Edumacation

[milefile]

Well we all went to school so everyone should have an opinion on this one. Mine goes thusly:

Elementary education should focus on "the three R's": reading, 'riting, and 'rithmatic. No? Everything else should be the responsibility of the parents.

Sure, when you put a group of people together they will learn things as a result of that social arrangement, but this is natural and goes without saying; it is called culture. The focus of curricula should be those three "R's."

I think teaching religion, so-called "social studies," history, sex-ed, etc., has no place in an institutional setting, funded by the government. It can amount to nothing more than state propaganda.

Teachers are deified unjustly. Yes, they should make more money. Yes, they have a tough job. But not one of them is qualified to coordinate the moral development, ethics, or social conscience of others' kids.

Parents should take this responsiblity, and take it seriously. There should be no question as to who is to blame for the corruption of a child.

So if schools focused on what they are supposed to, school would be much shorter, a few hours a day. As the child grows older they can then study more humanistic/liberal arts type subjects... when they can digest it and perhaps decide to go on to higher education. Here their prior moral/social/ethical development will inform their higher educational decisions. People who have no need to go on to college would not. In most cases trade or technical schools are more than adequate.

Of course there are plenty of holes what I've written... I already know this, and I have niether the time nor the inclination to write a book or essay on the subject this week.

Discuss please.

 

[Wastegate]

This is a BIG topic Milefile, and partly to encourage debate I'm going to disagree with you on a few points. A word of warning to everyone, I've no experience of teaching or schools other than my own education almost back in the days of slates, floggings and leaving at the age of 10.

"the three R's: reading, 'riting, and 'rithmatic. No? Everything else should be the responsibility of the parents."
Many kids are not going to get a lot of help from their parents, they need some kind of additional learning from their school.

"I think teaching religion, so-called social studies history, sex-ed, etc., has no place in an institutional setting"
Surely there is a much better opportunity, if it is done without too much bias, for children to learn impartially about things like religion from schoolteachers rather than their parents. For example children should be taught about the different religions, what they stand for and how they work, rather than being forced to practice one of them at school. A lot of the world's problems are because of lack of understanding of 'foreign' religions.

"Teachers are deified unjustly. Yes, they should make more money. Yes, they have a tough job. But not one of them is qualified to coordinate the moral development, ethics, or social conscience of others' kids. Parents should take this responsiblity, and take it seriously. There should be no question as to who is to blame for the corruption of a child. "
Partial agreement on this one, but surely the teacher's job is to inform and encourage the child to make up his/her own mind and the parents job to help them decide.

If you're going to just teach the basic three Rs and allow specialism into other areas later some subjects will be missed out altogether.

I believe education is more than reading and math, it's about learn about society and functioning in a society (that is the school itself). Here in the UK too much emphasis is being placed on getting exams. Many kids dont have the potential to be brilliant at exams, what's left for them?

And here's another issue. Is it the school's or the parents resonsibilty to teach discipline to the children? If both how do you resolve differences of opinion between the parents and teachers?

I just know someone's gonna shoot me down in flames over this post

 

[milefile]

Many kids are not going to get a lot of help from their parents, they need some kind of additional learning from their school.

So? Why should that be the taxpayer’s problem. It’s called survival of the fittest.

Surely there is a much better opportunity, if it is done without too much bias, for children to learn impartially about things like religion from schoolteachers rather than their parents. For example children should be taught about the different religions, what they stand for and how they work, rather than being forced to practice one of them at school. A lot of the world's problems are because of lack of understanding of 'foreign' religions.

Hm. Interesting. Why not get rid of it all together? Why not make religion a matter of faith to passed on within families and localities rather than treating it as a sterile subject to be dissected and “known.” This goes against the foundation of any religion. Understanding and tolerance come not from arcane knowledge but from spirituality.

Partial agreement on this one, but surely the teacher's job is to inform and encourage the child to make up his/her own mind and the parents job to help them decide.

If the situation should arise, yes. But for it to be mandated by the state is bad. For instance in Arizona right now there is a big push for this thing they are calling “Charcater Education.” It’s really scary. What if you, as a parent, have a different idea of what is “good character” from the state? In effect it takes kids one step closer to being wards of the state and makes parents something more like state sponsored caretakers.

I believe education is more than reading and math, it's about learn about society and functioning in a society (that is the school itself).

I agree. I do not agree that all aspects of a child’s maturation and development should be centralized into and coordinated by one state run institution.

Here in the UK too much emphasis is being placed on getting exams. Many kids dont have the potential to be brilliant at exams, what's left for them?

Well, we all need clean hotel rooms. I’m reminded of the immortal words of Neil Peart as sung by Geddy Lee: “We need some one to talk to and someone to sweep the floors.”

 

[rjensen11]

I'm with you, but at the same time, I'm not.

I agree that it's best for schools not to teach that stuff so it's not promoting one thing over another or anything. But once you start classic literature or study advanced history, it's important to know what the stuff is about. So, I guess they're compelled to teach the students that stuff so they understand the context of what they're reading in History or English.

If you're talking only Elementrary, however, I think you're right. Pull it all out of the classroom. The only problem is that we can't: in almost all, if not all, 1st world countries, the laws are based on Jewish law, and our calendars are based on some sort of Christian system, be it Catholic, Protestant, whatever, look at the days we get off for holidays: Christmas and Easter are just two.

Speaking of holidays, I want to take St. Pattie's day off this year. Since I'm in the US, and some great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather immigrated from Ireland, then to Canada, then to the US, I'd say I'm Irish enough to celebrate! And yes, that's how many generations it was, I wasn't trying to exagerate

 

[epic]

I fully agree with milefile on this one.

But lets make a few things clear here. Science & History could be taken out of the schools. It's not everyday someone asks; "Hey, who discovered America", or "What's C2 mean?". In most cases, if you do need to know chemistry and advanced history it would be a job requirering a college degree.

Is it the school's or the parents resonsibilty to teach discipline to the children? If both how do you resolve differences of opinion between the parents and teachers?

I would say its the schools responsibility to teach discipline seeing as how children are at school more than they are at home during a school year. (not counting the hours that are spent sleeping).


Another thing, school years could be cut down by atleast 4 years.
This might not be the same case for others, but for me I was taught the same thing over and over since 7th grade. Every year was the same exact thing, either different numbers (math) worded differently (english) or just the same old history and science crap. I couldn't take it any longer when I was in school, I requested to be put in a higher grade since the work was to easy cuz I already knew it; but I was denied and by the 9th grade my brain was getting slower and slower so I just called it quits and dropped out on my 16th birthday. 2 months later I got my GED, went to technical school and became a certified mechanic. And my peers were still in school by the time I had a 500$\week job.

But I seriously think school days and the length of the 12 years should be drastically cut shorter

 

[Sage]

Sorry to veer off topic a bit, but I'd like to add in that I absolutely loath the fact that we (in California at least) are required to take English during all four years of high school... I've learned, literally, 3 things in the past 4 years of my English classes, and I can only imagine how bored I'll be with the next 3 and a half. I'll willingly take four years of math and science- I do genuinely learn new things in those classes. But English, no. Whoever came up with that idea should be shot in their hands and then sent through four years of high school. Honestly...

Anyway, sorry for hijacking the thread like that. Please carry on. (I'll add in my own comments about the original subject later... I have to do a book report for English right now. )

 

[Vasco]

Coming here, in my opinion i would rather have my mother teach me at home than go to school. I believe i could learn a lot more than if i went to school, because i am regarded as gifted, and my parents could teach me enough that i could do my HSC in year ten, but at my school, because there is one teacher to thirty students, it is harder for every student to get the required learning, especially true of the smarter ones because they are generally disregarded because they can do it easily...they are often not challenged the way they should be, and thus fall behind. I have learnt one or two things last year in English, while in Science i am learning quite a lot.

 

[Pupik]

Well, the schools in America should focus on trades for those who aren't interested in the usual topics. Make them happy, productive citizens, or the kids are much more likely fall prey to negative behavior. When a student doesn't get positive reinforcement from a teacher or a parent, they'll get it from anyone else.

By the time a student is in 6th grade, they've started to decide what they'd like to do with their time in school. It's sad to see so many kids that didn't want to do anything with their lives bother with school for another 5-6 years. Even more pathetic when they took things like art or Phys-Ed to waste time doing nothing. I always looked forward to those courses because it didn't mean doing homework; it meant doing something else.

