Posts by David Palmer5

Susan James said:True, but when you look at those high graduation rates in places like Canada, the UK, or Scandinavia, you have to account for the huge influx of bright immigrants moving there from all over the world.😍

As for how high schoolers behave... hmm. Looking at a large prep school with maybe 500 students, you might actually run into more disciplinary issues there than you would in an entire district of vocational schools combined.🤣

David Palmer5 said:It’s an undeniable fact that you see way more behavioral issues in students at elite prep schools than you do in kids attending local vocational high schools.🙄

In reality, our culture doesn't actually emphasize the true value of education. And let's be clear: real learning isn't just about memorizing facts for a test.

If you look at countries with the highest percentages of highly educated citizens—like Finland, Norway, the US, Japan, South Korea, Canada, or the UK—I think that speaks volumes on its own.

I was being ironic
😁here
regarding your point about how overemphasizing the importance of education basically pushes kids out of the school system and right onto the streets.

Susan James said:Well, I'm definitely the expert here!
The more time I spend working with kids who are starting to act out or getting into real trouble, the more convinced I become that the school system itself is largely to blame. We’ve essentially pushed them into this corner. By placing such an overwhelming emphasis on traditional academic success, we end up driving kids right out of the classroom and onto the streets. It takes a massive toll on their self-esteem; when they feel like they can't meet the standards of a "good student," they figure the only way to find any sense of achievement is to lean into being a "troublemaker" instead.

Before the self-proclaimed experts on this forum start lecturing everyone about "family values," I just want to say that I truly believe the family is the foundation. Most of a child's core behavior starts at home. However, they also pick up a whole different set of behaviors at school—and then an entirely separate set while they're busy trying to find any excuse to skip class!
It’s no wonder some kids feel the need to skip school. For them, it doesn't feel like a place meant for learning or discovery at all. Instead, it feels like an environment where they constantly fall short—a place where their unique talents, interests, and skills just aren't valued. It can be incredibly draining when you're constantly being pressured to meet expectations that don't align with who you actually are or what you're capable of doing.

I honestly think the biggest misconception held by our parents—and even our grandparents—was the idea that sending kids to college was the only way to escape the grind. Their whole logic was basically, "Work hard in school and get a degree so you don't have to struggle like we did." They were so focused on making sure we wouldn't end up stuck in manual labor or working the fields just to get by, thinking a nice white-collar office job was the ultimate ticket to a smooth life.

To be honest, not every kid grows up wanting to sit behind a desk all day, and frankly, there just aren't enough of those office roles out there to go around anyway.
With unemployment rates climbing and so many people finding out that a college degree doesn't guarantee much these days, I completely get why kids aren't as obsessed with higher education anymore. You don't even really have to spell it out for them—they see it for themselves. They look around and see parents who went through the whole grind at places like UC Berkeley, only to end up unemployed or stuck in jobs that don't pay nearly what they were promised. It’s hard to value the hustle when you see that reality playing out right in front of you.

The most heartwarming thing I've noticed lately is that there are actually kids out there who genuinely get excited about different types of jobs while they play. It’s such a sweet thing to see.
Just look at these little ones in preschool—well, except for the kids who were handed a tablet by their grandparents!
People are curious about all sorts of things—how to start a garden from scratch, what it’s really like to work as a contractor, an electrician, or a carpenter. They want to know the ins and outs of being a tailor, a chef, a firefighter, or even a hairstylist. It's funny, I was just chatting with a neighbor about how much everyone seems to be looking for hands-on careers lately!
Kids are naturally such curious little explorers, aren't they? They’re constantly observing everything happening around them, trying to make sense of the world. I've always felt that the best way for them to process all that information is through play—it's how they actually get to test out those observations and experience things firsthand.
So, we send them off to school, but what do they actually spend most of their time doing there?
They just sit there, quiet and obedient, doing exactly what they’re told. It feels like all they do is study—and most of the time, it’s just pure rote memorization. I remember being back in high school, and it felt like we were constantly being told to "get a move on" or "keep your seat warm." There was always that pressure to stay focused and push harder, almost like if you weren't constantly grinding, you were falling behind.
I honestly don't see anything wrong with assigning homework. It’s about giving kids access to different types of information and teaching them how to actually hunt for answers on their own—as long as we aren't doing it at the expense of their actual interests. The problem is that we often fail to find that balance. I can't tell you how many times I've heard parents say things like, "You can't go play soccer until your math worksheet is done," or "You can't help Dad fix the car until you finish your reading assignment." I've even heard, "You can't help Grandpa in the garage because you haven't finished that geography project," or "No gardening with Grandma this weekend because you have tests all week." The mindset is always "school comes first, period." Teachers often back this up, too. But here's the thing I've noticed: when we constantly tell a child they can only enjoy life once their schoolwork is finished, it often backfires. In my experience, instead of motivating them, it just leads to a standoff where the kid ends up doing neither—they don't go play, and they don't finish the homework either.
By the time a kid hits eighth grade, they often lose interest in learning practical trades or hands-on skills, yet they aren't exactly hitting the books or excelling in school either. It’s that tricky middle ground where they seem to drift away from everything at once.
To be clear, I’m not talking about people losing focus because they’re glued to their computers or hanging out with the wrong crowd on the street. This is about something much deeper. It's about how families, relatives, neighbors, and even kids are genuinely showing interest in pursuing specific, high-level career paths. We're seeing real ambition and meaningful connections to important professions within the community.

Not everyone is going to be into poetry, geography, or obsessing over what happened 20 or 200 years ago...
Just like I had zero interest in technical drawing back in the day, my buddy sitting next to me in class couldn't care less about literature.
I’d spend my time reading books and knocking out our required reading assignments (for both of us), while he’d help me fill out my workbooks.
In the end, we both walked away with straight A's in both subjects.
But what did we actually learn from all that?
I learned how to cut corners and navigate around the system—though, to be fair, I actually enjoyed the reading part.
Honestly, we were pretty lucky to have each other. We could swap favors, and by helping each other out, we were actually practicing things we were genuinely interested in.
Nowadays, if a kid struggles with a subject, parents usually just step in, hire a tutor, or pay someone to write their book reports for them.
I really don't like that.
It still feels like we're just encouraging kids to cheat and find loopholes.

I often see school reports stating that a child lacks "study habits" (usually alongside a long list of behavioral issues).
And it's true—they haven't developed the habit of memorizing facts, coming home to finish homework, reading assigned books, or doing any extra reading.
Among these kids, you'll find some who are totally lost in front of a computer or TV, or just wandering the streets. But you'll also find kids who love tearing computers apart and putting them back together, or who are obsessed with car mechanics. (I can talk your ear off about mechanics, but those kids usually have a mentor—someone they shadow at a local garage, for instance).

Sure, you could argue that kids get to choose a vocational path around age 14 or 15.
They do.
And quite often, they make that choice.
They can be really successful during their apprenticeships, yet they still choose not to go to college (which makes me wonder: do we really need as many professors and academic subjects in vocational high schools as we currently do?)
But then there are the ones who fall in with the wrong crowd before they hit 15. They lose interest in everything, never develop any work ethic—not for school, and not for a trade—and they end up cycling through various institutions that constantly tell them how much of a failure they are.

That's why I think we shouldn't wait until they're 15 to start guiding them; we should start much earlier.
Or, at the very least, we should scale back the hours spent on history, geography, literature, and biology. (I remember most of that was just review for us in high school, so it seems logical that the heavy lifting should happen during the later years).
As for physics, chemistry, and technical subjects... those should be strictly hands-on workshops in middle school.
(Maybe with a little bit of theory thrown in, but definitely different from how things are handled today).

I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic in what you just wrote.
Quality education actually does the exact opposite: it keeps kids off the streets by giving them real options and the chance to actually build a future for themselves.

So, the issue in America isn't that we value education too much; it's quite the contrary—we tend to undervalue it and downplay its importance.
And one thing I can't wrap my head around is the idea that learning isn't just "rote memorization."

Susan James said:True, but when you look at those high graduation rates in places like Canada, the UK, or Scandinavia, you have to account for the huge influx of bright immigrants moving there from all over the world.😍

As for how high schoolers behave... hmm. Looking at a large prep school with maybe 500 students, you might actually run into more disciplinary issues there than you would in an entire district of vocational schools combined.🤣

That's a fair point, but it actually reinforces my argument: in certain countries, knowledge and education are truly valued, regardless of whether people were born there or moved in.
If experts were actually appreciated here, they wouldn't be leaving. It’s pretty obvious they go wherever they are treated with more respect.

analogseal18 said:If you simply park a child in front of a television, they might passively absorb a handful of phrases or recognize a few sounds, but let us be clear: that is nowhere near actual proficiency. If one wishes to truly master a language, it requires a systematic approach. One cannot rely on osmosis alone, especially when compared to the rigorous "use of English" standards required by international certification exams used globally.

I find myself in agreement with rhino. Every child possesses unique strengths, and we ought to emphasize those specific areas, particularly if the child shows little interest in a broad, generalized curriculum.

In fact, I was visiting a friend just yesterday, and she was quite distraught because her nephew—who was merely an average student—decided to enroll in a three-year vocational program. It isn't that he lacks passion for the trade itself; rather, he simply has no stomach for traditional academics. He isn't unintelligent, nor is he a troublemaker or lazy; he actually commits to three hours of grueling physical training every single day. He has simply grown weary of the standard curriculum offered by most schools.
For these types of children, who are fundamentally average, we should provide a spectrum of content where they can actually find their footing—perhaps a cluster of related trades taught over four years so they can refine their choice later. In our current system, it feels as though you are forced to be either a genius or a complete fool just to get by.😢

I'll be honest, I don't quite follow the tragedy in this story: why didn't he just pick a different three-year program or a trade he actually enjoyed?

As for this whole idea of being "average": yeah, most people are. If someone picks a career or a trade they genuinely enjoy and ends up being great at it, that doesn't make them a genius, nor does it make them a failure. Honestly, the "failures" are often created by a system that refuses to give people a well-rounded education.

analogseal18 said:It isn't that the system actively pushes these kids out onto the streets; rather, it fails to prevent them from ending up there in the first place. It could easily offer alternative pathways—vocational training, internships, or different specialized programs—for those who simply aren't built for traditional academics. But the system offers no such alternatives, leaving these youths to stumble into all the wrong directions. If they don't have parents to steer them toward organized sports or to engage them with activities back at 😉
, what hope do they have?
What truly infuriates me is the lack of honesty we show these children; why does nobody just tell them, "Look, this path isn't for you, find something else"? We see students enrolled in hospitality programs who can barely scrape by in English or Spanish—how on earth are they supposed to function in the service industry? Then you have those pursuing surveying or engineering tracks who can hardly pass algebra, physics, or geometry. One group might limp along by passing math while failing languages, while the other survives through language skills despite being lost in math, but neither scenario is sustainable. It leads nowhere, or worse, it leads to a permanent spot on the unemployment line where they'll be crushed by anyone with actual competence.

I assume the competition consists of people who are more highly educated.😁

Look, it’s not quite that simple. Just ask middle schoolers what they want to be when they grow up, and you'll hear everything from pop stars and pro athletes to soap opera actors. Or, they don't want to do anything at all. Or, they simply have no clue.
In my view, kids in middle school need a solid, well-rounded education just so they actually have the tools to make an informed choice later on.
And for most of them, that big decision happens the moment they enroll in high school.

And how exactly do you expect us to tell them "this isn't for you"? If a student in a culinary arts program is barely passing their foreign language classes, that’s a pretty loud signal. It only gets messy if they also struggle with math and science on top of that, and they aren't particularly handy with their hands either.🤷

Susan James said:Well, I'm definitely the expert here!
The more time I spend working with kids who are starting to act out or getting into real trouble, the more convinced I become that the school system itself is largely to blame. We’ve essentially pushed them into this corner. By placing such an overwhelming emphasis on traditional academic success, we end up driving kids right out of the classroom and onto the streets. It takes a massive toll on their self-esteem; when they feel like they can't meet the standards of a "good student," they figure the only way to find any sense of achievement is to lean into being a "troublemaker" instead.

