free education: discover your place in society without the cost of being a wage-slave

[Elliot]

I believe the education system should not place any monetary burden on the student because it is in everyones best interest to see what an individual is capable of in a stress-free environment. The individual should be disciplined as a student and not a wage-slave. I believe in natural class and not inherited class. I believe every student in every school needs to know what kind of educational material and methodologies exist because the teacher, left to his or her own devices, is a barrier to the student unless he or she is subservient to the leaders of their chosen field and manner of teaching. I believe a government needs to ensure that everyone is a member of some kind of educational institution, and that every institution can discriminate as they see fit as to who is a member. The society as a whole compensates for the welfare of the teacher because while it may be impossible for education to not be free, it should certainly be possible for education to be free to the student.

How does my outlook fit in to the revolutionary leftist narrative?

[Comrade #138672]

In a socialist society, you have free education. Since socialism abolishes money and wage-slavery, there can be no monetary burden on students.

But why would you want to discriminate?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I believe the education system should not place any monetary burden on the student because it is in everyones best interest to see what an individual is capable of in a stress-free environment. The individual should be disciplined as a student and not a wage-slave. I believe in natural class and not inherited class. I believe every student in every school needs to know what kind of educational material and methodologies exist because the teacher, left to his or her own devices, is a barrier to the student unless he or she is subservient to the leaders of their chosen field and manner of teaching. I believe a government needs to ensure that everyone is a member of some kind of educational institution, and that every institution can discriminate as they see fit as to who is a member. The society as a whole compensates for the welfare of the teacher because while it may be impossible for education to not be free, it should certainly be possible for education to be free to the student.

How does my outlook fit in to the revolutionary leftist narrative?

I have no idea what "the revolutionary leftist narrative" is. I do think talking about government, money and the market is utterly incompatible with socialism, the struggle for a classless, stateless society based on the social control of the means of production.

Apart from that, talking about "natural class" is... it sort of hints that what you want is not what socialists want. To put it politely.

[Elliot]

In a socialist society, you have free education. Since socialism abolishes money and wage-slavery, there can be no monetary burden on students.

But why would you want to discriminate?

Teachers should be able to select students that are suitable to their method of teaching, meaning that in their minds these students are very likely to be successful. This way life always has meaning for both sides, teachers don't end up teaching unreceptive students and they don't end up teaching miscreant students. Students will not feel paranoid that their teacher has some kind of agenda which exalts certain kinds of personalities over others.


I have no idea what "the revolutionary leftist narrative" is.

What I meant was the central principles of socialism.


I do think talking about government, money and the market is utterly incompatible with socialism, the struggle for a classless, stateless society based on the social control of the means of production.

What kind of socialism wants an elite to rule and to organize? What is the difference between what you describe and anarchism?


Apart from that, talking about "natural class" is... it sort of hints that what you want is not what socialists want. To put it politely.

Natural class meaning intellectual capacity and willingness to learn.

[tuwix]

Teachers should be able to select students that are suitable to their method of teaching, meaning that in their minds these students are very likely to be successful. This way life always has meaning for both sides, teachers don't end up teaching unreceptive students and they don't end up teaching miscreant students. Students will not feel paranoid that their teacher has some kind of agenda which exalts certain kinds of personalities over others.


It's elitist model of education having nothing to do with socialism. You don't see that machines can teach students more effectively than many people. And in the future will. I think present model of education is only for capitalist indoctrination of people to serve a bourgeois state and especially die for them in wars for more and more resources. So many people are maintained in the system for such indoctrination and due to fear of unemployment. But I think that 99% teacher could be replaced by teaching software now.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What kind of socialism wants an elite to rule and to organize?

National socialism. Or perhaps Prussian socialism, state socialism etc. - which is to say, no socialism. Socialists stand for the end of the rule of man over man, not an "enlightened" rule. Any form of "socialism" that ignores this is a rightist, bureaucratic utopianism masquerading as socialism, the movement for the self-liberation of the working class.


What is the difference between what you describe and anarchism?

Anarchists are socialists (unless you think "anarcho-capitalists" are anarchists; they're not). The difference between anarchists and Marxists is that anarchists think we can abolish political authority immediately, whereas we Marxists recognise the necessity of a transitional, revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.


Natural class meaning intellectual capacity and willingness to learn.

And already you're making so much assumptions - for example, that there exists a clear, uniquely defined "intellectual capacity" - it's not funny. But you're missing the point. You're trying to find ways to stratify society. We socialists wish to do away with stratification.

[Elliot]

National socialism. Or perhaps Prussian socialism, state socialism etc. - which is to say, no socialism. Socialists stand for the end of the rule of man over man, not an "enlightened" rule. Any form of "socialism" that ignores this is a rightist, bureaucratic utopianism masquerading as socialism, the movement for the self-liberation of the working class.

How are you for "enlightened" rule and yet against "utopianism"?

What does "self-liberation" of a class mean?


Anarchists are socialists (unless you think "anarcho-capitalists" are anarchists; they're not). The difference between anarchists and Marxists is that anarchists think we can abolish political authority immediately, whereas we Marxists recognise the necessity of a transitional, revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Do you overlook the reality that already you have lead anarchists doing the thinking, wouldn't they become the political authority?

Wouldn't you need to maintain such a dictatorship to prevent the uprising of another bourgeoisie?


And already you're making so much assumptions - for example, that there exists a clear, uniquely defined "intellectual capacity" - it's not funny. But you're missing the point. You're trying to find ways to stratify society. We socialists wish to do away with stratification.

Doesn't society stratify itself? An individual discovers a certain way to make use of a resource and so people line up to be taught by that person It is a natural quality, curiosity is how society harmonizes itself.


It's elitist model of education having nothing to do with socialism. You don't see that machines can teach students more effectively than many people. And in the future will.

You mean nobody realizes this right now, but it will become apparent in the future? How so?


I think present model of education is only for capitalist indoctrination of people to serve a bourgeois state and especially die for them in wars for more and more resources.

So how do you think the expendables are separated from those who are not expendable?


So many people are maintained in the system for such indoctrination and due to fear of unemployment.

So then you believe as I do that people should begin life as students and kept as students until they become self-actualized, and not abandoned at a certain point to become menial workers unjustifiably, since the individual becomes smaller and smaller as society grows.


But I think that 99% teacher could be replaced by teaching software now.

I totally agree with you here. But who is writing the software? Aren't they near the top of the natural stratum?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How are you for "enlightened" rule and yet against "utopianism"?

Perhaps you should read the sentence again; socialists want the end of the rule of man over man, even if it is an "enlightened" rule. Or, as you put it, a rule by "elites", whatever that means.


What does "self-liberation" of a class mean?

It means the class liberating itself - and in the process overcoming itself, remaking the individuals that make up that class, and liberating humanity.


Do you overlook the reality that already you have lead anarchists doing the thinking, wouldn't they become the political authority?

I'm sorry, this doesn't make much sense. Already we have lead anarchists "doing the thinking"? Humans aren't Hrangans, they can and do think for themselves. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, to be honest.


Wouldn't you need to maintain such a dictatorship to prevent the uprising of another bourgeoisie?

Well, no, social classes don't coalesce out of the aether. In socialism, the material conditions for a bourgeoisie to arise would not exist.


Doesn't society stratify itself? An individual discovers a certain way to make use of a resource and so people line up to be taught by that person It is a natural quality, curiosity is how society harmonizes itself.

The time when isolated individuals could discover something, if it ever existed, has long passed. Not to mention that this blatantly doesn't follow; how does someone discovering something lead to a division into "expendables" (good grief) and "non-expendables", as you said in your reply to tuwix?

[Elliot]

Perhaps you should read the sentence again; socialists want the end of the rule of man over man, even if it is an "enlightened" rule. Or, as you put it, a rule by "elites", whatever that means.

Neither "enlightened" nor utopian, ok. By elites I mean thought leaders.



I'm sorry, this doesn't make much sense. Already we have lead anarchists "doing the thinking"? Humans aren't Hrangans, they can and do think for themselves. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, to be honest.

I meant Marxists are doing the thinking.


Well, no, social classes don't coalesce out of the aether. In socialism, the material conditions for a bourgeoisie to arise would not exist.

Who enforces these conditions?


The time when isolated individuals could discover something, if it ever existed, has long passed. Not to mention that this blatantly doesn't follow; how does someone discovering something lead to a division into "expendables" (good grief) and "non-expendables", as you said in your reply to tuwix?

No, I said the curious who want to learn from the inventor is a demonstration of how various natural classes harmonize.

I meant expendables as the "bourgeois" state would see them, to send them off to war.

[o well this is ok I guess]

lol in what way is the student a wage slave to the university
and isn't "discovering your place in society" pretty much just finding your favourite wage work?

[tuwix]

You mean nobody realizes this right now, but it will become apparent in the future? How so?


IMHO it's logical inevitability. Humanity eliminates absurd from their life successively. And absurd of education by many teachers instead of machines will be eliminated.



So how do you think the expendables are separated from those who are not expendable?


Passion. Passionate ones will teach always even without any money or other benefits.



So then you believe as I do that people should begin life as students and kept as students until they become self-actualized, and not abandoned at a certain point to become menial workers unjustifiably, since the individual becomes smaller and smaller as society grows.


Well, no. If one has great allergy towards school in whatever form, he should be allowed to remain an idiot for his all life. In my country, every child is tried to teach equations theory although some of them aren't able to read with comprehension throughout their whole life...



I totally agree with you here. But who is writing the software? Aren't they near the top of the natural stratum?

You try to prove that every society has a natural elite. Even when there will be no money, there are top intelligent ones. And that's true. But effort of socialism is not to make a society for some elite (scientific of financial) but for the majority of society. Society must not be for genius only or richest only. An idiot or a poor must have a chance to live in society in decent way.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The idea that software can replace teachers in a physical sense is one of the most stupid ideas I have ever heard.

Teaching is a socialising job as much as it is an academic one, and so saying that the job of socialising children in an appropriate way, at a sensitive and confusing age for many children, is akin to saying that one day, we should do away with all face-to-face communication and just allow Twitter, or WhatsApp, or Google, or Facebook to live our lives for us.

In fact, fuck it, why don't we do away with emotions, sex, conversation, the whole lot, and just let robots live our entire lives for us? I don't often reduce logical arguments to extreme conclusions, but the very premise of this idea is illogical and ignorant to its core.

Good teachers are the cornerstone of any civilised society. The fact that educational institutions currently reflect the dominant (bourgeois) ideas in society has less to do with the effectiveness or importance of the role of teachers, but more to do with the power of the ruling ideology.

[ckaihatsu]

The idea that software can replace teachers in a physical sense is one of the most stupid ideas I have ever heard.


It's already happened, in a sense, if you haven't noticed yet....

With the advent of Wikipedia and other online resources the whole *purpose* / existence of 'education' as a societal institution is thrown into question and disarray -- given that virtually *anyone* is able to use Wikipedia (etc.) to directly learn about any topic imaginable, at a basic-literacy level, what, then, is the *point* of education, especially as an institution -- ?

All terrain regarding 'self-directed edification' is now covered for the individual, leaving, perhaps, just matters of a general societal interest in a broad-based 'core curriculum' and also developmental socialization.

These latter two concerns can certainly be addressed in other ways, without the traditional bricks-and-mortar, anyway. Online discussions like these at RevLeft (paradigmatic in breadth) could arguably cover 'core curriculum' and socialization, though plenty of other alternatives could certainly fit the bill as well.





Teaching is a socialising job as much as it is an academic one, and so saying that the job of socialising children in an appropriate way, at a sensitive and confusing age for many children, is akin to saying that one day, we should do away with all face-to-face communication and just allow Twitter, or WhatsApp, or Google, or Facebook to live our lives for us.

In fact, fuck it, why don't we do away with emotions, sex, conversation, the whole lot, and just let robots live our entire lives for us? I don't often reduce logical arguments to extreme conclusions, but the very premise of this idea is illogical and ignorant to its core.

Good teachers are the cornerstone of any civilised society. The fact that educational institutions currently reflect the dominant (bourgeois) ideas in society has less to do with the effectiveness or importance of the role of teachers, but more to do with the power of the ruling ideology.


I find it sad that otherwise courageous and intrepid revolutionaries absolutely *shrink* when it comes to a critique of the traditional bourgeois norms of child-raising and institutional education -- my understanding has always been that bourgeois society is continuously *crisis-ridden* in appropriately addressing social norms, as for political economy, for example. The same -- if one hasn't noticed -- also readily goes for the issue of how people are brought into the world and how responsibility for their development is divvied up, from parents to teachers, to state social workers, politicians, and so on.

Leftists can make plenty of strong arguments as to what's wrong with the traditional nuclear family, and why alternatives are sorely needed. As revolutionaries we shouldn't be shy to address this question, as on the sub-topics of education and socialization.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's already happened, in a sense, if you haven't noticed yet....

With the advent of Wikipedia and other online resources the whole *purpose* / existence of 'education' as a societal institution is thrown into question and disarray -- given that virtually *anyone* is able to use Wikipedia (etc.) to directly learn about any topic imaginable, at a basic-literacy level, what, then, is the *point* of education, especially as an institution -- ?

I was talking about formal education. This totally mis-understands the purpose of education (a purpose that transcends class boundaries); not just mere 'knowledge', but a mixture of knowledge and subject-specific skills. Without certain skills, there is a massive and clear glass-ceiling placed on knowledge. One might, for a single historical event, be able to remember all the dates/relevant facts gleaned from Wikipedia, but it's unlikely that without a formal education in historical skills that the same person would be able to use said facts to explain why the event happened, or make links between this and other events, or identify the themes running through that event etc.

Further, most people - especially young students - are not auto-didacts and are therefore not capable of achieving the same level of attainment that they would in a formalised environment, without suitable guidance from a teacher. To say otherwise is to really go against almost all relevant educational research, going back through Vygotsky and even really back to Dewey, who recognised that even progressive models of 'student-centred learning' had to adopt some traditional (read: formal) educational techqnieus.


All terrain regarding 'self-directed edification' is now covered for the individual, leaving, perhaps, just matters of a general societal interest in a broad-based 'core curriculum' and also developmental socialization.

See my argument above re: auto-didacticism not being widespread. Abandoning formal education in favour of the 'freedom' of "self-directed edification" is actually a particularly dis-empowering idea, since it robs the great number of students who are unable to self-educate the opportunity of a good education.


These latter two concerns can certainly be addressed in other ways, without the traditional bricks-and-mortar, anyway. Online discussions like these at RevLeft (paradigmatic in breadth) could arguably cover 'core curriculum' and socialization, though plenty of other alternatives could certainly fit the bill as well.

To argue that a discussion on an internet discussion board that bans people it doesn't agree with can replace decades of academic research and progressive improvements in classroom-based practice is beyond idiotic. I am actually speechless that somebody could think this.



I find it sad that otherwise courageous and intrepid revolutionaries absolutely *shrink* when it comes to a critique of the traditional bourgeois norms of child-raising and institutional education -- my understanding has always been that bourgeois society is continuously *crisis-ridden* in appropriately addressing social norms, as for political economy, for example. The same -- if one hasn't noticed -- also readily goes for the issue of how people are brought into the world and how responsibility for their development is divvied up, from parents to teachers, to state social workers, politicians, and so on.

There is no 'conspiracy' between parents, teachers, social workers, and politicians to indoctrinate young people to bourgeois ideas. Like I said in my previous post, but evidently as a self-educated person you may not be used to listening to others so i'll repeat: whilst the ruling ideas of society may - wittingly or unwittingly - be perpetuated by parents, teachers, social workers etc., the ideas do not originate with the individual but are part of society's fabric. To think that removing teachers (or parents, or social workers) will somehow allow an ideological and philosophical freedom that doesn't currently exist is the height of naivety. Capital's hegemony over the social structures of society stretches far beyond indoctrinating a few teachers.


Leftists can make plenty of strong arguments as to what's wrong with the traditional nuclear family, and why alternatives are sorely needed. As revolutionaries we shouldn't be shy to address this question, as on the sub-topics of education and socialization.

Unfortunately your ideas are not only sheer lunacy, but wrong and show a complete ignorance of contemporary and historical educational research.

[ckaihatsu]

I was talking about formal education. This totally mis-understands the purpose of education (a purpose that transcends class boundaries); not just mere 'knowledge', but a mixture of knowledge and subject-specific skills. Without certain skills, there is a massive and clear glass-ceiling placed on knowledge. One might, for a single historical event, be able to remember all the dates/relevant facts gleaned from Wikipedia, but it's unlikely that without a formal education in historical skills that the same person would be able to use said facts to explain why the event happened, or make links between this and other events, or identify the themes running through that event etc.


Sure, I hear you, and one complaint often leveled at teachers is that the students aren't let-in on what *rubric* the teacher is using to evaluate them.

So here's a well-known one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/BloomsCognitiveDomain.svg/250px-BloomsCognitiveDomain.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy


And here's another good one:

http://leadinglearnerdotme.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/solo-taxonomy.jpg

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


Now, with these two frameworks at one's side, wouldn't that be sufficient for someone to 'build skill' with whatever subject material is in front of them -- ?

I'm seeing a clear case of artificially building *dependency* on the teacher's role (codependency, clientelism) -- if what's required is knowledge and skill, one can find knowledge / information with sufficient resources and one can build skill with the use of the aforementioned frameworks, and also by treating 'skill-building' as a subject of its own ('pedagogy', roughly).





Further, most people - especially young students - are not auto-didacts and are therefore not capable of achieving the same level of attainment that they would in a formalised environment, without suitable guidance from a teacher.


I'm not saying that all chairs and desks should be relocated to the forest, I'm saying that the traditional conception of the 'classroom' and 'learning' doesn't have to be the only model in use -- I've already juxtaposed the realm of online learning, which could certainly include realtime interaction, discussion-board interaction, etc.





To say otherwise is to really go against almost all relevant educational research, going back through Vygotsky and even really back to Dewey, who recognised that even progressive models of 'student-centred learning' had to adopt some traditional (read: formal) educational techqnieus.


I have no problem with formal socially-sanctioned practices for education, but then the question remains: What practices, exactly, and also what curriculum -- ?

As things are now *all* of the relatively enlightened, 'progressive' stuff you'll come across regarding education is materially *at odds* with how education is actually structured / set-up in practice, in the context of the conventional classroom.





See my argument above re: auto-didacticism not being widespread. Abandoning formal education in favour of the 'freedom' of "self-directed edification" is actually a particularly dis-empowering idea, since it robs the great number of students who are unable to self-educate the opportunity of a good education.


*Or*, counter to your fatalism on this topic, why not have a society that focuses on 'bootstrapping' one's ability to learn on one's own, perhaps as I've outlined above, so that everyone *can* 'self-educate' -- ?(!)





To argue that a discussion on an internet discussion board that bans people it doesn't agree with can replace decades of academic research and progressive improvements in classroom-based practice is beyond idiotic. I am actually speechless that somebody could think this.


Your -- and others' -- willful conservatism regarding the domain of education continues to sadden me, since I happen across this kind of proto-reactionary sentiment all-too-often within otherwise revolutionary-minded ranks.

(I think it parallels the prevalent conservative attitudes regarding *technology* and its usage, too -- just an observation.)

Again, I'm not dictating an 'either-or' paradigm here -- rather, I'm pointing out that humanity is more technologically liberated than ever before in history, and this has implications for the practice of education, as well.


---





I find it sad that otherwise courageous and intrepid revolutionaries absolutely *shrink* when it comes to a critique of the traditional bourgeois norms of child-raising and institutional education -- my understanding has always been that bourgeois society is continuously *crisis-ridden* in appropriately addressing social norms, as for political economy, for example. The same -- if one hasn't noticed -- also readily goes for the issue of how people are brought into the world and how responsibility for their development is divvied up, from parents to teachers, to state social workers, politicians, and so on.





There is no 'conspiracy' between parents, teachers, social workers, and politicians to indoctrinate young people to bourgeois ideas. Like I said in my previous post, but evidently as a self-educated person you may not be used to listening to others so i'll repeat: whilst the ruling ideas of society may - wittingly or unwittingly - be perpetuated by parents, teachers, social workers etc., the ideas do not originate with the individual but are part of society's fabric. To think that removing teachers (or parents, or social workers) will somehow allow an ideological and philosophical freedom that doesn't currently exist is the height of naivety. Capital's hegemony over the social structures of society stretches far beyond indoctrinating a few teachers.


You're *severely* misreading and misrepresenting my wording -- I never asserted a 'conspiracy', I am *not* 'evidently self-educated' (meaning 'no formal education'), and I never posited any kind of 'bad apples' argument.

I happen to *agree* with your political assessment here.





Unfortunately your ideas are not only sheer lunacy, but wrong and show a complete ignorance of contemporary and historical educational research.


I'll suggest that you may want to re-read and reconsider what I've actually laid-out, since you've been misinterpreting it so far.

[jullia]

Free education seems so a natural thing that i don't get how it's not already the case everywhere.
I mean you don't need to be a left revolutionary to support this. It's just a natural decision.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Sure, I hear you, and one complaint often leveled at teachers is that the students aren't let-in on what *rubric* the teacher is using to evaluate them.

So here's a well-known one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/BloomsCognitiveDomain.svg/250px-BloomsCognitiveDomain.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy

Bloom's Taxonomy is becoming fairly discredited, and for good reason. It was written half a century ago, by an American, for an American audience, for its time. It's purpose was to allow teachers to understand how students make progress. Sadly, it has been wilfully mis-used (at least in British schools) to the point where it has become a part of the conservative, jargon-obsessed, management culture that plagues the British education system today.



And here's another good one:

http://leadinglearnerdotme.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/solo-taxonomy.jpg

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

That just looks like a re-hash of Bloom's.


Now, with these two frameworks at one's side, wouldn't that be sufficient for someone to 'build skill' with whatever subject material is in front of them -- ?

Why? If I tell my year 7 students I want them to 'evaluate' something, that is a meaningless concept to them; the same if I tell them to 'contrast and compare', to 'use', to 'analyse', to 'judge' etc. Without direction, without modelling, without context, it is very difficult to actually provide meaning to such vague ideas, the reason being as I said above: most people are not auto-didacts and are not good self-learners.

There is much educational research currently (for example Didau 2007) to suggest that, in order for students to become independent learners, they must first achieve success as dependent learners, and furthermore have independent learning modelled for them. The best people to do this are trained educators, who are experts in the field of pedagogy.


I'm seeing a clear case of artificially building *dependency* on the teacher's role (codependency, clientelism) -- if what's required is knowledge and skill, one can find knowledge / information with sufficient resources and one can build skill with the use of the aforementioned frameworks, and also by treating 'skill-building' as a subject of its own ('pedagogy', roughly).

See my point above. 'Independence' is a way of learning and being that must be learned in order to be done successfully. You cannot just give an 11 year old a book and say 'go learn'. When it comes to understanding academic subjects, or the nuances of a practical subject, they will make far better progress (including towards being successful independent learners) under the guidance of teachers in a formalised education setting.


I'm not saying that all chairs and desks should be relocated to the forest, I'm saying that the traditional conception of the 'classroom' and 'learning' doesn't have to be the only model in use -- I've already juxtaposed the realm of online learning, which could certainly include realtime interaction, discussion-board interaction, etc.

