For much of history; Children spent their lives with their parents and other adults, learning everything they saw and lived with what was expected of them. People learned at family or work, but not at school. It was widely believed that the future would not be so different from the present and that what children learned would be useful tomorrow. In these circumstances, the schools were unnecessary, except in the rare cases where a small minority needed special training, such as scribes, chaplains, warriors, or the like. Some ancient societies, such as Sparta, were taken seriously at school and subjected all children to a carefully organized educational process, but they were the exception (Osborne). The majority gave up on training young people in the routine processes of everyday life. The industrial revolution that started in the late 18th century changed the societies that saw it. The nature of the work changed when the factories replaced the workshops. The industry began to replace agriculture as the main source of employment. Villages and cities grew rapidly. The steam engine revolutionized transportation and made movement easier (Osborne). The natural beats were replaced by the clock and the machine. For example, employers could no longer accept the established custom, “good Monday,” of informally extending weekends and restoring lost jobs for the rest of the week. In the new years of the industry.
These three forces, industrialism, nationalism and democracy, created an atmosphere of opinion that made compulsory education a reality in the late 19th century. Conservatives saw schools as a force for social stability as a way of teaching people to accept their place in the world. Liberals saw them as a basic human right, a means of preparing the people for peaceful changes and progress. Nationalists saw this as a way to create a sense of national identity and patriotism. The Social Democrats saw that they offered workers the opportunity to obtain an education, which accelerated the day when they could seize political power. Some people resisted compulsory school attendance. Minorities saw new national schools as a threat to their culture and identity (Osborne). The churches did not believe that education could be separated from religion and resisted what they saw as an attack on established schools. Some parents thought they could teach their children better than any school. And some liberals and socialists feared that state responsibility for education would dominate the government and that public schools would only teach political propaganda.
The trends that the articles were able to identify is that the educational goals and practices present in the curricula did not aim at promoting democracy; rather, it was more of charity, voluntarism, and obedience. This trend encouraged students to be good citizens (Schimmel 16). In short, they should always listen to the authority figures, dress nicely and be good to neighbours. They fail to address the kinds of social policies that each citizen in democratic society understands. The trend is to make its citizens be slaves each day. This is the reason teachers from a democratic world may find it hard to teach in a school where students are taught to be more loyal to the government.
Many current educational reforms limit the way educators can develop the attitudes, skills, knowledge and behaviours necessary for the well-being of a democratic society. In fact, the goals of the kindergarten through 12th-grade education have gone from equipping a living and responsible citizen to reducing the goals of professional preparation and the benefit of the individual economy (Westheimer). Parental pressure, school leaders and wide cultural change in education priorities have made schools across the country widely considered as means of individual achievement and more and more subjects. The education trend also tends to reward the best performing students while discouraging those who are not performing well.
The result of this trend is easy to see. Canadians’ knowledge of public affairs and, perhaps more importantly, their ability to convey certain views on these issues by political parties and candidates is not how it is expected to be. The consequences are that people continue to be oppressed (Schimmel 16). They cannot be able to voice their problems. This is because education has already instilled fear and loyalty to the government or ruling regime. Leaders can blindly lead their citizens to war because they do not have the power to oppose or even speak.
According to the author, history is very critical in highlighting issues that once affected society. It is a way in which people can learn how far they have come in championing for their democracy. Historians, in fact, see almost universal history as a matter of interpretation; In fact, competitive interpretations make the story very interesting. Historians and educators strongly criticized the mandatory compliance with the “official history” set forth in Florida law. However, the impact of these responsibilities should not be underestimated, especially because Florida is not alone.
It is true that education has taught us to be good citizens. This is true because anyone who tries to criticize the government can be assassinated. This shows that the level of democracy that is taught by educators is not sufficient. A curriculum should be developed that encourages each citizen to stand for their rights. They should know this while they’re young. Activists should be on the frontline trying to change this education offered across different countries.
In the new world of industry, nationalism and democracy, education must create a sense of civic duty, a patriotic spirit, good health and preparation for work, even in children. In other words, there were schools to train citizens. This fundamental change was the formation of the consequences of the forces of nationalism, industrialism and democracy that governed Western Europe and North America in the 19th century. In Canada, particularly in the west and partly in Ontario, widespread concerns about the impact of immigration have made changes particularly urgent. A large number of immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe had to be Canadian, which meant they had to learn English, identify with Canada’s British heritage and understand Canada’s political process because it was too late or too late. Earlier in the day, they had the right to vote for three dominant votes in R. This is often discriminatory against conventional Canadian society. On a positive note, Canadian citizens believed that Canada must develop a national spirit so that Canadians can be understood as Canadians and contribute to the good of Canada as a whole in relation to an individual (Sutherland). On the negative side, this generally meant integrating religious and linguistic and Canadian minorities into a narrow view of what it meant to be Canadian. In Quebec, this was considered a threat to Quebec’s French language and culture.
The problem of schools has become the means of making citizenship a reality. Generally speaking, there are two theories of trust. The oldest and most traditional view of education saw this, transmitting the necessary information, skills and values to children. Favourite pictures filled an empty glass wrote on a clean board or dealt with raw materials. The students came to school, and their teachers filled in their reflection with the official curriculum and textbooks and continued. It was a vision that saw the teacher as the giver of knowledge and the student as its more or less passive recipient. Sometimes, his critics qualified the teaching approach and the death of teaching. The second approach was the opposite of the first. His followers, including many teachers, rejected the students’ view of empty bottles or clean whiteboards as raw materials awaiting processing. They saw students as individuals who brought great experiences, knowledge and ideas to school and believed that effective teaching should take this into account.
They rejected the external pedagogical approach to work with what students already knew and to extend and refine. They emphasized that students must be physically and mentally active, that learning means not only memory and repetition, but also action, work and thought. They argued that the traditional approach was not even effective on its terms, as students quickly lost much of what they had been taught. As is often the case with education, the debate has become an exchange of stereotypes and slogans, but it has created and maintains constant pressure on education and continues to raise public and parent concerns, as it raises basic fundamentals of standards and efficiency. Today there is a conflict between what is called child-centred progressive methods and what is now called direct education and classroom teaching. Industrialization played a big impact on schooling. People were required to gather more skills to be able to work in such industries. The industry workers were able to learn about their rights. This forced them to fight for democracy since most people who were working in those industries felt that they were being oppressed.
Work Cited
Osborne, Kenneth W. Education: A guide to the Canadian school debate, or, who wants what and why. Toronto: Penguin Books, 1999.
Schimmel, David M. “Collaborative rule-making and citizenship education: An antidote to the undemocratic hidden curriculum.” American Secondary Education (2003): 16-35.
Sutherland, Neil. Growing up: Childhood in English Canada from the great war to the age of television. University of Toronto Press, 1997.
Westheimer, Joel. “What Kind of Citizen? Democratic Dialogues in Education.” Education Canada 48.3 (2008): 6-10.