September 6...Horace Mann and the Common School Movement
Comment on one of the following two prompts (you do not need to comment on both):
1. Why do you think Mann's Common Schools were successful and Jefferson's plan was not?
2. What do you make of Mann's use of the Prussian system as a blueprint for his system?
1. Why do you think Mann's Common Schools were successful and Jefferson's plan was not?
2. What do you make of Mann's use of the Prussian system as a blueprint for his system?
Mann’s use of the Prussian school system was ultimately the basis of the public school system we have today. The Prussian school system was financed by the state, available to the public, and compulsory. Although it was class based into two tiers, the general basis of having advancing levels (elementary, technical, and normal schools) is much like the system we have today. I think Mann was initially attracted to the Prussian system of schooling because he was a strong advocate for humanitarian reform as well as a general equality for men and women. With this system of schooling, children of all social classes were, at the very least, able to gain some sort of basic level of education, which would increase the knowledge of the general adolescent public. This appealed to Mann because he argued that strength and power comes directly from knowledge and intelligence, so it was important to him to instill knowledge into future generations. Mann also gained influence from the Prussians about the importance of teaching methods and the quality of teachers. He believed that teachers should have positive reinforcement and set good examples to the youth in order for them to prosper. He encouraged teachers to approach students through love rather than physical punishment. Mann’s use of the Prussian system of schooling left a huge, and for the most part positive, impact on our education system today.
ReplyDeleteI inherently disagree with the Prussian system because of its focus on separation of classes, if the school for the common people could offer the opportunity to become one of the upper class people perhaps I wouldn't mind so much, but it doesn't. Even if someone from the lower classes took their education to the highest level possible they could only be a middle level manager. While in the aristocracy you can enroll in the military, become officers, researchers and go to universities, the stated goal of the lower class schools is to teach loyalty and obedience to authority. Mann of course ignored that part when incorporating their practices into his system, but I think he is giving their system to much credit. The ideas he did incorporate, free, compulsory and state financed/controlled are all great ideas that helped centralize american education and establish a base curriculum across the country. The best part of his incorporation of the prussian system was his focus on educating teachers, if the teacher isn't educated there is really no point in even sending the kids to school because they can only know so much from a person learning the information themselves.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the Prussian system has its pros and cons. I don't agree with the idea of separating people based off of class into two different tiers. People in the lower class don't receive the same opportunities as the upper class people. Especially when the upper class can continue their education in military academics, research or going to a university. I find it interesting that the goal of the lower class school was to develop patriotic citizens, the motto was even "God, emperor and country". The goal was to teach loyalty and obedience and not initiative or critical thinking. I liked that the Prussians saw an importance of teaching methods and quality in teachers which supported Mann's personal ideas. Mann believed that strict punishments was not good for children and that fear corrupted intellect, personality and morality of the child. Manns use of the Prussian system had a strong affect on the American education system today.
ReplyDeleteHorace Mann's commitment to the Common School sprang from his belief that political stability and social harmony depended on education. Mann's believed in an number of things which were citizens cannot maintain both ignorance and freedom; this education should be paid for, controlled and maintained by the public; this education should be provided in schools that embrace children from varying backgrounds; this education must be nonsectarian; this education must be taught using tenets of a free society; and this education must be provided by well-trained, professional teachers. Mann knew that the quality of rural schools had to be raised, and that teaching was the key to that improvement.
ReplyDelete-Nadia
It was a little weird that there was a separate school for the aristocrats and that they were pretty much geared for a certain lifestyle from such a young age. So basically if you were a child of an aristocratic family, in the very end of your schooling, you would know you would become a leader for the government and military agenda. However the development of normal schools were so essential to Manns proposals. He had major concerns over social hierarchy, and economy. Thats why the way teachers were taught/trained was essential. He wanted them to be succesful in order to better his proposal.
ReplyDeleteThe Prussian school system was separated based on class and wealthier individuals were given an aristocratic education while the common people were given a popular education. The author states that, “loyalty and obedience, not initiative or critical thinking, were the goals for the training of the common people.” However, Mann didn’t incorporate the class separation aspect. He focused more on “the idea of a free, state-financed and state-controlled universal and compulsory school...” Mann seemed to disregard the more limiting ideologies of the system like the fact that the Prussian system doesn’t allow much social mobility for the non-wealthy. He focused on ensuring that all students were able to obtain a free and well-rounded education that ultimately leads to better society.
ReplyDeleteI think their were both good and bad things of the Prussian system. I don't agree with the separation of class. The people in the higher class system had better job opportunities like being a politician or being in the military. Everyone should have equal opportunity on what they want to do as a career. On the plus side the Prussian system believed in a "free, universal, and compulsory" schooling through elementary schools. Everyone should have an equal opportunity at an education and not have to worry about their class, race, religion and gender. Another thing that I agreed with was that teachers should have the proper education to teach the children. If they don't know the material they're teaching, then how are they suppose to teach and educate children. I think we follow a few things through the Prussian system such as free universal school and teacher training in today's age.
ReplyDeleteMann's use of the Prussian system as a blueprint for his system benefited society more than anything. For starters, this system is almost identical to the educational system we have today, so we already assume how the system is going to go. Mann reiterates frequently that he is a strong believer for equality between both men and women and advocate's for educational rights. Which is an extremely good trait to have and by using the Prussian system as a blueprint for Mann's common schools, it allowed him to advance ahead with a system that is already well developed. As stated in the reading, the Prussians created a state-financed system that that was free, universal, and compulsory through the elementary grades. This is a great example of how it is just like the system we have today. Even though this system has different levels of education, it is still an efficient system to have and our educational system today can be an advocator for that. Just like with any universal proposal, Mann had high expectations for his reform. These expectations led to particulars in his work. He found six issues that he considered drawbacks to his proposal. These included: school buildings, moral values, the Prussian education system, discipline, teachers, and the economic value of education. Mann seemed like he was really picky when it came to how developed his 'blueprint' was that reflected the Prussian education system; which was an extremely good thing to have because it developed into a very efficient system as you can tell from today's educational society. I'd have to say he did a great job at copying the Prussian education as well as adding his own little spice to things.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference between Mann's education reform and Jefferson's was that Mann believed in a free, nonsectarian, and public education system. He believed in inclusion and wanted to provide everybody with equal access to education. One of the reasons for this was demonstrate the economic value of education as a whole and to inculcate what he believed were important modern values at the time in school curriculums. One thing I disagree with is that I do not believe the state is responsible for essentially forcing values on its citizens simply because it is a "common school." Mann was adamant on using teaching plans / methods that included "common elements" and "Christian truths." Perhaps, it is more important to foster critical thinking skills and let students have their own opinions and come to their own conclusions based on their own perceptions and environment.
ReplyDeletetheir own perceptions of their environment*
DeleteTo be completely honest, I am not 100% sure why Mann’s Common School System was successful when Jefferson’s plan was not. However, I have some ideas of why it might have worked out. To start with, Mann proposed the idea in Massachusetts, not Virginia. A majority of people in Massachusetts were “Whig Liberals,” meaning they put more importance on maintaining social order. This apposed Jefferson’s more Laissez-faire liberalism, which supported intellectual freedom above all. Mann made the argument that schooling would maintain social order, creating moral and upright citizens. Another reason I think Mann’s School system worked was because he wanted it to be nonsectarian. Unlike Jefferson, who wanted a secular system of schooling, Mann wanted Christianity to be in school. He just did not want to create more of a divide by choosing a specific denomination of Christianity. Because of this, he got the support of ministers and other clergy members across the Commonwealth. With the support of them, he most likely had the support of many congregations.To top that, he was constantly advocating for himself. The Annual Report he wrote boasted the idea of schooling, telling its readers that public schooling would be amazing for the economy, as well as bridge the gap between rich and poor. Finally, he created a system that was state-funded and state-run. This might have made school seem more viable because it could be standardized across the state, instead of just locally. After all the work he did, I think it would have been hard to deny the benefits that his system would have.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of the previous responses, Mann’s use of the Prussian system is a lot like what we have today. Even though the Prussian system is based on a person's class, each of the two tiers go through different levels. The aristocrats go through three levels, two of which are similar to what we have today (elementary and collegiate). Then the common people had only two levels which were elementary and then an option between working class and technical school. I think that Mann using the Prussian system as a blueprint was smart because he didn’t copy it completely, he took the aspects that he liked about it and grew it from there. I like how he saw the importance in educating teachers in the Prussian system and used it.
