Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

My thoughts on academic vs. elective education.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I do not recall anything from those lectures which suggests the EXCLUSION of teaching art, music, etc from a child's education.
Then I suggest you listen to them again. The following quotes are from Dr. Peikoff:

"[Curriculum] must be rigidly delimited."

"Take a few subjects, a small number, that's it."

"That, then, requires a rigorous selectivity of the curriculum."

"Just because a subject has some value...it does not follow that it should be included."

"In my opinion, a proper curriculum comes down to three R's, plus four subjects, that's it." [the four subjects are history, math, science, and literature)

I do not recall anything in them which suggested NOT integrating these fields of study in a systematic way with the others to produce more 'content' for broader conceptualizations.

Nor do I recall denying that optional studies should be integrated systematically with the others.

I do not recall anything in the tapes which said such classes could not be taught in the same location, nor even by the same individuals as those who would teach the core cirriculum.
I most certainly did not deny this. I do maintain that the same location can be used, but that the electives in that location should remain optional.

Nor do I recall any aspect of the tapes which said a child's exposure to, or pursuit of, art, music, physical ed, health, etc should be left to the whim of the 6-12 yr old.

The choice of what to study should be left to the child, I said. Obviously the actual study requires guidance by an adult. This, I do not believe, was addressed in Dr. Peikoff's course.

I DO recall from those lectures that there are specific fields of study, without which a child will NOT receive proper training of his conceptual faculty.  Of course, no one here debated this last position.   We only debated the former ones.

Please explain how this fits together with your previous statement: "The only question then, is the METHOD employed in the training PROPER." It seems that if you claimed that the only question is the method, then you did debate that specific fields of study are necessary. Perhaps I misunderstood you, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You DID misunderstand. Never was the question debated whether history or math or english etc etc should be taught. IF the SUBJECTS were not under debate, then that leaves HOW those subjects are taught (and HOW they are integrated with what you consider to be 'electives').

As to the rest, that is precicely why I said there has been miscommunication throughout this conversation. We simply do not seem to be communicating on the same wavelength. It is also why I am not interested in pursuing the subject further (as I have previously indicated). I disagree with your premises and their applications as you had presented them. That target also seems to be in motion as well. I simply don't have enough interest in the topic as it stands to try to keep up with it.

My position:

- Core cirriculum is good

- 'Non-academic' cirriculum is good

- Systematic integration of both is good

- Professional instruction is good

- Exposing children in a systematic way to subjects they may not choose (or even discover) on their own is good

- Therefore FORBIDDING *any* 'non-academic' cirriculum is bad. And restricting 'non-academic' subjects SOLELY to what a child wants or doesn't want is bad.

I've explained my position and the reasons for it multiple times. You can have the last word if you want it. Im simply not going to post on the topic any further, no matter what is said or claimed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, I would like to discuss this matter with you further.

Can you explain your premises on this subject and your conclusions?

As I see it, your premises are as follows:

1. the purpose of education is to cultivate the conceptual faculty

2. the subjects that primarily fulfill this purpose are reading, writing, math, history, science, literature

3. courses such as music, art, computers, etc., while providing some value, do not provide anywhere near as much value as the above subjects

4. if students were to take such "elective" subjects, they should not detract from the academic courses, they should be optional, and maybe even limited to after school activities only

Am I correct in the summary of your basic premises in this subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not entirely accurate.

1. the purpose of education is to cultivate the conceptual faculty
Definitely, yes.

2. the subjects that primarily fulfill this purpose are reading, writing, math, history, science, literature

I wouldn't consider this a premise. This is a conclusion. Also, for reasons I'll explain in a moment, I would not use the word "primarily"

3. courses such as music, art, computers, etc., while providing some value, do not provide anywhere near as much value as the above subjects
This is inaccurate. Here is the crux of my point. Reading, writing, math, history, science, and literature (insofar as they are independent subjects taught in some detail), DO NOT provide much value, and are, rather, destructive, if too many subjects are introduced.

If one spends a third of the school day on non-academics, that means that academics cannot be taught throughly and in depth. And a subject taught like a summary does nothing to cultivate the conceptual faculty. I repeat: I blame my own past rationalism partially on my teachers' practice of teaching subjects like a summary. Elementary school science, for instance, consisted of the teacher telling us some complex scientific conclusion, without any exploration of experiment or the reasons for that conclusion. In fact, every minute taken away from academics means that their study must be less in depth. And that is harmful. To state this generally, I would say: To take time away from academics makes teaching them by the proper method impossible.

Since I think that one can spend nine hours each day on academics and still not teach them as thoroughly as would be desireable, I can find no justifcation to take one minute of what is usually about a six hour school day away from them.

4. if students were to take such "elective" subjects, they should not detract from the academic courses, they should be optional, and maybe even limited to after school activities only

This is a conclusion that follows from some of what I've said above.

-----------

In my view, my premises are these:

1. The purpose of education is the training of the conceptual faculty.

2. A proper method is necessary to train the conceptual faculty.

3. Some content trains the conceptual faculty better for life than other content (the better content being the academic subjects).

4. The whole school day must be spent on only a handful of subjects if they are to be taught by the proper method (for reasons given above).

So, when chosing which handful of subjects to select, one should choose the content that prepares one better (meaning more generally) for life. That content is the academic curriculum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree that the method by which most teachers have been teaching their subjects is terrible. Personally, I have experienced this the most in history, where every teacher attempted to make us memorize fact after fact after fact with very little or no integration.

I believe that we both agree that integration of the subject material is critical to training the conceptual faculty properly and that the methods by which most teachers teach today are horrible.

However, there is one key area of disagreement.

I believe that your method of training the conceptual faculty in the best way possible is completely flawed. We are in agreement that the human mind has an identity, a nature, and requires a specific method in order to be used in the best way possible. However, we disagree on what this method is. You believe, according to your arguments, that the best cultivation of a child's conceptual faculty will come from intense study of a few subjects for 6-9 hours a day with very little breaks in such study.

I believe that such a method would be extremely damaging to a child's conceptual faculty. A child, at the kindergarden level, does not have the ability to process and integrate a large amount of conceptual material. Such material, in order to be integrated correctly, must begin at a slow pace and gradually increase in size and difficulty; increasing alongside the children's development of their conceptual faculties across the numerous grade levels of elementary and middle school.

Attempting to subvert this fact by jamming close to 6 hours of material into the mind of a child in elementary school would OVERWHELM their conceptual faculties and stunt their growth.

What then must be done? At the kindergarden level, teachers should be providing the children with fundamental principles of education at a slow and steady pace. Since a child's conceptual faculty can not process 6 straight hours of material like this EVEN at a slow and steady pace, something else must be done by the educators during this 6 hour (or whatever) period. The children require BREAKS in their study, especially at the kindergarden level.

What then is the best choice for educators to fill such breaks with? "Non-academic" activities as you call them. Things such as drawing, light reading, music, etc. Activities which give the conceptual faculty of a young child a much needed rest that allows their mind to REFUEL in order to continue their learning. Such activities ARE NOT justified by some pragmatic philosophy which says that the children should be encouraged to "express their feelings" or "learn how to be one with the group," and other such nonsenese. Such activities are AN OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENT OF THE CONCEPTUAL FACULTY, EVEN MORE SO FOR YOUNG CHILDREN. Such activities would ALSO help to cultivate the conceptual faculty, but in a primarily different way than the "academic subjects." Such activities provide not only the breaks that are required for the conceptual faculty of a young child to function and grow properly, but they also provide a much needed outlet for the application of what they are learning to concrete applications.

This method I advocate primarily for elementary school students, with the overall time devoted to non-academic subjects decreasing as the children get older and as the ability for the conceptual faculty to process and integrate data becomes faster and can handle more material.

Human beings are more than floating conceptual faculties. Human beings REQUIRE a rest for their conceptual faculty in order to function properly. By rest, I do not mean shutting off one's mind and becoming an idiot. By rest, I mean engaging in activities that still utilitize one's mind but do not completely drain its strength and ability to function properly. Even adults require such rest of the conceptual faculty, but much less than children do. You can not possibly expect to be pouring information into the minds of children for almost 6 hours a day, 5 times a week, and expect them to retain the majority of the material and develop their minds properly.

Your primary error in this regard is completely ignoring the nature of the human mind. In your view, you identified the primary error of education as pragmatism. Once pragmatism is eliminated, according to your thinking, children will be able to learn vast amounts of material because the method of doing so will be rational.

You are right in condemning pragmatism. But you are dead wrong in claiming that a child's conceptual faculty can develop properly by close to 6 hours of intensive study, 5 times a week. It contradicts the nature of a child's mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe your key error is to assume that intense academic study is necessarily painful. I believe your error is a result of substituting the state of academic education today for the proper method.

I do not agree that kindergarten students require any breaks, beyond a few 5 minute breaks and a lunch break. Why? Because academic study can be FUN. The reason it isn't considered to be fun, is because teachers today fail to motivate the students.

In one sense, I agree that students need breaks: in the sense that intense thought cannot be sustained for long periods. However, academic activities serve very well for half hour breaks. For instance, kindergarten students might roll balls around different surfaces (a game could be made of it), which could provide data the student will later need when he learns physics. Second grade students might have spelling bees and math competitons. Fourth grade students might play jeopardy based on what they've recently learned.

I would have found such activities much more refreshing than what I had to do in kindergarten. I despised kindergarten, because so much time was spent on artisitic activities. Some people, like myself, just hate to draw. Providing drawing time as a break won't help such people; it will hurt them.

Attempting to subvert this fact by jamming close to 6 hours of material into the mind of a child in elementary school would OVERWHELM their conceptual faculties and stunt their growth. 

Not if the right method is used. Once again, I don't think one should lecture to kindergarten students for six hours straight. But I do think that they should be interacting with the world so that they can be guided toward the data they will need for academics. (I also think you might underestimate what students can do if taught properly. By second grade, I think students are ready for two hour lectures, if they are done properly.)

So, not only are non-academic breaks unnecessary, but they take time away from academics and thus make the proper method of teaching academics impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe your key error is to assume that intense academic study is necessarily painful. I believe your error is a result of substituting the state of academic education today for the proper method.
I did no such thing. I said that the human mind, especially that of a young child, requires breaks from learning in order to foster proper development. Nowhere did I say that such learning is inherently painful and this is the justification of such breaks. Your claim to the contrary is an arbitray assumption.

I do not agree that kindergarten students require any breaks, beyond a few 5 minute breaks and a lunch break. Why? Because academic study can be FUN. The reason it isn't considered to be fun, is because teachers today fail to motivate the students.

Again, my claim has NOTHING to do with whether or not learning is "fun" or that "teachers today fail to motivate the students." My arguments are based on the fact that the mind of a child can not properly develop according to your "method."

I would have found such activities much more refreshing than what I had to do in kindergarten. I despised kindergarten, because so much time was spent on artisitic activities. Some people, like myself, just hate to draw. Providing drawing time as a break won't help such people; it will hurt them.

The non-academic "breaks" I referred to would not be isolated nonsense with no connection to learning. I agree that academic "breaks," such as you suggested would be quite helpful to the learning process, but I disagree that non-academic breaks would not be helpful.

As I have maintained, the human mind at such a young age can not properly handle the intensity of learning which you advocate for kindergarden children. I would eliminate the majority of the nonsense that goes on in elementary school, but I would not eliminate non-academic subjects entirely. Such subjects should by no means comprise anything even close to the majority of the day, however, they are nevertheless important to the proper growth of a child's mind.

Such non-academic "breaks" would be much less important however in middle school and high school, if not completely unecessary. In middle school and high school, I would say that non-academic "breaks" should mostly be a part of after school activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your use of such words as "jamming" gave me the impression that you associated academics with pain. Apparently, you did not intend the connotations I got from those words.

My arguments are based on the fact that the mind of a child can not properly develop according to your "method."
Fine. Then on what grounds do you claim this?

As I have maintained, the human mind at such a young age can not properly handle the intensity of learning which you advocate for kindergarden children.

On what grounds?

Presumably, you might say that your grounds are, as you said in your previous post:

A child, at the kindergarden level, does not have the ability to process and integrate a large amount of conceptual material. Such material, in order to be integrated correctly, must begin at a slow pace and gradually increase in size and difficulty; increasing alongside the children's development of their conceptual faculties across the numerous grade levels of elementary and middle school.

Attempting to subvert this fact by jamming close to 6 hours of material into the mind of a child in elementary school would OVERWHELM their conceptual faculties and stunt their growth.

I agree that a slow pace is necessary in the beginning. All that means is that the teacher has to slow down. I don't know what the speed of teaching has to do with the duration of teaching, though. Let me be absurd for a moment and make this pseudo-mathematical:

Kindergarten: teach 10 units of content a day at a speed of 2 units/hour

1st Grade: teach 12 units of content a day at a speed of 2.5 units/hour

2nd grade: teach 14 units of content a day at a speed of 3 units/hour

3rd grade: teach 16 units of content a day at a speed of 3.5 units/hour

Etc.

Forget about the actual numbers. The point is that I don't see what increasing the amount taught gradually has to do with increasing the duration of academics in a school day. If anything, the fact that it takes a kindergarten student a long time to grasp simple concepts is an argument for MORE time spent on those simple concepts, not less. And that is precisely what I mean by the need for a thorough study of academics: a slow, leisurely one that requires all the time in the day.

