Posts by Susan James

rowdypanther12 said:So, if I’m following this correctly, the general track is definitely the best bet for someone who isn't sure yet whether they want to lean toward STEM or the humanities 😁

Does the standard track have the same amount of math and science as the general one? Or does the language-focused track have more?

I know all this info is technically on the school websites, but I figured it might be easier to just ask people here who actually know how it works 😬

Not quite.
The classical track also has three hours of math per week.
From what I know, it has the least amount of psychology compared to all the other high schools.

For the math-heavy track, it's split into three different programs: A, B, and C.
Depending on which one you pick, the number of math hours increases during junior and senior year.
One of those programs only includes one foreign language instead of two.

I'm not entirely sure about the general track or how the selection process works—I personally went with the language track, but the differences are pretty minor.
Usually, people choose based on how close the school is or the quality of the school district (back in 2020, the district was a huge factor in where people applied).

For instance, one of my former classmates had their grandkids pick the general track because it was right next to the music academy they were attending simultaneously—they were basically juggling two different high schools.
And from what I hear, Titus chose his school mainly because it was close to the music conservatory, until he eventually moved away from the downtown area because his schedule only allowed for one shift.

rowdypanther12 said:So, just to make sure I understand: the general track has less math than the math track, and the language track has even less math?
Using basically the same curriculum and textbooks? 🤔
Does that mean they skip certain topics entirely, or do they just move through the material faster without as much repetition?

The math curriculum in the specialized math tracks varies depending on the specific school district programs; in some cases, students might even have up to seven hours of math a week during their final two years.

I can't speak for every school, but back when I was in the language track, those three hours a week actually covered everything the general track did—if not more. I ended up taking entrance exams for two different universities and passed both (without any paid tutoring!), so freshman year math felt pretty easy for me.🤷

Nowadays, the reality in schools is that having seven hours a week doesn't mean much if you don't have a consistent teacher. If there's a constant rotation of substitutes, or if the school can't find qualified replacements and ends up using people who aren't specialists, then having three steady hours in a language or general track is actually better than seven disjointed hours in a math track.
It’s also true that some kids just don't start out with the same mathematical foundation or aptitude (it happens!), but they get plenty of practice, so the pace of the lessons might speed up or slow down depending on the specific classroom dynamic.
That’s why I think it’s a great idea to introduce entrance exams, and it's even better when the actual professors who will be teaching the students are the ones designing them.

rowdypanther12 said:So, if we move past the classics, are we looking at Greek next? What's actually less common?
I'm just lucky I started asking questions early enough; maybe in two years I'll finally get a handle on 😂
.
By the way, my transcript is basically just 😂, even though that's easily the most demanding subject 😵
.

The history curriculum covers 8th grade through the 4th century, plus modern history up to the 20th century.
So, mostly wars, with a big focus on the American Civil War.

Not many people are really into that stuff.

The classic track only has one hour of psychology per week.
They don't require a second foreign language since they do Ancient Greek, so any other language ends up being an elective.
They also have three hours of math.

And they have specific classes that include Latin components.

rowdypanther12 said:Wait, so the total number of hours for other subjects changes too? It isn't just the math or English blocks being swapped out? 😵
Now I'm even more confused about the differences 😂

Exactly.
Regarding math, the difference only applies to the first two grades; by third and fourth grade, both the academic and general tracks have three hours.
As for why the general track has three hours of history in the final year—honestly, I have no clue. It feels like a total waste of time unless you're planning on going into political science or law.

They also have one hour of psychology in second and third grade, whereas the language track gets two hours in the third grade.
Computer science hits some students in the first grade and others in the second.
I'm not sure if there are any other discrepancies. 🤔
In theory, they could have swapped out chemistry or physics for a third language in the language track, but in practice, that usually only happened if a class specifically wanted to stick with science while picking up a language (which most kids prefer anyway).

rowdypanther12 said:I don't agree either, though people have made much worse choices when picking a school (myself included).😂

What I'm actually wondering about is the distinction between a "good" prep school and a "bad" one—don't they all follow the same curriculum?
And is a general college-prep track the best route for kids who excel at both languages and math but haven't figured out what they want to major in yet?

A school is at its best when it can actually keep a great teacher on staff. It makes such a massive difference when you don't have to deal with constant turnover or those frustrating gaps in the schedule while waiting for someone new to pass a certification exam. Plus, it’s much smoother when you aren't constantly dealing with unexpected absences that leave classrooms empty. Stability really is everything.
It’s also about how that chaos impacts everything else—like the personality traits children develop or the kind of parents they eventually become.

Even if the curriculum is exactly the same, you’ll find that the kids enrolling in them couldn't be more different.

rowdypanther12 said:I don't agree either, though people have made much worse choices when picking a school (myself included).😂

What I'm actually wondering about is the distinction between a "good" prep school and a "bad" one—don't they all follow the same curriculum?
And is a general college-prep track the best route for kids who excel at both languages and math but haven't figured out what they want to major in yet?

No need.
When you look at different academic tracks, the main difference usually boils down to how much time they dedicate to math versus language arts. In my experience, one program might lean heavily into calculus and statistics, while another focuses more on literature and composition. It really just depends on which direction the curriculum is heading. 🤷
That one hour of language class they lose compared to what general education students get in first and second grade? It’s honestly not a dealbreaker if the kids land a truly amazing teacher, or if they're lucky enough to have the same instructor year after year. Having that kind of consistency makes a world of difference. Besides, being able to master two foreign languages is just a massive bonus on top of everything else.
The math-heavy tracks with heaps of computer science hours definitely deviate from these two options. But honestly, it’s a far cry from the old days when having five hours of math and five hours of CS a week meant you were basically "exempt" from history. Back then, you'd just have some hyperactive teacher from the suburbs rambling on and handing out easy A's to everyone. The faculty just looked the other way, and parents didn't bother sticking their noses in because everyone knew the kids were heading straight for MIT or med school anyway. It felt better to let them breeze through without wasting years memorizing useless trivia. Eda, the general track only has three hours of history in fourth grade, which I think is the biggest drawback of that direction—just feels like a waste of time on stuff that doesn't matter.

I honestly feel like high schools are such a vital resource for students who aren't quite sure what they want to do with their lives yet... and frankly, I think that’s exactly how they should be. It gives everyone a bit of breathing room to figure things out.

hiddendriver34 said:1. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure myself. Usually, people judge a school based on how their students perform in academic competitions or their SAT scores. But it's a bit of a "chicken or the egg" situation, right? Are those schools actually better at teaching, or do they just happen to attract the smartest kids from the local elementary schools?

2. Yeah, definitely.

Honestly, I think those are two of the silliest criteria I've ever heard.
I’ve been thinking about how much goes into those big final exams, like the SATs or high school graduation tests. It really feels like success isn't just about what happens during that one stressful week in May. If you look at the big picture, a student's performance is shaped by their entire academic journey—everything from the foundation they built in elementary school to the challenges they tackled in middle school. It’s also about those extracurriculars, whether it's playing varsity soccer or being part of the debate team, which build so much discipline. Even those expensive prep courses people sign up for right before the big day play a role. To me, high school is really just one single data point in a much larger, lifelong testing process.
The competitions themselves are just another ridiculous criterion that I honestly don't have the energy to explain right now.

By the way, I caught an interview on TV last night with the superintendent from Springfield 🙏

Honestly, he’s turned that school into such a mess, so it isn't surprising that they had six applicants all vying for the top spot.
The school definitely needs a formal entrance exam. Once you see how things are actually running there, it feels unfair to let kids enroll based solely on their GPA—even if those exam scores don't carry as much weight as they should right now. It would at least be a start.

Peter Rogers said:Nope.
Not even a hint of it.
The guy would probably need three different college degrees just to cover all his bases and interests at once.
Right now there are 22 different directions to choose from. Talk about overkill, right? haha.
How many can I actually sign up for? Like, 3?

22 😲
You can "only" apply to 6.🤣
When I think back to my day, before entrance exams were even a thing, you could only pick two schools—literally just two.
I don't recall anyone ever failing to get placed.🤷

Regarding the whole debate about how to make it to all those entrance exams, in a big city like Chicago, there are usually about seven of them (though I think the deadline to request an exam might have passed), and since you can apply to six schools, I think it's totally doable to take all six tests.
Plus, it's not a bad idea to take them more than once; you can keep going until the very last exam until you've mastered all the problems.😂

I actually think the real issue is that students who don't pass the exams end up flooding into the standard public high schools. It seems like some people specifically pick schools that don't require an entrance test, which causes a huge surge at schools that haven't been crowded before.🤣

But then again, listening to everyone around me asking about private academies (I'm actually one of them!), it feels like we might eventually see some schools practically begging kids to enroll.🤷

mellowskipper said:Has that new regulation been released yet? You know—the updated version from the Department of Education.

It is.
The wording is just a total mess—classic legalese where they keep deleting and adding things without any clear structure (they really should have included the old version for comparison).
Based on this news summary, I’d say they didn't really take much of our feedback from the discussions into account.

Admissions this year at 7 School Quote

Up until now, entrance exams were really only used by the four most sought-after high schools in Chicago—Lincoln High School, Central High School, Stuyvesant High School, and Bronx Science High School. However, due to massive student interest this July, several more Chicago schools are introducing entrance exams. The Department of Education confirmed to us that this includes Lucijan Vranjanin High School (STEM focused), Lincoln High School (STEM focused), and Phillips Academy (STEM focused).

