NationStates Jolt Archive

It is a common misconception that the purpose of schools is to instruct the next generation (instruct what is a little complicated, some believe knowledge, some say it’s how to think, and some maintain it should be job skills). However, this is false, the real purpose of schools is to produce future citizens who hold, or at last know, the values the previous generation holds dear.

This might sound strange, but think about it. The way schools are set up, everything from grades, to classroom organization, to work assigned, to graduation reflects the values of that particular culture. In school, while attending class, we are also indoctrinated in the ways of our culture and society, the rules by which we function in other words.

Some examples for you: Grades encourage competition, a very, VERY American value. Why have the whole GPA scale if ranking, and the subsequent competition to be a higher rank, wasn’t considered important? If I, as a teacher, wanted to keep track if you did the work adequately or not, why not use Pass/Fail?

Why have sports in school? Because physical prowess is considered important.

Why have art and music? Because culture and a ‘well rounded’ person is desirable.

Why have civics/history? Because having a citizenry that understands issues and how the government works is considered desirable in a republic-democracy such as ours.

If we really just wanted to train up a generation of workers, wouldn’t Plato’s Republic be a good role model? Test the children and then move them to training regimes, but Americans like the idea that all are equal and able to chose their own destinies (How many times have you heard that any kid can grow up to be the president?).

See what I mean?

So, discuss.

It is a common misconception that the purpose of schools is to instruct the next generation (instruct what is a little complicated, some believe knowledge, some say it’s how to think, and some maintain it should be job skills). However, this is false, the real purpose of schools is to produce future citizens who hold, or at last know, the values the previous generation holds dear.

I disagree.

I guess that's the end of that. We both stated our opinions, and nothing more. It makes for such a poor discussion. Perhaps if one of us, or even both of us, presented something more than raw opinion phrased as fact...?

I disagree.
Why?

Why?
Because I don't believe the purpose of schools is to produce future citizens who hold, or at last know, the values the previous generation holds dear.

Why have sports in school? Because physical prowess is considered important.


Not really. It's just being a lardass is frowned on, and they're fun. American Society likes fun.

In school I was always struck with the feeling that they were less interested in teaching you how to think so much as teaching you what to think. anyone get that?

Government schools are in place to indoctarinate the next generation and insure the continued power of various government authorities. Get them young and anything is possible, after all.

Not really. It's just being a lardass is frowned on, and they're fun. American Society likes fun.

But not everyone has fun playing sports, and not everyone likes every sport. Personally, I'd get rid of PE and divert the funding to more useful areas. Exercise on your own time, or make the class at most voluntary.

We also need to make math and science more mandantory parts of the curriculum. It's ridiculous that we have to take 4 years of English and only 3 of math, because the world functions primarily on logical analysis and methodology to solve problems.

Because I don't believe the purpose of schools is to produce future citizens who hold, or at last know, the values the previous generation holds dear.
Oh? Then what do YOU think they are for?

And how do you explain the constant fighting of what to be taught in schools, which is usually bound up in the local ideas and traditions (see the great ID fights)?

Well ideally it is supposed to prevent one in five adults from thinking the sun revolves around the earth. Ideally.

I believe schools serve both purposes. History teaches where we have gone and possibly where we may be headed. Math gives us logic to use in our everyday lives, English teaches us how to speak and write properly, sports and pe provide physical activity which is good for the body. Science tells us how things are made and how they work. It also teaches the children how to behave in society and that rule and order are to be expected. Most people arent qualified to teach their children how to read and write so that is one major factor in needing schools. We have vocational schools in the US for kids that arent on the college track and they teach job skills to these kids. Schools are very important and necessary.

In school I was always struck with the feeling that they were less interested in teaching you how to think so much as teaching you what to think. anyone get that?

Yes, all of the time.

That's why I'm going to major in mathematics (besides my like of it); there is no single correct way of approaching the problem in question, yet all of the methods require proof to be considered valid. It's apolitical and without moral judgements, and isn't subjective. Objectivity eliminates indoctrination.

Not really. It's just being a lardass is frowned on, and they're fun. American Society likes fun.
Um... if being a lardass is frowned on, wouldn't it naturally follow that being phyiscally fit is smiled on? In other words, important? :D

But not everyone has fun playing sports, and not everyone likes every sport. Personally, I'd get rid of PE and divert the funding to more useful areas. Exercise on your own time, or make the class at most voluntary.
Hell no, I enjoy sports and without getting an actual period to play waterpolo I'd have no way in hell to play any sport, given that I live with only one parent who works overtime nearly every weekday.

