4 ms·

Please elaborate. Popular? It's been getting more attention recently due to the work of various authors, but the vast majority of people still see compulsory s

Please elaborate. Popular? It's been getting more attention recently due to the work of various authors, but the vast majority of people still see compulsory schooling as an irrevocable necessity.

Nursie 13y ago
The vast majority see compulsory and free schooling as an unmitigated good. The "it's only there to make you conform and obey the elites" meme is certainly getting more popular, but its so far from the aims of educators (and the politicians that continue to fund it) that it's about as well grounded and believable as chemtrails, the illuminati or other conspiracy theory.
- nickff 13y ago
  1) Government-run schools are not free. 2) The educators' intentions may be good, but the results are much more important. 3) The politicians do not fund things, they appropriate money from tax receipts. 4) There are many defenders of the public school system who justify it on the basis of creating a 'shared experience' for the citizenry, which sounds quite collectivist. Why would singing national anthems and pledges of allegiance be so common in schools around the world, if not for statism? 5) The government schooling system has historically been used as a tool of oppression against minorities; it would be naive to believe that politicians and bureaucrats suddenly stopped using the schools to achieve their ends .
  - Nursie 13y ago
    1) They are free at the point of access, we all pay for them. I'm not sure why you feel the need to point this out as it's a useless distinction 2) Not when we're talking about the subject we're actually talking about they're not. I quote from the OP - "the suppression of creativity and individualism is one of the key goals of the compulsory schooling system". That's what I dispute. It may well be an outcome, and that would be bad and should be changed, but it's disingenuous (to say the least) to ascribe this as a motive. 3) The politicians decide what to fund out of the public purse, yes. Again, useless distinction 4) Is collectivism evil in and of itself? I don't subscribe to this view in the slightest, in case you were wondering, and I've only ever heard a few left-wing talking heads claim that that is what we should be trying to do with schools. Personally I 'justify' it by observing that education is given to people who otherwise would not get it for a variety of reasons, and having a base level of education throughout society being a very Good Thing. 5) It's also verging on conspiracy to ascribe nefarious aims and goals to every person involved in education.
    - nickff 13y ago
      1) "We" do not all pay taxes, and I want to point it out, because I am being forced to finance a system which I do not believe in. 2) The OP said that 'suppression' was a goal of the system, not of each individual actor; you were addressing the teachers, and I was saying that they are participating in a dangerous broader system. 3) It is not useless to point out that politicians pay for nothing; if they were paying, I would not care how the money was disbursed. 4) Please address the nationalism and statism which is evoked by the anthems and pledges at schools; how does this help the children better their lives? 5) If there have never been "nefarious aims" in the public education system, why did Brown sue the Board of Education? I am simply reciting history, do you disagree with the history? Or do you disagree with my conjecture that all "nefarious aims" may not have disappeared when Little Rock was desegregated?
      - Nursie 13y ago
        1 & 3) Oh noes! The evil taxman! We all pay for things we disagree with, but I prefer we do that than have no commons at all. Feel free to disagree with this but you're basically walking into "Public education is bad by definition" which is not something I'm here to argue. I'm really only saying that I don't think it's anyone's aim. And no, we do not all pay taxes, some do not because they are as poor as dirt. It's an awesome facet of modern society that they are not condemned to stay there by lack of access to education, nor by parental indifference to it. 2) I do not believe that it is the goal of educators, nor of others that operate or support the system. I do not believe that even if it was set up to do that by some bad evil people last century it is a key goal now. This is the root of my argument. It may be an outcome, it is not a goal. 4) We don't do that over here in communist UKia, because it's weird. 5) I have no idea who Brown is, or anything about Little Rock beyond it being where Bill Clinton came from, sorry. Not american.
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    For 1), I think the GP meant "free as in freedom", not "free as in beer". Taxpayers pay for school, but everyone is allowed in (I do agree with you in your interpretation).
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  You're presenting a complete straw man argument and you're incorrectly trying to make a reductio ad absurdum by comparing these views to mythical pop culture conspiracy theories. It doesn't seem to me like you're well versed into the actual arguments presented by authors and thinkers who write on the inherent flaws of compulsory schooling.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> You're presenting a complete straw man argument ?? I'm responding to this - >> the suppression of creativity and individualism is one of the key goals of the compulsory schooling system Which AFAICT is unsupportable and certainly not the stated intention of any of the people I know in education, nor does it seem to be the intention of the politicians who continue to keep the system funded. How is that a straw man? I'm arguing against what you actually said! >> It doesn't seem to me like you're well versed into the actual arguments presented by authors and thinkers who write on the inherent flaws of compulsory schooling. There are all sorts of flaws in schooling, compulsory or otherwise. We could probably take the whole weekend just writing out a list of the ones that spring to mind without serious study. That doesn't mean that suppression of creativity is the goal of the system.
- shubb 13y ago
  That depends how you look at it. One important thing I and you gained from our education was the learned ability to apply ourselves to tasks set by another, that had little relevance to our lives and dreams, for abstract reward. I use that skill every day - I am an employee, and I create what my employer tells me to, the benefit to me being a salary. If I disagree with my employer about the value of making that thing, I still do it. If I am bored by a project, I still do it. I am lucky that I generally enjoy and care about my work, but some days like everyone, I am working for this abstract, monthly reward. Exams were like that - you liked some subjects, and read them willingly. Others, you never saw yourself using, but you worked at them to get grades, because grades bought you a salary. You also probably learned to fear the future. I know I do. More than studying at French because I needed that grade, I studied at French because not getting that grade might mean not going to college, might mean not getting a middle class job. And then... what? I didn't know. I didn't know any non-middle class people. It is very hard for me, maybe for you too, to imagine a world where life was not geared (8 hours a day) towards working for an abstract salary, paid in abstract money, that will become food, and rent on a small flat in digital bytes without ever becoming cash that you can hold (after all, the bank doesn't actually hold the amount of money it lends). I hear about a man quitting a good job (one with lots of abstract reward), to spend a couple of years doing the things he wants (Concrete things. Travelling, creating according to his own will, actually seeing his family). I feel he is irresponsible, even though his savings mean his family will never go on foodstamps. I feel a pang of anger driven by... envy? The left of philosophy (Marx -> Baudrillard) wrote about how we had fetishized symbols over real things. There is some truth in that, but seeing it has... value, only where it informs our actions. In Silicon Valley, young employees trade their 20s for money, one 12 hour day at a time. The reward is abstract, future, retirement, and always tomorrow. Where were they trained to do that?
  - Nursie 13y ago
    All I'm saying (and really all I'm saying) is that I disagree that suppression of individuality and creativity are key goals of education. They may well be outcomes. They probably are, and that's sad and we should certainly not be content with broken educational systems. I just don't think that's anyone's aim, perhaps just a miserable side effect. >> Where were they trained to do that? I'm not sure, I seem to have skipped those lessons. But then I'm one of those people that periodically takes several months off to go travelling.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  >but its so far from the aims of educators // My eldest's year 1 [5 -6yo] teacher had a phrase "do it first time". She drilled in to the pupils the necessity for absolute and immediate obedience to her demands. I find that sort of behaviour abhorrent as it denies the individual the right to express their own will. Yes, some conformity is required in order to make school work but certainly not to that level - this is a common trait throughout [many] schools in the UK. Indeed I was lecturing a 4yo this evening, with some trepidation, as to why absolute obedience of an authority figure is not essential to welfare and can cause the loss of much that is of value. "There must be a good reason for Mrs. REDACTED to make that rule, otherwise it's a bad rule.".
mcguire 13y ago
Wait, what? What does "[seeing] compulsory schooling as an irrevocable necessity" have to do with "suppression of creativity and individualism"?

