Do schools teach the right things?

[Nick]

Traditionally, after Kindergarden, schools focus on academics above everything. You're judged on how well you memorize facts, how well you read, how well you right, and how well you solve problems. Do you think this is appropriate, or do you feel that schools should focus on providing a learning experience that isn't just textbook and geared towards those who are academically successful?

 

[Rogue planet]

how well you right

trolling or typo?

Here in the UK (I have no idea about other countries) once you reach the final years of secondary school, they offer an alternative form of education for those who aren't as academically gifted. They offer vocational studies, where you can begin learning a trade; plumbing, electronics, engineering, design and technology, childcare, woodwork, amongst others. Personally, I think they should offer this at an earlier age. Some children know the kind of route they want to take from a very young age, and I don't think it's right to force them down the academic route until the age of about 15.

Along with a lack of trade, things such as art (and everything within art, acting, music, design, etc.), public services, economics, textiles, environmental studies, politics, and other things I can't remember right now, are severely under-represented within the education system. These are the sorts of things that society relies on, the pillars of society for centuries and they are esentially ignored; I have no idea whether it's because the government are completely retarded or because they have an ulterior motive.

Schools are simply geared towards English, maths and science, which simply is not broad enough for a number of students. In my school, it was the same 10-20% of students who were in the top classes for all of these subjects (and I was amongst them, so I'm not biased) whilst the other students were essentially abandoned and left to achieve poor grades; to add even more insult the school actually BOASTED about this statistic within a local paper, it's utterly shameful.

People are vastly different; at the moment if you aren't academically gifted, then you're automatically dismissed and sent into a downward spiral of failure and lack of direction, it causes far more problems than it's worth. There should be schools geared to cater towards a variety of talents, rather than just a few. Even if there are separate schools for different kinds of students, so be it; rather than just bunch everyone into the same school where if you fail you're destined to fail forever.

I strongly believe it's not the students failing here, it's the education system that is failing them.

 

[Guest123_x1]

As Vendak said, not everybody is academically gifted, and set to succeed in high school and college. Despite what establishment politicians (especially the liberals) want people to believe, college is not for everybody.
Also, there's no doubt that for the past several years, establishment politicians have been emphasizing math and science like no other thing in the world, while paying lip service (or neglecting altogether) to other subjects, such as civics, economics, (both of those past two my big two things) history, and the arts-the excuse always being "to prepare students to compete in the global economy" (read: submit to the New World Order).
If we're going to reform high school so that it focuses on preparing everyone for college, then we should be starting at Kindergarten and phasing in the reforms one year at a time. Starting at the top is just foolish, and there's no excuse for it.
We need to put more emphasis on actual student learning and de-emphasize standardized testing (which is being increasingly emphasized by politicians as "needed" to "ensure" that students are "globally competitive").
We also need to make sure that vocational (career and technical education) programs are adequately funded, so that students participating in those programs come out ready for the jobs that those programs teach about. (I am a strong advocate of CTE programs, and attended CTE programs towards the end of high school, although I didn't get much out of them, mostly because the program(s) were run by a city school district notorious for poor student achievement and a high dropout rate.)

 

[Ghost]

I don't believe most do in my local area. However, some teachers do focus on what material should be learned. I live in California, USA and the quality of the material we learn could be better. We have a lazy school environment and many students that slack off.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Kindergarten is pretty damn useless. I went in there knowing how to read, count, and write already. At home my parents would read to me. I would do puzzles. Draw. Just, play and be a child. Kindergarten is... teaching you to do that for some reason. You should already know how.

What I would have appreciated throughout elementary school was a stronger focus on math and science. And earlier

 

[Mr. X]

What I hated about school was that most times you spent the first half of the year reviewing crap that you were taught way before.

Anyway, kinda related story. 8th grade english focused on writing and stuff. Guess who didn't like to write. And guess who had the worst handwriting in the entire school? Yep. Me. Guess who failed because of it? Yep. Me again. I had to take summer school because of it. The person doing summer school for 7th and 8th grade level English? A 4th grade English teacher. Guess what material we covered? Yep. 4th grade English. *facedesk*

Still, even funnier? Out of the ~40 something in my grade group in summer school, we were all in their for English. No one failed math. Or science. Just English. So basically, we could all do math. Most of us could recite page for page that years science book. Just can't speak/write/whatever in our own language. (I live in Arkansas, the real redneck parts... Which explains the English part... But not the math or science part.)

 

[LadySurreal]

Find it awkward that you guys say this. Maybe that's because I was gifted with amazing teachers in my High School years. Middle School is, yes, mediocre. The teachers there don't know what they are teaching and oversensitive soccer moms are the dominant group of educators. Elementary school was unfortunate as well. This is just the teachers, to be on topic...
By the time I reach high school, most of my teachers concentrate more on us understanding the subject than memorizing it. My AP World History Teacher *purrrrrr* once told the class that he failed as a teacher if we memorize his lectures, but succeeded if we learn from it. He tends to give us the other side of the story (Yes people, that includes WWII in the eyes of the Axis) and add in some additional facts so we get to understand the current issue better than just "Hitler invaded Poland" but rather "Due to having lost their territory during the Great War, debt to the winners and their mines being controlled by the French and Belgians, Hitler went on a crusade much like how the Native Americans were trying against the Americans settling west, regaining their land such as the Polish Corridor". By the time I graduated, I understood and learned new things (Like how in AP US history, my teacher taught us how Carnegie and the Rockefeller make money instead of just saying they did). Do schools teach rightly? Depends.


Although with budgets being cut, don't expect anything good coming out of it. Not to mention the common student would rather be a slave than a citizen. By that I mean slaves are uneducated so they are easily fooled and manipulated while a citizen gets the benefit of education or at least something of the sort which makes them harder to control. Douglas tricked his master's wife to teach him how to read and write, it empowered him and soon he overwhelm his very master, the power of education can not be underestimated. Now that most kids are not even interested in being citizens, teachers won't even try.

 

[Oryx]

Also, there's no doubt that for the past several years, establishment politicians have been emphasizing math and science like no other thing in the world, while paying lip service (or neglecting altogether) to other subjects, such as civics, economics, (both of those past two my big two things) history, and the arts-the excuse always being "to prepare students to compete in the global economy" (read: submit to the New World Order).

But to be fair though, there does need to be an emphasis on those. There's no shortage of people going into the world with an interest in the arts or history, but there is definitely a shortage of people going into the world with an interest in math, science, engineering. Because these things are inherently very difficult, so most students will reject them as options, which is why they need to be emphasized. They can stop being emphasized once the students themselves stop shying away from those fields, because even if you think that the only reason math and science and encourage has to do with the global economy, it's also a pretty important job for students to pick in general. If people stopped becoming musicians, I doubt the world would grind to a halt, but if people stopped becoming engineers? Probably.

I think high school should be more like a mini-college, tbh. Right now high school is like primary school in that it just teaches you a broad overview of topics, designed to prepare you for either college or just living out in the world. But I would only do that for the first two years, then let the students pick what they want to concentrate on. Still have requirements of course because even in college they have those, but allow students to have a much more personal feel in their schedules. Or, if the student isn't planning on going to college by then, allow them work study with half basic classes that are useful in the real world (algebra/geometry, lit), and then get out early to go work.

 

[Sydian]

Kindergarten is pretty damn useless. I went in there knowing how to read, count, and write already. At home my parents would read to me. I would do puzzles. Draw. Just, play and be a child. Kindergarten is... teaching you to do that for some reason. You should already know how.

But not all parents do this. I also went into preschool and kindergarten knowing most, if not all, of what was taught there. Though I'm sure mom only sent me to preschool because she wanted me to get used to what would be going on the next 13 years of my life, lol. And kindergarten is a requirement here, I believe. But like I was saying, some parents don't bother teaching their kids anything like this. They assume "eh, the kid will go to school, so why should I bother?" and that's all she wrote. That's why kindergarten is there.

