The Philosophy of Education
Introduction
Education is a difficult topic to approach due to its sheer complexity. Decisions on educational policy have the power to profoundly alter the economy and society. Learning is universally understood to be a good thing. It is how people pass knowledge to future generations. However, learning is only a small part of education. An education system is also responsible for instilling values; it is impossible to be genuinely value-neutral.
Sometimes, the use of education to instill values is blatantly apparent. Most public schools begin the day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, a small effort designed to promote patriotism as a virtue. Schools in Bangladesh push back on cultural expectations of large families by extolling the benefits of having fewer children (Rosling, 2013, 15:45). Openly advocating for specific values can be highly beneficial but also lead to problems. Most values are controversial and contested to one degree or another, which can create cultural friction. However, ideas that one cannot contest are indoctrination rather than education, and there is no guarantee that whatever values society holds are objectively correct.
Values are difficult to define under the best of circumstances because society's defining characteristic is continuous change. What is correct today may be hopelessly irrelevant or even offensive in a few years. A pragmatist might argue that one should teach facts and not morality in schools. While this sounds reasonable, such a proposition is inherently impossible. A fact is useless without a fundamental moral or value dictating its use.
An implied set of morals and values is rooted in what an education system chooses to teach and promote. A culture that heavily emphasizes STEM education creates a belief that scientific and technological achievements are the highest goals one can aspire to. A culture that offers a free music education emphasizes the importance of the arts. Encouraging a college education can either promote learning as its own reward or the ability to acquire a good job, while championing apprenticeships and vocational skills might value hard work and hands-on experience.
This paper analyzes historical perceptions of education and contrasts them with modern thoughts. It examines the socioeconomic, political, and cultural effects of education, both actual and expected. By comparing different analyses on the strengths, weaknesses, and theoretical education models, it asks the question: What is an equitable education? I argue that an equitable education cannot be measured through traditional means or legislated into existence. One can only observe an equitable education by its results, which prioritize the value of empowerment above all else.
What do we expect from our education system?
A 2020 report on the Department of Education's ERIC system argues that the Founding Fathers believed "...preserving democracy would require an educated population that could understand political and social issues..." (p. 2). Even though the government mostly restricted citizenship to white, landowning men at the time, the report claims that "...many leaders of the early nation also supported educating girls on the grounds that mothers were responsible for educating their own children...and set a tone for the virtues of the nation" (p. 2). During the early years of American education, it remained highly focused on common morals and values.
Many academics corroborate the view that early American education prioritized citizenship over economics. Historian Jon Shelton agrees, claiming "Expanding public education would ensure young people learned the proper republican virtue so they would respect order, act selflessly, and make rational decisions" (2023, p.19). Another historian, James Axtell, claims that education "...wishes to preserve and transmit its distinctive character to future generations (which makes it conservative)" before arguing that the original purpose of New England education was to pass Christian values to the next generation (1974, pp. xi-xii). Axtell's claims are not universal, as education in Southern slave-holding colonies was less prevalent and primarily aimed at the children of wealthy families. Another form of intentionally vocational education existed in the form of apprenticeships. Regardless, the original purpose of American public education was to pass on the values early Americans thought would make their children good citizens.
At some point, vocational skills became the responsibility of public education. The exact point at which our educational institutions adopted this additional responsibility is a matter of some debate. The Department of Education report claims that Horace Mann's initial advocacy for the creation of public schools "...would benefit the whole nation by transforming children into literate, moral, and productive citizens" (2020, p. 3) The report heavily implies that education has always been a primary mechanism to deal with poverty, arguing that "...the costs of properly educating children in public schools would be far less than the expenses of punishing and jailing criminals and coping with problems stemming from poverty" (p. 3). Apprenticeship as a primary means of vocational education came to a definite end around 1917, with the passage of the Smith-Hughes law to federally aid vocational education (Jacoby, 1996, para. 17). Of greater importance and controversy is the idea that education has always been the primary tool to solve poverty and inequality.
Many contradictory claims exist about when education became the primary tool to solve poverty. Political scientist Neil Kraus argues this idea stems from the 1950s development of human capital theory and business opposition to government regulation. An oversimplification of human capital theory is that education and skills are an investment someone makes in themselves. These skills will make them more productive, and employers will pay more because they are more productive. A logical extension of human capital theory is that the purpose of education is to form human capital. Human capital theory formed the basis of education policy during the Reagan administration as an alternative solution to poverty that did not rely on government programs (2023, pp. 32-33). While generally agreeing with Kraus, historian Jon Shelton ties this change to an opposition of Roosevelt-era democratic socialist policies aimed at economic stability, again coming into the public consciousness during the Reagan era (2023, pp. 2-5). To offer a counterpoint, economists Goldin and Katz claim that increases in education were the primary tool for alleviating inequalities in the 20th century (2009, p. 3). There is a profound divide between scholars who argue that education has always been a tool to address inequality and those who claim it is a more recent phenomenon.
Social change is a complicated monster. From a strictly logical point of view, expectations that an education system should solve inequality must be a relatively recent development. Human capital theory emerged from the Chicago School during the late 1950s and early 1960s from the work of economists Gary Becker and Theodore Schultz. Education as a solution to inequality is a concept that requires neoliberal and human capital frameworks. Therefore, it cannot predate those models, and the idea likely originates from the rise and rapid adoption of neoliberalism during the Reagan administration. However, the exact mechanism is a matter of some debate. While the expectation that education is the solution to poverty is a modern invention, it is possible and probable that education has always played a role in equality. Education's effects on a society are in no way limited to people's expectations of it.
Public education for most of American history emphasized citizenship, morals, and values. Equality and economic security were goals undertaken by the government according to historians Holzer and Garfinkle who argue that:
“Lincoln believed that the greatest evil of the Southern slave system—aside from the denial of liberty itself—was that it effectively blocked this economic pathway forever for white workers, who could not compete with slave labor, and for the slaves themselves, who could never hope to escape their bondage and eventually work for wages.” (2015, p. 6)
The concept that equity is an outcome of organized action or state intervention is supported by other academics, though they often disagree on the exact mechanism.
