Nobody seems to be addressing the fact that you simply cannot fix a bad staff. As long as they show up just to do the absolute bare minimum—if that—you can’t exactly swap them out for people who actually take pride in their work. To be clear: spending all day in a classroom with people like that is a disaster on every level. They'll mentally drain the kids, and by the time students have slogged through a 9 or 10-hour school day, they won't have any energy left for extracurriculars, tutoring, or anything else. It creates massive disparities between schools depending on how lucky you get with the district's hiring—and in an all-day school setting, those gaps become impossible to ignore.
Carl Bishop2 said:I think you can start introducing programming concepts as early as the lower elementary grades—as far as I know, kids are already getting their hands dirty with Scratch in second grade, though some might even start in first depending on how much the teacher wants to push things.
Yeah, that’s the part about robotics in the early years I was talking about—it’s much easier to grasp programming when you can actually build something tangible. Some elementary teachers are already doing this quite well by blending it with other subjects—for instance, kids have programmed their own step counters to use during PE 😍.
Scott Booth said:I’m curious to hear from the computer science teachers out there, or maybe those who work closely with them: is it actually possible to teach kids how to navigate an operating system, master basic Microsoft Office settings, or get comfortable with standard everyday apps if they only have one hour of tech class a week for eight years?
Personally, I’m all for increasing—or bringing back—the hours dedicated to English and math, provided we pair that shift with a solid, updated curriculum. It’s just a shame to see how much art and music have been pushed to the sidelines lately; the role they play in a well-rounded education shouldn't be overlooked like this.
Of course it is. Everything they’re currently cramming into fifth and sixth grade could easily be stretched out—tailored to their age—and there'd still be plenty of room to add more. Like redCat mentioned, a lot of those current hours just end up being wasted on gaming or downtime anyway. I mentioned this earlier, but one hour a week is plenty for the general population, provided it starts early enough so they learn to use computers as tools for all their other subjects. Sure, you touch on programming in the higher grades, but for the younger ones, you could introduce some simple, age-appropriate robotics—just basic commands and introductions. For the kids who actually get into it, you could set up meaningful after-school clubs to dive deep into robotics and coding. Elementary teachers could handle the basics, while motivated, trained instructors could run the extracurricular stuff.
Mind you—any subject where it’s hard to fit everything into a single 45-minute block could be scheduled as a double period every other week—kind of like how Art or Shop class works now.
The other issue is the balance between subjects—whether it’s okay to have more Religion than Computer Science, or more English than Math, and so on.
We should really get a debate club going—one side for, one side against—just to let people actually hash out their arguments. It reminds me of those old debate shows they used to run on CNN back in the day. I'm not sure why they phased them out, because honestly, they were great 😢
Personally, I would introduce electives by 7th or 8th grade... maybe one hour of fundamentals, plus two hours for those actually interested in going deeper.
northerntiger9, the shortage of quality teachers stems from negative selection, low salaries, and an endless mountain of paperwork. Toss in difficult parent interactions and a lack of actual accountability, and you see how everything is connected...
I’m actually part of that selection process myself—just on the other side 😬 so, unfortunately, I know the score. Until we fix the underlying issues, there’s no point in forcing mandates on anyone, much less hiking hourly rates for people who won't be there to collect them.
Until they address the issue of incompetent staff—which has been systematically ruining entire generations for years—all-day schooling is just going to cause more harm than good. Kids will just endure whatever they have to at school, then head off to some more motivated, sensible environment if they actually have the drive. Same goes for the lack of a plan to handle disruptive students; until the classroom isn't poisoned by an atmosphere that’s unmotivating and unproductive for the kids who actually want to learn, all-day schooling won't achieve anything—if anything, it'll be worse.
On another note... one thing doesn't make sense to me. Why is everyone complaining about computer science being cut? Right now, it’s only required for 5th and 6th graders for two hours a week—under the new plan, it would be required for all eight grades for one hour a week. That’s double the time. I’m not even counting electives; anyone who wants deeper knowledge can just sign up for extracurriculars, which could focus on things like robotics, programming, or digital tools for photo/video editing. For the basics that every kid needs to grasp, one hour a week across all grades sounds perfectly reasonable. The real bottleneck remains the quality of the faculty.
