Thursday, January 19, 2012

Essay 1

            When the topic of school is brought up, one of the main questions is what is school really doing for our students? What are our children really being taught? In John Taylor Gatto’s essay “Against School”, he believes that school isn’t really teaching our kids anything about being people, just being able to perform in the workplace and become successful. He believes the government is attempting to teach everyone in school base knowledge to “…breed and train standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.” (Mencken 3) Could this really be true? Is our own government forcing us through a system that turns us from clever young children into alike-thinking adults with no creativity and shameful uniqueness? Gatto mentions a few great Americans who didn’t even finish school and were inventors, politicians, and generals, but that was anywhere from 80-250 years ago. Nowadays students must go to school to prove they know what they know. In the late 18th century up until the very late 19th century, there were no standardized certifications for being a doctor or becoming a dentist or various other jobs that indeed take much schooling. A person didn’t have to finish school, but could read books on the matter at hand. Not saying that it was a good idea, but it definitely occurred. By having standardized schooling, it creates a standard education line so Americans are all educated in the most basic way. It can prepare anyone to do anything by just furthering the amount schooling and stacking previously learned knowledge on top of newly learned knowledge. However, just because we have almost the same base in education does NOT mean we think or feel the same way.
***
            Some experts say that school doesn’t actually help students, it only makes them blank, uncreative, and unresponsive to today’s need for intelligent and communicative citizens. The purpose for school is to prepare the youthful for the current society. Education teaches skills; math, English, humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences. It’s the purpose of the education system to make sure that children who go through it come out prepared and ready to face challenges, face adversity, and overcome failure. Why would school not prepare us for society? The government can’t afford to put thoughtless robots into society because society itself wouldn’t function. Therefore it needs bright minds that can create, think, and invent concepts that can ultimately further. I am in no way saying that a policy like “No Child Left Behind” worked well and was easy to fulfill, but were its best intentions to actually leave no child left behind? Did the government try to educate everyone for the greater good? It seems that only those who didn’t receive proper benefits from our current education system are the ones attacking it. Personally as I’ve gone through school, I’ve had many teachers who inspire creativity and preach originality as ideals that must be kept alive. Sure, I have also had teachers who are boring and it seems like they are sapping the life out of you. Their lectures don’t allow any room for interesting topics or realistic conversations. But it’s the teachers that did invite students to think on their own that had an impact and positive end result on me. Are the people attacking the system the ones who got placed into the hands of horrible teachers who didn’t really teach them inventive skills? That only makes sense because if someone is not satisfied with something, they complain about it.
***
            School has a way of constricting creativity. It allows for very few field trips that almost always relate to topics being taught, very little hands on material, and a discipline system that only tries to make everyone act like toy soldiers. A large reason for this is due to the lack of funding that schools receive. Schools need more money, bottom line. If students don’t get the materials to properly learn or understand the information they are being taught, then why even go to school? School becomes pointless when school is unreasonable and thus becomes unimportant to pupils. If you were forced to partake in an activity that is seems unimportant, would you want to apply yourself? That’s the reason for school being boring. Is there a way to better school? Is it fine like it is?
***
            Where do you want to go in life? School is the only way to get there. Degrees, certifications, endorsements, and validations are all needed to get jobs nowadays. School breeds knowledge, which breeds power. You have to have the power of your mind to go anywhere in life. By having this power over your mind, you can choose to do anything whether it be an astronaut, surgeon, plumber, or hairdresser. School is about learning and applying the knowledge that is gained through hours of going to class and doing homework. Going to class might be boring, but it’s where we gain information about subject we want to learn about. Homework is boring, but its practice, and practice makes perfect. Some say that the routine of going to class and doing homework only makes people learn the process of learning then regurgitating the information they’ve been taught. Isn’t that how it’s sort of supposed to work? Learning and regurgitating information only helps to solidify what knowledge you’ve been learning to perfect. Can knowledge be actually learned without collection and practice?
***
            The only way to be creative is by first getting lessons on the subject you’re interested in. No one can be a creative painter if they haven’t had lessons on brush strokes or paint blending. Being creative is impossible without prior information about what you want to get creative about.
            When I was in junior high school, I was enrolled in an art class. Prior to being enrolled, I didn’t know how to stretch a canvas or set up a pallet of paint that compliment certain colors. I couldn’t be creative because I knew nothing about art. It wasn’t until after that class when my creativity really began to take flight. I began creating works of art that I enjoyed because I knew the fundamentals of art, of how art actually worked.
***
            In my experience in school, I’ve had the best and worst of times. I feel as though the teachers and students who patronize the system are the ones who never took classes that instigated originality. Why not take a class that you aren’t interested in? Why not break out of your bubble and try some new things? That question has always baffled me because it’s good to try new things, to get out of your element. This is the main reason why people believe that school only makes people mindless robots, because they never take classes or involve themselves in activities they would otherwise deem as “unfavorable”.
            Is the education system really flawed, or is our mindset toward it? We as members of the education system need to try to understand that sometimes we need to do things we don’t want to. We need to think of them as a possible prospect that can inhibit new ideas or thoughts that would otherwise be undiscovered. Educations systems will continue to be fundamentally flawed if people don’t take risks and don’t take chances to try new concepts. This will only cripple the current and future learning system as we know it.

