#1
this is a thread for education. i now talk a lot about education. i will try and collect my thoughts in this thread for education. rather than the "real life" thread.

here our my main interests:

discipline and self-discipline
the exercise of power and charismatic authority in schools
didactic teacher-led instruction and the failures of constructivist theory in practice
culture, spirit, environment and getting smart as fuck in a world of shit
the interplay between strict discipline and heartfelt care
the pedagogy of science and the especial failures of constructivist informed "think like a scientist" in science education specifically.
the art of the science demo
neo-traditionalism, memorisation, call and response, drill, copying texts, handwriting practice, tests, all the good shit
bad lessons, and unedited and illicitly recorded footage of shitty lessons


here is a space for some interesting books of relevance:
The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Teachers: The Michaela Way (2016) - Katharine Birbalsingh
Michaela: The Power of Culture: The Michaela Way (2020) - Katharine Birbalsingh
Seven Myths About Education (2014) - Daisy Christodoulou
Teach Like a Champion - Doug Lemov
Teaching secondary science - Adam Boxer

State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power (1998) - Anton Bordieu
Problems of Soviet Education - Anton Makarenko
A Book for parents - Anton Makarenko
The Road to Life - Anton Makarenko

---

Man must have something joyful ahead of him to live for. The true stimulus in human life is the morrow's joy - Makarenko
#2
how much of "grade inflation" do you think is just teachers trying not to condemn students to poverty
#3

cars posted:

how much of "grade inflation" do you think is just teachers trying not to condemn students to poverty


in england we have no course work or grade averages - everything depends on contracted out standardised testing carried out by authorised exam boards under the aegis of the department for education and the office of qualifications and examinations regulation. therefor GCSE grades are really out of the hands of teachers (beyond the teaching of course!). however, during covid school closures teachers awarded "predicted grades" which became GCSEs, and so i know teachers who gave everyone in their classes an A* (a "9" these days) because why not. also exam grades are moderated so the overall level of education could be terrible and you would still see A*s and As and Bs coming out - this raises some interesting ideas about what i would describe as clown college world if the online right and their liberal enablers hadn't stolen my favourite expression in circa 2020

so i am going to be bold and say...: sorry, its not something i know much about.

#4
here is an example of what i mean by "decent" illicit footage of lessons, hard to come by:



semi-raw footage from inside lesson, phones innit. watch from 13 min.

so watching that video, what a shit education. only one lesson out of five (the english one) where any real learning even appeared to be taking place.

teachers just ploughing on over high noise, students using their phones, even vlogging in class, personal conversations going on constantly, research lessons, collaborative lessons, noisy lessons, what the fuck do we do lessons, powerpoint lessons, pointless lessons, time wasting lessons - but listen to what the girl is actually saying when she tries to engage "we have to find countries which speak spanish but we dont know any... how are we supposed to know", "we're researching in spanish but my laptop doesnt work so i have to use my phone" "we're researching some spanish cities but i dont know what to...*gets distracted*" "were doing line graphs about the temperature in japan *shows bar chart*" "I don't know, I don't get it, *to the phone* we'll come back to you when we understand what to do *jump cut* quick update: still confused" "i have to share a ruler because i lost mine in drama" "it's like a piss take lesson no one cares" "how am i ment to know this" "i dont get this biology is like my worst subject" "i got 1 out of 10" etc. fuck knows what is happening in that biology class, some sort of quiz revision test on powerpoint. fucking hell.

this is a good example of why i am obsessed with discipline, with order, with direct instruction, with modelling, with silent practice.

Edited by tears ()

#5
what looks like genuinely racist education in progress. i don't know anything about the amerikan system but holy hell



i mean seriously what the fuck is going on here
#6

tears posted:

failures of constructivist theory in practice



I'm interested in learning more about this. I don't know how popular it is but are you familiar with the Montessori method/Montessori education? Apparently it is based on constructivist theory (I don't know what that means).

Montessori education in practice, if I remember, was little to no direct instruction by the teacher - almost always you do group activities - working on puzzles, posters, worksheets - either by yourself or with others. There's a huge emphasis on tactile sensations, learning through doing. Sometimes you'll be paired with an higher year student to teach you a concept they just learnt. You would have a list of things you have to accomplish for the day, and then you would just go do it within the hours you set for yourself. The teacher would just be there to facilitate, provide verbal or written feedback. It could be very different depending on how it's applied. I'm not sure whether it's good or bad, if it's a failure - how so and why?

