Posts by nimblelynx7

Supposedly some schools allow you to do it separately, but in my district, religious education happened both at school and at the church. We had choir practice on Saturdays and Mass was always at 8:00 AM on Sundays—just so nobody slept in too late. That was the routine for First Communion and Confirmation, too.

It all comes down to how well the local school district and the parish coordinate. In our area, they were clearly on the same page.

James Alvarez2 said:So how do you even draw the line?

Like I already stated, 1.4 is way too high. It needs to be 1.2.

It makes sense on one hand, but then again, the law states that kids who turn six by April 1st are the ones enrolling in school.

So, if someone was born on March 29th, they end up in the same class as a kid born on March 29th of the following year, just because the district drew an arbitrary line at April 1st. It defies all logic.

Now you’ve gone and forced me to dig into my own history. I was born in July '85 and started school that September in 1992—meaning I was seven years and two months old.
My wife was born in May '87 and started school in September '94. Coincidentally, she was seven years and four months old.

If we had both been even slightly less lucky—if we’d been born just a few months earlier—we would have been forced to start at six, pushing our entire education back a full year. In cases like this, the age gap between classmates can swing anywhere from six months to a whole year.

I don't think April 6th is the issue here. The real problem is March 29th. Like I already pointed out, how does a kid born on March 29th this year end up in the exact same school grade as a kid born on March 29th last year?

There’s a massive difference between delaying a kid who is clearly school-ready just to give them a breather, versus delaying a kid who is struggling halfway, or—even worse—forcing a kid who is already on the fence into school because you think it's "for their own good."

Look, all three approaches have their merits, but I don't see how taking an extra year is going to ruin anyone's life. I don't get the rush to force these kids into the system. Why hurry? You’re just creating a situation where they might fail a grade later. And honestly, trying to push them toward the workforce or the IRS sooner isn't going anywhere. Like someone else pointed out, it's not like opportunities are going to vanish overnight.

If you make school this sudden, overwhelming primary obligation, you're just setting them up for a massive shock to the system.

Responsibilities are fine and all, they build character, but everything in its own time. I don't think pushing back major obligations by a year is such a disaster, especially if someone isn't mentally ready or is right on the edge of being prepared.

Or are you suggesting we send kids straight to a coal mine if their schooling gets delayed just so they have "some kind of responsibility"?

It makes zero sense to me that a kid born on March 31st this year or last year ends up in the exact same school cohort.

Look, if they absolutely refuse to move the cutoff to December 31st, then January 31st would be a much more logical boundary. At least that holds some water, unlike March 31st.

And regarding "ruining lives"—let's be real. Once you start school, you're essentially entering a cycle of obligations that won't let up until you hit 65 (assuming you're lucky enough to land a job right away). Given how things are going lately, it might even be longer. So, I don't see how pushing things back by one single year is some kind of tragedy.

urbantinker8 said:It's just a mess.☕
I honestly don't get what the actual goal is with this whole trend of delaying enrollment.
People say things like, "Oh, they've played enough"... I mean, come on, I’d probably be worried if a six-year-old *wasn't* still playing all day.🤷
The whole "let them enjoy being little for one more year" cliché really rubs me the wrong way. It's almost like people act as if their entire life is over once they step foot into a classroom.
Then you end up with someone who's twenty-something years old still sitting there in the middle of high school.🤦

Personally, I don't see the point in forcing a kid into school before they turn seven.

I still remember some colleagues who started school before they even hit seven. They were always struggling—academically, behaviorally, even physically, they were just smaller and behind.
When I started college, I had a classmate who was basically a teenager compared to us because he started way too early. Even the registrar's office staff weren't sure if his enrollment was even valid or if they needed to set up special meetings for his parents. 😁

Nobody is going to be stuck in high school in their twenties unless they fail a grade. And even if they're nineteen and still in school, what's the rush? To get a job at the IRS?

Sure, Christianity stopped spreading through "fire and sword," but other religions haven't played by those rules.

In America, we’re dealing with a specific issue where certain factions within the Catholic Church are using political maneuvering to infiltrate every corner of civic life, aiming to seize total control over the government.
So far, they're actually succeeding, and we're well on our way to becoming an American version of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

copperpuma11 said:So you weren't using complex numbers in polar form to solve AC circuits?
And what does double integrals have to do with any of this?

We did, but back in high school we didn't touch it as much. It was mostly algebraic. If you were actually given something in polar form, you usually had to convert it back to algebraic or trig just to deal with it.

In linear algebra, we used polar coordinates with double integrals all the time—solve for the r coordinates first, then handle phi.

Paul Wilson72 said:"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: Do you honestly believe people are going to recall something they learned in a classroom thirty years ago, and that it’ll actually be the deciding factor in landing them a new job or a better position? How exactly is the GDP of Uganda, the Battle of Gettysburg, or reading Shakespeare going to help them here?

Look, you can see that this actually helps you hold your own in a forum debate. At least you have some baseline knowledge—you know that Uganda exists, you've heard of the Battle of Gettysburg, or you're aware of someone like Shakespeare.
You truly never know what life is going to throw at you next. One moment you think you have everything figured out, and the next, everything changes.

nimblelynx7 Asks:
What happens when a driver picks up a passenger who turns out to be a total jerk, only to start lecturing them on Dostoevsky or free-market economics while the rider just sits there looking pale?
I once had to write a paper for a "City Studies" course for a client. I had to map out exactly how to get to Huey Long Street and provide a full biography on who Huey Long actually was. It’s pretty vital information for a taxi driver to have, but hey, you've got to make a living.

Why would he bother bringing up Dostoevsky if the other person couldn't care less? But that’s just how it goes—if you cross paths with a writer, you're going to talk shop. If you run into a contractor, you'll end up rambling about construction for ages. In the end, just like many of our local taxi drivers, you'll eventually just grab the address you need and drive on.
I’ve personally written heaps of papers covering everything from medicine and maritime studies to electronics and law. My biggest one in the maritime field was over 350 pages long—and that’s not even counting the several pages dedicated just to the table of contents and references. But hey, I suppose someone will eventually use that kind of work to hand out a piece of paper labeling them an "expert" in their field.
Do I actually need to be an expert on cars? Maybe not. But I want enough knowledge so that no mechanic can look me in the eye and try to sell me a bunch of overpriced junk I don't need.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 Asks: It’s pointless. The teacher just rolled up on his bike, looking like he might have fallen straight from Mars into the classroom. If he isn't actually here, then what's the point of having a teacher at all?

Honestly, if someone thinks they don't need a teacher, they probably shouldn't be sending their kid to school at all. At least, not high school or college. They should just send them straight into the workforce. Everything you could ever need to know is already out there on the internet or YouTube anyway.

"Quote"

So let me ask you this: if those students are truly the "worst of the worst," who is to blame when the criteria at a vocational school—even one offering computer science—don't match the standards or curriculum of a prep school teaching the exact same subject? Is it the teachers, the expectations, or something else entirely? Because, by any reasonable measure, a C student from a prep school will likely outpace an A student from a vocational program in terms of actual knowledge.
You say schools should be compared, presumably through numerical success rates. That is simply impossible. It’s just as impossible as trying to objectively grade a professor. If you place a world-class educator in a room full of uninterested students, there is nothing they can do to spark passion for a subject the kids simply don't care about. On the flip side, put an average teacher in a class of geniuses, and everyone will walk away with straight As because that mediocre instructor has such low expectations—or perhaps the students already know more than what is being taught. You end up with the absurdity where a brilliant professor with struggling students shows poor results, while a mediocre teacher with gifted students shows excellent results just because the material is easy for them.
Is a "bad" professor who demands a lot and hands out Cs actually the better educator, if those Cs mean that student breezes through college later? Or is the "better" professor—the one who hands out As like candy—actually doing a disservice when those students hit a wall during their freshman year of college and end up dropping out?

Is an online forum debate really a benchmark for life? I know for a fact that the year or date of the Battle of Gettysburg won't matter to me, since I'm certain I won't be working as a history professor. I won't be a geography teacher, and I definitely won't be opening a manufacturing plant in Uganda, so I won't need to look up GDP data. It's the same deal with literature.
If those were the only useless facts taught in school, it wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, that isn't the case.

When we asked our elementary school teachers what we'd actually need, the answer was: "You'll learn that in high school." High school teachers said: "You'll need that in college." And college professors usually just changed the subject when asked those kinds of questions.