Before the self-proclaimed experts on this forum start lecturing everyone about "family values," I just want to say that I truly believe the family is the foundation. Most of a child's core behavior starts at home. However, they also pick up a whole different set of behaviors at school—and then an entirely separate set while they're busy trying to find any excuse to skip class!
It’s no wonder some kids feel the need to skip school. For them, it doesn't feel like a place meant for learning or discovery at all. Instead, it feels like an environment where they constantly fall short—a place where their unique talents, interests, and skills just aren't valued. It can be incredibly draining when you're constantly being pressured to meet expectations that don't align with who you actually are or what you're capable of doing.

I honestly think the biggest misconception held by our parents—and even our grandparents—was the idea that sending kids to college was the only way to escape the grind. Their whole logic was basically, "Work hard in school and get a degree so you don't have to struggle like we did." They were so focused on making sure we wouldn't end up stuck in manual labor or working the fields just to get by, thinking a nice white-collar office job was the ultimate ticket to a smooth life.

To be honest, not every kid grows up wanting to sit behind a desk all day, and frankly, there just aren't enough of those office roles out there to go around anyway.
With unemployment rates climbing and so many people finding out that a college degree doesn't guarantee much these days, I completely get why kids aren't as obsessed with higher education anymore. You don't even really have to spell it out for them—they see it for themselves. They look around and see parents who went through the whole grind at places like UC Berkeley, only to end up unemployed or stuck in jobs that don't pay nearly what they were promised. It’s hard to value the hustle when you see that reality playing out right in front of you.

The most heartwarming thing I've noticed lately is that there are actually kids out there who genuinely get excited about different types of jobs while they play. It’s such a sweet thing to see.
Just look at these little ones in preschool—well, except for the kids who were handed a tablet by their grandparents!
People are curious about all sorts of things—how to start a garden from scratch, what it’s really like to work as a contractor, an electrician, or a carpenter. They want to know the ins and outs of being a tailor, a chef, a firefighter, or even a hairstylist. It's funny, I was just chatting with a neighbor about how much everyone seems to be looking for hands-on careers lately!
Kids are naturally such curious little explorers, aren't they? They’re constantly observing everything happening around them, trying to make sense of the world. I've always felt that the best way for them to process all that information is through play—it's how they actually get to test out those observations and experience things firsthand.
So, we send them off to school, but what do they actually spend most of their time doing there?
They just sit there, quiet and obedient, doing exactly what they’re told. It feels like all they do is study—and most of the time, it’s just pure rote memorization. I remember being back in high school, and it felt like we were constantly being told to "get a move on" or "keep your seat warm." There was always that pressure to stay focused and push harder, almost like if you weren't constantly grinding, you were falling behind.
I honestly don't see anything wrong with assigning homework. It’s about giving kids access to different types of information and teaching them how to actually hunt for answers on their own—as long as we aren't doing it at the expense of their actual interests. The problem is that we often fail to find that balance. I can't tell you how many times I've heard parents say things like, "You can't go play soccer until your math worksheet is done," or "You can't help Dad fix the car until you finish your reading assignment." I've even heard, "You can't help Grandpa in the garage because you haven't finished that geography project," or "No gardening with Grandma this weekend because you have tests all week." The mindset is always "school comes first, period." Teachers often back this up, too. But here's the thing I've noticed: when we constantly tell a child they can only enjoy life once their schoolwork is finished, it often backfires. In my experience, instead of motivating them, it just leads to a standoff where the kid ends up doing neither—they don't go play, and they don't finish the homework either.
By the time a kid hits eighth grade, they often lose interest in learning practical trades or hands-on skills, yet they aren't exactly hitting the books or excelling in school either. It’s that tricky middle ground where they seem to drift away from everything at once.
To be clear, I’m not talking about people losing focus because they’re glued to their computers or hanging out with the wrong crowd on the street. This is about something much deeper. It's about how families, relatives, neighbors, and even kids are genuinely showing interest in pursuing specific, high-level career paths. We're seeing real ambition and meaningful connections to important professions within the community.

Not everyone is going to be into poetry, geography, or obsessing over what happened 20 or 200 years ago...
Just like I had zero interest in technical drawing back in the day, my buddy sitting next to me in class couldn't care less about literature.
I’d spend my time reading books and knocking out our required reading assignments (for both of us), while he’d help me fill out my workbooks.
In the end, we both walked away with straight A's in both subjects.
But what did we actually learn from all that?
I learned how to cut corners and navigate around the system—though, to be fair, I actually enjoyed the reading part.
Honestly, we were pretty lucky to have each other. We could swap favors, and by helping each other out, we were actually practicing things we were genuinely interested in.
Nowadays, if a kid struggles with a subject, parents usually just step in, hire a tutor, or pay someone to write their book reports for them.
I really don't like that.
It still feels like we're just encouraging kids to cheat and find loopholes.

I often see school reports stating that a child lacks "study habits" (usually alongside a long list of behavioral issues).
And it's true—they haven't developed the habit of memorizing facts, coming home to finish homework, reading assigned books, or doing any extra reading.
Among these kids, you'll find some who are totally lost in front of a computer or TV, or just wandering the streets. But you'll also find kids who love tearing computers apart and putting them back together, or who are obsessed with car mechanics. (I can talk your ear off about mechanics, but those kids usually have a mentor—someone they shadow at a local garage, for instance).

Sure, you could argue that kids get to choose a vocational path around age 14 or 15.
They do.
And quite often, they make that choice.
They can be really successful during their apprenticeships, yet they still choose not to go to college (which makes me wonder: do we really need as many professors and academic subjects in vocational high schools as we currently do?)
But then there are the ones who fall in with the wrong crowd before they hit 15. They lose interest in everything, never develop any work ethic—not for school, and not for a trade—and they end up cycling through various institutions that constantly tell them how much of a failure they are.

That's why I think we shouldn't wait until they're 15 to start guiding them; we should start much earlier.
Or, at the very least, we should scale back the hours spent on history, geography, literature, and biology. (I remember most of that was just review for us in high school, so it seems logical that the heavy lifting should happen during the later years).
As for physics, chemistry, and technical subjects... those should be strictly hands-on workshops in middle school.
(Maybe with a little bit of theory thrown in, but definitely different from how things are handled today).

It’s an undeniable fact that you see way more behavioral issues in students at elite prep schools than you do in kids attending local vocational high schools.🙄

In reality, our culture doesn't actually emphasize the true value of education. And let's be clear: real learning isn't just about memorizing facts for a test.

If you look at countries with the highest percentages of highly educated citizens—like Finland, Norway, the US, Japan, South Korea, Canada, or the UK—I think that speaks volumes on its own.

Susan James said:The decision to change a student's academic track is made by a school physician, based on documentation from a medical facility where a psychologist was part of the evaluation team.
The suggestion for an evaluation usually comes from a teacher or subject instructor after consulting with the school's specialist staff (though some schools don't even have a psychologist on site). That was my response to Susan James, who suggested I should just "clean up my own backyard." A school psychologist doesn't make the final call on changing a program; they simply support their teaching colleagues during parent meetings or consultations with outside specialists.

I’m not quite sure which declining trades you're referring to, but personally, I think there will always be a demand for plumbers, carpenters, electricians, masons, butchers, and chefs... those jobs aren't going anywhere.
The thing is, many kids just don't have an interest in traditional academics or the general culture we try to push through eight years of schooling. In my experience, kids often show clear interests—especially if they come from families with hands-on trades or have relatives in practical fields—yet we force them to just "sit in a chair" in hopes that it leads to a better life later on.
(And I know plenty of people in bureaucratic roles who have nothing to do and no idea how to do it), while at the same time, kids fail to develop work habits and lose interest in things they actually care about.

I don't know, it seems crazy to force a kid to memorize history and geography if they'd rather be taking apart car engines or building furniture.
Or to read classic literature when they're passionate about culinary arts.
I don't have any prejudices; I just believe kids need more encouragement in things they love, rather than being pushed into things they have zero interest in.

edit: signed with a spicy pepper

But look, aside from those specific trades, there are plenty of other industries that have definitely declined.
We can't pretend we haven't seen countless small businesses and local shops shut their doors for good.😉

The people you’re talking about usually go to vocational high schools or technical institutes—and if you actually look at the curricula of those schools, you'll see they focus heavily on specialized training and hands-on practice rather than a bunch of general electives. So, nobody is forcing them to sit through endless history or geography lectures, though I personally don't see the harm in them picking up some basic general knowledge along the way.

And if you're suggesting we should let kids specialize or choose a trade path as early as middle school... I don't know, that seems a bit premature to me. 🤷Let's face it, there are plenty of kids who don't really find their footing until they hit high school.
How many times can you say with absolute certainty about an eleven-year-old that they "have no interest in learning or culture" and that they'll stay that way forever?

Jason Morgan said:In theory? Absolutely. In practice? Not a chance. We’re still stuck with the same one-hour periods, the same single teacher, and the same crowded classroom. Who exactly is going to manage twenty-five typical students plus one student with specific needs all within a single hour? The answer is: nobody.

So, it feels like all this talk about integration and inclusion is mostly just empty rhetoric...
It honestly seems like things worked better back when schools had dedicated special education classrooms—you had fewer kids to worry about, which meant you could actually give them the attention they deserved.
That said, I don't quite get the pushback; why is it such a massive ordeal to just give a kid with learning challenges simpler assignments or customized tests tailored specifically to their level?

Jason Morgan said:The whole concept of an individualized education program is a complete farce. At its core, the child is still stuck in the exact same classroom, forced to listen to the same curriculum that they can’t even begin to wrap their heads around. It essentially boils down to a system where they just need to grasp a tiny fraction of the material to scrape by with a C, and if they aren't causing a scene, teachers feel obligated to hand out those passing grades just to keep the peace.

It really shouldn't work that way. A true accommodation should mean narrowing down the scope of the material, letting the student move at their own pace, and simplifying the tests. I actually thought there were specific textbooks designed for this sort of thing...

Susan James said:Here’s a suggestion for changing the school curriculum, coming straight from a teacher on the front lines.
The way they consult with a psychologist or a whole support team is really just a way to shift the responsibility elsewhere.
But let’s be real—a psychologist isn't sitting through a math lecture, struggling to figure out why a student just isn't grasping the equations. 🥳

You’d be surprised how many complaints there are about these "solutions." Even when the adjustments haven't been cleared by a medical facility and a psychologist was part of the decision-making team, the teachers themselves are often the ones raising issues (even if they try to hide behind the school's entire support staff).

I don't quite get it—isn't it literally the job, and the responsibility, of a school psychologist to evaluate a child who just can't keep up with the standard curriculum?
How could an individualized program even be implemented without a psychologist's assessment?

I haven't quite figured out what you mean by that one! Could you give me a bit more context? kaže:
It’s exactly in moments like this that our foreign partners start acting like they’re the ones calling all the shots. They step in and decide whether we need to tweak things or change our entire approach, essentially treating us like subordinates rather than collaborators.
That’s honestly the most frustrating part of the whole thing. It’s getting a little frustrating because my school counselor keeps stepping on my toes. They’re actually trying to dictate my entire study schedule, how I should prep for exams, and which learning methods I ought to use. It feels like they're overstepping their bounds and micromanaging my academic life. Instead of Both my wife and I are seeing the exact same thing on our statements.🙄 And besides, it’s not like I’m the one sitting there staring at the clock or struggling to wrap my head around the material like you mentioned.☕

I honestly always assumed that a big part of a psychologist's job was to run those assessments on kids—basically to figure out if they’re actually equipped to handle a standard school curriculum or if they need something different. 🤷
If we’re talking about implementing an individualized education program for kids with disabilities, why on earth would anyone call that kind of assessment "interfering with professional expertise"? It feels like a bit of a stretch to suggest that tailoring support to a student's specific needs is somehow overstepping.
Who actually determines a child's intellectual standing? Is it the teacher or the psychologist? 😕?

Susan James said:

I don't have any text to rewrite yet! Please provide the posts you'd like me to work on, and I'll get started right away, keeping everything in that cheerful, steady, and uniquely American voice we discussed. kaže:
I’m a little worried you might be heading down the wrong path on this one.

