A long time ago I promised someone who emailed me that commented on my blog that I would write an entry that was something close to this. Tonight I had to write a paper for a class I am currently in. It fit the request enough to where I think I can kill two birds with one stone by posting it as a blog as well. Unfortunately, I was very pressed for time and I had to wrap it up kind of fast at the end, especially after I realized I was 3 pages over the suggested limit.
Should “Public” Schools Be Reformed?
When I first began college, I entered it with the intention of becoming a schoolteacher. Whether or not that was in a public school or a private school was still to be determined; although most universities education programs assume that you are going to be a public schoolteacher. As I was nearly done with my education degree, I began to seriously question the government school system that I was intending on immersing myself in. Then, one day, I came across an article late at night on the Internet by a gentleman that goes by the name of John Taylor Gatto. The title of the article was, “I Quit, I Think”. It was originally published in The Wall Street Journal in 1991 and served as Gatto’s public resignation from the government school system. It’s not a long article, but in the ten minutes or so that it took me to read it, my serious concerns about the school system turned into a serious reality. In less than a page long article, this man, who was a retired public schoolteacher of 30 years and two time winner of New York State’s “Teacher of the Year” award, managed to put to words every feeling and then some that I had ever had about the government school system.
Gatto states,
“I’ve taught public school for 26 years but I just can’t do it anymore. For years I asked the local school board and superintendent to let me teach a curriculum that doesn’t hurt kids, but they had other fish to fry. So I’m going to quit, I think.
I’ve come slowly to understand what it is I really teach: A curriculum of confusion, class position, arbitrary justice, vulgarity, rudeness, disrespect for privacy, indifference to quality, and utter dependency. I teach how to fit into a world I don’t want to live in.
I just can’t do it anymore. I can’t train children to wait to be told what to do; I can’t train people to drop what they are doing when a bell sounds; I can’t persuade children to feel some justice in their class placement when there isn’t any, and I can’t persuade children to believe teachers have valuable secrets they can acquire by becoming our disciples. That isn’t true.
Government schooling is the most radical adventure in history. It kills the family by monopolizing the best times of childhood and by teaching disrespect for home and parents.
An exaggeration? Hardly. Parents aren’t meant to participate in our form of schooling, rhetoric to the contrary. My orders as schoolteacher are to make children fit an animal training system, not to help each find his or her personal path.
The whole blueprint of school procedure is Egyptian, not Greek or Roman. It grows from the faith that human value is a scarce thing, represented symbolically by the narrow peak of a pyramid.
That idea passed into American history through the Puritans. It found its “scientific” presentation in the bell curve, along which talent supposedly apportions itself by some Iron Law of biology.
It’s a religious idea and school is its church. New York City hires me to be a priest. I offer rituals to keep heresy at bay. I provide documentation to justify the heavenly pyramid.
Socrates foresaw that if teaching became a formal profession something like this would happen. Professional interest is best served by making what is easy to do seem hard; by subordinating laity to priesthood. School has become too vital a jobs project, contract-giver and protector of the social order to allow itself to be “re-formed.” It has political allies to guard its marches.
That’s why reforms come and go-without changing much. Even reformers can’t imagine school much different.
David learns to read at age four; Rachel, at age nine: In normal development, when both are 13, you can’t tell which one learned first — the five-year spread means nothing at all. But in school I will label Rachel “learning disabled” and slow David down a bit, too.
For a paycheck, I adjust David to depend on me to tell him when to go and stop. He won’t outgrow that dependency. I identify Rachel as discount merchandise, “special education.” After a few months she’ll be locked into her place forever.
In 26 years of teaching rich kids and poor, I almost never met a “learning disabled” child; hardly every met a “gifted and talented” one, either. Like all school categories, these are sacred myths, created by the human imagination. They derive from questionable values we never examine because they preserve the temple of schooling.
That’s the secret behind short-answer tests, bells, uniform time blocks, age grading, standardization, and all the rest of the school religion punishing our nation.
There isn’t a right way to become educated; there are as many ways as fingerprints. We don’t need state-certified teachers to make education happen–that probably guarantees it won’t.
How much more evidence is necessary? Good schools don’t need more money or a longer year; they need real free-market choices, variety that speaks to every need and runs risks. We don’t need a national curriculum, or national testing either. Both initiatives arise from ignorance of how people learn, or deliberate indifference to it.
I can’t teach this way any longer. If you hear of a job where I don’t have to hurt kids to make a living, let me know. Come fall I’ll be looking for work, I think.”
After reading that article I had to read more about Gatto and his comments on the system. I immediately picked up his best-known work, titled, “Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling” and read it in a day. I couldn’t put it down. The next day, I quit the Education Department at the University of Central Florida and transferred to the Interdisciplinary Studies Department simply because it was the option that lost me the least amount of credit hours. I was completely disgusted by what we all refer to as the “public education system” and refused to be a part of it. I don’t even like to refer to it as the “public education system” anymore. After all, there is nothing all that public or educational about it. I call it what it is, government schooling.
Many people, especially my fellow future educators that I was leaving behind, believed my decision to be brash. They immediately got defensive about their future professions and started touting off about how they planned on “reforming” the system they so sedulously believed in, even if it was only within their own classrooms. I understood where they were coming from; I used to say the same things. I had a naïve optimism that said that I could change things, and do things differently in my own classroom and that it would work so wonderfully that it would spread to classrooms throughout the country. Lead by example, be the change you want to see, right? I was determined that learning would take place in my classroom and that the system would catch on to what I was doing right. Of course, in order to believe that the system is going to change according what is good for the children, you have to believe that the system is actually there for the good of the children. Unfortunately, so far, I haven’t seen any good evidence to show that this is the case.
Let’s take a quick glance at what we consider the “founders” of modern government schooling had to say about education:
“The children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society that is coming, where everyone would be interdependent.” – John Dewey (Educational philosopher and proponent of modern “public schools”)
“Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of man, – the balance-wheel of the social machinery.” – Horace Mann (considered the “father of public education”)
“Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening. The average American (should be) content with their humble role in life, because they’re not tempted to think about any other role.” –William T. Harris (Commissioner of Education U.S. 1889)
“Our schools are, in a sense, factories, in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned into products to meet the various demands of life. The specifications for manufacturing come from the demands of twentieth-century civilization, and it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down.” – Ellwood P. Cubberly (Dean of Education at Stanford from 1917-1933, considered a “pioneer” in the field of educational administration)
So where am I going with this? Am I suggesting that the system we put so much faith, so much money, and so much time in isn’t producing an enlightened population? That’s exactly what I am suggesting. In the very eloquent words of American author H. L. Mencken, “That erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence and make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to down dissent and originality.” At first glance, this claim may seem very heavy-handed and even dramatic. However, spend a day or two in any public school classroom in the country with this statement in mind, and the candor in it will be come unavoidable. Whether or not it is intentional, or unintentional, it is the reality of what the government schooling system produces. It produces equalized dependent consumers that do not know how to think or question. How does it do this? It does it by standardizing everything. It does it by compartmentalizing everything. It does it by taking everything out of context. It does it through public humiliation. It does it by grading, labeling, and packaging.
The government school system doesn’t even attempt to create an environment conducive to learning. The very nature of the classroom makes it nearly impossible to learn anything in context. Children are segregated from the rest of the world for 8 hours a day in the same room, with the same people, of the same age, the same social class, etc. Diversity is little to none. Where else in the real world do you find this type of environment? We cut children off from the rest of the world and then we attempt to teach them about the world.
Socrates once said that, “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” The current system we use most assuredly views education as the filling of a vessel. Children are required to memorize the facts that a small group of people, known as a school board, deems is necessary and good to know. Not only do they determine the information that is to be taught; they determine, to a great degree, how it is taught, when it is taught, and in what context it is taught. To make sure the filled vessel has sufficiently digested this information, the state pays large sums of money to testing companies to deliver what we call “standardized tests”. The passing or failing of these tests don’t actually have anything to do with measuring a persons intelligence. All it really does is measure whether or not a student is able to regurgitate the facts that the state wants him/her to memorize. What the state really wants to know is, “Has this student been standardized?”
The government schooling system tries to turn what is an incredibly individual journey into a collective endeavor. Proponents of the current system will try to say that this isn’t the case and that “good” teachers work very hard to tailor the curriculum to the needs of each child. I don’t doubt that well-meaning teacher’s do attempt to do this. What I doubt is the possibility of that happening to any significant degree. The very nature of classroom management doesn’t allow for it. There are specific amounts of time devoted to specific “subjects” and when the bell rings and your time is up, you are required to withdraw yourself from that learning experience whether or not you were ready to be done. Not only is this disastrous for education as it hijacks any lasting, beneficial learning experience, it’s a disastrous habit to teach children in general. To again use the words of Mr. Gatto, “By bells and many other similar techniques they (schools) teach that nothing is worth finishing. The gross error of this is progressive: if nothing is worth finishing then by extension nothing is worth starting either. Few children are so thick-skulled they miss the point.” Basically, government schools teach children not to engage in the truest form of education, self-education. Schools teach that you will be told what to start, how to start, when to start, and even when to stop. It doesn’t take long before children lose this skill themselves.
So, all of these points bring us to the original question of this paper, should “public schools” be reformed? We certainly hear those words, “education reform”, thrown around a lot during every election. Both the Republicans and the Democrats claim that they have the plan that is going to “save” the “public education” system. The problem is, save for a few politicians, nobody wants to talk about whether or not government schooling should be saved. We seem to automatically jump to the conclusion that we simply must do something to make the “public education” system “better”.
Why would anyone want this failing, disaster of a system to be not only “saved” but also be propped up even more by giving it more money? The reason is because we have been raised to believe that without the “public education” system, no one would know how to read or write, or add or subtract. The ironic part of all this, is that it is government schooling that has taught us to think this way to begin with. We’ve been tricked into believing that we need to save the very system that is failing us. In the words of Ivan Illich, “School is the advertising agency which makes you believe that you need the society as it is.” People simply cannot imagine how people would become “educated” without government schooling.
This kind of discussion leaves many people wondering, “So, what are we supposed to do about the public education system?” Should we reform it or get rid of government schooling altogether? The answer to this, of course, depends on several things including your personal beliefs on the existence of “public education” to begin with. Ideally it would be best for everyone if government stayed out of the business of trying to control and provide education for everyone. So far, the results haven’t been positive and I certainly wouldn’t say it has produced an “educated” society. However, most people realize that this isn’t going to happen overnight. At the very least, we need to have a serious discussion on whether or not we want to reform our current system instead of just blindly trying to “save” what we already have.