Faith Based Social Welfare

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Furthermore, vocational schools (IE, community colleges)

Community colleges are vocational schools? Or just some? In my area, we separate CC from Votech.

[Coyote]

The thing about learning Latin in an American school is that while Latin and the resultant spinoff languages (French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc) may not be "the most important langauges" anymore or that learning them may reflect a "Eurocentric" bias, but they do accurately reflect the heritage and mindset of the original colonists that came to America.

Later on we'd have to acknowledge the influence of other cultures that influenced the US as it developed-- including the Russian influence that stretched all the way down to Seattle and the Asian and Pacific Islander influences that came as well.

But by the time these cultural forms were brought into US society, the Euro-Roman government and social influence had already prety well entrenched itself.

But in the long run... how does all this help shore up the gates against the Fundy barbarians?

[Darth Wong]

But in the long run... how does all this help shore up the gates against the Fundy barbarians?

It doesn't. An understanding of how the scientific method works is far, far more important. Latin is only useful in the sense that ancient Greek history is, ie- "useless to the vast majority of people but of potential interest to a few".

[Gil Hamilton]

Community colleges are vocational schools? Or just some? In my area, we separate CC from Votech.

Community colleges can be vocational schools. CCAC has loads of vocational programs, ranging from phlebotomy to commercial piloting.

[aten_vs_ra]

Design a school system, eh.

Elementry: Readin', Ritin', and 'Rithmatic are the main focus. The scientfic method will be the only science taught at this level. Hands on art and music instruction are mandatory. Everyone must read music and play one instrument. Also teach one foreign language at this level, my choice is Spanish. PE is a requirement every day. ADD is sometimes nothing but excess energy.

Middle School: Algebra right off the bat, and in only one year. Move on to geometry in the 8th grade. Have english classes focus on reading comprehension AND composition. They should be able to write essays at that level. American history, civics, and world history would be mandatory. The social science department would not be full of coaches because there are no organized sports Science begins with physics instead of biology. Offer additional languages at this level but do not require them. I suggest a Russo-Arabic-Asiatic language for the ambitious.

High School: Similar to the American high school curriculum but majorly buffed up. I suggest creating two high school paths. There should be a terminal path and a college prep path. Advanced liberal arts education is for the prep path obviously. The terminal path could focus on various job skills classes, like a vocation school. Make physics mandatory. The prep class should also learn one additional language at the high school level.
The most ambitious should know 2 romance languages and one Russo-Arabic-Asiatic when they graduate high school.

My ideas; judge for yourself.

[Crown]

Duchess I love your education plan, it is well thought out and it is brilliant. I love the idea of teaching Greek and that other language a lot, but I really have to echo others responses here, they teach Ancient Greek for a year (?) in Greece as part of the curriculum and it is a sort of so-so recieved from all of my cousins who have studied it in terms of usefullness.

But on the other hand all of my cousins speak a second language, and some of them two or three!

But IIRC the best public school system in the EU right now is the Finnish one, which is really ironic 'cause it was designed by a German uni student, and the German one is under constant fire at the moment (or so I am told).

Also, Vympel, you picked Latin over Greek? ... The Hellenic re-education squad has been dispatched to your house.

Oh and Broomstick Alexander was brought under Aristotle's tutorlidge at the ripe old age of 13 (or am I wrong and it was 16), and you better believe that he picked it all up, he even wrote to Aristotle many years later whilst campaigning upon hearing that Aristotle was publishing some of his works and bemoaned that now he (Alexander) would lose his advantage over others!

Anywho, I just got back from Prague (loved it) off to Greece and then Bulgaria for a bit, see you!

[Broomstick]

Oh and Broomstick Alexander was brought under Aristotle's tutorlidge at the ripe old age of 13 (or am I wrong and it was 16), and you better believe that he picked it all up

By any yardstick Alexander was extraordinary -- but a public school system must be designed for the average student, not the exceptional one or two.

[RedImperator]

I would make one argument here in favor of Latin I don't think anybody's brought up yet. While it does have some practical use in and of itself (outside the narrow fields of theology, archaeology, and classical history), the main benefit to studying Latin is that it's a prototype Indo-European language, and since what's commonly studied is classical Latin, it's a language that's been frozen for two thousand years. Classical Latin is rigid, structured, and has very little in the way of irregular words and exceptions to the rules compared to living languages. Because of that, it's almost custom made to be a model of how language itself works (because while the vocabulary and the specifics of grammar vary across languages, the basic structures do not).