ReplyDeleteSandy
Lindsey: It seems as though Mann saw the division of the schools in the Prussian system to be positive because it perpetuated already created societal hierarchies, but I believe that it is contradictory to the idea of education in general. The Prussia school system not only divided the students by class, but also set out limited paths for the students to take in the future. To me, education shouldn't be seen as a way to organize the constituents of society and ensure the filling of all necessary roles within that society, but a way to enlighten and enrich the lives of the students so that they may be more equipped to make their own choices and create their own paths in life. Education should be a way to open up more opportunities, not limit them. Conversely, I do agree with Mann's belief that children are rational human beings and thus should be treated with respect and care even in times of discipline. However, I disagree with his idea that the value of education is seen in the positive effects it can have on the economy; I think the value of education is greater than that.
ReplyDeleteMann was influenced by the Prussian system. This is what our education system has been influenced by today. I believe the Prussian system had an influential concept, but not a great instilled concept from the government/ church. The Prussian system believed in education, discipline, teachers, and the economic value of education. Mann agree with that ideology and also that the education system needed to create schools and moral values. He created a basic education curriculum, but believed that it was the minimum. Not only that, he believed that education developed skills and pushed for intelligence, which is why he tried to make an opportunity for all children, including females. One of his flaws is that he believed that the schools should included “common elements”, however this incorporate the “greatest Christian truths”, this was influenced by the thought that all men would agree upon. He later than separated church from education. I think its is great that he pushed for the tax payers to pay for education, but this only created separated tiers of schooling. One tier was driven for the wealth, which was three levels for education and the opportunity for higher education, meanwhile the the second tier was pushed for the common people, which only had the opportunity to achieve elementary and the opportunity to go to technical school or work. Overall, I do believe there was a positive outcome of the Prussian system with trial and error.
ReplyDeleteThe Prussian system that Mann used as a blueprint seemed limiting especially for those who are considered "common people". It allowed the aristocratic group to further their education and status if they so choose to do so while lower class was mainly being prepared for the workforce. I do think it was an ingenious of Mann to use the Prussia system as a guideline rather than verbatim. Mostly because he included the concept of free, state-financed, and state-controlled which is still relevant in today's education. Like most, I believe the major contribution Mann implemented was preparing and educating teachers themselves. Before this was in action, to me it sounded as if teaching was more of a babysitting job rather than enlightening the students who are the future.
ReplyDeleteMadison Bray:
ReplyDeleteThe Prussian school system is closely related to our own school systems. The way that aristocrats have their own school systems is similar to the idea of private school that we have that people pay a lot of money for their children to attend to get the best education that they could possible get from the money that they spend and the public school system where it is open for everyone and there is no guarantee that there would be the best education that could be provided which is very similar to that of the Prussian system. Mann’s use of this system I think is more based on an economy, social, and political stability that needs to occur for the nation that was needed at the time. The school system that Mann wanted to put into place was something that could be more likely gotten when it came to using a system that would be easier for us to adapt to which Mann believed that it was the Prussian system. I think that Mann’s common schools were more successful then that of Jefferson was because of the fact that it allowed more people the opportunity to gain an education. Mann believed that education should be for everyone and not just the men and the ones that could pay for it. It was able to put everyone on a mostly level playing field when looking it, which is also why it is similar to that of our own system and that allows us today to make connections and more of an understanding view on Mann’s system as opposed to Jefferson. We have that bias that we take with us when we are looking at the different plans put out.
I do not agree with the separation based on class. Those who come from a lower class family will be set up for failure and basically told that they do not deserve to learn with those in the upper class. It doesn't seem to offer any opportunities for social movement either, someone in their class is meant to stay there. Those who are in the upper class already have more opportunity inside the classroom and out of it. Education should create an equal playing field, no one should have to be treated a certain way because of their economic standpoint. Also, trying to teach obedience as opposed to encouraging students to find themselves and think freely, is not fair to them. It takes away their opportunity to learn on how to think from different standpoint, question themselves, to question everything, and to become the best version of themselves by learning without fear.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the Prussian school system was not a great blueprint for many reasons but there are some aspects that have significance. Universally free education through elementary school is beneficial but the funding should extend to higher education. Dividing education by class is discriminatory at the very least. I wonder the difference in quality of education between the aristocratic class and the “common people.” The aristocratic class had three tiers of learning while the common people only had two tiers. I found it very interesting that the elementary schools, the volkschule, were focused on creating loyal patriotic citizens instead of educated well-rounded citizens. The education was based around the motto of “God, emperor, and country” and the teachers of the volkschule were not taught or required to understand more than the methods they had to teach the children. This doesn’t create an environment where students or teachers are able to question methods or think critically. This perpetuates class disparity and a lack of social mobility for citizens. Mann created a very authoritarian environment that centered around the betterment of the government and not the individual.
