Apple claims "we need to constantly ask what reforms do to schools as a whole and to each of their participants (23)." Does it make sense it try to get as many people involved as possible? Or better off having the major players, who ever they may be, decide what is "best" for schools?
I found Apple's comments on schools looking for "motivated" parents with "able" students to strike a nerve with me. I can see many private institutions selecting students capable of turning out better standardized test scores which makes the school appear to be churning out quality products. Do you think standardized tests, such as the SOL, and performance indicators, such as the examination league tables in England, really display the quality of education in such facilities? Apple mentions this issue and states how it can have a negative effect on the "special needs" children. Do you feel that such discrimination actually takes place today? If so, what actions or regulations could be implemented to eliminate such issues?
I do think it makes sense to get as much of the community involved in school reform as possible. By getting people outside of school grounds involved, such as healthcare providers or community center workers, an view of how education is affecting the children in local society and culture can be seen. If hospitals and EMS crews are seeing an influx in drug-related overdoses, schools can integrate drug knowledge and health habits into school curriculum. This is just one example. I also feel that it is important to involve as many of the teachers and administrators (and even students) as possible to form societies and clubs that can work on reform ideas that would better help the education of its students as well as the community. I do not think only involving the "major players" such as only principles, or superintendents, or state legislators is the best way to decide what is best for schools. We must get to the source (teachers, students) and effectors (community).
Giroux and Saltman describe Duncan's methods in the Chicago school system as "draconian", "militarized", and "corporatized". Further, they cite the thousands of suspensions and expulsions caused by a "zero-tolerance" policy. This type of policy is present in many of our public schools, commonly those revered locally and nationally. Do you think this is an effective means of instilling a sense of responsibility and morality or do you think it teaches children to hide the same behavior and exhibit such in a less protected environment? Can you think of an alternative to "zero-tolerance?"
Apple mentions both charter schools and the market choice in schools and the downfalls and inequities they can create. In your experiences, which had more of an impact on educational inequity in your area? For me, I found public school choice to be of particular impact. People bought houses in neighborhoods based on school zones. Property value essentially grouped schools by socioeconomic classes, and the two reinforced each other.
There are some who believe competition will enhance the efficiency and responsiveness of schools. This competition is in response to markets which guide the invisible hand and lead to better schools. Do you think competition is a healthy contribution to the education field? Is it possible that in the effort of competing we loose sight of the very reason we are in schools? Do you think schools are overly focused on "being competitive" in the local, state and national levels and forget that school is not a business but our children's future?
I don't believe the SOLs or similar tests are a good indication of educational quality. I have trouble believing they measure much of anything. Personally I never had to "study" for the SOLs to get strong test results. The most I think it shows are property values. I've read news reports about how test results affect property values (more of a correlation really). However I think the connection goes both ways. People tend to get houses in communities with others in the same general economic class. Property values are a tool that restricts lower economic classes. This in turn shapes the demographics of schools. Wealthier students often have more resources available to them as do the schools they attend. The tests prove little challenge to these students thus encouraging others to compete for property in the area pushing the value up.
What really mortifies me is that this whole way of thinking is so sterile. Should education be based on theories of economics? Am I just overly romantic in thinking of school as a place that allows a child to blossom to her fullest potential? I think of school as a nurturing environment that focuses on intimate relationships (student-teacher, student-student, student-administrator). I feel like Neolibralism neglects the concept that there are actual children, actual human beings in school. Can school be dealt with from economic philosophies? Should it be? Do we neglect the human aspects or are we trading up for a more efficient way of thinking?
Apple seems to pick and choose detailed perspectives from the broad world-views of "neo-conservatism" and "neo-liberalism". He chooses traditional values to define neo-conservatism and chooses open-market ideals to define neo-liberalism, then proceeds to prove his points by using these two simplified explanations of these world-views. These terms are umbrella terms and can incorporate a range of ideas and beliefs. What are some other beliefs/views that fall under these broad terms and could actually be used to argue against Apple's conclusions? Additionally, do you agree with Apple that the "marketization of schools" is a result of reforms that are rooted in two contending world-views, or do you think there are variables involved that have nothing to do with these world-views?
Yes, I think not only our schools but schools all over the world are loosing sight of the fact that this should not be a horse race. We should take less pride in where our schools or country place in relation to others but instead focus more on the INDIVIDUALS that make that school, the students. I think that we have all gotten to wrapped up in not the competition, but more specifically what we are competing for- if its the best test scores we are after than we are in the wrong. We should be more concerned about helping young people explore what they like, set goals, and reach those goals rather than focusing on their test score in comparison to some kids in China.
I know that it was very quickly touched on but Apple does mention the "Bell-curve." He feels that the use of the bell curve is a 'distressing' indication of social-Darwinist thinking. Do you share these sentiments?
Apple brought up a theme that we have discussed before that behind all educational proposals are visions of a just society and a good student. He then goes on to discuss the differences between classical liberalism, which is based on the self-interested individual and laissez-faire, and neo-liberalism, which deals with the "manipulatable man" and "performance appraisal". Is classical liberalism really better than neo-liberalism? Would it lead to that "just society"? How would a school system based on classical liberalism work?
I completely agree. While you can't be expected to present every fact from every point of view, this (and many of the other papers we've read) to a bit of cherry picking in favor of their proposed solutions/views.
I think that some level of competition is beneficial for schools. At a certain level, it is encouraging to students because it motivates them to do better. Just like in sports, the competition factor motivates the players to be the best that they can be. However, competition can, as you said, take away from the reason we are in school in the first place. It can definitely take away from the desire to learn and promote the desire to make the grade. I know I personally hate it when other students ask me what I got on a test just so they can compare themselves to me. There is definitely too much focus on being competitive in the school system. But, you can't blame the schools when their financial support depends on the scores. In this case, society has the change the schools, not the other way around.
"As a number of researchers have documented, it is not only possible that policies and legislative mandates are interpreted and adapted but it also seems inevitable. Thus, the national curriculum is “not so much being ‘implemented’ in schools as being ‘recreated,’ [sic] not so much ‘reproduced,’ as ‘produced’” (Power et al., 1994, p. 38)." - Apple (31)
I think that this type of view, kind of a "not so much rules as guidelines" point of view is something that becomes a very important tool to an engaged, motivated teacher and a detriment to classes of children who end up with a less motivated instructor. Apple makes this point in so many words, that this is more inherent discrimination in that the teachers will be "more motivated" at the upper-income schools, which may well be true.
So the question arises that is basically at the heart of this class: What can we do about it? Does anyone else think that the incentivization of the teaching profession, and particularly those teachers in lower-income areas, is more important at this point than changing the national curriculum "for the better", which Apple points out we have failed to do so many times? In his estimation, due to the level of interpretation of the curriculum, shouldn't it be a priority to find a way to make teachers want to do a better job and teach around the failed curriculum? Could the argument be made that a teacher teaching a subject in a truly successful fashion should have a class full of students who could pass a general SOL-type test on the subject easily, even if the class were not taught specifically to take the test (what was referred to in by my high school teachers as "teaching to the test," as in teaching only that material that would be covered on the test, and not one bit more, and not teaching the critical thinking skills or paradigms to utilize the information you are learning).
One thing that stuck out when reading the article was Apple's emphasis on schooling for the less fortunate children and those living in poverty who do not gain the same respect and knowledge as those who are higher in socioeconomic status. What possibilities could schooling provide to motivate those who do not receive credibility for their work? If society feels that those with a lower socioeconmic status bring down the positive results of that particular school, then how do we separate those who already achieve greatness to those who made need more help without belittling them? Do you believe separation is necessary or will better or worsen the childrens' educactional experience? Do you think socioeconomic status should provide a basis on which schools children should go to? Thinking back on all of the comments we've made about schooling, it should be an enviornment for kids to learn everyday values. Also, children are different and we want to contribute to specific individual needs rather than just learning for tests.
"I know that it was very quickly touched on but Apple does mention the "Bell-curve." He feels that the use of the bell curve is a 'distressing' indication of social-Darwinist thinking. Do you share these sentiments? "
I have a copy of the Bell Curve and one of the arguments it poses is that as social equality increases, people start to stratify by cognitive class. That is, as government resources and scholarships and society's efforts to pick out "bright" students and send them to the same selective institutions as upper class students level the playing field, you end up with more social stratification. I don't believe that's distressing or alarming because it's based on a false ideal of what "genius" is. A student with an impressive GPA, extracurricular record and high test scores is often supported by a network of parents, coaches, and sufficient economic means to not have to work a lot while doing it all. His scores are more of a reflection of that network, but culturally we're inclined to believe that he/she did it all alone. The Bell Curve goes on attempt to prove causation by parsimonious factors like IQ, but ultimately it's a limited work that doesn't threaten anyone. It's neither the first nor the last book to misconstrue evolutionary theory and inappropriately apply it to humans.
