Posts by Rachel Jones8

rowdypanther12 said:But why would it take years? 🤷 You can see things become very clear and obvious within the first year or so.
Honestly, this elitist attitude toward education is exactly what landed us where we are today.

Hmm, every single year a massive wave of kids graduates high school... and everyone wants to go to college... should we just open the doors for everyone regardless of their grades and let them all in? Where would they even go? Where do they sit? How many professors would we need to hire just so everyone gets that one shot at freshman year?
And then next year, there's another batch of freshmen. So we'd have to let everyone study every year... build more campuses (meaning expand everything and hire three times the current faculty), just for 75% of them to drop out after the first year anyway?
Think that's actually doable? Or even a good idea?
Same goes for prep schools... if everyone needs to be in a prep school, we'd have to build new ones first since nobody fits in the current ones.
And then what happens to all those "almost" students who just wasted years instead of learning a skill? Are we really going to pay for them to go back later to become mechanics or hairstylists on the taxpayer's dime?
Honestly, I’d do the opposite—maybe do three years of trade school first... learn how to actually do something (just in case college isn't for you), then hit prep school, then head to university. 😁

Sarah James4 said:They exist, right?

That’s on them and their parents, not the government.

We'll never shake this mindset of the state acting like a parent that handles everything and decides everything... then we wonder why nobody takes personal responsibility.

Education should be equal and accessible to everyone. Standards need to be the same for everybody (SATs, ACTs, national standards, etc.). Whatever someone chooses regarding the public school system will affect their life later—lower standard of living, fewer opportunities, etc. That's the individual's responsibility, not the government's job to tell a 14-year-old, "Hey, you're at this level, so you go here." The government's duty is just to provide the schooling (equally and under the same criteria) to everyone.

The Constitution (looks like Article 6, I think) clearly states that everyone has a right to free education (basic mandatory) that is available to all and under equal conditions... In my opinion, trying to track students starting at 14—and now even as early as 10 or 11—doesn't meet those constitutional requirements.

Aren't they? 🤔

Dana Diaz8 said:

I don't know what to tell you. Some things just never change, do they? It’s the same old cycle, over and over again. Why does everyone act so surprised when the inevitable happens? Honestly, I'm just exhausted by the whole thing. kaže:
Did I actually write that?
Look, if you aren't exactly a genius, surviving high school is going to be an uphill battle. Especially if you end up at one of those elite prep schools where the pressure is relentless. And honestly? Even the kids who think they're smarter than everyone else aren't going to breeze through it that easily either. je He might be brilliant, sure, but he’s lazy and has zero interest in actually hitting the books. If he hasn't figured out how to study by the end of sixth grade—if he hasn't shown any genuine curiosity or passion for a subject, or if his grades are just trashed because he simply refuses to try—then what are we looking at? Basically, if he hasn't found a way to actually demonstrate that intelligence of his, does it even matter?

That’s just how I saw it.

Look, I agree that laziness and pure negligence will absolutely ruin you, but I’m still standing by my point: you don't need to be some kind of genius just to graduate high school, and finishing one certainly doesn't turn you into an overnight prodigy. I know plenty of people who went the vocational route—think trade schools or technical programs—who ended up being far more skilled and capable in their careers than those who spent four years in a traditional prep school. Does a diploma really define your intellect? Not always. I know a few seasoned tradespeople myself—guys who put in three years of solid vocational training—and I have to point to my neighbor, a master carpenter, whose skills are on another level. Honestly, most high school grads or even specialized vocational students would be absolutely embarrassed standing next to him. Even I’d feel a bit outclassed. I spent exactly one year studying geometry in high school, but unlike most people, I actually know how to apply what I learned. That’s the distinction between me and the straight-A types—the techies and the prep school kids who can recite formulas but couldn't solve a real-world problem if their lives depended on it. In my view, the ability to actually *use* knowledge is the only thing that matters if you want to survive in the job market, even if employers are too blind to value it. It seems to me that parents constantly push their kids toward those elite private academies because some outdated social standard convinced them it’s the only path to success. They think sending a kid to a top-tier preparatory school is a guaranteed ticket to stardom, but they’re dead wrong. Why can't we just let kids decide which path they want to take? We should let them make their own choice first, and then—only after they've weighed the options—offer our support, some actual advice, and maybe help them pivot toward a trade or a vocational program if we see they're heading for a dead end.

You got it wrong.

I agree laziness and neglect lead to ruin, but I still maintain you don't need to be a genius to graduate high school, nor does graduating make you some kind of mastermind.

But can't someone just be dumb, finish high school, and stay just as dumb... so what?
You can even finish college without being super smart. You just can't get people into certain universities if they didn't perform well earlier, while those who did perform better get in.

I know plenty of people who went to vocational school and then turned out to be way more skilled and sharper at college or on the job than the kids from prep schools.

Sure, there are always people taking the long or difficult route.
Nobody's claiming that kids passing middle school with straight A's are necessarily geniuses... but some kind of selection process has to happen.

I also know a few tradesmen (three-year programs), specifically my neighbor who's a carpenter—he could honestly put both prep school grads and vocational students to shame (myself included). The guy had one year of geometry in school, but he knows how to actually apply it, which is the real deal. Unlike the bookworms (whether they're vocational or prep school types), he actually uses what he learned, and applying knowledge is what matters most when you want to compete in the workforce (even if employers don't appreciate it).

And what was your point there?
The guy picked a trade, became an expert at it, and is a great craftsman. Was he supposed to go the academic route instead, or what?
Obviously, you have to apply what you know... and being good at your job means applying that knowledge. But to finish high school and college, you still have to study and pass exams.

I think parents push their kids toward prep schools because someone shoved the idea in their heads that it's the only way to success, making them think their kid will become a superstar instantly, but they're wrong.
Kids should be allowed to decide which school they want to attend. Once they make a choice, parents should support them, offer advice, and maybe even help them pivot to a different path if needed.

Yeah, all parents are clueless.
It doesn't occur to them that the kids are often the ones choosing the prep school route—either because they can (they have the grades) or because they have no idea what else to do.

Dana Diaz8 said:Just because you enroll in and graduate from an elite prep school doesn't mean you're some kind of genius. Honestly, all you need is a compliant attitude to survive there. ☕Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule!

Did I really say that?
But honestly, if you aren't sharp, getting through an elite high school is going to be a struggle. Especially at a place like Phillips Exeter.
And even if you *are* smart, you won't coast through if you're lazy and couldn't care less about studying. If you didn't learn how to hit the books during middle school, or if you never actually showed any interest or effort... basically, if you never proved you had what it takes, you're stuck.je

rowdypanther12 said:Man, if I’d just been among those top four students with all those honor roll certificates and awards, things might have gone differently 😂
I'm mostly kidding, but honestly, back in high school, I saw firsthand what happens when you mess up at thirteen or fourteen. And while Nicholas King says he doesn't really know which kids end up ruining their own prospects, I actually know quite a few. Even more than that, I know plenty of people who had parents who made some poor life choices early on, leading them to enroll in schools they didn't even have the grades for—but then those kids actually pulled themselves together during high school and started working hard.

(I don't love the phrase "ruining your future" because life is about so much more than just a career or a job, but it definitely limits your options and narrows your path)

It's true, you can definitely screw up at 13 or 14. You can even mess up later on; it's always an option.
But honestly, it's pretty hard to mess up between ages 6 and 12. I don't think a kid could go through all those years and get such a skewed impression of themselves that they struggle later, only to find out they're actually a genius. Or that someone who breezes through the early grades isn't actually cut out for a top-tier prep school. (Theoretically, sure, anything can happen).

In my opinion, those grades from 1st through 6th grade are a much more realistic indicator than whatever chaos happens during 7th and 8th.
A kid who isn't quite there academically usually knows by 6th grade, and they—along with their parents—won't be aiming for those elite private schools or high-end academies.

rowdypanther12 said:That’s actually why I think this approach works better—having one bad year only account for 25% instead of 50% feels much fairer.
Personally, I would have preferred being judged on my junior and senior years, where I barely scraped by with a C, rather than just looking at my freshman year and my later grades where I really struggled.😂

But honestly, there should be a way for students to pivot whenever they want. If they realize their current path isn't working, they should be able to switch majors and head in a new direction if they have the drive.
It used to feel like there was more flexibility here to balance school with a job, which gave people a real chance to pursue an education or change careers even into their 30s, no matter how tough things got.
With the way the current credit system is set up, that kind of work-study balance is pretty much gone.

