Public Policy 9
Education is another important area of public policy. People have long argued the education system is a crucial component of maintaining a class system. Simply put, the elites get educated the poor do not, for the most part. The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu coined the term "cultural capital" to speak of how education is used as a form of power. Cultural capital can be defined as: "the collection of symbolic elements such as skills, tastes, posture, clothing, mannerisms, material belongings, credentials, etc. that one acquires through being part of a particular social class." From this point of view, schools and universities then serve to instill this collection of symbolic elements in students. Again, those who do not possess, learn, or appropriate these elements are at a significant disadvantage in society. Cultural capital instills a certain kind of "habitus" (another of Bourdieu's terms), or basically certain kinds of social habits. Acquiring and displaying these habits is an important part of how people ascend to different social strata, or what some used to call "polite society," in other words displaying the right kinds of manners, etc. This is certainly an important part of education, but maybe not what most people, still these habits are as important if not more important than the kind of knowledge we usually associate with education. As the recent college admissions scandal shows, simply having the credentials or having the degree is enough without even having to learn anything. So, is the legal and tolerated institution of "legacy admissions," that allows people like George Bush to go to Harvard and Yale (without having the grades to get in) simply because his father (and grandfather) went there.
The US led the way in the development of a public education system open to all. However, it has always been a means of disciplining the workforce, teaching them to show up on time, follow authority, etc. Despite these limitations, it did at least educate people to some extent. At one point, the US was believed to have the best public education system in the world, including public colleges like City College in New York, or the University of California system comprising many colleges that were tuition free. Since the 1970s, at the same time as tuition was introduced, the quality of the education system as a whole began to decline. Some, like Gore Vidal, have argued the military demands of the Cold War, made it impossible to continue to funding public education at a high level, and when faced with a choice between the two, political leaders on all sides have consistently chosen the military over education, as seen in the graphs on discretionary spending. By military spending, of course we are not just referring to defense, but to maintaining a global military empire.
How this decline in education is measured is controversial in itself, since it depends on quantitative measures based on standardized testing which many argue is not a good means of evaluating students. However, for whatever value or meaning it may have, the decline in education is hard to ignore.
Some, like Steven Singer, from the Huffington Post have argued these scores are somewhat exaggerated. He argues that other countries tend to hide lower performing students while the US includes all students (he says) in its scores. To some extent this is true, for example, the highest performing students are in Shanghai, the largest city in China, however this does not include Chinese people as a whole living in China. Similarly, with Singapore, an independent country, but essentially a modern city-state, made up of the city of Singapore. So, the two highest performing groups of students are in cities. If the US were to only measure students in New York City, then the scores would also be higher. Finland, third highest, is also a small country (also the country where teachers are paid the most). However, it should not be totally discounted either. Japan is a country of over 100 million people (though smaller than the US), making it larger than every country in Europe. Shanghai has a population of over 24 million (34 in the metro area), compared to 8 million in NYC (20 if you count the metro area), and it is likely if you were to compare Shanghai students to NYC students, Shanghai would probably come out on top, but again this is all based on quantitative standardized test scores.
This leads to a question of how we measure education, especially in the era of STEM classes. To be fair, people now more commonly speak of STEAM class (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics), however it still seems as if technical or specialized education is dominant over a more liberal arts or humanities based education. Amy Gutmann, a leading political theorist, and former head of the Presidential Commission on Bioethical Education, has argued that an ethics based education is more important than ever, especially in a multinational world, and a world where technology impacts our lives now more than ever. Gutmann's point is that STEM may teach people how to create technology, but you still need ethics to learn how to use it properly, especially since it does increase the power of groups of people over other groups. In a similar vein, some have argued for an Emotional Intelligence Quotient or EQ, distinct from IQ, with the idea being that "emotional intelligence" is distinct from what people more commonly refer to as intelligence. The psychologist, Howard Gardner, in his 1983 book, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, wrote about "multiple intelligences" which are even more extensive, shown in the chart below:
The comedian George Carlin, seems to get at the heart of the issue when it comes to technical education versus ethics or humanities based education. The issue is really critical thinking skills, especially when it comes to politics or society, which frankly are not developed much by a purely technical education.
Since funding for education is important, of course we must talk about charter schools as well. Conservatives like to point out the increasing costs of education with worse results.
