Communist Education System [Archive]

CommunityBeliever

13th March 2012, 03:07

Unmodified homo sapiens do not reach sufficient levels of cognitive development before adolescensce so it is sensible to have compulsory education up to middle school. The pre-adolescent education system should assist students with their natural cognitive development and teach them basic facts like evolution by natural selection, that there are eight planets in the solar system, and all matter in the universe is reducible to a few elements in the periodic table.

Beyond that I would abolish high school. Compulsory high school is a terrible thing because almost everyone at that point is old enough to be independent. We should grant students their independence at that point and we should treat them as peers rather then as children.

Instead of going to high school students should be allowed to explore the world for themselves including the digital world and the physical world. Every student should be able to visit every where in the world and every student should have Internet access to explore the digital world as well. Furthermore, we will have far more advanced digital productivity tools then we have today so every student will be able to explore their own creativity by building computer programs and physical structures.

Brosa Luxemburg

13th March 2012, 12:47

Tim Cornelis

13th March 2012, 12:54

Unmodified homo sapiens do not reach sufficient levels of cognitive development before adolescensce so it is sensible to have compulsory education up to middle school.

This. While democratic education seems a good idea, I am struggling with the fact that cognitive abilities of those below the age of 24 are insufficiently developing making it so that they have trouble overseeing the consequences of their actions.

Jimmie Higgins

13th March 2012, 14:17

I'd like to see education done on a voluntary and ongoing way.

Maybe for young children there'd be some kind of basic set of skills that they are taught - maybe in the context of free socialized day care which would not only allow young children to interact with other children and learn basic skills but would also allow the parents to be able to have daycare anytime 24 hours a day. Maybe during the day there'd be more teachers available and so children could be droped off anytime and the teacher's lesson would be more centered around the individual kid. At night obviously it would be more just supervision of play and sleep.

Beyond the age when children aren't all that independent (maybe middle-school age) and after they've mastered basic skills like reading and basic math, then education could be done on an interest-basis. Like grad students who have a professor advising them, children could set some areas of study and get guidance in creating their own lesson plans, get some criticism from the teacher, or help with difficulties.

Basically I'd like to see competitive education, standards, age-based skill requirements, done away with in favor of the individual education wanted.

As others have suggested, I think the administration of schools should be done between councils of the teachers and the students or the community/parents for young children.

Rooster

13th March 2012, 14:52

In socialism, public education would be mandatory and so would literacy, basic mathematical, historical (including socialist history) and scientific knowledge, workers' skills, basic physical fitness, knowledge of Marxist-Leninist theory (since all the recent socialist states have only been Marxist-Leninist), and other skills a student would need to become a productive member of socialist society. All education, including all higher education, would be top-notch, completely free, and state owned. No exceptions. Marxist-Leninist states do not accept failing educational systems. Just look at Cuba. It has the second highest literacy rate in the entire world and the first highest literacy rate in the third world and Latin America.

I have no idea why you're always trying to boss people around. Education should be mandatory? That's not how you encourage people. Education, like everything else, should be voluntary. And I have no idea why you're wanting to force people to learn marxism-leninism. I actually think your approach to education doesn't differ much from regular education under bourgeois society. Education shouldn't be about trying to make a person a productive member of society, it really should be about trying to foment a love of learning, a yearning to learn whatever you want. I don't know if you're in education at the moment or what level you're on, but I've seen how exactly this sort of forced learning to create productive memebers of society has really put kids and people off from learning. And I mean real learning such as learning how to think for oneself, how to apply analytical tools and what not, not just remembering facts by rote.

As to how it would be organised? I don't think it should be done by a central state. Historically, the age of empire and modern nation states has been the age of centralised and standardised primary education. Mostly as a way to create good citizens. Teachers today don't agree with such a practice, seeing it's limitations and restricting their ability to actually teach with the state constantly trying to stick it's nose into it. I don't think this is the way forward as it's barely working now. There should be more of an intercourse within society as to what to teach and for what ends and I think teachers and people who are educated (and those in education) know more about this. Kids should have more say in what they learn and forcing them to do it when they don't want to isn't going to solve the problem.

Deicide

13th March 2012, 15:06

Who wants to learn about Marxism-Leninism (to implement it)? It's about as relevant as Alchemy.

Rooster

13th March 2012, 15:09

Who wants to learn about Marxism-Leninism? It's about as relevant as Alchemy.

You have to read what he wrote: for a person to become a "productive member of society" they would need to have an education in marxism-leninism. I'm guessing that in his ideal world, the vanguard party would be in charge and you'd have to know marxism-leninism just to get by without getting sent to the gulag for counter-revolutionary activity. And of course, no one would get any choice in the matter and everyone would be forced to go and learn it.

Deicide

13th March 2012, 15:12

You have to read what he wrote: for a person to become a "productive member of society" they would need to have an education in marxism-leninism. I'm guessing that in his ideal world, the vanguard party would be in charge and you'd have to know marxism-leninism just to get by without getting sent to the gulag for counter-revolutionary activity. And of course, no one would get any choice in the matter and everyone would be forced to go and learn it.

Tankie wet dream.

Strannik

13th March 2012, 17:32

An educational system in any society has to produce the kind of people that particular society needs. Communist educational system has to produce communists, people who strive to improve the society through improving themselves and themselves through society.

Everything else (total access to latest scientific and educational information, practical learning, personally adjusted programs, etc) is just technology. Any society can use technology.

In practice, Soviet higher scientific education was one of the most successful ventures of USSR. Anyone could get in, all expenses paid by the state. Only thing you needed was the ability. And professors were under no obligation to let you succeed - to get a degree in my father's time was ten times harder than it is now. There was less competition and more collaboration between students.

Vyacheslav Brolotov

13th March 2012, 18:30

Point is: Marxist-Leninist education has been the only socialist education ever tried out and it has proved successful.

Deicide

13th March 2012, 18:53

Point is: Marxist-Leninist education has been the only socialist education ever tried out and it has proved successful.

What differed from the current education system? Labelling it ''socialist'' doesn't magically turn it into gold. Apart from being free, it was still an authoritarian system (excessively authoritarian in fact), based on indoctrination, and being subservient to power structures. And it taught falsified history.

Rooster

13th March 2012, 19:13

Point is: Marxist-Leninist education has been the only socialist education ever tried out and it has proved successful.

Point is: just because you're calling it socialist doesn't make it socialist. Article 121 of the Constitution of 1936 declared: "Citizens of the USSR have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal, compulsory, elementary education, be education including higher education, being free of charge". This doesn't divert at all from some western countries. And this is a useful exercise on looking at what was said and looking at what actually happened. For instance, you still have to support yourself the higher up you go and the numbers of people able to attend decreases, still providing inequality. For instance, in the school-year of 1939-40, the total number of students attending all education institutes was:

(number 000s)
Elementary (classes 1-4) 20,471
Junior secondary schools (classes 5-7) 9,715
Full secondary schools (classes 7-10) 1,870
Secondary technical and factory schools 845
Universities and higher technical schools 620

Assuming that all children aged 7-11 attend school, less than half of that number were lucky enough to stay for more than four years. Only one in ten had more than seven years' schooling and less than one in twenty finished the ten-year course (as against ten years' compulsory schooling in capitalist Britain).

And universities weren't free either. Fees were established in 1940 for universities, technical colleges and other high schools, forcing many to leave education before finishing their studies. Between 1928 and 1938, the total number of people admitted to engineering colleges training for industry and transport was 609,200, while only 242,300 graduated. The number admitted to technical colleges was 1,062,000 and the number of graduates was only 362,700.

In 1938, 42.3% of all students in higher schools were children of the intelligentsia.

The decree of 1940 imposed a fee of 150-200 roubles a year for the higher classes of secondary school, 8th, 9th and 10th grades of school, and 300-500 roubles a year for colleges. While at the time the average income of the time was 355 roubles a month and with the wage of many workers actually around 150 a month.

Successful? Maybe. As successful as education in capitalist countries? Nope. Just labelling something as socialist doesn't automatically make it socialist. Education here in Scotland is free to everyone at all levels. Is that more socialist than education in the USSR?

Franz Fanonipants

13th March 2012, 19:15

how many of you fucking crazies are actually pedagogues or educators?

TheGodlessUtopian

13th March 2012, 19:19

how many of you fucking crazies are actually pedagogues or educators?

I wouldn't say many...

gorillafuck

13th March 2012, 19:29

I hope to god that my fellow students never get democratic schooling.

Vyacheslav Brolotov

13th March 2012, 19:30

Point is: just because you're calling it socialist doesn't make it socialist. Article 121 of the Constitution of 1936 declared: "Citizens of the USSR have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal, compulsory, elementary education, be education including higher education, being free of charge". This doesn't divert at all from some western countries. And this is a useful exercise on looking at what was said and looking at what actually happened. For instance, you still have to support yourself the higher up you go and the numbers of people able to attend decreases, still providing inequality. For instance, in the school-year of 1939-40, the total number of students attending all education institutes was:

(number 000s)
Elementary (classes 1-4) 20,471
Junior secondary schools (classes 5-7) 9,715
Full secondary schools (classes 7-10) 1,870
Secondary technical and factory schools 845
Universities and higher technical schools 620

Assuming that all children aged 7-11 attend school, less than half of that number were lucky enough to stay for more than four years. Only one in ten had more than seven years' schooling and less than one in twenty finished the ten-year course (as against ten years' compulsory schooling in capitalist Britain).

And universities weren't free either. Fees were established in 1940 for universities, technical colleges and other high schools, forcing many to leave education before finishing their studies. Between 1928 and 1938, the total number of people admitted to engineering colleges training for industry and transport was 609,200, while only 242,300 graduated. The number admitted to technical colleges was 1,062,000 and the number of graduates was only 362,700.

In 1938, 42.3% of all students in higher schools were children of the intelligentsia.

The decree of 1940 imposed a fee of 150-200 roubles a year for the higher classes of secondary school, 8th, 9th and 10th grades of school, and 300-500 roubles a year for colleges. While at the time the average income of the time was 355 roubles a month and with the wage of many workers actually around 150 a month.

Successful? Maybe. As successful as education in capitalist countries? Nope. Just labelling something as socialist doesn't automatically make it socialist. Education here in Scotland is free to everyone at all levels. Is that more socialist than education in the USSR?

I do not trust those sources that you are using and even if your post were true, stop looking at the past and start looking at present countries like Cuba. And I do not care how many sources you bring up on Cuba, I just went there 2 years ago and I know for a fact that education is 100% free. Plus, any educational system works better than your utopia, psychotic voluntary educational system where students are not forced to learn anything. Come on. It's just an ultra-leftist, utopian wet dream to believe in voluntary education.

Franz Fanonipants

13th March 2012, 19:32

I wouldn't say many...

as an actual, trained, professional educator i just literally want to quote everything communitybeliever said in this thread and laugh at it:

Beyond that I would abolish high school. Compulsory high school is a terrible thing because almost everyone at that point is old enough to be independent. We should grant students their independence at that point and we should treat them as peers rather then as children.

extend minorship to 25, require mandatory schooling to that age.

kids are fucking stupid.

TheGodlessUtopian

13th March 2012, 19:36

I hope to god that my fellow students never get democratic schooling.

Why not?

gorillafuck

13th March 2012, 19:37

Why not?are you homeschooled or something?

TheGodlessUtopian

13th March 2012, 19:40

extend minorship to 25, require mandatory schooling to that age.

kids are fucking stupid.

I would say most people are stupid and are in need of education. The current system has many short comings because of the governing economic system and as a result youth and the people who are fully grown are not imbued with 'smarts.'

TheGodlessUtopian

13th March 2012, 19:41

are you homeschooled or something?

No, night schooled.

Do you mean the current educational system by 'democratic schooling'? Because there is Democratic Education which is more progressive than public schooling.

Franz Fanonipants

13th March 2012, 19:42

I would say most people are stupid and are in need of education. The current system has many short comings because of the governing economic system and as a result youth and the people who are fully grown are not imbued with 'smarts.'

its more an emotional development thing when i say stupid. i know a lot of the main current of anglo-american culture is "welp kids get a job get out of the house at 18 see you later!" but like almost every time i've seen that applied it seems to turn into a bad situation.

18 year olds are not emotionally developed enough to be on their own 100%

Tim Cornelis

13th March 2012, 19:44

are you homeschooled or something?

"Democratic" education doesn't mean the majority of the students get a say over the minority. It means all students take all classes voluntarily and choose their own pace. Collective decisions are taken using participatory democracy.

It's basically a miniature self-governed socialist society. It's definitely not a bad concept, the problem is that brains are not fully developed prior to the age of 24, meaning teens, children, adolescents, etc. have trouble overseeing the consequences of their actions. So the slack in learning, without fully realising that they will need it if they want to become, say, a physician.

Point is: Marxist-Leninist education has been the only socialist education ever tried out and it has proved successful.

By what measure was it successful?

Moreover, you also have anarchist education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchistic_free_school) and democratic schooling.

Franz Fanonipants

13th March 2012, 19:46

guys you are missing the big picture here

unmodified homosapiens are ruining this world

gorillafuck

13th March 2012, 19:49

No, night schooled.have you ever attended regular high school?

Do you mean the current educational system by 'democratic schooling'? Because there is Democratic Education which is more progressive than public schooling.no that is not what I mean.

TheGodlessUtopian

13th March 2012, 19:51

its more an emotional development thing when i say stupid. i know a lot of the main current of anglo-american culture is "welp kids get a job get out of the house at 18 see you later!" but like almost every time i've seen that applied it seems to turn into a bad situation.

18 year olds are not emotionally developed enough to be on their own 100%

I partially agree but in regards to being on their own and emotional development what would you consider 'on their own'? Would you believe that under a socialist system, or better yet communes,they would be more prepared?

Working with gay teenagers who have been kicked out of their homes at a young age and are forced to gain employment and housing as young as 17 I can say that I have seen examples of youth who can handle themselves. While this obviously isn't by any means indicative of youth as a majority it does illustrate that youth can be on their own relatively successfully even in the dog eat dog world of capitalism.

I think it has to do in how society is organized. I also believe that emotional development is something more gained with experience than age (though I guess there is some crossover there).For instance, if a young person is trained to handle the rigors of life on their own do they not have the emotional tools to handle the strains?

TheGodlessUtopian

13th March 2012, 19:52

have you ever attended regular high school

Nope, my brother did for like a week though (lol). :)

Franz Fanonipants

13th March 2012, 19:53

I partially agree but in regards to being on their own and emotional development what would you consider 'on their own'? Would you believe that under a socialist system, or better yet communes,they would be more prepared?

without community, without family or surrogate family.

while i appreciate family is problematic in many situations, i do think that having a central unit of people who have to unconditionally accept and support you is important. obvs thats not going to be everyone's biological family (it should be but you know).

Franz Fanonipants

13th March 2012, 19:54

Nope, my brother did for like a week though (lol). :)

i did four years hard time and it owned and turned me into a better, more compassionate person

TheGodlessUtopian

13th March 2012, 19:56

i did four years hard time and it owned and turned me into a better, more compassionate person

Would have did the opposite for me; but as my teachers say,"Day school isn't for everyone."

Franz Fanonipants

13th March 2012, 20:02

Would have did the opposite for me; but as my teachers say,"Day school isn't for everyone."

idk man, you never know

TheGodlessUtopian

13th March 2012, 20:04

idk man, you never know

In my case I do know, trust me on that.

Ostrinski

13th March 2012, 20:15

Franz Fanonipants

13th March 2012, 20:17

High school was real shitty for me. I dropped out at the beginning of senior year and did online classes and graduated within two months. So I got to sit around all year and get fat while the other motherfuckers were toiling away at academia

i ditched a lot and did drugs and it owned because basically i learned cartel status in hs

TheGodlessUtopian

13th March 2012, 20:23

High school was real shitty for me. I dropped out at the beginning of senior year and did online classes and graduated within two months. So I got to sit around all year and get fat while the other motherfuckers were toiling away at academia

If I completely dedicated myself I would have completed the night school courses within a year or two;easy shit man, despite the fact that where I live the GED program is considered the harder of the two options. Weird.

gorillafuck

13th March 2012, 20:32

Nope, my brother did for like a week though (lol). :)this is why you don't realize why schools should not be democratic.

TheGodlessUtopian

13th March 2012, 21:05

this is why you don't realize why schools should not be democratic.

I understand what HS is like, I have friends. You are implying that actual democracy applied to the current system wouldn't work because of the attitude many youth have towards education yet you overlook the new tendencies which would be involved in democracy. It certainty wouldn't be a cure all fix but it would be an improvement over the current day school system.

NorwegianCommunist

13th March 2012, 21:09

Bloodwerk

13th March 2012, 23:28

The educational system as it is now is a total waste of time where you spend an average 7hrs daily being forced to listen to things that won't be of any use of help in your future life. That's how I view it. I'm a high school senior from Macedonia, and well, education here is just a big mess.

