What are things that everyone ought to understand, but many don't?

The primary purpose of most publicly funded schools is not moral teachings, although cultural behavioral lessons are reinforced as children interact with each other and adults. Those would be: wait your turn, tell the truth, do your work and no cheating, don't touch what doesn't belong to you, wash your hands after using the toilet and before eating, etc.

I was taught that purpose of an education was to teach children reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science, etc., and to make sure we had some physical activity during the day. Religion was touched on in history, but not taught rigorously. Those who attended churches learned about religion at home and in our houses of worship.

Teachers emphasized that their main goal was to teach us to think for ourselves, to bypass yellow journalism and crowd thinking in favor of credible sources, and to be able to distinguish credible sources from junk journalism and pseudo science. To separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. If they succeeded at that, they believed they could rest easy knowing we could distinguish truth from snake oil.

Sad to say, many in my generation have forgotten these lessons altogether.
 

Vida May said:
I think what you said carries a lot of wisdom. Yes that happened all over the world but I think the way the majority think about it today is very different from the perspective of the past. This excites me because it means we may evolve a higher consciousness like the people in the Star Trek series and become less like reactionary animals.
Click to expand...
I think education is what is helping us along in that direction and I think we need to put even more effort into that aspect of our 'evolution'. Like, I've had the thought that maybe what should happen to the statues of past 'hero's' who turned out to have a very dark side, is maybe to leave them where they stand, but to change the plaques that are on them and are usually only talking about the positives. Maybe a second plaque right beside, that informs of the bad things that came out of their rule or leadership.

Like one of our Prime Minister's who led on putting a railway all across Canada and uniting all our provinces into one confederation, but was also responsible for a racist Chinese head tax and the formation of our horrible residential schools where so many children lost their lives. That way, the concerns of people who fear our history will be forgotten, will be assuaged, but those who feel great angst at the atrocities will find their concerns at people knowing the other side, will also be met. In my opinion, a more educational way to approach the issue. I'm sure though, there'd be some on both sides who'd feel affronted even by that kind of solution.
 
Eupher said:
PARENTS who are involved with their children -- are the BEST practitioners and examples of what morals should be to their children.
Click to expand...
Not always. Every single father I was acquainted with growing up, including my own, seemed to aspire to be a cross between Hugh Hefner and Ebenezer Scrooge and too many of the mothers, including my own, were too scared to rock the boat or were exhausted single mothers. So nowhere near being good role models. (Some of the mothers did try; don't remember a !@#$% one of the fathers trying.)

If it weren't for some of the teachers I had, I would've given up.
 
Debrah N. said:
I think education is what is helping us along in that direction and I think we need to put even more effort into that aspect of our 'evolution'. Like, I've had the thought that maybe what should happen to the statues of past 'hero's' who turned out to have a very dark side, is maybe to leave them where they stand, but to change the plaques that are on them and are usually only talking about the positives. Maybe a second plaque right beside, that informs of the bad things that came out of their rule or leadership.

Like one of our Prime Minister's who led on putting a railway all across Canada and uniting all our provinces into one confederation, but was also responsible for a racist Chinese head tax and the formation of our horrible residential schools where so many children lost their lives. That way, the concerns of people who fear our history will be forgotten, will be assuaged, but those who feel great angst at the atrocities will find their concerns at people knowing the other side, will also be met. In my opinion, a more educational way to approach the issue. I'm sure though, there'd be some on both sides who'd feel affronted even by that kind of solution.
Click to expand...
Did you see @officerripley post just above yours? Millions of us could have written officerriphey's explanation of reality because we lived it. We fall horribly short of acknowledging the importance of teachers and textbook writers. I think we all had a teacher who touched our lives in a way that encouraged us to keep trying.

Now can we talk about the purpose of education and the importance of textbooks? The US changed the purpose of education in 1958 and I think that was a terrible mistake. Second problem. Textbook publishers are customizing their textbooks to please the states that buy them, so California textbooks have a slightly different focus than Texas textbooks and this divides the nation. The worst problem Israel and Palestine have is their textbooks present totally different accounts of history! We need to fix the textbook problems.

I have several very old textbooks and I am tutoring my great-grandson and using these books because they all teach values and good citizenship. Third PROBLEM My GGS obviously has an African heritage. Black kinky hair and dark skin and none of the children in the old text look like him. I am considering giving him a color crayon so he can correct that problem. Fourth PROBLEM Old textbooks made up American mythology with the good intentions of preparing the young for good citizenship. It is a problem when you are supposed to be talking truth and the story isn't exactly true.

