the school system

[Avanti]

the school system

is torturing all children

forcing them to sit down

to waste the most beautiful time in their life

looking at a board

to sit on their asses all day

until their backs ache

indoctrinates them

by repetition

into losing their imagination

into losing their inner avanti

depressions, suicides, dependency on corporate drugs

increase

to kill the imagination of people

to keep the masses as subservient slaves

to raise bars inside our mind

to keep us focused on being cogs in the system

we are just the oil for the machinery

malfunction

is the first act of rebellion

[Invader Zim]

Kids in the industrialized west who whine about having to go to school should shut the fuck up and read a few books on what life was like for children before the introduction of universal education. And allegedly 'progressive' leftist kids should then contemplate the fact that the opportunity to provide working class children with an education throughout their entire formative years is arguably the single most progressive act of mass social improvement in the history of Western civilization.

http://stjohnsblogs.co.uk/class11/files/2010/11/Child-labor-coal-mines.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VufiAUKApaA/SxhBiBYrNQI/AAAAAAAABRA/VOJuZZbJVps/s320/ChildFactoryLabor.jpg

They should then take a look at the typical outcome for individuals who fuck up their education and have a long hard think about whether lessons numeracy, literacy and a basic introduction to culture (as well as a basic understanding about themselves and the universe around them) are really such terrible hardships to endure.

Take my word for it, if you don't like school there is a typical alternative destination:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01450/Unemployment_1450303c.jpg

[Avanti]

only time i've set my foot in a school building

after i turned 14 years

was when i was 17 years old

then i burnt down a school in a neighborhood

i liberated the students

instead of comparing it to child slavery in the 18th century

compare school to the upbringing of bushman children

which is the most natural for human physical needs?

i am grateful for not having had to endure school since 1993

[Jack]

You're kind of a fucking nutter.

[#FF0000]

words

Modern schools being better than 19th century sweat shops and coal mines doesn't really change the fact that they are dehumanizing institutions that pretty much solidly fail at what they are supposedly intended to do.

I mean, I was about to go into the education field and even other teachers will tell you this.

[Lynx]

Some of the better paying jobs involve sitting in front of a computer screen for hours.

[Avanti]

they don't fail at what they are intended to do

they are intended to break the spirit of children

to suffocate their dreams

to suffocate their souls

to weaken their bodies

and make them respond to the whistles of the bosses and the bosses' overlords

and what jobs are "better-paying"

is not even an issue

when you are getting money

you are getting humans

making you a slave trader

since the commodity of money is debt

and the commodity of debt is people

it is sick to want to exist within a system

that destroys the beauty

destroys the beauty of human life

let's overthrow it within our hearts

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Kids in the industrialized west who whine about having to go to school should shut the fuck up and read a few books on what life was like for children before the introduction of universal education.

Are kids really "whining" about learning or are they whining about the education system which beats them down to conformity and fills their minds with bourgeois propaganda? I believe that they are complaining about waking up early, needlessly early which negatively affects their ability to learn, and about overworked teachers, a grading system which reduces them to nothing more than a number, and the long hours per day. Not to say anything about the peer pressure, trends, and focus on appearance and sexuality.

Kids I know, and I think many others know, like learning, but it just depends on how you give it to them.


And allegedly 'progressive' leftist kidsSo Leftist youth who fight against this punishing bloc are not actually revolutionaries, than? By what standard are you using? Reading this sentence to me reads a lot like saying the proletariat liberating themselves doesn't make them revolutionary because of the benefits the bourgeoisie gives them (like wages!) are better for them than controlling their workplace. It makes no sense and reeks of Ageism.


should then contemplate the fact that the opportunity to provide working class children with an education throughout their entire formative years is arguably the single most progressive act of mass social improvement in the history of Western civilization.Strange, because when mandatory schooling started in America there was armed resistance to the measure because parents were afraid that their kids wouldn't be in good hands and fed ideology which ran contrary to their views. General education, however, is a progressive step-up but it is a social improvement only as far as it teaches them necessities like reading, science writing, and math. The rest (history, sports and such) are propped up only to serve the ruling class and idolize their accomplishments.

As spoken elsewhere though the fact that kids no longer have to work in a mine, sweatshop, or other factory for hours on end in deplorable conditions means little when the replacement is mental labor designed to break them down into what society wants them to be (within an environment often rife with bullying; a side product of how dysfunctional the area truly is). An improvement, yes, but a poor improvement.


They should then take a look at the typical outcome for individuals who fuck up their education and have a long hard think about whether lessons numeracy, literacy and a basic introduction to culture (as well as a basic understanding about themselves and the universe around them) are really such terrible hardships to endure. Really, public education teaches you not only the basics but culture as well, in addition to facts about the universe? You must have went to a different school than me because I certainly do not remember any such lessons being learned at my school. I remember bullying, fights, and LOTS of slander but no lessons on life or culture (not unless you count a lecture about the necessities of needing to invade other nations as a "culture" lesson).

I never learned about any of the topics you speak of until I was away from school and had time to observe the world on my own, outside of the narrow dwellings of the corporate sponsored halls of public academia. It sounds like you are beautifying the dehumanizing horrors of public school for the sole purpose of striking out against this imaginary enemy.


Take my word for it, if you don't like school there is a typical alternative destination: [pic of homeless (?) people standing outside a building]
Realistically speaking this could be your destination anyway. Are there not thousands of college graduates looking for any kind of job, with many others unemployed? You seem to make the mistake of equating an education with guaranteed employment.

To play the devil's advocate, for the formally uneducated, there is the potential of them using a skill, like music, to get by or by using the "streets" to sell "merchandise" (however undesirable it may be for most, a segment does take advantage of it). Then there is the welfare state or family; again, not the most desirable but better than being on the curb.

[#FF0000]

they don't fail at what they are intended to do

Oh, I know. That's why I said "supposedly". The stated goal is to educate children. Of course, 'education' isn't quite the right word to describe what goes on there.

[hetz]

Modern schools being better than 19th century sweat shops and coal mines doesn't really change the fact that they are dehumanizing institutions that pretty much solidly fail at what they are supposedly intended to do.I don't know about America but schools I went to were not at all "dehumanizing", on the contrary. It's where I grew up and formed myself as an individual, all in all it was pretty interesting.
Nor did they fail at what they were supposed to do, of course to get the best out of school requires some cooperation from the students themselves.

[Avanti]

Oh, I know. That's why I said "supposedly". The stated goal is to educate children. Of course, 'education' isn't quite the right word to describe what goes on there.

real education

always integrates integrity

values

and love

from a mentor

who learns useful

life lessons

and respects the child

as an own unique expression

of the kinship

that brings forth

whole and strong people

not mutilated wrecks

who are running on anti-depressants and reality television

[Avanti]

I don't know about America but schools I went to were not at all "dehumanizing", on the contrary. It's where I grew up and formed myself as an individual, all in all it was pretty interesting.
Nor did they fail at what they were supposed to do, of course to get the best out of school requires some cooperation from the students themselves.


yes

and coca-cola is good

for your teeth

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I don't know about America but schools I went to were not at all "dehumanizing", on the contrary. It's where I grew up and formed myself as an individual, all in all it was pretty interesting.
Nor did they fail at what they were supposed to do, of course to get the best out of school requires some cooperation from the students themselves.

It largely depends on your area. Some schools are indeed good institutions where many youth are able to gain a lot while others are more akin to hellholes. This is mostly determined how much money the school system has and whether it is public or alternative (though history of the school and where resources are allocated are very important as well).

[hetz]

Considering all the money America spends on education in terms of GDP %, which is several times more than in Denmark or Finland ( the country with the best ed. system in the world ), I'm surprised that it's so shitty.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Considering all the money America spends on education in terms of GDP %, which is several times more than in Denmark or Finland ( the country with the best ed. system in the world ), I'm surprised that it's so shitty.

Every teacher I ever had said the same (with the exception of my teacher friends in the rural areas of my state who work in dilapidated buildings) .lol... which is where the system itself comes in; the government throws money at its problems when in actuality they need serious reform if they ever want a hope at getting somewhere in education. Its a lot like using a scapegoat.

[Avanti]

you talk about making the boxes more comfortable

in truth

there is only one solution

burn down the boxes

liberate our bodies

we are not evolved and created

to live shielded by four walls and a ceiling

only sleep is suitable for shelter

the rest of the time

we should run around

underneath the sun and underneath the stars

eternity over our minds

[Pelarys]

Considering all the money America spends on education in terms of GDP %, which is several times more than in Denmark or Finland ( the country with the best ed. system in the world ), I'm surprised that it's so shitty.

Frankly I don't really see how we can compare Denmark to the U.S., I mean they're kind of the opposite of one other in term on many levels.

[Rafiq]

Kids in the industrialized west who whine about having to go to school should shut the fuck up and read a few books on what life was like for children before the introduction of universal education. And allegedly 'progressive' leftist kids should then contemplate the fact that the opportunity to provide working class children with an education throughout their entire formative years is arguably the single most progressive act of mass social improvement in the history of Western civilization.

http://stjohnsblogs.co.uk/class11/files/2010/11/Child-labor-coal-mines.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VufiAUKApaA/SxhBiBYrNQI/AAAAAAAABRA/VOJuZZbJVps/s320/ChildFactoryLabor.jpg

They should then take a look at the typical outcome for individuals who fuck up their education and have a long hard think about whether lessons numeracy, literacy and a basic introduction to culture (as well as a basic understanding about themselves and the universe around them) are really such terrible hardships to endure.

Take my word for it, if you don't like school there is a typical alternative destination:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01450/Unemployment_1450303c.jpg

Many seem to forget that like the 8 hour work day, free and universal education was never some sinister bourgeois plan, but a gain made by the proletariat by which the bourgeoisie was forced to ceed to them.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[cynicles]

Kids in the industrialized west who whine about having to go to school should shut the fuck up and read a few books on what life was like for children before the introduction of universal education. And allegedly 'progressive' leftist kids should then contemplate the fact that the opportunity to provide working class children with an education throughout their entire formative years is arguably the single most progressive act of mass social improvement in the history of Western civilization.

http://stjohnsblogs.co.uk/class11/files/2010/11/Child-labor-coal-mines.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VufiAUKApaA/SxhBiBYrNQI/AAAAAAAABRA/VOJuZZbJVps/s320/ChildFactoryLabor.jpg

They should then take a look at the typical outcome for individuals who fuck up their education and have a long hard think about whether lessons numeracy, literacy and a basic introduction to culture (as well as a basic understanding about themselves and the universe around them) are really such terrible hardships to endure.

Take my word for it, if you don't like school there is a typical alternative destination:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01450/Unemployment_1450303c.jpg
GRRRRR! Things were once worse then they are now so people should stop trying to improve things! GRRRR!

[Rafiq]

Oh, I know. That's why I said "supposedly". The stated goal is to educate children. Of course, 'education' isn't quite the right word to describe what goes on there.

