This kind of crap is taught in US schools?

[the_leander]

The UK's schools haven't yet gone down this route, but there are specific classes that were being created purely to explore this sort of crap, maths, science and english are slipping standards wise, but are still pure (if limited) educational classes.

I can't remember what they called these classes, but they brought them in the year I left for the real world. Such strenuous topics such as "write a poem" to which my teacher got the written reply "I don't do poetry, prose or other such crap, but thanks for the extra hour you've just given me to complete my science coursework" :wink:

Got a B grade for that

But it was a load of old cobblers, and tbh the topics covered were so mind numbingly innane that I can't remember any of them outside of that poetry one, in fact the only thing I can remember is that when that class came about, I was able to complete all coursework and homework given to me during the week without it leaving school property (I used to do the majority of it during break and lunch hours). What? Do school work at home? Are you quite mad?

Whoever keeps comming up with this shit needs shooting.. twice.. in the head.. with an elephant gun.. at point blank range.

 

[the_leander]

The UK's schools haven't yet gone down this route, but there are specific classes that were being created purely to explore this sort of crap, maths, science and english are slipping standards wise, but are still pure (if limited) educational classes.

I can't remember what they called these classes, but they brought them in the year I left for the real world. Such strenuous topics such as "write a poem" to which my teacher got the written reply "I don't do poetry, prose or other such crap, but thanks for the extra hour you've just given me to complete my science coursework" :wink:

Got a B grade for that

But it was a load of old cobblers, and tbh the topics covered were so mind numbingly innane that I can't remember any of them outside of that poetry one, in fact the only thing I can remember is that when that class came about, I was able to complete all coursework and homework given to me during the week without it leaving school property (I used to do the majority of it during break and lunch hours). What? Do school work at home? Are you quite mad?

Whoever keeps comming up with this shit needs shooting.. twice.. in the head.. with an elephant gun.. at point blank range.

 

[the_leander]

The UK's schools haven't yet gone down this route, but there are specific classes that were being created purely to explore this sort of crap, maths, science and english are slipping standards wise, but are still pure (if limited) educational classes.

I can't remember what they called these classes, but they brought them in the year I left for the real world. Such strenuous topics such as "write a poem" to which my teacher got the written reply "I don't do poetry, prose or other such crap, but thanks for the extra hour you've just given me to complete my science coursework" :wink:

Got a B grade for that

But it was a load of old cobblers, and tbh the topics covered were so mind numbingly innane that I can't remember any of them outside of that poetry one, in fact the only thing I can remember is that when that class came about, I was able to complete all coursework and homework given to me during the week without it leaving school property (I used to do the majority of it during break and lunch hours). What? Do school work at home? Are you quite mad?

Whoever keeps comming up with this shit needs shooting.. twice.. in the head.. with an elephant gun.. at point blank range.

 

[the_leander]

The UK's schools haven't yet gone down this route, but there are specific classes that were being created purely to explore this sort of crap, maths, science and english are slipping standards wise, but are still pure (if limited) educational classes.

I can't remember what they called these classes, but they brought them in the year I left for the real world. Such strenuous topics such as "write a poem" to which my teacher got the written reply "I don't do poetry, prose or other such crap, but thanks for the extra hour you've just given me to complete my science coursework" :wink:

Got a B grade for that

But it was a load of old cobblers, and tbh the topics covered were so mind numbingly innane that I can't remember any of them outside of that poetry one, in fact the only thing I can remember is that when that class came about, I was able to complete all coursework and homework given to me during the week without it leaving school property (I used to do the majority of it during break and lunch hours). What? Do school work at home? Are you quite mad?

Whoever keeps comming up with this shit needs shooting.. twice.. in the head.. with an elephant gun.. at point blank range.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I chose a bit of both, because without a 'human' approach to kids, the schools become learn factories with included tensions - wich causes bullying.
And that's not a good way to learn. The most important part of learning is to become open-minded towards the matter.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I chose a bit of both, because without a 'human' approach to kids, the schools become learn factories with included tensions - wich causes bullying.
And that's not a good way to learn. The most important part of learning is to become open-minded towards the matter.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I chose a bit of both, because without a 'human' approach to kids, the schools become learn factories with included tensions - wich causes bullying.
And that's not a good way to learn. The most important part of learning is to become open-minded towards the matter.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I chose a bit of both, because without a 'human' approach to kids, the schools become learn factories with included tensions - wich causes bullying.
And that's not a good way to learn. The most important part of learning is to become open-minded towards the matter.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I chose a bit of both, because without a 'human' approach to kids, the schools become learn factories with included tensions - wich causes bullying.
And that's not a good way to learn. The most important part of learning is to become open-minded towards the matter.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I chose a bit of both, because without a 'human' approach to kids, the schools become learn factories with included tensions - wich causes bullying.
And that's not a good way to learn. The most important part of learning is to become open-minded towards the matter.

 

[Wayne]

I chose a bit of both, because without a 'human' approach to kids, the schools become learn factories with included tensions - wich causes bullying.
And that's not a good way to learn. The most important part of learning is to become open-minded towards the matter.

I can see that, but... The problem is, up until about the 80's, all of that crap was taught by the parents, while the school was responsible for actually teaching your kid the basics of Reading, Writing, and math (including sciences). In the 80's, their role expanded to include sex education and a host of other classes which SHOULD be taught, but by the parents.

The parents of today though (in wide general) don't want to actually teach their kids anything, because we've actually fallen below the "latch key kid" syndrome to where it's "give birth to the kid, and let him live at your house until he's 18, ignoring his development until which time he can go out into the world and leave you alone".

I actually heard a parent on the news during a fight between the "PTA" and the school system shout how it was "the school's job to teach my kid everything" (in context, she meant everything about life including morals, not just the basic necessities).

Sadly, most parents (at least here) are not really parents any more, but simple babysitters who wait anxiously for the day their kid leaves the nest.

Strangely, the paradox I describe appears to be a class issue, because it seems related to how much stress the parent has to go through just to survive and pay the bills. Parents with a good education and good jobs tend to have the time and interest to devote to their children while inner city parents with little or no education tend to have either menial jobs or even two or three jobs just to get the bills paid. I don't suppose there's much time for raising a child if you're at work 18 hours per day. With the US economy being what it is, the number of people having to work two jobs is growing, so it's all related in the end.

 

[Wayne]

I chose a bit of both, because without a 'human' approach to kids, the schools become learn factories with included tensions - wich causes bullying.
And that's not a good way to learn. The most important part of learning is to become open-minded towards the matter.

I can see that, but... The problem is, up until about the 80's, all of that crap was taught by the parents, while the school was responsible for actually teaching your kid the basics of Reading, Writing, and math (including sciences). In the 80's, their role expanded to include sex education and a host of other classes which SHOULD be taught, but by the parents.

The parents of today though (in wide general) don't want to actually teach their kids anything, because we've actually fallen below the "latch key kid" syndrome to where it's "give birth to the kid, and let him live at your house until he's 18, ignoring his development until which time he can go out into the world and leave you alone".

I actually heard a parent on the news during a fight between the "PTA" and the school system shout how it was "the school's job to teach my kid everything" (in context, she meant everything about life including morals, not just the basic necessities).

Sadly, most parents (at least here) are not really parents any more, but simple babysitters who wait anxiously for the day their kid leaves the nest.

Strangely, the paradox I describe appears to be a class issue, because it seems related to how much stress the parent has to go through just to survive and pay the bills. Parents with a good education and good jobs tend to have the time and interest to devote to their children while inner city parents with little or no education tend to have either menial jobs or even two or three jobs just to get the bills paid. I don't suppose there's much time for raising a child if you're at work 18 hours per day. With the US economy being what it is, the number of people having to work two jobs is growing, so it's all related in the end.

 

[Wayne]

I chose a bit of both, because without a 'human' approach to kids, the schools become learn factories with included tensions - wich causes bullying.
And that's not a good way to learn. The most important part of learning is to become open-minded towards the matter.

I can see that, but... The problem is, up until about the 80's, all of that crap was taught by the parents, while the school was responsible for actually teaching your kid the basics of Reading, Writing, and math (including sciences). In the 80's, their role expanded to include sex education and a host of other classes which SHOULD be taught, but by the parents.

The parents of today though (in wide general) don't want to actually teach their kids anything, because we've actually fallen below the "latch key kid" syndrome to where it's "give birth to the kid, and let him live at your house until he's 18, ignoring his development until which time he can go out into the world and leave you alone".

I actually heard a parent on the news during a fight between the "PTA" and the school system shout how it was "the school's job to teach my kid everything" (in context, she meant everything about life including morals, not just the basic necessities).

Sadly, most parents (at least here) are not really parents any more, but simple babysitters who wait anxiously for the day their kid leaves the nest.

Strangely, the paradox I describe appears to be a class issue, because it seems related to how much stress the parent has to go through just to survive and pay the bills. Parents with a good education and good jobs tend to have the time and interest to devote to their children while inner city parents with little or no education tend to have either menial jobs or even two or three jobs just to get the bills paid. I don't suppose there's much time for raising a child if you're at work 18 hours per day. With the US economy being what it is, the number of people having to work two jobs is growing, so it's all related in the end.

 

[Wayne]

I chose a bit of both, because without a 'human' approach to kids, the schools become learn factories with included tensions - wich causes bullying.
And that's not a good way to learn. The most important part of learning is to become open-minded towards the matter.

I can see that, but... The problem is, up until about the 80's, all of that crap was taught by the parents, while the school was responsible for actually teaching your kid the basics of Reading, Writing, and math (including sciences). In the 80's, their role expanded to include sex education and a host of other classes which SHOULD be taught, but by the parents.

The parents of today though (in wide general) don't want to actually teach their kids anything, because we've actually fallen below the "latch key kid" syndrome to where it's "give birth to the kid, and let him live at your house until he's 18, ignoring his development until which time he can go out into the world and leave you alone".

I actually heard a parent on the news during a fight between the "PTA" and the school system shout how it was "the school's job to teach my kid everything" (in context, she meant everything about life including morals, not just the basic necessities).

Sadly, most parents (at least here) are not really parents any more, but simple babysitters who wait anxiously for the day their kid leaves the nest.

Strangely, the paradox I describe appears to be a class issue, because it seems related to how much stress the parent has to go through just to survive and pay the bills. Parents with a good education and good jobs tend to have the time and interest to devote to their children while inner city parents with little or no education tend to have either menial jobs or even two or three jobs just to get the bills paid. I don't suppose there's much time for raising a child if you're at work 18 hours per day. With the US economy being what it is, the number of people having to work two jobs is growing, so it's all related in the end.

 

[Wayne]

I chose a bit of both, because without a 'human' approach to kids, the schools become learn factories with included tensions - wich causes bullying.
And that's not a good way to learn. The most important part of learning is to become open-minded towards the matter.

I can see that, but... The problem is, up until about the 80's, all of that crap was taught by the parents, while the school was responsible for actually teaching your kid the basics of Reading, Writing, and math (including sciences). In the 80's, their role expanded to include sex education and a host of other classes which SHOULD be taught, but by the parents.

The parents of today though (in wide general) don't want to actually teach their kids anything, because we've actually fallen below the "latch key kid" syndrome to where it's "give birth to the kid, and let him live at your house until he's 18, ignoring his development until which time he can go out into the world and leave you alone".

I actually heard a parent on the news during a fight between the "PTA" and the school system shout how it was "the school's job to teach my kid everything" (in context, she meant everything about life including morals, not just the basic necessities).

