What Should Teachers Teach?

[Immanuel Can]

This topic comes from another discussion.

Everybody complains about teachers..."They don't teach like they should," everybody says. Okay. Let's take that as truth, and not deny it.

What SHOULD they teach? Can you give a brief outline of the topics/skills that should be covered in what you consider an "adequate" or "good" education? What are teachers failing to do, that you consider they ought to be doing?

And if you want, just for fun, why not talk about some subjects/skills/concepts they are now getting involved with, that you think they definitely should not be involved with?

Fire away.

[henry quirk]

This topic comes from another discussion.

Everybody complains about teachers..."They don't teach like they should," everybody says. Okay. Let's take that as truth, and not deny it.

What SHOULD they teach? Can you give a brief outline of the topics/skills that should be covered in what you consider an "adequate" or "good" education? What are teachers failing to do, that you consider they ought to be doing?

And if you want, just for fun, why not talk about some subjects/skills/concepts they are now getting involved with, that you think they definitely should not be involved with?

Fire away.

I'm old school: teach readin', writin', & 'rithmetic

within the broad confines of those three: science, civics, history, philosophy, etc. can all be taught, not as separate subjects, but as topics

at least thru elementary, keep it substantive and flexible

and let 'em have recess

they should have school year-round...4 quarters, with a week off between each quarter

dump common core: it's just a friggin' headache

test not only for retention of fact but also for thinkin' (more short essay questions, please)

bring back the dunce cap

hire more men

have smaller class size

encourage students to pursue interests and connect those interests to readin', writin', & 'rithmetic

restore the notion of teacher as school master

no homework except for long-term projects

reinforce, or teach, manners

teach that not everything gallivantin' thru the brain deserves to come rollin' out of the mouth

put aside all teachin' theory and just teach, for christ's sake

and: about a dozen other things that'll come to mind after I post this

mainly, teach broadly, teach substance, teach practical (what they need) and build on that as the kids grow, teach year-round; don't teach as a kind of test-prep; school ought not be a day prison or sitter service

[Skip]

Everybody complains about teachers..."They don't teach like they should," everybody says.

That's bloody unfair! Teachers don't make the rules; they don't set the requirements, curriculum, the standards, or even most of the tests.

What SHOULD they teach?

What their students need.
In some neighbourhoods, self-awareness and responsibility; in others, basic nutrition and self-esteem.

Can you give a brief outline of the topics/skills that should be covered in what you consider an "adequate" or "good" education?

Critical thinking, grammar, math, science, history, civics, economic theory, major schools of philosophy, comparative religion, psychology, anthropology, literature and art. Find time for sports, games and music.
Break the educational program into three six-year sections: elementary, secondary and university, with at least two years' break between sections to attend practical work programs, where the students have hand's on instruction in life skills, building skills and service skills under the guidance of adults who do those things all the time.

[Immanuel Can]

Everybody complains about teachers..."They don't teach like they should," everybody says.

That's bloody unfair! Teachers don't make the rules; they don't set the requirements, curriculum, the standards, or even most of the tests.

You are quite right. It's good that you know that; most people don't. Most people think the teachers make the real decisions, and they don't. They're controlled by a system of ministries, curricula and administrators that do their best to straight-jacket everything classroom teachers do, to fit the political agenda of the higher-ups. The teachers are awash in a sea of demands from above; and many of them find it very hard to swim against that tide to any effect. If blame is to be placed anywhere, it ought to be a the level of the ministries, boards and committees that structure the educational bureaucracy, not on the shoulders of ordinary teachers.

I grant you that.

But perhaps I've missed some context, and I owe you an explanation. I was talking on the other thread about the many teachers who, in spite of what they are mandated to teach, practice a policy of "Close your door, and do the right thing." There are such teachers, and this is their mantra. They don't deserve to get lumped in with the other teachers or with the whole education system, but that's how most people perceive things.

