These are good ideas. I agree that socialists should not seek to abolish schools. The system and curricula need to be reformed, the commodity form must be forcibly removed from the equation (no more numerical grades and inspections used solely to introduce market-like competition between pupils and institutions, etc), the teachers need to be retrained and multiplied, and the bourgeoisie must be kept away.

I think everyone should be dedicated to at least degree-level. But I’m also willing to accept that not everyone will want this (at least in the early stages of socialism).

There can probably be room for lots of different types of education but however it is delivered, it must be led by those concerned. As you say, democratic. There is a limited role for a socialist central government in enforcing socialist education. Otherwise, it should be left to teachers, parents, local authorities, health bodies, academics/researchers, trades unions/workers bodies, and the pupils. By this, I mean, education must be scientific, democratic, and serve the pupil/student and society.

There’s a limit to how much pupils (or students at university) can be involved in curricula design. Education is supposed to be transformative, so those who have yet to go through the process/course are not yet fully ready to judge it’s content. But they should be meaningfully consulted, and can have more say about the general running of the school.

Pupils could even be involved in the practical side of running their school. So cooking lessons age 5–14 prepare students to do a ‘group dissertation’ where they create and deliver a menu in the canteen for everyone else at age 15–16. Same for maintenance of the grounds, admin, etc. It’ll be up to each institution, so long as they are also tight on health and safety.

With better resources, schools can put on a wider variety of classes, too, and students can still have some choice in what they want to study. But everyone should reach age 16–21 with a broad foundational knowledge and skill set, so far as possible, before taking a note focused degree (which can also begin broad and become narrower). In capitalism, there’s an incentive to specialise early and to take courses that will lead to a job – the whole system is distorted because still the best jobs go to the wealthiest children, but the logic of merit prevails.

Under socialism, where specialist training and higher education is available to all, where all are encouraged to participate, and where all young people can forget about whether they need to pay or help with bills (and so leave education as early as possible), everyone can get a general education before heading towards a specific degree (or higher). When these people graduate, they’ll make much better decisions than people who only know their field.

Importantly, this will prepare everyone to participate in political life. It is fundamental that socialist education provide this to everyone (the main reason I argue that all should get a degree, if possible), rather than only providing this to the children of the ruling class. Well, let me put it another way: under a dictatorship of the proletariat, every child will be a child of the ruling class, and they must be as prepared to govern in the same way as all other children of ruling classes have historically been prepared to govern.

Then there’s room for lifelong learning, too. It’s probably unnecessary and counter-productive to force everyone into the same kind of educational structure and pathway. So lifelong learning opportunities must be provided for all. If someone really does just want to leave school at 15/16 and just get on with something they know they were born to do? They should be allowed to and receive the same kind of institutional support that those who stay in education receive. At the same time, this may rely on a bourgeois logic; I don’t see why socialists would divide ‘professional’/‘practical’ from ‘academic’ study, so the person who does ‘leave school at 15/16’ can still receive awork-based education/training and be around their academic peers for part of the week.

Under bourgeois education, there are three tiers of schools. Schools where the ruling class get taught to rule. Schools where the talent from the middle class get taught to prop up the ruling class. And schools where everyone else gets taught to be a disciplined worker. Socialist education must abolish these divisions.

Class sizes must be appropriate. If that’s 40 or 600, fine. But in most classes, it should be capped around 8. Schools must be provided the resources to achieve these numbers.

I’d also say – and this may be controversial around here – that children’s education can be mostly low tech. There’s a place for advanced tech. But it’s better to spend scarce resources on books, teachers, support, and space. We need to not give pupils tablets and laptops, etc, to perform tasks that can be completed on paper just because a tech salesman has convinced the school that tech is more important than the library, and the library gets smaller and smaller because the school now needs to keep replacing it’s tech due to planned obsolescence. But then, this issue is really about taking capitalists out of the environment. Under socialism, tech will last forever and can be repaired, so maybe the library doesn’t need to be affected.