It’s kind of interesting that only the math-heavy schools decided to add an exam this year (though, technically, you still have until tomorrow to sign up).
I’m really curious to see how many students end up shifting toward general or language-focused programs instead.
(And I wonder if there's going to be a huge rush for schools 3 and 13, since they don't require an exam 🤔)

bluejackal said:If I could do it all over again, I’d probably go into tailoring, floral design, or cosmetology.
Something where you can actually open your own shop one day.

You can actually build your own business out of almost any field. The real secret is becoming an absolute expert at what you do; once you have those skills, clients will come to you, and since you're the boss, you're really just relying on your own talent.

For example, I know plenty of people who run incredibly successful hair salons, even though cosmetology wasn't their first choice or their primary degree. They might have started in something else entirely, then took specialized certification courses, invested heavily in ongoing training, and eventually passed their professional licensing exams.
In many cases, they end up being much more successful than someone who just stuck strictly to a standard vocational program.
And honestly, that applies to pretty much every career path out there.

So, regardless of which school you're heading to now (or which one your parents picked for you), you can always pivot toward what truly excites you later on.
It's never too late to make that move.

hiddendriver34 said:I'm totally with you on this. My only tweak would be that on the final exam, I'd want to test reading comprehension, math skills, and scientific literacy. Those are core life skills that actually develop over time. You can't just cram them into two months of studying, which would prevent people from just paying for overpriced, last-minute prep courses to game the system.

There will always be prep, including paid tutoring. For whatever reason—but mostly because some teachers in schools just aren't great—students will always seek extra help.

I agree with your suggestion on what should be tested, but I have to point out that most of you seem to think the goal is for every kid to finish middle school with straight A's and head straight into a prep school, which is why you want a universal standardized test.
Just stop it.
Middle school is mandatory for everyone in the US, and every student should be finishing it by age 15. Not everyone is going to go to a high school, and if we actually want to encourage higher enrollment and completion rates, we shouldn't be introducing even a tiny elective exam, let alone making one mandatory for everyone.
That said, having a test that honestly filters out the surplus of candidates for specific schools is definitely necessary, especially if certain knowledge and skills are required before entering high school.
Looking at the comments from guidance counselors, it seems some teachers (who are googling school names) are actually asking for the entrance exam weight to be even higher than what is currently proposed.
🙏

It totally caught me off guard how the draft for the new regulations left out criteria for language academies 🤦, and it's also clear how they handle criteria for vocational schools. You can really tell when these rules are being written by bureaucrats in an office instead of actual classroom teachers.
Because of that, I really think every school should be given the choice to set their own criteria based on the type of students they want to attract.

mellowskipper said:The whole external assessment process at the end of the academic year always feels pretty stressful to me. I’m honestly not even sure if they actually factor those scores into college admissions or if they just look at them alongside the overall GPA. All I know is that every single May, this absolute nightmare begins—it's just constant, crushing stress.
And while we're on the subject, regarding contraindications for certain career paths: https://www.slideshare.net/BorisArai...ntraindikacija
There are quite a few links out there where parents can generally check if their kid's profile fits a specific field, rather than risking it later down the line. Or, they could just have a doctor run a quick check beforehand, assuming they're already confident about the grades.

Sent from my iPhone 13 Pro using Reddit

Life is stressful, isn't it? That's just how it goes.
Standardized testing is definitely necessary, though.
In my opinion, it's actually the fairest way to do things. If you ask the people who complain about it, I’d argue it's much less stressful to take one test every year rather than facing one massive, high-stakes exam every four years.
For me, sitting for an exam where a student gets to see what they actually know (and what they don't) feels way less nerve-wracking than trying to peer into a crystal ball to guess which group of peers will be their competition for a specific school.

mellowskipper said:The only real fix for this mess would be standardized middle school exams.
Though, honestly, does every single school in America really need them, regardless of where they are located?
I mean, is there even a massive rush to get into high schools in Columbus, or to become a carpenter in New York City?
Still, if we did implement middle school exams, they’d probably have to be national—standardized tests across the board. Maybe different levels, like A, B, or even C tiers.
That's likely why they decided to stick with entrance exams and kept them optional.

Sent from my iPhone 13 Pro using Reddit

I honestly think those Reddit high school exams are pretty essential because they provide that much-needed outside perspective on a student's progress. It looks like you might have hit send a little early! Feel free to drop whatever you were typing—I'm ready whenever you are. students It looks like your message was cut short! Feel free to send over whatever you're working on, and I'll get right to rewriting it for you. I was thinking about what our teachers mentioned earlier. Honestly, looking at what the Institute for Social Research suggests, I feel like having an external evaluation at the end of every school year makes much more sense. It feels a lot more realistic and necessary than just doing one big assessment at the end of 8th grade specifically to help with high school admissions.

Honestly, I feel like those standardized high school entrance exams are totally unnecessary—and frankly, pretty pointless for everyone. Unless we’re planning on creating fourteen different academic tiers, there's really no need for them. Kids vary so much during their elementary years; they all have such unique abilities, interests, and skill sets. Since schooling is mandatory for everyone anyway, why force this one-size-fits-all test on them?
When you're looking at enrolling in various career training programs, you really have to take a hard look at different skill sets. Honestly, I feel like people are already rushing into things without doing that necessary groundwork.
I was just scrolling through the comments on the official guidance portal, and I noticed something pretty interesting about the requirements for woodworking programs. It turns out they don't actually look at your grades from technical drawing or art classes. Instead, they prioritize your performance in art and chemistry. 🤦
It honestly feels like whoever drafted these regulations over at the Department of Commerce has absolutely no clue how things actually work on the ground—whether you're working in a technical shop or doing actual woodworking.
I really feel like computer science should be a core part of how we grade students in American prep schools. Looking at the current curriculum, it seems like it’s missing from that essential list—and honestly, physics isn't getting enough weight either. It feels like chemistry is always being pushed to the front of the line instead. 🤣)

I’ve also heard some parents mentioning that they're getting worried about those medical clearances being turned in right at the end of the first half of the year. The concern is that by the time everything is processed, it might turn out that certain activities or jobs are actually contraindicated for their kids, which would be such a headache.
I think it’s probably best if we just don't go there—talking about that one unfair advantage some kids get during the admissions process. It's a topic that gets exploited in so many different ways, and honestly, it's just not worth the headache to bring up.
There are quite a few different elements to consider here.

The current enrollment process definitely needs some work, but honestly, what we’re seeing now feels more like superficial cosmetic changes rather than real reform. There is a huge debate going on right now about whether choir competitions should actually count toward student credits. It feels totally unfair when you consider that table tennis tournaments already earn points—it’s just nonsensical to single out music like this. It really feels like we're overlooking a massive group of kids who pour their hearts into singing.
It’s not even about testing your actual knowledge or skills. It really just comes down to whether you were lucky enough to have table tennis in your elementary school and if you happened to have a teacher who actually took the time to bring you to a competition.

I think it’s a great move to make organizing entrance exams easier for high schools, especially by increasing the weight of those scores to more than five points. Honestly, if you ask me, even ten points feels a little low, though I suppose that ten would be perfectly fine if they hadn't already bumped up the baseline from what it used to be!

hiddendriver34 said:Look, I’m a professor myself, but that doesn’t mean I have blind faith in every single academic out there. 😉

We're talking about tens of thousands of individuals here. You're bound to find people who lack a moral compass, and let's be honest, nepotism is practically baked into our culture. I've even dealt with it firsthand—people expecting me to give "special treatment" to certain students just because of who their parents are, and then acting completely insulted when I don't play along.
And it's not just favoritism. I've heard stories about professors straight-up taking cash to write term papers for students. Someone like that isn't going to let high moral standards stop them from handing out exam questions under the table.

Plus, you've got those professors who hand out inflated grades just to keep parents or lawyers from knocking on their doors.
That’s exactly why we see such a massive flood of honors graduates these days.

Sarah Hall53 said:Man, I remember seeing this exact same thing happening at the high school where I worked about 12 or 13 years ago—it was such a headache. Basically, you had these parents who wanted their kids to be in the German language tracks, but then they’d go and pull their kids out and transfer them to the neighboring district just to game the system. So, instead of having two English classes and two German classes, the school would end up with two English and one German, leaving them one class short. Then they'd try to fix it by enrolling three English tracks and one German track, but those same parents would just jump ship again... poof! Suddenly you have four English classes and not a single soul left looking for a German lesson.

Well, that's just the reality of capitalism for you.
Jobs aren't secure anymore (though honestly, they shouldn't be)
I remember when I first started working back around 2005🤔, my colleagues in the curriculum team used to pull strings just to get their kids into the English track (back when they were starting to introduce it as a primary language)
. Then a new trend hit, and I noticed it popping up on various forums too—people would enroll in these other languages because they figured the kids would pick up English regardless.

It's funny how we're sitting here debating how kids get selected for high schools, when I'm actually worried we'll soon be fighting just to keep entire grade levels or even basic schedules from being cut. Even in big cities like New York.
Not to mention the surge in private high schools (I have my eye on a few myself). They've been getting better every year, the tuition isn't totally out of reach, and they produce great results on SATs and in college later on.
Besides, education stopped being truly "free" a long time ago.