Of course, if a teacher notices a student is struggling to keep up with the curriculum, they’re going to step in. That’s just part of the job—it's our responsibility to make sure no one gets left behind.

Meeting with a school counselor, psychologist, or a doctor isn't some way for us to pass the buck or share the responsibility. It’s an essential part of the process we're required to follow.
It’s exactly in these kinds of moments that our international partners really take the lead. Since they're technically overseeing the project, they're the ones deciding if we need to pivot or tweak anything, and they determine exactly how those adjustments should look.
That’s honestly what gets under my skin the most. It feels like the school counselor or the specialist starts stepping into my territory, trying to dictate exactly how I should structure my lesson plans, testing schedules, or teaching methods. It can be pretty frustrating when someone else tries to micromanage the actual instruction part of my job. I’m not quite sure what you meant to say there! It looks like you might have hit send a little too early. Feel free to jump back in whenever you're ready—I'm all ears! Both my partner and I have been looking over the paperwork, and everything seems to be lining up exactly as expected on our end.🙄 And besides, like you said, I’m not the one sitting there staring at the clock or struggling to wrap my head around the material.☕

To be honest, I’ve never once asked for a handout in my life, nor would I ever go looking for one just to have someone cater to my specific needs.😕
I remember having classes where at least five students always needed something adjusted for them—whether it was the lesson plan, the pace, or just the way instructions were given. It was one of those things you just had to account for every single day.

I’m certainly not under any illusions about how things work.
Trust me, I know exactly what I'm talking about.
I honestly feel like the school curriculum these days is getting a bit out of hand for some kids. It feels overly complicated and packed with so much extra fluff that it ends up being more distracting than helpful. Sometimes it feels like we're just teaching them to memorize things they don't actually need, which can really dull their natural curiosity.
As a psychologist, I could potentially design a customized learning plan for him. My hope is that if we tailor things, Mara might actually only need to memorize eight key dates instead of all twenty-eight. But here’s the catch: he still has to show up for two 45-minute history sessions every week, and he still has to bring all his supplies and gear. It's a bit of a balancing act!
She really needs to show up to school with documentation stating that she qualifies for an IEP or a modified curriculum. It’s much easier to get the right support when everything is officially on the books from day one.
He has to be at school for six hours every single day, even though he’d much rather spend just three hours there and use the rest of his time helping out in his grandpa's woodworking shop or getting his hands dirty planting vegetables with his parents in the garden.

I could actually offer him a specialized curriculum if one is available at any of the local schools nearby. It’s incredibly rare to get approved for that kind of thing, though—usually, if a kid shows decent intellectual ability, the district won't even consider it. If we did manage to pull it off, he could take five specific subjects through the end of middle school and enroll in some vocational training courses. To be honest, though, those specific certifications wouldn't really lead to much in terms of actual career opportunities later on.
Honestly, these specialized programs feel like such a joke. It’s just a total mess, especially when you consider they’re all funneling students straight into that local community college right after.

It feels like we’re forcing kids into these massive public school systems under the guise of "well-rounded education," but if you ask me, it often looks more like we're just protecting teaching jobs for people who haven't adapted to the modern world. I see it happen all the time—kids end up walking away with a really distorted sense of self-worth. Instead of being encouraged, they deal with bullying, behavioral issues, and a complete lack of practical work ethic. We're essentially crushing their natural talents and killing their curiosity. Then, by the time they hit fifteen, they hit a wall and realize they aren't built for traditional academics, yet they haven't been given any real-world skills to fall back on either. It's a tough cycle to break once they feel stuck.
I truly believe that every child is born with this natural, restless urge to learn and explore everything around them. Honestly, it feels like starting first grade can sometimes just snuff out that spark right when it's starting to glow.

Instead of just tweaking the curriculum for every single subject, I honestly think it would be more effective to simply cut certain classes entirely for specific students. If a particular course doesn't align with a child's path, why bother adjusting it? It feels much cleaner to just remove it from their schedule altogether.
It really just comes down to what they’re actually good at and what they're passionate about, you know? It's all about matching things up with their specific skills and interests, among other stuff.

I honestly feel a bit bummed that Home Economics was phased out of the curriculum. I always found those classes so practical—it’s where you actually pick up life skills that stick with you. Now, it feels like everything has shifted toward just reading about things in a textbook rather than actually doing them. At least, that's what I see happening with the kids I work with; there’s plenty of theory, but they aren't getting any hands-on experience.
Back in the day, we used to handle everything from wiring electrical circuits—and yes, we actually did our own soldering—to using planes and shapers in the shop. To be honest, I always found those tasks a bit tedious. If I could go back, I probably would have preferred spending that time curled up with a copy of *Oliver Twist* instead! But there were always those energetic kids running around, making a mess of everything. It’s funny looking back, though, because many of those same troublemakers grew up to become incredibly skilled professionals in their trades.
Whenever I try to get today's kids excited about doing even the bare minimum in school, I run into the same wall. In their free time, they're obsessed with hands-on stuff—taking gadgets apart, tinkering, building things. But then I constantly hear the same complaint: they’re forced to grind through endless theory first, and they rarely ever get to actually touch the equipment. Plus, it feels like the students who get the best grades on practical assignments are just the ones who aced the written tests—and let's be honest, those are often the kids whose dads just go home and finish the project for them.

I can't help but wonder: why not increase the technical workshop hours for 7th and 8th graders and scale back subjects like History or Geography instead?
Take English Language Arts, for example. Why not have two mandatory periods, and then offer two elective periods for students who actually want to dive deeper? Or, for those who haven't quite mastered the basics during the core sessions, we could offer specialized literacy workshops.
There's honestly so much room for improvement here.
But look, I know it isn't easy. Changing the curriculum means some teachers would lose hours in their schedules—some might even lose their jobs—while others would see an increase.
So, most people just figure it's "better the way it is."

Here we go again. 😕
Is this specialized program actually being offered to anyone specific, or is it strictly designed for kids with disabilities?

