I think this is quite a pessimistic view of what a school system could/should provide. The learning environment isn’t just what is taught in a classroom (though this should of course be a decent curriculum), but the comprehensive system should ‘force’ socialisation with people whose backgrounds don’t match your own.
The danger — to my mind — of losing a school system, is that you end up with an increasingly stratified society, where there is no reason for mixing between groups, and there is at once no mechanism for social mobility, and no driver for the development of empathy for ‘out’ groups.
I’m talking from a UK perspective and would say our school system is FAR from perfect, but I’m also very wary of home schooling etc., as I’d argue that would drive inequality in education up massively.
I hear you, especially because there is a lot of pressure from the right to destroy public education outright – But I didn’t really say much about what a school system could/should provide? Only what it currently does not provide, at least in the US. It’s a pessimistic take, for sure, but the reality is so bad here that if I had to choose, my (nonexistent) kid would be home schooled. For sure, the current system could be improved a whole lot simply with more teachers (or adults), I’d guess, taking part in the learning experience – but not completely fixed.
I’m focused on the learning environment because in my view, a schools primary purpose is to impart knowledge through learning. I don’t think that purpose can be achieved without an environment conducive to learning. Throwing all the kids in a community into a building with little adult supervision, where they cannot leave for 6 hours, where they must move when the bell tolls, where they have to deal with the myriad social issues of a young person – that is not a physical environment conducive to learning. A compulsory curriculum with graded assignments and examinations does not, IMO, make a kid (me) open to knowledge – it makes him aware of conditional acceptance and a hierarchy of accomplishment. At best, it makes him want to get a good grade, or be in good standing with the teacher. And he will! But all he’ll learn is, as I said, how to find out what the teacher wants and give it to them.
Now that I’m older, I’m finding I missed out on a whole lot of good books, for example, because I was compelled to read them for a class, rather than curious to find out what was inside them. In classic capitalist fashion, I did the most efficient thing when I was in school: I read a summary of the books online and nailed the tests.
Obviously, there are also the secondary purposes of school, like learning acceptable socialization and conflict resolution strategies, but, as I said, dumping 10 kids to 1 teacher (and even this is a relatively low ratio) in a classroom is not going to be conducive to learning these things. They ought to be learned, for sure, but school as it is now fails at this and only outputs trauma and a stratified student body – the exact thing you’re thinking school should prevent! The whole structure of public schools here teaches that there are good students and bad students, that the good students are rewarded and the bad students are punished or, at best, ignored. There are parallels there, in my view, with how we treat the disabled, the sick, the imprisoned, the poor, or anyone whose ability does not fit neatly into the structure we’ve provided (capitalism) that our current school system feeds into.
I think this is quite a pessimistic view of what a school system could/should provide. The learning environment isn’t just what is taught in a classroom (though this should of course be a decent curriculum), but the comprehensive system should ‘force’ socialisation with people whose backgrounds don’t match your own.
The danger — to my mind — of losing a school system, is that you end up with an increasingly stratified society, where there is no reason for mixing between groups, and there is at once no mechanism for social mobility, and no driver for the development of empathy for ‘out’ groups.
I’m talking from a UK perspective and would say our school system is FAR from perfect, but I’m also very wary of home schooling etc., as I’d argue that would drive inequality in education up massively.
I hear you, especially because there is a lot of pressure from the right to destroy public education outright – But I didn’t really say much about what a school system could/should provide? Only what it currently does not provide, at least in the US. It’s a pessimistic take, for sure, but the reality is so bad here that if I had to choose, my (nonexistent) kid would be home schooled. For sure, the current system could be improved a whole lot simply with more teachers (or adults), I’d guess, taking part in the learning experience – but not completely fixed.
I’m focused on the learning environment because in my view, a schools primary purpose is to impart knowledge through learning. I don’t think that purpose can be achieved without an environment conducive to learning. Throwing all the kids in a community into a building with little adult supervision, where they cannot leave for 6 hours, where they must move when the bell tolls, where they have to deal with the myriad social issues of a young person – that is not a physical environment conducive to learning. A compulsory curriculum with graded assignments and examinations does not, IMO, make a kid (me) open to knowledge – it makes him aware of conditional acceptance and a hierarchy of accomplishment. At best, it makes him want to get a good grade, or be in good standing with the teacher. And he will! But all he’ll learn is, as I said, how to find out what the teacher wants and give it to them.
Now that I’m older, I’m finding I missed out on a whole lot of good books, for example, because I was compelled to read them for a class, rather than curious to find out what was inside them. In classic capitalist fashion, I did the most efficient thing when I was in school: I read a summary of the books online and nailed the tests.
Obviously, there are also the secondary purposes of school, like learning acceptable socialization and conflict resolution strategies, but, as I said, dumping 10 kids to 1 teacher (and even this is a relatively low ratio) in a classroom is not going to be conducive to learning these things. They ought to be learned, for sure, but school as it is now fails at this and only outputs trauma and a stratified student body – the exact thing you’re thinking school should prevent! The whole structure of public schools here teaches that there are good students and bad students, that the good students are rewarded and the bad students are punished or, at best, ignored. There are parallels there, in my view, with how we treat the disabled, the sick, the imprisoned, the poor, or anyone whose ability does not fit neatly into the structure we’ve provided (capitalism) that our current school system feeds into.
sorry for the novel lol.