School degradation or why knowledge teaching does not work

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

In the medieval school, for many centuries in a row, they first crammed, like parrots, psalms in Latin, and only then began to study the Latin language. Then smart people noticed that it is much easier to do the opposite: first learn the language, and then learn poetry, already understanding what they are talking about. The productivity of the school increased instantly, and there was less effort and suffering.

It is didactics - the science of methods of teaching knowledge - that shows us better than all sciences that very often the volume of work and the stress of work do not correspond to the result. And that you can increase the productivity of labor, while reducing its intensity.

Smart work - it is easier, faster, and more useful in the end than stupid work. And this is the case everywhere. But especially in the field of pedagogy.

I thought about the problems of didactics when I read this, quite predictable, note:

Quote:

Once the daughter, once again sat up late for lessons.

She studied well, so she studied until she learned.

I sat in the kitchen and watched TV.

She approached somewhat irritated and asked: "Dad! Well, how is that? Many teachers explain badly and incomprehensibly. Textbooks are the same. If it were not for the Internet and your" ancient "dictionary books, it would be generally bad …

You also studied.? I see that you have a lot of different certificates for your studies. Probably not sleeping at all and not doing anything?"

Then I told her about the Soviet school in which I studied.

“We usually had 4-6 lessons in high school. Personally, I didn’t take more than 1-2 hours to prepare a homework assignment.

The textbooks were structured and the material was easy to remember.

We read literary works for the next year in the summer. And it was not a matter of "obligation", but of a normal desire to read a book, as well as to increase free time for favorite activities in the school year.

What were these classes?

This is a couple of circles on your favorite subjects. I attended Mathematics and Chemistry. Classes in the circles were 1-2 times a week in each.

A school sports section is obligatory. I played basketball.

In addition, he was seriously involved in football, playing for the city children's team. The trainings were daily.

In addition, I was a member of the city chess and checkers club, where I studied and participated in competitions.

And in the yard, the guys and I drove a ball or a puck …

In the spring and autumn, my class and I went on weekend hikes, where we spent the night in tents. Usually once in September and May.

And there is a lot more, I don't even remember.

Teachers visited us at home 1-2 times a year and not with an inspection, but simply to talk, see, get to know all family members.

And we didn’t forget about cinemas, museums, dance-discos, companies of friends …"

Daughter: "How did you manage to do everything?"

My answer finished her off: "We still have time."

She looked at me as if I was crazy, and for the first time in her life she unwittingly burst out at me: "Dad, admit that you are lying."

How could I convince her that I hadn’t come up with a word.

There is nothing new here for those whose children are schoolchildren. This problem has been well known to all of us, parents, for a long time.

The point is not only that our children are taught very badly.

The point is that they are constantly fed "porridge with nails", bringing them to extreme exhaustion, as a result of which, however, very little or nothing remains in their heads.

The child is taught from the first grade to exhausting and fruitless work.

Literally like a classic: "a gram of production, a year of work."

Of course, all study is hard work. But if you apply didactics, then difficult exercises will become super productive, and much less time and effort will be taken.

An analysis of textbooks and school curricula shows that the best products in this area came out under Stalin, absorbing the best traditions of the tsarist gymnasium, and democratizing them for the broad masses.

The quality of education depends on goal setting.

The Tsar's grammar schools had the goal of teaching a few.

Stalin's schools - to teach everyone.

In both cases, the goal was to educate, and not to drive crazy and not to grow mindless consumers.

Stalin is real, and for all his cunning, in this case ingenuous, he strove to make the illiterate country literate. He wanted to get a lot of specialists for a highly developed economy as quickly and easily as possible. His didactics literally digs the ground with a hoof, looking for ways of coherent and logical, entertaining and bright, intelligible and accessible presentation of the material.

The goal generates means: if you want to raise an intelligent and developed person, then you are doing everything to achieve this.

What if you DO NOT WANT to raise an intelligent person?

This is not an idle question. An intelligent person is much more dangerous for power than a fool. Yes, he is much more useful as an employee and specialist, but he will constantly ask uncomfortable questions!

And the goal of giving a person an education is replaced by the opposite: to do something so that a person is not given education.

This progress, of course, will slow down and damp. No doubt about it. You can't fly into space with fools and you can't split an atom …

But on the other hand, it is much easier to maintain personal power over fools than over educated people.

And for most rulers, this is more important than the cosmos with atoms.

+++

Analysis shows that immediately after Stalin's death, educational, methodological, reference and technical literature began to degrade. They have become like a partridge, which, pretending to be available, takes the fox away from its eggs.

In addition to the main goal - not to "wiser" the broad masses unless absolutely necessary, there was another reason.

Scientists, whom Stalin kept in strictness, sensing the will, began to show off and express themselves.

A person does not so much want to convey the subject - as to show himself how smart he is, and how he differs from the previous author of the textbook. The man instead of the simple bread of knowledge slipped the hot spices of his cheating hypotheses.

I will cite only one insanity from a school textbook of the 70s. They try to explain to Soviet schoolchildren what a circle is:

"A circle is a collection of points inside and on a circle, that is, points removed by no more than the radius of the circle."

And this is written by the academician!

And nothing that a point has no area, and therefore no collection of points can make figures ?!

We open the Stalinist textbook:

"A circle is an area bounded by a circle."

Imagine how easy it was to study in the 30s, and how hard it was already in the 70s!

Beginning with Khrushchev, the authorities more and more fill educational material with gibberish. She is helped in this, sometimes without understanding her purpose not to enlighten, but to obscure the minds - idiot scholars who fool around in originality. Each of them is looking for their own, different from all the previous ones, the definition of simple objects!

The Stalinist government suppressed such fooling. The new government encouraged.

Already in the Khrushchev school, a person began to inoculate what has blossomed in double color today:

one). Sciences are very complex, and therefore incomprehensible to you, give up hope to understand them

2). Sciences are very boring, divorced from practice, ridiculous in everyday life, and you don't need to know them at all.

3). You should not understand that under the guise of sciences we are slipping you different insanity, as if instead of a coherent and unified book, we were slipping chaotically torn pages of different books.

+++

Capitalism's attitude towards education is divided into evil and cunning sides.

The evil side has hated education from time immemorial. The rich have always seen in the book not a source of knowledge, but a source of confusion. They even slipped the Bible to read in a language incomprehensible to their peoples (Latin, Church Slavonic).

All oppressive clans and mafias developed a persistent resentment about the popular school. Capitalism, like its older sisters-formations, always encourages ignorance and various obscurantism. And if the family does not want to take the child to school, then capitalism will never interfere with this, force it. On the contrary, he will say, well done!

But in the 19th and 20th centuries, this hatred of school had to be diluted with cunning.

There were machines that a very dark caveman could not cope with.

In addition, the slogan “knowledge to the masses” has become very popular.

If the school was officially canceled in the Russian Federation, I think it would have caused very strong riots and very massive protests. Parents, remembering their golden childhood, would fight like lions for the right of their children to sit at the desk.

And here capitalism is cunning.

He says: well, if your goal is to sit at your desk, then … I'll organize it for you, and even for free! Sit there for 11 years - but on condition that you will not be engaged in education, but all sorts of crap, such as tests and coaching for the exam!

In the end, everyone will be fine.

I, capitalism, get rid of the educated masses, getting crowds of nothing, in essence, ignorant and functionally illiterate fools.

And it seems to you that you studied at school, "like normal people." You don't know what they teach in a real school. You consider this incoherent insanity-guessing as education, because you have not seen another!

+++

Overloading children with painful insanity, capitalism itself prompts parents with a slogan: make it easier for our children, stop asking them so much!

That is, not the state, but the parents come out with the initiative to reduce the volume of subjects taught!

And this is all the state needs. It sleeps and sees how to leave schools for only 10% of the wealthiest … And relieve 90% of the "torment".

Such is the "button accordion":

In the beginning, education is deprived of coherence and integrity, and is taught in a senile manner.

Then, when the children simply cannot learn all this by heart, they take the initiative to teach less. But not in terms of time, but in terms of volume.

And this is not didactics. This is its direct opposite.

+++

Why was physics “entertaining” and mathematics “fun”? Obviously, it is easier and more successful for children to learn it. Didactic techniques are designed to reduce the stress of gaining knowledge.

