Well, I’ve mentioned this quite a few times before, but in our district, every single classroom is equipped with air conditioning. The way we actually managed to get them installed was through a series of community efforts over several years—essentially raising funds via local Christmas markets where the kids would sell homemade cookies and little crafts. It’s such a lovely process because parents are more than happy to overpay, knowing full well they’re essentially making a direct donation to upgrade the school facilities, yet it feels much more rewarding than just cutting a check. Plus, the children feel so much sense of accomplishment and pride in what they've done... there really are so many ways to make an impact.
Locking them in 😂 Last year, my kid had a schedule where on one specific day, they were literally in class from 12:20 PM to 1:55 PM. That’s just an hour and thirty-five minutes of school time. And they were only ten years old at the time.
On top of that, there are about three and a half months throughout the year where there’s absolutely no instruction—that’s 30% of the entire academic year right there.
And then people wonder why we’re falling behind the rest of the world. Whether we like it or not, that lack of engagement compared to other countries has to have consequences. I get it—plenty of people love this setup, and honestly, it suits me sometimes too, but that doesn't mean the end result isn't affected by it all. It’s always the same drama from teachers and parents; you try to suggest a change and you're immediately met with resistance and that whole "don't rock the boat" or "leave our perks alone" mindset. Every single suggestion for improvement feels like an attack to them. ☕ I don't think the current system is well-designed, but comments like "I don't want to work school hours because I want to be home with my kid" or "this is basically locking kids in school" (as if mandatory schooling isn't already a thing) aren't actually valid arguments against the core issue.
So, does this mean our teachers aren't going to see any improvement in student performance, even with those extra budget allocations for hourly pay? That’s quite an interesting point to consider... It really makes you wonder what that says about them, doesn't it?
Honestly, I have to chuckle at this romanticized notion of "free time" that just doesn't exist in the real world—especially coming from the very same people who usually spend their time complaining about those exact same facts.
I’m also a bit lost on how someone buying a phone or anything else mentioned in the post even relates to the topic at hand.
On a side note, even with my shaky German, I managed to find out within five minutes that elementary school classes in Boston typically wrap up somewhere between 3:00 and 4:00 PM. I couldn't find a single source suggesting that classes run from, say, 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM, which seems to be the case for about 80% of the schools back in Chicago.
Honestly, all this drama about pancakes and whining at IHOP is getting old. Like, 99% of them just head home and start venting on their phones, spending hours scrolling through whatever social media apps they have. They spend most of their time on those platforms, which is where basically all the bullying happens anyway. If they’re actually under supervision at school and don't have their phones out, then half the stuff people constantly complain about—you know, the endless screen time and the social media obsession—just doesn't even happen. Let's be real about this.
I mean, everyone manages to learn how to pay for things at the grocery store eventually, especially during those three and a half months of the year when they aren't even in class. 😁
When I look at the arguments being thrown around here, I really don't see anyone making a single meaningful point against this proposal. 😁
Larry Walker24 said:Guys, don't hold your breath for CNN. As soon as a new Secretary takes over, everything just resets to zero. Where are they even going to find the budget to fix up schools? They can't even get Congress to fix the damn building.
I'd love to see them focus on finishing those school upgrades first—getting everyone onto a single shift, making sure classes aren't packed with more than 25 students, and ensuring PE actually happens in a proper gym instead of some cramped hallway... And let's not forget about guaranteeing every kid a decent, hot meal and a proper place to sit down and eat it.
I also just realized that the mandatory portion ends around 3:00 or 3:30 PM Something like that. And I think whatever happens after that is optional. In any case, I feel like starting classes at 9:00 AM for the older grades would be a great move. That is, assuming they provide a decent lunch and snacks. Which, let’s be honest, probably won't happen, so it might not work out as intended.
To be perfectly honest, I haven't spent too much energy worrying about it because I find it hard to believe they can actually build enough schools in just four years to make that a reality.
Still, there is a small part of me that is glad to see all that backlash from the previous reform finally being addressed. That old chapter is closing, and a new one is beginning. 🙂
Is it just me? Since I'm working from home, I feel like I always have one kid who just seems to struggle through school until they're practically nineteen.
