Posts by Susan James

goldentrucker18 said:Skyfall, thanks. I slept on this info, and honestly, we feel a bit better now. Plus, reading about this experience (and I know we aren't the only ones stuck in a spot like this) helps.
It makes me think—even if a person is actually being decent, you still have those teachers (art, English, physics, etc.) who can be total jerks, unfair, or just plain difficult.

Susan James, thank you for the support too. That's exactly how I'm looking at it, and I hold the same view (it's unacceptable for someone to lead a class when they weren't hired by the school in the same way the other teachers were; if someone is religious, they should practice at their own church, etc.), but there are other (stressful, life-related) things piling up right now, so we decided at home: if anything, *anything* happens, we react. As long as the communication and information remain professional, we'll be fine. We could just as easily end up with a geography teacher or a physics teacher that we'd have much bigger problems and stress with over something totally trivial.

But, if you're asking if we were shocked, yes, we were. We talk to our girl a lot, and she already knows why she isn't doing Religious Studies—because we don't want to raise her in fear, etc. If she wants to participate when she's older, that will be her choice. She already knows how to stand her ground (and does it brilliantly, which makes me proud) when other kids try to intimidate her or exclude her because she doesn't go, but she handles it without a fight and just goes: "if I don't bother you with stuff I believe in, don't bother me with yours."

Is she the only one in class not attending?
What do the other parents think about the homeroom teacher being the religious instructor?

Homeroom teachers can be unfair or jerks, but the difference between a physics teacher and a religious studies teacher is how they were hired and, if they turn out to be a "jerk," how they'll (and if they will) be held accountable for leaving that position.
I know many parents don't realize that hiring detail, but it doesn't justify a principal assigning them the homeroom role just because "nobody else wants it" or "they need to fill hours."
I could understand the first part, but the principal really needs to communicate that clearly with the parents. Maybe the whole class is on board, but if even one parent is against it, man, it shouldn't happen...
The second point isn't really the school administration's fault; in that case, the instructor should reach out to their supervisor and ask for a transfer to another school or find ways to fill their hours through other teaching roles...

Don't think for a second that you as a parent don't have any influence on choosing the homeroom teacher. You do—it might be small, but it isn't insignificant. And I think you should voice your opinion if nothing else.
Besides, we're all against dragging the church into everything...

The homeroom teacher goes on field trips with them, manages the IRS paperwork, and might even try to settle classroom issues during Religious Studies class instead of regular time, which would leave your kid excluded... During Religious Studies, the curriculum is supposed to cover various life topics, which they'll teach based on their own views and education—whether they want to or not—depending on how much effort they put in...
Of course, a geography teacher could also be super narrow-minded and talk about pro-life issues during Religious Studies because, hey, they have the homeroom role, but the probability of a religious instructor pushing those views is higher... plus, they "get away" with it because they don't report to the principal; even if the parent complains, the principal won't call them out—Vatican City would, and they'd probably just reward them instead of disciplining them.
And so 🥳

goldentrucker18 said:Hey everyone. It’s been a minute since I’ve checked in here, but I ended up popping back in while searching for some info on homeroom religious studies teachers.
So, I just found out that my daughter’s homeroom teacher from fifth through eighth grade is going to be the religious studies instructor. Honestly, I can’t even begin to wrap my head around the potential friction. What happens if they only ever cross paths during SRZ? Like, how is this teacher actually supposed to advocate for her if, say, she runs into issues with her biology teacher? Has anyone else dealt with this kind of setup? How did it play out for you?
I’m really crossing my fingers that this person is reasonable.
To be blunt, my biggest fear is a lack of tolerance toward "her"—you know, being an atheist—and the possibility of them pushing specific agendas during SRZ sessions and stuff like that.
Since SRZ will be their only common ground, I’m struggling to understand the logic here. I have no clue how the administration at this school thinks this is going to work smoothly—they already shuffled kids from all four different tracks—4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D—just because of foreign language electives.
PS. This is happening in Washington, D.C.

Hmm. I'm not quite sure what to tell you.
Personally, I wouldn't be okay with that. I'd probably even consider pulling my kid out of the school altogether... if they've already moved the kids around because of language requirements, she's likely losing friends regardless. That said, I think this is definitely something that needs to be addressed directly with the administration.
Actually, if they rearranged the classes based on languages, could you request that she be placed in a class led by a non-religious studies teacher instead? There are still three other classes she could potentially join.
Forget the foreign language requirement; if it's that much of a hassle, just pull her out if there isn't another way to make it work (I honestly don't get how they managed to shuffle them all around like that 😕)

It isn't just about whether the homeroom teacher sees her in Religious Studies or whether he fails to advocate for her because she's an atheist (or just doesn't know him). In my view, it's ultimately the parent's job to step up for their child. A homeroom teacher is mostly a bureaucrat who handles attendance and organizes field trips. It feels wrong to me that the homeroom role is being filled by someone who didn't go through the same hiring process as the rest of the faculty (and consequently has a different schedule because they teach at Vatican City. Choosing to teach at Vatican City is for Religious Studies, not for homeroom duties).
Plus, it seems wrong that he'll be leading those Religious Studies classes where certain topics are discussed, which—no matter how liberal or reasonable he is—are handled differently through a religious lens.

