> economy shifted to more creative and free-spirited arrangements
Is that the new euphemism for the gig economy?
Let's be honest, while in terms of income the economy has shifted to more so-called creative work, it hasn't done so in terms of open positions.
The contemporary narrative is that the Prussian education system is antiquated, or at least merely served the needs of capitalists.[1] People forget what it was trying to achieve--churn out a mass of men that were literate, punctual, and could take direction, characteristics that men as a class neither then nor now are particularly adept at as compared to women. And have those goals really changed? Unless you're some black turtle neck wearing genius artist with millionaire patrons, you're expected to be more literate, more punctual (at all hours of the day), and more responsive to the needs of others (manager, client, w'ever) than ever before, whether you're a high-salary Silicon Valley programmer or a low-wage service worker. Whatever increased creativity demanded of workers as compared to assembly line workers of yore is literally imaginary. Nobody cares about your creativity building tree forts, at least not to the exclusion of those other requirements. You're still expected to learn how to be on time and in place and ready to take direction. That's what schools needed to inculcate in the 19th century, and it's still what's needed of them; it's just that now we need them to teach additional skills.
[1] It did have a veneer of Protestant Christian ethics, but that was just the sales pitch. The sales pitch isn't the product; not now, not ever. People keep confusing those things when examining history even when they're savvy enough not to make the equivocation in their day-to-day lives.