But why are you surprised here? Education emancipates the child from the isolation of the family and gives them space. It is one of the distinctive features of advanced capitalism (as opposed to feudalism, etc.) this state sustained public space. Of course we all know there is far more too it. You know American Libertarians always rail against public education as "orwellian" or whatever.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Many seem to forget that like the 8 hour work day, free and universal education was never some sinister bourgeois plan, but a gain made by the proletariat by which the bourgeoisie was forced to ceed to them.

Only "free and universal" up to a certain point, however. Quickly the bourgeoisie made the concession to work in their favor by loading up the classes with propaganda and skills which would serve the capitalist structure when they applied for jobs (skills which, much like shop and Home Ec, served to reinforce gender roles and class dominance).

[TheGodlessUtopian]

But why are you surprised here? Education emancipates the child from the isolation of the family and gives them space. It is one of the distinctive features of advanced capitalism (as opposed to feudalism, etc.) this state sustained public space. Of course we all know there is far more too it. You know American Libertarians always rail against public education as "orwellian" or whatever.

It depends on the child. Personally I felt far freer at home than I did at school where a multitude of teachers and vice-principals veered over my shoulder incessantly; then there was always "guards" patrolling the hallways. Not to mention the military recruiters brainwashing children to die in their conflicts.

Maybe during an earlier period of American life it is true, to an extent, that youth had a degree of freedom at school but I think this image has quickly faded into memory. Emancipation is hardly the word I would use, especially since school very rapidly adapted itself to backing up the over-all social-structure.

edit: truly, I have never heard a young person say they were "emancipated" while at school (doesn't this run contrary to the comment about kids "whining"? Whining obviously entails oppression (whether real or perceived)).

[Invader Zim]

Modern schools being better than 19th century sweat shops and coal mines doesn't really change the fact that they are dehumanizing institutions that pretty much solidly fail at what they are supposedly intended to do.

I mean, I was about to go into the education field and even other teachers will tell you this.

The suggestion that a majority, or even anything beyond a tiny minority, of schools are 'dehumanizing institutions' is quite frankly absurd and you should be ashamed at having written something quite so crass and idiotic. As for 'failing', a majority of western countries, with universal education free at the point of service, have astoundingly high levels of both literacy and numeracy far and a way beyond historical precedence set less than even 100 years ago. Compulsory universal education to the age of 14 was a hard won social reform, the product of blood spilled by the working classes in WW1, strike action and the tireless efforts of the labour movement over many decades of struggle.

Could it be improved? Yes, but does exist to:

"to kill the imagination of people, to keep the masses as subservient slaves to raise bars inside our mind",

No, it was a privilege of the ruling classes which was monopolized specifically as a means of maintaining the position of social and cultural dominance. And the working classes took away that monopoly and it represents one of the the most important forced concessions by the ruling classes that exists to date.

Oh, and I work in education.


Are kids really "whining" about learning or are they whining about the education system which beats them down to conformity and fills their minds with bourgeois propaganda?

A cursory examination of the anti-education noise posted by teenage boys going through a quasi-rebellious phase undoubtedly reveals an entrenched belief that education is a tedium forced upon them with the explicit intention of making them suffer. Not of course that most of them have either the requisite standard of literacy or self-expression to adequately articulate their complaints - just look at half the posts in this thread - I guess they should have paid attention in English classes.


I believe that they are complaining about waking up early, needlessly early which negatively affects their ability to learn, and about overworked teachers, a grading system which reduces them to nothing more than a number, and the long hours per day.

Waking up early? The body is biologically geared towards a sleep cycle that ends at around 5-7am, as the body releases cortisol, adenosine, raises the heart rate and decreases levels of melatonin. While kids may not like getting up to attend school at 8am, primarily because they don't get an adequate amount of sleep because they go to bed later than advisable, it is not a reflection on schooling rather it is a reflection on bad parenting.

And how many kids genuinely complain about the overworking of teachers? Very few in my experience. They are oblivious to the realities of the working teacher, and perceive them only the arbiter and architect of the situation in which they find themselves. I also wonder in what manner a seven hour (often less) working day comprises long hours. Those were the shortest working hour of my life By far. Since leaving school that usually increases by at least an hour, typically more, as soon as people start work. And that leaves the grading system - if you can think of a different and improved method of conducting summative assessment, then the world's educators doubtless eager to know. I know I am.


So Leftist youth who fight against this punishing bloc are not actually revolutionaries, than?

99% of the time? No. They are individuals going through a phase of directionless rebellion against the perceived evils that govern their life which are quickly dropped as their maturation continues. One only has to look at the obvious link between the turnover of membership on this board and its dominant demographic. Certainly, the complaints regarding education that sporadically appear on this board do nothing to convince me that I need to reassess this view, rather they confirm it. The OP being a perfect example.


Reading this sentence to me reads a lot like saying the proletariat liberating themselves doesn't make them revolutionary because of the benefits the bourgeoisie gives them (like wages!) are better for them than controlling their workplace. It makes no sense and reeks of Ageism.

'Ageism'? Individuals who deploy that term almost invariably, in doing so, highlight the already evident gap in intellectual and emotional maturation between adults and children. The fact is that there is a difference between children and adults, both physically, intellectually and emotionally. To suggest that adults do not, in the vast majority of instances, have greater emotional and intellectual maturity, and considerably more life experience, is to farcically fail to grasp how human being develop over time. There is such a thing as childish behavior or a childish comment. As for the comment regarding proletarian revolution, if you seriously see valid comparison between a teenager complaining about the often imagined evils of school and proletarian revolution then I suggest you seriously reconsider your politics.


Strange, because when mandatory schooling started in America there was armed resistance to the measure because parents were afraid that their kids wouldn't be in good hands and fed ideology which ran contrary to their views.

Really, care to supply some evidence? Because education was a major issue within the progressive movements and thinkers of the 19th century. Take, for example, the extremely well documented education activism of 19th century African Americans. Or the preoccupation with education among many of the left's most influential thinkers, such as Robert Owen. Worker's and progressives were well aware of the benefits of fighting for education. Of course there was opposition, both from the ruling classes but also from some workers who stood to lose income as their children were wage earners, but that does not alter the fact that the introduction of compulsory education not only went hand in hand with the abolition of child labour but also represented a vast improvement for workers and social leveling.


General education, however, is a progressive step-up but it is a social improvement only as far as it teaches them necessities like reading, science writing, and math. The rest (history, sports and such) are propped up only to serve the ruling class and idolize their accomplishments.

Firstly, you vastly understate the importance, in particular, of literacy and how empowering it was and remains. Secondly, encouraging children to be physically fit massively benefits them as individuals, and thirdly subjects such as history manifestly do not serve the ruling classes as anybody with even a basic education in history can attest. Your conspiratorial assertions regarding the role of history as a means of idolizing the accomplishments of the ruling classes can also be debunked by simply examining a modern history curriculum. Indeed, I recall from my own school days that the books were by individuals like AJP Taylor, not Correlli Barnett or Niall Fergusson. You seem to occupy a bizarre alternative reality all of your own in which progressive social change and reform to the education system (brought about by decades of struggle) did not occur and that there is no progressive influence upon (and from) teachers, educational theorists, historians, policy makers or curriculum writers.


I never learned about any of the topics you speak of until I was away from school and had time to observe the world on my own, outside of the narrow dwellings of the corporate sponsored halls of public academia.

What, maths, English, history, geography, biology, chemistry and physics?

And given your evidently woeful grasp of the realities of education, its history, its architects, and place in the modern world, I suggest that your post-school observations lack any serious analytic insight. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in those 'corporate sponsored halls of public academia', you might have actually learned something.

[Ostrinski]

GRRRRR! Things were once worse then they are now so people should stop trying to improve things! GRRRR!Yeah, he definitely did say that in his post.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

@Invader Zim: I was going to write a rebuttal but than I thought better of it since the nonsense you speaking of its just too great. I tend to avoid such blatant Ageists. Needless to say your views disgust me in every manner possible. I use my own experiences in school,and the experiences of many youth I have talked with, as what I go by and to hear you dismissing it all simply because you have elitist musings on education is beyond me. The moment you said that there weren't dehumanizing fields was when I knew that nothing would be gained. Good day.

[Hermes]

A cursory examination of the anti-education noise posted by teenage boys going through a quasi-rebellious phase undoubtedly reveals an entrenched belief that education is a tedium forced upon them with the explicit intention of making them suffer. Not of course that most of them have either the requisite standard of literacy or self-expression to adequately articulate their complaints - just look at half the posts in this thread - I guess they should have paid attention in English classes.

Uh, what exactly are the claims they make that you disagree with? Is having bad English reason enough to throw their arguments out? I find it difficult to believe that you've somehow missed the large amount of adults who have criticized the schooling system.


Waking up early? The body is biologically geared towards a sleep cycle that ends at around 5-7am, as the body releases cortisol, adenosine, raises the heart rate and decreases levels of melatonin. While kids may not like getting up to attend school at 8am, primarily because they don't get an adequate amount of sleep because they go to bed later than advisable, it is not a reflection on schooling rather it is a reflection on bad parenting.

I'm not really sure the blame can be put entirely on parenting. Many kids have a lot of trouble doing their homework (which is usually rote material, even in subjects that really don't benefit from such), can you really blame them for wanting to do something else as well as their required schoolwork (not to mention sports, extracurriculars, etc)


And how many kids genuinely complain about the overworking of teachers? Very few in my experience. They are oblivious to the realities of the working teacher, and perceive them only the arbiter and architect of the situation in which they find themselves. I also wonder in what manner a seven hour (often less) working day comprises long hours. Those were the shortest working hour of my life By far. Since leaving school that usually increases by at least an hour, typically more, as soon as people start work. And that leaves the grading system - if you can think of a different and improved method of conducting summative assessment, then the world's educators doubtless eager to know. I know I am.

Does it matter whether or not they do? It's a valid point regardless. The work day certainly is shorter for teachers, and they tend to get holidays, breaks, etc, that other jobs ordinarily wouldn't. However, many educators need to spend the better part of their time not spent in school, preparing for school. Organizing lessons, grading assessments, etc. As for alternative grading ideas, I have some, and I've heard some, but doubtless my opinion isn't worth anything as I'm not yet an adult. As for those I've heard, you've probably already dismissed them.


99% of the time? No. They are individuals going through a phase of directionless rebellion against the perceived evils that govern their life which are quickly dropped as their maturation continues. One only has to look at the obvious link between the turnover of membership on this board and its dominant demographic. Certainly, the complaints regarding education that sporadically appear on this board do nothing to convince me that I need to reassess this view, rather they confirm it. The OP being a perfect example.

Shouldn't you fight for what concerns you, and what you have experience with? I'm not sure I'm following your argument. Mot of the reason people 'drop' this after maturation is because they're separated from it. I would have a pretty hard time holding a grudge for twenty years too (not to mention those who grow up and become disillusioned with any critique of the system whatsoever).


'Ageism'? Individuals who deploy that term almost invariably, in doing so, highlight the already evident gap in intellectual and emotional maturation between adults and children. The fact is that there is a difference between children and adults, both physically, intellectually and emotionally. To suggest that adults do not, in the vast majority of instances, have greater emotional and intellectual maturity, and considerably more life experience, is to farcically fail to grasp how human being develop over time. There is such a thing as childish behavior or a childish comment. As for the comment regarding proletarian revolution, if you seriously see valid comparison between a teenager complaining about the often imagined evils of school and proletarian revolution then I suggest you seriously reconsider your politics.

I don't see what that has to do with his argument, however. Many students are shouted down and discouraged from critical thinking, both at home and at school, simply because they are young. Regardless of what they say, or claim, they are immediately humored or turned away. I'm not sure if you're saying this doesn't happen, or if you're trying to justify it, or something else. Children can have the same degree of maturity as an adult.

I don't see what's wrong with a student critiquing the 'evils of school', and I don't really see any disconnect between proletarian revolution. Wouldn't it be the same to say that, for example, the fight for increased wages has no connection to proletarian revolution?


Firstly, you vastly understate the importance, in particular, of literacy and how empowering it was and remains. Secondly, encouraging children to be physically fit massively benefits them as individuals, and thirdly subjects such as history manifestly do not serve the ruling classes as anybody with even a basic education in history can attest. Your conspiratorial assertions regarding the role of history as a means of idolizing the accomplishments of the ruling classes can also be debunked by simply examining a modern history curriculum. Indeed, I recall from my own school days that the books were by individuals like AJP Taylor, not Correlli Barnett or Niall Fergusson. You seem to occupy a bizarre alternative reality all of your own in which progressive social change and reform to the education system (brought about by decades of struggle) did not occur and that there is no progressive influence upon (and from) teachers, educational theorists, historians, policy makers or curriculum writers.

I don't really see what literacy has to do with the vast majority of a student's experience at school. That might be an argument for the first couple of years, I suppose, but after that point I would hope that they've attained literacy. I'm also not really sure how your own personal history experience somehow 'debunks' his statement. Many others on this board have had experiences that contrast sharply with yours.


And given your evidently woeful grasp of the realities of education, its history, its architects, and place in the modern world, I suggest that your post-school observations lack any serious analytic insight. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in those 'corporate sponsored halls of public academia', you might have actually learned something.

Is it really necessary to be so hostile?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

you talk about making the boxes more comfortable

in truth

there is only one solution

burn down the boxes

liberate our bodies

we are not evolved and created

to live shielded by four walls and a ceiling

only sleep is suitable for shelter

the rest of the time

we should run around

underneath the sun and underneath the stars

eternity over our minds

Clearly you have never had to live with British weather.

[Rugged Collectivist]

But why are you surprised here? Education emancipates the child from the isolation of the family and gives them space. It is one of the distinctive features of advanced capitalism (as opposed to feudalism, etc.) this state sustained public space. Of course we all know there is far more too it. You know American Libertarians always rail against public education as "orwellian" or whatever.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Education neither emancipates a child or gives them space. It forces them to sit in a building for 6 or 7 hours a day learning things they probably don't care about.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Kids in the industrialized west who whine about having to go to school should shut the fuck up and read a few books on what life was like for children before the introduction of universal education. And allegedly 'progressive' leftist kids should then contemplate the fact that the opportunity to provide working class children with an education throughout their entire formative years is arguably the single most progressive act of mass social improvement in the history of Western civilization.

You're the one who should shut the fuck up. The education that these kids are "provided with" (forced to endure) is worth fuck all. I've learned many things in my life and only a tiny fraction of them were from teachers. Go sit in on a high school economics class and tell me how much "knowledge" these kids are getting. Obviously it's preferable to working in a fucking coal mine, but that doesn't make it good.




They should then take a look at the typical outcome for individuals who fuck up their education and have a long hard think about whether lessons numeracy, literacy and a basic introduction to culture (as well as a basic understanding about themselves and the universe around them) are really such terrible hardships to endure.

Take my word for it, if you don't like school there is a typical alternative destination:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01450/Unemployment_1450303c.jpg

:cursing::laugh:

"Hey kids. Stay in school or you'll become an unemployed loser." Fuck you and your bourgeois thought.

[Invader Zim]

"Hey kids. Stay in school or you'll become an unemployed loser." Fuck you and your bourgeois thought.

Try not to be so stupid. Quotation marks imply that I actually said, or implied, the text in those marks. At no point did I describe the unemployed as 'losers'. Having been unemployed that would be somewhat hypocritical. However, there is nothing 'bourgeois' in acknowledging the harsh realities of the capitalist system. The fact is that limited formally recognized qualifications remove options for life after the conclusion of a child's career in education. And it is also a fact that a common destination for individuals with limited qualifications is the job centre. There is nothing revelatory or bourgeois in making that observation,

[Rugged Collectivist]

Try not to be so stupid. Quotation marks imply that I actually said, or implied, the text in those marks.

emphasis mine.


At no point did I describe the unemployed as 'losers'.Fair enough.


However, there is nothing 'bourgeois' in acknowledging the harsh realities of the capitalist system.
The fact is that limited formally recognized qualifications remove options for life after the conclusion of a child's career in education. And it is also a fact that a common destination for individuals with limited qualifications is the job centre. There is nothing revelatory or bourgeois in making that observationWhat's bourgeois is the idea that education is only useful for finding better employment. There's nothing wrong with simply pointing this out, but you also defended public education as the greatest thing since the weekend. You exposed the bourgeois nature of public education and then defended public education.

I hear people saying that free compulsory education is some right that the working class fought for, but I'm not seeing it.

[Positivist]

Considering all the money America spends on education in terms of GDP %, which is several times more than in Denmark or Finland ( the country with the best ed. system in the world ), I'm surprised that it's so shitty.

Yea I go to one of those schools where we spend a lot and almost everything goes to A.) The football field B.) Beautification projects (If you consider the school name in bubble letters beautifying) or C.) Fancy technology that we all have to use once and then never use again.

[Marxaveli]

I recently made a thread on this topic, go here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/education-one-keys-t176323/index.html?p=2533536

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Having recently graduated from High School, I feel my opinion on the matter would be most welcome.

I'm not against the idea of school per say, but the way it is organised.

It must be more specialised to the students interests. As I'm intending to major in History and Political Science next year, I fail to see how my Math marks should really effect my results.

[Weezer]

Kids in the industrialized west who whine about having to go to school should shut the fuck up and read a few books on what life was like for children before the introduction of universal education. And allegedly 'progressive' leftist kids should then contemplate the fact that the opportunity to provide working class children with an education throughout their entire formative years is arguably the single most progressive act of mass social improvement in the history of Western civilization.

http://stjohnsblogs.co.uk/class11/files/2010/11/Child-labor-coal-mines.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VufiAUKApaA/SxhBiBYrNQI/AAAAAAAABRA/VOJuZZbJVps/s320/ChildFactoryLabor.jpg

They should then take a look at the typical outcome for individuals who fuck up their education and have a long hard think about whether lessons numeracy, literacy and a basic introduction to culture (as well as a basic understanding about themselves and the universe around them) are really such terrible hardships to endure.

Take my word for it, if you don't like school there is a typical alternative destination:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01450/Unemployment_1450303c.jpg

"Those communists should stop whining! Things are so much better today than they were in the 1800's!"

That is the exact same logic you're using.

Of course child labor is awful and inhumane, but is that really an excuse to just not even think about reforming the education systems in the world?

[Revolution starts with U]

An educator blaming all the failures of the school system on students and parents?!

I'm shocked...

[Revolution starts with U]

I was with you at first Zim.... but...


The suggestion that a majority, or even anything beyond a tiny minority, of schools are 'dehumanizing institutions' is quite frankly absurd and you should be ashamed at having written something quite so crass and idiotic.
Idk, I, like you, don't have any evidence to show about this but...
I went to three different school systems. In all 3 of them I
1. Scored high on all tests
2. Failed or passed with a D in most classes
3. Spent most of my time in the hallway or in-school-suspension

Actually, from my anecdotal point of view, the school which most encouraged my own free exploration of education (in certain areas, not so much in others) was the catholic school.
It's definitely been my experience that most schools are more interested in you sitting down, shutting up, and doing what you're told, than in you actually learning anything.


As for 'failing', a majority of western countries, with universal education free at the point of service, have astoundingly high levels of both literacy and numeracy far and a way beyond historical precedence set less than even 100 years ago. Compulsory universal education to the age of 14 was a hard won social reform, the product of blood spilled by the working classes in WW1, strike action and the tireless efforts of the labour movement over many decades of struggle.

Here I agree with you.


A cursory examination of the anti-education noise posted by teenage boys going through a quasi-rebellious phase undoubtedly reveals an entrenched belief that education is a tedium forced upon them with the explicit intention of making them suffer. Not of course that most of them have either the requisite standard of literacy or self-expression to adequately articulate their complaints - just look at half the posts in this thread - I guess they should have paid attention in English classes.

Hurr durr, well gramer be to make me more smartish person. :rolleyes:

... just like a teacher to focus more on whether you're following the rules than actually learning anything!


Waking up early? The body is biologically geared towards a sleep cycle that ends at around 5-7am, as the body releases cortisol, adenosine, raises the heart rate and decreases levels of melatonin. While kids may not like getting up to attend school at 8am, primarily because they don't get an adequate amount of sleep because they go to bed later than advisable, it is not a reflection on schooling rather it is a reflection on bad parenting.

1. I don't doubt your claim, but I would like to see evidence that this is somehow fundamental and universal, not a generalized reflection of having just came out of an agricultural culture.
2. How is it my parents fault I have insomnia? It didn't matter that they made me go to sleep at 10. I probably wasn't going to fall asleep till 4...


And how many kids genuinely complain about the overworking of teachers? Very few in my experience. They are oblivious to the realities of the working teacher, and perceive them only the arbiter and architect of the situation in which they find themselves. I also wonder in what manner a seven hour (often less) working day comprises long hours. Those were the shortest working hour of my life By far. Since leaving school that usually increases by at least an hour, typically more, as soon as people start work. And that leaves the grading system - if you can think of a different and improved method of conducting summative assessment, then the world's educators doubtless eager to know. I know I am.

Are you really tho?
How committed are you to allowing students to work at their own pace?



99% of the time? No. They are individuals going through a phase of directionless rebellion against the perceived evils that govern their life which are quickly dropped as their maturation continues.
Here I agree.

One only has to look at the obvious link between the turnover of membership on this board and its dominant demographic. Certainly, the complaints regarding education that sporadically appear on this board do nothing to convince me that I need to reassess this view, rather they confirm it. The OP being a perfect example.

Haven't some of our most immature members also been some of our oldest?


'Ageism'? Individuals who deploy that term almost invariably, in doing so, highlight the already evident gap in intellectual and emotional maturation between adults and children. The fact is that there is a difference between children and adults, both physically, intellectually and emotionally. To suggest that adults do not, in the vast majority of instances, have greater emotional and intellectual maturity, and considerably more life experience, is to farcically fail to grasp how human being develop over time.
I don't follow your logic.
I have no intellectual qualms about recognizing that children are less developed than they will be when they mature. That's definitional. While also believing it is fundamentally inefficient and to growth and development, and immoral, to disregard or not allow the input of any acting agent in its own life.

So where is the logic that calls this a fallacy?



Really, care to supply some evidence? Because education was a major issue within the progressive movements and thinkers of the 19th century. Take, for example, the extremely well documented education activism of 19th century African Americans. Or the preoccupation with education among many of the left's most influential thinkers, such as Robert Owen. Worker's and progressives were well aware of the benefits of fighting for education. Of course there was opposition, both from the ruling classes but also from some workers who stood to lose income as their children were wage earners, but that does not alter the fact that the introduction of compulsory education not only went hand in hand with the abolition of child labour but also represented a vast improvement for workers and social leveling.

Same page here


Firstly, you vastly understate the importance, in particular, of literacy and how empowering it was and remains. Secondly, encouraging children to be physically fit massively benefits them as individuals, and thirdly subjects such as history manifestly do not serve the ruling classes as anybody with even a basic education in history can attest.
to the second: How are you defining "encourage?"
to the third: i don't think you remember grade school history classes. I have my doubts if you even remember intro college history classes... You don't get a lot of historians representing ruling class society as anything but how things are and always will be, and particularly modern american society as the pinnacle of civilization.

Your conspiratorial assertions regarding the role of history as a means of idolizing the accomplishments of the ruling classes can also be debunked by simply examining a modern history curriculum.
Indeed, I recall from my own school days that the books were by individuals like AJP Taylor, not Correlli Barnett or Niall Fergusson.
You seem to occupy a bizarre alternative reality all of your own in which progressive social change and reform to the education system (brought about by decades of struggle) did not occur and that there is no progressive influence upon (and from) teachers, educational theorists, historians, policy makers or curriculum writers.

Unsourcable genrealization, followed by anectdotal claim of fact, finished with what looks and quacks exactly the same as social democrat refutes of revolutionary politics, nor does none of it follow from the main point he is trying to make....
Ya, what were you saying about this thread being evidence of?

What, maths, English, history, geography, biology, chemistry and physics?


And given your evidently woeful grasp of the realities of education, its history, its architects, and place in the modern world, I suggest that your post-school observations lack any serious analytic insight. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in those 'corporate sponsored halls of public academia', you might have actually learned something.
Ya, nice. Blame the student for your boring personality...

[Comrade #138672]

While it is true that our educational system is a gain, I would still say that it is dehumanizing, even though it may not be as dehumanizing as child labor.

An old teacher of mine basically said that students were commodities produced by the schools to be delivered to the corporate world.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Education is contradictory. What is it's use value: to educate people. But what is it's more specific form under capitalism: to educate people in how to accommodate to the needs of the system.

But because human labor is involved - teaching - it is also a contested class space where in teachers fighting for more control over the conditions of their work are also taking control over the conditions under which children learn.

[Revolution starts with U]

The tendency to reward slave mentality is a result of the education system being a daycare, not a cause.

[statichaos]

There was a general improvement in the American educational system starting in the early 20th century, one which lasted through the 1970s when I was in elementary school. Alternative educational methods were often employed, the Montessori system became more popular, and corporal punishment became less popular, to the point of being eliminated in many (though not all) school districts. Unfortunately, in the 1980s, the U.S. federal government slashed education funding under the guise of "returning control to the states", and the illusion of increased competition from Japan led many districts to cut arts, humanities, and history classes in favor of science and technology classes. Additionally, the idea of increased discipline and structure became more popular as a panacea for the rising crime rate (mostly caused by the economic downturn combined with the easy availability of strongly addictive drugs such as crack cocaine), leading to such conforming measures as school uniforms, tardy sweeps, and (in the 90s) ridiculous "zero tolerance" measures against children bringing so much as a butter knife to school. While I don't agree that schools are necessarily factories built to dehumanize children, the tendency over the past few decades towards greater control over the students while providing less in the area of anything outside the hard sciences does seem to indicate a general trend in this direction, one that was created out of the best of misguided intentions.

[Rafiq]

Education neither emancipates a child or gives them space. It forces them to sit in a building for 6 or 7 hours a day learning things they probably don't care about.

You don't understand the point. No, it doesn't give them the space to sit on their ass and divulge into their capacity for imagination (and we all take note on how very unfortunate this circumstance is), however, it gives them public (social )space, something initially exclusive to the capitalist mode of production (to distinguish it form Feudalism). What this means, is space in which they share with their fellow "equals", their fellow "citizens", as opposed to the isolation of the family or the labor in the fields. In some cases (specifically, in isolated small towns in the south) the schools do nothing but reinforce the hegemony of the family, though in most cases this is not the case (at least temporarily).

Now everyone shut the hell up and calm down. Of course although it was a victory for the revolutionary proletariat, a forced concession by the class enemy, it, like the great "achievements" of may 68, has been defiled by capital. We know, but this does not signify we should concur with the reactionaries, that compulsory education be done away with all together (is this not on par with calls to revoke the civil rights act?). Don't complain about education or demand reform, you cannot destroy the existing curricular system without first destroying that of which precedes it, capitalist social relations. Will it change? Of course! But to speak of how "Oh man it sux so much it iz not even workingz y dont they teach us communist stuff omg they lied communism is about peace and lovez not a single party dictatroships!!1" signifies immaturity. You may as well complain about our postal system while you're at it.

[#FF0000]

The suggestion that a majority, or even anything beyond a tiny minority, of schools are 'dehumanizing institutions' is quite frankly absurd and you should be ashamed at having written something quite so crass and idiotic.

No I'm sorry, that's something I'm going to stand by. Can't speak for schools across the globe, of course, but the public schools in America? Based on the experiences shared with me by peers, other students, teachers, administrators, as well as my own observations and experiences as a student? Schools as they exist today are absolutely dehumanizing institutions.


As for 'failing'...

Literacy and numeracy aren't the end all and be all of of education.


Compulsory universal education to the age of 14 was a hard won social reform, the product of blood spilled by the working classes in WW1, strike action and the tireless efforts of the labour movement over many decades of struggle.


Stop.

I'm not arguing this.

I am not saying organized institutions of learning should be shut down forever.

I am not saying we would be better off without them.

For someone who is so keen on pointing out literacy rates and calling others stupid, I would expect that you would actually take the time to read what people say and not try to ascribe sentiment and ideas which I never expressed, to me.


Could it be improved? Yes, but does exist to:

"to kill the imagination of people, to keep the masses as subservient slaves to raise bars inside our mind",

I never said that education exists to do this. It is, unfortunately, what education in America does. It's not some grand conspiracy. It's the fact that capitalism works in internally consistent ways, and public education is an institution that exists under capitalism. So of course the default function of public education is to, like Jimmie Higgins said, educate people in how to accommodate to the needs of the system.


No, it was a privilege of the ruling classes which was monopolized specifically as a means of maintaining the position of social and cultural dominance. And the working classes took away that monopoly and it represents one of the the most important forced concessions by the ruling classes that exists to date.

But the poor and rich still don't receive the same education. The rich get legit playgrounds of the mind while "middle class" workers get rote memorization and standardized tests and poorer workers get busted up daycare centers with classes on how to get a job at wal-mart.

The way most schools operate, with their attempts to quantify mastery of a given subject via standardized tests and focus on competition and ranking, isn't conducive to nurturing a love of learning.



Oh, and I work in education.

Cool, you are still kinda wrong.


A cursory examination of the anti-education noise posted by teenage boys going through a quasi-rebellious phase undoubtedly reveals an entrenched belief that education is a tedium forced upon them with the explicit intention of making them suffer. Not of course that most of them have either the requisite standard of literacy or self-expression to adequately articulate their complaints - just look at half the posts in this thread - I guess they should have paid attention in English classes.

I gotta say dude, in my years as a student and my years studying education and working directly with educators, this attitude from a teacher is new to me. I gotta wonder how effective you can be with an attitude like this of your students?

For real, though, there are always a lot of people going on about this or that for a bad reason, but by and large, students are more aware and know more than people give them credit for. And to the benefit of virtually every teacher I've ever had, most of the educators I've been taught by or worked with sort of understands this, and their understanding really helped me and a lot of my peers handle the alienation brought on by trudging through the alienating muck and miasma of modern public schools.

But I guess I should've known better to try to engage you, since you clearly aren't here for a discussion -- just to insult and condescend to others with no concern as to whether or not you're misrepresenting someone's views. That doesn't matter. You're chasing your windmill dragons, Invader Quixote. Have a good time.


Waking up early? The body is biologically geared towards a sleep cycle that ends at around 5-7am,

(This isn't true in teenagers)

[#FF0000]

also some constructive criticism before you ever post again, Invader Zim

1. Try to be less of a smug and self-righteous shitheel2. Fuck you

[hetz]

The rich get legit playgrounds of the mind while "middle class" workers get rote memorization and standardized tests and poorer workers get busted up daycare centers with classes on how to get a job at wal-mart.
Maybe, in America.
I guess some non-American comrades have a hard time understanding just how shitty things are in the US...

[#FF0000]

I can't speak to the public school system anywhere else from personal experience, but I've read some truly fucked things happening in British schools as well.

Regardless, schools don't exist in a vacuum and criticizing schools as they exist now doesn't mean they want to make education a "rich only" thing again (mostly because it already is)

[Revolution starts with U]

I would even be willing to make the claim that the reason radicalism is seen as a middle class teenager movement is because many of the "middle class" has just enough money to get a decent education, but not enough to actually be threatened by capitalism's collapse.

... assuming it's true that there are a lot of petit bourgeois teenagers in the radical movement.

[Revolution starts with U]

"Y'know maybe kids who complain about the modern american business should take a look at chinese sweatshops and be thankful." :rolleyes:

[Invader Zim]

also some constructive criticism before you ever post again, Invader Zim

1. Try to be less of a smug and self-righteous shitheel2. Fuck you

How was my response anything less than constructive? You posted something that demonstrably isn't true and, your subsequence responses aside, I corrected you and explained precisely why I think you're wrong.


Idk, I, like you, don't have any evidence to show about this but...
I went to three different school systems. In all 3 of them I
1. Scored high on all tests
2. Failed or passed with a D in most classes
3. Spent most of my time in the hallway or in-school-suspension

I'm not sure how your personal participation in class, which I'm guessing must have been a disruptive influence, given you say you flunked your courses and spent a large period of time removed from lessons, is a valid criticism of the purpose or value of education.


