ChatGPT Should Prompt Questions About the History and Purpose of Schooling
The cheating crisis induced by the advent of more advanced AI chatbots is a symptom of deeper problems with the education system.
--
The recent debut of publicly-available large-language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT has prompted a discussion of how to contend with them in education. These AI chatbots are capable of some impressive feats, many of which have obvious use cases for a student who might wish to avoid doing their schoolwork. LLMs can produce coherent essays on numerous topics, write and proofread code in a variety of programming languages, and accurately answer test questions across diverse subjects. Of course LLMs are far from perfect, as they are plagued by serious issues like their tendency to generate reasonable sounding but factually-incorrect answers. Nevertheless, they are correct often enough that the human-like responses they generate are difficult for instructors to distinguish from student-produced answers to the same questions.
Educators have responded to this challenge in a variety of ways. Some institutions, like the University of Hong Kong and the New York Department of Education, have at least temporarily banned use of AI tools like ChatGPT for any coursework. As reported in the New York Times, some schools — like George Washington University, Rutgers University, and Appalachian State University — have begun to shift to “in-class assignments, handwritten papers, group work, and oral exams” in an attempt to make use of LLMs unfeasible for students.
Others are attempting to integrate AI chatbots into their curriculum. As described in Inside Higher Ed, a few university educators have encouraged their students to converse with LLMs about course material as a way to help them think through certain problems, or to use these tools to help them improve their writing.
In all these cases, the discussion has centered on how schools should adapt to AI chatbots. There is very little discussion of the reasons why a student might want to use these tools to cheat in the first place, and what the answers to this question say about the way our education system is structured.
Why Cheat? Why Ask?
It’s not difficult to list reasons why a student might want to use an LLM to complete their schoolwork. Maybe they are taking a heavy course-load to graduate early or they are busy outside of school with a job or family responsibilities, meaning they don’t have much time to put into a particular assignment. Perhaps they need to get a high grade in a class in order to get into college or graduate school, or to get hired for a certain job. Or maybe they are required to take a course in order to complete their degree, but it is on a topic in which they simply don’t have much interest, and they’d rather spend their time doing something else.
We can investigate these reasons by asking questions about the underlying structural factors that shape them. Why would a student feel the need to graduate early? What are the financial burdens that require a student to hold a job? In what circumstances does education conflict with family life? Why do we measure students’ performance with tests? Why do we use grades as a proxy for competence in a subject? Why aren’t students at all levels allowed to craft their own curriculum to best fit their interests?
Rather than seriously addressing any of the root causes of these questions — questions that have existed long before the emergence of any AI chatbots — the dominant response has been to slap bandages on this latest symptom of a broken system. It is also indicative of the ubiquity of these underlying problems that it is widely taken as obvious that students will use AI chatbots to cheat, and that it is easy to name reasons why they would do so.
Let’s take a look at how we got here in the first place.
A History of (Mostly American) Education
In order to understand the contemporary education system’s problems, we need to take a brief tour of its history. The system that exists in most countries today has its roots in the Prussian model of education developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Prussian model was characterized by compulsory attendance, free primary schooling for all citizens, training for teachers, a grade system where students were separated by age, and a uniform curriculum that relied on testing and which aimed to instill a strong national identity.
Different motivations drove the creation of this system of education. Some of the most important motivating factors were the overlapping concerns of the Prussian military and German nationalists. In 1806, the Prussian state was roundly defeated by Napoleon’s armies. To the chagrin of German nationalists, most of the populace responded with indifference. The nationalists subsequently demanded a system of education that would shape the personality of students. It was hoped that students would be inculcated with a sense of German patriotism and national identity, which would make them willing to sacrifice for the state.
The influential nationalist German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte wrote in his Addresses to the German Nation, “The citizens should be made able and willing to use their own minds to achieve higher goals in the framework of a future unified German nation state.” Emphasizing the importance of subsuming the individual to the will of authority, he asserted, “recognition of, and reliance upon, free will in the pupil is the first mistake of the old system” and that “the new education must consist essentially in this, that it completely destroys freedom of will in the soil which it undertakes to cultivate, and produces on the contrary strict necessity in the decisions of the will, the opposite being impossible. Such a will can henceforth be relied upon with confidence and certainty.” [10]
The Prussian model was hugely impactful, helping to shape educational systems from the United States to Japan. Horace Mann, an American educational reformer, was inspired by the Prussian system to implement a school system in the state of Massachusetts — which later spread to most of the U.S. — that adopted many components of the Prussian model. Among other reforms, Mann instituted the separation of students into grades and the creation of “normal schools” to train teachers in a uniform way. Previous to these reforms, rural schools tended to use the one-room schoolhouse model, while urban schools often relied on the monitorial system; in both cases, teachers had inconsistent levels of training.
Mann was critical of the Prussian system’s promotion of duty to the nation and its authorities. But when proselytizing for his reforms in the United States, he emphasized the role the new system would play in shaping children into disciplined republican citizens. Quoting Mann in his Seventh Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board of Education: “… if Prussia can pervert the benign influences of education to the support of arbitrary power, we surely can employ them for the support and perpetuation of republican institutions.” [21] Mann also highlighted the utility of schooling to the American economic system, “To employers he [Horace Mann] claimed that schooling made workers more industrious, obedient, and adaptive, thereby increasing their output; to working people he held out the hope of increased earnings.” [27] He thus replaced the Prussian goal of inspiring a sense of duty to the German nation with a sense of duty to the American model of the state, industrial capitalism, and an incipient consumerism.
The rise of industrial capitalism in the 19th and early 20th centuries saw the development of scientific management — also known as Taylorism, after its founder Frederick Taylor — in pursuit of increased economic efficiency, particularly by focusing on labor productivity. Scientific management came to influence education, particularly school administration, and administrators came to see themselves as school executives. Additionally, businessmen began to take leading roles on school boards, calling for a more career-focused education system [4].
Critics of this encroachment of business influences into education included teacher and unionist Margaret Haley. In 1903, she condemned the increasing lack of autonomy teachers were afforded, saying that school administrators were “factory-izing education” and “making the teacher an automaton, a mere factory hand, whose duty it is to carry out mechanically and unquestioningly the ideas and orders of those clothed with the authority of position.” [15]
Partially inspired by critiques like those of Margaret Haley, writers and historians of education later in the 20th century came to use the term “factory model” to refer to schools that had characteristics derived from the Prussian model and which implemented scientific management techniques. It should be noted though, that school reforms in the 19th and early 20th century did not so much seek to model factories as they sought to apply the “same ethos of efficiency, manipulation, and mastery” that motivated factory owners [20]. This of course had the knock-on effect of making schools more like factories, as well as conditioning students to obey authority and perform tasks in which they often had no interest. But given the prominence and misuse of the phrase “factory model schools” in literature discussing the history of education [28], we should be clear on its origin.
Educational reform movements that sprang up from the late 19th century onward continued to view schooling as a way to mold students into agents who would help construct their preferred vision of society. John Dewey, an American psychologist and education reformer, was a prominent proponent of the progressive movement to restructure education, which was most impactful between 1890 and 1930. Dewey particularly emphasized the importance of designing an education system that would prepare students to contribute to a democratic society and affect social reform. In My Pedagogic Creed Dewey stated, “education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction.” Dewy believed the role of the teacher in helping shape society was religious in nature, “Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right social growth. In this way the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of God.” [8]
Dewey’s philosophy only advocated for reform of existing institutions rather than revolutionary change. His reformist approach was hindered by entrenched educational bureaucracies which were generally hostile to any significant updates to the system. This meant the overall legacy of the progressive education movement has been mixed. Educational techniques advocated by Dewey, like experiential learning and problem-based learning, have been widely adopted. Another idea that sprung from the progressive movement was that of guidance counselors, a role which is now ubiquitous in schools. Many other progressive ideas that proposed to center the student in most aspects of an educational program did not gain much traction though.
It is important to emphasize that Americans’ experience with the education system was not uniform. For much of the United States’ history, what sort of education a person received (if any) was heavily determined by race, gender, and class.
Before the Civil War, Black people living in the U.S. received little or no formal education. In fact, in many places across the South it was illegal to educate enslaved people. After the Civil War, most education was segregated by race, whether due to Jim Crow laws in the South, or as a consequence of de facto segregation elsewhere. Jim Crow schools generally limited the education students could receive to the skills needed for domestic service and agricultural work, reflecting the few fields of work open to Black people in America. Although segregated schools were legally supposed to be of the same quality regardless of which race they served, the reality was quite different. Schools that served Black students were consistently deprived of resources, receiving dramatically less funding per student than schools that served white students. [18]
The effects of systemic racism, both historic and ongoing, are still felt today post-segregation. Due to discriminatory housing and development polices (e.g. redlining from the Home Owners Loan Corporation, widespread use of eminent domain to destroy and segregate Black communities under the Interstate Highway Act [9], etc.), combined with Supreme Court rulings that weakened or removed desegregation requirements (e.g. Milliken v. Bradley, Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, Freeman v. Pitts), schools have become segregated again in many places around America. Minority students are again concentrated in schools characterized by high levels of poverty, and there is significantly less funding and fewer high-quality teachers in these schools than in predominantly white schools.
Systemic racism in education has also deeply impacted indigenous communities. Starting in the early 17th century, white settlers began ongoing attempts to “civilize” indigenous peoples across North America. They found that it was easier to impose their values on Native children than on adults. This prompted the creation of boarding or residential schools, often run by Christian missionaries, and in many cases backed by the state. The goal of these institutions is perhaps best captured by a quote from Richard Henry Pratt, an American military officer and founder of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School. He wrote that the government must, “kill the Indian…to save the man.” [2]
The boarding schools forcibly removed indigenous children from their families, gave them white names, prohibited them from speaking their native language, denigrated indigenous culture, and extolled European American values as superior. Sexual, physical, and emotional abuse by teachers and religious leaders was rampant. The schools were often overcrowded and unclean, leading to the spread of diseases. Bounties were placed on students who escaped. Thousands of students died; causes included abuse, suicide, neglect, and disease. Boarding schools were thus instrumental in the genocide of indigenous peoples carried out by Americans and Canadians. [2] [3] [28]
Gender has also been an important determinant of the sort of education people received. Across the globe, women have historically been excluded from the same educational opportunities afforded to men. In the U.S., although girls had opportunities to attend primary schools as early as the 17th century, they were almost always prevented from continuing their education at higher levels [6]. For many decades the curriculum taught to girls emphasized domestic tasks liking cooking and sewing, reflecting the roles they were expected to fill when they were older [24].
University education was largely restricted to men for much of American history, but women’s colleges and a handful of coeducational institutions managed to provide some forms of higher education to female students. It wasn’t until the passage of Title IX in 1972 that discrimination based on sex in federally-funded education programs in the U.S. was made illegal, and universities across the board had to begin admitting women (even still, Harvard did not admit women until 1977 when it merged with its associated women’s college, Radcliffe). Today women still face sexist barriers to advancement in academia. For example, despite the fact that women make up an increasingly large percentage of students who graduate with advanced degrees in scientific fields, they continue to face discrimination, unequal pay, and funding disparities in their careers as researchers. [26]
For transgender and gender nonconforming students, the school has historically been a site of trauma. Bullying, harassment, and strict enforcement of cis-hetero-normative gender roles has made it difficult for trans youth to safely get an education or express their gender identities. [14] Although there has been some progress in developing more inclusive education, being a trans student today is still fraught with danger. In recent years anti-trans movements have sought, in many cases successfully, to prevent students from using the bathroom that comports with their gender identity [30], to ban books in schools and libraries that discuss LGBTQIA+ issues [1], and to force school employees to out trans students to their parents [25]. Given the high rates of violence and mental health issues that trans people face [12] [19], the attacks on schools that are attempting to create safe spaces for trans youth promise to only make these problems worse.
Economic class has been another important factor in deciding what type of education people have been able to access. Children from poor backgrounds often had to work at an early age to help support their families, limiting the amount of schooling they could receive. When they did get the chance to attend school, it was often provided by the local parish, and was of a rudimentary nature. Wealthier families on the other hand relied on private tutors or expensive private schools to educate their children. Education beyond the eighth grade was also mostly reserved for wealthier students, and university education was geared toward men who wished to become ministers. [6]
At the beginning of the 20th century however, schooling past the eighth grade began to become much more widespread in the U.S. (interestingly, in Europe, secondary and tertiary schooling was still dominated by the children of the wealthy until decades later). There was rapid growth in the number of high schools and universities across America, offering poor children wider opportunities and greater access to knowledge. Of course as we saw earlier, the motivations of education reformers often hinged on shaping students into the sorts of people they felt were necessary to best serve certain institutions, and this was reflected in the curricula (e.g. again as we saw earlier, subjects and skills taught to students were heavily dependent on their race or gender, and education for poor students tended to emphasize vocational training).
Beginning in the 1980’s there was increased emphasis on measuring student and school performance. The “No Child Left Behind Act” passed in 2002, required states to track the performance of schools with standardized tests and to punish under-performing schools, in order to get increased federal funding. Widespread criticism of the negative impacts of this policy on curricula and its ill-conceived goals led to it being mostly scrapped by the federal government in 2015.
The reforms of the Prussians, the proponents of scientific management, the Progressives, and many others live on in today’s education system in various ways. Despite the differences between these educational movements, in practice they have shared a common underlying goal.
The Purpose of Education
It should be clear by this point that the main purpose of the education system is control. Throughout history, students have been shaped to fulfill the needs of the institutions and hierarchies that dominate society. More altruistic reasons for schooling, like helping children reach their full potential through a deeper understanding of the world and themselves, have in part motivated educational reforms. But looking at the history and current practice of schooling, it is clear that these more student-focused motives have been much less impactful than those that have a conformist function. Let’s look at how major systems of oppression have influenced schooling.
The state historically and presently uses schooling to (among many other things) bolster it’s military capabilities, inspire patriotic devotion, rewrite histories in its favor, erase diversity, and quash dissent. The education system is critical to the state’s goal of self-perpetuation. It ensures the creation citizens who will either remain obedient or else believe that any criticism of the state should be directed into reforming the state. This establishes an effective stability-seeking process that relies on the agents produced by the school system to tolerate and carry-out the state’s oppression or to update its mechanisms of oppression to be just tolerable enough. Any notions of organizing society outside the state are rendered unimaginable to those sufficiently well-molded by the state’s ideal form of education.
Capitalism (and state communism) relies on the state to ensure that the education system provides a population of workers conditioned to spending large chunks of their lives devoted to accomplishing tasks they often find inherently meaningless, but which are nonetheless valuable to those in charge. It further depends on the education system to inspire beliefs in certain myths: that despite glaring structural inequalities, the current economic system is just (or at least can be made so) and inevitable, and that hard work is enough to ensure a dignified existence — an existence conveniently characterized by the glorified consumption of the products of that system.
Patriarchy, a sociopolitical system of oppression that asserts the inherent superiority of cis-men and seeks to assure their domination of women, children, and gender-nonconforming people through the use of psychological terrorism and violence, has also been reliant on the education system. As we saw earlier, women have been historically shunted by schooling into subservient roles, and still face hostile environments in higher education today. We also saw that the school system places the very existence of gender non-conforming children in its crosshairs. Schooling has acted to reinforce “the rule of the Father figure”, extending the frequently patriarchal home lives of children to the other place where they spend most of their time, making misogyny and cis-hetero-normative gender roles seem inescapable.
From playing a deciding role in who gets educated, to where they get educated, to what they get educated about, white supremacy has wielded schooling as a cudgel to oppress nonwhite people. It has employed the education system to erase cultures, justify domination, funnel certain ethic groups into the jobs it deems appropriate, and directly enact physical, sexual, and psychological violence against nonwhites.
We now mention an important historical homology between the attitudes of white people toward children and racialized peoples that is discussed in [23]. Since antiquity the child has been characterized as irrational and feral, but still having the potential to reach a rational and civilized maturity if properly guided. This characterization has been used as the justification for all sorts of oppression, from child labor to child sexual abuse. Furthermore, it is a crucial thesis in the philosophies of those who seek to impose their educational regime on children.
Not long after Europeans began colonizing the indigenous peoples of the Americas, the dominant justification for this subjugation switched from claims that the native peoples were non-human, to a claim that they were instead feral, uncivilized, immature humans. European colonizers consequently used the same justification for their domination of the indigenous peoples of the Americas as they did for their domination of children: that as civilized people, it was necessary for them to manage the path of these undeveloped humans to a state of maturity. Similarities between paternalistic attempts to shape or control both children and racialized peoples should thus come as no surprise, as they share an ideological foundation.
With our knowledge of the history of education, and an appreciation of how thoroughly systems of oppression have suffused schooling, we return to our questions about why a student might be willing to use an LLM to cheat. Across the dominant philosophies of education, we have observed the commonality that the student (and child) is treated as an object to be acted upon, to be sculpted. The student is rarely recognized as having subjectivity, never treated as an autonomous agent capable of making decisions about their future. This has meant education is imposed from above, a process enacted on students, not something they have a hand in creating. This unidirectional operation has made it a powerful tool with which systems of oppression have been able to exert influence on students. When schooling is understood at this foundational level, the root causes of the reasons that a student may cheat (which we listed earlier) become obvious. The crisis of AI chatbots in education is therefore just a symptom of much deeper structural problems.
So what do we do?
As we saw in the discussion of the state’s role in schooling, reform is merely an update of the mechanisms of repression. Given that so many powerful oppressive structures rely on the education system to exercise control, reformist approaches will fail to achieve much, even by their own standards.
Thus since the problems with schooling are so intimately connected with sources of oppression in society at large, the path to a truly liberatory education — one that actually supports the self-actualization of students — must be revolutionary. This means destroying all hierarchies and forms of domination, and replacing them with a society organized around mutual aid and respect for everyone’s autonomy. In such a world, students would pursue their education motivated by their own interests and desires. Teachers would act as assistants in the students’ educational journeys. They would help point students toward relevant resources and explain topics the students want to understand. Students would be impelled to learn by their own innate wish to understand the world and themselves, and there would be no structures of oppression limiting their ability to do so freely. Clearly, cheating would not exist in this world, since there would be no reason for it. But it is also obvious that no one would pursue revolution to eliminate cheating. They would pursue it to eliminate the oppressive systems that happen to induce cheating.
Given the colossal changes entailed by revolution, you may be questioning the practicality of this solution. But revolution begins with prefiguration, and there have been plenty of examples of radical education to look to for inspiration.
One well-known example is the Modern School movement started by Spanish anarchist and educator Francisco Ferrer in 1901. Modern schools aimed to help students direct their own education. They did not use punishments or rewards, as Ferrer believed these incentivized deception over sincerity. Modern Schools also rejected grades and exams due to Ferrer’s concerns that their tendency to “flatter, deflate, and torture were injurious.” The schools attempted to remove religious, state, and capitalist dogma from education. To this end, Ferrer helped create a radical press that published books on topics from math and natural sciences, to sociology and religious mythology. Modern schools also hosted public lectures in the evenings and on weekends. Speakers at these lectures included prominent scholars on topics like physiology, geography, and natural science. In 1909, Ferrer was found guilty of masterminding an insurrection during a show trial by a military tribunal, who then had him executed. In the ensuing international backlash against the Spanish authorities, Ferrer’s pedagogical approach gained further attention, inspiring the creation of Modern Schools across Europe, and in the U.S. and Brazil. [31]
Another important example is the free school movement. One member of that movement is the Albany Free School, based in inner-city Albany. It charges tuition on a sliding scale so that anyone can afford to attend. The school operates without compulsory classes, and students design their own curricula. Administrative tasks are accomplished through weekly meetings where students have as much say as the teachers in the decisions that are made. [13]
A large scale case of alternative self-organized education is practiced by the landless workers movement in Brazil, known as the MST. The MST is a movement that aims to achieve a self-sustainable way of life for the rural poor. They do this by fighting for access to land for poor workers and opposing barriers to this access, like income inequality, racism, and sexism. An important part of the MST’s work of ensuring self-sufficiency for workers is helping them get a quality education. This has led to the training of thousands of teachers, and the creation of over a thousand schools where communities decide on the schools’ curricula themselves. The MST has also created an autonomous university, and works with other traditional universities to give rural farmers access to education they might not have otherwise had. [13]
Regardless of who we look to for inspiration, or what new technologies we incorporate when building radically new forms of education, we should always keep the autonomy and input of the student central to our efforts. If a student finds a particular style of education or a new technology useful in their quest for understanding, then it is worth exploring. Similarly, if a student finds that something detracts from their educational journey, then we should feel free to discard it. Let’s start building this world together.
References
[1] American Library Association. (22 March, 2023). “American Library Association reports record number of demands to censor library books and materials in 2022”. http://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2023/03/record-book-bans-2022
[2] Bear, Charla. (12 May, 2008). “American Indian Boarding Schools Haunt Many”. NPR.
[3] Blakemore, Erin. (9 July, 2021). “A century of trauma at U.S. boarding schools for Native American children”. History.
[4] Callahan, Raymond E. (1962). Education and the Cult of Efficiency: A Study of the Social Forces that Have Shaped the Administration of Public Schools. Toronto: University of Chicago. preface, 4–10.
[5] Cole, Samantha. (4 January, 2023). “NYC Bans Students and Teachers from Using ChatGPT”. Vice. https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3p9jx/nyc-bans-students-and-teachers-from-using-chatgpt
[6] Cremin, Lawrence A. (1970). American Education : The Colonial Experience, 1607–1783 (1st Harper Torchbook ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
[7] D’Agostino, Susan. (30 January, 2023). “Designing Assignments in the ChatGPT Era”. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/01/31/chatgpt-sparks-debate-how-design-student-assignments-now
[8] Dewey, John. (1897). “My Pedagogic Creed”. School Journal, 54(3).
[9] Dillon, Liam and Poston, Ben. (11 November, 2021). “The Racist History of America’s Interstate Highway Boom”. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2021-11-11/the-racist-history-of-americas-interstate-highway-boom
[10] Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. Addresses to the German Nation, 1807. Second Address: “The General Nature of the New Education”. Chicago and London, The Open Court Publishing Company, 1922, p. 21
[11] Fiel, Jeremy E. (2013). “Decomposing School Resegregation: Social Closure, Racial Imbalance, and Racial Isolation.” American Sociological Review. no. 5: 1–21.
[12] Flores, Andrew R. and Meyer, Ilan H. and Langton, Lynn and Herman, Jody L. (1 April, 2021). “Gender Identity Disparities in Criminal Victimization: National Crime Victimization Survey, 2017–2018”, American Journal of Public Health 111, no. 4: pp. 726–729.
[13] Gelderloos, Peter. (2010). Anarchy Works. Little Black Cart. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works#toc27
[14] Greytak, Emily and Kosciw, Joseph and Diaz, Elizabeth. (2009). “Harsh Realities: The Experiences of Transgender Youth in Our Nation’s Schools”. GLSEN Research. Archived from the original on 8 October 2015.
[15] Hoffman, Nancy. (1981). Woman’s “true” Profession: Voices from the History of Teaching. Feminist Press.
[16] hooks, bell. (December, 2004). “Understanding Patriarchy”. Washington Square Press. https://immerautonom.noblogs.org/files/2022/07/UnderstandingPatriarchy.pdf
[17] Huang, Kalley. (16 January, 2023). “Alarmed by A.I. Chatbots, Universities Start Revamping How They Teach”. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/16/technology/chatgpt-artificial-intelligence-universities.html
[18] Irons, Peter. (8 August, 2014). “Jim Crow’s Schools”. American Federation of Teachers.
[19] James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.
[20] Kaestle, Carl (1 March, 1983). Pillars of the Republic: Common Schools and American Society, 1780–1860. Hill and Wang.
[21] Massachusetts Board of Education. (January, 1844). Seventh Annual report of the Board of Education Together with the Seventh Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board. Archived by UMass Amherst Libraries. Boston: Dutton and Wentworth, State Printers.
[22] Perkel, Colin. (5 November, 2020). “St. Anne’s residential school case to stay in Ontario, Appeal Court rules”. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/st-anne-residential-school-documents-ontario-1.5791424
[23] Rollo, Toby. (2018). Feral children: settler colonialism, progress, and the figure of the child. Settler Colonial Studies, 8:1, 60–79. https://philarchive.org/archive/ROLFCS
[24] Rury, John. (Spring 1984). “Vocationalism for Home and Work: Women’s Education in the United States, 1880–1930”. History of Education Quarterly. 24 (1): 22.
[25] Schoenbaum, Hannah and Murphy, Sean. (22 March, 2023). “Transgender youth: ‘Forced outing’ bills make schools unsafe”. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireStory/transgender-youth-forced-outing-bills-make-schools-unsafe-98041323
[26] Shen, Helen. (7 March 2013). “Mind The Gender Gap”. Nature 495: 22–24. https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/1.12550!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/495022a.pdf
[27] Tyack, David and Hansot, Elisabeth. (1982). Managers of Virtue: Public School Leadership in America, 1820–1980. New York: Basic Books, 55.
[28] Voce, Antonio and Cecco, Leyland and Michael, Chris. (6 September, 2021). “‘Cultural genocide’: the shameful history of Canada’s residential schools — mapped”. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2021/sep/06/canada-residential-schools-indigenous-children-cultural-genocide-map
[29] Watters, Audrey. (25 April, 2015). “The Invented History of ‘The Factory Model of Education’”. Hack Education.
[30] Wikipedia contributors. (30 March, 2023). Bathroom bill. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bathroom_bill&oldid=1147430142
[31] Wikipedia contributors. (2 November, 2022). Ferrer movement. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferrer_movement&oldid=1119556661
[32] Wikipedia contributors. (8 April, 2023). History of education in the United States. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_education_in_the_United_States&oldid=1148793016
[33] Wikipedia contributors. (27 March, 2023). Monitorial System. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monitorial_System&oldid=1146918898
[34] Wikipedia contributors. (7 March, 2023). One-room school. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One-room_school&oldid=1143339383
[35] Yau, Cannix and Chan, Kahon. (17 February, 2024). “University of Hong Kong temporarily bans students from using ChatGPT, other AI-based tools for coursework”. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education/article/3210650/university-hong-kong-temporarily-bans-students-using-chatgpt-other-ai-based-tools-coursework
