What shouldn't be taught in schools?

Intelligent Design.

Cannot Intelligent Design and Evolution both have a place in the classroom? Competing narratives presents a challenge for students to think about the issues and learn to reason their way through them. Is this not education?

@mrjadkins – I probably just complicated your question though by adding to what ought to be taught.

So without intelligent design, we should only teach one view? hmmm interesting view of how we should teach. Any other one-sided views? Only democratic or republican government classes?

The teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are severely lacking in our school system.

study hall = nap time

I.D. Is just a veiled attempt to give creationism the appearence of something it’s not, science. Teach it in parochial schools. I don’t like the idea of my tax dollars funding someone’s religious education.

And yet science in itself is the testing of theory. Why not present multiple theories and allow for creative discussion and challenging debate in the classroom? The answer is because there is too much for the teacher to teach now including the things I listed in the original question. There is no time in the day to allow for open discussion and debate on topics. There is no time to allow for creativity in our schools. Kids are bored out of their skulls. Teachers are frustrated. Administrators aren’t able to supervise and help teachers be better teachers. The system is overrun.

This question isn’t asking what should be taught. The question is what should not. What can be done to take the pressure off schools to provide ALL training on everything to create a helpful contribution to society?

I suppose a simple solution would be….increase the length of the average school day, or add another semester for the summer….so then we don’t have to cut out any of the classes…I’m sure in some way or another they could all carry some weight of importance.

Then why not teach that the world is flat and resting on the back of a giant turtle. I’m sure we could come up with a scientific sounding name for this theory too.

We rely on schools so much, because parents, family and communities are not always prepared to impart this information on their own. My parents were horrible money managers, so how could I have expected them to teach me financial planning? Schools are supposed to teach “factual” information, but the outside community has no such responsibility. Parents can be ignorant on issues like sex-ed and character building, but a teacher has at least some demonstrated knowledge on such subjects; a community group might tell youth that all minorities are inferior, but a teacher could never posit such a ridiculous idea. Personally, I think school should last longer, maybe until 5 or 6 pm. This way kids have similar schedules to their parents, and more time to learn all that is necessary to become a knowledgeable, socialized, effective adult.

Are we going to do this? Somebody find these fundamentalist-evangelist-biblical-literalists a whole to stick their heads in, and maybe when they’re done they can search fluther and leave this topic alone.

The education system is flawed because of standardized tests, inadequate funding, parents that don’t care enough, students that don’t want to learn, and people that try to prevent forward momentum by creating standards for overworked teachers, complaining about the education system, and then voting against raising taxes for schools.

Lets get back to the actual question.

Whether schools should teach in all these areas is sort of irrelevent, because if they don’t, who will? Obviously some parents are able to teach some or all of these “extras” to their children, but many, many are not. Even assuming everyone was able, how many are willing? Assume all are willing…who among us does not carry bias from our own upbringing, or religious beliefs (or lack of) that wouldn’t get passed on to the kids? If we want future generations to be well informed, and on an even playing field, it sort of has to be done in a well regulated, institutionalized manner.

As the world quickly shrinks due to advances in communications, it is vital for American children to broaden their horizon and understand their role in the changing world. The global economy, climate control, and the energy crisis are issues our young will have to face so it is important they become enlightened on these issues.

@august Agreed.

Really, if education were more highly valued, then there would be much more of this occurring in the home setting. I don’t know if we can easily separate what shoud be taught at home as opposed to what is taught at school, but it is clear that education is a virtue of sorts and ought to be emphasized at home as well as at school. Perhaps many assume education to be purely associated with school and then lose their desire to learn. I am not exactly sure how to solve this issue. As Mark Twain said, “Never let your schooling interfere with your education.” I guess its sad that school and education could seem to be at so much odds that he wouldn’t even make such a statement. I’m not really talking about anything though, so I’ll wait for some more relevant posts.

