Yeah, school-backed activism is cancer

avoiding contempoary politics acheives that end

Well not really, because history can't be taught without politically predisposing children to certain ideas.

Because history itself cannot be apolitical

again, nothing about that is contemporary

btw we should have a bot that at random post edgy jokes just so we can sniff out any journos that hang out here

you are teaching the children about the various ideas held in the past; this isn't a bad thing

you just can't apply them to present

you keep them in their historical context

@ManAnimal consider the inevitability that you will have to teach children at some point why a given political idea failed, though. That's going to create a political bias whether you want it or not.

@saru_richard or just call everyone niggers 😎

Communism failed *because* communism is a non-functional political concept. That's going to bias children against communism.

Etc etc

also, it IS possible to remove politics from school COMPLETELY and instead require a seperate forum of civics and politics such as a mandatory participation of 1 yrs hands on civics/gov after hs

@atomic (you refering to my comment about Dissenter or the Jorno one)

From my manifesto:

Education:
A nation needs nationalized education. From the ages of 5 to 12 a child should receive state sponsored education. This is not to help the disadvantaged. Education is not a right. Education is a responsibility. It is the responsibility of a society to ensure that children grow to be well adjusted to that society. To this end, the government shall provide nationalized primary education that teaches every child the necessities of living in their society. As well as the usual reading, writing and arithmetic, special emphasis should be given to national history and civics. There should also be instruction on the banking system, the legal system, how insurance works, advertising, consumer rights, drug and alcohol education, etc etc. And, most importantly, physical education including, at a minimum, one hour of rigorous daily exercise. This is to instill exercise as a habit for all people so as to combat obesity specifically, and promote good health more generally.
When a child reaches the age of 13, they should be given a nationalized, standardized test that ranks all students, not merely on intelligence, but on suitability for different professions. Based on the results of this test they should begin study on an appropriate chosen profession at that age. If they are to become an electrician, they would start an apprenticeship. If they are to become a doctor they would start doing classes to prepare them for university level education. If they are to become a soldier, they would join an organization of cadets.

jornos comment

<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

ya that can work to

maybe we shall all change are names to the N word

will be funny seeing the reaction

Beyond the age of 13, it is an incredible waste of time and resources teaching students general education, most of which they will never need. By this age education should be individually tailored to their needs. Funding for this education should be primarily privately sourced and only nationally subsidized when it is in the national interest. For example, if there is a shortage of one particular profession, or if the government foresees a future demand for a particular profession, it should subsidize part of the education for that profession as an incentive. But, again, this is not a hand out. An education that does not help a nation should never be nationally funded. This is self defeating foolishness.

I COMPLETELY disagree

@Scale_e that sounds reactionary as fuck

so lads

who’s out here trying to sniff that **gender studies course**

It’s what I believe.

Rearrange PSNEI to spell an important body part

you can't cast a vote about something if you don't have at least a passing familiarity

Penis

do i now get a cookie :3

yes

I meant Spine, but ok

with special cream on it

and saying that a general education over 13 is useless?

Basing your education subsidization and curriculum off of immediate economic needs means you're always going to be at least a year out from meeting those needs, and constantly scavenging for applicable teaching professionals and scavenging to arrange the necessary institutional framework to teach the public that new curriculum

that is a receipe for disaster

as it makes any degree of self-reliance impossible

And while I see the benefit of freeing the lower economic and social classes from having to maintain extra years of education they won't benefit from, removing the standard of higher education beyond adolescence just drops the bar for the higher economic and social classes, which decide the course of most of society

classes like home-ec, shop and practical economics are essential

Pipelining education (as was done in America's economic booming years) into industrial/trade, STEM, and finally privatized liberal arts "tracks" seems like a better answer