What does Hatrack think of this curriculum for grades six through twelve:
Grade Six:
English Literature, the Modern Epic (Tolkein and T.H. White, Life of Pi as a spiritual epic)
World History and Human Geography
Pre-Algebra
Latin IA
Continuation of first foreign language from primary school
Intro to lab science and common scientific practices
Units of art History, music theory and theatre
Grade Seven
English Literature, an introduction to modernism through short stories
Pan-American history
Latin IB
Continuation of first foreign language
1 Semester each of Human health and anatomy and Computer science
Algebra IA
Art history, music theory and theatre
Grade Eight:
Intro to World Literature, Great Books I(Gilgamesh, the Odyssey, Grimm's Fairy Tales, Catch-22, The Tempest.)
U.S. History and government
Latin II
Final year of first language
Algebra IB
Earth and Sea Science
Art history, music theory and theatre.
Intro to Philosophy
Will add secondary school curriculum. later
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Definitely sounds more advanced then my middle school classes.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I can see where art history, music theory, and theatre would be a waste of time for large portions of students.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Yes, Stephan, more so than mine as well. Well, Eighth grade follows my own experience fairly closely, although I was only in Latin I and with no other language, but this has more to do with what I thought, and think, should be taught. I also did take art history every year and music theory in sixth grade, but my school lamentably lacked a theatre program.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Interesting that you chose to spread Algebra I over two years. I think that avoids the biggest objection I was going to have.
You are clearly describing a curriculum that is not intended for the vast majority of students. Eight periods a day, a dead language for everyone. Just what is "common" about this curriculum? This plan would shut a lot of doors needlessly. If this were a Pre-IB curriculum, I would object less strenuously, but your curriculum, were it the law of the land, would make middle school beyond the reach of most.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
It's challenging, but I see less emphasis on math and science versus the humanites.
[edit] You have a health class, so I assume phys-ed is included somewhere in there -- I hated it, but with childhood obesity becoming what it is, I think it should be a requirement.
--j_k
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Why Latin, as opposed to Greek or German? Do you have any specific works in mind?
And I'm not sure that Catch 22 should be considered a great or seminal work. It's good book. A book that should be read, and a book I've read a few times, but 1) I think it's too long to be given adequate treatment in class, 2) It's not terribly deep. Steinbeck or Salinger would prove better fodder if you are looking for 20th century lit., in my esteem, with Catch 22 to be read over the summer.
quote:Gilgamesh, the Odyssey, Grimm's Fairy Tales, Catch-22, The Tempest
I'm curious, why Gilgamesh and not Beuwolf, the Odyssey and not the Iliad, and Grimm's Fairy Tales rather than Chaucer?
In general, what are your goals with this curriculum. Until you state them, the list is going to sound like just a list of things you like to study.
[ July 26, 2006, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
When you change the average home life of urban youth to include valuing education, time spent with parents on education, and entertainment avenues that value education, this might begin to have a hope at working.
Extracurricular factors will, in my experience, trump curricular ones. The best curriculum in the world cannot combat an accepted and willful culture of apathy. You can plunk the great works in front of a teenager with no interest in reading them, and there will be no learning.
The greatest and most eloquent presentations in the world will fall on deaf ears if the audience is disinterested and places no value on the presenter.
(P.S. Your posts have shown some improvement, btw. There's still a long road ahead of you before you really start taking your audience into consideration, but it seems like you're at least walking on it, which is good to see.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think you make a good point, FlyingCow, but you don't seem to be considering that even under the best societal circumstances, some of Pelegius's courses will simply be impossible for some students. Would you deny a student a middle school education simply because learning Latin is an impossibility?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
scratch latin. require spanish as the foreign language. (esta es AMERICA. Aprende la lengua, ese.)
Add the choice of mandarin or japanese at 8th grade. The next generation is going to need to know both.
scratch english lit and focus on spelling and grammar. Keep the short stories in 7th grade. You're going to lose the kids attention with poetry and epics.
Lose art history and keep theatre. Most kids love to ham it up on stage. Theatre will teach them culture without losing their attention. Some singing should be involved with this too. If you can sing you can entertain yourself, by yourself forever. (no onanism please)
Keep geography, history, the math and the science. Especially lab science.
Add keyboarding. Kids MUST learn to type these days.
Add "Life Skills" probably in 10th grade. This will include simple stuff like how to write a check, how to do your taxes, how to fill out a job applciation, how to organize and pay your bills, how to spot a scam. The basic skills you need to survive in this society that school typically doesn't teach.
Move Philosophy to 10th grade. We don't teach philosophy in american high schools and we seriously need to. Most people have no basis for their beliefs except someone told them that God said so.
Pix
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
You completely neglect physical education (as JTK pointed out) as well as vocational training (art history but no art, music theory put no performance, no shop, no Home Economics or economics at all). You're light on science an technology (one computer science class, one science class/year) and heavy on humanities.
Your proposed curriculum is fine for somebody interested in becoming a Humanities professor, but I think it fails in its goal of being "common."
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
No, Ic.
Some courses are impossible for some students. For instance, I know basic sixth grade math was impossible for one of my students, regardless of how motivated he was to learn and how many hours of tutoring and extra lessons he came in for. Fractions and division were simply beyond his grasp. (I suggested a learning disability, which the parents are now investigating.)
I think, though, that most students, given motivation and interest in a topic, can learn. If for some reason the hottest new video game, hottest new rap artist, and hottest new movie all had elements of Latin that made them popularly valued, you would see a marked increase in the number of students enrolling in Latin courses.
I don't think learning Latin is impossible - at least not any more impossible than learning any other language. It's a matter of interest and use. If the girl you have a crush on speaks Spanish at home and with her friends and at work, you have a vested interest in learning Spanish so you can use it to be part of her world. Such scenarios do not happen with Latin.
However, if the national culture started to value Latin (in pop culture, games, movies, etc), and people started to speak it amongst themselves at home, there would be more hope in teaching it to the masses.
Since that is not (nor never again will be) the case, it's unrealistic. No interest = no learning.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
My major complaint is the lack of focus on writing. I'd cut back on the 6th grade English Lit to 1 semester, and devote the other semester solely to persuasive and descriptive writing, with an emphasis on grammar and structure.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I do like the idea of art history over "art". I had an art teacher in middle school (art being a mandatory course) who only based ones grade on how good your art project (painting, clay work, etc...) was. I barely managed a "C", and hated art for the next 5 years. I just have no artistic talent whatsoever. I eventually developed an appreciation, and started to love going to museums.
Posted by sarfa (Member # 579) on :
honestly, most students don't need Algebra spread over 2 years, especially since there is a large overlap in Pre-algebra and Algebra 1A curriculum. If a student is prepared to take Pre-Algebra in 6th grade, there is no reason why they shouldn't be prepared for geometry (or some sort of mildly restructured Algebra II if you think that geometric proofs are too challenging conceptually for 8th graders)by 8th grade. From teaching experience, the 2 year Algebra 1 course is really only good for students who struggle in math (that is to say, it really should be used solely for remediation). The pace is incredibly slow and I've found that most of the students who succeeded in Algebra 1A & 1B were not prepared for the faster pace of geometry (and subsequent math classes) after those 2 years of crawling through the curriculum.
Now, adding a large dose of Algebra II content could work, but then the class would be a 2 year Algebra I/Algebra II hybrid. Which could work, since a lot of Pre-Calculus content overlaps with Algebra II content. This would require a complete restructuring of the math curriculum, but that's not neccessarily a bad thing.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Most of the usefull lessons I got from Jr High and High School came from my Orchestra class. And, as an employeer, I would protest that unless your teachers understood the principals of "school to work" this curriculum is insuficient to support modern life in the US.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Add "Life Skills" probably in 10th grade. This will include simple stuff like how to write a check, how to do your taxes, how to fill out a job applciation, how to organize and pay your bills, how to spot a scam. The basic skills you need to survive in this society that school typically doesn't teach.
I would like to add that I think students should be exposed to credit reports. I have graduated college, am married, have a baby, and have for the first time this year seen my credit report.
I don't know how it works--I do have a good friend has his MBA and runs a bank branch who is helping me understand it. My score is already rising (it wasn't as nearly as bad as I thought it was, and now it is quite ok.).
I would like to see real world examples in schools how different scores on real report (with account #s blotted out) and have kids figure out how differences in interest rates would affect total cost on car payments and house payments.
Educate kids on credit. I would leave this for highschool, but I would introduce the concept in middle school.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Educate kids on credit.
Why bother, when you could educate them to never use credit?
(Yes, I am kidding. Yes, I'm poking fun at the "teach abstinence!" crowd.)
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"You completely neglect physical education (as JTK pointed out) as well as vocational training " This was highly intentional.
"I'm curious, why Gilgamesh and not Beuwolf, the Odyssey and not the Iliad, and Grimm's Fairy Tales rather than Chaucer?" The Illiad is neither as interesting to most students, nor, I think, as influential a work as the Odyssey. Beowulf and Chaucer will be taught in 11th grade, although I admit to this being arbitrary. I disagree with you about Catch-22, which is both interesting to students and important in its themes and literary devices.
"scratch latin. require spanish as the foreign language." Spanish, French or German would be the most likely firs foreign languages, taught in Elementary and Middle School, note that I made room for these.
"Add "Life Skills" probably in 10th grade. This will include simple stuff like how to write a check, how to do your taxes, how to fill out a job applciation, how to organize and pay your bills, how to spot a scam." Too vocational (we are training doctors, lawyers, profesors, journalists etc. here), and mostly common sense anyway (I for one have never been scammed, even in Turkey, and never had such a class.)
" You're going to lose the kids attention with poetry and epics." All children love epics, observe the family film market.
p.s.: I considere typing to be part of computer science,
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I don't see the real reason for Latin. Of course, I live in Miami; it's not like we have much a choice as to what other language to speak around here...
I always wondered what I would have chosen if I had elective choices as early as the sixth grade. By the time I had those choices, my path was pretty much set as to what I wanted to do.
Someone mentioned your literary choices; I think there's more to it than that. I read Catcher in the Rye in a Jesuit school, which is probably unthinkable these days because on how that book is viewed by the moral majority. I've seen schools pick books that, although they are arguably not the staples needed in literary teaching, they are the works that cause smaller waves.
And, if you're talking public schools, I seriously doubt you'll have them bring up a "spiritual epic" because of church and state connotations (I've never read it, so forgive me if I'm incorrect in that).
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
So...essentially you're writing the curriculum that YOU would want...not one that would be defined as "common".
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
Pel,
You're not creating a 'common' curriculum with this process... you're creating a curriculum for students who are gifted in multiple fields...
I'm a smart guy... in fact when it comes to math/science I'm a very smart guy. I STINK at foreign languages. While it'd be nice to speak one I haven't ever found it truly detrimental not to.
I for one would be incredibly annoyed if I was forced to take a dead language instead of a class that might actually be useful... like some classes in computers etc.
Many 'average' students don't find life skills to be 'common sense'... if they did there wouldn't be so many scams that work and there wouldn't be so many people under a mountain of credit card debt.
But the fact that you're not creating a common curriculum isn't your fault... unless you're willing to dumb it down to the least common denominator you simply can't make a common curriculum.
Anyway, that's how I see it
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Highthawk, Life of Pi would doubtless be challenged, but should pass any reasonable test, as it clearly does not promote one religion above another (although it is highl anti-agnostic at some points, while allowing for atheists.) I think that if it is taught as the charecter's opinion, rather than irrefutable truth, it will work.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote: p.s.: I considere typing to be part of computer science,
That, to be blunt, is foolish. There are ALOT of people who will never need/want/take a comp-sci class that would benefit very much from a typing class...
If you said it was part of a 'basic computer skills' or 'word processing' or 'office automation software' class then OK, but computer science implies a heck of a lot more (programming, networking etc).
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"scratch english lit and focus on spelling and grammar." Elementary, my dear Pixiest. As in the level of school that should be taught in. Notice he ends his sentence is preposition, probably too much time spent on Summerian epics in middle school.
A note on the most common complaint, any curriculum, applied at the statewide level, e.g. the French pre-Bac system, is common. I shall add more electives in secondary school.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think that typing should be taught in elementary school, for the same reasons we teach cursive writing in Elementary school.
Maybe that's not true. Typing should be taught in elementary school for some of the same reasons we teach curvise writing in elementary school.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Spanish, French or German would be the most likely firs foreign languages, taught in Elementary and Middle School, note that I made room for these.
Not french or german. Spanish. It's our 2nd national language. French might be useful in new england, but spanish is spoken by a huge and growing segment of our society.
quote: "Add "Life Skills" probably in 10th grade. This will include simple stuff like how to write a check, how to do your taxes, how to fill out a job applciation, how to organize and pay your bills, how to spot a scam."
Too vocational (we are training doctors, lawyers, profesors, journalists etc. here), and mostly common sense anyway (I for one have never been scammed, even in Turkey, and never had such a class.) [quote]
I assure you, as a man, you will need to know how to organize and pay your friggin' bills. I've never known a man who could do this right, including my ivy league educated husband.
Sorry guys, I'm sure there are exceptions out there, but it's true.
And we're not JUST educating the upper crust or you would have called it a Gifted curriculum instead of a COMMON one. Maybe you chose your words poorly?
[quote] " You're going to lose the kids attention with poetry and epics." All children love epics, observe the family film market.
Films are effortless. Reading takes much more time, attention and work. The two are not comparable.
You never see 12 yr old children bugging their mom to buy them Tolstoy at the book store.
quote: p.s.: I considere typing to be part of computer science,
mm... possibly... but there's a lot to cover on both of these topics. I'm not sure smooshing them together will work.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I haven't used cursive since elementary school for anything except signing my name. What's cursive writing for? May as well teach slide rule.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
In my opinion, grammar is not something that should be taught in elementary school and then neglected throughout middle school and high school. I think that grammar—along with other basic topics in English linguistics—should be taught all the way through primary and secondary education.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Irami, Probably. Our greatest danger is procrastination, leaving things that should be taught in secondary or middle school to the university level and things which should be taught at the university level to the graduate level. We, as a country, do this to a very great degree, more so than most other developed countries.
Although I love English, I do not intend to take it my first-year year at university, not when I could, and hopefuly shall, be learning about Homeric Archaelogy and Athens in the age of Peracles (both first-year courses at Oxford's school of Ancien History and Classical Archaelogy.)
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Pel, I'm not sure what part of my post you are addressing, but I do know that I don't agree that procrastination is the biggest problem. Once we figure out what to do and why, proves to be the easier part. Figuring out what do and why seems to be the trickier parts. Moral clarity and vision isn't easy, and it's not cheap, but it makes the action that follows a lot more compelling and attractive.
Pix,
quote:Not french or german. Spanish. It's our 2nd national language.
That's true. My arguments for German, Greek, and Latin don't stem from their being useful foreign languages; I think that we should learn German, Greek, and Latin because of those languages, and the seminal works written in those languages, influence on American English language and thought.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"I think that grammar—along with other basic topics in English linguistics—should be taught all the way through primary and secondary education." Why? Time is limited and there are more important things than that/which usage (something I admit to never having mastered.) Thank God for copyeditors.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Students today will use typing skills on a regular basis. I stopped writing in cursive as soon as the option was presented to me.
For what it's worth, I do think that an understanding of basic Latin and Greek terms can be very helpful, particularly in classes where students must learn vocabulary. However, I'm not sure studying it extensively (as extensively as, say, Spanish) should be a priority.
--j_k
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Ignoring physical education and vocational skills? Pfft. You know nothing, child.
Any intelligent human being realizes that decent hand-eye coordination and physical fitness are essential to living. Just because you got a few wedgies and were the target of all the first throws in dodgeball doesn't mean that learning how to do a proper situp and how to catch something someone throws at you isn't a valuable skill.
Not everyone learns by reading books. I am an excellent example of this. I have a really high level of reading comprehension. I have always scored perfectly on all of those sections of any standardized test I was ever given (not that it's hard). However, I understand a concept far better seeing it executed than reading even a well-written explanation in a technical manual or book. Almost everything I consider myself to be knowledgable in (Computers, Car Repair, etc) has come from practical experience.
And, seriously, there will come a time when you'll realize that knowing how to use a circular saw and a drill is a really freaking handy life skill.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Snowden: Would that we could learn all foreign langauges... but alas we're going to be limited by what we have time to actually speak. Becuase if you don't speak it you forget it.
As we are limited, we need to pick the ones that are most useful. Spanish is #1 in that list. Mandarin and Japanese vie for #2. Everything after that is interesting intellectual pursuit.
They should be saved for interested intellectuals to pursue and not be included in a common curriculum.
Pix
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:May as well teach slide rule.
I was taught how to use a slide rule. Granted, it was in a gifted program, but still.
quote:p.s.: I considere typing to be part of computer science,
Some people above are confusing "computer science" with "computer literacy". Typewriters, in and of themselves, are useless, but I think everyone can benefit from basic typing skills, even if they don't graduate beyond "hunt and peck" a word a minute.
Then again, in my experience I've noticed that, if you do take a compu-sci class, you're expected to know how to type already. Besides, with modern day exposure to computers in schools my five year old types almost as well as I do.
"How to write a check"? I was never taught that. And, by the time they may be old enough to need it, odds are they won't have to anymore. Welcome to the Plastic Age.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"It's our 2nd national language." This is a dangerous mindset, many student will doubtless be working in the U.K. or France or Germany. Brussels is already becoming a destination for the best students from around the world, and there they speak French.
"Mandarin and Japanese vie for #2." Although Tokyo and Beijing are important cities, they cannot claim to be world capitals like Brussels, London, New York or even Vancouver For one thing, they are too isolated from the rest of the developed world and, as a result, are very ethnically homogenous. ASEAN is not yet the global power that is Nato (French and English), the E.U. (twenty languages).
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Nighthawk: I pay my credit card bill with a check, actually. And at 16 many of them will already have a checking account into which they deposit their mcjob check.
But writing a check was just an example. It could be they're taught how to pay their bills on line.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Fortunately, many European countries already speak English fluently. While I have nothing against learning German, French or other languages, anyone staying in America is much more likely to need Spanish.
It's also handy for vacationing in Cancun.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Don't get me started on cursive, at least 3 quarters of my class loathed it when we were taught it, or forced to write in it.
I go to public schools and in Elementary we did have typing courses (which I completely forgot, but I'm doing fine) but we didn't learn any foriegn language expect a few phrases in Music or Social Studies.
I agree with taking out Art history. Most of the kids in my class would rather learn how to paint, instead of who has painted. My Art teacher last year had us read from textbooks almost every class. But I'd keep theatre. Pretty much everyone liked it. It gives us kids a chance to write and act. At least, we got to play fun games and write two plays.
As for having sixth graders read Tolkien, I don't think many would pay attention. I'm an avid reader and can't wait to read LOTR, but many of my friends just barely suffered through The Egypt Game .
I'd agree with not teaching Latin. Teacher's would have a hard time getting kids to learn, since we constantly point out why we'd never use it in real life. (Still haven't gotten an answer back from a few teachers )
I'd also disagree with continuing the forgein language. At my school, we learn Spainsh in sixth, French in seventh, and German in eighth. Then in High School, we get to chose what language to continue, if we want to.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:"Mandarin and Japanese vie for #2." Although Tokyo and Beijing are important cities, they cannot claim to be world capitals like Brussels, London, New York or even Vancouver For one thing, they are too isolated from the rest of the developed world and, as a result, are very ethnically homogenous.
This is changing, though. The sheer size of China's economy is going to make the language more important in the future. And even though the nation is rather homogenous and probably will remain so for some time, I suspect more students are going to opt to study there in the future as China becomes more important to our foreign policy.
--j_k
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Time is limited and there are more important things than that/which usage (something I admit to never having mastered.) Thank God for copyeditors.
Most people working in offices don't have the benefit of copyeditors. Between the graduate who knows and understands Gilgamesh and the graduate who can write a coherent and well organized essay, I'll take the latter. More writing!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So this curriculum is not for people who want to be copyeditors?
Where will they get their education?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Pix,
I don't want to learn all foreign languages. Just English, and attending English thought, well. We don't speak or think in English very well because we don't learn the Latin, German, and Greek language and thought that gave birth to the words we use.
I'd rather we'd speak with clarity and percision in our one mother tongue. Spanish is great. Mandarin is great. But you are talking about teaching languages for commerce, I'm talking about teaching languages for life. The same way we don't teach history for commerce, we teach history for life.
James T. Kirk,
I'm talking about basic Latin, Greek, and German, one maybe two years of each, anything else would be elective.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"well organized essay" there is no such thing. Books are organized, essays, being so very short, simply flow from the fingers into one thought, supported by others. The five-paragraph essay is, perhaps, the greatest monstrosity of middle school education. Orwell did not use five paragraphs in "On Shooting an Elephant," nor did Jefferson write a five-paragraph "Declaration of Independence." I could go on, Wittgenstein did not use paragraphs, etc. but I shant.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Irami, I agree -- my statement was addressing Pelegius' original post. The replies have been coming in really fast, so I'm a bit behind
--j_k
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pel,
Organization does not mean adhering to a strict rule or template - it means putting the pieces together in the way that best communicate the point of the work. Good essays are most certainly well-organized. Good paragraphs are well organized. Good sentences are well-organized. Any piece of communication that contains three elements or more has an organizaton, and effective communication is organized well.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Pelegius,
*throws his hands up* Whatever. Quit being a git. If you want other people to take you seriously, do them the favor of taking them seriously. Edgehopper has a point, or at least a true belief, do him or her the courtesy of addressing that point.
James T. Kirk,
I just didn't want people to think that I wanted to mandate that every future ditch digger become an expert classicist.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
LOL. That explains so much.
Edit: I think I may retract my earlier P.S.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: "well organized essay" there is no such thing. Books are organized, essays, being so very short, simply flow from the fingers into one thought, surported by others.
No. All writing is organized. Otherwise words it's random just.
Even a short essay needs a structure to effectively convey what you're trying to say.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "I think that grammar—along with other basic topics in English linguistics—should be taught all the way through primary and secondary education." Why? Time is limited and there are more important things than that/which usage (something I admit to never having mastered.) Thank God for copyeditors.
Because writing is becoming more important than ever, yet most Americans have only a dim awareness of real grammar and language issues. For instance, you are apparently unaware that the that/which distinction is largely a fabrication. And if we don't learn much about grammar in elementary or secondary school, then where are the copy editors supposed to learn it? If your answer is "college," just take a look at some of the writing produced by people with degrees in English and minors in editing.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't follow Irami Osei-Frimpong. How will learning Latin, German, and Greek make people speak and think in English better.
It's a bold claim that "We don't speak or think in English very well because we don't learn the Latin, German, and Greek language and thought that gave birth to the words we use." and I don't see any truth to it.
I would argue that learning philosophy would do immeasurably more to further thinking in English than would learning a dead language.
I also think you give too little credit to learning another language. Learning to be fluent in Spanish or Mandarin would certainly give a person new perspectives on language and culture.
You realize that China and Latin America/Spain are places, and that learning the languages of these people, who actually speak and write the language will greatly enrich a person's experiences.
I would argue that learning to speak a language and interacting with people in that language is much more a "language for life" as you say, than studying the writings of a long dead scholar in the original form.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
FlyingCow, I don't believe you addressed my post. You made some generic claims on how things that are considered hard could be learned by most if people were properly motivated. Okay, I agree. That doesn't change the fact that an inflexible curriculum will force out kids who could be successful otherwise.
My daughters, for instance, who are learning disabled (might as well point it out before MrSquicky does) but nevertheless are capable of reading and writing and basic arithmatic, would never progress past fifth grade under Pelegius's "common" curriculum.
-o-
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "I think that grammar—along with other basic topics in English linguistics—should be taught all the way through primary and secondary education." Why? Time is limited and there are more important things than that/which usage (something I admit to never having mastered.) Thank God for copyeditors.
Ah. You don't want to teach anything useful. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Deleted because there have been about 15 posts since the post I was commenting on.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"You realize that China and Latin America/Spain are places, and that learning the languages of these people, who actually speak and write the language will greatly enrich a person's experiences." Latium too was a place, and its culture has had a profound influence on our own. Oh, it is easy and fashionable to deride Latin, but we are a western people. This is not to say that we have nothing to learn from the east, but our roots are as Græco-Roman as they are Judeo-Christian, arguably more so.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: I would argue that learning philosophy would do immeasurably more to further thinking in English than would learning a dead language.
Because you can't extricate philosophy from the language. It's why Catholics learn prayers and why we have Americans Pledge Allegience before they understand the words "Pledge" and "Allegience."
Let's take economics, politics, and democracy. All three of those are greek words. The problems those concepts give us today are strikingly similar to the problems that they gave those people who first coined the words and executed the institutions. And I'm of the opinion that the poets and philosophers of Athens gave the issues of economics, politics, and democracy a more rigorous discussion than most political writers since. And what they were saying is controversial to the extent that unless you know that language, you are going to be at the whim of a translator.
The church figured this out, and now most people learning to be protestant Pastors learns Greek. For similar reasons, I strongly believe that anyone who is going to live in a democracy should learn Greek, also.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Because writing is becoming more important than ever, yet most Americans have only a dim awareness of real grammar and language issues.
--especially since people are spending more time on the internet, and grammar is the first measure of intelligence online. Netiquette would be the second.
--j_k
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"My daughters, for instance, who are learning disabled (might as well point it out before MrSquicky does) but nevertheless are capable of reading and writing and basic arithmatic, would never progress past fifth grade under Pelegius's "common" curriculum." I am dyslexic, apparently rather severly so, and dysgraphic, quite clearly severly so: do not presume my predjudices without ground. If I can learn Latin, and I have come a long way in that direction, anyone can. I was raised to believe, and indeed do believe, that children with learning disabilities can perform on the same level as their peers. Einstein, Da Vinci, Edision, Woodrow Wilson and others are or were dyslexic; dysgraphia is so common that there are no lists of people with it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's worth noting that dyslexia is, in the great scheme of things, a fairly minor learning disability.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: f I can learn Latin, and I have come a long way in that direction, anyone can.
Your assumptions concerning learning disabilities are without merit, as you cannot make a one-to-one comparison of disabilties.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
There's a world of difference between something like dyslexia or dysgraphia and some of the other, more severe learning disabilities that some people face.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I would like to see logic on a list somewhere. I think Latin should be an elective. I took a polisci course in college where they covered basic logic and rhetoric. I have a heavy math/ science background and the focus of English classes at my high school was persuasive writing. So, I found the first half of the course to be extremely obvious. However, for the class in general, it was the hardest section with the lowest grades. Watching the students and seeing the grade distribution on the test really convinced me of the need for a logic course.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I am aware of only a few common learning disabilities: Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, ADD, Dysphasia and Dyscalculia. ADD is highly treatable, the rest can be substantialy overcome.
