From Citizens to Consumers

“From Citizens to Consumers” is a discussion of the change in rhetoric over the years and how it exemplified the approaches to education that were taken during these periods. The chapter explains how Horace Mann, the founder of public education, intended for education to be the root of creating good citizens in an informed republic. It then moved towards education being a professional advantage when people realized it was something you could judge people by, and from there went to being the “great equalizer” after Brown v. Board of Ed.  This was followed by a change to using education as a means to create job-ready individuals, followed by the move to create higher standards, and more things standardized in order to create citizens who would make society better. All of this led to, as the chapter argues, The No Child Left Behind Act.

            I think that the intent of the chapter is definitely to push for the idea of a more standardized education curriculum. Something nation wide that everyone can understand. Personally, I believe it would be better to push for a little of everything that they mentioned rather than just the one thing that is dependent on the era. It would be a lot better if we had well informed citizens within an electorate that were both employable and from equal back grounds, who could create a mutual benefit with society, rather than just one of those things, and I don’t necessarily think that would be unattainable.

            My main concern, and this is something they glance over in the chapter is what is the argument for a less standardized curriculum. I definitely think that having some things set as a nation wide is a good idea, we do all share occupancy of this land in common, but that being said, things are vastly different by location within the United States. Should Alaskans be taught all the same things that Texans should? I don’t think so; I’m not even advocating for a state issue, it could be a district issue. Giving local governments more autonomy in creating educational policy is not necessarily a bad thing. Though they are undoubtedly less informed about educational policy and efficiency they are also undoubtedly more informed about local issues and what needs to be taught locally. I guess what I’m advocating for is space in a national curriculum for local curriculums as well.

            I found it particularly interesting that they talk about how “A Nation at Risk” didn’t really “pump up the nation for action” so to speak. Having read the entire report, it almost seemed like it was designed to do nothing. Though they made bold statements, they all seemed purposefully vague. Creating a “better America” is in my opinion, the politicians appeal to emotion and usually doesn’t mean anything at all. It makes you think it’s the right thing to do without having to provide an argument.

            What I liked best out of this article was the idea that everyone should be taught the same way, regardless of their ambitions or what others felt their ambitions should be. I am aware that this was meant on a more national sense, but adopting this within each school singularly is just as important. I recently watched my 30 year-old brother graduate from college to work his way to become an engineer. Where people are at 18 doesn’t imply where they will be at when they turn 30, and prepping everyone the same way gives the same advantages and even disadvantages for everyone. It makes being able to do what you want to do at any point almost plausible.

Burning Questions

1. If any, what would the cons be to having a nationalized standard curriculum?

2. Who should be the creator of a standardized national curriculum?

3. Does a nationalized curriculum benefit the individual, or society?

4. What is, to you, the overarching principal that education should be for? (I.e. an educated electorate, a well prepared employee, etc.)`