Posts by Susan James

mellowskipper said:I was just scrolling through the e-government portal, looking over some of the new regulations. It seems like there's quite a bit of a stir regarding those extra credit points for second languages—specifically the idea of using them for admission into language academies.
It actually makes sense, I suppose, but then you have to wonder why they aren't applying that same logic to computer science or technical high schools. Or even Catholic religious education.
The suggestion to scrap the GPA-based system is a decent one, in theory—it’s a solid idea—but let's be honest, that's probably never going to happen.

Sent from my PRA-LX1 via Reddit

Just leave the religious education alone (there are plenty of Catholic schools already enough).

They actually scrapped points for a second foreign language about ten years ago, but interestingly, you could still take advanced Latin in classical academies if you had studied it in middle school. What's funny is nobody ever questioned whether all students actually have the chance to pick Latin in middle school. The usual argument was that not everyone has the opportunity to choose a second language, though based on the comments in the consultation, it seems some kids can pick three different languages as their "second" language!

As for computer science, I think the quality varies wildly from one school to the next (though that goes for foreign languages too), depending on who is teaching, who is enrolling, and whether they hand out easy A's just to keep the averages up. I know people whose kids skipped elective computer science because, after 5th grade, they realized the curriculum was way too slow for what they actually wanted to learn (those kids were more into algebra and stuff like that).
But it would be great if high schools offering an advanced computer science track, or vocational tech schools, had their own specific entrance exams for that subject. That would be a definite win.
That’s also why I think it’s so important that entrance exams aren't identical across the whole country. Schools should be allowed the autonomy to decide what they want to test and to design their own exams themselves. I see some pushback on this during the consultation, though—people are asking "what if a teacher knows the student personally and gives them easier questions?" 😂 Talk about having a lot of faith in teachers! 🥳

Sarah Hall53 said:You want to hear something truly ironic? If you look back about ten years ago, you could practically count on one hand the number of schools that didn't offer a second foreign language or computer science. Fast forward to today, and those days are long gone—you can basically walk into any school in the country and pick those two electives if you want to. And honestly, it’s about time, too... there aren't even any extra credit points being handed out for kids who spent four years stuck in the late afternoon shift just because they had to grind through an extra subject compared to everyone else.

I mean, honestly, some schools even offer three now! 😬

wanderingbadger44 said:And honestly, they shouldn't.
It’s just like how kids attending art, music, or dance schools on the side don't get an edge. It used to be that attending two different types of schools could earn you bonus points for enrollment, but that was scrapped because not every small town has access to those specialized academies. It would be unfair to penalize kids from rural areas just because they don't have an arts conservatory nearby—much like how it's unrealistic to assume every tiny town has its own dedicated track club, tennis academy, or ski resort.

While the musicians and dancers accepted this reality a long time ago, athletes just won't stop complaining and demanding special treatment or extra perks.

Even though the law clearly states that only athletes officially categorized by the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee are eligible for certain accommodations, we find ourselves constantly having to explain to the mother of a starter for New York City FC that her son doesn't qualify for those privileges.

They are constantly dropping off certificates for tournaments and achievements, asking for excused absences from both written and oral exams.

It makes me wonder if there's ever a student-athlete who brings their coach a straight-A report card or proof of academic excellence... and then uses those high grades to argue for a starting spot, a place in a competition they didn't actually qualify for based on performance, or at least some kind of exemption from training requirements.

In reality, it's usually the exact opposite. Success in sports leads to demands for school concessions.
They regularly show up with various papers regarding their athletic achievements, using them as leverage to ask for easier workloads or to be excused from their academic responsibilities.

That whole setup with sports is actually a very American thing, and we seem to be leaning toward adopting those American ways—everything from oversimplifying curriculum to using athletic prowess as a gateway for high school admissions.
The main difference is that since American schools are private, being a star athlete can actually turn into a financial perk through scholarships. If I remember correctly, the original idea was to ensure athletes still get an education and stay motivated to stick with the school system despite their busy training schedules (which is why they get perks like extra time on exams, modified testing, or even specialized classes/schools designed specifically for student-athletes).

