Author Archives: Jonathan Weaver

I feel that while yes the point that more schooling allows for better social control, it appears to be the only reason school is supported at all. Kindergarten and summer school were merely established for, originally, the upper class to allow for superior status. Only later was it then applied as a substitute to expensive policing.  Immigrant children were denied education  and/or access to school systems at first, and as time progressed they were slowly and reluctantly admitted. Several minorities only acquired this privilege after a long political battle and then it was used for the deculturalization or Americanization of the students. In segregated buildings with poor quality teachers and usually supplies such as textbooks that had been discarded from white schools. Unless, the community or other philanthropist was willing to finance there school systems privately (and still pay taxes for white schools).

So on top of using schools as a primary form of social control they slowly but surely became a means of supplementing family socialization. School meals were supplied with in the schools and nurses were added as a norm within the school system. Girls were taught home economics for sewing and cooking. Schools became responsible for establishing playgrounds and sandlots, which was linked to social control mentioned above, but also to reinforce and industrial lifestyle of teamwork and rules.Establishing showers in schools and why was it excepted because of the lice that were present.

So to me it seems that for a decent amount of time the primary involvement with children has been shifting from the home life and the parents to the schools and teachers. Is that the way it should be though, should the school system and teachers be responsible for all these needs of the students: bathing, feeding, education, morals, play time, crime prevention, cleaning, cooking, etc? And in schools today are teachers still responsible for all of these and more or should parents be getting more involved in their own children’s lives?

While unfortunate, it’s just the same story over and over again. The United States desires a ruling class of whites for whatever naive reasoning that could be festered up: superior race, purity, etc. They, the people and the government, refused to extend citizenship to the Mexicans, the Puerto Ricans, the Asians, the Africans, and the Native Americans. This denied them the ability to vote or participate in the democratic government in general. In addition these groups were often, at first denied education, and only later given sub-par excuses for school systems, segregated from whites. The teacher quality was less, supplies were less, outdated, or non-existent. Eventually, these  schools would become tools of the government for sustaining whites as the ruling class. Some would be controlled by the government directly and purposely given these lower standards. While others were provided simply to shape the students into acceptable minorities. They would be deculturalized, taught American history and patriotic songs and holidays. English language only would be taught so to further the students even farther from their heritage. And if the education process wasn’t breaking you down and away from your ethnic background then it was merely training you to do what the white class deemed you fit for, such as sowing, cleaning farming and other laborious tasks that inferior races should do but now with proper work habits and morale behavior. How is it that a country completely based on immigration (from Europe but immigration none the less) could be so strongly against the immigration and assimilation of others who are merely looking for all the liberties and freedoms that others have achieved in the same country?

It’s understandable as to why women would be perceived as the superior candidate for teaching in general but in particular for younger children. The instinctual behaviors of motherhood are a force not to reckon with. Plus at the time schooling lasted seven to nine years so the children for this mere fact were generally younger prior to the establishment of the high school. However, the lesser pay was more then likely a huge factor as well that cant be overseen. If modern day teachers are expected to conduct themselves as those of the 1800’s did, essentially being the core source, second only to the parents apparently, for developing morals among the children of the class, then i understand why they feel under paid. As to whether or not this task is still expected from teachers today is the real question. While yes as an adult and a citizen the desire to at least refrain from instilling negative morals must and hopefully would exist. But is the responsibility for developing morals within children properly designated to teachers? Is a lack of fulfillment to this responsibility the possible reason why today crime, poverty, even school drop out rates and other socio-economic problems persist at such high levels today?

Some may argue, regardless of where the responsibility above may lie, that it is in fact the methods used in the class room that have so strongly and negatively effected the outcome of today’s students. Perhaps boredom and lack of interest (possibly due to a lack of morale understanding to achieve a good education) cause the higher levels of problems. Has the school system then drifted away from object learning and resulted in a less productive method? After all one of the original ideas behind giving children an education was to prepare them for the real world, and industrious world. Therefore, desiring the optimal method in order to ensure productivity.

I find it quite amusing and ironic how the common school of the mid 1800’s and the school systems of today not only differ but reflect opposite characteristics. Instead of opposing religion in school, be it praying or inappropriate teaching of creationism, as today’s schools do, then they were literally fighting over which bible and what prayers were to be used when teaching children. Also how education and the idea of school has developed from intentionally creating a dominant social class to the current standing of attempting to eliminate discrepancies between social classes. Or at least allow for achievement of a higher status  through education thus still shortening the gap between classes. While I’m glad for the new approach that education has in society, one can’t deny how brilliantly back in the day power was gained and kept though education. Particularly with the slaves and forbidding them to even read or write. It just goes to show how right Orwell is when he explains in both “Animal Farm” and “1984” that if you control the language, you control the people. Which reveals why the missionaries who were attempting to “civilize” the Natives were so displeased when Sequoyah developed a Cherokee alphabet; it would in fact remove power/control of the Native Americans from the missionaries by re-instilling connection with the savage ways. What I find peculiar is why did Whites, including the government, attempt to “civilize” Native Americans but not slaves?

Welcome to Blogs@Baruch!

This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging.

In my opinion Horace Mann was too much of an idealist. While i agree that educating the masses or common people, will definately reduce the poverty rate and usually help diminish crime, the reality unfortunetly is that these flaws in society can never be completely removed like he proposes. However, his approach to lessen the distance between social classes and creating a common curriculum inorder to give a standard for the common people to be able to then all relate i not only find realistic but effective. His approach towards educating childern, while yes good in heart, seems to be lacking. He has almost a Machiavellian mind set where the whole purpose of education is to improve society as a whole; for the good of society; all to strengthen the state/community. There is nothing wrong with that at all. On paper it looks great but it lacks the required force to follow through as Machiavelli would suggest, not that this approach would ensure solid education or a better society. Merely that Mann seems to pick out all the “good” parts of his theory and ignores the other end of the equation.  Even by limiting teachers from discussing certain topics in the class room because they are controversial. How is education suppose to expand the mind beyond the robot approach of input output actions when it refuses even an intellectual and civil discussion about matters simply because it might be controversial? And more importantly, if Mann’s whole reason behind education is for the good of society and therefore the good of the people under the government which they adhere to, then how can anyone be expected to vote with any notion of reason when they have never had to exercise such an ability before?