Schools kind of are for that, but it's not actually a bad thing despite the negative framing.

The goal of the public school system is to create active, disciplined, stable, civilized citizens with strong bonds for each other despite natural tribal tendencies.

Seems like they are failing then. A substantial majority of people do not understand thw way the government is supposed to work nor their parts in it.

https://woodrow.org/news/national-survey-finds-just-1-in-3-a...

It is working. Americans generally feel American, Chinese feel Chinese, Romanians feel Romanian.

That's the great end product of school education up to about 14-18 years.

I meant in the active category.

Just look at stuff like voter turnout. How many people write their representatives, or read the actual text of a bill (usually easier at local and state level single the federal ones tend to be much longer), or send a comment to an agency about a proposed regulation change? Pretty often I hear people say things that are wrong about their rights. How can we demand and protect our rights if people don't even know what they are? Even if you read the constitution, the actual implementation is greatly different and even contrary to the text.

Active doesn't only mean politically active. I actually meant it more in the "economically" active. Free, public schooling has lifted many, many people out of poverty and into the middle classes.

Most people aren't political. I don't think there's any way to change that, they just don't care.

I don't just mean politically. There are civic duties that are apolitical. Take jury duty for example. Many people make up excuses to get out of it. Being an informed voter, regardless of party, is a civic duty.

"Free, public schooling has lifted many, many people out of poverty and into the middle classes."

Has it though? Maybe historically (generations ago). The poverty rate has been largely stagnate for the past 30 years at about 13% give or take. Even 50 years ago it was about 19%. Desegregation and safety net programs arguably played a bigger role in that improvement. There are some public high schools that have abysmal graduation rates and college readiness rates in the single digits.

Things don't necessarily progress indefinitely, they can also regress.

Take away the free public schools and illiteracy rates will surge and we'll be not that far off from the poverty rates before free public schooling began. Sometimes maintaining something is an achievement in itself.

I'm not talking about taking then away. I'm saying they aren't doing a very good job, especially in some locations and in some subjects. Are they better than nothing? Sure. It would be pretty sad if this is the best we could possibly expect though.

Well, this is going to be one of those things Americans wouldn't conceive, but the US should probably have federal schools.

As far as I know there are public schools, but the curricula are dictated by states and paid by states and by local taxes, primarily.

I might be wrong, that's just based on what I read in the US press.

John Taylor Gatto was an award-winning public school teacher who argued roughly that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto

Historians are the only sources you'd accept for evidence?

I guess that's your prerogative, but I'm not going to put in any further effort to help you find the evidence you asked for.

FYI, I don't necessarily agree with Gatto, but he makes the strongest case I've seen for the position you're arguing against. You should start with him if you want to refute it.

You didn't ask for a historian, you asked for evidence.

The UK government uses public schools to push their preferred narrative around British history and “Britishness”.

However, I think the real reason for schools is that the government sees a return on investment via taxation of a higher skilled workforce.

Here's some good background.

https://fee.org/articles/the-origins-of-the-public-school/

He's an economist, with an ideological bent, not a historian.

So? Do you want to post some links that you feel are credible that refute this? Because based on your current argument/reasoning you own comment is invalid because you're not a historian.