Showing posts with label Book Reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Book Reviews. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum Of Compulsory Schooling

Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum Of Compulsory Schooling
By John Taylor Gatto
If John Taylor Gatto were introducing his book to us, he’s do us the favor of introducing himself first.  In order to do justice to Mr. Gatto and his eye-opening book, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, I must offer first of all a few words on the author himself.
Mr. Gatto taught for 26 years in New York City public schools, a number of these years in Harlem and Spanish Harlem.  But his “heart and habit,” he asserts, in his “Biographical Note,” are still in Monongahela, the small riverside town in Pennsylvania where he spent his early years.  He describes the town as “an altogether wonderful place to grow up, even to grow up poor,” a place where “independence, toughness, and self-reliance were honored,” and where, he says he “learned to teach from being taught by everyone in town.”

A year and a half ago, the public school system lost Mr. Gatto, and along with him it lost much of the smokescreen that had enabled it to remain so remarkably unchallenged over the years.  Just after receiving the 1991 New York State Teacher of the Year Award, Mr. Gatto announced he was going to quit because he didn’t want to “hurt” kids anymore.  “Government schooling,” he charged, “kills the family by monopolizing the best times of childhood and by teaching disrespect for home and parents.”

The publishers of Dumbing Us Down call Gatto’s ideas about education “not easily pigeon-holed,” which is an accurate observation. Who else would stand up and tell us that schooling, as we know it, is not education, but a “twelve-year jail sentence where bad habits are the only curriculum truly learned”?

According to Gatto’s observations, the seven lessons taught in public schools from Harlem to Hollywood Hills, are these:
  1. Confusion (The natural order of real life is violated by heaping disconnected facts on students.)
  2. Class Position (Children are locked together into categories where the lesson is that “everyone has a proper place in the pyramid.”)
  3. Indifference (Inflexible school regimens deprive children of complete experiences.)
  4. Emotional dependency (Kids are taught to surrender their individuality to a “predestined chain of command.”
  5. Intellectual dependency (One of the biggest lessons schools teach is conformity rather than curiosity.)
  6. Provisional self-esteem (“The lesson of report cards, grades, and tests, is that children should not trust themselves or their parents, but should instead rely on the evaluation of certified officials.”)
  7. One can’t hide (Schooling and homework assignments deny children privacy and free time in which to learn from parents, from exploration, or from community.)
Just what is Gatto suggesting by his assaults on government schooling?  Don’t children have to learn to read and do math? Clauses can be picked out of Dumbing Us Down to challenge the thinking of conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and anyone in between.  Truly Gatto’s theories are not readily pigeon-holed.  Some are radical, if not downright subversive.  That’s precisely why we find him so intriguing, and perhaps also why he’s booked for speaking engagements months ahead of time, and why we’re excited to hear he has another book forthcoming from Simon & Schuster
[NOTE: The book referred to here is actually The Underground History Of American Education]. 

Gatto exhibits great confidence in the ability of human beings to educate themselves.  But even if we agree that government schooling is the biggest impediment to this natural process, is it really the only problem? Why doesn’t a book as thought provoking as Dumbing Us Down address the other forms in which a centrally controlled society assaults the intellect of its members?  For example, learning how to survive, to get along in life, is a basic part of any person’s education.  In the modern American system, this process is sabotaged in welfare offices where people with material needs are taught that you don't have to earn the necessities of life, and in lawyers’ offices where people with problems getting along with each other are taught that litigation is the way to settle differences.  These are just samples of the myriad impediments, many in the form of regulations, which are shoved into the path of self-education.  And the age-segregated workplaces, along with lack of apprenticeship training, which Gatto rightfully deplores, are in my opinion as much the result of labor laws as is mandatory schooling.

Perhaps Gatto intended to challenge us into making our own observations on these issues.  Perhaps he also is right to imply that the root of such problems lies in government schooling.  If people’s minds were not propagandized and controlled from youth up, they might indeed find paths independent of those “institutions and networks” which says Gatto, constantly compete “for the custody of children and older people, for monopolizing the time of everyone else in between.”

He also contends that many of our modern society’s excesses, including the growth of commercial entertainment, such as television, the dependence on experts, and even parts of our economic structure (prepared-food industries, for example) would wither once people started truly thinking and acting for themselves.  The thought of people doing more things for themselves is exciting, but I hope Gatto doesn’t mean to say that working for pay is always dependency.  And although it’s true that most individuals would benefit from diversifying their skills, Gatto would have to admit that highly specialized professions also have their place a prosperous society.