I’m not entirely sure if Google actually has the capacity to simultaneously translate you and everyone else you're talking to, especially when some people have such incredibly interesting accents 😁
There are plenty of students who have a real knack for math but just aren't interested in the whole competition circuit. They haven't won any trophies, yet they turn out to be perfectly capable students at places like MIT or Caltech.
There’s a massive middle ground between "crushing advanced Olympiad problems" and "struggling to scrape by on the AP Calculus exam." To succeed at those top-tier universities, you don't necessarily need to be some kind of once-in-a-generation genius. What really matters is having a solid foundation, decent logical reasoning, and—most importantly—not having that mental block where you tell yourself, "I can't do this" or "this is too hard." Everything else can be learned with enough practice. Honestly, all this talk about needing pure geniuses or competition winners just builds up an unnecessary aura of intimidation around these schools...
When it comes to math and high school graduation exams, honestly, it doesn't matter much who scored what on their final tests. If they don't actually grasp the material, they won't be able to pass a single college course anyway. That means the chances of us ending up with a "mathematician" who doesn't actually understand math are practically zero.
The real issue is that none of the economics programs here in the US require advanced calculus, nor do they set any real threshold for standard algebra. We should really be asking ourselves what kind of economists are graduating from these institutions instead... that's what costs our economy so much more than those few students who struggle with math (though, let’s be real, who would choose to major in math if they weren't naturally good at it? It's one of the least popular subjects and majors in the country, right up there with physics and stuff like 😁).
Adam Diaz67 said:You’ve got a point there. I was looking into some of those top-tier universities, and most of them don't even factor lower grades into their admissions process. Even if they do, it’s honestly embarrassing when the passing threshold sits below 50%. Is it really such a huge ask to demand a basic level of knowledge? I mean, you can fail a test with a 25% score in middle school, high school, or even college. The only place where a 25% score actually gets you through is clearly Disney Music. It's just ridiculous.
It isn't a joke as long as the structure of the exam remains a mystery. For instance, if there are four problems per topic ranging in difficulty, then scoring 25% could mean you mastered 100% of the material at the easiest level. Meanwhile, a 100% score would mean you mastered everything, including the hardest stuff.
The other possibility is that someone studies a very specific 25% of the curriculum perfectly and hits a 25% score with 100% accuracy—meaning they tackled all levels of difficulty. But we all know how incredibly difficult that is in math; it’s virtually impossible to solve a complex geometry problem if you haven't mastered working with real numbers and such... so that scenario is almost non-existent.
Generally speaking, mathematical literacy among the general population is pretty dismal, and a 25% score on a B-level exam is actually more than enough to be "functional" for about 80% of the population...
Furthermore, since various levels are used for college admissions scoring, there really needs to be some level of differentiation. As it stands, most of these subjects don't even offer high and low tier options. If we're saying 25% of the points cover the entire curriculum, then 25% is more than enough to handle two different difficulty levels. Honestly, just looking at percentages without actually understanding the structure and complexity of the problems is a completely useless metric.
It’s pretty straightforward, really: we need to scale back enrollment quotas and raise the bar for admissions. For decades now, our education system has been churning out highly degreed individuals that the labor market simply doesn't have a demand for, while failing to produce the specific skill sets we actually need.
I didn't actually take the SATs back in my day, but from everything I've heard from those who did, it wasn't some insurmountable mountain to climb. Nobody really felt the need to sign up for specialized prep courses back then. Even the college entrance exams weren't particularly brutal, though the competition was definitely tighter than what students face today. Nowadays, there are fewer high schoolers in the mix, yet there's a much wider variety of universities to choose from, so people tend to focus their prep efforts on college admissions rather than standardized testing. I’m fairly certain that if a student today manages to pull a solid grade on both the SAT Math section and a physics exam, they’d breeze through the old entrance requirements for a top-tier school like MIT or Caltech without breaking a sweat.
It’s really important that you realize just how little I actually "know" about this.😂
But hey, thanks for doubling down on the fact that you aren't looking for "this kind of" external feedback—though, let's be honest, it's pretty much the only kind available right now. Because, frankly, it's too expensive. And it isn't helpful.
I suppose it’s much easier to claim you have nothing at all and then write as if you possess some ultimate, master-level expertise...
You should really head over to the neighboring thread. It’s fascinating to watch those same self-proclaimed experts fighting tooth and nail against any kind of independent third-party testing of their "expertise," all while claiming such audits are just a massive waste of money.😉