The argument can be made, sometimes convincingly, that many forms of inequality in the US result at least in part from poor choices on the part of those who hold the short end of the stick. That argument absolutely disintegrates in the context of education. Not only is it patently unjust in principle to punish or reward children for the actions of their parents (assuming, still, the framework of the ‘personal responsibility’ crowd), but it is all the moreso in the realm of education, which is a fundamental prerequisite for future responsible decision-making. The result is a rigged game where children are denied the necessary tools for citizenship and employment and then blamed for their failure to find work and obey the law.
I’m no wishy-washy, self-esteem-promoting, “all children are beautiful” hippy. I believe in merit, I believe in special programs for gifted/talented/advanced/whatever-you-want-to-call-them students, and I am perfectly comfortable stating that some people and some kids are smarter, more capable, and all around better and more deserving than others. Higher education is not for everyone, and we need plenty of people to work low-wage, unskilled jobs in our economy. What I am not comfortable with is making those distinctions based on the test scores of a first grader, or even more troubling, based on the color of her skin or the size of her father’s salary.
Yet these factors are, implicitly and sometimes even explicitly, the basis on which a great many privileges and opportunities are distributed in America. It is profoundly troubling to me to think of how much innate talent goes unrealized and how much potential is squandered when these children who could have been great scientists, inventors, educators, and leaders instead wind up picking fruit, serving time, or pushing up daisies. As Kozol puts it:
“what is now encompassed by the one word (“school”) are two very different kinds of institutions that, in function, finance, and intention, serve entirely different roles. Both are needed for our nation’s governance. But children in one set of schools are educated to be governors; children in the other set of schools are trained for being governed….
“Societies cannot be all generals, no soldiers. But, by our schooling patterns, we assure that soldiers’ children are more likely to be soldiers and that the offspring of the generals will have at least the option to be generals.”
Nor is this a matter of free enterprise under assault from communists clamoring to drag all schools down to the lowest common denominator. On this point, Kozol quotes school reform activist John Coons to the effect that there is “no greater threat to the capitalist system than the present cyclical replacement of the ‘fittest’ of one generation by their artificially advantaged offspring. Worse, when that advantage is proffered to the children of the successful by the state, we can be sure that free enterprise has sold its birthright.” Much like a state-granted monopoly, disparities in education artificially stifle competition and enable less able, less deserving, and less competent people to fill the most powerful and important roles in society.