Separating words

In theory, education is not the same as teaching. But although the difference in meanings seems evident, these two concepts are constantly confused. And not only among people who should know nothing special about that, but also in the administration the same thing is repeated over and over again.

It is true that, among other things, they belong to the whole of society, because in it we educate and teach, but, of course, the main responsibility of the centers is to teach, that is, to transmit to the students the knowledge, skills and skills they must acquire for social inclusion. Education corresponds to the whole of society, from family, friends, school and the media, among others. And it is related to values, the contents that configure the ethical-moral character. Therefore, the center is nothing more than an element involved in the educational process, which in its day is very important, but which is currently losing influence, being under the shadow of teaching.

But is it not possible and convenient for the two centres to be together? And if so, how should it be?

Education

What should a society do to organise education and, clearly, to deal with education? Certainly, first of all, to organize the teaching process according to educational objectives.

Historically, the desire for power has been to maintain the existing social structure at every moment, beginning with Plato, who proposed education to maintain his three social classes, until today, where all the data show that the organization of teaching seeks the repetition of what is there. That is, power seeks to confuse and undo education within teaching to perpetuate it, and the instrument it uses is indoctrination.

But the desire and reality of power do not often coincide. Proof of this is the experience of Franco. And it put all the means, supported by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, for the citizens to adapt to their ideology, but over the years the Communist, Socialist, Independence, Anarchist, Trade Union, and a long time against it were the results.

What conclusions can we draw from it? At least one: indoctrination does not guarantee the faithful transmission of ideology.

Knowing this, what is meant to be guaranteed when a “public independent education system” is proclaimed? What is the advantage of being independent or its purpose, whatever? And if, in the latter case, what is the objective of preferring that same objective: to extend another doctrine in exchange for a doctrine? The real mistake is indoctrination and not so much the exact doctrine.

State

As a consequence of the above, and as a suggestion, educational centers are only an influence of others that students receive throughout their lives, and perhaps not the most important. In addition, students are not like Pavloven's dogs, but they interpret the information they give them, according to their mental schemes: sometimes accepting that information and sometimes criticizing it. Moreover, on many occasions, students consider compulsory education as something compulsory, rather than as teaching, with the consequences that this entails. On the other hand, teachers have not been prepared to be psychologists, parent spirits or virtual parents of students, nor have they been given the necessary sociological and/or anthropological studies to solve the conflicts that arise. But all of this and more is asked.

Students are situated in this world, and this world is not imaginary, it is real: it is a world poisoned by corruption, by lying, by appearance, by the absolute value of money, by false democracy, even in educational centers, by demagogy, by contempt for the public… And from these sources students drink, and not only from the source of teaching. There are those who have more responsibility than teachers, among others, those who have been in power for decades and those who have decided to allocate more money to the private sector in the face of the problems that public education has suffered, with the intention of removing their "puppies" from pollution.

Proposal

In any event, education and teaching will be possible in schools in an appropriate way, if hypocrisy is abandoned, i.e. if basic knowledge such as:

The first thing to do is to warn them that the natural situation of the students is not, and that the freedom of birth that is praised is a falsehood, because nobody decides under what conditions we are born.

The fact that people who are in a worse situation to overcome discrimination by birth must be provided with the necessary resources to compensate for this initial situation, receiving aid inversely proportional to the situation of each student, being responsible for it public, private and charitable institutions.

That today, although it is widespread, does not guarantee equality, because those who really govern have created filters of different kinds, such as connections/agreements with certain centres (from those derived for the signing of contracts), hierarchy of titles and masters (created by this power, placing those offered by universities that can pay a few) and opposition courts, all too often, controlling them through endogamy…

That theory is something empty without practices, and that's why democracy is also learned by exercising and educational centers are a good place for it.

That the officer is not the same as the real one, but that what is not official is not necessarily true.

The violation of the human rights of the administrations does not nullify their value, nor does it justify their non-compliance by the citizens, in which, in any case, those who hold power have greater responsibility.

It is right to combat the injustices of society…

If you take into account all these ideas, and other similar ideas that can be added, the words that are passed on to the pupils will become credible, but to do so society as a whole, not only those who work in teaching, must endorse them and if a new law is made it would have to depart from them. This will prevent young people from saying that they are manipulated and that they are adulthood when they do what adults expect. Because, as Nietzsche said, “youth has a natural way of reasoning: a reason that grows in life, in love and in hope.” That, nothing else, must be the objective of education and teaching.

Julen Goñi, former philosophy professor