ReplyDeleteMary Kate Harrison – My first impression after reading Horace Mann’s educational reform proposals was the startling idea that a lot of his beliefs are still present in today’s educational system in America. The Prussian system was created in the 1820s to develop a sense of Prussian nationalism strong enough to unite the entirety of the German states to be the future world leader. Johann Fichte, creator of this system, believed that a class of educated civic and religious leaders with a working class to carry them would propel the German states to global dominance. Mann was particularly fascinated in the first tier of Prussian education which was the volkshule or elementary level. One of the major aspects of the volkshule was the pedagogic methods applied in the classrooms. When Mann adopted these Prussian principles, he emphasized the teacher’s role as facilitator and role model far above educator. I believe an educational environment should be one of mindful expansion, elevation, creativity and acceptance. In the Prussian educational model, teachers were trained in “normal schools” to “train technicians not educate scholars,” be exemplars of Protestant virtue, and most importantly were females. Two concepts from this vision, I believe are still present in current schools. First, I do not think that every institution is whole-heartedly devoted to providing the academics necessary to future university students. Instead I think in various regions of America it is the expectation that public education is simply the vehicle into the workforce. In my opinion, the American society is very economy and utility forward. A public workforce of easily managed individuals that produce a product, I believe is widely considered more valuable than a well-educated humanitarian. Industrialization was at the heart of Mann’s values as capitalism is today for many in positions of power. The second point to volkshule that I found to be applicable in modern classrooms is the role of the female teachers. Mann defended his preference of women as educators with their more sensible and sympathetic dispositions. He and I believe a significant amount of people today believe that women’s passionate side is meant to be used with children while men use their seemingly superior rationality in the real world. While our society has made lots of progress in distancing ourselves from this way of thinking, one fact still remains the same. Women do not get paid. The disparity between pay grades has become smaller but it has always remained as a demeaning facet to being a female professional. I found it very interesting to read Horace Mann’s educational perspective and it made me reflect about the trends we still see in the modern education system of the United States.
ReplyDeleteSierra:
ReplyDeleteI, too, see the pros and the cons of the Prussian School system that Mann was using as a blueprint to his Common Schools idea. He was very excited about the idea of a free and universal public school but it wasn’t necessarily giving equal opportunities to those in different income classes. The lower income students would only become managers outside of their education. However, if I put myself in the time space Mann was in and given the background, I can see that plan was a huge push to include all students no matter race, religion, or gender which was an advancement in time.
Madison:
ReplyDeleteWe do not live in a meritocracy. Personally I think that a meritocracy would be beneficial for us as a society however it is not something that is a viable option our society because of the history that contributive to the foundation of our country. There is “to much bad blood” in our history at this time to really be able to get to a system in place such as a meritocracy. With a meritocracy in place there would not be the system in place that its about the connections that you have and who you know in a company or job system that you want to pursue and it would be based on your qualifications for the job. Nothing would be based on gender, race, socio-economic situations, or any other reason for getting or not getting a job other then what someone brings to the table. Meritocracy is something that Jefferson was interested in creating because it would overall boost the economy, however there are things that were occurring during his time a president and also that are occurring now that prevent the way to being formed for meritocracy. The way that people are raised and the situations that they are put into throughout their lives creates stigmas and bias that people face every day. Also there are factors that effect us when looking for jobs and stimulus, such as our names, the way that we dress, the way that we speak, and so on and so forth. The ideas of meritocracy that Jefferson had have some merit however there are significant differences that affect those ideas. The idea of gaining more education is something that today can push someone to get the job of their dreams because today the need for more education is more prevalent however there is a change that needs to be made in our system for education. Some things that effect us are education and the fact that it is so different from Jefferson’s time. The idea that the way that we learn is by sitting in front of a teacher while they lecture and may give some examples and the rest is up to us to retain and learn from that isn’t the way that the majority of people learn today. That method of learning isn’t suited for the majority of people and education has to be more individualized to the student so that they can better grow as a person. Also this could help people that don’t make it to a higher education can have the opportunity to get further in their education as well as succeeding in gaining a higher education.
