number of students with the opportunity to learn, and for this
current system of inequality to stay?

No. I know that this is not how the system should be. Children should not be at a
disadvantage simply because of their skin color or socioeconomic factors, or on the other

end, have an unfair advantage. This is not the system we want. How do we start looking at
the situation then? How might we make a change?
One of the questions we must first ask is who knows how to do school. What does
this strange phrase mean? Essentially it is a question of who is going to succeed in school
and how that performance capability is determined. By determining how children learn and
the context of their learning, it can influence the manner of going about the solution to gain
more equality in education.

Annette Lareau ultimately says that there are two different ways children are raised,
dependent upon socioeconomic background. Children in middle- to upper-class families are
generally taught to be leaders. Children from a lower socioeconomic background are taught
to obey and respect authority, making them much stronger followers. But since these are
ways that children are raised, in the context of who knows how to do school it is ultimately
predetermined.

Ray Rist examined how teacher presuppositions influence treatment of students over
a period of three years at the Attucks school in St. Louis. The school is the one described
earlier, from the 1970s with a one-hundred percent African American student and staff
population. The classroom he examined had a socioeconomic mix of students, with a range
of appearances. Ultimately what occurred was the teacher briefly observed the children and
based on what she saw in addition to the student background files she split the class into 3
tables: Those highly likely to succeed, those maybe to succeed, and those destined to fail.
The teacher he examined was from a middle class background, so how she viewed success
drastically influenced her treatment of students to prefer those who acted or dressed closest
to a middle class child. In this case only the well-groomed, most civilized children were
deemed as likely successful, and the majority of resources and attention were granted to
them.

Then there is John Ogbu. He talks about how there are conflicting cultures in the
minority specifically African American community. While some students do study hard
and try to achieve in school, this conflicts with the more typical culture of African American
students. Studious, high-achieving students at schools like the Attucks school may be
shunned by their peers for their choices to succeed. The cultural conflict is only part of the
story. There is also the issue of a lack of payoff. If there are no physical jobs then there are
no success stories. If there are no success stories then there is no motivation, no change and
no more hope than before. What was missing in Ogbus time and is still missing today? Jobs.
Thus payoff is a prominent issue. Race, tied to payoff and culture, influences who will do
school well.
These factors are all quite controversial, causing many people to shy away from deep
discussions. Often times there is also fear of disturbing the status quo, a fear of change.
Turbulence is something few enjoy in their life, so typically life goes on day after day without
any talk. Yet there is a difference between observing the inequality, acknowledging it, and
then trying to determine the underlying causes. What I did here, and what the public needs
to begin doing, is to dig deeper into these subjects and then have open and honest civil
discussions. Circling back to the conditions of Democracy, one of the conditions is for free

and open inquiry and respect for civil discourse. Having these discussions is a right and a
duty of a Democratic thoughtful public.

The Most Important People in Education
If race and payoff and teacher treatment are some reasons for inequality, how can
we ensure that all students are getting an education in school? Especially when there are so
many people who believe that some students are inherently less superior whether that be
in success or intelligence than others.
One potential force of change is in teachers.
If the primary role of the school is to provide knowledge of Democratic character and
responsibilities to students then what is the role of the teacher?

I believe one of the most important qualities is to hold a positive view of human
nature. By holding such a view teachers are more likely to teach to their best efforts and
have faith in their students. This would be unlike the teachers at Attucks, who believed along
the lines of Lareau and figured that if a student looked poor he or she was inherently at a
disadvantage. Teachers should also be supportive, regardless of their preconceptions or a
students background. Teachers should also recognize the several relationships that are
involved in schooling. They are just one point in an intricate web of relationships, and that
should be recognized and embraced. These relationships are ones that will not disappear.
For instance, no matter how hard someone tries they will not single-handedly be able to
thwart the presence of the State in their classrooms. By recognizing the tension between
each group teachers can build and use those relationships to their advantage and to do
work.

On paper being a teacher sounds challenging, requiring dedication, persistence, and
patience; and it is and requires those traits. Yet society does not view teaching as a job with
particularly high rank. Some view it as a joke, a backup job while teachers continue to take
their work very seriously. When I was young I thought as many people do and believed
education was a simple occupation; though now I realize I am mistaken. I am now beginning
to come to the conclusion that teachers should be in the power positions. It all comes back
to the context that teachers are in, and just as schooling has a context in politics does
teaching have a context in morals.

Before we continue discussing moral context, the power behind definitions must be
emphasized. How we define ourselves defines how we talk and how people perceive us. So
there is a large power in definitions. This is relevant to the discussion of how teachers define
themselves, and in turn, how teachers act in relation to others. What is a teacher, what is
the purpose of a teacher? These questions are answered by defining. Is a teacher a lackey,
someone who teaches you what you want to know? Or someone more like a doctor and less
like a plumber in terms of status? These statements have large implications that vary from
what a teachers meaning ought to be: a moral agent.

As moral agents teachers are the example of Democratic character and conditions
for the government. If the primary purpose of schools is to provide knowledge about
Democratic principles and characteristics, then teachers should be a prime reflection of
those very qualities. They have a moral relationship with the student, and several other

aspects such as the parents, the community, and the State. It is more than a moral
relationship, but grows to be a moral obligation. The teacher has an obligation to the
students, to teach what they know is important.