It's definitely been my experience that most schools are more interested in you sitting down, shutting up, and doing what you're told, than in you actually learning anything.

Have you considered that the reason they want quite, seated kids who actually do the work, is because it is easier and more effective to teach a class that way?


Hurr durr, well gramer be to make me more smartish person.

... just like a teacher to focus more on whether you're following the rules than actually learning anything!

The ability to communicate requires more than merely a familiarity with the rules of grammar.


1. I don't doubt your claim, but I would like to see evidence that this is somehow fundamental and universal, not a generalized reflection of having just came out of an agricultural culture.

http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/sleep-topics/melatonin-and-sleep


2. How is it my parents fault I have insomnia? It didn't matter that they made me go to sleep at 10. I probably wasn't going to fall asleep till 4...

Insomnia is a medical issue, it has nothing to do with how long school hours should be or when they begin or why the vast majority of tired school children don't get enough sleep.


Are you really tho?
How committed are you to allowing students to work at their own pace?

Children should be, and are, placed into classes that best reflect their intellectual maturation and ability. As regards their own 'pace', you are going to have to be more explicit. If you mean not placing any pressure on them at all, either to attend or contribute towards classes, then no - that is nonsense. However, I most certainly agree with increasing teacher numbers and reducing class sizes to allow teachers to give the necessary attention to individual pupil's needs - rather than large classes which set a pace which forces the slower children to struggle to keep up and simultaneously holds back the quicker kids.


I have no intellectual qualms about recognizing that children are less developed than they will be when they mature. That's definitional. While also believing it is fundamentally inefficient and to growth and development, and immoral, to disregard or not allow the input of any acting agent in its own life.

I was speaking in general terms regarding the value of the term 'ageism', not suggesting that children should have no agency in their own lives.


to the second: How are you defining "encourage?"

This is actually a difficult question. For instance, not everyone is athletically inclined, and even those who are do not necessarily want to do athletics. I certainly didn't. It seems counter productive to make a child play, say, football when they don't gain anything from it. However, some form of exercise is certainly in the best interest of most children. It comes down to resources; more teachers and facilities results in more option for children to find a sport or activity they will actively want to participate in. In my school that was woefully neglected.


to the third: i don't think you remember grade school history classes. I have my doubts if you even remember intro college history classes...

Actually, I am a professional historian. I teach history at a university and regularly work with grade school kids, in what we call widening participation to get those kids who have fallen behind (for a variety of reasons outside their control) into university. I don't need to recall these classes, they are a part of my professional life.


You don't get a lot of historians representing ruling class society as anything but how things are and always will be, and particularly modern american society as the pinnacle of civilization.

I disagree. In my experience, most historians are actually on the left and view national exceptionalism as risible. While they aren't necessarily socialists, they are usually firmly on the left. Obviously there are exceptions, but that is the general rule.


Unsourcable genrealization, followed by anectdotal claim of fact, finished with what looks and quacks exactly the same as social democrat refutes of revolutionary politics, nor does none of it follow from the main point he is trying to make....

So, you have no criticism of the fact that s/he failed to source their claim, but do regarding my post? That strikes me as an obvious double standard. You also don't seem to have spotted where the burden of proof lies, The Godless Utopian contended that the modern history curriculum is designed to celebrate the victories of the capitalist system. That is his claim, I am under no obligation to prove him/her wrong when they have failed to substantiate that claim with evidence. And, of course, my response follows directly from his contention. Furthermore, would you care to elaborate on why my comment that why, in my experience, the modern history curriculum does not celebrate the ruling classes is at least aesthetically similar to 'the same as social democrat refutes of revolutionary politics'?


Ya, nice. Blame the student for your boring personality...

What has the Godless Utopian's substandard views on Higher Education got to do with my personality, boring or otherwise? It seems to me that you either haven't grasped the point or are trying to distract the conversation.

[#FF0000]

How was my response anything less than constructive? You posted something that demonstrably isn't true and, your subsequence responses aside, I corrected you and explained precisely why I think you're wrong.


You didn't do any of this. You came in, made assertions and went ham on things people weren't even saying -- for example, acting like everyone who is highly critical of the public school system wants to go back to the days before public schooling was a thing.

[Invader Zim]

You didn't do any of this. You came in, made assertions and went ham on things people weren't even saying -- for example, acting like everyone who is highly critical of the public school system wants to go back to the days before public schooling was a thing.

Actually, I responded to the only post which preceded my own, which explicitly contended that education exists to 'place bars' in the minds of children, 'torture' them, and that the necessary response of pupils is to break the 'machinery' of education. It seems to me that contradicting this bleak view by noting the progressive nature of education, through direct comparison to the situation which preceded it, is entirely valid.

And I fail to see how you can deny that I challenged your assertion that schools fail.

[#FF0000]

yo that'd be hella neat if you didn't literally quote me earlier and do all of the things I am saying you did.

edit: and even so your response to avanti was still full of shit because you insisted that the dude wanted a return to the 19th century because he suggested modern public schools do some sort of harm.

[statichaos]

I agree that a recognition of difficulties inherent in the current public educational system is not necessarily indicative of a desire to return to the days of coal mine work and paddlings in school, much as a desire to overthrow the capitalist system is not necessarily a desire to return to the days of feudalism.

The self-evident fact is that, yes, public schools are far superior to the systems of yesterday, especially in the United States. It seems equally obvious to me and to others that there are still significant issues with the current system, and that most instruction (especially in civics, history, and the "soft sciences") tends towards a reinforcement of the existing dominant culture rather than an encouragement of open and honest questions regarding said culture. Additionally, there is a "one size fits all" approach to instruction that does not take into account the different methods that different children will take to learning new subjects, and an over-reliance on psychiatric medication for children who do not easily adapt to the occasionally suffocating structure of the public schools.

[Invader Zim]

yo that'd be hella neat if you didn't literally quote me earlier and do all of the things I am saying you did.

edit: and even so your response to avanti was still full of shit because you insisted that the dude wanted a return to the 19th century because he suggested modern public schools do some sort of harm.

Nonsense, for instance one of the things you contend I did was to:

"ham on things people weren't even saying"

Which is obviously not true, as the OP, the post to which I was responding, clearly and plainly paints the education system as wholly reactionary, ascribes sadistic motives to its existence, and calls for resistance to it with the stated aim of breaking it. Quite how you can contend that the individual does not want to destroy public education, without any stated replacement, when that is precisely what I said, is beyond logical comprehension. That is what I was responding to. I guess you have just dug yourself into a hole and refuse to admit it. It's OK, I've been posting here long enough to have seen it all before.

Oh, and I never contended that the OP wanted to return to the 19th century, that would assume some kind of rational and purpose to his/her rantings. In reality the OP was a childish and directionless vignette regarding the pains of compulsory education, which painted education as a reactionary and dangerous institution in need of destruction. My post was written to illustrate why that is wrong through comparison with the situation which immediately proceeded compulsory education. At no point did I suggest that the writer wished for that scenario to re-become reality. And that is made manifestly clear in my post - but I guess you were too busy going off on one to bother paying attention to the actual details of what I wrote.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not sure how your personal participation in class, which I'm guessing must have been a disruptive influence, given you say you flunked your courses and spent a large period of time removed from lessons, is a valid criticism of the purpose or value of education.

Because I could always ace the test. The point is that it wasn't important if I actually learned anything. It was far more important that I followed the rules.


Have you considered that the reason they want quite, seated kids who actually do the work, is because it is easier and more effective to teach a class that way?

I have. I think it's bullshit. What quiet seated kids makes it easier to babysit them. It says nothing about whether they are actually learning anything.


The ability to communicate requires more than merely a familiarity with the rules of grammar.

Sure does...



http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/sleep-topics/melatonin-and-sleep


ty


Insomnia is a medical issue, it has nothing to do with how long school hours should be or when they begin or why the vast majority of tired school children don't get enough sleep.

Good. So next time don't call my parents bad parents because I couldn't get to sleep at night.


Children should be, and are, placed into classes that best reflect their intellectual maturation and ability.
They most certainly are not. They are placed into classes with other children their age, unless they are exceptionally gifted... and even then it's only a maybe that they will be moved to a more appropriate learning stage.

As regards their own 'pace', you are going to have to be more explicit. If you mean not placing any pressure on them at all, either to attend or contribute towards classes, then no - that is nonsense. However, I most certainly agree with increasing teacher numbers and reducing class sizes to allow teachers to give the necessary attention to individual pupil's needs - rather than large classes which set a pace which forces the slower children to struggle to keep up and simultaneously holds back the quicker kids.

Of course I don't mean do no work at all.



I was speaking in general terms regarding the value of the term 'ageism', not suggesting that children should have no agency in their own lives.

In other words; you were being full of shite.


This is actually a difficult question. For instance, not everyone is athletically inclined, and even those who are do not necessarily want to do athletics. I certainly didn't. It seems counter productive to make a child play, say, football when they don't gain anything from it. However, some form of exercise is certainly in the best interest of most children. It comes down to resources; more teachers and facilities results in more option for children to find a sport or activity they will actively want to participate in. In my school that was woefully neglected.

I wonder if the same holds true for kids who aren't good at and don't want to do math...


Actually, I am a professional historian. I teach history at a university and regularly work with grade school kids, in what we call widening participation to get those kids who have fallen behind (for a variety of reasons outside their control) into university. I don't need to recall these classes, they are a part of my professional life.

I can assure you most kids don't get this experience, and this is a classic example of someone taking the anecdote of their own experience and widening it to include the whole of society. I remember my grade school history classes, and I only remember one teaching me about labor struggle, and none of them teaching me to question the validity of existing systems.



I disagree. In my experience, most historians are actually on the left and view national exceptionalism as risible. While they aren't necessarily socialists, they are usually firmly on the left. Obviously there are exceptions, but that is the general rule.

1. Most kids aren't reading historians. They're reading textbooks.
2. I guess it's my anecdote against yours, and most kids would probably agree with my experience over yours so....



So, you have no criticism of the fact that s/he failed to source their claim, but do regarding my post?
I didn't even read the OP. Don't deflect the question.

That strikes me as an obvious double standard. You also don't seem to have spotted where the burden of proof lies, The Godless Utopian contended that the modern history curriculum is designed to celebrate the victories of the capitalist system. That is his claim, I am under no obligation to prove him/her wrong when they have failed to substantiate that claim with evidence.
Correct. And offering up a competing unsourcable claim does nothing to further the discussion.

And, of course, my response follows directly from his contention. Furthermore, would you care to elaborate on why my comment that why, in my experience, the modern history curriculum does not celebrate the ruling classes is at least aesthetically similar to 'the same as social democrat refutes of revolutionary politics'?

I was speaking of your "kids should shut up and like school" atitude there.


What has the Godless Utopian's substandard views on Higher Education got to do with my personality, boring or otherwise? It seems to me that you either haven't grasped the point or are trying to distract the conversation.
It seems you think people don't agree with you because they're dumb, ie they "should have payed more attention in those classes." I assume you mean your classes. Kids don't learn from boring kids, that is, except kids like me that just like learning.

[#FF0000]

Nonsense, for instance one of the things you contend I did was to:

"ham on things people weren't even saying"

Which is obviously not true, as the OP, the post to which I was responding

I responded to the part of the post that was directed at me, though. Like you literally said things directed at me, to which I responded, to which you responded 'I WAS TALKING TO OP ACTUALLY'

No one is diggin a hole here, dogg.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Homework is absolute bullshit. I was never given any in primary school, so it was a bit of a shock to be given that shit in secondary school. I absolutely refused to do it on the grounds that if my parents didn't have their work follow them home, why the fuck should that happen to me?

I mean seriously, if they couldn't teach me what I need to know for the 6 or so of my hours they got off me near enough every weekday, maybe they should try better pedagogy, rather than trying to make up for the crappiness of rote learning by forcing more of it down kids' throats.

Coursework was another crock of shit. I'd rather sit ten exams than do one piece of coursework.

[Invader Zim]

Because I could always ace the test. The point is that it wasn't important if I actually learned anything. It was far more important that I followed the rules.

Have you considered that, by not 'following the rules' of the class, which is presumably why you spent time outside of the class room (and indicates disruptive behaviour) you were inhibiting the learning of your class mates? The fact is that when teaching, you have a limited amount of time to cover complex issues and ensure that pupils/students are responding to what you are attempting to convey. Like it or not, that process demands the institution of classroom etiquette.


I have. I think it's bullshit. What quiet seated kids makes it easier to babysit them. It says nothing about whether they are actually learning anything.

That is true, but it is easier to ensure they learn something if you construct a viable learning environment. Part of that includes not being interrupted by chatter and providing the space for pupils/students to take adequate notes, consult relevant literature free of distraction and conduct their academic assignments. That isn't to say that this is always the best method of teaching - smaller classes better facilitate group work, mutual learning and collective problem solving. But in order to foster that kind of environment, the teacher has to be able to do their job in illustrating the key ideas, introducing the literature and setting assignments, as well as provide the space and environment also condusive to individual work.


Good. So next time don't call my parents bad parents because I couldn't get to sleep at night.

What a narcassitic comment - not everything is about you and yours. At no point did I call your parents anything. I stated, accurately, that the 'primary' cause of tired children is not because the school system forces them to work unhealthy hours but because parents do not enure that children have an adequate sleeping pattern. I did not, at any time, suggest that poor parenting is the only cause. You made that up. Try responding to what I actually write, as opposed to transparently strawmanning my posts.


They most certainly are not.

Well, perhaps things are a little different across the pond, but in the UK pupil grouping is ubiquitous. For further information regarding precisely what I mean by that see:

http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/rescon/cpdgifted/docs/secondarylaunchpads/3grouping-new.pdf


Of course I don't mean do no work at all.

Well, what did you mean? You certainly didn't give any indication, which is why I asked you to clarrify precisely what you meant.


I wonder if the same holds true for kids who aren't good at and don't want to do math...

Certainly, but to a limited extent. However, the difference is that there are a great many routes to encouraging a child to be physically active which extend well beyond placing them on a muddy football pitch in the pissing rain. There are not, as far as I am aware, that many alternatives to fostering an awareness of core mathetatical skills. But, it isn't my field.


I can assure you most kids don't get this experience, and this is a classic example of someone taking the anecdote of their own experience and widening it to include the whole of society

You can't assure me of anything, and ironically you are doing precisely what you are accusing me of - casting your own experiences as a general universal rule. But the ubiquity of widening praticipation programmes is incidental to the point being made - that I have a professional familiarity with school and university history curriculums and that the accussations being made about these curricula are largely inadequate as misleading. But, don't take my word for it:

http://www.ocr.org.uk/images/68506-specification.pdf


I remember my grade school history classes, and I only remember one teaching me about labor struggle, and none of them teaching me to question the validity of existing systems.

And why should it teach you to 'question the validity of existing systems'? Firstly that is entirely anachronistic Historym, by definition is the study of what has been and gone, not what is today. Secondly it is not the purpose of the study of history to pass judgements on contemporary society, or even historical society, outside of the existing framework of the society being studied. History is the study of past society and what actually happened, not critiquing or upholding modern institutions. It might provide you with a greater insight into the emergence of such institution, but that is it. Perhaps you would have been better in a politics class if you wished to learn about how things could be, as opposed to how they were?


1. Most kids aren't reading historians. They're reading textbooks.

1. You weren't talking about just that though, you were commenting on the politics of historians. You said, and I quote, that:

"You don't get a lot of historians representing ruling class society as anything but how things are and always will be, and particularly modern american society as the pinnacle of civilization."

2. Historians and history textbook authors are by no means mutually exclusive. However, you are correct to suggest that text book authors are not necessarily professional historians. The OCR GCSE textbook authors are largely teachers who also work as senior examiners. However, historiography does play a major, and obvious, role in the construction of those textbooks. Or do you imagine that the school level history exists in an intellectual vacuum?



2. I guess it's my anecdote against yours, and most kids would probably agree with my experience over yours so....

However, what I'm saying is not anecdotal and can be corroborated by a swift examination of what is actually taught and examined. Indeed, here is an exam paper, sat by masses of A-Level pupils across Britain last year, for you to consider:

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/pdf/AQA-HIS2R-W-QP-JUN11.PDF

The questions seem to me to be about social change and attitudes as opposed to the glorious successes of the ruling class. Note also the quote from Kenneth O. Morgan, a very influential professional historian who spent a lifetime studying the labour movement.


I didn't even read the OP. Don't deflect the question.

You are evidently confused. The passage from which the comment of mine you were responding to came from the Godless Utopian, not the OP. Furthermore, in your criticism of my post you accused me of employing anecdote as evidence, yet you have no criticism of other when TGU did it, and you have done it repeatedly yourself. Oh, and questions end with question marks. You didn’t ask a question, and you made a stupid hypocritical point.


Correct. And offering up a competing unsourcable claim does nothing to further the discussion.
Unsourced claims do not require a sourced response, the onus is not on me. However, being the generous individual that I am, I have actually provided you with both syllabus specifications and an exam paper which shows that I most certainly can source my claim. Indeed, it is such an obvious truism that it only highlights your profound ignorance of the subject matter that you would even demand a source.

I was speaking of your "kids should shut up and like school" atitude there.
Another individual who fails to comprehend the purpose of quotation marks. Regardless, what you were actually ‘speaking of’, unless you also fail to grasp the purpose of the quote function, was the following passage of text:
“Your conspiratorial assertions regarding the role of history as a means of idolizing the accomplishments of the ruling classes can also be debunked by simply examining a modern history curriculum.
Indeed, I recall from my own school days that the books were by individuals like AJP Taylor, not Correlli Barnett or Niall Fergusson.
You seem to occupy a bizarre alternative reality all of your own in which progressive social change and reform to the education system (brought about by decades of struggle) did not occur and that there is no progressive influence upon (and from) teachers, educational theorists, historians, policy makers or curriculum writers.”

But whatever.

It seems you think people don't agree with you because they're dumb, ie they "should have payed more attention in those classes."
Or ignorant, don’t forget that.


I assume you mean your classes.

You assume wrongly.


Kids don't learn from boring kids, that is, except kids like me that just like learning.
Well, boring or not, my latest groups achieved an average of a B in their assignments. So they must be learning something.

[Invader Zim]

Homework is absolute bullshit. I was never given any in primary school, so it was a bit of a shock to be given that shit in secondary school. I absolutely refused to do it on the grounds that if my parents didn't have their work follow them home, why the fuck should that happen to me?

I mean seriously, if they couldn't teach me what I need to know for the 6 or so of my hours they got off me near enough every weekday, maybe they should try better pedagogy, rather than trying to make up for the crappiness of rote learning by forcing more of it down kids' throats.

Coursework was another crock of shit. I'd rather sit ten exams than do one piece of coursework.

Well, homework is for reinforcement and practise of skills to increase retention. Whether or not it works is open to debate.

As for coursework, you're getting your way. Coursework for GCSE students was scrapped between 2007-2009, largely to be replaced by controlled assessments. Certainly history coursework was abolished in 2009, I don't know if it has been applied across the board yet.

[Revolution starts with U]

Have you considered that, by not 'following the rules' of the class, which is presumably why you spent time outside of the class room (and indicates disruptive behaviour) you were inhibiting the learning of your class mates?
I have considered it. I considered it as it happened, but yet it happened. I would also watch people get straight A's who couldn't actually talk about the subject they had just "mastered."


The fact is that when teaching, you have a limited amount of time to cover complex issues and ensure that pupils/students are responding to what you are attempting to convey. Like it or not, that process demands the institution of classroom etiquette.

It still won't work. Learning is a hands on procedure, and no amount of note and test taking can teach anyone anything. Some of us are lucky, and shackled with this bullshit term called "intelligence," and can easily code information.


That is true, but it is easier to ensure they learn something if you construct a viable learning environment.
I have no faith in the modern conception of a "classroom" being that environment, not in any kind of general sense anyway. It works some places, some of the time.

Part of that includes not being interrupted by chatter
No, that's part of the problem. People learn better when they can discuss things. We're coming back to the whole problem, rote memorization.

and providing the space for pupils/students to take adequate notes, consult relevant literature free of distraction and conduct their academic assignments.
Notes are overrated. Not many schools HAVE relevant literature.

That isn't to say that this is always the best method of teaching - smaller classes better facilitate group work, mutual learning and collective problem solving.
With this I agree.

But in order to foster that kind of environment, the teacher has to be able to do their job in illustrating the key ideas, introducing the literature and setting assignments, as well as provide the space and environment also condusive to individual work.

Not really. They just need to learn tolerate children's boredom. As I said, my talking wasn't stopping me from learning, nor my classmates. You can't talk 5 days a week for an hour and have anything happen other than going over the same thing 50 times. Lecture should not be the focal point of the class. Lecture should be for furthering an understanding. An hour long class, in my opinion, should have 20-35 mins tops of lecture, the rest being for discussion and hands-on assignments.


What a narcassitic comment - not everything is about you and yours. At no point did I call your parents anything. I stated, accurately, that the 'primary' cause of tired children is not because the school system forces them to work unhealthy hours but because parents do not enure that children have an adequate sleeping pattern. I did not, at any time, suggest that poor parenting is the only cause. You made that up. Try responding to what I actually write, as opposed to transparently strawmanning my posts.