#7
hello marknat, i am pseudo-familiar with montessori, but not enough to offer more than the most general criticism, so i will talk a little bit on constructivism/constrictism in science education particularly.

begin words: i will divide constructivism into two strands a) hard constructivism and b) soft constructivism.

the montessori method you mention abbove i will put in the hard constructivism paradigm.

soft constructivism is the dominant paradigm in state provided education in the uk. it is almost certainly the dominant paradigm in state provided education in other western imperialist countries too

more and more i have come to realise that soft constructivism is educational neglect (child abuse) masquerading as education. consider this: everyone in england and wales takes the same qualifications: GCSEs (age 16) and A-Levels (age 18). the children of the rich and the children of the poor. everyone takes the same exams. everyone knows they take these exams. from the age of 11 children know. we tell them. GCSEs are a large part of their environment. this system is superficially a level playing field: meritocratic. therefore one way to game the system is in the quality of the education provided. enter the soft constructivist paradigm.

the soft constructivist paradigm at its heart says that it is wrong to tell children the answer because they will remember it better if they figure it out for themselves. this can be traced back to rousseau and dewey. in modern times is often backed up by artefacts like Dale's Cone of Experience and pseudo-facts like "you only remember 10% of what you hear". in practice this results in science lessons which are nigh incomprehensible to students. they are asked to infer things without having the core knowledge in order to do so. this is in short: idealism. the prioritisation of thought over reality.

the best way i can think to explain this is three examples. You are teaching the uses and parts of a microscope:

Example 1: the didactic method ("Just tell them")
"Look at this. This is called a microscope. we use it to enable us to magnify very small things. Magnify means to make something look bigger than it is."

"i say you say: microscopes are used to magnify very small things one two three" all: "microscopes are used to magnify very small things"

"i say you say: magnify means to make something look bigger than it is one two three" all: "magnify means to make something look bigger than it is"

"This is called the eyepiece lens. this is where we look through. everyone point to the eyepiece lens on the microscope in front of you." all point.

"on three, all together: what this is called one two three." all: "eyepiece lens!"

"What does a microscope do?" *pause, picks student X* "Makes something bigger" "Wrong, what is the correct answer, Student Y" "makes something look bigger than it is" "Good!, student X, tell me what a microscope does." "makes something look bigger than it is." "Good! Everyone, on three, what does a microscope do one two three" "makes something look bigger than it actually is!"

Example 2: the soft constructivist method ("guide them to figure it out for themselves")
Points to microscope: "Does anyone know what this is" one hand up "Yes?" "A telescope" "not quite, anyone else? no? its called a microscope"

now, does anyone know what we use this for? no? we use it to look at small things. now why might that be useful? yes?" "to make them bigger?" "great answer" (note the actual misconception being embedded here)

"ok, so at the top we have a lens, this is where we look, any ideas what we might call this?" "look lens?" "not quite but good idea, anyone else?" "eye lens?" "almost there, you've almost got it, anyone else" "eyelooking lens?" "not quite, ok, i will tell you, its the eyepiece lens. now any idea what this is called: points to stage, ill give you a clue, think about what were looking at as an actor giving a performance, where do they preform. no? like actors on a.... yes?" "a set?" "not quite but you're on the right lines, anyone? no? ok, its called a stage.

Example 3: the hard constructivist method ("give them the freedom to figure it out for themselves")
"Here you are children, see if you can work out what you do with this and what they are for. i want to see you thinking like a scientist" - points to microscopes and glass slides

---

obviously there are some exaggeration in the above examples. however, the ones who can succeed in the 2nd example are not demonstrating "great scientific thinking" no, what they are demonstrating is that when they go home they talk about things round the dinner table, they're demonstrating that their parents read to them and make them read, their houses are full of books, that their parents have taken them on trips, made them watch educational documentaries, taken them to museums and sent them to summer camps. so what about all the other children? well, "they just couldn't figure it out", "they had a poor attitude to learning", "they were stupid", "they didn't belong in mainstream education", "better if they were on a vocational course", "they were never going to get it", "they were just lazy" oh, you did badly on a test where i didn't actually teach you most of the stuff you actually needed to know? guess you just fucking suck!

in the first example everyone is told the answer, everyone is given the knowledge because for many students school is the only place that knowledge is available. if i don't tell them no one else will.

in short that is why i think the middle method, the dominant paradigm in uk education, is child abuse.

