![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danaerisI have long been of the belief that our education system as it stands does not teach the right subjects. I actually do mean this in the general sense of "our education system." I include all of North America. I don't know enough about elsewhere to say anything about them.
So, I would like to brainstorm, seriously, on topics you think absolutely MUST be taught by the time mandatory public education comes to an end. I'm not worried right now about the details, like when it is taught. I'm just worried about what information needs to be imparted.
I'll start:
(0) Literacy
(1) Enough math to handle basic bills etc. without a calculator.
(2) Finances (probably this would NOT be an elective): How to handle money. How interest works. How to build a budget. How to use computer programs that help you do this. How taxes and tax brackets work.
(3) Logic, skepticism (how this can be taught is an entirely different question...) How to question everything.
(4) How the scientific process works, and how to apply that to your life. So, a trite explanation of the scientific method is not what I mean. I mean: What it means when scientists say something is a theory. How much evidence is necessary before scientists tend to consider something a leading theory, one that they would recommend that, for instance, medical patients act upon. What a well-designed study looks like (ie. so that students could potentially look at a study and say, "Well, that's not a big enough sample set, or that's a biased sample set." How to read a study, so that you don't look at something and draw meaning out of it where there is none (that's what the media spends most of its science reporting doing this days, unfortunately...)
(5) How their body works, and the current state of the art on nutrition and fitness. The current crap about the food pyramid is really not enough. Basic facts like Calories in => weight gained, and the ratios and numbers involved, are trivial to teach but are not taught.
(6) Basis of democracy: How their local government works, how some other democracies work... basically this would give them the framework they need to take part in the democratic process in an informed fashion.
(7) Basics of parenting: Not stupid stuff like how to put a diaper on, although that might be included. More, stuff about what can affect the developmental process of a child negatively and positively, starting from the moment of conception. This class would also try to imbue students with the concept that being a parent is a privilege, and not a right. That it is something they should undertake with great consideration and care for the child, and not something that should be done for themselves or because it is what is done.
(8) Home Ec, Art, and Shop. I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but in my middle school we got this part right. EVERYONE had to take the same rotation of classes. We had a three term calendar, for three years. One term would be spent doing Art, one term doing Shop, and one term doing Home Ec, which taught some of the parenting stuff but mostly a mixture of sewing and cooking. I would cut down on the Art, however, and increase the sewing and cooking, especially the cooking. EVERYONE should know the basics of how to do basic shop stuff, cook themselves food, and repair clothing.
Your turn! What did I miss? I know I didn't put science or history or geography or politics in there, largely because I'm not sure how to distinguish between what is "enough" of a framework to function, and what is icing and should be elective. I know, however, that my own understanding of history is extremely weak to the point of being laughable. But even the little I know proves useful in giving the present context and helping me to know what is a bad idea and what is a good idea based on whether or not it has been tried.
So, I would like to brainstorm, seriously, on topics you think absolutely MUST be taught by the time mandatory public education comes to an end. I'm not worried right now about the details, like when it is taught. I'm just worried about what information needs to be imparted.
I'll start:
(0) Literacy
(1) Enough math to handle basic bills etc. without a calculator.
(2) Finances (probably this would NOT be an elective): How to handle money. How interest works. How to build a budget. How to use computer programs that help you do this. How taxes and tax brackets work.
(3) Logic, skepticism (how this can be taught is an entirely different question...) How to question everything.
(4) How the scientific process works, and how to apply that to your life. So, a trite explanation of the scientific method is not what I mean. I mean: What it means when scientists say something is a theory. How much evidence is necessary before scientists tend to consider something a leading theory, one that they would recommend that, for instance, medical patients act upon. What a well-designed study looks like (ie. so that students could potentially look at a study and say, "Well, that's not a big enough sample set, or that's a biased sample set." How to read a study, so that you don't look at something and draw meaning out of it where there is none (that's what the media spends most of its science reporting doing this days, unfortunately...)
(5) How their body works, and the current state of the art on nutrition and fitness. The current crap about the food pyramid is really not enough. Basic facts like Calories in => weight gained, and the ratios and numbers involved, are trivial to teach but are not taught.
(6) Basis of democracy: How their local government works, how some other democracies work... basically this would give them the framework they need to take part in the democratic process in an informed fashion.