Sarah Hall53 said:We've been arguing about this for ten years now. The answer? It’s those Vatican agreements—period. And honestly, if you don't speak the language, you're just out of luck.

And look, it’s not like German is being forced on everyone in the second tier just because... well, it shouldn't be. The real issue is that every single language should be given equal footing in our schools, whether they're electives or core requirements. But instead, we just cater to whatever parents want or follow their know-it-all attitudes.

I’m certain there are plenty of overbearing parents out there (we actually had a thread about people looking specifically for schools starting with German, or schools with large French programs, etc.).
And honestly, if they want to be like that, let them deal with the consequences.

But you can't claim that all languages need equal representation and then use that as an excuse to shove German into the main curriculum for the first graders. If you look at a very similar situation here in the States, you'll see why that doesn't work.
If you look at how kids drop out of language tracks by 4th grade, or enroll in 5th and then immediately quit, simple math shows that teachers end up with fewer hours. The only way to keep those teaching hours steady is to introduce the language in the 1st grade when parents don't have much of a choice—since almost everyone picks English in 4th grade anyway because they actually want to learn it.
(That way, you keep the schedule full for two professors, and you can slot English in during the same period since everyone will be signing up for it.)

Anyway, if we aren't totally off-topic here, it’s interesting how the Department of Education seems completely clueless about these little scheduling gymnastics used to save jobs. They didn't write the regulations to say that middle schools should test students on the language they *will* be learning, but rather on the language they've already been studying for eight years.

The idea of equal language representation across all schools reminds me of back in my day, in the late eighties. In 4th grade, a counselor would just walk in and announce that groups B and C were doing English, while group D was doing German. If you wanted an elective, you could sign up for the second shift. That was it.
Kids would come home and tell their parents, "Hey, we start a new language on Monday."
If you ask me, that feels a lot more honest than these "fake" choices we have now.

Sarah Hall53 said:On the other hand—and I'm just thinking back here—you used to see this massive wave of kids dropping out during 7th and 8th grade. It was pretty much a stampede at that point, mostly because those two years were basically seen as the final stretch before everyone started looking toward high school enrollment. 😉 So, I ended up dropping German from my schedule—mostly just to claw back some extra breathing room so I can actually focus on pulling my grades up in physics and chemistry. Gotta stay on top of those, you know? And well... let's not forget that third factor hanging over everything.
It’s kind of like how things used to work back in those smaller school districts—you know, where they could actually pull off having German classes in the same shift from fourth through sixth grade, but then once you hit seventh, everything would just flip and you'd be moved to the opposite shift. It was always such a weird transition, honestly.

I'm with Michelle Nelson4 on this one—it really needs to happen. I was just thinking—we really should find a way to make knowledge testing actually doable. It’s one of those things that sounds great in theory, but when you actually try to set it up, it gets complicated fast. We need to make sure it's accessible and actually works for everyone. It doesn't matter where they went to school—everyone gets the same shot at enrollment.
I honestly feel the same way about computer science—it’s kind of a bummer how people look at it lately. It seems like back in the day, kids were jumping at the chance to take it as an elective, but now? Even moving from fifth grade into seventh, so many students are skipping over it because they figure they can find better opportunities elsewhere. It’s a shame, really, especially since it's such a foundational piece if you're actually planning to get into a specialized technical high school or a rigorous math academy later on. You really need that groundwork if you want to make those specific tracks.

Most dual-language programs have always handled things this way—I mean, if you’re looking to pick up a language that isn't already officially listed on your transcript, they usually just require you to sit for a placement test. It's pretty standard practice.

Look, if we actually want to keep foreign language programs alive in our schools, we’ve got to be smarter about how we structure them. We should probably be looking at smaller class sizes—that’s just common sense. And honestly? For the kids who are actually picking things up quickly, we ought to give them an extra hour or something. I know, I'm just rambling here, but think about it—instead of wasting that third period every week making everyone stare at the same textbook while three kids struggle through the basics they haven't grasped in five or six years, why not use that time for something better? Like actual conversation practice for the students who are ready for it. It just feels like a waste of potential otherwise.

Wait, do you honestly think we’re constantly begging for smaller class sizes just because we like complaining? It's not that... I mean, it's not like we actually enjoy having twenty-eight kids from second or third grade crammed into a single classroom—it's practically a mosh pit at this point.

