Problems in American Education - Part 5: Elitism and Hypocrisy
You know, for a country that claims to be the center of democracy in the world, we seem to have way too much social stratification in our schools. I will try to make this entry a little shorter, especially since I touched on the subject a little in my last essay on ability grouping; but I do believe that elitism, though sometimes subtle, is a very large and very hypocritical erosive element plaguing American education. Let’s just stop and think about it for a while and describe it for what it is.
Once again, in considering the logic and consistency behind our programs in education, it may be wise to go back to Jefferson’s thoughts on equal opportunity for all. We do present such ideas to the world as cornerstones on which our society is built. At the same time, however, we also support the notion that people should be free to send their children to elite private schools, parochial and other private church-related institutions, and to programs in which certain students are given an advantage over others.
Again, consider the logic. If we are truly a democratic society with equal opportunity for all, why are some children given advantage over others? I am guessing that the first line of argument in favor of such discrimination will be related to freedom of choice - the idea that parents who have earned the financial and/or social power to make decisions about how their children will be educated should have the freedom to do so. My essential question is this: Even if the parents, through hard work, good decisions, effort, and good fortune in a free society, have earned the freedom they wish to exercise, what have their children done to equally earn such privilege? Unless I am missing something, it seems to me that all they did was find themselves born into power. Why is it that the poor child, born into an inner city family, does not get similar advantage in a society that is supposed to be based on equality of opportunity. This is more than just a disconnect - it is hypocrisy.
I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to private schools. They have a place and a role to perform in a democratic society. I believe that private schools should exist to work with children who have special needs that mainstream public schools cannot service. I have worked in the past decade as an administrator and teacher in two schools designed to work with at-risk youth. There is no greater calling. These schools were set up to help troubled kids who needed a helping hand to climb back into the main currents of life. That is just one example of a proper role for private education. There are others.
What I cannot defend are private schools and privileged circumstances in public schools that seek to hand advantage to children just because their parents or some perceived notions about their state of childhood competence dictate that they should be segregated. Such practices are not democratic and run counter to the concept and development of equal opportunity. Let us not fool ourselves; these practices are widespread and largely accepted as normal patterns in American education. I contend that they undermine the culture of education and send subtle but strong messages about what our society is supposed to represent.
Supporting all of this is the unstated notion that parents own their children - that children are extensions of themselves and are thereby entitled (that’s the word!) to special consideration. I know that there was a judge in Boston a number of years ago who got into a great deal of trouble trying to use buses to attack this problem; but he was right. There was and is a basic inequality of opportunity in our country and the situation not getting any better. In his case, he was trying to battle that inequality as it related to the disparities between urban and suburban schools; but that is only one corner of the problem. The bigger picture has to do with innate prejudice subtly harbored in the heart of the way our portion of civilization thinks. As one sage recently noted in something I read somewhere, we like democracy when it makes us feel free, but we don’t like it when it gives freedom for others to become unwanted competition. Makes you think a little bit about ancient Rome, doesn’t it?
Once again, in considering the logic and consistency behind our programs in education, it may be wise to go back to Jefferson’s thoughts on equal opportunity for all. We do present such ideas to the world as cornerstones on which our society is built. At the same time, however, we also support the notion that people should be free to send their children to elite private schools, parochial and other private church-related institutions, and to programs in which certain students are given an advantage over others.
Again, consider the logic. If we are truly a democratic society with equal opportunity for all, why are some children given advantage over others? I am guessing that the first line of argument in favor of such discrimination will be related to freedom of choice - the idea that parents who have earned the financial and/or social power to make decisions about how their children will be educated should have the freedom to do so. My essential question is this: Even if the parents, through hard work, good decisions, effort, and good fortune in a free society, have earned the freedom they wish to exercise, what have their children done to equally earn such privilege? Unless I am missing something, it seems to me that all they did was find themselves born into power. Why is it that the poor child, born into an inner city family, does not get similar advantage in a society that is supposed to be based on equality of opportunity. This is more than just a disconnect - it is hypocrisy.
I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to private schools. They have a place and a role to perform in a democratic society. I believe that private schools should exist to work with children who have special needs that mainstream public schools cannot service. I have worked in the past decade as an administrator and teacher in two schools designed to work with at-risk youth. There is no greater calling. These schools were set up to help troubled kids who needed a helping hand to climb back into the main currents of life. That is just one example of a proper role for private education. There are others.