Shelton argues that historically, workers unions played a greater role than governments or education in the fight against poverty, claiming that:
“...key efforts to expand American social democracy revolved around industrial democracy and economic security. These were driven by the efforts of working people to organize, and workers fought for these aspirations more than they sought increased opportunity through access to education. (2023, p.37).
While the mechanisms vary and neither represents a perfect solution, the American Civil War and New Deal both mark significant advances in equality. It is important to note that while education played a key role in the philosophies and theories of both events, it was education that empowered individuals to actively engage in citizenship rather than strictly vocational economic skills.
The concept that vocational education is the key to solving poverty is misguided at best. However, one can make an argument that this idea is actively malicious. Jennifer Berkshire and Jack Schneider argue that:
“Democrats, particularly advanced this narrative—suggesting that a rising educational tide would lift all boats, and that schooling could expand the middle class without the need for politically challenging projects like wealth redistribution.” (2024, p. 15)
The first job of a politician is rarely to prioritize the greater good. Instead, it is usually to win their next election. All policy proposals that attempt to address inequality through direct action are controversial and cost political capital, whether they increase taxes, raise the minimum wage, or expand welfare programs. By contrast, the general public firmly believes education is a fundamental good that deserves more support, though significant disagreements exist on what that education should include. Making poverty the education system’s responsibility is a simple solution to a complicated problem, which doesn’t cost political capital. Whether it works or not is almost irrelevant, as long as the public believes that it does.
Critiques of vocational education aside, I doubt it is possible to return to our original expectations of education. America has grown in both size and diversity. Christian values and European culture no longer occupy places of unquestioned supremacy. Questions of cultural relativism aside, it would be difficult, nay impossible, to create a set of shared guiding principles that all would agree on. Establishing a universal philosophy of education is a monumental task that begins with the understanding that our current expectations of education are critically flawed.
Does our education system do what we expect?
Society expects our education system to be a miraculous panacea, simultaneously responsible for—and the solution to—all its difficulties and problems. Dr. Dana Mitra, a professor of education policy studies, claims that “...41% of all prisoners have not completed high school, compared to 18 percent of the general adult population” (2011, p. 3). A small caveat is that this report from 2011 uses statistics from 1997 for an unknown reason. While I cannot access the exact data Dr. Mitra used, one could expect that this claim would appear in more modern data.
A 2023 United States Sentencing Commission report found that 28.4% of all federal prisoners had less than a high school diploma (Kyckelhahn & Kerbel, 2023, p. 8). Admittedly, high school graduation rates have improved in recent years, with every demographic now graduating above 88% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). A deeper look at incarceration statistics indicates that White people without a high school education make up 18.3% of individuals in federal prisons, with Black and Hispanic inmates comprising 37.3% and 39.3%, respectively (Kyckelhahn & Kerbel, 2023, p. 10). One would expect increases in high school graduation to lower incarceration rates across all demographics. Still, the lack of a high school diploma disproportionately affects the incarceration rates of people of color. Society expects vocational education to lower incarceration rates by increasing workforce participation. However, the ability to participate in an economic system has little effect on systemic prejudice. In this instance, education does not do what we expect from it, because it is the wrong tool to address this issue.
Mitra also claims that there are “...spillover effects from education that transform individual gains into social gains. The personal, individual benefits of a good education have broad benefits for society when improved “human capital” capacity – personal knowledge, skills, and judgment – is taken by the individual into the workplace, the public square, and the home” (2011, p. 7). This claim seems little more than Reagan-era ideas of trickle-down economics transformed into the language of education. The report makes no definitive claims about how education is supposed to transform society, only that well-educated people will act in undefined ways to improve society.
Another claim Mitra makes is that “A better educated work force not only leads to more research and innovation, but the benefits of this economic innovation are then spread more widely and powerfully throughout a better educated public” (2011, p. 7). While statistics do not lie, one can lie with statistics, and this claim is likely technically accurate but misleading. Somewhere around 2% of Americans currently have some form of doctorate degree. The percentage of people actively involved in research and innovation is relatively tiny compared to the general population. Better education has the potential to increase these numbers. Still, I would argue that no amount of education would significantly increase the percentage of people with the ability and desire to sacrifice a significant portion of their lives to obtain an advanced degree.
Economists Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz argue that education tends to decrease inequality. In contrast, technological advances tend to create them, leading to their claim that the recent growth in inequality is because education has improved at a slower rate than technological advances since 1970 (Goldin & Katz, 2009, p. 4). While interesting and worth considering, this argument faces several fundamental issues. First is the fact that humans have a finite capacity to learn. It is unrealistic to expect the human capacity for learning to increase in the same linear fashion as technological advancements, no matter how well we optimize pedagogy. Secondly, it is essential to remember that using and understanding technology are two entirely different concepts. The ability to operate complicated technology such as computers and smartphones has increased, while previously common tech skills like troubleshooting have decreased. Relatively speaking, of course, as technological use increases, the percentage of users with advanced skills decreases. Goldin and Katz’s argument demands that technology requires education to use and ignores that technology has become much more accessible and easier to use. One would therefore expect that the common adoption of smartphones would indicate a reduction in inequality, when the opposite is true.
Finally, Goldin and Katz’s argument faces one final, critical hurdle, even if one were to overcome both primary difficulties. As a thought experiment, imagine that society somehow finds a way to ensure that every individual legitimately obtains an advanced degree. As even our most advanced AI can only craft poorly written essays, we do not currently live in a society where all menial labor is automated. The continual functioning of society requires that someone accomplishes those tasks. Unless janitorial work pays a living wage, poverty will still exist. Vocational education, as currently practiced, is not a solution to poverty. At best, it is a tool to move poverty and ensure it happens to someone else. Education as a solution to inequality and poverty does not meet expectations. However, this is not the only expectation we place on our education system.
Journalist Malcolm Harris claims that there are two primary expectations of our education system. Business leaders and other elites expect that education creates more productive workers. Harris argues this expectation is an unqualified success, claiming “The growth of growth requires lots of different kinds of hard work, and millennials are built for it” (2017, p. 7). Second, students expect their education to lead to financial security, but it does not. Harris claims that “...college itself is at best an opportunity for further investment. The job market is where the investments start yielding returns. Or not” (2017, p. 65). These claims point towards an education system that matches elite expectations but fails the expectations of those who participate in it.
Our education system meets and exceeds political and corporate expectations while failing to serve working-class individuals. In fact, education policy knowingly and intentionally prioritizes elite interests. The previously mentioned Department of Education report comes from the Center on Education Policy. While somewhat outdated, a quick look at the Ballotpedia page for the Center on Education policy shows it got nearly all its funding from the Gates, Lumina, and MacArthur foundations (Center on Education, 2014). These foundations have heavy ties to corporate interests, each controlling over a billion dollars. While one can debate the ethics, I don’t think it’s a strong position to claim that businesses only act in ways to benefit themselves. Corporate philanthropic interests in education exist because they benefit from an education system that teaches vocational skills. By itself, this is not a problem. However, a report written by a think tank designed to advocate for corporate interests is posted on a United States government agency website and treated as fact. I would argue that while there may be significant overlap, the education reforms corporations advocate for will benefit the company more than the people who work for it. This indicates our education system prioritizes corporate interests over the well-being of the very individuals it educates.
Education can potentially create a better society, but not as we currently practice it. Vocational skills are limited to definable skills with a financial value attached. The skills required to improve one’s community are often neither of those things. Attaching financial value to character traits like empathy, compassion, and a desire to serve the greater good is impossible. In fact, actions taken in the service of the greater good often carry financial penalties and directly oppose the competitive actions that economic success often requires.
Socioeconomic influences on education
Despite the concerted effort to paint education as the primary entity responsible for solving poverty, it is much more reasonable to place that responsibility on our economic system itself. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis argue that “...prevailing degrees of economic inequality and types of personal development are defined primarily by the market, property, and power relationships which define the capitalist system.” Further, “...the educational system does not add to or subtract from the overall degree of inequality and repressive personal development” (1976, p. 11). Inequality is not caused by a lack of education, but by the functioning of capitalism. Wealthy private-sector actors who want better and more productive workers maintain undue influence on our education systems and policies. Therefore, education tends to mirror workplace conditions. While vocational training has the potential to secure well-paying jobs for individuals, one cannot address inequality by simply incentivizing participation in an already unequal system.
Jennifer Berkshire and Jack Schneider would agree with their claims that education as a mechanism to fight inequality is ineffective. Instead, it is convenient as it does not require complex policy considerations regarding wealth redistribution (2024, p. 15). Our education system, as structured, prioritizes corporate interests by focusing on vocational training. It also prioritizes political interests by providing a simple, easily accessible answer to the complicated problem of inequality. Despite this, it purports to prioritize the needs of working-class individuals. History never repeats itself, but it does rhyme. The interests of the working class and elites have never aligned, meaning that a tool crafted explicitly for the needs of the powerful can never be a valid instrument of societal empowerment.
What is an equitable education?
A primary difficulty in defining an equitable education is the inherent impossibility of finding a standardized method to measure the impact an education has on a student’s life. Standardized testing is an attempt to measure learning that has serious shortcomings. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was a 2001 act designed to improve education by setting high standards and tying school funding to standardized testing scores. Instead of improving education, “...the design of state tests used to hold schools accountable under NCLB created incentives for teachers to perform one variant of teaching to the test: focusing on predictably tested content” (Jennings & Bearak, 2014, p.386). Even when analyzed from a neoliberal, process equity-driven perspective that holds education is the key to equality, NCLB was an objective failure. The ability to score highly in multiple-choice question exams does not indicate understanding of the material or the acquisition of human capital. Instead, it indicates an educational system that prioritizes rote memorization. While the ability to memorize information is incredibly valuable, a fundamental understanding of core concepts is more applicable to daily life.
Outcome equity-oriented efforts, such as mentoring, also have difficulty quantifying their effects. A comprehensive evaluation of Big Brother/Big Sister of America finds that “...some evaluations suggest that mentoring have positive impacts on socio-emotional or identity development but not student test performance. Other evaluation studies suggest that mentoring programs have positive effects on student test scores and grade point averages (Carrillo et al., 2019, p. 14). There appears to be no consensus over whether mentoring programs affect standardized test scores. However, there is agreement that mentoring increases grade point averages. Grade point averages better indicate student success as they go beyond rote memorization to demonstrate some ability to apply knowledge.
Additionally, they indirectly measure soft skills like work ethic and communication. However, grade point averages as a measure of learning still fall short. A gifted student could put minimal effort into obtaining a high GPA only to struggle upon reaching adulthood, as they have never needed to develop essential skills. Conversely, a below-average student could invest significant time and effort into obtaining a respectable but unremarkable GPA and succeed in life through perseverance and work ethic.
It is easier to examine an equitable education by determining what it is not. I wish I could claim that humanity has reached a universal consensus that colonialism was an evil, oppressive institution. Unfortunately, I cannot claim that, as many still argue that colonialism was a net positive. These arguments tend to claim that infrastructure, literacy, or some perceived religious or cultural benefit outweighs the harm colonialism caused. However, I can unequivocally claim that colonization served to enrich the metropole at the expense of colonized people.
If one agrees with Axtell that education is inherently conservative and designed to pass values to a future generation, colonial education cannot possibly be equitable (1974, pp. xi, xii). It serves to pass the values of those in power to those who are oppressed. If we assume that all people act rationally to serve their own interests, the interests of those in power are always to maintain that power. Therefore, colonial education systems serve to maintain existing power structures, making them uniquely inequitable from both process and outcome equity standpoints.
A 1958 meeting between a group of colonial farmers and the governor of the British protectorate of Tanganyika, now modern Tanzania, offers a rare window into the thought process and arguments surrounding colonial education. A Northern Province Convention of Associations member, Mr. Eustace, claims that “...a tragic situation has developed...that is best illustrated by the thousands of unemployed young men seeking clerical employment” (Memoranda for meeting, 1958). Mr. Eustace also worries that after graduation, African youth will “Obviously join the ranks of the unemployed and in their frustration turn into troublemakers.” To solve these issues, he argues for broad educational changes, prioritizing apprenticeships, reserving higher education for a few, strictly selected individuals, and prioritizing women’s education to pass down European values to their children. He rationalizes these needs by arguing that education should serve the country’s needs, conveniently omitting that the needs he perceives align perfectly with the interests of the colonial ruling class.
Eustace’s concern over unemployed individuals seeking clerical employment indicates that the idea that vocational education should serve as a tool to combat inequality was an objective failure before it even entered the American public lexicon. Something cannot simultaneously be a tool to fight inequality while explicitly being designed to maintain inequality. There are some caveats, of course. Colonial vocational education only paid lip service to equality and advancement. Its purpose and problem were, “...that certain amount of technical training was essential to provide cheap semi-skilled labour but that it could not be allowed to continue beyond a given standard or the Africans would soon be competing with whites” (Nwanosike & Onyije, 2011, p. 45). As Eustace clearly shows with his preference for strictly vocational, apprenticeship-driven programs, the purpose of a colonial education was to meet the labor needs of the metropole while dangling promises of a better life to incentivize participation.
Many young men believed those promises and pursued education to obtain clerical qualifications, only to find a career in that field impossible. The reasons they discovered that the career was impossible were generally because of openly racist and discriminatory policies that primarily reserved clerical and other advanced positions for white, European settlers. However, this shows that a vocational education does precious little when confronting a systemic problem. The unemployed clerics Eustace fears are rightfully outraged over the denial of promised opportunities, but have little power to make any meaningful change. Eustace’s proposal to limit access to the education that he feels creates this dissatisfaction is telling. While conditions in modern America are not directly comparable to those faced in colonialism, it is interesting that in both cases, educated individuals were angry about inequality, and the system’s response was to prioritize vocational education and limit aspects of education that brought awareness of those problems.
Interestingly, this analysis of one of the most inequitable education systems imaginable leads one to believe that education indirectly contains the ability to create a more equitable society. Eustace’s proposal to strictly limit access to higher education implies an intent only to grant access to those likely to maintain the status quo. In fact, British colonials feared educated individuals, “The few educated elites such as Kwame Nkrumah, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Casely Hayford etc, were able to galvanize support of the masses against colonial rule” (Nwanosike & Onyije, 2011, p. 46). There is a stark difference between education designed to encourage participation in a system and empowering education that allows one to change the system. Rather than being a myth, education has real power to create a more equitable society. Where that statement becomes a lie is when elites claim that education for participation is empowering education.
Proposed solutions
Despite a seeming political and scientific consensus that education is the key to creating a more equitable society, how education should accomplish these goals remains a matter of great controversy. Not all of those opinions are equally valid. From a statistical perspective, Goldin & Katz’s argument that educational advancements have not kept up with technology appears incredibly valid (2009, p. 4). There is a correlation between slowing educational advances and rising inequality, which begins somewhere around 1980. However, correlation does not imply causation. Humans have a finite capacity to learn, and it is no longer possible for one individual to completely master several distinct subjects. If this were not true, society would continue to produce Renaissance (wo)men. Even if Goldin & Katz are correct in their hypothesis that the continued advancement of education promotes equality, we will reach a point when it is no longer possible to improve education further and require a new solution.
Malcolm Harris offers few solutions but convincingly argues that increases in education requirements are significantly responsible for our current mental health crisis. If the demands of education are so stringent that they actively harm learners, society has likely approached the limits of what humans can learn. Additionally, he argues that “An en masse increase in ability within a competitive system doesn’t advantage all individuals. Instead, more competition weakens each individual’s bargaining position within the larger structure” (2017, p. 24). While not proposing meaningful solutions, Harris argues that the current narrative of near-mandatory college education increases inequality. It forces educated individuals to compete against one another while leaving little room for those who finish in second place.
Scholar of sociology and education policy, Sarah Goldrick-Rab, agrees that our current education system creates rather than solves inequality. Instead of criticizing structural and systemic issues, she places the blame squarely on financial matters. One of her biggest concerns is the cost of attending college, arguing for more state support for higher education. Speaking about the Pell grant, Goldrick-Rab claims, “Today, nine of every ten students that Senator Pell’s program supports graduate from college with debt, with an average of over $30,000 per student (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2017, p. 237). Higher education should not create poverty, especially with so many leaders and academics arguing that it should be the solution.
Goldrick-Rab argues that increasing financial aid will fundamentally change this equation to one that empowers and enriches learners. It is true that, all else being equal, a student who can entirely dedicate themselves to learning will outperform one who works full time. Circumstances and hardships outside of school reflect preexisting socioeconomic conditions. By giving students more aid, we could reduce those inequalities and create a college system that is more objectively meritocratic. While Goldric-Rab’s proposals would help individual students, the validity of her arguments as a systemic solution to inequality depends on whether one believes that education is the solution to inequality and that meritocracy is an objectively good societal structure.
Philosopher and Harvard Professor Michael Sandel argues that meritocracy is directly responsible for many of the social issues that led to the rise of populism and the election of Donald Trump:
First, under conditions of rampant inequality and stalled mobility, reiterating the message that we are responsible for our fate and deserve what we get erodes solidarity and demoralizes those left behind by globalization. Second, insisting that a college degree is the primary route to a respectable job and a decent life creates a credentialist prejudice that undermines the dignity of work and demeans those who have not been to college; and third, insisting that social and political problems are best solved by highly educated, value-neutral experts is a technocratic conceit that corrupts democracy and disempowers ordinary citizens. (Sandel, 2020, p. 73)
Sandel offers few solutions besides a vague and unlikely proposal to change admissions at elite universities to a lottery system, which would be more equitable, as any student who met a certain baseline of academic achievement should be equally eligible. Despite his lack of solutions, he shows that our current education models tend to exacerbate inequalities. Academic performance and credentials are more closely related to existing socioeconomic conditions than absolute ability. Even if one were to make our education system more equitable, as Goldric-Rab proposes, we still have a system where access to the best jobs is highly competitive and limited to a select few.
Jon Shelton and Oren Cass are two authors who agree that the key to equality is restoring the dignity of work rather than our continued emphasis on education. Shelton argues that workers’ unions are the key institution fighting inequality, and the idea that education solves inequality is a myth (2023, p. 37). This does not mean education is unimportant or incapable of creating change. Instead, creating change and equity requires action, and our education system prioritizes economic participation over democratic action.
Cass proposes we shift education to prioritize vocational skills, while claiming that federally subsidized wages are the correct mechanism to address inequality, “...the wage subsidy is the appropriate mechanism for redistributing gains from the economy’s ‘winners’ to its ‘losers’ (Cass, 2018, p. 168). While undoubtedly more equitable than our current arrangement, Cass’s proposal lacks several key details. Any stable system will increase in inequality over time as individuals find methods to exploit said system for personal gain. Equity is not a fixed point. Instead, it is an ideal one must continually struggle towards. Vocational education empowers individuals in a specific, limited way. They become better able to participate in the system, but often lack the skills required to engage in organizing, activism, or any other form of action designed to change the system itself. Shelton’s emphasis on workers’ unions as key to equality understands this. Despite his claims that education as a key to equality is a myth, organizing and activism are generally learned skills that come naturally to few. While education—as we practice it currently—does not play a primary role in equality, it has the potential to lay the groundwork for social change.
What do I think?
I have bloviated at great length about what an equitable education is not, which leaves the question of what an equitable education actually is. Answering this question is incredibly difficult for two reasons. First, it is impossible to quantify. Dr. Campbell argues that mentors to students of color teach “...White English was the right way to speak” and that “...these White norms may prove to be beneficial in teaching students of color how to navigate through majority White spaces—school and society, but at a significant identity and emotional cost” (Carrillo et al., 2019, pp. 32,33). No set of mathematical data can accurately communicate the gains and costs of giving up one’s identity to better fit into society.
Secondly, while not entirely impossible, attempting to qualify an equitable education approaches the limits of human language. Dr. Campbell’s dilemma over mentoring practices eroding cultural identity can be partially, but not wholly, addressed through language. One could adopt a mentoring style that prioritizes honesty. An honest mentor could explain cultural expectations for job interviews, but also demonstrate that those expectations are the result of prejudice and not the inherent superiority of White culture. However, anyone who has ever told a white lie understands that honesty often comes at the expense of sensitivity. One can prioritize honesty in mentoring, but the specific execution of that principle is something that every individual mentor must decide for themselves. Therefore, language can provide general morals and principles for equity, but cannot create an all-encompassing list of instructions to ensure one always acts equitably. Therefore, instead of giving a list of specific actions, I have made a list of principles an equitable education must adhere to.
An equitable education must serve the interests of the population. This statement sounds obvious, but also potentially problematic. It is essential to distance this idea from concepts like Eustace’s claim that education must serve the country’s needs (Memoranda for meeting, 1958). An education serving the country’s needs can be very inequitable in the service of some real, imagined, or even misleading greater good. Our education system serves the interests of the country on several different levels. Unfortunately, this larger-scale focus tends to exacerbate inequalities in different ways.
One of the most apparent forms is how our education system prioritizes a tiny minority of high achievers at the expense of other students. Around half of American adults have literacy and numeracy skills at or below a 7th-grade level (Greenberg & Feinberg, 2019, p. 107). Without further analysis, it appears as if our educational system is horribly lacking, but this cannot be the entire problem. Dropping out of middle school is so rare that I could not find any statistics for it, and approximately 88% of Americans graduate from high school (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). Low literacy and numeracy rates in adults are not evidence that we failed to teach them. Instead, it indicates that they have failed to retain that information. Advanced literacy and math are essential for higher education and specific careers. Unused skills atrophy, meaning that low literacy and numeracy rates among adults indicate they have failed to retain those skills, likely due to a lack of use.
One fails to use a skill when one’s life does not require that skill. I do not propose eliminating higher math and language in our curriculum. However, I suggest we reduce language and math requirements for graduation. There will always be talented, motivated, and capable students who pursue those skills. However, for most people, our education system prioritizes fields they are unlikely to use while neglecting valuable skills like budgeting, civics, and critical thinking.
Our emphasis on skills that do not apply to most people carries a social price above and beyond wasted time spent learning irrelevant knowledge. A hypothetical student who does poorly in math will likely feel that those shortcomings are responsible for a poor job. Judging individual value based on math capability ignores the possibility that this individual could be supremely talented in many other areas. The lack of a good job for someone willing to work is a societal problem, which society effectively disguises as a personal failing by pinning personal struggles on math aptitude. As a result, that hypothetical person is to pressure their children to do well in math. Our relentless focus on STEM is an effective tool of Foucauldian discipline, a power that shapes individuals into docile and useful subjects. Equity is something one must fight to obtain from a system. Arguments that education is the key to inequality only advance participation in existing systems and discourage opposition, effectively doing the opposite of what it claims.
A human being is more than the sum of their marketable skills; happiness requires more than a high salary at a prestigious institution. It follows that an equitable education must do more than provide skills that are in high economic demand. According to Neil Kraus, “...students want to be able to pursue areas of study and careers that are of interest to them and not be limited to the ever-shrinking number of college majors that can facilitate earning middle-class wages in our highly unequal society” (2023, p. 198). Instead, an equitable education must be eudaemonistic. At a minimum, it should allow space for students to learn non-economic skills essential for happiness.
Harvard professor and political scientist Danielle Allen claims that education serves four purposes: preparing one for economic work, civic and political engagement, creativity, and relationships (2018, p. 17). Our current educational model emphasizes economic participation at the expense of all else. Civic skills are teachable, while creativity and relationships require “...we do need to ensure that the state leaves space for them” (2018, p. 18). Part of Allen’s solution is an educational model that de-emphasizes test scores as a metric of teacher capability in favor of a Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) system that holds teachers accountable to their peers rather than the specific test scores of their students (2018, pp. 24-26). Civic, social, and creative skills are nearly impossible to test. Emphasizing them requires an approach to learning that understands that not everything valueable appears on a balance sheet.
To Allen, part of an equitable education is the ability to participate in political decisions, a concept she labels as participatory readiness. Of particular importance is verbal empowerment, because “Civic and political action must begin from a diagnosis of our current situation and move from that diagnosis to a prescription for a response” (2018, p. 40). Essential to good citizenry are the skills to accurately understand current events and engage in constructive debate over possible solutions.
