SummerNight said:Kids don't necessarily need to be perfectionists; they just want to get into that one specific high school that requires a perfect 4.0 GPA. ☕ Otherwise, kids are already obsessing over GPAs and college prep by middle school. That’s not something parents force on them—it’s the system and the teachers who start breathing down their necks the second a grade slips to a B or a C.😂
True, but let's be real: a parent can either dial that stress and anxiety way up or help bring it down.
Sure, a kid might be dead-set on a school that demands a 4.0, but what happens if they don't get in? Is it the end of the world? Does everything fall apart? Or do they just head to another great school? It’s honestly pretty unhealthy to pin all your future happiness on a single goal like that. Life is unpredictable. A kid could land a spot at their "dream" school and end up miserable, begging for a transfer after the first semester. On the flip side, they might miss out on their first choice and end up totally thriving somewhere else. So much of it comes down to luck—like hitting the jackpot with a great group of friends or landing a teacher who actually gets you. Even in the same building, the experience can be night and day.
That’s why, even when a kid is absolutely spiraling, the parent needs to be the voice of reason. You have to be the anchor, not someone adding fuel to the fire and cranking up the pressure.
mellowskipper said:Well, there it is—the threshold has been lowered. I suppose he’ll be enrolling now. With a score of 56, you probably couldn't even land a job as a line cook in Washington, D.C.—if that's even possible. It’s a truly insane situation, I guess. Maybe I should just enroll in high school over on Mackinac Island—just a thought—and then, if things don't pan out, look into transferring to Washington, D.C. around the mid-year break. Or maybe not. I guess we'll see. Is that stunt even physically possible? I mean—I guess you could try, but whether it actually works is a different story entirely. Maybe.
You can always give it a shot 😉, but honestly, I doubt any of them would take you. If you're trying to transfer during freshman year, they look at whether your middle school scores are equal to or higher than the lowest score of someone already enrolled there.
If you're looking to transfer during sophomore year, they stop caring about those old middle school grades. Instead, they look at the grades you finished with in ninth grade, plus your attendance record and whatever other hoops that specific school decides to jump through to see if you're a good fit. On top of that, if the school is packed to the rafters, getting in will be an uphill battle. If a few kids happen to drop out, they might be a little more open to transfers.
Look, it’s the same deal we see in rural parts of the country—we end up paying to fund entire elementary schools in places like Key West where most of the student roster doesn't even exist, and there might only be three actual kids showing up. And honestly? We should be grateful that some teacher is actually willing to pack up and move out there. Nobody should be complaining about her getting a full salary just because she's teaching a tiny group of three or five students. I mean, what’s the alternative for those kids? By law, we have to guarantee an education for every single child, and making that happen in remote areas isn't exactly easy.
It’s the same logic: if our workforce is short on butchers or tinsmiths, the solution isn't to just shut down the vocational schools. You don't kill the program; you find ways to actually get kids interested in those trades.
Michelle Nelson4 said:But look, if students don't want to enroll in those specific schools, what’s the alternative? Are we just going to keep paying teachers to sit in classrooms meant for 25,000 non-existent students? We can't exactly force them in at gunpoint or pass some federal decree mandating enrollment in schools nobody actually wants to attend, right?
Now, scholarships are a great tool—if someone wants to go to a certain school, a little financial incentive might nudge them in that direction. But if the scholarship amount doesn't even cover the cost of a decent cup of coffee, then honestly, there's no point in offering them at all. I think a better approach would be for schools to optimize their curricula. They could create joint departments where the core subjects are nearly identical, minimizing the differences while keeping things efficient... various other tweaks like that could work wonders.
At the end of the day, we have plenty of teachers to cover the current student population across the country; the issue isn't a shortage of educators, it's just that they are incredibly poorly distributed.
Combining classes like that is actually a great idea. I really hope they're already working on implementing it.
Besides, you can't just move teachers around like chess pieces within a single city. You can't expect someone living in Smalltown, USA or Maui to just suddenly teleport to Washington, D.C. for work.
If that’s how it works, I honestly don't see the point in vocational schools anymore. At this rate, we might as well just roll out a one-year general education program for everyone, tack on another three months of specialized training, and toss them straight into the workforce.
So, let me get this straight. If there aren't enough people signing up for trade schools or HVAC certification programs, you think we should just scrap those career paths entirely?
Who’s going to handle the roofing or install a heating system then? Some dropout who thinks watching a few YouTube tutorials makes them an expert?
I don't quite follow you, Michelle Nelson4. Are you suggesting we just scrap vocational training programs entirely and tell everyone to head straight for a four-year university? It’s just not that simple. We can't reorganize high schools or colleges based solely on what's trendy; if we did, we'd end up with massive shortages in essential trades and a huge surplus of people chasing jobs that aren't there. Even within vocational schools, popularity isn't balanced. Take cosmetology, for example—it's super popular right now, but you can't just open ten times more hair styling programs. Where would all those stylists actually find work?
In my view, part of the issue is that too many kids who aren't cut out for academic tracks are forcing their way into prep schools. There's a huge number of students in those advanced programs who are barely scraping by and likely won't ever graduate from college. I’ve actually run into former students of mine working in retail boutiques—not because they chose to, but because they dropped out of college halfway through. They end up being a bit of a challenge for the economy because they lack a specialized skill set.
Instead of shutting down trade programs and essentially wiping out those career paths, we need to figure out how to make those essential jobs more attractive. Maybe that means offering targeted scholarships or incentives to pull students toward high-demand fields.
Just a heads-up: we’ve moved this entire discussion about high school admissions points over to the official thread, so please head over there to keep the conversation going.
Honestly, I think arguing over who’s actually to blame for these insane high school entrance requirements is a total wash. We’re just going to go in circles debating whether the chicken or the egg came first.
But hey, we can definitely talk about solutions. I see some people here pushing for entrance exams—though, let's be real, those haven't exactly fixed the underlying issue. Plus, if you leave it up to individual schools to decide whether to hold them, half of them probably won't bother at all.
Personally, I’m not just talking about a single final exam; I’m advocating for national standardized testing from fifth through eighth grade. In this scenario, the tests teachers give in class would serve mainly as feedback to show how much a student has actually absorbed and mastered.
That way, everyone stays on a level playing field—whether they’re in Des Moines or Chicago. And since the teachers wouldn't be the ones grading the big exams or deciding the final marks, it takes a massive amount of pressure off their shoulders.
I’d probably allow some room for teachers to weigh in, though, just in case they feel the test results don't truly reflect what a student knows.
I totally get why parents with little ones are loving this right now—it’s basically like getting a free after-school program that they used to have to shell out serious cash for.
The thing is, I don't think they're looking far enough down the road. Eventually, those kids are going to hit their teenage years, and I highly doubt things will feel quite as effortless then. ;D
We really shouldn't overlook the fact that kids are stuck sitting on those rock-hard wooden chairs for most of the day. It’s brutal. Take my youngest, for example—he usually ends up doing his homework sprawled out on the floor. Both of my kids prefer studying on their beds, even though they have perfectly good desks right in front of them.
I’m always telling my high schoolers to get moving—sit on the floor, perch on a stool, stand up to stretch, or even just kick their shoes off for a bit. But honestly, if schools want kids to actually focus, the classrooms need more than just basic desks and benches; they need furniture that doesn't feel like a torture device.
Susan James said:It honestly still happens today. One user mentioned their whole class had to stay for math tutoring (in the older grades), and another said a teacher kept the entire group after school...🤔
To me, that seems totally crazy, especially when you think about kids who don't need to wait for parent pick-up and could just be heading home. Back when I was growing up in the suburbs, the kids who didn't need tutoring got to go outside play, while the ones stuck in tutoring stayed in the classroom (and I was one of those kids in first grade). Nowadays, I feel like I would have first gotten a school deferral, then an individualized learning plan, and a mountain of homework to do at home; back then, I did everything right there at school and caught up with my peers by the end of the year. The afternoon teacher would watch the kids playing outside, while our main teacher taught us and let us out as soon as we finished our work. On top of that, my math teacher actually recognized I had a knack for it, which is why she kept me in those extra sessions. Back in the mid-80s, despite how much things were changing, we actually had more individualized attention than kids can even imagine today. And the seniors at home? They really didn't have to deal with any of that.
How many straight-A students were actually in your class? Like, how many people were pulling perfect 4.0 GPAs?
The older generation didn't feel the pressure to hover because they were totally fine with the idea that an average kid should just have average results.
Honestly, I’m just relieved that my youngest will at least make it through elementary school, even if the whole system decides to go into full-blown meltdown mode tomorrow.
I honestly don't think Fuchs is driving the bus here; he’s just following orders. To me, he seems like a grandfatherly type who's happy enough to hold onto a cabinet seat, but if it were up to him, he’d probably just be sitting there smiling through his entire term without lifting a finger. Plenković handed him a roadmap that was drafted a long time ago, and frankly, I have no clue who actually designed the master plan we're seeing now.
Let's be real: Fuchs doesn't have the bandwidth or the expertise to manage a massive project involving this kind of heavy funding with any real sense of quality. It’s a shame they didn't just let him coast and smile his way to retirement.
We had to start by laying down the groundwork first—fixing up the schools and getting them properly equipped. You can't even begin to talk about full-day programming until you've created the right physical space and provided the necessary resources. It’s just common sense.
rowdypanther12 said:It’s not really the concept of full-day schooling that's the issue, but rather how they're actually pulling it off. If they had prioritized fixing up the public schools first, implemented one-way shifts, and made the afternoon sessions optional for those who actually want to be there, I don't think people would be complaining so much. The real headache remains with the local school districts and certain sports clubs that are already overcapacity and running on shifts, though I'm sure there are ways to work around that.
What we have right now is just a mess. Expecting teenagers to stay stuck in a classroom until 4:00 PM if they want extra help is a disaster. There’s absolutely no balance left for studying, hanging out, or playing sports.
If they had done it that way, nobody would be making a fuss.
@shadowtiger0, if we're talking about full-day schooling, then we’re lagging behind by at least fifty years. Out in the West, they actually rolled out all-day programs back in the sixties and seventies.
The real kicker is that while we're trying to catch up, much of the West is actually moving in the opposite direction—they're trending toward shorter work weeks and placing a much higher premium on leisure time. Look at Finland; they consistently top the charts in education, yet they don't push for full-day schedules. Their students spend roughly the same amount of time in class as we do. There's a real risk here: while we’re busy extending school hours just to mimic the West, the West might decide to scale back their hours and end up looking more like us. 😬
stormymarlin22 said:The sixth period runs until about 1:05 PM. Electives, supplements, or extra credits aren't mandatory. That’s kind of the whole point—if you don't want to take them, you don't have to. My kid never had to deal with afternoon classes back in elementary school. They'd be home by 1:30, and by the time they would've been getting out now, around 3:00 or 3:30, they'd already eaten and chilled out for a bit. 🤷
It just doesn't work like that. You'll always have those parents who insist your kid should be stuck in a classroom until 3:30 just because their own kid is. 😁
In my neck of the woods, kids get to follow a split-shift schedule, which actually gives them a ton of freedom and plenty of downtime. Honestly, I’m just relieved that even the younger ones will be heading into high school by the time this nightmare—if they actually push through with this blunt-force implementation—becomes the norm.