Unschooling

[Die Rote Fahne]

I, personally, think homeschooling is both perverse and denies children of necessary social interaction. But, unschooling is absolutely ridiculous on a whole new level.

"Unschooling refers to a range of educational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education) philosophies and practices centered on allowing children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children) to learn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learn) through their natural life experiences, including child directed play (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_%28activity%29), game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game) play, household (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household) responsibilities, work experience and social interaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_interaction), rather than through a more traditional school curriculum." - Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling

zYZrho7Th68

[Proletarian Ultra]

Critique of the Gotha Program:


"Elementary education by the state" is altogether objectionable. Defining by a general law the expenditures on the elementary schools, the qualifications of the teaching staff, the branches of instruction, etc., and, as is done in the United States, supervising the fulfillment of these legal specifications by state inspectors, is a very different thing from appointing the state as the educator of the people! Government and church should rather be equally excluded from any influence on the school. Particularly, indeed, in the Prusso-German Empire (and one should not take refuge in the rotten subterfuge that one is speaking of a "state of the future"; we have seen how matters stand in this respect) the state has need, on the contrary, of a very stern education by the people.

[bcbm]

i find the criticism about how unschooled kids won't know chemistry, algebra, biology, history, etc pretty interesting, given that i don't think most people who go through traditional school leave with much knowledge of those things either.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

But, unschooling is absolutely ridiculous on a whole new level.

Why? You didn't really give any reasoning.

[zimmerwald1915]

Critique of the Gotha Program:
In your own quote Marx has no issue with school budgets and such being apportioned by the state, and thought that such a system might be demanded by revolutionary socialists in contemporary Germany. What he objected to was propaganda in the schools by the state (and church), and oversight of classrooms by state inspectors. There's also a passage in Capital where Marx talks about the pedagogy of the future, which is structured around both the school and the workplace, and designed to make children into well-rounded, adaptive, creative, and human adults able to exersice the free play of their "full physical and mental powers". While this sounds like the goal of "unschooling", Marx also talked about the abolition of the nuclear family, whereas "unschooling" seems to be centered around the family. "Unschooling" teaches children to live in nuclear families. Marx's educational programme for communist society helps build a human society where such divisions have ceased to matter.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Why? You didn't really give any reasoning.

I find it ridiculous because I know what it's like to be a kid. I wanted to watch power rangers, play grand theft auto and eat candy all day.

Kids won't look stuff up for themselves to learn it. The family in the video is proof, they go around and play games all day. They're fucking teenagers playing nerf swords.

Unschooled kids are condemned to a life of minimum wage, welfare, etc. They aren't getting into college.

The point of public schooling is to expose kids to different things. To teach them things that may interest them to broaden their abilities, and prepare them for after they graduate. I wanted to be a cop until I was in my teens, then I wanted to be a lawyer cause I was exposed to a law class. Then I really got interested in history and poli-sci from my world history class.

Now, the American school system is retarded, so I can see why you may be sceptical about my description of schooling, but I'm Canadian, so we have it pretty good here.

I typed all this fairly fast, cause i'm hurrying, if anything is incoherent let me know.

Note: I believe in compulsory school attendance.

[gorillafuck]

Kids won't look stuff up for themselves to learn it. The family in the video is proof, they go around and play games all day. They're fucking teenagers playing nerf swords.
I disagree with this. You seem to be assuming that teenagers have no interests and that they won't ever become interested in anything unless they learn about it at school. I've learned much more about history and politics from the internet and researching it myself than I have from any classroom. Everyone has interests that they'll learn about.

I think that free schools seem much better than unschooling. Unschooling involves not near as much human interaction outside of your immediate family, and no other peers to share education with which I think is a very important thing to have.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I would probably consider homeschooling my kids, but unschooling seems like a dangerous thing to be experimenting with.

[Robocommie]

I was home schooled for a few years. I turned out fine.

[A.R.Amistad]

um.....I actually am homeschooled and I do do this "unschooling" thing. Sorry but all schooling institutions as of now are too full of bullshit for me to maintain my sanity. Unschooling is really not that bad as a learning tool if you use it right.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Yeah homeschooling is awesome, but the only way I think unschooling could work is with real structure. I certainly don't think it's something that just anyone could do.

[A.R.Amistad]

The best way to do unschooling is to get in touch with a local university. Luckily, my mom works at one so I have instant access. About 1/4 of my learning is attending various lectures, talks, educational movies, etc. and I'm basically getting a college level education. To an extent, many large campus colleges basically do "unschooling" in the sense that some classes are just full of optional lectures where one has to take a test. If you know the material, then maybe you don't have to go to the lectures at all. As long as you document it and such its cool, and it beats institutionalized school both personally and academically speaking.

[A.R.Amistad]

haha take this Propagandhi! :laugh:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=455

[red cat]

I oppose the present form of schooling, as it destroys creativity. But unschooling seems to deny people any conscious guidance in any field; this neutralizes the effect of cumulative knowledge of our civilization. An ideal schooling system would be where the teacher just introduces topics, mentions some higher applications and encourages students to perform experiments. Students can then approach the teacher individually or in groups for discussing topics if they choose to. No exams, few assignments, and only the ones that involve creativity. Also, students should be able to study only one subject if they want to from the age of 14 or 15.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yeah, sorry. This unschooling thing is bullshit. When I was doing my schooling from kindergarten to high school, I was so damn lazy at school & didn't give a shit what the school thought because I didn't think that they were teaching me anything, especially going through classes that didn't matter to me. So I participated in the idea of "unschooling" throughout those years & did all my schooling through the internet. What happened? I was a pro-capitalist conspiracy theorist, using the internet as my weapon of choice. It wasn't until I had U.S. history in high school, in which the teacher was a Socialist, that I started realizing about the truth & what I use to be against because of my oh-so-great educational schooling I did for myself. Kids need figures who know what they're talking about to teach them. The internet is great & all, & can be used to learn much more than a teacher can give you, but the internet's going nowhere & I'm sure we can spend a few hours off of it, getting proper education through the schools. So to me, unschooling does not work as great as a lot would like for it to be.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Kids won't look stuff up for themselves to learn it.

If this were true, I wouldn't be talking to you right now. I started reading Marx at 13, on my own. And almost all the history and political knowledge I have was learned on my own as well.


Unschooled kids are condemned to a life of minimum wage, welfare, etc. They aren't getting into college. Is this a problem of unschooling or modern capitalist society?


The point of public schooling is to expose kids to different things. To teach them things that may interest them to broaden their abilities, and prepare them for after they graduate.I don't see how unschooling would get in the way of these things.


I wanted to be a cop until I was in my teens, then I wanted to be a lawyer cause I was exposed to a law class. Then I really got interested in history and poli-sci from my world history class.Yes, classes can get kids interested in certain things. But so can normal life experiences and guidance from adults who aren't necessarily state-paid babysitters.


Now, the American school system is retarded, so I can see why you may be sceptical about my description of schooling, but I'm Canadian, so we have it pretty good here.Never went to school in Canada, but I have a hard time believing your system is much different from ours.


Note: I believe in compulsory school attendance.Note: I don't. :p


Yeah, sorry. This unschooling thing is bullshit. When I was doing my schooling from kindergarten to high school, I was so damn lazy at school & didn't give a shit what the school thought because I didn't think that they were teaching me anything, especially going through classes that didn't matter to me. So I participated in the idea of "unschooling" throughout those years & did all my schooling through the internet. What happened? I was a pro-capitalist conspiracy theorist, using the internet as my weapon of choice. It wasn't until I had U.S. history in high school, in which the teacher was a Socialist, that I started realizing about the truth & what I use to be against because of my oh-so-great educational schooling I did for myself. Kids need figures who know what they're talking about to teach them. The internet is great & all, & can be used to learn much more than a teacher can give you, but the internet's going nowhere & I'm sure we can spend a few hours off of it, getting proper education through the schools. So to me, unschooling does not work as great as a lot would like for it to be.

Interesting. I pretty much had the exact opposite experience. All my teachers, especially history teachers were very pro-American/pro-capitalist.

I discovered leftism on my own. All my teachers kept telling me how awful communism was so I thought I should find out for myself before taking their word.

[Robocommie]

I think schooling is going to need to be one of those things that is highly individualized, because everyone is different. Most education specialists will tell you that everyone has different learning styles; tactile, auditory, visual, interactive, what have you, and I think this extends also to the structure of schooling. Some people do much better with one-on-one contact, others do very well in a traditional scholastic environment; and others are auto-didactic and are actually very suited to simply being given free reign to teach themselves.

I must confess this is a subject very close to my heart, because I think quality education is essential to a better society and essential to unlocking human potential, and I myself have plans to become an educator. I personally feel that the better read a society is, the more free that society is.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I think schooling is going to need to be one of those things that is highly individualized, because everyone is different. Most education specialists will tell you that everyone has different learning styles; tacticle, auditory, visual, interactive, what have you, and I think this extends also to the structure of schooling. Some people do much better with one-on-one contact, others do very well in a traditional scholastic environment; and others are auto-didactic and are actually very suited to simply being given free reign to teach themselves.

