Public Goods, Private GoodsThe American

Public Goods, Private Goods:The American Struggle over Educational Goals David Labaree

Schools pulled in three directions (democratic equality; social efficiency; social mobility) by demands of citizen, taxpayer, consumer. Arise from “the tension between democratic politics (public rights) and capitalist markets (private rights)."

“education has come to be defined as an arena that simultaneously promotes equality and adapts to inequality"

-> What is the scholarly frame that allows Labaree to assert that these conflicting goals are the root cause of American education’s “incoherence and ineffectiveness"? I haven’t read enough history/sociology. -> Why am I being paid to go to grad school? -> What about another function, of self-perpetuation of the system? 

There is convincing evidence that consumer demand for this kind of educational distinction (rather than a societal demand for human capital) has been largely responsible for driving the extraordinary upward expansion of education in the U. S. during the last 130 years

One consequence of making education a private good is that the status-conveying credentials become more important than learning. “The effect on education is to emphasize form over content.” Creating a zero-sum game puts pressure on the education system to be fair in choosing its winners. 

It is in the gifted programs, the advanced placement tracks, the wealthy suburban high schools, and the elite universities that competitive achievement is most intense, but, in the remedial classes, the vocational track, the poor inner-city high schools, and the open-admission colleges, the urge to compete is weaker, and the struggle for academic achievement is relaxed. Students from the lower and working classes see the possibility of social mobility through education more as a frail hope than a firm promise, since the experience of their families and friends is that the future is uncertain and the relevance of education to that future is doubtful. As a result, they are less likely to delve headlong into the meritocratic fray within education, often looking at educational achievement as a lost cause or a sucker’s game (Connell, Ashenden, Kessler, & Dowsett, 1982; Eckert, 1989; MacLeod, 1995; Oakes, 1985).

normal- izing judgment (Foucauk, 1977)

History of priorities reflected in shifting priorities. Evolution toward increased emphasis on social mobility; private good.

Progressivism defined as compromise between democratic and liberal priorities; between egalitarianism and meritocracy     

Social efficiency education: reproductive social structure and conservative politics (maintaining elite political control)

-> Thus it makes sense to me why progressivism should often be adopted by wealthy whites (who do not feel threatened in their positions) and minorities (Summit)

Huge shift in US toward hiring based on credentials rather than ascribed characteristics; “the rise of the credentials market itself is perhaps the proudest achievement of this progres- sive coalition”

In contrast to the deep love we feel and express in private, we lack any sense of “public love” for children, and we are unwilling to make public commitments to them except when we believe the commit- ments will pay off. (Grubb and Lazerson (1982, p. 52)

——> How does ed-tech line up with these goals?

Therefore, education can only promote social mobility (and simulta- neously preser^e the positional advantage of the privileged) to the extent that it prevents most students from reaching the top of the educational pyramid. It carries out this mobility and maintenance function by encourag- ing students to exit at lower levels of the system and by stratifying the credentials earned by students at each educational level (via curriculum tracking within schools and prestige ranking between schools).

What’s important in school? What you can do with your learning (use value)? Or what your credential can do for you (exchange value)? “As noted earlier, neoclassical economics sees no tension between use value and exchange value, since the latter is assumed to reflect the former. Marx (1967), however, effectively challenged this assumption. In a capitalist society, he argued, the market abstracts social products from their original context and particular function, reifies this abstraction by making it into a generic commodity, and makes it equivalent to all other commodities by assigning it a monetary value.”

Educational opportunities grow faster than social opportunities; the ability of a particular diploma to buy a good job declines, so the value of educational credentials becomes inflated.