My history and sociology teachers are super strict propaganda spreaders..which is very tragic and sad. My philosophy teacher condemns any left-wing philosophies. Again, sad.

I hope that in a communist society, teachers will love doing what they do, just because they actually want us to learn.
Classes should still remain mandatory, but we will actually learn things that will be beneficial to us. Basic maths/economy, languages, human psychology come to mind. Learning what you actually want and like will definitely make you more productive and happier with your job. Anyone that wants to dive deeper into sciences will have every right and resource to do so :)
If things were like that, both teachers and students will be happy and will work to make it even better. Because in the end, all will benefit from it.

I'm so over-answering this :D

Rafiq

13th March 2012, 23:52

What is x going to be like in future society we have no way of predicting????

Saviourselves

13th March 2012, 23:54

Communism = Indoctrination

Brosa Luxemburg

14th March 2012, 00:01

Mr Anti-Capitalist?
B. Closing the gap between manual and mental labor. This is what Marx wanted, but this would be problematic in a time with rapid scientific and technological change.

Can you be a lamb and explain this to me a little bit more? Would help me a lot =)

Sure, lamb. This would mean that manual labor (like an Industrial Arts class or Shop class for example) would be just as important to the curriculum as math, science, history, etc. to close the gap between manual and mental labor that Marx advocated.

gorillafuck

14th March 2012, 01:27

I understand what HS is like, I have friends. You are implying that actual democracy applied to the current system wouldn't work because of the attitude many youth have towards education yet you overlook the new tendencies which would be involved in democracy. It certainty wouldn't be a cure all fix but it would be an improvement over the current day school system.no, it would result in students seriously fucking over teachers for stupid shit.

TheGodlessUtopian

14th March 2012, 01:37

no, it would result in students seriously fucking over teachers for stupid shit.

Teachers are still in control during democratic education...

zoot_allures

14th March 2012, 01:50

Teachers and students would be equals. Those who wouldn't want to attend wouldn't be forced to. I assume hours would be malleable to the person's situation.
I agree completely. Democratic education ftw!

zoot_allures

14th March 2012, 01:52

no, it would result in students seriously fucking over teachers for stupid shit.
Are you sure about that? There are democratic schools and they seem to be functioning just fine. Check out the Summerhill School, for example.

Rafiq

14th March 2012, 01:59

Deicide

14th March 2012, 02:07

You've your head so far up your ass and so isolated from the real world if you think otherwise.

Well, that's certainly an effective way of arguing. :D

TheGodlessUtopian

14th March 2012, 02:09

Democratic schools is the dumbest fucking Idea the Libertario-Liberals on this site pulled out of their ass this year. It would be a nightmare. Kids need to be taught by those who are no longer kids. They shouldn't decide what and how they are taught. You've your head so far up your ass and so isolated from the real world if you think otherwise.

Very effective, try actually arguing next time.

Why would it be a nightmare? Why shouldn't they decide what they learn?

Also, in case you weren't paying attention, they are being taught by adults.

gorillafuck

14th March 2012, 02:56

the summerhill school is doing fine but the way that it is set up does not actually have a way that students could fail. also, there are 78 students. that's less than my graduating class alone in my small school.

zoot_allures

14th March 2012, 03:02

the summerhill school is doing fine because the way that it is set up does not actually have a way that students could fail.
If you want to talk about that issue, cool, we can do that. (Students can fail or succeed in the Summerhill School.)

However, I was addressing your comment that democratic education "would result in students seriously fucking over teachers for stupid shit". Maybe you could respond to my last post with that context in mind, or do you just want to change the subject? I don't mind either way, but let me know.

also, there are 78 students. that's less than my graduating class alone in my small school.
Sure, that's a good point. There are other democratic schools by the way - the Sudbury Schools, for instance. But you're right that less students will probably result in a calmer environment no matter what the general education system is like. Bear in mind, though, if we had democratic education applied universally, at any one time there'd probably be far less students at school than there are currently.

gorillafuck

14th March 2012, 03:12

If you want to talk about that issue, cool, we can do that. (Students can fail or succeed in the Summerhill School.)

However, I was addressing your comment that democratic education "would result in students seriously fucking over teachers for stupid shit". Maybe you could respond to my last post with that context in mind, or do you just want to change the subject? I don't mind either way, but let me know.sure. teenagers are dramatic as fuck and have a victim complex when they're told to do the most mild shit. students also don't know how to run schools and teenagers aren't going to put too much effort into learning that. not to mention that if students and teachers were on an equal standing then it would make it that much easier for teenage students to fuck teachers over with accusations and exaggerations.

zoot_allures

14th March 2012, 03:28

sure. teenagers are dramatic as fuck and have a victim complex when they're told to do the most mild shit. students also don't know how to run schools and teenagers aren't going to put too much effort into learning that. not to mention that if students and teachers were on an equal standing then it would make it that much easier for teenage students to fuck teachers over with accusations and exaggerations.
Okay, but as I said, the Summerhill School seems to be doing just fine.

In my view, one of the primary reasons teenagers behave badly is because we treat them like shit. I believe that much of what we would call bad behaviour of school students is actually completely justified, given how they're treated. I think if we stopped forcing them to spend 6 hours a day, 5 days a week in deeply authoritarian, conformist, regimented learning factories, and instead let them control their own lives, direct their own development, and be able to have a say in the running of their communities - maybe they'd start being more respectful to their teachers.

Why do you think they wouldn't put in any effort into learning how to run their community? I certainly would have done, and I know that plenty of my friends would have done, too, if we were ever given the chance.

Ostrinski

14th March 2012, 03:38

I sure as hell wouldn't have. I personally liked the regimented environment, made things easier.

gorillafuck

14th March 2012, 03:39

Okay, but as I said, the Summerhill School seems to be doing just fine.how is it doing fine, out of curiousity? what shows us that?

In my view, one of the primary reasons teenagers behave badly is because we treat them like shit. I believe that much of what we would call bad behaviour of school students is actually completely justified, given how they're treated. I think if we stopped forcing them to spend 6 hours a day, 5 days a week in deeply authoritarian, conformist, regimented learning factories, and instead let them control their own lives, direct their own development, and be able to have a say in the running of their communities - maybe they'd start being more respectful to their teachers.

Why do you think they wouldn't put in any effort into learning how to run their community? I certainly would have done, and I know that plenty of my friends would have done, too, if we were ever given the chance.I don't treat teenagers like shit, I am one. and students just exploit any teacher who is nice.

zoot_allures

14th March 2012, 03:41

I sure as hell wouldn't have. I personally liked the regimented environment, made things easier.
Cool - and you can have that under democratic education. It's just that not everybody else would be forced to have it too.

TheGodlessUtopian

14th March 2012, 03:41

I sure as hell wouldn't have. I personally liked the regimented environment, made things easier.

It is divided, I think. Some people respond better to authority and some people prefer to have more space. I wouldn't be surprised if under communism different kind of schools sprang up to meet the needs of different students who need different learning styles. After all, who says that everyone needs to be tossed into the same school?

Of course, assuming communes plays a large role I imagine the size of schools would be quite large so it wouldn't be hard to think of schools having different choices for different students.

TheGodlessUtopian

14th March 2012, 03:43

I don't treat teenagers like shit, I am one. and students just exploit any teacher who is nice.

Mass generalization, I am friends with several of my former teachers, I don't exploit them.

How do you believe that students exploit any teacher who is nice? What do you base this thought on?

zoot_allures

14th March 2012, 03:44

how is it doing fine, out of curiousity? what shows us that?
You can check out the Ofsted reports linked from the wikipedia page, for example. (Of course, I accept that one of the big problems with judging just how well these schools are doing is they often reject the conventional criteria. They're pushing for a very fundamentally different approach to education, after all.)

I don't treat teenagers like shit, I am one. and students just exploit any teacher who is nice.
I was hoping you wouldn't read the term "we" so literally there.

I'd say they exploit any teacher who is weak. Again, though, I'm doubtful this would be such a problem in a democratic school, since the teachers wouldn't be trying to push the kids around.

Ostrinski

14th March 2012, 03:49

Let's set some premises here. What would democratic education actually entail?

TheGodlessUtopian

14th March 2012, 03:51

Let's set some premises here. What would democratic education actually entail?

I think we have already explained what it would entail (equality, choice in learning, etc).

What do you mean by premises?

Yazman

14th March 2012, 04:03

User was infracted for the following post:

Democratic schools is the dumbest fucking Idea the Libertario-Liberals on this site pulled out of their ass this year. It would be a nightmare. Kids need to be taught by those who are no longer kids. They shouldn't decide what and how they are taught. You've your head so far up your ass and so isolated from the real world if you think otherwise.

You've already been warned against shitposting and flames before, and you've still decided to include that snarky little flame at the end of your post.

You're not allowed to do it.

For everybody else, please keep the discussion civil, re-read your posts and make sure to chill out a bit if you're getting heated up and then omit the flames or nasty comments. It's not cool and it just degrades the conversation and everybody taking part in it.

o well this is ok I guess

14th March 2012, 04:18

how many of you fucking crazies are actually pedagogues or educators? I read Freire once
Do I count

Vyacheslav Brolotov

14th March 2012, 05:24

Democratic schooling is about as smart of an idea as infant surgeons. Just comparing stupidity to stupidity.

TheGodlessUtopian

14th March 2012, 05:25

Democratic schooling is about as smart of an idea as infant surgeons. Just comparing stupidity to stupidity.

Care to explain why?

Vyacheslav Brolotov

14th March 2012, 05:31

Care to explain why?

First of all, no one would go to school or learn anything. Secondly, it's never been tried out in any country because of it being so outlandish.

TheGodlessUtopian

14th March 2012, 05:37

First of all, no one would go to school or learn anything. Secondly, it's never been tried out in any country because of it being so outlandish.

Those who didn't want to learn would not be forced to go, but if that is their decision than it is their lose. People have a natural desire to learn; this being said, it is important not to confuse schooling with education/learning.

Never tried? Have you read the thread?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_education

Tovarisch

14th March 2012, 06:03

Ahh yes, because not requiring kids to obtain education worked SO WELL in the past:rolleyes:

Education should be mandatory up until High School. People need to learn how to write and read and think for themselves. Education should be free, and school times should start later because young people's circadian cycles are a bit off. Instead of taking long ass summer vacations and then studying for nine months, we should eliminate the summer vacation, and give smaller breaks along the year.

TheGodlessUtopian

14th March 2012, 06:09

Ahh yes, because not requiring kids to obtain education worked SO WELL in the past:rolleyes:

Kids will be educated up to a certain point and beyond that point it will be their decision if they want to continue. Freedom for the individual isn't something which should be shunned because of the corrupt workings of bourgeois society.

People need to learn how to write and read and think for themselves.

They will learn to read and write and everything else, why wouldn't they?

Have you read this thread?

and school times should start later because young people's circadian cycles are a bit off.

Biologically speaking everyone's circadian cycles are a bit off due to our time keeping methods. But yes, starting later would help.

Instead of taking long ass summer vacations and then studying for nine months, we should eliminate the summer vacation, and give smaller breaks along the year.

Such as what you see in year round schools?

Le Socialiste

14th March 2012, 07:54

Under capitalism, education serves to create a pliable, easily manipulated workforce. It doesn't emphasize creativity or foster one's critical thought process, rather, it promotes - through alienation and isolation - a general acceptance of authority, the institutions of the state, and those who head important positions within society. It's set low on the list of priorities for the government, which acts in tandem with the interests of private capital and its representatives to prepare and churn out a steady flow of exploitable labor. Yet education serves an important purpose within capitalist society; it perpetuates divisions artificially based on sex, race, orientation, gender, ethnicity, and class - all the while trumpeting the "success story" of a free and innovative capitalism.

Education is indelibly tied to the communist advocacy of a free, non-regimented/militarized, society. Within communist society, education would be free to all who care to come and learn about what most fascinates them. It would do away with the existing teacher-student relationship, instead emphasizing a more interactive, non-authority based foundation for learning. The students and teachers would collaborate and interact on a basis of mutual understanding, as well as a willingness to work along cooperative lines. Similarly, by removing profit from education one creates a system that is more adequately organized to be a center for learning, passion, creativity, and communist collectivism/egalitarianism.

Edit - In light of what some comrades have pointed out, I'd like to add on the following:

1) While it is certainly necessary that children begin schooling at an early age, by the time they reach adulthood (which is itself subject to the laws of today's government, but for the sake of the points being stressed let's go with eighteen), teenagers should be free to decide for themselves whether or not to pursue their education further after high school.
2) The education system (while more or less compulsory for ages K-12), should strive to incorporate the points I highlighted above - namely, the abolition of existing teacher-student dynamics, as well as the privatization and militarization of education, including an emphasis on an equalized, interactive class structure.
3) The ability to read and write will be emphasized, as will the hard and social sciences, including mathematics. At the same time equal emphasis will be placed on music, literature, and the arts, with children having the opportunity to choose which field(s) they wish to pursue by the time they reach the age of 14-16 (any choices can be changed and/or reversed depending on the student's tastes and interests).

Jimmie Higgins

14th March 2012, 09:13

On the question of mandatory education and how structured lessons should be I think people are missing the big picture.

Sure if you came to a school district in the US today and said, "hey teachers, students, you're in charge now - work it out" then yes, students would vote overwhelmingly to cancel all classes and drink beer and make-out instead. Is this because "kids are stupid" as has been argued here? No, it's because contemporary education is stupid - more specifically it's alienating. Kids don't know why they have to go, why they have to know fractions at this age and the periodic table by another age. Education is like this because this is the role needed by education by our ruling class (public education also has the legacies of past reforms - though these have been under attack).

It's the same with education under the USSR. Education there was about the needs of Russia, not about education.

So when workers are the ruling class in society, education will need to revolve around the needs of this class too - that means education would not be alienating because it would be geared around what workers actually want and need. The working class doesn't need people who can follow orders, it needs confident people who can collaborate and organize and so a Prussian Industrial style of education would work against these needs.

Rooster

14th March 2012, 09:27

Democratic schooling is about as smart of an idea as infant surgeons. Just comparing stupidity to stupidity.

First of all, no one would go to school or learn anything. Secondly, it's never been tried out in any country because of it being so outlandish.

God damn, if this is your approach to education then I would hate to see your approach to society as a whole. How are you making these assumptions? And this is what I'm talking about; society as a whole taking charge of education in a democratic manner and not just the students and treating children and teenagers as members of that society. Just as schools in a capitalist world teach children to conform to the authoritarian streak in capitalism, schooling in socialism should cultivate in children democratic values as well as provide them an actual education. Because you can't be socially responsible if you don't have the tools to think critically. I'm just thinking back to my education and it's been pretty clear where it went wrong for me and for many other people and I think that having a more open debate about how school is run and what is learned and how it is learned would help fix a lot of those things. The main problem was that school was just a place where they taught you to fit into society and to make you a productive member, not to educate you.

Actually, just thinking about it, I'm reminded at how much more I enjoyed school when I was given a chance of actually deciding for myself what to learn. In high school here, you can choose, how ever limited, what subjects you wanted to learn and could even have days off if you didn't want to fill those spaces with classes. Even this limited amount of freedom in my schooling greatly increased my enjoyment of it. But, by then, it was already too late for most people there considering that you could leave school two years before and a lot of people did just because they were sick of it.

roy

14th March 2012, 09:30

Mass generalization, I am friends with several of my former teachers, I don't exploit them.

How do you believe that students exploit any teacher who is nice? What do you base this thought on?

To be honest, I don't think it's necessarily 'nice' teachers it's just teachers who don't have control over the class. Once a class is conscious that the teacher doesn't know how to control them, it's pretty much the land of do-as-you-please in my experience.

TheGodlessUtopian

14th March 2012, 09:42

To be honest, I don't think it's necessarily 'nice' teachers it's just teachers who don't have control over the class. Once a class is conscious that the teacher doesn't know how to control them, it's pretty much the land of do-as-you-please in my experience.

I wouldn't really call that exploiting though, just students rebelling against a conformist machine the only way they know how.

Rafiq

14th March 2012, 13:36

User was infracted for the following post:

You've already been warned against shitposting and flames before, and you've still decided to include that snarky little flame at the end of your post.

You're not allowed to do it.

For everybody else, please keep the discussion civil, re-read your posts and make sure to chill out a bit if you're getting heated up and then omit the flames or nasty comments. It's not cool and it just degrades the conversation and everybody taking part in it.

It wasn't directed at any single individual...?

Yefim Zverev

14th March 2012, 14:18

It wasn't directed at any single individual...?

flame is flame the boss says.. I like the things you write but not the foul language

though a good poet I know said this:

they tell me not to swear in my poems
but how can I achieve it ?
in a world
there are so many son of *****es

Tim Cornelis

15th March 2012, 14:46

NewLeft

15th March 2012, 18:55

I love how the majority here recycle arguments of "why communism/anarchism doesn't work" and apply it to students:

1. they are too stupid
2. it will lead to chaos
3. it will be inefficient
4. we need authority to command us
5. Children will prey on each other

and see no apparent contradiction.