These specialized training programs have become a total joke. It honestly feels like they started falling apart right around the time traditional trades began dying off across the country. Now, we’re left with actual experts who know their craft inside and out, but unfortunately, they just can't find any meaningful work to do. 😢
Honestly, I feel like this is more of an economic issue than anything to do with the school system itself. At least, that’s how it looks from where I’m sitting.
If you take the time to properly train top-tier craftsmen, they won't just show up and punch a clock—they’ll go above and beyond. They become the kind of people who don't just follow instructions, but actually take ownership of the work. You give them the tools and the knowledge, and suddenly, they aren't just completing tasks; they're solving problems before they even happen. It’s like the difference between hiring someone to mow your lawn and hiring a pro who knows exactly how to prune the hedges to make the whole yard look better. When you invest in their skills, you aren't just paying for labor anymore; you're paying for expertise and pride in the craft.

silentraven6 said:Well, then let them struggle if they don't know how to handle it.

I mean, kids with special needs have specific programs outside of school too (like Savannah, Goldman Sachs, or handwriting workshops—and most of them end up in sports, especially those with ADHD...) so the parents really do have to "shuttle" them everywhere.

And there are plenty of average kids involved in activities where they need to be driven around, too.

We usually just head out on our bikes 😍

The elementary school curriculum should be designed for the average student, I think that's pretty obvious.

🙄

By the way, those treatment programs at the facilities you mentioned are actually free for parents—it's all covered by the state through the Social Security Administration. A lot of parents with kids facing significant challenges take advantage of reduced work hours, too. It’s not a perfect fix, but it definitely helps ease the burden a bit.

At the end of the day, I still stand by my belief that if a kid is genuinely gifted or performing way above the curve, the school system should be stepping up to give them more opportunities during elementary and high school. Honestly, I just don't see what the big deal is with providing that kind of support. ☕

silentraven6 said:But then where does that leave the average kids? If all our specialists are hyper-focused on both the high achievers and those with disabilities, what happens to everyone else in the middle?

David Palmer5 said:Unfortunately, this hits the nail on the head. 😢

What do you mean by "where does that leave them"? The entire system and curriculum are built specifically for the average student. That’s who teachers and professors spend their time working with.
Students with special needs are handled by specialists in other fields—like speech therapists, occupational therapists, or special educators.
And as for gifted or high-achieving kids within the K-12 system? Most of the time, nobody is really working with them at all.
Why aren't we offering them extra activities and specially designed curricula? Instead, it feels like the responsibility is just dumped entirely onto the parents.

silentraven6 said:That is completely wrong!

If you haven't been paying attention, the system is basically just a support network for kids with special needs or ADHD (whether it's diagnosed or not), while simultaneously complaining about how much the gifted kids have to deal with. But there *are* extra classes, competitions, and plenty of other resources out there for those bright students...

The "average" student is the one actually getting screwed over. They're stuck in the middle, forced to deal with both ends of the spectrum. In today's educational climate, they're the ones being used as the testing ground for "inclusion," patience, and tolerance. Most of the time, they’re the ones suffering.

And who's to say that one of those average kids won't have a sudden breakthrough later in life and turn into a brilliant scientist or a world-class pianist? Who knows?

Who's going to guide them or give them the help they need?

silentraven6 said:Well, then let them struggle if they don't know how to handle it.

I mean, kids with special needs have specific programs outside of school too (like Savannah, Goldman Sachs, or handwriting workshops—and most of them end up in sports, especially those with ADHD...) so the parents really do have to "shuttle" them everywhere.

And there are plenty of average kids involved in activities where they need to be driven around, too.

We usually just head out on our bikes 😍

The elementary school curriculum should be designed for the average student, I think that's pretty obvious.

Maybe you should sit down and have a serious talk with yourself about whether the American school system is built for the middle ground or for those who fall outside the norm in either direction.🙂

silentraven6 said:Look, I was thinking about the actual logistics of trying to run a lesson plan in a classroom filled with 30 average students, two kids with ADHD, and maybe one absolute genius.

I don't quite follow your logic regarding the gifted kids... If they have an ear for music, they go to a performing arts magnet school. If they're a natural athlete, they head toward sports academies. If they're a talented writer, there are endless opportunities, from specialized journalism programs to various liberal arts academies...

See, you get it, 😁 because you actually said it yourself: "they go to music, they go to sports."
The thing is, all of that falls outside the standard public school curriculum. That’s stuff parents have to manage entirely on their own: chauffeuring the kids back and forth, footing the bills, buying all the gear... But what happens if parents don't even realize their kid has a gift? What if they're working two jobs and pulling shifts until 7 PM, so there's no one to drive them to practice? Or what if they just don't have the extra cash to fund all those extracurriculars?
That's the core of my argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by "specialized schools"—you're probably thinking of things like performing arts academies or something similar, which are high schools. But here, we're talking about the K-8 level. 🤷

silentraven6 said:That is completely wrong!

If you haven't been paying attention, the system is basically just a support network for kids with special needs or ADHD (whether it's diagnosed or not), while simultaneously complaining about how much the gifted kids have to deal with. But there *are* extra classes, competitions, and plenty of other resources out there for those bright students...

The "average" student is the one actually getting screwed over. They're stuck in the middle, forced to deal with both ends of the spectrum. In today's educational climate, they're the ones being used as the testing ground for "inclusion," patience, and tolerance. Most of the time, they’re the ones suffering.

And who's to say that one of those average kids won't have a sudden breakthrough later in life and turn into a brilliant scientist or a world-class pianist? Who knows?

Who's going to guide them or give them the help they need?

I’m not really sure what part of that is "completely wrong."😕
The standard curriculum and school requirements are designed for students of average ability, simply because that's the largest group. Any average kid can successfully navigate a program like that. The fact that so many kids today seem poorly behaved or disruptive doesn't actually have anything to do with what I was saying.
For students with disabilities, there are individualized approaches and specialized programs tailored specifically to their needs.
Extra tutoring (which isn't offered at every school) is meant for kids who just want to learn more, which doesn't necessarily mean they are gifted.
As for the kids who are truly gifted or have exceptionally high abilities—there aren't many of them, and honestly, we don't have adequate programs for them yet.

analogseal18 said:A few years back, I came across this article attempting to dissect why the education system in Finland works so well. The secret, apparently, lies in their societal values and their general way of life. It’s fascinating how children there don't even start school until they're seven, and they aren't expected to be proficient readers right out of the gate; yet, because they come from families and a culture of passionate readers, almost everyone that age is already reading fluently. They grow up with a habit of flipping through encyclopedias, asking endless questions, and hunting for answers. Since the curriculum moves quite slowly in those early grades, and they provide extra assistants in the classroom, any child who starts behind can catch up through sheer motivation and support. And you know, the focus isn't on hyper-accelerating the geniuses; it's about ensuring the majority of students achieve a solid foundation. They manage just fine with help from their families. Plus, they have this incredible network of non-competitive extracurricular activities where kids just explore different interests. These programs aren't just limited to the school year either; they stay active even during those long summer breaks we see here in the States.

When it comes to our own American schooling system, I suspect the core issue isn't actually the volume of material or how it's taught, but rather the skewed perception held by parents. Too much precious instructional time is wasted simply trying to calm children down or struggling to spark even a shred of interest or concentration. It seems these poor little souls lose their innate curiosity and thirst for knowledge as early as preschool, and frankly, the responsibility lies with the parents. We see this same pattern reflected in the lack of basic manners exhibited by such a large percentage of children today. When you combine that with the delusional lens through which certain parents view their "gifted and creative" child—acting as if that child's whims somehow supersede the rights of others to learn—you end up with total chaos. In such an environment, only the students who are exceptionally emotionally and socially resilient manage to navigate the mess and actually walk away with an education.

Unfortunately, this hits the nail on the head. 😢

silentraven6 said:But then where does that leave the average kids? If all our specialists are hyper-focused on both the high achievers and those with disabilities, what happens to everyone else in the middle?

What do you mean by "where does that leave them"? The entire system and curriculum are built specifically for the average student. That’s who teachers and professors spend their time working with.
Students with special needs are handled by specialists in other fields—like speech therapists, occupational therapists, or special educators.
And as for gifted or high-achieving kids within the K-12 system? Most of the time, nobody is really working with them at all.
Why aren't we offering them extra activities and specially designed curricula? Instead, it feels like the responsibility is just dumped entirely onto the parents.

rowdypanther12 said:So, how are things looking with the other competitions?

I don't know, just Google it yourself.🙂

I can't make sense of that one. Could you clarify what you meant? kaže:
That’s just too much. Competitive. Let’s say we assume that every country has the exact same percentage of talented kids. If that were true, then the only thing separating one nation from another would be how much they actually invest in those kids. It really comes down to whether a society builds a ladder for them to climb or just leaves them standing there. It seems like the Finns just aren't as driven to spend half their lives grinding away at math or whatever else it takes to get ahead. Because they don't push themselves that hard, their results tend to stay pretty average.
It’s widely recognized that Chinese students tend to dominate math competitions and standardized testing, but it makes you wonder: what does an education system like that actually look like in practice, and what kind of daily life does the average person lead under that kind of pressure?

I’m not quite sure what they mean by being "too competitive." I mean, if they’re sending people to a competition, you’d assume they’re picking the ones who actually have that competitive edge, not the ones who don't. It feels a bit like saying someone is "too good" at their job—it's a strange way to frame it. 😁First off, we're primarily focusing on sending out the ones that actually have enough capacity to get the job done.

Comparing ourselves to China or Korea just doesn't make sense when you look at the sheer scale of their populations. With those kinds of numbers, they can easily pluck ten geniuses out of a crowd and find them. To be honest, I don't know much about how their school systems work, or even Japan's for that matter. 🤷.

Since there’s a similar percentage of gifted or high-achieving kids everywhere you look, it feels a bit strange that students in a top-tier system like Finland's don't always see those massive, standout results on international assessments. If their entire educational framework is designed specifically to nurture and support young learners, how is it possible that even the brightest ones occasionally slip through the cracks?

I don't follow—are we talking about those little treats? If you're looking for something sweet and nostalgic, it's like finding that one specific candy from your childhood that just hits different. It’s all about those small, simple pleasures that remind you of being a kid. kaže:
A few years back, I came across this article that was trying to break down exactly why the Finnish model works so well. The real issue isn't just about policy or economics—it’s about our core values and the way we actually live our lives. Even here in the States, you see kids starting elementary school around age six or seven without necessarily being able to read yet. But when they come from families or communities that are absolutely obsessed with books, almost all of them are already reading fluently by that age. They’re constantly flipping through encyclopedias, asking a million questions, and hunting for answers. The curriculum in those lower grades tends to move pretty slowly, which works out well because they also have teaching assistants in the classrooms. This means the kids who might not have had that head start at home can get the extra support and motivation they need to catch up with their peers. And, yeah... The focus here is really on making sure the majority of students actually grasp the material, rather than just obsessively pushing the high achievers. The top-tier kids? They’ll find their own way regardless, leaning on their own drive or getting a little extra help from home when they need it.

I don't know, I'm not so sure about that. To me, it feels like a missed opportunity to just overlook our most capable people and leave them to fend for themselves. It seems only fair that we dedicate the same level of expertise, time, and energy to supporting them as we do to those with special needs.

jadetinker85 said:Maybe they just don't push kids to be overly competitive.
To me, it seems more important that they don't have a massive group of students who can't handle basic math or struggle to read a simple paragraph.
Education should really cater to the average student and prepare them to function in the real world; the high achievers will find their way regardless, likely somewhere where being exceptional is actually valued.

They push kids away from competition, then turn around and send them to international contests.😕

Of course, most kids fall into the average range, and curricula are generally built with them in mind. However, a truly top-tier school system (and the Finnish are famous for theirs) should cater to both ends of the bell curve: supporting those with learning challenges while also nurturing the gifted and high-performing students. Why should the exceptional ones have to figure everything out on their own? After all, isn't it the innovators and the high achievers who drive progress, rather than the status quo? Shouldn't a great educational system prioritize them? Is it actually possible that the Finnish model encourages mediocrity and stifles anyone who wants to stand out?!