(7) Basics of parenting: Not stupid stuff like how to put a diaper on, although that might be included. More, stuff about what can affect the developmental process of a child negatively and positively, starting from the moment of conception. This class would also try to imbue students with the concept that being a parent is a privilege, and not a right. That it is something they should undertake with great consideration and care for the child, and not something that should be done for themselves or because it is what is done.
(8) Home Ec, Art, and Shop. I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but in my middle school we got this part right. EVERYONE had to take the same rotation of classes. We had a three term calendar, for three years. One term would be spent doing Art, one term doing Shop, and one term doing Home Ec, which taught some of the parenting stuff but mostly a mixture of sewing and cooking. I would cut down on the Art, however, and increase the sewing and cooking, especially the cooking. EVERYONE should know the basics of how to do basic shop stuff, cook themselves food, and repair clothing.
Your turn! What did I miss? I know I didn't put science or history or geography or politics in there, largely because I'm not sure how to distinguish between what is "enough" of a framework to function, and what is icing and should be elective. I know, however, that my own understanding of history is extremely weak to the point of being laughable. But even the little I know proves useful in giving the present context and helping me to know what is a bad idea and what is a good idea based on whether or not it has been tried.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 04:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 04:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 05:22 pm (UTC)I think a shop class would be better spent teaching people how to install shelves on a stud-frame wall than on using the bandsaw.
History and geography are needed for a global society to function. How do people know about what the signifance of Israel bulding a wall on the West bank is, if they have no idea of the history of the conflict? Most people couldn't find Afghanistan on a map, and yet their friends, sons and daughters are being sent there (yes, I'm talking about Canadian soldiers).
I agree with your point that we need to focus more on *how* science is done, and what it doesn't do, teach that it is a process, and not a body of facts. The truth is that only a handful of people can access modern research, because of the centuries of knowledge you must learn to understand it. Teach the basics, the laws we're most confident of, and for goddess' sake tell them WHY.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 05:36 pm (UTC)As a person with a scientific background, I confess it hurts to admit that no, there is virtually no value to them knowing those things as long as they understand the process of science and admit that they know nothing. That's the problem with the US and to some extent Canada; this idea that everyone's opinion is of equal worth, that anyone can do anything if they decide to. The world does not work that way, and as you say, only a handful of people really understand it.
I think a shop class would be better spent teaching people how to install shelves on a stud-frame wall than on using the bandsaw.
Yes. We should be using shop to teach people how to maintain a household, not to teach them how to become woodworkers. If someone wants to get into really advanced stuff, go them. They can take advanced classes as electives or continuing education.
History and geography are needed for a global society to function. How do people know about what the signifance of Israel bulding a wall on the West bank is, if they have no idea of the history of the conflict? Most people couldn't find Afghanistan on a map, and yet their friends, sons and daughters are being sent there (yes, I'm talking about Canadian soldiers).
That may be, but the way we're teaching it now doesn't do that, in my opinion. The organized part of my brain winces at the thought of teaching history only in snippets that connect to current events. But motivation is SO important, and doing it that way provides the motivation necessary for students to actually remember. Traditional history could be used to teach a framework... a really sketchy framework that gets more and more detailed the closer you get to present day. Then current politics classes would be needed to show how to use that and your research skills to put current events into context, and furthermore how to use that information, and those skills, to help inform your decision when you vote. I also think mock elections should be held for many years before a student becomes eligible to vote, so that they can see what happens when the candidate they "voted" for actually gets into office, or doesn't. It would put things into perspective and give them a head start.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 06:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 10:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 02:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 04:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:31 pm (UTC)I disagree that this is untrue. I think there are situations where people don't guage how much work it's going to take to do whatever it is...but that's a different kettle of fish.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:00 am (UTC)in the case of the pythagorean theorem, i think learning it serves to show two things: that everything done today stands on the shoulders of thousands of years of history and that there is a significant tie between numbers and the world around us. i think that both of these things are valuable for anybody to know and understand, and though i realize that the pythagorean theorem is certainly not the only way to demonstrate these things, it helps along with many other things.
i also think that teaching solely based on utility of the imparted knowledge defeats half the purpose of education.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:46 am (UTC)As for teaching for the sake of knowledge as opposed to utility, I have to strongly disagree with you. I look around at those around me, and at myself, and I find that my knowledge is WOEFULLY lacking in a variety of areas which are key to having a successful, happy life, and being a fully functioning adult. If your educational system doesn't impart those things, it doesn't matter how loftily it manages to produce "educated" folk, because they won't be able to function without going back to square one and essentially being a student all over... except that they're in the Real World now, playing for keeps.
