Posts by Susan James

Sarah Hall53 said:Look, speaking from my experience as a teacher—and I say this with all due respect to both sides—I’m really against pushing school start dates back for no reason, but I’m just as much against rushing kids into enrollment earlier than they're ready.
You can actually see the fallout when they hit 7th grade and hit the wall with science classes like physics and chemistry. At twelve years old, most kids haven't quite developed that capacity for abstract thinking that these subjects demand—mostly because that cognitive leap usually doesn't happen until they're around thirteen. So, you end up making everything unnecessarily difficult for them, turning what should be learning into a total nightmare of frustration and "why am I even doing this?!" moments.

Honestly, I think that's missing the point.
Usually, when kids struggle with physics, it's because their elementary teachers didn't properly teach them how to handle units of measurement or word problems. They run into math issues, too...
Let's be real: some kids simply won't have the aptitude for those specific subjects, regardless of when they start school. It's just how it is.
And it’s a total myth that delaying school makes things easier for them when they reach 7th-grade chemistry.

Some kids truly do need that extra year, and it’s vital that they get it and spend that time productively.

On the flip side, there are plenty of kids whose parents refuse to sign off on a delay—even when specialists recommend it—who end up struggling immensely. Some face issues as early as 1st grade, but most start seeing trouble from 5th grade onward, especially by 7th.
It isn't always about "abstract thinking"; often, it's because they've accumulated gaps in their knowledge, faced ongoing struggles (which might have been patched up, but not entirely), lost their self-confidence, and then you add puberty into the mix...

But more and more kids are hitting roadblocks because certain foundational skills aren't being developed during the critical windows they should be... though that's a whole different conversation.

Carl Bishop2 said:Usually, there are specialized classrooms designed for kids with specific challenges—smaller groups, maybe only five students—where you have specialists like therapists working right alongside the teacher.
In my kid's school, by some stroke of bad luck, one particular classroom ended up with a disproportionate number of kids dealing with (unidentified) struggles—and honestly, it’s a nightmare for both the students and the teachers. The class size looks totally standard on paper, but when you realize five of those kids have significant issues, things get messy fast. Add in a lack of cooperation from parents regarding professional support, and you’ve basically got recipe for chaos.
I really can't wrap my head around how these needs weren't caught during preschool, or even earlier.

It’s usually because they didn't attend preschool regularly, if they went at all.
In New York City, we see kids whose moms are on public assistance and might not have had access to daycare. If those parents weren't aware of the developmental delays themselves, it's unlikely they would have sought out the necessary referrals or assessments during their early years.

The biggest issue, though, is that parents are allowed to just sign off on delaying enrollment. Basically, if they don't want to agree to a delay, they don't have to sign anything. To me, that just doesn't make sense.

It works out okay in NYC because daycare is relatively affordable here, but once you move into the suburbs, people start doing the math. They realize it's actually cheaper to just send them to public school—especially now that lunch is free too—than to pay for childcare.

rowdypanther12 said:It just goes to show how much schools differ; my daughter was always one of the first to finish her assignments, so she’d be done in less than an hour.
Then you have the kids who stretch things out, working on homework until the very end of after-school care.
The way American schools are set up, kids are expected to sit still and listen, with three to five hours of formal classes where they mostly just sit there quietly.
I honestly don't see how you can compare that to preschool.
That doesn't mean school is bad, nor does it mean everyone needs to ask for exemptions.
But the reality is that kids get a lot less playtime in school compared to preschool, where they basically spend all ten hours playing or resting.

There really is a world of difference between schools and preschools.
Even within those systems, things vary wildly depending on which teacher you get or who is running the program.

My daughter loved her after-school care during first grade. But by second grade—and especially third—it turned into a total nightmare. (We didn't formally pull her out in third grade because we didn't want to deal with all the paperwork, but she was miserable. There was almost zero playtime; instead, it was endless hours of homework and those repetitive creative projects for various holidays, plus a whole lot of sitting around).

