IM all for electives to cover multiple interests. The mandates should consist of those classes that will be NECESSARY to succeed in adult life. Reading, Writing, Maths, History, are all suffering enough without adding more mandates to the curriculum.

In general, the high school curriculum should have as many Optional courses as possible:
Philosophy, Religion, etc. (and any other BS)...
After all, the kids must have a certain number of credits to fulfill, so WHY NOT? even the BUSKET WEEVING will do -- for those who's got NO FRIGGING IDEA what they are doing!!!
However, for those kids whose parents participate in their upbringing, such courses are better be left just an Option!!!

let's use a current event as an example here. In louisianna, there is a Justice of the Peace who is facing charges (eventually) of discrimination and bigotry because he refuses to marry interracial couples, "I am not a bigot, but I do not believe in mixing the races in that manner". You can be sure this guy raised his children (if he had any), as he saw fit, which assumedly would include raising them as bigots and racists. As a United States citizen, would his children benefit more with sociology classes being elective (which means legally the parent can refuse to allow the 17 year old to take the class), or mandatory?

Education is not the only way we are going to get past the dark ages, but it is the number ONE way. Attitude and acceptance are the other two ways. Without all three we will never be any better than this justice of the peace.

History too.


This guy is sooo right. Smartest thing Ive heard all day.

Maybe as an elective for those who are interested..not as a credited class. My oldest son has grown into quite a philosopher and would have loved the option of such a class. My other 2 maybe not so much.

sure. let's add philosopy. hell kids don't need the science or math that we already can't pay for. drop shop too and throw in some art apreciation. not like we need auto mechanics or carpenters in this country and those tools are speeeeeeeendy.

you don't think art is important in school?

what's important in k-12 above anything else is what prepares a child to be a productive adult that can contribute to his/her own and a future family's welfare. budgets are tight and we cannot afford everything in schools. what's important is relative to available funds and staffing.

That wasn't the question...

ok i'll rephrase. art is of some importance. but in todays ecconomic chrisis choices must be made. there are classes that are more important to a child's education if the primary purpose of k-12 is preparing him/her for the job world. everybody talks about things they want taught in schools but when a bond or tax issue is on the ballot to pay for those classes we vote them down. what would you cancel so the arts can be taught? you can't teach everything can you?

Agreed, so sad so much money is spent on war instead of education. Too bad the public school system has failed the young artists and musicians...another reason why my kids didn't attend mainstream public schools.

well this discussion is no more about war than it is about other government expenditures like medicare or highways. it's about what should be taught in high school. like everything, public schools are funded through tax payer dollars. if our schools have failed it's beacuse like everything in government, poor choices are made in administering available revenues. and government is not made up of the people we elect to office. the vast majority of government workers are salaried employees who are your neighbors and mine. we all are responsible for the quality of education. blaming some intity that really doesn't exist because "it" decided to go to war gets nowhere.

The entire thread changes nothing...
agreed..conversation ended

school boards are local

whatever is or isnt included in a curriculum is decided by the school district who are elected by the people of the district

you can't blame the state or even the feds for whatever is or isnt taught in our schools. blame your neighbors who elected the local board of education

Federal funding per student = about 7K per year

Federal funding per inmate = about 70K per year

Any questions?

Teaching about philosophers and particular philosophies will not attain what is needed. Teaching critical thinking skills is what is needed. That is only had through persistent accurate correlative measures. Philosophy when done right, helps.

sure i have a question. is the discussion about prisons or high school education. besides the prison budget there's the nasa, budget, military budge, entitlements. bean already brought up war. whats shall we talk about next, highways? airtraffic controller pay? how bout that ny yankee payroll huh? jeez people. for whatever reason you care to conjure up, the fact remains that there's a finite dollar amount to be spent on educating our kids. the question as i understand the thread is should philosophy be taught in high school? my answer is no unless someone can tell me what non essential courses can be cut to pay for it.

This is pretty much what I was thinking when I saw this topic.

Someone mentioned critical thinking. There are a few classes in a typical university's philosophy curriculum which are not at all focused on 'the history of human opinions and speculations', but instead focus exclusively on the proper application of logic and related topics.

The topics in those classes should definitely be taught in high school, but I don't see the need for a whole class for it. Its one of the reasons that teaching math is so essential, but it would be nice to make the connection with everyday life a little more explicit.

jrbogie...




The discussion is about whether or not philosophy should be taught in high school. There are both, proponents and opponents. The opponents have suggested that their reasoning against the idea is based upon appropriations(funding). Specifically citing that there already exists a lack of the fundamentals being effectively taught. Further adding that that is reason to believe that no more money should be spent outside of those things. The argument is what must be lost in order to gain philosophy.

I think the issue is much much deeper than it may seem on the surface.

An increase in money will not necessarily equate to an increased student comprehension/performance in the basics. So arguing that a deficiency exists in the basics is not relevent to the funding issue - which is relevant to the question. It is not as if the results of student comprehension levels are contingent upon funding alone. There is reason to believe that changes made in how we teach our students to think about the subjects will help many of the obvious and underlying problems within public education.

The funding comparison showed just one real deficiency. That would constitute a gross misappropriation of federal funding imo. We, as taxpayers, will either pay for a students education through directly funding it, or indirectly pay for the criminals which a deliquent system helps to produce. That is not to say that all criminals are the product of our public school system. They are however, the product of how they think, and we could definitely help to improve that by incorporating things other than completely new subjects into the teaching methods.

It takes money.



Talking about the federal budget and how it is being spent directly addresses one issue at hand concerning public schooling. The above mention of air traffic controllers and Yankee payroll has nothing to do with it, and is a red herring.



I am looking much deeper into the potential to change the way the average American high-school graduate actually thinks, by improving critical thinking skills through improving the teaching methods. Doing that would help everyone in this country, and would pay for itself through increasing the amount of reasonable and logical thinkers.

Life skills.

If the budget policy remains unchanged, then our schools will continue to fail as they have been. Raising the concern of the failing public school system directly opens up the conversation regarding why it is failing. As I said earlier, more funding would not necessarily increase student knowledge of basics. How it is spent could.

There is much to be gained with extracurricular activities. These things can and do directly involve cooperation, team spirit and attitude, communication skills, friendship, learning to get along with others, honing creative skills and talents, etc.

Life skills.

There is much more to being an adult that reading, writing, and arithmetic, and preparing our youth definitely should include teaching them how to think logically and reasonably.

That deficiency leads to a much greater loss concerning humanity then all others combined. One can be well-learned on a variety of individual subject matters, and not be able to categorically put the knowledge to use, not be able to correctly frame any given life-situation based upon the evidence at hand. Critical thinking skills fosters good judgment. I know of no other way.

Creatively incorporate critical thinking skills/concepts into every subject being taught throughout school and you would see an increase in all those areas comprehension scores, as well as an increase in self-awareness which automatically increases the awareness of others.

So, our schools do not necessarily need to teach philosophy in order to gain the benefits that necessarily go along with philosophical thought/critical thinking skills.

The biggest issue in our country... the deficiency of reasonable members of society.

EDITED TO ADD:

The first thing is more teachers.

Everyone should take it, but I don't believe in government schools or mandated ciriculum. Some students would fare badly at it, I suspect.