Posts by urbantinker8

rowdypanther12 said:I'm not talking about failing to explain an assignment; I'm talking about the actual COURSE MATERIAL. 😁
Students should study the material themselves, learn it, and then complete a project (where they get specific guidelines on *how* to build it, like "use six slides with this layout"). Then, they present what they've mastered to the class. 😁

Well, I suppose that’s exactly what those educational reformers are pushing for.🙂
There isn't any lecture-style teaching in the real world, I guess. Students will eventually just seek out knowledge through sheer curiosity, hopefully discovering things and connecting them to what they already knew, which would then lead to some kind of joyful application in future research or whatever.
The teacher is basically just a moderator, a guide, and someone who grades the final result at the end of the whole process.
hahahahahahahahahahaha

Has anyone actually seen a single person claim that teachers are never, ever at fault for anything?🤔
I suppose it’s just the easiest way to spin an argument when you've run out of actual points to make or if you don't really have a clue what you're talking about in the first place.

you really hit the nail on the head there 🙏

Susan James said:From what I can gather from your posts, it sounds like you guys are still battling it out with old chalkboards and a lack of reliable Wi-Fi, mostly focusing your energy on 🥳
(if it isn't focused on the parents 🙂)

The way they handle individualization in places like Sweden has just created a massive gap between students; basically, the ones with more resources at home are the ones who pull ahead.
(To be honest, I'm not sure if it's the same story in Finland, which our former Secretary of Education loved to bring up. The author mentions that Sweden actually had some of the worst results in Scandinavia. She barely touches on Finland, but she does note that France went through a similar fiasco, and the USA has been pretty critical of that specific teaching model... I wouldn't even call this book a "revolutionary bestseller"—it feels more like an overview of events in another country that gets slightly romanticized here. People act like everything is perfect because schools have high-speed internet, IKEA furniture, and tablets everywhere...)

In an attempt to make education accessible to everyone, we’ve ended up with a system where the kids who can afford private preschools, elite private academies, tutors, and travel—plus parents who have the time to stay deeply involved and a library full of encyclopedias—are the winners...
while everyone else is left behind.

With that kind of educational divide, I'm not even that worried about my own kid (she'll be fine because we make sure she has everything she needs at home). What really worries me is who is going to be treating us in twenty years when my generation of doctors retires... or leaves earlier because they move to Sweden or somewhere else where the pay is better.

And I think every teacher, regardless of the subject, needs to ask themselves these same questions.
Whether they are delivering a lesson, grading a test, or dealing with a parent showing up at the faculty lounge unannounced because of a bad grade...

I mean, if you actually took a moment to read what I’m saying instead of just jumping to conclusions and basically bulldozing my points, you might realize I’ve been saying this for ages. I’ve always maintained that the Finnish model isn't some divine, flawless blueprint for the world, and honestly, I find this whole obsession with individualized instruction to be pretty problematic for everyone involved—including the students themselves, since we seem to be inadvertently raising a generation of people who can't function on their own. It really bugs me how much everyone celebrates "project-based learning" as some kind of miracle, when in reality, it often feels like an absolute flight from actual direct instruction, leaving kids to wander around with zero foundational knowledge because they haven't been given any real input. And then there’s the issue of parents... I think we seriously need to dial back the constant interference in educational reforms at every single level, because, well, looking at where things stand now, it's pretty obvious that letting everyone have a say in how schools run has led us down a rather questionable path.

So, I was looking through that Swedish pedagogical handbook again, and honestly, there isn't much in the way of anything new there, at least not from my perspective.
So, I see you've finally discovered how hot water works.
I mean, congratulations—it’s definitely better to have it happen now than to be stuck waiting forever, I suppose.👍

Sarah Hall53 said:It’s all about the flashy stuff lately—searching for #selfentertainment (like some Netflix binge), those #becauseIdeserveit petitions (very L'Oréal vibes), "learning without effort"—which basically just means sitting around without actually breaking a sweat—gamification, and all these colorful little projects... and honestly, most people seem totally fine with it. The public, the students, even the parents—everyone’s just happy-go-lucky when they get this kind of treatment.
But then you have the folks who actually dare to say that you can't bake bread without working the dough, or that you can't gain knowledge without actually putting your butt in a chair—and look, you can't connect dots or draw conclusions if you don't even know the basic damn facts first (which requires actually sitting down, reading, and staying focused long enough to memorize them). Basically, there is a way to learn, but it's nothing like the superficial stuff we've been seeing lately—kind of like how you see with the anti-vaxxer and anti-masker crowd. Well, those people? They just get labeled as lazy, old-fashioned, or "obstructionists" who are standing in the way of progress...