Preschool, on the other hand, offered endless educational content wrapped up in play, so seamlessly that you wouldn't even realize you were learning... looking back, it's funny how long it took her to realize how much of a head start she actually had. Seriously, seven years later, she’s recognizing concepts from chemistry class that she actually first encountered back in preschool! 🙏
And I’m not surprised that physics and chemistry are her favorite subjects now; she built such a solid foundation and genuine interest from such a young age, thanks to some really great encouragement from adults (and no, it wasn't us 😂). You can really see the difference in the kids from her preschool compared to the rest of her class. She even remembers playing with Legos and magnets in preschool while they were learning fractions in school; the preschool teachers did such a deep dive into the basics, whereas school just kind of expects you to already know them.

In truth, she learned to read, write, and do math primarily through preschool. Not to mention the endless English songs they sang; her vocabulary from those two years is broader than what most kids pick up in their first three years of elementary school. And I won't even go into the spontaneous, daily communication she was exposed to... it was just a completely different way of learning, combined with tons of play. Since she wasn't a big sleeper, the teachers didn't force worksheets on her; instead, they assessed what each child needed. Plus, since the groups were spread out over a large area, the kids could just go play once they finished their tasks. 🙏 It was night and day compared to after-school care a few years later 🤦, and unlike many other typical preschool stories I've heard. 🤷

I'm not saying I would keep a child in preschool for an extra year just because of this, but I can totally empathize with the parents who opted for preschool over school or left their kids in our care. Those kids truly gained so much, both academically and personally. (Back then, if delaying enrollment or early entry were the extremes, you'd have to provide a massive amount of justification).
Actually, from what I overheard back then—and what people talk about openly now—a huge number of parents were strategically picking their first-grade teachers. Some delayed enrollment specifically to avoid certain teachers, while others pushed for early enrollment to snag the "top three" teachers. Some even refused to delay because they "didn't want to risk a bad teacher," thinking, "Better to start now with the teacher my older child had; we can always hire a speech therapist later." It’s a huge issue.🙄🤦 It really depends on which school district they’re aiming for. 🤦
Lately, I’ve been realizing how much sense "holding back" a child has lost. It feels like it’s more about parental convenience—who the kid will be in class with—rather than whether they are actually ready for the academic workload or have outgrown preschool.
(And sometimes, specialists are just brought in to validate what the parents already want to hear.)

As long as the child attended preschool regularly (maybe missing a few days a year due to the occasional cold), I truly believe daycare teachers are the most qualified people to judge if a kid is ready for kindergarten. Even when there's pressure to free up spots—since they might turn away a hundred kids the previous year and need to account for siblings applying later—these teachers see the daily reality.

If a daycare teacher disagrees with an outside specialist working with a child, I think that only matters if we’re talking about a deep-seated issue that won't resolve itself quickly. If a child needs support, they can continue treatments through first grade anyway. Honestly, it’s often easier to organize those sessions during the preschool years, and children tend to thrive even more when they get that extra support alongside plenty of playtime and freedom.
But you have to have a clear, honest conversation with the preschool staff and work out a plan so the child doesn't feel like an outsider who's just lingering.

Delaying a child's start just for the sake of play 🙄, making life easier for the parents, or using excuses like "we didn't get to say goodbye to the preschool crew because of the 2020 lockdowns" (which, let's face it, happened to everyone from elementary students to high school grads) should be off the table. I honestly think these delays should be prohibited, maybe even penalized, because they cause long-term harm to the kids.
Even a small difference, like being born just a month before the cutoff, messes with enrollment numbers. It shifts how many classrooms and teachers a district needs, affects future high school placements, and can lead to schools "recommending" delays for less justifiable reasons just because their rosters are already full from previous years. It becomes this cycle that repeats year after year.

In my opinion, there should be consequences for parents who refuse to sign off on a necessary delay just because they think the speech therapist or psychologist is overreacting. It’s heartbreaking to see them complaining about the school system five years later when they realize their child is struggling significantly.