Democratic schools are basically miniature versions of socialist society for children, yet many here oppose it...I am not advocating democratic education, but I am not opposing it either.

RFRT9JKGPcI
Democratic schools are not concerned with class structure at all. They still keep the 'teacher-student dynamic' and school framework, but it's a more 'soft' approach with the whole idea/illusion of democracy applied to it. Is it not idealistic/utopian..? It was basically a liberal invention, see John Dewey.

TheGodlessUtopian

15th March 2012, 20:24

Democratic schools are not concerned with class structure at all. They still keep the 'teacher-student dynamic' and school framework, but it's a more 'soft' approach with the whole idea/illusion of democracy applied to it. Is it not idealistic/utopian..? It was basically a liberal invention, see John Dewey.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between "Free Schools" and "Democratic Schools."

A Free School will have an Authoritarian administration, while a Democratic School enlists all who work and attend to participate in the decision making. Some schools include Free in their name, but are Democratic Schools in practice, while this almost never occurs in the reverse.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_education

Rafiq

15th March 2012, 21:02

I love how the majority here recycle arguments of "why communism/anarchism doesn't work" and apply it to students:

1. they are too stupid
2. it will lead to chaos
3. it will be inefficient
4. we need authority to command us
5. Children will prey on each other

and see no apparent contradiction.

Democratic schools are basically miniature versions of socialist society for children, yet many here oppose it...I am not advocating democratic education, but I am not opposing it either.

RFRT9JKGPcI

There's a difference between 13 year old kids with no experience and Grown humans who are already learned and have experience.

Humans don't shoot out of their ma's vag knowing everything there is to know. As a matter of fact, kids are cruel and require education to be intergrated into society. They need to be TAUGHT, i.e. Because they're kids.

TheGodlessUtopian

15th March 2012, 22:38

There's a difference between 13 year old kids with no experience and Grown humans who are already learned and have experience.

Humans don't shoot out of their ma's vag knowing everything there is to know. As a matter of fact, kids are cruel and require education to be intergrated into society. They need to be TAUGHT, i.e. Because they're kids.

There is actually little difference aside from experience and one must remember that is is a school. Learning will still occur and they will join the workforce as functional adults.

Why would their age be a matter of concern when it comes to the place in which they learn and are taught?

CommunityBeliever

15th March 2012, 22:50

Humans don't shoot out of their ma's vag knowing everything there is to know. As a matter of fact, kids are cruel and require education to be intergrated into society. They need to be TAUGHT, i.e. Because they're kids.

Our education system should reflect the reality of human biology produced by evolution. The only thing evolution requires is that humans are protected until reproductive age (puberty) after they pop out of their ma's vag because evolution only cares about having individuals pass on their genes.

We should have an education system that reflects the independence that follows after puberty and high school doesn't fill that role, so lets get rid of high school. Let post-pubescent students be relatively independent and start treating them like peers rather then subjects. With the education tools of the future and with a cooperative communist society giving post-pubescent students autonomy won't be a problem.

However, as I mentioned before it is necessary to take care of children until them and to teach them basic facts like evolution by natural selection and that all matter can be reduced to a few elements in the periodic table.

Rafiq

15th March 2012, 23:20

There is actually little difference aside from experience and one must remember that is is a school. Learning will still occur and they will join the workforce as functional adults.

Why would their age be a matter of concern when it comes to the place in which they learn and are taught?

It was a dumb analogy that Goti used, is what I am trying to say. Children are young and require learning. They shouldn't have a major say in what is taught, but, if you want them to choose what kind of Sandwhiches they eat at lunch, or, what kind of classes they get, that's different (It's also fucking irrelivent with nothing to do with class struggle).

Democratic schools would be a universalized failure.

TheGodlessUtopian

15th March 2012, 23:26

It was a dumb analogy that Goti used, is what I am trying to say. Children are young and require learning. They shouldn't have a major say in what is taught, but, if you want them to choose what kind of Sandwhiches they eat at lunch, or, what kind of classes they get, that's different (It's also fucking irrelivent with nothing to do with class struggle).

Why shouldn't they have a say? Is is so hard to imagine a place where students have some say in what they are taught outside of the necessities of life? There will always be core subjects which are important to education but that doesn't mean that youth should be stripped of freedom to choose what they learn beyond the necessities.

Many things in life doesn't have to do with class struggle; if you believe it is so irrelevant than why bother arguing?

Democratic schools would be a universalized failure.

Any reason why they would be a failure?

Tim Cornelis

16th March 2012, 00:04

There's a difference between 13 year old kids with no experience and Grown humans who are already learned and have experience.

Humans don't shoot out of their ma's vag knowing everything there is to know. As a matter of fact, kids are cruel and require education to be intergrated into society. They need to be TAUGHT, i.e. Because they're kids.

By extension of your logic, uneducated or ignorant individuals in a communist society should be deprived of participation in popular assemblies.

As a matter of fact, kids are cruel and require education to be intergrated into society. They need to be TAUGHT, i.e. Because they're kids.

What better way to integrate children into socialist society by having them live it in their schools?

Also, have you learned your Marxism in public schools? What's that? You learn things out of your own free will?

It's not as clear cut as you want it to be.

Rafiq

16th March 2012, 00:26

By extension of your logic, uneducated or ignorant individuals in a communist society should be deprived of participation in popular assemblies.

What better way to integrate children into socialist society by having them live it in their schools?

Also, have you learned your Marxism in public schools? What's that? You learn things out of your own free will?

It's not as clear cut as you want it to be.

1. They're adults with experience. The fact your alive for 20 signifies you're more worthy of descision making than an 11 year old.

2. Why not also have infants do it too?

3. It doesn't surprise me a Bourgeois socialist like you adheres to a bourgeois concept like free will..

Hermes

16th March 2012, 00:46

There's a clear difference between children and infants, though. You can't just say they're the same without any evidence, when children (and teenagers as well) are capable of decision making as well. They just lack the same experience. That doesn't mean, though, that they can't make decisions within their school community (in fact, they're probably the most qualified to do so, along with the teachers, because they're experiencing it in a way that teachers cannot identify with due to the age/responsibility gap).

Also, offtopic, but you didn't really refute or support whether or not they taught you the majority of Marxist theory in the primary/high school you attended.

Rafiq

16th March 2012, 01:51

How many students on average actually develope modes of thought external from Bourgeois Liberalism? Even most "high school commies" have been incompident in doing so.

The reality is that such an occurance happens just as much as poor people become Rich. So what? Does this mean capitalism is good because some billionaires used to be poor?

Hermes

16th March 2012, 01:55

Just to clarify, do you mean incompetent? I'm not trying to nitpick, I just want to make sure.

While I agree that the majority of students do not, I also don't think you can attribute that solely to the students. I think a large part of that is the education system we have today, and by changing that, so too will the students' development.

--

(I also apologize if what I'm saying isn't always very clear, I'm not very good at debating)

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 01:59

How many students on average actually develope modes of thought external from Bourgeois Liberalism? Even most "high school commies" have been incompident in doing so.

With freedom comes new thoughts and modes of expression. Essentially your argument is that because people are brainwashed with bourgeois propaganda something is impossible?

The reality is that such an occurance happens just as much as poor people become Rich. So what? Does this mean capitalism is good because some billionaires used to be poor?

This doesn't have to do with the topic at hand, do not change the topic just because you are finding it difficult to prove your points.

Bostana

16th March 2012, 02:07

Vyacheslav Brolotov

16th March 2012, 02:11

Hermes

16th March 2012, 02:14

Maybe instead of Arguing With Each other,

We can come to a unanimous decision on how to teach our future Kids with a good Communist education.

My Conclusion,
That we should have a good education that teach our kids well. Unlike today's education system we would not have such severe punishments for such little crimes. Our education system will actually teach instead of stupefy. We would not be forced to compete every day.

We would teach basic Mathematics, History, Science, and English (our whatever language your country speaks)

There will be no privatization of any sort. No companies shall have permission to take advantage of Public Schools.

There would be no political agenda taught in schools. We however will teahc basic Communist and Socialist theory.

How does that sound?

We aren't really arguing (maybe a little), but our positions seem to be the complete opposites of each other. Therefore we have to debate before we can all simply agree with each other (since I have little hope of one person standing down). Since none of us seem to have any evidence of what we're talking about however, it doesn't seem likely that either party will give any ground.

Look TheGodlessUtopian and other ultra-leftists that want to make me out as the Marxist-Leninist bogeyman, I am a high schooler who is 15 years old. Despite that, I am still vehemently against both "free education (or whatever you call it)" and "democratic education." That's funny, isn't it? Supposedly, I would have the most to benefit from democratic education. Bullshit. The only benefits I would get from democratic education would be an excuse to be lazy. I would not learn anything and neither will any of my classmates, and I can bet you all the fucking money in the world that that's true. Students, at least in a capitalist and socialist society, need to learn to become productive members of society, no matter what you utopians say. To learn the skills that they need to get a job in capitalism, or to help build socialism in socialism, students need structure so they can at least pick up the basics. Wait until communism for democratic education, but as for now and as for socialism, it is just another idea liberals like Dewey and Tolstoy vomitted up and anarchists picked up off the floor.

P.S. I went around my Honors World History class asking other students (yes, let me repeat that: students) what they think about democratic education. I don't want to repeat their comments because I might get an infraction for flaming.

But you haven't addressed the fact that the process of learning the basics to become a helpful member of society goes on for far too long, perhaps. Also, just because you're a student in high school doesn't automatically give you a trump card. So am I, and I don't claim any kind of high ground because of that.

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 02:19

Look TheGodlessUtopian and other ultra-leftists that want to make me out as the Marxist-Leninist bogeyman, I am a high schooler who is 15 years old. Despite that, I am still vehemently against both "free education (or whatever you call it)" and "democratic education." That's funny, isn't it? Supposedly, I would have the most to benefit from democratic education. Bullshit. The only benefits I would get from democratic education would be an excuse to be lazy. I would not learn anything and neither will any of my classmates, and I can bet you all the fucking money in the world that that's true. Students, at least in a capitalist and socialist society, need to learn to become productive members of society, no matter what you utopians say. To learn the skills that they need to get a job in capitalism, or to help build socialism in socialism, students need structure so they can at least pick up the basics. Wait until communism for democratic education, but as for now and as for socialism, it is just another idea liberals like Dewey and Tolstoy vomitted up and anarchists picked up off the floor.

P.S. I went around my Honors World History class asking other students (yes, let me repeat that: students) what they think about democratic education. I don't want to repeat their comments because I might get an infraction for flaming.

Than congrats, you skipped over the entire argument! If you want to be lazy and not learn anything than that is your choice but answer me this: why wouldn't those who want to learn, not learn anything from democratic education? It is like this: it is education, only the students run their schools. Much like the radical concept of workers self-management, only applied to students.

And yes, to use another similar comparison, not all students are used to such a radical concept, much like how all workers are not used to managing themselves. However, personal anecdotes are not welcomed in any thread; they are not evidence.

lol...me ultra-leftist...funny..

Bostana

16th March 2012, 02:27

But you haven't addressed the fact that the process of learning the basics to become a helpful member of society goes on for far too long, perhaps. Also, just because you're a student in high school doesn't automatically give you a trump card. So am I, and I don't claim any kind of high ground because of that.

Then we shall debate;

That is what is wrong with the school system now a days, they teach you to compete with each other, not to help each other.

We need to teach more worker and less Bourgeois

Vyacheslav Brolotov

16th March 2012, 02:27

It is like this: it is education, only the students run their schools. Much like the radical concept of workers self-management, only applied to students.

Except that workers are already adults and they do not need to learn anything. Nope, but in your head, that does not change anything. Young people are 100% mentally equal to adults. Yep, totally.

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 02:30

Except that workers are already adults and they do not need to learn anything. Nope, but in your head, that does not change anything. Young people are 100% mentally equal to adults. Yep, totally.

What do you mean, "don't need to learn anything"? Adults need to learn plenty of things. What do adults know that is so important? Again, you are missing the big concept-it is a school, a place where they will be taught what they need to know within a democratic framework.

Not mentally equal, but that doesn't mean they should be able to run their place of learning by themselves without authoritarian staff.

Hermes

16th March 2012, 02:32

Then we shall debate;

That is what is wrong with the school system now a days, they teach you to compete with each other, not to help each other.

We need to teach more worker and less Bourgeois

I'm not really sure how that's a response to my post, sorry. However, for what it's worth, I completely agree with you. I think that so long as students learn the answers, and the process of figuring out the answers, it doesn't matter whether they get it from another student or the textbook or the teacher.

However, if all you're doing is copying answers from another person's paper then you're not actually doing any learning.

Bostana

16th March 2012, 02:33

Than congrats, you skipped over the entire argument! If you want to be lazy and not learn anything than that is your choice but answer me this: why wouldn't those who want to learn, not learn anything from democratic education? It is like this: it is education, only the students run their schools. Much like the radical concept of workers self-management, only applied to students.

Students are at school to learn, not to run. Now am I saying it's run for people to elect class presidents and parliament members and such things no. But they are just high schoolers not adults what makes you think they can run a school?

However I do think that they should run the Schools the way the students want.

Bostana

16th March 2012, 02:35

I'm not really sure how that's a response to my post, sorry. However, for what it's worth, I completely agree with you. I think that so long as students learn the answers, and the process of figuring out the answers, it doesn't matter whether they get it from another student or the textbook or the teacher.

However, if all you're doing is copying answers from another person's paper then you're not actually doing any learning.

O No I was debating with you,

I was trying to give my opinion on such matters and seeing if anybody disagreed

Bostana

16th March 2012, 02:38

What do you mean, "don't need to learn anything"? Adults need to learn plenty of things.

Not middle school, and high school wise.

What do adults know that is so important? Again, you are missing the big concept-it is a school, a place where they will be taught what they need to know within a democratic framework.

Well they know how to work, raise kids, and maintain a family.

School is place where students learn how to live their lives. If that includes learning how their government works then yes learning the democratic framework

Vyacheslav Brolotov

16th March 2012, 02:40

What do you mean, "don't need to learn anything"? Adults need to learn plenty of things. What do adults know that is so important? Again, you are missing the big concept-it is a school, a place where they will be taught what they need to know within a democratic framework.

Not mentally equal, but that doesn't mean they should be able to run their place of learning by themselves without authoritarian staff.

When does school="place where they will be taught what they need to know within a democratic framework"

school1 (skūl)
n.

An institution for the instruction of children or people under college age.
An institution for instruction in a skill or business: a secretarial school; a karate school.

A college or university.
An institution within or associated with a college or university that gives instruction in a specialized field and recommends candidates for degrees.
A division of an educational institution constituting several grades or classes: advanced to the upper school.
The student body of an educational institution.
The building or group of buildings housing an educational institution.

The process of being educated formally, especially education constituting a planned series of courses over a number of years: The children were put to school at home. What do you plan to do when you finish school?
A session of instruction: School will start in three weeks. He had to stay after school today.

No talk of democratic framework.

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 02:40

Students are at school to learn, not to run.

Workers are at work to work, not to run... see what I did there?

Now am I saying it's run for people to elect class presidents and parliament members and such things no. But they are just high schoolers not adults what makes you think they can run a school?

No one is talking about bourgeois traits such as class elections (which have nothing to do with democratic education) but students can run a school because they are capable of doing so by being themselves;by neing dedicated to their learning. What makes them not able to run a school? Ageism? Lack of technical experience? The former is a curse and is simply bigotry, while the later can be satisfied with the help of adults (hence the collaboration between students and teachers).

Read this about Chile's students: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/27/a-new-chile-is-possible/

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 02:41

When does school="place where they will be taught what they need to know within a democratic framework"

school1 (skūl)
n.

An institution for the instruction of children or people under college age.
An institution for instruction in a skill or business: a secretarial school; a karate school.

A college or university.
An institution within or associated with a college or university that gives instruction in a specialized field and recommends candidates for degrees.
A division of an educational institution constituting several grades or classes: advanced to the upper school.
The student body of an educational institution.
The building or group of buildings housing an educational institution.

The process of being educated formally, especially education constituting a planned series of courses over a number of years: The children were put to school at home. What do you plan to do when you finish school?
A session of instruction: School will start in three weeks. He had to stay after school today.

No talk of democratic framework.

Bourgeois definitions aren't going to get you anywhere, try again.

Hermes

16th March 2012, 02:42

When does school="place where they will be taught what they need to know within a democratic framework"

school1 (skūl)
n.

An institution for the instruction of children or people under college age.
An institution for instruction in a skill or business: a secretarial school; a karate school.

A college or university.
An institution within or associated with a college or university that gives instruction in a specialized field and recommends candidates for degrees.
A division of an educational institution constituting several grades or classes: advanced to the upper school.
The student body of an educational institution.
The building or group of buildings housing an educational institution.