Yep. The school system has become a giant assembly line for mindless drones to work for capitalists and never question anything.

I would much rather raise and teach my kids myself than put them through the brainwashing programs funded by our government.

Being able to individually adjust my teaching methods would just be another benefit.

Once upon a time, kids were actually raised by families and villages instead of government institutions. I don't see what is so wrong with wanting to go back to a much better system.

[9]

Forgive my ignorance on the topic, but in homeschooling, who is it that does the teaching?

[black magick hustla]

I think unschooling is one of those things that might either be fine for a future world, or when children are young. Unfortunately, dropping out of school amounts to the same thing as dropping out of a job. I dont think anybody could get into a technical field without a good grounding on mathematics, for example. And mathematics is not one of those touchy feely things like literature that are as easy to pick up by yourself.

[Robocommie]

Forgive my ignorance on the topic, but in homeschooling, who is it that does the teaching?

Usually homeschoolers are part of a certified program, and usually what students do is meet the requirements of that program with home study while the parent supervises, and then you send in your work to the organization running the certified program. The organization is a fully accredited school with the authority to issue diplomas.

[9]

...while the parent supervises...

OK, this is what I was getting at. Probably it is safe to assume, too, that in the overwhelming majority of instances “the parent” = the mother. And in that case, I think - as someone else here alluded to earlier in the thread - it reinforces the nuclear family. And in that sense, I don’t think it is progressive at all.
And that's ignoring that it is really not an option for working class families, where in the overwhelming majority of cases, both parents are working fulltime jobs.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Unfortunately, to get a job these days, you need a degree. So to simply be "unschooled" will lead the child to absolutely nothing, except maybe a job in McDonalds or Burger King. And trust me, as someone who use to work in Burger King, that is the LAST place you'd want to work at.

[9]

to get a job these days, you need a degree.

Er..what?

[Jimmie Higgins]

OK, this is what I was getting at. Probably it is safe to assume, too, that in the overwhelming majority of instances “the parent” = the mother. And in that case, I think - as someone else here alluded to earlier in the thread - it reinforces the nuclear family. And in that sense, I don’t think it is progressive at all.
And that's ignoring that it is really not an option for working class families, where in the overwhelming majority of cases, both parents are working fulltime jobs.

^This! Most working class parents who are together both work and so noschooling and homeschooling are just fantasies - at best a fantasy like "slow-food" is a fantasy for working class parents, at worst it is a conscious attempt by right-wing Christians to promote a reactionary and strict form of the nuclear family where women exist to train and care for children.

Also since modern capitalist society is divided and full of inequality, homeschooling is essentially separate and unequal schooling and anti-democratic if applied to all of modern society.

But I can understand the abstract appeal of non-schooling and homeschooling in the sense that public schools in capitalist society tend to cram people in and make everyone learn in an artificial age-based standards system. It's also true that the essential function of public education in capitalism is to socialize people into capitalist society and their class role in that society. So for the poor, education is just glorified day-care for working parents; for most of the working class, school exists to teach people how to work in groups and on tasks assigned to them and to keep a regular schedule (basically the skills to be a worker under capitalism). For the upper classes, schools exist to teach them leadership and critical thinking and how to study and research and how to compete for top positions.

But to write off public schools as just a crude ruling class device to train workers ignores all the reforms that have come into public education through the effect of organized teachers, parents and students. And since it would be impossible for most working class families to homeschool kids, left-wing demands must be for better funding for public education, the end of economic and racial inequalities in public education, an end to standardized testing, more local power for teachers and (high school) students in setting educational and extra-curricular priories.

After the revolution I think public education should be totally transformed through the cooperation of teachers/parents/students. Personally I think that required schooling should only be for basic reading and math skills and after that it would be voluntary and available to anyone regardless of age (child care should also be provided for parents of kids). People should be able to study and learn based on their own interests and desires, not because of some arbitrary checklist designed by politicians and administrators. Professional educators would be available to help people or lead specific discussions on topics chosen by groups of students. Education would take on a much more guidance role than a diciplinarian/headmaster role.

This kind of education would eliminate most of the alienation that a lot of students have in regards to public education now and so learning would be a much more rewarding and self-motivated experience.

