Is education no longer the ‘great equalizer’?

"Schooling" is what is really meant in the article -- not true "education" of which there is little of in most compulsory schools. According to two-times NY Teacher of the Year John Taylor Gatto, Prussian-derived compulsory schooling as practiced in the USA was primarily instituted to dumb people down and make them compliant workers, consumers, and soldiers. Gatto argues that if you give schools more money and they will only do that primary mission more effectively. Gatto calls this a "conspiracy against ourselves" where populations knowingly made a tradeoff 150 years or so ago to get the perks of cheaper mass-produced consumer goods and fearsome armies and swaddling cradle-to-grave bureaucracy -- but at a long term cost of the spirit.

See Gatto's book (one of many): "The Underground History of American Education: A School Teacher's Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling" https://archive.org/details/TheUndergroundHistoryOfAmericanE... "John Taylor Gatto is a former New York public schoolteacher who taught for thirty years and won multiple awards for his teaching. However, constant harassment by unhelpful administrations plus his own frustrations with what he came to realize were the inherent systemic deficiencies of our `public' schools led him to resign; he now is a school-choice activist who writes and speaks against our compulsory, government-run school system. ... In the final analysis, Gatto believes that compulsory, government-run schooling is inherently destructive to true education, the cultivation of self-reliance, and indeed to individualism - which used to be a defining element of the American character. The true purpose of our public school system in reality has more to do with control than it does with learning. This does not mean that rank-and-file teachers, principals, and even superintendents believe they are making students dumber, more conformist, less self-reliant, less capable of genuine analytical, independent thought, and more easily controlled; most people involved in the system no doubt believe that they are trying their best to really teach their students. However, the system itself (which Gatto often characterizes as a complex web) ensures that its real purpose is served, despite the efforts of individual reformers within it - that true democracy is rendered unworkable even as the trappings of democracy are allegedly bolstered. Seen in this light, these institutions that produce barely literate, dependent, conformist, incomplete individuals full of emotional and psychological problems, who lack real knowledge (and whose capacity for acquiring such is deliberately weakened or eliminated), and who are just `educated' enough to pay their taxes and buy the latest products, are not, in fact, failing schools - on the contrary, if we are to believe Gatto's analysis, they are performing their designated function PERFECTLY. That purpose is to mold people in such a way as to make them more easily controlled by corporations and the state (a clear-cut example of how, contrary to popular myth, the interests of big business and those of big government more often than not coincide.)"

Or for a short essay on this, consider Gatto's "Seven Lesson Schoolteacher": https://www.life-enthusiast.com/articles/children-seven-less... "... Look again at the seven lessons of school teaching: confusion, class position, indifference, emotional and intellectual dependency, conditional self-esteem, surveillance – all of these things are prime training for permanent underclasses, people deprived forever of finding the center of their own special genius. ..."

And while sometimes college can be a bit of a relief from some of the worst of this, graduate school and professional schools then brings it back with a new twist, as explained in "Disciplined Minds": https://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/ "Who are you going to be? That is the question. In this riveting book about the world of professional work, Jeff Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political, and that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and maintain strict "ideological discipline." The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professional's lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations and even democracy. Schmidt details the battle one must fight to be an independent thinker and to pursue one's own social vision in today's corporate society. He shows how an honest reassessment of what it really means to be a professional employee can be remarkably liberating. After reading this brutally frank book, no one who works for a living will ever think the same way about his or her job."

There are of course some great teachers scattered about in many schools. There are students who evade some of the worst of this dumbing down by luck or skill or hobbies. There are families that homeschool in a variety of ways. There are even some schools that support alternative models. https://www.educationrevolution.org/store/findaschool/member...

Here is a conference on educational alternatives starting tomorrow: https://www.aeroconference.org/keynote-speakers-1

But the majority of schooling for most people (at least in the USA) remains overall a dulling "equalizing" experience -- especially if you are brighter and so needed to be reduced in intensity to become a standardized product.

Related on an mythical "equalizer" making people fit an arbitrary standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes

Yes, we can point to exceptions.

You are correct. The homeless camps across the United States are no doubt full of people not actually trying.

> Europe doesn't create Ubers because it doesn't have the capital. its not to do with innovation.

Europe has capital. You'll find a lot in Silicon Valley.

> Your example with public vs private schools has less to do with diminishing public schools and everything to do with their maximizing their own children's education.

Yes, that is exactly how it happens. I agree there is not a specific intent to destroy the middle class. There is an intent by the wealthy to keep their taxes going to only those schools and services that would benefit their children — the rest of the community can just fuck off and get rich if they want good education too.

It's like that in all ways. Not specifically antagonistic toward the working class, just selfish.

Another example: they give money to politicians that will pass legislation that will favor them and theirs. Again, the rest of us can get rich and buy our own politicians if we don't like it.

Human nature? Maybe. And no doubt the working class can behave selfishly as well. But the working class and poor don't have the financial means to bend policy toward their selfishness, only the wealthy can do that.