What should schools be teaching?

When I went to high school we got information from a small number of reasonably reliable sources. There were a few TV channels with respectable news. There were well edited magazines and newspapers, and of course books.

Kids today are getting information from a vast variety of unreliable sources. I don’t have to list them. And it is going to get worse. Forget CT websites. If they trust AI output they are sure to get into trouble.

Teaching critical thinking with specific application to the environment they live in would be my top priority. You could teach the skills in a non-controversial way, say looking at AI output, which would help them evaluate the trash that the PTB seem to believe in.

After that, look at where people are getting into trouble. Look at credit card debt. It’s not 100% evil, but I suspect a lot of people have no idea of what the interest is costing them. The benefits of 401Ks might be good also.

I generally agree, but if taught too early, there is a disconnect since all children essentially live in a dictatorship with few rights and little self-agency. It’s hard to impart the importance of our freedoms and right to due process to students who have neither until they are emancipated from their parents and mandatory school attendance.

Wow, sounds like a great school.

Mine was not very good. Fortunately I made up for it in college.

If the point of school is to “get people to read,” this should happen way before they get to high school (which is where “Shakespeare, Hawthorne, Hemingway, Ibsen, etc.” are typically encountered). By the time they get to high school, they—at least, the more academically-oriented students—should be reading for more than just entertainment. Where should they read Literature if not in school, where they get help in understanding and appreciating it?

Shakespeare, Hawthorne, Hemingway, Ibsen, etc. were definitely not “dry, academic stuff” back in the day when they first appeared. Surely, a good teacher can help students see what the original audiences found engaging and provocative in their works. Part of being an Educated Person is recognizing who at least some of the Great Authors of the past were, and what they wrote and why they were considered great.

When I was in high school, and I assume in many if not all high schools today, there were different “levels” of English classes. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect the students who choose to take advanced English to read some fairly challenging stuff.

But all too often, in discussions like there, there seems to be confusion between what schools should be requiring and what schools should be offering. “What should schools be teaching?” includes both.

I was both a reader and an advanced English student in high school. I mostly disliked everything we read, with a few things that I did like (Hemingway short stories, Great Gatsby), and a few (James Joyce, Catcher in the Rye) that I hated.

I also felt/feel like there’s a certain element of analyzing it too much sucks the fun out of it. I mean, I liked Gatsby, but having to listen to our teacher go on about the symbolism of the Dr. TJ Eckleberg advertisement was just unpleasant.

What do you mean exactly? Seems like even if you’re reading for ideas, it should be fun. You’re a pretty shitty writer if you can’t do both.

Thanks @suranyi and @raspberry_hunter. It sounds like quite a lot of the practical life skills people have discussed in this thread are already being taught, at least in California, and others could pretty easily be added to existing classes.

This is something I think should be taught in school. An overview of history to put everything into context. (Plus in the UK we ought to be taught British history, but that’s less of an issue for Americans, since there isn’t as much US history to cover).

That’s a shame. Easily the worst thing in my schooling was the lack of differentiation. The people who bring in these policies are idealistic and well intentioned, but it’s unreasonable to expect teachers to teach a class with a huge range of abilities in it and do a good job for each student. It just makes things worse for everyone.

Those sound really interesting. I wish I’d had the opportunity to learn more stuff at school. And thinking about it, I can’t bring to mind any practical skills I wish I’d learned there. Everything’s on the internet now, anyway.

You could teach kids to be critical of AI output. The skills would not necessarily generalise, but it would be useful in itself - I recently had a guy on Twitter smugly tell me that AI never hallucinated for him, because he had ordered it to always give sources. If only he had sold his secret to OpenAI and Meta!

US History classes start with the Magna Carta. No wonder we never make it past Pearl Harbor.

K-12 should put a spoon and fork in your hand. If you’re still hungry, college should set the buffet out for you.

My high school was basically a concentration-campus to keep us undesirables off the streets during daylight hours. And since it was a tourist town, we were sub-undesirables. When I arrived at college it was like the Liberation of Paris (or maybe Dachau, since it might be dangerous to digest at my desired impulse).

We had a thread recently about Manifest Destiny, a nasty money-grub at the expense of native nations; many perfectly capable of assimilating into the US. But one small redemption was that the founders of the Midwest looked at the elite East Coast universities, based on the British model, and realized that for as vast a country as the US was looking to be, that was impractical and possibly dangerous. All those wonderful little liberal arts colleges in Ohio were the result of that. As well as all that followed along the frontier, until the great universities on the West Coast.

I myself came in at the tail end of The Wisconsin Idea: instead of the model of a small aristocratic elite of gentlemen as in Britain, it was influenced by the German universities from the Enlightenment. Middle class American kids should be exposed to the thousands of years of human experience from history and literature, and have their own personalities enriched through the arts; so that they could fully contribute. They’d still go on to be lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc; but they would help guide society, not just be cogs in it.

Like a lot of things, that started to go downhill with Vietnam. California college kids offended Ronald Reagan, so he punished them. Later in the 70’s, American cars weren’t as good as German and Japanese cars. “Music Appreciation?! That’s literally fiddling while Rome burns!” That’s when STEM became of paramount importance. And “What do dead white males have to teach me?” became somehow a valid question. Instead of ignoring the dead white males, a few people kept up on them, and added non-white, non-males to the buffet. But by and large college became a vocational school for tech and admin.

Maybe a good thing. Who can argue that we were a better nation back when Americans who could read Catulus in the original Latin outnumbered Americans who were millionaires? But still, if more of us had learned about .Alcibiades maybe enough of us would have recognized Trump for what he is.

I have had the experience of driving people in my car; educated, professional people, who, when the radio comes alive along with the ignition, and Classical music - something pleasant and supposedly accessible to everyone, like Rimsky Korsakov’s Scheherazade. But my passenger will bristle with offense taken, because I must be trying to make myself superior to them. That’s the only reason I’d listen to that stuff.

We already have Pre-K. It’s also useful for children of kindergarten age who aren’t ready for it.

The infamous legal brief had sources also. And the point is not just to teach kids to be critical of AI, but teach them the skills to let them tell if AI output is correct or not. People are plenty critical of sources today - they are as equally critical of untrustworthy sources as trustworthy ones.

In the UK we start with the Roman Empire, then skip to the Norman conquest and Medieval times. It really misses out a lot, and we didn’t cover the Magna Carter, Acts of Union, Napoleonic wars or the British Empire. We did do history of the Cold War, though, up to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which had happened recently enough that it still appeared on the maps on the wall. It was very focused on what things were like for ordinary people, which was more relatable, but also kind of patronising - like the government didn’t think we needed to know anything about rulers and politics.

Famous legal brief?

It’s easy to teach kids (or adults) that AI can hallucinate, and that you need to verify anything it says before trusting it. Make sure the source it gives actually exists, and says what it claims. What’s harder is to identify whether the source is correct.

You can tell people to trust the government, but your government is currently run by Trump. Even when more responsible people are in charge, it can be wrong, hiding information, relying on biased sources itself, etc.

Trust the media? Many journalists are getting info off Wikipedia themselves. The incentive for the media is to publish asap, rather than ensure they are correct about a developing situation. And they too can be biased.

Trust academic research? It’s frequently contradictory, poor quality, and a disturbing number of studies do not replicate. It too is biased by the researchers themselves, and by funding boards and academic journals.

Examine the evidence and use your own judgement? Most people don’t have nearly enough knowledge and understanding to do so, and those who do, only have it in a limited number of subjects.

Certainly it can be easy to identify bad, unreliable sources, but finding reliable information is much harder.

I’ve heard many, many people complain that school didn’t teach them how to do their taxes. But we simply can’t do that in detail, because the tax code changes every year. The best we can do is to teach students how to use formulas. Which is a very large part of algebra, which has been a required class for high schoolers forever.

As for “just the necessities”, I’d say that learning how Rome turned from a republic to a dictatorship is far more essential than learning how to fix a leaky pipe. Not all students are going to become plumbers, but all will become potential voters.

Setting aside for a moment whether a random teacher presenting these ideas off the top of their head is going to do a good job…

  1. Should it be the job of a school to explain that payday loans are “a terrible idea”? That’s a judgement call, and judgement calls are something I as a parent want to be the one making. Now, in this case, I agree that payday loans are a terrible idea, but a school should teach that not by having the teacher go up there and say “never get a payday loan!”, but by explaining what the terms of a payday loan are and then letting you make your own decision. Guided by your parents.

  2. Mortgage interest and the mechanics thereof is something that should be explained, yes.

  3. PPO vs HMO on the other hand seems like an odd choice. Not to mention there are many other options your employer can provide.

  4. Again, the 401k thing is a judgement call. A 401k is the best option for some people, but not others. I don’t really know if it’s the sort of thing we want presented as fact in a classroom.

True.

But how much of their lament is that “taxes” is a completely mysterious black box to them. Rather than them crying that school didn’t teach them how to fill out line 12 on Form 1234? I know I don’t know, but you might.

Based on the micro survey of my 20-something college educated niece, she would have greatly benefitted form an “overview of US taxation” course. Touching on ideas like an intro to the idea of pay-as-you-go taxation, what a W-4 witholding form looks like and does, what’s a W-2 and 1099, how and when do you need to file, the idea of deductions, Progressive taxation and marginal rates, etc.

As it is, she has zero conceptual framework to put any details into. So it’s simply an impenetrable mass of repellent minutiae. Whereas for me, taxation is a well-understood framework to which I’ve attached a lot of details over the years. I’m sure not an expert, but I get along. Taxation is an interesting mix of legit accounting / business logic and arbitrary rules for the hell of it. Understanding the outlines of that would IMO be a useful life skill for any / every US worker.

Even better if, as citizens, they had some understanding of where the money comes form and where it goes and how to spot tax-related BS coming from politicians.

Without the punch line it is not of any value to a child. Otherwise payday loans are presented as a valid option.

My High School principal saved that lesson for his commencement speech. He gave each of the graduates a dollar coin and ran through the math if we saved it and continued to add to it each month. I assume such boosterism wasn’t alowed in the classroom.

And that’s where the parents need to come in. As far as society, and thus the school is concerned, payday loans are a valid option. As far as I am concerned, they are not a valid option, and I’ll be teaching my kids why when they’re a little older.

And if we decide that society should not be OK with payday loans, then we as a society need to just ban them, rather than leaving them legal and telling teachers to shit talk them.

Payday loans are scummy enough that no one is likely to defend them on their own metit. But things get messy. Where should the line be drawn? There are plenty of people out there who will super confidently tell you that renting is a sucker’s game and you should always own, and plenty of other people telling you equally confidently that home ownership is a trap. Do you think it would be good for schools to allow teachers to share either of those opinions from a position of authority? If not, where do we draw the line?

I was recruited in 1999 as a volunteer by an organization that provided “enrichment” programs to schools. I was to teach fourth and fifth graders about Finance and Telecommunications (I had worked in Finance for a Telecom firm for several years at that point).

After reviewing the materials they provided, I pulled out. It was basically propaganda for Capitalism and Consumerism, and attacking regulation, activism and unions.

I suspect that many people dreaming about teaching more “practical life skills” in schools are actually envisioning something like that.

The “overview of taxes,” the explanation of payday (and other) loans, and other various things relating to money could be included in a basic citizen/consumer economics course.

When I was in high school, we had a required one-semester “consumer education” or “consumer economics” class, but I don’t remember its content. Except maybe how to write a check? Which was important knowledge at the time.

The one where this clown turned in something to a judge full of case citations - all of which were made up by the AI. I think there was a thread here about it, and the Legal Eagle guy did a good video on it.

Evaluating sources is important. Also, going to the source. Quote mining is a favorite tactic of some people. But one thing you learn in doing academic research is evaluating the quality of journals. The editorial boards of good journals (I’ve been on one) care a lot about their influence factors. I’ve founded a bunch of workshops and been involved with others where early results get published, after being lightly reviewed. But no one who know what they are doing references those, since they are not archival - and not intended to be.

It would also be nice to teach logical fallacies, which can frequently be found in bad sources. If side A uses them all the time and side B doesn’t, side B is more trustworthy.

Also useful against salesmen and scammers. Last night I saw two different commercials saying their product gives up to 100% protection. That’s obviously a zero content statement, but they use it because of a psychological principle called anchoring, where when you are given a number you anchor an estimate to it. The statement makes people anchor to 100%, even if the product on the average gives 30% protection. Real thing - we demonstrated it in a class three different times.

And I assume Magna Carter is Jimmy’s other brother? :grinning: