Oakes & Lipton, chp 1 1999
From Eduwiki
Jennifer Lee
Teaching to Change the World, by Jeannie Oakes, recounts the history of, and mistakes made in, the development of our educational system. From basic classroom configuration to curriculum, Oakes delves deep into what has become of our education system and to a point what it hasn’t become.
Through the beginning of the article she talks about the history of public or “common” schools. The role of the common school was to give equal opportunity for education to all children. At the beginning, of course, equal opportunity was for white children only. At first the children that attended school were taught for five years, thought adequate to learn the basics, and bring immigrant children up to date with American ideals and culture. Oakes talks about the use of school to “preserve the culture” of America, describing when children first recited the pledge of allegiance they were to follow it with “One Country! One Flag! One Language!”
She also discusses how schools developed into facilities that prepared the youth for work. Children had to be punctual and follow routines, just like a worker in a factory. However, when the Great Depression hit, children stayed in school longer. Curriculum changes instilling socialist ideals into the students in an effort to battle capitalism started a feud between business and the education system, ending with both sides seeing the need for the common school despite their differences. The general thought at the time, however, was that the common school was going to do great things for America, from economic security, national security, and social problems to boosting international competitiveness and bringing success for everyone.
Oakes next topic discussed racial and economic privilege and the common school. She starts with the long history of racial inequality touching on the historical notion that skull size determined intelligence and that since white’s skulls were larger, they must be more intelligent. Even though the U.S. government passed law prohibiting this compulsory ignorance, schooling was still left up to the states, who could choose not to fund minority schools. According to Oakes, even with the cases of Plessy vs. Furguson (separate could be equal) and Brown vs. Board of Education (desegregation of schools), nothing has changed and blacks are still somewhat isolated.
Next Oakes discussed all the adversity facing minorities in public schools, from their own poverty to the lack of funding for books. Hinting at the fact that affluent white neighbor hood schools had plenty while urban minority neighborhoods had very little. How classes were divided even played a role. Those students who are not challenged do not become better students.
“Metaphors and Myths That Shape American Schools” is a good title for her next section which discusses the various expectations that have grown from the spotted past of public education. The idea that one can succeed if they only put their mind too it is somewhat far-fetched. Oakes points out that if you don’t have the resources or supplies for learning, what good will putting one’s mind to anything do? Having ambition is one thing but if that ambition can’t be utilized, there isn’t much chance of prosperity. Then there is the idea of “leveling the playing field.” Oakes, talks about the different legislations that attempted to do this, like coupons for free lunch and other economic programs. She also touches on the fact that some minorities succeed in the face of diversity and how that affects the overall consensus. This leading to the notion that it isn’t the school but the students themselves. Unfortunately, it’s all too true and many minorities blame themselves for poor academic achievement. This idea of merit, that emphasizes the individual and not the system, is the predominate sense about schooling.
School efficiency is another issue discussed by Oakes. In this section of the article she talks of the industrial revolution and how it not only shaped our nation but our school systems as well. How our schooling is set up like an assembly line, with each grade a step in creating a whole product, or contributing American citizen. Not only that, but Oakes touches on the fact that there needed to be some way of telling how efficient the system was. Hence grades and assessment tests, and other score driven indicators of intelligence.
Competition, or “The Market Metaphor,” is the next topic. Due to the increased threat of other nations, it became apparent that our school system was failing. Oakes supports this with the “A Nation at Risk” text issued from the White House. With the onslaught of foreign cars, the Russians Sputnik, and other firsts being attained by foreign countries, major curriculum changes were in order. No one would need to have a well rounded education to move on to college. Charter schools, magnet and other special schools gained ground. This new competition either helps or worsens the public school situation. With these “noncommon” schools, as long as they don’t detract from common schools, education becomes somewhat better.
From the start common schools were meant for the progress of our nation. The schools would teach immigrants to assimilate to the American way and everyone would contribute. Schools were meant to be places where “social cohesion and progress were fashioned.” Progress however was halted because the government failed to see that desegregation was not a “technical” problem, but an “ideological” one. Upon technical failure, government turned around and voted against desegregation. However, as Oakes says, there were benefits from desegregation. Those minorities that attended desegregated schools were probably more likely to go to desegregated colleges and be better at interacting with people of different race and social status.
