What classes should be taught in school, and WHY

{This is spawned from the Randman's call for nonSecular education... thread, where I started talking about education itself in a response to holmes' summary message}

---

What classes should be taught in school, what classes are unnecessary, and WHY? I want to have a discussion of school curriculum in general, with the underlying question being "what is school for anyway?"All discussion of the underlying question should be addressed via concrete proposals of what set of classes are needed in schooling (especially ones we don't have), and what set of classes should be cut out because we don't need them (and we want to make room for new ones)?BenThis message has been edited by Ben, Friday, 2005/11/18 08:23 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

{This is spawned from the Randman's call for nonSecular education... thread, where I started talking about education itself. This was a response to holmes' summary message}

---

Well, you can see that I disagree with you strongly on this one. Too much responsibility in the parent's hands, there has to be a system of "checks and balances" in education. It's not uncommon for parents to have a limited scope of cultural knowledge. It just doesn't work in today's globalized world.I'll expand a bit more on this below. I probably couldn't disagree more.What is the use of language? Do you mean a foreign language, literature, or study of our own native language? I assume you mean study of our first language. How is that helpful at all? Vocabulary is best learned in an applied environment; just study those applied environments. Every discipline has different jargon and vocabulary; why focus on expanding vocabulary without a specific subject area to increase it for? Maybe I'm totally missing your point... but when you say "language", what can I do but guess? As for logic... I completely disagree that the study of abstract logic better equips students with the ability to make logical deductions. The ability to apply logic is very contextual; i.e. logic is an applied subject. Even though it seems best to teach it abstractly, it just doesn't work--ability to do logic in different contexts correlates with academic experience, but not with whether you've taken a logic course¹. For those who have less education, ability in logic is extremely contextual.No way a course in abstract logic is going to accomplish what you want. Logic has to be taught in applied, contextual settings.And math... what is math good for these days? If there's one utility for computers, it's to do math for us. I don't think math inspires great creative thinking... those who are interested in mathematical subjects, such as ... math, physics, computational modelling... that's fine. But I think we teach math much more than we need to. Who needs geometry?And again, I'd strongly suggest that applied math would be much more useful than math theory. It's amazing how hard word problems are, even for those who have the necessary math. The world is word problems; if we're not teaching the skills to solve such problems, we're not teaching useful skills. Yes! An applied setting. Teaching in context. I love it. Let's do that. We need to get some information on the types of jobs that are available in the US. I have a real hard time believing that the contents of science class are useful in any jobs.Now, critical thinking, such as hypothesis testing, is a great skill applicable in all sorts of jobs. I'm all for teaching that. Science class is a good applied setting for teaching such a skill. See, to me, these are necessary. You need to situate yourself in the world, give context to your own life. Without it, I just see "big fish in a big pond" syndrome; believing that your local community is somehow representative of larger parts of the world. Not only that, but having a lack of concern... or thought about the rest of the world.Applied history and applied geography. I love it. History not as facts, but as decisions, as tangible cultures, as having an active hand in shaping the world you see before you. Teach geography as world travel, teach it in the context of neighboring countries, how they relate, what kinds of relations can exist and where they do exist, how different cultures find different ways to relate to each other. Let students personify different cultures, different relations, propose solutions to problems. Sounds ambitious... but kids can be smarter in their ADD simplified ways than adults can be... because adults create hangups for themselves. I agree. Some degree of facts need to be taught, so that a "cultural literacy" is maintained and people (past, present, and future) can communicate efficiently and accurately. But I agree with your basic point. I don't mean to be insulting... but I do feel this stance is a cop-out. Yes, it's hard to choose, yes, you're damned no matter how you choose... that doesn't mean it's right to ditch the enterprise. It just means every choice is imperfect. Making no choice is just worse.You can probably guess by now--I don't believe belief should be taught in a factual, unapplied manner. It has to be contextual, applied... teach cultures, teach differences, teach celebrations of the good sides of different cultures. Hell, make class a party every day for all I care. The most basic point is to forge an interest in other cultures, to foster the idea that other cultures aren't foreign or strange, but familiar, knowable, not a priori threatening.At the same time, as I mentioned above, it is important to give people context to their lives. I think teaching about Christianity, some historical, some cultural, is a very important part of establishing that context. This is something worth discussing with randman. I hope you can see that what I really want to be taught is what can provide useful context to people's lives, and to help them relate.

