Amanda Gorman

At first sight of this lengthy article, I was a bit nervous for what I was about to read. While a lot of the information seems a bit “out of reach” to me, I found that many of the questions I encountered in my tutoring could be answered through this article. I also found that of the three goals the author mentions, there is one that seems extremely selfish and self-involved and really the antithesis of how I see education from a teacher’s perspective.

I believe the two biggest contradictory goals in schools deals with democratic equality and social efficiency. I often questioned in my tutoring the advantages that some students have over others based on race, academic ability, and location of schools. I suppose as a teacher my goal would be democratic equality—making sure that all students have access to public education, students can share a common culture in school, they are exposed to similar curriculum, and shared educational experiences. I would want to help my students become productive adults, good citizens who can stand up for themselves, be knowledgeable about their society, and participate in the world around them. I feel that each child should have an equal chance to do this.  I feel that there should be equal educational experiences for all students regardless of race, age, ethnicity, sex—in other words it has been a good thing that schools began to become “desegregated.”  Now, while in theory this sounds great, as the article notes, goals and practices of schools vary greatly. How can schools promote equality when there is such great social inequality in the real world? I feel that this is where social efficiency comes in. Social efficiency can provide the answers to my concerns that some students are always going to have advantages over other students—and according to this article, the reason for this is that students are under the influence of different goals. Social efficiency goals train students for the work force. I really do not have a problem with vocational classes—I myself took them in high school. I think they are great, because they pull kids away from some core academic areas that have been drilled in their heads for years, and gives them a chance to experience knowledge that they can apply to their real world jobs. However, in supporting vocational programs as a way for children to express themselves and learn in alternative ways that differ from core academic learning, I am contradicting myself and my goals.

While I will always believe in equal education for all students, I also realize that social efficiency goals are going to begin to stratify my students, group them, label them—in other words, all students will no longer all be created equal. The student with tendencies toward mechanics classes is going to be put “underneath” the students who have tendencies toward medical technology classes. Social efficiency looks down on the democratic goal of graduating students as an “undifferentiated group with a common set of broad competencies that are not easily adapted to the differentiated skill demands of a complex jobs structure.” I do not necessarily agree with this, I think that democratic goals can “produce students” with different competencies, and still give them an “equal education.” Even if democratic goals were promoting general education, all students are different and therefore all students are going to have strengths in certain academic subjects/interests and weaknesses which are going to lead them to enter different fields. I agree with the practicality of social efficiency, schooling, or in other words the knowledge that I am teaching my students supplies future workers with the skills that will enhance their productivity and therefore promote economic growth. I feel that teachers always need to keep in mind that once students leave school they will be entering the real world, so real world skills should always be a goal—however, teachers must not rely on these goals alone, or the hierarchical system of teaching students “to the job” becomes a problem. I feel the real problem is the conflict between democratic and social goals—and which goals students are being exposed to. A school with strictly democratic goals is going to produce much different students than schools who have strictly social efficiency goals. The questions is do lower income schools hold different goals for their students than higher income schools? Is this why there is such a difference among students in urban vs. suburban areas? Are teachers in urban areas teaching students towards jobs that do not require any college training? Are they teaching students towards jobs that are going to be lower on the “social ladder” of the workforce? The bottom line is complete democratic goals/equality may not exist in reality, my social efficiency goals will always segregate students–even at the highest social mobility level there will always be competition, one who goes to a Ivy League school will be more competitive in the job force than one who goes to a state college.

Lastly, I would like to comment on the goal that I find most disturbing which is the social mobility. While the article states that democratic equality is the most political, I feel that this goal is not only the most political but also the most selfish. The goal focuses on the individual self, individual status, and answers the questions what can “school do for me, regardless of what it can do for others.” I think that this goal, regardless of how much I dislike it, is very present in schools. It creates competition among peers, it supports tracking, and groups kids based on academic and skill levels. From this perspective parents don’t want equal education but what is best for their child. I feel that education has to do with ALL students, and ENTIRE communities. Maybe I am naïve, but this individualistic goal and view of education seems really disconcerting to me—especially if this is the only goal that the school holds. This goal allows for each child to be clearly distinguished for his/her peers. As much as I do not agree with this goal, it is a reality—there will always be competition for the right job among other things—and those that have the upper hand, academic or other wise will get ahead.

Like the article says, how can schools realistically be expected to promote all of these goals? Well, from what I understand they cannot. A combination of these goals, maybe? What I do realize is that many of the problems I have witnessed in tutoring, and maybe of the issues brought up about education, can definitely be found within the tensions between these three goals.