True... but there's still that big turning point when they move from elementary to middle school. That’s when the pressure hits because you've got to start sweating those grades if you want to get into a good high school in a few years.
If we're looking at all six years, there really isn't much room for error. And let's be real—you can't force a kid to obsess over grades, and you definitely can't rely on teachers giving out handouts. I think this system actually makes it easier to achieve what matters: honest grading. It starts from day one without all that frantic scrambling later just to meet enrollment requirements...
Over those six years, you see who's actually capable, smart, or driven... even if they aren't perfect every single year. Plus, a lot of them won't qualify for those elite prep schools, which is probably for the best anyway.

but there definitely needs to be a way for kids to pivot and change direction whenever they want if they have the drive and interest.

For sure.

rowdypanther12 said:I’m not sure if I’ve gone too far by advocating for universal education up to age 18. I haven't fully researched all the nuances, but it honestly feels wrong that a kid could potentially derail their entire future just during middle school.

It feels like everything in this country happens all at once, doesn't it? One year we’re promised a total revolution that'll fix everything overnight, only to realize it was a dud, so then they pivot to some other "genius" idea the next year. Rinse and repeat.
I don't think we're quite ready for those kinds of shifts yet. Honestly, looking back, the idea itself isn't half bad. But if things actually go according to plan—which is where most people usually trip up—we might still not even reach what you're talking about. It all depends on whether this idea actually catches on before the next one takes over.

rowdypanther12 said:Well, if my mom hadn't been able to afford community college, I would've been one of those cases.
The system makes it so tough because balancing work and college while trying to be independent is brutal. And now, let's say the way credits transfer makes working while studying almost impossible. 🤷
Sure, anything is possible—if a girl living on the streets managed to get into Harvard, then hey, we can all major in molecular biology while working a shift at Target.
But let's be real: a kid who falls behind in elementary school—whether it’s due to puberty, being too playful, bullying, or any other reason under the sun—faces massive, often insurmountable obstacles.

Up until now, everything has revolved around middle school, but during fifth and sixth grade, parents don't really sweat the grades—mostly because most kids aren't even trying anyway. Then suddenly, everyone loses their minds. Parents start "pushing" the kids, kids go on this massive hunt for straight A's, and teachers start handing out prizes just to keep them happy. It’s all just a frantic race to get into the top-tier prep schools, regardless of whether the kids actually have the talent for it. Is that even good for them?
Early tracking systems—like the ones they run over in Germany or Switzerland—where you’re basically funneled into specific schools by the sixth grade? Honestly, maybe that whole "life-defining stress" thing isn't even as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be.
You can't just suddenly start breathing down a kid's neck and demanding more from them just because they need to enroll somewhere, right?
It’s pretty obvious from day one of school—well, maybe starting around second grade since the little ones are basically still in daycare—who’s got what it takes. You can just tell who’s going to breeze through and who’s going to struggle. Who ends up with all the A's? It’s clear right from the jump who's actually sharp and who isn't.
Doesn't seem like there’s much hype around enrollment, right? And honestly, your entire future shouldn't be decided by how you performed during one or two random years in middle school. It all depends on what path you take. Some kids head to prep schools and go on to college, while others choose vocational tracks to become auto mechanics or something similar. Once they finish, they get to work, earn a paycheck—which can be a struggle here in the States—and everyone lives happily ever after.
I don't think most people even bother worrying about this... I mean, why didn't I spend my first six years of school training to be a neurosurgeon? It just happens naturally, right? It’s not like kids are making life-altering career choices at eight years old; they just kind of drift into the schools that match their actual talents. If there's an outlier out there whose potential is way higher than what showed up during those early years, I'm sure they'll find a way to pivot later on.
I guess the system just lets him get away with it somehow?
If admissions don't depend on those final grades from middle school—where a kid can be a total rockstar but then hits a slump right at the end of eighth grade—it’s a much better system. Why punish someone for one bad semester when you're looking at their entire academic history? It’s almost impossible to fake being smart for six years straight if you aren't, right?
I'm not really sure how things play out after sixth grade. I'm guessing you don't just wake up one day and decide if you want to be a stylist or an auto mechanic, right? It feels more like you're just entering a school with a lighter workload than a traditional prep school... and then you actually specialize in a career later on.🤷

