I found this to be very crushing. If school really was invented for the sole purpose of creating a generation of unthinking worker drones, then this means that everything that we believe in - capitalism, the economies of scale, marketing - hinges on the creation of a dumb populace. We have no alternative to school, and John Gatto doesn't offer any other apart from the Amish and the Mondragon Cooperatives (and perhaps homeschooling) - both of them far cries from the economies of scale afforded to the capitalistic society.
On a related note, I find his description of an early America very interesting. He observes that you couldn't get many employees back in the day, before the Civil War - because they were all equally entrepreneurial - meaning that they'll only stick with you for a year or two before striking it out on their own. (Granted, they had slaves, but let's not go there).
It makes sense, really - and so I find it mildly ironic that things are coming full circle, what with today's growing trend in startups.
> If school really was invented for the sole purpose of creating a generation of unthinking worker drones, then this means that everything that we believe in - capitalism, the economies of scale, marketing - hinges on the creation of a dumb populace.
Actually, our system was originally created to produce unthinking worker drones. It's built directly on the Prussian education system:
"The Prussian education system was a system of mandatory education dating to the early 19th century. Parts of the Prussian education system have served as models for the education systems in a number of other countries, including Japan and the United States."
"Seeking to replace the controlling functions of the local aristocracy, the Prussian court attempted to instill social obedience in the citizens through indoctrination. Every individual had to become convinced, in the core of his being, that the King was just, his decisions always right, and the need for obedience paramount."
"The schools imposed an official language to the prejudice of ethnic groups living in Prussia. The purpose of the system was to instill loyalty to the Crown and to train young men for the military and the bureaucracy. As the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, a key influence on the system, said, "If you want to influence [the student] at all, you must do more than merely talk to him; you must fashion him, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will."
But - no, I firmly reject that the Prussian system with its heavy importance on obedience is necessary for a healthy society. I think if they announced today that they're going to dump the entire U.S. education system at the end of 2011, no transition, no new programs, nothing - a better system would emerge by 2012.
> He observes that you couldn't get many employees back in the day, before the Civil War - because they were all equally entrepreneurial - meaning that they'll only stick with you for a year or two before striking it out on their own.
People should move in and out of entrepreneurship and employment under others, based on what their preferences are at the time. The fact that starting your own business or working for yourself for a little while is seen as this huge deal in the States is a problem. People are in awe - "you run your own business? wow..." It shouldn't be such a big deal. You work for someone else if they've got a good thing going and you want to learn from them, or want more stability for a while. You save up some cash, and strike it on your own for a while. If you sell or close the business, maybe you get into working for someone else because you can make a meaningful contribution in their organization and the pace of work is slower and more enjoyable, or you want stability again. That's a more natural state of affairs. The current educational system with its focus on doing exactly what you're told to do is no good. We need something better.
"If school really was invented for the sole purpose of creating a generation of unthinking worker drones, then this means that everything that we believe in - capitalism, the economies of scale, marketing - hinges on the creation of a dumb populace."
No! It means that over a hundred years ago, people with attitudes we would today call fairly socialist, communist, or perhaps most likely fascist thought their success depended on the creation of a dumb populace. (Regardless of how successful they were and how that came from capitalism, they were very casually command-and-control people, with no belief that it could be any other way; exactly which style of command-and-control you ascribe to them hardly matters, really.) It does not prove they were correct.
Even today people commit the crime of thinking the next 20 years will be just like today, but people suffered from this problem even more so 100 years ago. No concept of an information or service economy, just factory drones forevermore into the future.
You can see this all over the literature; for one classic example see Brave New World.
"We have no alternative to school, ... far cries from the economies of scale afforded to the capitalistic society."
Self-directed learning with heavy computer involvement and individual tutoring follow-ups and check-ups without masses of children in lockstep. Serious re-thinks of the core curricula, which can only be described as inherited, not carefully-considered. The tech for this is currently rapidly developing, but we aren't there quite yet. But it'll be there long before society adjusts to the idea.
Interestingly, while schools have been out-of-step with what the economy needed for at least the last 30-40 years if Gatto is correct, it is arguable that we had no practical choice; there is no way that the sketch I provided above could have worked in 1980, the tech was simply not there no matter how much money you threw at it.
Yes, I am fully aware this is little more than a sketch. But this is just a HN comment, after all.
I'd also prescribe a healthy recognition of the fact that what matters is what sort of adult pops out, and not what stuff was "covered". The fact that geometry is in the curriculum is virtually irrelevant if effectively nobody remembers it when they are even 4 years out of school. A serious rethink should be based on this fact. Obviously, geometry is not critical to a society because regardless of how hard we cover it is school the citizenry in fact does not remember or understand it.
(Note: It is distinctly possible that when Marx claimed that capitalism would be dehumanizing and evil, that to the extent it was true, it was true because people read his works and figured if they weren't dehumanizing their workers they weren't doing it right. Was it all a self-fulfilling prophecy? Your knee-jerk answer is too simple, regardless of which way your knee jerked.)
http://www.cantrip.org/againstschool.html http://www.wtp.org/archive/transcripts/john_taylor_gatto.htm...
On a related note, I find his description of an early America very interesting. He observes that you couldn't get many employees back in the day, before the Civil War - because they were all equally entrepreneurial - meaning that they'll only stick with you for a year or two before striking it out on their own. (Granted, they had slaves, but let's not go there).
It makes sense, really - and so I find it mildly ironic that things are coming full circle, what with today's growing trend in startups.