The kids definitely made the most of those tutoring sessions. Regarding the whole debate about blaming parents—honestly, I’d rather point the finger at the system itself. For years now, we've watched entrance requirements and enrollment thresholds skyrocket, yet nothing is being done to address it. That’s completely out of a parent's hands. So, naturally, they just focus on the one thing they actually can control.
rowdypanther12 said:@Susan James, they used to be more organized about high school admissions back when a 4.5 GPA was the standard 😁 A friend of mine managed to get into her preferred prep school with a 4.4 😁
Well, even with a 4.0, things vary. In my class, there were a few students who scraped by middle school with a 3.0. They weren't exactly academic superstars, but they didn't fail any grades either. It's quite different from some other groups... I remember in our sophomore year, we had about five or six fewer students in the class, between people repeating a grade or those who moved over to less demanding vocational programs.
Jamie Morgan72 said:A loan tied to a currency clause, coupled with the fact that the bank clearly knew they were predatory toward consumers.
I think generalizing this as people "carelessly taking out loans just for lower rates" is a bit much. These Swiss Franc Loans were essentially shoved down people's throats as their only option. It was basically presented as, "This is the only credit you qualify for, so take the Swiss Franc or start biking to work."
As for who is actually paying for what happened today—it's the bank. They made an absolute killing off the surge in the Swiss Franc exchange rate, which allowed them to pump that cash back into the money markets and rake in interest. So, the one who actually profited is the bank, and even after everything is settled, they'll likely still be sitting on a massive surplus.
Have you actually sat down with the bank's financial statements and tracked those specific line items for foreign exchange gains? Like, do you know exactly how much they were? For all the major banks involved? Over what specific timeframe? Or perhaps you've spent some time digging through the Federal Reserve regulations regarding bank currency exposure—knowing exactly what the limits were back then and if any institutions were cutting corners? Did the Federal Reserve flag any irregularities? That part is actually quite easy to verify if you know where to look.
I'm sure you have all this documented and ready to go, since you're making such bold claims about them reaping "extra" profits solely based on the exchange rate (which, by the way, would require some serious quantification to define what "extra" actually means here).
I remember asking these exact same questions on this forum years ago and never got an answer. Maybe now, finally, I'll get some clarity…
I mean, don't get me wrong—I think it's wonderful when kids step up to help one another, truly I do. But in my view, that kind of collaboration should be strictly voluntary. The issue is that, more often than not, you just end up seeing the same cliques forming—the kids with similar skill sets and interests gravitating toward each other...
Looking back on it now through an adult lens, it’s actually quite fascinating to realize how much was expected of them. It honestly strikes me as bizarre that anyone thought it was reasonable to expect an elementary schooler to step in and fix a problem that even their teacher couldn't manage...
I mean, they were all volunteers, at the very least. Neither I nor the person I was supposed to be mentoring actually wanted to be there in the first place. Honestly, just being stuck in that situation felt like such a massive waste of time. And don't even get me started on my lack of experience in that specific area—that was really just adding insult to injury.
So, I would much rather have spent my afternoon getting lost in a gripping novel or maybe sitting down for a game of chess with my grandmother...
I find it absolutely fascinating that anyone could view mandatory "mentorship" with struggling students as a positive thing. Honestly, that was the exact reason I avoided taking any extra math courses—because there was this unspoken assumption that doing so meant I’d be stuck running remedial sessions to help out those who were falling behind. Even a twelve-year-old understands the futility of it; how are you supposed to approach someone who just doesn't get the concept and lacks the necessary foundational knowledge? It felt like such a massive waste of time for both me and the student, since there was simply nothing I could explain effectively. That experience alone was what 100% convinced me that teaching just wasn't the career path for me...
Canada always ends up being this tricky example because you can't just dismiss them using the usual tropes we use for other neighbors—you know, the typical stuff about the climate, the local mindset, historical baggage, economic standards, or that lingering communist or Austro-Canadian legacy... (just keep the list going)
The one bright spot we actually managed to pick up from them (and thank goodness that came via a former cabinet secretary) was the idea of having more short holidays. It’s funny, though; everyone collectively sabotaged the whole thing during the first year because she tried to let people vote on the dates—which was a bit naive given the stubborn streak of the surrounding culture—so by the next year, they just made them mandatory for everyone alike. 🙏
Walter Thomas18 said:🤦 US courts have ruled on all sorts of nonsense, from accounting tricks and shady dealings to property grabbing on the coast and the "adoption" of children from the Congo...
