Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, these cases of textbook manipulations, etc., are of concern, and people need to be on their toes about stuff like this, but textbooks are not the only source of education in a classroom. I acknowledge that no person or no textbook can be free of any biasm but that goes for homeschoolers, too.
I suppose there is some "indoctrination" in modern classrooms trying to send the message to kids that people of all races, ethnicities, and genders are equal and that discrimination and predjudice is bad. That doesn't bother me.
But the argument that schools are trying to make modern kids into robots who toe the line and don't question authority (the type of indoctrination accusation I was thinking about) just doesn't convince me.
Have you read the newest of history books? I absolutely refuse to by "proper" history, social studies or science books for my kids. I will buy them the "I'm a stupid adult learning the basics" books before I buy them that crap. This is because those books are loaded with advertisements and unnecessary information. Do my kids REALLY need to have "Did You Know..." facts such as to when M&M's where first invented? And then have that as a bonus question on their tests? SERIOUSLY! our schools are screwed up with allowing this crap. And Channel One that all kids are forced to watch...McDonalds knows they can hit every single public school student 5 days a week. Why do schools allow large corporations to come in and advertise trash to our children?
Have you read the newest of history books? I absolutely refuse to by "proper" history, social studies or science books for my kids. I will buy them the "I'm a stupid adult learning the basics" books before I buy them that crap. This is because those books are loaded with advertisements and unnecessary information. Do my kids REALLY need to have "Did You Know..." facts such as to when M&M's where first invented? And then have that as a bonus question on their tests? SERIOUSLY! our schools are screwed up with allowing this crap. And Channel One that all kids are forced to watch...McDonalds knows they can hit every single public school student 5 days a week. Why do schools allow large corporations to come in and advertise trash to our children?
Channel One put a tv in every classroom for free and pays schools a lot of money to have the program on. The programs are actually somewhat educational. My kids have never said "I need to go to McDonalds because we saw it on Channel One". I think parents that underestimate their child's reasoning skills are the ones with the issue. Those fun facts in text books are just that FUN.
I've excelled at everything I've done. Ask any of my former professors or supervisors.
The reference to getting what I need is getting what I need to excel at the job I have to do beit education or engineering. It doesn't matter where you put me. I'll do fine.
Yes, financially, I'm stuggling with the career change into teaching which makes teaching difficult in that I can't settle in when I know I'm leaving. If I knew I could settle in for the long haul, I wouldn't have any issues. I did not anticipate that the only job openings would be in low paying charter schools. They've been crying about a shortage of chemistry/math teacher for years. I know 5 chemical engineers who switched into teaching (a common move for chemical engineers - 70% of us have second careers outside of chemical engineering. I think we just like change.) and we're all in charter or private schools. Unfortunately, there is no demand for what we bring to the table and it is, very much, a buyers market.
I trust I will do, at least, as well as I did before in engineering and that was pretty good. I've never had a negative performance review. Over the years, I had numerous unsolicited job offers from clients and vendors. I have a pretty good track record. I've even been told that I did remarkably well for my first year in teaching.
Somewhere out there, there's someone who wants an environmentally conscious chemical engineer who graduated at the top of her class and has a pretty good track record. I'm smart, I love learning, I love challenges and I haven't met a job I couldn't master yet. Of course, 5 years down the road I'm looking for something else because I'm no longer feeling challenged.
I thought what you learned in pain, you retained. If you excelled at EVERYTHING, then you were not in enough pain. Or is that another degree you are currently working on obtaining?
Haven't we all. Let us start to being 16 again and having the military hit our schools in the masses. It feels like a get rich quick scheme. I've been offered a job to be an area manager for photography for, get this, WalMart, to much bigger things and much smaller.
WOW, this goes against EVERYTHING you have said about having to learn to be bored in school because the career world is like that so they had better learn now.
Channel One put a tv in every classroom for free and pays schools a lot of money to have the program on. The programs are actually somewhat educational. My kids have never said "I need to go to McDonalds because we saw it on Channel One". I think parents that underestimate their child's reasoning skills are the ones with the issue. Those fun facts in text books are just that FUN.
All of this wastes valueable learning time that WE pay those schools to use to teach our children. They need to be learning things that will help them in life. There are many fun things facts to learn that may actually help them in life. The "fun facts" in textbooks are undeniably advertisement. They need to be learning about the agricultural values of the various countries of the world, not the "value" of M&M's unless they are comparing the nutritional value of a bag of M&M's against an apple.
All of this wastes valueable learning time that WE pay those schools to use to teach our children. They need to be learning things that will help them in life. There are many fun things facts to learn that may actually help them in life. The "fun facts" in textbooks are undeniably advertisement. They need to be learning about the agricultural values of the various countries of the world, not the "value" of M&M's unless they are comparing the nutritional value of a bag of M&M's against an apple.
Well, most schools use Channel One while they are taking attendance and doing other administrative work first think in the morning during homeroom. It is NOT taking away valuable education time what so ever. I am glad my kids have a little fun in their school day vs the rigid system you seem to follow. They do learn what they need to know about other countries of the work and looking for 10 seconds at a cute blurb about when M&M's were invented has no bearing on their ability to learn. Talk about over exaggerating what goes on in the classroom for crying out loud.
Channel One put a tv in every classroom for free and pays schools a lot of money to have the program on. The programs are actually somewhat educational. My kids have never said "I need to go to McDonalds because we saw it on Channel One". I think parents that underestimate their child's reasoning skills are the ones with the issue.
I think I have to take the other side on this one.
It is absolutely true that Channel One is buying the placement of its advertising, and paying well for it.
Don't believe for a moment that this is an altruistic move on Channel One's part or that of its advertisers - there is a profit motive involved, and if research hadn't shown Channel One's advertisers a good return on their expenditures, then they'd be former advertisers. It costs ~$200,000 for a 30 second ad on Channel One, I think
Check out:
E. H. Ishigaki - The Health and Eating Habits of Young Children in Japan, Early Childhood Development & Care, Vol 71 (1991);
M. E. Goldberg - A Quasi-experiment Assessing the Effectiveness of TV Advertising Directed to Children, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27, Issue 4 (1990);
Collins, Tonnessen, Barry, & Yeates - Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Box? Children and Advertising in Four Countries, Educational Media International, Vol. 29 Issue 4 (1992)
Brand and Greenberg's 1994 study found that Channel One viewers were found to evaluate products advertised on its program more highly than agemates who had not seen Channel One.
In a separate study, they did find that viewers retained a greater knowledge of current events than non-viewers, though later studies suggest this effect is primarily influenced by the extent to which the teacher incorporates it into lessons.
BUT... In Pediatrics, the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, in 2008, Austin, Chen, Pinkleton, & Johnson reported:
Quote:
On average, students remembered more ads from Channel Onethan news stories. Participants in the control group remembered fewer news stories than did the groups that received the lessons. Students reported having purchased during the preceding 3 months an average of 2.5 items advertised on the program. Both fact-based and affect-added training increased student skepticism toward advertisers. As expected, student liking of the program enhanced their learning from it and was associated with higher levels of political efficacy. Students held misconceptions about the role of their school in the production of Channel One.
They concluded (in part):
Although those who responded positively to program content and presentation style learned more from it, they also tended to want things that they saw in the advertisements.
(highlighting is mine)
Kids are influenced by television ads. Kids are influenced by seeing ads on TV at school.
I think I have to take the other side on this one.
It is absolutely true that Channel One is buying the placement of its advertising, and paying well for it.
Don't believe for a moment that this is an altruistic move on Channel One's part or that of its advertisers - there is a profit motive involved, and if research hadn't shown Channel One's advertisers a good return on their expenditures, then they'd be former advertisers. In 1994, it cost $175,000 for a 30 second ad on Channel One.
Check out:
E. H. Ishigaki - The Health and Eating Habits of Young Children in Japan, Early Childhood Development & Care, Vol 71 (1991);
M. E. Goldberg - A Quasi-experiment Assessing the Effectiveness of TV Advertising Directed to Children, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27, Issue 4 (1990);
Collins, Tonnessen, Barry, & Yeates - Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Box? Children and Advertising in Four Countries, Educational Media International, Vol. 29 Issue 4 (1992)
Brand and Greenberg's 1994 study found that Channel One viewers were found to evaluate products advertised on its program more highly than agemates who had not seen Channel One.
In a separate study, they did find that viewers retained a greater knowledge of current events than non-viewers, though later studies suggest this effect is primarily influenced by the extent to which the teacher incorporates it into lessons.
BUT... In Pediatrics, the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, in 2008, Austin, Chen, Pinkleton, & Johnston reported:
They concluded (in part):
Although those who responded positively to program content and presentation style learned more from it, they also tended to want things that they saw in the advertisements.
(highlighting is mine)
Kids are influenced by television ads. Kids are influenced by seeing ads on TV at school.
Well, that is what advertising is all about-of course they want things they see. Again, so what that is what the word NO is for. The minute and a half that Channel One is on has had zero influence in what my kids have bought, had or asked for. It is an absurd reason to homeschool your child.
I'm not presenting it as a reason to or not to homeschool - but I am responding to your earlier comment that
Quote:
parents that underestimate their child's reasoning skills
Yes, it is what "no" is for, but...
According to a national survey commissioned by the Center for a New American Dream:
American children aged 12 to 17 will ask their parents for products they have seen advertised an average of nine times until the parents finally give in.
More than 10 percent of 12- to 13-year-olds admitted to asking their parents more than 50 times for products they have seen advertised.
More than half of the children surveyed (53%) said that buying certain products makes them feel better about themselves. The number is even higher among 12- to 13-year-olds: 62% say that buying certain products makes them feel better about themselves.
Nearly a third of those surveyed (32%) admitted to feeling pressure to buy certain products such as clothes and CDs because their friends have them. Over half of 12- to 13-year-olds (54%) admitted to feeling such pressure.
The nagging strategy is paying dividends for kids and marketers alike: 55% of kids surveyed said they are usually successful in getting their parents to give in.
Kids & Commercialism | Poll
*******
The same things apply to advertising as to most other issues - proactive education and attention makes a difference. Some people are more susceptible than others. If your kids were the the norm, Channel One would have long since gone out of business.
But the question of how much should our schools be supporting advertising, while (oh, just maybe) not exactly pertinent to the topic on hand, is very much a legitimate question.
I don't like Channel One, but have no problem with "fun facts" in history books. The fluffy stuff is history, too, especially if a good teacher can relate it back to larger historical issues.
I don't like textbooks in general, and think that a good teacher needs to be proactive about supplementing the textbook portion of the curriculum with other things.
Well, that is what advertising is all about-of course they want things they see. Again, so what that is what the word NO is for. The minute and a half that Channel One is on has had zero influence in what my kids have bought, had or asked for. It is an absurd reason to homeschool your child.
Of course that in itself is an absurd thing to homeschool your kids for. IF though, you are passionate about history and science being taught in grade school to any substantial value, then you will be saddened that Channel One is expected to help fill those gaps.
Well of course that what advertising is all about but it is not what school should be about. The time should be used to TEACH and LEARN, not wasted on Channel One.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