Hell no, I enjoy sports and without getting an actual period to play waterpolo I'd have no way in hell to play any sport, given that I live with only one parent who works overtime nearly every weekday.

You guys get a pool, and we don't. Lucky bastard.

So that means rather than play the various watersports I like, I was stuck playing crap like basketball (not water basketball, which is my favorite game) and running around a track. Quite fun for a semester.

PE would be fine if we could choose what we wanted to play rather than follow a "curriculum", and it was voluntary.

Yes, all of the time.

That's why I'm going to major in mathematics (besides my like of it); there is no single correct way of approaching the problem in question, yet all of the methods require proof to be considered valid. It's apolitical and without moral judgements, and isn't subjective. Objectivity eliminates indoctrination.
Objectivity is the claim most often made by indoctrination.

2+2=4, and that is so.
How do you know it is so?
Because it is!
How do you know?
It is!

Sure, you could prove that one, but have you ever gone through a math book (College level, of course) and physically tested everything it says out? No, I doubt it. Thus, you have been indoctrinated by that Devil book. Maybe you were indoctrinated with the truth, but you still took something said as fact without argument.

Oh? Then what do YOU think they are for?

And how do you explain the constant fighting of what to be taught in schools, which is usually bound up in the local ideas and traditions (see the great ID fights)?
Don't get me wrong, I know that many people THINK schools are for indoctrinating young people into the "right" moral system. I just think those people are wrong. ID fights are a perfect example: a group of people thinks that school is where you force kids to memorize specific facts about a particular set of superstitions that one subgroup of citizens supports. Those people are stupid. However, because of the First Ammendment, we are forced to acknowledge that those stupid people exist, and we are forced to let them continue to be stupid in public. That's the price you pay for freedom. The key is to remember that just because a bunch of stupid people have opinions doesn't mean their opinions are fact.

The point of education is to introduce students to the facts, insofar as we have figured them out. Whether or not past generations (or current generations) LIKE the facts is irrelevant. Whether or not those facts support the misconceptions and personal prejudices that current society harbors is irrelevant. The purpose of school is to allow students to encounter the empirical world and to have the basic foundation upon which to build their individuality. Indoctrination is dishonorable and pointless.

You guys get a pool, and we don't. Lucky bastard.

So that means rather than play the various watersports I like, I was stuck playing crap like basketball (not water basketball, which is my favorite game) and running around a track. Quite fun for a semester.

PE would be fine if we could choose what we wanted to play rather than follow a "curriculum", and it was voluntary.
My freshman year of high school (last year) was the first year they opened up our new pool. :D

Anyways...

Objectivity is the claim most often made by indoctrination.

2+2=4, and that is so.
How do you know it is so?
Because it is!
How do you know?
It is!

Sure, you could prove that one, but have you ever gone through a math book (College level, of course) and physically tested everything it says out? No, I doubt it. Thus, you have been indoctrinated by that Devil book. Maybe you were indoctrinated with the truth, but you still took something said as fact without argument.
Wrong. 2+2=4 because that is the definition of terms. 2+2 could equal 6 if the terms were defined otherwise, but they aren't. It's like saying that the arrangement of letters "r-e-d" in English refers to a certain wavelength of electromagnetic energy...that's not dogma, that's just our name for something. It's not indoctrination, any more than it's "indoctrination" to tell a child that the word for a piece of furniture that one person sits upon is "chair." You don't "know" it in any objective sense, you just know that the (subjective) term for that thing is "chair" in the English language.

Yes, all of the time.

That's why I'm going to major in mathematics (besides my like of it); there is no single correct way of approaching the problem in question, yet all of the methods require proof to be considered valid. It's apolitical and without moral judgements, and isn't subjective. Objectivity eliminates indoctrination.
that is what I always liked about math. I could understand it. 2+2 was always 4,
two points are always colinear, and prime numbers are always prime. I like math because the why isn't as important as the how. sorry to get off topic.

Sure, you could prove that one, but have you ever gone through a math book (College level, of course) and physically tested everything it says out? No, I doubt it. Thus, you have been indoctrinated by that Devil book. Maybe you were indoctrinated with the truth, but you still took something said as fact without argument.

