Principia Discordia

Objective;

To discuss ways to get civics back in the classroom.

Feasibility of starting a national campaign.

Benefits;

A future of better informed electors.

At what level of education would be the best to introduce civics?
How many years should it be taught?

For most of us participating in the E-Democracy thread the underlying issue besides apathy is a lack of informed voters. Would there be better ways to try to educate voters?

7th grade would be a good place to start.

Abolish the damn pledge and have the little bastards memorize the preamble.

Nobody graduates 8th grade or high school without demonstrating a basic knowledge of the constitution appropriate to their age (8th grade would be the basic form of the constitution, and what each article means, 12th grade would be far more rigorous.

I think it needs to be built into the immediate culture as soon as possible, and made to seem second nature and inevitable.

More than that, it needs to be relevant.  When I learned civics, it was as if I was studying a different country; it would still be a decade before I would actually be able to vote.  What did I care about the Electorial College, or how a Republic is formed?

Perhaps some classes or classrooms could employ a voting system in order to determine things that would immediately affect the class... seating assignments, or in what order subjects would be taught.  I would think that making the voting process something that has effects in the present rather than a nebulous future could help.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2010, 03:10:30 PM
7th grade would be a good place to start.

Abolish the damn pledge and have the little bastards memorize the preamble.

Nobody graduates 8th grade or high school without demonstrating a basic knowledge of the constitution appropriate to their age (8th grade would be the basic form of the constitution, and what each article means, 12th grade would be far more rigorous.

That might even encourage students to study political science in college.

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 22, 2010, 03:15:15 PM
I think it needs to be built into the immediate culture as soon as possible, and made to seem second nature and inevitable.

More than that, it needs to be relevant.  When I learned civics, it was as if I was studying a different country; it would still be a decade before I would actually be able to vote.  What did I care about the Electorial College, or how a Republic is formed?

Perhaps some classes or classrooms could employ a voting system in order to determine things that would immediately affect the class... seating assignments, or in what order subjects would be taught.  I would think that making the voting process something that has effects in the present rather than a nebulous future could help.

My civics teacher always had us vote in elections. It was interesting.

Going off of my own classmates, if you require they study the Constitution, they'll either let themselves fail or cheat. The people who will do well are the ones who already know it. The people who don't know it, and there will be many, will mostly fail or cheat rather than learn it. I know folks who don't know who the first president was. In this case Apathy and the lack of informed voters are the same problem.

Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 22, 2010, 03:21:29 PM
Going off of my own classmates, if you require they study the Constitution, they'll either let themselves fail or cheat. The people who will do well are the ones who already know it. The people who don't know it, and there will be many, will mostly fail or cheat rather than learn it. I know folks who don't know who the first president was. In this case Apathy and the lack of informed voters are the same problem.

How could it be made interesting enough to get kids to want to participate?

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 22, 2010, 03:15:15 PM
I think it needs to be built into the immediate culture as soon as possible, and made to seem second nature and inevitable.

More than that, it needs to be relevant.  When I learned civics, it was as if I was studying a different country; it would still be a decade before I would actually be able to vote.  What did I care about the Electorial College, or how a Republic is formed?

Perhaps some classes or classrooms could employ a voting system in order to determine things that would immediately affect the class... seating assignments, or in what order subjects would be taught.  I would think that making the voting process something that has effects in the present rather than a nebulous future could help.

This is good stuff.  Today, it seems like students aren't really allowed to go any deeper than a one-off mock election.  That's cool and it makes for a good local news story, but it just scratches the surface.  I really like the idea of modeling the behavior in the classroom on an ongoing basis.  Really let them see how elections have consequences.  Maybe a mock exercise where kids are forced to make a decision about something but with only a snippet of information.  At the end of the experiment the teacher reveals the rest of the information and the class examines how not having the whole story affected the outcome and how the outcome might have been different if everyone had been better educated on the issue.  

And as I mentioned in the other thread, media literacy I think is a key.  Understanding the different ways messages are crafted by politicians and also by groups who are sponsoring a certain initiative.  Understanding how messages are conveyed overtly, but also how messages are conveyed in less obvious, but no less influencing ways.  

I draw the parallel to the BIP.  I think the endgame is about building not just awareness but the skills of being aware.  

Quote from: RWHN on July 22, 2010, 03:25:40 PM

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 22, 2010, 03:15:15 PM
I think it needs to be built into the immediate culture as soon as possible, and made to seem second nature and inevitable.

More than that, it needs to be relevant.  When I learned civics, it was as if I was studying a different country; it would still be a decade before I would actually be able to vote.  What did I care about the Electorial College, or how a Republic is formed?

Perhaps some classes or classrooms could employ a voting system in order to determine things that would immediately affect the class... seating assignments, or in what order subjects would be taught.  I would think that making the voting process something that has effects in the present rather than a nebulous future could help.

This is good stuff.  Today, it seems like students aren't really allowed to go any deeper than a one-off mock election.  That's cool and it makes for a good local news story, but it just scratches the surface.  I really like the idea of modeling the behavior in the classroom on an ongoing basis.  Really let them see how elections have consequences.  Maybe a mock exercise where kids are forced to make a decision about something but with only a snippet of information.  At the end of the experiment the teacher reveals the rest of the information and the class examines how not having the whole story affected the outcome and how the outcome might have been different if everyone had been better educated on the issue.  

And as I mentioned in the other thread, media literacy I think is a key.  Understanding the different ways messages are crafted by politicians and also by groups who are sponsoring a certain initiative.  Understanding how messages are conveyed overtly, but also how messages are conveyed in less obvious, but no less influencing ways.  

I draw the parallel to the BIP.  I think the endgame is about building not just awareness but the skills of being aware.  

Excellent idea!

Well there's bribery, which is how the school gets people to read, but I don't think we should be giving kids shit to learn about their own country. Dok Alphapance had a pretty good idea. Use voting to determine classroom such and such, though you'd have to be willing to deal with the consequences of putting power into the hands of asshole teens.

Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 22, 2010, 03:24:44 PM

Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 22, 2010, 03:21:29 PM
Going off of my own classmates, if you require they study the Constitution, they'll either let themselves fail or cheat. The people who will do well are the ones who already know it. The people who don't know it, and there will be many, will mostly fail or cheat rather than learn it. I know folks who don't know who the first president was. In this case Apathy and the lack of informed voters are the same problem.

How could it be made interesting enough to get kids to want to participate?

In-class elections that are modeled after the electoral college, with real-life consequences, and require knowlegde of the constitution/civics.  And to keep it interesting, quarterly elections.

Perhaps the outcome of the elections have some sort of consequences such as status, privilege, or other incentives.  If you also include the impeachement or constitutional amendment processes, it could make for a rousing class.

Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 22, 2010, 03:29:12 PM
Well there's bribery, which is how the school gets people to read, but I don't think we should be giving kids shit to learn about their own country. Dok Alphapance had a pretty good idea. Use voting to determine classroom such and such, though you'd have to be willing to deal with the consequences of putting power into the hands of asshole teens.

Then they would also need to write rules of law to govern their behavior.

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 22, 2010, 03:30:03 PM

Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 22, 2010, 03:24:44 PM

Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 22, 2010, 03:21:29 PM
Going off of my own classmates, if you require they study the Constitution, they'll either let themselves fail or cheat. The people who will do well are the ones who already know it. The people who don't know it, and there will be many, will mostly fail or cheat rather than learn it. I know folks who don't know who the first president was. In this case Apathy and the lack of informed voters are the same problem.

How could it be made interesting enough to get kids to want to participate?

In-class elections that are modeled after the electoral college, with real-life consequences, and require knowlegde of the constitution/civics.  And to keep it interesting, quarterly elections.

Perhaps the outcome of the elections have some sort of consequences such as status, privilege, or other incentives.  If you also include the impeachement or constitutional amendment processes, it could make for a rousing class.

Add in campaigns among the students and it would be a blast.

Finally, a situaton where a large class size would be beneficial!

Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 22, 2010, 03:29:12 PM
you'd have to be willing to deal with the consequences of putting power into the hands of asshole teens.

Prepares them for having to deal with the consequences of putting power into the hands of asshole adults.

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 22, 2010, 03:32:31 PM
Finally, a situaton where a large class size would be beneficial!

I hadn't thought of that but you are exactly right!

We need a website and some educators involved. I am not nearly good enough to build a site.

I have sent a communication the the Kansas Board of Education to solicit their input.

Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 22, 2010, 03:21:29 PM
Going off of my own classmates, if you require they study the Constitution, they'll either let themselves fail or cheat. The people who will do well are the ones who already know it. The people who don't know it, and there will be many, will mostly fail or cheat rather than learn it. I know folks who don't know who the first president was. In this case Apathy and the lack of informed voters are the same problem.

Then fuck 'em.  Make the information available.  If they decide not to put it to use, that's their problem.

And make that plain during the class.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 22, 2010, 05:01:15 PM

Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 22, 2010, 03:21:29 PM
Going off of my own classmates, if you require they study the Constitution, they'll either let themselves fail or cheat. The people who will do well are the ones who already know it. The people who don't know it, and there will be many, will mostly fail or cheat rather than learn it. I know folks who don't know who the first president was. In this case Apathy and the lack of informed voters are the same problem.