There are other conditions, which are not learning disabilities, which can neith be treated not overcome, these include Autism (actualy present in some of the most brilliant minds), and various forms of mental retardation. These need special consideration, and the people suffering from them may not be able to function in society and must be treated specialy, i.e. with special schools etc.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are missing information.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Please, elaborate.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Scholar,
Teaching political science is tricky for a few reasons, not the least of which is because you have another infelicitous crash of a Greek idea and a Roman idea. Let's assume the Latin influence, the science. Then Political Science takes the form of mechanics course, as in, this is how a bill becomes a law, complete with election engineering. It puts an improper emphasis on the procedure.
You'll find a lot of people who go to law school are afflicted with this disease. You'll ask them whether something is something is right or wrong, they'll answer with whether it's legally defensible or permissable. There is a Political Science version of that, which gets people to think that the right action is the one that garner's over fifty percent of the vote, the guilty are those pronounced so by a jury, and that everyone behaves according to some rational science construct.
I'm not against introducing political science in high school, but I do believe that there is a lot of baggage there that should be dealt with first.
[ July 26, 2006, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Knowing Latin and Greek roots of words is a great way to understand words you've never encountered before. It's sort of like knowing phonetics and pronouncing words you've never encountered before.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I don't care about teaching the polisci part actually. I want the logic section- for example- why calling your opponent a nazi is not a legitimate response (yes, people had trouble with that). Or why if all cats are orange and John is orange you can't assume John is a cat. GRE analytical session stuff.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Why, exactly, is physical education ignored?
I'm not a fan of the PE classes I remember, which were mostly (with a few exceptions) hours of the coach weeding out and favoring the athletically gifted and trying not to openly scorn the rest of us. But I do believe that a class devoted to teaching proper exercise routines, healthy diets, sportsmanship, and the usefulness of competition, as well as exposing students to different sports and athletic activities, would be a necessary thing.
A life lessons class would also be necessary, I think. Few teenagers know how to read a contract, figure points on a mortgage, interpret credit card bills, deal with crooked companies, etc.
And a logic/rhetoric class would be invaluable at an adolescent age, particularly one that used current commercials as examples of logical fallacies. Teach the kids how to avoid scams, political hogwash, and other dogmas. What would be of more lasting use for the average student: how to conjugate Latin verbs, or how to avoid being scammed by a car dealer?
When pressed on missing classes you've mentioned that you had no trouble learning them on your own. I'd point out that the same could be said for everything on your list.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:I am aware of only a few common learning disabilities: Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, ADD, Dysphasia and Dyscalculia. ADD is highly treatable, the rest can be substantialy overcome
Pel, You'd actually become smarter if you could stop pretending that you already know everything. ADHD is not a learning disability, per se, as it genrally encompasses multiple learning disabilities that manifest themselves through ADHD behaviour.
IN addition to the disabilities you've listed, there is dyspraxia, cognitive development delay, and numerous adaptive skill delays. It takes teams of psychologists, neurologists, and therapists to diagnose and treat these disabilities, and your lack of awareness into their existence doesn't negate the effect they have on people.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It's been said, so I won't belabor the point. Your list of learning disabilities is incomplete, and you know far less about my daughters' abilities than I do.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I don't follow Irami Osei-Frimpong. How will learning Latin, German, and Greek make people speak and think in English better.
It's a bold claim that "We don't speak or think in English very well because we don't learn the Latin, German, and Greek language and thought that gave birth to the words we use." and I don't see any truth to it.
I agree that the reasoning is spurious, but the conclusion is correct. Learning foreign languages makes it easier to think about your own, simply through being exposed to different ways of organising a sentence or conveying information about case. (This is especially true if you are really taught grammar, as in analysis.) In a similar vein, a programmer familiar with two languages is much better than one who knows only one, other things being equal : He can see what features are due to how computers work, what is just a quirk of one language, and that there can be many ways to think about a problem. (Consider how differently you'd do the same thing in Lisp and in C; then consider Java or another object-oriented language.)
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:And a logic/rhetoric class would be invaluable at an adolescent age, particularly one that used current commercials as examples of logical fallacies. Teach the kids how to avoid scams, political hogwash, and other dogmas.
Agreed.
There was a brief logic unit in my Geometry class (don't ask, I don't know either) and we only worked in abstractions -- If P then Q, etc. It seemed pointless then and only later did I understand their intent. The skill needs to be learned, but can't be taught in that fashion.
--j_k
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"There is dyspraxia, cognitive development delay," Dyspraxia is not a mental concern, but a physical one (Asimov, a famously dyspraxic person, certainly had no trouble with mental work). I would not cosider it a learning disability. I certainly do not consider cognitive development delay, formerly known as mental retardation (which is in fact an exact synonym, as retarded means delayed), a learning disability, it is something far more difficult to deal with. ADD is a learning disability, although the term learning disability is actually political rather than medical and result, rather than cause, determined.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"The skill needs to be learned, but can't be taught in that fashion." I agree, note that Wittgenstein and Russell used objects, not algebra, to prove their points.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Pel, I'm going to give you some advice. Shut up about learning disabilities. Just shut up now before you say anything more. You're just going to piss people off and make yourself look stupid. Just don't talk about it.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Pelegius,
Could you please explain your views on education? What exactly is the aim of primary education both for the individual and society? I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer for that, but perhaps seeing what you value would help me understand what you prioritized and why.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
I'm sorry everyone, but I just have to ask...
Pelegius, is there anything you're not an expert on? I'm constantly impressed that you know best on every subject and am wondering if there is anything worth talking about amongst the rest of us or if we should just run everything by you as the leading authority on... well... everything.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Primal Curve, I have as much right as any, and more than most, to be heard on this issue and I greatly resent your accusations and similar ones, especial seeing as they are unsupported by evidence.
What have I said that caused offense and made me look ignorant, stating the fact that cognitive mental delay is not a learning disability? Well, I go further than that, calling it such is an insult to developmentally delayed people, whose condition it belittles, and people with learning disabilities, whose mental status it belittles by association, everywhere.
The message must be sent to the world that students with learning difficulties are not life long cripples but can, and have, succeeded in many fields, including academia.
I am personaly tired of being considered stupid by people whom I do not even know, becouse I did not learn to read until the age of seven, and then only with profesional help. I am not stupid, and nor do I believe the millions of others with my condition are.
If I "piss people off," by suggesting that it is possible, and desirable, for children with learning disabilities to learn Latin, so be it, I know and can prove that I am right.
I shall not, cannot, recant this position which is based on fact, personal experience and personal honor.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: especial seeing as they are unsupported by evidence
<snickers> Oh, delicious irony.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
personal honour?
You're nothing but an elaborate troll, aren't you Pel?
Are you Cedrios?
You've gotta be someone's alt who's just having fun with us, right? No one is this pompus!
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
BaoQingTian, the goal of primary education is education itself, leading to an educated and knowledgeable society. The goal of secondary education varies, it is either to prepare students for a trade, while not neglecting the liberal arts, or to prepare them for certain university courses. The purpose of university education is to produce experts in a variety of fields (e.g. Anthropology or Law), the goal of graduate school is to produce people with even greater expertise at sub-fields (e.g. ancient Cycladic art or Intentional human rights law.)
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Hey, Pel, if you promise to respond to every point I make, I'll reply to your post.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: If I "piss people off," by suggesting that it is possible, and desirable, for children with learning disabilities to learn Latin, so be it, I know and can prove that I am right.
No, you stated—not suggested—that anyone can learn Latin. I'd like to see you prove that.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I have as much right as any, and more than most, to be heard on this issue.
1. No, you have a right to talk about it, but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you. 2. So most people have less of a right to talk about education than you do? Who determines how much of a right someone has?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Primal, your advice was as follows:
quote: Pel, I'm going to give you some advice. Shut up about learning disabilities. Just shut up now before you say anything more. You're just going to piss people off and make yourself look stupid. Just don't talk about it.
As far as I see, that is only point, to which I feel I have adequately responded.
Jon, can you think of any group or normal or above normal intelligence, other than dyslexics, that might have trouble with Latin. I cannot, but then I am clearly blinded by my own pomposity, as The Pixiest so kindly informed us.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"So most people have less of a right to talk about education than you do?" About learning disabilities and their relation to the learning of languages, yes. About education, no (although I present a students view which most, but not all, other members can no longer match. This, of course, not the only valid view.)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Pel: Maybe WE are blinded by your pomposity. Turn it down a bit please.
btw, Pel, we've heard how gloriously brilliant you are. I'd love to hear some of your accomplishments. You know, stuff you've actually done beyond grades, test scores and the adoration of millions of professors who worship at your golden feet.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Jon, can you think of any group or normal or above normal intelligence, other than dyslexics, that might have trouble with Latin. I cannot, but then I am clearly blinded by my own pomposity, as The Pixiest so kindly informed us.
Ah, but you didn't say "anyone with at least average intelligence, other than dyslexics, can learn Latin." You said that anyone—which includes people with severe learning disabilities—can learn Latin. Stop trying to weasel out of your own words.
And by the way, I've known plenty of people, including college professors, who have had a hard time with Latin.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "So most people have less of a right to talk about education than you do?" About learning disabilities and their relation to the learning of languages, yes. About education, no (although I present a students view which most, but not all, other members can no longer match. This, of course, not the only valid view.)
Boy, it's a good thing that we don't restrict people from talking when they're ignorant about a subject, huh?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: What have I said that caused offense and made me look ignorant, stating the fact that cognitive mental delay is not a learning disability?
Hey, cheese-for-brains, you asked me a question in your original reply to mine.
Seriously, you can't remember anything you've said from one post to the next, can you? It's like talking to a parrot with bad short-term memory.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I don't think a foreign language class should ever be mandatory. I think Language Arts/English should totally be reformed. History classes should be changed as well. I have never gotten past WWII in my history classes, and yet I have learned about slavery for like two years. Geography should be taught.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Jon, read again. I said anyone with at least average intelligence, including dyslexics, can learn Latin. If I did not state that people with bellow average intelligence did not belong in ordinary classes (although I know I certainly implied it), then I was amiss in thinking that this, at least, was self-evident. I have also denied that low intelligence is, in anyway, connected with learning disabilities.
"And by the way, I've known plenty of people, including college professors, who have had a hard time with Latin." Latin is not easy, that is actually one of its strengths, it makes other languages seem simple.
Pixiest, I do not see how this is necessary, but, if it serves to demonstrate that people with learning disabilities can succeeded in academic fields, I shall comply with your request. If that is your intention, merely say so and I shall write up a comprehensive C.V.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Sorry Pelegius, I need more than that. Education may be defined as activities that impart knowledge or skill. 'The purpose of education is for education' is so broad that it becomes useless. Your program is biased toward humanities. What about education in sciences and mathematics? Why is it less important at this level? What about physical & health education? Are life skills classes important?
I'm not trying to trap you or anything. Irami was involved a very interesting thread a few months ago when he put forth his views on the purpose of education. I want to know what your goals for education are as well as why they're important and valid goals. Then discussion of your particular curriculum may be more beneficial.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Jon, read again. I said anyone with at least average intelligence, including dyslexics, can learn Latin.
No, you didn't. Maybe you should read your post again. Here it is:
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "My daughters, for instance, who are learning disabled (might as well point it out before MrSquicky does) but nevertheless are capable of reading and writing and basic arithmatic, would never progress past fifth grade under Pelegius's "common" curriculum." I am dyslexic, apparently rather severly so, and dysgraphic, quite clearly severly so: do not presume my predjudices without ground. If I can learn Latin, and I have come a long way in that direction, anyone can. [Emphasis added.]
Nothing in there about having at least average intelligence. So I'll say it again: stop weaseling out of your own words. Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Elmer, I agree with you accept in regards to language. It may surprise you to learn that I hated Spanish in Primary school, with good reason, as our teachers were completely useless. For Geography, may I recommend Dr. de Blij's excellent book "Human Geography," which I am currently reading for my independent-study AP Human Geography and which is one of the most enjoyable and informative textbooks I have ever seen.
Bao, I generally subscribe to the liberal arts model, which is designed primarily to create educated citizens. My program is intentionally biased towards the humanities, because I do not feel calculus to be as important to a future voter as history or English, and higher level mathematics can be taught to future engineers as part of their secondary school technology-track education (I like the French system of dividing secondary schoolers into those studying humanities, those studying technology and science, and those studying both.) Physical education is counter productive as currently taught, although I could see a reformed system based on greater student choice as working, and life skills are generally a waste of school and student time.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Jon, I have already been clear that, while I might not have stated that this curriculum was for students of average intelligence, my neglecting to do so was because I though it obvious. If it was not I apologize.
I have, clearly stated that "There are other conditions, which are not learning disabilities, which can neith be treated not overcome, these include Autism (actualy present in some of the most brilliant minds), and various forms of mental retardation. These need special consideration, and the people suffering from them may not be able to function in society and must be treated specialy, i.e. with special schools etc." This clearly implied that students with mental retardation should not be put in schools with children of average intellegence.
It is true that, while I generally consider mental retardation to begin with an IQ of 99 or bellow, the official definitions classify it as being 70 or bellow. My use of language was imprecise, and I apologize for an any difficulty of communication it may have caused.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
From what I understand then, the main purpose of your educational system is for the creation of citizens educated in the humanities. This is ideal because they will be better participants in the democratic process. Is that a fair summary of your position?
Also, you were under no contraints to stick with the existing system when designing your curriculum. It's somewhat telling that you decided to leave off both physical education and health education courses.
[aside] I do somewhat object to your phrase 'educated citizens' as it seems to imply that the only types of educated citizens are ones with a humanities education. [/aside]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Jon, I have already been clear that, while I might not have stated that this curriculum was for students of average intelligence, my neglecting to do so was because I though it obvious. If it was not I apologize.
The problem isn't that you were unclear, but that you claimed that you said something different from what you actually said.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I think it is a useful to assume that all children in middle school will become university professors. This is clearly not the case, but it is a useful falsehood.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I think it is a useful to assume that all children in middle school will become university professors. This is clearly not the case, but it is a useful falsehood.
I laughed out loud at this.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Jon, I have actualy posted what I said and elaborated upon it, and, whether or not you choose to accept this is not my concern, I shall not grow progressivly more contrite.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Wow.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Jeesh, it is a radical notion, no? Most of the best are.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Why is Latin of more use than higher math, writing well and science (your curriculum is extremely weak on science)?
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
A little too radical.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It is something that sounds nice in theory, but that causes all kinds of heartaches in practice. (I cringe as I type this [but not too much ;)]:) When you are a parent or a teacher, perhaps you will understand.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
By the way, I think it's silly to assume that we can no longer have any insight into a student's reality because we have graduated from school. What that is is a fallacious way of equating your own conclusions with those of people who have more experience in an area than you do, as you feel that they have somehow lost an understanding of one phase of life when they passed into another, and so it is merely, in your eyes, a case of their single expertise versus your single expertise. Self serving but, I think, ultimately false.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
scholar, my curriculum is much stronger on science than most curricula in current use and even more so on writing, which is, of course, part of every literature and history course. Higher math has no place in middle school, nor do I know of any school that teaches it there. Did you perhaps go to a magnet school for science? I would be glad to hear suggestions on science.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
More radical ideas are among the worst.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: I think it is a useful to assume that all children in middle school will become university professors
Oh GOD I hope not! Wouldn't it be better if they were something useful and productive?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Jeesh, it is a ridiculous notion, no?
There—that's better.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
fugu, democracy was radical, as was capitalism and civil rights, in there time.
Pixiest, university professors are useful, although I would love for you to explain how they are not (doing so would inherently defame my family and my field of study which should be interesting.)
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Dude, you're still in high school. You don't have a "field of study."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Pixiest, would you argue that teachers in general are not useful and productive, or does your disdain only extend as far as university professors? Does it extend to all university professors?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Your reading comprehension is clearly having issues. Where did I say they weren't? I merely pointed out that being radical in no way implies good, and said that if anything it has a higher correlation with being bad.
Do I really have to break out the absurd examples to show why being radical has nothing to do with being good (edit: well, except as I expect there's somewhat of a negative correlation)?
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
ALL middle school students becoming professors? Saying maybe half would become professors is still never going to happen, but a better assumption. ALL of them though- that's just insane.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Dude, you're still in high school. You don't have a "field of study."' I have studied Ancient history for the past four years, have competed in contests in the subject, and am currently working on making my secondary school career as attractive as possible to Wadham College, Oxford, were I wish to study with Dr. Peter S. Derrow, a great authority on the Hellenstic and Roman worlds.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
So the fact some kids at my school studied math for four years in high school and participated in math competitions makes math their field of study? It doesn't. Most of those guys went on to become businessmen, journalists, housewives, lawyers, factory workers, policemen etc. etc.
What you study in Junior High and High school does not define your "field of study."
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I think they're saying "field of interest" would be a better term, Pel.
--j_k
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
University Professors teach. Much of the time, they don't teach very well.
Many of them are there because they couldn't do anything useful in the Real World. Couldn't hold a job. Couldn't find a job for their field of study.
I've known some great professors, but I've also known a lot of truely awful ones. The great ones ARE productive. They are also in the minority.
Grade-HS teachers are different. They're in the trenches, not the Ivory Tower.
Pel, if you are an example of what your family has produced, I'm afraid my defamation is the least of your worries.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
It seems like you want to lend credibility to your arguments on world history by making it sound like you're not a high schooler. You talk about "studying world history for four years" without providing the context of where you learned that information. I don't buy it. To me, you're just a kid.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I learned it from my Latin teacher, after school and on weekends, I also read and read many scholarly books on the subject. I have declared a thousand times my intention to study at the university and graduate school levels, I take independent-study A.P. history courses to make myself more attractive to said universities. This is no field of interest for me.
Pixiest displays an all too common disdain for academics, particularly common among the far right wing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:I think it is a useful to assume that all children in middle school will become university professors
Oh GOD I hope not! Wouldn't it be better if they were something useful and productive?
(Has two parents who are university/college profs.)
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Pel, there's probably 1 Oxford to every 100 University of Statecohol. Not every college professor is brilliant. A lot of them are idiots.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Woot! I'm "far right" now!
Guess I have to change my opinions on Gay Marriage and Abortion!
I better go buy a bible so I can thump it.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
<mails Pixiest a stuffed elephant>
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I now your politics only in regards to foreign policy, where you do seem to have some Neo-Con sympathies. And Atheists can be far-right too, indeed, Ayn Rand was archetypaly far-right.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I now your politics only in regards to foreign policy, where you do seem to have some Neo-Con sympathies. And Atheists can be far-right too, indeed, Ayn Rand was archetypaly far-right.
Economically right =/ right-wing.
Edit: to be clearer, you're ignoring the social axiom of politics.
I'm also amused that not owning a Bible and having a liberal (in the modern, not classical, sense) view on abortion & gay marriage means you're an atheist.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ayn Rand is archetypally far right? You have a very skewed idea of right wing.
Of course, you probably think Libertarians are far right too.
And if THAT is your definition of right wing, then yes, I'm pretty far right becuase I believe in freedom.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
That depends entirely on how far economicly right. I am a capitalist, and a libertarian, but no Objectivist. I am a Capitalist , not a Socialist, and thus right of center in economics, but still a Liberal.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
demonstrocity: I figured everyone knew I was an atheist.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: demonstrocity: I figured everyone knew I was an atheist.
I've never actually seen (or noticed, that happens on this board :\) you talk about your religious beliefs, but I'll suspend my continued Pelegial disdain - in that regard.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Virtue in Selfishness?" Very right-wing. Liberalism is about enlightened self-interest, not "virtuous selfishness" and Leftism is about abandoning self-interest all together.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Pel, lefties are the most selfish of them all. "I want the good feeling you get from helping other people but I want to spend other people's money to do it."
SELFISH.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
[ July 26, 2006, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
PC could you edit your poop so it doesn't whack out the screen?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Perhaps, I am not, as I feel like I am always saying, a Leftist. Maybe you should talk to one. I a Liberal, he says for the thousandth time, a member of that obscure group that never has a Parlimentary majority in any country. (But we have a head of state, go Ireland!)
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Why?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
pel: could you PLEASE say "classical liberal" instead of just plain "Liberal"?
Words change in their meaning. Would you say you were gay if you meant you were happy?
(well, ok, *I* would...)
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
On the math/ science issue, the pace is slow and the content seems like low level (Rocks for Jocks). As an overeducated liberal, gotta say- we have more than enough profs. My disdain for academia comes from being a part of it, not my political affiliation. Also, on the supply/demand side, we have too many profs for the number of jobs out there.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
[rant]
quote: Perhaps, I am not, as I feel like I am always saying, a Leftist. Maybe you should talk to one. I a Liberal, he says for the thousandth time, a member of that obscure group that never has a Parlimentary majority in any country. (But we have a head of state, go Ireland!)
Pel, why don't you just get over yourself already and accept that to most people Liberal==Leftist. (Even if technically Liberal not= Leftist). You've been told over and over that trying to keep making that distinction is confusing people and yet you insist. Why? Do you like the conflict? Are you indeed an ubertroll? Are you simply not capable of adjusting to the community in which you are participating.
Instead of trying to be all high and mighty "I know better than you" about EVERYTHING try writing coherently, editing your post and avoiding obtuse statements.
It's obvious you're trying, for some reason, to convince us all that you're smart, well-read etc. The best way of showing that is acting like it not shouting it at us over and over.
as the cliche goes you've talked the talk now start walking...
I don't post here much but I lurk quite a bit and it's pretty frustrating that every topic I read has you telling everyone else how great you are, how stupid they are and how you're so much better than them that you'll use the "true" definition of a word instead of the colloquial one!
[/rant]
(edited to change 'post' to 'topic' in that last bit) (and again cause I used ~= instaed of not= before and maybe it wasn't clear)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
While I agree with you to some extent, I have to say that I find the sneering disdain for Pelegius that has become quite common in threads started by him to be equally frustrating. You aren't doing that, but others are, and it doesn't help.
This thread was pretty interesting for the first page and a bit.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think it is a useful to assume that all children in middle school will become university professors
Oh GOD I hope not! Wouldn't it be better if they were something useful and productive? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Has two parents who are university/college profs.)
The founding fathers were landed gentry. This nation was constucted by people who thankfully, didn't have to worry about anything else besides constructing a nation, and those same qualities and liberties, generally diffuse over the people, are required for its viability.
If you take the long view, the history of the Western World was made up of people who labored and laymen, and it's the laymen who we read about and who bent the shape of this world. The laborers, historically speaking, were just too tired and ignorant to get anything meaningful going.
This experiment in universal sufferage assumes that everyone needs to have the sensibilities of a layman, and if that laymen is exemplified by a a University Professor, so be it.
I think that the nation would be in held in good stead if we gave the elementary education we currently reserve for future University professors to everyone.
To tell the truth, if rivka's dad wrote a book titled, "How I Taught my Daughter," I'd buy it, read it, and be a better person for it.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
<-- Agrees with twink
--j_k
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: PC could you edit your poop so it doesn't whack out the screen?
This is going in a sig somewhere, to be immortalized.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"could you PLEASE say "classical liberal" instead of just plain "Liberal"?" No, I am not a classical liberal, I am a post-modern Liberal. Liberals change too. To reiterate, the Progressive Democrats (Ireland), the Free Democrats (Germany) and the Liberal Democrats (U.K.) are Liberals, as the Canadian Liberals are perhaps also. The current Prime Minister of Spain, while technicly a Socialist, stikes me as being more of a Liberal.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "could you PLEASE say "classical liberal" instead of just plain "Liberal"?" No, I am not a classical liberal, I am a post-modern Liberal. Liberals change too. To reiterate, the Progressive Democrats (Ireland), the Free Democrats (Germany) and the Liberal Democrats (U.K.) are Liberals, as the Canadian Liberals are perhaps also. The current Prime Minister of Spain, while technicly a Socialist, stikes me as being more of a Liberal.
Pel, you're chopping a hole in the bottom of your own boat, dude.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have studied Ancient history for the past four years, have competed in contests in the subject, and am currently working on making my secondary school career as attractive as possible to Wadham College, Oxford, were I wish to study with Dr. Peter S. Derrow, a great authority on the Hellenstic and Roman worlds.
Are you sure that you really want to devote your life to being both useless and unproductive? It's not too late to actually do something with your brain.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:all children in middle school will become university professors
I have many issues with your curriculum, many have which been already mentioned, and I will go into them later, but let me address this idea of yours first.
The problem with this assumption is not what lies behind it- that you intend to deeply educate every child- but the fact that not every child wants to be a 'University Professor'. To be a 'university professor' of the type you mean, Pelegius, you take a specific, highly-intellectual viewpoint which is only palatable to a small number of people. The rest of the world takes any number of other viewpoints about what kind of job we would like to be doing. To teach specifically for one career, regardless of whether you think it is the hieight of knowledge would be as bad as teaching for any one career for the body of students as a whole, whether it be "university professor", "garbageperson" or "writer".
My opinion on this age group is that it is the most important time they will have at school, not necessarily because of what they will learn in countable ways but of the attitude to school, their understanding of the world, and their life learning skills. Because of this, if I were going to be a teacher, I would want to teach this age group.
I had very poor schooling in my grade seven and eight years. I learnt little lasting knowledge except in music, math, English and French. There were smatterings of Geography and History and one science class in two years (Fibre Optics- I remember it vividly). I did not suffer as an intellectual, and I don't think it really hurt anyone who was really determined to succeed.
You mention music theory as part of your curriculum. Here in Canada (Ontario, at least) every student learns a musical instrument in grades seven and eight. I feel like learning an instrument is far more meaningful than learning dry music theory, which is kind of empty without actually knowing music. I think learning an instrument and how to read music is a skill that is incredibly important.
For English, you list some very complicated epics. Now, what you have to take into mind is that most people of this age do not read. This does not mean they cannot read, it means that when they go home they watch tv or play computer games and find books more complicated than Harry Potter rather dauting. To me, teaching epics and deep poetry at this age would destroy any interest these young people might have in reading, and might even foster hatred of it! If, in this age group, English teachers can have the freedom to instill a love of reading through any means necessary- through Maus I and II, through Harry Potter, through Oliver Twist or whatever- it will mean more in the long run than spending hours untangling Gilgamesh. (That's what high school is for.) Children should not be forced to read something that is going to kill their interest in reading at this age.
Writing is also important, of course. Writing should be encouraged in all the other areas of the curriculum (Esp. History and Geography) but in English pre-essay-like responses should be assigned, and creative writing should be a part of the curriculum.
I worry about the lack of Science and Technology in your curriculum. The lack of science and technology in my own grade 7 and 8 curriculum did not hurt me in the High School classes I took. However, it hurt me deeply in the fact that I had no interest in science. In those key years, no one had shown me how truly fascinating the world of science could be. To this day, I am still trying to catch up. Science in grades 7 and 8 should be focused on the most interesting parts of science- the factual, exploratory parts- not the scientific method in excruciating detail*. Again, that can be taught in grade nine. Areas of study in these grades should focus on Scientific ideas/facts that are important, basic and most of all exciting.