Teaching is built upon a moral context. Morals tie it all together. Teaching is not just
about skill or knowledge alone. Without morals there would be no identity, and without an
identity there would be no definition. By acting with this purpose and believing the
importance in this role, teachers become the ultimate agents and power positions. The
prestige that many teacher professional movements seek will naturally emerge with this
definition. How teachers define their purpose and role influences how they speak and act in
relation to others, conveying who they are to other people. This is a very powerful set of
connections. But more importantly, it is how powerful the position of a teacher could and
should be.

What if we had teachers similar to technicians? Technicians typically work on
whatever they are called to fix, or do practical work. If a teacher acted as such it might look
like someone who simply reads from the textbook and encourages memorization, someone
who is decent enough but might not have the moral character to cut it as a moral agent.
Education might then look like a patched up system that runs as a machine, with young
children going in and young adults coming out with knowledge packed into their minds but
not much otherwise. They would not have a sense of identity nor know how they were
supposed to use that knowledge to participate in the Democracy. Eventually the political
system might shift into something else, running on a persuaded audience. This should be
avoided.

Given the role of the teacher, does this change how we choose and assess teachers? I
am not all too familiar with current requirements for becoming a teacher. However, when
looking at the design of the system an important question to ask oneself is what qualities in
a teacher are inherent and which ones can be taught. Qualities such as how to arrange a
classroom, how to write a set of curriculum, or how they manage a classroom full of children
are traits and skills that can be taught to teachers. But other traits such as patience, a moral
compass, and enthusiasm should be intrinsic to the teacher. A teachers morals influence
their character, and their character (to be a moral agent) should reflect that of a prime
citizen. Therefore this is a useful distinction to use when looking at how to choose and assess
teachers.

Changing the structure and admitting requirements for teaching schools, particularly
asking the question of what traits must the applicant possess, is a useful and beneficial
change to the system. But above all teachers and the public must carefully examine what it
means to be a teacher and what this entails. It is not a simple lecturing position. There is an
unbelievable amount of depth and a numerous number of implications for a teacher that
should not be taken lightly.

Change: Why is it difficult?
If there is so much inequality in the system why has it not changed? There are a
variety of reasons, more than I could discuss here. Included is the school day structure.
Sometimes reforms seek to scrap the entire school structure and rebuild it. However, the

school year is actually a solidly integrated part to the system, for reasons such as families
moving in the summertime and being able to start at a new school the same time, or for
property values.
There is also the issue of evaluations impacting curriculum in schools. Evaluations are
a quick and quantitative way to observe if a student, teacher, school or district is meeting
certain requirements. However, in the case of standardized tests and the like these
evaluations ultimately dictate what is taught and redefines values to form around the test.
With testing and evaluations occurring, it can be difficult to enact change, particularly if that
change opposes the evaluations.
Overall there are a large number of factors that link together and link to other
aspects of the system, which makes it difficult to make any drastic changes.

The Ideal Situation
John Dewey once wrote: What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child,
that must the community want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is
narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy.
Simply because someone may not have children in the school system does not
relieve them of being concerned about the status of schools and education. It is everyones
responsibility, to desire the best and provide for all children. Indeed the qualification best
and wisest regarding parents is quite ambiguous. Yet the point here is that the larger
community should care. If the community is to ensure that the political context is sustained,
and if the primary purpose of schools is to teach students Democratic conditions and
characteristics, and it is the purpose of teachers to be moral agents, then it should concern
all people residing in the Democracy to provide students with this education. Just as George
Counts writes, if Deweys words are properly interpreted then all the citizens of
Democracy should be in sympathetic and complete accord.
Unfortunately in reality people are more concerned with their own childrens
education. I am not shaming parents for being concerned and trying to get the best for their
children. In cases such as when changes are suggested that might force others to care about
the students who do not have access to as many resources for instance, taking PTA funds
from a wealthier school and giving it to a school with less outside funds people become
riled and defensive. They ask why their hard earned money should be given to another
school when they specifically gave it to their childrens school; and they do hold a perfectly
valid point.
Yet just as Dewey disagrees, George Counts disagrees as well. At some point the talk
becomes empty words instead of preface for action, and in terms of actually enacting
change and caring about all students Counts bluntly accuses parents and communities for
their facades. He calls parents out on their wish to guard their offspring from certain
aspects of society, sheltering them within the social class. He believes the financial
objections are a lousy excuse for not enacting change for equality and that children in the
lower class are perfectly capable of learning the same as their wealthier peers. These are
excuses, to relieve the community from having to think about the children, and excuses to
propagate the cycle for prevention of education of these children.

The persisting dichotomy between which students get what is astounding. Deweys
belief is not seen universally in society, which is unfortunate. However, in the wise words of
Spencer Welch, even if the ideal may not be attainable it does not mean that there should
not be the best efforts to try and achieve the ideal. Just as I discussed in Why do some have
more than others, it is the right and duty of the public to have these discussions. Even if
nothing drastic can occur, just talking about the issues raises awareness, and in turn can
further strengthen the ideal of a more thoughtful public. Enacted change might not be the
solution, and there might never be a solution to solve all the problems. However just by
striving for the ideal is work in a positive direction, an improvement over doing absolutely
nothing.

Conclusion

I have now examined (1) what education is, (2) who gets what sort of education, (3)
why some students get more, (4) why teachers should be the most important in education,
(5) Why changes to the current system can be unproductive and (6) why thinking about the
ideal situation is important. Here I have examined only a handful of topics; the grand scheme
of education is much larger than nine pages of paper. What we can do as members of the
Democracy is take on our duty as citizens and act to create an improved system.