Teresa Makar

Introduction
This paper is organized into several broad categories that examine the purpose and role of
education in American society, the relationship between the state and the public school system,
the tradeoff between equality and equity, childrens disparate levels of academic preparation
upon entering the school system, the moral responsibilities of teachers, and the failure of the
public school system to fully reflect American democratic values. Though I attempt to answer a
number of the questions outlined on the syllabus, the central theme of this discussion is the
discontinuity between the American democratic ideal of equality of opportunity and the
reinforcement of socio-economic inequalities through the public education system.
The Purpose of Education
What is the purpose of education in America? Is it to provide an Amish girl with the
skills she will need as a wife and homemaker, such as the ability to sew or cook? Is it to help a
Somali immigrant learn English or provide youth with the language background in order to study
or work abroad? Is it necessary in order to provide a young man with a math skills set in order
that he might become a carpenter? Education attempts to take on many of these dimensions, but
it is also meant to achieve wider goals than providing highly specific skill sets and opportunities.
In order to determine the broader definition of education, it is necessary to step back and reflect
on the role and importance of education for society as a whole.
The purpose of education is to create economically, socially, and politically productive
citizens that will contribute to society in a number of ways. The state desires individuals who are
economically self-sufficient, with a desire to work, produce wealth, and consume. Education can
provide citizens with the skills and the work ethic to prevent subjects from becoming a burden on
the state. Moreover, industrious and skilled workers increase the wealth of the state by
producing more output and generating more taxes. Tim Blanning notes that education in 1700s
Austria was used to deliberately shape the attitudes of the labour force, by teaching the
discipline required by the factory. Schools often teach the values necessary to succeed in the
working sector. In the United States, we teach principles that reflect skills valued by American
employers, such as punctuality and respect for responsibility.
The economic uses of education are closely related to its social uses. Education provides
a method for socialization; under a public school system, youth are under the influence of the
state and its agents for upwards twelve years of their lives. Schools are an effective way to teach
obedience to authority, respect for class structure, pride in hard work, and other social attitudes
that benefit the state and those in charge. During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the role of the
public education system was paramount in teaching youth to place the needs of the state before
their personal needs and those of their families. The Communist Party desired to turn traditional
social values completely upside down, and it needed to use public education to help the masses
acclimate to the transition from imperial rule to a communist regime. Such an example may
seem like an extreme scenario, because the Chinese government used education to socialize
youth in such a deliberate manner. However, it would be foolish for the government of any
nation not to utilize education to influence the social behavior and attitudes of its citizens. Even
the perpetuation of the American Dream represents a method of teaching American citizens to
strive for upward mobility, which is a social attitude.

