John Gatto

I am a self described geek. Please recognize this before reading further, and if you must, skip this post and try again another day.

I've been reading articles and watching You Tube videos by John Gatto. He's the ex-teacher that thinks compulsory schools should be eliminated. The guy is fascinating to me and I find his take on history compelling. BUT I don't agree with everthing he has to say. Here is my analysis and editorial.

Remember I am a geek. I do this becuase it amuses me. So skip it if you must.

Gatto is a Libertarian. He makes John McCain look like a member of the Green Party. His political views are extreme and I think that's important to remember when we listen to his interpretation of history. I think it is wise to be cautious of anything that leans too far to the right or the left.

Here is where I agree. Gatto proposes that the modern rendition of public schools began at the turn of the last century. It was heavily influenced by 2 things:

1-The Prussian model of social engineering based on getting kids into school young and training them to conform to state held beliefs. (think Marxism and and the SS - Kindergarten means growning children in a garden and implies "pruning" by the state)

2-The Industrial Revolution and the advent of the assembly line. Mass production at minimal cost.

Both of these suppositions are well documented in history. While Gatto draws some radical conclusions his understanding of history is pretty good.

The assumptions at work within this public school model are telling:

First, to believe that we can clump kids together by age and bump them from class to class at the ringing of a bell implies that kids are basically all the same. They learn at roughly the same rate using the same methods.

This may be true in a very general sense, but there are many kids who don't fall within this "normal pattern for learning". Any child who falls outside of the model of a typical child (whether gifted or challenged) will struggle to some degree with the system.

Secondly, assembly lines produce the same results. Turn the cog, push the button, lift the part and Ta-Da you've got a prefect replica of the thing produced two seconds earlier on the same assembly line. Public schools produce (generally speaking) Ford Taurus educations. They are functional and economical, but they are not Lexus educations, or Honda Hybrids, even. They lack power. They aren't particularly robust. There is little space for beauty or innovation. You get what you get, because your child is on the assembly line. Public schools may produce good workers, but they do not necessarily produce good euntrepeneurs, and innovators.

(Please hear what I am not saying. I am not saying that public schools produce Taurus quality kids. When parents are still actively parenting their kids they can do much with a run of the mill eduation. They can still recognize the unique gifts and talents of their own children and coach their children to excellence. But schools aren't equipt to do this )

In the throws of modernity it was important for the prosperity of the country that schools produce good, compliant workers - workers trained in following instructions and filling in the blanks. And aside from the fact that this philosophy sees kids as future "human resources" to be managed and manipulated, there is another problem.

The Industrial Revolution has passed.

We live in a post-modern information age. Our "Human Resources" need to be innovative, and quick problem solvers. They need to know how to collaborate and explore the boundaries. Traditionally, public schools are not equipt to teach these skills.

Change is on the horizon though.

Parents have more options than ever before. Charter schools are administrated by a parental board of directors. This puts the power in the hands of the people raising kids. They get to influence the values and culture of a school - they get to determine (at least to a degree) what their children will learn.

There are public virtual schools popping up all over. These schools provide parents the tools and curriculum they need to teach their kids while still allowing parents to raise their kids in an environment of their own making. Kids can learn without being stratisfied by age.

(When you think about it schools devided by age are really a bizzare construct within culture. No where else in society do we put 20 people of the same age together to perform the same tasks. We benefit from being surronded by people who are older and younger than us. We grow and stretch as we learn to collaborate with people who are different. )

Also, there are OPTIONS programs like my kids are in that allow my kids the opportunity to make friends and participate in classes that are difficult to teach to 1 or 2 kids at home - like say, PE or orchestra. But in limiting classes to one day a week this,again, puts the bulk of the responsibility on parents for directing their child's education.

Then there are schools like the ones that Bill and Melinda Gates are establishing that encourage innovation, responsibility and excellence.

Okay, I'm starting to bore myself. But my point is that just because public schools were built on some faulty premises doesn't mean that we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. All ready people on the cutting edge are competing to create options for parents who are looking to partner with schools to equip their kids. It's when we begin to see school as a surogate parent that things get ugly. Children need to be parented- not necessarily schooled. Training, discipline and eduation is the responsiblity of the parent and when the state begins to usurp that role through schools there is a problem. Yes, the state can, and should provide tools, but parents must drive the education of their children. Or else we end up with a Nazi Germany on our hands...