Oh, and don’t even get me started on mandated tests! My childrens’ middle school has a high percentage of under-performing students, and you would not believe the time and effort that is expended trying to get their scores up!

whoops I read the question wrong. Sry

The over-performers are basically thrown to the wolves!

@august; Hey, hey. Lets not start picking on wolves! Since Remus and Romulus first suckled the tits of a she-wolf….

Ooh, wait, are we all just looking for arguments?

I love the concept of money bandied about as an excuse for how someone can provide input into how education works. It isn’t the debate over science vs religion in the argument. Your argument is about money and the power you feel as a parent/contributor in your school system.

Your tax dollars go into a general fund populated by the tax dollars of every constituent of your district. For every dollar you send in, there is the exact opposite view and dollar to your own on how a teacher should teach your child. Plus there are state and national objectives that must be taught. There is also the pressure and weight of the competing college and universities out there.

You want the school to teach what you want your kid to believe. I understand that. I think most people would want a school to teach their own values as well. Plus, you are paying for it so you would think your voice would be heard. Especially if you feel you pay more than others do.

This scientific debate is a good point to pick because it shows you how pressure adds on to the situation. Why not provide information about various points of view? Why not allow students to discuss ramifications of such points and share impact of those views? Instead, we hear from parents “I pay this much in tax dollars and I want my child to be trained this way”. Well…..its your kid. Teach your child your own theory and what you want them to believe if you want.

But do you want your kid to follow your beliefs all the time? Or do you want a child who will grow into an adult with the ability to make their own decisions? develop his/her own faith? make informed arguments? be able to re-search (not just search, copy, and paste). Would you want your child to be informed of various approaches to a concept? Would you want your child to be aware of the other points of view? Maybe not to buy into them all wholeheartedly but to be aware of those points?

Good arguments so far, everyone. This is the type of discussion I think our kids should be having on topics in schools. I wish there were more time…..

Any ideas on how to make more time for schools?

The summer concept is interesting except for high schools. This year in Texas, school calendars changed to start later in the year. Some districts don’t end in time for summer semesters at the university level. Some students in schools are having to take their final exams during their first week of summer classes at their colleges.

See the pressure?

@Trumin…loved that! No arguments here, just backing up what MrJ mentioned in his question.

Okay, why would you ask a question if you’re just going to rant on and on?

ID has no place in SCIENCE classrooms because there is no scientific evidence to support it. Of COURSE it should be taught in history classes, just like every other major world view (including the earth’s shape and FSM).

Once you introduce pure conjecture and opinion (a Theory has some sort of basis, unlike ID) into science, it is no longer called science, its called faith. Once we allow religion the veil of “scientific theory”, we go back to the good old Scopes trial argument.

Give us some evidence that ID is a scientific possibility, and we’ll allow it to be discussed, not taught, in science classes. Which it already is, so I don’t see the point.

Teachers in the blue states don’t scream about String Theory in physics, telling children it is the one and only theory and that all others are blasphemy and hell-worthy, and yet I can more than imagine that happening in this situation. My Physical Science teacher was a Mormon. I didn’t learn anything in that class.

@MrJ…I love a good debate as much as anyone, and have taught my kids to use their own skills to make their own decisions. For instance, their Dad is a lapsed Jew, I’m a lapsed Christian…we have taught them the history and traditions of both religions, explaining the differences, and also touched on many of the other main religions in the world…all the while saying some people believe this, some people believe that, and when you’re older, you can decide what to believe for yourself. I am also quite truthful when I say “No one really knows.” However, teaching opposing “theories” such as intelligent design and evolution as if they are both EQUALLY likely is not the same.

Plus, we didn’t teach it as scientific fact.

@trumi Sorry. I thought this was Fluther. The site where you post a question and then discuss the answer. I just reread their tagline to be sure and it says “Everone discusses the answer.” My bad.

@mrjadkins – you had to get a point for such a thorough response.

As for me, I know that when I arrived at college, I was excited to take part in open discussions and listen to competing views. I was disappointed that my high school education had not been the same.

