Category Archives: Common School and Power, Native American Education

This chapter showed a lot about the origins of the school system in America. I was not surprised by much of the views on Native Americans or Irish immigrants, because I have read and discussed these topics often in other classes. What did strike me from this chapter was the fact that the Anglo-Saxon views that dominated the culture of the time was not originally forced upon people with laws such as segregation. I always assumed that our country began its school system with segregation as a plan, but from the reading I found out that this is not the case. All were welcome (by law) to attend any school they wish, but most people who did not fit the typical Anglo-Saxon profile would avoid schooling to either work or just to save themselves from the rejection and potential danger of attending class. On top of this I found it interesting that to resolve this problem people of color actually asked for a separate school for themselves, and out of this “solution” rose segregation as a legal problem.

Regarding the forceful moving of the Native Americans and the trail of tears I thought the most surprising thing was Thomas Jefferson’s view that it was acceptable to do this, because it civilizes them is very self-centered. It is funny to think that people who founded and established a country of immigrants built on the ideals of freedom could be so one-track minded.

Some things I would like to ask about the reading are, do you think that if different groups did not request their own segregated schools they would have ever been able to adapt to the already established public school system?

Also, Do you think it is possible to preach religious morals and beliefs without preaching the religion itself? Is this a conflict of interest for the teachers to try to instill morals of their own or others beliefs, while at the same time not favoring either.

During the 1840’s there was a tremendous social riot in the United States between the English colonists and the Irish immigrants. There was a “No Irish Need Apply” song composed to symbolize that the Irish were not welcome as residents or workers. This ideology started during the times when there was an English dominance in Ireland leaving the Irish with little ownership of their own lands. As the Irish arrived to New York and Boston, they were greeted with open resentment and were left to work in mines and were look at as being the scum of the scum by the other European Americans (pg 110). Differences in religion increased the hostility between the two which later also came to affect the educational systems and ideologies of what was being taught. Later, the origins of the Catholic school can be found in the centuries-old struggle between the Irish and Anglo-Saxon cultures. This cultural conflict threatened Protestant Anglo-American cultural domination.

The perception by many whites that Irish Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans were a threat to the dominance of white Protestant Anglo-American culture in the United States resulted in segregation which, consequently, affected the structure of common schools. Was there segregation between the Irish Americans, African Americans and Native Americans? If the social “minorities” of that time were really the majority, then why didn’t they try to come together to try to instill a different system in the United States where they could all have the same advantages as the Anglo-Americans? How have things changed in our current society from that of what was happening in the 1840’s or has it changed at all?

Chapter 5 brought up the fact that “educational segregation resulted in unequal educational opportunities” (117). Though segregation isn’t prevalent anymore, we can see that certain schools get more funding than others depending on the neighbor in which the school is. There has been news that schools in the Bronx are closing because of low test grades and that the schools are falling behind. Why is it that Manhattan schools aren’t closing? Why are specialized schools better funded? The government seems to care more about numbers than they do the children. Yes, schools in bad neighborhoods are failing, but the government doesn’t seen to be intervening and helping. Similar segregation where the government believed that non-whites were inferior, thus receiving less funding, schools with failing grades are treated the same way. Also, students is low performing schools are a majority of non-whites, so is there a parallel? I think it’s safe to say that the money will go to which ever school that represents the country well, but for the schools that lack grades and performance, they’re just going to cast offs, which will inevitably lead to it closing. It is not fair that that is happening. In my opinion, I think more money should be going to schools with poor performance– after all, there is a reason why. These schools are doing so poorly are because they lack the funding and lack the opportunities to use the same facilities and same resources that well-funded schools have. Maybe if the government paid more attention to schools that actually needed help, we wouldn’t be at such a low rank in terms of education compared to other countries.

