compulsory education

In this article, Horace Mann makes the argument that compulsory education will benefit the nation by creating a citizenry of intelligent, capable individuals who are equipped with the skills needed to participate in a democracy. He argues that education will foster creative professionals in the field of art, politics, business, medicine, etc. He also claims that universal education will serve to eliminate social inequality by providing all people with equal opportunities.

But is universal education the only way to create responsible, intelligent, capable citizens? As Pink demonstrates in his article, this is not the case. Schooling is modern invention and a social construction. Before schools, human beings still learned. Were they incapable citizens then? Pink’s example of the student building with legos demonstrates that traditional education practices often stop student students’ creativity rather than foster it. Teachers do so by taking away the autonomy of the students’ creative process and placing a judgment on created products with grades. The student no longer has the creative freedom to explore their own abilities and potentials. On this point, Mann is incorrect; this type of schooling prevents the emergence of creative democratic citizens.

In addition, Mann’s claim that compulsory education will eliminate inequality is questionable. Isn’t it possible for schools to perpetuate systems of inequality? The quality and pedagogy of the schools is much more significant with regard to this question that the degree to which schooling is compulsory or optional. Schools can be liberating, but they can also be oppressive. And as Pink notes in his analysis, some schools do not liberate workers from capital, but simply sort students into the labor force. He writes, “This was just the sort of training the old economy demanded. Schools had bells; factories had whistles. Schools had report card grades; offices had pay grades. Pleasing your teaching prepared you for pleasing your boss” (79). As Faucault would argue, in such cases, success means success in bowing down to oppression.