And honestly, that third hour you mentioned—I feel like we should probably be getting that one for free, right? I mean, between everything else, it feels like we aren't even getting paid enough to cover the basics, let alone everything else we deal with... it's just one of those things, really. ☕ Plus, honestly... the second something isn't strictly mandatory—like, the moment it’s actually off the schedule—you’ll suddenly have two kids appearing out of nowhere. Or three, if you’re having one of those lucky days.

Not everyone quits just because they're chasing an A. If things have hit a standstill, that top grade is basically a given anyway. But honestly, why waste your time—especially if you're stuck in a late afternoon session—just sitting there listening to stuff you already know when you could be home actually studying physics? I get why kids are dropping out. Plus, the teacher loses two hours of their life, and since it doesn't show up on their paycheck, they just end up letting the first-period class slide through their main German exam.

Sarah Hall53 said:On the other hand—and I'm just thinking back here—you used to see this massive wave of kids dropping out during 7th and 8th grade. It was pretty much a stampede at that point, mostly because those two years were basically seen as the final stretch before everyone started looking toward high school enrollment. 😉 So, I ended up dropping German from my schedule—mostly just to claw back some extra breathing room so I can actually focus on pulling my grades up in physics and chemistry. Gotta stay on top of those, you know? And well... let's not forget that third factor hanging over everything.
It’s kind of like how things used to work back in those smaller school districts—you know, where they could actually pull off having German classes in the same shift from fourth through sixth grade, but then once you hit seventh, everything would just flip and you'd be moved to the opposite shift. It was always such a weird transition, honestly.

I'm with Michelle Nelson4 on this one—it really needs to happen. I was just thinking—we really should find a way to make knowledge testing actually doable. It’s one of those things that sounds great in theory, but when you actually try to set it up, it gets complicated fast. We need to make sure it's accessible and actually works for everyone. It doesn't matter where they went to school—everyone gets the same shot at enrollment.
I honestly feel the same way about computer science—it’s kind of a bummer how people look at it lately. It seems like back in the day, kids were jumping at the chance to take it as an elective, but now? Even moving from fifth grade into seventh, so many students are skipping over it because they figure they can find better opportunities elsewhere. It’s a shame, really, especially since it's such a foundational piece if you're actually planning to get into a specialized technical high school or a rigorous math academy later on. You really need that groundwork if you want to make those specific tracks.

Most dual-language programs have always handled things this way—I mean, if you’re looking to pick up a language that isn't already officially listed on your transcript, they usually just require you to sit for a placement test. It's pretty standard practice.

Look, if we actually want to keep foreign language programs alive in our schools, we’ve got to be smarter about how we structure them. We should probably be looking at smaller class sizes—that’s just common sense. And honestly? For the kids who are actually picking things up quickly, we ought to give them an extra hour or something. I know, I'm just rambling here, but think about it—instead of wasting that third period every week making everyone stare at the same textbook while three kids struggle through the basics they haven't grasped in five or six years, why not use that time for something better? Like actual conversation practice for the students who are ready for it. It just feels like a waste of potential otherwise.

Wait, do you honestly think we’re constantly begging for smaller class sizes just because we like complaining? It's not that... I mean, it's not like we actually enjoy having twenty-eight kids from second or third grade crammed into a single classroom—it's practically a mosh pit at this point.

And honestly, that third hour you mentioned—I feel like we should probably be getting that one for free, right? I mean, between everything else, it feels like we aren't even getting paid enough to cover the basics, let alone everything else we deal with... it's just one of those things, really. ☕ Plus, honestly... the second something isn't strictly mandatory—like, the moment it’s actually off the schedule—you’ll suddenly have two kids appearing out of nowhere. Or three, if you’re having one of those lucky days.

That's a fair point. I've noticed that quite a few kids end up missing out on those advanced placement tracks because they just can't rack up enough points. It’s frustrating to see, especially when they get bumped by students who aren't even looking at the program as a challenge, but rather as an easy way to boost their GPA. I was chatting with a neighbor about this the other day, and we realized how much of a factor those "extra credit" buffers can be. A student might be trailing behind on core academics, but if they happen to have a 5.0 in a specific elective, or maybe they snagged an extra point through choir, table tennis, or even just because of a parental meeting or a medical exemption like asthma, suddenly they’re right at the top of the list. It definitely feels like the playing field isn't always level when those miscellaneous points start stacking up.
I actually think the German and French tracks offered at schools like Lincoln High or Westside Prep are fantastic. My only reservation is that even if you nail the language exams, you still have to fight through the competition to get enough points just to secure a spot in the school in the first place.

Sarah Hall53 said:On the other hand—and I'm just thinking back here—you used to see this massive wave of kids dropping out during 7th and 8th grade. It was pretty much a stampede at that point, mostly because those two years were basically seen as the final stretch before everyone started looking toward high school enrollment. 😉 So, I ended up dropping German from my schedule—mostly just to claw back some extra breathing room so I can actually focus on pulling my grades up in physics and chemistry. Gotta stay on top of those, you know? And well... let's not forget that third factor hanging over everything.
It’s kind of like how things used to work back in those smaller school districts—you know, where they could actually pull off having German classes in the same shift from fourth through sixth grade, but then once you hit seventh, everything would just flip and you'd be moved to the opposite shift. It was always such a weird transition, honestly.

I'm with Michelle Nelson4 on this one—it really needs to happen. I was just thinking—we really should find a way to make knowledge testing actually doable. It’s one of those things that sounds great in theory, but when you actually try to set it up, it gets complicated fast. We need to make sure it's accessible and actually works for everyone. It doesn't matter where they went to school—everyone gets the same shot at enrollment.
I honestly feel the same way about computer science—it’s kind of a bummer how people look at it lately. It seems like back in the day, kids were jumping at the chance to take it as an elective, but now? Even moving from fifth grade into seventh, so many students are skipping over it because they figure they can find better opportunities elsewhere. It’s a shame, really, especially since it's such a foundational piece if you're actually planning to get into a specialized technical high school or a rigorous math academy later on. You really need that groundwork if you want to make those specific tracks.

Most dual-language programs have always handled things this way—I mean, if you’re looking to pick up a language that isn't already officially listed on your transcript, they usually just require you to sit for a placement test. It's pretty standard practice.

Look, if we actually want to keep foreign language programs alive in our schools, we’ve got to be smarter about how we structure them. We should probably be looking at smaller class sizes—that’s just common sense. And honestly? For the kids who are actually picking things up quickly, we ought to give them an extra hour or something. I know, I'm just rambling here, but think about it—instead of wasting that third period every week making everyone stare at the same textbook while three kids struggle through the basics they haven't grasped in five or six years, why not use that time for something better? Like actual conversation practice for the students who are ready for it. It just feels like a waste of potential otherwise.

Wait, do you honestly think we’re constantly begging for smaller class sizes just because we like complaining? It's not that... I mean, it's not like we actually enjoy having twenty-eight kids from second or third grade crammed into a single classroom—it's practically a mosh pit at this point.

And honestly, that third hour you mentioned—I feel like we should probably be getting that one for free, right? I mean, between everything else, it feels like we aren't even getting paid enough to cover the basics, let alone everything else we deal with... it's just one of those things, really. ☕ Plus, honestly... the second something isn't strictly mandatory—like, the moment it’s actually off the schedule—you’ll suddenly have two kids appearing out of nowhere. Or three, if you’re having one of those lucky days.

In the fifth through eighth grades, students get three hours a week dedicated to their first language.
I honestly think that third period should be reserved for the kids who already have a bit of an edge. You can usually spot them as early as first grade—they either come straight out of preschool with a head start, or they just have that natural knack for it. It’s like they were born with an ear for this stuff!

You could always point to the religious education classes. They stay perfectly on schedule, even when you only have about 11 students in a room. They won't even think about merging classes because the Vatican wouldn't want to mess up their strict timetable.

Sarah Hall53 said:I mean, it really depends on the school, you know? I know plenty of places where the elective language was scheduled in the same shift as everything else—they’d rotate it, like, in Week A, computer science was on the opposite shift while the language stayed put, then in Week B, they swapped. But then, once computer science became mandatory... bam, Michael, you're out! You're moved to the opposite shift. They banned us from mixing groups, and suddenly you're either stuck in the other shift or forced into online classes. It’s no wonder so many kids just dropped out of the electives entirely.
Hanlon's razor is honestly the only thing stopping me from believing there's a systematic attempt to wipe out elective foreign languages in America.

We're talking about thousands fewer kids taking elective foreign languages over the last two years—and by the way, I'm not just pulling these numbers out of thin air; the American Association of German Teachers got them officially from the Department of Education.

I have a relative who’s a linguist. She doesn't live in the States anymore, but while she did, she taught at various schools.
It's true that kids would pick a language to learn, but then they’d just quit—either because the pace was too slow (which drags down the whole class) or because the teacher just wasn't great (and let's be real, some aren't). By 7th or 8th grade, a huge number of students would drop German. At the same time, they started pushing language learning as early as 1st grade, which is a recipe for disaster. Or maybe it's just a way to funnel people into private institutions like the Goethe Institute or Berlitz. Those are fine for learning, but we aren't talking about free, accessible second language education for everyone here.

I'm with Michelle Nelson4 on this. We should allow proficiency testing during enrollment, regardless of where they learned it, provided the school actually has the capacity to offer continued language instruction.
(I feel the same way about computer science, too. A lot of kids don't take it as an elective in 5th or 7th grade because they can find better programs elsewhere, even though it's essential for getting into technical high schools or specialized academies.)

And if we actually want to keep elective languages alive in schools, we need to work on making the classes smaller. We should give students who are moving faster an extra hour of instruction. Just thinking out loud here, but that third weekly period would be much better spent on conversation practice for advanced students rather than sitting through the same basic lessons with three kids who haven't grasped the fundamentals after five or six years...

Sarah Hall53 said:I mean, honestly, when is it actually better to start learning German, given how much inflection you have to deal with? There is a massive, night-and-day difference in skill levels between someone who has studied it for five years versus eight. With the way that language works, you pretty much need those seven or eight years just to start putting sentences together on your own if you're going at a standard school pace.—it’s just built into the nature of the language.
The gap between five and eight years of studying English is more like subtle nuances—my senior advisor tells me that when she looks at eighth graders, she can barely tell from their textbooks whether they've been learning it for five years or eight. But with German? Man, the difference is incredibly obvious.
And it really tells you everything you need to know that kids can pick up English as their primary second language without any trouble after just five years. Just try imagining doing that with German or French—you'd be looking at guaranteed remedial classes.

As for why they aren't signing up for the second language, blame the inflated GPA requirements and the fact that mandatory computer science classes have completely crowded out the regular curriculum ☕ and there you go—blaming the people who don't want to deal with bureaucracy just to appease parents who actually know what's best for their kids.

Not every kid (and let's face it, maybe not all will ever) is naturally wired for foreign languages. If you follow the flood of IPov reports regarding struggles with reading and writing, then the absolute minimum these students need is to start German in first grade. And honestly, the teachers need it too.

I agree that sending a teacher to the principal's office or cutting their pay isn't the answer—especially when, say, 14 students out of an entire grade don't want to take German as a second language (or when the school won't even schedule a class if only 11 show up, which happens all the time with elective courses like Religion). But the solution isn't forcing that language on 26 students for eight years when maybe only one of them actually cares, especially when it's being disguised as an "after-school program."
And that's exactly what's happening. It's becoming more common.
I see how hard it is for kids who have zero interest and no one at home to help them, especially when they might be dealing with other challenges too.
That is a guaranteed recipe for making them hate the language.
And I don't think the fix is to just hand out passing grades from fifth to eighth grade as a "thank you" for showing up for three hours a week while they learn nothing.

I am definitely in favor of offering extra credit for a second language and giving priority enrollment to schools that offer two advanced language tracks.

Generally speaking, I think ALL extra credit points (aside from actual grades and entrance exams) should be awarded for the specialized programs schools offer. We should give an advantage to the kids who want to go the extra mile by rewarding participation in activities the school deems relevant.

Sarah Hall53 said:With the classics, they always dump you into both the beginner and the advanced tracks at once—but if you're actually getting credit for learning Latin, you have to be in the advanced class, so I guess that weird inequality kind of evens itself out in the end. ☕
The big issue is that only getting two credits for four years of a second language... honestly, that felt like a total violation of our constitutional rights. ☕

I know.
And if you want credit for a second language, you absolutely have to take the advanced version.
Honestly, teaching these languages in schools feels like a waste of time if students just take the beginner levels during middle school—or don't take them at all (which seems to be the case based on what many teachers are saying in the online feedback sessions).
Not to mention the situation where someone studies German or French for eight years because it was the choice made back in elementary school, only to take advanced English later. If they don't take the first language they studied, it’s basically just throwing money down the drain.
It's an open secret that (at least regarding German, from what I've heard) parents are often nudged toward it at the start of sixth grade, or it's just pushed on kids as a requirement for staying in certain programs. Over the years, the number of classes has actually shrunk because kids either give up or simply don't sign up for the language in high school.

Also, looking at the proposed regulations, it seems like the Department of Education forgot that English isn't everyone's first language (something they also seemed to forget over on YouTube a couple of years ago).
Susan James made a great point here:

Regarding foreign language testing, we should clarify it this way: "...English, Mathematics, and the foreign language that students will study as their primary foreign language in High School..."
Reasoning: A problem arises if we allow schools to test only the first foreign language students learned in Elementary School, rather than the one they intend to study as their primary foreign language in High School. In some cases, students won't be able to or won't want to continue with the language they started in Elementary School (like French), and instead, they'll choose the language they studied as their *second* foreign language in Elementary School to be their primary one in High School. Therefore, students should be given the choice of which language to test for during admissions—it makes much more sense to test the language they will actually be continuing, rather than strictly sticking to whatever was their first language in Elementary School.

Though, personally, I think it makes sense to test proficiency in both languages if they are being taken at the advanced level.
(Latin as well 😬)