What should be taught in schools?

DeletedUser

There are a lot of parents out there that don't deserve to be parents, unfortunately.
 

DeletedUser28032

First of all, learning shouldn't be fun.

No but if you can trick them into believing so then the chances of them learning something increases. Often as not the subjects that you were good at in school were the ones that you enjoyed. I hated maths and i am consequently not very good at it even if they did make me study up to A level grade, History on the other hand i enjoy and will actively look things up and learn on my own and it is that that you want to encourage
 

DeletedUser

Learning is fun if it is tailored to your approach.....which is not really possible when there is a 1:30 teacher to student ratio......
 

DeletedUser

Fun in Learning
Learning is learning, which is fun in and of itself. The mistake is attempting to tailor bad habits into a mold that caters to learning. Playing games in school poses a precedence of bad habits, particularly when that takes precedence in your life and is exploited as an addiction (i.e., the gaming industry). But, and I think more important, there is adventure and excitement in many fields of work. Learning --- academics --- should be of the same calibre and nature. That way, when a child enters the work field, the entertainment factor is appropriately obtained "from" their job. If educated properly, that's what they've learned to associate as being entertaining/fun. You don't need to paint a horse blue, impale it, and play melodies whilst spinning it about in order to get a child to ride it, just teach the child how to ride and care for a real horse and he'll be happy to have the damn horse. (( metaphor, for those thinking otherwise ))

Corporal Punishment
Is not effective and instead teaches things "other" than the material you want the child to learn, whilst damaging them psychologically (and possibly physically). You do not sacrifice one thing for another when it comes to child development; makes absolutely no sense.

Most Awesome Thing
Iggy, wait until your child/children reach and surpass the teen years. Developing a child is a wondrous thing but, eventually, they "outgrow" parental learning, which is precisely why you can't just disenfranchise yourself of the problem and assume the additional time you give to your children will reverse the harm committed to them by a misguided public school system.

Competition
Academic competition is both good and bad. It is particularly bad when it's your child that's losing the competes and --- the vast majority of students are on the losing end (only a few winners in a mix, remember?). This is part of the problem with giving competition too high a weight, and it's part of the problem that has taken root in the present school systems (inclusive of universities). It's especially a problem when the schools themselves participate in this competition and begin focusing on what they're good at whilst virtually abandoning what they're not so good at (as has occurred in many "magnet" schools and what has happened in many team-sport oriented universities). I recall quite vividly the "academic cuts" they made at one of the universities I attended --- to "accommodate" their athletic department and, particularly, the extra costs needed for their football team. Competition --- serves and benefits a minority; screws over and scars the majority.

Incentive
Children don't need incentives to learn, but they do need proper and safe environments for such. "Proper" entails: no socializing, no crime, no drugs, no playing, no learning-games, no team sports, safe transport to/from school, and parental support. This isn't as easy as it sounds when it comes to bad neighborhoods, but the fact that good neighborhoods have public schools with far larger budgets is an indication there is unfairness embedded deep within the system and thus problems are not even being addressed, let alone considered.

Summary
So, we have bad habits encouraged, bad environments ignored, bad educational foundations repeated, bad parenting not addressed, and bad behavior all the way up the administrative ladder. I find it disturbing that, with all this, there's a greater propensity to blame the teachers/students that are forced to work under such virtually impossible circumstances. But, I find it more disturbing citizens are so caught up in arguing how best to beat their children that they don't even bother to provide a safe and educational environment for them to sit their sore ass.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Hellstromm, you've raised a few points that I've missed.

The trick is to instil good work habits into your child. The desire to do their best. To work until the job is done. I mean, they don't start doing something else when the job is incomplete. Taking a break, say a few minutes, is good. Especially when the child is frustrated so that they can calm down. There must be a time when the child can relax. Which is why playing with their peers is good. It gives them the chance to have good social skills. If the child can't relax, then there is a possibility that the child gives up or develop mental health problems, usually depression. Reward the child with praise whenever the child does learning on their own. In the last lecture, the professor (who died because of cancer), said that his parents did a great thing. They never answered any of his questions unless he goes looking for that answer and is unable to find it in encyclopedias. Teaching the child to look for answers on their own from reputable sources is a great thing. It encourages them to take the initiative. The other thing that most schools are getting rid of because of budget problems is the artistic side. Art can encourage a child to be creative which can be honed so it appears in other aspects of their life. The final two things that children need to do are problem solving, and planning ahead. Can't do much on a job if the child can't solve the problem without help. My mother was asked a simple question in an interview: You are driving by in the rain and you see three people at a bus stop, your best friend, an old woman in distress, and the lady (or man) of your life. What would you do? I failed when I was asked that by my mother because I failed to think about other possible answers to that question. Planning ahead, that's the hard part. Most of my problems in academics was I had no goals, no reason to do anything. All I did was what was expected of me, nothing else. I was, simply as one person said, 'a person who is only use is to turn food into poop.' Having a sense of achievement when reaching your goals is a great way to encourage a person to do their best, to persevere in the face of set backs, and to have a sense of accomplishment.

The other thing is learning disabilities. They can influence how a child learns as well as well personality. My sister's bf's younger brother is autistic, when he gets bored or agitated he becomes violent. He and his family, have been able to get him to stop doing that at school... when he gets bored in class he goes to sleep. Yes it hurts his marks... but as his mother says: 'At least he isn't disturbing the class.' ADD and ADHD are two common learning disabilities. One person described ADD that it is like having a T.V. in your brain and you watch all 200 channels at the same time. Even when you're trying to listen to the teacher the information you glean isn't correct because of the other 199 channels. Which is why they look distracted. Then there is asperger's syndrome. People with asperger's, though they can appear to be normal, can get stuck in a loop, doing or saying things repeatedly. I've seen it. A person In a class I was attending he made a mess... then after the mess has been cleaned up he says 'what a mess, what a mess.'

The other side of learning difficulties is the stigma. Class mates will say that they are because they need extra help. There is a Bruce Willis movie, Mercury Rising, which has an autistic kid. He's brilliant, except that he isn't 'high functioning.' 'High functioning' is a technical term for a person who has asperger's or autism and is able to take care of themselves without help.

To recap:
- Sense of Achievement (worth)
- Able to take the initiative
- Planning
- Problem Solving
- Creativity

What is the best incentive?
The good old fashioned one: "if you get good grades you will not get your hind belted and you head kicked in"
As simple as that.
in fact that is the only viable solution, that there be a punishment for failure.
Parents should have the right to use corporal punishment on their own kids, for that is the only way they have superiority over kids who are much cleverer than their elders by definition.

-Neo- That doesn't work as hellstromm said. My father used that. I'm so scared of him that I DON'T want to have sons. Because I am scared that I'll be just like him. In some ways I have been acting like him. Doing your best, and not doing as well as your parent demands, and then being punished for it. That really messed me up. Messed me up so much that I stopped trying to do my work. I did the absolute minimum to pass the classes that I wasn't good at. I stopped doing homework, studying for tests, and trying to do my best. Other things that I haven't done are, goal setting, planning, problem solving, and thinking. One reason English was so hard for me was I couldn't write essays, which are next to useless for most people to learn to do. Mine were never long enough. I didn't know how to research for information, let alone know what to write on a topic so my essays were too short and thus I usually get less than 50% on them.

Another thing you're missing -Neo- is the fact that corporal punishment should be used as a last resort. Proper parenting dictates that you remove privileges from your disobedient child. At young age what is appropriate is 'time out.' Most parents say 'go to your room' where the child has toys. Proper 'time out' is getting them to sit in one place for three to five minutes with absolutely no stimulation (staring at a wall), they will get the hint that they will be able to do what they want as long as it is approved by the parent. Don't yell, don't hit, just firmly say 'we don't do [insert bad behaviour]' when you give the time out, then once time out is over you repeat 'we don't do [bad behaviour]. At older ages around 13 and older, punishment is to remove privileges, for example, going out with friends, watching T.V, using their cellphone/computer. More they disobey more privileges they lose. When they get violent, that's not the time to hit them, it's the time to dominate them by pinning them to the ground and then taking all privileges away. The other thing you do, in addition to taking privileges, away is to find out why they are violent then try to solve that issue, most times you'll need outside help but eventually the violent behaviour will stop. The behaviour is the symptom, not the disease. Cure the disease and you'll cure the symptoms.

Oh, anotherthing -Neo- if you ever have kids, just give up all of your parental rights. They will be better off that way.
 

DeletedUser

oh really? I beg to differ.
Beg all you want. While attempting to harness people's addictions for productive purposes may be deemed a noble cause, it doesn't dismiss the inherent problem. Keyboard propofol is part of the appeal, as well as part of the problem.

Reports published by an Iowa State University professor <click here> clearly indicates over 1 out of every 10 children become addicted to gaming (aka: pathological gaming), and the numbers for adults is suspected to be far worse. Contrast Dr. Gentile's grounded reports with Jane's unrealistically optimistic notions as presented in this video <click here>.

Look, Jane McGonigal is a game designer, not a sociologist, not a psychologist, and not an educator. In truth, she's also book seller, and her book sells a falsehood (indeed, her entire argument is a run-on fallacy). Wall Street Journal's response was to publish a hard-hitting article from Andrew Klavan, himself a notable novelist and screenwriter:

"Ms. McGonigal's notions about how to enliven what gamers call "RL" ("real life") run the gamut from shallow to, well, that's it, really. It's not that she has nothing interesting to say about the role of videogames in shaping reality; it's that she has little if anything to say about reality itself. She writes like someone who has never seen a Shakespeare play or volunteered at a soup kitchen or fallen in love or raised a child or said a prayer.

RL, as Ms. McGonigal sees it, has nothing of the romance and excitement that can be found by interacting with an Xbox or PlayStation 3. Her "fixes" are meant to address such issues as:

•"Compared to games, reality is depressing. Games focus our energy, with relentless optimism, on something we're good at and enjoy."

•"Compared to games, reality is trivial. Games make us a part of something bigger and give epic meaning to our actions."

•"Compared to games, reality is pointless and unrewarding. Games help us feel more rewarded for making our best effort."

