A Brief History of Education: Where it Led Us, and Now What?!

Let’s start at the very beginning—I promise we’ll move through to the most relevant points quickly. But I always like to start at the very beginning. A very good place to start. (Sorry, I just channeled my inner Julie Andrews.)

The earliest known form of formal schooling developed right before Egypt’s Old Kingdom about three thousand years BCE. That’s 5,000 years ago! A thousand years later a form of formal education developed in China and India. Later it developed in Ancient Greece and through the Islamic communities. Formal education happened later in Europe during the High Middle Ages, about 1,000 years ago. From these origins, the modern system still in place in Europe derives its education system. Mass compulsory schooling, however, began in Prussia during the 1800s. This is the foundation of the standard educational systems in the West today—but we’ll get to that soon.

 

Early Formal Education

When formal schooling started in Egypt it was mostly for the elites, with boys studying to be scribes, priests, or work government jobs. All of which were quite prestigious occupations. They dealt with oil divination, math, reading, writing, horseback riding, hunting, and craft. Girls on the other hand were taught how to manage a household and entertain if they were of “higher birth” but either way most girls were educated at home by their mothers. The primary teaching methods were apprenticeship and memorization.

In China, the first educational systems were designed for the aristocracy—specifically, the male aristocracy. Their curriculum covered literature, rituals, archery, politics, music, and the arts. Later, schools for common people emerged, focusing on farming and craftsmanship. It was Confucius who established private schools and promoted education for all. He believed that education was a lifelong process that could help people improve themselves and serve their communities. He had a very profound impact on education.

Confucius’s Educational Philosophy:

• Education is a lifelong process of self-improvement

• Education should cultivate capable people

• Education should help people develop virtues like humanity, propriety, and justice

• Education should help people develop an understanding of the past and present

• Education should help people develop vocational skills

India’s Vedic educational system also had groundbreaking philosophies. The primary aim of education was liberation. Another incredible difference is that, unlike the early systems we’ve explored so far, they believed that the education of women was of great importance. It based on three principles: hearing, reflection, and applied knowledge. Gurukul, the practical application of Vedic educational principles, included subjects like religion, scripture, philosophy, literature, statecraft, medicine, astrology, history, poetry, and drama.    

Education in Ancient Greece, Rome and More

In Ancient Greece, education was private and not free. Their main subjects included gymnastics, music (which encompassed poetry, drama, and history), and literacy. Later around 350 BCE, they added drawing, painting, and sculpture to the curriculum. Higher education at the Lyceum was exclusively for the wealthy, they covered rhetoric, mathematics, geography, natural history, politics, and logic. Girls received no formal education.

The Romans later did accept girls as their paying students, but classes were segregated. Only the very elite got a complete formal education.

Further West, the Aztecs were the first civilization to implement mandatory education for nearly all children, regardless of gender, rank, or station. Every child attended school.

The Evolution of European Education

Europe's early education system is where we derive our current education system from, at least in much of the Western world. Reviewing other systems reminds us that education has had diverse goals throughout history and is neither fixed nor immutable. Change is inevitable. The system we have today is not the be-all and end-all for education.

Toward the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance there began to be free education for the poor mandated by the church. It goes without saying, this was a religious education, one where only basic literacy was taught. In Medieval Europe, education was for boys of the Catholic Elite and took place in monasteries. The boys are taught the arts, law, medicine, and of course, theology.  

During the post-Reformation period (after the 1500s) John Amos Comenius–a scientist and educator–reformed the system of universal education used across Europe. He is considered the “Father of Modern Education”. He promoted lifelong learning with a focus on logical thinking over dull memorization. He wanted to give equal opportunity to the poor, and to give education to women (who have mostly been ignored in terms of education in Europe up to this point). He believed education should be universal and practical. John Amos Comenius considered there to be a connection between nature, religion (spirituality), and knowledge.  

The 18th and 19th Centuries: The Birth of Standardized Education

A lot of change happens during the 18th and 19th Centuries. Universities became more mainstream, emphasizing seminars and laboratories. Subjects included science, math, theology, philosophy, and ancient history. These are primarily for the elites. By the 19th century, governments began to provide elementary education in reading writing and arithmetic, because politicians believed that education was needed for orderly political behavior. The radical shifts in the economy and political landscape are reflected in radical changes to education, including the Humboltian model, and factory model of education or the Industrial model.

*This is the part of the story where we should perk our ears up*

The Humboldtian Model vs. The Industrial Model

Humboldt installed a standardized system of public instruction, from basic schools to secondary education, and founded Berlin University. He imposed standardization of state examinations and inspections and created a special department within the ministry to oversee and design curricula, textbooks, and learning aids.

Humboldt's educational model went beyond vocational training. In a letter to the Prussian king, he wrote: "There are undeniably certain kinds of knowledge that must be of a general nature and, more importantly, a certain cultivation of the mind and character that nobody can afford to be without. People obviously cannot be good craftworkers, merchants, soldiers, or businessmen unless, regardless of their occupation, they are good, upstanding, and – according to their condition – well-informed human beings and citizens. If this basis is laid through schooling, vocational skills are easily acquired later on, and a person is always free to move from one occupation to another, as so often happens in life.” As quoted in Profiles of educators: Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) by Karl-Heinz Günther (1988)

His model of education emphasized the holistic development of individuals through academic freedom and the integration of research and teaching. While he did impose standardized state examinations, this idea of holistic development contrasts sharply with the "industrial model" which prioritizes standardized, efficient training geared towards producing skilled labor for the workforce, often at the expense of critical thinking and individual development. He does speak about people of different occupations being better at their employment, but that is because they are better in themselves as people. 

 

The Humboldtian model:

• Focus on Bildung:
Aims to cultivate a well-rounded individual with critical thinking skills and a broad understanding of knowledge ("Bildung") rather than just job-specific skills. 

• Academic Freedom:
Universities should have autonomy to determine their curriculum and research agendas. 

• Integration of Research and Teaching:
Professors are expected to actively engage in research, which is incorporated into their teaching. 

• Interdisciplinary Approach:
Encourages students to explore diverse fields of study and make connections across disciplines. 

 

The Industrial Model: 

• Standardization:
Curriculum and assessment methods are standardized to ensure consistency across students. 

• Efficiency:
Prioritizes producing skilled workers quickly and with minimal resource expenditure. 

• Specialization:
Focus on training students in specific job-related skills, often neglecting broader knowledge. 

At around that same time, the German educator, Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852) established the first kindergarten. Froebel kindergartens are early childhood education programs that use play and activity to help children develop and they had a huge impact on early education at the time.

 

The Froebel Principles:

• Play-based learning
Froebel believed children learn best through play, talk, and self-reflection. He thought children are creative beings who should be allowed to learn at their own pace. 

• Nurturing environment
Froebel's kindergartens were designed to be safe and stimulating spaces where children could grow and develop naturally. 

• Hands-on learning
Froebel introduced educational materials like blocks, sticks, and balls to help children learn through exploration. 

• Early childhood development
Froebel believed the first years of a child's life are the most formative. He recognized that children experience significant brain development during this time. 

 

Let's have a quick look at the relationship to current education systems:

• Higher Education:
Many universities worldwide, particularly those with strong research traditions, closely align with the Humboldtian model, emphasizing academic freedom and research integration. 

• K-12 Education:
While the stated goals of K-12 education might aim for holistic development, the pressure to prepare students for standardized tests often leads to a more "industrial" approach that emphasizes rote learning and specific testing skills. 

•Early childhood development:

Froebel's ideas about early childhood education have had a lasting impact on modern education. His approach promotes holistic development, nurtures creativity, and emphasizes the importance of play, nature, and hands-on experiences. This influence is sadly waning as children are being fed into the industrial model of education earlier and earlier.

While many current education systems draw from aspects of these models, the industrial model's influence is often seen as dominant. I.E. when we first start with education as a system we experience freedom and the encouragement to develop as a whole human, to be creative and play and form connections, even if for a short time. Once we get to higher education we have freedom again for diverse disciplinary exploration and research in the Humboldtian model. But it is important to note that our foundations, the groundwork of our minds, are created by a model which for the most part stunts the mind. This is a model which devalues creativity, one which overemphasizes standardized testing that stifles, or purposefully disregards, critical thinking. It is also one that ignores the individual. It fails to cater to diverse learning styles and individual student goals.

How did the "Industrial Model" upset models of education that are more holistic and beneficial to individuals? And why?

I will be introducing you to a few men who had an enormous impact on how the industrial model of education became more or less the norm. Why our schools are, in a sense, factories, (or if you read Sir Ken Robinson more like industrial farms) in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned into products to meet the various demands of life. The specifications for manufacturing come from the demands of twentieth-century industrialization, and it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down as Elwood Cubberly wrote in 1916.

It is well known that American schooling is based on the Prussian Model, often referred to as: Factory Schooling. This model can be easily misunderstood by us thinking that the stated and demonstrated goals of this system is purely to make obedient factory workers. It has a much deeper purpose.

The Beginning of the Prussian Model… Introducing Johann Gottlieb Fichte

Let us drop Johann Gottlieb Fichte into history. In 1806, Napoleon’s army conquered the Prussians; the Kaiser and his family were forced to flee to Russia. The Prussians, who saw themselves as the quintessential Germans, felt humiliated. The French were sitting on the seats of power in Berlin, and the Germans truly despised them. These French men were dictating their own laws to them, the quintessential Germans!

Johann Gottlieb Fichte was one of the leading Prussian intellectuals of the day. He was a German Romantic, who “were hostile to political liberalism, rationalism, neoclassicism, and cosmopolitanism.” Fichte and the rest of the German Romantics reject liberalism. Liberalism includes the idea of individual human rights. They didn’t think of themselves as citizens of the world, but primarily (in his case) as German.

During the French occupation Fichte delivered a series of 14 lectures which were later turned into a book called the Addresses to the German Nation. In these he argued for a strong sense of German national identity, primarily through a system of comprehensive national education that would instill in citizens a deep sense of duty, self-discipline, and love for their nation, believing that education was the key to achieving true German unity and moral regeneration in the face of foreign occupation. This education would focus not just on academics but also on ethical development, shaping individuals who would prioritize the common good above personal interests.

Fichte says in one of these lectures that the state has the right and the duty to remove all children from their families and communities until they have been raised to manhood:

“It is essential that from the very beginning the pupil should be continuously and completely under the influence of this education, and should be separated altogether from the community, and kept from all contact with it.”

and:

 ”Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished.

Of course, it is not to be expected that all parents will be willing to be separated from their children, and to hand them over to this new education, a notion of which it will be difficult to convey to them. From past experience we must reckon that everyone who still believes he is able to support his children at home will set himself against public education, and especially against a public education that separates so strictly and lasts so long.

To put it more briefly. According to our supposition, those who need protection are deprived of the guardianship of their parents and relatives, whose place has been taken by masters. If they are not to become absolute slaves, they must be released from guardianship, and the first step in this direction is to educate them to manhood. German love of fatherland has lost its place; it shall get another, a wider and deeper one; there in peace and obscurity it shall establish itself and harden itself like steel, and at the right moment break forth in youthful strength and restore to the State its lost independence. Now, in regard to this restoration foreigners, and also those among us who have petty and narrow minds and despairing hearts, need not be alarmed; one can console them with the assurance that not one of them will live to see it, and that the age which will live to see it will think otherwise than they."

9th Address, p. 127.

"Now, assuming that the pupil is to remain until education is finished, reading and writing can be of no use in the purely national education, so long as this education continues. But it can, indeed, be very harmful; because, as it has hitherto so often done, it may easily lead the pupil astray from direct perception to mere signs, and from attention, which knows that it grasps nothing if it does not grasp it now and here, to distraction, which consoles itself by writing things down and wants to learn some day from paper what it will probably never learn, and, in general, to the dreaming which so often accompanies dealings with the letters of the alphabet. Not until the very end of education, and as its last gift for the journey, should these arts be imparted and the pupil led by analysis of the language, of which he has been completely master for a long time, to discover and use the letters. After the rest of the training he has already acquired, this would be play."

Fichte, 9th Address, p. 136

Woah. How about that! Apart from these being speeches loudly promoting extreme nationalism and justifying authoritarian practices–both of which are obviously not conducive to an education that encourages creative and critical thinking–he seals the deal by saying there will be no reading or writing. Reading and writing can be of no use and can actually be harmful to the child's mind of course. These things, like reading, can lead a mind astray you see.

This proposed education works, according to Fichte, by having the student utterly emotionally dependent on pleasing the teacher, doing what the teacher wants him to do in the way the teacher wants it done, always eager for approval, and of course completely trapped within that system without the ability to reach or discover new ideas through literature.

 

Fichte Key Ideas:

• The purpose of education is not to cultivate individual genius but to shape compliant and productive citizens.

• Children should be trained to follow orders rather than think critically.

• The school system should remove external influences (like family) to ensure state loyalty.

To make sure we are super clear about who Fichte was and what he believed, we must mention that he believed that "active citizenship, civic freedom, and even property rights should be withheld from women, whose calling was to subject themselves utterly to the authority of their fathers and husbands.” Christopher M. Clark, Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947, p. 377.

Uff got it!

It’s easy to think factory schooling or industrialized education was simply about preparing kids for factory work—but its ambitions were even bigger. It was about shaping minds to comply with authority, stripping away independence, and ensuring a structured, obedient society. And that starts with Fichte.

Enter Horace Mann

Now let me introduce you to the following man, Horace Mann, often called the “Father of American Public Education”. He visited Prussia in the 1830’s and was impressed by how effective its education system was and he believed a similar model could work wonders in the US. While Mann was not as extreme as Fichte in terms of state control, he did see education as a means of shaping character to fit societal needs.

After visiting Prussia Mann presented his thoughts following his trip to Prussia in a report to the Massachusetts Board of Education. He filed several reports and his 7th annual report, published in January 1844, focused on his experiences during his European trip. In the Seventh Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board, Mann - the Secretary of the Board of Education at the time - denounces the Prussian education system's ability to foster blind obedience to authority in this report, stating:

"... If the Prussian schoolmaster has better methods of teaching reading, writing, grammar, geography, arithmetic, &c., so that, in half the time, he produces greater and better results, surely, we may copy his modes of teaching these elements, without adopting his notions of passive obedience to government, or of blind adherence to the articles of a church."

— Horace Mann, Seventh Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board of Education, p. 22

and

"...if Prussia can pervert the benign influences of education to the support of arbitrary power, we surely can employ them for the support and perpetuation of republican institutions. A national spirit of liberty can be cultivated more easily than a national spirit of bondage; and if it may be made one of the great prerogatives of education to perform the unnatural and unholy work of making slaves, then surely it must be one of the noblest instrumentalities for rearing a nation of freemen. If a moral power over the understandings and affections of the people may be turned to evil, may it not also be employed for good?

Besides, a generous and impartial mind does not ask whence a thing comes, but what it is. Those who, at the present day, would reject an improvement because of the place of its origin, belong to the same school of bigotry with those who inquired if any good could come out of Nazareth."

— Horace Mann, Seventh Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board of Education, p. 23

In the U.S., Horace Mann, inspired by Prussian methods, pushed for establishing common schools, laying the groundwork for free, standardized public education. He implemented standardized curricula, teacher training, and compulsory schooling—all of which laid the groundwork for a structured, regimented system. His focus was to provide a “moral education” alongside academic skills, which he saw as essential for creating disciplined, productive citizens.

 

Horace Mann Key Ideas:

• Creating a disciplined, moral, and uniform citizenry.

• Providing free public education to prepare workers for the growing industrial economy.

• Using schools to instill social norms, work ethic, and obedience.

From some of what I read in his Seventh Annual Report (apart from some very ableist ideas about ASL, etc) Mann had a clear mind as to what education could do and how to approach it. His vision was especially sharp in recognizing that when you find the system you have lacking you go and look for other alternatives find the good in them and apply them. The danger comes from his puritanical proposition of having “productive citizens” instilling a good work ethic and obedience. This right here is the slippery slope, once we start talking about humans in economic terms we dehumanize them to some extent and then the purpose of school with the individual at the crux of it is lost.

 

The Frederick Taylors

Frederick Taylor was an industrial engineer, he wasn’t an educator, but his ideas about scientific management (Taylorism) deeply shaped the structure of schools in the 20th century. Taylor’s work aimed to maximize efficiency in the workplace through strict control over labor, breaking down tasks into repetitive, measurable parts.

Some teachers would use Taylorism to their advantage, but many spoke up against it and its impact on their work. In 1903, Margaret Haley spoke to school administrators about the tendency toward "factory-izing education" and "making the teacher an automaton, a mere factory hand, whose duty it is to carry out mechanically and unquestioningly the ideas and orders of those clothed with the authority of position.”

In Pillars of the Republic, Common Schools and American Society, 1780-1860, Carl Kaestle (1983)

Having teachers refer to this characteristic or effect of the system is very important, they become the factory workers and the students, products. And that "product" is not only completely dehumanized but put directly in the production line to become yet another factory worker that falls in line. Schools did become in many respects like factories. At the time both the workplace and the schools, as well as other nineteenth-century institutions, were partaking of the same ethos of efficiency, manipulation, and mastery all driven by the developments of the industrial revolution and the need to create more workers and products and to feed the machine.

I mean if it looks like one and smells like one and trains people to act like they’re in one… Isn’t that a factory?! *bell rings*

Our other Frederick Taylor, Frederick Taylor Gates, also matters because he had a great impact on education through someone else I’ve written about this before, but there is a quote often mistakenly attributed to John D. Rockefeller. And if Mann was the Father of Public American Education, then Rockefeller was the godfather of public education in America! The quote I speak of is this: "I don’t want a nation of thinkers—I want a nation of workers." Whether or not Rockefeller said these words, his actions and policies supported this sentiment. Rockefeller's advisor was *drumroll* Frederick Taylor Gates, who was involved with the General Education Board, and he expressed views about education and critical thought, or thought of any kind, in his 1916 book, The Country School of Tomorrow. Taylor wrote, “We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning, or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, editors, poets or, men of letters. We shall not search for […] great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have an ample supply… The task we set before ourselves is very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are…” I.E. to keep things as they are, to keep the people as they are or in a manner in which they are of service to the system.

 

Taylorism Key Ideas:

• Standardized processes and time efficiency, mirroring the factory model.

• Students as “workers”, trained to complete tasks efficiently.

• Teachers as managers, overseeing the structured work of students.

• Bell schedules, graded classrooms, and standardized testing, all of which reflect industrial efficiency principles.

The Chain of Influence

• Fichte: Schools should shape obedient citizens for the state.

• Mann: Schools should be structured and standardized to instill moral discipline and train workers.

• Taylor 1: Schools should function like factories, maximizing efficiency and output.

• Taylor 2: Schools should not teach people how to think, they should keep them in their place and have them fall in line. 

 

The Modern Standards Movement

These lay the groundwork for the Standardization and the Standards of Education Movement that have today. As the 20th century progressed, the U.S. adopted intelligence testing to track and sort students by academic ability, a model that often led to inequalities. This was paired with a curriculum that focused on preparing students for specific roles within the industrial economy, often at the expense of critical and creative thinking.

The 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik prompted the U.S. to reevaluate educational rigor, especially in science and math. This led to the establishment of a more uniform set of educational standards to ensure the U.S. stayed competitive in the global arena, marking an early foray into performance-based standards. This didn’t exactly improve standards, but it did create a sense of competitiveness. Distancing the system even further from the initial goals of individual enrichment. While there were some advances during the 60s and 70s in terms of altering the system and all that entails, those began to fade away during the Raegan administration.

The modern standards movement gained momentum with the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which tied federal funding to standardized test performance, further reinforcing a “teach-to-the-test” culture. Proponents believed that a data-driven approach to education would improve accountability, but critics argued it narrowed curriculums and stifled teachers’ creativity in the classroom further.

Finally introduced in 2010, the Common Core was an attempt to unify standards across states, promoting consistency in what students should know at each grade level. While in theory well-intentioned, it drew criticism for its one-size-fits-all approach and emphasis on standardized testing, and because it doesn’t address the parts of the system that don’t serve its students. It is a bandaid. It doesn’t rebuild the educational system to work to fulfill what it should for each individual.

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 

• Develops a child's personality, talents, and abilities
• Develops respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
• Prepares children for responsible lives in free societies
• Develops respect for the natural environment

Where Do We Go From Here?

As Ursula Le Guin said: “…Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.” Education is not a monolithic, unchangeable system. Especially education is a system that can be changed and affected in so many ways and historically has been.

We have access to helpful contemporary critics of the system and their calls for educational reform and they can be a great source of inspiration for change. Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed critiques the “banking model” of education, in which students are treated as empty vessels to be filled with information rather than active participants in learning. He advocated for an education that fosters critical thinking and empowerment rather than compliance.

We spoke a little of Sir Ken Robinson before, his work highlights the need for schools to nurture creativity, arguing that traditional models discourage it. His critique of industrial education, paired with his call for a more personalized, dynamic approach, has inspired modern educators to reimagine how we teach. He also emphasizes that we can make change at every level so we aren’t just reading about a broken system that must stay that way, but are encouraged to have a hand in changing the broken system once we recognize it as such.  

John Taylor Gatto’s unschooling is also interesting. Gatto, a former public school teacher and critic of compulsory schooling, argued that modern education creates conformity at the expense of individual agency. He advocated for a more self-directed, curiosity-driven approach to learning.

The history of education reveals a tension between creating a standardized, predictable system and recognizing the unique needs and interests of individual learners. This tension reflects the larger debate over what society values in its citizens: obedience or autonomy. Today’s world requires critical thinking, adaptability, and creativity—skills often overshadowed in standardized educational systems. Understanding this history can help us envision reforms that will prioritize student agency and intellectual freedom.

 

Alternative Models:

Montessori & Steiner Schools: Well-researched, child-centered methodologies that emphasize lifelong learning, creativity, and holistic development.

Unschooling & Homeschooling: Self-directed learning based on curiosity, exploration, and personal agency.

Advocating Within the System: Reforming education by pushing policies to encourage student independence and creativity.

The most radical thing we can do? Unlearn and relearn constantly—and model that process for the children in our lives. Education should always be about expanding minds, not limiting them.

* Wanting to reform an education system does not mean wanting to dismantle access to quality public education or the enormous benefits it provides. Quite the opposite—true reform aims to expand access, nurture curiosity, and ensure that learning is as enriching, liberating, and empowering as it was always meant to be.

References & Further Reading

Fichte, J.G. (1808). Addresses to the German Nation.

Mann, H. (1844). Seventh Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board of Education.

Comenius, J.A. (1632). Didactica Magna.

Taylor, F. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

Robinson, K. (2006). Do Schools Kill Creativity? (TED Talk)

Gatto, J.T. (1992). Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling.

Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori Method.

Steiner, R. (1919). The Renewal of Education.