Teresa Makar 2

Some of the many political gains from socializing subjects are the perpetuation of
government agenda, increased loyalty to the regime, and the acceptance of living in adverse
conditions. The third benefit is especially valuable in states where wealth is very poorly
distributed. If the majority of subjects are made to believe that their station in life is inevitable or
necessary for the health and success of the state, then they can be more easily controlled and
placated. This helps the regime keep order, as the ruling class most likely wishes to preserve the
inequalities that separate the privileged elite from the masses. Wealth, status, and power are
unevenly distributed, but if the government can persuade its citizens that unequal distribution is
inevitable or even optimal, it can sustain inequality without negative backlash. Education helps
the ruling class maintain political control by teaching citizens to be content with ones station in
life, as Johann Felbiger argues.
As we have discussed extensively in class, the wealthy and powerful often have great
influence in controlling who has access to education and what is taught. The well-educated are
more likely to write curriculum, participate in educational committees, and hold the power to
influence policymakers. The privileged wish to hold on to their power. This suggests that, while
some education is desirable in order to socialize the masses and teach them the skills to
contribute productively to society, there is such a thing as too much education for those born
into lower stations. The education provided by the government for the masses is certainly not the
same level as the ruling class is privy to experience. While I disagree with the idea that the
social class a person is born into should determine his educational opportunities, from a political
level, such an argument protects the minority who are wealthy and powerful.
Bleak as it may sound, the purpose of education is to socialize subjects to their economic,
social, and political roles and responsibilities, in order that the state may strengthen its control
and grow more prosperous. However, what benefits the state may benefit the individual, as well.
Depending on the political regime, these roles and responsibilities will vary quite a bit. A regime
that wishes to suppress free speech and open inquiry certainly will not teach the same political
and social values as one that encourages both. In the United States, democratic civil society
benefits when citizens provide feedback to their legislators, voice their opinion on important
issues, and vote regularly. Our schools should therefore encourage civic engagement. We also
benefit from the pursuit of social justice and equality for women and minorities in support of the
claim that all men are created equal. Our schools should reflect these values, too.
The State and Public Schools
If the state wishes for its citizens to receive standard educations that encourage the
formation of specific social, political, and economic values, then the state must make provisions
to provide for that education. Public schools act as the institution through which the government
can most easily access and influence the masses. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the state
to establish public schools in order to shape the behavior of its citizens.
Although the United States Constitution does not explicitly reference public schools, it is
widely accepted that it is the duty of the federal government to provide for public education. It is
worth noting that, though the national government is in charge of public education, the least
amount of funding for public schools originates from the federal level. Larger proportions come
from state and local governments. According to the Washington state constitution, it is the
paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing
within its borders. According to guest speaker Marge Plecki, the federal government provides
for 13% of the funding for public education in Washington; 65% originates from the state and the

Teresa Makar 3

rest from the local level. If the federal government is not providing the majority of the funding
for public education, then why does it have such a strong influence in determining what and how
teachers teach? If the government wishes that all its citizens receive certain preparation and
socialization, then it should provide the funding to make that preparation possible.
If the government wants all citizens to have the same level of basic preparation, then it
must ensure that all citizens attend school and learn those values. This requires compulsory
public education. Several questions arise: at what age should education begin? For how many
years should children stay in school? How long should the school year be? According to
Richard Hofstadter, the age at which children finish their compulsory education has crept up over
the years in order to decrease child labor practices. That is a noble reason, and it is certainly
beneficial for the United States that as many people as possible be educated. Compulsory
education until adulthood increases the competitiveness of the United States workforce and helps
create a more informed and active citizenry. Increased political participation is tied to higher
levels of education. If the government wishes to encourage greater participation in democratic
civil society, then increasing the years of compulsory schooling is a great way to do so.
William Fischel explains that the September-June school calendar was adopted not to
accommodate farming families (a common misconception), but for the convenience of urban
workers. If every district had different dates for beginning and ending the school year, it would
be difficult for urban workers to move their families without disturbing their childrens academic
progress. Now that a standard school calendar is firmly in place, it is difficult to alter. School
districts that attempt to change the school calendar might experience backlash from the
community over declining property values or outrage from teachers, who generally enjoy having
time off in June, July, and August.
When the government begins to regulate education, difficulty arises in getting
policymakers to agree on specific legislation. Beyond the basic questions of how many days a
year children should attend school, more difficult questions arise. Must the curriculum include a
music program? Is American history sufficient or should children learn world history, as well?
Should math and science be required for all four years of high school? If time spent in the
classroom is viewed as a scare resource, then all subjects are in competition for the same time.
Courses whose educational benefits cannot be easily measured are the first to be dismissed.
Music and art programs are some of the first that are cut when funding is low. History is often
pushed to the side to make way for math and science courses. Subjects that will appear on
standardized tests take priority over those that will not.
Invariably, policymakers or administrators will cut courses that some parents or teachers
feel should be included. This raises another difficult question: who should be in charge of
setting the curriculum? If curriculum is to be determined at the federal level, then a great deal of
time and energy will be necessary to centrally plan and coordinate the materials and methods
used. Some may argue that because the federal government provides only a small proportion of
funding for education, that it should not have first priority over determining curriculum. If the
state government is to be in charge of curriculum, then how much say, if any, should the federal
government have in regulating educational programs? If the purpose of education is to instill in
citizens certain values and behaviors, then careful planning and coordination by the federal
government is not necessary. Specific curriculum requirements can be left to state or local
administrators. A simple way to introduce teachers to the educational goals of the government is
to include these goals in teacher education programs. Teachers themselves would be socialized

Teresa Makar 4

to the goals of the state, and then instructed to communicate important social values to the
children they teach.
This brings into question the role of the teacher. As an agent of the state, who is the
teacher accountable to? The federal government is the most powerful; is the teacher responsible
to the demands of the central government? The state government provides the largest portion of
the teachers salary (at least in Washington state); is the teacher responsible to the state? Local
administrators hire and fire teachers; community members provide feedback to teachers; students
are the very individuals who teachers serve directly. To which of these people are teachers held
responsible? In Roger Soders When I Get My Own Classroom, he addresses the complex web
of relations between teachers and the state, the local school district, parents, the community, each
other, and their own occupation. Pressure and demands from these various influences prevent
teachers from exercising autonomy in their own classrooms. Teachers must defend their actions
against concerned parents, vocal community members, and the ever intrusive state. Teachers, as
employees of the state, are imposed upon through government regulation. They are at the mercy
of the state for increased resources or a pay raise and most often find it to their own benefit to
cooperate with the demands of the state.
Teachers, as public employees, are held accountable for preparing students to become
competent adults and active participants in democratic civil society. Accountability indicates
that there is some punishment for failure to uphold certain responsibilities. In the case of public
education, we hold teachers accountable for helping students reach an expected level of learning
by the time they graduate. In order to assess teacher effectiveness, principals utilize teacher
evaluations, parents provide feedback, and the state submits students to standardized testing.
Standardized tests are the least useful of these three methods for providing useful feedback that a
teacher can use in order to improve his performance. Yet, we place far too much faith in them
for accurately assessing a teachers ability to teach effectively.
Standardized testing is not a useful method for encouraging teacher accountability. As
Kenneth Sirotnik maintains, policymakers desire to see the quantifiable results of teaching
drives the use of standardized tests, but standardized tests are too limited in scope to provide
evidence of effective or ineffective teaching. We hold teachers responsible for teaching students
to share, to be respectful, to listen attentively, and to display intellectual curiosity. We expect
students to develop an appreciation for art, a respect for nature, a commitment to stay healthy,
and more. Academics are only a small part of what a teacher teaches. It is foolish to attempt to
quantify everything that a teacher does and attempt to measure it through a test. If we try to use
standardized test scores to measure quality of learning and teacher effectiveness, then the small
scope of what we test (reading, writing, math, and science) cannot adequately reflect more than a
small portion of what students are learning.
It is also wrong that we hold teachers accountable for certain duties without providing the
necessary resources and power to complete those duties. The state may use standardized tests to
assess a fifth grade teachers ability to prepare her students to read at a fifth grade reading level.
However, if half of her class comes in reading at only a first grade level, then it may not be in her
power to bring those students up to speed. If she has a large class, it may not be possible for her
to provide the individualized attention necessary to bring the students who are behind up to the
standard required by the test. If she is not provided with sufficient funding in order to purchase
necessary educational materials, then she will find it even more difficult to prepare these children
well. Yet, tests do not take these factors into account.

