The obvious criticism of Gatto’s work is that he underestimates the sophistication of high school education – a fair number in this class were probably exposed to “grown-up material” even before starting at Williams. But I wonder if that doesn’t bolster his point about the segregative purpose of schooling (Gatto 38). It certainly seems to fit the “differentiating function” Gatto claims: students who can handle the material are advanced to the “class of persons” deserving of a liberal arts education by virtue of their acceptance to an elite college (Gatto 37). The schools that can provide the sophisticated material required to advance students to a place like Williams are, overwhelmingly, well-funded public schools and exclusive prep schools – in short, schools that serve rich people. While there are certainly students who have faced hardship before coming here, it is neither inaccurate nor unfair to say a considerable number of students come from backgrounds of affluence and advantage. Gatto’s “selective function” might not be as cruel as he makes it seem; it might simply be the elevation of the upper class to institutions where they can pair off and perpetuate both themselves and the system that privileges them, fulfilling the “propaedeutic function” of education by receiving training on how to control the stock market, the legal system, the education system (Gatto 37). I don’t know if this is the primary purpose of elite schools, but it is possibly a latent one, and any analysis of the education system needs to include an honest look at the institutions that are the ultimate aspiration for many of its participants.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The obvious criticism of Gatto’s work is that he underestimates the sophistication of high school education – a fair number in this class were probably exposed to “grown-up material” even before starting at Williams. But I wonder if that doesn’t … Continue reading