Edited by tears ()

#8
Thank you for your reply tears.
How is the soft constructivist approach different from the Socratic method? Maybe this is a testament to how pervasive this approach has become - but whenever I find myself trying to teach someone a idea or getting them to follow my point of view I always ask them questions based on their existing knowledge, or make analogies based on something I know they are familiar with. Is it not possible for that microscope teacher to make analogies or references to knowledge that all students already have? I don't think students are blank slates without other input outside the classroom. But I can see how this approach does waste alot of time, or greatly advantage students who are already familiar with the material. But even in your example, the teacher does get around to telling them the correct answer - it's just more circuitous, no?

Also, how can we make a distinction between the soft-constructinism - "it is wrong to tell children the answer because they will remember it better if they figure it out for themselves", and just ordinary scientific experimentation? For example, you do a chemistry experiment in a lab. The experiment ought to deepen your knowledge of the theoretical concepts taught in class, by actually using that information. Or, you use the experiment to demonstrate how a theoretical concept is obtained. Sometimes if you get a unexpected result or even the expected result - by seeing the process through physically this can help you remember. I think the difference here is that the correct answer is told in advance or clarified after the experiment, right?
#9
also the didactic method seems a bit one-sided to me. I, the teacher, have the information and you the student, do not. I give it to you. It might be fine for algebra, but in my social sciences class I would've wanted the leeway to question my teachers. You can say that's just a problem with the teacher having incorrect information in the first place though.

E: I realize that even questioning my teachers would require education from outside the classroom, which most people are not allowed. I see
#10

marknat posted:

whenever I find myself trying to teach someone a idea or getting them to follow my point of view I always ask them questions based on their existing knowledge, or make analogies based on something I know they are familiar with



i suspect "more is different" factors in, here -- i.e., one-on-one conversation is a very different beast than a classroom lecture within a narrow envelope of time

#11
as a geriatric millennial when I think about finishing school before the smartphone came out it kind of feels like escaping a burning building before it explodes
#12

marknat posted:

Thank you for your reply tears.
How is the soft constructivist approach different from the Socratic method? Maybe this is a testament to how pervasive this approach has become - but whenever I find myself trying to teach someone a idea or getting them to follow my point of view I always ask them questions based on their existing knowledge, or make analogies based on something I know they are familiar with. Is it not possible for that microscope teacher to make analogies or references to knowledge that all students already have? I don't think students are blank slates without other input outside the classroom. But I can see how this approach does waste alot of time, or greatly advantage students who are already familiar with the material. But even in your example, the teacher does get around to telling them the correct answer - it's just more circuitous, no?


its a matter of ratio. ratio is the concept of what is every student doing in your class at time x. if yuu are engaging in a great socratic session with joe biden at the front, what is donald trump and rishi sunak and all the other 29 students in your class doing? are they early hanging on your every word as you tease out some really good answers, or do they tune out because clearly "this isn't for them"?

if that took 5 minutes, was that 5 minutes where the first student was thinking really hard and the other twenty nine were doing nothing at all? was that 5 minutes well spent, or could it have been better spend using direct instruction followed by independent practice? and with analogies - they are good, but, and it is a big but, if you find out that a the children know what a telescope is, is it helpful to tell them that a "microscope is like a telescope?" does that build misconceptions? of course you want to go concrete -> abstract, but could that be better done by just showing a short video clip of zooming in on something rather than bandying around lots of analogies?

#13

marknat posted:

Thank you for your reply tears.
Also, how can we make a distinction between the soft-constructinism - "it is wrong to tell children the answer because they will remember it better if they figure it out for themselves", and just ordinary scientific experimentation? For example, you do a chemistry experiment in a lab. The experiment ought to deepen your knowledge of the theoretical concepts taught in class, by actually using that information. Or, you use the experiment to demonstrate how a theoretical concept is obtained. Sometimes if you get a unexpected result or even the expected result - by seeing the process through physically this can help you remember. I think the difference here is that the correct answer is told in advance or clarified after the experiment, right?


let me pose you a scenario.

your students are to do a simple investigation into the effect of surface area of marble pieces on the rate of reaction with hydrochloric acid.

heres what they need to know in order to carry out this activity:
how to read
how to read a method
how to safely work with chemicals including hazard symbols in a lab
the names, appearances and uses of measuring cylinder, balance, conical flask, hydrochloric acid, marble chips, marble powder
how to use a measuring cylinder to measure ml
how to turn on a balance
what tare means and how to tare a balance
how to use a plastic boat to assist in measuring mass
how to operate a stopwatch correctly
signs that a reaction is taking place
vocabulary such as effervescence
how long to record for
how to draw a table
how to record data in a table
what data to record, and to what degree of accuracy
where to dispose of their chemicals
what a scatter plot is
that this experiment requires a scatter plot
what to put on the x and y axis
how to choose a suitable scale
how to plot points on a scatter plot
types of lines of best fit
how to identify what type of line is best
how to draw a curved line of best fit
how to work at pace within a time limit

things that would be helpful
why the mass decreases
law of conservation of mass
the chemical symbols for HCL, CaCO3, CO2, CaCl
how to balance a symbol equation
theory of rates of reaction in relation to surface area and ability to use that to form a hypothesis
what different gradients on a rates curve tell you
what the independent and dependant variables are
how to identify their anomalous results

now imagine instead you want to collect the volume of gas in a gas syringe, on top of the above:
what a gas syringe is and what it is for
how to identify a delivery tube and bung
how to set up a clamp, boss and clamp stand to clamp a syringe
how to set up the whole apparatus to collect gas
common sources of error which might arise if their method is sloppy
that they need to put the bung in place the instant the rection begins
how to read off the side of a syringe

---

i do lots of demonstrations in class. i find them useful. practical activities are very high cognitive demand on the students and very high mental load on me. i do them, but they need to be so tightly controlled, so well planned if they are going to have any educational value. ask many people about school science and they will say "i remember the practicals" but probe deeper and 9/10 you will find they don't actually remember anything of value about the practicals, just "we mixed this and it changed colour" "it fizzed", "it dissolved"

#14
I think its improper framing to look at soft constructivism just from the perspective of memorizing, ie. which way of arriving at information increases retention. The point of the approach (talking in a purely ideal sense here, not in terms of how its actually implemented in liberal education) is an emphasis on developing the judgment/reason which make use of information rather than anything pertaning to information directly. My knee-jerk reaction in favor of the method would be that the development of a self-reflexive critical reasoning, or even a properly driven orientation toward learning as self-motivated, is more important than any particular content that might be imparted. I have significantly less theoretical familiarity here so the first thing that comes to mind is Freire's criticism and approach. I'm curious how you feel this relates to your actual practice both in pragmatic everyday terms and more generally in a theoretical sense
#15

ribaraca posted:

I think its improper framing to look at soft constructivism just from the perspective of memorizing, ie. which way of arriving at information increases retention. The point of the approach (talking in a purely ideal sense here, not in terms of how its actually implemented in liberal education) is an emphasis on developing the judgment/reason which make use of information rather than anything pertaning to information directly. My knee-jerk reaction in favor of the method would be that the development of a self-reflexive critical reasoning, or even a properly driven orientation toward learning as self-motivated, is more important than any particular content that might be imparted. I have significantly less theoretical familiarity here so the first thing that comes to mind is Freire's criticism and approach. I'm curious how you feel this relates to your actual practice both in pragmatic everyday terms and more generally in a theoretical sense



the issue in practice with "skills not knowledge" is that i have never in my life seen anyone able to critically reason to any degree of competency if they didn't have a large quantity of concepts to draw on from long term memory. "what do you think is going on here" is never going to draw out any interesting critical reasoning if there is nothing to draw on. Example: a chemical reaction where the solid reactant reacts with an aqueous solution to produce two aqueous solutions: Me: "what do we think is going on here" Student: "it dissolved miss". They know dissolving, but they don't know reacting, so their reasoning is bounded by what they already know. without knowledge critical reasoning is weak.

as for this "a properly driven orientation toward learning as self-motivated" - good, great, but think: how? what are you actually going to do to achieve this? my soft constructivist practice, and the theory i have read in order to try and make sense of the failures of this practice have led me to these conclusions that freire is wrong. just like rousseau, just like dewey. and that western fixation on their theory of learning excuses the state from the need to educate the majority of its population. la historia me absolverá.

