Leland Cogan And Mcknight: Article Analysis

In their contribution to the academic journal, the American Educator (Winter 2010-2011), William Schmidt, Leland Cogan, and Curtis McKnight shed light on their explanation of how to acquire equality of educational opportunity. The authors ask readers to consider the affects of equal content coverage in the classroom, and how enabling this, would create equal opportunities for individual students, “no matter the equality in other resources provided” (p. 13). In addition, one must consider factors that “are beyond the control of individual students” such as “socioeconomic factors, housing patterns, community structures, (and) parental decisions” (p. 13). I am particularly fond of their definition of equality of educational opportunity because
Although I appreciate the simplicity of their definition, as a result of relying solely on equal coverage on content, other factors that have an influenced on student opportunity are downplayed. This strikes me as surprising, and leads me to grapple with the definition in a more complex manner. Let us consider the expectations of the federal government and the nation’s citizens (specifically parents and students), and how all parties would respond if the definition had been implemented in a federal report. Like the federal reports reviewed in class, the research done by Schmidt, Cogan, and McKnight would be greatly analyzed, critiqued, and more importantly pressed for positive results by all parties. Specifically, I ponder if the United States, considering the country’s historical reliance on competition, is indeed ready for equal opportunity in the field of education. What I also find fascinating about Schmidt, Cogan, and McKnight’s definition of equality of opportunity, is that it already opens the door to critique. According to the authors’ claim, when equal content coverage is provided, equal opportunity is a guarantee. When making such a bold and confident claim, researchers should consider the response of their audience. Educators, students, and parents may be inclined to question this claim, and at the
1999. “The Sociology of Education: Its Development in the United States.” Pp. 7 – 52 in Aaron Pallas (Ed.), Research in Sociology of Education, Vol. 10. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cogan, L., C. McKnight, and W. Schmidt. Winter 2010-2011. “Equality of Educational Opportunity.” Pp. 12–19. American Educator.
Colman, James S. 1968. “The Concept of Equality of Educational Opportunity.” Pp 7 – 22 in Harvard Educational Review 38(1):7-22.
Greem, Thomas F. with David P. Ericson nd Robert M Seidman. 1980. Predicting the Behavior of the Educational System. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Labaree, David F. 1997. How to Succeed in School Without Really Learning. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Schnieder, Barbara. 2003. “Sociology of Education: An Overview of the Field at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century.” Pp. 193-226 in Maureen T. Hallinanm Adam Gamoran, Warren Kubitschek, and Tom Loveless (Eds.), Stability and Change in American Education: Structure Process, and Outcomes. Clinton Corners, NY. Elliot Werner Publications.
Walters, Pamela Barnhouse, 2007. “Betweixt and Between Discipline and Profession: A History of Sociology in Education.” Pp. 639-665 in Craig Calhoun (Ed.), Sociology in America: A History. Chicago: University of Chicago