The How to Help the Homeless, How Can America Help? thread is starting to go off topic, because of a discussion about what should and shouldn't be a part of the public school curriculum, thus we have a new thread.

So...What should be taught in public schools? Why?

What courses should be canned? Why?

To say it upfront, I am against Public Education and would like to see the US Department of Education gone, but for now I can suggest some curriculum changes...

-SUBJECTS TO KEEP-

-Math (Math is simply logic, an essential skill in todays world)

-English (The language of our country, important for a citizen to know)

-History (History of America and the world is important but it must be made sure that teachers do not express their opinions)

-Factual Science (As an optional course I would have Science be taught but only factual Science and not mere theories)


-SUBJECTS TO REMOVE-

-Music (Is of no academic importance and should be taught out of school)

-Art (Same reasons, it is an extracurricular interest, not academics)

-Physical Education (Should be maintained out of School, not position of schools to keep children in good shape)

-Health (This class teachers merely government prescribed ethics and is teaching kids such things as not to smoke or drink, which is unnecessary as that should be up to the parents)

Liberty

I think the following should be mandatory:

Math
Science
Foreign Language
English/Language Arts
Political Science

I think we should have schools with a broad based general curriculum to help young americans get a basic education and have the ability to get basic skills.

I would require math to establish at least a basic computational literacy.
English to learn how to communicate in the langauge at the basic level and to get a taste a artistic expression about the human experience at the higher level.
History to help people have a basic understanding about the path of humanity and their country so far.
Science to have an opportunity to get a better understanding of the physical make up of the world.

Foreign language to help students understand grammar better and to get a start on learning another language.


For options students should have the ability to focus on the practical or the ideal

economics (basic life skills)
art music computers

I think we have erred in moving away from employment skills
vocational skills that are appropriate for the area would help those students who always ask when am I ever going to use this stuff

auto, wood, plumbing, electrical, drafting

I think public education is an extremely valuable investment but it tends toward waste and must be watched over vigilantly by the local community.

Although this may sound very utopian, I think that classes should be as integrated into each other as much as possible, with as wide a range of interconnections as possible. If one studies the play "Julius Caesar," for example, one should also learn about the history and culture of Ancient Rome and Elizabethan England; about political philosophy; about poetics; about stagecraft; about science and superstition; about propaganda; and so on. Although this would be very difficult to do in public or private schools, there should be less emphasis on pigeonholed classes, and more on generalized learning.

Liberty, I must say I have some specific criticisms to make about your choice of curriculum. First of all, I think it is impossible to separate "factual" science and "theoretical" science. I greatly admire science as one of the noblest efforts of the human mind, but I would no longer be in love with it if it were reduced to a series of proven facts. Hypothesis and experimentation are vital to the scientific process, and should be an important part of science education. Secondly, I think that there should be some form of art and music education, although the pursuit of these activities should be outside of school for those who intend to pursue such careers. There are "academic" aspects of both art and music, and I feel that even people who do not create art or music should be educated about them, in order to appreciate them more intelligently. Thirdly, although I absolutely hated PE as a student, I must admit that it was just about my only form of physical activity as a young person. I would want to have schools integrate health education and physical activity for all students (not just athletes.)

Of course, the problem here is I want schools to do everything. A lack of time and money and talented educators may force schools to eliminate some programs. If this is necessary, I would suggest keeping at least some basic core classes in all these areas of education, rather than eliminating an entire area.

I agree with you on this. Most teachers never demonstrate that almost all subject areas are related in some form or another. This is bad for choosing careers later on in life I think. (ex. A kid who hates math but loves computers decides he wants to be a programmer. There's a big surprise in store for this kid, because you need to like or at least be good at math to succeed at programming.)

There are a bunch of schools like this across Canada, and the public system here in Ontario toyed with this idea as well, but I can't remember what that brand of education is called.

Back to the subject at hand...

Liberty, how old are you? I don't mean to pry, but your suggestions indicate a few misunderstandings about science for starters, and on education as a whole.

Now, I'm going to take a shot in the dark and assume that you're a libertarian... so here goes.



While history does consist of a series of events, they are ALWAYS related through the lens of personal interpretation. The historian documenting the ocassion will no doubt see things through their own eyes and apply their values to the relation that they leave behind. The researcher who explores that particular element of history will also be doing so in a subjective manor, applying their own values and opinions. More importantly, history lives and breathes through the interpretations, not the events explored. Any classicist will tell you that primary documents are the best source of historical information, but they do not paint a complete picture, nor an important one.

I ask you, how would you teach history without opinions? Otherwise all you have is a truncated list of names and dates, which has no value whatsoever. Or are you suggesting that TEACHERS not allow their opinions to inform their material but that the curriculum provide it's own?



I'm not sure what you mean by this? Here's the definition I procured from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Without theory you couldn't teach physics or advanced chemistry at all. Half of my grade 10 science, which was devoted to the study of energy (heat transfer, calories, etc.) becomes useless without theory. So much of our understanding of nuclear chemistry is based on the theory of people like Neils Bohrs and Rutherford, let alone modern scientists. Astronomy? Useless without theory. So what is it exactly do you mean?



I don't know about where you went to school but my health class consisted of the science of the human body for the most part, with some sex-ed and diet sprinkled in. How is learning the difference between an Mesomorph, Ectomorph and Endomorph harmful?

All of this is immaterial though. You're advocating an education system that confuses me. We should teach life-skills (like you said for math) but we shouldn't teach life-skills at the same time (as you suggested for health.)

Mathematics - English - Science - History - Music - Art - Gymnastics -

a Sexual Education class should be included in Junior High-High School (mandatory)

I think language classes should be optional.

Heard a young person say this once, "Why do I have to take all these classes in math and history and science? I don't know anything about those subjects."

She answered her own question without even knowing it. Perhaps she meant to say, "I will never need to know those things". I have heard that a lot over the years.

The hard thing for our youth to realize is that they have no idea what they will need in the future. Neither do the teachers. None of us know the future, so why pass up the opportunity to learn something that you may need? There is no great loss if you learn something in High School that you never use, but not learning math today and deciding to be a mechanical engineer when attending college can be a problem.

The existing curriculum is not that bad, but I would eliminate higher math (beyond first year algebra) for those who are sure they are not going to college.
If they change their minds later, they can catch up at their own expense.
I would insist that history, government (including comparative), economics and similar social sciences be taught at an adult level starting at age 14 or so. Candy coating these subjects is a waste of time, if not a crime, considering that at 18 our kids can vote.
I would add philosophy, with a basic intro to the Ancients and emphasis on the Moderns of the Enlightenment and how they influenced the founding fathers, thus how we came to be as a nation unique in our method of government.

Uh...so you wouldn't include the theory of gravity, evolution, atomic theory, etc?

If you wouldn't allow theories, what would be taught?


Are are you mistaking theories, laws, and hypothesis's as some sort of hierarchy?

I think most of the "standard" curriculum - math, science, English, etc. - should be retained, but with one significant difference: history should not be taught as a separate subject until a fairly advanced level. Instead, history of science should be taught in science classes, history of art/architecture in art/architecture classes, economic and political history in economics and social-studies classes, etc. History as it's taught today is mostly either deadly dull, unconnected to anything outside itself, or mere hagiography. The students really can connect different strands of history to each other, and to the present, themselves if given half a chance and if it's not made a total turn-off to them.

I think art and music are important, to develop skills and an appreciation for something beyond the material. As others have pointed out, one study after another has demonstrated positive value beyond the actual subject matter. Health and physical education are also important. Having a healthy body really does contribute to having a healthy mind, plus experience with exercise and teamwork can instill habits that many struggle to develop later in life. I've described elsewhere my beliefs about a focus on fitness first, teamwork second, and competition dead last. Economics should be taught earlier than it is, not primarily the pointy-headed stuff but basics like supply and demand, and practical things like credit and savings and compound interest. Crafts and "useful arts" are valuable too. Children should be exposed to a variety of things that might become sanity-preserving hobbies later in life. They should all know "little things" like how to hammer a nail, cook a meal, or sew on a button; perhaps they should learn that at home, but surprisingly many - particularly in urban environments - never do.

Lastly, and most importantly, I think children need to learn about logic and the scientific method at a very early age. This does not preclude faith, BTW. What they need to learn is not specific theories, but what a theory is, how it's constructed and proven or disproven, why it's important, etc. There doesn't have to be a lot of formalism to it, just the basic concepts of observation, experimentation, recognizing premises and contradictions, that kind of stuff. Without that, I don't think people can truly learn either from their environment or from others. All they can do without that knowledge is memorize dry, unconnected facts (and not always facts) that are fed to them, and we see the ill effects in our civic discourse. People who have never learned to reason for themselves will accept whatever garbage is thrust upon them by whoever gets there first with a PR campaign.

I have mixed feelings about teaching economics. The content would be highly subject to local politics and the teacher's political inclination.

How about practical economics Hugo. The value of a dollar, balancing check books, the costs of starting a family, etc.

I found one such class to be as thought provoking as any other that I had taken in high school. Some classes like this make a person take a mechanized baby with them everywhere they go. I had to get married as a high school project.

I took a class like this in high school called "Life Skills", and it was grouped in with other subjects such as sexual education, health, family studies, etc. It was very beneficial to me. I wish that it would have been expanded a bit to cover the concept of credit cards, interest rates, loans, budgeting, etc.

Boy, I thought my high school was tough.

Seriously, yes practical economics would be good.

...or maybe they'd actually learn something, becoming less susceptible to local politics and demagogues' political inclination later in life.

I guess if most of the teachers were not members of a labor union I would be less concerned.

Language classes not only begin to teach kids a foreign language, but they also help to expand their knowledge of other cultures, which is very important.

English, math, science, and history should also be taught. And I think kids should be able to have electives such as music, drama, dance, etc.

Music

A lot children never get the chance to experience music or play musical instruments outside of school. You say that its not academic, which is false and that it should not be taught out of school. Where is to be taught then? Let me guess, its the PARENTS responsibility right? A lot of parents in this country don't have the energy to go out and manage every aspect of their kids lives. Its only just to the parents and children that students get exposure to music.

Same with art. It would a shame that a person never considers a career in art or related work because they feel they have no aptitude in it because of lack of experience.

Who's gonna keep the kids in shape? Are kids themselves always compelled to keep themselves in shape? A lot of kids in the inner cities cannot or are not allowed to play outside because of the risks. Other kids may just rather sit inside and play computer games. It would be a shame to rob a human being of their health later in life because good habits were not taught early on.

Health education is extremely beneficial especially when it comes to sex ed. I am appalled that you clearly think that all parents in this country have the ability to teach a child all their is to know about health. Why is everything the parent's responsibility and why do parents have the greater say? There are a lot of screwed up parents in the country, a lot of misguided one's and a lot of very busy ones. I think its appalling how you imply that a parent has a greater authority over what a child should do than a government institution backed with research. It does not make sense to me. A child should not suffer because of the ineptness of their caregiversparenting skills, nor should a parent feel that their authority is being usurped by an oppressive school system.

I believe public schools should have a curriculum that gives young people the tools and opportunities to explore their own avenues in life, a broad curriculum that includes science, the arts, language and health education. This curriculum should give children chances they would otherwise not receive in the home environment but the curriculum should not threaten the authority of good, caring parents.

From what Ive read most economics teachers are fairly conservative. And I think one's political leanings does not mean you can not be a qualified teacher in any subject. Are we scared that if someone is liberal with economics that all kids are going to automatically think the same way? Or that our values will just turn rotten? Whats the fear, specifically? I think economics should be taught, because its important for kids to learn these things and see how their money effects their surroundings.

Ideally, I would like a system of education like what Victoria described. I dont think forgien languages should be an option, I think that we need to implement a system where all children are required to learn a second language as soon as they start school, and for that there needs to be a consensus on which language it should be. And then when the child is older, he/she can choose a third language.

Part of the problem is not always what is taught but how it is taught, and how much the parents are involved. It is pretty well understood that our school system sucks compared to about any other western country and alot of for eastern bloc countries.

My daughter is three, and I have already started taking her to special accelerated programs, and gymanstics and Judo with me. My Mom has already started teaching her piano. My wife and mother in law are both super talented artists, and encourage her in this every day. All subjects are important to be educated and successful, but it is difficult to make it standardized around the nation, with the funding a limited resources that are the reality in the US.


Art, Music, second or more languages and higher math all have been shown to increase the IQ and make the brain work better and process information faster, even it is processing information in areas different than the topics I mentioned. (I am sorry I don't have links to this stuff, once again, this stuff I get at work, tons of this kind of stuff, I read it and discard it mostly)- learning and thinking are like sports, the more you do it, the more you improve the skill.

I will not be relying on the public school system to make sure my kids have the best education possible, but I do think we should offer as wide a range as possible in public school systems, simply because the survival of a republic/democracy depends on a fairly educated and literate population.

Liberty: There is no reason we should remove health and P.E. These kids need to learn how to take care of themselves. Sure you can teach them to groom, but there are so many different exercises, and its imperative that the find one that works for them. Otherwise they would all be obese and lazy. You form your habits when your young and this should be one they pick up. And as for health, how are the supposed to know what wrong with them. I can see it know, a bunch of girls reinacting the shower scene from Carrie. "I'm I dying"
As for me the basics should be there like English, Math, Science, Computer Literacy, Foreign language, Social Studies & History. But I would like to add and additional one, Money and Investing. There are to many people walking around who are tens of thousands of dollars in debt. This class will teach you all things relating with the use of your money, like investing (stocks, bonds, real estate, loans and mortgages, Benefits (401k, ESPP, Insurance), credit cards, saving for retirement, and buisness (I'm mean how to start and maintain one.) I had a very simple economics class that just briefly over these subjects and find it hard to believe that since everyone deals with money why should we have to go to collage before we have any real education with dealing with it.
And music, art, Home education, Shop, Automecanics, Speech, Theater, JROTC, and any other vocational skills should be electives which the child (with adult consent) should be able to pick from.

Having read all these posts, one thing should be obvious to all:

Individuals will never agree on one global answer to what should and should not be taught in schools.

There is no concensus here on subject matter, let alone what specific material to teach and in what manner to teach it.

If we had choice in education, as we do in many other areas in life, this wouldn't be a problem.

Schools should teach what their customers want them to teach. The customers are parents. Under a choice system we each pick the schools that offer the mix we like best and everybody wins.

How pathetic to have a system where we are all forced into a one-size-fits-all curriculum where everyone has to fight each other to get what they want!

I wish to direct my response specifically toward “ Liberty” for the purpose of reconsidering their statements. Being a high school student, each day I go through school wondering why we learn the curriculum that we do. In response to your posted reply:

Math I agree demonstrates logic. However I am currently enrolled in an AP Calculus course and the class is completely based on comprehension of extreme concepts. Though in an AP course an entire class may have a D as a current grade for the entire semester. Although then they are bailed out by very odd “ grade boosting opportunities”. These opportunities include such things as essay response articles and writing papers on yourself and as long as the assignment is complete you receive the credit you need to maintain your GPA. That is a slight overview of an AP course and I am curious to see what you have to think about the way the class is run.

On the other hand, I completely disagree with elimination of music, art and PE. Up until my seventh grade year, I was enrolled in band and had played the saxophone the three years prior. Until the day I quit playing that instrument, I had never received a grade lower than an A. The quitting of the school band triggered an eight-grade year in which I struggled with comprehension and currently still am. There are studies are out there and say they have proof that playing a musical instrument allows students; greater comprehension, higher test scores, better overall grades, ect. To tell you the truth I agree 100% and these studies are true. Therefore, I completely disagree with your statement that “ Music (Is of no academic importance and should be taught out of school). When I read that quote I compare it to giving a student a calculator. Give him a tool that will help him academically, but you say teach him how to use it outside of school. If you can provide a tool that will help academically, then school should provide a convenient way to access this tool (teaching it as an elective).

For the other statements on art and PE, I find your side logical but not beneficial at the high school level. For the most part, I saw many people in high become who they are in those four years. By that I mean the dumbest kid in math eight grade is now the best-shot puter or the quietest kid in English is now the top artist. Classes like art provide students with opportunity and open gateways to the world. Meanwhile I live for PE. PE is test of my mind and body working together to succeed and push my limits. These classes teach you about yourself and are a good step back to help you focus on other subjects you struggle in by trying to harness the abilities you excel in and redirect them into other courses for you to be prosperous. As result, I can use tools in gyms class like free weights to clear my mind from pondering about my next class, which in turn puts me into a clearer mode of thinking.

I do think that high schools should provide a Life Skills Management Class. This class would consist of skills pertaining to: check writing, budget management, typing, cooking, hygiene, safety, family management, child care, personal _expression and other skills that are required as an adult managing their life.

Schools need to teach students academic subject material as a first priority and non-academic and activities programs need to be second and third. As of now, it's not happening that way.

Public schools is a misnomer, we're talking about government schools here.

So far as what is taught, I have no problem with that, though I do have a problem with the biases inherent in the system -- the teachers are all members of a union, and one with a highly political agenda -- as well as with the typical low quality of academics, and I would not trust my children to government schools given any reasonable alternatives.

As PrismPaul says, choice is the answer. There is no satisfactory "one size fits all"solution, nor should we expect one.

I would like to see school moving away from being indoctrination centers designed to break the spirit of those enrolled. I would also like to see schools teaching how to think more than just the facts. People are not taught to ask questions, and question everything. Instead, they are taught obedience and subordination. I believe there needs to be a strong emphasis of philosophy, psychology, science, math, history and the arts. Get rid of all the "don't do drugs" classes, teach sex ed purely from the point of view of facts, without preaching abstinence.

I keep hearing this "teachers are unionized" attack, here and elsewhere, and I just have to wonder what the people making it would consider an acceptable alternative. To say that workers, even in the most capitalist of societies, cannot work together to improve working conditions etc. is to hand over all bargaining leverage to the employers. Teachers are unionized: so what? I get the distinct impression that it's not the unionization that's a problem so much as the fact that the majority of people in that union do not subscribe to what some consider the "right" beliefs. If the NEA adopted a distinctly libertarian or theocrat/conservative agenda, does anyone really believe that its current critics would continue to complain? If people want to criticize the NEA's policies, they should address - here's a shocker - those policies, not the organization or its members or the fact that they are unionized. What curriculum elements or other classroom-content-related policies of the NEA are people really objecting to?

No one said that workers should not have the right to unionize. The point is that most unions, and many, but not all, of their members have a left of center ideology. I would be concerned if they had a right of center ideology. Children do not need to be indoctrinated in the political agenda of their teachers. We don't need the Hitler Youth in America. Choice is the answer, of course why would the left vote for vouchers and give up their monopoly on the influence on the minds of our children?

Of course some teachers are tired of the NEA's left-wing politics. From this site

But education watchers say the most important new constituency of groups critical of the teacher unions is, surprisingly, teachers themselves. All over the country, some of the most distinguished public-school teachers are taking on the unions that claim to represent them on issues ranging from alleged misuse of member dues for political activity to union insistence on "politically correct" curricula. Paralleling the movement for parental choice is a growing call for teacher choice - that is, the right of teachers to be free of what many call union harassment.

"Teachers have a right to choose and they have a right to make a free choice, not a compelled choice, not a coerced choice, not a choice made with intimidation," says Tracey Bailey, national-projects director for the Association of American Educators (AAE), a professional teacher group that serves as an alternative to a union. "Teachers are professionals and they deserve to be treated as professionals. That means not being coerced and not having their money" taken to campaign for policies that go against their convictions. (end of quote)

As you see concerns about the NEA approved curricula occur among the NEA's own potential members.

Prism Paul, already said it. We will never all agree on what our children should be taught. We will never all agree on what automobile to drive. We have, through the free market, choice in automobiles, subject only to certain safety and environmental regulations. Sadly, in a far more important sphere, the education of our children, only wealthier Americans have a choice.

Hugo said most everything I'd like to have said in a reply, so I'll just endorse that and add a couple comments of my own.

It is not that they're members of a union that I have a problem with, but that the union is highly political and has a left-wing ideology. If it had a right-wing ideology, even one that I approved of, I still wouldn't be comfortable with such a politicized organization controlling my (hypothetical) children's education, so Platypus is right that I'd probably still complain even if the NEA adopted the entire Libertarian Party platform. But if they did, at least they'd be approving school choice, and with NEA support instead of opposition it would quickly be implemented.

several posters compare schools with other commodities like cars and clothes. they think that the consumers of primary and secondary education (read: parents) should have the right to choose what their children learn at school.
i think the analogy is wrong. when you buy a car, it's you who spend the most part of the cost and it's you who's immediately subject to the risks the car brings along.
but in education, the most part of cost is not money, but time, precious time of the students. so i don't think parents have the right to choose what kind of education their children should have. however, they students can't decide what they learn, too, simply because most students don't know what they want, or what they may need in the future. as another poster has metioned, a child who likes computer but hates maths would greatly regret not having learned maths well when he wants a career as a programmer. so what the best the adults can do is to provide them with a wide range of education, covering the basics of all possibly needed knowledges and skills, and more importantly, the skills effeciently further the learning of them if you need or want any specific field of knowledge and skills later.

i addition, i should emphasize on the importance of a broad and deep foundation of humanities. ones surely miss out if they are unable to appreciate art, music or literature.

They do have that right. It's not an unlimited right, by which I mean that there must be some minimal standards, but that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. For example, I would say that parents must ensure that their children learn basic math, science, English and history. It doesn't matter whether they achieve that goal via a public school, private school, or home schooling; it must be done to preserve the child's rights. If the parent doesn't want their child to learn about preventing pregnancy and STDs that's really sad but I don't see it as a matter for a government mandate. That information should be publicly and freely available, as it is in public schools, but nobody should be forced to avail themselves of it. When we ask "what should be taught in schools" we're really asking two separate questions: what courses should the school provide, and what courses should be required?

First of all, I'm glad we can all discuss this with each other.

Courses I believe should be in public schools but I would make none of them required (they would all be optional):

Math (Arithmetic, Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, Calculus Advanced Placement Calculus
English: English I, English II, American Literature & Composition, College Prep English
Geography, World History, U.S. History
Computers
Science: Physical Science, Biology, Chemistry,
Electronics I and Electronics II and Electronics III
Art: Art I through IV
Home Economics
Music
Construction and Plumbing and Electrical Wiring
Political Science
Creative Writing
Athetic Improvement (or what some call P.E.)
Any other courses currently in school that I have not listed as mandatory or as abolished.

Courses I believe should be mandatory
Health and sex education
Ethics and Law - I believe we'd have a much better society if people were educated about the laws they have to obey.
Life Teaching (this would include how to do income tax returns, balancing checkbooks, raising a family, and other things that pertain to living a good life)
How to be an individual - this would teach people how to be unique, how to stand out in a crowd, and how to break status quos. Useful if one wants to be a political leader.

Curriculum I'd abolish:
any course that requires a person to get married
Etiquette (spelling) - I remember seeing on TV how some school requires their students to go through manners - they learn table manners like not slurping soup or sucking up spaghetti into one's mouth.

I believe it is well time to include a few years of money management, credit and finance in at least the last two years of high school. So easily credit cards become a disaster for college kids their first year and who needs the additional worry when you're trying to study.

I believe during junior high students should have a class teaching both parenting responsibilities and abortion information particularly psyhcological information for the females from the perspective of persons experienced and therapists.
Perhaps just have it under a "future family" umbrella and include all options. Not a class as to sex orientation but one that explains living in the adult world ie.. single, partnered but unmarried, married, coupled parent and single parent. Even parents without custody. I think this would help in many ways for them to understand their parents as well as prepare for the future.

It would not hurt to have a high school class on politics as well as long as it is balanced.

Perhaps it is also time to drop some more traditional classes in order to bring more about world culture to light as we enter the future of a closer relationship with the other countries of the world.

It does make me wonder what criteria is in school today. I know over 30 years ago when I graduated, we had redundant english classes each year, just as the people would did not do well in math took redundant basic math classes for about 4 or 5 years (you know who you are, psyche majors). OK Ok It was just a joke. I can understand why there were Spanish classes and German but French? Latin I can understand as well if they still teach it. Perhaps there should be classes in Arabic and Chinese today