Comments appreciated (:

2 comments:

  1. (1) As I read through your essay, personally, I found the guiding question to be something along the lines of, “who or what is to blame? The public education system as a whole, or the bad experience of one individual?” After having mulled this over for a while I came to realize, to me, the project of this essay was about how our schooling system has evolved and how it continues to evolve as more teachers are starting to realize the importance of creativity.
    (2) You referenced John Taylor Gatto’s piece, “Against School” in his essay. Specifically, the section where Gatto briefly discusses George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” movement. This reference uses logos as a way to justify the means. I believe you chose to reference this piece and that part because it supports the theory that schools teaches children only what they need to know to succeed in the workplace. Therefore, they stay children, as they never grow as a person. I really liked how as an author you used ethos and pathos to further explain the project of you essay. I particularly mean the story about you art class and how you have had teachers who encourage creativity and originality.
    (3) A passage that I found that I thought would be useful for your essay is from Paulo Freire’s essay, “The “Banking” Concept of Education” page 9, paragraph 2. This passage talks about the “problem-posing” approach to education, which would coexist, nicely with the part where you talk about how teachers should encourage originality. As well as, further support your project about how teachers’ perspectives are evolving.
    (4) I found this youtube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRYRbPCHTck) that I think might be useful as you continue you essay. It pertains to your project as it’s all about technology and apps for the education system. Since this is such a new development it would be further evidence about the evolution of our education system.

    -Samantha Eussen

    ReplyDelete
  2. OOOTAYYY. Way to spice it up, Aaron, this essay was sassy. How refreshing.

    I thought I had your main question and project of your essay figured out, but I got a little over half way and found myself to be incredibly wrong. A good claim isn't thrown into a readers face; you have to work up to it, and kind of dance around it for a while. You pointed out well thought through angles that weren't only your opinion, there was perspective from the opposing side as well.

    From what I got, a main guiding question would be 'How do we satisfy the diversity of students with the lack of diversity we have in this standardized educational system of ours?

    As far as the project, that holds a few more angles. Now we're bringing in the question of 'who's really at fault?" Little devil's advocate. Thats okay though, someone needed to do it! And you may very well be right in supporting (essentially) "the grass is greener where you water it."

    You made a logical case, and because it wasn't insanely bias, or narrow-minded, you posed questions that i think any of your readers would deem plausible. That means you're doing a good job, nice work.

    Right off, you used an example from Gatto's piece. You used his thoughts on the "no child left behind" idea and shed some light on the good and bad within it. I thought that was a good move; start off with some resources, some credibility. Later, you worked in your own personal testimony, which definitely aided you in answering questions about why people are so apprehensive when it comes to getting out of their element.

    I mentioned this in my reply to Alec, but this version is slightly more expanded upon. In his first few pages, Gatto talks about the youthful qualities that schools should try to preserve build upon. Going on from that, he suggests that a positive change could simply result from being more flexible when it came to test dates, homework styles/ amounts, etc. Basically, what I hear is ' you can keep the same subjects and teachers within a school system (keep the 'standard education' intact), and still alter how you get there. The same boundaries exist, but different paths are forged. Make sense? Something like that would've back you up in your thoughts on not wanting to change the standardization of the system.

    I thought this was kind of cool. I liked that you used a lot of opposition insight!

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/enlightened-living/201005/gaining-perspective-someone-else-s-perspective

    Tay :)

    ReplyDelete