Curriculum Debate

[Akno21]

What should be taught in public schools, what should not?

[A18]

There should only be private schools.

But one of the most worthless public schooling requirements over here is Biology. That should obviously be killed off.

[Platypus]

:rolleyes:

[A18]

:rolleyes:

?

[ilikeverin]

Radical Idea of the Day:

No grades.  Grade level courses.  For instance, if little Bobby was 9th grade level in reading, 8th in math, K in science, and graduate in Applications of Cooked Noodles, then he should take 9th grade level reading, 8th grade level math, kindergarden level science, and graduate level Applications of Cooked Noodles

Require some sort of sex ed (teaching abstinance and birth control, mind you ).

[A18]

I think we should require that people quit trying to require stuff on other people's kids.

[Jake]

grammar until grade 8, writing from 5-12, literature 5-12.

science(biology, earth science, chem, physics, anatomy, ecology, zoology) 3-12.

Social Studies 3-5, US/World History 5 years out of grades 6-12, US Government 10 or 11 grade, Geography 7 or 8 grade.

Math K-12 with general math K-6, PreAlg-7, Alg-8, Alg 2-9, Geometry 10, PreCalc-11, Calc-12.

Gym K-12 all year round.

life skills (all students, sex ed, home ec, etc. rolled into one) General K-4, Specific 5-12.

Languages-(German, French, Italian, Russian ,Spanish, Latin, Greek) mix 4-6, specific 7-12

Humanities-(art, music, etc) some K-8, specific 9-12

[Lunar]

My problem with English was always that you had the wrong people teaching it.  60 year old English majors have no freaking idea how to make reading interesting and acceptible because they love classics that make one's eyes want to bleed and books with no purpose whatsoever except to have a lot of alliteration.

[J-Mann]

Basically we should have stricter standards while weeding out the crap courses.  More emphasis on history definitely; the same goes for general science (bio, chem, phys) and math.  Students should at least be ready for college-level algebra...any further math beyond that is up to them.  More restrictive art and music classes that would be available only to those who were really interested.  And more "vo-tech" classes like welding, electricity, agriculture, etc.

Also: No religion, abstinence AND safe sex, and plenty of opportunities for gifted students.

[PBrunsel]

MUCH[/b] less emphaisis on math and science. We've focused on them for the last 40 years, enough all ready!

[Akno21]

Combine English and Reading.

The standardized tests need to be on subjects other than Math and Reading. Of course the schools overload on the core subjects, it's all the feds care about and test on.

Start separating kids by ability level ASAP!

Encourage foriegn language very early on. In nearly every other country, students master 2 or 3 languages, in the USA they are lucky if they can understand anything beyond basic English. We aren't better than everyone else.

Focus on Geography and major events. It always sickens me when we bomb a country and less than half of the populace can't locate it on a map.

Definitly increase Sex ed, and don't make it corny. Just teach it, kids will listen if you are straight with them. It won't work if teachers have a "can say, can't say" list.

[A18]

What does bombing a country have to do with how many people can locate it on a map?

And why the hell would anyone support sex ed?

[Akno21]

What does bombing a country have to do with how many people can locate it on a map?

And why the hell would anyone support sex ed?

It's just kind of ironic.

We should learn about that topic. Why are you against it?

[A18]

Parents can talk to their kids about sex. There's just absolutely no reason to teach it in school.

[Akno21]

Parents can talk to their kids about sex. There's just absolutely no reason to teach it in school.

Kids can't talk to their parents about sex. They can, but it is so uncomfortable to do, nothing good comes out of it.

[DaleC76]

I think sex ed can be covered in Biology.  I'm not sure we need a whole new class for it.

[Akno21]

I think sex ed can be covered in Biology.  I'm not sure we need a whole new class for it.

It could be part of Health class.

Also, I think schools need to serve food that is actually healthy and not filled with fat, it would do a lot to lower obesity levels.

[Trilobyte]

Parents can talk to their kids about sex. There's just absolutely no reason to teach it in school.

