What subjects should kids learn at school?

[Shaytan]

Learning a foreign language? no thanks, it's a pointless waste of time. I learnt French at school and wasn't too bad but have I ever used it? have I ever needed to use it? NO!

I know that you think that English is far superior to any other languages but since the whole world isn't speaking English (and you will find that funny : we're all very protective of our weird languages) learning foreign languages is still useful at least to understand the other cultures.

Religious Education? No thanks, such education as this should be left to the churches or mosques or wherever.

Churches (and other) educate you spiritually but some basic knowledge on religions can't hurt you. This can easily be done in history.

Music? what a waste of time at school. If kids wanna learn an instrument they can do it at home. Kids need more time to concentrate on more important subjects. When I was at school music lesson comprised of sitting at a keyboard with a book and following what it said. USELESS!

And missing the opportunity to annoy your neighbours while training with a recorder

 

[RevDMV]

How to tell when other people are lying to them, including their teachers, aka critical thinking and awareness.

 

[cultcross]

Critical Thinking is definitely something that should be taught in schools - I did it at A Level and it was one of the most useful things I ever did at school. The basic ability to analyse an argument for its flaws is something everyone needs in this 24hr news and worldwide opinions culture.

 

[Koinek]

TO PITY THE FOOL!

 

[Holdfast]

I would say that in principle, the more subjects, the better.

Why limit education?

Of course, the practical limits are cost and time. So yes, I could come up with a "priority list", which I reckon won't be too far off most other people's lists.

But in truth, I really feel that the more subjects kids have at least a passing familiarity with, the better.

Mind you, I also have a rather scathing opinion of both the quality of teaching on offer in many schools in this country, as well as their practical financial ability to facilitate appropriate learning experiences, combined with a lack of faith in the examinations systems we have. I'm strongly veering away from the idea of ever wanting to have kids, but if I did, they're totally going to a private school with adequate facilities, as well as breadth and depth of teaching knowledge. I can't do anything about some of the silly national exams, but at least they'll have a reasonable basic education and learn to enjoy actually knowing & understanding things... before they have to waste their time getting bits of paper so they can get jobs.

(and this comes from someone with the good part of an alphabet after their name)

 

[Canadave]

The problem with instigating choice too early is that education inevitably builds on what has gone before - by choosing to drop, say, History, at a fairly young age because you happen to find it boring at the time, you pretty much exclude yourself from taking it up again unless you are particualrly bright.

For history/geography/science, which I said were semi-core... Maybe the dividing line between junior and senior should be at the end of the first year of high school, when the child is familiar with how the high school teaches these subjects, and can then choose either the light or heavy courses in them.

This is how Ontario works. In grades nine and ten, everybody has to take things like history, science, geography, phys ed, one of music, art or drama, etc. But after that, it becomes much more open, and the only core classes in grade 11 and 12 are math and English, with everything else being branching. In other words, students can choose from a variety of somewhat related courses, designed to ensure that everyone recieves a balanced education, but one that's still tailored to his or her interests as much as possible. I thought it worked fairly well, back when I was in high school.

 

[Jadzia]

We have different names for schools

In England:
infant school: ages 5,6 -- broad curriculum with much reading, creative writing, and painting, as I remember it.

junior/primary school: ages 7,8,9,10 -- emphasis on maths and english, but all subjects are covered, including sports. But no languages were taught when I was there. And there was much more arts than sciences: music, singing, painting, photography, drama, as well as plenty of local history and cultural stuff. Science didn't go far beyond 'investigate the school pond' and 'the alimentary canal'.

high/senior/secondary school: ages 11,12,13,14,15 -- first three years are broad and well structured. Lots of maths science and english, with over half of each school day being taken up by these three subjects. Last two years involves core subjects of maths science and english with your three choice subjects, plus a language choice. Compulsory sports.

college: ages 16,17 (optional) -- usually 3 or 4 subjects only. Student has full choice with no other commitments. I enjoyed these two years a lot.

university: ages 18,19,20 (optional) -- 1 subject and no other commitments.

Ontario's high school is like England's colleges.

 

[cultcross]

high/senior/secondary school: ages 11,12,13,14,15 -- first three years are broad. Last two years involves core subjects of maths science and english with your three choice subject.

Well not necessarily three
You can do as many as you like, and many schools enthusiastically support this, as it improves their league table positions.

college- ages 16,17 (optional) -- usually 3 or 4 subjects only. Student has full choice with no other commitments.

Some secondary schools also offer this part of the curriculum in two additional years at the school termed the "Sixth Form" (referring to an outdated system) - it's otherwise the same as going to a special college, except that it's tacked on to a school.

university: ages 18,19,20 -- 1 subject and no other commitments.

21, 22, 23...

 

[Bisz]

1) I think it depends on what level of school you are talking about.

2) In grade 9 we had a half semester of visual arts and half semester of music, this covering that whole field. I feel that it was a good approach that provided enough detail in both areas to be informative but didn't any time away from other core areas of study.

3) I went to a Public Catholic school so we had religion, which I think can be done without. However, we also had one course on World Religions. It taught the philosophies and histories of the major religions/philosophies (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu) as well as some other, smaller religions, like Native religions and the like. I think that in today's world this type of course would be beneficial to all people in general, so it might as well be taught in school.

4) I think that English should be taught as a universal second language in all non-English speaking countries - and I say this with English being my second language. In English speaking countries, I don't know... there are proven benefits to learning a second language at an early age so its something to be considered seriously.

5) I think that separate from History there should be some Social Studies taught. I think people need to understand how governments work, how society works, how the economy works, etc, etc. A generic class to teach people things that don't necessarily fall under a different category but that people should know so they don't grow up to be dumbasses.

 

[StolenThunder]

university: ages 18,19,20 -- 1 subject and no other commitments.

21, 22, 23...

..24

I agree with those who have suggested as broad an education as possible (though within reason of course!). People should know things.

 

[Trippy]

The problem with instigating choice too early is that education inevitably builds on what has gone before - by choosing to drop, say, History, at a fairly young age because you happen to find it boring at the time, you pretty much exclude yourself from taking it up again unless you are particualrly bright.

For history/geography/science, which I said were semi-core... Maybe the dividing line between junior and senior should be at the end of the first year of high school, when the child is familiar with how the high school teaches these subjects, and can then choose either the light or heavy courses in them.

This is how Ontario works. In grades nine and ten, everybody has to take things like history, science, geography, phys ed, one of music, art or drama, etc. But after that, it becomes much more open, and the only core classes in grade 11 and 12 are math and English, with everything else being branching. In other words, students can choose from a variety of somewhat related courses, designed to ensure that everyone recieves a balanced education, but one that's still tailored to his or her interests as much as possible. I thought it worked fairly well, back when I was in high school.

Indeed. Out of the 30 courses/classes/credits needed to graduate, only 18 are compulsary (4 English credits Keeps me employed!)

 

[Kirk's_Tights]

I'm wondering what people think of sex education.


They started to teach us back when I was in grade 6, I think it was. Do you think it should be taught to younger kids so they know the issues surrounding it or do you think teaching it makes them more interested in doing it?

 

[Sephiroth]

I must disagree with the OP, thats more a robot factory than anything else, schools need PE, Physical Education, not the "gym" class they usualy get, I think, startng from middle school on, PE classes should be half health studies and then half general fitness, calestenics, weight training, and field/obstacle courses, you'd be surprised how much an hour of that a day can change a person's weight/build, I believe that from middle school on there should be the basic classes, Litereacy & History, Mathematics & Sciences, and the afternoon should be mostly Phys Ed, but give room for elective courses like the more complex mathematics & harder sciences, as well as art and music, give students a well rounded General education and let them seek specialties of thier own

 

[Sephiroth]

I'm wondering what people think of sex education.


They started to teach us back when I was in grade 6, I think it was. Do you think it should be taught to younger kids so they know the issues surrounding it or do you think teaching it makes them more interested in doing it?

the interest is irrelevant, they are going to have sex anyways, the least the schools can do is educate them about STD's, condoms (which should be freely available) and work anatomy into a phys ed class

 

[Kirk's_Tights]

I'm wondering what people think of sex education.


