The purpose and origins of public education

[anonymous122511]

The purpose and origins of public education - John Gatto

I'd never heard of John Gatto but his ideas are interesting. Comments?

[fdeck]

My computer has no audio, but I googled the guy:

John Taylor Gatto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[uethanian]

never heard of the guy, but i gotta say i agree with him. the notion that our american brand of compulsory education creates an educated populace is a lie. if anything, it's purpose is to contain adolescents so regular society doesn't have to "deal" with them until they're of age. elementary school definitely does some good in laying down a reading/mathematics foundation, but it's sort of downhill from there in terms of learning efficiency and practical applicability of what you learn.

EDIT: no offense intended towards any educators here. i am all for education and am very much in support of teachers (like my mom!), but being recently out of all that i can say from firsthand experience that the system is totally screwed.

[hrodbert696]

Gatto is just one in a long line of critics of the public education system in the US, mostly with a pretty similar set of themes -- the regimentation, standardization, industrial character of the institution. The thing is that so far no one has come up with really deep-reaching, practical reforms.

I don't remember exactly where I came across it -- something I read in grad school -- but the nineteenth century bequeathed us a string of institutions on the same organizational model; a director, chosen for his high education and expertise manages a staff of professionals who in turn manage a large body of people who are organized into a highly classified and ranked set of divisions. The factory, the prison, the hospital, the asylum, and the public school all operate on the same basic model.

[Jazz Ad]

Unlike public education, private education never has a bias or agenda and teaches students to think with a free mind?
Ok.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

Unlike public education, private education never has a bias or agenda and teaches students to think with a free mind?
Ok.

If that's what he's saying (can't watch it, at work), I call BS to the greatest order.

I know a lot of people who have gone through private education. Private schools thrive on having the best marks, the teachers teach the kids to pass exams. Worknig with people from private schools tends to be a massive PITA because they cannot deal with real work and need someone to hold their hand through everything . . . /rant

[T-Bird]

Hi.

A few thoughts about that lecture from the "30 year veteran of the government educational system".

#1 I'd give him about 5 minutes until everyone in the room was fast asleep. As bad a lecturer as they come. Perfect for insomniacs camp though.

#2 while he's correct in some areas, he's clearly concentrating on favourable eras to his agenda, dismissing the IMHO more relevant ones.

#3 Sounds like his campaign is only relevant in US, at least over here things are a bit different.

Regards
Sam

[Against Will]

He's not wrong in some of his assertions, but this is the kind of polemicism that certain ideologies latch onto as an excuse to gut public education programs without actually trying to address the problems he outlines and leave people who would otherwise send their children to public schools for an education blowing in the wind.

People with money will always get their kids an education, not because they value it (though many probably do) but because education is a class signifier and as such will be the gateway into many sectors of society. You don't go to an Ivy League school because the education you'll receive is so much better than you would at say, a state school (though Ivies would like you to believe that) its because Ivies are an elite network that can put you in touch with elite people and gain access to certain social stratas. Gatto, at least in this video, doesn't acknowledge this.

[kesslari]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

If that's what he's saying (can't watch it, at work), I call BS to the greatest order.

I know a lot of people who have gone through private education. Private schools thrive on having the best marks, the teachers teach the kids to pass exams. Worknig with people from private schools tends to be a massive PITA because they cannot deal with real work and need someone to hold their hand through everything . . . /rant

That's not what he's saying (that private schools are better).
John Gatto is worth reading, whether or not you agree with him. He definitely makes a strong case for homeschooling - but check out WHAT he says before you disagree with "what he might be saying".

Very interesting cat with a lot of excellent ideas.

[pie_man_25]

Originally Posted by T-Bird

#1 I'd give him about 5 minutes until everyone in the room was fast asleep. As bad a lecturer as they come. Perfect for insomniacs camp though.

+1, this lecture is completely dry, he seems to know exactly how many high school teachers give their lessons.

