The Bad Side of Schooling: Two Relate Articles - Essay Example

The Bad Side of Schooling: Two Relate Articles One of the industries that has continuously grown, expanded and awarded a seat of high importance in society is education. While defining education has been a contested and debated issue over time, schools continue to increase in number, and are becoming one of the more lucrative institutions in modern time. Going to school is a right for every child, and the whole system of schooling has been a significant issue for policy-makers and researchers. Despite the notion that schools are necessary and beneficial for students, two authors have boldly proposed their arguments on the contrary. This paper aims to compare and contrast these two articles based on two aspects --- style of writing and content. Although written nearly 30 years apart, Holt (1969) and Grobstein (1999) argue for the same basic idea by answering the question: “Why is school bad for children?” Both articles appeared in print for a newspaper and magazine. Holt’s article was featured in Saturday Evening Post, one of America’s popular magazine that dates back to 1728. Grobstein’s article which is available online was in print in a student newspaper of Conestoga High School in Berwyn Pennsylvania, The Spoke. The manner of writing for both articles can be considered formal, although not academic. It is devoid of literary references that may be helpful to support their arguments. Both texts are presented in simple language, with an attempt to interact with the reader through expressions such as “So much for criticism. What do we need to do?” (Holt, 1969) and “Poor guy.” (Grobstein, 1999). Their manner of writing addresses the readers directly, and one can see this in various instances across paragraphs in the two texts. This is indeed natural for most, if not all, articles presented in newspapers or magazines in order to gain a wide breadth of readership. Holt’s (1969) article though may have received more exposure and gained larger audience compared to Grobstein (1999) primarily due to the type of material where it was printed. A distinction can also be made from the fact that John Holt was both an author and educator when he wrote the article, and Rachel Grobstein was still a student when her article appeared on the school newspaper. It must also be noted that Grobstein (1999), on two instances in her article, quoted and gave credit to Holt (1969). Thus, while the two share similar opinions, Holt’s (1969) expertise on the topic may be considered superior than that of Grobstein’s (1999) during the time that they were writing the articles. This is manifested in how the arguments were developed and synthesized to form a conclusion. Holt’s (1969) article used more concrete examples, yet Grobestein’s (1999) article, albeit more concise, employed relatively more sophisticate language. Perhaps this is so because of the differences in times when the article was written. Rapid development in education started by the 1970’s and gave birth to more technical terms that became included in the education jargon. The arguments of Holt (1969) and Grobstein (1999) stem from who school separates the concept of learning inside and outside the classroom. According to them, the school system isolates the concepts introduced as basic units that need to be understood in order to move up to another level. Its relation to how it can be applied to the world or how these concepts learned find meaning in one’s daily life is neglected. Without this integration, the authors argue that learning loses its significance in real life, and children soon begin to adopt the habit of how learning happens, specifically by absorbing what has been passed on from teachers. The element of curiosity which brings about discovery and creativity is gradually left to oblivion. Clearly both authors have built their thesis around the downside of the schooling system, yet apparent differences can be observed in how they have built their arguments. Holt (1969) starts off by describing how the school hones the child to become a passive learner through the traditional teacher-centered process that was adopted during his time. Furthermore, he stresses that schools have instituted rules that limit the socialization process of the child which has been vital in the learning process before s/he entered school. School, in effect, becomes a boring place which the child has come to associate with learning. Another observation that Holt (1969) raised is how school has shaped the objectives for learning. Passing examinations, getting high marks and progressing towards higher year level becomes the paradigm of students for attending classes and going to school. This was also a point that Grobstein (1999) highlighted in her article. Another major point of convergence in the two articles is the provision for learning environments that allow children to interact more with the world outside. Grobstein (1999) recommends hands-on experiences through activities like field trips. Both authors articulated allowing students to make mistakes from where they can learn from, instead of continuously showing and telling them what to do with very little margin for error. Interestingly however, Holt (1999) presented more radical views about reforming the school system such as allowing for more days of unauthorized absences. Grobstein (1999) in presenting her ideas was not quite descriptive and detailed, but built her propositions within the concept of lifelong learning, which only grew in popularity in the 1990’s despite its inception in the 1970’s. Both articles have presented recommendations to counter their arguments about the school system. Though similar in principle, Grobstein (1999) presents solutions that are stated in general terms, as compared to Holt’s (1969) ideas which are stated in more specific terms gleaned through examples he presented. Grobstein (1999) proposes the need to reinvent schools by contextualising curriculum with real life situations. She poses leading questions that challenge the present state of education. Holt (1969) on the other hand, illustrates how two schools in the United States have adopted radical reforms in system, structure and curriculum to allow certain degrees of flexibility and facilitate children to “make sense” of what they are learning. Many ideas are put forth by Holt (1969) which can served as good foundation for educational reforms, and perhaps started the concept of home schooling which he was an advocate. Three decades later, when Grobstein (1999) wrote her article, many of the ideas that Holt presented have already been put into practice. However, as she notes, no system is perfect and there are still educational traditions that persist at present time. In response to various socio-economic factors, the concept of lifelong learning is re-emerging strongly than any other time since its inception. This is perhaps the justification for Grobstein’s (1999) arguments and bringing back the ideas that were put forth by Holt (1969) in the past. The ideas of Holt (1969) may have been considered radical by his contemporaries, but have indeed become a reality in modern times. The two papers have critically examined the role of schools in educating children, and presented a case that is contrary to popular belief about schools. Holt (1969) has indeed created a mark in the area of educational reform that perhaps grew in popularity because of his status as an educator, as well as the zeitgeist of his time. The related article of Grobstein (1969) may not be as popular as Holt (1969) but it raises issues that are relevant at the time of globalization. It however, requires further discussion and support to strengthen her arguments. Nonetheless, the two articles raise critical issues and relevant propositions. References: Grobstein, R. (1999). Why school is bad for kids. Serendip. Retrieved from http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_edu/highschool.html Holt, J. (1969). “School is bad for children.” Saturday Evening Post. Retrieved from http://www.spinninglobe.net/holt.htm Read More