My first post seems to have disappeared so here it is again. I believe that the fallacy in neoliberal(i.e Libertarian) thinking is analogous to a rigged game of poker. The winners of the game get caught, partially accept it, and have the audacity to declare that from now on we should keep playing by the rules (in this case deontological free-market ethics) and they won't cheat anymore. The inheritors of dirty/blood wealth are ignored and a few rare examples of exceptional individuals picking themselves up by the bootstraps are championed as examples of the efficacy of the free market.
Apple mentions that marginalized groups often network together, offer support to each other, and cheat parts of the system in order to stay afloat. Do you think that this is an appropriate response to the environment they are forced to compete in?
Ok, I will be honest, I didn't get a lot out of this reading. That being said, the biggest thing that stuck out to me was Apple's analysis of the educational system as an economy with students as a unit of currency. I do not agree with using students in this manner, but I can see potential reasons why it happens. My question is what can we do to change the way we look at students? Is it as simple as changing the curriculum to move away from high-stakes or international testing? Is it just that I am missing the whole point of this article? (I think it might be.)
Apples talked about national testing and how that is damaging to some places such as England and the Wales. Then he talks about how the national curriculum at first was too specific and too detailed so they had to change it. But the purpose of the national curriculum is too make sure that all schools are somewhat providing students with the same framework. My question is if their wasnt national testing to see if schools are on track and if their wasnt a national curriculum for everyone to go by, do you think schools would be a better place because their focus wont just be on testing students information needed to pass and test so they can look better than other schools?
I am not at all surprised to read about the competitive assessment boards present in England. As we have discussed in class, we love to put people in different boxes, to make sure that individuals are exchanging information with peers, co-workers and friends that are on the same"level". Although this is a natural tendency for most human beings, - we desperately want to find a place to belong in society - is it efficient to merge people with the same level of knowledge and skill to learn from each other? These grade boards would attract parents who think it is important for their children to join a school like this, as well as children that, hopefully, are motivated to learn. But, how much do we actually learn if we are surrounded by people who have similar values and goals as ourselves? Wouldn't diversity and different perspectives among the students add another level to their education?
"making an enterprise of oneself" is probably the most catching part of the article to me because that is what the state is trying to do with education. There are good intentions, I think, but making education a product in a competitive market where the wealthier get a better quality product and the less wealthy get less of a quality education is not the answer and is expanding the social problems related to education but how would you create a non-traditional educational curricula that didn't have to be 'measured' to show positive results? And who is to blame for where we are today with our educational system? State turns accountability to institutions and vice versa. School shouldn't be a way to reinforce the social structure we already have but to accomodate the ever changing society and work towards new goals of structure
Michael Apple discusses the competing attitudes of neo-conservatives and neo-liberals in regards to schooling and education. While neo-conservatives prefer standardization and less government involvement, neo-liberals are more in favor of the “marketization” of schools and are anti-standardized testing and NCLB, etc. Standardized testing has broken down knowledge into discrete interchangeable bits of information and has “commodified” knowledge. I agree with Thomas that this free-market approach to schooling creates more inequities than it rectifies. Quality of schools tends to be quantified by test scores and parents often purchase homes in particular school zones based on this information. As a result, property values in “good” school districts/zones tends to exclude members of lower socioeconomic classes and the student body of the schools tend to composed of those from similar socioeconomic classes. This tends to propagate existing socioeconomic disparities because not only are schools comprised primarily of those of higher socioeconomic status tend to have more resources, but students are constantly surrounded by “like” individuals and miss out on the cultural capital gained by surrounding oneself with a diverse group of individuals. Is there any way to rectify this without diminishing the parents’ rights to make choices about their child’s education?
In the reading, it was obvious that Apple's theme directly correlated the standardized testing movement to our country's capitalist system. Is there any way that this system, despite his obvious negative attitude, could work and why? Since it's not working, what about the capitalist attitude in education do you believe causes it to be a failure?
Apple claims "we need to constantly ask what reforms do to schools as a whole and to each of their participants (23)." Does it make sense it try to get as many people involved as possible? Or better off having the major players, who ever they may be, decide what is "best" for schools?
