What Should Teachers Teach?

[gaffo]

This topic comes from another discussion.

Everybody complains about teachers..."They don't teach like they should," everybody says. Okay. Let's take that as truth, and not deny it.

What SHOULD they teach? Can you give a brief outline of the topics/skills that should be covered in what you consider an "adequate" or "good" education? What are teachers failing to do, that you consider they ought to be doing?

And if you want, just for fun, why not talk about some subjects/skills/concepts they are now getting involved with, that you think they definitely should not be involved with?

Fire away.

great question!

Elementary education:

Critic thought, self knowledge.........i.e wisdom

middle school and high school, History (objective - not nationalistic), Civics (no longer taught - its good to know the machine of govvernance of your land - to undertand the "president/senate/congress/juidiary" etc --per your nation).


one can be Wise without knowledge of histroy or Civics - but its a lot easier to be so with such knowledge.


BTW STEM of course is impoirtant, but we cannot all be STEM and when over valuatoin of STEM we end up with follish STemers.


there is a balance in all things and critical thought/historical knowledge/civiis as been ignored for the last 40 yrs to our detriments./

for an example of a STEM genious fool Edward Teller.

nuke panama to make a bigger channel, nothing more need be said.

[gaffo]

This topic comes from another discussion.

Everybody complains about teachers..."They don't teach like they should," everybody says. Okay. Let's take that as truth, and not deny it.

What SHOULD they teach? Can you give a brief outline of the topics/skills that should be covered in what you consider an "adequate" or "good" education? What are teachers failing to do, that you consider they ought to be doing?

And if you want, just for fun, why not talk about some subjects/skills/concepts they are now getting involved with, that you think they definitely should not be involved with?

Fire away.

I'm old school: teach readin', writin', & 'rithmetic

within the broad confines of those three: science, civics, history, philosophy, etc. can all be taught, not as separate subjects, but as topics

at least thru elementary, keep it substantive and flexible

and let 'em have recess

they should have school year-round...4 quarters, with a week off between each quarter

dump common core: it's just a friggin' headache

test not only for retention of fact but also for thinkin' (more short essay questions, please)

bring back the dunce cap

hire more men

have smaller class size

encourage students to pursue interests and connect those interests to readin', writin', & 'rithmetic

restore the notion of teacher as school master

no homework except for long-term projects

reinforce, or teach, manners

teach that not everything gallivantin' thru the brain deserves to come rollin' out of the mouth

put aside all teachin' theory and just teach, for christ's sake

and: about a dozen other things that'll come to mind after I post this

mainly, teach broadly, teach substance, teach practical (what they need) and build on that as the kids grow, teach year-round; don't teach as a kind of test-prep; school ought not be a day prison or sitter service

agreed/amen!

[gaffo]

In some neighbourhoods, self-awareness and responsibility; in others, basic nutrition and self-esteem.

self esteem cannot be taught, it can only be aquired via yrs of living life as a kid/adult.

[Skip]

In some neighbourhoods, self-awareness and responsibility; in others, basic nutrition and self-esteem.

self esteem cannot be taught, it can only be aquired via yrs of living life as a kid/adult.

But a person - a child, more readily than an adult - can be guided to the perspective and achievement that builds self-worth; a group of people - children more readily than adults - can be guided to the understanding and tolerance that creates a social environment for the self-esteem of its members to thrive.

[Age]

This topic comes from another discussion.

Everybody complains about teachers..."They don't teach like they should," everybody says.

Does EVERY body REALLY say this?

If, for example, we put out a poll to see just how many posters in this forum, alone, says what 'you' allege above here, then by your own CLAIM EVERY poster here would say that they do say such a thing, correct?

Okay. Let's take that as truth, and not deny it.

But WHY take 'that' as 'truth', especially considering that it is OBVIOUSLY NOT the truth AT ALL?

What SHOULD they teach? Can you give a brief outline of the topics/skills that should be covered in what you consider an "adequate" or "good" education?

Yes.

What are teachers failing to do, that you consider they ought to be doing?

Teach 'heuristically'.

And if you want, just for fun, why not talk about some subjects/skills/concepts they are now getting involved with, that you think they definitely should not be involved with?

Fire away.

By the time human beings have become adult human beings they "should" have ALREADY LEARNED how to spot what are OBVIOUS 'truths' and what are OBVIOUS 'untruths'. So, according to this, maybe it would be a good idea if 'adult teachers' learned how to TEACH what they themselves have NOT YET LEARNED and GRASPED FULLY.

