We now return to it as a stopgap, as a need of the hour, as sign pacts of non-aggression for peace and credits.
By train, tram in the street, at table, all the youth was reading bouquinait (not at home beasts novels and magazines more or less agile) but treatises on mechanics, chemistry and other sciences. That, to this need of the Soviet education teachers have requested aid manuals; it seems more than natural: there was not for them to cave solution, given the rapid and powerful growth in the network of schools, early preparation of educators and pressing need of individuals and society to raise the emergency qualification guarantee the next socialist victories. *** If we made these criticisms is that we are conscious of making our technology the only solution that allow Soviet pedagogy to new tools for a school activity consistent with the needs of society proletarian. Textbooks, even strictly proletarian, only partially meet these needs, and that’s why we probably neglected them for so many years. We now return to it as a stopgap, as a need of the hour, as sign pacts of non-aggression for peace and credits. Our technique as we have exposed after experienced in many popular schools is likely to respond to the needs of the hour: allow the school to fill powerfully and completely its training and instruction tasks without why run the serious risk of a new school dogmatism, more or less ritual practices that tend to abstract the complex and changing lives: build on this momentum, this enthusiasm so difficult to awaken in our capitalist countries which the Revolution gave a powerful food. These are not theories we bring, but a proven working technique found in U.R.S.S. the most fertile ground to flourish in the service of the proletariat. There is, says our correspondent, Science, accurate knowledge to be acquired very quickly, we can and must acquire if possible with your new methods (especially as fast, eh!). So let us know, get to them, go to need there; but never forget either that the war threat, they still have much to do, as delays, groping them can be fatal. ” This offer, we have made several times already and it is to clarify the meaning and scope that we published in previous issues of a long development that you have read. *** So say comrades worried or secretly triumphant, the Soviets do they find your too liberating experience, too revolutionary, they refuse to introduce it at home? There is truth in this fear. Russian educators have long considered our achievements as one of those lefties experiences they have today condemned home. Uninformed, they believed, like most of our French colleagues that we were fiercely libertarian, that we called for a pedagogy based entirely on the free activity of the child without any adult influence, we wanted to completely outlaw adult books, systematically neglect the great contribution of civilization to let the children take over the world by their own forces. All those who have closely followed our previous articles include the error of such a design. We have never said that the written and printed books for children should be their only literature. On the contrary: we wanted, by techniques that keep intact the childish curiosity, help young individuals to enter intimately and powerfully the world around them. But we say that, for this, we must arbitrarily from the adult, but sit on the true thoughts, the feelings, the needs of children while our education system. The free expression is necessarily the practical foundation of our technology: children’s books are the basis of literature, the bridge between children’s thinking and adult thinking. This free expression, only printing the School completed by interscholastic exchanges, can realize practically in our classes. But this basis, once thrown, no more than we taken the educational contribution of adult experience or books. If we condemn the use of textbooks is precisely that we see it as a performance entirely inadequate because they are powerless to meet the multiple needs arising from Celtic childlike curiosity and appetite for knowledge we have managed to create, maintain and strengthen. We do not just criticize and condemn. This technical manuals, we replace it with another technique, considerably more flexible, more productive, more in harmony with the adult modes of activity. If we published the most suggestive among adults sheets documents that the child can understand; if we advocated enriching this file that exceeds in size all known and used textbooks; if we advocate the creation of a Working Library truly within the reach of children and we publish the essentials; if the overflowing too formal framework books today, we adapt our technical original film and employment records, is that we want to systematically and methodically place our students within all the contributions of the civilization is that we want to be able to grasp, to appropriate, with our active help – not haphazardly but through careful organization of work will simplify future theoretical problems of freedom in education . * * * The Russians did not know your technique, and so they had reason to be wary. But now tell us do you, now they know, printing she will quickly introduce and extend U.R.S.S. ? This is reason with a childish egocentricity and give our achievements a little expandability in line with current realities. I would only say to my comrades: in ten years, we continue in every corner of France, successful experiences that should open the eyes of skeptics. Our enthusiastic adherents have always been distinguished propagandists: our publications were spread in all cantons of France, in science homework helper
many municipalities. Ask the teachers on our technique. They shrug their shoulders: “To claim that children can make their books and learn without adult help! Of course, the results are interesting, but this technique is not possible in my class! … “And that’s usually when these same colleagues visited a class working in the press, they saw the smiling teacher amid financial difficulties that those they are worth much regret; it was only when they realized at the same job, the true scope of our technique they exclaim, “I did not believe it either! “And they join us. We have not been able to convince a small part of our neighbors, and we astound us that the Russians sometimes speak out against our technical judgments to prioristes we only feel the weaknesses? Thousands of kilometers apart, and many capitalist borders stand between our countries, barriers which often underestimates the importance; there are few Russians who can read French (Alas, we are even fewer to read Russian), and those are, of course, in the present, overloaded with work. So few misconceptions about our work dominate the Soviet education and we are practically almost powerless to justify ourselves. So you say yet. We seek here nor excuses or justification, but only normal explanation of a situation. Yes, we claim to present our Soviet comrades a working technique that should bring in revolutionary pedagogy powerful elements of life and action. But we do not have the audacity to believe that U.R.S.S. must have eyes on our modest work; our revolutionary faith will in no less because we are not yet able to make us understand. We consider the ideas and events with a more normal design of their slow evolution. And we do not despair. The idea will make its way slowly. The key is that it can walk and, amidst the chaos reactionary, we can proudly consider the evolution of our educational ideas in the only country today that can arise with scale, and with a placid serenity the most serious problems that we bring our stone with the same certainty and the same serenity. C.