Student Democracy

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Could someone point me in the direction of some good texts that promote the ideal that students should be in control of their schools? Any texts will do though something "modern" would be most preferable. Anything that also has a revolutionary edge would be appreciated.

[Lanky Wanker]

I now have something to write a book about. :cool:

[Renegade Saint]

I don't know about texts, but this video is pretty interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFRT9JKGPcI

Or you could watch the movie my avatar is from, "The Trotsky".

[VirgJans12]

Thanks for that reference to "The Trotsky". I had never seen it before and enjoyed it. Though it is about a student union, not democracy.

I'd also like to know more about any good texts on student democracy like the OP. I'm in college studying to become an English teacher so combined with my ideology such texts would lay completely within my field of interest.

[Rafiq]

Student democracy is by far one of the most absurd concepts I've ever heard of.

[¿Que?]

I think the best place to start is reading about pedagogy, specifically Paulo Freire. I've never read "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" myself, but from what I know about it, it seems to be a step in the right direction for what you're looking for.

[Renegade Saint]

Student democracy is by far one of the most absurd concepts I've ever heard of.

At what age do you feel it appropriate for people to start learning and practicing democracy?

[manic expression]

At what age do you feel it appropriate for people to start learning and practicing democracy?
IMO, it shouldn't "start", it should just be a part of life. However, having students run a school is a disaster waiting to happen. How long until schoolwork itself is abolished?

Talk to any good teacher and they'll tell you that their job is only possible because they have some form of authority...even imagined authority is extremely important. Their job is to get a group of young people to do activities that 95% of them would rather not do, and accordingly most of a teacher's job is just making sure the class isn't descending into chaos. Imagine how that would work if students had ultimate authority over them. It'd be a farce.

Sh*t, in some of my classes we drove teachers to tears because we were such jerks..."student democracy" would just enhance and institutionalize that behavior.

Oh, and when would "student democracy" start? Kindergarten? At age 10? And if some pupils can't vote just yet then it would essentially be the older classes determining everything for the younger ones...I can see it now, daily mandatory swirlies for younger students at 10am.

[Renegade Saint]

IMO, it shouldn't "start", it should just be a part of life. However, having students run a school is a disaster waiting to happen. How long until schoolwork itself is abolished?

Talk to any good teacher and they'll tell you that their job is only possible because they have some form of authority...even imagined authority is extremely important. Their job is to get a group of young people to do activities that 95% of them would rather not do, and accordingly most of a teacher's job is just making sure the class isn't descending into chaos. Imagine how that would work if students had ultimate authority over them. It'd be a farce.

Sh*t, in some of my classes we drove teachers to tears because we were such jerks..."student democracy" would just enhance and institutionalize that behavior.

Oh, and when would "student democracy" start? Kindergarten? At age 10? And if some pupils can't vote just yet then it would essentially be the older classes determining everything for the younger ones...I can see it now, daily mandatory swirlies for younger students at 10am.

You're dramatically underestimating children. Did you watch that video? Schools like this already exist, and none of those things happen.

Children want to learn. It's natural. It's not something "95% of them would rather not do". If it is than you're doing it wrong.

It's the factory model school system that stomps the love of learning out of children in the first place. It also attempts to eliminate their ability for critical independent thought. I'm very grateful that I wasn't traditionally schooled because I don't think I would have the same love of learning I do (I'd go to college my entire life if I could, even without the parties).

[manic expression]

You're dramatically underestimating children. Did you watch that video? Schools like this already exist, and none of those things happen.
No offense, but the video is a whole lot of bombastic rhetoric and flowery language ("natural state of being"?) with some videos of small children voting on whether to indict a peer. The video decries mandatory schooling as if it's a bad thing, which I don't quite understand. Its biggest problem, though, is how it conflates different factors of inefficient capitalist education into one issue: rote regurgitation is of course a negative thing, but that can be rid of by increasing the amount of teachers, training and paying them well, letting them tailor their plans to the individual needs of much, much smaller classes and so on. You don't need to have students vote on everything to accomplish this.

One example: I've spoken to teachers of foreign languages and they almost always echo the same concern, that being it's simply not feasible to effectively teach a class of more than 8 or so students. It's exceedingly difficult to catch and correct individual mistakes, review pronunciation, introduce grammar to a class of 12/15/20. Simply making class sizes smaller (ideally with more than one instructor) and increasing teacher flexibility would go a long, long way.

In all honesty, the biggest problem in education is that a lot of impoverished pupils are too worried about everything else in their life that they simply don't have the time or the energy to deal with their ill-funded, ill-organized schools. Abolishing the roots of poverty would likely get rid of most of the barriers.


