J.T. Gatto's "6 lessons"
Gatto's six lessons describe traditional schooling in an ironic manner, addressing issues like grading and strict hierarchies in school systems and robbing children of their individuality through institutionalized schooling. He expresses the main flaws of institutionalized schooling in his 6 lessons. His first lesson talks about obedience and attendance and how children are assigned to a class and must stay there regardless of weather or not they're actually learning anything or if that class is relevant to them. The second lesson talks about treating school like a state of mind and not a learning experience, the student "turns on" like a robot, takes notes, studies and repeats the next day. The third is about submission to the institution, the fourth talks about the students inability to choose their own curriculum. Lesson five and six talk about grading and surveillance respectively.
I agree mostly with the subtext of these lessons. Because they are written so ironically you can tell that J.T. Gatto means the exact opposite of these lessons. I agree that students should see school as a learning experience and choose curriculums that are relevant to their lives and that they should learn for the sake of learning and not just for grades or test scores etc. However school is also meant to teach obedience and behavior, in an ideal school system the students would be watched and taught to behave so that in the real world they'll conduct themselves properly and actually be able to get jobs and function in society, since obedience is a major part of the corporate world these lessons in behavior can't be ignored. I disagree with grading as well, but I have yet to see an alternative system that works on a large scale, it's difficult for colleges to interview every student who applies so grades are a must to see if students do their work, while a number isn't an exact representation of a student its logistically impossible for schools and businesses to get to know all their applicants personally.
Paulo Freire "Pedagogy of the Oppressed"
Pedagogy of the oppressed literally means, how the oppressed are taught. this text talks about how people are educated for oppression, from the day we're 3 years old in preschool to our college years, we're being bread to work for "the man". This is done through vague explanation of material and through obedience training. one example that Paulo Freire gives is how capitals are taught. "The capital of Para is Belem", the student knows the basic fact but they don't understand what a capital really is, and without that specific knowledge they can't really pursue a career in politics if they don't understand what a capital truly is and how their country is divided and why. The schools are designed to teach just enough that the students can get jobs and work for the rich people, but the lessons are so vague that the information learned can only be used used in a specific environment, the information can only be used as an employee, not the employer. This in turn creates less competition for businessmen who went to fancy, expensive schools and actually know what the information is and how to use it.
This model seems very convincing, however this system is mostly geared towards the education in South America (not to say it doesn't apply at all to the US), where there is less room for radical education and opportunity. In America it's possible to do well in school and get to go to good colleges that will teach the proper use of information. However this may just be my own personal narrow mindedness towards the way the majority of schools are set up in the US. In the south it's probably harder to get an alternative education and learn to use information learned in school to get a more successful career than a small business owner unless the student is born with connections and money.
Lisa Delpit "Power and Pedagogy"
Lisa Delpit talks about how black students don't do as well in school as white students do because they come from a slightly different culture than "the culture in power". "The culture in power" is the dominant culture of an institution or society. Most schools are based on middle to upper class cultures so the customs of lower class cultures are frowned upon, and students coming from these cultures have a lower rate of success. Because a large chunk of black students come from poverty they don;t belong to the culture of power, because of their culture they speak in ebonics and have a certain behavior representative of their culture. Having distinct cultural mannerisms is fine, but when it comes to getting a job or succeeding in school the student must emulate the mannerisms of the culture in power. Its hard for most black students to succeed in school because they talk in ebonics and harbor certain cultural traits that are frowned upon by the culture in power.
I agree with this theory, the way society is set up people from different cultures have to pretend to be a part of the culture in power. However this presents a problem, how do students succeed in school without losing their cultural heritage? If a black man speaks in proper english and wears a suit and tie and gets to work on time he's now an "oreo", black on the outside, white on the inside. The culture of power dynamic creates a binary opposition, white culture equals success and black culture equals failure. Because of the way society is set up it's impossible for black people to succeed in the business world without giving up their culture.
Interview with Mr Fanning
In the interview Mr Fanning gave his own personal philosophy on teaching and education. In the interview he said that "an education is the greatest gift you can get", indicating he has a very optimistic outlook on education. The goal of education is to "level out the playing field between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'" according to him. and using education as an equalizer he wants all of us to go to college eventually and become "life-long-learners".
I agree with Mr Fanning's goal and intent, however I don't think that every student will be able to accomplish this goal (I don't think he realistically thinks this either). Our school has an impressive college acceptance rate meaning that part of his goal is accomplished each year. However I don't think that every student will become a life-long-learner or have a passion for what they're learning, although some will in college or already have at SOF. The reason why students may not cultivate a passion for certain subject in SOF or in any school is because the subject is taught on its own. In my personal experience a concept or subject is far more interesting when it has relevance to the students life or when it connects to another subject. The reason why this is interesting is because the student gets to see that the subjects you learn in school are actually little pieces of a larger picture and that history and literature and math and science aren't gated off in their own separate domains, but that they're actually all connected to each other and to your own life and to the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment