You can check my other replies in this thread to understand better.
- That there is some outside agent that observes progress and "improves" someone
- That such progress can be quantified, and comparable
- That such measurement is the only way to acertain the truth of progress.
- That there is such a thing as an universal standard by which someone needs to be educated
- That the purpose of education is to produce productive members of society
- That a person starts education as a "blank slate", ready to be filled by what the teacher is teaching
- That the capacity to learn and the potential to be educated is fixed, and therefore, some should be selected for even further education
- That learning only happens when there's an outside agent educating the person
There are so many problematic things with this frame, even if it is fairly mainstream.
One of the interesting voices about this John Taylor Gatto. Mainstream methods of “training” as you described them, may indeed be the most common method today, but it is by no means the most effective, and Gatto goes into detail about it in his book, _The Underground History of American Education_.
For example, an older notion of education is not so much to train people to mechanically repeat results (like you would train people in a factory), but rather, to develop informed and educated citizens that are able to reason, think critically, and participate meaningfully in a republic. There’s little point in having a voting body of citizens unable to think for themselves, and are merely regurgitating ideas they hear.