In assertions such as these, Ms. McGonigal seems to confuse states of feeling with facts. She speaks, for instance, about the "awe" that gamers feel at the immense make- believe world of "Halo," an extremely popular first-person shooter in which players wage a "Great War" against an alien empire called The Covenant. Ms. McGonigal says that when Bungie, the game's creator, announced that "Halo" participants world-wide had scored 10 billion Covenant "kills," players were carried away by a sense that their actions in the Great War had "meaning."

While she acknowledges that "Halo" is "only a game," she goes on to write, rather remarkably: "Just because the kills don't have value doesn't mean they don't have meaning. Meaning is the feeling that we're a part of something bigger than ourselves. It's the belief that our actions matter beyond our own individual lives." But no, actually, that's not what meaning is at all. Meaning is when those feelings and beliefs refer to something that is true. This error consistently undermines Ms. McGonigal's thinking."
~ Andrew Klaval <click here for full article>​

There's more in that article, but that's the bite right there. Video games have an agenda, to make you feel good in one fashion or another. Life is what you make of what you are handed, and what you are handed is rarely a silver spoon. Ms. McGonigal is unrealistic and thinks the world should work to turn itself into a video game, to become more like "pop pop, whiz whiz" instant gratification whilst sitting on your ass. But, real life will never be like a video game and it's just plain foolish to buy into that groupthink.
 

DeletedUser

I'm more into harnessing game mechanics for good....maybe you'll like this guy better. :p
Meh, while you're the op of this thread, this would be a discussion for another topic, as it's not really about "what should be taught in schools." I couldn't even find a means to distort that one to make it apply to the topic at hand. Ah well...
 

DeletedUser

how about this one: games can more effectively teach kids than traditional schooling :p
 

DeletedUser

To me the question is impossible to answer, without answering the implied question: what is the purpose of school?

Depending on the answer to that question, we can start discussing the original question. If it comes down to that teaching young people is actually a part of what schools should and are able to do.

Possible answers (non-exclusive):
* to keep young people occupied so their parents can be part of the work-force
* to give young people the social skills to navigate the current society
* to give young people knowledge and skills
* to give work to the school workers (teachers, administrators, janitors, etc) and associates (books, paper, furniture, etc)
* to keep them from their parents so they don't get the 'wrong' ideas
* ...

/Edlit
 

DeletedUser

Teaching the curriculum at the pace of the student, I would say. This allows the nerds to finish college at 16, those with special needs to be adequately taught, and those in between less busy-work.
 

DeletedUser

There are advanced learning programs everywhere if you just take the time to look. There are also special needs classes and therapy to be had if needed. My son needed speech therapy but it wasn't a part of the school system so I had to pay out of pocket. It isn't right but it was worth it. Yeah, I have had to eat ramen noodles and beans for most of my meals in order to provide things for my son and I think it was worth it. I have also had to take second and third jobs, sell my plasma, and do side jobs (mostly crocheting hats and selling them on the side) just to make sure I have my own rent covered and child support payed. Granted, I do not get much time with my son any more since he is in a different state now, but I am still aware of his education.

People are by nature curious about things. It is important to cultivate this behavior over any other because it turns out that curiosity spurns more development than anything else you could imagine. It creates a want to learn more about everything around you and things further out than that. Math is no longer a chore but a puzzle. To be worked out for the gratification of solving the puzzle. Science is a way for you to figure out pretty much everything and you devour it now because it tickles your brain. Why? Because of curiosity. You can't really teach it, but it's already there, so you cultivate it. This cultivation CAN and DOES come from schooling. All of the tools are there for your child to learn whatever they want. What needs to be done now is just a simple matter of cultivating curiosity. Help your child find resources outside of school to further their knowledge. If your kid loves Panda bears, go to the zoo, read a book about pandas to your child, rent a nat geo video on pandas! These are not difficult things to do!

Overall, be involved in your childs learning. Figure out what is being taught and find a complimentary way to teach them more. It may mean you have to call out of work for an afternoon to chaperon a field trip, so be it. It is precious time and you will find a way to make it work if you truly love your child.
 

nashy19

Nashy (as himself)
Teaching the curriculum at the pace of the student, I would say. This allows the nerds to finish college at 16, those with special needs to be adequately taught, and those in between less busy-work.

Have you seen the curriculum in the US and UK? In the UK we already finish at 16 but most people don't do early A-Levels (roughly equivalent to AP according to Harvard). I think if education was pushed forward people would meet the new requirements, even do better because they would be occupied rather than asleep.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser

not sure what you mean by 'if education was pushed forward', nashy.
iggy, curiosity is not cultivated by the current education system. I get more of a kick out of watching a TED talk than attending class.
 

nashy19

Nashy (as himself)
not sure what you mean by 'if education was pushed forward', nashy.

Making the curriculum harder, raising the requirements or fitting the current one into a smaller period of time.

Just looked up the word curriculum and it comes from the Latin word for race course :p
 

DeletedUser

That would be awesome....mad sprint to the finish :p
The gap between high school and college is just ridiculous.....
 
Top