What Should be Taught in Schools?
Every now and again I read something and find myself thinking 'They should tezch that in school' and if they actually implimented all of these things the school day would be 26 hours long.
What do you think should be taught in schools and what do you think can be sacrificed? |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
I think we're all getting into subjective wishy washy art subjects where opinions and bullshit matter. we need more science and maths :(
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
I'd scrap around 90% of the current highschool curriculum because its completely worthless; an education shouldnt consist of memorising 8 hours a day worth of contextless trivia to be forgotten after the relevant exam.
The compulsory part of a school day shouldnt last more than 5 hours max since school shouldnt be used as a political institution that indoctrinates speople into a 9-5 lifestyle. On the other hand, I'd probably knock a few years off primary school since the end of it is pretty useless, so highschool would maybe last from ages 10 to 18. Pretty much all classes would focus on teaching ways of thinking rather than imparting knowledge; the core curriculum would probably focus around critical reading (which would incorporate aspects of politics/sociology/English lit/analytic philosophy/critical-theory), philosophy, maths (proper maths, not the drudgery that currently gets taught in highschool), art (which includes painting/music/poetry, all students being required to learn a musical instrument to a decent level and suchlike), and science (mainly physics, but also a rudimentary knowledge of evolutionary theory). The voluntary part of school would consists of optional classes and individual projects. With optional classes, youd probably have 'teaser' lectures for each subject a couple of times a year so students could know what it involved and whether it interested them. Important electives here would be computer programming (taught as an extension of thought rather than an office tool), mixed martial arts, economics, and history. Individual projects would be anything that a student's interested in, preferably something they could find a teacher to supervise. The single most important thing to learn in life is a proper understanding of science - not an accumulation of scientific facts, but an understanding of how to actually do/think science properly However, I'm not quite sure what the best way to do teach this is; its difficult to do it in within science class since science needs to be taught in a somewhat ahistorical manner unless you have a lot of time to study historical context and read primary sources. As such, I'd try to design projects which force students to confront the most important parts of science (confirmation bias, prediction vs induction, statistics, etc) directly, but I'm not entirely sure how I'd structure it. The 4-5 years or so prior to highschool would probably consist of some variation of Montessori education. edit; obvously there would be a very high degree of segregation in classes, partially based on intellligence but primarilly based on willingness to learn and general world-openness. edit2: as part of the science education thing, I'd probably have a weekly competition where some shoddy piece of scientific research thats been featured in the mainstream media (most likely evo-psych/social psychology, but anything really) gets given to anyone and the student who can point out the most methodological errors wins a prize. This has the dual effect of teaching scientific reasoning, and also brreeding a sense of scepticism so they can break out of that idiotically uncritical 'its true because science says so' mindset a lot of people have. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
No language tuition?
Edit: Foreign |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
I'll take the subjects which I did at GCSE :
English - as it is except having to do INDEPTH analysis of Shakesphere - ie be aware of what he did, admire how he rocked is all thats needed. Maths - teach with REAL LIFE examples, ie not "Sally saw a cliff when she was in her boat. The cliff was xxm high and she was xxm from the shore, how high is the cliff?". Replace with "Simon was building a roof and needs to know how much material to buy. If the width is xxm and the height is xxm, how much does he need?". Who the **** wants to know the heights of a cliff, use the internet ffs. Science - more practicals than theory. Yes people know the reasons WHY you shouldnt mix 2 chemicals together but to truely understand they need to see it happen. People learning from mistakes etc History - backgrounds to the country THEY are living in and politics of the past 200 years to understand HOW the world works. Who talks about Henry the 8ths 4ths wife sister these days anyway? Geography - HOW the world works. Global Warming. El Nino. None of these silly projects about coast lines and long shore drift. Not relevant at GCSE level. Drama - analysing the text THEN thinking about how to interpret it and then deliver it with NO direction from tutors / supervisers - let people think for them selves Food Tech - was fantastic. Cooking new things ROCK. No changes needed. RS - not such a bias towards one religion or another. Get local belivers in from the community to explain the religion as opposed to staff members who have bias towards one particular religion. edit: Foreign Languages - should NOT be forced on people. If they want to learn French or German or whatever then offer the facilities. If they don't want to, open up to new choices or extensions to taken courses PE - 3hrs a week of excerise, regardless of taking with GCSE level or not. Sort out the fatty's |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
I'm sure I'll regret this when I'm running through sewers trying to escape from police dogs in a desperate attempt to leave the country, but I really like Nodrog's plans, except for the lack of subjects that promote a wider cultural, economic and historical world view.
To boost foreign languages I'd turn it into a part language and a part comparative course on a country's politics, culture, music and the like. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
It'll go better like this.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I guess, from my view, mastering native language, written and spoken, is the most important part. If you can't express yourself, you're ****ed by default. Science in general is of little benefit to the Joe average, and those who are interested can carry out with it later on. A level of societal sciences including some philosophy to sort people out with some basic level of "understanding" is very good indeed, and I wouldn't undermine foreign languages either (even if optional). Cooking, sports, and such are things that really should be taught at home - the basics of life, really. I've never been very keen on sports at school, or food tech, but I can cook food myself, and I'm fit irregardless. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
1. Reasoned Discussions - based around understanding what objectivity is, and being able to concede to someone else's opinion in an argument.
2. Current Affairs/Politics - children should be more aware of things going on in the world, even if it's just at a local/national level. 3. Finance - From just writing-a-cheque to more complicated things like ISAs and High Interest Savings Accounts and Mortgages, this should be taught to people. I still don't know much about savings accounts and wish more had been covered on this when I was younger, instead of some of the crap we did in PSHE. I have a tutor group next year (year 11s) and while there is a curriculum for PSHE*, I might just ignore it and do my own thing. It's 1 hour per week and while there will be set things they need to know (which I WILL follow) I expect there'll be a lot of dross which I might skim over. *Physical, Social & Health Education - basically all that crap you used to do at school about smoking, bullying and drinking. Except the year 11s will have covered all of that. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
A good highschool maths class imo would focus around basic number theory which everyone can understand and appreciate (starting with stuff like proofs that root(2) is irrational and that theres no greatest prime number etc), before moving the students who are interested onto slightly more advanced number theory and introducing deeper/wonderful topics which dont need that much prior background to understand, like Turing machines and the halting problem, Mandelbrot sets, Cantor and infinity, philosophy of the axiom of choice, and so on. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
I agree about some of it being mind-numbingly boring, but then not everyone takes the maths in the same way. I loved it at school as my mind deals with mathematical concepts in the right way, but lots of people really struggle with how to solve equations (etc). This is why maths is one of the hardest subjects to teach (in my opinion), as you have to explain how to do it in a few different ways before your entire class will grasp the concept. We all think about it in different ways (even something simple like long multiplication is done differently in each person's head).. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
i hate to be the comedy dobber going into a serious thread but i had to say that nodrog actually scares me
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
They only focus on Goethe and Schiller. These two are great writers but there are not the only ones. Back then, I've read alot of 'Goethe and Schiller but did my german teacher even mentioned that people like Nestroy, Raimund, Ringelnatz or Morgenstern even existed? for the topic: 1 foreign language is needed. For most ppl this will be english but even native english speakers should learn a foreign language cause it's always handy to know a few words in another language. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
Even if they meet someone who doesn't speak Enlgish, the only words needed are 'beer', 'kebab' and '****'. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
Can you honestly say that you will never ever go any futher than Calais (or Magaluf whereever this might be)? If so, fine refuse to learn a second language. If not...... |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
The problem is, the government is so bogged down in making sure teachers teach that they don't actually let teachers get on with it effectively (UK).
