The animal school: a confounding fable?

Rohit Dhankar


In last one month I encountered a curious little fable doing rounds in emails and on social networking sites. It is circulated in various truncated forms and some Indian sites claim that the author is unknown. However, a little googling reveals (how authentic Google revelations are is a different matter) the fable was written by George Reavis in 1940s and is currently available in an illustrated book published by Crystal Springs Books. The complete fable is given below for those who do not know it; those who have had more than their fill of reading it can go directly to the next section.


The Animal School: A Fable

by George Reavis









The point it makes

At different times in history education system and curricula get into different kinds of ruts. The educational pendulum may swing to the extremity of uniformity and rigidity in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment etc. A sharp reaction, equally extreme, may be needed and even be very useful in correcting this extreme swing. Such reactions may come in the form of fable, slogans, one-liners, wise-cracks and so on; in addition to more reasonable critique. They serve the purpose of correcting the aforementioned swing well. This does a good job of countering excessive uniformity and rigidity.

But then some of these fables, slogans, etc. may acquire their own life beyond their usefulness, get interpreted into various ways, acquire a status of universal wisdom. At this stage they become problematic and confounding. It seems The Animal School (TAS) has entered that stage of its life.

Problems with it

In the internet gentry it seems to have become a gospel truth. There are sites that interpret it for corporate training (they can use anything, actually, for them making a point is never a rational affair, it is psychological impact they are after), pedagogues that use it to buttress multiple intelligence theory, and some make a fantastic child-centric point. Below I will try to counter some such attempts.

MI theory

First, the MI theory can hardly stand a rigorous scrutiny on conceptual and psychological grounds. The criteria given by Haward Gardner are rather loose, overlapping and do not apply properly to all varieties of so called intelligences. The book Frames of Mind perhaps did a reasonably good job of countering the equally bad concept of Intelligence Quotient, but that is almost all about it. Psychology is still struggling to understand if the various so-called intelligences are manifestations of general cognitive abilities or they are standalone independent capabilities.

Even if one takes MI theory as acceptable theory of intelligence and learning (Gardner himself did not workout its pedagogical implications initially), this theory does not say that people have only one or a few of these intelligences. The MI’s claim is that we have different kinds of intelligences and we may be better at different sets of intelligences; there is no reason to interpret intelligence only as language, mathematics and reasoning. There could be others, like, muscular, bodily-kinetic, etc. That does not mean that someone with, say, linguistic intelligence will not have bodily-kinetic or logical-mathematical. Nor does that mean attempts to strengthen by logical-mathematical intelligence will destroy my bodily-kinetic one. In TAS squirrel can climb but can not fly at all. The TAS goes much beyond MI, it tales a leap and ends in confusion.

General problems

The TAS suggests that there are as much differences in children’s interests and natural abilities as exist in eagle and squirrel. Squirrel has no ability to fly, and its body structure is totally unfit for that purpose. The eagle may struggle at climbing, but its body structure is unlikely to allow excelling in it. They have evolved that way. Do we want to suggest that humans have such natural, innate and absolutely inviolable sets of capabilities and limitations?

Most people who like this fable are also strong advocates of equality in human societies. What are the implications of acceptance of innate and binding natural capabilities for equality? Some may be good at administration and ruling and some others for scavenging; isn’t it? And from the birth, to boot. What are the implications of acceptance of such a theory on social and political equality? Are we ready to accept those implications?

Most of the world lives in democratic societies today, at least in terms of aspirations. Democracy is predicated on individual autonomy, freedom and justice. If someone is very good at music but is totally nincompoop in, say, social relations and understanding politics, how that person is going to fare in modern society? His autonomy, freedom and rights will depend on others goodwill and pity. And unfortunately autonomy, freedom and rights do not happen to be the kinds of things which others can provide this musician of ours; they have to be earned, struggled for and guarded. What kind of general abilities are required to do that? It seems, squirrel can live by climbing alone and can disregard flying; but a human being may not be able to live by music alone and disregard everything else. May be average achievement in a well defined set of understanding and abilities is not such a bad thing after all. The human excellences in particular fields have to be over and above the common abilities absolutely essential for all.

We live in a very complex society, and can not help it. That is what we are. Living in a complex society demands a wide range of capabilities; language, mathematics, science, social sciences, etc. are all parts of that wide range of capabilities. We can not do without them. Alas, our lives are not like squirrels, elephants, eagles and badgers. Our children will face much greater problems in life if they neglected the capabilities counted in general education; difficulties they face in mastering the wide range of capabilities in school are just nothing compared to what they might have to face if they neglected them.


19th July 2013

Rohit Dhankar, Digantar, Jaipur and Azim Premji University, Bangalore.


4 Responses to The animal school: a confounding fable?

  1. Anonymous says:

    Rohit, I absolutely agree with you that we cannot take a parable like the animal school literally. We MUST strive to build basic capabilities in all young people to give them a reasonable chance of living a meaningful and satisfying life. I have seen a slightly different version of the animal school – as a short film and the message it makes, for me at least, is that we need to notice and nurture the exceptional qualities, if any, in every child……..


    • Anonymous says:

      I too, have seen the same film. I guess the simple take away from it can still be the fact that instead of focusing heavily on certain kinds of intelligence in the classrooms, which has been the case, we could be more open to nurturing individual talents and ways of learning.


  2. samir says:

    first of all I don’t understand why human education draw inference from different set of animals. Samir, meena, javed, John, lilly are not different as lion, eel, duck…. 2. u rightly said we need common capabilities to deal complex for that equally diversified and varied learning opportunities. I staunchly reject an idea of animal fable first differences in term of capabilities, interest, likes are over estimated as they different sets of animal not one set of lions, duck or goat and second animal are not human means to say they don’t have complex world and social Web as we have.


  3. Priyanka says:

    I am still wondering… When I first came across this fable it was on the internet and in context of the issue of generalising children’s learning levels . I feel that though (as mentioned by you) there are quite a few loopholes, the overall issue at hand was conveyed. It struck me more as an awareness campaign for those who have not thought much about educational issues but know there is an issue. It definitely would be a problem if one were to take the fable to extreme levels or ‘the final truth’ but then again that holds for many a communications such as these. I think that as long as it gets us thinking (confusion, lack of resonance) it is a start to something new. Only when there are questions and dilemmas does one consider to think differently or try a new path which I feel may have been communicated through this fable. Needless to mention, I am now more intrigued to view the original piece…


Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: