The inequality in American education is an issue constantly surfacing in politics. Many cry foul that students in affluent communities receive a better education and more opportunities than the underprivileged. However, inequality is inherent in a capitalist society. Private schools will always exist if the parents want their kids to have an advantage. Yet there must be a certain level at which education is sufficient to succeed. I may have received a better education at St. Paul's, but a mile down the road at Concord High, I seemed to turn out all right. Students from public schools get into Bowdoin just as often as those from top-shelf private institutions. Thus, there must be a level at which opportunities are sufficient, and equality should not be the end we seek. Maybe the demand for educational improvement should be for schools to provide "ample" opportunity for the many, while encouraging pockets of excellence wherever they may be found.
Education in America will never be equal. Hypothetically speaking, if every public school in the country had the same quality teachers and facilities, those that could afford to attend a private school would still do so. The purpose of spending the extra cash? They would receive a better education with the most opportunities.
What about public schools? They are currently far from equal. Schools in underprivileged communities are notorious for lacking proper facilities and qualified teachers. There are many children receiving no opportunities. This is a problem. Our instinctive reaction is to demand equal opportunity. However, given the nature of a capitalist society, would a better plea not be "ample?"
Now, put yourself in the seat of a parent in an affluent community. One of the primary reasons people choose a particular location to call home is the strength of the public school system. People often choose to live in a district with higher taxes so that their kids will go to the best schools. An equal opportunity for all in education would take away the edge that children have in an affluent community. Parents will declare it unfair to take away what they pay in taxes and put toward other children's education. Parents will always push for the best for their kids and pushy parents will push better than others.
What if the demand was augmented? Instead of demanding equal opportunity, what if we demanded ample? When one states that education should be equal, it does not necessarily follow that children are not receiving adequate schooling. Demands for uniform education could be seen as unjustified complaining if the affluent do not understand how under-funded many public schools are in underprivileged communities. This is not mere postulation. I used to think this way. I had no idea how inadequate schools were in impoverished areas. The demand for equal opportunity just sounded like whining. Thus, when people do not know that schools can lack books and even toilet paper, they are turned off by the word equal. Words such as adequate will convey that the opportunity is more than unequal, it is just not there. I doubt that anyone would fight to keep children from receiving any opportunities at all.
After education is adequate, only then can the equal be approached. We will never reach the latter before the former. However, if the ample in education for everyone can be obtained, I am not convinced that a small amount of inequality is inherently bad. Putting more money where students are more likely to succeed is not a bad allocation of resources. In addition, it helps create incentive. If disparity did not exist in public school education, all that could afford to do so would just attend private schools anyway.
If a Bowdoin student still thinks I am way off base with this, are they not somewhat hypocritical? We are well-trained students, coming from predominantly wealthy families, attending a private liberal arts college with beautiful facilities, small classes, and a well-qualified faculty. We have separated ourselves from less competitive institutions. If we truly believed that all education should be equal, we would not be here.
Competition has a way of bringing out the achievement in man. The United States stressed excellence in science when the Russians sent up Sputnik. Amherst adds a new athletic facility and Bowdoin plans to follows suit. The United States is now part of a global economy, competing with Indian technologists and Chinese manufacturers. If all is merely equal, we will set the bar at the lowest common denominator. American students will be less educated than its neighbors, and the United States will continue to lose its competitive edge. Set the bar at ample, and there is nowhere to go but up.
Lockhart is a member of the Class of 2008.