Paul Wilson72 said:"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: Do you honestly believe people are going to recall something they learned in a classroom thirty years ago, and that it’ll actually be the deciding factor in landing them a new job or a better position? How exactly is the GDP of Uganda, the Battle of Gettysburg, or reading Shakespeare going to help them here?

Look, you can see that this actually helps you hold your own in a forum debate. At least you have some baseline knowledge—you know that Uganda exists, you've heard of the Battle of Gettysburg, or you're aware of someone like Shakespeare.
You truly never know what life is going to throw at you next. One moment you think you have everything figured out, and the next, everything changes.

nimblelynx7 Asks:
What happens when a driver picks up a passenger who turns out to be a total jerk, only to start lecturing them on Dostoevsky or free-market economics while the rider just sits there looking pale?
I once had to write a paper for a "City Studies" course for a client. I had to map out exactly how to get to Huey Long Street and provide a full biography on who Huey Long actually was. It’s pretty vital information for a taxi driver to have, but hey, you've got to make a living.

Why would he bother bringing up Dostoevsky if the other person couldn't care less? But that’s just how it goes—if you cross paths with a writer, you're going to talk shop. If you run into a contractor, you'll end up rambling about construction for ages. In the end, just like many of our local taxi drivers, you'll eventually just grab the address you need and drive on.
I’ve personally written heaps of papers covering everything from medicine and maritime studies to electronics and law. My biggest one in the maritime field was over 350 pages long—and that’s not even counting the several pages dedicated just to the table of contents and references. But hey, I suppose someone will eventually use that kind of work to hand out a piece of paper labeling them an "expert" in their field.
Do I actually need to be an expert on cars? Maybe not. But I want enough knowledge so that no mechanic can look me in the eye and try to sell me a bunch of overpriced junk I don't need.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 Asks: It’s pointless. The teacher just rolled up on his bike, looking like he might have fallen straight from Mars into the classroom. If he isn't actually here, then what's the point of having a teacher at all?

Honestly, if someone thinks they don't need a teacher, they probably shouldn't be sending their kid to school at all. At least, not high school or college. They should just send them straight into the workforce. Everything you could ever need to know is already out there on the internet or YouTube anyway.

"Quote"

So let me ask you this: if those students are truly the "worst of the worst," who is to blame when the criteria at a vocational school—even one offering computer science—don't match the standards or curriculum of a prep school teaching the exact same subject? Is it the teachers, the expectations, or something else entirely? Because, by any reasonable measure, a C student from a prep school will likely outpace an A student from a vocational program in terms of actual knowledge.
You say schools should be compared, presumably through numerical success rates. That is simply impossible. It’s just as impossible as trying to objectively grade a professor. If you place a world-class educator in a room full of uninterested students, there is nothing they can do to spark passion for a subject the kids simply don't care about. On the flip side, put an average teacher in a class of geniuses, and everyone will walk away with straight As because that mediocre instructor has such low expectations—or perhaps the students already know more than what is being taught. You end up with the absurdity where a brilliant professor with struggling students shows poor results, while a mediocre teacher with gifted students shows excellent results just because the material is easy for them.
Is a "bad" professor who demands a lot and hands out Cs actually the better educator, if those Cs mean that student breezes through college later? Or is the "better" professor—the one who hands out As like candy—actually doing a disservice when those students hit a wall during their freshman year of college and end up dropping out?

So now students are to blame because the curriculum is too easy? Where does it say vocational schools have to be dumping grounds? Once students start writing the code and designing the entire educational system, then sure, blame them. Until then, they are victims and unwilling witnesses.

Here’s a real-world example. My brother finished a vocational program for carpentry. Since I stood in for my parents at a few parent-teacher meetings, I had the chance to see what they were actually learning. It was a disaster; the math was barely middle school level. Everything seemed fine until his company bought a CNC machine for $150,000 that operates on polar coordinates. You can literally design and carve anything you want in wood, but it requires using a polar coordinate system.
We didn't even touch stuff like that in technical school; I first encountered it in college. Even the boss—a master carpenter—had no clue how it worked. When the three of us finally sat down at the machine, I spent literally 15 hours explaining how to work with polar coordinates without using double integrals (actually, without using any calculus at all). I managed to boil it down to basic geometric shapes and the Cartesian coordinate system.

Clearly, if they designed that machine specifically for "their" carpenters, we're living in two different universes compared to the West.

