Debate Now The Dumbing Down of America

Should basic knowledge as described in the OP be required for graduation from HS? College?

  • 1. Yes for both.

  • 2. Yes for HS. No for college.

  • 3. Yes for college. No for HS.

  • 4. No for both.

  • 5. Other and I will explain in my post.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1
. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.


Interesting contrast in the video. I would have had no clue whatsoever about the last two quesitons on "Snookie" and Brad Pitt. None whatsoever.

Obviously they've bought the idea that that sort of thing is more important than knowing basic --- really really basic -- history.

That doesn't mean they're not being taught that history --- it means they've put it on the bottom of the priority list.


Would they put it on the bottom of their priority list if it was required to graduate from high school? To get into college? To graduate from college?

Observation: Most of those educated in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's, and probably most of the 80's would probably be able to answer all those questions EXCEPT for the media based ones. But education has deteriorated greatly since then.

I agree with you that education has deteriorated. I suspect we may disagree with the reaons why we think that is the case.

My experience with watching my son transition from 8th grade to high school, and also working in his classroom is that a select few students with good family support are able to get what they need to go to college, but the majority of kids are tuned out to "hard" topics. Which is most of what's needed to succeed in higher education.

I can see a difference between my high school sophmore and my second grader. We are in the process of adopting these kids and their prior parenting model was very soft on education. I am sure the 7, 10 and 12 year old will succeed in life, but if I'm lucky, the youngest two will go to college.
 
Every student should know those academic subjects before graduating high school. In college only if they are planning on a career in law, politics and jobs that require knowledge of the subjects. The video should make people want to cry for the future of the country. Also the canvasser should have asked each person their political bent. However I suspect each of them will be Democrats.

I don't know whether political party affiliation has that much to do with it--some of the videos seemed pretty equally split between those of the different ideologies and there was a lot of ignorance displayed. But I don't think basic history and economics should be restricted to any specific fields. To me it should be as basic as learning to write or read and comprehend or do basic math. Everybody has a stake in the country whether they are janitor or CEO, and all should be reasonably informed of the implications of who they vote for when they go to vote. And we sure can't depend on the media or the candidates or their organizations to adequately inform them. Some critical thinking and basic background is necessary to make informed opinions.
 
Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1
. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.


Interesting contrast in the video. I would have had no clue whatsoever about the last two quesitons on "Snookie" and Brad Pitt. None whatsoever.

Obviously they've bought the idea that that sort of thing is more important than knowing basic --- really really basic -- history.

That doesn't mean they're not being taught that history --- it means they've put it on the bottom of the priority list.


Would they put it on the bottom of their priority list if it was required to graduate from high school? To get into college? To graduate from college?

Observation: Most of those educated in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's, and probably most of the 80's would probably be able to answer all those questions EXCEPT for the media based ones. But education has deteriorated greatly since then.


Has it though?

Is it that education has deteriorated --- or is it that mass media has risen to be so powerful in influence that traditional education can't even effectively compete? In the eras you cite above, it didn't have nearly that level of influence.

You're also touching on the definition of "learning".... it's one thing to retain an abstract stream of facts and dates long enough to write them down on a test paper; it's quite another thing to grok that background because it has personal meaning.


I can't escape the moment of epiphany, riding on public transportation in some city (wherever it was), watching six people across the aisle -- obviously unconnected, older, younger, male, female, black, white, nothing in common ---- and all six of them, faces buried in their smartphones, tapping out their allotted 140 characters at a time, oblivious to everything around them.

When you've come up with technology to lead people around to that degree --- you've got a power that can't be matched by a school building.

Technology has exploded ahead of education being able to engage students in studies of history, or geography. Then there is so much information that is mixed with opinion. I'd like to think I'm a fairly well educated person able to discern what is and isn't propaganda but it's so easy.

Even look at our forum community and much of what passes for "debate". It's one liners, cut and paste, and heavy on the insults and slurs. All we want to do as a people is blame someone and it's not easy to even figure out what the problem is.

