Dylan Kane takes on the cliche about schools and the factory model.
I hate when people bring up the factory model of education. Statements like, “The factory model of education treats students like products on an assembly line, prioritizing efficiency, standardization, and control over creativity, individuality, and deep learning.” I hate it because it’s often lazy rhetoric, meant to communicate “I know how to talk about education in this fancy way so I must be right.” I hate it because it’s a non-sequitur. Schools were founded on a factory model, therefore you should incorporate the four D’s I just made up into your lesson plan or whatever. But I also hate it because it’s wrong. Here are some fun facts about the factory model to pull out the next time a consultant starts talking about the factory model at your district PD.
The first large expansion of public education in the US was the common school movement of the early 1800s.1 The main goal of this movement was to strengthen the young country’s democratic institutions, not to turn out efficient workers. In New England, where the first common schools proliferated, there was already a relatively high literacy rate for free males. But that education was disjointed, happening through apprenticeships, in the home, through private tutors, or informal collectives. The common school movement brought people of all classes together under one roof. The goal was to break down social barriers and instill a shared national identity and commitment to the common good. Horace Mann wasn’t trying to efficiently create workers; he was trying to buttress the democratic institutions of a young nation. The Industrial Revolution was underway; the factory model could have been a major influence on the education system. But it wasn’t.