NationStates Jolt Archive

Partly inspired by the direction discussion went on the thread about firefighters being obliged to learn Spanish...

What do you believe to be the most important subject(s) for children to learn in schools? Now, I appreciate that people need to have a basic grounding in a whole range of subjects, but what would be your main priorities, should you magically find yourself in the position to decide the curriculum in your real life state or nation? To declare my leaning at the outset, I believe that English, Maths, Science and History are the 'basics', the most fundamentally important subjects. I'm interested to see what a group of diverse, intelligent individuals thinks on the topic, but not having such a group handy, I put the question to NSG:p

Poll on its way...multiple choice, as people might want to pick several linked subjects e.g. an internationalist might want to emphasise the primary importance of learning foreign languages, foreign history, and geography.

oh wait, i can't find the critical thinking option.

1) How to handle a credit card responsibly.
2) How to handle a checking account.
3) How to understand the terms of a loan.
4) Cold fusion.

I'd say that foreign languages are the most important thing for kids to learn, especially those of neighbouring nations. Peace and co-operation are a lot easier when you can understand those around you.

Or they could just learn our language and then we don't have to.

I find it amazing how they say we need to learn foreign languages when we can't even teach our kids how to speak, write and read our own language first.

My poor grammar skills above prove this point. I learnt languages in school Italian and German, I can still speak German to a degree which only increased ten fold when I was in Germany but it has dropped quite a bit, the two years of Italian I did I can only remember a few words and phrases.

The question is what language? Our government has said Asian languages should be the most important, quite noble but there is a lot of different Asian languages, and our PM is a Sinophile so he wants Mandarin to be the main one, but why not any European languages?

Or they could just learn our language and then we don't have to.

I find it amazing how they say we need to learn foreign languages when we can't even teach our kids how to speak, write and read our own language first.

My poor grammar skills above prove this point. I learnt languages in school Italian and German, I can still speak German to a degree which only increased ten fold when I was in Germany but it has dropped quite a bit, the two years of Italian I did I can only remember a few words and phrases.

This is quite true. I learnt French for two years, remember nothing, and Spanish for four, only now remembering random tiny bits of vocabulary. I certainly couldn't communicate myself at all well to someone who only knew that language. But then again, I also don't remember much science or much beyond basic maths.

When you use it, obviously, it sticks better.
If you fire and forget it, well....

But if you were to go to Italy, you could definitely make yourself understood and understand others in a short time, since that stuff's wired into your synapses now.

Chimney sweeping

Really, before I'd do anything else, I'd teach kids how to critically think, and how to learn.

Especially how to learn. Kids are naturally curious, but practically every parent/set of parents crushes this curiosity as soon as they can, and honestly? That's just wrong. Cultivating that curiosity is a good thing, especially when you combine it with knowledge of how to learn.

This is quite true. I learnt French for two years, remember nothing, and Spanish for four, only now remembering random tiny bits of vocabulary. I certainly couldn't communicate myself at all well to someone who only knew that language. But then again, I also don't remember much science or much beyond basic maths.

I had to learn advanced maths at school, and these days I'm lucky if I can do percentages right.
Both my English and French, on the other hand, have massively improved since I left school.

If you don't use what you learn, you forget. Simple as that, and applicable to absolutely everything you can possibly learn.

The thing about school is that it should, in my opinion, give you a good basic knowledge of all the subjects. You can then choose to build on that, or not.

Really, before I'd do anything else, I'd teach kids how to critically think, and how to learn.

Especially how to learn. Kids are naturally curious, but practically every parent/set of parents crushes this curiosity as soon as they can, and honestly? That's just wrong. Cultivating that curiosity is a good thing, especially when you combine it with knowledge of how to learn.

Agreed. A thirst for knowledge is a natural human trait that can be cultivated into a skill.

That and wedgies. *nod*

English (or appropriate mother tongue) definitly, on various levels: grammatically, use of language (being able to communicate effectively), and literature. Maths and science are also vital (and Maths IN science) and should be encouraged as much as possible.

With regards to History, Geography and Politics, I wonder if we can't combine these more as the overlaps can be vaste. All of them are important to understand our world and issues related to it however I think we can compartmentalise them too much and end up repeating aspects.

Foreign languages is also very important, and should be learnt from a very early age. Something which I know some schools do (especially international ones) is at later levels get students to take a subject in a foreign language. Using a language is the best way to learn one, so this could help.

English is a foreign language. But yeah, they should learn it.
And they should learn to be afraid, very afraid; because there's a terrorist hiding in their closet.

Well, ok. Uhm.. I'm not much for politics or sports, but the rest are important imo.
And they should learn about security; real security, and not that scare-mongering governments do. Security such as how as how to keep your computer clean of viruses, how to keep your identity safe(r) from theft, how to use secure erasure tools and do whole-disk encryption, why things like identity cards won't do anything for actual security, etc.

English is a foreign language. But yeah, they should learn it.
And they should learn to be afraid, very afraid; because there's a terrorist hiding in their closet.

Well, ok. Uhm.. I'm not much for politics or sports, but the rest are important imo.
And they should learn about security; real security, and not that scare-mongering governments do. Security such as how as how to keep your computer clean of viruses, how to keep your identity safe(r) from theft, how to use secure erasure tools and do whole-disk encryption, why things like identity cards won't do anything for actual security, etc.

They should learn about how the political system of their country works at least and how that political system came to be, maybe even some other forms used around the world. They have dropped this bit from the Australia curriculum and now we have hundreds of people that don't know how the political system works or how people are voted in.

I did a first year Australian politics course at uni where we covered this one week and I was the only one in the group of 25 in my tutorial that knew how it worked, now that might not be a large enough sample but I know plenty of other people who also have no clue, I would say politics is an important thing for children to learn about.

Kids should should get a taster from every dicipline, so they have an idea what to do when they leave school.

At the risk of sounding old, the three R's, history, science, geography, at least one other language and RE, PE, sooooo all in all what they are already being taught.

All of 'em.

I'd say PE could do with some real improvement along with improving the first aid classes and doing something with form time/citizenship

Kids should should get a taster from every dicipline, so they have an idea what to do when they leave school.

but they don't have classes in going on the dole :(

Obviously, the basics - Math and one's own language, reading, speaking and writing, first and foremost. Once you have a solid foundation in those, you can learn anything. After that the priorities should be:

History
Science
Physical Training
A foreign language
Randomly chosen area of personal interest - including, but not limited to, art, music, literature.

* History
* Art
* Literature (obviously including literacy)
* Theology
* Geography
* Foreign Languages
* politics

Without learning the history of your own and other cultures and their arts, beliefs and ideals, you will never be able to effectivly contribute to them. To be able to understand these aspects, a grasp of geography is essential. And without knowing their languages, you will not be getting very far at all. Politics is intrinsically wound up in all of these things, and I don't think a through education can be completed without a basic understanding of what politics is, how it it shapes and is shaped by cultural traditions.

Geography
History
Politics
Gun Safety
Math
English
Health
Phy. Ed.
Art

The single most important thing schools need to teach is critical thinking. A skill that's very under-taught and many humans severely lack.

Really, before I'd do anything else, I'd teach kids how to critically think, and how to learn.

Especially how to learn. Kids are naturally curious, but practically every parent/set of parents crushes this curiosity as soon as they can, and honestly? That's just wrong. Cultivating that curiosity is a good thing, especially when you combine it with knowledge of how to learn.

Ya beat me to it!:tongue:

The single most important thing schools need to teach is critical thinking. A skill that's very under-taught and many humans severely lack.

Yes, this is important - but before you can think, you need tools. Tools like the ability to get information. For this you need to be able to read with comprehension. Tools like the ability to reason from a to b to c. For this, math is essential.

They all go together. Without the ability to think critically, information is wasted. Without data, critical thinking is pointless.

Another thing I wish they could teach (I know it's subjective and, therefore, really not possible) is the ability to recognize sarcasm, irony, farce, parody, metaphor and other literary and conversational devices. I know you can teach what they are, but, unless someone has a particular mindset (which, incidentally, has only a vague connection with actual intelligence), you can't teach them how to recognize it.

That sounds pretty reasonable. In this day and age you need to have knowledge of many things to understand the way the world works.

Yes, this is important - but before you can think, you need tools. Tools like the ability to get information. For this you need to be able to read with comprehension. Tools like the ability to reason from a to b to c. For this, math is essential.

They all go together. Without the ability to think critically, information is wasted. Without data, critical thinking is pointless.

Another thing I wish they could teach (I know it's subjective and, therefore, really not possible) is the ability to recognize sarcasm, irony, farce, parody, metaphor and other literary and conversational devices. I know you can teach what they are, but, unless someone has a particular mindset (which, incidentally, has only a vague connection with actual intelligence), you can't teach them how to recognize it.
Oh, I'm not advocating teching critical thinking as an abstract concept. It needs to be the vehicle educators use to teach the subjects. It doesn't matter if it's language, math, or pottery, there can always be exercises in critical thinking included.

History is the most important, in my eyes (though math and english are important too). Over here, I asked one of my cousins in 6th grade the following questions and got the following answers:

Who won the civil war?
-I don't know.
Oh. Well, then...who fought in the civil war?
-Um...Germany?
Not quite. Ah...do you know who Hitler was?
-Who?
What's the capital of Germany?
-Belgium?


I kid you not.

English and History and Sciences should be main priorities. Then secondary priorities should be math and foreign language. Also there should be more technical training in various fields instead of the regular liberal arts education. If someone does not want to go to college, they should be more prepared to enter the working world through technical training.

All of the above. HAH.

Although I wish I'd have learnt more science-y pish, so that I'd have been more prepared to do it as an A-level. Foreign languages are nice, and I like to learn them, but my degree, which is going to be in History, is basically a way to waste time for 3 years reading from time to time and writing somewhat eloquently. Sciences would be more useful to the state and general public.

English 29 72.50%
Math(s) 34 85.00%
Science 35 87.50%
History 32 80.00%
Politics 21 52.50%
Geography 21 52.50%

Give me the 30 seconds back I spent reading that awful OP or I'll stab you up

Also Imperialism

English and History and Sciences should be main priorities. Then secondary priorities should be math and foreign language. Also there should be more technical training in various fields instead of the regular liberal arts education. If someone does not want to go to college, they should be more prepared to enter the working world through technical training.

Sorry, but you can't do science without math, it just doesn't work. Math has to be a top priority.

my degree, which is going to be in History, is basically a way to waste time for 3 years reading from time to time and writing somewhat eloquently. Sciences would be more useful to the state and general public.

Why settle for three years? You can push that to at least seven if you try ;)

Personally, though, I disagree. I think the humanities, arts and literature are of more benefit to society than sciences. Our technology is adequate for our needs. Our culture is dead in the water.

Sorry, but you can't do science without math, it just doesn't work. Math has to be a top priority.


I stand corrected. My degree is in history so I don't know too much about science and math since I haven't taken a science or math class since high school. And even then I was in the remedial math class.

Procreation might be useful.

Language, whatever the second most prominent language in their area is, thats the one they should learn and be encouraged to learn a third.

Also, media literacy and criticism. Not 'OMG deh media iz t eh biasededed!' but rather how to read media, how it's made and the tools it uses to communicate so you can read it critically.

Kids should learn everything. EVERYTHING.

Math. Everything else is a waste of time.

We should teach kids that life is one big disappointment after an other and that there is no god and that they might as well kill themselves now.

We could call it no child left alive.

I'm a history teacher so I've got a bit of a bias...

1. History - History is probably the most important thing to know for upholding a society. It sets a precident, shows what works and what doesn't work... It does the trial and error for you. Not to mention, there are so many different types of history, it can really help students gain a broader perspective on anything from economics to warfare.

2. Geography - Geography gives students a greater understanding of different cultures and the world itself. It teaches students what to look for when trying to buy a house (i.e. knowing if you're going to have seasonal floods, etc.) and might help to promote stronger cultural tolerance.

3. Politics - Teaching students the ins and outs of politics creates educated voters... Educated voters are less likely to blindly accept political spin and might cut down on the idiots in office.

4. English - You have to speak correctly if anyone is going to take you seriously. Having a strong vocabulary and proper writing skills, will help students (possibly) advance farther in the professional world.

5. Mathematics - As much as I hate math, it's a necessity for society. Everyone needs some degree of mathematical skill, even if it's just for finances.

That's just my opinion... I'm sure there will be those who disagree but, whatever...

Language, whatever the second most prominent language in their area is, thats the one they should learn and be encouraged to learn a third.

Also, media literacy and criticism. Not 'OMG deh media iz t eh biasededed!' but rather how to read media, how it's made and the tools it uses to communicate so you can read it critically.

Yes, but do you see the problem with this? There will be teachers who will have their own take on what the media does and will have bias themselves so it won't work in the proper manner. Not to mention that some teachers wouldn't be able to tell you where Georgia was let alone tell you that there is a conflict between Georgia and Russia.

3. Politics - Teaching students the ins and outs of politics creates educated voters... Educated voters are less likely to blindly accept political spin and might cut down on the idiots in office.

Which is why it has been cut out of the curriculum in Australia.

Yes, but do you see the problem with this? There will be teachers who will have their own take on what the media does and will have bias themselves so it won't work in the proper manner. Not to mention that some teachers wouldn't be able to tell you where Georgia was let alone tell you that there is a conflict between Georgia and Russia.

You're not understanding, it has fuck all to do with 'bias' or 'they're meanies,' it's reading media in the same way they teach you to critically read literature. And in the same way you wouldn't let the home ec teacher take over the biology class, you wouldn't just pick a teacher at random and say, "Figure it out."

Ah, as usual, the Arts are forgotten.

You're not understanding, it has fuck all to do with 'bias' or 'they're meanies,' it's reading media in the same way they teach you to critically read literature. And in the same way you wouldn't let the home ec teacher take over the biology class, you wouldn't just pick a teacher at random and say, "Figure it out."

Well that should apply generally not just focusing on the media. But teachers won't always teach this properly some will place thoughts into the heads of their students such as CNN is apart of the Liberal media so this is how you listen to what they are saying and analyse it a certain way because they have a bias.

You would also be surprised how many times teachers that may specialise in Home economics be placed into biology class' to teach them.

Ah, as usual, the Arts are forgotten.

http://data2.blog.de/media/333/1176333_f062c7ff54_m.gif

Well that should apply generally not just focusing on the media. But teachers won't always teach this properly some will place thoughts into the heads of their students such as CNN is apart of the Liberal media so this is how you listen to what they are saying and analyse it a certain way because they have a bias.

You would also be surprised how many times teachers that may specialise in Home economics be placed into biology class' to teach them.

Your complaint is one of general teaching and not specific to my argument. You could just as easily say, "Well, we could teach evolution but there might be some teachers who would tell students we'd lose our pinkies or that it happens by magic." This is not an argument against teaching evolution, it's an argument for teaching standards.

I state, once again, this has fuck all to do with bias. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zip. Not a sausage. None. Not a fucking thing. It's about how media is made, how it communicates. If you make it about bias, that is not the class I am proposing any more than evolution class is proposing teaching that it happens by magic.

Your critique is about teaching standards and does not in any special way invalidate my proposal.

EDIT: Fuck, I got all caught up in having to repeat myself I forgot the next part.

Media is specific because it is how the bulk of us get our information, it is a constant and invasive presence in our lives and has a specific language and set of tools to it. Something that is that ever present deserves its own focus, not just 'in everything.'

Your complaint is one of general teaching and not specific to my argument. You could just as easily say, "Well, we could teach evolution but there might be some teachers who would tell students we'd lose our pinkies or that it happens by magic." This is not an argument against teaching evolution, it's an argument for teaching standards.

I state, once again, this has fuck all to do with bias. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zip. Not a sausage. None. Not a fucking thing. It's about how media is made, how it communicates. If you make it about bias, that is not the class I am proposing any more than evolution class is proposing teaching that it happens by magic.

Your critique is about teaching standards and does not in any special way invalidate my proposal.

I actually agree with your proposal and it is something I try and teach my son about, not a lot but have made mention to it. I have always understood what you have been saying. But what I am saying is that it won't work in the way you and I wish, due to a number of reasons and it may have the opposite effect of what the proposal actually intends. It looks good on paper but it just won't work in real life.

I actually agree with your proposal and it is something I try and teach my son about, not a lot but have made mention to it. I have always understood what you have been saying. But what I am saying is that it won't work in the way you and I wish, due to a number of reasons and it may have the opposite effect of what the proposal actually intends. It looks good on paper but it just won't work in real life.

That's like saying that because science is misunderstood or politicized teaching it will never work in real life. Again, this is a complaint of teaching standards that could be applied to every curiculum, you've just essentially said that teaching in real life won't work.

I have not argued for perfect execution, any institution as large as education will have flaws, but to risk the political rancor of this board by quoting a politician running for office now, it would be stupid to make the perfect the enemy of the good. "Well, some teacher in Podunk, Indiana might fuck this up, so we don't do it at all." That's, frankly, stupid.

That's like saying that because science is misunderstood or politicized teaching it will never work in real life. Again, this is a complaint of teaching standards that could be applied to every curiculum, you've just essentially said that teaching in real life won't work.

I have not argued for perfect execution, any institution as large as education will have flaws, but to risk the political rancor of this board by quoting a politician running for office now, it would be stupid to make the perfect the enemy of the good. "Well, some teacher in Podunk, Indiana might fuck this up, so we don't do it at all." That's, frankly, stupid.

I would rather fix the flaws up than just institute something because it sounds good, but then again that may explain why I am not in politics.

Yes it is a complaint of teaching standards, and as I said I agree with your original proposal.

...you left off music or art. I think that it's important to give kids an opportunity to learn to express themselves creatively.


But apart from that, math, science and languages (english [although this should focus mostly on reading comprehension, writing ability and creative writing than something like reading the classics] and other languages). Math and science are just really important for many future careers and it's easier to learn them early on, similarly with languages. I think it's important that kids pick up a second language as soon as possible because once the second language has been picked up, it's easier to learn others.

It's more about building a broad base of skills that become harder to pick up later in life I think.

Computer skills can be picked up later, they're not very hard once you get started and interested students will usually pick this up on their own. Physical activity is important, but this is what recess and not being in class 24/7 is for, parents should get their children off their asses and outside.

The single most important thing schools need to teach is critical thinking.

yup. everything else is just details.

EDIT: Fuck, I got all caught up in having to repeat myself I forgot the next part.

Media is specific because it is how the bulk of us get our information, it is a constant and invasive presence in our lives and has a specific language and set of tools to it. Something that is that ever present deserves its own focus, not just 'in everything.'

As I said I agree with you, I think people should be taught how the media operates what their objectives are, why they present stories the way they do, why they present peoples opinions a certain way and why some are left out.

As I said I agree with you, I think people should be taught how the media operates what their objectives are, why they present stories the way they do, why they present peoples opinions a certain way and why some are left out.

Actually, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how media conveys its message and how it wields its influence. What you're talking about is, essentially, bias. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the critical skills to read media by understanding its structure and 'tools' or language. How things are filtered, at best. Not why, how.

Rifle field-stripping (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/report_american_schools_trail)

*nods*

Physical education should be a mandatory credit but not done in the academic environment. It would be best done out of school and it leaves the parents and students free to make a choice about what best suits the kid. For example, I hated PhysEd class but I loved martial arts, which I continued to take even when I dropped Phys Ed from my time table in high school.

For it to work, designate a minimum number of hours per week and have the coach or whoever helps the student sign a form affirming that the student is indeed participating.

And before someone says it, not all physical education takes money. Plus students can join teams, which would count as credit.

Of course, that's not to say schools shouldn't offer it...

The rest of the subjects I feel are important. All should be given priority.

Physical education should be a mandatory credit but not done in the academic environment. It would be best done out of school and it leaves the parents and students free to make a choice about what best suits the kid. For example, I hated PhysEd class but I loved martial arts, which I continued to take even when I dropped Phys Ed from my time table in high school.

For it to work, designate a minimum number of hours per week and have the coach or whoever helps the student sign a form affirming that the student is indeed participating.

And before someone says it, not all physical education takes money. Plus students can join teams, which would count as credit.

Of course, that's not to say schools shouldn't offer it...

The rest of the subjects I feel are important. All should be given priority.

The Romans had a saying "Mens Sana in Corpore Sano" - a sound mind in a sound body. Even then they recongnized the fact that physical health was fundamental to intellectual acuity. It's axiomatic that getting the blood moving not only keeps your body healthy, it keeps your brain healthy.

Physical training needs to be as much a part of the curriculum as anything else. I don't think everyone needs to aspire to be Olympic athletes, but you do need to be at your best. The current state of American kids, now that PE is no longer required in school, demonstrates this. They're fat, shapeless, unmotivated. They don't move unless it's from the seat in front of their computer to the seat in front of the TV to the refrigerator.

When I see boys with flab wobbling and girls with midriffs bulging, I get depressed. I'm sixy one, you can expect me to look less than perfect. But young people in their teens and twenties who have bodies like mine are unacceptable. These kids, with their diets of junk food and physical and mental laziness are what's going to destroy this country, not the damned politicians.

My daughter, who is a Public Health Officer in the Air Force, recently told me a story about an airman under her command. They were having their twice-weekly mandatory PT and were in the running segment. He was just behind her. She turned and told him that he should be well in front of her. He said that he thought that they could go at their own pace. She said that if he as a twenty something young man couldn't run faster than a thirty-seven year old woman, there was something seriously wrong with him (he was running a mile and a quarter in 17 minutes! I can walk it in that). According to her, this is endemic in the military and in general. Young people are unable to pass basic PT tests and have to be ordered to exercise.

Young people in this country today are sub par physically and, as a result, sub par mentally.

OK, rant over.

They don't move unless it's from the seat in front of their computer to the seat in front of the TV to the refrigerator.


That has been my summer.
I intend to start working out again.. someday..

Really, before I'd do anything else, I'd teach kids how to critically think, and how to learn.
I'm skeptical of any attempts to teach children critical thinking. I have two objections:

I've never been completely clear what people mean by "critical thinking."
I don't know if teaching a way of thinking would necessarily have an effect, anyway.

I'll clarify what I mean by the second one: if you're learning physics, you also have to learn to think in a scientific way. If you're learning a language, you have to learn how to think in a linguistic way. (Linguistic may not be the best word, but I can't think of an adjective form of "language.") There are no classes on "How to Think Like a Physicist" because the assumption is you'll learn that alongside the rest of physics. Without still knowing exactly what it is, it seems critical thinking is something that should already be taught in all of the other subjects. If it's not, there is something wrong, but there's no point in establishing it as a separate subject.
Especially how to learn. Kids are naturally curious, but practically every parent/set of parents crushes this curiosity as soon as they can, and honestly? That's just wrong. Cultivating that curiosity is a good thing, especially when you combine it with knowledge of how to learn.
Agreed, although I don't agree parents crush curiosity as soon as possible. I don't remember my parents doing anything, and I haven't heard complaints from friends.

Agreed, although I don't agree parents crush curiosity as soon as possible. I don't remember my parents doing anything, and I haven't heard complaints from friends.

I agree with that, and the other thing you posted, but it was just too long to quote comfortably.

We must have grown up in privileged times.

Young people in this country today are sub par physically and, as a result, sub par mentally.

I don't think physical weakness is what leads to mental weakness, but rather what kids do instead of exercise is also what they do instead of think (if that makes any sense). For example, watching television, to use a reliable bogeyman, uses just as little of your mental facilities as it does your physical ones.

I agree with that, and the other thing you posted, but it was just too long to quote comfortably.

We must have grown up in privileged times.
I see it as signs of our inherent superiority. Why else would God will us to be born when we were?

I don't think physical weakness is what leads to mental weakness, but rather what kids do instead of exercise is also what they do instead of think (if that makes any sense). For example, watching television, to use a reliable bogeyman, uses just as little of your mental facilities as it does your physical ones.

Actually, a number of studies have been done showing a correlation between exercise and intelligence. I've included three citations. There are probably many more.

http://sportsci.blogspot.com/2007/08/link-between-exercise-and-intelligence.html

http://willtoexist.com/fitness-lifestyle-improves-intelligence_1513/

http://johnratey.typepad.com/

I see it as signs of our inherent superiority. Why else would God will us to be born when we were?

As inherently superior as we are, I do not feel we need to answer that question, lest unworthy souls be dumbfounded by the truth.

Actually, a number of studies have been done showing a correlation between exercise and intelligence. I've included three citations. There are probably many more.

http://sportsci.blogspot.com/2007/08/link-between-exercise-and-intelligence.html

http://willtoexist.com/fitness-lifestyle-improves-intelligence_1513/

http://johnratey.typepad.com/
tl;dr

I kid. No, I understand there is a link between physical and mental fitness, I just believe that on a national scale, ignorance is more the result of television, laziness, consumerist society, whatever you want to call it, which is also the cause of physical laziness. Physical laziness hurts too, but to a lesser degree.

I can't believe how few people have said MFL. Languages are so important in the world that we live in, and it is bigoted to expect everyone in the world to speak English. Why can't we English-speakers learn some languages? Jeeze...what Imperialistic dogs we all are.

All should be done in some part. All have a good argument and can be supplimented at home

English You need to know hot to communicate. But is it really needed to read random old poems?
Math Budget anyone? From there harder maths is needed for science/technology
Science Understand the basics of how the world works. This is an endless subject (like english)
Foreign language Always good to communicate with neighbour/trading countires
History Dont repeat mistakes. But is there really a difference is someone thinks 1782 when its 1783 in the big picture?
Politics knowledge is needed to keep the country in a good shape. But this will we warped by the teachers (normally left winged) opinions. Its very subjective (like english)
Geography It is good to know where your country is doing things. However you dont need to know every country and capital in the world like my friend does
PE Were fat. Loose some weight. Altho this could be done at home too (like others to a degree)
IT Well here I am on a computer now. I study on a computer for uni. Very important

The real question is in what portions should they be studies. That is an endless debate. I think that many skills should be met by students in the earlier years such as general reading, math, science and geograhy. From there let them study what they like with a continuation of maths and english

Partly inspired by the direction discussion went on the thread about firefighters being obliged to learn Spanish...

What do you believe to be the most important subject(s) for children to learn in schools? Now, I appreciate that people need to have a basic grounding in a whole range of subjects, but what would be your main priorities, should you magically find yourself in the position to decide the curriculum in your real life state or nation? To declare my leaning at the outset, I believe that English, Maths, Science and History are the 'basics', the most fundamentally important subjects. I'm interested to see what a group of diverse, intelligent individuals thinks on the topic, but not having such a group handy, I put the question to NSG:p

Poll on its way...multiple choice, as people might want to pick several linked subjects e.g. an internationalist might want to emphasise the primary importance of learning foreign languages, foreign history, and geography.
Literacy is obviously the first and biggest priority, to me. Kids not only need to know their ABCs, but they need to know how to read and analyze what they're reading.

I believe that basic math and science education is also absolutely critical.

Anyone who wants skills that'll put them in good stead for the rest of their life should definitely look into either accounting or engineering.

The biggest emphasis should be on Math, Science, English, and History.

While yes, foreign languages are useful, they aren't as necessary in the States as they are in most other countries, just because our country is well, large. I love traveling abroad, and I know other languages, but I'd be FAR more upset if my (hypothetical) kids didn't learn math properly than if they didn't learn Spanish. Knowledge of literature is important, as is knowledge of history. Past events made the world the way it is, and to understand current ones, one should have a grasp of history. And knowledge of science is necessary to understand how the world is advancing, and to just not end up a fool.

oh wait, i can't find the critical thinking option.
This.

Obviously the three R's are incredibly important, but a basic level of critical thinking and analysis of arguments is vital in any discipline. That's not to say kids shouldn't be taught history, geography, et al; far from it. But we're talking about basic skills, educational priorities; literacy, numeracy and critical thinking are key to the rounded education of a child.

Maths is very important for almost everything. So it should be prioritized. Politics is important to be informed citizens and to be able to participate in democratic processes. Sciences are very important to understand the world around you.

PE should be eliminated, because it is only a sorry excuse for institutionalized bullying

PE should be eliminated, because it is only a sorry excuse for institutionalized bullying

Good point fatty

PE should be eliminated, because it is only a sorry excuse for institutionalized bullying

and/or a way to get fat-asses up and moving a couple times a week. we actually need more physical education, not less. so say doctors and everything.

and/or a way to get fat-asses up and moving a couple times a week. we actually need more physical education, not less. so say doctors and everything.

Amen to that. I think P.E. should be the first class in the morning. I've noticed that if I work out in the a.m., I feel better and more alert for the rest of the day. It doesn't need to be much, but just 20 - 40 minutes of physical activity 3-4 days a week does wonders. Kids could be given a choice of what they do and it could be tailored to physical ability, but they would still be required to do it.

The reason most of us hated P.E. growing up was that it was so regimented, competetive and inflexible. If I had been told, as a kid, that I had to do it, but I could, within certain parameters, choose what I was going to do, I would have loved it. For example, I love to swim. So, for me, a class would have been organized around 20 minutes of running and/or set exercises and then forty minutes of swimming 4-5 times a week. There would have been no testing and no grading.

I think standard should be met for all subjects as early as possible before the children study more specialized things. For me the most important subjects are maths and english

The math skills to teach someone about a budget or finance could be the different between owning a house or owning nothing.
The English skills (or native language ie French in France) is important to communicate. To be able to speak about what needs to be done at work, or home to thoes arround you. Everyone should have the skills to write and verbually communicate properly.

However each subject can go too far

English Is it really important to read old poems that you forget in a month. Sure its nice to be able to understand them but most jobs dont require this

Math Im sure we have all seen some crazy math equation which looks as close to an equation as a greek word. Will it ever be used again?

Science An endless subject to teach. It is good to know the basics of how this world works but do you need to know the species name for a cockroach or how to design a H bomb in year 12 physics (what a fun lecture that was)

Foreign language Great to communicate with neighbours (liked or not) and it helps with your own language. But 99% of communication dosnt need it.

History 1792 or 1793? I dont care. About 2 centuries ago is close enough. Also the view of any event is warped by the present day mentality. Nice to learn from it but hard to know what really happened

Politics Know your system of government and whos in it. Look at a few other types. But do you trust the teacher to teach it properly. Is there any nation here (other than yourself) that you would trust to communicate the "truth" of matters to children? Too easily warped to suit political agendas

Geography Know what you country is doing and where. Learn a bit about nations you are heavily involved with. Dont learn every country and capital in the world like one of my friends has.

PE Your fat. RUN RUN tubby. :D But really many should loose weight. But this could be done at home. Altho I know many parents hate any responsibility.

IT Well we are turning to machines for everything. But where should the learning stop. As soon as they know how to use mircosoft word, excel et al., and email? Or should they learn how to set up a web site and hold forums at school. (they may learn this at home anyway)

The hardest question is what portions of study should go to what subjects. Too much of any subject could be a waste of time. You never know what a student will do later in there life so the basics of running a house and communicating should be taught as a minimum. From there expand to learn the building blocks of other principles.

I voted "English" and "Foreign languages" but actually I think the only core skill is one language, and if you're lucky enough to live in a country with English as the main language, that's all you need to learn whatever else you're curious about.

The idea that "science" is a core subject I particularly take issue with. While the scientific method is fundamental to our modern ideas of what constitutes knowledge (ie critical thinking) students are expected to memorize years and years of canonical science before getting to the level where critical thinking will get them anything but "incorrect, 0 marks" ... and this undermines rather than strengthens their ability to think for themselves.

In language, however, creative thinking is rewarded at a much earlier age (year 3 or 4, not bachelor's or postgrad level as with science) because the human brain is optimized for language, and children use language in everyday life. Unless their parents are extremely negligent, they have some language the day they start school.

science is also about understanding the world. I would argue that any activity that is not solely written/typed depends on science.

Plumbers need someone to find out the science of hydrology
Computers require the properties of electricity and metals to be known to work at all
Seats are established upon the laws of physics and the properties of substances
Food is generated due to our understanding of biology and agriculture

Science is such a big area that effects everything you do. Even the science of a pencil was determined by someone for children to write in school even if they are learning English.

Science is a core subject because it is the core part of the world. Without scientific knowledge we would be just like cattle. Even certain types of primapes have figured out which rocks if applied with the correct force make foor avaliable. Without science we would be stupider than them.

how things actually work, both mechanical and organic, and how to make the former to get along with the latter, and how to make like an imp and improvise and how to use to the best advantage also tecnologies too, to build the kind of world that maximises gratification AND survival for EVERYone.

how the creation of incentives works, and how they create conditions by their influence on policy.

how to persue gratifictation in ways that actually gratify, AND bennifit more then harm.

how to be happy without beating their heads against walls, yet without neglecting the removal of walls that are the wrong kind and in the wrong place.

the real morality of the avoidance of causing suffering, and all the real practical how to's of how the mechanism actually works.

basically sciences, tecnologies and the arts. screw bizdroidism, idiology, symbolic/monetary economics, and all the rest of the brain washing horse pukkie, including idiologically slanted 'history', as nearly all teaching of so called history inhierently is.

and while math is integral to the sciences, the best places and ways to learn it would be intigral to and with exploring them.

lafferty's parent teacher apperatus on cameroi had a good and interesting description of primary education here.

The biggest emphasis should be on Math, Science, English, and History.

While yes, foreign languages are useful, they aren't as necessary in the States as they are in most other countries, just because our country is well, large. I love traveling abroad, and I know other languages, but I'd be FAR more upset if my (hypothetical) kids didn't learn math properly than if they didn't learn Spanish. Knowledge of literature is important, as is knowledge of history. Past events made the world the way it is, and to understand current ones, one should have a grasp of history. And knowledge of science is necessary to understand how the world is advancing, and to just not end up a fool.

I agree, except about foreign languages. Knowledge of foreign languages in important for a full understanding of literature and history. If you can't read what others write, you aren't going to understand very much. Translations are only a stop-gap, IMHO. Also, from a European perspective knowledge of languages is essential.

Amen to that. I think P.E. should be the first class in the morning. I've noticed that if I work out in the a.m., I feel better and more alert for the rest of the day. It doesn't need to be much, but just 20 - 40 minutes of physical activity 3-4 days a week does wonders. Kids could be given a choice of what they do and it could be tailored to physical ability, but they would still be required to do it.

I think there is a place for physical exercise for kids, but it's not the business of the school to do so. Schools are for intellectual and artistic pursuits. All sports do in school is make our kids even more football obsessed and even less focused on studying something meaningful. Most cities have clubs that can get kids to work up a sweat outside of school hours, anyway. Encouraging the use and expansion of these facilities would be a better solution.

The reason most of us hated P.E. growing up was that it was so regimented, competitive and inflexible. If I had been told, as a kid, that I had to do it, but I could, within certain parameters, choose what I was going to do, I would have loved it. For example, I love to swim. So, for me, a class would have been organized around 20 minutes of running and/or set exercises and then forty minutes of swimming 4-5 times a week. There would have been no testing and no grading.

Granted a lot of kids hate it because it's regimented. But I think the real problem is that in school you have limited time to cover a broad array of topics, and PE eats into that time. Chances are you kid is going to get out of school and kick a ball round in the car park, annoying everyone anyway. Taking that as a given we might as well count that as physical exercise, so that when you can get the kids into school we can at least and get them to study something meaningful, and forget about setting aside even more time to kicking footballs around.

If he's that determined to do something physical then save on the costs of educating the hyper-active kid, give him an AK and send him to Iraq/Afghanistan/Georgia. They'll teach him to run fast :tongue:

first off all the subjects above are important.
What we need is school choice and schools with specialized curriculum. Students should be encouraged to find what they excel at and go down that road so long as they meet the basics in other subjects. The thing that kept me in high until graduation was the fact my junior year I got accepted into the science and engineering magnet school.
Without being challenged in subjects I found fascinating I would have dropped and manufactured LSD. Ever child is different and needs to be challenged in a different way to set the desire to learn in motion.

so its not the subjects its the system. we need a system similar to Finland in my opinion.

It's been said a few times before that they should be taught everything in equal measure. I also think that there should be a lot a more interaction between the subjects.

For instance they could do an experiment in science and at the same time be learning techniques in maths to help them analyse the results. This could be combined with how to present such data with IT using spreadsheets and graphs. If the experiment was on the energy density of different materials then this could be combined with geography to look at the distribution of energy resources and the dilemmas we are presented with today. Such as: bio-fuels, use of nuclear technology, peak oil, plus others, and what effects these dilemmas could have. This look at technology could also be examined in technology subjects. edit: and then in history they could examine the role of resource scarcity in historical conflicts.

Or more arts based you could have the children studying 'A picture of Dorian Grey', examining the literary techniques that Oscar Wilde used and also looking at the context of the literature, which could be extended to look at history of human rights (relating the to persecution of homosexuality), a look at the stance on human rights in different cultures and countries in Geography. In art they could look at the Aestheticism movement which Wilde was involved in and contrast it with Realism which Wilde attacked. And to top it all off the children could be learning how to use the Internet and Word Processors and other IT tools to help them research and present what they were learning.

And it is a result of all this that the students should be getting a grasp of critical thinking.

Oh, and finally, learning a foreign language is a huge help towards a broader and more comprehensive understanding of ones own native language.

first off all the subjects above are important.
What we need is school choice and schools with specialized curriculum. Students should be encouraged to find what they excel at and go down that road so long as they meet the basics in other subjects. The thing that kept me in high until graduation was the fact my junior year I got accepted into the science and engineering magnet school.
Without being challenged in subjects I found fascinating I would have dropped and manufactured LSD. Ever child is different and needs to be challenged in a different way to set the desire to learn in motion.

so its not the subjects its the system. we need a system similar to Finland in my opinion.

I tend to agree with this. I was always fairly poor at foreign languages and science, and disastorous at art and music, but good at stuff like history, IT, politics, english and the like. I think it would have been much more beneficial for me to have been able to concentrate on the subjects that I was better at early on rather than wasting my time at things I was never going to get good at (especially art and music in my case)

Ah, as usual, the Arts are forgotten.

Not really, I think that arts should just be an optional class. Mostly because they have no bearing in the job market.

An Engineer is alot more useful than an Artist.

Not really, I think that arts should just be an optional class. Mostly because they have no bearing in the job market.

An Engineer is alot more useful than an Artist.

Define "useful", bearing in mind, of course, the only reason that children attend school at all, is to trained for a purely "useful" job that generates profit for the economy.

