Educational Outcomes and Adolescent Development

Running Head: Educational Outcomes 1
Comprehensive Exam Response: Adolescent Education and High School Curriculum
Vicka Bell-Robinson
Miami University
November 16, 2014
Modern (public) schooling in the United States has multiple aims for the students, communities,
and public that it serves. Across these aims, (high) schools are a key site of adolescent psych-
socialization, through a combination of curricular and pedagogical efforts. In this question,
please provide an argument regarding the both the normative and empirical elements of
adolescent (or young adult) education in the United States. In other words, construct an argument
of the types of educational outcomes that schools ought to produce as well as what schooling
actually produces in terms of adolescent student development regarding issues of self-efficacy,
civic participation, and dissent. Utilize the relevant scholarship from existing coursework and
supplemental readings to support your argument.

Societies and organizations need people who are willing and able to disagree with those
in power or take a stand against mainstream sentiment in order to grow and develop into better
systems (Sunstein, 2003; Stitzlein, 2012; Shifferin, 1999). Additionally, people’s sense of self-
efficacy is directly related to how much control they believe they have over occurrences in their
lives (Bandura, 1997). It makes sense that both the willingness of someone to express dissent and
the level of their efficacy could influence how he or she chooses to be civically engaged. As a
compulsory experience in the United States (U.S.), the schooling of children has the potential to
play a significant role in shaping the future of society. The purpose of this essay is to explore and
critique the educational outcomes produced by schools regarding adolescent student
development in the areas of self-efficacy, civic participation, and dissent.
The question surrounding the types of educational outcomes that schools ought to
produce is impacted by who is being asked, as well as, which population of students the answer
is aimed towards. Just about everyone has an opinion on the purpose of education. I have chosen
to explore the educational outcomes of schooling through the lenses of social theory via Emile
Durkheim, curriculum theory via John Dewey, and educational philosophy via Harry Brighouse.
In addition to the aforementioned scholars, I will also incorporate a variety of other authors and
theorists whose insights on the impact of schooling, both past and present, contribute to the topic
of conversation in this essay.
Movement toward the Middle
Early social theorist, Emile Durkheim viewed education as a way to create a common
moral code and solidarity. He asserted that schools had the ability to serve the function of
socializing the citizenry to the dominant points of view in society (Wexler, 2009). While

historically education was primarily designed to teach specific curricular content to students,
Durkheim and Parsons, posited that schools also implicitly communicated expectations related to
certain norms and values (Wexler, 2009). Similarly, Eisner (1994) acknowledged that there were
parts of the curriculum that were formal and obvious, like reading, writing, and math, as well as
other topics that were more implicit or “hidden” such as rituals designed to produce
competitiveness and compliant behavior. There is a benefit to having schools educate students
about the behavioral expectations of society. Some level of conformity is helpful when it comes
to order and safety. For example, knowing that, for the most part no one will shout “fire” in a
movie theater unless there is actually a fire, helps those that hear “fire” react more quickly than if
they did not share that common understanding of behavior. This type of conformity keeps people
safe. There is also, however, a disadvantage associated with implicitly teaching “common”
values and expectations via the compulsory school system. That disadvantage occurs because the
values presented are not always an accurate representation of the human experience, nor are they
always moral or just. The historical foundations of the educational system form ignored the
pluralistic nature of the U.S. The current system of education also aims and to move individuals
from the margins or fringe sections of society by ignoring the uniqueness of each persons
experiences and forcing them to assimilate to the dominant culture.
Young (1990) spoke of this kind of forced movement of assimilation as cultural
imperialism. Along with violence, exploitation, marginalization, and powerlessness, cultural
imperialism is a form of oppression enacted on minority social groups, like women, people of
color, and other underrepresented populations by members of the dominant social groups, such
as men, heterosexuals, and wealthy people. Young (1990) defined cultural imperialism as the
establishment of the experiences of the dominant group as normal and the experiences of the

non-dominant groups as “other” and not normal. In order to successfully navigate the world
designed by the dominant group, non-dominant groups have to hide their own cultural
experiences and perceptions. The separation of members of non-dominant social groups from
their cultural practices and other lived-experiences results in a loss of authenticity and translates
to a burden that members of these groups have to learn to carry with them throughout their lives.
The loss of authenticity.
Living and learning in a space where one cannot be his or her authentic self significantly
limits the amount of personal connection to the curriculum that can occur and how much content
knowledge is actually acquired by the learner (Deplit, 2006; Anderson, 2009). Recent legislation
and policy creation around schooling and education has created an inauthentic space for both
teachers and students (Anderson, 2009). More specifically, the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has
narrowed the focus of what students should learn and how teachers should teach.
Though teachers have always had to make decisions about how much time to spend on
content, NCLB altered their ability to adapt the curriculum to fit their students’ needs. Previous
generations of teachers, like those in Jackson’s (1990) Life in Classrooms which described
classroom life in the 1960s, were able to respond and react to the needs of their classrooms and
adjust their approach in order to maximize student learning. The introduction of NCLB created a
sense of urgency for student mastery of some academic content over other academic content.
Stitzlein (2014) explained how new requirements for teachers in the areas of reading and math
resulted in a reduction of time focused on social studies. Historically, social studies, government,

and other civically focused content areas were where students were explicitly educated about
their roles and responsibilities as citizens.
The most disturbing part about less time being spent in civically oriented classes is that
some populations of students are more impacted by the reduced time than others. Stitzlein (2014)
noted that students enrolled in underperforming schools which typically face increased pressure
to raise scores on standardized tests are disproportionally poor and of color. The lack of
intentional transmission of knowledge about the power and promises of citizenship
disenfranchises these already marginalized students and limits their ability to “access the skills
and knowledge they need to secure their own justice and equality” (Stitzlein, 2014, p.168).
Anderson (2009) shared a similar sentiment when he articulated that “another generation will
lack societal analysis that would provide them with the tools to defend democracy and work to
ensure that our society is living out an authentic allegiance to its cherished ideals” (Anderson,
2009, p.47).
Going along to get along.
The concept of conforming to the will of the majority, fitting into the group, and desiring
to not stand out too much, is something that we are taught at an early age. We are socialized into
our gender identity at birth. When girl babies are born they get pink hats. When boy babies are
born they get blue. Additionally, a majority of us are immediately engulfed into families where
our names associate us with our groups. Once we enter school, we are separated by age groups
and taught rules about appropriate behavior. Those children, who transition from homes where
the values espoused do not match those of the school experience, face more difficulty and suffer

far more consequences than their more conforming peers. With all of the explicit and implicit
emphasis on conformity, it is not surprising that people choose not to dissent.
Choosing to dissent goes against our most basic human desires to belong, feel loved and
connected. The anticipation of consequences can be far more impactful than the actual
consequences, which is why it is important to expose students to not only the notion of dissent,
but also the rewards or consequences of dissention. While one of the most major consequences to
dissent is death, a vast majority of dissent does not result in that end. Students who are taught
about dissent, exposed to others who have dissented, and given the opportunity to articulate
dissent will have less fear about dissenting. Since one way people develop self-efficacy is
through accomplishment of a similar goal in a previous experience (Bandura, 1997; 2001), then
when students are successful in bringing forth their dissent, their self-efficacy is likely to be
increased. This increase has less to do with whether they achieved the goal of changing the status
quo and more to do with recognizing the power of their own voices and experiencing the real
results, both positive and negative, of choosing to dissent.
A Progressive Perspective
Similar to Emile Durkheim, John Dewey also held the perspective that educational
experiences could serve as a social function. Dewey (2011) actually purported that education
could serve a variety of purposes, a social function being just one of many including education as
growth and education as necessity for life. Dewey (2011) explained that people are a product of
their environment and the presence of other people in it. He viewed schools as having both the
ability and means to help individual students escape their inherited status and move into a space
where they were no longer limited. He posited that through the environment, human beings learn

how to adjust personal behavior in order to mold themselves into well-received members of
society.
Of course, the notion of being well-received members of society, promotes the idea that
there is one acceptable way to live and that all other ways are less desirable. What Dewey did,
that Durkheim did not do, was leave space for future generations to recognize the flaws within
the current system and make adjustments to better meet the needs of the community. His
reflections surrounding the goals of education as a means for progress are worth noting at length:
In static societies, societies which make the maintenance of established custom their
measure of value, this conception applies in the main. But not in progressive
communities. They endeavor to shape the experiences of the young so that instead of
reproducing current habits, better habits shall be formed and thus the future adult society
can be an improvement of their own (Dewey, 2011, p.46).
Dewey also addressed education as a social function by exploring ideas surrounding the
nature and meaning of the environment, the social environment, the social medium as educative,
and the school as a special environment. Dewey professed that one way a community sustains
itself is to transform its immature members into full-fledged trustees who will in turn educate
future members. Sometimes this transformation happens through direct interaction, but it is also
possible for this transformation to be acquired vicariously through the experiences of others.
Through the Lens of a Philosopher – Harry Brighouse
In his 2006 book, On Education, Harry Brighouse shared his perspective on the purpose
of education. Through his exploration, he determined that schools should be serving the function
of (1) helping students make their own value-based judgments; (2) exposing students to new

skills that will help them be economically productive;(3) encouraging students in the
development of interests which will enable them to lead flourishing lives; and (4) teaching
students to be good citizens.
Developing values.
Most students hold values that they have inherited from their families, friends, and
organizations. In order to effectively participate in dissent and to be a good dissenter, students
have to develop an ability to be autonomous from their parents. This is not to say that students
cannot have a relationship with their parents, or even share similar values and beliefs, but rather
to imply that students should have a clear understanding of their own values and why they hold
the values they hold beyond “because my parents said so.” The introduction of experiences
designed to facilitate the learning of dissent can help students examine their values and provide
opportunities to practice exercising their autonomy. Brighouse (2006) explained that students
need to develop autonomy so that they can make decisions about their lives that lead to
conditions that will be most beneficial for them. If students do not develop autonomy, they may
end up living a life that was perfect for their parents but not quite the right fit for them.
Developing self-efficacy in the area of dissent will allow students to more easily question the
practices and beliefs of others when they are counter to the students’ feelings or beliefs.
The presence of dissent also invites exposure to ideas and experiences to which students
may otherwise not be exposed. Right now, the lack of dissent, along with the encouragement of
conformity, discourages a wide range of expressed opinions. The result of a lack of diverse
expression is the presumption that the dominant perspective is the only one that exists. Brighouse
(2006) noted:

Second, whereas my example of the Amish might suggest that religious parenting is the
central threat to personal autonomy, I doubt that is the case, precisely because most
children from religious backgrounds will routinely have their home values challenged by
the public culture. Much more troubling for the vast majority of children is a public, and
particularly a popular, culture that is governed by commercial forces, that dedicate
considerable resources to undermining children’s prospective autonomy, aiming to
inculcate a lifelong and unreflective materialism in as many children as possible (Loc.
383).
Eventually students from dominant social groups enter more diverse spaces, either by going to
college or joining the workforce, and discover that not everyone has the same experiences and/or
beliefs. The discovery of human differences and the facilitation of autonomy could happen
earlier in students’ lives if schools normalize and welcome the concept of dissent.
Economic productivity.
The second way that Harry Brighouse (2006) suggested that schools prepare students is
through teaching skills that help them be economically productive. Children will become adults
that need to be able to afford the minimal accommodations in life. Brighouse was clear that the
economic needs of the community should not dictate the motivation of the educational system,
but rather the economic needs of the children are important to consider when looking at the
purpose of schooling. He argued that we do not educate some children to be doctors and others to
be teachers, simply because the economy needs teachers and doctors. Instead, we educate all
children to participate in a variety of skills so that they have self-efficacy, freedom, and
flexibility when it is time to pursue an occupation.

