Paper short abstract:

The research explores the educational crisis in the US educational infrastructure and uses the capability approach to establish an educational wealth model for human development in education. It aims to challenge the deficit discourse that portrays the underprivileged at risk and promotes achievement.

Paper long abstract:

Addressing Crisis in US Compulsory Education.

Francesca Polito

Within the realm of US education research and policy, it is common to employ a deficit discourse that portrays the poor as being at risk in terms of their educational outcomes rather than recognizing their potential for achievement. This rhetoric further degrades the underprivileged by providing minimum educational standards in response to what policymakers identify as conditions of educational poverty that require no explanation of their origins but simply exist as conditions and are legitimized as such. Although efforts to separate the conditions of educational poverty from the underlying reasons for educational poverty have been dealt with at great length, disregard for the underlying reasons, in any sense, attempts to deny their existence. The presence of strong correlations between generational poverty and the intergenerational nature of educational poverty suggests the existence of underlying factors that contribute to the perpetuation of this issue. It further implies that educational poverty is not simply an isolated condition that materializes with no cause, but rather fundamental problems rooted in the structure and policies of the educational infrastructure. Moreover, the act of dissociating educational poverty from opportunity in education can be seen as a form of aporophobia. This perspective denies the idea that individuals who experience educational poverty do so primarily due to a lack of educational opportunities. Instead, it shifts the focus onto the individual, suggesting that they are the problem and need to be addressed through some form of intervention that meets a minimum standard. The concept of minimum standards can be viewed as a social construct that perpetuates discrimination against marginalized communities, particularly the poor, by those in positions of power. In contemporary society, the discourse about minimum standards is frequently presented within the context of compensation or welfare. However, it is important to recognize that minimum standards can perpetuate and deepen the divide between the poor and the wealthy. This occurs through the implementation of lower standards that restrict the ability of the poor to improve their living conditions and rise above their current circumstances.

The persistence of educational poverty across generations is not entirely unexpected given that the US compulsory, free education system was originally created to cater to the underprivileged who could not afford private education. The main objective of this system was to ensure free and equal access to education (Educational Poverty | ASSITEJ International, n.d.). As such, the progression and pervasiveness of economic poverty and educational poverty are highly reflective of each other (Kober & Rentner, 2020) and illustrative of minimal standards meant to meet minimal objectives. Societal growth, however, is contingent upon its population's ability to adapt and undergo change. Yet, in order to achieve this objective, it is imperative for individuals to possess a diverse range of approaches, engage in advancements, and undergo transformative changes reflective of changing economies. While education plays a crucial role in fostering and enabling societal transformation and advancement, it must reflect economic progression and seek to sustain economic success for all of its citizens (Tuomi, 2011).

Educational poverty, as defined by UNESCO, occurs when individuals are denied their basic right to adequate educational opportunities (UNESCO, 2010). This includes the ability to gain knowledge, develop a sense of self, build social connections, and acquire the skills needed to succeed in changing societies. These conditions restrict the chance for emotional development, social interaction, and self-exploration, all of which are essential for individuals to gain knowledge about themselves and the world (Educational Poverty | ASSITEJ International, n.d.). Definitions of educational poverty can vary and are often difficult to define because, by definition, standards and conditions of poverty are often measured against something (Checchi, 2003). We can define standards as certificates of merit one holds (Allmendinger, 1999), or in terms of skills and competencies one needs to participate in economies and social societies (Allmendinger and Leibfriend, 2003). As Chechhi points out, measures and the standards on which we base them are difficult to define because they shift with perspective, noting that we can measure educational poverty in relation to time, merit, skill, region, and domain (Checchi, 2003). The problem is, that each perspective is fraught with its own complications in defining a standard, and even if a standard were to be defined, those standards fail in relation to other perspectives and also more demonstratively in relation to time. A common standard measure of education is literacy. However, minimum literacy standards don’t necessarily correlate with increasing an individual's opportunity for sustainable job attainment or economic, social, or personal well-being, today or in the future. Many argue that minimum standards of knowledge are unsustainable because they are continuously outpaced by technological advances and shifting societies. Hence, at the very least, any minimum must be defined by sustainable measures. Perhaps in using the reasoning put forth by Rowles, that societies should “avoid the region where the marginal contributions of those better off to the well-being of the less favored are negative.” (Rawls, 1999), we can adopt a new perspective that seeks to establish, positive maximums over negative marginals and in doing so define educational wealth standards that must be obtained rather than educational poverty standards that must be marginally overcome. By doing so, we define the conditions that make one educationally wealthy, i.e., rich with capability, and by that standard measure anything less, as educational poverty. By defining educational wealth as a standard, might we avoid the adversities of shifting perspectives associated with minimum standards? Sen's reasoning suggests that we look at the functioning space rather than the commodity space and in this respect, measure capability failure (Sen, 1992). This research aims to explore the educational crisis that exists in the US educational infrastructure and how the capability approach, as a theoretical framework, may be used to establish an educational wealth model for human development in education in the US.

References

Allmendinger, J. (1999). Bildungsarmut: Zur Verschränkung von Bildungs- und Sozialpolitik. Soziale Welt, 50(1), 35–50.

Allmendinger, J., & Leibfried, S. (2003). Education and the welfare state: The four worlds of competence production. Journal of European Social Policy, 13(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928703013001047

Checchi, D. (2003). The Italian educational system: Family background and social stratification. Departmental Working Papers, Article 2003–01. https://ideas.repec.org//p/mil/wpdepa/2003-01.html

Educational Poverty | ASSITEJ International. (n.d.). Retrieved April 26, 2023, from https://www.assitej-international.org/en/2018/12/educational-poverty/

Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2020). History and Evolution of Public Education in the US. In Center on Education Policy. Center on Education Policy. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED606970

Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition. Belknap Press.

Sen A (1992) Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tuomi, I., & Miller, R. (2011). Learning and education after the industrial age. Oy Meaning Processing.

UNESCO (2010) Education for All Global Monitoring Report: reaching the marginalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.