Logocracy - Chapter 20: The Science and Education Authority

Taking education out from under the influence of politicians

The conceptual languages of educators and government officials are very different. But while the exercise of political power can (and should, in a logocracy) adapt itself to more psychological and sociological principles, education rarely benefits from political interference.

Lobaczewski argues that education should be taken out of the hands of government, to become its own independent power, alongside the executive, legislative, judiciary, and another new power, that of social goods. This Academy would essentially become self-governing, with some controls placed on it by the other branches, but immune from the whims of changing administrations, elected representatives chasing votes, and political activists.

As context for the development of an independent power of science and education, Lobaczewski relates key aspects of Poland’s educational history, including the development of what was essentially the first European ministry of education in the late 18th century, the subsequent subjugation to the imperial governments of the three partitions (Austria, Prussia, Russia), and the practice of clandestine private education. Education in the 20th century inherited these problems: “The situation was partly saved by the individual values of teachers, and private and church education.” The World Wars and communism followed, making their own negative contributions to the state of education.

Despite the fact that those fields of science [e.g. pedagogy and psychology] which threatened to reveal the true nature of the macrosocial pathological phenomenon had to be subjected to particularly perfidious and degrading political scrutiny, and thanks to the efforts of the past generation of scientists, Poland today is not the desert of pedagogical thought that it was after the First World War.

That said, for Lobaczewski, Poland still requires the “restoration of a good school system based on our historical tradition and the achievements of modern knowledge”

General values and the individuals to which they apply define the ideas and goals of education. Their validity, as well as the quality of educational methods, then determine educational outcomes. As for the methods themselves, they “result from the psychological understanding of human nature and from the individual cognition of the pupil.” Bad methods, by contrast, tend to be “psychologically naive, impatient, and lacking in pedagogical tact.” Good goals pursued with poor methods don’t just fail; they morph into entirely different goals, i.e. unforeseen consequences. Proper education thus requires good theory and practical knowledge.

As mentioned in a previous chapter, Lobaczewski thinks universal public education is a travesty (a fortiori universal college education). The school curriculum is not designed for everyone, and there are those better suited to a more practical education, like apprenticing to a trade.

Because pedagogy is rooted in human psychology, the understanding of which doesn’t often intersect with the common worldview, “the interventions of an authority which thinks in natural, legal, or political terms into the world of educational activity so often lead to regrettable results.” The principle of competence requires good teachers, not political ideologues or bureaucrats. After all, those brought up under a particular political ideology “will, as a rule, live and work under different governments and will consequently be unsuited to the concrete conditions of society.” As education is future-oriented, it must anticipate cultural, social, and economic needs a significant distance into the future, beyond that of the next election. “This foresight and planning requires the complicity of people with different types of education and representing different fields of activity, but least of all political ideologues.”

Lobaczewski thinks only a sufficiently stable, autonomous, and professional institution can meet such demands. He looks back to the 18th-century Commission of National Education as a model of “good administrative efficiency and a serious scientific and pedagogical record.”

At the top of national education will be the head of state as supreme superintendent, who will be informed of all its actions, have the right to convene its council and act in an advisory role, as well as appoint one of its members. With the senate, he will approve its chairman and representative minister(s).

Council members (whose number should be less than that of the senate, e.g., 30-40 in Poland as opposed to 77 senators) must represent a range of skills, though all should have experience in the biohumanities (e.g. pedagogy, psychology, sociology, philosophy), which will provide a common language for engineers, doctors, humanists, theologians, and others. In additional to the one appointed by the president, members will be chosen by major educational institutions, one by the logocratic association, and one each by the other independent powers. Universities will have either the duty of delegating one member, the privilege of electing one, or both. Primary and secondary education would elect one representative from each province.

The council will meet at least once a year, and will elect the chairman of the national commission as well as the representative senator every three years. The other six members will be appointed by the head of state and approved by the council. This body of seven, like the wise council, will serve until retirement or removal, as the overall governing body of the institution. The council will have the power to dismiss the chairman, representative, or commission members, as will the head of state (at request of the senate).

The Council of National Education will make fundamental decisions on the system and development of schooling and its educational, didactic, and scientific issues. It will approve the education budget prepared by the commission. This budget will benefit mainly from subsidies from the state treasury, but may accept funds from other sources. The matters of science and education together with the budgetary needs will be referred to the government by the representative minister.

