Education in communist society?

[CELMX]

How will the education in a communist society differ from public education in a capitalist society (i.e. in America)? Would it be better, in the sense that youths will acquire more knowledge and think harder? Would opinions and thoughts be accepted in class?

(btw...the public schools in america really sucks major *ss, so i'm assuming it would be better, but not completely sure how it would be different)

:)THX!
(sry if this question already has been asked)

[F9]

Generally it wont have major and huge differences, some things will definitely change, though the basics are to be kept..Keep a teacher, keep some basic general studying in early years, and later let students take their own decisions based on their leanings or likings.
One main difference will be of course the approach of student and teacher, nowadays(from my experience at least) vast majority of teachers act like bosses, and the ultimate "kings" in the class.The relation of student teacher will be more friendly and of course equal, to help kids love what they are doing and not hate it like most students currently do.

Another difference is the grading.There wont be grades etc, there isnt going to be a system that labels some kids "stupid" and others "smart" based on their performance, or their likeness to the subject, but school will help the students get as much as possible, to help them continue next years with no problems.Grades are a punishment, and a way of ruling the students.

Next of course and students will be able to express opinions and thoughts, thats what communism is after all..And thats another difference with current system where students are forced to accept anything teacher says with no questionning.

Another difference is what is been taught.Nowadays, racism, tolerance for authority and acceptance of it, sexism and lots of other "goods" are cultivated by teachers and school itself in the sickest way possible..this brainwash wont happen, not even with communism.Kids are to be given facts and understand and make their opinion on their own.So yeah there is definitely going to be a change on what is been taught too.

All in all, school like everything else under communism will raise its standard, and with kids enjoying their time their, and teachers giving to students what they need, there arent going to be situations like today when kids dont like school etc.School will be an enjoyment of learning, and as that it will definitely be (a lot) better than what it is now.



http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gifTHX!
(sry if this question already has been asked) No problem, and you dont need to worry about your questions, ask whatever you want!

[ckaihatsu]

I generally agree with everything in your post, Fuserg9, but I'd like to take issue with this topic of grading.





Another difference is the grading.There wont be grades etc, there isnt going to be a system that labels some kids "stupid" and others "smart" based on their performance, or their likeness to the subject, but school will help the students get as much as possible, to help them continue next years with no problems.Grades are a punishment, and a way of ruling the students.


My background is in education and I've taught high school history for a number of years. While I certainly wouldn't generalize an entire *person* / student based on their grades -- especially without knowing more about their personal life background -- I don't think that *any* society -- even a socialist / communist one -- should entirely throw out the system of grading altogether.

Under the hyper-individuating, competitive system of capitalism the grading system *is* inherently a punishment since it represents the power structure of the capitalist economy that typically dispossesses students from economic empowerment (contingent on their class background, of course). Poorer, more domestically constrained students are at a profound disadvantage when forced to "compete" on the same standardized tests as their more privileged (suburban) peers.

The *purpose* of education should be about individualized, customized attention to, and facilitation of, the student's chosen learning- and life-path. Obviously the public education system under the crippled public sector of capitalist government is far from realizing this state of things.

However, that said, I think there's a materialist argument to be made that society as a whole, no matter the mode of production, has a certain *general interest* in maintaining the delivery of a certain *core curriculum* to students, and in rating or grading students based on their demonstrated abilities in relation to this core curriculum.

Based on my delivery of the high school history curriculum and my dealing with students' perennial question of "Why study history?" I created a *universal framework* that provides an instant guide to the relative social magnitude of whatever historical factor(s) is / are being examined.


History, Macro-Micro -- Precision

http://tinyurl.com/nf8gyr


History Micro-Macro

http://tinyurl.com/yqae3t


On (this) materialist basis alone I can say without hedging that *not all* historical factors have the same magnitude of influence on the unfolding of history. Therefore, when studying history, a student should understand that history is *much more* cohesive than simply a collection of narratives -- there are overarching mechanical processes that play out regardless of the specific personalities involved at any given time.

So, on this *materialist basis* society has an *objective* guide with which to measure the student in the practice of historical understanding.

Furthermore, society also has an interest in promoting the benefits of *good science*, as in the theory of evolution, for example.

We on the revolutionary left shouldn't pretend that a post-revolutionary society will be all about freeing the student to come to *any* conclusions that they wish. I think there will always be a complex balancing act between the individual prerogative of the student against / with the interests of society as a whole to propagate the best knowledge and practices that it has developed, to-date.