The process of being educated formally, especially education constituting a planned series of courses over a number of years: The children were put to school at home. What do you plan to do when you finish school?
A session of instruction: School will start in three weeks. He had to stay after school today.

No talk of democratic framework.

I really don't see why an existing definition proves your point. Just because something currently is something, doesn't mean it can't become something else or change its focus.

Rafiq

16th March 2012, 02:44

With freedom comes new thoughts and modes of expression. Essentially your argument is that because people are brainwashed with bourgeois propaganda something is impossible?

This doesn't have to do with the topic at hand, do not change the topic just because you are finding it difficult to prove your points.

No doubt the system in which students learn will change, but the way this will occur will be something for the adults to decide.

Bostana

16th March 2012, 02:45

Workers are at work to work, not to run... see what I did there?

Yes, but that wouldn't be a problem in a Communist society now would it? Because like you said no school would be privatized and ran by companies and businesses.

No one is talking about bourgeois traits such as class elections (which have nothing to do with democratic education) but students can run a school because they are capable of doing so by being themselves;by neing dedicated to their learning. What makes them not able to run a school? Ageism? Lack of technical experience? The former is a curse and is simply bigotry, while the later can be satisfied with the help of adults (hence the collaboration between students and teachers).

Read this about Chile's students: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/27/a-new-chile-is-possible/

Are you saying that an eight grader can run a middle school? Or a Ninth Grader running a Highschool?

Here is the way I see it,
Students should have the right to choose their principals and teachers.
Does that go under your approval.

Vyacheslav Brolotov

16th March 2012, 02:45

Well, while I have been writing all these comments, I have also been doing a shitload of homework. I give up. Please bring your democratic system so I don't have to do this anymore . . . that is about as far as your idea appeals to me.

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 02:51

No doubt the system in which students learn will change, but the way this will occur will be something for the adults to decide.

Unless the students rise up and take over the school has has recently happened in Chile. But I do believe a democratic education framework could be established with a "revolution from above" type mindset. In order for it to succeed the students would have to be sufficiently revolutionary though.

Well, while I have been writing all these comments, I have also been doing a shitload of homework. I give up. Please bring your democratic system so I don't have to do this anymore . . . that is about as far as your idea appeals to me.

If you want out than simply drop out and leave democratic education for those who want it. You are being lazy, by your own admission, right now, so you don't need educational freedom to do that.

Hermes

16th March 2012, 02:51

Look, no one is saying that only students will decide everything (I don't think). The teachers would have the same say that the students have, and those students that want to learn will also probably respect the teachers due to the increased experience.

The fact is that students have absolutely no say whatsoever, and that isn't how it should be. Although they can't run a school by themselves (although I don't necessarily agree with that), it doesn't mean they can't work with the teachers to further the pursuit of knowledge.

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 02:55

Yes, but that wouldn't be a problem in a Communist society now would it? Because like you said no school would be privatized and ran by companies and businesses.

Because they would be run by the students, yes.

Are you saying that an eight grader can run a middle school? Or a Ninth Grader running a Highschool?

Collectively, yes. Nothing will be achieved if all the students go about their own business. Running a school is a cooperative event undertaken by both the educators and the students; each has their own role to play in healthy functioning.

Here is the way I see it,
Students should have the right to choose their principals and teachers.
Does that go under your approval.

Yes.

Bostana

16th March 2012, 02:56

Okay the I guess we are at an agreement then yes?

Ostrinski

16th March 2012, 02:59

I certainly think there should be multiple types of education, and also that students should get to choose what they learn and how to learn it after a certain point. However, the teachers should still hold control over their own respective classrooms as well as administrative positions in the school.

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 03:04

Okay the I guess we are at an agreement then yes?

If you don't condone student run schools than no, we aren't.

I certainly think there should be multiple types of education, and also that students should get to choose what they learn and how to learn it after a certain point. However, the teachers should still hold control over their own respective classrooms as well as administrative positions in the school.

Free Schools sound like your preference than.

Ostrinski

16th March 2012, 03:06

Students should have the ability to strike if they're not in agreement with the teachers, but I mean the teachers should also be able to strike against the students if they're being little shitheads.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

16th March 2012, 03:09

Point is: Marxist-Leninist education has been the only socialist education ever tried out and it has proved successful.

Yes, i highly agree with that. But as we know, Leninism never sought direct democratic workers control which is after all (at least in my interpretation) at the heart of the marxist economic idea:changing the relation of the worker to his/her production. So, in this perspective, i would like to see a direct democratic indoctrination of post-elementaryschool teaching environment. After all what is the point of learning if one finds no motivation for it?

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 03:10

Students should have the ability to strike if they're not in agreement with the teachers, but I mean the teachers should also be able to strike against the students if they're being little shitheads.

The benefits of working together and relying on one another. For such to happen in a democratic framework though much would have to be wrong on a large scale. This would ignore the concept of "mutual cooperation."

Vyacheslav Brolotov

16th March 2012, 03:12

Students should have the ability to strike if they're not in agreement with the teachers, but I mean the teachers should also be able to strike against the students if they're being little shitheads.

NO STRIKES! NOOOOOO, NOT MY DELICATE EDUCATION. :laugh:

But really, I do not know why you guys believe in all this. Can you fill me in on your mentality?

Ostrinski

16th March 2012, 03:13

They're not always going to come to peaceful agreements, is what I mean.

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 03:18

N
But really, I do not know why you guys believe in all this. Can you fill me in on your mentality?

It is simple: students should run their school, they should be able to run the place they spend a majority of their lives. It is freedom, nothing more.

They're not always going to come to peaceful agreements, is what I mean.

Not always, but such is the way of life between everyone.

Rafiq

16th March 2012, 04:11

If you want out than simply drop out and leave democratic education for those who want it. You are being lazy, by your own admission, right now, so you don't need educational freedom to do that.

And 99% of kids will agree with him. How about this: Command-Style policy while retaining the lenient dynamic ways of learning we get in private colleges?

And, Dialectical Materialism usually shoots the average human mind constraint forward by a shit ton, as well. One of the reasons we see school education so stupid is their bourgeois rationalism, which is very limited in nature.

Rafiq

16th March 2012, 04:13

Students choosing teachers... That's insanity... Jesus Christ..

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 04:14

And 99% of kids will agree with him.

So you have statistics which prove this? Please share.

How about this: Command-Style policy while retaining the lenient dynamic ways of learning we get in private colleges?

Better than what we currently have but still not on the same level as democratic education. What you described was essentially Free schools.

And, Dialectical Materialism usually shoots the average human mind constraint forward by a shit ton, as well. One of the reasons we see school education so stupid is their bourgeois rationalism, which is very limited in nature.

Agreed, though that isn't the topic at hand.

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 04:15

Students choosing teachers... That's insanity... Jesus Christ..

What is "insane" about it?

Ostrinski

16th March 2012, 05:50

But really, I do not know why you guys believe in all this. Can you fill me in on your mentality?The idea is the scrapping of the bourgeois method of education and replace it with something more related to the elements of socialist society. That's what this discussion is about.

Ostrinski

16th March 2012, 05:56

It is simple: students should run their school, they should be able to run the place they spend a majority of their lives. It is freedom, nothing more.So the idea of "freedom," and "freedom" alone is what legitimizes this?

Not always, but such is the way of life between everyone.The problem is that the teachers have the gold, so to speak, i.e. the means of education. The students need the teachers to be educated, but the teachers sure as hell don't need the students for shit, especially if we've surpassed the work or starve dynamic. They have nothing to lose in striking against the students.

NewLeft

16th March 2012, 05:59

Why not just eliminate the teacher class. :thumbup1:

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 06:00

So the idea of "freedom," and "freedom" alone is what legitimizes this?

...and the fact that it is simply a more humane mode of education. Nothing "legitimatizes" an ideology or theory, it simply exists and has proven itself.

The problem is that the teachers have the gold, so to speak, i.e. the means of education. The students need the teachers to be educated, but the teachers sure as hell don't need the students for shit, especially if we've surpassed the work or starve dynamic. They have nothing to lose in striking against the students.

Without students the teachers have no job, which is why students can strike. Students and teachers need each other in a symbiotic relationship, neither has the "edge" over the other.

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 06:01

Why not just eliminate the teacher class. :thumbup1:

What do you mean by that?

Grenzer

16th March 2012, 06:03

It seems like the two factions are at an impasse.

One one side, a socialist environment of learning would be more conductive to the student and therefore should be more amenable to granting students the freedom to do what they want to some degree. On the other, we have the assertion that children do not have developed minds and are incapable of making rational decisions to some degree which is a claim that is backed up by science and empirical evidence. Neither extreme is good, but overall I really have to side with Rafiq on this one, except for the part about Dialectical Materialism which I regard as a relic of the 19th century which is at least due for a serious revamp.

Ostrinski

16th March 2012, 06:06

Without students the teachers have no job, which is why students can strike. Students and teachers need each other in a symbiotic relationship, neither has the "edge" over the other.Right, which is why I said after the surpassing of work or starve economics. The teachers wouldn't necessarily need to work to appropriate the necessities of life. The students would eventually be forced to capitulate.

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 06:13

Right, which is why I said after the surpassing of work or starve economics. The teachers wouldn't necessarily need to work to appropriate the necessities of life. The students would eventually be forced to capitulate.

No, the students wouldn't. You assume because the students "must" learn so that sooner or later they would be forced to go back but, if anything, the opposite is true; youth, more often than not, already have their needs provided in bourgeois society so they can sit it out while the teachers are essentially unemployed. If the teachers have no source of income than they can't do much.

Such a relationship is harmful to both parties; they need each other and I am confidant that under a democratic framework level headed compromises would be reached.

o well this is ok I guess

16th March 2012, 06:21

it's never been tried out in any country because of it being so outlandish. This is probably the last thing that should ever be said on this board. Period.

Ostrinski

16th March 2012, 06:29

No, the students wouldn't. You assume because the students "must" learn so that sooner or later they would be forced to go back but, if anything, the opposite is true; youth, more often than not, already have their needs provided in bourgeois society so they can sit it out while the teachers are essentially unemployed. If the teachers have no source of income than they can't do much.

Such a relationship is harmful to both parties; they need each other and I am confidant that under a democratic framework level headed compromises would be reached.Which is why I specifically said socialist society.

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 06:36

Which is why I specifically said socialist society.

I don't remember you saying socialist, though I suppose I could have skipped over it accidentally.

Even so the two would be equal: under socialism all would have a place to stay and resources to keep them alive, besides, under socialism the mutualism would be more developed so I find it difficult seeing grave altercations coming up.

Ostrinski

16th March 2012, 06:42

I don't remember you saying socialist, though I suppose I could have skipped over it accidentally.

Even so the two would be equal: under socialism all would have a place to stay and resources to keep them alive, besides, under socialism the mutualism would be more developed so I find it difficult seeing grave altercations coming up.

The problem is that the teachers have the gold, so to speak, i.e. the means of education. The students need the teachers to be educated, but the teachers sure as hell don't need the students for shit, especially if we've surpassed the work or starve dynamic. They have nothing to lose in striking against the students.

Right, which is why I said after the surpassing of work or starve economics. The teachers wouldn't necessarily need to work to appropriate the necessities of life. The students would eventually be forced to capitulate.This is what I meant by socialist society. Sorry for the miscommunication.

My point was that the students (the ones that are seeking education) would be forced to capitulate to the teachers anyway since the teachers hold what the students seek.

TheGodlessUtopian

16th March 2012, 06:53

My point was that the students (the ones that are seeking education) would be forced to capitulate to the teachers anyway since the teachers hold what the students seek.

There are other teachers the students could go to for education. I don't believe it would be too difficult for students to transfer to new areas under a proletarian dictatorship given the relative economic freedom which would accompany such an era.

Without money weighing things down disputes really seem to become a slog fest/ a battle of wills.

Also, this assumes that all the teachers are striking and are unified when, pending on what they are in conflict over, it could only be a portion of the students and educators who are in conflict. Same principals apply I guessbut it does change things slightly when considering the implications.

Tim Cornelis

16th March 2012, 12:27

1. They're adults with experience. The fact your alive for 20 signifies you're more worthy of descision making than an 11 year old.

So, during popular assemblies, an 80 years old vote should count for more...

2. Why not also have infants do it too?

They can't for one.

3. It doesn't surprise me a Bourgeois socialist like you adheres to a bourgeois concept like free will..

:laugh: Your faux interpretation of Marxism and materialism is getting hilarious. Honestly, I don't know how to respond to this...

I was actually thinking "should I write free will, it's Rafiq after all, the idiot who thinks materialism equates determinism". You are constantly confusing determinism and materialism.

When I said "free will" I simply meant, by your own choosing. You choose to study Marxism, did you not? You were not coerced to do it. I did not gave it any philosophical-like value.

But you convinced me, not by your arguments but your idiocy. You studied Marxism voluntarily without coercion, and look how that turned out: you still have no clue what Marxism is. I mean, you have very little grasp on what materialism is (thinking it's determinism), and you have no clue whatsoever what bourgeois socialism is.

To quote Ernest Mandel (a bourgeois socialist of course :rolleyes:):

Historical materialism does not deny the individual’s free will, his attempts to make choices concerning his existence according to his individual passions, his interests as he understands them, his convictions, his moral options etc. What historical materialism does state is: (1) that these choices are strongly predetermined by the social framework (education, prevailing ideology and moral ’values’, variants of behaviour limited by material conditions etc.); (2) that the outcome of the collision of millions of different passions, interests and options is essentially a phenomenon of social logic and not of individual psychology. Here, class interests are predominant.

Bourgeois socialism is the socialism that seeks a bourgeoisie without proletariat, i.e. market socialism. It is a socialism that favours reform over revolution and class struggle, e.g. mutualism. This is the Marxist meaning of bourgeois socialism.

Your definition of bourgeois socialism = every socialist who does not share the same interpretations of socialism as me.

You're an unbelievably close minded person who, to every criticism responds, "bourgeois socialist!", "Chomskeyan", "liberal!", "shove your freedom up your ass!", instead of using, ya know, arguments.

No one should every argue with you cause you're always right, and those who think differently: to the verbal gulag with them! (omg, you're so ace with all your cusswords).

ckaihatsu

17th March 2012, 03:02

Okay, been seeing the notices of the updates to this thread for a few days now, but haven't been able to prioritize participation here yet.

Education is always a mainstay of a society's self-identity, and is at the forefront, or cutting-edge, of its vision for the future, so it's about as contentious an issue as political issues can get.

I went through the thread and noted each and every educational issue mentioned -- here's the list, and I'll be adding my own comments presently....

- mandatory attendance / scholastic independence / minimum age / mandatory maximum age

- equality of teachers and students / internal democracy

- scheduling

- philosophy of learning ("lifelong quest")

- mentor-student relationships

- curriculum, selection of

- curriculum, specialization of

- administration of institution (teachers and students)

- bureaucracy for

- curriculum, skill-sets

- quality, definition of

- pedagogy, extent of differentiation / extent of self-individuation

- biological / cognitive abilities, by age group

- scholastic agency into implementation in society

- role of biological family in educational oversight

- intellectual vs. trade skills (mental vs. manual)

- pegagogical culture / pedagogical philosophy / role of learners in society ('productive members of society') / societal interest

- institutional cooperation, cohesion vs. competitiveness

- political education

- political historical revisionism

- rote learning vs. critical thinking & creativity

- psycho-social, emotional, physical development

- support systems / socialization / community

- student politicization, participation in day-to-day management / internal power factions

- cohesion of curriculum, teacher professionalism vs. teacher editorializing

- class size / school size

- looseness vs. tightness of institutional culture ("regimentation")

- domesticity, relation to workers communes

- teacher formal education, training

- school calendar

- integration with liberated labor / non-alienating institution / workers self-management

- significance of age group, if any

- decision-making weight / value of "organic" life experience vs. group-determined organizational policy and implementation (rational discussion and argument) (theory vs. practice)

- learning as personal journey vs. workforce preparation / societal interest

- framework: dialectics / complexity vs. bourgeois linear rationality

- pedagogy -- how learning is experienced

- political force -- student strikes, teacher strikes

- teaching as service-work vs. teacher-student dialectic / symbiosis

- knowledge-sourcing -- teacher-only, or...?

- knowledge-sourcing -- patron-clientelism model, or...?

Also, am *really* wondering why there's a State of Israel flag displayed at post #85 -- (!!!)

Bostana

17th March 2012, 03:19

Hey I can cheers to a School run by the Students.

Minima

17th March 2012, 04:02

Well here are a few predictions and we can work from there...

given the material changes after "full communism"

1) Education programs in universities will no longer be infested with careerism and educators and pedagogues will actually have a chance to develop education for it`s own sake without having to fight against the current managerial culture in education administration. This will make issues like standardized testing more of a scientific issue rather then a political one. This will address pretty much all the issues or at least lead to the development of the things ckaihatsu summarized above.