I hope you are aware that it is impossible to discuss education without a teacher. It seems everyone has an opinion about education but they don't have the knowledge needed to discuss education. Their opinions are important but opinions don't drive a discussion like facts.
 
officerripley said:
Not always. Every single father I was acquainted with growing up, including my own, seemed to aspire to be a cross between Hugh Hefner and Ebenezer Scrooge and too many of the mothers, including my own, were too scared to rock the boat or were exhausted single mothers. So nowhere near being good role models. (Some of the mothers did try; don't remember a !@#$% one of the fathers trying.)

If it weren't for some of the teachers I had, I would've given up.
Click to expand...
Yeap, that is the point I was hoping to get across. People worry a lot about the education their own children are getting but they don't care about the education of the child across town. When children are lucky their parents can fill in the education gaps or move to a district with good schools. But it is the education of the child across town, the one who does not have the advantage of money or a functioning family that we should about because that is the kid who will become a problem a society.

It is not just a kindness to give a disadvantaged child a good education and teach character and virtues and national principles. There are two ways to have social order, authority over the people or culture. If we want liberty, we darn well better transmit a culture and an understanding that self-government means governing ourselves.
 
Vida May said:
Yeap, that is the point I was hoping to get across. People worry a lot about the education their own children are getting but they don't care about the education of the child across town. When children are lucky their parents can fill in the education gaps or move to a district with good schools. But it is the education of the child across town, the one who does not have the advantage of money or a functioning family that we should about because that is the kid who will become a problem a society.

It is not just a kindness to give a disadvantaged child a good education and teach character and virtues and national principles. There are two ways to have social order, authority over the people or culture. If we want liberty, we darn well better transmit a culture and an understanding that self-government means governing ourselves.
Click to expand...
So true. They say you just can't make someone care about others if they don't; but if nothing else, maybe we can make them realize that the child across town that they were uncaring about may be the one charged with taking care of them in the nursing home some day.
 
StarSong said:
The primary purpose of most publicly funded schools is not moral teachings, although cultural behavioral lessons are reinforced as children interact with each other and adults. Those would be: wait your turn, tell the truth, do your work and no cheating, don't touch what doesn't belong to you, wash your hands after using the toilet and before eating, etc.

I was taught that purpose of an education was to teach children reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science, etc., and to make sure we had some physical activity during the day. Religion was touched on in history, but not taught rigorously. Those who attended churches learned about religion at home and in our houses of worship.

Teachers emphasized that their main goal was to teach us to think for ourselves, to bypass yellow journalism and crowd thinking in favor of credible sources, and to be able to distinguish credible sources from junk journalism and pseudo science. To separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. If they succeeded at that, they believed they could rest easy knowing we could distinguish truth from snake oil.

Sad to say, many in my generation have forgotten these lessons altogether.
Click to expand...
The primary purpose was to have a strong and united nation. This fact comes from old textbooks that explain this to teachers, and the book of the1917 Nation Education Association conference, and a whole lot of books about education, the enlightenment, and the people who made history. Thomas Jefferson gave us many thoughts about education and liberty.

 
Vida May said:
Yeap, that is the point I was hoping to get across. People worry a lot about the education their own children are getting but they don't care about the education of the child across town. When children are lucky their parents can fill in the education gaps or move to a district with good schools. But it is the education of the child across town, the one who does not have the advantage of money or a functioning family that we should about because that is the kid who will become a problem a society.

It is not just a kindness to give a disadvantaged child a good education and teach character and virtues and national principles. There are two ways to have social order, authority over the people or culture. If we want liberty, we darn well better transmit a culture and an understanding that self-government means governing ourselves.
Click to expand...
Your post reminded me of this quote from Sister Joan Chittister

1732718191791.jpeg
 
Vida May said:
The primary purpose was to have a strong and united nation. This fact comes from old textbooks that explain this to teachers, and the book of the1917 Nation Education Association conference, and a whole lot of books about education, the enlightenment, and the people who made history. Thomas Jefferson gave us many thoughts about education and liberty.

Click to expand...
Yep:

"The whole people must take upon themselves the Education of the Whole People and must be willing to bear the expenses of it.”
~~John Adams
 
officerripley said:
So true. They say you just can't make someone care about others if they don't; but if nothing else, maybe we can make them realize that the child across town that they were uncaring about may be the one charged with taking care of them in the nursing home some day.
Click to expand...
Or the one who is made the president or vice president of the US. 🥴

I wish we all read Thomas Jefferson and Cicero and about the Enlightenment and the thinking that brought us to a democracy.

