The Origins of National Compulsory Schooling in America

“Why do I have to go to school?” “Why do we have to study this?” “What’s the point?”

These types of questions put me on a long-term search to understand the origin of compulsory schooling. 

The Search Begins

My search was fueled by bold critiques of traditional schooling written by John Taylor Gatto (1935-2018), author of Dumbing Us Down, and John Holt (1923-1985), author of How Children Fail and Instead of Education. Holt and Gatto were teachers who left the classroom because after much experience and reflection they concluded they were harming kids more than helping them. Their writings have provoked many to question commonly held assumptions about school.

Holt concludes the latter book with a powerful attack on the compulsory nature of schooling:

education—compulsory schooling, compulsory learning—is a tyranny and a crime against the human mind and spirit. Let all those escape it who can, any way they can. (ch. 18)

Gatto’s believes the origin of compulsory schooling is rooted in a military dictatorship. He writes,

In America, in the 21st century, we force public school children to pass through a system designed in the 19th century, for the purpose of creating obedient soldiers.” He continues, “The story of our schools begins in 1806, in the military dictatorship of Prussia, in Germany, during the Napoleonic wars.” (Skip College, Kindle, 150)

How so? 

After Napoleon and his non-professional army conquered Prussia in the early 1800s, Prussian leaders blamed their defeat on disorganized and disobedient soldiers. Their solution was to devise a new method for ensuring loyalty among the ranks—compulsory schools where obedience would be taught beginning in early childhood. Gatto states, “School in Prussia existed to create obedient soldiers, not to educate independent, self-reliant citizens” (Skip College, 196). It was this model of schooling, he argues, that American educational leaders were seeking to imitate. 

Is this an accurate view of the origins of compulsory schooling in the U.S.? Did we simply copy Prussia’s system of loyalty training? Does that explain why our schools are the way they are? If so, this is deeply disturbing. 

After about two years of searching for answers, here’s what I’ve concluded: historical reconstruction is complex. In human affairs multiple things are happening simultaneously so anyone who says “this one cause led to this one effect” is probably oversimplifying things. 

Initial Resistance

Before listing key forces behind our contemporary school system, we should acknowledge opposition to the idea of compulsory education.

• Although Thomas Jefferson believed the government should make educational institutions available for those too poor to afford them, he did not support the use of compulsion (Rothbard, 42).
• In 1891 and 1893, Governor Pattison of Pennsylvania vetoed compulsory education bills because he believed they interfered with the personal liberty of parents and therefore were un-American (43).
• Wisconsin state superintendent C. P. Cary warned against the expanding role of the state and top-down legislation in education because he believed it would impair democracy. In his words, “the efficiency of Germany is not worth what it costs” (Steffes, Kindle, 84).
• The Denver superintendent explained the reasons compulsory attendance laws were “dead letters on the statue books noting that ‘the president of the school board, the justice of the peace, or even the superintendent of schools, living in an American community, hesitates to call upon the might of the law to coerce a neighbor in other than criminal offences’” (2756).
• On the state level, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and most southern states initially rejected compulsory attendance statutes.
• Educators “were often ambivalent about enforcement of compulsory-attendance laws. Often they did not want the unwilling pupils whom coercion would bring into the classrooms” (Tyack, 361). As a teacher, I sympathize with this sentiment.

In sum, compulsion was opposed because it was viewed as un-American or undemocratic. According to one critic, “coercion may prove effective, but it is not the instrument of a free people” (Steffes, 99). In other words, the value of liberty that gave birth to the country should triumph over compulsion. This history of resistance to coercion is a recurring theme in U.S. history. 

Eight Key Forces 

Despite the resistance, the majority of Americans in the early twentieth century approved of compulsory schooling. By 1918 every state in the U.S. had mandatory school attendance laws. Why? What forces coalesced into this mandate?

1. A desire to spread a specific religious belief. The religious drive can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation. In 1524 Martin Luther argued:

I maintain that the civil authorities are under obligation to compel the people to send their children to school . . . If the government can compel such citizens as are fit for military service to bear spear and rifle . . how much more has it a right to compel the people to send their children to school, because in this case we are warring with the devil. (Rothbard, 20)

This is an important statement in our search for the roots of compulsion. Note the connection between military service and schooling. According to Luther (1483-1546), the government has the right to compel citizens to attend school for religious reasons— “because we are warring with the devil.” Four years later, Luther and his friend Philipp Melanchthon crafted the Saxony School Plan to instill Luther’s religious views in the population. And in 1530 Luther wrote a sermon on keeping children in school. In 1559 the first compulsory attendance system was enacted by Duke Christopher of Würtemberg and enforced by fines (Rothbard, 20). The use of compulsion spread from one territory to states throughout Germany, requiring attendance under the threat of fines and imprisonment of children. Finally, the first national system of compulsory schooling was formed in Prussia under King Frederick William I in 1717 (Rothbard, 25).

Like Luther, John Calvin (1509-1564) formed several compulsory public schools in Geneva. As Calvinism spread throughout Europe so did Calvinistic schools. The first to reach the shores of New England were Protestants. In particular, they were English Puritans who brought their Calvinist-Puritan doctrines to Massachusetts Bay Colony, stressing “Bible reading and early education as preparation for salvation” (Kaestle, Kindle, 117). Protestantism, then, with its emphasis on personal Bible reading and thus literacy, was a unique driving force behind modern education.

2. A desire to provide a safe place for youth after the rise of industrialization. About 150 years after the first settlers arrived in America, technology began to radically change the nature of work and the location where people lived. Instead of working on the family farm or in some type of apprenticeship, great numbers of people thronged to cities. As a result, children found themselves on the street or working in factories. While reformers argued successfully for restrictions on child labor, removing children from the factory would be futile if those same children ended up on the street (Steffes, 2467). Compulsory schooling, it was argued, was a way to protect children by removing them from both the factory and street. For the most part, parents agreed and so did labor unions who wanted to keep children out of the work force (Gaither, 67). Industrialization, then, made most of the preindustrial settings for youth obsolete and school became the new government-sanctioned parent-supported setting for youth.

3. A desire to develop national unity by forming loyal citizens. School was a way to direct people, primarily from European countries, to assimilate to the “American way of life.” For example, it was the venue where the common language was passed on, American curriculum was taught, and national loyalty was encouraged (e.g., the flag and pledge of allegiance). Tracy Steffes writes, “Educating for citizenship had been one of the primary justifications of public schools since their inception” (167). In other words, school was a major component of “national state-building” (235).

How should we view this desire? Is it right for the state to have an interest in its health and growth? Of course. What government wants its citizens to be disloyal and disunited? Every country has a legitimate interest in itself. 

Historically speaking, however, there are two issues with this desire. First, the initial implementation was exclusionary and racist because assimilating “others” did not originally include Africans, Native Americans, or later, Mexicans and Asians. Second, some did not want to merely encourage loyalty; they wanted to control thought and behavior:

The primary educational concern of leaders in government and industry was not to make people literate, but to gain control over what people read, what they thought, and how they behaved. Secular leaders in education promoted the idea that if the state controlled the schools, and if children were required by law to attend those schools, then the state could shape each new generation of citizens into ideal patriots and workers. (Gray, Kindle, 60)

Gatto highlights this idea of obedience training or thought control. His writings include frequent references to disturbing statements made by educational leaders in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, including statements made by Horace Mann (1796-1859), a staunch advocate of compulsory Prussian schooling in Massachusetts (Skip College, 160).

4. A desire to reduce crime and develop virtuous citizens. Carl Kaestle writes, “Both English and American advocates emphasized collective goals—such as the reduction of crime and disruption—rather than individualistic goals—such as intellectual growth or personal advancement” (622). This is another key statement in our search for the origin of modern schooling. Collective not individual goals were driving the thought process of modern school founders. 

Regarding how nineteenth-century citizens thought about the purposes of schooling, David Tyack says, “Rhetoric about the purposes of education emphasized socialization for civic responsibility and moral character far more than as an investment in personal economic advancement” (382). This “rhetoric” is fascinating because it is the opposite of the way many think today: “go to school so you can get a good job.” Also notice how being a good citizen and developing moral character overlap: “socialization for civic responsibility and moral character.” And the emphasis on “socialization” corresponds with the idea of “collective goals” in the previous statement. 

We should also note that America’s founding fathers were trying to do something unique: form a new system of government—a democratic republic. And they believed educated and virtuous citizens were essential to this type of government. A government “of the people, by the people, for the people” would be a disaster if those people were ignorant and corrupt. So some looked to forced schooling to form citizens fit for the republic. However, it’s important to mention that during the first 150 years of America’s history, government schools did not exist. (A government school is government-sponsored and tax-supported.) This history leads some to conclude that “an educated citizenry does not depend on, nor require, that government provide or operate schools” (Brouillette, 5).

5. A desire to develop productive citizens. “One of the dominant aims of schooling was to socialize children into their adult roles, including that of worker” (Steffes, 581). There’s that word again: “socialization.” The idea of shaping productive citizens goes back to the early education laws of Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1642 colony leaders were concerned because they believed some parents were becoming negligent in teaching members of their households. As a result, they enacted a law ordering selectmen in every town to ensure that parents were teaching their children to read in English, adhere to local laws and religious principles, and follow “some honest lawful calling.” Additional education laws followed with more details, eventually leading Massachusetts to become the first state to have a statewide tax-supported compulsory school system in 1852 (Katz). Every state followed ending with Mississippi in 1918. This force also leads to Germany because early educational leaders did not want the U.S. to fall behind the productivity of Germany. And they believed Germany’s school system was the key to its productivity. 

6. A commitment to equality. Many argued that equality required all citizens, even poor children, to have a basic level of knowledge. Unlike wealthy parents, poor parents could not afford to hire private tutors to educate their children. To decrease the intellectual gap, many supported the idea of public schools to ensure that every child received at least a basic education. But how could they guarantee that every child would acquire this essential knowledge? Through mandatory school attendance.

Individual schools, however, were vastly different from each other. Some were one-room schoolhouses, others separated children into different grades; some had qualified teachers and others didn’t. This diversity, resulting in different experiences for students, was viewed as unacceptable. “Voluntary efforts lost ground to state coercion as the diversity among local schools was defined as a problem” (Brouillette, 9). Reformers argued that schools should follow the same model so that children would receive the same education. The Committee of Ten (1892) played a vital role in standardization by recommending eight years of elementary education followed by four years of high school and urging all schools to teach the same subjects in the same way. Andrew Carnegie also contributed to this process by investing in teacher retirement pensions. In order for university teachers to participate in the pensions, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1906) required universities to adopt the Carnegie-unit system, which gives academic credit for contact hours with a teacher. The designated amount of time for one credit was 120 hours with a teacher per year. (Note the focus of this system is not learning but contact hours with a teacher.) High schools followed suit with most continuing to use the Carnegie-unit system. 

In addition to equal opportunity and a shared experience, some advocates, relying on writers such as Johann Fichte (1762-1814), went to an extreme by arguing for equal outcome or a social utopia. They believed that by planting equality in the mind at an early age they could equalize habits, feelings, and conditions. But this could not happen while children still lived with their parents because their home environments were not uniform. These home differences could only be eradicated when all children received the same food, clothes, and treatment during their formative years. Thus, children should live at public schools year-round for twenty-four hours a day. In his influential Addresses to the German Nation, Fichte said, “children ought to live together in complete isolation from adults, with only their teachers and masters” (Tenth Address). 

7. Trust in school as the answer to societal issues. “An array of reformers looked to school reform to pursue specific social goals like protecting children, policing morals, expanding democracy, furthering socialist revolution, protecting adult labor, promoting economic development, or Americanizing immigrants” (Steffes, 612). Obviously it was unrealistic to think school could accomplish all these goals, but at the time many were not thinking realistically. Notice how contradictory elements, such as “expanding democracy” and “furthering socialist revolution” were involved in the push toward modern schools. For some reason, school was seen by many groups as an institutional savior. 

8. Trust in the government’s use of compulsion. Charles Burgess views the Civil War as the transformative spark that led to the era of compulsion: “Following the Civil War, a dramatically different concept of Union gained popularity, primarily among intellectuals. . . the imperatives of Union required the Americanization of all citizens” (206). Simply put, to have a Union, all citizens must be Americanized.

Burgess continues by explaining how the Civil War changed the way citizens viewed the nation: “State militias learned an unexpected and abrupt lesson in the Civil War: their tasks could be assigned and directed by the federal government” (208). In addition, the question of national military conscription grew out of the Civil War as “both the North and South attempted to draft men into military service” (208). After the Civil War, a trend toward national compulsion began: pressure to enact compulsory voting laws, national rules on divorce and obscenity, and teetotaling. The rise of compulsory schooling fits into this cultural milieu.

Judicial Verdicts

Despite these powerful forces, resistance to compulsory schooling continued in the form of highly contested judicial decisions. These rulings were necessary because the authors of the Constitution did not address the issue of mandatory school attendance; education was left up to the states. In two legal cases affirming compulsory attendance laws, the state’s police powers were used as justification for schooling (Provasnik, 329-30). Thus the state’s right to protect itself overruled the rights of parents to determine how their children should be educated.

How did school serve to protect the state? By providing a place for youth who might otherwise be idle in the street, by stamping out ignorance with knowledge, and by their hierarchical structure that imposed the virtues of obedience, self-control, and diligence. School, then, was a way for the state to watch over its youth. Although the judicial decisions were contested, once the laws were established, “legal challenges were so infrequent that they only reinforce the general point that the overwhelming majority of Americans willingly and eagerly embraced formal schooling” (Gaither, 71).

Summary and Analysis

Gatto is right that the story of modern compulsory schooling has roots in Germany. As we have seen, the following forces have a direct link to Germany:

• religion
• national unity
• productivity
• equality (especially those who wanted equality of outcome)

But we must guard against the fallacy of reductionism, which Gatto falls into at times. The story of modern schooling does not begin in the 1800s with the German military. It begins in the 1500s with Luther and it includes non-German influences. 

Which influence or force was primary? Historically, if we begin with Luther, the religious drive is first, but allocating a percentage to each force is impossible. Not only did the forces change over time, individual advocates latched on to one or two key forces while ignoring others. 

Can we find a unifying concept in the various forces? In at least four of the eight forces, a key concept is socialization:

• providing a safe place for youth 
• developing national unity 
• reducing crime 
• developing productive citizens

Was implementing compulsory schooling simply a top-down process? No, because many citizens were persuaded of its benefits and fought for its establishment. (This is a core idea in Steffes.) Thus we should not identify an elite sinister group as the sole founders of modern schooling. 

However, the diversity of forces shows that bad elements were involved in the establishment of our modern compulsory school system: a police-state mentality, forced unity along with its racist emphasis, a desire to control, misplaced trust in the government, and misplaced hope in what school could accomplish. But there were noble elements as well: genuine concern for children’s welfare in the age of industrialization, a desire to help immigrants assimilate into society, and ensuring that everyone had a basic level of knowledge by giving them a standard education.

Let’s look at these forces from another perspective. What questions were school founders seeking to answer?      

• “How do we make sure our children carry on our faith?” 
• “Where can we find a safe place for our children?”
• “How do we develop national unity in a country filled with immigrants?” or “How do we most effectively spread American values?”
• “How do we make sure our children become productive citizens?” or “How do we prevent youth idleness and youth ignorance?”

Those are significant questions but what’s missing?

The individual. In particular, the individual’s intellectual development, unique skills, and interests. When government and community leaders were thinking of answers to the questions above, they were not thinking of how to help individual citizens excel at pursuing their interests. They were considering a one-size-fits-all model of education.

Of course, there was no way they could have been thinking about millions of individual children. I am simply pointing out that compulsory schooling is a communal answer to communal questions. Founders were focused on our faith, our unity, our productivity. As a result, the modern school system places the community before the individual. And that means individuals must fit into the system rather than the system adapting to individuals. “What does that student need?” is not a question the modern school system is well-equipped to answer. 

The struggle to help primary and secondary students develop their personal interests and individual skills in the compulsory school setting is rooted in the structure of school itself—it was not designed with that objective in mind. 

—————————————————————————————————-

*I am grateful to Milton Gaither and Tracy Steffes for their thought-provoking books and insightful feedback.

Bibliography

Boyack, Connor ed. Skip College: Launch Your Career Without Debt, Distractions, or a Degree. Salt Lake City: Libertas Press, 2019.

Brouillette, Matthew J. School Choice in Michigan: A Primer for Freedom in Education. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy. July, 1999. 

Burgess, Charles. The Goddess, the School Book, and Compulsion. Harvard Educational Review. Vol. 46, No. 2, May 1976.

Gaither, Milton. Homeschool: An American History. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

Gatto, John Taylor. Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1992.

Gray, Peter. Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life. New York: Basic Books, 2013.

Holt, John. Instead of Education: Ways to Help People Do Things Better. Boulder, CO: Sentient Publications, 2004.

Kaestle, Carl. Pillars of the Republic: Common Schools and American Society, 1780-1860. New York: Hill and Wang, 1983.

Katz, Michael S. A History of Compulsory Education Laws. The Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1976.

Pollock, Jane E. Improving Student Learning One Teacher at a Time. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2007.

Provasnik, Stephen. Judicial Activism and the Origins of Parental Choice: The Court’s Role in the Institutionalization of Compulsory Education in the United States, 1891-1925. History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 311-347.

Rothbard, Murray. Education: Free and Compulsory. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1999.

Steffes, Tracy L. School, Society & State: A New Education to Govern Modern America, 1890-1940. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2012.

Steffes, Tracy L. “Governing the Child: The State, the Family, and the Compulsory School in the Early Twentieth Century, in Boundaries of the State in U.S. History. Edited by William J. Novak, James Sparrow, and Stephen Sawyer. University of Chicago Press, forthcoming.

Tyack, David. Ways of Seeing: An Essay on the History of Compulsory Schooling. Harvard Educational Review. Vol. 46. No. 3, August 1976.