The second myth is that we have only one, unitary educational system that must be upgraded. This is wrong. The reality is that we have three. The first system serves the well to do and privileged, and a few exceptional students from the lower social classes. It is, by any standard, first-rate. This system helps its students learn to learn and to think independently and creatively, even to challenge accepted views, which is the route to invention, discovery, and informed leadership. The two other systems that serve the rest of the population are of lower quality. The second educational system provides basic skills and knowledge and helps its students to learn to learn, but does not encourage independent, creative thinking. It serves that large segment of the population that provides employees for the enormous middle tier of jobs in the country, including those who tend to work in offices, factories, hospitals, and shops where dependability and accuracy in performing routine tasks and the inclination to follow orders are requirements for successful performance. The second system also screens out exceptional students, who are elevated to the first system. The third system, which serves the urban and rural poor, is very much custodial in nature and thoroughly inadequate. It provides mostly rudimentary skills to children who have little reason to envision a bright future. Teaching takes place in settings that are often disruptive and not amenable to learning.

The author concludes this chapter with
The demands of the economy are usually the driving forces in societal decision-making. As this society functions, with an economy geared primarily to profit, there is no need for change. Whatever contributes to maintaining stability in the political-economic system, such as the schools for future business and political leaders, managers and professionals, gets abundant support from private and public funds and this support starts with early education. Whatever contributes little if anything toward that end--schools for the children of welfare recipients, unemployed, immigrants, the poor, homeless, and prisoners--gets very little private and public support. From the perspective of the well functioning of the economy, this policy makes perfect sense. From the perspective of the complete development and well functioning of all the people, this is a failed, inequitable, and inhumane policy. Later, you will see in greater detail that the history of education shows the tension between these two competing forces, as one or the other prevailed in federal and state decision-making. Mostly, economic motivation has prevailed.