While I agree with Gatto’s general argument and recognize the deep structural flaws within our current public school system, particularly in its function as a determinant of position/success within the social hierarchy (36-37), my main issue with Gatto’s writing is his demonization of conformity and his proposition that autonomy is the best alternative to our current system. Gatto references conformity as a way for government to control the masses, to make people “as alike as possible” and “predictable” (36), and while it is certainly possible for conformity to be used this way, I do not think that conformity should be seen the enemy. After all, isn’t some level of conformity necessary for a complex society—especially one as large as we have today in America—to function?

At the end of his article, Gatto leaves us with the idea that we should simply “let [educated men and women] manage themselves” (38). This statement raises a couple of questions in my mind: to what extent should these educated men and women be allowed to manage themselves? Is it possible for a society in which everyone is completely self-governing to survive? In general, I do not think that it is possible.

– Emily Peckham

I think you make a great point, Cole. I’m disheartened by the effects of disproportionate funding to schools in a unified district; particularly geared towards schools susceptible to being attended by lower income students. The San Francisco Unified School district manifests the same problems you’ve observed in Chicago and has taken a tremendous toll on the caliber of public high schools in the city. I think it’s really important to pay attention to how external influences have played a role in influencing how money is spent in each district which reminds me of our class discussion last week when we talked about participation in the first dimension of power. I’m now curious about the ethicality of participating in a system upset the balance of our supposed egalitarian society to benefit one group of students while disaffecting the others.

Gatto unveils a critical flaw of the United States’ schooling system — the shortcoming that we are teaching our kids to think solely within the capacity of our mundane curriculum. We are teaching students to fall victim to the “virtual factories of childishness” (Gatto 34), meaning the bar set for students to challenge themselves to pursue higher level academic interests is low. Moreover, the curricula is rooted in the past and does not promote students to think about the challenges that will be faced in the future. The implementation of our school system, as Gatto points out, stems from Prussia. When the United States galvanized a movement to get American kids in school in the early 20th century officials turned to Prussia’s educational model. The result, while increasing the number of students attending schools across the country, were dismal. Children were thinking reflexively, not critically, meaning their brains weren’t being creatively challenged the way they should have been. The premise of this new system was to churn out students from public schools to be a manageable, mediocre populous to fit the mold of ordinary, mildly talented people. Another notion of Gatto’s I found interesting was that students are “receiving schooling”, but there is a stark contrast to “receiving school” and “getting an education” — the latter of which is more desirable because it encourages students to take their education into their own hands. Reading this article in the context of today’s placed importance on academics, it seems imperative that students take their studies and education into their own hands. Conformity is no longer the status quo many millennials and especially Generation Z adolescents want to partake in in society. Hailing from a city such as San Francisco, a place where innovation and eccentricity has become the forefront of technology, I cannot imagine an educational system that does not bring students up to recognize the importance of exploring their creativity.

I really like your take on the issue. I also find it difficult to say that the system should be replaced because I cannot think of another way to structure schooling. However, I do see ways in which schools could begin to prioritize or at least value creativity. In this way, one could begin to see value in schooling as a way to build on creativity. It seems that an approach like this one would satisfy the author and allow diverse paths to success. It seems that the largest flaw in education is that success equates to discipline and memorization skills. Ultimately, those who are successful are not dependent on these skills alone.

The last sentence of your post hits the nail on the head: so much of our schooling is focused solely on immediate (primarily economic) advancement, rather than the long-term development of students as scholars and people. I believe this also relates perfectly to Gatto’s point about the Prussian roots of our education system and the creation of a manageable populace.

Of note is historian Ellwood Cubberly’s comments about Horace Mann, who Gatto mentions as one of the early champions of this system of public education: “No one did more than he to establish in the minds of the American people the conception that education should be universal, non-sectarian, free, and that its aims should be social efficiency, civic virtue, and character, rather than mere learning or the advancement of education ends.” On the surface, these goals seem admirable, but the actual implementation of these ideas has contributed to the superficial, controlling schooling that we know today has led to the degradation of our public education system.