Having gone to public school all my life (until this year) I can say that I understand what Gatto sees in the public school system. However, I disagree with his assertion that that what it accomplishes is problematic. School’s function of training good (obedient/civilized) citizens is not evil, instead it is necessary for a functioning society. Not everyone can be a leader or a revolutionary. If that were the case, the structure of society would fall—and with it the standard of living and people’s peace of mind. I also find fault with Gatto’s claim that one of school’s main functions is to brainwash students to consume more and more. I think this is a classic logical fallacy—just because generations before public schooling consumed less than today does not mean that schooling caused this change. Instead, it is more likely that free education increased the productivity and the incomes of later generations, and their consumption grew to match these. I also found Gatto’s references to George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln as leaders who “were not products of a school system” quite misleading. Gatto’s claim implies that these leaders would have been harmed by participating in a school system, however, given all that they accomplished, I find it unlikely that schooling would stand in their way. If schooling increases the standard of living of those that it supposedly “brainwashes,” and allows those who would have been leaders with or without the schooling to think independently—what is left to fear?

Gatto’s article addresses his belief that schools are in essence laboratories, turning young, fresh minded individuals into conformists. In todays educational system, students are being controlled by curriculums that are of no interest, and in certain circumstances, of no use to them. Even still, their lack of enthusiasm and inherent boredom is deemed as their own fault. Not the fault of the teachers, the administrators, or the publishers, but the fault of the young individuals attempting to learn something about the world. Gatto delves deeper into his claim that the school system “divides children by subject, by age grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means…” (36). My junior year, I had the opportunity to tutor students and be a teacher’s assistant in underfunded and underprivileged schools in different parts of Seattle. My two years there were some of the most eye opening, yet heartbreaking moments of my high school experience. Boredom was rampant, and it was apparent that many of the students wanted to be anywhere but locked in a classroom for six hours. As I began reaching out to students and learning about their lives, I came to understand that many were serious about bettering their education, but they came from troubled pasts- criminal records, bad grades, failed classes ect… As Gatto mentions, they were held back due the “evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records” (36). Therefore, no matter how badly these students wanted to turn around their situation, opportunities were closed to them because of their failed classes or previous bad grades. In addition, the students were taught to conform, not to try to achieve something outside their comfort zone. As Gatto discusses in “the differentiating function”, they were discouraged from achieving, it was all about “doing just enough”. In today’s society, it is shocking to see the lack of critical analysis done in schools, as we are now, more than ever, susceptible to believing external forces. Propaganda and marketing companies are omnipresent, and by not teaching our kids to truly think for themselves, they are like “a herd of mindless consumers…. left like sitting ducks for…. marketing” (37). Like many aspects of society, education is a business. Publishers compete for book releases, and educational boards are always convincing schools to adopt their curriculums. This, combined with corruption/subjectivity within the educational system excludes and disempowers a large group of people. Is it possible to create an educational system that encompasses everyone, and all their diversity, or will a certain group always be disadvantaged and excluded?

I agree with Keith that Gatto perhaps underestimates or ignores the benefits of high schools to strengthen his own arguments. It is true that certain students, especially those who made it to Williams, are exposed to “grown-up material” but I guess Gatto’s claim is more about the way that they are exposed to it rather than the exposure itself. I liked how Keith analyzed the various functions of school that Gatto lays out, especially in relation to Williams. Although I agree that Williams can be part of the system that fulfills the differentiating, selective, and propaedeutic functions, I would argue that it does have tools to fight some of those functions.

