The Architects of Schooling: A History of an Institution and Its Purposes

Introduction: Deconstructing a Deceptively Simple Question

The question “Who created school and why?” appears straightforward, yet it conceals a profound complexity. There is no single architect, no solitary blueprint, and no monolithic purpose behind the institution we call “school.” To answer this query is to embark on a historical and sociological excavation, uncovering the layers of an institution that has been repeatedly invented and repurposed by successive social, political, and economic forces. The history of the school is a palimpsest, a manuscript on which the scripts of ancient bureaucrats, Greek philosophers, religious reformers, state-builders, and industrial capitalists have been written, erased, and written over, with the traces of each previous author still visible beneath the surface.

This report argues that the evolution of schooling is defined by a persistent and fundamental tension. On one hand, the institution has been championed with the noblest of intentions: to cultivate enlightenment, foster civic virtue, promote equality, and enable human flourishing. On the other hand, it has functioned, often simultaneously, as a powerful and sophisticated instrument for social engineering, elite formation, ideological indoctrination, and the maintenance of a specific social order. The “why” of schooling has always been contested, a battleground of ideals and interests.

This analysis will trace the lineage of the school’s creators, beginning with the scribal elites of the ancient Near East who designed schools to preserve bureaucratic control. It will then explore the divergent visions of the Greeks, who saw education as a means to craft either the thinking citizen or the disciplined soldier. We will examine the meritocratic yet conformist system of Imperial China, the religious imperatives of the Protestant Reformation that first catalyzed mass literacy, and the rise of the modern nation-state, which found its ultimate expression in the Prussian model of compulsory, state-controlled education.

From there, the report will cross the Atlantic to analyze the American “Common School” movement, a grand experiment in forging a democratic citizenry, and its subsequent transformation under the shadow of the Industrial Revolution, which repurposed the school into an engine for producing a disciplined workforce. Finally, this historical narrative will be juxtaposed with a powerful counter-narrative from critical theorists like Ivan Illich, John Taylor Gatto, and Paulo Freire.¹ Their work challenges the benevolent story of schooling, arguing that its underlying purpose has often been one of control, conformity, and the reproduction of inequality. By understanding this complex and often contradictory history, we can begin to comprehend not only how our current educational systems came to be, but also why they face the crises they do today, and what it might take to consciously choose a new purpose for them in the 21st century.

Part I: Ancient Foundations – Schooling for Scribes, Citizens, and Mandarins

The foundational principle of formal education is inextricably linked to the rise of complex, state-level societies. Before the advent of mass literacy, schooling was not a universal right but a specialized tool designed to solve a critical problem for nascent empires: how to maintain order, manage resources, and perpetuate power across generations. The first schools were not created for the masses; they were created by elites, for elites, with the explicit purpose of ensuring the stability and continuity of the state’s administrative apparatus.

Subsection 1.1: The Scribal Schools of Egypt and Mesopotamia: Education for Bureaucratic Order

The earliest known formal schools emerged not from a philosophical desire for universal enlightenment, but from the pragmatic necessities of governance. The historical record points to ancient Egypt during the Middle Kingdom (c. 2061-2010 BCE) as the cradle of formal schooling. It was here, under the direction of Kheti, the treasurer to Pharaoh Mentuhotep II, that the first schools were established.¹ These institutions were highly exclusive, serving primarily the sons of the nobility and wealthy families.¹ Their purpose was unambiguous: to produce the next generation of government functionaries. The curriculum was a direct reflection of this goal, focusing on the practical skills required for administration: reading and writing the complex hieroglyphic script, arithmetic for record-keeping and taxation, and instruction in morals and social graces befitting a future official.¹

A similar pattern unfolded in Mesopotamia. Here, too, schooling was reserved for a select few: royal offspring and the sons of the rich and professional classes, such as scribes, physicians, and temple administrators.¹ The mastery of the intricate cuneiform script, a logographic system that took many years to learn, was the central task of these schools, known as

edubas (literally “tablet houses”).² These institutions, often attached to temples, were essential for producing the scribes needed to record everything from commercial transactions and legal codes to religious texts and royal decrees.¹ The social status of the scribe was immense; an old Sumerian proverb declared, “he who would excel in the school of the scribes must rise with the dawn”.² While the class system was generally rigid, becoming a scribe was one of the few avenues for potential upward social mobility in ancient Egyptian society.³

The very structure and content of these first schools reveal their core purpose. They were not designed to foster critical inquiry or individual expression but to ensure conformity and competence within a state bureaucracy. The immense difficulty of the writing systems themselves acted as a formidable barrier to entry, effectively preserving literacy as a guarded skill of the elite and reinforcing the scribes’ privileged status.² Estimates of literacy in ancient Egypt, for instance, range from a mere 1 to 5 percent of the population.² This exclusivity was not an accidental byproduct but a central feature of the system. By controlling who could read and write, the ruling class controlled the flow of information, the interpretation of laws, and the recording of history. Thus, the primary “why” behind the creation of the world’s first schools was the practical necessity of state preservation. Schooling was, from its very inception, a technology of governance, an indispensable tool for creating a stable, loyal, and competent administrative class to manage the complexities of empire.

