Debate Now The Dumbing Down of America

[Hossfly]

Judging from who our next pres will be I'd say the dumbing down has worked.

Well now!

​

Hi Hoss,I see you still have this Thing for Hillary......what is it with you>>>>>>>>and her...........my mate Hoss......Steve

Can't you just feel the love I have for Ms. Rotten Crotch?

 

[theliq]

Judging from who our next pres will be I'd say the dumbing down has worked.

Well now!

​

Hi Hoss,I see you still have this Thing for Hillary......what is it with you>>>>>>>>and her...........my mate Hoss......Steve

Can't you just feel the love I have for Ms. Rotten Crotch?

You can Love someone Hossie,without going down on them...LOL...steve

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay guys. Let's keep it kinda sorta civil.

And let's agree that history or constitution was not Hillary's strong suit and it remains to be seen whether it will be with our current President--it is too early to tell. Our current President does have a degree in economics which I deem a good thing.

And I agree with Coyote that kids aren't going to learn much up against parents who demand their child be advanced without earning it. Or who don't care what goes on in school or how their kid is doing. Both situations put a teacher in a terrible position.

But what if we went back to the old system in which children and youth were required to show a reasonable proficiency in core curriculum before they could advance to the next grade or graduate? What if there were again strong PTA associations and parents were embarrassed to not participate at all? That teachers respected themselves in conduct and dress and required the students to do the same? And a school took great pride in actually educating the students instead of just getting most of them through the school year.

Given the deplorable knowledge some of our highschool and even college graduates are demonstrating in the most basic concept of civics, law, and history, what if they actually completed an education well versed in those subjects. I wonder how different society might be?

 

[theliq]

Okay guys. Let's keep it kinda sorta civil.

And let's agree that history or constitution was not Hillary's strong suit and it remains to be seen whether it will be with our current President--it is too early to tell. Our current President does have a degree in economics which I deem a good thing.

And I agree with Coyote that kids aren't going to learn much up against parents who demand their child be advanced without earning it. Or who don't care what goes on in school or how their kid is doing. Both situations put a teacher in a terrible position.

But what if we went back to the old system in which children and youth were required to show a reasonable proficiency in core curriculum before they could advance to the next grade or graduate? What if there were again strong PTA associations and parents were embarrassed to not participate at all? That teachers respected themselves in conduct and dress and required the students to do the same? And a school took great pride in actually educating the students instead of just getting most of them through the school year.

Given the deplorable knowledge some of our highschool and even college graduates are demonstrating in the most basic concept of civics, law, and history, what if they actually completed an education well versed in those subjects. I wonder how different society might be?

Hold on Foxy...Hossie and I have this on going social intercourse,which has been trucking on for a couple of years now,it is always civil between us (although it may not look it from the outside admittedly) But I love this Guy and he is always welcome at my table,providing I keep an eye on the Liquor (LOL,joking mate) and Hossie does not mention the Fantasies he has for Hillary........wether she is wearing a Suit or Not......LOL......regards Hossie,and Best Regards to you Foxy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay guys. Let's keep it kinda sorta civil.

And let's agree that history or constitution was not Hillary's strong suit and it remains to be seen whether it will be with our current President--it is too early to tell. Our current President does have a degree in economics which I deem a good thing.

And I agree with Coyote that kids aren't going to learn much up against parents who demand their child be advanced without earning it. Or who don't care what goes on in school or how their kid is doing. Both situations put a teacher in a terrible position.

But what if we went back to the old system in which children and youth were required to show a reasonable proficiency in core curriculum before they could advance to the next grade or graduate? What if there were again strong PTA associations and parents were embarrassed to not participate at all? That teachers respected themselves in conduct and dress and required the students to do the same? And a school took great pride in actually educating the students instead of just getting most of them through the school year.

Given the deplorable knowledge some of our highschool and even college graduates are demonstrating in the most basic concept of civics, law, and history, what if they actually completed an education well versed in those subjects. I wonder how different society might be?

Hold on Foxy...Hossie and I have this on going social intercourse,which has been trucking on for a couple of years now,it is always civil between us (although it may not look it from the outside admittedly) But I love this Guy and he is always welcome at my table,providing I keep an eye on the Liquor (LOL,joking mate) and Hossie does not mention the Fantasies he has for Hillary........wether she is wearing a Suit or Not......LOL......regards Hossie,and Best Regards to you Foxy.

I took it as teasing my friend, ergo the smilie. It's just that others who aren't teasing could take it as license to go at it in an un-teasing sort of way. Just a bit of caution that's all.

 

[Pogo]

My living memory doesn't go back far enough to remember this thread but I see it popped up, so I guess it's "back"...

And let's agree that history or constitution was not Hillary's strong suit and it remains to be seen whether it will be with our current President--it is too early to tell. Our current President does have a degree in economics which I deem a good thing.

Actually I don't see a reason to deem it is; Politics and Business work in opposite directions Business wants profit for itself, which it gains from the public. It wants efficiency and abhors personal liberties or idiosyncrasies; those are not efficient. A (small D) democratic society on the other hand can't be 'efficient' if it's going to promote liberties among its population. That requires fostering individuality while business requires suppressing it. Liberty is by definition "messy", even chaotic. For the extreme example see Nazi Germany --- a society run for efficiency, like a business .... a business that did not specialize in personal liberties.

As for the Constitution I think we all know (and knew before the election) far more about Rump's attitude toward it than we knew about Clinton's since he directly threatened several of the Bill of Rights even during the campaign, specifically the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and stated his opposition to them starkly and fairly directly. I'm not aware of similar stated threats from Clinton (or any other candidate).

And I agree with Coyote that kids aren't going to learn much up against parents who demand their child be advanced without earning it. Or who don't care what goes on in school or how their kid is doing. Both situations put a teacher in a terrible position.

But what if we went back to the old system in which children and youth were required to show a reasonable proficiency in core curriculum before they could advance to the next grade or graduate? What if there were again strong PTA associations and parents were embarrassed to not participate at all? That teachers respected themselves in conduct and dress and required the students to do the same? And a school took great pride in actually educating the students instead of just getting most of them through the school year.

Given the deplorable knowledge some of our highschool and even college graduates are demonstrating in the most basic concept of civics, law, and history, what if they actually completed an education well versed in those subjects. I wonder how different society might be?

This apparently hearkens back to the OP premise that kids are "not being taught" about the Constitution etc. I don't know that that's true; I suspect it's more a case that kids are being taught just as we were but have far more distractions competing for their attention. When you and I were walking six miles uphill to school both ways back in the pre-Cambrian era we had no smartphones or Nosebooks or Twitters. At most we had notes passed around in class and the boob tube by night.

Perhaps then what kids aren't being taught is why civics matters and why one should be delving headfirst into one's own history. And in this cacophonous multimedia environment where we invent things just because we can, I'm not even sure there's a way to do that, given the addictive nature of those technological distractions. It's far more façile and far more emotional-feedback satisfying to run to one's phone to see how many "followers" one has and how one can troll some imaginary virtual adversary.

 

[theliq]

Okay guys. Let's keep it kinda sorta civil.

And let's agree that history or constitution was not Hillary's strong suit and it remains to be seen whether it will be with our current President--it is too early to tell. Our current President does have a degree in economics which I deem a good thing.

And I agree with Coyote that kids aren't going to learn much up against parents who demand their child be advanced without earning it. Or who don't care what goes on in school or how their kid is doing. Both situations put a teacher in a terrible position.

But what if we went back to the old system in which children and youth were required to show a reasonable proficiency in core curriculum before they could advance to the next grade or graduate? What if there were again strong PTA associations and parents were embarrassed to not participate at all? That teachers respected themselves in conduct and dress and required the students to do the same? And a school took great pride in actually educating the students instead of just getting most of them through the school year.

Given the deplorable knowledge some of our highschool and even college graduates are demonstrating in the most basic concept of civics, law, and history, what if they actually completed an education well versed in those subjects. I wonder how different society might be?

Hold on Foxy...Hossie and I have this on going social intercourse,which has been trucking on for a couple of years now,it is always civil between us (although it may not look it from the outside admittedly) But I love this Guy and he is always welcome at my table,providing I keep an eye on the Liquor (LOL,joking mate) and Hossie does not mention the Fantasies he has for Hillary........wether she is wearing a Suit or Not......LOL......regards Hossie,and Best Regards to you Foxy.

I took it as teasing my friend, ergo the smilie. It's just that others who aren't teasing could take it as license to go at it in an un-teasing sort of way. Just a bit of caution that's all.

Well Caution hey Foxy,I'll give you my version of Caution...Enjoy play loudly....steve...

 

[Foxfyre]

My living memory doesn't go back far enough to remember this thread but I see it popped up, so I guess it's "back"...

And let's agree that history or constitution was not Hillary's strong suit and it remains to be seen whether it will be with our current President--it is too early to tell. Our current President does have a degree in economics which I deem a good thing.

Actually I don't see a reason to deem it is; Politics and Business work in opposite directions Business wants profit for itself, which it gains from the public. It wants efficiency and abhors personal liberties or idiosyncrasies; those are not efficient. A (small D) democratic society on the other hand can't be 'efficient' if it's going to promote liberties among its population. That requires fostering individuality while business requires suppressing it. Liberty is by definition "messy", even chaotic. For the extreme example see Nazi Germany --- a society run for efficiency, like a business .... a business that did not specialize in personal liberties.

As for the Constitution I think we all know (and knew before the election) far more about Rump's attitude toward it than we knew about Clinton's since he directly threatened several of the Bill of Rights even during the campaign, specifically the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and stated his opposition to them starkly and fairly directly. I'm not aware of similar stated threats from Clinton (or any other candidate).

And I agree with Coyote that kids aren't going to learn much up against parents who demand their child be advanced without earning it. Or who don't care what goes on in school or how their kid is doing. Both situations put a teacher in a terrible position.

But what if we went back to the old system in which children and youth were required to show a reasonable proficiency in core curriculum before they could advance to the next grade or graduate? What if there were again strong PTA associations and parents were embarrassed to not participate at all? That teachers respected themselves in conduct and dress and required the students to do the same? And a school took great pride in actually educating the students instead of just getting most of them through the school year.

Given the deplorable knowledge some of our highschool and even college graduates are demonstrating in the most basic concept of civics, law, and history, what if they actually completed an education well versed in those subjects. I wonder how different society might be?

