Civics - DEMAND it be returned to your schools cirriculum!

I just heard that there is either a class action or individual law suite by a student (high school) in Rhode Island. He is suing his school b/c they are not teaching civics. This is AWESOME! I know our county hasn't taught civics since about the mid 1970's and when my parents found out in the 90's they were FURIOUS - but they were powerless to do anything about it. Instead we had "model UN" and "Social Studies", both of which were basically useless as we learned almost nothing other than maybe the names of some countries, usually those being represented in Model UN.

The model UN was always done by the teacher's pet's and even if other people had better arguments the moderator (teacher) would shoot them down and no real discussion was allowed to happen. It was such a BS class and we had a MAJOR project we has to pass to graduate and it was extremely stressful b/c NO ONE knew what we really had to do, it wasn't really a report on our country, it was too complex for HS kids who had not been taught anything of substance to be able to come up with rational solutions for artificial problems (that alone just sounds difficult to do!). As normal, the teachers pets got 100%'s and the majority got 60-70% even though there was little difference in our presentations.

So, substituting a civics class, learning how our government works, what young adults can do if they ahve complaints (to state, local, fed gov), what citizens are exected to do/when/why/etc, would all be invaluable to all students.

In addition we need to teach kids about everyday finance, how to handle $, why you need a saftey net (NOT THE GOVERNMENT!), why you need home/renters insurance, business insurance, possibly umbrella insurance for personal injury not covered by auto/home-owners/renters/business insurance. Also teach kids how to do taxes - at least a starter class - who to trust with your taxes, what happens if you lie or the person doing them messes up, and maybe some businesses to look for (CPA's).

Tell them how to budget food. Show them the economics of eating out vs eating alone.

Show them the power of compounding interest over 10. 20 , 40, 60 years. This will open MANY eyes and is such an amazing thing if you start saving young, you can almost skip saving the last 10-20 years of work (if you put enough away at decent interest rates).

Teach them not to buy a new car. Maybe buy a used car, a car right off lease, still with warranty, and not take the 30-50% depreciation for the first 3-5 years.

There's all kinds of things that are not taught in school.

I'd love to hear what some other things you all think are important to teach kids, and at what age they should start being taught.

Where I went to school there are some agriculture programs (usually a 4 year program) where the students put in a lot of work and at the end of the 4 years some people have $10K-100,000+ worth of "product" from their 4 years of work, which is enough for them to completely pay for school if they choose to go, or they can buy their own house right out of high school! Even people w/o land can do similar things, you just have to pick the correct project for their situation.

Please share your ideas!

even if they did it would be loaded with proper-ganda 😤

originally posted by: xuenchen
even if they did it would be loaded with proper-ganda 😤

Well that is questionable. Most likely in some schools, it might be, but in other schools, I suspect it would be a very worthwhile subject.

I think it needs to be implemented on a state wide basis, possibly with each district able to select what they feel is the most important issues to cover.

What would be best would be to have a nationwide survey of american citizens (including legal and illegal immigrants) asking them what they wish they would have been taught in school. Then the results of these surveys (or independent write-ins - summarized to shorten/get the jist of the topic) could be posted on a national &/or state site, and then the schools could choose what to teach - possibly with input from parents (I would think this would be a major influence in what should be taught).

So, if a school decides not to teach the top 2 "most important" issues from the survey, the parents could raise H3ll asking why they aren't teaching these important things.

If done correctly there is no way to hide what really needs to be taught in schools, and re-writing the subject (like history) just isn't an option for things like this, and if it is tried, then the school opens they selves up to a huge lawsuit. (I'm sure attorneys would line up to represent entire schools/classes of students for the administration failing to teach what is most important).

IF done correctly, it is possible to set things up so that schools don't have much option as to what to teach less they leave themselves open to very harsh lawsuits, and they can make it even worse, by changing the "facts" being taught to fit their agenda. I'm sure there will be some that try, but after a few find out the repercussions for such actions, the rest will fall in line very quickly.

This isn't like we are trying to teach kids "sex ed" in 2nd grade, or that there are 34 genders in kindergarten, this is teaching things which are necessity to make it in society once they leave school, and there is very little controversy about what these topics are.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Well, when you put the government in charge of education they will "educate" for their own purposes.

Make that the purposes of the lobbyists.

They don't even teach Homeec anymore in schools. I was a boy, Homeec was for girls. But I took Bachelor living where they taught us about some of the stuff and about personal budgeting. We even learned to sew and cook real meals. I got an A in that class, I knew how to cook already and also how to use a sewing machine. As a senior I had been working part time jobs for three or four years already, had my own bank savings account, and two charge accounts at hardware stores which I got when I was thirteen years old.