I thought that the idea of the Prussian system was somewhat sensible at first, and it is similar to the education system model we have today. However, I do not believe in separating classes and having different educational goals for each class. This kind of goes against Mann's desire for humanitarian reform and change because it still separated people based solely off of socioeconomic status, where as true equal opportunity would be putting all children together, as they are today and teaching them the same things. I think that is was more successful than Jefferson 's approach because it was paid for by the state, and available to all of the public to at least get a decent education and have the opportunity to advance. Mann emphasized that children were rational beings who deserved the treatment as such. Jefferson's approach only allowed up to three years free, girls were not to go to school after the secondary level, which totally made it unequal. I like that Mann did not completely copy the Prussian system verbatim, and he tweaked the ideas and used to his own ideals and beliefs in the education system to change the way things were being done. However, I just don't think that the Prussian system was great in the end because for one, the lower class school, the Volkschule children went by the motto "God, Emperor, Country" where as the Vorschule's (upper class) main objective was to prepare students for higher education. The children of the Volkschule were not given the same education objective as the children at the Vorschule. Teachers of the Volkschule were also not required to learn more than they had to teach to their own students. So, even though Mann intended for all to get a quality education, it still separated people people and made the opportunities different for each group, which never made it fair or "equal" at all.
ReplyDeleteJeffersons idea doesn't work because the only people able to go up in tiers are those who are wealthy and have the requirements. Mann's common schools were successful because people were able to get an education regardless of socioeconomic status. There was also more emphasis on moral lessons which I think is another reason that Mann's common schools were more successful. --Emma Pollard
ReplyDeleteMann’s use of the Prussian school system was basis of the public school system we have today. The Prussian school system was financed by the state and available to the public. Although it was class based into two tiers, the general basis of having advancing levels is much like the system we have today as people mentioned above. Mann's common schools were successful because they were focused on moral lesson. Jefferson's ideas only allowed up to three years free, girls were not to go to school after the secondary level, which made it unequal, and less likely to work.
ReplyDeleteHorace Mann based the school system in Massachusetts on the Prussian school system. I think that this system does not reflect equality and equity because the school were separated by tiers in which the aristocratic class would prepare for the gymnasium after elementary school. However, this model excluded populations who were not wealthy because it prevented them from moving up to a higher education. I think that this Prussian model of education was successful because it was free and universal at the elementary level which made it equal to an extent. However the aristocratic class had an advantage because they could automatically proceed to the next level.
ReplyDeleteKate Sulek
DeleteOur public school system is based on the Prussian system. The Prussian system does have some inherent inequality built in within it, And this is evident with the separation of the classes. The two-tiered system allows only for the wealthy and the upper class to fill the important leadership roles in society. The lower classes, on the other hand, are taught in order to fill the jobs of society. They are meant to provide for the low class, unskilled labor. They are meant to just simply be loyal.
ReplyDeleteMann did do a good job with some aspects of the Prussian school system, though. The fact that we have public schooling available for free, and the fact that we do have some free training for established teachers as well, it's testament to that.
-Zoha
DeleteMann's Prussian school system is very similar to the public school systems today. Which shows that Mann's Common Schools did clearly succeed and push forward. I believe his system was a success because his views of schooling, like many have already said, included every child. It did not exclude children due to their socioeconomic status. Whereas, Jefferson's plan for schooling gave free education for the first three years, but only the elites could move forward. In all, keeping the wealthy wealthy and the lower class, lower class. As Mann would put it, knowledge and intelligence is what brings about power and strength in an individual. Lastly, I think that Mann's plan thrived because he included everyone in the discussion about the schooling system. So parents, teachers, administrator and more were able to have an input on the situation and be aware of what is going on concerning the schooling system.
ReplyDeleteI'm not completely sure as to why Mann's Common Schools were successful while Jefferson's plan was not, due to the fact that, in my opinion, they don't seem to be all that different. Jefferson introduces the three tiers of education, and while two of the three tiers are to be funded by the household, there still is the offer for education, even if only for a couple of years.
ReplyDeleteMann used the Prussian system which divided education based on class. The rich were able to go on an educational path that prepared them for the life that only the rich were destined to have, whereas the middle and lower class were being prepared for a life of doing right by their country and basically being nationalists. This really isn't too far from Jefferson's plan. Only the rich could afford the two of the three tiers, which kept the lower class in the positions they were born into. Both ideas of education seem very similar to me, just with certain aspects changed, so I don't really understand why one plan was successful while the other was not.