Education and Paul Goodman

1968

Today’s educational system is not concerned with educating, but with processing students into the organization society. It is not particularly interested in teaching a method of thinking; it is more concerned with image.  Paul Goodman points this out when he says that school systems are not in the control of students and teachers, but in the hands of administrators, and the school board members come from the establishment.  School boards are more interested in fund raising and public appearance that progressing the student to higher learning.  This is especially true with public school boards, whose members are generally elected to the body.  A person who must depend on public support to keep a position will not be overly willing to encourage experimental programs that may meet with public disapproval.  This situation leaves schools at the mercy of prejudice.  How can a program that denies long accepted public beliefs be introduced if it has to satisfy that very public?  How do you overcome ignorance if you give ignorance the final say?  Who can deny that the public clings to its ignorance?  With this as the prevailing state of society does real education matter?

Goodman finds much waste in the system.  He says it is foolish to believe every child deserves an education.  In this organization society, where technology is so advanced, many children would be better served learning a trade.  What reason is there teaching a child poetic writing f the child’s interest is completely aimed at being an auto mechanic?  Goodman can only think of one reason: to put the child in his place.  Goodman declares that secondary education is designed to break the spirit of the individual, not to actually teach anything.  As bad as this is itself, once the spirit is broken, forces are brought upon the child to attend college; and seldom is it pointed out there is an actual value to attending college.  No one tells the child to go and learn.  Instead, the child is shown charts indicating how much more money a college graduate earns than the non-college graduate.  Often it becomes a matter of having a paper to hang on the wall, not to have any real skill or knowledge.  Therefore, why should the student care what the teacher says?  The motto for the student is “get in and get out”.  If this sometimes requires cheating, it can be justified.  Who needs sociology to build a bridge or run an ad agency?  No wonder schools fall into the hands of administrators and not educators.  One must remember success in the organization society is measured in money-made, not knowledge acquired.

What would Goodman do about this?  He calls for a student revolution.  His hope is youth will see through the mediocrity of the organization society and its educational system.  The only way to effect real change would be student determination to found a new order.  Goodman encourages student control.  It is they who must have the interest to learn, and they must demand that learning.  He calls for breaking down the old system.  The only purpose of school should be education and you cannot educate anyone who doesn’t have an interest in learning.  Why even try?  Let these people fall out of line.  Goodman would measure a student only by the standard of his interest field.  If the student meets that standard, then what difference does it make how he got there?  This way only the interested arrives.  It is, Goodman says, the student’s ability to pursue his wants that should count, not the check-off requirements of administrators.  It may be concluded that Goodman’s hopes for our future rest on a revolution, and he is probably right.  (And we still wait for this revolution, and he is still right. -- Larry E. 1/1/2001,)  

I was into Goodman in the 'sixties and 'seventies, and read several of his books on education  at that time. To learn more about Paul Goodman, click on the title of this post.