David Labaree (1997), an educational historian, argued that there have been three overarching goals of public education in the United States since the inception of public education in the 1800’s: 1) democratic equality, 2) social efficiency, and 3) social mobility.

A democratic equality goal aims at educating an engaged citizenry capable of actively participating in a democratic society.

A social efficiency goal aims at educating young people to help the economic success of the country.

Finally, a social mobility goal aims at educating young people in order for people to “gain a competitive advantage in the struggle for competitive social positions” (p. 42).

Two of these goals—democratic equality and social efficiency—can be defined as public goods, or goods that benefit society as a whole; whereas the social mobility goal positions education as a private resource, or commodity.  Each of these goals, Labaree argued, tacitly guides the direction of public education policy.

At times, these three goals compete against the inherent aims of the other goals, i.e., public goods versus private goods. In some cases, such as social mobility, there are internal contradictions within a single goal’s overall aims. For example, families with higher socio-economic status tend to work to protect and ensure their children’s social status, which creates gatekeeping mechanisms to limit access to educational opportunities. However, families in lower socio-economic strata seek to expand equitable access to educational opportunities in order to help advance the economic and social well-being of their children. In either case, social mobility goals envision education as a private and limited resource.