Since this is in Washington, D.C., I would personally send an email to City Hall. At the end of the day, they are the ones in charge, and I still find myself hoping they'll show some common sense here.
Also, check who is on your school board, especially the representative from the city, and reach out to them.

(He probably just needs more hours in his schedule, but he shouldn't have to fill them by taking on homeroom duties.)

Ryan Thomas7 said:Are you talking about the English immersion program over at the academy? I think that’s a recent change. Last year, they only required an English proficiency test. I have two friends whose kids applied to that specific program last year, and as far as I can recall, neither of them mentioned having to take a math exam.

Lincoln High offers both the advanced STEM track and the regular program.
For the STEM track, they organized a math entrance exam this year.
As for the English immersion program—which is available for both tracks—they've actually been holding entrance exams for that for quite a while now.

rowdypanther12 said:I'm hoping they'll start offering language courses soon too. 😁

I feel the same way! I really hope that language programs—and honestly, any school offering a second language throughout all four years—allow students to take an entrance exam specifically for that second language. It would make so much sense to create more advanced track classes based on those results. They could even offer extra credit or priority to students who commit to studying that language at a higher level. It’s mostly about fine-tuning those GPA nuances, but it matters, especially when middle schools are already pushing two different foreign languages on kids.

For schools that have specialized tracks where most instruction is in another language, they currently require an entrance exam for that subject, but you first have to meet the general enrollment cutoff. In my opinion, it would be much better if students just had to hit a specific proficiency threshold instead. This year, tenth graders had to pass math and use their middle school grades before they were even allowed to sit for the English exam, which feels a bit redundant... especially since many have already passed language certifications from private academies after years of study.🤷

Also, I was actually surprised to see that a top-tier prep school like Lincoln High didn't even hold an entrance exam for their English immersion track this year...

Sarah Hall53 said:Kids heading into middle school—grades 5 through 8—have already had their fair share of computer classes. For those entering 5th grade, it was an elective they could've picked up as early as 3rd grade, while the kids moving into 8th grade had it as a mandatory part of the curriculum back in 5th and 6th.
And honestly? You can’t just cut kids off from the internet entirely—I mean, let's be real, it's impossible—so the next best move is just trying to teach them how to use it responsibly.
That includes knowing how to actually search for things, too.
What you guys are all debating over on Moonlight right now—Moonlight, pun intended, I know—is basically "project-based learning." It’s this super hyped-up method where the teacher explains the basics first, then hands out a detailed assignment, and the student learns everything else by researching what they need to get the job done. Theory suggests that information retention and making real connections happens most effectively when you learn that way—by working independently on a concrete task.

When kids are assigned research tasks that require them to dive into the online world, it’s actually the perfect "teachable moment" to talk about digital responsibility. Instead of just letting them loose on Google, I like to think of it as teaching them how to be smart investigators rather than just passive readers. One thing I've found helpful is treating them like junior journalists. When they find a piece of information, I ask them, "How do you know this is true?" or "Who wrote this?" It turns a simple search into a bit of a detective game. It helps them understand that not everything they see on a screen is a fact, which is such a vital skill to have these days. I also try to emphasize the importance of citing their sources early on. I remember when my own kids were starting school projects; they used to just copy and paste everything without a second thought. Now, we talk about giving credit where it's due, almost like how an author would credit a researcher. It builds that sense of integrity from a young age. It’s all about guiding them to navigate the web with a bit of skepticism and a lot of curiosity. If we frame it as gaining a superpower—the power to find the truth—they tend to engage with it much more positively! Just hanging out at home. 🤔

Sarah Hall53 said:Kids heading into middle school—grades 5 through 8—have already had their fair share of computer classes. For those entering 5th grade, it was an elective they could've picked up as early as 3rd grade, while the kids moving into 8th grade had it as a mandatory part of the curriculum back in 5th and 6th.
And honestly? You can’t just cut kids off from the internet entirely—I mean, let's be real, it's impossible—so the next best move is just trying to teach them how to use it responsibly.
That includes knowing how to actually search for things, too.
What you guys are all debating over on Moonlight right now—Moonlight, pun intended, I know—is basically "project-based learning." It’s this super hyped-up method where the teacher explains the basics first, then hands out a detailed assignment, and the student learns everything else by researching what they need to get the job done. Theory suggests that information retention and making real connections happens most effectively when you learn that way—by working independently on a concrete task.

I’ve always believed that nothing beats hands-on experience when it comes to actually learning something. You can read all the manuals you want, but you don't truly get it until you roll up your sleeves and dive in. It reminds me of when I first tried to fix a leaky sink in my kitchen; no amount of YouTube tutorials could prepare me for how tricky those pipes actually were! Real-world application is where the magic happens.
But honestly, you can't just jump into that without a ton of groundwork. It takes a lot more preparation than people realize—you have to look at the environment, the specific circumstances, and most importantly, the child's own unique traits. It’s not just about their cognitive skills or what they already know; a huge factor is whether they actually show a genuine interest in the subject they're exploring on their own. If the spark isn't there, all the prep in the world won't make it stick.

I just want to echo a point made in that book about the Swedish education model: in a system like that, the kids who really thrive are the ones who have extra resources waiting for them outside the classroom—usually through their parents. It doesn’t always mean parents are sitting there helping with specific homework assignments (though that's how most people see it). To me, the real secret sauce is the indirect support. It’s the stuff that happens years before they even step foot in kindergarten and continues long after they graduate. I'm talking about things like reading picture books together, weekend trips to the museum, or catching a show at the local theater. That foundation makes all the difference.
If you want a kid to sit still for an hour, totally absorbed in a tablet or a good encyclopedia, someone really has to spark that initial curiosity. It doesn’t just happen by magic. If they didn't have a teacher who was genuinely pumped about the subject matter—or if the teacher was just going through the motions—it's a tough sell. Plus, if the child isn't already naturally curious about that specific topic, getting them to dive into independent research is an uphill battle. I remember when my nephew was little; unless we found a way to make the subject feel like a game, he’d lose interest in five minutes flat. Without that early nudge or a passionate mentor, it’s hard for them to find that joy in exploring things on their own.
I really feel like professors need to be more intuitive. If they see that kids just aren't vibing with a particular topic, they should have the sense to pivot. Instead of forcing a failing research project just to check a box for some academic advisor, why not try a different approach? It’s frustrating when instructors just write off an entire generation as "lazy" or "uninterested" when, in reality, the method itself just isn't working. From what I can see, that seems to be the go-to excuse far too often.

rustybison462 said:It honestly baffles me that there are teachers out there who just hand out an assignment and then completely check out. Honestly, good for them if they managed to land a job at a school with parents like these.

Me? No. I have to provide hyper-detailed instructions. I basically have to end every single prompt with a bolded note saying they can contact me any time of the day or night if they’re confused or need help. The deadline has to be practically infinite, and I have to offer two separate windows for submission. Only if they fail to turn in anything whatsoever by the second deadline am I allowed to give them a failing grade. Oh, and I almost forgot—I also have to offer them the chance that if they submit by the first deadline, I’ll review it, suggest a grade, list what needs fixing for a better score, and then they have until the next deadline to fix it. Those who wait until the second deadline don't get that luxury.

And even after I go through all that ridiculousness, I'm still certain I won't escape the constant nagging from parents, homeroom teachers, principals, and the administration.

Unfortunately, most students are so lazy that even this level of hand-holding doesn't help them get decent grades. They act like such "know-it-alls," yet they message me constantly because they can't find anything on Google or don't know how to talk to anyone.

It really is terrible. In this age of the internet, it's insane how many kids genuinely don't know how to search for things or even use PowerPoint—even though they've been taking computer classes since elementary school.

It's actually quite alarming how many adults today struggle to find reliable information or lack the critical thinking skills to filter through what they find. If they did know how, we wouldn't see such a massive rise in conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers (but that's a whole different conversation, though it's the main focus of the book I linked).

What's also troubling is seeing adults demand from their children the exact same thing they themselves struggle with—trying to sift through the endless flood of digital content and noise.

I'm not saying all information should only come from old-school encyclopedias, but I do believe that when kids are researching online, they need expert guidance and adult supervision.
Back in the day, around 2007 🤔, the standard advice was to supervise kids online and keep the family computer in the living room to keep things transparent. Smartphones changed all that. Now, instead of that caution, some experts have started giving much bolder instructions: telling kids to use the internet more frequently and more intensely for educational purposes 🙏
.
Computer science wasn't even part of the standard curriculum back when the current middle schoolers were starting out.
The kids currently in 5th through 8th grade didn't have those classes early on.
The high schoolers today had it as an elective during their middle school years, provided the schools had the staffing and scheduling to offer it.
To be clear, I don't think "internet research" should be its own standalone subject in a computer lab. I'm totally fine with students using computers during regular class time—once they've mastered the core concepts—to dig deeper into a topic under a teacher's watchful eye.
But letting them wander aimlessly through Wikipedia on their own? 🙄🤦
(Honestly, I bet even Banozic used Wikipedia while working on his doctorate 😬, which means kids today might follow a teacher's blunt advice to hunt through digital rabbit holes, essentially modeling the behavior of highly educated professionals who accidentally include flawed data in their dissertations.
)
Before you start throwing pedagogical shade at kids for being "lazy" or "incapable," maybe try teaching them something useful or at least take responsibility for the way you're instructing them.
In my experience, all the effort spent writing guides (and even being extra direct about them) doesn't mean a thing if the assignment isn't age-appropriate or if the material hasn't even been covered in class yet.

mellowskipper said:This is definitely a step in the right direction, I suppose—but honestly, everyone is still going to be gunning for that 5.0 mark because, well, certainty is everything...

I honestly think a huge number of students who were targeting those top-tier magnet schools ended up pivoting toward general public high schools instead...
especially the ones looking to dodge the entrance exams, or maybe even the kids who took the tests but didn't exactly ace them.

At the end of the day, the more important thing is that the entrance exams provide a real opportunity for kids who actually have a knack for math, physics, and computer science—getting them into a school that can actually help them develop that potential further.

Michelle Nelson4 said:Looking at how professors handle extra credit nowadays—where they actually hold you to a standard—compared to my school days where teachers would just have us students explain the material to our classmates during makeup exams, I’d say we’re definitely moving in the right direction.

I honestly don't see the connection between the current curriculum reforms and the shortage of math teachers. The only thing that really links them is the lack of actual reform, such as offering better salaries, optimizing class sizes, and stopping this push to force people through five-year degree programs just so they can teach basic fractions to ten-year-olds. Back in the day, thirty years ago, having ten years of experience was more than enough qualification for some ☕

You mentioned you had to explain math to your kid because the teacher was absent... well, other parents end up doing the teaching because teachers are constantly rotating, which messes with the teaching strategies and leaves kids needing extra help. Others have to step in because a professor doesn't grade homework, causing kids to lose their footing, or because the classroom has turned into a free-for-all where they just work in small groups and hope kids "independently explore" via the new standards.

Regardless of the reason, if the parent is the one doing the explaining, some kids have a safety net and others don't.
There were always parents who helped their kids, but back then, it was mostly limited to those stuck with a bad teacher. Now, the need has expanded because the reforms have essentially "narrowed the workspace" for the professionals.
Then there’s the group of parents who were super involved from day one—they encouraged their kids, studied alongside them, summarized the lessons, and quizzed them, regardless of how good the teacher was.
Under these new reforms, where teachers split the class into groups for self-directed learning, it's the parent who ends up re-explaining the colorful textbook at home and simplifying the concepts... which is supposed to be the teacher's job in the classroom.

By the way, at my old high school, there used to be mandatory tutoring for "struggling" students, and if you skipped, it counted as an unexcused absence. It was strictly for those who needed it, led by the teacher. Nowadays, from what I hear, you can't get an unexcused absence for skipping tutoring, and nobody calls out kids publicly for needing extra help, so you often see just one or two students show up from a whole group of six classes...
I don't see anything wrong with "stronger" students helping out the ones who are struggling. Aside from reinforcing what they already know, it builds camaraderie and improves social bonds. I’ve had great experiences with it, both as the student being helped and the one doing the teaching. 🤷
What would be ideal is for this to be the foundation for that "inquiry-based learning" and group work, but... for a teacher to pull that off, they first need to lecture the material, ensure everyone understands the facts, and *then* assign a small research project as a way to review or build upon the lesson.
But from what I hear from the kids, that’s not really how it works; usually, it's the exact opposite.

Actually, the kids tell me that math is still taught in class through traditional lectures and explanations. So, wherever there is an actual teacher present, it shouldn't be a problem (especially if it's the same teacher year after year). The real issue is the "online, do-it-yourself" culture, which is apparently a force of nature 🤣 🤔, involving not just the kids but parents and even neighbors too.

A little update regarding entrance exams, specifically how things are looking this year in Washington, D.C.....

“I can't say for sure how many students with scores of 80 or higher ended up skipping our school, since that list was shifting every single day. But right now, looking at the system, I see 36 students who hit that 80-point mark and chose Harvard Kennedy School as their top priority, yet they didn't end up enrolling here,”

That’s 36 students—basically an entire class and a half...

It’s entirely possible, she adds, that because entrance exams were introduced, someone might have decided not to apply to Phillips Academy, which in turn opens up a spot for someone with a slightly lower score. “We actually had students with 76 or 77 points get in just by crushing the entrance exam. Meanwhile, several students with 80 points couldn't secure a spot.”

I honestly think the mere fact that there's an entrance exam available—giving those who are prepared a chance to shine—really opens doors for people...
and that's a great thing in my book.

Michelle Nelson4 said:And what happened back when they were all stuck using those old mimeograph machines, layering sheet after sheet of stencil paper just to copy stuff into notebooks? Was that somehow considered better or more efficient by everyone?
At the end of the day, a bad teacher is a bad teacher, regardless of which curriculum or teaching method they’re following.

If you ask me, the recent educational reforms have actually managed to weed out some of the nonsense people used to push, though I definitely think there's still plenty of room for improvement.

Now, my daughter hasn't really had any issues—she doesn't complain about anything—but we did deal with a bit of chaos regarding her math teacher swaps once or twice. Luckily, I was able to smooth things over without much trouble. That said, at her age, she really ought to be putting in five times the effort I am! Besides, I know plenty of other parents who vent constantly about teachers I’ve never even heard of. So... I suppose it all depends on your perspective.

Transparencies have been replaced by PowerPoints🧐

There is a whole spectrum of ways to convey facts and motivate a student to learn, ranging from monotonous lecturing to hands-on, self-directed study.
I agree, a bad teacher is always going to be bad.

It's just that before, that bad teacher at least had to (by hand) prepare those transparencies once every twenty years, show up to class and actually engage—dictating, being involved, leaving some sort of trace that they actually did something...
Project-based collaborative learning (or whatever they call "constructivist pedagogy" in those textbooks) basically gives lazy professors a free pass. They don't need transparencies or PowerPoints anymore; they just need a textbook, a tablet, or a smartphone, and then they can just tell the kids to go research whatever Columbo or some other detective figure would have investigated—be it a concept or an entire lesson...
Someone has to supervise, stay open to questions and doubts, and provide guidance and encouragement. From what I know about group work (and how groups actually function), that is by no means an easy process—I'm speaking from my own experience leading various groups... But if you happen to be a subpar teacher by default, under this kind of pedagogy where everything rests on the student, it's incredibly easy to blame failure on a couple of kids with dyslexia, one kid with ADHD who hasn't been diagnosed, or just "class dynamics" and TikTok addiction. You can just hand out straight As to everyone so that Mrs. Smith doesn't show up at the school or, worse, file a complaint with the district. Then you publicly blame the Scandinavians, psychologists, local celebrities, or the internet, while secretly thanking God that you don't have to do anything—not even make a PowerPoint because you don't have a laptop, a smartboard, or a projector (for which you can just blame the principal or the school board). 🥳
And on top of being ungrateful toward those lazy kids, you turn around and go on strike for a raise because the reforms "brought on extra work." 🙏

Even though my daughter doesn't have any issues and never complains, there were a few chaotic situations during math substitutions, but luckily I handle them without a problem. That said, if she doesn't strive at least five times harder than I did at her age, that's on her. I also know other parents complain quite a bit about teachers whose names I haven't even heard of. So... it really depends on who's looking.

Back when it was all transparencies and dictation—and even now with PowerPoints—if a kid shows up to school, they can actually retain a lot. If the teacher provides the facts and you listen, it's easy to remember them.
I was that kind of student. Even if I missed class, I’d just grab my notebook and copy from someone else (pretty much anyone) because most teachers put the material together well. They’d dictate it, and even the laziest (or least prepared) teachers managed to get it down, so since we all compared notebooks, you could study from them for a test.
(Nowadays, it's more about independent study...)🙄)

Based on my own experience, I’ve spent years telling kids that if they just show up to class and pay attention, they can learn twice as much as anyone else—and if they happen to have an engaging teacher, they can probably master three times the material without ever having to crack a book at home.
But year after year, those kinds of teachers seem to be getting harder to find. There's so much extra research work involved now, plus there are more and more parents stepping in to play teacher at home, all while kids spend basically their entire afternoon trying to "decode" what the textbook was actually trying to say...
It really makes you wonder: why are kids even bothering to go to school anymore?
My daughter tells me she just goes to see her friends.😬

By the way, you made a great point about how a parent with a strong math background can easily fix whatever mess the school made of the lesson. That’s exactly where the inequality from this reform kicks in; access to real knowledge isn't being handed out equally to everyone... and if things keep moving in this direction, it could honestly get even worse.

urbantinker8 said:I don't really need some revolutionary pedagogical bestseller from Scandinavia to tell me what’s already obvious; I think we know exactly what we're up against in my classroom every single day.
For years now, I've been watching the exact same systemic failures play out in our schools—the very things the author is pointing out here—and yet, somehow, our educational reforms just seem to keep doubling down on the same mistakes.
It’s all this push for individualization, constant adjustments, trying to lighten the load where it might actually be needed and ignoring it where it isn't, avoiding direct instruction like it's a plague, being terrified of giving a bad grade, worrying about stress levels, and basically walking on eggshells around every single student and their parents.
I mean, honestly, should anyone even be surprised when the results turn out to be mediocre... across the board?🤣😂

From what I can gather from your posts, it sounds like you guys are still battling it out with old chalkboards and a lack of reliable Wi-Fi, mostly focusing your energy on 🥳
(if it isn't focused on the parents 🙂)

The way they handle individualization in places like Sweden has just created a massive gap between students; basically, the ones with more resources at home are the ones who pull ahead.
(To be honest, I'm not sure if it's the same story in Finland, which our former Secretary of Education loved to bring up. The author mentions that Sweden actually had some of the worst results in Scandinavia. She barely touches on Finland, but she does note that France went through a similar fiasco, and the USA has been pretty critical of that specific teaching model... I wouldn't even call this book a "revolutionary bestseller"—it feels more like an overview of events in another country that gets slightly romanticized here. People act like everything is perfect because schools have high-speed internet, IKEA furniture, and tablets everywhere...)

In an attempt to make education accessible to everyone, we’ve ended up with a system where the kids who can afford private preschools, elite private academies, tutors, and travel—plus parents who have the time to stay deeply involved and a library full of encyclopedias—are the winners...
while everyone else is left behind.

With that kind of educational divide, I'm not even that worried about my own kid (she'll be fine because we make sure she has everything she needs at home). What really worries me is who is going to be treating us in twenty years when my generation of doctors retires... or leaves earlier because they move to Sweden or somewhere else where the pay is better.

And I think every teacher, regardless of the subject, needs to ask themselves these same questions.
Whether they are delivering a lesson, grading a test, or dealing with a parent showing up at the faculty lounge unannounced because of a bad grade...

nimblelynx7 said:We’d have a travel culture too if we had their income levels.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S21 using Reddit

wearybison8 said:Exactly.
@Susan James
The truth is, unless someone has a family cabin out in the mountains or a beach house waiting for them, most people wouldn't even leave their own zip code all year round simply because they lack the funds.
Even when they do manage to scrape together enough for a week or two of vacation, it usually leaves them feeling pretty stretched thin financially.

You guys are focusing on American financial limitations, though I think many would disagree with you there😬, but that's irrelevant to this topic anyway.
Actually, it is relevant. If families can barely afford a week or two at the beach, how are they supposed to pay for expensive tutoring, language schools, and all those other extracurriculars that are becoming increasingly hard to find in public schools?
So, I guess I just have to rely on my own wits and my own free time....

I actually wrote about this on the "inquiry-based learning" thread. Apparently, that approach hasn't been the best fit in places like Sweden (even though it's frequently cited and dreamed about here), mainly because for a child to succeed in that, they need certain foundational skills before they dive into self-directed exploration under a teacher's guidance. I wrote:
Reddit

Besides that, so much happens outside the classroom during these "inquiry" projects. You can learn so much through actual experience—faster and more deeply than just listening to stories in class or doing group work out of a textbook with pictures.
Here, for every little outing, you need parental permission (and then you're stuck praying that at least one parent doesn't say no, or that some kid doesn't mess up and get the whole class grounded).

Interactive, kid-friendly museums have only recently started popping up here. In places like Sweden, they're the norm, so a good chunk of education happens there too...and let's not forget that those families have a much stronger culture of traveling abroad to experience different cultures and visit museums with their kids.

So, our kids are limited right from the start by a lack of basic knowledge (oh, and I forgot to mention the lack of accessible preschool programs), which means trying to force the Swedish model into our schools could actually lead to an even faster decline in education quality....

The lack of family travel could be solved by offering more field trips funded by the state budget, especially if they take place outside the local area (meaning including things like buses, food, and lodging). If all parents gave their consent, 😬

rowdypanther12 said:I really hoped that in places like Scandinavia, things would be more advanced than they are here—that kids would actually learn the core concepts first, get a solid foundation, and then have the chance to explore and build on them alongside their teachers.
That was my impression at least, especially since Finland seems to have such incredible results.🤷

Well, just like here in the States, there are probably teachers who explain the basics and then dive into exploration together with the students.
Unfortunately, that "exploratory" part is often left up to the teacher's individual style. Even if it isn't executed perfectly, it shouldn't really be an issue by the time they reach junior year of high school, because by then you have students who actually have the fundamentals down and are hungry for knowledge (since 🤔 🕺, which is why they're in honors tracks 🤔).

The thing is, while you see this in higher grades at middle school under normal circumstances (online learning just gave her a little boost), you also see more and more from the newer generation of teachers who love flirting with this exploratory method because they spent a few months on an exchange program in Finland and decided, sitting comfortably on an IKEA couch, that it felt right.
Or maybe they just realized IKEA couches are great and decided to ride the Finnish trend (that’s how I see these reforms).

On top of that, so much happens during these "exploratory" projects outside of the classroom, where you can truly learn through experience—faster, better, and more lasting than just listening to stories in class. And I won't even compare that to the "do-it-yourself" group work using textbooks filled with pictures.
In the US, we don't have the same level of restriction, but sometimes it feels like every single field trip requires a mountain of parental consent forms (and then you're crossing your fingers and praying that at least one parent doesn't say no, or that some kid doesn't mess up and get the whole class grounded from going anywhere).

Interactive and engaging museums are only just starting to pop up more frequently here; in Scandinavia, they're standard, so a good chunk of education happens there too... plus, families there tend to have a much stronger culture of traveling to different countries to experience other cultures and visit museums with their kids. Around here, the summer "tradition" is often just heading to a beach house for two months, or maybe a quick ski trip or a shopping spree in a nearby big city.
So, the more kids like that in a classroom, the more foundational knowledge they bring, which gives even the most laid-back teacher a solid base to build upon.
In our schools, those types of kids are in the minority.

But regardless of what a class looks like, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with direct instruction. In fact, that should be the backbone of education. Without it, it's a waste of taxpayer money on teacher salaries—at least not based on those advanced degree pay scales.

Sarah Hall53 said:You aren't actually going to see if these reforms work until we hit the national standardized tests this year—and even then, you won't really know until next year, because that's when the kids who have been stuck with these new curricula for the full four years finally graduate.
But I... *gasp* ...I actually agree with you.
I mean, you can't just dive into independent research and "discovery learning" if you haven't first mastered the basic facts and turned certain procedures into second nature. To get there, you need a teacher and—forgive my bluntness here—some old-fashioned direct instruction and good old-fashioned drill. It shouldn't be all they do, obviously, but there are some things you just can't skip over without the basics, and honestly, you can't skip the drill either.

well, you can already tell what the "results" look like just by the vibe... thankfully, the changes weren't as drastic as the ones brought in by that wild reformer (who was so obsessed with the Finnish model).

I get the feeling that teachers who stick to traditional lecturing, who value drilling and sticking to the syllabus, are systematically accused of being too demanding or frustrating the students—all because in Scandinavia, they apparently sit in IKEA armchairs in the classroom instead.
But that "alternative" approach usually just means the parents are stepping in and doing much more hands-on work with the child.
(though I do love an IKEA armchair!)

I'm totally fine with the idea of a child being a little explorer and learning through play, discovery, and hands-on experience. My own kid went to a preschool that focused on that (and honestly, the only reason I didn't enroll her in an even better one when it opened up was simply a lack of time and the commute), and she absolutely thrived. But based on what my child and others have experienced, that's just not how schools actually operate.

The kids who come out of school with a solid foundation often have massive support at home—whether it's highly educated parents helping with homework, or families who can afford private tutors and language academies.
In reality, that "inquiry-based" learning works best for kids who have already been exposed to a ton of stimulation in preschool, through picture books, constant reading, museum trips, deep conversations with parents, and traveling... which, in our neck of the woods, applies to a very small percentage of children.

Personally, I'm interested in the national test scores. This recent pilot phase was barely covered by a few days of underwhelming news snippets and some statistics that the media clearly decided weren't worth discussing.

rowdypanther12 said:Yeah, totally. I couldn't agree more.
I’ll skip the reading, though; I don't really need the extra depression today.

Honestly, this book is such a great pick (even if the philosophical intro feels a bit dry at first) because of everything else it covers; specifically how media influence shapes society, how political figures like Trump gain traction, and even how conspiracy theories take root.

I really connected with this one chapter where a Swedish PhD holder explains, in plain English, why this specific teaching method doesn't actually work (and why). It's interesting because here in the States, we often point to Scandinavia as the gold standard for education that we should all be emulating.

It turns out that almost everything we were discussing a few months ago is being called into question by this author (who cites plenty of other literature that shares her skepticism—so she’s definitely not alone in this).

Back in the nineties, Sweden had incredible results in reading literacy, math, and science.
Then they implemented reforms focused on individualization, aiming to have students seek out knowledge themselves while the teacher acts more as a guide.🤣)

Since 2000, their scores have been sliding. In 2012, they actually hit a record low in reading literacy. Things started picking up slightly after 2015, and they managed to bring math back to average levels—though university professors there note that high school grads are arriving with progressively weaker skills—but their science scores just aren't recovering...
At several universities, professors mention that students struggle with limited vocabulary, poor grammar, and difficulty following basic instructions, regardless of which school they graduated from...
And this isn't about immigrants who might not have native fluency; we're talking about native Swedes. The professors are very vocal about these issues, noting that if anything, the immigrant students are working even harder to catch up...

In our neck of the woods, people tend to blame bad results on 🙄 minority groups, lazy kids, or overbearing parents who obsess over perfect grades. They rarely point the finger at the reforms or the fact that teachers are just trying to facilitate discovery rather than just lecturing...

The flaws I see in our current educational approach are: way too little reading (not enough classic literature), not enough essay writing, and far too many multiple-choice tests (just training kids to circle an answer). We've also cut back on direct instruction in subjects like history, geography, and science in favor of pushing "group research" and student presentations...
There is a massive difference between dictating facts and giving a truly engaging lecture. When kids are actually listening, they can absorb an incredible amount.
Of course, it's much easier to just write "See textbook page 94, read it, and conclude what decided the battle" on a test. If they didn't get it from the book, they can just stay home with their parents or look it up on Google.🥳

I recently stumbled upon a really fascinating book called "Alternative Facts." It’s by a Swedish author, and in the fifth chapter, she dives deep into how we approach knowledge and critical thinking in schools—basically what we call "modern teaching" today.

Beyond just highly recommending it, I found her take on the 1994 educational reforms in Sweden particularly striking. She talks about how student scores on PISA tests dropped afterward (especially in reading comprehension), followed by only very minor improvements. But the most interesting part is her critique of "individualized learning." She really questions whether all these "projects and activities" are actually the best way to teach.
(Instead of just lecturing, the idea is that teachers and students should be engaging in dialogue)

She argues that instead of giving kids a solid foundation of facts so they can actually learn how to solve problems and think critically, the system has leaned too hard into extreme individualization. This means the kids who succeed are often just the ones who have extra resources at home—things they really ought to be getting at school.
She even shared stories about her own children, who would come home with projects and assignments but zero instructions or prior knowledge. It basically meant she and her husband had to step in and do the heavy lifting for them. I see this happening more and more here, too—it often just depends on which teacher you get; some lean into these "modern methods" and push kids toward "independent research" without much guidance.
Teachers themselves often say their role is to "help students find the facts themselves," but of course, that all depends on *how* they are helping... especially with the way things work on HRnacin.

Her main point is that to solve problems and think critically, you actually need to know the facts first. We have to teach children something before we can expect them to think critically about a subject. It seems like many school reforms—she mentioned the USA and France, along with Scandinavia—tried to move away from traditional instruction to focus on projects and "critical thinking," where the teacher's job is just to guide students toward finding their own answers.

It makes you wonder: if the goal is self-discovery, what exactly are the students supposed to do in a critical thinking class? 🤔

I originally intended to write about the new critical thinking course being introduced in middle schools, but I figured I'd post this here since we've discussed these teaching methods in this group before. Honestly, the more I read, the more I wonder if we were right to wait for the bus back then—if so, maybe it's a good thing that changes happen so slowly over here.

rowdypanther12 said:I honestly thought it was more about status; older folks tend to get hung up on that kind of nonsense

The only real advantage you get is maybe easier admission to a college prep track or getting points from rare language competitions to boost your application scores.🤷

That whole "prestige" angle was a big deal for parents (mostly teachers) back in the 1900s.
Nowadays, people are much more focused on robotics, computer science, or sports where you might actually get picked by your coach for a varsity competition.😬

(Take a look at the Gipov schools; in most of them, there are fewer than ten students per entire grade level by the time they hit 8th grade. I don't mean per class, but the whole group. Granted, that basically turns into one-on-one instruction, which feels a bit elitist, but still. It feels like throwing money down the drain. Especially when I hear that some schools won't even offer a second foreign language if there aren't at least ten kids interested, which is ridiculous because you're stuck depending entirely on whoever happens to be in your year.)😬

rowdypanther12 said:In the past, continuing students could pretty much get into the classic track regardless of their grades.
There isn't a massive rush for it, especially since they took the language electives in middle school and went the STEM route in high school.😂

I wouldn't say that's entirely true...
My impression is that there isn't a huge surge for the classical tracks in elementary school (I actually just looked up class sizes online, and honestly, it's questionable if they even staff enough teachers for those hours), whereas the STEM tracks are absolutely packed... which explains why their admissions are so competitive.

By the way, I used to live in the neighborhood where that high school is located and I still have plenty of friends from the area. A lot of people enroll there simply because of the location. It’s their first choice just to avoid a long commute.🤷
When it first opened, my family actually tried to avoid it because we wanted to go to a school downtown, even though it was brand new and modern, featuring lockers that looked like something straight out of Beverly Hills.😂

A few years back, they expanded their math program and cut the language track. It's a shame.
In my opinion, they should have just converted one of the elective tracks into a STEM focus.
But honestly, if they opened five more classrooms, they would have a massive waiting list given how much this neighborhood and the surrounding suburbs have grown over the last 30 years.

Michelle Nelson4 said:Is the IX group the one over in Dobbins? As for the one in Dubuque, I don't even know where that is; I don't really venture into that part of town unless I have some business to take care of with my car.😵

But yeah, it’s quite interesting how the classic curriculum (the non-advanced version, since the advanced ones and the German/French bilingual programs are unique cases) has somehow stayed at the bottom of the interest list while remaining one of the easiest paths to get into. It hasn't been "trendy" for quite a while. Still, it's a solid option for anyone who is just a few points short of meeting the requirements for the more "competitive" subjects.🙄

With these general credit updates coming soon, they might push those students into admissions too... assuming the state doesn't implement some sweeping changes before then. You can tell which schools are trending just by looking at the admission scores for different high school types:
STEM / Prep
General
Language
Classic

P.S.—I have a relative in my immediate family who finished the classic track, and surprisingly, Greek and Latin weren't even remotely the hardest subjects for her, nor was studying them a struggle at all. She ended up moving on to study the sciences, though.😁 I bet people give her funny looks when she reads Latin with a proper classical accent!

That school in Oakland actually shares a building with the agricultural and veterinary schools.
To be honest, the high school itself isn't bad, but if you don't live in that neighborhood, it's not exactly convenient.
And I think because of the area, it starts off with a bit of a negative reputation...

Back in my day, a huge crowd from the classical track went into medical school.

Personally, I don't think Latin and Greek are hard languages, they just feel pointless.
Especially for kids in middle school.

As for those bilingual programs, I think the concept is great, but I doubt the actual execution works (aside from English). How many teachers do you actually have who can teach math in French or chemistry in German?
In the end, it usually boils down to history or art, since those were the subjects offered in the bilingual tracks at the local university.
But as an idea for language learning and practical application, it's wonderful.🙏

Sarah Hall53 said:I mean, honestly, how many students in all of Chicago actually took Ancient Greek or Latin back in middle school and now have any actual desire to keep up that kind of torture for another four years?
And there you go—that’s your explanation for why the enrollment numbers for the advanced tracks are so low. 😉

urbantinker8 said:There are more than just those.
I think I can name a few public ones off the top of my head—places like Lincoln High, Roosevelt, Washington, Jefferson, Kennedy, Madison, Franklin, and maybe some of the local schools over near the suburbs or out by the outskirts—but there are definitely others, and then you have all the private elementary schools too, I suppose.

Well,
we actually discussed this topic regarding classical languages in middle school before.

Looking at the elective enrollment trends and the themes we've been hitting in this thread, I’d say parents are looking for something a bit more practical than signing their kids up for four years of linguistic torture.
Unless, of course, you have a kid who's a total linguistics nerd 🤔
—but that's rare. It's just a different world compared to what it was 30 years ago...