s/o Homeschooling Threat to PS: Is Gatto a conspiracy theorist?

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

I've never read anything by Gatto because I tend to doubt any of the "mass conspiracy" theories, and he seems to hold that PSs were designed purposely to create  brainless workers.  But then again, just because he comes off a bit conspiracy-theory-ish doesn't mean he isn't right.  Where do you stand on it?

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Gatto is neither as honest nor intelligent as many have always wanted to believe. I am not sure he is conspiracy theorist but he does come from a hardcore libertarian perspective than can often trend that way.

[Reefgazer]

I think he is a conspiracy theorist, but once I read his book and saw how detailed and well-documented it was, I came to the conclusion that he is right.  It took me an entire summer to read his book because every few chapters or so I had to stop and say "No way is that true; he must have taken the quote out of context, or misread, or ______".  So I stopped to read some of the primary sources he cited (I read the ones that supported his most outrageous claims), and dang, he was quoting accurately.  If I hadn't chased those sources down, I would have thought he was on drugs.  His sources are the most mundane things ever - presidential speeches that are recent and from the early 1900s, policy papers from educational think tanks, minutes of meetings, and the like.  But they do absolutely support his conclusions.  

 

I think a lot of the nonsense that goes on in education happens solely because people aren't really paying attention to dry policy papers and decisions, and we let little troublesome things slip by over and over so that before you know it, we've got an educational mess on our hands and are asking how we got into this mess.  Similar to how the Risperdal situation was allowed to happen, as posted on this board in another post. 

 

Of the people I have spoken to (online and in real life) who summarily dismiss him as a nut, none have actually taken the time to read his work and supporting sources.  I've got several books of his on my shelves, and his work is well-research, and he certainly has the experience to make his claims.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think he is a conspiracy theorist, but once I read his book and saw how detailed and well-documented it was, I came to the conclusion that he is right.  It took me an entire summer to read his book because every few chapters or so I had to stop and say "No way is that true; he must have taken the quote out of context, or misread, or ______".  So I stopped to read some of the primary sources he cited (I read the ones that supported his most outrageous claims), and dang, he was quoting accurately.  If I hadn't chased those sources down, I would have thought he was on drugs.  His sources are the most mundane things ever - presidential speeches that are recent and from the early 1900s, policy papers from educational think tanks, minutes of meetings, and the like.  But they do absolutely support his conclusions.  

 

I think a lot of the nonsense that goes on in education happens solely because people aren't really paying attention to dry policy papers and decisions, and we let little troublesome things slip by over and over so that before you know it, we've got an educational mess on our hands and are asking how we got into this mess.  Similar to how the Risperdal situation was allowed to happen, as posted on this board in another post. 

 

Of the people I have spoken to (online and in real life) who summarily dismiss him as a nut, none have actually not taken the time to read his work or his supporting sources.  I've got several books of his on my shelves, and his work is well-research, and he certainly has the experience to make his claims.

 

I personally went through his information on literacy rates.  He repeatedly misrepresented the data and in one case cited data which did not exist.

 

[Mergath]

 

Of the people I have spoken to (online and in real life) who summarily dismiss him as a nut, none have actually taken the time to read his work and supporting sources.  I've got several books of his on my shelves, and his work is well-research, and he certainly has the experience to make his claims.

 

 

I've read much of his work. I think he's nutty. I also think he goes too far in assigning malicious intent to what is probably just incompetence.

[Tsuga]

I have never been able to get past a few paragraphs so I cannot comment on Gatto.

 

I do think there is a key component of the compliance argument which is misunderstood.

 

You aren't going to get the upper classes to pay for the education of the poor without something in it for them. You just aren't.

 

Most educators hope to elevate, inspire, educate, and create a cohesive community of individuals.

 

The people who pay for education, however, have interests which would be strictly opposed to an enlightened, united community, which might use their awareness of history, wealth production, violence, etc. to demand better working conditions, a fairer share of the profits of their labor, and more equal treatment under the law. In fact that is what they actually do, and the upper classes know it. When it's only the rich who are paying taxes (because half the population is not making a living wage), then it is only the rich owners of capital, not the workers, who decide what education is about.

 

So the educators frame it differently. "How can you have workers, if you don't have educated people?" There is this campaign to fund education for all.

 

As far as I can tell, there is some of this tension everywhere in the world, to different degrees. 

 

But here in the US, those who have no interest in education and an enlightened, united community seem to have a lot more power over educators in some areas than in others. Not surprisingly, where leaders have their children in public schools, in upper class neighborhoods, children aren't being indoctrinated to be compliant workers. However, poor children without representation are systematically oppressed and the funds for an excellent education are systematically and openly kept from them.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

 

It's not a conspiracy if it's not a secret.

 

Public schooling is a tool of society. If the leaders want drones, they will create drones. If the leaders are elected by an enlightened, participating, educated, and justice-loving electorate and are held accountable, they will create schools that value every child. If an education system is funded by the masses, the masses will support one another. If it's all funded by one tribe or one class or one race, they will work to exclude outsiders. It always happens this way.

