How we teach our children.

[Seth]

Suggestion:

 

"School" is not much more than a glorified daycare. It teaches children to inhibit natural talent by forcing them to learn a lot of mindless and useless facts.

[help4me]

Suggestion:

 

"School" is not much more than a glorified daycare. It teaches children to inhibit natural talent by forcing them to learn a lot of mindless and useless facts.

Agreed!!! And I can say that wholeheartedly because I AM a teacher! This is why as a teacher I am in trouble most of the time with my superiors, because I DON'T conform to standards and yet my preschool students still manage to learn more than any other class and have the ability to think for themselves (in a young child kind of way) by the time they leave my class. In fact... I was just asked to dumb down my teaching style because I was "teaching" the children things that were too advanced for them... such as both English and Spanish words for colors and numbers. First I raised hell to my immediate boss. How dare some pencil pusher in the corporate office tell me how to teach when all they have is book knowledge and not real time in a classroom. How dare they tell me that I don't know my students well enough to be able to challenge them with realistic material. How dare I ask my kids to think beyond basic dumbed down American school practices. Then I stopped teaching. And you know what.... two months later my kids can still recall the things I taught them through games and what not. Tell me my kids aren't capable of learning. We also explore things beyond the 3 R's. We do logic problems, riddles, so on and so forth. And for the sole purpose of teaching them different ways to think. I really don't care none of my students learns the alphabet or numbers or colors. My two main goals as a teacher... getting kids (yes young kids) to think and to laugh. My students... my kids.... know how to deal with difficulties by the time they leave my class. They learn how to solve problems. Teacher doesn't do it for them. I may guide... but I won't do for them what they can do for themselves. Each day we build on this. I take the time to let them "do stuff." And yet I was accused of "over teaching." It's not as if I was expecting high school level work from them. I've been teaching for six years, and a parent for 14. And my mom was a preschool teacher. I think I know a little bit about what young kids can and cannot handle. It takes time to "learn" your students. Teachers must know what level each student is at, what their learning style is, and the students personality, likes and dislikes. Only then can you help them learn and grow as a person.

 

My thoughts are jumbled and don't flow properly.... but oh well. It ticks me off that schools ask teachers to dumb things down and create a bunch of conformist drones. It's very hard to fight the system. I don't know how much longer I can keep fighting it. That's an American point of view anyway.

[petef]

I'm assuming that Seth and Help5me are basing their opinions on real life experience

and it agrees with my knowledge gained from researching this topic back around 1999.

 

It's been a while since I read the document at the link below, but as I recall, it explains

what's happening in the schools as related to what you two are saying. I became

interested in this topic many years ago after hearing that the schools were purposely

designed and used as a tool of social change and control for political purposes.

From other research and experience, I think it's much more complicated than that

because I feel that the curiculum in schools are also being influenced by large

corporations who need obedient employees that will conform to their systems and

not so strong as independent free thinking individuals.

 

Anyway, give this article a read and see how it relates to your experience

in the schools. I'd like to here your thoughts. As I recall there is a lot to

absorb here and I had to read it a couple of times to get it all.

 

OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION AND HIGHER ORDER THINKING SKILLS

(Long article, about 17 screens)

http://www.htworkshop.com/public/OBE001.TXT

 

---pete---

[Guest Wolfeymole]

I blame all these new age politically correct pillocks who teach crap and aren't allowed to give the kid a slap if they get lippy.

Half of the schools are teaching Islam, in fact half of the schools are full of ethnic minorities, soon to be majorities.

The education system is on it's arse well and truly over here.

Then when the teacher has had enough they retire through "stress", stress my arse, their after a compensation claim.

I wish I could even say it was laughable but it's not.

[Seth]

My two main goals as a teacher... getting kids (yes young kids) to think and to laugh.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The so called "democracy" needs more teachers like you.

 

The former from your statement won't happen as the system is designed to create workers. Despite common thought, the whole system is not governed by the President or the Prime Minister. Those titles are mere guises (puppets) to hide the fact that the system is run by corporations.

 

If you were a business owner you would fire a very bad employee. Not so in this "democracy" as they'll scream racism, discrimination, or other various irrelevant logical fallacies. One main point of a true democracy is the ability to fire an employee or the current government. In our "democratic" society, this can take many years.

 

"To think and to laugh" is in opposition to the above and what we teach our children. The social repercussions of such is the the true source of crime and general human degradation.

 

In regards to the latter part of your statement Bonnie:

 

Laughter is, and always will be the most important facet of life. When is the last time you saw that in the curriculum?

[Guest Wolfeymole]

Pssst

I think Seth is turning into Jean-Paul Sartre, be careful.

[help4me]

Ok pete.... I read the article you linked to. My over all opinion... what a crock! No offense intended, but you did ask for opinions. My point of view stems from the "Number 23 Conspiracy" in which basically you can take everything around you and make it add up to the number 23. This works only by dissecting and manipulating things. In short, bend the truth to make it fit inside the rules you have defined. For example... the state I live in has 6 letters.... the town I live in has 8 letters... my house number adds up to 14....1+4=5, so now it's 5.... and 4 people live in this house.... so let's see....6+8+5+4=???? 23. This entire article, while it has a select few valid points... seems to be over dramatizing and over reaching to make a point, just as I have shown with my effort to make my dwelling place add up to 23.

 

Point by Point

 

Now the first paragraph of the article did have some valid points about outcome based teaching. Much to the teachers dismay we have gone to an outcome based curriculum that is heavily focused on emotional behavior and observation assessment. Ok... so I'll give the article some credence there. However, I will add that we still do formal traditional testing that does require a knowledge base. There are things the children are tested on that are knowledge based and not performance based or based in emotional/social behavior. (to reiterate, I work at a preschool (children ages 3-5) that serves low income families.

 

The next few "pages" are nothing more than repetitive propaganda that exclaim how horrid this new way of "teaching" is.

 

My next point comes at what my screen showed as page 6 where it discusses the use of meditation or altered states of consciousness. That the goal of HOT is to essentially erode the prior knowledge and belief system from the child's mind, piece by piece, through tapping into the subconscious of a "vegged out" child. When phrased in this manner it sounds like mind control through subliminal messages. However... have you ever tried to talk to an angry child? A preschool who is in the midst of a good old fashioned temper tantrum? That child's consciousness is currently set in the very base of the brain... where the "flight or fight" instincts are located. Rational thinking and reason based logic do not occur in this part of the brain. As a teacher, when a child has such a meltdown... it is imperative that you guide them through or teach them ways to calm down so that thought processes can go back to reason based rather than survival instincts. Now according to the article, my line of thinking and reasoning here would be dubbed as coinciding with the HOT way of doing things. However... you try dealing with an angry kid that is kicking, biting and screaming. That kind of anger is not good on a child physically, can put them in harms way should they decide to fling themselves to the floor, and to remove an hysterical child to a "safe" place can harm not only the child, but the teacher as well. The best we can do besides prevention, is to practice and guide the child through techniques that might help them calm down, as well as provide them time to "cool off". I don't see what's wrong about that. Even the umpire in a baseball game will kick a player out of a game for "throwing a fit" so that the player can have plenty of time to "calm down" ;)

 

The next point comes at page 8a. Seeking an inner guide thus promoting the idea that learning is intuitive. Again this whole section just screams "Number 23 Conspiracy." Further proof of that comes on the next page with the list of vocabulary words that the parent picked out. How far can we bend the truth before it breaks? According to this section of the article... and how it implies that the words taught are so very violent... then I must be a grade A example of how HOT works because I managed to slip in two very violent words in this very paragraph. Three now. Which ones are they? Can you find them? Out of all the words in this paragraph, to pick out the 3 "bad" ones would be over dramatic, over reaching, slanted, and contrived. Honestly... the conclusions of that parent and how they were phrased on pages 8a and b are nothing more than more "political correctness" bull that everyone seems to be on board with. Using the word "avalanche" to go with the letter "A" is now a bad thing according to this article, because it triggers thoughts of natural disasters. And the words with the definitions.... hmmmm.... in today's day and age... the kids will know exactly what the word means according to those definitions. We live in a violent world, where kids will know what color red is if you tell them it's the color of blood. Sad but true. In the story of Jesus and the "Last Supper," why did Jesus pick bread and wine? Because it was familiar and readily available to the people of that time. Granted I wouldn't teach this way... but there are times that I've had to resort to more "real world" tactics than I would like. The world is not all peaches and cream. It's hell out there. The kids I deal with come from rough homes, where one parent if not both is either in jail or absent in one way or another. While I'm not going to rob these kids of more of their innocence, I'm certainly not going to sugar coat things either and fashion each student a pair of rose colored glasses. If they will understand "red" by saying that blood is red... then so be it. Ever watch the movie "Dangerous Minds"? In order to get the kids to think outside the box... you must first be IN the box with them.

 

Moving on... 8b goes on to talk about the negative aspect of stimulus/response and positive and negative reinforcements. That's bad? Since when? Life is nothing but positive/negative reinforcements. I bet someone's grandmother, at one time or another, said..." oh look.... you went doo doo in the potty... what a good boy/girl.... have a cookie!" So junior learned that going potty in the potty was a good thing. And eventually through repetition... junior became potty trained. Everything IS positive/negative reinforcements. The easiest way to get desired behavior (yes I know... another HOT line of thinking) is through pos/neg reinforcements. As an adult... if you break the law... you go to jail. The hope is it teaches you not to break the law anymore. What would you suggest instead? If you spend more money than what you have in your checking account.. you pay overdraft fees and returned payment fees. Negative reinforcement again. I myself am a firm believer in what has been termed as "natural consequences." Such as... if my daughter does gather up her dirty clothes by a specified time that has been established... then her laundry does not get washed. Thus she has no clean clothes. No clean clothes is deemed a bad thing at this house... not because she needs to conform and be like everyone else in the house with clean clothes.. but rather clean clothes is a hygiene and health matter. Dirty underwear can lead to all kinds of health problems(especially for girls)... would you agree?

 

On to page 10a.....asking a child to examine parental established beliefs in order to get them to conclude that parents can be wrong... and eventually that parents know nothing and shouldn't be listened to anyway. The conclusion that the author draws here is way out in left field. It goes against what they themselves are asking us to do, and that is to question authority. Kids should question authority. Kids should examine beliefs taught to them. Most people that are religious are of a particular denomination because that is what their parents were. They were raised with that belief system. Therefore they are (for example) Catholic... because they were taught to be Catholic. Are they Catholic because they made an in depth study of other religions and chose catholicism for themselves. Probably not. Humans in general are lazy. If they were raised with it.. then chances are... when they are an adult... those belief are in grained in them. So the circle continues and they in turn will ingrain those beliefs in their children. So if children are to think for themselves.. then is it not imperative for them to question all authority, including parents? It used to be legal to beat your wife with anything smaller than your thumb (hence the term "rule of thumb"). If no one questioned the correctness of that... then would that law ever have changed? Parents still teach their children that some people are better than others based only on skin color. Should children question that?

 

10b mentions a quote made by Attorney General Reno, who called for

early intervention-as early as the prenatal period-as a means of ensuring that

children have the chance to develop into "responsible citizens" by stating: "...

We've got to develop the continuum from the beginning... to make sure that

parents are old enough. wise enough, and financially able to take care of their

children.... " Hail Hail someone finally gets it!!! You have to pass all kinds of tests to drive (more in Canada than the US I'm told) but any idiot can have a kid. No where on earth is the logic in that? You have to have some smarts and have training to operate a vehicle... but none what so ever to be responsible for the rearing of a human life. Anyone who disagrees with the essence of Reno's statement had better come and do MY job for one year and then tell me that making sure only people who are capable of raising children have children isn't a good idea. The horrors that come through my classroom door. The abuse that I see. I agree that some people should not have children.... because they can't even take care of themselves. It's unreal. I wouldn't begin to presume to know how to set guidelines for such a drastic measure... or how it could possibly be kept fair and unbiased. But for Christ's sake... at least make parenting classes or something mandatory. You need to pass a test to drive a car... why not to have a kid? Teach would be parents that it's not healthy to feed your kid only peanut butter sandwiches and chips. They need a few more nutrients besides those found in peanut butter. Or that the television is not a babysitter. Basics... not beliefs... but basic operation... like a driving test. I realize that there is no possible way to regulate who is allowed to have children, nor would it be fair or morally correct to do so, but... surely we can agree that there are some folks have no business raising children. Well... at least I think there are.

 

The last paragraph on 11a discusses how openly things are talked about today and how easily morals seem to be eroding. This is due in large part not to the erosion of morals but rather to the availability of wide spread communication. Bad things happened in every age of time. It's just now people can text/blog/ about it. They can tell the world their woes. Information spreads. Is that a bad thing? Not always. People can now get help and find answers to their problems. Bad laws get changed. Victims of abuse can lend support and inspire others to change their situation. If you have a question... it's now easier to find an answer. Granted some people seem to love to gossip... and we used to call them "busy bodies." Now they are what... bloggers? Nothing really has changed... look at history. The only difference is the method in which the stories are told. Instead of sung about in ballads.. we know have "myspace."

 

Continuing with ideas presented in 11a, is the slow erosion of people's belief systems or "platforms." Of course people are going to rebel at immediate and drastic change. Most people are comfortable in routines.. or "stuck in a rut." If change is to take place... good or bad...to be accepted it needs to take place in steps. Humans themselves do not go from babies to adulthood in one day. It is a slow process of building up on each layer. It is the natural order of things. Mountains are not made in a day nor are canyons. I understand the implications of what the author is saying. That the "system" is slowly hacking away at the belief platforms of society so that we will not notice that we are being changed. But how else do you change things? Even good things are not accomplished overnight. Yes... I know.. the point of the article is "reader beware."

 

I find page 12a to be the biggest crock of... spoiled milk... that I have ever read. How sci/fi can you get? It continues onto 12b where finally we start talking about "traditional" schools. I can't even continue with this part of the article... what a load of... manure. Traditional school teach that [ a student]" would know that if he failed to read, and participate as a good citizen, his nation could deteriorate." Since when? So the well being of a nation rests on the shoulders of one student. Talk about pressure!

 

13b....estimation...guessing... and creative spelling. Well... in preschool it works. First they learn that a group of letters is supposed to mean something specific. That means they understand the mechanics on how print works. Good so far. Next... when I am reading to the class... and I stop mid sentence and ask what comes next... I am asking the children to use their mind and draw conclusions from what they have already heard. So I am teaching them to get meaning from groups of words and apply logic to draw a conclusion. Yes.. I am asking them to guess what the word is. How evil of me. I also teach phonics. We sound out words too. But long ago when my mother was in school... she was born in 1945... the method of teaching was drilling kids. Everyone sat down and no one got up until everyone knew that 2+2=4. First you learned that 2+2=4... then you learned why. That sounds more like HOT than my teaching style.

 

Creative thinking. One of my favorite topics of page 14a. Now... as a parent, if I told my kid be home at 11:30(meaning 11:30pm), and they walked in at 12:30 and claimed they weren't in trouble because technically they were in before 11:30(am) and that I did not specify which 11:30... first... they would be in bigger trouble for being cheeky and a dumb*** because they knew darn good and well what time I said to be home...but I'd have to chuckle later about their attempt to avoid punishment. I actually would find it funny... later ;)

 

14b goes on to imply that children behave as they do in accordance to how genuinely they love their parents. Bull! Children behave for certain reasons out of fear or lack of fear of punishment from their parents. So according to the article I had sex as a teenager and got knocked up because I didn't really love my mother. Whatever! About the only reason people refrain from doing things is fear of punishment. Yes even adults. How many people would commit murder if there was no fear of punishment, be it here on earth or in the afterlife?

 

Also in 14b is a reference similar to that of Pavlov's dogs. The article states.. bark like a dog and you get a treat. Conformity and group performance where everyone does the same thing. Well.. hmmmm... how well would a dog sled team work if all members of the team didn't do the same thing. Regattas (a canoe team) all need to row together. Most things operate in this fashion, and they must in order for large numbers of people to co-exist. There are all kinds of conformity in society in order to keep things running a smooth as possible. Such as...on a faucet.. the hot water handle is usually located on the left and the cold on the right, (in America anyway). The English written language has rules to make it effective. It is written and read left to right, top to bottom. How could we communicate with the written word if this rule was not adhered to? So we teach our kids to conform to this rule. Conformity has its place when multitudes of people must live together. Not identical drones... but some semblance of sameness in the basic operation and mechanics of daily life.

 

15a states that we are being conditioned not to act in certain ways, but rather conditioned to WANT to perform the desired behavior. And so it has been through the ages. This is not a new theory. Especially in religion. Religion teaches you to that act morally not out of fear but because you want to serve your god in the manner that best honors that god. (Some people suggest that religion was created just to control people... so has this conditioning been going on longer than we thought?)

 

And the point of the article... that if we are armed with facts from an early age... we can beat the system and think for ourselves. "Nobody would have control over anybody; everybody would have-and should have-an opportunity to gather what resources he needs to be able to make his own way, in the future: to profit from his knowledge or to squander it, to improve his lot or to degrade it. This way, every individual has control over his own destiny, in his own hands." Ok.. that looks nice on paper... and for the most part... America has that. However.. my way does not agree with your way. You are in my way. So if no one has control over anyone else... what's to stop me from killing those that get in my way? Who's to set the boundaries since obviously humans can not regulate themselves? Look at history. Violance... hatred...slavery... greed...war...racism... bigotry... it's all there. All through time. One group of people has always tried to dominate another. In fact it's all throughout nature. Animals are territorial. The weak die. Survival of the fittest.

 

And while I do not agree with anything in this article (though it sounds like I do at times) who is to teach our children social behavior? For the most part... as far as I can see.. the parents sure aren't doing it. Most of the kids I teach come to school thinking it's ok to kick another kid and take their toy because they want that toy and don't want to wait for their turn. They don't know the basics that are needed to co-exist with another human. There has got to be some standards to live by that we all need to conform to, and someone has to set those standards. Who then should it be?

 

(note: I am not attacking you personally pete, nor I am presuming to know your standpoint on this article. And when I say "you" in my very long post above, I do not mean you personally pete. It's just my form of debating. No personal attack or offense intended.)

[Guest Wolfeymole]

Now I know why I made Bonnie a Moderator.

[help4me]

Now I know why I made Bonnie a Moderator.

Because I can write really really long posts? ;)

[petef]

Ok pete.... I read the article you linked to. My over all opinion... what a crock! No offense intended' date=' but you did ask for opinions.[/quote']

No ofense taken. :)

I value your opinion because you are positioned in the "system" and see things

first hand. Your response is extensive so give me some time to read it and

respond.

 

The article I referenced was written around 1999 and many thing could have

changed since then, so it would also be very interesting to get some other

opinons of students who attended school around that time to see if they

report any agreement or disagreement with the things that were supposedly

being taught in th eschools. I'm talking about students born from 1981 to 1994

becasue that would place them in the public school system in 1999.

 

What I'm about is seeking the truth, so I never rely upon a single source

for all my info. Instead, I gather info from as many sources as possible

and look for common info or patterens that lead to the truth. I often find

it valuable to seek out what a single source leaves out, as being an

indicator of their bias on a gien topic.

 

Anyway, thanks for such an extensive response!

I sincerely appreciate it.

 

---pete---

[JEBWrench]

I'm talking about students born from 1981 to 1994

becasue that would place them in the public school system in 1999.

Here.

 

Personally, I was fed a lot of Socialist drivel and that's partially why I turned out to be a Progressive Conservative.

 

I have a theory that children, regardless of what belief structure or social mores they are brought up with, have a tendency to, in general, find ways to oppose those structures.

 

 

Now, on to other ideas.

 

"School" is not much more than a glorified daycare. It teaches children to inhibit natural talent by forcing them to learn a lot of mindless and useless facts.

Couldn't agree less. I personally was very much influenced positively by my schoolhood experiences, both in and out of the classroom, and to be frank, my creativity was never stifled in any way. In fact, it was quite well nurtured. That may be a product of having small-town teachers, however, the curriculum itself was no different than the one being used in larger cities.

 

 

Moving on...

 

You need to pass a test to drive a car... why not to have a kid?

It's a lot harder to accidentally drive a car.

 

Who would set up guidelines of the "right" and "wrong" ways to raise a child? Certainly, there are some basic concepts which are agreeable to the majority, but even basic concepts change based on various factors - education, social structure, economics, etc.

 

I never took a parenting class; I refused to given that the teacher for said class never had kids. Is that grounds for me not to be able to raise children? Or anyone for that matter, who decides, for whatever reason, that the institutionalized instruction they are offered is unsatisfactory?

 

 

Next up...

 

I blame all these new age politically correct pillocks...

Something I somewhat agree with, though I share a similar opinion to George Carlin.

 

I don't like words that hide the truth. I don't like words that conceal reality. I don't like euphemisms, or euphemistic language. And American English is loaded with euphemisms. Cause Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it, and it gets worse with every generation. For some reason, it just keeps getting worse. I'll give you an example of that.

 

There's a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It's when a fighting person's nervous system has been stressed to it's absolute peak and maximum. Can't take anymore input. The nervous system has either (click) snapped or is about to snap.

 

In the first world war, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves.

 

That was seventy years ago. Then a whole generation went by and the second world war came along and very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn't seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock! Battle fatigue.

 

Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. Hey, we're up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It's totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion. Sounds like something that might happen to your car.

 

Then of course, came the war in Viet Nam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was called post-traumatic stress disorder. Still eight syllables, but we've added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-traumatic stress disorder.

 

I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I'll betcha. I'll betcha.

Though the shellshock rant on euphamistic language refers to American English, I'm more than willing to say that the majority of the 1st world suffers from over-jargonization (Much like the phrase "over-jargonization").

 

Now, the trouble is, political correctness has its place. What's wrong with saying "mail carrier", or "postal worker" instead of "mailman". What's wrong with "spokesperson"? So, then, where is the line drawn? And, an interesting byproduct of "creative thought" is that when a line is drawn, it must be tested. Then erased. Then redrawn. Human language and thought both are evolutionary concepts - not revolutionary. They progress, they adapt; antiquated usages get culled, in the same way that the weak and sick get culled from the herd of bison.

 

We live in an age where information is exchanged at literally a light-speed pace. So, it can be expected that language and thought itself, the two carriers of information, must be adapted and evolved to keep pace with the information, lest we be unable to communicate our thoughts and ideas to others globally.

 

Consider the popular phrase, "Any idiot can do it." This is true of many things, however, in the past, any idiot couldn't find out how to do it. Even before the interweb tubes came into being, the printing press itself created a way for any idiot to find information they could use. The aforementioned idiot could simply find the information on how to perform a task, implement it, and be done with it, without needing to parse the how or why of said task.

 

Is this a bad thing? That information can be relayed so well and effectively that "any idiot can do it"?

 

I think I'm starting to get off-topic slightly. Let me try and steer this vessel.

 

If, then, our language and thought are evolving, where do we stand at relaying information to teach our youth? While it's true, in my opinion, that creative thought is essential to the development of a child, information retention is as well. Do we teach antiquated communicative methods, and risk leaving the child stranded in a sea of information and jargon? Or do we inform them in the modern jargon-infested fashion and risk them not truly understanding the concepts being conveyed to them.

 

 

It is my opinion that creative thought cannot be taught, only cultivated. Also, it's my opinion that not every child is a rocket scientist. It's a tough thing for people to accept, oftentimes, but some children are going to grow up to be labourers for the rest of their lives. However, if we remove information retention and, as it's referred to earlier "useless facts", from education, how do the less-priveleged children receive the knowledge to have their opportunity to be rocket scientists?

 

I use the term "cultivated" quite intentionally to describe the nurturing of creative thought, as one cannot predict with any reasonable accuracy the way a plant will grow out of the ground, it still must be given the right set of circumstances in order to have the opportunity to succeed and grow well.

 

 

As Bonnie made reference to "Dangerous Minds", I'm lead then to refer to a couple other films. First of all, is "Gattica", wherein the morals of genetic engineering are discussed as a main focus, however, another point of it is the concept of "right" and "wrong" raising of children. The main character of the movie was never given any opportunities to succeed because everyone assumed he was "born wrong". Is that fair?

 

Secondly is "The Bad Seed", which is a horror movie that takes on the common opinions of how children develop. It was "common knowledge" that bad behaviour could only come from a bad household. End of story. It was simply impossible for a child of privelege with a solid home life to behave badly.

 

What's the common thread here? That many believe that a child's behaviour is NOT associated with the child him or herself. It seems to me that this nurtures a "poor me" attitude, wherein as the child grows older, he or she is unwilling to accept responsibility and reprecussion of their actions, since, obviously to his or her understanding, he or she was dealt an unfair lot in life, and "the world owes me."

 

The interesting thing to note, that though it's been mentioned that there's a sort of moral degredation going on, the two aforementioned films, as well as "Dangerous Minds" all deal with completely different times. "Gattica" was created in the 90s, and is a futuristic science-fiction movie. "Dangerous Minds" is also from the 90s, yet deals with contemporary issues, while "The Bad Seed" was created in the mid 1950s, though still deals with the idea that children are only a product of their households; not that the actions of a child can be the child's own fault.

 

 

I think that will wrap up my current stream-of-consciousness post. I'm sure I'll eventually think of something else to say that will likely turn the whole thread against me. ;)

 

(Note: the final statement was a joke; I don't honestly think people would turn against me just because of a silly post full of tangential thought. :) )

(Addendum to Note: I apologize if my tone is a little harsh in some instances; I mean no personal attacks or criticism.)

[Seth]

I've edited out some of my comments in this thread as they were irrelevant and/or a little "over the top".

[Seth]

I'm of the general opinion that the education system should teach the basic 3 R's along with other practical information. Beyond that, it seems to me that psychological growth is best served by then allowing the child to pursue their own interests and passions.