Parents talk about a lot of stuff; not all of it is right. Education is supposed to prepare kids for real life, and what can be more practical then knowing the right stuff before they have sex? Can anyone afford the risk of them knowing the wrong stuff?

[Akno21]

Parents can talk to their kids about sex. There's just absolutely no reason to teach it in school.

Parents talk about a lot of stuff; not all of it is right. Education is supposed to prepare kids for real life, and what can be more practical then knowing the right stuff before they have sex? Can anyone afford the risk of them knowing the wrong stuff?

I agree, and if you give kids a homework assingment that says "Talk to your parents about sex" hardly any of them will do it. At the time parents and kids would talk about sex, parents and kids won't be comfortable talking to each other about that.

[patrick1]

MUCH[/b] less emphaisis on math and science. We've focused on them for the last 40 years, enough all ready!

I guess we should continue to import all of our doctors and scientists from India.  These subjects were never my strong point, however, the future strength of any nation depends upon its scientists.  Knowing the capital of North Korea is good, but being able to develop a laser that can shoot its missiles down is better.

[Akno21]

MUCH[/b] less emphaisis on math and science. We've focused on them for the last 40 years, enough all ready!

I guess we should continue to import all of our doctors and scientists from India.  These subjects were never my strong point, however, the future strength of any nation depends upon its scientists.  Knowing the capital of North Korea is good, but being able to develop a laser that can shoot its missiles down is better.

We don't know the captial now either. If you don't know where to shoot the missile, it doesn't help you very much, does it?

[Trilobyte]

MUCH[/b] less emphaisis on math and science. We've focused on them for the last 40 years, enough all ready!

I guess we should continue to import all of our doctors and scientists from India.  These subjects were never my strong point, however, the future strength of any nation depends upon its scientists.  Knowing the capital of North Korea is good, but being able to develop a laser that can shoot its missiles down is better.

I agree. No country can afford to fall behind in something as crucial as math and science. This is because technology is, by definition, ever-evolving. Once you begin to lag behind, you'd be in the backwaters within 15 or 20 years.

[patrick1]

MUCH[/b] less emphaisis on math and science. We've focused on them for the last 40 years, enough all ready!

I guess we should continue to import all of our doctors and scientists from India.  These subjects were never my strong point, however, the future strength of any nation depends upon its scientists.  Knowing the capital of North Korea is good, but being able to develop a laser that can shoot its missiles down is better.

We don't know the captial now either. If you don't know where to shoot the missile, it doesn't help you very much, does it?

I wasn't saying that there should be less emphasis on geography/civics etc..  The point I was trying to make is that science and technology are vitally important and we continue to fall behind in that area. Lowering scientific emphasis would ensure that America is not the leading power in 2100. 
 

[patrick1]

MUCH[/b] less emphaisis on math and science. We've focused on them for the last 40 years, enough all ready!

I guess we should continue to import all of our doctors and scientists from India.  These subjects were never my strong point, however, the future strength of any nation depends upon its scientists.  Knowing the capital of North Korea is good, but being able to develop a laser that can shoot its missiles down is better.

I agree. No country can afford to fall behind in something as crucial as math and science. This is because technology is, by definition, ever-evolving. Once you begin to lag behind, you'd be in the backwaters within 15 or 20 years.

Very True.  The only reason America has stayed ahead in some fields is the oft-maligned immigrant.  Who knows what will happen when some developing nations get wealthy enough to stop hemorrhaging talent. 

[Gabu]

MUCH[/b] less emphaisis on math and science. We've focused on them for the last 40 years, enough all ready!

I get the sense that PBrunsel doesn't like math and science.

Given that math and science are the two fields that are changing extremely rapidly, whereas basically all of the other ones are just the same material over and over, I personally think that more emphasis should be put on those two things.  Plus, we need to figure out a way to teach them without making students hate them.  Those two subjects can be extremely interesting if completely grasped, but extremely abstract and seemingly pointless if not.