Good points, Jason. Not sure if I have all the answers, but this post, and my blog, is a work in progress anyway.

The difference between free public education in the industrial era and what preceded it are two very different types of schooling. I wouldn't compare one with the other. Free public education for the masses shifted the emphasis of learning to schools and took this role away from the family (except for the rich, who don't attend public schools anyway). Industrial schools may have taught morals but the main expectation of the system was responsibility. Responsibility was the necessary behaviour of the factory worker and the system, with periods, grades, subjects. It was designed after the Prussian military model and especially to create a place so that the unruly mob could be kept under control. Family/Church morality has moved to second place under this system, as witnessed by the backlash of Charter schools.

The industrial school model focuses on an enforced sense of responsibility. Students are told what is important and that they will be tested on it. Students are responsible for doing their work but what work has to be done comes from an Authority.

So if the implicit direction from schools is that it is important to do as you are told, attend classes, be on time, complete assignments and listen in class; will these behaviours be necessary for most people in the next half century? I don't know, but I found the premise interesting, so I had to get my thoughts out there. I look forward to the resulting conversations and of course the disagreements.

I'm interested in the larger patterns here. Do kids finish school with more of an understanding about morality or of responsibility? Is the type of responsibility pushed by industrial schooling an adequate behaviour for the "new" workplace? Does it matter? These are the ideas floating around in my mind and I really wanted to expand here on the Nine Shift articles.