hiddenjackal17 said:I was born in '75. Back then, we actually sat for entrance exams to get into High School, which honestly wasn't a bad way to do things. But living here in Germany, everything works a bit differently. We don't have school-aged kids yet, but I know how it goes: elementary school lasts four years, and then your grades dictate where you head next. They look at three specific subjects—German, math, and science—calculated down to two decimal places. Better grades mean a shot at a preparatory academy or a track leading to college; lower marks push you toward vocational schools or trade programs. There’s also this "trial period" thing. If the grades aren't quite there, a student might get a few days of trial classes in a more academic track. It’s basically an interrogation to see if the kid actually has what it takes for that level of schooling. I don't know which system is better. Is a ten-year-old really ready to make life-altering decisions about their future? Seems early. And yet, over here, it seems to work perfectly fine.
Looking at how things stand in America right now, there’s clearly plenty of room for improvement. I've been reading about this new reform... but is it actually going to happen? Is it just another big idea floating around in a boardroom, or are we actually going to see some real, concrete changes? Who knows.

Did you take those entrance exams in America? For freshman year?
What kind of stuff was on them?

wanderinggardener12 said:I've already shared my thoughts on a mini-standardized test. I would actually agree with you and the others advocating for it, provided the child had the chance to take it four times—much like college students can—with special accommodations available for unique circumstances, where the highest score is the one that counts.
These exams should cover all core subjects through both oral and written formats, administered by a multi-member committee consisting of teachers from the student's current school, educators from other local elementary and high schools, and appointees designated by the U.S. Department of Education. They should encompass the entire middle school curriculum alongside tests designed to measure specific functional skills and competencies for each subject.

Furthermore, all teachers who prepared their students for these exams during their tenure with a graduating class could be placed into different pay scales (based on existing metrics like seniority, mentor status, or specialist designation) according to the success of their students. If a teacher only led a specific eighth-grade class for a single year, their pay scale would be determined by that year combined with the exam results from previous generations they taught.

A similar compensation structure could potentially be devised for elementary school teachers, though perhaps based on two generations of students, given that some classes simply may not be capable of achieving top-tier results regardless of instruction.
With a solid program and clear parameters, this could be resolved without any real issue.

If a mini-standardized test proves too costly, then external evaluations—state testing that includes both oral and written components, along with unannounced assessments of functional abilities and skills—could serve as an effective way to monitor teacher performance and grading objectivity from first grade all the way through eighth.

Not sure I totally follow...
So teacher salaries would depend on how well the kids did on the exit exams?
What do you mean by the bolded part? Does that mean people who went above and beyond, or does it include everyone teaching that subject?

If the junior high exit exams are too expensive, then external evaluations (state testing, but both oral and written) that include checks on functional skills and abilities (anytime and unannounced) would be a great way to monitor teacher performance and grading objectivity from first grade all the way through eighth.

How would that actually look in real life? When would these tests happen, how much stuff would there be... and who handles the oral exams to make sure they stay completely objective?

wanderinggardener12 said:Because the entire system of external standardized testing seems to have collapsed, leaving the teachers who actually maintain high standards feeling adrift; they realize that in many schools, grades are handed out like candy, and fearing their own students will be unfairly disadvantaged, they succumb to this trend of grade inflation. If we had consistent standardized assessment throughout all middle school grades—a mechanism designed to audit the quality of instruction rather than just the performance of the pupils—then every educator would truly be held accountable for the marks they assign.
That would actually solve the admissions crisis: implementing objective grading throughout the entire educational journey, rather than relying on one high-stakes final exam where a child's entire future hangs in the balance. It is an impossible burden for a fourteen or fifteen-year-old to carry; the stress levels are astronomical, and at that age, there is no such thing as a "gap year," especially when a child might simply be under the weather or feeling unwell on the day of the test.

(What I’m describing is internal pressure—the teacher doesn't want their student to fall behind peers from other districts. Then there is the "top-down" pressure, whether that authority originates within the school administration or from the community at large. And let's not forget the darker side of parental interference: threats, slander, extortion, physical intimidation, property damage, or even threats against the family itself.)

The most nonsensical approach to admissions I have ever witnessed was the heavy weighting placed on just three core subjects—English, math, and a foreign language—applied both at the end of middle school and during high school graduation exams. Why on earth should these three specific areas be the ultimate gatekeepers for everyone? Especially for graduating seniors. Why should a future historian or someone specializing in linguistics be judged by a math score, or a prospective engineer be tested on literary analysis?
And why does the system treat biology, art, or music as secondary to English when looking at high school admissions?