That's where Gödel's Incompleteness theorem comes in. There are certain statements that cannot be proven with the rules of the mathematics itself, because those statements form the basis of the entire system; of course, this means that there are things that must be accepted without proof for the system to function.

However, outside of these everything else must be proven to some degree. There are always open theorems.

Also, the term "true" and "fiction" are both undefinable in lingustic terms, because they share properties similar to the fundamental axioms of the Incompleteness theorem (if the concept of truth is itself untrue, we could not do anything true and our universe could not exist).

and yet 4 years required math for some of us has about the same effect as smashing our head repeatedly on a wall....observe-----> :headbang: see, he's not very happy at all. in my humble case another year of math would be murderous...i don't know how i would struggle through that....my strongpoint is english...and seeing as 4 years of English has been a problem...let me tell you this....sure Mathematics and Science help us to live, they give us careers and oportunities to go on and have a productive life....but English...poetry, other literature, and yes...even music....how they speak of love, feeling, pain, happiness sadness...well....these are all the things we live for!....so if we didn't have all of this English (which talks about the human nature....yes that's right....you're human) then what would be the point of taking all of these math and science classes?....what would be the whole point of existing?

The old Hidden Curriculum idea.

Yes, school is an important part of the socialization process. It is not intentionally designed to pass on many of the values it actually does but it is inended to provide workable citizens (why do you stand in line? You were taught to at Primary School).

The point of education is to introduce students to the facts, insofar as we have figured them out. Whether or not past generations (or current generations) LIKE the facts is irrelevant. Whether or not those facts support the misconceptions and personal prejudices that current society harbors is irrelevant. The purpose of school is to allow students to encounter the empirical world and to have the basic foundation upon which to build their individuality. Indoctrination is dishonorable and pointless.
Hmm, let me try this again then, what is being taught isn't indoctrination as such, but rules that the society functions by, as well as the values it holds dear.

For example, you get a good grade for the work you put in. It sounds silly to say so, but why?

Why, also, are American schools so focused on individual work? In the so called 'real world' if in a work situation you don't know the answer to something, what is wrong with asking somene who might know? And yet, in schools, such exchanges are called cheating. Maybe it is because Americans value individualism?

It's not like someone sits down and says, these values are what we like, but that the way schools are set up reflect such values.

The old Hidden Curriculum idea.

Yes, school is an important part of the socialization process. It is not intentionally designed to pass on many of the values it actually does but it is inended to provide workable citizens (why do you stand in line? You were taught to at Primary School).

Exactly.

Exactly.

I liked sociology. Fun subject.

That's where Gödel's Incompleteness theorem comes in. There are certain statements that cannot be proven with the rules of the mathematics itself, because those statements form the basis of the entire system; of course, this means that there are things that must be accepted without proof for the system to function.
Thus, indoctrination. Math is no more objective than thousands of other things. And that is without considering the fact that math is filtered through the human mind, and therefore subject to whatever whims lurk in the combined subconcious.
Not that I'm assaulting math, in fact I find math problems to be intensely amusing, the effort of turning it all over in my head and coming up with an answer gives a great sense of accomplishment. However, math is not some sort of "universal language". It is not the end all be all of academics. And I think that there needs to be more mandatory English, because no one else I've met knows how to use the language worth a damn, and yet that doesn't keep them from mangling it horribly. Meanwhile, a bit of Algebra and several bits of Geometry is as far as most people will ever go in their lives. So, nyeh!

And I think that there needs to be more mandatory English, because no one else I've met knows how to use the language worth a damn, and yet that doesn't keep them from mangling it horrible.
....Did anybody else find that humourous, given the circumstances?

Edit: Oh come on, I was trying to lighten the mood, not make fun of you......

Thus, indoctrination. Math is no more objective than thousands of other things. And that is without considering the fact that math is filtered through the human mind, and therefore subject to whatever whims lurk in the combined subconcious.
!

No, because there's only one way to approach math, and that is via logic and objectivity. There's no creative interpretation or subjective answers for the problems (although some problems can have multiple solutions, and infinite numbers). You have to back up everything with at least some kind of proof or demonstrated methodology before it is correct. Otherwise, it would be impossible for computers to function, because there would be no definite processes for them to follow.

As a high school student myself, I think I have found a quite satisfactory answer to this whole debate: the point of school is to pass the tests. There's are people in Washington who have an exessive need to crunch numbers. People obsessed with statistics(I think some people like this have posted on this thread.). People who see only digits.

Then there are the school boards, filled with control freaks, vying for power. They hope to get influence with their superiors by doing everything their told and beyond, and they are told by the number-obsessed polititians I mentioned earlier to set tests. They set tests. They tell the teachers to make their students pass the tests, by any means necessary.

Then, the teachers themselves. They are all to often the kind of people I like to call drones. You know the sort. They love rules. They love rulers. But they have no identity of their own, and thus can only do what they are told. It is they who are screwing up society in general. They administer said tests, and teach the students nothing but test material. Because they have no identity and no open-mindedness, they cannot do anything else. Not all teachers are like this, indeed, most of the ones I have met aren't, but there are just enought to crush out the former meaning of acedemics.

When these kinds of people are put in charge of millions of impressionable young people, the results are disasterous. Teachers, of course teach, wether they-or their students-know it or not. Their classes are impressed by these drones, and many who are not strong-willed enough become drones themselves. it is only those who retain their identity who succeed, who make society a better place, and these number-crunchers in Washington, these power-mongers in the school boards, and these drones in calssrooms who break down identities, and degrade society.

I hope this this post has not been too generalizing, or too long, or too make-school-officials-sound-like-crime-lords-ish, but I hope y'all read it and think about it. Think! Don't let what your first grade teacher destroy your identity, and THINK!.

Ahh! :( I HATE my school, they yell at us (the 'advanced' students) because we are the ones that don't 'improve' on their idiotic state standards tests! Well I wonder why! It only takes 8 retards to make up a sped class, but if there aren't at least 15 students signed up for any other kind of class it won’t even be offered! (This year calculus2 was cut at my school due to a 3 person deficiency) WTF?
*stabs 'no child left behind'* yeah, guess the only way to ensure leaving no one behind is to NEVER GO ANYWHERE!
/rant

Ahh! :( I HATE my school, they yell at us (the 'advanced' students) because we are the ones that don't 'improve' on their idiotic state standards tests! Well I wonder why! It only takes 8 retards to make up a sped class, but if there aren't at least 15 students signed up for any other kind of class it won’t even be offered! (This year calculus2 was cut at my school due to a 3 person deficiency) WTF?
*stabs 'no child left behind'* yeah, guess the only way to ensure leaving no one behind is to NEVER GO ANYWHERE!
/rant
You know what that's all about, right? My high school had the same problem. Depending on the size of your Special Ed program, the whole No Child Left Behind crap skews the improvement results. Our program was freakin HUUUGE, the pull for the whole district, but even the IB program couldn't fix the damage those kids did to our test scores. Mostly because, for some reason, we were all expected to pull in results from the same test, which is obviously a little hard for somebody with Down Syndrome, or somebody with a serious learning disability, or even some of the hearing impaired people who didn't take regular classes.

Not that I have anything against the Special Ed kids.....I just think that there was little consideration to schools with Special Ed programs before that stupid educational program was put into place.

Ahh! :( I HATE my school, they yell at us (the 'advanced' students) because we are the ones that don't 'improve' on their idiotic state standards tests! Well I wonder why! It only takes 8 retards to make up a sped class, but if there aren't at least 15 students signed up for any other kind of class it won’t even be offered! (This year calculus2 was cut at my school due to a 3 person deficiency) WTF?
*stabs 'no child left behind'* yeah, guess the only way to ensure leaving no one behind is to NEVER GO ANYWHERE!
/rant

We're not even able to take the AP Calculus BC exam because we start too late with the program. We've got the money for Wood Shop and Jewelery, but not enough for two levels of Calculus. It sucks, especially for a prospective math major like myself.

We're not even able to take the AP Calculus BC exam because we start too late with the program. We've got the money for Wood Shop and Jewelery, but not enough for two levels of Calculus. It sucks, especially for a prospective math major like myself.
Wow, this makes me feel lucky that I am going to the school that I do. I am currently taking 3-4 advanced math courses. Whether the 4th class is advanced math or not is based on whether or not Math modeling through computer simulation could be considered advanced math. Well, ok AP stat is barely math so it could be seen as 2-4 based on what you think is required for something to be an advanced math class.

Well I sure am glad to live in Queensland. I'm about to graduate from a high school teaching degree here and all the stuff I've read from Americans makes me really grateful that teachers have to do a four year education degree. It also makes me really appreciate the system we have here in Queensland, which enables teachers to cater to the needs of all their students, and bases funding for schools on a needs-basis, not on test scores of students.

