School Organization

[CELMX]

First thread! Win!

anyways, this was already posted, but teacher run schools (http://www.revleft.com/vb/wheres-principali-fight-t124640/index.html?p=1623792#post1623792) = great for the revolution! Students spend much of their day in schools, and through their school environment, will realize that no, a principal is not needed, and that yes, we all can cooperate to make a thriving community.
Our generation can finally be educated (more class consious, aware, individuals) and continue the great happenings that Marx ignited to save the working class!! yay!

:D

[ellipsis]

Schools are means of production just like any other. The product is essentially a (semi)-literate work force, properly indoctrinated for a life time of exploitation. Worker run/owned/controlled means of production are a fundamental building block of a post-capitalist society. That schools should be run by those who work there goes almost without saying.

[Pawn Power]

How about student-run schools?

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Or, even better, how about a school democratically run by students and teachers? With meetings similar to those that happen in A.S. Neil''s Summerhill School.

[CELMX]

Yup, that sounds pretty good!
and, students will more likely receive the best education through a socrates-type method, in which students and teachers inquire each other and learn from each other. This could also apply to how the school is run.
Teachers and students give suggestions, learn from each others' innovative ideas, and put them into action! brilliant!
right now, i would love to give teachers suggestions, however, i feel the teacher might fail me if i question any policies, or his method :(

oh, btw, could you give more info on A.S. Neil Summerhill School? i haven't heard of it...

[Weezer]

Yup, that sounds pretty good!
and, students will more likely receive the best education through a socrates-type method,

Bing bong (http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html)

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

oh, btw, could you give more info on A.S. Neil Summerhill School? i haven't heard of it...

The problem with Summerhill is that it's private - like quite a lot of alternative schools - and that's obviously not good at all. But from what I know, they do have a fund so that poorer people can go, and it was very progressive considering the time it was founded in. It is run democratically and students don't have to go to lessons (or at least they didn't the last time I checked).

I like this quote from A.S. Neill ''I'd be very disappointed if a Summerhill child became Prime Minister. I'd feel I'd failed.''

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Or, even better, how about a school democratically run by students and teachers?How about we furthermore include representatives of society as a whole, given that we're talking about public schools?

[pastradamus]

Schools are means of production just like any other. The product is essentially a (semi)-literate work force, properly indoctrinated for a life time of exploitation. Worker run/owned/controlled means of production are a fundamental building block of a post-capitalist society. That schools should be run by those who work there goes almost without saying.

Schooling systems can be operated to encourage Students to think for themselves. Brainwashing students by feeding them propaganda and lies all day seems a popular methodology but there ARE good educational systems in place in many countries in the world.

[vivapalestina]

Yup, that sounds pretty good!
and, students will more likely receive the best education through a socrates-type method, in which students and teachers inquire each other and learn from each other.

The problem was that socrates was pretty authoritarian, but do we entrust the likes of primary schools to the student? or are we talking purley seconary and tertiary?

[Decolonize The Left]

Changed title from "First!!!" to "School Organization." Anyone browsing this forum would have no idea what the thread was about.

- August

[革命者]

Yup, that sounds pretty good!
and, students will more likely receive the best education through a socrates-type method, in which students and teachers inquire each other and learn from each other. This could also apply to how the school is run.
Teachers and students give suggestions, learn from each others' innovative ideas, and put them into action! brilliant!
right now, i would love to give teachers suggestions, however, i feel the teacher might fail me if i question any policies, or his method :(

oh, btw, could you give more info on A.S. Neil Summerhill School? i haven't heard of it...Such teaching practices are good in theory, but fail in practice; there simply aren't enough people who can ask the right questions. Socrates could do it not because he was very skilled, but because he was wise. Same goes for interviewers; they need to be wise and knowledgeble to do a good interview.

In practice, only universities like Oxford and Cambridge can sustain such a method of teaching.

And it is also very important that students have little say in what they learn; they are students because they need to be strictly guided and really taught; knowledge is most effectively transmitted by a person.

There should of course be room for autodidacts; good libraries.

Most innovative teaching methods which are implemented nowadays are there to achieve budget cuts and to support bad teachers.


Scotty

[Pogue]

Summerhill has its flaws though. Its not run as a constitutional communal democracy, more like a 'i can do what i want lulz anarkiez' place, without meaning to be like that. Its a cool idea though, just needs improving.

["Red Scum"]

I'm not sold on this idea, children can be very immature and letting them run things sounds like a terrible idea. There has to be structure to education, because otherwise the young who have not yet learned to teach themselves will simply fail. :glare:

[Weezer]

I'm not sold on this idea, children can be very immature and letting them run things sounds like a terrible idea. There has to be structure to education, because otherwise the young who have not yet learned to teach themselves will simply fail. :glare:

Seriously. You what else doesn't make sense? Workers running their own businesses! There needs to be bosses always to control business, because workers are stupid and inexperienced, and socialism would obviously fail because workers aren't smart and are lazy, and they took err jerbs!

