Compulsory School Subjects

If you suddenly had run of your nation's compulsory high-school subjects, what would you make them, and what would be your reasons?

For me, it would be:

English- We live in an English speaking nation (Australia), and in order to be a fully functioning member of our society, at least a basic understanding of the fundamentals of our language would be vital.

Legal Studies (or political studies)- Our nation is a democracy (kind of, but that's a discussion for another time), and the basis of good democracy is the people being able to make informed and intelligent decisions about who we elect to govern our country. The lack of understanding people have of our legal and political systems is disgraceful, especially as we have compulsory voting. The political and legal systems outline how our society is to be governed and it's laws enacted.

Media Studies- Our society is heavily saturated with media information, we're constantly bombarded with advertising and other messages, through film, television, radio, magazine, internet etc. It is probably the largest form of communication, and so, like English, it is important to educate people how to properly decode sometimes cryptic information presented by the media, so as to allow them to function most effectively in society, and allows one to filter out the potential propaganda and think for themselves, again, important to democracy.

Philosophy- Very important. It opens up areas of the mind and ways of thinking that I honestly believe enhance all areas of life and enable creative, lateral thinking and so so much more. I almost feel like it teaches you how to think, like before studying philosophy, I wasn't really thinking, I just thought I was. But then I think, philosophy doesn't teach you how to think, because as soon as you "teach" somebody something, you're instilling in them a set of perceptions that may not necessarily be objective enough to be deemed truthful, especially when it comes to patterns of behaviour, belief and especially thought, so you can't truly teach somebody to think. Then again, I used to think I was thinking, then philosophy opened my mind to how to really think, but if I made that error previously, perhaps I am simply making the same error again, a slave to my own perceptions and delusions of correctness. Hmm... you catch my drift, to not teach philosophy is like taking eyes from a child.

Art- I mean this in the broadest possible sense, not strictly painting, sculpting, drawing or the more "traditional" things you'd be taught in a arts class. I simply mean that everybody should be taught a means of expressing themselves in a creative way, to allow people to externally perceive your soul. Whether it's dance, drama, song, music, poetry, painting, drawing, poi... whatever, everybody should have a means of communicating that which transcends conventional means.

Well, that's what I think, what about you guys, what subjects would you make compulsory, and why?

Consumer science is a part of primary schools now, which I'm quite happy about.

Addresses your media component.

I dont think you need each of these as seperate subjects, maybe a "living in the modern world" subject which canvasses philosophy, social sciences, media and politics in one integrated fell swoop.

What about Science and Maths...?

I know some people find them tedious but you've got to teach them! People need to be able to look at things and say "thats a load of rubbish!". How powerful would adverts be if none of us had a grounding in science? Ties in with your Media point.

History... we need to learn from our mistakes!

Parenting lessons - you need to pass before you can kids!!! (sorry a bit harsh but a possible comedy solution).

I really don't understand why at least a basic first-aid course isn't a compulsory part of some course or other, so many people have just no idea what to *do* in case of an accident, I've been thinking about a similar sort of subject to the 'Living in the modern world' one MNS suggested.

I reckon one where the kids themselves get a say in some of the syllabus for it, so they can find out about subjects *they're* interested in, it could be great. Or could be a disaster really, depends on the kids..

I went to a teeny tiny primary school, and we used to just talk the head into adding stuff in we wanted to find out about, and now I think about it, they were all the bits I remember from school, (stuff like Egyptian & Greek mythology, how to make wool from bits of sheep, all sorts of stuff).. which does imply I was learning.
More practical things would also be good, like how to mend things, how to cook stuff you'd actually want to eat, rather than the 'Home Economics' we were taught which was stuff like 'does adding green food dye to bread make it less appetizing?' (not really, looks cool though) and working out the calorific value of things.
Fair enough to teach stuff like that I suppose, but 'how to make cookies' (and LTC, if you're reading, I didn't actually mean that type of cookies, even if it would make the subject more popular) would be much more use to most people. A lot of parents don't have the time, or knowledge to teach their kids stuff like that.

The flexibility for what was taught dropped out completely when I got older, with exams and everything, all the teachers had to stick to the set texts. Even in the 'General Studies' A level which was, I think, an attempt at something like this.

