Posts by Susan James

I’m still scratching my head over what kids are actually supposed to be doing on those tablets.
It all started when someone asked if fifth graders would even need to carry books in their backpacks anymore. I chimed in to say that while the plan is for everyone in grades 5 through 8 to get a tablet, I haven't seen anything suggesting they’re meant to replace physical textbooks. So, from what I can tell, we're looking at students lugging around a backpack full of books *plus* a tablet, all funded by taxpayers. I honestly don't see the upside here—what kind of actual improvements in the classroom are we supposed to get from this?

I’m still scratching my head over what kids are actually supposed to be doing on these tablets.
It all started when someone asked if fifth graders would still be lugging books around in their backpacks. I chimed in to say that according to the latest news, students from fifth through eighth grade are all getting tablets. But honestly, I haven't seen a single thing suggesting these devices are meant to replace physical textbooks. So, from what I can gather, we're looking at kids carrying both heavy books *and* a tablet, all funded by taxpayers. I just don't see the logic here—what's the actual benefit, and how is this supposed to improve the way they learn in the classroom?

Michelle Nelson4 said:Well, if the curriculum is identical and the teaching methods remain the same, then at the end of the day, it’s effectively the same thing—it certainly isn't making things worse. I'm not quite sure what problems tablets are supposed to be "masking"; a tablet is just a piece of technology, much like any other gadget... except you can access the internet with them. That way, you can't make those silly excuses anymore about how kids can't look things up online because they don't have enough money for a $10 voucher (there have been plenty of those "arguments" floating around), or that they can't work on documents via email because not everyone has a computer at home or their school equipment is "ancient." So, if nothing else, that part of the excuse disappears. Though, of course, we Americans are now starting to come up with ridiculous rebuttals like "they don't have cameras" or "that's junk that's only used in Ethiopia while everyone else has moved on"—so why don't we just go back to using chalkboards until we find some mythical creature in a white-walled utopia that offers a perfectly ideal solution we can all adopt? For us, nothing ever seems good enough to even try...

PS Even if the government "just wasted money on tablets" (and besides, most of that was actually EU funding, not our own domestic budget)—I see it as a positive. I think it's wonderful that every child gets a tablet. We are living in the 21st century; this provides at least some tangible benefit to every kid.

PPS My daughter has a street backpack, and she's quite happy with it. Everything fits. Her art supplies (since they carry those), her gym gear, and her German books (since she has German class). And judging by how well it holds an umbrella, I'd say it's reasonably waterproof 😁 I have no idea what the bottom is like; nobody really cares how the backpack sits on the floor. Her books were mostly used anyway...

What do you think they should actually be doing on those tablets?

The money coming from the European Union isn't some magical gift out of thin air—it’s essentially just tax dollars being shuffled around. It wasn't picked off a tree somewhere, and let's be honest, we're the ones who'll end up footing the bill for it, likely with interest added on top.
Honestly, spending that kind of money on disposable tech feels like such a waste. Instead of pouring funds into actual improvements—like teacher training, how they connect with students, or fixing the way learning actually happens—it just feels like we're throwing cash away. To me, it looks more like a way to mask the deep-seated issues our education system is facing rather than actually solving them.

I honestly feel like this whole push to buy tablets is just a way for the Secretary of Education to score political points. They’re banking on the idea that parents will be thrilled because their kids can suddenly Google things on an English class smartwatch, but if you ask me, it’s complete nonsense. Not every parent is asking for tablets, and frankly, not everyone wants their kids surfing the web during school hours. For instance, I personally want my daughter to spend those two hours a week actually focusing on her lessons rather than being glued to a screen. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. It’s funny how certain topics just stay on your mind, isn't it? I was sitting in a coffee shop in Seattle the other day—just watching the rain hit the window—and it occurred to me how much we all tend to dwell on these things. It's almost like a quiet background noise in our daily lives. Anyway, I wanted to share a few thoughts on this and see what you all think.She keeps her eyes fixed on the child she’s sitting with while they practice their lines together. It’s really sweet to watch them role-play different life scenarios like that. Plus, having a teacher right there to step in and gently correct her pronunciation as she speaks makes such a huge difference.
You can always just Google it from home.
You can always just stay in and catch up on YouTube from the comfort of your own home.
You could even work on writing essays or filling in those grammar exercises at home, whether you prefer using a tablet or just good old-fashioned pen and paper.
Honestly, she probably shouldn't try fixing that tablet app on her own at home. I mean, sure, I could take a crack at it, but I really think it’s better to let a professional handle it. Better safe than sorry!
I'd love to get some clarification on this—what exactly is that tablet supposed to be doing on their watch?

Honestly, if we could swap out those heavy English or language arts textbooks—especially that one specific workbook that’s just poorly written and printed on such flimsy paper—for a single tablet, I’d be all in. Think about it: we save a fortune on paper, and if we throw in digital versions of math, music, history, and geography, we're saving entire forests. Plus, my kid’s back would definitely thank me! I’d sign off on that idea in a heartbeat, even if they ended up doing a quick Google search on their smartwatch every now and then.
I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that! It looks like you might have sent an incomplete message. Feel free to drop whatever you were thinking about—I'm all ears and ready to chat! I really don't think that's going to happen with this current round of reforms.
If I’m reading this right—and please, feel free to set me straight if I've missed anything—they're actually handing out physical, paper textbooks? They’re still there, they just have one more tool in their kit—digital textbooks and Google. Teachers can get as creative as they want, provided they don't burn through all their data too fast (though some schools actually have Wi-Fi nowadays)
But honestly, once the internet cuts out, the kid’s battery dies, or someone inevitably cracks a screen, we’ll be stuck dealing with technical glitches and whining about how the education system is failing.
The actual process, the teaching methods, and the core knowledge? Those will likely be pushed to the sidelines or dumped onto the parents' shoulders again.
You want to know how things could get even worse than this?
It happens when everything hits a snag, and suddenly, it isn't just the teacher's fault anymore—it's "the technology." The great teachers will find ways to power through (not that parents won't still give them a hard time about why something isn't working perfectly), while the struggling ones will have a built-in excuse for their lack of prep. They'll just shrug and say, "Well, you guys asked for tablets, and now they aren't working."

Personally, I’ve pretty much given up on relying on the current school system to handle my child's education.
My little one started learning the basics back in preschool, and seeing how school progresses, I’m constantly amazed at the incredible work those teachers did. They managed it all without a single textbook or tablet, just through hands-on, experiential learning. Public school is miles behind, and frankly, it’s never going to catch up.
For me, school is mainly important for socialization; otherwise, I would have switched to homeschooling a long time ago. One thing I really don't get, though, is how staring at a tablet is supposed to help kids socialize...

frozenrider15 said:Are there any parents here with kids entering fifth grade?

I’m trying to figure out if fifth-grade textbooks will actually fit in a Target backpack. My little one used a Target bag during third and fourth grade—you know, the two-in-one style where the smaller front compartment detaches (I can't find the link right now)—so I'm wondering if we can stick with it or if I should start looking for something bigger. I really don't want to buy extra gear if we don't need it, but I remember back in fourth grade, there were days when the bag was absolutely stuffed to the brim. For example, on some days she'd have two books and a notebook for History, three books and a notebook for Math, plus two books and notebooks for English and Spanish.

I used to think kids just lugged around massive bags because they pack way more than just their actual schoolwork, but lately, I've been second-guessing that. 😁Maybe it's just the sheer volume of books.

And what about those kids who head off to fifth grade basically carrying nothing but a tablet and a few light books? 🍿

Robert Rodriguez9 said:And once again, just to be safe, they’re asking about the first day of school. 😁

It’s not just asking, though—my kid actually managed to get a book too! 🍿

rowdypanther12 said:I don't really care what the church says; official government statistics are what actually matter 😁 besides, neither I nor my child attend services 😁
he was baptized, but unless they start taxing it, he won't be signing any paperwork to change his status 😁

The thing about those government stats is that atheists get lumped right in there too. Their parents just list them as Catholic, and when the census workers come around, they don't wait for everyone to be home—they just ask the parents.

My sister was actually away on a study abroad program in Europe when the census happened, and my parents just checked the "Catholic" box for her.
A whole bunch of her friends ended up the same way.
And probably tons of other people, too.
Besides, this whole census thing feels pretty pointless anyway.

Peter Rogers said:You really have to look into how that works, because if you ask me, the Church counts everyone who’s been baptized as a member—which, let's be honest, we actually are. We're on the rolls. It’s basically up to us whether we decide to keep showing up or just quit the club 😉
. That's why there's even a formal process for withdrawing from the Church in the first place.
Oh, and when it comes to the official government stats, it all just boils down to how you choose to identify yourself on the Census.

It's a numbers game, I guess.
I feel like I'm still one of their little sheep just because of how my parents raised me. If they ever introduce a religious tax like they have over in Germany, I'm worried I might actually have to get moving and officially withdraw just to avoid paying.

I've heard people in Germany saying they pay taxes based on data shared from the churches back home, which seems to be why more and more people are looking into officially opting out. 😬

Robert Rodriguez9 said:So, apparently, religion is supposed to be a mandatory subject, and they’re claiming it shouldn't even be grouped in the same elective category as German or Computer Science. 🙄

https://www.nytimes.com/news/us/politics/religion-education-debate/8942819/

Religious studies textbooks are official school textbooks, treated exactly the same as any other required course textbook under Section 4, Item 1.

Wow, okay! So first they won't buy art portfolios for kids—even though art is required and those folders are essential since there aren't traditional textbooks—and now they're saying they won't pay for second language materials either? But apparently, everyone gets a religious studies book provided, even for those who don't pick it, just in case they change their minds later. 🙂)

Peter Rogers said:I’ve got this nagging fear that if we actually go through with separating religious education from the standard curriculum, we're just opening a massive can of worms, you know? Like, once those classes are isolated, won't people immediately start demanding that everything taught in religion class perfectly aligns with specific religious doctrines, and before you even know it, they'll be pushing those same agendas into science class too? It’s like a slippery slope where one little change leads to a total overhaul of how we teach reality itself.
Maybe I'm just tripping, but...

That’s something that has crossed my mind more than a few times too. But based on what I remember about how things are set up at your school, they could probably just have two different groups listening to the religious education lesson at once.
The others would just stay home during that period.
The religious ed teacher would end up with two fewer hours in their weekly schedule, but hey, it is what it is.

rowdypanther12 said:In my experience, if there are about 20 kids in a grade who aren't attending school, there’s no way they’re going to group them together and create one massive, unmanageable classroom.
It seems like they’re actually trying to consolidate more students into single classrooms, at least at our local school district.
It just makes things easier for everyone involved.

Honestly, dealing with just one kid is much simpler for the administration.
Trying to manage groups of 3, 4, or 5 gets complicated for the school because if they're scattered across different classrooms, you can't exactly squeeze another 10 students into an Art class that already has 28 kids in it.
And generally speaking, you need to have at least 10 of them together unless it's the very first or last period of the day—and since they can't be left unsupervised, that's a tough sell.

If Class A and Class B both only have 15 students attending religion class, while the others don't, they could easily just merge Classes A and B together. Meanwhile, the rest of the kids could be elsewhere. It would actually solve the scheduling headache where religious education can't always be the first or last period for everyone. Since those two classes would be changing rooms together, the school could definitely prioritize giving them that first or last slot.
But that’ll probably never happen because then some religion teacher would lose teaching hours...
It's a bit funny compared to the German teachers, who get stuck with Classes A, B, and C all at once. I used to worry about the quality of language instruction at the school, and honestly, it doesn't seem fair that they're allowed to combine language classes but not religion. If anything, smaller language groups are better so every student gets more practice speaking. With religion, they're mostly listening to stories anyway, so smaller groups aren't even necessary—in fact, maybe keeping them quiet is better so they don't start sharing too many "opinions!"

Jacob Lopez2 said:That’s true, but if students have the option to simply opt out, then those attending religious classes aren't being disadvantaged—especially since they can attend services at any local church for free. That’s my point.

Yeah, but from their perspective, it doesn't work like that.
They don't really seem to care about the kids who skip the religious classes. If you offered them Chinese language classes as an alternative instead, even if they had zero interest in learning it, they'd probably start protesting just because both options are being offered at the exact same time.

Jason Morgan said:In high school? Sure, you could get a decent read on things. But elementary school? Not a chance. You’d have to dig much deeper than just surface-level vibes. I suppose one might ask how much they are actually absorbing versus just listening to a lecture, or if they feel comfortable enough to speak up when they're lost—and more importantly, if they actually receive a helpful answer. You'd need to gauge whether the teacher seems genuinely prepared or if they show up looking like they just rolled out of bed and wandered into the classroom without a clue. You'd look at the depth of the curriculum coverage, the teaching methodology, and the actual quality of information being passed down. Those are valid inquiries. However, under no circumstances should you ever corner a child with manipulative, open-ended nonsense like, "Do you like your teacher?" or "Are the lessons fun?" That is simply not how you get the truth.

