Yes I am, but not as a first step. I think that a certain basis of other things need to be available as to not leave vulnerable groups and kids without proper education.
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2022
3 points (100.0% liked)
Anarchism
3671 readers
1 users here now
Are you an Anarchist? The answer might surprise you!
Rules:
- Be respectful
- Don't be a nazi
- Argue about the point and not the person
- This is not the place to debate the merits of anarchism itself. While discussion is encouraged, getting in your “epic dunks on the anarkiddies” is not. As a result of the instance’s poor moderation policies and hostility toward anarchists by default, lemmygrad users are encouraged not to post here, though not explicitly disallowed if they aren’t just looking to start a fight.
See also:
- /c/debateanarchism
- /c/antiwork
- @lemmy.dbzer0.com
- @slrpnk.net
- Anarchy101
- Anarchism@lemmy.ca
- XMPP chat
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I agree! I think unschooling should first be allowed and the focus of educational policy should shift from providing an education to providing conditions for it to be a possibility for more people. That is a big ask, though, and I don't have faith in the establishment working to disintegrate itself. I think a gradual development of federated grassroots "learning co-ops" is a better and more actionable immediate goal for people interested in a de-institutionalized education and society.
Sounds good, what would be the first steps to work towards this?
EDIT: Of course my answer is about free communes, not about Nation States. For example, i explicitly avoid the question of how some parents treat little girls differently from boys and would prevent them from leaving home at all.
I am 100% against schools as we know them but i'm 100% for education. The thing is what do you even call compulsory? If compulsory means everyone gets the same "education" from the same shepherds by sitting quietly in an overcrowded room, i'm all against it.
If it means we older folks (including those who are considered kids) produce different activities for kids to learn, i don't think it's bad to push or strongly suggest that kids learn. I think learning is less traumatizing without the authority figure and the classroom setting. For example, games can be a good tool to learn some basic skills (see also "alternative" education techniques such as Montessori).
But i think it's important to point out that kids are capable and that learning by doing is a thing. Kids at 3-5 years old can help out: taking part in collective tasks (cooking, construction) is very rewarding for kids even though they're not much help and require supervision (i'm not talking about child labor lol), and it teaches both practical skills as well as practical applications (the motivation for learning the practical skills, which is often missing in schools).
Likewise, i see no reason to prevent kids from taking part in general assemblies, except maybe in specific circumstances. And still, i'm not sure excluding them from serious talk is good for them: the world is bleak even for adults and we need to support one another emotionally. If we're not capable to have a 5 year old understand and overcome an emotionally-exhausting meeting, i think we're doing a bad job at making things understandable/overcomable for everyone and producing toxic forms of collectives.
Of course, kids in communities often have their own assemblies and can decide for themselves what they'd like to do and how. We adults should provide support to dismantle abuses/inequalities (bullying etc) as well as learning equipment/material, but the kids are just fine to decide on their own and i'm convinced from experience that 99% of kids just want to learn stuff and feel helpful, as long as we're not guilt-tripping them into it.
Compulsory education arrived with industrialization. If children are in the school their parents can be working in the factory.
Or children can be in factory too
That's not education though
It's possible to provide free daycare for kids without mandating it.