What is with parents these days?

[wendybeth]

Since when has the main mission of education been only the three R's? If you look back at typical education criteria from different eras, you'd find that there was so much more emphasis on the arts, history, philosophy, etc. We are incredibly difficient in these areas today; just about any exposure to what one might call a classical education is only done in some prep/private schools and in the home. I've looked at curriculum from the late 1800's to now, and we seem so far behind in so many areas. The average kid would probably flunk out of his/her grade level if we used the same tests and criteria that educators did back then, especially in the history/language/arts departments.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

I hate to see that we don't seem to be able to offer a well-rounded education anymore and have to decide which classes are more important than others. In the grand scheme of things, they all seem pretty important to me. We can cut thing like music classes, which many schools have done, but the fact that the kids still can't read, write, or do simple math, seems to suggest that the problem isn't the diversity of subjects but the failure to teach any of them successfully.

That's one of my major rants as well.

I think there are many, many reasons for this.

First, too many schools are worried about self esteem. Face it - some kids are smarter and learn faster then others. Too many teachers teach to the lowest common denominator. We don't want to make anyone feel badly, do we? I am not suggesting that those who may not learn as fast or who are not as smart not be educated, but what is wrong with separating children who learn faster?

Also, I am frustrated that there seems to be no emphasis on rote anymore. Why not have elementary students memorize multiplication tables? Or historical dates and facts? Or where something is on the globe? Or how to spell a word?

What's wrong with a couple hours of homework each night? An hour for thris through 6th, a couple hours for jr high and HS? All the kids will do is go home and play video games and watch Sponge Bob anyway.

So....yeah, MBC, even when music programs are cut it doesn't seem to help the other subjects improve.

Frustrating.

[Prudence]

I went to a number of different elementary schools within the same district. The one I went to 2nd-4th grade was oboxious because the teacher was obnoxious. One of my classmates was in the Seattle Boy's Choir so most of class was spent hearing how wonderful it was; clearly none of the rest of us had any talent, as we were not in the Seattle Boy's Choir. Because the rest of us were judged incapable early on, we didn't learn anything.

At the school I went to in 5th-6th grade, our music classes put on a musical every year. That was a great experience. We learned a wide variety of things with actual practical application. We learned about auditioning. We each got parts and had to learn lines. We learned that one doesn't always get the part one wants. (Okay, I always did. But I'm sure the others learned a valuable lesson.) We all had to sing. We had to put together costumes. We learned how to put together an event. We had practice starting a project and working together as a team with varied skill levels across varied skills. We had experience performing in front of audiences.

These various "sub-experiences" were valuable lessons with practical application outside music class. Obviously we didn't all rush to Tony Award-winning careers on Broadway, but it set the groundwork for skills that allow us today to work on teams in the workplace and present proposals or workshops to an audience of busness personnel. Sure, we gave speeches and so forth in our regular classes, but the focus there was generally on content. Music class was the venue for teaching personal and teamwork skills outside the formal classroom -- all wrapped up in something "fun." And if we learned a little about music along the way - so much the better.

What didn't occur to me until years later was that our musicals were just for our class - so our music teacher must have been working on a dozen musicals or so. Sure, we probably all did the same musical, but still - that's a lot of work for one teacher.

[lindyhop]

I have no direct experience with K-12 these days but here's my two cents...

With all the emphasis on testing, aren't most teachers forced to spend a good portion of their time preparing their students to take standardized tests? Being able to pass a test has very little bearing on what a student really knows.

Art and music classes are cut from schools when budgets are slim. Field trips are a thing of the past, too. These are all things that help our kids become well-rounded human beings not just good test takers and reciters of facts. The creativity of art and music helps all of us learn to think and understand. We all need to be able to make the leap from the facts in front of us to something we haven't thought of yet.

Kids are naturally creative and I think schools beat that right out of them. And kids who aren't exposed to art and music in school may grow up thinking that these are activities that only talented geniuses can do. Not everyone is going to create a great work of art but everyone can do something at their own level. If they want to, of course. But I think some people don't want to because they've never had the experience in the first place.

I'm rambling but just one more thing. Someone mentioned earlier that their music experience in school was just learning to sing some songs. That's what I remember, too. But those songs were usually American folk songs (I can't think of any song titles right now) so we were learning a little history with the songs (whether we knew it or not). And we were also indulging in a little math (rhythm) and poetry (the rhyme and meter of the song) and the social exercise (singing in a group) wasn't a waste either.

Deborah
(an accountant with a comparative literature degree who loves to dance and wishes she still had time to write poetry)

(and she knows her multiplication tables, too)

[Alex]

I guess where I differ is that I don't think it is the job of schools to teach children to be "well rounded human beings."

I think the big problem with our society is that education has come to be defined solely as something that happens between the ages of 5 and 18, between the months of September and June, and between the hours of 7:30 and 3:00 inside a building placed within a few miles of your home. And therefore we feel that everything we think a person should know has to be crammed into that window.

A certain subset then extends this to the age of 22 or so. But then the vast huge majority of people stop their "education."

Also, in our two income, no parent at home society, school has increasingly become a babysitter and a surrogate for parenting. And where, at one point in time schooling was more about teaching things parents weren't necessarily qualified to teach it has increasingly become about things parents don't take the time to teach.

And this creates a conflict between those want schools to be babysitters and the end all be all of creating a person out of a child and those who view schools as having a relatively limited role in the life a child and otherwise want to retain control.

There was never a golden age when the two were inextricably linked (people have been arguing over what children should read for a very long time) but as curriculums have increasingly encroached into broader areas of life and "modern" pedagogocal methods the conflict has grown more pronounced. And it isn't always from the right; in high school I had a friend whose parents pulled him from a "life math class" (essentially household finances and stuff for students not cutting it in the standard math progression) because it had strayed from how to balance a checkbook into a semester long stock market game that was teaching capitalism as the way the world worked (and the parents were very much communists and unhappy with this).

There will always be stupid parents and incompetent teachers (I've never really met a stupid teacher but plenty who masked their intelligence well) and it is easy to hide behind these outlyers, but it is also disingenuous to deny that the reach of public schools into new areas of a pupils "education" hasn't greatly expanded and that perhaps parents have some reason to be disconcerted.

[lindyhop]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I guess where I differ is that I don't think it is the job of schools to teach children to be "well rounded human beings."

Yes and no. Maybe I should have just said "human being." I think parents, churches, extended family, whatever, are also responsible for producing a functioning member of society. But schools get a big chunk of kid's time so I think they have a big chunk of the responsibility.

I think the big problem with our society is that education has come to be defined solely as something that happens between the ages of 5 and 18, between the months of September and June, and between the hours of 7:30 and 3:00 inside a building placed within a few miles of your home. And therefore we feel that everything we think a person should know has to be crammed into that window.

Or not included at all. When will I ever use calculus in real life? Why do I have to know about the Magna Carta? Just teach me to balance my checkbook and I'll be set. Wait, I can hire someone to do that. Never mind.

A certain subset then extends this to the age of 22 or so. But then the vast huge majority of people stop their "education."

I totally believe in lifetime learning. This isn't supported in our society though. Most people are just interested in results. (What are you planning to do with that degree anyway?)

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

For me, it's not about exposure. Show them whatever you like. My only problem would be if the teacher were attempting to tell the child that thier opinions were correct. This includes "This is the true God", "This is the true political belief", etc. Oh, and of course - "Your parents are wrong."

Anything else, I can deal with just fine, because my child needs to learn how to seperate the wheat from the chaff. What a wonderful learning opportunity it is when a child comes home with something to talk about!

I completely agree, to a point. I think exposing kids to things is fantastic and something that should be expected, but it needs to be a least somewhat age appropriate. If a teacher showed my first grader Schindler's List, I'd be pissed. My sixth grader, great stuff to talk about.

More than anything this thread has reinforced my resolve that my kids will never go to public school. They just suck. Too many kids, not enough money, too much politics, underpaid and undermotivated teachers. Very large changes would need to happen for me to consider them adequate or a good use of my childs time. Thankfully I live in a state where Charter schools abound and I will have my pick of Montessori schools to choose from. Should that not work out I am educated enough to know that I can homeschool and still have a socially active, well rounded, educated child (I didn't used to think that was possible, but I now know better).

One positive thing from that article, at least the parents were complaining. So many parents aren't involved at all in their kids school. But it's a flawed system as a whole and no one component can be blamed for the whole's shortcomings.

Congratulations to all LoT posters because this thread has reached two pages without it turning political. Woohoo!

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

Congratulations to all LoT posters because this thread has reached two pages without it turning political. Woohoo!

Well, the dumbing down of education is because of all those damn liberals!