There have been some interesting articles--and sadly, I can't reproduce them here--that show a link between the decline of teaching Latin and the decline of general writing skills in the population. I don't think the former is causing all of the latter--I think you can look at the decline of Latin and the decline of teaching writing as symptoms of the overall sloppiness of the education system in general over the last thirty years--but I think there's something to the idea that learning how language works through Latin makes one more proficent in writing in his native tongue. I should point out that the same articles concluded that learning any second language, living or dead, seems to have a positive effect on writing skills in a student's first language, but Latin is particularly well suited to the task because of the very characteristics that make it an impractical subject on the surface. It doesn't matter if ten years down the road the students don't remember enough Latin to read Virgil untranslated. What does matter is that through studying Latin, English grammar, and a living foreign language, they understand as well as can be expected of high school graduates how language works and how to make it work for them.

I don't agree with a good portion of Marina's proposal (primarily the part about art and music), but I think she's dead on putting Latin back in the cirriculum. Extend the school day to fit it in if you have to. I also think, if you're using school to acculturize students (which you should be--the next generation tasked with preserving Western civilization ought to know why it's worth preserving), teaching them the mother tongue of the West (with apologies to Greek) is intriniscally helpful.

[Lusankya]

Oh and Broomstick Alexander was brought under Aristotle's tutorlidge at the ripe old age of 13 (or am I wrong and it was 16), and you better believe that he picked it all up

By any yardstick Alexander was extraordinary -- but a public school system must be designed for the average student, not the exceptional one or two.

And Aristotle would have been contemporary at the time. Back in the day, Shakespeare wrote his plays for the common man, wheras these days, its considered to be "literature".

It's absurd to compare time periods directly like that, or we might start to go: "Oh no! in Ancient Rome, all the children were taught exclusively in Latin, and now hardly anyone speaks it. Oh the woes of today."

[Darth Wong]

There have been some interesting articles--and sadly, I can't reproduce them here--that show a link between the decline of teaching Latin and the decline of general writing skills in the population.

No doubt someone has produced a correlation, but I have serious doubt that they have anything remotely resembling proof of causality.

I don't think the former is causing all of the latter--I think you can look at the decline of Latin and the decline of teaching writing as symptoms of the overall sloppiness of the education system in general over the last thirty years--but I think there's something to the idea that learning how language works through Latin makes one more proficent in writing in his native tongue. I should point out that the same articles concluded that learning any second language, living or dead, seems to have a positive effect on writing skills in a student's first language, but Latin is particularly well suited to the task because of the very characteristics that make it an impractical subject on the surface. It doesn't matter if ten years down the road the students don't remember enough Latin to read Virgil untranslated. What does matter is that through studying Latin, English grammar, and a living foreign language, they understand as well as can be expected of high school graduates how language works and how to make it work for them.

The ratio of gain to time/effort here is not remotely worth it. Learning two extra languages in order to improve your skills in your native tongue is like learning electrical engineering in order to get better insight into calculus. Once you step away from fantasyland, there are a finite amount of time and resources to work with, and adding two extra language classes in pursuit of some vaguely half-substantiated claims about improving your native language skills is simply ridiculous. There are far too many (and bigger) holes that need to be plugged.

[Edi]

The amount of bullshit about language education in this thread is fucking staggering, I just waded through 4+ pages of it, and the number of actual, worthwhile posts could be counted on one hand. Most of those were of the short variety too.

Newsflash, people: Like Broomstick said and Olrik echoed, you learn a language by using it and being immersed in it. Where the hell did you think I learned English this well when my native language is from a whole different family of languages (Fenno-Ugric, not Indo-European) and I had no background at all in any other foreign ones? I started in 3rd grade, and was immersed through TV (original language with subtitling, and watching non-subtitled children's programs on satellite channels) and started reading full books in English at 7th grade. For me, English is just as natural and native as Finnish by now, I DO NOT need to translate anything I read or hear in English to Finnish in order to understand it unless the subject is of a very specialized nature I have no prior detailed knowledge of (e.g. obscure medical stuff or the finer points of cooking).

The way our system works is almost exactly what Aten_vs_Ra said, and it produces results that have consistently ranked Finland's education system in the top 5 in the world.

We must pick a foreign language to study at 3rd grade, choices are English, Swedish, German, Russian and French, if you pick other than English, you can elect English at 5th grade, and by 7th gradce both Swedish and English become mandatory. For us, learning the writing skills for English is comparatively easier than for native speakers, because we learn the spelling at the same time as we pick up the words while native speakers like Americans, British and Canadians need to learn the whole language all over again in some respects because the spelling is different from the pronunciation (In Finnish they are the same, every sound you pronounce is represented by letters).

Personally, I know also Swedish and German enough that an immersion of two or three months would bring my skills up to a level where I could comfortably converse about relatively complex subjects with the aid of resorting to English as intermediary when my skills failed (assuming the other person also knew some English), and in a year or so I'd be passably fluent (enough to be understood clearly, though I'd still mangle German grammar (too bloody complex, cut the genders and I'll do just fine). Some years ago when I had German courses in my subsequently failed engineering schooling, I was fluent enough to hold conversations with the German exchange students and our German teacher who is native speaker and had been living in Finland for 12+ years. Since then, my fluency has atrophied to a point where I can only string together some very basic sentences (active vocabulary is abysmally smal, passive understanding is much better).