(*Please note that the scientific method should not be ignored but it should not be the focus of study.)
Concerning Latin: A second language should be taught, but not Latin. It should be applicable to the world in which the children live. In America, that could be Spanish, in Canada, French etc. Perhaps an introduction to Chinese or Japanese could be taught once or twice. Learning to count and simple words would only take a couple of hours total and could be incredibly helpful.
Geography and History should definately be taught in grades seven and eight. Again, the focus should be on the most interesting parts of the world and of history, giving an overview of the world as a whole. These classes could focus on getting these kids to understand the world in general. They can be tied in with English through reading books, plays or watching movies that make history and the world in general come alive.
Basic topography and that kind of Geography should also be taught.
Theatre (acting/reading plays), PhysEd./Health/Personal Hygiene, Computers (typing- if not already perfected-, HTML, etc.), Art (including a little art history) and awareness of local goings-on should also be part of the Grade seven and eight curriculum. Throughout the year, small "one-off" classes should be offered in subjects omitted from the major classes. This "class" could be as simple as a documentary on a subject, or as complicated as bringing a 'specialist' in. These could include Archaeology, Architecture, Dance (if not included in PhysEd.), Special art classes (such as sculpture), and skills like sewing, knitting, bicycle repair or cooking.
The goal of these two years to me is mostly breadth and fostering an excitement in learning. It should be kept in mind that not everyone is an intellectual, however, the intellectuals should not be bored. Field trips to museums, scientific sites, gallaries, historical sites, play performances and community places should be frequent. When people graduate from Middle School they should not be able to quote sections of Gilgamesh from memory, they should be full of a bubbling interest in something. Along the way, they should have picked up a wide range of knowledge and understanding about the general world.
To me, that is the ideal preparation for high school: To want to learn more.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I'm a college junior, in Elementary Education, but I didn't feel quite qualified to say much about this.
My mom is a middle school english teacher who has subbed in all subject area's and also the high school level read it though, and had two comments to add.
You shouldn't assume half of students finishing 8th grade will go to college let alone become college professors.
and
Democracy is still quite a radical concept, it pretty much only exists in very small communities in the North East U.S.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: To tell the truth, if rivka's dad wrote a book titled, "How I Taught my Daughter," I'd buy it, read it, and be a better person for it.
I'll be sure to mention that to him.
What about if my mom wrote it? Would you buy it then?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Dude, you're still in high school. You don't have a "field of study."' I have studied Ancient history for the past four years, have competed in contests in the subject, and am currently working on making my secondary school career as attractive as possible to Wadham College, Oxford, were I wish to study with Dr. Peter S. Derrow, a great authority on the Hellenstic and Roman worlds.
You see, this is the kind of thing that makes me stop listening to you. I could spout off all kinds of crap about programs into which I have actually been accepted, honors I have received, and so forth.
Maybe we should all do that, so that you can stop acting so self-important.
/annoyance.
-pH
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
pH, I had similar thoughts in the other Pelegius thread about meritocracy.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Bravo, Teshi. Wonderful. Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Science in grades 7 and 8 should be focused on the most interesting parts of science- the factual, exploratory parts- not the scientific method in excruciating detail
Finally, someone says it!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You know, some of you *cough*pixiest*cough* in your haste to slam Pelegius, are slandering a whole host of other people as well. I have said before--though I hardly think it's a unique thought--that the wonderful thing about Hatrack, ideally, is the opportunity to interact with people who see the world differently than you, assuming that they are men and women of goodwill, and seek to understand how intelligent, well-meaning people could come to different conclusions, and in so doing challenge your own beliefs, strengthen your confidence in your convictions, and embiggen* your understanding of your fellow humans. It doesn't happen when you are certain that a whole class of people is useless, selfish, backward, or dishonest, simply because of their occupation or because of political or religious views which differ from your own. It also gains you nothing in life to be so goddamned arrogant in your knowledge of all the answers that you can so readily dismiss others as beneath you. (Isn't that, in fact, the most common criticism leveled at Pelagious? Is he the only one guilty of it?)
I do wish the slander would stop and be replaced with civil discourse.
* a perfectly cromulent word, according to my ideal curriculum
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
As one of those trying to stick with civil discourse, and too busy trying out a free trial of Eve Online to pay close attention to some of the more asinine posts, let me just expand on a few things.
First, where I'm coming from--I graduated near the top of a top private high school, was one of the best HS physics students in the world, and majored in Mech. E. at an Ivy university. I've also taught test prep for 3 years at HS and college levels, and just finished my first year of law school. I haven't had the experience of a parent, so I won't comment on the LD issues, but I'll humbly claim to have some experience with all the core educational issues.
Math: I actually don't like the 2 year Algebra I track. Rather, I'd prefer to see an extra "Pre-Algebra II" year thrown in to get kids to realize that there's more to math than manipulating numbers. Focus on probability, combinatorics, some applied math, logical reasoning, etc. It doesn't take 2 years to learn algebra, and there's no need to be further ahead than that by the end of 8th grade anyways. Most top universities will not accept HS credit for any math course beyond calculus.
Science: How it's taught is more a matter for the individual teacher than the core curriculum, and this core curriculum isn't too bad. Since they're all broad areas, they can't be covered in depth anyways, and should be covered in a fairly fun way. There really isn't anything more you can do with science in middle school, because the students don't have the necessary math to do anything serious. I expect the "scientific method" year will use simple and fun projects as demonstrations.
History: What is "Pan-American History"? I'm not quite sure what "World History" means for grade 6, but teaching it the way it's usually (or at least, supposed to) be taught to 9th graders would be a mistake. In middle school history, you're teaching kids the process and concepts of history in general more than any specific knowledge. For example, my 6th grade history class was focused on "non-Western cultures"--one trimester on Africa, one on East Asia, one on South Asia. I barely remember any of the content from that year. But it did get me thinking in the right way to learn history, so I was able to really learn the content in high school. Also, replace "Pan-American History" with 1 semester of American Government and 1 of Early American history. Maybe cover up to the War of 1812 in that extra semester. Understanding our country's history is more important to an educated citizenry than knowing trivia about other countries.
English: This is the biggest problem with the curriculum. It is, to be clear:
6th grade: 1 semester English Lit, 1 semester of epics 7th grade: 1 semester English Lit, 1 semester of short stories 8th grade: 1 semester World Lit, 1 semester of "Great Books I", which oddly includes Gilgamesh, Catch-22, Grimm's Fairy Tales, and the Tempest. Better than Romeo and Juliet at least.
No focus on writing, whether creative, persuasive or descriptive. No poetry. No American Literature except the odd inclusion of Catch-22 (On any list of "Great Books", Twain and Hemingway have to show up way higher than Heller.)
Look, Pelegius, one of the reasons your posts aren't getting the respect they deserve is because your writing is awful!
quote:Books are organized, essays, being so very short, simply flow from the fingers into one thought, supported by others. The five-paragraph essay is, perhaps, the greatest monstrosity of middle school education. Orwell did not use five paragraphs in "On Shooting an Elephant," nor did Jefferson write a five-paragraph "Declaration of Independence." I could go on, Wittgenstein did not use paragraphs, etc. but I shant.
No! Absolutely not. You're on Hatrack--I won't say that OSC is a master of the essay, but he certainly knows what he's doing. Go read his essays in the World Watch section, and if you can't see that there's a structure, a logical flow to his writing, then you're not looking hard enough.
The 5 paragraph essay is not the problem, it's an often necessary step along the way to good writing. It's the written equivalent of training wheels. The problem is teachers who don't require enough writing for students to get past the 5 paragraph form, and who only know the form by rote because they never learned how to write either.
At my top 5 law school, we were required to take first year legal writing classes. For most of us, it was the first real writing class we had ever had. Coming in, most of the writing was uniformly awful. And these should have been some of America's top persuasive writers for their level of education.
As for grammar, in a world where you'll increasingly be working through e-mail and internet postings, lines like:
quote:I am personaly tired of being considered stupid by people whom I do not even know, becouse I did not learn to read until the age of seven, and then only with profesional help. I am not stupid, and nor do I believe the millions of others with my condition are.
will only get you scorn. "Personally" has 2 Ls, and you don't need the "and" before the "nor". Grammar is more than nitpicking over whether to use "that" or "which", or even "who" or "whom". It's about putting your words in the correct order to be understood. Using poor grammar rankles, and undermines your arguments.
And just a bit of nitpicking on the choice of literature: If you want middle schoolers to ever read a book again when they get to high school, include something that's, um, readable. May I recommend "To Kill a Mockingbird," or "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn"?
Languages: Latin's a dead language. Even if we're assuming that every middle schooler will become a professor, only a tiny minority will be professors of Classics or ancient history. More power to you in your chosen field, but you have to understand that you are (and should be) a tiny minority. You're one of the preservers of an ancient and great culture, if you like. Meanwhile, if you're going into the sciences, German, French or Russian is the language to learn. But since no one seriously learns a language in middle school anyways, I don't much care. Except...
P.E.: A necessity for balanced souls. And it's not just about exercise. Sports teach healthy competition in a way that little else can. Loyalty, teamwork, respect for the rules--there's an awful lot to get out of P.E. class. And as a scholar of Hellenistic culture, you should have a fairly good understanding of that idea, at least second-hand
Pelegius, the main problem is that your curriculum appears not just to have been written by someone who idolizes academia, but by someone who idolizes the Classics. What would work for you would make a lot of other students miserable for no gain, and would leave out a lot of other beneficial subjects of more use to the vast majority of students.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Wow, a lot has happened since yesterday.
Ick: I wanted to address your post before I forgot. You said:
quote:FlyingCow, I don't believe you addressed my post. You made some generic claims on how things that are considered hard could be learned by most if people were properly motivated. Okay, I agree. That doesn't change the fact that an inflexible curriculum will force out kids who could be successful otherwise.
Very true. I in no way, shape or form support this joke of a curriculum, or any curriculum that forces all students into some homogeneous idea of what "everyone should learn". I'm much more in favor (as I've posted on other threads in the past) of schools tailored to the differing needs of students (i.e. a performance school that handles the basics of readin' ritin' and rithmatic' but through the lens of the performing arts, or a technical school that covers the three R's through the lens of that field).
I have long believed the idea of No Child Left Behind (that all students should achieve a certain level of performance) is misguided because it only measures student progress in one direction. Students learn in a multitude of directions, and not all can be corraled along one path (and still have the hope that all will learn to the best of their ability or that all will succeed to an equal level).
The point I was making was that before any ideas of learning disabilities or other walls between students and that curriculum could even be addressed, the more widespread problem of student interest would need to be addressed.
As it is, we accommodate as best we can for students who in some way cannot learn at the same speed or level as others. Regardless of the curriculum, it can be modified, and rigid inflexibility in a curriculum is never desirable.
I will reserve my other commentary on the nature of this particular curriculum, because I feel it's been beaten up enough (though Pel will never admit it).
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Edgehopper, I agree with you about Algebra. My point was not that I favor Algebra I spread out over two years, but that this simply alleviated something I was going to object to, and that was the taking of Algebra I by all students in seventh grade. When I used to teach middle school, I used to hate teaching the honors Algebra I class. The students were extremely bright and motivated kids who had received As all their lives in math, and could not understand why suddenly they were struggling. They were struggling because, no matter how smart they were, Algebra is a big intellectual jump, requiring a different way of looking at math. Simply put, very few seventh graders are ready for it. Before Algebra I, math is a left-brain discipline. After, it is more of a right-brain discipline, though some people never figure that out. Memorizing, which works so wonderfully in elementary school math, becomes pretty useless, and countereffective, in upper level math classes. And some things that will make sense with a bit more maturity are simply alien concepts at that young age. So what inevitably happens? Middle school Algebra I classes are watered down. You can't fail all those smart kids, or even give them all Cs. So middle school Algebra I classes don't cover what 9th grade Algebra I classes used to. (My daughters who are in elementary school, now bring home math handouts with "Algebra" written across the top in big letters. It must make you look good as an elementary teacher to say, "Oh, I'm teaching them some algebra!" However, the fact is that nothing on those handouts actually is algebra. The NCTM magazines are full of lesson plans for teaching "algebra" to elementary school kids, but once again, they are doing no such thing. Sure, they may be laying the groundwork for algebra, or for abstract thought in general. But algebra it ain't.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Good post, FlyingCow. I like that your magnet schools would not short-change the basics.
(If only our magnet school of the arts were hiring.)
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Unfortunately, I'm again dragged into the mire to point out an inaccuracy.
Pel, you said:
quote:There are other conditions, which are not learning disabilities, which can neith be treated not overcome, these include Autism (actualy present in some of the most brilliant minds), and various forms of mental retardation.
and
quote:What have I said that caused offense and made me look ignorant, stating the fact that cognitive mental delay is not a learning disability? Well, I go further than that, calling it such is an insult to developmentally delayed people, whose condition it belittles, and people with learning disabilities, whose mental status it belittles by association, everywhere.
and
quote:the term learning disability is actually political rather than medical and result, rather than cause, determined.
Since you seem so interested in education and learning, let me lay some on you.
Here you can find the text of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. And here is a good primer on Learing Disabilities for teachers.
An excerpt from the latter:
quote:The federal government defines learning disabilities in Public Law 94-142, as amended by Public Law 101-76 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act-IDEA):
"Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, or mental retardation, emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage."
Beyond learning disabilities, there are several other developmental disabilities students may suffer from.
In addition to learning disabilities, any student with a disorder listed in the DSM-IV is eligible for Special Education. Here is a page that details what a teacher might run into in an IEP (Individualized Education Program) for a Special Education student.
There is also a tonof case law regarding students with learning or developmental disabilities and their place in the educational system - specifically with regard to whether they should be taught in separate classrooms or accommodated within the mainstream classroom.
As katherina said earlier,you were missing information.
Posted by Mathematician (Member # 9586) on :
I'd much more advocate (for some people) something to the effect of
6th grade: 1.Algebra 2.Geometry 3.Logic 4.Intro to Philosophy 5.Set Theory (an introductory course to advanced mathematics) 6.computer science 7.physics
7th grade:
same as 6th, but more advanced
etc etc ...
11th grade: "How to write a scientific paper" rest more advanced, but the same.
Finally, in 12th grade, one more class:
How to find and marry someone who can handle the real life things like paying bills, budgeting, and knowing whether or not something is "socially acceptable".
Hey, it worked for me ;-)
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
Icarus - I agree with you that most 7th graders aren't ready for Algebra. My objection to spreading it over 2 years is more that it's a waste of good time. If the concepts are too abstract for 7th graders, taking twice as long to teach them won't help. I went to a school where the honors track did a year of pre-algebra II before 8th grade Algebra I. It consisted of subjects like:
Inductive & deductive reasoning Basic logic Geometric constructions Solid geometry Probability Combinatorics Other discrete math topics
Lots of fun, somewhat practical stuff that was very mathematical, but not too abstract for 7th graders. If the elementary school math curriculum is good (a big if), then all you're really doing in 7th grade math is waiting for brain development. Might as well learn some new topics that will stimulate an interest in math, rather than just going over the same old arithmetic--assuming they actually learned arithmetic earlier, of course.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
One of the biggest problems I found teaching sixth and seventh graders math was the usability factor.
The math currently taught at that level includes some of the most highly used every day math skills. Estimation, percentages, operations with decimals, operations with fractions, number sense, basic single variable equations, units of measurement, ratios, etc.
YET, while these abilities are often used in our adult lives, they don't get much day to day life use when we're eleven years old.
Usage breeds familiarity and confidence. It is a lot harder to learn a foreign language if you never speak it to anyone outside the classroom. By the same token, it's a lot harder to learn math if you don't use it outside of the classroom.
Concepts as important as understanding percent - such as to figure out sale prices, tax and tip - fall on mostly deaf ears, because at eleven years old most students aren't worried about their budget, and parents pay for the majority of their lives. Years later, when these skills become important, they struggle to remember lessons taught with varying degrees of success.
If we can find a way to make the skills taught in the classroom pertinent to the every day lives of students when they are *outside* of the classroom, we will go a long way toward improving education in this country.
As it is, the home life of the majority of my average and poorly performing students consisted of several hours of television, video games, or web surfing - with homework done in a hurry, if at all.
No *value* was placed on what they were learning, because using it outside of the classroom didn't improve their lives immediately - at eleven, the majority of students are too shortsighted to realize that learning something now makes their lives better later.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" What is "Pan-American History"? " Thank you for noticing one of the more revolutionary aspects of my curriculum. I have replaced State history with the more interesting, and far more relevant, subject of Pan-American History. The course would begin with pre-Columbian civilizations, and move on to Spanish exploration; colonialism, revolution and the impact of Bolvianism; explore, the rise of juntas, populism and Marxism; look at the concept of Pan-Americanism through Nafta and the OAS, comparing both with the U.N. and the E.U., and finally discussing present day Latin and North American politics.
Edgehopper, you are so kind. Indeed, I feel I should invite many other people, teachers, friends, Pico della Mirandolla etc. to witness your incredible kindness, which shines like a beacon of light from your throne of exaltation and enlightenment. I might point out that a lawyer should realize the importance of our Graeco-Roman heritage, what with our laws being largely based on the code of Justintinian, but I now know that such misguided pontification would inevitably fail to rise from my lowly position to your great heights. But if I may be so audacious as to address a few of your concerns, I have no doubt that the community will hold it no more against me than is their custom.
"Understanding our country's history is more important to an educated citizenry than knowing trivia about other countries." Emigration and immigration are at all time highs and ideas do not stop and national borders.
"Look, Pelegius, one of the reasons your posts aren't getting the respect they deserve is because your writing is awful!" I shall aspire towards the golden beacon of American lawyers, a group noted for their powerful use of the English language in a manner accessible to all.
"How to find and marry someone who can handle the real life things like paying bills, budgeting, and knowing whether or not something is "socially acceptable"." Life skills and sociology in one course. I can't say it is unworkable, because we covered small aspects of sociology in English. But is the senior year much too late for this, and much, much, to early to learn "How to find and marry someone," which most students will not be doing for another ten years, and which I doubt can actually be taught?
Ph, not that what I said I said in direct response to an attack upon me, although I should doubtless learn to ignore such attacks, as they are as pointless as they are frequent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I have replaced State history with the more interesting, and far more relevant, subject of Pan-American History.
As someone who thinks that we need to move further and further away from the federalist model, I think this is a huge mistake. People need to understand their states way better than they need to understand foreign countries.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
Pelegius--
1. Note to self: Stop trying to be nice and give opponents the benefit of the doubt. Or at least, this opponent. Look, you're clearly bright. But you're not the smartest person in the world, or even on this bulletin board. And while you've studied ancient history for 4 years, you have little more than experience as a student when it comes to education, and only the normal amount of science, math and writing education for a high schooler. You haven't gotten to college, and you haven't worked in the types of jobs most educated people are going to take. Please try to remember that.
2.
quote:I have replaced State history with the more interesting, and far more relevant, subject of Pan-American History. The course would begin with pre-Columbian civilizations, and move on to Spanish exploration; colonialism, revolution and the impact of Bolvianism; explore, the rise of juntas, populism and Marxism; look at the concept of Pan-Americanism through Nafta and the OAS, comparing both with the U.N. and the E.U., and finally discussing present day Latin and North American politics.
What Tom said, plus--these must be the most brilliant 6th graders of all time if they can intelligently discuss those issues. We're talking Battle School levels of intelligence here.
3.
quote:Emigration and immigration are at all time highs and ideas do not stop and national borders.
Yes. But cultural knowledge is different from World History. I need to understand enough about various Latin American cultures to deal with immigrants from those countries. I don't need to know details about Mayan mythology to do that. On the other hand, we live in America, and we vote. The history of our country is far more relevant to our political duties as citizens than the history of India or the Aztecs.
4.
quote:I might point out that a lawyer should realize the importance of our Graeco-Roman heritage, what with our laws being largely based on the code of Justintinian, but I now know that such misguided pontification would inevitably fail to rise from my lowly position to your great heights.
Important, yes, but not critical. Most of it has changed significantly since then, and while the principles are similar, it's far more important for lawyers to study recent cases and British common law. Unless, of course, we happen to be professors of legal history.
5.
quote:I shall aspire towards the golden beacon of American lawyers, a group noted for their powerful use of the English language in a manner accessible to all.
Since you didn't bother to answer anything I said about the importance of good writing, I'll assume that you can't or just don't care. Meanwhile, at least legal writing is more readable than the average work from an ancient history department
Pelegius, you can't answer substantive criticism with ad hominem attacks and expect to be taken seriously. Well, not unless you happen to be a politician.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"On the other hand, we live in America, and we vote." That can be changed fairly easily, there are several ways to change ones citizenship.
"you can't answer substantive criticism with ad hominem attacks" What substantive criticism, I see ad hominems far more commonly, including from you.
"your writing is awful!" in bold, no less! You cannot seriously think that writing statements like that, particularly unsurported statements, is not a for of ad hominem attack. It is, and I treated as such, although I may flatter myself that I used a greater degree of subtlety.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:What substantive criticism, I see ad hominems far more commonly, including from you.
That's because you're selectively reading posts.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:"your writing is awful!" in bold, no less!
That was an example, not an argument. An ad hominem would be "Your writing is awful, so your arguments are wrong." What I said was "Your writing is awful, which weakens your arguments, proving the importance of writing." See the difference?
Oh, and it was supported. I quoted one of your sentences as an example and pointed out the serious grammatical flaws with it. Would you prefer I write a long diatribe about the problems with your writing, and an even longer one about the problems with your logic?
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
quote:Originally posted by Edgehopper: 2.
quote:I have replaced State history with the more interesting, and far more relevant, subject of Pan-American History. The course would begin with pre-Columbian civilizations, and move on to Spanish exploration; colonialism, revolution and the impact of Bolvianism; explore, the rise of juntas, populism and Marxism; look at the concept of Pan-Americanism through Nafta and the OAS, comparing both with the U.N. and the E.U., and finally discussing present day Latin and North American politics.
What Tom said, plus--these must be the most brilliant 6th graders of all time if they can intelligently discuss those issues. We're talking Battle School levels of intelligence here.
I wouldn't say Battle School level. Sixth graders aren't really taught about those subjects. You never know until you give us a chance.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
Jeesh -
Most journalists covering these subjects don't understand them. Somehow, I'm not too optimistic about the average 6th grader. Besides, a lot of this requires prerequisite material:
How do you understand NAFTA without some grounding in economics? How do you understand Marxism without some grounding in political philosophy? How do you understand the U.N. and E.U. without a very broad knowledge of World History? How do you discuss present day Latin and North American politics without a background in comparative politics to begin with?
I think I'm even overestimating Battle Schoolers, unless they've been taught nothing but political history since kindergarten.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "your writing is awful!" in bold, no less! You cannot seriously think that writing statements like that, particularly unsurported statements, is not a for of ad hominem attack. It is, and I treated as such, although I may flatter myself that I used a greater degree of subtlety.
erm, that's not an ad hominem attack. You may wish to look up the phrase.
You frequently perceive people who are trying to be constructive as attacking you instead.
-o-
Something else worth noting about Pel's curriculum is that it calls for a 25% longer school day.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Icarus, actualy, no, it doesn't. My school has seven periods, or eight including chapel, this curriculum has eight.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You know, one of the best things my school did was switch from 8 periods a day (each class every day) to 6 periods a day (rotating).
Longer class periods are far more productive, especially in the sciences, and besides, if these kids DO go to college, it's unlikely they'll have the same schedule every day anyway, unless it's a summer semester.
-pH
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Edgehopper: How do you understand NAFTA without some grounding in economics? How do you understand Marxism without some grounding in political philosophy? How do you understand the U.N. and E.U. without a very broad knowledge of World History? How do you discuss present day Latin and North American politics without a background in comparative politics to begin with?
God, I can't even answer those questions as an adult.
But then, why would I have to?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"How do you understand NAFTA without some grounding in economics?" Nafta for the very young and uneducated, maybe a four-year old "now you see, little Timmy, some countries say that if you want to take something from another country to their country and sell, you have to pay them money. This is called a Tariff. But, Mexico and Canada and the U.S. got together and decided they wern't going to do that. Do you understand?"
Marxism for a seaventh grader "Marx said that all politics could be based on the poor fighting against the rich. He also said that societies went through stages, the first of which was feudalism like we learnt about in the Middle Ages, the second was Capitalism like we learned about with the Industrial Revolution, and the final one was Communism, were workers controlled everything." That is why I don't put Pan-American history until after intro to world history.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Icarus- As regards to taking Algebra in 7th grade.
I took Algebra in 7th grade. It was tough. I struggled with concepts, rather than with work, for the first time in my life. I got my first (and one of my only) B. It was the single best educational decision I've ever made.
Perhaps it was watered down Algebra, I have no idea. I can tell you that I never got another B in a math class in high school or college. Which leads me to believe it wasn't too watered down.
Before I took that class, math was not my thing. I obviously did well in it, but it wasn't an interest of mine. Being one of 20 students in my grade taking Algebra changed that. Math became something that was important to me. I've suffered from low self esteem all of my life, and being in that class gave me something I could be proud of. And I worked hard, for the first time in my life in order to keep doing well. Math was elevated from being just another class I had to take and get an A- in, to a class that helped define who I was. On a more practical level, it meant that by my senior year of high school I was taking the second year of calculus, which was a huge help coming into college.
I'm now in college, pursuing a major in political science and a minor in statistics. I plan to get my master's in statistics and then I'd like to combine those two subjects, whether as a pollster, or working for the census bureau, or something else entirely. I adore statistics, it makes me very happy. And will probably feed me, which is always an important consideration.
I can't imagine being where I am today without having taken algebra in 7th grade. I would probably be another liberal arts major who struggles with the most basic mathematical concept, statistics would only be a boring class I was forced to take for my major.
I've regretted almost every other choice I've made in my life, that one, never.
I understand all of your objections to teaching algebra in 7th grade, and they make sense to me; but I can't agree with you because it's had such a huge positive impact on my life.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
And there are people capable of learning algebra long before 7th grade too.
You know, when I was taught the golden rule (the do unto others as you would have them do unto you version) I didn't realize there was a giant glaring flaw in it. You see the golden rule assumes that your wants and needs are exactly the same as everyone else's wants and needs. On a strictly physical level this is true. We all need food, water and sleep.
But at an academic level, and one's vocation, it isn't true at all. What one person can find fascinating and exciting can put another person to sleep. And trying to talk to someone about a subject you think they should like because you like it, can be a dismal failure, even if you are treating them as you would want to be treated.
At a hobby level too. I train and show dogs and have recently taken up spinning wool. Both of these things other people would find absolutely boring.
But when designing a curriculum for everyone, you have to take into account that not everyone will like or have inclinations towards the same subjects you like. And people aren't ready for the same concepts at the same times. So, I could do algebra in 4th grade. It is clearly unrealistic to expect most 4th graders to do algebra.
I think Pel's curriculum might be suited for a gifted program, but the other gifted students would have just as strong of opinions on skewing the curriculum towards their passions as Pel has skewed this one towards his.
But that's ok. It's good to have passions, without them life would be boring.
AJ
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
blacwolve, I didn't say that no seventh graders could learn Algebra. I said that making Algebra in seventh grade the expectation was ill-advised, and I explained my reasons for thinking so.
I would suggest that the reason you were so life-changingly proud of being in that class was precisely because you knew you were doing something not everybody could. In fact, I would venture to say that if everyone took Algebra in seventh grade, it sounds like you would not have found it to be such a wonderful experience. I think then you really would have been "another liberal arts major who struggles with the most basic mathematical concept. . . ."
-o-
quote:Nafta for the very young and uneducated, maybe a four-year old "now you see, little Timmy, some countries say that if you want to take something from another country to their country and sell, you have to pay them money. This is called a Tariff. But, Mexico and Canada and the U.S. got together and decided they wern't going to do that. Do you understand?"
I would respectfully say, based on my experience with very young children, that most four year olds would not understand this explanation.
Sorry for insulting you by suggesting that you could possibly be wrong, though. I know I know far less than you.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"It's good to have passions, without them life would be boring." Here, here. In the end, the most important thing is that students, all students regardless of ability, be passionate about learning. I am afraid our grading system often destroys that. The best teachers I know are very challenging but grade in a lenient manner.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I am afraid our grading system often destroys that.
I think this is quite likely true.
Hard to fix, but true.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Icarus, that is how my grandfather, a very eccentric and often annoying man, who, none the less, help pass on a love of history to me, would have explained it. My father, one of the most perfect people I have ever met, too. My father, a retired professor and a practicing pediatrician is the better example.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Icarus, that is how my grandfather, a very eccentric and often annoying man, who, none the less, help pass on a love of history to me, would have explained it. My father, one of the most perfect people I have ever met, too. My father, a retired professor and a practicing pediatrician is the better example.
Well, good. Now that we've established that the way you do things is the only way, how would you end world hunger?
-pH
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Actually, I do know how to end world hunger, it is quite easy. Distribute food to the poor using trucks and aeroplanes. Now, if all the dictators, corrupt bureaucrats and militants would listen to me, or any of the groups that said the same thing, then everything would work out just fine.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:
quote:Nafta for the very young and uneducated, maybe a four-year old "now you see, little Timmy, some countries say that if you want to take something from another country to their country and sell, you have to pay them money. This is called a Tariff. But, Mexico and Canada and the U.S. got together and decided they wern't going to do that. Do you understand?"
I would respectfully say, based on my experience with very young children, that most four year olds would not understand this explanation.
Even if they did understand that explanation so what? Congrats, you've managed to provide a definition for NAFTA that a kid understands. If you're going to actually teach about NAFTA, though, shouldn't there be more to it...
When my kid sister (who's a frickin genius, by the way) was younger I explained to her what an integral was... she had geometry so she understood areas and I told her it was the area under a curve. She understood me with no problem whatsoever.
If I had asked her to integrate a nice simple function like 4x^3+5x, though, she would have looked at me like I had 2 heads!!!
But then again, neither she nor I are as smart as Pelegius....
(edited to remove repeated line)
[ July 27, 2006, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: just_me ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Actually, I do know how to end world hunger, it is quite easy. Distribute food to the poor using trucks and aeroplanes. Now, if all the dictators, corrupt bureaucrats and militants would listen to me, or any of the groups that said the same thing, then everything would work out just fine.
...there are so many problems with that that I don't even know where to begin.
-pH
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah I have to admit with my unorthodox education, grades didn't matter until I went to college. My test scores did, but otherwise I didn't get grades.
Having said that, the pressure on me to get good grades once in college was rediculous. And it only mounted once they realized I could get good grades. Should have started out flunking a class so there wasn't as much stress or expectation, but then they wouldn't have let me back either.
AJ
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Ph, Actually, I am fairly sure it would work. The trick is getting all those people to listen, which has so far proved impossible. Thus, other solutions are being sought.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Banna, how was your education unortodox? Were you homeschooled or did you go to an experimental school?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Pelegius, believe it or not, you do not know everything. And your being "fairly certain" about something does not make it true, nor does it mean that those who disagree with you just don't know as much as you do.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Icarus, that is how my grandfather, a very eccentric and often annoying man, who, none the less, help pass on a love of history to me, would have explained it. My father, one of the most perfect people I have ever met, too. My father, a retired professor and a practicing pediatrician is the better example.
::scratches head::
This is how these people would have explained it? Are you entering as evidence a hypothetical?
um, okay. Let's try to address that. To whom would they have explained it this way? What reason do you have to believe this would be effective? Does being a pediatrician, in your opinion, make one very well-qualified at hypothetically explaining things to hypothetical kids? (In my experience with pediatricians--which extends to my own childhood, which as you have noted, is so long ago as to be beyond remembering, and also to taking my daughters to pediatricians--pediatricians generally do not do much explaining to children. They generally bark orders at children, and then give explanations to parents. Of course, YPMV.)
I'm not an expert on four-year-olds. My expertise is largely limited to the fact that my kids were once four, and that they had, and continue to have, friends. And based on my conversations with these kids, I really don't think most of them would get much out of that explanation. Do you have a good deal more experience than I do? If a kindergarten teacher would care to correct my opinion, I will most certainly take their opinion very seriously!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah Pel, I was homeschooled. I put more details in the other thread. I think discussing my wierd life over there might be more appropriate, I don't want to derail this thread.
AJ
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Icarus, other than actualy being four, no. But we are talking about a proposed seventh-grade course. As my sister just finished seventh-grade, I do have a fairly good idea of their knowledge level, which would easily allow for a discussion of NAFTA. If they can understand the politics of Animal Farm, and they do so easily, they can understand NAFTA. Free trade is not more difficult than Trotskytes vs. Stalinists.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: blacwolve, I didn't say that no seventh graders could learn Algebra. I said that making Algebra in seventh grade the expectation was ill-advised, and I explained my reasons for thinking so.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that you didn't think it should be taught at all in seventh grade. I completely agreed with most of your reasons, I just didn't think they applied to everyone.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
blacwolve, I've taught some brilliant ninth graders in Honors Algebra II, who would pretty much have had to take Algebra I in seventh grade in order to be there. But I would say that, out of a hundred and fifty kids I teach honors level courses to each year, I probably see less than a dozen a year who are that advanced. It certainly does happen, though. But, for instance, one of our feeder schools is moving toward having all their seventh graders take Algebra I. I think this is ridiculous, and will result in ill-prepared students down the line. But the middle school can pat themselves on the back and brag about how advanced they are, and, hey, everyone likes that, right?
-o-
Pelegius, I agree that seventh graders could understand NAFTA. I was merely picking a nit. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Pelegius- did you read my post at the end of page three? I'd like to know how you respond to my deas because I still feel like there's an element of delight missing from all your instruction.
Knowing about NAFTA is all very fine and good- perhaps important as part of a modern American history class ("Canada, America and Mexico have a trade agreement called NAFTA...")- and even very interesting to a small number of grade sevens and eights, but I don't think you would capture the imagination of many of them. NASA is more along their line.
Please read to my thoughts on education for this age group and tell me what you think. Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I read about teaching Latin to an elementary class (around here, elementary often goes right through grade 8, and I just can't bring myself to write "middle school"), and my first thought was Are you INSANE?!
I remember the last time I was in French class (grades 6, 7, and 8 at different times during the day). It was a nightmare, the kids were bored, they hardly learned anything. I remember my own French classes in elementary, and how after 9 years of it, I spent the following 7 years never ever wanting to speak or learn it again. (I'm over this now, for the record.)
I remember learning Latin. I think about how I'm still learning it.
And I think you'd have to be the world's biggest masochist to try and teach a class full of 12 year olds what an ablative absolute is.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't think teaching a foreign language to young kids is a bad idea, actually. (Though I would never make it Latin.) Brain research (FWIW) does seem to show that that is when kids are most receptive to foreign language instruction.
I don't, however, like the idea of forcing it on all. For one thing because I know some kids just can't learn languages that easily. I also have doubts as to the efficacy of classroom language instruction at all.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I don't think teaching language is a bad thing. I think it's a very, very good thing. I plan to teach my own children two languages from the cradle.
But it's not easy to do in a classroom setting. And French is nothing compared to Latin.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: blacwolve, I've taught some brilliant ninth graders in Honors Algebra II, who would pretty much have had to take Algebra I in seventh grade in order to be there. But I would say that, out of a hundred and fifty kids I teach honors level courses to each year, I probably see less than a dozen a year who are that advanced. It certainly does happen, though. But, for instance, one of our feeder schools is moving toward having all their seventh graders take Algebra I. I think this is ridiculous, and will result in ill-prepared students down the line. But the middle school can pat themselves on the back and brag about how advanced they are, and, hey, everyone likes that, right?
I don't think I'm brilliant. There were over 20 people in my middle school class, and I was the worst of the bunch. The only time I got an A+ on a test, the teacher asked the class to guess who got the highest grade, and the last person guessed was me. Actually, looking back on that, it's sort of insulting, although at the time I was too proud to care. We all went on to do very well in high school math and many of us went into some math intensive major in college. So my experience with math at the middle school level is obviously somewhat skewed. What I'm trying to say is that it wouldn't have occured to me to consider that brilliant. Advanced, yes, brilliant, not really. However, you're a math teacher and are far more qualified to say than I am.
Again, at no point have I intended to disagree with you at all, just to share my own story with you. I respect you very much, and am saddened that I might have given the impression that I don't.
To sum up what I've been trying (badly) to say.
Algebra 1 for all 7th graders= bad Algebra 1 available for qualified (in the school's opinion) 7th graders= good
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
blacwolve, I'm not offended, and not intending to argue with you, and I'm sorry that you think otherwise. Contrary to what has been asserted on this thread, I don't feel disrespected when someone discusses a point with me. I'm ruder to Pel because he seems not to take anyone else's thoughts and knowledge seriously at all unless they call him a jackass a couple of times. I have interacted--positively, no?--with you many times in the past, and I hope you don't think that I would be mean to you. Please, go back and reread my posts. I really don't think I have been vehement with you. I also did not say that no seventh graders should take Algebra. I will, however, stand by my off-the-cuff assessment of 10%, more or less, being ready for it. I can't speak to the specifics of your school. Within a school, different grades and different classes have their own personalities and strengths. I think any teacher will back me up on that. So maybe you were part of an exceptionally strong bunch, for you to be so strong and still perceive yourself as the weakest of the group. Maybe two years later they had a class where nobody seemed ready. Who knows?
I think you may be selling yourself short, given the success you went on to have. Then again, maybe you were one of those diamonds in the rough, not yet blooming in seventh grade, but blooming later. But imagine that you are a kid who is genuinely talented in math, but you don't experience success in that seventh grade Algebra class . . . can you see how that can lead in a very different direction from what your life took? I'm glad that's not what happened in your case. I have, however, taught a lot of kids who thought they were stupid, or not talented in math, who were in fact quite bright and talented.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"I'm ruder to Pel because he seems not to take anyone else's thoughts and knowledge seriously at all unless they call him a jackass a couple of times." Actualy, this makes me much less likely to take one seriously.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
What, are you saying you take some people seriously?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Actualy, this makes me much less likely to take one seriously.
Though it makes you much more likely to respond.
quote:So maybe you were part of an exceptionally strong bunch, for you to be so strong and still perceive yourself as the weakest of the group. Maybe two years later they had a class where nobody seemed ready. Who knows?
This was the case (thankfully) in my year during school. We had 30 students who went through all the honors level math classes my school offered, and 18 of them scored 4s or 5s on the AP Calculus exam (with another 6 scoring 3s). The following year, they had to have two AP Calc classes of 20 each, with a similar success rate.
After that year, though, the ability level fell off dramatically. While the class continued to have 30+ students enrolled (because of population increases, all classes had inflated size), only 4-5 got 4's or better on the AP each year, and the teachers (who I kept in touch with) tell me I was in the middle of a three year batch of very high performing students that they hadn't seen before or since.
I'm glad I benefited from the higher level instruction that was possible with a better than average bunch. But my point is that such groups are not the norm.
Posted by mountaineer48 (Member # 9608) on :
What I've actually been told is that English is really hard to learn.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's crazy. Even little children can learn English. It's all those other languages that are hard.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
LOL.
I hope that was meant as a joke... I really do. Otherwise I'm laughing at you, not with you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
FC, It took me like 5 years to learn Spanish and it's really still pretty basic. It just doesn't seem fair to me to make the poor little children in Spain have to go to classes for such a long time, just to learn to speak to other people, when all along, if they just switched to English, they could pick it up with ease.
And that's for Spanish. Could you imagine what foreign children would have to go through to learn a language that doesn't share word roots or even basic sounds as English? For example, little Chinese boys and girls have to deal with the same word meaning different things depending on the tone. And a lot of these languages have words you can't even translate directly into English.
It just really seems cruel to me for parents and teachers to put kids through that.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
We don't stand a chance. Kids in the Far East are speaking Chinese at the age of two! How can we compete with that?!?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
quote: For English, you list some very complicated epics. Now, what you have to take into mind is that most people of this age do not read. This does not mean they cannot read, it means that when they go home they watch tv or play computer games and find books more complicated than Harry Potter rather dauting.
Is Harry Potter really so much less challenging or intellegent than Lord of the Rings of T.H. White? Both were aimed at children of about Middle School age.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
I'm about to shut down my machine and leave work but I just wanted to say
quote: Is Harry Potter really so much less challenging or intellegent than Lord of the Rings of T.H. White? Both were aimed at children of about Middle School age
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Is Harry Potter really so much less challenging or intellegent than Lord of the Rings of T.H. White? Both were aimed at children of about Middle School age.
