What Should be taught in Schools?

[The H Corporation]

Rational thinking skills, and how to form your own opinions instead of teachers giving it to you. And then other life skills, like driving and taxes. And maybe how to do some trades, like sewing or fixing cars. As an elective maybe? There should also be sex ed. And basic science, religious schools shouldn't be able to not teach science. That's idiotic. Also there should be a non-Westerncentric history. A non-US praising history that shows how issues have many sides and allows students to take their own side and make their own opinions. There should be civil discourse and debate, and students should learn how to do those.

So you want people to make their own opinions but you don't want religious people to be educated the way they want so they can strengthen their own opinions.

Seems legit.

Legit

I don't even like the existence of Religious schools

[Sengoku Americas]

Oh heck, I mixed that up big time. I meant to say if the schools are to be so strongly secular in the first place, they've got no place to try to dismantle the beliefs of its students. That's on me for my bad vocabulary

You probably were referring to cases of militant anti-religious indoctrination of students in schools--I may need to find evidence of this, though.

Meanwhile you're conveniently ignoring the actual religious indoctrination actually present (see: abortion, abstinence-only education, teachings that lead to bias on homosexuality), but please continue to use red herrings.

[Spiritual Republic of Caryton]

You probably were referring to cases of militant anti-religious indoctrination of students in schools--I may need to find evidence of this, though.

Meanwhile you're conveniently ignoring the actual religious indoctrination actually present (see: abortion, abstinence-only education, teachings that lead to bias on homosexuality), but please continue to use red herrings.

Wow it's almost as if one side is magically free of bias or flaw*, and it's conveniently the one [x] agrees with!

[Sengoku Americas]

Meanwhile you're conveniently ignoring the actual religious indoctrination actually present (see: abortion, abstinence-only education, teachings that lead to bias on homosexuality), but please continue to use red herrings.

Wow it's almost as if one side is magically free of bias or flaw*, and it's conveniently the one [x] agrees with!

Go find some examples of those "anti-religious indoctrination" schools, if they're such a problem. If they do exist, compare their rates with actual religious indoctrination and let's have a teatime.

[New haven america]

Meanwhile you're conveniently ignoring the actual religious indoctrination actually present (see: abortion, abstinence-only education, teachings that lead to bias on homosexuality), but please continue to use red herrings.

Wow it's almost as if one side is magically free of bias or flaw*, and it's conveniently the one [x] agrees with!

Religion has had a stranglehold over human development for 40,000 some years, with most forcing others to believe their teachings while being wholly intolerant to other views.

Why should it get special treatment if most religions have never given special treatment before?

[Sengoku Americas]

If schools want to be free of religious influence, they should stop trying to push secular values down kids' throats and stop sitting on their double-standard high-horse. Teach concepts side by side or leave it to the home. It's like the people who write these curriculums are free from judgement just because they happen to be on the side of 'what's the new norm', encouraging the downfall of religious values to give way to earthly affairs. I see those posts.

The amount of people arguing for the "downfall of religion" other than some occasional online posters is extremely low and their influence is as well. Furthermore, it is only without religious education of the single kind in schools that children can be encouraged to explore religions of all sorts, not just their parents'. Someone who goes to a school with religious functions in mind may indeed know a lot more about their own religion, but we know not if that's their choice. Wouldn't it be better to have a more secular environment where religious values are not part of the curriculum, but still explored and valued?

[Spiritual Republic of Caryton]

Wow it's almost as if one side is magically free of bias or flaw*, and it's conveniently the one [x] agrees with!

Religion has had a stranglehold over human development for 40,000 some years, with most forcing other to believe their teachings while being wholly intolerant to other views.

Why should it get special treatment if most religions have never given special treatment before?

Well, if one side has a stranglehold over another, and if that other rises to a relatively dominant position in a society, and if that other simultaneously does the same thing that one side did to begin with- what can it be aside from plain hypocrisy? Rather than embracing co-existence, why should only the 'new' side get its say? If this 'new' side really is as progressive as it claims to be, would it not be above trying to do the same thing the first side did for those 40,000 some years?

[Sengoku Americas]

Wow it's almost as if one side is magically free of bias or flaw*, and it's conveniently the one [x] agrees with!

Religion has had a stranglehold over human development for 40,000 some years, with most forcing other to believe their teachings while being wholly intolerant to other views.

Why should it get special treatment if most religions have never given special treatment before?

Religion isn't the cause of that intolerance though, merely the people and institutions using religion as a tool for their personal gain. I personally believe learning about religious values of the major religions- as well as my own religious faith- to be beneficial for my open-mindedness.

[Sengoku Americas]

Religion has had a stranglehold over human development for 40,000 some years, with most forcing other to believe their teachings while being wholly intolerant to other views.

Why should it get special treatment if most religions have never given special treatment before?

Well, if one side has a stranglehold over another, and if that other rises to a relatively dominant position in a society, and if that other simultaneously does the same thing that one side did to begin with- what can it be aside from plain hypocrisy? Rather than embracing co-existence, why should only the 'new' side get its say? If this 'new' side really is as progressive as it claims to be, would it not be above trying to do the same thing the first side did for those 40,000 some years?

This is the problem which rises when you make false equivalences. As I've mentioned prior, very few are actively working to strangle religion, whether in the workplace, in education, or in one's private life. Almost no major public event in the US or Canada can occur without some reference to God or Christianity, the majority of people in the Western world are religious (and vast majority of policy makers), and religious education remains extremely prevalent. Far from "strangling religion", the current world is still very much dependent upon it, for better or for worse.

[Spiritual Republic of Caryton]

If schools want to be free of religious influence, they should stop trying to push secular values down kids' throats and stop sitting on their double-standard high-horse. Teach concepts side by side or leave it to the home. It's like the people who write these curriculums are free from judgement just because they happen to be on the side of 'what's the new norm', encouraging the downfall of religious values to give way to earthly affairs. I see those posts.

The amount of people arguing for the "downfall of religion" other than some occasional online posters is extremely low and their influence is as well. Furthermore, it is only without religious education of the single kind in schools that children can be encouraged to explore religions of all sorts, not just their parents'. Someone who goes to a school with religious functions in mind may indeed know a lot more about their own religion, but we know not if that's their choice. Wouldn't it be better to have a more secular environment where religious values are not part of the curriculum, but still explored and valued?

That's a good point. I didn't think of it that way. What about the people who do choose to have faith in the religion of their upbringing? Should they not be allowed to pursue their religion?

[Resilient Acceleration]

I'm not sure. Especially if we want to design an education system for kids born today. The thing is, future technological and job market disruptions are so unthinkably and unpredictably large that it is almost pointless to determine 'skills you need to survive the next 60 years'. So I guess, a system that promotes self-learning and self-discovery will be ideal, though I have no idea what should the form be like.

Religion has had a stranglehold over human development for 40,000 some years, with most forcing other to believe their teachings while being wholly intolerant to other views.

Why should it get special treatment if most religions have never given special treatment before?

Religion isn't the cause of that intolerance though, merely the people and institutions using religion as a tool for their personal gain. I personally believe learning about religious values of the major religions- as well as my own religious faith- to be beneficial for my open-mindedness.

Dogmatism of all kind are bad for science in general, religion isn't supremely unique. (Lysenkoism comes to mind, and it is in my opinion that today's political polarization are basically new religions filling the void left by old religions, and today's political conflict is exactly the same as religious conflicts mainstream throughout human history). Religious institutions, which in those times can be translated to 'the educated elite', also do historically become hotbeds of scientific progress. Provided that they don't become corrupted by dogmatism, as the Islamic golden age experienced.

[New haven america]

Religion has had a stranglehold over human development for 40,000 some years, with most forcing other to believe their teachings while being wholly intolerant to other views.

Why should it get special treatment if most religions have never given special treatment before?

1. Well, if one side has a stranglehold over another, and if that other rises to a relatively dominant position in a society, and if that other simultaneously does the same thing that one side did to begin with- what can it be aside from plain hypocrisy? 2. Rather than embracing co-existence, why should only the 'new' side get its say? 3. If this 'new' side really is as progressive as it claims to be, would it not be above trying to do the same thing the first side did for those 40,000 some years?

1. No, it's equality. Taste of your own medicine if you will.
2. Well one side didn't cause The Dark Ages and spend ~1500 years stifling scientific advancement and progress, did it?
3. You're the only one here claiming progressiveness.

[Washington Resistance Army]

1. Well, if one side has a stranglehold over another, and if that other rises to a relatively dominant position in a society, and if that other simultaneously does the same thing that one side did to begin with- what can it be aside from plain hypocrisy? 2. Rather than embracing co-existence, why should only the 'new' side get its say? 3. If this 'new' side really is as progressive as it claims to be, would it not be above trying to do the same thing the first side did for those 40,000 some years?

1. No, it's equality. Taste of your own medicine if you will.
2. Well one side didn't cause The Dark Ages and spend ~1500 years stifling scientific advancement and progress, did it?
3. You're the only one here claiming progressiveness.

Literally no historian nowadays believes in the Dark Ages.

[Sengoku Americas]

1. Well, if one side has a stranglehold over another, and if that other rises to a relatively dominant position in a society, and if that other simultaneously does the same thing that one side did to begin with- what can it be aside from plain hypocrisy? 2. Rather than embracing co-existence, why should only the 'new' side get its say? 3. If this 'new' side really is as progressive as it claims to be, would it not be above trying to do the same thing the first side did for those 40,000 some years?

1. No, it's equality. Taste of your own medicine if you will.
2. Well one side didn't cause The Dark Ages and spend ~1500 years stifling scientific advancement and progress, did it?
3. You're the only one here claiming progressiveness.

The problem I have is that your response only focuses on one side of the argument. It's true religion- especially in hands of the powerful- has been used as an excuse for doing dogmatic, anti-logical actions, and religious institutions have indeed stifled progress in many areas. But religious persons have also been at the forefront of scientific research; if anything faith can coexist with science in certain areas. Obviously creationism isn't compatible with evolution, but things like the Big Bang and creation of the universe by god(s) are certainly possible.

[Comerciante]

I honestly feel the three primary things that need to be absolute necessary learning is Math, English and Science. The remaining periods not filled should be up to personal choice of the student.

[Sengoku Americas]

I honestly feel the two primary things that need to be absolute necessary learning is Math, English and Science. The remaining periods not filled should be up to personal choice of the student.

Your response certainly makes an excellent argument for maths.

[Comerciante]

I honestly feel the two primary things that need to be absolute necessary learning is Math, English and Science. The remaining periods not filled should be up to personal choice of the student.

Your response certainly makes an excellent argument for maths.

...fixed...

In my defense I added in science at the last second and it completely slipped my mind to edit the first part.

[Resilient Acceleration]

Who the fuck knows what they want to do in the upper grades
There's even university majors for "I have no idea what to do"

Pretty much 1/2 of my graduating class already knew what they wanted to do with their lives.

Course, most of them were upper-middle/rich kids from well off families who could easily support any venture they undertook, so I don't think they're the example you're looking for. (Actually, a few of them already owned their own businesses or helped their parents do their jobs by Junior Year)

I mean, the other half of your graduating class being not knowing about what they wanted to do with their lives is still bad, and a system that takes that into consideration will be desireable.

[New haven america]

Pretty much 1/2 of my graduating class already knew what they wanted to do with their lives.

Course, most of them were upper-middle/rich kids from well off families who could easily support any venture they undertook, so I don't think they're the example you're looking for. (Actually, a few of them already owned their own businesses or helped their parents do their jobs by Junior Year)

I mean, the other half of your graduating class being not knowing about what they wanted to do with their lives is still bad, and a system that takes that into consideration will be desireable.

Well most of them had rich parents who could fold them into their jobs/company until they figured out what they wanted to do.

And I think a system requiring that people have a concrete idea of how their life should be starting as early as age 10 is bad, so, you know.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

I honestly feel the three primary things that need to be absolute necessary learning is Math, English and Science. The remaining periods not filled should be up to personal choice of the student.

And history.
History is vital.

Yes, I am both a history and an English nerd.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I've been asking for a long time, science?Isn't it specific to what kind of science to teach?Like physics, biology, chemistry, organic chemistry or other.Is it one teacher who teaches all this?

[Kilobugya]

I've been asking for a long time, science?Isn't it specific to what kind of science to teach?Like physics, biology, chemistry, organic chemistry or other.Is it one teacher who teaches all this?

Here in France we have one teacher that teaches everything at "maternelle" (age 3-6) and "primaire" (age 6-11), but starting at "collège" (age 11-15) and "lycée" (age 15-18) there is one teacher per "field". But fields are pretty large, with chemistry lumped with physics, geology with biology, and civics/geopolitics with history for example. Starting at university level it becomes more specific.

[The United States of Paul]

Not the only thing I think should be taught in schools, but media/news literacy definitely should.

[Koralo]

It completely depends on your idea of what school is or should be. As a former schoolteacher and someone who failed school prior to that, I have nothing but disdain for the current interpretation in the countries I've worked in. I have seen way too many exemples of homeschooled kids who did not follow any programme who seemed to have had a better education than my students. In the end the programme was only a limitation, and these kids developped better skills by just having access to information at the moment they looked for it. It's especially obvious in the teaching of languages, where most of the time it is just a tremendous loss of time when done in schools, but I've seen it for all diciplines. I think the school system is a least a hundred years behind society, if it was ever adapted.

In my opinion schools should be teaching the bare minimum to be a functionning member of a given society, then work as place of open knowledge aquisition. The way I'd go about it is split the whole thing into three broad categories of social, practical, and physical skills, each to be given equal time. I wouldn't properly divide them into different diciplines, just themes that would pertain to one or several diciplines, with theory and practice for each of them.

• The bare minimum in social skills would include being able to understand, speak, read, and write in the local language or languages and in any eventual lingua franca, as well as sexual education and religious education, to be able to behave in different settings or with people who are different than you, and finally politics, to understand the political system of the country you live in and its funding principles, to be able to parttake in it.
  
  
• The bare minimum in practical skills would depend heavily on the country. Things that are essential to taking care of one's house like plumbing, electric work, etc. I believe will be necessary in most. Perhaps even more importantly, things that are essential to taking care of one's home, such as childcare, cooking, or budget management. Finally, things such as fire safety, first aid and, if your nation allows that kind of barbaric practices, driving.*
  
  
• Finally, the bare minimum in physical skills would be health, at least if you're going to let your citizens have any control over it, theory would be something like health or nutrition and practice would obviously be sports.

Note that I believe a particular focus should be given to the medium of education. Which language is the class taught in? Kids need to be conversational in all these topics in a language they're learning. Language itself can also be taught through songs or books, which? My personal take there is that this is were transmition of local culture should occur. And obviously a bit of historical background to each element you're studying will bring in the history, etc.

Things like history outside of understanding these present situations, math outside of budget management or electric work, science outside of health or sex ed, etc. Is in itself completely useless if you ask my opinion. Unless you're interested in it! Which is why I believe that beyond these basic skills, all schools should offer introductions to many more areas of interest, such as musical instruments or arts, astronomy and physics, geology, other languages, etc. And the possibility to develop these skills beyond a mere introductory class if one wishes to. And honestly, in most cases, I think it would be profitable to leave kids alone, I don't think having too much school time does them any good, countries like Corea, Japan, or even France with their horrible school days are good exemples of how bad that can be.

I guess my point is, from my experience, if a kid genuinely isn't interested in what you're telling them, there is no point in forcing them, the very best you will be able to accomplish is have them remember enough long enough for an exam and then forget about it all, that's just a waste of their time and our money. Beyond what will actually be of use in anybody's everyday life, they will only remember what picked their interest in the first place anyways, and you have no interest as an educational institution to try and force a certain area of knowledge down their throat, unless your goal is either indoctrination or -like most school systems nowadays, thanks to the disgusting ideals of the industrial revolution- orientating them towards a certain type of work, hoping we'll be able to choose their place in society for them. Which I don't think works and just gives you 1. students only qualified for the jobs that were needed ten to twenty years prior, at the begining of their school years, and 2. workers that are less good at their jobs and less happy in them.

---

Now I just need to adapt all that into an education factbook for Koralo. x)

* : Don't mind me hating on driving, just a joke on how I outlawed it in Koralo and how, living in a car-free city irl, I hate cars with passion.

EDIT: You probably want to include eco-responsible behaviours in practical skills.

[Tierra Fuego]

Better access to the works that shape the curriculum and to textbooks used in class. Like being able to read the points from Euclid or Aristotle or whatever historians are teaching our history instead of just a powerpoint or printout that condenses and rewords them. I always found it helpful to look into that stuff from the source instead of the sea of info presented or on wikipedia where they overcomplicate things. If you missed some info in class or in a previous year you can easily get stranded but it clears up so easily when you read it from the source.

Also how to do research, I guess. And equipping school libraries / resource centers so that students can do research in school about things that are being taught.

Also: Provide public domain and open-source textbooks lessons that are free for schools to use. Since they are moving toward digital platforms it should be easier, but I guess some corporation will soon step in and make things so much better for them.