State-Education

[Mike Christ]

Another topic we were talking in was getting derailed (here)  So I decided to start a new one

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Too often have I heard the argument that "people need rulers", because they are basically "too stupid to think for themselves" etc. Notice how people usually single themselves out from this imaginary group of "dumb masses too stupid for individual thought", just sighing that "yes it would be nice if we could do without government, but just look at all the masses of stupid people unable to take responsibility themselves!". This is counterproductive imo. First of all it makes artificial divisions between people (divide and conquer anyone?) and totally ignores the notion that there is no such thing as "fixed human nature". It's the old nature vs. nurture debate and in things social and cultural I lean heavily towards the nurture-side of the debate. As mentioned by the quoted post: put children in state-sponsored schools, tell them their time is not their own and they are to bow to authority without question, hold this up as a cultural standard, ostracize and ridicule critics (you conspiracy theorist!) and what you get are masses of people unable/unwilling to think for themselves. Change the equation, the environment where people live and ta-daa different sorts of people. The question is how do we get from here to there?

You're right, I hadn't thought about that.  Believing you're somehow special and above everyone else is another system schools promote--they attempt to reward those who excel at school with AP classes, yet if the schools were doing their jobs right to begin with, AP classes would be needless as all students would be up-to-speed.  Even I had to take remedial courses in my freshman year of college as my poorly rated high school failed to teach me; then again, I can't blame them entirely, as I had no interest in learning much of anything in high school.  I was too worried about fitting in with my clique.  I didn't have much choice, however, since school is not only compulsory, but limited to your "zone", where you can only go to the school your general vicinity is assigned to.  This implies that all schools are uniform and equal, and the education you receive here is just as good as the education you'll receive there, but it's a lie, a lie you can't test, and a lie you cannot triumph, unless you're lucky enough to have parents who make enough money to live in a better community so you can attend a better school--more division, a war of socio-economic classes, implying the poor family is stupider than the rich family because the poor family doesn't make as much.

But I believe this is the question on everyone's mind, anyone who has found this road.  I believe the first step is to abolish compulsory schooling.  State schools are not as worried about education as they are reformation, to instill ideologies in favor to the state to keep the state alive.  All schools should be "private", and serve only one purpose: education.  Schools should be built around the idea of providing this service, and should flourish when providing this service well--that is, if you agree with capitalistic ideals, which will probably be the most favored in a capitalistic society.  Schools which fail to perform this service satisfactorily should be allowed to disband and close up shop, so to speak.  This is the natural order of any good or service, and education will never be in lack of demand (unless you consider the free resources around every corner on the web taking over formal education, but I don't think people will ever want to replace a professional with a web video) so there's no worry about education suddenly becoming extinct because it is no longer enforced.  Once people have the option to receive a completely unbiased education, we will see radical changes.  My only worry is the generations going through this training program now; even if schools were privatized today, the damage is still done, and will carry on long after we're dead.  So, you have to start with those with the power to vote, who are already trained to obey their rulers blindly and trained to love their country as-is, trained to lay their lives down whenever asked, as if it's expected.  It's a dead-lock, and it's why it's so hard to change anything about our system right now.

[1714725985]

1714725985

[1714725985]

1714725985

[Hawkwood]

As a long time lurker, and newbie poster, I'd figure I'd bite - since I'm starting a teaching career.  I'm just finishing up my education degree, and am currently out in practicum. 

A few reflections so far:

Perhaps it is the way I grew up (in the country, where the kids are from a homogenous, self-sufficient demographic), I find students in the large city high school I teach at are incredibly dependent on direction from the teacher, in terms of task.  They are trained to obey the school "script."  Teacher gives direction, they follow it.  Teacher asks a question, they answer perfunctorily, and without much curiosity.  One of the best discussions I had this practicum had to do with the nature of anarchy - that it isn't simply chaos and disorder, but could rather be a society where all transactions are voluntary. 

The schools, even in relatively advanced and oil-rich Alberta, are very behind technologically - I'd say between 10-15 years.  It means restrictions on any kind of task that could conceivably require a computer.  Despite having a provincial curriculum with "IT" outcomes, there is very little being done.  Likely a funding issue.  The students are very far ahead of the average teacher - unless they are from the new generation of teachers who are still within the digital native generation (it blows their mind that I know about 4chan, hashtags, twitter, and league of legends). 

The staff are cynical, older, tired and holding on to collect pensions.  There is no movement to recognize the societal shifts happening underneath their feet.  I told my partner-teacher about Cyprus, it shocked her, but these people don't think about the outside world, or the connected world, or about any kind of breakdown in a financial system. 

I just hope I get to be that odd soapbox crazy teacher that a bunch of students just might like and pay heed to.

[myrkul]

I just hope I get to be that odd soapbox crazy teacher that a bunch of students just might like and pay heed to.

And in 20 years one of them makes a movie about you.

[Hawkwood]

That would unfortunately inflate my already large ego!  Thank you for saying that though!

[Mike Christ]

As a long time lurker, and newbie poster, I'd figure I'd bite - since I'm starting a teaching career.  I'm just finishing up my education degree, and am currently out in practicum. 