Originally Posted by uethanian

no offense intended towards any educators here. i am all for education and am very much in support of teachers (like my AUNT!), but being recently out of all that i can say from firsthand experience that the system is totally screwed.

also +1, though slightly edited. I've had the idea that school was more about regurgitation of facts and obedience to orders for a while now, it's basically taking a mass-produced factory mentality and applying this concept to people - of course, IMO and IME.

[bassman03]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

If that's what he's saying (can't watch it, at work), I call BS to the greatest order.

I know a lot of people who have gone through private education. Private schools thrive on having the best marks, the teachers teach the kids to pass exams. Worknig with people from private schools tends to be a massive PITA because they cannot deal with real work and need someone to hold their hand through everything . . . /rant

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I know of many people (and see this myself to a certain degree) that have worked with people from public school that can't handle things in the real world because they aren't used to anything strenuous that they need to get done or being forced to really have something done on time to a certain quality to please a superior. Again, not trying to argue, but there are two sides to it, and I'm not saying that this is true for everyone who goes through a public school system.

I do see where you could see that for your second statement, but as for your first statement that it's just teachers teaching students to pass an exam, that's where I'd call BS on your argument.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by kesslari

That's not what he's saying (that private schools are better).
John Gatto is worth reading, whether or not you agree with him. He definitely makes a strong case for homeschooling - but check out WHAT he says before you disagree with "what he might be saying".

Very interesting cat with a lot of excellent ideas.

As I disclaimed at the start of my post, I haven't had a chance to, but I was disagreeing on the point that private schools are better (regardless of if he made the point or not, many people seem to believe this).

Interested in his ideas on home schooling, because that always strikes me as a "seems like a good idea" but in reality, is just a stinking pile of . . . Because you'll still end up trying to meet standards set by someone, which is what has led to the current education system being as it is (driven by exam skills and surface learning, not useful knowledge/deep learning). Plus you have a hoard of other downsides in social terms, when it comes to home schooling.

On saying that all tho, someone I was talking to today was talking about her kid's last sports day in primary school (~ages 5-12), and how it seems to be "everyone's a winner" these days. Be it academically or physically, schools seem to have stepped away from competing to get the best students, to a nice squishy gray mass where everyone is equal, /rant.

Originally Posted by bassman03

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I know of many people (and see this myself to a certain degree) that have worked with people from public school that can't handle things in the real world because they aren't used to anything strenuous that they need to get done or being forced to really have something done on time to a certain quality to please a superior. Again, not trying to argue, but there are two sides to it, and I'm not saying that this is true for everyone who goes through a public school system.

I do see where you could see that for your second statement, but as for your first statement that it's just teachers teaching students to pass an exam, that's where I'd call BS on your argument.

I'm going by how it is over here.

You've struck upon what I was trying to get at. Yes, some people from public schools can't handle strenuous environments, but they tended to not stick in and not work for themselves. In public school you need to do a lot more work for yourself to get the grades, things aren't handed to you on a plate. In private schools, even those who don't have the drive to stick in will get decent grades, and get the qualifications to get into jobs which have strenuous environments.

That could be in part due to my experiences, (lets be honest, that is where we all get our sides of the argument here) where the higher ups thought it would be a great experiment to have a class mixed with the highest scoring pupils and the lowest scoring pupils (so that the mean results worked out). All that meant was if you were a higher scoring pupil, you got next to no assistance from teachers. Would that happen in a private school? Over here, never. By comparison, you are taken through school hand in hand with a teacher.

Will also add that these experiences are from working alongside people who have come out of private schools as well as running Advanced Higher projects (in the form of experimental projects, Advanced Highers are the top grade of class a pupil can undertake, and generally only in the final year of high school) to pupils from various public and private schools. Pupils from public schools have been coming in well prepared, having read up on the subject they would be looking into and having a basic understanding of the priciples and what they were going to use to gain results and prove various effects. Private school kids were coming in with little to no background reading, no understanding of basic principles or how to approach the problems and were unable to sit and try to figure out things by themselves. The public school kids were able to get in and out with the results they needed in 5-7 hours. Private schools were taking twice as many slots to get similar data sets from similar experiments (and using much more of my and my associates time), one school took a total of 26 hours (and it is regarded is one of the best private schools in the country)

We had ~20 different schools this year, and we've run this for a few years.