[Agnapostate]

I support unschooling/free schooling. I simply also agree with Bowles and Gintis that they'll be of very limited value if they function as an exotic custom for cushy suburban white kids instead of including working class youth, and that the libertarian socialization they involve is incompatible with the authoritarian nature of the capitalist labor market.

[Robocommie]

OK, this is what I was getting at. Probably it is safe to assume, too, that in the overwhelming majority of instances “the parent” = the mother. And in that case, I think - as someone else here alluded to earlier in the thread - it reinforces the nuclear family. And in that sense, I don’t think it is progressive at all.
And that's ignoring that it is really not an option for working class families, where in the overwhelming majority of cases, both parents are working fulltime jobs.

I'm not really sure how to take this, Api. I really enjoyed spending time with my mother while she helped me with schoolwork, and my dad helped me when he could too. I don't see why it's somehow so crucial to dissolve the nuclear family... I like my family. I don't really feel like that's a particularly reactionary position on my part. I mean shit, we had a dog, too, is that wrong? I used to play catch with my dad in the back yard, should I denounce him for his part in enforcing patriarchy?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

OK, this is what I was getting at. Probably it is safe to assume, too, that in the overwhelming majority of instances “the parent” = the mother. And in that case, I think - as someone else here alluded to earlier in the thread - it reinforces the nuclear family. And in that sense, I don’t think it is progressive at all.
And that's ignoring that it is really not an option for working class families, where in the overwhelming majority of cases, both parents are working fulltime jobs.

I think you have some misconceptions of unschooling.

There's actually a lot of decent literature on the subject out there, I wouldn't base your opinion on a video of some suburban conservative family who is probably afraid of Obama and the nazi communists teaching their kids to love welfare and Islamic fundamentalism.

For one, the family doesn't even have to be a part of unschooling. Unschooling has nothing to do with family relations, the nuclear family, home life/traditions or anything like that.

Unschooling can consist of spending time with different adults who all do different kinds of work and can teach kids about what they do, or it can be simple social interaction with other kids on a playground. It can also be a village elder giving advice on what is most important in life or what a good community needs to work together most efficiently. Even playing sports can instill a good work ethic and promote healthy lifestyles or exercise.

I support unschooling because it goes pretty much hand-in-hand with anarchism. (Which is why it's also big with the right-libertarian folks) It is based on localized communal activity and allows curriculum to be adjusted for each individual need.

It may not be very realistic in our current society, but it is an ideal to aim for I believe.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I disagree with this. You seem to be assuming that teenagers have no interests and that they won't ever become interested in anything unless they learn about it at school. I've learned much more about history and politics from the internet and researching it myself than I have from any classroom. Everyone has interests that they'll learn about.

I think that free schools seem much better than unschooling. Unschooling involves not near as much human interaction outside of your immediate family, and no other peers to share education with which I think is a very important thing to have.

I learned about communism from video games, my brother and the internet too.

Yes, teenagers will at times find information that interests them. However, it does nothing for them compared to being taught to understand.

The only reason I understood communism was my brother, the internet didn't do a lot for me as a teenager.

[anticap]

I stand unabashedly with the religious fundamentalists in support of home-schooling.


Most working class parents who are together both work and so noschooling and homeschooling are just fantasies - at best a fantasy like "slow-food" is a fantasy for working class parents, at worst it is a conscious attempt by right-wing Christians to promote a reactionary and strict form of the nuclear family where women exist to train and care for children.

Also since modern capitalist society is divided and full of inequality, homeschooling is essentially separate and unequal schooling and anti-democratic if applied to all of modern society.

But I can understand the abstract appeal of non-schooling and homeschooling in the sense that public schools in capitalist society tend to cram people in and make everyone learn in an artificial age-based standards system. It's also true that the essential function of public education in capitalism is to socialize people into capitalist society and their class role in that society. So for the poor, education is just glorified day-care for working parents; for most of the working class, school exists to teach people how to work in groups and on tasks assigned to them and to keep a regular schedule (basically the skills to be a worker under capitalism). For the upper classes, schools exist to teach them leadership and critical thinking and how to study and research and how to compete for top positions.

But to write off public schools as just a crude ruling class device to train workers ignores all the reforms that have come into public education through the effect of organized teachers, parents and students. And since it would be impossible for most working class families to homeschool kids, left-wing demands must be for better funding for public education, the end of economic and racial inequalities in public education, an end to standardized testing, more local power for teachers and (high school) students in setting educational and extra-curricular priories.

After the revolution I think public education should be totally transformed through the cooperation of teachers/parents/students. Personally I think that required schooling should only be for basic reading and math skills and after that it would be voluntary and available to anyone regardless of age (child care should also be provided for parents of kids). People should be able to study and learn based on their own interests and desires, not because of some arbitrary checklist designed by politicians and administrators. Professional educators would be available to help people or lead specific discussions on topics chosen by groups of students. Education would take on a much more guidance role than a diciplinarian/headmaster role.

This kind of education would eliminate most of the alienation that a lot of students have in regards to public education now and so learning would be a much more rewarding and self-motivated experience.

This is a thoughtful post, and I'm appreciative of your points, but, speaking as a U$-American, I've experienced none of these "reforms" you speak of. Unless you're talking about, e.g., the fact that teachers no longer smack students' fidgety hands with yardsticks, etc. But I take your implication to be that there are chinks in the armor of ruling-class indoctrination that are being taken advantage of to introduce dissident views. Again, in my experience, that is total nonsense. Public schools remain, as far as I can see, training grounds for flag-waving worker drones who will accept "American Exceptionalism" (a euphemism for "capitalism is best") without question and will even fight and die to prove it.

It is certainly true that there are a range of views allowed on specific social issues, and that these are passionately debated, but the most important issue remains verboten. Though he wasn't speaking to schools in particular, Chomsky sums it up well:


The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum -- even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

Find me a public school system in the U$ where the presuppositions of its ruling class are pissed on as a matter of course and I'll gleefully retract the above and begin preparing for the immanent revolution.


I'm not really sure how to take this, Api. I really enjoyed spending time with my mother while she helped me with schoolwork, and my dad helped me when he could too. I don't see why it's somehow so crucial to dissolve the nuclear family... I like my family. I don't really feel like that's a particularly reactionary position on my part. I mean shit, we had a dog, too, is that wrong? I used to play catch with my dad in the back yard, should I denounce him for his part in enforcing patriarchy?

You have to understand that the attitudes that you're responding to are fantastical. It's like the hippie communes where they decided that parents wouldn't raise their own kids, but that it would be a true "village effort," with everyone raising everyone's kids. Sounds great, right? I myself am powerfully drawn to this concept. Unfortunately, such efforts tended to end in disaster, because of a thing called reality, where parents feel a strong bond with their children. One such place that survived the unreal expectations of this concept is Twin Oaks (http://twinoaks.org/). They were initially (back in the '60s) under the spell of B.F. Skinner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two), and tried a communal child-rearing scheme influenced by him. They soon realized that it wasn't going to work, that parents need to feel that they are a primary guiding influence on their children, and so they arrived at a synthesis of sorts, where parents would be the primary caregivers, but the community was also to retain a strong sense of being a large extended family. It's all relayed in their history somewhere on the site if you care to look for it.

[CHE with an AK]

I think it is a mistake to make children see education as always "fun" and "exciting" ... that's why so many kids have ADHD and can't read a book unless it has pictures in it. Most kids are overstimulated visually - and can't concentrate as they grow up long enough to become scholars on anything.

... just the way Capitalism wants them.

[Robocommie]

You have to understand that the attitudes that you're responding to are fantastical. It's like the hippie communes where they decided that parents wouldn't raise their own kids, but that it would be a true "village effort," with everyone raising everyone's kids. Sounds great, right? I myself am powerfully drawn to this concept. Unfortunately, such efforts tended to end in disaster, because of a thing called reality, where parents feel a strong bond with their children. One such place that survived the unreal expectations of this concept is Twin Oaks (http://twinoaks.org/). They were initially (back in the '60s) under the spell of B.F. Skinner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two), and tried a communal child-rearing scheme influenced by him. They soon realized that it wasn't going to work, that parents need to feel that they are a primary guiding influence on their children, and so they arrived at a synthesis of sorts, where parents would be the primary caregivers, but the community was also to retain a strong sense of being a large extended family. It's all relayed in their history somewhere on the site if you care to look for it.

Oh man. I try not to judge people for how they live their life if they aren't hurting anybody, but after looking at that Twin Oaks website, I think if I tried to live there for a few months I'd end up eating my own hand.

But yeah, I don't think that kind of attitude is very realistic. I think it's good to build a strong sense of community, people should be friends with their neighbors, especially since I think such things are conducive to socialism in general. But there's a limit, and having a strong emotional bond to your parents is pretty normal, and vice versa.



Find me a public school system in the U$ where the presuppositions of its ruling class are pissed on as a matter of course and I'll gleefully retract the above and begin preparing for the immanent revolution.

