What Should Teachers Teach?

[Age]

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

Not me.

What are you saying here, that you do NOT vote?

If no, then what are you actually saying here?

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

Education ministries are generally staffed by ambitious, politically-motivated people. Most of them were never teachers, or have not been for a very long time, and weren't teachers for long in the first place. Ministries are dominated by theorists, politicians, and non-teachers. There are reasons for this, but I won't go into all of them here. Suffice it to say, the public education system is a football for politicians, because it's incredibly lucrative, incredibly important in the public perception, and incredibly easy to manipulate.

So, ONCE AGAIN, who EXACTLY is there to, so call, "blame" or, more correctly, 'accept responsibly for this HUMAN BEING created system'?

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

For example, close the door of your classroom, and teach your children to read and write, instead of teaching them the latest social justice propaganda as demanded by the Ministry.

WHY is what 'YOU' WANT and EXPECT "others" to do SO IMPORTANT?

Since WHEN did 'reading and writing' become SO IMPORTANT?

Do NOT forget that VERY SOON 'reading AND writing' will NOT be 'important' AT ALL.

Whatever one wants to learn and know, theoretically, can just be done with the internet and a search engine, and ALREADY one does NOT have to write in the question/what is being searched for, NOR have to read the answer/result. One can just speak AND listen. And learning how to speak and understand ANY language through just listening, itself, without going through absolutely ANY, so called, "educational system" is REALLY SO SIMPLE and SO EASY INDEED that just about ANY three year old, LITERALLY, does it.

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.

That's not quite how it was. E-duco does indeed mean "to draw out," but this is a bit of a misnomer.

PLEASE REFRAIN from TELLING 'me' what 'things' DO MEAN or DO NOT MEAN.

If I recall correctly, thee dictionary I looked in said that the word 'education', ORIGINALLY MEANT, to draw out. And as I do NOT have a current way to VERIFY if this, ORIGINALLY MEANT, is ACTUALLY True or NOT, so I added and used the word ONCE to make this MORE TRUE. So, PLEASE do NOT TELL me that this is "NOT QUITE HOW IT WAS" and that "this is a bit of a misnomer".

If a word ONCE MEANT some 'thing', then that is what it ONCE MEANT. Saying, that a word and the definition given for that, which is of how that word ONCE OBVIOUSLY MEANT, is a "misnomer" is ONLY 'you' putting your OWN tainted SLANT on things.

Education has always involved some measure of added content,

So, 'you', "immanuel', have or BELIEVE that you have the ability to KNOW absolutely EVERY thing that occurred, well as far back to how long 'education', itself, has been in existence for, anyway, correct?

If no, then WHY say; 'Education has ALWAYS involved some measure of ..."?

How do you KNOW what 'Education has, SUPPOSEDLY, ALWAYS involved?

Also, WHY did the word 'education' ONCE MEAN 'to draw out'?

Maybe if 'education', itself, was conducted in thee way that that word once meant or maybe once Truly did ORIGINALLY mean, then ALL of 'you' would NOT be in the position, which you find "yourselves" in now, in the days of when this is being written.

and not all content is what particular children feel they want at a particular moment in their psychological development.

And, OF COURSE, ADULTS KNOW what is BEST for CHILDREN, according to 'you', am I right?

Could it EVEN be a POSSIBILITY that CHILDREN ACTUALLY DO KNOW what is BEST for their OWN "psychological development'?

Or, is this just NOT EVEN a POSSIBILITY, as ADULTS and PARENTS ALWAYS KNOW what is BEST for "their" children, as they KEEP TELLING US?

Lots of kids even start off resisting things like reading practice, or writing, or doing maths.

OH NO. And what do you think the BEST REMEDY is for a 'kid' who does NOT follow the curriculum, literally, to the letter?

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.

But that's no different from saying, "All the answers to an education can be found in a library."

NO. What I ACTUALLY SAID is VERY DIFFERENT from what you said is NO DIFFERENT.

Do NOT FORGET HOW you define and perceive the word 'education' here is VERY DIFFERENT from HOW I define and perceive the word 'education'. So, YOU adding the word 'educating' into what you said, and then CLAIMING that that is NO DIFFERENT from what you said, is just a MISONTENCE.

If you can CLAIM that the name 'education', and its definition, is a "MISNOMER", then I will CLAIM what you did here with YOUR SENTENCE, and allegation, is a MISONTENCE.

See, through 'education' from MY definition of 'to draw out' some one might just want to be an artist or a horse rider. And, OBVIOUSLY ALL the answers to being an artist and/or a horse rider are NOT found in a library, nor on the internet.

Also, and do NOT MISS this I used the 'just about' words to make my sentence correct, where your sentence is OBVIOUSLY NOT, for two reasons:
1. NOT ALL the answers to what one Truly wants to do, and which they are wanting 'to draw out' could come from a library. And,
2. There is NOT a single library that could hold ALL the answers that you are talking about here.

In fact the largest library in the world relatively speaking probably holds next to nothing compared to what the internet could and does ALREADY hold.

Maybe they can, and maybe they can't. But it's not an education to know where the library is, if one has no grasp of anything in it.

Could you get much further distracted away from the point I made here?

Also, by the way, from what you wrote here are you 'trying to' convey that you have some sort of intellectual superiority over "others"?

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"?

Actually, it's fairly common that parents expect things of schools that schools cannot actually deliver.

Children NEED clean enough air, clean enough water, some nutrients, and attention. And that is ALL they NEED.

I have NEVER heard of a parent EXPECTING schools to provide the first two of these NEEDS. Although, in some countries, parents would EXPECT schools to provide the third one here of children's NEEDS. And, I hope EVERY parent EXPECTS the teachers at school to provide their children with attention.

One parent expects the school to instil in his child a work ethic or a set of values the parent herself hasn't bothered to instil, and doesn't practice in front of her child.

And some teachers expect students to respect them, but some of these teachers do NOT practice self nor much respect.

Maybe if teachers were 'educating', properly AND correctly, from what the word 'education', once meant, by just Truly LISTENING and 'drawing out' from students what they Truly WANT and DESIRE, and Truly NEED, then these teachers would get ALL the respect that they Truly WANT and DESIRE, also.

Another thinks it's the school's job to provide basic meals. Another thinks the school can make a child who's only good at things like drama or computers and has no desire for studying biology into a pre-med student. Those sorts of absurd expectations are actually very, very common, because parents often don't understand what a school can and cannot achieve, and would rather have the school do things the parent himself/herself finds challenging than take on the challenge himself/herself.

Okay. But do NOT forget that these are mostly adults that you are talking about and the reason WHY these adults, which includes teachers themselves, are so grossly WRONG and DISTORTED in their thinking is because they have had to endure a WRONG and DISTORTED, so called, "education system" and a WRONG and DISTORTED home upbringing AS WELL.

[Age]

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

Are you talking about in those EXACT SAME WORDS?

Because if you are, then I would be the first to AGREE that you have NEVER posted those EXACT SAME words, in this forum, nor probably ANYWHERE.

But you have posted YOUR VIEWS on who "deserves" to be shot, from YOUR perspective of things, which included IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, even included your own wife and own son, (if you have them) if they "touched" your 'things', which I do NOT recall were EXACTLY at this moment of writing this here now.

you're wrong, age, no if, ands, or butt

Are you ABSOLUTELY 100% SURE without absolutely ANY doubt at all?

never wrote it...never wrote a damn thing remotely like that...never wrote anything that could honestly be interpreted as that

What EXACTLY are you referring to now?

You NEVER wrote 'what'?

Are you referring to what I wrote in this post, which you are replying to now, or what I wrote in the previous post to that one?

[Age]

So, to you, the 'self' is built upon, so called, "actual self-worth" and "actual attainments", correct?

What are 'you', "immanuel can", "worth" and what have 'you' "actually attained".

Heh. I guess that's for me to know...but ultimately, for God to decide. I am not the judge of my own worth or achievements. The answer to that will be up to Him. I bow to his greater wisdom in any such assessment.

From all accounts here it sounds like you you have absolutely NO knowledge of what 'you' are actually 'worth', if any, nor what 'you' have 'actually attained', if anything.

[Age]

And if teachers go teaching "self-esteem" nonsense, they can actually make these conditions even worse.

This can be SEEN as an extremely narcissist and arrogant view in and of itself.

There's no particular reason why.

OBVIOUSLY, 'you' and 'I' SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENTLY.

It's verifiable that if you take somebody with a self-overesteem problem like narcissism or bullying, and add to the perpetrator's sense of self-worth, you're only going to make the situation worse.

Is this WHY you suggest teaching 'self-esteem' to 'you' would be NONSENSE.

By the way, you actually appear to have absolutely NO 'self-esteem' "yourself".

[henry quirk]

Are you ABSOLUTELY 100% SURE without absolutely ANY doubt at all?

I am absolutely sure, without a doubt, I never posted anything sayin', or that could be honestly interpreted as me sayin'...

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


What EXACTLY are you referring to now?

You NEVER wrote 'what'?

this...

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

you say, in some fashion, I've posted this...I haven't

[Immanuel Can]

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

Not me.

What are you saying here, that you do NOT vote?

Well, that's my business. Not yours.

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

Education ministries are generally staffed by ambitious, politically-motivated people. Most of them were never teachers, or have not been for a very long time, and weren't teachers for long in the first place. Ministries are dominated by theorists, politicians, and non-teachers. There are reasons for this, but I won't go into all of them here. Suffice it to say, the public education system is a football for politicians, because it's incredibly lucrative, incredibly important in the public perception, and incredibly easy to manipulate.

So, ONCE AGAIN, who EXACTLY is there to, so call, "blame" or, more correctly, 'accept responsibly for this HUMAN BEING created system'?

Human beings, of course. You answered your own question in the question.

Since WHEN did 'reading and writing' become SO IMPORTANT?

It's important because both are transferrable skills that allow a person to gain more ability within the world. Is that really a serious question?

Do NOT forget that VERY SOON 'reading AND writing' will NOT be 'important' AT ALL.

...said the man who was writing in response to something he just read.

PLEASE REFRAIN from TELLING 'me' what 'things' DO MEAN or DO NOT MEAN.

You don't like the truth? Okay.

Education has always involved some measure of added content,

So, 'you', "immanuel', have or BELIEVE that you have the ability to KNOW absolutely EVERY thing that occurred, well as far back to how long 'education', itself, has been in existence for, anyway, correct?

Are you off your meds? I never said any such thing. I have no idea what you're hammering on about.

And, OF COURSE, ADULTS KNOW what is BEST for CHILDREN, according to 'you', am I right?

Not always, of course. But one thing for sure: the average adult knows a whole lot more than their children do.

Could it EVEN be a POSSIBILITY that CHILDREN ACTUALLY DO KNOW what is BEST for their OWN "psychological development'?

No, it's manifest that they don't know much at all. That's why they're still children. If they knew what was best, they'd be "short adults."

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.

But that's no different from saying, "All the answers to an education can be found in a library."

NO. What I ACTUALLY SAID is VERY DIFFERENT from what you said is NO DIFFERENT.

I reword: no significant difference. A child who knows where the library is, and one who knows where the internet is, still only knows where the information is, but nothing about the information itself. And no, it doesn't matter how big the library is. That changes nothing in the case, except plausibly to make it worse for the child, since a larger pool of information he does not know is just a larger pool of things about which he remains ignorant.

Children NEED clean enough air, clean enough water, some nutrients, and attention. And that is ALL they NEED.

You clearly have no children.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Teachers should teach whatever they are being payed to teach, and that decision can only be made by those who hire them, if anyone wants to hire them. It is not up to anyone to determine what anyone else is taught, except the parents of children.

So, children do not get to choose what they learn. And when they are adults they are not free to choose what they do in their jobs. They move from children of their parents to in loco parentis to their employers' interpretation of their clients' desires. Apart from the slavelike existence, it's a waste of human resources. Of course teachers should have a large part of the decision what to teach. They should teach what they are interested in, offering their particular tool set for learning. Now a lot of things need to change for this to work. I don't think teachers should be in a position to put thoughts or morals or knoweldge directly into children's brains. What happens in both much of private and public schooling. The pedagogy of filling brains with the right facts. We could empower both the children and the teachers much more. But that is a very complicated set of changes.
I went into a tiny bit here.

What a load of crap. How can children 'choose' what to learn if they haven't learnt anything in the first place? If they can't read or write adequately? They CHOOSE what to learn AFTER they have been given the TOOLS to choose. AFTER they have discovered what they enjoy and are good at. Expecting children to choose what they learn is putting a ridiculous amount of responsibility and pressure on their shoulders, responsibility that they aren't equipped for. As for letting school teahcers teach only 'what they are interested in', well it doesn't need any explanation from me to show how nonsensical that is.
That kind of fucked up 'thinking' is what is destroying the education system.

[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.