Learning to effectively and appropriately dissent can impact a student’s ability to be
economically productive. Craig (2014) separated dissent into two distinct categories: loyal
dissent and disloyal dissent. Loyal dissenters are motivated to communicate a different
perspective or new idea because of their commitment to the organization or the task at hand.
Disloyal dissenters are unproductive, like to complain, and may just be aiming to create
difficulty for the leader and/or the organization. Teaching students the difference between loyal
and disloyal dissent will set them up to be more helpful than harmful in work environments.
Additionally, learning how to dissent will provide students with a self-efficacy that will enable
them not just to join workplace organizations, but also to articulate new ideas that will help those
workplace organizations accomplish their goals. People who are able to help their organizations
progress are more likely to be economically rewarded than those who do not. Being
economically productive, in addition to meeting their basic financial needs, also gives students
access to more leisure time, which will allow them to explore opportunities that can, according to
Brighouse (2006) lead to a more flourishing life.
Flourishing life.
People who flourish are healthy, happy, and productive individuals. More specifically,
Brighouse (2006) used Richard Layard (2005) to articulate that “financial situation, family
relationships, work, community and friends, health, personal freedom, and personal values”
(Brighouse, 2006, Loc. 685) all contribute to the presence of a flourishing life. Brighouse went
on to posit that being able to identify with other people and places is an important role in the
development of a flourishing life. Identifying with other people can provide an incentive to
dissent against policies and practices that do not directly impact the dissenter. Craig (2014) noted
that loyal dissenters do not choose to dissent only when they are directly impacted, but also when

they feel a sense of obligation to others. Loyal dissenters also believe that actions can influence a
more just and/or better experience for all (Sunstein, 2003; Stitzlein, 2014; Craig, 2014).
Producing good citizens.
Producing good citizens is the final outcome of schooling for which Brighouse (2006)
argued. He stated that good citizens commit less crime, are more polite, and think more
reflectively and critically about their political involvement. He went on to explain that in a totally
just environment, good citizens would not need to be concerned with their own needs, but would
enter each decision with impartiality. Since, however, no environment is completely just, good
citizens must be able to advocate for their needs and the needs of others, who may not be able to
advocate for themselves. Brighouse (2006) also asserted that good citizens are obligated to work
toward the elimination of injustice, especially when those impacted by it cannot seek it for
themselves. In other words, good citizens eagerly and willingly participate in dissent against
powerful leaders and the status quo when they perceive either or both to be unjust.
The student experience with dissent and conformity.
During adolescence, peer support or lack thereof, has a tremendous impact on how a
student feels about his or her abilities and experiences (Kiran & Esen, 2012). While the
expectations of behavior and status quo are formed by school leaders, they are frequently
reinforced by the student body. In many cases the influence of the student body on student
behavior is more powerful than the words and actions of school leaders. Acts of bullying and
intimidation persist because of the lack of experience students have dissenting against their peers
and the status quo. Increasing students’ self-efficacy around dissent can be academically,
personally, and socially beneficial. Kiran-Esen (2012) found a significant negative correlation