Egalitarianism sucks man.

Oh yeah, the only reason children are immature is because they are raised that way, and they aren't taught better.

[革命者]

Egalitarianism sucks man.Indeed.


Oh yeah, the only reason children are immature is because they are raised that way, and they aren't taught better.Yes, and those that are taught badly shouldn't have a say in what they and others should learn.

These progressivist teaching methods are a threat to society; both progressivism and conservatism are extremely problematic, because they make change and, respectively, the prevention of change from a means into an end.

The changes we see around us in teaching methodologies are given in by economic motives: people wanting to cut budgets, wanting to be payed top dollar to give managerial, pedagogical or didactic advice. It's them that prosper in a postmodernist, egalitarianist society. But this change isn't warranted by anything other than personal gain; leading to societal loss.

Progressivists, just like conservatives, are a danger. And people shouldn't equate progressivism with being left-wing.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

School should encourage individual and rational thought and free will in it's students. For this to work best democracy between students and teachers is a necessity.

[革命者]

School should encourage individual and rational thought and free will in it's students. For this to work best democracy between students and teachers is a necessity.This would imply that they're self-serving. Apparent contradictions between what soviety needs and what students and teachers need. That is ludicrous. Education should be under general democratic control. Demos being the people, not students and teachers.

Giving students the possibility to decide on what they should learn is an equal threat to society as market capitalism is; they that have no possibility to know what to choose, since they can not gauge the quality of all things at offer, are made solely responsible to decide. Well, they can't. They should be protected from themselves; that's shared responsibility of all; that's what solidarity is; that is the only way forward.


Best,

Scotty

[Jimmie Higgins]

Giving students the possibility to decide on what they should learn is an equal threat to society as market capitalism is; they that have no possibility to know what to choose, since they can not gauge the quality of all things at offer, are made solely responsible to decide. Well, they can't. They should be protected from themselves; that's shared responsibility of all; that's what solidarity is; that is the only way forward.


Well I think that for very young children there will be daycare and primary school that can help children at this age. But I think once literacy is achieved then education is most effective when it is voluntary. Our schools are largely modeled on the Prussian system which was designed to create a common culture (language in a newly unified country that was formerly provincial feudal states) teach basic skills to workers and teach them how to respond to a set schedule and follow instructions. Now with all the teach-to-the-test bullshit in the US, most public schools are still essentially places to train young workers to show up, follow instructions, and complete tasks in a mechanical (as opposed to critical or thoughtful) way.

My hope for post-revolution education would be that education beyond basic literacy would not be done on an age basis, but should be voluntary and ongoing. This would allow students to be more self-motivating and interested in what they are doing while providing them with skilled peers and teachers to help them. It would also do away with all the problems of kids being held back or being tracked into "slow" classes because they do not meet some arbitrary bureaucratic standard of educational development. Instead of being some one-size fits all educational system it could be more based around individual need and interest. It would also allow adults to take courses on an ongoing basis to learn new technologies or retrain themselves or just for their own academic interest.

[Sarah Palin]

How about student-run schools?

Check this out: http://www.sudval.com/01_abou_02.html

["Red Scum"]

This response seems a little naive to me, have you ever seen how hard it is to structure a classroom of 4-16 year olds WITH an authority figure, let alone without???

[革命者]

Post-revolutionary education, like everything in communism (or whatever you'd call post-revolutionary society), would be voluntary. But in a socialist society change is needed, not a society reproducing its own culture via the schools. That's why the people via a political process should control education, not just the students or the teachers.

If you ask me whether teachers and students should have a say in the day-to-day management of schools, I'd say: absolutely!

And I agree the anglo-saxon model (as I'd call it) with an emphasis on training as opposed to education, needs change for the better. But the progressivists in education don't have the right answers. The US and the UK should, as far as the universities go, adopt the model of continental Europe (how it used to be before "harmonisation" with the anglo-saxon model via the neoliberal Bologna Process).

Then changes in teaching practices should only be implemented pragmatically and in little bits. No big innovative projects.

Of course we should radically change what is taught and in what proportions (to how many) to create a new society. Education is the essence of socialism.

[Weezer]

This would imply that they're self-serving. Apparent contradictions between what soviety needs and what students and teachers need. That is ludicrous. Education should be under general democratic control. Demos being the people, not students and teachers.

I somewhat agree, but wait, teachers/students and regular "people" are two different camps? :confused: Ah I see, you believe in preserving the class system. Go get restricted. Democracy is rule by a majority of the people, not by regular "people," this would include teachers and students.


Giving students the possibility to decide on what they should learn is an equal threat to society as market capitalism is;

...

Wait, just one more ellipse,

...

So, democracy in schools has the potential of exploiting the entire world? Democratic schools can rape Africa?