You might find this interesting, a friend of mine is a teacher at a public high school, something of a free spirit, big fan of Mao Zedong, but also of Obama. She's not the most doctrinally rigorous of persons, but she's a good, caring teacher and her kids love her. Point is, she was telling me about how she became famous to our local community because she decided to demonstrate the principle of free speech, by setting one of those cheap, chintzy little American flags on fire, in class. School freaked out, local newspaper ran a big story about the whole thing, she had to make a formal apology. You get the idea.

[Robocommie]

I think it is a mistake to make children see education as always "fun" and "exciting" ... that's why so many kids have ADHD and can't read a book unless it has pictures in it.

You qualified to make that kind of statement?

[CHE with an AK]

You qualified to make that kind of statement?
I'd say so. What would be your reasons for doubting the assertion?

[which doctor]

There's no doubt something profoundly wrong with the current public education system, but leaving your children to their own devices and expecting their natural curiosity to guide them is hardly the best alternative.

Learning is best when it's social. Of course reading on your own is very helpful, but you really do need someone else (preferably multiple people) to bounce your ideas off. Reading to yourself is one thing, but talking about what you read and debating it with others is far more productive of a learning strategy. Writing monographs on what you read is a good idea too. Additionally, some variety of structure and guidance to your learning is also really helpful. This could consist in designing a systematic reading list on a subject for yourself, or having a tutor give you guidance. The contemporary school classroom or lecture hall is far from being an effective teaching tool, but I don't think 'unschooling' is the most practical idea either.


It can also be a village elder giving advice on what is most important in life or what a good community needs to work together most efficiently.
Village elders? ? ? :blink:

[Robocommie]

I'd say so. What would be your reasons for doubting the assertion?

That I actually have a brother diagnosed with ADHD and I know something about the thing, and I somewhat doubt that you're a psychiatrist. It's neurochemical in nature.

[CHE with an AK]

That I actually have a brother diagnosed with ADHD and I know something about the thing, and I somewhat doubt that you're a psychiatrist. It's neurochemical in nature.
I don't doubt that part of it is neurochemical, but believe that children in the modern western world have those "neurons" adversely affected by overexposure to tv, video games, etc to the point that ADHD can be attained as a result of lifestyle or "misdiagnosed" simply because a child is never forced to have to concentrate on one task.

[Jimmie Higgins]

... I like my family. I don't really feel like that's a particularly reactionary position on my part.
There is nothing inherently wrong with families, the problems is that since Industrialization, the nuclear family has been set up and promoted by the ruling class as the main unit and organization for working class life. It's like saying marriage is wrong and should be abolished - we don't mean that people shouldn't have committed or loving relationships if they want, just that marriage as a social institution helps prop up the ruling class and reinforce sexism and homophobia. But there are plenty of happily married comrades as there are plenty of comrades who come from or have their own loving family.

But anyway, back to the family as social unit in capitalism: social problems and responsibilities are shoved-off by the ruling class to be the responsibilities of families. Instead of public childcare, the task is left to mothers - now often working mothers. Instead of adequately funding public education, families have to buy supplies each year and maybe even hire tutors if they have the money. You hear it all the time: crime or poverty or lack of educational opportuinities are not because of a flawed system according to the establishment, it's due to BAD PARENTING.

The right-wing always claims that black inequality is due lack of black fathers (a racist and sexist claim!).

So all this family talk when it comes to the ruling class is to make workers deal with social problems at no cost to the ruling class. You don't need daycare or even public education if women stay home and take care of the kids all day! If a single-parent is struggling, it isn't because it's almost impossible for a single working-person's wage to raise a kid, it's because the parent is SINGLE!

There will still be loving families after a revolution (in fact probably more loving since a lot of the pressures that cause dysfunction in families will be gone). The difference is that no one will be penalized economically or socially for not being part of a family; and families won't bear the responsibility for shouldering social burdons like education, childcare, health-care, food-prep each night, and all the rest of the upkeep of the home that happens in capitalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is a thoughtful post, and I'm appreciative of your points, but, speaking as a U$-American, I've experienced none of these "reforms" you speak of. Unless you're talking about, e.g., the fact that teachers no longer smack students' fidgety hands with yardsticks, etc.No I mean that public education was originally a much more ridged force for capitalist hegemony. In france and germany, the schools were used to get rid of local dialects and create as sense of a unified national people at the time when modern nation-states were being formed. These schools were much more on a factory-model. Education has generally become more about educating in modern times.

Things have gotten worse since the 1970s, but never the less, things like integration in the schools and the potential to push for more class-equality in public education remain.


