Comment on Jefferson’s plan for public education, particularly on what his plan says about what TJ saw as the purpose of education. How do Jefferson’s aims compare to Mann’s aims? Feel free to also consider the plans’ shortcomings, but do your best to keep things in historical perspective.
Fantastic blog prompt...
ReplyDeleteI found Jefferson's plan for education the most interesting of the two readings. The way that each level of the education served a distinct function seemed to mirror how he believed the brain/mind had specific compartments for specific functions. One thing that struck me as interesting was once a child had "graduated" from elementary school, he or she essentially had all the basic rudimentary skills required to live. Also with elementary school, do children who do not pursue grammar and university education (mainly those who are "weeded out" and young girls) move onto lifelong learning? Or do they just stop learning because they have all the necessary knowledge already?
ReplyDeleteI think Jefferson's expectations of what an educated person should be able to do and in how much time really makes one question how efficiently and effectively we're doing it today. I like to picture the stereotypical 15-year-old Justin Bieber fan and imagine him/her writing in fluent Latin and Greek and deciphering math texts from the original mathematicians that wrote them.
ReplyDeleteTo Jefferson, knowledge and learning were the utmost pleasures in life, and in contrast to our modern method of forcing a kid through 12 years of school, he figured that kids would have the self-motivation and same love of learning as him that would enable 15-year-olds to be competitive with modern scholars.
Then again, there was no XBox or Facebook back then, and I'm sure that learning Greek philosophy was naturally more stimulating than any other available entertainment.
While reading about Jefferson’s plan, I was surprised upon noticing the similarities of his plan to our current educational system. In Jefferson’s plan, a few things become clear: a) the poor are less worthy of an education, as only the best of the best are meticulously weeded out of the masses, or in Jefferson’s words, “raked annually from the rubbish”; b) out of the poor, those who receive the best education must be the “smartest”, while any rich student whether smart or dumb could go to school as long as he could afford it; c) those who graduated from university would be the ones that go on to positions of power. Today, it is mostly in the middle to upper-class neighborhoods where kids receive the best education, where kids are brought up with the foundation to succeed, and where kids have a better chance of being accepted to and excelling in a university. The poorer kids simply have fewer tools available to them and are less able to achieve. Jefferson’s “natural aristocracy” consists of the rich and of the members of the poor who live up to his definition of smart or talented. Certainly, our current society may have more outlets through which the poor can excel, but it is chilling to see that Jefferson’s meritocracy has been woven into our societal structure and still, in part, exists today.
ReplyDeleteI think that Jefferson looked at Education like a passage into a more perfect society. He saw knowledge as a means to happiness and lifelong learning. People needed to possess knowledge and a basic skill set to function well in society especially at this point when literacy is depended upon more at times like signing documents and such. Although these Educational bills of Jefferson’s were not passed, Education became gradually more important to the society.
ReplyDeleteLike Jefferson, I think we need to make an educational plan for the now and the future because it seems like our system is lagging in the past. To me it seems like People don’t absorb and learn as much knowledge because it isn’t as necessary to our society when technology is so available. I’ve heard students comment that because of how available technology is there is no reason to learn anymore if you can just look anything up in seconds. Because kids feel that what they are learning in the class is not transferring to the real world they are less motivated and could be less likely to be able to contribute to the advanced technological world that we live in and will live in in the future.
I had the same question about the lifelong learning also Jake, i'm not sure if they "stop" learning or not. I reckon they still learn by observation but have no 'professional' teachings.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBeing a psychology major and a tutor it was Jefferson's part about pedagogy and psychology that caught my interest right away. I found it fascinating how he thought language would work the memory, whereas math would practice ones reasoning. Knowing that he cared about these elements assures me of the fact that he wanted the students to be able to apply the knowledge to their lives. Being able to generalize ideas to our everyday lives is a skill that needs to be practiced, and the fact that Jefferson acknowledged that shows what great understanding he had on the learning process.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge should not only be about learning but it should, just as much, be about being able to recall that knowledge and apply it to a scenario different from the one that we learned the material in. Jefferson discusses this “faculty psychology” in depth and describes the knowledge as muscles that need to keep moving in order to develop and get stronger. To me it is remarkable that a person, at that time, could create a school system and at the same time take into consideration the pedagogical aspects of the learning process, and not foresee the importance of the brain and our ability to take in information
Jefferson's plan revealed not only his superficial purpose of education in forming functioning citizens capable of continued "lifelong" learning but also his belief in meritocracy. It is of course a flawed merit system in that those with money can go through the whole system of education. The main idea though was that those leading the people had to go through the system regardless of whether they made it through by academic excellence or sheer wealth. Still it was interesting his value of self education. If the only goal for educating those not continuing past elementary school was to give them enough education to go day to day with menial work, then basic math, reading, and writing would have been sufficient. However he felt elementary school should teach classical history as well as English and American history. It is the inclusion of Greek and Roman history that he hoped would give them a broad enough framework for people to critically view the world. This school system would provide for well educated leaders and a people capable of thinking for themselves. Paired with the public library perhaps people would seek continued self education. However I question the likelihood of this. Further self education, it would seem, cannot get an individual into the upper class of people deemed worthy of leadership positions.