That’s pretty much it, I suppose.
I was sitting there thinking about the Denver Nuggets and how Jokić just operates on a completely different frequency than everyone else in the league, which I guess is why people get so caught up in whether his style actually fits the modern era or if it’s just an anomaly. It’s kind of like watching a master chess player try to play basketball; he isn't really playing the game we see on TV, he's playing a version of it that exists three moves ahead of everyone else, and maybe that’s why it feels so effortless yet so bafflingly efficient at the same time. I suppose when you look at the way the whole roster functions around him, it’s less about individual athleticism and more about this collective, almost rhythmic understanding of space and timing, though I wonder if the rest of the NBA is actually learning from it or if they're just going to keep trying to outrun him until they realize that running faster doesn't necessarily mean you're winning.

I don't really need some revolutionary pedagogical bestseller from Scandinavia to tell me what’s already obvious; I think we know exactly what we're up against in my classroom every single day.
For years now, I've been watching the exact same systemic failures play out in our schools—the very things the author is pointing out here—and yet, somehow, our educational reforms just seem to keep doubling down on the same mistakes.
It’s all this push for individualization, constant adjustments, trying to lighten the load where it might actually be needed and ignoring it where it isn't, avoiding direct instruction like it's a plague, being terrified of giving a bad grade, worrying about stress levels, and basically walking on eggshells around every single student and their parents.
I mean, honestly, should anyone even be surprised when the results turn out to be mediocre... across the board?🤣😂

There are more than just those.
I think I can name a few public ones off the top of my head—places like Lincoln High, Roosevelt, Washington, Jefferson, Kennedy, Madison, Franklin, and maybe some of the local schools over near the suburbs or out by the outskirts—but there are definitely others, and then you have all the private elementary schools too, I suppose.

Michelle Nelson4 said:Regarding that point about the STEM teacher shortage mentioned in the Telegram article concerning the 2021/22 Quote freshman enrollment numbers:

When you look at programs that saw only a single freshman enroll, we really need to take a closer look at the Physics and Computer Science tracks and the Physics and Chemistry track over at the University of Chicago. Even though those first two had capacities of 32 and 22 respectively, both ended up with just one student enrolled.

I mean, seriously, what do they expect? Like, how is it a surprise that nobody wants to grind away for pennies, work more than a year straight, and settle for three weeks of vacation?😕
People are just strange, I guess.🤣

nimblelynx7 said:Look, we have to preserve the teaching staff at all costs. They’re the only ones that matter; they're the only metric that counts.
That said, in defense of the system, it makes zero sense to shut down an ag school in regions where farming is actually a major industry. It doesn't mean we shouldn't look into quotas, though.

You can't just launch a specific "game production" major—that's way too niche. But you could offer something like computer programming technology. Graduates from those programs could go into gaming, sure, but they could also handle serious software like CAD or CAM.

And here we go, just another endless wave of Ford employees dreaming about passing their teaching certifications so they can chase the dream of instructing high schoolers for that absolutely incredible salary.🤣🤣🤣

Susan James said:Standard tracks are usually noted on the back (unless that changed recently 🤔)

I’m with you on that, though I should add that those specific programs are vetted by the school nurse and the local city office.
It's true—without a mental health professional's assessment, this would be nearly impossible to implement, but at the end of the day, someone still has to sign off on the official paperwork.

If we weren't getting sidetracked here, I just hope these geniuses don't try to impose special rules for writing entrance exams.
Man, some truly talented Intel students are going to get caught in the crossfire, but someone has to pay the price for this wave of nonsense.

