Writing 1 two voices on choice

Tyack and Friedman

In Tyack’s introduction, he says he wants to “explore how Americans attempted to create civic cohesion through education in a socially diverse and contentious democracy.” (3) Friedman, on the other hand, attempts to show how now, a time when we are currently straying away from collectivism, is the perfect time to re-examine how education should perform in our society and to whose end. He embarks on an extensive cost analysis and report on the return on investment for the government. Although his argument for vouchers and for subsidized vocational education makes some interesting points, Tyack’s discussion of education is much more interesting because he looks deeper than just the financial issues and examines the social and cultural expectations of education.
Tyack discusses how the purpose of education has dictated how it is delivered to the public. The original goal of American education was to impart values necessary for a democracy, to strengthen character. Most people think of our educational system as one that was focused on preparing educated voters, but the other curriculum, and arguably the more contentious one for many Americans, sought to create a homogenous republic where people shared the same values. Because of the power elite at that time, the values were modeled after Protestant values. Today’s schools “character education” is hardly more than a week of honesty here and a moment of compassion there. Our society today has become a group of very self-centered individuals, and I believe that has occurred in part because schools have become very competitive markets and have shied away from demonstrating any type of value or moral education for fear of litigation or community outrage.
I wonder how Friedman would feel about the level of competition in the schools today between students. He advocated for competition as a means to achieve excellence in the way a market economy generates wealth to the most successful and deserving companies. I think he would argue that all students within a school have the same opportunities, and just as our society is based in a market economy, the best way to train the students to succeed is to allow them to experience the market economy in school as well, especially in the higher grades. I also think, however, he would agree that we have not invested in the individual enough. He would think that school is a place where we need to offer training individuals need in order to get them prepared to compete in the market economy, but a byproduct of that vision is the identification of winners and losers at a much earlier age.
Tyack, however, would probably argue that looking at schools as a place to create workers is a very narrow view. He discusses the many reasons schools exist including their hope to create an educated citizenry with common values, but then he shows how social and cultural diversity made that hope very difficult. The idealism and ignorance involved in thinking one can set up a system of schools in a democracy that assimilates people seems absurd. The entire premise of democracy relies on people debating and looking at issues from multiple perspectives. Perhaps the reason education is such as easy target for social critics is because we are trying to educate students in a manner completely opposite to the political system in which they will be expected to participate. We may be preparing students for a college classroom, but we are not preparing them for their adult life as a citizen of the United States.
Tyack mentions that he, too, is shocked that public schooling has prevailed because, “This ascendance of public schooling is puzzling, for Americans at that time tended to like markets and distrust governments.” (165). Unfortunately, we appear to be in a time now where people are more concerned with their own lives and shy away from political participation. Our democracy has grown so large that most people don’t even know their representatives’ names, let alone their agendas. Our citizens are disengaged in the entire process and schools are not places where students can acquire social capital by seeing their voices count toward change and decision-making. Schools are top-down and focused on producing the same from all. Each student will be created from a standard cookie cutter because we do not want to offend anyone.
I was also shocked to hear that Jefferson initially believed in “literacy as a prerequisite for citizenship, but not in English only: a citizen, he wrote, must be able to ‘read readily in some tongue, native or acquired.” (15) I have often thought it strange that the USA is one of the only places in the world where all students are not bilingual. We have just recently started working more closely with English language learners. I suppose one good outcome from standards is that the schools could no longer ignore their ELL populations and their at-risk students.
The standardization movement we are in currently would probably please Friedman because it would make the mathematical formula for paying for schools and calculating the return on investment much easier. I am saddened by our citizens’ willingness to concede control of the schools to the national and state governments. Schools offered a place where students could see democracy in action because citizens could come and argue issues and advocate their wishes to the school. Franklin wanted schools to use the town hall model, and they did for many generations. I am saddened to see that students do not see voting as something relevant or useful. They often feel very powerless on issues of taxation and other civic issues, and I do believe the centralization of schools and the abandonment of the community based school has a role in that apathy.
I also think students today feel very apathetic because much of what they learn in schools is so white-washed. Despite the fact that whites will be a minority soon, our textbooks still offer very little multicultural perspectives. Our textbook industry has not yet caught up to the idea of pluralism, and many textbooks still offer a very narrow view of history. Many of our students do not see themselves or their families and neighborhoods as contributing members. Most early Americans shared the idea that education served to help people become more homogenous so they would share principles, opinions and manners. This led to a very prolific text book market that continues today. Although some competition exists, millions of children read identical renditions of history, science, math, and other core subjects.
Educational professionals like Horace Mann, often immortalized in statues and namesakes, changed the current thought about education because he realized that immigrants had to be included in our school systems. He turned to his religion for guidance and worked hard to make the common school a place where anyone from any background could come and learn a “common denominator of political and moral truths that were nonpartisan and nonsectarian” (20). His idea that the schoolroom is not a forum for political banter made sense, but he lacked the understanding that all people bring their own experiences, values, and morals to the schoolhouse. I wonder how he would have responded to the Ecological Systems Theory. The early Americans, although originally immigrants themselves, appear to have forgetten that they brought with them a very Western European culture and belief system from which they formed American culture.
Some early Americans fought the idea that every citizen can just walk into a school house an immigrant and walk out an American. Tyack discusses the struggle for power many groups have engaged in throughout history including the Germans, the Irish, the Catholics, the Protestants, etc. Not only has determining one right religion made democracy difficult, determining a set of values we can all agree on seems impossible because using certain words automatically associates the concept with a particular group, therefore offending other groups.
Tyack’s debate over school choice is very thoughtful because he goes beyond the idea of just choosing a school and looks at what school choice means. He asks choice of what, choice of whom, and choice for what purpose. He notes that choice in education is much more complex and difficult than Friedman asserts. Friedman’s argument that educational issues can be solved through school choice because is provides competition is very narrow. Tyack view of education has a much more human element. He not only looks through a historical lens, he also looks through a cultural lens and a democratic lens to examine what schools do, could, or should look like. Friedman only employs a market lens and misses many points. Part of what makes consensus in education reform so difficult is that we all view education from a variety of competing lenses and we have not agreed on how to prioritize them.