We’ve all been there before, stuck in school for almost eight hours a day. Teachers droning on and on, feeling hopeless while taking a standardized test because of how complicated the wording is and drowning in an infinite loop of notes, lectures, and tests. This is the reality of the American public education system. But why does it have to be so rigid? This system turns learning into a competition for GPA, rankings, and scores. It recognizes only the highest numbers as achievements and shifts students’ focus to results rather than the actual learning process, while damaging self-esteem. Following the thinking behind this system, we should be churning out mindless drones, unconcerned with personal growth.
This same system has shown time and time again that it favors privileged students at the expense of first-generation and low-income students who already have to shoulder an unfair burden and navigate so many more barriers just to get into higher education. One of these barriers is the lack of college finance literacy, mainly due to the complexities of and disparity in support throughout the financial aid process. Another issue is the psychological harm the college environment can cause. As a result, students have to rely on fierce self-advocacy to deal with information barriers and find support in the college application process.
Put plainly, our education system is deeply flawed: it perpetuates inequality and an ineffective, bureaucratic education run by the state and not by the teachers. We need to shift our understanding of education as we see it now and imagine the possibility of a new, ever-evolving system.
As Jonas F. Soltis says in “Humanizing Education: Dewey's Concepts of a Democratic Society and Purpose in Education Revisited”:
When human beings are treated more as cogs in a machine rather than as valued, free-thinking individuals, we justly feel that their humanity has been compromised. So we seek to right the balance by paying more attention to the feelings and unique characteristics of individuals and to their personal development.
One possibility for rethinking our education system starts with educational philosopher John Dewey’s belief that a school should be just as diverse as the society it’s in, and that students should learn not because they have to but because they want to. It’s not surprising that common day-to-day interactions in a diverse school setting will broaden a student’s values and perspectives. This directly aligns with Dewey’s vision of a democratic society in which everyone has equal access to education and the growth of every individual pushes society forward. Students aren’t just preparing to become well-informed citizens actively involved in the political process, they’re also realizing their potential along the way as they strengthen their imagination, creative expression, problem-solving, self-governance, and more. That way, students see themselves as a unique part of a group, each offering their own skills and abilities and thus gaining an appreciation for each other—education is a collective effort.
When students find personal and social motivation to learn instead of learning because of a rigid curriculum that dictates what we need to know in order to be “successful in life”, they’re more likely to see the value in what they do. Dewey saw learning as something that immersed students in solving real-world problems. The student didn’t passively sit back and take in information but was someone who meaningfully engaged with it. Instead of this meaningful engagement, we’re seeing classrooms with teachers lecturing at the front and students in desks simply taking notes, doing their assignments, and going to their next class. And these lessons are part of a Eurocentric standardized curriculum designed with a single audience in mind while rejecting many students’ backgrounds and the harsh realities they face in their communities. This same system allows the upper class to maintain control of their position rather than recognize the fact that disadvantaged students don’t have access to the same resources. They’re not brought up to be socialized the same as someone who lives in the suburbs or has access to a support system to fall back on in case they fall on hard times. Disadvantaged students have a different reality that requires them to be self-reliant to the point where they’re expected to shoulder any unfair burden that comes their way and accept that that’s how life works.
Manya C. Whitaker and Kristina M. Valtierra speak to this idea in their book “Schooling Multicultural Teachers,” where they examine how the system maintains a social hierarchy and the concept of “critical pedagogy” as a way to resist this:
Society is unjust and exploitative … scholars argued various theories of social reproduction in which schools impose a view of the social order consistent with the social elite, and they do so by validating the cultural capital of the dominant society, which is indispensable for economic success and social mobility … Teachers who adopt this philosophical approach [critical pedagogy] are ultimately concerned with providing students an emancipatory education through which they reflect upon the world and take action to transform it.
Just look at the outdated history textbooks many schools still use and many of the important truths and persons that are conveniently left out. The white supremacy and cultural erasure that followed from Europe’s colonization of the Americas still seep into most aspects of today’s society and manifests as systemic racism. These damaging effects are reflected in what is written and what is erased in textbooks and curricula, which ultimately widens existing disparities and continues to keep people of color at a disadvantage. Our education system isn’t much different than the cramped desks students sit in. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a more detailed explanation about this stark difference by citing Dewey’s “Between Two Worlds”:
There will be almost a revolution in school education when study and learning are treated not as acquisition of what others know but as development of capital to be invested in eager alertness in observing and judging the conditions under which one lives. Yet until this happens, we shall be ill-prepared to deal with a world whose outstanding trait is change.
So when we shift our understanding from what learning has been accepted to be (plain acquisition) to what learning should strive to be (personal development and an awareness of one’s cultural and personal background), what we have is a Deweyan approach that actually prepares students for a life beyond school and the problems that follow.
Although Dewey’s ideas were developed in the early 20th century, they still apply today. In an interview in “Discovering John Dewey in the Twenty-First Century,” renowned professor Daniel Tanner argues that a Deweyan curriculum is built on solving social issues. In a world where curricula can become outdated or irrelevant as soon as it’s implemented, a Deweyan curriculum is more inclusive and flexible because it recognizes the needs of the student and the society they are preparing to enter. In a Deweyan curriculum, learning is more hands-on and project-based in order to develop students’ problem-solving skills and, more importantly, prepare them with knowledge that is relevant to them.
This wouldn’t be a “you will get out of it what you put into it” curriculum, a line I once saw on a syllabus that I think describes much of the U.S. curriculum. In other words, it shouldn’t fall on the student to be entirely responsible for their learning and to stay motivated. They already shoulder that burden, and it shouldn’t just be on them. To say “you will get out of it what you put into it” implies that students aren’t motivated when in reality little thought has gone into making the curriculum relevant and engaging enough to ignite that motivation in the first place. It’s up to the teachers to design an inclusive and flexible curriculum that allows them to share their passions, be caring and understanding of a student’s situation, and spark student interest, not overwhelm them to the point where they lose motivation. As is often the case, there will be a few students in the classroom who feel as if they don’t belong for a plethora of reasons. It would be unreasonable to expect students to be inspired by something that ultimately damages their self-esteem. Rather than a curriculum that focuses more on itself than students, according to Tanner and Dewey, students learn through experiences that eventually guide them to what interests them.
Just imagine taking part in an interactive classroom that isn’t bound by traditional rules. A classroom that doesn’t rely on grades or scores to determine a student’s worth, where the learning experience isn’t limited to being in a room while students' minds wander from what’s in front of them. More importantly, we need a classroom that motivates students and makes school more enjoyable and immersive through hands-on and project-based learning because it's as they go through these experiences that they are able to find their motivation. That way, they’re not just another body to fill a seat with.
However, in today’s public education system, we have a curriculum that teaches to the test, which interferes with teacher agency. Tanner asks: “How do you quantify imagination?” When you put a number on any skill, that makes learning so much more competitive and makes it all about the numbers rather than personal growth. Like Tanner suggests, we should be asking ourselves whether a test is even a valid measurement of a student’s capabilities and preparing students to think outside of the box with open-ended questions that aren’t typically asked in the classroom, for example: “Here is a table of data. What’s the problem in the table?”
Tanner also believes that our public education system was and still is designed around a “… factory model emphasizing social efficiency… for workers who could read, who could write, who could communicate, follow instructions… but not form unsettling ideas.” Just look at Colorado College and how some of its Deweyan aspects, including discussion-based classes and even the Block Plan, assume that students are already familiar with a liberal arts education. By the time students get to college, there is a gap (one of many) between those who have had experience with a Deweyan education and those who have not. This mainly speaks to the issues of outreach and accessibility, as a Deweyan education is usually exclusive to those who can afford it. Implementing aspects of a Deweyan-style education, requires time, capacity, resources, and the ability to break away from the traditional education system—all of which favor well-funded schools. This troubling model often manifests in white, upper-middle class students who are blinded by their privilege. And it’s usually these students who end up knowing what a liberal arts education can offer. I, for one, had no idea what a liberal arts college was until an older sibling of mine went to one. But even then, the private nature of these colleges, having to go above and beyond to even be considered, and testing requirements made it feel impossible to gain admission. Luckily, by the time I applied to my colleges, CC made the switch to become test-optional, which meant one less barrier in the admissions process. But what college ambassadors from selective colleges do you see going out to recruit students from low-income schools across the U.S. and make themselves known? Sure, their narrow outreach helps make them selective, but at what cost? The admissions process is designed to be ruthless and competitive, weeding out applicants who aren’t considered highly promising according to selective admissions criteria. The reality is that disadvantaged students are usually the ones who are unable to benefit from a Deweyan education in college—nobody is reaching out to them or their schools and making them aware of these colleges and how they could benefit from learning at one. These students are usually first-generation, low-income high school seniors who don’t have much help going through the bureaucracy of the college application process.