If, on the other hand, you take time away from academics, you will have to SPEED UP the pace of teaching in order to teach the same amount of material. And that is precisely what is harmful. This comes back to the point that every minute taken away from academics makes it harder to teach using the proper method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am completely ignorant about philosophy of education. But I do find this thread very interesting. I just have a clarifying question. Daniel wrote:

Here is the crux of my point. Reading, writing, math, history, science, and literature (insofar as they are independent subjects taught in some detail), DO NOT provide much value, and are, rather, destructive, if too many subjects are introduced.

Is this because the subjects could then not be covered in depth? What if you just made the school day or the school year longer? Is there something inherently destructive in principle with including, say, a foreign language in the curriculum?

My best guess is that including non-academic courses would be destructive to a school in the same way that it would be destructive for a restaurant to run a news wire. I.e., that a school's nature delimits it, and that to add unneeded appendages makes the whole thing less effective. Is this correct? If so, could you clarify this beyond the half-integration of my analogy?

(I don't disagree with this; I'm just trying to understand it. I think what Daniel is saying makes a lot of sense, though I want to integrate/reduce it more before I commit myself.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this because the subjects could then not be covered in depth? What if you just made the school day or the school year longer?
Yes, it is primarily because the subjects need to be covered in depth, though there are other reasons, too. For example, the choice to teach something implies to the student that what you are teaching is important. Time taken away from academics can potentially decrease the importance of academics in the student's eyes.

Is there something inherently destructive in principle with including, say, a foreign language in the curriculum?

I would say not, although I think foreign language should be taught later in one's education rather than sooner (with the possible exception of Greek and Latin roots in elementary/middle school which can help with English vocabulary while at the same time preparing for a future study of those languages). Every additional subject makes it that much more difficult to cover every subject in depth, so I would be cautious about requiring a foreign language. I won't say "never", though.

My best guess is that including non-academic courses would be destructive to a school in the same way that it would be destructive for a restaurant to run a news wire. I.e., that a school's nature delimits it, and that to add unneeded appendages makes the whole thing less effective. Is this correct? If so, could you clarify this beyond the half-integration of my analogy?

I think that's a pretty good analogy. However, it isn't perfect. I would modify it in this way:

A restuarant owner finds it desireable to require customers to eat optional (elective) food before they eat their main course (academics, pun intended). By the time the main course comes, the customer is full (the elective courses leave no room for the academic ones to be digested--pun intended--properly). Furthermore, since the chef had to know how to make such a great variety of foods, he was unable to make any single one of them well (the teacher knows a little of each subject rather than being an expert about the important ones). Rather than having a specialist in ten different main courses, the restaurant had to have someone able to make tons of different foods.

The purpose of the restuarant is to sell food. While the optional food before the main course might seem to be a good idea for that purpose, it makes the more important goal, the main course, impossible.

This analogy is fairly accurate, I think. Don't point out to me that restaurants DO serve optional food before the main course. That is one of the inaccuracies of the analogy, which results from the fact that the main course of the restaurant is much smaller than the main course of the school, and thus can still be finished even with some food beforehand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying. I think I'm more or less on the same page as you (Daniel) now. The four core subjects are both sufficient and necessary.

It was helpful for me to note that both the learning and the teaching would be made more difficult by adding non-academic classes. Both cases are subsumed under the same principle: going beyond the delimited nature of academics in an academic instution is disregarding the nature of that institution, and will perforce lead to Bad Things.

I learned next to nothing in school. When I thought about what it would have taken to learn just the academic subjects properly, it was almost beyond my comprehension. I still don't have a remotely good grounding in any of those subjects! It would have had to take more mental work than (my) college. Throwing in something like a foreign language early on as part of school would be ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

Your position is absurd. I think RadCap summed it up fairly accurately. You start with correct philosophical points but go completely rationalist with them. Since consensus does not count for much when validating an argument around here, I’m going to try to add to his essentially correct replies.

How the heck do you plan to teach 100% conceptual knowledge 100% of the time? What inductive base is all this conceptual knowledge going to be based on? Even if these kids spent all their time reading fiction, there’s no substitute for real-life experience to introduce them to the real world. This isn’t pragmatism but the simple fact that kids can’t form any conceptual knowledge without a wide array of firsthand experience to make their conclusions from.

Besides, while the purpose of a primary education may be some variation of the three R’s, the function of a school is not by any means limited to providing just that knowledge. Because kids spent a significant time at school, they should also provide a child with the social, physical, and yes, vocational skills. For the consequences of your kind of education, I suggest you look up the upbringing of John Stuart Mill and see how he turned out.

I heard less than half of Peikoff’s Philosophy of Education, yet I doubt very much that he prescribes what a primary education should consist of or be limited to. A core curriculum – yes, but that kids should not draw, play, or learn about vocations? I don’t think so.

There’s also the issue of when one should take classes for his future job. As I’ve believed long before I heard Peikoff say it on the tape, the great majority of people do not need a primary education beyond high school, and should receive vocational classes during their last three or four years to complement their conceptual education. I find it completely ridiculous that anyone aspiring to a primarily non-conceptual vocation should need a college education given a proper educational system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm more in agreement with Daniel than RadCap on this issue, although I think that neither disagree with each other as much as they think, because I think that both are missing the point of the others' argument.

Let me try to summarize the main position of each, and the major points of disagreement. According to RadCap:

My position:

- Core cirriculum is good

- 'Non-academic' cirriculum is good

- Systematic integration of both is good

The disagreement, then, is HOW MUCH of each (academic and non-academic subjects) a student should learn, and when. RadCap has not given any indication of what the balance would be, he just thinks that both are good (and so, presumably any mixture of the two is good, but the "extremes" of eliminating either is bad). Daniel thinks that primary education (particularly elementary and middle school) should focus ONLY on academic subjects, and more specialized skills like drawing and playing a musical instrument may be reserved for students to pursue on their own (whether those pursuits are also taught at the schools or by the same teachers is not the issue).

I agree with Daniel.

The reasons for the disagreement with him seem to be as follows:

1 - People need more "vocational" courses to provide the concrete content for the abstract thought they learn in the more academic courses.

2 - Young students are unable to think abstractly very much yet, and need a "break" from academic subjects.

3 - A person needs vocational training at a young age, because not everybody needs to go to college.

1 is false. Daniel has alluded to the fact (several times) that concrete content can and should be provided within the academic subjects. In History, the people and events are the concrete content. In math, numbers (and even numbers of objects, such as adding and subtracting apples when first learning arithmetic) are the concrete content. In literature, well, good literature provides its own concrete content, from which it (and/or the reader) draws its own abstract conclusions. After all, the very purpose of art is to concretize abstract ideas. (Not to mention that a child goes into his formal education with a wide array of concrete content already in play. He has already built up a large vocabulary of concrete-level concepts, and spends much of his time actively exploring his environment and coming to inductive conclusions about the world.) Thus, the objection that academic subjects are "too abstract" and therefore necessarily train students to be "rationalistic" is unfounded. It is true that they CAN be taught that way, but they certainly need not (and should not) be.

2 - You are making two mistakes here, Steve. First, you are not giving young children nearly enough credit. Children LOVE to learn (even though this does indeed take mental effort--children are just full of energy, and love to focus it to some task, PARTICULARLY learning). It is not until they get older, a few years into their formal education, that they form any aversion to it. While they are still young, much of their free time is spent exploring the world around them and LEARNING. Why this can't take place in a guided, academic setting, I'm not sure. The second mistake is that you seem to be attributing a much higher level of expectation of the children to Daniel's position than he actually posits. Of course he doesn't think that Kindergarteners should be doing very abstract math, literature, or history. At that stage, most will simply be learning HOW to read and add, and building their vocabulary. But a rigorous education is not beyond a small child's ability, or desire.

3 - David, the purpose of education is to teach one HOW TO THINK. Not simply how to repair cars, or whatever (the reasons for which Daniel has already alluded to). When they get closer to the age when they need to start thinking about a vocation, elective vocational courses could be introduced, but this should certainly not be until high school (and even then should not take up the majority of the school day). Having career days for elementary school kids is just absurd. When you're eight years old, that is pretty much a waste of time, since most people won't be making career decisions until they're several years older (and many adults are incapable of making that decision, probably because of the pragmatic tendencies of their education against which Daniel is arguing).

So, I'm pretty much with you, Daniel. The best education a child could get is one that thoroughly covers a few core subjects that provide both the concrete content for his thinking and teach him HOW to think abstractly, and CHALLENGES him. (A child who is not challenged will not be motivated.) This should continue AT LEAST through elementary and middle school, although in high school some time may be alloted for students to take elective courses, some of which may be vocational in nature. But even then, the main focus of education should be on the academic subjects, and even vocational classes should continue emphasizing abstract principles rather than just teaching a few concrete skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JS Mill was subjected to corporal punishment in his education. He was also indoctrinated, in the literal sense of the word, with Utilitarianism. Not a fair comparison.

I agree that the Mill example is not a counterexample to Daniel's position at all.

Mill was taught very rationalistically and indoctrinated with Utilitarianism. It is only because he was given a good background in many of the core subjects that he didn't turn out even worse than he did. Due to the good aspects of his education (precisely the ones which Daniel is supporting here), he was able to reject many of the worst aspects of Bentham's views. His version of Utilitarianism is actually a vast improvement over Bentham's. That he accepted the flawed fundamental premise of Utilitarianism at all has to do with the BAD aspects of his education, and nothing to do with what Daniel is advocating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To alleviate a bit of confusion on my part, can you clarify exactly what the "academic" subjects are vs. the "non-academic" subjects.  And, can you clarify your position on when such subjects should take place?

In my view, the only subjects that should be taught in elementary and middle school are:

reading, writing, math, science, literature, history (certain particulars, such as phonics, are subsumed under these)

Generally speaking, there are additional subjects that could be considered part of the academic curriculum, but I don't think they should be explored in much depth until high school. Some of those include:

latin or greek, art history, philosophy (this is very debateable)

Academic subjects, to state this generally, are those subjects which give one general knowledge one needs in all areas of life. Non-academic subjects/activities are any others besides these, and include vocational courses, such as wood shop; pointless activities, such as sifting through dirt; ultraspecifics, such as cooking lasagna or in-depth study of the year 1922; etc.

I'll break down roughly the years when what subjects should be taught:

Kindergarten-1st: reading, writing, science, math (this means phonics, simple writing, basic observations of the physical world, and basic counting and the simplest arithmetic)

2nd-8th: reading, writing, math, science, literature, history

9th-10th: continue with academics, perhaps give the option for one elective of general interest, such as latin

11th-12th: continue with academics, perhaps give the option for a couple of electives

College: I would strongly recommend a continued study of academics for everyone, but one should take the specialized classes one needs

While I am open to a couple of electives in high school, I certainly would not do what the schools in my area do and REQUIRE you to take a certain number of electives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically, you want to eliminate such subjects as music, art, computers, and foreign language from the elementary and middle school curriculum.

While I agree that reading, writing, math, science, literature, and history are EXTREMELY important, I also believe that music, art, and foreign language provide much value.

These non-academic classes, as they are taught now, are a complete waste of time (for the most part). In the classes that I took in these "non-academic" areas, I learned very little (with the exception of music). However, such does not have to be the case in a rational education system.

I do not understand why you claim that the inclusion of these subjects would seriously detract from the academic subjects. In fact, I believe that art, music, and foreign language in particular would definitely help to enhance the development of the conceptual facutly (among other things).

The teaching of art, when done properly, would be a very valuable tool to the learning process. Not only would teaching art provide knowledge of fundamental geometry (such as depth perception, basic shapes, etc.) but it would also provide an activity to integrate much of what is being learned in other classes (math, science, and history especially).

For similar reasons, the teaching of music, when done properly, would also be a very valuable tool to the learning process.

Foreign language would also help to develop the conceptual faculty quite well, because it would provide an excellent integration of basic grammar, writing skills, speaking skills, and much much more.

You said that class activities in the academic subjects would help to integrate what was being learned in those subject. I strongly believe that the non-academic subjects, if taught well, could serve quite nicely as integrations of EVERYTHING (or at least a large number) that one is learning in the core academic subjects.

Daniel, I believe that your opposition to these subjects is not based on the fact that they actually do not develop the conceptual faculty properly but rather, in your experience, they did not do so; and such subjects were justified on pragmatic grounds.

I believe that such subjects would make an excellent supplement to the core academic subjects, and would serve as an excellent tool to integrate what is being taught from a number of the academic subjects.

I firmly believe that the academic subjects are the most important and best develop the child's conceptual faculty. However, I see no reason to eliminate these "non-academic" subjects which also help to develop the conceptual faculty.

If taught properly, I believe that each of the three "non-academic" subjects which I identified (art, music, and foreign language) could be added to the elementary and middle school curriculum with little detraction from the core academic subjects. In my middle school, we had something called, "cycle" where you cycled through 4 different non-academic subjects, one period a day, throughout the year. I propose a similar system for the three important non-academic subjects that I identified. Let's say that a typical school year is about 42 weeks. Divide that by 3 and you get 14 weeks to each non-academic subject, for one "class period" a day.

I do not believe that such a supplement to the curriculum would detract from the academic subjects, and I believe that they would in fact help to supplement them.

As to the exact time when these subjects should be studied (foreign language especially), I leave that up to further discussion.

P.S. I believe that philosophy should most definitely be studied in high school (but only if based on a well taught and rational curriculum behind it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically, you want to eliminate such subjects as music, art, computers, and foreign language from the elementary and middle school curriculum. 
I want to eliminate all non-academics, which would be much more than those four based on how schools are run today.

In fact, I believe that art, music, and foreign language in particular would definitely help to enhance the development of the conceptual facutly (among other things).

Most subjects, if taught properly, can do a lot to teach HOW to think. My objection is that non-academics do not teach things that have as universal a value.

Not only would teaching art provide knowledge of fundamental geometry (such as depth perception, basic shapes, etc.) but it would also provide an activity to integrate much of what is being learned in other classes (math, science, and history especially). 
I don't disagree with that. But I think that the time it would take to teach art properly is much more than the time it would take to teach the same concepts by another means. For example, I learned basic shapes not from art, but by looking at cardboard and 3-D cutouts of them. Depth perception, if taught, is part of science and does not require a detailed study of art. Some aspects of the study of art might be useful, but should amount to no more than a few hours of very basics, certainly not a whole class devoted to the subject.

Foreign language would also help to develop the conceptual faculty quite well, because it would provide an excellent integration of basic grammar, writing skills, speaking skills, and much much more. 

What does foreign language provide that a proper study of English does not?

Daniel, I believe that your opposition to these subjects is not based on the fact that they actually do not develop the conceptual faculty properly but rather, in your experience, they did not do so; and such subjects were justified on pragmatic grounds. 
Not at all. It is based on my experience that, because of electives, teachers did not have enough time to teach academics properly.

I do not believe that such a supplement to the curriculum would detract from the academic subjects, and I believe that they would in fact help to supplement them. 

Then this might be our key area of disagreement, and I'm not sure it can be resolved through mere discussion. I have reached my conclusion that teaching electives makes teaching academics properly impossible based on a reflection on how my own academic classes were taught, contrasted with the way classes are taught at the VanDamme Academy. I have concluded that very few of my academic teachers can be faulted for teaching by the wrong method, because they did not have time to teach by the right one. I cannot fault them for failing to present to me the observational and experimental data that I needed to understand what I learned in science, because there was not enough time for them to do so. I cannot fault them for teaching history as a summary, because there was no time to teach it in depth. I cannot fault them for failing to teach me Homer, Shakespeare, and Hugo, because there wasn't enough time to read much literature. I cannot fault them for failing to teach me the reasons for the complicated generalizations they gave me, because they barely had enough time to present them without reasons.

And I had it better than a lot of people. Most of my day in school was usually academics, yet still, there was not enough time for them. You agree with me that classes are not taught properly. Ask yourself whether that has anything to do with the number of different classes they try to teach.

For a concrete example of how in depth something like science should be, see the following link for what I consider a good (middle school) syllabus for one year's length (each lecture is two hours, I think):

http://www.vandammeacademy.com/store/lectures.htm

P.S. I believe that philosophy should most definitely be studied in high school

I would be inclined to teach the very basics as part of history. So when you teach about WWII, for instance, you would teach the basics of the relevant philosophers. An in-depth study of philosphy as an independent subject I'm not yet convinced is necessary, and I would leave it for late high school if it's there at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hen this might be our key area of disagreement, and I'm not sure it can be resolved through mere discussion.
We agree that non-academic classes such as art, music, and foreign language are of some value to the development of the conceptual faculty. However, you have not sufficiently demonstrated, in my opinion, that one class period devoted to three of these non-academic courses (12 weeks for each course at say 40 minutes or so a day) would detract from the ability to teach the academic courses.

I do partially agree with your conclusions, but I need more evidence of your position to conclude sufficiently that ANY non-academic courses being taught would detract from the ability to teach the academic courses properly.

I do not see how 30 or 40 minutes of a non-academic course per day for 12 years would detract from 6 hours of academic courses per day for 12 years.

And I had it better than a lot of people. Most of my day in school was usually academics, yet still, there was not enough time for them. You agree with me that classes are not taught properly. Ask yourself whether that has anything to do with the number of different classes they try to teach.

My teachers in middle school (6-8th grade) all taught ONE subject, and they still had no clue what they were doing. The cause of their inability, in my experience, was their lack of proper teaching methods, not a lack of time.

Also, from my personal experience, the vast majority of teachers that I had were unable to teach their subjects properly NOT because they didn't have enough time, but because they had NO CLUE how to teach anything properly. In fact, in the majority of my classes, there was A LOT of wasted time in which nothing was even taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, you have not sufficiently demonstrated, in my opinion, that one class period devoted to three of these non-academic courses (12 weeks for each course at say 40 minutes or so a day) would detract from the ability to teach the academic courses. 
I know I haven't. There is no way to demonstrate that conclusion except to point to real classrooms and the actual impact of electives. That is how I reached the conclusion, since I think most of my teachers tried to teach by the right method, but were unable to because of time. Unfortunately, I have little other evidence to give you, since there are few examples of the kinds of schools we're talking about. I do think that if you limit electives to 40 minutes a day, we might as well say we agree, since that IS very little time and wouldn't, I don't think, totally destroy academics. The problem is that most schools today require more elective time than that. I still think, even granting your position, that electives should remain optional, so that people with specific interests can pursue them outside of school.

Also, from my personal experience, the vast majority of teachers that I had were unable to teach their subjects properly NOT because they didn't have enough time, but because they had NO CLUE how to teach anything properly.  In fact, in the majority of my classes, there was A LOT of wasted time in which nothing was even taught.

There are many teachers like that, and some of mine were like that also. But I had others, especially in language and history classes, that clearly knew how to teach, but had to move through the curriculum too quickly. In language, this meant teachers had to choose between covering many important books quickly and therefore badly, or covering just a few books well, which meant I hardly read any of the important books, since most of them chose the latter. In history, this meant that in order to cover the span of time they were supposed to cover, they had to present summaries of events and move on. I saw my history teachers TRY to explore history in depth, but then they began to panic about running out of time, and moved on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that our positions are close to agreement.

I agree that there are teachers who could teach well if given the proper amount of time, but I also think there are a large amount of teachers out there who do not know how to teach properly. I think the primary cause of failure in the education system IS NOT time allocation but rather teaching method.

I believe that giving 40 minutes a day to non-academic courses would allow students to enjoy the benefits of such courses without detracting from the academic courses.

I'll agree to the idea that these elective courses should be optional. It does not seem right to force the children into doing these non-academic activities. However, I do believe that most children would have a genuine interest in music, art, and/or foreign language and would take up some of these activities after school, which is another reason why having such activities in the educational system would be beneficial.

I am extremely interested about whether or not philosophy should be taught in high school. I believe that it would be extremely beneficial for students to be learning philosophy in high school not only because philosophy is the most important thing to a human being's life but also it would greatly help to integrate a large amount of material that they are learning in history, literature, science, math, etc. Perhaps such a topic could be brought up in another thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the whole point: certain subjects provide a broad general base of knowledge, from which important inductive generalizations may be reached. These subjects include history, literature, science, etc. Other subjects do not, though this is not to say they are entirely lacking in value. These subjects include even things like learning a musical instrument, learning to draw, or speaking a foreign language. These are particular skills, and as such do not contribute nearly as much to a person's broad base of knowledge.

One might be tempted to think that students are better off with a wide range of classes, because if the school day is the same length, they are learning the same amount of material, but covering a wider scope. This is not true. I know that my own education would have been so much more valuable if we had had just a few courses that were academic in nature and could have been studied in depth. Instead, I got a cursory overview of American history, I know basically nothing about any other history except for what I've learned on my own; I was not introduced to much great literature, and what we did read was not studied nearly in-depth enough; science was taught as a series of floating generalizations--all matter is made of atoms, but nevermind how this was discovered or what the evidence for this is, we don't have enough time to teach you that.

The problem was not bad teachers. I had some great teachers. The problem is, most of them either did not have enough time to teach their subject properly, or taught a subject that was completely unnecessary. I had wonderful theatre teachers, and they did add some value to my education (introducing me to Ibsen and all), but if I could have used that hour every day to supplement my history or English classes instead, I would have been so much better off.

I think the best way to validate Daniel's theory is to look at schools in practice. I think you will find that the better a school is--the more knowledgable and ready to face the world its graduates are--the fewer elective courses they will have had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my personal experience, there were some teachers that could have taught the course properly if given the correct amount of time. However, in my experience, the majority of teachers failed to do their job because of their inability to teach.

Plus, I still believe that 40 or so minutes of non-academic courses a day is not a detriment to the ability for teachers to teach the academic courses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...