What I cannot defend are private schools and privileged circumstances in public schools that seek to hand advantage to children just because their parents or some perceived notions about their state of childhood competence dictate that they should be segregated. Such practices are not democratic and run counter to the concept and development of equal opportunity. Let us not fool ourselves; these practices are widespread and largely accepted as normal patterns in American education. I contend that they undermine the culture of education and send subtle but strong messages about what our society is supposed to represent.
Supporting all of this is the unstated notion that parents own their children - that children are extensions of themselves and are thereby entitled (that’s the word!) to special consideration. I know that there was a judge in Boston a number of years ago who got into a great deal of trouble trying to use buses to attack this problem; but he was right. There was and is a basic inequality of opportunity in our country and the situation not getting any better. In his case, he was trying to battle that inequality as it related to the disparities between urban and suburban schools; but that is only one corner of the problem. The bigger picture has to do with innate prejudice subtly harbored in the heart of the way our portion of civilization thinks. As one sage recently noted in something I read somewhere, we like democracy when it makes us feel free, but we don’t like it when it gives freedom for others to become unwanted competition. Makes you think a little bit about ancient Rome, doesn’t it?
posted by Friar4 at 1:48 AM
11 Comments:
Dear Friar,
I don't feel I "own" my children, but rather, am responsible for and to them. It has nothing to do with "elitism" to try and provide my children with a good/great education.
If I thought that could be accomplished in the public school setting, I would follow that course. It has been my experience that the private schools do a better "job" in educating my children. I would suggest to you that if there are children who have received a better education, they might also be the adults who can further research and create opportunities for others. It would seem that society is better off if the population is more "intelligent" as a result of the private education system. I don't assume my children are any "smarter" than anyone else, I am hoping that they are as "smart" as they can be , whatever level that puts them on. You make it seem like it's a bad thing for parents to want to have their children realize their potential if that requires "non public" education means. Following that same logic, it would appear to be "inappropriate" to hire a tutor and/or seek any outside professional help as that must also be considerd "elitism", unless I miss your point.
Thank you for your comment. With all due respect, I think you do miss my point to some extent. I understand the desire of parents to offer the best education possible for their children. As a parent, I feel the same way.
My concern relates to a society that allows those parents to give unfair advantage to their children. If advantage is there to be enjoyed, why should only a certain group of our children enjoy that advantage? Parent support of children is a natural and nurturing instinct. As Teddy Roosevelt noted however, government, as an extension of societal goal administration, is responsible for fairness in distributing civilization's wealth to all of our citizens, not just the ones whose parents have power, position, and money. In other words, I am not faulting individual parents for wanting what is best for their children; I am faulting society for not wanting what is best for all of its children.
As for tutoring, I would define tutoring as offering individualized help for a student who needs it. No problem with that.
Dear Friar,
When you say "society" is that analogous with "government"? It seems to me society is much broader than government. Our children are part of our society, but not part of our government. Is knowledge/education considered a civilization's "wealth"? It would seem we are all born with an ability to understand some level of information, which, when properly interpreted, becomes knowledge. The government cannot be responsible, in my opinion, for how its citizens interpret information. If so, it runs the risk of manipulating its citizens for the Governments own advancement. (See brutal dictators)
We all interpret information differently, hence, place different "values"/emphasis on matters that seem more relevent to our lives. As a result, certain parents place more emphasis on education than others. Some feel sports and/or the arts are more important, thus the bands and teams are created, typically at a cost to the participant ($$). Is that any more "fair" or should the government step in to "level this playing field" (no pun intended) as well. How can government monitor every possible "wealth" to ensure a fair distribution? This seems to be an impossible task which is why we are all different.
Thank you once again for your response to my response. Government, in my opinion, is an important instrument of society or civilization, if you wish. While human beings are imperfect, it should and needs to be the role of government, especially in a democratic society not ruled by brutal dictators, to play the role of impartial arbiter. While a totally level playing field is never possible, I do believe that a civilized people should look at it as something to strive for, even if perfection is never achieved. When Teddy Roosevelt proposed his "Square Deal" in the early 1900's, he did so because the "Robber Baron's," as they were called, had used the free enterprise system to take unfair advantage. As the head of government, he took on that role of impartial arbiter (like an umpire in a baseball game) and sought to level the playing field or at least compensate for the inequities that threatened American civilization. Your comment about "brutal dictator" is very important here. That is not supposed to be what we have in our government if we trust it to be what it is supposed to be and what it has shown itself to be over 200 years of history. I do trust our system of checks and balances to deal with the legitimate concern you mentioned. Granted, it is imperfect, but it is all we have to guard against what Madison called the "tyranny of the majority" in THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.