Please elaborate. Popular? It's been getting more attention recently due to the work of various authors, but the vast majority of people still see compulsory schooling as an irrevocable necessity.

Nursie 13y ago

The vast majority see compulsory and free schooling as an unmitigated good. The "it's only there to make you conform and obey the elites" meme is certainly getting more popular, but its so far from the aims of educators (and the politicians that continue to fund it) that it's about as well grounded and believable as chemtrails, the illuminati or other conspiracy theory.

nickff 13y ago
1) Government-run schools are not free. 2) The educators' intentions may be good, but the results are much more important. 3) The politicians do not fund things, they appropriate money from tax receipts. 4) There are many defenders of the public school system who justify it on the basis of creating a 'shared experience' for the citizenry, which sounds quite collectivist. Why would singing national anthems and pledges of allegiance be so common in schools around the world, if not for statism? 5) The government schooling system has historically been used as a tool of oppression against minorities; it would be naive to believe that politicians and bureaucrats suddenly stopped using the schools to achieve their ends .
- Nursie 13y ago
  1) They are free at the point of access, we all pay for them. I'm not sure why you feel the need to point this out as it's a useless distinction 2) Not when we're talking about the subject we're actually talking about they're not. I quote from the OP - "the suppression of creativity and individualism is one of the key goals of the compulsory schooling system". That's what I dispute. It may well be an outcome, and that would be bad and should be changed, but it's disingenuous (to say the least) to ascribe this as a motive. 3) The politicians decide what to fund out of the public purse, yes. Again, useless distinction 4) Is collectivism evil in and of itself? I don't subscribe to this view in the slightest, in case you were wondering, and I've only ever heard a few left-wing talking heads claim that that is what we should be trying to do with schools. Personally I 'justify' it by observing that education is given to people who otherwise would not get it for a variety of reasons, and having a base level of education throughout society being a very Good Thing. 5) It's also verging on conspiracy to ascribe nefarious aims and goals to every person involved in education.
  - nickff 13y ago
    1) "We" do not all pay taxes, and I want to point it out, because I am being forced to finance a system which I do not believe in. 2) The OP said that 'suppression' was a goal of the system, not of each individual actor; you were addressing the teachers, and I was saying that they are participating in a dangerous broader system. 3) It is not useless to point out that politicians pay for nothing; if they were paying, I would not care how the money was disbursed. 4) Please address the nationalism and statism which is evoked by the anthems and pledges at schools; how does this help the children better their lives? 5) If there have never been "nefarious aims" in the public education system, why did Brown sue the Board of Education? I am simply reciting history, do you disagree with the history? Or do you disagree with my conjecture that all "nefarious aims" may not have disappeared when Little Rock was desegregated?
    - Nursie 13y ago
      1 & 3) Oh noes! The evil taxman! We all pay for things we disagree with, but I prefer we do that than have no commons at all. Feel free to disagree with this but you're basically walking into "Public education is bad by definition" which is not something I'm here to argue. I'm really only saying that I don't think it's anyone's aim. And no, we do not all pay taxes, some do not because they are as poor as dirt. It's an awesome facet of modern society that they are not condemned to stay there by lack of access to education, nor by parental indifference to it. 2) I do not believe that it is the goal of educators, nor of others that operate or support the system. I do not believe that even if it was set up to do that by some bad evil people last century it is a key goal now. This is the root of my argument. It may be an outcome, it is not a goal. 4) We don't do that over here in communist UKia, because it's weird. 5) I have no idea who Brown is, or anything about Little Rock beyond it being where Bill Clinton came from, sorry. Not american.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  For 1), I think the GP meant "free as in freedom", not "free as in beer". Taxpayers pay for school, but everyone is allowed in (I do agree with you in your interpretation).
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
You're presenting a complete straw man argument and you're incorrectly trying to make a reductio ad absurdum by comparing these views to mythical pop culture conspiracy theories. It doesn't seem to me like you're well versed into the actual arguments presented by authors and thinkers who write on the inherent flaws of compulsory schooling.
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> You're presenting a complete straw man argument ?? I'm responding to this - >> the suppression of creativity and individualism is one of the key goals of the compulsory schooling system Which AFAICT is unsupportable and certainly not the stated intention of any of the people I know in education, nor does it seem to be the intention of the politicians who continue to keep the system funded. How is that a straw man? I'm arguing against what you actually said! >> It doesn't seem to me like you're well versed into the actual arguments presented by authors and thinkers who write on the inherent flaws of compulsory schooling. There are all sorts of flaws in schooling, compulsory or otherwise. We could probably take the whole weekend just writing out a list of the ones that spring to mind without serious study. That doesn't mean that suppression of creativity is the goal of the system.
shubb 13y ago
That depends how you look at it. One important thing I and you gained from our education was the learned ability to apply ourselves to tasks set by another, that had little relevance to our lives and dreams, for abstract reward. I use that skill every day - I am an employee, and I create what my employer tells me to, the benefit to me being a salary. If I disagree with my employer about the value of making that thing, I still do it. If I am bored by a project, I still do it. I am lucky that I generally enjoy and care about my work, but some days like everyone, I am working for this abstract, monthly reward. Exams were like that - you liked some subjects, and read them willingly. Others, you never saw yourself using, but you worked at them to get grades, because grades bought you a salary. You also probably learned to fear the future. I know I do. More than studying at French because I needed that grade, I studied at French because not getting that grade might mean not going to college, might mean not getting a middle class job. And then... what? I didn't know. I didn't know any non-middle class people. It is very hard for me, maybe for you too, to imagine a world where life was not geared (8 hours a day) towards working for an abstract salary, paid in abstract money, that will become food, and rent on a small flat in digital bytes without ever becoming cash that you can hold (after all, the bank doesn't actually hold the amount of money it lends). I hear about a man quitting a good job (one with lots of abstract reward), to spend a couple of years doing the things he wants (Concrete things. Travelling, creating according to his own will, actually seeing his family). I feel he is irresponsible, even though his savings mean his family will never go on foodstamps. I feel a pang of anger driven by... envy? The left of philosophy (Marx -> Baudrillard) wrote about how we had fetishized symbols over real things. There is some truth in that, but seeing it has... value, only where it informs our actions. In Silicon Valley, young employees trade their 20s for money, one 12 hour day at a time. The reward is abstract, future, retirement, and always tomorrow. Where were they trained to do that?
- Nursie 13y ago
  All I'm saying (and really all I'm saying) is that I disagree that suppression of individuality and creativity are key goals of education. They may well be outcomes. They probably are, and that's sad and we should certainly not be content with broken educational systems. I just don't think that's anyone's aim, perhaps just a miserable side effect. >> Where were they trained to do that? I'm not sure, I seem to have skipped those lessons. But then I'm one of those people that periodically takes several months off to go travelling.
pbhjpbhj 13y ago
>but its so far from the aims of educators // My eldest's year 1 [5 -6yo] teacher had a phrase "do it first time". She drilled in to the pupils the necessity for absolute and immediate obedience to her demands. I find that sort of behaviour abhorrent as it denies the individual the right to express their own will. Yes, some conformity is required in order to make school work but certainly not to that level - this is a common trait throughout [many] schools in the UK. Indeed I was lecturing a 4yo this evening, with some trepidation, as to why absolute obedience of an authority figure is not essential to welfare and can cause the loss of much that is of value. "There must be a good reason for Mrs. REDACTED to make that rule, otherwise it's a bad rule.".

mcguire 13y ago

Wait, what? What does "[seeing] compulsory schooling as an irrevocable necessity" have to do with "suppression of creativity and individualism"?