The Purpose of Schooling

[Woodsprite]

Why are social aspects important when students are open to a wide variety of social settings in life that have nothing to do with school? I was homeschooled for 8 years, for example, and I think I turned out pretty well concerning sociality. Schools should stick to acedemic education. Nothing more. They have no business concerning anything else.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Why are social aspects important when students are open to a wide variety of social settings in life that have nothing to do with school? I was homeschooled for 8 years, for example, and I think I turned out pretty well concerning sociality. Schools should stick to acedemic education. Nothing more. They have no business concerning anything else.

Social aspects are important because we are a social species. It's not that children don't or can't learn social skills at home. Social skills are as important as academic skills in that social interaction plays a large part in our day to day lives. Why ignore education in such an integral part of our society?

[Woodsprite]

If social skills are learned primarily outside the school, why are they necessary to teach in school? A waste of money if you ask me.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

If social skills are learned primarily outside the school, why are they necessary to teach in school? A waste of money if you ask me.

Because the school can add to the skills learned primarily within the home. It is also important to consider schools provide an atmosphere where social interaction takes place. For many children, it's their first experience away from their families for regular periods of time. But consider that any skill can be learned primarily outside of the school, thus why are any skills necessary to teach in school?

[Woodsprite]

They're necessary because normally, acedemic skills are primarily learned inside the school, not outside. You can self-teach yourself about anything. That's true. But the school system is where the professionals are; where the professors are. You get a first-hand from-the-horse's-mouth education with interaction. That's why they're important.

With social skills it's the opposite concerning inside/outside school. Using a public system merely as an add-on to what students already know about is wasteful, if not foolish. If we bring kindergarden and preschool into the argument (like you have), then obviously yes. But then... you can't really count those as part of "real" schooling, condsidering how almost no acedemia is taught.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

They're necessary because normally, acedemic skills are primarily learned inside the school, not outside. You can self-teach yourself about anything. That's true. But the school system is where the professionals are; where the professors are. You get a first-hand from-the-horse's-mouth education with interaction. That's why they're important.

Now days they are learned primarily inside of the school. I agree, it is a more efficient means of passing on skills to children. This can also be true of learning social skills.

With social skills it's the opposite concerning inside/outside school. Using a public system merely as an add-on to what students already know about is wasteful, if not foolish.

I feel that social skills (ex. - communication) are skills that can be efficiently taught in a school setting as math skills are efficiently taught within a school setting. But all schooling is basically an add-on to what students already know. It is a progression of knowledge that builds upon previously gained knowledge.

If we bring kindergarden and preschool into the argument (like you have), then obviously yes. But then... you can't really count those as part of "real" schooling, condsidering how almost no acedemia is taught.

How is almost no academia taught at these parts? Aren't these the part of education where children learn more about how to read, write, are introduced to basic mathematics and numbers and the such?


EDIT: When I refer to "social skills" I am referring to such skills as cooperation, working in a team setting, listening, following directions, communication, leadership, et cetera. Many of these skills may be more focused on in earlier grades, but I do not think that discounts their importance. Many of these skills are still worked on at the university level and beyond. Why do you think there tends to be a number of group projects and presentations at the post secondary level of education?

[Fosus]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

It shouldn't be about "getting the grade" or "graduating with high honors". It should be about the principle of learning.

I like this way of thinking, but nowadays it's all about the grades, because that's what the employee wants to see. Sad but true.

To me, social contact is very important part of the whole "wake up at six and sit still for hours and hours end" cycle school basically is. I wouldn't do it if there were no friends to do it with. To be honest, unless I happen to be specifically interested in the particular subject, the social contact is my only motivation.

[Human No More]

In a word, control.
To tell children to be good consumers and to be 'normal', to perpetuate itself and keep tie status quo.
Sure, there is some useful information as well, and the world would be a far better place if everyone had at least a basic understanding of scientific principles, but if the intention was to allow people to learn what they do in the future, then it makes no sense why they have to do subjects that are no use for them. Beyond a certain point, there is no real reason. While intentions are often good, it ends up telling people not to question things.

