Posts by Susan James

mistydrifter55 said:Should history professors just retrain as retail clerks?

Over at my local Walmart, they’re totally shorthanded. Apparently, "nobody wants to work anymore." Honestly, maybe some history professor could fill a gap? I highly doubt scanning barcodes is too much heavy lifting 🍿, unless they need a degree in computer science just to figure out how the register works.

Come on, let's not get carried away here 😬

But I do think we all need to realize that no job is a guaranteed ride to retirement. We have to be ready to pivot, relocate, or move into different roles if things change
.
If we actually want an education reform that carries some weight, we should be pouring resources into vocational training and hands-on apprenticeships rather than forcing students to study subjects they already covered in middle school and probably won't care about later (@rowdypanther12, they'll end up more educated regardless, unfortunately) just to keep certain positions filled
.
One thing that bothers me is how religious education remains part of the curriculum. If we're going to honor those Vatican agreements, then let the kids who are interested choose it. But if that's the case, don't make it mandatory for those who aren't by tying it to Ethics requirements, especially if our goal is to lighten the students' course loads
. Also, it wasn't fair that teachers weren't told this upfront (though the whole situation feels a bit murky to me), and it wouldn't be right to charge them for retraining out of our own pockets (though that could happen)
.

I'm generally on the same page as the Secretary
Quincy:

When asked about what happens to the history, geography, and biology teachers at those specific schools, the Secretary pointed out that school schedules shouldn't be bent to accommodate individual teachers; instead, they have to prioritize what the students actually need.

The only way out might be for some of them to retrain for different roles. If we're expected to pick up the tab for that, we’re looking at a massive headache. We already have plenty of unemployed historians out there, so why should taxpayers fund their retraining? Honestly, if people wanted to teach computer science or math, they probably would have gone into those fields from the start rather than picking history...

Larry Walker24 said:American news outlets are blowing up today because students in some three-year vocational schools—the ones testing out this new "dual program" this year—are losing biology, history, chemistry, physics, and geography.

According to the Department, this currently only hits four specific trades: retail, cosmetology, chimney sweeps, and glassmakers. But give it two years, and they want this dual program rolled out to every single three-year vocational school in the country.

Some teachers are claiming they didn't even hear about this decision from the Department until late August. This is huge because it could mean their teaching hours get slashed or they end up out of a job entirely.

The Department, however, is pushing back, saying this dual program isn't anything new and they've been working on it for years. They're playing it down as just an experimental pilot in a handful of schools. They claim it aligns perfectly with the National Vocational Education Curriculum and was built by a bunch of experts. The whole idea is to lighten the load on general subjects that aren't "essential" to the trade, so kids can focus more on the actual jobs they'll be doing.

more info here:

TOTAL DISASTER!!!! 🤦🤦🤦🤦

I mean, religious studies basically covers all those topics anyway.
☕

I just wanted to share a little update! I’ve been thinking about our recent discussions regarding the changes to the National Vocational Education Curriculum. It’s such a big shift for the local schools, isn't it? I was chatting with a friend over coffee yesterday—she works at a local Elementary School—and she mentioned how much the teachers are adjusting to the new guidelines from the Department. It reminded me of when my own kids first started school; everything felt like it was changing overnight, but they eventually found their rhythm. It feels a bit like that now. I'm curious to hear what everyone else thinks about how these updates will impact the students in the long run. Does anyone feel like the new focus on specific trades is heading in the right direction? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! kaže:
I’m not entirely sure if they designed these blocks specifically for elementary school classes—I haven't had a chance to dig into the details yet—but regardless, there will be a designated period for them to stay in. I'm feeling pretty optimistic that they'll find a way to work around those holiday breaks too.

When it comes to the actual coursework, I think this is a fantastic move. These kids are already becoming so independent, and honestly, having some breathing room between their study blocks would do them a world of good.

I definitely think we could all use a bit more downtime.
I really think we should stop tying the spring break holidays directly to Easter.
If it works out, great. If not, oh well. That's just how it goes.
It feels like we're already running behind the curve this year. 😠
So, right after that, we head straight into the May Day holiday. But before we get to the break, we’ve got this massive block of classes to power through first.
That doesn't seem right.
There’s nothing for the students, nothing for the teachers, and honestly, probably nothing for me as a parent either—since, theoretically, you can't just pack up and leave a place like Chicago for more than a weekend at a time.

Drew Hughes10 said:My kids' old elementary school—they’re in high school now.

Every year, there's a massive surge in enrollment; they generally don't take transfers from outside the district, so I know families who specifically bought homes in that neighborhood just to get their kids into sixth grade.

It's a solid school. Good for the students, the parents, and—if I had to guess—the teachers too.

😍
Come on, tell us what made it so good for you and your kids!
There’s so much criticism floating around here, but we really need some positive stories for once. 👍

I actually really like
this
!
Quincy:

Classes for all students from first through eighth grade will be organized into four blocks: the first runs from September 3rd to October 26th (39 school days), the second from November 5th to December 21st (35 days), the third from January 14th to March 21st (49 days), and the fourth from March 25th to June 14th (52 school days).

Quincy:

They’re introducing a new block scheduling system for subjects. For example, fifth graders in the first and third terms will take geography, art, music, and computer science, but they won't have science, shop class, or history until the second and fourth terms. This approach actually lightens their workload by three or four subjects depending on the week.

Aaron Scott45 said:I was just reading somewhere that they moved the confirmation ceremony from 8th grade to sophomore year of high school.
Is that actually true, and since when? I’m assuming you still have to show up for religion class at the church this year too, right?

I honestly have no clue.
Last year the kids were in 8th grade, and I remember those little debates about rock music versus religious education.

But my guess is that more students are signing up for ethics classes, so they might be trying to encourage them toward religious studies in high school to prevent losing those instructional hours in some schools.
For someone who is truly devout, it shouldn't really matter if Communion happens in 8th grade or during their first year of high school—going to church for religious ed should feel like a natural part of life, not a chore.
Unless, of course, someone decides not to go to high school (since it isn't mandatory here), then I'm not sure how they'd manage both the church and school requirements.🤔

Jack Gray6 said:My daughter is a first grader, and she’s officially opting out of religious education. When I asked her about it, she was pretty blunt: she just doesn't want to go.

A psychologist mentioned that the teacher will be sending out a survey at the start of the school year to see which parents want their kids enrolled in religion classes or not. It felt a little strange to me that they don't collect this data sooner, but hey, I suppose they know how the system works.

Wait, didn't you guys get a form to sign during enrollment where you check off which electives you want?
That seems a bit strange to me.

If there isn't any other reason, it might just be because of how the textbooks are ordered. 🤔

Tyler Ruiz502 said:Look, they had every single required detail and they handed it in right on schedule, so it was totally valid. But honestly? Just out of pure principle, I refused to call it a "request"—I don't feel like I have anyone to ask permission from. I just titled it: "Subject: Withdrawal from Religious Studies."

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

Well, if you aren't asking for a favor, then you should definitely get that withdrawal processed 🤣
Daily prayer is pretty much the core of religious education classes 😬

So, you're pulling your kid out? Did she just not enjoy the class, or is there something else going on...?

northerntiger9 said:I’ll just say what I’ve said before—to put it bluntly, it’s basically 100 women and 200 breasts 😬. When it comes to religious education, things vary wildly—not just from town to town, but from neighborhood to neighborhood, depending on the school, the teacher, or the local priest. Look, if you're worried about your kid needing sacraments one day and want them in religious ed classes, the only real move is to ask around at the school or your local parish to see how it's handled in your area. You need to find out if the school insists on church participation for sacraments, if the church demands school attendance, or if there are any other hoops to jump through. People on forums like this might argue or swap stories, but that's just noise.

One thing that makes Cleveland a bit different, though—a huge number of kids don't take religious ed. The whole "better to enroll them so they aren't left out" argument doesn't really apply here. In my kid's class, more than half the students aren't enrolled, and the schools manage those gaps in the schedule so well that the kids who skip it don't miss a beat.

One last thing, since I'm already typing: if anyone wants to opt their child out of school religious ed, you have to submit a formal request by August 15th at the latest. After that, the window is closed.

And honestly, those rules seem to change depending on which school district you're dealing with.
In my experience, aiming for July 1st is the safest bet—just to make sure you have a paper trail proving they actually received your request.
I actually know of two families who were required to get signatures from both parents. I'm not sure if that was because they were going through a divorce or if the school administration is just being extra strict about the curriculum, but just a heads-up for anyone planning ahead so you aren't caught off guard...

rowdypanther12 said:In third grade, they actually keep track of which kids attend Mass. Some teachers are probably stricter about it than others, but it’s definitely mandatory for the students.
Of course, nobody in the world can force parents to show up, too. 😁

Not every parish keeps track of who shows up or misses.
Like Leah mentioned, if it matters to you, you should probably just check how things work at your specific local church or with your priest.
From my perspective, if you have to "motivate" someone using a system of gold stars and penalties for something that is supposed to be a matter of faith, then something has definitely gone off track.

I’ve heard stories about people getting in trouble for missing a service in one neighborhood, let alone traveling to a different city, but I’ve also heard plenty of stories from the same era where they were totally fine with kids missing things for soccer games, family trips, or birthday parties.
People will agree to almost anything just to feel like they belong somewhere.
And honestly, I don't have an issue with that—let people be devout, as long as they aren't complaining or questioning why they have to follow certain rules.
They don't have to.
But if they want that sense of community, this kind of commitment usually comes as part of the package.

I remember a birthday party during the first few weeks of school back when most of the kids were still transitioning out of preschool. There was so much whining about why everyone had to attend a service together that very first weekend. And I just thought, man, it’s a blessing for the family, it's a way to start the school year right.
You made your choice. Just pray.

There is plenty of info online showing that religious education classes aren't necessarily bad for kids; for some, they're actually great.
We aren't talking about the 1990s here; this was 2018.
(And you can always ask around your own neighborhood, too.)

stormynomad69 said:I wasn't quite sure where to post this, but I'm hoping someone can clear things up for me. What’s the deal with computer science becoming a mandatory subject starting in 5th grade, while it stays elective for the younger grades? Is that actually happening, or is it just going to keep getting pushed back?

Since there are a few people out there who seem to have some doubts about this... I’m not quite sure what you mean by that—it looks like a typo or perhaps a fragment of a word! If you were trying to ask about constitutional matters or something related to legal frameworks here in the States, feel free to clarify. I'm happy to chat once I know what's on your mind!With decisions like these—especially when we're already short on staff and equipment—it’ll probably all get pushed back until we eventually become a Gilead Sciences company. And by then, we won't even need to worry about it anymore. 🐔

wanderingbadger44 said:For heaven's sake, please explain to me why it would be in a teacher's best interest to force a child to learn something specifically when it goes against what the parent wants. I am genuinely asking you to walk me through that logic.

What exactly is this supposed "teacher's interest" you're talking about?

I could certainly give you plenty of examples regarding a teacher's interest in not pushing back against a parent's wishes.

But I want you to tell me: what is my personal incentive to insist on something that contradicts a parent's will?

Why on earth would I try to force biology on Manchild's kid or John Doe's child—using those specific names Manchild mentioned—or push Faulkner, when at the end of the day, the parent is the customer, and we all know the old adage that the customer is always right?

I clearly see how it benefits society and the community for children to read, to become literate, and to grow more educated. But as for my own personal gain, kill me now, because I simply don't see any.

And if society has such an interest, then society should have the mechanisms in place to make it happen. Instead, society ties my hands behind my back and then expects me to act like it's my personal mission to ensure kids read, even though I have no way to fight for it.

I guess I just live in a fantasy world where people actually do their jobs honestly and provide the service they’re paid for.

I expect a surgeon to operate ethically,
that a dentist doesn't pull the wrong tooth,
that a mechanic fixes the car so it’s actually safe to drive on the highway,
that a chef at a restaurant serves edible food,
that a cashier gives me the correct change,
that a hairstylist tells me she won't dye my hair if it's too damaged, even if it means losing money right then,
that a plumber actually replaces the pipe instead of just charging for it,
and that a teacher actually teaches the child.