2) Education will be more accessible materially (access to technology, resources, cheapening of textbooks) especially in third world countries,

3) Whole disciplines churning out degrees like commerce and arts will be radically changed or shrink naturally due to material changes (how many of today`s overpaid architects will we need in a society where there will be so many qualified architects from all countries will be able to compete on the basis of talent or for the reward of the work itself, musicians, artists etc.)

4) Parents won't be as alienated in their work and life so that they can raise their kids sanely instead of abusing them or abandoning them to televisions or videogame consoles. more kids will have access to resources rather then a few having privileges which bourgeois ideology translates as "talent" (which is pretty much universal btw) so that kids will feel a greater sense of agency in their own education, rather then seeing education as a game they have to play to get a piece of the pie. go to state university and learn rather then go to brown or harvard to social network.

Trying to apply marxist theory to pedagogy... i think good pedagogy generally leads to marxism.

China is a pretty interesting case. there you can find plenty of really bad pedagogy (rote learning of maoist tenets etc. straight up feeding propaganda (there was a great harvest etc.) to children. China's system of education and it's legacy have totally separate origins from their counterparts in Europe, yet suffer many of the same problems (competition, intense nationwide standardized testing , not to mention corruption, plagiarism, complete intellectual bankruptcy etc) The ass-backward ideological values of Confucianism helped cripple intellectual life for centuries and even the cultural revolution couldn't stamp that shit out- it came back in classical studies, pop culture etc.

what was i saying... ya also without good pedagogy marxism is doomed and without marxism and full communism we will never have good pedagogy so kind of chicken and egg.

ckaihatsu

17th March 2012, 08:40

chikhatsu

Minima,

Please have the basic common courtesy to at least just get my name right -- it happens to be my first initial and real last name, and not a pseudonym. All you have to do is copy-and-paste.

Based on your post I'll add the following handful of issues to the list:

- standardized testing / managerial assessment-making

- careerism

- education for its own sake

- 'commerce' transcending into post-capitalist co-administrative responsibilities over liberated productivity, including logistics

- humanities (arts) vs. scientific fields

- biological ("nuclear") families vs. alternative methods of rearing and socialization

- power relations on the basis of age, as in regards to formal education / socialization

---

After giving all of the material on this thread a bit of thought I've come to the conclusion that virtually *all* of the educational issues covered here could be treated as flexible parameters, and could wind up being *very* customized, with dialectical dynamics (cooperation, and tension/dissonance) playing out relatively freely over most matters, except for *one*:

The point of a worldwide workers revolution at all would be to exercise mass authority over the oppressing class, so a post-capitalist / socialist / communist society would have a pointed, *distinct* interest in transcending hegemonic bourgeois narratives and approaches to history and the social sciences.

If the revolution is to be a *Marxist* one, then there are definite *implications* of the dialectical-materialist approach to history (class struggle) for a post-capitalist pedagogy. This critical issue could *not* be ignored or lightly brushed aside -- I think a decidedly proletarian political culture would necessarily have an interest in upholding and enforcing this kind of education, with all other educational matters being secondary to this.

TheGodlessUtopian

17th March 2012, 17:10

[quote]4) Parents won't be as alienated in their work and life so that they can raise their kids sanely instead of abusing them or abandoning them to televisions or videogame consoles.Under communism the nuclear family will be abolished, hence, no family/parents.

The retarded ideological values of Confucianism helped cripple intellectual life for centuries and even the cultural revolution couldn't stamp that shit out- it came back with a vengeance in the form of "classical studies..."
Language please.

Minima

17th March 2012, 21:26

dialectical materialism is antiquated ckai, it was product of it's time, partly in reaction to the brain numbing idealism of hegel and 19th century materialism. if at all it should be explored as a historical idea but as a philosophy of history it is pretty much bunk. I wouldn't go around shoving that down my children's throats and i hope you won't either.

interesting list though. you should add some issues about early education and developmental psychology

ckaihatsu

17th March 2012, 21:44

interesting list though. you should add some issues about early education and developmental psychology

Feel free -- it's not my thing particularly.

dialectical materialism is antiquated ckai, it was product of it's time, partly in reaction to the brain numbing idealism of hegel and 19th century materialism. if at all it should be explored as a historical idea but as a philosophy of history it is pretty much bunk. I wouldn't go around shoving that down my children's throats and i hope you won't either.

My *only* criticism of dialectical thinking is that it's "only" dual-polar, whereas there may be more / multiple variables at play in a given context -- that's where I prefer a 'complex', multi-polar "landscape" (of 'issues', perhaps, and of various 'points' related around one or more issues there).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical#Dialectical_method_and_dualism

Dialectical method and dualism

Another way to understand dialectics is to view it as a method of thinking to overcome formal dualism and monistic reductionism.[59] For example, formal dualism regards the opposites as mutually exclusive entities, whilst monism finds each to be an epiphenomenon of the other. Dialectical thinking rejects both views. The dialectical method requires focus on both at the same time. It looks for a transcendence of the opposites entailing a leap of the imagination to a higher level, which (1) provides justification for rejecting both alternatives as false and/or (2) helps elucidate a real but previously veiled integral relationship between apparent opposites that have been kept apart and regarded as distinct. For example, the superposition principle of quantum physics can be explained using the dialectical method of thinking—likewise the example below from dialectical biology. Such examples showing the relationship of the dialectic method of thinking to the scientific method to a large part negates the criticism of Popper (see text below) that the two are mutually exclusive. The dialectic method also examines false alternatives presented by formal dualism (materialism vs idealism; rationalism vs empiricism; mind vs body, etc.) and looks for ways to transcend the opposites and form synthesis. In the dialectical method, both have something in common, and understanding of the parts requires understanding their relationship with the whole system. The dialectical method thus views the whole of reality as an evolving process.

Rafiq

18th March 2012, 04:48

So, during popular assemblies, an 80 years old vote should count for more...

There is a set age of maturity in which one should be able to qualify. You are against pedophilia, no? Do you think 60 year holds have more of a right to sex than 20 year olds? No, they both do, because they're both more than ready for it.

They can't for one.

Nor can kids.

:laugh: Your faux interpretation of Marxism and materialism is getting hilarious. Honestly, I don't know how to respond to this...

Not surprising, I'm sure it's all hard for you to articulate.

I was actually thinking "should I write free will, it's Rafiq after all, the idiot who thinks materialism equates determinism". You are constantly confusing determinism and materialism.

Fuck you. I never said Materialism = "Time is set in stone".

I said all choices and decisions humans make is determined by material conditions established by the mode of production. They are limited in those choices in a constraint, therefore it is not "free".

When I said "free will" I simply meant, by your own choosing. You choose to study Marxism, did you not? You were not coerced to do it. I did not gave it any philosophical-like value.

Ironically Marxism was studied by accident for me at the age, I would have never guessed I would actually become one.

Why don't you fucking reply to my post? ALL OF IT, you fuck.

Statistically, how many Children are able to diverge from the Bourgeois-Liberal mode of thought, in high school? About as much poor become rich.

So if some of the working class members become wealthy under capitalism, is this not proof to us that Capitalism is good, since, I can use an example of rags to riches? If they can do it, so can everyone else, no?

The Truth is, is that I am a minority in this regards. I am a rare case.

Even most of the High school commies are still stuck within the Liberalist framework of thought (which is why they become fake trots).

But you convinced me, not by your arguments but your idiocy. You studied Marxism voluntarily without coercion, and look how that turned out: you still have no clue what Marxism is. I mean, you have very little grasp on what materialism is (thinking it's determinism), and you have no clue whatsoever what bourgeois socialism is.

Coming from a petty Bourgeois anarchism who thinks Materialism is Dualism, I'll pass from your judgement as to what Marxism is, thank you very much, shit head.

To quote Ernest Mandel (a bourgeois socialist of course :rolleyes:):

And to quote myself:

I said all choices and decisions humans make is determined by material conditions established by the mode of production. They are limited in those choices in a constraint, therefore it is not "free".

I don't see how my post and his are antithetical, besides semantics as to how the choices are "free" or not. "Free will" is a bourgeois concept, but for the most part he was right, besides him using the word its self. I'd say I have no qualms with that quote right there, so is he also a determinist as well?

Bourgeois socialism is the socialism that seeks a bourgeoisie without proletariat, i.e. market socialism. It is a socialism that favours reform over revolution and class struggle, e.g. mutualism. This is the Marxist meaning of bourgeois socialism.

Or to put it better, Socialism while retaining the capitalist mode of production, market socialism or not, or, Utopian Socialism, Socialism with Liberalist (contrary to radical) framework, etc.

You fall under the latter, you adhere to Liberalist thought while being a "socialist", i.e. Bourgeois socialism.

Your definition of bourgeois socialism = every socialist who does not share the same interpretations of socialism as me.

I don't believe Badiau is a bourgeois socialist, yet I don't agree with his interperation. Talking out of our ass, are we?

You're an unbelievably close minded person who, to every criticism responds, "bourgeois socialist!", "Chomskeyan", "liberal!", "shove your freedom up your ass!", instead of using, ya know, arguments.

At least when I respond to someone's post, I respond to the whole post, not just the ones I think are easy for me (while at the same time failing at addressing them [easy ones] as well).

No one should every argue with you cause you're always right, and those who think differently: to the verbal gulag with them! (omg, you're so ace with all your cusswords).

The intellectual desperation you are displaying is entertaining. You're like a weak little animal with no way to express his own theoretical deterioration.

Rafiq

18th March 2012, 04:50

Here's the post I typed right after:
How many students on average actually develope modes of thought external from Bourgeois Liberalism? Even most "high school commies" have been incompident in doing so.

The reality is that such an occurance happens just as much as poor people become Rich. So what? Does this mean capitalism is good because some billionaires used to be poor?

This was from tapatalk. Unfortunatly, Goti was unable to respond.
__________________

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 05:01

Nor can kids.

Kids are capable of making decisions,especially if it is related to their place of education as they spend most of their time there, while babies, on the otherhand, aren't as they are not able to communicate or even travel by themselves.

Rafiq

18th March 2012, 05:29

Kids are capable of making decisions,especially if it is related to their place of education as they spend most of their time there, while babies, on the otherhand, aren't as they are not able to communicate or even travel by themselves.

The point, is that kids lack the capability to develop descisions that will benefit them in the long term... Unless their adult "spiritual" version of them went back in time and possessed their younger selves. Campaigning to have kids choose their teachers has no place in class struggle. If you honestly believe kids know what is best for themselves (And I mean KIDS, as this varies for Older Teens) you probably have little to no experience with them. This is one of those arguments where I know this for a fact, through experience, and arguing to me seems indifferent to this reality. I don't feel obliged to have to convince anyone... It's common sense. Next thing you know, the likes of Goti will be crying and protesting over the authoritarian infringment on Liberty thar: 13 year olds are not allowed to carry around firearms.

Hermes

18th March 2012, 05:32

Statistically, how many Children are able to diverge from the Bourgeois-Liberal mode of thought, in high school? About as much poor become rich.

So if some of the working class members become wealthy under capitalism, is this not proof to us that Capitalism is good, since, I can use an example of rags to riches? If they can do it, so can everyone else, no?

The Truth is, is that I am a minority in this regards. I am a rare case.

Even most of the High school commies are still stuck within the Liberalist framework of thought (which is why they become fake trots).

I know I'm not responding to your while post, so you'll probably be upset.

However, how do you know that this couldn't be fixed by a transition to a different type of education i.e. what we're proposing? I'd also like to see the statistics for that (which there probably aren't any, no offense, but it's entirely subjective).

Simply, maybe the current system is a problem and you've identified it and we're offering a way that might fix it.

The point, is that kids lack the capability to develop descisions that will benefit them in the long term... Unless their adult "spiritual" version of them went back in time and possessed their younger selves. Campaigning to have kids choose their teachers has no place in class struggle. If you honestly believe kids know what is best for themselves (And I mean KIDS, as this varies for Older Teens) you probably have little to no experience with them. This is one of those arguments where I know this for a fact, through experience, and arguing to me seems indifferent to this reality. I don't feel obliged to have to convince anyone... It's common sense. Next thing you know, the likes of Goti will be crying and protesting over the authoritarian infringment on Liberty thar: 13 year olds are not allowed to carry around firearms.

Again, entirely without fact, but I disagree with you whether or not you feel the need to back up your point. I've seen children make decisions that are beneficial for them in the long term, and I think they could do it more often in an environment where they're taught to do that, instead of one where they've developed the need for someone else to guide them around.

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 05:35

The point, is that kids lack the capability to develop descisions that will benefit them in the long term...

In a society which stresses such an importance this would hardly be a issue as I see it as a social one, not a cognitive one. Furthermore, what sort of decisions are you talking about? Teacher picking? As shown not all teachers are great so why shouldn't they be able to pick who educates them? You seem to discredit the chance that they would actually pick someone good.

Campaigning to have kids choose their teachers has no place in class struggle.

Education itself has no place in the class struggle, what is your point?

Ostrinski

18th March 2012, 05:47

Hermes

18th March 2012, 05:52

I think we're forgetting that teachers are the workers here. If we ask what it is that teachers are producing, it is educated, competent, capable people. In this sense, the means of production here are not only the curriculum, but the students themselves. It is the task of the teacher to turn each student he or she receives into a more able-bodied person, more capable of performing a certain task or art. Inthisfar, the teacher has the same relationship to the student as the shoemaker has to the materials that go into making shoes.

I agree completely that the teachers are workers, but I'd like to argue semantics when you say that the students are equivalent to materials making up a shoe.

In the shoemaker's trade, it wouldn't often be argued that the materials for a shoe help the shoemaker create the shoe (other than the fact that they exist in front of him). I'd argue that the learning process is as much a responsibility of the student as it is of the teacher, and I think each play an equal part.

(I'm sorry if you didn't mean what I thought you meant in your analogy)

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 05:53

I think we're forgetting that teachers are the workers here. If we ask what it is that teachers are producing, it is educated, competent, capable people. In this sense, the means of production here are not only the curriculum, but the students themselves. It is the task of the teacher to turn each student he or she receives into a more able-bodied person, more capable of performing a certain task or art. Inthisfar, the teacher has the same relationship to the student as the shoemaker has to the materials that go into making shoes.

It is not the job of the teacher to make well rounded pupils: their job is to teach, and teach only; do not fall prey to the romanticized nonsense put out by the conservatives which stress how teachers need to be magical instruments.

The means of production and surplus value have little place in the schoolyard: under communism and democratic education there is no value being created (nor is it like this currently even, so there are no means of productions).

Hermes

18th March 2012, 05:58

It is not the job of the teacher to make well rounded pupils: their job is to teach, and teach only; do not fall prey to the romanticized nonsense put out by the conservatives which stress how teachers need to be magical instruments.

The means of production and surplus value have little place in the schoolyard: under communism and democratic education there is no value being created (nor is it like this currently even, so there are no means of productions).

I agree with you in a sense, but I also think you can make the argument that teachers are in fact producing, or polishing, things in students, to a greater or lesser extent.

It isn't really equivalent to a shoe or a chair, but nonetheless, they are exerting influence on the students in a way that's somewhat similar to the work that shoemakers put into shoes, or a carpenter puts into a chair. I think the difference here is the nature of the material (i.e., it's self-conscious intelligence and its ability to resist/cooperate/etc).

Ostrinski

18th March 2012, 05:59

In the shoemaker's trade, it wouldn't often be argued that the materials for a shoe help the shoemaker create the shoe (other than the fact that they exist in front of him). I'd argue that the learning process is as much a responsibility of the student as it is of the teacher, and I think each play an equal part.

(I'm sorry if you didn't mean what I thought you meant in your analogy)I shouldn't have used the damn analogy. My point was just that students are themselves means of production.

It is not the job of the teacher to make well rounded pupils: their job is to teach, and teach only; do not fall prey to the romanticized nonsense put out by the conservatives which stress how teachers need to be magical instruments.Ah, but why are they teaching? There would be no teachers if they didn't serve a particular function, i.e. engage in socially necessary labor.

The means of production and surplus value have little place in the schoolyard: under communism and democratic education there is no value being created (nor is it like this currently even, so there are no means of productions).An educated student is of the same value as a less educated one :confused:?

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 06:01

I agree with you in a sense, but I also think you can make the argument that teachers are in fact producing, or polishing, things in students, to a greater or lesser extent.

They do certainly exert influence but that influence guarantee a desired product.

It isn't really equivalent to a shoe or a chair, but nonetheless, they are exerting influence on the students in a way that's somewhat similar to the work that shoemakers put into shoes, or a carpenter puts into a chair. I think the difference here is the nature of the material (i.e., it's self-conscious intelligence and its ability to resist/cooperate/etc).

Similar, but in this case it makes the world of difference.

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 06:05

Ah, but why are they teaching? There would be no teachers if they didn't serve a particular function, i.e. engage in socially necessary labor.