Sadly, most parents (at least here) are not really parents any more, but simple babysitters who wait anxiously for the day their kid leaves the nest.

Strangely, the paradox I describe appears to be a class issue, because it seems related to how much stress the parent has to go through just to survive and pay the bills. Parents with a good education and good jobs tend to have the time and interest to devote to their children while inner city parents with little or no education tend to have either menial jobs or even two or three jobs just to get the bills paid. I don't suppose there's much time for raising a child if you're at work 18 hours per day. With the US economy being what it is, the number of people having to work two jobs is growing, so it's all related in the end.

 

[Wayne]

I chose a bit of both, because without a 'human' approach to kids, the schools become learn factories with included tensions - wich causes bullying.
And that's not a good way to learn. The most important part of learning is to become open-minded towards the matter.

I can see that, but... The problem is, up until about the 80's, all of that crap was taught by the parents, while the school was responsible for actually teaching your kid the basics of Reading, Writing, and math (including sciences). In the 80's, their role expanded to include sex education and a host of other classes which SHOULD be taught, but by the parents.

The parents of today though (in wide general) don't want to actually teach their kids anything, because we've actually fallen below the "latch key kid" syndrome to where it's "give birth to the kid, and let him live at your house until he's 18, ignoring his development until which time he can go out into the world and leave you alone".

I actually heard a parent on the news during a fight between the "PTA" and the school system shout how it was "the school's job to teach my kid everything" (in context, she meant everything about life including morals, not just the basic necessities).

Sadly, most parents (at least here) are not really parents any more, but simple babysitters who wait anxiously for the day their kid leaves the nest.

Strangely, the paradox I describe appears to be a class issue, because it seems related to how much stress the parent has to go through just to survive and pay the bills. Parents with a good education and good jobs tend to have the time and interest to devote to their children while inner city parents with little or no education tend to have either menial jobs or even two or three jobs just to get the bills paid. I don't suppose there's much time for raising a child if you're at work 18 hours per day. With the US economy being what it is, the number of people having to work two jobs is growing, so it's all related in the end.

 

[faethor]

It appears that this statement lacks the context. What class was this in? Is the single example respresentational of 2% of the class or 98% of the class? Hard to tell if it's really inappropriate or not.

People are a mix of things including emotions. If a school is to teach to a whole person it needs to consider that person as a whole person and deal with emotional issues. Only teaching the 3 Rs would be appropriate if it were robots being taught, IMO. So, I picked 'A mix of both' as the option in the survey.

In the 80's, their role expanded to include sex education and a host of other classes which SHOULD be taught, but by the parents.

I think we'll agree that parents should be doing their job. Teaching their kids lots of stuff! However, if parents have the desire they may not always have the ability.

One good example is in Texas where the Governor Bush passed legislation mandating abstinence-only sex education curriculum. Some teens believed they could get pregnant from oral sex and referred to some children as 'Spit Babies'. Truly sad and you can blame the bad ruling of a Governor. But, you can also blame parents for not teaching their children that 'Spit Babies' don't exist and this is how it really works.

The parents of today though (in wide general) don't want to actually teach their kids anything, because we've actually fallen below the "latch key kid" syndrome.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Perhaps this is the rule of the majority of parents in your area but not here. The majority do care and do take time with their kid. However, it's frequently the parents that don't do their their job and end up with messed up kids stick out more since their behavior and attitudes are atypical of the norm and expectations.

Also, I will admit we all come from a biased view... I have the luxury of living in a mid-west state that is frequently ranked in the top for education. Those people that live in the southern area tend towards the bottom of the rankings for education and as such probably have a greater level of frustration with their educational system.

I actually heard a parent on the news during a fight between the "PTA" and the school system shout how it was "the school's job to teach my kid everything" (in context, she meant everything about life including morals, not just the basic necessities).

