Can 17 yr olds kiss?

[MillieDynamite]

Yes, I think the quality of education was aimed at preparing people for what they would face in the world better than it is now. I am not trying to downplay the fact that there is more to learn now. The education system is filled with dissatisfied teachers, confused and conflicting direction from the powers that be, constant, unending parental misinterpretation of what's being taught, less help at home (I was home-schooled, so no real-world classroom participation in upper-middle school or high school), and a system that values standardized testing over actual helpful instruction to the student. There is a total push for the overall, with not much concern for the individual. The average high school graduate is less qualified for what life hits them with than an average 9th-grade graduate was between 1860 and 1900.

I did see that. I don’t think one room school houses changed that much. And some of my friends were in school closer to 1900 than now. Do you really think the school experience of Tom Sawyer and Becky were bettter than now

 

[Kelliezgirl]

To return to the OPs question, we have a significant problem in the AH with over thinking EVERYTHING and interpreting the rules in the most draconian way possible.

The reality doesn't match that.

Write the story the way you want to write it.
Submit it, if it gets kicked back because the kiss was a little too passionate... rewrite. Go for church tongue or something...

 

[iwatchus]

I think everything you credit late nineteenth century is true about much of education today. And I think much of what you criticize about current education applies to late 19th century education, too.

Teachers are largely the same in many ways. They were and are people who want to help guide young people into their future as best they can.

As someone mentioned earlier, mandatory education has made the job harder, but I still think it's a good idea. One that we are still struggling to get right, but it;s a struggle we should be trying.

I completely agree that we over emphasize standardized testing. So does almost every teacher -- they feel pressured to teach to the test.

I have no idea whether parents interfered as much 150 years ago as they do now, but it's certainly not a new phenomenon. You know very well how much parents want the best for their kids. Those hopes and passions do not always manifest in positive ways, nor have they ever done so.

But I am not sure how memorizing the charge of the light brigade prepared much of anyone for anything. Late nineteenth century teaching was heavily driven by rote memorization, which I think is a terrible way to learn anything that matters. The only place I think late nineteenth century education clearly did better was teaching grammar. That seems to be a lost art these days. (It's not all that recent. I got way too little of it as well, and my primary education was more than a half century ago.) But I fail to see why being better at grammar prepared the average student for what faced them. For graduates in 1860, that very possibly included being killed or maimed in the civil war.