Teaching is socially necessary if one wishes to have generations of educated youth, teaching doesn't create value in Marxian terms.

An educated student is of the same value as a less educated one :confused:?

I do not know what you are talking about; there is no monetary value in students.A principal cannot take a student and shake them down every day/week/month and receive surplus value.

Ostrinski

18th March 2012, 06:07

Similar, but in this case it makes the world of difference.Obviously, the materials that go into a shoe and a human student have a world of difference between them in and of themselves, that's not the point. The point was that the two relationships are identical.

Hermes

18th March 2012, 06:08

Teaching is socially necessary if one wishes to have generations of educated youth, teaching doesn't create value in Marxian terms.

I do not know what you are talking about; there is no monetary value in students.A principal cannot take a student and shake them down every day/week/month and receive surplus value.

Wait, are we arguing monetary value? I thought we were arguing the other type of value that represents merit or worth (again, not worth in the monetary sense). If I'm right this time, sorry for being ignorant last time, I agree (I think) with you.

If I'm wrong this time and last time, sorry for being ignorant twice. It's a little late for me.

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 06:10

Obviously, the materials that go into a shoe and a human student have a world of difference between them in and of themselves, that's not the point. The point was that the two relationships are identical.

A domesticated housecoat and a lion are similar too; same basic kind of relationship to what you are describing.

Ostrinski

18th March 2012, 06:10

Teaching is socially necessary if one wishes to have generations of educated youth, teaching doesn't create value in Marxian terms.No, teaching is socially necessary because there are professions that require education. If you needed an operation, and I just walked in without any experience, would you feel comfortable letting me operate on you?

I do not know what you are talking about; there is no monetary value in students.A principal cannot take a student and shake them down every day/week/month and receive surplus value.Let me rephrase: Uneducated students are just as socially valuable as educated ones :confused:?

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 06:12

Wait, are we arguing monetary value? I thought we were arguing the other type of value that represents merit or worth (again, not worth in the monetary sense). If I'm right this time, sorry for being ignorant last time, I agree (I think) with you.

If I'm wrong this time and last time, sorry for being ignorant twice. It's a little late for me.

As a revolutionary socialist the only kid of value I argue with is monetary value. The other kinds of value wouldn't be worth mentioning in such a debate.

Ostrinski

18th March 2012, 06:12

A domesticated housecoat and a lion are similar too; same basic kind of relationship to what you are describing.What? You didn't specify a relationship. You named two animals.

Grenzer

18th March 2012, 06:13

So, during popular assemblies, an 80 years old vote should count for more...

They can't for one.

:laugh: Your faux interpretation of Marxism and materialism is getting hilarious. Honestly, I don't know how to respond to this...

I was actually thinking "should I write free will, it's Rafiq after all, the idiot who thinks materialism equates determinism". You are constantly confusing determinism and materialism.

When I said "free will" I simply meant, by your own choosing. You choose to study Marxism, did you not? You were not coerced to do it. I did not gave it any philosophical-like value.

But you convinced me, not by your arguments but your idiocy. You studied Marxism voluntarily without coercion, and look how that turned out: you still have no clue what Marxism is. I mean, you have very little grasp on what materialism is (thinking it's determinism), and you have no clue whatsoever what bourgeois socialism is.

To quote Ernest Mandel (a bourgeois socialist of course :rolleyes:):

Bourgeois socialism is the socialism that seeks a bourgeoisie without proletariat, i.e. market socialism. It is a socialism that favours reform over revolution and class struggle, e.g. mutualism. This is the Marxist meaning of bourgeois socialism.

Your definition of bourgeois socialism = every socialist who does not share the same interpretations of socialism as me.

You're an unbelievably close minded person who, to every criticism responds, "bourgeois socialist!", "Chomskeyan", "liberal!", "shove your freedom up your ass!", instead of using, ya know, arguments.

No one should every argue with you cause you're always right, and those who think differently: to the verbal gulag with them! (omg, you're so ace with all your cusswords).

Goti, you do bring up some valid points, but I think it's important to realize where Rafiq is coming from. As you identified, ageism is a real form of discrimination that exists; but it's key not to take anti-ageism to an extreme. Rafiq's position is that children should not be given the same weight in the decision making process as adults, and it's quite logical. I'm sure that his assertion comes from the fact that biologically, the brains of children aren't well developed enough to the point where they can make rational decisions on the same level as adults, so why should they have the same weight in decision making? It seems to be an undeniable fact backed up by extensive scientific research.

Let's try to keep this from becoming too personal.

Ostrinski

18th March 2012, 06:13

As a revolutionary socialist the only kid of value I argue with is monetary value. The other kinds of value wouldn't be worth mentioning in such a debate.There is no monetary (exchange) value in a socialist society, only use value.

Hermes

18th March 2012, 06:13

As a revolutionary socialist the only kid of value I argue with is monetary value. The other kinds of value wouldn't be worth mentioning in such a debate.

Alrighty, then I agree that they're not worth any monetary value. But I'm not sure I agree that any other value isn't worth discussing. Like Brospierre brought up, a person trained in medicine and anatomy would have far more value to the sick/wounded than one who was not.

Goti, you do bring up some valid points, but I think it's important to realize where Rafiq is coming from. As you identified, ageism is a real form of discrimination that exists; but it's key not to take anti-ageism to an extreme. Rafiq's position is that children should not be given the same weight in the decision making process as adults, and it's quite logical. I'm sure that his assertion comes from the fact that biologically, the brains of children aren't well developed enough to the point where they can make rational decisions on the same level as adults, so why should they have the same weight in decision making? It seems to be an undeniable fact backed up by extensive scientific research.

Let's try to keep this from becoming too personal.

But you also have to realize that the decisions children would be making would be about a system that they are intimately familiar with. They would possibly know more about their environment and needs than one or more of the current teachers would. It's different from asking them, say, about our government's foreign policy, etc.

As to the long term decision making, I still see it as an effect of the current education institution. We teach kids not to think in advance (not on purpose, I don't think), by not giving them any opportunity to do so. We teach them that it's perfectly normal to think only of short term, as the long term will be handled by someone else.

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 06:21

No, teaching is socially necessary because there are professions that require education. If you needed an operation, and I just walked in without any experience, would you feel comfortable letting me operate on you?

Yes, teaching is socially necessary (I never said it wasn't). But I do not believe there are Means of Production. Under any system education is a ebb and flow praxis; it is constantly changing, especially under socialism and communism where it would be a way of life. With such a necessity, and so many varying occupations,value is largely left to opinion (especially since many teachers would undoubtedly teach different subject, this would muck things up some in regards to their specific relation to the MoP).

Let me rephrase: Uneducated students are just as socially valuable as educated ones :confused:?

As I said in a previous post I don't deal with non-monetary values but for this instance I would say that uneducated students are "worth" less than their educated peers. This is a slippery slope though because they have the potential to "increase" their societal "worth" if they are educated.
- - - -
This confusion over value has led this conversation astray. I think we will have to get things straightened out or start over to have an effective dialogue.

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 06:23

There is no monetary (exchange) value in a socialist society, only use value.

I am aware. I wasn't, and didn't mean to, imply otherwise in my arguments.

Grenzer

18th March 2012, 06:25

But you also have to realize that the decisions children would be making would be about a system that they are intimately familiar with. They would possibly know more about their environment and needs than one or more of the current teachers would. It's different from asking them, say, about our government's foreign policy, etc.

You bring up a valid point, but as Rafiq already identified, children lack the intellectual acumen required to understand the ramifications of their decisions.

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 06:29

You bring up a valid point, but as Rafiq already identified, children lack the intellectual acumen required to understand the ramifications of their decisions.

Depends on what decisions you are referring to; on some things, perhaps, on others, they can see clearly. In any case one must remember that the students aren't in complete control in a democratic school as the other teachers have a say in what happens.
- - - -
We are starting to conflate hypotheticals (democratic education and student power).lol

Hermes

18th March 2012, 06:29

You bring up a valid point, but as Rafiq already identified, children lack the intellectual acumen required to understand the ramifications of their decisions.

Again, I would like to see concrete evidence of this, as opposed to personal anecdote. I could just as easily argue that I've seen many children display sufficient foresight of consequence to decide (or not to decide) to do something that they would have done if they were thinking only of the short term.
-
Also what TheGodlessUtopian said.

A question regarding that, however. If we go in number (assuming that the size of schools stays approximately the same), how would decision making work? Does every person get an equal vote, or is it weighted according to age/importance/relevance to position? Because if we go by number, the students will probably win out regardless of what teachers do. (when the two opinions conflict between those positions, of course)

Ostrinski

18th March 2012, 06:34

Yes, teaching is socially necessary (I never said it wasn't). But I do not believe there are Means of Production. Under any system education is a ebb and flow praxis; it is constantly changing, especially under socialism and communism where it would be a way of life. With such a necessity, and so many varying occupations,value is largely left to opinion (especially since many teachers would undoubtedly teach different subject, this would muck things up some in regards to their specific relation to the MoP).So you acknowledge that teaching is socially necessary, and that the reason it is socially necessary is because many fields require proper training. But my friend, the very fact that teachers are socially necessary does imply that production of some kind is taking place, and there is no production without means by which to produce.

As I said in a previous post I don't deal with non-monetary values but for this instance I would say that uneducated students are "worth" less than their educated peers. This is a slippery slope though because they have the potential to "increase" their societal "worth" if they are educatedOf course, such is the same with all things that are produced.

I am aware. I wasn't, and didn't mean to, imply otherwise in my arguments.Then why only acknowledge exchange value?

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 06:37

A question regarding that, however. If we go in number (assuming that the size of schools stays approximately the same), how would decision making work? Does every person get an equal vote, or is it weighted according to age/importance/relevance to position? Because if we go by number, the students will probably win out regardless of what teachers do.

Good question!

I assume things would go by consensus in many instances where major decisions are handled by a thorough debate/meeting among the entire student/teacher body (much like at the larger occupies) and where minor decisions are made by direct votes.

Of course, a system much like bourgeois voting could be mandated for all decisions by any such variant would ultimately serve the staff and students poorly.

Ostrinski

18th March 2012, 06:37

A question regarding that, however. If we go in number (assuming that the size of schools stays approximately the same), how would decision making work? Does every person get an equal vote, or is it weighted according to age/importance/relevance to position? Because if we go by number, the students will probably win out regardless of what teachers do. (when the two opinions conflict between those positions, of course)While I don't support the idea of democratic schooling, I imagine that they would be put into proportion (i.e. each teacher's vote has greater sway with relation to how many students there are) so that the studentry and teachers have equal sway.

Hermes

18th March 2012, 06:42

Good question!

I assume things would go by consensus in many instances where major decisions are handled by a thorough debate/meeting among the entire student/teacher body (much like at the larger occupies) and where minor decisions are made by direct votes.

Of course, a system much like bourgeois voting could be mandated for all decisions by any such variant would ultimately serve the staff and students poorly.

Again, sorry for the ignorant semantics, but by consensus do you mean majority opinion or the agreement of the entire group?

Although this is certainly less of an issue in education, not because it's less important but because the issues aren't quite as dire, the 'tyranny of the majority' could still hold sway. The entire group may not come to the same conclusion, either. Also if it's simply the majority, wouldn't the students automatically win?

Again, it really isn't as important because it's education issues and I doubt there will be colossal issues upon which heated controversy is heaped, but I'd like to know your opinion more thoroughly.

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 06:47

So you acknowledge that teaching is socially necessary, and that the reason it is socially necessary is because many fields require proper training. But my friend, the very fact that teachers are socially necessary does imply that production of some kind is taking place, and there is no production without means by which to produce.

Not production of a specific product that has a promised surplus value. Perhaps if one has raised from birth to be a specific careerist than this would be true but as everyone as the power to choose what they want to do in life there is not inherent surplus value.

Education does "produce" educated people but there,I think,is a difference between churning out a "specialized operator" and a "common intellectual." The former could possibly be made to have surplus value if his entire life is dictated to him; the later couldn't as there is no knowing what he will do.

Perhaps I am being too dogmatic or have lost perspective but I do not think we will reach a conclusion on this anytime soon.

Then why only acknowledge exchange value?

Because I do not remember when Marx ever talked about the "worth" of these other values in the capitalist mode of production. The first post I responded to in which this sub-topic was brought up mentioned, or I had assumed mentioned. monetary value, so I simply took off from there.

Ostrinski

18th March 2012, 06:50

I'll answer this tomorrow. I'm gonna watch a movie then sleep.

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 06:50

Again, sorry for the ignorant semantics, but by consensus do you mean majority opinion or the agreement of the entire group?

Although this is certainly less of an issue in education, not because it's less important but because the issues aren't quite as dire, the 'tyranny of the majority' could still hold sway. The entire group may not come to the same conclusion, either. Also if it's simply the majority, wouldn't the students automatically win?

Again, it really isn't as important because it's education issues and I doubt there will be colossal issues upon which heated controversy is heaped, but I'd like to know your opinion more thoroughly.

I would support consensus in the form of agreement among the entire group, and not just the majority ; otherwise the ills you described would set in. Such a course would take a long while to decide, but as the zapitistas said in regards to the slowness of negotiation "this is the speed of democracy."

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 06:50

I'll answer this tomorrow. I'm gonna watch a movie then sleep.

Kay, see ya then;have a good night :)

arilando

18th March 2012, 12:48

as an actual, trained, professional educator i just literally want to quote everything communitybeliever said in this thread and laugh at it:

extend minorship to 25, require mandatory schooling to that age.

kids are fucking stupid.
That's objectively false, levels of maturity and intelligence among youths differ between individuals. And that you would be the one saying children are fucking stupid is ironic, try looking in the mirror.

arilando

18th March 2012, 13:05

Democratic schools is the dumbest fucking Idea the Libertario-Liberals on this site pulled out of their ass this year. It would be a nightmare. Kids need to be taught by those who are no longer kids. They shouldn't decide what and how they are taught. You've your head so far up your ass and so isolated from the real world if you think otherwise.
Why are there than democratic schools that work quite well?

PhantomRei

18th March 2012, 13:21

Gee, "revolutionary" leftists who support compulsory authoritarian schooling, and think all think all kids inherently retarded and so must be treated like sheep. Wow, I can just imagine how perfectly working a socialist society would be if no one under 20 can exercise their autonomy.

Rafiq

18th March 2012, 16:42

Again, entirely without fact, but I disagree with you whether or not you feel the need to back up your point. I've seen children make decisions that are beneficial for them in the long term, and I think they could do it more often in an environment where they're taught to do that, instead of one where they've developed the need for someone else to guide them around.

If kids need to be taught that, does this not negate the concept of a democratic school system? I thought kids already know what they need to be taught as soon as they are born?

Rafiq

18th March 2012, 16:43

Rafiq

18th March 2012, 16:46

Why are there than democratic schools that work quite well?

Because those schools are:

1. Aren't the "Democratic Schools" the users are suggesting.

2. Consist of children of wealthy backgrounds (Possibly could be fixed in future :/)

3. Don't have large populations of students like most public schools (Which most schools will always have, socialism or not).

Hermes

18th March 2012, 18:04

If kids need to be taught that, does this not negate the concept of a democratic school system? I thought kids already know what they need to be taught as soon as they are born?

I'm not sure where you got that idea, unless you're ascribing ideas to me that I haven't put down anywhere.

If you thought me saying children are capable of making long term decisions is equivalent to me saying that infants have all the knowledge capable to man when they are born, then you have misunderstood my position by a large degree.
-
Oh wait, I think I see, that's my fault. I'm not arguing for democratic school systems, exactly defined as such.

I'm arguing for a system of education somewhat resembling democratic/free schools.

(if I'm correct that you brought that argument from doctrine regarding democratic schools)

Vladimir Innit Lenin

18th March 2012, 19:40

History would be taught as it actually happened, no propaganda. Teachers and students would be equals. Those who wouldn't want to attend wouldn't be forced to. I assume hours would be malleable to the person's situation.

Kinda vague of a question, is there a specific part you were wondering about?

I have to question this whole non-compulsory attendance gig. It is surely in the interests of all of us - current and future generations - that children are in education for a certain minimum period. Is it not somewhat utopian to expect that children - think teenage children with hormones raging! - will act rationally?

Is the idea that non-compulsory education will somehow lead to a higher state of education simply a poor application of a bankrupt micro-economic theory - that of rational choice?

Of course, I am speaking as a citizen of a developed country, where there is no economic need for children to do any economic work, other than attend school to gain knowledge and skills. Perhaps in developing countries, it is necessary for children (i.e. those under 16) to partake in economic work of some kind, perhaps on the family farm or in the family home, particularly in a matriarchal household where the mother needs to bring home a substantial income. After all, it has been shown that child labour may have contributed up to 30% of household incomes during Britain's own industrial revolution.