The whole point of this thread is to identify those basic things which absolutely must be included. If you start talking about utility vs. the value of knowledge in general, this discussion becomes meaningless, because ANYTHING could then be considered essential to the curriculum.
I'd like to believe that after all of the courses I'm proposing were written and filled into the schedule, there would still be plenty of time in the K-12 years for students to learn knowledge for the sake of education. But again. That's not the point here. The point is preparation for the Real World.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 04:14 am (UTC)actually, i wasn't talking about those two concepts being in opposition, rather i was talking about them working together and being the twin goals of education. i have nothing against utility of knowledge. on the other hand, i do have a problem with the suggestion that knowledge is not worth being universally taught simply because it is not directly useful.
i'm not suggesting that useful knowledge be sacrificed for more esoteric knowledge, rather i am saying that there are things worth teaching regardless of the fact that they will not be used in everyday life. further, i believe that it is actually essential to teach things that seem superfluous to human existence in order to show people that there is more to be known than merely what one needs to know to get by - i believe that the understanding of that fact is necessary to a happy life and further achievement of the species.
i realize that in this suggestion the "essential knowledge" i am proposing is this idea that there is more to know out there and the "method by which it is reached" is by teaching knowledge which is not immediately necessary. i also believe that in a case like this, form and function are very close to being inseperable in practice.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 10:21 am (UTC)On the other hand, I've taught in high-needs schools for several years now. I've tried cramming difficult history concepts, such as cultural assimilation or paternalism or systemic racism, down the throats of kids who are still having trouble reading and doing basic multiplication. I've dealt over and over again with the question, "Why does my child need to learn French when he is struggling so much with English?" I was not able to give an answer that made sense to myself, let alone to the parent or child in question.
There are a lot of things I would like to see taught that are not. Key among them are parenting skills, including a modicum of child psychology and behavioral psych, so that the kids coming into the system have seen books before kindergarten and have already heard the alphabet song. There are also many things being taught that are in the category of esoteric, non-essential knowledge.
Basically, I believe education needs to be much, much more streamed than it is. There should be at least four streams, not three, and only the top two would be aiming for college/university with a certain degree of interchangeability. It should be possible to move between streams at least somewhat - offer catch-up courses in the summer for kids who suddenly realized that what they wanted to learn was in the next stream up, for example - but I'd love for someone to explain to me why I have to put up with grade eights who don't want to be in my class and will never use what little they learn there, when they could be in a shop class learning a skill they're going to use.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 10:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 02:54 pm (UTC)You have a point -- what one person considers useful may not coincide with the next (teacher or student). I think part of the question is "what is the purpose of education?"
I think Dana's pov is suggesting that mandatory education should be teaching life-skills first and foremost, and teaching interests as electives for those who want to pursue topics further (correct me if I'm mistaken, D.)
I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting the true purpose of forcing kids to be in school is (please elaborate!)
I agree that a more educated public who knows the origin of our modern marvels come from centuries -- nay, millenia -- of previous human thought is a fabulous idea, but it just ain't gonna happen. The fact of the matter is that *most* teenagers get bored to tears over Pythagoras and Shakespeare and other great thinkers -- we've only got so much time in which to teach them, and I'm leaning towards Dana's perspective that, in the limited time we have their attention, let's teach them things they're going to *need* to know.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 02:55 pm (UTC)advertising
Date: 2005-08-17 06:05 pm (UTC)A lot of consumer badness would be avoided if people were properly skeptical about ads and knew what tools advertisers use to mislead you.
Re: advertising
Date: 2005-08-17 06:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 06:12 pm (UTC)Job skills - how to write a resume, as broad an introduction as possible to what education is needed for what job and how to get that education, how to act in an interview, the rights of employees vs. employers, basic light-industrial job safety, basic office skills (knowing how to type and how most filing systems work, for example.)
Basic research skills - finding relevant information, scanning, writing facts, developing questions for stuff you still need to find, organizing, writing into coherent sentences and paragraphs.