As for the natural sciences and math, here's how it works in Finland:

Biology: Starts at 3rd grade, begins with the very basics about taxonomy (animals, plants, fungi) and then moves on to stuff about what the different parts of plants are and how they work, learning about different animals etc and by the time you roll around to 9th grade, there will have been basics about cell biology, a lot about human biology. I don't remember if they taught the theory of evolution as such, there was something about it later on, but hereditary biology was high school stuff. The grounding it gives is solid, and there is no religious nonsense in the classroom.

Geography/geological science: Begins at 3rd grade, starts with basic world geography (continents, seas, native geography), the curriculum progresses through an overview of each continent, climate types etc and at 7th, 8th and 9th grade they start with the real science parts where you're introduced to volcanism, climate mechanisms (cloud formation, wind patterns etc), continental drift and plate theories and so on. Works amazingly well and the high school curriculum is remarkably short, just three courses (was when I was there anyway), but more detailed.

Math: Algebra is introduced at either 7th or 8th grade and and so are equations (quadratic equations come at high school level) and by the end of high school if you take long math (11 courses, vs 7 somewhat more simple courses for short math) you will be familiar with derivation, integrals, statistical math and so forth. Very efficient if one applies oneself.

Physics and chemistry: start at 8th grade, where the basics are covered. These are properly high school subjects almost in their entirety. High school physics is rather comprehensive if one goes through all eight courses. Chemistry is just four courses, but it again covers a lot of ground. This is where the real teaching of the scientific method comes in, and begins at grade 8.

The art subjects are compulsory to 9th grade and in high school you can drop them after you've taken one course in either visual arts or music (I positively hated every single music lesson after 2nd grade, because they forced us to play instruments and I was generally bored out of my mind, and I also disliked the visual arts stuff (no talent or aptitude for that, though I can make decent copies by hand drawing from an existing picture).

In Finnish, we were doing essays at 5th or 6th grade and onwards, though not really as homework until high school grades 10 through 12). In 9th grade we were required to do well researched presentations on some aspects of Finnish folklore, to last no less than 15 minutes per person.

Civics is taught as a separate subject in 5th and 6th grade, alongside history in 9th and in high school there is a separate comprehensive course on that.

Everyone must also study cooking for one year (7th grade) and one semester of both carpentry and similar crafts and sewing and such needlework related stuff (can take these three as optionals in 8th and 9th grade, they are not available in high school but are more an intro to vocational school stuff for those who go that route after middle school).

PE is mandatory all throughout, though it becomes elective in high school after three courses. If you want to go the athlete route, there are high schools that specialize in that and the qualification requirements for them (as well as the music and visual art oriented ones) are brutal to cut out the mediocrities whose parents are having delusions of grandeur.

So, take this model as you will, but on this board Sir Sirius, Oberleutnant, myself and Lord Revan are all products of this system, and I think we have turned out rather well.

Finally, to address Red's points, because I think they merit some additional comment beyond Mike's very valid point:

I would make one argument here in favor of Latin I don't think anybody's brought up yet. While it does have some practical use in and of itself (outside the narrow fields of theology, archaeology, and classical history), the main benefit to studying Latin is that it's a prototype Indo-European language, and since what's commonly studied is classical Latin, it's a language that's been frozen for two thousand years. Classical Latin is rigid, structured, and has very little in the way of irregular words and exceptions to the rules compared to living languages. Because of that, it's almost custom made to be a model of how language itself works (because while the vocabulary and the specifics of grammar vary across languages, the basic structures do not).

Languages need not necessarilybe completely rigid and structured, so your statement is not axiomatic. It might apply in greater degree to Indo-European languages, but even in that family, Latin is part of the Italic language branch (the root of the surviving languages, actually) while English belongs to the Anglo-Frisian sub-branch of the West Germanic sub-branch of the Germanic main branch.

You could just as well take German, for example, it has rigid structure, much more so than English, and it also has the added benefit of having some number of irregular verbs and exceptions, which are important concepts in any study of language. Additionally, German is a living and relatively important (in Europe anyway) language, and while complex, it is not as complex as Latin is.

Besides, English itself has a very rigid structure, and the grammar is relatively easy precisely because there are not so many rules (but the ones that are there are cast in iron). THe main problem is the huge number of irregularities.

Of course, my take is based on having Finnish as a native language, and it has a relatively small number of hard structural rules (the only absolute requirement: Every sentence must have a verb. "No" is a negative verb.) but the use of suffixes instead of prepositions makes for a massive number of conjugations for all nouns, adjectives, numerals and pronouns (14 per word). This suffixing also means that you can put the words of any single sentence (ones not connected to another with "but" and similar bridge words) in any random order and the meaning is unaltered, whereas in English "The dog bit the man" and "The man bit the dog" mean completely different things.

There have been some interesting articles--and sadly, I can't reproduce them here--that show a link between the decline of teaching Latin and the decline of general writing skills in the population. I don't think the former is causing all of the latter--I think you can look at the decline of Latin and the decline of teaching writing as symptoms of the overall sloppiness of the education system in general over the last thirty years--but I think there's something to the idea that learning how language works through Latin makes one more proficent in writing in his native tongue.

Lax standards of education is what your trouble is and teachers not enforcing stricter ones on students. You could substitute almost any of the more common Indo-European languages for Latin, or a random Fenno-Ugric one (Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian, Sami, or one of the endangered ones inside Russia's borders) and use the structural elements of that to the same end.

It all boils down to Broomstick's point about learning a second language early and immersion. I'm Exhibit A for that argument: Completely fluent in two languages from separate, totally unrelated language families without any prior knowledge of the precursors of either one. What did happen was that I studied English from an early age and have been massively immersed in it (and additionally benefiting from the point about learning spelling at the same time as I learned to speak and later learning through reading).

I should point out that the same articles concluded that learning any second language, living or dead, seems to have a positive effect on writing skills in a student's first language, but Latin is particularly well suited to the task because of the very characteristics that make it an impractical subject on the surface. It doesn't matter if ten years down the road the students don't remember enough Latin to read Virgil untranslated. What does matter is that through studying Latin, English grammar, and a living foreign language, they understand as well as can be expected of high school graduates how language works and how to make it work for them.

I think the findings would have been exactly the same if they swapped Latin for a second living language. I've studied my native language and three separate (but related) foreign languages, and that gave me a very good picture about how languages work and how to make the best of them for myself.

I don't agree with a good portion of Marina's proposal (primarily the part about art and music), but I think she's dead on putting Latin back in the cirriculum. Extend the school day to fit it in if you have to.

This is the kind of head-in-the-clouds fantasy land bullshit I would never have expected from you, Red. You can get the same or similar enough results and much more bang for your buck by requiring one foreign language in depth (9 years of study for high schoolers) and adding a second living foreign language. It's about excercising the language processing portions of your brain, not about one specific language, and Latin frankly is no magic cure-all solution. It also has the drawback of being deadweight compared to other available and more efficient options (like having one foreign language related to your native one and one from a different language group, e.g. Fenno-Ugric or the East Asian ones).

I also think, if you're using school to acculturize students (which you should be--the next generation tasked with preserving Western civilization ought to know why it's worth preserving), teaching them the mother tongue of the West (with apologies to Greek) is intriniscally helpful.

Another more or less fantasy land argument, this one. That's what the history classes are for, you need exactly zero knowledge of Latin or Greek (apart from such common knowledge sayings as "Alea jacta est") to be able to learn the whys and hows of western civilization, what it's all about and why it's worth preserving. Again, I offer you Exhibit A: myself. All I know about Latin is a couple of sayings, and I know even less Greek, yet I didn't need either to become acculturized.

Edi

[Broomstick]

Elementry: Readin', Ritin', and 'Rithmatic are the main focus. The scientfic method will be the only science taught at this level. Hands on art and music instruction are mandatory. Everyone must read music and play one instrument. Also teach one foreign language at this level, my choice is Spanish. PE is a requirement every day. ADD is sometimes nothing but excess energy.

Hey, yeah, I like this... start with the basics.

I think science should be simple at this level - the scientific method should be a part of the curriculum, with no religious involvement. It should also incorporate some hands-on experimentation and observation, using age-appropriate tasks. Identification of plants, animals, minerals and other features of the local environment. How to build a cushioning system to enable a raw egg to survive a drop, or building bridges of things like cardboard that must support the weight of a person -- stuff that will require working out a problem, dealing with initial failure, solving problems, and so forth. It should NOT be solely an adult doing a demonstration that children passively watch. It could also be things like taking about clocks or computer printers (presumably ones that have ceased to operate) to see how the objects in the world are constructed, fit together, and work (well, supposedly work ) All of which may not be seen as "real science" but at this level you need to get the kids interested in the world around them and how and why it works. Then give them the tools to find out.

Introduce some things like art and music to identify those with that aptitude/interest - also because at elementary ages (6-10 or 12) children need hand-eye coordination development and breaks from abstract thinking. Yes, they can handle abstracts, or at least start to, but not hours on end of it.

Second language -- yes, I think in most of the US Spanish would be the second language of choice, though some areas could argue for French or Spanish or even some other language based on history, culture, or near neighbors (I learned in French in part due to Canada being only 11 miles away from where I lived, and having that second language enabled me to get a job very early on because the particular office needed someone to talk to people in Quebec). In Hawaii, learning Hawaiian might be justified, as an example. But the point is that you learn that second language early. It matters more that you acquire a second lanage prior to puberty than what, exactly, that language is.

PE every day, but hopefully better than some of the PE crap I had to endure. A mix of individual and team activities, promoting speed/strength/endurance modes of motion. This might be an area where children can start choosing areas of study early - "Timmy, do you want dodgeball or obstacle course for the next two weeks?" If so, once chosen children can't change their minds about the activity - consider it an education in choices, consequences, and perseverance.

And in complete agreement about ADD some times being "too much energy" - kids are NOT little adults! The aren't designed to sit still in a chair for 8 hours. (For that matter, neither are adults, but I digress...) When PE was mandatory and young kids had a recess both morning and afternoon there was a lot less of that being diagnosed. Kids require movement and activity to properly develop bone and muscle and given half a chance will engage in hectic, wild, chaotic physical activity without prompting - as the parent of any toddler will tell you. Children, especially young children, need physical activity. In the 80's and 90's US schools started getting rid of recess - it's a "waste of time", right? - and now what do we have? Soaring rates of inactivity and obesity. It's not just the sugar in the soda.

Middle School: Algebra right off the bat, and in only one year. Move on to geometry in the 8th grade. Have english classes focus on reading comprehension AND composition. They should be able to write essays at that level. American history, civics, and world history would be mandatory. The social science department would not be full of coaches because there are no organized sports Science begins with physics instead of biology. Offer additional languages at this level but do not require them. I suggest a Russo-Arabic-Asiatic language for the ambitious.

Yep - at this point the kids are capable of sitting still longer, and concentrating longer. Time to crank up the abstract academics. I think perhaps history and what's commonly called "social studies" should be combined into one, giving a better context for the knowledge. Geography should be involved in that, too.

I'm not sure they need a specific "English" course at this point - they should know how to write coherently by this point. Writing should be incorporated into other classwork, such as writing essays and reports in history, or a report for a science class. At this point they should be using English skills, not learning them.

And it's time to start introducing more choices. Another language? OK - give the kid some choices and let him/her choose at this point (presumably the kid already has English and one other). Don't want a third language? OK - maybe a class in types of writing - journalism/reporting vs. essay vs. business/corporate forms of communication and yes, there is some room for "creative writing" but it should be in the context of one of a variety of forms. Start introducing some of those "life-skills" classes - yes, I think a short course in handtools/woodshop should be required, but it doesn't have to be a whole semster and could be integrated into the "practical knowledge" curriculum. Then have the option for an elective in that area for those who want to continue in that area. I think public speaking should figure into the "life skills" class. Part of this class could also involve some community service work (I won't call it "volunteer" - if it's mandatory it's not volunteer, but given that the community at large supports the public schools there no good reason the kids can't be asked to give some back) There's a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't require intensive course work but that kids really should be exposed to starting around 12 or so. In middle school they still need exposure to broad areas of knowledge to build a base for later. It's a different form of education than absorbing facts, but no less important..

In middle school yes, I think the music and art and organized sports should be either extra-curriculur or outside of school acitivities unless a kid is being tracked in that direction. There is room for "specialty high schools" but there need to be some entry requirements to get in..

High School: Similar to the American high school curriculum but majorly buffed up. I suggest creating two high school paths. There should be a terminal path and a college prep path. Advanced liberal arts education is for the prep path obviously. The terminal path could focus on various job skills classes, like a vocation school. Make physics mandatory. The prep class should also learn one additional language at the high school level. The most ambitious should know 2 romance languages and one Russo-Arabic-Asiatic when they graduate high school.

The problem with two discrete paths is that one will always be seen as more prestigious and parents will push their kids towards that, whether the kid is suited for that or not. This is why most kids in the US are pushed into college prep and our trade schools are dying.

In high school, the kids should start getting ready for either work or further education (probably some of both, to be honest). Kids headed for a career in science should heavy up on math and science. A kid headed for the corporate world might spend some time in internships, seeing how the business world works up close and personal. A kid heading for something like a mechanic area might take shop classes or a math class geared more towards math used in engineering rather than the math used in, say astrophysics. In other words, they should start to specialize. Some time in the school day might be set aside not as "study hall" but independent study geared towards their final goal. So, someone intent on a career in the arts might legitimately use this time for preparing a portfolio or rehearsing since that is their goal... and a science student might be setting up and conducting their own experiments. Want to be a writer? OK - write - but you will have deadlines and you be required to submit your work for publication. NOT in a "student magazine" (that's for middle school) but an adult publication. What to be a muscian? OK - but in addition to rehearsing you will be playing public, if not paying gigs than some other forum that require you to show up on time and perform to standard in the public realm. This will, of course, need to be supervised but it's doable. By this point, all students should have completed the "basics" and additional advanced academics suitable to their chosen path.

So... here's a rough breakdown (in my opinion) of how the day is spent in school:
Elementary (US grade 1-4): 50% reading/writing/math/science basics and second language, 25% hands-on learning/arts, 25% PE and recess

Middle school (US grade 5-8 ): 25% literature/reading/writing/language studies, 25% math/science, 25% history/social studies/civics, etc, 25% "practical knowledge" and life skills

High school (US grade 9-12) 25% literature/history/language studies, 25% math/science, 25% practical/life skills, 25% specialization. This would mean a math/science student would actually spend 50% of his/her time in the math/sciences, but a student with a focus in international business or relations would spend 50% of his/her time in the literature/history/language spectrum, perhaps with an emphasis on recent history to better understand modern cultures.

With this system all students would emerge (ideally) with a broad base of knowledge and a well-rounded education, but still be prepped for a career path. And you really do need to be well-rounded, so if later on you want to change careers (something that is becoming more common as people live longer, healthier lives) you have a broad knowledge base already on which to build and don't have to spend years playing catch up on basic you should have gotten young.

[Alan Bolte]

Edi, that's just not fair. Not at all. You get actual biology and such at the 3rd grade, while we get politicized bullshit like spending a month learning about pigs and making stupid crafts projects about pigs?

[Crown]

The way our system works is almost exactly what Aten_vs_Ra said, and it produces results that have consistently ranked Finland's education system in the top 5 in the world.

Edi

I believe I mentioned that the Finnish system is ranked as the best in the EU AFAIK, IIRC ...

Come on! Throw a brother some love here, I don't get to read and post here as often as I would like anymore, you could at least try!

Oh and Broomstick Alexander was brought under Aristotle's tutorlidge at the ripe old age of 13 (or am I wrong and it was 16), and you better believe that he picked it all up

By any yardstick Alexander was extraordinary -- but a public school system must be designed for the average student, not the exceptional one or two.

You can't do that! You are using logic and a clearly defined reasoning to defeat my point, that's unfair that is!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The school system should be designed to give the average student an A, however--in any subject. It should be decided to give them a C. It must be acknowledged that below-average students may very well flunk; but with the quality of the school system so improved, having flunked out will not look worse than having only a diploma does today, and they can always go the GED route.

[salm]

damn, the finish school system rocks. why weren´t we allowed to drop shit like music. music was mandatory till 11th grade. in 12th and 13th grade at least one art subject was mandatory.

[HemlockGrey]

Marina, I must protest the idea that calculators will be banned in school. For sciences like chemistry and physics, where you must make numerous rote calculations relatively quickly in order to accomplish a greater end, calculators are absolutely necessary to avoid being bogged down in a mountain of pencil-and-paper calculations.

Further, I think an advanced math student has proven that he can complete basic mathematical problems to the extent that he can be trusted to use a calculator to solve basic problems that tie into larger, more complicated problems.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Marina, I must protest the idea that calculators will be banned in school. For sciences like chemistry and physics, where you must make numerous rote calculations relatively quickly in order to accomplish a greater end, calculators are absolutely necessary to avoid being bogged down in a mountain of pencil-and-paper calculations.

Further, I think an advanced math student has proven that he can complete basic mathematical problems to the extent that he can be trusted to use a calculator to solve basic problems that tie into larger, more complicated problems.

Calculators were only invented in the past few decades, and the majority of math done at even the High School level was invented long before that. Even Matrices, for that matter, somewhat predate the hand-held calculator. I grant that a normal scientific calculator might be useful for several things (like log tables) which it would be ridiculous for a student to be expected to learn in this day and age, but otherwise a student should be able to perform math that they will ecounter before college without one. Perhaps some sort of stripped down scientific calculator could be produced for the schools and issued in class. That would be especially important to prevent students from bringing in calculators with a memory function.

[Crown]

Marina, I must protest the idea that calculators will be banned in school. For sciences like chemistry and physics, where you must make numerous rote calculations relatively quickly in order to accomplish a greater end, calculators are absolutely necessary to avoid being bogged down in a mountain of pencil-and-paper calculations.

Further, I think an advanced math student has proven that he can complete basic mathematical problems to the extent that he can be trusted to use a calculator to solve basic problems that tie into larger, more complicated problems.

Calculators were only invented in the past few decades, and the majority of math done at even the High School level was invented long before that. Even Matrices, for that matter, somewhat predate the hand-held calculator. I grant that a normal scientific calculator might be useful for several things (like log tables) which it would be ridiculous for a student to be expected to learn in this day and age, but otherwise a student should be able to perform math that they will ecounter before college without one. Perhaps some sort of stripped down scientific calculator could be produced for the schools and issued in class. That would be especially important to prevent students from bringing in calculators with a memory function.

Marina, my final year design exam took four hours, my lecturer's (one from the then U.S.S.R and the other from Germany) took four days, for god's sake, there comes a point where pure number crunching is just defeating the point of learning.

I agree that banning calculators until the basics are mastered (and here I would say 9th to 10th grade) will produce better basic skills, but after this point it becomes ludicrous.