:lol:


they that have no possibility to know what to choose, since they can not gauge the quality of all things at offer, are made solely responsible to decide. Well, they can't. They should be protected from themselves; that's shared responsibility of all; that's what solidarity is; that is the only way forward.

First off, Solidarity is 'union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests, as between members of a group or between classes.'

Your idea of solidarity is having democracy for only certain people? By your logic, workers couldn't make sane and rational decisions either. Schools are another means of production, and must be owned by it's inhabitants.

Go hang out in the OI where you belong.

Best,

Hoboman

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

The changes we see around us in teaching methodologies are given in by economic motives: people wanting to cut budgets, wanting to be payed top dollar to give managerial, pedagogical or didactic advice. It's them that prosper in a postmodernist, egalitarianist society. But this change isn't warranted by anything other than personal gain; leading to societal loss.

I'm sorry if this story gets tedious, but your post has just reminded me of something one of my relatives is experiencing at the moment:

He's 19 and has been ill with problems including agoraphobia. The illness meant he couldn't take his GCSEs and so he left school without any qualifications. Despite this, he liked learning and genuinely wanted to do well. When he got better he looked for somewhere to do the subjects - they were just basic things like maths and history.

Not one state school in the local education authority would take him because he was one year too old - what happened to free education for all? He couldn't afford private education which would have cost approximately £10,000 for one year.

He looked at every single sixth form and higher education college in the county. Some of them only did A-levels. A lot of the time there were no places and most of the time they didn't do anything other than maths and English and why? Because there was no funding and other subjects wouln't make a profit. He enrolled to do one course but it was cancelled because they needed about 20 or so students. Again, this was entirely due to financial reasons.

When he eventually found a GCSE programme at the local 6th form, there was a waiting list of 200. He couldn't go out of the county to study because of the agoraphobia, but the college couldn't take this into account because they were partnered with ''feeder'' schools and so they had to take people from those schools regardless of circumstance or whether they could go to a nearer 6th form.

He ended up spending all of his sickness benefit to pay £600 to do two basic subjects by correspondence course - he was not classed as a full-time student and so got no discounts and no help with anything. Then, after that, he applied to do A-levels at sixth form and there were still no places - not only that, they refused to take him because he needed at least 7 qualifications.

And that sums up why the education system in the UK is an inflexible mess that needs to be radically changed, not just reformed.

[jake williams]

Summerhill is interesting, but I read through about half of a really good book by a black radical writing in the 70s about the mainstream-liberal "alternative [or charter] school" model, I wish I could find it again. As has been pointed out, that solution is profoundly problematic and basically rooted in a politics of having a good time with your own friends and family (be they a bunch of anarcho-hippies or a bunch of middle class liberals), not a politics of fighting in and for the working class as a whole.

I've seen a lot of really cool looking alternative schools, all of which are critical of "mainstream" education but which come from a variety of political backgrounds and a spectrum of radicality. Personally a lot of the time my first impulse is that they look like my own fantasies - but they're conceived as refuges from society, not as really changing society (not in a realistic way, anyway), and we need to avoid 'refuge politics'.


Schools are means of production just like any other. The product is essentially a (semi)-literate work force, properly indoctrinated for a life time of exploitation. Worker run/owned/controlled means of production are a fundamental building block of a post-capitalist society. That schools should be run by those who work there goes almost without saying.
It's pretty frigging dismissive to say that they're "just like any other" when a major input and the product (as you yourself point out) are people, members of the working class. Unless you're the sort of person who believes the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, and unpaid caregivers like mothers shouldn't have a democratic say in their lives, then it's really obvious that students should have a pretty significant say in how their schools are run. Obviously teachers should too, but the total denial of the fact that schools are places full of people who aren't teachers and mean bureaucrats is pretty sickening.


In practice, only universities like Oxford and Cambridge can sustain such a method of teaching.
Yeah, good point, only the really smart people who just happen to go to major institutions of ruling class domination can deal with intellectual freedom.

[革命者]

Sorry Hoboman. Just as I have done somewhere else in this thread or the same text, the people I am talking about do include teachers and students: I meant everyone; not a select group of people. But for me, democracy is not just majority rule (so at least certainly no direct democracy).

What I said about solidarity is essentially the same as you: responsibility, and who takes it. Everyone should feel responsible for the well-being of others.

I am not saying that the educational system shouldn't be (radically) changed (see my earlier posts on the subject in different threads). But not by students or teachers alone.

And yes, bad education will destroy other countries. The xenophobic US is a good case-in-point, I think. Calling everyone Zionists for Jews and having given Muslim the same connotation as communist once had.

I hope this board gets a bit more civil again. The last person to talk to me like that was restricted and banned. So please don't ask for me to be restricted, but start to think for yourself.

[Pogue]

One thing about Summerhill was then in their general council young kids were addressing loads of people articulating their views with confidence. It needed a constitution and some rules, though.

[革命者]

And I am not saying only those going to Oxford an Cambridge deserve intellectual freedom. I am only saying that these universities can pay for a Socratic method of teaching and others don't have the means to do so well. That doesn't mean I think they deserve it and others don't. It just isn't practical in the underfunded institutions of today.

[CELMX]

Red Scum:

This response seems a little naive to me, have you ever seen how hard it is to structure a classroom of 4-16 year olds WITH an authority figure, let alone without???

...and you call yourself an anarchist?!?!

seriously, if you look at 4-16 year olds in this society, you probably need an authority figure, for they have grown up in an environment that upholds the ruling class, bosses, etc. (capitalism). However, if in a post-revolutionary enviornment, or even an envirnoment that upholds independence, I think these children can function perfectly well together without some ***** of a teacher nagging them.
The children with more experience will not rule over the younger, but be "teachers" (not an authority figure, but one that just gives advice)


Check this out: http://www.sudval.com/01_abou_02.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.sudval.com/01_abou_02.html)


this looks pretty shweet, great idea.
Not only will children get to learn more useful and interesting information, they will also remember it for life. In schools now, we barely remember anything from our high school and college days because of the techniques, including rigorous rote memorization. I mean, how much calculus and organic chemistry do you remember?

It costs $$$ though :( $6600 annually

["Red Scum"]

This is idiotic, children of a young age in any society will not and should not have reached a point of maturity at which they are capable of teaching themselves. Workers running things and children running things are completely different things, surely you can't honestly expect a infant to be capable of that kind of responsibility. :rolleyes:

Those with the knowledge, teach. Teachers aren't there to "nag", they're there to structure (READ: not control) children's minds until they reach a point at which they're mentally mature enough to take on the role as structurers of society themselves. The teacher answers questions and focuses the energy of the class towards avenues and opportunities that they may not have even begun to contemplate. The minds of youth are moulded by the educational system, yes- but the issue is not on HOW children learn, because that system already works (clearly it must or we wouldn't even be discussing this today), but WHAT they are taught.

EDIT: Let the children be children for goodness sake, mould their minds so that they learn to think for themselves and pick up the skills to run their own lives, councils, unions, businesses. Don't stunt their intellectual growth by leaving them to figure everything out for themselves or we're all doomed.

[Patchd]

This response seems a little naive to me, have you ever seen how hard it is to structure a classroom of 4-16 year olds WITH an authority figure, let alone without???
Could this possibly be because there are kids, who are undergoing hormonal changes in their body, at the same time being forced to attend an educational institute (which they may like to attend yet, have disagreements with a lot of the practices within it), being forced to learn subjects which they have no interest in, and to top it off, there's an authoritative figure out in the front trying to tell you what to do, how to do it, and why you should do it.

This isn't to say that teachers are inherently bad people, there are some who are complete pricks, and others who simply have to follow the rules in order to practice what they want to do; the education of children, as opposed to the indoctrination and the disciplining of children.

[革命者]

I totally agree with Red Scum. More so, moulding is inevitable; it will be done by parents and society (of which it is education's duty to make insightful).

I propose to find funding and build our own educational institutions, to supplant the old institutions, once our alumni have created and have supplanted the State with our own democratic institutions.

The tax burden of most rich countries is around 40%. I bet we can do better with half that money. If all people are willing to have their tax burden be increased by 20%, we could supplant the entire State with our own. If only a few of the super-rich would help us, we are there much sooner.

Start believing in what seems impossible. There will be a tipping point, where critical mass will support us. In the meantime, such a proportion of people participating in the old democratic system will support us that they will vote to decrease and eventually abolish the old institutions and taxation.

If we support workers to work freelance/efforts to make it easier to work for oneself, we can decrease the tax burden a lot sooner.

I'd first start a bank for taxation and for targeting the present economy, followed by erecting educational institutions. The marketisation of pretty much everything in the public sector can even get all our institutions accredited by the State/multinational accreditors if they abide by their low standards.

["Red Scum"]

The OP is 14 according to his profile, why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

"Hurrr let me run my school it'd be awesome promise d00d xD LOLOLOLOL COMMUNISM S'GOOD MAAAN" :cool:

[革命者]

Sorry? (I have now learned what OP means, so I guess I understand. nevermind)

[CELMX]

I totally agree with Red Scum. More so, moulding is inevitable; it will be done by parents and society (of which it is education's duty to make insightful).

I propose to find funding and build our own educational institutions, to supplant the old institutions, once our alumni have created and have supplanted the State with our own democratic institutions.


So, how do you think our educational institutions should be structured?


The OP is 14 according to his profile, why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

oh, and now ur being agist?
damn, just because we are young does not mean we are stupid, idiotic students that succumb to our sex and electronic obsessed generation.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

damn, just because we are young does not mean we are stupid, idiotic students that succumb to our sex and electronic obsessed generation.

This! Age does not equal immaturity.