*practical* chemisty
Date: 2005-08-17 07:37 pm (UTC)It didn't deal with the difference in molecular structures that allows oil to separate from water when the two are poured together. It didn't deal with the necessity of compatibility between a solute and the solvent you'll try to use to carry it.
It didn't even touch on sourcing -- where to get the reactants needed to perform the simplest tests. Knowing that a few drops of this will turn blue in a basic solution isn't helpful if you can't get this.
It didn't deal well with the concept of buffering in the acid-base discussion.
It didn't build a list of commonly accessible household chemicals and their properties: why not to mix bleach and ammonia, why baking soda works on battery acid spills, what lye does to anything, what Windex does to antique furniture, what hydrogen peroxide is doing when it bubbles in an open wound. The concept of a degreaser was introduced at a fast food restaurant, not in chemistry class.
Re: *practical* chemisty
Date: 2005-08-18 12:55 am (UTC)(seriousy, I now have litmus strips for testing the acidity of my home canning. I likely use more chemistry while doing canning than I have in the last 15 years for anything else)
Re: *practical* chemisty
Date: 2005-08-18 03:48 am (UTC)Re: *practical* chemisty
Date: 2005-08-18 03:00 pm (UTC)While I agree with your point about "teaching what they *need* to know", remember that we also have to get the future chemists of the world to university.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 07:40 pm (UTC)This is sort of under your items 1 and 3: I also have a bias towards learning to read original texts without using secondary references to them. That would include translations of ancient documents (greek histories, plays, religious documents), literature in English that is not modern anymore (Shakespeare, Chaucer), academic articles and books, legal decisions, and government documents. There are two reasons I have in mind for this. One is to teach how to pick something dense apart regardless of your familiarity with the subject matter, and what questions you can be asking when doing so (Why was this written, and what was gained by writing it? Can you paraphrase it, paragraph by paragraph, in your own words, and what do you gain or lose by doing so?). The other is to show that the world is not full of dark impenetrable forests that ordinary people can't enter.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:53 am (UTC)As for being able to read texts in their original language... there are just too many languages worth knowing out there in the world. I think it is more important to make it clear to students why it is worth being able to read something in the original language, or why that would make a difference, than to actually teach them the language. If they understand that in a textual debate they can't be certain of their facts unless they have read it in the original language, then we've won half the battle. At that point it will be up to them to decide how much they care about knowing the answers. Ie. do they care enough to start learning other languages?
The textual analysis you're talking about would be quite valuable; ten times more so than the generic literature classes which pass for "english" in high school. Unfortunately in the current curriculum the focus always seems to be on the matter rather than the concept the matter is supposed to be aiding in teaching.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 08:26 pm (UTC)Are you sure about that? Do we really want to teach kids that it's not rational to vote?
Moreover, everything we know about how government works tells us that government has a vested interest in lying about this stuff. It's kind of like a Catholic school teaching a class on how religions really work.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:03 pm (UTC)I think it's more about teaching them that, if they don't vote, they have no right to complain about how the gov't is run. At least the vote actually does mean something in this country, which is a far cry from most of the rest of the world (America included).
no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 08:34 pm (UTC)Dead weight losses due to taxes, adverse selection, moral hazard, information asymmetry, effects of subsidies, why the government can't give away money, rent seeking, transaction costs, coase(?) theorem, monopolies, efficient market hypothesis, etc.
This would help prevent such stupidities as price caps for gasoline.
Enough science to let people understand short news pieces on things like cloning, DNA testing, stem cells, genetically modified plants, and the like would be good.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:22 am (UTC)i certainly agree that in an ideal world this would be a universal skill. realistically, however, there is a good reason that it is not taught during mandatory public education and that is that a real understanding of why the criteria for a good scientific study are what they are require college-level statistics which, in turn, requires a certain degree of calculus and linear algebra to understand in its own right.
while i would certainly like to see everyone learning this level of relatively applicable math (i say relatively meaning "compared to the stuff i'm learning right now"), there is a significant portion of the population who simply cannot understand calculus in my experience. as far as i've seen, basic calculus is very much a subject of the "either you get it or you don't" variety, possibly moreso than most others. it is for exactly this reason that i believe everybody should take calculus - so that they know whether or not they are capable of understanding it - but i do not believe that not understanding calculus means you should not be able to continue with a worthwhile life or career.
