Tuesday, January 15, 2013
January 31…Public Schooling in the U.S.: The Beginnings
Comment
on Jefferson’s plan for public education, particularly on what his plan says
about what TJ saw as the purpose of education.
How do Jefferson’s aims compare to Mann’s aims? Feel free to also consider the plans’
shortcomings, but do your best to keep things in historical perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The first thing that I notices reading Rury’s article is the issue of parenting. There is no perfect amount of nourish, discipline, protection, and advising that will make a child become an ideal adult. The child carries the same if not more responsibility on how they are as adults. This can transfer over to a student’s education as well. There is no exact recipe of how a teacher can teach and nurture a student so that become the next Albert Einstein. Both parenting and schooling could have been extra tough in Colonial America.
ReplyDeleteAfter considering the social standards of the time period that was far different than the America of today, many things came to mind. Women were not educated in much more than household duty. The men that were lucky enough to attend school were considered educated if they could read and do simple arithmetic. So when comparing their academic standards to todays it does not compare. Although education wasn’t necessarily required especially in order to be successful and able to raise a family. Children learned from working with their parents to perform tasks needed to make money. Another strong educational influence was the church since religion was a strong influence during the time period. Even though there were many different religions present in the American colonies they all provided a solid set of morals and other psychological necessities to be a good citizen in society.
After the colonies became the United States education was a main topic on the mind of the founding fathers. They put a large amount of effort into planning how to make an educational system knowing it could prove detrimental to American society without it. I think one of the most important parts of the plan was there efforts to find a way to include women into the education system. I think this was revolutionary for the time period.
Rury’s article really opened my eyes to the other influences that affected students’ education. It makes me wonder how does the church and parents affect students’ education in today’s society?
Craig Luskey
Thomas Jefferson's plan for public education was backed by reasonable concern for the future of the nation as well as the structure of politics and democracy. Based on what I read, it seems as though Jefferson saw public education as a means to make the developing country as a whole more literate and educated. He wanted the masses to become well informed however, so they could think critically about the way the developing nation's government functioned and become immersed in the idea of democracy and what it meant to be a citizen. He wasn't as concerned with the parenting aspect of school, the religious teaching aspect or learning just to learn concept. He saw public schools as a way to a better social mobility system and political/governmental system. I believe that this is a very important role that school's today should be fulfilling but are still locked in the role of needing to fulfill benchmarks and test scores. Schools are the way to raise well informed critically thinking citizens, but the way schools are being run now, this is not happening. I feel as though Jefferson's aims of education are more idealistic and romantic sounding that Mann's aims. Mann's aims are practical, having his main focus be turning rowdy children into disciplined citizens of the nation. Thinking about this in historical context, I think Jefferson's idea of public education is extremely idealistic at the time. Even though the idea of education would be public, in the early ages of America, most children of lower stature would be forced to drop out of school to help their family on the farm or in other occupations. The only children who would really ended up becoming well informed citizens through public schooling would be the more well to do citizens in the colonies, thus creating ironically, no natural aristocracy at all. I think based on the time period, the focus of schools should have incorporated Jefferson's ideals but also focus on really practical skills and goals applying to life in the colonies and developing and changing more and more as times change and years pass.
ReplyDelete-Jordan Hiegel
The major purpose of education according to Thomas Jefferson was to educate people so they could govern themselves. Education was a cornerstone to preserving freedom and liberty and keeping tyranny at bay. Strangely enough Jefferson's three level system allowed few individuals to truly become educated. Majority would remain in the section he termed as being rubbish.
ReplyDeleteFrom a historical perspective it is understandable why this purpose of education was at a forefront of Thomas Jefferson's thinking. Having gained independence the main concern was to determine a way to maintain democracy and liberty. Henceforth, democratic equality was the purpose of education.
Mann's aim on the other hand was to provide children access to "common schools" so once they became educated they had the knowledge to empower themselves. Education and schools would serve as an equalizing factor. Schools would serve as institutions that would allow less privileged children to attain high statuses in society, rise through social hierarchy. It would also prepare children for the "dawning of the industrial and urban age." Fear of tyranny was no longer at the forefront of thought so the goal of schools became focused on social efficiency and social mobility.
I see Jefferson's and Mann's plan for education as being similar in the sense that both saw education as a means to better society. The biggest threat Jefferson saw was tyranny so to protect from that schools would serve to prepare educated citizens. During Mann's time the big challenge was unequal education so to tackle that issue the roles of schools had to be different from the ones TJ envisioned.
