I mean, honestly, there is zero chance this thing actually works within the next ten years. That's being generous, assuming they don't just scrap the whole idea entirely by then.
Just look at how our school system handles things... it's a mess. It's been five years now—we're hitting that mark this November—since those Special Education Regulations were finally released. And if you look at the actual regulation itself...
(1) To request the entry of an occupational standard into the Occupational Standard Subregister pursuant to Article 9, paragraph 6 of this regulation, the department shall submit such a request within six months of the date this regulation takes effect.
(2) Regarding the qualification standards mentioned in Article 9, paragraph 7 of this regulation, the department will establish them within three months after the occupational standard is entered into the Occupational Standard Subregister.
(3) The program for acquiring qualifications described in Article 9, paragraph 8 of this regulation shall be developed by the department within three months from the date the qualification standards from Article 9, paragraph 7 are established.
So, do you really think anything has actually been resolved in these last five years? Everyone was making such a big deal about how we were finally "systematically fixing" the field. We have a regulation now!! Big deal. And then... nothing. Just total silence. They can't even blame the pandemic, because, I don't know, people had plenty of time to get moving before everything went sideways.
Look, I’ve been there. Personally, I’ve sat through all these classes, and after dealing with computer science teachers from all over—different schools, different vibes—it seems like the pattern is always the same. You get that two-hour block, and the first hour is actually productive, you know? They go over the material, tackle some problems... but then the second hour? It basically turns into gaming time. Sometimes the whole second period is just people playing games, or maybe just the last thirty minutes. It's a bit of a joke, honestly. So, I guess if they only have one period on the schedule, the gaming part just doesn't happen.
I can't help but wonder what their plan is for kids with special needs who rely on classroom aides? Are those students also expected to be stuck in school for 8 to 15 hours a day? And what about the aides—are they really going to work for an hourly rate of $8.25 only to get laid off during summer break?
Plus, looking at the schools right here in my neighborhood (three out of four run on different shifts anyway), I just don't see how they could ever switch to a single-shift schedule. I mean, you'd have to fund massive construction projects or build entire new schools over the next four years, right? Someone would have to pull off those renovations across a huge number of schools all across America at the exact same time just to make this whole reform actually work.
I was reading somewhere that parents over in Cleveland are actually pretty happy, though maybe not with this latest reform they're pushing. See, in certain schools there in Cleveland, they've already been doing years of full-day instruction instead of just standard after-school care. The whole concept is different—it's not just one teacher stuck with everything all day—and everyone involved thought this model would be rolled out across the rest of the US, too. But from what I can tell, that successful example they've had running smoothly for ages hasn't even been considered.
northerntiger9 said: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. 😬
Yeah, from what I know, that bolded part is a pretty accurate description of the situation.
northerntiger9 said: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.
From what I can gather, there really isn't a solid non-prep high school in Seattle that actually prepares kids to get into those kinds of colleges without a massive struggle. My husband and I were actually just talking about this last night... it’s crazy how easy it is to end up in a prep school bubble where you're just surrounded by the same group of kids you've known since middle school competitions and everyone already knows everyone.
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.
Look, I don't really care if kids complain about their required reading list. Honestly, I get it. It’s mandatory, it isn't everyone's cup of tea, and having to write those tedious little study guides is just a drag. I totally understand that. But here's the thing—those same kids aren't actually reading anything else! I mean, they barely scrape through the assigned stuff because they're feeling lazy every single month, but why not just hit up the local library and grab something they actually *want* to read? Something they actually enjoy? Or is everything just considered stupid and boring now? I guess it's hard to tell. My son isn't exactly thrilled about every book on his school list either, but that's honestly just a tiny fraction of what he goes through in a month. He treats the school stuff like a chore, gets it done, and then picks out something fun for himself, or I'll just grab something from the library for him to save us both the hassle. He often wanders into our local library by himself, maybe while I'm running errands near his preschool, and he'll just hang out there reading graphic novels. Though, I suppose it might be a bit late to start building reading habits once they've already started school. Around here, back when they were in preschool, we used to have that little bookmobile visit once a month. Besides that, we have memberships at two different libraries—four total accounts—and right now we've got 14 books checked out at home. That's four books for my school-aged kid, four for my little one in preschool, and six for us adults. If you can't find time during the day to read, there's always those fifteen minutes in bed before you pass out.
