Jump to content

Talk:John Taylor Gatto

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Questionable relevancy

[edit]

"He worked as a writer and held several odd jobs before borrowing his roommate's license to investigate teaching." This ambiguous statement (what license and why is it important?) needs to either be rewritten so that I understand why it's relevant or just plain removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.45.237 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He used his roommate's teaching credential (Gatto couldn't legally teach in New York without one), and I think the fact is entirely germane to an article on him -- sorta the point of his essays and lectures. Although I'm too lazy to find a reference at the moment, the anecdote is in almost every one of his published works. -- egomet_bonmot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.213.104 (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis de Tocqueville award

[edit]

This article says Gatto recieved the Tocqueville award in 1998, but the award site says it went to: David Brennan,and Dr. Michael Joyce

“for bringing the cities of Milwaukee and Cleveland meaningful school choice.”

Is there more that one award with this name?

I found the same thing. From the looks of it, Mr. Gatto has never received a Tocqueville award. Perhaps this article should be marked to cite references. 'Kash 01:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after some casting around on the 'Net, I found that, while the dates vary between 1997 and 1998 (with Gatto's own website specifying 1997), the award he received seems to be "The Alexis de Tocqueville Award for Excellence in the Advancement of Educational Freedom". This seems to imply that there might be more than one award of the same name. However, searching for this phrase in full on Google reveals 9 hits from 3 sites. It seems we need to ask for clarification.

-- TimNelson 09:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've got it all figured out. See Alexis de Tocqueville Award for details.

-- TimNelson 10:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, is this NPOV? I already removed a bunch of nonsense from the references section. I'm no fan of the current educational system but this article reads like an ad for Gatto. Surely there's criticism of his work; why isn't it discussed?

vsync (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is any sensible critique of Gatto's work. If you can find some, please hit my talk page. Dscotese (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- ramonthomas (talk) 21:00 (UTC+8)

Added verified link to the Award which lists date (1997) with photo of John Taylor Gatto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramonthomas (talk • contribs) 13:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Criticisms on Gatto

[edit]

I agree with Vsync on this. I read through Mr. Gatto's own site and he seems to over-romanticize earlier pedagogic ideas. Also, his boastfulness over the benefits of both corporal punishment and the salons of Athens seem a bit creepy, IMHO.

Surely there must be some valid critics of Gatto's theories floating around on the Net.

Kulturvultur (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some criticism from one scholar. --zenohockey (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the time this criticism was added, the scholar in question (Wade A. Carpenter) had already changed his views on Gatto: "I saw the book as basically factual, but one-sided and angry. I believed then that Gatto was correct but wrong: that there was far more good going on in our schools than harm. Over the past year or so,my opinion has changed.I’ve encountered the most despicable miseducation I’ve seen or even heard of in thirty-three years of teaching—so bad, in fact, that I’m no longer willing to be tactful."--81.156.42.243 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Gatto's ideas can only stem from morons who enjoy slavery. 141.84.69.20 (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the only peer review that you can find is someone who later goes on to agree with him...at best it's not very NPOV, at worst it's starting look like he's not notable. Surely an idea as radical as removing compulsory schooling has received SOME criticism from established commentators? The idea is such a talking point that surely it'd get media attention if even some half-wit pop star came out in favour of it. So why the lack of commentary on this guy? 203.94.171.34 (talk)iiago —Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Also, quoting the "associate professor of education at Berry College" is pretty meaningless, why not quote the second chair oboe player of the Topeka orchestra? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.69.160.73 (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatto Criticism & Suggestion to Remove Critical Pedagogy under "See Also"

[edit]

I'm in agreement with the previous commentator that there has to be criticism of Gatto. I for one wish to point out that I just finished reading his Dumbing Us Down and, although at first it had my attention, it ultimately left me more morose than when I purchased it, now adding to the fact that Gatto did not deliver a resolution, (as an educator I witness the problems in our educational systems persistently), I had wasted money in his pontification. By the last chapter I suddenly realized (without confessional on Gatto's part) that he has to be of some ultra-Conservative persuasion who is completely out of touch with what education is and has always been for: EDUCATING. His, "Congregational Principle," (the title of aforementioned chapter), says it all in two words alone. Yet throw in, "Trust in families and neighborhoods and individuals to make s sense of the important question, 'What is education for?'" (93-94), and one can pierce Gatto's illusion of pedagogical 'concern' to see the "Monkey on the back" for what he really is.

