Posts by Susan James

urbantinker8 said:😂

...and you're only going to find someone like that once people stop constantly criticizing the profession, stop trying to micromanage how teachers do their jobs (you know, those people who think they know better than the actual experts), once decent working conditions are actually provided (adequate space, supplies, reasonable class sizes...), and once we end the negative selection process caused by salaries that are, frankly, hovering somewhere around what a cashier makes at a decent big-box retailer.☕

Regarding outfitting those photography classrooms, do you actually have a link for that, or were you just using it as a figure of speech?
Because I genuinely doubt those claims, especially since even various cabinet members put computers at the top of the priority list before anything else. We'll probably never actually see them arrive, but it sure is nice to talk about them.🙂
And by the way, there's a chronic shortage of hairdressers; I have a few friends who run their own salons and they've been struggling to find employees for years. Part of that is probably because everyone wants to be their own boss nowadays and nobody wants to work for someone else, but then again, if there wasn't demand, those salons wouldn't be packed and the prices wouldn't be so sky-high.😒

I read that on this thread recently.
It was sandwiched between a debate about whether kids need to know population densities in Asia and a discussion on whether teachers or parents know better.

The Secretary was on CBS live last week mentioning plans for vocational reform in trade professions—I remember her bringing up flooring installers—and in the article someone linked here, they mention photographers, hairstylists, painters, and more...

I have nothing against reforming trade professions. In fact, I think modernization is necessary to meet labor market demands. We also need to change parents' mindsets and motivate kids so they don't view these jobs as "beneath" them; these careers can put food on the table—good food, too! There's a massive shortage of plumbers, electricians, and skilled tradespeople in general. It's not just the good ones (who actually know what they're doing); there's a general lack of people entering the workforce in these fields. They either head overseas where the pay is much better, or they don't enroll at all because they think it's "low-class" work.

My only concern is that instead of improving training conditions for high-demand trades, the focus seems to be on improving conditions for schools with principals who prioritize squeezing out funding (which the Secretary even openly admitted). That money ends up being used for equipment, including stuff for photography programs.

Michael Nguyen2 said:"In India, they have this anti-natalist policy—if two people get sterilized, they get handed a rifle." S.M. 🤣

Man, geography... back in my day, it was treated like history, which some teachers taught based on whatever vague version of the past lived in their heads.
During freshman and sophomore year of high school, we had this one teacher where we didn't even bother using an atlas. We just gave up because her entire teaching style was basically "dictate and transcribe." Trying to answer all the exam questions in 45 minutes was a massive stretch, especially since she’d always throw in some random question she never actually mentioned in class. Even for the straight-A students, just scraping a C was a struggle. And honestly? It wasn't even about the grade being low... it was more that everyone was cheating so blatantly, and when you're stuck in a tiny class listening to a lecture that's soul-crushing, the last thing you want is to be "equal" to the kids who are absolute pros at sneaking answers.

Then junior year rolled around and we got a different teacher... boy... 👍
She actually expected us to, as someone else already pointed out, draw conclusions based on things like terrain or climate patterns. We even had—get this—blank maps. Since we were offered a third language in junior year, I actually sacrificed a few other subjects to focus on what I actually liked. So, by the end of junior year, I ended up with a B in geography. My teacher even asked if I wanted to try for an A at the end of the term. I told her, "Don't bother!"

Ah, reforms... from the glory days of HBO to the disastrous failure of LeBron James and now these current train wrecks... they're making Informatics mandatory for two years in middle school... great idea, guys. 👍
You can't run reforms without:
windows that don't fall out of the frame
curtains
air conditioning
functional internet
CD players
a 1:1 student-to-computer ratio
photocopy paper available on demand
renovated gymnasiums
toilet paper and soap whenever you need them
science labs for chem, physics, and bio where the equipment-to-student ratio is at least 1:3

Treating basic, prosaic milestones of civilization as the primary goal of education. Real visionary stuff.

