The Instigator
iaminneedofhelp
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JacobAnderson
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Primary School Teaching should be improved

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 742 times Debate No: 49992
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

iaminneedofhelp

Pro

For this debate I have chosen to take the pro/for side. I believe that Primary School education should be taught better, differently and using a different syllabus in HICs e.g. USA and UK.
This debate will have no set format but I expect to have a decent structured debate.
Please only accept if you have strong opinions on the argument.
First round is acceptance and resolution stating.
Good luck and good debating!
JacobAnderson

Con

I accept this debate arguing against the resolution that primary school teaching should be improved.
Debate Round No. 1
iaminneedofhelp

Pro

Ok, let the debate commence!
For this round I want to give my main argument and then, in up coming rounds, see how it pans out. I will start off with the three main subject areas: Science, English and Maths.
Science is the basis of modern understanding and it explores the world around us with incredible detail. In primary school this detail is, obviously, not going to be taught but I think that a much better basis of knowledge can be built up at primary school. If you were taught the really useful stuff like states of matter, kinetic energy, types of energy, the BASIC particle, forces and the BASIC human body etc. a kids understanding would increase rapidly. The idea here is that the child then has this basis of knowledge to use, when recapped, at high school. The idea of remembering things is like a combination lock. You turn the first ring on the lock which is like the primary school teaching, the second at high school and by the time you turn the third while revising the knowledge is securely locked into your head. Science is about knowledge and by knowing this basic stuff, which isn't taught in a sequential and sensible manner at the moment, you can do better in the all important exams.
Maths is a hard one. Primary schools already teach this one quite well but many improvements need to be made. They do teach some useful stuff like shapes and their names but they don't teach stuff like how addition and subtraction interact with each other. This is essential for the whole of Maths in general. If they built up some solid rules like BIDMAS in primary education it would make the teachers life a whole lot easier when it came to secondary education. Maths is that type of subject that some basic rules are needed and your whole life will be easier for years to come. They do need to take an emphasis off times tables as well because they currently take over time which could be used more effectively learning useful number bonds etc. The times tables, although useful, are not necessary to recite as a calculator is always handy.
English is being taught to a reasonable degree in primary schools at the moment. Reading and writing should be focused on up until Year 3 and then more emphasis should be placed on reading texts and doing comprehension on them. Another important thing that could be taught better is grammar. This can be easily taught with comprehensions.
None of this, I'm sure you will agree, is too hard to implement. If this was implemented then it would benefit children throughout their education. You need that base their, just like you need sturdy supports for a building.
JacobAnderson

Con

I'm not sure which elementary school you attended, but I will speak from personal experience I suppose.
I was learning PEMDAS (BEMDAS) in third grade, I was learning photosynthesis in seconds and atoms in fourth and fifth. I do not know what you mean by primary school, but I am assuming you mean grades k-5, and in my experience, I learned all of the things you mentioned before sixth grade. I do not know how either side would prove that majority of schools are this way or that way, but my personal experience should somewhat negate the arguments you have posted, maybe not enough, though.

I was also accelerated and read at a high school level by first grade along with my sister and I mastered cursive by second grade when penmanship was a big part of English teachings.
Debate Round No. 2
iaminneedofhelp

Pro

iaminneedofhelp forfeited this round.
JacobAnderson

Con

JacobAnderson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
iaminneedofhelp

Pro

Ok,
We both forfeited last round.
In the UK there is no such thing as acceleration until secondary school is reached though we do have high and lower sets. The point is that although many kids of the brighter kids are taught stuff at the correct time many of the more challenged kids are not taught the necessities until too late. This poses the problem of when this stuff will be taught as there is quite a time pressure to get the whole syllabus completed before exams.
If many of these weaker students were taught these things at the correct time then many would benefit. And if the teaching was improved in lower years to cater for the slow learners then the standard of education would be higher in the latter years meaning that the essentials could be taught on time.
You say that you were accelerated in primary school because you're bright. Well what about the kids who aren't. I was accelerated in secondary school and I believe that I could have benefited greatly by having a better primary education.
We need to look at this argument from the weaker people's perspective.
JacobAnderson

Con

Well, I didn't know that we were discussing education in the UK. However, it seems similar to education in the US so I guess it doesn't matter.

You agreed that yes, the brighter people learn what they need to at a quicker pace than the more challenged people, but that is obvious. I do not believe that this is a fair consensus that education should be bettered- or by your definition, lowered. I say that I assume you are trying to lower education to better it because you appeal to the more challenged and state that we should accomodate for them.

Bottom line I suppose is that teachers are teaching on what the state governments- maybe even federal governments- tell them to teach. Children have the necessary skills to survive with what the regular curriculum is, so there is no reason why the education should be altered. We are taught the basics and if you can handle it and you have the mind capacity, you will learn at a quicker pace. All seems fair to me the way it is.
Debate Round No. 4
iaminneedofhelp

Pro

iaminneedofhelp forfeited this round.
JacobAnderson

Con

JacobAnderson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.