ReplyDeleteNow I also liked the way history was handled on a more personal level. It seemed like it was you got the big history and then moved on to other things. While I know there is plenty more history that could be taught, I liked the kind of clustering of the information. I was never fond of history, and part of that was because it seemed like we would go through these years learning only to rewind a few years later to pass over the same years with a slightly higher magnification. I honestly can't say I know how history should be taught, but that aspect of it just turned me off to it.
I first have to say that from a modern perspective, there are a lot of comments or just general ideas that shock me; especially when it comes to women. These topics I could chat about all day, but that is not in keeping with a 'historical perspective'.
ReplyDeleteThat aside I gather that, on a very basic level, TJ was trying to construct something great. I can see that he had very idealistic hopes and dreams for his system and I think he is pretty cool cat for having such advanced and (for better or worse) modern ideas. As Margaret stated, we clearly see similar constructs today. I guess what stands out to me after reading his plan is how limiting or narrow it is. It seems like so few people were going to be allowed to continue an education.
What if the best "genius" in the class wasn't the one who was the most passionate about or interested in their studies? Not to continuously reference Margaret's post- but I also plainly saw that only those deemed most "intelligent" were allowed to continue. . . oh and as always. . . the RICH!
I found Jefferson's approach to education very interesting to read about. There are very apparent parallels between his ideal educational system and today. In particular, what stuck out to me was the "weeding out" aspect. Though I do not necessarily agree that the "brightest" and most intellectual student in the classroom class is necessarily going to be the best leader, Jefferson's idea of selection does make sense to me. We are all subjected to this in our education. Not everyone gets the opportunity to go to college... more or less, only the students that display the capabilities to do so get to study at the university level. Even in college, only the intellectually fluent students get the opportunity to go to graduate, medical, dental, or law school. It is not necessarily fair for those who really want to achieve the next level of their education but fail to meet the requirements to get there. But realistically, do you want your surgeon to be the student that mastered and excelled in his area of study?... I would.
ReplyDeleteI think Jefferson's idea of education would create a desire to achieve. Those who don't want such a dream would get an education that would serve as a basis for them to be successful, more comprehensive citizens that would allow them to understand day to day ideas (and to protect themselves from malicious governments). He wanted everyone to be knowledgeable enough to contribute to society. My favorite idea of Jefferson's was his philosophy of life-long institution and faculty psychology. This gives the opportunity to continue stretching your education as a citizen. It is another opportunity for citizens to take their education into their own hands and strive to understand more about their world.
I have always been fascinated with Thomas Jefferson and his life goal of learning. Yet, I found this article particularly interesting because it described his educational plans so thoroughly. I believe Jefferson approached the education system with the right mindset and attitude to create truly knowledgeable people. By placing great importance on the elementary schooling and designing that to be the foundation for the public's knowledge, he carved the way for an overall improved society. One of the most interesting aspects to me was the diversity of the system and the many paths, professions and vocations that one could take. The emphasize was on learning as you went, not learning for a specific time or degree. If one stopped their education after elementary school, they were able to read, write, calculate and judge their governmental leaders. If they stopped after grammar school they could take a variety of very acceptable jobs as teachers, local officials, business, etc. Therefore the pressure was not on completing all three tiers of education but on learning as much as you could while in school and apply your education to your personal life. In addition one would always have the potential of entering the fourth tier, regardless of their completed education, which was to self-educate. This was seen as the highest form of education which now is almost completely disregarded. In a generalization of the public, how many people, first, read books? Second, how many people read non-fiction, educating books? This attitude to thirst and seek knowledge is slipping from our culture and being replaced with Facebook, T.V., Ninetindo and anything else that will ease and distract our minds.
ReplyDeleteJefferson’s purpose in creating a public school system was to forge individuals who would be able to benefit the republic, hidden behind rhetoric of equality and progress. Every stage of his school system produced individuals who would fill specific roles. Elementary school created a class of well functioning, if not very intelligent, workers whose day-to-day activities would be necessary for the republic to survive, but were not powerful enough to cause problems. Grammar schools would take the more intelligent students and craft them into middle level politicians and leaders, who are capable of running local and other small-scale parts of the government. Colleges then take the most intelligent and turn them into scholars and other high power positions.
ReplyDeleteMann’s goal on the other hand, really was to benefit society. By separating school from the churches, formal education was able to reach a wider audience and to teach them skills that allowed them to be of use to more than just the government. By preaching the benefits of a public school system, he was able to craft a system that is much closer to our modern system than Jefferson’s proposed system. There is a reason that Jefferson’s proposal was shot down twice, and that Mann’s system effected change in both public opinion and the institution. Policy makers and the public could sense the difference in intentions and latched on to the one that would actually do them good. I anticipate the argument for Jefferson’s benevolence based on his advocation for public libraries, but I feel that this is simply sleight of hand to draw the public’s eye away from his true intentions.
I think that while Jefferson focused on more of an ideal way of schooling, Mann focused on a more practical guide. I feel like Jefferson came in with the grand ideas of what education should be. While his goals of education being a four tiered processes- elementary, grammar, university, and continued education- are commendable it seems it was too much too soon, demonstrated by the fact that his legislations failed. I feel like to go from a disjointed system of dame schools, religious schools, and private tutors to a school system available at no cost to all free children for three years seems totally impractical. Where were the funds to come from? Taxes? The book mentions even in Mann’s time there was little support that the entire community should pay for public schools. Also from where would trained teachers come? Jefferson’s use of education appears to be to have a stronger democracy with educated leaders, although he makes claims it is the only way to achieve true happiness. It’s not my idea of what the use of education is, but I wouldn’t be opposed to looking at it in this perspective, especially when if I was building a nation.
ReplyDeleteMann seemed to focus on improving length of school term, availability of education for all, specifically without religious denomination, teacher training, uniformity in schools, and amount of money available to schools. His thought seemed to be that the best way to achieve these goals was to get public support and to enroll the upper-class children in these public schools. His goals although forward thinking seem achievable, which it appears that in his lifetime there became much stronger support for his ideas. He had a realistic plan and put in the work. The book mentions how he went all around Massachusetts (and some of the rest of the nation and Prussia) “selling” his ideas. He seems to have appealed to the people, which is in the end what gets things done. Mann seemed to believe that the goal education is to promote the ideal of hard work, prevent irresponsible behavior, and to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. Both this and his belief that children are inherently good and that corporal punishment retards learning are closely in line with my beliefs.
I think Jefferson’s idea of free education for three years is a beautiful start to establishing an educated society. I believe that it is absolutely possible that someone during his time would succeed with only three years of education. I think it is funny how horrified we would be if someone supported this now, but I think for a developing nation it is a wonderful start. Then I consider societies that are developing now and wonder how we could ever expect them to compete in our global economy.
Sarah Riddick says....
ReplyDeleteI suppose I shall begin by saying I acknowledge and accept the shortcomings of Jefferson's plans due to historical context. Over the summer, I took Queer Theory and Lesbian Texts and, comparatively speaking, the gender binaries and related issues are actually better than that which I read in the other course from many respected minds, including Freud. Furthermore, I feel pleasantly surprised by how much I agree with Jefferson's ideas. Granted, there are obvious limitations and fallacies - for example, the idea that languages are best learned from ages 10 to 15. Again, we must recognize the time in which he developed these ideas and I think that inevitably gives his notions some slack. Something about his plan that strikes me is the original three years each child gets and then the weeding out of those of the "natural aristocracy" from the "rubbish." I suppose from an economic standpoint, I see where Jefferson is coming from - there are a wide variety of tasks to be performed in society and a broad spectrum of education levels in said society might ensure that these tasks are adequately performed. Honestly, I don't like to support that idea. I truly believe every person has an equal right to all of the education that they seek. Look at us today. How many kids are, so to speak, "phoning in" their education because it is expected of them? Sadly, the majority of those in school view their schooling as a chore these days and thus I believe those who recognize the wonderful ways it can enlighten oneself should be able to pursue it as far as they please. On that note, I agree firmly with Jefferson insistence on lifelong (self-)education. Still, we cannot ignore what the first three levels of education suggest, or rather echo - education can be a tool of society to raise educated people TO A POINT that society sees fit and no further. With this I do not agree but overall I was not profoundly disturbed by Jefferson's ideas.
Just reading Jefferson's plan for education and thinking about schools today amazes me in how the perception of education has changed. In Jefferson's time, education was seen as a way to weed out individuals who were smart enough to become the next set of political leaders. The first tier of his plan was a good idea that all free kids, boys and girls were able to receive a free education. And the education they received was sufficient enough to get them through society. It’s crazy to me that they learned all of that knowledge in 3-5 years when I feel like it takes us, meaning today’s world, 12 years of schooling for us to have the sufficient knowledge to pass in society. It amazes me that Jefferson also expected 10-15 years to learn many different languages and complex information when this day and age 10-15 year olds are learning the basic rules of English which isn’t fined tuned until later on in high school.
ReplyDeleteHowever I believe that Jefferson’s plan also was in favor for the wealth because yes it gave education to the poor but the poor only received what they could afford which was the minimal level of education. Jefferson’s plan of education made it able to that the poor would never have became the wealthy because there wasn’t any opportunity for them to advantage to the next level of education so they can obtain those jobs with power and the right pay scale. And for the lucky individual or the “free scholar” as Jefferson put It, seem to me that he would only advantage to the second level because by them he would be amongst the privilege white males who then of course would have all the tools and essentials needed to be the smarter person in class. So in which the free scholar would be knocked out and sent right back to the poor. In which we see similar cases today however I am pleases to say that the poor has more outlets for funding in this day and age.
Also I believe that Jefferson’s plan for education was also to keep all white men in power because women were only given the opportunity to get an education from the first tier. So it would have been no way for an women to advantage and obtain a job in power because women were never given the opportunity, which this can be the women studies in me, but this seem a bit strange but I do understand this is how things worked in that day and age.
Its amazes me that how our system of education has some of Jefferson’s plan incorporated in it, well there is some similarities but I am glad to see that something are not still existing.
Quite a few people on this thread have pointed out a weakness of Jefferson’s plan to be somewhat over ambitious, or desiring students at a young age to be able to excel. Another criticism expressed was that Jefferson’s plan doesn’t fully dedicate itself to enhancing EVERYONE to their ‘fullest’ ability as he only wants to educated the general masses for 3 years. But I believe that these faults arise from Jefferson’s superior motives. By creating a system were very few are able to move on in the education system, Jefferson is creating an intense competition. I believe Jefferson believed, very similar as we do today, that the only way that we can possible reach the best possible society is to have competition, whether it be internal or external. Jefferson’s meritocracy was not just w method of maintaining a hierarchy, it was a route to achieve his ‘ideal’ society.
ReplyDeleteOne big weakness that I noticed in Jefferson’s plan was the ability to adapt to growth. His system would break down without major alterations if the population grew at any sort of positive rate.
I, like Jake, also believe that "Jefferson's purpose in creating a public school system was to forge individuals who would be able to benefit the republic." However, I think many of Jefferson's ideas on how to structure and finance his proposed educational system stem not from underlying prejudices toward the poor, but from his honest love of the pursuit of knowledge. While I think that more than one child from each elementary school and more than 10 children from the grammar schools should have been chosen each year to continue on with their education at public expense, there are several things we must consider. In 1779, 3 years after winning independence from Britain, perhaps the fledgling nation could not afford to subsidize the complete education of all of its children. Knowing that many of the children in the elementary schools would not pursue higher education due to disinterest in the formal learning process or because they were needed on the family farm, maybe Jefferson didn’t deem it necessary to propose public funding for the masses beyond this point. It may sound cruel and harsh when speaking of children that “the best geniuses will be raked annually from the rubbish,” but in a society created by passion and free-thinking, Jefferson wanted to finance education only for those who were passionate and/or skilled in hopes that they would go on to fulfill leadership roles. Additionally, according to the reading, Jefferson also understood that “school did not stand alone as the sole educating institution in society” and that the children not selected to continue on in the school system at public expense would at least leave elementary school with the tools and knowledge requisite to function in society and that those with enough interest in learning could pursue lifelong self-education. And yes, the rich could continue through the educational system as personal expense, but is that really so farfetched? In 1779, only white men with property were allowed to vote, so is it really that surprising that only those with wealth could educate themselves to the level of their choosing at personal expense? Though there are certainly more opportunities for university scholarship nowadays, our modern higher education system works in much the same way.
ReplyDeleteI find the separate districts outlined in Jefferson's plan comprehensive with his agrarian political view and his desire for a decentralized government. These are the beginnings of public education in America, though its limited nature is obvious. Only three years of schooling to contend with a lifetime of obstacles seems a little naive. However, allowing girls to attend those three years of free education shows a startling forward mindset for the time. I also find it interesting the idea that education is a screening process for those who have real potential to be leaders in society. I think that a similar philosophy holds today, that through these institutions we can sort out those who have potential and secure them on their best future path. This philosophy is an inherent part of American philosophy and the educational process.
ReplyDeleteI think that TJ's plan for public education was interesting, and would have made for an effective step toward a meritocracy. I'm interested in hearing what the arguments by his opponents in the state legislature against instituting his system were.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, his ideas of the purpose of education seemed to be utilitarian and realistic. He understood that in his world, not everyone needed a high level education to participate in the political realm and function in society. He saw society as it was and realized that there were roles to be filled, some needing less education than others. His plan was hopeful and optimistic, but realistic and workable.
NOTE: The link from the email didn't work for me, until Paul was able to help me out, hence my not posting until now.
Alexis says ...
ReplyDeleteI believe that TJ's plan was very thoughtful in a way to help those succeed and be able to receive a good education. However, it is not very realistic because when it is all said and done those parents in a higher social status will be able to send their children to school and the poorer people will still fall behind, regardless of help from the government. I believe that his plan has great intentions in providing children with a sense of security from going to school and continuing on into higher education. Also, allowing children to make their own plans for themselves and dream up their own career lives. But even without going to school, most children will still have work and be able to follow in their parents footsteps, career wise. TJ's proposal really strikes interest because our society today is nothing like how was back then. Not going to elementary school or middle school or high school is not an option. Jefferson believed that education lead to happiness and integrity. But also as a way to have to control over your life and possibly becoming a leader of those that surround your enviornment. The overall aim of Jefferson's plan was to create this equality of providing an education but in all reality: equality doesn't equal an equilibrium. There are some good things and some bad things in the world and education becomes a very controversial issue in the equilibrium. Education in our world is pretty much basis for success and in a way that is was Jefferson was trying to get across. However, he also showed that education isn't a necessity and that one can move forward with their lives without having the highest form of education. Even now there are certain things needed to be learned and a lot of things we could do without. But just the fact that it has been taught to us makes society feel "better" about itself. But all in all Jefferson did have the best intentions however nothing is ever going to be perfect and equal.
It's interesting how different Jefferson's approach to schooling was compared to what we've read so far in the Rury textbook. Before, education was not thought of as a means to improve one's social status or create more opportunities for themselves. Despite the time difference, Jefferson thinks of education in the same way we do today. The very first sentence of the reading, which said that Jefferson saw education as a means for the pursuit of happiness, struck me. I don't know that much about history, but it seems like Jefferson had the most innovative and advanced plan for education of the time. I also appreciate his idea behind it that education would lead to better legislators, governors, and jurists. Of course it wasn't perfect. Our education system today still isn't perfect. It was not as equal as many would like, but maybe it was better that way. Going on to a university and being a governor is not the best path for everyone. It is pretty disheartening that he called those who were not the scholarship boys "rubish", but I get the feeling that he didn't really mean that. If he did, he would fall into the same artificial aristocrat description that he so contested. He put in motion a great plan for education. I did not know any of this about him before, but now that I do I respect him even more.
ReplyDeleteMiranda Webster:
ReplyDeleteI was, at first, rather excited by Jefferson's ideas about education. He sees it as a means to a better society, as a passage into becoming a whole person. Jefferson even believes that education should lift the people up out of their "born" position, which is a rather radical idea in a time when there was such a hierarchy and class system. He didn't think education was just a way to churn out citizens to fill up jobs. He though that people should be able to work upwards in society, towards a goal and a lifestyle that they desired. That part of Jefferson's beliefs, that whole, well-rounded and optimistic outlook on what education should do for people, that part excited me. What a found a little disconcerting was his statement on pulling certain people out of the rubble, and raising them into the light, so to speak. What Jefferson essentially was talking about was finding the "deserving poor person" and then shoving them into a system with a bunch of wealthy people. The system then becomes about a minority's struggle, whether it is about class, race, or gender. Although Jefferson had good ideas, and he was definitely more in line with our current society's way of thinking, his policy is still dated. Just the fact that people are given the opportunity to be equals, but not seen as equals, puts his policy in perspective. It becomes a little less glamourous and inspiring when you realized what Jefferson is asking and expecting of anyone below the average.
Also- sorry to everyone that I am posting this at the END of class! Just realized that a bunch of my posts just never made it. Copying and pasting from a word document- thank God I saved.