For instance, SAT's are a big thing which really shouldn't be a big thing. The government spend half the school year pushing league tables and results down the teachers throats, demanding better and the other half of the year complaining that teachers are spending time teaching kids how to pass SAT's. A lot of the recording and assessing is bollocks and needs to be dropped so teachers can teach what they need to and not worry about pushing children (which isnt a good thing) into passing 'exams' at 7 years old. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
There are 2 main groups of languages (screw you finnland, and Hungary, you too) Indo-german languages and Roman languages. If you're able to speak one of each and someone who is talking another language and slows down you might find out if he is trying to tell you the name of his/her boy/girlfriend or if he/she is trying to tell you the way to the next trainstation. I for example have never learned a single word in dutch, but if a dutch speaker slows down I might understand him after some thinking due to the fact that i know (a lil bit) english and german. Quote:
So it might help you to understand someone who is talking to you in your native language in case this language is not his native language. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
The difficulties of teaching specific finance related products is that in 10 years time they might not be relevent. For instance pensions have changed alot in the past decade. What might be a good idea is having a course on the importance of sorting out your finances in general (actioning things now etc) but i don't see that course taking much time. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Broadly agree with some of Nod's points.
I'd aim to entirely phase out the compulsory element of education over time, but gradually enough to see the impact this had. From what I have seen and read (combined with dim memories of the past) children want to learn when they're young. Anyone whose spoken in any detail with a child will know how relentlessly curious they are - to the point where most adults end up resorting with "Because that's how God made it" - or "Because I said so". Attending school changes that for a lot of people. People are after all forced into an environment where they are all expected to learn the same subject at the same time in the same way. And so people's attitudes to subjects aren't based on free-experimentation of the arts and sciences but of whatever they happen to be force-fed along with thirty other kids. In adult life - as an employee - you are afforded a reasonable amount of privacy when it comes to personal appraisals, salary, and so on. Now I do not think much of that is necessary among adults because we should all be old enough to handle these things maturely. But what's bewildering is we expect the learning process to be a public affair for children - to the point where almost every single activity you do you are scored for. Christ, even the reading material was graded at my primary school - different colours and shapes showing levels of difficulty (printed on the spine and front of the book). So everyone laughed at the girl who was on "Red Triangle Books" two years after everyone else, and yes she used to cry quite a lot. I've no idea what became of the girl, but I think it's fair to assume she wasn't left with a wonderful attitude towards the education process (and possibly learning generally). Although the variety in talents between individuals seems vast, what seems to separate people most frequently (in terms of achieving their goals) is not talent but attitude. The current system does considerable damage to many individuals attitude to learning (and self-development generally) which is why it should be radically altered. People should have the opportunity to learn whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want. But they should be made to learn as little as possible. Yes, there are subjects I find myself wishing everyone had a proficiency in at times. But I tend to find on reflection these skills (that I imagine I might possess) are ones which were primarily self-taught. I did study computing briefly at school - which probably taught me one twentieth of what I learnt from mine and sb_olly's endless attempt to "hack" the school network in a similar period. I actively avoided studying computing later for fear it would extinguish my interest in the subject. So why do I imagine that everyone else will benefit from subjects which I essentially built up an understanding of outside the classroom? But yeah, nominate your pet subjects - let's force kids to learn Shakespeare, Plato, Dickens, history, politiics, how to write a budget or wherever else your bias leans. It doesn't matter. My personal selections are "Buffy the Slayer Studies", "The History of That Time I Thought I Lost My Wallet But It Turned Out I Left It On The Table" and "Why the Formatting of Datasets Really Is Quite Important Guys". The cultural side of the syllabus will involve everyone being forced to learn to sing/play guitar like they were in a shit punk band. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