between the amount of peer pressure a student was experiencing and his or her level of academic
self-efficacy. This means that the more pressure a student got from his or her peers, the lower his
or her self-efficacy for performing well-academically. The skills that students can learn about
dissent during high school will provide an early example of how they can be active participants
in a citizenry striving to create a better and more just world.
Teaching Dissent
When it comes to teaching dissent in schools, Stitzlein (2014) recognized that the
incorporation in the curriculum has to be done in a time and space where the students are
developmentally ready. Stitzlein (2014) also believed that while every student has the capacity to
participate in dissent, high school students are generally more mature than their younger counter-
parts and thus should be able to handle the challenges and stress that comes along with
participating in dissention. Teaching students how to dissent and helping them develop self-
efficacy in this area should not occur by applying a one-size-fits-all approach. Teachers should
utilize students’ lived experiences to develop strategies designed to enhance student learning.
Helping students develop self-efficacy.
Teachers should help students develop self-efficacy for the influence and power of their
own voices in spaces of dissent. Bandura (1997; 2001) explained that there are four ways that
individuals come to have self-efficacy over their lives and environment; mastery, verbal
persuasion, vicarious experiences, and psychological affect. Teachers can help students by
exposing them to experiences that develop their skills in dissenting (mastery); introducing them
to people who have successfully dissented in the past (vicarious experience); and providing

verbal encouragement to students before or after participation in effective dissenting behavior
(verbal persuasion).
The final source of self-efficacy is through one’s own psychological and affective states.
That is to say that this source of self-efficacy is from within the person demonstrating it. The
development of this type of self-efficacy is most difficult for teachers to directly impact there is
not a clear way to pinpoint the reason why some people have high self-efficacy, while others do
not. Furthermore, it is possible for people with high levels of self-efficacy to fail to notice the
lack of self-efficacy in another person. Teachers have to be especially in tune with their own
efficacy and recognize the lack of self-efficacy amongst their students.
The level of self-efficacy the teacher holds in the area of civic engagement and dissenting
practices may blind him or her to the lack of efficacy of their students. There is a common belief
that if a student has a question about the material being covered, the student will ask for
clarification. This belief is swimming in beliefs about the efficacy of the student. When teaching
students about participation in dissenting practices, teachers should not make assumptions
regarding what their students know and how they will seek clarification of what they do not
understand. Some students will have the self-efficacy to ask for clarification, while others do not
have the self-efficacy to even believe that by asking a question, their understanding of the
material and concepts will be increased. Teachers may find that they need to provide more
direction and support in order to make sure their students gain knowledge and develop self-
efficacy necessary to partake in loyal dissent.
Explicit instruction.

Delpit (2006) explained that it is not enough for teachers to hint or suggest to students the
correct behavior needed for success, but that teachers may need to be explicit in their
communication and direction to students. Explicit instruction is especially necessary in situations
where students may not share the same cultural understandings as the teacher. Students should be
taught the historical role that dissent and dissenters played in the development of the United
States. Learning about historical role models can assist students in developing belief in their
ability to produce desired results. Hirsch (1987) and Delpit (2006) argued that without explicit
instruction, students who are unfamiliar with the cultural norms that exist in the classroom and
throughout most of middle-class America will not be able to effectively navigate the various
spaces they need in order to be successful. Teachers should make sure that students, especially
those whose lives are situated outside of the middle-class norm, obtain the cultural understanding
in order to effectively participate in civil discourse.
Proceed with caution.
Teachers have to be extremely careful about what types of learning experiences they
choose to model for the purposes of developing self-efficacy, not only in within the area of
dissent, but in all areas. If a student is only exposed to certain kind of experiences, then he or
she may not be able to envision other opportunities. Marx as cited in Wexler (2009) shared the
position that schools were intentionally designed to serve as a way to reproduce the system
already in place, which according to Marx, benefited certain members of society, while
intentionally disadvantaging others. Similarly, Anderson (2009) urged educators and educational
leaders to recognize the innate flaws that exist in the current system. He noted, “public schools
not only could not ameliorate social inequalities, but that in fact, they may contribute to them
through practices such as tracking, that helped to reproduce an inequitable social order ”

