Posts by Susan James

Sarah Hall53 said:Wait, I don't think everyone actually has their classes scheduled at the exact same time as religion class, right?

Actually, those students just take their religious education outside of school hours or during a different period😬

And they form a loud enough minority to ensure that religious studies always ends up being scheduled for the first period.
It happens every single time.

An English teacher is covering math at a school in Florida

I honestly believe she knows her stuff, and the kids will be fine. If they hit a wall, parents can always step in to help out a bit—whether that's through tutoring or just sharing what they know.

It’s honestly unrealistic to expect someone with a degree from Harvard University to jump into a temporary substitute role in an elementary school, especially when their field is in such high demand. We put out job postings every few months, but we just can't get anyone to apply.

I think the school found a decent workaround for the bright students (they'll have another teacher to lean on), but we really need to realize that pushing for reforms without actually increasing teacher salaries is a losing game.
Since certain specialists are clearly in short supply, I don't see any other way besides paying them more. That's why forcing computer science on everyone doesn't make sense—not everyone is built for it—just like paying for religious studies instructors for all eight years isn't practical. And don't even get me started on adding extra elective subjects.
We need to redirect the funding differently.

Of course, we should also thank the "helicopter parents" who want everything perfect; the reality is that most people don't choose math education as a major, and even those who do often have no interest in working in public schools.

Matthew Young35 said:If people are actually looking for solutions, I’ve got one right here.
Move religious education out of the public school system and into local churches; let whoever wants to attend go, and the whole problem is solved.

I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Let's focus on fixing the actual issue within the school system itself.

In my opinion, we might actually see a shift if parents stopped opting their kids into those specific classes.

silentmason4 said:That actually sounds like a solid plan. 👍
Actually, any kind of organized setup during that time sounds good to me. It’s just unacceptable to me that a kid would be sitting stuck outside a door in the hallway or hiding in a restroom, like someone else mentioned here.

Am I really supposed to be "persistent and creative" when it comes to figuring out how to fill scheduling gaps for kids who aren't taking religion class? 😕
That’s not my job description, and frankly, it's not something I care to solve myself. I just want to know the kids are being looked after. How the administration handles it is up to the people whose actual job it is. If they think the best way to handle it is by offering a different elective, then fine by me.

Different schools handle the religious education issue in all sorts of ways.
While some parents are busy complaining that something isn't possible, in other districts, they make it work just fine.

You can either sit at home waiting for someone to solve everything according to a divine plan, or you can actually suggest a solution based on what other schools are doing or what seems practical to you.🤷

Even though I believe schools have a duty to look after the students—meaning creating a schedule that works for everyone without leaving anyone hanging—I also realize they’re often stuck in an impossible situation. They're trying to juggle conflicting needs and various parental demands, which makes scheduling a total headache.
There’s nothing wrong with a parent asking if a certain arrangement is doable, or mentioning that they heard from a friend or saw on a forum that another school handles it differently...🤔

Since I know it's entirely possible to schedule religion classes outside of standard hours (for instance, my kids haven't had any awkward gaps in their schedule for three years now), I'm really not a fan of the idea of inventing these "special" subjects that supposedly foster critical thinking.
I know there are better ways to do this. Beyond just not wanting to clutter my child's day with unnecessary classes, I don't think it's right to use a tight school budget to pay for a teacher for a "make-believe" subject that only serves five or ten kids. Regardless of the headcount, religious education is a requirement that the school has to provide.

There are other school solutions that I just can't get behind, either.
Take Summer, for example; I would never agree to let my child sit through a religion class, but I wouldn't mind at all if she spent that time in math, art, or joining another class for PE. While those other kids were in religion class, she was often in the library, sometimes with a teacher and sometimes on her own in a quiet classroom. She’d read books, draw comics, or even get some homework done (though she did find the supervision a bit boring at times).
And I definitely wouldn't want her sitting in some supervised "holding area" for two hours. She lives close enough to walk home, hang out with friends, or just sit outside in the fresh air before heading back to school.

silentmason4 said:Alright, so I was actually wondering if there’s an official rulebook or some kind of policy on this. Honestly, I feel like one should exist—it seems like such a common occurrence, and we shouldn't really be leaving it up to a random tug-of-war between the school administration and parents to decide what's fair. But as far as I can tell, there isn't one. That's just the way it is.

The rule is simply that religious studies should be treated on equal footing with other standard subjects (aside from other electives or maybe advanced math).
Everything else basically boils down to how the school interprets things and how much pressure parents apply.

If we start pushing for strict new regulations, we might end up creating a parallel curriculum system (like some of these critical viewpoints suggest). If you're being smart about this, I wouldn't recommend going down that road—not for the sake of your own kids or future generations. We already have enough to deal with in high school.
Thanks, but we don't need more complexity.
Plus, why waste taxpayer money on hiring extra staff for subjects that feel unnecessary?

That said, anything can be organized if you stay persistent and get a little creative.
Don't settle for half-baked solutions either.
Ask questions, and don't be afraid to offer your own suggestions.

Larry Walker24 said:A student isn't allowed to leave campus, so don't mess around.

If something happens to the kid, who's to blame? The school? You?

And what if they have classes until, say, 1:00 PM, and then an elective at 2:45 PM? Who’s responsible if something goes wrong during that gap?
What's really the difference between a student staying at school for six hours straight versus them coming home for lunch and heading back for an afternoon elective? Or compare that to a schedule where they have two math classes, pop home for breakfast while others are in study hall, and then come back for history and English?
Is there actually a difference?
They left the building and came right back. 🤷

I totally get why this is a headache for elementary schools—especially those early grades—but I don't see it being such a huge issue for high schools when kids are just returning for their electives.

The issue with the younger kids could be solved easily by scheduling study hall during their downtime so they stay under supervision (even if they're just outside). For the older kids, you can just schedule their classes at the very beginning or end of the day. If that's not possible because of how the single-session schedules work, then just let them hang out outside or provide a common area for them. A school that's genuinely terrified of a kid getting into a car accident during a free period will go to extreme lengths to ensure that gap period never even exists in the first place...

silentmason4 said:Yeah, I actually went ahead and double-checked, and I got the exact same answer—it’s just not explicitly laid out in the regulations. Since there isn't a formal rule on it, it really just boils down to how much leeway the principal gives you or how much a parent decides to push for it, which is pretty much what the SBA says.

It honestly depends on the principal, the overall school culture, and how the other teachers feel about it. In elementary schools, it's pretty common for teachers to let kids sit in on a different class for a bit so they can follow along. I remember when I was little, I used to head over to a higher grade for math sometimes, and we always had a blast when we got to join a different second-grade class for PE.

rowdypanther12 said:I really hope this kind of nonsense stays far away from my kid.

🙏
🙂

silentmason4 said:I've been wondering lately—is there actually any legal ground to stand on when it comes to school scheduling? Like, is there a specific law or a set of district regulations I could point to if I wanted to complain about a totally nonsensical timetable? For instance, imagine a situation where religion class is squeezed right into the middle of the regular school day for a class where half the kids aren't even enrolled in it. It just feels so disjointed.

Back before the pandemic, just after some local strikes, I actually chatted with a religion teacher. They told me they’ve spent their entire career working with split shifts, calling it a total blessing. Apparently, you can prep everything at home in the morning, make lunch, and then finish up by 4 PM just in time to greet your own kids when they get home.
In the large high school where they teach, the students always end up with religious studies either first thing in the morning or as their very last period, depending on the shift.
I’m honestly not sure if the school is violating any specific rules here. 🤔

It is totally possible to build a schedule without gaps, and it really comes down to accommodating the teachers' preferences.

If you run into those teachers who love having that mid-day break, you'll end up with a seamless schedule for the kids with no empty periods.
But if you have teachers who want to wrap up their workday by noon, and it's a single-shift school, then a lucky few will get first period while everyone else gets stuck whenever the schedule allows.
Even in a single-shift setup, you could probably arrange it so classes are only at the start or end of the day, but then the teachers would be left with huge gaps... and honestly, I'd much rather have the kids running through the halls than have the teachers sitting around waiting. 😬

Rebecca Diaz said:If you can remember which specific schools you're talking about, please shoot me a DM. I'm pretty sure they're violating regulations.