Finally, we should compare the student's (cognitive) efforts to those of the athlete or artist -- in all cases there is a certain (material) challenge that is placed before the individual, and the student *should* be subject to a certain rating or grading depending on how well and appropriately they deal with that challenge. It may not be as clean-cut as running a race from point A to point B, or starting with a block of stone to produce a sculpture, but the process of studying is, in some way, demonstrable and should be subject to assessment.


Chris





--



--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[ZeroNowhere]

Hopefully something along the lines of Sudbury schools, with perhaps a few places which are just focused on one thing (for example, a place could be set up, perhaps next to a library, which specializes in literature, with reading groups and so on, if lots of people around that area are interested in it.)

[LOLseph Stalin]

Ckaihatsu, I generally disagree. The grading system should be tossed aside as it's used as a way to determine which children can go to which schools, etc. Of course those with better grades get accepted into higher quality schools. This can single out alot of people as there are brilliant people out there who do terrible in school. Some people just aren't book smart therefore do poorly with schoolwork which is largely textbook based. In a Communist society, having such a system to judge a person's "intelligence" would be hypocritical as it wouldn't be promoting fairness and equality at all. There should also be different natures of education for students with different learning styles. For those who are book smart and are interested in that kind of thing we can have schools similar to what we have now for them. For students who are interested in more hands-on stuff there should be schools which incorporate that. The nice thing is that these students will be able to choose whichever one interests them since they won't be pressured by factors such as money to choose a career path.

[Sam_b]

In a Communist society, having such a system to judge a person's "intelligence" would be hypocritical as it wouldn't be promoting fairness and equality at all. There should also be different natures of education for students with different learning styles. For those who are book smart and are interested in that kind of thing we can have schools similar to what we have now for them. For students who are interested in more hands-on stuff there should be schools which incorporate that.

The problem with this is that this is the exact rationale used by the Labour Government of 1945-51 with regards to the schools debate, and how this inherantly made a two-tier level of learning between grammar, comprehensive and technical schools. This ended up creating schools formed round economic and class lines, and is arguably one of the worst measures that this so-called 'socialist' government presided over. I am asking this because with these sort of debates it is not useful to say "in a communist society, there will be schools for this" etc. The question is how - this glorious 'communist society' does not start immediately once a classless and stateless world is achieved, the roots would invariably need to start before when workers are able to seize control: rapid decentralisation away from grading targets and the like, the formation of a school student's union, the advancement of taking education outside of the commonly perceived boundary of the classroom.

We cannot also make the mistake of glazing over the debate by generalising that education = children and young people either. Ideally we would be looking for education in several spheres (be that the vague idea of 'courses', 'training and whatnot') to also be organised through factory and worker's committees and advocating the idea of lifelong learning.

[ckaihatsu]

Ckaihatsu, I generally disagree. The grading system should be tossed aside as it's used as a way to determine which children can go to which schools, etc. Of course those with better grades get accepted into higher quality schools.


I absolutely hear you and agree with you in the context of the present day -- that is, under capitalism. If such a reform were possible I would like to see the abandonment of standardized testing altogether -- but not that of a core curriculum.

I think grades, if used at all, should be a private, confidential matter between the teacher and student -- kind of like medical information between a doctor and patient. The coursework and grading should be customized to the individual student's own pace and abilities without deviating from a core curriculum that would serve as the basis for *everyone's* main avenues of learning.

I'll admit that this, like all reformist measures, is pure fantasy because we *are* talking about the class-biased context of capitalism here.





This can single out alot of people as there are brilliant people out there who do terrible in school. Some people just aren't book smart therefore do poorly with schoolwork which is largely textbook based.


I'll agree that there are other ways to demonstrate mastery of material than with conventional procedures like standardized tests -- one way could be a *creative project* that draws on the skills and knowledge covered in the coursework. I also agree that there are more ways of *approaching* course material than through the standard textbook.

I won't be argumentative here because of the fact that the system of grading is too skewed by the competitive and class-biased landscape to be of use to the whole student population's varying levels and qualities of ability.





In a Communist society, having such a system to judge a person's "intelligence" would be hypocritical as it wouldn't be promoting fairness and equality at all.


No one here has said anything about making judgments about a person's overall "intelligence" -- it *is* an idealistic, bourgeois construction that does far more harm than good through the public's validation of the concept.





There should also be different natures of education for students with different learning styles. For those who are book smart and are interested in that kind of thing we can have schools similar to what we have now for them. For students who are interested in more hands-on stuff there should be schools which incorporate that. The nice thing is that these students will be able to choose whichever one interests them since they won't be pressured by factors such as money to choose a career path.


I absolutely agree that there is not nearly enough *variety* of *approaches* and *materials* introduced and promoted throughout the educational system. The standard preprinted materials of textbooks, worksheets, and tests are still the convention in the typical school district, even in the Internet age.

I have to temper this with the observation that at higher grade levels the pedagogical issue isn't so much the *medium* anymore as much as it's about the *variety* of available resources and the *individualization* of the curriculum. By high school I would like to see students coming to conclusions of their own regarding opinions presented in one kind of treatment of history versus another. This requires the availability of several differing *sources* of historical material, at an appropriate reading level, covering the same topic, so as to facilitate this compare and contrast exercise. Obviously this kind of exercise is beyond the scope of a single textbook.





The problem with this is that this is the exact rationale used by the Labour Government of 1945-51 with regards to the schools debate, and how this inherantly made a two-tier level of learning between grammar, comprehensive and technical schools. This ended up creating schools formed round economic and class lines, and is arguably one of the worst measures that this so-called 'socialist' government presided over.


Right -- there's the very real danger of 'watering down' the curriculum, or 'tracking', or even 'warehousing' students who are deemed incapable of dealing with higher-level, abstract concepts. I don't think it's usually a matter of *cognitive ability* as much as it is about the student's (understandable) anxieties at being introduced to more complex topics, especially those that may draw them into some position of accepting quasi-political involvement by the nature of the material.

This issue of taking on societal topics and some implied responsibility with the issues therein is *not* an easy proposition, especially for students from historically oppressed (minority) backgrounds. I think they can easily feel like they're being put in a bind of being exposed to public scrutiny while not enjoying any rewards from having to take on those quasi-political positions -- *especially* if they're not particularly grades-driven or concerned about their grades.





I am asking this because with these sort of debates it is not useful to say "in a communist society, there will be schools for this" etc. The question is how - this glorious 'communist society' does not start immediately once a classless and stateless world is achieved, the roots would invariably need to start before when workers are able to seize control: rapid decentralisation away from grading targets and the like, the formation of a school student's union, the advancement of taking education outside of the commonly perceived boundary of the classroom.

We cannot also make the mistake of glazing over the debate by generalising that education = children and young people either. Ideally we would be looking for education in several spheres (be that the vague idea of 'courses', 'training and whatnot') to also be organised through factory and worker's committees and advocating the idea of lifelong learning.


Yes again -- Sam's points are all valid, pressing ones, especially for a worldwide movement that aims to usurp the capitalist order with its own. A revolutionary society would *automatically* have an interest in the *political education* of its youth, something that the current, liberal-nationalist school system only does in the likeness of its own bent, in a subliminal-conditioning kind of way -- certainly the average student is *not* educated to actively wrestle with socio-political issues in a rational-materialist way.

I would say that a workers' committee could easily administer the education of its younger generations in the vicinity of the factory / workplace itself, adding on an apprenticeship-like component to the core curriculum so that the students of that locality would be equipped to run the machinery there once they are of age.

[n0thing]

It would be a totally different institution. At the moment schools are basically just statist-capitalist indoctrination centres. They don't teach anything that might actually be useful outside the capitalist system. Things like politics, philosophy, critical thinking or whatever. The only value they teach is a mindless submission to authority: If a teacher tells you to do something, you do it. Why? Because he's in charge, so he gets to tell you what to do. Don't like it? You'll be punished. Don't like being punished? You probably have a behaviour disorder, you have trouble understanding instructions, you're defective, you have so-and-so amount of time to change your behaviour or you get kicked out. The job of a school in our society is to churn out submissive robots, well accustomed to performing pointless manual labour for an authority figure.

And the vast majority of it is an absolute waste of time. What happens if you learn to speak Spanish fluently, or learn to play the guitar, then just don't use your knowledge for a few years? You'll probably forget it. Same applies with geography, history, religion etc. If you're taught something you have no intention of using, and have no practical application for, you're going to forget it. And the time you spent learning it will have been wasted time. In this scenario; the first 16-18 years of your life.