[JEBWrench]

I'm of the general opinion that the education system should teach the basic 3 R's along with other practical information. Beyond that' date=' it seems to me that psychological growth is best served by then allowing the child to pursue their own interests and passions.[/quote']

Who decides what is and isn't practical? In a modern context, even basic arithmetic could be labelled as impractical, as the prevalance of modern technology will do the work automagically. The same can be said for spelling and grammar as well.

[help4me]

I'm of the general opinion that the education system should teach the basic 3 R's along with other practical information. Beyond that' date=' it seems to me that psychological growth is best served by then allowing the child to pursue their own interests and passions.[/quote']

I quite agree Seth. But... also I look at it this way as well... we as teachers have a duty to children to give them as many of those oppurtunities as possible. I wonder how much more advanced I would be had I been exposed to computers on a regular basis as a child. Would my knowledge base be more than what it is? Also... some teachers have the knack of being able not only to teach answers... but also the "how." For example... one proffessor I had actually taught me HOW to listen to classical music. Much in the way that one needs to learn how to taste wine in order to get the full experience of the wine... it helps to know how to listen to classical music.

 

How many times have your parents/teachers/ whom ever told you to listen? How many parents have you heard say those very words to their youngster? But has anyone one ever taught these children HOW to listen? To listen is different than to hear. The article pete linked to mentioned that words no longer have meaning. (the story about what time to be home.) But who is teaching the "meaning"? We actually go through a step by step process on "how to listen" (complete with role playing) to show our preschoolers what it means to "listen."

 

Another thought on words having no meaning. The story said that the kid argued that they were in by 11:30 because the parent did not specify which 11:30 to be in by. Ok... aside from the fact that it was a cheeky smart mouthed answer for a kid to say to the parent... it also shows that the kid knows exactly what is going on and exactly what words mean and how to manipulate them to his/her advantage. Sounds like the makings of a good lawyer to me. What about the saying "assume makes an *** out of U and me". We teach our preschoolers to be specific in what they want in order to help them learn effective communication. When a kid comes up to me and says... "my shoe is untied," instead of tying the shoe like most people would do... I say... "It sure is." Then I go back to what I was doing, while keeping and eye on the reaction to see what they will do next. If they start to walk away... I'll say... "was there something you wanted me to do about your shoe being untied?" Usually they say yes. So I say... 'what do you want me to do?" They say, "Tie it." I say, "then you need to ask me, you might try saying "Ms. Bonnie, will you please tie my shoe?" then I will know exactly what you want done." I am teaching my students to be specific. When I want my students to do something... I try to be as specific as I can. That's fair. I learned that the funny way. When I first started teaching... I tended to say... "it's time to come sit down." I've actually had kids plop down on the floor right where they were and sit... because I had said it was time to sit down. Now I am specific. I say things more like... "it's time to come to the circle carpet and sit criss cross apple sauce." My students now know exactly what I want them to do and how. Specific works for young kids.

[help4me]

I'm of the general opinion that the education system should teach the basic 3 R's along with other practical information. Beyond that' date=' it seems to me that psychological growth is best served by then allowing the child to pursue their own interests and passions.[/quote']

Well... yes... children need the freedom to explore and discover their intrests.. but growth happens simultaneously, and teachers, whether intended or not, are going to have a big impact on psychological growth, if for no other reason than the teacher is around that student for the majority of the day.

[help4me]

JEB.... I'll get to you later!

[JEBWrench]

JEB.... I'll get to you later!

Eep.

[omega_shadow]

wow, I would put in my 2 cents, but everything has already been said on the subject.

 

Self taught over here. My teachers wanted to fail me every step of the way because I challenged their "read from book, hand out ditto" curriculum. Had to teach myself everything I know, So I don't have a lot of faith in the public education system.

 

On second thought, I can't pass up a good rant. :P

 

Public School is bad, Collage is worse and you actually have to pay for it. Public schools teach you not to question the information fed to you and to conform. Collage teaches you to waste money. And people wonder why the economy is in such shambles right now....

 

A good example of how out of whack the education system is in this day and age can be given simply looking at my friend and I.

 

My Friend, Honor Student in k-12, Has roughly the same position I have. We manage networks and servers and websites and etc. We keep the technology running that keeps our respective companies running. However, one of us is always looking for a job, one of us is not.

 

My friend went to collage for four years taking various classes. He goes to work in a suit and answers his superiors with "yes sir". When he doesn't not know the solution to a problem, he hires someone to take care of it for him.

 

I went to collage for about two months before I told them where to shove it. I work in t-shirts and bluejeans and answer my superiors in the form of "what are you smoking?". When I don't know the solution to a problem, I take a book off the shelf, read up on it and experiment till I figure it out.

 

Out of the two of us, I am the only one that can hold down a job. You know why? His education in school told him how to act. My Education in hard knocks taught me how to survive. That is what is wrong with education today. Instead of preparing kids to be ready when there isn't anyone there to give them the answers, the education system prepares them to blindly accept what has been given to them.

 

I will rant more later, I got to do a server backup then get home

[JEBWrench]

wow' date=' I would put in my 2 cents, but everything has already been said on the subject.[/quote']

You're killin' me here OS. I was kinda looking forward to what you had to say; and I'm sure Bonnie was too. ;)

[help4me]

No kidding OS. Ya chicken :p

[help4me]

Ok pete.... I read the article you linked to. My over all opinion... what a crock! No offense intended' date=' but you did ask for opinions.[/quote']

No ofense taken. :)

I value your opinion because you are positioned in the "system" and see things

first hand. Your response is extensive so give me some time to read it and

respond.

 

The article I referenced was written around 1999 and many thing could have

changed since then, so it would also be very interesting to get some other

opinons of students who attended school around that time to see if they

report any agreement or disagreement with the things that were supposedly

being taught in th eschools. I'm talking about students born from 1981 to 1994

becasue that would place them in the public school system in 1999.

 

What I'm about is seeking the truth, so I never rely upon a single source

for all my info. Instead, I gather info from as many sources as possible

and look for common info or patterens that lead to the truth. I often find

it valuable to seek out what a single source leaves out, as being an

indicator of their bias on a gien topic.

 

Anyway, thanks for such an extensive response!

I sincerely appreciate it.

 

---pete---

Ok... I am a parent of a child that was born in 1993 so was in the public school system in 1999. Granted things changed from when I was in school (and also I went to parochial school so the standards were different), but more because the change was needed. Parents quite teaching responsibility to their kids, so who was left to teach kids some socially responsible behavior? My daughter got a more in depth sex ed class than what I thought appropriate at the time. But now that I teach... I understand the need for that education. While I myself teach my own children responsibility and morals and whatever terms you want to apply here, most do not. I teach not only by words but by actions. To be blunt... if I don't want my daughter to think it's ok to be a slut.... then I best not be a slut myself. If I don't want my daughter to be a theif... then I best not steal. Get it? But most parents now days do NOT practice what they preach. Kids learn more by example than by lecture or book reading. Case in point... a child learns basic language and mechanics of language before they are ever taught how to read, spell, or proper grammar. Listen to a little kid tell you about something that happened yesterday. Let's say their little brother broke a toy. More than likely the little kid will say their brother "breaked" it... instead of "broke" it. They already know that words talking about something in the past need to change... and that usually you add a "d" sound. They know this long before they get to school. Let's look at numbers. Kids form early rules about that too. Ever hear a kid say... twenty-eight, twenty-nine, twenty-ten, twenty-eleven? They have created a rule from listening to others count that the 20 comes first, followed by the next number in sequence. They just haven't yet learned that after 29 it changes to 30. But look at the conclusions their little mind has already started to draw by example only.

 

So kids learn by example, and with nothing to counter that... where does that leave them in today's society?

 

So while I see that school isn't perhaps the best place to teach social standards... it seems to be the only place left that my have a small influence.

 

I myself as a teacher... I don't want to teach social behaviors to kids. But... they need to be able to function in a classroom before they can learn in a classroom. So that's my job really. Not to teach them book knowledge... but to teach them how to operate within classroom life, so that when they get to kindergarten, that teacher can guide them to knowledge. I also try my best to teach them to think... to be as self reliant as appropriate for their maturity level, and how to be confident and comfortable with themselves and their peers.

 

So again we are back to social behavior and the need for it to be taught somewhere. There are standards that we have to live by in order to co-exist with one another. But who is to teach these if the parents fail to?

[Seth]

I'm of the general opinion that the education system should teach the basic 3 R's along with other practical information. Beyond that' date=' it seems to me that psychological growth is best served by then allowing the child to pursue their own interests and passions.[/quote']

Who decides what is and isn't practical? In a modern context, even basic arithmetic could be labelled as impractical, as the prevalance of modern technology will do the work automagically. The same can be said for spelling and grammar as well.

I don't think it's that difficult to decide what is practical and what is not. The main intention of education should be intellectual development and preparation for adult tasks. Yet, most of what the students are forced to learn promotes the opposite.

 

What is equally concerning, is as parents, we don't have the freedom to choose the type of education that we feel is in the best interest of our children. Oh sure, you can pay for a private school, or attempt home schooling, but they both have to follow the "government" (corporations) guide lines. It's akin to Henry Ford saying, "You can buy a model "T" in any color you want, as long as it's black"

 

Basic math, reading and writing skills are practical on two fronts, 1) They're very valuable in adult life. 2) Those skills help to develop each "side" of the brain.

[help4me]

I have a theory that children' date=' regardless of what belief structure or social mores they are brought up with, have a tendency to, in general, find ways to oppose those structures.[/quote']

Since you like to play devil's advocate my dear... I'll play right back ;)

 

Oppose structures you say. Well in general.. yes I agree. But... again I point out my earlier reference to religion. Often people are of a certain faith because they were raised that way. They do not choose that faith based on research, but because that was how they were raised. Not always, but often. This goes to politics as well. As for social... they may rebel with teachings of elders... but not of peers. Conformity is a survival technique for teenagers. You know this to be true. If you are different... then you suffer the cruelty of the "in" crowd which can be horrible. I know from experience. So again to rebel against social standards can be rather tough for kids.

 

 

Now, on to other ideas.

 

"School" is not much more than a glorified daycare that teaches our children to inhibit natural talent and conform to mindless and useless facts that produce no positive effect. The child in the public education system gets their talent stifled' date=' in order to feed political (money) gain.[/quote']

Couldn't agree less. I personally was very much influenced positively by my schoolhood experiences, both in and out of the classroom, and to be frank, my creativity was never stifled in any way. In fact, it was quite well nurtured. That may be a product of having small-town teachers, however, the curriculum itself was no different than the one being used in larger cities.

I bet you were and didn't know it. For example... in my class we are NOT allowed to use color sheets (pages with printed images the kids can color.) This stifles their creativity because if they color outside the lines... then their picture no longer looks the way it's supposed to with color only inside the lines. So instead we give them blank sheets of paper. The original idea was not to limit their creativity with color sheets, but rather to teach youngsters to control their hands so that later on they will be able to control a pencil to be able to write legible letters.

 

 

Moving on...

 

You need to pass a test to drive a car... why not to have a kid?

It's a lot harder to accidentally drive a car.

 

Who would set up guidelines of the "right" and "wrong" ways to raise a child? Certainly, there are some basic concepts which are agreeable to the majority, but even basic concepts change based on various factors - education, social structure, economics, etc.

 

I never took a parenting class; I refused to given that the teacher for said class never had kids. Is that grounds for me not to be able to raise children? Or anyone for that matter, who decides, for whatever reason, that the institutionalized instruction they are offered is unsatisfactory?

You had to go there didn't you? Did I not say that it would be impossible to regulate such a thing since no two human beings can ever totally agree, nor would it be moral to do such a thing? I think I did.

 

To address your first statement... you don't accidentally drive a car.... nor can someone "accidentally" get pregnant. Please tell me how that happens? There is one act... and one act only that can result in pregnancy... and there is only two ABSOLUTE ways to avoid pregnancy. So where is the "accident"?

 

On to parenting classes. I have no idea how to respond to that, other than... we both know that some people have no business having kids. That's a problem. Does anyone have a right to limit who has kids and who doesn't? No. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a problem somewhere. And as you stated with plants... "it still must be given the right set of circumstances in order to have the opportunity to succeed and grow well." Children deserve the same.

 

 

 

Consider the popular phrase' date=' "Any idiot can do it." This is true of many things, however, in the past, any idiot couldn't find out [i']how[/i] to do it. Even before the interweb tubes came into being, the printing press itself created a way for any idiot to find information they could use. The aforementioned idiot could simply find the information on how to perform a task, implement it, and be done with it, without needing to parse the how or why of said task.

 

Is this a bad thing? That information can be relayed so well and effectively that "any idiot can do it"?

To needle you a bit... perhaps it is a bad thing. By allowing "any idiot to do it" we have ruled out natural selection and thus the gene pool gets murkier and murkier with every generation. No, I am not advocating a perfect race. So don't even go there. Because there is a flip side... because we can and do share information... where one person gets stumped... perhaps the next has and idea that can build on the original thought and lead to a new discovery, progress, whatever. I just had to aggravate you a bit dear ;)

 

 

If' date=' then, our language and thought are evolving, where do we stand at relaying information to teach our youth? While it's true, in my opinion, that creative thought is essential to the development of a child, information retention is as well. Do we teach antiquated communicative methods, and risk leaving the child stranded in a sea of information and jargon? Or do we inform them in the modern jargon-infested fashion and risk them not truly understanding the concepts being conveyed to them.[/quote']

No... but at the same time if we forget the past we are doomed to repeat it. We can't completely forget the old in favor of keeping with the times. There are tried and true methods that are still the foundation for todays new knowledge. That foundation needs to be laid in new minds in order for the new age knowledge to work properly. Not to mention.... if the new... technology was suddenly gone.. our kids still need to be able to function. If the power goes out... and the computer does not work... then the kid still needs to know how to write, so he can hand write his homework.

 

 

What's the common thread here? That many believe that a child's behaviour is NOT associated with the child him or herself. It seems to me that this nurtures a "poor me" attitude, wherein as the child grows older, he or she is unwilling to accept responsibility and reprecussion of their actions, since, obviously to his or her understanding, he or she was dealt an unfair lot in life, and "the world owes me."

 

The interesting thing to note, that though it's been mentioned that there's a sort of moral degredation going on, the two aforementioned films, as well as "Dangerous Minds" all deal with completely different times. "Gattica" was created in the 90s, and is a futuristic science-fiction movie. "Dangerous Minds" is also from the 90s, yet deals with contemporary issues, while "The Bad Seed" was created in the mid 1950s, though still deals with the idea that children are only a product of their households; not that the actions of a child can be the child's own fault.

Agreed. Children are, and need to be held responsible for their actions. However... children are influenced by the people that are around them most. And as I've previously discussed children learn more and will base their decisions more from what they learn from example. So technically... children are a product of their environment. You yourself were raised around computers. So your "natural" knowledge of computers far exceeds mine. You were raised around a commercial fisherman. So you will have more knowledge there. I was raised around an artist... so my artistic skills will exceed yours. ( I know this to be true ;) ) My style of cooking is based on what I learned from my mother ( who did the cooking at my house.) I am not comfortable in big city settings. I was raised in a small town. That's what is familiar to me. Children raised in rough neighborhoods... will have more street knowledge. As adults... are decisions are based on our knowledge base. They will either reflect that or drastically contrast to that. But regardless... what decisions we make are a direct result from our raising's and environment. If a child is raised with the idea that stealing is ok, and they are never taught that it is wrong... then as an adult... should they be punished for stealing? I know that example is a stretch. But it's the best I can do at the moment.

[AdvancedSetup]

So when do we all get to get off this planet and quit worrying ? :-)