They are attempting to fix this slightly by shifting toward using a GPA calculated to two decimal places instead of a general success metric, but the absurdity remains: those same three subjects still dominate the equation, while two other arbitrary subjects are left to the discretion of whatever individual school decides to prioritize them.

Sure, that would be the dream, but you already said yourself it’s just not happening given all the variables involved. Right?

wanderinggardener12 said:Yes, they’re getting rid of the conduct points as well. It was an absurd system to begin with.

While everyone is probably thrilled about the convenience of online registration, using fifth-grade grades—and applying them retroactively—could create a massive headache. Since middle schoolers don't take physics or chemistry yet, how exactly are they going to weigh applicants for specialized STEM academies or technical high schools? Will they just rely on biology? Beyond that, lowering the age threshold isn't necessarily a win: if a kid makes a catastrophic mistake at eleven or twelve because they simply lack the maturity to handle it, could that decision potentially derail their entire academic future?
High schoolers who stumble on their SATs or state exams have options; they can retake tests, take a gap year, or try again later... But these younger kids won't have that luxury. Whatever mess they make in the fifth or sixth grade might follow them for the rest of their lives.

Some kids just need time to adjust to a new system in middle school. It’s not always about being lazy or slow; they're going from having one teacher and a few subjects to juggling a bunch of different teachers and new classes all at once.
I don't think grading fifth graders is the move.
And if sixth grade doesn't count either, then seventh and eighth are fine, but we really need to find a way to make grading more realistic so everyone isn't getting straight A's.
Along with grades, maybe a standardized test would help bring those "perfect" scores back down to earth?
Being able to apply online and pick multiple schools is definitely a plus.
Getting rid of those massive extra credit points is also a good call—it gives students who are "just" excellent a fair shot.
Giving points for competitions in subjects directly related to the school they're applying to seems fair... as does direct admission for kids showing truly exceptional talent.

Michelle Ward3 said:As far back as I can remember, getting into high school was actually straightforward—it was just based on a combination of middle school grades and entrance exams. I can't recall exactly when or why they scrapped that system. Does anyone know?

Entrance exams for freshman year?
I have no clue when they stopped using them... honestly, I don't even remember when we actually had them.🤷

Nicholas King said:I suppose there’s probably some other law out there somewhere that would rule such retroactive application entirely illegal in the first place.

BTW, I honestly think cutting those credits for music school isn't just a massive blunder—it's a glaringly obvious window into the dominant value system currently in power. Honestly, anyone who genuinely believes that the entire point of attending music school is merely the technical ability to play a specific instrument shouldn't even be allowed anywhere near a position where they decide which brand of Procter & Gamble products to buy for public schools, let alone a position where they make actual, consequential decisions.

Mind you, all these debates inevitably lead to one single conclusion, which could be summed up in three simple words: the government's "little graduation."

What can you even say about a similar call at a university? Kids knowingly signed up for a specific number of credits because it didn't matter then, but now they're stuck paying for an entire extra year of school because of it.

BTW, I think scrapping those music school credits isn't just a huge mistake—it's a crystal clear sign of what our current value system looks like. Honestly, anyone who seriously believes that finishing music school is strictly about how well you play one instrument shouldn't be anywhere near the people deciding which brand of Kimberly-Clark to stock in schools, let alone making any real decisions.

Did your kids finish music school? 😁
I agree that playing an instrument is more than just that... though personally, I don't think it should count toward high school admissions (unless it's an arts academy or something related). So if they changed it, I'm all for it.
A lot of kids spend years practicing something, so it’s definitely not "just" that, but obviously we don't give points for playing football, building model planes, or hip-hop either...

Mind you, all these debates always lead to the exact same conclusion, which basically boils down to three words: the state's "standardized testing."

I couldn't agree more. That's the only way to actually get an objective look at how much kids really learned after middle school.