Also, "teachers", or ALL adults in fact, "should" learn how to STOP 'disciplining' children, and instead just LEARN how to gain self-discipline in order so that they can then learn HOW to teach children what is ACTUALLY True, Right, Good, and Correct, in Life.

After all, children do NOT 'need' discipline, but adults CERTAINLY do NEED self-discipline to learn how to teach children what is Right in Life.

[Skip]

Arjand, are you taking NOTE?

[Immanuel Can]

IC wrote something like the following:

Put the in a meal program, and they can’t afford a football team.

I took this and the rest of IC’s examples in a more general sense than Skip did. I understood the examples to simply mean that if one thing is added, another item must be subtracted. I didn’t think it would have to be specifically the football team that is out of the budget when a meal program is added. Maybe the new program would cause some other valuable but totally unrelated program to be axed. Its a matter of tit for tat under a zero sum budget game.

Yes, that's exactly it. Thank you.

I simply mean that the school gets the child for perhaps 6 hours a day, of which perhaps 1 or more are for lunch/breaks/recess, and they only get the child for 5 days in 7, and for 3/4 of the calendar year, at most. Any single teacher may have the child for as little as 1 hour per day of that, for half the year.

That all means that time is definitely constrained. Anything added to the curricula automatically pushes something else out, because there's always much more that "needs" to be taught in the time that's available to teach. There is also only so much money, so much expertise, so much in resources, so much space, and so on. All these factors mean that we can't simply say, "Teachers should teach everything that can possibly be taught."

So it's a zero-sum game, when it comes to designing what teachers should teach. And we have to make the right choices.

[Immanuel Can]

self esteem cannot be taught, it can only be aquired via yrs of living life as a kid/adult.

"Self-esteem" is also a priority of a now-discredited explanation of child psychology. For example, it was once said that bullies have "low self-esteem." We now know that this is totally false; many have very strong self-esteem...too strong, if anything. What many lack are things like empathy, perhaps conscience, and a sense of responsibility. Likewise, building "self-esteem" can be useless for a child whose problem is narcissism or eating disorders, and in some cases, may simply reinforce unhealthy mental patterns that are already in place. it's certainly no longer assumed that it's the cure-all educators once acted like it was.

But as you say, it's best "acquired." Real self-esteem has to be built on actual self-worth or actual attainments. If it's built on sheer puffery, then it's merely delusional thinking.

[Skip]

Thus: in some situations, one approach is appropriate; in other situations, a different approach may be appropriate.
Could have sworn that was in my first post -

What their students need.
In some neighbourhoods, self-awareness and responsibility; in others, basic nutrition and self-esteem.

Oh well....

[vegetariantaxidermy]

self esteem cannot be taught, it can only be aquired via yrs of living life as a kid/adult.

"Self-esteem" is also a priority of a now-discredited explanation of child psychology. For example, it was once said that bullies have "low self-esteem." We now know that this is totally false; many have very strong self-esteem...too strong, if anything. What many lack are things like empathy, perhaps conscience, and a sense of responsibility. Likewise, building "self-esteem" can be useless for a child whose problem is narcissism or eating disorders, and in some cases, may simply reinforce unhealthy mental patterns that are already in place. it's certainly no longer assumed that it's the cure-all educators once acted like it was.

But as you say, it's best "acquired." Real self-esteem has to be built on actual self-worth or actual attainments. If it's built on sheer puffery, then it's merely delusional thinking.

I certainly hope that I'm wrong about you being a school teacher, but I don't think so. What the hell do so-called 'narcissism' and eating disorders have to do with school teachers? They are paid to fucking teach. End of!

And we have wanky PC yank school teachers to 'thank' for the 'no blame' bullying policy. Why do people even become school teachers? Most of them hate it, and let the PUPILS know that they are only counting down the days to the next, VERY LONG holiday!

If you want to find some NARCISSISTS, then look no further than most school 'teachers'.

[Age]

This topic comes from another discussion.

Everybody complains about teachers..."They don't teach like they should," everybody says. Okay. Let's take that as truth, and not deny it.

What SHOULD they teach? Can you give a brief outline of the topics/skills that should be covered in what you consider an "adequate" or "good" education? What are teachers failing to do, that you consider they ought to be doing?

And if you want, just for fun, why not talk about some subjects/skills/concepts they are now getting involved with, that you think they definitely should not be involved with?

Fire away.

