Posts by rowdypanther12

jadetinker85 said:When exactly are they supposed to actually study all this stuff? A2 - Language isn't going to help you pass a chemistry exam, tackle a physics quiz, finish a math assignment, or handle a foreign language class. It just doesn't add up.
The workload is piling up, but there’s zero time to actually digest it all. I don't get home until around 3:30 PM.

That’s honestly the biggest issue here. At best, kids get home around 3:30, they need to grab a bite to eat, and their brains need at least an hour to decompress before they can even start studying or doing homework. It feels like school takes up their entire day.

hiddenseal14 said:It is exactly the same thing! Whether you had a fifteen or twenty-minute long break previously, or if you had a fifteen or twenty-minute recess like they used to have back in middle school—it doesn't matter. You don't get both; you only get one or the other. Do you follow me?
The only actual change is lunch, which could end up lasting anywhere from twenty-five to forty-five minutes.

Okay, so that leaves an hour for A2. 🤷

hiddenseal14 said:It all comes down to how we organize the day. Breaks will likely stay around five minutes, just like they have been. Instead of one massive midday break, we'll implement a quick 15 or 20-minute recess. Lunch will be trimmed to 30 minutes instead of 40. Every school district sets its own rules based on what works for them. We’re going to trial this setup initially and then adjust things if the numbers don't add up.

I'm just not following. If you take 20 minutes plus 30 minutes, that's already 50 minutes total.
That leaves you with 30 minutes for A2 🤷

Hey, how is everyone planning to be finished by 3:15 if we have to factor in lunch, longer breaks, and A2?

I'm having a hard time making the math work here.
How can we fit lunch, extended breaks, and A2 all into just an hour and fifteen minutes?

miseducata, since you're one of the few people actually supporting this and have clearly read the document, what's your take on how the seven-period and eight-period schedules will look for full-day schooling?

I don't think we should be shutting things down; instead, we should be bringing them together. For instance, why shouldn't tile layers and painters work side-by-side? Maybe they could both brush up on their American history and math classes.🤷

Physics and chemistry are real subjects, but they honestly aren't necessary for vocational high schools.
They're fundamental sciences and more than enough to help kids understand the world, but at an economics high school, chemistry really isn't needed 🤷
Maybe one year would be okay, but honestly, we should probably just extend middle school instead.
A student at an economics school almost certainly won't end up going into medicine or a STEM field.🤷

If a kid walks into class with a 4.0 GPA without ever cracking a book, they’re a total genius.
Or maybe teachers are just handing out easy A's.

I know the type you mean—those kids who struggle through hours of tutoring and endless studying just to scrape by with an A.
But you have to realize those kids wouldn't even get the A if grades weren't being handed out so freely.
An A isn't just about memorizing facts. It's about being able to connect the dots and actually draw a conclusion.
And you definitely can't teach that kind of intuition through rote instruction.

Jason Morgan said:

I suppose I should probably start by apologizing for my lack of brevity; I tend to wander off on tangents when I get thinking, much to the chagrin of those who prefer their information served in neat little bite-sized pieces. But I digress. Regarding the matter at hand—which, if I recall correctly, was sparked by some rather spirited debate earlier—it seems we have reached a bit of an impasse. It’s quite fascinating, really, how quickly a conversation can pivot from a simple observation to a full-blown philosophical disagreement. One moment you're discussing the weather in Columbus, and the next, you're questioning the very foundations of modern social etiquette. Anyway, I’ve been reflecting on what rowdypanther12 mentioned previously. While I don't entirely agree with the underlying premise—and there is quite a bit to disagree with, if I'm being perfectly honest—there is a certain logic to it that deserves acknowledgment. It’s like watching a slow-moving storm roll in over the coast; you know it's coming, you know it'll be messy, but you can't help but watch the way the clouds gather. I’ll attempt to be more concise in my following remarks, though I make no promises. My mind simply refuses to stay within the lines most days. kaže:
Of course they aren't required to. But if the curriculum for prep school is reserved strictly for students scoring 76 points or higher, then fine—let it be that way in Sioux Falls, Columbus, or Santa Monica. It shouldn't just be a privilege exclusive to Washington, D.C.
Perhaps the issue lies elsewhere entirely...

The fundamental issue lies with parents who exert this unbearable, relentless pressure on their children to pull straight A's just to secure a spot in those elite preparatory academies. By doing this, they aren't just stressing out their kids; they’re passing that crushing weight onto the teachers and the entire educational system that’s forced to uphold these rigid grading standards. It becomes quite absurd, really. Teachers end up being constantly hounded by these hyper-ambitious parents—who act as if their little prodigies are the next Einstein—demanding top marks. To get them off their backs, the instructors eventually just cave and hand out the A's. Then, predictably, these same parents turn around and blame the local schools and the faculty, accusing them of being biased or refusing to recognize their child's "genius." It’s a vicious cycle. Ultimately, because the grading system loses all its integrity, high schools in Washington, D.C. are left with no choice but to implement grueling entrance exams just to sort out the chaos.
I must say, I find myself feeling quite heavyhearted at the moment. It is a rather somber sensation, truly.

I don't think so.
The problem is the system itself, which requires a perfect 4.0 GPA if you want to get into a good prep school.

Sarah Hall53 said:Look, if you literally have to kill yourself just to hit the GPA needed for enrollment—whether that's a 3.2, a 3.5, or a perfect 4.0—then honestly, you probably aren't a good fit for that track to begin with.
Does that make sense?

Plus, nobody is stopping New Yorkers from just applying to a high school in a different city where the GPA requirements are lower—since everyone seems so incredibly bitter about the cities where you need a perfect 4.0 just to get in. ☕

And thirdly, I still haven't had anyone explain to me how high school admissions are somehow responsible for all the hysteria regarding GPAs and those "honor roll" certificates people obsess over during the first four years of middle school.

No,🤷 how can 4.5 and 5.0 be treated the same way?

I agree with Jason Morgan; there’s a huge difference between a kid struggling to get an A in core subjects and a requirement where you need a perfect 5.0 just to get into a decent high school.🤷
That ridiculous idea that if you don't have a 5.0, you don't belong in prep school, is just defending a broken system.
No, it isn't normal for kids to have a 5.0 without actually studying.
If they have a 5.0 without working for it, they should either be geniuses or their teachers are just handing out grades.
Because you can't be EXCELLENT at every single subject without putting in the effort.

I honestly couldn't care less how they handle admissions in Columbus; I'm just glad if their system hasn't collapsed yet and normal kids can get into prep schools with a 4.5 without getting unearned grades in middle school.
In Washington, D.C., the system is broken; if a kid goes to a school where grades are handed out, they're being cheated out of an education.
But if they go to a school where grades are earned fairly, they're shut out of most prep school admissions.

That’s actually the core issue right there.
A 4.0 GPA should be the exception—something unique and standout—rather than just a basic requirement for getting into a good prep school. Honestly, if everyone was hitting a 4.0, it wouldn't mean much anymore. It's supposed to be a rare achievement, not a baseline entry requirement for high school enrollment.
In my class, absolutely NOBODY had a 4.0. Not one person.
They were all brilliant kids who went on to graduate from top universities without any trouble at all.

Sarah Hall53 said:Look, I’m saying it again—it isn't actually the school system itself that's doing the damage to kids' health, it's more about what parents end up doing to their children because of the pressure from school. You really think it's the teachers telling a kid that a 4.8 GPA is somehow "bad," or is it actually the parents who refuse to let them breathe unless they can post those straight-A report cards all over Facebook to show off?

I mean, there are definitely parents who pull their kid aside to lecture them about keeping their GPA up, especially if they've dropped down to a 4.67 and still have two more semesters left.☕

Look, even the biggest advocate for CN on this topic is actually talking about small children. 🤷

Yeah, that’s why I added "if school is in session" to the ballot 😁

Eric Morgan54 said:One half of A2 is mandatory—supposedly running until 2:30 PM—but the other part? Totally optional.

Where did you hear that there are actually two parts to A2?

If A2 is a mandatory part of the curriculum, then it's pretty straightforward to ensure they show up by marking them absent for unexcused hours.

Sorry, I wasn't there with you 😂
Did she happen to ask how much longer this class will be part of the school schedule? 😳

mellowskipper said:I suppose that homework period would probably happen after 2:00 PM. A lot of private High Schools operate that way—classes run until 2:00, then from there until 4:00 or 4:30, you have homework help, tutoring, or extracurriculars. And honestly, that seems to work just fine.

They just need to get some scaffolding properly set up.

We've got workers coming in from Nepal, India, the Philippines...

But that’s the point—the Secretary of Education insists the mandatory portion ends at 2:00.
Homework counts as part of those mandatory hours, which just isn't physically or mathematically possible to squeeze in before 2:00.
Even if you just factored in lunch and longer breaks, you couldn't make it work by 2:00, especially since kids already have school lasting until 2:00 three days a week.😁

mellowskipper said:If they kept lunch on the menu until 2:00 PM, I honestly wouldn't even complain—it would be fine by me. And then, of course, everything else could just be optional for whoever actually feels like showing up...
If it were possible to set things up that way, I’d be all for it, but you're saying it isn't. Well, then I guess there's nothing more to say about it.

It actually would be doable if they cut the weekly hours down from 33 to a maximum of 25—maybe even 20 if they factor in homework and lunch breaks.😁

jadetinker85 said:Improvement? They haven't even done a thorough system analysis, which really should have come before any kind of reform.

Oh, here we go...
I'm sure they'll realize everything wrong with the draft eventually and fix it then. 😁