Children want to learn. It's natural. It's not something "95% of them would rather not do". If it is than you're doing it wrong.How many children read about history, science, math, literature, languages...completely on their own? Very few, it's not "natural" to want to figure out the periodic table of elements. It's not "natural" to know beforehand that The Great Gatsby and Macbeth are probably worth reading. It's not "natural" to divine the difference between the Ionic and Corinthian orders. Guidance, and with it authority of the teacher, is a part of learning. If it wasn't, then no education system would be necessary in the first place.


It's the factory model school system that stomps the love of learning out of children in the first place. It also attempts to eliminate their ability for critical independent thought. I'm very grateful that I wasn't traditionally schooled because I don't think I would have the same love of learning I do (I'd go to college my entire life if I could, even without the parties).Love of learning isn't enough. A lot of people love to learn but don't have proper direction, and therefore they don't learn nearly as well as they would have otherwise.

Going back to an earlier point, identifying the authority of teachers with the factory model school system just doesn't follow. If anything, the factory approach takes authority away from teachers because the standardized test is king. The video never makes this distinction.

But it's not always what the video makes it out to be. Students aren't always "humiliated, made to feel stupid" by teachers. It's not "someone in the front telling those not in the front how to think", good teachers just don't do that, and I say that as someone who's been in private and public schools of many different structures and philosophies. I went to a school that was all about letter grades and a school that didn't have grades at all. I've had all kinds of teachers both good and bad (looking back, I was lucky enough to be assigned to some really superb educators), but the one thing that stayed the same is that good teachers kept their control over the classroom, and without that it usually turned into a big joke.

[Susurrus]

Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire in .pdf

http://libcom.org/library/pedagogy-oppressed-paulo-freire

[Firebrand]

No offense, but the video is a whole lot of bombastic rhetoric and flowery language ("natural state of being"?) with some videos of small children voting on whether to indict a peer. The video decries mandatory schooling as if it's a bad thing, which I don't quite understand. Its biggest problem, though, is how it conflates different factors of inefficient capitalist education into one issue: rote regurgitation is of course a negative thing, but that can be rid of by increasing the amount of teachers, training and paying them well, letting them tailor their plans to the individual needs of much, much smaller classes and so on. You don't need to have students vote on everything to accomplish this..
Yes increasing the number of teachers is definately a good thing. But I think you are overy dismissive of the fact that the purpose of schools in their current form is to turn students into efficient little workers. That have the skills to do the tasks required of them and have also been trained to respect authority.


In all honesty, the biggest problem in education is that a lot of impoverished pupils are too worried about everything else in their life that they simply don't have the time or the energy to deal with their ill-funded, ill-organized schools. Abolishing the roots of poverty would likely get rid of most of the barriers..
It would get rid of the class barriers however the very structure of the school system is alienating and would be so even if class were abolished. The fundamental issue is that school is boring and doesn't teach kids what they want to know. You may say that what kids want to know is not what they need to know. But in my experience it is impossible for anyone else to know what any person needs to know.


How many children read about history, science, math, literature, languages...completely on their own? Very few, it's not "natural" to want to figure out the periodic table of elements. It's not "natural" to know beforehand that The Great Gatsby and Macbeth are probably worth reading. It's not "natural" to divine the difference between the Ionic and Corinthian orders. Guidance, and with it authority of the teacher, is a part of learning. If it wasn't, then no education system would be necessary in the first place..

Well I used to read up on history science and literature on my own does that make me an unnatural child? I liked learning and I hated the school system. I also think that the kids are in the best position to know whether the teacher is any good. I have lostcount of the times I've been stuck with an incompetant teacher that actually has a negative effect on the learning of most kids. But had no power to get rid of them. Also in my experience most kids wouldn't vote out teachers just because they were strict. Quite a few of the stricter teachers were actually quite popular because their lessons were interesting. However they were not just reliant on authority. Good teachers also made an effort to engage the kids with the process. Authority is only required because kids have been turned off education so thoroughly by secondary school. The best way to get kids of any age to ay attention is to interest them. The trouble is they are trying to teacher proof education so that it doesn't matter whether a teacher is good or bad because the kids all come out knowing the same stuff. This allows them to keep teachers wages low. If they put the effort and money into recruiting decent teachers it wouldn't be necessary to try and force the kids attention by shouting at them. IMO if you have to shout at the kids to get them to listen you've already lost the battle. Yes we were cruel to some teacher to but they were usually the ones that had no hold over our attention other than their position of authority.


Love of learning isn't enough. A lot of people love to learn but don't have proper direction, and therefore they don't learn nearly as well as they would have otherwise..
Well yes sometimes people need direction in learning but on the whole they know when that is and forcing it on them will just make them switch off.


