Education

Thanks, ticking_fool. But I don't think I really saw any of the points I was interested in discussed there.

One point I didn't mention in my first post was the issue of conformism versus individualism. As I see it, the common [radical] view of education is that it is intended to produce conformist drones to fill up the factories/offices and buy loads of stuff they don't need. (Is this really a standard view, or am I constructing a strawman here?)

My view is that, as well as filtering as I mentioned above, schools are indented to produce competitive individuals rather than conformists. These are of much more use in a consumerist-capitalist society.

EDIT: While not entirely relevant to the above, there is a book (which I haven't read!) called "The Rebel Sell". It is mostly a liberal attack on radicalism, but does make some important points regarding individualism and conformism:

This is from an article by the authors of the above book: http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2002/11/rebelsell.php

For a critique of the book, see: http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/commentary/67_comm2.html

I agree that it's not a consciously constructed model, which is why it is full of contradictions. (Teach competition and individuality, make pupils wear uniforms!?)

As for exam boards it is fairly obvious that schools would pick and choose the ones that give the best results, particularly now that we have league tables. I was one of the first groups of children to sit GCSEs and when I got to University they had to cover more material in the first year (this was physics and maths) than usual because so many didn't know the basics (A-levels were also dumbed down for the same reason -- physics had most of the maths removed).

When talking about conformity I was more concerned about the special case of education within a capitalist society.

More nonsense...

My experience of school went something like this: I failed my eleven plus and had to go to a comprehensive that was the most notorious in my area. Bullying was rife, and often occurred while the teacher was watching, and they would not do anything to stop it (and I mean fist fights here, not name calling, often resulting in bloody noses, fat lips, and black eyes -- and on a couple of occasions knives where waved around, though I don't think anyone was actually stabbed while I was there).

Hardly any of the teachers were properly qualified to teach the subjects they took, and often lessons consisted of watching videos (films, not educational ones), or copying out of ancient, badly vandalised textbooks -- due at least in part because of teacher shortages and strikes. As our maths teacher wasn't properly qualified we could only take a special, easy maths GCSE where the maximum grade you could possibly get (even if you got 100%) was a C. (I later took the "harder" test at college, and it wasn't much harder.) One of the teachers was arrested for molesting pupils, the deputy head run away with ten grand of school money and a lab technician (not sure if they were caught or not), and the RE teacher got in trouble for exposing himself to the inmates of an old folks home. Not surprisingly, when league tables came out a few years after I had left it was one of the worst in the country.

I even had an argument with the careers teacher who refused to help me apply for college. She wanted me to get some bollocks menial job which I didn't want to do -- I had a vague idea that I wanted to be a scientist (she had the idea that I should get a job cleaning surgical instruments). I failed all my exams and left school barely literate and numerate (couldn't do fractions, or division -- but could do trig! because for a couple of weeks we had a supply teacher who knew what he was doing), discovered the joys of self learning, and ended up with a PhD in (mathematical) physics.

My only regret is that I didn't just drop out of school earlier -- I don't think I learned much after the first year.

This is the reason I like anarchist ideas about education. I'm sure this was a below average school, but still it was enough to turn me off the whole idea of state schools.

I was really talking about lower-middle class / working class schools -- which I have experience of. Of course schools in "better" areas tend to get better teachers. You'd expect the middle class to get a better education because they usually get the management jobs. But even in the case of middle class schools I would guess there is still filtering to some extent. Children have a natural knack for learning, but by the time they leave school (even middle class schools) they tend to end up with a feeling that learning is something unpleasant, and that the only reason to go on to university is to get a better job. I met many middle class people at university who had no real interest in being there, and usually scraped by with a 3rd. And I've been told that it doesn't matter what degree you get -- they are all as good as one another.

And consumers. As far as I was concerned history was never whitewashed because we never did any, which I suppose saves time. Also, I've always thought it kind of odd that schools teach democracy but seem to be closer to a fascist dictatorship in they way they are organised (especially before corporal punishment was abolished).

Certainly the CBI were whining recently that school leavers are too stupid to be employable: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5110608.stm

I agree with this. While I learned a lot at university what I did learn was very narrow. What this means is that if you come from a bad school -- like I did -- then you end up knowing a lot about a little. Up until about five years ago I could talk for hours about the finer points of differential geometry and general relativity, but I couldn't tell you what year World War II started! Seriously! We didn't do anything on it at school. I've spent the last five years giving myself a broader education in my spare time.