Subsection 1.2: The Hellenistic Vision: Crafting the Citizen in Athens and the Soldier in Sparta

While the scribal schools of the Near East established education as a tool of the state, it was in ancient Greece that the purpose of schooling expanded to include the philosophical project of shaping the ideal individual. The Greeks introduced the revolutionary idea that education should cultivate not just a functionary, but a citizen, a member of the polis (city-state). However, this ideal was fractured into two starkly different models, embodied by Athens and Sparta, which presented divergent answers to the question of what kind of citizen the state ought to produce.⁵

In Athens, education aimed for a holistic development of the individual, a concept known as paideia.⁶ This was not a state-run system but was largely conducted through private tutors and schools, accessible primarily to the sons of the affluent.⁶ The Athenian curriculum was famously divided into two parts:

gumnastike, or physical education, which cultivated strength, stamina, and military readiness in the gymnasium; and mousike, intellectual and artistic education, which encompassed music, dance, poetry, history, and ethics.³ By around 420 BCE, subjects like philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, and logic became central, driven by the influence of philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.¹ The goal was to nurture a well-rounded, critically thinking citizen capable of engaging in reasoned debate and participating actively in the democratic governance of the polis.¹ The philosophical schools founded by Plato (the Academy) and Aristotle (the Lyceum) became legendary centers of higher learning that attracted students from across the Mediterranean and laid the intellectual foundations for Western education.¹

Sparta offered a radical and brutal alternative. The Spartan state viewed education through a single lens: military necessity. The agoge, established around the 7th or 6th century BCE, was a state-mandated, compulsory educational system for all male citizens, beginning at the age of seven.⁶ It was less a school and more a military boot camp, designed with the sole purpose of molding boys into formidable warriors and unwavering loyalists to the Spartan state.³ The curriculum was a relentless regimen of physical conditioning and military training. Boys were subjected to extreme hardships, including starvation and exposure, to build endurance and discipline.³ Intellectual pursuits were secondary to the cultivation of martial virtue. The system culminated in a test of military prowess around age 18, which could involve killing a Helot (a member of the enslaved population) without being caught, a rite of passage into the Spartan phalanx.³

This Hellenistic split reveals a core tension that has haunted educational philosophy ever since. The Athenian and Spartan models represent two archetypal purposes for state-centric education. The Athenian model, at its best, sought to create independent, critical thinkers capable of questioning authority and shaping society through reason and debate. The Spartan model, by contrast, sought to create disciplined, obedient, and effective functionaries who would serve the state without question. In both systems, it must be noted, the ideal of the “citizen” was narrowly defined; women were largely excluded from formal education, expected to manage the household, and the vast populations of slaves who powered these societies were denied education entirely.⁶ This bifurcation between education for critical thought and education for disciplined obedience established two divergent paths that continue to define modern debates about the ultimate purpose of schooling.

Subsection 1.3: The Confucian Ideal: Moral Cultivation and Meritocracy in Imperial China

In Imperial China, a third foundational model of education emerged, one distinguished by its profoundly secular, moral, and political character.⁸ The paramount purpose of Chinese education was not primarily the acquisition of technical skills or philosophical speculation, but the cultivation of moral sensitivity and an unwavering sense of duty toward one’s family and the state.⁸ This system, which would be refined over millennia, perfected a powerful synthesis: it used education as a tool for both profound social control and institutionalized social mobility.

From the Zhou dynasty (c. 1046-256 BCE) onwards, the state played a central role in education, establishing schools to train aristocratic men for service to the king.¹⁰ The core of the curriculum was the canon of Confucian thought, crystallized in texts known as the “Four Books and Five Classics”.⁴ These works were not merely literary texts but moral guidebooks that taught the foundational values of Confucianism: filial piety, loyalty, social harmony, and respect for hierarchy and ritual.⁴ The educational process itself was designed to instill these values. The Chinese character for “educate,” 教 (

jiào), is a pictograph depicting a hand holding a stick over a child, signifying the original meaning of disciplining a child to conform to the will of their elders.⁹

The most significant innovation of the Chinese system was the establishment of the imperial examination system, which took root in the Sui dynasty (581-619 CE) and became the bedrock of the state for over a thousand years.¹⁰ This system created a formal pathway from educational achievement to positions in the state bureaucracy. In theory, any man, regardless of his birth, could rise to the highest levels of government by demonstrating mastery of the Confucian classics through a grueling series of examinations.⁴ This created a powerful cultural reverence for education and provided a compelling incentive for individuals to internalize the state-sanctioned ideology.⁹

In practice, access remained highly stratified. In earlier periods, state schools and higher-level colleges were often the exclusive domain of the nobility, while the children of commoners attended local village schools, with only the most exceptionally talented having a remote chance to advance.¹¹ Later, a vibrant ecosystem of private schools emerged, dedicated to preparing students for the examinations.¹⁰ However, the system’s focus on literary and moral knowledge came at the expense of technical and scientific education, a bias that some historians argue left China vulnerable to the military power of European empires in a later era.⁹

The Chinese model represents a remarkably sophisticated use of education for state-building. It created a dual-purpose system that was both ideological and pragmatic. On one hand, the standardized moral curriculum ensured ideological conformity and social stability across a vast empire. On the other, the promise of meritocratic advancement through the examination system served to identify and co-opt the most ambitious and talented individuals into the state apparatus, channeling their energies into service rather than dissent. For a commoner, mastering Confucianism was the most effective, if not the only, path to entering the ruling elite.¹² This created a powerful, self-perpetuating cycle where the education system functioned as the primary engine for producing a loyal, culturally unified, and capable governing class, wedding the pursuit of knowledge to the maintenance of imperial power.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Foundational Educational Models

