These two causes may also lad to the rise of the problem. To begin with, I totally agree that lack of education may lead to alcohol abuse. In Mindy Sink’s article, she mentions that kids are away from home for the first time and not taught to drink responsibly. Parents and schools play an important role in educating their children and students. Since teenagers are immature to make their own decision, it is vital for adults to inculcate a correct attitude towards drinking.
The most obvious form of political participation is, of course, voting- usually through general elections and referendums. However, the percentage of people who voted in a general election dropped from 83% in 1984 to 72% in 2000, and only 65% of people voting in the 2010 general election. This may well be due to a lack of interest in modern politics, or the feelings that your vote will not have a great impact on the outcome of the election, or a distrust of many of the politicians standing for election. In addition, Crewe’s survey of young people in Britain found that 80% of British pupils engaged in little or no discussion of political affairs at home. If the height of interaction between young people and politics is so limited, it seems doubtful that the political interest of tomorrow will be any better than the political interest of today.
It was just a multiple choice question. The author also argues that children’s moods, their skills and disabilities, and drive to achieve affect the way they take these tests. Why make homeschooled students take the same tests as public schools, when public schools are obviously not succeeding at education? Bittner goes on to argue that testing cannot sufficiently measure homeschoolers’ learning. Homeschoolers are not taught out of a textbook; they learn more by reading and picking up
So instead of asking why kids should be allowed to vote, shouldn't we be asking why kids shouldn't be allowed to vote? One possible reason why kids cannot vote is because they don't know much about politics. Most kids don't realize it, but they know a lot about politics. In fact, they might know more about politics than adults because kids get a hands-on experience with politics every day. Every day kids are struggling to become popular in school by winning people over.
The derogatory term makes it hard to appropriately depict the true meaning of the book to a group of children without raising countless unspoken questions. On the other hand, we have those that believe that the removal of Twain’s vernacular of that time takes away from the contextual essence of the novel leaving the youth “unaware that their people have overcome centuries of oppression”. (Schneider 3) Furthermore, censorship of Huckleberry Finn could depend on many other factors: fear of uneducated or insensitive teachers leading student discussions, school administrators who wish to avoid controversy and discomfort with acknowledging our country's painful history. “It’s true that people might now be offended by the portrayal of Jim, or the use of “nigger”, but times have changed and we don’t portray them that way anymore. You can’t just ignore what happened and people
Though many people may dismiss 1984 by George Orwell to be offensive, it is necessary to read because it challenges the reader to question authority. 1984 offers an important opportunity for young men and women to acquire who they are going to be when they grow up. The ability to question authority is often overlooked in today’s society. From the time we were able to crawl and speak, we are ruled by some set of rules that prevent us from synthesizing our own thoughts and actions. It is those who decide to question authority that rise above the majority of people and proceed to greater things.
People always say that teenagers need a taste of reality right? Well this book provides it. But many people believe that this book should be banned for that same reason. It is too crude for a school curriculum. Yet I believe that this book, “The Chocolate War” by Robert Cormier, should be kept in schools to be read by teenagers.
But if we are a country of democracy why should someone be forced into reciting or doing something they don’t feel believe in. I think the schools should write their own pledge relating to the education side of things. Having your own voice and being heard is a big part of our culture today. I think the children who didn’t recite the Pledge were somewhat outcaste. So the kids who didn’t say it were perfectly identified as different.
Society, parents, and schools do not teach children the skills of physical, psychological, emotional and verbal self-defense. This is because most adults don't know how to do so. A majority of these people just put bullying aside like it is something that has to happen to everyone at one point. Almost like if you didn’t get bullied than you never really grew up. But is this right, should parents even, principals just blow bullying off like that?
It may reflect some aspects of the subject; whether it’s Math or English, but it can’t possibly drill down to evaluate what the student learned in each subject. There is a lot more to education than what is taught in the class. The high school experience helps kids to prepare for their next stage of life. Four years of learning about people and how to work and live together in a community cannot be represented in a test. The fact is that some people are just not good test takers.