Then fuck 'em.  Make the information available.  If they decide not to put it to use, that's their problem.

And make that plain during the class.

Also we have discussed ways to make it interesting.

I think that to get kids interested in these ideas, first you have to contextualize it with a story that grabs their attention.

I didn't really care terribly about civics until I learned about the personalities and stories that led up to the declaration.  For me, the movie 1776 made the whole thing a lot more interesting, but chances are a different movie should be made to appeal to kids these days, since I have bad taste.  The point is that if you introduce some "song and dance" so to speak, to grant the ideas some charisma then they'll be more interested in things like the preamble. 

Also, before you teach them the constitution, have them try to write one.  That would demonstrate to them how smart those guys were, and perhaps even leave them in awe.  I think that's a desirable perception to cultivate.

My oldest had a great history teacher this last year in world history.  He appealed to what the kids are interested in and threw in a lot of facts they didn't realize they learned till it was all over.  I was impressed. 

I agree that teachers have to present this subject in the line of thinking of what do these kids get into...

For my sons (being total beat their chest boys) if you get the blood and guts crap out there to snag them, you can teach them all the facts and such you want as you reel them in.  These are kids who watch some of the grossest stuff you can imagine and god I don't even want to get into they games they play.

Honestly, civics was my least favorite class and I did not take it in high school or college because it was just boring to me. 

Something has to be done in more areas that just this.  This next generation coming up is unfortunately a whole new kind of dumb and that is because that is what the schools are teaching them to be.

Students should be able to easily pass the citizenship test by high school.  Expand the test to include more as needed. Make it mandatory to enter high school.  That being said, I agree, the question is, how do we get their attention.

Quote from: Khara on July 22, 2010, 06:30:59 PM
My oldest had a great history teacher this last year in world history.  He appealed to what the kids are interested in and threw in a lot of facts they didn't realize they learned till it was all over.  I was impressed. 

I agree that teachers have to present this subject in the line of thinking of what do these kids get into...

For my sons (being total beat their chest boys) if you get the blood and guts crap out there to snag them, you can teach them all the facts and such you want as you reel them in.  These are kids who watch some of the grossest stuff you can imagine and god I don't even want to get into they games they play.

Honestly, civics was my least favorite class and I did not take it in high school or college because it was just boring to me. 

Something has to be done in more areas that just this.  This next generation coming up is unfortunately a whole new kind of dumb and that is because that is what the schools are teaching them to be.

Students should be able to easily pass the citizenship test by high school.  Expand the test to include more as needed. Make it mandatory to enter high school.  That being said, I agree, the question is, how do we get their attention.

A great teacher is a priceless thing to be sure.

Quote
Also, before you teach them the constitution, have them try to write one.

This idea I love.

As for the class election thing, wouldn't that rely on the schools actually letting the kids elected have some kind of say?  We didn't have class governments but we had school ones, they were completely pointless, the only thing they had any power over was the 'school spirit' assembly.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 22, 2010, 07:33:10 PM

Quote
Also, before you teach them the constitution, have them try to write one.

This idea I love.

As for the class election thing, wouldn't that rely on the schools actually letting the kids elected have some kind of say?  We didn't have class governments but we had school ones, they were completely pointless, the only thing they had any power over was the 'school spirit' assembly.

It would be an exercise.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 22, 2010, 07:33:10 PM

Quote
Also, before you teach them the constitution, have them try to write one.

This idea I love.

As for the class election thing, wouldn't that rely on the schools actually letting the kids elected have some kind of say?  We didn't have class governments but we had school ones, they were completely pointless, the only thing they had any power over was the 'school spirit' assembly.

School-wide elections wouldn't be an effective teaching method, since they're both annual, and are subject to a teacher's lessons.  It would have to be a single classroom election.

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 22, 2010, 07:44:41 PM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 22, 2010, 07:33:10 PM

Quote
Also, before you teach them the constitution, have them try to write one.

This idea I love.

As for the class election thing, wouldn't that rely on the schools actually letting the kids elected have some kind of say?  We didn't have class governments but we had school ones, they were completely pointless, the only thing they had any power over was the 'school spirit' assembly.

School-wide elections wouldn't be an effective teaching method, since they're both annual, and are subject to a teacher's lessons.  It would have to be a single classroom election.

Have them vote for who gets to be the semester science project.

As an added bonus, you could have the class debate about which constitution was best.  Then, the teacher could show them how their constitution matches up to the real deal.

Quote from: Sigmatic on July 22, 2010, 08:32:16 PM
As an added bonus, you could have the class debate about which constitution was best.  Then, the teacher could show them how their constitution matches up to the real deal.

Writing the lesson plan itself could be a real blast.

Wont make a difference, because FOX et al will just tell people how kids are being indoctrinated by MARXIST LIBERAL OBAMACORP NAZI TEACHERS.

Well, more so than they do already.

You're talking about turning around an entire political and social culture which I believe was last tried in, er, Cambodia.  Of course, they may have gone about it in a slightly counterproductive way.

We're also not trying to forcefully plunge the entire nation into an "agrarian utopia" by any means necessary.

It'd do people some good, though.  Honest work, not shoving pieces of paper around an office for an hour a day, downloading masses of porn, drinking lots of free coffee and then bitching about lazy welfare bums.

But yeah, "educating a population" doesn't just, you know, mean sitting them down in a classroom, though that forms part of it.  Also there is the worry that if you can force that to work (highly unlikely), then all it requies for the Christian dominionists to gain ultimate victory is to win an election or, more likely, infiltrate a friendly, powerful political party with national clout and then rewrite the cirriculum to their liking.   In short, if you can convince people of one thing, you can convince them equally well of another.  Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok then bother with any sort of civics class anyway.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here, but how many civics classes did any of you guys have where they discussed the cosy relationship between senators, the military, military contractors and how that contributed to the corruption of the electoral system?  And how long would a teacher who decided to follow that line of enquiry actually last in their job?  If you're not teaching how government actually works, as opposed to how it even works on paper (though I understand this is a step up from the current situation), then the subject just seems another way of reifing the current status quo, which defeats the point of the object.

Great point.  Institutionalizing civics would make it way too easy to institutionalize nationalistic propaganda, which is already a problem.

And yet... I still like the idea of having kids try their own hands at building constitutions and seeing how well they hold up to scrutiny.

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 22, 2010, 03:15:15 PM
I think it needs to be built into the immediate culture as soon as possible, and made to seem second nature and inevitable.

More than that, it needs to be relevant.  When I learned civics, it was as if I was studying a different country; it would still be a decade before I would actually be able to vote.  What did I care about the Electorial College, or how a Republic is formed?

Perhaps some classes or classrooms could employ a voting system in order to determine things that would immediately affect the class... seating assignments, or in what order subjects would be taught.  I would think that making the voting process something that has effects in the present rather than a nebulous future could help.

The problem I se3e here is that you condition the kids into feeling their votes mean very little.  They are being led by someone they have no choice over, after all.  They can vote only on stuff that doesn't matter, because the teacher decides all the stuff that does matter.

Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2010, 09:24:31 PM
It'd do people some good, though.  Honest work, not shoving pieces of paper around an office for an hour a day, downloading masses of porn, drinking lots of free coffee and then bitching about lazy welfare bums.

But yeah, "educating a population" doesn't just, you know, mean sitting them down in a classroom, though that forms part of it.  Also there is the worry that if you can force that to work (highly unlikely), then all it requies for the Christian dominionists to gain ultimate victory is to win an election or, more likely, infiltrate a friendly, powerful political party with national clout and then rewrite the cirriculum to their liking.   In short, if you can convince people of one thing, you can convince them equally well of another.  Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok then bother with any sort of civics class anyway.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here, but how many civics classes did any of you guys have where they discussed the cosy relationship between senators, the military, military contractors and how that contributed to the corruption of the electoral system?  And how long would a teacher who decided to follow that line of enquiry actually last in their job?  If you're not teaching how government actually works, as opposed to how it even works on paper (though I understand this is a step up from the current situation), then the subject just seems another way of reifing the current status quo, which defeats the point of the object.

I had that class (the one with the corruption) and the teacher had been teaching a long time, and had won the district several awards and grants.  he was mostly a shop teacher, but also taught contemporary world problems.  I believe he is retired now, but due to being old, not due to being pushed into it.

Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2010, 09:24:31 PM
It'd do people some good, though.  Honest work, not shoving pieces of paper around an office for an hour a day, downloading masses of porn, drinking lots of free coffee and then bitching about lazy welfare bums.

But yeah, "educating a population" doesn't just, you know, mean sitting them down in a classroom, though that forms part of it.  Also there is the worry that if you can force that to work (highly unlikely), then all it requies for the Christian dominionists to gain ultimate victory is to win an election or, more likely, infiltrate a friendly, powerful political party with national clout and then rewrite the cirriculum to their liking.   In short, if you can convince people of one thing, you can convince them equally well of another.  Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok then bother with any sort of civics class anyway.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here, but how many civics classes did any of you guys have where they discussed the cosy relationship between senators, the military, military contractors and how that contributed to the corruption of the electoral system?  And how long would a teacher who decided to follow that line of enquiry actually last in their job?  If you're not teaching how government actually works, as opposed to how it even works on paper (though I understand this is a step up from the current situation), then the subject just seems another way of reifing the current status quo, which defeats the point of the object.

I did, too, and I live in the conservative butthole of California. He taught us both how it works on paper (pretty intensively) and mixed in how it works IRL. But that was an AP class and he liked the subject a lot, so that was why.

The thing is, I think, is that American history is tested on in schools, and civics aren't really on it, from what I remember. It was mostly names and dates. Seniors, who weren't going to be tested at the end of the year, were the ones who took civics in the school district I attended. When I was planning to teach high school, American history was going to be my subject and I planned to mix them together, because I think that's the way to do it. Spend a few days on the Constitution, spend a while on the set up, and look at how the document and human nature have interacted to create what exists IRL as we went along.

The issue with voting and trying to convince them to vote, is probably showing them statistics. Who votes the most? Wealthy, older, white people. Who benefits most from voting? Them. Don't be a statistic and gain some power.

Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2010, 09:24:31 PM
But yeah, "educating a population" doesn't just, you know, mean sitting them down in a classroom, though that forms part of it.  Also there is the worry that if you can force that to work (highly unlikely), then all it requies for the Christian dominionists to gain ultimate victory is to win an election or, more likely, infiltrate a friendly, powerful political party with national clout and then rewrite the cirriculum to their liking.

They already did that. It's called the Texas Board of Education.

Quote from: Sigmatic on July 22, 2010, 05:25:47 PM
I think that to get kids interested in these ideas, first you have to contextualize it with a story that grabs their attention.

I didn't really care terribly about civics until I learned about the personalities and stories that led up to the declaration.  For me, the movie 1776 made the whole thing a lot more interesting, but chances are a different movie should be made to appeal to kids these days, since I have bad taste.  The point is that if you introduce some "song and dance" so to speak, to grant the ideas some charisma then they'll be more interested in things like the preamble.

I agree with this post.  Honestly, I didn't get interested in civics at all until we got to the Federalist papers.  They were interesting because instead of the teacher just telling us how great democracy was we got to read actual people arguing about it and making the case for a Republic.  Also, surprisingly, Latin class - reading the translations of Cicero and other orators shocked me by how little political rhetoric has changed in thousands of years.  "Hmm, we need to win this election ... what do people like ... they like winning wars ... who don't we like that we can beat ... Carthage!"  Also the various letters between various provincial governors and emperors, because then you get to see what kind of advice politicians in a different political system would give - get a real insight into how other kinds of government work.

Perhaps a course focusing on the civics of a the great empires of history (or at least the ones who wrote everything down) would be more effective than one just trying to ram a single document down an apathetic class's throat.

I do remember one particular lesson as being effective - after a few lessons on warrants, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and whatnot, the teacher brought a real police officer in and we more or less went over when a police officer can search your car (pretty much whenever) when they can force you to take breathalyser (also pretty much whenever) - things that were of real interest to highschool students who had recently gotten licenses to drive but weren't legally allowed to drink yet.

The #1 thing, though, is for people to be able to critically evaluate arguments - and most importantly to notice when a persuasive argument is occurring.  They aren't always labeled "Op-Ed."

Quote from: Sigmatic on July 22, 2010, 05:25:47 PM
Also, before you teach them the constitution, have them try to write one.  That would demonstrate to them how smart those guys were, and perhaps even leave them in awe.  I think that's a desirable perception to cultivate.

One of my teachers made us do this as part of a (very long) group project about the settlers and colonization of America.  Nobody else in my group could be bothered to do it, so they let me write the constitution ... and they got a constitutional monarchy with me in charge.  Apparently, this was the Wrong Kind of constitution.

Hahahaha!  That'll teach them to casually defer their freedom to a trusted proxy.

Before the NCLB bullshit, I was taught Civics in 7th and 8th grade within my social studies curricula. In high school I had an actual American Government class, but I do remember doing extensive work on other types of government as well, including socialism, communism, republics vs democracies, etc. So it wasn't JUST American government.

I think it's fucking ridiculous that it was cut out of schools. This is knowledge that everyone NEEDS to know to be a functioning adult in a county in which there is a governing body.

Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2010, 09:24:31 PM
Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok

Gordian Knot, meet Alexander.

I would support the implementation of an ongoing critical thinking class from kindergarten to 12th grade 100%.

OK BH and HC I take your points.  However, can you successfully see that being pulled off at the national level, for any length of time?  Me either.

Hell, pushing critical thinking skills would probably be hard enough, and that's without most of the associated political and social baggage that surrounds something so contentious as civics.  You'd probably have to label it something like "Study Skills" and hope like hell no-one paid attention to the actual subject matter.

Critical Thinking and (Imma gonna beat this one into the ground) Media Literacy (TV, print, social media, etc.)

Both are skills and concepts both sides of the spectrum would embrace if you pitch it correctly.  And I agree critical thinking should be there from K to 12. 

Sadly, I just realized that "Critical Thinking Class" should really be called "Raising Your Kids Right."



Apologies for not giving credit to my dad, who got did it the right way.  Also, shame on me for farming out to the public school system that which should be done at home.

How about a parenting class that teaches parents how to teach their kids critical thinking skills? 

Yeah, I know, would anyone show up? 

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 01:41:19 PM

Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2010, 09:24:31 PM
Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok

Gordian Knot, meet Alexander.

I would support the implementation of an ongoing critical thinking class from kindergarten to 12th grade 100%.

As I have pointed out before, no methods to teach cross domain critical thinking skills exist.  At best you can teach critical thinking in a narrow focus.

'critical thinking in politics' might be doable.

Quote from: Cain on July 23, 2010, 03:07:40 PM
OK BH and HC I take your points.  However, can you successfully see that being pulled off at the national level, for any length of time?  Me either.

Hell, pushing critical thinking skills would probably be hard enough, and that's without most of the associated political and social baggage that surrounds something so contentious as civics.  You'd probably have to label it something like "Study Skills" and hope like hell no-one paid attention to the actual subject matter.

How could this class be developed to an end user format?

Critical thinking involves determining the meaning and significance of what is observed or expressed, or, concerning a given inference or argument, determining whether there is adequate justification to accept the conclusion as true. Hence, Fisher & Scriven  define critical thinking as "skilled, active, interpretation and evaluation of observations, communications, information, and argumentation."[1]  Moore & Parker define it more naturally as the careful, deliberate determination of whether one should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim and the degree of confidence with which one accepts or rejects it.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Ok, this is a pretty good paper.

In the UK school system, Critical Thinking is offered as a subject which 16- to 18-year-olds can take as an A-Level

So it does exist!

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 03:35:43 PM
How about a parenting class that teaches parents how to teach their kids critical thinking skills? 

Yeah, I know, would anyone show up? 

For an hour.

Then they'd leave, once they realized that critical thinking would include examining their own beliefs as well as those of others.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 23, 2010, 04:35:41 PM

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 01:41:19 PM

Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2010, 09:24:31 PM
Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok

Gordian Knot, meet Alexander.

I would support the implementation of an ongoing critical thinking class from kindergarten to 12th grade 100%.

As I have pointed out before, no methods to teach cross domain critical thinking skills exist.  At best you can teach critical thinking in a narrow focus.

'critical thinking in politics' might be doable.

No snark, could you please link to that proof?

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 23, 2010, 04:35:41 PM

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 01:41:19 PM

Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2010, 09:24:31 PM
Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok

Gordian Knot, meet Alexander.

I would support the implementation of an ongoing critical thinking class from kindergarten to 12th grade 100%.

As I have pointed out before, no methods to teach cross domain critical thinking skills exist.  At best you can teach critical thinking in a narrow focus.

'critical thinking in politics' might be doable.

I don't know if that's actually true.  In fact I would be surprised if it were true.  But even if it was, it wouldn't be hard to design.  The method is the easy part.  The hard part would be selling it to school boards. 

In the UK school system, Critical Thinking is offered as a subject which 16- to 18-year-olds can take as an A-Level. Under the OCR exam board, students can sit two exam papers for the AS: "Credibility of Evidence" and "Assessing and Developing Argument". The full Advanced GCE is now available: in addition to the two AS units, candidates sit the two papers "Resolution of Dilemmas" and "Critical Reasoning". The A-level tests candidates on their ability to think critically about, and analyze, arguments on their deductive or inductive validity, as well as producing their own arguments. It also tests their ability to analyze certain related topics such as credibility and ethical decision-making. However, due to its comparative lack of subject content, many universities do not accept it as a main A-level for admissions.[9] Nevertheless, the AS is often useful in developing reasoning skills, and the full advanced GCE is useful for degree courses in politics, philosophy, history or theology, providing the skills required for critical analysis that are useful, for example, in biblical study.

There is also an Advanced Extension Award offered in Critical Thinking in the UK, open to any A-level student regardless of whether they have the Critical Thinking A-level. Cambridge International Examinations have an A-level in Thinking Skills.[10] From 2008, Assessment and Qualifications Alliance will also be offering an A-level Critical Thinking specification;[11] OCR exam board have also modified theirs for 2008. Many examinations for university entrance set by universities, on top of A-level examinations, also include a critical thinking component, such as the LNAT, the UKCAT, the BioMedical Admissions Test and the Thinking Skills Assessment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking



A model already exists.

http://www.criticalthinking.org/

From The Critical Thinking Community.

TEACHING Critical Thinking — Activities & Strategies
      Useful ideas about critical thinking and education are in Critical Thinking by Design (Joanne Kurfiss) and Critical Thinking: Basic Questions and Answers (Richard Paul).  For a broad overview, A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking.  And to help those responsible for big-picture decisions, Peter Facione (past president of the American Conference of Academic Deans) wrote 26 Case Studies for Conversation and Reflection for academic deans and department chairs.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/critical.htm

The more I study about critical thinking the more I like the idea. It would actually cover real life day to day situations as well as civics.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 04:51:45 PM

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 03:35:43 PM
How about a parenting class that teaches parents how to teach their kids critical thinking skills? 

Yeah, I know, would anyone show up? 

For an hour.

Then they'd leave, once they realized that critical thinking would include examining their own beliefs as well as those of others.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 05:32:57 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 04:51:45 PM

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 03:35:43 PM
How about a parenting class that teaches parents how to teach their kids critical thinking skills? 

Yeah, I know, would anyone show up? 

For an hour.

Then they'd leave, once they realized that critical thinking would include examining their own beliefs as well as those of others.

I can surely see the religious right throwing a shit fit over it.

Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 23, 2010, 05:34:27 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 05:32:57 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 04:51:45 PM

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 03:35:43 PM
How about a parenting class that teaches parents how to teach their kids critical thinking skills? 

Yeah, I know, would anyone show up? 

For an hour.

Then they'd leave, once they realized that critical thinking would include examining their own beliefs as well as those of others.

I can surely see the religious right throwing a shit fit over it.

And the hippies.
And the libertarians.
And the soccer moms.
And the uber patriots.
And the Obama fans.
And the Obama haters.
And the conspiracy freaks.
And the teabaggers (Redundant, I know).
And the utopians.
And the people who think they already think critically.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 05:36:18 PM

Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 23, 2010, 05:34:27 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 05:32:57 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 04:51:45 PM

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 03:35:43 PM
How about a parenting class that teaches parents how to teach their kids critical thinking skills? 

Yeah, I know, would anyone show up? 

For an hour.

Then they'd leave, once they realized that critical thinking would include examining their own beliefs as well as those of others.

I can surely see the religious right throwing a shit fit over it.

And the hippies.
And the libertarians.
And the soccer moms.
And the uber patriots.
And the Obama fans.
And the Obama haters.
And the conspiracy freaks.
And the teabaggers (Redundant, I know).
And the utopians.
And the people who think they already think critically.

All the more reasons to get it instituted. Why not fight to break the stranglehold they want to hold over independent thought? No war that is worthwhile is easily won.

Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 23, 2010, 05:38:13 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 05:36:18 PM

Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 23, 2010, 05:34:27 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 05:32:57 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 04:51:45 PM

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 03:35:43 PM
How about a parenting class that teaches parents how to teach their kids critical thinking skills? 

Yeah, I know, would anyone show up? 

For an hour.

Then they'd leave, once they realized that critical thinking would include examining their own beliefs as well as those of others.

I can surely see the religious right throwing a shit fit over it.

And the hippies.
And the libertarians.
And the soccer moms.
And the uber patriots.
And the Obama fans.
And the Obama haters.
And the conspiracy freaks.
And the teabaggers (Redundant, I know).
And the utopians.
And the people who think they already think critically.

All the more reasons to get it instituted. Why not fight to break the stranglehold they want to hold over independent thought? No war that is worthwhile is easily won.

Let me know how that works out.

By the way, they'll kill you if you try this in Kansas.  Just saying.

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 04:55:15 PM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 23, 2010, 04:35:41 PM

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 01:41:19 PM

Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2010, 09:24:31 PM
Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok

Gordian Knot, meet Alexander.

I would support the implementation of an ongoing critical thinking class from kindergarten to 12th grade 100%.

As I have pointed out before, no methods to teach cross domain critical thinking skills exist.  At best you can teach critical thinking in a narrow focus.

'critical thinking in politics' might be doable.

No snark, could you please link to that proof?

http://acad-en.ncku.edu.tw/ezfiles/33/1033/attach/56/pta_839_9679008_08061.pdf

This is the only one of the papers on the subject in my notes I can find online.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 05:39:29 PM

Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 23, 2010, 05:38:13 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 05:36:18 PM

Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 23, 2010, 05:34:27 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 05:32:57 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 04:51:45 PM

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 03:35:43 PM
How about a parenting class that teaches parents how to teach their kids critical thinking skills? 

Yeah, I know, would anyone show up? 

For an hour.

Then they'd leave, once they realized that critical thinking would include examining their own beliefs as well as those of others.

I can surely see the religious right throwing a shit fit over it.

And the hippies.
And the libertarians.
And the soccer moms.
And the uber patriots.
And the Obama fans.
And the Obama haters.
And the conspiracy freaks.
And the teabaggers (Redundant, I know).
And the utopians.
And the people who think they already think critically.

All the more reasons to get it instituted. Why not fight to break the stranglehold they want to hold over independent thought? No war that is worthwhile is easily won.

Let me know how that works out.

By the way, they'll kill you if you try this in Kansas.  Just saying.

Well, I haven't tilted at any windmills recently. Guess I'm about due.

Maybe critical thinking isn't the proper technical label for what we are talking about.  Maybe it isn't critical thinking, maybe it is critical awareness.  The paper you linked to seems to say that because not everyone can understand the basics of every domain, critical thinking doesn't work because of that lack of understanding.  So critical thinking is great if you are a math wiz or a science wiz.  Because you understand math and science.  But when faced with a problem involving public policy, well, I don't understand those basics so I don't have enough input to do critical thinking.  

But of course, a person can learn about those basics.  They can learn about what they don't understand.  So I think maybe what we are talking about is a two-pronged approach.  The first part of what we want to teach or impart is the drive to keep learning.  The idea that seeking knowledge when you don't understand something is a good and noble pursuit.  It broadens your horizons and deepens your understanding of your world.  Then, you can engage in critical thinking on the particular topic.  

Maybe it is more of a value we are talking about.  The value of thinking beyond the books.  The understanding that you are being taught certain information in each of your classes, from these textbooks and materials, but that there is a beyond, this whole other layer, that is huge, where more knowledge on the subject can be found.  You want to go up there and explore.  We are giving you what you need to get your diploma, but you don't have to be satisfied with that.  Nor should you be because the world is a lot bigger than what is contained in the few dozen textbooks you will read in the course of your K-12 education.  

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 23, 2010, 05:40:34 PM

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 04:55:15 PM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 23, 2010, 04:35:41 PM

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 01:41:19 PM

Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2010, 09:24:31 PM
Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok

Gordian Knot, meet Alexander.

I would support the implementation of an ongoing critical thinking class from kindergarten to 12th grade 100%.

As I have pointed out before, no methods to teach cross domain critical thinking skills exist.  At best you can teach critical thinking in a narrow focus.

'critical thinking in politics' might be doable.

No snark, could you please link to that proof?

http://acad-en.ncku.edu.tw/ezfiles/33/1033/attach/56/pta_839_9679008_08061.pdf

This is the only one of the papers on the subject in my notes I can find online.

And you ignored the links I posted where it can be taught and how to teach it?

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 06:02:33 PM
Maybe critical thinking isn't the proper technical label for what we are talking about.  Maybe it isn't critical thinking, maybe it is critical awareness.  The paper you linked to seems to say that because not everyone can understand the basics of every domain, critical thinking doesn't work because of that lack of understanding.  So critical thinking is great if you are a math wiz or a science wiz.  Because you understand math and science.  But when faced with a problem involving public policy, well, I don't understand those basics so I don't have enough input to do critical thinking.  

But of course, a person can learn about those basics.  They can learn about what they don't understand.  So I think maybe what we are talking about is a two-pronged approach.  The first part of what we want to teach or impart is the drive to keep learning.  The idea that seeking knowledge when you don't understand something is a good and noble pursuit.  It broadens your horizons and deepens your understanding of your world.  Then, you can engage in critical thinking on the particular topic.  

Maybe it is more of a value we are talking about.  The value of thinking beyond the books.  The understanding that you are being taught certain information in each of your classes, from these textbooks and materials, but that there is a beyond, this whole other layer, that is huge, where more knowledge on the subject can be found.  You want to go up there and explore.  We are giving you what you need to get your diploma, but you don't have to be satisfied with that.  Nor should you be because the world is a lot bigger than what is contained in the few dozen textbooks you will read in the course of your K-12 education.  

Also this is where the difference between lecturing or memorization teaching has to be removed and interactive teaching brought into play.

Yep.  And another piece is just really being systematic with how you introduce kids to realities that are different then their particular world.  What I mean by that is a kid who lives in a home where they don't really travel much, they are pretty comfortable with money, they go to church every Sunday....they are likely not to see the world of a family who is living in poverty who don't even have transportation to get to the grocery store.  And vice versa.  Sure, kids learn about different cultures in different countries, but they don't really get a good taste for the different cultures in their own country or their own neighborhood.  The cultures of socioeconomics and class.  So kids should have some kind of public service credit where they get to volunteer in a homeless shelter, a soup kitchen, a nursing home, get to see how other people and families live.  Broaden their world-view even if it is just at the local level. 

And for hell's sake we need to get rid of this American Dream mantra.  It limits the imagination of the rich and poor alike.  The rich kid thinks it's owed to them, the poor kid thinks they don't have a shot in hell of achieving it, and then their lot is cast.  Kids need to see more paths. 

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 01:41:19 PM

Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2010, 09:24:31 PM
Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok

Gordian Knot, meet Alexander.

I would support the implementation of an ongoing critical thinking class from kindergarten to 12th grade 100%.

Someone mentioned media literacy earlier in this thread [ETA: it was RHWN], and that's one place where sliding critical thinking skills into curriculum has a long history.  Outside of the U.S., Canada and Australia, it's usually referred to as media education.  

This might be tl;dr, but this is a pet area of mine.  Just skip it if it's an interruption.

While a lot of media literacy developed in the states hasn't gone much beyond "teaching kids to beware the mass media" and tech skills-training, its 30-40 year history in England, Canada, Russia, Latin America and Australia is a little different.  To over-simplify, a main focus is on the ability to take apart media messages critically and learn to craft your own, but what's come out of it is pretty diverse.  The results often start out as political parody (ex. lambasting high school movies/culture), but critical thinking is the focus, which people argue for as a "transferable skill."

Two drawbacks off the bat: where it's been disciplined into a subject (like Language/English in Ontario) and become a mandated part of the curriculum, it's subject to the same shit that everything else is – standardization and rote skills for testing, lack of resources and little to no teacher training available, streaming students into either critical thinking (for kids deemed advanced, or thinkers) or skills (for kids who are deemed basic, or doers), and so on.  It's subject to a de-fanging in those cases, or what Allen Luke described as the domestication of media literacy.  But interested teachers are finding ways to teach each other and keep it going.

The pressure from parents, principals and the state to Teach for the Test is enormous, and cain mentioned part of the reason why earlier in the thread.  Teachers who find ways to do that and get some actual critical education in there as well are fucking superheroes right now.

When it's a favourite method of an interested teacher or group, or when it slides crabwise into subjects (English, social studies, etc), it's often entirely awesome.

A good case I like thinking about is a teacher named Orlowski who uses media ed to teach his social studies classes about political media bias: Who owns the news outlet?  How many actual journalists do they have on staff?  Was the piece researched or not and how can you tell?  How does language choice and topic focus indicate slant and priorities?  Who's missing from the story?  What version of history is adhered to?  And the kicker: pick a history/bias/interest combination and write a news piece yourself.  He's lovely.  And topic aside, kids learn to read critically against the text and question research resources - something they're otherwise (and often) punished for before University/College.

As an example, this exercise (http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=179505&page_number=3#msgs) that Cory Doctorow came up with for getting students, teachers and parents to think about censorware in their schools is nifty.  It's basically the same kind of testing done by the OpenNet Initiative, but with your own access.

But some of the most exciting work is coming out of community initiatives (where authority issues aren't as tricky - an authority figure telling you to question authority and TFYS, students teaching classes about software programs when they know more than the teacher - it can get messy for some) and where there's a reason for doing it in the first place.  Pirate radio out of Italy is one example.

Apologies if this was off-topic.

Quote from: Nurse Rhizome on July 23, 2010, 09:47:47 PM

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 01:41:19 PM

Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2010, 09:24:31 PM
Probably better to teach them critical thinking skills and them let the run amok

Gordian Knot, meet Alexander.

I would support the implementation of an ongoing critical thinking class from kindergarten to 12th grade 100%.

Someone mentioned media literacy earlier in this thread, and that's one place where sliding critical thinking skills into curriculum has a long history.  Outside of the U.S., Canada and Australia, it's usually referred to as media education.  

This might be tl;dr, but this is a pet area of mine.  Just skip it if it's an interruption.

While a lot of media literacy developed in the states hasn't gone much beyond "teaching kids to beware the mass media" and tech skills-training, its 30-40 year history in England, Canada, Russia, Latin America and Australia is a little different.  To over-simplify, a main focus is on the ability to take apart media messages critically and learn to craft your own, but what's come out of it is pretty diverse.  The results often start out as political parody (ex. lambasting high school movies/culture), but critical thinking is the focus, which people argue for as a "transferable skill."

Two drawbacks off the bat: where it's been disciplined into a subject (like Language/English in Ontario) and become a mandated part of the curriculum, it's subject to the same shit that everything else is – standardization and rote skills for testing, lack of resources and little to no teacher training available, streaming students into either critical thinking (for kids deemed advanced, or thinkers) or skills (for kids who are deemed basic, or doers), and so on.  It's subject to a de-fanging in those cases, or what Allen Luke described as the domestication of media literacy.  But interested teachers are finding ways to teach each other and keep it going.

The pressure from parents, principals and the state to Teach for the Test is enormous, and cain mentioned part of the reason why earlier in the thread.  Teachers who find ways to do that and get some actual critical education in there as well are fucking superheroes right now.

When it's a favourite method of an interested teacher or group, or when it slides crabwise into subjects (English, social studies, etc), it's often entirely awesome.

A good case I like thinking about is a teacher named Orlowski who uses media ed to teach his social studies classes about political media bias: Who owns the news outlet?  How many actual journalists do they have on staff?  Was the piece researched or not and how can you tell?  How does language choice and topic focus indicate slant and priorities?  Who's missing from the story?  What version of history is adhered to?  And the kicker: pick a history/bias/interest combination and write a news piece yourself.  He's lovely.  And topic aside, kids learn to read critically against the text and question research resources - something they're otherwise (and often) punished for before University/College.

As an example, this exercise (http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=179505&page_number=3#msgs) that Cory Doctorow came up with for getting students, teachers and parents to think about censorware in their schools is nifty.  It's basically the same kind of testing done by the OpenNet Initiative, but with your own access.

But some of the most exciting work is coming out of community initiatives (where authority issues aren't as tricky - an authority figure telling you to question authority and TFYS, students teaching classes about software programs when they know more than the teacher - it can get messy for some) and where there's a reason for doing it in the first place.  Pirate radio out of Italy is one example.

Apologies if this was off-topic.

This was an excellent post and very much on topic. I would like to hear more from you as you seem to have a grasp on what I would like to see implemented.

Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 23, 2010, 10:04:14 PM
This was an excellent post and very much on topic. I would like to hear more from you as you seem to have a grasp on what I would like to see implemented.

Cool.  Glad to hear I wasn't derailing.  :)

I'll try to say a bit more, but I ramble.  Forewarned.

QuoteWhile a lot of media literacy developed in the states hasn't gone much beyond "teaching kids to beware the mass media" and tech skills-training, its 30-40 year history in England, Canada, Russia, Latin America and Australia is a little different.

I should've been clearer about this.  What I meant is the history of media lit/ed as a discipline sorta thing is different in different countries.  US history has stayed more protectionist/hysterical-oriented than most (tv is sexing your child, video games make babies kill each other, etc.), but many started out that way and some still carry those overtones. 

What teachers and groups are doing with it (wherever it is) is often something totally different from what people trying to set down a canon decide for a definition of media lit/ed.  Which is more often, like with any line of thought getting disciplined and institutionalized, a long list of what it's not allowed to be about.  :roll:

For example, I and a lot of people who are into this have a broader definition of media that's more in line with Marshall McLuhan's sound byte than most media lit definitions: it's anything that carries/is a message.  Which can make it pretty much any media, including what are often thought of as tools.

At it's worst, outside the protectionist model, it's Deconstruction 101.  And that's not a terrible thing - it's incredibly useful.  At it's best (when I've seen it) it's interrogative and kids get really passionate and creative with it.

If you've got any questions or ideas (or if this just got really navel-gazey and I need to define something), let me know.  I love thinking about this stuff.

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 03:18:39 PM
Critical Thinking and (Imma gonna beat this one into the ground) Media Literacy (TV, print, social media, etc.)

Both are skills and concepts both sides of the spectrum would embrace if you pitch it correctly.  And I agree critical thinking should be there from K to 12. 

I agree strongly on media literacy.  Critical reading is rare enough, critical TV viewing and internet surfing even rarer as far as I can tell.

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 06:02:33 PM
Maybe critical thinking isn't the proper technical label for what we are talking about.  Maybe it isn't critical thinking, maybe it is critical awareness.  The paper you linked to seems to say that because not everyone can understand the basics of every domain, critical thinking doesn't work because of that lack of understanding.  So critical thinking is great if you are a math wiz or a science wiz.  Because you understand math and science.  But when faced with a problem involving public policy, well, I don't understand those basics so I don't have enough input to do critical thinking.  

But of course, a person can learn about those basics.  They can learn about what they don't understand.  So I think maybe what we are talking about is a two-pronged approach.  The first part of what we want to teach or impart is the drive to keep learning.  The idea that seeking knowledge when you don't understand something is a good and noble pursuit.  It broadens your horizons and deepens your understanding of your world.  Then, you can engage in critical thinking on the particular topic.  

Maybe it is more of a value we are talking about.  The value of thinking beyond the books.  The understanding that you are being taught certain information in each of your classes, from these textbooks and materials, but that there is a beyond, this whole other layer, that is huge, where more knowledge on the subject can be found.  You want to go up there and explore.  We are giving you what you need to get your diploma, but you don't have to be satisfied with that.  Nor should you be because the world is a lot bigger than what is contained in the few dozen textbooks you will read in the course of your K-12 education.  

Learning those basics is domain specific though, you can teach critical thinking in politics just fine, but those skills won't apply to say, picking a car to buy.  People don't apply existing skills to new problems very well.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 24, 2010, 02:27:42 AM

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 06:02:33 PM
Maybe critical thinking isn't the proper technical label for what we are talking about.  Maybe it isn't critical thinking, maybe it is critical awareness.  The paper you linked to seems to say that because not everyone can understand the basics of every domain, critical thinking doesn't work because of that lack of understanding.  So critical thinking is great if you are a math wiz or a science wiz.  Because you understand math and science.  But when faced with a problem involving public policy, well, I don't understand those basics so I don't have enough input to do critical thinking.  

But of course, a person can learn about those basics.  They can learn about what they don't understand.  So I think maybe what we are talking about is a two-pronged approach.  The first part of what we want to teach or impart is the drive to keep learning.  The idea that seeking knowledge when you don't understand something is a good and noble pursuit.  It broadens your horizons and deepens your understanding of your world.  Then, you can engage in critical thinking on the particular topic.  

Maybe it is more of a value we are talking about.  The value of thinking beyond the books.  The understanding that you are being taught certain information in each of your classes, from these textbooks and materials, but that there is a beyond, this whole other layer, that is huge, where more knowledge on the subject can be found.  You want to go up there and explore.  We are giving you what you need to get your diploma, but you don't have to be satisfied with that.  Nor should you be because the world is a lot bigger than what is contained in the few dozen textbooks you will read in the course of your K-12 education.  

Learning those basics is domain specific though, you can teach critical thinking in politics just fine, but those skills won't apply to say, picking a car to buy.  People don't apply existing skills to new problems very well.

I find this hard to believe.  The basic pattern of "What is the salesman/author/columnist/blogger trying to sell me?  How is he selling it to me?" is pretty domain-independent.

Quote from: Nurse Rhizome on July 23, 2010, 11:42:09 PM

Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 23, 2010, 10:04:14 PM
This was an excellent post and very much on topic. I would like to hear more from you as you seem to have a grasp on what I would like to see implemented.

Cool.  Glad to hear I wasn't derailing.  :)

I'll try to say a bit more, but I ramble.  Forewarned.

QuoteWhile a lot of media literacy developed in the states hasn't gone much beyond "teaching kids to beware the mass media" and tech skills-training, its 30-40 year history in England, Canada, Russia, Latin America and Australia is a little different.

I should've been clearer about this.  What I meant is the history of media lit/ed as a discipline sorta thing is different in different countries.  US history has stayed more protectionist/hysterical-oriented than most (tv is sexing your child, video games make babies kill each other, etc.), but many started out that way and some still carry those overtones. 

What teachers and groups are doing with it (wherever it is) is often something totally different from what people trying to set down a canon decide for a definition of media lit/ed.  Which is more often, like with any line of thought getting disciplined and institutionalized, a long list of what it's not allowed to be about.  :roll:

For example, I and a lot of people who are into this have a broader definition of media that's more in line with Marshall McLuhan's sound byte than most media lit definitions: it's anything that carries/is a message.  Which can make it pretty much any media, including what are often thought of as tools.

At it's worst, outside the protectionist model, it's Deconstruction 101.  And that's not a terrible thing - it's incredibly useful.  At it's best (when I've seen it) it's interrogative and kids get really passionate and creative with it.

If you've got any questions or ideas (or if this just got really navel-gazey and I need to define something), let me know.  I love thinking about this stuff.

Please continue.

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 06:14:26 PM
Yep.  And another piece is just really being systematic with how you introduce kids to realities that are different then their particular world.  What I mean by that is a kid who lives in a home where they don't really travel much, they are pretty comfortable with money, they go to church every Sunday....they are likely not to see the world of a family who is living in poverty who don't even have transportation to get to the grocery store.  And vice versa.  Sure, kids learn about different cultures in different countries, but they don't really get a good taste for the different cultures in their own country or their own neighborhood.  The cultures of socioeconomics and class.  So kids should have some kind of public service credit where they get to volunteer in a homeless shelter, a soup kitchen, a nursing home, get to see how other people and families live.  Broaden their world-view even if it is just at the local level. 

And for hell's sake we need to get rid of this American Dream mantra.  It limits the imagination of the rich and poor alike.  The rich kid thinks it's owed to them, the poor kid thinks they don't have a shot in hell of achieving it, and then their lot is cast.  Kids need to see more paths. 

RWHN wins an internet.

Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 24, 2010, 04:01:14 AM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 24, 2010, 02:27:42 AM

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 06:02:33 PM
Maybe critical thinking isn't the proper technical label for what we are talking about.  Maybe it isn't critical thinking, maybe it is critical awareness.  The paper you linked to seems to say that because not everyone can understand the basics of every domain, critical thinking doesn't work because of that lack of understanding.  So critical thinking is great if you are a math wiz or a science wiz.  Because you understand math and science.  But when faced with a problem involving public policy, well, I don't understand those basics so I don't have enough input to do critical thinking.  

But of course, a person can learn about those basics.  They can learn about what they don't understand.  So I think maybe what we are talking about is a two-pronged approach.  The first part of what we want to teach or impart is the drive to keep learning.  The idea that seeking knowledge when you don't understand something is a good and noble pursuit.  It broadens your horizons and deepens your understanding of your world.  Then, you can engage in critical thinking on the particular topic.  

Maybe it is more of a value we are talking about.  The value of thinking beyond the books.  The understanding that you are being taught certain information in each of your classes, from these textbooks and materials, but that there is a beyond, this whole other layer, that is huge, where more knowledge on the subject can be found.  You want to go up there and explore.  We are giving you what you need to get your diploma, but you don't have to be satisfied with that.  Nor should you be because the world is a lot bigger than what is contained in the few dozen textbooks you will read in the course of your K-12 education.  

Learning those basics is domain specific though, you can teach critical thinking in politics just fine, but those skills won't apply to say, picking a car to buy.  People don't apply existing skills to new problems very well.

I find this hard to believe.  The basic pattern of "What is the salesman/author/columnist/blogger trying to sell me?  How is he selling it to me?" is pretty domain-independent.

This.

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 06:14:26 PM
And for hell's sake we need to get rid of this American Dream mantra.  It limits the imagination of the rich and poor alike.  The rich kid thinks it's owed to them, the poor kid thinks they don't have a shot in hell of achieving it, and then their lot is cast.  Kids need to see more paths. 

:mittens:

In Britain you're born into a class too.  You could say that at least America has added a lottery to its class-system, but playing it is still for chumps.  It's one thing I love about Canada, or at least my city -- I've never felt like I had to be or act a certain way just because of my background.  After all this time the feeling is still unbelievably liberating.

Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 24, 2010, 04:01:14 AM

I find this hard to believe.  The basic pattern of "What is the salesman/author/columnist/blogger trying to sell me?  How is he selling it to me?" is pretty domain-independent.

It doesn't work that way.   If you present problems that have an identical in depth structure, but different surface structure, people will do better on one and worse on the other.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 24, 2010, 06:56:45 AM

Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 24, 2010, 04:01:14 AM

I find this hard to believe.  The basic pattern of "What is the salesman/author/columnist/blogger trying to sell me?  How is he selling it to me?" is pretty domain-independent.

It doesn't work that way.   If you present problems that have an identical in depth structure, but different surface structure, people will do better on one and worse on the other.

:cn:

I already gave one.  Your turn.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 24, 2010, 07:07:28 AM
I already gave one.  Your turn.

I gave you several, which you ignored.

You linked to various critical thinking programs, that they attempt to teach critical thinking is not new information, I want evidence that any of these programs actually work.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 24, 2010, 07:13:55 AM
You linked to various critical thinking programs, that they attempt to teach critical thinking is not new information, I want evidence that any of these programs actually work.

You posited that they don't. Prove it.

One cannot prove a negative.  The burden of proof, of any evidence at all really, falls on you.

I've heard studies that suggest what Requia says is at least partially true, though I don't have the journal access to read the studies myself.

Anecdotally though, it seems to have some validity.  Atheists who are skeptical about religion, for example, but not economic fundamentalism.

Of course, that just suggests the need for lessons which show how to apply the methods to all these different facets.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 24, 2010, 02:27:42 AM

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 06:02:33 PM
Maybe critical thinking isn't the proper technical label for what we are talking about.  Maybe it isn't critical thinking, maybe it is critical awareness.  The paper you linked to seems to say that because not everyone can understand the basics of every domain, critical thinking doesn't work because of that lack of understanding.  So critical thinking is great if you are a math wiz or a science wiz.  Because you understand math and science.  But when faced with a problem involving public policy, well, I don't understand those basics so I don't have enough input to do critical thinking.  

But of course, a person can learn about those basics.  They can learn about what they don't understand.  So I think maybe what we are talking about is a two-pronged approach.  The first part of what we want to teach or impart is the drive to keep learning.  The idea that seeking knowledge when you don't understand something is a good and noble pursuit.  It broadens your horizons and deepens your understanding of your world.  Then, you can engage in critical thinking on the particular topic.  

Maybe it is more of a value we are talking about.  The value of thinking beyond the books.  The understanding that you are being taught certain information in each of your classes, from these textbooks and materials, but that there is a beyond, this whole other layer, that is huge, where more knowledge on the subject can be found.  You want to go up there and explore.  We are giving you what you need to get your diploma, but you don't have to be satisfied with that.  Nor should you be because the world is a lot bigger than what is contained in the few dozen textbooks you will read in the course of your K-12 education.  

Learning those basics is domain specific though, you can teach critical thinking in politics just fine, but those skills won't apply to say, picking a car to buy.  People don't apply existing skills to new problems very well.

Did you actually read my post?  Nowhere in my post did I indicate my idea was limited to a particular domain.  Try again. 

What?

I'm not implying that you said that, I'm saying your idea will not work, the critical thinking skills learned in a specific domain will not apply themselves to a new domain just because they learn about the new domain.

But lets say I missed something and it might actually work.  Lets try something brand new, and instead of proposing nationwide programs, we get 2 or 3 classrooms full of kids and teach *just them*, and see if it actually works.  You know, the whole science thing, instead of proposals that might be the next NCLB or Headstart.

You seem to be only focusing on the second prong.  There was a first prong as well.  And obviously you have to pilot any new initiative before it goes nationwide.  But I would challenge that while you may not technically be able to teach a universal critical thinking skill, you can teach an approach to critical thinking.  And that approach would include knowing when you need to consult a person or entity that holds the knowledge you yourself do not have in a particular domain.  But if you can impart the idea in the first prong, a person will be in better shape and better able to recognize their limits and what they can do to get around that barrier and still contribute to the issue at hand. 

Critical thinking cannot be taught; it's a point of awareness that an individual must reach himself.

Because, as long as there is a teacher, there will always be a certain conclusion that the teacher hopes his pupils will reach. The pupils who pulls of the "right " critical thinking (thinks within the norms) will get the better grade.

To think critical is not hard, when it's done on demand, after a pattern. This kind of critical thinking will then become just what the old uncritical thinking was.
It's a contradiction.

QuoteIn a system in which we teachers do the grading, few students are going to criticize or even question the ideas we offer; and if we try to induce criticism by grading for it, we generate false criticism.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200909/seven-sins-our-system-forced-education?page=2

Quote from: HaggisFY on July 24, 2010, 10:24:36 PM
Critical thinking cannot be taught; it's a point of awareness that an individual must reach himself.

Because, as long as there is a teacher, there will always be a certain conclusion that the teacher hopes his pupils will reach. The pupils who pulls of the "right " critical thinking (thinks within the norms) will get the better grade.

To think critical is not hard, when it's done on demand, after a pattern. This kind of critical thinking will then become just what the old uncritical thinking was.
It's a contradiction.

QuoteIn a system in which we teachers do the grading, few students are going to criticize or even question the ideas we offer; and if we try to induce criticism by grading for it, we generate false criticism.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200909/seven-sins-our-system-forced-education?page=2

It is being taught.

http://austhink.com/critical/pages/teaching.html

This is the third time I have stated it is being taught.

I think HaggisFY is saying that teaching critical thinking places an undesirable bias in the bad form of rationality.  And that the good form of rationality only comes from pixies.

All thoughts are welcome in this thread.

See Critical Thinking.

Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 24, 2010, 10:49:27 PM

Quote from: HaggisFY on July 24, 2010, 10:24:36 PM
Critical thinking cannot be taught; it's a point of awareness that an individual must reach himself.

Because, as long as there is a teacher, there will always be a certain conclusion that the teacher hopes his pupils will reach. The pupils who pulls of the "right " critical thinking (thinks within the norms) will get the better grade.

To think critical is not hard, when it's done on demand, after a pattern. This kind of critical thinking will then become just what the old uncritical thinking was.
It's a contradiction.

QuoteIn a system in which we teachers do the grading, few students are going to criticize or even question the ideas we offer; and if we try to induce criticism by grading for it, we generate false criticism.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200909/seven-sins-our-system-forced-education?page=2

It is being taught.

http://austhink.com/critical/pages/teaching.html

This is the third time I have stated it is being taught.

You have stated there are classes which claim to teach critical thinking.  The paper I linked talked about those, one of them sold a whopping 70 thousand teachers guides.  And I cannot find a single study that says a single one of them produces useful results.

Quote from: RWHN on July 24, 2010, 10:23:36 PM
You seem to be only focusing on the second prong.  There was a first prong as well.  And obviously you have to pilot any new initiative before it goes nationwide.  But I would challenge that while you may not technically be able to teach a universal critical thinking skill, you can teach an approach to critical thinking.  And that approach would include knowing when you need to consult a person or entity that holds the knowledge you yourself do not have in a particular domain.  But if you can impart the idea in the first prong, a person will be in better shape and better able to recognize their limits and what they can do to get around that barrier and still contribute to the issue at hand. 

Perhaps.  As I apparently don't understand your proposal I'll refrain from further criticisms.

Debate taught me critical thinking, more than anything else I've ever done. Where is this evidence coming from? What bias exists? What are they hiding (opponents or the source)? Where can I get more research on this? What does it mean and what applications does this have for the real world? - all useful shit. (Plus people reading - learning to read judges is really, really useful)

It's direct way to get kids to think, and pretty much anyone with a brain can pick up the skill through this, or so I've noticed over the eight or so years I've been doing it. And to do it well, you have to learn the Constitution, how the government works on paper, and how it works IRL because most debate topics deal with the US.

I encourage all PD parents to get their kids involved with debate and forensics. It's fun and there's something for everyone, especially the more theatrically inclined. Nigel, I think your oldest would enjoy this. All her political knowledge would be useful and I'm sure she'd love stomping the shit out of her opponents. :D

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 25, 2010, 08:01:48 PM

Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 24, 2010, 10:49:27 PM

Quote from: HaggisFY on July 24, 2010, 10:24:36 PM
Critical thinking cannot be taught; it's a point of awareness that an individual must reach himself.

Because, as long as there is a teacher, there will always be a certain conclusion that the teacher hopes his pupils will reach. The pupils who pulls of the "right " critical thinking (thinks within the norms) will get the better grade.

To think critical is not hard, when it's done on demand, after a pattern. This kind of critical thinking will then become just what the old uncritical thinking was.
It's a contradiction.

QuoteIn a system in which we teachers do the grading, few students are going to criticize or even question the ideas we offer; and if we try to induce criticism by grading for it, we generate false criticism.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200909/seven-sins-our-system-forced-education?page=2

It is being taught.

http://austhink.com/critical/pages/teaching.html

This is the third time I have stated it is being taught.

You have stated there are classes which claim to teach critical thinking.  The paper I linked talked about those, one of them sold a whopping 70 thousand teachers guides.  And I cannot find a single study that says a single one of them produces useful results.

Quote from: RWHN on July 24, 2010, 10:23:36 PM
You seem to be only focusing on the second prong.  There was a first prong as well.  And obviously you have to pilot any new initiative before it goes nationwide.  But I would challenge that while you may not technically be able to teach a universal critical thinking skill, you can teach an approach to critical thinking.  And that approach would include knowing when you need to consult a person or entity that holds the knowledge you yourself do not have in a particular domain.  But if you can impart the idea in the first prong, a person will be in better shape and better able to recognize their limits and what they can do to get around that barrier and still contribute to the issue at hand. 

Perhaps.  As I apparently don't understand your proposal I'll refrain from further criticisms.

So you provide one link which can't prove it is useful. Wow. I have provided at least three links that show it is being taught, hoe to teach it, class dynamics, etc...never mind. You and I are done with this argument.

I provided one link, if you like I can come out with a dozen more papers, though you won't have access to most of them.

However, nothing you have linked provides even the slightest hint of evidence that those programs are effective.

By your logic NCLB is also effective, as its still being used.

From the article you linked to, Requia:

Quote

What do all these studies boil down to? First, critical thinking (as well as scientific thinking and other domain-based thinking) is not a skill. There is not a set of critical thinking skills that can be acquired and deployed regardless of context. Second, there are metacognitive strategies that, once learned, make critical thinking more likely. Third, the ability to think critically (to actually do what the metacognitive strategies call for) depends on domain knowledge and practice. For teachers, the situation is not hopeless, but no one should underestimate the difficulty of teaching students to think critically.

Emphasis is mine. I believe you are overstating your case.

Are we arguing about who provided more or less or not enough or the right or wrong kinds of citations?

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on July 26, 2010, 12:16:02 AM
From the article you linked to, Requia:

Quote

What do all these studies boil down to? First, critical thinking (as well as scientific thinking and other domain-based thinking) is not a skill. There is not a set of critical thinking skills that can be acquired and deployed regardless of context. Second, there are metacognitive strategies that, once learned, make critical thinking more likely. Third, the ability to think critically (to actually do what the metacognitive strategies call for) depends on domain knowledge and practice. For teachers, the situation is not hopeless, but no one should underestimate the difficulty of teaching students to think critically.

Emphasis is mine. I believe you are overstating your case.

Emphasis mine.  I've stated from the beginning critical thinking can be taught in a specific context, the problem is critical thinking in other contexts.

Now, hold on.

If we take for example the scientific method of "Hypothesis, Experiment, Observation, and Modified Hypothesis (repeat as necessary)", that is easily taught, and can be applied to many contexts.

Requia, if your point is that after learning something akin to the scientific method, it is shown that people tend not to appy it to different contexts, then sure.  A lot of people don't make that jump on their own.

HOWEVER, it is a far better thing to give them that skill, so they might have a chance to work it out when a new context is provided.

The way you're arguing this sounds to me like you're saying, "because people don't always use criticial thinking skills in every situation, there's absolutely no point in ever teaching those skills."  Which I simply cannot agree with.

Also, if people tend not to use critical thinking in different contexts, and we know this, why don't the critical thinking classes stress that you need to be aware of different contexts?  To be self aware of potential pitfalls is to put a mental check on yourself.

QuoteThe way you're arguing this sounds to me like you're saying, "because people don't always use criticial thinking skills in every situation, there's absolutely no point in ever teaching those skills."  Which I simply cannot agree with.

It's not what I mean to imply, what I'm trying to say is you can't just 'teach critical thinking' without a more narrow goal in mind.  A critical thinking class devoid of a specific subject matter is unlikely to be useful outside of the classroom.

On the other hand, it *is* useful to teach critical thinking and history, critical thinking and home ec, critical thinking and civics and so forth, which I support.

Hmm, perhaps we need to rethink the idea of teaching CT, instead of 1 class, it should be intertwined with all the classes.  More difficult, but potentially vastly more useful.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 26, 2010, 03:23:33 PM

QuoteThe way you're arguing this sounds to me like you're saying, "because people don't always use criticial thinking skills in every situation, there's absolutely no point in ever teaching those skills."  Which I simply cannot agree with.

It's not what I mean to imply, what I'm trying to say is you can't just 'teach critical thinking' without a more narrow goal in mind.  A critical thinking class devoid of a specific subject matter is unlikely to be useful outside of the classroom.

On the other hand, it *is* useful to teach critical thinking and history, critical thinking and home ec, critical thinking and civics and so forth, which I support.

Hmm, perhaps we need to rethink the idea of teaching CT, instead of 1 class, it should be intertwined with all the classes.  More difficult, but potentially vastly more useful.

I'm pretty sure a class in critical thinking wouldn't just be a teacher saying, "think critically, dummies!"

I'm confident that the first few classes would be about the process of critical thinking, and subsequent classes and assignments would be about how to apply and adapt those skills to different specific situations.

It doesn't have to be comprehensive, it can just be a survey to start with -- just the process of showing how CT skills can be applied to different things can open many doors that students can walk through later.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 26, 2010, 03:23:33 PM

QuoteThe way you're arguing this sounds to me like you're saying, "because people don't always use criticial thinking skills in every situation, there's absolutely no point in ever teaching those skills."  Which I simply cannot agree with.

It's not what I mean to imply, what I'm trying to say is you can't just 'teach critical thinking' without a more narrow goal in mind.  A critical thinking class devoid of a specific subject matter is unlikely to be useful outside of the classroom.

On the other hand, it *is* useful to teach critical thinking and history, critical thinking and home ec, critical thinking and civics and so forth, which I support.

Hmm, perhaps we need to rethink the idea of teaching CT, instead of 1 class, it should be intertwined with all the classes.  More difficult, but potentially vastly more useful.

Obviously.  It should be woven into the school curriculum.  I don't think anyone was suggesting it should be limited to one broad-based class.  It would need to be a very systemic approach with evaluation metrics established.  

Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 26, 2010, 02:42:58 PM
Also, if people tend not to use critical thinking in different contexts, and we know this, why don't the critical thinking classes stress that you need to be aware of different contexts?  To be self aware of potential pitfalls is to put a mental check on yourself.

I said that like two pages back

I know, but I think it bears repeating, especially considering the specious argument against teaching critical thinking.

Quote from: Cain on July 24, 2010, 12:06:32 PM
I've heard studies that suggest what Requia says is at least partially true, though I don't have the journal access to read the studies myself.

Anecdotally though, it seems to have some validity.  Atheists who are skeptical about religion, for example, but not economic fundamentalism.

Of course, that just suggests the need for lessons which show how to apply the methods to all these different facets.

To prove Cain got there first.

Quote from: RWHN on July 23, 2010, 03:18:39 PM
Critical Thinking and (Imma gonna beat this one into the ground) Media Literacy (TV, print, social media, etc.)

Both are skills and concepts both sides of the spectrum would embrace if you pitch it correctly.  And I agree critical thinking should be there from K to 12. 

And just to point out I pointed out early on that this wouldn't be a one-off class, and instead, a systematic delivery throughout the school career. 

When i say single class, i don't mean one year, I mean one class at a time, k-12 or just 12 isn't what I'm talking about.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 26, 2010, 10:15:59 PM
When i say single class, i don't mean one year, I mean one class at a time, k-12 or just 12 isn't what I'm talking about.

Other than it can't be done, exactly what the hell ARE you saying?

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 26, 2010, 03:23:33 PM
Hmm, perhaps we need to rethink the idea of teaching CT, instead of 1 class, it should be intertwined with all the classes.  More difficult, but potentially vastly more useful.

I thought you flounced from this thread?

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 27, 2010, 01:52:26 AM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 26, 2010, 03:23:33 PM
Hmm, perhaps we need to rethink the idea of teaching CT, instead of 1 class, it should be intertwined with all the classes.  More difficult, but potentially vastly more useful.

I thought you flounced from this thread?

I started this thread. It's YOU I am sick of.

It'd be nice if they could weave civics into some sort of Real Life Skills class that students would have to pass, at some point during the 4 years, to graduate high school. Other topics would include personal finance, the nightmare that is insurance, social vs. business connections, and.. I don't know, fucking time management.

I know the stronger need is to incorporate it into all subjects for all years--not to mention how beyond difficult it would be to convince the board of ed to add another course option, much less a required one--but I recall wishing this information was better communicated in school by age 15 or so.

Quote from: Eve on July 27, 2010, 04:32:44 AM
It'd be nice if they could weave civics into some sort of Real Life Skills class that students would have to pass, at some point during the 4 years, to graduate high school. Other topics would include personal finance, the nightmare that is insurance, social vs. business connections, and.. I don't know, fucking time management.

I know the stronger need is to incorporate it into all subjects for all years--not to mention how beyond difficult it would be to convince the board of ed to add another course option, much less a required one--but I recall wishing this information was better communicated in school by age 15 or so.

School in itself, I think, is a preparation for some aspects of life. But it would be nice if they did teach specific life skills. I mean, nowadays things like cooking and cleaning are considered humdrum, but there still are a whole load of skills that get over-looked until you need them and then you think "Oh no, how am I supposed to do this?".

When I was in 7th grade our math teacher put the normal lesson aside to teach us about bank accounts and how to write a personal check. But that was a private school, I doubt things like that would go over in a public school environment.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 26, 2010, 10:15:59 PM
When i say single class, i don't mean one year, I mean one class at a time, k-12 or just 12 isn't what I'm talking about.

Huh?  You want to try that sentence again? 

In any event, I was pretty clear that any element of critical thinking woven into the curricula would have to be systematic and designed to hit every grade level in school.  So either way your assertion was wrong.  Just own up to it or stfu. 

Moot point now I guess.

Washington (CNN) - The House is expected to vote Tuesday on a scaled-back version of its original war funding bill, which would drop billions of dollars for unrelated domestic programs, including money to help struggling states avoid teacher layoffs.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/?fbid=fL9v4Hjua92

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 27, 2010, 01:52:26 AM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 26, 2010, 03:23:33 PM
Hmm, perhaps we need to rethink the idea of teaching CT, instead of 1 class, it should be intertwined with all the classes.  More difficult, but potentially vastly more useful.

I thought you flounced from this thread?

Why do you do this shit?