An Eighth Grade Education

[Reach]

What it took to graduate from 8th grade in 1895...

 

 

EXAMINATION GRADUATION QUESTIONS

OF SALINE COUNTY, KANSAS

April 13, 1895

J.W. Armstrong, County Superintendent.

 

 

Examinations at Salina, New Cambria, Gypsum City, Assaria, Falun, Bavaria, and District No. 74 (in Glendale Twp.)

 

Reading and Penmanship. - The Examination will be oral, and the Penmanship of Applicants will be graded from the manuscripts.

 

*****

 

GRAMMAR

(Time, one hour)

 

1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.

2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.

3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.

4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of do, lie, lay and run.

5. Define Case. Illustrate each case.

6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.

7-10 Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

 

*****

 

ARITHMETIC

(Time, 1 ¼ hour)

 

1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.

2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?

3. If a load of wheat weights 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50 cts. Per bu., deducting 1050 lbs for tare?

4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?

5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.

6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 per cent.

7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per m?

8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 per cent.

9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around which is 640 rods?

10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

 

*****

 

U.S. HISTORY

(Time, 45 minutes)

 

1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.

2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.

3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.

4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.

5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.

6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.

7. Who were the following: Morse, Whtney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?

8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, and 1865.

 

*****

 

ORTHOGRAPHY

(Time, one hour)

 

1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic orthogaphy, etymology, syllabication?

2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?

3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?

4. Give four substitutes for caret “u”.

5. Give two rules for spelling words with final “e”. Name two exceptions under each rule.

6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.

7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: Bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, super.

8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: Card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.

9. Use the following correctly in sentences: Cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.

10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

 

*****

 

GEOGRAPHY

(Time, one hour)

 

1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?

2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?

3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?

4. Describe the mountains of N.A.

5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall, and Orinoco.

6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.

7. Name all the republics of Europe and give capital of each.

8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?

9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.

10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give inclination of the earth.

 

 

1. Where are the saliva, gastric juice, and bile secreted? What is the use of each in digestion?

2. How does nutrition reach the circulation?

3. What is the function of the liver? Of the kidneys?

4. How would you stop the flow of blood from an artery in the case of laceration?

5. Give some general directions that you think would be beneficial to preserve the human body in a state of health.

 

*****

 

RULES FOR TEACHERS

1872

 

1. Teachers each day will fill lamps, clean chimneys.

2. Each teacher will bring a bucket of water and a scuttle of coal for the day’s session.

3. Make your pens carefully. You may whittle nibs to the individual taste of the pupils.

4. Men teachers may take one evening each week for courting purposes, or two evenings a week if they go to church regularly.

5. After ten hours in school, the teachers may spend the remaining time reading the Bible or other good books.

6. Women teachers who marry or engage in unseemly conduct will be dismissed.

7. Every teacher should lay aside from each pay a goodly sum of his earnings for his benefit during his declining years so that he will not become a burden on society.

8. Any teacher who smokes, uses liquor in any form, frequents pool or public halls, or gets shaved in a barber shop will give good reason to suspect his worth, intention, integrity and honesty.

9. The teacher who performs his labor faithfully and without fault for five years will be given an increase of twenty-five cents per week in his pay, providing the Board of Education approves.

 

*****

 

SOURCE: This was transcribed from the original document in the collection of the Smoky Valley Genealogy Society, Salina, Kansas. This test is the original eighth-grade final exam for 1895 from Salina, KS. An interesting note is the fact that the county students taking this test were allowed to take the test in the 7th grade, and if they did not pass the test at that time, they were allowed to re-take it again in the 8th grade.

 

 

KSGENWEB INTERNET GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY COPYRIGHT NOTICE: In keeping with the KSGenWeb policy of providing free information on the Internet, this data may be used by non-commercial entities, as long as this message remains on all copied material. These electronic pages cannot be reproduced in any format for profit or other gain. Copying of the files within by non-commercial individuals and libraries is encouraged. Any other use, including publication, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission by electronic, mechanical, or other means requires the written approval of the file's author.

 

Source: Smoky Valley Genealogical Society

[Caretaker]

Now the question is......How well did students of the time do on it?

[pandora]

Interesting. So men could court but women couldn't even marry? I know that is not the point of the post, but it struck me. I didn't realize teachers were under such harsh rules.

[Reach]

I think that "graduation" from 8th grade was the end of public schooling altogether.  After that people either went on to get higher educations or something else.  Many women of that time held teaching jobs right after they graduated, not uncommon to have a 14-15 year old teach school.

And do you think that a typical eighth grade graduate in the USA today could handle teaching a class?

 

How would our 12th graders do on that test?

 

I'm not sure whether to laugh my head off or go and throw up.

[Alice]

I wonder how many of these questions would have been answered by children who had been naturally educated ... (just been reading your blog Serenity!)

[Vigile]

or gets shaved in a barber shop will give good reason to suspect his worth, intention, integrity and honesty

 

 

 

As for the test, I don't know. If they studied specifically those particular subjects it shouldn't be that difficult.

[Alice]

LOL...Hesistent.  Actually, we've got a book on hand The American Revolution for Kids put out by the Smithsonian Institute.  It's wonderful and they could pass that part of the test most definately and they are only 7 and 11.  They'd probably do well on the parts of speech as well.  If they took it now, they wouldn't pass (unless they studied much of what is on there), just like some kids that went to school back then didn't pass (despite studying), just like some kids at school today wouldn't pass (despite studying), just like many college people wouldn't pass it either. 

 

I have a Christian friend that uses the books from back then and they carry through the entire learning years.  I've seen the questions in the mathbooks, Blue-Back Spellers, grammar, McGuffey Readers (I have the entire set), Ray's Arithmetic,  looks a lot different and more difficult from today's books.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It probably didn't come across - but I think a much more fluid approach to education is a good thing. We have this ongoing debate in the UK about how 'exams were tougher in the old days'. I'm not so sure - just different I think. I suspect that a lot of students who studied and passed the test described, had learnt a whole load of stuff off by heart.

 

If I had my time over again with my kids - I'd take them out of mainstream education and let them go sooner where their heads want to take them (watching my eldest two embarking on the first bit of education that was their choice at 16yrs was a wonderful thing!)

[Reach]

If I had my time over again with my kids - I'd take them out of mainstream education and let them go sooner where their heads want to take them...<snip>

Perhaps obeying the Biblical injunction to "train up a child in the way he should go?"

[pandora]

Considering that rote memorization was about the way they learned back then, I bet that they did well on them.

 

These days, students are encouraged to conceptualize and think abstractly. I think this is an improvement. While we may not know as many facts, we know how to "think" better. I am pretty sure the students back then would not do well on our exams either. Most of it is cultural and not an indication of actual intelligence, IMO.

[Eponymic]

Considering that rote memorization was about the way they learned back then, I bet that they did well on them.

 

These days, students are encouraged to conceptualize and think abstractly.  I think this is an improvement.  While we may not know as many facts, we know how to "think" better.  I am pretty sure the students back then would not do well on our exams either.  Most of it is cultural and not an indication of actual intelligence, IMO.

 

I think that the pendulum has swung too far towards being utterly lenient & lax towards standards nowadays. Sure give kids some room to play & conceptualize, but you still have to be willing to push them to excel & teach them some self-discipline, respect, and other important traits that are decidedly lacking nowadays.

[Alice]

Are you aware of any PNEU (Parent National Education Union) schools in your neck of the woods?  They are modeled after the 19th Century Educator, Charlotte Mason?  They are far from traditional schools, of course your children are above the age and are doing great but perhaps you know of someone who may like a change.  Charlotte Mason is one of my greatest inspirations.  I don't follow the whole method but have taken a lot of her teachings and applied them to our lives.  Your avatar makes me think of her all the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've not heard of PNEU. I've spent quite a lot of time looking into the alternative schools set up in the UK by a guy called Satish Kumar. (He has had an amazing life - he was a pupil of Gandhi - so he had some inspirational teaching himself!)

 

He has a whole system of schools based on a particular philosophy - he talks about educators being 'enchanters not enforcers'. I love the way he writes. My eldest two both intend to remove their children if and when they have them - from mainstream school into something similar. Here's a link to some articles if you're interested.

 

Click here

[Alice]

Lax?  In the schools?  You are aware of the state standards aren't you?  I've been told by numerous teachers that they can hardly teach the way they want to anymore because of the testing standards.  Kids are coming home all stressed out because they can get straight A's in school but if they don't pass the test they get held back.  I see no lax in that at all. 

 

[

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed - it's nothing but tests in the UK. And the funding schools here recieve is based in part on their test results, so teachers are fixed on 'good results'. I have had a glorious row with the Headmaster at our village school, each time one of my kids was heading for their age 10 SATS tests.

 

The parents of 'gifted' kids are called into the school for a special meeting - advised to buy revision booklets and to spend extra time putting the kids through practice exams to enhance the results the school can come up with. The kids are 9 and 1o years old at this point and some of them get so stressed they cry themselves to sleep. Not my kids, I tell them to have fun, do their best ... but that the results MATTER NOT.

 

I'm afraid I ruined several such meetings with my crazy ideas that kids shouldn't be labelled at such a tender age nor be taught that 'top marks' say anything much about who they are.

 

Got to the stage where the headteacher would start rolling his eyes as soon as he saw me!

[Lizard]

Lax?  In the schools?  You are aware of the state standards aren't you?  I've been told by numerous teachers that they can hardly teach the way they want to anymore because of the testing standards.  Kids are coming home all stressed out because they can get straight A's in school but if they don't pass the test they get held back.  I see no lax in that at all. 

 

[

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly..but they are only teaching the tests..not real teaching, IMO. Its all about the scores, whether they really understand it or not, is another matter.

 

When I went to school, we were taught to read phonetically. I quit school in the 10th grade, later to get my GED. When I went to take further tests for college entrance, I had a post college reading level..even though I didn't "really" finish high school!

 

Now, my children, when they went to school were learning to read by sight words. "Map, cap, tap, lap, etc." one week. But..if you showed them "tat", they couldn't figure it out until they got to the -at words.

 

They are all adults now..and I don't think any of them can even read at high school level..which really makes me angry. I did try to teach them phonetics..but it clashed with what the teacher was teaching and just didn't go too far.

 

My oldest, being deaf had no choice but to learn to read by sight words..would be kind of asinine to tell him to "sound it out"..my middle son seems to have the same thing my sister's boys had. He can read the words with hardly any retention.

 

My daughter, on the other hand, just had little interest in learning once she reached middle school (boys and other things occupied her mind), but she could read music and play violin really well.

 

A question though. All of these standardized tests..what are they really testing? If they are simply teaching the test..they are only testing that. Its stacked. These are things they should know..in the course of learning.

[Amethyst]

6. Women teachers who marry or engage in unseemly conduct will be dismissed.

 

That's just sad. They weren't allowed to even get married? Which state was this from?

[Eponymic]

Lax?  In the schools?  You are aware of the state standards aren't you?  I've been told by numerous teachers that they can hardly teach the way they want to anymore because of the testing standards.  Kids are coming home all stressed out because they can get straight A's in school but if they don't pass the test they get held back.  I see no lax in that at all. 

 

[

 

That's because kids have no discipline & respect for learning. The standards are still infinitely lower than they have been in the past.

[Ro-bear]

I think rote memorization is under-rated. Much of the material I memorized became quite useful when I learned how to synthesize it. Every bit of knowledge is like another tool in the belt of the lifelong learner.

 

The bottom line is that children must be challenged by their teachers, parents, and, above all themselves. You can lead a horse to water...

 

Or, as Alexander Pope put it:

 

“a little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”

[Cerise]

That's because kids have no discipline & respect for learning. The standards are still infinitely lower than they have been in the past.

 

 

Obviously you have never seen a fourteen year old put in hours of effort, practice, and sometimes reserach in order to master the latest video or PC game.

 

Learning how to navigate the world of MYST or Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell might not be considered a "proper" education, but it is still, by definition, learning.

 

Kids have no respect for learning things they see as "useless" or "irrelevent" however, 'tis true. Though I suspect that would apply to any age group, not just children.

[IvyFairy]

Saline County - Kansas...

Salina, Kansas eh???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was born in Salina. HeHeHe..

My Great-Great Grand Father was one of the founding settlers in Salina/Abilene, KS.

I wonder if my Great Grand Father took that test.

[Casey]

I think rote memorization is under-rated. Much of the material I memorized became quite useful when I learned how to synthesize it. Every bit of knowledge is like another tool in the belt of the lifelong learner.

 

The bottom line is that children must be challenged by their teachers, parents, and, above all themselves. You can lead a horse to water...

 

Or, as Alexander Pope put it:

 

“a little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”

 

I remember a lot of rote learning when I was growing up. In particular I remember having to learn certain rules of Euclidean Geometry in this way. However I was never given the vaguest hint as to why I had to learn these rules.

 

It was only when I when I joined an ARES (Reserve Infantry) Batallion as a young teenager with not much better to do, that some things came clear at last, and then only when I was being trained as a Mortar Number (Crewman).

 

Take a Section (two) of these weapons. They are indirect-fire weapons which have to be positioned according to a strict procedure; no slackness can be tolerated. You want to hit the other side's people, not yours. Now a Section, a Platoon of Four, or the full Mortar Platoon is habitually placed in a linear formation, 20 meters apart, each weapon being numbered from the right, with the Number One being placed 5 paces I think it was, behind the line. There were other formations but a linear formation was the most common.

 

We were drilled over and over again how to set them up, believe you me. They all had their sights set exactly the same, Bearing 6400 mils, Elevation 1100 mils. A mil is short for miliradian, roughly 1/6,400 of a circle. Yet if they were fired then and there, the belt of fire ( the pattern in which the rounds strike, roughly) would be all over the place "like a mad woman's custard" as our Instructors would say.

 

Our Regular Instructors especially were known to say a good deal more colourful things about women in particular and things in general, but for the sake of political correctness I had better not quote them further. Suffice it to say Robear, that if you were to use even some of the milder of their expressions (in particular the ones they used when displeased) your career might come to an abrubt end, but I'll give them this, they were absolutely the finest teachers I've ever known. It was said of them that they could teach a monkey to eat with a knife and fork, and I wouldn't doubt it.

 

To return to our little problem, the barrels had to all point exactly the same way. To do this, the order "Base Mortar Number One, parallel by sights!" was given. The Section or Platoon Commander would take over the Number One Mortar's sight unit. Every other Number 1 (crewman) would swivel his own sight so that he could see the Number One Mortar's sight unit in his own graticule.

 

Now the Section or Platoon Commander would proceed to use his sight to set a Deflection for the Number Two Mortar and so on down the line. He would give this as a backbearing from his own sight. This was then set as a bearing on the Number Two sight, and that Mortar's sights would then be laid on the Number One, using the objective lens of the sight as an aiming point. When this was done, its Number 1 would call "2 Ready for Recheck!", and so on down the line.

 

The Section or Platoon Commander would keep this up until the last Deflection he gave was within a mil of the one he'd given before that. We were not told the reason why this was done because there was no reason why we should know it; it was a case of monkey see, monkey do. However I could (finally) see at once the use of a certain rule of Euclidean Geometry I'd had to learn by heart.

 

When it was proved that the angles between two sights were the same, the barrels had to be pointing in the same direction or in other words, they were parallel. All this, I might point out, was expected to be done a lot faster than my description would indicate, and eventually, it was, to the accompaniment of much of the sort of soldierly swearing and cursing to which I have previously alluded.

 

Other things that we had to do were also done using Geometric Rules, such as adjusting scales and so on, but I've probably bored all of you to tears already. However two things strike me all these years later. Why did I have to learn all these rules by rote as part of a curriculum? As I've said, no one could be bothered to explain what practical use they were, and when I finally learned a practical use for one of them at last, it wouldn't have mattered in the least whether I had learned it or not. Strange, n'est ce pas?.

 

Of course, whoever devised these procedures had to know such things. I am reliably informed that the first use of indirect fire in a modern conflict happened during the Civil War when a Union Officer aloft in one of Thadeus Lowe's balloons directed the fire of a Union Battery via a telegraph link during the ill-fated Peninsular Campaign, but that is a vastly different case than mine. He had to know these rules, as a mere Number I didn't; I just had to learn how to apply them, and I could say the same for many another thing I had to learn by rote.

 

The other thing that strikes me is simply this (and this may be just me, I will admit). I was never more eager to learn in my life than when I was being taught by Regular Army Instructors; I can only think of one teacher in my school days who had a fraction of the sway these men held over me, and, to be frank about it, they were teaching me how to kill other people, for that of course was their business, and all of them being combat veterans, they were quite good at it.

 

I do not regret this, but you know, now and then you'll hear christians say (for the most part unaware they are quoting Martin Luther by the way), "It's a pity the devil has the best music." Is it not similarly a pity (if only in my case) that the Regular Army should have had the best teachers?

Casey

[woodsmoke]

Obviously you have never seen a fourteen year old put in hours of effort, practice, and sometimes reserach in order to master the latest video or PC game.

 

Learning how to navigate the world of MYST or Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell might not be considered a "proper" education, but it is still, by definition, learning.

 

Kids have no respect for learning things they see as "useless" or "irrelevent" however, 'tis true.  Though I suspect that would apply to any age group, not just children.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Heh, I can attest to this. I've invested exponentially more time into all three incarnations of Civilization, Dynasty Warriors 3-5, Medievil, Fable, and at least a dozen others than I ever did into homework.

 

Same thing for books. I almost literally devoured The Count of Monte Cristo, Les Miserables, The Three Musketeers and Dracula. Some less celebrated titles just off the top of my head include A Short History of Nearly Everything, Horse Tradin', Some More Horse Tradin', Salt: A World History, How the Irish Saved Civilization, The Celts, (I forget the subtitle, if there even was one) Gates of Fire, The Dispossessed, Darwin's Children and every account of Greek/Norse/Celtic mythology I could get my hands on. Mind you, I usually read these during class when I should have been paying attention to the material being presented.

 

From all of these books and a fair amount of the videogames, even, I've learned things that I never would have picked up from a conventional education; and more importantly, I enjoyed doing it.

 

There are exceptions (I had no real interest in learning automobile maintenance until I got my bike), but it's my experience that most children will gobble up any knowledge available to them so long as it's their choice to do so. For many people it's simple human nature to thumb our noses at authority figures appointed without any input from us, so it really doesn't come as that great of a surprise that many children--when set down in a classroom, told to strictly "BEHAVE!" and have the cirriculum of what's dictated for them to learn shoved forcefully in their faces--get an attitude and tell the teacher "you can't make me!"

 

Then again, I'm the first to admit that I'm about the furthest thing possible from an expert on human psychology and behavior. It's entirely possible I'm completely wrong here, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Ro-Bear could summon dozens of accounts in his experience as a teacher that would put me firmly in my place. I'm pretty good at expressing my opinions real loud, but I'm still learning just like the rest of you.

[Cerise]

May I ask if you have read any John Holt books?  Your philosophy is extremely similiar (I'd say exactly but I haven't read any, only what I've learned from the unschooling community about him) and it is a philosophy that I admire, respect and am trying to use full force with my children.

 

Being a highschool drop-out and/or homeschooler didn't seem to have a negative impact on any of the following 697 famous people from actors to singer, to Presidents to Millionaires, to fashion designers, etc. etc.  http://www.angelfire.com/stars4/lists/dropouts.html  Quote from site.......

Billionaires:  18

Millionaires:  uncounted

U.S. Presidents:  8

Astronauts:  1  (Valentina Tereshkova)

Nobel Prize Winners:  10  (6 Literature, 2 Peace, 1 Physics, 1 Chemistry)

Nobel Prize Nominees:  11  (includes above and Heather Mills)

Olympic Medal Winners:  8  (7 Gold Medalists, one Silver Medalist)

Oscar Winners:  61

Oscar Nominees:  101  (includes above)

Other Award Winners:  uncounted

Best-Selling Authors:  55

Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients (U.S.'s highest civilian honor):  13

Congressional Gold Medal recipients (U.S.): 12

United Nations Goodwill Ambassadors:  2  (Roger Moore, Angelina Jolie)

Knighthoods:  27

Damehoods:  3

Missing are Venus and Serena Williams (homeschoolers).  Also, the new roommate on Zoey 101 is with the umbrella school that I'm under here in FL, that supports our learning styles.

 

I'm not one for theory, so I don't think I've come across John Holt, although every so often I'll come across the "unschooling" philosophy in pedagogy articles and the like. Most of my philosophy concerning education just spands from my experience inside the system, both from a student and (recently) a teaching position.

 

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that what you don't care about, you don't learn. At most you could memorize certain facts on a subject you have no curiosity towards, and be able to regurgitate it enough to write a test or use it as reference for a brief period of time, but that the mind can only hold on so long to subjects that don't stem from neccessity or interest before you forget.

I've heard it said that the process of learning is more important then the subject being learned, which could very well be true, but in that case, why deal with a set curriculum altogether?

[Eponymic]

Obviously you have never seen a fourteen year old put in hours of effort, practice, and sometimes reserach in order to master the latest video or PC game.

 

Learning how to navigate the world of MYST or Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell might not be considered a "proper" education, but it is still, by definition, learning.

 

Kids have no respect for learning things they see as "useless" or "irrelevent" however, 'tis true.  Though I suspect that would apply to any age group, not just children.

 

That's exactly my point. There energy is directed, but no one is teaching them how to focus into areas other than entertainment.

[Alice]

That's because kids have no discipline & respect for learning. The standards are still infinitely lower than they have been in the past.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I really struggle with statements like that! Sounds like you think it's the kids fault! Respect for learning has to be inspired. That's the job of the adults.

 

Standards are lower based on what? Pop a computer in front of one of the star pupils from the eighth grade test we've been looking at and they wouldn't know where to find the on button. Education needs to be relevent.

 

That's exactly my point. There energy is directed, but no one is teaching them how to focus into areas other than entertainment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who decides what merits the label 'educational' and what is relegated to 'entertainment'? These terms are used in such value laden ways in discussions about the 'state of education today'.

 

My second child is a very talented musician. When he was 11 years old he suddenly announced that he no longer wished to have piano lessons. I was devastated and spent a good deal of time stomping round the house and muttering 'bloody playstation' under my breath. Friends and family advised me to insist he continue - 'he'll regret it later on in life', I was told. I noticed that this advice was given by family members who had been forced to have paino lessons. I noticed that few of them played anymore.

 

For the next two or three years the sound of my son's piano playing fading from the house and was replaced by the sound of rapid thumb clicking and simulated gunfire.

 

One day he discovered a computer game series that captured his soul and before long he was downloading the musical score from the internet, finding out everything he could about the composer and spending hours at the piano practicing pieces until he could recreate the soundtrack. And then he started writing his own.

 

When his girfriend emigrated to Australia with her family in the middle of his final year of schooling he composed the most poignant piece of music I've ever heard (ok so maybe there's a bit of motherlove bias in there - but it propelled him from an expected average pass in his exam to the top grade).

 

He sets off to university on saturday. He will be studing for a degree in digital music composition. The degree combines his two passions of music and computers. He hopes to leave equipped for his dream job - composing music for computer games. OK - so he's probably not going to save the planet with these skills - but he's likely to contribute to a whole load of people's happiness as well as his own.

 

I'm so glad I didn't tie him to the piano stool when he was 11yrs old.

[Reach]

Historical data bear out that American students graduating from America's government schools are more illiterate every decade and that's been true for most of the last century. Apparently, things are going better in other parts of the world. Whatever these American students are accomplishing in other fields, they are struggling with writing and spelling and the thought processes involved in writing a paper of any type. We can argue all day about the changes in education and curriculum but at the end of the day, English language comprehension is easily testable. That's the case even when one makes all the adjustments for social status or immigrant (ESL) status. I am of the belief, based on the students I have known and the statistics I read, that a home-schooled child's education usually far exceeds the education of the child "privileged" (and forced) to attend the government schools. I commend those parents who make the necessary sacrifices to home-school their children. You guys are wonderful! Hats off to you!

 

By the way, have you noticed how many people on this site, under their avatars, have mispelled the word atheist? They are unable to correctly spell the very label with which they choose to identify themselves. That's a sample of America's government education when it comes to the English language.

[Vigile]

Historical data bear out that American students graduating from America's government schools are more illiterate every decade and that's been true for most of the last century. Apparently, things are going better in other parts of the world. Whatever these American students are accomplishing in other fields, they are struggling with writing and spelling and the thought processes involved in writing a paper of any type. We can argue all day about the changes in education and curriculum but at the end of the day, English language comprehension is easily testable. That's the case even when one makes all the adjustments for social status or immigrant (ESL) status. I am of the belief, based on the students I have known and the statistics I read, that a home-schooled child's education usually far exceeds the education of the child "privileged" (and forced) to attend the government schools. I commend those parents who make the necessary sacrifices to home-school their children. You guys are wonderful! Hats off to you!

 

<Putting on my conspiracy theory hat for just a moment>

 

Does anyone suppose there is an agenda behind this trend? For example, the PRI party in Mexico, which ruled for years prior to the Fox victory, purposely lowered education standards in certain regions since ignorance favored their ongoing success - primarily in the rural areas where they had great support through their successful populist propaganda campaigns.

 

I'm not arguing it, just throwing it out there.

 

<removing conspiracy theory hat now>