Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would find it shocking to meet an adult who had not heard of Christopher Columbus. I'm not a big fan of "Core Knowledge", but I do agree with the principle that there are some facts that an educated person knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aconite
Why do we (for certain quantities of "we" which equal "those who write curricula for public schoolchildren") assume general science is something children are not ready for until third grade? Moreover, why do we classify the basic principles of physics, chemistry, or herpetology as "general science, fit for third graders" and not "basic principles of physics, chemistry, or herpetology"? Are we afraid eight year olds are too dim to understand that there are different kinds of science? They aren't, in my experience. Even the very youngest kids in our co-op understood that when Mr. Mike was teaching them "herpetology", he was bringing in his snakes, and not his fossils or his star maps, and the average nine year old can sling terms like species, family and taxonomy like nobody's business if they're interested enough-- whether or not they can read books about them (and often, a deeper interest is the trigger for gains in reading ability, no matter how old the child-- though I suspect you knew that).
Well, if you read nana's post, she said some of that is taught in kindergarten. I'm just going by memory of my own kids; my oldest turned 27 today, and my baby will soon be 24, so it's been a long time since I had a kid in elementary school. And it is not possible to learn that stuff at any kind of higher level, if you don't know how to read.
So why do we bother to let blind people go to college? Self esteem? How did Ray Charles learn to play like that when he couldn't read music? How did Nicholas Saunderson or Abraham Nemeth become mathematicians, or Louis Braille develop...well, Braille?
Your argument is simply indefensible.
It is sad that education can be so different across the states. I was not implying that it was all the educational system that would spit them out, it's the kids too.
Your house directors were right, we are skeery. I am certainly not blind to the fact that there are way too many parents here are "over-zealous" shall we say? In the end though, my kids benefited from a good education because of the skeery people.
This is spot on. Unschooling sounds like parenting, I don't get it. Homeschooling I completely get, unschooling is an extension of parenting. Maybe some far out there parenting but parenting nonetheless.
Well, really, all education is an extension of parenting, no matter where it takes place, no? Even with a child who is totally "schooled", the parent is the one who steers little Herman's education, either actively or by doing nothing and letting him flounder.
So why do we bother to let blind people go to college? Self esteem? How did Ray Charles learn to play like that when he couldn't read music? How did Nicholas Saunderson or Abraham Nemeth become mathematicians, or Louis Braille develop...well, Braille?
Your argument is simply indefensible.
Well the one thing we did have in our paltry public school was a debating society, and, well......strawman!
Well the one thing we did have in our paltry public school was a debating society, and, well......strawman!
Me? That was an example used in refutation, not a strawman. Katiana said it is not possible to learn beyond a rudimentary level without being able to read. I offered examples. One example to the comtrary negates a universal negative, as I recall.
I suppose it's possible that she was suggesting it is only advanced herpetology, and no other form of educational pursuit, which is impossible to learn at an advanced level without being able to read. But I fail to see why that would be the case. If that was her intent, perhaps she could elaborate. Preferably with citations.
Well, really, all education is an extension of parenting, no matter where it takes place, no? Even with a child who is totally "schooled", the parent is the one who steers little Herman's education, either actively or by doing nothing and letting him flounder.
Well, of course. It is where parenting becomes classified as schooling is where I get lost.
Someone said earlier that they never taught their child to say thank you, they learned from example. This is not schooling to me and I find it odd that this is actually classfied as part of this whole unschooling thing.
Bottom line with all my repetition, road block, failure to grasp all of this. Homeschool, I get. There is a curriculum that is followed, subjects are taught, kids learn and are tested. I completely understand that this can be a great method and I don't think kids are short-changed at all except maybe in some athletic/social capacity. Even that I think can be minimal.
Unschooling leaves me with a picture of little Johnny running around with the stupid wooden spoon for 6 months without a rule or regulation in the world and can't string 9 words together in a book. Meanwhile Mommy sits back acting proud as punch because her little boy knows all about a spoon.
I am really not trying to be snarky or rude, I just don't get it. There is no way I see these kids being able to cope as adults in the real world.
Me? That was an example used in refutation, not a strawman. Katiana said it is not possible to learn beyond a rudimentary level without being able to read. I offered examples. One example to the comtrary negates a universal negative, as I recall.
I suppose it's possible that she was suggesting it is only advanced herpetology, and no other form of educational pursuit, which is impossible to learn at an advanced level without being able to read. But I fail to see why that would be the case. If that was her intent, perhaps she could elaborate. Preferably with citations.
Katiana is more than capable of speaking for herself. I would imagine when she used the term "read" she was speaking in general terms, as it is the vast majority of the population who have the physiological ability to read words on a page. For the miniscule percentage of the population who are unable to "read" in the traditional sense, most rational people would understand Braille, etc, to be included in that descriptor.
