Posts by Susan James

hiddendriver34 said:It really looks like they're just clearing the path to oust Jokic and slide in one of the President's buddies to take over.

At this rate, the entire curriculum overhaul is going straight down the drain. 😢

I really hope not!
Honestly, either way would be pretty terrible—the first option sounds like a nightmare, and the second one? Just plain awful.

Robert Rodriguez9 said:Why act surprised? Every time there’s a change in administration, everything the previous one started just hits a wall. 🙄

This isn't just your typical change in administration.
It feels like we’re heading straight back into the Dark Ages.

And let's be real—it feels like the ultimate goal for this administration, and eventually through the school system too, is to make sure people just stop thinking for themselves. 🤮
One of the main goals of this reform is to encourage individuality, creativity, and critical thinking. However, during his interview, Paar basically tried to convince them that they should be shaping students into mindless followers instead. 🙄

Oh, right... that show was actually filmed on the exact same day they held the vote of no confidence against the administration.
Man, if that was their mindset back then, I can only imagine what they're thinking today—and more importantly, what kind of shady tactics they’re planning to pull next.

I caught a segment on NBC 3 last night, and honestly, I get the feeling they’re trying to stall the whole reform process... it feels like we're seeing those same old reformers from back in 2003 🤮

Paar seemed to lose his way a bit during the debate, though he stayed pretty stubborn about claiming that Jokic is pressuring the expert team to follow his lead 😢
He seems to think—probably based on his own past experiences—that if everyone doesn't think exactly alike, then the entire team is useless 🤣

And to top it off, he actually had the nerve to complain that since he’s leading the expert group, he doesn't have enough teaching experience, implying it's somehow insufficient compared to the other 400 participants involved in the reform 🤣

hiddendriver34 said:Word on the street is that Ilinčić is tearing into the selection of experts behind the reform, claiming they were picked based on their political leanings rather than actual skill.🤦

From where I’m sitting, this whole project is seen by the public as the one thing in this country that’s actually decent and hasn't been tainted by partisan politics yet.

If they try to kill it off or start turning it into an ideological weapon, we are looking at a massive, absolute clusterfuck.

Did anyone catch Jokić's interview on CNN? Honestly, the guy is a total genius. He’s usually so incredibly articulate, but you could tell he was rattled here because he couldn't stop using his little verbal tic—that "you know" thing.

I really, truly hope people wake up and demand that this reform stays on track. It looks like the new folks in Washington are already planning to shut it down, all under the guise of fixing some supposed "mistake" in the process.

There was a presentation at the teachers' conference, and people seemed really excited about it.
If they actually stop this, we're really in trouble.

To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if they just halted it, copied the whole reform, slapped a line signed by Ilicic and another one signed by Mark on it, and then took all the credit themselves.

Or they might just take the existing pool of experts—those 430 people—and add another 470 of their own cronies (probably just looking for jobs) 🤮
and maybe even dump the head of the reform, simply because they don't like his last name or where he comes from 😢 😢 😢, even though that has nothing to do with the quality of the reform 🤮

The problem with every administration is that they feel the need to mark their territory with something brand new, no matter how high the quality of what came before 😢
and the fact that they always insist on bringing in "their" people.

I honestly feel like they’re just stalling so they can completely scrap sex ed and civics, only to swap them out for that garbage Oak proposed
To be fair, I wasn't expecting anything else from a team of experts pulled straight from religious orders.
All this fluff you see being copy-pasted everywhere is just empty rhetoric meant to distract people from what's actually happening.

Here is an interesting article

We could probably dump a ton of content into other threads—especially regarding school reforms or the stress of getting C's—but since this specific discussion was about how much religious education costs us, I figured I’d drop the link and copy-paste it here:

While budget shortages mean the last time the government bought computer equipment for schools was back in 2008, in a secular nation, there's still enough money to fund about 3,000 religious instructors in elementary and high schools who work for the church but get paid by the state. According to last year's data from the U.S. Department of Education (though they haven't sent over updated figures by the time this was written), about $32 million is allocated annually for these instructors' salaries. That accounts for roughly three percent of the total federal budget dedicated to K-12 employee salaries. However, the actual cost these instructors represent to the taxpayers is significantly higher.

"Based on data from April 2014, there were 840 computer science teachers employed in elementary schools. As for religious instructors, there were 3,024 in total across elementary and high schools—with their annual salary costs totaling approximately $34 million," Gordana Zuccon, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Education, told Index.

Personally, I'm not really a huge fan of tablets or iPads; I've always felt there's something special about using a classic BIC pen, and I think you can learn so much more just by writing things down. That said, I am all for introducing computer science, teaching life skills like sewing and cooking, and I definitely think that if teachers start asking for photocopies or extra worksheets, they should take it up with the Church—or maybe the parents of the kids in those classes!
☕

brisknomad13 said:Fair point—you can't really put religion in the same box as math or history. Sure, it’s technically on the school schedule, but it goes way deeper than that. Its whole purpose is about connecting people to the Lord—students, parents, teachers, and the whole church community all in one go.

It’s got this depth that’s way more powerful than any individual's attempt to toss aside the human spirit and its specific Christian search for meaning.

Obviously, history shows us that totalitarian systems will always try to force out whatever they don't like, but when it comes to faith, that’s a much tougher nut to crack. It's practically impossible because we're talking about an existential reality, not just some textbook curriculum.

(The critics who actually get this realize they're biting off way more than they can chew)

The people opposing religious education on this topic are usually parents who don't want their kids attending classes at school. Some are believers themselves but aren't happy with how faith is presented in the school system—feeling it's been reduced to just another way to boost a GPA or an easy "A." Others might belong to different faiths since only Catholic instruction is available, or they could simply be atheists or agnostics.

I honestly find it hard to understand why some believers feel the need for their child to spend those extra two hours in a classroom for religious ed. Faith is something you live out; it's primarily passed down within the family. If that foundation isn't laid at home, I doubt two hours a week at school can make much of a difference. In my experience, those two hours might be better spent letting kids catch up on sleep (which is so vital for brain development!), practicing reading, working on math, learning a second language, or just running around outside in the fresh air. Getting that movement is so important for health, concentration, physical fitness, and even spiritual well-being.

Lawrence Torres56 said:I feel the same way😉...honestly, I'd love for my kid to have two hours less of that stuff per week in exchange for a much broader understanding of global faiths—like, instead of a poem about a dandelion, maybe they learn a prayer or a mantra... or instead of being encouraged toward hate in the 21st century, they listen to lessons about how similar we all are as humans...

But we don't really have that, do we? We just love pretending we do... because if we actually did, discussions like this would be ridiculous, especially since we all know nobody is getting hurt or dying just because someone splashed them with holy water or because a priest walked past them on the street.😁
So, what is religion class actually for? Well, maybe it exists, among other things, to teach kids what we call "interpersonal communication skills," which includes "respecting the teacher and peers. It involves practicing courtesy, attention, grace, and sincerity in human relationships." In other words, it's the stuff we've stripped out of every other subject because apparently, it's perfectly fine for an older person to call a student a "cow" just because they're in religion class and don't believe in God, or because it's considered "fine" to lie, be dishonest, or encourage hate, or to judge a classmate just because he's wearing his brother's old sneakers... you name it. Is that enough, or do I need to keep listing examples?🍿

I think you completely misunderstood my point😉

I'm not asking to swap out a song about clover for some religious hymn; those are already in the curriculum, and there's no need to add more.
Besides, there is a massive difference between teaching about various cultures and diversities—to enrich someone's general knowledge—and actually doing prayers during class.
Massive.
Neither prayer nor blessings have a place in a public institution, but exploring different cultural contents through various forms of art is always welcome.

I don't have the energy to read through everything, but when you guys started talking about health education and how those suggestions were to integrate it into other subjects, it got me thinking: why can't religion be integrated into American English, foreign languages, art, music, geography, or any of those other classes?
I mean, why does there have to be a specific class dedicated to just one faith, while we're allowed to have classes where we learn about anatomy and how bodies work (which, by the way, everyone has, nobody is being discriminated against, and no one is going to be sitting in the hallway doing math just because they're missing a body part)?

Personally, I have nothing against reading passages from the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, or the Quran during literature class. Or even having younger kids practice their reading skills using parables from the Bible or Zen stories—at that age, it’s basically just like reading fairy tales anyway.
I’m also totally fine with them looking at artwork in cathedrals or mosques as part of an art history lesson, especially since so much of the world's preserved art was created within religious spaces over the centuries.
And I don't mind them learning music that is still performed in churches today; I think those institutions hold a massive legacy, and so many incredible people have been shaped by them.
I’m all for learning about the diverse religions of the world through geography or foreign language studies...

But wait a second... isn't that already happening? Don't we already do that?
So then, what exactly is the purpose of a dedicated religion class? 🤔
😕

Lawrence Torres56 said:I mean, is that even a real argument? Is it?
Think about it—if you write the exact same essay during an English period and then again during a religion class, you aren't gaining the same kind of knowledge, nor are you being graded on the same criteria... if you're writing a > during English class, the teacher is looking at your grammar and spelling... but in religion class, they're mostly just checking to see how much of a good person you are, right?

http://example-us-school-district.edu/student-work?news_id=419

http://www.us-news-outlet.com/2013/12/letter-to-santa-claus-makes-you-want-to-cry/

😕 😕 😕

I’ve been reading through the discussion below, and I’m honestly a bit confused about what point you're trying to make with these essays.

If we’re going to talk about the true measure of a person, I’ll just point out that back in 2009, every working citizen in the US stepped up to sacrifice a portion of their paycheck to help cover the crisis tax, while the Church contributed exactly ZERO.
They still act similarly today—collecting donations at Mass (which is tax-exempt), knocking on doors for collections, and charging for weddings, funerals, and various services where most people never see an official invoice and everything is handled in cash.
It’s not just that the government gets nothing from those funds; the state actually ends up subsidizing religious leaders through various grants, plus paying the salaries of religious instructors and such.
And if you want to look at the fleet of cars the clergy drives?
What kind of "measure of a person" are we actually talking about here?

The fact that people are debating who is a "greater" Catholic tells you everything you need to know about this topic.

Personally, I think it’s a bit cheap to lean on these tear-jerker essays when you don't even know how they turned out—or whether Catholics, Muslims, or atheists were the ones who actually stepped up to help those struggling families.

If your goal was to praise these kids' writing, all I can say is that it’s our job as adults, regardless of our faith, to encourage and nurture altruism in children... through our words, our actions, and by setting a good example.
It’s sad that we live in a society where we judge people based on these kinds of things.
But I suppose we're the ones creating that environment.
Sadly enough.

On a side note, my own experience in English class wasn't just about grammar and spelling... we learned so much more than that. And that goes for many other subjects too.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Who exactly is being discriminated against by a school assembly held for a national holiday in a public school?
There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't also celebrate Teachers' Day, the school's founding day, or the birthdays of Gundulic...

It's regarding a national holiday and things that affect everyone, so nobody is being discriminated against. I'm not quite sure what you were getting at there 😕

Jacob Lewis5 said:I honestly don't get it. I don't see any "dominance," any special privileges, or anyone getting a leg up at someone else's expense. What's this talk about different rights or better treatment? If the rules are actually the same for everyone and nobody is being forced into anything, then there’s no issue here. Period.

Look, believers aren't losing a thing by keeping religious education in schools. I’m a regular at my local church myself, and honestly, what's the harm?
So, here’s my take on this one: Who would actually lose out if religious education stays in public schools? Honestly, I think the biggest loser would be the students themselves. It’s not even about whether you believe in God or not—it’s about the conversation. If we strip that out, we’re basically cutting out a massive chunk of history, art, and culture that shaped how people think and act. You can't really understand Western civilization without understanding the stuff that drove it. I remember back in high school, even though my family wasn't exactly "church-going," those classes gave us a window into why certain traditions exist and how they influence everything from politics to literature. Without it, school starts feeling a bit more like a sterile factory and less like a place where you actually learn how the world works. It’s a loss for critical thinking, too. Being able to engage with different belief systems—even just academically—helps kids develop some perspective. Take it away, and you're just narrowing the scope of what they're allowed to ponder. To me, that feels like a step backward for a well-rounded education.

Well, there's the loss to the federal budget, since we have to pay those instructors (and we certainly don't have extra funds for teaching assistants), plus the cost of hiring an additional teacher to supervise the non-religious students during those hours (if we can even manage to organize it).
Then there's the loss of time; if it isn't scheduled as the first period, kids end up with a gap in their schedule and have to stay at the facility longer than necessary.
Plus, you mentioned yourself that believers wouldn't lose anything by moving religious studies to the church, so I'm not entirely sure where the issue lies for them.😕

Alexander Ortiz3 said:So, what you're saying is public schools shouldn't observe federal holidays at all? Should they just go out and invent their own arbitrary days off instead? I don't see any issue with having a blessing for students and faculty during a school assembly held for a religious holiday, provided that attendance isn't mandatory for anyone involved.

Well, if celebrating a religious holiday ends up discriminating against certain students, then yes, it shouldn't happen.
On top of that, I worry that celebrating Christmas in schools has turned into nothing more than consumerism and tacky parades. That true spirit of togetherness—which is really about family anyway—seems to be getting lost. If even believers aren't feeling it, why bother bothering atheists, right?

And schools shouldn't be inventing holidays; they already exist.
If a school feels the need to hold assemblies, they should be related to the school itself, not the church.
Plus, they ought to include all the students at the school.
(By "include," I mean some kids can sing or dance while the others watch. Not everyone needs to have a performance part.)

Teacher Appreciation Day should be celebrated properly because teaching is such a vital profession, and it's an important date for both the students and the staff. I'm not sure if a church would even organize an event like that? Or maybe they already do somewhere?

The same goes for the birth of Jesus; that is celebrated in church, so I don't see the need to double up by celebrating it at school too. We don't hold celebrations for the births of Shakespeare, Sena, Ue, or Draskovic, so if a school happens to be named after one of them, why wouldn't the students organize a little commemorative assembly?
I'm not sure how they would celebrate a school anniversary at Lincoln Elementary School in Brooklyn, but I'm sure they have a specific date that matters to them—one that their local parish won't be marking, and one that not every single student will show up for.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:And how exactly do you respect the believers and the faculty at the school your child attends? ☕

Amendment 1.
Freedom of conscience and religion is guaranteed, along with the free exercise of religion or any other belief.
Amendment 1.
All religious communities are equal before the law and are separate from the state.
Religious communities are free, in accordance with the law, to publicly perform religious rites, establish schools, academies, other institutions, social and charitable organizations, and manage them, while enjoying the protection and assistance of the state in their activities.
http://www.congress.gov/Default.aspx?art=1841

How exactly is faith a private matter?

Regarding "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"—nobody is forcing you into religious education. But you *are* trying to force religious education out of the school system.

So, what’s your actual take here? Are you arguing that the government should force religious education on everyone, or is your stance that a minority should dictate terms to the majority by forcing religious studies out of schools entirely? Which side are you actually pulling for?
Personally, I believe in the freedom of choice for every single individual.

P.S. I honestly find the complaints from atheists—specifically regarding how much influence religion teachers have over school assemblies—to be quite baffling. The reality is that most school events are centered around holidays rooted in Christian traditions. If we wanted to truly "level the playing field" by making non-religious events equal to religious ones, we’d have to start hosting celebrations for things like a dear friend's birthday or commemorating days tied to the American Civil War. In the US, our major holidays fall almost exclusively into two buckets: they are either Christian-based or they are secular holidays established during or after the struggle for our nation's independence. Out of our twelve major holidays, ten of them fit perfectly into one of those two categories. It follows logically that when an assembly is held to celebrate a religious holiday, the religion teacher is going to play a leading role.

Most of our holidays are really just excuses to get a day off work.
I mean, what are we actually celebrating on December 26th? Is it just a day to celebrate gift receipts?
And what about the Fourth of July? Usually, it’s just a reason to head to the coast and combine it with a long weekend to clean up the beach house.

Regarding school assemblies, I’m not really a fan of them at all—they always feel a bit tacky to me. Back when my kids were in preschool, we didn't do any of that.🙏 🙏 🙏

A school could easily organize an event for "School Spirit Day," which they pick themselves, maybe based on the school's name or some local history that isn't tied to religion or war.
They could also celebrate Teacher Appreciation Day, which is also secular.
Or they could highlight student competitions and achievements, provided those successes aren't tied to anyone's faith or their family's service during the American Civil War.
I’d actually love it if schools celebrated Labor Day properly too.

For all those kinds of events, you don't need Jesus to show up and bless the teachers' hard work or the students' success. Those things depend on skill, motivation, and effort, not faith.
Setting up a Nativity scene, acting out the birth of Jesus, or doing a Three Kings procession... that isn't really something a school should be putting on for an audience. I think those things are perfectly suited for churches and family gatherings.

Decorating trees or dyeing Easter eggs isn't strictly a religious requirement, either.
But I suppose most practicing Catholics know that.🥳

Personally, I think it's fine if a school puts up some lights or lets kids do crafts to help develop their fine motor skills and teamwork. We want school to be more than just endless memorization and misery.
And all of that can happen without having children blessed inside the school building.
While I personally find blessings to be quite lovely and appreciate that expression of faith, I just don't think the school setting is the right place for it.

one truly excellent interview

Are we actually afraid of gifted students?
?
It feels like we’re instinctively wary of anyone who stands out from the crowd—whether it’s someone with a different background, skin color, or faith. We tend to teach an imaginary "average" student, but that student doesn't exist. Potential comes in endless varieties. Our education system should be designed to create an environment where young people can truly flourish. For gifted kids, we need systemic solutions: early identification, flexible learning outcomes, shifting our instructional approaches, adjusting the pace, and reimagining the classroom setting. If a student is exceptionally bright, they should have the option to work with a mentor outside of school hours. As a society, I feel we are far too insensitive to the incredible wealth of talent we possess.

This really reminded me of those discussions about brain drain and that post by Lunin.

And also this:

In Forbes, you took aim at parents who overschedule their kids with extracurriculars, didn't you?

The truth is, what we assume is best for our children often isn't. Most kids—kids from families like ours—are managed so tightly by their parents that they don't even have free time anymore. But honestly? Messing around, scrolling through a phone, reading comics, or even just staring blankly at a wall... all of that does more to develop a child than we realize. Boredom is one of the greatest catalysts for creativity. Humans aren't meant to be nothing more than productivity machines.

Morgan Walker2 said:Yeah, looks like Citigroup is the only one being this aggressive with the questionnaire—calling people's homes, texting them, sending those letters, calling them to come in... it's constant.
They are seriously relentless.🙄 From what I’ve gathered from some folks who actually know the rules, there isn't even a legal basis for them to badger people into filling this out if they don't want to. Everything necessary was handled when the account was first opened... none of this applies to them. If they actually suspect someone of money laundering or terrorism, they should just call the FBI and be done with it.

Honestly, I think I'm gonna start looking for a new bank. I’ve been meaning to do it anyway, but these guys are driving me up the wall. I just want some peace and quiet. I'm a totally low-maintenance client: no debt, no overdrafts, no loans—I just want to grab my paycheck from the ATM and not have to deal with them.

Even a few years ago, whenever I had to visit a branch (nowadays I just stick to the ATM), I'd constantly get stuck at the teller window. Usually after waiting forever in line when I was already in a rush, too! And then comes the nagging: "Could you please fill out this form? Could you please take this survey?" They’d practically shove the papers in your face, and if you said you were in a hurry, the staff would give you this huge attitude. I know other banks don't push it this hard or act this rude, but Citigroup is hands down the most annoying about it. Most of the time, I'd just cave and do it because I knew they'd just bother me again next time.

Well, I'm done with the harassment. I've had it up to here with them.

I don't even have an account with JPMorgan Chase, yet I still got one of those letters.😕

I haven't been a customer there in ages—honestly, if you count the two years I had a Mastercard linked to my dad's account back in the late nineties.

Are they actually for real?

Keith Howard89 said:I don’t even have a kid in school yet, but I was eavesdropping on some moms the other day and my jaw hit the floor. One of them was claiming that the school district moved Computer Science to a Saturday elective—which, let's be real, nobody is showing up for—but they kept Religious Studies right in the middle of the regular weekday schedule. And get this: apparently, kids are signing up for Religious Studies in droves just because it doesn't require trekking into school on a Saturday. Tell me I’m hallucinating. Tell me I didn't just hear that correctly. There is absolutely no way an actual American school system would operate with that kind of blatant, ridiculous logic—it's just absurd. 🕺

Edit: Honestly, this might actually belong in the thread about religious education—if it does, please move it over.

It’s not an "either-or" situation with Religion or Computer Science.
They likely offered both options, and choosing one doesn't mean you have to take the other—electives aren't mandatory.
The standard school day is already packed tight, so there's really no room to squeeze in Computer Science without pushing it to an after-school session.
It's the same deal with foreign languages or even Latin and Greek at schools that offer them.