Education policy is cyclical and educational strategies get recycled. AND school boards have become battle grounds for extremists to waste a lot of time on petty issues.
 
Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1
. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.


Interesting contrast in the video. I would have had no clue whatsoever about the last two quesitons on "Snookie" and Brad Pitt. None whatsoever.

Obviously they've bought the idea that that sort of thing is more important than knowing basic --- really really basic -- history.

That doesn't mean they're not being taught that history --- it means they've put it on the bottom of the priority list.


Would they put it on the bottom of their priority list if it was required to graduate from high school? To get into college? To graduate from college?

Observation: Most of those educated in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's, and probably most of the 80's would probably be able to answer all those questions EXCEPT for the media based ones. But education has deteriorated greatly since then.

I agree with you that education has deteriorated. I suspect we may disagree with the reaons why we think that is the case.

My experience with watching my son transition from 8th grade to high school, and also working in his classroom is that a select few students with good family support are able to get what they need to go to college, but the majority of kids are tuned out to "hard" topics. Which is most of what's needed to succeed in higher education.

I can see a difference between my high school sophmore and my second grader. We are in the process of adopting these kids and their prior parenting model was very soft on education. I am sure the 7, 10 and 12 year old will succeed in life, but if I'm lucky, the youngest two will go to college.


Gentle reminder--no harm/no foul in this post but refer to the argument and not to the member please. :)

But again I think it is what is expected of the kids. Expect the kids to write a competent book report in their own words, it will be easier for some than others, but most will master the necessary skills to do that. Expect the kids to know the alphabet or memorize their multiplication tables, and almost all will do that. Expect a kid to master the fundamentals of basic algebra--I've never known why that particular subject was mandatory for all but oh well--or general geography or be able to answer the most basic of general American and world history questions, almost all will do that.

It is because so many are not REQUIRED to do that so those who have little or no personal interest at the time, don't. But I know from my own experience, that of others who have testified, those of my kids, sometimes familiarity generates interest. They don't know what they are interested in until they have been exposed to good information provided by a competent teacher who encourages them to think critically instead of just parroting what they have been instructed to say.
 
Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1
. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.


Absolutely.

"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."
 
Indoctrination implies force-fed education

Not necessarily. In fact not at all. Indoctrination is far more effective when it's ingested willingly.

And there's television again. It's the most effective propaganda tool ever created. And nobody is forced to watch it.

To paraphrase an old wisdom, "who controls television controls the world".
We used to say who controls the press controls the world. Bill Moyers was talking about the rise of giant media conglomerates owned by a few elite mega billionaires and his concerns about an informed populace have come true.

News spends more time on graphic violence and negativity than on civics and serious communities issues of any kind.
 
Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1
. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.


Interesting contrast in the video. I would have had no clue whatsoever about the last two quesitons on "Snookie" and Brad Pitt. None whatsoever.

Obviously they've bought the idea that that sort of thing is more important than knowing basic --- really really basic -- history.

That doesn't mean they're not being taught that history --- it means they've put it on the bottom of the priority list.


Would they put it on the bottom of their priority list if it was required to graduate from high school? To get into college? To graduate from college?

Observation: Most of those educated in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's, and probably most of the 80's would probably be able to answer all those questions EXCEPT for the media based ones. But education has deteriorated greatly since then.


Has it though?

Is it that education has deteriorated --- or is it that mass media has risen to be so powerful in influence that traditional education can't even effectively compete? In the eras you cite above, it didn't have nearly that level of influence.

You're also touching on the definition of "learning".... it's one thing to retain an abstract stream of facts and dates long enough to write them down on a test paper; it's quite another thing to grok that background because it has personal meaning.


I can't escape the moment of epiphany, riding on public transportation in some city (wherever it was), watching six people across the aisle -- obviously unconnected, older, younger, male, female, black, white, nothing in common ---- and all six of them, faces buried in their smartphones, tapping out their allotted 140 characters at a time, oblivious to everything around them.

When you've come up with technology to lead people around to that degree --- you've got a power that can't be matched by a school building.


I disagree. Yes the smart phone and similar technology has significantly changed the culture, especially for the younger boomers and subsequent generations. And, in my personal opinion, not in a good way. But I also believe human nature has not changed. Only what the modern culture has made important has changed. IMO, if we make those history and economics grades important for the student's future, he/she will develop a sufficient interest to learn something about them. You overcome one compelling power with a better, stronger one.
 
Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1
. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.


Interesting contrast in the video. I would have had no clue whatsoever about the last two quesitons on "Snookie" and Brad Pitt. None whatsoever.

Obviously they've bought the idea that that sort of thing is more important than knowing basic --- really really basic -- history.

That doesn't mean they're not being taught that history --- it means they've put it on the bottom of the priority list.


Would they put it on the bottom of their priority list if it was required to graduate from high school? To get into college? To graduate from college?

Observation: Most of those educated in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's, and probably most of the 80's would probably be able to answer all those questions EXCEPT for the media based ones. But education has deteriorated greatly since then.

I agree with you that education has deteriorated. I suspect we may disagree with the reaons why we think that is the case.

My experience with watching my son transition from 8th grade to high school, and also working in his classroom is that a select few students with good family support are able to get what they need to go to college, but the majority of kids are tuned out to "hard" topics. Which is most of what's needed to succeed in higher education.

I can see a difference between my high school sophmore and my second grader. We are in the process of adopting these kids and their prior parenting model was very soft on education. I am sure the 7, 10 and 12 year old will succeed in life, but if I'm lucky, the youngest two will go to college.


Gentle reminder--no harm/no foul in this post but refer to the argument and not to the member please. :)

But again I think it is what is expected of the kids. Expect the kids to write a competent book report in their own words, it will be easier for some than others, but most will master the necessary skills to do that. Expect the kids to know the alphabet or memorize their multiplication tables, and almost all will do that. Expect a kid to master the fundamentals of basic algebra--I've never known why that particular subject was mandatory for all but oh well--or general geography or be able to answer the most basic of general American and world history questions, almost all will do that.

It is because so many are not REQUIRED to do that so those who have little or no personal interest at the time, don't. But I know from my own experience, that of others who have testified, those of my kids, sometimes familiarity generates interest. They don't know what they are interested in until they have been exposed to good information provided by a competent teacher who encourages them to think critically instead of just parroting what they have been instructed to say.

My kids aren't writing book reports. They are taking multiple choice book tests for reading points.. My son is in an AP Psychology Course and is barely passing. Not because he has no interest (he loves pschology and asks great quesions) but because the class is more of a college class heavy on textbook reading.
 
Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1
. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.


Absolutely.

"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."


Profound and pertinent. And because I have been taught our history, I know who wrote that quote. I bet not a handful of the younger ones here do. They might look it up. But it is so true. If modern education fails to inspire the student to care about their history, and spoon feeds the version of it it wants the students to have, the result will be a huge amount of ignorance and ability to direct the opinions of those students any way they want to direct them.
 
Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1
. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.


Interesting contrast in the video. I would have had no clue whatsoever about the last two quesitons on "Snookie" and Brad Pitt. None whatsoever.

Obviously they've bought the idea that that sort of thing is more important than knowing basic --- really really basic -- history.

That doesn't mean they're not being taught that history --- it means they've put it on the bottom of the priority list.


Would they put it on the bottom of their priority list if it was required to graduate from high school? To get into college? To graduate from college?

Observation: Most of those educated in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's, and probably most of the 80's would probably be able to answer all those questions EXCEPT for the media based ones. But education has deteriorated greatly since then.


Has it though?

Is it that education has deteriorated --- or is it that mass media has risen to be so powerful in influence that traditional education can't even effectively compete? In the eras you cite above, it didn't have nearly that level of influence.

You're also touching on the definition of "learning".... it's one thing to retain an abstract stream of facts and dates long enough to write them down on a test paper; it's quite another thing to grok that background because it has personal meaning.


I can't escape the moment of epiphany, riding on public transportation in some city (wherever it was), watching six people across the aisle -- obviously unconnected, older, younger, male, female, black, white, nothing in common ---- and all six of them, faces buried in their smartphones, tapping out their allotted 140 characters at a time, oblivious to everything around them.

When you've come up with technology to lead people around to that degree --- you've got a power that can't be matched by a school building.


I disagree. Yes the smart phone and similar technology has significantly changed the culture, especially for the younger boomers and subsequent generations. And, in my personal opinion, not in a good way. But I also believe human nature has not changed. Only what the modern culture has made important has changed. IMO, if we make those history and economics grades important for the student's future, he/she will develop a sufficient interest to learn something about them. You overcome one compelling power with a better, stronger one.

I think it's possible you may have had a better education than is availabe to my kids at this time. High school credits involve accumulating points, not competencies. At the very least, even Spanish classes for four years ought to result in fluent Spanish literacy.

It's not happening. Only the elite, two parent middle or upper class kids are accessing what they need to compete.
 
Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1
. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.


Interesting contrast in the video. I would have had no clue whatsoever about the last two quesitons on "Snookie" and Brad Pitt. None whatsoever.

Obviously they've bought the idea that that sort of thing is more important than knowing basic --- really really basic -- history.

That doesn't mean they're not being taught that history --- it means they've put it on the bottom of the priority list.


Would they put it on the bottom of their priority list if it was required to graduate from high school? To get into college? To graduate from college?

Observation: Most of those educated in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's, and probably most of the 80's would probably be able to answer all those questions EXCEPT for the media based ones. But education has deteriorated greatly since then.

I agree with you that education has deteriorated. I suspect we may disagree with the reaons why we think that is the case.

My experience with watching my son transition from 8th grade to high school, and also working in his classroom is that a select few students with good family support are able to get what they need to go to college, but the majority of kids are tuned out to "hard" topics. Which is most of what's needed to succeed in higher education.

I can see a difference between my high school sophmore and my second grader. We are in the process of adopting these kids and their prior parenting model was very soft on education. I am sure the 7, 10 and 12 year old will succeed in life, but if I'm lucky, the youngest two will go to college.


Gentle reminder--no harm/no foul in this post but refer to the argument and not to the member please. :)

But again I think it is what is expected of the kids. Expect the kids to write a competent book report in their own words, it will be easier for some than others, but most will master the necessary skills to do that. Expect the kids to know the alphabet or memorize their multiplication tables, and almost all will do that. Expect a kid to master the fundamentals of basic algebra--I've never known why that particular subject was mandatory for all but oh well--or general geography or be able to answer the most basic of general American and world history questions, almost all will do that.

It is because so many are not REQUIRED to do that so those who have little or no personal interest at the time, don't. But I know from my own experience, that of others who have testified, those of my kids, sometimes familiarity generates interest. They don't know what they are interested in until they have been exposed to good information provided by a competent teacher who encourages them to think critically instead of just parroting what they have been instructed to say.

Sorry, I don't understand what the problem is. I'm trying to discuss the topic in my words from one person to another. Are you saying I should not reference my self or my family or yours?
 
Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1
. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.


Interesting contrast in the video. I would have had no clue whatsoever about the last two quesitons on "Snookie" and Brad Pitt. None whatsoever.

Obviously they've bought the idea that that sort of thing is more important than knowing basic --- really really basic -- history.

That doesn't mean they're not being taught that history --- it means they've put it on the bottom of the priority list.


Would they put it on the bottom of their priority list if it was required to graduate from high school? To get into college? To graduate from college?

Observation: Most of those educated in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's, and probably most of the 80's would probably be able to answer all those questions EXCEPT for the media based ones. But education has deteriorated greatly since then.


Has it though?

Is it that education has deteriorated --- or is it that mass media has risen to be so powerful in influence that traditional education can't even effectively compete? In the eras you cite above, it didn't have nearly that level of influence.

