[mjburgess]

Its only a paradox if you think its primary function is education.

Its primary function is the warehousing of children while adults work; and secondarily, filtering children according to ability for future work (ie., grading).

The content of the "lessons" could be anything, so long as it (1) keeps them occupied; and (2) differentiates according to cognitive ability -- ie., grades.

The primary and secondary functions almost totally constrain its auxiliary function of imparting useful skills to children -- which were it sincerely attempted would fundamentally undermine the school's ability to warehouse and grade them effectively.

[hndamien]

This is incredibly sad, but sounds plausible. Where can I read more about this thesis?

[mjburgess]

For my thoughts on grading as merely filtering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)

For the content of the "lessons" being largely irrelevant, ask: what can anyone remember from their lessons at 14?

The answer is random with respect to the individual: I cannot predict what you will know. Really only fragments of trivia were acquired. This is the opposite situation of skill acquisition: if you are a practising plumber/doctor/programming, I can predict what you will know.

This test, predicting the knowledge/ability of a person who practices a skill, really defines successful education.

What can you predict a person knows after high school?

You might also look at "Discipline and Punish" or works to that effect to gain a socio-political perspective on the scheduling/routines/rituals of certain institutions.

It is no accident that a school closely resembles a prison. That is its primary function: to limit the behaviour of children, to discipline them into conforming with the scheduling of working life, to occupy their time.

When you are tutored (to play a piano, in mathematics, etc.) you are really acquiring a skill: to play a piano, etc.

Contrast those two environments.

Learning a skill requires an environment almost the opposite of a prison, it requires a patient and highly skilled tutor, and some attentive practice and engagement. (Infant/primary education is closer to tutoring than high school).

Imagine high school not starting until 14 at which point you spent 4 years with tutors: at most classes of 5 with skilled mentors that guided you through skilled practice. Consider the social environment: how you'd interact with peers, your relationship to your mentor, the hours you'd keep, how much practice you'd get.

Contrast this again with prison life within a school: the teacher is not a mentor, they are a master. An enemy largely. You and your peers are at war for attention and time.

[hndamien]

Thanks. Have you approached any solutions to avoid this fate? My kids are still pre schooling.

[mrob]

See the writings of John Taylor Gatto , e.g.:

http://www.swaraj.org/multiversity/gatto_7lesson.htm

[garmaine]

Down-voted because as someone personally involved in my local school district, this overly cynical view does not reflect at all the actions or motivations of the people involved in primary education.

[mjburgess]

Downvoted because you disagree?

Let me preface this comment by saying: this isn't my view of primary education, but of secondary mostly. Primary education has undergone a lot of changes and it is increasingly effective at education.

However, yes, the motivations of the people involved in a system is often at-odds with the system they've got themselves involved in.

The teacher's motivation may be school's auxiliary function but their mental and physical energy is spent on its primary and secondary functions.

"For the sake of educating these children, I will sacrifice my effort/energy/time in disciplining them, in grading them, in differentiating them, and so on".

People need their motivations.

My aim is to describe the system not to describe the motivations of the people involved: the former is social anthropology; the latter is religion.

[garmaine]

Because it doesn’t reflect reality.

[mrob]

I can remember several teachers who really cared about helping the students learn, and who always tried to do their best for them. They'd even go beyond their official duties, e.g. I learned the basic concepts of trigonometry before I was officially allowed to learn them from an off-duty math teacher.

But despite them being personally good people, by accepting the job they bought into an oppressive system. If they tried to improve things too much they'd be fired. Existence of good teachers doesn't make the system as a whole good.

[geomark]

I think you left out another primary function, which is to teach children to conform to the standards of society.