(8) Home Ec, Art, and Shop.
i wound up taking portions of all three during my education and i have to say that the only one i found had anything worthwhile to say was art. i learned more about woodworking from an hour with my grandfather than six months in shop class, and home ec was really a class of absolutely nothing when i was in it, so unless things have progressed significantly or my experience was highly atypical, i don't think either of these subjects has any right to be taught, let alone required.
i would like to see everyone taught how to pay attention to their surroundings - how to look around them and quickly and efficiently understand on a practical level what they are seeing. this is a skill that many people assume everyone posesses already, but that is far from true. i believe a significant number of deaths could be prevented every year if people would simply learn to pay attention to what's going on in their immediate vicinity.
i suppose there is an argument that phys ed is supposed to teach this among other things, but if that is the case, it has failed.
another thing i think everyone should learn is how to swim. most people do anyway, but i think it should be a universal skill.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 04:01 am (UTC)As for home ec and shop, you're missing the point of this list. The list is what we would like to be taught. The point of home ec: how to cook, clean, and sew, all skills which are incredibly valuable. The point of shop: how to use tools for practical application. It is irrelevant how useful or useless those classes were when you took them, because we're redefining them and redesigning them. It's also very nice that you have an awesome grandfather who was able to teach you so much in the shop, but the point of this system I'm designing is that no one should emerge from the public school system without the knowhow to, say, install shelves in their home, or identify different types of wood and construction so they can make an informed furniture purpose. That includes those people whose grandfather or parents or other relatives don't know shit about how to use tools and work with wood or other mediums.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 04:21 am (UTC)the reason i suggest that the math is "necessary to a good understanding of what makes a good study" is that the suggestion (which i agree with) is that everyone is to be taught to be questioning and skeptical individuals on the one hand, but the method of applying that skepticism, without the background statistics, is simply to be taken as authoritatively true.
while it is possible to teach critical thinking in this fashion, i believe it undermines the nature of healthy skepticism to base it on a matter of faith like this, and that if it is to be taught without that statistical understanding it would lose a lot of credibility among the students who actually understand what they are learning.
regarding home ec and shop, i can see that i was off the point there. i definitely agree that those are worthwhile skills for everyone to know.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 04:59 am (UTC)this approach is somewhat less directly useful to a career in the sciences, but also less requiring of an understanding of statistics in that it focuses on general epistemology rather than specifically on scientific justifiability.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 04:04 am (UTC)As for swimming: word on that. Everyone should know how to tread water, and preferably how to swim as well. You never know when you'll fall in a body of water, and drowning is no fun (or so I hear).
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 04:28 am (UTC)1) an individual in a store picks up a product and asks how much it costs, not realizing that the price is written on a sign directly in front of them.
2) a driver takes to the road after a rain, failing to notice that the road is somewhat slipperier than normal.
3) a ten-year-old boy dies by falling off a cliff while swinging from the cross marking the place where a man had fallen to his death a year before (this one actually won a darwin award - it is obviously an extreme case, but it illustrates the point).
basically, people get injured by stepping into the street in front of cars, people slip on wet floors despite warnings, people do stupid things all the time which could be avoided by paying attention to their surroundings.
maybe i have an exaggerated image of this, but that's the impression i get.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:06 pm (UTC)I'm inclined to say that the percentage of the population out claiming Darwin awards is not going to be less dangerous to themselves (or others) because of anything they were taught in high school....
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:20 pm (UTC)This brings me to another Education related topic, that of Consequences. IMO, we shelter people too much, including children. If people under the age of 18 actually felt they had a stake in what happened next to them, that they were in charge of their lives and would suffer consequences for their own failures, they would probably learn much better, and the task of teaching would be much easier. Part of this has to do with the way parents tend to rear their children, and part of it has to do with the way society treats people under the age of 18 (and in the US, these days, anyone under the age of 21, too!).
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 04:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 06:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-28 04:57 am (UTC)Whether you plan to be a mommy or not, well-raised children is too essential to the continuity of society for us to not all know the basics of these things. Even if you never have children, knowing these things will help you in dealing with other people's children, and in knowing when someone is NOT doing things the way they ought to be (ie. neglecting their child). If we want to live in a world of well-adjusted individuals, we all have to participate in the adjusting, and so we all need to know HOW to do so.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-28 04:45 am (UTC)This will actually be the focus of one of my upcoming posts in this series of posts.