Now, I'm certainly no expert on surgery, plumbing, or pedagogy. I can't claim to be an authority on which literature is "best" (I can have a subjective opinion, but I'm not an expert), nor can I dictate what you all decide to feed your children.

If you think I'm naive or overly optimistic for believing that if I work honestly, the rest of the world should follow suit, then fine.
And I know that isn't how it works.
I see proof of that every single day.

I've heard all kinds of demands from parents.
I've heard teachers say, "I don't care, I know better than you," and I've also heard those who just hang their heads and give up—not just on teaching, but on life itself. They end up failing the kids too... like when a helicopter parent complains that their precious little one is "stressed," so the teacher decides to just stop trying altogether.

Parents aren't going to suddenly become more realistic or reasonable in ten years. Honestly, what are you thinking? 🤣
They might actually get worse, because they're being allowed to micromanage schools (just look at how pediatricians were allowed to bypass vaccinations, and now we're dealing with measles outbreaks).

I see disagreements even among literature professors regarding what reading material should be assigned, and I know that can lead to parental manipulation—where people exploit those academic debates to squeeze out better grades or even just to get their kid out of doing any work at all.
And I know there are teachers who simply check out, who welcome the helicopter parents because it's easier to say, "Oh, reading is just too traumatic for my child right now, can't we skip it?"—allowing the kids to just color during class instead of engaging with the book.
And of course, it opens the door for extra income through private tutoring (with a friend, naturally) or SAT prep later on. When you combine that with low salaries, this whole situation really feeds into the private tutoring market.
And let’s not forget how much the public gets fed misinformation just to serve whatever political agenda is currently in power.

It’s actually pretty funny to me how we went from a post where a dad was bragging about getting a C in third grade all the way to a deep debate about high school reading lists and the deeper meaning of *Judith*.
First off, high school isn't mandatory, and you definitely aren't forced to read *Judith*.
Second, if someone hasn't developed a love for reading or picked up the habit by the time they hit high school, they probably shouldn't be heading to high school at all—especially not a prep school.
But here’s my main point, speaking strictly as a parent: it honestly scares me how little kids read in the elementary years. We assign reading just once a month, yet with all the books and translations available today, school has become so simplified that it’s basically training kids to be uninformed. They're being raised to show zero interest in anything beyond the bare minimum required for class, and frankly, the requirements are so low it's terrifying.
Not to mention, the reading lists for every grade are public on the library websites. Usually, there's only one mandatory book, and everything else is left up to the teacher's discretion. I mean, what would happen to a poor kid if they actually tried to read that entire list? There are plenty of fascinating stories out there, sure, but there are also some dull ones—that's just part of life.
It's about practicing grammar, capitalization, and building a solid vocabulary.
If they don't pick those skills up in the lower grades, they never will.

As a parent, I make sure to bring home or buy books for my child. My kid reads because we read at home, too, and we’ve been reading together since they were tiny.
Honestly, I feel bad for the school system and for other parents and their kids.

But look, if teachers actually want kids to learn something, they can't just leave it all up to the parents or shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, the kids don't want to, and the parents aren't helping."

At the end of the day, some people are raising the next generation of leaders, while others are just raising people who will be easily manipulated.
Cheers!🙂

(The only real issue is who’s going to foot the bill for the teachers... especially their pensions...🙂).

Regardless, reading is a great thing, even when the books themselves are a bit lackluster.

Jack Gray6 said:It looks like first grade starts sometime this year, and I caught wind from another thread that we need to decide whether or not our kid will be taking religion classes.
We aren't Catholic—we follow a different faith entirely (meaning the kids haven't been baptized and there are zero plans for them to take any sacraments), but I was actually thinking it might be beneficial for my child to attend the sessions. That said, I have absolutely no desire for them to receive grades for it. Is that even an option? Or is there a way for them to sit in on the class without it being officially recorded as "attending"?

That’s exactly the issue parents from other faiths struggle with—that "loophole" where kids end up sitting in on the class even though they aren't technically enrolled for credit.
Or they get sent to watch cartoons while the religious studies class is happening, which sometimes makes parents second-guess their decision.

Some schools—or rather, certain teachers—make the curriculum really engaging through extracurricular activities that involve the whole class, like field trips to various religious institutions or visiting senior centers and stuff like that.