But I take your implication to be that there are chinks in the armor of ruling-class indoctrination that are being taken advantage of to introduce dissident views. Again, in my experience, that is total nonsense. Public schools remain, as far as I can see, training grounds for flag-waving worker drones who will accept "American Exceptionalism" (a euphemism for "capitalism is best") without question and will even fight and die to prove it.We can't expect public education to be anything but this in capitalism when we boil it down to it's basic function in the system.

Then again a similar argument can be made about public transportation or anything in capitalism: public transportation only served to deliver workers to their jobs and exploitation. Public health in social-democracies is just to keep workers healthy so they can produce more for the capitalists.

This is true, but these things will happen under capitalism regardless of them being a public institution or not. But without these public institutions, we have workers paying for their own transportation to their exploitation, workers paying health insurance companies just to be healthy enough to make wealth for their bosses, and education that is paid for 100% by workers so that future workers can maybe compete for a job in capitalism!

So in a crude way, why save the capitalists the tax revenue (that will not be passed back to workers) and make one of our parents work for free?!

But beyond that I do think public education as an "class-educator" is much more effective than homeschooling in order to produce some red-diaper babies.

1. Home-schooled or not, radicals are probably going to try and present that history and perspective to their offspring (even if they aren't consciously trying to make their kids have the same politics as them). If you are afraid that propaganda in education will undo that, I urge you to keep in mind: "Just say no to drugs". Bluntly, public school propaganda doesn't work(!) otherwise everyone in the US would think that pot causes heroin addition and there would never be any teen-pregnancy.

2. Public education is often worker's first introduction to capitalism and the system. Most high school kids in poorly funded schools know that it's a shit-hole and also know that rich kids don't get treated the same way despite the capitalist myths of equality and equal chances. I know this was true for me.

Also public schools are highly volatile WORKPLACES. So any teacher or bus driver or janitor strike becomes a lesson in class politics for the students. This is invaluable because I don't think I ever learned about any individual strike from any textbook. My first experiences with class struggle came from a strike my father was in and a teacher's strike when I was a kid.

3. Socialization is important - people coming into contact with people from different racial or class backgrounds and politics and religion is an education in of itself. Kids are exposed to the realities of modern society whereas the family unit can often obscure it. I think this is the very reason that the far-right wants to homeschool kids: not to protect them from "loose morals" and liberal indoctrination, but to isolate their kids for their religious and political indoctrination (white supremacists are also hard-core homeschoolers because it's hard to instill racism when lil' Johnny goes to school and plays with people from different races).

[9]

I'm not really sure how to take this, Api. I really enjoyed spending time with my mother while she helped me with schoolwork, and my dad helped me when he could too. I don't see why it's somehow so crucial to dissolve the nuclear family... I like my family. I don't really feel like that's a particularly reactionary position on my part. I mean shit, we had a dog, too, is that wrong? I used to play catch with my dad in the back yard, should I denounce him for his part in enforcing patriarchy?

No, maybe I was no clear enough. There is nothing reactionary about loving your mother; my mother is my favorite person in the world - I love her to death.
But what is reactionary are measures which serve to reinforce the demand that the central role of (working class) women - on top of being wage slaves - is to produce, feed, and raise the next generation of workers for the bourgeoisie to exploit. This is the nucleus of the oppression of women in modern bourgeois society. There is nothing remotely progressive about adding to that already momentous list of demands the expectation that mothers also become their children’s primary educator in place of eeeevil public schooling.
I am not for a second arguing that individuals who have had particular life circumstances in which something like this worked out well are reactionaries, if maybe that is how you’ve taken it. Individual cases are not of concern. I do think, though, that advocating this in place of public schools on any large or systemic level is very much reactionary. It is moving backward.


And the World's Most Absurd Strawman Award™ goes to...:


You have to understand that the attitudes that you're responding to are fantastical. It's like the hippie communes where they decided that parents wouldn't raise their own kids, but that it would be a true "village effort," with everyone raising everyone's kids. Sounds great, right? I myself am powerfully drawn to this concept. Unfortunately, such efforts tended to end in disaster, because of a thing called reality, where parents feel a strong bond with their children. One such place that survived the unreal expectations of this concept is Twin Oaks (http://twinoaks.org/). They were initially (back in the '60s) under the spell of B.F. Skinner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two), and tried a communal child-rearing scheme influenced by him. They soon realized that it wasn't going to work, that parents need to feel that they are a primary guiding influence on their children, and so they arrived at a synthesis of sorts, where parents would be the primary caregivers, but the community was also to retain a strong sense of being a large extended family. It's all relayed in their history somewhere on the site if you care to look for it.