So back to trades; find out the interest level of a student who’s' doing poorly, and train them in something like auto repair, electronics, wood shop, etc. so that they are prepared for that so-called real world when they're done with school. Don't waste time and money teaching those that don't want to learn about history or chemistry.

I wasn't the model student in school; not on either extreme. I hated excessive homework, or projects that didn’t stimulate any interest. But I was well behaved, asked questions, and listened closely to learn about a lot of different things. With the proper motivation and energy, some teachers did a fine job teaching very boring or uninteresting subjects, I have to admit. And then there were those that probably couldn't make a course entirely devoted to GT3 interesting.

Well, everything wants it's fair share to get taught in schools. Hey, what about music, art, physical education? They are always cut out of school systems at the drop of a hat; Florida schools are so hell-bent on teaching curriculum that reinforces the FCAT standards created by Jeb Bush's "education task force". So all the extra stuff disappears because the teachers are to be held accountable for the student's failures. Even more so, students that do well in school will be held back if they don't complete a 35% on their yearly FCAT test.

A little bit of pressure on the kids, no?

 

[milefile]

I was a very bad student in elemetary and high school. Poor grades, bad behavior, you name it. After four years of high school I was still unable to graduate. So I got a GED and a job painting packaging machinery. And hated it. After less than one year I had decided college was the way to go, so I made a deal with my high school principal to make up my one class (senior English) at a community college. After two classes the teacher told me I didn't have to come back and that he'd give me an A. I got my diploma. (I think I'm the only person I know with a diploma and a GED)

All of a sudden I wasn't stupid. That fall I signed up at the same community college full time and maintained a 4.0 for two years. I went from problem kid to collegiate in less than a year. After two years I transferred to university and graduated with honors.

My schooling prior to college didn't help me get into college at all. I did it on my own, on my schedule. And now, the education I got in college hasn't helped me find a decent job. Again, it will have to be the same as before... my hard work, my schedule, my terms.

I think the way schools seem to operate now pigeonholes kids into a limited number of acceptable ways to be, all of which can be institutionally controlled. There is no room for students to find out for themselves what they should do. I couldn't go to college because everybody said so. I could only go because I wanted to.

 

[DGB454]

Ok, what is it with all these state/federal test? I understand the need to test the kids to see how the school is doing as a way to allocate money but it's getting a little ridiculous around here. They focus way to much on them. A whole month is practically dedicated to them. I seem to remember taking some test every 4 years or so where we had to use a #2 pencil and color in the circles of the right answer. We never stressed about those test. I never cared about them at all. I would try and make pictures with the circles I filled in. Of course that might explain a few things.

 

[Duke]

OK, I so do not have time to do this right now, but I can't resist.

What epic and pupik are saying truly, deeply scares me. Why is there such a rush to get kids out of the education system, half-educated, and stuck in a manual job right away? It's only 4 more years - about 5% of an average life. Unless they are definitely on the college track, those kids will never have the oportunity to learn as much pure knowledge as they do in an academic high school. Read milefile's experience about getting out of school early. Do we really want to institutionalize that?

13-year-old 8th graders (myself incuded) barely know what they want for breakfast tomorrow, let alone what trade they want to pursue for the rest of their lives. Why force that decision onto them? Although it does make them marginally more employable earlier, it does little else for them.

I think part of the problem lies in the Left's idea that "everybody is created equal" is the same as "everybody must be equal". With the learning pace held back to the average student (at most), that means half the class is getting too little education for their time. By the same token, some portion of the class is not getting as much education as they need. Schools need more flexibility to put kids in appropriate classes - and to hell with the idea of 'labeling'. This has to be done on a class-by-class basis, though; just putting all the slower kids together doesn't work (some may be strong enough in English, but behind in math, or vice versa). Being in a slower-paced, smaller class does not make a kid feel stupid, if he is being taught the material in a way that works for him.

I was also a mediocre student, particularly in math. But even so, I prized knowledge itself, even if I disagreed with the teaching methods.

I think the root questions that need to be answered are these: why is education so poorly valued? Why don't people want to learn, and why are people who do want to learn looked down upon? Why would people want to go through life with very limited knowledge of the world around them and the way it operates?

I realize this bit is a little beyond the scope of the initial thread, but I just can't believe the answer to these questions is to just give up and let kids go. Look at these boards as an example - it's not immediately obvious how old people are from the general tone and literacy of their posts. Even just among the people who speak English natively, there are plenty of under-20s who communicate much more clearly than people much older than they are. Simply relaxing the standards because a certain portion of the students are either slow or lazy or just plain not interested is only going to make that situation worse. And the idea shouldn't be restricted simply to language - math and history and science are just as important. There's just no way you can be a well-rounded person without a fundamental understanding of these subjects.

That's all I've got time for now (in fact way more) but it will have to do for a first pass. I'll come back to the issues of what the curricula should be later.

 

[ledhed]

Limiting schools to teaching just the 3 rs as you call them is a guarantee that the schools will produce more idiots. A well rounded education is necessary for a well rounded individual. There are enough 20 year olds now that think Columbus was an American.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by ledhed
Limiting schools to teaching just the 3 rs as you call them is a guarantee that the schools will produce more idiots. A well rounded education is necessary for a well rounded individual. There are enough 20 year olds now that think Columbus was an American.

And they were taught differently in school, too. What a waste.

Your apparent belief that it is schools that save people from idiocy tells me you have no belief in the person, the individual... that they need a state run institution to not be an "idiot," as you say.

 

[Der Alta]

This is something that I really want to get involved with, but it's unfortunately going to have to wiat until tomorrow when the work oad is lighter.

For starters, I design schools. I'm in daily contact with teachers, staff, and administration of pre-k through JR/SR schools.

I will weigh in on this matter.

For starters, where did the school system go wrong with this fellow? https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/t-19521.html

AO

 

[epic]

Originally posted by neon_duke
OK, I so do not have time to do this right now, but I can't resist.

What epic and pupik are saying truly, deeply scares me. Why is there such a rush to get kids out of the education system, half-educated, and stuck in a manual job right away? It's only 4 more years - about 5% of an average life.

If you call sitting at a desk for 8 hrs or more a day looking at a text book learning than I feel pity for you. Teachers should interact with their students rather than just saying take a seat, open up your text books and do pages 116-119. That is not teaching the children anything. But on some rare occasions the teachers will explain the work, but now if they would do that every day the school years would be cut shorter without a doubt in my mind.

13-year-old 8th graders (myself incuded) barely know what they want for breakfast tomorrow, let alone what trade they want to pursue for the rest of their lives. Why force that decision onto them? Although it does make them marginally more employable earlier, it does little else for them.

I'm a grown man and I dont even get breakfast , but like I said in my first post, when I was in 7th grade I learned most of the stuff I did my first year of highschool. I never said anyone else did to. But by the 10th grade you should already know everything you need to know to get a job that doesnt require a college degree or technical school training. I was a fast learner in school, but it just bored the heck out of me. In a lot of cases it's the same for others. Whether they aren't book smart or not. The main sense you need in the world today is common sense, that will get you a long ways in this day in age.

Simply relaxing the standards because a certain portion of the students are either slow or lazy or just plain not interested is only going to make that situation worse. And the idea shouldn't be restricted simply to language - math and history and science are just as important. There's just no way you can be a well-rounded person without a fundamental understanding of these subjects.

I have learned more about each of those subjects sitting at my computer for a week than the whole time I was in middle school and high school.


ledhed, schools do not produce idiots. It's up to the person if they want to be an idiot or not. No one can produce an idiot. DNA can't even produce an idiot, maybe someone challenged in mental ways, but that is far from being an idiot.

Originally posted by neon_duke
Ok, what is it with all these state/federal test? I understand the need to test the kids to see how the school is doing as a way to allocate money but it's getting a little ridiculous around here. They focus way to much on them. A whole month is practically dedicated to them. I seem to remember taking some test every 4 years or so where we had to use a #2 pencil and color in the circles of the right answer. We never stressed about those test. I never cared about them at all. I would try and make pictures with the circles I filled in. Of course that might explain a few things.

I couldn't agree with you more. I hear now that if you do not pass these test they hold you back until you pass it. (that is what my little brothers school said anyway) Personally I think those test are a bunch of bull, it doesn't help your semester grades, it doesnt help your gpa, and I have never seen\even heard of a job that asks what did you get on your state test in highschool?


Okay I'm starting to rant I will stop now

 

[Duke]

Epic: that's my point. You were bored in school because there wasn't enough new material covered quickly enough. Those four high school years wouldn't have been wasted if you hadn't been stuck at the pace of the slowest learner in the district. It was an opportunity to learn more than just commom sense, which isn't very common, and is not enough in a world of global interaction like today. I'm not doubting you as a person, but how much will common sense help you understand the Middle East situation? That takes more history, politics, and such than I was taught in 19 years of school, let alone 8 or 10.

The purpose of the state testing (and it was DGB454 who posted that) has to do with enforcing the Teacher Accountability laws that many states have passed. It is a flawed system designed to prevent the habitual promotion of illiterate and incompetent students. The idea is good - making sure no child slips through the cracks, and making sure that poorly-performing teachers get weeded out - but in practice it really means that teachers spend a lot of time preparing their students on passing the test, rather than actually teaching them information.

 

[duo17]

I couldn't agree more with neon_duke on this one. We haven't had a full week of school since winter break, and now all that the teachers can think about are cramming in the material we need for the standardized tests at the end of the year. A week or two ago, the counselors and teachers here were pressuring us to decide what we want to do for the rest of our lives so we can take classes in those areas now. It scared the hell out of me because I had no clue what I wanted to do. In my honors english class, we learn next to nothing because of a few students who don't understand things quickly and we waste the whole class period discussing things we have already learned and not learning new things.

I think high school is about the right length of time for what it teaches. I used to be bored as hell during most of my classes and I slept through most of middle school and still got an A. After about 3 years of bothering the school, they finally let me get ahead by going in a few advanced classes. I still do my work half-assed, and I still get an A. I personally think that they should be more strict and assign work that actually helps you understand the subject that they are trying to teach rather than to memorize little bits of information for a standardized test.

On another note, I also think milefile is right in saying that parents need to supplement the child's learning. If my parents hadn't given me books to read over the summer or taught me advanced algebra in elementary school, then I wouldn't be in all advanced and honors classes, and I wouldn't be getting A's in all of them. It seems as though it was much easier to learn things when I was elementary school than they are now.
One thing you have to remember is that what students learn varies depending on where they are. I talk to youth_cycler about school (we are both in the same grade) and what they are doing in the classes he takes. Sometimes I wish that we had the same school system as them because it seems like the students there are more intelligent and knowledgeable than the ones around here. This is probably because their schools are more challenging and they teach what needs to be taught, and it is taught well.

OA

 

[epic]

Originally posted by neon_duke
It was an opportunity to learn more than just commom sense, which isn't very common, and is not enough in a world of global interaction like today. I'm not doubting you as a person, but how much will common sense help you understand the Middle East situation? That takes more history, politics, and such than I was taught in 19 years of school, let alone 8 or 10.

It would really be nice if schools taught up to date things don't you think? My first and last year of high school we never carried any current events in the world. Sure in English we had to open the newspaper and go to the movie section and write an essay for some odd reason, but nothing on the world. In 6th grade, my history teacher made us watch the news each week because on Monday we would have a Current Events test of 10 questions about current stuff that was on the news during the week. That's teaching. Giving a kid a textbook isn't teaching.

Off topic but.. are you for or against war? (I think you are against it for some reason)

but in practice it really means that teachers spend a lot of time preparing their students on passing the test, rather than actually teaching them information.

But is it really important for the student? It's a useless test for him/her. It's just a 2 hour waste of time. Does it help the student any more than doing an assignment? (depends on what the assignment is) but it doesn't.

Where do you all stand on the subject of Suspension in the schools? You do something bad so they deny you the right to an education? I was Suspended from all schools in Florida for a period of 1 year, and was denied registration for private schools and even online schooling. And when my time period was up, I registered at a new school and tried to get into the grade with the same age group as me. But I was told I couldn't because the only credits I had were from 8th grade. I asked to take a placement test and was denied of that also. To put it short, I think the school boards are all full of crap. But then again this is the Opinions forum and this is my opinion.

 

[Klostrophobic]

So don't do anything really bad, and you won't get suspended for one year. You must have done something really serious if you got a full year suspension.

It makes sense to me.

 

[epic]

I got caught with a dime bag of weed. My mom was pissed, she was like what?! you're suspending him for that? and no I didnt bring it to school or buy it there, I found it underneath the portable and it was my lucky day because they were searching bags that day for weapons

 

[milefile]

Portable?


P.S. I request that this thread not go off into a big pot debate now.

 

[Klostrophobic]

Oh, well, it is an illegal drug. I haven't heard of gettign a year for that though. Were you a habitual offender or had you done something stupid before that?

That's pretty harsh.

 

[milefile]

Ahem!

Ed - u - ma - ca - shun!

 

[epic]

It was a first offense actually. And another thing about edumacation is the schools are to over crowded.

Use condoms dammit!

 

[Sage]

milefile- A "portable" is a temporary classroom that most schools put in these days, since not enough classrooms have been built at most of them. Heck, at both my middle school and my current high school, an entire fourth of the school is described as "The Portables"...

Anyway, to the original topic, then a few more comments from me.

"The Three Rs" sounds like a good idea for elementary schooling... those skills are the basic foundation of what kids will be doing later in their lives, and they don't yet have the brainpower to grasp some of the more complex subjects at hand.

However, by this definition, and by some of my own ideas, I think that some of the grade levels need to be re-categorized, as such (again, just my own opinion):

Elementary School
Kindergarten - 3rd grade

Middle School/Junior High
4th grade - 6th grade

High School
7th grade - 12th grade

This is up for some fluctuations on my part- I wasn't sure whether to make Middle School to up to 6th or 7th grade), but you get the general idea. And here's my reasoning:

Elementary School
I chose 3rd grade as the cutoff, because that also seems to be the general cutoff in schools these days for the three Rs- 4th grade was when I remember that science and history started having larger roles in the classroom.

Middle School
I decided to keep the same 3-year system as my own middle school had, since that seemed to work pretty well.

High School
Falls into place.

Anyway, I think that Elementary school should be devoted to the three Rs. Middle school would consist of refining those basic skills, while introducing some more complex subjects (but not too thought-provoking). High school is where the serious work comes into play, and I think that six years would be a good amount of time for students to learn a whole heapful of varied topics, and without all of the emphasis on future careers. Think about it, six years... students wouldn't have to spend hours planning out their electives, since they would have more flexibility. They'd have plenty of time to think through and take the classes that they want to take. You wouldn't believe how many stressful hours I've spent planning my next four years of high school, just to make sure I take the classes that I want to take (there's practically no leeway)... four years just isn't enough.

On the subject of what should be taught in school, I go the way of Duke... I think a well-rounded edjoocation is the best way to go. While having teachers teach religious history has the possibility of opening the door for certain prejudices and the like, I think it goes the other way too- Many parents would force their beliefs onto their children. In addition, many people don't know anything about such things... my own parents included, admittedly. [Regular] History definitely should be taught by teachers, IMO (I'm not saying that parents can't do a bit of their own teaching, but I'm saying that History should be taught by teachers as a standard), because, again, many parents simply don't know the content or have forgotten (or what if they dropped out of school, or are immigrants, like my mom?).

I also don't have a problem with sex-ed and the such being taught in a classroom... few parents actually know about the "science" of sex, which is what is taught.

I think that anything that can be taught from an objective standpoint should be open to being taught by a teacher... while some people can skew subjects such as history, most don't.

On the subject of the three Rs, what really annoys me are the things that are being concentrated on these days. English teachers aren't hesitant to make us write a hundred and one essays a week, but they can't take the time to teach us what a pronoun is. How on earth do they expect us to write good papers if we don't even know the fundamental building blocks to make a 🤬 sentence?!? And what also makes me mad is the amount of wasted time... everything that I'm going to be learning in my English classes in the next three and a half years could probably be taught to me in one semester... but instead, I'm stuck with a heapful of people who are slower than I am.

On the other hand, the school system has handled math and science very well... Starting in 7th grade, my school put us into classes based on our math abilities, and thus I've always looked forward to math classes in the past three years, because I know that I'll be learning a new thing every day. 👍 Science, while it wasn't handled well until high school, is still better than English and History.

Thus, I wholeheartedly agree with Duke's statement that we need to start putting kids in classes that suit their learning abilities and needs. There's no reason why I should be put in an English class where the students don't know how to properly use a comma are... that's ridiculous. I'm not saying that it's the students' fault for not being at the same level as me- I'm saying that it's ridiculous that I'm using up 52 minutes of my lifetime each weekday to learn stuff that I already know. It's a waste of my time... time that I could be using to actually learn new things. I want to learn- I don't want a voice reciting information that was lodged into my head in first grade.

I have more to add to this topic, but I need to continue working on my book report for English class... *sigh*

 

[Klostrophobic]

You can't have 7th and 12th graders in the same school!

Think of the anarchy!

As you can see, the education system here has rendered my ability to add anything of use to this topic useless.

 

[Pupik]

Originally posted by neon_duke
What epic and pupik are saying truly, deeply scares me. Why is there such a rush to get kids out of the education system, half-educated, and stuck in a manual job right away? ... I realize this bit is a little beyond the scope of the initial thread, but I just can't believe the answer to these questions is to just give up and let kids go.

I didn't say to completely let go, I just think the programs used in high school such as wood shop, auto repair, marine repair, other hands-on trades, etc. should be offered to those who really do want to learn it. Maybe I created a misunderstanding, but I feel that when you set a goal like a 2.5 GPA to even have a shot these trade courses, you're distancing the courses from kids that want/need to take them.

I'm not for throwing 14-year-olds out of the classrooms because they hate World History. I'm not advocating the removal of these courses either. I am stating that there ought to be alternatives for students whom aren't terribly interested nor motivated for Algebra II if they don't have a math or science degree in college in mind.

Yes, maybe a 10th grader has no idea what they want to do. I didn't, either. So I didn't question what courses I needed to take. I also made a few judgements for electives, like many other students, and did things my way. I agree with you that "pure learning" was one of the nicer aspects of middle and high school. It set a great foundation for making me quite worldly (in other people's opinions) in all sorts of topics. Unfortunately, in today's business world, we are rather more attracted to the specialist, not the generalist.

I thought I'd become a real Rennasaince Man (no, not the type that goes to Renn-Fests and dresses like a Goth) when I finished school. But like many others, it didn't work out that way. I took so many courses on a whim that I needed to take out student loans. I'm in debt to my eyeballs because of this, but I'm happier, but not richer because I know all sorts of things. But I certainly wouldn't recommend it for everyone!

On other subjects, I don't see the problem with sex education in schools. If anything, it helps the students actually understand what's going on with their bodies, and create a little more maturity within topics of reproduction, for example. But one thing that bothers me about the current education system is that a lot of the material is left-brain only; leaving very little room for creativity, discussion, or spontaneity.

 

[milefile]

I am either looking forward to, or dreading (I cant tell yet) my kid coming home from school and telling me what they learned. I consider myself as, if not more, educated as any elementary school teacher (minus the education specific stuff). I know for a fact that teachers overstep their bounds with kids, teaching them morality that may conflict with the parents' (as Neon_Duke can attest to), and I also know that they are just flat out factually wrong about things, especially in classes like so-called "social studies." The American Indian is a case in point. To "teach" us about Thanksgiving we were being taught about the Indians and the "white man" as early as kindergarden. And I distinctly remember picturing a "white man," pure white, like some mutant. It never occurred to me in kindergarden that I was a "white kid" and would be a "white man" myself someday. I doubt I was the only one who had no idea what they were talking about. Another aspect of this, using the same example, is that I was in my twenties before I understood that we "white" Americans got our country by systematically slaughtering an entire race, that America is guilty of one of the greatest episodes of ethinic cleansing, ever. I don't think we should tell kindergardeners this, but I don't think we should tell them anything different either. Wait until it's appropriate, digestable.

Another thing to remember is that not everybody is going to be an educated college graduate capable of carrying a discussion of education, world history, or science. As I said before, we need clean hotel rooms. And understanding Newtonian physics won't really be of any use to the maid... unless he wants to know and can easily go to Border's and buy a book, because under my plan, he'd know how to read.

There seems to be a standard for what a worth-while person is. Where this standard comes from is complicated and manifold. It defines success materially (no matter what it says) and starts there. Schools are creating cookie cutter kids. There is no room for variance.

Ritalin.

 

[ledhed]

Schools won't prevent idiots nor will they prevent stupidity. What schools will do is provide opportunity. Its up to the individual to determine what if anything he/she will get out of the system. You do not have to be stupid to be an idiot.My sense of an idiot is someone who was given the opportunity of an education but declined to accept it .

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by ledhed
What schools will do is provide oppurtunity.

This reminds me of how everybody said in school:

"In America you can be whoever you want to be, do what you love, and the money will come."

I have serious reservations about the wisdom in that.