They started to teach us back when I was in grade 6, I think it was. Do you think it should be taught to younger kids so they know the issues surrounding it or do you think teaching it makes them more interested in doing it?

the interest is irrelevant, they are going to have sex anyways, the least the schools can do is educate them about STD's, condoms (which should be freely available) and work anatomy into a phys ed class

Some people though might be more tempted to do it after learning about it.

To me, it's a bit of a 50/50, I guess. Of course they should be taught but at the same time, they may have no even thought about having sex until learning about it and feel an urge to try it out.

I know I certainly wouldn't want my 12 year old kid to be having sex.


Guess it depends which way you look at it.

 

[kustirider2]

Well; Being in my 4th year of senior school now, I have a lot to say on the matter.

Maths, English and Science should be nessacary. At our school, We have to do PE and IT (I have already failed IT by refusing to do the work, as I have too many subjects going on and too many problems, Therefore its making me stressed) PE is a waste of time, The teachers don't monitor the kids and we just mess around with tennis rackets.

We also have other optional subjects. I picked; French, Additional Science, Music and Art. I agree with you, Tachyon Shield, about Language. I can't remember a thing but Music is amazing, It isn't really useless but it depends if you play an instrument or not. It also teaches you how to use computer programs such as; Power tab, Sibelius and Finale notepad (Which are all brilliant!)

Also, Sex ed. I wasn't taught anything until first year, Which was really basic stuff. Nothing about contreception, Love ect. Since then I haven't been taught anything either but by 15 I suppose you understand it.

 

[Sephiroth]

I'm wondering what people think of sex education.


They started to teach us back when I was in grade 6, I think it was. Do you think it should be taught to younger kids so they know the issues surrounding it or do you think teaching it makes them more interested in doing it?

the interest is irrelevant, they are going to have sex anyways, the least the schools can do is educate them about STD's, condoms (which should be freely available) and work anatomy into a phys ed class

Some people though might be more tempted to do it after learning about it.

To me, it's a bit of a 50/50, I guess. Of course they should be taught but at the same time, they may have no even thought about having sex until learning about it and feel an urge to try it out.

I know I certainly wouldn't want my 12 year old kid to be having sex.


Guess it depends which way you look at it.

you are looking at it through the tinted goggls of parenthood, "oh my little Jhonny/Suzie would NEVER do THAT" atleast with education and a bowl of condoms put in a well known but un monitored location teen pregnancies and disease spread rated would be cut down signifigantly

 

[thestrangequark]

I am a teaching artist working for a non-profit organization (LEAP: Learning through an Expanded Arts Program). I have 7 years experience working in NYC public schools, grades k-6, and I have degrees in childhood education and special education.

Addressing PE: it is vital, for young kids at least. All across the country PE and recess (along with art and music) are being cut back. It has been proven, and I've witnessed from experience, that children learn better after exercise. They are more able to focus, they perform better in all subjects -- including on tests. Moving around is as good for the brain as it is for the body.
Perhaps the most important reason for keeping PE and recess in the system, though, is socialization. I work at two schools, teaching 7 classes of grades k-2. Most of these classes have neither gym nor recess -- that includes the kindergarten classes. Kindergarten no longer includes centers, blocks, nap time, or snack time; five year old children are expected to seat in their seats learning reading, writing, and math all day long. People seem to have forgotten that play time is vital to children's development. They need the play time, gym, and recess, to learn how to socialize, to learn how to be people.
In my experience, there is a marked difference in behavior and quality of work between children who do have gym and recess and those who don't. It's hard for me as a teacher to say it, but lack of communication and social skills will hinder a child even more than an incomplete academic education.


As for art and music -- I am going to come back to this thread when I have more time, because I have a lot to say on those subjects!

 

[Gertch]

I'm wondering what people think of sex education.

That's another learn at home subject that should be controlled by the parents.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Here is where i will have to disagree with you.