Lastly, Oakes talks about the modern worlds affect on education. With the growing disillusionment of the masses due to greater ease of access to information, people have grown cynical. However, she presents that there is still hope, with struggle, in a postmodern world. This hope and struggle is a democratic movement. As Oakes quotes John Dewey “’a democracy is more than a form of government, it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint community experience.’” She goes on to quote Cornel West of Harvard, “the democratic process is one that ‘keeps track of social misery, solicits and channels moral outrage to alleviate it, and projects a future in which the potentialities of ordinary people flourish and flower.’” It is this democratic ideal that will facilitate the struggle for socially just teaching. As Oakes says, “socially just teaching provides students the knowledge and skills to participate in serious public deliberation that will shape their own history – struggle in their own world – in an increasingly global culture.”
Nancy McMillan
1) Why do they say merit is a myth?
Promotion or success measured by merit alone presupposes an equal, fair and level beginning in the school environment. This is clearly not the case in American schools due to historical and cultural realities. Under- funded, stocked, staffed and community support for schools is the reality in most poor urban and minority schools. Schools have not been “fair and equal”. On the other hand, students are not identical widgets of the same size, strength and shape. There will always be differences in any population, therefore the issue is opportunity. The question becomes who will define “merit” and on what basis and values? Standardized tests that naturally give visually dominant and analytically gifted students a great advantage; is that the best measure of “merit” ? Are Protestant cultural values the measure of “merit”? Perhaps these specific values are just an accident of history. With this measure of “merit” as the sole valid measure, one can rationalize “savage Inequality”. As Oakes and Lipton say: “In sum, merit permeates how Americans make sense about schooling - emphasizing the role of the individual land de-emphasizing the role of school or society.”
2) What is their concern with the idea of competition?
To reward merit there must first be measurement. Through measurement, ability (merit) can be ranked. Once ranked competition can be established permitting unequal rewards (grades); but if the resources at the beginning are unequal then the competition is unequal. Try having a blind man compete in a tennis match! Modeling education after competitive capitalism is like applying physics rules and time and motion studies to baking a cake or painting a picture. Education is more than information transfer; it is an experience and at its highest calling inspires the soul, is empowering and creates hope about the future. This is how we win the hearts and minds of our students.
Instead of inspiring better behavior in students, competition insures that there will be losers. Students who (due to inequalities culturally, economically and socially) will soon lose interest in school, become problem students and drop out. As Oakes and Lipton say, “Rather, the moral crises underlying the reports and criticism focused more on children’s failure to achieve rather than society’s failure to provide.”
“Divide et imperia” Latin saying.
3) What do you think about making public schools into a free market with vouchers?
Market vouchers on the surface seem like a good idea and parallel the cultural free market myth. But does it apply to students who need nurturance, stimulation and development emotionally as well as intellectually? Bring on the Educational Darwinism!
The effects are not what one might expect. Affluent whites flee the urban schools, enroll in charter schools (non-union with lower benefits), or worse enroll in schools with strong cultural or ideological bias that separate the student form the common society. I agree with the idea of a standardized (with some flex) Public education that creates a common ground for all our citizens. Otherwise we could eventually break out in cultural warfare (or is that already happening?).
On the other hand, I also feel that we need to engage in vigorous exploration of a new model of education. One that applies to the “post-modern” relativistic global culture of the world of today. Per Oakes and Lipton, the culture of the pastoral myth of old is no longer viable. “The myths of merit, scientific efficiency, competition and progress that characterize American culture and schooling and prevent society and schools from realizing their Democratic possibilities” … are breaking down. Our schools more and more resemble factories and jails rather than socially alive democratic forums of learning. We can do better, but how?
Response to Jennife Lee You said: As Oakes says, “socially just teaching provides students the knowledge and skills to participate in serious public deliberation that will shape their own history – struggle in their own world – in an increasingly global culture.”
Response: This is the key. Students need real classroom experience of democracy and how it works. It is our responsibility to bring this into our classrooms in a time when democratic principles seem to be confused and in schools where the administration necessarily is generally autocratic.