Like I’ve said many times before—everything regarding the interest rates was handled poorly. If the banks had just taken the hit to their profits and compensated the borrowers, it would have been perfectly fine.
That’s spot on. The thing is, 99% of these debtors weren't actually struggling with an extra 1% or 2% on their interest rates; their real nightmare was the exchange rate volatility between the Swiss Franc and the Dollar, coupled with the plummeting value of those properties in USD. If it wasn't for that specific combination, nobody would even be bringing up the interest rates. The rates only popped up on everyone's radar because that double whammy pushed people into such a massive financial hole that they had to turn over every stone to find a way out, which is how those details eventually surfaced.
Anyone can fall into a financial hole; there isn't exactly a law against having bad luck with money.
Richard Taylor3 said:That’s just not true—Vujcic actually warned people about the dangers of the Swiss Franc Loan multiple times, even on national TV. But I guess nobody was really listening, you know? Everyone was too focused on how low the interest rates were, which was clearly the only thing that mattered at the time. Who honestly cares about a few warnings when money is cheap?
Don't be like that—I actually listened! You are absolutely right; there were plenty of public warnings stating that the dollar was pegged closely to other major currencies and that taking out loans in a Swiss Franc were significantly riskier. When I walked into the bank to apply for my loan, they tried to pitch me the Swiss Franc option as being "cheaper," but I told them no thanks—I wanted the more expensive one in dollars. They just gave me this look, like, "Oh, so you're choosing the safe route."
The exchange rate barely moved, even dipping slightly for a while, roughly $2.50/USD—but regardless, I was still paying my monthly installments in dollars, calculated precisely based on the current rate, even if the bank ended up receiving a bit less. My interest rate was tied to Euribor, so as Euribor fluctuated, my interest rate changed accordingly. You really have to read the fine print on what you're signing...
northerntiger9 said:Don't laugh—but we’ve completely overlooked something that is actually essential these days. I’d love to see it integrated into computer science classes—not necessarily as its own subject, but just part of the curriculum. 😬 It is infinitely easier and faster to type when you actually know how to do it properly, rather than picking up bad habits early on that are a nightmare to fix later. Is touch typing still taught in business schools at all? It seems strange that nobody thought to expand this further; after all, everyone uses a keyboard now, not just secretaries. 😬
Oh, definitely... I've brought this up in conversations more than once, and people always suggest using dictation or Google Voice, but honestly? It just doesn't cut it. Nowadays, you might be able to pull a meeting transcript if everyone speaks clearly, but trying to turn that mess into something coherent is usually more exhausting than just typing it from scratch. Being able to touch type with all ten fingers—especially when you're multitasking, like listening to someone or debating a topic—is such a massive advantage. You become incomparably more efficient than colleagues who haven't mastered it. And don't even get me started on the ability to breeze through hundreds of emails a day; that's a vital skill regardless of what field you're in. It's just like knowing how to use Microsoft Excel. 😁
We really ought to have a semester dedicated solely to data processing in Microsoft Excel. If you can actually organize data across multiple sheets, master pivot tables, and build decent charts, you've basically secured half the corporate job market already.
Mark Walker4 said:It isn't impossible, just totally unrealistic. Facebook claims they have $2 billion lined up, but with 619 schools needing upgrades or total rebuilds, you're looking at an average of over $3.2 million per school—and that doesn't even touch the other massive costs tied to a project this size.
The real question is how many of them actually have their legal property rights and titles sorted out so they can even apply for a building permit? One of our local districts apparently just finished clearing up their paperwork recently, which is a total prerequisite for everything—whether we're talking about green energy initiatives, federal grants, or anything else...
I’m just looking over the schedule in the planner again to be absolutely certain, so let me double-check my math here: 5th grade—that’s 5 sessions of 5 hours each per week. 7th grade—it’s 2 sessions of 6 hours and 3 sessions of 5 hours weekly. That is the mandatory requirement. Period. It isn’t some marathon where they're stuck in class for 7 or 8 hours "every single day."
Honestly, when I come across claims like that, it really makes me wonder how much truth there actually is behind the other "facts" being tossed around by these same forum users...
Sarah Hall53 said:The thing is, they’re going to be expected to handle makeup exams and their regular homework all at once. It's basically paying them for one job while demanding three different things at the same time.
That was actually my point—that the current setup is just impractical and frankly doesn't make sense; it really needs a complete overhaul. I have never once suggested that anyone should work for free, not even teachers, so this applies to all those extra duties, whether it's tutoring, remedial sessions, or coaching students for competitions and everything else.
jadetinker85 said:It's a Fact-checker thing: 25 hours of direct instruction clearly rubs a lot of people the wrong way. They don't care if that's standard practice in the world's top educational systems. Apparently, teachers should just pull 40-hour weeks and stay glued to their desks if we want everyone to be happy.
Look, I am talking specifically about the number of hours students are required to be in class each week. To be perfectly honest, your specific teaching schedule isn't my concern as a parent; you have the Department of Education and your unions to handle those negotiations.
Bryan Wells11 said:Honestly, you clearly don't understand the concept at all.
Are we assuming all children learn in the exact same way, under identical conditions, and master the material optimally? Do auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learners not exist? Do you even grasp the difference between lecturing, reviewing, reinforcing, and assessing what has been learned? After five or six hours of classes, followed by lunch in a noisy cafeteria, do you really think kids want to sit down and keep cramming whatever was covered that day? Every single day? And do you honestly believe that cramming right after class is sufficient if, for instance, they have a test on that material next week? Or are they supposed to be enriching their knowledge across all subjects every single day? How exactly is this supposed to work? As for remedial and advanced classes, they involve smaller groups of students, and for heaven's sake, most of them DON'T show up. Remedial classes should be attended by anyone the teacher deems needs more practice or a deeper dive into the material, but do you think they actually attend regularly? Or can they be/should they be forced to attend? Advanced classes are for those who are capable and/or want more, but even they don't show up much because they are overwhelmed. They give up on competitions because they simply DON'T HAVE THE TIME, especially if they excel in multiple areas. Now they'll be forced to go, so they will be just thrilled. And both the kids and the parents who get them out of the house for a larger portion of the day will be just overjoyed. Oh, yeah, what a happy family life where the child doesn't have to do homework at home—goodness, what a relief for everyone, because that was clearly what was destroying the family atmosphere. And I won't even list the rest.
So, that’s essentially how you can push them toward supplemental tutoring. As for competition prep? Honestly, looking at how some of these local organizations handle things, it’s almost laughable. 😂
I really appreciate your assessment of my knowledge! I suppose all those other countries with much longer school weeks than our standard 24 hours per week are just completely clueless, right? They'll probably just look to our system as a blueprint for how to achieve "world-class" results where students finish eight years of schooling with nothing more than a surface-level understanding of the material. 😉
Sarah Hall53 said:Look, we aren't being dense here—it’s literally what the document says. It specifies that this whole "enriched and supported learning" thing (which is just a clunky way of saying extra help or advanced stuff, since those other terms always sound so cheesy) has to happen right there in the classroom, with everyone in the class doing it at the exact same time. If we want to actually group kids by their interests, we only have a two-hour window once a week to make that happen.
So, there is one specific thing that really needs an overhaul in this proposal. Asking for a change here actually makes sense. On the other hand, making a massive scene about how adding extra hours will completely destroy everyone's family life just because school might run until 3:00 PM? Well, that feels a bit much, doesn't it?
Susan James said:I noticed below that it's actually 25 hours plus a second foreign language and social studies, but let's just say 29 since that's usually the bulk of it.
So, if a child has electives in their regular schedule, a sixth grader is looking at 6 hours of class every day, and 5 hours one day a week. (That should apply to everyone now, since the second language will be mandatory and instead of social studies, it’ll be something like philosophy). Ultimately, this really hurts the kids who don't want to take a second foreign language in school (even if the schedule can be adjusted so they aren't in the late shift or stuck with gaps in their day; maybe it's a language they simply don't like or don't feel ready to tackle yet—most haven't even mastered their first language properly). As for the impact on students who don't choose religious education, there's an entire discussion about that... those lucky enough to have had it before or after regular classes (there are some) will now have to come to school earlier or stay later regardless. From what I see with my own kid, and even more so with many children I work with, there is simply no physical way to get through all those projects, posters, and endless assignments during free time when there's a deadline. Especially when you factor in a 40-minute lunch break and the need for extra help for some students while simultaneously trying to foster gifted students in the same spaces with the same teachers—that's what the program calls "enriched and supported learning." Making posters isn't truly working with gifted students; you need much more than that... besides, everyone does projects and posters in school. And yeah, sometimes you actually have to study for a test. Anyone who hasn't had to do it so far certainly will be studying on the weekends from now on. So, bravo to them for completely wrecking family life.
Basically, these bombastic headlines claiming kids will finish their homework at school don't hold up against my sixth graders' reality (especially if the curriculum and expected outcomes don't change). And this "regular instruction" is being increased by one hour of math, one hour of English, and one hour of tech—that's three extra hours right there!
Free or partially free extracurricular activities should ideally take place after 3:00 or 3:30 PM. But that's assuming the kids aren't already exhausted and worn out from sitting in a chair for so long, especially since the sixth-grade program only accounts for two hours of PE (and that's not even counting the recommendation that activities should be movement-based, which is a huge understatement). Even though there's a "recommendation" that enrichment activities should mostly be physical (which isn't bad, unless you're talking about students who aren't interested in that or would rather be playing an instrument).... And honestly, nobody knows what will happen to music programs and other specialized schools. Will kids even have the energy to go to those after school? (Think about what isn't mentioned: a ballet school schedule might require 10–12 hours a week depending on the grade, or music schools might require 4 to 6 hours a week, plus daily instrument practice). In my opinion, if this goes through, those schools will either have to lock their doors or will become exclusive to the few who can afford it (because somehow, they'll have to keep staff employed at these schools, whose own family lives will be "happy" only if they work strictly from 3:30 PM to 8:00 PM, or more often from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM).
I honestly don't know how our policymakers (specifically the one who drafted the basis of this document back in 2020) concluded that our kids aren't spending enough time in school and that we need to increase the hourly requirements. Everything seems focused solely on adding more hours to the kids' days, and nothing else. Okay, her...jadetinker85 says "other kids are learning how to code, while ours will be learning how to knit")
And thanks for mentioning the sixth-grade curriculum. I feel like the people pushing this whole project/experiment mostly focus on the remote learning aspect—which can apply to plenty of things in schools that use digital platforms—but they aren't really talking about the actual subject matter itself. If we’re going to shake things up, the main thing should be modifying the scope of what's actually taught in the classroom.
Let me try to wrap my head around the logic here: So, the idea is that today, when kids finish school at 1:05 PM, they go home, say they'll handle their homework and study for tests by 3:00 PM, and somehow they won't need to study over the weekend and won't have a ruined family life? But if they are expected to do that same homework and studying at school instead, they won't have time, so they'll end up doing it on the weekend and ruining family life anyway... because apparently, time moves slower at home? Is it assumed that you can't fit the same amount of work into 120 minutes at school as you can at home?
Another fascinating theory is that we can't "do everything in the same rooms with the same teachers." This implies that schools and teachers are incredibly incompetent; that even if we set up remedial classes for one subject at one time and advanced classes for another, they wouldn't be able to coordinate it. It suggests the entire class would be forced to stay together constantly and could never split up—like having some students attend advanced Math while others attend remedial English. Isn't that exactly how schools function right now?
So, 29 hours isn't just your standard schedule—that’s the regular load plus election week stuff included. The 25-hour mark is what counts as the standard mandatory instruction time. And where does core curriculum fit into all this? Basically, we're looking at 24 actual school hours... My kid's classes wrap up by 12:15 PM if they have morning sessions, but if they're on the afternoon shift, they're stuck there until 7:05 PM because the schedule is such a mess... the only time they get out by 1:00 PM is when there's a gap due to religious studies.
Also, does German class also end at 1:00 PM, even though it's usually scheduled for the opposite shift?