Surely this isn't true in the manner the parent meant. However, if you think about it, it is true. Schools should be educating and encouraging students critical assessment ability. Through use of one's critical assessment ability is how one defines their morals. So, indirectly the parents statement could be seen as correct.

Strangely, the paradox I describe appears to be a class issue, because it seems related to how much stress the parent has to go through just to survive and pay the bills.

I'd agree with you.. Think about how societies developed. Early on people were groups who were focused on sustance. Barely eeking by to survive doesn't give one time to develop critical thought and increase knowledge. In many ways an increase of knowledge is an ability that's gained on the foundation of wealth and security as that allows more leisure time to follow intellectual pursuits.

 

[faethor]

It appears that this statement lacks the context. What class was this in? Is the single example respresentational of 2% of the class or 98% of the class? Hard to tell if it's really inappropriate or not.

People are a mix of things including emotions. If a school is to teach to a whole person it needs to consider that person as a whole person and deal with emotional issues. Only teaching the 3 Rs would be appropriate if it were robots being taught, IMO. So, I picked 'A mix of both' as the option in the survey.

In the 80's, their role expanded to include sex education and a host of other classes which SHOULD be taught, but by the parents.

I think we'll agree that parents should be doing their job. Teaching their kids lots of stuff! However, if parents have the desire they may not always have the ability.

One good example is in Texas where the Governor Bush passed legislation mandating abstinence-only sex education curriculum. Some teens believed they could get pregnant from oral sex and referred to some children as 'Spit Babies'. Truly sad and you can blame the bad ruling of a Governor. But, you can also blame parents for not teaching their children that 'Spit Babies' don't exist and this is how it really works.

The parents of today though (in wide general) don't want to actually teach their kids anything, because we've actually fallen below the "latch key kid" syndrome.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Perhaps this is the rule of the majority of parents in your area but not here. The majority do care and do take time with their kid. However, it's frequently the parents that don't do their their job and end up with messed up kids stick out more since their behavior and attitudes are atypical of the norm and expectations.

Also, I will admit we all come from a biased view... I have the luxury of living in a mid-west state that is frequently ranked in the top for education. Those people that live in the southern area tend towards the bottom of the rankings for education and as such probably have a greater level of frustration with their educational system.

I actually heard a parent on the news during a fight between the "PTA" and the school system shout how it was "the school's job to teach my kid everything" (in context, she meant everything about life including morals, not just the basic necessities).

Surely this isn't true in the manner the parent meant. However, if you think about it, it is true. Schools should be educating and encouraging students critical assessment ability. Through use of one's critical assessment ability is how one defines their morals. So, indirectly the parents statement could be seen as correct.

Strangely, the paradox I describe appears to be a class issue, because it seems related to how much stress the parent has to go through just to survive and pay the bills.

I'd agree with you.. Think about how societies developed. Early on people were groups who were focused on sustance. Barely eeking by to survive doesn't give one time to develop critical thought and increase knowledge. In many ways an increase of knowledge is an ability that's gained on the foundation of wealth and security as that allows more leisure time to follow intellectual pursuits.

 

[faethor]

It appears that this statement lacks the context. What class was this in? Is the single example respresentational of 2% of the class or 98% of the class? Hard to tell if it's really inappropriate or not.

People are a mix of things including emotions. If a school is to teach to a whole person it needs to consider that person as a whole person and deal with emotional issues. Only teaching the 3 Rs would be appropriate if it were robots being taught, IMO. So, I picked 'A mix of both' as the option in the survey.

In the 80's, their role expanded to include sex education and a host of other classes which SHOULD be taught, but by the parents.

I think we'll agree that parents should be doing their job. Teaching their kids lots of stuff! However, if parents have the desire they may not always have the ability.

One good example is in Texas where the Governor Bush passed legislation mandating abstinence-only sex education curriculum. Some teens believed they could get pregnant from oral sex and referred to some children as 'Spit Babies'. Truly sad and you can blame the bad ruling of a Governor. But, you can also blame parents for not teaching their children that 'Spit Babies' don't exist and this is how it really works.

The parents of today though (in wide general) don't want to actually teach their kids anything, because we've actually fallen below the "latch key kid" syndrome.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Perhaps this is the rule of the majority of parents in your area but not here. The majority do care and do take time with their kid. However, it's frequently the parents that don't do their their job and end up with messed up kids stick out more since their behavior and attitudes are atypical of the norm and expectations.

Also, I will admit we all come from a biased view... I have the luxury of living in a mid-west state that is frequently ranked in the top for education. Those people that live in the southern area tend towards the bottom of the rankings for education and as such probably have a greater level of frustration with their educational system.

I actually heard a parent on the news during a fight between the "PTA" and the school system shout how it was "the school's job to teach my kid everything" (in context, she meant everything about life including morals, not just the basic necessities).

Surely this isn't true in the manner the parent meant. However, if you think about it, it is true. Schools should be educating and encouraging students critical assessment ability. Through use of one's critical assessment ability is how one defines their morals. So, indirectly the parents statement could be seen as correct.

Strangely, the paradox I describe appears to be a class issue, because it seems related to how much stress the parent has to go through just to survive and pay the bills.

I'd agree with you.. Think about how societies developed. Early on people were groups who were focused on sustance. Barely eeking by to survive doesn't give one time to develop critical thought and increase knowledge. In many ways an increase of knowledge is an ability that's gained on the foundation of wealth and security as that allows more leisure time to follow intellectual pursuits.

 

[faethor]

It appears that this statement lacks the context. What class was this in? Is the single example respresentational of 2% of the class or 98% of the class? Hard to tell if it's really inappropriate or not.

People are a mix of things including emotions. If a school is to teach to a whole person it needs to consider that person as a whole person and deal with emotional issues. Only teaching the 3 Rs would be appropriate if it were robots being taught, IMO. So, I picked 'A mix of both' as the option in the survey.

In the 80's, their role expanded to include sex education and a host of other classes which SHOULD be taught, but by the parents.

I think we'll agree that parents should be doing their job. Teaching their kids lots of stuff! However, if parents have the desire they may not always have the ability.

One good example is in Texas where the Governor Bush passed legislation mandating abstinence-only sex education curriculum. Some teens believed they could get pregnant from oral sex and referred to some children as 'Spit Babies'. Truly sad and you can blame the bad ruling of a Governor. But, you can also blame parents for not teaching their children that 'Spit Babies' don't exist and this is how it really works.

The parents of today though (in wide general) don't want to actually teach their kids anything, because we've actually fallen below the "latch key kid" syndrome.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Perhaps this is the rule of the majority of parents in your area but not here. The majority do care and do take time with their kid. However, it's frequently the parents that don't do their their job and end up with messed up kids stick out more since their behavior and attitudes are atypical of the norm and expectations.

Also, I will admit we all come from a biased view... I have the luxury of living in a mid-west state that is frequently ranked in the top for education. Those people that live in the southern area tend towards the bottom of the rankings for education and as such probably have a greater level of frustration with their educational system.

I actually heard a parent on the news during a fight between the "PTA" and the school system shout how it was "the school's job to teach my kid everything" (in context, she meant everything about life including morals, not just the basic necessities).

Surely this isn't true in the manner the parent meant. However, if you think about it, it is true. Schools should be educating and encouraging students critical assessment ability. Through use of one's critical assessment ability is how one defines their morals. So, indirectly the parents statement could be seen as correct.

Strangely, the paradox I describe appears to be a class issue, because it seems related to how much stress the parent has to go through just to survive and pay the bills.

I'd agree with you.. Think about how societies developed. Early on people were groups who were focused on sustance. Barely eeking by to survive doesn't give one time to develop critical thought and increase knowledge. In many ways an increase of knowledge is an ability that's gained on the foundation of wealth and security as that allows more leisure time to follow intellectual pursuits.