Possibly, because I went to a very, very exam focussed secondary school (up it's own a**e Grammar School, obsessed with keeping its place in the league tables to the extent of basically kicking out anyone who's marks dropped) the approach they took was more extreme than the norm. I don't have anything to compare it to bar my two primary schools, one of which had to be one of the most chilled out in the UK.

So.. I guess, to try and summarise my rambling, I would make compulsory a flexible subject, including segments of first aid, politics, miscellaneous practical things and open bits that get voted on by the students, that does not include an exam.

If a grade is needed, it should be a practical assessment, or possibly a pub quiz. I have pretty major issues with our current exam culture.

We made things you'd want to eat in home economics.

I agree, exams aren't the best way to go about things.

Primary schools are moving along with the times in these ways people are discussing, not first and and that kind of thing. but as I said consumer science which can be looking at the ways in which information is misconstrued on packaging and advertising in order to convey an unrealistic view of how their product matches up to another.

I was thinking that in Oz it's incredible people go through an entire schooling without learning survival skills... what to do in a fire/flood/cyclone/lost is the desert, first aid, poisons, firemaking (and fighting!) etc. My daughter was a world expert in a minute slice of neurochemistry, given the level of research she had to do in final year biology.. but didn't know how to recognise that she had a broken arm. Nuts.

I remember a story about this kid who could do all this stuff, but failed those classes involving those things because they didn't have any actual use in real life. "He builts a wooden trailerfor his uncle's car, and it was sanded to perfection. When he came to school, he failed to make a broom and lost a grade. 'Why does I make a broom when my momma's got a perfectly good vacuum cleaner at home?'"

Exams are just an easy way to judge someone through teh number.

Don't forget the lack of certain classes too. My school doesn't have philosophy, and it took out Chinese and Italian, because of the lack of funding/teachers. I wish I got to go to Langley Fine Arts. ): They have Dance AND Hip Hop as a class. And ITALIAN. Dx

Two subjects that I believe are absolutely critical:

1) Statistics. Too many people are fooled or mystified by statistics. For example: Hype: ANTIDEPRESSANTS CAUSE SUICIDE IN TEENAGERS!!! In reality, a single study found an increase from about 1/100,000 to 2/100,000 during the first 4 weeks of therapy only. We need to teach people some basic statistical methods and thinking so that they can learn to think critically about some of these things that get bandied around by the news.

2) Basic health science. People need to know what a virus is. What a bacterium is. Why antibiotics can't treat a virus. Basically, "health class" should be re-done into a "human biology" course. And it should also include sex ed and stuff. AND First Aid and CPR. Every student over the age of 12 should have that required every year.

3) Physical education. One hour for all students. Every day. No exceptions unless you're disabled or something.

4) I disagree with philosophy. I had to study this stuff and I found it completely unhelpful. Whose philosophy should I listen to? I can't even follow the absurd reasoning of some of the older philosophers like Plato. Statistics and human biology have real uses in real life, but I have yet to find a practical use for the Kant and Rousseau to which I was subjected.

definatly first aid, the amount of hours to qualify for first aid are pretty small, by time kids graduate they should have a intermediate qualification in first aid.

also, their should be a critical thinking course, that teach's kids about bias in studies, articles, history text books etc..

And perhaps basic arithmatic would be useful?

I would have hated an hour of PE a day- it was all competetive sports I neither enjoy nor see the point in- I did my best to skive off the hour a week we did do. More variety in sports- if we'd done stuff like rock climbing or canoeing, I would have been excited about it. Hey, I might even have been good at it, rather than just being appalling at hockey. And poi wasn't an option

Not necessarily subjects, but I think there would be benefits from the addition of things like:

Meditation
Physical education (something like Tai Chi)
People / Life skills.

Docs first two are covered in most primary schools depending on the teachers, I know MY class will.

railspinner, you'll be happy to know that primary schools all over Australia at least are adopting a critical thinking approach to practically everything. Consumer science is as specific as you refer to, but its also about being an active learner, understanding the ways in which we learn best and helping the students to accomodate for these things themselves through such things as student designed experiments (this all works best in a science curriculum)

There are three kinds of people: Those who can count, and those who can't. HAHAHAHAHA!!! Nice catch!

Wow, lots of good Replies, MNS, I'm glad to hear that they're teaching consumer science in school, especially if we're going to be raised by our capitalistic society to be very much consumers. That's a breath of fresh air.

I also agree, that a generalised subject that encompasses the relevant aspects of media, social sciences, philosophy etc would be a great thing, I think that'd probably be a better way to go, as to learn the basics reaps great rewards but won't take too much time, then they can continue their studies more in depth later, if they choose.

And I also agree with those that said that First Aid should be compulsory study, it makes sense that if somebody were to get injured that anybody and everybody should have to relevant knowledge to administer aid.

The same holds true for at least basic survival skills.

As for statistics, the problem doesn't lie in the statistics themselves, it lies within the means of creating the statistics and the presentation. What you presented as "hype" wasn't a presentation of statistics, it was a presentation of those stats in a misleading way, although the statement it still true...

As for Human Biology, I agree that it's useful to know, but I don't know if it's really essential for the operation of our society, as we have specialist whom we can see to fix our problems, we don't really need to understand why viruses can't be treated with antibiotics, because a Doctor shouldn't prescribe antibiotics to a person suffering from a virus anyway.

Doc, I'm sorry you didn't find Philosophy to your liking, I imagine a large part of it's enjoyability and applicability would come from the teacher and the method of teaching. I had a very passionate and interesting teacher, and we didn't focus excessively on past-philosophers and philosophies created by others, but rather, he acted as a facilitator for philosophic discussion in the classroom, and encouraged us to nurture and create our own philosophical systems, rather than adopt somebody else's. After we'd covered a topic, we might study a philosopher who wrote on the same topic, but he felt that a large part of understanding and applicability was from evolving our minds at a pace appropriate to us; rather than taking the short-cut of walking a path previously cut-out by somebody else.

Philosophy classes are supposed to have as many teachers as there are people in the room, and the same amount of students. Having a degree only means you can think for yourself, and knowing the past philosophers. As Nathaniel said, it's supposed to be more about self discovery than simply knowing the past's ideas. I got to teach a week of philosophy as a small after school project in the 9th grade. :]

I wonder if a private school somewhere has a Poi class as an elective...
We need more certified teachers that can poi!

^^^There are a lot of certified teachers who can do (or have done) poi to a professional level. I know of three in my city

I wont get into my ideas on curriculum - from within the education industry you can see how political it all is.

I'm glad no one has suggested parenting, table manners, pet handling and teaching of good social grace should be in the curriculum

first of all i would like us to define how these subjects will be taught.

so everyone can understand, my states education system is compulsory from age 4(kindergarden) until age 16(end of grade 10).

primaryschool is generally prep (5yo, the year between kinder and grade 1) until grade six (12yo) this time i honestly cant say what i was taught but i know i learnt how to read, write, count, multiply, divide, speak a little french and italian, study the environment, playing games (some sport some not), some i chose and some were given. we were also taught other things like deadlines, punctuality and social interaction. personally i think at primary school age most of the issues you guys are talking about children are not ready for. there are basic subjects and then there are BASIC LIFE SKILLS. i would say these encompass reading, writing, arithmetic, social interactions, norms of society and basically socialising children so they have the tools necessary to develop into adults through highschool.

Highschool, in my state goes from grade 7 to grade 10 (12yo to 16yo). in highschool you have basic complusory subjects such as english, maths, science, health, and a list of optional subjects that you can choose some of. this, as a time where students (now teenagers) start to think for themselves, i think is where some of the subjects you guys are suggesting would be best introduced.

at this stage, i have to start asking questions about how you intend to introduce these subjects. assuming they are compulsory, will they be taken over multiple years building on what was previously learnt, or will they each be taken for only one year?

personally i think (as has been previously noted) many of these issues people are bringing up could be covered in a single subject such as " living in the modern world" that is compulsory and taken every year where you build on previous learnings. eg, start in grade seven with the concept of critical thinking, basic first aid, local government operation. grade eight cover media, bias, basic personal healthcare, state government operation... and so on, building a knowledge base of practical useful information thats applicable to the area and world we live in. by structuring a single unit in this way it still leaves room for other subjects for practical skills to study (i went to an all boys public school) such as trades like wood and metal work, cooking, drama, art, music, advanced maths, computing.

i have to say guys, we cant teach everyone everything, thats why we work so well as a society, because people with expertise assist people without. we may simply be aiming too high with hopes of teaching everything WITHIN the government system. i'm sure we've all learnt a lot from life experience. school really is just the BASICS of functioning in society.

to finish my standard education story, down here grades 11 and 12(16yo-18yo) are optional. you can go find a job or continue in school, generally most kids still live with their parents so there is still some guidance but you can choose education or not and you can choose all your own subjects. personally i much prefered this method of education as at that age, to finally be given the responsibility to make decisions about my future for myself was very empowering and contributed to my desire to do well in the subjects i chose because i was interested in them.

So if i did have the power to instill compulsory subjects in all schools in australia tomorrow, i would probably ask for an extension because i havent done enough study on the subject of education yet

^hehe, funny you should mention that pyrolific. I was at a steiner school for a few years in highschool and for one of our afternoon few week units of study guys and girls were split up- while the blokes got to go and hand make a set of armour (complete with handmade chainmail) we did some hybrid 'finding yourself/ confidence/ spirituality' etc thing which i didn't mind... except one of the lessons was on deportment!!!

Personally i don't think it's so much about 'what individual subjects should be taught', as than approaching education in a more wholistic, less sterile manner so that all important things can be encompassed in a way that will appeal to the majority of students, and more closely mirrors real life, thus seeming more relevant to dissillusioned teenagers etc. Lots wont find philosophy fulfilling, whoever its taught by, many hate statistics, and because these are taught separately, students can and will avoid them. Whilst I disagree with alot in the steiner system, i think its integrated approach to learning is the way to go. e.g. in grade 10 my class learnt to scuba dive, but it wasn't just a sport topic. As part of the course, we had to learn all the maths involved in calculating maximum allowable dive depths, times, and time between dives, and demonstrate competency at this. The marine ecosystem was studied, and all the species found in the local area. Dive health, and CPR. Only then could we get in the pool (and later the sea) and undertake a dive school scuba course. Interestingly philosophy/ the individual and society or something of that nature was a compulsory subject.

Conventional schooling seems to merely set students up for a career, not life. To me, all these suggestions- which i would have loved to have had in my conventional schooling time seem to be largely life/ personal skill and experience based, so it seems like it would be a good idea to approach education as about (being successful in) life, the universe and everything, not merely 'how to get a job and earn money'. my two cents!

...Failing that I'd add a 'how to combine and apply knowledge from different subjects/ disciplines to solve problems' subject, and something about taking responsibility and personal integrity.

sorry if this is off topic, have a bad tendency to go off on tangents.

Sigh... =P In Canada, Majestik, you go to grade 12. My friend likes to rub that in my face about how she's in university now.

They have recently made at least basic maths compulsory here in RSA. Also "Life Orientation" which is a mish-mash of stuff about world religion (the thought just ocurred to me to wonder if atheism and related ideas is discussed at all...), sexuality, job preparation and similar. I think that there is also a physical component (PE) as well now.

I think first aid and general emergency training should also be done.



Some of the examples I do not agree with per se, but the idea behind it I definitely believe....

pardon? surely you go to university after grade 12? we also go to university after grade 12. ages vary though, like i said my state we finish grade 12 at 18yo, other states finish grade 12 at 17yo because they done have Prep (prep is a year inbetween kindergarden and grade 1).

i agree to some extent, but that said very few people can really become an architect, a surgeon, an accountant, a chef and a pilot. not everyone has the time nor money to achieve this. that is why we need one-another. that is why we are a society and not a billion hermits that only socialise to procreate.

i think what Heinlien writes is more saying to never stop learning and discovering.

Eesh..! That would wind me up so much, I'd love to get taught properly how to do chainmail..
Mind you, one of my friends, at college, had her class split up so the guys all got to do a metalwork class, and the girls got a compulsory 'feminism' class- apparently without the college getting the irony at all..

She's a year younger and is already enrolled in university, while I'm still stuck at the 12th grade. xP

Well this is a subject having worked in the Uk education system i feel i can get involved in.

English: As much as i hate it we all need to communicate
Maths
Science
History
ICT
Performance Art
PE

But I think the entire education system should be changed so that the set curriculum is not all that is taught and should be taken more as guidence.

One of my biggist problems with the system at the moment is for example in music you cannot express yourself as a artist as you must studdy certain units. I.E Barquoe music which if you are a modern musician into for exampkle drum and bass or psytrance you cannot learn about it because you are stuck learning classical techniques which have no relevence in what you want to do. They need to encourage indivduality insted of teaching each person as if they are a robot. I just wish the goverment would relise this for the sake of all future human kind. Not that i used to be a level music student or nothing

I also think that exams are not the way forward as all they do is show somone how you work well sat down at a desk in silence it should be how you performed thoughout the year in the school.

Anyway rant over lol *hugz*

By the way sorry bout my spelling spell checker isnt being kind

peace and love

Been listening to Shpongle? =]


I think there should be 2 major classes in all ages of school:
Academia and Life Skills

We live in a world which bases our worth off of what need is currently for us, this is the main use of a school:
To mold your peg to fit the hole.

The biggest problems are 2 main things:
1) This hole is very large considering what the "average" person is capable of refining them self to, and allows for dysfunction which is good for people who cannot refine themselves, but it also lowers the bar for those of us who can.
2) Schools assume the parents of their children both have the time and are responsible and/or dedicated enough to cater to the needs of their children which a lot of the time simply is not the case, and as reluctant as most parents are THEY COULD BE BETTER. I'm not trying to rabblerouse here, I'm just saying that the level of adequacy is subjective, and people tend to want to believe that what they are doing is the right thing regardless of the room for improvement.

How can we solve these things?

-----
Time

Well, for one thing if we teach life skills that means someone of relatively young age can learn what we generally take for granted as we grow up, in the future you might see people as young as 15 living on their own and making a living wage as functional contributing members of society (as a norm).

What this means is that children growing up can go through the school system as quickly or as slowly as they want to, which means the year system would become obsolete.. a child could excel at one thing and be slow at another as it generally applies to all children... but this only means that the children can move through their studies however they want, a class that goes by quicker leaves more time to concentrate on the classes they retard at.

This means that under the legal system as we have it, the bright kids could already be year 3 uni by the time they are out of the house, where the slow kids will probably just drift by.
-----------
Focus

Life skills, for example let's take my 6 point life skills theory flowchart out *blipipipip shcrrrr crrrr*(paper flipping sounds) ah, here it is:

I've separated life skills into 6 points which relate, form synergy, and flow into each other, I'll post it some time in original and model 2 form flowchart.

I'll post really basic point form for now-

Phy: [Physical Fitness]
Physical Fitness.

Dex: [Dexterity]
Dexterity and Physical Art.

Med: [Medicine]
Medicine, Hygiene and Physical Upkeep.

Nut: [Nutrition]
Nutrition.

Mus: [Music]
Music, Time and Rhythm.

Shl: [Shell]
Planning, Possessions and Repair, Philosophy, Misc.


-------

tl;dr
I'd like to see physical education at least teach PHYSICAL EDUCATION instead of squaredancing, running laps and playing dodgeball.

And instead of just a week long class talking about hepatitis and such, eh, Lev?

Maths, History and English should definately be compulsory. Maths and English are important, everyday skills in our society, and people should be equipped to use them to the best of their abilities. History gives us a sense of where we've come from, as well as a handy way to keep track of the mistakes we've made. LOTE (Languages other than English) I reccomend for everyone, but I wouldn't necessarily make it compulsory - I beleive that it's important to learn another language and a little about different cultures as a way of bringing the world closer together (as corny as that sounds).

Philosophy, Legal Studies, and Science are all runners up - I think they're important but not 100% compulsory (as much as I love philosophy). Philosophy I beleive should include areas such as religion and arguement - my high school experience of the former was completely Roman Catholic, with a little bit of Carmelite viewpoints thrown in there. The latter I only really learnt about in any depth at university, despite the fact thta it would have been invaluable four or five years earlier. Legal studies I believe is important similar to History, and more clarity in the political arena couldn't hurt. Finally, Science should be taught for the simple fact that it helps to explain the world around us - even if it only decreases the amount of scammers in the world (glaring especially at you, fancy diets).

Also, I reckon that Scouting should be made compulsory and be given a big boost - it encompasses first aid, survival, outdoor education, problem solving, and encourages certain traits such as courtesy, obedience, environmental concern, politeness. On the flip side, not many take it as seriously as I try to do, but I beleive that it helps everyone in some small way.

We could call them The Junior Spies and The Spies. They can help to rat out perpetrators of thought crime.

I know that not everyone can be expert at everything, but I see nothing wrong with me (a geologist and computer scientist) learning advanced first aid and how to do accounts or something. The idea as I saw it was not that you would be expert, but be able to do pretty much anything if you had to.

So if I can not find a doctor if someone breaks an arm or whatever, that at least I can do something about it apart from panic....