The problem with American schools that a lot of schools in Australia don't have is the overemphasis on test scores and your severely undertrained teachers who have no knowledge of things like learning styles, cognitive psychology, the knowledge acquisition process, linguistics, behaviour management theory, teaching strategies, etc.

or somebody with a serious learning disability

What do you mean by learning disability? Because in Australia the term refers to people with a specific type of problem, namely that they cannot process information in the same way as everyone else. It does not in any way mean that they cannot learn and achieve exactly the same as a person without the disability, given a trained teacher who has been educated at university (as our teachers are) in how to cater to their needs.

Well I sure am glad to live in Queensland. I'm about to graduate from a high school teaching degree here and all the stuff I've read from Americans makes me really grateful that teachers have to do a four year education degree. It also makes me really appreciate the system we have here in Queensland, which enables teachers to cater to the needs of all their students, and bases funding for schools on a needs-basis, not on test scores of students.

The problem with American schools that a lot of schools in Australia don't have is the overemphasis on test scores and your severely undertrained teachers who have no knowledge of things like learning styles, cognitive psychology, the knowledge acquisition process, linguistics, behaviour management theory, teaching strategies, etc.
Um, most teachers in the US hold at least a 4 year degree if not more. Also, (dependant upon the state) teacher education courses include all of the above inlcuding praticums and student teaching.

What do you mean by learning disability? Because in Australia the term refers to people with a specific type of problem, namely that they cannot process information in the same way as everyone else. It does not in any way mean that they cannot learn and achieve exactly the same as a person without the disability, given a trained teacher who has been educated at university (as our teachers are) in how to cater to their needs.
Learning disabilities has the same meaning in the US, however, due to special education laws, LD kids who are identified have an IEP (indvidual education program) written for them that details the disability as well as the steps needed to help the child suceed, as US school law calls for mainstreaming the child unless there are severe physical/behavoral disabilities that would make it difficult for a child to be in a regular classroom.

These steps can be use of something (like a calculator or spell check), more time, or other set ups. No Child Left Behind however ignores the IEP and forces a learning disabled child to test as if he or she were a non-LD child.

Personally I think the modern school started as a way to keep all the kids in one place after it was discovered they weren't really much use in industry. Education and indoctrination was included as an accidental afterthought. It's a theory with some holes I'll admit, but it explains why discipline and full attendance is given greater priority than learning.

Um, most teachers in the US hold at least a 4 year degree if not more. Also, (dependant upon the state) teacher education courses include all of the above inlcuding praticums and student teaching.

Sorry, I got the impression from other posters that it wasn't mandatory to hold a specific teaching degree in the US, like it is here in Australia.

Learning disabilities has the same meaning in the US, however, due to special education laws, LD kids who are identified have an IEP (indvidual education program) written for them that details the disability as well as the steps needed to help the child suceed, as US school law calls for mainstreaming the child unless there are severe physical/behavoral disabilities that would make it difficult for a child to be in a regular classroom.

Yeah, that's the same as here too. Although, it's usually the specialist teachers who deal with the IEP's.

These steps can be use of something (like a calculator or spell check), more time, or other set ups. No Child Left Behind however ignores the IEP and forces a learning disabled child to test as if he or she were a non-LD child.

That's ridiculous. Really ridiculous. We don't have a lot of standardised testing in Queensland (thank Christ), but our new education minister wants it. I really hope it doesn't come in. It doesn't help students in any way.

Personally I think the modern school started as a way to keep all the kids in one place after it was discovered they weren't really much use in industry. Education and indoctrination was included as an accidental afterthought. It's a theory with some holes I'll admit, but it explains why discipline and full attendance is given greater priority than learning.

Or maybe its because discipline and full attendance is required for meaningful learning?

Or maybe its because discipline and full attendance is required for meaningful learning?

Since when? Learning by the conveyer belt of modern schooling is inefficient, crude and about the easiest way to shut down the largest number of minds in as short a time as possible. Learning should be and is interesting when approached correctly. One teacher, thirty-five pupils and a pop quiz is not the catalyst to an intelligent society.

Well I don't know where you're from, but we have been taught at uni, and have been able to observe it in prac experiences, that when student leaarning is sporadic (from lack of attendance) or disrupted (from lack of discipline), students retain less knowledge because it is not meaningful, it is disjointed etc.

And I don't use pop-quizzes in my teaching. All they tell teachers is whether their students have a good memory or not. I prefer to know what my kids can actually DO with what they know. Hence the inclusion of real-life and life-like learning experiences wherever possible in my English and Japanese teaching, and techniques such as inquiry learning, and jigsaw groups.

Sorry, I got the impression from other posters that it wasn't mandatory to hold a specific teaching degree in the US, like it is here in Australia.
That really depends on the state. I know some southern states allow teaching licensure in elementary ed with just an AA degree. No state allows secondary licensure without a 4 year degree, and many of those 4 year holders did their course work in education, like I did. However, most states, due to teacher shortages, have a fast track program from secondary where a BA/BS holder can get licensure in about a year and a half with taking education course work.

The idea being that at the secondary level, content knowledge is more important than teaching skills. Personally I disagree, but I have met a number of those first time licensure students who have been really good teachers so...

But all states require SOME form teaching/education coursework and all require one semester student teaching before being unleashed on a regular class by yourself.

Yeah, that's the same as here too. Although, it's usually the specialist teachers who deal with the IEP's.
Same here, the Special Education teachers write the IEPs, however, the regular classroom teacher(s) are often consulted in the writting of and are, by law, required to follow the IEPs.

That's ridiculous. Really ridiculous.
Yes, yes it is. Now you know why US teachers are not happy campers right now.

And I don't use pop-quizzes in my teaching. All they tell teachers is whether their students have a good memory or not. I prefer to know what my kids can actually DO with what they know. Hence the inclusion of real-life and life-like learning experiences wherever possible in my English and Japanese teaching, and techniques such as inquiry learning, and jigsaw groups.
Good luck... I've tried for that and well... then again, I'm in a very different situation from being in my own classroom.

I'm not saying learning should be sporadic or disrupted, but I believe that the roots of modern schooling placed far more emphasis on discipline, attendance and uniformity than they did on learning. I believe a system centered around educating pupils would have embraced smaller classes and more personal teaching styles from the beginning.

And however laudable your efforts are (and they are), I'm guessing how modern schooling originated. How schools conduct themselves today or plan to in future is off the topic.

I'm not saying learning should be sporadic or disrupted, but I believe that the roots of modern schooling placed far more emphasis on discipline, attendance and uniformity than they did on learning. I believe a system centered around educating pupils would have embraced smaller classes and more personal teaching styles from the beginning.
Actually, I would say that American schooling is anything BUT uniform. Trust me on this, I'm teaching in a very, very uniformed system that also blows out of the water the notions of discipline and attendance.

But I would ask, if that is indeed the case, what does that say of the society that created the schools?

Well I don't know where you're from, but we have been taught at uni, and have been able to observe it in prac experiences, that when student leaarning is sporadic (from lack of attendance) or disrupted (from lack of discipline), students retain less knowledge because it is not meaningful, it is disjointed etc.

And I don't use pop-quizzes in my teaching. All they tell teachers is whether their students have a good memory or not. I prefer to know what my kids can actually DO with what they know. Hence the inclusion of real-life and life-like learning experiences wherever possible in my English and Japanese teaching, and techniques such as inquiry learning, and jigsaw groups.
Where I'm from, though I can't speak for others, the whole school procedure is more like academic regurgitation than interest in who learns what. For example -- though I'm good at most topics, the brief time I took Chemistry in high school I struggled considerably because our teacher would only explain the facts of Chemistry, rather than the ideas behind it. I was struggling with my homework and I couldn't figure things out for tests. When I asked a Chem 2 kid for help, he said "Oh, don't worry about it, all you have to do for his tests is memorize the examples he gives you in class" like that's going to help me understand. When I talked to the teacher, he said essentially the same thing -- "If you paid attention to the examples I used in class, you'd know they're pretty much the same things on the test". No attempt to explain.

Especially with the troubles that No Child Left Behind poses, there's always going to be more of a focus on us "average" to "advanced" students to just get the high standard test scores, rather than to truly absorb the information they try to feed to us. Thankfully, college life is different so far. Not only do they go into more than what's in the book (well, except for some music classes where they only work directly from the book....), but it's finally become a place where I realize that I'll learn more going to class every day rather than just popping in once a week (as I only have class three times a week) and doing the homework self-taught.

Yeah, the US is a flawed system.....but we have nobody to fix it.

