![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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)
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?
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)
Ok, I've got it all figured out. See Alexis de Tocqueville Award for details.
-- TimNelson 10:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
-- 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)
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)
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)
Criticisms of Gatto's ideas can only stem from morons who enjoy slavery. 141.84.69.20 ( talk) 17:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
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).
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)
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'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)
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).
Reference #4 link is no longer valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.157.161 ( talk) 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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)
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?
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)
Ok, I've got it all figured out. See Alexis de Tocqueville Award for details.
-- TimNelson 10:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
-- 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)
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)
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)
Criticisms of Gatto's ideas can only stem from morons who enjoy slavery. 141.84.69.20 ( talk) 17:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
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).
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)
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'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)
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).
Reference #4 link is no longer valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.157.161 ( talk) 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)