Thats why I think its necessary to have some degree of compulsion when it comes to being introduced to a subject. Sure, noone can ever be forced to learn something they dont want to learn, but I think that (eg) being forced to attend a few introductory lectures on why something is important/interesting may in some cases open students minds to a discipline they either didnt know about previously or had wrong ideas about, and result in them wanting to look into it in more detail. Your pure-voluntary approach might work for subjects where everyone already has a fair idea what they involve (eg Physics/Maths), but it isnt going to work for important subjects which are either unknown or widely misunderstood. The same applies to the artistic sides of schooling. Left to their own devices, students are most likely going to be interested in what they grew up with, which will probably be shitty mainstream pop/rock music, and hollywood action films. However, I think whole point of education should be try to point to the existence of something beyond mainstream media-culture, and hopefully stimulate some sort of desire to explore further outside these extremely limited boundaries. If because of their upbringing someone isnt aware that (eg) music can be something more than background noise or that films dont have to be primarilly about 'entertainment', how are they likely to learn this for themselves without some kind of guidance? Yeah, having an environment based around free-play instead of compulsion is important, but it needs to be somewhat directed otherwise youre just going to end up perpetuating the status quo by pandering to pre-existing cultural biases without any attempt to show the existence of other modes of relating to the world. Theres a middle-ground between leaving students entirely to fend for themselves, and shoving shakespeare down their throats until theyve lost whatever desire they might have had to read and enjoy literature. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
YOUNG children love to learn, sure. By the time they're 12-13 though, school becomes a social place for them. The school system is in place because this ridiculous myth that you can adapt a laissez-faire attitude to teaching teenagers simply isn't true. Sure, it would work for some pupils. Those pupils will excel whichever way they are taught though. Do you honestly, seriously believe that a kid with ADHD would happily be left to study and learn if you just gave them a bit of guidance and left them to their own devices? :( |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
I think I'll pass. I have lots of mathematics and econometrics coming up in uni in autumn anyways.
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
whilst i mostly agree with dante's sentiments (and nod on the whole) tomkat is entirely right, it's only in the extremely rare cases that there are students under the age of 16 (and even then, i doubt it really) that are mentally strong enough to learn fairly independently. however, there should definitely be an inclusion of an idea such as 'free study' periods except something with a better name and with someone to supervise or at least set a guide line for kids to explore under with their own interests instead of disregarding the time completely and using it as more time for socialising.
i'm obviously not yet sure how university learning works but from sixth form onwards learning should really be independent unless it's vocational education and specifically set syllabuses are not a good idea at all. something like nodrog's weekly competition but expanded upon and in much more depth is what i'd find fitting. oh at some point, some education with regards to how 'life works' with all bureaucratic shit everyone has to get through such as taxing and pretty much most other reasonably important things everyone has to know would help in shitty 'careers' lessons instead of re-doing your simplistic CV at the age of 15/16 70 times throughout the course of a year and trying to decide what job you want already because seriously noone that young needs to have decided by then already |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
Just take it as a compliment that you can understand my utterly bad mixture of 2 languages which are completly different to your native. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
Besides, education doesn't need to cater to the wishes of employers, in my opinion. edit: Bedda, you are somehow ignoring the half of europe, where people speak slavic languages. :) |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
no, i'm aware of the educational system and how kids work in places such as india as well (which pretty much sums up most of the east) and there it's the exact opposite with complete focus on studies and the syllabuses are even worse than over here with rigid and forced set ups. the focus there is on a repetitive and endurance based scale of knowledge feeling and testing in exams, nothing else. other than this students are extremely limited in anything but forced learning, even in the majority of their spare time just to pass (or excel) in the exams due to the sheer size of knowledge they have to memorise.