There is a mythology about Christians making the US a democracy, but the Bible does not give us the explanation we need to understand what our forefathers gave us and ministers told their flocks to vote for the person who leads like the kings without the power of the people and this person does not understand science and a few other things.
 
officerripley said:
Yep:

"The whole people must take upon themselves the Education of the Whole People and must be willing to bear the expenses of it.”
~~John Adams
Click to expand...
Oh, oh you mean "THE THEORY OF MORAL SENTIMENTS" Adam Smith? One of the men who spoke about what morality has to do with a strong economy.
 
Aunt Bea said:
Your post reminded me of this quote from Sister Joan Chittister

View attachment 383737
Click to expand...
Hey, you all are blowing me away! In all my years of talking about education, morals and democracy, I have never gotten such helpful posts in advancing these ideas. At this moment I am feeling less alone and more hopeful than normal.

The Enlightenment is all these ideas about how to create a better reality and I am sure those who started the Enlightenment and then the democracies would be amazed by what we have achieved.
Teachers kept that thinking alive until 1958. Then we stopped passing on our culture and ended education for good moral judgment and left that to the Church. We are no longer the democracy we defended because only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. But you all have surprised me with posts that give me hope.
 
Vida May said:
The primary purpose was to have a strong and united nation. This fact comes from old textbooks that explain this to teachers, and the book of the1917 Nation Education Association conference, and a whole lot of books about education, the enlightenment, and the people who made history. Thomas Jefferson gave us many thoughts about education and liberty.

Click to expand...
I was talking about the modern primary purpose. Note, my post began with "is" not "was."

Thomas Jefferson was no hero in my book, nor was he particularly enlightened.
 
StarSong said:
The primary purpose of most publicly funded schools is not moral teachings, although cultural behavioral lessons are reinforced as children interact with each other and adults. Those would be: wait your turn, tell the truth, do your work and no cheating, don't touch what doesn't belong to you, wash your hands after using the toilet and before eating, etc.

I was taught that purpose of an education was to teach children reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science, etc., and to make sure we had some physical activity during the day. Religion was touched on in history, but not taught rigorously. Those who attended churches learned about religion at home and in our houses of worship.

Teachers emphasized that their main goal was to teach us to think for ourselves, to bypass yellow journalism and crowd thinking in favor of credible sources, and to be able to distinguish credible sources from junk journalism and pseudo science. To separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. If they succeeded at that, they believed they could rest easy knowing we could distinguish truth from snake oil.

Sad to say, many in my generation have forgotten these lessons altogether.
Click to expand...

My school teacher grandmother said we teach children math to teach them how to think. That is not exactly the goal of new math. New math is good for those wanting to be an engineer or do quantum physics, but it is not the practical everyday life math in the 40s and 50s textbooks. "Number Stories Book 2" is not just math but is loaded with messages of cooperation, consideration, and friendship. It is as much a reading book as a math book and reading books also teach good manners and good behaviors. It never was just reading, writing, and arithmetic but a steady flow of morality, good character, virtues, and principles.

1958, education for a technological society with unknown values is a changed purpose of education. The 1958 National Defence Education Act was limited to 4 years. President Eisenhower praised our domestic education when he requested Congress to pass the National Defense Education Act.

Why unknown values and leaving moral training to the church? So education money serves Industry and Churches teach morals without consuming tax dollars. Also, the fastest way to advance technology is to make education amoral.

"Sad to say, many in my generation have forgotten these lessons altogether." That is culture change coming with amoral education, and men fuming at me because I am in favor of censorship. Not the censorship that means we can not say things against the war in Vietnam, but the censorship that keeps things civil. There is kind of a dividing line between freedom to make intellectual arguments or emotional garbage and crowd mentality. We need the education you got. That is how to defend our liberty.
 
StarSong said:
I was talking about the modern primary purpose. Note, my post began with "is" not "was."

Thomas Jefferson was no hero in my book, nor was he particularly enlightened.
Click to expand...
Okay, we have a disagreement about Jefferson. I got what you said "The primary purpose of most publicly funded schools IS not moral teachings" I am opposed to that reality. So do we have a disagreement I am not understanding? I am curious about why you have a low opinion of Jefferson.
 