This independent power will oversee all schooling—public and private, from primary to post-secondary—with the exception of parliamentary training, which will be under the ultimate control of the legislature. Parliament would also be responsible for approving new schools or liquidating others, and general reform of the system. Universities themselves would hold a central importance in the institution and mostly retain their autonomy and academic freedom, having influence over the council through their own members, but the Commission would set the overall academic requirements, coordinate and standardize programs, and guide the overall direction of reforms.

A central role of the institution would be to operate “on the basis of scientific knowledge of real biological, psychological, cultural, social, and economic conditions,” and to be free from political ideologies and propaganda. This responsibility would be kept in check primarily through the influence of head of state (and by extension, the wise council), though the other branches of government would have some influence through their members on the council.

---

Chapter 20: The Science and Education Authority

The way of thinking to which officials are accustomed is very different from that which the educator should use. These two different conceptual languages, of authority and of the understanding of the pupil and of pedagogical tact, will have to undergo a certain convergence in the totality of a better system, in which the action of authority will be based on psychological and sociological premises. Let us not delude ourselves too much, however, because the exercise of authority will not cease to exert a certain influence on human personalities. Therefore, let us not try to base pedagogy on official notions. The education and training of the young should never become a field where the spirit of political power prevails.

Polish pedagogical thought, so flourishing at the time of the Commission of National Education¹ and then still alive for almost two generations in captivity, was finally suppressed at the end of the 19th century as a result of a secret agreement of the three partitioners which forbade the teaching of pedagogy on the territory inhabited by Poles. In all the partitioned countries education was subordinated to emperors and governments, and teachers were made government officials. In Austria and Prussia this contributed to the development of universal primary education, but in Russia it facilitated the oppression of education by the Tsarist authorities. Everywhere education became the domain of political influence and imperial propaganda, which destroyed pedagogical thought and hindered education in history. Schools were established that taught, but were incapable of realizing educational values, or often contradicted them. The situation was saved by the patriotism of Polish teachers, and in the Russian partition private education—also clandestine. Polish pedagogical thought, represented primarily by Jan W. Dawid,² also continued to vegetate there.

The established archetypes of such an imperial organization of education were taken over by the Polish state emerging from captivity. This proved to be one of the most serious weaknesses of the social system in the period between the wars, for which we later paid with political mistakes and spilled blood. With a tremendous effort on the part of the state and society, schooling was rebuilt quantitatively, while retaining its nationalized character and thus its poor pedagogical qualities. The situation was partly saved by the individual values of teachers, and private and church education. Poland was one of the few countries in Europe where university studies of pedagogy did not exist.

The pedagogical reconstruction of education began too late to bear proper social fruit. It was not until the reform of the school system, implemented in 1932-34 by the ministerial brothers Janusz and Wacław Jędrzejewicz,³ that pedagogical studies were launched at the two universities of Jagiellonian and Warsaw. They had not yet managed to develop fully mature scientific activity when the German invasion put an end to the overt activities of the universities. Reactivated after the war, these studies produced several yearbooks of well-prepared lecturers of psychology and pedagogy for secondary schools of education and other workers, before coming under the exceptionally degrading control of the pathocratic authorities. During the post-1956 thaw, it was possible to get psychology studies up and running and to develop practical activity in the field.⁴

Despite the fact that those fields of science which threatened to reveal the true nature of the macrosocial pathological phenomenon had to be subjected to particularly perfidious and degrading political scrutiny, and thanks to the efforts of the past generation of scientists, Poland today is not the desert of pedagogical thought that it was after the First World War. However, the reconstruction of the quality of university studies in the biohumanities, as well as of a well-organized education, is encountering difficulties on the part of those people who have excessively adapted themselves to pathological social relations. Meanwhile, social life requires the earliest possible restoration of a good school system based on our historical tradition and the achievements of modern knowledge.

