Your last paragraph pretty much sums it up. They should be touched on and are of course very important. Sheltgor is saying they are going far beyond this at the expense of literature.

Exactly this. From what I recall, and from what I hear from several relatives and acquantances who have been teaching for years, is that traditionally the ratio was roughly 70-30 'fiction'-'non-fiction; the latter being novels, poems, plays, etc. ranging from classical to contemporary sources, the former being speeches, news articles, think pieces, analysis of literary or rhetorical techniques, etc. Common core essentially reverses this, putting a much higher emphasis on what the group of reformers behind if feel are more practical, and importantly which contribute more to test scores, whereas many teachers vigorously oppose the notion that the latter sources should be given precedence. At least in my own readings on the matter, and from speaking with individuals who are involved with the movement in the Seattle School District to block implementation of a lot of the new measures, educators tend to feel that the older ratio contributes better to a well-rounded individual, and has a better impact on long-term educational development.

I think that what constitutes being well-rounded is somewhat subjective. It would certainly be lovely to have a society full of people that can appreciate poetry, can quote and enjoy Shakespeare, etc, but there is a point to be made about teaching kids how to be successful. Part of success is being able to make enough of a living to be comfortable. Yes, part of it is also being happy and understanding the world, which reading the classics contributes to, but I don't know if I agree with that 70/30 ratio.

One criticism of some schools with very classical education is their lack of preparation for the "real world". Many schools didn't bother teaching computer skills until years after the rest of the world had started, despite having the means (i.e. money) to do so. Learning the classics, learning Latin, and learning poetry can make someone an excellent guest at a dinner party, and that's great, but I think the average person would be better off with a little more practicality.

Einstein said, "Education is what is left after you've forgotten everything you've learned." Isn't it all about teaching a sort of... meta-skill? Teaching people to learn how to learn? When they no longer remember what Lord of the Flies was about or not being able to recite The Raven, they should still be able to retain the skills required to go back, look at the writing, and figure it out again. I would argue that it should be the same for things like rhetoric. When you're 26 and you have to give a speech at work for the first time in ten years, you should remember some stuff from high school. You may forget the lame topic you were assigned to give a speech on, and you may forget what sources you used, but the skills of doing that research, preparing that speech, and talking in front of others all helped you. Not only do they help with that speech at work, but also in normal, everyday conversation. I really think there's a good case here for teaching some more practicality, despite my love of all the things I learned in my English classes.

Of course, it should be noted that I am not in the educational field and I am a complete layman on this topic.

Education should be useful though a lifetime, and the classics seem to become more important as we get older. Perhaps there should be more time devoted overall to English, so that it can all be covered- both practical English, as well as literature. I'm not sure how many hours of English American students take, but when I was in high school, we had time for Shakespeare, poetry and novels. We also did lots of speeches, debating, plays, formal writing and language (grammar). The school I attended in the 90's was quite average for its time (but by modern abysmal South African education standards, it would probably have been considered excellent).

Until I turned 30 I never understood the point of learning poetry in school. My mother got ill, and I recalled the poem "Do not go gentle into that good night" by Dylan Thomas, and it helped me make sense of my feelings. When politicians equivocate, I am reminded of a core theme in Macbeth. I have never discussed Macbeth at dinner, but it helped me understand an important aspect of the world. My English teachers helped give me a framework for understanding as an adult, though their analysis of the literature we studied. I taught myself computers at home, and studied CS at university, but I am glad that we did an intensive study of the English language in high school. School is the last opportunity for many people, particularly those who are technically inclined, like me, to be exposed to the humanities, and without it, we are at risk of being stunted as adult citizens. (Incidentally, it has been pointed out that many modern terrorists have engineering backgrounds- perhaps it is even more important for us to be exposed to the classics to help make sense of the world.)

I'm relatively young, so perhaps I'm just incapable of fully understanding the impact of the classics throughout the course of a lifetime as you describe it. I like poetry and Shakespeare and whatnot, and they have impacted me in some profound ways (Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep when my grandma passed away) as well as things that taught me how read, write, and interpret things better. I'm also in a technical field, and at times I do find myself a bit envious of those in the humanities. I do supplement with books and poetry and whatnot, and I'm very proud to have a skill set which is valuable and a field which fulfills me, but the humanities have always felt like a hobby. A hobby I love, mind you, but still just a hobby. I don't know how things will play out, but I hope I'll wind up well-rounded, with plenty of soft skills, technical skills, entertainment, and things to ponder.

At age 10, I would have liked to know that poetry, cryptography, geometry, music, art and architecture were related. We need more transdisciplinary research and role models like Charles Peirce, http://peirce.org/

"Who is the most original and the most versatile intellect that the Americas have so far produced? The answer "Charles S. Peirce" is uncontested, because any second would be so far behind as not to be worth nominating. [He was] mathematician, astronomer, chemist, geodesist, surveyor, cartographer, metrologist, spectroscopist, engineer, inventor; psychologist, philologist, lexicographer, historian of science, mathematical economist, lifelong student of medicine; book reviewer, dramatist, actor, short story writer; phenomenologist, semiotician, logician, rhetorician and metaphysician.

He was, for a few examples, the first modern experimental psychologist in the Americas, the first metrologist to use a wave-length of light as a unit of measure, the inventor of the quincuncial projection of the sphere, the first known conceiver of the design and theory of an electric switching-circuit computer, and the founder of "the economy of research." He is the only system-building philosopher in the Americas who has been both competent and productive in logic, in mathematics, and in a wide range of sciences. If he has had any equals in that respect in the entire history of philosophy, they do not number more than two."

Who gets to decide which news sources the kids are exposed to? Should they get one with a liberal slant? Conservative? Libertarian?

Also, teaching kids to read the news somehow implies that an adult needs the news.

Many (not all) of the intellectuals I've run into in the valley, Berkeley and the city are now unplugging from the news specifically because they've lost faith in it as an information source. Stated directly, "freedom of the press" is the theory yet corporate controlled media is the implementation. It's the distribution channels that are highly controlled.

And yes, exposing children to the news is a horrible idea.

In general, exposing children to the world is a horrible idea. But what are we going to do, shelter them forever?

Sheltering children from news media because they are "corporate controlled" would go about as well as sheltering them from sex, I fear. Sooner or later they will find out the wild outside world exists.

It's the difference between teaching someone how to work around contemporary limits in programming framework du jour, vs. teaching them about timeless algorithm design and data structures.

Great literature is timeless and says more about our wild world than any "non-fiction" permitted by incumbent power structures du jour.

No, I have no objections to Great literature, but let's not pretend that Shakespeare can say more about our world than this week's TIME, for instance.

Understanding today's news is a vital skill for survival. You could complain all about "incumbent power structure" controlling our media (which is rather strange... how come _you_ have no problem saying these things? Are you somehow outside the influence of the power structure?), but our everyday life (from finding out upcoming road closures to deciding whether California should reduce water usage) depends on knowing what's happening around us.

Sure, it's very important to view the information critically, but you can't criticize what you don't know. Get rid of the mainstream information source, and you frequently end up with worse source of information, like moon landing hoaxers, antivaxxers, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. (Well, these people also think the mainstream news is beyond redemption and only they know the truth. Shoving CNN through their throats may be actually doing them some favor.)

Nobody is arguing that reading the news critically isn't an important skill and that it shouldn't be taught in school. But when you declare that it's unambiguously more important than Shakespeare, you're moving onto thin ice. The reason we're reading and loving Shakespeare rather than whatever 17th century equivalent of Time magazine we might be able to get our hands on, is that the former teaches us deep, profound and timeless lessons on human nature, especially the dark sides. Few things will teach you more about reading the news than Macbeth, but reading the news alone won't even begin to do the opposite.

That, and calling Time "the news" is yet another variety of thin ice.

> let's not pretend that Shakespeare can say more about our world than this week's TIME, for instance.

And let's not pretend that reading astute commentaries on the fundamentals of human nature will say any less about our world than would a publication that needs to keep advertising dollars coming in while remaining harmonious with present political echo chambers.

When deciding how much credence to grant one journalistic outlet over another, it is useful to benchmark with an event where you have first-hand experience of the reported event.

Those who can compare their first-hand observations with the reported news are often surprised. If you've not had this personal experience, an alternative would be to read classic books by Edward Bernays (father of PR) or Ryan Holiday (2012), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-church/ryan-holiday-tru...

A child needs to learn fundamentals that they can later build upon to develop their own thoughts, ideas, and conclusions.

I strongly believe that the point of education is to provide children with the thinking ability to come to their own conclusions.

The ability to think, to solve problems, to find solutions is what will enable them to build the future.

In terms of the news specifically it spoon feeds conclusions and is largely biased. The bias part is largely agreed to. The debate is which way the bias leans.

So the intellectuals that are following the news have moved out of the Valley?

I'd say newspaper articles and speeches would tend to be US centric but classical books and literature would expose student to views from outside the US.

True, but only because the US is to young to have classics. Our idea of classics is still heavily European; although diversity through time is still diversity.