More than one thing can be true at the same time. We can recognize the anti-communism within education while also recognizing there is a difficulty in keeping students engaged.
what’s the theory here? that kids would be into literary analysis if it was more marxist? I do see the point that the most common methods of analysis at the primary school level are informed by cultural anti-communism, but “the curtains are just blue” meme is pretty clear about the object of its criticism, which is that fiction has any meaning at all beyond literal interpretation.
Not trying to say that if literature was taught through a marxist lens that kids would be more interested, I’m saying that the current pedagogical mode is anti-communist and doesn’t engage students. Both of these things can be true without necessarily being explicitly related.
That being said, from my experience, students/learners are more engaged with literature (or reading period) if the topic relates to them, and only formalist education makes the text sterile. Books, especially literature, I’ve found much more engaging if the students can relate to places that they know(especially if its a new perspective on them), topics that interest them, etc. There are currently a ton of problems within education. I don’t think that anti-communism is necessarily the most pressing, but I don’t see it meaningfully changing under capitalism either. So it kind of leaves us in a position where education sucks because of the current economy and state formation and said education reinforces the status quo through, amongst other things, anti-communism. So, any leftist speaking on the sorry state of education is doing a disservice by not at least mentioning how anti-communism puts unique and extra pressure on an already exploding system & how education might be differently approached within socialism (if the conversation allows the avenue).
