What do you think?
Rate this book
Class Dismissed: Why We Cannot Teach or Learn Our Way Out of Inequality
In Class Dismissed, John Marsh debunks a myth cherished by journalists, politicians, and economists: that growing poverty and inequality in the United States can be solved through education. Using sophisticated analysis combined with personal experience in the classroom, Marsh not only shows that education has little impact on poverty and inequality, but that our mistaken beliefs actively shape the way we structure our schools and what we teach in them.
Rather than focus attention on the hierarchy of jobs and power—where most jobs require relatively little education, and the poor enjoy very little political power—money is funneled into educational endeavors that ultimately do nothing to challenge established social structures, and in fact reinforce them. And when educational programs prove ineffective at reducing inequality, the ones whom these programs were intended to help end up blaming themselves. Marsh’s struggle to grasp the connection between education, poverty, and inequality is both powerful and poignant.
Rather than focus attention on the hierarchy of jobs and power—where most jobs require relatively little education, and the poor enjoy very little political power—money is funneled into educational endeavors that ultimately do nothing to challenge established social structures, and in fact reinforce them. And when educational programs prove ineffective at reducing inequality, the ones whom these programs were intended to help end up blaming themselves. Marsh’s struggle to grasp the connection between education, poverty, and inequality is both powerful and poignant.
328 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 2011
10 people are currently reading
289 people want to read
About the author
John Marsh
5 books2 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
John Marsh is assistant professor of English at Penn State University. In addition to many articles and reviews, he is the author of You Work Tomorrow: An Anthology of American Labor Poetry, 1929-1941, which won the Tillie Olsen Award for Creative Writing.
John Marsh is assistant professor of English at Penn State University. In addition to many articles and reviews, he is the author of You Work Tomorrow: An Anthology of American Labor Poetry, 1929-1941, which won the Tillie Olsen Award for Creative Writing.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
October 31, 2019
"It gives an educator no pleasure to present the materials in this volume"—Ivar Berg, Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery
What seems to be a consistent statement from politicians, journalists and many educational leaders is that the way to change the world is through education. Education has traditionally been seen as "the great equalizer" but as Marsh points out, there is a wider gap than ever between the rich and the poor, so we know that schools have NOT in fact made the country more equal. Sure, it is quite possible (though less likely because of the massive crisis in student debt) that college graduates will make more money than high school graduates, but given the cost of higher ed, and the crisis in the trades (schools have become almost exclusively college prep institutions for EVERYONE, so no one is encouraged to become an electrician or auto mechanic), this is no loner guaranteed.
I have been a teacher all of my life but learned early on that schooling as an institution is largely a sorting mechanism for the reproduction of society (see work by Bourdieu, Passeron, and so on), though I know there are terrific individual schools everywhere with revolutionary/social justice foundations, and there are terrific individual teachers in every school that do wonders with their students. I have never thought schools would save society; I think learning can be an amazing thing, of course, though that doesn't have to happen in school.
So, I never believed that we could "teach and learn our way out of inequality," but I like Marsh's feisty, provocative and entertaining book that takes on one of the central beliefs in this society.
What seems to be a consistent statement from politicians, journalists and many educational leaders is that the way to change the world is through education. Education has traditionally been seen as "the great equalizer" but as Marsh points out, there is a wider gap than ever between the rich and the poor, so we know that schools have NOT in fact made the country more equal. Sure, it is quite possible (though less likely because of the massive crisis in student debt) that college graduates will make more money than high school graduates, but given the cost of higher ed, and the crisis in the trades (schools have become almost exclusively college prep institutions for EVERYONE, so no one is encouraged to become an electrician or auto mechanic), this is no loner guaranteed.
I have been a teacher all of my life but learned early on that schooling as an institution is largely a sorting mechanism for the reproduction of society (see work by Bourdieu, Passeron, and so on), though I know there are terrific individual schools everywhere with revolutionary/social justice foundations, and there are terrific individual teachers in every school that do wonders with their students. I have never thought schools would save society; I think learning can be an amazing thing, of course, though that doesn't have to happen in school.
So, I never believed that we could "teach and learn our way out of inequality," but I like Marsh's feisty, provocative and entertaining book that takes on one of the central beliefs in this society.
May 20, 2017
Overall a valid point, but a bit disorganized and confusing to read.
July 4, 2013
This is a disquieting read, especially for those who staunchly believe that more and better education is the best way to reduce poverty and inequality in this country. Poverty and inequality are high in this country, especially the latter, as Marsh illustrates through several charts. Marsh illustrates the importance of reducing inequality in a country- not just for the poor, but the community as a whole. Marsh is college educated, and teaches at the University of Illinois. Education has an important place, but it's place as an equalizer has been grossly exaggerated. Indeed, Marsh illustrates through examples and charts that the connection between greater education and greater equality is tenuous at best. The far bigger predictor of a child's success? How much money is in the parent's bank account. Money, especially in the country, matters. Another reason is that the largest growth sectors also pay low wages. I think one of the best sentences that sums this up: "A Waitress with a B.A. still hustles for tips." Marsh paints a convincing argument about education only having a marginal impact on inequality and poverty, through several charts and citations. The book, despite a lot of math, is pretty easy to follow but the message is only now beginning to catch on (this was published in 2011, and knowing what I do about publishing, was probably compiled at least two years before that). But it's not going to sit well with many, who, as marsh points out, want to see justice: anyone can succeed if they try hard enough. Unfortunately, in this day and age that is simply not true. Cynically (and the author brings this up as well), the converse argument is that if someone is poor, they must not have taken advantages of their opportunities, or had enough schooling, or didn't try hard enough. In other words, blame the victim. The solution to inequality and poverty are the same that increased equality and reduced unemployment and poverty in the late 1940s to early 1970s: unionized labor that could leverage the worker interest with employers, and higher wages. Again, education has a place- but using education rather than raising incomes as an equalizer is, at best, putting the cart before the horse. This will be an interesting challenge, given the general anti-union sentiments and technological advances which are replacing a lot of jobs, shrinking the number of jobs available while the labor pool increases.
July 28, 2025
well written. fundamental problem is capitalism and greedy corporations. points were repeated far too often near the end dragging it out but the point still stands. companies and governments need to be paying all workers well to afford good lives. a nurse is more important than a finance bro, yet one is more rewarded with a better life than the other. injustice comes in the form of capitalism.
May 19, 2012
Marsh believes (and dutifully backs his thing up) that there is no silver bullet to alleviating poverty. No one movement can restructure a person's economic class, but the popularity of the education movement among the white and the wealthy undeniable. Marsh answers important questions like: Is the goal of education to alleviate poverty? If not, is this how we should be focusing public money? Does higher quality education help alleviate poverty? If not, what does?
The fact is that education does not help to alleviate poverty. John Marsh cites that economic inequality in the United States does not come from a lack of education- but from dozens of economic and political factors that are structured to keep the poor in the lowest classes despite what education they receive. "European countries achieve their famously lower poverty rates not because they practice a gentler kind of capitalism, but because they offer far more generous- and in some cases, simply more numerous- social programs aimed at the poor and unemployed. In addition to more worker-friendly labor market policies... European countries devote nearly twice as much of the GDP to social spending than the United States." The key is to give someone who is hungry a sandwich, not a protractor. Give someone who is sick a doctor, not a textbook. Seems logical enough.
In short, this book argues that it is critical to increase social spending, provide tax incentives to the private sector to increase worker pay and assist in establishing unions in order to alleviate poverty. There will always be work for the unskilled workforce- but that work needs to be dignified and fairly compensated. Marsh doesn't let us believe that this is a raceless struggle, either- anyone versed in American inequality knows the impoverished are far more likely to be minorities than whites. And the idea that a poor person ought to "learn" or "earn" their way out of poverty is addressed as a deeply classist notion of the privileged, with which I couldn't agree more.