Sarah Hall53 said:So, basically, you guys didn't actually want an extension—you just got talked into signing up early so they could clear out some space.
It gets even worse than that.

I honestly think that to keep everything in balance out there in the universe—especially when you're staring down a massive pile of things being pushed back—you really need to get someone enrolled a bit earlier. It just makes sense. 🤷
Honestly, I’ve been saying this for a while now: we really need to set some clear boundaries on when people are required to head out. In my opinion, we should stick to that March 31st deadline—or even move it up to January 1st if we wanted to be proactive—but then establish a sort of grace period from April through August. During those months, people could go in for their check-ups if they needed to, but the actual departure shouldn't be mandatory. It just feels like a more balanced way to handle things.

If the preschool teaching staff decides a child has basically outgrown the curriculum—meaning they’ve finished the pre-K program, mastered all the foundational reading and writing skills, and are hitting all their social and emotional milestones perfectly—then they’re ready to head off to elementary school. Of course, there might be some exceptions. If a pediatrician looks at the charts and sees concerns like being significantly underweight, having stunted growth, or dealing with chronic health issues or other medical diagnoses, that’s when you might want to sit down and seriously consider holding them back for an extra year.

Whenever there’s a transition coming up, I think it’s really important to sit down with the parents and have a real conversation about what the child will actually be doing during that gap year at preschool. You really have to ask if the facility can truly meet the child's specific needs. For instance, could they accommodate extra sessions or specialized treatments that might be harder to squeeze into a regular school schedule later on? It’s all about making sure the support system stays consistent during that bridge period.
I’m going to be a little blunt here, but delaying school just so they can play more feels like a mistake. Honestly, if he hasn't had much experience in daycare or preschool, this is basically neglecting his development. We can't shield children from every single frustration or tearful moment forever. Let's face it—life is tough sometimes. It’s perfectly normal for kids to cry or get angry occasionally. Even if a child hits all their developmental milestones early on, we can't protect them from reality indefinitely. They have to deal with peers who might find it funny when someone trips or makes a mistake. Sure, it’s definitely easier to practice those social lessons in preschool rather than waiting until elementary school, but it isn't impossible to learn later on. Part of growing up is learning how to handle things over and over again as life throws new situations your way.

This is for some other topic, for example. ovuWait, I actually have to say this here:

Kimberly Green50 said:We didn't end up delaying enrollment, and honestly, the fact that he could already read and count was the main reason the experts said he was ready. But you have a point; being smart and knowing math isn't the same thing as being emotionally mature enough.
The preschool staff basically pushed him through because they claimed he was in the top five most prepared kids in his group. Apparently, he had outgrown the daycare setting.

He doesn't struggle with the schoolwork; he handles everything perfectly fine. He even says he gets bored sometimes. Kimberly Green50 tells me he's often lost in thought, and it's hard to tell if he's just exhausted or feeling down. Especially during after-school care.

I know childcare is a nightmare right now, but still, we shouldn't just shove kids into school before they're ready. If I had any sense, I would have let him stay in preschool for one more year.
It's like everything else in this country—you have to be tough and know how to hold your own. We pushed him because he's bright, so he got bored at preschool. Now he's getting bored in school. And the psychologist's solution? "Enrich the educational content." Well, the school offers what it offers, so we end up driving him to extra programs after school. Then Kimberly Green50 starts complaining that he's overscheduled. It's always like this. Every expert has their own opinion.

Like I said, the academics aren't the issue. Even when he misses a whole week, he catches up on everything in one afternoon. What he's missing is the social stuff—just playing with other kids. He was only in daycare for three years, and since he was caught up in all those pandemic restrictions, I don't think he ever really got to just be a kid.

If you have the option, just delay it.

Lost in space. I’ve been thinking lately about how we can really enrich our educational content to make it more engaging for students. It’s one thing to follow the curriculum, but it's another thing entirely to breathe life into the material so it actually sticks. I remember back when I was in college, the professors who truly inspired me were the ones who didn't just read from a textbook, but brought in real-world examples and interactive elements that made the lessons feel relevant. I think we should aim for that same kind of depth—finding ways to add layers to our teaching tools that spark curiosity rather than just checking off boxes. So, imagine this: a kid finishes all their math homework way ahead of the rest of the class, and instead of getting a break, the teacher hands them even more work. I'm not talking about just cranking out twenty more of the exact same problems, either. I mean actual challenges—complex addition, brain teasers, and logic puzzles that go beyond the standard curriculum. It’s like giving them extra math on top of the extra math they already signed up for!
Maybe they could get an extra book from the reading list? Or perhaps we could give them permission to dive into some magazines—like National Geographic Kids or Highlights—let them read comics during free time, or even let them get some sketching done once they've knocked out their regular assignments or shown a genuine interest in a particular topic.
It’s not just about making sure he doesn't get bored; it’s really about giving him that extra push to actually tap into his potential. He clearly has a lot of talent there, so providing that kind of stimulation could be a total game-changer for his development.
Now that computer science is part of the curriculum starting in first grade, there are so many great coding challenges from Beaver that we can give our kids to work on at home!
I’m not sure how this guide was actually delivered to you all—hopefully, it wasn't just handed over as a plain sheet of paper—but I really feel like we need to be more direct with parents and teachers. It needs to be crystal clear when a first grader is clearly bored out of their mind because the curriculum just isn't hitting the mark for them.
If the teacher isn't able—or just doesn't want to—to handle this, then we're looking at a much deeper issue that won't be fixed by just talking about after-school activities. Honestly, if I’m being brave enough to say it, this situation might actually make things worse. It feels like the teacher is on that same track when she tells you there are too many extracurriculars; she likely realizes the child is progressing at their own pace elsewhere. They're tackling challenging, fun projects outside of class, yet here they are being told to sit still and listen to things they've already mastered. It's easy to lose a student that way, and even easier to lose that connection with them. In my experience, it's often simpler for a teacher to tell parents, "Don't overstimulate him," rather than admitting the classroom environment isn't meeting his needs, using his exhaustion as an excuse.

Drew Johnson2 said:I’m facing a bit of a dilemma this year regarding my son’s school enrollment, and frankly, I am at a complete loss as to what the right move is... He’s been in speech therapy for three years now, dealing with a developmental language disorder diagnosis. For a long time, it really showed in how he struggled with grammar—we finally managed to get a handle on gendered nouns, but he still trips over his cases quite frequently. His sentences tend to be rather clipped, and his ability to retell stories is a major struggle; we are still wrestling with concepts like yesterday, today, and tomorrow... If today is Friday, he can easily tell you Tuesday is four days away, but if I ask him what he did yesterday, he’ll just tell me what he did this morning...
His focus is actually quite remarkable; his therapist mentioned she rarely sees a child with these specific challenges who possesses such an intense level of concentration... He has mastered analysis and synthesis, can read simpler sentences, and handles addition and subtraction up to 100, as well as multiplication, without much trouble.
On top of that, he is quite emotionally immature for his age, so we are working through that with a child psychologist, and he’s started some sports to help build up his self-confidence...

Now, here is where the conflict lies: his private speech therapist is strongly advocating for him to delay starting kindergarten. She believes that having one more year will make a massive difference, particularly regarding his emotional maturity...
However, the therapist at his preschool—who doesn't see him nearly as often since he's already in their specialized program and spends most of his time with other kids—is against delaying him. Her argument is that he’ll need Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) eventually anyway, so one extra year won't change much of the long-term trajectory... but it feels to me like she’s mostly focusing on his chronological age, repeatedly reminding me that if we wait, he’ll be entering first grade as a full eight-year-old...
I find myself leaning heavily toward the opinion of our private therapist, who works with him twice a week and seems to have a far more realistic grasp of his actual capabilities, yet I feel this immense pressure from the preschool staff to align with the institutional view... They keep bringing up his age as if it were the only metric that matters...
I truly don't know... I can't help but feel it might be less damaging to let him start school at eight than to push him in now only to have him feel completely overwhelmed and crushed by the workload right out of the gate...
I suppose we will all go through the standard testing process soon, and then the school district will weigh in with their own assessment, but I would dearly love to have my own stance firmly established by then... though, honestly, I haven't the slightest clue what the smartest path forward actually is...