A few reflections so far:

Perhaps it is the way I grew up (in the country, where the kids are from a homogenous, self-sufficient demographic), I find students in the large city high school I teach at are incredibly dependent on direction from the teacher, in terms of task.  They are trained to obey the school "script."  Teacher gives direction, they follow it.  Teacher asks a question, they answer perfunctorily, and without much curiosity.  One of the best discussions I had this practicum had to do with the nature of anarchy - that it isn't simply chaos and disorder, but could rather be a society where all transactions are voluntary. 

The schools, even in relatively advanced and oil-rich Alberta, are very behind technologically - I'd say between 10-15 years.  It means restrictions on any kind of task that could conceivably require a computer.  Despite having a provincial curriculum with "IT" outcomes, there is very little being done.  Likely a funding issue.  The students are very far ahead of the average teacher - unless they are from the new generation of teachers who are still within the digital native generation (it blows their mind that I know about 4chan, hashtags, twitter, and league of legends). 

The staff are cynical, older, tired and holding on to collect pensions.  There is no movement to recognize the societal shifts happening underneath their feet.  I told my partner-teacher about Cyprus, it shocked her, but these people don't think about the outside world, or the connected world, or about any kind of breakdown in a financial system. 

I just hope I get to be that odd soapbox crazy teacher that a bunch of students just might like and pay heed to.

That's very unusual.  You'd figure a teacher would pay attention to going-ons around the world, but, before the Internet, info was a lot more limited.  Television was an output of whatever they chose to show you, and that's that--it still is, to be completely honest.  Whether they wanted to show you a lot, or show you a little.  But if you were never led on that your favorite news station was censoring content, you'd never know.  So perhaps it's not so surprising older folk, including teachers, aren't paying any attention to the outside world.  I know that's true in America, in the least.  Both of my parents are completely oblivious to the outside world.  They only watch Fox news; I heard it this morning, actually.  They talked about exactly these two things:  the local weather, and the local rape & suicide & murder.  After that, they talked about the entertainment industry.  Because the same old shit is apparently news

Anarchy is an interesting subject, because it has many different connotations, most of which people perceive as bad.  The media only proliferates one type of anarchist, and it's the one with a giant green mohok and a face full of metal, rocking out to punk and, in their free time, eating your babies and blowing up your churches.  So if you mention anarchy to the average Joe, they'll assume you're either planning to assassinate someone important, or you're referring to a so-called terrorist.  An unfortunate name, but, all the while, it's still anti-government.  I actually first learned about it on this site, believe it or not.  It's an interesting concept, but I'm curious how to make it work.  I know people, when given the opportunity, are smart enough to make decisions on their own, but the government implies exactly the opposite.  Heck, many people want the government to baby them from the day they're a baby to the day they're dead.  Because we really need a law that explicitly states "Killing people is bad," to know that killing people isn't a very constructive thing to do--and yet, those who are above this law can kill whoever they please.  All you need to do is enlist and bam, there you go, a license to kill anyone not on your own team.

Back on subject tho.  What you're saying is spot on, and it's what I'm referring to.  Children are beaten into submission at an early age, broken-in you might say, so they shut up, sit down, and pay attention to whatever you want to tell them.  They have absolutely no desire to learn, as the government funded schools not only force the child's parents to participate in their program, but draw from their pockets to pay for this service they may or may not want, or may not even use to begin with if they opt for home schooling or private schooling.  A child must be shown why it is important to understand, and should make a conscious decision that it is, in fact, a great thing.  In America, we do exactly the opposite.  We tell children that if they don't go to school, they'll never get a decent job (and they still may not even after years in college, but nobody says a damn thing until the time they're actually taking a sociology course in college--at least, that's how I realized it ), and if they never get a decent job, or a job at all, they won't amount to anything, which is another way of saying, you will probably become homeless and/or die, which of course is a lie, as they would just get on welfare and so the cycle continues.  As Stefan Molyneux (check him out on YouTube if you don't know about him) has said, this is a form of socialism--ironic, as many Americans hate this concept, yet will still pay their taxes and hate anyone who doesn't--and, ultimately, a passive form of violence.  When a parent faces hefty fines and even jail time for not putting their child through school, that's when the red flag waves high, and, thanks to our unproductive school system which molds children to be broken-in by the time they're done with high school, that red flag goes entirely unnoticed, as they have learned nothing but who their masters are and the best way to submit to them; being of which, on their knees, without resistance, at a job, ANY job, without thought, without objection, for anyone who pretends to be an official of anything.  Work, pay your taxes, vote, and submit to authority: the four golden standards of the model American citizen.  We're still playing this silly two-party game here.  That's progress for you.

As a teacher, how would you combat this?  It's an entirely uphill battle.  You are one of these most important individuals in the world, for you're in charge of shaping the future society, and yet teachers (in America at least) are paid so poorly, I knew several who worked alongside me at an amusement park as security guards for $9 an hour.  I even once trained a vice principal of an elementary school.  I couldn't believe a vice principal had to work for a few dollars above minimum wage to help ends meet.  Blew my mind.  If there's anything that would steal incentive from being a teacher, it's a substandard pay.

You're not a conspiracy theorist, however, until you ask the question "Why is education so bad in any given country?" and answer with "Because it is intentional." 

[myrkul]

You're not a conspiracy theorist, however, until you ask the question "Why is education so bad in any given country?" and answer with "Because it is intentional." 

Not intentional, just the inevitable effect of a monopoly. (of course, it might be intentional, if PTB understand the consequences of monopoly.)

[Mike Christ]

You're not a conspiracy theorist, however, until you ask the question "Why is education so bad in any given country?" and answer with "Because it is intentional." 

Not intentional, just the inevitable effect of a monopoly. (of course, it might be intentional, if PTB understand the consequences of monopoly.)

That's a good point; the effects of monopolies are well documented.  I hadn't thought about that!  Monopolies bring about a deterioration of the good/service.  So is it intentional?  I mean, they had thoughts about cutting the funding to the socialist schools by up to half, which would further deteriorate their quality.  But if you call this out as budgeting problems, ala being totally broke, the finger can't sit on intentional.  Then again, since we're totally broke, why not cut the cord and let private schooling become a thing?  Isn't business a good thing?  But at the same, it could be bad, at least until people aren't running the hamster wheel for a living, and it won't sit well with people when putting their kids through school costs them more than they can afford.  They see public schools as "free", and therefore great, yet pay no mind to where the funding for their "free" school is coming from.

What a convoluted web we're in right now.

[myrkul]

What a convoluted web we're in right now.

Yup.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

There are no private schools in the US?

[myrkul]

There are no private schools in the US?

There are, but the curriculum is regulated pretty closely, and they tend to be very exclusive, not to mention expensive. For those your "average" person could get their kid into without mortgaging their soul, it's not much better than public school. Home schooling is still an option in some states, but few people have the time for it. The result is an effective monopoly on education.

[Ekaros]

You're not a conspiracy theorist, however, until you ask the question "Why is education so bad in any given country?" and answer with "Because it is intentional." 

Not intentional, just the inevitable effect of a monopoly. (of course, it might be intentional, if PTB understand the consequences of monopoly.)

I think in some cases monopolies can lead to acceptable results. Finland does pretty well on some tests, though those test can also be questioned. And it's system is pretty much monopoly.

Still, I think it more as should every person has right for education?

[Mike Christ]

You're not a conspiracy theorist, however, until you ask the question "Why is education so bad in any given country?" and answer with "Because it is intentional." 

Not intentional, just the inevitable effect of a monopoly. (of course, it might be intentional, if PTB understand the consequences of monopoly.)

I think in some cases monopolies can lead to acceptable results. Finland does pretty well on some tests, though those test can also be questioned. And it's system is pretty much monopoly.

Still, I think it more as should every person has right for education?

It's not a right, nor a privilege.  It's impossible for life to exist without it.  You do not live if you are not educated.  The simple act of being alive means you will learn.  Ignoring government, ignoring all social constructs ever to exist, ignoring the limitations of language and culture, the most basic human being will do the following: eat, drink, procreate, sleep, and above all, learn how to make these things happen to ensure his own survival.  Once basic survival is out of the way, people do this strange thing where they continue to learn, even though they don't actually have to.  When you give someone everything they need to survive, they do nothing but attempt to learn and create.  I don't personally know why; I don't study the human mind.  But there is never a regular human being who does not desire this.

So the question isn't whether people have a right to education.  It's that people will be educated, and if nothing else, they will educate themselves (both Edison and B. Franklin dropped out, one after three months, the other after two years.)  All that school attempts to do is get a human being up to speed with what has already been invented, what science has already locked into common understanding.  If an alien race were to land on this planet (completely out there but stay with me,) they would understand many of the things we currently understand, but with one exception: they'll have their own interpretation of it all.  There will be understandings of physics, but they will have their own way of describing it.  It would be as if an invisible country who has had no interaction with any other nation on the planet were to invent a society in which was similar to ours; they'd have their own ways to explain the same phenomenon we experience, but it would all be just that: the same thing.  Someone, somewhere, has to figure it out, before the schools can teach it.  No school can ever teach science: they can only teach modern science, what we readily understand and are striving to accomplish.

Why, then, is it so hard to accomplish this?  Is it because the more information required to pass down, the harder it is to learn it all?  Children have no idea why they're being fed knowledge.  They just don't understand, not until you've already drilled into their heads that they have to get it, they have no choice but to get it, which is what the American public school system does, and why I disagree with its methods.  Adults are coming out of high school remembering nothing they were supposed to learn, because they weren't learning, they were just putting up with something they didn't understand why they had to attend until it was time to go, and if they go directly to work, long hours, little pay, it's all over.  They tend not to care for learning.  Sad but true: colleges today around the world are marketing themselves as ways to better the worker.  This isn't why colleges exist, but it's why they exist now.  Colleges once existed for the pursuit of knowledge, and therefor the pursuit of happiness.  This isn't the case, anymore.  We're going backwards.  Education by force is not education, it's a travesty, and at best, a daycare, or a rehabilitation prison to indoctrinate new American citizens--however you want to view it.