Religious studies lasts for eight years, so there’s plenty of time to talk about these things later. Personally, I wouldn't suggest pushing it during the early elementary years. It might be a better idea for when they hit middle or high school.
Let the kid just be a kid for a bit. In those lower grades, they aren't really studying comparative religions anyway; most kids just learn basic prayers.

Kate Cox2 said:I never said I didn't believe you; I am simply saying that this needs to be resolved. It can be solved if things were organized differently.
What one person finds useful, necessary, or unnecessary is entirely subjective.
For instance, I could argue that the specialized administrative services are a total waste of taxpayer money because they don't produce anything concrete—especially the psychologists. Out of all the ones I know, only one actually does what she was trained to do, and she does it with immense passion and expertise. She used to work at a major metropolitan center, and now she is at my child's school. All the other psychologists I have dealt with in schools haven't just failed to do their jobs, they were incredibly unprofessional. For example, in front of eighth graders, they would mock a teacher who had just started working, commenting on how "crazy" it was to give beginners the eighth grade, and then they would sit there with the students for an entire period, laughing along with them while the teacher tries to teach. So, I repeat: everyone draws conclusions based on their own experience. Physics is fundamentally necessary, as is math. Fine. But French, Greek, Latin, technical studies, psychologists, and pedagogues?? Well, everyone will tell you what they think based on their own subjective opinion. It is the same for religion class—those who want it and have good experiences will say it is essential, and vice versa.

🤣
Are you actually serious right now? 😕

When it comes to teaching classical languages in elementary schools, I could definitely see where you're coming from. But when it relates to learning foreign languages? I have to respectfully disagree.
I honestly don't think it should be mandatory. It would be much better if they just offered it as an optional feature instead. At the expense of American taxpayers. It’s definitely more cost-effective for the community to skip the religious education classes.

I’ll say it again: if you want your kids to grow up with a practical, lived faith, there are certain core principles that every parent needs to understand. It’s something we really have to pass down to them ourselves.
People don't necessarily need to be fluent in French, but why wouldn't we want to give our kids every possible advantage when it comes to their education? It's an interesting comparison—for instance, religious studies at a local church might be free, whereas taking French classes through a language academy usually comes with a price tag.
Honestly, I don't really get the logic behind spending sixteen years studying religion when you could be using those same hours to master a second language. If you look at it from a practical standpoint—like, comparing the value of that time to learning something like Spanish or French—it just doesn't seem to add up for me. Sorry if that sounds blunt, but it feels a bit misplaced.
It’s kind of funny when you think about it—I was just noticing that if you start learning a second language back in the fourth grade, you actually end up spending less total time on it than we spend on religious studies. It makes you wonder who exactly that curriculum is designed for, or what the ultimate goal even is!
It’s funny how we talk about "needs" versus "wants," isn't it? I was thinking about this the other day while I was grabbing a coffee downtown. We often categorize things as absolute necessities—like rent or groceries—but there's also this whole category of subjective needs. These are those little things that aren't technically vital for survival, but they feel absolutely essential for our mental well-being or just to get through the day feeling like ourselves. For me, it might be a quiet hour with a good book or a specific routine in the morning. It’s all about what makes us feel balanced. What do you guys think? Is there something you consider a "need" that others might just see as a luxury? 🤣

I’ve been wrestling with a bit of a dilemma lately regarding how we handle English in our schools. Right now, it feels like everyone is forced through this one-size-fits-all curriculum, regardless of whether they actually have a foundation in the language or any genuine interest in learning it. It feels a bit rigid, don't you think? Personally, I feel like we should be opening doors to much more than just English during those early elementary and middle school years. We really ought to make a wider variety of foreign languages available in the core curriculum. Even if it means forming smaller, specialized groups for students who are actually motivated—even if that means dealing with some logistical headaches or smaller class sizes—it would be so much more rewarding. Quality over quantity seems like the way to go if we want kids to actually connect with a new language.

As for the specialists on the team, I’ll just say there's a real mix of people involved. It's a pretty diverse group, including professors from all sorts of different departments.
The reality is that if you’re a talented psychologist, you can land some really lucrative gigs in the private sector—think HR departments at big companies like Google or even working within the high-stakes world of professional sports. On the flip side, if you go the route of public schools or social services, the pay tends to be much more modest. $2000 Aside from those working in transportation, you mostly see rare enthusiasts who actually want to change the world—or, much more frequently, people who just can't find anything better to do (especially when it comes to the paycheck).
Religious groups tend to focus their efforts almost exclusively on schools. They all have the same agenda: trying to reshape the world (in the wrong direction), which is why they can't seem to find a better way to exert influence. When you combine those two forces, everything just falls apart. It ends up being a mess that costs the government way more in the long run than simply hiring one psychologist for every three schools—someone who actually tracks data and real issues, rather than someone trying to wave a magic wand to make violence disappear.
If you’re looking to file a formal complaint against a psychologist, you have a few different routes depending on what happened. You could reach out to the state licensing board, the Department of Education, or even the Department of Health and Human Services. It makes me wonder, though—if we were dealing with a school principal, who exactly would we be reporting them to, and what kind of results should we realistically expect from that process? 🤔

Kate Cox2 said:Yes, theoretically everything would be fair, but that is a matter for principals and registrars to resolve. Here in our district, all elective subjects hold equal status and are positioned similarly at the start or end of the school day; consequently, students arrive earlier or stay later depending on which elective they are enrolled in.
If things are being handled differently elsewhere, then the individual school needs to address it. I also find it perfectly logical that if an overwhelming majority—or perhaps the entire class—chooses one specific elective, it might end up placed in the middle of the schedule (which I have witnessed several times). Based on my experience within our county, this is how it works. I cannot say why things are different in a major city like Chicago; you would really need to speak with the principals there.

And as for group sizes—regardless of what the official regulations state—you really have to go on a bit of an odyssey to see the principal. When a principal actually wants to help, they will merge Religious Studies, French, and Computer Science into a single group of 25 students. Conversely, they could just as easily find a way to accommodate everyone by providing individual groups and increasing teaching hours. I have seen this happen countless times. When a principal is willing to assist, a solution is always found. When they aren't, they can make life difficult for any elective teacher—or just one specific person, depending on who they favor, wouldn't you agree?

The school—specifically the principal or the scheduler—handles those scheduling issues for subjects like German, computer science, or Latin, but they never do the same for religion.
It’s basically set up however it suits the religion teachers best.

It’s great that you’ve had positive experiences, and I believe things might be better managed in your part of the country (like some other things, for example, civics), but please believe us when we say it isn't like that in a major metro area. My child’s friend lives in a small town about 25 minutes outside of the city, and the local kids looked at her like she was an alien when she mentioned she wasn't taking religion. They didn't even realize you had the option to opt out.
The parents there are that classic crowd that gathers at the local church every Sunday; every kid in the school takes the class, receives all the sacraments, and gets the blessing at home. (Though if you actually ask them about their faith, they often know very little because it's just a tradition.)
I don't have time to type out everything about how religion class looks there or how the teacher handles the kids, but it was really interesting talking to the children about it.

Something I occasionally wonder about is how it will work for someone looking to buy some land and build a house in one of those beautiful locations, but who doesn't want their child to take religion classes. It's easy to talk when you're living in the heart of the city...🙂

Let it be offered at school, but let it have the same standing as German or Italian (both in terms of scheduling and student numbers required to form a class), and it shouldn't need to be taught for more than two years. Honestly, it shouldn't.
Maybe four years if it's only once a week.

Religion teachers are paid quite well for their work. Often more than physics or chemistry teachers, even though those seem much more essential to a student's education.
And I'll say it again: any parent can teach their child the basics of faith (if they are believers), but you can't exactly teach physics at home. We send our kids to school to learn things, not just to ensure teachers have jobs.

Kate Cox2 said:For instance, computer science—which is an elective—is scheduled right before Italian, which is also an elective. However, because the computer science course only runs for one period, whereas the Italian program doesn't follow that same structure, the kids who are only signed up for Italian end up stuck with a two-hour gap in their schedule. It’s quite inefficient, really.

The school my child attends offers an incredible array of extracurricular activities—everything from guitar lessons and judo to karate, German language classes, and soccer. These are all the kinds of things that parents usually end up paying extra for on the weekends, but here, they’ve integrated everything directly into the school schedule right after the standard classes wrap up. It’s such a relief to have it all organized within the school building; you can get everything finished there and finally come home with some actual peace of mind.

So, here is my core point—I realize that we first need to tackle the issue regarding the hourly schedule (which, let’s be honest, isn't even a standard feature at every school), but when it comes to the subject itself, I firmly believe it belongs in the curriculum. Now, what I am truly wondering is this: whose desire carries more weight here, and who actually holds the greater right to decide?
Is it better to cater to those who want it, or those who don't? Honestly, you can never please everyone—it's just an impossible standard to meet. In my view, the only logical way to handle things is to ensure that those who truly desire it receive it, while leaving those who have no interest in it out of the equation entirely.

What kind of questions are these?😕

It's a fact that everyone won't be happy, but why is it that religious studies always seems to be placed at the very beginning or end of the day, or frequently tucked right in the middle of the schedule, while subjects like computer science or German aren't? They almost always get pushed to the second shift.

And let's not forget we're talking about a subject that lasts eight years in school, whereas German is five and computer science is four. In the interest of fairness, wouldn't it make sense to occasionally put religious studies in the second shift too? Just logically speaking, so that students who have patiently sat through three years of religious studies if they want to study German don't have to wait around during the first period of the second shift.
A little tolerance and justice—isn't that what you teach and preach in church?

Also, like Mad mentioned, they'll just combine two groups for German (even though it would be much better for them to learn in smaller groups where the teacher gets two extra hours), yet religious studies is always held strictly by individual classroom. That's just to ensure nobody misses a period.

Kate Morgan14 said:It’s just not accurate how parents react to grades and then pass that anxiety down to their kids..
By first grade, children are already little individuals with their own distinct personalities and temperaments.. some handle a bad grade without blinking, while others struggle.. It’s actually on the teacher to frame lower marks in a way that’s constructive and easy for them to digest... In that first year, kids listen to their teachers far more than they do their parents..

I have two kids in school right now—one in 4th grade and one in 1st—and they couldn't be more different when it comes to grades and the whole idea of "success"..
My 4th grader has never cared about her report card; it was completely irrelevant to her, and her philosophy was that she didn't mind if a grade was lower.. her grades were always all over the place.
Meanwhile, my 1st grader just got her first B, and it was a total meltdown.. She was crying at school, then came home looking absolutely devastated—even though I’ve never pushed for straight As, and she’s seen her older sister handle mediocre grades just fine..

It's true that everyone reacts differently, and those reactions definitely shape how a child views grading.

Both teachers and parents play a massive role in shaping that attitude toward grades.
Pretty quickly, classmates start playing a role too (and their reactions matter), which is usually a byproduct of how the teacher interacts with the class and how other parents are handling things at home.
That's why I feel like formal grading is almost unnecessary during those very first years of school.

The way your daughter reacted is exactly how my sister reacted.
There's an eight-year age gap between us, and our parents never made a big thing out of grades or pressured us to be top of the class.

Something my dad still brings up from back in the day is how, until 4th grade, I didn't even have traditional grades. Instead, we had tons of detailed feedback from teachers. There was much more open communication and clear guidance on what I excelled at and where I needed to catch up. Fast forward eight years to my sister, and everything just boiled down to "A, B, A, B... maybe fix this little thing and you'll get an A next time."
And honestly, that's still how it works today.

rowdypanther12 said:It’s honestly pretty mindless. How can anyone act as a homeroom teacher to kids they don't actually know, especially when they only see them once a week?

I totally agree.
Back in high school, we had this bizarre situation where it felt like every single one of our homeroom teachers ended up pregnant, so we basically had a new one every single year.
The very last one was right on the verge of retirement 😂, so I guess she wasn't exactly planning on any more surprises!

Anyway, I really don't see the logic in assigning homeroom duties to a substitute teacher, especially since even the permanent staff could leave at any time.
I get why people avoid the role—it’s a massive amount of work and dealing with parents can be a total headache—but honestly, I don't think anyone on an elective rotation should have to take it on.