-Caveat Lector-
~~for educational purposes only~~
The Origins of the Public School
by Robert P. Murphy
[Robert Murphy is a recent graduate from
Hillsdale College in Michigan]
Hardly anyone disputes the contention that the
modern public school is seriously flawed. Test
scores continue to be poor while metal detectors
are found in the more violent schools.
Welfare-state liberals argue that schools in
poor areas need more money to place them on an
equal footing with their richer counterparts:
Conservatives usually reply that the solution
is a voucher system that would break the
government monopoly on education by restoring
choice and control to parents. But virtually
all participants on both sides of the debate
concede the nobility of the original reformers;
in their view, the "good intentions" of such
school champions as Horace Mann and John Dewey
led to "unintended consequences."
Such admiration is misplaced. As historian
Michael Katz writes, "The crusade for educational
reform led by Horace Mann... was not the simple,
unambiguous good it had long been taken to be;
the central aim of the movement was to establish
more efficient mechanisms of social control, and
its chief legacy was the principle that 'education
was something the better part of the community
did to the others to make them orderly, moral,
and tractable.' [1]
Private Education Displaced
Before the 1830s, education was largely an
"informal, local affair," in which Catholic,
Protestant, and other schools competed for
pupils. [2] Often local governments would
provide modest aid to schools, albeit in an
unsystematic manner. But there certainly was no
conception of a "public" school, neither in the
United States nor anywhere else in the Western
world. The distinction between private and public
schools was not crystallized until the "school
wars" of the 1840s, which officially ended the
use of public funds to support Catholic
schools. [3]
What were the causes of that shift from private
to public education? It is impossible to review
the period in question and fail to conclude that
the drive for public education was largely a
response to the huge influx of poor,
non-Protestant immigrants. Between 1821 and
1850 just under 2.5 million Europeans emigrated
to the United States, over one million of whom
were Irish Catholics. Nativist and "Know-Nothing"
backlashes occurred, which included the burning
of Catholic buildings and other forms of
bigotry. [4] Many viewed Catholics as owing
their loyalty to the Pope. One editor wrote that
"a Romanist minority, trained by nuns and
priests.., furnishes the majority of our
criminals. [5]
The increase in Catholics naturally led to
construction of more Catholic schools. Many
Protestants felt that they had to take action
to check the rising prevalence of a false
creed. Doubtless many would have supported
government establishment of the Protestant
church. Mann himself lamented that "there had
never yet been a Christian government on
earth." [6] The general respect for religious
tolerance, however, made such a bold move
politically impossible. Instead, control of
religion was cleverly instituted through the
public school. "The public school, an important
socializing institution, became the substitute
for the American national church," Susan Rose
writes. [7]
The "nondenominational" religious education
eloquently described by Horace Mann was a
farce -- the schools employed Protestant hymns,
prayers, and the King James Bible. It was in
response to such non-neutrality that the Catholic
parochial system was established in 1874. [8]
As with all who rely on government, Protestants
would eventually rue the unholy alliance of state
and school that their predecessors had established.
As America became increasingly secularized, so
went the public school. Like the Catholics before
them, Protestants felt compelled to establish
their own private schools to protect their
children from the humanist and agnostic education
they would now receive at the hands of the
state. [9] Their forefathers had failed to see
the danger common to all "democratic" coercion:
one day the comfortable majority may find itself
in the oppressed minority.
Schools as Protectionism
While the particular reasons for school
consolidation were thus religious at heart,
the extension of government influence in
the education industry can also be analyzed
as an attempt by inefficient "firms" to
hinder competitors, a feature common to all
expansions of state power. (Indeed, in
Oregon, private schooling was literally
forbidden until the Supreme Court in
1927 declared the prohibition
unconstitutional. [10]) The primary
supporters of Mann's drive to standardize
curricula and centralize the disbursement
of public funds were precisely those who
would benefit financially from such
policies. They included the trade unions,
whose members benefited from the removal
of children from the labor market, and the
upper middle class, whose children were more
likely to attend the "free" public schools
than were children from poorer families
(who often had to work). Thus poor families
and childless citizens subsidized those
with enrolled children. [11]
The Protestant schools were losing "market
share," and turned to government to pad their
budgets and restrict the actions of their
chief competitors, the Catholic schools. In
other arenas, people can quickly see through
such self-interested "altruism." When a
corporation clamors for an import restriction
on foreign competition, most observers agree
that it is acting to increase its own profits,
not to protect the public from "dumping." Why
then do most people accept at face value the
humanitarian justifications offered by the
advocates of state education when such a
bureaucracy confers immense wealth and power
in the hands of an elite?
Once education is viewed as an industry, the
consequences of restricted competition are
all too predictable. Sever the link between
payment and service, and the quality of the
product -- education -- declines. Because the
schools are "free," parents are not as
interested in assuring their child's attendance.
Public schools are guaranteed the revenues
associated with each pupil in their geographical
districts; there is no need for them to strive
for excellence. If parents are dissatisfied,
what can they do? The rise in taxation and
lack of "free" private schools renders any
alternative to the state system unattractive.
Although such an analysis of the financial
"winners" of the change to a bureaucratic
education system is invaluable for the
explanation of specific policies, such
materialist interpretations are not helpful
in determining the reasons for the broad
popular support of the "common-school"
movement. Clearly, a large number of Americans
were convinced that a centralized, standardized
school system would be beneficial, and not
merely in narrow, pecuniary terms. Earlier
it was shown that Protestants viewed the
public school as a vehicle for inculcating
the true faith in the next generation. This
view can be expanded. Not only were the
public schools to create Protestants; they
were also to instill docile obedience to
the state and industry.
Was It a Conspiracy?
