Canada's Education System May Not Be As Good As Some May Think

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by peter12

seriously, jolinar wiped the floor with you guys.

rotflmao

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

How do you propose writing and reading should be taught if students are never exposed to anything good?

The fact is, most of the research out there shows that "teaching grammar" as a subject unto itself is a waste of time. But you can achieve a lot by mediating students' exposure to a wide range of cultural sources, especially those that they might not encounter outside of the classroom.

Besides, Shakespeare is really, really good. There are two types of people--those who appreciate and love Shakespeare, and those who don't appreciate him--yet--because they haven't been introduced to him in the right way. I've converted more undergrads than I can count--and it's not because I'm an amazing teacher. It really is compelling, amazing stuff--if your teacher starts by teaching you how to read it.

Which, not for nothing--adds reading ability to your roster of life skills.

Teaching grammar is a waste of time? Really? In my grade 12 year kids didn't even know proper grammar. Our teacher was having one hell of a time marking certain papers because of the inability to properly write a paragraph. What does Shakespeare benefit kids like that?

I know, grammar isn't taught in grade 12 because you're expected to know it already. Well, that obviously just points out problems in the younger grades.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I know you were just teasing, but just pointing out for those that didn't understand.

I have 3 comments to this post.

1. as far as the "right brain" comment is concerned, took me probably 5x's as much time to understand Hamlet (credit the teacher who spent time with me before and after class to understand it). And when I did understand it, I thought it was masterpiece of writing. I also learned to appreciate MacBeth, after 4x's the amount of time to understand it as well (same teacher, again credit him for his time). If I were to pickup a Shakespear play or a poem, I would still have no idea WTH Shakespear is saying, and need a ton of help and 5x's as much time to understand what he's saying. Poetry, same thing.

So, is Shakespear really necessary? As "right brain" development, why not art? I would love to appreciate art, and I actually dated a girl who was into that for a while, and had her try and get me into appreciating it. It was a hopeless cause, I still can't tell the difference between a Mona Lisa and the artists who sell their work on the streets on Paris.

Thats not to say I am "right brain" impaired - there is some stuff I appreciate and have a certain level of creativity. It just doesn't happen to be languages or arts. So, is it really necessary to teach languages in a "artsy" form?

2. writing/reading of "professionals" ... pick up any scientific textbook or paper, and tell me you can understand what they wrote after reading it only once. Ask an engineer (probably science as well) how long it takes them to read a science textbook or paper, the usual response you'll get is 10 minutes per page. concern?

3. one of my good friends is actually a young teacher (25 years old, teaches high school) and its really cool how he's incorporating "in" technology into the classroom. (just to verify your last comment)

I had the same problem. But once I finally did understand Hamlet or Macbeth I thought to myself what a colossal waste of time it is.

I have no problem reading either. We did a lot of book studies in English class(Lord of the Flies, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc, etc) and I could speedread through those books in a few short classes and write very decent papers on the various subjects we were discussing.

But then again, I enjoyed those books because they made sense. I could relate to the writing style, the questions and how they relate to me and my life. But Shakespeare always came across as a cheesy story written in a complex language. And often it was a cheesy love story.

Poetry I had a problem understanding too, but once I did.....I liked it. It was interesting, and eventually I got into liking a complex poem and trying to figure it out.

Maybe I am biased because my teacher never really came down to our level while she taught Shakespeare, but when I talked to many of the kids in my class including those who excelled at it -- they saw no point in learning it either.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Azure

I had the same problem. But once I finally did understand Hamlet or Macbeth I thought to myself what a colossal waste of time it is.

I have no problem reading either. We did a lot of book studies in English class(Lord of the Flies, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc, etc) and I could speedread through those books in a few short classes and write very decent papers on the various subjects we were discussing.

But then again, I enjoyed those books because they made sense. I could relate to the writing style, the questions and how they relate to me and my life. But Shakespeare always came across as a cheesy story written in a complex language. And often it was a cheesy love story.

Poetry I had a problem understanding too, but once I did.....I liked it. It was interesting, and eventually I got into liking a complex poem and trying to figure it out.