This apparently hearkens back to the OP premise that kids are "not being taught" about the Constitution etc. I don't know that that's true; I suspect it's more a case that kids are being taught just as we were but have far more distractions competing for their attention. When you and I were walking six miles uphill to school both ways back in the pre-Cambrian era we had no smartphones or Nosebooks or Twitters. At most we had notes passed around in class and the boob tube by night.

Perhaps then what kids aren't being taught is why civics matters and why one should be delving headfirst into one's own history. And in this cacophonous multimedia environment where we invent things just because we can, I'm not even sure there's a way to do that, given the addictive nature of those technological distractions. It's far more façile and far more emotional-feedback satisfying to run to one's phone to see how many "followers" one has and how one can troll some imaginary virtual adversary.

IMO, somebody who knows at least the essentials of concept of the Constitution, who has studied honest history rather than the socially correct version of it, who has a good grounding in basic economics, and who has been taught how and encouraged to think critically instead of through the prism of partisanship and/or ideology, is far less likely to be so gullible when it comes to the nonsense so prevalent out there on the internet. And they will be much more likely to be able to separate the good information from the nonsense.

 

[Pogo]

My living memory doesn't go back far enough to remember this thread but I see it popped up, so I guess it's "back"...

And let's agree that history or constitution was not Hillary's strong suit and it remains to be seen whether it will be with our current President--it is too early to tell. Our current President does have a degree in economics which I deem a good thing.

Actually I don't see a reason to deem it is; Politics and Business work in opposite directions Business wants profit for itself, which it gains from the public. It wants efficiency and abhors personal liberties or idiosyncrasies; those are not efficient. A (small D) democratic society on the other hand can't be 'efficient' if it's going to promote liberties among its population. That requires fostering individuality while business requires suppressing it. Liberty is by definition "messy", even chaotic. For the extreme example see Nazi Germany --- a society run for efficiency, like a business .... a business that did not specialize in personal liberties.

As for the Constitution I think we all know (and knew before the election) far more about Rump's attitude toward it than we knew about Clinton's since he directly threatened several of the Bill of Rights even during the campaign, specifically the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and stated his opposition to them starkly and fairly directly. I'm not aware of similar stated threats from Clinton (or any other candidate).

And I agree with Coyote that kids aren't going to learn much up against parents who demand their child be advanced without earning it. Or who don't care what goes on in school or how their kid is doing. Both situations put a teacher in a terrible position.

But what if we went back to the old system in which children and youth were required to show a reasonable proficiency in core curriculum before they could advance to the next grade or graduate? What if there were again strong PTA associations and parents were embarrassed to not participate at all? That teachers respected themselves in conduct and dress and required the students to do the same? And a school took great pride in actually educating the students instead of just getting most of them through the school year.

Given the deplorable knowledge some of our highschool and even college graduates are demonstrating in the most basic concept of civics, law, and history, what if they actually completed an education well versed in those subjects. I wonder how different society might be?

This apparently hearkens back to the OP premise that kids are "not being taught" about the Constitution etc. I don't know that that's true; I suspect it's more a case that kids are being taught just as we were but have far more distractions competing for their attention. When you and I were walking six miles uphill to school both ways back in the pre-Cambrian era we had no smartphones or Nosebooks or Twitters. At most we had notes passed around in class and the boob tube by night.

Perhaps then what kids aren't being taught is why civics matters and why one should be delving headfirst into one's own history. And in this cacophonous multimedia environment where we invent things just because we can, I'm not even sure there's a way to do that, given the addictive nature of those technological distractions. It's far more façile and far more emotional-feedback satisfying to run to one's phone to see how many "followers" one has and how one can troll some imaginary virtual adversary.

IMO, somebody who knows at least the essentials of concept of the Constitution, who has studied honest history rather than the socially correct version of it, who has a good grounding in basic economics, and who has been taught how and encouraged to think critically instead of through the prism of partisanship and/or ideology, is far less likely to be so gullible when it comes to the nonsense so prevalent out there on the internet. And they will be much more likely to be able to separate the good information from the nonsense.

Voilà, c'est ça. "Taught to think critically" is the crucial ingredient. A teacher who can convey that is truly a Teacher. All else follows from that. The details and dates and names are there for the picking any time but teaching the student how (and why) to fish for them should be the entire objective.

 

[Hossfly]

My living memory doesn't go back far enough to remember this thread but I see it popped up, so I guess it's "back"...

And let's agree that history or constitution was not Hillary's strong suit and it remains to be seen whether it will be with our current President--it is too early to tell. Our current President does have a degree in economics which I deem a good thing.

Actually I don't see a reason to deem it is; Politics and Business work in opposite directions Business wants profit for itself, which it gains from the public. It wants efficiency and abhors personal liberties or idiosyncrasies; those are not efficient. A (small D) democratic society on the other hand can't be 'efficient' if it's going to promote liberties among its population. That requires fostering individuality while business requires suppressing it. Liberty is by definition "messy", even chaotic. For the extreme example see Nazi Germany --- a society run for efficiency, like a business .... a business that did not specialize in personal liberties.

As for the Constitution I think we all know (and knew before the election) far more about Rump's attitude toward it than we knew about Clinton's since he directly threatened several of the Bill of Rights even during the campaign, specifically the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and stated his opposition to them starkly and fairly directly. I'm not aware of similar stated threats from Clinton (or any other candidate).

And I agree with Coyote that kids aren't going to learn much up against parents who demand their child be advanced without earning it. Or who don't care what goes on in school or how their kid is doing. Both situations put a teacher in a terrible position.