"I'm about to graduate from a high school teaching degree here and all the stuff I've read from Americans makes me really grateful that teachers have to do a four year education degree."

Here in Alabama, teachers also have to have a four year teaching degree-at least. Unfortunately I suspect that the colleges also have a similar drone-syndrome problem I mentioned earlier. I don't know, though.

Simonist']Where I'm from, though I can't speak for others, the whole school procedure is more like academic regurgitation than interest in who learns what. For example -- though I'm good at most topics, the brief time I took Chemistry in high school I struggled considerably because our teacher would only explain the facts of Chemistry, rather than the ideas behind it. I was struggling with my homework and I couldn't figure things out for tests. When I asked a Chem 2 kid for help, he said "Oh, don't worry about it, all you have to do for his tests is memorize the examples he gives you in class" like that's going to help me understand. When I talked to the teacher, he said essentially the same thing -- "If you paid attention to the examples I used in class, you'd know they're pretty much the same things on the test". No attempt to explain.
I agree with [NS]Simonist, schools are not interested in teaching so much as making sure we can remember random facts. When I was in school, I noticed that for the multiple choice tests, if you could remember one specific word you could get the right answer. And once in Biology, I got kicked out of class for asking the teacher to better explain the concept behind evolution, I asked because I knew that some of my friends didn't understand it but wouldn't ask for themselves. I belive that the only reason that I did as well as I did in school is because I cast off the methods of learning that I was told to use.

Especially with the troubles that No Child Left Behind poses, there's always going to be more of a focus on us "average" to "advanced" students to just get the high standard test scores, rather than to truly absorb the information they try to feed to us.
This is not true where I went to school at, the administration activily put, I'd say, about 90% of the effort into all of the students that are below average. They would award money to the students who increased their prior scores by 20% or better with money. This system is designed so that the school constantly meets its API target, and so it will continue to recive money.

Yeah, the US is a flawed system.....but we have nobody to fix it.
I think that what the problem is that most of the parents and adults think that it is acceptable, and those in public schools or just graduated, think that the system is truely flawed and needs to be fixed, but in most instances the youths are thought to be overreacting or some such.

That's why I'm going to major in mathematics (besides my like of it); there is no single correct way of approaching the problem in question, yet all of the methods require proof to be considered valid. It's apolitical and without moral judgements, and isn't subjective. Objectivity eliminates indoctrination.
I wish the students were taught that where I am from. When I was in Geometry, I was told, by a teacher who acknowledged that all people do not think alike, that the only way to solve a problem was the way as defined in the book. This would piss her off, because I would work through the problems the "wrong" way and still get the right answer.(Please don't ask for examples, this was two years ago, I am still not sure how I did it, and I threw out everything at the end of the year)

I feel that the purpose of schools is to not inform students of topics and facts alone, but to increase their understanding of the who, what, when, where, why, and how of those topics, and the world around them.
Ex: The currrent instruction is to just tell the students that Snowball in used Animal Farm to represent Leon Trotsky. Discussion as to why Snowball is Leo Trotsky, other than than just telling the students, is needed in order to understand Animal Farm as a critique of the Soviet goverment.

I may put it very simple, but the purpose of schools is learning. Nothing more, nothing less.
And what kids should learn exactly, is decided by the authorities (i.e. government, school districts, etc.) Whatever the subject, children should really want to learn something and by the means they want to learn it.

While I agree schools should teach competition via GPA and what have you, I realize now that I have children, they don't anymore. Everything is about being PC and supporting "good feelings". Which is why we get more kids that feel great and have no idea what the hell is going on in the world around them.

School is not about socializing or clothes or fun. It should be about educating the electorate.

"School is not about socializing or clothes or fun. It should be about educating the electorate"

It does not seem to be about anything anymore, actually.

Meh. I barely passed high school (by my own doing, not because of smarts) and dropped out of college, now I'm a network administrator making near $40,000 a year starting off.

Who says you absolutely need school to be successful? I mean, I still know a lot from school, I just never applied myself.

Yay, I'm living the American Dream....

I agree. And if I were in charge, which I will be if I can ever get these mind-controlling nanobots to work, I would not make school mandatory. HOLY *BLEEP*ING *BLEEP* THEY BLEW UP! MY *BLEEP*ING NANOBOTS BLEW THE *BLEEP* UP!

Education is a goal in itself.

Thats all i have to say.