I loev it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
AP Euro History almost single-handedly led me to dropping out of high school. Well, that and the drugslavadisk wrote:
I'm in advanced placement European history and I love it more than any other history themed class I've been in.
Poll
At what age is it Ok for kids to learn about Politics in school?
| Before 10 | 28% | 28% - 24 | ||||
| Between 10 and 12 | 8% | 8% - 7 | ||||
| Between 12 and 15 | 28% | 28% - 24 | ||||
| After 15 | 35% | 35% - 30 | ||||
| Total: 85 | ||||||
i think that kids need to be exposed to the idea of politics early but not given a bias... let them make up there own minds.
They should be discussed and debated shortly after kids learn to read.usmarine2005 wrote:
I don't actually see how one could teach politics.
Well, here's an actual children's book on sale now:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
They should be discussed and debated shortly after kids learn to read.
If they teach kids about the processes involved they might be less influenced by that propaganda shit.Pug wrote:
Well, here's an actual children's book on sale now:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
They should be discussed and debated shortly after kids learn to read.
http://www.worldaheadpublishing.com/media/LUMB-o.gif
If they teach kids to think for themselves then they would recognize the process for the corrupted clusterfuck of a election that it really is and get a decent third party going.
yes.
Apathy is the lowest form of human existence.
As soon as they're old enough to think for themselves (which is about 12 years of age from my experience), show them the real world.
As soon as they're old enough to think for themselves (which is about 12 years of age from my experience), show them the real world.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Who cares?Spark wrote:
[b]Apathy is the lowest form of human existence.
I get it.chittydog wrote:
Who cares?Spark wrote:
[b]Apathy is the lowest form of human existence.
But I agree about the apathy thing. Its really fucking annoying when somebody you're discussing something with all of a sudden acts like the transitional topic at hand doesn't really matter.
It is not the school's place to teach kids about politics. Parents should be the ones to teach their children about politics. All of my teachers are so biased in one direction or the other that they try to impress their opinions upon the students eough as it is.
The real problem here is why are our teachers so bad that they have to impose their own opinions into the curriculum. Education and the news both need a kick in the teeth to remind them that their jobs are to inform us of facts, not to spread their own interpretations of those facts. If students ask for those interpretations, go ahead and give them, but the opinions should not be the crux of the lesson. The media has the same problem now. No one wants to tell you what happened, they want to tell you what you should think about what happened.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
It is not the school's place to teach kids about politics. Parents should be the ones to teach their children about politics. All of my teachers are so biased in one direction or the other that they try to impress their opinions upon the students eough as it is.
Kids can think for themselves as soon as they exist. The only barrier I see is it's hard to educate them about a topic like this before they can read, both from a patience perspective and the ability to parse information.Spark wrote:
Apathy is the lowest form of human existence.
As soon as they're old enough to think for themselves (which is about 12 years of age from my experience), show them the real world.
Read the OP that's exactly what it says.Pug wrote:
WinDrunkFace wrote:
QFT, I voted for before 10, because reading the OP that's what he means.FEOS wrote:
Politics shouldn't be taught in school.
Civics, on the other hand, is taught at various points in school here in the US. The difference between the two being: politics is opinion, civics is the facts about how the government works.You can teach how the government system works, you can even teach what each political party stands for and is responsible for doing. What you can't do is say which one is better or who is right.sergeriver wrote:
I'm not talking about partisan propaganda, just politics, the voting process, the different sides of a political spectrum, how laws are conceived, constitutional rights and other sutff.
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-14 03:05:48)
+1 good post.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If they teach kids to think for themselves then they would recognize the process for the corrupted clusterfuck of a election that it really is and get a decent third party going.
And your parents aren't?Deadmonkiefart wrote:
It is not the school's place to teach kids about politics. Parents should be the ones to teach their children about politics. All of my teachers are so biased in one direction or the other that they try to impress their opinions upon the students eough as it is.
Read the OP at least.sergeriver wrote:
Politics whether you like it or not is a very important part of your life, by which you make decisions that will affect your future and the future of your family. I'm not talking about partisan propaganda, just politics, the voting process, the different sides of a political spectrum, how laws are conceived, constitutional rights and other sutff. In most countries you'll be able to vote at the age 18. So, at what age do you consider it's ok for kids lo learn about politics?
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-14 03:12:00)
Serge, I was merely pointing out a difference in terms for us here in the US. What you call politics in your OP, we call civics.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
No, we have civics here all through the elementary school and the Highschool. However, I think they should teach you more than that. It's very common an 18 years kid not knowing anything at the time to vote, they don't know the candidates, and they don't understand their proposals. Then you have shitty presidents elected.FEOS wrote:
Serge, I was merely pointing out a difference in terms for us here in the US. What you call politics in your OP, we call civics.
I'm aware of that. I was making editorial comments on the topic. Even at the base level "Republicans are X and Democrats are Y", a teacher is still going to interject bias. The problem is if the class is "Politics" and not "Civics" - meaning how are you going to fill out the school year with only politics?sergeriver wrote:
Read the OP that's exactly what it says.
For example, it's possible the teacher is going to need to spend a whole day on the abortion debate. And the teacher is Catholic. I certainly would not trust that teacher to discuss it without undo influence. Teachers are supposed to be neutral.
So I'm saying it's almost impossible to accomplish a "Politics only" class without falling into this trap.
I hope this clarifies.
Researching the candidates is the responsibility of each voter...not the school system. Schools should stick to teaching objective facts. Give the students the resources/references to go learn about each of the candidates, but don't teach them the candidates' positions.sergeriver wrote:
No, we have civics here all through the elementary school and the Highschool. However, I think they should teach you more than that. It's very common an 18 years kid not knowing anything at the time to vote, they don't know the candidates, and they don't understand their proposals. Then you have shitty presidents elected.FEOS wrote:
Serge, I was merely pointing out a difference in terms for us here in the US. What you call politics in your OP, we call civics.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Pretty much.Pug wrote:
I'm aware of that. I was making editorial comments on the topic. Even at the base level "Republicans are X and Democrats are Y", a teacher is still going to interject bias. The problem is if the class is "Politics" and not "Civics" - meaning how are you going to fill out the school year with only politics?sergeriver wrote:
Read the OP that's exactly what it says.
For example, it's possible the teacher is going to need to spend a whole day on the abortion debate. And the teacher is Catholic. I certainly would not trust that teacher to discuss it without undo influence. Teachers are supposed to be neutral.
So I'm saying it's almost impossible to accomplish a "Politics only" class without falling into this trap.
I hope this clarifies.
But you need to teach them the tools to understand those positions.FEOS wrote:
Researching the candidates is the responsibility of each voter...not the school system. Schools should stick to teaching objective facts. Give the students the resources/references to go learn about each of the candidates, but don't teach them the candidates' positions.sergeriver wrote:
No, we have civics here all through the elementary school and the Highschool. However, I think they should teach you more than that. It's very common an 18 years kid not knowing anything at the time to vote, they don't know the candidates, and they don't understand their proposals. Then you have shitty presidents elected.FEOS wrote:
Serge, I was merely pointing out a difference in terms for us here in the US. What you call politics in your OP, we call civics.
kids by nature have no interest in politics. perhaps if they were to learn it alongside other curriculum at a young age (thus making it more integral to their education) it would feel more commonplace and they'd be more interested. otherwise, it must come on their own terms. i didn't begin my foray into politics until around 14, and that was only because, for some reason, it interested me. most of my friends are at least partially versed on the subject, but most of the kids at my school couldn't name their house representatives.
That's just logic and critical thinking...which is covered elsewhere in the curriculum. There's no reason to have it specific to politics. Otherwise, you fall into the trap Pug so eloquently described.sergeriver wrote:
But you need to teach them the tools to understand those positions.FEOS wrote:
Researching the candidates is the responsibility of each voter...not the school system. Schools should stick to teaching objective facts. Give the students the resources/references to go learn about each of the candidates, but don't teach them the candidates' positions.sergeriver wrote:
No, we have civics here all through the elementary school and the Highschool. However, I think they should teach you more than that. It's very common an 18 years kid not knowing anything at the time to vote, they don't know the candidates, and they don't understand their proposals. Then you have shitty presidents elected.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular