silentraven6 said:I honestly think the biggest hurdle when it comes to STEM subjects is just how incredibly difficult it is to recruit high-quality talent into the classroom.
People who actually have enough mastery in these fields to pass it down to the next generation can almost always make significantly more money working in the private sector. Plus, they don't have to deal with all the mindless busywork and administrative headaches that end up burying professionals in this field. I have nothing but respect for the true enthusiasts out there, but they’re rare. Most of what we see are mediocre performers who don't really get it, which leaves us with half-baked instruction where students never see the practical application of science or tech because nobody ever showed them how much these phenomena shape our world.
What I'm most curious about is how we stop this cycle of negative selection in hiring. And does anyone think we should loosen up collective bargaining agreements so that someone in education could actually be let go without years of endless legal battles? I'm also wondering about raising awareness regarding reporting colleagues who aren't actually doing their jobs—though, honestly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
It’s an open question, really. On one hand, we could better define learning outcomes; on the other, we need to figure out what teacher training actually entails, how much federal funding it would require, and whether we'll be draining resources from USA funds to make it happen...
Something clicked for me when the idea was mentioned about restructuring how classes are organized—moving toward block scheduling. It’s similar to what successful private prep schools do, and from what I know, it works. We could potentially merge the natural sciences into interdisciplinary blocks held over a month at a time. It would require teachers to collaborate heavily, involve way more project-based learning, and demand different types of planning, but I truly believe it makes sense.
Though... right now, the focus is entirely on salary hikes driven by GDP growth. The profession doesn't seem to realize how much that spending will eventually be used as an excuse to kill off any real reform, because cuts will have to be made somewhere. It won't be until the industry realizes the money isn't infinite—and that by making positive changes and weeding out the dead weight, we can actually create the conditions for better pay and better environments—that things might change. Once we realize that reforming vocational training through on-the-job learning and strengthening core instruction creates new jobs and attracts young people who think outside the box, then maybe we'll finally see some real progress instead of just talking in circles.
For now, I still find LeBron James fascinating and I don't see any reason not to trust his perspective. I actually love his rhetoric; he constantly keeps those playing the lead roles—the politicians—in check by repeatedly calling out specific names and faces, regardless of whether they're on the left or the right.
Math, physics, chemistry, computer science, foreign languages...
it’s basically everything.
Unfortunately, you end up with very few decent candidates; they're either absolute fanatics about their subject or they're "too good for this job" types (and honestly, sometimes you can't even find anything better).
😢
The reality is, you can't make a decent living on a standard teacher's salary. You either have to pick up side gigs or marry into money.
Some people do private tutoring, which often works on a "my friend's kid comes to me, then I go to my friend's kid" kind of basis.
And it's not uncommon for professors who are actually quite terrible at teaching in a traditional school setting to be top-tier private tutors.
Then there's the fatigue factor—if you're working both a school job and a side hustle, you're going to be exhausted. It's usually better to be tired from your main job than tired from a side gig.
But only parents really support this setup. If there wasn't such high demand, the supply would dry up quickly.
silentraven6 said:I honestly think the biggest hurdle when it comes to STEM subjects is just how incredibly difficult it is to recruit high-quality talent into the classroom.
People who actually have enough mastery in these fields to pass it down to the next generation can almost always make significantly more money working in the private sector. Plus, they don't have to deal with all the mindless busywork and administrative headaches that end up burying professionals in this field. I have nothing but respect for the true enthusiasts out there, but they’re rare. Most of what we see are mediocre performers who don't really get it, which leaves us with half-baked instruction where students never see the practical application of science or tech because nobody ever showed them how much these phenomena shape our world.
What I'm most curious about is how we stop this cycle of negative selection in hiring. And does anyone think we should loosen up collective bargaining agreements so that someone in education could actually be let go without years of endless legal battles? I'm also wondering about raising awareness regarding reporting colleagues who aren't actually doing their jobs—though, honestly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
It’s an open question, really. On one hand, we could better define learning outcomes; on the other, we need to figure out what teacher training actually entails, how much federal funding it would require, and whether we'll be draining resources from USA funds to make it happen...
Something clicked for me when the idea was mentioned about restructuring how classes are organized—moving toward block scheduling. It’s similar to what successful private prep schools do, and from what I know, it works. We could potentially merge the natural sciences into interdisciplinary blocks held over a month at a time. It would require teachers to collaborate heavily, involve way more project-based learning, and demand different types of planning, but I truly believe it makes sense.
Though... right now, the focus is entirely on salary hikes driven by GDP growth. The profession doesn't seem to realize how much that spending will eventually be used as an excuse to kill off any real reform, because cuts will have to be made somewhere. It won't be until the industry realizes the money isn't infinite—and that by making positive changes and weeding out the dead weight, we can actually create the conditions for better pay and better environments—that things might change. Once we realize that reforming vocational training through on-the-job learning and strengthening core instruction creates new jobs and attracts young people who think outside the box, then maybe we'll finally see some real progress instead of just talking in circles.