The best thing about Gatto is he doesn’t seek to impose his version of desirable education on anyone else.  Neither can he be accused of being anti-civilization, and certainly not anti-education.  He speaks admiringly of early America’s prosperity (and literacy) through individual initiative, and even offers ideas toward the revival of better schools and communities in our current day.

As for solutions to the state of our educational system, Gatto at one point advocates a voucher, or school choice system, which would still be sadly deficient because of its dependence on government funds.  His real thrust, though, comes out beautifully on page 79” “Break up these institutional schools, decertify teaching, let anyone who has a mind to teach bid for customers, privatize this whole business—trust the free market system.  I know it’s easier to say than do, but what other choice do we have?”

Sure, it’s a radical proposal, and Gatto doubtless has his enemies. However, there’s a part of every one of us that thrills to his appeal to unleash the infinite possibilities within the human mind.  And most of us can’t help asking ourselves questions, such as, “Where did we ever get the idea that education means just the same thing to one person as it does to another?”  Even more relevant: “How did we ever come to accept that any one group’s version of education should be forcibly imposed on every American child?”

Reading Dumbing Us Down with an inquisitive mind is a whale of a learning experience, and it doesn’t take long to do.  The book is only 120 pages, every one of them delightfully original.

Reviewed by Hannah B. Lapp
source: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/bookstore/dumbdnlapp.htm 


Wednesday, September 29, 2010

How to Raise Boys Who Read

Hint: Not with gross-out books and video-game bribes.

When I was a young boy, America's elite schools and universities were almost entirely reserved for males. That seems incredible now, in an era when headlines suggest that boys are largely unfit for the classroom. In particular, they can't read.
According to a recent report from the Center on Education Policy, for example, substantially more boys than girls score below the proficiency level on the annual National Assessment of Educational Progress reading test. This disparity goes back to 1992, and in some states the percentage of boys proficient in reading is now more than ten points below that of girls. The male-female reading gap is found in every socio-economic and ethnic category, including the children of white, college-educated parents.
The good news is that influential people have noticed this problem. The bad news is that many of them have perfectly awful ideas for solving it.

Everyone agrees that if boys don't read well, it's because they don't read enough. But why don't they read? A considerable number of teachers and librarians believe that boys are simply bored by the "stuffy" literature they encounter in school. According to a revealing Associated Press story in July these experts insist that we must "meet them where they are"—that is, pander to boys' untutored tastes.
For elementary- and middle-school boys, that means "books that exploit [their] love of bodily functions and gross-out humor." AP reported that one school librarian treats her pupils to "grossology" parties. "Just get 'em reading," she counsels cheerily. "Worry about what they're reading later."

There certainly is no shortage of publishers ready to meet boys where they are. Scholastic has profitably catered to the gross-out market for years with its "Goosebumps" and "Captain Underpants" series. Its latest bestsellers are the "Butt Books," a series that began with "The Day My Butt Went Psycho."
The more venerable houses are just as willing to aim low. Penguin, which once used the slogan, "the library of every educated person," has its own "Gross Out" line for boys, including such new classics as "Sir Fartsalot Hunts the Booger."

Workman Publishing made its name telling women "What to Expect When You're Expecting." How many of them expected they'd be buying "Oh, Yuck! The Encyclopedia of Everything Nasty" a few years later from the same publisher? Even a self-published author like Raymond Bean—nom de plume of the fourth-grade teacher who wrote "SweetFarts"—can make it big in this genre. His flatulence-themed opus hit no. 3 in children's humor on Amazon. The sequel debuts this fall.

Education was once understood as training for freedom. Not merely the transmission of information, education entailed the formation of manners and taste. Aristotle thought we should be raised "so as both to delight in and to be pained by the things that we ought; this is the right education."
"Plato before him," writes C. S. Lewis, "had said the same. The little human animal will not at first have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting, and hateful."

This kind of training goes against the grain, and who has time for that? How much easier to meet children where they are.

One obvious problem with the SweetFarts philosophy of education is that it is more suited to producing a generation of barbarians and morons than to raising the sort of men who make good husbands, fathers and professionals. If you keep meeting a boy where he is, he doesn't go very far.
The other problem is that pandering doesn't address the real reason boys won't read. My own experience with six sons is that even the squirmiest boy does not require lurid or vulgar material to sustain his interest in a book.