I realize we're talking about the Wiki article here, but I must say that the above is a serious misreading of "Dumbing Us Down" and Gatto's larger project. First and most egregiously, Gatto is not an ultraconservative. His oft-stated admiration for 1960s anarchist Paul Goodman might be a starting point for any gleaning of his politics such as they are in "Dumbing." I'd also expect an educator to come to Wiki with a more serious complaint than that Gatto doesn't offer a resolution. I mean golly, say he's wrong on the facts or that he traffics in demagoguery, but don't blame his essays for not having a happy ending. And finally, Gatto's call for a "congregational principle" and "families and neighborhoods and individuals" are hardly the code-phrases of a religious wingnut. Gatto's religious beliefs are spelled out in "Underground History" and I'd rate them as Catholic lite. His admirers, among whom I count myself as a rabid atheist, run the political and religious gamut. He's quite big on Pacifica Radio at the moment. -- egomet_bonmot

~I'm also desperately recommending the removal of the Critical Pedagogy link under "See Also" in this article as Gatto is NOT a Critical Pedagogue and neither his ideas, philosophy, politics nor pedagogy come even remotely close to Critical Pedagogy. I'm also reading Critical Pedagogy by Joe L. Kincheloe and can positively affirm that these two philosophies are worlds apart. --Carlon (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your first paragraph, please remember that "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject" (Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines). If you have any pointers to any third-party criticism, feel free to post them here or add them to the article.
Re your second paragraph, I would place Gatto within the CP ambit. It's admittedly difficult to positively establish an intersection, since neither he nor Kincheloe, McLaren, et al. (to my knowledge) cites the other. But, although (if I may oversimplify matters, and since you did I suppose I may) he is culturally conservative and "orthodox" CP is progressive, both desire to educate (note that Gatto favors "education," like just about everyone; he opposes schooling) children with the ultimate goal of ending technocratic, bureaucratic, corporate, impersonal (etc.) American capitalism and returning to a smaller-scale, more communitarian way of life. It is Gatto's contention, mainly in his Underground History (blurbed by Howard Zinn), that American financiers and industrialists, social-Darwinian academics, and various other elites lay the foundation for compulsory schooling to benefit American business. This should sound familiar, at least in its resonance. (See also David Albert's "Introduction" to Dumbing Us Down, 10th Anniversary Ed., pp. xxii-xxiii, xxvii-xxviii.) --zenohockey (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look - I don't know anything about "unschooling", educational theories, and much less about the American education system. But I do know two things: 1. No idea is so good that it can't be rationally criticised - that includes Gatto's. 2. All radical ideas of any significance are subject to criticism.

If there's no rational peer review of Gatto's book that at least attempts to tear it to shreds, that probably indicates that his ideas aren't notworthy enough to warrant a wiki entry. Admittedly, that would surprise me, given that he's written 10 editions of his book, but I suppose that self-publishing is not too difficult these days. 203.94.171.34 (talk)iiago —Preceding undated comment added 04:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think he's not noteworthy, as searching for him online reveals tons of results, and his books seem to be translated in a few languages (one of which is Bulgarian, and that's not a language any not-batshit-crazy author would chose for self-publishing). I've actually seen one critical article - http://gaither.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/gatto-on-the-evils-of-public-education/ , which seems pretty good, could it be incorporated in the article? 78.90.26.228 (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Reference #4 link is no longer valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.157.161 (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

socio-economic class?

[edit]

When reading the book, I got the impression that the “class” affiliation referred to herein is socio-economic class (rather than, or maybe in addition to, school class, for example). But I do not have a citation for this. Any opinion on whether that is what he really meant? 71.114.77.220 (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on John Taylor Gatto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on John Taylor Gatto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor Gatto Unnecessarily Downgraded.

[edit]

Hello,

"His belief was privatization of education along with a free market system was the most viable option."

John Taylor Gatto is here been put in a position of a believer who merely thinks (without even knowing for himself) that his alternatives to public schooling would bring better results. The above quoted statement is clearly biased and prejudiced.

He never presented his beliefs. Would he go in a 10-year detective/engineering work just to present his beliefs? No. He presented his solutions and that's a whole different story. The text should be changed accordingly and let the reader decide what to do with Gatto's work.

Marino

[edit]

I support Stesmo's removal of of link clutter to make our article more encyclopedic. See [[WP:ELYES, WP:ELNO, wp:LINKFARM. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that External Links section is a mess. But the solution shouldn't be the nearly full removal of that section. Some of the links are useful, some of them not. The users should decide it together.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moguy (talk • contribs)

Agree. I propose that the links we remove are the ones removed in this diff. Which ones of those would you argue should stay? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently published my edit. I have deleted most of the links but I have added few new links too. With this edit my aim is both reflecting the main writings of Gatto and showing the appearances of him on different places. I am of course open to edit that place if anyone have better ideas. Moguy (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Bartleby Project" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Bartleby Project has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 22 § Bartleby Project until a consensus is reached. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Taylor_Gatto&oldid=1258023281"