Having gone through the school system for the last twelve years, I feel inclined to defend the “system,” because accepting Gatto’s arguments against schooling would mean that I am merely a dumb, dependent child instead of an independent adult. However, I do see some truth in his essay, based on my experience in the meritocratic school system. The competition among students for grades, various awards, and distinction does divide them and breed the “trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear” (Gatto 38). Moreover, the assessment of study material rewards those who simply regurgitate information and punishes those who challenge existing knowledge or authority. In this way, schools produce kids happy to take in information as it is given to them, without questioning or processing it. I think, or at least would like to believe that institutions like Williams try to combat these effects of school. Its seminars and tutorials foster critical thinking and discussion. The lecture classes are more akin to the system, but perhaps they are necessary to enable participation in thoughtful discussion.  Our class is certainly far from Gatto’s idea of school because it encourages me to challenge traditional notions of politics and even the professor, the supposed authority figure. More importantly, it does not have any mindless assessments. Further proof is that Williams and our class would not allow students to read this essay if they wanted to reinforce Gatto’s claims.

The purpose of the American school system as presented by Gatto is one premised on making the general populace more manageable is an idea that I had heard before as a criticism for the American school system. While I do agree with many of the points made by Gatto, I feel like he fails to give adequate means of replacing and improving upon the current system and fails to outline an effective way in which parents can counteract the effects of school on their children. While he suggests alternatives like private school and homeschooling, which may not entirely conform to the current system, they still share many similar qualities and without proper oversight can take advantage of students and their families as seen in the Charter school movement within Chicago. Gatto also fails to address the concrete ways in which he would reform the current school system. While he mentions the development of certain traits such as free thinking, inquisitiveness, maturity, he leaves it up to the parents to combat a system in which they have already been inculcated and teach values to their children that they may have never been taught themselves. Additionally, the solution presented by Gatto of having the parents counteract what the school system teaches their children becomes problematic for low-income and single parent families who don’t always have the time or resources to engage in the activities Gatto suggests. So while I think the ideas presented in this article are important I believe that he fails to provide adequate solutions for the problem, especially among low-income students that suffer the most from such a system.

I agree with Alexandra’s comments on the public education system and its impact on equality. One often forgets to look outside of their bubble; I always assumed that Algebra was a standard course that everyone would take around the United States regardless of the structure of a school system. Standardization allows those who would never have had the opportunity to learn certain subject matter study in a generally supportive environment. The reality is that if left to explore their own methods of schooling, many parents and their children would not be able to or have the desire to properly study algebra. At the same time, however, standardization limits the ability of the individual to exceed and excel in the educational system. For those able to learn at a faster rate than the norm, equality in the public education system is a hinderance to academic growth. While I agree that switching to a positive viewpoint helps one view conformity as equality, it is merely a viewpoint. One’s perspective doesn’t alter reality; the education system in the United States has massive flaws. Overall, I agree that equality in public schools is not a bad thing, but if the system were altered to allow the individual to excel while still holding others to a standard, forced education would be much better.

In his 2003 Harper’s Magazine article, former teacher and author John Taylor Gatto asserts that public schooling in the United States is meant to be boring, repetitious, and often meaningless to, as he quotes from H.L Mencken, “‘breed and train a standardized citizenry’” (qtd. in Gatto 35). Gatto further describes this phenomena as the “conformity function” that has the “intention…to make all children as alike as possible” (36). I believe that this neutral assertion is correct. As Gatto indicates, coming out of primary and secondary schooling American children are expected to have a certain level of education in core subjects of Math, History, Science, and English–in this sense, every citizen is standardized on some level through the education system. Gatto, however, takes this concept of standardization and views it through a decidedly negative lense. Standardization of education, he writes, creates an “ignorant mass of mankind,” (36) that is unable to think “critically and independently” (38). And yet, standardization of public education was hailed as a hallmark of American progressiveness when it was first became mandatory in Massachusetts in 1852. Public education is also a symbol of unity and equality (although that can be contended) across the country. For example, the vast majority of American high schoolers have taken Algebra I, no matter where they are from or their socio-economic status (quality of the course, however, may not be equal). It is an amazing thing to think when you are struggling through a concept that every other teenager is or will go through the same experience. This is the equality of standardization: it can be a beautiful thing that allows students to have some understanding of each other. All in all, a simple switch from a negative to a positive viewpoint changes the fearful concept of conformity to one of equality.