The other boys I knew were doing paper routes and said I should get one. I made ten times what they made on my cleaning contracts and shoveling contracts and I actually put money into my savings account and had over six hundred bucks saved, owned my own guns and a boat when I was sixteen. I liked to target practice so I would spend quite a bit of money on twenty two shells back then, they cost fifty cents a box of fifty those days, kind of expensive in 69.

I took civics in the eleventh grade, I thought it was required at our school. But my wife said that she did not have to take civics in her school though, so maybe it was not actually required in our school. She did not have to take Econ either, it was required to take both a half of a year of government and a half a year of econ to graduate in our school. I could have gone to college in the eleventh grade if they would have let me take government and econ early. I never took a study hall in high school, I just took classes.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

This went out the window same time history did. I think history was eliminated so the kids would think socialism was a new idea. The way civics is taught today has nothing to do with structure of govt or how a bill becomes law. Civics today is go out and protest. Civics 201: How to start a riot.

No.

Your argument is irrelevant, to my personal opinion.

STEM takes precedence over any social study, purely my opinion. I have no facts for you, I just believe in it more.

Sorry bud, I won't sway on my opinion for this.

I wonder how an "auxillary" school/classes would work in some areas. What I mean is something that would be on par with extracarricular activities but instead of sports, drama/theater, clubs, band/orchestra, etc - maybe offer some classes that might actually be helpful to students down the road. When I was in school, driver's ed was one of these classes. It was taught 1-2 nights a week (3 hours each night) for maybe 2 months or so. Since it wasn't run by the school, it cost students to take the class, but in exchange, there was a discount on insurance for those who passed the class. We also had a few behind the wheel sessions (about 30-45 mins) where they taught basics or just observed your current driving skills. This happened during the day and some people missed a study hall or another class where they were already doing well, so you really didn't miss a whole lot. Some people could miss phys-ed if they were involved in sports after school.

I'd think maybe something like this might work in a similar method, maybe not have students from only one school, but offer other schools to send their students to take part as well, this way you can cover a wider range of schools with one class.

It might even work with a college like class size, where a lecture hall is used with lots of students (not the normal 25-35 students in college), but more like 50-100+, and this would be for the general instruction classes which could be followed up with smaller, more individualized (possibly with group work?) classes of a standard size (these could then be held at the individual schools where the students attend, unless there are only a couple at one school, then they could attend a neighboring school for these classes.

This could be an interesting way to get students from multiple schools to interact on a more personal level compared to only in sports.

I can see something like this also working for people who do home schooling where they often form groups that span multiple districts.

Of course there will always be people who say things like this won't work, those people are so boring and if we listened to them we'd still be pushing/pulling sleds around instead of taking the leap of faith in using the wheel.

I wonder how an "auxillary" school/classes would work in some areas. What I mean is something that would be on par with extracarricular activities but instead of sports, drama/theater, clubs, band/orchestra, etc - maybe offer some classes that might actually be helpful to students down the road. When I was in school, driver's ed was one of these classes. It was taught 1-2 nights a week (3 hours each night) for maybe 2 months or so. Since it wasn't run by the school, it cost students to take the class, but in exchange, there was a discount on insurance for those who passed the class. We also had a few behind the wheel sessions (about 30-45 mins) where they taught basics or just observed your current driving skills. This happened during the day and some people missed a study hall or another class where they were already doing well, so you really didn't miss a whole lot. Some people could miss phys-ed if they were involved in sports after school.

I'd think maybe something like this might work in a similar method, maybe not have students from only one school, but offer other schools to send their students to take part as well, this way you can cover a wider range of schools with one class.

It might even work with a college like class size, where a lecture hall is used with lots of students (not the normal 25-35 students in college), but more like 50-100+, and this would be for the general instruction classes which could be followed up with smaller, more individualized (possibly with group work?) classes of a standard size (these could then be held at the individual schools where the students attend, unless there are only a couple at one school, then they could attend a neighboring school for these classes.

This could be an interesting way to get students from multiple schools to interact on a more personal level compared to only in sports.

I can see something like this also working for people who do home schooling where they often form groups that span multiple districts.

Of course there will always be people who say things like this won't work, those people are so boring and if we listened to them we'd still be pushing/pulling sleds around instead of taking the leap of faith in using the wheel.

"It might even work with a college like class size, where a lecture hall is used with lots of students (not the normal 25-35 students in college), but more like 50-100+"

Wow. If you think a class of 50-100 students aged 13-18 year-olds would ever work you are clearly not a high school teacher. 35 students per class doesn't even work well at that age. I say this as someone who has taught 6th grade through university level mathematics classes, in multiple countries, spanning class sizes of 5 to 200ish.

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
"It might even work with a college like class size, where a lecture hall is used with lots of students (not the normal 25-35 students in college), but more like 50-100+"

Wow. If you think a class of 50-100 students aged 13-18 year-olds would ever work you are clearly not a high school teacher. 35 students per class doesn't even work well at that age. I say this as someone who has taught 6th grade through university level mathematics classes, in multiple countries, spanning class sizes of 5 to 200ish.

Well that might be the case when people are being forced to be in the class, but when it is an "electible", I suspect the people who are going to go, are there to learn.

Make it a REAL clear rule. Students are there to LISTEN and LEARN. None of this "coddling & catering to kids" like seems to be the norm in many schools.

Kids always complain that schools don't teach stuff that can be used in the real world, and due to this I can understand kids not wanting to pay attention, listen, etc (and goof off).

Because it is not part of the normal cirriculum, the same rules don't apply. If kids act up, they can be kicked out of class. They are there to learn, not show off, distract other kids, etc. Make it CLEAR in the application contract. Video record the lectures (for a few reasons, for kids who miss class & for protection of the teacher/instructor). If a kid acts up, they miss the next class. Do it again and they are booted from the class with no refund for the course. Let the kids tell the parents why they are being thrown out, b/c they can't behave themselves.

I know kids can be difficult, but like printers (the computer kind) the smell fear, and the more they smell of it, the less chance they will work, pay attention or do what they are told/requested.

Look at sports coaches, especially the good ones where the kids WANT to be on the team. They are tough-arses most of the time, and if they act up, they are suspend or off he team. Kids will fall in line if they realize they will get something out of it, and those that don't, well, that is their problem.

We just need to stop being scared of kids and handling them with "kid gloves". This is exactly what makes them think they can get away with anything except for the few that are just nut-jobs b/c of really lousy home lives where they get zero discipline.

If we always say "we can't do this b/c....." we would never do anything. This can be done and people (teachers) need to stop cow-towing to the thug students (not all, just the bad ones).

One of the best things going for this is that the program could be an "out of school program" so they wouldn't have to adhere to the stupid rules that the school does for kicking kids out of class for actin up.

The department of education should be added and given back to the states Imo. After that what is needed is a class on finances. How to manage,debt,taxes and credit . It would be the single most useful class ....ever

a reply to: lakenheath24

That would be a great idea if we could also get the states to pay for it. When you finish your finance class we can discuss it.

a reply to: toms54

They pay for it now. Take the budget allocated for D of Ed and give it back to the states. You would only need one 9 week term for this class anyway. Once your junior and senior year .

Until they actually learn to read, civics is a waste of time. If they did teach civics, it would be through a leftist lens anyway.

"Modern Civics" would put G. Washington and the "founding fathers", not to mention the men and women that fought and suffered for "the cause", in a negative light, with a noose already around their kneck.
America has become so "educated" and "civilized", it couldn't execute "righteous violence" for itself or the "people". Or beat itself out of a wet paper bag.
Because "there's never a good reason for violence"! This is the crap that is taught in "public schools".

First we must understand what "American civics" is. It is not the same as "European civics" or even, "Canadian civics". It's a unique kind of "civics". Which makes us a unique Country out of all the countries of the world.

Introduction to American civics 101:


Lesson 1. Government is inherently evil. That should be the first lesson.

Lesson 2. This is your rifle.

Lesson 3. Question those that would deprive you of this rifle.

Lesson 4. Sometimes you'll have to slap people around, before they "respect" your freedom. But don't go overboard. All things in moderation...

Lesson 5. Your "freedom" to say what you think and mean what you say? Is based on your love and abilities with this rifle.

Lesson 6. There's some commie, unAmerican, anti-American, P.O.S. out there, with the same "rights" as you. Don't be disrespectful to their "feelings". (That would be uncivilized).

Lesson 7. Do not be afraid to deal violence for violence. Your blood is not valuable to them. But their own blood (historically speaking), always seems to
bring logic to their "education".

Lesson 8. Always be civil.

I can half-heatedly get behind this (only half because that's probably all that's left of my heart at this point). But I really just don't like the idea of school anyway. As long as it's ran by the state it will always be nothing but an indoctrination tool and an instrument of mass conformity that systematically suffocates the human spirit completely out of existence.