'Wont' By Wilfred Kohl: Article Analysis

In this article, written by Herbert Kohl, it talks mainly about how people assume that if someone chooses not to do something, it’s taken as they can't do it.  For an example, in the article It discusses that one of his fifth-grade students grandfather, Wilfredo, wouldn't learn to speak English. Kohl asked the grandfather when he got to know him if he would be able to teach him English. Wilfredo’s response was that he didn't want to learn in fear that it would cause for his culture and language not to be passed down each generation. Kohl discussed this matter with a few friends. The response that he got from his friends was that Wilfredo is saying this as "a cover-up of either his own fear of trying to learn English or his failure to do so." This then brought up the discussion of learning and not-learning. That to learn you must have the free choice and dedication to get it done. Kohl’s main point that he tries to get off is the difference between “can’t” and “wont”. In this example,
Wilfredo won’t learn in order to preserve his culture, but many people assume it’s because he can’t. Kohl has many great points in this article.
He says “Not-learning tends to take place when someone has to deal with unavoidable challenges to her or his personal and family loyalties, integrity, and identity.” My friend Val was unable to graduate on time with us because his father and family believe that working and helping the family business is more valuable than his high school education. With this not-learning isn’t fully because of Val but because of his family loyalties just as Kohl says. One thing that I found interesting was when Kohl’s friends thought that Wilfredo wouldn’t learn English because he was fearful of failure. Which brings up the “can’t” and “won’t” learn. Kohl’s friends assumed that he “can’t” learn, but the fact is that he just decided he “won’t” learn. By Wilfredo not learning English it forces his grandchildren to learn Spanish and keep their heritage alive. In this case, not-learning protects their culture identify and/or sense of
dignity. Kohl’s method of accepting student’s thoughts, opinions and not forcing them to learn is something I admired a lot. Kohl states, “It was through insight into my own not-learning that I began to understand the inner world of students who chose to not-learn what I wanted to teach. Over the years, I’ve come to side with them in their refusal to be molded by a hostile society and have come to look upon not-learning as positive and healthy in many situations.” If a student wasn’t willing to learn there’s no point and trying to force them to. A lot of people have reasons not to learn, from it being because of family to it being from fear of something that has happened in the past. It might turn out to be better for the student mentally and physically to not-learn. If you chose to not-learn something you’re interested in you might just end up stressing or worrying about it. But if you have the choice to learn something you might enjoy it and look to it as more of a fun hobby than a stressful class. Kohl’s method of teaching by leveling with the students and not forcing anything on them is what seems to make him such a great teacher/advisor. Kohl did a great job in this article by bringing up great points like the “can’t” and “won’t” and how many people assume if you choose not to learn than its because you can’t. He did a great job pointing out that it’s not always the case. Sometimes you have to sacrifice learning in order to teach and let your culture live on, like what Wilfredo did. Kohl’s teaching style is something I find that everyone can learn from. You shouldn’t force learning you should just let it happen, so that you don’t stress out the student which can mentally hurt them. The Students should be able to follow and choose their own path instead fulfilling someone else’s.