by John Taylor Gatto
3 points for 3 points against
- Establishes credibility 1. fails to elaborate
- Refers to reading and cites from the reading 2. Refers to outdated sources
- Style of writing 3. More subjective than objective
In his article Gatto attempts to convince the reader that the American school system is designed to create "good citizens' rather then educate the students. Gatto does this by providing personal experiences as a school teacher as well as historical and written evidence. He also provides a set of alternative ways to educate students.
Gatto is effective at achieving his goal because he establishes his credibility at the beginning of his article by stating that he was a school teacher for 30 year. This gives the reader a reason to believe what the author is writing is of some value. Gatto also does a good job convincing the reader because he refers to several different sources such as H.L. Mencken's article he wrote in "The American Mercury" and Alexander Inglis's book Principles of Secondary Education. Doing this gives the reader a sense that Gatto is not the only one with this point of view and that there are other sources the reader could explore. Another way Gatto's article is effective is the style or way that he chose to write. Many times in the article he would pose questions such as "who wouldn't get bored teaching students who are rude and interested only in grades?' or "do we really need school?" These questions strike the readers intellect and helps Gatto achieve his goal effectively.
On the other hand it could also be argued that Gatto's article is not so effective. Gatto refers to historical figures in his text like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson etc. and says 'they were not products of a school system...and not one of them ever "graduated" from a school system" it would have been better and more effective if he would have described how these historical figures were educated rather then just stating it. Secondly, all of the sources that Gatto refers to are from the early 1900's late 1800's. The problem with that is these sources are about a 100 years old and a lot of time has passed since, which means that during this time somethings could have changed in the school systems. Finally Gatto's article is ineffective because it leads a more subjective argument than an objective one. Gatto points to things are from his own personal point of view such as when he talks about reforming the curriculum changing the "stupid structures" and helping students take an "education" It would have been better if Gatto focused on proving evidence that the current school system is not educating rather than just stating it or implying it.