Not that one can support child labour in any way, but we must understand the point that, simply because in developed societies there is no economic need whatsoever for children/younger adults to work, that may be different in developing countries, where 13/14 year olds working does not equal 'child labour', per se (though of course it's a sensitive topic!).

I agree about teachers and students becoming more equal, though. When I (hopefully) embark upon my teaching gig, i'll not stand for any kids deferring to me as 'sir' or whatever pompous shit some teachers demand.

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 21:40

Why are there than democratic schools that work quite well?

Because the concept,in its most basic form, works. Simply because Rafiq is an Ageist doesn't compromise the flow of how freedom works in a school.

TheGodlessUtopian

18th March 2012, 21:55

I have to question this whole non-compulsory attendance gig. It is surely in the interests of all of us - current and future generations - that children are in education for a certain minimum period. Is it not somewhat utopian to expect that children - think teenage children with hormones raging! - will act rationally?

Everyone has hormones, and everyone makes stupid decisions. Sometimes teenagers make stupid decisions: it is life. Such decisions wouldn't cause significant trouble and might even be beneficial.

As for compulsory education I believe that people should be free to do what they want in a society; no one should force them past a certain point. People should learn reading, writing, math, science, and geography up to a intermediate level. Once this knowledge has been obtained they should be free to do what they wish in society; if the educational system is good, and they need more experience than they will end up going back to school.

Of course, I am speaking as a citizen of a developed country, where there is no economic need for children to do any economic work, other than attend school to gain knowledge and skills.

Ironically the economy would be much better if youth were allowed actual rights and allowed to live according to what they wanted; employment, housing, etc being provided while they worked and studied democratically would provide more benefits to society.

Do not mistake oppression for freedom.

Perhaps in developing countries, it is necessary for children (i.e. those under 16) to partake in economic work of some kind, perhaps on the family farm or in the family home, particularly in a matriarchal household where the mother needs to bring home a substantial income. After all, it has been shown that child labour may have contributed up to 30% of household incomes during Britain's own industrial revolution.

Societies change. Youth provided the backbone of a great deal of manual labor and once they served their purpose they were cast aside as "Minors" to be imprisoned in out current nuclear family. Some call this "progress," I call it a turn in the wrong direction (the "right" direction would have been foregoing of the Ageist agenda and allowing youth to participate in society as a whole).

Not that one can support child labour in any way, but we must understand the point that, simply because in developed societies there is no economic need whatsoever for children/younger adults to work, that may be different in developing countries, where 13/14 year olds working does not equal 'child labour', per se (though of course it's a sensitive topic!).

I'm not sure that "developing countries" have much choice in the matter since when one breaks things down to a individual level children work in such horrid conditions in order to help their families survive.

I agree about teachers and students becoming more equal, though. When I (hopefully) embark upon my teaching gig, i'll not stand for any kids deferring to me as 'sir' or whatever pompous shit some teachers demand.

I wish you luck, I also am looking into teaching :thumbup1:

ckaihatsu

19th March 2012, 00:24

The reason why the discussion of this topic is getting tangled up is due to two things: [1] mixing the context of present-day (bourgeois) schooling and conditioning, with the context of a post-capitalist humane society and its social production, and [2] not considering that formal education *itself* is a thoroughly outmoded social institution.

[T]he reason [teaching] is socially necessary is because many fields require proper training. But my friend, the very fact that teachers are socially necessary does imply that production of some kind is taking place, and there is no production without means by which to produce.

Yes, any labor -- even as trivial as doing someone a favor by showing them how to do something -- would be a *cost* to society, and so it would be socially necessary in a post-capitalist context, but we can't necessarily call it 'production' -- it should be considered more as 'administrative', meaning that it is the propagation of 'correct co-oversight' by and for society in general.

As I said in a previous post I don't deal with non-monetary values but for this instance I would say that uneducated students are "worth" less than their educated peers. This is a slippery slope though because they have the potential to "increase" their societal "worth" if they are educated.

This, again, is the slippery slope of using bourgeois conceptualizations -- if we view people as having 'learning', 'experience', or 'value' built-up in them, we are falling into the trap of a bourgeois hyper-individuation, in which people are judged *separately* and *independently* in regards to their role in politics and administration -- any societal context, basically.

Rather, we should look at *societal* matters in the societal *aggregate*, where what matters more is the *issue*, and the *points* made for and against those stances -- with this perspective what's more important is *what's being said*, and not nearly as much *who's saying it*.

This argument becomes crystal-clear when we consider a fully (communist) socialized production, where what would matter is how discrete pieces of *machinery* are being used for mass social benefit. All other aspects, including any "education" for such, would be of secondary significance to the mass politics for the same.

[2] G.U.T.S.U.C., Simplified

http://postimage.org/image/34ml2e61w/

Bolshevik_Guerilla_1917

19th March 2012, 00:45

history teachers piss me off because all they do is falsify communism and relate it to fascism

TheGodlessUtopian

19th March 2012, 00:49

history teachers piss me off because all they do is falsify communism and relate it to fascism

Yes, but such a complaint is probably better directed to the "High School Commie's Guide" than here.

Kotze

3rd April 2012, 00:29

Here's what would make sense to me (rahrahrah blueprint :rolleyes:).

Different teacher-student relationship: In a way, the new education system is more bottom-up and more top-down. Compulsory attendance plays a smaller role (only applies when it's both a core subject and the student has a shitty grade). One can do a lot learning outside of school since everyone has a computer and all learning media is free to copy and modify. And the students choose and rate their teachers.

But your teacher does not make the tests and does not give you your grade, that's done at a higher level.

Who can become a teacher candidate for a given subject is based on how well one does on the tests. Even minors can be teachers (though they have a stricter limit on how much teaching they can do). Whether somebody has to take a break before being allowed to be teacher candidate again is based on a score that is a mix of how the students do on the tests (especially in relation to their past performance) and how they rate the teacher.

Different content: Early education has a heavy focus on learning languages and everybody also gets acquainted with a musical instrument (not to become a good or even mediocre musician, but to develop hearing).

History and geography are one subject, and it's WORLD history/geography in the spirit of Arno Peters, that means it neither gives any special attention to the place you live in, nor to the more recent decades. Big picture stuff.

Everybody will have to get some basics of logistics, of running a meeting and voting, and how to communicate with the bureaucracy. (I don't know how to name this, Clusterfuckology?:lol:)

ElRaay

3rd April 2012, 07:33

My opinion is our school system is too old and based on a almost assembly line concept. Each kid is lined up in rows and they expect all these kids to have straight A grades from waterdowned school books. Each kid today is different and has a unique mind. A child's mind is one of the greatests tools to advance the human race and yet these schools are underbudget and the schools with the "good grades" get the money and the schools with the "bad grades" are ignored.
I think we should be using one of the greatest tools at our finger tips and we don't even know it. The *drum roll* //Internet//. Already websites like youtube allow us to learn basic algebra to basic literature. Why not, instead of schools and universities, have "learning centers" which mix both schools and universities together. Watch a lecture of an actual professor on a certian subject and use certain internet programs to accelerate learning. Twitter, facebook, even reddit :rolleyes:. These can be used to connect students and children to create one of the biggest study groups to man.
I would also like to think these learning centers can use public funding much better by focusing on the students tools and the teachers pay who can help these kids if they are given more tools for these kids. Sports, music, and arts are usually the first classes to go under budget cuts, however learning centers (I'm just going with learning centers) can also host mulitiple extra curricular activities. Better to me to have it this way so it can allow kids to learn from both professors and teachers, as well as get the school/university feeling. Internet programs both for school and kids outside that learning center. All while being free and better money management on these types of schools. Your thoughts???

Yazman

3rd April 2012, 08:39

ElRaay, I sort of understand what you mean. The education system seems to be far too utilitarian, in my opinion, especially in secondary and tertiary education where some institutions are almost set up as just "job factories." Call me idealistic but I feel that education should be for for its own sake, for improvement and like you've said, advancing humanity.

The way it is it is almost like education exists for the sole purpose of churning out more fodder for finance, rather than for the purpose of progress, development and educating people.

ckaihatsu

3rd April 2012, 09:11

[2] not considering that formal education *itself* is a thoroughly outmoded social institution.

I'll expand on this idea by noting that education is just an extension (for preparation for the future) of any given social institution. Education is therefore necessarily *politicized*, since one can simply ask the question, "What's worth studying [out of a virtually infinite amount of available knowledge and information] -- ?"

What any given learning institution decides to *prioritize* reveals their socio-political "agenda", or philosophy. Public education is administered by the nation-state, so it will emphasize nationalist history and preparing the student for national-culture-based living and working, while religious education emphasizes themes from their own sectarian religious history, etc. -- it's inevitable.

Certainly there are basic overarching *categories* that may be used in a *very* general categorical way, but these are absolutely *abstracted* from the substance of the curriculum, which can vary greatly.

So a core curriculum may address these basic categories, like:

- art

- literature

- games / sports (cooperation / competition)

- social science

- science

*These* days I think we're seeing an existential crisis for nationalism that's reflected in the existential crisis in education as we're used to seeing it. The industrial factory system *required* a certain assembly-line-like conditioning of its youth for acclimation and preparation for life and work in the cities, but these days there's just as much raw knowledge and information available *out* of the classroom as in it -- this is problematic for the nation-state's method which, until recently, had a monopoly on the process of mass education.

Today the Internet -- and notably Wikipedia -- can provide anyone with a basic literacy, unquestionably. And, this issue of open-access literacy parallels the issue of *public access and oversight* that the WikiLeaks development has thrown into stark relief.

[21] Ideologies & Operations

http://postimage.org/image/1d2pk9lok/

Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

http://postimage.org/image/1d4ldatxg/

[27] Humanities-Technology Chart

http://postimage.org/image/35qtt66n8/

Full Metal Bolshevik

16th December 2013, 20:58

Interesting topic, I hope you don't mind posting here after a year and a half.

Regarding education, more important than the subjects itself is the way the school works.
Personally I had two main gripes during my time at school.

1st, and more personal is how annoying it is, society loving to function during the morning. I really hate mornings, my body wasn't made to wake up at 7 AM and then go to a place I didn't want to go in the first place. And some people have to wake even sooner!
I heard people talking about sleeping during class, I always thought it was an exaggeration, until I started literally sleeping during some classes, it was torture, and I wasn't sleep deprived compared to some colleagues, it's just how my body works.

2nd and most people will agree with me, how unsuccessful is the current approach of being sat down for 6 hours listening to a teacher babbling about something we not always care about.

As for solutions:
- Change how the classroom looks like, right now it's to stiff. It should be more casual. The problem is if it's too much casual, there could be many interruptions. I also think students should be free to stand up if they want. (sometimes it really gets uncofortable being sit down for so long)
- Less students per teachers, it should be more personal so the classroom can be a place for creativity, discussion and learning, not just memorising.
- Currently there are mandatory courses and then the student can choose between a few subjects during secondary or middle school for the rest of the year. I think students should be able to choose between courses on a daily/weekly basis without bureaucracy. They should be able to change classrooms to feel the different subjects and then start going more to the ones they like the most.

We should also take into account studies on how the brain works. I'm sure there are some saying how long the brain can keep concentration, the optimal time for learning, how often and how long there should be pauses etc

Sorry for messy post, I'm not very good at expressing myself, probably because I slept through class :D

ckaihatsu

16th December 2013, 21:49

Full Metal Bolshevik

17th December 2013, 06:54

Yeah, no prob -- I hear ya, but everything you're recommending is politically *reformist*.

I'll note this part of my previous post...

...And build on it to say that all of society *should* be 'freed' by now, by the information revolution, to just take from the Internet (and give back to), to effect *actual projects* in the larger world.
But the school isn't just for learning.

And yeah, it's definitely reformist. What I said could be actually implemented today on schools, maybe some have something similar already. Just because we live in a capitalistic society doesn't mean we can't have nice things.

ckaihatsu

17th December 2013, 18:36

But the school isn't just for learning.

And yeah, it's definitely reformist. What I said could be actually implemented today on schools, maybe some have something similar already. Just because we live in a capitalistic society doesn't mean we can't have nice things.

Sure -- if it came down to schools or no-schools I'd be on the side of 'schools', definitely. And I wish you the best with whatever adjustments you think would be most appropriate for the schooling process.

But -- education *is* paradigmatic, and the more we see it as a 'socialization' thing instead of a 'preparation for the real world', the more it just resembles a glorified *club* of some sort (and I make this critique of *any* societal practice).

DOOM

17th December 2013, 19:20

history teachers piss me off because all they do is falsify communism and relate it to fascism

Well my teacher didn't relate communism to fascism, but he asked one time why capitalism is working "so good".
Pretty suggestive, I think.

BlackFlag

17th December 2013, 20:12

1. Make teaching a hard job to get, one that requires education and tests to ensure they are suited to the job. This ensures only people who want to teach will do it.
2. Make new history books, one that avoids any bias or Propaganda. Now, this will have to include ALL OF IT. Even the fact that Hitler wasn't the raving lunatic that the History books paint him as, even if he was one of the most evil men in History.
3. Bring in new subjects such as Computer Science and Computer Technology, as we are now in the technology age, it's the future for mankind.
4. Treat students and teachers as equals, still do not allow dis-respect between the two.
Also, another one that COULD work:
Allowing teachers to select the curriculum, as the job is hard to get already, and they want to teach it'd be well suited, and they wouldn't be messing around. Teachers would still have to cover certain topics, but allow them to roam a little.

Hiphop4love

25th December 2013, 06:17

Great question. I have also wondered this as well. For example, when people speak of the importance of Education, I have always thought that in order for the education to make a positive impact, it must be not run by a government. The fed. and state govs in the US regulate what we learn and must cover during school. With this comes propaganda and bias. The gov. wants to use schools to create patriotic students who don't question authority, in my opinion.

In war-torn countries, education is also talked about as a key to a better future. I believe this to be true, but again, it also must be not controlled by a government.

Learning about other cultures and history with no bias, having no superiors, and learning to get a long and work together for the benefit of all, with love for all regardless of their background, beliefs, etc.. is the key, imo.

Hiphop4love

25th December 2013, 06:24

Also, the inequality in schools must be taken care of. I remember seeing a video of schools with terrible, terrible conditions compared to the best public schools in Ohio. Schools must be fixed so the kids can feel good about themselves and see and feel the true wealth and benefit of knowledge. Schools must have equal opportunities to learn and have the best, most up-to-date technology and books. Kids must learn to unleash their true potential and not chained down by grades and all that BS. We should promote free thinkers, revolutionary thinkers and helping others.

Teacher

26th December 2013, 08:08

Vladimir Innit Lenin

26th December 2013, 10:06

So I am an actual teacher. When I was studying to become a teacher, I was very enamored with ideas like what TheGodlessUtopian is describing. Participating in the real world has changed my beliefs quite a bit about what type of education is actually feasible and what actually benefits students the most.

It sounds to me like most of the people advocating for really utopian ideas in this thread are either teenagers or young adults who feel stifled by the education system they have recently been forced through. I was in the same boat. Having seen it from the perspective of a teacher though, I've come to appreciate the fact that above all else students need structure and routine in order to effectively learn.

My class is not an authoritarian environment. I don't brainwash my students (quite the opposite I hope!) But if I did not have order and structure in my classroom not only would students not learn anything, but they would not respect me as an educator. Students WANT to learn, but they cannot be left to their own devices at such a young age.

Now, much of what I am saying here applies to the system as it currently exists. In a socialist society you would presumably have many changes that would make a more flexible and constructivist-type education more feasible (such as dramatically reduced class sizes).

Nevertheless, I think if the people in this thread had to spend even a few days as a teacher or a parent, they would think very differently about the "freedom" they want to give to kids. Nothing is more disempowering to a kid to have a teacher or parent who doesn't provide the proper structure and discipline that allows that kid to grow into a mature and functioning adult. Socialism can't overturn the basic fact that we all need time to grow up.

This is a fantastic post and echoes everything i've been saying.

Of course, when we say 'order' and 'structure', we don't mean mindless authority and 'respect for your elders' sort of rubbish. Of course, we as teachers have to earn respect, and be authoritative rather than authoritarian.

When i'm talking to 13/14/15 year old kids in the classroom, I remind myself that I have cousins, nephews/nieces and step-family of the same age, and that y'know, they are human beings with agency, feelings, intuition and a lot of willpower and brainpower themselves. They need to be treated as equals with us, not below us.

Having said that, there cannot be chaos in the classroom; the teacher needs to guide and facilitate learning. There is no other way to do pedagogy well, in terms of a structured education over a number of years.

Trap Queen Voxxy

26th December 2013, 13:22

I don't think we should have schools. Yep, fuck class.

ckaihatsu

26th December 2013, 16:18

Problem-based learning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem-based_learning

Slavic

26th December 2013, 17:21

I don't think we should have schools. Yep, fuck class.

