you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 10 hours ago (1 child)

It's a good book, yes, but I was not interested in it and I had the executive function of a teenage boy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

    If we catered education to only the things that appeal to the most distracted teenage boys it would just be tits and explosions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    Actually I'd like to argue the reflective point: why is there not an expectation that coursework should be interesting and compelling for students?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (1 child)

    why is there not an expectation that coursework should be interesting and compelling for students?

    As you said, you had the executive function of a teenage boy. The works still get taught because they are interesting and relevant. but it's hard to see that as a kid, as you're developing vocabulary and literacy and also lacking life experiences to relate.

    Schools try to compromise by giving a list of choices and letting students choose from those on what is most interesting. But curriculums only flex so much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (2 children)

    If it gets them writing essays and participating who cares?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago (1 child)

    Because analyzing themes and connecting it to history and sociology are important media literacy skills that high schoolers should be learning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago (1 child)

    A Time to Kill won't fulfill that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments