Reaction: Interpreting Equal Educational Opportunity

In class we discussed the chapter on Amy Gutmann's interpretation of how we can divide our resources in education. The three ways to divide the resources are all so extreme and I believe that not one of them alone is the right answer. With maximization, I think it would be great to be able to devote more resources to education so that we maximize our children's life chances but not at the expense of other things that we need such as recreational areas and police protection. Also, who decides when enough is enough? There has to be limitations. With equalization, the students that are the least advantaged are definitely the receivers here and I don't believe this is fair. In a perfect world it would be great to be able to bring everybody up to the same level but to forget about the ones that are already there and not to challenge them could be devastating to their educational experience. And really, not every student wants to excel all the time. How many students really and truly care about their education at all? Two? A handful? I think NCLB falls under equalization and the concept behind it is good but the way it's been implemented thus far is not so good from what I've seen and heard from some friends that are teachers. Currently a lot of the resources are being allocated to making sure all students pass these tests basically so the schools don't look bad and lose their funding. The idea of meritocracy is good I think, probably the best in my opinion out of the three. I realize that there needs to be a threshold set that every student must reach but then after that I think it's fine to allocate resources to the programs like the gifted and talented. I think any student that has the enthusiasm and willingness to learn regardless of their background or "luck" or lack there of, can be a part of these programs. I know some people are just gifted and others have to work at it. But I don't think meritocracy is saying don't allocate any resources to those not as talented or gifted. I think it's just saying to provide an adequate education for all and then give a little more to those that want it.
I don't recall Gutmann ever giving a definite answer on what the threshold is. I know in class it was mentioned that she said something about literacy being the threshold but I think this is just a part of it. At one point Gutmann says that everybody must have the ability to participate effectively in the democratic processes and that literacy is part of the minimum requirements but more than the minimum is demanded. So I don't think she is saying the threshold is literacy by itself. I took that whole part to mean that in order to participate effectively, yes, you have to be able to read but you also have to be able to understand and make some meaning of what you are reading. The point is to educate students to be functional citizens who actively participate in all democratic processes.