You initially cited a source saying that schools were created to homogenize immigrants. Sure, the goal isn’t quite as explicit as reading standards, but I’m sure you could find some statements about schools creating shared identity, shared values, etc
The political movement that started a thing and the daily administration of a thing have no intrinsic relationship. I think we need to look at the subject with fine-enough granularity to be able to distinguish them. Mission statements, pledges, etc. are effectively meaningless and are where these shared values statements live; they are not common knowledge except insofar as being a signal of membership, and even that is weak. I could not tell you a single mission statement from any school or employer of mine. By contrast, literacy and numeracy are things people do, that enable them to be productive directly. Even from the purely practical standpoint of ‘what do schools do that work’ we notice immediately that conformity and curriculum are approached very differently.
Interestingly, I note that every high school develops a group of students who are explicit in their opposition to conformity as a principle. There was not much engagement with any principle associated with the curriculum where I went to school. This has no particular implications for whether either is good, it just reinforces that they are different.
I believe school actively harms love of knowledge. I don’t know anyone who liked school that is also a curious person; the people I know who liked school liked to be successful, and knowing what was expected of them. There is one lesson plan, taught at one pace, and deviation in any direction is discouraged unless there’s a particularly capable teacher. In my language arts classes I was told to stop reading; in social studies to ask fewer questions and participate less; they successfully managed to hide any reason math was interesting or useful.
I assert people are curious by default; they have to be to learn to walk or speak or socialize. Sufficient love of knowledge is inborn in my view—it takes quite a bit to batter it out of them.
I don’t know anyone who liked school that is also a curious person
That’s not a very strong argument.
In my language arts classes I was told to stop reading; in social studies to ask fewer questions and participate less;
Presumably that had no effect, and you grew up to be quite curious anyway.
I assert people are curious by default; they have to be to learn to walk or speak or socialize.
That’s a very optimistic view. Sure, small children are naturally curious in some ways, but I suggest that most also naturally grow out of it (or you could say that parents are the ones who “batter it out of them”). I see no reason to believe that, e.g. children before compulsory education used to be more curious or had more love for knowledge, when they grew up (of course, it’s hard to love knowledge when you can’t read).
The political movement that started a thing and the daily administration of a thing have no intrinsic relationship. I think we need to look at the subject with fine-enough granularity to be able to distinguish them. Mission statements, pledges, etc. are effectively meaningless and are where these shared values statements live; they are not common knowledge except insofar as being a signal of membership, and even that is weak. I could not tell you a single mission statement from any school or employer of mine. By contrast, literacy and numeracy are things people do, that enable them to be productive directly. Even from the purely practical standpoint of ‘what do schools do that work’ we notice immediately that conformity and curriculum are approached very differently.
Interestingly, I note that every high school develops a group of students who are explicit in their opposition to conformity as a principle. There was not much engagement with any principle associated with the curriculum where I went to school. This has no particular implications for whether either is good, it just reinforces that they are different.
I believe school actively harms love of knowledge. I don’t know anyone who liked school that is also a curious person; the people I know who liked school liked to be successful, and knowing what was expected of them. There is one lesson plan, taught at one pace, and deviation in any direction is discouraged unless there’s a particularly capable teacher. In my language arts classes I was told to stop reading; in social studies to ask fewer questions and participate less; they successfully managed to hide any reason math was interesting or useful.
I assert people are curious by default; they have to be to learn to walk or speak or socialize. Sufficient love of knowledge is inborn in my view—it takes quite a bit to batter it out of them.
That’s not a very strong argument.
Presumably that had no effect, and you grew up to be quite curious anyway.
That’s a very optimistic view. Sure, small children are naturally curious in some ways, but I suggest that most also naturally grow out of it (or you could say that parents are the ones who “batter it out of them”). I see no reason to believe that, e.g. children before compulsory education used to be more curious or had more love for knowledge, when they grew up (of course, it’s hard to love knowledge when you can’t read).