If we had followed that path, our school would have come to provide literally illiterate men promotions.

The Communist Party has done justice to this theory and the “project method” as the education system and teaching in school. The “leftists”, followers of the small school Shulgin, claimed back the role of the teacher to destructive work; he should be only a “observer” in his class, no more asked to provide its students a specific body of knowledge and techniques. Naturally, the book studies became, in these circumstances, an object which unnecessarily clutters children schoolbags.

If we had followed that path, our school would have come to provide literally illiterate men promotions. “But our school must provide the youth the fundamentals of knowledge, teach him to develop itself communist opinions, it must make our young people educated men. It is necessary that the school makes them participants in the struggle for control of the exploiters yoke pose to the work, “said Lenin at the Third Congress of BC Education is a powerful instrument of struggle for communism . Our socialist school must form educated men.

This is the idea that inspired the decisions of the D.C. P.C. on primary and middle school in December 1931 as well as educational programs and the system of primary and middle school (August 1932). These two decisions D.C. contain a wide program of activities for our schools; they focus on the quality of education and ensure the execution of an important political mission that the education of the younger generation.

It is certain that some improvement has taken place during the past year in the work of schools: teaching methods have become better, there is more order and discipline in school, children have acquired their sense of responsibility for effective de-graduation. Programs have been developed for various materials. But it would be a crime to be content with the results achieved. Our schools still have many flaws that must be corrected resolutely.

It’s not everywhere that grants, school, needs, due attention; all those responsible for the school have not yet understood the absolute necessity of observing a Leninist attitude vis-a-vis the teacher by surrounding an everyday concern. And finally, we must end firmly with the remnants of opportunistic theories crushed by the Party, and in particular with the “project method” which is still felt in the practice of teaching.

The responsibility lies with the Commissioner of Public Instruction that has not pushed strongly enough once, theories “leftists”. He began the fight against the “project approach” but he did not yet fully carried out, particularly in the field of practical work. Consider a problem quite practical: each student understands the importance of manual labor schools.

Yet there is a lack of study books, it became a “difficulty” that hinders the normal course of teaching. Basically, the lack of textbooks and the poor quality of textbooks are a consequence of the implementation of the “project method” which assumes that one can switch between manual, including a permanent manual, corresponding to a program determined to education.

It is here we see most of verbosity in the fight against the “method of project! “From 1928 to 1932, only in R.S.F.S.R. it was published nearly 150 million copies of books; 58 million of them have appeared in the course of the last two years. There has R.S.F.S.R. approximately 25 million school children, and this amount would have been ample. But the Commissioner of Education has not bothered produced manuals, permanent, good quality; books of studies have been exchange every year.

In 1930, the conference on study books, who worked under the direction of Commissioner of Education of R.S.F.S.R., erected in principle this kind of game of leapfrog. We read in his resolutions: “The Conference strongly repels stable Manual principle (permanent).” That was two years ago: that is precisely the practice of “project method”. The urgent task of the Commissioner for Public Instruction and Educational Editions of the State is to give school textbooks permanent good quality.

Each manual can be used in a sustainable way, especially if it comes to subjects like mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc … It can be used for 10 years or more and be reissued as and as the need arises. The frames of qualified writers are the very condition of effective work in the direction of producing definitive textbooks.

One of the serious shortcomings of published books to date is that they are overloaded with materials that are not always accessible to the understanding of the students, it often happens that the essential facts that must assimilate the student is lost in the accumulation of these materials. We read in the decision of the CC to August 25 of 1932 “On education and primary and middle school system programs”: “The essential defect of the programs are: a) They are overworked materials, leading to a hasty learn so many disciplines without children firmly assimilate the knowledge and skills they need to acquire ….

C is an indication that applies entirely to books studies, and we have to take this into account in producing the new manual. The Public Education is not an open field experiments “leftists” hazardous as the “project method”, and this is not a resting place for those staff members who are unable or want to work.

The Party will not tolerate abuse of petty bourgeois projects without merit or sloppiness on this important sector of socialist legislation, regardless of the “leftist” or “objective” causes sentences given to cover these projects. ( “PRAVDA”). We said in our previous two articles we think of education in relation to do math homework
the class struggle.

We said how our desire to place in the life of the worker or peasant child the basics of our educational action prepares and allows a polytechnic education; how we design the deep preparation of youth to the revolutionary tasks. We never shared the anarchist ideas of those who would not give the teacher a passive and destructive role. Yes, we ask the teacher to strip the old man, leaving his adult arrogance to put in the service of children.

If this precondition is not achieved, it can not be established in our classrooms this intimate communication between educator and educated, without which education remains inevitably dogmatic and oppressive. But the teacher will be more than “observer”. Viewer first, yes. But then organizer, harmonizer, enabling young souls creative activities that stimulate and galvanize.

Is passive, socially minor, the teacher who mechanically impose the lessons of a manual. No one is more active educators working according to our techniques, and which plunged therefore in the complex social reality, are constantly on the lookout for practical ways to help children in their cultural achievements. *** But two statements dominate the Pravda article and require our rebuttal. The author seems to want, just like in our old capitalist schools give not to the acquisition of training.

According to him, the essential role of the school is to give children a certain amount of knowledge, to provide youth the fundamentals of knowledge, to educated men, education is a powerful instrument in the struggle for communism. This is a pedagogical trend against which we strongly raise us, it manifests itself under capitalism or Soviet regime. We had alas! in our country, the prime example of what is, what can a school acquisition and we deliberately condemned.

What do we care that France has great scholars they are – in peace as during the war – in the service of capitalism murderer? What will the U.R.S.S.


mei 10th, 2019

No comments

Geef een reactie

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *

Ons winkel is in onderhoud voor testdoeleinden. Bestellingen zullen niet worden uitgeleverd momenteel. Sluiten