I don't think i've ever said that I oppose any of this. I practice liberatory education practices myself, but that doesn't mean that education becomes a dis-organised free-for-all, and it still means understanding the natural dynamic embedded within the teacher-student relationship.


I have no problem with formal socially-sanctioned practices for education, but then the question remains: What practices, exactly, and also what curriculum -- ?

There's really no one-size-fits-all approach, here. What I would say is that I have two recommendations:

1) we, always and everywhere, adopt an evidence-based approach. Every so often, important meta-studies come along that give us clear guidance as to what has been working - and what has not been working - in classrooms, in terms of leading to the greatest amount of student progress.

See the Sutton Trust (2014) report, for example: http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/great-teaching/

2) we allow teachers the freedom to teach, largely, as they wish, since good teaching has been shown time and again to be the key variable in student progress and outcomes. Whilst liberatory educational practice should be encouraged, it's not true that this takes a one-size-fits-all approach. Teachers should have the freedom, as individuals, departments, school teaching cohorts, regional communities and as national groups, to experiment with what curricula, what assessment practices and what pedagogical ideas work best for them and their students.


*Or*, counter to your fatalism on this topic, why not have a society that focuses on 'bootstrapping' one's ability to learn on one's own, perhaps as I've outlined above, so that everyone *can* 'self-educate' -- ?(!)

As i've said above, this would be ideal. However, for whatever reason (perhaps the way society is ordered currently), research shows that you cannot just jump into independent learning.


Your -- and others' -- willful conservatism regarding the domain of education continues to sadden me, since I happen across this kind of proto-reactionary sentiment all-too-often within otherwise revolutionary-minded ranks.

(I think it parallels the prevalent conservative attitudes regarding *technology* and its usage, too -- just an observation.)

I'm not conservative, I just have some idea of what works and what wouldn't work, as I work as a teacher every day. I am all for liberatory education practice, but that doesn't mean just abolishing formal education in the name of 'educational freedom'. Good teachers, and good schools, and good curricula, are an incredible aid to a young person, not a burden. It's only when you see really conservative, patriarchal, racially incorrect, class-dividing curricula and pedagogical practices that you begin to think that teachers should be done away with.

Above all, good teaching is the key, necessary element in providing good outcomes for students. Everything else is secondary.

[ckaihatsu]

Bloom's Taxonomy is becoming fairly discredited, and for good reason. It was written half a century ago, by an American, for an American audience, for its time. It's purpose was to allow teachers to understand how students make progress. Sadly, it has been wilfully mis-used (at least in British schools) to the point where it has become a part of the conservative, jargon-obsessed, management culture that plagues the British education system today.




That just looks like a re-hash of Bloom's.


You're saying that Bloom's and SOLO are too much of the past era of management-heavy mass culture, but I'll maintain that these frameworks, and others like them, retain a usefulness derived from their alignment to the development of *metacognition*.




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




= D


In this way they continue to remain valid and useful.





Why? If I tell my year 7 students I want them to 'evaluate' something, that is a meaningless concept to them; the same if I tell them to 'contrast and compare', to 'use', to 'analyse', to 'judge' etc. Without direction, without modelling, without context, it is very difficult to actually provide meaning to such vague ideas, the reason being as I said above: most people are not auto-didacts and are not good self-learners.


This has everything to do with *motivation* and *confidence* and would be exactly opposite in results for any interest that's entirely uninfluenced and self-selected by the student.





There is much educational research currently (for example Didau 2007) to suggest that, in order for students to become independent learners, they must first achieve success as dependent learners, and furthermore have independent learning modelled for them. The best people to do this are trained educators, who are experts in the field of pedagogy.


Yes and no.

I would never blithely write-off assistance lent to a student for productive directions, but, again, 'independent learning' occurs every day for practically everyone, just not necessarily in formal and academic contexts. (This is the institution's *strength*, in that it can introduce worlds from without that one would not otherwise likely stumble upon.)