When the collective mind of humanity is infused or inserted, embedded or injected into a specific biological being of the human species - there is an obvious "resistance of the material", tension.

The very procedure of placing abstract thinking-text into a biological individual thinking in "pictures" is, from the point of view of zoology, an unnatural process alien to wild nature. Nature, together with genes, instinctively transmits what it considers necessary to pass along the chain of generations. Civilization along the chain of generations transports much more than is envisaged by the genetic, innate transporter.

Civilization critically overloads the process of intergenerational transfer of knowledge, and sometimes in a fatal way for itself. Such that a biological individual explodes at the moment of "pouring", throws out knowledge together with civilization, runs away into the wild forest from the "tormentors".

Didactics does not encroach on the VOLUME of transmitted knowledge. She looks for ways to reduce transmission stress by making physics fun, arithmetic fun, story fun. Modern didactics have already invented drama hermeneutics and socio / playful "direction of the lesson" - recognizing and understanding the tension of the student's biological organism that resists at first foreign knowledge.

But didactics cannot reduce stress by reducing the amount of knowledge, this path is, by definition, closed to it. Find ways to learn faster, more fun, easier - but don't learn less.

Liberalism differs from didactics in that it does not have the problem of a “required amount of knowledge”. That is why liberalism has no reason to be sophisticated in didactic methods, to make physics entertaining, and mathematics fun. He simply cancels them - both physics and mathematics.

Don't like it, don't you want it? Don't teach!

Grow up a fool - now it is fashionable, commendable, honorable.

Liberalism has canceled almost the main formula of civilized life: the principle of equality of opponents.

In science, in order to object, you must be equal in education to the one to whom you object. For example, one cannot object to Einstein without studying the subject that Einstein is talking about or Marx, without studying the subject that Marx is talking about.

Only the principle of mental equality of opponents makes a scientific discussion productive, gives it both meaning and benefit. If you object to any of the hypotheses within the framework of liberal freedom, that is, with the phrases “boring things,” “I don’t understand a damn thing,” “many books,” then such objections do not contain any value. It's like throwing out a box without even looking at what lies inside it. Maybe there is something overvalued, and maybe nonsense. But how do you know if you haven't opened the boxes ?!

From the point of view of liberal freedoms, a person does what he wants. Or he says that he will get into his head, writes whatever he pleases, without bothering with either censorship or internal self-censorship.

A. Parshev advised people: "Before you say something, think about it, are you a fool?" But this, of course, wise advice by liberals is always ignored, because they have not an objective truth, but a personality - the measure of all things.

And if the person does not like something, then it is bad and unnecessary. And if you liked it, then something good and useful.

Drug addicts like drugs very much - and the drug mafia's incomes are almost the highest, turning the "profession" of a drug dealer into a dangerous but prestigious one.

Freedom lies in the fact that for objections you no longer need equality with the opponent. You are obviously the navel of the earth (“you deserve it!” - teaches the empty-headed advertising), the opponent is obviously lower than you.

That is why, for example, liberals stubbornly, like the needle of a compass, strive to define culture, literature and the church in the "sphere of services." If you start to object, they will scream: “What is this if not a service sector for consumers ?! Metallurgy, or what? Or energy ?!"

Well, the service industry has its own laws. A philosopher needs to be so philosophical that books are bought. Instead of searching for truth, he has marketing. Like, what would a foolish buyer like?

Marketing perceives an obligatory amount of knowledge as forced sales, as an out-of-market imposition of services on the consumer. And it doesn't matter that we are talking about the core that makes up the civilizational identity! Chance, not compulsory auto insurance, imposed on all lobbyists, there is no one to lobby for Pushkin and Shakespeare …

Didactics tried to somehow bridge the gap between the amount of knowledge necessary for a civilized person and the resistance of a biological individual to the process of domestication. She tried with cunning methods of mnemonics (the science of the convenience of memorization) to facilitate the work of the "granite-gnawing sciences."

Liberalism does not need any of this, why does it need half measures and palliatives of relief? Relieve yourself in the literal sense of the word, that is, throw the baggage of centuries and ancestors off the hump, you look, and you will straighten up!