Faisal Ali
Jefferson’s plan called for a three-leveled educational system. First, there would be three years of elementary schooling, for both men and women. Afterwards, men would be able to attend grammar school and then move on to university. Jefferson saw elementary education as a way to allow both men and women to learn skills that would help them in daily life, such as reading and writing. Grammar schools were intended to teach things such as languages, advance arithmetic, and geography and also focused on preparing its students for university studies and becoming local leaders. At the university, Jefferson was adamant that students be open to many areas of advance subjects and not be fixated on a specific path of study. Many students ended up serving in high governmental leadership positions. There were about 20 grammar schools in Virginia, and each school had a student who was studying on a scholarship; then half of these students could go on to university with a scholarship. So although Jefferson envisioned in an education that would encourage life-long learning among everyone, at the same time, he also believed that education should be used to find and distinguish skilled leaders and innovators among the masses who would help guide society. He even thought that local governments should be responsible for overseeing educational efforts and advancements. When it comes to Mann’s educational plants, he believed that supporting education should be a national effort, and that it was every citizen’s duty to help fund public schooling through taxes. He also believed in longer schooling periods, lasting for around 8 to 9 months. Mann also wanted to use education as a way to instill common values and a shared identity among students in order to fight against social conflict that resulted from the growing diversity of American society. However, like Jefferson, Mann also believed in using examinations to measure academic progress and help students get ahead. And although he believed that women should receive education, he too also placed more focus on males. He saw the importance of the role local governments in education and fought to convince them to create longer school terms, train teachers, and provide better school supplies. Finally, Mann also believed in using education as a means to increase the number of productive workers and to bridge the gap between the wealthy and laboring classes, promoting more social unity and harmony. His idea of using education to encourage commonality contrasts in a way to Jefferson’s views, which seem to favor bringing out the best of the best through a stratified education system.
ReplyDeleteNavami Ravindra
Jefferson's plan for public education appears as if it were very radical for it's time. The main theme that I'm picking up on is the idea that if people are more educated, they will be better citizens because they will act in a more reasonable way and also be able to closer look at the movements of the government. The idea of each citizen governing him or her was, as far as I know, a relatively new and more controversial idea (seeing as the abandonment of the thought of a monarchy being ideal was a fairly recent phenomenon). Also, the idea of educating women and minorities was a notable trait of his plan, though it's definitely not creating a totally a perfect society by our definitions. I do agree with Jordan's comment that Jefferson saw public schools as a way to promote social mobility, but also want to point out that it was obviously still going to mean that a very small portion of people who were not of aristocrat status could climb upward in society. As far as Mann's views go, I think they are very blunt and well-stated. It seems as though his focus is creating a functioning American population via schools and he's very realistic about the ways in which he would do so. I do agree with Jordan that Jefferson's plans did appear to be more romantic in the context of what the outcome of schooling should be, especially for his time period and the way the concept of how life should be spent was back then.
ReplyDelete-Sarah
ReplyDeleteWhen reading through Thomas Jefferson’s plans for public education, I found many parts that I disagreed with. First and foremost, is his blatant sexism (but then again what man wasn’t sexist in the 1700’s?). In the elementary section of his proposed education plan, he says that women would only be eligible for three years of public schooling. He called these three years “education for life”, where it is implied that women would only learn enough to take care of the men and children in their family and nothing more. While it is impossible to deem this acceptable by modern day standards, I suppose that it catered to the needs of his time, where women only served a biological purpose in society. On the other hand, the end of chapter 1 of the Rury article did talk about how gender roles started to shift after the American Revolution. When women’s husbands left or were killed, they would have to assume male roles in society- running a business, owning property, etc.. This led to the radical idea that women could be fully functional members of society as well, and thus the movement for women’s rights in America began right after it was founded. In terms of their education, it seems to me that the only way they could obtain higher schooling is if it was for the good of the government, to educate their children about the American democracy. Mann, on the other hand, seemed to push a bit more than Thomas Jefferson to raise the status of women by recruiting them as teachers for the Common Schools. In doing so, he also wanted to raise the status of all teachers by professionalizing teaching. I found this especially interesting because it was pointed out in the Rury article that teaching wasn’t a very prestigious occupation at the time.
However, one part TJ’s elementary education plan that I did agree with was that he wanted math to be taught to serve real life purposes- where people would learn arithmetic for the sake of knowing how to purchase goods, do taxes, and most importantly, understand the economy in which they worked. I think that this is something that current schools lack. Instead of being pushed to take calculus once we master basic math skills, it would be more reasonable for high school students to take personal finance classes before they go to college. I can say with confidence that the majority of high school seniors do not know how to do taxes, let alone have a basic understanding of our struggling economy.
Katie Ketcham
I think it is interesting that Jefferson factors in to his plan for public education the fourth level - the life-long personal learning. In a sense, he intends for the first three levels of structured schooling to be ways to achieve life-long learning, and that then maybe the purpose of structured schools is to inspire a love of learning within the pupil. Jefferson also makes note, however, to say that in order for citizens to pursue happiness they must also pursue education. In a way, Jefferson’s educational plan is his plan for a happy society of republican citizens; Jefferson, like Plato has in mind an educational state with a leading “natural aristocracy.”
