The “Classroom” has not changed since it was “Designed”

The learning process in as far as knowledge production is concerned has always had its base and nucleus in the home, and verily became a community based activity. The informal classroom being the community and various levels of community being the basic pedagogical levels. Learners and educators were familiar with one another and the pedagogical situation was informed by the common everyday life that these communities participated in. In this setting there is no all knowing position, or an empty vessel that needs to be filled up. Knowledge production and evaluation is an experience based situation where those who have lived longer pass on information to those still in early stages of human development and cognitive growth. This information then is made into knowledge collectively. In this way even the inexperienced can participate in knowledge production about things they have yet to experience and all this is facilitated by the information passed on, not taught as a complete knowledge packaged which is ultimate and rigid. Thus it’s a two way learning stream flow. Colonialism here in Africa delivered the institutionalization of education, introducing a scuff holding that would last right through the ages until today. The classroom thus was designed. The physical environment is probably the most impactful paradigm shift that faced the learning process and thus the classroom. The comfort zone of being at home or within your immediate community environment was the primary shift. The teacher and the scholar were introduced to each other for the first time in a foreign and unfamiliar environment where the teacher knows and the learner consumes and banks information without a two way flow of cognitive introspection. Classrooms are bigger with less interaction between learners themselves. Formal rooms and buildings were now where learning was happening officially. The layout and design of these cells was a paradigm shift, sitting arrangements in formal rows to create uniform situation. All of this, the environmental/physical changes influenced the teaching style and verily the curriculum content itself. The classroom has not been re-imagined and re-evaluated since these impactful changes came about. Learning has become a very dehumanizing exercise that takes one away from the nucleus of the community and dumps them in a vacuum that requires of them to be banking sponges. In the light of education systems being under scrutiny and criticisms for their lack of quality in terms of curriculum and equality in terms of standard of education in relation to socio-economic status quo, what we should be also scrutinizing and aligning with critique is the necessity of re-imagining the classroom and the learning process itself. There is not much to celebrate or honor in a system that encourages high academic achievement within a dehumanizing curriculum. My suggestion in the words of Ivan Illich in his book Deschooling Society (1971): “Universal education through schooling is not feasible. It would be no more feasible if it were attempted by means of alternative institutions built on the style of present schools. Neither new attitudes of teachers toward their pupils nor the proliferation of educational hardware or software (in classroom or bedroom), nor finally the attempt to expand the pedagogue's responsibility until it engulfs his pupils' lifetimes will deliver universal education. The current search for new educational funnels must be reversed into the search for their institutional inverse: educational webs which heighten the opportunity for each one to transform each moment of his living into one of learning, sharing, and caring. We hope to contribute concepts needed by those who conduct such counterfoil research on education--and also to those who seek alternatives to other established service industries”.

The "Classroom" has not changed since it was "Designed"

Look out for the next installment 13 January 2014.

Rivonia vs Bethal Part 2: Multiracilism and its nature of collaboration

The adaptation of the freedom charter in Kliptown in 1955 by the ANC (if I am not mistaken it also forms integral part of the republics constitution) meant that its liberation struggle had taken a shift from its earlier established military stance by ANCYL in 1949. The Programme of Action without equivocation addressed the imbalance of the day. It was forcing a change in the status quo by establishing a strategy for an armed struggle, something that the ANC had done without for almost half a century. Remember, since the Frontier Wars (believe it or not these started in the late 18th century with the assassination of Chief Chungwas’ son and ended in the early 20th century with the murder of Chief Bambatha kaZondi....by the British) that were aimed at demoralizing our culture and sovereignty/armed resistance, our struggle has been remolded into passive resistance and institutionalized congresses that are influenced by an elite class of African who has been ‘civilized’. The emergence of liberals such as the Communist Party of South Africa allowed white supremacy opportunist to influence the newly formed liberation agenda that was non –violent with slogans such as socialism and communism.... isms and schism that would protect white guilt, raise apartheid debt and dilute the true Africanist agrarian agenda. Verily, it was the youth (as it was again in 1976, and at the present moment we the youth are in a similar situation) who emerged in the ANC National Conference 17 December 1949: “The fundamental principles of the Programme of Action of the African National Congress are inspired by the desire to achieve national freedom. By national freedom we mean freedom from White domination and the attainment of political independence. This implies the rejection of the conception of segregation, apartheid, trusteeship, or white leadership which are all, in one way or another, motivated by the idea of white domination or domination of the white over the Blacks. Like all other people the African people claim the right of self-determination. With this object in view, in the light of these principles we claim and will continue to fight for the political rights” This was never going to amuse the architects of separate development and racial discrimination. A fast and swift plan had to arise. The inevitability of war could not be escaped and white supremacy was under attack mortally. Who better than the slave can protect 'master' from the oncoming onslaught by the oppressed? Between 1949 and 1955, separate development had become multiracialism, an idea embraced by herrenvolk regime, white liberals and of course the perpetual student, the ‘House Slave” in the form of the ANC. It became fashionable for Africans to be sympathetic to the oppressor as fighting them tooth and nail would be considered barbarian and uncultured. And most definitely, the ANC front guard saw themselves as civilized. Thus, the nature of collaboration was born. Participation in our own subjugation had been born. Just as the name Azania was rejected as the name of our land, a new Rainbow country was forged to keep the status quo in check without the balance of power shifting, making sure that economically white supremacy is harbored; the land is still an elusive goal to be attained, politically compromised by collaborators. Question: is there a color black in the rainbow? So it is clearer now my people. The Rivonia treason trial and the Freedom Charter and are the tools that were used to create the social crimes that exist in this country today.In the same breathe the Bethal treason trail was a scam!!!! And the Military and 'True Africanist' loaded Program of Action was the casualty case of all this political madness.

Rivonia vs Bethal Part 2: Multiracilism and its nature of collaboration

Look out for the next installment in the pipelines!