Also wanna point out the ridiculous levels of math that have to be taken at some point. I don't need to know the square root of a number raised to the power of what the hell divided by the sum of the difference of the quotient of stupidity. Where does that get me in life? Point is, there does come a time where you're taught things that you will never really have to use or know. But only the student can really determine what they need and don't need. I'm just getting off track here though. I need a nap. v_v

 

[femtrooper]

No. I am a university student and I LOVE school, but I think that they appeal to only one kind of student. Also, they expect you to be a generalist which verrrrry few are. I am a Sociology major, and Sociology was not offered in my high school, like most I assume. Most courses I take in university were not offered in high school. Math, Science, Social Studies...they are all jokes. It puts kids in categories and you HAVE to do it. I wish they offered more diverse courses, like Anthropology in high school.

 

[Oryx]

No. I am a university student and I LOVE school, but I think that they appeal to only one kind of student. Also, they expect you to be a generalist which verrrrry few are. I am a Sociology major, and Sociology was not offered in my high school, like most I assume. Most courses I take in university were not offered in high school. Math, Science, Social Studies...they are all jokes. It puts kids in categories and you HAVE to do it. I wish they offered more diverse courses, like Anthropology in high school.

To be fair, I don't think that's because schools don't want to teach more things. Imagine if you had the money to only teach 5 subjects in a school, what would you teach? Math, English, Science, Music? When you're on limited cash, the basics are the best way to go because Math may not be relevant to everyone's life path but it's relevant to all engineers and all scientists and all mathematicians. What's your proposed solution to the budget issues plaguing schools to allow them to offer more creative classes such as Anthropology?

 

[Esper]

But to be fair though, there does need to be an emphasis on those. There's no shortage of people going into the world with an interest in the arts or history, but there is definitely a shortage of people going into the world with an interest in math, science, engineering. Because these things are inherently very difficult, so most students will reject them as options, which is why they need to be emphasized.

It almost sounds like you're implying that math and science are harder subjects compared to history and the arts.

Every school is going to be different. My high school had some particular gems. One of the teachers taught economics and in addition to the supply and demand stuff he taught students how to do their taxes. That always struck me as a good example of teaching things that are important. Another one taught civics/government and included a bit on how to contact your representatives and get involved in local issues that mattered to you.

I do like the idea of having a more college-like freedom with high school, something akin to taking your general education at a university, but that has problems, too, such as classroom space and so on. Letting kids work instead of going to school would worry me because I'd be afraid a lot would do it just to get out of being at school when they might still excel in school if they had to be there.

 

[Blue Nocturne]

I think a problem in England (can't really speak for anywhere else) is that there is too much of an emphasis on GCSE Grades. The problem is that these only cater to certain students, particularly in more interpretative subjects such as English and Art. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I'm a good writer. However, I didn't do as well in English as in more defined subjects such as Maths and Science because I found the specifications needlessly one-dimensional. This is going to sound awful, but I was better than the GCSE, my teacher was pretty explicit about this.

I also think it's really telling that, from all the schools I've experienced, they always boast their A*-C pass rate while completely neglecting to mention what else they offer students or even what percentage achieved A*-A's. The real problem here is trying to teach to restrictive exams, not real skills.

 

[Oryx]

It almost sounds like you're implying that math and science are harder subjects compared to history and the arts.

Every school is going to be different. My high school had some particular gems. One of the teachers taught economics and in addition to the supply and demand stuff he taught students how to do their taxes. That always struck me as a good example of teaching things that are important. Another one taught civics/government and included a bit on how to contact your representatives and get involved in local issues that mattered to you.

I do like the idea of having a more college-like freedom with high school, something akin to taking your general education at a university, but that has problems, too, such as classroom space and so on. Letting kids work instead of going to school would worry me because I'd be afraid a lot would do it just to get out of being at school when they might still excel in school if they had to be there.

It's more rigorous in general, yes. Which is why so few people want to take math and science related courses, why the government and schools have to practically beg to get students interested in these kinds of courses, etc. If they were at the same difficulty level of a major in, say, English, then there would be no problem getting students to want to take those majors, with the job opportunities available there already and other such things. Most people drop out of those majors not because they no longer have an interest in the major or no longer want to go into the jobs afterwards, but because they can't hack it because it's too difficult, so they switch.

 

[Broken_Arrow]

here's the right question IMO.."does schools teach anything worthy nowadays?"

 

[BUG♥CATCHER★BREEZE]

Hmmm... (this is on the Irish school system, where I spent most of my education)

In the first year of school, yeah I was able to read before that, but I think it just helps you settle in, like pre-school.

I disagree, there has to be MORE emphasis on maths and science. I could drop science completely at age 13 (the first year of secondary school)... which I did! Not cos I hated it or anything or I was really poor at it, I just preferred my other subjects.

Maths is compulsory until the final exams - and is offered at 3 levels. Higher, Ordinary and Foundation.

Higher is what is required for engineering, physics etc. in higher education, and isn't compulsory, but is usually recommended for general science students. It gives a decent enough grounding to those subjects. The problem was the Ordinary level paper.

If you start off with it (cos you're not inclined in maths) then it's an irrelevant course - if one wants to do a Mathsy course in future, one would be doing the Higher exam, not a watered down version of it.

If you drop to the lower course, at least it's the same stuff as the higher exam, rather than if they had to change to a 'real-world' maths course.

So, logically, you cannot have a 'real world' maths course because it wouldn't facilitate people to drop from the 'non-real world' (which I've always thought is really silly, because a lot of occupations need that type of maths) maths.

Because of that, I can see how maths is sort of unfair, but everyone needs some grounding at the end of the day. Even though in schools (in my experience), because of this, even if it isn't teaching a isn't the right thing for a lot of people.

Ireland is trying to market itself as a 'Smart Economy'... "yeah everyone's really expensive to employ, but look how good they are at pharmaceuticals!"

You'd be surprised that Arts students are needed too in the real world. Ireland has a real shortage of people who speak a real second language (i.e. not Irish... *rolls eyes*) yet a European language is taught in every school.

:P

 

[Black Ice]

I think of school as a way for students to figure out what they want to do. You have your biology and chemistry courses for medical students, government and politics for law students, math for engineers and physics, and everything else for fine arts or whatever. That part's fine, but they really do need to put in more emphasis on general life skills and basic facts. I see too many stupid things happen every day because people don't know things they should know.

 

[Empoleon144]

Oh Boy.

Time for me to dig up my notes about school...

I believe school is not an institution for learning, if it were still meant as such it would obviously be considered a useless waste of money by the politicians and would have been overhauled by now. However, it is okay at doing what it is supposed to be doing, which is keeping children busy. Adults have their jobs, but children could cause as much trouble to the system as adults, so they implemented school under the guise of educating our young, which it does, to a point. However, it doesn't teach the harder things to teach, those that are actually important, life skills. A basic command of the English language (8-9th Gradeish) and Algebra are fine, but more advanced topics, and 80% of History and Science are not needed unless you plan to specialize on a specific field that requires that. And so, we now have a semi-successful way to keep children from becoming delinquents.

 

[Oryx]

Time for me to dig up my notes about school...

I believe school is not an institution for learning, if it were still meant as such it would obviously be considered a useless waste of money by the politicians and would have been overhauled by now. However, it is okay at doing what it is supposed to be doing, which is keeping children busy. Adults have their jobs, but children could cause as much trouble to the system as adults, so they implemented school under the guise of educating our young, which it does, to a point. However, it doesn't teach the harder things to teach, those that are actually important, life skills. A basic command of the English language (8-9th Gradeish) and Algebra are fine, but more advanced topics, and 80% of History and Science are not needed unless you plan to specialize on a specific field that requires that. And so, we now have a semi-successful way to keep children from becoming delinquents.

What subjects would you suggest slashing to teach this "life skills" course? What would make this class more effective than a good upbringing from a parent, where they can teach you not only how people live in general but how people live in your specific area/culture? How would this course account for distinct differences in families and cultures/religions/areas of life? What would it teach?

 

[Empoleon144]

I feel that it should be more like college. Teaching Computer/Internet Skills, Wood Working, Acting, Leadership, Politics... things that are actually useful, instead of a mandatory course of Hinanese History for Americans (no offence, I would only use an example from my bloodline)