Why, when given our country’s predilection for capitalism, have we striven to make education socialistic?
And before I begin to get slammed, let me also say that I feel that backwards design, differentiation, and constructivism are nice in theory but are no better than the traditional methods they have replaced. They like their predecessors only appeal to a select group of students.
Also, I am not against equality, which I understand the goal of these tendencies to be. However, let the equality be in the arena of opportunity and resources, and let the competitve flare of Americanism return.
Favorite Answer
I’ve been reading about how our education processes changed dramatically in the early 1900’s. When individuals started to work for others in large numbers, the need for independent thinking really went out the window. The real basis for Capitalism in North America, if you recall, was slavery. Having lost slavery as the results of the Civil War, capitalists had to find a new methodology. Using labor (as cheap as you can get it) to make profits for others is not new, but it was mostly new to the South for certain.
Fast forward to the late 1800’s early 1900’s and you find a nation that is growing into an industrial power. What the capitalists of that day understood was that you could do very well by having a very FEW independent thinkers, with the bulk of the employment needs met by those who have been trained well in the art of following directions.
This is, of course, just a point of view. But I think a little more study into the subject will reveal that the socialization of education is actually a foundation of our current system of capitalism. Similarly, you’ll find that this kind of educational process makes excellent soldiers as well.
One last thing…as you look around larger cities, I am sure you will find more and more examples of the socialization of costs, and privatization of profits. We have that in the Seattle area, where public monies are spent on large systems (like stadiums for baseball or football teams that are privately held), with the profits going into private hands. In other words, socialistic processes are, in many cases, undercurrents to a capitalist project. It is an interesting situation.
Isn’t the gulf between the educated and uneducated big enough already?
Also, how do we know which under-educated, under-motivated person might turn out to do something really extraordinary, should he/she be given the opportunity to advance in the world?
Do you think only the wealthy have the potential to make a significant contribution to the world?