Tech teachers will show you how to build a ship just as well as they show you how to build a robot, provided they actually have the tools—or if the publisher packs them in that little kit that comes with the textbook, assuming those kits even still exist.

That's why they'll probably focus on equipping schools for photographers (which really should be a course, not a three-year vocational trade), hairdressers (who we have plenty of exporting right now), or painters and wallpaper installers (tasks most DIY enthusiasts handle just fine using a few YouTube tutorials without needing formal schooling)....

I've been thinking about this for a few days—all these "modernized" career paths. It honestly feels like it's just a way to prevent certain teaching positions from being phased out. Now, reading the news, it looks like they're even targeting specific workshops for funding... and when I say "funding," I mean finding ways to wash through European Union grants. 🕺

At the end of the day, no curriculum reform makes any sense unless you have motivated, enthusiastic teachers who actually believe in their mission and are ready to defend their teaching methods against both parental pressure and passing trends.

Larry Walker24 said:There’s a new proposal on the table to tweak the Every Student Succeeds Act, and it’s honestly a mess. They want to make certain topics elective, basically letting kids opt out based on what their parents believe. How is a teacher even supposed to function like that? You can't just tell one group of students one thing and then flip the script for the next group. It’s going to be total chaos in the classroom.

Can a teacher actually teach different things to different kids just because of their parents' worldviews?

🤦

No, they can't.
But they *can* (and honestly, some do) teach based on their own personal beliefs or the views of the principal (just look at those school events where everything revolves around a specific religious viewpoint)

To me, it feels like this part is actually meant to act as a "small door" to prevent certain topics from being introduced at all, because teachers will just claim it’s too complicated to implement properly.
Plus, who is going to monitor the teachers to see if every single parent signed off on opting out, or if it was just five people? What's the timeline for parents to decide? At the start of the school year, or right before the lesson starts?
And what happens if there’s a kid in the class with divorced parents, where one wants them to learn about sex ed and the other doesn't?
Does the child have the right to skip school that day? And if they do, where are they supposed to go?

jadetinker85 said:My niece is stuck in a spot where she has to attend religious classes every Saturday and Sunday. The priest won't even consider the fact that her grandparents live out in the country and the family wants to visit them over the weekend.

They really don't have to.
If the parents are truly practicing, then I'd think they would prioritize visiting and looking after their own living parents. It makes much more sense to spend that quality time with family than sitting through extra sessions with clergy.
If the priest can't see reason in that, you might as well take it up with the local school board or the Diocese headquarters.
It feels pretty silly when these kids spend hours in class learning about how to visit nursing homes for community service projects to cheer up people who are lonely, only to be prevented from seeing their own grandparents because of church scheduling.

Michelle Nelson4 said:As for my own presentation of the protocol, I truly believe I kept it objective—neither leaning positive nor negative. I simply focused on laying out the facts and the actual procedures without letting my own emotions or interpretations bleed in. For instance, I didn't include my personal thoughts on the religious curriculum or any opinions regarding the supernatural nature of the "waffle."

Hmm.
It's not quite 😉
but it’s described so realistically (especially with the little bag and that stranger 😂) that it could probably hold its own against someone going through communion, let alone an atheist just looking for a free gift 🤣

Michelle Nelson4 said:I wouldn't say they don't recognize it; far from it. It’s more like if you don't attend the school-based classes, you can't take communion. And if you skip the parish sessions, you're out of luck there too. In marketing terms, it’s basically cross-selling. No matter which program you sign up for, they bundle the other one in because they’re tied together. It keeps everyone at the local parish office busy, I suppose. 😁

Personally, I don't get too wrapped up in all this since my kid doesn't participate in either. Though, she did ask me once if she could take communion because she heard people get little gifts out of it. So, I gave her the full rundown: I told her she’d have to spend three years in religious ed classes at school first, and then in the third year, she wouldn't be able to join us on our weekend trips or sleep in whenever she wants because she'd have to be at Mass early Sunday morning. Then, she’d have to take an additional class at the church, and finally, she’d have to sit in some tiny little room at the rectory and confess all her mistakes to a complete stranger, all just to end up with a tiny piece of a wafer. Needless to say, her interest vanished instantly.