What kind of violation are we talking about? 🍿

Frank Diaz6 said:Hey everyone! So, I’m officially enrolling this year, and I wanted to pick the brains of anyone who’s been through this before. I’m currently torn between choosing a science-focused high school in Des Moines or heading to the University of Chicago in San Diego. I’m originally from San Diego, and my big dream is to go into medicine. My top choice is definitely the school in Des Moines because their curriculum is super heavy on the sciences you actually need for med school, plus they’re known as one of the top schools in the US. The catch? Some people think I’m being a bit extra by planning to move three hours away from home when I'm only 15. Honestly, I’m feeling pretty optimistic about getting in despite the entrance exams, though! On the other hand, the University of Chicago option has amazing stats for national exams, but I really don't want to spend four straight years drowning in nothing but computer science and math. Also, looking at the big picture, I feel like moving to NYC and living in a dorm might actually be better for my mental health. If anyone has any advice or has been in a similar spot, please help a girl out! 🙏

Honestly, if you don't make it through the entrance exam, then that school probably wasn't the right fit for you anyway.🤷

Regarding housing... living in a dorm and being far from home definitely has its pros and cons. One big plus is that you'll have built-in study support, but the downside is the strict set of rules. It's much easier to avoid those kinds of restrictions if you're still living with your parents (like curfews or check-in times). You'll likely have your own room, but you still have to deal with whoever you end up rooming with, and you'll be sharing common areas like bathrooms, which means dealing with waiting your turn and adjusting to other people's hygiene habits.
If you're looking to get some distance from home, choosing the school in Des Moines sounds like a solid move.

Back in my high school, we had two girls who moved from out of town. One of them struggled so much she ended up dropping out during the first semester—it turned out her group of friends back home was miles away from the social circle we had here. The other girl finished the program; she had a rough start too, but we didn't know her all that well since she went home every weekend.
I think those differences are becoming less common now, but you can always find out more through the entrance process if there are any major hurdles.

I'd definitely recommend asking about the dorm rules, especially regarding how they handle weekends. Being part of a social group is so important at that age, especially making friends with your classmates, but if the dorm has super strict weekend policies, it can feel like total hell.
And honestly, just the daily stuff, like coming home after school or dealing with late arrivals...

Michelle Nelson4 said:Well, look, I honestly think the only real fix is the one thing everyone seems to be avoiding—switching to full-day schooling. It would just expand the daily block of hours available. Personally, I don’t quite wrap my head around why they’d limit the mandatory hours based on whether a subject is categorized as an elective; it feels like those hours should still count toward their total load, right? My kids don't even bother with electives, except for my son, who is absolutely obsessed with computer science. For them, having a one-hour gap twice a week (or letting them sleep in a bit later, which they actually got lucky enough to experience once this year!) isn't some huge issue at all.

haha 😕

I'm not actually looking for more hours in other subjects; you could easily scale back religious studies.
The schools wouldn't lose anything if it were just once a week or if they didn't start teaching it until 5th grade.
Besides, having more frequent social studies and history classes would be much better.🤷

Michelle Nelson4 said:For periods 5 and 6, they alternate between science and geography. It’s basically 1.5 hours each, so one week you're looking at 2 hours of science and an hour of geography, and the following week it just flips.
By periods 7 and 8, things actually pick up a bit because they have biology, chemistry, and physics all scheduled for 2 hours a week, which honestly feels pretty reasonable.

Yeah, I totally blanked on how it was actually set up.
But even then, it’s still less time than religion class, which gets two full hours every single week.

Andrew Doyle said:I’m not exaggerating here, Susan James, I’m speaking from direct experience. In reality, things vary because you can't make everything align perfectly every single time, but if we are talking about actual benefits and quality of education, the homeroom teacher absolutely needs to be physically present as much as possible.
And the fact that students only get one hour of character education a week while religious studies gets two? We can thank certain people from the mid-90s political era for that mess.
But look, we can sit here and vent all we want, but those interests have metastasized deep within the system, and there isn't even a hint that things will change. Honestly, it wouldn't even surprise me if they decided to cut biology hours next. They could just explain all that science stuff during religious studies anyway.👍
As for absences—the specific examples we see in practice are never even up for debate when it comes to grading, so there's really nothing to worry about on that front.

I personally feel terrible that art and music hours were cut, and that kids in middle school end up with less math and English just so they can fit in a foreign language.
Just because religious instructors have spread themselves thin across schools (and their colleges are churning them out in massive numbers), it doesn't mean we should give them extra hours through homeroom duties.
Parents often agree to these setups hoping the instructor will be a good influence. But being a "good person" has nothing to do with the fact that they are major budget consumers. If you look at the cost of their hours over eight years, you could basically fund four biology professors or pay two of them double.
(By the way, science hours were already cut down to just once a week in fifth grade)

Between a religious instructor who works at only one school and, say, a geography teacher who splits time between two, and both need to fill their schedule via homeroom assignments—I’d much rather use those hours to support the geography teacher. They might not be on campus every single day, but they were hired under different circumstances than the religious instructors.
Plus, everyone takes geography all the way through eighth grade, whereas religion isn't necessarily a constant for everyone.

Also, anyone with a full teaching load is physically present. Those who have to pick up extra classes at another school obviously aren't, but that isn't always the case with subjects taught only once a week. Actually, in my experience with math, it's often easier to fill a schedule at your home school with math than with subjects taught twice a week... unless you're teaching specific combinations of classes.

I get what Mad is saying regarding small, rural schools where there's practically no choice, but in a place like Washington, D.C., there are plenty of options.

Andrew Doyle said:The internet and a smartphone can never, under any circumstances, serve as a substitute for having a teacher physically present in an American classroom.

Regarding the suggestion for block scheduling: that recommendation comes directly from the specialists themselves—specifically the art professionals—as well as the agency. It isn't a strict requirement, but whenever it’s feasible, which it usually is, we opt for block sessions.
And let me be clear: if a student is sick or dealing with whatever else is mentioned, they don't just lose the entire subject for a whole month.

How on earth do you think it's easy for students to end up without grades? 🤔 I don't get it. There is a specific allowed percentage of absences over the course of the school year before that kind of scenario even becomes a possibility. How and why would that ever happen? 🤷

I absolutely refuse to agree with the notion that this "isn't a particularly important subject." In fact, saying that is just pure intellectual bankruptcy—but fine, that's beside the point.

I think you might be exaggerating a little bit there!
I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I honestly don't see why a homeroom teacher should have to be on call 24/7. They already have their dedicated advisory period during the school day, and there's usually a clear schedule for when information is released. Who exactly needs them to be available at all hours? It feels like we should respect those boundaries a bit more.
What exactly needs to happen for a teacher to be required to be physically present on campus right this second?
If we’re talking about a crisis intervention, you just give them a call and they show up. It doesn't matter if the kid is stuck in a different period at school or just hanging out at home—they'll be there. Most people would step up simply because it's the right thing to do, driven by basic human compassion rather than some official job description. It’s about responding when a child is truly suffering, not just following a manual.

Everything else can honestly wait. This is really something for the professor who was in class at the time to handle, along with the school administration—there’s always someone on campus to deal with these things. As for the homeroom teacher, you can just give them a quick heads-up via phone or email. You don't need to go out of your way to disturb them; just let them know what happened and catch them up when they're back in the building a day or two later. 🤷

Most subjects only meet for two hours a week, which really increases the chances of being assigned as a homeroom teacher. Meanwhile, core classes like Math or English usually have four hours scheduled, and even when they fill up the standard timetable, they often end up running extra tutoring or after-school sessions anyway. Honestly, it feels like a waste to have teachers give up those extra teaching hours just so they can qualify for the homeroom roles. If I were running the school, I’d much rather offer them more supplemental teaching opportunities than push the homeroom assignments.
I know most parents tend to think it’s best to have a homeroom teacher who is easy to get to know—someone they can actually connect with and see more often, especially since that person is basically always right there at the school.

I think you might be referring to fine arts! It’s such a fascinating subject to dive into. I’ve always found that exploring different art movements can be so grounding—it's like a little mental escape. Whether it's visiting a local gallery or just browsing a museum online, there's always something new to discover. Is there a specific style or artist you're interested in?
Take a situation like this, for example: a kid might be constantly traveling for competitions outside of school. They have a legitimate right to miss class, so let's say they end up being out on a Monday. If that happens to fall on a subject they only take once every two weeks—and then, if you're really unlucky, it lines up with a federal holiday or a teacher being out sick—they basically miss the entire unit. It's one of those frustrating coincidences where everything just hits at once.
I really love the suggestion to switch things up—I’m fully on board with the idea of doing two-hour sessions for art projects rather than just chipping away at them for an hour every week. Honestly, some of the kids don't even have enough space at home to store half-finished pieces once they start them! It feels like such a waste to only have one hour of art a week, especially when we're currently jumping between weekly sessions and those bi-weekly block periods. It would be so much better if we could just have that dedicated block hour every single week instead.
Even if we weren't officially off today, we’d still have two hours of religion class every week for all eight grades. 😍

Andrew Doyle said:The real issue here arises when an instructor isn't physically present in the classroom on a regular basis—especially those teaching social studies or advisory courses. Being a homeroom teacher is an incredibly demanding role; when an incident occurs, the responsibility falls squarely on that individual first. It is completely unacceptable for a teacher to be left out of the loop, only finding out about a situation several days after the fact, or being unable to intervene effectively because they simply aren't there to handle things in real-time.

(Regarding those social studies courses, the recommendation for block scheduling isn't some leftover relic from pandemic-era mandates; it’s a professional pedagogical recommendation based specifically on the nature of the subject matter itself.)

In an age where everyone has a smartphone and constant internet access? 😕
Sorry, but that’s a totally weak argument (and honestly, I thought it was weak ten years ago too, even back then when we were talking about physics or chemistry—at that particular school, certain teachers didn't have full schedules, so they weren't physically there every day)

Plus, what happens when the school runs on shifts (which most do)? A homeroom teacher might not even be on shift that day, or they might have a light schedule and head home early.

By that logic, religion teachers should all be homeroom advisors since they're always at school, and they might have known the class since elementary school.🙄

I get that block scheduling lets you squeeze in more than one hour per week, but what if a student is sick for a week, and then there's a holiday the following week? They could go a whole month without the subject! Okay, maybe it’s not the most critical class, but for some kids, art is their favorite thing, and they really miss it when it’s gone. It also makes it easy for them to end up with no grade (and you can run into issues with absences, which is a nightmare if the class only meets twice a month)... based on what is that recommendation even built on? (Though, personally, I'm a fan of block scheduling for those two-hour subjects; during the pandemic, it worked great for things like geography or science. Fewer books to carry and less studying once a week.)
And just to be clear, I'm not being negative—block scheduling is great, especially for religion classes. It makes the master schedule much easier to manage outside of regular hours (plus all those perks I mentioned, like carrying fewer books and having less daily memorization).

Andrew Doyle said:She could just as easily turn the question back on you, because having only three hours of tech class a week is a relic of the past.😳
The reality of modern American schooling is that tech and art teachers rotate through different grades constantly, so most of them are just handling one block period every other week.

Her child is a year older than mine, which is why I was asking.
Yeah, I know tech and art are scheduled for one hour a week. As for the block scheduling, that really depends on the school district; right now, most schools seem to be doing it because of those post-pandemic guidelines, but it's not necessarily the standard everywhere.

Also, I've noticed that a lot of the tech teachers actually teach robotics (they take the kids to competitions), computer science, physics, or even math... their schedules get filled up in different ways, so they rarely get assigned as homeroom teachers anymore.

Personally, I don't mind how many hours a week a homeroom teacher spends with a student—and honestly, I still find it hard to wrap my head around the idea of "getting to know" a kid that way—but if they never see them at all, that’s definitely an issue.
Though, that concern feels a bit smaller when we're talking about electives like computer science in middle school rather than something like religious studies, which falls into its own special elective category. 😬

mistydrifter73 said:It totally happens. Back in my high school, the French teacher was the homeroom advisor for a class where most kids weren't even taking French.

EDIT. It's pretty much the same situation as what Sarah Hall53 mentioned. Small town vibes, similar logic.

But she used Washington, D.C. as her example.
It’s definitely not a small school (they have classes ranging from A through D).
And being a German teacher isn't really the same thing as being a Social Studies teacher.

I get the feeling not many people actually want to be a homeroom teacher, but I wouldn't want a Religion teacher handling that role for a kid.

mellowskipper said:And what happens when the homeroom teacher is just some elective language instructor that the kid didn't even pick? It still boils down to seeing them once a week for advisory.

In my middle school, my homeroom teacher taught shop class. So, it was basically a block period every two weeks and then advisory once a week. Everything worked out fine.

What year did you graduate?
I used to have three hours of shop class a week. 🤔
I still clearly remember those long block periods during the afternoon shift and just zoning out.

Personally, I don't see any issue with homeroom teachers being from "elective" subjects or classes that only meet once a week. But I'm telling you, some parents really take issue with it. When I first heard people complaining about this, my kid was still in preschool; honestly, there might be even more demanding parents today because people just expect so much more these days.

A lot of the shop teachers nowadays fill their schedules teaching physics or computer science, or running robotics clubs, so they don't really have the extra bandwidth to take on homeroom duties. However, art or music teachers are totally fine candidates—they actually struggle to get enough hours, even with choirs and art clubs.
Actually, it’s probably better if the role goes to someone teaching a lighter subject. Even if they lose their art club time because of the homeroom responsibilities, it's better than a math teacher missing out on extra pay or prep time because they're stuck being a homeroom teacher.
Though, religious studies doesn't really fall into that category.

The whole thing regarding foreign language teachers getting homeroom roles seems a bit odd too, but it makes sense since their class numbers can drop suddenly if students unenroll. That doesn't happen with religious studies because every grade level has that class regardless of how many kids are enrolled.

But a language teacher isn't the same as a religious studies teacher.
They aren't hired under the same circumstances.

hiddendriver34 said:I honestly don’t get how a homeroom teacher can just sit there and teach absolutely nothing to their students. It makes it impossible for them to actually bond with the kid. 🤷 On top of that, if the parents are totally at odds with everything that teacher stands for, how is that even supposed to work? What kind of relationship is that?

I’ve seen this happen before with a Religious Studies teacher, but that was strictly within a private religious academy setting. This situation feels incredibly bizarre.

It strikes me as odd that they moved kids around different classes based on language requirements, and I still can't wrap my head around why.😕

You actually reminded me of that point about how a homeroom teacher can't bond with a student if they aren't teaching them... A friend of mine who works in a school once told me how parents sometimes complain when the art or music teachers are assigned as homeroom teachers. They feel like since they only see the kids for one hour a week, there isn't enough time to build a connection. They want someone who will "see" their child more frequently during the week. She actually saw this happen once where parents successfully pushed to change a homeroom teacher because the professor was splitting his time between two different schools, so he wasn't physically present every day. Personally, I thought that sounded like a silly reason, but it mattered to those parents, and the principal ended up respecting their concerns at the time.
The people teaching elective subjects aren't ideal, mostly because their schedules are so hectic, even if they do lead some extracurricular activities.

Back when I was in school, I had a split schedule with English, and I remember it being such a huge downside that the teacher would spend our actual lesson time dealing with administrative issues instead of teaching, which meant we lost out on learning. From that perspective, "elective" subjects seem like better candidates for homeroom than math, history, or foreign languages—but religious studies definitely isn't one of them (especially if you have a kid who won't ever see the teacher except during Religious Studies class).