Going back to an earlier point, identifying the authority of teachers with the factory model school system just doesn't follow. If anything, the factory approach takes authority away from teachers because the standardized test is king. The video never makes this distinction..
It enforces a hiararchy, the teachers may actually have less authority but the authority structure makes them take on the role of middle managers almost. They are the agents of authority rather than authority figures in themselves


But it's not always what the video makes it out to be. Students aren't always "humiliated, made to feel stupid" by teachers. It's not "someone in the front telling those not in the front how to think", good teachers just don't do that, and I say that as someone who's been in private and public schools of many different structures and philosophies. I went to a school that was all about letter grades and a school that didn't have grades at all. I've had all kinds of teachers both good and bad (looking back, I was lucky enough to be assigned to some really superb educators), but the one thing that stayed the same is that good teachers kept their control over the classroom, and without that it usually turned into a big joke.
Yes good teachers don't do that, however the lack of student democracy means that students have no power over whether they have good teachers or bad teachers. I don't see why teachers ability to keep the attention of the class would be undermined by democracy. Surely being voted in would legitimise them. If the students elected a teacher then surely they would have to think that teacher had something useful to say. Rather than thinking "I hate this teacher so I won't listen to them" they would think "I helped elect this teacher because I think they have something useful to say, so i'd better listen".

[blake 3:17]

My first successful strike action was against a teacher in high school. The entire class dropped the course, and the school had to find a replacement.

I know two long term very serious radical activists who`s first activism was against school uniforms.

A lot of the `Student Power`literature and politics has been pretty bad. Schools, colleges and universities have tremendous potential for promoting radical politics and consciousness. The best stuff Ive experienced has been when students have formed solidarity groups with workers on or off school grounds or against imperialism and war.

I was in a couple of Left groups that had Student Power factions & they were largely ineffective.

The most coherent statement Ive ever come across was the Port Huron Decalaration, which was the founding document of the Students for a Democratic Society: http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111huron.html

The new SDS has their site here: http://www.newsds.org/ I have no idea how active they are at this point.

In Canada we have the Canadian Federation of Students, a left liberal social democratic organization. http://www.cfs-fcee.ca/html/english/home/index.php It can sometimes be very radical and other times be very business uniony. It depends on whose their and what is going on in the rest of the world.

The Fight Fees group at the Univesity of Toronto was pretty interesting, but I think theyève dissolved: http://fightfeescoalition.blogspot.com/

[manic expression]

@Firebrand, sorry for the long reply, I'd like to keep this stuff concise but it's pretty interesting and complex :):

Do you think all authority in the classroom is a negative thing? You make the point that authority is there to counteract students turning off, which is a result of subjects not being interesting to them, and that's true to a large extent, but at the same time I think students turning off will happen one way or another, and at that point it's important to not let them turn off. More on this below.


The fundamental issue is that school is boring and doesn't teach kids what they want to know. You may say that what kids want to know is not what they need to know. But in my experience it is impossible for anyone else to know what any person needs to know.How do you figure this? It's about the learned deciding that someone should know something about physics or Shakespeare or the Napoleonic Era. The establishment of basic academic standards is extremely important for a few reasons: first and foremost, young men and women usually don't (and IMO, shouldn't) know exactly what field they're going to enter. I thought I would only study history and literature because those were the two things I was best at, but little did I know that I ended up interested in a field that demanded a knowledge of math and physics as well as the humanities. Thankfully I was exposed to those subjects...if it was up to me I wouldn't have been (I spent a great deal of my earlier education annoyed at the fact that I had to learn them).

Second, establishing an academic foundation for children to learn uniformly defines the base of knowledge for a society, and indeed for a civilization. Who we are is very much determined by what we learn, and what we all learn in common. It provides a basis for intellectual growth in different directions, but to start out with a common set of knowledge is surely a positive thing. If not for that, algebra would be just another form of math that some people might figure out and others might not.

Third, some subjects for study are just better than others. Who would rather organize study of the works of Massimo Stanzione over those of Caravaggio? "The canon" is sometimes crap, but a lot of it is there for a good reason, and jettisoning it for the sake of "democracy" hurts us all IMO.

Fourth, introducing things to students is simply one of the reasons why education is so exciting. I would have probably not gotten into Marx, and thus Marxism, had I not been assigned it in college. So yes, by all means, introduce things to students.


Well I used to read up on history science and literature on my own does that make me an unnatural child? I liked learning and I hated the school system. I also think that the kids are in the best position to know whether the teacher is any good. I have lostcount of the times I've been stuck with an incompetant teacher that actually has a negative effect on the learning of most kids. But had no power to get rid of them. Also in my experience most kids wouldn't vote out teachers just because they were strict. Quite a few of the stricter teachers were actually quite popular because their lessons were interesting. However they were not just reliant on authority. Good teachers also made an effort to engage the kids with the process. Authority is only required because kids have been turned off education so thoroughly by secondary school. The best way to get kids of any age to ay attention is to interest them. The trouble is they are trying to teacher proof education so that it doesn't matter whether a teacher is good or bad because the kids all come out knowing the same stuff. This allows them to keep teachers wages low. If they put the effort and money into recruiting decent teachers it wouldn't be necessary to try and force the kids attention by shouting at them. IMO if you have to shout at the kids to get them to listen you've already lost the battle. Yes we were cruel to some teacher to but they were usually the ones that had no hold over our attention other than their position of authority.I was in the same boat, I read history and religious studies just because I was interested in them, but I'd be lying if I told you most kids I knew did that.