My conversation partner on the other thread was insisting that teachers don't teach what they should. So I simply wanted to find out what people think they should teach, if they had a choice about it. But you're right: they're not really allowed to do more than rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic of the educational bureaucracy's sinking ship. A few good ones find ways to subvert that, but increasingly, the Titanic's getting bigger, more demanding, and sinking faster as a consequence of being deflected from any legitimate mandate it might have.

So I'm just trying to sort out what that agenda, the right one, would look like.

What SHOULD they teach?

What their students need. In some neighbourhoods, self-awareness and responsibility; in others, basic nutrition and self-esteem.

This is the kind of question I want to get to. Can/should teachers do things like teaching "nutrition" or "self-awareness" or "responsibility," or should they stick to math and language? Should they be "holistic carers" and "surrogate parents" or keep their mandate closer to being content-providers? Should they teach classical liberal citizenship values, or employable skills, or social activism, or what?

And I'm not trying to specify in advance what answer I might expect. That's not my aim.

So what do students really "need"? would be my next question. Because if schools should supply ALL needs, what are the parents supposed to supply? And is it okay if schools insert themselves into EVERY aspect of a child's life, on the supposition that parents can't be trusted to do any of it? What if the school decides to inculcate, say, a sexuality or a religion different from that of the parents?

Can you give a brief outline of the topics/skills that should be covered in what you consider an "adequate" or "good" education?

Critical thinking, grammar, math, science, history, civics, economic theory, major schools of philosophy, comparative religion, psychology, anthropology, literature and art. Find time for sports, games and music.
Break the educational program into three six-year sections: elementary, secondary and university, with at least two years' break between sections to attend practical work programs, where the students have hand's on instruction in life skills, building skills and service skills under the guidance of adults who do those things all the time.

I like some of your suggestions. Thanks for such a thoughtful response. And I concede the justice of your opening objection.

[henry quirk]

Thanks for such a thoughtful response.

you're welcome...oh, wait...

[Skip]

My conversation partner on the other thread was insisting that teachers don't teach what they should.

Depending on the board of education they have to answer to, quite a lot of teachers find innovative ways to enrich their student's learning experience. There is a number of very positive programs available to public schools, eg, nature/biology/enviromental studies:
https://freshroots.ca/blog/tag/schoolyard-gardens/
https://www.nwf.org/schoolyard/
community service
https://kidactivities.net/community-ser ... -all-ages/
field trips, letter-writing, documentary films and discussion, creating a collaborative book
http://www.scholastic.com/classbook/index.html

But you're right: they're not really allowed to do more than rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic of the educational bureaucracy's sinking ship.

It's not as grim as all that! There is still plenty of excellent teaching and eager learning.
Where a repressive political or religious faction gains control of its administration (particularly in the fractured, state-controlled US institutions), education is stifled. Where (typically prosperous, upwardly-mobile districts) parents are competitive and demanding, the emphasis shifts from learning to "successful outcomes". In poor districts, schools have to cope with funding shortages, inadequate infrastructure, teacher burnout, student delinquency, absenteeism, familial dysfunction and a host of community problems. These are aspects of the political and economic condition of the society that affect all of that society's institutions. The school environment merely reflects the larger environment.

[What SHOULD they teach?] [What their students need. In some neighbourhoods, self-awareness and responsibility; in others, basic nutrition and self-esteem.]
This is the kind of question I want to get to. Can/should teachers do things like teaching "nutrition" or "self-awareness" or "responsibility," or should they stick to math and language?

It isn't possible to divorce the academic subjects from human values and social norms. How can anyone teach language and math to students who have not learned discipline, self-restraint and respect for their elders: they couldn't sit quietly and listen, complete assigned work or spend any time in the institutional environment without destroying it.

Should they be "holistic carers" and "surrogate parents" or keep their mandate closer to being content-providers?

If you want a content-provider, turn on a computer program. If you want teachers who will help prepare your children to live in the world, then train good teachers, pay them decently and trust them. It's not a question of surrogacy; the parents get the kid back every afternoon, whether they want him or not. It's a question of co-operative roles in a community.

Should they teach classical liberal citizenship values, or employable skills, or social activism, or what?

