hw 50

Gatto against school summary-
Gatto's against school article has a lot of points, one of the most interesting is that when we go to school for five days a week for nine months a year for 12 years but in so many cases don't receive an education, they don't learn anything. School is set up to put students into a submissive state that puts students under ranked from the teacher. School is supposed to prepare children for becoming adults so we need show them how to and that doesn't happen in schools. Gatto also talks about what school really accomplishes, the way we learn and are taught allows us to become obedient and indoctrinated. School also conforms students, it does a terrible job looking at the individual but a good job looking at the group. In a lot of ways we are reduced to numbers and dehumanized sorting, we are sorted and have no control schooling reduces us from individuals to a part in the social group. To much of schooling and grading brings down the lesser students and bring up the stronger so leaving no chance for improvement.
Response: Gatto brings up some interesting points. I agree with Gatto when he said "We could encourage the best qualities of youthfulness - curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insight - simply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids to truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then." to me this just seems logical, all i hear is that school helps prepare you for life, it teachers you how to be a functioning adult and how to get a good job. Well if that's true shouldn't we treat students as adults. give them knowledge and tools to act independently, have more student accountability. I also find it interesting when he mentions all the famous people that we hold so highly but never did receive a proper education. we look up to them and want to be like them but at the same time go to school everyday even though they didn't.
gatto six lessons summary- in this article Gatto discusses the six basic lessons/central themes that take place in our school system. these lessons happen everywhere in the country and have become the basis of our education:lesson one is school is a giant sorting machine, students are sorted and numbered. lesson one also talks about how sorting puts students in a place from which they cannot get out, sorting keeps kids in their place and prevents movement or advancement. lesson two says that school is completely teacher oriented and that students should understand that they are at the discretion of the teacher meaning that when the teacher switches topic the students should switch with ease. The third lesson is simply be obedient, as a student you have no real power so stop fighting the teacher as if you do have power. The fourth lesson is similar to lesson 3 it says that the teacher is one in control and the students should respect authority. Lesson five focuses on the grading system implemented by schools. In school everyone is being judged and a student is only as good as his teacher or transcript tells him. Lesson six says that school is a place where students can be constantly watched to make sure they don't learn anything that would tamper with the schools mission. He even writes "Children must be watched if you want to keep a society under control."
response- I don't believe this is something Gatto believes or wants to to happen they are just trends he has noticed. It is scary to think about especially lesson six. the idea that school is just a place where students are monitored so they are kept in check is unsettling and sounds like something from "1984." I do not believe that this is all school is, some parts maybe but not the entire education system. I do agree with Gatto on the point that school is about being obedient and respecting authority, school is full of domination and the teacher is in control of the student. So on lessons two and three i agree with Gatto.

Freire: In his writing Freire brings up the point that no one is really learning, no one gets a relateable or true education, information is just pored into their heads and whether or not they can recite it shows their intelligence. Teachers give students information that they deem real knowledge and if they can hold that knowledge and retrieve it they are considered intelligent but in reality they are no better than they next guy. Freire constantly talks about the inequality our schools system creates, known as the banking system. This system relies on the teacher and the student being unequal. The teacher is higher and the student is their subordinate. The banking system attempts to dumb down the student, to push them away from thinking, individualism, education that affects their life and keep them ignorant, so they can be utilized. Our banking system of learning depends on the submissiveness of the individual and hope they will not ask questions and Freire hates this.
Response: I have mixed feelings on Freire's idea, while even the most right-wing educator will agree that some of the things you learn in school seem useless and are just filler that doesn't mean that the 12 years of school are just depositing useless information. I have used a lot of what I learned in History and English in discussion and debate, not everything taught is pointless. I agree with Freire on the point that school requires you to be obedient to authority (but I do see that decreasing as you get to high school.) School asks that you be submissive and not resist and that in some ways prepares you for respecting authority later in life. I agree that being subordinate to every adult in the school seems kind of outdated but i don't completely see that as being every student being completely oppressed like Freire. Freire's argument seems somewhat radical but nevertheless is an valid view point.