So why do we bother to let blind people go to college? Self esteem? How did Ray Charles learn to play like that when he couldn't read music? How did Nicholas Saunderson or Abraham Nemeth become mathematicians, or Louis Braille develop...well, Braille?
Your argument is simply indefensible.
Indefensible, you say? Well, no. I'll defend what I wrote. Here is a very intersting article on Braille; I know, it's Wiki, but it's a great overview.
A study conducted in the state of Washington found that people who learned Braille at an early age did just as well, if not better, than their sighted peers in several areas, including vocabulary and comprehension. In the preliminary adult study, while evaluating the correlation between adult literacy skills and employment, it was found that 44% of the participants who had learned to read in Braille were unemployed, compared to the 77% unemployment rate of those who had learned to read using print.[13] Currently, among the estimated 85,000 blind adults in the United States, 90% of those who are Braille literate are employed. Among adults who do not know Braille, only 33% are employed.[8] Statistically, history has proven that Braille reading proficiency provides an essential skill set that allows visually impaired children not only to compete with their sighted peers in a school environment, but also later in life as they enter the workforce.[10]
So these people ARE reading, just using a different alphabet, so to speak, than English.
As a child, he is also thought to have learnt to read by tracing the engravings on tombstones around St John the Baptist Church in Penistone with his fingers. His early education was at Penistone Grammar School.
Also knew Braille, and actually improved it for math.
In re: Ray Charles, he went blind slowly,and he was sent to a school for the blind where he learned Braille.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aconite
Me? That was an example used in refutation, not a strawman. Katiana said it is not possible to learn beyond a rudimentary level without being able to read. I offered examples. One example to the comtrary negates a universal negative, as I recall.
I suppose it's possible that she was suggesting it is only advanced herpetology, and no other form of educational pursuit, which is impossible to learn at an advanced level without being able to read. But I fail to see why that would be the case. If that was her intent, perhaps she could elaborate. Preferably with citations.
You offered no examples. The people you gave as examples used Braille.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick
Katiana is more than capable of speaking for herself. I would imagine when she used the term "read" she was speaking in general terms, as it is the vast majority of the population who have the physiological ability to read words on a page. For the miniscule percentage of the population who are unable to "read" in the traditional sense, most rational people would understand Braille, etc, to be included in that descriptor.
Exactly! It is absolutely ridiculous to say that it is not necessary to be able to read to learn. Literacy is the mark of civilization.
ETA: I agree the blind thing is a strawman.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 03-15-2011 at 12:14 PM..
Requirements are considerably different now than when I was in high school-- they're different from when my eldest children were in high school, AAMOF. The biggest changes that I've seen, though, from eldest children to youngest, are at the elementary and middle school levels. The emphasis on teaching for testing has contributed toward making elementary school one of the most dreary, joyless places I've seen in ages. If I had to teach public school third grade I'd be eying the cutlery on a daily basis.
Considerably different? Eh. Not convinced. As far as I know, kids are still expected to know how to read and write, how to do sums and measure things. They need to have some general idea of what the world looks like, and recognize that it is, in fact, roundish. They need to know that Russia is somewhere other than Santa Fe, New Mexico. They need to know that eggs come from birds and reptiles. They need to know that at some point in world history, there were some ships called the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria. They need to know that "math equation" means. They need to know what a noun is, and they need to know that even though they say "I axe you a question," they are actually meaning "I ask you a question." They need to know how to wait quietly in line. They need to know how to exit a building if there's a fire. They need to know how to throw a ball of some size or another.
Are children not required to know these things anymore? If not, then sure I'll agree that the requirements are considerably different.
When a ten year old is taking SAT prep its a bit much. Public school teaches plenty. How to walk in a line, sit quietly, do as you're told, don't color out of the line, Think what I tell you to think and regurgitate it in one week and then immediately forget it, conform, misinformation about sex, drugs, and life, how to be a follower,popularity is tantamount, without brand names you're less than, God is a myth, sex is totally cool, and that you are defined by a piece of paper with your name at the top.
It amazes me that educated people doubt that they can teach their own child at least on a elementary school level. Of course a paid starnger with 29 other children and 45 minutes to spare can do more for your flesh and blood than you can. I wonder who taught children before the Gov decided they wanted everyone at work? I bet we were a buch of uncreative, cowardly, talentless, unpatriotic zombies afraid of hard work back then.
I challenge the average US HS graduate to point out Russia on an unlabeled map. You should YT the vid of graduating HS seniors when asked who the first US president was. It was the little girl from china who started with the correct name and ran it all the way up to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama. Just sayin....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am certainly not blind to the fact that there are way too many parents here are "over-zealous" shall we say? In the end though, my kids benefited from a good education because of the skeery people. 