I'm old school: teach readin', writin', & 'rithmetic

But, OBVIOUSLY, if 'you' were Truly 'old school', then these were NOT even being taught.

within the broad confines of those three: science, civics, history, philosophy, etc. can all be taught, not as separate subjects, but as topics

at least thru elementary, keep it substantive and flexible

and let 'em have recess

they should have school year-round...4 quarters, with a week off between each quarter

dump common core: it's just a friggin' headache

test not only for retention of fact but also for thinkin' (more short essay questions, please)

bring back the dunce cap

hire more men

have smaller class size

encourage students to pursue interests and connect those interests to readin', writin', & 'rithmetic

restore the notion of teacher as school master

no homework except for long-term projects

reinforce, or teach, manners

teach that not everything gallivantin' thru the brain deserves to come rollin' out of the mouth

put aside all teachin' theory and just teach, for christ's sake

and: about a dozen other things that'll come to mind after I post this

mainly, teach broadly, teach substance, teach practical (what they need) and build on that as the kids grow, teach year-round; don't teach as a kind of test-prep; school ought not be a day prison or sitter service

You forgot about your favorite, teach the children that they can shoot dead absolutely ANY one who touches absolutely ANY thing, which they BELIEVE is "theirs" ONLY.

[Age]

Everybody complains about teachers..."They don't teach like they should," everybody says.

That's bloody unfair! Teachers don't make the rules; they don't set the requirements, curriculum, the standards, or even most of the tests.

You are quite right. It's good that you know that; most people don't. Most people think the teachers make the real decisions, and they don't. They're controlled by a system of ministries, curricula and administrators that do their best to straight-jacket everything classroom teachers do, to fit the political agenda of the higher-ups. The teachers are awash in a sea of demands from above; and many of them find it very hard to swim against that tide to any effect. If blame is to be placed anywhere, it ought to be a the level of the ministries, boards and committees that structure the educational bureaucracy, not on the shoulders of ordinary teachers.

But do NOT forget that it ends up being people just like 'you' who vote in these ministries who CREATE these actual 'systems'.

So, who EXACTLY is there to, so call, "blame" or, more correctly, 'accept responsibility' for this human being created 'system'?

I grant you that.

But perhaps I've missed some context, and I owe you an explanation. I was talking on the other thread about the many teachers who, in spite of what they are mandated to teach, practice a policy of "Close your door, and do the right thing." There are such teachers, and this is their mantra. They don't deserve to get lumped in with the other teachers or with the whole education system, but that's how most people perceive things.

Close 'what' door, and do 'what', so called, "right thing"?

My conversation partner on the other thread was insisting that teachers don't teach what they should. So I simply wanted to find out what people think they should teach, if they had a choice about it.

What the WHOLE 'education' "system" 'should' do is do what the word 'education' once originally MEANT, and this is; to draw out, as in to just draw out the potential within EACH and EVERY one. And, then just teach the student what 'it' is that they WANT to learn.

But you're right: they're not really allowed to do more than rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic of the educational bureaucracy's sinking ship. A few good ones find ways to subvert that, but increasingly, the Titanic's getting bigger, more demanding, and sinking faster as a consequence of being deflected from any legitimate mandate it might have.

So I'm just trying to sort out what that agenda, the right one, would look like.

That would look like the one where discovery of what 'it' is that the student wants and desires, and then also in the teaching them how they can find ALL answers by their own selves.

What SHOULD they teach?

What their students need. In some neighbourhoods, self-awareness and responsibility; in others, basic nutrition and self-esteem.

This is the kind of question I want to get to. Can/should teachers do things like teaching "nutrition" or "self-awareness" or "responsibility," or should they stick to math and language? Should they be "holistic carers" and "surrogate parents" or keep their mandate closer to being content-providers? Should they teach classical liberal citizenship values, or employable skills, or social activism, or what?

And I'm not trying to specify in advance what answer I might expect. That's not my aim.

Considering the internet and its search engine, in the days of when this is being written, then whatever just about ANY one wants to find, learn, or know can be found in said internet. So, if young children are just taught the very basics of reading and writing, then just about ALL else can be learned at ones own pace.

So what do students really "need"? would be my next question.

What is the 'role' or 'purpose' of a, so called, "student"?

In other words, when a human being is labeled a "student", then what is their actual purpose? Find that out, then you can find and discover what the 'need' is.

If a "student's" purpose is to learn, then what is 'it' that EACH 'student" 'needs' to FULFILL is what 'it' is that they EACH 'want' and 'desire' to LEARN.

