Nicole Riley 1

Dear Grandma,
I hope you have been having a good year. I have really enjoyed my freshman year thus
far at UW. I have met a lot very interesting people and have taken some really cool classes that
have stretched my thinking. One class that stood out to me in particular was an honors class
called The Political and Moral Context of Education and Schooling. This class was taught by
an education professor named Roger Soder and focused on the context of schooling, the current
condition of education, and the possibility for changes in the system. We addressed a variety of
questions about the education system throughout the quarter by reading texts written by
educational scholars, discussion, and listening to speakers who are currently a part of the
educational system. This class has drastically changed the way I think about the education
system as a whole. As Professor Soder suggested at the beginning of this class, I found that
more knowledge leads to increased responsibility and decreased certainty.
One interesting question we addressed during this course was what has been and should
be the role of schooling in determining who gets what. We began addressing this question by
looking at Enlightenment thinkers opinions on education. In general, many people of that time
period only believed in teaching the common people enough to maintain control over them. This
education focused on making obedient citizens who did not question authority. On the other
hand, if you were from upper classes, you had access to a higher quality of education that was
not meant to control. Thus, many enlightenment thinkers attempted to maintain the status quo
through this system. If a high level of education was provided to all, lower classes would
question the current distribution of status and wealth, which could lead upper classes to lose
power. Upper classes attempted to maintain the current system because it benefited them. A
commonly echoed belief of John Lockes was schooling was beyond [the poor]. If his belief
was true, humanitys innate thirst for knowledge cannot be explained. Thirsting for knowledge
and learning implies that we have a capacity and desire to learn. If this is the case, preventing
individuals from learning and gaining knowledge feels like a crime. A minority of Enlightenment
writers had different beliefs. They thought that humans had a desire to learn and deserved to
reach their fullest potential. If this is the case, these beliefs imply that all people should be given
the chance and right to reach their fullest potential in schools. If we agree with this belief, we
must support the schooling of all.
By looking at views of different Enlightenment thinkers of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, we can see how our view of humanity determines how we structure
schooling. Enlightenment thinkers who saw education as a way to control the population had a
negative view of humanity. This view lines up with theory X management. Theory X
management says that managers need to control the workforce because most people are lazy,
dislike responsibility, and need to be led. If you believe this negative view of humanity, using
education as a form of control over the population makes sense. In general, it seems like
individuals of upper classes are more prone to hold this view of humanity because it allows them
to continue to receive benefits from the current system. On the other hand, the minority of
Enlightenment thinkers had a positive view of humanity. Their view lines up with Theory Y
management. Theory Y management says that managers guide workers, people have motivation
to succeed, and people are not lazy but learn it through the situations they have been in. If we

Nicole Riley 2
hold the same belief system as Theory Y and the minority of Enlightenment thinkers, we must
question the current system of uneven distribution of wealth and resources. If all humans are
good and have the potential to succeed instead of a select few, we must question the authenticity
of education systems that maintain the current status quo and why some people receive all the
resources and others receive none. This view seems to suggest that the resources that upper
classes have access to are what allows them to succeed or have the intellectual ability to
succeed in schools.
Similarly, modern sociologist Annette Lareau also focuses on issues of access and
division in the current schooling system. Lareau describes how middle class children are raised
differently than children from lower classes. Middle class children are raised in the style of
concerted cultivation, are taught to manipulate the system to fit their needs, and are taught skills
that allow them to succeed in the job market. On the other hand, children from lower classes are
raised in the style of natural growth, are taught to manage their own time, and do not feel
comfortable within institutions. Although the two styles of raising children have different
advantages and disadvantages, the educational system and schools only reward behaviors
associated with concerted cultivation. Thus, because of the way they are raised, middle class
children have a differential advantage over lower class children because middle class children
understand how to take advantage of the system while lower class children are taught to fear the
system. If Lareau has a point, our current educational system is unfairly favoring some children
over others. By giving middle class children some advantages over lower class children, the
upper class children are gaining better access to resources than the lower class children. Thus,
this system is allowing the cycle of poverty to continue. If we are bothered by Lareaus
hypothesis, we must attempt to change the system. One solution could be regulating how parents
raise their children. However, this would take away parents rights to choose how to raise their
children. Another solution involves upper class parents moving towards a parenting style of
natural growth and providing lower class families with the extra resources needed to allow their
children to participate in activities more traditionally associated with concerted cultivation. This
solution seems a little bit more feasible because it does not threaten parents rights to determine
how their children are raised. It also allows both sets of children to gain advantages from both
styles of rearing children.