Either way, I've noticed that when it comes to computer science and math competitions, Finnish students don't perform nearly as well (even though they dominate reading assessments), so I'm genuinely curious if anyone has an idea as to why that is.

wanderinggardener12 said:I truly struggle to grasp why we can't simply take a blueprint from a system that actually works—take the Finnish model, for instance—and tailor it to fit our own domestic needs, rather than constantly insisting on reinventing the wheel. Is it just pure vanity, a sense of misplaced arrogance, or perhaps just a desperate need for someone to secure a kickback on a new curriculum or a revamped institutional framework?

People bring up that Finnish model all the time (and I know I've mentioned it myself before), but I decided to dig a little deeper recently. I went looking through the results from math and informatics Olympiads, and—get this—😁it was actually quite eye-opening.
Unlike the top competitors here in the States, the Finnish students aren't ranking very high at all.
So, what does that tell us?

Are Finnish students doing great on PISA assessments but failing when it comes to these competitions?
Is there a disconnect between how PISA is designed and how certain school systems actually function?
And what are the actual long-term outcomes of this supposedly "successful" Finnish approach? Does it really produce more world-class scientists compared to other nations?

🤷

http://www.imo-official.org/results.aspx

rowdypanther12 said:Well, if my mom hadn't been able to afford community college, I would've been one of those cases.
The system makes it so tough because balancing work and college while trying to be independent is brutal. And now, let's say the way credits transfer makes working while studying almost impossible. 🤷
Sure, anything is possible—if a girl living on the streets managed to get into Harvard, then hey, we can all major in molecular biology while working a shift at Target.
But let's be real: a kid who falls behind in elementary school—whether it’s due to puberty, being too playful, bullying, or any other reason under the sun—faces massive, often insurmountable obstacles.

rowdypanther12 said:That’s actually why I think this approach works better—having one bad year only account for 25% instead of 50% feels much fairer.
Personally, I would have preferred being judged on my junior and senior years, where I barely scraped by with a C, rather than just looking at my freshman year and my later grades where I really struggled.😂

But honestly, there should be a way for students to pivot whenever they want. If they realize their current path isn't working, they should be able to switch majors and head in a new direction if they have the drive.
It used to feel like there was more flexibility here to balance school with a job, which gave people a real chance to pursue an education or change careers even into their 30s, no matter how tough things got.
With the way the current credit system is set up, that kind of work-study balance is pretty much gone.

That just isn't accurate.
Part-time degree programs exist at almost every major university, and students who are actually out there working don't have the exact same workload requirements as the kids living on campus full-time.

rowdypanther12 said:Man, if I’d just been among those top four students with all those honor roll certificates and awards, things might have gone differently 😂
I'm mostly kidding, but honestly, back in high school, I saw firsthand what happens when you mess up at thirteen or fourteen. And while Nicholas King says he doesn't really know which kids end up ruining their own prospects, I actually know quite a few. Even more than that, I know plenty of people who had parents who made some poor life choices early on, leading them to enroll in schools they didn't even have the grades for—but then those kids actually pulled themselves together during high school and started working hard.

(I don't love the phrase "ruining your future" because life is about so much more than just a career or a job, but it definitely limits your options and narrows your path)

Actually, I see even more cases where they end up stuck in a prep school that's way over their heads, and that's when things really go south.

rowdypanther12 said:What about the three-year programs? And do you honestly think a 15 or 16-year-old is capable of teaching themselves advanced placement material? 😕Especially subjects their specific school doesn't even offer. 🤷
We shouldn't just ignore the problem, but we shouldn't create a barrier that almost nobody can overcome either.
And why couldn't everyone go to a preparatory academy if they wanted to? 🤷
That’s how it used to be a long time ago. If someone wants to try, let them, and if they can't hack it, they can switch to a less demanding school later.
Besides, not everyone wants to aim for a top-tier academy anyway. 🤷

The truth is, there have never been "open door" policies for elite academies or universities without some kind of standard.

I honestly wonder how that would play out in practice...

You'd essentially have to double the number of grade levels, so where exactly would you put all these students?

Or, imagine a classroom where you have 15 driven students who actually want to learn and have clear goals, mixed with another 15 who are just messing around and making life miserable for the first group, simply because... well, they wanted to give it a shot. 🤷

And what do you think happens to the kids who get into a highly competitive school only to realize they aren't quite cut out for it—whether it's due to ability or effort? We can't treat children like they're toys.

Lisa Rivera said:Death, I have to disagree. Honestly...

I’m not putting the child on trial here. My point was simply that we need to sit them down and have a serious conversation about it. This isn't a one-off occurrence; it will happen again, and they eventually need to learn how to shoulder their own responsibilities—like realizing that grabbing a cookie isn't worth causing trouble for the rest of the family.

And really, how can you assume a ten-year-old wouldn't grasp the concept of borrowing? You're underestimating them...

Sure, a kid understands what it means to borrow money, but try to remember what you were actually like when you were ten.
I mean, what ten-year-old is always following the rules, acting totally rational, responsible, and all that other stuff?!?!
Most kids are busy begging for a Happy Meal, while this one is sitting there eating bran flakes? Give me a break—who wouldn't want to borrow some cash?
Have you seriously never borrowed anything in your life, or used a credit card, or even gone into the red at the bank once?!

Ashley Patel said:If I were a teacher, there is absolutely no way I’d be asking for that money back. Personally? I’d be too embarrassed to show my face. Look, teachers have lives too—they aren't going to drop dead over $10. We're talking about two coffees here!
Honestly, I think the teacher is intentionally pushing back against Laura. Since the kid had his own food with him, he could have just eaten at McDonald's. There's nothing shameful about that.
On the flip side, I feel like the mom is being a bit impulsive. She really needs to chill out when communicating with the teacher—after all, her kid still has a few years left at that school.

Yeah, exactly. Pushing back intentionally... 🙄
The teacher did what I believe any reasonable adult would do in her shoes: she lent the boy some cash so he wouldn't feel left out from his peers.
She lent it, she didn't give it as a gift, because a handout can feel like charity—and I don't think either the child or the mother would appreciate that.

The kid did exactly what any child would do in that spot: he took the money and enjoyed his meal.

The mother is overreacting because she's fixated on the teacher's actions, which were actually quite predictable and expected. I don't see a huge issue here. You messed up, you pay the money back, and that's it. No big deal.