Education under communism

[Post-Something]

I was reading a thread earlier on "homework being oppressive" or something, and it struck me that I never actually knew what a "communist education system" would look like. I presume there would be an emphasis on comprehension, and there would be a vast change in the actual hierarchy of how everything is taught. Would the teacher-pupil relationship be abolished? Would children still be allowed to ignore basic english and maths for skills like joinery and bricklaying? And would the religious be allowed, say, to congregate on weekends, to hold classes about their religion?

So I'm just asking for somebody to explain how it has gone about in the past, and how it would go if there was a communist revolution tomorrow.


Thanks in advance.

[Red_or_Dead]

Well, one thing that should stay, imo, is the teacher-pupil relationship, and of course, the basic level of education should be mandatory. Children need to learn certain basics, they have to be literate, and have to have some basics about the system and how it works.

Thats as far as I would go for now.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I can strongly say that I believe education in a communist society will be very different from in modern capitalist society.

Here's an interesting quote that will help me explain the first:


And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.

Communism brings about the end of the division of labour. This means, were it is physically and materially possible, people will be able to partake in the widest possible range of productive activity freely in accordance with their will.

We have to remember, though, that many occupations and tasks do require academic and/or technical training. The obvious conclusion being that education becomes a life time affair, as opposed to one for exclusive to children.


Would the teacher-pupil relationship be abolished?

I don't think so. There is always going to be the educated and the uneducated, and it is up to these individuals to share their knowledge with all eager to learn.


Would children still be allowed to ignore basic english and maths for skills like joinery and bricklaying?Good question. Math and English skills are necessities for societal functioning. You can't have an illiterate population.

You bring up the question of practical skills such as bricklaying. Today academic and practical/technical education are highly divorced. In a communist society however, I believe the two would be tied together as a result of the abolition of the division of labour. This would mean the extension of existing educational material and facilities to accompany side-by-side academic and practical learning.


And would the religious be allowed, say, to congregate on weekends, to hold classes about their religion?Religious belief is a product of human alienation corresponding to a definite stage of human social development. A future communist society is one which ends this alienation and thus does away with the social need for religion. Therefore, in a communist society your question becomes, practically speaking, irrelevant.

In a socialist society on the other hand, I see no reason why people should not be allowed to practice their own religion. However the free state-based school education service must at all times be secular. Further, no religious or private schools should be permitted to exist. Education is a need not a privilege.

There is another important point of difference between a communist education systems and a capitalist education system that I would like to point out. In today's world education has been vulgarized completely by the capitalist system. Education has become a means to an end, not an end in itself. This phenomena has it's roots in both the division of labour and in the profit motive. Many students today only put up with study for a few years of their lives, not for the purpose of educating themselves, but for the purpose of getting themselves into a particular occupation and career. I believe that in a communist society education will be rightfully elevated to it's correct position as a means of human development and the feeding of the mind.

[Post-Something]

Ahh, than you very much! A couple of quick questions though..

1. By pupil teacher relationship, I also meant the unequal balance of power and authority. Since a communist society wouldn't have a hierarchy, would this also apply to the school system? Children do not need to be conditioned to fit exploitation anymore I presume, so would that relationship still exist?

2. You brought up life long learning; I presume you mean formally? How would this work? Is it in any way compulsory?

3. Most attempts at merging practical skills and academia have failed pretty miserably if you ask me. None of the qualifications are taken seriously.


Thanks in advance!

[Red_or_Dead]

1. By pupil teacher relationship, I also meant the unequal balance of power and authority. Since a communist society wouldn't have a hierarchy, would this also apply to the school system? Children do not need to be conditioned to fit exploitation anymore I presume, so would that relationship still exist?


Well, when we are talking about small children who are only just learning how to read and write, than I dont see any objection to keeping such a system. How else would they learn?

The matter is different with young adults, tho. I see a lot of room for changes there.

[Dros]

http://www.revmedia.net/bwoi.html

[Niccolò Rossi]

Ahh, than you very much!
Any time :)


1. By pupil teacher relationship, I also meant the unequal balance of power and authority. Since a communist society wouldn't have a hierarchy, would this also apply to the school system? Children do not need to be conditioned to fit exploitation anymore I presume, so would that relationship still exist?

Don't confuse class and all forms of hierarchy. A communist society will be classless, but not necessarily absent of all forms of authority. Although a lot of hierarchical authority in modern capitalist society is based on class distinctions and the division of labour (eg. sexism and racism are largely the product of class and labour divisions) not all authority can be done away with. A great, really short work to read on this topic is On Authority (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm) by Engels.

School in a communist society would not be designed to "condition chilren for exploitation", but the class room hierarchy will still exist whilst their exist the educated and uneducated.


2. You brought up life long learning; I presume you mean formally? How would this work? Is it in any way compulsory?

No, there can be no compulsory work or learning.


In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Education may include formal education in schools, in the workplace or by own self.

Remember if in a communist society where all peoples freely work for their own self-development and the development of the whole people there will be an abundance with the extension of modern technology into all field of human activity we can envisaged all people only having to work a few hours or a few days. With so much spare time created with the end of surplus value production people will have all the more time to invest in other areas, academia, the arts, etc.


3. Most attempts at merging practical skills and academia have failed pretty miserably if you ask me. None of the qualifications are taken seriously.

Well I will admit at my school practical and technical subjects such as metal and work work, along with electronics, tech drawing, hospitality are often shunned by students as being a waste of time or of no use, when in fact the opposite is true. This attitude is a result of class distinctions and also the division of labour, with students desperately trying to avoid laborious and "lower class" future careers. This phenomenon is a direct product of the division of labour and of class distinctions.

With an end to class distinctions and the division of labour this phenomenon will disappear I believe, with a wider range of labour and education activities being viewed as positive self-development.

[Lensky1917]

I for one, am curious as to what books would be approved in classes. What will a History book contain? Will it talk about a nation's tragic past? The fall of the Soviet Union? A history of the Communist movement?

Will people still be reading about "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn"? Will children finally retain those lessons on how to share, instead of conforming to a capitalistic world?

[Niccolò Rossi]

I for one, am curious as to what books would be approved in classes.

Approved!? Approved by who, the party! I sure as hell hope not! There must exist a "ruthless criticism of everything existing" (I'm appropriating Marx's words here). Every piece of literature (educational, historical, critical) must be available for all where possible.


What will a History book contain?

History? That is unless you wanted propoganda...


Will it talk about a nation's tragic past?

Which tragic nation?


The fall of the Soviet Union? A history of the Communist movement?

Of course, it's all history.


Will people still be reading about "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn"?

Why not, they are brilliant pieces of literature and have historical significance.


Will children finally retain those lessons on how to share, instead of conforming to a capitalistic world?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here?

[shorelinetrance]

I'm not quite sure what you mean here?

i don't want to answer for him, but i think he means how we are taught to share but we are conditioned to be greedy by the bourgeoisie media?

obviously if we retained any sense of "sharing" or humanist morals from capitalist "education", we would not be in a capitalist world :D

anyways, just my take on what he was trying to say.

[Lensky1917]

Approved!? Approved by who, the party! I sure as hell hope not! There must exist a "ruthless criticism of everything existing" (I'm appropriating Marx's words here). Every piece of literature (educational, historical, critical) must be available for all where possible.

I am merely talking about the material for the course syllabus.


History? That is unless you wanted propoganda...

All I'm saying is that there are some dangers inherent in allowing literature of opposing viewpoints. Some absent-minded person might feel inspired and stage a counter-revolution.


Which tragic nation?


Any nation that has suffered from having systems of unequal distribution of wealth.


Of course, it's all history.

It would be difficult to instill all the history of a nation into the minds of the youth, and at the same time teach them something as broad as the history of Communism.


Why not, they are brilliant pieces of literature and have historical significance.

Perhaps, but things should also change with the times. Two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time, something might need to go.



i don't want to answer for him, but i think he means how we are taught to share but we are conditioned to be greedy by the bourgeoisie media?



That's pretty much what I was referring to at the time.

[Bastable]

I think that a social consciousness should be ingrained in students. At the moment from day one it's all me, me, me. which is just the way the capitalists want it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There will still exist an educator and basic curriculum, as any sane society would want their future generations to be educated. However, a number of specific criticisms and suggestions recommended by educators, sociologists, and students alike should be investigated. The ones I've heard of include:

- More availability and discussion in the classroom. Currently classes rely entirely on a single textbook, which often doesn't cite its sources.
- Application of mathematical skills towards practical uses
- Student organizations such as newspaper, broadcast, and literary magazine should be held accountable only to the student body.
- Teachers will, either nominatively or completely democratically, work,
- Focus on self-discipline instead of mentor discipline
- Exemplifying 'Learning by Teaching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_by_teaching)'
- Organizational courts, councils, and meetings made up of faculty and staff

[Niccolò Rossi]

All I'm saying is that there are some dangers inherent in allowing literature of opposing viewpoints. Some absent-minded person might feel inspired and stage a counter-revolution. I'm not advocating overtly political material be taught in class, that is no more than is done today. Schools are a source for education not indoctrination.

