What They Learn In School Jerome Stern Analysis
Flying Kites On A Pond (Essay #1 to Jerome Stern's What They Learn In School) Jerome Stern's What They Learned In School challenges the phrase "the sky is the limit" in the case of today's methods of school education. While we are taught that education further develops human characteristics and the understanding of life, Stern points out the ironies. Instead of the intention to expand, to explore, and to inspire, he feels today's education is hypocritical of what it preaches.
Stern's essay follows a simple format, he lists each educational standpoint with a following ironic disclaimer. For instance in lines 10-11: "And they want them to learn how to think for themselves so they can get good jobs and be successful, But they don't want them …show more content…
A great deal of us would love to see our children and their children to be good people. We have sets of values to be placed in all of us. But sometimes values should be challenged, even if it is dominantly accepted as the perfect utilization. He argues that we tend to fear books, anything radical that challenges of what we think. Mark Twain'sThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a racist book. But if anyone really did read between the lines (or read it at all), Huck chooses damnation rather than letting Jim be sold. Is that being racist? So we fear them Stern contends, we fear our Steinbecks, our Twains, and our Chaucers, because it will make them think about their values and their life. And people generally don't like change, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Stern isn't lobbying for radical change. He just wants the whole story for everything. Don't focus at the square when the cube has five other sides. Besides, aren't true values the ones that stand after a challenge? Isn't that the meaning of a value? Sadly, education has lost its inspirational side. It's always in the lips of people who read the morning paper. Those Japanese are out producing us. Those Mexican ninth grade students are doing Calculus while we are still in Algebra. We need to out compete those foreign powers. So don't use drugs, don't get AIDS (of course they don't tell them how to get AIDS), don't learn real science, because you'll lose your faith, winning
Stern's essay follows a simple format, he lists each educational standpoint with a following ironic disclaimer. For instance in lines 10-11: "And they want them to learn how to think for themselves so they can get good jobs and be successful, But they don't want them …show more content…
A great deal of us would love to see our children and their children to be good people. We have sets of values to be placed in all of us. But sometimes values should be challenged, even if it is dominantly accepted as the perfect utilization. He argues that we tend to fear books, anything radical that challenges of what we think. Mark Twain'sThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a racist book. But if anyone really did read between the lines (or read it at all), Huck chooses damnation rather than letting Jim be sold. Is that being racist? So we fear them Stern contends, we fear our Steinbecks, our Twains, and our Chaucers, because it will make them think about their values and their life. And people generally don't like change, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Stern isn't lobbying for radical change. He just wants the whole story for everything. Don't focus at the square when the cube has five other sides. Besides, aren't true values the ones that stand after a challenge? Isn't that the meaning of a value? Sadly, education has lost its inspirational side. It's always in the lips of people who read the morning paper. Those Japanese are out producing us. Those Mexican ninth grade students are doing Calculus while we are still in Algebra. We need to out compete those foreign powers. So don't use drugs, don't get AIDS (of course they don't tell them how to get AIDS), don't learn real science, because you'll lose your faith, winning