ReplyDeleteI found Apple's comments on schools looking for "motivated" parents with "able" students to strike a nerve with me. I can see many private institutions selecting students capable of turning out better standardized test scores which makes the school appear to be churning out quality products. Do you think standardized tests, such as the SOL, and performance indicators, such as the examination league tables in England, really display the quality of education in such facilities? Apple mentions this issue and states how it can have a negative effect on the "special needs" children. Do you feel that such discrimination actually takes place today? If so, what actions or regulations could be implemented to eliminate such issues?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jacob Waymire's Question...
ReplyDeleteI do think it makes sense to get as much of the community involved in school reform as possible. By getting people outside of school grounds involved, such as healthcare providers or community center workers, an view of how education is affecting the children in local society and culture can be seen. If hospitals and EMS crews are seeing an influx in drug-related overdoses, schools can integrate drug knowledge and health habits into school curriculum. This is just one example. I also feel that it is important to involve as many of the teachers and administrators (and even students) as possible to form societies and clubs that can work on reform ideas that would better help the education of its students as well as the community. I do not think only involving the "major players" such as only principles, or superintendents, or state legislators is the best way to decide what is best for schools. We must get to the source (teachers, students) and effectors (community).
Giroux and Saltman describe Duncan's methods in the Chicago school system as "draconian", "militarized", and "corporatized". Further, they cite the thousands of suspensions and expulsions caused by a "zero-tolerance" policy. This type of policy is present in many of our public schools, commonly those revered locally and nationally. Do you think this is an effective means of instilling a sense of responsibility and morality or do you think it teaches children to hide the same behavior and exhibit such in a less protected environment? Can you think of an alternative to "zero-tolerance?"
ReplyDeleteApple mentions both charter schools and the market choice in schools and the downfalls and inequities they can create. In your experiences, which had more of an impact on educational inequity in your area? For me, I found public school choice to be of particular impact. People bought houses in neighborhoods based on school zones. Property value essentially grouped schools by socioeconomic classes, and the two reinforced each other.
ReplyDeleteThere are some who believe competition will enhance the efficiency and responsiveness of schools. This competition is in response to markets which guide the invisible hand and lead to better schools. Do you think competition is a healthy contribution to the education field? Is it possible that in the effort of competing we loose sight of the very reason we are in schools? Do you think schools are overly focused on "being competitive" in the local, state and national levels and forget that school is not a business but our children's future?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ryan G.'s question...
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the SOLs or similar tests are a good indication of educational quality. I have trouble believing they measure much of anything. Personally I never had to "study" for the SOLs to get strong test results. The most I think it shows are property values. I've read news reports about how test results affect property values (more of a correlation really). However I think the connection goes both ways. People tend to get houses in communities with others in the same general economic class. Property values are a tool that restricts lower economic classes. This in turn shapes the demographics of schools. Wealthier students often have more resources available to them as do the schools they attend. The tests prove little challenge to these students thus encouraging others to compete for property in the area pushing the value up.
What really mortifies me is that this whole way of thinking is so sterile. Should education be based on theories of economics? Am I just overly romantic in thinking of school as a place that allows a child to blossom to her fullest potential? I think of school as a nurturing environment that focuses on intimate relationships (student-teacher, student-student, student-administrator). I feel like Neolibralism neglects the concept that there are actual children, actual human beings in school. Can school be dealt with from economic philosophies? Should it be? Do we neglect the human aspects or are we trading up for a more efficient way of thinking?
ReplyDeleteApple seems to pick and choose detailed perspectives from the broad world-views of "neo-conservatism" and "neo-liberalism". He chooses traditional values to define neo-conservatism and chooses open-market ideals to define neo-liberalism, then proceeds to prove his points by using these two simplified explanations of these world-views. These terms are umbrella terms and can incorporate a range of ideas and beliefs. What are some other beliefs/views that fall under these broad terms and could actually be used to argue against Apple's conclusions? Additionally, do you agree with Apple that the "marketization of schools" is a result of reforms that are rooted in two contending world-views, or do you think there are variables involved that have nothing to do with these world-views?
ReplyDeleteFirst- in response to Amy-
ReplyDeleteYes, I think not only our schools but schools all over the world are loosing sight of the fact that this should not be a horse race. We should take less pride in where our schools or country place in relation to others but instead focus more on the INDIVIDUALS that make that school, the students. I think that we have all gotten to wrapped up in not the competition, but more specifically what we are competing for- if its the best test scores we are after than we are in the wrong. We should be more concerned about helping young people explore what they like, set goals, and reach those goals rather than focusing on their test score in comparison to some kids in China.
