Rethinking 4

"Until the 19th century, education was largely the responsibility of the parents.   ...........This was an apprenticeship system where individual children were taught all they needed to know by those close to them".  - page 50

I think of an apprenticeship system to be more of an individual training of a youth by a master to do a specific job.  Regardless, I was reminded of the many times I realized that many employers train their new employees to do exactly what the employer wants.  I have often wondered what the real value of public schooling was in those cases.  An extreme case would be that of Woodward Governor which was headquartered in Rockford, Il.  When I was in high school, some students were selected to work during summers for that company.  If they were good workers the company recruited them for full time work after graduation.  They were specially trained and socialized to be company loyal.  The had doctors on staff  as well as dentists and barbers.  Everything was conformity.  The company provided all.  The company even provided Christmas presents for all children of employees by sex and age.  It still does.  My father used to say it was a communist company.  The company also pays only some of the wages monthly.  The remainder is saved to be awarded as a Christmas bonus.  So, many employees get as much as half of their wages once per year at Christmas.  If a person works for a company like that, then there is no need of further education.  It is not really desirable either because ignorance is bliss.  Why should we make a person dissatisfied by allowing him to become aware of other ways?  Sounds sort of religious doesn't it?  Let's get to the next quote.

On page 52, the authors write "Maris Vinovskis sees the enactment of these early school laws as a reflection of the attempts to promulgate correct religious views...........", and on page 54; " Horace Mann.............  He was particularly concerned about preparing the many new immigrants with the values and skills needed by the new republic".  One function of public schools is to socialize students politically so that they will not revolt against the government.  It is taboo in our country to talk about how our military kills innocents by the tens of thousands so that we can have oil, other resources and political power.  I often ask students what they think about saying the pledge of allegiance every day in school.  Such brainwashing of innocent children makes me disgusted.  I believe that it would be better to teach children to think and question the government.  But then, they might need to kill me.  After all, for hundreds of years it has been the practice of WASPS to control the world by making all of its peoples believe in the same things that they believed in or it would be OK to kill  the infidel.  In fact, when I attended federal law enforcement school during 1986, we were told that our targets were any persons who did not believe in main stream American values.  Our job was to destroy all of those people and any methods were acceptable.  Under Reagan laws were changed so that all federal agents could and still can operate with total impunity for any otherwise illegal act against a target.  For example, a federal agent can not be prosecuted for lying or for planting false evidence against a target. 

On page 61, the authors write, "Compulsory attendance was the main thrust of universal schooling"
They go on to make idealistic claims that seem childish and unreal to me.  I think the government wanted people to make the correct political decisions and not "wise" political decisions.  In other words, we brainwash them before we give them the vote.  There is another side of this.  I bet the authors do not know that Mississippi did not enact compulsory education of children until 1981.  Some people thought education was not necessary for rural farmers?  Some people thought that education was not necessary for blacks?  What were they thinking?  What do you think?  Even JFK failed to change this.  It is not as simple as what you are thinking, really.  Does education really empower people?  And, based on what happened in North Africa recently, is our government spooked by the power of social media?  Or, did our government use social media to expidite its own political agenda in the region?  According to a recent interview on PBS radio, we do study and plan for this.  We scan social media constantly looking for information in other countries.  Are we afraid of our own citizenry?  I don't know but I wonder.  I do believe that our government tends toward being a control freak.  I suspect that social media can help maintain and restore freedom.  Should we teach children how to use it more effectively?