Maybe I am biased because my teacher never really came down to our level while she taught Shakespeare, but when I talked to many of the kids in my class including those who excelled at it -- they saw no point in learning it either.

I like Shakespeare. At least you didn't have to read The Stone Angel. And in my first year English class at the U of C, we read so many obtuse books, Shakespeare was pedestrian.

And don't even begin about the books we read in Religious Studies. Yikes.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

How do you propose writing and reading should be taught if students are never exposed to anything good?

The fact is, most of the research out there shows that "teaching grammar" as a subject unto itself is a waste of time. But you can achieve a lot by mediating students' exposure to a wide range of cultural sources, especially those that they might not encounter outside of the classroom.

Besides, Shakespeare is really, really good. There are two types of people--those who appreciate and love Shakespeare, and those who don't appreciate him--yet--because they haven't been introduced to him in the right way. I've converted more undergrads than I can count--and it's not because I'm an amazing teacher. It really is compelling, amazing stuff--if your teacher starts by teaching you how to read it.

Which, not for nothing--adds reading ability to your roster of life skills.

I personally don't like Shakespeare and I never have. I have an English degree and obviously a lot of time was spent on Shakespeare including a full-year Shakespeare course, not to mention Shakespeare coming up in EVERY other English course I took. Bottom line is I just don't enjoy reading it, listening to it, watching it, etc.

The one exception is the Romeo and Juliet movie with Leo DiCaprio and Claire Danes. That was a wicked movie.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Teaching grammar is a waste of time? Really? In my grade 12 year kids didn't even know proper grammar. Our teacher was having one hell of a time marking certain papers because of the inability to properly write a paragraph. What does Shakespeare benefit kids like that?

I know, grammar isn't taught in grade 12 because you're expected to know it already. Well, that obviously just points out problems in the younger grades.

I didn't mean "it's a waste of time to know grammar." It's a waste of time to teach grammar, because that's not how people learn it. They learn it by reading, writing and talking.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I didn't mean "it's a waste of time to know grammar." It's a waste of time to teach grammar, because that's not how people learn it. They learn it by reading, writing and talking.

This is generally true. There are critical phases of language acquisition in childhood during which children learn both words and language rules at terrific speeds, and without being specifically directed to them. It is staggering how much children learn simply by reading themselves and without direction from parents or teachers.

The theory behind grammar is best learned through exposure to it, rather than instruction. I'm not sure I could even tell you what pronouns or adverbs were by the time I hit high school (probably because they hadn't come up in anything I'd read as a kid). But I didn't need to know: I could use them properly anyway.

It's kind of like expecting a kid to be able to play hockey by giving him a bunch of books about hockey rather than having him practice playing the game. It just doesn't work that way, and the kid won't be a better player for it (although, so long as he wasn't relying on Theo's book too much, it will improve his grammar).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I didn't mean "it's a waste of time to know grammar." It's a waste of time to teach grammar, because that's not how people learn it. They learn it by reading, writing and talking.

Well, nobody writes or talks like Shakespeare these days so it seems kinda ridiculous to expect kids to know proper grammer when the content that they're given will only confuse them.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, nobody writes or talks like Shakespeare these days so it seems kinda ridiculous to expect kids to know proper grammer when the content that they're given will only confuse them.

You'll find that the grammatical rules that Shakespeare follows are the same as the ones we follow. Spelling was nonstandardized in Elizabethan times, but that's normalized in most modern editions. The only difference is the vocabulary, and that's pretty easy to overcome.

So I guess I'm not getting how learning Shakespeare harms children. Unless you're just being contrary. The point is that they WILL learn grammar by reading Shakespeare, as well as by reading many many other things--and by talking about and analyzing those texts, and by writing their own thoughts about them. They'll learn grammar in the course of learning a zillion other useful life skills, including analysis, critical reasoning, argumentation and reading.

I'm sad for you that you haven't had the right English teacher yet. But I'm also jealous, because if you give it another chance you'll get to discover Shakespeare for the first time, which is an amazing experience.

[Phanuthier]

IFF - maybe I can put it another way, RE: how Shakespear "harms" children.

I'm a math teacher, and I'm teaching addition. Except I'm teaching decimal, binary, hex all at the same time, and I will interchangably teach switch between them. Sometimes, 1+1=2, sometimes 1+1=10, sometimes 4+8=12, sometimes 4+8=B. English is a skill used to communicate, so we're used to communicating in one way. We're creatures of habit. Now throw in a whole bunch of obtuse language, styles and ways things are done (some of which contract what we're "supposed" to know)... and when you are young, it confuses the hell out of you.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

IFF - maybe I can put it another way, RE: how Shakespear "harms" children.

I'm a math teacher, and I'm teaching addition. Except I'm teaching decimal, binary, hex all at the same time, and I will interchangably teach switch between them. Sometimes, 1+1=2, sometimes 1+1=10, sometimes 4+8=12, sometimes 4+8=B. English is a skill used to communicate, so we're used to communicating in one way. We're creatures of habit. Now throw in a whole bunch of obtuse language, styles and ways things are done (some of which contract what we're "supposed" to know)... and when you are young, it confuses the hell out of you.

This.

Not that I think Shakespeare actually harms kids, but I do think that it can confuse a lot of kids. Especially those that have a harder time learning.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be taught. I just think that when its being crammed down your throat in grade 9 already it can create a problem.

[RyZ]

Any kid in any high school in any year could have told you all of this on the spot any day of the week.

The curriculum that current students are taught is a joke. The education system wastes more time teaching kids about dividing complex fractional quadrilaterals (which they will never again use or see in life after the teachers chapter quiz) than we teach them about reading a map, being able to feed themselves or bartering on the price of a large purchase.

We spend so much time filling kids heads with math and history crap that they will never, ever use in real life that they have had no time being taught or learning real skills that you use on a daily basis. They don't remember the garbage being taught anyway and then they come out of high school knowing how to "kinda" use a calculator and how to not get caught smoking a joint outside the school smoke doors. It's sad and the q-tips that run the educational system are more clueless about it than the kids in class.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You'll find that the grammatical rules that Shakespeare follows are the same as the ones we follow. Spelling was nonstandardized in Elizabethan times, but that's normalized in most modern editions. The only difference is the vocabulary, and that's pretty easy to overcome.

So I guess I'm not getting how learning Shakespeare harms children. Unless you're just being contrary. The point is that they WILL learn grammar by reading Shakespeare, as well as by reading many many other things--and by talking about and analyzing those texts, and by writing their own thoughts about them. They'll learn grammar in the course of learning a zillion other useful life skills, including analysis, critical reasoning, argumentation and reading.

I'm sad for you that you haven't had the right English teacher yet. But I'm also jealous, because if you give it another chance you'll get to discover Shakespeare for the first time, which is an amazing experience.

Dude, not everyone will enjoy Shakespeare. And I refuse to believe Shakespeare is the best way to teach kids grammar...honestly, that's a ridiculous notion.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

IFF - maybe I can put it another way, RE: how Shakespear "harms" children.

I'm a math teacher, and I'm teaching addition. Except I'm teaching decimal, binary, hex all at the same time, and I will interchangably teach switch between them. Sometimes, 1+1=2, sometimes 1+1=10, sometimes 4+8=12, sometimes 4+8=B. English is a skill used to communicate, so we're used to communicating in one way. We're creatures of habit. Now throw in a whole bunch of obtuse language, styles and ways things are done (some of which contract what we're "supposed" to know)... and when you are young, it confuses the hell out of you.

I like your example, except for the part about how Shakespeare contradicts anything. Seriously--Shakespeare essentially invented modern english. The grammar, rules, sentence structure, etc. are the same as in modern grammar.

The only difference is vocabulary. Learning difficult vocabulary is a very important life skill, for reasons you yourself have talked about above.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Dude, not everyone will enjoy Shakespeare. And I refuse to believe Shakespeare is the best way to teach kids grammar...honestly, that's a ridiculous notion.

Good thing that isn't what I said.

What I actually said was that kids learn grammar from reading, writing and speaking. Reading Shakespeare is both enjoyable and useful, but of course doesn't mean much by itself--like almost anything else.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by RyZ

Any kid in any high school in any year could have told you all of this on the spot any day of the week.

The curriculum that current students are taught is a joke. The education system wastes more time teaching kids about dividing complex fractional quadrilaterals (which they will never again use or see in life after the teachers chapter quiz) than we teach them about reading a map, being able to feed themselves or bartering on the price of a large purchase.

You need a course to learn how to use a fork, a piece of paper and buying things?

We spend so much time filling kids heads with math and history crap that they will never, ever use in real life that they have had no time being taught or learning real skills that you use on a daily basis. They don't remember the garbage being taught anyway and then they come out of high school knowing how to "kinda" use a calculator and how to not get caught smoking a joint outside the school smoke doors. It's sad and the q-tips that run the educational system are more clueless about it than the kids in class.

You know, math is important. It's funny that you bring up quadratics, like it's something complex. It's trivial. Christ, matrixes are more complex, and they're trivial. Yet you wouldn't have your purdy video games without them.

History is important, kiddo. You know, World Wars, the history of stolen extension cords.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by RyZ

The curriculum that current students are taught is a joke. The education system wastes more time teaching kids about dividing complex fractional quadrilaterals (which they will never again use or see in life after the teachers chapter quiz) than we teach them about reading a map, being able to feed themselves or bartering on the price of a large purchase.

We spend so much time filling kids heads with math and history crap that they will never, ever use in real life that they have had no time being taught or learning real skills that you use on a daily basis. They don't remember the garbage being taught anyway and then they come out of high school knowing how to "kinda" use a calculator and how to not get caught smoking a joint outside the school smoke doors. It's sad and the q-tips that run the educational system are more clueless about it than the kids in class.

I use complex fraction quadrilaterals "stuff" all the time in "my career"

I may be in a science/math field, but IMO ... social studies was probably the most useful coarse in high school. You might forget dates, you might forget names, but if you think thats what social studies is all about, you didn't get the point. (unfortunately, teachers didn't reinforce what the point was supposed to be, so they just teach dates/names/events because its easy to test students on that)

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I like your example, except for the part about how Shakespeare contradicts anything. Seriously--Shakespeare essentially invented modern english. The grammar, rules, sentence structure, etc. are the same as in modern grammar.

The only difference is vocabulary. Learning difficult vocabulary is a very important life skill, for reasons you yourself have talked about above.

As a illiterate student () I don't know this. To someone like me, I learn something one way, then when something is obtuse to me, it seems like a whole new ball game. Then comes poetry. Then comes different ages of English. All in all, this is a confusing experience and there is no ground for someone like me to get started. I still can't spell worth a damn (thank god for spell check) and lets not even get into grammer.

To me, high school should be getting the basic skills down. Then, if you are good at something, tweek it, twist it, move things around and that develops particular skills that makes someone excel in a particular field. I think this "sample" of here and there, without having the fundamentals down, hurts students more than it helps.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Shazam

You need a course to learn how to use a fork, a piece of paper and buying things?

No, but a course on how to manage money, start a bank account, how credit cards work, saving accounts, etc, etc should be taken by every single student.

You know, stuff you use in 'real life.'

History is important, kiddo. You know, World Wars, the history of stolen extension cords.

History is important, true.....but there are also problems with the course content in that subject as well.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I use complex fraction quadrilaterals "stuff" all the time in "my career"

I may be in a science/math field, but IMO ... social studies was probably the most useful coarse in high school. You might forget dates, you might forget names, but if you think thats what social studies is all about, you didn't get the point. (unfortunately, teachers didn't reinforce what the point was supposed to be, so they just teach dates/names/events because its easy to test students on that)

You're seriously reading my mind.

I was going to post the exact same thing. Students are taught definitions, dates, names and a bunch of other stuff that is easy to quiz them on. That isn't what Social Studies should be about though.

In grade 10 we took a 6 week course on the Canadian Government. Our teacher split us up into groups of 3-4 people and we made posters of the Canadian Government along with our OWN definition of what each branch did. I learned a lot from that course and now almost 10 years later I understand pretty well how the Canadian Government functions.

That is how kids learn. They don't learn by looking up 'Canadian Senate' in the textbook and writing down the definition.