Keep in mind, the population has doubled from 150 million in the mid 1950s, to over 300 million today. You would expect then the over all dollar amount spent on education to increase, this is conveniently left out by most conservatives, also having to adjust for inflation. Furthermore, these numbers are of course meant to imply or suggest that we are spending too much on education. What then would be the proper amount we should be spending on education? Here again, conservatives are unable to specify this number as well. The reality is that we are probably not spending enough on education, although the presentation of this graph would lead people to think otherwise (again look at the amount the government spends on education versus the military). What is really motivating these arguments is an attempt to justify the privatization of education in the form of charter schools. The over all phenomenon of privatization is something that has been talked about by people like David Harvey, and plays an important role in the increasing power of the capitalist class since the 1970s. In terms of education, as mentioned, this has taken the form of the charter school movement. Charter schools, basically privately run, "entrepreneurial" schools (run for a profit), but still getting public funds, have been the preferred model of schooling by many billionaires like Bill Gates, and Betsy DeVos (Trump's Secretary of Education), and supported by many Democrats like Obama. This is covered in the article by Valerie Stauss. Despite being presented as something new, charter schools have been experimented with since the 1970s, and the results are in, nation-wide charter schools do not perform better on average than public schools. According to the graph below 83 percent perform the same or worse than public schools, only 17 percent perform better.
In fact, charter schools have many advantages since they are allowed to select what students to accept, where public schools have to accept all students in their district. It is like giving somebody a head start in a race and you still end up tying with them. The end result may seem equal but since they had an advantage their performance is actually worse, the same is true with charter schools. Even if someone could produce a study that shows charter schools performing better in some limited circumstances, the fact they can "cherry pick" what students they want, undermines this result.
Ultimately, the end result seems to be to return education to what it was, an elite privilege, accesible to the few not the many. What ever kind of limited education the masses would receive would be limited to technical education, or to encourage discipline in the workforce. The challenges of education in public policy are high. On the one hand, there is the fight over even having a public education system versus a privatized education system. Then there is the struggle over what kind of curriculum or what kind of education students will receive. Those who favor public education, and an education that also emphasizes humanities are at a significant disadvantage, and without much support from public officials. However, given the rising social unrest of the last several years, and more people becoming aware of these issues, there is some indication that attitudes towards these things may be changing. Unfortunately, given the present state of the political system even if people were loudly voicing their opinions over these things, it is likely the government would continue to ignore public opinion, just as it does on most issues.
Next class, we will talk about the environment, another issue where the government is out of step with public opinion.
The US led the way in the development of a public education system open to all. However, it has always been a means of disciplining the workforce, teaching them to show up on time, follow authority, etc. Despite these limitations, it did at least educate people to some extent. At one point, the US was believed to have the best public education system in the world, including public colleges like City College in New York, or the University of California system comprising many colleges that were tuition free. Since the 1970s, at the same time as tuition was introduced, the quality of the education system as a whole began to decline. Some, like Gore Vidal, have argued the military demands of the Cold War, made it impossible to continue to funding public education at a high level, and when faced with a choice between the two, political leaders on all sides have consistently chosen the military over education, as seen in the graphs on discretionary spending. By military spending, of course we are not just referring to defense, but to maintaining a global military empire.
How this decline in education is measured is controversial in itself, since it depends on quantitative measures based on standardized testing which many argue is not a good means of evaluating students. However, for whatever value or meaning it may have, the decline in education is hard to ignore.
Some, like Steven Singer, from the Huffington Post have argued these scores are somewhat exaggerated. He argues that other countries tend to hide lower performing students while the US includes all students (he says) in its scores. To some extent this is true, for example, the highest performing students are in Shanghai, the largest city in China, however this does not include Chinese people as a whole living in China. Similarly, with Singapore, an independent country, but essentially a modern city-state, made up of the city of Singapore. So, the two highest performing groups of students are in cities. If the US were to only measure students in New York City, then the scores would also be higher. Finland, third highest, is also a small country (also the country where teachers are paid the most). However, it should not be totally discounted either. Japan is a country of over 100 million people (though smaller than the US), making it larger than every country in Europe. Shanghai has a population of over 24 million (34 in the metro area), compared to 8 million in NYC (20 if you count the metro area), and it is likely if you were to compare Shanghai students to NYC students, Shanghai would probably come out on top, but again this is all based on quantitative standardized test scores.
