I’m Not as Dumb as I Look
My response to Connor’s blog entry about a book by John Taylor Gatto. I originally planned to look at some of his work, but Connor’s highlight reel of one of his works makes me a little weary.
…we need to realize that the school institution “schools” very well, though it does not “educate” — that’s inherent in the design of the thing.
JTG
Um, how exactly is that?
I could learn if you stuck me in a pitch-black room and wrapped me in styrofoam. The ability to learn doesn’t come from the environment, it comes from within. If you’re going to make an argument that schools are less effective at the job, then fine, but don’t say it “doesn’t” because of the “design.”
Gatto is a proponent of open education, as I am. He favors situations and programs where children can learn from anybody, young and old, rather than a “licensed” teacher hired for the job.
Connor
Licensed teachers are often young and old :). I fail to see why students can’t learn as well from people trained to teach them. I also think it is completely unrealistic to expect small children (or teenagers, for that matter) to ask their “old and young” neighbors to teach them grammar or arithmetic.
Statements like these seem to infer that all “licensed” teachers must act like some sort of cold mercenaries. How exactly does a formal statement of someone’s teaching ability take away from… teaching ability? With all the glamor, fame, and money that is piled on teachers these days, I don’t see how his argument is really solvent. If anything, teachers are making a sacrifice to teach.
It is absurd and anti-life to be part of a system that compels you to sit in confinement with people of exactly the same age and social class. That system effectively cuts you off from the immense diversity of life and the synergy of variety; indeed, it cuts you off from your own past and future, sealing you in a continuous present much the same way television does.
JTG
Why?
First of all, I don’t know many public school classes that feature a single social class. Private schools, maybe so.
Secondly, if you think placing six year olds in the same class as ten year olds will work better, you’ve never taught either age group. Keeping children in relatively thin age groups allows you to tailor your curriculum to the children’s’ reading levels and attention spans.
This was once a land where every sane person knew how to build a shelter, grow food, and entertain one another. Now we have been rendered permanent children.
JTG
I think that land is about 300 years old. Dear Mister Gatto, welcome to the knowledge worker age.
Besides, what’s wrong with being forever young? ;)
I work as a specialist (programming, mostly), but I also play guitar, draw, dabble in electronics and play soccer. Many of my coworkers have similarly wide spectrums of interest. There’s no way I could do all those things if I was wasting my time building shelters or growing most of my own food. Specialization allows for people to do things at very low cost, and fosters trade.
Essentially, specialization allows for free time. Free time used well makes for more free time. You get the picture. I don’t think there’s anything with this setup stopping people from being renaissance men, and his own setup is actually what stops it.
That’s something I remember from my economics classes, for what it’s worth.
Finally, Mr. Gatto’s solution to the horrific monstrosity that is modern schools:
Encourage and underwrite experimentation; trust children and families to know what’s best for themselves; stop the segregation of children and the aged in walled compounds; involve everyone in every community in the education of the young: businesses, institutions, old people, whole families; look for local solutions and always accept a personal solution in place of a corporate one.
JTG
1. There’s no reason experimentation can’t be fostered in public schools, and was the case in many of my favorite classes growing up.
2. Well, there’s trusting families to know what’s best, but that’s different than allowing them to perform a specialized service for their children. I might as well argue that doctors don’t know enough about my childrens’ needs.
3. If you’ve ever had to substitute two primary classes and taken them outside, you’d know how effective this approach is. Age segregation allows for tailored teaching. This is especially important in younger classes. Secondly, walls are nice. They keep the cold out.
4.This was always the case in my high school growing up. I think it would be much harder in a homeschooling environment.
I think Mr. Gatto likes to use emotive words too much. Dear goodness: schools are walled in segregationalist compounds, where children are confined to be compelled with crazy sequences and constant surveillance. Please. If I can glean that much rhetoric from just a few isolated quotes, I hate to think about what the rest of the book contains.My own public school experience was great. I remember lots of things from my generals classes, mostly because I was committed to learning rather than rote memorization for performance on tests. I had excellent, inspiring teachers, some of whom taught me things that eclipsed my classwork in college. There’s no way my neighbors or parents would have the depth of knowledge these individuals did.
That isn’t to say that there weren’t busywork classes and teachers that didn’t care, but all in all, I’d do it all again without much hesitation. I also fail to see how neighbors and parents would fare better, given they have no direct supervision… and can’t get fired for doing a poor job. The balance seems to sway in favor of licensed teachers in general.
With all Gatto’s idealist rambling, he fails to offer any viable solution. Sure, public education isn’t perfect, and some classes fall prey to his criticisms, but his emotive stance and his wild claims don’t win him any credibility. I suspect his educational utopia, where barefoot children roam in mixed-age bands, seeking knowledge from the local gurus (while at the same time sharpening their shelter-building skills) won’t happen anytime soon.
This entry was posted on Monday, January 29th, 2007 at 4:22 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
The ability to learn doesn’t come from the environment, it comes from within.
Indeed, but when the environment contains within it certain characteristics that make it more difficult to study and learn, one would do best by removing him/herself from that environment. If I want to read a book, I’m much better able to do it in a quiet library rather than a football stadium. Certainly, one’s environment has an effect on the ability to focus, study, and learn.
I fail to see why students can’t learn as well from people trained to teach them.
Gatto’s point in this regard (well, one of them) is the detrimental homogenation of forcing kids of the same age into a classroom to be taught by a single person. The bell curve of abilities is often forced towards the middle, thus stifling the progression of the above average children and forcing more resources to be devoted to the “child left behind” to bring him/her up to par.
Need I bring up the example of Dr. Romney? :) I would much rather spend my time apprenticing in a business, attending other lectures, or working on projects of my own choosing than to be subjected to a class by a teacher like him (from what I heard).
You say that you gained quite a bit from your general education, but perhaps there were other students in your classes (like me) who would have learned much more by removing him/herself from that environment and finding other opportunities or circumstances to learn relevant material.
Gatto wrote that “only self-teaching has any lasting value.” I agree. You might have been more advanced than others in having fostered that personal desire to learn and gain additional knowledge, but I feel that many children do not fit the bill, and rather do their homework and fulfill their assignments because they are being forced to do so. Sadly, they’d rather play some Wii and watch TV than learn anything worthwhile.
Saying that everybody needs to learn what the state enforces stifles intellectual diversity and career creativity. I think this is the crux of Gatto’s stance.
The system is flawed, and the current methods of throwing more money at it and creating new standards and exams will not, in my opinion, solve anything. As Gatto writes: “More money and more people pumped into this sick institution will only make it sicker.”
As is evident from some of my previous posts, I know we differ quite a bit on our stance on public education. You raise some key issues, but I still feel that public education isn’t for everybody. That being said, neither is homeschooling or other forms of “alternative” education. Good thing we have the Holy Ghost, eh? That spirit of discernment sure works wonders…
January 29th @ 11:28 pmIndeed, but when the environment contains within it certain characteristics that make it more difficult to study and learn…
Right, but this isn’t what Gatto is saying. He’s saying that you can’t be educated in school because of the way it is designed. That seems a gross misstatement in my view.
If that were truly the case, you’d think someone would notice after the first 100 years or so.
Gatto’s point in this regard (well, one of them) is the detrimental homogenization of forcing kids of the same age into a classroom to be taught by a single person. The bell curve of abilities is often forced towards the middle…
So where does this pressure come from? If anything, from peer pressure, and mixing children in with older children is only going to make that worse (the older ones feel threatened by smart young ones).
Are there situations where I could have learned more being outside of school? Yes, I suppose so. How often does that happen? Rarely.
Dr. Romney was probably the single example of poor teaching in my stay at BYU. There is absolutely no way I could have gained the knowledge I now have any other way than by attending a university. Sitting in the room with someone who as studied physics, philosophy, geography or art most of their life is invaluable to me.
I’m not saying school is perfect, I’m saying its better. I’ll take the occasional Romney given the rest of the benefits, as there’s no match to the level of education I gained otherwise.
Referencing Dr. Romney as the example of a university education simply isn’t representative.
Saying that everybody needs to learn what the state enforces stifles intellectual diversity and career creativity. I think this is the crux of Gatto’s stance.
Interesting. This seems to me to lead to even tighter specialization in our culture. We’d be overloaded with people who can only do a narrow range of things: the things they like.
Translated, that looks to me to read that we are to learn all things religious, but even the natural sciences, astronomy, history, current events, domestic and foreign politics, law, geography..
I don’t think the state is expecting anything out of line. With the church’s recent focus on education, I don’t think God is as displeased with formal education as Mr. Gatto.
That spirit of discernment sure works wonders…
I’m not talking about what any particular person should do, I’m talking about Gatto’s views and what would work best in general.
January 30th @ 9:25 am