Edited by tears ()

#16
also, appologies all if i come across as overbearing in this. its just, and get this, i have a large amount of knowledge on this subject and on marxism-leninsim-maoism! which allows me to think very critically about my own practice, dominant paradigms and the like. i could not have worked out what the issue with my own practice was until i ingested more knowledge, more books, more information, more alternative theories. i needed facts.

my conclusion: critical pedagogy is not marxist and consistently erases class.
#17
In practice I mostly agree, especially when it comes to the lazy acceptance of soft-constructivism that was prevalent through my entire education peddled as some kind of revolutionary insight. The dismissal of rote memorization is, in my mind also, an abdication of responsibility and leads to a generalized illiteracy. Techno-fetishizing solutions that 'externalize' memory by encouraging people to just look up datum also deprive them any meaningful framework in which to think at all (I remember a professor describing the memorizing of dates and names in history as 'phone-book' history, missing the point that only a solid base of memorization lets you understand what the historical context of any given event is). None of that, however, seems to address the problem that all thought goes on grounded in an ideological/subjective perspective that is only 'free' to the extent that it is self-reflexive. I agree denigrating the Meat and Potatoes aspect of education is a massive simplification and distortion of how education works, and also that the alternative idealist view of liberal education is mostly a smokescreen for dumifying teaching, but is the idea of having to address the ideological dimension a) irrelevant, b) not a meaningful goal for education, c) not possible under the present system or d) compatible with the direct model of education?
#18

ribaraca posted:

but is the idea of having to address the ideological dimension a) irrelevant, b) not a meaningful goal for education, c) not possible under the present system or d) compatible with the direct model of education?


now this is where my referral to (good) teachers as being like a public defendant comes in. i operate bound within the structures of the "education" system as a public defender operates within the "justice" system. but to an even greater extent i am shackled. to truly address the ideological dimension is to detonate my suicide vest. to address the ideological dimension is to put oneself in direct contradiction with already known "truth", rather than teaching unknown truth. i hope by imparting scientific knowledge that i am helping in my own way.

conclusion: revolution not reform

#19
turns out gramsci wrote about this when he wrote about mussolini's education reforms

Previously, the pupils at least acquired a certain “baggage” or “equipment” (according to taste) of concrete facts. Now that the teacher must be specifically a philosopher and aesthete, the pupil does not bother with concrete facts and fills his head with formulae and words which usually mean nothing to him, and which are forgotten at once. It was right to struggle against the old school but reforming it was not so simple as it seemed. The problem was not one of model curricula but of men, and not just of the men who are actually teachers themselves but of the entire social complex which they express. In reality a mediocre teacher may manage to see to it that his pupils become more informed, although he will not succeed in making them better educated; he can devote a scrupulous and bureaucratic conscientiousness to the mechanical part of teaching – and the pupil, if he has an active intelligence, will give an order of his own, with the aid of his social background, to the “baggage” he accumulates. With the new curricula, which coincide with a general lowering of the level of the teaching profession, there will no longer be any “baggage” to put in order.


[education] must be formative, while being “instructive” – in other words rich in concrete facts. In the present school, the profound crisis in the traditional culture and its conception of life and of man has resulted in a progressive degeneration. Schools of the vocational type, i.e. those designed to satisfy immediate, practical interests, are beginning to predominate over the formative school, which is not immediately “interested”. The most paradoxical aspect of it all is that this new type of school appears and is advocated as being democratic, while in fact it is destined not merely to perpetuate social differences but to crystallise them in Chinese complexities.

#20
I once collected some cool quotes regarding communist education, the need for diligence, and the need to eradicate petite-bourgeois predilections for laziness.