Maybe if you would express yourself a little more clearly people wouldn't take "maybe if the parents put their kids to bed earlier, the system would work" out of context." What sane person could have seen anything there other than "it's the parents fault."



Well, perhaps things are a little different across the pond, but in the UK pupil grouping is ubiquitous. For further information regarding precisely what I mean by that see:

http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/rescon/cpdgifted/docs/secondarylaunchpads/3grouping-new.pdf
ty



Well, what did you mean? You certainly didn't give any indication, which is why I asked you to clarrify precisely what you meant.
I've said above. 7 hours of lecture is unnecessary, and in my experience counterproductive. It just makes everyone bored, and many respond by forsaking learning in general.



Certainly, but to a limited extent. However, the difference is that there are a great many routes to encouraging a child to be physically active which extend well beyond placing them on a muddy football pitch in the pissing rain. There are not, as far as I am aware, that many alternatives to fostering an awareness of core mathetatical skills. But, it isn't my field.

I've found the best way to teach, and this is just for me, like you idk the literature, is to do it concerning something they are actually interested in, in the first place.


You can't assure me of anything, and ironically you are doing precisely what you are accusing me of - casting your own experiences as a general universal rule.
I'm not really tho, because I've pointed out my evidence as anectdotal.

But the ubiquity of widening praticipation programmes is incidental to the point being made - that I have a professional familiarity with school and university history curriculums and that the accussations being made about these curricula are largely inadequate as misleading. But, don't take my word for it:

http://www.ocr.org.uk/images/68506-specification.pdf


ty


And why should it teach you to 'question the validity of existing systems'? Firstly that is entirely anachronistic Historym, by definition is the study of what has been and gone, not what is today. Secondly it is not the purpose of the study of history to pass judgements on contemporary society, or even historical society, outside of the existing framework of the society being studied. History is the study of past society and what actually happened, not critiquing or upholding modern institutions. It might provide you with a greater insight into the emergence of such institution, but that is it. Perhaps you would have been better in a politics class if you wished to learn about how things could be, as opposed to how they were?

1.Everything should teach you skepticism. That should be something we're taught from kindergarten.
2. History is not the study of how things were. History is the study of how things were seen by its recorders. Mainstream history classes will tell me Henry 2 is a good king, and Henry 7 not. They will teach me that Julius Ceaser was a tyrant, but Augustus brought a Golden Age.
What nobody thought to ask me was if I thought there could even be such a thing as a "good king," or a "golden age," as long as inequity exists.


1. You weren't talking about just that though, you were commenting on the politics of historians. You said, and I quote, that:
"You don't get a lot of historians representing ruling class society as anything but how things are and always will be, and particularly modern american society as the pinnacle of civilization."

I thought it known we were discussing how schoolchildren are impacted, not history as a field.

2. Historians and history textbook authors are by no means mutually exclusive. However, you are correct to suggest that text book authors are not necessarily professional historians. The OCR GCSE textbook authors are largely teachers who also work as senior examiners. However, historiography does play a major, and obvious, role in the construction of those textbooks. Or do you imagine that the school level history exists in an intellectual vacuum?

I imagine that the history books I read in school almost exclusively referred to American Capitalism as the pinnacle of history.



However, what I'm saying is not anecdotal and can be corroborated by a swift examination of what is actually taught and examined. Indeed, here is an exam paper, sat by masses of A-Level pupils across Britain last year, for you to consider:

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/pdf/AQA-HIS2R-W-QP-JUN11.PDF

The questions seem to me to be about social change and attitudes as opposed to the glorious successes of the ruling class. Note also the quote from Kenneth O. Morgan, a very influential professional historian who spent a lifetime studying the labour movement.

Am I wrong or did you just show me the curriculum for exceptional schools and tell me it represents how most schoolkids experience learning?


You are evidently confused. The passage from which the comment of mine you were responding to came from the Godless Utopian, not the OP. Furthermore, in your criticism of my post you accused me of employing anecdote as evidence, yet you have no criticism of other when TGU did it, and you have done it repeatedly yourself. Oh, and questions end with question marks. You didn’t ask a question, and you made a stupid hypocritical point.

It's not hypocritical if I recognize mine as anectdote.

Unsourced claims do not require a sourced response, the onus is not on me. However, being the generous individual that I am, I have actually provided you with both syllabus specifications and an exam paper which shows that I most certainly can source my claim. Indeed, it is such an obvious truism that it only highlights your profound ignorance of the subject matter that you would even demand a source.

ok...

Another individual who fails to comprehend the purpose of quotation marks. Regardless, what you were actually ‘speaking of’, unless you also fail to grasp the purpose of the quote function, was the following passage of text:
“Your conspiratorial assertions regarding the role of history as a means of idolizing the accomplishments of the ruling classes can also be debunked by simply examining a modern history curriculum.

I'll come back to this, you may be right. I don't have a lot of time for foruming anymore...

Indeed, I recall from my own school days that the books were by individuals like AJP Taylor, not Correlli Barnett or Niall Fergusson.
You seem to occupy a bizarre alternative reality all of your own in which progressive social change and reform to the education system (brought about by decades of struggle) did not occur and that there is no progressive influence upon (and from) teachers, educational theorists, historians, policy makers or curriculum writers.”



But whatever.

Or ignorant, don’t forget that.



You assume wrongly.


Well, boring or not, my latest groups achieved an average of a B in their assignments. So they must be learning something.
I had a teacher once who's study guides were the test, in order. Everybody got B's and above in her class too...

[Rugged Collectivist]

An educator blaming all the failures of the school system on students and parents?!

I'm shocked...

Zim's an educator? If true, that actually explains a lot.


You don't understand the point. No, it doesn't give them the space to sit on their ass and divulge into their capacity for imagination (and we all take note on how very unfortunate this circumstance is)

I'd like to know why you think that's so unfortunate.


however, it gives them public (social )space, something initially exclusive to the capitalist mode of production (to distinguish it form Feudalism). What this means, is space in which they share with their fellow "equals", their fellow "citizens", as opposed to the isolation of the family or the labor in the fields. In some cases (specifically, in isolated small towns in the south) the schools do nothing but reinforce the hegemony of the family, though in most cases this is not the case (at least temporarily).

I don't think "better than feudalism" is really an achievement. I mean, sure this is all well and good in the context of capitalism, but shouldn't we, as socialists, try to look past that?


Now everyone shut the hell up and calm down. Of course although it was a victory for the revolutionary proletariat, a forced concession by the class enemy, it, like the great "achievements" of may 68, has been defiled by capital. We know, but this does not signify we should concur with the reactionaries, that compulsory education be done away with all together (is this not on par with calls to revoke the civil rights act?).

As you said, this supposed "gain" for the proletariat has been "defiled by capital". I understand that compulsory education gives kids "social space", but it isn't the only way. It's outlived it's usefulness and we don't need it anymore. Let it die with capitalism.


Don't complain about education or demand reform, you cannot destroy the existing curricular system without first destroying that of which precedes it, capitalist social relations. Will it change? Of course! But to speak of how "Oh man it sux so much it iz not even workingz y dont they teach us communist stuff omg they lied communism is about peace and lovez not a single party dictatroships!!1" signifies immaturity. You may as well complain about our postal system while you're at it.

Can we not complain about education without demanding reform? I think everyone in this thread has been very clear that the problems within the education system are a direct result of capitalist social relations. I don't want to reform the education system, I want to revolutionize it.

[Invader Zim]

Zim's an educator? If true, that actually explains a lot.

Does it? My views are built on experience of the material conditions of working in the education sector and a grasp of the history of education and its role within society. What are yours built on, besides a sophomoric grasp of politics and and a juvenile resentment of the education system?

[anarchomedia]

State schools serve the state not the parents or the children. They are factories for creating obedient servants. Why is it no state school on earth teaches the real principles of law? Because that would be empowering independant action and thought. The state does not want thinking peers it wants docile cattle.

[#FF0000]

Does it? My views are built on experience of the material conditions of working in the education sector and a grasp of the history of education and its role within society. What are yours built on, besides a sophomoric grasp of politics and and a juvenile resentment of the education system?

Our own experience going through the education system? Our own experience studying to work in the education sector? The views and experiences of others who work in the education sector?

[#FF0000]

State schools serve the state not the parents or the children. They are factories for creating obedient servants. Why is it no state school on earth teaches the real principles of law? Because that would be empowering independant action and thought. The state does not want thinking peers it wants docile cattle.

This isn't true, though. Schools do teach this kind of thing and real education does happen in some, I think.

Just not the schools poor and working class students go to.

EDIT: Then again, I don't think that's entirely true either. I went to a working class school and I think I got a good education -- but it always seemed that my teachers were working against administration and the school board to actually teach.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Does it? My views are built on experience of the material conditions of working in the education sector and a grasp of the history of education and its role within society.

"I think this way because my present existence is dependent on the continued existence of compulsory schooling". You'll scold me for "misrepresenting" what you said, but that's really what it comes down to.


What are yours built on, besides a sophomoric grasp of politics and and a juvenile resentment of the education system?

So you're saying that I just need to "grow up and accept things for what they are"? Fuck off.

[Invader Zim]

"I think this way because my present existence is dependent on the continued existence of compulsory schooling". You'll scold me for "misrepresenting" what you said, but that's really what it comes down to.

Actually, no, my present situation is not at all built on a reliance of the current system. While individuals such as yourself may lack the insight or presence of mind to grasp the importance of education or the social function it fulfills, very few would do away with compulsary education. And even if education were to be entirely revolutionised, it would continue to exist as a vast institution in some form or other, and thus there will continue to be educators.


So you're saying that I just need to "grow up and accept things for what they are"? Fuck off.

No, I'm saying you're an intransigent ignoramous with no grasp of the potential solutions to improve the modern system of compulsary education - primarily because you are utterly ignorant of the actual problems inherent within the system as it currently operates, the social function it performs, and the historical material conditions which shaped its current form. It would be difficult to ask you to accept a situation you are too dull to actually conceptualise.

[hetz]

Sorry but I. Zim wins this thread.
:lol:

[#FF0000]

(i am v. curious as to what IZ thinks the problems of the modern school system are)

[Avanti]

Actually, no, my present situation is not at all built on a reliance of the current system. While individuals such as yourself may lack the insight or presence of mind to grasp the importance of education or the social function it fulfills, very few would do away with compulsary education. And even if education were to be entirely revolutionised, it would continue to exist as a vast institution in some form or other, and thus there will continue to be educators.