Susan James said:Back when I was in elementary school, whenever my parents got a note saying there was a parent-teacher conference on Thursday at 5:30 PM, they’d just sign it and write "Thanks, see you there" or "Sorry, we can't make it."
If they couldn't attend, they would call the school (this was back in the late 80s or early 90s), ask for the teacher's lounge, find the homeroom teacher, and ask when they could come by for an update instead.
Neither they nor the teachers had cell phones back then.
And just imagine, they managed to communicate 🥳

Now that everyone has smartphones, emails, digital planners, and all sorts of tech, you'd think people would feel more obligated to say they can't make it. 🤔
Actually, since the notice was given so last minute, it's important to tell the teacher that it isn't ideal—to let her know clearly, "We can't make it because this was organized on such short notice." 🤷

I remember when my daughter's preschool teacher told us there was a meeting on Thursday at 4:30 PM, and I immediately asked whether she or I should go.
The first time they scheduled it for 4:00 PM, I actually asked if we could move it a bit later... a few other parents felt the same way, so they ended up moving it to the next day at 5:00 PM. We could have all just stayed quiet, not shown up, or acted like rebels and showed up thirty minutes late, but we didn't. 🤔

To me, this is just basic courtesy. It's important to me when it comes to building a good relationship with the people I trust with my child's care.

If the kid brought home a flyer with the notice, they could've just handled it themselves. But did they even bring it?
Quincy:

Back in the late 80s or early 90s, when they couldn't make it, they'd just call the school. They’d end up getting access to the teacher's lounge, hunting down the homeroom teacher, and asking when parent-teacher conferences were scheduled. Simple enough, right? Neither the kids nor the teachers even had phones back then. Remember that? Can you believe they actually talked to each other? 🥳

I don't get why anyone would bother calling the school to vent or ask questions. If you need info, you should already have it. If you couldn't make the parent-teacher meeting, just catch the first update available or swing by whenever you can to get caught up. Simple, right?
What do teachers even need to stop people from constantly breathing down their necks? They aren't just sitting around in the lounge all day anyway—they're usually out there in the classroom actually doing the work.
Quincy:

With cell phones, email, digital directories, and everything else at their fingertips, you really think they can just skip out without letting someone know? 🤔

Still clueless about the emails, cell numbers, or digital contact lists. If they actually have an email address, sending a quick note shouldn't be that hard... but if it were that simple, couldn't the teacher have just looped all the parents in a few days early?
Quincy:

I mean, since they gave me such short notice, I really should tell the teacher that this isn't okay. I need to be blunt with her—tell her straight up that I can't make it because the info came in way too late. Right? 🤷

You can always just update that later through the portal. Besides, if you get the notice too late to make the meeting, what are you supposed to do?
Quincy:

So the preschool teacher lets me know there's a parent meeting this Thursday at 4:30. I just look at her and ask if Mom or I should swing by.

I'm guessing you won't wait for a notification through your kid, but'll just go see for yourself. You'll definitely speak your mind once you do, right? Dealing with school kids is a whole different ballgame.
Quincy:

They first tried to get him in at 16, and I was like, can we maybe push that back a bit? A few other parents were saying the same thing to me, and by the next day, they moved him to 17. Honestly, we could have just stayed quiet or played the rebel and showed up thirty minutes late, right? 🤔

When a student tells you there’s a meeting tomorrow, you basically have zero notice. You show up when you can... or maybe you just don't make it at all.
Quincy:

To me, that’s just basic decency. It matters when I'm dealing with people I'm trusting with my kid.

Not for me. That isn't really about "decency" in my book. I totally agree that you need to build a good rapport with the people looking after your child, but... this isn't really the place for that. There are better ways to handle things than apologizing for missing a meeting you barely even knew about.
At these meetings, parents end up calling each other out, and the teacher knows exactly who shows up and who doesn't. If you're someone who shows up regularly and has a solid relationship with the teacher, why bother giving an excuse in advance for missing one? Just catch them during a quick check-in later to get the info and chat about everything—including why you couldn't make it. Honestly, if you stay on top of things, skipping an occasional parent meeting is perfectly normal.

Susan James said:Setting the legal stuff aside, you two really need to find a way to work together if your child is going to be in her class. I'm not sure if digging through the school handbook is going to help your communication or your future relationship (and that "triangle" thing 😍)
especially when it involves questioning why she didn't start two weeks earlier or why she didn't send notice sooner (honestly, it's possible she left a message for her substitute about the meeting, and the sub just missed it for whatever reason)

If you found out at 8:00 PM on Monday, you could have called Tuesday morning and just said, "I'm so sorry, I already have a commitment, but let me know when else I can stop by so we can meet."
Just some polite communication ☕

It isn't right for her to hold you accountable like that. She could have just given you a call to see if you could make it or when you'd be free to introduce yourselves.

I'm not trying to defend her, but just like you could have had a surgery scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, she could have had a perfectly valid reason to be out for those first two weeks.
I'm guessing she might have been using some leave to help her kid adjust to daycare after maternity leave 😬

And if she had her baby on September 17th, 2011, she wouldn't have needed to start two weeks early; she would have started now, once her maternity leave ended.
Or she would have had to end her leave two weeks early 🤔

Honestly, I don't see why anyone needs to give notice, especially if they drop a meeting date on you last minute. People show up if they can, and if not—they don't. The meeting happens regardless. It’s not like a dentist appointment or surgery where everything falls apart if one person misses it. You never see every single parent at any PTA meeting anyway. It's not like you get an unexcused absence or anything for skipping.
Who would you even call? The school secretary? It's not like teachers are handing out their personal cell numbers to every parent.

Christian Richardson36 said:I’m not entirely sure if this is the right sub for this particular grievance, but I’m looking for some perspective on the following:

From the very first day of the school year, the elementary teacher was out on maternity leave;
for those first two weeks, the kids had a substitute instructor:
then, during the third week of classes—on Monday afternoon—the permanent teacher finally returns from leave and immediately announces to the students that there will be a parent-teacher conference tomorrow afternoon (Tuesday);
of course, I can't make it—I have prior commitments already on my calendar, plus I'm juggling the schedules of my two older children who are also in school;
and then, instead of an apology for the short notice, they send me a formal letter essentially holding me accountable—they even included this little diagram depicting a triangle of "Student – Teacher" and "School – Parent."

In any standard American school district, how much lead time is a teacher actually required to give before scheduling a parent meeting? To me, it feels incredibly unreasonable to suggest that 24 hours is sufficient notice—but if anyone here is familiar with the specific district policies or general educational standards regarding this, I would truly appreciate your insight.

What does "holding someone accountable" actually mean here? Like, what did she specifically write?

Larry Walker24 said:Going to practice in 2012 isn't the same thing as going to music lessons back in the early '90s!

And apparently, everyone's conveniently forgetting the fact that you actually have to sit down and study for your next class at home.

What's the actual difference you're seeing? Are you talking about traffic or safety issues being worse now? If a kid is really into something, it becomes a massive time sink, maybe even more than it used to be.
With sports, back then people usually practiced maybe 2 or 3 times a week. Nowadays, even the little kids end up practicing every single day, which feels like way too much for an elementary schooler.
I mean, sure, it depends on the sport and how competitive they are... if a kid is driven and actually talented, and things start getting serious, I guess they don't have much choice.
But look at youth soccer—kids as young as 7 or 8, practicing daily and playing games every weekend...
To me, that's more of a nightmare now. It just eats up way too much time for both the kids and the parents.

Jesse Fox5 said:People always try to use puberty as a convenient excuse for being straight-up rude and acting out.
Give me a break... honestly, nobody’s hormones are crashing so hard that they lose all sense of what they're doing. Like, sure, they might be wild or swear at their parents—we've all been there—but using it as a get-out-of-jail-free card? Total nonsense.

Where did you get the idea that they don't know what they're doing? Like they aren't crazy or impulsive sometimes? It happens.

Larry Walker24 said:1. Look, things were different back then—money wasn't even a factor.
2. Personally, I think it's too early. While other kids were out playing, I was stuck inside practicing. Usually, it's third grade for general stuff and first grade for music—that seems pretty standard to me, and it works fine.

Just imagine being eleven or twelve years old and having to deal with ear training drills at 7:15 in the morning. Like, Monday piano, Tuesday ear training, Wednesday off, Thursday piano, Friday ear training... give me a break.

So what's the big deal?
Kids today are constantly running to practice or whatever at all hours anyway.
Imagine your kid is that age and they've got hockey practice at 11 PM, but they still have Elementary School the next morning. So? What about it? You love it or you don't.
If you're into it, there's no point complaining... honestly, shouldn't that make it easier?
If you hate it and don't want to go, then just don't go. If someone's forcing you, they're the ones messing up. Or they did.

swiftbear86 said:I wasn't saying you need to graduate from a specialized High School to get those extra points. You just need to have at least four years under your belt.

My daughter actually graduated from one of those programs.

I was mostly talking about those bonus points Nicholas King brought up. Plus, there's the issue of it being way too late to start that kind of training if the kid is already heading into 4th grade.

"Evaluating other exceptional achievements from previous schooling
Candidates can also receive credit for other outstanding achievements from their prior education, provided that:
- they completed middle school while simultaneously finishing at least four years of a music or dance academy that holds
approval from the Department of Education, earning 2 additional points toward enrollment in "

I just hope kids aren't signing up for music school just to chase those extra points.

Nicholas King Asks:
I mentioned those points for when a kid decides to quit music lessons. After finishing third grade?I just wrote, "Such a shame she missed out on those points." All because of one single year.Look, I never said you had to finish all of High School just to get the points.

Honestly, I'm with you on that... it really is such a shame.
But look, on the flip side, if you send them somewhere for that year and they end up hating every second of it? If they’re miserable just to chase those extra points, it’s honestly not worth the headache. If it’s not a huge deal, though, maybe it makes sense to push through a bit longer to make it worth it. Wouldn't it be better to just play it smart?

Charles Murphy6 said:I honestly feel like I’d be failing her as a parent if I didn't start preparing her for all the physical shifts coming her way. We’re even diving into the psychological side of things—mood swings, hormone surges, the whole spectrum.
Just imagine the sheer panic if she had no idea what a period was and then suddenly dealt with it at school without a clue what was happening.
It would be an absolute nightmare for her. I’ve actually considered reaching out to her teacher to see if I could just drop off a supply of pads to keep in the classroom, just in case of emergencies.
I keep trying to dig through my own memories of puberty to find the right words, and I vividly remember those miserable gym classes where our chests were just starting to develop; everything was so tender that even a slight touch hurt, and running around was pure agony. I made sure to tell her exactly that. She needs to know. And in return, I'm getting a daughter who actually talks to me, someone who trusts me and genuinely wants to discuss these things.

If you think it might happen soon—even though it takes a bit for things to settle after those first changes, or depending on if you start early—just tuck a pad away in a "secret" pocket of your backpack. You know, like practicing ahead of time? And honestly, you should always have tissues in your school bag, or any bag for that matter.😉

Nicholas King said:

I suppose I should address this—though I’m not entirely sure where to begin with such a disorganized mess of thoughts—but there is something fundamentally irritating about how things are being handled lately. It feels like we are constantly circling the same drain, much like that one time my old boss at Boeing tried to tell me that a structural flaw was just a "minor optimization opportunity"—as if that makes any sense at all. I mean, honestly, does anyone actually care about the details anymore? Everything seems to be moving toward this frantic, superficial rush, and frankly, it's exhausting to watch. I guess some people find it exhilarating—maybe they thrive on the chaos—but for those of us who actually value precision and a bit of decorum, it’s nothing but a headache. It's almost as if we've collectively decided that doing things correctly is far too much effort compared to just getting them done poorly. I don't know... perhaps I'm just being overly cynical here, but it certainly feels that way. kaže:
Why on earth would anyone even ask that? I mean, honestly—it seems like such an obvious question that I’m almost hesitant to even attempt an answer, given how much nuance is involved. I guess it depends entirely on what we're actually talking about, doesn't it? There isn't just one single reason for anything in this life—everything is layered, complicated, and frankly, a bit exhausting if you think about it too deeply. But maybe, just maybe, there’s some underlying logic we’re all missing. Or perhaps there isn't. It’s hard to say for sure without more context, but I suspect the answer is far less simple than most people would care to admit.🤷

It’s really about the fine motor skills and all that other practical stuff—plus, I suppose there's a certain convenience to finishing both music school and your regular high school at the same time.

I honestly missed where you spotted that on the linked page—anyway, thanks for sending the link over. It’s about time someone actually pointed out a source that explicitly mentions they aren't even enrolling older kids from...
I suppose we have officially reached the milestone of finishing second grade.

Sure, being convenient is one thing, but saying it’s actually "practical"? Not really:

Anything after third grade is too late.

That sounds kind of weird to me. Can you really not start later? Is it not practical? Do you not learn enough? Are you just a year older than everyone else?
Or is it seriously... way too late, like there's no point at all and it's hopeless... like if you don't start a year earlier, you have zero chance at anything?
By the way, why wouldn't it be practical to finish music training after middle school? I'm sure some people don't even go on to high school for music.

Nicholas King said:I have no idea what you're basing such an utterly flawed claim on—honestly. Anything starting after the 3rd grade is just too late, if you ask me.

Why's that?🤷