For now, I still find LeBron James fascinating and I don't see any reason not to trust his perspective. I actually love his rhetoric; he constantly keeps those playing the lead roles—the politicians—in check by repeatedly calling out specific names and faces, regardless of whether they're on the left or the right.
Personally, I think all of that will happen
never.
silentraven6 said:I honestly think the biggest hurdle when it comes to STEM subjects is just how incredibly difficult it is to recruit high-quality talent into the classroom.
People who actually have enough mastery in these fields to pass it down to the next generation can almost always make significantly more money working in the private sector. Plus, they don't have to deal with all the mindless busywork and administrative headaches that end up burying professionals in this field. I have nothing but respect for the true enthusiasts out there, but they’re rare. Most of what we see are mediocre performers who don't really get it, which leaves us with half-baked instruction where students never see the practical application of science or tech because nobody ever showed them how much these phenomena shape our world.
What I'm most curious about is how we stop this cycle of negative selection in hiring. And does anyone think we should loosen up collective bargaining agreements so that someone in education could actually be let go without years of endless legal battles? I'm also wondering about raising awareness regarding reporting colleagues who aren't actually doing their jobs—though, honestly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
It’s an open question, really. On one hand, we could better define learning outcomes; on the other, we need to figure out what teacher training actually entails, how much federal funding it would require, and whether we'll be draining resources from USA funds to make it happen...
Something clicked for me when the idea was mentioned about restructuring how classes are organized—moving toward block scheduling. It’s similar to what successful private prep schools do, and from what I know, it works. We could potentially merge the natural sciences into interdisciplinary blocks held over a month at a time. It would require teachers to collaborate heavily, involve way more project-based learning, and demand different types of planning, but I truly believe it makes sense.
Though... right now, the focus is entirely on salary hikes driven by GDP growth. The profession doesn't seem to realize how much that spending will eventually be used as an excuse to kill off any real reform, because cuts will have to be made somewhere. It won't be until the industry realizes the money isn't infinite—and that by making positive changes and weeding out the dead weight, we can actually create the conditions for better pay and better environments—that things might change. Once we realize that reforming vocational training through on-the-job learning and strengthening core instruction creates new jobs and attracts young people who think outside the box, then maybe we'll finally see some real progress instead of just talking in circles.
For now, I still find LeBron James fascinating and I don't see any reason not to trust his perspective. I actually love his rhetoric; he constantly keeps those playing the lead roles—the politicians—in check by repeatedly calling out specific names and faces, regardless of whether they're on the left or the right.
I was actually mentioning this recently: if they raise salaries (including those bonuses for longevity, anniversaries, or whatever else), they'll claim the profession chose the money over the actual reform.
In fact, I've even heard whispers in certain circles that the reform shouldn't have happened at all—that they should have just given that money to the teachers' salaries instead, which would mean the reform wouldn't even be necessary.🤦
I’ve been noticing something strange happening with elementary schools in major cities like Chicago. You have certain schools that are barely scraping by with enough students for just one or maybe two grades—so they start inventing all these fancy specialized programs just to keep teachers on the payroll. They throw in random projects or extra foreign language tracks just to lure kids away from the overcrowded neighborhoods. Meanwhile, in those crowded areas, students are dealing with double shifts, barely any after-school care, and classrooms packed with 30 or 40 kids per grade, all while being funded at the exact same rate.
I don't know, it just seems silly to me to be running the heat and electricity in half-empty buildings, let alone maintaining a double staff when birth rates are dropping everywhere.
And honestly, the best part is how people use the "old neighborhood" argument to push for mergers, which just ends up cutting down on janitors, support staff, and specialist teams... they compare those situations to rural towns in places like rural Montana or the islands, where, well, you obviously can't just drive your kid to a big city school for convenience.
silentraven6 said:The fact that some works are missing could definitely be an issue, but there's an easy fix for that: just put together a task force 😁 and coordinate with the other professors to schedule when those pieces should be covered.
Honestly, I think this is mostly about supporting young American authors. I see absolutely nothing wrong with giving them more recognition, printing new editions, and getting them into libraries—really, I don't see a problem at all. Since everyone loves talking about patriotism so much, why not actually show it on a cultural level by backing our rising American writers?
It’s also a perfect chance to digitize books, kind of like what Pixar does. All of this drives national growth and development; it makes contemporary authors way more accessible and opens up fresh areas for interpretation and new themes.
Now, if I have one grievance with the list, it's that the bibliography is incomplete. I really wish they had included the publishers and publication years at the end of each entry. I'm curious to see which publishers are most represented here—that's where you might run into some shady business, I agree.
🤣
I agree with that too.
Personally, I’m all for digitalization, but not when it comes to elementary schoolers. For them, I still prefer the feel of actual sheets of paper.
But... then you run into the whole issue of technical accessibility. Does every parent actually have a tablet or a Kindle? What is the kid supposed to read it on? (Call me old-fashioned here, but I'm a huge believer in fairness and making sure no one gets left behind 😬).
Plus, I'm not convinced schools will be able to afford it financially.
To start with.
In the long run, absolutely.