Of course they’re going to ask for special treatment. It’s just like how things work during high school graduation season.🙂
Because if they don't... well, then it's discrimination, right?☕
They'll probably get bonus points for everything, and their exams will likely run way longer than the rest of us regular students who don't have those fancy Intel credentials. They might even demand personal proctors. 😳
I'm just hoping that universities can actually set some ground rules about this, rather than us just blindly following whatever guidance comes from some career counselor who claims, "Look, he has all these struggles, but he's brilliant, so let's just shove him into a top-tier prep school because his dream is to study architecture."🙄🤦

Karen Richardson3 said:I’ve been lurking in some of those local mom groups on Facebook lately just to keep an eye on where things are heading.
It feels like every single parent whose kid is labeled as "hyperactive and super smart, but just doesn't fit this standard school curriculum" is being told they need individualized learning plans.

Another big thing popping up—mostly with the little ones—is all this talk about "sensory issues." If a kid won't eat certain foods, suddenly it's a sensory processing disorder and they desperately need a therapist.

I’m actually starting to develop a bit of a grudge against your profession, 😁

When it comes to high school graduation requirements and college admissions, I've basically checked out. I watch my little one making progress with such minimal effort, and honestly, it feels like the whole system is just beyond saving.

To be real with you, I care way less about standardized testing or the grading inflation we see with honor students than I do about them bringing back practical stuff like home economics, actual technical trades, and real PE. I couldn't care less about the academic fluff they're cramming down their throats.

Only just now? 🤣🤣
The whole thing with the AP curriculum has been one of the biggest messes in the American school system over the last few years, I suppose, and we really have the "experts" to thank for that. 🙂
It feels like there needs to be a much more explicit set of rules defining exactly what those potential admissions points are actually for, and maybe—it wouldn't hurt, I guess—if every transcript included a specific note indicating whether a student completed their grade via the AP or standard track.

boldfox5 said:Hey, thanks for that.

I mean, I noticed some school districts in other states have already requested permission to operate normally, so that's why I'm asking.

So, I guess it actually is possible 😁.

Also, is there any way to see the specific data on how many kids are currently infected—you know, specifically within a single school district here in the US?

It should be doable, unless the founding board decides to pull the plug, I guess. But this time, the directive actually came straight from the White House, rather than coming down from the Department of Education or some local task force. 🙄
There isn't really any public data for the schools, since every single school district keeps its own separate records, but those figures aren't exactly being released to the public right now.

I could try asking them, but I doubt they’ll listen.
It feels like everyone is just lurking online anyway. 🙄💩

mellowskipper said:

I suppose I should probably address this—though I’m not entirely sure why it matters at this point—but there seems to be some sort of confusion regarding the current state of things. It’s all rather disorganized, isn't it? I mean, if you look at the way people are reacting, it’s almost as if they aren't paying attention to the actual details—not that anyone ever does, I guess. Anyway, I was thinking about how much this reminds me of that one situation back in Chicago—you know, the one where everything just fell apart because nobody bothered to read the fine print—and honestly, we're seeing a similar lack of foresight here. It’s frustrating, though perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. One would think people would strive for more clarity, but maybe that's just asking too much from the general public. Just my two cents, I suppose. [Username] says:
I'm more interested in who exactly is going to be doing the teaching—I mean, that’s really the core issue here, isn't it?🐔😳
What kind of credentials does someone actually need to teach a course on "critical thinking"? I mean, it’s a bit of a vague concept to begin with—I guess you could argue anyone with a pulse and an opinion could try, but that’s hardly a qualification. Usually, you’d expect some sort of advanced degree in philosophy or perhaps cognitive psychology—something from a place like Harvard or Stanford—to ensure they actually understand the mechanics of logic rather than just shouting platitudes. Or maybe it’s more about practical experience in investigative journalism or law? It seems a bit nebulous, really—though I suppose that might be the point of the subject itself. I wonder if there's any standardized certification for this at all, or if it's just anyone with a podium and a syllabus.🤣

Professor of Philosophy, Logic, Ethics... or whatever you want to call it.

I mean, there’s just no way it could be a mandatory election. I guess—if you even want to call it that—it simply doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but honestly, it feels fundamentally impossible.

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

aha, so I guess they’re just the only ones who hold the "right" credentials. fair enough.
it seems like they might just be inventing an entirely new field and a job title just to find some work for people who struggle to find employment elsewhere, you know, like philosophers, logicians, or ethicists.🐔

Susan James said:Even if you ignore the confusing name, it’s still a worthwhile investment.
And of course, this happens right in the middle of the census, where some folks are already complaining that their grandkids won't be counted as Catholic. The timing for this task force is just off; they really should have waited until the census results were actually in.