Less intelligent? No. Less challenging? Yes. Less daunting? Definately.
You don't want your middle schoolers, most of whom don't read very often, to struggle through a book miles and miles long- as both Lord of the Rings and The Sword in the Stone are.
You want them to automatically recognise the language used by the author- both 'Lord of the Rings' and 'The Sword in the Stone' use somewhat archaic language and include years of description, much of it irrelevent.
You want them to be surprised and excited and gripped by what they are reading. You don't want them to read the first couple of pages and track down the cliff notes or ask their more able readers, thus skipping the all important reading process altogether. You want your kids to actually read.
You have to remember that the average reader is slow. They do not hit the exciting bits in a long, slow book very quickly, as a very good reader might. They may not even get passed the first few pages in The Sword in the Stone or Lord of the Rings before giving up. They may read so slowly it would be like stopping a tv show every five minutes, then waiting a day in-between sections. The plot, the arc of the story, it becomes absolutely meaningless. What are your children learning from these long, slow, descriptive, archaic books but that reading is boring?
'Harry Potter' is very exciting- things happen quickly. 'Maus' is a comic book (which might make it more palatable to people who rarely read anything), is historical and incredibly gripping. 'The Outsiders', 'I am David', 'The Giver', 'Day of the Triffids', all are written in familar language, are not complicated or particularly slow reads and yet they are still intelligently written, giving the reader many things to think about (and discuss in class) along the way.
And they may actually finish the book. Were I an English teacher at this age group I would not care whether my children were reading 'Tintin' for a project, as long as they were reading and enjoying it.
EDIT: You addressed a specific part of my ideas, Pelegius, but not the general concept: that education should be more fun and wide-ranging than your curriculum seems to provide for. I wonder if you could let me know if (a) you consider your curriculum fun and exciting, or (b) if you don't think fun and exciting should be a part of a middle school curriculum, or (c) you don't think it's really an issue at all.
To me, you seem to be focusing on how much intellectual depth you can put into a brain, rather than producing happy, interested, bright, smart children who have the tools to go forth and discover more depth on their own.
The curriculum makes me think of a British Private School; is that your intent? Although I agree that Private School Graduates are often very intellectual and know a lot more than I did about Latin and Gilgamesh, I do not think that such a curriculum could be applied to the public school systems that contains students of all backgrounds and intelligences, and does not cater to a sole group of kids (or rather, two: Kids with well-off parents and kids with intellectual smarts).
The kids who attend public school are various. This is especially true in Middle School where little or no streaming occurs. Classes are a jumble of people: boys and girls, intellectual and really not, smart and dumb, silly and serious. At this age, the teacher is lucky if the class is fairly quiet.
I must also say that I do not believe in dumbing classes down to mediocrity, which seems to be your major worry. I'm am not a teacher of any real sort, but in my experience, things can be easy to understand for those who are less advanced as well as offering a challenge to those who are more so. If the topics that are taught are new and exciting to everyone, no one is going to feel like they are wasting their time by coming to school, and no one is going to be (I cringe) "left behind."
I do rather strongly believe that your curriculum is the wrong kind of curriculum for the average school.
[ July 28, 2006, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
a.
Although it would give me much pleasure to respond with just that, I shall go on.
The Sword in the Stone takes some time to read, however, I believe that its humor and episodic (almost television-like) action more than make up for this in terms of student interest. Humor is important, and should be under-rated in a curriculum, and T.H. White, while a great writer and philosopher, is very funny.
As for the Lord of the Rings, it is very popular in Middle Schools as it is, thanks in no small part to Peter Jackson.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Actually, I think The Once and Future King is as readable as Harry Potter. I think that's a wonderful choice for kids to read.
I think LOTR is popular in middle school among a select few, not among the masses. Most of the kids who attend my (high) school would not get it or enjoy it. I don't think it would be productive to make every middle schooler read it.
[ July 29, 2006, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Wrong thread, somehow. Sorry.
[ July 29, 2006, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:I think LOTR is popular in middle school among a selct few, not among the masses. Most of the kids who attend my school would not get it or enjoy it.
My male friends were reading it in middle school (well, Jr. High), and I tried to read it just to keep up with them (we were all in the advanced classes and I thought I had to Prove something). I enjoyed The Hobbit, but didn't get more than halfway through Fellowship before getting bogged down and losing interest. I never did finish them until just before the movies came out; I'd always meant to read them, so I made it a point to finish them before seeing the movies.
I discovered then that there was just as much history and discussion and description as I remembered, but I was better able to appreciate it. And I also discovered that after the council at Elrond, the pace picked up and I couldn't put them down. Too bad I never got that far in middle school!
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Jenna, the movies were a huge boost (I hadn't read the books when the first film came out, when I was in sixth grade, but read them all quickly afterward.)
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
They have LOTR books, too? Wonder if they're any good...
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Actually, I think The Once and Future King is as readable as Harry Potter. I think that's a wonderful choice for kids to read.
Really? I tried reading it not too long ago and gave up after 100 pages or so because it was too boring (at least compared to the other fantasy novels I was reading at the time). Do you think it's better suited for a young audience than adults?
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: My male friends were reading it in middle school (well, Jr. High), and I tried to read it just to keep up with them (we were all in the advanced classes and I thought I had to Prove something). I enjoyed The Hobbit, but didn't get more than halfway through Fellowship before getting bogged down and losing interest.
That's probably because in the first half of Fellowship hardly anything happens. I read LOTR for the first time in 7th grade, and I very nearly didn't make it past that, either, but after that it really picks up. Maybe if you gave students a summary of the first half and started off in Book 2... Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I dunno what to say. I certainly think it's appropriate for a YA audience. I read it in high school, and, while I enjoyed it thoroughly and was grateful for the break from the likes of Wuthering Heights and Beowulf, I thought it was substantially easier than the other works we read that year.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, aha.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
We read the Once and Future King in middle school and I was completely turned off of it by the amount of sex in it. It seemed at the time, and I haven't read it since, like the entire third book was, "Lancelot and Guinevere snuck off and had sex. Lancelot and Guinevere snuck off and had more sex. Oh yea, and Arthur was around somewhere." I would have liked the book a lot better if I could have skipped the third book.
*shrugs* Everyone else in my class seemed to like it. I guess I was a particularly repressed seventh grader.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Hey, at least I didn't make a new topic, right? :-P
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"We read the Once and Future King in middle school and I was completely turned off of it by the amount of sex in it."
Really? While the book deals with an affair, as all Authorian legends of the French tradition do, I thought it did so quite well for a YA audience, not overly prudish, but decidedly not graphic. (When I was in 8th grade, my teacher gave me the First Man in Rome series, which have semi-pornographic scenes, there is certainly none of that in T.H. White.)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It's possible you were reading different versions of the same book?
Also, sometimes although scenes can written appropriately for a YA audience they can tend to go on a bit about affairs, and perhaps that's what bothered blacwolve. I know I would skip chapters dealing with discussion of a love story when I was that age.
I must apologise to Pelegius for assuming he meant "The Sword in the Stone". If "The Once and Future King" is the most appropriate for this age group I will have to read it before passing judgement . Sorry 'bout that. It could be "A Once a Future King" is totally exciting and cool- the perfect introduction to a "different" type of writing.
However, I don't think that the reading set for this age group should be dominated by one kind of writing. There could be this one, a graphic novel, a modern novel, a sci fi/horror novel... etc. Variety is another way of maintaining interest in a curriculum- I have taken one course in which Every. Book. Was. The. Same., and it was so boring, even though alone the books weren't bad.
quote:First Man in Rome series, which have semi-pornographic scenes
Oddly, (or perhaps, totally unsurprisingly), every book I have read set in Rome has been explicit to some degree.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
But isn't the whole Gueneviere/Lancelot relationship the point of the entire story? There's no other way to describe it, be it in The Once and Future King and other novelizations, or even in movies such as Excalibur (great) and First Knight (sucked). It's not like they described how they were doing it, but the fact that they were was crucial to Arthur's mindset and the inevitable breakdown.
I remember reading TOFK in school. Well, let me rephrase that: I remember reading the first part. I guess that only comes to mine simply because of Disney's adaptation to it. The rest of the book is a story I already knew, which has been told any number of different ways through history.
Anyway, sex in books is a touchy subject. It's unavoidable to a certain degree, and up to the teachers on how to handle it. I vividly remember the tact our teacher had when she tried to explain parts from Faust that were confusing to the young students because we didn't know what some things that were described were. I don't recommend reading the Kama Sutra in class, but I don't think books should be avoided because of relatively mild sexual content.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Did a little bit of research, and I see now that The Once and Future King combined parts of White's previously published novels, including The Sword in the Stone.
I guess that explains why some scened were so familiar when I read the book.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
There's apparently a third part, too, about Merlyn, but I picked it up and was bored to tears. Once and Future King I read until the book fell apart.
Ni!
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Did a little bit of research, and I see now that The Once and Future King combined parts of White's previously published novels, including The Sword in the Stone.
I guess that explains why some scened were so familiar when I read the book.
The version I read in school (I don't remember what year) had two parts: Sword In the Stone and... er... the other part.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
er, I think I read it *with* you. Tenth grade.
Apparently there're like four parts. TSITS however was previously published as a stand-alone novel.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Scratch that . . . it was eleventh grade. Woodward.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I thought it was sooner, but I know better than to doubt you in such things. Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Nighthawk, there are four books "The Sword in the Stone" (still published seperately in adition), "The Queen of Air and Darkness," "The Ill-Made Knight" and "A Candle in the Wind." With the exception of "A Candle in the Wind," all were published individualy and then combined into one epic novel. White also wrote a sequel, "The Book of Meryln," published posthumously, which I have not read.
"But isn't the whole Gueneviere/Lancelot relationship the point of the entire story?" Sic et Non. The relationship is one of the major themes of the book, and Author's reaction to it is an even more major theme, but the most significant theme deals with human greatness and human limitation, how ""The fate of this man or that man was less than a drop, although it was a sparkling one, in the great blue motion of the sunlit sea."
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I am a bit concerned about this: yesterday evening, watching "Billy Eliot" with my twelve-year old sister, she asked why there were no famous films about a girl becoming a dancer. I pointed out "Bend it Like Beckham" and explained how the major theme in moder western literature was the struggle between the individual and the society, and how, in these two films, young people overcome societal expectations in a way in which a girl becoming a ballerina would not. She, thinking as a dancer rather than as a literary critic (although I know they teach literary criticism at her school/ my old school) thought this was strange.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
A twelve year old literary critic?!?
Although I don't usually admit it, I can think of four or five movies about girls becoming dancers. They were all before she was born, and odds are even before you were born.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"A twelve year old literary critic?!?" Not professionally, no, but English classes almost always, and rightly so, teach literary criticism, although this focus is particularly pronounced in secondary school, it is certainly present in middle school as well.
My girlfriend did, in fact, write her first freelance critical pieces, for the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express News, when she was a freshman, and has now been hired as a more permanent critic for Y.A. books and film.
And, yes, you are probably right about the films. We have just bought "Turning Pointe" which deals with a ballerina and her friend and ex-ballernia who are in love with a ballerino, played by Mikhail Baryshnikov.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Pelegius- I am so incredibly jealous of your girlfriend.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Yeah, so are allot of people. Mind you, there are some things I don't envy, like moving to the strange city of Houston after seventh grade. (Note, people in San Antonio find Houston funny and/or awful, even if many of us do not like our own city. "Not Houston and certainly not Dallas" is our mantra.)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:She, thinking as a dancer rather than as a literary critic
She should read Ballet Shoes, by Noel Stretfield. And White Boots by the same author. Both are about girls becoming dancers- well, the second is about skating, but same thing. Both were staples of my dreaming-dancing childhood.
There's that recent movie also with Michelle Tractenberg (or however you spell it- is it her?) becoming an ice skater against her mother's wishes.
There's also that movie about all those girls becoming ballet dancers and dealing with injuries and jealousies and such.
There are plenty of movies about girl dancers- far more than about boy dancers.
You should have told your sister that notoriety and fame such as Billy Elliot has is because it points to and highlights a societal problem that goes far beyond the mere story of a boy dancer.
quote: She, thinking as a dancer rather than as a literary critic (although I know they teach literary criticism at her school/ my old school) thought this was strange.
Aw, come on. You take all the fun out of stories when you think like a 60-year-old spectacled person with very little imagination. Of course kids want to see stories about things they want to be. When you dream, you don't dream like a literary critic, you dream of becoming a movie star or a ballet dancer or climbing mount Everest or swimming across the English channel or becoming a Pirate. You want to see movies that reflect that, especially when you're twelve.
Dreams are what movies are made of. Suspense and conflict and such only make the movie more interesting and exciting to watch.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I am fully aware of the fact that a film about a boy becoming a professor of Ancient History would be very boring. That said, I did like both "Goodbye Mr Chips" and "The Emperors' Club," both of which have, as a main character, a classics teacher.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
I want to be a forensic scientist...
I think you're thinking of Ice Princess Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I am fully aware of the fact that a film about a boy becoming a professor of Ancient History would be very boring.
The "becoming" part, maybe. There's not that much that's exciting and visual about exams and essays.
However, I can think of at least two fictional professors (or, at least doctors, one lectures- the other doesn't) of Ancient History who have very exciting adventures indeed. Of course, their incredibly exciting bits don't happen in the lecture hall or the library- usually.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)