I don't think kids are necessarily in a good position to know if the teacher is effective. I know I've absolutely despised teachers that I later saw were doing a great job. I've also participated in the ridicule of teachers who opened up entire worlds for me and to whom I owe more thanks than I can imagine (one example, I remember always looking forward to first period in high school because we acted like complete douchebags the whole class...and yet partially because of that class I now speak Spanish and developed a lifelong love of language learning and it's improved my life 100 times over; what's more is that I was essentially forced into that first Spanish class).

My point is that sooner or later, most kids are going to be "turned off". It happens...I get turned off today and I'm a fairly intellectually curious person. You make a good point that the best teachers make it seem like they're not using any authority, but that's a damn high expectation for all teachers to reach, and regardless authority is still a valuable asset when tardiness and spit balls start up, no?

And let's be realistic here, having bad teachers is not a function of authority itself but of a decrepit school system that is trying to find ways to not adequately train teachers. Had you been able to vote out your bad teachers, I have absolutely no doubt that the next one in wouldn't have been so much better. Good teachers in this system are there in spite of everything, and many teachers would be good teachers were they not trying to deal with their lack of supplies and a group of students who have bigger things to worry about in their day (like whether their house will have the heat on that night) than the subject matter. As I said, abolishing capitalism and poverty will go a long way to ameliorating the situation.

Fully agreed on your points about both shouting and training.


Well yes sometimes people need direction in learning but on the whole they know when that is and forcing it on them will just make them switch off.Sometimes, sometimes not. It depends on how it's done. I actually wish more subjects were forced on me when I was younger, not fewer.

[Firebrand]

@Firebrand, sorry for the long reply, I'd like to keep this stuff concise but it's pretty interesting and complex :):.
Better to say too much than too little


Do you think all authority in the classroom is a negative thing? You make the point that authority is there to counteract students turning off, which is a result of subjects not being interesting to them, and that's true to a large extent, but at the same time I think students turning off will happen one way or another, and at that point it's important to not let them turn off. More on this below..

I think that any teacher reliant on authority to control a class is either not doing their job properly or has been given a class that has already been so switched of by the education system that trying to teach them anything is an uphill battle. I do think that students should respect a teachers knowledge but that isn't the same as them respecting a teachers authority. Also with smaller classes the use of authority for control becomes less important I don't know why this is, but from my observations I am convinced its true. I've seen kids that in other classes were completely out of control calm right down in small classes of under 10. Possibly a lot of the misbehavior is actually attention seeking, i don't know but it is shocking how badly an increase in class size impacts on behaviour.


How do you figure this? It's about the learned deciding that someone should know something about physics or Shakespeare or the Napoleonic Era. The establishment of basic academic standards is extremely important for a few reasons: first and foremost, young men and women usually don't (and IMO, shouldn't) know exactly what field they're going to enter. I thought I would only study history and literature because those were the two things I was best at, but little did I know that I ended up interested in a field that demanded a knowledge of math and physics as well as the humanities. Thankfully I was exposed to those subjects...if it was up to me I wouldn't have been (I spent a great deal of my earlier education annoyed at the fact that I had to learn them).
I don't have all the answers but i do know that if there's one thing guranteed to switch kids off learning its being forced to study something they hate. Possible there should be minimum requirements fo subjects needed to function in society e.g. literacy, numeracy. But the kids allowed to choose when they want to study them.


Second, establishing an academic foundation for children to learn uniformly defines the base of knowledge for a society, and indeed for a civilization. Who we are is very much determined by what we learn, and what we all learn in common. It provides a basis for intellectual growth in different directions, but to start out with a common set of knowledge is surely a positive thing. If not for that, algebra would be just another form of math that some people might figure out and others might not.
Well standardised schooling never helped me understand algebra, I never figured it out.:lol: While yes all children need to learn, uniform learning is an attempt to force a whole range of very different people into a one size fits all system and expect them all to turn out the same. While I personally did quite well out of the education system because I was good at essays and exams, and quite happy to learn by listening to the teacher and taking notes, I know plenty of other people who would rather have learnt by researching it on their own or by working with a group on an activity linked to the subject. People aren't all the same and so what people need from education is not the same.

Third, some subjects for study are just better than others. Who would rather organize study of the works of Massimo Stanzione over those of Caravaggio? "The canon" is sometimes crap, but a lot of it is there for a good reason, and jettisoning it for the sake of "democracy" hurts us all IMO.

I don't know who either of those people are, and I feel none the poorer for it. i also don't feel like being able to quote vast tracts of Hamlet has enhanced my life in any meaningful way, just because something is good or interesting doesn't mean people need to know it. If its interesting then some people will learn it, if it isn't but its useful then some people will learn it. If it's neither then no-one needs to know it.


Fourth, introducing things to students is simply one of the reasons why education is so exciting. I would have probably not gotten into Marx, and thus Marxism, had I not been assigned it in college. So yes, by all means, introduce things to students.

I never said student's shouldn't be introduced to things. That is the whole purpose of education. However students shouldn't be forced to learn something they don't want to. The teacher should to my mind be there to offer knowledge. There would still be lessons and the teacher would still decide the lesson plan because they know the matierial. However if a student doesn't enjoy a lesson they should be free to walk out at any time and go to a different lesson.


I was in the same boat, I read history and religious studies just because I was interested in them, but I'd be lying if I told you most kids I knew did that..
Most kids aren't interested because they've been completly alienated from education. They have been trained to see education at something that is forced upon them not something they should seek for its own sake. The damage starts from their first year and gets worse all the way up to GCSE. At GCSE things do start to improve but by then its too late for a lot of kids. And actually i've noticed that even the most notoriously disinterested kids tend to let their guard down during discussion lessons. I've been surprised by the people who get involved.


I don't think kids are necessarily in a good position to know if the teacher is effective. I know I've absolutely despised teachers that I later saw were doing a great job. I've also participated in the ridicule of teachers who opened up entire worlds for me and to whom I owe more thanks than I can imagine (one example, I remember always looking forward to first period in high school because we acted like complete douchebags the whole class...and yet partially because of that class I now speak Spanish and developed a lifelong love of language learning and it's improved my life 100 times over; what's more is that I was essentially forced into that first Spanish class).
I can only speak for my own experience and I agree that some of the lower years kids aren't exactly balanced in their judgement of teachers. But I've found that once they get to GCSE at least kids start admitting that while they don't like a teacher on a personal level they think that being in that class is the right thing for them. I remember I had a history teacher who was extremely strict and unpopular, however every single one of her class was extremely glad to be there because they knew that she was teaching them properly. And i've had numerous instances where the maternity cover for a strict teacher was resented despite being more easy going because they weren't as good at teaching.
I've found I never learn very well at subjects i've been forced to take. I was forced to take french and as a result didn't put any effort in and have now forgotten every word. Spanish however I chose to take and as a result I may not be fluent but I can make myself understood and plan to improve.


My point is that sooner or later, most kids are going to be "turned off". It happens...I get turned off today and I'm a fairly intellectually curious person. You make a good point that the best teachers make it seem like they're not using any authority, but that's a damn high expectation for all teachers to reach, and regardless authority is still a valuable asset when tardiness and spit balls start up, no?.
Yes but the question we need to be asking is why they are turned off. I never said the best teachers make it look like they're not using authority, quite often they clearly are. But that isn't why the kids pay attention, they pay attention because the teacher is teaching well. I think lateness is far too over focused. At the point where kids realise that if they are going to be late its best not to show up at school at all because they will get in more trouble for lateness than absence there is clearly something wrong.
I never encountered spit balls but then I was at a girls school, probably they could be convicted of hygine enfringements and sentanced to detention by a tribunal. Just because the teacher doesn't have authority doesn't mean theres no rules.


And let's be realistic here, having bad teachers is not a function of authority itself but of a decrepit school system that is trying to find ways to not adequately train teachers. Had you been able to vote out your bad teachers, I have absolutely no doubt that the next one in wouldn't have been so much better. Good teachers in this system are there in spite of everything, and many teachers would be good teachers were they not trying to deal with their lack of supplies and a group of students who have bigger things to worry about in their day (like whether their house will have the heat on that night) than the subject matter. As I said, abolishing capitalism and poverty will go a long way to ameliorating the situation.

Agree completely. My argument is that authority is only necessary because of bad teachers. In a lot of situations it is used as a substitute for teaching ability, that is required because the govt wants to cheap out on teachers training, wage and staff numbers.


Sometimes, sometimes not. It depends on how it's done. I actually wish more subjects were forced on me when I was younger, not fewer.
I would have preferred to have more classes and subjects available and had the right to choose between them. I think I would have wasted less of my time on things I hated if that had been the case. But thats just my perspective, as a child of very strong opinions I probably wasn't typical.


Sorry for the excessively long response:)
I guess what we can take from this discussion is that everyones experienc eof the education system is different.