---

¹ Kurtz, Kenneth J., Gentner, Dedre, & Gunn, Virginia. (1999). Reasoning. In D.E. Rumelhart & B.M. Bly (Eds). Cognitive Science: Handbook of Perception and Cognition (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press, p. 154.

---

I've never written such a long reply, and I haven't adequately argued why all this stuff belongs in school and not at home. Suffice it to say that families don't always have the necessary knowledge or perspective in order to deliver these things to their kids. And it's a critical element in a functioning society. So... sounds like something that should be mandatory to me. Put it in schools.Anyway, I'll just let you deal with what's here, and we can go forward from that. I know there are points that I've only addressed weakly, but ... best to move on as is.Ben

The following is my reply to that post. I'm assuming much of this is relevant as I was trying to follow your lead during this portion of my reply. If it isn't, let me know. Many of my answers would likely be the same, even in the broader context. Though obviously I might want to address how much more the US can teach, than simple basic education... Here it goes...To be honest, there is a lot of stuff that I think could be worthwhile making room for in education. I think our nation has the ability to educate its children beyond minimal basics. I would not even oppose allowing more in depth study of religion within a core educational program. Its just that that is not synonymous with what is necessary for a basic education. That means it is desired for a better than basic education. Oh, we are in complete disagreement on this one. To me there is no such thing as too much responsibility in parents' hands. Education is a service provided by the community for the benefit of parents. It is not a tool used by the govt to raise children properly.I agree that parents cannot have the capability of teaching every single subject under the sun, but enculturing them is not a problem. There is no prereq for helping children understand who they are and where they are living. You seem to be asking for a specific perspective to be taught to kids. As much as I agree with that perspective and will be instructing my kids that way, I am under no illusion that others want that kind of instruction for their own children and indeed randman's desires seem to be quite the opposite. Yes, I meant the primary language though for nations whose language is not part of international trade/diplomacy, they might also be wise to learn one of those as well.Foreign languages can be useful and part of a more developed education, but truly are not necessary for an adequate education for life in one's own nation.The rest of your discussion, including both logic and math are about method of education and not what is being taught. I wholeheartedly agree that the majority of education should be taught in application rather than strict theory or terminology.In fact I was lucky in my college education to get a professor who taught logic almost primarily through application to various situations (that is arguments made in many different fieds). And whereas I used to hate word problems I eventually came to realize exactly what you said, the world is word problems.Of course I don't think there is nothing to basic theory and terminology. A combo or both is probably the best bet.In the end analysis, the subjects or tools developed would be language (the ability to communicate), logic (the ability to properly communicate/understand ideas as well as analyze relations between facts... essentially qualitative phenomena), and math (understanding the logical relation between quantitative phenomena). Apparently you aren't a do it yourselfer. Knowing geometry has been very helpful for determining quantities and measurements of materials needed. Besides which it is useful for many potential future career choices.Here's a simple word problem for you... You need to repaint your apartment because there has been some damage and otherwise you'll forfeit your deposit. Figure out how much paint you need and the cost of that paint. This includes repainting the ceiling which contains several large circular fixtures that can't be painted. Okay I'm not asking you to solve the problem, but you can see where math and geometry suddenly get more valuable. Basic chemistry and physics are useful in real life, as well as many jobs as we become more chemically and technologically advanced. I guess one does not need to have any formal training in anything, and simply be allowed to learn in real life situations. Perhaps we should move back toward guilds? Not necessarily being sarcastic with that. It's possible that on the job education has become more useful (again) than theoretical primary education.I might add that any job that involves potentially mixing chemicals, such as janitors, can benefit from knowing a bit about chemistry. I knew a dumbass who collapsed his lungs due to a lack of knowledge regarding chemicals.And by the way, ANYONE in medicine needs to know chemistry. I have never been more frightened than tutoring premed students and discovering they did not know how to properly calculate concentrations, and thus to properly dilute solutions or reach proper volumes. Them's are chemicals they put in our bodies! You NEED to do this? I don't think that's true at all. It is useful but one can have a context regarding ones life, even a proper one, without knowing about the rest of the world. I certainly believe that leaders of society should have this broader perspective, and communicate that to their representatives, but am not sure this is necessary for one to have a proper basic education.To me if one has a proper basic education one is the situated to deal with these other issues as one encounters them in real life.But don't get me wrong. I agree that this is useful and I would want my schools to include such education so that they can have a better than basic education.And in fact I think the US should think of having more programs to send kids overseas in order to experience other cultures firsthand. Exchange programs can do much to educate our population as well as educate other populations. The problem is that most other nations do have this, but the US doesn't. Agreed. I'm not sure it is worse, becausing making no choice simply means they experience culture as they normally would in life. Its not like they return to a box after school.In fact with the increase in communications technology kids are being introduced to people of different cultures, or potentially can, in ways that go beyond what they would encounter in school.I never learned a thing about society from school, and having a teacher tell me about what context my life has would generally have driven me to tune them out. Why is real life outside school less an important avenue of learning one's context? Xianity was alien to me from the first time I was taught it, up until I finally decided I couldn't fake it any more. Other than how they act toward me now, which I will pick up in papers more than from school, they have no connection to me. That is knowledge about them has not put my life in any "context".My kids could easily grow up not knowing anything about Xians, besides the fact that they exist, and do just fine. I have had friends, and indeed my current girlfriend, that knew nothing about Xianity other than they have churches and worship some guy named Jesus, and were quite intelligent and capable in what they did.Learning later about Xianity in more detail, did not make them happy in the least (it was repulsive to them), and it did not make them any better at what they did.Religion is a personal journey. It is best left that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thanks for mvoing your post here. I was hoping you might do so while I was busy replying.

---

"Raise children properly" is a really ambiguous statement in my eyes, so I'll try to clear my POV up here.In the current thread about gov't & evc, I realized that there's requirement that people understand the ideals and content that grounds our government and our country. Without that, we live as a divided nation under one name.To some degree, we try to deal with this in school with classes about government and history. But it's not enough; classes are usually too factual, focused on history, not applied. They also don't focus enough on one of the basic requirements pervasive throughout all of the US government documents--tolerance. Tolerance of other cultures, other religions. Without tolerance, there's no ability to participate in the culture, ideals, and laws as shaped by the constitution.As we've seen, people have varying degrees of tolerance. Even though it's a REQUIREMENT for upholding our basic documents, like the Constitution. Kids have to have an education in tolerance. It's not optional.Not all parents are capable of providing this. I don't see it as any different than training in math or science. Tolerance is a skill. It can be a frame of mind, but it need not be. Frame of mind (i.e. religion, attitude, etc) is taught at home informally. But tolerance is a requirement for participating in what the US is. Without it, you can't be a functioning member of the society. To me, that's the basic purpose of school--to produce functioning members of the society. How can our country be a "melting pot" without tolerance, without familiarity with cultures? How can we require religious tolerance without exposure? How do you suppose a parent could even accomplish such a monumental task? And how can we allow parents not to do so? How can we require learning of algebra but not learning on the necessary mechanisms to create a coherent society under the laws which we've been born under? Glad we basically agree on this... but I do believe that simply listing subjects to be taught, without talking about methodology, is not the right thing. I am fully against teaching abstract logic, as it is taught now. It's totally, utterly useless... until someone has been taught contextual, applied logic.I just can't help repeating myself on that point... because... bad design of education ticks me off. Come on, this is totally optional. Anybody who has an interest can learn it. Dads can pass this on to their kids, without the overhead of all the theoretical mumbo-jumbo. Here's the most reliable, everyday solution: bring the measurements of your apartment, along with a color chip, to the hardware store. Say "I need to paint my room this color."Or ask your neighbor, friend, brother.It'd be really useful (I think more useful) for me to be able to repair my own car, at least to a basic degree (change oil, plugs, belts). Should we teach that in school? Maybe. Seems much more useful than geometry to me. I can't find any example of a common task that requires knowledge of geometry, or how it makes critical parts of our lives much easier. I just see "nice to have" status. Hi, elective course. I meet many more people who say "yeah, I learned that in high school... but I forget" or "I should know that but I don't." It's due to the fact that what's being taught is not being used. There is something to be said for getting a general education, being able to choose what vocation interests you, and working towards that. I think school education is useful for allowing that. I don't see how making chemistry a required course is helpful. Maybe the solution is to offer general science courses that talk about the uses or applications of the different sciences, and then make maybe one science course mandatory. Maybe my beef is just with the fact that all courses are theoretical, without a grounding in their practical use in the world. That's true. Chemicals are readily available. But seems to me a "basic safety" thing, on the level of "don't stick your finger in a light socket" and "don't touch a hot stove." I'd rather see parents teach this basic stuff, like "don't drink bleach" and "don't mix X with Y".I think you're real hit-n-miss on whether this gets taught in an actual chemistry class anyway. I agree, jeez! But high school chemistry wouldn't be enough anyway. This is a call for chemistry classes to be added to the premed curriculum. Not