That was a pretty spot-on way to put it, though you're right, that's exactly what's happening. 👍
And parents end up going along with it mostly because they feel like they don't really have a choice. 🤣

feralmoose32 said:So, a friend was just telling me about this situation yesterday—with the religious education classes at school—and apparently, the local priest is insisting that the kids also attend services at the parish as part of their First Communion prep for third grade... he basically won't acknowledge any of the work being done by the school instructors. It’s quite a thing, really
The school actually offered to let him come in and lead the lessons on campus themselves, just so the kids wouldn't have to make the trip down to the church—but he turned them down... honestly, you hear the strangest things sometimes

A priest doesn't belong in a public school.
Whether it's for communion prep or a blessing of the bread, it's just not appropriate.
I really don't get what the school thinks they're gaining by offering that. 🤷

The fact that the priest won't acknowledge the school teacher's curriculum and demands extra sessions is a whole other issue. It just highlights how absurd this entire situation is, especially when parents actually go along with it.

Michael Lee75 said:Honestly, I’d feel like I was throwing money away if I passed up the chance to learn an extra language for free when the opportunity is right there, rather than shelling out cash for some private language school. My kid is already set on one anyway, though it’s a language that probably isn't even offered at any local academy, so this elective is really just a nice little bonus.

You totally missed the irony here, 😉
Religious studies is mandatory in the school curriculum, yet foreign languages aren't, because you can always find alternatives elsewhere. It’s honestly pretty absurd.
Especially when you consider that parents can teach languages at home—kids pick things up just by watching shows or listening to music, especially in English—yet religious studies, which is supposed to be a lived experience based on certain principles, somehow requires dedicated classroom hours throughout all eight years of elementary school.🤣

A friend of mine actually pulled his kid out of computer lab because the curriculum was basically useless; he knows way more about tech himself. Plus, since the kid was in the afternoon session, there was barely enough time to grab a snack, let alone get anything meaningful done for class.
And don't expect to hear any complaints about that from the parents of the kids in religious studies!

Sarah Hall53 said:You can actually just file the paperwork without giving some deep, dramatic reason—just saying they aren't interested in taking religious studies anymore works perfectly fine—as long as you get that request in by August 15th.
Some schools might be cool enough to let you opt out even after that date if there’s a scheduling conflict—because, let's be honest, how are you supposed to know on August 14th that German class is going to clash with music when the schedule doesn't even drop until September 4th? And then, of course, the whole thing usually shifts around two or three more times before mid-September anyway. But, strictly speaking, legally they have every right to turn down any request that rolls in after the 15th.

A lot of parents aren't actually aware of this
and nobody really tells them—not during enrollment, and not even when they ask the teacher how to withdraw their child.

Also, just a heads-up: the request definitely needs to be in writing. I've seen cases where they require signatures from both parents, and I know some schools used to insist on a reason. If it wasn't written down, the religion teacher would often step in to chat and see if there was an issue they could actually fix.🕺

Michael Lee75 said:Take my situation, for example, where they’ve got foreign language set up as a double block during the fifth and sixth periods, yet they insist on sticking religion class right in the thick of the daily grind. I suppose they think religion requires more mental heavy lifting than learning a new language, so that's why 🙄

If you want to take a second language, you have options—you can do a block period or switch things around; you could even enroll in a private language academy where you don't have to deal with the stress of GPA grades. Plus, you can often pick your own instructor or switch if you don't vibe with them, or even drop out mid-year if needed, which you definitely can't do with a standard elective.
Religion class is mandatory within the school curriculum. If you want those sacraments, you pretty much have to attend.

It sounds absurd, but that’s just how it works.
I know some kids who don't take a second language because it's scheduled during the afternoon shift and clashes with their music lessons or soccer practice. Instead, they just study it at home or at a specialized tutoring center where they can pick their own hours. Yet, those same kids still attend religion class because it's tucked into the standard morning schedule and they have to be at school anyway. If it were held in the afternoon, they wouldn't bother.

And honestly, I find this part so interesting: you can't just opt out of religion class at the start of the year if you realize they scheduled it for first period or if a few friends aren't in it. But the moment you get the schedule and see that German is the third period during the afternoon shift—right when your kid has soccer—you can just file a request and it actually gets approved.☕

It’s actually pretty convenient that I can catch NBC these days ☕

Patrick Harris5 said:If that's the case, then what is the point of Catholic religion class? Because every other textbook—aside from math, PE, and art, which luckily don't really have books yet—is pretty much packed with religious stuff that's presented without any critical thinking at all. And of course, it's mostly, if not exclusively, Catholic topics...

Why are there songs about Jesus in a music textbook?

Why are there several pages on Christmas and Easter in a Democratic Party textbook? It’s the same thing happening in the English language books too, with stories about Saint Nicholas and Santa Claus...

In the USA, we have 14 holidays, where 8 are Catholic and 6 are federal. Why does the Democratic Party only mention 4 (2 religious, 2 federal), while they go into intense detail specifically about Christmas and Easter?

Should I even mention that atheists aren't mentioned in a single textbook? Depending on how you count, atheists are the second or third largest group (sadly totally unorganized) in America, but there isn't a word about them in these books—except maybe in some religion book claiming atheists were responsible for Auschwitz and the Holocaust against Jews...

In my opinion, every subject except for religion class needs to be religiously neutral, or at least have minimal representation in these books. That's why religion class exists! Let people learn about different faiths there, or in churches, but not in general school subjects...

I'm not being narrow-minded or exclusionary. I'm fully aware of the environment we live in, but there's such a thing as going too far...

Look... I actually agree with you that there are way too many religious themes popping up in various subjects.
It's just like how within religious studies itself, there are topics that shouldn't even fall under religion, and some are handled in a way that encourages intolerance, which can easily become a foundation for hatred.

But it's also a fact that there are 14 holidays in the US, and it's probably good to cover them all together. It might sound silly, but most families will celebrate both Christmas and Easter (decorating the tree, dyeing eggs, overeating!), and somehow those days feel more real to kids than Independence Day or other historical milestones that most families don't really observe.
For me, certain national holidays don't mean much, other than being annoyed when they fall on a weekend ☕

As for how religious holidays are handled in non-religious classes, unfortunately, it all depends on the teacher. I've heard stories where atheists were bothered by the mere mention of them (personally, I don't mind), but I've also heard of devout believers being upset because the lesson was too "superficial," and when parents complained, they were just told to take it up with the religious studies instructor.

Patrick Harris5 said:Well, I guess we can all agree that both Christmas and Easter are religious things...

Everyone has their own reasons for not enrolling their kid in Catholic religion class, sure. But isn't that subject actually there so people—specifically those who consider themselves believers—can get to know their faith better? You know, the processes, the reasons why we celebrate certain things, when they happen, and all that stuff...

If religion class is considered a religious subject, then shouldn't all the other school subjects be non-religious or secular, right?

I’m not being bitter here. We live in the environment we live in. You definitely need to know traditions to some extent, but for what, exactly?

Just a quick thought...

In the second-grade Social Studies textbook where kids learn how the calendar works, there’s this exercise where a student has to circle certain dates. It says: Circle March 22nd for Water Day. Circle December 25th. WHEN DO WE CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS!?

WHEN DO WE CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS!? It's not a choice! Whether you're Muslim, an atheist, or whatever, we all celebrate Christmas...

Or take the section on Holidays and Festivities that explains the difference between a holiday and a feast day. They only list two holidays and two feasts... you don't even have to dig too hard to figure out which ones they are... as if in America we only celebrate those four specific days..

Or look at the Music circle book; it has that song "A child to be born"... it's pretty obvious which child we're talking about...

Or take the American Language Arts textbook; they have these great stories about Saint Nicholas, the Yule log, Santa Claus (!?), Easter baskets, and Christmas fairy tales... it's not just one sentence per story either; there's plenty of it spread over several pages, very detailed...

And don't even get me started on the mountain of drawings of churches and cathedrals, all with crosses on them, obviously...

There's as much of it as you want. In the second-grade textbooks, it's everywhere—subtle, not subtle, conscious, subconscious, however you want to call it...

The only thing missing is math, oh the mystery! 🙂

So, you don't enroll your kid in religion class, but then you realize the other kids don't really need to go either because a ton of the other textbooks are "louder" than any religion class could ever be...

Well, in America, you have both religious holidays and federal observances. I don't know about you, but for me, both types count as days off (and nobody asks me about my personal beliefs when I'm taking them).
Personally, I think it's fine for kids to learn which days are non-working days and why.
I really don't see any harm in it. In fact, if I'm home on one of those days with my kid, I think it would be pretty hypocritical to pretend those days don't exist in our lives.
The real issue is the wording of the questions—like asking "how do you celebrate this day" (which was in last year's textbook for both Christmas and Easter). If a child is expected to answer in class just like everyone else, it leaves things up to the teacher's interpretation. Like, does the kid have the right to say they don't celebrate the resurrection, but they *do* participate by dyeing eggs and eating spring onions?

I always find the school assemblies around those days a bit tricky, too.

Patrick Harris5 said:Around here, only about 5 out of 20 kids are actually signing up for religious education this year. It’s wild. We had two students move away with their families to other states, one kid who went last year but decided to skip it this time, and even a new girl who just joined us isn't attending...

Has any parent actually taken a good look at the second-grade textbooks lately? Like, really scrolled through the content?

For second grade, those books are absolutely slammed with religious themes. Honestly, the Social Studies and Civics textbooks seem to be leading the charge on that front more than anything else..

Is that a quote from the Piedmont group? We don't really have much of a global perspective over here.
I haven't actually had a chance to check out Aneca yet—honestly, I probably won't get around to it until after the weekend.

What’s the debate about?

Sarah Hall53 said:So, there was this one year where I ended up rushing into the classroom at the exact same moment as the religion teacher—it was such a mess. We both had the same period blocked off just to help with the scheduling, so yeah... it was pretty chaotic.

Wait, so the kids just had two hours of language arts and two hours of religion class, and that was it for their entire schedule that day?
That sounds like an absolute dream 🙏

Sarah Hall53 said:Oh, man, those study halls can be absolute killers depending on how much the hourly proctor decides they dislike you
and then you’ve got the homeroom periods—if you get lucky enough to have a block of language classes followed by religion, you're looking at a three-hour gap. Or if music class gets shoved into fourth period and everything just starts spiraling...

I was actually thinking about homeroom. I meant more about the teacher.
I definitely get the situation with subject-specific classes; I know how much of a puzzle that is. That's where the issues start because some professors teach at several different schools (we actually discussed that in another thread), so while they're trying to coordinate all those schedules, it trickles down to the subject classes in the lower grades, and then the teacher just has to fill whatever gaps are left over.

Sarah Hall53 said:So, look—if you’re working at a two-way school, you don't necessarily have a dedicated specialist on staff during your specific shift. And if it's one of those smaller schools, they might just share a counselor or a specialist with another campus, so that person isn't even there every day. That's the first thing. Plus, when you get an unqualified sub, you end up having to play catch-up later. But once a certified teacher steps in to cover for you, they actually handle the stuff you were supposed to be doing.
The rule of thumb, though, is that unless there's some special arrangement made, gaps in a teacher's schedule shouldn't really exceed two periods, twice a week. Anything beyond that feels like something straight out of a movie like "Whiplash."