Yea fuck learning how to read, perform basic mathematical operations, and develop scientific analysis methods. Children of all ages should be able to run through the streets wild without the state telling them what to do. Honestly since when did knowing how to read and add help anyone. :rolleyes:

Zukunftsmusik

26th December 2013, 18:25

Yea fuck learning how to read, perform basic mathematical operations, and develop scientific analysis methods. Children of all ages should be able to run through the streets wild without the state telling them what to do. Honestly since when did knowing how to read and add help anyone. :rolleyes:

As if learning needs to happen day in and day out within the walls of badly lit and poorly ventilated houses that look suspiciously like prisons, in classrooms divided from each other and from the world around them, led by the same boring teachers going over the same boring routine.

Among other things, communisation will be the withering away of systematic distinction between learning and doing. We are not saying that ignorance is bliss, or that a few weeks of thorough (self-)teaching are enough for anyone to be able to translate Arabic into English or to play the harpsichord. Though learning can be fun, it often involves long hard work. What communism will do away with is the locking up of youth in classrooms for years (now 15 to 20 years in so-called advanced societies). Actually, modern school is fully aware of the shortcomings of such an absurdity, and tries to bridge the gap by multiplying out-of-school activities and work experience schemes. These remedies have little effect: the rift between school and the rest of society depends on another separation, which goes deeper and is structural to capitalism: the separation between work (i.e. paid and productive labour), and what happens outside the work-place and is treated as non-work (housework, bringing up children, leisure, etc., which are unpaid). Only superseding work as a separate time-space will transform the whole learning process.

Trap Queen Voxxy

26th December 2013, 19:06

Yea fuck learning how to read, perform basic mathematical operations, and develop scientific analysis methods.

They can't do this on their own?

Children of all ages should be able to run through the streets wild without the state telling them what to do.

Trill.

Honestly since when did knowing how to read and add help anyone.

That's what I'm saying.

Child: "Mommy I'm hungry, I wan food."
Mother: "It's ok dear, the sum of 1 and 1 is 2 and the capital of Fiji is Suva, there, feel better? Want a snapple fact snack topper then, huh?"

Recitations from Snapple fact compendia isn't going to feed anyone's children. Schools are pretty inhumane and anti-worker. I mean, fuck, it wasn't until relatively recently within the past couple decades that corporal punishment has been outlawed in most European/North American schools as a viable and appropriate form of punishment. Or the recitation of the pledge of alleigence, to God and contry. Or prayers. Not to mention the atrocious food they poison the youth with and whatever the fuck Frankensnacks actually consists of. Or the malignant institutionalist, indentitarian, conformist, anti-worker, nationalist culture that permeates most schools. I mean what part of the actual "school," experience do you find redeeming? You mistake this as being a critique of 'intellectualism' or 'smarts' when this isn't the case, it's a critique of how we learn, not learning or knowledge' in general.

http://newspirates.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/pledge.jpg

:rolleyes:

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.<3

Sabot Cat

26th December 2013, 19:20

I don't think we should have schools. Yep, fuck class.

I suppose we as communists do call for a classless society... :P

In all seriousness though, any education will be indoctrination too, and thus we need to choose what knowledge and values to impress upon the young, who cannot choose for themselves what information and framework to immerse themselves in.

I believe we can help protect their autonomy by teaching them only that which has been proven to correspond to reality by all conventional measures of validity. Mathematics and the sciences pass this test easily. As does reading and the technical aspects of composing music, artwork or literature; but then, what songs, pictures and books should the youth be exposed to?

There is also the question of teaching history. History is so vast that one cannot help but streamline it and only highlight certain events and individuals, crafting a biased framework all the while. This is especially true in that making history a narrative often tends towards creating heroes and villains (thus instituting an implicit system of morality). This tendency to latch onto individuals makes democratic, proletarian history a challenge in the telling as well. However, these are merely difficult questions, but not unanswerable ones. Media and history will just be as diverse, free, and honest as possible for children as it is with adults, ever conscious of reactionary vices that can be embedded in them. Finally, although local, democratic councils should dictate the curriculum for their community, I believe parents and guardians should be the ones who decides what their children are raised with in the end (although caveats exist, such as the dangers of religious and nationalist indoctrination; that is another topic entirely, however).

Zukunftsmusik

26th December 2013, 19:36

I think it's wrong to frame the question as a problem of learning the "correct" things, or learning "only that which has been proven to correspond to reality by all conventional measures of validity" (don't schools do this today?). Propaganda is only a secondary problem with schools, we need to see the school system in relation to class society in general, as "factories" of future workers, and pedagogy and education in relation to this.

Sabot Cat

26th December 2013, 19:54

I think it's wrong to frame the question as a problem of learning the "correct" things, or learning "only that which has been proven to correspond to reality by all conventional measures of validity" (don't schools do this today?).

Economics, psychology and history have their facts marred by reactionary ideologies in capitalist nations today. I have seen many a textbook completely distort the experiences of trans people, refer to China and the Soviet Union as "communist dictatorships" and the United States as a "democracy", and economics is just a complete clusterfuck due to its base theories serving to legitimize bourgeois rule.

Propaganda is only a secondary problem with schools, we need to see the school system in relation to class society in general, as "factories" of future workers, and pedagogy and education in relation to this.

This is kind of vague, and I'm not sure what you're trying to put forward here.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

26th December 2013, 22:19

Propaganda is only a secondary problem with schools, we need to see the school system in relation to class society in general, as "factories" of future workers, and pedagogy and education in relation to this.

This is one of the most ill-conceived things I think i've read in relation to education and pedagogy.

It shouldn't be a 'factory' of any kind. Obviously, the notion of 'bias' comes into any education system that is guided by a national curriculum, and into any 'subjective' content, such as within the humanities, and to an extent the social sciences. However, that's not a problem. I tell my history students that I don't want to hear them complaining of bias, because it is meaningless by itself. Bias is inherent in everything we do, or say. I've told them i'm biased - should they not listen to me just because of that? No, of course not. I'm an historical source for them, just as their textbook is, the internet is, primary source material is, videos are etc.

Education is propaganda of course, but it should NOT EVER be political propaganda. A school, and in particular the classroom, should be viewed as a safe space for students to express and explore their ideas and imaginations creatively. The moment you start using the classroom for political purposes, that classroom ceases to become a safe space. A teacher should have full control over what happens in their classroom - good teachers will use such a freedom to do as I said previously: guide students to express and explore their ideas and imaginations creatively and for a positive, learning purpose, for themselves, their peers and wider society.

To just say 'fuck school' might be a good soundbite, but it lacks imagination - 'schooling' as a concept doesn't necessarily have to involve the worn out, greyed classrooms manned by cynical public servants delivering a curriculum of state-managed indoctrination that is so typical of the education system in some developed capitalist nations today.

Zukunftsmusik

26th December 2013, 22:19

This is kind of vague, and I'm not sure what you're trying to put forward here.

Education has a distinct form under capitalist class society, first and foremost to produce adequate labour-power, and takes the form of streamlined "assembly-line education" (as someone in this thread called it), and the division of "learning" from "doing" and of young people from their surroundings for 15+ years. It's not merely a question of changing the content in the education, but its function and purpose. Check out my post on the bottom of the last page.

Zukunftsmusik

26th December 2013, 22:29

This is one of the most ill-conceived things I think i've read in relation to education and pedagogy.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying education should be a factory or a propaganda machine, but, on the contrary, that that's the function it has today.

To just say 'fuck school' might be a good soundbite, but it lacks imagination - 'schooling' as a concept doesn't necessarily have to involve the worn out, greyed classrooms manned by cynical public servants delivering a curriculum of state-managed indoctrination that is so typical of the education system in some developed capitalist nations today.

I'm not "just" saying "fuck school", though. I actually liked school, at least some parts of it, I met some teachers I found inspiring (and some who weren't) and I like learning. School can open up for learning things you're actually interested in, and even does so at times, if it isn't directly intended. But I don't think learning is the same as schooling, and I think it would take a different form and serve a different purpose if we got rid of class society, or more precisely if we supersede the distinction between work and free time.

ckaihatsu

26th December 2013, 22:47

I believe parents and guardians should be the ones who decides what their children are raised with in the end

I don't think the nuclear family would continue into a communist-type society -- people would only be fully liberated if that began at birth, give-or-take.

With everything socialized I'm sure there'd be plenty of freely available resources for babies and infants, onward, for their own individual selection.

Sabot Cat

27th December 2013, 00:21

Education has a distinct form under capitalist class society, first and foremost to produce adequate labour-power, and takes the form of streamlined "assembly-line education" (as someone in this thread called it), and the division of "learning" from "doing" and of young people from their surroundings for 15+ years. It's not merely a question of changing the content in the education, but its function and purpose. Check out my post on the bottom of the last page.

Yes, I still find your proposals vague even with that quote in mind. It's well and good to say we should be doing while learning, but how is learning not doing in of itself? What's wrong with learning from books and in classrooms? How are these detrimental to a child's well being and education? You can point to industrial origins, but you also need to illustrate why the current style of education is empirically demonstrated to be inferior to other models for its intended purpose.

I don't think the nuclear family would continue into a communist-type society -- people would only be fully liberated if that began at birth, give-or-take.

With everything socialized I'm sure there'd be plenty of freely available resources for babies and infants, onward, for their own individual selection.

You can take my family from me over my fucking dead body.

Sincerely,

Pretty much most humans

Zukunftsmusik

27th December 2013, 01:10

Yes, I still find your proposals vague even with that quote in mind. It's well and good to say we should be doing while learning, but how is learning not doing in of itself? What's wrong with learning from books and in classrooms? How are these detrimental to a child's well being and education? You can point to industrial origins, but you also need to illustrate why the current style of education is empirically demonstrated to be inferior to other models for its intended purpose.

I'm not on a computer so this won't be a long response. I don't think it's vague as much as it's abstract, which is intentionally. Your point about how it's possible to separate learning from doing is fair, I guess. But the point is that the very form education has today is linked to its function in class society, and doing away with this society gives learning a different purpose and thus a different form, and this doesn't have much to do with empirical studies. Do you need empirical studies to come to the conclusion that most people are better off without having to work for a living (which in turn would empty the meaning of going through decades of schooling)?

As for your comment on the family: it should be possible to separate love for people close to you and the "objective" role of the family in capitalism.

Sabot Cat

27th December 2013, 01:46

I'm not on a computer so this won't be a long response. I don't think it's vague as much as it's abstract, which is intentionally. Your point about how it's possible to separate learning from doing is fair, I guess. But the point is that the very form education has today is linked to its function in class society, and doing away with this society gives learning a different purpose and thus a different form, and this doesn't have much to do with empirical studies. Do you need empirical studies to come to the conclusion that most people are better off without having to work for a living (which in turn would empty the meaning of going through decades of schooling)?

Yes, I would like proof that a community would be better off with a reformed educational model before implementing it. I think the current education system would be pretty much fine (barring scientifically demonstrated proposals for change) if the curriculum were controlled by the proletariat and not bourgeois policymakers.

As for your comment on the family: it should be possible to separate love for people close to you and the "objective" role of the family in capitalism.

Most people aren't going to be on board with any overtly dystopian proposal like that, especially someone who values their family. Families pre-date capitalism, and they can exist after it as well with no detriment to the autonomy of the proletariat.

reb

27th December 2013, 11:11

Zukunftsmusik

27th December 2013, 18:23

Yes, I would like proof that a community would be better off with a reformed educational model before implementing it. I think the current education system would be pretty much fine (barring scientifically demonstrated proposals for change) if the curriculum were controlled by the proletariat and not bourgeois policymakers.

My point is that it's not simply a question of pedagogy, or, even worse, of curriculum. It's a question of what role learning has in relation to class society. But if you like "hard" empirical facts, how about the large and growing numbers of dropouts (that's the situation where I'm from, at least - I think a third of the students at age 16-19 never finishes)?

On second thought, I think "separation of learning and doing" is simply a different wording of separation of work (in this sense, schooling) and "free time" - learning is a separate sphere, artificially separated from the rest of society, from where and how you "get" the knowledge (or lack thereof) and where and how you use it.

I think your vision of communist society is suffering from a capitalist framework. Things won't get magically better if only the proletariat manages the schools, curriculum etc., just as little as the state will magically wither away if only the proletariat takes its hold on it (the proletariat's role implies this isn't even possible). Our task isn't to put management in different hands - in short, communist society doesn't equal to proletarian autonomy. Our task is to change the very role and function of learning, of work etc.

Sabot Cat

27th December 2013, 18:56

The present education is not fine. What do you learn in school that you remember apart from reading and counting?

Off the top of my head:

I. Mathematics
1. How to write out an equality
2. How to add
3. How to subtract
4. How to divide
5. How to multiply
6. How to use exponents
7. The order of operations
8. The distributive property
9. The reflexive property
10. How to solve for "x"
11. How to find a y-intercept
12. How to find an x-intercept
13. How to find a slope
14. Finding mean, median and mode
15. How to convert a fraction into a decimal and vice versa
16. How to solve a proportion
17. The difference between various shapes
18. Angles and degrees
19. How to find area
20. How to find perimeter
21. How to find length, width, height or base if one is missing.
22. How to round numbers

II. English
1. The alphabet
2. Plural nouns ending in -s or -es
3. Parts of speech e.g. prepositions and adjectives
4. Subject-verb agreement
5. What a dangling participle phrase is
6. How to not make comma splices
7. How to not make a run on sentence
8. How to vary sentence length and structure
9. Conjunctions other than "and"
10. "How to use speech tags and quotation marks," said someone.
11. How to compose a five-paragraph essay
12. Alliteration
13. Hyperbole
14. Antimetabole
15. Difference between metaphor and simile
16. What a synedoche is
17. What personification is
18. What an allusion is and how to make one
19. What rhyming is
20. What iambic pentameter is
21. How to compose poetry
22. The difference between round and flat characters
23. What a fatal flaw is for a character
24. How to depict a character arc
25. How to describe a scene and establish atmosphere
26. How to compose a story

III. Science
1. What the Big Bang is
2. What gravity is
3. What electromagnetism is
4. What strong and weak nuclear forces are
5. That the universe started 13.7 billion years ago
6. That the earth is literally billions of years old
7. That most people and things are made out of stardust
8. You can't breathe in space
9. The process of photosynthesis
10. How to write the structural formula of a molecule
11. The difference between a molecule, an atom and a mixture
12. What protons, neutrons and electrons are
13. What "e=mc^2" means
14. What radiocarbon dating is
15. The process of nuclear decay
16. Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion
17. The difference between alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays
18. What significant figures are and how to find them
19. Difference between ionic, polar covalent and nonpolar covalent
20. Difference between propane, propene, propyne and propanol
22. Why carbon-14 dating can't be used for things that are millions or billions of years old
23. The processes of evolution
24. The structure of an animal cell
25. The structure of a plant cell
26. The structure of an atom and other historic models thereof

I would go on but I think you get the point. There is plenty of stuff being learned in schools, and your dismissal of it is disingenuous.

The way that education set up is a way to mold the child to fit into the work force. You have to be then early in the morning, you have to listen to the teacher who makes you do mundane chores, you have to take your break at a specific time each day, you have to ask for permission to go to the bathroom, you have to pass tests to succeed. It's totally an institution where the only function of it is to adapt the child into bourgeois class society.

How else are you going to learn other than listening to someone who knows more than you? And I don't really see how any of the above is doing any harm to children nor how it could possibly be detrimental to their capacity to learn.

Sabot Cat

27th December 2013, 19:07

My point is that it's not simply a question of pedagogy, or, even worse, of curriculum. It's a question of what role learning has in relation to class society. But if you like "hard" empirical facts, how about the large and growing numbers of dropouts (that's the situation where I'm from, at least - I think a third of the students at age 16-19 never finishes)?

Yes, due to socioeconomic pressures that prevent these students from learning to their fullest capacity. A communist society wouldn't even have a small fraction of these dropouts if the pressures of a capitalist society are removed entirely.

On second thought, I think "separation of learning and doing" is simply a different wording of separation of work (in this sense, schooling) and "free time" - learning is a separate sphere, artificially separated from the rest of society, from where and how you "get" the knowledge (or lack thereof) and where and how you use it.

I think your vision of communist society is suffering from a capitalist framework. Things won't get magically better if only the proletariat manages the schools, curriculum etc., just as little as the state will magically wither away if only the proletariat takes its hold on it (the proletariat's role implies this isn't even possible). Our task isn't to put management in different hands - in short, communist society doesn't equal to proletarian autonomy. Our task is to change the very role and function of learning, of work etc.

Which means what? What are these vaguely delineated "changes"? Your proposals are incredibly frustrating to me because they betray no vision of what should be, just that you don't like how school is structured right now. I understand that it can be a vehicle for indoctrination and oppression, but a part of society dedicated to nothing more than the pursuit of knowledge is something that should not be dismissed flippantly if the good parts of it can be salvaged by the proletariat. I have no idea why a proletarian-run school could possibly be anything but a boon for a society as a source of learning, and if it doesn't work out, well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.