On the subject of book censoring I'm a bit touchy. I hold knowledge and education to very high esteem and it's a shame to me to be burning "counter-revolutionary" material. Of course I understand the necessity to censor and suppress counter-revolutionary organisations and publications, but certainly not those of historical significance.


It would be difficult to instill all the history of a nation into the minds of the youth, and at the same time teach them something as broad as the history of Communism. Why? Throughout my schooling they have managed to teach us a fair bit about Australia as a nation along side with other topics of interest e.g. the history of womens rights and aboriginal rights. So I don't see why it would be that hard.


- More availability and discussion in the classroom. Currently classes rely entirely on a single textbook, which often doesn't cite its sources.
- Application of mathematical skills towards practical uses
- Student organizations such as newspaper, broadcast, and literary magazine should be held accountable only to the student body.
- Teachers will, either nominatively or completely democratically, work,
- Focus on self-discipline instead of mentor discipline
- Exemplifying 'Learning by Teaching (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_by_teaching)'
- Organizational courts, councils, and meetings made up of faculty and staff

Fantastic suggestions. The points in regard to teachers and staff organisation will be an obvious product of worker's councils and democracy.

[Bright Banana Beard]

And every tv will have subtitle supports to supports Hard of Hearing kid who can do well with reading but trouble with hearing.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'd like to see an education system that makes education compulsary to 21. You would have 'tertiary school' in much the same way we have secondary school, but for this it would teach from the ages of 16-21 teaching second level to degree standard courses.

I know thats probably a little authoritarian for most here, but you can't have progress without attaching value to the human brain. Although seeing as how in old days education usually ended at age 12 the above is probably an inevitable change anyway.

[Lensky1917]

I'd like to see an education system that makes education compulsary to 21.


I see nothing wrong that whatsoever. A college-level education should be made available to everybody. Just imagine what it would be like for everybody to not only have a high school education, but an Associate's degree as well.

[Dr Mindbender]

I see nothing wrong that whatsoever. A college-level education should be made available to everybody. Just imagine what it would be like for everybody to not only have a high school education, but an Associate's degree as well.

Yes, but i don't think college/university education should just be accessible, i believe it should also be mandatory. I believe everyone should be trained in their given field to a third level of education, even if it is a vocational career choice like catering or car mantainence.

Imagine the fucking cool cars we would have if every garage had graduate mechanics working on them!

[BIG BROTHER]

Yes, but i don't think college/university education should just be accessible, i believe it should also be mandatory. I believe everyone should be trained in their given field to a third level of education, even if it is a vocational career choice like catering or car mantainence.

Imagine the fucking cool cars we would have if every garage had graduate mechanics working on them!

no offense comrade but I would be against a proposition like that. To me it just seems wrong to force someone to learn.

I mean the basic stuff should be mandatory, because we don't want people to be retarded either, but if you force someone to learn, its rather useless since they're not doing it because they want to, there fore they'll probably hate it and won't put their knowledge to use.

[Lensky1917]

I mean the basic stuff should be mandatory, because we don't want people to be retarded either, but if you force someone to learn, its rather useless since they're not doing it because they want to, there fore they'll probably hate it and won't put their knowledge to use.

He seems to be saying to force people to learn so that they can find their true calling. Not forcing people into professions that they do not wish to have.

[EscapeFromSF]

A book I can strongly recommend on this topic is by Paulo Freire, _Pedagogy of the Oppressed_. And yes, he does advocate substantial change in the hierarchy.

Some comments as I read other postings in this thread:

The relationship between teacher and student should change. The assumption of a teacher-pupil relationship is that the teacher knows and the pupil does not. Therefore, the mission becomes for the teacher to *deposit* his knowledge into the pupil.

Freire instead sees everyone coming to the learning environment with some knowledge. A teacher (for lack of a better term) presents material and students react. Dialog is crucial, not only because it forces everyone to think--as when I was put on the spot today in the class I teach and actually had to explain in theoretical terms why capitalism is a scam--and more importantly, to think critically. But the teacher isn't the only one sharing knowledge; he or she reflects on what the others, whom we might otherwise think of as pupils, and adjusts his own thinking accordingly. This process of sharing knowledge ensures that the education is relevant to the community's needs.