You're also touching on the definition of "learning".... it's one thing to retain an abstract stream of facts and dates long enough to write them down on a test paper; it's quite another thing to grok that background because it has personal meaning.


I can't escape the moment of epiphany, riding on public transportation in some city (wherever it was), watching six people across the aisle -- obviously unconnected, older, younger, male, female, black, white, nothing in common ---- and all six of them, faces buried in their smartphones, tapping out their allotted 140 characters at a time, oblivious to everything around them.

When you've come up with technology to lead people around to that degree --- you've got a power that can't be matched by a school building.


I disagree. Yes the smart phone and similar technology has significantly changed the culture, especially for the younger boomers and subsequent generations. And, in my personal opinion, not in a good way. But I also believe human nature has not changed. Only what the modern culture has made important has changed. IMO, if we make those history and economics grades important for the student's future, he/she will develop a sufficient interest to learn something about them. You overcome one compelling power with a better, stronger one.

I think it's possible you may have had a better education than is availabe to my kids at this time. High school credits involve accumulating points, not competencies. At the very least, even Spanish classes for four years ought to result in fluent Spanish literacy.

It's not happening. Only the elite, two parent middle or upper class kids are accessing what they need to compete.


Again no harm, no foul, but a gentle reminder not to address me personally. Address my post. :)

I know I got a far superior basic education in high school and college than what my children got. They got a far superior education in high school and college than many modern day students are getting. It is rather alarming.
 
Other. They're already learning these things.

Are they? What evidence is there for this?

They teach it in my school and they have ever since I've been there. Sometimes I'm baffled by where you people come up with this stuff.

How can a student judge whether he/she is being taught all the information or is being taught a cherry picked version of it to influence opinion about it?
Good question. I wish Germans had asked themselves that when Hitler was in power
 
Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1
. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.


Interesting contrast in the video. I would have had no clue whatsoever about the last two quesitons on "Snookie" and Brad Pitt. None whatsoever.

Obviously they've bought the idea that that sort of thing is more important than knowing basic --- really really basic -- history.

That doesn't mean they're not being taught that history --- it means they've put it on the bottom of the priority list.


Would they put it on the bottom of their priority list if it was required to graduate from high school? To get into college? To graduate from college?

Observation: Most of those educated in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's, and probably most of the 80's would probably be able to answer all those questions EXCEPT for the media based ones. But education has deteriorated greatly since then.

I agree with you that education has deteriorated. I suspect we may disagree with the reaons why we think that is the case.

My experience with watching my son transition from 8th grade to high school, and also working in his classroom is that a select few students with good family support are able to get what they need to go to college, but the majority of kids are tuned out to "hard" topics. Which is most of what's needed to succeed in higher education.

I can see a difference between my high school sophmore and my second grader. We are in the process of adopting these kids and their prior parenting model was very soft on education. I am sure the 7, 10 and 12 year old will succeed in life, but if I'm lucky, the youngest two will go to college.


Gentle reminder--no harm/no foul in this post but refer to the argument and not to the member please. :)

But again I think it is what is expected of the kids. Expect the kids to write a competent book report in their own words, it will be easier for some than others, but most will master the necessary skills to do that. Expect the kids to know the alphabet or memorize their multiplication tables, and almost all will do that. Expect a kid to master the fundamentals of basic algebra--I've never known why that particular subject was mandatory for all but oh well--or general geography or be able to answer the most basic of general American and world history questions, almost all will do that.

It is because so many are not REQUIRED to do that so those who have little or no personal interest at the time, don't. But I know from my own experience, that of others who have testified, those of my kids, sometimes familiarity generates interest. They don't know what they are interested in until they have been exposed to good information provided by a competent teacher who encourages them to think critically instead of just parroting what they have been instructed to say.

Sorry, I don't understand what the problem is. I'm trying to discuss the topic in my words from one person to another. Are you saying I should not reference my self or my family or yours?