So, I was just reading this post from a former neighbor of mine—she moved out to New York City about two years ago. The kids are in school there now, but she’s honestly pretty fed up with the whole American education system. She’s actually ended up homeschooling them on top of everything else. She told me she gets this nagging feeling that the entire system is just designed to churn out people for specific white-collar jobs and nothing else. Like, they aren't teaching anything broader. And then, for all those other essential roles, they just end up importing skilled labor from overseas to fill the gaps. Anyway, she spent years working in schools back home, and she’s back in the education field here too, so I guess she actually has some legitimate ground to stand on when she’s making these comparisons. I didn't really think to ask her what she thought about the required reading list, though.
So, my kid tells me today that in their whole third-grade class—there are 25 kids total—it’s just him and one other girl who actually bother to read books outside of the required school reading list. At first, I thought it was just weird, but then I started thinking about how things are at my office with the older crowd, and honestly... it’s pretty much the same story over there too...
analogseal18 said:If they happen to offer some sort of workshop or small group sessions, I suppose it could be a decent option for those individuals who lack the genuine desire to master an instrument and endure the tedious grind that accompanies it.
My daughter, for instance, joined her local community orchestra when she was only ten years old, making her by far the youngest participant there—she had started music school just six months prior. While she struggled immensely at first, and frankly, the curriculum felt somewhat uninspiring for much of that first year, it proved to be a wonderful experience in terms of social connections, live performances, and traveling together.
So, did any of your kids ever join one of those local community bands to pick up an instrument?
I'm asking because the middle school over here is basically recruiting kids to come learn some music and hang out at the same time. It’s just a brass band, nothing too crazy
Look, one of the main reasons we picked this specific school was because they have this policy where religion class is either the very first period or the very last one through fourth grade. And honestly, based on what we’ve seen over these past two years, that’s actually how it plays out. If the kids are on the afternoon shift, it’s the first thing they do; if they're there in the morning, it's the last thing on the schedule. Plus, you have to consider that maybe a third of the kids don't even sign up for it. Since the classes are already pretty small—we're talking under 20 students per room—they just end up merging two different grades together for that one hour.
But looking at the official master schedule here, it says religion is scheduled for two periods a week, yet everyone in this thread keeps saying it's just one hour.🤔
More than a third of the classes just aren't happening They’re having to merge two different classes together just for religious studies to make sure they actually have a full group I mean, I’m honestly curious to see how next year plays out, because I get the feeling most of this was just... I don't know, momentum? Inertia, maybe? Just keeping things moving without thinking too much about it The thing is, here at our school, religion class is always either the very first period or the very last one—usually right before dismissal—so they don't end up with awkward gaps in the schedule. It's just the principal's call to keep the timetable tight like that through at least fourth grade
Jack Rivera87 said:I find these delays a bit surreal sometimes—most kids are perfectly ready for school by age six and a half, and the system is built for them. Pushing it back to seven or eight feels like gaming the system, honestly. A kid turning eight in late autumn has such an massive advantage over a typical six-and-a-half-year-old. That gap just widens when you compare a twelve-year-old to someone nearly fourteen. In my view, delaying should be reserved for actual developmental needs—concentration issues, speech delays, processing struggles—things like that. Using it just because it’s easier for Mom? That feels like unnecessary rule-bending. No reason for it. You won't believe this, but based on some specific professional criteria, school start dates were set. My oldest started right on time—she was born in January and was the youngest in her class. It seems like everyone born in February, March, or April opted for a delay—I don't get the logic. My younger one was born in July, and I actually considered enrolling her early since she has the potential, but the school psychologist advised against it. Apparently, so many parents are asking for delays now that if she started "on time," she'd be almost two years younger than her classmates?!?? It clearly feels like a trend—avoiding the standard school commitment without any real cause. The worst justification I've heard is "so they can enjoy themselves while they can," implying that once school starts, life is essentially over. What is "over"? Does learning basic things between ages eight and eleven mean everything in life is finished? That there's no more play? That they've been swallowed by adulthood? That is such a terrible educational message to send—making kids resent school before they even step foot in it, for no reason. Honestly—the curriculum isn't even that demanding compared to what we went through. I had girls in my class who were barely six by August, and they ended up being some of the top students. Nobody thought it was weird at all.
I mean, if the cutoff is March 31st, what’s the deal? It basically means kids born in April follow the standard track, so they start school at 7 years and 5 months old, which is how the law works. If they were actually asking for an extension, it would imply the kid wouldn't start until they were over 8. So, if parents want their April-born kid to start before they hit 7, they aren't looking for an extension... they’d actually have to apply for early enrollment.
Katjes From what I can gather, you don't just get to opt out of religious ed halfway through the school year just because you aren't feeling the teacher's vibe or how they're running things, I guess. I'm not entirely sure if you actually want your kid to go through with the sacraments or not? Usually, there's this unspoken rule—or maybe an explicit one—that you have to show up for Mass if you're serious about getting those sacraments, right?
Does this even have anything to do with what we’re talking about?
It seems pretty obvious to me. I mean, look at the setup. A religious studies teacher—someone who needs direct permission from Vatican City just to step foot in a classroom, someone whose job can be yanked away at any second without some secular authority like a principal or the Department of Labor being able to say a word about it—well, they’re obviously going to teach history a little differently than, say, someone who isn't tied directly to the Church and doesn't have their livelihood hanging by a thread.
But how does that actually happen in practice? It's almost too simple, really. If you let future religious educators, while they're doing their Seminary training at Harvard University, also pick up degrees from somewhere like Columbia University (which is basically the biggest social sciences hub in the country), then you get this result. What you end up with is professors who double up—like English and religion, or history and religion, or even American literature and religion. And since Vatican City is essentially the one hiring and firing these teachers—even though, let's be real, the government is footing the entire bill!—it creates this loophole. In theory, Vatican City wouldn't just be placing religious instructors in schools; they'd effectively be placing all sorts of social science teachers through the back door. And since every school principal in the US prefers having teachers who can cover multiple subjects just to make the scheduling easier, this isn't some wild conspiracy theory. It's just a logical consequence of how things are set up.
Around here, classes stay pretty small—usually capped at about 20 kids—and honestly, at least a third of them don't even show up for religion class. So, I guess they just merged two different grades together to hold the sessions collectively. And looking at the schedule, it’s either the very last period for the first graders or it happens right before lunch during the afternoon shift. I really don't see any kind of discrimination happening here. I mean, if I actually heard my kid making some nasty comment about it, I’d probably just assume they picked up that kind of attitude from somewhere else at home, you know? Like, maybe they heard someone talking down about the kids who don't take the class.
Daisy So, wait... are you telling me five-year-olds over in the USA have classes that start at 8:00 AM, run until maybe 10:45 or 11:30, and then they just... head home? Like, they just sit there waiting for their parents to finish work? Or am I totally misreading this? Maybe it’s just mentioning the age they start school and nothing else about the actual schedule?
Yeah, you’re talking about how people influence one another, but honestly, the whole system itself puts pressure on them too. I mean, I bet plenty of parents are pushing for a later start just because the local school district doesn't offer reliable after-school programs or full-day coverage. It basically means a six-and-a-half-year-old is stuck at home for five or more hours a day, or they're forced into some weird split-shift schedule. Not everyone can just drop a fortune on private childcare during those hours, so it makes sense why they'd rather just delay things and keep the kid in preschool for another year. And look, I'm not judging that at all. Honestly, it’s better than having a hyperactive kid wandering around the house alone, getting into trouble or putting themselves in danger just because they're bored out of their mind. It’s a tough spot to be in, though—having to weigh everything like that. Do I push for a delay just because of a few days' difference on a calendar? Or do I just say, "Fine, my kid *has* to go to elementary school right now," even if it means they miss out on a spot in the local daycare program? The reasons behind it... they're all over the place. I find it really hard to see this in black and white, you know? Like, I can't just point at one reason and say it's valid while calling everything else nonsense.