Schooling in the United States of America has always been a hotly debated topic in politics. I have always had similar views as Gatto has in his article. Traditional schooling is filled with monotonous tasks that do not drive students to strive for a fuller understanding of the material they are studying. The incentives set by traditional school grading systems leave students looking for easy ways out, rather than truly learning and grasping the material. Cheating is a perfect example of the failings in traditional schooling. If schooling worked perfectly each student would strive to learn the material and complete assignments with an eagerness to learn. Instead, students risk the inevitably dire consequences that accompany cheating in order to quickly finish their work and receive a passable grade. Beyond cheating, students often look to just “get by” in many of their classes. Students desire to educate themselves in traditional schooling is blurred by the monotony of classes and inept grading systems. Despite this, I do understand you get the most out of the education system by putting the most work in. If you do not put any effort into your education you will leave schooling possibly worse off than before. But, if you actively take charge of your education, despite its failings, you can maybe reach your full potential.

Throughout this essay by John Gatto, I was looking to see what it is that he really wanted to say, and by the final few paragraphs it finally became clear. Yes, many of the points he makes about the origins of our school system are true, yet I was certain that his real gripe was something that many people whose careers are inextricably entwined with younger people feel: Why aren’t these youngsters are smart, enterprising, brave, (insert adjective here) as prior generations?! Gatto is not a brave school reformer, he’s just another grandpa claiming that his son isn’t as couragous because he didn’t fight in the great war. By ending his essay by railing against consumerism and comparing modern children to Ben Franklin, he’s giving up the game. Men like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were not the norm in the 1700’s. They made up the small elite of American society. In every age, for every Washington and Twain, there are millions of people who are dull, painfully average, and yes, bored. No amount of homeschooling and theology tutoring will change that. In this age of souless education systems, we still produce geniuses and inventors in public schools. The system may be designed for a  nefarious and specific purpose, that does not mean it succeeded. Lastly, on his point concerning the virtues of homeschooling: every homeschooled kid I ever knew was the least socially adjusted person in the room. I hope that’s merely unfortunate anecdotal evidence, otherwise Gatto’s dreamworld is a nightmare.

My having had little exposure to American public schools made it difficult to fully connect with John Taylor Gatto’s argument that “mandatory schooling’s purpose is to turn kids into servants (38).” However, quite naturally, I compared his views on the American institution of public education with the public education one receives in Norway. In turn, I found that I agreed with Gatto’s statement in respect to conformity and how “schools are to establish fixed habits of reactions to authority (36)”. This mindset isn’t exclusive to America—public schools in Norway seek to homogenize performance. In recent years, public education in Norway has been cutting programs and activities for gifted and creative students, forcing these students to pursue such interests outside of school on their own accord. Essentially, public schools in Norway have made a conscious effort to level the playing field for all students, attempting to standardize students and limit students that crave more. The result of “mediocre intellects (36)” isn’t as historically (or culturally) engrained as Gatto believes, but instead is a natural response to a lack of resources and funding. I, therefore, disagree with Gatto’s attempt to solve the crux of the issue by simply allowing a select few to avoid the “tricks and traps (38)” of the system. The system is supposed to identify the needs of the masses whilst providing an environment for every individual to thrive—how is it to progress if only a select few have the resources to advance?

-Christian Horn

A method of ranking and distinction is an essential piece of a meritocracy. In order for individuals to rise, to matriculate, to gain merit, there have to be people who don’t. That sounds grim, but Gatto’s essay is a bit idealized. He implies that if society rid mass schooling, and each child was homeschooled or self-educated (“managed themselves”), children would acquire leadership skills and critical insight—but nay. I think kids, especially nowadays, would sit at home and watch TV all day, and that would truly be “not growing up.” Ben Franklin, George Washington and crew—they are convenient outliers to Gatto’s argument: they are exceptional individuals who were (conveniently) not educated in a mass-schooling system.

This is not to say that the mass schooling system is messed up, because it sounds pretty messed up. There needs to be an emphasis on critical thinking in education—students do need to learn how to manage themselves, to think for themselves and problem solve. I think Williams does this exceptionally well. Williams promotes creative problem solving and demotes mundane task-oriented work (I think). This problem is indeed easier to solve in a small liberal arts college—a public school with 4,000 students is much different. It sounds like teaching methods need to change, but I don’t think required education needs to cease.

I agree with Atzin that Gatto fails to conclude his argument with a reasonable solution. Gatto’s suggestions of critical thinking, leadership, and serious study, are all wonderful goals, but they are ideals, as demonstrated by the fact that, ironically, they are the same goals that the current education system, the same system he criticizes, has in place. This irony is compounded by Gatto’s lack of a concrete solution. He mentions parents as the teachers and role models, but if the details are considered, his solution fails as it doesn’t take into account students from nontraditional families (such as single-parent families or foster children), students from socio-economic classes where parents don’t have the resources to educate their children, and students who need the social routines and order of school. To my great-grandparents who worked on family farms in rural Pennsylvania, school was a gift, a reprieve from home life and work. While mandatory schooling has changed the curiosity of school, many students look forward to the day, whether it is due to a hard home life or a simple love of learning. Gatto also forgets that school is not just traditional schooling. At risk of sounding cliché, school is about discovering yourself and who you want to be, whether that’s through academics, sports, the arts, or social life. The qualities he prioritizes can’t just be developed in any academic sense, whether that is traditional public school, home schooling, or parents as role models. Leadership, drive, inquisitiveness, and maturity are skills learned by action, and the education system provides an environment for those skills to develop, even if it does not actively show that through repetitious and boring academic work. In this way, the current education system may need to be re-evaluated and changed, but its positive aspects and similar ideals should be considered before the system is completely demolished.

When considering my scholastic career, I think I can count myself quite lucky in that I have always found a few teachers that were incredibly invested in my learning, in my academic development, and in my growth as a young kid. This personal experience has only made me more aware of the widespread tragedy of uninspired teaching and a greater system that suppresses creativity and personal thinking. However, I am not convinced that the vague solution Gatto proposes, to “Let them [educated men and women] manage themselves” is as complete as he hopes. Central to his argument is the theory that the current education system is a conforming and silencing force, exercised on one group by another. I just do not believe that a lack of a system altogether, with all the freedom and independence it promises, will effectively steer society away from this issue. Some structure is necessary; some stresses, pressures, and difficulties can be forming when exercised in the correct way. The crucial factor in this case, however, is a two-sided commitment (from teachers and students) to the challenges and responsibilities of education. Put simply, this ‘correct way’ needs to be one based in the promotion of that which makes every student unique, but equally capable of bringing out these valuable qualities.