This kind of crap is taught in US schools?

[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.