Now, obviously there is a problem when a teacher takes an authoritarian view that everyone needs to know certain stuff. Because that certain stuff is almost certainly irrelevant to present needs. But it is 1) inconsistent to impose that knowledge on people, regardless, because to do so is to invoke authority, and 2) unproductive, because the subjects will not pay attention anyway.

This might be one reason why Peter Kropotkin advocated a system of sharing work such that everybody did something of everything. To do so makes a lot of information relevant that otherwise would not be.

This might be where I need some correction. I accept that people have varying talents and interests. I think it counterproductive to impose work on people that poorly matches their talents. And I think to do so undermines an anarchist ideal by in fact imposing authority. But to leave it at that raises the old question of who will do the dirty, unpleasant, and sometimes dangerous jobs in society.

Inherently, people who do those dirty, unpleasant, and dangerous jobs are lower in status than those who are excused from such work. So to not impose work sharing also seems to undermine an anarchist ideal. Obviously, to the extent, and I think many anarchists hope for this, we can eliminate this kind of work through advances in technology, we surely wish to do so. While I completely accept the idea that some such advances are retarded through an elitist interest in preserving relative privilege, I am not satisfied that *all* of them are.

[BIG BROTHER]

I'll try to read the book, it seems interesting.

[Dr Mindbender]

no offense comrade but I would be against a proposition like that. To me it just seems wrong to force someone to learn.
That really depends on your definition of 'learning'. Under capitalism we have a rather chauvinist context of the word. Anyway, learning as a concept isnt confined to the class room in any case. It goes on throughout our lives.
Compulsory education (as i see it at least) would be about encompassing all areas of work not currently engendered with the current syllabi. Without the free market or price system out of the way, people would be free to pursue their perferred choice of career as far as they like. (as long as that doesnt mean sitting on their ass playing playstation).

I mean, most people given the option would prefer to do a job that requires a bit of brainpower. Have you ever known anyone that actively wanted to be a factory worker or roadsweeper? Of course not.


I mean the basic stuff should be mandatory, because we don't want people to be retarded either, but if you force someone to learn, its rather useless since they're not doing it because they want to, there fore they'll probably hate it and won't put their knowledge to use.
Again, see above. It's about making the education relevant to the people, not making people relevant to the market.

[BIG BROTHER]

I get your point, but following your logic, why would you want to force them, when they most people would do it voluntarily?

[Post-Something]

Wow. Some really great responses! This is really helpful, so thanks everybody!

Now, when a class is organized, I'm guessing it would be fairly level over the country, and try and pass over basic inequalities in resources. Would classes in general be much larger, with many more teachers; to dilute the effect of labelling theory? Or would they be on a much smaller level; putting the educator in greater responsibility to ingrain the child with a thirst for knowledge? Would exams still exist? Would bandin still exist?

How do we change the hierarchy of a school system enough to warp the hidden curriculum that's being taught now, (of authority, submission, shutting up when your told to, not asking questions) enough that it instills the values of a communist society? For me it's more important that a child wants to learn, than what he actually knows.

Also, madatory education until 21 would make people feel like they have no control of their lives, wouldn't it? I think you would eventually get alienated, day in, day out; same timetable (uless all of that goes away). Unfortunately, not everyone wants to learn all the time, and you have to remember that we do actually need a workforce.

[Bastable]

Also, madatory education until 21 would make people feel like they have no control of their lives, wouldn't it? I think you would eventually get alienated, day in, day out; same timetable (uless all of that goes away). Unfortunately, not everyone wants to learn all the time, and you have to remember that we do actually need a workforce.

I agree. Perhaps a lightening of the load the older you get?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Now, when a class is organized, I'm guessing it would be fairly level over the country, and try and pass over basic inequalities in resources.

Inequalities? A classless communist society by its definition must have a super-abundance of resources, that includes in the class room. This means that there would most certainly be a fairly evenly distributed quantity of resources available to all.


Would exams still exist? Would bandin still exist?

Banding or ranking, no, it acts as a means of hand selecting elite students for privileged professions and limited university places today, something that will not exist in a communist society.

Exams, maybe not in their current form, but some means of testing, however are a necessary method to assess the understanding of what the students are learning. That's something you can't do away with.


Also, madatory education until 21 would make people feel like they have no control of their lives, wouldn't it? I think you would eventually get alienated, day in, day out; same timetable (uless all of that goes away). Unfortunately, not everyone wants to learn all the time, and you have to remember that we do actually need a workforce.

