Well, it's that time again -- when I stare in astonishment at the last page of a paper I have written, wondering how on earth it received such a high grade. This one is about the Myth that Education (even public school education) Will Definitely Provide Success (read Money).
=========================================
Of the first five essays in the “Learning Power” chapter of Rereading America, John Taylor Gatto’s essay “The Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher” is the closest to truth as I experienced it in America’s school system during the late twentieth century.
Horace Mann’s “Report of the Massachusetts Board of Education, 1848” certainly bears many resemblances to today’s schools. After all, his “common schools” were the template for our school system. He had good ideas concerning the education of the masses. Unfortunately, he also had unrealistically high ideals. In the one hundred fifty-eight years since his report was written, human nature has definitely, defiantly reasserted itself.
Chronologically, we come next to Jean Anyon’s essay, “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work.” In some ways, for example in her desire for schooling of equal quality in all public schools, she is just as idealistic as Mann, though she does not tie her vision to Christianity as he does. Anyon is quite correct when she demonstrates that schools in different economic brackets provide different types of education to their students. However, my experience as a student does not support her divisions. For instance, my college prep parochial grade school used a blending of techniques from her Working Class and Middle Class schools. It was not so pessimistic as the Working Class schools concerning our future; we were expected to go on to college in due time. However, there were great similarities in the dictatorial authority figures. Her Middle Class schools were also familiar in several points. A number of my teachers were also consistently verbally, sometimes physically, abusive by today’s standards. Until I was in fifth grade, there were four teachers, including the principal, who still paddled students, which was unheard of by my friends who attended public schools. Until he retired, after my graduation, the principal would typically pick one or two unfavorites from each class, and pursue opportunities to smack them in the head with his theoretically uncontrollable “twitch.” The teaching methods and resources provided, or lacking, were also in concordance.
Mike Rose and Michael Moore both have a few points in common with my experience. However, Rose’s very personal story is so specific that nearly anyone’s high school career would differ significantly. Moore, on the other hand, tends to make sweeping, dramatic observations. His essay is certainly the most humorous and politically scathing. He seems to think that almost any problem in our schools can be solved by throwing government money at it – but only government money, no involvement by the business world if you please. If moremoney will really solve all of the system’s problems, why should schools reject any legal and legitimate source of funding? In addition, in his pursuit of humor, Moore actually gives students many ideas and suggestions for ways to disrupt and further diminish their educations, a very disappointing turn in an interesting piece of writing.
John Taylor Gatto’s essay was both the most disturbing and the most familiar to me. It is probably inevitable that this is so, as “The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher” was first published the same year I graduated from high school. Six of his seven lessons were taught in my schools, by nearly every teacher; the only one I do not vividly recall is confusion. Class position is so ingrained in me that it appeared in an immediate knee-jerk reaction when I returned to college, fourteen years after my last class. Indifference, emotional and intellectual dependence, provisional self-esteem, and the feeling that “one can’t hide” are such staples of my identity that it is surprising to find this possible cause of them. Surely they have been there since birth. So many of Gatto’s comments seem to be talking about me specifically. “…no work is worth finishing, so why care too deeply about anything?”1 “Successful students do the thinking I assign them…” I was surely a successful student, graduating first in my class from both eighth and twelfth grades. Perhaps the reason I do not recall lessons in confusion is because I was so “successful” that I never looked for meanings and connections beyond the subjects that were explicitly taught. Of course, I would prefer to believe that I was able to find those links for myself because I was more intelligent that most other students. Unfortunately, my assimilation of Lesson Six, Provisional Self-Esteem, makes such belief difficult. “Self evaluation … is never considered a factor” after all.
Clearly there are problems with America’s school system today. For one thing, the “common school” education envisioned by Mann and sporadically carried out today is no longer sufficient for many jobs and careers in the new global economy. The quality of schooling available for different economic classes is certainly unfair. There are so many problems that it seems the easiest course would be to scrap the whole system and import one that already works, from Japan, or Germany, or any of the other myriad countries that consistently beat us scholastically.