And honestly, those gaps shouldn't be longer than two hours anyway.
Having two hours of language arts and two hours of religious studies fits that perfectly.
I don't see anything wrong with it; in fact, I think it’s actually better for the kids if the teacher manages to get those classes during the first two periods or if the scheduler sets it up that way on purpose.

One of my main arguments against having religious studies in public schools—and even starting foreign languages in first grade—is exactly this: we shouldn't be switching teachers on them too frequently.
Last year at our school, the same teacher always had them for the first few periods, and I actually thought that was great because it's nice for the kids to walk into a classroom where the same person is waiting for them. Even though, personally, I wouldn't mind if my kid could sleep in a little longer! (Though, to be fair, the teacher would have been the first period for her too.)

frozenrider15 said:I didn’t say religious studies had to be squeezed into a single hour just to leave gaps for scheduling buffers. What I actually said was that the scheduler is handed a specific set of constraints they have to follow when building the master timetable—and in my school, one of those non-negotiable rules is leaving room for those gaps. Besides, religious studies holds the status of a core subject under our agreement with the Holy See. And look, if you're building a schedule based on fixed parameters, you can't exactly have everyone taking that class during the first or last period. It's simply not how the math works.

Look, let’s get one thing straight right off the bat. Please refrain from using that dismissive "what's it to you" attitude when addressing me. I don't engage in that kind of low-rent, disrespectful banter with you, so there's no reason for you to start it now. Let's maintain some level of basic decorum.

Sorry, I was just surprised. It wasn't intentional.

From a purely mathematical standpoint, once you factor in coordinating subject teachers—especially those teaching at multiple schools—arranging gym availability, and trying to follow Department of Education recommendations, I really think teacher prep periods are the very last thing on anyone's mind.
Mathematically speaking, gaps in the schedule are inevitable, but I don't see why someone would intentionally schedule a gap for a teacher. There will always be some downtime somewhere, especially in fourth grade when you've got music or art teachers, or when teachers nearing retirement aren't teaching certain electives, which often leaves them with even more free periods.
Plus, a substitute or an aide can always step in.

But while we're talking about substitutes:
What happens if the religious studies teacher calls in sick? Does she have to show up for the first period, or are we going to be called in too? 🤣
In our school, our teacher missed a few days last year, and classes just proceeded as normal.

frozenrider15 said:I’m probably going to get flagged for drifting off-topic here... which technically violates the rules. Then again, we all know rules are often treated more like suggestions than actual mandates😵.
The reality is, we need intentional "holes" in the daily schedule. Why? So we can jump in and cover for one another when someone inevitably calls out sick. That was one of the non-negotiable requirements given to the administrator when they were drafting the master schedule.

Sure, it’s not universal, but listen: if the scheduler is working within those specific constraints, a teacher could practically perform a miracle and still find a way to fit religious studies into the middle of the day instead of being stuck with the first or last period.

We already have a dedicated thread about teacher schedules, but I'll weigh in here:
Just because you need buffer gaps in the schedule doesn't mean religious studies can't be placed during regular class hours. What's the issue there? 😕
Well, even with the Department of Education's guidelines, the math behind scheduling often makes it impossible to ensure everyone has the same start or end times.
For us this year, we have first period once a week, and then second period the next time.
(The teacher doesn't have both those early slots, so the subject teachers just rotate out and then the religion teacher steps in. 😬)

In our district, block scheduling isn't really an option. It just doesn't work well for the kids in religious studies who would have to sit through two hours straight 😬
(plus, most of them would probably prefer to sleep in a bit more anyway!)

I mean, there’s a lot of overlap between the Democratic Party platform and religious studies classes. Plus, since kids spend so much time singing and drawing during those sessions, what more could they really get out of an extra hour of social studies or history?
It's a good thing the Democratic Party hasn't cut that hour from the schedule yet. 😂