Paul Wilson72 said:"Quote"

I think you mean light-years. ☕
Oh, absolutely. I’m just sitting here waiting for the inevitable backlash, but let’s be real: there is a massive difference between eating cheap canned meat and enjoying a gourmet meal at a high-end restaurant. Both will technically satisfy your hunger—maybe even the canned stuff will fill you up faster—but they aren't in the same league.
But do you really want people who know absolutely nothing beyond their specific job description? What happens when that role becomes obsolete in thirty years and they end up out on the street?

Let’s look at this from a different angle: does a driver really need anything beyond basic driving skills to provide a high-quality transport service? I mean, you can find an endless sea of taxi drivers out there. But think about it—when someone travels to a new country, they aren't just looking for a ride. If they happen to encounter a driver who actually knows the city and the country they are "representing"—someone who knows the best spots, fair pricing, or even understands where the guest is coming from and their culture—that makes a massive difference. That kind of expertise leaves a lasting impression. It often leads to repeat business and much better tips compared to a driver who can only communicate through frantic hand gestures. At the end of the day, once the vehicle is in motion, a driver's job ends at the steering wheel. Everything else is what defines the service.
I personally prefer people who come across as genuinely good and kindhearted, even if they’re a little unpolished or rough around the edges.

How long does it actually take to become an electrician? A locksmith? A mason? I’m not talking about just picking up some basic, surface-level knowledge that anyone could stumble upon—I mean actual proficiency. If you look at the math, most of these specialized vocational programs could be wrapped up in a year at most. The sheer volume of private certification courses out there for every niche job imaginable proves my point. Most of them only run between 20 and 80 hours and cost just a few hundred bucks.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: I agree with the rest of you—we need more freedom, but that comes with much higher accountability for teachers. We should introduce standardized state testing and give educators the chance to tailor their curriculum specifically to what those exams require. If students fail the state tests, it’s a direct reflection of a poor teacher; and if a teacher is failing them, they shouldn't be in the classroom. Finally, we need to make school rankings public. It's time to stop letting schools treat children like commodities to be traded.

I’m with you on the standardized testing issue. To be honest, there are just way too many perfect grades being handed out in elementary school, and it definitely doesn't follow a standard bell curve. It seems like most teachers don't want to deal with the fallout from parents—especially in small towns where everyone knows everyone else. They also don't want to carry the guilt if a kid fails to get into their preferred high school, nor do they want to deal with the occasional parental meltdown. Regardless, it isn't right that students are getting into certain elite prep schools solely based on extra credit from extracurricular competitions, simply because everyone has already maxed out their regular academic points. So, yes—we need standardized testing.
The national standardized testing system needs to be scrapped because it’s geared exclusively toward academic preparatory schools. Vocational schools have lost everything meaningful that their previous graduation requirements used to offer, including specialized technical exams and the capstone projects that now serve as the sole measure of high school education—which, frankly, has become a joke. To make matters worse, since passing the capstone project is a prerequisite for the state test results to even count, it ends up being the teacher's fault when a student fails due to laziness. If they fail that one component, their college applications are ruined. For vocational programs, this current version of standardized testing is a massive mistake.

One thing I don't get—what does a teacher actually have to do with a student's success on these exams? Does the teacher write the test, or does the student? I'm genuinely curious: how exactly are you supposed to force a student to study when neither parents nor teachers can do it? Does that mean every instructor at a cosmetology school (which doesn't even use this specific testing model, if I recall) should just be out of a job?

And then there's the ranking of schools—I don't follow. Different schools attract different types of students. It's a stretch to expect top-tier academic scholars to flock to masonry programs just because they enjoy the trade. Is that considered a "bad" school? Or should we judge them by what they actually produce: workers who are either capable or incapable of doing the job?

Here we go again—bureaucrats, lazy workers, cronies... I could go on all day. This is exactly what new generations of students are learning from their parents. There are certainly issues, but making broad generalizations like this definitely isn't going to achieve anything.
I truly wish ALL parents would send their children exactly where they think is best, especially since it clearly isn't happening through the schools or the teachers...

Fine, light years.

Do you actually believe people are going to remember something they learned in school thirty years ago, and that it'll be the deciding factor in them landing a new career or a different role?
How is knowing the GDP of Uganda, the Battle of Gettysburg, or reading Shakespeare going to help them specifically?

Paul Wilson72 said:"Quote"

I think you mean light-years. ☕
Oh, absolutely. I’m just sitting here waiting for the inevitable backlash, but let’s be real: there is a massive difference between eating cheap canned meat and enjoying a gourmet meal at a high-end restaurant. Both will technically satisfy your hunger—maybe even the canned stuff will fill you up faster—but they aren't in the same league.
But do you really want people who know absolutely nothing beyond their specific job description? What happens when that role becomes obsolete in thirty years and they end up out on the street?

Let’s look at this from a different angle: does a driver really need anything beyond basic driving skills to provide a high-quality transport service? I mean, you can find an endless sea of taxi drivers out there. But think about it—when someone travels to a new country, they aren't just looking for a ride. If they happen to encounter a driver who actually knows the city and the country they are "representing"—someone who knows the best spots, fair pricing, or even understands where the guest is coming from and their culture—that makes a massive difference. That kind of expertise leaves a lasting impression. It often leads to repeat business and much better tips compared to a driver who can only communicate through frantic hand gestures. At the end of the day, once the vehicle is in motion, a driver's job ends at the steering wheel. Everything else is what defines the service.
I personally prefer people who come across as genuinely good and kindhearted, even if they’re a little unpolished or rough around the edges.

How long does it actually take to become an electrician? A locksmith? A mason? I’m not talking about just picking up some basic, surface-level knowledge that anyone could stumble upon—I mean actual proficiency. If you look at the math, most of these specialized vocational programs could be wrapped up in a year at most. The sheer volume of private certification courses out there for every niche job imaginable proves my point. Most of them only run between 20 and 80 hours and cost just a few hundred bucks.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: I agree with the rest of you—we need more freedom, but that comes with much higher accountability for teachers. We should introduce standardized state testing and give educators the chance to tailor their curriculum specifically to what those exams require. If students fail the state tests, it’s a direct reflection of a poor teacher; and if a teacher is failing them, they shouldn't be in the classroom. Finally, we need to make school rankings public. It's time to stop letting schools treat children like commodities to be traded.

I’m with you on the standardized testing issue. To be honest, there are just way too many perfect grades being handed out in elementary school, and it definitely doesn't follow a standard bell curve. It seems like most teachers don't want to deal with the fallout from parents—especially in small towns where everyone knows everyone else. They also don't want to carry the guilt if a kid fails to get into their preferred high school, nor do they want to deal with the occasional parental meltdown. Regardless, it isn't right that students are getting into certain elite prep schools solely based on extra credit from extracurricular competitions, simply because everyone has already maxed out their regular academic points. So, yes—we need standardized testing.
The national standardized testing system needs to be scrapped because it’s geared exclusively toward academic preparatory schools. Vocational schools have lost everything meaningful that their previous graduation requirements used to offer, including specialized technical exams and the capstone projects that now serve as the sole measure of high school education—which, frankly, has become a joke. To make matters worse, since passing the capstone project is a prerequisite for the state test results to even count, it ends up being the teacher's fault when a student fails due to laziness. If they fail that one component, their college applications are ruined. For vocational programs, this current version of standardized testing is a massive mistake.

One thing I don't get—what does a teacher actually have to do with a student's success on these exams? Does the teacher write the test, or does the student? I'm genuinely curious: how exactly are you supposed to force a student to study when neither parents nor teachers can do it? Does that mean every instructor at a cosmetology school (which doesn't even use this specific testing model, if I recall) should just be out of a job?

And then there's the ranking of schools—I don't follow. Different schools attract different types of students. It's a stretch to expect top-tier academic scholars to flock to masonry programs just because they enjoy the trade. Is that considered a "bad" school? Or should we judge them by what they actually produce: workers who are either capable or incapable of doing the job?

Here we go again—bureaucrats, lazy workers, cronies... I could go on all day. This is exactly what new generations of students are learning from their parents. There are certainly issues, but making broad generalizations like this definitely isn't going to achieve anything.
I truly wish ALL parents would send their children exactly where they think is best, especially since it clearly isn't happening through the schools or the teachers...

What if the driver hits a passenger who's an uneducated jerk, and then he starts lecturing him on Dostoevsky or market economics, and the passenger just stares at him blankly?
I once had to write a paper for a "local geography" course, where I had to explain how to get to Huey Long Street and who Huey Long was. Extremely vital info for a taxi driver, but hey, you gotta make your money.

