Education
Nov 10 2008 08:24
In the anarchist society, how should education be organized?
Any responses are welcome.
Nov 10 2008 15:32
#2
Seconding what Cantdo said, I'd add that there'd still be a place for specialisation, and any testing that would be used would be solely for the purposes of ensuring a basic level of competence in a given area had been obtained, although thios generally would only apply at higher levels of specialisation where there was a duty of care to other people - e.g. pilots, doctors, nurses etc would still have to meet good standards.
Students and teachers should have a greater time to fully explore and engage in topic of interest rather than rush through prescriptive units, teaching to exams in order to bolster league table positions.
The relationships between students and teachers would be fundamentally different, although a move away from prescriptive lessons, pointless tests, and mandatory homework would probably create less sites of tensions between student teacher. And, without sounding like a hippy, teachers would probably be more facilitators, there to suppport students constructing their own knowledge rather than dictating to them.
And contrary to what some nut said at the education talk this year at the Belfast anarchist bookfair, it would be wise to still assess suitability to work with children either as teachers/teaching assistants whatever. While record check are indeed a bureacratic nightmare and take a while, there's no reason in principle that they should be objected to by anarchists - it is prudent to know that a person working with children isn't a nonce.
Nov 10 2008 19:47
#3
The idea of child-centred learning would probably become widely adopted. It's been repeatedly recommended by educational specialists, especially for primary kids, but successive testing agenda have always prevented it from being implemented.
They'd be smaller classes, more teachers (or more people involved in teaching) there would be a more experimental method used and like Conor's said the aim of education would be for the student not for an exam. Barriers between subject areas would also break down, especially for younger children as the artificial divisions would be unnecessary and the teacher would be far more able to follow students' interests/curiosity etc.
Nov 10 2008 20:47
#4
I think the 'de-schooling' ideas common in the late 60's early 70's had a lot going for them as a model for education in a libertarian communist society but attempts to deliver them as a reform of capitalism either failed outright or simply favoured the 'middle class' kids who were able to benefit most from classroomless and less structured teaching, with education 'on the job' just becomming another source of cheap labour for the bosses.
Nov 10 2008 23:02
#5
jef costello wrote:
The idea of child-centred learning would probably become widely adopted. It's been repeatedly recommended by educational specialists, especially for primary kids, but successive testing agenda have always prevented it from being implemented.
Yeah unfortunately most of the advice put forward by educational researchers and teacher-trainers falls on deaf ears in the school context.
New teachers, which I'm sure you are finding, are often taught all these lovely new participatory student-centred methods of classroom engagement, but when push comes to shove in school, they're told not to rock the boat, and the grind and pressure of exams means that novel methods and interesting content go out the window in favour of teaching to the test.
Mostly because of school managers and performance targets.
If you've got to get through 3 units before half-term, there's usually no time for anything fun or taking risks.
Nov 10 2008 23:48
#6
jef costello wrote:
The idea of child-centred learning would probably become widely adopted. It's been repeatedly recommended by educational specialists, especially for primary kids, but successive testing agenda have always prevented it from being implemented.
They'd be smaller classes, more teachers (or more people involved in teaching) there would be a more experimental method used and like Conor's said the aim of education would be for the student not for an exam. Barriers between subject areas would also break down, especially for younger children as the artificial divisions would be unnecessary and the teacher would be far more able to follow students' interests/curiosity etc.
i think you are right on with this. the barriers between subjects has always been a huge pet peeve of mine. all through my education i waited for a class to put it all together, and obviously it never happened.
Nov 13 2008 10:27
#7
my favorite book for theory on this subject is ivan illich's 'deschooling society,' found at
http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.html
do like some pre-stalinist AS Neill... but my favorites for practice are Sebastien Faure's "la ruche," Francisco Ferrer's "modern school," etc.
Interesting fact:
"educate" comes from the latin E- (out) -Ducere (lead/drive)
thus to "drive out"
Nov 14 2008 02:30
#8
felix wrote:
my favorite book for theory on this subject is ivan illich's 'deschooling society,' found at
http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.html
do like some pre-stalinist AS Neill... but my favorites for practice are Sebastien Faure's "la ruche," Francisco Ferrer's "modern school," etc.Interesting fact:
"educate" comes from the latin E- (out) -Ducere (lead/drive)
thus to "drive out"
Wrong:
educate
1447, from L. educatus, pp. of educare "bring up, rear, educate," which is related to educere "bring out," from ex- "out" + ducere "to lead" (see duke). Meaning "provide schooling" is first attested 1588 in Shakespeare.
Check your facts, anarchyjordan.
Nov 14 2008 02:43
#9
latin:
educo (1) -ducere -duxi -ductum (1) [to draw out , lead out]; of time, [to spend]; milit., [to march troops out]; legal, [to bring before a court of law]; naut., [to take a ship out of port]. (2) [to raise up] (of persons and buildings); 'in astra', [to praise sky-high]. (3) [to bring up, rear].
educo (2) -are [to bring up , raise, rear, educate].
facts checked. Who's anarchyjordan?
Nov 15 2008 00:34
#10
felix wrote:
latin:
educo (1) -ducere -duxi -ductum (1) [to draw out , lead out]; of time, [to spend]; milit., [to march troops out]; legal, [to bring before a court of law]; naut., [to take a ship out of port]. (2) [to raise up] (of persons and buildings); 'in astra', [to praise sky-high]. (3) [to bring up, rear].educo (2) -are [to bring up , raise, rear, educate].
facts checked. Who's anarchyjordan?
Doesn't exactly point to "drive out" does it? Bye.
Schools would be run from the ''bottom up'' so to speak, in which teachers and all other school staff would run the school collectvely and democraticaly, rather than the top down management and budget balancing of head teachers and boards of governers that we see today. I think you'd have greater community involveent, a clearer, broader and less test obsessed curriculum, and that the way ''the university'' is seperated from society and the current divide between higher and lower education wouldn't exist either.
Don't want to launch into some sort of rant though, especially since i'd only be stating my opinion not ''how it will be done'', so can you elabrate a bit? What kinda questions you asking, do you see any problems with rganising education in an anarchist society?