necessary for everybody. We live in a globalized world. You can't understand how the world operates today without having a globalized perspective. "Big fish in a big pond syndrome" means you don't have the basic skill to fit into the world you live in. You won't ask the right questions. You won't offer the right suggestions. You won't take the right direction. Perspective guides all choices, from vocation to how you treat people to what you choose to read.Context is necessary. It's OK for some people not to have it, but if you have a nation that lacks perspective, you're screwed. I feel we're a nation that lacks perspective. I also feel we're screwed. This is what I'm trying to say. I really think the things I've listed are basic skills and ideas that enable people to deal with issues properly as they encounter them. Without these things, there is a lack of coherency in response.We do live in a single country, single culture. The basics needed to operate in that culture, to maintain the integrity of the culture are "basic education." First of all, you can't tell kids stuff. But you can get them interested in stuff, you can show them via action why things are important.It's important for school because it's not optional. It's a critical element that we all need to share. What is school if not a place where the critical elements of developing in this culture are taught to all? Strange, because i've in posts by schraf and crash over and over how you cannot live in the US and not be familiar with christianity (a claim made by another poster). Supposedly it's pervasive.And isn't an understanding of Christianity helpful in understanding where a lot of cultural ideas, current news and governemnt issues come from? Isn't understanding Christianity a critical part in figuring out how to find a solution? You can't make compromises with someone that you don't understand... unless you have a really understanding arbitrer who everybody trusts A LOT. I guess I would say... when things run smoothly, there's a limited amount that each of us needs to know. When times are harder, when problems need to be solved... that's the time that something like this would come in useful.I'm running out of steam ... sorry for the useless sentences I'm starting to write. I just don't think everybody is so lucky to have the opportunity for a journey, nor so introspective as you or your girlfriend might be. A simple lack of introspection of the issue easily leads to behavior that would be considered intolerance. This nation requires you to take the journey. Some people do it because... they are like that. Others would never take a walk without being prodded heavily to do so.Ugh. I'm exhausted Take it easy.BenAbE: lame subtitle. Too tired to think of something good, but i can feel the moose's presence.This message has been edited by Ben, Friday, 2005/11/18 09:17 AM

Here is one possible curricula that has been put in place and actually works. Read HereBut remember, a bare listing of the courses is only a small part. What's included in those courses, the ability of the teachers to get kids questioning EVERY belief and examining their own systems, to develop the ability and techniques needed to learn, as opposed to just passing over knowledge, is the goal.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm a teacher in a community college and have been since 1992, so I might be able to speak on this subject. I'm assuming you're talking about high school but community college is rather like high school, so I suppose I can tell you what I know.Semester after semester, I note that my Sophomore students are much better writers on the whole than my Freshman students. This tells me that Freshman Comp. works--even though when you are teaching it, it doesn't seem to. Now, writing and reading are connected. The way you learn how to write is to see how texts get written by good writers. In fact, up to a certain point you imitate them, often unconsciously. So in order to be able to write well, you have to be able to read well. Many of my students can't read very well, and of course their writing is atrocious.So is it valuable that my Sophomore students are better writers, and, I think better readers (can read more sophisticated texts with understanding) than the Freshman students?My own view is that these are extremely valuable skills.But you tell me.