The values of their society will be impressed on every citizen long before adulthood, whether it's formally taught in school or not. Schools can't teach employable skills, because the school curriculum is designed in response to economic demand: by the time it's implemented in the classroom, it's five years behind the 'job market' - and that's at college level. Anything below that is not preparing people jobs - just for life in general.
It would be desirable for students to be able to compare those values with those of other cultures, read commentary from different points of view, gain historical perspective, consider alternatives, imagine improvement, participate in debate... and make their own informed value judgment. It would be desirable if no 18-year-old went out into the world without mastering the mechanics of survival: can feed, shelter and clothe himself adequately, avoid death by misadventure or human conflict, do useful work, participate in co-operative activities, seek and retain companionship; if he so desires, find a suitable mate and rear viable offspring.

So what do students really "need"?

Before they were students, they were children - immature, incomplete human beings. What do developing human beings need?
The skills of physical survival; the skills of social interaction; the skills of healthy and happy living.

Because if schools should supply ALL needs, what are the parents supposed to supply?

The raw material. And the other 18 or so hours of the weekdays and everything that happens on the weekend. Plus the building, staffing, maintenance, grounds and administration of the school. The school supplies that aspect of the child's life that the parents cannot: imparting knowledge an skills the parents lack (or lack the time and talent to teach) socializing the student, providing a peer-group and an opportunity to explore their own interests and capabilities, time to grow independently of the parents.
And, I believe, sometimes the educational institution should also be tasked with providing some basic needs that are unmet at home: medical attention, good meals, warm clothes, security, emotional support, vocational guidance - and if necessary, intervention.

And is it okay if schools insert themselves into EVERY aspect of a child's life, on the supposition that parents can't be trusted to do any of it?

School doesn't insert itself. It doesn't do anything. It's an organ of the society. Whether it's controlled by the immediate community, or higher levels of government, it can do nothing on its own.
It has only the power conferred upon it by political agencies, over children entrusted to it by the parents.

What if the school decides to inculcate, say, a sexuality or a religion different from that of the parents?

No school can "decide" to do anything like that. If the political administrators of the school enforce their point of view on the program, it's because they wield that power over the system. Then, the parents who object can advocate, perhaps organize for a change of policy, withdraw their child from the public system and enroll him in a private institution, expose their child to material and instruction in their own belief, keep him chained up in their basement, or move to another district. Minorities always have the challenge of coping with majority rules.
Personally, I would prefer public education to give all students an extensive, factual overview of belief systems and a broad understanding of race, ethnicity, culture and sexuality, but most religious entities want to selectively exclude factual information and emphasize a specific agenda.
This conflict cannot be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. Every community has to deal with it, day to day.

[Immanuel Can]

It isn't possible to divorce the academic subjects from human values and social norms. How can anyone teach language and math to students who have not learned discipline, self-restraint and respect for their elders: they couldn't sit quietly and listen, complete assigned work or spend any time in the institutional environment without destroying it.

Well, I agree. But therein lies the problem nobody wants to address.

Schools do not create kids that are without discipline, self-restraint or respect of their elders, and who are incapable of sitting quietly and listening or of spending any time in the educational institution without destroying it. The kids come the way they come. The school's response is generally reactive to that, not proactive, because they are not in charge of the kid's home situation, his genetics, or any part of his early upbringing. They have zero control over his exposure to media, to abuse, to malnutrition or to drug use, or his access to proper medical care. They have no say over whether the child has two attentive parents, two parents who work all the time, step-parents and other "parental companions" in their lives, two homes or one or none, or only one parent, or only one who is at work all the time, or even none at all.

All that is done before the kid even arrives. And while nobody sane is in favour of the school taking over the entire custody and nurture of children from cradle to grave, nobody wants to talk about that early home situation either. Nobody wants to admit that what the parents do has far more to do with what that kid will become than the school can ever have; and that everything the school does to try to correct for that will be a struggle upstream.

