Trump Administration Moves To Defund Teen Pregnancy Research Programs

[Dill]

(07-30-2017, 10:11 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 1. Why can't parents teach children how to use a condom and not knock a girl up/get knocked up? See how that can be used for anything?

2. LOL, that's 100% my bad. I totally didn't mean pre-algebra. I meant pre-calculus. Pre-algebra is still useful knowledge for everyone. Chemistry isn't useful for every college person unless they're majoring in something that will actually use it. Same with classic English literature. Why does Robert Frost matter to a structural engineer or a farmer?

3. Education is different from vocational training, but they keep adding more and more things that are "needed" for mandatory education, that people don't really need. Meanwhile kids are completely unprepared for the real world. That's why we have 20-something-year-old children running around everywhere. They spent the first 27.5% of their life expectancy learning how to pass tests... and yet still have no idea how to function in the world.

1. Some can but won't. Some can't. And sex ed is about more than just "how to do it." It also covers topics like STDs, which parents may know little about unless they are medical professionals.

2. The number of students in pre-calculus and chemistry will not be very large in any high school. And they are not general requirements. But these are critical to college prep for some disciplines, critical to producing college-ready students. As far as studying literature--English and American--that is one of those subjects that provides general knowledge about one's own culture and history. Courses in world literature would be very helpful nowdays as well. Liberal education is not about vocational training. One learns about Shakespeare, for example, not because one is going to visit Stratford on Avon someday or teach English drama. One reads Shakespeare to gain a larger understanding of Anglo culture and history--not to mention raising one's literacy level. Also, students are at least exposed to higher standards and deeper thought than one generally finds in popular culture. Farmers and engineers are also citizens. They choose presidents, usually based upon presidents' policies. Every citizen requires some understanding of history and government and the larger world outside the US if US democracy is to function. Liberal education is also education for citizenship. That's how students "use" much of that non-vocational learning. Finally, we don't really know whether a freshman in HS is going to be a farmer or engineer. We offer children a range of subjects in hopes of helping them recognize potential of which they (and their parents) may be unaware.

3. I agree with you that the all the testing is bad. It was a policy created by people who are not teachers and sold to people who are not teachers but think it "sounds good" because it appears to render education measurable and impose discipline on teachers. I also agree that young people nowdays seem very unprepared for the real world. But we differ, perhaps, on how we recognize that lack of prep. For me, most disturbing is the absence of knowledge and analytical ability. E.g., on a recent test, only 2% of HS seniors understood what social problem Brown vs Board of Education addressed. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/education/15history.html. How many can find Afghanistan on a map? People need to know that, even if the don't plan on going there or teaching geography. We won't fix that problem by cutting literature and focusing on shop and Home Econ.

The other causes of the immaturity we sense in young people today have to do with the absence of responsibilities early on in life, a steady diet of television and pop culture, and a break down of respect for traditional sources of authority--including teachers, as well as for traditional institutions, like schools and government.