Because if schools should supply ALL needs, what are the parents supposed to supply?

LOL WHO has EVER suggested, or WHEN has there been some suggestion, that "schools should supply ALL needs"? This is just an ABSURD ASSUMPTION, which OBVIOUSLY Is NOT even close to thee Truth of things.

And is it okay if schools insert themselves into EVERY aspect of a child's life, on the supposition that parents can't be trusted to do any of it? What if the school decides to inculcate, say, a sexuality or a religion different from that of the parents?

Can you give a brief outline of the topics/skills that should be covered in what you consider an "adequate" or "good" education?

Critical thinking, grammar, math, science, history, civics, economic theory, major schools of philosophy, comparative religion, psychology, anthropology, literature and art. Find time for sports, games and music.
Break the educational program into three six-year sections: elementary, secondary and university, with at least two years' break between sections to attend practical work programs, where the students have hand's on instruction in life skills, building skills and service skills under the guidance of adults who do those things all the time.

I like some of your suggestions. Thanks for such a thoughtful response. And I concede the justice of your opening objection.

[Age]

Schools do not create kids that are without discipline, self-restraint or respect of their elders,

Why should children automatically 'respect' anyone who is older than they are?

Children 'should' NEVER be made to 'have to' automatically respect ANY one, especially one who is NOT deserving of ABSOLUTE and FULL respect.

And I think what will be found is that there is NOT one adult human being, in the days of when this is being written, with this quality.

Part of the issue with WHY the human created 'world' is so unhealthy in such a mess that it is in is because there are actually some people who actually BELIEVE that they are worthy of respect and of being totally and full 'respected'.

There are plenty of 'elders' who deserve anything BUT respect.

VERY, VERY True.

[henry quirk]

This topic comes from another discussion.

Everybody complains about teachers..."They don't teach like they should," everybody says. Okay. Let's take that as truth, and not deny it.

What SHOULD they teach? Can you give a brief outline of the topics/skills that should be covered in what you consider an "adequate" or "good" education? What are teachers failing to do, that you consider they ought to be doing?

And if you want, just for fun, why not talk about some subjects/skills/concepts they are now getting involved with, that you think they definitely should not be involved with?

Fire away.

I'm old school: teach readin', writin', & 'rithmetic

But, OBVIOUSLY, if 'you' were Truly 'old school', then these were NOT even being taught.

within the broad confines of those three: science, civics, history, philosophy, etc. can all be taught, not as separate subjects, but as topics

at least thru elementary, keep it substantive and flexible

and let 'em have recess

they should have school year-round...4 quarters, with a week off between each quarter

dump common core: it's just a friggin' headache

test not only for retention of fact but also for thinkin' (more short essay questions, please)

bring back the dunce cap

hire more men

have smaller class size

encourage students to pursue interests and connect those interests to readin', writin', & 'rithmetic

restore the notion of teacher as school master

no homework except for long-term projects

reinforce, or teach, manners

teach that not everything gallivantin' thru the brain deserves to come rollin' out of the mouth

put aside all teachin' theory and just teach, for christ's sake

and: about a dozen other things that'll come to mind after I post this

mainly, teach broadly, teach substance, teach practical (what they need) and build on that as the kids grow, teach year-round; don't teach as a kind of test-prep; school ought not be a day prison or sitter service

You forgot about your favorite, teach the children that they can shoot dead absolutely ANY one who touches absolutely ANY thing, which they BELIEVE is "theirs" ONLY.

teach the children that they can shoot dead absolutely ANY one who touches absolutely ANY thing, which they BELIEVE is "theirs" ONLY.

yeah, that's not what I've posted, ever, in this forum, or anywhere

[commonsense]

IC wrote something like the following:

Put the in a meal program, and they can’t afford a football team.

I took this and the rest of IC’s examples in a more general sense than Skip did. I understood the examples to simply mean that if one thing is added, another item must be subtracted.

I got that. Just don't like football. But it wouldn't matter what you had to cut: feeding children is fundamental. If they're chronically underfed, it doesn't matter what programs you fund instead: they can't learn, grow or thrive.

Maybe the new program would cause some other valuable but totally unrelated program to be axed.

Sure - that always happens when you lavish ridiculous wealth on shit that blows up and stint on the development of your young.
As I said, every society has its dominant value-system and sets its priorities accordingly.

Its a matter of tit for tat under a zero sum budget game.

And you see nothing wrong with that state of affairs?

It is an absolutely abhorrent state of affairs.