A member can reference himself or herself but not another member. Concentrate on the argument and not the member making the argument. See Rule #3 for the thread. Again no harm no foul but if the rule isn't enforced it could get out of hand really quickly.
 
Other. They're already learning these things.

Are they? What evidence is there for this?

They teach it in my school and they have ever since I've been there. Sometimes I'm baffled by where you people come up with this stuff.

How can a student judge whether he/she is being taught all the information or is being taught a cherry picked version of it to influence opinion about it?

It's not up to students to judge. They learn the same things today I learned when I was in high school back in the 1980's. I honestly will never understand how you anti-public school people come up with this crap.
 
Interesting contrast in the video. I would have had no clue whatsoever about the last two quesitons on "Snookie" and Brad Pitt. None whatsoever.

Obviously they've bought the idea that that sort of thing is more important than knowing basic --- really really basic -- history.

That doesn't mean they're not being taught that history --- it means they've put it on the bottom of the priority list.

Would they put it on the bottom of their priority list if it was required to graduate from high school? To get into college? To graduate from college?

Observation: Most of those educated in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's, and probably most of the 80's would probably be able to answer all those questions EXCEPT for the media based ones. But education has deteriorated greatly since then.

Has it though?

Is it that education has deteriorated --- or is it that mass media has risen to be so powerful in influence that traditional education can't even effectively compete? In the eras you cite above, it didn't have nearly that level of influence.

You're also touching on the definition of "learning".... it's one thing to retain an abstract stream of facts and dates long enough to write them down on a test paper; it's quite another thing to grok that background because it has personal meaning.


I can't escape the moment of epiphany, riding on public transportation in some city (wherever it was), watching six people across the aisle -- obviously unconnected, older, younger, male, female, black, white, nothing in common ---- and all six of them, faces buried in their smartphones, tapping out their allotted 140 characters at a time, oblivious to everything around them.

When you've come up with technology to lead people around to that degree --- you've got a power that can't be matched by a school building.

I disagree. Yes the smart phone and similar technology has significantly changed the culture, especially for the younger boomers and subsequent generations. And, in my personal opinion, not in a good way. But I also believe human nature has not changed. Only what the modern culture has made important has changed. IMO, if we make those history and economics grades important for the student's future, he/she will develop a sufficient interest to learn something about them. You overcome one compelling power with a better, stronger one.
I think it's possible you may have had a better education than is availabe to my kids at this time. High school credits involve accumulating points, not competencies. At the very least, even Spanish classes for four years ought to result in fluent Spanish literacy.

It's not happening. Only the elite, two parent middle or upper class kids are accessing what they need to compete.

Again no harm, no foul, but a gentle reminder not to address me personally. Address my post. :)

I know I got a far superior basic education in high school and college than what my children got. They got a far superior education in high school and college than many modern day students are getting. It is rather alarming.
Ok Foxfyre. I'll try not to address you personally. It's hard when you mention your own experience or your families experience. I know my own experience, my experience working in the rural school district I live in and my children's experience.

Otherwise I'd have to be constantly studying and referencing other people's works and opinions rather than writing my own.

Maybe I'm not up to speed enough for your thread.
 
Well, sorry but I think I have to withdraw from the conversation on the thread before I get into trouble. I don't want to piss anyone off. This is a topic that is important to me and my family.

Back to soccer mom schedule.
 
Other. They're already learning these things.

Are they? What evidence is there for this?

They teach it in my school and they have ever since I've been there. Sometimes I'm baffled by where you people come up with this stuff.

How can a student judge whether he/she is being taught all the information or is being taught a cherry picked version of it to influence opinion about it?

It's not up to students to judge. They learn the same things today I learned when I was in high school back in the 1980's. I honestly will never understand how you anti-public school people come up with this crap.
My last comment. I don't think it's anti-public school on my part to say I don't feel my kid is getting enough from public school. But I've gotten my kids pre-formed from a bio situation in addition to being in a rural community with less resources than I grew up with living in New York.
 

Forum List

Back
Top