I guess what I was trying to say was that this filtering by determination occurs within all schools, whereas filtering by class generally occurs between schools (i.e. you get good schools in "good" areas, and private schools, for the middle classes).

Don't be silly. I also wrote: "Though corporal punishment was abolished, bullying seems to have taken over as an unofficial alternative, and has the added advantage of keeping teachers in their place as well."

I never said it was the teacher's fault, and I don't believe it is. A big part of the problem is that teachers are under paid, trained, and valued, and over worked -- but I assumed this was too obvious to mention and was interested in the effect of the schools on the pupils, as should have been obvious from my first post. And it should be obvious that teachers, being former pupils, will be affected by this too. I am sorry if you had something else in mind. If you want to discuss education from the point of view of the teachers, then you are free to do so.

This has already been answerd in another post.

I don't disagree. But within any given school (and class) it will be the more determined pupils, the ones that have to overcome the stress, etc, that will succed. That is all I was saying.

Again, I don't disagree. The point is that the teachers (in my experience) did little if anything to stop it. And this is no doubt because teaching is paid badly, etc.

I never said there should be a choice between posh school or wc school. And I'd rather not have learned the things I learned at my school.

Of course! That quote was the post about my own experiences -- I went to a badly underfunded school, hence the rubbish teachers. I expect muderers are often the result of a poor education, but it doesn't mean I want one stabbing me! I'm not attacking all teachers. My original post was about the way the system works -- the other post you are responding to was about my personal experiences. I have little sympathy for teachers who stand idly by while a group of kids punch the shit out of some poor kid (it happened to me and plenty of others at my school).

Again, I agree with this! Dropping out wont change the system -- and I never claimed it would -- but, for some people at least, it will be the better option given present conditions.

The pupils get no real say in what they do. If the teachers (leaders) are failing them then they don't get to vote them out, but if the pupils are failing the teachers (bad behaviour) then they get to throw the pupils out. Schools are often "nationalist" in that they make pupils wear uniforms, and maybe sing a school song (and in the US read the pledge of allegence). And in the good ol days, the teachers were allowed to beat the pupils. It was a bit of an over statement, but I think there is some truth in it.

Chomsky claims that the humanities are very indoctrinating at university, and that the science subjects are quite free. I only have experience of the sciences, but I'd certainly agree that I had great deal of freedom at university. At school it was nothing.

Every now and then the tabloids seem to rail against the idea that pupils should do course work, research projects, and essays at schools, when they should really just be doing exams like back in the good ol days when teacher was allowed to beat the crap out of anyone who stepped out of line. I think the tabloids seem to play an important role in making sure schools remain as crappy as possible, by providing flak anytime someone tries something vaguely innovative.

Well at least someone appreciates my petty bourgeois ramblings!

For me it was a supply maths teacher in school who we only had for a few weeks. Then there was another at college, and one at university who ended up being my PhD supervisor, and I wrote a research paper with him. Good teachers are in short supply. I guess it is because most people get into it because the did badly at university -- given that teaching is such a badly paid, and undervalued job (like most important jobs). The good thing about university lecturers is that they do it on the side as well as doing research, so even the worst of them are at least enthusiastic.

Pretty much what I had in mind, but also kids should be taught how to do research for themselves, and things like elementary logic (why teach language and maths, but not how to reason!?). Make available material for learning, give lectures to give the kids a head start, and help them set up their own research projects (in groups or individually). And to keep october_lost happy, the teachers should run the school in concert with the pupils, and be paid fairly out of community funds.

I was making the assumption that (by and large) schools tend to have pupils of a roughly similar background. Maybe that's a bad assumption. Consider determination to be a secondary level of filtering (class being the first), if you want. My point was that the standard mainstream view of education was bollocks, and even the more radical view needed a correction.

EDIT: Let me add to this. My first post was not intended as an analysis of education in a capitalist society (and I don't deny the importance of such an analysis), but a general analysis of the effects of schools on pupils. I would imagine that if schools were run in a similar way in an economically egalitarian society, they would probably have a similar result. This was why I tried to choose conditions so as to factor out the class element.

I'd certainly agree with this -- I did most of my learning after school, and and plenty after university. Under the current education system I always find it really embarrassing when an adult says "we were always taught at school that..." -- particularly when they go on to say something wrong ("can't start a sentence with a conjunction").