[Renegade Saint]

This American Life had a very good show on the Brooklyn Free School. They stated that a) many of the children had behavior problems or other issues in traditional schools, b) that *nearly all* of its graduates have gone on to success in traditional accredited colleges. How many schools can you say that for?
One of the students said (and I'm paraphrasing, I'll put the audio up when it becomes available) "I've gotten so used to discussing and voting and deciding for myself on things at school that sometimes I'll have an issue outside of school and think 'well lets vote on it' then realize that you can't. I feel sorry for adults because they can't call a meeting if something at work is bothering them or they have an issue."

Isn't that exactly the attitude that we should be fostering as socialists?

Seriously, once I post the audio listen to it manic expression. You'll see that all the concerns you've expressed are groundless. Turns out, if you allow people (even young people) the power to make the decisions that are important in their lives they do a pretty good job. Imagine that.

[El Louton]

Nice idea but wouldn't work till +16

[Tim Cornelis]

Although I am not particularly in favour of democratic education, it is interesting to see that manic expression is basically reciting all the arguments used against stateless communism and anarchism.

The problem with arguments against communism and anarchism questioning their feasibility is often thinking of communism and anarchism within the framework (that is, mindset) of capitalism. Manic expression does the same by assuming student democracy within the framework of contemporary school structures.

Children are naturally inclined to learn by their own effort--it's human nature. Reducing children by subjecting them to standardized impersonal tests and structures removes much of this motivation.

The only problem I have is that a child will only learn one-sided things and not develop knowledge in general, which may lead to the child, now adolescent, not being able to go to college because he lacks some of the essential knowledge.

[Renegade Saint]

Nice idea but wouldn't work till +16
Actually it does. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/424/kid-politics?act=3

[Renegade Saint]

Although I am not particularly in favour of democratic education, it is interesting to see that manic expression is basically reciting all the arguments used against stateless communism and anarchism.

The problem with arguments against communism and anarchism questioning their feasibility is often thinking of communism and anarchism within the framework (that is, mindset) of capitalism. Manic expression does the same by assuming student democracy within the framework of contemporary school structures.

Children are naturally inclined to learn by their own effort--it's human nature. Reducing children by subjecting them to standardized impersonal tests and structures removes much of this motivation.

The only problem I have is that a child will only learn one-sided things and not develop knowledge in general, which may lead to the child, now adolescent, not being able to go to college because he lacks some of the essential knowledge.
It is funny how people like manic expression are reciting all the arguments against workers' self-management (but since Stalinists don't believe in that anyway it shouldn't be surprising).

If you listen to the link I just posted kids who go to the Brooklyn Free School nearly all go on to success in traditional accredited colleges.

[manic expression]

Hey Firebrand I'll get a response out to you in a bit.


This American Life had a very good show on the Brooklyn Free School. They stated that a) many of the children had behavior problems or other issues in traditional schools, b) that *nearly all* of its graduates have gone on to success in traditional accredited colleges. How many schools can you say that for?
A lot of schools with a self-selecting student body.


One of the students said (and I'm paraphrasing, I'll put the audio up when it becomes available) "I've gotten so used to discussing and voting and deciding for myself on things at school that sometimes I'll have an issue outside of school and think 'well lets vote on it' then realize that you can't. I feel sorry for adults because they can't call a meeting if something at work is bothering them or they have an issue."

Isn't that exactly the attitude that we should be fostering as socialists?The issue is that it isn't an attitude you seek to foster as much as a policy you seek to implement. Those are two very different things. There's nothing against children taking part in democracy in their communities...but when it comes to what is to be studied that should be in the hands of society at large and not children who have an immediate interest in avoiding something they're disinterested in.

You say that people should be allowed the power to make decisions that are important in their lives. Well, that's a fair sentiment...but what about people who don't always know what's important in their lives? If you want to teach children, you introduce to them the best of as many subjects as you can and you don't ask them for permission to do so.

If you had your way, pupils would be able to get through K-12 without studying math or science or literature or history or whatever they didn't feel like working at. That's debilitating when students don't know exactly what they want to do, what they're best at, what their potential is. Having an overarching structure for schooling helps students work through difficulties toward an understanding of important topics.

Go through any school K-12 school you like and ask students there how excited they'd be to learn the geography of Europe, Africa or Asia. Chances are they wouldn't be too big on it...but they should still be taught the subject so they know where Lisbon and Cape Town and Nepal are. Do you disagree?

By the way, is "Kid Politics" the audio you're referring to?


It is funny how people like manic expression are reciting all the arguments against workers' self-management (but since Stalinists don't believe in that anyway it shouldn't be surprising).Nice try but I think you're capable of better argumentation than that.


Although I am not particularly in favour of democratic education, it is interesting to see that manic expression is basically reciting all the arguments used against stateless communism and anarchism.
It's not the same thing.


Manic expression does the same by assuming student democracy within the framework of contemporary school structures.Except those in favor of student democracy brought up contemporary school structures, and so I discussed contemporary school structures.

[Renegade Saint]

I'd be perfectly willing to experiment with this in one school in the district, just to see how it goes. If your lack of faith in youth is justified than it shouldn't be adopted, although the free schools that exist today already cast significant doubt on it. Would you object to at least trying it on a trial basis?

Your main argument rests on the assumption that you can simply force people to learn against their will (hence your argument that we must force kids to learn science/math/geography, etc). Evidence seems to indicate that this isn't the case. There's millions of high school graduates in this country who don't know even the basic facts about any of those subjects today. Yet they passed courses on those subjects. They "learned" (ie they could mindlessly spout back what they were told) and then as soon as the course is over they promptly forgot it. Have you ever wondered why so many of the courses in college seem to repeat those that are required in high school? Because people didn't learn it the first time around because they didn't want to. You can brainwash people to repeat back to you whatever you want if you coerce them enough, but that isn't learning. Learning means being able to understand, put in context, and think critically. You don't do any of those by making people repeat back to you the capital of Nigeria.

The audio links feature descriptions. It's the one that's about the Brooklyn Free School.


Nice try but I think you're capable of better argumentation than that.
That was kind of a cheap shot at low hanging fruit, I admit. Repudiate this statement and I'll take it back, "One-man management [is] the most important principle of the organisation of socialist economy.” L. Gintzburg and E. Pashukanis, Course of Soviet Economic Law (Russian), Moscow 1935, Vol.1, p.8.

[manic expression]

I'd be perfectly willing to experiment with this in one school in the district, just to see how it goes. If your lack of faith in youth is justified than it shouldn't be adopted, although the free schools that exist today already cast significant doubt on it. Would you object to at least trying it on a trial basis?
I wouldn't be against trying it out, or even having it as a secondary option. As someone who struggled and struggles with ADD I appreciate the existence of alternative forms of education, but I am still wary of having kids being able to not learn math just because they don't feel like it (probably because if that was the case when I was a kid I wouldn't know algebra from algae).


Your main argument rests on the assumption that you can simply force people to learn against their will (hence your argument that we must force kids to learn science/math/geography, etc). Evidence seems to indicate that this isn't the case. There's millions of high school graduates in this country who don't know even the basic facts about any of those subjects today. Yet they passed courses on those subjects. They "learned" (ie they could mindlessly spout back what they were told) and then as soon as the course is over they promptly forgot it. Have you ever wondered why so many of the courses in college seem to repeat those that are required in high school? Because people didn't learn it the first time around because they didn't want to. You can brainwash people to repeat back to you whatever you want if you coerce them enough, but that isn't learning. Learning means being able to understand, put in context, and think critically. You don't do any of those by making people repeat back to you the capital of Nigeria.
I think the assumption is that some subjects need to be mandated so that some students work to understand them even if it's not their strongest area. Learning oftentimes does involve repeating things, like conjugation tables and so on. It's not brainwashing so much as getting through activities that most students might not find all that exciting. Most US students don't know where Nigeria is, and it's because no one put them in a classroom and taught them the countries of Africa and expected that they learn it.

You're entirely right about the pathetic performance of education in capitalist America, but this isn't an indictment of every form of structured education, it's an indictment of this specific form of structured education. The most important thing would be to decrease class sizes and ideally have more than one teacher per classroom. I would also propose an increase in class time and a decrease in homework.

Thinking critically is indeed important, the present education system produces as its best pupils good students, but not good thinkers. I went to a "prestigious" college and most of the discussion-based classes had very little discussion because these products of the country's best high schools didn't have the ability to say something piercing about a given subject. At the same time, what's the use in thinking critically if someone doesn't have a solid foundation of knowledge with which to think about critically? If I can think critically, that's great, but if I can think critically while knowing that the 30 Years' War lasted from 1618 to 1648, ravaged most of present-day Germany, established the Peace of Westphalia that resulted in Scandinavia and Germany north of Bavaria becoming Protestant and a balance of power that would shape Europe in the coming centuries...then that's a lot better.

I don't encourage making lectures and rote repetition 99% of education, I want to recognize that lectures and repetition are sometimes useful methods in learning.

Lastly, I would posit that socialist society has a responsibility to impress progressive ideas and views. If socialist schools don't teach children the place and achievements of socialist society then they're not fulfilling their duty to future generations and to the world. You can't do that if you have no overarching structure for education.


The audio links feature descriptions. It's the one that's about the Brooklyn Free School.
Give me a day or so to check it out.


That was kind of a cheap shot at low hanging fruit, I admit. Repudiate this statement and I'll take it back, "One-man management [is] the most important principle of the organisation of socialist economy.” L. Gintzburg and E. Pashukanis, Course of Soviet Economic Law (Russian), Moscow 1935, Vol.1, p.8.
I would have protested that system of one man management of factories, yes. However, by around 1938 I would have seen the sense in it as it became apparent that the USSR had to defend itself against fascism, and a single manager usually does things with more efficiency than a committee. The shame is that there was never a reappraisal of these structures once fascism was defeated. However, while I don't think it the best form of management, so long as the manager is appointed through working-class organs then it's not in and of itself a contradiction of socialism...it's not what I would propose but it's important for me to recognize that my personal preferences do not dictate the realities of socialist society.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's not the same thing.