Delpit: Summary: Delpit's idea's centers around how the school system we use is not universal, far from it. The way we teach children works for some of students but it fails nearly just as much. Delpit also focuses on what she calls the culture of power. The culture of power has five basic aspects, these parts help explain how our school system might let students from one culture will do well but another culture might not.

One is that students lack power. their teachers control them, their textbooks control what they see, the administrators control what textbooks they get. Delpit also shows that school prepares us for work, and our status in our jobs determines the power we hold, therefore lack of power in school correlates to lack of power in life. Two is that there are a set of codes and rules to follow in order to be accepted in school. these rules are set up to not match with every culture, in other words school attempts to conform students in to a specific ideal. Aspect three says that the best way to be successful in school is to be part of the culture or group that has the power. Those that have power set rules and codes that dictate how to be successful in school so those that are from power are used to the codes and those that are not must learn it all from the start as new. Aspect four is somewhat of an extension of "3" it explains how it is easier for information to be passed within a culture than between two. This explains that its easier for the students from power to learn when compared to students from other cultures. The final, aspect five explains that the members of the culture of power ignore or don't talk about the fact that they are in power, they refuse to acknowledge it because then they look like the bad guy.
Response: Delpit's argument makes logical sense. It's obvious that a persons culture affects what they are interested in learning and how well they do in one subject and not all schools are exactly culturally neutral. The two aspects that seem the most logical to me are number three and four. If what is taught is based on the power culture the students from that culture will essentially be relearning the basics, being taught what they already know. Obviously this is unfair and creates an un-level playing field. schooling should be culturally neutral, giving each student equal opportunity to learn the topic.
delpit interview with N. Stanley summary- Delpit's core mission in education is to give students the skills needed to succeed no matter what their culture or class. Delpit expresses her ideology that the most effective ways to teach students is through art. Creative learning, to her seems more universal in every culture than learning from a worksheet or lesson. delpit also expresses her belief that learning in context especially with language, can be much more beneficial than textbook learning. She continues to express that what makes the best teacher is someone who is genuine and truly want all the kids to succeed, its not enough to simply teach from a textbook. If the teacher is committed, the student will be committed.
response I agree with most of the stuff Delpit says, in my experience applied learning where we are taught in terms of when it will be used is by far the best way to learn. There is a difference between hearing a topic and seeing it, in other words you can either be told how to speak a sentence in Spanish or you can see how it applies to normal conversation and for me at least the latter of the two is the most effective. To her point that some cultures learn differently i think is correct, there are 100's of different cultures in the word and its illogical to think they all look at a test or a topic in the same light. In addition to teach a student but have no care in whether or not they succeed just adds to their feeling that they don't need to be in school and there is no purpose in learning your topic.

Manley summary-The lecture from Manley covered a few different topics. It started off with the idea that teaching in general can be a very humanistic job. It allows people to become more connected and get to know each other. From there it branched off into what are the advantages and disadvantages of traditional and progressive learning. He talked about the idea that much of difference between progressive or tradition is predicated on whether or not the class is teacher or student centered. He also talked about his experience in a traditional school and how it lowered his self esteem which was interesting. We also able to discuss the argument that the best way to have a progressive school is in a small setting because its hard to facilitate individual education to a large group of kids with only a small amount of teachers.
Response-This interview was helpful and interesting because it incorporated many different aspects, like personal experience, main ideas, and pro's and con's of teaching methods. It was interesting to think that having a more progressive class can be as easy as making it less teacher based or authoritative and more equal. It makes me wonder why it is not used that often, why are so many schools stuck with the banking model. It was also somewhat thought-provoking to think about how a lot of the debate on progressive vs. tradition boils down to in depth learning vs broad learning. Its a hard choice to pick which is the overall best choice, one gives you more insight, while the other prepares you better for life.