I don't know how things are now but a little over a decade ago in an 7th grade Earth science class me and all the other students showed up a little early. There was a TV in the corner of the classroom meant for showing school news but this time there was a news channel on covering recent events in the Middle East. Some students debated on the current events and a little while later the teacher came in and turned it off even when it was a couple of minutes before class "officially" started. His justification was that we are kids and we are not interested in it. And the kicker was this was a retired military guy who served in Vietnam. This was a junior high school in suburban America. In this school most students were obsessed with "popularity", "athletics", and "dating". The teachers loved shows like 24 and books by Tom Clancy. We were shown movies like Rudy and Stand and Deliver. We watched a cheesy documentary meant to discourage youth from joining gangs. I did have a cool very intelligent teacher who immigrated from India who asked me if I saw Avatar the Last Airbender. Imagine how shocked these teachers and students knew an high achieving highly athletic student who wanted to become a military officer or scientist who loved shows like Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica who thought of Adama and Sheridan as role models. Why are we so afraid or intimidated when students express interest in serious adult topics like war or politics? Why do we discourage students when they show interest in intellectual subjects? Just because a human being is a middle or high school student they have to watch Disney Channel or CW teen soap operas rather than Babylon 5 or BSG and they have to aspire to be jocks and supermodels than military officers or scientists?
You're posting this on a forum where it's likely that the older members grew up in a time when it was considered weird or abnormal to be interested in Star Trek, the space program, or astronomy (not to mention other sciences). I experienced all of those while growing up in a bible belt area of Western Canada (and about 30 pairs of eyebrows were raised when I uttered the phrase "stellar evolution" in a Grade 8 science class when we did our unit on astronomy). I was lucky in junior high, though. The English and literature teachers were clueless, the science teachers didn't know what to do with me, but the social studies teacher didn't think a class of kids aged 11-12 were too young to learn about politics. We learned a lot of real-time things (this was in the mid-1970s), attended public hearings, watched election results, and the result was that - over 40 years later - every one of the classmates I've kept in touch with over those years is still engaged in politics at some level or other. Certainly we're dedicated voters and a couple of us became Deputy Returning Officers either at municipal levels or with Elections Canada. These days, I advocate for disabled voters' rights, because they're being stomped on in various ways at the provincial and federal levels. It's too bad you didn't have teachers who were glad to see kids taking such an interest. There's a group of people here in Canada who are advocating to lower the voting age to 16. I'm all for it, because it's one of the best ways I can think of to get the next generation interested and engaged in voting and preserving our democracy (the premier of my province is doing his best to dismantle it; Trump is his hero).
Good thread. I think it'd work in the TNZ...to make it more lively. My school was generally good, but I always felt the faculty and staff was a bit too oblivious to the student culture, and overly concerned about empowerment. They sometimes let certain students do favoritism or something like that in the organizations or classes, because they didn't want to come out looking like they were against student-centered or student-led activities... As a result, they didn't do a good job enabling and supporting the smart kids who aren't so social, to develop leaderships, experience. Yes, they managed to get us to do well and do stuff in organizations. Ah well... I'm afraid the staff and faculty at the school I work at...are still blind to this kind of thing.
Short answer, it's harder to teach the more advanced people. Much easier to cast a wide net, & that can tend to mean aiming for the lowest common denominator. Bottom line, schools don't exist to grow people into mature adults. That's nurturing, & the sole responsibility of the guardians imho Schools are there to install the factory defaults, & that's enough of a Herculean task as is. That said, such is really only an excuse for an absence of encouragement. Active discouragement is just a dick move, & stinks of someone living in fear of having to negotiate the murky waters of political discourse, or any hot button topic Point being, if you want strong minded individuals, do not expect schools to provide that, or even contribute to it. To be fair though, you'll occasionally run across good hearted teachers who independently want to nurture that, & hats off to them for fighting through the morass. I know I met a couple in my day
For some students, more challenging curricula are available. That probably depends on the school district and the individual school. My sixth grade homeroom teacher had the class do a mock criminal trial, in a real city courtroom. It was a big project we had to prepare over the course of a few weeks, and then everyone played roles of defendant, plaintiff, jury, and lawyers in an assault case. I got to be the defense attorney. That's a pretty interesting and eye-opening experience at age eleven. Then my seventh and eighth grade homeroom teacher had us watch and discuss the news a couple times a week. He also had us doing high school level algebra, which I hated. Kor
From growing up in a small town, graduated with 75 people.. most schools cast a wide net thats set at the "Average" learning. Those who excell and those that trail behind are the outliers and while there are some help for them, its usually up to the parents to either push them in to more classes, maybe skip a grade, or some remedial/tutor courses. From a personal opinion, both of my brother quite in the 9th grade, book learning wasn't for them, they always struggled with it, not saying that they are dumb, just that the "normal" book courses wasn't a good teaching medium for them.. they are "hands on, show me" type.. they both done extremly well in an "apprentice" situation where it was 1 on 1 person teaching them how to.. drive a craine.. etc. So for each student, there way of learning may be different, but the teachers are there for the masses, and don't have the time to single out individual students for more or less teaching.. Its up to the parents.. which more and more seem to be out of it, and let the teachers do it.. Would love to hear from someone onthis thread that only recently graduated like say 5 or less years.. and how its going.