No, I'm saying you're an intransigent ignoramous with no grasp of the potential solutions to improve the modern system of compulsary education - primarily because you are utterly ignorant of the actual problems inherent within the system as it currently operates, the social function it performs, and the historical material conditions which shaped its current form. It would be difficult to ask you to accept a situation you are too dull to actually conceptualise.

social function?

to train

to do stuff

to be rewarded

with money

so you buy stuff?

and waste

most

of your childhood

sitting down?

the main

problem

with the lack

of revolutionary spirit

in the

western world

is a lack

of "ignoramuses"

education

a home

a family

a job

gives

the system

leverage on you

and you

are brainwashed

into believing

you can have

this kind

of box society

but

without

the feeling

of alienation

alienation

cannot be defeated

before

all the boxes

are burnt down

[Avanti]

society

doesn't

have

problems

society

is

the

problem

socialism

and

barbarism

[Hermes]

No, I'm saying you're an intransigent ignoramous with no grasp of the potential solutions to improve the modern system of compulsary education - primarily because you are utterly ignorant of the actual problems inherent within the system as it currently operates, the social function it performs, and the historical material conditions which shaped its current form. It would be difficult to ask you to accept a situation you are too dull to actually conceptualise.

you basically told us all earlier that regardless of what our ideas were, they were incorrect and ignorant, and now you're criticizing us for not having them regardless?

[NormalG]

Does it? My views are built on experience of the material conditions of working in the education sector and a grasp of the history of education and its role within society. What are yours built on, besides a sophomoric grasp of politics and and a juvenile resentment of the education system?

You have been belittling anyone with a view differing from yours as childish and juvenile as if being an educator makes your opinion more valid (I know educators far from 'juvenile' who would disagree with you). Noting the progresses that have been made since child servitude isnt enough for some. You being so affixed in protecting an education system primarly grounded in the maintenance and expansion of capitalism is questionable.

[Invader Zim]

(i am v. curious as to what IZ thinks the problems of the modern school system are)

Well, there are plenty, perhaps too many to list adequately. But there are several obvious ones to note:

Under-funding
Large class sizes
An over abundance of exams
The vast expansion in bureaucracy
Grade inflation
Exam boards
Lack of resources/understanding to deal with pupils/students with difficulties in both the class room and at home
The relative failure of academic developments to enter the class room
Poor application of pupil grouping


I think that will be enough to go on with.

[Avanti]

Well, there are plenty, perhaps too many to list adequately. But there are several obvious ones to note:

Under-funding
Large class sizes
An over abundance of exams
The vast expansion in bureaucracy
Grade inflation
Exam boards
Lack of resources/understanding to deal with pupils/students with difficulties in both the class room and at home
The relative failure of academic developments to enter the class room
Poor application of pupil grouping


I think that will be enough to go on with.

those flaws

are necessary

in order

for the system

to work

they are

perhaps not

intentional

but

they are

necessary

the problem

is society

a number of students

must fail

so they could

serve

as a warning

what would happen

so everyone

is going

to work

harder

[Let's Get Free]

God, I hated high school. The four most boring and pointless years of my life. It was like a prison, but without the sex.

[hetz]

Best years of my life, in my case...

[freethinker]

Kind of feel like a lazy student when I am checking what is going on here as a break from my speech on the vast inequality in American Schools...:confused:

That being said I must agree with Zim, as someone who aspires to be an educator, I feel that there absurdity here with the rabid anti school sentiment in this thread. Look there are plenty of problems and I have many issues with over standardization and it is true that many dogmas are inserted but education is in so many ways the keys the way to personal emancipation and revolution. Lest I guess Lenin was just an evil bourgeoisie intellectual because he started as a lawyer to help the working class..

[GoddessCleoLover]

I preferred my college years, high school was mickey mouse in comparison. Learned about the left in college, and that was back in the mid 1970s when the university left still had some relevance. The good old days.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Actually, no, my present situation is not at all built on a reliance of the current system. While individuals such as yourself may lack the insight or presence of mind to grasp the importance of education or the social function it fulfills,

Except I don't want to do away with education.


very few would do away with compulsary education.

Who cares? Very few would do away with capitalism.


And even if education were to be entirely revolutionised, it would continue to exist as a vast institution in some form or other, and thus there will continue to be educators.

I don't disagree with this.



No, I'm saying you're an intransigent ignoramous with no grasp of the potential solutions to improve the modern system of compulsary education - primarily because you are utterly ignorant of the actual problems inherent within the system as it currently operates, the social function it performs, and the historical material conditions which shaped its current form. It would be difficult to ask you to accept a situation you are too dull to actually conceptualise.

I have no interest in improving the education system as it currently stands.

[Invader Zim]

Except I don't want to do away with education.

Then, what, precise threat do you perceive to my current existence, or were you just chatting pure unadulterated shit to make a worthless point?


Who cares? Very few would do away with capitalism.

An inane retort:

"very few would do away with free at the point of service universal healthcare."

"Who cares? Very few would do away with capitalism."

And prey tell, what is the price of tea in China? I guess that both logic and argumentation were lost on you at school.


I don't disagree with this.

So basically, you agree that the 'argument' you made earlier is dog shit. I see.


I have no interest in improving the education system as it currently stands.

Indeed, you wish to revolutionise the existing system without presenting any evidence that you have a real conception of science of pedagogy, what it is to actually teach a group of individuals, the social significance of education, or what the real problems which currently beset the education system actually are. In short, your interests are seemingly entirely irrelevant. But, prey tell, what system do you feel should be in place, how should classes be taught if classes even survive your 'revolution'? This should be a laugh.

[#FF0000]

Well, there are plenty, perhaps too many to list adequately. But there are several obvious ones to note:

Under-funding
Large class sizes
An over abundance of exams
The vast expansion in bureaucracy
Grade inflation
Exam boards
Lack of resources/understanding to deal with pupils/students with difficulties in both the class room and at home
The relative failure of academic developments to enter the class room
Poor application of pupil grouping


I think that will be enough to go on with.

oh so all the same problems i see in the education system neat.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Then, what, precise threat do you perceive to my current existence, or were you just chatting pure unadulterated shit to make a worthless point?

I assume you're a gradeschool teacher right?


An inane retort:

"very few would do away with free at the point of service universal healthcare."

"Who cares? Very few would do away with capitalism."

And prey tell, what is the price of tea in China? I guess that both logic and argumentation were lost on you at school.You said "Very few people would do away with compulsory education." as a defense of it. This is called an appeal to popularity and is a logical fallacy.


So basically, you agree that the 'argument' you made earlier is dog shit. I see.No. Education can still exist as a vast institution if it is no longer compulsory.


Indeed, you wish to revolutionise the existing system without presenting any evidence that you have a real conception of science of pedagogy, what it is to actually teach a group of individuals, the social significance of education, or what the real problems which currently beset the education system actually are... But, prey tell, what system do you feel should be in place, how should classes be taught if classes even survive your 'revolution'? This should be a laugh.I already told you that I think compulsory education should be abolished. Teachers and schools would still exist, but there would be less of them, they would be voluntary, and their curricula would be less standardized. Students would basically be free to learn whatever they want on their own terms. Of course colleges would still exist and there would still be schools for learning trades as well as apprenticeships. The knowledge requirements would only emphasize what you actually want to learn. For example, someone who wants to be an engineer won't be held responsible because they did poorly in language arts. Nor would they be forced to study it. Every student would be required to take an exam upon enrolling in a class. If they were unprepared for the class they would have several options. They could return to the voluntary schools for a bit, or study independently until they're prepared.

Of course this is just a rough outline of what I consider ideal. And ultimately I'm just some guy on the internet. I don't plan on restructuring the whole education system singlehandedly, and I'll certainly never be in a position to do so. But then neither will you so I guess your proposals, assuming you have them, are just as irrelevant.

Go ahead and have your laugh. I'm sure you will because the above probably seems ridiculous to you. Understand that, in your time studying pedagogy, you may have learned bourgeois ideas about education in the same way that an economics major would about economics.



In short, your interests are seemingly entirely irrelevant.This is probably the worst thing you've written so far, and it supports what I said above. The fact that you would ignore the input of a person who went through the education system, the input of a student, is terrible, and it's a testament to your arrogance. If you ever wonder why so many students hate the education system, and treat it with no degree of seriousness, look in the mirror. For all your talk of knowledge and expertise you don't know a damn thing.

P.S. Why are you so mad?

[Revolution starts with U]

I just want to say I'm not against compulsory education. I'm against school being set up like a daycare

[p0is0n]

I just want to say I'm not against compulsory education. I'm against school being set up like a daycare

Back when I went to school I felt like that. It was a lot of that not feeling in control, a lot of feeling like you were being forced to do things that you didn't even understand, maybe the word slave is a bit too extreme, but certainly it felt like there were slave-like tendencies. I have always been of the opinion that learning should be fun or at least you should feel something positive, maybe satisfaction, when you learn things, and whatever stuff I did learn in school I never felt satisfaction or happiness.

Plus, you knew that when you were done with your education either you ended up being unemployed or working an awful job, and that your future would consist of the same shit over and over and over again, getting up at 5, going to a shitty job, getting home late, watching tv, going to sleep, and then that fucking insanity would just repeat itself.

When it was time to go to high school, instead of doing it the traditional way, I enrolled in a school which was trying out a new way of organizing school, by giving much more say to the students about their studies and schooldays and so on. Plus, the teachers were great, esp. for me. One of them was an old Marxist, bald with a small beard.

I think the freedom that I felt, combined with the understanding and support I received from the teachers, were the leading factors in making that high school a place to which I was actually happy to go to, and it made waking up in the mornings less painful.

[RedIndividualist]

I am still in school and I think it is a matter of fitting in the social hierarchy. They only want a certain type of student whether they are eager to learn or not. I don't go to parties or socialize that often, I like staying at home with my family much better. Somehow it seems that students like me who don't fit in the norm don't have much chance to be who they are. I am constantly told by the teachers that I should be more social, more outgoing and be closer to the rest of the class. I am not the type that likes socializing very much especially not with the insecure ignorant mainstream students, I don't actually need it because I like doing things on my own and I am way better at that. That doesn't mean I don't have friends I am just not like the others with the number of friends being a factor for where you stand on the social ladder.
I have seen many other students being harassed and bullied for just having different interests and the teachers mostly do nothing about it. My little brother of 13 died last year to suicide because of the social pressure in school. He was a smart kid, learned playing piano and other skills by himself outside of school without tutors. He had really good grades but hated school so much. Hated the teachers punishing him unnecessary, and the work he needed to do, while he was pretty good at what he did. He wasn't bullied and had good friends, but every day in the morning he was angry because he needed to go to school, because of social pressure. I am almost certain he would have become a drug addict later on his life, just like many other people my age wether intelligent or not.
I think people who are different don't have much chance to be as succesful as they could have been, instead they are being kept down and treated second class, and the problems in the education system stem from society. Propably problems caused by capitalism.
Thats how I view it, but I sure could be wrong, I am just beginning with my life.

[argeiphontes]

I am still in school

Are you at Hogwarts studying to be a necromancer? :laugh:

(sorry couldn't resist)

[Mrcapitalist]

The modern education in america is the Prussian model which is built to produce loyal and obedient worker's and soldiers.It's basically built on indoctrination.