Debate Now The Dumbing Down of America

[Foxfyre]

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.

Violation of Rule 3. Please direct comments to the member's argument and not any member or members themselves.

 

[Unkotare]

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.....

Yes they are.

 

[Dhara]

It is wrong to say that the argument you're writing, Fox, appears to have an anti-public school bias? Or does that break rule #3. Honestly, it's been decades since I tried to discuss a topic wiht debate rules in place. I'm not adverse to it, just unfamiliar.

 

[Rouge Rover]

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.

If your district is substandard and that's a problem for you then deal with it. How many PTA meetings have you been to within the last year?

 

[Stephanie]

All planned and going along well as we see every day in this country. brainwashed, all we hear is DNC talking points. they don't have clue who they vote for they just look for a "D". How else did we get stuck with some inexperienced community agitating thug for a president. and not just ONE term. Obama record was as bad as Carters almost and the people put him out of office after only one term

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

A member can provide his/her own argument, experience, or provide whatever anecdotal evidence seems appropriate, or what the member understands or knows about the subject. No serious research is required. The purpose of the rule to concentrate on the member's argument rather than refer to the member directly or indirectly is to discourage those who come in her to stir of shit from having an opportunity to do that. Those not interested in the subject, and not allowed to insult other members, will be encouraged to go elsewhere for their afternoon entertainment.

Unfortunately it requires that all reference to the members themselves be disallowed to prevent us having a mud fest over what is and is not a personal insult. Obviously all members have been able to follow the rule well. An occasional innocuous slip up is in the 'no harm/no foul' department but if that isn't enforced, then that is license for the trolls to have a free for all.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Yes Foxy. I think that it is at least important that students learn about their rights (ALL of them) and why they are important, why the founders thought they were important, etc. This way we can be assured to have a generation of people who understand why our constitution and rights really do mean something and that government is not an entity to be "trusted" or "relied upon."

 

[Foxfyre]

All planned and going along well as we see every day in this country. brainwashed, they have clue who they vote for they just look a D. How else did we get stuck with some inexperienced community agitating thug for a president. and not just ONE term. Obama record was as bad as Carters almost and the people put him out of office after only one term

Exactly. Some serious knowledge of the Constitution would have helped but the fact is, the candidate was not vetted at all because most of the media liked him and wanted him to succeed and therefore overlooked the misstatements, wrong statements, flip flops, and flat out lies before before and after the election. Had more of the electorate been well educated and trained in thoughtful and critical analysis, the media and the spinmeisters they put on the air, and the strategic sound bites they used to promote the candidate would not have fooled so many people.

 

[Dhara]

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.

If your district is substandard and that's a problem for you then deal with it. How many PTA meetings have you been to within the last year?

Here's the thread rules. I post them for my own benefit because I'm tired and not thinking as clearly as I'd like.

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 argumenIn answer to your above suggestion. Activism is helpful. I've addressed bullying in a meeting with the Principal, the School Counselor and some teacher s. I attend all school functions and volunteer at the school. I attend Parent/Teacher confernces. I have three kids in one school and one in the high school.

I'm very busy and I do the best I can. I am in school and have a part time business. I have no time for run for a school board seat. My school is considered the best in the county.

 

[ChrisL]

I remember briefly learning about the constitution. We didn't learn a lot of things though, basically skimming over one of the MOST important documents, the Bill of Rights!

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Yes Foxy. I think that it is at least important that students learn about their rights (ALL of them) and why they are important, why the founders thought they were important, etc. This way we can be assured to have a generation of people who understand why our constitution and rights really do mean something and that government is not an entity to be "trusted" or "relied upon."

No harm no foul department, but please refer only to the comments/argument a member makes and not to the member himself/herself.

I tend to agree that a careful study of the Founder's beliefs, arguments, reasoning, and the rationale behind it all would help people be less enamored and trustful of a government that will always look to its own interests far more than it looks to interests of the people it pretends to make all the promises to.

 

[Unkotare]

I've gotten my kids pre-formed from a bio situation.....

I think natural childbirth is better.

 

[dblack]

No. It's not the proper role of government to control how we educate our children.

 

[Dhara]

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.

A member can provide his/her own argument, experience, or provide whatever anecdotal evidence seems appropriate, or what the member understands or knows about the subject. No serious research is required. The purpose of the rule to concentrate on the member's argument rather than refer to the member directly or indirectly is to discourage those who come in her to stir of shit from having an opportunity to do that. Those not interested in the subject, and not allowed to insult other members, will be encouraged to go elsewhere for their afternoon entertainment.

Unfortunately it requires that all reference to the members themselves be disallowed to prevent us having a mud fest over what is and is not a personal insult. Obviously all members have been able to follow the rule well. An occasional innocuous slip up is in the 'no harm/no foul' department but if that isn't enforced, then that is license for the trolls to have a free for all.

Ugh, I'm feeling scolded and I've gone out of my way to be civil in this thread. Sigh.

 

[Foxfyre]

I remember briefly learning about the constitution. We didn't learn a lot of things though, basically skimming over one of the MOST important documents, the Bill of Rights!

It is unfortunate to skim over any of it, most especially those sections that guarantee our rights. How are people supposed to know what their rights are if nobody teaches that to them? Thank goodness, the power of the people still exists in some who make the effort to educate themselves.

 

[ChrisL]

It always blows my mind when I hear citizens arguing on behalf of the government AGAINST other citizens.

 

[Foxfyre]

No. It's not the proper role of government to control how we educate our children.

Amen to that. And that is one component I didn't include in the OP as it was the content and dishonesty in the education materials and teaching methods that bothered me most. But for sure, the federal government was given absolutely no constitutional authority to dictate any rules or regulations or policy for any school or what curriculum the students were to be taught.

 

[Unkotare]

The OP is inaccurate and misleading. Those things ARE being taught.

 

[ChrisL]

No. It's not the proper role of government to control how we educate our children.

Amen to that. And that is one component I didn't include in the OP as it was the content and dishonesty in the education materials and teaching methods that bothered me most. But for sure, the federal government was given absolutely no constitutional authority to dictate any rules or regulations or policy for any school or what curriculum the students were to be taught.

For the longest time, I thought Thanksgiving was a nice meal shared between Indians and Pilgrims who were good friends. Lol.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

A member can provide his/her own argument, experience, or provide whatever anecdotal evidence seems appropriate, or what the member understands or knows about the subject. No serious research is required. The purpose of the rule to concentrate on the member's argument rather than refer to the member directly or indirectly is to discourage those who come in her to stir of shit from having an opportunity to do that. Those not interested in the subject, and not allowed to insult other members, will be encouraged to go elsewhere for their afternoon entertainment.

Unfortunately it requires that all reference to the members themselves be disallowed to prevent us having a mud fest over what is and is not a personal insult. Obviously all members have been able to follow the rule well. An occasional innocuous slip up is in the 'no harm/no foul' department but if that isn't enforced, then that is license for the trolls to have a free for all.

Ugh, I'm feeling scolded and I've gone out of my way to be civil in this thread. Sigh.

There is a mild learning curve to this and those who inadvertently have unintentionally bent the rules have been gently reminded with a 'no harm no foul' reminder. All participation is valued though, and even those who were gently reminded have provided good arguments and content.

Civility and different points of view have been great so far and I have very much appreciated it.