The outcome of the educational process is determined not only by the validity of the ideas and goals of this work, which we define on the basis of general values and individually in relation to the characteristics of the individual, but also by the quality of the pedagogical methods used. These methods result from the psychological understanding of human nature and from the individual cognition of the pupil. If we pursue rightly chosen educational goals by methods that offend good pedagogical skills, then the result of such activity will likewise offend these right values. It often seems to the people who are inspired by great national, political, religious, or other ideas that the value of these ideas justifies the use of pedagogical methods that are psychologically naive, impatient, and lacking in pedagogical tact. In doing so, they do not realize that they are already aiming at some other goal than their assumptions would suggest. Then they become astonished at the unforeseen results of their own activity. The upbringing of a human being requires appropriate theoretical foundations, but also knowledge of this craft.

In the process of teaching, not only subject knowledge, but also similar didactic fundamentals and skills are necessary. Through them, this process achieves a sufficiently high economy of teaching. For it is not what is taught that will serve man and society, but what is taught in a truthful and useful way. Formal education, that is, the development of the ability and logical correctness of thinking, should always remain a necessary result of teaching.

Pedagogy is based on objective knowledge, especially psychological knowledge, which differs significantly from the common worldview of even enlightened people. That is why the interventions of an authority which thinks in natural, legal, or political terms into the world of educational activity so often lead to regrettable results. We must also accept the lesson of history, which teaches us that people brought up in the name of a certain political ideology will, as a rule, live and work under different governments and will consequently be unsuited to the concrete conditions of society. For this reason, the upbringing and education of young people should be governed by an independent authority and appropriately trained educators, which also follows from the principle of competence.

The process of education and teaching by its very nature works for the future. It requires that it be based on a skillful and critical anticipation of the future conditions and needs of cultural, social, and economic life, for a duration of at least half the period of activity of those children who are currently entering elementary school. Political governments tend to doctrinalize such foresight. Reasoning in the long-term requires abstracting from the current aspirations of various governments. This foresight and planning requires the complicity of people with different types of education and representing different fields of activity, but least of all political ideologues.

All these demands can only be met by an organization and authority sufficiently stable by virtue of its autonomy and basis in society, and adequately professional. For this reason, an independent authority for science and education has already been proposed in Chapter 16, to be established by society and the world of educators within the framework of properly considered legislation. Sound skill, and not any populism, should be the basis of its activity.

Our own history bears the precedent and pattern of such an authority. The Commission of National Education, afterwards called by some the first Ministry of Education and Upbringing in Europe, may more rightly be regarded as the prototype of an independent educational authority, because it was not a part of the royal government. We have a model of an independent institution which has demonstrated good administrative efficiency and a serious scientific and pedagogical record. This experience should be used for the good organization of the independent authority of national education within the framework of the modern social system. I also propose to keep this historical name for the central organ of this power. So let us think about how to organize and operate this kind of independent power. Here are the proposals:

The supreme superintendent of science and education will be the head of state—in a republican system, the president. By virtue of his office and within the framework of the relevant provisions of the constitutional law, he will have insight into all the actions of this authority, and the right of council and initiative in the field of national education, as well as the convocation of the council of national education. Alternatively, in cooperation with the senate, he will approve the elected chairman of the national education commission and the representative minister in one or two persons. He will appoint one member of the national education council.

The social base of this authority would be a council of national education. This council, although it should not be too numerous, must represent a wide range of skills in different areas of society. The common bond of the council should be the education of its members in the biohumanities, so double degrees on their part should be preferred. Therefore, institutions that will have the obligation or privilege to delegate members to this council would often have to take care of such an education beforehand. At first, practical studies in one of these fields should be considered sufficient, and then university studies in pedagogy, psychology, sociology, philosophy, or others, or possibly only an honorary degree. For these engineers, doctors, humanists, theologians, and others must find a common language on the basis of objective psychological and pedagogical premises.

The method of selecting the members of the council and the institutions that will have the duty or privilege to delegate them will be determined by the relevant law. One member of the council would be appointed by the head of state and each of the other independent authorities. The logocratic association would have a similar right. The bill will give universities the duty to delegate one member of the council and some the privilege to elect another. Other academic schools will have this duty or only the privilege. High school, secondary, and elementary education would elect one representative from each province. The size of the council could not be set by law, but should rather be smaller than that of the senate. Initially, 30 to 40 well-qualified persons would suffice for Polish conditions.