I am not an opponent of knowledge-based diversity and I do not propose homogenizing the learning process to a point where one size fits all. Rather, I am a proponent of free and open competition on as level a playing field as can be managed. That is why I suggest that no artificial advantage be given to one while the same advantage is not available to another. As I said in my original post, I do believe that there is a place for private education, especially in regard to working with children who have special needs. There are times when public schools simply do not have the resources to help them. More on that in a later post.
In your earlier comment, you wrote about a population that is more "intelligent" "as a result of the private education system." What does that mean? How does a private school make children "more intelligent?" Again, I don't think it is bad for parents to want their children to realize their potential. My contention is that I want to seem promotion of an educational value that says all children should be given the resources to realize their potential. I don't mean to be harsh, but I need to ask this question. What if you are a single mom with no money flipping burgers down at MacDonald's? Does that mean that your child should have less opportunity to become "intelligent?" Is that fair in what is supposed to be an egalitarian society?
I hope that you are not offended by my opinions. They are certainly not intended to offend or to suggest that I have all the answers. Every person certainly has the right to disagree and to adhere to his or her own value system. My opinion is just that - a single, solitary opinion. It is not intended to point fingers at any individuals. What I am doing here is commenting on the system, not individual people, and suggest that I believe the system needs reform. Many good people with great intentions may disagree with me. I hope, however, that at least I am making you think about things that don't often see the light of day as far as subjects for debate and discussion. I very much appreciate the time, effort, and considered thought you have put into your comments to me.
Dear Friar,
By "more intelligent" I meant that the private school, for whatever reason, has been able to provide an environment where the learning process seems to result in either more information being dissiminated OR the student seems to be more able to receive the information. In either case, the results seems to be the student, at the end of the "day", retains more of the information or has the ability to process the information given in a manner that allows them to understand it better - translation - more intelligent. That isn't to say all children in private school are more intelligent than public school, nor is it to say that they are more intelligent hence they go to a private school. For me, it's all about results. When my children complete their education for the year, my wife and I evaluate, to ourselves, whether the school is accomplishing their required tasks with and/or for our children. If it seems that they are not, we would not hesitate to use the public school system. For our children, the school has performed their tasks, hence, we continue to use them. For others, it has not been the case and those students go to the public school system.
As far as the question regarding the single parent working but not able to afford private school, the question of fair is certainly valid, but not necessarily pertinent. Every parent makes choices based upon available resources, be it money, time or capabilities (of their child). If I could afford to send our children to the most expensive private school in the state, would I do it? Not necessarily. Only if I felt that would provide them with the absolute best education that could not be matched anywhere else. However, if my children find the academic process to be difficult, then that private school would not achieve its tasks/goals. No "fault" of either side, just not a good match. For me, I do not resent the fact that there are currently children going to these schools and, probably, when they complete the curriculum, they will be more intelligent than my own children. I say, "good for them". Will they have more opportunities in life as a result, possibly, but that doesn't mean that my children were intentionally put at a disadvantage by the students or their parents. I don't see it as "us vs. them". I see it as we are all part of this society and the more educated the populace is, the better it is for all of us. We will be able to make better, more informed decisions as a society. I think it should improve the quality of life for everyone. The supposition is that a more intelligent society will be able to identify the more "civil" way of life and strive to have that way become the norm. Has it happened yet? We're working on it.
Dear cjm,
You clearly have a well-conceived and thoughtfully considered position; and I admire the amount of effort that you have put into drawing conclusions about your family strategies. We may not be as far apart as we both first imagined.
