4 ms·

If the subject matter isn’t something the kid has a natural aptitude or interest in, and it’s not practical, and it’s not being taught in an unusually captivati

If the subject matter isn’t something the kid has a natural aptitude or interest in, and it’s not practical, and it’s not being taught in an unusually captivating way, why wouldn’t kids push back? I don’t blame them. I think adults should be able to justify why we’re using what boils down to the threat of force (if we’re honest) to make them sit in classrooms and listen to us.

Aeolun 1y ago
I’m not going to use force against him. Threatening to take away the computer or tablet is generally plenty. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that a precondition to using these things is ‘go to school’.
- ksenzee 1y ago
  I’m referring to governments, not parents. If I don’t send my child to school, the state of Washington will have a word to say about it. There are laws.
CodeMage 1y ago
I don't see any part of my comment where I blamed the kids. I explicitly said that it's a flaw in the way our society approaches education.
- ksenzee 1y ago
  Sorry, I didn’t mean to make it sound like I was arguing with you. It was more vehement agreement.
  - CodeMage 1y ago
    My bad, I didn't realize :)
lelanthran 1y ago
> If the subject matter isn’t something the kid has a natural aptitude or interest in, and it’s not practical, and it’s not being taught in an unusually captivating way, why wouldn’t kids push back? Agreed. > I think adults should be able to justify why we’re using what boils down to the threat of force (if we’re honest) to make them sit in classrooms and listen to us. Disagree. The justification for why they should learn $FOO may never be understood by a mind that we are teaching $FOO to. There's good justification for learning to read, but not one that would be understood by a 6 year old. There's similarly good justification for teaching Maths, but you'd be hard pressed to convince a 16 year old of the value in practicing abstract reasoning, using Maths as the vehicle. Sometimes, the only good answer to give a kid is "you'll see the value when you're older".
- vkazanov 1y ago
  As parents do, I had numerous discussions with my kid about math and additional languages. Here's my usual explanation: it's existing knowledge that opens doors, not theoretical one, and you want to have as many doors open as possible. Well, I use other words bit that's my message anyway :-)
- a96 1y ago
  And the problem with that answer is that it doesn't lead to engagement or interest and that means it doesn't lead to learning. It's a bad answer. I also disagree that there needs to be justification. I don't think students' minds work like that. What's needed is something different and probably many kinds of something different since there's many kinds of learners. So far, a huge percentage of students are getting left behind when teachers and material fail to have a good answer.
  - lelanthran 1y ago
    > And the problem with that answer is that it doesn't lead to engagement or interest and that means it doesn't lead to learning. It's a bad answer. With an insufficiently developed brain, there is no answer that leads to engagement or interest. Sometimes you'll find yourself telling kids "How do you know you won't like it unless you try it?" If you, personally, claim to have never told a kid that specific sentence (regardless of context), I have serious doubts that you actually have kids. Sometimes engagement and interest only come after the kid has been forced through a little bit of it. They are children; you can't always reason with them because they have not yet developed sufficient reasoning skills. Making the claim that reasoning is all you need to get children to do the right thing is plain nonsense. > I also disagree that there needs to be justification. Sounds like we're in agreement, after all? I also don't think there needs to be a justification for "You need to learn Maths". This is why I said an answer along the lines of "you'll understand why later" is all you can do when asked for a justification.

Aeolun 1y ago

I’m not going to use force against him. Threatening to take away the computer or tablet is generally plenty. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that a precondition to using these things is ‘go to school’.

ksenzee 1y ago
I’m referring to governments, not parents. If I don’t send my child to school, the state of Washington will have a word to say about it. There are laws.

CodeMage 1y ago

I don't see any part of my comment where I blamed the kids. I explicitly said that it's a flaw in the way our society approaches education.

ksenzee 1y ago
Sorry, I didn’t mean to make it sound like I was arguing with you. It was more vehement agreement.
- CodeMage 1y ago
  My bad, I didn't realize :)

lelanthran 1y ago

> If the subject matter isn’t something the kid has a natural aptitude or interest in, and it’s not practical, and it’s not being taught in an unusually captivating way, why wouldn’t kids push back? Agreed. > I think adults should be able to justify why we’re using what boils down to the threat of force (if we’re honest) to make them sit in classrooms and listen to us. Disagree. The justification for why they should learn $FOO may never be understood by a mind that we are teaching $FOO to. There's good justification for learning to read, but not one that would be understood by a 6 year old. There's similarly good justification for teaching Maths, but you'd be hard pressed to convince a 16 year old of the value in practicing abstract reasoning, using Maths as the vehicle. Sometimes, the only good answer to give a kid is "you'll see the value when you're older".

vkazanov 1y ago
As parents do, I had numerous discussions with my kid about math and additional languages. Here's my usual explanation: it's existing knowledge that opens doors, not theoretical one, and you want to have as many doors open as possible. Well, I use other words bit that's my message anyway :-)
a96 1y ago
And the problem with that answer is that it doesn't lead to engagement or interest and that means it doesn't lead to learning. It's a bad answer. I also disagree that there needs to be justification. I don't think students' minds work like that. What's needed is something different and probably many kinds of something different since there's many kinds of learners. So far, a huge percentage of students are getting left behind when teachers and material fail to have a good answer.
- lelanthran 1y ago
  > And the problem with that answer is that it doesn't lead to engagement or interest and that means it doesn't lead to learning. It's a bad answer. With an insufficiently developed brain, there is no answer that leads to engagement or interest. Sometimes you'll find yourself telling kids "How do you know you won't like it unless you try it?" If you, personally, claim to have never told a kid that specific sentence (regardless of context), I have serious doubts that you actually have kids. Sometimes engagement and interest only come after the kid has been forced through a little bit of it. They are children; you can't always reason with them because they have not yet developed sufficient reasoning skills. Making the claim that reasoning is all you need to get children to do the right thing is plain nonsense. > I also disagree that there needs to be justification. Sounds like we're in agreement, after all? I also don't think there needs to be a justification for "You need to learn Maths". This is why I said an answer along the lines of "you'll understand why later" is all you can do when asked for a justification.