So why won't boys read? The AP story drops a clue when it describes the efforts of one frustrated couple with their 13-year-old unlettered son: "They've tried bribing him with new video games." Good grief.

The appearance of the boy-girl literacy gap happens to coincide with the proliferation of video games and other electronic forms of entertainment over the last decade or two. Boys spend far more time "plugged in" than girls do. Could the reading gap have more to do with competition for boys' attention than with their supposed inability to focus on anything other than outhouse humor?

Dr. Robert Weis, a psychology professor at Denison University, confirmed this suspicion in a randomized controlled trial of the effect of video games on academic ability. Boys with video games at home, he found, spend more time playing them than reading, and their academic performance suffers substantially. Hard to believe, isn't it, but Science has spoken.

The secret to raising boys who read, I submit, is pretty simple—keep electronic media, especially video games and recreational Internet, under control (that is to say, almost completely absent). Then fill your shelves with good books.

People who think that a book—even R.L. Stine's grossest masterpiece—can compete with the powerful stimulation of an electronic screen are kidding themselves. But on the level playing field of a quiet den or bedroom, a good book like "Treasure Island" will hold a boy's attention quite as well as "Zombie Butts from Uranus." Who knows—a boy deprived of electronic stimulation might even become desperate enough to read Jane Austen.
Most importantly, a boy raised on great literature is more likely to grow up to think, to speak, and to write like a civilized man. Whom would you prefer to have shaped the boyhood imagination of your daughter's husband—Raymond Bean or Robert Louis Stevenson?

I offer a final piece of evidence that is perhaps unanswerable: There is no literacy gap between home-schooled boys and girls. How many of these families, do you suppose, have thrown grossology parties?
 

SOURCE: Wall Street Journal - Opinion Journal
I believe this link may be time sensitive.
Formatting and graphics by Soutenus

This article is by Mr. Thomas Spence.
Mr. Spence is president of Spence Publishing Company in Dallas.



Thomas Spence

Thomas Spence is president and publisher of Spence Publishing and a director of Spence Media. After graduating from Dartmouth College, he earned a law degree from the University of Chicago and a master’s in history from Harvard. He was editor in chief at WRS Publishing before founding Spence Publishing in 1996.

He has been featured in Publishers Weekly, the Boston Globe, the Dartmouth Review, Insight, and the Washington Times and has written for the Dallas Morning News and the American Enterprise.
Spence Publishing Co. • 5646 Milton Street, Suite 314 • Dallas, TX 75206 • 888.773.6782 • Fax 214.939.1800 

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Bigger Stories for Little Folks


Author(s):
Nancy Nicholson
Copyright:
2009
Publisher:
Catholic Heritage Curricula
Number of pages:
122 pages

Catholic Stories
Grades K-5
Review:

This summer I had the supreme pleasure of reading Nancy Nicholson’s Bigger Stories for Little Folks to my two youngest girls, ages 5 & 7. After flipping through the first, more well-known volume of Devotional Stories for Little Folks, I was hesitant, thinking that perhaps the stories would seem a bit involved and preachy to my two precocious gals. I am happy to say that my fears were unfounded.

Each evening, after Beth and Mae were cozy in their pajamas and had brushed their teeth, they would bounce into my bed and Beth would hand over the book. They listened with rapt attention to the adventures of little Greg and his family, laughing at the mishaps and sobering at the lessons learned while enjoying an innocence that mirrors their own. The conflicts that arise in these stories are never breath-taking or heart thumping, yet they are real and easily understood.

Sweet, but not sappy, like a warm blanket and a cup of tea near a roaring fire, these stories draw children’s hearts close to home, keeping the wolves of the world at bay. There is no need to pit good up against an evil world filled with snares and pit falls that would only serve to frighten and fill a child’s heart with despair. Children instinctively know the good. They cheer when the Peterson children have righted a wrong or made the correct choice. Each tale ends on a happy note, with forgiveness and redemption and a loving embrace. Like our eternal hope of heaven, these stories firmly establish the good as attainable and fill our souls with peace and joy.

Perspective: Catholic
Reviewed by Megan Smillie
Review Date: 10-30-2009
Blog Widget by LinkWithin