[Weezer]

The OP is 14 according to his profile, why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

"Hurrr let me run my school it'd be awesome promise d00d xD LOLOLOLOL COMMUNISM S'GOOD MAAAN" :cool:


You wanna laugh at something? I'm 13, but you're not an anarchist.

Now go home.

I love how adults use ageist stereotypes, and how they protect their weak and shallow opinions with them against logic, like trying to fend off a bear with your own genitalia. It's sad you can't see your own childish stupidity. And you're part of the Cannabism group, that explains it. The only reason an anarchist could be so stupid to think this way is because you're as high as a fucking kite. :rolleyes:

["Red Scum"]

You wanna laugh at something? I'm 13, but you're not an anarchist.

Now go home.

I love how adults use ageist stereotypes, and how they protect their weak and shallow opinions with them against logic, like trying to fend off a bear with your own genitalia. It's sad you can't see your own childish stupidity. And you're part of the Cannabism group, that explains it. The only reason an anarchist could be so stupid to think this way is because you're as high as a fucking kite. :rolleyes:

I lol'd so fucking hard reading this.

You can be an anarchist and a realist, a educational system run by children will not work for the same reason a public transportation system run by children would not work. Hows this for an idea?- have the parents run the school system because theyre the people bringing up the children!

I'm laughing at the OP's age not because I think younger people can't think for themselves, nor that I think his opinion is invalid because of his age. I'm laughing because it is so typical 14 year old :rolleyes: Whats so funny to me is that I suspect his motives for "lets get rid of schools" come more from hatred of the school system and how its dared to try and teach him (evidence of a failed system here as it clearly could not). This isn't a serious thread about building a better, fairer school system- its a cleverly disguised whine about how your teacher made you do your homework.

When you get to college you'll realise you're there for your own good, yes theres structure, yes theres rules, but theyre there (unlike a lot of the rules we strain against in society that are there to ensure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor) so that you can learn. The teacher does not tell you off for talking in class because theyre a fascist, they tell you off because you're disturbing and distracting students who ARE interested in whatever is being taught at that time.

You might not want to be in school- but what child does? If we allow children to drop out then we won't have many educated adults a generation later. Even worse, those who would drop out at the age of 12 would likely be those inclined to revolutionary thinking :D . I know I would have stopped going to school a long time ago if I could have, but I didn't get that choice. Years later, I'm now in the best state sixth form in the country. I would not have gotten there if I'd had the freedom allowed by the system you propose.

The school system is a necessary structure, because children need to be structured or they will not grow mentally and emotionally into adults capable of this level of thought. Just because I'm against this class ridden society and the capitalist system does not mean (unlike you clearly) that I think ALL structured systems are inherhently evil. You're displaying real immaturity, because you're rallying against ALL structure- something that would not even happen in an anarcho-communist system. We'd still have to tell the noisy kid at the back of the class to shut the fuck up because hes distracting everyone. If there was no authority figure to tell him to, the best of communal learning systems would fail.

Nice one regressing to petty insults and stalking my profile for anything you can use against me by the way, makes your point seem soooooo much more valid :p And for the record, I'm 16.

[CELMX]

I lol'd so fucking hard reading this.

You can be an anarchist and a realist, a educational system run by children will not work for the same reason a public transportation system run by children would not work. Hows this for an idea?- have the parents run the school system because theyre the people bringing up the children!


this isn't an educational system run just by "children." Note, there is a mixture of 4 to 16 year olds (they aren't children right? and if 16 year olds were children, then ur calling urself one)
running a school and running a public transportation system is very different. please don't bring in something irrelivant.



I'm laughing at the OP's age not because I think younger people can't think for themselves, nor that I think his opinion is invalid because of his age. I'm laughing because it is so typical 14 year old :rolleyes: Whats so funny to me is that I suspect his motives for "lets get rid of schools" come more from hatred of the school system and how its dared to try and teach him (evidence of a failed system here as it clearly could not). This isn't a serious thread about building a better, fairer school system- its a cleverly disguised whine about how your teacher made you do your homework.


no, what the hell, i love learning and homework is fine. I don't hate the school system at all, i just think it could be improved through a democratically run school. I just think that having an authoritative figure that forces you to do stuff is a bad example for children. They would learn that a boss, leader, etc. is necessary for life. However, in a school run by children, they would learn independence.


When you get to college you'll realise you're there for your own good, yes theres structure, yes theres rules, but theyre there (unlike a lot of the rules we strain against in society that are there to ensure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor) so that you can learn. The teacher does not tell you off for talking in class because theyre a fascist, they tell you off because you're disturbing and distracting students who ARE interested in whatever is being taught at that time.

No, you are just like those people who bash anarchism. With freedom, there will be no rules, chaos!!!
Just because there are no teachers does no equal chaos. There are rules, enforced by the children themselves, like in a post-revolutionary society. And, students would be allowed to choose their own classes, so disruption would probably be almost elliminated, because they are interested.