Paul Wilson72 said:"Quote"

I think you mean light-years. ☕
Oh, absolutely. I’m just sitting here waiting for the inevitable backlash, but let’s be real: there is a massive difference between eating cheap canned meat and enjoying a gourmet meal at a high-end restaurant. Both will technically satisfy your hunger—maybe even the canned stuff will fill you up faster—but they aren't in the same league.
But do you really want people who know absolutely nothing beyond their specific job description? What happens when that role becomes obsolete in thirty years and they end up out on the street?

Let’s look at this from a different angle: does a driver really need anything beyond basic driving skills to provide a high-quality transport service? I mean, you can find an endless sea of taxi drivers out there. But think about it—when someone travels to a new country, they aren't just looking for a ride. If they happen to encounter a driver who actually knows the city and the country they are "representing"—someone who knows the best spots, fair pricing, or even understands where the guest is coming from and their culture—that makes a massive difference. That kind of expertise leaves a lasting impression. It often leads to repeat business and much better tips compared to a driver who can only communicate through frantic hand gestures. At the end of the day, once the vehicle is in motion, a driver's job ends at the steering wheel. Everything else is what defines the service.
I personally prefer people who come across as genuinely good and kindhearted, even if they’re a little unpolished or rough around the edges.

How long does it actually take to become an electrician? A locksmith? A mason? I’m not talking about just picking up some basic, surface-level knowledge that anyone could stumble upon—I mean actual proficiency. If you look at the math, most of these specialized vocational programs could be wrapped up in a year at most. The sheer volume of private certification courses out there for every niche job imaginable proves my point. Most of them only run between 20 and 80 hours and cost just a few hundred bucks.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: I agree with the rest of you—we need more freedom, but that comes with much higher accountability for teachers. We should introduce standardized state testing and give educators the chance to tailor their curriculum specifically to what those exams require. If students fail the state tests, it’s a direct reflection of a poor teacher; and if a teacher is failing them, they shouldn't be in the classroom. Finally, we need to make school rankings public. It's time to stop letting schools treat children like commodities to be traded.

I’m with you on the standardized testing issue. To be honest, there are just way too many perfect grades being handed out in elementary school, and it definitely doesn't follow a standard bell curve. It seems like most teachers don't want to deal with the fallout from parents—especially in small towns where everyone knows everyone else. They also don't want to carry the guilt if a kid fails to get into their preferred high school, nor do they want to deal with the occasional parental meltdown. Regardless, it isn't right that students are getting into certain elite prep schools solely based on extra credit from extracurricular competitions, simply because everyone has already maxed out their regular academic points. So, yes—we need standardized testing.
The national standardized testing system needs to be scrapped because it’s geared exclusively toward academic preparatory schools. Vocational schools have lost everything meaningful that their previous graduation requirements used to offer, including specialized technical exams and the capstone projects that now serve as the sole measure of high school education—which, frankly, has become a joke. To make matters worse, since passing the capstone project is a prerequisite for the state test results to even count, it ends up being the teacher's fault when a student fails due to laziness. If they fail that one component, their college applications are ruined. For vocational programs, this current version of standardized testing is a massive mistake.

One thing I don't get—what does a teacher actually have to do with a student's success on these exams? Does the teacher write the test, or does the student? I'm genuinely curious: how exactly are you supposed to force a student to study when neither parents nor teachers can do it? Does that mean every instructor at a cosmetology school (which doesn't even use this specific testing model, if I recall) should just be out of a job?

And then there's the ranking of schools—I don't follow. Different schools attract different types of students. It's a stretch to expect top-tier academic scholars to flock to masonry programs just because they enjoy the trade. Is that considered a "bad" school? Or should we judge them by what they actually produce: workers who are either capable or incapable of doing the job?

Here we go again—bureaucrats, lazy workers, cronies... I could go on all day. This is exactly what new generations of students are learning from their parents. There are certainly issues, but making broad generalizations like this definitely isn't going to achieve anything.
I truly wish ALL parents would send their children exactly where they think is best, especially since it clearly isn't happening through the schools or the teachers...

None at all. The teacher is irrelevant here; they might as well have fallen straight from Mars into the classroom. If they don't matter, then what's the point of having a teacher?

Paul Wilson72 said:"Quote"

I think you mean light-years. ☕
Oh, absolutely. I’m just sitting here waiting for the inevitable backlash, but let’s be real: there is a massive difference between eating cheap canned meat and enjoying a gourmet meal at a high-end restaurant. Both will technically satisfy your hunger—maybe even the canned stuff will fill you up faster—but they aren't in the same league.
But do you really want people who know absolutely nothing beyond their specific job description? What happens when that role becomes obsolete in thirty years and they end up out on the street?

Let’s look at this from a different angle: does a driver really need anything beyond basic driving skills to provide a high-quality transport service? I mean, you can find an endless sea of taxi drivers out there. But think about it—when someone travels to a new country, they aren't just looking for a ride. If they happen to encounter a driver who actually knows the city and the country they are "representing"—someone who knows the best spots, fair pricing, or even understands where the guest is coming from and their culture—that makes a massive difference. That kind of expertise leaves a lasting impression. It often leads to repeat business and much better tips compared to a driver who can only communicate through frantic hand gestures. At the end of the day, once the vehicle is in motion, a driver's job ends at the steering wheel. Everything else is what defines the service.
I personally prefer people who come across as genuinely good and kindhearted, even if they’re a little unpolished or rough around the edges.

How long does it actually take to become an electrician? A locksmith? A mason? I’m not talking about just picking up some basic, surface-level knowledge that anyone could stumble upon—I mean actual proficiency. If you look at the math, most of these specialized vocational programs could be wrapped up in a year at most. The sheer volume of private certification courses out there for every niche job imaginable proves my point. Most of them only run between 20 and 80 hours and cost just a few hundred bucks.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: I agree with the rest of you—we need more freedom, but that comes with much higher accountability for teachers. We should introduce standardized state testing and give educators the chance to tailor their curriculum specifically to what those exams require. If students fail the state tests, it’s a direct reflection of a poor teacher; and if a teacher is failing them, they shouldn't be in the classroom. Finally, we need to make school rankings public. It's time to stop letting schools treat children like commodities to be traded.

I’m with you on the standardized testing issue. To be honest, there are just way too many perfect grades being handed out in elementary school, and it definitely doesn't follow a standard bell curve. It seems like most teachers don't want to deal with the fallout from parents—especially in small towns where everyone knows everyone else. They also don't want to carry the guilt if a kid fails to get into their preferred high school, nor do they want to deal with the occasional parental meltdown. Regardless, it isn't right that students are getting into certain elite prep schools solely based on extra credit from extracurricular competitions, simply because everyone has already maxed out their regular academic points. So, yes—we need standardized testing.
The national standardized testing system needs to be scrapped because it’s geared exclusively toward academic preparatory schools. Vocational schools have lost everything meaningful that their previous graduation requirements used to offer, including specialized technical exams and the capstone projects that now serve as the sole measure of high school education—which, frankly, has become a joke. To make matters worse, since passing the capstone project is a prerequisite for the state test results to even count, it ends up being the teacher's fault when a student fails due to laziness. If they fail that one component, their college applications are ruined. For vocational programs, this current version of standardized testing is a massive mistake.

One thing I don't get—what does a teacher actually have to do with a student's success on these exams? Does the teacher write the test, or does the student? I'm genuinely curious: how exactly are you supposed to force a student to study when neither parents nor teachers can do it? Does that mean every instructor at a cosmetology school (which doesn't even use this specific testing model, if I recall) should just be out of a job?

And then there's the ranking of schools—I don't follow. Different schools attract different types of students. It's a stretch to expect top-tier academic scholars to flock to masonry programs just because they enjoy the trade. Is that considered a "bad" school? Or should we judge them by what they actually produce: workers who are either capable or incapable of doing the job?

Here we go again—bureaucrats, lazy workers, cronies... I could go on all day. This is exactly what new generations of students are learning from their parents. There are certainly issues, but making broad generalizations like this definitely isn't going to achieve anything.
I truly wish ALL parents would send their children exactly where they think is best, especially since it clearly isn't happening through the schools or the teachers...

Vocational schools, first and foremost, along with certain trade paths, often see the (worst) students enrolling. That doesn't mean the school or the trades themselves are bad; it's just that parents would rather brag about their kid going to an elite prep school than becoming a carpenter or a locksmith. These vocational programs offer a path to a solid life, yet they end up filled with the bottom of the barrel—kids who have no other options. Regardless, schools need to be ranked within their own categories. You can't compare masons to prep school grads, but you absolutely have to know which vocational school is best, which technical school leads, and which prep school is the top tier in the US.

