Why I Stopped Forcing the Curriculum and Started Following John Taylor Gatto’s Ideas
The worksheet had been sitting untouched for twenty minutes. My daughter, then eight, was staring at a page of multiplication problems with the kind of hopelessness that usually precedes tears or defiance. I’d tried the usual things—star charts, stern reminders, even a brief, regrettable bribe involving a toy. Nothing moved her. She wasn’t bored exactly. She was stuck in that particular fog that sets in when a child feels a task is pointless but can’t say why.
I remembered reading John Taylor Gatto years ago, before I had kids. He was a teacher in Manhattan for thirty years, won awards, and then wrote a book about how much of what we call school is really just a system for teaching compliance. His core argument was that children are naturally curious, but school beats that out of them with bells, grades, and the constant message that someone else knows what you should learn. I had found it inspiring in a distant, theoretical way. Now, watching my daughter, I realized I was doing the exact thing he warned against—not the school, me, at my kitchen table.
So I put the worksheet face down on the counter. “Okay,” I said. “Forget it.”
She looked suspicious. “Forget what?”
“Forget math for a second. What were you trying to figure out before I sat down with this?”
She thought. “Why do some bugs look like leaves?”
That was it. Not multiplication, not fractions. Praying mantises. We spent the next hour on the back porch, turning over the garden for bugs, then in the living room with a stack of library books about camouflage. She asked questions, I looked things up. I didn’t quiz her at the end. She didn’t ask for a sticker.
That evening, I realized I’d taken Gatto’s teaching methods far more seriously than I thought—because his methods aren’t really methods at all. They’re more like a refusal to do the thing that makes kids stop learning.
Gatto never had a tidy teaching formula. He talked about what he called “the green thumb” approach, which meant treating a child’s mind like a garden, not a jar to be filled. He was less concerned with getting through a textbook chapter than with noticing what a kid was already paying attention to and then helping them go deeper. In practice, that meant letting his students ask the questions and him, for once, shutting up long enough to let them find answers.
That’s hard for parents. We’ve been trained to think learning looks like a planned activity. We buy workbooks and educational kits. We schedule “learning time.” But Gatto’s central insight was that this scheduling itself tells children that learning is a chore—something that happens only when adults say it should.
The afternoon with the insects didn’t suddenly turn my daughter into a biology enthusiast. What it did do was remind me that she had a rich inner life full of questions I never got to hear because I was always steering her toward something more grade-appropriate. The worksheet wasn’t evil. It just wasn’t answering any question she actually had.
Over the next few months, I experimented more with Gatto’s ideas. Not dramatically—I still made her practice reading and write complete sentences—but I changed my default response to her curiosity. When she asked how the dishwasher cleaned dishes, we took off the bottom rack, looked at the spinning arms, and watched water spray through the holes. It took fifteen minutes and made us both late for a dentist appointment. But she created a whole diagram afterwards, entirely on her own, complete with arrows and labels she asked me to spell.
I also stole one of Gatto’s other habits: telling stories instead of giving lectures. He was famous for using history and biography in his classroom, not as lists of dates but as narratives about real people in hard situations. So when my son, a few years later, refused to practice writing letters, I didn’t pull out a handwriting book. I told him about how his grandfather came to this country as a kid and had to teach himself English in a new school, practicing one letter at a night on newspaper margins. My son asked questions for an hour. He never wrote a single letter. But he learned something about why his grandfather cared about language.
Gatto would have said that’s the point—that the emotional connection is the curriculum. I used to think that was soft, almost like cheating. But watching my son, I saw that his refusal wasn’t laziness. It was that he didn’t have any reason to write yet. No real person, no real stake. A worksheet couldn’t give him that. Only a story could.
The practical part is simpler than people assume. When a child asks a question, follow it at least a little. Don’t immediately provide the textbook answer. Go look at something, measure something, read together, or call someone who knows more. The key is to make sure the child feels the question is worth your time. Gatto believed that the worst damage schools do is communicate, over and over, that a child’s natural curiosity is a distraction. We can do the opposite at home just by letting a good question derail our plans.
The other piece is community. Gatto often took his students into the city—into courthouses, hospitals, banks, and workshops—where they could see adults doing real work. He called it “the school of the world.” At home, this can be as small as asking a neighbor who repairs bikes if your child can watch him fix a chain. Or taking your kid to the grocery store and letting them weigh produce while you’re shopping. These aren’t field trips in the organized sense. They’re just something you do because you’re alive, and the kid is along for the ride. That’s how Gatto taught—by letting kids eavesdrop on real life.
I won’t pretend this approach solves everything. My daughter still has homework she doesn’t want to do. My son still resists most structured learning, and I still worry about gaps. There are days when the worksheet wins because dinner needs cooking and I can’t handle one more “why.” Gatto’s methods aren’t a system you can implement with perfect consistency. They’re a reminder that the drive to figure things out is already in there—and that our main job is to stop accidentally trampling it.
The mantis afternoon is behind us now, but it changed how I read my kids’ frustration. Instead of assuming they need more discipline, I often ask myself what question they’re trying to answer. Sometimes they don’t have one, and we push through. But more often than I expected, there’s a question hiding behind the refusal—and that question, not the worksheet, is the real lesson.
There’s a line in Gatto’s book about how no one can teach another person anything. That sounds arrogant until you think about it. What he meant was that learning is an inside job. The best we can do is arrange circumstances where the outside matches up with what’s already inside a child. That unused worksheet on my counter was a circumstance that didn’t match anything. The garden, the dishwasher, and my father-in-law’s story did.
I still haven’t thrown away the workbooks. Maybe I will someday, or maybe they’ll just gather dust until the kids are grown. But I’ve stopped reaching for them first. Instead, I try to remember the way my daughter looked at the praying mantis—not proud of herself for getting an answer right, just completely absorbed in the question itself. That’s what I’m aiming for now. Everything else is just a guess.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Why I Stopped Forcing the Curriculum and Started Following John Taylor Gatto’s Ideas