James Agee calls the fictional silver bullet of education "dangerous talk"- which "is dangerous because by wrong assignment of causes it persuades that the 'cure' is possible through means which in fact would have little effect save to delude the saviors into the comfortable idea that nothing more needed doing, or even looking into."
The fact is that education does not help to alleviate poverty. John Marsh cites that economic inequality in the United States does not come from a lack of education- but from dozens of economic and political factors that are structured to keep the poor in the lowest classes despite what education they receive. "European countries achieve their famously lower poverty rates not because they practice a gentler kind of capitalism, but because they offer far more generous- and in some cases, simply more numerous- social programs aimed at the poor and unemployed. In addition to more worker-friendly labor market policies... European countries devote nearly twice as much of the GDP to social spending than the United States." The key is to give someone who is hungry a sandwich, not a protractor. Give someone who is sick a doctor, not a textbook. Seems logical enough.
In short, this book argues that it is critical to increase social spending, provide tax incentives to the private sector to increase worker pay and assist in establishing unions in order to alleviate poverty. There will always be work for the unskilled workforce- but that work needs to be dignified and fairly compensated. Marsh doesn't let us believe that this is a raceless struggle, either- anyone versed in American inequality knows the impoverished are far more likely to be minorities than whites. And the idea that a poor person ought to "learn" or "earn" their way out of poverty is addressed as a deeply classist notion of the privileged, with which I couldn't agree more.
James Agee calls the fictional silver bullet of education "dangerous talk"- which "is dangerous because by wrong assignment of causes it persuades that the 'cure' is possible through means which in fact would have little effect save to delude the saviors into the comfortable idea that nothing more needed doing, or even looking into."
October 12, 2015
Too many students going: Charles Murray
US has overinvested in higher education: Richard Vedder
More young people should enter trades rather than go to college (Murray, Vedder, and Crawford)
Since college teaches few useful job skills, signals to employers that graduates are hard-working and conformist (all of the above)
“The advice we offer every halfway intelligent young person with a pulse – go to college – is not, I argue, counsel we can offer a whole generation of people . . . . An is (“education pays”) is an ought (everyone ought to get an education). Some people may escape poverty [wage] incomes through education, but a problem arises when education becomes the only escape route from tehse conditions – because the road will very quickly become bottlenecked” (19).
The economy will continue to produce more jobs that do not require a college degree than jobs that do (20). Education will not make those jobs pay more than they do, “a PhD working as a bartender earns bartender wages, not a professor’s salary. What will make those bartending and other unskilled jobs pay something closer to a living wage – if not a living wage itself – constitutes, to my mind, one of the major public policy challenges of the twenty-first century. Education, however, is not the answer” (20).
History of how education came to dominate conversations about opportunity “involves the eclipse, by education, of other ways Americans once imagined they might get ahead. The history also involves the eclipse, by economics, of other purposes Americans once imagined for education” (21).
Americans believe we can teach and learn our way out of inquality because of our “primal and somewhat naïve desire to believe in a just world, to believe that people get what they deserve . . . [also] suffer from an inability to imagine or recognize any other way into the middle class than they one they took, college” (21).
“A good deal of evidence suggests that . . . only by first decreasing inequality and poverty might we then improve educational outcomes” (22).
Some argue that US poverty is not that bad, but “in 2003 someone in 12.9 percent of US households needed to go to a doctor but could not; 7[x]% of these households reported not having enough food; 13 percent could not pay their rent or mortgage on time. And 21.5 percent failed to pay utility bills on time” (41).
Impacts of poverty:
US has overinvested in higher education: Richard Vedder
More young people should enter trades rather than go to college (Murray, Vedder, and Crawford)
Since college teaches few useful job skills, signals to employers that graduates are hard-working and conformist (all of the above)
“The advice we offer every halfway intelligent young person with a pulse – go to college – is not, I argue, counsel we can offer a whole generation of people . . . . An is (“education pays”) is an ought (everyone ought to get an education). Some people may escape poverty [wage] incomes through education, but a problem arises when education becomes the only escape route from tehse conditions – because the road will very quickly become bottlenecked” (19).