Having written that, I still have some semi-semantic differences that may, in themselves, represent some fundamental differences. I am not certain, for instance, that I share your working definitions of words like intelligence, information, and, in a general sense, education. At least a couple of times you have equated intelligence with the acquisition of information. I don't believe that is true. Of course, you may argue that I may be confusing intelligence with wisdom, and I can accept that subtle distinction; but I feel that the best forms of education seek to promote the evolution of wisdom through the teaching of information, skills, positive human interaction, tolerance, charity, discipline, etc. Becuase of this, I look at the best schools as the ones who can more effectively create a microcosm of the real world as part of their approach, offering students the opportunity to learn by doing and experiencing (the best kind of learning in my opinion) in order to prepare them for what they will encounter later. Many private schools, in my opinion and based on my experience, do not do that, and, quite frankly, work in directions that suggest a segregated reality geared toward lives of privilege.
A great deal of your argument seems to be based on freedom of choice. It is hard to confront a value that seems so American. I do believe in it in most, if not all, circumstances. The truth about the American experience, however, is that we do not have freedom of choice in many areas or at least we are all subject to the will of the majority in those areas. We do not, for small instance, have the freedom to run into a crowded theater and yell, "fire," when a fire does not exist. There are, of course, many examples.
I know that word "own" rankled you a bit when I first used it. Actually, I hope you will forgive me for using a loaded word like that as a literary device to catch people's attention. The truth of the matter is, however, that you have your choices to make because you have found a way to afford to make those choices for children who have not earned it themselves.
In the case of school choice, Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education decided that separate but equal was not Constitutional. You yourself contend that the private education you prefer is not even equal. If you follow your reasoning and focus on the end result, I believe that an argument could be made that advantage and disadvantage are at play here.
You wrote about parents making choices and decision; but I believe the fact that the McDonald's mom cannot make that choice and decision is both unfair and pertinent. Remember, I never used the word, "fault" in my contentions. It sounds to me like your positions are thoughtfully considered and based on love for your children and what you think are in their best interests. Those decisions are obviously legal, permissable in our society, and clearly individually ethical and moral in our current environment. I claim no personal high ground on these matters. Perhaps I would make the same personal decisions if I lived in a location where public schools were very poor or unsafe. I am an imperfect human, as are we all, and subject to making decisions based on the personal love and sense of responsibility I have for my children.
I know I am repeating myself, but my argument is with the system and culture that allows this almost subliminal process of stratification in a democratic society. Ideally you can make your point that the "more intelligent" graduates turned out by such a system can make for a better world, but they can also make for an advantageous situation for themselves that allows them to go out and devote their energies to more comfortable and profitable lives for themselves. I aways remember the Canadian I heard on the radio driving down from Montreal who said he saw what he thought was the quintessential American bumper sticker, "He who dies with the most toys, wins."
Dear Friar,
All I can say is the Canadian is a "product of the Canadian education system". (just kidding) I don't think the majority of Americans think the bumper sticker is really our "Montra" as a society. Even if it were, there are no guarantees that the ones seeking the most "toys" are the most educated. Actually, it might be just the opposite. The less educated person could be more inclined to acquire "things" as it is a way, in their mind, of "leveling the playing field" with others. I have two snowmobiles therefore I have "made it in life". In either case, I don't find the mainstream American philosophy to be "most toys win".
You commented on the "Best schools" as ones that create a micrcosm of the real world. I would agree only if the micrcosm does not interfere with the primary tasks of the school/education system - educating our children. To me, the primary function of the school is to provide the students with facts and develop cerain required skills to function as a productive person in our society. Those skills would be: reading, writing and arithmetic (RWA). Readind and writing implies using the primary language of our society: english. Once these basics are learned, then other subject matters can be covered: science, social studies, history etc. Any school that creates an environment conducive to learning the subject mater is a "best school" by my definition. For me, children really don't learn the intended subject matter (RWA) if they are always being disrupted by unruly classmates, felt ridiculed and bullied because they try to be responsive in class and find themselves having to "justify" their behavior to the others in the class who truly don't care. Even though there are grown ups in our society who behave this same way towrds others, that doesn't mean it is the type of environment one wants in school. Due to the great disparity of age from 1st to 12th grade, it is difficult to apply one Standard for schools. What works in the grade school obviously doesn't work in the high school yet the microcosm, in theory, should be the same if I understand you correctly.
