School & Society: Ch. 3 Study Questions

1. It might be argued that Horace Mann's thinking about schooling and society is perfectly consistent with Jefferson's view, but that the differing political-economic contexts of late 18th-century Virginia and early 19th-century Massachusetts required different applications of Jeffersonian ideals. Assess that point of view, providing support from the text.

Jefferson's realm was broader in every sense. Education was but one spoke of his intellect. Mann, however, was more or less a devoted student of the subject. Thus they differed in their perspective and analysis, not only due to their separation in time and geography, but also their approach to the subject.

The text observes that Mann was not entirely original, and that his ideas, in the main, merely reflected the common sentiment of his time. The noble poise of Jefferson was receding from the public memory, and the society was already being slowly drawn, by tantalizing mirages, into federalism. The Government, as an institution, was beginning to be regarded as the champion of the public good. Some of this is healthy. The error arises when "champion" begins to mean "creator" rather than merely "protector."

The main difference between Mann and Jefferson was along this line: not education per se, but rather the province and promises of Government. It seems evident that Jefferson has a better grasp on the matter; Mann, riding the wave of federalism, brought the Government into his pet project, which happened to be education. What he did may have been the best that could have been done under the circumstances, given the temperament of the people; that may never be known.

I would have liked to see the society build more patiently on Jefferson's model, following the Brownsonian design for locally structured schooling. It seems this would have brought us more diversity, more passion, and would have been less a system and more a soul.

2. Were Orestes Brownson's ideas more consistent with Jefferson's view on the relations between education and republican forms of government than Horace Mann's? Defend your position.

Brownson united an expanding societal grasp on the psychology of education with the high ideals of the Jeffersonian Republic. He argued for localism, responsibility, and education for morals - not money. In contrast to Mann's blatant departure from Jefferson's Governmental ideals, Brownson maintained a grassroots view of the matter.

As the text notes: Part of Brownson's critique is grounded in a view of the educated person similar to Aristotle's notion of 'the cultivation of human excellence for its own sake,' an ideal that Brownson believes Mann is abandoning in favor of education for instrumental social ends." Brownson: "We think more of education as a means of fitting us for a livelihood than for anything else. The tendency has long been to sink the man in what are merely his accidents, to qualify him for a profession or pursuit, rather than to be a man..."

All three (Jefferson, Mann, and Brownson) were heavily influenced by Enlightenment thought - indeed, the world was. Mann took his enthusiasm in an socio-economic direction, while Jefferson and Brownson took a harder line and kept the bar high, not denying socio-economics, but making it a by-product of the educational process rather than a goal.

3. Given the then-current view that religious instruction was an essential part of the formation of character, how satisfactory was Mann's common-school solution to the religious diversity of urban Massachusetts? Defend your view.

Mann's attempt was undoubtedly heroic. I am inclined, however, to agree with Brownson: "The board [assures] us Christianity shall be insisted on so far, and only so far, as it is common to all sects. This if it means anything, means nothing at all. All who attempt to proceed on teh principle here laid down will find their Christianity ending in nothingness. Much may be taught in general, but nothing in particular. No sect will be satisfied; all sects will be dissatisfied. For it is not enough that my children are not educated in a belief contrary to my own; I would have them educated to believe what I hold to be important truth; and I always hold that to be important truth, wherein I differ from others..."

Each man's individual perception of Mann's measures may have differed. Clearly, it was not sufficient for Brownson. It is frankly astonishing to me that public education got on at all, considering the fervent religious convictions of the time. In our day, people believe less, think less, and, generally, care less; so a more or less secular educational institution makes more sense.

From the Christian perspective, this a foundational part of the rationale for parent-education.

4. On the one hand, Mann's promotion of women into the teaching force might be regarded as a positive advance for women into the public sphere. On the other, it might be argued that Mann was reinforcing the subservience of women by limiting them to public-sphere nurturing roles in public institutions controlled by governing boards comprised entirely of men. In your view, was the feminization of teaching a positive advance for women, or more negative in its import?

That Mann was "reinforcing the subservience of women by limiting them to public-sphere nurturing roles in public institutions controlled by governing boards comprised entirely of men" would have never entered in the minds of the populace. Such an estimation is only available to us in hindsight: it seems any significant insertion of women into the public would have been viewed unequivocally as "a positive advance for women into the public sphere."

The nurturing propensity of women seems a reasonable observation, in and of itself. Unfortunately for Mann, the feminization of teaching does not follow.

On the whole, in my view, the feminization of teaching was good for feminism and bad for women. Woman are designed with plentiful and particular gifts, but they are not designed to employ these gifts in the public sphere. Granted, the current state of the American educational system and workforce does little to substantiate this claim. It takes time for the milk to sour.

5. To what degree do you believe that the current status of the teaching profession is traceable to such common-school origins as the feminization of teaching, the social role of schooling, and the development of normal schools? Defend your view.

These were all factors that shaped and lent decisive direction to the teaching profession. On the one hand, I don't see them particularly more influential than many other ideas before or since. On the other, they came along at a formative time in the society's development, and found an open, pliable audience. Which makes them, in a way, the only discernible end to the traceable trail.

6. If Mann's common-school successes came at the expense of such democratic ideals as local self-governance and cultural pluralism, to what degree were these compromises justified in your view? Defend your position.

Mann's "successes" were subjective at best. He relied heavily on the inertia of the post-revolution Republic; critically speaking, he may have even slowed it down. The delayed repercussions of his actions have been disastrous.

The country has continued to make these compromises, in bulk. In my view, they are deadly; despite their sugary coating. They are dead-ends that masquerade as shortcuts. They deny the high ideals of liberty and responsibility, and should be roundly repudiated by the truly free and forward society.

Inoculating young minds with standardized, sterilized thinking drags the mat right out from under one's pious democratic ideal. Consider: if independent, industrious minds conceived of and created the Republic, it ought to go without saying that independent, industrious minds are capable of maintaining it. Perhaps, with a bit of luck, they might even improve upon it.

Fear is the enemy of freedom.