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with someone who excels both academically and athletically getting a bit of an edge during enrollment or when deciding on future studies. My issue is that here, "athletic success" seems to include just about anything. It feels like a huge injustice happened about ten years ago when school competitions were kept alive while other things were cut. Sports federations managed to lobby for extra credit points, yet art programs or foreign language electives didn't, all under the guise of making sure kids have "equal opportunities."
But I have to wonder, where is the equality in giving an extra point or three to a few kids who won a relay swim meet at a school that doesn't even have a pool or organized team practices? In that case, the PE teacher just went out of his way to gather a group of swimmers from different classes to lead them to a competition, and they happened to win. They were just lucky there were enough interested kids... and a dedicated teacher.
To me, having that kind of luck and opportunity feels like a much bigger privilege than not having the option to take a second foreign language at school—which, as far as I know, most schools offer anyway (and some even offer three).

I was just looking back at the date on the original post (November 26, 2012)—it’s been almost ten years! It really makes me think about how prophetic this all turned out to be. 🐔

wanderinggardener12 said:It seems nobody is talking about this latest proposal from the Secretary of Education and the rest of the administration, which makes me wonder if I should even bother starting a thread on it—especially since I don’t have a child directly impacted by these changes right now.
The proposal is headed for debate soon, yet amidst all the chaos currently facing our country, it seems to be slipping through the cracks, barely making a headline.
The Secretary wants to move enrollment entirely online, much like the system they implemented for college students three years ago. On paper, it’s supposed to make life easier for everyone—the kids, the parents, and the high schools themselves.
Under this plan, students can apply for ten different programs across a maximum of five schools. It sounds like a genuine improvement, provided the entire digital infrastructure doesn't collapse under the weight of 50,000 candidates hitting those servers at the exact same moment.
Then there’s the other side of the coin: the overhaul of the grading criteria. They aren't just looking at 7th and 8th-grade marks anymore; they’re pulling in data from 5th and 6th grade too. Previously, it was based on five subjects depending on the school and general GPA, but now they want five subjects plus GPAs calculated down to two decimal places. Furthermore, music and dance school credentials won't grant extra points anymore, and points earned from competitions will be scaled back.
In my view, these shifts could be excellent, provided they aren't applied retroactively. Families and students often develop specific strategies; they calculate their moves carefully. A parent might decide that those extra points from music school are more vital than an average grade in, say, shop class or art, or perhaps they aim for a specialized language academy where a mediocre science grade in 5th grade matters far less than maintaining straight As in history and social studies.
Ultimately, these new regulations will only ramp up the pressure on elementary school teachers. Everyone will be chasing perfect scores in every single subject, which will inevitably lead to even greater grade inflation and a sense of enrollment panic—if not outright hysteria—starting as early as 5th grade.
While the Secretary talks about reducing stress levels by eliminating mid-term grades, he seems to be charging headlong into disaster with an idea that is clearly unprepared or, at the very least, poorly thought out.

mellowskipper said:Is this specific regulation actually undergoing revisions right now?
Is there some kind of e-consultation process currently underway?

Sent from my PRA-LX1 via Reddit

Yes,
here is

hiddendriver34 said:Totally. But look, there’s a whole side to this industry that people on the outside just don't get. For some teachers, it feels like they're carrying the entire weight of the school on their backs. They’re the ones teaching the core subjects that lead up to graduation, so everyone expects them to go the extra mile—more prep, more responsibility, more emotional labor. It’s constant. Meanwhile, you’ve got teachers on the complete opposite end of the spectrum who basically just clock in, do the bare minimum, and nobody ever asks anything extra of them.

I honestly feel like some things just carry more weight than others. Not everything is created equal, you know? Some items have this way of being absolutely essential, while other stuff is just... there.🤷

You probably won't have an entrance exam for history anyway. If that's the case, does it really matter if the kid knows five major Middle Ages events right now? They’re going to be learning all of that at the start of the term regardless. It feels a little embarrassing for a future high schooler, I guess, but hey, what can you do?

Honestly, there is so much vital information in American literature classes that kids are supposed to master by the time they finish elementary school, but you know how it goes—they just don't show up with those skills. They walk into middle school without any real reading habits, leaving them with huge gaps in their knowledge. I really think we need to start having more honest conversations about motivation and actually getting kids interested in learning.