I know that it was very quickly touched on but Apple does mention the "Bell-curve." He feels that the use of the bell curve is a 'distressing' indication of social-Darwinist thinking. Do you share these sentiments?
Apple brought up a theme that we have discussed before that behind all educational proposals are visions of a just society and a good student. He then goes on to discuss the differences between classical liberalism, which is based on the self-interested individual and laissez-faire, and neo-liberalism, which deals with the "manipulatable man" and "performance appraisal". Is classical liberalism really better than neo-liberalism? Would it lead to that "just society"? How would a school system based on classical liberalism work?
ReplyDeleteTo Speak to Margaret's point...
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. While you can't be expected to present every fact from every point of view, this (and many of the other papers we've read) to a bit of cherry picking in favor of their proposed solutions/views.
In response to Amy's question:
ReplyDeleteI think that some level of competition is beneficial for schools. At a certain level, it is encouraging to students because it motivates them to do better. Just like in sports, the competition factor motivates the players to be the best that they can be. However, competition can, as you said, take away from the reason we are in school in the first place. It can definitely take away from the desire to learn and promote the desire to make the grade. I know I personally hate it when other students ask me what I got on a test just so they can compare themselves to me. There is definitely too much focus on being competitive in the school system. But, you can't blame the schools when their financial support depends on the scores. In this case, society has the change the schools, not the other way around.
"As a number of researchers have documented, it is not only possible that policies and legislative mandates are interpreted and adapted but it also seems inevitable. Thus, the national curriculum is “not so much being ‘implemented’ in schools as being ‘recreated,’ [sic] not so much ‘reproduced,’ as ‘produced’” (Power et al., 1994, p. 38)." - Apple (31)
ReplyDeleteI think that this type of view, kind of a "not so much rules as guidelines" point of view is something that becomes a very important tool to an engaged, motivated teacher and a detriment to classes of children who end up with a less motivated instructor. Apple makes this point in so many words, that this is more inherent discrimination in that the teachers will be "more motivated" at the upper-income schools, which may well be true.
So the question arises that is basically at the heart of this class: What can we do about it? Does anyone else think that the incentivization of the teaching profession, and particularly those teachers in lower-income areas, is more important at this point than changing the national curriculum "for the better", which Apple points out we have failed to do so many times? In his estimation, due to the level of interpretation of the curriculum, shouldn't it be a priority to find a way to make teachers want to do a better job and teach around the failed curriculum? Could the argument be made that a teacher teaching a subject in a truly successful fashion should have a class full of students who could pass a general SOL-type test on the subject easily, even if the class were not taught specifically to take the test (what was referred to in by my high school teachers as "teaching to the test," as in teaching only that material that would be covered on the test, and not one bit more, and not teaching the critical thinking skills or paradigms to utilize the information you are learning).
Alexis said ...
ReplyDeleteOne thing that stuck out when reading the article was Apple's emphasis on schooling for the less fortunate children and those living in poverty who do not gain the same respect and knowledge as those who are higher in socioeconomic status. What possibilities could schooling provide to motivate those who do not receive credibility for their work? If society feels that those with a lower socioeconmic status bring down the positive results of that particular school, then how do we separate those who already achieve greatness to those who made need more help without belittling them? Do you believe separation is necessary or will better or worsen the childrens' educactional experience? Do you think socioeconomic status should provide a basis on which schools children should go to? Thinking back on all of the comments we've made about schooling, it should be an enviornment for kids to learn everyday values. Also, children are different and we want to contribute to specific individual needs rather than just learning for tests.
"I know that it was very quickly touched on but Apple does mention the "Bell-curve." He feels that the use of the bell curve is a 'distressing' indication of social-Darwinist thinking. Do you share these sentiments? "
ReplyDeleteI have a copy of the Bell Curve and one of the arguments it poses is that as social equality increases, people start to stratify by cognitive class. That is, as government resources and scholarships and society's efforts to pick out "bright" students and send them to the same selective institutions as upper class students level the playing field, you end up with more social stratification. I don't believe that's distressing or alarming because it's based on a false ideal of what "genius" is. A student with an impressive GPA, extracurricular record and high test scores is often supported by a network of parents, coaches, and sufficient economic means to not have to work a lot while doing it all. His scores are more of a reflection of that network, but culturally we're inclined to believe that he/she did it all alone. The Bell Curve goes on attempt to prove causation by parsimonious factors like IQ, but ultimately it's a limited work that doesn't threaten anyone. It's neither the first nor the last book to misconstrue evolutionary theory and inappropriately apply it to humans.
