The Paradox of Freedom in Education

*Just to clairify, I am a wholehearted supporter of any policy giving parents and individuals more control over their education. This is merely a comment on the possible illusion of individual control...an illusion continually present in a state-run society*


According to the liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill, “A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another… it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body[1].” This idea relates to many different discussions about the purpose of education within a democracy and education reform, but seems most interesting when applied to some of the evolutions within the “school choice” education reform movement. The rapid creation of specialized programs within conventional public schools, charter schools, and magnet schools as result of increased competition within the education sector, we are faced with the contradiction that more “choices” for schooling appeal to our desire for individualism and self-determination, but effectively mold us for one specific career path or another.

I am only qualified to speak on matters of schooling within the state of Michigan, but know that these ideas and trends are resonating throughout the nation. Although the idea of applying the capitalistic tradition of competition to the nation’s educational systems originated in the 1950s, it has only been gaining in popularity since the early 1990s with the enactment of state laws allowing the creation of public charter schools throughout the country. The need for such reforms spurred from a sense that America’s state education system was not holding ground with other nations. This created an atmosphere where schools had to compete for students, and therefore, lure them in with the best possible programs. Furthermore, it gave parents the most choice as to where to send their child for an education- a sign that this reform tapped into some of the simplest, idealized desires of American people.

Now, despite that brief overview, it has come to pass that in attempt to give parents the best options for their children’s education, both public and independent schools are increasingly developing programs that will, as early as elementary school, put students on a track for science and math education, or will offer an engineering track in middle schools. Recently, there has also been talk of adding environmental science-based high school academies within larger school districts. This is all for the sake of attracting more students through this sort of specialization.

Interestingly enough, much of the rhetoric surrounding the school choice movement is also filled with an anti-state education sentiment. The idea, as expressed to some extent by Charles Mann, to use education as a means of socialization is frightening to these typically staunch individualists. They believe that parents should be free to educate their child how they see fit, but are so caught up in that ideal that they fail to recognize they are creating even more finely tuned machines for the state through these new, cutting edge educational programs.
Additionally, although the parents may choose to set their child on a strict math and science intensive program as early as elementary school, it is denying the child the right to determining his or her own future.

This paradox parallels Jean Anyon’s work on Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work. For one, many of these new opportunities are still relatively unavailable to rural lower-class students (although many of these programs have been piloted in the inner city school systems). And although these new programs reflect a sharp change in the nature of our economy since the book was written in 1980, it still mirrors the idea that very little “choice” even within a “choice”-based movement actually exists. Really, education, whether public or private, directly or indirectly works to serve the interests of the state by finding ways to “produce” the sorts of citizens it needs to sustain itself.

[1] Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, 1869. http://www.bartleby.com/130/5.html