Civilization	Primary Purpose	Target Students	Core Curriculum	Key Institutions	Underlying Philosophy
Egypt/Mesopotamia	Bureaucratic Stability & Administrative Competence	Sons of nobility, royalty, and wealthy professionals 1	Reading, writing (hieroglyphics, cuneiform), arithmetic, administration, morals 1	Temple Schools, Scribal Schools (Edubas) 1	State Preservation: Education as a technology of governance to ensure a continuous supply of loyal administrators.
Athens	Cultivation of the Holistic, Well-Rounded Citizen	Sons of upper-class citizens 6	Philosophy, rhetoric, logic, mathematics, music, poetry, physical fitness (paideia) 1	Private Tutors, Gymnasia, Philosophical Academies (Plato’s Academy, Aristotle’s Lyceum) 4	Civic Virtue: Education to produce critical thinkers capable of participating in democratic life.
Sparta	Creation of the Disciplined, Loyal Soldier	All male citizens, from age 7 3	Military training, physical conditioning, discipline, endurance, music, dance 3	The Agoge (state-controlled military barracks/school) 3	State Militarism: Education as a tool to forge an invincible military class and ensure unwavering loyalty to the state.
Imperial China	Moral Cultivation & Production of a Meritocratic Bureaucracy	Primarily elite males, with a theoretical path for talented commoners 10	Confucian Classics (Four Books, Five Classics), moral philosophy, rituals, literature 4	State Schools, Village Schools, Private Academies, Imperial Academies 4	Social Control & Mobility: Education to instill a unifying moral ideology and to recruit talented individuals into state service.

Part II: The Emergence of Compulsory Schooling – For God, State, and Nation

The transition from the elite, voluntary schooling of the ancient world to the mass, compulsory systems of the modern era represents one of the most significant transformations in the history of education. This revolutionary shift was not driven by a single force but by the powerful convergence of two movements: the religious fervor of the Protestant Reformation and the centralizing ambitions of the modernizing nation-state. Together, they forged a new and potent rationale for schooling, arguing that it was no longer a privilege for the few but a necessity for all—a necessity for personal salvation, national unity, and state power.

Subsection 2.1: The Protestant Reformation and the Literacy Imperative

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century was the unlikely catalyst that ignited the demand for mass education. Prior to this, the purpose of education was largely confined to training administrative, philosophical, or religious elites. The vast majority of the population was illiterate and had no practical or spiritual need for formal schooling. The Reformation fundamentally altered this dynamic by introducing a new theological imperative: the doctrine of sola scriptura, or salvation “by scripture alone”.⁷ For reformers like Martin Luther, it was essential that every Christian, regardless of class or station, be able to read and interpret the Bible for themselves, without the mediation of a priestly class.¹³

This religious principle had radical social consequences. In his 1524 text, To the Councillors of all Towns in German Countries, Luther issued a fervent call for the establishment of compulsory schools.⁷ The purpose was explicitly theological: to equip all parishioners with the literacy needed to engage directly with God’s word and to build a morally upright Christian society. This idea quickly took root in Protestant territories. The German Duchy of Württemberg established a compulsory education system for boys in 1559. In 1592, the Duchy of Palatine Zweibrücken became the first territory in the world to mandate schooling for both girls and boys, a revolutionary step driven by this new religious demand for universal literacy.⁷

This same religious-educational zeal was carried to the New World by the Puritans. The Calvinist leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, believing that literacy was a primary defense against the temptations of Satan, moved swiftly to legislate education. The Massachusetts Law of 1642, the first of its kind in the English-speaking world, made education compulsory.¹⁴ This was followed by the “Old Deluder Satan Act” of 1647, which required towns of fifty families to establish an elementary school and towns of one hundred families to establish a Latin grammar school.¹⁶ The goal was unambiguous: to ensure that Puritan children could read the Bible, understand the principles of their religion, and grow into good Calvinists, thereby suppressing religious dissent and ensuring the ideological purity of the colony.¹⁵

The Reformation thus marks a critical turning point in the history of schooling. It transformed education from a tool for training a small ruling class into a perceived necessity for the salvation and moral rectitude of the entire populace. For the first time, a powerful ideological justification existed for compelling all children, not just the elite, to attend school. This religious imperative created the social and political will for compulsory education, a radical concept that secular states would later adopt and adapt for their own nation-building purposes.

Subsection 2.2: The Prussian Blueprint: Discipline, Nationalism, and the State-Controlled System

If the Reformation provided the ideological spark for mass education, it was 18th- and 19th-century Prussia that forged the institutional blueprint. The Prussian education system became the definitive model for modern, state-controlled, compulsory schooling, a system so efficient and comprehensive that it was widely admired and emulated across the globe, profoundly influencing reformers in countries like Japan and the United States.¹⁷

The foundations were laid by King Frederick the Great. His 1763 decree, the Generallandschulreglement, established a generic primary education system and required all young citizens, both boys and girls, to attend municipality-funded schools (Volksschulen) from age 5 to 14.¹⁷ This made Prussia one of the first countries in the world to introduce tax-funded, compulsory primary education.¹⁷ The system was dramatically enhanced, however, in the wake of Prussia’s humiliating defeat by Napoleon’s armies at the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt in 1806.¹⁷ This national trauma convinced a generation of reformers and nationalists, such as the philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, that Prussia’s survival depended on the creation of a new kind of citizen—one thoroughly educated, disciplined, and imbued with a powerful sense of national identity.¹⁷

Under the guidance of figures like Wilhelm von Humboldt, the Prussian state built a remarkably modern and systematic educational apparatus. It was characterized by features that are now standard practice worldwide: mandatory school attendance enforced by law, professional training and state certification for all teachers, a prescribed national curriculum for each grade, national testing for all students, and a final graduation examination (Abitur) that was a prerequisite for entering university or the higher civil service.¹⁷ The explicit goals of this system were manifold: to reduce illiteracy, to provide the technical skills needed for a modernizing world, and to instill a strict ethos of duty, sobriety, discipline, and loyalty to the state.¹⁷

However, this celebrated efficiency masked a more authoritarian purpose. Many critics argue that the Prussian model’s primary goal was not enlightenment but social control. It was conceived by an absolutist state as a long-term solution to the problem of social unrest and as a means to produce obedient subjects and docile soldiers who would serve the monarchy without question.¹⁹ The system was explicitly and intentionally stratified. The masses attended the

Volksschulen, where they learned obedience and correct attitudes. A small, more privileged percentage attended the Realsschulen to become the engineers and managers of the state. And a tiny elite of 1 percent or less attended the Akademiensschulen to become the future policy-makers.²² This was, in the words of one critic, an education “of the state, by the state, for the state”.²³

Prussia represents the decisive moment when the school was fully integrated into the machinery of the modern nation-state. The “why” of schooling was no longer primarily about preparing bureaucrats or ensuring religious piety; it was about national survival, military power, and the systematic production of a unified national consciousness. The school became the state’s most powerful and pervasive tool for shaping the minds, loyalties, and behaviors of its entire population, creating a template that would define public education for the next two centuries.

Subsection 2.3: Horace Mann and the American Experiment: The “Common School” as a Social Panacea

In the burgeoning United States of the 1830s and 1840s, the concept of public education found its most idealistic and distinctively American champion in Horace Mann.²⁴ As the first Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, Mann became the “Father of the Common School Movement,” articulating a powerful and optimistic vision for the role of schooling in a democratic republic.²⁴ Drawing heavily on his observations of the Prussian system during a trip to Europe, Mann argued that free, universal, tax-supported public schools were not merely beneficial but essential to the survival and perfection of the American experiment.²⁴

The purpose of the “common school,” in Mann’s view, was multifaceted and transformative. First, it was a political necessity, required to create a virtuous and educated citizenry capable of understanding complex issues, voting wisely, and resisting the allure of demagogues.²⁴ Second, it was a powerful tool for social uplift, what Mann famously called the “great equalizer of the conditions of men”.²⁵ By bringing children of all classes together in a common learning experience, the school would provide a ladder of opportunity for the poor and mitigate class conflict.²⁴ Third, in a nation experiencing waves of immigration, the common school was to be a crucible of assimilation, forging a diverse population into a unified American culture with shared values.¹³ Finally, it was an economic engine, meant to instill the moral habits, discipline, and punctuality necessary to produce a skilled and productive workforce for the nation’s growing economy.²⁴

This grand vision, however, was immediately beset by controversy and contradiction, revealing the deep-seated tensions within the American project itself. Mann, a Unitarian, advocated for a non-sectarian approach to moral instruction. He believed schools should use the Bible to teach universal moral principles but should not indoctrinate students into any specific denominational creed.²⁴ This position drew fierce opposition from orthodox religious groups, particularly the Congregationalists of New England, who saw it as a secularizing threat.²⁴ Simultaneously, Catholic immigrants, especially the Irish, viewed the common schools as thinly veiled instruments of Protestant moral indoctrination. They reacted by condemning Mann’s Protestant-centered morality and constructing their own parallel system of parochial schools, a division that profoundly shaped the American educational landscape.²⁴

Furthermore, Mann’s proposal that schools be funded by public taxes was met with resistance from wealthy citizens who objected to paying for the education of other people’s children.¹⁶ And while proponents saw the school as a tool of liberation, critics have argued that it functioned as a mechanism of social control, designed to universalize the values of the dominant white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant middle class and to suppress cultural diversity.²⁴ The common school movement thus represents the most ambitious and idealistic articulation of the purpose of public education—as a cornerstone of democracy, equality, and social justice. Yet its contentious history also exposes the inherent difficulty of this project. From its inception, the “common” school was a site of cultural, religious, and class conflict, highlighting the enduring tension between the ideal of a neutral, universal public good and the reality of a system that inevitably reflects and reinforces the values and power dynamics of the dominant culture.

Part III: The Industrial Shadow – The Factory Model and the Economic Imperative

While the Reformation and the rise of the nation-state provided the ideological and political impetus for mass schooling, it was the Industrial Revolution that supplied its definitive structural model and its most pressing economic rationale. The emergence of industrial capitalism in the 19th and early 20th centuries created an unprecedented demand for a new kind of citizen: the industrial worker. This economic imperative reshaped the purpose and practice of education, transforming the school into an institution that, in both its curriculum and its architecture, mirrored the factory. The school’s mission expanded from creating believers and citizens to consciously forging a workforce suited to the needs of the new industrial economy.

Subsection 3.1: Forging the Industrial Worker: Punctuality, Docility, and the Rote Curriculum

The transition from agrarian and craft-based economies to industrial manufacturing created a seismic shift in the nature of work. The new factory system required a labor force that possessed a specific set of behavioral traits: workers needed to be punctual, sober, willing to perform repetitive tasks for long hours, and, above all, docile and obedient to the authority of a manager or supervisor.³¹ The nascent public school systems that were spreading across the United States and Europe in the 19th century proved to be the ideal institution for cultivating these traits.

Industrialists and factory owners quickly became some of the most ardent champions of universal public education.¹⁶ In Massachusetts, the industrialist Edmund Dwight was so convinced of the importance of a state board of education to factory owners that he offered to supplement the salary of its new secretary, Horace Mann, with his own money.¹⁶ In England, factory owners were among the biggest supporters of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, which made education universally available.³¹ Their support was not primarily for the technical skills schools might impart, but for the social conditioning they provided.³¹

This economic purpose was reflected in both the content and the process of schooling. The curriculum increasingly emphasized practical, functional skills over classical or purely religious instruction. The “three Rs” (reading, writing, and arithmetic) became the core of elementary education, providing the basic literacy and numeracy required for a minimally competent workforce.²⁶ More important than the explicit curriculum, however, was the “hidden curriculum” embedded in the very experience of school. The daily routine of sitting still in a classroom, obeying the teacher’s commands, responding to bells, and tolerating rote memorization and repetitive drills was seen as perfect training for the monotony and discipline of the factory floor.²⁸ The emphasis was on conformity and obedience, not creativity or critical thinking, which were not valued traits in an assembly-line worker.²⁸

While earlier forms of schooling certainly had their own hidden curricula of social control, the Industrial Revolution made the economic purpose of this conditioning explicit. The “why” of schooling expanded dramatically to include the production of human capital for industry. The school was no longer just creating a citizen or a believer; it was now consciously and systematically creating a worker, instilling the habits and dispositions necessary for a compliant and productive industrial labor force.

Subsection 3.2: The Architecture of Control: Age-Grading, Bell Schedules, and Standardization

The influence of industrial logic on education extended beyond the curriculum to the very structure and organization of the school itself. As compulsory education laws brought unprecedented numbers of students into the system, educators and administrators faced a massive logistical challenge. They found their solution in the most successful and efficient organizing principle of their era: the factory.³³ The result was the creation of the “factory model school,” an institution whose architecture of control mirrored the industrial assembly line.

This new model was characterized by several key features that were adopted for their efficiency in processing large numbers of students ³⁴:

• Age-Graded Classrooms: The traditional one-room schoolhouse, where children of various ages learned together, was replaced by a system of age-grading. Students were sorted into batches based on their age—or as some critics put it, their “date of manufacturing”—and moved through a sequence of grade levels as a cohort.²⁸ This allowed for more streamlined instruction and resource allocation.
• Bell Schedules and Fragmentation: The school day was divided into discrete, uniform blocks of time, regulated by the ringing of bells.³⁵ Each period was dedicated to a separate, disconnected subject, and students were expected to shift their attention promptly on cue. This structure mirrored the time management and shift work of a factory, instilling a sense of industrial time discipline.³¹
• Standardization: To ensure a uniform and predictable output, the system embraced standardization. Standardized curricula and textbooks were developed to provide a common body of knowledge for all students at a given grade level.²⁸ This was accompanied by the rise of standardized testing, which allowed for the efficient measurement and comparison of student and school performance.³⁵
• Hierarchical Structure: The school adopted a hierarchical management structure. The teacher’s role evolved into that of a frontline supervisor, responsible for delivering pre-packaged knowledge from the standardized curriculum and ensuring order and compliance among the student “workers”.³⁴

It is important to acknowledge a historiographical debate on this topic. Some education historians contend that the term “factory model school” is an ahistorical and misleading rhetorical device, arguing that schools adopted these features for their own internal reasons of organization and efficiency, not necessarily by consciously mimicking factories.³⁶ However, the parallels are undeniable, and proponents of the thesis point to explicit statements from influential early 20th-century education leaders like Ellwood P. Cubberley, who wrote that schools are “factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned into products to meet the various demands of life”.³⁶

Regardless of the precise degree of conscious imitation, the functional result was the same. The structure of the school became an end in itself. The “how” of schooling—the efficient, standardized, and controlled process of moving batches of students through a predetermined sequence—began to overshadow the “why.” The internal logic of the system, with its emphasis on order, conformity, and measurable output, took precedence over the individual learning needs, intellectual curiosity, and holistic development of the students within it. This triumph of process over purpose created a dehumanizing institutional culture and set the stage for the powerful critiques of modern schooling that would emerge in the 20th century.

Part IV: The Counter-Narrative – Critical Perspectives on the Purpose of Schooling

As the model of mass, compulsory, state-run schooling solidified in the 20th century, a powerful counter-narrative began to emerge. A cohort of influential thinkers, looking past the official rhetoric of democracy, opportunity, and enlightenment, began to question the fundamental purpose and effect of the institution itself. For these critics, the “official” purposes of schooling often served to mask a deeper, more troubling “hidden curriculum” designed for social control, ideological indoctrination, and the reproduction of social inequality. The work of figures like Ivan Illich, John Taylor Gatto, and Paulo Freire provides an essential lens for understanding the dysfunctions of modern education, arguing that the system is not necessarily broken but is, in many ways, functioning precisely as it was designed.

Subsection 4.1: The School as a Manipulative Institution: Ivan Illich’s Deschooling Society

In his seminal 1971 work, Deschooling Society, the philosopher and social critic Ivan Illich launched one of the most radical critiques ever leveled against modern education. For Illich, the problem was not simply that schools were inefficient or in need of reform; the problem was the institution of school itself.¹ He argued that compulsory schooling is a “manipulative institution” that systematically confuses process with substance.³⁷ It teaches students to mistake being taught for learning, advancing through grades for education, a diploma for competence, and fluency for the ability to say something new.³⁸

According to Illich, the school’s most pervasive and damaging function is to act as the primary agent of social conditioning in a modern consumer society. It trains children to become passive “consumer-pupils” who accept pre-packaged solutions and services not only in the classroom but in all aspects of life.³⁷ The school, he argued, is the institution that first teaches us the need to be taught, thereby stifling self-reliance, creativity, and the ability to learn from the world directly.³⁹ It functions as a new, secular world religion, offering a “false myth of salvation” to the poor and marginalized—the promise that consuming the school’s services will lead to upward mobility—while in reality perpetuating a system that disproportionately benefits the already privileged.³⁷

Illich’s profound insight is that the ultimate “why” of modern schooling is to create the ideal citizen for a technocratic, institutionalized, consumer society. The school’s most important lesson is submission to institutional authority and the belief that personal fulfillment comes from consuming expertly designed and professionally delivered “packages” of goods and services. His critique transcends the field of education to become an indictment of the very structure of modern life, where authentic human experience is increasingly replaced by institutionalized substitutes. In place of the school’s “educational funnels,” which channel all learners through a standardized process, Illich proposed a radical alternative: “deschooling society” by creating “learning webs.” These would be decentralized, non-compulsory, and non-hierarchical networks designed to connect learners with the resources they need—whether it be access to tools and objects, the sharing of skills with a teacher, dialogue with peers, or guidance from a true master of a craft.⁴⁰ For Illich, true education could only happen when it was disentangled from the manipulative institution of school.

Subsection 4.2: The Hidden Curriculum of Control: John Taylor Gatto’s Dumbing Us Down

Writing from the trenches as a decorated New York City public school teacher, John Taylor Gatto provides an insider’s confirmation of the most trenchant critiques of schooling. In his influential book, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, Gatto argues that the American public school system is not a failure. On the contrary, it is a resounding success, because it is “working exactly as it was designed”.⁴² Its true, albeit unstated, purpose, he contends, is not to foster critical thinking or genuine intellectual curiosity, but to produce obedient workers and passive consumers who are manageable and predictable.⁴³

Gatto’s central contribution is his articulation of the “hidden curriculum,” a set of powerful lessons taught not through textbooks but through the very structure and routines of the school day. He identifies seven of these lessons that are systematically drilled into students ⁴²:

1. Confusion: The curriculum is fragmented into disconnected subjects and short time blocks, preventing students from seeing connections or achieving deep understanding.
2. Class Position: Students are taught to know their place in a hierarchical system, sorted and tracked into groups that often prefigure their future social and economic roles.
3. Indifference: The constant ringing of bells and shifting from one subject to another teaches students not to invest too deeply in any one thing.
4. Emotional Dependency: Students are conditioned to subordinate their own will to the authority of teachers and administrators, seeking approval and permission for their actions.
5. Intellectual Dependency: Students are taught to wait for an “expert” to tell them what to think and do, stifling independent thought and originality.
6. Provisional Self-Esteem: A student’s sense of self-worth is made contingent on external validation—grades, test scores, and expert opinions—rather than on an internal sense of mastery or accomplishment.
7. One Can’t Hide: The environment of constant surveillance, testing, and evaluation conditions children to accept a life without privacy, monitored by authority.

Gatto translates the sociological critique of the “factory model” into a devastating psychological one. He demonstrates how the architectural features of the school—the bells, the age-grading, the fragmented curriculum, the constant supervision—are not neutral, logistical tools but powerful pedagogical instruments in their own right. The bell does not merely signal the end of math class; it teaches the lesson of indifference by forcing a student to sever their engagement with a topic on command. Constant testing does not just measure learning; it teaches the lesson that one’s self-worth is provisional and dependent on the judgment of an external authority. Gatto’s work reveals how the very structure of the school day systematically cultivates psychological traits—dependency, indifference, insecurity—that are antithetical to the stated goals of education but perfectly aligned with the needs of a hierarchical, consumer-driven society.

Subsection 4.3: The Pedagogy of Liberation: Paulo Freire and the “Banking Model”

The Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire offers a third critical perspective, one forged in his work with illiterate and impoverished communities. In his landmark book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire critiques the traditional educational model from the standpoint of its effect on the oppressed.⁴⁶ He famously labels this model the “banking” concept of education.⁴⁶ In this model, the teacher is the active subject who possesses knowledge, while the students are passive objects, treated as empty vessels or bank accounts into which the teacher “deposits” information.⁴⁶

For Freire, this banking model is fundamentally an instrument of oppression. By treating students as passive receptacles, it negates their own knowledge, lived experiences, and creative capacity. It is a one-way transmission of information that encourages adaptation and conformity, conditioning students to passively accept the world as it is presented to them by those in power. This methodology, Freire argues, serves the interests of the dominant class by discouraging critical consciousness and reinforcing the status quo.⁴⁶

In its place, Freire proposes a “problem-posing” education. This is not a one-way transmission but a dialogical process in which teachers and students become co-investigators of reality.⁴⁶ Through dialogue, they critically analyze the world and their place within it, not as a static reality to be accepted, but as a dynamic situation to be transformed. For Freire, true education is a practice of freedom, or

praxis—the cyclical process of reflection and action upon the world in order to change it. The goal of this pedagogy is conscientização, or the development of critical consciousness, which empowers people to move from being passive objects of history to becoming active subjects and agents of their own liberation.⁴⁶

Freire’s work fundamentally reframes the “why” of education by asserting that education is never a neutral act; it is always a political one. He moves beyond the debate of whether school is for citizenship or for work and instead poses a more radical question: Is education for domination or for liberation? The banking model, by its very nature, is a tool for domination because it domesticates and dehumanizes. Problem-posing education, by contrast, is a tool for liberation because it empowers and humanizes. For Freire, there is no middle ground. The choice of pedagogical method is itself a political choice that either reinforces or challenges existing structures of power and oppression.

Synthesis and Conclusion: Who Created School, and Why Does It Matter Today?

The question of who created school and why has no simple answer because the institution is not a monolith. It is a complex, layered creation, a historical palimpsest bearing the indelible marks of all its successive architects. The modern public school is a hybrid entity, an institution that contains within its DNA the Egyptian drive for bureaucratic order, the Spartan emphasis on discipline, the Athenian ideal of civic virtue, the Confucian link between education and state service, the Protestant demand for mass literacy, the Prussian obsession with national unity and control, the idealistic American hope for a “great equalizer,” and the stark economic requirement of the Industrial Revolution for a compliant and punctual workforce. Each of these forces added a new purpose, a new structure, a new “why” to the mission of schooling, creating the contradictory and often conflicted institution we know today.

Understanding this layered history is crucial, for it reveals that the persistent problems and debates in education are not new. The tension between education for critical inquiry and education for social conformity, first embodied by Athens and Sparta, is alive today in battles over standardized curricula versus project-based learning. The conflict that Horace Mann faced between a “common” Protestant-centric culture and the values of Catholic immigrants is replayed in contemporary struggles over multiculturalism, bilingual education, and the content of history textbooks. The factory model’s emphasis on standardization and efficiency, while arguably obsolete in a post-industrial world ⁴⁸, continues to dominate policy and practice, its rigid structures often stymying the efforts of dedicated educators to personalize learning and meet the holistic needs of children.⁴⁹

The critical perspectives of Ivan Illich, John Taylor Gatto, and Paulo Freire are not merely academic exercises but are essential diagnostic tools for comprehending these deep-seated issues. They force us to look beyond the stated intentions of educational reformers and examine the functional reality of the school as an institution. They reveal how the very structure of schooling—its hidden curriculum—can systematically produce outcomes like passivity, dependency, and indifference that are diametrically opposed to its official goals. Their work makes it clear that education is never a neutral endeavor; it is always a political act that either reinforces or challenges existing social and economic structures.

Today, as we navigate a post-industrial, information-based, and globally interconnected world, the “why” of schooling is once again profoundly in question. The economic and social conditions that gave rise to the factory model school have been transformed, yet its architecture largely remains. The challenge, therefore, is not simply to reform the existing system but to fundamentally reimagine its purpose. Understanding who created the school and for what reasons is the indispensable first step in this process. It allows us to see the assumptions embedded in our educational structures and to ask whether they still serve us. The history of schooling is a history of powerful interests shaping an institution to meet their needs. The future of education depends on our ability to consciously and democratically choose a new purpose—one that is designed not to serve the interests of the state or the economy, but to foster the full human potential of every learner in a free and just society.

Works cited

1. The Evolution of Education: A Journey Through Time, accessed August 6, 2025, https://thinkschools.net/the-evolution-of-education-a-journey-through-time
2. History of education – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education
3. How Were Children Educated in Ancient Times? – AAA State of Play, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.aaastateofplay.com/how-were-children-educated-in-ancient-times/
4. Education in Ancient Civilizations | History of Education Class Notes – Fiveable, accessed August 6, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/history-education/unit-1
5. Education and Training in the Ancient World | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/education/education-and-training-ancient-world
6. The Education System in Ancient Greece, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.greece-is.com/the-education-system-in-ancient-greece/
7. Compulsory education – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education
8. www.britannica.com, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/education/Education-in-the-earliest-civilizations#:~:text=Chinese%20ancient%20formal%20education%20was,and%20music%20formed%20the%20curriculum.
9. 1. Education in ancient China – Chinese Culture – Raider Digital Publishing, accessed August 6, 2025, https://raider.pressbooks.pub/chineseculture/chapter/1-education-in-ancient-china/
10. History of education in China – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_China
11. China Ancient Education, History of Education in China – China Highlights, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.chinahighlights.com/travelguide/ancient-education.htm
12. Ancient Chinese Education and Its Development | Free Essay Example – StudyCorgi, accessed August 6, 2025, https://studycorgi.com/ancient-chinese-education-and-its-development/
13. Compulsory Education Laws: Background – FindLaw, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.findlaw.com/education/education-options/compulsory-education-laws-background.html
14. ED119389 – A History of Compulsory Education Laws. Fastback Series, No. 75. Bicentennial Series., 1976 – ERIC, accessed August 6, 2025, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED119389
15. Compulsory Education in the United States | Mises Institute, accessed August 6, 2025, https://mises.org/online-book/education-free-and-compulsory/compulsory-education-united-states
16. Historical Timeline of Public Education in the US | Race Forward, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.raceforward.org/reports/education/historical-timeline-public-education-us
17. Prussian education system – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system
18. en.wikipedia.org, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system#:~:text=It%20expanded%20the%20existing%20schooling,and%20generally%20compulsory%20primary%20education.
19. Prussia – Education: Free and Compulsory – Mises Institute, accessed August 6, 2025, https://mises.org/online-book/education-free-and-compulsory/compulsory-education-europe/prussia
20. Speedrun: The Prussian education system – drossbucket, accessed August 6, 2025, https://drossbucket.com/2021/05/08/speedrun-the-prussian-education-system/
21. Educate to Indoctrinate: Education Systems Were First Designed to Suppress Dissent, accessed August 6, 2025, https://today.ucsd.edu/story/education-systems-were-first-designed-to-suppress-dissent
22. The Prussian Model of Education – STEMiteracy, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.stemiteracy.org/the-prussian-model
23. The Origins of Public Education in the United States by Alex Newman, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.stmichaelschool.us/files/Origins-of-Public-Education-Alex-Newman.pdf
24. Social Welfare History Project Horace Mann And The Creation Of …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/education/horace-mann-creation-common-school/
25. Horace Mann – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Mann
26. Common school – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_school
27. History and Evolution of Public Education in the US – ERIC, accessed August 6, 2025, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED606970.pdf
28. Industrialization’s Effect on Education | History of Education Class …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/history-education/unit-9
29. Mann Right to Free Public School – Dedham Museum & Archive, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.dedhammuseum.org/lesson-plan/mann-right-to-free-public-school/
30. Curriculum of Control: Capital’s Grip on U.S. History Education | MR Online, accessed August 6, 2025, https://mronline.org/2025/06/02/curriculum-of-control-capitals-grip-on-u-s-history-education/
31. The modern education system was designed to teach future factory workers to be “punctual, docile, and sober” – Quartz, accessed August 6, 2025, https://qz.com/1314814/universal-education-was-first-promoted-by-industrialists-who-wanted-docile-factory-workers
32. Impact of the industrial Revolution on Education: From Factories to Classrooms, accessed August 6, 2025, http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2024/3/28/impact-of-the-industrial-revolution-on-education-from-factories-to-classrooms
33. The Origins of Public Education: A Reassessment, accessed August 6, 2025, https://eaop.ucsd.edu/198/achievement-gap/The%20Origins%20of%20Public%20Education%20-%20A%20Reassessment.pdf
34. The Factory School Model – A Breakthrough of the Past, a challenge of the Present, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.bloom.edu.ba/post/the-factory-school-model-a-breakthrough-of-the-past-a-challenge-of-the-present
35. Standardization and the factory model of schooling | History of Education Class Notes, accessed August 6, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/history-education/unit-9/standardization-factory-model-schooling/study-guide/EbRo9oyDmVJM25jV
36. Factory model school – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_model_school
37. Ivan Illich Deschooling Society, accessed August 6, 2025, http://ektr.uni-eger.hu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/deschooling-society-a-brief-summary.pdf
38. Deschooling Society, by Ivan Illich: a book review – Taking Children Seriously, accessed August 6, 2025, https://takingchildrenseriously.com/deschooling-society-by-ivan-illich-a-book-review/
39. Ivan Illich on deschooling, conviviality, and systems. Possibilities for education and social change – Infed.org, accessed August 6, 2025, https://infed.org/mobi/ivan-illich-deschooling-conviviality-and-lifelong-learning/
40. Deschooling Society | Book Summary – SwiftRead, accessed August 6, 2025, https://swiftread.com/books/deschooling-society
41. Deschooling Society – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deschooling_Society
42. Dumbing Us Down Book Summary: John Taylor Gatto’s 7 Hidden Lessons, accessed August 6, 2025, https://homeschoolthinktank.com/dumbing-us-down/
43. Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling – Goodreads, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/225850.Dumbing_Us_Down
44. Notes on Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling – Christian Mills, accessed August 6, 2025, https://christianjmills.com/posts/dumbing-us-down-book-notes/
45. Dumbing Us Down – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbing_Us_Down
46. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.xu.edu.ph/images/Kinaadman_Research_Center/doc/kj36_Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed_Paulo_Freire.pdf
47. Paulo Freire – Pedagogy of the Oppressed: Book Summary – YouTube, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vazSwO1MoZ0&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5tD
48. Rethinking Education: From the Factory Model to a New Era – Bloom School Sarajevo, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.bloom.edu.ba/post/rethinking-education-from-the-factory-model-to-a-new-era
49. From Factory Model to Empowering Schools | Redesigning High School, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.redesigninghighschool.org/from-factory-model-to-empowering-schools