Why don't American kids learn basic stuff?

[FBM]

P.S. Yeah, 'duh-merkin' kids iz ignernt, purty much, bless their pea-pickin' hearts. But then, kids in general are ignorant. Teachers who don't know how to make a subject interesting are the norm. Most of them, in my experience, have had their creativity and inspiration drummed out of them by classes in pedagogy based on long out-moded psychological theories. Students, as a result, only want to learn enough to pass the class. They're not likely to give a shit on their own;

...snip....


I blame the parents for not instilling a love of learning. That's up to parents, not teachers. There is no reason basic American history shouldn't be learned from books purchased for children for birthdays and Christmas, and trips to the library.

Amen to all of that.

Somebody has to work at McDonald's.

And that's perhaps a more profound truth than you may have intended.

[laklak]

sex, Brittney Spears, sex, etc etc. And sex.

I'd eat a mile of her shit to see where it came from.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

sex, Brittney Spears, sex, etc etc. And sex.

I'd eat a mile of her shit to see where it came from.

That many CDs are going to play hell with your intestines. Just sayin'.

[Millefleur]

P.S. Yeah, 'duh-merkin' kids iz ignernt, purty much, bless their pea-pickin' hearts. But then, kids in general are ignorant. Teachers who don't know how to make a subject interesting are the norm. Most of them, in my experience, have had their creativity and inspiration drummed out of them by classes in pedagogy based on long out-moded psychological theories. Students, as a result, only want to learn enough to pass the class. They're not likely to give a shit on their own;

...snip....


I blame the parents for not instilling a love of learning. That's up to parents, not teachers. There is no reason basic American history shouldn't be learned from books purchased for children for birthdays and Christmas, and trips to the library.

Pretty much Although if you get an enthusiastic teacher, all the better The 6 yr old was telling me about cochlear implants this morning and on the way to school asked how clouds make rain so I told her about the water cycle, she finished the conversation with 'I'm going to ask Ben to teach us about the water cycle, Ben knows almost everything!' She worships that guy, he makes everything exciting and she absorbs all of it keenly

That love of learning, that keen desire to know how everything works, is so important. My kids might decide college or university isn't for them (though I hope they do!), they might not get top grades or choose distinguished careers but if they leave education with that thirst for knowledge and the desire to keep on picking up books, travel and discover the world I'll be a very happy bunneh

[Animavore]

I think you have this arse backwards. You can't "instill" a love of learning in children. They either have it or they don't. My brother and sister never had the love of learning and books I do despite been brought to the library every Saturday.
Of my three nieces one is too young to say anything about. The oldest doesn't care much for learning and likes dancing and sports while the middle one is always nose deep in books and excels at maths to the point the teacher is asking her mother to give her harder maths problems at home. She certainly didn't get that from her parents, at least not from example, though maybe from genetics as she would share some of the genes I have and my family in general whom many of have similar leanings.
And I'm pretty sure the idea of the more intelligent in society being ridiculed is not unique to American culture or even new.

[Animavore]

Twin studies relate to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study

[FBM]

In that case, the love of learning must be beaten into them.


Joking aside, Ani, yeah, it's a classical 'nature or nurture' thing. But it doesn't have to be an either-or situation. Some kids are stoopid and will always be stoopid. Others will learn regardless of their environment. The ones in the middle are the only ones we should beat focus on. That is, the ones who could go either way, depending on their environmental influences. In pedagogy, it's called "teaching to the middle". OK, not exactly, but that's my modification of the principle, anyway.

[Thinking Aloud]

There's a TED talk by Malcolm Mclaren that borders this topic, albeit from a more "arts" perspective. He comments, as do other above, that it's now cool to be ignorant - and his anecdotes about the teaching methods he experienced at art school shed an interesting light on what he calls the "karaoke culture" of today. http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_mclare ... lture.html

[Animavore]

In that case, the love of learning must be beaten into them.


Joking aside, Ani, yeah, it's a classical 'nature or nurture' thing. But it doesn't have to be an either-or situation. Some kids are stoopid and will always be stoopid. Others will learn regardless of their environment. The ones in the middle are the only ones we should beat focus on. That is, the ones who could go either way, depending on their environmental influences. In pedagogy, it's called "teaching to the middle". OK, not exactly, but that's my modification of the principle, anyway.

But won't the "middle" be the ones that take the middle path? Or middle management. Ie they won't be doing the donkey work or be at the top.
I don't think it's a three way division like you've made here. I'm sure there are gradations.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I think it has always been "cool to be ignorant". I don't think it is a new thing at all, nor is it limited to a single country. The stupid fear the clever and seek to redress the balance by means of ridicule and dismissal of academic achievement.

The only difference (from a UK perspective) is that teachers are no longer allowed to beat the knowledge into thick kids!

[FBM]

In that case, the love of learning must be beaten into them.


Joking aside, Ani, yeah, it's a classical 'nature or nurture' thing. But it doesn't have to be an either-or situation. Some kids are stoopid and will always be stoopid. Others will learn regardless of their environment. The ones in the middle are the only ones we should beat focus on. That is, the ones who could go either way, depending on their environmental influences. In pedagogy, it's called "teaching to the middle". OK, not exactly, but that's my modification of the principle, anyway.

But won't the "middle" be the ones that take the middle path? Or middle management. Ie they won't be doing the donkey work or be at the top.
I don't think it's a three way division like you've made here. I'm sure there are gradations.

Oh, definitely. It's just a heuristic device. When you get down to it, there's a lot more wiggle room. Sure, a few kids clearly have "special needs" stamped on their foreheads, just as a few have "I don't need you, teacher" stamped on theirs. Between, there's a whole lot of flux going on.

[Animavore]

In that case, the love of learning must be beaten into them.


Joking aside, Ani, yeah, it's a classical 'nature or nurture' thing. But it doesn't have to be an either-or situation. Some kids are stoopid and will always be stoopid. Others will learn regardless of their environment. The ones in the middle are the only ones we should beat focus on. That is, the ones who could go either way, depending on their environmental influences. In pedagogy, it's called "teaching to the middle". OK, not exactly, but that's my modification of the principle, anyway.

But won't the "middle" be the ones that take the middle path? Or middle management. Ie they won't be doing the donkey work or be at the top.
I don't think it's a three way division like you've made here. I'm sure there are gradations.

Oh, definitely. It's just a heuristic device. When you get down to it, there's a lot more wiggle room. Sure, a few kids clearly have "special needs" stamped on their foreheads, just as a few have "I don't need you, teacher" stamped on theirs. Between, there's a whole lot of flux going on.

I'm not sure how the problem can be tackled. As long as we live in a society where people can get along perfectly well and be successful while remaining as ignorant as pig shit (greatly highlighted by the Frank Grimes episode of The Simpsons) I don't see it changing any time soon.

[Coito ergo sum]

Test basic skills like this, but notify the parents of the scores of their kids. That would be one thing. And, along with the notification, provide a basic reading/study list of books/publications that will bring the kids up to speed.

Also, start putting "reading to your child" in the parenting books and classes that people take. A child should be read to every day until they can read. Once they can read, there should be daily reading required. And, every child should have a library card, and there should always be books taken out of the library.

My parents instilled a love of reading in me early. We used to go to bookstores and libraries and a treat was that I could pick out a new book to read. I LIKED reading. The main reason people don't like it, and find it difficult to even finish a book, IMHO, is that they didn't learn early to like it. It's like anything else - to read well takes practice, and if you're not practiced it feels difficult. Difficult things tend to not be as much fun, or at least not relaxing.

[Animavore]

I already mentioned my parents were the same, encouraging reading all the time, but it never stuck with my siblings. I always liked reading, from the start. It wasn't the other way around. I even loved being asked to read in class and making up stories and writing. It's similar to the fact that I liked drawing and was drawing shapes when most of the other kids were drawing stickmen. I can still rememeber scoffing inwardly at that.
I don't see how kids can be motivated to be interested in learning when their fathers, uncles and brothers are earning nice money doing hands-on things like brick-laying, carpentry or plastering. Those guys make more than most office workers and electricians, even more than the engineers in some cases. It nearly seems like a mug's game to go to college.

[FBM]

I'm not sure how the problem can be tackled. As long as we live in a society where people can get along perfectly well and be successful while remaining as ignorant as pig shit (greatly highlighted by the Frank Grimes episode of The Simpsons) I don't see it changing any time soon.

Alright, but as someone mentioned above, somebody needs to sling burgers. What are we gonna do when everyone has a Ph.D in something or other? Who's going to plant the rice, slaughter the cows, build the houses and cars? How many Ph.Ds are going to be willing to swing a hammer for a living? Don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating ignorance, but doesn't it seem that there will always be some people whose intellectual limitations somehow contribute to the propogation of the species? I'm not talking prescriptively, just descriptively.