These two concepts strike at the very foundation of the current system. They're not opinions. They're documented facts that defenders of compulsory schooling have to reckon with.

First, the historical origins. The system we're still using today wasn't an accident. It was deliberately engineered in the early 1900s by industrialists like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and others who had a very clear goal in mind . Rockefeller's General Education Board played a pivotal role in shaping American education, and their stated mission was not to create independent thinkers . One of their documents put it bluntly: "We shall not try to make these people... into philosophers or men of learning... The task we set before ourselves is very simple... to train these people as we find them" . The factory model was explicit—bells, rigid schedules, rows of desks, standardized testing—all designed to produce workers who would show up on time, follow orders, and not ask too many questions . Even Elwood Cubberly, former dean of education at Stanford, described schools as "factories in which raw products, children, are shaped and formed into finished products... manufactured like nails" . This isn't conspiracy theory. This is historical record .

Now ask yourself: is producing obedient factory workers still the goal we want? If not, why are we still using the system built for it?

Second, the scientific evidence. Multiple studies from highly credentialed institutions have examined what happens when information is force-fed and quickly forgotten. The conclusion is unambiguous: it has no educational value. The Federal Reserve conducted a comprehensive analysis of financial literacy interventions and found that "improved financial behavior does not necessarily follow from financial information" . Other research confirms that students forget whatever instruction they received by lunchtime, let alone retain it years later when they might actually need it . The knowledge necessary for health, finances, and practical living is often commonly known, but the behavior—the actual application—is what's lacking . Forced learning doesn't stick. It can't. It's stored in short-term memory, used just long enough to pass the test, then discarded. The cognitive science on this is settled.

If you want to verify these concepts, research "Rockefeller's motivation for school agenda" and "What are the studies regarding force fed information that is forgotten and its value." The information is out there. The question is whether we're willing to look at it honestly.

So here's what defenders of the current system have to explain: Why are we still using an industrial-era model designed to produce obedient workers? And why do we keep force-feeding information that studies show has no lasting value? If the system's origins are obsolete and its methods are ineffective, what exactly are we defending?

Back