I completely agree that the current school system is designed to dumb down people while providing jobs for teachers and administrators. This bullcrap about "Every child has a right to an education!" has got to go. We can't kick the bad students out of school because "they have a RIGHT TO AN EDUCATION!!!!!!!11111!!!!". So the teachers end up, under pressure from the administrators, teaching at the lowest level and passing everyone just to get rid of them.
From K-3, my education was relatively solid. Starting in 4th and 5th grade, they pressed "teaching to testing" standards on us, and once we entered middle school, they abandoned any premise of actually teaching the necessary skills to "teaching to pass the standardized testing". We never finished grammar past the elementary level (I still have no idea WTF a "past participle" is). The only reason I am literate is I read a LOT of books and thus can tell whether or not a sentence "sounds right".
The Teachers Unions need to go, we need to stop throwing money at the problem, and students need to be kicked out for bad behavior...but that will never happen. The American population will get progressively stupider generation by generation. And judging by the people I see on a daily basis, we've hit rock bottom and started to dig.
I imagine the official position is that education is a basic right because, without it, a citizen does not have as great a chance to be productive. Statistically, that is a near certainty that a person lacking a primary education will never move beyond manual labor positions (there are, of course, exceptions). So it ties into the idea that citizens have a right to the pursuit of happiness. On a logical cost-benefit level, requiring citizens to achieve some level of education is very beneficial, because it keeps them useful and increases the chances they will be productive dramatically.
I don't think you'll find many proponents of home-schooling who won't agree that that can be a problem for some families. But home-schooling families have a lot of ways to address that. Many home-school students are involved in school or church programs; classes, sports or other competitions, etc. Or, a group of home-schooling families might get together in a sort of support group.
I think this is another case, like the above, where we tend to have a stereotyped picture of the home school. We tend to think the students are just sitting around the kitchen table, with nothing but a few books, and Mom or Dad to teach them. But there are a whole host of curricula and lesson plans produced for the home schooling market, that help Mom and Dad to teach. And as mentioned above, it's not uncommon for home school students to receive outside help, or even take a few classes at an institutional school.
I think we actually agree on everything here. It comes back to my main point...if a parent is concerned about their children's education and development, there is a high likelihood that it will work out well. I just think that a good public school, overseen by a concerned and active parent, tends to work out very well.
Perhaps I should clarify.
Gatto's premise is that the schooling system as it stands now is designed to dumb-down the population, and that such is an intentional effect of the people that started the forced schooling trend 150 years ago. His claim is that becuase of the way the school system is set up, with all the layers of adminsitration, teachers unions, and such that have such a stake in maintaining the status quo make reform an exercise in futility. Therefore you need to either tear down the entire system and end the legal compulsion to attend school to return our education system to the kind that produced Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison (who'd have been a special ed kid today), etc, or (since that's not likely to happen any time soon) pull your kids from government schools and either put them into a private school that actually educates rather than just mirroring the public schools or homeschool.
I think you could argue that the*result* of current education is a dumbing down of citizens (although you could argue that point vigorously), but I don't see how you could show that the actual goal was ever to do so. I might just be talking semantics though, there may be no disagreement.
I would argue though that schools can be reformed...there are too many examples of schools that produce very productive, well-rounded students. But maybe his idea of what a person should be is not typical? What does an "ideal" citizen look like to Gatto, and how does that contrast with the "ideal" student of the public education system? That might clear up his ideas for those of us who do not follow his work.
A lot of people seem to think being "socially prepared" means learning to follow the rules and obey orders. Especially here in Israel where part of the purpose of school is to prepare kids for Army service [to the point that Ninth Grade preparing for the standard Army physical is part of the school PE curriculum).
If you think that being socially adjusted means wearing a suit and tie and being a good little drone, then I'd rather remain unadjusted.
I went to a private Christian school starting age 14, and I turned out all right. It cost $2000 a year too.
So what does an ideal citizen look like? I'm not giving you a hard time, I am just curious as to your viewpoint.
I don't think you disagree with his point...I just think you disagree with his terminology. I think it is accurate to say that the education process is about indoctrination, even if that is not a warm and fuzzy word. You are trying to align a child's world view and thought process to some particular outcome. zahc would probably be perfectly fine with someone saying, "the public school system is indoctrinating students to accept socialism", but he might resent the phrase, "religious education is nothing more than indoctrination". Both are accurate though, at the basic level. The outrage seems to pop up when the word is applied to things a person believes in. It is fine when applied to ideas a person does not approve of.
Having said that, indoctrination is a fairly loaded word, so I understand how it can ruffle feathers. "or for the parents own preferred brand of
thought" Now it means the exact same thing, but it goes down easier!