The most important thing that is actually learned is about other people, how they react, how they will try and hurt you and maybe the very few who are actually decent people, and why not to trust people blindly.

[caveman]

Originally Posted by Human No More

In a word, control.
To tell children to be good consumers and to be 'normal', to perpetuate itself and keep tie status quo.
Sure, there is some useful information as well, and the world would be a far better place if everyone had at least a basic understanding of scientific principles, but if the intention was to allow people to learn what they do in the future, then it makes no sense why they have to do subjects that are no use for them. Beyond a certain point, there is no real reason. While intentions are often good, it ends up telling people not to question things.

The most important thing that is actually learned is about other people, how they react, how they will try and hurt you and maybe the very few who are actually decent people, and why not to trust people blindly.

If some power figure wanted to control the masses, he wouldn't send them to get an education. In fact, that's probably the last thing they would want - a bunch of people capable of critical thought.

That said, there isn't a lot of "critical thought" going on in schools. I feel like that was the original purpose - to create a new and brighter generation, but this is not the true outcome. The outcome is conformity, control, and loss of enthusiasm and will to do anything. Like you said, "Intentions are often good, but it ends up telling people to not question things."

So with many things, I agree. These things are happening. But I don't think that was the purpose, rather the outcome.

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

...

That touches on a lot of things that require changing.


Briefly mentioned but not expanded upon is the need for higher standards. I have the impression that standards in schools are just way too low.

When it came time for me to go to high school, I had two options. I could have gone to the public high school in my town, or my family could have paid thousands of dollars in tuition to send me to a private school. I consider myself fortunate enough to have had opportunity of choosing the second option.

Now I do not intend to involve religion or boast but to quote one of my university professors who recently said: "Roman Catholic schools are excellent at providing an education. You rarely see someone who graduates from a [Roman Catholic school] that cannot read or write at a proper college level."

Just to illustrate the differences: At my high school, 98% of students graduated on average per year, whereas, 60% of students graduated annually at the nearby public school. In fact in my graduating class of 2010, every single person graduated out of a class of 225 even though my shcool had a more difficult grading scale and higher standards. You could say that economics plays a role; however, my high school gave free rides to many disadvantaged students of various levels of intelligence, yet they all graduated and excelled at standardized tests.

I am under the impression that schools have lowered standards over the years so that more could simply graduate; however, lower standards bring lower expectations. If school seems easy, then everyone just takes it as a joke and does not work hard. My English teacher would often discuss the appalling standards of public schools with her class. One day, she brought in a textbook used in public schools. She handed out a pamphlet containing George Washington's complete farewell address and then showed us the version contained within the textbook. The textbook version was four paragraphs long with the text simplified so that a third grader could read it. (the actual address in this link)

Schools should also teach more of the liberal arts such as rhetoric, debating, philosophy, humanities, etc. A lot of people dismiss them but as someone who took such classes, I can truly say that they are extremely important for going far in life.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Banefull

Just to illustrate the differences: At my high school, 98% of students graduated on average per year, whereas, 60% of students graduated annually at the nearby public school. In fact in my graduating class of 2010, every single person graduated out of a class of 225 even though my shcool had a more difficult grading scale and higher standards. You could say that economics plays a role; however, my high school gave free rides to many disadvantaged students of various levels of intelligence, yet they all graduated and excelled at standardized tests.

I wish I had the opportunity to attend the local Catholic high school as it performed at the level you described. My mother is a retired teacher and substitute teacher and one thing she noticed when comparing schools that were doing well to schools that were struggling was the amount of behavioral problems each school had. The schools that struggled seemed to have more problems with behavior, which required the teacher to spend more time trying to correct behavior problems. She's worked at schools where students have threatened to cause harm to her to schools where the students were pretty much all well behaved. Another thing she noticed was the amount of parental involvement. In schools that were struggling she noticed the lack of parental involvement in the children's education. I feel that the difference between private schools and public schools is that public schools generally have to accept children that have behavioral problems, are in trouble with the law, et cetera.

