ncy examinations, and accountability systems (Oakes, p. 23, 1995). These policies cannot be successful because they assume that students enter schools with the same skills, interest in learning, and expectations from parents, schools, and society. In other words, only some students have what they need to achieve the state's goals for them. The fundamental problem is that like many that support the ideology of education as the great equalizer, state policies often erroneously interpret "equality" as treating everyone the same when, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "there is nothing so unequal as the equal (same) treatment of unequals" in society (B&S, p. 267, 1996). Accordingly, if education is to truly function as an equalizer, each student must be given what they most need in order to learn, even when this is not the same for everyone.The notion of who can learn infuses the ideology of education as a gatekeeper in its contrasting view that students' "abilities, motivation and aspiration are fixed attributes over which educators have little control" (Oakes, p. 10, 1995). In practice, this dictates a curriculum that accommodates, not cultivates a student's learning potential. As an example, racist notions of Blacks and Latinos as being incapable of challenging jobs has resulted in the widespread offerings of vocational and trades training in urban communities (Kozol, p.===1991). Overwhelmingly, since race and class are used as indicators for ability and motivation, Blacks and Latinos, as well as those for whom English is a second language, are often cheated of the best educational opportunities. These indicators influence curriculum decisions such as which ability-based tracks students will enter--decisions which correlate directly with the types of opportunities these students will have access to, in terms of college entrance and jobs, if they are tracked to graduate at all. (Oakes, p. 15, 1995). These practices are based on the...