The national education council should meet at least once a year, preferably in a secluded place, possibly at the headquarters of a logocratic association. It will elect for an indefinite period of time a chairperson of the national education committee and, possibly, a separate representative minister, to be approved as above. The president will appoint the other six members of the national education commission and submit them to the council for approval. The national education commission will constitute a permanently incumbent governing body. Every three years the council will elect a representative senator who, in addition to his or her normal senatorial duties, will represent the affairs of the education authority in the senate. The council can also dismiss the president of the council, the representative minister, and the members of the national education commission, but the head of state will also be able to do so at the request of the senate.

The Council of National Education will make fundamental decisions on the system and development of schooling and its educational, didactic, and scientific issues. It will approve the education budget prepared by the commission. This budget will benefit mainly from subsidies from the state treasury, but may accept funds from other sources. The matters of science and education together with the budgetary needs will be referred to the government by the representative minister.

The national education authority should oversee all educational activities, from primary to academic, both those maintained by its budget, and private schools issuing publicly honored diplomas. Only parliamentary studies and training for civil rights would be directly under the authority of parliament. Nevertheless, the education authority would be able to carry out teaching activities in this field, as well as to communicate its opinions on the matter to a parliamentary committee. Only a general reform of the school system and the erection of new academic institutions, or their liquidation, would require a corresponding resolution of parliament.

Academic schools will generally retain their traditional privileges of autonomy and freedom of research, but with some restrictions by the independent authority of national education. Through the delegated members of the science and education council, these schools will be able to exercise serious influence over its decisions. The national education commission will have the opportunity to correlate the programs and teaching activities of these schools, to establish the necessary requirements, and to initiate evolutionary changes and reforms in higher education.

Solutions of the above type will ensure a certain predominance of the role of academic schools in the overall school system. The leading role of universities in education was implemented on a different scale in some countries, in Poland as part of Hugo Kołłątaj’s school reform.⁵ This always proved to be a system that produced creative results, but which did not stand the test of time. For universities cannot be burdened with functions that are not in their nature. Therefore, a solution is proposed here which would make it possible to permanently exploit this creative influence of academic schools on the whole of education, through the Council of National Education. What remains to be discussed is the possibility of organizing a patronage of academic schools over secondary schools, especially vocational schools, which would make it possible to raise their scientific and didactic level.

An independent educational authority conceived in this way should provide the nation with a stable and efficiently functioning system of science and education, capable of evolutionary improvement in keeping with the changes brought about by time. Such a system must operate on the basis of scientific knowledge of real biological, psychological, cultural, social, and economic conditions, and must not be the terrain of influence of populist doctrines or political propaganda.

Note: This work is a project of QFG/Red Pill Press and is planned to be published in book form.

1. HK: See here. The Commission lasted from 1773 to 1994. “Although the Commission had only functioned for around 20 years, it managed to completely change the shape of education in Poland. The Enlightenment-based school programmes and books influenced the whole generation of Poles. … Thousands of teachers—trained in lay teachers' seminaries—became the backbone of Polish science during the Partitions … In addition, the 27 elementary textbooks and manuals, published by the Commission, laid the foundations for the Polish language terminology in Chemistry, Physics, Logics, Grammar and Mathematics. They were used by all prominent Polish scientists and authors of the 19th century … The Guidebook to Chemistry, by Jędrzej Śniadecki, remained in use in the Polish schools well beyond the 1930s.”

2. HK: Jan Władysław Dawid (1859–1914) was “a teacher, psychologist, pioneer of educational psychology and experimental pedagogy in Poland.” Dabrowski provides a sketch of his personality in Personality-shaping through Positive Disintegration.

3. HK: Janusz (1885–1951) was “a Polish politician and educator, a leader of the Sanacja political group, and 24th Prime Minister of Poland from 1933 to 1934.” His brother Wacław (1893–1993) was Minister of Religious Denominations and Public Education, where he shepherded in controversial but internationally emulated reforms.

4. HK: For education under the Stalinist period, see John Connelly, Captive University: The Sovietization of East German, Czech, and Polish Higher Education, 1945–1956 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2000).

5. HK: Hugo Stumberg Kołłątaj (1750–1812) “was a prominent Polish constitutional reformer and educationalist, and one of the most prominent figures of the Polish Enlightenment. … He was a Roman Catholic priest, social and political activist, political thinker, historian, philosopher, and polymath.” He was active in the Commission and setting up a national network of Polish schools.