You might not want to be in school- but what child does? If we allow children to drop out then we won't have many educated adults a generation later. Even worse, those who would drop out at the age of 12 would likely be those inclined to revolutionary thinking :D . I know I would have stopped going to school a long time ago if I could have, but I didn't get that choice. Years later, I'm now in the best state sixth form in the country. I would not have gotten there if I'd had the freedom allowed by the system you propose.


AGain, i love school (strange, huh?), but I think it could be much better. I really don't think students would drop out if they could choose their own classes.


The school system is a necessary structure, because children need to be structured or they will not grow mentally and emotionally into adults capable of this level of thought. Just because I'm against this class ridden society and the capitalist system does not mean (unlike you clearly) that I think ALL structured systems are inherhently evil. You're displaying real immaturity, because you're rallying against ALL structure- something that would not even happen in an anarcho-communist system. We'd still have to tell the noisy kid at the back of the class to shut the fuck up because hes distracting everyone. If there was no authority figure to tell him to, the best of communal learning systems would fail.

oh, and how come a school can't be structured by students themselves? I need more time to think about exactly what structure, but I think a capable and strong system can be made cooperatively by students.



Nice one regressing to petty insults and stalking my profile for anything you can use against me by the way, makes your point seem soooooo much more valid :p And for the record, I'm 16.


lol proffesional creeper. jk. anyways, didn't mean to insult anyone, sorry. Great, i don't really care how old you are.

[革命者]

Now children, stop fighting:p

Age means very little, indeed. In your youngest years you have the time to devote full attention to learning, analysing, becoming analytical and learning about the world. There is a critical period where you can do this most effectively (well before 14). This is of course not yet very profound knowledge, neither is it wisdom, but it's a good basis.

But it is vital that people that do have that more profound knowledge and hopefully some wisdom to make sound decisions (something teenagers have difficulty with because they feel too insecure an frustrated with the system and its (sometimes very needed) structure, as Red Scum said above) make the decisions when it comes to how people are most effectively educated.

You have to feel at ease with the world not to over-generalise, for example; again, as Red Scum said, structure is sometimes necessary. This feeling at ease comes with the years, and the only thing you shouldn't do is becoming complacent with this society because it is not all bad (Marxism and its dialectics can for me explain why it isn't).


So, how do you think our educational institutions should be structured?As I said, I think as far as teaching practices are concerned, they work well (could be improved, of course) for capitalism and they could work for socialism.

As far as the organisations themselves are concerned, they should cut out virtually all management (as much as possible). Administrative staff should be decreased by less top-down control. I am not in favour of teachers doing administrative tasks, but they should be able to call the shots by democratically managing the day-to-day business of the school.

What is taught and for how many people should be decided by a general democracy (democratic State or similar; see my earlier proposition). The basic structure of institutions should be decided upon by said general democracy, to prevent bureacracies.

By our education we transform both our institutions and society (as always; lots of Business Studies, means a lot of management; same goes for Pedagogy and Phychology/sociology of Education, etc.; these drive expensive overhead and projects to "innovate" teaching methods; people want employment after they graduate).

But most important is the what, not the why, as Red Scum so succinctly put.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Hows this for an idea?- have the parents run the school system because theyre the people bringing up the children!

But surely children should have a say in their education and it shouldn't just be left to parents to decide what's best for them? I don't see why it has to be either/or - everyone can contribute ideas. Ideally, there would be a basic structure to work around but the system would be much more flexible than it is at the moment. Less rigidity, fewer standardized tests etc. What if they were a religious group of parents who wanted to give their children a Christian or Sikh education?

["Red Scum"]

But surely children should have a say in their education and it shouldn't just be left to parents to decide what's best for them? I don't see why it has to be either/or - everyone can contribute ideas. Ideally, there would be a basic structure to work around but the system would be much more flexible than it is at the moment. Less rigidity, fewer standardized tests etc. What if they were a religious group of parents who wanted to give their children a Christian or Sikh education?


I think there would be little debate here that it'd be a secular system :p

The emphasis certainly has to be on "coming of age", a point at which the child is deemed to be mature and wise enough to have a say in the running of the school.

[革命者]

But surely children should have a say in their education and it shouldn't just be left to parents to decide what's best for them? I don't see why it has to be either/or - everyone can contribute ideas. Ideally, there would be a basic structure to work around but the system would be much more flexible than it is at the moment. Less rigidity, fewer standardized tests etc. What if they were a religious group of parents who wanted to give their children a Christian or Sikh education?As far as I am concerned, they'd be out of luck. It can be additional to "real" education; secular education, that is, not biased towards any religion.

Religious education as the only education for anyone is desintegrating. Religion should, however, of course be covered, but no religion should ever be singled out as more true, valuable, relevant or correct in any educational system. Same goes for humanism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The OP is 14 according to his profile, why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

"Hurrr let me run my school it'd be awesome promise d00d xD LOLOLOLOL COMMUNISM S'GOOD MAAAN" :cool:

Well as someone in their 30s I think that it would be good for there to be student organizations with a role in education along with teachers. Modern schools are set up to teach people how to obey and go along with top-down curriculum, "standards", and guidelines that even our "leaders" (or in the case of public school teachers and principles have little influence over).

Schools attended by people in their teens (not to mention higher education) should be open to organized student imput - a real student government that can represent the collective interests of students and teach young people how to exercise grassroots participatory democracy and run things for themselves in a microcosm (school setting) before becoming full-time workers.

Since even in capitalist society, high school students have and sometimes still organize their own protests and occupy parts of their campus or have sit-ins, then they are obviously old enough (and have the desire to) have a participating voice in deciding their own education.

[革命者]

Since even in capitalist society, high school students have and sometimes still organize their own protests and occupy parts of their campus or have sit-ins, then they are obviously old enough (and have the desire to) have a participating voice in deciding their own education.They are the best excuse a manager could wish for. To use Herbert Marcuse's term for this: repressive tolerance. Most people in "participatory" bodies are short-sighted and easily impressed (and treated as kings). They pose no threat, and if they start to rebel, they are quickly side-lined.

As long as they exist, they should be used (especially to gather information), but there should be no need for them. If we have people running the place who don't serve student interests, they have no place in the organisation anyway.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I think there would be little debate here that it'd be a secular system :p

Of course, but wouldn't that be hard to regulate? Even if there is no such thing as a Christian school, people still talk about schools having a Christian 'ethos'. If parents were very determined to give their children a religious education I'm sure they'd find subtle ways to put their beliefs into the curriculum.

What do you think would happen about homeschooling?

[Jimmie Higgins]

They are the best excuse a manager could wish for. To use Herbert Marcuse's term for this: repressive tolerance. Most people in "participatory" bodies are short-sighted and easily impressed (and treated as kings). They pose no threat, and if they start to rebel, they are quickly side-lined.If I understand you correctly, I think you are confusing bourgeois democracy with some kind of inherent flaw in collective organization.

Yes, in modern society, all student governments, most other institutionalized representative bodies are there to basically humor the population while the real governing and decision-making is done behind closed doors. Despite this, there are still movements of high school kids (recently walkouts against immigration attacks, protests against cuts to programs and school closures in California) I think this demonstrates the potential for students to have an active role in determining their education along with teachers who will obviously be the main driving force behind the running of schools after a revolution.

[革命者]

In many countries in Europe, many students are now active in occupations and many other forms of student protest. But most want an end to neoliberal education; the marketisation of our education. That's a radical system change, not participating in current educational systems.

This is not 1968 in magnitude (yet), but it is not 1968 because we don't rise up to demand our share in government of institutions, but we want a stop to the neoliberal agenda to dismantle our public/state education. So, not about more autonomy of institutions, like some struggles in the past were about, but actually less.

Autonomy turned into privatisation in a market economy. That hasn't been the answer, it was too easily perverted. The ideas prevalent within student movements of the 60s/70s have led to neoliberalism and the Third Way; direct democracy in state affairs (education and healthcare), where your buying power constitutes a vote.

Obama's healthcare system is an example of that (although I don't think it has been due to him personally).

[Weezer]

I lol'd so fucking hard reading this.

You can be an anarchist and a realist, a educational system run by children will not work for the same reason a public transportation system run by children would not work. Hows this for an idea?- have the parents run the school system because theyre the people bringing up the children!

*sigh* You still don't get it? Children would have a VOICE in their education, they wouldn't run the whole damn thing.


I'm laughing at the OP's age not because I think younger people can't think for themselves, nor that I think his opinion is invalid because of his age. I'm laughing because it is so typical 14 year old :rolleyes: Whats so funny to me is that I suspect his motives for "lets get rid of schools" come more from hatred of the school system and how its dared to try and teach him (evidence of a failed system here as it clearly could not). This isn't a serious thread about building a better, fairer school system- its a cleverly disguised whine about how your teacher made you do your homework.

I can't make blind men see, so I'll just leave this here.


When you get to college you'll realise you're there for your own good, yes theres structure, yes theres rules, but theyre there (unlike a lot of the rules we strain against in society that are there to ensure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor) so that you can learn. The teacher does not tell you off for talking in class because theyre a fascist, they tell you off because you're disturbing and distracting students who ARE interested in whatever is being taught at that time.

Just more insults, I can't be arsed to respond to such trash. And I take it you're in college?


You might not want to be in school- but what child does? If we allow children to drop out then we won't have many educated adults a generation later. Even worse, those who would drop out at the age of 12 would likely be those inclined to revolutionary thinking :D . I know I would have stopped going to school a long time ago if I could have, but I didn't get that choice. Years later, I'm now in the best state sixth form in the country. I would not have gotten there if I'd had the freedom allowed by the system you propose.

I never said I wanted to drop out, I want to democratically reform schools. Nice facts you got there.


