Fabaree constructs three goals of education, social mobility which is the concept that education as a method for self improvement within society, Social efficiency which understands education as a means for citizens to gain skills useful for society, Democratic equalization which entails education as a method to ensure that citizens should be treated as equals. These three goals seem to reflect different stances on educational policies that are often used in dialogues about education.
The value of social efficiency was especially interesting as it matched a tendency I've seen in how education is being framed. However, what it means for something to be educationally efficient seems to differ from the description that Fabaree used it. Fabaree described an example of educational efficiency through the use of different strata of universities. It argued that the perceived quality of different universities determine the economical worth of a degree. How social efficiency seems to be currently used is through different fields of studies. This is reflected in the desire to encourage math and science educations to give students skills to be competitive on a world stage.
Egalitarian goals seem to be attempted through school reform. This entails utilizing competitive means to help improve schools that are failing. This method seems to reflect the movement away from attempts to promote equality by funding schools with poorer populations more. This looks at equality promotion as a quality that should be promoted by the school's quality. This ignores systemic reasons for inequal accesses to education.
Labaree’s social efficiency argument is a bit counter-intuitive. It’s basically an argument about economic efficiency.
ReplyDeleteTo wit: ‘efficiency’ is a public good (collective well being). It’s achieved when social positions, roles, and responsibilities (I.e., in the economy/labor force) are organized, defined, and legitimated. The ‘sorting’ mechanism (schooling) is assumed to be neutral. It treats everyone the same way (equality, human capital, and merit). Therefore, everyone ends up in his or her duly earned place in the overall social order. Problem is the ‘system’ does not work that way in practice. For example, efficiency may not be the only or most useful social goal. Individuals often ignore or bend the rules to gain advantage (social mobility). They are more interested in ‘winning’ (private good/interest) than in collective efficiency.
Schooling (as formal organization) and education (a democratic social institution) get caught in this crossfire of competing public/private interests.