Obviously, you have to take those factors into account.

There’s a massive gap between being a total moron and having a well-rounded education.

Beyond how much a broad education helps someone in their career—specifically an electrician, a locksmith, or a mason—what's the point? Does every single worker need to know the capital cities of various states, the year the American Revolution kicked off, or the GDP of Uzbekistan just to get their job done effectively?
If every trade can be mastered easily, why on earth are kids stuck in school for 11 to 17 years? Just to keep teachers employed?

I agree with the rest of you; we need more freedom, but also more accountability for teachers. We should implement a small exit exam and give instructors the power to tailor the curriculum to what’s actually required in the real world. If students fail that exam, it means the teacher failed. If the teacher is bad, they lose their job. Period. And for heaven's sake, let's start publishing school rankings publicly instead of letting these kids become prey for predatory institutions.

What exactly is your problem?

silentraven6 said:NASA mentioned today: "That's part of my scheduled hours."

I really need to pull her aside and ask how that actually works. And yeah, she made it pretty clear that things will stay this way again this year, because they do a great job and actually enjoy the extra work—plus, she noted it's an opportunity reserved specifically for students who don't take religious studies. Apparently, the whole setup is going to change next year.

I'm dying to know how they'll pull that off.

Someone on this forum mentioned a while back that a parent was up in arms because a teacher was using the kids who skipped religious class to practice math, claiming the religious students were being left behind.

So, it turns out this isn't an objective issue after all. 😁

(Someone is rigging the schedule to suit their own interests.)

Kyle Rogers9 said:I went to elementary school about 15 years ago. Back then, they offered religion classes, and if you didn't attend, the curriculum was incredibly basic. Religion class was always scheduled as either the first or the last period of the day, so those who opted out just left early or showed up late.

Don't get why they don't do that anymore. :/

It’s simple math. There were likely fewer classes back then. Statistically speaking, you can't schedule religious studies for every single class during just the first or last periods unless the total number of classes is actually less than the combined number of available first and last slots.

I wouldn't bet on that. I’ve spent enough time in a major city to know how things work, but out in some tiny, ultra-conservative rural town? It's a different world entirely. People there aren't exactly itching to go against the grain.

Truman said:I haven't heard a single soul mention being removed from the list just because someone else signed them up...

Are you talking about yourself????

I actually went to the registration center to "un-baptize" myself. Not a huge deal—takes maybe 15 minutes—but the look of pure shock and confusion on the woman's face behind the desk? Priceless.

General comment regarding several recent posts:

Some people on this forum claim that school religious ed and church services are separate things. In my experience, they never were. If you wanted to take Communion or go through Kris, you had to attend religious classes at both the school and the church from first through eighth grade. At the end of the year, you had exams at the church. If you failed, you couldn't move up the next year; you had to repeat the grade through the parish program. Before the big milestones—Communion and Kris—there were major exams you had to pass if you wanted to participate.

Now that Kris happens during sophomore year of high school, I’m hearing that students actually have to provide documentation from their high school to prove they are enrolled in religious studies instead of ethics class.

Quincy said:Look, if you aren't religious and you aren't raising your kid with faith, they don't have to take religion class. But it's totally uncalled for to trash the subject because of it....

Sent from my Galaxy J3 using Reddit

Oh, sure. They’re perfectly entitled to spit on Mexicans, non-Americans, atheists, or anyone else who skips religion class. I mean, they're all headed to hell anyway, right?

shadowcrane91 said:That’s why I think the only people pushing to scrap religious ed in schools are minorities who expect the majority to just bend to their will.☕

Look, the way schools handle it right now is a total mess because religious studies is an elective—it's supposed to be a choice! So, logically, those classes should happen after the regular school day is already wrapped up...
I mean, why can't schools just organize it like any other elective? Honestly, I have no clue...

But I'm not saying we should kick it out entirely. I'm saying we need a better structure so you don't have kids wandering aimlessly through the hallways; make it the first period or the last one.

It's structured that way because it has to be. Per the treaty with Vatican City, religion classes hold the same legal status as mandatory subjects, which means they have to be part of the regular daily schedule.