Whatever Their Economic Background, Race, Culture, Or Class
Whatever Their Economic Background Race Culture Or Class What S
Whatever their economic background, race, culture or class? What should our priorities be? Should we focus on what Spring calls "the human capital model" or on what he describes as "a new paradigm for a happy life"? Is making the US school system more like Singapore's , with a strong focus on academic competition and pushing students to achieve as much as possible or on Finland's high achieving but considerably less stressful model of education? What are the benefits and disadvantages of "school choice" ?
Paper For Above instruction
The question of educational priorities, especially in a diverse society like the United States, necessitates a comprehensive examination of the core objectives of schooling. The debate often polarizes between emphasizing rigorous academic achievement and fostering well-being and happiness among students. On one hand, the human capital model champions the importance of equipping students with tangible skills and knowledge to excel in the workforce. Proponents argue that such an approach is vital for economic competitiveness and individual upward mobility, particularly for students from marginalized backgrounds who might otherwise be left behind in undervalued educational systems (Spring, 2015). On the other hand, a paradigm focused on a happy life, inspired by Finnish educational models, emphasizes the importance of fostering emotional resilience, creativity, and a love of learning, which can lead to more holistic personal development (Sahlberg, 2011). Balancing these priorities involves recognizing that academic success and emotional well-being are interconnected, and policies should aim to develop both competencies simultaneously, especially considering the diverse backgrounds of students in the US.
Adopting a model similar to Singapore’s, with its concentration on academic excellence and competition, could drive students to higher achievement levels; however, it often comes with significant stress and disparities, especially for students who struggle to meet high-pressure standards (Liu & Wang, 2018). Conversely, Finland’s approach reduces stress and promotes equality, ensuring that all students progress at a comfortable pace, which fosters a love for learning and creativity, though some critics argue it may limit competitiveness and outcomes in the global economy (Sahlberg, 2015). As for school choice, this policy aims to increase parental autonomy and foster competition among schools, ostensibly improving quality. Yet, it can exacerbate inequalities, as more affluent families are better able to access high-quality options, leaving disadvantaged students behind in underfunded schools (Chubb & Moe, 1990). Therefore, the US should integrate the strengths of these models—valuing academic achievement and happiness—while implementing equitable policies that counteract the disadvantages of school choice, ensuring that all students, regardless of background, have access to high-quality education.
References
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Brookings Institution Press.
Liu, J., & Wang, X. (2018). Education reform in Singapore: A model of high achievement with social equity? Asian Education and Development Studies, 7(3), 251-263.
Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press.
Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press.
Spring, J. (2015). American education. Routledge.