ReplyDeleteJefferson’s “natural aristocracy” manifests itself in our country today with a meritocracy; his plan for lifelong learning leading to happiness is not as successful. In today’s culture, learning is seen as a path to success, and happiness and success, while not mutually exclusive, are not often pursued at the same time.
I think it is interesting that both Jefferson and Mann agree on the general nature and purpose of public schooling, but that both met so much resistance with their ideas. It is also worth noting, I think, that Mann makes the distinction that public education is a moral responsibility of society to the next generation. This prevented Mann from being accused of political or religious motivation: the citizens in Massachusetts were morally obligated to provide free schooling for the continuation of their society. This idea I think was missing in Jefferson’s plans, as he risked political dissent for his education plans.
Manon Loustaunau
I would have to agree with Manon and disagree with Jordan in that I perceive through Jefferson's plan that he was very concerned with learning for the sake of learning. While only a select few would be given the chance to advance to higher level learning, I believe his goal to create functional citizens with a basic knowledge not only benefit society and the economy, but he hoped it could lead those citizens to pursue greater knowledge through self-education, which could be possible for free with his idea of the public library. Obviously this plan does not appeal to the democratic equality goal of most public schooling, but it does combine education as a way of improving and maintaining both the economy and government for all citizens.
ReplyDeleteTaylor Thornberg
Jefferson proposed an education system that served to create an informed public (to an extent) and through meritocracy bring out the best in the country to become model citizens that will lead the country. Jefferson’s system was comprised of three years of basic elementary school and took out those unfit to continue as you increased to the grammar school level and the university level. I got the feeling from Jefferson that he mistrusted the common citizen and that only a select few should be able to continue unlike Mann who believed that every citizen could be changed into a model citizen and the gap between social classes could be closed. This could also be due to the time period for Jefferson was around in a time period where education wasn’t as big of deal as it has become. Thus I can see why he would mistrust the common citizen. However, through the scholarship aspect of Jefferson’s plan we can see that he does believe to a certain extent that the future leader could come from families who traditionally don’t have a lot of money or doesn’t hold a lot of prestige.
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson’s view for the purpose of schooling, as the article states, was to prepare young people to be active and aware members of the republican government, in order to preserve the institution of that government. I thought his ideals largely reflected what Labaree describes as the “equal opportunity” goal of education, given that he wanted to provide a free form of broad level of education to all people so they are equally able to function in general roles of society. However, his view for the grammar and upper-level education reflect both a “social mobility” and “social efficiency” goal. By this I mean he is awarding those who are determined to have intellect to thrive (a meritocratic ideal) in their education in order to fulfill necessary roles in the upper tiers of society (which are necessary in terms of social efficiency). Despite what seems like a relatively effective plan for education, I doubt three years of primary schooling would be enough time to satisfy all of the objectives for elementary education described in the article. Also, his goals for free education to all only extend to white communities, and women were educated not for the same reasons as males were.
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing Jefferson’s aims to Mann’s, I see quite a few differences, especially their differing beliefs about the importance of memorization and repetition of language as a measure of scholarly intelligence in the university. However, both Mann and Jefferson believed in the sort of liberal arts type education where electives are chosen in addition to a small core curriculum in order to let students be fueled by their interests. Mann’s perspective was less about aims or purposes and more about reforming the way education worked in America. He was all about regulating school systems with common teacher-preparation and standards, elongating the school year, and taking away such a sectarian approach to schooling. While Jefferson’s plan promised for a public school system that was governed locally, Mann seemed to prefer a plan that was more highly centralized, where the state would play more of a role in promoting uniformity of public education among states. Overall, both men did little to address the future of education for the very poor, women, and minorities, as their plans catered mostly to one demographic of the American people.
Laura Zoellner
Jefferson’s plan for public education was well thought out. For the time period that it was presented in, his education plan was definitely looked down upon, because of the social differences between men and women. The thought of giving the basics of education to girls I’m sure made some government officials cringe. However, Jefferson’s three step education plan lead to his fourth step of life-long learning, which ties in with his major goal of “the ability of people to govern themselves.” Education is a pre-requisite for leadership, so his plan was simple and perfect for its time period. In TJ’s day, the economy and skilled jobs were not that big of a deal. Education was geared towards making better government leaders. TJ just wanted to make it so the commoners had an understanding of government in order for them to choose the right people (those who were well educated and prepared, instead of those who inherited wealth from their families) to be in government, so they could be trusted to make good decisions on fixing things that are wrong. I disagree with how his plan provides education to women, but given the historical time period, his plan is already a bit radical to make it more equal opportunity for men and women.
