Educational models and opportunities in the United States reflect and embody national issues of socio-economic power and mobility and are influenced as well by how the United States perceives itself in the international arena. When internal discord related to the diversity in American society comes to the forefront of national attention, the focus in education is on how best to manage that diversity When the United States perceives itself in or on the verge of international threat or weakness, the focus in education shifts to how best to reposition the United States to reestablish its power.

While both these national and international frames of reference lead to the construction of educational models which facilitate and restrict educational opportunities, both responses to international threat and to national issues of socioeconomic power and mobility are played out in relation to a fairly consistent socio-political hierarchy of power, privilege and access within which people are positioned. Where individuals are located in the hierarchy depends on who they are (defined by race, class, gender, etc.), what role they are playing (professor, parent, teacher, student, etc.) and in what context (university public school, alternative school, etc.). Those at the top of the hierarchy those who generally hold most of the positions of power in schools and constitute the hegemonic culture in society tend to be professional, white, upper-middle class and male.

As the group in power, those at the top of this hierarchy tend to embrace a model of education whose aim is the maintenance of the status quo through the standardization, deculturalization, acculturation and stratification of a diverse population. Based on a conservative, deterministic, right-wing perspective held by current educational theorists such as E.D. Hirsch, the goal of this model is the maintenance of schooling in the United States in the image constructed by the culture of power, and Social Darwinism is its extreme. Most public schools and many mainstream private schools tend towards this model in more or less subtle attempts to keep the existing socio-political hierarchy intact.

In opposition to and in ongoing tension with the conservative model is a model of education committed to challenging the status quo through critical analysis of society and the striving for equity social justice and the empowerment of all US citizens. Based on constructivism, which assumes that knowledge and understanding must be built between and among people and ideas in context and thus vary across people, times and places, this progressive, left-wing model has been advocated by educational theorists such as John Dewey and cultural relativism is its extreme. Some public schools, some private schools and most alternative educational programs tend towards this model in an attempt to challenge the status quo and facilitate educational access and opportunity to a wider range of people in the socio-political hierarchy Furthermore, measures such as affirmative action and the educational projects of special interest groups (see education: values and beliefs) are also attempts to work against socio-economic inequities which have become institutionalized.

At the height of the Cold War, education in the United States focused on standardization and the production of students who could compete in the global economy The most significant world event following the Second World War that had a profound and lasting effect on education in the United States was the launching of Sputnik in 1957.

This event prompted fears that the Soviet Union was surpassing the United States socially economically and militarily partially through better preparation of students in the sciences and mathematics. In response, education was catapulted onto the national agenda, and there was an increase in spending of federal monies on education. The National Defense Education Act loans (1958) were created to support pre-college curriculum revision and college attendance for a broadening middle class. The aim was to produce a more highly educated citizenry as a bulwark against communism, a residual from the McCarthy era in the early 1950s, and other international threats. Education during this time focused on traditional subjects and conservative approaches to teaching them, thus reflecting an educational model focused on developing a uniform and unified, goal-directed curriculum which would better prepare students in math and the sciences.

At times of greater internal conflict, issues of diversity and access within the country become foregrounded. So, for instance, with some of the social and political resistance and fragmentation of the 1960s—the civil rights and antiwar movements, widespread challenges to institutional authority the free speech and women’s liberation movements—calls for a more inclusive curriculum and a more critical perspective influenced the schools. At the same time, legislation such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) provided money to school districts for curriculum materials and resources and buildings—money allocated based on enrollment levels and degree of need (towards urban and rural areas), with increasing support for poorer districts. Efforts to educate a wider band of the population also included open enrollment (1968–70) at community colleges.

The 1970s saw the rise of what was known as a back-to-basics movement. In 1983 publication of a report called A Nation At Risk again raised fears that the United States wasn’t competing well enough with Japan and West Germany and its world standing and standard of living were in jeopardy. Concerns for educational reform became an increasing focus and national agenda item. In the mid-1980s, John Goodlad (A Place Called School, 1984) offered system-wide and structural critiques of schools and suggestions for reform, whereas Theodore Sizer (Horace’s School, 1984) created a fictional character who epitomized what schooling should be and argued for more authentic, progressive, teacher-supported, participatory active critical thinking, and the empowerment of teachers and students.

The tension between conservative models of education to maintain the status quo and progressive, critical models aimed at addressing diverse needs and offering greater access continued to inform the debates about education and society in the 1980s and 1990s. In these decades it became more explicit that educational models and opportunities reflect and embody national issues of socioeconomic power and mobility. Although location of individuals in the socio-political hierarchy of power and access in the United States depends in part on who they are and their positions, the United States is a meritocracy and there is a rhetorical commitment to educational access and opportunity which suggests that anyone who has the will and tenacity can improve his or her position in society. Like other versions of the American dream, public education is free and available to all, and therefore, according to the rhetoric, what one achieves is directly proportional to how hard one works.

Generally ascension of the socio-political hierarchy requires the successful completion of time and coursework in, degrees conferred by and performances defined by legitimate educational institutions and the accompanying acquisition and appropriation of the values, knowledge, language and behaviors of the dominant culture. If one successfully negotiates this set of hurdles one may earn the right either to reinforce or to criticize and attempt to change existing educational structures and practices and, by extension, the socio-political status quo. However, critics suggest that there is only a surface commitment to equal opportunity democracy and social justice, and they raise questions about whether this is really the American educational agenda. They ask who actually gets access and opportunity and support, and at what cost. These are questions most relevant to those who do not belong to the culture of power, who argue that there are costs associated both with remaining in their positions and with attempts to reposition themselves. Some, such as Richard Rodriguez, argue that to succeed in school and society one has to conform to the status quo and adopt the values of the dominant culture and, in doing so, abandon one’s home culture. Others such as Lisa Delpit (Other People’s Children, 1985) suggest that one can maintain one’s own cultural identity and appropriate the discourses and practices necessary for success in school and society.

In the 1990s, there have been, on the one hand, national attempts at standardization, such as the Bush administration’s call for national standards (Goals 2000)—standards by which all students would be measured—and the Clinton administration’s argument that all children have a right to quality education, but that education should look like and be tested according to conservative and standardized testing. On the other hand, there has been a proliferation of educational options both within and outside the public-school system, reflecting a growing dissatisfaction with any single, standardized model.

The various educational models and opportunities which exist in the United States, then, are emphasized or ignored in response to attitudes towards diverse peoples and their educational needs, particular interests within national boundaries and by perceptions of waxing and waning international threats. Individuals and groups must strive with greater or lesser degrees of support to negotiate the American educational system.