Canadian filmmaker and activist Astra Taylor goes one step beyond Allen’s concept of leaving space to advocate for unschooling partially. She explains, “My parents shunned coercion and relied instead on our curiosity to drive us, which they understood to be the most basic human characteristic” (Taylor, 2024, p. 123). Taylor’s argument contains some validity. As an activist and filmmaker, she is an objectively successful person, despite a lack of formal education during her formative years. While anecdotal, I am inclined to believe there is some measure of validity to this philosophy. I also received no formal education whatsoever until high school. As I am currently in college, objectively answering if this was a good or bad thing is impossible, but I am presently scoring fairly well on traditional measures of importance.
However, unschooling has some serious drawbacks. Allen herself claims that “As someone raised to respect self-education, I find it sad that I now shudder when people tell me they have done their “own research,” a sure sign they’ve been sucked through a conspiratorial pipeline and come out the other side covered in hogwash” (Taylor, 2024, p. 144). Taylor and I both experienced unschooling before the internet allowed conspiracies and disinformation to spread at near-relativistic velocities. Unschooling is a reasonably extreme opinion that is probably no longer viable. However, it is essential that any effort to make education more equitable leave some space for students to pursue their own interests rather than forcing them to regurgitate concepts and skills that might be in demand when they enter the workforce.
A significant difficulty in establishing an equitable education is the possibility of unintended consequences. I can objectively claim that American segregationist policies were inhumane, racist, and unethical. Anyone who disagrees with that statement is willfully ignorant or malicious. Ending segregation, however, still had negative consequences for minority individuals. According to bell hooks, “Black supporters of the civil rights struggle for desegregation of schools did not take into account the way our self-esteem as black students would be affected when we were taught by racist teachers” (hooks, 2013, p. 69). (hooks, 2013, p. 93). An underfunded, neglected school could be a superior learning environment for students of color compared to a well-funded school staffed by racist teachers. An equitable education requires teachers who understand and learn from their students, especially when those students come from different cultures.
On paper, this is nearly impossible to achieve. It is not the duty of minorities to educate the majority. However, even an encyclopedic understanding of African American history and culture will be of little use while teaching Filipino students. It is equally unreasonable to expect anyone to immediately engage in scholarly research whenever they encounter someone from an unfamiliar culture. Instead, Chezare Warren argues that:
“Empathy is the piece of the student-teacher interaction puzzle that connects what a teacher knows or thinks about students and families to what he or she actually does when negotiating appropriate responses to students’ needs, or when the teacher is arranging learning experiences for students.” (Warren, 2017, p. 171)
Empathy, applied via perspective-taking, is a powerful tool for equity that also serves to make education two-directional. A teacher who engages in empathetic perspective-taking will also learn about the struggles, strengths, and dreams of their individual students. This knowledge may or may not be applicable to the teacher themselves, but it can be used to understand and assist students in overcoming whatever unique barriers they face.
Our education system prioritizes STEM above all else because those fields align with corporate interests that heavily fund education policy think tanks and lobbyists. This focus allows a small percentage of talented students in STEM fields to obtain good jobs, but offers nearly nothing concerning more significant societal problems of inequality. While STEM is undeniably important, it is not the most critical aspect of education for an average person.
Critical thinking skills are essential to a well-functioning society—propaganda and disinformation predate written language. Throughout much of human history, they have been physically limited by distance and logistical difficulties. Before an artistic or educational work commonly appeared in households, society first needed to reach an unspoken consensus that it contained something of value. Following the rise of the internet, this is no longer true.
A significant percentage of the media we consume is given to us by an algorithm that prioritizes engagement and retention over the actual value of the content. As a result, disinformation can spread at incredible speeds. Additionally, it can be difficult to counter this disinformation as algorithmic content providers tend to prioritize content consumers already agree with. Prioritizing critical thinking skills in education has some benefits for individuals who are empowered to make more informed decisions. The most significant effects would be societal. Disinformation would have a much harder time entering public discourse, which would shift political rhetoric away from a debate over what the facts are and toward a discussion about the best policies in light of agreed facts.
An easy way to prioritize critical thinking would be for schools to abandon attempts at value neutrality. It is impossible to be genuinely value-neutral. According to John Dewey, education takes three forms: control, direction, or guidance (Dewey, 2014, p. 28). Control is a very authoritarian educational method, but even engaging in guidance requires an educator to make determinations over what values a student should prioritize. What you believe and how you view the world is inevitably reflected in your actions. Instead of attempting to be genuinely neutral, schools should teach the controversy. Teaching the controversy is commonly used by various movements trying to introduce young-earth creationism into the classroom. I do not mean it in that way. Instead, if a position is academically defensible, it should be explained.
Educators should teach the controversy in both a historical and a modern context. Students should understand arguments made by opponents and proponents of slavery, American exceptionalism, and the Vietnam War, to name quite literally three. They should also learn about more modern political controversies and what different perspectives on those issues actually believe in. Teaching critical thinking from a position of honesty has two benefits. First, it makes it more difficult to delegitimize and misrepresent the views of political opponents. Second, it allows students to form their own opinions better.
There are some obvious difficulties with my proposal. Some controversial topics, like major political platforms, should be relatively easy to teach, as one can easily give equal weight to both opinions. Others can be more difficult. Most climate scientists agree that climate change is real and a result of human activity. A small minority of scientists produce academically defensible work that denies climate change. It is crucial to acknowledge minority dissent, as placing any idea above criticism is indoctrination rather than education. It is also essential to understand that a minority dissent does not have equal validity to a consensus. There is no formulaic solution to this problem. An educator must strive to present our understanding of the world as accurately as possible from multiple perspectives. More important than the details of any given topic is an emphasis on critical thinking, which prioritizes learning and the ability to defend a position over test scores.
An equitable education should prioritize learning over test scores. Even the most ardent supporters of standardized testing acknowledge that it has limits. Knowledge does not equal understanding. One can recite a list of nouns and verbs without understanding the difference between them, or enter numbers into a memorized mathematical formula without knowing what that formula does. Memorizing information and engaging with concepts are two very different forms of learning. We can only test for the ability to memorize, and our education system’s reliance on standardized testing forces us to prioritize it.
In fields like civics and humanities, teaching a controversy and asking students to oppose or defend it in a short reflective essay forces them to go one step beyond rote memorization and engage with the concept itself. Critical thinking is an easy concept to teach, if one remembers that the ability to support and defend your position is more important than the ultimate answer you arrive at. Subjects like math are deterministic and binary, where an answer to a problem is either right or wrong. I do not mean to discount the importance of rote learning in certain circumstances, only that engaging with concepts is equally essential for an equitable education and is neglected in our current system.
A final topic that an equitable education must address is meritocracy. Proponents of process equity support the idea of a society in which success or failure is the result of individual achievements. Unfortunately, a true meritocracy can never exist. Academic success can never compete with connections and generational wealth, which are the true enablers of mediocrity. Under certain circumstances, meritocracy can be actively harmful. According to Michael Sandel, “...under conditions of rampant inequality and stalled mobility, reiterating the message that we are responsible for our fate and deserve what we get erodes solidarity and demoralizes those left behind by globalization” (2020, p. 73). Capitalism creates a narrative that one’s financial net worth is reflective of their value as a person. This logic ignores that individuals can work hard and do everything correctly, but still wind up impoverished or incapable of finding a job in their area of expertise.
It is impossible to eliminate meritocracy completely; even if it were, we wouldn’t want to. I would have joked a year ago that America would never elect a completely unqualified president, but truth seems stranger than fiction. Regardless, it will be a cold day in hell before companies prioritize hiring unqualified workers. That said, most of the solutions to socioeconomic problems lie outside the scope of this paper. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have fed citizens the narrative that education is the key to financial success, based on merit. As we currently practice it, education is nearly powerless against deliberate misinformation, which is essential to understand. An equitable education cannot set unrealistic goals for its students. Instead of promising success through participation in existing systems, it should prioritize giving students the tools to solve problems.
Conclusion and final thoughts
I have spent most of my semester mentoring at COMSA, an organization dedicated to helping refugees. Recently, I had a conversation with an Afghani high school student. She expressed happiness at being in the United States, because women have access to a ton of things here that they couldn’t do in Afghanistan.
I told her that wasn’t always true, and the only reason women have rights is because of brave women that organize and work to change the law, which is still going on today. She didn’t say much, but I could see she was deep in thought.
Mentoring well is a weird concept. Unless I pass on some of the things that help me succeed, what is the point? But you cannot simply dictate that the actions you would take are the only correct path. You simply do not understand what someone needs unless you take the time to understand their perspective.
This whole paper distills down to a deceptively simple point. Understand the perspective of students and help them holistically. Applying this concept on a societal level is incredibly difficult, because the application will vary widely between locations or even individuals, even if the concept remains the same. We also can never know what obstacles future generations need to overcome. The solutions of the past contain valuable lessons that aren’t always applicable to the present. An equitable education requires general guidance and emotional connection in a society that prioritizes specifics and data. But based on the past, we can make some reasonable assumptions.
One can categorize most of American history as containing an accessible frontier. A frontier can exist as a physical boundary beyond which lies wilderness, or a more abstract concept of the limit of understanding or achievement. The United States engaged in major territorial expansions until the 1867 purchase of Alaska from Russia. While the United States continued expanding, physical frontiers remained open and accessible. One can expect an average uneducated person to be capable of developing the skills to farm or otherwise use a patch of land and live a good life on the fruits of their labor. On the surface, questions of equity during the American expansionist period have a simple answer: Give unclaimed land to those willing to better themselves.
Reality is more complicated than theory. While I hold that this principle is fundamentally true, it is essential to acknowledge that territorial expansion required the genocide of many indigenous peoples. Until the American Civil War, free labor also had to compete against the labor of enslaved people. Additionally, unregulated use of the wilderness led to deforestation, extinctions, and other environmental problems. I do not mean to claim that territorial expansion was objectively good. I claim it was a simple and effective means to combat inequality, which is no longer possible.
A second frontier of manufacturing emerged after the American Civil War. A second industrial revolution created a manufacturing economy, which benefited greatly by being the only major economy to remain untouched by either World War. Manufacturing jobs are also accessible, but with a small caveat. Most manufacturing jobs require the ability to read and do simple arithmetic. During this era, one can make the strongest argument for education as a tool for equality. A relatively elementary education can equip an average person with the tools to participate in a well-compensated, in-demand career.
I do not mean to portray access to manufacturing jobs as a panacea. Exploitative working conditions created the rise of labor unions, which gained legal recognition in 1935 under the National Labor Relations Act. The Great Depression also happened during this period and only ended with significant state intervention in the form of the New Deal and increased manufacturing demands during World War II. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1965, good manufacturing jobs were often limited to white individuals, with white women only included during World War II. Despite these shortcomings, inequality again had a simple solution. If you want a better life for yourself, work in manufacturing.
That frontier is also closed. American manufacturing began declining during the late 1970s, and this decline only accelerated in the early 2000s. Manufacturing wages have also failed to keep up with inflation. There are many arguments about the root causes, which include weakening unions and globalization, which force manufacturers to compete with countries that lack worker protections. It may be possible to restore American manufacturing, but that question is outside the scope of this paper. What is important is that American manufacturing—as it currently exists—is not currently a means to an equitable future.
When one frontier closes, another appears elsewhere. Currently, those frontiers primarily exist in technology, which isn’t similarly accessible. Few people can learn the skills needed, and even fewer have the financial resources to compete in a technology-based economy. While imperfect, previous frontiers contained tangible, actionable mechanisms to improve equity. Education is supposed to be the key to equity. Still, even an objectively perfect education system won’t change the fact that only a tiny percentage of our population has the aptitude to pursue a career in demand.
Throughout most of American history, we have had a simple solution to inequality: increasing access to whatever resources the economy demands. There is no such thing as an unlimited resource, and those resources become scarce over time. Geographic constraints or economic conditions can limit further use of a resource. Our primary economic limitation is no longer labor. Equity is an easy problem to solve when your economy is labor-limited. It is a complex problem to solve when it is resource-limited. Creating equity under resource-limited conditions requires you to ask difficult questions about distributing wealth fairly.
Despite my complaints, education has a primary role in solving inequality. It must empower people to be good citizens. Change is a constant, and too much inequality inevitably leads to revolution. Empowering citizens is fundamentally opposed to the interests of the powerful, but it is necessary.
In a capitalist system, elites obtain their status from competitive action, whether they engage in competition themselves or inherit that status from another. A prominent method of maintaining elite status is to prevent others from competing against you. This can take several forms: wage inequality preventing financial competition, nepotism preventing social competition, or an educational system that prioritizes participation in existing power systems, preventing societal competition. However, people will tolerate only so much inequality before they rebel.
From a strictly self-interested perspective, the best way for elites to maintain their status is to provide for those on whom status depends. Our current system has reached a breaking point. It cannot continue as it is for much longer. A revolution is inevitable. That revolution may be bloody and cause more harm than it solves, but it could also be civil and uplifting. Change is a natural, unavoidable part of the human condition, but how that change happens depends on how well we empower our citizenry.
I have little confidence that those in power will take meaningful action that reduces inequality. I neglected to mention earlier that previous frontiers, while accessible, required social and political intervention. Access to frontier land only happened because of the Frontier Act of 1862. Factory jobs were hazardous, requiring extremely long hours, little protection, and low wages. Slowly, union organizing efforts tackled these problems and established things we take for granted today, like eight-hour days and five-day work weeks.
Labor organizing is not a topic I am knowledgeable enough to make any significant claims about. What is abundantly clear, however, is that the few remaining good jobs are already inaccessible to most people and incredibly competitive. American society has reached another point requiring intervention. I do not know what that intervention is, but working people must fight for change. Our education system should empower future generations to create the future they want, rather than simply allowing them to participate in existing systems. Education is a tool to pass down some sort of knowledge or morality to a future generation, and these are among the most fundamental of American values.
Even if you disagree with my argument, there’s still a fundamental problem with our education system. Most students use some form of AI. Cheating on online exams is so prevalent that it has become normalized. I’ve talked to many students who deliberately take as many online classes as possible because cheating on the tests is so easy. The problem is that education has become transactional, when learning requires curiosity. You cannot be curious about something you’re only doing because it’s expected or almost mandatory.
Traditional metrics of success state that I’m a pretty good student. The only difference between me and any other student is that I’m in higher education because I love learning. Our education system is facing serious difficulties. Those problems will continue to increase until we shift to a model that inspires curiosity. If we leave space for students to pursue things that they are interested in, even if that learning has no direct financial value, the student will still pick up a few things that empower them to be good citizens along the way.
References
Allen, D. S., Shelby, T., Suárez-Orozco, M. M., Rebell, M. A., & Hudes, Q. A. (2018). Education and equality (Paperback edition ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
Axtell, J. (1974). The school upon a hill: Education and society in colonial New England. Yale University Press.
Berkshire, J. C., & Schneider, J. (2024). The education wars: A citizen's guide and defense manual. The New Press.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Carrillo, J. F., Parker Moore, D., & Conder, T. (2019). Mentoring students of color: Naming the politics of race, social class, gender, and power. Brill Sense.
Cass, O. (2018). The once and future worker: A vision for the renewal of work in America. Encounter Books.
Center on education policy. (2014). Ballotpedia. Retrieved March 17, 2025, from https://ballotpedia.org/Center_on_Education_Policy
Department of Education. (2020). History and evolution of public education in the US (N. Kober & D. S. Rentner, Authors, M. Ferguson, Ed.). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED606970.pdf
Dewey, J. (2014). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Uitgever niet bekend.
Goldin, C. D., & Katz, L. F. (2009). The race between education and technology: How America once led and can win the race for tomorrow. Belknap.
Goldrick-Rab, S., Anderson, D. M., & Kinsley, P. (2017). Paying the price: College costs, financial aid, and the betrayal of the American dream (Paperback edition ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
Greenberg, D., & Feinberg, I. Z. (2019). Adult literacy: A perspective from the United States. Springer Nature, 22. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11618-018-0853-8
Harris, M. (2017). Kids these days: Human capital and the making of millennials. First Edition. New York, NY, Little, Brown and Company.
Holzer, H., & Garfinkle, N. (2015). A just and generous nation : Abraham Lincoln and the fight for American opportunity. Basic Books, a member of the Perseus Books Group.
hooks, B. (2013). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. Taylor and Francis.
Jacoby, D. (1996). Apprenticeship in the United States. Economic History Association. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/apprenticeship-in-the-united-states/
Jennings, J. L., & Bearak, J. M. (2014). "Teaching to the test" in the NCLB era. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 381-389. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x14554449
Kraus, N. (2023). The fantasy economy: Neoliberalism, inequality, and the education reform movement. Temple University Press.
Kyckelhahn, T., & Kerbel, A. (2023). Education levels of federally sentence individuals. United States Sentencing Commission. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2023/20231218_Education.pdf
"Memoranda for meeting on Sept. 23rd, 1958 with H.E. the governor." Northern Province Convention of Associations. (1958, September 23). [Memo]. Papers of the Oljoro Farmers' Association (24 MSS Afr s 1228). Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Mitra, D. (2011). Pennsylvania's best investment: The social and economic benefits of public education. https://www.elc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BestInvestment_Full_Report_6.27.11.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Educational attainment of young adults. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved 03/20/2025, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/caa.
Nwanosike, O. F., & Onyije, L. E. (2011). Colonialism and education. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(4).
Rosling, H. (2013, November 7). Don't panic [Video]. Gapminder. https://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/
Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit: What's become of the common good? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Shelton, J. (2023). The education myth: How human capital trumped social democracy. Cornell University Press.
Taylor, A. (2024). The age of insecurity: Coming together as things fall apart. House of Anansi.
Warren, C. A. (2017). Empathy, teacher dispositions, and preparation for culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2), 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117712487
Featured image from Kimberly Farmer on Unsplash.
Like what you see?
This article was originally published to James' Substack, Sarcastrophe. Consider taking a look at other published works.