Parents and teachers have been calling for an alternative for ages because they don't want kids falling through the cracks.😠
Honestly, though, I think kids are doing just fine as it is. As for that subject—with its nonsensical name—we should probably just hire as many general teachers as we have religion instructors. We currently have way too many religion teachers, which is a huge drain on the budget since classes aren't combined when less than half the students attend, much like how we handle German classes.
Who’s going to foot the bill for that?

I’ve posted about this here before: I’m not a fan of any alternatives. If someone wants to go, let them; if not, let them play. It would be wonderful if these sessions could just be held at the church instead.

I’ve been watching the chaos first graders deal with while getting used to a few different teachers, and now they’re going to have more chaos with kids splitting up for different subjects. How is that supposed to work in practice if one student goes to Ethics while 24 stay for Religion? It might work if it’s a fifty-fifty split, but if the vast majority goes one way and only one or two go the other, it’s going to be a nightmare for classroom dynamics right at the start of school.🙄
I personally feel like first graders should only have a maximum of two teachers, without all these extra interruptions to their lessons. Most of what they learn in computer lab can be handled by the homeroom teacher anyway—most have been doing that since we shifted to remote learning for a couple of years.
Religion in church, and maybe English after school during supervised study time.

I really hope they commit to this alternative plan for at least three years.🥳

I'm actually more curious about who would even be standing at the front of the classroom teaching this stuff.🐔 😳
What kind of credentials does one even need to teach "critical thinking"?🤣

Betty Wood54 said:It was Reškovac. Every single class before mine used Kalin, but then the professor decided to switch things up on us.

"Luckily," she wasn't exactly consistent about it, so when it came time for exams, she just tested us the old way, as if we’d all been using Kalin all along.

Yeah, I mean, there’s really no way to wrap your head around Reškovac; it’s honestly just too chaotic, even for an educated adult, let alone some high schoolers.
Basically, you get zero introduction, no historical context, no explanation of the philosophical movement—just absolutely nothing. There isn't a single word written in the study guides regarding the author, his core philosophy, his school of thought, the era he lived in, or any of his other works.
Instead, you're handed this torn-up fragment of a text where, by the end, both the author and the timing feel totally irrelevant to what you're looking at.
And then they expect you to just... analyze it and interpret it.
🤦

I guess if you put a room full of Nobel laureates in front of a prompt like that, the results would still be unpredictable, so I can't imagine how it goes in our average classrooms...🕺

Betty Wood54 said:What's interesting to me is precisely what you're saying. Back when my high school teacher decided to use that philosophy textbook during my senior year, I didn't really learn anything from it, even though it was much thicker—mostly because it's more of a reader full of excerpts rather than a cohesive guide.

I remember an excerpt from a Hegelian work; it's just not something you can read like a standard prose selection, especially if you don't have the entire history of philosophy under your belt. You can't really read it in isolation, either, without the rest of the work.

So, in practice, everyone in class just has to pretend they understand it, "interpreting" it like it's some piece of literature rather than a technical work where every single word carries a very specific, precise meaning.

Uh, uh, I'm just glad I finished my schooling before all that started.

Wait, were you guys using the Norton text or the Oxford one?
We were officially using the Norton stuff, but practically speaking, it was total chaos since I somehow ended up being taught by this other guy with the massive beard.🙄

hiddendriver34 said:As much as I believe we shouldn't have messed with the old ways in the first place, I absolutely stand by that bolded part.👍

I don't think I ever actually said that everything needs to stay exactly as it is, or that nothing should be changed, I guess.🤷
I mean, it’s pretty clear that the same kind of tech has already fundamentally shifted just about everything when it comes to teaching. In my own classes, the whole concept of lecturing at the front of the room has basically vanished, replaced by all these different methods and tools that allow a student to be right in the center of the learning process quite frequently and intensely. But, I guess, I didn't really need some big, radical revolution or a visionary leader to force that change on us—those shifts just seemed to happen somewhat spontaneously, without needing a whole lot of heavy philosophy behind them.