I think there is an ideal environment for learning, however, it does not mimic the real world. Rather it needs to be a quiet, organized place where the teacher can be seen and heard. Students need to behave in an organized manner (one at a time, listen to one another) and be interactive with the teacher when they don't understand what they are being taught. Again, learning about the "real world" can be done in the "real world" (after school). That's really where the "learning" occurs for the most part anyway. Each of us have a different "real world" based upon where we live and with whom we live. I don't expect the school to "teach" those types of leason: at least not as a primary task. Of course students will have "real life" experiences during the school day, however, they should not be considered part of the school's curriculum. The school must focus on the (RWA) as that is what its primary task is, in my opinion. Take care of teaching the basics to all and all will be better prepared to become a positive contributor to our society when they become an adult. WIll everyone have the same opportunities? Not likely, however, they will at least know how to function for themselves (read, write etc.).
Finally, my thoughts about the more intelligent making a better society, I was actually thinking in terms of : A rising tide raises all of the boats. It doesn't discriminate about which boats, but rather, makes it better for everyone. I don't know if Bill Gates went to a private school, however, if he did, we are all better off as a result (if you believe in the personal computer). I know there are better examples but it seems to make my point.
Dear cjm,
One of the nice things about a debate like this is that, with each response, the lines of disagreement do become more and more clear. While we do not disagree on some things (Who could argue that a quiet environment is not conducive to learning?), I do believe that we have some fundamental differences of opinion. For the record, let me list a few from your last comment:
1. I would not be too quick to dismiss my Canadian bumper sticker comment. No, we don't go around chanting a montra; but I believe that cultural inclinations are much more subtle and subliminal than that in the way they effect behavior and values. We learn those kinds of things through the lives we live, starting at a very early age. It may be unspoken and only internalized, but I don't think that makes it any less real.
2. Your implied "back to basics" philosophy is very popular and has been for many years, particularly on the right side of the political spectrum. Your repeating (RWA) parenthetical references reminds me of a montra I have heard from the right for a long time. Obviously, basics are important and need to be taught, but I sometimes believe they are used as red herrings. I do not agree that basics are limited to RWA. As an old social studies teacher, I have to admit to a bias; but I would have to add at least four more - social studies, science, social interaction skills (sometimes as part of social studies) and geography (also sometimes part of social studies and, in my opinion, one of the most underrated and important subjects in modern world education).
3. If, as I think, you are consistent with the school of thought I mentioned early in #2, your reference to "learning about the 'real world' can be done in the 'real world' after school" means that you believe it is not the place of the school to be teaching in these "real world" areas. Maybe you believe that such education is more properly the role of parents, churches, experience, etc. If that is so, I do not agree. Our society has shown pretty consistently that it does not do an adequate job raising youth in those areas. I don't think I need to list the social problems confronting our nation today. I used to argue this point with one of my teachers years ago. He wanted to teach straight history and believed the other "stuff" belonged in a domain owned by parents and other "after school" institutions. My answer to him was that it was clear that the "after school" orientation just wasn't happening and that the school, as the caring institution I believe it should be, cannot just ignore that fact and march on blindly teaching only discrete skills and facts. Education in other areas is just too important to leave to chance. We need to address it, or fail while trying.
4. We also have a very different and predictable working definitions of the word, "curriculum." I won't write too much about it here because I intend to explain my definition in a future post; but, suffice it to say at this point, that my definition is much more comprehensive than yours. One of the things you will see if you continue to read my posts (and I certainly hope that you do)is that I draw a very important distinction between program and curriculum.
5. I do agree that most of learning does take place away from the school; but I would suggest that such a reality means that it is all the more important for the school to address it in school. If the school simply decides to teach RWA, you are not only letting the teachers off the hook in regard to other very important curricula, but you are also sending the message to kids that the social institution known as the school feels that the other parts of education are irrelevant and/or unreachable. I can't accept that, especially when I look at things that happen in our country today.
6. I think that your water rising metaphor (an old Republican Party philosophical precept) would be more believable if we did not see such a great disparity between the haves and have nots in our society. Actually, I think it does work in some ways, especially when you think about more practical and quantitative advances on state-of-the-art issues, but I believe it falls down when we think about qualitative issues facing our population and humanity as a whole.
I am really enjoying this debate and hope you will continue to respond. You are challenging me to reach to the depths of my reasoning and I hope that I am doing the same for you.
Dear Friar,
Happy 4th of July.
Same to you from the old Friar.
Hi,
Your blog is well written and informative. I have a site on Snowmobile maybe we could trade links?
Post a Comment
<< Home