The culture ingredient involves an awareness of the world around, past and present, local and general (history, geography, literature, classics, science, etc.). This has always been the dominant one in education and indeed education often considers its sole function to be the handing on of this culture package. A direct vocational ingredient has always been regarded as the business of further education rather than the schools. The remaining ingredient is the "life-tools" one. Life-tools include the basic skills that enable a person to survive happily and make progress in society. They also include the skills that are necessary if society is going to survive. So far this group includes the two major subjects of English language and mathematics which are rightly treated as the two most important subjects in education. It is into this group that the proposed new subject of thinking would fit - as the third member of the life-tool subjects.
The new subject of thinking would be more important than most of the traditional subjects on the curriculum both because it would be of more use to early school leavers and also because it would be of more use to those going on with further education.
The impression I have got from teachers and educationist is that they accept the need to teach thinking, but wonder how it could be done. For many thinking is such a vague and intangible matter that they cannot see how it could be taught in a practical way. Others fear that it would simply become a philosophical dissection of the thinking process. Still others look at the way logic or mathematical logic is taught and see a series of refined and idealized abstractions which are perfect in themselves but difficult to apply in real life.
The first point is that the subject must be practical in its emphasis. Some background principles and new concepts may be required but only as an introduction to the practical aspects. It would be better if the subject were taught badly in a practical way than perfectly in a philosophical way.
Second, the emphasis should be on self-education with a growing awareness in the students of the thinking processes. Different students may come to different conclusions which are valid for them as individuals with different thinking styles. Dogma from above would not suit individuals, would require extensive teacher training and would probably be mistaken.
Third, the structure of the subject would be of the "envelope" type. This provides a rigid containing structure within which freedom is allowed. There is no fixed backbone which knits the subject into a whole. Instead there are separate envelopes or areas of attention. These can be treated in any order.
Fourth, the subject would evolve. It would not be a matter of laying down the full dogma of available knowledge but of providing basic starting material and then improving and adding to this according to experience.
Fifth, the subject would be a "plateau" rather than a "pyramid" subject. A pyramid subject is one that gets more and more difficult as you build up. In a plateau subject the material is always easy enough to be tackled by everyone. The more gifted will tackle the material in greater depth but no one is left floundering behind.
Sixth (and most important), the subject must be enjoyable.