Ray Rist, another author, continues to focus on how class determines access to resources
in the current educational system. He points out that schools reaffirm the society they are created
in. Thus, schools do not act as great equalizers but instead reinforce the current class order.
Because there are not enough resources for everyone, Rist believes that schools actively create
winners and losers. Thus, members of upper classes gain preferential treatment and resources
and members of lower classes do not. A variety of attitudes about the lack of success of poor
students helps keep the current system in place. Teachers unknowingly influence the success of
their students based on expectations. Teachers seem to associate success with students of upper
classes, so these students gain the resources and support needed to succeed. On the other hand,
teachers tend to assume negative things about students from poor backgrounds, so poor students
do not receive the same amount of attention. If we accept Rists opinions, we also rid ourselves
of the notion of schooling as a source of social mobility. Assuming we want schools to be the

Nicole Riley 3
great equalizer, we must change the current system so that it can allow individuals of all classes
to succeed. If we agree with both Rist and Lareau, we must realize that poor students have
multiple barriers working against them. They not only are raised in a way that is not rewarded in
the education system, but also face the obstacles of low expectations and resignation by teachers.
If both of these are problems that contribute to the lack of success of poor children, we must
address both of them. One way to address the problem of low teacher expectation is awareness. It
seems likely that many teachers are not aware of the pattern between their expectation for
students and the students societal classes. If teachers became aware of this action, they could
endeavor to change their behavior.
Another way that lower classes can be denied the same education as upper class children
is through a variety of tracking systems. Tracking the poor into vocational schools is one way to
limit their academic resources. Burton R. Clark points out that community colleges and
vocational schools serve cooling out functions. This means that these schools work to redefine
failure and create alternative career paths for those who are not receiving high scores in schools.
However, because previous writers have talked about how children from affluent families tend to
do better in school than children from poorer families, it would make sense that there is a much
higher proportion of children from lower class families in community colleges. Thus the cooling
out function of community colleges is being used to prevent people from lower classes from
resisting the current system. Likewise, the life adjustment movement served as a form of
tracking. The life adjustment movement believed in teaching good citizenship and industrial
skills. By believing that only a select few could handle strenuous academic work, the life
adjustment movement limited the opportunities of students by limiting the kind of education they
received. Because only the rich would have enough money to send their children to academies
that taught academic skills needed to go to college, the majority of the poor would be limited to
schools that reinforced ideas of the life adjustment movement and worked to create good
citizens. Both community colleges and the life adjustment movement were not necessarily meant
to target poor, but could be useful for the rich in maintaining the current status quo in the
educational system.
Anthropologist John Ogbu focuses on the influence race plays in determining access to
resources in schools. He believes that the racial stratification of society creates barriers for
minorities in schools. These barriers not only take the form of negative attitudes towards people
in minority groups but also the coping mechanisms of these minority groups. The minority
groups that face the greatest obstacles are involuntary minority groups, which are minority
groups who did not come to the United States of their own free will to search for a better life.
Because of this, these groups are more resistant to white culture and institutions. This distrust has
caused the creation of cultural behaviors that hinder the success of these minority groups in
school. Rather than attempting to work with the system to be successful, involuntary minority
groups will actively reject skills that would allow them to succeed due to the dissonance between
their culture and white culture. Students who attempt to follow the white culture are ridiculed
and are seen as rejecting their own culture. Ogbu clearly points out how a groups past can
influence their future. The oppression that involuntary minority groups have faced in the past has
caused them to develop behaviors that are not helpful to them in todays society. Thus, Ogbu

Nicole Riley 4
emphasizes the importance of looking at educational issues in a collective way and paying
attention to the past when looking towards the future.
If we agree with Ogbus beliefs, we are forced to further reexamine the educational
system. Because cultural behaviors seem to play a role in the success of students, we are left to
question how to strike the delicate balance between allowing all to succeed and interfering with
another groups culture. Ogbu suggests that we work to create dialogue between white
institutions and involuntary minority groups to try to create a more trusting environment. This
may help minority groups feel less threatened by the relatively white institution of schooling.
Other more challenging solutions would have to address the culture itself. Attempting to get
involuntary minority groups to reward achievement in primarily white establishments is
countercultural and seems a little unreasonable. Culture is deeply engrained and is not changed
overnight. Thus, while I believe this solution is a good idea on Ogbus part, it would be very
difficult to implement effectively. If we look at Lareau, Ogbu, and Rist, we are forced to realize
that we must look at academic success in a dynamic way. We must recognize not only social
status and rearing style influence access in the educational system, but also race. Because of this,
we must address all of these factors simultaneously to allow students to have the best chance for
success.
If we are bothered by the way educational systems limit the success of some groups of
people, we must look at what we desire our educational systems to be like and how to split up
resources. Because we live in a democracy, it is not surprising that we want education to be the
universal equalizer. The United States was founded and created on the ideal of the American
dream. This was the idea that through hard work and determination, anything could be
accomplished. Extending education for all allows more people access to the resources necessary
to achieve the American dream. However, research studies by Ogbu, Rist, and Lareau indicate
that the school system is not serving all groups of people in the same manner. To understand this
idea, we should address the differences between equity and equality. As political science
professor Deborah Stone points out, these issues are not as easy to disentangle as they seem.
Equality implies giving the same amount of something to every group regardless of their starting
state. An example of this would be giving the same amount of food to three different people who
are experiencing three different levels of hunger. Although they all received the same amount of
food, the extremely hungry person could still be hungry after receiving his allotment while the
fuller individuals did not need all the food they received. On the other hand, equity involves
taking into account an individuals current condition before distributing resources. In the case of
the three people, equity would involve giving more food to the really hungry person and less
food to the fuller people. Thus, the people would reach the same end condition. Deciding what is
fair and equal becomes even more muddled when different groups envision the distribution of
resouces in different ways. In the case of the educational system, many different groups can
come up with different ways of distributing resources, which can create conflict. If we look at the
current state of the educational system according to Lareau, Ogbu, and Rist through the lens of
equality and equity, we see that the current system does not favor a style of equality nor equity.
Resources are not being spread out in such a way that the playing field is evened. Instead of
giving greater resources to those who have less, the current system is giving greater advantages

Nicole Riley 5
and resources to those who have more. If we hope to change the current system, perhaps we
should focus on a system that involves more on equity. This would allow students from
backgrounds that might hinder their success in school to have greater access to resources so they
are better able to reach the same level as upper class students, who are already endowed with a
vast accumulation of resources.
Another important question we looked at throughout this class was the relationship
between a political regime and schooling in that regime. Roger Soders chapter in Education
For Democracy clearly addresses that question. Soder says that schools reflect the regimes that
they exist in and work to further to the goals of said regimes. He points out that regimes require
certain conditions to be in place in order for them to exist, prosper, and be maintained. The first
step to establishing a regime is to determine the regime that best fits your purpose and the
conditions required to create and maintain this regime. These conditions are created by the
people who live within the regime. Once we have established that these conditions come from
people, we must decide whether they are known at birth or must be taught. If they are to be
taught, then Soder believes that the best way to instill these conditions is through public
schooling. Through this paper, he implies that schooling not only has a private purpose such as
allowing children to get into good colleges for the parents, but also a public one. The public
purpose of schools is to create a populace that develops the conditions needed for that regime to
prosper.
The relationship between political regimes and the forms of schooling can clearly be seen
in many of the readings we have discussed this quarter. In the case of our reading on
Enlightenment thinkers, the schooling system fit the government system in place. Because only
the rich and powerful had any influence in government, it made sense to create a docile public
who would follow orders without question. Thus, the schools for lower classes attempted to
make hard working citizens who would follow the orders of their superiors. In this way, the
schools served a public purpose by instilling the conditions needed to maintain the current
regime.
Our class also discussed the appropriate role of teachers in the educational system. We
believed that teachers have a moral and ethical responsibility to allow their students to learn and
grow to their fullest potentials. When we are young, our teachers greatly influence who we will
become. We distinctly remember the teachers who were outstanding and shaped us in positive
ways and teachers who did not allow us to continue to learn and grow. Even though the ability of
teachers greatly influences their students, teachers do not have very high status in the
professional world right now. According to Roger Soder, the low status of teaching is due to
arguments based on teaching as a service. These arguments do not differentiate teaching from a
variety of other jobs. Instead, Soder says arguments for teacher professionalism should rely on
the uniquely moral aspect of teaching. Soder also tells us that teachers are limited by the many
relationships that impede their ability to complete their jobs. Teachers not only have obligations
to the students, but also the school board, the community, and the parents. In order to work
successfully as teachers, they must be aware of these constraints and attempt to work within
them. Also, because teachers have limited funds given to them to address classroom needs, many
teachers end up taking money out of their own paychecks to cover classroom costs.

Nicole Riley 6
A lot of our discussion on the role of teachers was enhanced by in class presenters. One
such presenter was Shana Brown, a middle school teacher. Shana Brown focused on the
importance of meeting students at their academic level and interacting with students. She
believed that students are not only taught by teachers, but also teach them. She explained the
process of learning what motivates students and constantly adapting her teaching to her students.
She also discussed her displeasure upon hearing students being called stupid by a former
colleague of hers. I really admired her recognition of the negative role teacher expectations can
have on students and her determination to see the best in students to allow them to grow. Her
careful attention to students needs and learning genuinely impressed and moved our class. I
admired her for taking a teaching position in a school where many students could not read at
their grade level. I believe that this shows that Shana sees the importance of the moral aspect of
teaching.
Neil Theobald, the President of Temple University, further addressed the appropriate role
of teachers in the educational system by describing his life as a university president. He
emphasized the importance of focusing on the student. He believes that the goals of universities
involve teaching to and for the student. He also met with different faculty members to discuss
concerns. I liked his emphasis on listening to a variety of perspectives from teachers. Because
teachers are actually the ones in the learning environment, they better understand issues than
some administrators who do not teach. Likewise, I liked his continued involvement with the
student community and his decision to continue to teach despite becoming a university president.
I believe his decision to continue to teach will keep him grounded in the moral elements of
teaching and his continued involvement with the student body will allow him to maintain
connections with students.
Teaching also has a political role. If we return to Soders chapter about education and
democracy, we can see that Soder suggests that the majority of the conditions needed to create
democracy should be taught in schools. This implies that teachers play an important role in
serving this public purpose and teaching these conditions. Because the classroom functions as a
small governing system, children also learn how to interact with each other and society from
schooling and teachers. Thus, if teachers treat certain students in a derogatory manner, other
students learn to treat these individuals in the same manner. In this way, teaching can reinforce
the cycle of inequality. Because students are aware of the environment they are in, they
internalize its rules and attempt to apply them to the real world. In the case of inequality based
on race and socioeconomic status, students learn their place in society and how to treat others
based on teacher expectations. By watching, students learn who the teacher expects a lot from
and those the teacher does not expect much from. This observation translates into ideas and
behaviors that influence students behavior in society. In the case of Attucks School for African
Americans in Rists writing, students learned to respond to each other in a hierarchy of violence
due to teacher behavior. By watching the teachers example, students can learn to internalize
ideas that foster inequality. Thus, teachers have the ability and responsibility to be instruments of
change in the current educational system.