The economy will continue to produce more jobs that do not require a college degree than jobs that do (20). Education will not make those jobs pay more than they do, “a PhD working as a bartender earns bartender wages, not a professor’s salary. What will make those bartending and other unskilled jobs pay something closer to a living wage – if not a living wage itself – constitutes, to my mind, one of the major public policy challenges of the twenty-first century. Education, however, is not the answer” (20).
History of how education came to dominate conversations about opportunity “involves the eclipse, by education, of other ways Americans once imagined they might get ahead. The history also involves the eclipse, by economics, of other purposes Americans once imagined for education” (21).
Americans believe we can teach and learn our way out of inquality because of our “primal and somewhat naïve desire to believe in a just world, to believe that people get what they deserve . . . [also] suffer from an inability to imagine or recognize any other way into the middle class than they one they took, college” (21).
“A good deal of evidence suggests that . . . only by first decreasing inequality and poverty might we then improve educational outcomes” (22).
Some argue that US poverty is not that bad, but “in 2003 someone in 12.9 percent of US households needed to go to a doctor but could not; 7[x]% of these households reported not having enough food; 13 percent could not pay their rent or mortgage on time. And 21.5 percent failed to pay utility bills on time” (41).
Impacts of poverty:
March 9, 2013
The American view of higher education as a panacea for poverty and social inequality is nothing new, but as Marsh demonstrates using history and economic research, it does not turn out that way and he demonstrates effectively, without getting bogged down in technical jargon, that it does not even work in theory. In fact, the gospel of education is an example of supply-side economics that even took in some liberals (such as Robert Reich in the 1990s, though his views appear to have evolved).
This view of education is not only a symptom of popular supply-side economic theory, but also a psychological desire to believe that the world is just and the playing field more or less level, so that people's fates are entirely the result of their personal choices. Thus, access to higher ed is more preferable than other policies that would provide tangible economic benefits, such as direct job creation or support for those unable to find work. "No doles," as LBJ said.
With evident sadness, rooted in his academic career and aspirations, Marsh takes apart the notion that higher education alone will lift more than a few out of poverty or reduce social stratification. He then addresses the systemic causes of inequality and the political obstacles to making them happen.
This view of education is not only a symptom of popular supply-side economic theory, but also a psychological desire to believe that the world is just and the playing field more or less level, so that people's fates are entirely the result of their personal choices. Thus, access to higher ed is more preferable than other policies that would provide tangible economic benefits, such as direct job creation or support for those unable to find work. "No doles," as LBJ said.
With evident sadness, rooted in his academic career and aspirations, Marsh takes apart the notion that higher education alone will lift more than a few out of poverty or reduce social stratification. He then addresses the systemic causes of inequality and the political obstacles to making them happen.
March 6, 2013
This was an interesting book, takes a different look at the educational establishment. Not as hard hitting as I wanted it to be, after all, this book was written by an academic. His major point to me, is simply that education can't do what it's being sold to us as doing, which is alleviating poverty and serving as a great equalizer. That's not true from what the author writes and he even goes a step further fostering the notion that maybe education is being used as a smoke screen to shift attention away from the real reason of poverty, that being poor and stagnant wages. Makes sense to me, I've always viewed our economic problems as labor and redistribution of wealth issues and he seems to agree in the end. Education is yet another siren song.
August 27, 2015
The only feasible poverty ending solution in the USA is to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Phew! Spoiler alert! How does the USA achieve that? Well, labour organization is a good place to start. But before the States can successfully organize labour, lobbying anti-union business owners need to butt out and allow employees the freedom to form and/or join unions to fight for greater pay and benefits. Not only that, but greater labour representation can tear the government away from indirect solutions to economic inequality, such as increasing access to higher education, but actually enacting plans that will redistribute wealth, such as a progressive taxation. Importantly, education should be viewed as an end in itself and not as a means of greater economic attainment.
June 7, 2021
This book ought to be required reading for anyone pursuing education.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews