Can this be true?

[NoNamePerson]

Dec 2, 2019 22:16:54 GMT -5 @missrigby said:

Dec 2, 2019 22:13:12 GMT -5 swamp said:

DD is 12.  DS is in 8th grade and DD is in 6th. I’m now the shortest person in my house, amd I have the smallest feet.  I’m 5’4” and wear a 9show, so it’s not like I’m tiny. 

With your height, the shoe size is good. You won't tip over

 I'm 5'4" and size 9 shoe. I was always told I had a "good understanding"  when I fussed about my big feet when I was a kid. As I grew older I began to wonder if big feet had to do with keeping me in balance with another part of body and not allowing me to "tip" over! 

[hoops902]

Dec 2, 2019 23:01:57 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Dec 2, 2019 11:33:12 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

As you point out, there are a LOT of aspects to cultural literacy that don't include history...or more specifically, don't include any traditional core curriculum.  So the question is, does it really need to be taught in schools (as opposed to being a happy byproduct of other things taught in schools), and if so aren't there an awful lot of aspects of it that aren't?  It also generally doesn't mean much more than "getting a reference" without any real understanding.  Everyone knows about Washington, father of the country, first President, crossed the Delaware...none of that is all that significant by itself other than purely for the cultural piece of it.  Same for knowing WWII was Germany + others against the world.  It doesn't require any real understanding of WWII.

It also seems (to me) that people seem a lot more bothered by the history aspects of it than other aspects of it.  If a 30-something looks lost when talking about Germany in WWII it's "a failure of the education system".   If a 60-something looks lost when talking about technology which is also cultural literacy, people just figure it's fine.  

All of this is to say that a lack of cultural literacy isn't necessarily a failure of an educational system (IMO).  It also TENDS to kind of work itself out if an individual cares to.  If an individual hears "Luke, I am your father" and doesn't get it...they can figure it out if they want either by looking it up (so easy today to look up things online) or by asking the person who said it or a friend.  Everyone knows that piece of pop culture.  And I use that piece specifically because it's something that has become a part of culture that isn't even something "true".  

Hoops, one thing to consider when you compare 30’s and 60’s is that we have a system and process for teaching young folks about events such as WW II.  We do not have a system and process for teaching older folks about technology.  Older folks are expected to identify, locate, and use the resources they need to learn about technology, while we have 3.7 million people we call teachers whose work is dedicated to spoon feeding information to our youth (whether our youth wants the information or not).

Their job though is NOT to teach cultural literacy, their job is to teach a specific curriculum (specifically, as we've pointed out, much of what is cultural literacy is actually incorrect, and not much of it at all is useful in daily life).  In fact, I think it's preferable that they ignore cultural literacy except to point out specifically where it IS incorrect.  My point with 30s vs 60s was similar to yours...we expect older folks to locate and use resources...so the information is readily available if one's concern is being culturally "literate".  

Cultural literacy is not EXACTLY direct from structured education, it's more a by-product of random things which might "stick".  And as each generation is different, and possesses a different "culture"...I think it's reasonable to expect that someone who is 60 may simply have a different set of parameters of what is culturally relevant than someone who is 30.  It's a generational thing in a lot of cases.  My point is that when the older generation sees a younger generation who doesn't get cultural references, they seem to blame it in some part on the educational system.  The educational system isn't really there to try to force current generations to keep the same cultural identity as previous generations.  Even given the exact same curriculum and instruction 30 years apart, what "sticks" with each generation is likely to be different...not because the education has changed but because the times in which the education is delivered have changed.  

I think it's fine if millenials don't share that same cultural fabric surrounding WWII as those who lived through it or very near to it...just like I think it's fine that boomers probably don't share the same cultural fabric and shared references towards the Great Depression as generations did who were closer to that event.  

Our culture tends to look at younger generations and says "well shit, education is broken, they don't know all this stuff I was taught", but we tend to give very little regard to "oh yeah, they know a ton more than I do in all these other areas" (or we simply devalue the areas they are more knowledgeable in).  You can TEACH all you want, but if the population as a whole simply isn't that interested, it won't find it's way into cultural relevancy (and therefore as a requisite for cultural literacy).

[swamp]

Dec 3, 2019 8:53:04 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Dec 2, 2019 23:01:57 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Hoops, one thing to consider when you compare 30’s and 60’s is that we have a system and process for teaching young folks about events such as WW II.  We do not have a system and process for teaching older folks about technology.  Older folks are expected to identify, locate, and use the resources they need to learn about technology, while we have 3.7 million people we call teachers whose work is dedicated to spoon feeding information to our youth (whether our youth wants the information or not).

Their job though is NOT to teach cultural literacy, their job is to teach a specific curriculum (specifically, as we've pointed out, much of what is cultural literacy is actually incorrect, and not much of it at all is useful in daily life).  In fact, I think it's preferable that they ignore cultural literacy except to point out specifically where it IS incorrect.  My point with 30s vs 60s was similar to yours...we expect older folks to locate and use resources...so the information is readily available if one's concern is being culturally "literate".  

Cultural literacy is not EXACTLY direct from structured education, it's more a by-product of random things which might "stick".  And as each generation is different, and possesses a different "culture"...I think it's reasonable to expect that someone who is 60 may simply have a different set of parameters of what is culturally relevant than someone who is 30.  It's a generational thing in a lot of cases.  My point is that when the older generation sees a younger generation who doesn't get cultural references, they seem to blame it in some part on the educational system.  The educational system isn't really there to try to force current generations to keep the same cultural identity as previous generations.  Even given the exact same curriculum and instruction 30 years apart, what "sticks" with each generation is likely to be different...not because the education has changed but because the times in which the education is delivered have changed.  

I think it's fine if millenials don't share that same cultural fabric surrounding WWII as those who lived through it or very near to it...just like I think it's fine that boomers probably don't share the same cultural fabric and shared references towards the Great Depression as generations did who were closer to that event.  

Our culture tends to look at younger generations and says "well shit, education is broken, they don't know all this stuff I was taught", but we tend to give very little regard to "oh yeah, they know a ton more than I do in all these other areas" (or we simply devalue the areas they are more knowledgeable in).  You can TEACH all you want, but if the population as a whole simply isn't that interested, it won't find it's way into cultural relevancy (and therefore as a requisite for cultural literacy).

Have you ever watched Seth Meyers's show?  

He has a segment on sometimes called, "What does Karen know?"  Karen is one of his writers and she's about 24.  Seth is about 50.  Seth holds up pictures to have Karen identify items that were a big deal in the 80's.  Sometimes they are toys, or movies, or a picture that was in all the news.     Then Karen does the same for Seth.  It's pretty interesting to watch two well educated culturally literate people a generation apart struggle to identify things that "everyone should know." 

[billisonboard]

Dec 3, 2019 8:53:04 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Dec 2, 2019 23:01:57 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Hoops, one thing to consider when you compare 30’s and 60’s is that we have a system and process for teaching young folks about events such as WW II. ... we have 3.7 million people we call teachers whose work is dedicated to spoon feeding information to our youth (whether our youth wants the information or not).

Their job though is NOT to teach cultural literacy, their job is to teach a specific curriculum ...

Why do we have a public education system funded through general taxpayer money? What is the job of those in that system? There is, to some degree, "a specific curriculum" but how has that curriculum been determined?

When I look at spending my money on the public education system, I expect to get things in return. One thing is a future educated work force possessing appropriate skills and behaviors. Another is a future fellow citizen who I can trust with having the same civic rights and responsibilities that I have. In the second, I see a role for some elements of "cultural literacy" being taught.

[swamp]

Dec 3, 2019 9:48:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Dec 3, 2019 8:53:04 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Their job though is NOT to teach cultural literacy, their job is to teach a specific curriculum ...

Why do we have a public education system funded through general taxpayer money? What is the job of those in that system? There is, to some degree, "a specific curriculum" but how has that curriculum been determined?

When I look at spending my money on the public education system, I expect to get things in return. One thing is a future educated work force possessing appropriate skills and behaviors. Another is a future fellow citizen who I can trust with having the same civic rights and responsibilities that I have. In the second, I see a role for some elements of "cultural literacy" being taught.

Agreed, but cultural literacy changes with each generation. 

[Deleted]

Dec 2, 2019 10:03:07 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

I think this is actually a big movement forward in education honestly. Less reliance on "memorize irrelevant stuff" (like dates, etc) and focus on ideas instead (I do think we need to improve the ideas piece, but the fact that kids aren't memorizing irrelevant things seems not only fine, but preferable to the time being spent on it).

I love the idea of a history curriculum focused on ideas rather than names and dates but then realized how hard this would be to teach in a public school with its diversity of kids from different backgrounds. Examples:

Separation of church and state.
Slavery- where it occurred in the past, where it is now (do you think the citizens of Dubai dirtied their own hands building those giant office towers and malls with indoor ski areas?), how/where it was eliminated.
Income inequality.
Socialism.
Multi-party political systems.
Monarchy.
War- is it ever "justified"?

You can't discuss any of the above without bringing up ideas that may be counter to what some kids/parents think. That can be very good, IMO- we need to learn to have polite discourse with people on the other side of any issue- but think of the number of people who would be OFFENDED.

Yet another reason I'm grateful my grandchildren are being home-schooled.

[hoops902]

Dec 3, 2019 9:48:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Dec 3, 2019 8:53:04 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Their job though is NOT to teach cultural literacy, their job is to teach a specific curriculum ...

Why do we have a public education system funded through general taxpayer money? What is the job of those in that system? There is, to some degree, "a specific curriculum" but how has that curriculum been determined?

When I look at spending my money on the public education system, I expect to get things in return. One thing is a future educated work force possessing appropriate skills and behaviors. Another is a future fellow citizen who I can trust with having the same civic rights and responsibilities that I have. In the second, I see a role for some elements of "cultural literacy" being taught.

I think there will always be some crossover because formal education and cultural literacy (because from a practical perspective, it's difficult to teach 30 million people something basic and not have it seep into the culture in some way).  I don't think their job is to teach cultural literacy though.  Their job is to teach the curriculum, in most cases facts, and we let the collective culture figure out which things are incorporated into cultural literacy.  

So while things may cross over...for example...teaching students about voting...and having a 25 year old overhearing a conversation about voting and saying "what's voting, never heard of it" is a failure of both educational system AND cultural literacy...I don't think it's the educational system's obligation, or even a desirable goal, to attempt to teach cultural literacy specifically.  The difference as I see it is that I think it's important that the education system teach about voting, and different aspects (the history of it, why it's important, how to do it...which may come in different classes for each area)...I don't think it's important that someone teach the kids that millenials are calling it "pop them chads" in casual conversation (I just made that up, I pray that's not real).  I would tend to put the former category (not knowing what voting is) into something other than cultural literacy, it is specific knowledge that exists outside of a specific culture.  To me that's a bit of a distinction, cultural literacy encompasses the things which exist reliant upon the culture being discussed.  Many/most things taught in schools exist regardless of the specific culture...but which much of culture pulls from.

Certainly some crossover.  But cultural literacy is ever-changing, MUCH more so than educational curriculum, and probably nearly impossible to predict in an educational setting what those things might be when a student becomes an adult.  Even harder to guess what cultural pockets individuals might be associating themselves with in the future.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Gwen's at an age where I am starting to hear a lot of bitching about not teaching cursive in schools and how "the system is failing us!".   Really?  My kid is light years ahead of me in regards to technology, which skill is going to better serve her in the future?  Outside of signing my name I haven't written in cursive in years.  Meanwhile I use computers every single day.

So is it my kid is dumb and the school system is failing her or is what is considered a relevant skill changed?

I can't remember dates to save my life but I can talk at length about key issues of WWII because when we did that segment in school that is what we focused on.   Am I am idiot whose public school system is garbage or did things change and what was deemed important in your generation no longer considered of importance when discussing a particular topic/subject?

My chemistry professors all have the periodic table memorized, they pretty much had to.   Every single one of them said there is no point in making students memorize it now with the internet.  You need to know what it is and understand what it is for/how to use it but being able to stand up and recite the whole thing. . nah.

[billisonboard]

Dec 3, 2019 9:52:11 GMT -5 swamp said:

Dec 3, 2019 9:48:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Why do we have a public education system funded through general taxpayer money? What is the job of those in that system? There is, to some degree, "a specific curriculum" but how has that curriculum been determined?

When I look at spending my money on the public education system, I expect to get things in return. One thing is a future educated work force possessing appropriate skills and behaviors. Another is a future fellow citizen who I can trust with having the same civic rights and responsibilities that I have. In the second, I see a role for some elements of "cultural literacy" being taught.

Agreed, but cultural literacy changes with each generation. 

I think there are enduring elements of American Culture. It isn't toys nor movies. It is our traditions played out in our public role as a citizens.

