Jubbergun wrote:
Aestu wrote:
There is no subject that I could not teach to a class of normal individuals with textbooks from 50-100 years ago.
20th Century History would like to have a word with you...
There's 2900 years of OTHER history out there that are less generally known but just as worthwhile.
Most Americans think the world was created in 1945. 20th century history is pervasive enough in our culture - as well as computer science, for that matter - that teaching it isn't as high a priority as teaching other areas of history that are at least as important but not as well known and contain most of the same themes.
Besides, you don't need a fully updated textbook to teach "20th century history". So what if the textbook stops in 1945/1953/1969/1990? Those last few decades are close enough to the surface that kids will be exposed to them in day-to-day life.
Jubbergun wrote:
Children will need practical, hands-on experience with that technology.
Nah. Most kids aren't going into high-tech work. The level of technical proficiency necessary to get by in today's world is pervasive in our society.
The number of kids deficient in computer science are grossly outnumbered by those deficient in fundamentals such as math, reading, and science.
And if you really want to understand computer science, the fundamentals haven't changed since 1980. Computer components...programming code...the underlying principles of operation...the implementation may be more sophisticated, but the basics are still the same. Understand the basics and everything else can be picked up on the fly.
Jubbergun wrote:
Indeed, and there are probably a few more things you can learn using older systems than the new stuff with the OS that does everything for you.
Agree 100.
C:/qbasic
Jubbergun wrote:
Nothing will stop people from being people, especially when those people are kids. If they aren't mocking one another over fashion, they'll find something else.
The premise of teaching and parenting is that they can have an impact on kids and their lives.
Jubbergun wrote:
Aestu wrote:
2. More structured school settings
Structure generally requires discipline...I'm all for that.
Aestu wrote:
3. Increase the sheer floor space of campuses to prevent overcrowding and panics
4. Stagger school periods and put schools on the seven-day week, with four-day-a-week schooling
Both of these would simply cost more money instead of less, and I'm not sure the benefit(s), whatever they might be, would outweigh the costs.
Well, what's the cost of security and behavior issues? As they say, "Quality is economy".
Besides, again, I'd just use a ton of Quonset huts.
Jubbergun wrote:
It was my experience that the kids picked out for constant negative attention from the teaching staff (who were, admittedly, all dumber than a bag of stones) weren't actually the kids who were pissing in everyone's cereal and generally creating hate and discontent. They were little shithead Eddie Haskell-type (Google it, bitches) ass-kissers who were only little golden children when the adults were watching. School is also about learning, and learning how to deal with other people, even the negative aspects of those interactions. If anything, there should be less "violence doesn't solve anything" bullshit.
I completely agree, but that is not taught by a lasseiz-faire approach. I would teach the kind of conflict-resolution methods used in the Army - running laps, team-building exercises like yanking ropes or back-to-back, or simply making kids sit in the corner.
Like I said, character building doesn't mean "tolerate bullying but not retaliation".
Jubbergun wrote:
Aestu wrote:
6. Require all students to be bussed; ban driving to/from school or picking up children at the lot
Sounds good on paper, but doesn't work for practical reasons, one of those again being money. There are lots of kids participating in extra-curricular activities that would either need to drive to get home afterwards or be picked up by their parents, and that's only one thing off the top of my head, the inside of which is telling me this would be terribly impractical.
It would arguably save money on gas, and also time: if you don't have to pick up your kid, you're free to work that much more.
My focus here is on the behavioral and administrative issues associated with 2500 parents trying to pick up their kids at the same time, and how cars and teens don't mix. Also, I believe education should be a great equalizer, and as such, I want to detach kids from cars to prevent negative behaviors.