Why would I stick to generalities? 😬 I’m talking about the situation in Seattle—it feels like, unlike in New York City, there aren't many great options if you're looking for a solid school that isn't a prep school. So, I'm asking for the third time: does anyone actually know if that's still the case, or has something changed?
Raymond Jones8 said:So, we’re sitting here playing the parent role, trying to figure out which high school makes the most sense. It feels like my kid barely hits the books, yet somehow he’s pulling a 4.0 GPA. He actually admits he stays focused during class—he isn't just staring at the clock waiting for the bell to ring or anything. He’s got a mountain of top marks for participation because he’s actually engaged in the lessons. This week, he’s heading to the regional competition for one subject, and he already qualified for the national level in another. Last year, he placed pretty high in the national competition for that same subject too. In our area, there are only two specialized math academies, and honestly, given what he wants to major in later, that seems like the smartest move. I guess I'm not really worried about how heavy the workload is; I care more about whether the teachers actually give a damn. For example, this year they had a chemistry teacher who seemed like he didn't even want to be alive, let alone bother explaining anything to the kids.
I'm not sure if you caught my post a few pages back where I was venting about how we only have two real options here in the US—and usually, the one that’s easier to get into ends up winning out. 😢 I honestly wish we had—or maybe I just don't know—at least one solid technical high school that actually prepares kids for a STEM degree.
Regarding tutoring... it really comes down to the teachers. My kid had two different math professors who were great—everything was crystal clear, no extra work needed at home. Now they have a third sub, and suddenly everything needs to be re-explained or re-learned at home (or via a tutor if you can't find anyone else to explain it). I'm hearing the same thing from kids in other grades—even the ones who are naturally gifted at math. So... I completely get why parents are paying for tutors. It's not about padding a grade; it's about filling the gaps left by the classroom.
Kate Jackson4 said:My only gripe with vocational schools is how heavily gender-segregated they can be.😁 Technical tracks are mostly guys, while nursing or medical programs are almost entirely women.
Because of that, I’d actually prefer a traditional high school setting where there's at least some social mixing, even if my eighth grader isn't exactly interested in girls yet...😵
It’s honestly baffling why girls wouldn't consider computer science; it's an incredible field, and so many girls from prep schools end up studying at MIT or Georgia Tech anyway.
See, this is exactly why I wanted to hear from moms in Chicago—to see if things have actually changed here or if it's still the same old story. Because honestly? There isn’t much of a real STEM choice in our school system. You either go the math and science magnet route, or you pick one of those vocational schools that looks great on paper but was a nightmare in my day. Back then, those places were filled with unruly kids, almost exclusively male, with zero extracurriculars to speak of. Most teachers avoided them because the behavior was so bad you could barely get through the bare minimum. So, unless there's been some massive overhaul lately, there really isn't an option for a bright STEM kid who doesn't want the traditional prep school vibe. 🤷 Please, tell me it's better now. 😬
Just putting this out there... New York City has public transit that’s easily a hundred times better, more organized, and more logical than what you see in Seattle. Sure—Seattle is smaller, but that only helps if you’re walking or driving. Around here, if you aren't lucky enough to have everything connected horizontally via overlapping bus lines, you're pretty much stuck. You might be fast on foot, but the city lacks any vertical connectivity—which is a massive issue. Plus, since buses don't have their own lanes or tracks, every time there's traffic or a bottleneck, you just sit there waiting because there isn't an alternative.
For instance, it takes me 10 minutes to get to work by car because I can cut across certain routes. On foot, it’s a 45-minute walk, but I have to pass through parts of town that aren't exactly safe for pedestrians, especially after dark, so I avoid it. Taking the bus would require switching between two or three different lines, pushing the trip well over an hour.
The sport my kid practices also has training sessions about 10-15 minutes away by car. Walking takes about 45 minutes too, but it's inconvenient because there are stretches without sidewalks if you try to take the shortest route. By bus? Forget it—you’d have to go all the way downtown and then head back out... at least an hour minimum.
There’s no infrastructure for bikes or scooters in Seattle; trying to use them is basically suicide. And if that typical Seattle rain starts coming down... absolute joy. 😵
Edit: Before anyone jumps in to comment that traveling for an hour or two isn't a big deal... of course it isn't, but why bother if you have a convenient alternative nearby? Besides, everything in Seattle is scheduled under the assumption that you can arrive within half an hour—like a school ending at 7:10 PM, or practice starting on the other side of town at 7:30 PM. Parent notices and info are sent out promptly at 4:30 PM, because—well, everyone is assumed to be able to make it if they finish work at 4:00. You have to pick kids up from daycare by 4:15 or 4:30 at the latest, because after that, nobody is left except the cleaning crew. And so on.
Kenneth Garcia9 said:Within a two-year window, they have the right to enroll as a full-time student. That two-year period serves as the deadline for passing those specialized and makeup exams from the first four years. After that, they enter their fourth year.
Leah, I'm not from Cleveland, but it doesn't look like there are only three high schools on the list. Or were you looking for specific advice regarding certain schools?
I was talking about locations—basically. There are two main areas where three high schools operate, each offering three different tracks. Then you've got the Salesians school, which requires certain religious affiliations. Add in a newly rebranded high school that wasn't originally a prep school, plus a private option... so, if you're looking for the established ones, you really just pick between those two locations and call it a day. If you're STEM-focused, there isn't exactly a massive menu to choose from anyway.
I’d love to hear what American moms think about this 😬 I get the feeling we don't actually have much choice here—aside from just picking whichever local high school happens to be closest to home. And even then, there isn't much variety; you basically have two or three options unless you're counting religious schools as another way to go 😬
So, my kid has officially completed the cycle—moving from reading extra books for fun, to only touching required school reading because he’s "too busy," to finally reaching that stage where the sheer boredom has completely broken his spirit. He can't even face the assigned stuff anymore, let alone the list of soul-crushing classics coming up next. Apparently, these were supposed to be "engaging." Huge thanks to the American education system for fostering such a deep, lifelong passion for literature 😍
Michelle Nelson4 said:My take is that those athletic points are automatically added to the totals for all schools. I’m specifically talking about school sports here.
Then why do certain schools highlight specific competitions for extra credit? It feels pointless if sports are just an automatic addition while other subjects—equally irrelevant, really—don't get that same treatment.
The grading for sports and assemblies should be scrapped entirely—not the events themselves, just the points. There's zero logic in awarding credits based on team competitions, especially for things like assemblies where you can basically just mumble from the back row. 😬
mellowskipper said:That makes sense. I mean, obviously, a theology award isn't going to help you get into Miami. I think those athletic points are strictly for school-sanctioned sports competitions—usually just for the top three finishers. I'm not entirely sure how much weight the school actually gives them, but I suspect it's quite a bit.
Yeah, that's right—though you need some luck to actually get a team together at school. Most sports are organized by teams rather than individuals, which makes things tricky. 😬 My kid has a county medal, but they didn't make it to the state level because there were only two of them when they needed seven. 🤣
Bome, I didn't see anything on the school list I was checking that explicitly mentioned recognizing sports achievements. 🤷 Maybe if a school doesn't specify what they accept, they just take everything—but for specialized sports academies, this isn't really a deciding factor. They focus on national league competitions, not this messy, makeshift system that's totally unfair to actual athletes. 😬
You can't just count every single competition toward your GPA—it doesn't work like that. Looking at my high school's policy, it's pretty clear—extra credit for the general track comes from things like HJ, mat, or foreign language competitions, while the STEM track looks for HJ, mat, fiz, or computer science stuff. (I might not have the exact list memorized, but you get the idea...) Basically, winning a sports trophy won't help you if you're aiming for the academic tracks, and a history award means nothing for a math major. Only the competitions that actually align with your chosen field carry any weight.
With all due respect to everyone here—IT professionals who actually have the chops to thrive in the private sector, regardless of what specific degree they hold, aren't going to find much luck chasing teacher salaries. We're seeing a massive trend toward negative selection in public sector hiring lately.