Skipping a grade might lead to more challenging assignments, but it can be brutal when it comes to social skills with age-peers. I did two grades in one year, which resulted in almost completely missing out on things I was expected to know in Grade 3 but hadn't been thoroughly covered yet in Grade 2 by the time I got to school one day and discovered my desk had been moved to a Grade 3 classroom and was told, "You're in Grade 3 now." This happened about halfway through the year in January or February 1971, and while it was nice to be able to read closer to the level I was really at (I was reading at close to high school level by Grade 4), it didn't do me any favors in math or penmanship (back in those days writing was still taught and considered important). I did finally learn to write, with my dad's patient coaching at home, but I'm still hopeless at math unless it's something that's either fun or that's immediately applicable to my daily life. Actually, I credit my chemistry courses and music lessons for helping me with math, because they were a way to learn it that wasn't just a page of "problems" and equations that didn't seem to mean anything. And thank goodness Canada went metric in the '70s. It's a much easier system to use than that ridiculous other system (I was playing a computer game last night and one of the puzzles had a question that required me to know how many pints there are in a gallon; I'm amazed that after 45+ years of not having to know this, I still remembered). There were positives to being accelerated, but the downside was being noticeably younger than my classmates. This was something my dad noticed and why he said 'no' when the teachers at my junior high school asked his permission to promote me from Grade 7 to Grade 9. If he'd allowed that, it would have meant me graduating high school at age 15, instead of 16, as is what happened. And I'd have missed the school year when I got into Star Trek, wanted to know the real science behind all the stuff referenced on the show, and really got into some advanced astronomy (well, advanced for the average 12-year-old at that time). The school had some excellent reference books, and that was the year when I started reading Asimov essays for fun (my classmates couldn't figure out why I'd read them if they weren't for an assignment). Between acceleration, private studies, and mostly being raised by grandparents who approved of kids keeping their noses firmly in non-fiction books, I was out of step with my age-peers. I always have been, even now. If anyone were to ask me what the average person my age, in this area, thinks... I honestly couldn't say. I have no idea. I only know what I think, and it's a pleasant surprise whenever I find someone with similar, never mind compatible, interests and views. So if anyone here is a parent contemplating the idea of their child being accelerated or skipping a grade, please consider the possible social ramifications as well as the academic. There are pros and cons either way, and they have to be part of the decision.
When I was in elementary school in the 1950s we had a little publication called My Weekly Reader that was like a little newspaper. It was all about current events. I remember one issue was dedicated to the President's Cabinet. We had to learn who all the Cabinet members were, their names and offices. Nowadays in my granddaughter's fifth grade, they have special classes for the academically gifted kids. My granddaughter is a real math whiz so she gets to work above her grade in math and science.
Maybe this is where the One-room schoolhouse had it right. Kids were allowed to progress as they mastered things.
Agreed. There is a new book to come out that might help explain things: Bestselling author Donald Jeffries turns his critical eye onto the topic of bullying to show how teachers, principals, and other school officials invariably side with the bullies in the most egregious cases, instead of protecting the victims. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1634242777/ctoc https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...mon-think--spot-danger-signs-young-three.html Then too--if you call a man a thief--you make a man a thief.
I'm on the political left but not only would I not want to see the voting age lowered to 16 I'd like to see the age for driving raised from 16 to at least 18. I don't think children have any business voting or driving. On the subject of education... I have no idea what the curriculum is these days or what the academic levels are. When I was in public school we did "current events". We were encouraged and expected to read the news and be informed. And when I was in high school we had five different academic levels. The standards were basic, general and advanced and on either end of the spectrum were remedial for the kids that really struggled and enriched for the kids assessed as gifted.
Some schools, especially public schools judge success based on how well kids behaved and fit in more than how much they actually learned. Part of it is the incentive structure of their tests and a political desire to avoid students expressing opinions on controversial topics. Part of it is an attitude toward overachievers that their desire to actually learn things is really a desire to be seen as better than others.
I think there's arguments on both sides for the voting age. I think the argument for lowering to 16 is, if you're going to pick and choose who is qualified for voting, then why not also add limits on the other end? Or why not have more complex rules to decide who is informed enough to be a voter, and who decides what those rules are? You say 16 year olds aren't qualified to vote, somebody else says 80 year olds aren't, somebody else thinks you should need to pass an IQ test, where does it end? On driving though I would take objection to a bunch of kids driving for the first time when they're in college, not under parental supervision, and with ready access to alcohol and drugs. Any accidents they cause in their first year of driving they'd cause no matter how old they are. Only they'd be drunk too.
16 year olds are children. They're searching for their identity, they're rebellious, hormonal, etc, etc. All those things are simple psychological and biochemical facts. We've always known that about teenagers. And now the scientific and medical community are telling us we're still not fully developed and matured adults until into our 20s so no, children should not be allowed to vote for anything other than school class president or their favourite band.
I wouldn’t be opposed to allowing 16 year olds to vote in local elections and allowing federal elections at 18. Maybe it would generate some interest in local elections and spur some action there. They’d have to teach civics earlier though, my school didn’t do that until senior year.
Ok, who else loses voting rights because they don’t have neurological fitness? Does anyone over 65 have to prove every election cycle they do not suffer dementia? What about people with developmental or mental health issues? Who decides? A lot of the problems with children’s maturity compared to previous generations has to do with the fact we baby and protect them until they turn 18 then expect them to instantly be fully functioning adults. The 14-18 range should be used to gradually phase in more adult responsibilities and trust.
Tell you what pal, let's just lower the age for voting, driving, smoking, drinking and sexual consent to 5 yearls old. And if that doesn't make you happy, well damn, there's just no pleasing some people. Pfft.
There are many adults who have no business driving. At least I was smart enough to realize that my vision was so poor that driving would be a very dangerous thing to attempt... not to mention the fact that once I get into a moving vehicle I tend to zone out and either fall asleep or my mind wanders off to some other reality. I'd have been a very dangerous driver at any age. What was available here depended on the school system. There's a basic curriculum that all systems have to follow, but how they do it can result in very different standards. I spent six years in a county school (for rural students) that focused more on practical applications for what we were taught. The earliest that I can remember being taught about politics was Grade 4, as there was a municipal election that year. In Grade 7, the teacher didn't consider us too young to learn about provincial politics (another election) and then the Parti Quebecois came to power in 1976 and suddenly the entire country was talking about separatism. I sincerely hope that the social studies classes in Alberta are revisiting the topic of separatism (in general) because of the twits here who want our province to separate from Canada (google "Wexit"). Okay, where do I start? First, we have NOT "always known this" about teenagers. I doubt there is anyone on this entire forum whose ancestors didn't include some who married at age 14 and were parents by age 15 or 16, and were considered adult members of whatever community they were part of. It was simply the norm back then, and something that was expected. It's not even that many centuries ago I'm talking about; there are still places in the U.S. where marriage at 14 is legal (note that I am NOT advocating that this is a good, sensible thing). If you're going to bar teenagers from voting using the excuse of "they're hormonal" you would have to also bar every woman of childbearing age because of the menstrual cycle (yes, I know that most women don't get "hormonal" like the stereotypes like to portray, but some do and it's a matter of biochemistry and no reason to prohibit such women from participating fully in society in any way they see fit). After all, if you're going to discriminate against one group on the basis of biochemistry, it's only fair to discriminate against all, right? At what age should people be able to join the military, by your reasoning? Teenagers here have several choices of cadet branches of whatever military branch they're interested in, so I guess high schoolers into those things should choose some other activity. As for once they turn 18... well, if you prohibit joining the military until age 25, I suppose we might have fewer wars if the cannon fodder is older to begin with. Personally, I'm in favor of the leaders of the countries in conflict leading the troops personally, like they used to during medieval times. If they put themselves at real personal risk of death, they might think another 20 times to decide if they really want to do this. It's not a bad idea to allow 16-year-olds to vote in municipal elections. Not sure about where you live, but here we still have elected school boards. So far, at least. Given how much their decisions impact students' lives, they should have a chance to participate in the process that puts these people into office. Exactly. It's mind-boggling to me how "helicopter parenting" has produced not one generation, but two, of people who think kids should be tied to their mothers' figurative, if not literal, apron strings until they're 18. Last year I read someone's post on my news site that said kids who were 12 years old were far too young to walk to school by themselves (WTF! ). Oh, let's not get completely ridiculous, 'k? Rick Mercer, one of Canada's best political satirists, did a rant in each of his shows that was his version of an editorial. He did a couple of really good ones about students and voting. They're old, but still pertinent. The first concerns voting at age 16: The second concerns prompting college/university students to vote: This rant was years before our previous Prime Minister tried to disenfranchise five particular demographics of people (they're not groups that tend to vote Conservative) by changing the ID rules to make it harder for these groups to have the right combination of acceptable IDs (newsflash: not everyone has a driver's license or passport and not every province's health card includes a photo). University students were among this group. The others were senior citizens, natives, homeless (yes, they are allowed to vote), and disabled people (my own demographic; I've had a considerable amount of electoral bullshit thrown at me at both federal and provincial levels for the past 3 elections I've voted in). Rick Mercer is right. If the student demographic started voting at much higher levels than they do now, the politicians would pay much more attention. And a very good way to prompt this is to introduce them to it while they're still in high school.