[bassman03]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

I'm going by how it is over here.

You've struck upon what I was trying to get at. Yes, some people from public schools can't handle strenuous environments, but they tended to not stick in and not work for themselves. In public school you need to do a lot more work for yourself to get the grades, things aren't handed to you on a plate. In private schools, even those who don't have the drive to stick in will get decent grades, and get the qualifications to get into jobs which have strenuous environments.

That could be in part due to my experiences, (lets be honest, that is where we all get our sides of the argument here) where the higher ups thought it would be a great experiment to have a class mixed with the highest scoring pupils and the lowest scoring pupils (so that the mean results worked out). All that meant was if you were a higher scoring pupil, you got next to no assistance from teachers. Would that happen in a private school? Over here, never. By comparison, you are taken through school hand in hand with a teacher.

I did realize that after I posted that you're in Scotland, which I'm sure does make a whole world difference.

[nocontrols]

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

Unlike public education, private education never has a bias or agenda and teaches students to think with a free mind?
Ok.

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

If that's what he's saying (can't watch it, at work), I call BS to the greatest order.

I know a lot of people who have gone through private education. Private schools thrive on having the best marks, the teachers teach the kids to pass exams. Worknig with people from private schools tends to be a massive PITA because they cannot deal with real work and need someone to hold their hand through everything . . . /rant

Originally Posted by Against Will

He's not wrong in some of his assertions, but this is the kind of polemicism that certain ideologies latch onto as an excuse to gut public education programs without actually trying to address the problems he outlines and leave people who would otherwise send their children to public schools for an education blowing in the wind.

Truth. It's undeniably flawed but I always take arguments against public education with a grain of salt because I see bias and I know the goal of private schools is usually pretty far from altruism and the edification of society. I also know a lot of upper class people who are clueless about the realities of life and don't seem very "educated" to me.

[MJ5150]

You get out of any educational program what you put into it. In my opinion, too many people seem to think if they enroll in a program, then show up for class that the teacher/professor is going to make them smart just by sitting in the classroom, by osmosis I guess.

-Mike

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by Against Will

You don't go to an Ivy League school because the education you'll receive is so much better than you would at say, a state school (though Ivies would like you to believe that) its because Ivies are an elite network that can put you in touch with elite people and gain access to certain social stratas.

I've been through the state higher education system for all of my post-secondary education life. Speaking anecdotally, I asked my grad assistant supervisor, who is a Yale and Cornell grad, if there was a big difference between Ivy Leagues and state universities. He said there definitely is. He told me that the small upper level of exceptional students at a state university is the norm at Ivy Leagues and the standards are much higher. I don't know if it's still true, but I know that at many of the more elite schools, students have to take comprehensive exams at the undergrad level the same way most graduate students do.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that students at a more "elite" university are getting a "better education" than students at a state university. I remember I got accepted into a Master's program at a highly regarded (and highly expensive) private university. I looked at the graduate catalog and saw I had a research methods course and a statistics course. I didn't think much about it, assuming they were ADVANCED research methods and ADVANCED statistics courses. For S&G, I decided to thumb through the undergrad catalog to see what the undergrad program of my discipline looked like. There were no research methods or stats courses for the undergrad, which were things I had in droves in my undergrad program. I would have been taking stuff I already knew at the graduate level that should have been taught at the undergrad level. There was no way any of the university's undergrads were going to jump straight into a doctoral program based upon thier undergrad curriculum. Perhaps it was a racket to have their undergrads go into the Master's program. Either way, I obviously declined my admissions invitation and went to a state university for my Master's.

But I definitely agree that elite schools foster cultural capital and give people a leg-up on name recognition alone.

