Secular seminaries of a sort. In contrast,
Even the Unitarian (a religion that effectively denies Christ and the Divine authority of the Bible, but, unlike its immoral form today, at that time it at least overall upheld general Biblical morality) “Father of the Common School,” Horace Mann (May 4, 1796 — August 02, 1859), who became Massachusetts Secretary of Education in 1837, not only understood the impossibility of separating education from religious moral beliefs, but held that it was lawful to teach the truths of the general Christian faith, asserting that the “laws of Massachusetts required the teaching of the basic moral doctrines of Christianity.” Mann, who supported prohibition of alcohol and intemperance, slavery and lotteries, (http://www.famousamericans.net/horacemann) dreaded “intellectual eminence when separated from virtue”, that education, if taught without moral responsibilities, would produce more evil than it inherited. (William Jeynes, “American educational history: school, society, and the common good,” p. 149, 150)
Mann evidenced that he rightly understood that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment did not prohibit officially favoring the general, common Christian faith and its morality, but that it forbade official sanction of one particular sect by distinctively favoring its doctrinal distinctions, stating that “it may not be easy theoretically, to draw the line between those views of religious truth and of Christian faith which is common to all, and may, therefore, with propriety be inculcated in schools, and those which, being peculiar to individual sects, are therefore by law excluded; still it is believed that no practical difficulty occurs in the conduct of our schools in this regard.” (Stephen V. Monsma, J. Christopher Soper, “The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies”, The Unites States, cp. 2, p. 21) To critics who were alarmed at the concept of secular schools, he assured that his system “inculcates all Christian morals; it founds its morals on the basis of religion; it welcomes the religion of the Bible...,” but he did exhort that Bible reading be without comment to discourage sectarian bickering. (Mann, Twelfth Annual Report for 1848 of the Secretary of the Board of Education of Massachusetts. Reprinted in Blau 183-84.
Considered second to Mann in his schooling endeavor was Henry Barnard, who was raised in a deeply religious family, and who saw his involvement in education “as part of the providence of God”. Like the majority of Americans, he believed that democracy and education went together in “the cause of truth—the cause of justice — the cause of liberty— the cause of patriotism — the cause of religion.” (Jeynes, p. 154)
By 1890, schools nationwide saw 95 percent of children between the ages of five and thirteen enrolled for at least a few months out of the year, though less than 5 percent of adolescents went to high school, and even fewer entered college. In addition, while there existed thousands of local schools, nearly one thousand colleges and universities (or varying quality), and scores of normal schools which trained teachers, a nationwide educational “system” had yet to be realized by the end of the 1800’s. Education was largely locally managed, as the federal bureau of education, while collecting information about the condition of education, possessed no control over local schools. Education agencies on the state level were small, and its few employees had little or no power over local school districts. School systems in large cities could also function with little oversight, such as in Baltimore, where the public schools in 1890 employed only two superintendents for the entire district of 1,200 teachers.
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/CauseEffect.html
We know what Christ does with the lukewarm. He spits them out of His mouth
I certainly agree with removing the federal government from all involvement with education on absolutely every level. All of it should be returned to the states.
However....I oppose socialist schooling, even if districts were completely independent and the size of a city block or a suburban housing subdivision. There are several problems even if socialist schooling were this localized:
1) Finding agreement on the religious worldview, even among neighbors of a small neighborhood.
2) The risk that the socialist school would be lukewarm and generic in its religious worldivew, or godless secular.
3) Since it is impossible to have a religiously, politically, and socially neutral education, taxpayers would be forced to pay for a religious, political, and cultural worldview that they might find abhorrent, and students forced to use them.
4) Socialist-entitlement schools ( even in a district as small as a housing subdivision) are still **socialist** schools. Children risk learning that government and the voting mob have great power to give them tuition-free schooling. Well?...If the voting mob and government can force others to pay for tuition-free school, why not use that power to get **lots** of socialist goodies.
Mann was right about the Establishment Clause, but he was still dead wrong about socialist-entitlement and compulsory government owned and run schooling. It was a progressive idea from the beginning. Teacher training and curriculum development has always been under the control of progressives. Socialism inevitably leads to greater and greater centralization and greater and greater secularism, and eventual becomes more of a jobs program for the workers than a true social service.
Mann had good intentions but we know about intentions and the road to hell.