The education topic has been a topic of discussion among different cultures and groups of people who have come up with arguments about how academic success can be achieved. In the article, "School is Bad for Children," John Holt challenges the formal structured learning system. Holt wants students to learn what the real world looks like, by going out and discovering it (82). Holt uses various strategies to convince readers to agree with him on his position. Examples of the strategies include the narrative of a child and criticizing school teachers, negative characteristics kids learn in school and, finally creates a fearful tone in his writing. He also uses rhetorical appeals to persuade his audience. The strategies used by Holt proved to be ineffective because much of his work is based on his views and fails to provide logical reasoning to support the assertions, developing skepticism amongst the readers of his work.
At the beginning of the article, Holt describes the state of a child who is new in school as very smart. In real life, this is not the case. He presents a short narrative of a child at the beginning of his paper. Holt states that "Almost every child, on the first day he sets foot in a school building, is smarter, more curious, less afraid of what he doesn't know, better at finding and figuring things out, and more confident, resourceful, persistent and independent than he will ever be again in his schooling" (78). Holt gives his paper a perfect start by stating this narrative. He grabs the attention of readers by making sure the child Holt is talking about, is one of their kid. Holts tries to appeal to logos by giving reasons for his claim that the child is smarter as he begins school. However, the readers find it hard to believe because there is no proof from any reliable source used to show that the information he is giving is an outcome of a research. Even after having his opening captivating, Holt's paper becomes ineffective because of the failure to logically prove this point.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Holts also claims that in school is not an active process. He aims to get his audience to realize that “learning is a passive process, something that someone else does to you; instead of something you do for yourself” (74). He wants his audience to believe that without evidence to prove his claim right. It would have been an agreeable claim if Holt had given the source of the research, but he has none to support this claim. He also claims that curriculums should be abolished. On this claim again, he uses logos when he states “people remember only what is interesting and useful to them, what helps them make sense of the world, or helps them get along it” (76). From this claim, Holt intends to say that children are not being given the information as required. These are only assertions which make this paper weak because he has not given evidence from a reliable source making his audience skeptic about his ideas.
Holt asserts that school is not the best place to learn. However, all along schools have existed, and people have gone through the system. He seems to criticize teachers for their teaching. At the beginning of the essay, Holt says, “you come to school to learn' (79). He continues to say, “we tell him as if the child had not been learning before … secondly, that he cannot be trusted to learn and is not good at it" (79). It is clear from these assertions that he sees no value in teachers. He says “we” to mean that he is included as a teacher. By using the first-person pronoun, he intends to appeal to ethos. The audience finds this unbelievable because it is unlike a teacher to negatively criticize his own work. What the audience knows is that the purpose of school is meant for education. Children go here to get knowledge and develop their skills. According to Holt, kids already were learning and did not require school (80). This amplification, as well as the ones discussed above, makes his argument ineffective.
Holt claims that kids learn negative behavior in school (79). This, however, is not true. Holt explains that children who are forced to go to school mostly end up causing trouble or threat, other students. He claims, "He learns that in real life you do not do anything unless you are bribed, bullied or conned into doing it" (77). By saying this, Holt is trying to appeal to logos. Holt believes kids learn more negative things than positive things. Holt is trying to convince the parents by creating some sense of intimidation in order to be forced to send their kids to school, but the reason he gives not satisfactory. It is a fallacy to claim that all the children learn bad behavior in school. Holts intends to make his audience believe that being home is free of agents that can expose children to bad behavior. The argument becomes ineffective because of his language. Holt overdramatizes the words by making the readers falsify.
Holts asserts that a school is a dull place. However, this is not true. He uses dark images to describe school. He does this in order to appeal to pathos. He claims that “ in this dull and ugly place, where nobody ever says anything very truthful, where everybody is playing a kind of role, as in a charade where the teachers are no more free to respond honestly to the students than the students are free to respond to the teachers or each other, where the air practically vibrates with suspicion and anxiety, the child learns to live in a daze, saving his energies for those small parts of his life that are too trivial for the adults to bother with, and thus remain his” (80). Holts thinks that no child would ever come out of this situation successful, having kept his or her dignity and worth, remaining competent. On top of having failed to prove this point, many people have gone through the system, and have lived a meaningful and purposeful life before. Hence, this reason makes his claims in the paper ineffective.
Holt uses a fearful tone in most parts of his essay, which makes his claims ineffective. Right from the beginning of the essay, his views for the school has been harsh. Holts says, "In a great many other ways he learns that he is worthless, untrustworthy, fit only to take other people's orders, a blank sheet for other people to write on" (79). Holt is trying to appeal to pathos, but he ends creating images of fear amongst readers. His aim is to gain their trust on this topic. These do not happen because of the words Holt chooses to uses. “Worthless” and “untrustworthy” sound too harsh for describing kids. Holt could have gained faith in the audience if his language was simple without using too many strident words.
Holt tries various strategies to convince his audience that school is not the right place for their kids. He tries to use strategies which include rhetorical appeals to make his arguments valid. He uses pathos, logos, and ethos to prove his assertions that school is truly a bad school. His arguments would have been acceptable, but a few things make the reader skeptical and fail to be persuaded to his position. Holt fails to provide evidence that shows that what he says is supported by research or reliable sources. He relies on his opinions and rather appears to be arguing from a philosophical point of view. Some of the things Holt pointed out are true, but when it comes in real life, school and education are the most important things. Education has always been a debatable topic, which is never is going to end, yet schools remain good places.
Work Cited
Holt, John. “School is Bad for Children.” In The Bailer Reader : Exploring Issues and Ideas 9th Edition