My first post seems to have disappeared so here it is again.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the fallacy in neoliberal(i.e Libertarian) thinking is analogous to a rigged game of poker. The winners of the game get caught, partially accept it, and have the audacity to declare that from now on we should keep playing by the rules (in this case deontological free-market ethics) and they won't cheat anymore. The inheritors of dirty/blood wealth are ignored and a few rare examples of exceptional individuals picking themselves up by the bootstraps are championed as examples of the efficacy of the free market.
Apple mentions that marginalized groups often network together, offer support to each other, and cheat parts of the system in order to stay afloat. Do you think that this is an appropriate response to the environment they are forced to compete in?
Ok, I will be honest, I didn't get a lot out of this reading. That being said, the biggest thing that stuck out to me was Apple's analysis of the educational system as an economy with students as a unit of currency. I do not agree with using students in this manner, but I can see potential reasons why it happens. My question is what can we do to change the way we look at students? Is it as simple as changing the curriculum to move away from high-stakes or international testing? Is it just that I am missing the whole point of this article? (I think it might be.)
ReplyDeleteApples talked about national testing and how that is damaging to some places such as England and the Wales. Then he talks about how the national curriculum at first was too specific and too detailed so they had to change it. But the purpose of the national curriculum is too make sure that all schools are somewhat providing students with the same framework. My question is if their wasnt national testing to see if schools are on track and if their wasnt a national curriculum for everyone to go by, do you think schools would be a better place because their focus wont just be on testing students information needed to pass and test so they can look better than other schools?
ReplyDeleteI am not at all surprised to read about the competitive assessment boards present in England. As we have discussed in class, we love to put people in different boxes, to make sure that individuals are exchanging information with peers, co-workers and friends that are on the same"level". Although this is a natural tendency for most human beings, - we desperately want to find a place to belong in society - is it efficient to merge people with the same level of knowledge and skill to learn from each other? These grade boards would attract parents who think it is important for their children to join a school like this, as well as children that, hopefully, are motivated to learn. But, how much do we actually learn if we are surrounded by people who have similar values and goals as ourselves? Wouldn't diversity and different perspectives among the students add another level to their education?
ReplyDelete"making an enterprise of oneself" is probably the most catching part of the article to me because that is what the state is trying to do with education. There are good intentions, I think, but making education a product in a competitive market where the wealthier get a better quality product and the less wealthy get less of a quality education is not the answer and is expanding the social problems related to education but how would you create a non-traditional educational curricula that didn't have to be 'measured' to show positive results? And who is to blame for where we are today with our educational system? State turns accountability to institutions and vice versa. School shouldn't be a way to reinforce the social structure we already have but to accomodate the ever changing society and work towards new goals of structure
ReplyDeleteMichael Apple discusses the competing attitudes of neo-conservatives and neo-liberals in regards to schooling and education. While neo-conservatives prefer standardization and less government involvement, neo-liberals are more in favor of the “marketization” of schools and are anti-standardized testing and NCLB, etc. Standardized testing has broken down knowledge into discrete interchangeable bits of information and has “commodified” knowledge. I agree with Thomas that this free-market approach to schooling creates more inequities than it rectifies. Quality of schools tends to be quantified by test scores and parents often purchase homes in particular school zones based on this information. As a result, property values in “good” school districts/zones tends to exclude members of lower socioeconomic classes and the student body of the schools tend to composed of those from similar socioeconomic classes. This tends to propagate existing socioeconomic disparities because not only are schools comprised primarily of those of higher socioeconomic status tend to have more resources, but students are constantly surrounded by “like” individuals and miss out on the cultural capital gained by surrounding oneself with a diverse group of individuals. Is there any way to rectify this without diminishing the parents’ rights to make choices about their child’s education?
ReplyDeleteIn the reading, it was obvious that Apple's theme directly correlated the standardized testing movement to our country's capitalist system. Is there any way that this system, despite his obvious negative attitude, could work and why? Since it's not working, what about the capitalist attitude in education do you believe causes it to be a failure?
ReplyDelete