I’ve heard through the grapevine that one of the local high schools—you know, the one everyone started flocking to recently because of the morning shift schedule or its proximity to the local music academy—is actually making their entrance exam for English incredibly difficult. People haven't quite been able to pin down exactly why it's so tough, but I’m worried it might be overkill. It would be such a shame if kids ended up totally stressed out, sitting there sweating through exams in a stuffy classroom without any air conditioning or anything. Just seems like a lot of unnecessary pressure for them.
Besides the fact that this subject is basically the foundation for everything else, honestly, isn't it a bit embarrassing? If a kid has been pulling straight A's in English for four years straight, how can the entrance exam be considered "difficult" or "stressful"? Even if their goal is to play in a major symphony orchestra, they still need to be literate. Plus, we shouldn't be taking spots away from someone who actually worked harder or has more talent. If the main issue is just wanting to avoid the morning shift, then maybe put in the effort to earn that spot. Usually, professors are much more motivated when they only have one shift to manage, and they tend to give much more of themselves. Why shouldn't that knowledge go to someone who actually knows more and is genuinely driven to be there?

I’ve been thinking about one of those elite prep schools in Washington, D.C., and how much things have changed since they implemented their entrance exams. Even though they still end up enrolling some kids who didn't quite hit that perfect 5.0 GPA in middle school, I can't help but wonder about the workload for the math department. I’m sure designing and grading these entrance tests is a massive undertaking, but honestly, it seems like it would actually save them a headache in the long run. If they focus on students who are already fully prepared, the teachers don't have to spend their entire first year playing catch-up. They won't have to waste precious instructional time patching up fundamental knowledge gaps or sitting through intense meetings with parents trying to gently explain that their "math prodigy" isn't actually at that level yet. When you bring in students who are truly ready, the professors can actually do what they were hired to do: push the curriculum forward. They can set higher standards—even going beyond the standard textbooks—to ensure these kids are ready for top-tier universities. If you want someone to eventually thrive in a rigorous STEM program, they need to master these concepts now while they have the foundation to support it. It just seems more efficient for everyone involved.
Even though a former cabinet member is out there on Facebook claiming that elite prep schools don't actually exist...

Bilingual programs have been around for ages—back in my day, they were actually quite common—and art schools have always offered them too. Honestly, I don’t quite get why people think it adds extra stress to other schools. It just seems like a great way to learn!
I’ve been thinking about how we handle electives in our science programs. Wouldn't it be great if they offered courses specifically designed to boost a student's GPA? It could be a win-win: students get a chance to pull their grades up, and schools might actually see more interest in competitive academic contests. It shouldn't just be limited to math, either. We could offer advanced STEM subjects or even specialized language tracks. For instance, many kids take two foreign languages, especially those in language academies. If that second language felt meaningful during middle school rather than being a burden that drags down their overall average, more students would stick with it. Right now, I see so many kids dropping classes because they're worried about their GPA, which ends up leaving teachers with awkward gaps in their schedules. It feels like such a missed opportunity for everyone involved.

While I don't have strong feelings about the entrance exams themselves, I actually think it's a great idea to scrap the whole circus surrounding extra credit points. You know, those bonuses given out for things like asthma, divorce settlements, or other social and health issues. It might seem trivial, but when everyone else is sitting at an 80, the kid whose mom happens to remember to grab some old medical records from a checkup years ago—maybe citing some random allergy to tree pollen—suddenly gets a massive leg up. Especially since the school they're applying to has a row of large oak trees right out front 🥳

hiddendriver34 said:Honestly, I think this will only be a thing for those schools where the entry bar is a perfect 5.0, and those places have already jumped on it.

Putting together, organizing, and actually running entrance exams is a massive undertaking. It takes serious initiative, a lot of grit, top-tier organizational skills from the school administration, and a handful of highly motivated teachers who are willing to go the extra mile.

Honestly, this just feels really sad to me.
I really want to believe that in the high schools where kids are making these big life decisions, there are teachers who actually care about ensuring students walk in with a solid foundation—knowledge they’ll actually enjoy building upon.
I’d love to see them motivated enough to actually verify that knowledge before enrollment happens.

No matter how huge the workload is, I truly believe it pays off to check proficiency in subjects where the curriculum builds on itself;
It would mean less repetitive teaching, fewer gaps in student knowledge within the same classroom, and a much more productive environment for everyone involved.
It's just frustrating.

rowdypanther12 said:Do you think they won't roll this out to everyone, at least not to those who are really eager to jump on board?