@mrjadkins; You’re absolutely right. I usually ask a question more to know what others think, and less to give my opinion, but I was wrong to say that you shouldn’t have answered in such a way. Sarcasm aside, that truly was ‘My Bad.’

Because I am a liberal. Someone who changes their mind in the face of new evidence. I’m a flip-flopper.

Now, as far as my point about ID as History and not Science? Got an opinion?

I’d see ID being taught as social studies (or whatever they’re calling that now) rather than history, as it is not an “event” with a begining and an end. Cultural studies, or whatever.

Social studies, history, theology… It kind of blends….

@trumigoodboy ha – you posted your response and I sent you a private message. To everyone I say: I love playing devils advocate on this site. I do appreciate the lively debate. I am not offended or upset by any of this. I love my job. I am passionate about what I do. I really just like to take the argument outside of the teachers and educators I work with to get different perspectives.

I do tend to rant on and on as well ;). Thanks for the debate. I should be sleeping now.

as should we all ;)

I think it’d be informative if high school children were taught a course on comparitive(sp?) religion, just to get a more worldly view than they’d get in their own homes, or places of worship.

I find it interesting that people cite religeon vs science. Our schools and country have sterilized our own history forever and a day and know one cares about that. Teach them both. Heavan forbid it strike up conversation at home.

Sorry I started all this.
No I’m not.

Oh god, there’s so much BS being thrown around here. Intelligent design is NOT a science. It should NOT be taught. Evolution is as theoretical as the earth revolving around the sun.

Dawkins said it best:

You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.
—Richard Dawkins

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).
—Richard Dawkins

PS. I would call it Discworldism, AstroChuck.

ID should NOT be taught in public schools. To broaden the statement, religion should not be taught in public schools. If we start teaching intelligent design where do we stop? Are we willing to teach Dawkins/Russell’s Teapot theory?

Some things must be taught at home. Among other things I will take responsibility for my children’s character education, their hygiene, and sex education. Once a child has learned the basics, reading, writing and math, I believe the school’s most important job is to teach children how to learn.

Being less than two weeks away from the start of a new school year, and having three little boys losing their minds, I would definitely agree with the idea shortening summer vacation! I would not however, want a longer school day, my kids come home fried already, I’m pretty sure that anything presented to them in those extra hours would fall upon deaf (maybe even sleeping) ears.

don’t we teach the beliefs of earlier civilizationzs though? And don’t we follow the course of our greater attempts to explain things in science even when they and their outlandish claims sometimes rivaled religion? We continually make limiting claims as humans about humans and then prove ourselves wrong. Why exclude?

We teach mythology in history class, not along side elolution or chemistry.

The question seems to suggest that the school day is about specific content. In my school our mission is clear: we are creating good thinkers and thoughtful people. With this end in mind, we shift the content used to the needs and interests of the audience, using data and lively planning to determine what will work best for specific groups.

This is the information age. Students can find information anywhere. Schools need to teach them how to think about the information they find. Once that shift is made, we have nothing but time.

@hoteipdx To broaden what you said, we need to change the way we teach and the way we allow students to learn. The methods in place now have hardly changed for centuries. Pubic education does not take into account learning style, it does not support curiosity and interest. I think we need to take a completely fresh look. In some cases, I think we need to teach more. In some cases, I think we need to teach less.

Some things we do not teach now that we should:

1. How to learn.

2. How to study.

3. How to think critically and how to assess information coming in.

To me Intelligent Design = Gay! All the good designers I know are gay. Let’s see if the Christians want to teach my version of Intelligent Design. hehe.
Sorry. I thought I’d add some levity here

Schools should be teaching proper sex ed. They also would be improved by a course on finances.

Schools should teach (or at least try to) how life in the real wolrd is, its a jungle out here where only the brave survive…

Reading, writing and math are very important. These subjects should not, however, be taught simply to pass a standardized exam. All through grade school, middle school and high school, my teachers taught almost solely to the standardized tests we would have to pass each year. When I got to college, I couldn’t believe how many people in my English Composition class (native English speakers, all) could hardly form a complete sentence on paper. These exams are cheating children out of an education.

I agree 100% with hoteidpx and Marina. Schools today are almost entirely focused on churning out employees, rather than thinking individuals. Though many schools are focusing more on technology, the goal is the same. To give students skills, rather than intelligence.

So, long answer short, fewer skills and facts, more intelligence.

In Response to this quote: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
—Richard Dawkins

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin

I’m inclined to think that Dawkins statement there is a bit arrogant, narrow, and entirely unecessary. (Side Note: I am NOT an opponent of evolution).

@aaronou The science of evolution has advanced enormously since Darwin’s day. We have lots of information he did not.

@Marina – This is true. I just don’t think we ought to resort to name-calling as Dawkins has done. There are a number of individuals who believe in alternative theories in good faith, and to give them such a label as “ignorant, stupid, or insane” is over the top, in my opinion.

@aaronou; There are times that I consider myself ignorant, stupid, and insane. I subscribe to the doctrine that true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing. I am misinformed, uninterested, and plain wrong about a number of things, and to think that I am always correct is completely ignorant. I do it anyway…. Also, by some standards I am very stupid. I learned the 50 capitals, but by no means know them anymore. And as far as insanity goes… Well, lets just say I have my fair share of it.

True, name calling is nice for nobody to do, but I’ve been called all sorts of things by evangelists, especially; Sinner, heretic, fag, deserved-of-hell, and stupid-son-of-a-bitch (all very Christlike things to say). While I wouldn’t put it so bluntly and tactlessly, I think Dawkins point is that evolution is very well respected in the scientific community as a theory for the creation of humanity (ie non-believers are stupid), that most people that research it and gain an understanding of it believe that it is at least a viable explanation (ie ignorant), and that to completely denounce a theory that has so much more evidence and reasoning behind it than any other theory as an absolute fallacy is pretty ridiculous (ie insane).

So yes, it is “over the top” in some ways. But he is right.

Oh, and cursive handwriting is pretty much useless these days. Reading it may still be somewhat valuable (simply because some people still choose to right in cursive), but learning to write it is no longer important. Foreign Languages should fill the slot.

Re: Dawkins’s quote—I thought scientists don’t deal in absolutes.

I don’t like the way “scientific community” seems to be getting a free pass into validation. At any point in time you can find the same number of scientists who thought we could never do x as who thought we could.

Here is a question, if we say yes and include such things, and keep expanding our curiculum, how do we find the time and money?

A good quesiton, Bri_L, and why I think we need to stop putting bandaids on the system and look at the whole thing afresh.

and I don’t mean that last part in reference to any specific topic. It is just that keeping things like music, art and gym are hard enough. Now try funding new topics. Then there is the already overburdoned students who can’t keep up as it is.

it is often said that teachers are much more than teachers – we are parents, nurses, psychiatrists, police officers, and maids to our students throughout the day. kids – especially elementary school kids who spend most of the day with just one teacher – spend more time with their teachers in a day than with their own parents. some parents can’t or simply won’t teach their children all those “extras,” so schools must. you are absolutely right that these issues should be addressed at home as well, but just because something IS taught by parents doesn’t mean that those issues are irrelevant at school.

As for the absurd focus on standardized testing, don’t get me started… if only legislators would listen to teachers – but of course, we couldn’t possibly know anything.

” What shouldn’t be taught in schools?”

Gun cleaning
Wife slapping
Ebonics

Hey! Keeping your gun clean is a very important part of gun ownership. Obviously, cleaning it after every use is comparable to rubbing your Ferrari with a diaper and keeping it locked in a garage… but still! I don’t think it should be put in the same category as spousal abuse.

@trumi Hey stranger! Welcome back. :)