My sister (three years older) did the same subject I did in Maths for the final two years without a graphics calculator. She has pages and pages of notes, I don't, but I am still more compatent at it that she is.

I think at this point you are either a Math person or not, and nothing is really going to change that.

[Broomstick]

Calculators were only invented in the past few decades

Gosh, I'm old enough to remember the first calculator my family bought - mostly for my dad. It was the size of a shoebox, ate batteries like a starving doberman eats steak, and cost a bundle.

Ah, memories....

Speaking of memory - it didn't have any. You can get calculators that do what that one did for free as a keychain give-away these days that run on a solar power chip. Progress.

Anyhow - while electronic calculators, the sort with circuits and light displays, are relatively new mechanical calculators to aleviate some of the tedium of calculations are NOT new. Moving backwards in time, we have slide rules and log tables. I myself own an E6B WWII-era flight computer, a.k.a. "whiz wheel", which is essentially a circular slide rule for performing aviation-related calculations (no big deal, really - pilots are still required to learn how to use an E6B and they're readily available). And yes, I have actually used the thing in flight - I can operate it with just one hand, it never needs new batteries, and if it gets loose and starts bouncing around the cockpit in heavy turbulence it is unlikely to cause injury if it whacks into the side of my head. Manual cash registers - which date back into the 19th Century - are nothing more than mechanical calculators, as are the old mechanized adding machines. Going still further back we have the venerable abacus, which is still used in various parts of the world even today.

So, actually, calculators date back centuries, not decades.

and the majority of math done at even the High School level was invented long before that. Even Matrices, for that matter, somewhat predate the hand-held calculator. I grant that a normal scientific calculator might be useful for several things (like log tables) which it would be ridiculous for a student to be expected to learn in this day and age

It's not like anyone was ever expected to memorize log tables - that's why they were arranged in tables for reference in the first place.

but otherwise a student should be able to perform math that they will ecounter before college without one.

Fine - they can demonstrate that ability by passing basic math courses. But once they've demonstrated that ability there's no point in forcing them to drudge through the mathematical equivalent of stoop labor. It's a waste of time better spent on mastering more complex tasks.

Perhaps some sort of stripped down scientific calculator could be produced for the schools and issued in class. That would be especially important to prevent students from bringing in calculators with a memory function.

Oh, hell, just let them use those damn keychain-fob sized basic calculators that do basic arithmatic.

You know, when I was doing ground school for the pilot's license I had to learn the pencil-and-paper version of the various calculations I needed to do, then the "whiz wheel" method. But for the fucking written test they let you bring in a calculator (yes, they do check it to make sure the memory is blank, just as they make sure you aren't carrying answers anywhere else) because they only give you two hours for it and they prefer that 99.99% of applicants actually have time to finsh the damn thing.

In the real world scientists use calculators and computers all the damn time. Presumably, education should prepare children for the real world. Insisting on paper and pencil all the way through the end of high school is on par with insisting that using a hand pump to obtain water from a well is somehow superior to utilizing an electric pump or munipal water supply so, prior to the age of 18, no one should be permitted to use a water tap.

[Broomstick]

Oh and Broomstick Alexander was brought under Aristotle's tutorlidge at the ripe old age of 13 (or am I wrong and it was 16), and you better believe that he picked it all up

By any yardstick Alexander was extraordinary -- but a public school system must be designed for the average student, not the exceptional one or two.

You can't do that! You are using logic and a clearly defined reasoning to defeat my point, that's unfair that is!

bwa-HA-HA-HA!!!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So, actually, calculators date back centuries, not decades.

Generally such devices are referred to as mechanical computers. Calculation is just one of the things that a computer can do--I've always thought of calculators as being the specialized electronic computers we know so well, and mechanical computers as what you refer to (the first were invented in hellenistic times).

Yes, there is some math that it would not be unreasonable to allow use of a calculator for. But a firm grasp of the concepts is a must before they're allowed extensively. Calculus is, I'l acknowledge, probably the point that starts.

[Broomstick]

It must be acknowledged that below-average students may very well flunk; but with the quality of the school system so improved, having flunked out will not look worse than having only a diploma does today, and they can always go the GED route.

If a student is incapable of mastering high school subjects he/she is also incapable of passing the GED test. That is, really, the point of the test - to demonstrate you have the equivalent of a high school education, it was not intended as a "high school diploma lite".

Which is really a good point to bring up - the GED was originally intended as a way for people who had not had an opportunity to finish high school to get the equivalent of a diploma, allowing them to continue their education if they chose to do so. These were NOT necessarially people who had flunked - I had four uncles who went the GED route. Why didn't they finish high school? After my grandfather died two of them had quit school to get a job to help keep the family of 11 people fed because back in those days you didn't have food stamps or welfare checks or social security, it was a matter of survival and it enabled several other family members to finish high school. The other two - they enlisted in the Marines and spent what would have been their senior year of high school fighting the Nazis and the Japanese which, needless to say, left little time for study, although uncle Don greatly improved his vocabulary by reading the dictionary between battles. The pages he had finished also served as toilet paper when supplies ran low. Don also picked up Italian during his stint in Europe, which made him very useful later on when working undercover in the St. Louis police force. Uncle Don didn't drop out of high school because he was a loser or dumb - he really did have more pressing concerns than sitting in a classroom.

When WWII was over they all came home and within six months sat and passed the GED.

It is still utilized by many people who are ill or handicapped - someone who has medical problems that prevent attendance at a regular high school may opt for GED not because they are incapable of passing but because they are physically unable to fulfill some of the requirements of high school, like being physically present in the classroom a certain number of days per year. (granted, this is changing and was a more common problem 20 or more years ago, before the courts forced the public schools to be more reasonable about some of these situations).

It is also utilized by homeschoolers, to enable the kids to prove they have completed the equivalent of a high school education and enable them to go on to colleges and universities.

So, contrary to the prejudices of many, a GED is not solely the provence of losers and slackers and those who flunk out. And frankly, if someone DID fuck up in their teens and drop out of school I would really prefer there IS a mechansim by which they can rectify that mistake and enable them to re-enter the educational system as an adult.

All of which gets back into how different tracks wind up with different status. Personally, I have more respect for someone who fucks up, goes back and gets their GED, and proceeds to improve their situation than I do for someone who coasts through high school then does jack shit other than sit in front of the TV for the next 10 years and works a shit minimum wage job with no desire to move up in the world.

[Broomstick]

So, actually, calculators date back centuries, not decades.

Generally such devices are referred to as mechanical computers. Calculation is just one of the things that a computer can do--I've always thought of calculators as being the specialized electronic computers we know so well, and mechanical computers as what you refer to (the first were invented in hellenistic times).

Yes, there is some math that it would not be unreasonable to allow use of a calculator for. But a firm grasp of the concepts is a must before they're allowed extensively. Calculus is, I'l acknowledge, probably the point that starts.

Hmm... yes, I think at this point it becomes a quibble about precisely when it becomes appropriate. Shall we say that, as a general rule, any pre-high school level math should be no-caculator? But perhaps they could be allowed in some science courses earlier than in math courses because in the science course the emphasis should be the subject at hand, the science. Certainly, some of the calculations I was doing in high school chemistry and physics were quite tedious (I was in high school before calculators became a fashion accessory) and we could have covered more territory, and that territory in more depth, if we could have been spared some of the hand labor involved. A student wasn't able to enroll in high school physics in my district without first completing a minimum (if I recall correctly - it has been a long time) of two years of algebra and a geometry course so we had to have already demonstrated that level competency prior to entering the class.

[Lusankya]

The world will have to change a lot for language study to take on some meaning in English-speaking countries.

Firstly, noone cares about language studies here. Sometimes I swear that if I hear anyone say, "Why are you studying that? English is the international language anyway," I'll poke my eye out. Basically, it's considered to be an acedemic exercise rather than gaining fluency - learning the language gives you a head start on gaining fluency when you go to a country that speaks that language, nothing more. I'd love it if the focus changed, but that's not going to happen without serious social change. Bah. In my last year of Chinese, we didn't have to say a word all year, apart from the oral exam. That really pissed me off. As a matter of fact, I think I'll go to the venting thread shortly to get it off my back.

Secondly, while English, as the international language, is a logical choice as a second language for people in non-English speaking countries, here there is no uniformity in language studies from school to school. At primary school, we learned Greek, but there were always new students moving to the area, and they didn't know any Greek, so as a result, our "studies" never went beyond the basic level. When I went to boarding school, the school offered French and Chinese. Had I gone to a different school, they would have offered different choices entirely. As a result, the teaching doesn't really start until year 8, and when it does, many teachers teach it with the expectation that most of the students will quit the language before year 12.

Anyway, while I love language-learning and I think everyone should learn a language, I think that all the proposed schooling systems place far too much emphasis on it. The number of languages you know at the end of it all is not the be-all and end-all of an education. Perhaps it might give the student some appreciation of the ways of life of the countries that speak those languages (most language programs seem to have some kind of cultural component), but if that's the only thing that most people are going to take away from their languge studies, then it would be better to have a subject that dealt directly with the cultures, rather than teaching it through the language. Especially since the greater part of manners when in another cultural setting is not in speaking the language, but knowing when to speak and how to act. I could speak fluent Mandarin Chinese, but I could still put my foot in it by acting inappropropriately. As a matter of fact, it would be easier to put my foot in it if I spoke the language fluently, because people would assume that because I spoke their language, therefore I understood most of the norms of interaction, so my poor behaviour would be seen as a reflection on myself, rather than just me being a stupid ignorant westerner.