ReplyDeleteMann just like Jefferson was trying to depart from the norm. He wanted to take these common kids and place them in a structured environment fit for learning to become citizen. In a sense, Jefferson and Mann’s overall purpose of education is similar, but how they go about making it happen, their plans, are different. Jefferson looks at it as the structure is what should be reformed, whereas Mann sees it as the way the children are being taught needs to be reformed. Either way they both see education as being the pre-requisite to leadership.
Arielle Preston
Stewart Bova,
ReplyDeleteTJ's vision of schools defiantly fit his personality and his idea of a "Meritocracy". He saw the need of an educated, smart, and successful group of individuals to go on to university. His mindset became, what they would call in the 1850s, a "free soil" ideal. Where the country would be a collection of independent farmers, but as TF desired, they would all be basically educated and have the ability to learn. (A good observation from Laura) TJ defiantly supported the idea of the local government creating and running the school than to the whole state or country.
Horace Mann is a different figure because, he actually did change the school system. While not all of his plans were erected, the early success of northern schools over southern was obviously due in part because of Horace Mann's emphasis on structure of school, grades, and language. He also wanted everyone to have a good education (not just an opportunity for one)
I would like to note an obvious difference between the two's ideas of religion in school.
Thomas Jefferson's main purpose for an education system was to pick out potential leaders and assure that vocations are occupied based on merit rather than money or status, like it had always been. The three tier system succeeding at picking the best of the best, but it failed in the manner that the large "rubbish" majority could not further their education unless they were rich. It was very systematic of him to divide states into wards and give power to the local governments. He didn't give too much power to local authorities, as it would set the system up for failure and corruption. Therefore, the establishment of overseers guaranteed all the children in the elementary school districts were getting the proper basic education. Arguably, three years is not enough to "protect the liberties of the population" because it barely taught the population the scientific approach to their agrarian economy, let alone comprehend the political system to the point where they could limit government's authority. But that all goes to show how strong Jefferson's motives were to implement a meritocracy. Mann's ideas around the education system were of meritocracy as well, although it wasn't clearly stated. They both didn't want wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance to be the reason behind one's success.
ReplyDeleteThe selected "geniuses" that were fortunate enough to become educated in an university setting were alloted to be the nation's leaders. Rather it was small or big, Jefferson's intentions behind this system were to pick the hidden talents to rule the nation. His mentality behind public education reflected his despise for the English Common system. He didn't want the new nation to be ruled as England had tried to rule it. Everything had to be scratched off and started off with a clean slate and what better way to do it than revolutionizing the education system. The place where everyone starts off at. If the population is more educated then they can make smarter political choices and continue to interest themselves and the coming generations with the power of knowledge and the willingness to learn and make an impact on society.
I thought TJ's purpose for schooling was to help educate people who can potentially become great leaders in the future. He was also focused on ensuring equality between the various groups in society. He was focused on providing the right resources to build successful leaders that can carry the country into a successful future. However, I thought since TJ was very wealthy that caused him to leave out a lot of aspects in education. He did not understand what the poor individuals were going through. That was highlighted in the fact that he did not provide many scholarships for everyone, rather a smaller amount of scholarships. One of the other downsides to TJ's plan is that he did not ensure full equality in education for women. An example of that is that he wasn't as motivated that women get to university level education as did the men. Mann on the other hand, focused a little bit more about women's right to education then TJ did. Mann also ensured that he takes the poorer individuals into consideration. Overall, I felt TJ provided a "not too bad" of a start to education, however Mann's purposes for education were much more advanced and geared toward equality.
ReplyDelete-Mohamed Ibrahim
Miranda Webster:
ReplyDeleteI was, at first, rather excited by Jefferson's ideas about education. He sees it as a means to a better society, as a passage into becoming a whole person. Jefferson even believes that education should lift the people up out of their "born" position, which is a rather radical idea in a time when there was such a hierarchy and class system. He didn't think education was just a way to churn out citizens to fill up jobs. He though that people should be able to work upwards in society, towards a goal and a lifestyle that they desired. That part of Jefferson's beliefs, that whole, well-rounded and optimistic outlook on what education should do for people, that part excited me. What a found a little disconcerting was his statement on pulling certain people out of the rubble, and raising them into the light, so to speak. What Jefferson essentially was talking about was finding the "deserving poor person" and then shoving them into a system with a bunch of wealthy people. The system then becomes about a minority's struggle, whether it is about class, race, or gender. Although Jefferson had good ideas, and he was definitely more in line with our current society's way of thinking, his policy is still dated. Just the fact that people are given the opportunity to be equals, but not seen as equals, puts his policy in perspective. It becomes a little less glamourous and inspiring when you realized what Jefferson is asking and expecting of anyone below the average.