(Anderson, 2009, p. 24). When teachers only expose students to concepts that they are used to
being exposed to, they only allow those student to go where they have already been and to only
do what they have already seen. When students are not allowed or encouraged to develop their
capacity to dissent through their own lived experiences or through examples from others, they
may not be able to do it as adults, which “naturally” results in the reproduction of the current
system, regardless of whether it is just or not.
Teachers can help the development of efficacy by providing regular feedback on
dissenting experiences in a quick and detailed manner. If students are not getting regular
feedback, then there is no way for them to really know how they are doing. For a student with
high self-efficacy, he or she is likely to assume that his or her efforts will result in a positive
outcome, like they have in the past. For students with low self-efficacy, they may assume that
they are not doing well because they do not have a history of successfully grasping new
concepts. For both types of student, a lack of detailed feedback can be detrimental to the learning
process resulting in lack of knowledge acquisition and lower morale. Zimmerman & Bandura
(1992) found that students who think that they their efforts will lead to a solid academic
performance are more likely to perform well than their peers with lower academic self-efficacy.
In terms of dissent, students who believe they are ill-equipped may not articulate their
displeasure. Likewise, students who believe they are equipped, but in fact are not, may engage in
unproductive or disloyal dissent and suffer negative personal or social consequences.
Conclusion
In looking at the educational outcomes of schooling through the lenses of Emile
Durkheim, John Dewey, and Harry Brighouse, I explored and critiqued the educational outcomes
produced by schools regarding adolescent student development in the areas of self-efficacy, civic

participation, and dissent. Upon a thorough review, I contend that there is enormous societal
benefit gained in helping students understand the importance of dissent. By not only having an
understanding of dissent, but also through practicing the skill of dissent, students will develop
self-efficacy and thus be more confident, effective and appropriate dissenters in the future.
The compulsory nature of public schooling makes schools an ideal location to enact
change and promote a better society. One way in which society is changed is through the efforts
of people who participate in deliberative discussion and loyal dissent. Although the concept of
creating a better society is still very subjective, a better society is one in which all members are
encouraged and supported in their desire to lead flourishing lives (Brighouse, 2006). Even with
everyone seeking flourishing lives, the multifaceted and pluralistic nature of our society
regularly results in moral and ethical conflicts. In some cases, the resolution of these conflicts
results in an underrepresented, though morally superior, perspective being overlooked or
purposely ignored. Acts of loyal and ethical dissent are necessary in order to continue the pursuit
of liberty and justice and should be encouraged (Sunstein, 2003; Stitizlein; 2014; Shifferin,
1999). Ensuring that students are well-versed in the purpose of dissent and have high levels of
self-efficacy regarding their ability to dissent sustains our democracy and provides a firm
foundation for a progressive and productive future.

References
Anderson, G.L (2009). Advocacy leadership: Toward a post-reform agenda in education. New
York. Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 521-26.
Brighouse, H. (2006). On Education: Thinking in action. New York, New York. Routledge.
Craig, M. T. B. (2014). Leveraging the power of loyal dissent in the US Army. Military Review.
Delpit, L. D. (2006). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York:
New Press.
Dewey, J. (2011). Education and Democracy. Simon and Brown.
Eisner, E.W (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school
programs (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hirsch, E.D. (1987). Cultural Literacy: What Every American Should Know. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Jackson, P. W. (1990). Life in classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kiran-Esen, B. (2012). Analyzing peer pressure and self-efficacy expectations among
adolescents. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 40(8), 1301–1309.
Shiffrin, S. H. (1999). Dissent, injustice, and the meanings of America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Stitzlein, S. M. (2014). Teaching for dissent: Citizenship education and political activism.
Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Why societies need dissent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wexler, P. (2009). Social theory in education. New York: Peter Lang.
Young, M.I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ. Princeton
University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic
attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational
Research Journal, 29(3), 663–676.

Educational Outcomes and Adolescent Development

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Educational Outcomes and Adolescent Development

Similar to Educational Outcomes and Adolescent Development (15)

Educational Outcomes and Adolescent Development