In education one is dealing with children in whom one has to inculcate certain habits of diligence, precision, poise (even physical poise), ability to concentrate on specific subjects, which cannot be acquired without the mechanical repetition of disciplined and methodical acts. Would a scholar at the age of forty be able to sit for sixteen hours on end at his work-table if he had not, as a child, compulsorily, through mechanical coercion, acquired the appropriate psycho-physical habits? If one wishes to produce great scholars, one still has to start at this point and apply pressure throughout the educational system in order to succeed in creating those thousands or hundreds or even only dozens of scholars of the highest quality which are necessary to every civilisation.



-Gramsci

Comrades, we Communists are people of a special mould. We are made of a special stuff.



-Stalin

Complacency is the enemy of study. We cannot really learn anything until we rid ourselves of complacency. Our attitude towards ourselves should be "to be insatiable in learning" and towards others "to be tireless in teaching".



- Mao

In 1920, Lenin said to the youth that it was necessary "to take the whole sum of human knowledge and to take it in such a way that Communism will not be something learned by heart but something which you have thought out yourselves, something which forms the inevitable conclusion from the point of view of modern education…If a Communist were to boast of Communism on the basis of ready-made conclusions, without doing serious, big and difficult work, without thoroughly understanding the facts towards which he must take a critical attitude, such a Communist would be a very poor one.”



-N. Krupskaya

https://www.marxists.org/archive/krupskaya/works/howleninstudiedmarx.htm

But Understanding is as indispensable in practice as it is in theory. Character is an essential in conduct, and a man of character is an understanding man, who in that capacity has definite ends in view and undeviatingly pursues them. The man who will do something great must learn, as Goethe says, to limit himself. The man who, on the contrary, would do everything, really would do nothing, and fails. There is a host of interesting things in the world: Spanish poetry, chemistry, politics, and music are all very interesting, and if any one takes an interest in them we need not find fault. But for a person in a given situation to accomplish anything, he must stick to one definite point, and not dissipate his forces in many directions. In every calling, too, the great thing is to pursue it with understanding. Thus the judge must stick to the law, and give his verdict in accordance with it, undeterred by one motive or another, allowing no excuses, and looking neither left nor right. Understanding, too, is always an element in thorough training. The trained intellect is not satisfied with cloudy and indefinite impressions, but grasps the objects in their fixed character: whereas the uncultivated man wavers unsettled, and it often costs a deal of trouble to come to an understanding with him on the matter under discussion, and to bring him to fix his eye on the definite point in question.



- Hegel, § 80 The Shorter Logic

The demand for such explanations, as also the attempts to satisfy this demand, very easily pass for the essential business philosophy has to undertake. Where could the inmost truth of a philosophical work be found better expressed than in its purposes and results? and in what way could these be more definitely known than through their distinction from what is produced during the same period by others working in the same field? If, however, such procedure is to pass for more than the beginning of knowledge, if it is to pass for actually knowing, then we must, in point of fact, look on it as a device for avoiding the real business at issue, an attempt to combine the appearance of being in earnest and taking trouble about the subject with an actual neglect of the subject altogether. For the real subject-matter is not exhausted in its purpose, but in working the matter out; nor is the mere result attained the concrete whole itself, but the result along with the process of arriving at it. The purpose of itself is a lifeless universal, just as the general drift is a mere activity in a certain direction, which is still without its concrete realisation; and the naked result is the corpse of the system which has left its guiding tendency behind it. Similarly, the distinctive difference of anything is rather the boundary, the limit, of the subject; it is found at that point where the subject-matter stops, or it is what this subject-matter is not. To trouble oneself in this fashion with the purpose and results, and again with the differences, the positions taken up and judgments passed by one thinker and another, is therefore an easier task than perhaps it seems. For instead of laying hold of the matter in hand, a procedure of that kind is all the while away from the subject altogether. Instead of dwelling within it and becoming absorbed by it, knowledge of that sort is always grasping at something else; such knowledge, instead keeping to the subject-matter and giving itself up to it, never gets away from itself. The easiest thing of all is to pass judgments on what has a solid substantial content; it is more difficult to grasp it, and most of all difficult to do both together and produce the systematic exposition of it.



-Hegel, Preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit

here is the reverse of the medal: the method of analysis which I have employed, and which had not previously been applied to economic subjects, makes the reading of the first chapters rather arduous, and it is to be feared that the French public, always impatient to come to a conclusion, eager to know the connexion between general principles and the immediate questions that have aroused their passions, may be disheartened because they will be unable to move on at once. This is a disadvantage I am powerless to overcome, unless it be by forewarning and forearming those readers who zealously seek the truth. There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits.



-Marx, Preface to the French Edition of Capital vol 1

#21
good. i appreciate that. thanks. the gramsci quotation is especially uplifting. it makes me believe. :)
#22

tears posted:

this raises some interesting ideas about what i would describe as clown college world if the online right and their liberal enablers hadn't stolen my favourite expression in circa 2020



if you have the time i want to read your thoughts on this!

#23
dear tears,

i have read your posts about education with interest and, if i am honest, with a great deal of puzzlement regarding your optimism and ability to actualize your ethos in a cruel system. i did not until now realize that you teach in britain, which explains everything. if you were trying to teach in america, i suspect that a person with your character and genuine love for pedagogy would have died a death of despair long ago.

best of luck in your efforts and regards,
winebaby
#24

winebaby posted:

dear tears,

i have read your posts about education with interest and, if i am honest, with a great deal of puzzlement regarding your optimism and ability to actualize your ethos in a cruel system. i did not until now realize that you teach in britain, which explains everything. if you were trying to teach in america, i suspect that a person with your character and genuine love for pedagogy would have died a death of despair long ago.

best of luck in your efforts and regards,
winebaby


yes, what little i have seen of the us system seems to be a big "experiment" on "what would happen if no actual teaching took place in schools" except obviously its not an experiment, its a program of mass de-education under the guise of constructivism. here in the uk i could say something apropos of my ass like: the conservative nationalist bourgioisie have an interest in an educated population to pursue their national interests, hence michael goves knowledge+rigour focused 2014 curriculum reforms which were actually good because even a stopped clock is right twice a day and give me the space to actually teach

#25
the United States education system reflects an entire bourgeois party that has adopted "all teachers are bad, public education should be beaten senseless and drowned in the bathtub" as a marginal vote-winning strategy among the rural petty-bourgeoisie and, probably more importantly, a big-time-success fundraising strategy among probably the majority of the U.S. bourgeoisie, where no one in their families has attended a public school in the last century. Its opposition is a party that agrees that public schools and teachers should be destroyed with flamethrowers but also thinks Logging On will replace them. Look at the career trajectory of Joel Klein for a primer.
#26
how the U.S. $upreme KKKourt decides on student loans will demonstrate which sector of the bourgeoisie—the TRPF-skittish banker-brain global-market types, or the screeching idiot hicks who each own 5 Burger Kings and 10 storage space properties and can't see five feet in front of them—will run United $naKKKe$ for the next quarter-century. assuming any of the above survive it
#27
i love tests. i love exams.

#28
my powerpoint loathing was vindicated by a much more experienced teacher this week who said the lesson of mine they saw was top tier - there is still hope yet. im starting to realise what a drag it must be, as an experienced and effective teacher in charge of observing teachers, seeing so many powerpoints being pointed at with very little power
#29
its fucked up that they call them powerpoints but they actually take power away from the presenter
#30
cOnTeNt
#31

tears posted:

cOnTeNt


#32

cars posted:


hush and take your d i f f e r e n t i a t e d w o r k s h e e t

#33
i finally remembered what email address i used on my account so i could reset the password. i just wanted to drop in to say basically the only reason i check the forum anymore is to read more tears posts so i greatly support this thread and i will attempt to learn something (despite myself having experienced only repeated and total failure as a student (even as an adult student which i think says something about the resilience of my mental deficiences that i can be proud of)).

i was surprised at the uk lesson video. between the uniforms and the sir and miss and the fact that you have "headmasters" and very big walls around your schools i noticed when i lived there temporarily i assumed that discipline was at least vaguely similar to what i experienced at a zero-budget public elementary school in rural canada. for that much total disorder i think we would have been subject to nuclear levels of retailation, the entire class held together for detention kind of thing. i am "kids these days" years old.
#34

drwhat posted:

i finally remembered what email address i used on my account so i could reset the password. i just wanted to drop in to say basically the only reason i check the forum anymore is to read more tears posts


i am touched that you would go to such efforts to promote the release of dopamine across my synapses