1 All quotes from “The Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher” by John Taylor Gatto, as reprinted in Rereading America, Colombo, © 2004
(moved from old blog)
Comments:
Estelina: Well done, Beccaie!
Bonnie: Of course you got a high grade... it's great!
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
It's a Little Odd
I'm taking another English class this semester, Composition II. I had class today, of course. I have every class on Tuesdays and Thursdays. We got back the rough drafts of our first paper, which we had turned in last Thursday. I wasn't completely satisfied with mine, but had run out of time to work on it. When planning my writing time for the week, I'd hadn't counted on starting a new job on Wednesday. At least it was typed, and it was over the minimum length. I consoled myself with the thought that "It's just the rough draft," and planned to comment/apologize when I turned it in for just how rough it was. I ended up not saying anything, because the majority of the class had made similar comments by the time I got to the professor's desk, and I didn't want to seem repetitive. I was entirely prepared for it to come back dripping with red ink.
But it didn't. For one thing, he grades in blue. More surprising were his comments on the last page. "Good paper; description. No rewrite necessary. On A track."
This used to happen to me in high school sometimes. I'd turn in a paper that I knew to be substandard, and I'd get it back with a flaming red A. And so my perpetual writing puzzles returns: Am I really that good, or does the professor just have no standards?"
========================================================================
(the paper, if you're curious. It was on the myth of the normal family, i.e. 1950s, Leave It To Beaver, Father Knows Best, etc.)
The 1950s are a popular focus of nostalgia in today’s society. People seem divided into two camps. There are those who feel the tug of that nostalgia and revel in it. Then there is the group that may or may not feel that pull, but resist is with every ounce of reason they possess. Danielle Crittenden, in her persuasive essay, “About Marriage,” is clearly an example of the people who approve of the 1950s. Although she agrees that America couldn't return to that decade exactly as it was, and wouldn't want to, she argues that we could greatly improve the present by bringing back many of the attitudes and roles of that time. She blames feminists for the current height of the divorce rate, refusing to acknowledge that there might be a larger underlying reason. A modern
marriage, where both partners share equally in all aspects of bread-winning, home care, and parenting seems like science fiction, or even fantasy, to her. Crittenden suggests that 1950s society had the right idea with its gender-based division of labor. She does concede that women of today would not be willing to go back entirely. However, she posits that modern women wouldn't be stuck in the home, as trapped as flies stuck to gluey flypaper, as were the housewives and mothers of the stereotypical 1950s were. Today, women would be able to connect with the outside world through their computers, enabling them to take a part-time job, or work from home … once their children start school. Of course, their primary, perhaps their only, career would naturally be as a wife and mother.
In “What We Really Miss About the 1950s,” Stephanie Coontz takes a much more analytical look at that time. She finds good things there, lots of them. The work week was shorter. Jobs were more secure because corporations stayed in one place instead of moving about constantly, searching for the cheapest labor force. Houses were more affordable in the 1950s, and wages were rising quickly. College was an option for many, especially for returning and former members of the military, but good-paying jobs could be had without a degree. The minimum wage would support a family of three at a rate about the poverty level! Perhaps the most seductive trait of that decade was the hope that seemed prevalent. Coming out of the two terrible decades of the 1930s and 1940s, the future seemed very bright after 1950.
Coontz goes on. Unlike Crittenden, she is not content to stop with this sunny picture. She excavates just a small layer deeper, until the darker underside of this nostalgic ideal is exposed. Racism was rampant. Discrimination against minorities of any type was the norm. The “ideal” applied only to upper- and middle-class white families. Blacks, Latinos, recent immigrants, homosexuals, Jews and other non-Christians, political minorities, and women who did not conform were judged harshly and often. Jobs that could support them and their families were difficult, sometimes impossible, to come by. Race riots happened in nearly every major city. The communist witch hunts spearheaded by Senator Joseph McCarthy ran unchecked for a terribly long time.