Teresa Makar 5

There are also far too many outside influences that prevent assessments from pinpointing
teachers as solely responsible for failing to prepare a child to meet state standards. As I will
discuss later, academic achievement is highly based on socio-economic status. Yet, standardized
tests do not differentiate based on the background of the student. Teachers are expected to reach
certain standards, regardless if some of their students are from poor or uneducated families, from
disadvantaged minority groups, or are still learning to speak English. Standardized tests measure
whether or not a student is a good test-taker and little more; they are simply an irresponsible way
to measure teacher effectiveness.
Equality and Equity
Deborah Stone provides a provocative look at the difference between equality and equity.
She argues that what is equal is not always fair (and vice versa) and that it is incredibly difficult
to achieve both fairness and equality. When determining how to allocate scare resources, some
will argue for equal access to those resources, some for equal outcome based on unequal
distribution, and others say that we should leave it to nature to determine who gets what.
Conflict arises because it is difficult to reach a consensus on which course of action should be
pursued when allocating resources for schools and at what lengths it is acceptable to sacrifice
equity for equality. That disagreement occurs indicates that there is not one right answer and that
our personal values play a large role in our opinions on this subject.
In the equality vs. equity debate, where do American public schools stand? It seems that
while we seek to achieve equality of opportunity, we still have a long way to go. There are
scarce resources in education, and they are not evenly distributed. There are a limited number of
teachers, quality facilities, and even hours in the day. Public schools play a crucial role in
determining who gets what in life by shaping access to opportunity. The idea that all people are
equal lends itself to argument that all should have equal opportunity to reach their potential.
Equality of opportunity cannot occur if children do not have equal access to educational
resources. Wealthy students attend schools with newer facilities and equipment, experience
lower student-teacher ratios, and have access to a wide range of extracurricular and enrichment
programs. Poorer students may attend old schools that are falling apart, where broken or
decrepit equipment is used, and where upwards of 35 students may in the classroom with a single
teacher. One of the reasons for this huge discrepancy in access is that a large portion of funding
for education originates at the local level. Families who live in more expensive neighborhoods
pay higher taxes. Schools that receive a large percent of their funding from the local level are
highly responsive to the ability of locals to pay for their childrens education. Students who
attend schools in areas with higher funding are receiving better educational resources.
Do differences in school quality even matter? The Coleman Report argues that school
quality has little effect on educational achievement. However, Jonathon Kozols Savage
Inequalities directly contradicts this claim. Kozol provides a sobering illustration of a poor
school in East St. Louis that experienced frequent closure due to sewage problems, lacked the
resources to provide enough permanent teachers, and was deprived of the proper equipment and
materials necessary to teach regular courses. Kozols account of Martin Luther King Junior High
School provides compelling evidence that the quality of schools can have a serious impact on a
childs educational achievement. If teachers do not have the resources to teach well, how can
students learn? I am apt to believe that school quality does play some role in student
achievement. I know from personal experience how much more individual attention I received
in classes of 15 students than those of 30 (though I imagine I received a disproportionally high

Teresa Makar 6

amount of the teachers attention in both classes for a number of reasons). Students at the poor
high school in East St. Louis had an overall low level of academic achievement, and few went on
to college after graduating. This leads me to believe that the poor quality of the school they
attended had a detrimental influence on their education.
The inequality of access to the same quality of schools is confounded by the differing
ability of parents to provide their children with additional educational opportunities. As we
discussed with Spencer Welch, principals in wealthy areas can simply request additional money
from the local Parent Teacher Association in order to fund new programs. Principals and
teachers in affluent areas can more easily acquire additional resources by asking parents, local
businesses, and community organizations. To those who have, more will be given (and to those
who have not, even what they have will be taken away). Wealthier parents also have the time
and resources to enroll their children in sports, music, and leadership programs and other
enrichment opportunities. If wealth were the only factor, then perhaps it would be fairly simple
to relocate funds more equally across different schools. However, would it be worth achieving
equality by sacrificing equity? Children whose parents pay higher taxes would not receive the
benefit of their parents additional funding. Is it fair to take away from those who have to give to
those who do not? Yet, is it fair to allow conditions of gross inequality to persist?
Parents from wealthier districts are reluctant to draw away funds from their own
childrens education in order to alleviate the conditions in poorer districts, even if they believe
that it is best for society as a whole that more people receive better educations. George Counts
confronts this problem in his piece Dare the Schools Build a New Social Order? He argues that
the very leaders of the Progressive education movement, upper-middle class Americans, were
unwilling to make any real sacrifices in order to end educational inequalities. While they
expressed the desire to provide equal opportunity, they were unwilling to risk their childrens
positions of privilege in order to correct the deeply rooted inequalities found in the public
education system. I would argue that those who are blessed with greater wealth and opportunity
have a social obligation to provide for those who are not as fortunate.
Our interpretation of the American Dream has damaged the way we think about the
wealthy and the poor. In the United States, we often view the wealthy as those who have worked
through sweat and tears to reach their point in life. This may very well be true, but that does not
mean that the poor do not also work hard. Too often we label the poor as lazy or unmotivated,
when in reality they may be at such a strong disadvantage that they are prevented from gaining
the education or skills they need to rise in social status and wealth. Low wages and long hours
are often the reward for highly taxing physical labor. If the American Dream holds true, then the
impoverished are responsible for improving their lot in life. However, I disagree with this view.
If upward social mobility is difficult to achieve, it is likely because those who are wealthy and
powerful are shaping the rules to benefit themselves and their children. Because there are so
many factors beyond the control of the lower and working classes, it is the social responsibility
of those who have money and influence to make the playing field fair. Those to whom much is
given, much should be expected.
Unequal Preparation for School
Along with unequal access to resources, another obstacle to educational equality is that
students do not come equally prepared for success. Some students enter school with distinct
advantages and are therefore more likely to succeed. Betty Hart and Todd Risley reference the
astonishing 30 million word difference in vocabularies between low income youth and the