Vida May said:
That is culture change coming with amoral education, and men fuming at me because I am in favor of censorship. Not the censorship that means we can not say things against the war in Vietnam, but the censorship that keeps things civil. There is kind of a dividing line between freedom to make intellectual arguments or emotional garbage and crowd mentality. We need the education you got. That is how to defend our liberty.
Click to expand...
My grandchildren attend public schools and I wouldn't characterize their educations as amoral. Non-religious, perhaps, but by no means amoral. What is your experience, if any, with the way children are currently being taught that makes you think that? I don't know where you are in the US - perhaps your local schools aren't up to snuff.

My GC are getting quality, non-heathen educations. Please also notice, I didn't say there were ZERO moral teachings and explained that indeed there are. My point was that moral teachings are not - nor should they be - the primary purpose of publicly funded schools.

For the record I don't want religious-based moral instruction in public schools. My Jewish friends speak of how "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Easter" were plastered throughout schools during the 50s & 60s, and they were required to learn and sing associated songs and participate in related activities. The arrogant presumption that every child celebrated Christian holidays was hurtful, infuriating and dismissive. One could even say their liberty was at stake.

One can only imagine the uproar if a US school district had a Muslim majority population, and all students were required to read the Koran and follow Muslim practices, regardless of their own religious beliefs.

As for Jefferson, he owned over 600 slaves during his lifetime, while simultaneously hypocritically proclaiming equality for the masses of people in flowery text. Of course, his definition of "people" was comprised solely of white male landowners, despite gladly making use of his slives, Sally Hemmings among them. She, his enslaved quadroon with whom he had six children, made a deal with that devil, i.e., she'd remain his slave if he agreed to free their children as they reached adulthood.

So, no, I don't genuflect at the altar of the "sainted" Thomas Jefferson.
 
Vida May said:
Did you see @officerripley post just above yours? Millions of us could have written officerriphey's explanation of reality because we lived it. We fall horribly short of acknowledging the importance of teachers and textbook writers. I think we all had a teacher who touched our lives in a way that encouraged us to keep trying.

Now can we talk about the purpose of education and the importance of textbooks? The US changed the purpose of education in 1958 and I think that was a terrible mistake. Second problem. Textbook publishers are customizing their textbooks to please the states that buy them, so California textbooks have a slightly different focus than Texas textbooks and this divides the nation. The worst problem Israel and Palestine have is their textbooks present totally different accounts of history! We need to fix the textbook problems.

I have several very old textbooks and I am tutoring my great-grandson and using these books because they all teach values and good citizenship. Third PROBLEM My GGS obviously has an African heritage. Black kinky hair and dark skin and none of the children in the old text look like him. I am considering giving him a color crayon so he can correct that problem. Fourth PROBLEM Old textbooks made up American mythology with the good intentions of preparing the young for good citizenship. It is a problem when you are supposed to be talking truth and the story isn't exactly true.

I hope you are aware that it is impossible to discuss education without a teacher. It seems everyone has an opinion about education but they don't have the knowledge needed to discuss education. Their opinions are important but opinions don't drive a discussion like facts.
Click to expand...
I do agree with most of your points but I don't think it's impossible to discuss education without a teacher. Every moment we're alive, someone or something is teaching us. We parents educate our babies just by our actions so it's not just text books that guide our absorption of information. I think what is needed is the willingness to open up individually and discover our own biases and then look for information to either refute or support those biases.

For example, I grew up in an era and culture where it was perfectly acceptable to buy salmon out of a native person's trunk but also perfectly acceptable and customary to look down on our First Nations people as lazy, etc. But then, I read an article on the problems in Canada's reserve schools and the reasons behind those problems (generational issues, hopelessness, low funding, low opportunities, etc.) and I opened up to both learning more and changing my view points.

While I completely agree that there's a severe problem with jurisdictions changing text books to suit a narrative (rather than just to teach facts as they happened) and apparently my own province is guilty of that just recently, I think the text books are only a symptom of a darker problem and that is the hearts of people. To be honest, I don't know what can be done about that.
 
s76l42 said:
How to live within your means and stick to a budget. All schools should teach basic, personal finance.
Click to expand...
My anecdotal experience:

Children raised in families where finances were stable and parents were resolute about staying within their means tend to live within their means during adulthood. Many suffer a few harsh early lessons in the importance of being solvent, but they get there pretty quickly because their upbringing gave them little tolerance for constantly juggling debt.

The people I know who are always financially underwater, despite excellent incomes, remain in that state not because they can't add and subtract, but because they have great tolerance for insolvency.

A high school class in finances isn't a bad idea, but probably won't overcome a lifetime of family examples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top