You're exactly right, that's why I'd like to offer my opinion as well regarding the matter. People must be entitled to their own free development, that means educationally as well. No one should be forced to partake in any form of labour or activity against their will. The nature of a communist society will allow man the fullest connection with his life-activity, his labour, his own free development, mentally and physically. No person or collective people must be able to stop that.

[Psy]

I do think the relationship between student and teacher would greatly be different. Of course kids need to know the basics but with parents having more free time it would be possible for parents to teach kids the fundamentals (thus most would be home schooled for the basic stuff).

Of course there would come a time where kids would need to learn from more then just their parents. Yet by that time it would be possible to teach kids from skilled workers (again due to workers having free-time). Teachers would be there because they are truly interested in the subject and want to share it. As students move away from fundamentals classes probably behave more like a hobbyist group were students learn more on their own then from a teacher, a skilled worker would still be there just to tell students how it is done in industry yet if students want to experiment they are free as failure also brings knowledge.

[Post-Something]

Hmm. You bring up an interesting issue Psy. Family.

I should probably start an entirely new thread about it actually, since I have a couple questions to ask about that too...


But, do I think that education should be left to parents? I'm not so sure. I'd like children to receive a basic blanket eduction, that can stem off into any area they would like, with focus on comprehension. I think the only way that can be achieved is by having people who are qualified enough to take that position as "teacher".

But certainly, after the mandatory years, they should be able to approach any field of knowledge and demand the outline of the subject, where they can expand on it and eventually, with qualifications, work in the institutions.

[ReDSt4R]

I was reading a thread earlier on "homework being oppressive" or something, and it struck me that I never actually knew what a "communist education system" would look like. I presume there would be an emphasis on comprehension, and there would be a vast change in the actual hierarchy of how everything is taught. Would the teacher-pupil relationship be abolished? Would children still be allowed to ignore basic english and maths for skills like joinery and bricklaying? And would the religious be allowed, say, to congregate on weekends, to hold classes about their religion?

So I'm just asking for somebody to explain how it has gone about in the past, and how it would go if there was a communist revolution tomorrow.


Thanks in advance.

A teacher is there for the purpose of instruction or guidance to assist the pupil into grasping concepts and nothing more. They are not baby sitters and really don't have a position of authority unless you are a small child in which case they are the guardians of the child. So I don't believe their is a hierarchical relationship to abolish.

Educational degrees and extensive training in any field should be available to all and should not be mandatory. If someone wants to half ass education and stop after the have reached the age of maturity whatever that would be, than they will simply end up working a job that suites their qualifications, it is their choice. It may be important to also consider that if they are not of legal age to work than they should be in school (If you can not complete basic school than how can you function in society? It's basics! But agreed school is not for everyone, which is why special programs can be created, they can quit when they are adults). I think most would want to continue school in order to put off working and create newer opportunities for themselves. But for those who are working should have the freedom to continue or further their education at anytime. What they are studying would determine if they would continue working or not.

This would encourage educational studies to better society but also balance everyone from being a student and not working. ;)

At least that's my take on what education should be coming from a family of educators who hate the system.

[EscapeFromSF]

A teacher is there for the purpose of instruction or guidance to assist the pupil into grasping concepts and nothing more. They are not baby sitters and really don't have a position of authority unless you are a small child in which case they are the guardians of the child. So I don't believe their is a hierarchical relationship to abolish.

Surely you do not think this true at the present time. First, the very act of evaluation--institutionalized as grading and transcripts that follow one around for life--means that someone is in a position to judge others, and that their judgment is accepted as superior to the students'. Second, schools have required curriculums--most notably general education requirements theoretically intended to prepare students for civic engagement--for graduation. Third, graduation implies elevation; it is itself hierarchical.


Educational degrees and extensive training in any field should be available to all and should not be mandatory. If someone wants to half ass education and stop after the have reached the age of maturity whatever that would be, than they will simply end up working a job that suites their qualifications, it is their choice. It may be important to also consider that if they are not of legal age to work than they should be in school (If you can not complete basic school than how can you function in society? It's basics! But agreed school is not for everyone, which is why special programs can be created, they can quit when they are adults). I think most would want to continue school in order to put off working and create newer opportunities for themselves. But for those who are working should have the freedom to continue or further their education at anytime. What they are studying would determine if they would continue working or not.

By what authority do you define "legal age," or even "age of maturity?"



This would encourage educational studies to better society but also balance everyone from being a student and not working. ;)

At least that's my take on what education should be coming from a family of educators who hate the system.

Ideally, you would be correct. But, for instance, the problem of general education points to larger problems. Perhaps these classes would not seem irrelevant if people were truly empowered in a real democracy and this would therefore alleviate the need to require them. But I fear that the need for some classes is never obvious before you have taken them; an appreciation for the class after having taken it does not help one to voluntarily take a class beforehand.

[Post-Something]

A teacher is there for the purpose of instruction or guidance to assist the pupil into grasping concepts and nothing more. They are not baby sitters and really don't have a position of authority unless you are a small child in which case they are the guardians of the child. So I don't believe their is a hierarchical relationship to abolish.




The main purpose of the education system is to provide a suitable workforce. the capitalists need their labour. Don't fall for that Functionalist daydream.

They have an enormous amount of authority. I can't go into it right now, since I'm in the middle of something, but I'll get back to it.

[ReDSt4R]

Surely you do not think this true at the present time. First, the very act of evaluation--institutionalized as grading and transcripts that follow one around for life--means that someone is in a position to judge others, and that their judgment is accepted as superior to the students'. Second, schools have required curriculums--most notably general education requirements theoretically intended to prepare students for civic engagement--for graduation. Third, graduation implies elevation; it is itself hierarchical.

No not at the present time but if you believe that removal of prerequisites for a level of education would benefit people I'd say no. It is designed in that manner to ease transition from one level to the next. You learning algebra and moving on to geometry is success in your basic comprehension of algebra and does not make you "better" than anyone else but does make you knowledgeable in algebra.:laugh: As far as Hierarchical relations well I think to goal is to raise everyone to a basic standard and then from their independent development can flourish. You raised a good point I'm not quite sure how educational curriculum would work without a hierarchical structure. But their has to be a method of evaluating someones capabilities. You can't have the illiterate working for NASA.

I believe you should be evaluated on comprehension through testing which leads to percentages. As far as marks following you around for life well maybe that is one of things we can change. Education should be focused on ones mental development. As I said education should be possible for anyone to continue at any level and field of study they wish. Some are subjective curriculum's granted but others are objective and need standards. Maybe methods of testing and grading could vary based on the individual. The individual should be graded by his/her performance in relation to a accepted standard(democratically debatable) and not at the whim of a professor. This is of course if you agree that their should be a free open to all public education system and that certain standards of citizen knowledge should be attempted to be reached.

If you have other ideas it would be nice to here them?


By what authority do you define "legal age," or even "age of maturity?"

Well that is up for debate my Anarchist friend now isn't it? It all depends all if you wish to standardize some form of education. I guess that could be up to the teachers councils? lol



Ideally, you would be correct. But, for instance, the problem of general education points to larger problems. Perhaps these classes would not seem irrelevant if people were truly empowered in a real democracy and this would therefore alleviate the need to require them. But I fear that the need for some classes is never obvious before you have taken them; an appreciation for the class after having taken it does not help one to voluntarily take a class beforehand.

I found appreciation for any field of study comes through experience which creates an genuine interest in that field of education. What turned us on to reading and learning collectivist politics if it was not for our working class position or observation of the world political climate?
Well I suppose individual minds will develop well...individually. Even in a socialistic economic society standard of education will need to be met especially due to the economic and political involvement of the people in these issues. How to make that education unbiased is a whole other issue. So the field of study and interest in a curriculum will forever be a matter of preference and self-interest but as for developing the minds of children that should not be up for debate. Only the curriculum that they are taught can be up for debate. Reading/writing and math is not everyones dream evening but that homework is necessary and not being up to date on the basics would only be a disadvantage to that child's further interaction in society. I think their is a difference between giving everyone a equal opportunity of education with a tailored approach to education and the programming that goes on now to feed service industry jobs.

I had extreme learning disabilities and was unable to read until I was 12 now I enjoy Bakunin and Marx for fun. So I suppose everyone develops differently and a more ergonomic approach to education should be implemented in a socialist society were human progress is the goal and a workforce meant for nothing but creating capital is irrelevant.

[Niccolò Rossi]

For those interested, today I stumbled across the work of Bebel, Society of the Future (which is itself an excerpt from his work Woman and Socialism). In it there is a chapter: The Socialist Education System (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/1879/society-future/ch05.htm). I haven't read through the work yet myself, but will tonight if I get the chance. Enjoy.