i'm going off track there but the point i'm making is i'm not convinced it's a bad thing for someone to want to socialise, that's another aspect education should function to develop (although indirectly) |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
I know as a teacher qualifications must seem very important to you, but they're not the be all and end all of the job application process. Quote:
Quote:
Most people have problems concentrating on things they find boring, or don't see the point of. If someone asked me to copy out the Encyclopaedia Britanica I'd want to jump out the window after line three. Yet I can sit in front of a computer for hours at a time for other things. Speculating hugely, I'd guess that dopamine release during activities I enjoy / find interesting keeps me on track - this is why ritalin / adderall seems to work for some ADD/ADHD cases. At any rate, I'm not sure you're grasping the implications of what I'm saying. There will be some people who wouldn't learn in the class-room, and would play football or "mess around" all day instead of reading / doing other work. And guess what - that's OK too. Screaming and shouting and stamping our collective feet until everyone behaves the same way like good little drones doesn't actually seem to work (or do our society any good). |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
Quote:
It's very nice, nod and Dante, to think that all children are eager to learn and if you give them the opportunity and tools that they'll happily sit there and become learned in something they want to find out more about. The sad truth is that most kids would choose David Beckham Studies or Beauty Therapy as they simply aren't mature enough emotionally, mentally or educationally to be able to sit down and work independently. They need pushing and guiding through their teenage years as this is the BEST way of educating them. Of course there will always be a few exceptions, but please take off the rose-tinted glasses and assume that the average 14 year old has the same view on life as you do. For the most part, kids want to have fun. The best way of educating them is to use the subject (for example, mine is IT) and put it in a situation where they want to use it to learn. Laissez-Faire doesn't work. Maybe it's the culture, maybe it's the parents, maybe it's the ethos of schools. But it wouldn't change overnight anyway, and with your method of "leave them to it", you'd end up with a bunch of self-centred degenerates. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
the point they're making is if you brought up a new generation from nursery and such itself with a new set of ideals and philosophies in education, children won't be as they are now as they grow up. though i do agree until a certain point, kids should certainly be guided and pushed (from the age of 7-16 or so especially) in the sense that they will be ABLE to learn independently as well as learning some key core curriculum such as the one nod suggested in his original post. from 16 onwards, a lot of other doors should obviously be opened but that's already detailed in my first post in this thread.
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Incidentally, a school does operate in the way Dante is suggesting. There's only one in the UK currently (to my knowledge). It's called Summerhill School.
(take a look at the OFSTED report - for a private school of ~50 pupils, a 74% A*-C record is pretty crappy) |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
TK, will you stop assuming that schooling begins at 14 when it's clearly a predicate of both of the arguments you are opposing that schooling is problematic from far before that point.
Your rejection of Summerhill School because it does relatively poorly in GCSEs to some apparant standard of excellence is disingenious also, as you're not comparing like with like. The sheer amount of learning by rote that GCSEs require, which does not particularly feature in many university courses, is surely not the best way to test a system designed to oppose the mere concept of learning by rote? There's a lot of tosh on both sides of this argument. Just because you studied and have been employed as a teacher for a certain age group doesn't make you the end authority on what children think and want. My mother, for example, has been a teacher at a Prep School (gasp, the relevent age group) for many, many years and is generally opposed to the status quo that you support, preferring instead something more akin to nod's suggestions. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Is it a private prep school with <20 pupils per class, by any chance?
I don't oppose Dante's ideas - they'd be great if they worked, but they wouldn't work. Not in the size classes that we have at the moment in non-private schools. You're right - the problem lies in preparatory schools as kids start their learning there. Younger kids are even more immature though, so how would you structure "independent learning" with them? Especially when it's 20 pupils to 1 teacher. That's a lot of independent minds all whirring and asking questions. (also I assumed Dante/nod were talking about secondary schools as that's what this topic started as) |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
Quote:
Even if they hadn't mentioned that, when their argument is basically "schooling is structured in a way that disencourages a child to learn, here's what I think should be done differently", why you would think that this would only suddenly start to apply in the middle of their time at school is beyond me. |
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
If he doesn't agree with me I'm giving him 100 lines on "Why TomKat is more alpha than me"
|
Re: What Should be Taught in Schools?
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:23. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018