The school system is a necessary structure, because children need to be structured or they will not grow mentally and emotionally into adults capable of this level of thought. Just because I'm against this class ridden society and the capitalist system does not mean (unlike you clearly) that I think ALL structured systems are inherhently evil. You're displaying real immaturity, because you're rallying against ALL structure- something that would not even happen in an anarcho-communist system. We'd still have to tell the noisy kid at the back of the class to shut the fuck up because hes distracting everyone. If there was no authority figure to tell him to, the best of communal learning systems would fail.

I want to reform all social institutions, not destroy them, but you misinterpret my opinions however you like.


Nice one regressing to petty insults and stalking my profile for anything you can use against me by the way, makes your point seem soooooo much more valid :p And for the record, I'm 16.

I love when you called me a stalker when that information is public. You're 16? Why am I not surprised...

[革命者]

If I understand you correctly, I think you are confusing bourgeois democracy with some kind of inherent flaw in collective organization.

Yes, in modern society, all student governments, most other institutionalized representative bodies are there to basically humor the population while the real governing and decision-making is done behind closed doors. Despite this, there are still movements of high school kids (recently walkouts against immigration attacks, protests against cuts to programs and school closures in California) I think this demonstrates the potential for students to have an active role in determining their education along with teachers who will obviously be the main driving force behind the running of schools after a revolution.And as far as democracy in educational institutions goes: I think students have a too high potential of A: wanting to oppose general/State democratic rule instead of participating in general democratic rule over all institutions, B: being (pretty much by definition) short-sighted to take decisions in the context of the organisation because they are part of it for only a few years.

As I see it, management of the schools is the task of teachers/professors, aided by administrative staff.

This would best work, in my opinion, when organisations are small. They can be small when the State takes responsibility (of oversight, some adinistrative tasks including accounting, etc).

[革命者]

This is a repost because I hope it's relevant here as well and it adds to my earlier proposal:

What the "old" Left is doing at present shows the destructive character of many of the people who now call themselves social-democrats; many of them were postmodern anarchists who wanted to smash the powers that were. Now that they are in power (many of them in the semi-public sector and unions) they want to self-destruct (I guess subconsciously) because they are highly disillusioned when it comes to any form of government. Some think technology and science are the answer to free government from politics and "advances" in social sciences have changed its focus from philosophy-like to statistics-like; everything in society and the semi-public sector in particular is being or has been quantified and will be further standardised.

And too many people have been trained to participate in a society where every bit of it could scientifically be managed. Of course many used their knowledge not to help society, but to help companies manage society to yield heigher profits.

Through standardisation, public and private sector have now become totally identical; private institutions work with public funding. Needless to say, this leads to exceptional levels of (institutionalised) corruption and fraud and too many people are accomplices to it to stop it or to challenge the institutions.

No wonder that xenophobes can easily become popular; its not the institutions that are the problem, but it is the newcomers that take advantage of these institutions and their services which are indeed very prone to fraud. But everyone knows that only newcomers profit from that, not us; we are holier than holy.

Changing what is taught in schools is the end of these corrupt institutions of our governments; it takes away the need. The people we educate can then be employed by institutions which have real value to society; we cut out the corruption and fraud.

With less dependence on employment by the semi-public sector or money from the semi-public sector (through the fighting of corruption forced onto companies to survive) by educating people in the fields where they can be a real use to society, we can recreate the government to be really democratic.

The "old" Left has created a system of organised solidarity that leaks money. Because of the leakage it will be destroyed by conservatives (as we speak). In the meantime "natural" solidarity has been destroyed by xenophobic and conservative rhetoric. We are left with nothing.

This constitutes not so much a financial/material Verelendung, but it definitely is a Verelendung of the social order, which hits everyone, without any pity for the haves for the have-nots (which used to exist, be it mostly conditionally). The rise of anarchism is clearly a sign that something will change; and I think the individualised will be united more easily than ever before, because we are all victims of the same lack of solidarity; the time of the exclusive focus on numbers and stats has left all humans in society, neglected, out of sight; without notice of their social situations (paradoxically coinciding with the rise, but also the refocusing; scientification, of the social or life sciences). This is, I think, so explosive that it is the start of changes never before seen in our society: a total lack of solidarity, extremely inefficient State and a collapsing Western economy are no good mix.

Let's focus all our attention on (informal and formal; revolutionary and practical) education. They can provide the soldiers to win the revolution after any transition. We must use the "new" left parties primarily for that purpose.

Now in Europe and in some parts of the world education systems have been put on sale to an extent never before seen and in a relatively large proportion of countries (in Europe, at least) simultaneously, now is the momentum to think about changing education, as a prelude to changing the world.

Pardon the lack of structure. Still I hope you find the post valuable.


Scotty

[革命者]

And if we don't provide remedial education (later to supplant public-funded education when funding dries up), the corporate world will fill the void with specialised training as their "education". Fully accredited by the governments of the world.