The Left is
fond of extolling the virtues of a free public education system, particularly the
delusion that it increases social mobility and promotes liberty. Aside from the
fact that few people move up in social class, regardless of their success in
school, the system is not truly free. It is a taxpayer subsidy to business that
ensures there are sufficiently educated workers to do the jobs employers want
done and to consume the products and services they are selling.
In “Science and Education in Capitalism,” Ruthless Criticism points out that
education serves as a sorting mechanism for capital, funneling future workers
into the hierarchy of jobs. School does not simply deliver knowledge, training
and skills to students, but does so per unit time. During exams, students demonstrate
how many questions they can correctly answer within a given amount of time.
Consequently, it is not their knowledge we are assessing, but their efficiency
compared with their peers, exactly what employers are looking for.
Grades do
not tell us how much a student knows or how well they can solve problems. They
simply tell us how a student has performed in relationship to his or her peers
and give an indication of how that student will be sorted in the future. The
better the grades, the more advanced classes that student can take, the better
college he or she can attend, the more impressive his or her resume, and the
better the chances of a higher paying job.
Most jobs do
not require brilliant workers. Thus, the state does not need to invest much
into public education—just enough to ensure there are sufficient workers with
the minimum skills necessary for the job (a few highly trained people to be
managers, supervisors and bosses, and lots of average people with minimal
training to do the rest of the work). Of course there is also a need for
scientists, but from the perspective of the employing class this is solely to
create new and better products that can be sold and patented, innovations that
give them an edge over competitors. Scientists working to improve public
health, in contrast, are a burden as they contribute to regulation and
legislation that impairs profit-making.
The
rationality of keeping education costs low has been amply demonstrated over the
last four years, as states have slashed education budgets without harming the
profitability of business. In fact, corporate America has made record profits in
that same time period despite the divestment from public education, while a
surplus of highly trained workers and scientists remain jobless or accept low
paying jobs that have nothing to do with their training.
The needs of
capital also determine what content is taught. An understanding of American
history sufficient to celebrate the 4th of July with pride serves
the interests of capital by ensuring there will be a supply of cannon fodder
for its wars, whereas knowledge of Haymarket, Homestead, the IWW and Ludlow
might lead one to rebel against capital. Hence, the former takes up a great
deal of the history curriculum, while the latter, if it is taught at all, takes
up no more than a few lines in the text book.
School also
prepares students for the world of work by simulating (and legitimizing) the
competition that occurs in the real world, only in school the competition is
for grades rather than money. However, the competition in school is no more “fair”
than that of the world of employment. One’s relationship to the labor market
not only determines his wealth and social status, it also determines his
children’s status in school. Affluence is a great predictor of graduation
rates, test scores and overall school success.
The public
education system of the 20th century—the remnants of which limp
along today—is inefficient in its service to capital. Since knowledge for
knowledge’s sake does not increase profits, universities can do away with many
of the luxuries that have allowed professors to do basic research in the past.
Increasing the competition for grants (while increasing corporate sponsorship
of research) increases the likelihood that research will have a potential for
profitability. Distance learning, blended learning and outsourcing of teaching
at the K-12 and college levels allows schools to teach the basic skills
students need to compete in the job market at a much lower cost (and greater
profit to the businesses that supplies these services). Doing away with tenure
and seniority increases administrators’ control over staffing decisions and
reduces payroll expenses by making it easier to lay off higher paid veterans.
Internships and service learning may provide youth with marketable job skills,
but they also provide employers with cheap or free labor that is easier to
exploit than older workers.
No comments:
Post a Comment