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.

yes, one should teach the method to esteem. the product can only be found within though

[gaffo]

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.

with respect you are fully wrong here/

Bullies to NOT have self esteem, they lack it, and is why they are bullies. they have low self image, and instead of being introspective to find and fix thier falts, they are cowars and play the transirance game - (transfer my insecurity to others and make all others a living hell because i am too coawardly to look within and fix myself - others pal yheir scape goat).


FAlse Self esteem = narcissism.

True sefl esteem = empathy,conscience, responsibility, and humility.

Pride BTW is one of the 7, and the narcissist best friend.

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.

thats a 180 from what i read prior/ so agreed.

clearly we have differing views of what self esteem is.

your view seems negative or nutral at bet, mine is fully poositive, and one without it limits his empathy/confiecen/mercy,wisdome etc.....self esteem is required for a man to reflect any of the virtures.

BTW i dont have a telescope to reed my 4k tv small test and tired of walking accross the room to fix crap spelling. you cna ffigure it out.

peace/

[Immanuel Can]

Bullies to NOT have self esteem, they lack it, and is why they are bullies.

This is a myth, and has been abundantly disproved by studies. We thought that's how it was; but we were totally wrong, it seems. Many bullies have a very strong self-image. In fact, that's why they bully: they often have contempt for those they consider "less" than themselves, and do not think the pain of such people matters.

clearly we have differing views of what self esteem is.

Perhaps. What do you think it is?

self esteem is required for a man to reflect any of the virtures.

Actually, it's not. A person could easily reflect many virtues, and among them, the tendency not to give much esteem to himself at all. He could value others, instead of focusing on his own feelings of "self worth," and might well be a very great person for so doing.

peace/

...and Happy New Year, G.

[gaffo]

Bullies to NOT have self esteem, they lack it, and is why they are bullies.

This is a myth, and has been abundantly disproved by studies. We thought that's how it was; but we were totally wrong, it seems. Many bullies have a very strong self-image. In fact, that's why they bully: they often have contempt for those they consider "less" than themselves, and do not think the pain of such people matters.

clearly we have differing views of what self esteem is.

Perhaps. What do you think it is?

self esteem is required for a man to reflect any of the virtures.

Actually, it's not. A person could easily reflect many virtues, and among them, the tendency not to give much esteem to himself at all. He could value others, instead of focusing on his own feelings of "self worth," and might well be a very great person for so doing.

peace/

...and Happy New Year, G.

interesting per bullies - your view. can you provide references, here to learn.

as for your last point i agree, one can be kind and caring and without self esteem. but think that person would do more caring and kindess if they also had self esteem.

to my mind the concept of self esteem is not "wow i love myself so much - others are loser" - is false self esteem of bullies- narcissism. MY concept is if i love myself as i am - not perfect, but working on being good - and have self esteem, then i am humble and view other human beings as myself with humility, not judgement.

I aways ask myself "if i walking in his/her shoes" would i do the same thing? and since i can't i really cannot judge thier sole. i can judge their action of course and i have nothing against judgment within those bouds. i'm a moderate in all things - so not mamby pamp we cannot judge, nor the opposite mr perpect - sceck/beam in the eye.

your jesus was correct in "judge not others without judging yourself on the same standard. namby pampy folks refer to the first part and ingore the last.

basically we are talking about hipocrisy.

2-cents

[Immanuel Can]

I think that person would do more caring and kindess if they also had self esteem.

Maybe. But maybe not. I see no reason that thinking a lot of myself would make me more likely to care about anybody else; do you?

MY concept is if i love myself as i am - not perfect, but working on being good - and have self esteem, then i am humble and view other human beings as myself with humility, not judgement.

That's a good 2 cents. Seems plausible.

[gaffo]

Maybe. But maybe not. I see no reason that thinking a lot of myself would make me more likely to care about anybody else; do you?

I think if you have false self esteem and are homeless you do little damage.
if you have power/wealth/etc you do much damage.

i think if you have true self esteem and are homeles your good is more limited than if you had power/wealth/etc to do good.

per you - from your posts - which show your character, i think you would fall in the second camp, so as a good man i think i fyou gained more self esteem you would give more good to the world.

2.5 cents (2 cents 5 mills).

[Immanuel Can]

if you have power/wealth/etc you do much damage.

Why can't you have power or wealth and do much good?

[gaffo]

if you have power/wealth/etc you do much damage.

Why can't you have power or wealth and do much good?

you can - kinkly re-read my proir post again.

peace.