The speech often points out the halted nature of the current school system--that the school bell forces a child to halt an learning that they may be doing and move on to the next class, only to be interrupted again. He also refers to school as a prison, talking about classrooms as literal cells in an effort to point out how school cuts us off from real life. He seems to be making the point that there is a big distinction to be made between school and education, and that in fact, the two almost contradict each-other.
One point I found particularly interesting was the proclamation that "No one believes anymore that scientists are trained in science classes or politicians in civics classes or poets in English classes." I was drawn to this statement, because, for the most part, it is true. While I disagree with a lot of the cynicism in this speech, I cannot help but agree that subjects taught in school are very rarely thought of as proper training for their role in later life; I also wonder how long it took after the advent of the public school system for this disassociation to occur.
Freire- like Gatto, he makes the point that the lessons taught in school are unlike the lessons learned in life in that life is much less predictable than advertised. He also seems to agree with Gatto's point that teaching subjects at scheduled time in random order cuts off the learning process, but this is not as central to his argument. Instead, he focuses on the downsides of the banking model, criticizing how it allows students to ingest copious quantities of information without really digesting it, and thus what occurs in schools nowadays cannot really be called "learning".
Overall, I would agree that the banking model is an accurate depiction of how modern schooling works. I think that it's important to remember, however, that it's effectiveness is largely dependent on the individual. While a teacher is given a list of facts to deposit in their students brains, the method with which they choose to do this is often up to them (though obviously the role of the system in shaping their ideas of how this should occur plays a big part). I think that the banking model operates under the expectation that students will grow up in loving, intellectual families that will provide the abstract thinking part of their education in their long, in-depth conversations about life. I an one of the extremely few people who grew up in such a household, and honestly, the banking model as I have experienced it has worked for me.
Deplit- I read the "power and pedagogy" article. The tone of this article is different from the two I have read so far, it focuses more on the interaction between schoolwork and home life. Deplit often refers to the 'power culture', mainly meaning white culture but also referring to the upper class. She begins by pointing out that (like I mentioned a second ago) most modern educational methods in the US expect students to come in with their critical thinking skills already formed, when in fact this is extremely unlikely in any culture except that of the power elite (and probably even then). She then brings up five fundamental points, which are, in essence:
-Being in school enforces several types of incombatable power.
-The way that one presents themself will determine whether or not others view them as part of the 'culture of power'.
-The culture in institutions is passed upon the culture of power outside of the institutions, and if members of the institution act in a way more appropriate to another culture those actions will be seen as invalid.
-When trying to communicate the norms of one culture to another culture, trying to imply anything is useless and it is better to explicitly lay out the rules.
-People who have power are less comfortable admitting it, while people without power are quite aware of their situation.
My main reaction was to the first part of the article, where she wrote about how students who aren't part of the culture of power are considered to be "remedial" because they aren't presented with skills as compatible with current teaching methods. She says that to remedy this, it is important to teach a program that makes those basic skills available. I largely agree, but I think that it is important to note that making the program more accessible to those who never had a chance to learn those skills makes it less helpful to those that did. If the method is focused too much on being inclusive and bringing people on board, those that are already on board will not benefit. And since those with the skills deemed important by the power elite already intact are in fact the power elite themselves, it is important to remember that once they loose interest the school is no longer part of the power culture and thus begins to be considered 'remedial'.
John Fanning- In his interview, Mr Fanning focused on how he got into teaching and administration, and what he liked about it. He said that in his band he took things for granted, and decided that he wanted to give something back. He mentioned that he had decided the best thing that you can give someone is an education, since that opens the gate to future success.
One thing that I found interesting in Mr. Fanning's interview was when he talked about how when he first got into administration he expected to be the understanding type, that would give kids a break because he had been there himself; and how different he turned out to be. I think that what changed there was his perception of what makes a good administrator: before hand he had only experienced the job from the outside and thus a more understanding style seemed favorable, but once he recieved the post he became aware of how much structure was needed. I feel that his current approach is much more what the school needs, because though he doesn't loose sight of the school's goals he still doesn't allow students the type of freedom they would need to go down the wrong path without trying really, really hard.
-Being in school enforces several types of incombatable power.
-The way that one presents themself will determine whether or not others view them as part of the 'culture of power'.
-The culture in institutions is passed upon the culture of power outside of the institutions, and if members of the institution act in a way more appropriate to another culture those actions will be seen as invalid.
-When trying to communicate the norms of one culture to another culture, trying to imply anything is useless and it is better to explicitly lay out the rules.
-People who have power are less comfortable admitting it, while people without power are quite aware of their situation.
My main reaction was to the first part of the article, where she wrote about how students who aren't part of the culture of power are considered to be "remedial" because they aren't presented with skills as compatible with current teaching methods. She says that to remedy this, it is important to teach a program that makes those basic skills available. I largely agree, but I think that it is important to note that making the program more accessible to those who never had a chance to learn those skills makes it less helpful to those that did. If the method is focused too much on being inclusive and bringing people on board, those that are already on board will not benefit. And since those with the skills deemed important by the power elite already intact are in fact the power elite themselves, it is important to remember that once they loose interest the school is no longer part of the power culture and thus begins to be considered 'remedial'.
John Fanning- In his interview, Mr Fanning focused on how he got into teaching and administration, and what he liked about it. He said that in his band he took things for granted, and decided that he wanted to give something back. He mentioned that he had decided the best thing that you can give someone is an education, since that opens the gate to future success.
One thing that I found interesting in Mr. Fanning's interview was when he talked about how when he first got into administration he expected to be the understanding type, that would give kids a break because he had been there himself; and how different he turned out to be. I think that what changed there was his perception of what makes a good administrator: before hand he had only experienced the job from the outside and thus a more understanding style seemed favorable, but once he recieved the post he became aware of how much structure was needed. I feel that his current approach is much more what the school needs, because though he doesn't loose sight of the school's goals he still doesn't allow students the type of freedom they would need to go down the wrong path without trying really, really hard.