The entire chapter reminded of the conversation we had on Wednesday. Americans, namely Protestants, and their relationships with those who are different from them, whether it be skin color or religion, are all forced to conform to their ideals and way of life. It doesn’t seem fair to impose one’s own thoughts onto someone else if they do not believe the same thing. The way Protestants treated others is harsh and unreasonable; taking over their Native American land and then trying to instill Christianity into them because it would make them civilized, and segregating blacks because of their skin color are examples of how we should just respect people for who they are. Back to the conversation we had about what makes an American American, relates to how native born Americans are judging immigrants by how they are not the same as us. This country is made up of different races, ethnicities, cultures, and religion. Isn’t time that we realize that we’re just repeating history and that the only way to be civilized is to accept other for who they are. The differences that are pointed out make for a very unfair society. Once there are these differences, we will gravitate towards those who have similarities and favor that group of people. Equal opportunities are, quite frankly, inaccessible to many people that live in the United States because there is such an emphasis on being similar. So my questions are will we be able to ever achieve equal opportunity for anyone if there’s always going to be a bias? and what are the steps to take to ensure that everyone gets that chance?

Very, very interesting to say the least. Just about every migrant group to America has been horribly discriminated against ironically in a country that preached liberty and “oneness.” Unfortunately, this concept referred only to the Anglo-Protestant culture. I thought it was interesting to see the contradiction of the America’s to preach one thing  and then do something completely opposite but the interesting part was the justification of their inhumane actions through religion and education. Initially in the last chapter or so I thought that Jefferson was the lesser of two evils in comparison to the radical nature of Mann and others. However I think Jefferson was just as coniving as Mann and others who preached mono-culturalism as expressed in his actions and devious plans to oppress the Native Americans yet “help” them in a sense. There were those who stood up for what was right  but they lacked the backing to endure like Seward who supported  the Irish Catholic schools but still fell subject to the terms of the Protestant culture who had the money. The struggle over equal education and education in general was major as these migrant groups (some free-will and others enslaved) realised the importance of education. The Native Americans though oppressed were successful in creating a functional educational system for both their own and those of freed slaves.

Though presently our schools are integrated, is the essence of education as our forefather’s saw it still in existence? How has the Native American, enslaved African and Irish- Catholic view of education as opportunity and advancement changed over time? What do you think caused the shift between the primary rejection of multiculturalism in the US as opposed to America’s “open” contemporary views of multiculturalism? Do you think the Anglo-Protestants saw slavery as an acceptable practice due to their religion?

Personally I found this chapter very interesting since the first half of it related to the issues some people in the class had during chapter three’s presentation and Noah Webster’s push for Anglo-Saxon views in the classroom.

While reading about the conflict between the Catholics and the school system I was left wondering what would have happened if the common school would have let way to allowing a fully non-religious school, would we still have parochial schools today? Or would the need to create separate schooling based on religion be something that people would find outdated and feel that religion was something to be done after school?

Something that really struck me in the reading was how easily or through Spring’s interpretation of the facts Boston made way for integrated school systems.  Something that I did notice was the conflicting details of Abiel Smith and his funds and the Abiel Smith School in general, since upon further research I learned that the Abiel Smith School was one of the best schools in Boston pre-integration whereas according to the Spring reading I did not get that impression.

The section on Native American education was fascinating since this is something that tends to be sugar coated in American history classes in education at least in mine. I found it very interesting to see how Thomas Jefferson had no problem pushing ideals onto Native Americans but did not want the same for white children (chapter 3).   The civilization act while not working out as planned really showed the mentality of the country’s leaders and how even learned men from the North who opposed slavery wanted to impose their own language and culture onto Native Americans. The civilization act’s biggest failure could be seen as the imposition of the “Trail of Tears”.

Some questions that came to mind while reading this chapter was just about how things could have been different if originally schools weren’t segregated, or if there was no religion in school?

Also do we still believe that we are ruled by an Anglo Saxon power or mentality?

I support common school and I think it is a great idea because it offers education to all people in the society. Most importantly, it gives lower class a chance to climb up the social ladder and advance themselves. Often times, it is hard for a person to earn a higher income with the lack of resources and tools. However, I think with education, it is possible to change a person’s life and future. Although common school was meant to promote equality but often times, one can tell that it doesn’t. One example would be although everyone receives the same education, a lower class student might have to deal with financial problems whereas a person from the upper class don’t. Therefore, do you think every student will be treated equally or will it just bring the social classes closer?

