In Orwell’s account, it seems that the Burmese have the power. As we have read  previously, it is the powerful that have the most to lose. Once Orwell takes on the role of superiority, he “wears a mask and his face grows to fit it”. When face and mask are one in the same, the powerful are nothing if the don’t live up to the persona that is feared by the populace. Orwell shot the elephant “solely to avoid looking a fool”, even adding that he was secretly against those who oppressed the Burmese. This situation highlights the humanity in politics and the ways in which people make difficult decisions to save face and to avoid the vulnerability of embarrassment. In Orwell’s story, it is the Burmese who are characterized like villains because of their interest in killing the elephant. More importantly, this story illustrates the power of the masses. Despite the political status quo, one can see that human behavior is fragile and manipulable, regardless of one’s standing in society. Though the imperialists and Orwell have the power of violence, it is ultimately the drive to instill the image of the imperialists readiness to inflict pain or assert power over others that triumphs in this piece. Ultimately, Orwell is regretful and empty.

In the odd anecdote about boredom that he uses to preface his argument, Gatto seems to hint that he believes in the capacity of children to take matters into their own hands and spend their time autonomously self-educating. This same concept re-emerges when he discusses the ways in which public schools, as opposed to homeschooling options, guide children away from their individuality. While public schools may not always encourage children to be fully unique, it is a dangerous assumption that children would be better off on their own.

I have never attended a traditional public school. In fact, I’ve only been to very small, unconventional schools, a private middle school and charter high school. One of the main things that I appreciated about middle school was the individual support that I received. I was encouraged to be myself, and at the same was given the materials and guidance to productively discover who I wanted to be. To this extent, I agree with Gatto in that public schools are faulty in regards to their lack of adequate individual attention. However, I don’t know that I would be at Williams today if my parents had decided that I should take matters into my own hands, or even that they should homeschool me. I feel that I am not just a productive of the encouragement that I was given as a middle schooler, but of the social and academic challenges that I would not have attempted had they not been presented to me in high school. Therefore, it seems to me that adult guidance and intellectual engagement are essential, in some capacity, to productive development, and, though they aren’t perfect, public schools provide a version of these things for many children who don’t have another option.

I completely agree with what you wrote, specifically to what your brother complained to you about with his math exam. I have a little brother who just started high school, and he is always complaining about how he’s “bored” or says something along the lines of, “why do I need to solve this problem the way teachers tell me”. I criticize that Gatto completely missed the point that you brought up in your response, when you refer to the good that public schools have done as well as their practicality, despite their many shortcomings. Gatto offers no real practical alternative to public school. I would have liked to see him give more thought into how we can improve the public school system because like you, I do not see why public school and creativity cannot exist together.

In responding to Keith, I’ll first state that I agree that the American system of education leads to different results for different people, and oftentimes that occurs along class lines. However, from my own experience and the experiences of my family members, I think calling it “segregated” is a bit strong. The term “segregation” implies a forced separation (i.e. children being selected into different education paths without consideration for their actions as students and human beings). This is something that we do not see in the American education system, at most we see an edge or a head-start given to students in wealthier districts—which is hardly a guarantee of getting into an elite college. Much more important in determining a student’s college future are their actions—their grades, test scores, extracurricular activities—all of which are under their control. To be clear, I agree that this tilted playing field is a problem, however the costs of government stepping in to fix it—in my opinion—are too high to justify.

As for the point of schools serving the wealthy, this is a necessary evil. In recent years, private colleges and prep schools have increased access to financial aid. This directly helps students from low-income backgrounds, who traditionally have been underrepresented in elite schools. However, it is important to note that the increase in financial aid is paid for by full tuition attendees (roughly half of Williams students for context) and contributions from alumni and others. The same, in theory, is true of public schools. In order to increase funding for education to benefit all, towns must attract wealthier residents. Spend too much, and your taxes might be too high, leading wealthier residents to leave. Spend too little, and despite low taxes your schools will probably be crumbling.