Originally Posted by MJ5150

You get out of any educational program what you put into it. In my opinion, too many people seem to think if they enroll in a program, then show up for class that the teacher/professor is going to make them smart just by sitting in the classroom, by osmosis I guess.

+1

...though good teaching and cirriculum structure are still important.

[anonymous122511]

Originally Posted by kesslari

That's not what he's saying (that private schools are better).

What he actually says is that with the exception of a very few examples of elite private schools that private schools are part of the same system of forced schooling based on the Prussian model and serve the same purpose public schools. Don't confuse what he says about places like St. Paul's and Andover with what he thinks about the run of the mill private schools. Maybe not in the link I posted but he is quite clear on this in a couple of longer lectures on youtube.

John Gatto is worth reading, whether or not you agree with him. He definitely makes a strong case for homeschooling - but check out WHAT he says before you disagree with "what he might be saying".

This is so true. As I read many of the responses here it seems like people haven't spent any time really considering what Gatto is saying. In some cases unconsidered knee-jerk responses were made that completely ignore his main thesises. Then people respond to these and the thread is lost.

This thread isn't about the state of our school system. It's about the history and purpose of our school system and its direct descent from the Prussian system of forced schooling.

[fdeck]

I can't listen to Gatto's speeches, but I went to his website. What a crackpot. It seems like his main thesis is that compulsory public education was intended to turn children into obedient factory workers. He seems to offer no evidence save for making his hypotheses fit together in his own mind.

But when public education was introduced, the US already had a more efficient system in place to turn children into obedient factory workers: By sending them to work in factories, and to have obedience beaten into them.

If public education was a method of enslavement, why were blacks barred from attending school?

Political support for public education came, not from factory owners, but from the labor movement.

[jmattbassplaya]

I'll tell you what, you don't become a first world nation by having an uneducated populace.

[anonymous122511]

Originally Posted by fdeck

I can't listen to Gatto's speeches, but I went to his website. What a crackpot. It seems like his main thesis is that compulsory public education was intended to turn children into obedient factory workers. He seems to offer no evidence save for making his hypotheses fit together in his own mind.

It's too bad you haven't hooked up a gramophone to your coal fired computer yet. In his speech at Macalester College, St. Paul, MN. this year he sites a great deal of easily corroborated historical evidence for his claims. It's on youtube.

But when public education was introduced, the US already had a more efficient system in place to turn children into obedient factory workers: By sending them to work in factories, and to have obedience beaten into them.

Historically that hasn't worked long term. If people perceive they're being oppressed they will rebel. Plenty of evidence for this.

If public education was a method of enslavement, why were blacks barred from attending school?

Um, because they were already enslaved? You don't have to spend much effort to take away what an individual doesn't have. Even with emancipation many black people have had their freedom severely curtail by poverty and social prejudice.

Political support for public education came, not from factory owners, but from the labor movement.

You are dead wrong. It came from captains of industry like Carnegie and Ford and from government itself. They thought long and hard about it. These men never gave a dime away without getting a good return on the investment. Not that I expect you to carefully read much less give them open minded consideration here are a few very telling quotes:


"We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors educators poets or men of letters. we shall not search for the embryo of great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we have set before ourselves is very simple. We will organize children, and have them do things in a perfect way, the things that their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way."

-Rockefeller Education Board 1906


"Schools should be factories in which raw products are to be shaped and formed into finished products, manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry."

-Elward Cuberley, future Dean of Education at Stanford 1906


"99 students out of 100 are automata careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow prescribed custom. This is not an accident but a result of substantial education which scientifically defined is the subsumption of the individual."

William Tory Harris US Commissioner of Education from 1889 - 1906


"We want one class to have a liberal education, we want another class a very much larger class of necessity to forgo this privilege of a liberal education, and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."

Woodrow Wilson, then President of Princeton University 1909


"Teaching is one tenth as effective as training."

-Horus Mann, widely considered the "father" of public education in America