A speech therapist who has been working with him for three years definitely knows his progress much better than a preschool therapist who isn't even seeing him.
I really feel like parents can get a much clearer picture of what their child needs to work on over the next seven months than a school doctor or a specialist can during a quick fifteen-minute checkup at a local elementary school. Even though those professionals ultimately make the final call—and you can certainly disagree with them by bringing in outside specialist reports—it still feels like we have a much deeper understanding of our kids' daily progress.

If we’re talking strictly about emotional maturity—or the lack thereof—that isn't really something a speech therapist should be handling. At most, a specialist might be able to describe how a child processes emotions when they're facing a difficult or high-pressure situation they've created themselves. But that doesn't necessarily mean the kid will act that way around their friends at school. In my experience, parents are much better equipped to navigate those emotional waters. Then you have preschool teachers and daycare providers, though the real question is how objective they can actually be. It's tough to stay neutral when there's pressure from management to clear out spots just to make room for new enrollments.
If you decide to go through with the evaluation, you can actually bring along any reports from a child psychologist your little one is already seeing. It’s super helpful to have that extra context on hand. Plus, it gives the specialists a great chance to observe how your kiddo reacts to meeting new people and navigating an unfamiliar environment. It really helps paint the full picture!

Ovak na nevidjeno:
I feel like this whole retelling thing could get pretty problematic, especially if the kid ends up spending time in after-school care. Everything else seems totally manageable, though!
First off, you’ve still got seven months to go. Plus, let's be honest—some things are just built through life experience and navigating different situations as you grow. What's one more year in preschool really going to do for a kid who's already mastering synthesis and analysis, reading simple sentences, and handling addition and multiplication?

When you're trying to figure out which school is the right fit, I always think it's best to look at where your child stands right now. It’s about looking ahead at the next year or two and asking: what specific skills are they still working on? Once you identify those gaps, you can see which program actually offers the tools and the environment to help them master those particular skills. It really comes down to finding that perfect match between what they need to learn and what the school can provide.
It seems pretty straightforward to me: you really need to sit down and have some serious conversations with both his private speech therapist and his preschool team. With the specialist, you should be looking at a concrete roadmap for everything you’ll be working on over the next 19 months. On the school side, you need to pin down exactly where he can thrive during these next seven months. If he ends up staying for another year of preschool, what specific support will he get from the program? For instance, if he needs extra help navigating social situations or mastering emotional self-regulation, how is that going to work if the school isn't fully on board? Especially if there's a total staff shuffle coming up next year with new teachers in the classroom.
That’s all something you really need to clear up with them.

Honestly, his age isn't the biggest hurdle right now—especially since classrooms are increasingly mixing kids in the 6 to 8-year-old range—and being a boy helps a little too (being a bit taller isn't exactly a disadvantage!). The real concern is when those developmental gaps start showing up during puberty. That's when things can get much more intense once everyone starts hitting those teenage years.

Sarah Hall53 said:The thing is, they have what they need. Since they had to update the curriculum for 5th and 6th grade just so Blaž could hire his MIT grads, every single school now meets the criteria and is basically forced to offer elective computer science from 1st through 8th grade.
It's just like how everyone offers elective foreign languages, but—well, damn—the Supreme Court ruled that using those points for admissions was discriminatory, so that was that.

Which schools are Blaze's people from Cleveland actually teaching at?🤔
From what I know, most of them are teachers from the tech-heavy programs, basically just lecturing about high-level computer science theory.
🤷

I still think a solid MIT grad can hold their own and find a great job in the market.

That whole language point is total nonsense, especially when you combine it with extra credit for things like school swim team championships (or volleyball, table tennis, or whatever sports the school happens to offer—schools that don't even provide those options to kids in other districts).

Larry Walker24 said:+

Just make attending computer science classes in 7th and 8th grade a mandatory requirement.

Now you're going to hear that they can't implement that because not every school district offers those specific tech requirements.🤣

(It doesn't really matter if some schools lack the resources or the motivation to send kids to sports competitions, since those points still count toward their standing just as much as academic competition scores do.😬)

Betty Wood54 said:Under the old scoring system, they used to only care about 7th and 8th-grade marks. Then, out of nowhere, they decided to overhaul everything and started factoring in the 5th and 6th-grade GPAs for the class that was currently in 8th grade. So, I guess we actually do have a precedent for them creating this kind of mess.

Oh, and another thing... last year, they changed how extra points for "health" or "socioeconomic status" were applied just a few months before enrollment started. I think those points still exist, but they don't count toward the total score anymore; they only act as a tiebreaker if two students have the exact same number.
That's actually an improvement over how it used to be.

If you're choosing between grading Chemistry in 7th/8th grade versus Computer Science in 5th/6th grade, and I were on the school board, I wouldn't hesitate for a second if I felt the criteria actually helped select students for a program specifically focused on tech.

mellowskipper said:If that's the case, then I honestly don't get why it isn't already implemented?
I mean, basic chemistry, right?

The main reason is that they’d have to overhaul the entire school district policy.
Right now, for 5th and 6th grade, they only look at the overall GPA, whereas for 7th and 8th, they start factoring in specific subject grades.
Can you imagine the total chaos if they suddenly decided to switch things up and look at individual subject grades for 5th and 6th grade instead of just that general average? (Which, let's be honest, isn't even a super helpful metric anyway).

mellowskipper said:Well, the most logical choice would be Computer Science, but apparently, that’s an elective—so that’s off the table. That leaves us with chemistry, history, or maybe music. Honestly, it doesn't really matter; none of those subjects are actually going to help someone working as a computer technician, I suppose.

It's actually mandatory in 5th and 6th grade.
it could work...

Michelle Nelson4 said:Why on earth would it be considered wrong if a computer technician program required more points for entry than a standard high school diploma track? To me, that makes perfect sense.

What I find truly shocking, though, are the minimum score requirements for STEM-focused academies in smaller US towns. It would be fascinating to conduct a full socioeconomic study on those local populations and their specific educational preferences.

It's because for years, especially around here, the narrative has been that a liberal arts high school provides a "broader" education... so naturally, you wouldn't expect someone with mostly B's (or even lower) to enroll there. Especially not for classical studies, where kids have parents who believed in a broad education as early as middle school, pushing Latin and Greek on them, only to want to continue studying those dead languages later to maintain that breadth...
especially in a place like New York City, where everyone is supposedly a straight-A student.
But the good news is that you can get into high schools—and not just private ones—with just B's, and sometimes even more than that, so it doesn't look like everyone is an honors student.

And it definitely feels wrong that in a school where they don't demand a broad knowledge base or care about a curriculum spanning from antiquity through the Middle Ages, a student showing genuine talent and interest in math, physics, and tech stands no chance if they have more than three B's... they don't stand a chance even if they have great grades overall, provided they just couldn't care less about history or biology, leading to some C's in those subjects, perhaps mixed with some B's in electives like music.

I get that certain paths are trendy, and that mechatronics and robotics are certainly more popular now (and more lucrative in the job market) than a classical liberal arts track, but in this situation, the school should really implement entrance exams. Why let a kid slide in just because they got B's in American History and a foreign language, when they absolutely crush the very subjects the school will focus on so narrowly?
Especially since we know that middle schools vary wildly in the level of math and physics the kids receive, so those A's are definitely not all created equal.

Kate Jackson4 said:Here is the link containing last year's admission point requirements

This is honestly so fascinating to watch...🤣

It’s especially true once you start heading out of Washington, D.C., or any of the bigger metropolitan areas.
It’s interesting to look at how admissions work these days. You have private and Catholic high schools that accept students with all sorts of different grade point averages, but then you look at the classical academies—which used to be the gold standard and the most rigorous option back in the day—and they actually seem to have the easiest entry requirements in Washington, D.C., especially if you're looking at the advanced language tracks. 🤦)

Everything feels totally upside down right now.
I was looking at the latest numbers for the technician position in accounting and mechatronics over at Mount Rushmore, and someone just jumped in with a 76—which actually puts them at 77.35 total points. It looks like they pulled a couple of Cs in those core subjects, which really shaped the final score. 😲
They’re probably going to have to bring back entrance exams. 🤣

Kate Jackson4 said:Computer science is a massive draw right now. If I recall correctly, last year you couldn't even dream of getting into a program in a major city like Chicago with fewer than 70 points... maybe 72 at least, and if you were aiming for a top-tier school like MIT, you'd need even more to account for the decimals.

I don't think they've released last year's official cutoff tables yet; I can't find them anywhere online.

The scoring is based on American History, a foreign language, the MAT, Chemistry, Physics, and technical subjects.

Honestly, skipping the entrance exam entirely? That just doesn't seem right at all.
I’ve been thinking about this, and I suspect that potential technicians might struggle most with the NASA entrance exams—specifically those core technical assessments—rather than anything else. Another real hurdle could be a language barrier, especially if English isn't their first language.
And just like that, those decimals start piling up...
Honestly, without an entrance exam, it’s a bit of a gamble. You never really know what kind of math and phys background someone is bringing to the table, or what specific topics they're expected to master as they move forward.
The grading criteria—and honestly, even the lectures and project requirements themselves—feel incredibly inconsistent. It’s all over the place.

Kate Jackson4 said:skyfall, yeah, that’s exactly where we’re headed—computer technician
NASA doesn't stand a chance unless they bring back entrance exams; last year they were accepting people with over 77 points, and there's no way they'll hit that mark again

if they implement an exam, then he might have a shot because he absolutely crushes his motherboards

but there are still those vocational technical programs... he'll find a spot somewhere

prep school academics—nearly impossible unless even these "easier" tracks introduce an entrance test🍿

That's honestly true.😕

I mean, that's just two B's in core subjects over the last two years of high school.
Which subjects do they actually count toward the score?

They definitely need to introduce an entrance exam.

Kenneth Brown5 said:So, my daughter spent half the semester reading the exact same novel three different times—does that strike anyone else as totally bizarre given her mountain of other schoolwork and extracurriculars?
Basically, it was assigned reading, but the teacher kept the specific requirements a total mystery.
Like, she’d finish the book, then halfway through the month, the teacher would drop a random assignment on them, forcing her to go back through the pages just to hunt down specific quotes for some poster project or whatever.
Then, in the final week, they finally specified how many examples they needed, and since she didn't have enough from her previous passes, she had to dive back in yet again.
I’m not going to get into the specifics of what she actually had to find, just so she doesn't recognize her own story.
Has anyone ever dealt with anything even more chaotic than this?
Kids should be getting lost in stories for fun, not treating reading like a repetitive scavenger hunt for homework.
And honestly, it's tough knowing when to step in when you feel like these assignments are just making them lose interest in everything.

It definitely isn't normal to read a book three times in such a short window because you end up forgetting the plot anyway.
Plus, it shouldn't be the case that assignments require hunting for tiny details in the text rather than actually remembering the story.

People have tried to convince me on this thread that "creative assignments" encourage kids to do research and that it's a great way to process a book (but there's zero actual research on whether kids are actually reading more or less because of it, since no one bothers to ask the students themselves).

In my opinion, book assignments should spark a love for reading, comprehension, retelling stories, or writing essays... but apparently, those aren't "popular" with kids or parents anymore. That's why we see all these posters, drawings, and even making videos these days.😬

urbantinker8 said:school for life—honestly, a total disaster right from the jump.
man, if only everyone who stood out in the town square singing those idealistic anthems back in the day had actually realized what was coming...
and so on... I guess we’re just left dealing with the mess we have now.

Well, we didn't know better at the time. We were out there singing in 2016 and 2017.
The real "school of life" experience actually started in 2020.
From what I can see, nobody is even bothering to run evaluations to figure out what’s working, what isn't, or what needs to be fixed...

Teachers did their training online and were given total autonomy to teach whatever they wanted. Then the pandemic hit, which basically gave kids the chance to educate themselves online anyway.
Regardless, the people who kicked off this reform aren't the ones seeing it through to the end. (I wonder how Divjak felt listening to us chanting for more computer science classes...)
Plus, the people implementing it now are getting even more momentum from pushy parents wanting specific things. 😍

By the way, if I remember correctly, back in the 2016 working group, they suggested Stulic as a reading option—though he ended up declining to be part of the curriculum himself. 🤣 But if we were making a song about the reading list, it might go something like this:

"Why don't they ever cut the power to primates?
Since they rarely pick up a book anyway.
And when they do read, it's usually the wrong stuff.
So why not just pull the plug on their electricity?"

rowdypanther12 said:isuse 😂
They're basically the people who sanitize bananas and oranges.

I mean, obviously they aren't going to read on a screen—you'll go blind from that. Just give them a Kindle and they'll read properly 😁

And who would actually need to get one? 🤔

If we're talking about kids who struggle to access certain books, it's unlikely they have a Kindle sitting around at home. Maybe I'm wrong, though. In my own circle, I'm one of the few who owns one (my friends have a few more, but it's still a small group). Most of us use it when we travel because, honestly, you can "pack more books and change your mind along the way." But I don't know anyone who uses *only* a Kindle.
It's the same for a child—or if you're just bummed because you couldn't borrow something in time... maybe I'm totally off base here. But it's such a great little gadget.🙏

I've also tried audiobooks... they're a nice idea if you're walking a lot (and I do quite a bit of walking around town), but I just couldn't really get into them. There are too many distractions around you. Too much noise.
As for listening at home, it feels way too slow for me; I tend to breeze through things much faster than that.
I'm still a paper book person at heart.

Larry Walker24 said:So I guess they don't care about using hand-me-down textbooks from last year's class?

Actually, it still bothers them, so they just go ahead and buy their own copies.

Most people just fall back on that vague "personal reasons" excuse... but deep down, it’s usually just about someone else having touched the paperwork.
I mean, I’m sitting here in bed reading a book I borrowed from the local library, so I honestly don't have much to add to the debate...

Jose Wells3 said:Just a quick reminder: most kids don't live in Washington, D.C., where they actually have access to free public libraries like the ones run by KPMG. For many of us, hunting down the latest required reading is a constant struggle because school libraries are equipped with the same mindset as our education system—slow, outdated, or just nonexistent altogether.

To get my hands on a specific book once, I actually had to drive to another city, sign up for a membership, and personally negotiate with the library director to secure 20 copies of the exact same title (huge thanks to her for making that happen). For some kids, I end up hitting up various local branches and collecting every single library card I can get my hands on (we currently have four in our house alone).

Take my five friends, for example. I'll bring a book from home and then rotate through them, giving each kid a different sequel over time. Why? Because if you don't, the story starts to fade. But once they finally dive in? They absolutely love it and start begging for more.

Sure, there are PDFs available now, and there's more focus on adjustable fonts, but you won't believe this... Most kids just don't want to read on a screen.

😍 🙏

Maybe start a book drive? You could put the word out on social media.

Schools in the Washington, D.C. area do things like that, and honestly, schools in the surrounding suburbs and rural areas should too. It usually happens during "National Book Month," but it could definitely happen year-round.

You’d be surprised how many parents buy books themselves because they have their own reasons for not wanting their kids using library books.
They also love to donate extras, especially required reading or duplicates they received for birthdays.