I've noticed that after various workshops or extracurricular programs, kids often fill out surveys about what they learned and their overall experience. If those surveys avoid loaded, leading questions, we could easily design similar ones for teachers too.

In many American schools, kids participate in sociometry assessments as early as second grade. From everything I’ve gathered, the results often line up perfectly with what the teachers are seeing in the classroom anyway.
Kids are actually quite perceptive, and we shouldn't be afraid of their feedback. Instead, we should view it as valuable data to help us improve how we teach.

Jason Morgan said:Elementary school students simply lack the maturity required to evaluate their teachers; frankly, it is quite absurd and unprofessional to allow pre-adolescent children to hold such sway over a person's career.
In the faculty lounges, there is a very clear understanding of who actually puts in the work and who is merely coasting, and any principal worth their salt knows exactly which staff members are assets and which are liabilities.
Furthermore, children are incredibly easy to manipulate, and any teacher who lacks a work ethic can easily "buy" their affection. In my own experience at the school, the students absolutely adored the biggest slacker on staff—a man who did essentially nothing except collect a paycheck while playing soccer with the kids during class time. He gave everyone straight A's, so naturally, they loved him because he was single-handedly boosting their GPAs. Of course, they were desperate for him to stay on the schedule.

There's a way to work around that.
If a teacher is evaluating a specific 5th-grade class at the end of the year, we should already know if they'll be moving on to a different 6th-grade group next year.
We really ought to rotate teachers.

Kids are more than capable of providing feedback on whether they actually grasped the material during class, what kind of help they received, or what expectations the professor set.

I'm not saying a teacher's entire livelihood should depend on this, since that's a heavy burden to put on children.
But I am for them getting feedback on where they excelled and where they struggled, so they can work on those areas within peer groups or maybe even with a subject specialist...
I know people always focus on the negatives, but you'd be surprised how many kids think certain teachers are totally cool and appreciate their teaching style. They can clearly articulate that they learned a specific topic exclusively from one person during one particular class, which is the whole point of education and is vital feedback for the instructor. It's arguably the most important part.

Just because the administration and the principal KNOW someone isn't doing their job doesn't mean anything if there's zero accountability or consequences for failing to act.
And if the principal isn't capable of handling it, then we shouldn't expect the kids to fix the problem either.
(Unless they start recording what the teacher says and leak it to a site like TMZ or BuzzFeed—because even after years of filing formal complaints with the principal, various homeroom teachers, and the administration, nothing ever seems to happen.)

frozenmoose19 said:Is there any way to "tuck" those 45 empty minutes into another class? I'd love to know if this can be arranged and who I should talk to about it. Even if I have to be a bit of a nuisance, I would much rather my first grader spend that time learning a second language, coding, shop class, drama, or music—anything remotely productive.

There isn't actually a specific organized subject just for them.
Honestly, it’s probably for the best. For kids, that time is basically a free period, and they really enjoy the break—especially the younger ones. Even the older students benefit because having one more formal subject on their schedule usually means more tests and pressure to perform.
Plus, if we ever managed to phase out religious education and somehow ended up with those teachers looking for work, I worry the school board might try to protect their jobs by keeping those slots filled anyway. So, religious ed might stick around just to ensure everyone stays employed.

What *can* happen, and some schools actually do this, is that elementary teachers send their students to join other grade levels for different activities. They basically "tag along" with another class. Most often, they get slotted into elective subjects. My little one actually joined a different second-grade class for PE once, and she absolutely loved it—especially since they got to go outside.
(If it’s a core subject, they usually just sit in the back and do their own thing, though she still listened to what the teacher was saying. In fact, she actually picked up on some science concepts from the higher grade that helped her stay ahead later on!)

placidorca16 said:At American universities, student evaluations of professors have been around for ages. They’re basically standardized surveys students fill out at the end of the semester—usually for classes where the instructors themselves ask to be rated. It’s all because without those scores (specifically the high ones), they can't advance in their careers. Those positive ratings are a mandatory prerequisite for the performance reviews written by select committee members—who, naturally, have to hold higher academic ranks than the candidate being reviewed—every three to five years upon the request of the employer, or in this case, the university. Every promotion is tied to an official job opening. If candidates don't meet this requirement, or if their ratings fall below average—say, anything less than "good"—they basically have zero chance of moving up, and sometimes even losing their jobs entirely. This same logic applies when there's a possibility of extending employment after age 65—which US law allows if there's a need—but if the ratings aren't satisfactory, the extension is off the table. There was actually a high-profile case in the news about two years ago involving an academic, Prof. Dr. Mislav Ježić, whom the Faculty Council of FFZG wouldn't let stay on past 65 because his students gave him subpar teaching scores. He tried to fight it and launched a media campaign with the help of his friend, the University President Boras, who pressured the Faculty Council of FFZG to hold a re-vote. It didn't work, though—those student ratings at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences were just too low. Still, it didn't stop him from applying for and landing a professorship over at FFDI.😁

Maybe we could roll out similar surveys in K-12 schools—letting students rate teachers on certain aspects of their work, provided it's tailored to their age group, of course.

that would be really interesting 😍

Jason Morgan said:Calling this a reform is a massive stretch.
I’ve sat through all the training sessions and town halls they've thrown at us so far.
Honestly, this "reform" is so trivial it barely deserves the title.
It’s hard to wrap my head around the idea that we might just keep getting progressively worse ministers—especially when they have a background in education—but here we are. Always keeping us on our toes!

I was actually wondering what specifically is being reformed here and what kind of changes we can expect for the kids next year...

Kate Harris3 said:I can speak for myself, Jackson. The nineties. I think that says enough. 😬

Another thing that really gets under my skin is the attitude shoved down kids' throats in school religion classes (it was literally in the news, a page ripped from a textbook) claiming atheists are just selfish people playing God. Apparently, if you don't believe in divine punishment, you must lack any moral compass—as if we're all just out here running over cats in the street every morning because there's no hell waiting for us.
It couldn't be further from the truth. Since I don't believe in an afterlife, I actually view this life as an incredible gift. I believe we have zero right to ruin someone else's existence, because they only get this one shot too. I know nothing I do will be forgiven just because I told it to a priest, only to have him send me to a couple of generic hospitals. I believe we are responsible to ourselves and to others; we're responsible to the planet and every living thing we share it with.
I would never talk down to a child just because they're religious. Everyone has the right to believe whatever gives them comfort.
So where's the selfishness in that?

I’m not nearly as benevolent when it comes to the Catholic Church, though. 😬

It’s quite the contrast to those who *do* believe in divine retribution but still drive recklessly without a license, thank God instead of their doctors when they recover, and offer a rosary as a sort of half-hearted apology. It feels like if you're just afraid of hell, you can simply go to confession, say a few prayers, and consider the slate wiped clean.

If anyone thinks I’m oversimplifying things or making fun of believers, that’s not it at all.
I’m talking about something I’ve witnessed for decades: children absorbing these lessons and watching how the world actually works. They grow up believing that as long as they avoid divine wrath, they’re fine—and in this life, they figure they can just focus on getting rich.

You see it everywhere, from high-ranking politicians sitting front and center at major holiday services to people invoking God after tragic accidents. And these are often the same people facing all sorts of legal troubles, from minor infractions to actual felonies, yet they're still held up as the ultimate examples of faith.
Just a segment of the flock.

silentraven6 said:I’m honestly reaching my breaking point with this whole religious education thing, and frankly, I’m getting sick of having to explain to my son why he’s stuck at school for six hours instead of five just because of someone else's arbitrary whims.

It’s absolutely disgraceful. They act like those extra 45 minutes before a kid gets to head home doesn't matter at all, yet they claim to support "family-friendly" scheduling? It's a joke.

Well, it might be family-friendly, but not for everyone. 🧐
What kind of family would actually want their kid stuck in religion class when they could be at home? 😕

On a side note, my daughter still tells me it’s her favorite period of the day. 😂
She actually prefers it being tucked into the middle of the school day rather than being the very first thing she does.

hiddendriver34 said:I really dig this article: Why all the hysteria? Neither Anne Frank, nor The Little Prince, nor any of those other classics have actually been kicked out of the curriculum.

"What we're seeing is pure misinformation being spread across social media by certain authors claiming that dozens of titles were 'removed from school reading lists.' That’s just flat-out wrong. Under the new American curriculum, the total number of books students are expected to read each year has actually gone up—it's just that the list of strictly mandatory titles has shrunk. The rest is left up to the teachers and the students to choose what they want to dive into."
(...)
If the reform had gone all the way and wiped out EVERY book from the required list, then maybe we'd have something to talk about on CBS. Isn't that the same CBS that was just praising the Finnish education system a moment ago?
(...)
And get this: Finland doesn't mandate a single specific title for their required reading. None. Zero. If the US is supposedly "sliding back into the dark ages" just by reducing the mandatory list, then Finland has been living in the Middle Ages for decades. Based on the logic used by American journalists, they've basically banned reading in Finnish schools altogether.

From the mandatory list, I think they cut some junk like *Little Man in the War*. 🙏
As for Anne Frank, I’m actually sad she wasn't mandatory.
I just hope great teachers will choose her as an elective option.

Regarding the whole 'mandatory vs. choice' thing... it definitely opens the door for creativity for those enthusiastic, hardworking teachers. I truly believe it could improve teaching because it gives them more freedom. On the flip side, though, it provides a legal loophole for those who weren't particularly dedicated to begin with to do even less work than before...
And what saddens me most is the space this gives parents to push back.
Some won't like Biblical themes, others will complain about fields [heaven forbid, sex], some will dislike depictions of sadness or suffering, others will fear certain topics... and suddenly, the teacher is fighting battles with moms and dads over why they didn't pick *The Outsiders* instead of something else because the first one was better suited for girls, and so on.

I'm crossing my fingers that the decent teachers stay grounded and continue to pick diverse works... although I suspect that's becoming harder and harder to do. 😢

Of course, some parents will still read to their kids at home, encourage them to read, and offer up literary works that teachers don't manage to cover in class (whether due to laziness or pressure from a certain loud parent). But the kids who don't have those types of parents, or who don't happen to land a good teacher, or can't afford private schools? Well, unfortunately, they might end up falling behind educationally....

Larry Walker24 said:Look, if the guy is that much of an atheist, it’s pretty obvious they didn't have a church wedding, so I'm just wondering how much he actually gives a damn about his own principles.

Because if he did go through with a religious ceremony, then this whole thing about teaching religion is basically a slap in the face to his ex-wife.

He did agree to have the child baptized 🤔 and lets them go to church. Honestly, I doubt he’d make a scene if the kid came home and said, "But I want to go with my classmates!" Why would he pick a fight with his ex just to make the child unhappy?

The guy won't give consent for Catholic Religious Education in school because he thinks "that's not where it belongs."
I think she explained it beautifully.
To me, it makes perfect sense.
My only question is whether he’d let the mother decide if the school only asks for her signature—just so he can feel like he’s kept a clear conscience.
Or is it truly important to him that his child doesn't attend, regardless of whether they ask for his signature or not?
And what does he tell the child? "It's fine if you learn about Jesus; Mom will teach you at home. You can go to church, but I don't want you learning about religion at school, nor do I want priests roaming the halls or you singing for them at school events since you're attending a public school rather than a Catholic one."
Personally, I find that totally acceptable.

By the way, I haven't heard of schools requiring consent from both parents for any kind of activity, especially not for enrolling in religious studies, so I think this is just an isolated case with fewer students involved.
I’d actually expect the same level of scrutiny in preschools during enrollment periods—where they require both signatures, and if parents forget, the child doesn't get enrolled. Or maybe with other high-demand activities.

I get that requiring dual consent might be a way to prevent a situation where a second parent shows up at the school three months later saying, "Wait, why is my child in religious studies? I never signed off on this, and my ex never told me," and then starts demanding justice.
The only reason it makes sense to me is that, based on experience, they ask for both signatures preemptively so parents can settle things before someone goes looking for trouble at the school office.

I know of instances where people tried to withdraw students or influence decisions where they specifically required both parents' consent—you know, just to be safe, so the other parent is informed about the withdrawal and can't be "persuaded" by the first one.

Another thing is the release of student data; it makes sense that they'd need both signatures for that, though I've also heard that isn't always the case and one signature is often enough.