???
Posted on 04/29/2026 6:39:54 AM PDT by Eleutheria5
“The real reason America created public schools… had nothing to do with education.” It’s a bold claim—but the truth is more complex, and far more interesting than the headline suggests. 🧠
Public education in the United States began taking shape in the 19th century, especially during the Common School Movement led by Horace Mann. His goal wasn’t to avoid education—it was to expand it. At the time, schooling was inconsistent, often private, and inaccessible to many families. Public schools were created to provide free, basic education to all children, regardless of social class. 🏫
But education wasn’t the only purpose. These schools also aimed to create a more stable and unified society. In a rapidly growing nation with waves of immigration and industrial change, leaders saw schools as a way to teach shared values, civic responsibility, and basic skills needed for work and participation in society. 🌍
Critics often point out that early public schools emphasized discipline, routine, and conformity—preparing students for factory life during the Industrial Revolution. There’s some truth to that. Schools did reflect the needs of the time, including workforce preparation and social order. But that doesn’t mean education wasn’t the goal—it means it served multiple purposes at once. ⚙️
So was it about control, or about opportunity? The answer is: both factors played a role. Public schools were designed to educate, but also to shape citizens, reduce inequality, and respond to economic demands. Over time, the system evolved into what we recognize today. 📈
In this video, we break down the real history behind public education in America, separating facts from viral claims and exploring why schools were created in the first place.
Watch until the end—because the truth is more layered than the theory.
Transcript linked below description
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Spamorama!
I’m sure it started way back in the garden.
???
Specifics do matter.
Just throwing up “oh it was in the garden” is useless.
Fair enough. I do not always remember which user names are which so I apologize.
In any case, I am not convinced communism is the biggest threat the U.S. has faced.
We have over 100 years now of progressive success after progressive success. Progressives are clearly a much bigger threat than the communists are. Right?
Ah, come on. You want specifics? It was a snake.
So schools have returned to the original model, except rather than grooming a class of physical conformists, they’re now creating mental conformity.
Hell, no.
“But on my terms, the subjects that intrested ME.”
You aren’t a lot different than students in the early education facilities in the US. During the expansion times most country schools didn’t have “trained” educators and they taught what was in the local area. So they may have taught agriculture, or mining tactics, along with the three “R’s.” And when they were far enough along they might go into a internship with a specialize training they liked like blacksmithing, horse stabling and training, or on to bigger education to learn how to do professional work like surveying. Pick your poison.
wy69
Pre Public education, Education was based in either the family (home schooling) or the church. This resulted in education that was parochial and fostered inequality. A Catholic School, Lutheran School, etc produced kids who were motivated in the economy to prove that their school was better than the competition. And the poor kid whose parents didn’t care lost out.
We changed from “born equal” to “opportunity to graduate equal”
Politically, no. Socially, absolutely. Gramsci's redirection of communism to that effect is what came to the US via the Institute for Social Research.
As to the Progressives, it was one of them who rescued the IFSR to plant them at Columbia as but a part of a much larger and more destructive plan, in the person who shall remain unidentified in this discussion pending release of my next book.
Yes...and Hillsdale is helping break the mold...where they can....there are also Alpha schools, but they are expensive. Parents creating their own education centers must happen.
Public education from the start was seen as a necessity for the survival of self government. It was mandated by the Northwest Ordinance in 1787. Nothing to do with the industrial revolution. John Adams advocated for “liberal education of the youth” to foster the virtues needed for a republic to survive.
How specific is your definition of a “progressive” and “progressivism”? A predisposition to some promising novelty, whatever that may be? In this sense Marxists consider themselves progressive for ushering in a communist utopia. Social liberals, too, would think themselves to be progressive. They quibble about doing it fast or slow, but they are all progressive. So the term can be vague.
If more specific, it’s the moniker of the industrialists defining the Progressive Era. Like the communists, they fix social ills with the promise of technology and government.
Yes, this needs more momentum. I often thought the concept of a mall would work for schooling. Kumon math runs at one end, the YMCA is at the other. And everything in between, ballet, orchestra ...
No, it was Horace Mann.
Try again.
Horace Mann was in the garden?
Education is necessary. You can educate junior after he’s done milking the cows. He can go to a school house, and chop wood for teacher for his tuition payment, or if you have the cash, you can pay in cash. Publicly-funded and administered education is another matter entirely.
Unfortunately, I am convinced that there are all of about 5 people who have actually read what Gramsci wrote and one of those persons is James Lindsay which means there are 4 left. I am not one of those 4 who have read Gramsci’s books to be fair. And of those 4 only 2 of them actually own his books and use them effectively for footnotes/references.
I hope you get enough sales to justify your time investment on that book.
The thing of it is that the math is irrefutable and it isn’t even close, the progressives “win” hands down by comparison.
Starting with Progressive Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson in the Progressive era, add in another Roosevelt and Truman and LBJ and moving forward the progressives have had pretty much 120 years of continued success at subverting our country.
The communists can’t come close to 120. I don’t even think the communists could cough up 3 years in their wildest dreams. The math is so overwhelmingly stacked against the communists that I think it’s literally stupid to waste so much time on such failures when the progressives have done such supreme damage to the U.S. And the progressives keep getting away with it.
Progressivism is America’s Cancer. Progressivism deserves way more examination than it receives and we’re killing ourselves by ignoring them and focusing so much attention on the small group of stupid ineffective communists.
We are wasting time on the communists. Wasting time. What about the progressives?
You’ve got so many vibrant weeds growing under your window and they’re going crazy. Why are you wasting so much time on that barely hanging on wilting weed at the corner of your house?
I can’t make any sense of this. I’ll stay by the window. These weeds here are the actual problem.
Horace Mann was the first in the U.S. to hold our children as hostages to his cause. He literally said that much.
To be specific.
You’re only making yourself look uneducated and foolish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.