Perhaps more to the point, though, is to encourage reflectiveness and metacognition from the student based on their own past personal experiences of success, from whatever context.





See my point above. 'Independence' is a way of learning and being that must be learned in order to be done successfully. You cannot just give an 11 year old a book and say 'go learn'. When it comes to understanding academic subjects, or the nuances of a practical subject, they will make far better progress (including towards being successful independent learners) under the guidance of teachers in a formalised education setting.


(Again) -- Yes and no.





I don't think i've ever said that I oppose any of this. I practice liberatory education practices myself, but that doesn't mean that education becomes a dis-organised free-for-all, and it still means understanding the natural dynamic embedded within the teacher-student relationship.


Okay.





There's really no one-size-fits-all approach, here. What I would say is that I have two recommendations:

1) we, always and everywhere, adopt an evidence-based approach. Every so often, important meta-studies come along that give us clear guidance as to what has been working - and what has not been working - in classrooms, in terms of leading to the greatest amount of student progress.

See the Sutton Trust (2014) report, for example: http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/great-teaching/

2) we allow teachers the freedom to teach, largely, as they wish, since good teaching has been shown time and again to be the key variable in student progress and outcomes. Whilst liberatory educational practice should be encouraged, it's not true that this takes a one-size-fits-all approach. Teachers should have the freedom, as individuals, departments, school teaching cohorts, regional communities and as national groups, to experiment with what curricula, what assessment practices and what pedagogical ideas work best for them and their students.


Okay.





As i've said above, this would be ideal. However, for whatever reason (perhaps the way society is ordered currently), research shows that you cannot just jump into independent learning.


My own reservations are with the more *political*-sided interests regarding such -- revolutionary politics itself has a distinct interest in revolutionary *lessons*, to describe what mass proletarian activity is capable of, especially. (And I've already mentioned 'core curriculum' and some kind of prevailing social practices of socialization.)





I'm not conservative, I just have some idea of what works and what wouldn't work, as I work as a teacher every day. I am all for liberatory education practice, but that doesn't mean just abolishing formal education in the name of 'educational freedom'. Good teachers, and good schools, and good curricula, are an incredible aid to a young person, not a burden. It's only when you see really conservative, patriarchal, racially incorrect, class-dividing curricula and pedagogical practices that you begin to think that teachers should be done away with.

Above all, good teaching is the key, necessary element in providing good outcomes for students. Everything else is secondary.


I hear you, and I'm certainly not being dismissive of public education in the least -- wherever the individual can be empowered to their own enlightened ends, though, is definitely a *plus*, *in addition to* the best practices of conventional institutional education.

[Elliot]

The idea that software can replace teachers in a physical sense is one of the most stupid ideas I have ever heard.

Teaching is a socialising job as much as it is an academic one, and so saying that the job of socialising children in an appropriate way, at a sensitive and confusing age for many children, is akin to saying that one day, we should do away with all face-to-face communication and just allow Twitter, or WhatsApp, or Google, or Facebook to live our lives for us.

In fact, fuck it, why don't we do away with emotions, sex, conversation, the whole lot, and just let robots live our entire lives for us? I don't often reduce logical arguments to extreme conclusions, but the very premise of this idea is illogical and ignorant to its core.

Good teachers are the cornerstone of any civilised society. The fact that educational institutions currently reflect the dominant (bourgeois) ideas in society has less to do with the effectiveness or importance of the role of teachers, but more to do with the power of the ruling ideology.

The better the researcher, the better the book. Only when the author fails to write what he would have otherwise said do you begin to think that a book is inadequate. This compounded by the hostile reality of "student-centered" learning, that is, "group-learning", work-centered learning, and the suppression of certain kinds of books for pedagogical reasons (ie, rigorous proofs interfere with learning). True student-centered learning revolves around the thought leaders in the field being studied. It is their line of reasoning which shapes reality and students must be free to find their voice in that reasoning through the written word and eventually move on to find that individual and his or her circle. All else is for the sake of this reality.