Only one quarter of the marriages in the 1950s ended in divorce, but that is not necessarily an indicator of happiness. Many women and children were trapped in unhappy or abusive homes. They had no recourse, and no prospect of escape. Abused children were lucky in a way, or at least luckier than their mothers. The children would eventually grow up, and could then go out and find their own home, their own family. The wives were stuck. If they left, supporting themselves financially seemed an insurmountable task. Adding that to the knowledge we have today concerning the psychological effects of long-term abuse, there was no way out for them. A poor marriage choice in their late teens could, often did, haunt them for the rest of their lives. The advice given to wives and mothers by the popular media reinforced that they were important only for what they could do for others. Women must submit to their husbands and cater to every whim of these powerful beings. Mothers must give their children every opportunity for early independence. The nuclear family was celebrated, as long as it consisted of a father, mother, and minor children. Grandparents were allowed, but if they could not care for themselves, they were to be shunted off to a nursing home or other facility. Extended family didn't matter much. They might distract the wife and mother from her own family. Friends were even more strongly discouraged. A woman was a wife. If she was lucky, she was a mother. Anything else was a failure.
The 1950s might look attractive at first glance, but one need only watch a sitcom from that era, paying close attention, to begin to see deep and disturbing problems with the idyllic picture presented. Those who think we should return to it, even parts of it, must be looked at with cautious skepticism at the least. There were some good things about life in the 1950s. There are some good things now. No time in history has ever been completely ideal; no time ever will be. We must be careful that, in reaching for additional good points, we do not end up clutching the bad points as well.
(moved from old blog)
Comments:
Wiz: Guess you'll just have to accept it...you're a good writer!!!!!
Hugs,
Wiz
Frink: Gotta go with Wiz on this one: I really liked it! Well thought out.
Aibrean: Yep, I "third" that! Great job, Beccaie!
aubri
Me: I'm working on accepting it. It's just that I know I wrote this paper in about 1.5 hours, and finished it with practically no time to spare. I KNOW I didn't put much thought into it. Orginazation? HA! If I thought of something, I typed it, until I hit 3 pages. Figured I'd go back later to organize and otherwise polish it. I wonder what would happen if I really worked on a paper? lol
Have I told you all about the last paper I had to write in high school? It was for AP/Honors English, 10 pages. Mine was comparing _Hamlet_ and _Macbeth_. I got an A. I still haven't read Macbeth.
Aibrean: LOL! Beccaie... I remember those days as well! I often wonder if I'd gotten even better grades if I'd worked harder... then again, I might've OVER-thought it. Of course, there's a difference between carelessness and natural ability -- I think you just have to come to grips that you're a natural, baby! ;-)
Moonie: Great paper Beccaie! :)
Bonnie: Wonderful! Beccaie, you are a very good writer!
But it didn't. For one thing, he grades in blue. More surprising were his comments on the last page. "Good paper; description. No rewrite necessary. On A track."
This used to happen to me in high school sometimes. I'd turn in a paper that I knew to be substandard, and I'd get it back with a flaming red A. And so my perpetual writing puzzles returns: Am I really that good, or does the professor just have no standards?"
========================================================================
(the paper, if you're curious. It was on the myth of the normal family, i.e. 1950s, Leave It To Beaver, Father Knows Best, etc.)
The 1950s are a popular focus of nostalgia in today’s society. People seem divided into two camps. There are those who feel the tug of that nostalgia and revel in it. Then there is the group that may or may not feel that pull, but resist is with every ounce of reason they possess. Danielle Crittenden, in her persuasive essay, “About Marriage,” is clearly an example of the people who approve of the 1950s. Although she agrees that America couldn't return to that decade exactly as it was, and wouldn't want to, she argues that we could greatly improve the present by bringing back many of the attitudes and roles of that time. She blames feminists for the current height of the divorce rate, refusing to acknowledge that there might be a larger underlying reason. A modern
marriage, where both partners share equally in all aspects of bread-winning, home care, and parenting seems like science fiction, or even fantasy, to her. Crittenden suggests that 1950s society had the right idea with its gender-based division of labor. She does concede that women of today would not be willing to go back entirely. However, she posits that modern women wouldn't be stuck in the home, as trapped as flies stuck to gluey flypaper, as were the housewives and mothers of the stereotypical 1950s were. Today, women would be able to connect with the outside world through their computers, enabling them to take a part-time job, or work from home … once their children start school. Of course, their primary, perhaps their only, career would naturally be as a wife and mother.