Yeah, this is definitely what I was advocating, bro :rolleyes:

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is the cutest thing I think I have ever read on RevLeft:lol:...
my mother is my favorite person in the world - I love her to death.:thumbup1:

[Robocommie]

No, maybe I was no clear enough. There is nothing reactionary about loving your mother; my mother is my favorite person in the world - I love her to death.
But what is reactionary are measures which serve to reinforce the demand that the central role of (working class) women - on top of being wage slaves - is to produce, feed, and raise the next generation of workers for the bourgeoisie to exploit. This is the nucleus of the oppression of women in modern bourgeois society. There is nothing remotely progressive about adding to that already momentous list of demands the expectation that mothers also become their children’s primary educator in place of eeeevil public schooling.
I am not for a second arguing that individuals who have had particular life circumstances in which something like this worked out well are reactionaries, if maybe that is how you’ve taken it. Individual cases are not of concern. I do think, though, that advocating this in place of public schools on any large or systemic level is very much reactionary. It is moving backward.

Ah well, I understand that argument, and I see your logic. To clarify, I am not at all advocating replacing public schooling with home schooling - I am actually a proponent of public education because I generally agree with my good friend Jimmy Higgins, who points out that there's nothing inherently negative about public schooling, it's a question of how well they are organized.

I'm sure you'll agree that the public school system in the US right now does a lot to separate the classes and preserve the status quo, because the well off either get the high quality suburban schools or private academies, while kids from the poorest echelons have to make do with schools with not enough desks, not enough textbooks, overworked and underpaid teachers, and so on. This of course must be fixed, because everyone has the right to the highest quality education possible.

In general, I'm just also in favor of leaving options for alternative schooling for people who may learn better under other circumstances, as I was saying earlier.

[Robocommie]

There will still be loving families after a revolution (in fact probably more loving since a lot of the pressures that cause dysfunction in families will be gone). The difference is that no one will be penalized economically or socially for not being part of a family; and families won't bear the responsibility for shouldering social burdons like education, childcare, health-care, food-prep each night, and all the rest of the upkeep of the home that happens in capitalism.

Ah well, that's eminently reasonable, and I can totally get down with that. For a moment I was almost picturing some kind of weird 1984-type situation where the concepts of mothers, fathers, sons and daughters would be legally abolished.

[Endomorphian]

Apikoras, you seem to be confusing the effects with the illness. Much of modern society can be termed subversive towards female participation in the labor force, but it's not effective to oppose the practice of (say) homemaking. If there's ever a situation where a parent feels his or her child needs an alternative education - it is the parent's responcibility as a guardian to act from this awareness. Yes, a system of checks must exist to prohibit certain parents from holding their stock as hostage, but if the child can demonstrate proficiency at level with at least the last passing student in each class - why not? Even if the state provides an exceptional education program, a parent may be frustrated with something others view as mundane.

Women who desire to homeschool their children should not feel shamed or traitorous. The issue of female suppression in the labor force should always be viewed as systematic. Although I by no means feel that homeschooling should replace private and public education, it's not the responcibility of such an advocate (who feels it is the most efficient method of pedagogy) to adopt a different position simply because independent forces thwart the ability for men and women to decide (separate of sex) who is best qualified to earn money and who is best qualified to teach. Not all women want to participate in the labor force, and that's fine. Neither do a lot of men, either.

If I mischaracterized any of your positions, please don't hesitate to point it out.

[Endomorphian]

My position on any type of pedagogical philosophy (including unschooling) is that if it works for that one student, proceed. Children are not gadgets manufactured for mass consumption, and I'd like to see that fact reflected in the entirety of education.

What do I mean by a successful outcome? That's for others to qualify in their interactions with parents who elect one procedure over another. I envision an anarchist system of checks and balances where if a child does not demonstrate a certain level of proficiency on core subjects, insurance agencies/communes will place stiffer restrictions on staying associated with their service, motivating that parent to work harder or find a better opportunity.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Village elders? ? ? :blink:

Believe it or not, there are still villages all across the world.

[which doctor]

Believe it or not, there are still villages all across the world.
Yes, unfortunately they do exist, but it is our job to squash these villages, bring these people into the modern world, and render the village elder a thing of the primitive past!

[Robocommie]

Yes, unfortunately they do exist, but it is our job to squash these villages, bring these people into the modern world, and render the village elder a thing of the primitive past!

Yeah, put those old bastards in nursing homes, like civilized modern peoples do!