To those who dismiss such claims as a
"conspiracy theory," I ask: how can the
public school not inculcate obedience to
the state? A conscious choice must be made
regarding the content of education.
Neutrality is not an option. Given this,
why would a ruling elite not transmit those
same values that it itself possesses? Do the
conspiracy-theory doubters truly believe that
a teacher extolling the values of violent
revolution would long remain on the state's
payroll? Or a teacher who questioned the
legitimacy of the democratic system? Or a
teacher who cast aspersions on the
public-school system itself? Do the doubters
deny that children educated in Texas are
exposed to teachers and textbooks that blame
the War Between the States on the North,
while children in New York are taught that
Lincoln was a great president? Weren't every
single one of these doubters forced to chant,
every single school day of their childhoods,
the words "I pledge allegiance, to the flag,
of the United States of America .... "?
The common-school movement paralleled the
industrialization of American cities. As such,
the public schools were seized on as a tool
for the transformation of children into
complacent workers. Katz writes that "The
values to be instilled by the schools were
precisely those required for the conduct of
a complex urban society.... The connection
was unmistakable; schools were training
grounds for commerce ... The common school
made company men." [12]
Thus the public schools did not simply transmit,
say, the values of honesty and peace among men;
they specifically inculcated those traits
necessary for city life and passed over in
silence those values held by rural and ethnic
Americans. This is not to suggest that such a
decision was detrimental to the students, but
merely to again emphasize that it is impossible
to establish a school that is neutral -- the
views of one faction will be taught to the
exclusion of those views held by the politically
weak. Whoever controls the schools will control
the next generation. If such a power is nearly
monopolized by the government, then the
politically powerful will be the ones making
such decisions. In this case, that group happened
to be the leaders of industry. But it certainly
was not -- and never will be -- the majority of
voters who wield such power.
Thus far readers may not be horrified by the
behavior and comments of the early reformers.
The Protestants sincerely believed they were
saving their children from the devil. And who
can complain that the schools aided the
Industrial Revolution? But when one delves into
those justifications of public education that
fall outside the merely religious or industrial,
its tyrannical and elitist nature is seen
clearly. Fundamentally, the purpose of state
education was to take children from parents
judged incompetent and prevent those children
from becoming dangerous, antisocial elements.
The politically powerful arrogated to themselves
the right to determine which parents were unfit
to rear their own children.
Thus Henry Brown, second only to Horace Mann in
championing state education, commented, "No one
at all familiar with the deficient household
arrangements and deranged machinery of domestic
life, of the extreme poor, and ignorant, to say
nothing of the intemperate -- of the examples of
rude manners, impure and profane language,
and all the vicious habits of low bred
idleness -- can doubt, that it is better for
children to be removed as early and as long as
possible from such scenes and examples.[13]
Such an attitude inevitably led to the
consideration of children as wards, nay, as
property, of the state. Mann wrote, "Our common
schools.., reach, with more or less directness
and intensity, all the children belonging to
the State, -- children who are soon to be the
State." [14]
This diminution of individualism made possible
ever greater encroachment of government in all
spheres of life. And, as is the case with all
accretions of state power, each increment in
government authority itself justified the next
increase. This served to further affirm the need
for government-controlled education. After all,
when the voting citizenry has the ability -- via
the newly acquired power of the federal
government -- to wreak great havoc, it becomes
tremendously important to regulate their ideas.
Thus Mann's famous dictum is cast into a new
and ominous light: "In a republic, ignorance
is a crime." With the establishment of
compulsory attendance laws in the 1850s,
Mann's statement was no longer metaphorical.
Most people -- who were themselves educated either
in the public schools or who used state-approved
textbooks and state-licensed teachers -- were
taught that the founders of the American
public-school system were simply devoted to
ensuring opportunity to all Americans, rich
or poor. But we have seen that the main thrust
of the system was to assimilate those elements
of the population, such as the Catholics, poor,
and foreigners, who did not fit the mold of what
a "proper" American should be. School was
transformed from a voluntary setting of learning
into a coerced detention center, with its wards
being fed consciously selected information in an
attempt to produce acquiescence in the status quo.
America's current education crisis will only be
solved when, ironically enough, the words of
Horace Mann are followed: "[T]he education of
the whole people, in a republican government,
can never be attained without the consent of
the whole people. Compulsion, even though it
were a desirable, is not an available instrument.
Enlightenment, not coercion, is our resource." [15]
1. Michael B. Katz, Class, Bureaucracy, and
Schools (New York: Praeger Publishers,
1971 ), pp. ix-x.
2. Anthony S. Bryk, Catholic Schools and the
Common Good (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1993), p. 18.
3. Ibid., p. 23.
4. Mary A. Grant and Thomas C. Hunt, Catholic
School Education in the United States (New
York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1992), p. 43.
5. Bryk, p. 28. Although the text is unclear,
it is likely that this quote was actually
penned in the late 1800s, following another
wave of Irish immigration. It has been
included, however, for it accurately reflects
earlier Nativist opinions.
6. Louis Filler, Horace Mann on the Crisis in
Education (Yellow Springs, Ohio: Antioch
Press, 1965), p. 242.
7. Susan D. Rose, Keeping Them Out of the Hands
of Satan (New York: Routledge, Champion, and
Hall, Inc., 1988), p. 29.
8. Ibid., p. 29.
9. Ibid., p. 39.
10. See Bryk, p. 28.
11. See David B. Tyack, The One Best System
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1974), p. 71, and Katz, p. 43.
12. Katz, pp. 32-33. Also see Tyack, p. 73.
13. Katz, p. 31.
14. See Filler, p. 86.
15. Ibid., p. 41.
This article appeared in The Freeman, Ideas on Liberty
July 1998 for more information go to www.fee.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
