What Should Teachers Teach?

[Iwannaplato]

1) reading writing arithmatic (though just the basics of the last, unless a student requests more; the first two only to the extent they don't get this at home, that is until they have their own engines going.
2) how to learn, where resources for learning are, how one can improve things, how to reflect over learning, how to find what interests you, what it takes to learn (like practicing things that are tough but not too tough, for example)
3) how to ask questions, who to ask questions of
4) how to work in pairs and groups
5) what you are learning and how you are learning it and even why
6) a range of epistemologies - bring in experts of these - read: not just science, but a range or epistemologies and within science bring in people who have different methodologies.
7) how to challenge authorities and do this with them.


Give them feedback. Offer to test them. Give observations of why certain things are not working out and how they can improve. Request their criticism often. Scaffold their learning. Find opportunities for apprenticing, visiting older learners and workers and experts in situ. Guide them into various parts of the world, always optional. Give them challenges, optional.

[Immanuel Can]

What the hell do so-called 'narcissism' and eating disorders have to do with school teachers?

Much.

These are personality dysfunctions that have a lot to do with how a student learns, what they can learn, and how they treat themselves and others. For example, bulimics regularly underperform at cognitive tasks because they are starving their brains of fuels, especially complex carbohydrates. They find they can't learn, and become desperate and scared. The physiological problem causes the learning disability. As for narcissists, they also cause a lot of complex learning problems, mostly in others: they often absorb disproportionate amounts of attention, and often dominate and marginalize weaker students, hurting their chances of success, or deflecting learning from its necessary path in order to maximize their own advantages. They are overwhelmingly arrogant in their judgments, and as such, may fail to learn out of sheer arrogance.

And if teachers go teaching "self-esteem" nonsense, they can actually make these conditions even worse.

[Immanuel Can]

But do NOT forget that it ends up being people just like 'you' who vote in these ministries who CREATE these actual 'systems'.

Not me.

So, who EXACTLY is there to, so call, "blame" or, more correctly, 'accept responsibility' for this human being created 'system'?

Education ministries are generally staffed by ambitious, politically-motivated people. Most of them were never teachers, or have not been for a very long time, and weren't teachers for long in the first place. Ministries are dominated by theorists, politicians, and non-teachers. There are reasons for this, but I won't go into all of them here. Suffice it to say, the public education system is a football for politicians, because it's incredibly lucrative, incredibly important in the public perception, and incredibly easy to manipulate.

Close 'what' door, and do 'what', so called, "right thing"?

For example, close the door of your classroom, and teach your children to read and write, instead of teaching them the latest social justice propaganda as demanded by the Ministry.

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.

What the WHOLE 'education' "system" 'should' do is do what the word 'education' once originally MEANT, and this is; to draw out, as in to just draw out the potential within EACH and EVERY one. And, then just teach the student what 'it' is that they WANT to learn.

That's not quite how it was. E-duco does indeed mean "to draw out," but this is a bit of a misnomer. Education has always involved some measure of added content, and not all content is what particular children feel they want at a particular moment in their psychological development. Lots of kids even start off resisting things like reading practice, or writing, or doing maths.

Considering the internet and its search engine, in the days of when this is being written, then whatever just about ANY one wants to find, learn, or know can be found in said internet.

But that's no different from saying, "All the answers to an education can be found in a library." Maybe they can, and maybe they can't. But it's not an education to know where the library is, if one has no grasp of anything in it.

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

LOL WHO has EVER suggested, or WHEN has there been some suggestion, that "schools should supply ALL needs"?

Actually, it's fairly common that parents expect things of schools that schools cannot actually deliver.

One parent expects the school to instil in his child a work ethic or a set of values the parent herself hasn't bothered to instil, and doesn't practice in front of her child. Another thinks it's the school's job to provide basic meals. Another thinks the school can make a child who's only good at things like drama or computers and has no desire for studying biology into a pre-med student. Those sorts of absurd expectations are actually very, very common, because parents often don't understand what a school can and cannot achieve, and would rather have the school do things the parent himself/herself finds challenging than take on the challenge himself/herself.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What the hell do so-called 'narcissism' and eating disorders have to do with school teachers?

Much.

These are personality dysfunctions that have a lot to do with how a student learns, what they can learn, and how they treat themselves and others. For example, bulimics regularly underperform at cognitive tasks because they are starving their brains of fuels, especially complex carbohydrates. They find they can't learn, and become desperate and scared. The physiological problem causes the learning disability. As for narcissists, they also cause a lot of complex learning problems, mostly in others: they often absorb disproportionate amounts of attention, and often dominate and marginalize weaker students, hurting their chances of success, or deflecting learning from its necessary path in order to maximize their own advantages. They are overwhelmingly arrogant in their judgments, and as such, may fail to learn out of sheer arrogance.

And if teachers go teaching "self-esteem" nonsense, they can actually make these conditions even worse.

Nothing to do with the teacher or teaching. A 'student' is someone who is studying at university or other tertiary institution. Yet another word the yanks have fucked up.
As I said, if you want to find a 'narcissist' (i.e. a conceited fuckwit) then look at most school teachers. Look in the mirror.

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing to do with the teacher or teaching.

Have a nice day.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A true narcissist. Thinks they can dictate to another person what kind of day they will have

[RCSaunders]

Teachers should teach whatever they are being payed to teach, and that decision can only be made by those who hire them, if anyone wants to hire them. It is not up to anyone to determine what anyone else is taught, except the parents of children.

So long as no one is forced to be taught anything (by the government, for example), like everything else in life, if one wants, "teaching," done by someone else for themselves or their children, it is entirely up to them to decide what is taught and to pay for it.

Ultimately, no one can be, "taught," anything in the sense of one person putting knowledge in another person's head. Everyone is an autodidact, but most fail to make the effort to learn very much, and have no desire to.

Few have done more harm to more people than professional educators.

[Skip]

So, does that mean, private tutors acting as servants to the whims of the rich and no education for the poor? Put those slum children back in the sweatshops!...
Oh, wait, it's been taken over by robots. I guess those poor children will just have to grow up on the street and learn to be criminals.

[Iwannaplato]

Teachers should teach whatever they are being payed to teach, and that decision can only be made by those who hire them, if anyone wants to hire them. It is not up to anyone to determine what anyone else is taught, except the parents of children.

So, children do not get to choose what they learn. And when they are adults they are not free to choose what they do in their jobs. They move from children of their parents to in loco parentis to their employers' interpretation of their clients' desires. Apart from the slavelike existence, it's a waste of human resources. Of course teachers should have a large part of the decision what to teach. They should teach what they are interested in, offering their particular tool set for learning. Now a lot of things need to change for this to work. I don't think teachers should be in a position to put thoughts or morals or knoweldge directly into children's brains. What happens in both much of private and public schooling. The pedagogy of filling brains with the right facts. We could empower both the children and the teachers much more. But that is a very complicated set of changes.
I went into a tiny bit here.

viewtopic.php?p=487208#p487208

[Age]

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

But, OBVIOUSLY, if 'you' were Truly 'old school', then these were NOT even being taught.

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

You forgot about your favorite, teach the children that they can shoot dead absolutely ANY one who touches absolutely ANY thing, which they BELIEVE is "theirs" ONLY.

teach the children that they can shoot dead absolutely ANY one who touches absolutely ANY thing, which they BELIEVE is "theirs" ONLY.

yeah, that's not what I've posted, ever, in this forum, or anywhere

Are you talking about in those EXACT SAME WORDS?

Because if you are, then I would be the first to AGREE that you have NEVER posted those EXACT SAME words, in this forum, nor probably ANYWHERE.

But you have posted YOUR VIEWS on who "deserves" to be shot, from YOUR perspective of things, which included IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, even included your own wife and own son, (if you have them) if they "touched" your 'things', which I do NOT recall were EXACTLY at this moment of writing this here now.

[henry quirk]

But, OBVIOUSLY, if 'you' were Truly 'old school', then these were NOT even being taught.



You forgot about your favorite, teach the children that they can shoot dead absolutely ANY one who touches absolutely ANY thing, which they BELIEVE is "theirs" ONLY.

teach the children that they can shoot dead absolutely ANY one who touches absolutely ANY thing, which they BELIEVE is "theirs" ONLY.

yeah, that's not what I've posted, ever, in this forum, or anywhere

Are you talking about in those EXACT SAME WORDS?

Because if you are, then I would be the first to AGREE that you have NEVER posted those EXACT SAME words, in this forum, nor probably ANYWHERE.

But you have posted YOUR VIEWS on who "deserves" to be shot, from YOUR perspective of things, which included IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, even included your own wife and own son, (if you have them) if they "touched" your 'things', which I do NOT recall were EXACTLY at this moment of writing this here now.

you're wrong, age, no if, ands, or buts

never wrote it...never wrote a damn thing remotely like that...never wrote anything that could honestly be interpreted as that

[Age]

And if teachers go teaching "self-esteem" nonsense, they can actually make these conditions even worse.

This can be SEEN as an extremely narcissist and arrogant view in and of itself.

[Age]

self esteem cannot be taught, it can only be aquired via yrs of living life as a kid/adult.

"Self-esteem" is also a priority of a now-discredited explanation of child psychology. For example, it was once said that bullies have "low self-esteem." We now know that this is totally false; many have very strong self-esteem...too strong, if anything. What many lack are things like empathy, perhaps conscience, and a sense of responsibility. Likewise, building "self-esteem" can be useless for a child whose problem is narcissism or eating disorders, and in some cases, may simply reinforce unhealthy mental patterns that are already in place. it's certainly no longer assumed that it's the cure-all educators once acted like it was.

But as you say, it's best "acquired." Real self-esteem has to be built on actual self-worth or actual attainments. If it's built on sheer puffery, then it's merely delusional thinking.

So, to you, the 'self' is built upon, so called, "actual self-worth" and "actual attainments", correct?

What are 'you', "immanuel can", "worth" and what have 'you' "actually attained".

[Immanuel Can]

So, to you, the 'self' is built upon, so called, "actual self-worth" and "actual attainments", correct?

What are 'you', "immanuel can", "worth" and what have 'you' "actually attained".

Heh. I guess that's for me to know...but ultimately, for God to decide. I am not the judge of my own worth or achievements. The answer to that will be up to Him. I bow to his greater wisdom in any such assessment.

[Immanuel Can]

And if teachers go teaching "self-esteem" nonsense, they can actually make these conditions even worse.

This can be SEEN as an extremely narcissist and arrogant view in and of itself.

There's no particular reason why. It's verifiable that if you take somebody with a self-overesteem problem like narcissism or bullying, and add to the perpetrator's sense of self-worth, you're only going to make the situation worse.