If we believe that teachers not only have an intellectual responsibility to students, but also
a moral one, we need to examine the current form of teacher education. Because teachers and

Nicole Riley 7
their expectations exert a great influence in students lives, we need to be selective in choosing
teachers. Although certain traits can be taught, the relatively short length of teacher education
programs means that a variety of the personality traits required for teaching, such as compassion
and patience, needs to already be present in the applicants. Because these personality
characteristics cannot be taught in the short time span of teacher education programs, we need to
be careful in choosing who can get into teacher education programs and become teachers. By
creating filtering measures for applicants planning to go into teaching, we would better be able to
create teachers who would best help our students. Likewise, if we believe that teachers not only
have intellectual responsibilities, but also moral and political ones, we need to address those in
the curriculum. Because teachers may not be aware of all of these responsibilities, they need to
be taught in teacher education programs. Thus, teacher education programs should supply
required courses in the moral and political aspects of teaching. However, because teacher
education programs are short in length, another solution could be creating pre-teaching
requirements during undergraduate education to get into teacher education programs. These preteaching requirements could allow individuals considering teaching as a career path learn the
political and moral implications of a job in teaching.
However, many teacher education programs do not currently implement these
suggestions. Because teacher education programs run only about a year in length, there is limited
time to teach all the applicable skills and materials to teaching candidates. Thus, there is a
constant battle over what curriculum should be included in the limited time these students are in
the program. Because, of this, courses on the moral and political responsibilities of teaching can
become a secondary priority. According to Soder, teacher education programs also generate a
large amount of money per student that is not used. Thus, this money can be applied to other
university programs. Because of this, other university programs want the enrollment in teacher
education programs to increase so more funds are available for other programs throughout the
university. However, this desire is in direct conflict with the idea of being more selective with
who we choose as teachers. Thus, many administrators in programs outside of education would
oppose the idea of narrowing the number of accepted applicants to teacher education programs.
Likewise, implementing pre-teaching requirements would limit the number of people who could
apply to teacher educational programs.
Furthermore, if we care about having good teachers for our children, we also need to look
at high accountability testing and teacher evaluation. Educational psychology professor Richard
Clark mentions that currently, a large amount of teacher evaluation relies on student outcomes on
high stakes testing. However, as explained previously in the paper, we expect teachers to do
more than simply teach material. Teachers are also expected to teach beneficial attitudes, social
skills, and communication skills. Because many different results are expected to be accomplished
by teachers, we should not solely evaluate them on one set of results. We should change teacher
evaluations so they also look at the behavioral and social skills students are learning. Clark also
points out current problems with teacher reward systems. In systems where teachers get
increased pay for higher scores, a competitive environment is fostered. This does not create an
environment where teachers can easily work together to help students. If we do not want
competitiveness between teachers, we need to quit rewarding efforts on an individual scale.

Nicole Riley 8
Education professor Kenneth Sirotnick also points out that our current system does not look at
professional development. Professional development would allow teachers and students to use
information gained from tests to improve the current learning conditions.
Another issue our class focused on is how schools should be funded. When addressing
that question, it makes sense to look at the ways schools are currently being funded. Schools are
funded in different ways depending on their states constitutions. Some states mainly fund
schools through property taxes and other states spend more of the state budget on schools. In
states where property taxes determine the money received for educational costs, the
neighborhood in which schools exist determines the quality of schools. This is typical in the
Northeast, where high spending in certain districts raises the average overall per pupil capita
spending in schools. In the case of Washington, our state constitution says it is the paramount
duty of the state to fund education for all. Thus, much of the money for education in Washington
comes from the state. However, Washington has recently lost court cases because it is not
providing ample provisions to schools and using steady sources of income. In general, the federal
government contributes very little to school funding. However, the federal government has a
large amount of influence despite the small amount of money it contributes to schools budgets.
The majority of school funding goes to fund the salaries of teachers and administrators. Thus,
hiring more teachers is the easiest way to raise costs. If we have problems with the current way
schools are funded, we should look at possible alternatives. If we are bothered by the use of
property tax in determining a schools access to resources, we should look at providing extra
provisions to poorer districts by the states to attempt to even the playing field. However, I do
believe that the federal government should keep funding schools because schools serve a public
purpose of educating children to maintain democracy.
We also discussed who should determine what is to be taught and how it should be
taught. One answer to that question is the federal government. Because schooling serves a public
purpose to instill the conditions in children to maintain democracy, the federal government needs
to make sure that the curriculum of schools is fulfilling this purpose. Since schools are meant to
serve the regimes they are a part of, the federal government needs to have some say in
curriculum. Likewise, it can be argued that states have a right in determining the curriculum of
schools. Because the Constitution says that rights not given to the federal government are left to
the state, the state has a right to determine what information schools should teach and how they
should teach it, as long as it does not interfere with the federal governments public purpose of
schooling.
As described in the court cases Wisconsin v. Yoder and Pierce v. the Society of Sisters,
parents also have a right to choose the kind of education their children receive. Wisconsin v.
Yoder argues that state compulsory education can be disregarded if it interferes with religious
beliefs while Pierce v. the Society of Sisters argues students can attend private institutions
instead of public ones to teach necessary skills. Although both of these cases are important, they
establish different kinds of required education. Pierce v. the Society of Sisters supports
compulsory education through public or private institutions while Wisconsin v. Yoder suggests
that some form of education should be required even if it is not in the traditional sense. Parents
are in charge of raising their children. Therefore, they can understand what is best for their

Nicole Riley 9
children better than the government. Thus, as long as basic learning requirements are being
satisfied, parents should be able to choose where their children attend school and the form it
takes.
Likewise, higher level education has some say over what is taught in schools. Because
many parents use schools for the private purpose of getting their children into college, secondary
schools have to address the material needed for parents to achieve this private purpose. Because
parents, state government, and federal governments all have a stake in the educational system,
they should all have a say in the curriculum. Thus, the three should work together to allow thesel
needs to be met.
After looking at all of the current problems with our education system, one might ask
why the situation has not changed. Many of these problems have been present for a long period
of time yet they still have to be solved. One reason the education system stays in its current state
is that people who benefit from the current system are not going to work towards change. In the
case of our education system, the current system is working very well for upper and middle class
families. The upper and middle class families also have all of the power and resources to keep
the system in its current state. On the other hand, people who are not benefitting from the system
do not have the necessary influence to change the way it is being run. Another problem is the fact
that all school systems run in similar manners. Because of this, the system will be hard to change
unless everything is changed at once, which is extremely difficult to do. If you make one
institution out of sync with all the others, the community will fight back, and the school will be
forced to return to the current system. A problem in higher education is the fact that research is
emphasized over teaching. Because professors make much more money from research than
teaching, many professors and institutions emphasize the importance of research over teaching.
Likewise, research and publishing are what allows individuals in higher education to get better
jobs, so professors tend to prefer to research in order to continue their professional growth.
Although the future of the education system may seem bleak, we have to realize that we
have still made progress over time. Even though not all children are receiving the same attention,
all students are required to go to school, which means that individuals are beginning to be given
the opportunities to succeed. Likewise, programs for at risk youth through schools and
community centers are helping children with less resources succeed in the education system.
Even though many affluent families do not wish to change the system because it benefits them,
there are those who feel a responsibility to allow for equity in the education system. If you look
back to the Enlightenment quotes, this group has always been present even if it is a minority.
This group can attempt to use their power and influence to continue to work towards change.
Classes such as Roger Soders explain the many implications of the current system and instil a
sense of responsibility in individuals. In any case, the first step to changing the system is to
understand its current state. Although some information about the education system today may
bother us, this information allows us to see current problems more clearly so we can endeavor to
find solutions for them.
In conclusion, during my time in Roger Soders class The Political and Moral Context of
Education and Schooling, I have learned a lot about the current educational system. I came into

Nicole Riley 10
this class feeling rather complacent about the current state of the educational system. However,
the more I read, thought, and discussed, the more unsure I felt about the form the education
system should take and how to change it into that form. As Soder predicted in the beginning, his
class did not lead us to answers, but rather increased responsibility and decreased certainty.
However, I still believe that the educational system has hope because of classes like Soders.
These classes attempt to crystallize existing sentiments about the educational system into a
younger audience. With this crystallization of these ideas, reformers have something to work
with and change is possible. I hope the short overview I gave of my class interested you and
leads you to question some of your thoughts about the educational system.
I love you, and cant wait to see you this summer!
Nicole