What Should We Teach The Next Generation?

zagubov

What should we Teach The Next Generation?

In the 19th century they proposed to supply free public education in England and these words were part of the debate:

"I venture to maintain that it is quite possible to teach a child soundly and thoroughly, in a way that he shall not forget it, all that is necessary for him to possess in the shape of intellectual attainment by the time he is ten years old.

If he has been properly looked after in the lower classes

he shall be able to spell correctly the words that he will ordinarily have to use;

he shall read a common narrative—the paragraph in the newspaper he cares to read—with sufficient ease to be a pleasure to himself and to convey information to listeners;

if gone to live a distance from home, he shall write his mother a letter that shall be both legible and intelligible;

he knows enough of ciphering to make out or test the correctness of a common shop bill;

if he hears talk of foreign countries he has some notion as to the part of the habitable globe in which they lie;

and underlying all, and not without its influence, I trust, upon his life and conversation, he has acquaintance enough with the Holy Scriptures to follow the allusions and arguments of a plain Saxon sermon, and a sufficient recollection of the truths taught him in his catechism to know what are the duties required of him towards his Maker and his fellow man"

Would all our ten-year-olds be able to do this now?:A

Furthermore, what knowledge and/or skills should we be teaching the next generation so that they can participate in and and contribute to society?

pqrdef

There's a distinction to be made between what should be compulsory and what should be available.

It's useful to teach a lot more than that, but only to people who will learn it.

On the other hand, some people won't learn even that much, and if they aren't getting there in writing or arithmetic by the age of 10, then it's useless to keep flogging the dead horse.

ruggedtoast

Maybe assuming that the lower classes can be educated in everything they need to know for the rest of their lives by ten years old, is part of the problem not the solution.

Unfortunately however, 200 years on the learning outcomes in the OP are aimed at 16 year olds not ten year olds but the basic class assumption is the same.

oldvicar

Back then most people were Lower (or Working) class. There were also the Middle and Upper classes.

Now everybody (except Guardian readers) considers themselves to be Middle class.

ash28

We have a 10 year old (will be 11 in August) grandson who lives with us. He would be one 10 year old who would be able to do everything in your list - well with the exception of geography - it doesn't seem to be taught in the same way - and handwriting - he can write, obviously, but it's not a pretty sight.

He can read as well as most adults and spell as well as most adults. He can explain or discuss what he has read.

He can write a letter (they are still taught how to do this) can start it correctly and end it correctly.

He can use paragraphs, grammar and punctuation in written work.

He is competent in basic arithmetic and mathematics - he can add, subtract, multiply and divide, he can do fractions and simple equations and has the basics of geometry and trigonometry under his belt. Maths homework last week was to measure a compound room in the house, make a scale drawing and work out the area of said room - and find 2 different ways of reaching the answer.

I know plenty of adults who can't work out how much carpet they need for a room.

He is a mean Yahtzee player and usually ends up totting up everyone's cards at the end in his head. He can go to the shop with his pocket money and know what he has spent before he gets to the till.

He is even au fait with the bible and church - he goes to a CofE primary school - although he doesn't believe in God - he says.

He is at a level I would expect a lot children getting ready to enter secondary education have reached. The basics are all there and they are ready to move on to the next level. Obviously not all are at the same level.

He is a more than able user of computers - he should be - he's been using them in one form or another since he was about 4.

I think we need to concentrate on the 3 Rs - old fashioned maybe - but you would be amazed at the number of people who fail psychometric testing because they don't fully comprehend what they have read in a verbal reasoning test. And let's not go down the numerical reasoning route. One large company I worked for had to introduce psychometric testing for all graduates - it used be the preserve of non graduates - but the graduates coming through were, in the main, disappointing once they started work so the testing was extended to them too.

Companies and universities shouldn't have to spend time teaching young people the basics because their English and/or maths isn't good enough, that should be done by schools.

Our grandson will be full time education until he is at least 18 - personally I think that isn't suitable for all young people and we should have some form of vocationally based system for the less academic once they reach 14, 15, or 16.

pqrdef

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Maybe assuming that the lower classes can be educated in everything they need to know for the rest of their lives by ten years old, is part of the problem not the solution.

Of course it used to be thought that women of any class didn't need much education.

Meanwhile, the sons of the rich were taught Latin and Greek and the classics.

Actually many university professors are innumerate, while many computer programmers struggle to string a sentence together, let alone spell it.

And most of what most of us know about anything, we didn't learn at school.

We need to understand that education comes in many forms and classrooms are fit for only very limited purposes.

zagubov

zagubov wrote: »

What should we Teach The Next Generation?


If he has been properly looked after in the lower classes

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Maybe assuming that the lower classes can be educated in everything they need to know for the rest of their lives by ten years old, is part of the problem not the solution.

oldvicar wrote: »

Back then most people were Lower (or Working) class. There were also the Middle and Upper classes.

To be fair, I think they were using lower classes as an archaic way of describing the early primary school classes rather than in social/economic classes.


I didn't want to alter the quote because, well, it's a quote after all.

I'm really wondering what's the baseline people should achieve to be a self-reliant,functioning citizen in modern society.

DKLS

Would be nice if they taught kids to !!!!!! in the cinema.

pqrdef

ash28 wrote: »

Companies and universities shouldn't have to spend time teaching young people the basics because their English and/or maths isn't good enough, that should be done by schools.

Our grandson will be full time education until he is at least 18 - personally I think that isn't suitable for all young people and we should have some form of vocationally based system for the less academic once they reach 14, 15, or 16.

All talents are individual and specific. Most people have subjects they can't learn, no matter how good they are at other subjects.

Most cricketers are batsmen or bowlers, only a minority are all-rounders.

Fortunately we don't start with the attitude that everybody wants to be a batsman, but if you're no good at that, they'll put you in the rejects group where they'll try to teach you to bowl.

Perhaps we should start by finding out what people are best at. Just because somebody is competent at grammar and arithmetic doesn't mean that their real talent isn't painting, dancing or selling.

It's not even as if academically-based careers are the best paying. A less hidebound system might well think that writing and arithmetic are the fallback for people who're no good at anything else.

GeorgeHowell

It is a pity that despite various campaigns we do not yet have compulsory financial education in schools.

Sapphire

I think all children should learn grammar and mathematics for a start. It's incredibly important throughout one's life to be able to write well, and though we (lazily) use calculators these days, the process of learning mathematics exercises the brain.

They should also be educated in social history and economics, including recent history so that they would learn what their parents' and grandparents' lives were like. The sense of entitlement that some younger people have might be done away with if they learned such things.

I think above all people should be taught about ethics and morality – things that are sadly lacking in our current society.