I totally agree with the old adage that 'it takes a village to raise a child'

With that in mind, and considering that so many homes require both parents to be working away from home, what if anything, other than the staples of reading, writing, maths, science, do you feel a school should be teaching children?

1. I think our future leaders and voters should be taught civics and government more thoroughly, for one.

2. I also think that it is a place that should encourage social and coping skills.

3. The lessons the schools give as a standard for intellectual development might be well accompanied with a standard that promotes emotional development as well.

Have you any ideas for how to improve children's educational experience?

People have children, schools don't have children!
Parents should stop trying to pass the buck and teach there own children life skills, manors, etc. If both parents have to be away then they are selfish and shouldn't of had children.

with all respect Mikey, the premise of it 'takes a village' was quoted to explain that children do not learn JUST from parents and will learn from other things BESIDES parents no matter what they do.

So if parents are having to spend more time in 'jobs', leaving schools to have that time to impress their kids INSTEAD, it may serve the children best if those adults, both parents and school employees, worked 'together' in what they impress upon the kids?

it is not passing the buck, it is acknowledging the reality of the power of impression

In the late 70s, while I was in high school, my school taught Economics and Business Management.
Economics was geared to learn how the business world worked.

I think children would benefit from a household level of Economics.
Teach the children how to run a household; pay bills, create menus, make grocery lists, manage a budget, do taxes, plan for holidays, plan for a new child, plan for back to school expenses, etc...

Another possible class might be Home Psychology.
Teach the children how to manage life; how to deal with hurt feelings, how to raise a child, learn to respect others, handle responsibility, handling emergencies, disaster preparation, understanding self-esteem, dealing with inner turmoil and depression, etc...
I remember my kids having to take care of an egg (my middle boy failed because he boiled it). That was the extent of Home Economics that dealt with life psychology. This was in the late 2000s.



Usually, these things are done by active parenting.
Its obvious these things are not being taught by anyone.
When it comes down to the welfare of a child, its better for a school to teach life skills than nobody teaching life skills.

Many parents would feel threatened by this.
Some may be afraid of it.
Some may throw their arms up and just give up.

"Nobody is going to tell me how to raise my own child" is a valid argument if they are actively raising their own child.
But, There are many that don't and the children suffer when they get out on their own because they have no idea what the hell is going on.

The problem I see is that part of the village, a large portion is taught by people that also do not possess sound reasoning skills and healthy lifestyles.

We have damaged people influencing our children about life skills the parent should be teaching with love.
Instead, they learn narcissism, depression, low self-esteem, poor spending and a gazillion other bad things from the open community.

The worst thing is that many parents just don't care.

I agree.

If we consider there are only 24 hours in a day,half of them are sleeping hours and the other 12 are mostly given to school activity(an hour before and after and six hours of school).

It leaves about four hours that parents have to impress upon their kids. If you subtract the hour of mealtime and prep for bed. Parents are left about three hours a day during the week to impress upon the kids compared to the other nine with the impressions they get EVERYWHERE else. That three hours needs to matter, but it also is gonna have a hard time being as impressionable as that nine, so I feel it best for both segments to reinforce the other.

It doesn't take a village, it only takes a father and a mother. Sometimes it also takes the grandmother or aunt; grandfather likes to help, too and uncle doesn't mind at all.

It takes a family.

It only takes a village when you destroy the family nucleus and take the father out of the home like they so brilliantly and systematically accomplished during the past 30 years.

Thank you feminism.

what about when the father and mother arent there? Do you not think it is beneficial to the child for the 'village' to be looking after them as if they are their own? Otherwise, might they become TOO dependent upon the false security that their parents will always be there or the only people who matter?

Thank you for the thread and thanks Mingle2 for allowing me to post and state my opinion.

I don't want to go into a useless and endless debate.
That was my opinion and I'm sticking with it come rain or high water.

okay. Thank you for contributing. We sometimes can't understand others without asking questions. There are no mandates to reply. Thank you mingle.

Its not a math problem, its a dedication problem.
I raised four children. We were active parents.
We had no immediate family to help us raise our kids.

The critical phases of life were important in teaching the morals and reasoning skills so our children made the right decisions while at school.
I had a 'friendship' alliance with my children, they knew they could trust me with their problems because I demonstrated love for them.
Dinner table learning was more intense the older they got.
Unlike their friends, We ALWAYS sat at the table together for breakfast and supper. We talked. We all learned from each other. Plus, our children were raised with both a loving mother AND a loving father.

At mealtime we discussed school and friendship relationships but bedtime was for reflecting on the day and working out dealing with life. We always tried to put the kids at ease before they went to sleep. They slept better, were more rested and could concentrate the next day.
As teenage years reared its ugly head, things got more difficult and their problems got more complex. We became advisors instead of teachers.

Children make mistakes.
Punishments were designed to teach as well.
They usually involved isolation and tasks slanted to teach a value or moral. We didn't carry anger for the sake of being angry.
After the kids reached the age of reason, we shifted from spontaneous reaction to planned reaction. There was a waiting period before punishment. It not only allowed us to cool down, it allowed the kids to reflect on their offenses.

Our children's friends loved coming to our house. I heard them say "Its better at your house, your parents are great". I believe it was because we had a loving atmosphere that other children picked up on because it was missing in their own home. I've had many of my kids friends come to me for advice they should have been getting from their own parents.

My oldest son had two friends that were like wallpaper during high school.
Both came from broken homes.
I renamed the boys.
I called the taller one "Pete" and his sidekick "Repeat".
What I thought was funny is when I heard "Repeat" refer to the other as "Pete". It made me realize just how much of an impression I made on them.

While children do learn from the "Village" it is the parents responsibility to teach them how to interpret what they learn.
Shucking parental responsibility because there isn't enough time is a cop-out and you end up getting kids that are just as screwed up as what you see.
They're your kids AND your responsibility. Excuses are not an option. You MAKE time to teach them well, you don't find time in a busy schedule when its convenient.

My niece is a math teacher at a jr high. They have to do what the boss says. They aren't their to parent....just teach

Let's go farther....teachers aren't allowed to teach morals, etc because of opposition. What if the teacher doesn't have the same beliefs, morals, values, etc? Make all conform too one? No. Teachers have rights too. They are there to teacher their study. They didn't have the kids. My niece has 4 kids (1 not hers but raises her as hers). She takes care of them. When she isn't their, she has family or friends help.

Teachers get paid very little. Many spend their own money for supplies as it is.

This is the parents responsibility. Teachers are very limited on what they can do because too many whine

I had a discussion with one of my kids science teachers once because he was teaching inaccuracies. I was kinda ticked off that they were teaching my kids wrong.
I gathered up proof, printed papers and books and a long list of references and went to meet with the teacher.
What I found out is that the teacher also knew the science, same as I. He explained that even though the textbooks were now wrong and outdated, he had to grade on how well the children learned the material they were "TOLD" to teach.
He then allowed my son to retake the test he failed, and he passed.
It taught my entire family the lesson of administration programming.
That, what is, may not be what is taught in school.
After that lesson, all my childrens grades came up because they were now looking for the differences between what they were being taught and what is actual. (We watched a lot of science documentaries)
It taught my children that there are double standards in life.
That in turn taught them how to expect and deal with unfair conditions.

For teachers to have jobs, they have to teach to what they are told. Sad yes.

Teachers are NOT responsible for values and morals. I would have never wanted my sons teacher to teach that. As a single mom, I still taught him. He is 27 and a damn good kid. I kept on him and taught him.

The village these days is a snowflake thing. Many kids aren't held accountable and weren't taught how to be

I am not talking about the real studies. This is about teachers being parents (lack of better term)