HW 50

Gatto divides the concept of being schooled and receiving an education. Schooling teaches us "bad habits" where we are taught obedience and where we never reach the intellectual potential we could have if we had not been schooled. He refers to school as prison cells, where both teachers and students are drenched in boredom because of the rigid structures we are forced to work with. He believes that schooling is there to suppress children so that they can never fully grow up. They are taught to be blind consumers and mediocre laborers. He mentions Inglis who proposes 6 of school's "basic functions" that counteracts the three the government tries to get us to believe (which were making good people, citizens, and helping each be their personal best). To sum it up, students are trained to respond obediently in front of authority. They are trained to conform for better manageability. They are sorted out for social roles, and then are taught the skills for their social roles (but only to a minimum). They make sure that it is made obvious that the "dumb" kids are seen an inferior, so as to improve future natural selection. And last but not least, they train a small portion of these kids to become the ones who look after the 6 functions and make sure they continue.

Gatto's solution to this is home schooling. Homeschooling does seem like a pretty good idea. I think homeschoolers are usually much more confident, and their thoughts are always more interesting. By not having a system forcing the same ideas to them as they do to everyone else, they are able to develop a more individualistic element in their thinking. They certainly won't come out as mediocre or as clones. They won't be diagnosed for social roles or to conform since there's no other child around to conform to. Their environment allows them to receive an education that lets them think more freely, that supports their curiosity, rather than being shot down and categorized/punished for every action they take. When I read Gatto's description of the well schooled student, one that chooses TV over books, that gets bored easily, that are tricked into being consumers, I immediately think of myself. I'm probably already one of those students that have fallen into the trap because no matter how much of this Gatto says is true, I still can't picture another way to "success" other than through college. Yes, I can learn to be insightful through reading and working alone, but society still demands that piece of paper, that "permanent record" that describes you through a list of grades and numbers, in order to let you get anywhere high in life.

Freire explains the concept of the banking approach where teachers are merely there to deposits facts into the students, described as the containers. The more deposits these students accept into their bins, the less likely they are to critically think about them. In school these students gradually adapt to their passive roles and soon enough they come to accept the idea that they are merely spectators, not "re-creators." They are not taught leadership skills, just enough that will allow them to work FOR the world and the path the creators are leading.

The solution here is to break the banking concept and somehow have the teachers and students form a relationship where both groups are learning and teaching at the same time. The banking concept looks at students as objects they can exploit. But if teachers become more willing to communicate with their students, the class would have a better sense of reality, one where they can recognize themselves as individuals and as leaders, rather than tools. By sharing ideas, students can finally think critically and be humanized from their forms of containers. I see a lot of this in SOF. I feel like a lot of schools now are dumping the banking concept. Our teachers are interested in what we have to say rather than clogging our minds with theirs. During discussions, everyone's thoughts are listened to and challenged, even the teachers.

Delpit proposes the idea of Culture of Power. Basically, there are certain rules and codes that schools and those in power goes by. So unless your family teaches you these rules, it's hard to succeed in school if their methods of teaching are more adaptable for some kids and less for you. These codes include "linguistic forms, communicative strategies, and presentation of self; that is, ways of talking, ways of writing, ways of dressing, and ways of interacting." Culture of Power is determined by the upper and middle class. So lower class members usually suffer academically because the strategies these schools are teaching with are not tailored for them but rather the higher socio-economical classes.

Delpit says that "If you are not already a participant in the culture of power, being told explicitly the rules of that culture makes acquiring power easier." Does this mean that in order to acquire power, you have to change the way you act and present yourself? Whatever happened to equal opportunity? We are constantly told to be ourselves, yet in reality, the way to success is to conform to the rich. The only way we can change this is the change the school system and change the ways they approach teaching. This reminds me of a song we heard in class that talked about how schools should be teaching how to stay of jail, how to avoid gang violence, and how to keep away from drugs instead of the stupid stuff they're teaching now. Every culture has to be approached differently otherwise they wouldn't find their education appealing enough. If they're not willing to learn, they're not going to learn, and they're not going to see it as an education. We need to determine the different cultures and the different needs of each, then everyone can have an equal education. It's unfair that the higher classes always remain in the higher position while the poor stay poor, especially when every child has the same potential. It all depends on how they are being taught and how well they are responding to that education.

During the interview with Fanning, he tells us about his own personal experiences. He went to college at Skidmore and came out a rocker. After touring and realizing he's too old for it anymore, he turns to teaching. He says the greatest gift of all is education. Cliche but true, he insists. He explains why SOF is so much more different from other schools. Our students are much more diverse in academics and classes that it's much more of a challenge to teach everyone at the same time. Yet, this is why he likes the school so much. He wants to conquer the culture of power, so that not only do the "right students win" but the expected "losers" win too. He's also determined that the school not be fully teacher goal oriented, but also for the students' goals to be considered as well.

This tells me that the school is really looking after the students' interests. Fanning is really genuine about providing SOFers with an education, where no one is left behind. It's too bad I didn't realize it until now, last semester of senior year. Him being a rock star turned principal tells me that no matter what path you choose to take in life, you'll still need an education. Hearing him talk about SOF kind of answers all the question I had over the years. I never understood why the school was so unique, nor did I understand why the best of the best wanted to teach here. But I guess the school's "savior" stance really appeals to the faculty.