Notes for Tuesday, Feb. 10

Class on Tuesday, began with the discussion on Gutmann. The selections in our book are from her book Democratic Education, from the late 1980s, which tries to define what democratic education means and would look like at the level of policy, not necessarily the classroom; and how educational resources ought to be divided up in way that makes education democratic. During the first half of class we discussed maximization, equalization, and meritocracy.

Gutmann’s 3 Ways to talk about the purposes of education, each represents a different set of priorities of allocating resources (time, money, attention)1) maximization
2) equalization
3) meritocracy

Maximization: all about maximizing life chances
-claims that a democratic state should devote as many resources as possible to maximize a child’s life chances
-there are no assumptions of what the child is like or should be like
-allows individuals to maximize their freedom; whatever the child wants to do, they should be able to do and it’s the government’s job to help you (as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone)

What should schools do? Help you to be whatever you want to be
Example: The state should do everything they can to make Dr. Pope an astronaut and if he is not good with math, the state should keep helping him.

Problems with maximization: practically, democratically, theoretically problematic
-moral ransom-the idea of maximizing life chances is inexhaustible; it is hard to tell if and when someone has maximized their life chance
-huge commitment and obligation for the state
-Gutmann says this is “not correct” (p. 237) practical problem of finite resources: there are other things the state should be doing (making sure the community is a pleasant place to live)
Examples: Dr. Pope and his wife can arrange their lives so their daughter can do whatever she wants, but they must sacrifice other important things. By moving close to the grandparents, his daughter would have a babysitter; however he would be sacrificing his career.

Equalization: leveling the playing field
-use education to raise the level of least advantaged people to the level of most advantaged people
-not everyone has chances because of their circumstances
- John Rawls says that in our society there will be inequalities, but every now and then they should be arranged to help the least advantaged
-rationale: things that affect our life chances are simply accidents of birth; this matters a lot so those who need it are compensated
-argument that higher achieving students do not need resources because they are already doing well
-those less advantaged should not be denied by the circumstances of their birth (similar to NCLB)

What should schools do? Raise the life chances of those less advantaged by giving them more educational resources until they are at the level of the advantaged.
Example: Don’t spend anymore money on GT programs until everyone is at the same level

Problems:
-may violate autonomy-the ability for families to decide for themselves; intrude into the lives of families by getting into their business
-practically, this sort of equality is very difficult to reach—when is it going to happen? How will it be measured? How many resources would be needed?
-the drive to make everyone equal, the idea of equalization fails to acknowledge that people are different
-circumstantial problems: how do you get the student to care if the family doesn’t?

Meritocracy: based on merit
-we should give the most resources to those who are going to benefit from them the most, to those who show ability, aptitude, desire, and talent because they will eventually provide the most benefit to society
-consequentionalist/utilitarian aspects

Problems:
-talent, desire, etc. seem to be partially accidental, based on their environment which does not seem to be particularly fair or just
-like to think we don’t reward people who are lucky

Threshold debate: Gutmann says there needs to be a way in which everyone ought to be educated, thus there is the democratic threshold principle. She says that everyone needs to be brought up so that they can participate meaningfully in the democratic process and all resources must go to making sure everyone gets there.

Problems:
-how do we divide the resources
-if we give focus to the threshold, where ought education fit relative to other public goods?
-who decides the threshold? Is it just literacy? Is there a standard threshold that can be defined that people 100 years ago, today, and 100 years from now can go by?
Example: All people had to do in order to participate in a democratic society was read, but today we need to be literate, synthesize bits of information, critically analyze the source, and be technologically proficient.
-Gutmann is too narrow in her definition of a threshold


The second half of class was devoted to a mock trial from the example in the Ethics of Teaching on page 47, the banning of the books. We split into 4 groups: parents, teacher/librarians, administration, and students. Each group presented the feelings and reactions that were given in the example.

Parents: did not feel the material was age appropriate for junior high school students; the students’ maturity level is questionable and they might take fiction for reality; the parents have gone to great lengths to shield their children from these sorts of topics and do not want them to be able to access this material so easily.
Teachers/Librarians: “footloose” defense; these books are pieces of great American literature; cannot deprive every student just because a select few do not like them; the computer system is capable of censoring inappropriate books
Administrators: believe the compromise is fair which allows some control over what kids read; to put the books out altogether would be a detriment to their overall education
Students: believe it will potentially lower their GPA by being taken out of class; they can learn these things on the street, on T.V., by their friends

Conclusions:
-it is the parents job to discuss these issues with their children
-should schools have some responsibility to help filter, manage, or control it?
-Mill’s argument: 1-minority opinion may be true, 2-minority opinion may be false, then the truth remains vigorous, 3-truth lies in between

What about the other case? Pg.35, Mr. Lane publishing Eddie’s story
-this is a different kind of freedom of speech
-problematic because by refusing to publish the story, it could do harm to the kid who wrote it because he would think there is another teacher who hates him. However, this is how great art gets made because “good art is good art even if it bothers people”
-the teacher is upholding journalistic integrities because the newspaper reflects the school
-seems to be built around maturity as well-the student might be unable to see or understand the consequences


The last few minutes of class we briefly discussed the case with Paul and Tim. We can say that the teacher has exhausted all other possible resources and separating the two kids is the absolute only way to solve the problem, so which kid is sacrificed? What decisions make our ethical conscience?

Compiled by Liz M. and Melissa B.