I completely agree with the idea that Ingrid is putting forward, that our society promotes material success over everything else. I think this i a combination of many factors, including the structure of certain schools and particular family values. While we should not undervalue the importance of a great job, we must realize that income is not solely the determinant of a job’s worth. At the same time, I think that our society does us a disservice by not allowing us to truly live in the moment. When I was in grade school, I was preparing for high school and then I was preparing for college. I think this mentality is harmful. When we are always gearing up for the next phase of our lives, we cannot fully take advantage of all of the resources available to us at the present. If we only have an eye out for our future, we will most likely not seek a new academic endeavor or join an intriguing club that perhaps do not directly pertain to our career goals. In fact, I firmly believe that if we do seek out many of these new endeavors, we will actually provide ourselves with a greater chance of success. With the ever-rising amount of cogs in the educational machine, we owe it to ourselves to start thinking and acting outside the box. If we expand our own horizons and truly focus on our academic and spiritual enrichments, we will become even better candidates for our dream jobs. We must savor the transformative years of our lives to maximize our happiness and reconfigure the societal construction of success.

I completely agree with your general argument that our public school system does not teach students how to think critically, and I particularly identify with your statement that children are “taught what, not how, to think.” Although there are of course exceptions to this generalization, students—whether they are writing an essay or solving a math problem—are often taught step-by-step methods in school, and it is not unheard of for students to lose points/credit for not following these methods to a tee. I think that this method of teaching has taken root primarily due to the pressures associated with our system of standardized testing; it’s role as a determinant of both teacher and student worth has fostered an environment in which teachers teach and students learn for the sake of achieving the highest grade, rather than for the sake of the advancement of knowledge and critical thinking skills. This style of teaching the masses is most certainly problematic, particularly when students move on to college and eventually to their professional careers where critical thinking and the formation of original thought becomes especially necessary. Not only that, but without the capacity for critical and original thinking—as you pointed out—people will be deprived of some of the most enriching aspects of the human experience.

– Emily Peckham

By analogizing it to “warehouses” and “social machines,” Gatto effectively diminishes schooling as a method for conformity and institutionalized practices. Honestly speaking, I can’t say I entirely disagree with Gatto’s assessment. As part of a select privileged few who are able to attend a prestigious college such as Williams, we may look back at our education and say that it was worthwhile, necessary, and beneficial. Even with Gatto’s criticisms in mind, I would say that now. But I would also that our education comes with a price: it comes with the price of only knowing how to act after we are familiar with the pre-established rules. Say, for example, that our Intro to Comparative Politics was taught as a lecture course. No raising of hands to express opinions, no anecdotes shared, no discussion. Simply facts and readings. What would the knowledge we gathered at the end of the semester look like then? I think it would look entirely different than what it will in a few months. When we aren’t allowed to engage with the material we learn, we process information differently. Even now I catch myself in the trap of using the word “allow.” But when everyone is so worried about acquiring a good grade, it certainly does feel like there is a system—within you; outside of you; somewhere—that holds power over you. In a world where schooling and meritocracy are of upmost importance, society teaches us to govern ourselves in a specific way.

What else, besides the current public school system, should serve as “a determinant of position/success within the social hierarchy”?

I agree with you and Gatto, our school system is not structured in the most productive and efficient way with the best interest of its students in mind, and I’m on your side in the claim that autonomy is not the answer and that some sort system is needed because this complex society would not function if everyone was left to govern their own education entirely. I think the solution, in an extremely broad sense, is a balance between autonomy and conformity. Young children do not have the diligence and motivation to hold themselves accountable for everything they should be learning. There needs to be a routine system in place that provides the authority and guidance these young children need to stay focused. At the same time, the current system is too repetitive and boring.

If students are going to have the autonomy Gatto thinks they deserve, someone needs to inform students on the different choices they have. How will a student know (s)he wants to study neuroscience if no one ever introduces him/her to that field of study? Additionally, I believe there are some very basic skills every citizen should know to be a productive member of society, like reading, multiplication, etc. In short, let’s keep some aspects of the current system but let each individual student have more of a say in what they get to learn. I think Williams is an appropriate example of this balance. There are certain classes we have to take to graduate so we are exposed to Language/Arts, Social Studies, and Science/Math, but we get to tailor extremely personal course paths for ourselves as we pursue the courses that we want to study. When are students responsible enough to make these decisions for themselves?