Yet virtually all your arguments are used frequently by anti-anarchists and anti-communists.


However, having students run a school is a disaster waiting to happen. How long until schoolwork itself is abolished?

Anarchism/communism will lead to disaster waiting to happen. How long until order is abolished?


Talk to any good teacher and they'll tell you that their job is only possible because they have some form of authority...even imagined authority is extremely important.

Talk to any good police officer (or politician) and they'll tell you that their job is only possible because they have some form of authority...even imagined authority is extremely important.


Their job is to get a group of young people to do activities that 95% of them would rather not do, and accordingly most of a teacher's job is just making sure the class isn't descending into chaos. Imagine how that would work if students had ultimate authority over them. It'd be a farce.

Their job is to get a group of people to do activities (e.g. abide the law, pay taxes, respect property rights) that 95% of them would rather not do, and accordingly most of a police officer's/politician's job is just making sure society isn't descending into chaos. Imagine how that would work if all people had ultimate authority over society. It'd be a farce.


Sh*t, in some of my classes we drove teachers to tears because we were such jerks..."student democracy" would just enhance and institutionalize that behavior.

Sh*t, in sometimes we drove cops to tears because we were such jerks with all the rioting and stuff..."anarchism/communism" would just enhance and institutionalize that behavior.


Oh, and when would "student democracy" start? Kindergarten? At age 10? And if some pupils can't vote just yet then it would essentially be the older classes determining everything for the younger ones...I can see it now, daily mandatory swirlies for younger students at 10am.

it would essentially be the powerful determining everything for the weak...I can see it now, daily mandatory swirlies for weak individuals at 10am. tyranny of the majority, mob rule!




Except those in favor of student democracy brought up contemporary school structures, and so I discussed contemporary school structures.

That's not what I meant. Contemporary school structures are: mandatory attendance; classes arranged according to age, primarily; etc.

You assumed student democracy within that particular framework, which is not the case. There is no mandatory attendance so no reason to annoy your teacher, there are no tools by which to enforce your majoritarian rule, therefore no tyranny of the majority. In a democratic school collective decisions are taken collectively and individual decisions taken individually.

[manic expression]

Yet virtually all your arguments are used frequently by anti-anarchists and anti-communists.
The argument against communism is that students shouldn't be able to not attend a class if they don't feel like it?


Anarchism/communism will lead to disaster waiting to happen. How long until order is abolished?
I don't think anarchism can successfully happen at all, which is why I'm not an anarchist. I think that because of political considerations, not because of a concern for the efficiency of education.


Talk to any good police officer (or politician) and they'll tell you that their job is only possible because they have some form of authority...even imagined authority is extremely important.
Authority is not the problem, the basis of authority and its uses is the problem.


That's not what I meant. Contemporary school structures are: mandatory attendance; classes arranged according to age, primarily; etc.

You assumed student democracy within that particular framework, which is not the case. There is no mandatory attendance so no reason to annoy your teacher, there are no tools by which to enforce your majoritarian rule, therefore no tyranny of the majority. In a democratic school collective decisions are taken collectively and individual decisions taken individually.
So if a kid individually decides to not study math, geography or history, s/he leaves school not knowing the first things about those three subjects? How do you propose we term this an education system if there's no requirement for education?

[marl]

If I may add something (and sorry not to contribute to this debate), I'm in highschool and when a teacher forgets to come to class (it happens quite a bit), most students just do work. I, personally, draw anarchy A's on the boards and throw shit around.

[Hermes]

I'd just like to say that there is definitely a point in an individual person's development when schooling as it exists today becomes not only restrictive, but detrimental to learning.

It isn't simply about 'not liking math', but if a person has mastered the basics of a subject, found that he is not interested in that subject, but vastly more interested in another, why then should he be restricted to that subject when he could be specializing? It creates mental stagnation and the extinguishing of intellectual passion.

As it stands, specialization occurs only in college, and then only if you can afford to go. For those who have developed at a faster rate than the system has intended them to, they most likely lose all the drive that they had, because their free time is taken up as well as their school time, leaving no room for them to adequately pursue individual interests.

-


So if a kid individually decides to not study math, geography or history, s/he leaves school not knowing the first things about those three subjects? How do you propose we term this an education system if there's no requirement for education?

Most students know what they 'need' to know about these subjects (which is an entirely subjective analysis and I'm confused why you present it as an objective one) after about the 8th grade, and yet specialization doesn't truly start until college.

--

Oh my, apologies. I didn't realize how old this thread was.