[hoops902]

Dec 3, 2019 10:07:26 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

Dec 2, 2019 10:03:07 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

I think this is actually a big movement forward in education honestly. Less reliance on "memorize irrelevant stuff" (like dates, etc) and focus on ideas instead (I do think we need to improve the ideas piece, but the fact that kids aren't memorizing irrelevant things seems not only fine, but preferable to the time being spent on it).

I love the idea of a history curriculum focused on ideas rather than names and dates but then realized how hard this would be to teach in a public school with its diversity of kids from different backgrounds. Examples:

Separation of church and state.
Slavery- where it occurred in the past, where it is now (do you think the citizens of Dubai dirtied their own hands building those giant office towers and malls with indoor ski areas?), how/where it was eliminated.
Income inequality.
Socialism.
Multi-party political systems.
Monarchy.
War- is it ever "justified"?

You can't discuss any of the above without bringing up ideas that may be counter to what some kids/parents think. That can be very good, IMO- we need to learn to have polite discourse with people on the other side of any issue- but think of the number of people who would be OFFENDED.

Yet another reason I'm grateful my grandchildren are being home-schooled.

I agree it's difficult to have meaningful conversations around those things in a school setting.  I DO think you can still have some "idea" discussions though.  Kids spend a LOT of time, history specifically, memorizing facts/figures/dates...I'd rather have that time spent focusing on things which are already part of curriculum but are the most important ideas of the curriculum.  For WWII...really focusing not just on "Nazis were bad" but WHY Germans would ever feel it was their best choice as they came to power.  It's harder to do in large part because discussion of ideas are harder to test for.  A bubble sheet with 4 options for a date of a battle is easier to grade.  

As someone who commits things to short-term memory REALLY easily, and is a very good test-taker...it's hard to look back on that stuff and think anything other than "wow, what a waste of time that was".  

I think it can be less "radical" than what would be ideal...many of these things are already in curriculum...they just aren't the focus because they don't end up on the test in a meaningful thought-provoking way.  Typically a bunch of multiple choice or fact recitation answers, maybe an essay question where regurgitating the textbook paragraph is the right answer, etc.  The split of idea and data exists in the curriculum today, I'd like to see more focus on the idea...even if it's not the in-depth, potentially divisive discussion that might be even better.

[billisonboard]

Realizing in my mind there is "Culture" and there is "pop culture". Fully agree it isn't the job of schools to teach pop culture. 

[justme]

Dec 3, 2019 9:14:30 GMT -5 swamp said:

Dec 3, 2019 8:53:04 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Their job though is NOT to teach cultural literacy, their job is to teach a specific curriculum (specifically, as we've pointed out, much of what is cultural literacy is actually incorrect, and not much of it at all is useful in daily life).  In fact, I think it's preferable that they ignore cultural literacy except to point out specifically where it IS incorrect.  My point with 30s vs 60s was similar to yours...we expect older folks to locate and use resources...so the information is readily available if one's concern is being culturally "literate".  

Cultural literacy is not EXACTLY direct from structured education, it's more a by-product of random things which might "stick".  And as each generation is different, and possesses a different "culture"...I think it's reasonable to expect that someone who is 60 may simply have a different set of parameters of what is culturally relevant than someone who is 30.  It's a generational thing in a lot of cases.  My point is that when the older generation sees a younger generation who doesn't get cultural references, they seem to blame it in some part on the educational system.  The educational system isn't really there to try to force current generations to keep the same cultural identity as previous generations.  Even given the exact same curriculum and instruction 30 years apart, what "sticks" with each generation is likely to be different...not because the education has changed but because the times in which the education is delivered have changed.  

I think it's fine if millenials don't share that same cultural fabric surrounding WWII as those who lived through it or very near to it...just like I think it's fine that boomers probably don't share the same cultural fabric and shared references towards the Great Depression as generations did who were closer to that event.  

Our culture tends to look at younger generations and says "well shit, education is broken, they don't know all this stuff I was taught", but we tend to give very little regard to "oh yeah, they know a ton more than I do in all these other areas" (or we simply devalue the areas they are more knowledgeable in).  You can TEACH all you want, but if the population as a whole simply isn't that interested, it won't find it's way into cultural relevancy (and therefore as a requisite for cultural literacy).

Have you ever watched Seth Meyers's show?  

He has a segment on sometimes called, "What does Karen know?"  Karen is one of his writers and she's about 24.  Seth is about 50.  Seth holds up pictures to have Karen identify items that were a big deal in the 80's.  Sometimes they are toys, or movies, or a picture that was in all the news.     Then Karen does the same for Seth.  It's pretty interesting to watch two well educated culturally literate people a generation apart struggle to identify things that "everyone should know." 

I have seen this, and was like Seth's not 50!!! And then googled (45 so close enough I suppose) and yeah...I think my brain is stuck on the ages everyone was 10 years ago - including my own. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

ou can't discuss any of the above without bringing up ideas that may be counter to what some kids/parents think. That can be very good, IMO- we need to learn to have polite discourse with people on the other side of any issue- but think of the number of people who would be OFFENDED.

Really? We did this with WWII and my presentation on Dachau concentration camp sticks with me to this day.   We also did something similar when we read To Kill a Mockingbird.   I think doing that in conjunction with the book made a much better impact than just reading it and regurgitating what we just read.

The Kennedy assination was a fun project, we got to develop our own conspiracy theories and then the class got to argue why it wasn't accurate.  Good exercise in critical thinking.

[swamp]

Dec 3, 2019 10:11:34 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Dec 3, 2019 9:52:11 GMT -5 swamp said:

Agreed, but cultural literacy changes with each generation. 

I think there are enduring elements of American Culture. It isn't toys nor movies. It is our traditions played out in our public role as a citizens.

traditions change too. 

[thyme4change]

Dec 3, 2019 10:45:23 GMT -5 swamp said:

Dec 3, 2019 10:11:34 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I think there are enduring elements of American Culture. It isn't toys nor movies. It is our traditions played out in our public role as a citizens.

traditions change too. 

Traditions - like racism, sexism, xenophobia?

[swamp]

Dec 3, 2019 12:40:19 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Dec 3, 2019 10:45:23 GMT -5 swamp said:

traditions change too. 

Traditions - like racism, sexism, xenophobia?

exactly.  

[gs11rmb]

Dec 2, 2019 15:55:11 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Dec 2, 2019 15:44:32 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

If it is irrelevant, then it is by very definition not useful...that's what makes it irrelevant.

Since we're talking about history and the dates of battles or historical occurrences, I'm not sure why I'd ever stop a car salesperson to google their assertion if they somehow decided to assert a date on a certain historical event while I'm buying a car.  Even if they're making it up, why do I care?

If a salesperson wants to tell me something irrelevant but also untrue...I don't really care.  I'm not looking to play "gotcha" in catching them in an irrelevant lie.  If they want to tell me Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 25, 1800 and that's why we celebrate Christmas now...I don't care, it's not relevant to buying a car.

I'm going to be sure to not leave any contact information before I head to the next dealership.   Otherwise I don't care either.

And I can safely say I have never had a conversation with anyone I've just met start with "Hey do you know the date when D-day happened?"

June 6th 1944... and I did not look it up  .

I've always liked history and while I don't think it's important that someone automatically know the date of D-Day I do think it's important to have at the very least a rough understanding of when WWII occurred as well as the main players.  Why?  Because that particular conflagration continues to impact borders and political relationships today.

[zibazinski]

Dec 2, 2019 10:43:51 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

Dec 2, 2019 10:30:56 GMT -5 @missrigby said:

Memorizing irrelevant things? Isn't this stuff we just learn by reading? You know, like the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Germany invading Poland on September 1, 1939. Aren't there lessons to be learned from knowing when, why, how these things happened? Is there really no value in understanding how history has shaped us? 

I'd make a piss poor STEM student.

I WAS a STEM student but I read a lot (still do) and have traveled a lot.  I remember the Time Magazine cover story when the Berlin Wall was erected.  OTOH, I never took a History class in college and agree that a whole lot of HS history seemed to be memorizing dates and battles, which made my eyes glaze over. 

DD was born the year the wall came down. It’s memorable. My uncle was in Germany at the time it went up.

[zibazinski]

I was mortified that DD thought Columbus was at the same time frame as the pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock. She’s smart so how did this happen? What did the school teach in American history and World History? Did she skip class for months?

[billisonboard]

Dec 3, 2019 12:40:19 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Dec 3, 2019 10:45:23 GMT -5 swamp said:

traditions change too. 

Traditions - like racism, sexism, xenophobia?

The progress that has been made challenging these things has been through holding people's feet to the fire for falling short of the ideals taught as the norms of our nation.