I guess what really gets under my skin is...
I guess there’s this constant, almost aggressive push to force that inductive student research principle on everyone at any cost—mostly because, let's be honest, it sounds way more badass than just having a teacher sit there and explain things. It works pretty smoothly most of the time when you're dealing with a foreign language class, I suppose, whereas in a subject like math, it maybe only lands once in a blue moon, if it even works at all.
It’s that classic move where people just reflexively trash everything that came before, purely on the assumption that because the old stuff wasn't perfect, it was all fundamentally broken. I guess they think throwing the entire chronology out the window in favor of some trendy thematic approach is somehow way cooler, though I'm not entirely sure if that actually holds any water.

Susan James said:Not everyone is laughing, though. For some, it’s actually nice to take a breather while the kids dive into the texts themselves. If they don't get something, honestly, it's often on them—they're either being lazy, disinterested, or struggling to focus because they've been glued to their phones at home.
Any excuse that shifts the responsibility onto the kid is a convenient one.
And then you shouldn't be surprised by a flood of IP Corp complaints.

One of the silver linings (if you can call it that) during the pandemic era was the return to in-person learning where students weren't allowed to sit in little groups of four (where half the class ends up with their backs to the board) or cluster together by neighborhood to work on group projects.
Suddenly, the same people who had to start looking students in the eye again (and now doing it through masks, which makes eye contact even more vital) are yelling that infection rates are too high and we need to switch back to online learning. And since recording sessions isn't always an option for various reasons, they just send instructions to parents or students telling them which page of the textbook to cover independently.

And that's the "education reform" that parents supposedly asked for.

Of course, there are things kids simply need explained, demonstrated, or told through a story. It's not just limited to math or language grammar; it applies to history through anecdotes, biology, geography, technical skills... you name it.

This whole group research/project-based/collaborative learning thing—whatever they're calling it these days—is actually fantastic for interdisciplinary topics and connecting what's already been learned across different subjects. Language classes are probably the best place for this; you can practice grammar and expand vocabulary while simultaneously reviewing science or history, tossing in some civic education and real-world life skills... plus, it helps build a sense of community in the classroom through actual communication.

From what I saw last year, Google studies and science curricula overlap quite a bit in many places. If a topic has already been covered in science, you can assign a project for them to tackle during geography. But if it hasn't, then you're basically just dumping extra homework on a student that the teacher should have handled.

Absolutely.
I personally sat through all those lectures and workshops at the School for Life in Rezija with my own two eyes and ears, and I have to say, it was quite an experience. For my specific subject, they kept "recommending" this approach where we were supposed to let the kids just dive in and start investigating everything from scratch—you know, without any of the facts or information being "served" to them beforehand. I guess that’s the idea, though it felt a bit much at times.
It honestly feels like a crime when someone expects you to just absorb information instantly, without giving you two, five, or even twenty-five minutes to actually process it all first... I guess it’s just how the prefrontal cortex works, maybe.
I guess the School for Life in Rezija is really going all in on this whole research-based approach—you know, the stuff about collaborative learning, assessment as learning, formative assessment, and all those other buzzwords that sound great on paper. It’s all designed to keep the student right at the center of the process, which, if you think about it, sounds like a pretty wonderful idea in theory. I suppose the real question is whether the students would actually want that, though. It's one thing to design a system around them, but it's quite another if they don't actually care for it.🤣

I guess there isn't much to say about a rhino, really... just sort of sits there, existing in its own heavy, quiet way. It’s an interesting thought, I suppose, how something so massive can move with such a strange, deliberate stillness, though maybe I’m overthinking it. Just a rhino. driftingranger2 says:

Honestly, I've just about had it with Scandinavia.

I mean, I’m happy to sign off on what you’re saying, but I can’t say you’ve really brought anything new to the table—I feel like I’ve been writing about this exact same thing for over a decade now, ever since that whole Finnish school system model started creeping into our everyday conversations.🙄🙂

I guess, looking back over the last decade or so, I’ve started to get this lingering impression that we’re just continuously churning out idiots when it comes to the younger generation.
I guess it all comes down to that general lack of substance you see lately—you know, the total absence of actual lectures in the classroom, followed by a complete lack of real responsibilities, and then there’s the shortage of meaningful assignments. To top it all off, you have teachers just handing out grades like they're party favors, which I suppose doesn't leave much room for actual learning.
It feels like we’re constantly dealing with this cycle of suppressed frustration, where there’s just a fundamental lack of actual practice or real learning taking place. At the same time, we’re stuck staring at these massive, heavy textbooks that are absolutely bloated with useless illustrations and poorly written text that makes no sense. Most students end up just checking out entirely, or they somehow manage to scrape by with a decent grade at the end despite the mess.