Instead, they say, "Teachers are underperforming; students don't do as well on standardized tests as they used to." And then they say, "We have to ask the schools to do more." The problem is that this creates both bloat and mission-drift: meaning that schools become ever more expensive, more expansive, and involved with more things. And while they don't have the kids for any longer than they used to, more and more things are piled into the school "mission" until even the basics can't be properly covered anymore.

So the upshot is this: schools can only do so much. They can't do everything, and they can't do everything well. They only have the child for perhaps 6 hours a day, of which any single teacher has them for perhaps 4, or in high schools, perhaps as little as 1 or so, and they don't even have the kids all year round. So we have to be realistic about what we ask schools to undertake.

Public schooling is a tightly-controlled zero-sum game; we don't give them new amounts of time or resources every time we demand something new of them. That means there is a cost for every single thing we add to their mandate. Ask them to do too much, and they can do nothing well. Ask them to do too much, and they become far too expensive. Put in a meal program, and they can't afford the football team. Hire a new psychometrist, and out the window goes the budget for the new computer lab. The time invested in sex ed has to come from gym class. The time spent in religious education has to come out of a fixed pool of time that could otherwise be devoted to science or English or maths...

So some economy has to be practiced here. ("Economy," of course, it what one practices on limited resources.) Our expectations of schools are too often utopian and all-demanding...there are not the resources of time, materials and personnel to deliver everything. So we have to become selective. At some point, we have to stop demanding that the schools do everything, and define some things as parental obligations or as concerns of some other agency or body of persons.

What if the school decides to inculcate, say, a sexuality or a religion different from that of the parents?

No school can "decide" to do anything like that.

Well, let's not split hairs.

What if the board, the ministry or the administration decides that teachers must start to inculcate a different sexuality or religion from the parents?

...the parents who object can withdraw their child from the public system and enroll him in a private institution...

Then who pays? Can the parents take their tax money to the new school? If so, you're talking not about public education, but about charter schools or a voucher system. Do the objecting parents have to pay both their taxes on the public schools their child no longer attends AND the fees to keep the private school afloat?

If they do, does that seem equitable to you? Why should they pay twice for something everyone else gets by paying once?

Besides, your response seems to suggest the parents are radicals or wrong in their objections to what the public system has decided to teach. Is that necessarily true? Can't the public school system sometimes decide to teach things that are wrong, ideologically-coloured, misguided, inappropriate for some children, or simply legitimate subjects of controversy or doubt? But if they can, then why would we assume that parents are never justified in objecting to what the bureaucracy has determined to inculcate in their child?

Can't a parent ever have an objection to the public indoctrination decided by the ministry, and that objection be fair?

[Impenitent]

teachers should intentionally teach what they have been taught to teach...

that which is unintentionally taught is beyond measure

when the student is ready, the teacher will appear... and never before

-Imp

[commonsense]

Well said, IC, in your post above.

I agree with the thought that without focus, learners don’t learn well.

What to do about family influences that help create an ill prepared child in the classroom is something for a thread of its own.

And what to do about the lack of focus once the child arrives in school is no small challenge.

There has to be a way to incentivize students in some positive fashion without awarding everyone with a participation trophy. Maybe a tally point for every day without squirming or interrupting or whatever behavior that is to be discouraged. A certain number of points at the end of the term earns the chance to pick a prize from a cache of low-priced giveaways. Like a cool lanyard to attach keys or a phone to.

Learners need to learn things that support successful living as an adult. They need a basic but broad understanding of the sciences and of math. In days of old it was also necessary to have some knowledge of arts and literature. In today’s world it probably be more helpful for the sake of social conversation to be up to date on pop culture.

Learners ultimately need to learn in greater depth in an area of individual interest. Learners need to know how to search the internet effectively. Learners need to think critically. Learners should probably have fluency in Technical English (in addition to their own language).

To be socialized, learners need to interact in team style activities. To be healthy, learners need to make low impact aerobic exercise a daily habit. Healthy food choice also needs to be practiced in school.

[Skip]

[It isn't possible to divorce the academic subjects from human values and social norms. ]
Well, I agree. But therein lies the problem nobody wants to address.

Schools do not create kids that are without discipline, self-restraint or respect of their elders,

Schools don't create anything at all. That's not their function.