This leads to a question of how we measure education, especially in the era of STEM classes. To be fair, people now more commonly speak of STEAM class (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics), however it still seems as if technical or specialized education is dominant over a more liberal arts or humanities based education. Amy Gutmann, a leading political theorist, and former head of the Presidential Commission on Bioethical Education, has argued that an ethics based education is more important than ever, especially in a multinational world, and a world where technology impacts our lives now more than ever. Gutmann's point is that STEM may teach people how to create technology, but you still need ethics to learn how to use it properly, especially since it does increase the power of groups of people over other groups. In a similar vein, some have argued for an Emotional Intelligence Quotient or EQ, distinct from IQ, with the idea being that "emotional intelligence" is distinct from what people more commonly refer to as intelligence. The psychologist, Howard Gardner, in his 1983 book, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, wrote about "multiple intelligences" which are even more extensive, shown in the chart below:
The comedian George Carlin, seems to get at the heart of the issue when it comes to technical education versus ethics or humanities based education. The issue is really critical thinking skills, especially when it comes to politics or society, which frankly are not developed much by a purely technical education.
Since funding for education is important, of course we must talk about charter schools as well. Conservatives like to point out the increasing costs of education with worse results.
Keep in mind, the population has doubled from 150 million in the mid 1950s, to over 300 million today. You would expect then the over all dollar amount spent on education to increase, this is conveniently left out by most conservatives, also having to adjust for inflation. Furthermore, these numbers are of course meant to imply or suggest that we are spending too much on education. What then would be the proper amount we should be spending on education? Here again, conservatives are unable to specify this number as well. The reality is that we are probably not spending enough on education, although the presentation of this graph would lead people to think otherwise (again look at the amount the government spends on education versus the military). What is really motivating these arguments is an attempt to justify the privatization of education in the form of charter schools. The over all phenomenon of privatization is something that has been talked about by people like David Harvey, and plays an important role in the increasing power of the capitalist class since the 1970s. In terms of education, as mentioned, this has taken the form of the charter school movement. Charter schools, basically privately run, "entrepreneurial" schools (run for a profit), but still getting public funds, have been the preferred model of schooling by many billionaires like Bill Gates, and Betsy DeVos (Trump's Secretary of Education), and supported by many Democrats like Obama. This is covered in the article by Valerie Stauss. Despite being presented as something new, charter schools have been experimented with since the 1970s, and the results are in, nation-wide charter schools do not perform better on average than public schools. According to the graph below 83 percent perform the same or worse than public schools, only 17 percent perform better.
In fact, charter schools have many advantages since they are allowed to select what students to accept, where public schools have to accept all students in their district. It is like giving somebody a head start in a race and you still end up tying with them. The end result may seem equal but since they had an advantage their performance is actually worse, the same is true with charter schools. Even if someone could produce a study that shows charter schools performing better in some limited circumstances, the fact they can "cherry pick" what students they want, undermines this result.
Ultimately, the end result seems to be to return education to what it was, an elite privilege, accesible to the few not the many. What ever kind of limited education the masses would receive would be limited to technical education, or to encourage discipline in the workforce. The challenges of education in public policy are high. On the one hand, there is the fight over even having a public education system versus a privatized education system. Then there is the struggle over what kind of curriculum or what kind of education students will receive. Those who favor public education, and an education that also emphasizes humanities are at a significant disadvantage, and without much support from public officials. However, given the rising social unrest of the last several years, and more people becoming aware of these issues, there is some indication that attitudes towards these things may be changing. Unfortunately, given the present state of the political system even if people were loudly voicing their opinions over these things, it is likely the government would continue to ignore public opinion, just as it does on most issues.
Next class, we will talk about the environment, another issue where the government is out of step with public opinion.
Marcel Thomson
ReplyDeletePublic Policy #211
“The US led the way in the development of a public education system open to all. However, it has always been a means of disciplining the workforce, teaching them to show up on time, follow authority, etc. Despite these limitations, it did at least educate people to some extent.”
How does the United States approach education itself, since it depends on quantitative measures based on standardized of testing? It is arguable of the techniques the school systems use on how to evaluate students is subjected to questions. The values or meaning the school system have is hard to ignore how student of all ages receives their education.
The importance of having STEAM class (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics), however it still seems as if technical or specialized education is dominant over a more liberal arts or humanities-based education. STEM may teach people how to create technology, but you still need ethics to learn how to use it properly, especially since it does increase the power of groups of people over other groups. I strongly believe that education is the only way of putting yourself in the right position for jobs period.
The United States in my opinion can find the right funding to support in getting the right tools of books, computers, and teachers who are competent and qualified to help student obtain the necessary education in proper fundamental through the educational system and what it has to offer.