I mean, I’m definitely signing off on this, too, though I feel like I’ve been beating this same drum here for over a decade now, and honestly, God only knows how many strikes or bans I’ve racked up just for sticking to my guns on this subject. 🥳
Well, I guess if you say so, then I suppose it must be true.

Betty Wood54 said:Regarding teaching methods, I find the philosophy curriculum for high school seniors to be quite an interesting subject. On one hand, there’s the textbook by Boris Kalin, which follows a strictly historical approach—essentially just tracing the timeline of philosophy from the ancient era forward. On the other hand, you have Tomislav Reškovac’s textbook, which utilizes a more problem-based framework. In that version, the book is organized into chapters centered around specific philosophical dilemmas, and then within each topic, you'll find various texts from philosophers spanning different eras.

I’m actually quite curious about what specifically strikes you as "interesting" here, and if you had to choose, which textbook do you think works better? 🍿

I feel like Reškovac is just posturing, honestly. He reminds me a bit of someone like Nikola Jokić, in a sense.
Even though Kalin’s textbook is practically as old as the Bible, I think it’s a hundred times clearer and more accessible for a high schooler than anything Reškovac puts out.
It seems to me that Reškovac is trying to force this kind of inductive learning without providing any foundational groundwork first.
Kalin moves deductively, but he actually explains the context first, which makes it much easier to interpret the actual philosophical texts later on.

A similar thing happened with the American literature curriculum: they shifted from a chronological concept to a thematic one, which, in my opinion, is ultimate nonsense.
Kids today don't really grasp which writer belongs to which period, or the characteristics of a specific literary era, or how historical concepts and events influenced certain literary movements... instead, they mostly just focus on... well, women characters in the works.
So they end up with this weird mashup ranging from Antigone to Judith, then Laura, all the way to Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina.
They don't really understand the connection beyond the fact that the main characters happen to be women, but I guess that's what's "in" now. 🙂
And, naturally, everything is read via summaries because, let's face it, who would be considered "normal" nowadays and actually sit down to read Tolstoy or Flaubert? Good luck with that. 🙂
It's just required reading to check a box. 🙂

hiddendriver34 said:Oh, tell me about it! 🤦 The "flipped classroom." In an American public school. 🤣

Look, I get it—Finnish schools are top-tier and the whole Scandinavian system is incredibly cool, but we can't just flip our entire education system upside down overnight just to look in.

In the American school system, some things just don't click. Maybe they'll work in ten years, but right now? Not happening. I’m currently struggling just to teach my students that every time they have to lift a finger, they shouldn't immediately bark, "Wait, is this going to be graded?"

not gonna happen.

hiddendriver34 said:Look, I don't follow the book every single second. Sometimes, sure, I just stick to a straight lecture, knock it out, and call it a day. Kids (and parents, too) usually prefer the lecture style anyway—to them, that’s what "real school" looks like, and they just want a teacher who’s an engaging speaker.

But man, looking back at when I first started teaching, I used to rely almost exclusively on lecturing. Now? I'm starting to think even that wasn't the best way to go.

I mean, in my experience, I’ve rarely relied on heavy lecturing; if I am explaining something, it usually doesn't drag on for more than maybe fifteen or twenty minutes, but ninety percent of the time it’s really just discussion or some sort of listening and reading comprehension exercises, or perhaps a project or having them present their own research.
I only really lecture when introducing new grammar rules, though that doesn't happen all that often.
With foreign language studies, things haven't actually changed much compared to the "old school" methods.
Though, I have to admit, whenever I try to imagine students in a math, chemistry, or physics class constantly conducting their own independent investigations and arriving at every single conclusion and realization entirely on their own—all while receiving "teacher support" but without any actual direct instruction—I can't help but chuckle.
Luckily, I guess those teachers are laughing too, since they still end up explaining things the traditional way.🙏