In “What We Really Miss About the 1950s,” Stephanie Coontz takes a much more analytical look at that time. She finds good things there, lots of them. The work week was shorter. Jobs were more secure because corporations stayed in one place instead of moving about constantly, searching for the cheapest labor force. Houses were more affordable in the 1950s, and wages were rising quickly. College was an option for many, especially for returning and former members of the military, but good-paying jobs could be had without a degree. The minimum wage would support a family of three at a rate about the poverty level! Perhaps the most seductive trait of that decade was the hope that seemed prevalent. Coming out of the two terrible decades of the 1930s and 1940s, the future seemed very bright after 1950.
Coontz goes on. Unlike Crittenden, she is not content to stop with this sunny picture. She excavates just a small layer deeper, until the darker underside of this nostalgic ideal is exposed. Racism was rampant. Discrimination against minorities of any type was the norm. The “ideal” applied only to upper- and middle-class white families. Blacks, Latinos, recent immigrants, homosexuals, Jews and other non-Christians, political minorities, and women who did not conform were judged harshly and often. Jobs that could support them and their families were difficult, sometimes impossible, to come by. Race riots happened in nearly every major city. The communist witch hunts spearheaded by Senator Joseph McCarthy ran unchecked for a terribly long time.
Only one quarter of the marriages in the 1950s ended in divorce, but that is not necessarily an indicator of happiness. Many women and children were trapped in unhappy or abusive homes. They had no recourse, and no prospect of escape. Abused children were lucky in a way, or at least luckier than their mothers. The children would eventually grow up, and could then go out and find their own home, their own family. The wives were stuck. If they left, supporting themselves financially seemed an insurmountable task. Adding that to the knowledge we have today concerning the psychological effects of long-term abuse, there was no way out for them. A poor marriage choice in their late teens could, often did, haunt them for the rest of their lives. The advice given to wives and mothers by the popular media reinforced that they were important only for what they could do for others. Women must submit to their husbands and cater to every whim of these powerful beings. Mothers must give their children every opportunity for early independence. The nuclear family was celebrated, as long as it consisted of a father, mother, and minor children. Grandparents were allowed, but if they could not care for themselves, they were to be shunted off to a nursing home or other facility. Extended family didn't matter much. They might distract the wife and mother from her own family. Friends were even more strongly discouraged. A woman was a wife. If she was lucky, she was a mother. Anything else was a failure.
The 1950s might look attractive at first glance, but one need only watch a sitcom from that era, paying close attention, to begin to see deep and disturbing problems with the idyllic picture presented. Those who think we should return to it, even parts of it, must be looked at with cautious skepticism at the least. There were some good things about life in the 1950s. There are some good things now. No time in history has ever been completely ideal; no time ever will be. We must be careful that, in reaching for additional good points, we do not end up clutching the bad points as well.
(moved from old blog)
Comments:
Wiz: Guess you'll just have to accept it...you're a good writer!!!!!
Hugs,
Wiz
Frink: Gotta go with Wiz on this one: I really liked it! Well thought out.
Aibrean: Yep, I "third" that! Great job, Beccaie!
aubri
Me: I'm working on accepting it. It's just that I know I wrote this paper in about 1.5 hours, and finished it with practically no time to spare. I KNOW I didn't put much thought into it. Orginazation? HA! If I thought of something, I typed it, until I hit 3 pages. Figured I'd go back later to organize and otherwise polish it. I wonder what would happen if I really worked on a paper? lol
Have I told you all about the last paper I had to write in high school? It was for AP/Honors English, 10 pages. Mine was comparing _Hamlet_ and _Macbeth_. I got an A. I still haven't read Macbeth.
Aibrean: LOL! Beccaie... I remember those days as well! I often wonder if I'd gotten even better grades if I'd worked harder... then again, I might've OVER-thought it. Of course, there's a difference between carelessness and natural ability -- I think you just have to come to grips that you're a natural, baby! ;-)
Moonie: Great paper Beccaie! :)
Bonnie: Wonderful! Beccaie, you are a very good writer!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)