The Politics of Literacy

The Nineteenth Century is the century when education went from being private, to open to all. I find this statement very telling. My first question was I really wanted to know who they considered "all"? The 19th Century is where we see the appearance of education reformers Horace Mann and Henry Barnard who fought for all American children to have the opportunity at an education. Reformers like Mann and Barnard were motivated by their belief that educating all would create a common bond among various populations, preserve social stability, and stifle crime and poverty. These reasons all seem very admirable to me, but in a society that thrives on separation of the classes I am not sure of how realistic their vision was.
Advocates for Common schools were instrumental in the establishing of the accountability of schools to local school boards and state governments. These advocates established what they called compulsory attendance laws in elementary schools. A fact that I found very interesting because I have often wondered how the calendar that we have got its start. The nineteenth century is also when we see the birth of the basal reader! Rev. William Holmes McGuffey published the first reader in 1841. The intention of his reader was to set the white, protestant as the moralistic and ethical model of an American. What I found astounding was that these readers were considered "remarkably literate" and were only exceeded by the Bible in their exertion of influence on literary taste.
I found some of the arguments for common schools very compelling. One argument in support of common schools was that they "Americanized" all foreigners. To me this completely goes against the "Melting Pot" theory America seemed to be embracing at this time. Another argument was that the more educated the population, the more productive they could be. I found this a bit confusing initially, but I guess it makes sense because the more workers know, the more work they are able to do. Another compelling argument for common schools, that I feel could actually be perceived as pretty prejudicial, is that common schools diluted the culture and religion of what I can only presume is new immigrants to this culture. My question here is why would you want to "dilute" someones culture or religion?
This article also mentioned in briefly that American high schools were established as alternatives to private academies, and the First and Second Morrill Acts which established the donation of lands and endowments in the construction of colleges. This article also mentions
the education of African-Americans after the Civil War through the Freedman's Bureau and the segregation laws that followed African-Americans into the 1950's.