Boy, I think so. Reading and writing (communicating) are essential skills in the world today. But I wonder...Why not teach writing as an applied skill which interfaces with your existing classes? Rather than write about what you're told to write about, I think it's better to write about what you are interested in.Maybe it's impractical. And probably requires too much from the teachers.Ben

I'll just comment on a few points. Good reading comprehension and good writing skills are an essential in today's hi tech world. This is not something that we can trust to parents. I tend to agree with you there. I have not seen any evidence that formal instruction in logic prepares people to think logically.However, I do think the curriculum should be such as to continually challenge students into sound analytic thinking. Let them learn how to think logically by applying their thoughts, rather than in a formalistic study of logic. It can do a great deal. There has been a tendency to be far too formalistic in the teaching of math. I would certainly prefer a more practical approach. Everybody. It is a fundamental subject. It's a great shame that schools haven't been teaching it recently. Instead they often teach abstract nonsense and wrongly label that "geometry". Let's get back to the real thing. I am sympathetic to this, except for the last bit. If word problems are hard, then clearly they do not have the necessary math. All they have is the formal shell of math, but without the content. No, the world is not word problems.It is geometric thinking (broadly interpreted) that allows us to map the world into word problems.

For me, "word problem" = non-mathematical scenario that you map into mathematical terms and operations. I don't see a need to use an intermediate step for real-world problems; you can map real-world problems into mathematical terms and operations without mapping them into statements in language first.I think that's a small point. I'm surprised I just wrote that. "Feed" me this "other" sense of geometry. For me, geometry was Euclidean Geometry and polar coordinates.

Geometry involves construction. Often this construction is in the form of dividing things up into parts, so that we can reduce a large complex problem into a series of smaller simpler problems.Maybe the teaching of it has been too formal. How about taking a class outside, and asking them to devise strategies to measure the height of a tree.

If I told them to write about what they are interested in, I would get essays on drag racing and such. Now drag racing might be an interesting topic in the hands of a good writer, but not in these hands.At first, they write personal experience essays and then they work up to more abstract subjects.The goal is for them to write about intellectual subjects. This may sound strange--given my students--but one topic I've tried at the end of the semester is, "What is the most coherent moral system?" (we read some essays on the topic first). I've gotten some pretty good essays from this topic, given the level of the student.Your emphasis on "applied" subjects is a different philosophy of education than the traditional one. The traditional goal of academics is not to prepare a person for a career, but to educate them. An idealistic idea I have heard from time to time is that a democracy must have an "educated citizenry."What you are talking about is vocational training.And as regards what "interests" a student and what doesn't, that is no simple matter either. Just because some one is "interested" in something, this does not mean they are interested in writing about it. My students on the whole hate writing and hate reading--no matter what subject it is.There have been all sorts of experiments done in the teaching of composition. You name it, it's been tried. This is due to the fact that nobody knows how to teach composition.One might say, "OK, this semester we are going to read comic books and write about comic books." That sounds cool. But do you know what the students--my type of students--would think? "Oh, so you think I'm not smart enough to read a real book, huh?"

i'd agree with you about studying native language except for one thing... most people in this country can't speak it... i was in a senior level honors english class a few years back having to sit through basic sentence structure because these stupid rats couldn't use their own words.

Good reading comprehension and good writing skills are an essential in today's hi tech world. This is not something that we can trust to parents.first. i'm so tired of education being based on not trusting parents.but on the reading thing... my parents left it so i'd have something to learn when i went to school as i did my elder brother's math homework from when he started kindergarten (he's two years older than i... i never went to kindergarten).they told me i couldn't read.my preschool teachers used to ridicule me for sitting "looking at the pictures" in books all day when i went.
apparently i taught myself to read at 3.it made me so angry when i came home from my first day at school and announced to them that they had lied to me.

hmmwell first. you need advanced math quickly and succinctly very early on. don't worry, they can handle it. don't lie to kids and tell them that negative numbers don't exist. they know better. calculus should probably be approached around the commencement of our current high school.foreign languages also early. at least two languages and early like age one. but then that is before traditional schooling.usefuls, succinct english grammar completed by grade three.science is vital. just, really.cultural studies are good and should be kept separate from everything else.the biggest problem with our current education system is review. we assume that kids don't remember anything so we redo everything every year. so.. they learn that they don't have to remember stuff. also, we don't challenge our children nearly enough. if you challenge them, they will rise to meet it. certainly, there are some children who learn more slowly or at a later or earlier pace. they should be accomodated. it's not hard. simply don't divide the students by age, byut instead by ability. you'll have a much more varied mix than you might expect and if the kids don't know any better, they won't mistreat "slow" students.we need to place our goals at actual learning rather than socialization and assimilation. kids can do that on their own.