…This widely varied array of proposed reforms, in turn, is grounded in an equally varied array of analysis defining the root causes of problems with schools. Some argue that the room problem is pedagogical, arising from poor quality and preparation of teachers and from inadequate curriculum. Others argue that the central problem is organizational, arising either from too much bureaucracy (the absence of market incentives) or from too much loose coupling (the absence of effective administrative control). Still others charge that the primary cause of education deficiencies is social, arising from chronic poverty, race discrimination, and the preservation of privilege. Yet another view is that the key problem is cultural, the result of a culture of poverty, disintegrating family values, and a growing gap between school culture and popular culture.
In contrast with these perspectives, I argue that the central problems with American education are not pedagogical or organizational or social or cultural in nature but are fundamentally political. That is, the problem is not that we do not know how to make schools better but that we are fighting among ourselves about what goals schools should pursue. Goal setting is a political, and not a technical problem. It is resolved through a process of making choices and not through a process of scientific investigation. The answer lies in values (what kind of schools we want) and interests (who supports which educational values) rather than apolitical logic.…
Schools, it seems, occupy an awkward position at the inersection between what we hope society will become and what we think it really is, between political ideals and economic realities. This in tern leads to some crucial questions: Should schools present themselves as a model of our best hopes for our society and a mechanism for remaking that society in the image of those hopes? Should schools focus on adapting students to the needs of society as currently constructed? Or should they focus primarily on serving the individual hopes and ambitions of their students? The way you choose to answer this question determines the kind of goals you seek to impose on schools.
The terms of this choice arise from a fundamental source of strain at the core of any liberal democratic society, the tension between democratic politics (public rights) and capitalist markets (private rights), between majority control and individual liberty, between political equality and social inequality. In the American setting, the poles of this debate were defined during the country’s formative years by political idealism of Thomas Jefferson and the economic realism of Alexander Hamilton. The essential problem posed by that tension is this: Unfettered economic freedom leads to a highly unequal distribution of wealth and power, which in turn undercuts the possibility for democratic control; but at the same time, restricting such economic freedom in the name of equality infringes on individual liberty, without which democracy can turn into the dictatorship of majority.…
… Grounded in this contradictory social context, the history of American education has been a tale of ambivalent goals and muddled outcomes. Like other major institutions in American society, education has come to be defined as an arena that simultaneously promotes equality and adapts to inequality. Within schools, these contradictory purposes have translated into three distinguishable educational goals, each of which has exerted considerable impact without succeeding in eliminating the others, and each of which has at times served to undermine the others. I call these goals democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. These goals differ across several dimensions: the extent to which they portray education as public or private good, the extend to which they understand education as preparation for political or market roles, and the differing perspectives on education that arise depending on one’s particular location in the social structure.
Public Goods, Private Goods: the American Struggle Over Educational Goals. David Labree， American Educational Research Journal 1997, Vol.34, No.1, pp.39-81
Labree在这篇文章里面提出很重要的一个观点，就是用他定义的三个目标：民主平等，社会效率以及社会流动来衡量美国教育发展的脉络。这3个目标代表了不同的社会力量、思潮。他们互相作用，既有互相促进又有互相抵触的时候。作者认为正是这些政治目标的角力推动了美国教育的发展。这篇文章读起来有点绕，但是很清楚的一点是所有的政策都需要一个明确的目标来指导/推动。对于这一点，起码目前在国内教育政策的研究上还没看到什么全面的梳理。在一个不同的社会背景之下，这些因素的互相转换又有怎样结果呢？
Recent Comments