American Education

There are many things in American society that most have never questioned, or if they have, it has only been a fleeting thought in someone's head. There are times where people will be submissive to authority even though it goes against their beliefs and morals. In the Milgram study, test subjects were called in to play the role of "teacher." They would ask the "learner" word pair questions. If the learner answered the question wrong, the teacher would have to deliver an electric shock to the learner. With every wrong answer the teacher would elevate the level of electric shock, sometimes to the point that would kill a human being. In this situation the learners, as well as the supervisor, were actors and the teacher was the test subject (Milgram 733). The results were shocking. In the large majority of cases, teachers distributed the electric shock, even after protesting and saying it was wrong (Milgram 735). This concept of subjection to authority is found not only this extreme situation but at a smaller, less devastating level: in the areas of education and of the working world in America.

Since the birth of America, education and schools have been an important piece of American society. The traditional brick building, with a flag in the front and a playground or sports field in the back has long been an icon of American education, which is why the proposal, made by Holt, to abolish school buildings is such a hard concept for America to grasp (p.109). For years, no one has questioned the school building. It seemingly has always been there, and always will be as far as most people are concerned. I, personally, never once questioned why I went to a school building everyday to be educated. It was just what I did, and everyone around me did, what my parents and grandparents had done before. Holt questions the value of the school building, seeing it as a hindrance to education. It was a shock to me, I'd never thought to question this authority before, but then again, the system seemed to be working me.

Holt claims that in order to learn about the world one lives in, one needs to be in it, not "shut up in brick boxes" (p.109). He thinks children should learn by going to museums, libraries and using the cities' resources as a tool. This is a very radical change, that most likely will not go through for a variety of reasons. First, it is completely against tradition, and tradition is one thing that is hard to change in a society. Secondly, it's somewhat arguably outrageous. For parents, sending their children to school is a little easier since they know where their child will be, who will watching etc. Would parents really be comfortable just sending their children off into cities everyday with no sense of a "home base?"

If the education system in America needs to be changed, it shouldn't be through the abolishment of the school building. The building offers kids a place to separate home life from their work and social lives. It keeps parents at ease to know where their children are. Yet Holt makes a good point in saying that in order to learn about the real world, one must live in it. In order to get in the real world, students should be taken there in the form of field trips. Field trips could be made weekly, or bi-weekly. This gets the children out into the world, without taking away the actual school itself.

Aside from the question of the building, there is also the question of the teaching methods. Teaching methods vary teacher to teacher. Some are more hands-on, others like to lecture. Some allow the kids to teach themselves and each, other teachers do not. Holt believes that the children should teach each other and themselves (p. 110). However, every student has his own learning style. Some need to be lectured, some need to figure things out for themselves. It would be ideal to build schools where the teachers were grouped based upon their learning styles. For example, one school should have the philosophy of letting the children figure things out on their own, whereas another school