Teresa Makar 7

children of professorsand this is only the gap by age three. To confound the problem, the
children of educated and affluent families also learn at a faster rate. The gap continues to widen
as the students age. The difference in vocabulary is only one of the numerous advantages in
school preparation held by middle and upper class children.
It is not that working class parents do not care about their childrens education; they care
as much or more than middle and upper class parents. The problem is that they do not teach their
children the behaviors and attitudes that are favored by schools. Is the solution to this problem to
change schools or to attempt to alter the behavior of working class students? According to
Annette Lareau, children of working class families learn important skills that grant them cultural
competence in the environment they live in (such as respect for authority figures), but place them
at a disadvantage compared to middle class youth. The children of affluent families are taught to
be intellectually curious, to reason and ask questions, and to treat adults and authority figures as
relative equals. Teachers favor these qualities and are likely to give greater attention to students
who actively participate and exhibit a strong interest in learning. In addition, middle class
children possess a sense of entitlement that makes them more likely to shape their time in the
classroom to their advantage and to seek more attention from teachers.
Teachers, given a class of 30 students or more, will encounter students of all different
preparation levels, learning styles, and attitudes towards school and learning. It is extremely
challenging to engage all of these students, because some will find the lessons too difficult, and
others will think the content is boring because they already knew it or learned it very quickly.
Teachers must find a way to accommodate as many students as possible, but invariably some
struggling students will not receive enough attention. It is no surprise to me that, in general,
teachers give more attention to students who are actively engaged and interested in learning. I
know how frustrating it can be to work with a student who seems not to be progressing at all. It
is far too easy to blame the student for not learning the material, instead of stepping back and
wondering if a different teaching style would be more effective.
Many teachers resort to tracking in order to place children in different learning groups,
and thus make their job less complicated. In theory, tracking is a good idea. If students can be
divided into groups that reflect their school preparation, their learning speed, or their style of
learning, then teachers can prepare specialized lessons for each group that are most appropriate
for their learning. However, tracking usually results in homogenous groupings, and teachers do
not provide the same attention to students of every group. Tracking programs reflect socioeconomic status; wealthier students from more educated families are more likely to be placed in
higher tracks and poorer students in lower tracks. Because whites and Asians are most highly
represented in wealthier socio-economic categories, they are disproportionally represented in
programs for advanced or gifted students. Students in the lowest tracking groups are most
likely to be poor and of minority status. Homogenous grouping is a problem because resources
are not evenly distributed across tracking groups. Well-educated and affluent parents have the
time, resources, and influence to make sure their children, who are in the advanced tracking
groups, receive additional funds, opportunities, great teachers, and good curricula. Principals,
administrators, and the school board must answer to pressure from highly involved parents.
Students in advanced tracking groups receive the most goodies and the best goodies. Because it
is difficult for students to move between tracks, inequalities in educational opportunities are only
magnified through tracking.
In America, we take pride in a public education system that is meant to act as the
mechanism for achieving upward social mobility, when in reality public schools do little more

Teresa Makar 8

than solidify class divisions and prepare students to achieve the same level of education as their
parents. Differences in education preparation, school funding (which is closely tied to parent
income), and tracking programs reinforce socio-economic differences. This is not news to
anyone in the education field, and yet not nearly enough has been done to fix it. In fact, Ray Rist
argues that schools deliberately reinforce socio-economic inequalities by clearly differentiating
in the treatment between students of disparate income groups. His time observing students in an
all-black grade school led him to describe classroom divisions as caste-like, in which students
from different socio-economic groups learned how to interact with one another in a highly
stratified manner. While I agree that schools do reinforce socio-economic inequalities, I do not
think they do so in a deliberate manner. Most teachers genuinely care about their students and
wish to see every one of them succeed. They are often unaware that they are favoring the
students who actively participate and failing to engage those who feel marginalized. However,
teachers are not appropriately fulfilling their moral responsibilities if they do not treat all
students as possessing equal worth.
The Moral Aspect of Teaching
Teachers are responsible for taking care of vulnerable, ideationally malleable children.
Parents entrust their children to strangers for twelve or thirteen years of their lives, beginning as
young as four or five years of age. Teachers are first and foremost role models. They are adult
authority figures whom children learn to look up to and often wish to emulate. Teachers must
therefore exhibit morally upright and responsible behavior. If teachers use threats of punishment
or violence to control their students (as teachers at Attucks did), then those children will learn to
treat one another in a similar manner.
Teachers are responsible for treating all students as possessing equal dignity and value.
Teachers should not dismiss students who are struggling as stupid or give up in defeat on those
who are responding poorly in class. One of the most important responsibilities of a teacher is to
actively engage marginalized students. Students who are far behind are often unable to catch up
without specialized attention; they are more likely to give up and cease participating out of
frustration. Instead of viewing students who are struggling as the ones at fault for being stupid,
disinterested, or lazy, teachers should step back and reflect on their teaching methods and how
they might be at odds with a particular childs learning style. If a student is neglected for
multiple years in a row, then he may fall through the cracks and give up on school entirely.
Teachers should also avoid granting disproportionate amounts of time to children who are
already highly successful. It may be rewarding and fun to work with students who are most
actively engaged and display a genuine interest in learning, but they are likely the students who
can succeed without as much teacher attention. As Bill Mester noted, most high achieving
students can survive a bad teacher, because they already know how to succeed through individual
effort. The students who need the most time and interaction with the teacher are those who are
struggling. Teachers should make a conscious effort to provide equal attention to students who
are not their star pupils.
Do American Schools reflect Democratic Society?
If schools are meant to prepare citizens for their political roles and responsibilities, then
American schools should prepare students to take place in democratic civil society. In order to
maintain a healthy democracy, our society requires informed citizens who actively participate by
voting and providing feedback. As Roger Soder explains in Education for Democracy, schools

Teresa Makar 9

are important for instilling in youth a respect for civil discourse, the value of free inquiry, and the
necessary tension between freedom and order. If schools are to teach these values, then the
school structure itself should better reflect democratic society. Student government groups such
as Associated Student Body are a fantastic way to introduce youth to the process of writing,
voting on, and implementing policy.
One of the moral and intellectual responsibilities of an American citizen, according to
Soder, is the pursuit of justice and equality. On the surface level, schools are the great equalizer;
everyone who works hard can achieve the American Dream and be successful. Yet, as I have
discussed previously, our public education system reinforces social inequalities and makes it
difficult for students of disadvantaged groups to achieve high levels of academic success.
Through tracking and specialized treatment of students from affluent families, schools fail to
uphold our democratic ideal of the equal worth of every person; we clearly discriminate based on
student background.
As Roger Soders Education for Democracy maintains, there is a necessary tension
between freedom and order in American society. This tension is present in the public school
system. Though it is in the best interest of the state to require compulsory education at a public
institution until adulthood, this may be viewed as an intrusion on parents rights to raise their
children how they wish. The Old Order Amish certainly felt as if their religious rights were
violated by the compulsory education requirement. In the 1972 court case Wisconsin v. Yoder,
the Amish argued that education beyond the age of 18 conflicted with their religious beliefs. The
court maintained that education helps prevent youth from becoming burdens on society by
providing them with the skills to be self-sufficient and self-reliant as adults; however, because
the Amish chose to withdraw from mainstream American society, their children would not
become burdens on society. In this case, the freedom of Amish parents to choose how long they
would allow their children to be enrolled in school won over the states interest in requiring
compulsory education until adulthood.
In the United States, there is no law requiring that youth attend public schools
specifically; they may enroll in private schools if they desire. This raises another question:
should parents be allowed to use the tax money they provide for public schools in order to pay
for their childrens education at private schools? One of the arguments against allowing parents
to use their funds to support private schools is that the state should not provide funding for
religious institutions, including private religious schools. However, this may increase the
financial burden on parents who wish to send their children to private religious schools. Of
course, the existence of private schools, whether secular or religious, may serve to increase
educational inequalities. Adults are less likely to invest time and resources in a local public
school that their children do not attend, and good teachers may be drawn away from public
schools in order to receive higher wages at expensive, selective, or competitive private schools.
These factors intensify the achievement gap between students of low and high socio-economic
groups by decreasing the academic opportunities available and quality of education for students
whose families cannot afford to send them to private school. Equality and equity cannot both be
achieved in regards to private schools. It would be unfair to prevent parents from enrolling their
children in private schools, but the existence of private schools serves to increase educational
inequalities.
With education as a method of creating productive citizens who will contribute to society,
schools act as the best method for socializing youth and shaping them into the types of citizens
that the government desires. George Counts argues that American schools should deliberately

Teresa Makar 10

socialize youth in preparation to participate in democratic civil society. Deliberately teaching

respect for others, compassion, patience, and humility is highly advisable for creating morally
upright citizens. However, it is wrong for schools to attempt to socialize youth as to their place
on the socio-economic ladder. Ray Rist observed that teachers at Attucks often divided children
into different table groups based on academic performance, and then gave special privileges to
children of the higher achieving groups. For example, in one classroom, children from the
highest ranking table group took turns being sheriff for the teacher on class fieldtrips. The
sheriff received no punishment when he pushed, shoved, and twice kicked children in order to
submit them to his authority. Rist argues that the children learn from a young age how to behave
based on their class, saying that middle-class kids learned how to exercise effective control
over the lower-class students, who in turn learned to shuffle in the face of superior power. The
deliberate effort to teach children how to behave according to their socio-economic group is
against the American ideal of social mobility and certainly against the idea that all men are
created equal. If we teach children to differentiate based on social class during their early years
in life, then by the time they are adults those values will be strongly ingrained and very difficult
to change.
Conclusion
The American public education system, despite the constant criticism it receives, is one
of the best in the world. Yet, our public school system is nowhere near to being perfect. Some
aspects are in conflict with our democratic values, such as differentiated treatment of students
based on their socio-economic background. Our most widespread method of evaluating teacher
effectiveness is through standardized tests, which are highly ineffective and inaccurate
representations of student learning. Our public education system will never be perfect, because
policymakers and the public will not agree on the appropriate balance between equality and
equity or freedom and order. We must continue to pursue improvements in order that it may
best reflect the values and interests of our democratic society and serve the needs of all students,
providing equality of opportunity despite different backgrounds and levels of academic
preparation. My goal is that some day, we will be able to call the American public education
system the great equalizer, and it will be true.