lol indeed, that was funny imp, but sadly incredibly wide of the mark.
We all love to dance, we all love to sing, and we al love to act, but we expect these talents to appear miraculously, without training or nurturing those talents until a child displays some sign of being gifted in one of those areas.

To not teach them to all kids would be like not teaching kids to read and write until they display a brilliant innate flair for language, or maths unless the child is a human calculator anyway.

To leave it until kids are teens, too afraid of looking uncool to ever try anything they may not be naturally good at, is possibly leaving it a bit late, but to have it in preschools, and primary schools will see kids developing a degree of proficiency, and a natural respect for areas to long neglected.

mozzaok wrote on May 10^th, 2010 at 7:50pm:


I don't think I was saying that these skills just spontaneously come into being. Many kinds of genius are predicated upon diligence and persistence. As you wrote (and I assumed) in your previous post, subjects like dance, art, and drama should be elevated in school curriculums so the time assigned for their teaching would be on par, or at least approaching, the time spent spent on math, reading and writing. This is where I take objection. Maybe you weren't saying that. Of course, I'm not saying that these subjects should be taught, but frankly, they are not useful skills for the vast majority of students, even the ones that are extremely intelligent. It is a good thing to include such subjects in curriculums however; pinpointing the gifted who would not ordinarily be discovered outside school is a worthy endeavour. You can figure out who is worth nurturing in particular fields pretty early too.

It might even be a good idea after we discover who the genuinely artistically talented are to allow them the option of a different curriculum with a greater emphasis on art. Customized curriculums that suit the strengths and weaknesses of particular students, earlier than they are introduced now, is an idea I've always thought was a pretty good one. Too much time is wasted at present trying to teach simpletons trignometry rather than knowing how to calculate the basic interest in a loan.

I just had a brainflash for psychometric examinations that attempt to approximate artistic, musical etc. aptitude with high validity (according to a standard, of course). I wonder if it's possible?

Quote:


Any evidence that what is taught in schools already doesn't already satisfy these goals? Is there any evidence that a more 'holistic approach to education' (if what we have already now doesn't approach or equal that) allow us to fully 'utilise what our minds will do for us?', whatever that means. All sounds very vague to me. I don't even know what you objected to in my previous post.

Quote:


The worst case scenario of what I think you're proposing (but am unsure) is probably a whole lot of people who are more undeveloped in areas that really matter than they should be. Not exactly disasterous, but mildly pernicious, not to mention a waste of time and money.

Any attempt to teach children to dance in school is bound to crush their spirit rather than inspire them. Remember, school curriculums have to be something that not only all children, but all parents are willing to have imposed on their children. That rules out anything fun or interesting. I remember being taught the heel and toe polka in primary school. I tried it out in a nightclub some time later, but it just didn't cut it. A surprising success was reciting Shakespear, though obviously in a different setting.