If it's really so great for the high income students, then maybe the schools there should be shut down permanently so the money can be redirected to where they are necessary.
I'm a teacher, so I know I'm biased, but I definitely don't agree with this (and didn't even before I became a teacher).
First off, there's a sizable chunk of the US that can't access online learning, whether it's due to poverty or just living out in an extremely rural area where all you can get is satellite internet that may or may not work.
Second, there's something to be said to being there in-person learning something. Having the teacher explain it to you and go over it with you is something that just can't be done as well on video for all students. Yes, some can get it and do great with self-directed learning and video explanations, but some students do need the extra work that they can get in school; there's more to school than just babysitting, even if some parents (and others) don't think so.
That said, if we could guarantee students had internet access, I'd totally be for a flipped classroom, especially in math and science. Students could then practice with the teacher present and able to give feedback and correct understanding during the school day, without having to use two days for a topic (which is what I currently do; one day explaining a concept, the next letting students practice it with me answering questions).
> Factory owners required a docile, agreeable workers who would show up on time and do what their managers told them. Sitting in a classroom all day with a teacher was good training for that. Early industrialists were instrumental, then, in creating and promoting universal education.
We shouldn't confuse aspiration with environmental constraints. Just because some company says their product, XYZ, was designed to change the world and increase IQ doesn't mean you can go around stating that XYZ changed the world and increased IQ, or analyzing the various characteristics of the product solely in terms of the claims. Rather, in reality almost everything of substance about such a product follows from exogenous constraints--cost, feasibility, etc.
To explain the seemingly arbitrary and stifling demands of a typical Prussian-style universal education system, the obvious place to look first would be cost--instructors, facilities, organization, etc.
Also, the beginning of industrialization coincided with the end of serfdom in much of Europe. Were capitalists trying to create and exploit compliant workers, or were they trying to create workers, period? That is, there were no workers beforehand, just serfs or recently emancipated serfs, depending on territory. Social reforms were so wildly successful in Prussia that they swept the Western world, even places like the U.S. where industrialization (but not universal education) was already well under way. Was that because it produced virtuous, Christian workers, or just because it was efficient at improving basic literacy?
If I recall my US history class, universal public education (in the US) was a Great Depression policy created to prevent children from taking jobs from adults.
Nope, by 1918 every state had mandatory public schooling. And a significant push for education came from industry, which needed more educated workers, and had nothing to do with the Depression. The ability for teenagers to drop out & enter the workforce went unchanged throughout the depression (and long after). Though I have heard that places with job openings often reserved them for people with families to support.
By 1900, 34 states had compulsory schooling laws; four were in the South. Thirty states with compulsory schooling laws required attendance until age 14 (or higher). As a result, by 1910, 72 percent of American children attended school. Half the nation's children attended one-room schools. By 1918, every state required students to complete elementary school [0]
