Over the years, I have been writing about misconceptions regarding the schooling process. The purpose of these posts is to explain why I disagree with various comments that I have heard people make about schooling. These are meant as personal thoughts rather than conclusive proof, and I will admit that I'm not always the best at explaining my thoughts. Regardless, I have decided that I should be willing to share these posts when I encounter someone online who makes an argument that I have already discussed.
We have repeatedly referred to our schooling system as the great equalizer. The idea behind this is that giving disadvantaged groups better schools will help them compete better with those who come from advantaged backgrounds.
There is an element of truth to this argument. As long as schooling credentials determine opportunity, helping disadvantaged families obtain those credentials can have value. Unfortunately, credentialism is an inherently inequitable concept. If disadvantaged families increase their credentials, so will advantaged families. This leads to credential inflation. A credentialist arms race will push more desirable jobs further out of the reach of disadvantaged families.
What ultimately happens is that success is something that is bought. We also judge people based off their credentials. This has essentially created a caste system where rich families can buy their social standing while poor families can't afford to move out of their disadvantaged social standing. The simple truth is that credentialism is detrimental to families who are already disadvantaged.
As I have pointed out before, you only need to look at our K-12 system to know that schooling is not the great equalizer. We have narrowed the gap in high school graduation rates, but the gap between the rich and the poor seems to be increasing. There is no reason to believe that pushing the same concept even harder will produce the opposite results.
No comments:
Post a Comment