At the beginning of the 20th century the United States of America inherited a large influx of immigrants seeking opportunity in a nation recently converted from an agrarian economy to a industrialized economy. Urbanization had also taken its toll on the country, however these were not the only major changes that had occurred. Along with the new immigrants came an increase in student enrollment in secondary schools, rising from 358,000 in the 1889-1890 academic year to 2.5 million in 1919 (Tozer, p. 85). As more and more immigrants entered the United States, prejudice developed against them stemming from the national fear of competing for jobs with foreigners and hatred stemming from World War I. The growing immigrant population would create numerous conflicts that the public would rely on schools to resolve. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay One of these conflicts involved traditional teaching methods, such as the "Toe the Line" idea, which seemed (much like factory work) to have a decomposing effect on students. Education of the time was seen as “faculty psychology,” meaning that the mind had many “faculties” that could be developed through exercise (Tozer, p. 104). This approach basically used pupils' memory to strengthen intelligence and the ability to think rationally. Although this technique was very rigid, the concept of intellectual exercise was an advantage. Educators realized that a response to urbanization, industrialization, and widespread immigration was needed; this would result from new psychological tactics to reject the classical curriculum (and its rote learning) in favor of student needs. The new thinking was progressive education and had four main components: 1) the traditional curriculum should be replaced with a varied curriculum based on students' needs 2) Learning should not be rote, but activity-based 3) School goals they should reflect social conditions and 4 ) School should help solve social problems (Tozer, p. 107). The incorporation of the new progressive educational ideology into American schools was strongly divided between two interpretations, those of developmental democracy and social efficiency. The project of developmental democracy consisted of direct participation of society and citizens would solve problems with rational thinking. (Tozer, page 106). The prominent leader of this movement was John Dewey, as he believed that within democracy (just like Jefferson) people should be educated to actively participate in society, however, in order for the education these people received to be triumphant, the people they had to contribute to democratic life (Tozer, page 107). He believed that the new education “needed more attention, not less, to subject matter” (Dewey #7). To achieve this, Dewey believed that students should act democratically in their learning activities (rivaling the traditional method of a non-responsive classroom). He felt that with old teaching styles children would “lead a life of slavery” (Tozer, p. 108), rather than use their innate abilities: creativity, curiosity, constructive and social agency. Dewey stated in his philosophy of education that teachers should “cultivate” children's experiences in learning (Dewey #7), and if students interacted with activities based on their interests, students would seek more education. Hisideology was not entirely child-centered, but more along the lines of student-centered, with teachers being not only instructors, but also mentors. This would contribute to the “overall growth of every member of society” (Tozer, p. 108). The movement also pushed for knowledge from life- and school-related activities to become “democratic laboratories” (Tozer, p. 107) that allowed education to prepare students for change in society. Dewey also strongly argued that schools “never educate for vocations, but should always educate through vocations” (Tozer, p. 109). This argument displaces the followers of a developmental democracy from those who believed in social efficiency. The social efficiency vision of progressive education primarily attempted to bring about an ordered society with experts in power over the masses, but even then the movement was not completely opposed to democracy, they believed that schools should prepare students to realize “destinies obvious or probable” (Tozer, p. 107). Charles Eliot would become a leader of the social efficiency movement and also believed that education should prepare students for their destiny. His goals for getting rid of traditional schooling were 1) social stability 2) employable skills 3) equal education and 4) meritocracy. Due to high dropout rates and inherent racism, he has become a promoter of job training. Eliot came from a wealthy background and therefore felt compassionate towards businesses rather than workers and wanted schools to teach students to be respectful towards the management of the workforce (Tozer, p. 111). The United States Bureau of Education stated in 1914 “Public schools exist primarily for the benefit of the State rather than for the benefit of the individual” (Tozer, p. 112). Schools began to incorporate activities designed to prepare students to “take their places” (Tozer, p. 112) in the urban, industrialized world and with vocational education, the interests of the state would be served with a stable society. As a result, students would be ready for the world of work with employable skills learned in school through vocational activities. Of course this education had to be equal according to Eliot, but on the contrary, education would have equal opportunities, but as long as the races were separated, the ancient expression of “separate but equal” would still be valid. Finally, Eliot's meritocracy requires instructors to help identify and educate talented students to become democratic leaders of the future; those obviously excluded would have followed some sort of professional path to prepare for a life of work. Although Horace Mann declared that schools would be “the great equalizer,” as did Dewey (Tozer, p. 114), society would follow Eliot's methods and inequality would emerge. Eliot followed the intuition that the worthy would rise to control the masses through supposed equal opportunity and a complete democratic society. This theory was also motivated by socio-Darwinist aspects and the belief that Dewey's ideal of improving students was not always the best solution (as demonstrated by the high dropout rates at the secondary level). At the time Eliot's methods seemed suited to the country with increasing immigration. I say this because many foreigners came to the United States looking for work because the industrialization of Europe made jobs less available. Eliot's plan, however, seemed to be just a “quick fix” to allow businesses and the corporate elite to acquire a large working class, while on the other hand.