 

I choose to live in a community in which many people participate. We are fortunate to be able to afford it, though just barely. We are fortunate that our Benevolent Overlord Mr. Gates has chosen to spend his wealth on the future of our region and dumps tons of money into educational infrastructure and research so we can spend other money on other things. I'm being sarcastic but for real... it could be so much worse than having the Gates and the Nordstroms and the Boeings here.

 

I also choose to participate. I choose to hope. I choose to give my time and money to a better society, not just in our wealthy suburb but beyond (yes, even we have to raise money for teachers to buy printer ink and bring in reams of paper).

 

That is because in some ways, Gatto is right. When everybody gives up, the leadership will take advantage. So I won't give up.

[Carol in Cal.]

I agree with most of his critiques of typical public schooling, but having worked at and around large corporations, and dealt with the government a bit, I think that what really happens is more the natural result of being in a big bureaucracy coupled with some petty, territorial type administrations or assistants than a sinister plot.  It's the results that matter the most to me, though.

 

Any bureaucracy becomes self-perpetuating. 

 

On a related note, when I was a kid I read a lot of school readers of various vintages, (they were cheap and plentiful at thrift stores), and it has been really interesting as an adult to reflect on the extent to which their stories demonstrate over and over the crucial value of turning away from your family/culture/town for your education.  Sinister plot?  Maybe not.  Something that would definitely sell itself to educators?  Sure.  A good thing?  Not entirely. 

 

What gets lost in school systems, particularly large ones, is the good of the student as the motivation and prime value of whatever decision or action is being made at the time.

[Word Nerd]

I saw him speak in person a while back and found him entertaining and likable but nutty. His talk was all over the place and he mostly just babbled at random, so it was difficult to follow his train of thought (the only person I've ever heard speak who was more disorganized and incoherent than that was Timothy Leary). I think he makes some good points, but you have to wade through a lot of stuff to get to them.

[Tsuga]

I choose not to participate in what I view as a harmful system. That doesn't make me hopeless. It just means I think when a system is broken, you don't keep patching it with little bits of charity and little bits of parent-guilt - you start over again. 

 

I have a kid in school. I am up close and personal. I have family teaching in schools and in government administration of schools. Nobody working in those departments is under the illusion that students are at the centre of a benevolent desire to bring about a creative, thinking society. 

 

My time is better spent elsewhere. I saw my mum give a decade plus to being a good school mum, who chose to participate, hope, contribute - and it was a waste of her time.

 

There are oh-so-many-ways of contributing to the well being of children in society without having to buy into the myth of schools being the foundation for that well being.

 

I am talking about participation in democracy, though, not necessarily participation in schools.

 

And while schools don't have to be the foundation, something public that everyone participates in does have to be the foundation. It has to be accessible to all, it has to provide real services, and it has to be something people believe in.

 

I'm not sure what "starting over again" would look like. There is so much diversity, innovation, and failure in our system, enough to cover almost the entire range of possible educational options. From one-room schoolhouses to charters to public schools that work to vocational schools and I could go on. What does "starting over" mean in that context? We have admission-based choice in Seattle, we have lottery-based choice. We have neighborhood immersion schools, we have lottery immersion schools. We have gifted programs in separate schools, we have in-class leveled learning, we have gifted programs within general education schools, we have bilingual education in the classroom and then we have all-school immersion and we have schools in which you don't start until sixth. We have districts that fund most things via the school, we have districts where the PTSA does it. We have cities with foundations, we have cities that are bankrupt.

 

What does "starting over" mean in this context? A whole new country? A whole new culture?

[luuknam]

I read a few chapters of "The underground history of American education : a schoolteacher's intimate investigation into the problem of modern schooling" several years ago. I didn't finish the book.

 

 

I personally went through his information on literacy rates.  He repeatedly misrepresented the data and in one case cited data which did not exist.

 

 

I don't quite remember if it was the literacy rates or something else, but I looked up some of the claims he made and like you, I found that he misrepresented things etc. I don't remember the details, but I found enough flaws to not trust what he wrote and ended up returning the book unfinished... there's no sense in wasting my time reading falsehoods and truths mixed together.

 

It's not a conspiracy if it's not a secret.

 

I agree.

 

I agree with most of his critiques of typical public schooling, but having worked at and around large corporations, and dealt with the government a bit, I think that what really happens is more the natural result of being in a big bureaucracy coupled with some petty, territorial type administrations or assistants than a sinister plot.  It's the results that matter the most to me, though.

 

Any bureaucracy becomes self-perpetuating.

 

And, I also think that this plays a significant role.

 

To answer the original question: I don't know if I'd call Gatto a conspiracy theorist. I don't really care to figure out the answer to that either. He makes some good points, but every single thing he claims has to be checked for accuracy, which is just too much work. I don't recall his points being unique either.