Competition is fundamentally about winning and losing. The basic premise behind competition is that there will be winners, losers, and inequality. Competition rejects the view that humans have equal rights and embraces a hierarchy in which some people are considered more worthy and deserving than others.
Competition, moreover, is not synonymous with excellence. If anything, it makes everyone a loser.
Does social Darwinism belong in the sphere of education in a modern society? Should students be treated as winners and losers? What message does this send to everyone?
Poaching students from this or that school in order to raise your own school enrollment is usually counterproductive and unethical. It is not a human-centered approach to students and education. The drive to compete replaces the drive to ensure quality across the board in such a setup. Winning, not quality, becomes the focus.
Among other things, when schools compete they have to invest a lot in PR and advertising, just like a business. This is money diverted from the classroom, from teaching and learning. Some charter schools, for example, spend millions of dollars on advertising and marketing. And the more aggressive an institution’s student recruitment practices, the more likely it is for K-12 schools and colleges to violate their institution’s values and mission. Instrumentalism and pragmatism take over all other considerations under such circumstances.
In many cases, competition compels schools to cut corners in various ways to appear attractive to prospective students; schools “sell” themselves in order to look appealing. Thus, schools sometimes cut program credits, lower standards, eliminate courses, reduce costs, dilute requirements, and invest in non-pedagogical endeavors to appeal to students (e.g., a shiny new cafeteria). They are pressured to make everything easier and faster to attract students. In this way, the lowest common denominator is pursued. The logic of “enroll here because we are ‘better’ than the school down the road” becomes normalized. Only winning counts.
Poaching students in an increasingly competitive environment also creates a churn mentality among K-12 and college students. It primes and prompts many to be ready to ditch a school or college whenever they want, creating turnover and retention problems in K-12 schools and colleges. A sense of “temporariness” is fostered. This, in turn, can undermine programming and stability in the K-12 and college environment.
In this whole setup, the buying-selling dynamic takes over everything. Schools stop focusing on how they can improve in an organic systemic way and focus instead on out-gaming and out-competing another school. This also pushes schools to embrace an entrepreneurial spirit and to treat students as consumers.
Further, when one school is pitted against another school, it undercuts collaboration, collegiality, and cooperation between schools. It increases hostility, resentment, and conflict. It undermines the sharing of valuable ideas and practices that can uplift everyone and produce collective growth. The pressure to treat education as a commodity instead of a social responsibility increases in such a situation.
Competing for students also gives rise to problematic notions of personalized learning. We often hear “school choice” and competition proponents say things like “every student deserves an education that fits them personally, that is tailored to their specific needs.” Logistically, how is this possible with hundreds, or thousands, of students? Which school has the resources, time, and wherewithal to ensure that each of the 300, 500, or more students in a school has a very individualized and personalized education plan that is monitored and implemented effectively? How feasible is such a thing, especially on a larger scale? And does this mean uniformity or common educational experiences are automatically undesirable or useless?
Ed Tech researcher Audrey Watters points out that personalized learning is closely linked to behaviorism and the automation of education. It usually means greater use of AI in the name of customizing and personalizing learning—a form of “cognitive surrender.” She says that automation and AI have little to do with pedagogy and more to do with profiteering. More AI means more money for technology corporations. Far from raising the level of education, AI has been shown by many to do the opposite. Students need teachers, not more digital devices. Silicon Valley does not belong in schools.
Education and students are not commodities. Society and education would not suffer if competition and consumerism disappeared today. People would still be active, motivated, productive, and successful, innovating and excelling in endless ways. It is indeed possible to meet the main needs of all humans at a high level without rivalry of any kind. Conscious collective human participation and planning that starts with the perspective of affirming the rights of all can replace winning, losing, and inequality.