Schools should also teach more of the liberal arts such as rhetoric, debating, philosophy, humanities, etc. A lot of people dismiss them but as someone who took such classes, I can truly say that they are extremely important for going far in life.

Agreed. Students should have skills such as critical thinking by the time they enter college.

[Human No More]

Schools with selective admission will always do better than others because they can pick the better students.
I went to a grammar school - all the grammar schools in the area (and in general) are far better in terms of results than the other schools nearby, because they only accept people who pass the test to get in (which if I remember correctly, is around the top 10-20% of people).
It isn't HOW they do things so much as it's the fact that they can select who they take (that and money of course, because more money WILL get results, since it allows better rations of staff, and more and better resources).

[Sempu]

As in a number of things, because the USA has so many bad schools, there is a reaction among many people that schools should be done away with altogether, or replaced with some form of education so radically different as to constitute the same response. I've found this reaction among many people and the fact is that they haven't got an experience of what a really good school can be like.


I was damn fortunate to have gone to a series of excellent schools in the UK. I've had the chance to compare with some universities in the USA and I can certainly see why some people think they're a waste of time.

Most teachers do a rotten job of answering the "why should I learn this, I'm never going to use it" argument. Schools should have two (academic) purposes: Expose kids to new things, and stretch their minds. Whether or not they're going to use what they're taught is immaterial. It's about getting them to work out their brains in new directions and bulk up the intellectual muscle. Some people are naturally drawn to push themselves in those directions but the majority need a push to excel. The very smartest ones realize this is true throughout life and pay people like me to keep pushing.

Childhood is when the brain is most elastic. The rate at which a human being between the ages of 5 and 15 learns is phenomenal. To waste any of that opportunity for creating as much mental capability as possible would be a shame.

Of course, there are other aspects (such as socialization and etiquette) that are just as if not more important in the raising of a good person, and whether those are the province of a school or the family is always debatable. I confine my arguments to the academic domain.

[The Man in Black]

What does everyone here think of the race to the top program in the US?

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Schools with selective admission will always do better than others because they can pick the better students.
I went to a grammar school - all the grammar schools in the area (and in general) are far better in terms of results than the other schools nearby, because they only accept people who pass the test to get in (which if I remember correctly, is around the top 10-20% of people).
It isn't HOW they do things so much as it's the fact that they can select who they take (that and money of course, because more money WILL get results, since it allows better rations of staff, and more and better resources).

I never went to a selective admission school. Everyone of various levels was free to apply and we still had a 98% annual graduaiton rate with an average of half of all students recieving college scholarships. My class, 2010, recieved over $14 million in college scholarships and awards (approx 225 students).

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

In schools that were struggling she noticed the lack of parental involvement in the children's education. I feel that the difference between private schools and public schools is that public schools generally have to accept children that have behavioral problems, are in trouble with the law, et cetera.

Behavior has a large role to play also. I went a private grade school also from kindergarden to the eighth grade. The rules were much stricter (according to the public school students) but it simply seemed normal to us. In fact I always remember hearing stories from those who had friends in the public school system. There would always be fights and such. Walking through a public grade school recently, I could hear curse words from students all the time. The situation is absolutely appalling imo.

Schools do need to take more responsibility in raising children and teaching proper etiquette. Unfortunately in today's society, bad parenting often leads to bad behavorial problems which in turn blocks the learning process and ruins it for those around them also. Its very hard to concentrate and it is very demotivating when the person next to you is just lounging around and not paying attention.

Originally Posted by Human No More

that and money of course, because more money WILL get results, since it allows better rations of staff, and more and better resources).

We have been throwing money at the problem for decades but the next generation will end up less literate then the next.

In fact the teachers at my school were paid a lot less than their public school counterparts and yet it produced far greater results. I also have to say that my private school had the second lowest tuition of any private high school in America (when I enrolled), yet it had a very good reputation.