I tend to agree with this. I was always fairly poor at foreign languages and science, and disastorous at art and music, but good at stuff like history, IT, politics, english and the like. I think it would have been much more beneficial for me to have been able to concentrate on the subjects that I was better at early on rather than wasting my time at things I was never going to get good at (especially art and music in my case)

what i have found is that if your challenged in what your good at the subjects you are so good at also improve as you learn to apply the subjects your good at to them. where as before magnet school the subjects i was good at I would get bored in because the classes didn't challenge me. and the subjects I was weak in was jsut an annoyance to go to.

Not really, I think that arts should just be an optional class. Mostly because they have no bearing in the job market.

An Engineer is alot more useful than an Artist.What about the design element of the service industry? You'd have no films, no books, no TV, no radio, no adverts, an internet still written entirely in http, and finally you'd be living in a concrete jungle from the 50s/60s.

What about the design element of the service industry? You'd have no films, no books, no TV, no radio, no adverts, an internet still written entirely in http, and finally you'd be living in a concrete jungle from the 50s/60s.

Good, I wouldn't mind living in the 1950s. You misunderstand. I'm talking about artist's who spend their entire life painting pictures and contributing nothing. Or idiots who make a big block out of steel and put it in front of a building and call it " art " ( I'm not even shitting you, Mellon Bank payed a few million dollars to have a solid steel block outside their HQ in Pittsburgh just because some big name artist made it )

Those people are not useful.

I still stand by the point, that any kind of art class should not be required for school like it was at my District. It should be an optional for people who actually want to do it.

2,666 posts is a lot of not caring the non-tech manual part of the internet.

Teachers are already asked to go so far beyond basic education, it's a wonder they get any solid information across and make it stick. Values? Ethics? Basic life skills? Where the hell are parents?

Teachers are already asked to go so far beyond basic education, it's a wonder they get any solid information across and make it stick. Values? Ethics? Basic life skills? Where the hell are parents?

Good point, my aunt is a teacher down at Freedom PA, she can't stand dealing with parents who call her when their kid fails a paper, or misbehaves in class like its her fault.

What about the design element of the service industry? You'd have no films, correct no books, wrong educational and technological books would still exist no TV, shows to help educate would still exist, people would relax from a hard day of work turn on the TV and learn quantum Physics. no radio, educational and news still on no adverts, an internet still written entirely in http which would serve its original purpose to spread information other then porn, and finally you'd be living in a concrete jungle from the 50s/60s.yes which would be more energy efficient and space efifcent greatly reducing fossil fuel consumption. Dare I say removal of the arts and excution of all artist shall solve all our problems.

Good point, my aunt is a teacher down at Freedom PA, she can't stand dealing with parents who call her when their kid fails a paper, or misbehaves in class like its her fault.

That's not to say that parents should be uninvolved -- far from it. However, "involvement" does not mean "unequivocal defense regardless of the child's actions".

I'm just saying that teachers have enough to do in trying to educate kids in basics in a way that competes with console games and the Internet for appeal without having to deliver lectures on values and ethics as well. Debates about those things are fine and constructive, especially in contexts like literature or history. But actually telling kids how to think with regard to morality? Not the state's job.

edit: whoops, that mad face isn't meant to be there.

correctHmm, if you're going to play it like this then wouldn't government propaganda films still exist.
wrong educational and technological books would still existWhoops. I must have been thinking of novels and using the term synonymously.

shows to help educate would still exist, people would relax from a hard day of work turn on the TV and learn quantum Physics.Which, no matter what the content, would still be as entertaining as a public safety film
which would serve its original purpose to spread information other then pornyesBut such is the human condition that it impossible to imagine the internet being as huge as success as it has become

which would be more energy efficient and space efifcent greatly reducing fossil fuel consumption.I suppose there would also be a more efficient language system as well to prevent misunderstandings. A Newspeak as it were. Life could become so devoid of any individualism that it would hardly be worth living. For there would be only one way to do things and that is the most efficient.

Oh, and I forgot one art form which least interests me -- music.

Dare I say removal of the arts and excution of all artist shall solve all our problems.I think you would find quite the reverse. Without the ability for humanity to express itself through artistic mediums then it would certainly find other ways to express its emotions, anxieties and hopes. Social breakdown would begin as humanity sinks into psychological trauma through the inability to express itself fully. Conflict would multiply as humans found themselves unable to empathise with others.

Good, I wouldn't mind living in the 1950s. You misunderstand. I'm talking about artist's who spend their entire life painting pictures and contributing nothing. Or idiots who make a big block out of steel and put it in front of a building and call it " art " ( I'm not even shitting you, Mellon Bank payed a few million dollars to have a solid steel block outside their HQ in Pittsburgh just because some big name artist made it )

Those people are not useful.


Without wishing to be presumptious, I doubt anyone has ever stumped up millions of dollars for your work and as such it would seem that this "useless" artist has created something of a higher value to someone than you have.

Originally Posted by East Coast Federation
Good point, my aunt is a teacher down at Freedom PA, she can't stand dealing with parents who call her when their kid fails a paper, or misbehaves in class like its her fault.

The raising of children to me is always about the parents. The parents are the most responsible in every regard. This isnt to say the teacher isnt responsible. But the influence on the childs life has far more to do with the parents than the teacher.

The problem with teachers now days isnt the teachers themselves. They try hard. They took the career for reasons other than money. They hope to help the children.

The problem lies with the government demands on all thoes small ridiculous things that they demand the teachers to do. The teachers must always be politicially correct and calm even when the children or parents are behaving like little s***s.

Teachers are human. There is only so much they can do. But that wont stop even mroe responsibility being handed down upon them because of slack parents and politicians wanting to be seen as doing something.