I believe the federal government needs to step into the education system and seek some control. However, I also think the state government should step in as well. A perfect example would be education today, the New York education system has its flaws and needs to create a better curriculum for students. This responsibility should be put on the Federal government where they should create a standard curriculum for all the schools as a way of forming a foundation. This will benefit students greatly because it will allow them to be up to par compare to other schools. Also, this will allow the schools to decide whether they want their students to learn in a more advance level based on the standards that were given by the government.

The common school was meant to be a place where there are no barriers. People of all social classes and religions could attend the common school. I think the common school movement was a great attempt to educate massive amounts of children and to reduce social class tensions. It was rare at this time to see the social classes mingling, the upper class kept to itself. Common school movement also wanted to “improve public morality, end crime and poverty, and provide equal opportunity.” This is a tough goal to achieve, there will always be crime and poverty someone will always be better off than the next person or worse off. Morality is an issue that’s best taught at home, school can assist but parents should set the example. In the way of equal opportunity, as much as one person might say that things were equal it is difficult to prove it was.

I agree with Curti, the common school did extend social benefits to the lower social classes. Horace Mann’s attempts to make sure that all members of society had equal access to education is extremely honorable. One thing I do not understand is if the idea was to bring all the cultures together why was the Protestant Anglo-American culture seen as the dominant culture. After the class discussion it is brought to my attention that this is still the case to this day, this culture is seen as the main one and other minor ones are rarely discussed. Even though it could be done this way to create one American identity instead of trying to be a country of many different identities.

A quote I found interesting was that common schools were created with “the belief that human nature can be formed, shaped, and given direction by training within formally organized institutions” (81). This seems to put an emphasis on the responsibilities that schools have. Not only do educators have to teach children about various subjects, they also have to mold and instill morals into the children. I find that that’s still relevant in the contemporary world. Parents often put the responsibility onto educators to help them raise their children, when in fact, I do not believe that those are a teacher’s requirements. That’s not to say that teachers and educators do not have to discipline children when they do the wrong things, but to go as far as to instilling morals and going the extra mile to do what parents are supposed to do, is not within the job requirements. In my experiences working in a day care, parents often complain about various problems with their children and expect the teachers to solve it. Teachers are not there to pick up after parents and school is not just a facility to leave children while parents go work. I agree that educators have the responsibility to teach children what is right and what is wrong, but they should not be liable for forming and shaping students– it is ultimately the parent’s job.

Another thing that was interesting was the dispute between the Whigs and the Democrats. The Whigs believed that “the government should intervene to maintain social order through a centrally managed school system designed to educate moral and responsible citizens. In contrast, members of the Democratic Party believed that social order would occur naturally, and therefore they believed in minimal government intervention and local control of the schools” (93). In my opinion, I think that the government should have more involvement in schools because it is the only way they can regulate what happens. The reason there are so many school closing down now is because the curriculum is failing and the government did not step in soon enough. Students from developing neighborhoods are falling behind and failing. Instead of trying to figure out what the problem is, the government is deciding to cut the school’s budget and lay off a great amount of teachers. Had the government been more involved, students and teachers would be able to keep their facilities and work towards a creating a better environment for learning. Going back to the fact that the United States is behind in terms of education, there is a clear reason why. When the economy isn’t doing well, our government decides to take slashes at the education system rather than make reforms. The government obviously finds the education system less important than other areas, which is why we are falling behind. So my questions are: how can the government intervene in a way that will help schools and help the U.S develop a better reputation for themselves in terms of testing/reading/writing/math? and whether or not a new curriculum is needed to improve the quality of schools?

Throughout the reading the movement of common school was discussed.  Children with diverse ethnic backgrounds and various social class and religions were taught in a common manner which thought that this would result in a decline in hostility among social groups. I find it interesting how we just discussed the topic today in class (2/28) of of whether we should be teaching one culture in the classroom setting. As common schools was used primarily to improve public morality and to end crime and poverty, many social groups believed this was the best way to control crime and social unrest..

This has me curious to know, what is the function of our schools today ?

I also found it interesting how passionate Horace Mann was for the role of common schools.  He went from the profession of law to a higher calling in a field of endeavor that promised universal salvation. This reminds me of Obama’s state of the union address where he says if you want to make a change in the world become a teacher.

I just would like to know why do we lack the passion in our teachers today ?