Education Post-Revolution?

[Agent Ducky]

Ok. So I was watching this documentary, "Waiting for Superman". It's about the failed public education system in America, and how attempted reforms are always shut out by the system. That got me thinking about revolutions. I was wondering, after a hypothetical Communist/Anarchist revolution, how would education operate? Would it be up to communities/individuals to educate kids? Would communities set up their own schools, would it be up to people to homeschool kids? How would a revolution affect the collective level of education?

I know there are probably gonna be conflicting opinions on this (this is revleft!) but I wanna hear all of them ^_^

[bcbm]

everyone will learn as they please

[gestalt]

While there is no arguing with the sentiment that everyone should learn as they please, community institutions which foster learning should definitely be promoted. Education is the foundation of society and must be encouraged and provided by collective means.

There was a thread similar to this a few months ago. As a public educator, here were my thoughts:


It should be entirely voluntary. Compulsory education as it exists today simply reinforces the status quo and, even after the revolution, centralized systems limit autonomy. The same possibility for stagnation exists under bureaucratic-socialism, where the benefits of, say, universal literacy must be weighed against the possibility of indoctrination or complacency.

Theoretically the school, if it exists as a formal institution, should be turned on its head and, as a result, most of the present antipathy and antagonism towards education should disappear. Individuals would actually want to attend these learning centers. Ideally they would be small and informal, employ individual methods and be controlled by the community. Rather than a set period of time, the school should serve as a life-long resource based on free inquiry and mutual instruction without hierarchical distinctions such as pupil and instructor. Individuals should be able to learn basic skills, specialize in a subject, acquire a trade, and/or focus on independent study. Above all education should foster a sense of autonomy and instill the techniques necessary to attain such an existence.

Be weary of the snake oil that has come to embody "educational reform," particularly those advocated in the aforementioned work, which basically amount to an introduction of market solutions like corporate charter schools where performance increases (marginally) by teaching towards standardized tests.

Education under capitalism, like the system itself, cannot be reformed. However, in the interim, small gains can be made. Just know that for every terrible, reactionary teacher mailing it in there is more than likely one who is passionate and inspiring in their goal of helping future generations develop critical thinking and other necessary life skills. While anecdotal, it is the only thing that keeps me going in this profession on some days.

[Agent Ducky]

Thanks, Gestalt. That actually sounds really good. As it is now, the educational system is a conveyor belt that's meant to pump out status-quo maintaining societal products... =/ ... that's really depressing.

[Agent Ducky]

And I know there are some teachers with really great intentions out there. I've had these teachers. ^_^ The system is what's wrong though =[

[Rafiq]

I don't thing anyone can answer your question. What we do know, is that it will be changed. As the mode of production changes, so does the structures of the societies that we live in. I suppose that the Educational System will just have to adapt to the conditions around it, as Marx pointed out how we don't even know what Communism would really look like, but we do know it's not a general state of affairs we intend on bringing about, it is a process that involves the abolishing of certain things.

[RevolutionaryTerror]

[QUOTE=Comrade Ducky;2068949]Ok. So I was watching this documentary, "Waiting for Superman". It's about the failed public education system in America, and how attempted reforms are always shut out by the system. That got me thinking about revolutions.[\QUOTE]

God I hate that movie... it payed the blame for failing schools solely at the feet of the teachers' unions. It also laughably suggested that charter schools were in fact a viable option, which ignores the fact that such schools rig their achievement by kicking out underachieving students, so that their test scores show that X% of their students test well (which is what the Harlem school mentioned in the film does).

To get back to you question, what will education look like? Well, for one, it would not subscribe to the currently predominate notion that students are merely objects which the teachers "work on"/teach. Education in a socialist society must he based on the premise that the individual is important and has a positive position in society, which is to say that the individual has bob rights and obligations in society which extend beyond those purely "negative" rights.

Students will be encouraged to act in society as well as to make their voices heard. The silence of the youth (when it is silent) is directly attributable to the system of education which seeks to reform them in it's mold. Students should be encouraged above all else to critically examine the world around them and to engage in conversation about society.

Mysticism must be eradicated in education- while there is room for Myth (the transformed historical fact as an ideal), mysticism, which posits non-scientific explanations for positively scientific phenomena, leads the people astray and plays into the hands of reactionaries. (ie, Intelligent Design, religion in general)

One book which I would highly recommend in Paulo Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed".

[ckaihatsu]

---








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




A revolutionary society would *automatically* have an interest in the *political education* of its youth, something that the current, liberal-nationalist school system only does in the likeness of its own bent, in a subliminal-conditioning kind of way -- certainly the average student is *not* educated to actively wrestle with socio-political issues in a rational-materialist way.