I'm pretty sure they will.
The ones who aren't seeing a massive influx probably won't bother changing anything.

From what I can see, their biggest headache right now was just setting the deadlines for requests and figuring out all the requirements people had to meet.

northerntiger9 said:Regarding sports—it’s not exactly straightforward, and honestly, this whole scoring system should just be scrapped. It has nothing to do with being an elite athlete or how hard you work—unless, of course, luck is on your side.

The way the rules work is that they only recognize competitions organized by school athletic clubs. To put it bluntly: you could train track all you want and break a national record, but if your school doesn't have a coach willing to send you to the state qualifiers, you might as well be barking at the moon. On top of that, some sports only offer team events rather than individual ones, which means besides having a coach, you also need a handful of teammates who are actually good enough to win something that counts toward points.

Take our school, for instance—we have several kids who are national champions in their respective sports, yet the only ones sent to school competitions are the table tennis players or the soccer team. 😬

Actual club competitions are only considered for admission into specialized sports academies, and even then, you have to be highly ranked in the season standings with national-level success just to get a look-in. And because of the pandemic, it's been a mess for certain sports since competitions were canceled entirely—leaving them with zero results to show for it—while other sports managed to keep going.

So... yeah.

Edit: I see only one comment above, so let me clarify once more—kids who compete in state-organized events through official bodies (like US Ski & Snowboard, United States Tennis Association, USA Track & Field, etc.) do NOT receive any points.

I personally feel there should be a way to value extra achievements and competitions, regardless of who organizes them or where they take place.
I'm no expert here, but I truly believe that kids who excel in these competitions won't view the entrance testing for their dream schools as a source of stress...

Using table tennis scores or school swimming meets (especially in schools without a pool!) as criteria for getting into a specialized language academy just doesn't make sense. For a language academy, it would be much more logical to test proficiency in two foreign languages or offer bonus points for studying both at school or through a language institute—essentially giving priority to students who have mastered both at an advanced level.
for example...

I'm sorry to see the points increasing from 5 to 10, though I suppose it's something.
I'm still against a standardized national exit exam; I think individual school admissions are much more objective and tailored to the student than a "one size fits all" national test.
plus, schools can still choose not to hold entrance exams at all.
And I'm sure we'll still see plenty of schools doing exactly that.

urbantinker8 said:Only just now? 🤣🤣
The whole thing with the AP curriculum has been one of the biggest messes in the American school system over the last few years, I suppose, and we really have the "experts" to thank for that. 🙂
It feels like there needs to be a much more explicit set of rules defining exactly what those potential admissions points are actually for, and maybe—it wouldn't hurt, I guess—if every transcript included a specific note indicating whether a student completed their grade via the AP or standard track.

Standard tracks are usually noted on the back (unless that changed recently 🤔)

I’m with you on that, though I should add that those specific programs are vetted by the school nurse and the local city office.
It's true—without a mental health professional's assessment, this would be nearly impossible to implement, but at the end of the day, someone still has to sign off on the official paperwork.

If we weren't getting sidetracked here, I just hope these geniuses don't try to impose special rules for writing entrance exams.
Man, some truly talented Intel students are going to get caught in the crossfire, but someone has to pay the price for this wave of nonsense.

Sarah Hall53 said:My colleagues over at the local high school tell me the funniest stories—it’s honestly kind of wild. They say the best part is when students who were supposed to use special placement vouchers or priority admissions decide to just play by the rules and compete during the regular enrollment period using their standard GPA. And then? They actually get in. So you end up with three kids enrolled via those special pathways, and then suddenly, three or four more pop up out of nowhere—you don't even realize they're part of the specialized programs until after the first round of exams is already over. 👋
Then there’s the whole situation where you’re stuck in a classroom with six or seven students who have significant learning accommodations 👋 all while dealing with these massive $1.25 increases in student numbers per hour—and don't even get me started on the pay. You only get extra compensation for the priority placements, and even then, it’s capped at the first three because federal regulations won't let them pay us for more than that—so if you hit a fourth, you just don't see a dime for it 👋

This has been happening more often lately, and honestly, it’s a mess. This year was especially bad... (especially since they were picking up extra points for health considerations or social status. In some cases, it actually made more sense for them to apply through the regular route)

In my opinion, if high school isn't mandatory, there should be a rule: if you get in through the general enrollment process, you stay on that track. It's simple. If the curriculum ends up being too tough for you, you either repeat a grade or find an easier path.
Also, regarding enrollment, they really should limit it to one specialized placement per school rather than letting them pick three per grade level.

mellowskipper said:Can one of the professors please clarify how this extra credit for students with medical hardships actually works? I’m trying to figure out if this is a separate thing from the IEP process—as in, would it be more advantageous for a child to apply using this additional point system rather than going through the standard IEP route? Or is it just an add-on?

Sent from my iPhone 12 Pro via Reddit

Looking at how the enrollment turned out this year with all the IEP applications, I really think the district needs to address this massive inflation of points and tighten up the admission criteria.

The medical condition points seem to act as a tiebreaker—if students are tied at the bottom of the list, those points kick in. Personally, I think that’s pretty fair.

It is a shame, though, that the entrance exam doesn't carry more weight in the overall score.

I haven't seen any posts from you yet! Feel free to jump in whenever you're ready. kaže:
I’m actually more curious about who’s going to be teaching this one. Any idea who they've got lined up for the lectures?🐔😳
What kind of qualifications do you actually need to teach a course on critical thinking?🤣

Long-term investing on the stock market. 🤣

Beyond just the budget concerns, I have a bit of a worry here. It feels like this might become a way to create "busy work" for people with degrees in philosophy, history, or theology—basically hiring academics just to fill space. If we go down that path, you could theoretically end up putting psychologists into those roles too.

I get that religious studies isn't going anywhere in our school system, but it feels pretty pointless to frame it as an "elective" when the only real choice is between religion and something else. It’s the same deal with ethics classes in high school—it doesn't really feel like a genuine choice if those are the only two options on the table.

I think we should add an extra hour of PE to the schedule—maybe get them out running around outside for a bit. It would be great to give the kids more freedom to choose how they spend that time, whether it's playing volleyball, attending religion class, or just catching up on some sleep.

It’s definitely doable. You could easily schedule those sessions before or after regular classes so the kids don't have to deal with gaps in their daily schedule. As for the staffing, you don't necessarily need one dedicated teacher for remedial work and another for the main subject. In most schools, we usually have about three or four teachers handling things, so it's manageable. It might be a little more challenging in smaller single-teacher schools, but it's certainly not impossible to pull off.
If we’re looking at the schedule for the lower grades—where they have their 4th and 5th periods, then 6th and 7th for their specific subjects, followed by the 1st and 2nd periods during the second shift—and this pattern repeats four days a week, they’ve basically completely overhauled the professor's timetable. Honestly, those lower classes could just meet twice a week instead; it doesn't necessarily have to be set up as a block.
The professor doesn't have any scheduling conflicts, and neither do the kids. I honestly don't get all this back-and-forth about everything having to fit into a rigid timetable just because Professor V wants to start teaching at 8:00 AM. If that’s how they want to roll, they should just go get a degree in mathematics and stick to teaching morning classes exclusively.

mellowskipper said:I see what's happening here. But honestly, none of that matters. Those Vatican agreements are untouchable, and that's where the whole conversation ends.

Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Reddit

Fair enough. If we’re all just bound by those Vatican treaties, then fine—let it stay in the school curriculum. And if there are parents out there who truly believe their kids need Religious Education to help them stand out or for whatever other reason they want to enroll, that's their call.

I just don't think we should be pushing "alternative" versions through the back door in the form of brand-new subjects.

mellowskipper said:I mean, it would only make sense if they ran them at the exact same time—assuming this is actually an alternative. That way, you’d have one group heading off to religious studies while the other focuses on critical thinking. It seems like the most logical split, I guess.

Sent from my Android device using Reddit

Why on earth would my kid need six hours of school in one day when four would do the trick?

Do you really think it makes sense to pay a teacher to lead a critical thinking class for just three students?
Or will they just mash together groups of 3, 3, 5, and 2 from different classes—not even at the same time as religious studies—just to save some money? Honestly, let's stop looking for "alternatives" to a subject that shouldn't even be part of the standard curriculum anyway.
And no, using the hallway isn't a solution. COVID taught us all that block scheduling works perfectly fine; we could easily host these sessions at the very beginning or the end of the school day.
Our kids are being overloaded with too many subjects. Meanwhile, they aren't getting nearly enough Hertz or math, and the fundamentals are way too thin.
They're just learning a little bit of everything, which means by the end of the year, they won't actually retain anything.

Even if you ignore the confusing name, it’s still a worthwhile investment.
And of course, this happens right in the middle of the census, where some folks are already complaining that their grandkids won't be counted as Catholic. The timing for this task force is just off; they really should have waited until the census results were actually in.

Parents and teachers have been calling for an alternative for ages because they don't want kids falling through the cracks.😠
Honestly, though, I think kids are doing just fine as it is. As for that subject—with its nonsensical name—we should probably just hire as many general teachers as we have religion instructors. We currently have way too many religion teachers, which is a huge drain on the budget since classes aren't combined when less than half the students attend, much like how we handle German classes.
Who’s going to foot the bill for that?

I’ve posted about this here before: I’m not a fan of any alternatives. If someone wants to go, let them; if not, let them play. It would be wonderful if these sessions could just be held at the church instead.

I’ve been watching the chaos first graders deal with while getting used to a few different teachers, and now they’re going to have more chaos with kids splitting up for different subjects. How is that supposed to work in practice if one student goes to Ethics while 24 stay for Religion? It might work if it’s a fifty-fifty split, but if the vast majority goes one way and only one or two go the other, it’s going to be a nightmare for classroom dynamics right at the start of school.🙄
I personally feel like first graders should only have a maximum of two teachers, without all these extra interruptions to their lessons. Most of what they learn in computer lab can be handled by the homeroom teacher anyway—most have been doing that since we shifted to remote learning for a couple of years.
Religion in church, and maybe English after school during supervised study time.

I really hope they commit to this alternative plan for at least three years.🥳

hiddendriver34 said:Wait, how did I equate them? I specifically wrote that "the teacher talks for most of the period." How does that possibly apply to a ten-minute lecture followed by thirty minutes of student debate? 🤷

No, I don't think it's normal. But I guess that’s usually the kind of thing parents look for—the ones whose kids aren't getting A's but want them, rather than the parents whose kids are failing and just hoping for a passing grade.

Besides, I wasn't even offering links to random extra study guides; I was talking about the digital supplements that come with the textbooks.

Hold on a second. Do you honestly believe an eleven-year-old or a fifteen-year-old has the cognitive capacity to jump into a full-blown debate right after listening to a ten-minute lecture on something they're hearing for the first or second time?
Do you really think a student has enough foundational knowledge or the specific skills to learn about the fall of Rome just because a teacher gives a quick ten-minute overview and then expects the whole class—which is a mixed bag of abilities—to just sit around and discuss it? 🙏

😕
It’s honestly no wonder our scores on Microsoft tests are so low.
And things are likely going to get even worse once this becomes the norm.

Project-based learning and collaborative teaching have basically become a joke for teachers who don't want to put in the work. They'll just pass the buck to the parents to download stuff from the internet, and then blame "lazy" or "uninterested" kids when they don't know the material.

hiddendriver34 said:There’s really no comparison there. If a teacher spends ten minutes laying out the core concepts and then kicks off a group discussion or a lively debate, that is a completely different beast than a teacher lecturing for forty minutes straight and tossing in five quick questions along the way—which barely eats up five minutes of class time.

And if you want my two cents on why we're seeing this, look at our dismal scores on the Microsoft tests compared to how incredibly well students in places like Finland are doing. But honestly, I don't even want to get sucked into a massive back-and-forth with you all about the "why" behind those numbers right now.

Of course you did—you made them equal in your post. It was pretty clear.
It’s crystal clear to me that this is exactly how some teachers operate. I actually hear about it from my kids all the time, and honestly, I've even had some teachers admit that's just their way of doing things.
Does anyone else find it a little strange when parents turn to online forums to hunt for extra study materials for their kids? I was scrolling through some threads earlier and couldn't help but wonder if they realize just how much information is out there.

hiddendriver34 said:Suddenly, everyone thinks they’re an expert educator.

Look, I get it. Divjakica and her crew can be incredibly grating because they try to flip everything upside down without actually having a solid plan. But let’s be real: this whole "life skills" approach isn't some revolutionary discovery. What they’re pushing is just standard modern pedagogy used in top-tier international systems—think Scandinavia—where actual experts designed and rolled out these methodologies.

Sure, a teacher needs to explain certain concepts to kids. But if a classroom consists of a teacher lecturing for forty minutes while students just sit there, nodding and scribbling notes every single day? That’s just bad teaching.

The truth is, that kind of lecture-style teaching is the lazy way out. Honestly, you don't even really have to prepare for it. If you've been in the classroom long enough, you’ve got all the facts stored in your head already. You can just show up, stand at the front, and talk at them.

I think people are confusing old-school dictation with actual engagement, like storytelling or getting kids involved in discussions during the lesson. It makes me sad when teachers treat those two things as the same thing. Instead of meaningful interaction, they swap it out for "collaborative learning," where kids just sit there reading a textbook and trying to figure things out alone before the teacher quizzes them. 👎

And honestly, forget about what they're doing in Scandinavia.
Has anyone ever stopped to wonder why Sweden imports our doctors and ITevcc professionals? Has anyone asked why they’re constantly facing a shortage of experts? Or why they’re okay with such massive waves of migration?
Has anyone wondered why major tech companies in the US are dominated by talent from India and Pakistan?
Why are Japan and China moving ahead so fast?
Why do we look at Americans (with their three core subjects throughout school) or Scandinavians as role models when they mostly just focus on philosophy? Though, to be fair, those kids at least get some hands-on experience since they learn manual skills starting in preschool, which prevents them from feeling totally frustrated early on.

But generally speaking, looking back over the last ten years, I feel like we're just producing kids who struggle to function.
It comes from a lack of actual instruction, a lack of accountability, a lack of homework, and then handing out grades like candy.
We take away their ability to deal with frustration, we cut back on practice and studying, yet we still have these massive textbooks filled with pictures and terrible writing—and most kids either check out completely or somehow end up as honor roll students anyway.

urbantinker8 said:I mean, in my experience, I’ve rarely relied on heavy lecturing; if I am explaining something, it usually doesn't drag on for more than maybe fifteen or twenty minutes, but ninety percent of the time it’s really just discussion or some sort of listening and reading comprehension exercises, or perhaps a project or having them present their own research.
I only really lecture when introducing new grammar rules, though that doesn't happen all that often.
With foreign language studies, things haven't actually changed much compared to the "old school" methods.
Though, I have to admit, whenever I try to imagine students in a math, chemistry, or physics class constantly conducting their own independent investigations and arriving at every single conclusion and realization entirely on their own—all while receiving "teacher support" but without any actual direct instruction—I can't help but chuckle.
Luckily, I guess those teachers are laughing too, since they still end up explaining things the traditional way.🙏

Not everyone is laughing, though. For some, it’s actually nice to take a breather while the kids dive into the texts themselves. If they don't get something, honestly, it's often on them—they're either being lazy, disinterested, or struggling to focus because they've been glued to their phones at home.
Any excuse that shifts the responsibility onto the kid is a convenient one.
And then you shouldn't be surprised by a flood of IP Corp complaints.

One of the silver linings (if you can call it that) during the pandemic era was the return to in-person learning where students weren't allowed to sit in little groups of four (where half the class ends up with their backs to the board) or cluster together by neighborhood to work on group projects.
Suddenly, the same people who had to start looking students in the eye again (and now doing it through masks, which makes eye contact even more vital) are yelling that infection rates are too high and we need to switch back to online learning. And since recording sessions isn't always an option for various reasons, they just send instructions to parents or students telling them which page of the textbook to cover independently.

And that's the "education reform" that parents supposedly asked for.

Of course, there are things kids simply need explained, demonstrated, or told through a story. It's not just limited to math or language grammar; it applies to history through anecdotes, biology, geography, technical skills... you name it.

This whole group research/project-based/collaborative learning thing—whatever they're calling it these days—is actually fantastic for interdisciplinary topics and connecting what's already been learned across different subjects. Language classes are probably the best place for this; you can practice grammar and expand vocabulary while simultaneously reviewing science or history, tossing in some civic education and real-world life skills... plus, it helps build a sense of community in the classroom through actual communication.

From what I saw last year, Google studies and science curricula overlap quite a bit in many places. If a topic has already been covered in science, you can assign a project for them to tackle during geography. But if it hasn't, then you're basically just dumping extra homework on a student that the teacher should have handled.