Students with resources at their disposal, however, usually have access to this knowledge. And that goes against a crucial part of Dewey’s vision of a democratic society: accessibility. If only privileged students get to enjoy the perks of a Deweyan education while the rest are bogged down by barriers and trained to work hard but ignore the social conditions that create those barriers in the first place, then is it even a democracy at that point? And that begs another question: why is it that the lower you are, the higher you have to rise? We are taught that continuously grinding and struggling is normal, but never ask why it has to be so hard in the first place or how the status quo can change in order to make it even just a little bit easier for people to thrive.
The classroom experience is just the beginning. You don’t need to spend time in a classroom to see that there are other problems plaguing our education system. Growing up in Missouri, I remember passing through affluent suburban areas in my hometown. With one glance at the exterior of the schools, businesses, and even the roads in those areas, I could immediately tell there was a gap between my experience in public education and the schools I was looking at. The infrastructure in poorer communities is just one example of how they have to bear the brunt of the effects of gross inequalities in this country. Whitaker and Valtierra expand on how ongoing segregation affects low-income communities,
US public schools are more segregated now more than ever in history, largely due to White flight and mass school closures in neighborhoods of color … As school quality in low-income and middle-class communities lessened, wealthy families moved to the suburbs where they could ensure their children attend schools with qualified teachers, rigorous course offerings, and extracurricular activities.
These inequalities carry over into the college application process. In the study “Challenges and Opportunities in the Pursuit of College Finance Literacy,” researchers worked with 14 low-income high school seniors in New York to find out how they learned about college finance. The study defines college finance literacy as “… the ability to access, read, write, communicate about and critically appraise the financial texts that mediate college attendance.” The study concluded the obvious: that financial aid texts were hard to understand. On the other hand, upper middle-class students already had access to financial aid knowledge through “… individual and informational channels.” This disparity led to three main problems with the financial aid process for the 14 students: (1) inaccurate perceptions of college finance, (2) uneven support from counselors, and (3) complicated financial aid texts. All of which make the process of talking to financial aid offices more anxiety inducing, since disadvantaged students are less likely to be prepared for understanding financial aid terms. And when they reach out for help, they’re more likely to be met with resistance because they’re expected to learn how to navigate the process on their own.
The high school from this study emphasized the importance of going to college but not how to pay for it, so the students had to rely on their friends and family. But even then, the students would have to know someone who went to college, which isn’t guaranteed for everyone. The natural solution would be students reaching out to their counselors. But the counselors at their school wanted to make the point that it’s the student’s responsibility to navigate financial aid while completely ignoring their own role, opting to throw them into the deep end instead in the hopes that they would learn on their own. Because of this lack of support, the students didn’t have a solid grasp on loans and grants, price of tuition versus cost of attendance, and so on. And in that financial aid process, financial aid texts are made internally and externally complex. Texts are internally complex in that students have to sift through the language with other financial documents and externally complex because students have to find the requested documents and explain to their parents, who may be unwilling to share such information, why they need them.
Focusing more on higher education, the academic study “The Experience of Low-SES Students in Higher Education: Psychological Barriers to Success and Interventions to Reduce Social-Class Inequality'' describes how upper-class cultural norms are entrenched in the college environment, creating many of the psychological barriers first-generation, low-income students face and ultimately shaping their college experience. The three main barriers described in the study are emotional experience, identity management, and self-perception. With emotional experience, these students often feel that they don’t have an outlet to talk about their negative experiences (ex. gaslighting, microaggressions), which not only allows these experiences to fester inside as they resort to internalizing their emotions, but leads to high levels of stress as well. When it comes to identity management, these students are more likely to feel as if they don’t belong in the college environment while struggling with their new identity as college students. This is commonly known as imposter syndrome, meaning first-generation, low-income students often feel they don’t deserve to be there because they are constantly reminded and made hyper-aware of their difference in background. Knowing that others had advantages in life leads to feelings of self-doubt, not being smart enough, or feeling behind. And external factors such as classism, “... negative attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors directed toward those with less power, who are socially devalued,” can lead to negative self-perception both of themselves and their capabilities. The fear of proving these views true ends up affecting their ability to reach their potential and be satisfied with their work because they’re always second-guessing themselves.
Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture, behind these three barriers lie two cultural norms: promoting independent values (learning to express yourself and work by yourself) and prioritizing the “best” students in the admissions process. Thus, getting into college becomes more of a cutthroat competition where the upper-class can just buy their way in and use their resources to their advantage all in an effort to show that they are the best and most deserving of admission—no matter what it takes. At that point, higher education strays from its original purpose and becomes more of a business, perpetuating exclusionary behaviors and turning a blind eye to its students’ anxieties and their causes. To keep up with this competition, students are driven by an individualistic mindset, creating an environment that instills self-doubt in those who can’t keep up and are eventually left behind rather than promoting interdependent values such as learning to work together and adjust to different expectations. When there is more of a focus on high-promising students that are “the best,” those with untapped potential and under different circumstances are automatically excluded from consideration. These students have to rise to extraordinary levels just to be recognized, if they’re lucky. In schools that refuse to prioritize interdependent values, revise the admissions criteria, and dismantle privilege, not just in upper-class families but in the institutions themselves, they’re told to be resilient and find their own source of motivation in an environment where no one cares if they fail. Although practicing diversity initiatives and releasing antiracist statements to promote inclusivity and positive thinking has become more common in higher education, that doesn’t change the fact that disadvantaged students still feel the way they do because of how the college environment is designed and the psychological impacts it causes.
With these psychological barriers and an environment that is inherently designed against these students reaching their potential, how are they supposed to stay motivated? What even gives them a reason to succeed if there is more of an emphasis on competition and individualism than cooperation for the common good, which is treated as if it doesn’t exist in the real world? In that sense, our idea of success is warped. Success becomes more about what we can measure to determine how well one can do something. Only judging a person based on how high or low any of these numbers are limits what you see about them. People are looked at according to what they can offer and what others stand to gain from them. This version of success blinds us to their ideas, lived realities, potential, imagination, and so on—capabilities that cannot and have no reason to be measured. Students do not feel prepared to enter the real world because of a system that cares more about these skewed ideas of success instead of their holistic growth. What education should strive to do is actually prepare each generation for a life beyond school and equip them with the confidence to navigate and eventually shape their future.
So the solution to rethink and reform our education system is in Dewey’s centuries-old ideas: personal growth and motivation in a project-based and in-depth curriculum that prioritizes learning by doing over learning by memorization, and a streamlined application process versus jumping through bureaucratic hoops. But as the old saying goes, “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.” To call back to an important part of Dewey’s democratic society about equal access, learning includes an awareness of one’s personal and cultural background. To strive for a future of progress and innovation, we must address the root problems holding us back, including the same inaccessible and rigid education system that strips disadvantaged students of their confidence and self-esteem. It should be helping students harness their potential, not molding them into conforming candidates anxiously waiting in line to become a part of a machine-like working world—programmed with knowledge on what to do and how to do something but never to ask why. And thus, we are pitted against each other to chase success and be the best instead of cooperating for the common good. In realizing Dewey’s vision, we must take this understanding of learning and systemic inequities into consideration, especially because college is supposed to be the gateway into the middle-class for low-income students. Without this understanding, a Deweyan curriculum only serves those who have access to it.
Works Cited (MLA)
Greenfield, Jeremy S. "Challenges and Opportunities in the Pursuit of College Finance Literacy." High School Journal 98.4 (2015): 316-36. Print
Hildebrand, David. "John Dewey." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 01 Nov. 2018. Web. 15 Dec. 2020.
Jorgensen, C. Gregg. "Chapter 8: Teach the Way Dewey Believed: Daniel Tanner." Discovering John Dewey in the Twenty-First Century Dialogues on the Present and Future of Education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2017. 109-16. Print
Soltis, Jonas F. "Humanizing Education: Dewey's Concepts of a Democratic Society and Purpose in Education Revisited." Studies in Philosophy and Education 11.1 (1991): 89-92. Print.
Jury, M., Smeding, A., Stephens, N. M., Nelson, J. E., Aelenei, C., & Darnon, C. (2017). The experience of low-ses students in higher education: Psychological barriers to success and interventions to reduce social-class inequality. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 25-30. doi:10.1111/josi.12202
“Schooling Multicultural Teachers: A Guide for Program Assessment and Professional Development.” Schooling Multicultural Teachers: a Guide for Program Assessment and Professional Development, by Manya Catrice Whitaker and Kristina M. Valtierra, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, 2019, pp. 21–31.