But what if we went back to the old system in which children and youth were required to show a reasonable proficiency in core curriculum before they could advance to the next grade or graduate? What if there were again strong PTA associations and parents were embarrassed to not participate at all? That teachers respected themselves in conduct and dress and required the students to do the same? And a school took great pride in actually educating the students instead of just getting most of them through the school year.

Given the deplorable knowledge some of our highschool and even college graduates are demonstrating in the most basic concept of civics, law, and history, what if they actually completed an education well versed in those subjects. I wonder how different society might be?

This apparently hearkens back to the OP premise that kids are "not being taught" about the Constitution etc. I don't know that that's true; I suspect it's more a case that kids are being taught just as we were but have far more distractions competing for their attention. When you and I were walking six miles uphill to school both ways back in the pre-Cambrian era we had no smartphones or Nosebooks or Twitters. At most we had notes passed around in class and the boob tube by night.

Perhaps then what kids aren't being taught is why civics matters and why one should be delving headfirst into one's own history. And in this cacophonous multimedia environment where we invent things just because we can, I'm not even sure there's a way to do that, given the addictive nature of those technological distractions. It's far more façile and far more emotional-feedback satisfying to run to one's phone to see how many "followers" one has and how one can troll some imaginary virtual adversary.

IMO, somebody who knows at least the essentials of concept of the Constitution, who has studied honest history rather than the socially correct version of it, who has a good grounding in basic economics, and who has been taught how and encouraged to think critically instead of through the prism of partisanship and/or ideology, is far less likely to be so gullible when it comes to the nonsense so prevalent out there on the internet. And they will be much more likely to be able to separate the good information from the nonsense.

Voilà, c'est ça. "Taught to think critically" is the crucial ingredient. A teacher who can convey that is truly a Teacher. All else follows from that. The details and dates and names are there for the picking any time but teaching the student how (and why) to fish for them should be the entire objective.

Military instructors have a slogan they live by. "If the student failed to learn, then the teacher failed to teach."

 

[Foxfyre]

My living memory doesn't go back far enough to remember this thread but I see it popped up, so I guess it's "back"...

And let's agree that history or constitution was not Hillary's strong suit and it remains to be seen whether it will be with our current President--it is too early to tell. Our current President does have a degree in economics which I deem a good thing.

Actually I don't see a reason to deem it is; Politics and Business work in opposite directions Business wants profit for itself, which it gains from the public. It wants efficiency and abhors personal liberties or idiosyncrasies; those are not efficient. A (small D) democratic society on the other hand can't be 'efficient' if it's going to promote liberties among its population. That requires fostering individuality while business requires suppressing it. Liberty is by definition "messy", even chaotic. For the extreme example see Nazi Germany --- a society run for efficiency, like a business .... a business that did not specialize in personal liberties.

As for the Constitution I think we all know (and knew before the election) far more about Rump's attitude toward it than we knew about Clinton's since he directly threatened several of the Bill of Rights even during the campaign, specifically the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and stated his opposition to them starkly and fairly directly. I'm not aware of similar stated threats from Clinton (or any other candidate).

And I agree with Coyote that kids aren't going to learn much up against parents who demand their child be advanced without earning it. Or who don't care what goes on in school or how their kid is doing. Both situations put a teacher in a terrible position.

But what if we went back to the old system in which children and youth were required to show a reasonable proficiency in core curriculum before they could advance to the next grade or graduate? What if there were again strong PTA associations and parents were embarrassed to not participate at all? That teachers respected themselves in conduct and dress and required the students to do the same? And a school took great pride in actually educating the students instead of just getting most of them through the school year.

Given the deplorable knowledge some of our highschool and even college graduates are demonstrating in the most basic concept of civics, law, and history, what if they actually completed an education well versed in those subjects. I wonder how different society might be?

This apparently hearkens back to the OP premise that kids are "not being taught" about the Constitution etc. I don't know that that's true; I suspect it's more a case that kids are being taught just as we were but have far more distractions competing for their attention. When you and I were walking six miles uphill to school both ways back in the pre-Cambrian era we had no smartphones or Nosebooks or Twitters. At most we had notes passed around in class and the boob tube by night.

Perhaps then what kids aren't being taught is why civics matters and why one should be delving headfirst into one's own history. And in this cacophonous multimedia environment where we invent things just because we can, I'm not even sure there's a way to do that, given the addictive nature of those technological distractions. It's far more façile and far more emotional-feedback satisfying to run to one's phone to see how many "followers" one has and how one can troll some imaginary virtual adversary.

IMO, somebody who knows at least the essentials of concept of the Constitution, who has studied honest history rather than the socially correct version of it, who has a good grounding in basic economics, and who has been taught how and encouraged to think critically instead of through the prism of partisanship and/or ideology, is far less likely to be so gullible when it comes to the nonsense so prevalent out there on the internet. And they will be much more likely to be able to separate the good information from the nonsense.

Voilà, c'est ça. "Taught to think critically" is the crucial ingredient. A teacher who can convey that is truly a Teacher. All else follows from that. The details and dates and names are there for the picking any time but teaching the student how (and why) to fish for them should be the entire objective.

Can't argue with that.

It makes it much more difficult to be educated when the student is not taught and encouraged to think critically and does not have a good grounding in Constitution/principles upon which this nation was founded, history, and economics but is rather force fed pre-selected politically correct answers that will be counted as the right answer on the test.

 

[Foxfyre]

My living memory doesn't go back far enough to remember this thread but I see it popped up, so I guess it's "back"...

And let's agree that history or constitution was not Hillary's strong suit and it remains to be seen whether it will be with our current President--it is too early to tell. Our current President does have a degree in economics which I deem a good thing.

Actually I don't see a reason to deem it is; Politics and Business work in opposite directions Business wants profit for itself, which it gains from the public. It wants efficiency and abhors personal liberties or idiosyncrasies; those are not efficient. A (small D) democratic society on the other hand can't be 'efficient' if it's going to promote liberties among its population. That requires fostering individuality while business requires suppressing it. Liberty is by definition "messy", even chaotic. For the extreme example see Nazi Germany --- a society run for efficiency, like a business .... a business that did not specialize in personal liberties.

As for the Constitution I think we all know (and knew before the election) far more about Rump's attitude toward it than we knew about Clinton's since he directly threatened several of the Bill of Rights even during the campaign, specifically the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and stated his opposition to them starkly and fairly directly. I'm not aware of similar stated threats from Clinton (or any other candidate).

And I agree with Coyote that kids aren't going to learn much up against parents who demand their child be advanced without earning it. Or who don't care what goes on in school or how their kid is doing. Both situations put a teacher in a terrible position.

But what if we went back to the old system in which children and youth were required to show a reasonable proficiency in core curriculum before they could advance to the next grade or graduate? What if there were again strong PTA associations and parents were embarrassed to not participate at all? That teachers respected themselves in conduct and dress and required the students to do the same? And a school took great pride in actually educating the students instead of just getting most of them through the school year.

Given the deplorable knowledge some of our highschool and even college graduates are demonstrating in the most basic concept of civics, law, and history, what if they actually completed an education well versed in those subjects. I wonder how different society might be?

This apparently hearkens back to the OP premise that kids are "not being taught" about the Constitution etc. I don't know that that's true; I suspect it's more a case that kids are being taught just as we were but have far more distractions competing for their attention. When you and I were walking six miles uphill to school both ways back in the pre-Cambrian era we had no smartphones or Nosebooks or Twitters. At most we had notes passed around in class and the boob tube by night.

Perhaps then what kids aren't being taught is why civics matters and why one should be delving headfirst into one's own history. And in this cacophonous multimedia environment where we invent things just because we can, I'm not even sure there's a way to do that, given the addictive nature of those technological distractions. It's far more façile and far more emotional-feedback satisfying to run to one's phone to see how many "followers" one has and how one can troll some imaginary virtual adversary.

IMO, somebody who knows at least the essentials of concept of the Constitution, who has studied honest history rather than the socially correct version of it, who has a good grounding in basic economics, and who has been taught how and encouraged to think critically instead of through the prism of partisanship and/or ideology, is far less likely to be so gullible when it comes to the nonsense so prevalent out there on the internet. And they will be much more likely to be able to separate the good information from the nonsense.

Voilà, c'est ça. "Taught to think critically" is the crucial ingredient. A teacher who can convey that is truly a Teacher. All else follows from that. The details and dates and names are there for the picking any time but teaching the student how (and why) to fish for them should be the entire objective.

Military instructors have a slogan they live by. "If the student failed to learn, then the teacher failed to teach."

There is some truth in that too. When I was teaching, you could tell from the students attentiveness and their eyes whether they were getting it. And if they were not, I felt it was up to me to figure out a different way to teach it to make it more comprehensible and perhaps more interesting to them. At the risk of sounding immodest, there are still many good teachers in the system who can do that.

But unfortunately there are too many who have become jaded or discouraged and are just tired of trying or never did. Their sole objective is to get the kids to memorize enough "right" answers for the test and move them out. Whether the kids are actually being educated is secondary or is never an issue at all.

 

[Flopper]

Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

I can only speak from my experience. My 4 grand kids, 2 in high school, 1 in middle school, and one in elementary know a lot more about American history, the constitution, and government than I did at their age. My 4th grader can intelligently discuss the functions of the branches of goverment, the constitution, and elections. They are all in honor classes or advanced placement in a good public school district in Washington State. My brother's three kids, who went to public/private schools in Louisiana have all graduated from college. One is a practicing attorney, one is in law school, and one is studying Chemistry. Maybe they are all exceptions; I don't know, but one thing is for sure your comments certainly do apply universally. There is a big variation in the quality of education between school districts and individuals schools, both public and private.

 

[Foxfyre]

Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

I can only speak from my experience. My 4 grand kids, 2 in high school, 1 in middle school, and one in elementary know a lot more about American history, the constitution, and government than I did at their age. My 4th grader can intelligently discuss the functions of the branches of goverment, the constitution, and elections. They are all in honor classes or advanced placement in a good public school district in Washington State. My brother's three kids, who went to public/private schools in Louisiana have all graduated from college. One is a practicing attorney, one is in law school, and one is studying Chemistry. Maybe they are all exceptions; I don't know, but one thing is for sure your comments certainly do apply universally. There is a big variation in the quality of education between school districts and individuals schools, both public and private.

Your children and grandchildren are blessed and I am sure you are grateful for that.

I was public schooled in perhaps the best school system in our state at the time and I honestly got an education that prepared me to compete with anybody. A much better history, civics, and English department than what I encountered later in college but at least both were definitely required college courses and were taught reasonably competently.

My children and grandchild were also public schooled. My son and daughter got an excellent public school education in a small town in Kansas--strong parent participation, strong PTA, good school board which I, immodestly perhaps, was a member of for awhile, and excellent teachers.

My granddaughter not so much. Maybe it was the school or maybe it was her, I don't know. but there was an awful lot she didn't know that I thought she should.

But what stunned me later on was interviewing high school and college graduates for jobs. And that was a real eye opener at the level of deterioration of basic curriculum in the public schools. And these days, where we are now. I would do almost anything to avoid putting a child in the public schools.

But there are still stories of great teachers and good schools here and there even now.

 

[Flopper]

Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

I can only speak from my experience. My 4 grand kids, 2 in high school, 1 in middle school, and one in elementary know a lot more about American history, the constitution, and government than I did at their age. My 4th grader can intelligently discuss the functions of the branches of goverment, the constitution, and elections. They are all in honor classes or advanced placement in a good public school district in Washington State. My brother's three kids, who went to public/private schools in Louisiana have all graduated from college. One is a practicing attorney, one is in law school, and one is studying Chemistry. Maybe they are all exceptions; I don't know, but one thing is for sure your comments certainly do apply universally. There is a big variation in the quality of education between school districts and individuals schools, both public and private.

Your children and grandchildren are blessed and I am sure you are grateful for that.

I was public schooled in perhaps the best school system in our state at the time and I honestly got an education that prepared me to compete with anybody. A much better history, civics, and English department than what I encountered later in college but at least both were definitely required college courses and were taught reasonably competently.

My children and grandchild were also public schooled. My son and daughter got an excellent public school education in a small town in Kansas--strong parent participation, strong PTA, good school board which I, immodestly perhaps, was a member of for awhile, and excellent teachers.

My granddaughter not so much. Maybe it was the school or maybe it was her, I don't know. but there was an awful lot she didn't know that I thought she should.

But what stunned me later on was interviewing high school and college graduates for jobs. And that was a real eye opener at the level of deterioration of basic curriculum in the public schools. And these days, where we are now. I would do almost anything to avoid putting a child in the public schools.

But there are still stories of great teachers and good schools here and there even now.

For over 15 years I interviewed college grads for technical positions in management information systems, programmers, systems analysts, information specialists, and network engineers. In general, I have been very impressed with their education within their major and very unimpressed with their general education, particularly their communications skills. I believe much of the problem is the ever increasing demand for specialization. They know TCP/IP, the protocols stacks, can design an operating system, can setup servers, and can draw a hell of a Venn diagram, but can't write an intelligible report on their work or carry on a social conversation with customers.

 

[Foxfyre]

Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

I can only speak from my experience. My 4 grand kids, 2 in high school, 1 in middle school, and one in elementary know a lot more about American history, the constitution, and government than I did at their age. My 4th grader can intelligently discuss the functions of the branches of goverment, the constitution, and elections. They are all in honor classes or advanced placement in a good public school district in Washington State. My brother's three kids, who went to public/private schools in Louisiana have all graduated from college. One is a practicing attorney, one is in law school, and one is studying Chemistry. Maybe they are all exceptions; I don't know, but one thing is for sure your comments certainly do apply universally. There is a big variation in the quality of education between school districts and individuals schools, both public and private.

Your children and grandchildren are blessed and I am sure you are grateful for that.

I was public schooled in perhaps the best school system in our state at the time and I honestly got an education that prepared me to compete with anybody. A much better history, civics, and English department than what I encountered later in college but at least both were definitely required college courses and were taught reasonably competently.

My children and grandchild were also public schooled. My son and daughter got an excellent public school education in a small town in Kansas--strong parent participation, strong PTA, good school board which I, immodestly perhaps, was a member of for awhile, and excellent teachers.

My granddaughter not so much. Maybe it was the school or maybe it was her, I don't know. but there was an awful lot she didn't know that I thought she should.

But what stunned me later on was interviewing high school and college graduates for jobs. And that was a real eye opener at the level of deterioration of basic curriculum in the public schools. And these days, where we are now. I would do almost anything to avoid putting a child in the public schools.

But there are still stories of great teachers and good schools here and there even now.

For over 15 years I interviewed college grads for technical positions in management information systems, programmers, systems analysts, information specialists, and network engineers. In general, I have been very impressed with their education within their major and very unimpressed with their general education, particularly their communications skills. I believe much of the problem is the ever increasing demand for specialization. They know TCP/IP, the protocols stacks, can design an operating system, can setup servers, and can draw a hell of a Venn diagram, but can't write an intelligible report on their work or carry on a social conversation with customers.

I've discovered the same. Computer and technical skills are adequate to very good. But people skills not so much, or doing simple things like making change by counting it out or telling time on an analog clock. And believe it or not, some had problem reading cursive writing when they needed to read that writing.

 

[theliq]

My living memory doesn't go back far enough to remember this thread but I see it popped up, so I guess it's "back"...

And let's agree that history or constitution was not Hillary's strong suit and it remains to be seen whether it will be with our current President--it is too early to tell. Our current President does have a degree in economics which I deem a good thing.

Actually I don't see a reason to deem it is; Politics and Business work in opposite directions Business wants profit for itself, which it gains from the public. It wants efficiency and abhors personal liberties or idiosyncrasies; those are not efficient. A (small D) democratic society on the other hand can't be 'efficient' if it's going to promote liberties among its population. That requires fostering individuality while business requires suppressing it. Liberty is by definition "messy", even chaotic. For the extreme example see Nazi Germany --- a society run for efficiency, like a business .... a business that did not specialize in personal liberties.

As for the Constitution I think we all know (and knew before the election) far more about Rump's attitude toward it than we knew about Clinton's since he directly threatened several of the Bill of Rights even during the campaign, specifically the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and stated his opposition to them starkly and fairly directly. I'm not aware of similar stated threats from Clinton (or any other candidate).

And I agree with Coyote that kids aren't going to learn much up against parents who demand their child be advanced without earning it. Or who don't care what goes on in school or how their kid is doing. Both situations put a teacher in a terrible position.

But what if we went back to the old system in which children and youth were required to show a reasonable proficiency in core curriculum before they could advance to the next grade or graduate? What if there were again strong PTA associations and parents were embarrassed to not participate at all? That teachers respected themselves in conduct and dress and required the students to do the same? And a school took great pride in actually educating the students instead of just getting most of them through the school year.

Given the deplorable knowledge some of our highschool and even college graduates are demonstrating in the most basic concept of civics, law, and history, what if they actually completed an education well versed in those subjects. I wonder how different society might be?

This apparently hearkens back to the OP premise that kids are "not being taught" about the Constitution etc. I don't know that that's true; I suspect it's more a case that kids are being taught just as we were but have far more distractions competing for their attention. When you and I were walking six miles uphill to school both ways back in the pre-Cambrian era we had no smartphones or Nosebooks or Twitters. At most we had notes passed around in class and the boob tube by night.

Perhaps then what kids aren't being taught is why civics matters and why one should be delving headfirst into one's own history. And in this cacophonous multimedia environment where we invent things just because we can, I'm not even sure there's a way to do that, given the addictive nature of those technological distractions. It's far more façile and far more emotional-feedback satisfying to run to one's phone to see how many "followers" one has and how one can troll some imaginary virtual adversary.

IMO, somebody who knows at least the essentials of concept of the Constitution, who has studied honest history rather than the socially correct version of it, who has a good grounding in basic economics, and who has been taught how and encouraged to think critically instead of through the prism of partisanship and/or ideology, is far less likely to be so gullible when it comes to the nonsense so prevalent out there on the internet. And they will be much more likely to be able to separate the good information from the nonsense.

Voilà, c'est ça. "Taught to think critically" is the crucial ingredient. A teacher who can convey that is truly a Teacher. All else follows from that. The details and dates and names are there for the picking any time but teaching the student how (and why) to fish for them should be the entire objective.

Military instructors have a slogan they live by. "If the student failed to learn, then the teacher failed to teach."

With the exception of Your Commander in Chief.....Don Trump...............was this little rich boy,with the silver spoon in his mouth,ever in the Military ? Hoss...steve

 

[Hossfly]

My living memory doesn't go back far enough to remember this thread but I see it popped up, so I guess it's "back"...

And let's agree that history or constitution was not Hillary's strong suit and it remains to be seen whether it will be with our current President--it is too early to tell. Our current President does have a degree in economics which I deem a good thing.

Actually I don't see a reason to deem it is; Politics and Business work in opposite directions Business wants profit for itself, which it gains from the public. It wants efficiency and abhors personal liberties or idiosyncrasies; those are not efficient. A (small D) democratic society on the other hand can't be 'efficient' if it's going to promote liberties among its population. That requires fostering individuality while business requires suppressing it. Liberty is by definition "messy", even chaotic. For the extreme example see Nazi Germany --- a society run for efficiency, like a business .... a business that did not specialize in personal liberties.

As for the Constitution I think we all know (and knew before the election) far more about Rump's attitude toward it than we knew about Clinton's since he directly threatened several of the Bill of Rights even during the campaign, specifically the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and stated his opposition to them starkly and fairly directly. I'm not aware of similar stated threats from Clinton (or any other candidate).

And I agree with Coyote that kids aren't going to learn much up against parents who demand their child be advanced without earning it. Or who don't care what goes on in school or how their kid is doing. Both situations put a teacher in a terrible position.

But what if we went back to the old system in which children and youth were required to show a reasonable proficiency in core curriculum before they could advance to the next grade or graduate? What if there were again strong PTA associations and parents were embarrassed to not participate at all? That teachers respected themselves in conduct and dress and required the students to do the same? And a school took great pride in actually educating the students instead of just getting most of them through the school year.

Given the deplorable knowledge some of our highschool and even college graduates are demonstrating in the most basic concept of civics, law, and history, what if they actually completed an education well versed in those subjects. I wonder how different society might be?

This apparently hearkens back to the OP premise that kids are "not being taught" about the Constitution etc. I don't know that that's true; I suspect it's more a case that kids are being taught just as we were but have far more distractions competing for their attention. When you and I were walking six miles uphill to school both ways back in the pre-Cambrian era we had no smartphones or Nosebooks or Twitters. At most we had notes passed around in class and the boob tube by night.

Perhaps then what kids aren't being taught is why civics matters and why one should be delving headfirst into one's own history. And in this cacophonous multimedia environment where we invent things just because we can, I'm not even sure there's a way to do that, given the addictive nature of those technological distractions. It's far more façile and far more emotional-feedback satisfying to run to one's phone to see how many "followers" one has and how one can troll some imaginary virtual adversary.

IMO, somebody who knows at least the essentials of concept of the Constitution, who has studied honest history rather than the socially correct version of it, who has a good grounding in basic economics, and who has been taught how and encouraged to think critically instead of through the prism of partisanship and/or ideology, is far less likely to be so gullible when it comes to the nonsense so prevalent out there on the internet. And they will be much more likely to be able to separate the good information from the nonsense.

Voilà, c'est ça. "Taught to think critically" is the crucial ingredient. A teacher who can convey that is truly a Teacher. All else follows from that. The details and dates and names are there for the picking any time but teaching the student how (and why) to fish for them should be the entire objective.

Military instructors have a slogan they live by. "If the student failed to learn, then the teacher failed to teach."

With the exception of Your Commander in Chief.....Don Trump...............was this little rich boy,with the silver spoon in his mouth,ever in the Military ? Hoss...steve

He was in Call Of Duty.

 

[Coyote]

Okay guys. Let's keep it kinda sorta civil.

And let's agree that history or constitution was not Hillary's strong suit and it remains to be seen whether it will be with our current President--it is too early to tell. Our current President does have a degree in economics which I deem a good thing.

And I agree with Coyote that kids aren't going to learn much up against parents who demand their child be advanced without earning it. Or who don't care what goes on in school or how their kid is doing. Both situations put a teacher in a terrible position.

But what if we went back to the old system in which children and youth were required to show a reasonable proficiency in core curriculum before they could advance to the next grade or graduate? What if there were again strong PTA associations and parents were embarrassed to not participate at all? That teachers respected themselves in conduct and dress and required the students to do the same? And a school took great pride in actually educating the students instead of just getting most of them through the school year.

Given the deplorable knowledge some of our highschool and even college graduates are demonstrating in the most basic concept of civics, law, and history, what if they actually completed an education well versed in those subjects. I wonder how different society might be?

When I was in school (and to put it in perspective, I graduated in 77) - we respected our teachers. I didn't know any students who were rude or seriously disrespectful...or worse, assaulted a teacher. Yet I've heard that has happened in my highschool since I've been gone. My teachers ran the gamut from poor to great, and that is reasonable. What has changed?

IMO a big change is in the status of teachers - from respected to reviled. And some of the blame for that, imo lies with politicians who assault them. Today, the children of some of my coworkers are teachers - Lord knows why they would choose it, esecially in as hostile a state as NC...but they are. Because budgets are crappy, they pay for extras from their own pocket. That says a lot imo, about their dedication.

 

[theliq]

My living memory doesn't go back far enough to remember this thread but I see it popped up, so I guess it's "back"...


Actually I don't see a reason to deem it is; Politics and Business work in opposite directions Business wants profit for itself, which it gains from the public. It wants efficiency and abhors personal liberties or idiosyncrasies; those are not efficient. A (small D) democratic society on the other hand can't be 'efficient' if it's going to promote liberties among its population. That requires fostering individuality while business requires suppressing it. Liberty is by definition "messy", even chaotic. For the extreme example see Nazi Germany --- a society run for efficiency, like a business .... a business that did not specialize in personal liberties.

As for the Constitution I think we all know (and knew before the election) far more about Rump's attitude toward it than we knew about Clinton's since he directly threatened several of the Bill of Rights even during the campaign, specifically the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and stated his opposition to them starkly and fairly directly. I'm not aware of similar stated threats from Clinton (or any other candidate).



This apparently hearkens back to the OP premise that kids are "not being taught" about the Constitution etc. I don't know that that's true; I suspect it's more a case that kids are being taught just as we were but have far more distractions competing for their attention. When you and I were walking six miles uphill to school both ways back in the pre-Cambrian era we had no smartphones or Nosebooks or Twitters. At most we had notes passed around in class and the boob tube by night.

Perhaps then what kids aren't being taught is why civics matters and why one should be delving headfirst into one's own history. And in this cacophonous multimedia environment where we invent things just because we can, I'm not even sure there's a way to do that, given the addictive nature of those technological distractions. It's far more façile and far more emotional-feedback satisfying to run to one's phone to see how many "followers" one has and how one can troll some imaginary virtual adversary.

IMO, somebody who knows at least the essentials of concept of the Constitution, who has studied honest history rather than the socially correct version of it, who has a good grounding in basic economics, and who has been taught how and encouraged to think critically instead of through the prism of partisanship and/or ideology, is far less likely to be so gullible when it comes to the nonsense so prevalent out there on the internet. And they will be much more likely to be able to separate the good information from the nonsense.

Voilà, c'est ça. "Taught to think critically" is the crucial ingredient. A teacher who can convey that is truly a Teacher. All else follows from that. The details and dates and names are there for the picking any time but teaching the student how (and why) to fish for them should be the entire objective.

Military instructors have a slogan they live by. "If the student failed to learn, then the teacher failed to teach."

With the exception of Your Commander in Chief.....Don Trump...............was this little rich boy,with the silver spoon in his mouth,ever in the Military ? Hoss...steve

He was in Call Of Duty.

so NO then ......thanks Hoss>>>>>>>steve