The kids come the way they come. The school's response is generally reactive to that, not proactive, because they are not in charge of the kid's home situation, his genetics, or any part of his early upbringing.

Hence the oft-repeated point about education being part of a societal environment. An organ and agency of the state; an interactive component of a community.

They have zero control over his exposure to media, to abuse, to malnutrition or to drug use, or his access to proper medical care.

Of course. But they can - if the community wishes it - intervene on the child's behalf with other government agencies, and, as i also previously pointed out, fill in some gaps in the child's needs that a family or community may be unable or unwilling to satisfy.

All that is done before the kid even arrives. And while nobody sane is in favour of the school taking over the entire custody and nurture of children from cradle to grave, nobody wants to talk about that early home situation either. Nobody wants to admit that what the parents do has far more to do with what that kid will become than the school can ever have; and that everything the school does to try to correct for that will be a struggle upstream.

The malaise and dysfunction of society manifests in all of the society's institutions.

So the upshot is this: schools can only do so much.

Institutions have limits on their power, on their jurisdiction, on their capability, on their mandate. Yes, of course.
People say a lot of dumb things. I don't have the capacity or the desire to respond to all of them.

They can't do everything, and they can't do everything well. They only have the child for perhaps 6 hours a day, of which any single teacher has them for perhaps 4, or in high schools, perhaps as little as 1 or so, and they don't even have the kids all year round. So we have to be realistic about what we ask schools to undertake.

Good idea.

Public schooling is a tightly-controlled zero-sum game;

I don't know what that means in the context.

Put in a meal program, and they can't afford the football team.

That's fine. Growing boys need nutrition more than they need broken bones.

Hire a new psychometrist, and out the window goes the budget for the new computer lab.

It's a fairly up-scale school district has to make that choice. I'm more concenrened with family studies class in the inner city.

The time invested in sex ed has to come from gym class.

No, it doesn't; it's part of health education, which is integral to the curriculum. If you need more time, take it out of pep rallies and patriotic assemblies.

The time spent in religious education has to come out of a fixed pool of time that could otherwise be devoted to science or English or maths...

Religious education belongs in Sunday school, not public school.
Comparative religion is part of a comprehensive social studies program, which includes history, geography and anthropology.

So some economy has to be practiced here.

As everywhere. It's a matter of priorities.

Our expectations of schools are too often utopian and all-demanding...there are not the resources of time, materials and personnel to deliver everything.

And yet, my whole generation graduated high-school with a reasonable education, and without breaking the government.

[the parents who object can withdraw their child from the public system and enroll him in a private institution]
Then who pays?

Usually the parents pay a premium, depending on the private school, but they can usually get a tax benefit. It depends on the legal set-up in their state or province.

Can the parents take their tax money to the new school?

If the Separate School Board has a legal presence in their district, they can indicate school support on their property tax form and the board gets its share of revenues.

If so, you're talking not about public education, but about charter schools or a voucher system.

The institutions already exist. I didn't invent them; I merely listed the available options.

Do the objecting parents have to pay both their taxes on the public schools their child no longer attends AND the fees to keep the private school afloat?

Look up the relevant statutes in your district. I don't have that information ready to hand.

If they do, does that seem equitable to you? Why should they pay twice for something everyone else gets by paying once?

I don't. I've always supported public school and that's where I sent my kids. I have not particularly concerned myself with the objections of religious people, since they have their own resources, their advocacy organizations and their own alternate educational institutions. I'm in favour of public education remaining secular and inclusive.

Besides, your response seems to suggest the parents are radicals or wrong in their objections to what the public system has decided to teach. Is that necessarily true?

Is what you think my answer seems to suggest necessarily true? No, I don't see how it could be.
I didn't say they were radicals or wrong. I said they usually object to their child learning something of which they prefer to keep child ignorant. I can't imagine trying to design a fact-based educational program that excludes everything some religious group prefers their child not to know.

Can't the public school system sometimes decide to teach things that are wrong, ideologically-coloured, misguided, inappropriate for some children, or simply legitimate subjects of controversy or doubt?

A public school system can and must institute whatever the normative principles of the governing body dictate. There is always controversy and doubt. There is always argument and debate. There is always change.
Of course, in the previous question, you specified sex and religion, both of which are perennially contentious issues in diverse societies. In the first instance, the objection is usually to students being taught something factual; if this pov prevails, the majority of students are deprived of practical knowledge. In the second, the objection is to students not being taught something anecdotal; if that pov prevails, the majority of students are subjected to one particular dogma.

But if they can, then why would we assume that parents are never justified in objecting to what the bureaucracy has determined to inculcate in their child?

We wouldn't, and I haven't. The first two alternatives I suggested, and you ignored, were advocating and organizing for a change in the program. Sometimes even parents' associations of small minorities accomplish this by convincing the board, or majority parents, of their case. When the board makes very unpopular decisions, a larger number of parents, and sometimes other advocacy groups, come forward to affect a change of policy. A big enough dissenting faction can even affect the change of a good policy to a bad one.

Can't a parent ever have an objection to the public indoctrination decided by the ministry, and that objection be fair?

Not sure what you're shocked about. Parents have a great deal of input and influence on the schools. Interest groups have, too. They are never, ever denied an opportunity to present their case, whether it's fair, twisted, righteous or bogus.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Schools do not create kids that are without discipline, self-restraint or respect of their elders,

Why should children automatically 'respect' anyone who is older than they are? There are plenty of 'elders' who deserve anything BUT respect.

[Skip]

Indeed. Such elders should probably not be hired as teachers. Whatever makes them unworthy of respect usually disqualifies them from taking charge of a community's children.

[commonsense]

IC wrote something like the following:

Put the in a meal program, and they can’t afford a football team.

I took this and the rest of IC’s examples in a more general sense than Skip did. I understood the examples to simply mean that if one thing is added, another item must be subtracted. I didn’t think it would have to be specifically the football team that is out of the budget when a meal program is added. Maybe the new program would cause some other valuable but totally unrelated program to be axed. Its a matter of tit for tat under a zero sum budget game.

[Skip]

IC wrote something like the following:

Put the in a meal program, and they can’t afford a football team.

I took this and the rest of IC’s examples in a more general sense than Skip did. I understood the examples to simply mean that if one thing is added, another item must be subtracted.

I got that. Just don't like football. But it wouldn't matter what you had to cut: feeding children is fundamental. If they're chronically underfed, it doesn't matter what programs you fund instead: they can't learn, grow or thrive.

Maybe the new program would cause some other valuable but totally unrelated program to be axed.

Sure - that always happens when you lavish ridiculous wealth on shit that blows up and stint on the development of your young.
As I said, every society has its dominant value-system and sets its priorities accordingly.

Its a matter of tit for tat under a zero sum budget game.

And you see nothing wrong with that state of affairs?

[gaffo]

This topic comes from another discussion.

Everybody complains about teachers..."They don't teach like they should," everybody says. Okay. Let's take that as truth, and not deny it.

What SHOULD they teach? Can you give a brief outline of the topics/skills that should be covered in what you consider an "adequate" or "good" education? What are teachers failing to do, that you consider they ought to be doing?

And if you want, just for fun, why not talk about some subjects/skills/concepts they are now getting involved with, that you think they definitely should not be involved with?

Fire away.

great question!

Elementary education:

Critic thought, self knowledge.........i.e wisdom

middle school and high school, History (objective - not nationalistic), Civics (no longer taught - its good to know the machine of govvernance of your land - to undertand the "president/senate/congress/juidiary" etc --per your nation).


one can be Wise without knowledge of histroy or Civics - but its a lot easier to be so with such knowledge.


BTW STEM of course is impoirtant, but we can all be STEM and when over valuatoin of STEM we end up with follish STemers.


there is a balance in all things and critical thought/historical knowledge/civiis as been ignored for the last 40 yrs to our detriments./

for an example of a STEM genious fool Edward Teller.

nuke panama to make a bigger channel, nothing more need be said.