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

http://tinyurl.com/3vca5mf

[hatzel]

It wasn't long ago that I was reading Postman and Weingartner's Teaching as a subversive activity, and found their proposed inquiry education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry_education) to be a valuable proposition. Such a system would likely be of great benefit in a pre- or post-revolutionary society, when we're considering organisation in the classroom, rather than the education system as a whole. Gestalt gives a pretty good structural proposition, which I wouldn't take anything away from, but I feel that anybody serious about the education system should consult books such as that mentioned above, to consider the nature of the classroom :)

[ckaihatsu]

inquiry education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry_education)


Most of the content at the link you've provided is fine in spirit. However, these following two points are (arguably) in contradiction to each other -- a relaxed attitude to finding answers to questions is at odds with respect for facts.





- Respect for facts, and the ability to distinguish between fact and opinion

- No need for final answers to all questions, and comfort in not knowing an answer to difficult questions rather than settling for a simplistic answer

[Agent Ducky]

I've been taught in classrooms with teaching setups that resemble the whole inquiry thing (i.e. math classes where teachers use questions to help us 'teach ourselves' new math concepts based on what we already know)

Thank you for all the useful answers, comrades. I really appreciate it.

[gestalt]

It wasn't long ago that I was reading Postman and Weingartner's Teaching as a subversive activity, and found their proposed inquiry education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry_education) to be a valuable proposition. Such a system would likely be of great benefit in a pre- or post-revolutionary society, when we're considering organisation in the classroom, rather than the education system as a whole. Gestalt gives a pretty good structural proposition, which I wouldn't take anything away from, but I feel that anybody serious about the education system should consult books such as that mentioned above, to consider the nature of the classroom :)

Absolutely, my thoughts were more generalized. The end goal of the revolution should be individual autonomy and this applies to education as well. Each should have the means to receive it in whatever manner they see fit.

Both this book, the End of Education, the aforementioned Pedagogy of the Oppressed, works by John Dewey, Henry Giroux, etc. provide excellent critiques of traditional, hierarchical education techniques while providing workable models for the classroom.

Some basic guidelines I follow, as posted in another thread:


People learn best when:

- actively engaged with the material or concept on multiple levels (e.g., retention leads to interpretation leads to formulation leads to application).
- work is done cooperatively in small (3-5 people), democratic groups.
- the objective is authentic or directly related to reality (e.g., learn by doing).

This is where authoritative, hierarchical modes of teaching like lectures which are based on received knowledge fall short.

My repertoire includes critical interpretation of sources, bodily-kinesthetic mnemonics for retention, Socratic forums in which we hash out concepts based on student input, role-playing and simulation exercises in which students utilize problem-solving skills, cooperative group work like Jigsaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigsaw_%28teaching_technique%29) which encourage peer learning, authentic community-centric projects (e.g., teaching about legislative process by writing, voting on, petitioning for a bill of their own design). These could all be applicable even without someone in the facilitator role.

My classroom management is democratic in form, students determine and vote on group norms and any consequences for a violation thereof (usually much harsher than ones I would impose). It all revolves around students being educated of, by and for social relations and providing the tools to change them.

[ckaihatsu]

In the interest of clarifying meanings in the input we receive from our social environment I created the following hierarchical sorting. It may be useful for both politics *and* pedagogy.


Interpersonal Meanings

http://postimage.org/image/1d5a6d1c4/

[Robespierre Richard]

In the interest of clarifying meanings in the input we receive from our social environment I created the following hierarchical sorting. It may be useful for both politics *and* pedagogy.


Interpersonal Meanings

http://postimage.org/image/1d5a6d1c4/

I don't really understand that chart. Can you explain it please?

[ckaihatsu]

I don't really understand that chart. Can you explain it please?


Sure -- no prob. With which part of it are you having difficulties?

[Robespierre Richard]

Sure -- no prob. With which part of it are you having difficulties?

Well all of it, really. Just no idea what it's supposed to represent.

[ckaihatsu]

Well all of it, really. Just no idea what it's supposed to represent.


Since it's an abstract framework it can represent, or frame, anything that you may have in front of you. You may want to put forth an example here so that we have something to work with.

[Agent Ducky]

Hm. Well I understand the hierarchy of stuff (falsities through wisdom) but I'm a little confused about the pillars with the unraveling tat the bottom ^_^

[ckaihatsu]

Hm. Well I understand the hierarchy of stuff (falsities through wisdom) but I'm a little confused about the pillars with the unraveling tat the bottom ^_^


Yeah, no prob....

In a conversation from last October the topic of accuracy and precision came up. This is a regular dynamic in the social sciences -- including history and politics -- since we're often in the process of drawing out a central, main argument from disparate sources of inputs. Being able to focus in on a main valid point means being able to distinguish which inputs are more-supportive of this point, and which are not *as* supportive, or not supportive at all. This indicates that there's a "gray area" of varying strengths, resembling a bullseye formation:


http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/Assets/images/rel&val1.gif

www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1890309&postcount=29


So if you look at the 'Interpersonal Meanings' conceptual environment from a top-view perspective you'll see that the various political and economic points are either *closer to* or *further away* from supporting the main, central point of each respective "pillar".

This illustration has a "predecessor" that shows the same conceptual object in a different way -- it may have some explanatory power here....


Ideologies & Operations -- Bottom Up

http://postimage.org/image/1d4wy29dw/