Notes For Tuesday Feb 10th Class

Posted by Stacy Woods and Janna Martin

The principle problem brought about in today’s readings is how we ought to distribute education resources (i.e. money, time and attention). This is a problem that occurs at various levels. At the highest level, that of the legislature, one has to determine how to distribute tax dollars. At the district level, one has to assign pools of money to different schools. At the school level, it becomes a monetary and time issue. At the classroom level, it determines how a teacher will divide his/her attention and time with the students. In all contexts the resources are limited so we become concerned on how to distribute these resources fairly. Limited resources makes distribution more problematic, for time and money are not infinite. However, in a democracy one wants to distribute resources fairly. In what manner can this be obtained?

Interpreting Equal Educational Opportunity

Amy Gutmann lays out the three most common ways to determine how to distribute education resources. The first method is maximization. In this method the education resources should be distributed to maximize the life chances of everyone. We live in a liberal society based on equality and equality of opportunity. Thus everyone should have the right to choose what kind of life they want and schools should make no bias on one’s choice. However, this method is vague and allows the possibility of devoting resources where they may not be utilized. According to Gutmann, maximization suffers from the moral ransom as well. Maximizing everyone’s life chances require the sacrifice of everything else that is valuable in society. In maximization education is the most important thus all resources are devoted to education neglecting all other areas such as parks, libraries, police officers, etc. Maximization also does not allow us to draw lines and determine when resources are being underutilized. Gutmann concurs that society should not use the maximization method because education absorbs all the resources and as a liberal society one cannot prioritize one to the exclusion of everything else.

The second method Gutmann discuss is equalization. In this method the education resources would go to aid the least advantaged (those with the least life chances) and would continue to receive these resources until they are equal with everyone else. The ideas of this method derive from John Rawls, who stated inequality is permissible if those resources of go to those the least well off. In a sense, those who need the resources get the resources until they reach the highest advantaged. However, the flaw with this method is it sets an unattainable goal by its own criteria. There will always be the low advantaged because external resources are available to the high advantaged to maintain their position.

The third method Gutmann explores is meritocracy, the dominant ideology for most of the nation’s educational system. In this method Gutmann acknowledges the differences that happen and states they will continue to happen due to effort and ability. Therefore, resources should go to those who will benefit the most from them because they will be able to do the most with them by contributing the most to society. However, Gutmann recognizes this method is also unacceptable in a democracy. Effort and Ability according to Gutmann are accidental and not relevant criteria to take into consideration for allocating resources. As a result Gutmann rejects all three methods and develops the democratic standard. This method contains two key principles to distribute resources. The first part is the democratic threshold principle, where everyone gets enough resources to fully participate in the democratic process. The thought process is that at the school level everyone should know how to read. As more become educated and better educated the threshold rises thus requiring more education to meet the threshold in the future. Although rather vague on other components the threshold should entail other than literacy, the threshold is essential to the second portion of the plan, democratic authorization. Democratic authorization principle refers to anything after the threshold decided by us democratically. Since it will be a democratic decision it is extremely important that we have as many educated people as possible, this is what makes the democratic threshold essential to the plan.

Whom Must We Treat Equally for Educational Opportunity to be Equal?

Christopher Jencks stated that in a democracy we default to treating everyone the same so need justification for treating others differently. Jencks explores various justifications and declines all of them concluding we should all just be treated equally.

Freedom of Speech

Within in Strike and Soltis the question arises how does one handle the issue of free speech within the classroom? From the story read in the article many views on how to assist Mr. Lane in his decision to publish or censor Eddie’s article develop. The first view point is that of the consequentialist, specifically John Stuart Mill who states “the marketplace of ideas” benefits society and is the manner in which truth is determined. He felt as ideas are considered, views are tested and learning occurs resulting in personal growth. If ideas are censored, people are denied their right to make decisions and therefore their personal growth is also denied. Mill goes on to also discuss the need to protect children from the consequences of their own actions. The second view to consider is that of the nonconsequentialist. They view the person as a moral agent who believes they are responsible for what they do and capable of making responsible decisions. However, nonconsequentialists take in consideration the possibility of impaired judgment and acknowledge moral agents would want interference in the case their judgment is impaired. In conclusion, in the case of free speech consequentialists see education as benefiting the greater good. Nonconsequentialists see education essential to moral competency.