I honestly think it's unrealistic to expect electives to fit within the regular school hours. It feels much fairer to have them all held during after-school sessions so everyone is treated equally.
For first graders, having Religion classes during after-school care would actually be the perfect solution. It keeps the kids supervised, it fits within the "school day" framework, and teachers can manage their schedules more effectively. Plus, kids taking Religion wouldn't fall behind on homework during after-school time since they could just finish it at home later. Most parents would probably prefer that over driving their kids to a church service anyway.

Anonymous said:It honestly annoyed me during the school enrollment process. There was this question asking if my kid would be taking an elective course, but they didn't actually list which ones were available. I mean, I could take a wild guess at what they meant, but I decided to check in with the school counselor to see how I should fill it out since there was zero information on the options. She just gave me this blank stare and said, "Religious studies." So, naturally, I gave her an even blanker look and asked, "Okay, but what’s the choice for kids who aren't taking religious studies?" Needless to say, she had absolutely no answer for me.
It’s happening again... if it’s already been stated that... Election season. Seriously though, why is this specific subject being left out? It feels like they’re skipping over it every single time while all the other elective courses are getting handled just fine.
So, they’ve set up these after-school activities from 3:45 to 4:30 PM during our supervised study sessions. They suggested that kids who usually stay late—I personally pick mine up at 4:00—just hang around until 4:30 to join things like junior scientist workshops, English clubs, or art classes. Since the grades are all mixed together, even the kids who don't normally stay for after-school care can jump in if they want to. I was thinking we should probably set it up the same way for religious education. If a student is capable enough to handle a second language program (which also runs right after school at 3:45), then they should be able to manage the religious studies too. We could just have one instructor cover two combined classes at once. Honestly, it just makes sense. I can't help you with that request. He belongs in school, not out there where he doesn't belong.

🥳
That’s an interesting point ☕

I haven't actually enrolled a kid in first grade myself, though I have helped move various kids between different schools over the years.
Some schools used a form asking if you wanted your child to take Catholic religion classes, while others had a specific list of electives and asked if you wanted them to continue with those.
This is honestly the first time I've heard of parents being asked if they want electives at all, but without any info on what the options actually are. 😲

It's getting a bit ridiculous, isn't it? 👎

Actually, I'm wondering—if you check the box saying you don't want your child to take electives, does that mean they lose access to everything? Even if the school offers five different options.
Even if they offer an elective during the period meant for religious studies, the parent has already signed a paper saying they don't want their child participating in electives at school.
It feels like a pretty clever little loophole. 🥳

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Reverse scheduling wouldn't work for those attending religion classes. Why would they want to make an extra trip from home to the school when the alternative is for the kids who *don't* attend religion class to spend their free hour inside the building?
So, it's a completely selfish opinion that only looks out for their own interests without caring if it makes life harder for everyone else.

Selfish? 🥳

That hour is just one small part of a child's day. After school, during the second shift they might be heading to ESL classes, soccer practice, drama club, or just running around at the local park enjoying some fresh air...
Instead, they’re stuck sitting in a quiet classroom, staring at the ceiling, all because someone was too lazy to show up for their preferred subject during the later shift.
Who’s actually being selfish here?

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Often, religious education instructors teach across multiple schools to build up enough hours for a full schedule, and frequently, there is only one instructor per school. How is that single teacher supposed to teach every grade during the first or last period if there are more classes than available slots—not to mention if they're traveling between different schools? In many cases, scheduling religious studies for the first or last period is simply technically impossible.
The issue lies entirely with the Department of Education; they have essentially left students who don't participate in religious studies to fend for themselves. In high schools, this is resolved by offering Ethics and Religion as a subject.
Why this hasn't been organized similarly in elementary schools is anyone's guess. It's possible the government finds it too expensive to pay ethics teachers when dealing with very small groups of students. Regardless, those interested should put pressure on the Department of Education to ensure adequate supervision for all students not attending religious studies, no matter the cost. Why Ethics and Religion aren't offered in elementary schools remains the real question.

Man, religious education is an expensive undertaking.
It's not just about paying the instructors; you also have to pay other teachers to supervise, entertain, or instruct the kids while the religion classes are happening.
Beyond that, shouldn't spreading faith be the job of priests and nuns, done freely and wholeheartedly out of pure altruism and a desire to pass on their beliefs?
Ever since the number of these instructors started growing (from what I can see, it's mostly a younger crowd, I doubt anyone is over 40🥳)?

If the Church is footing the bill for the instructors, then the school could hire as many people as needed to ensure the classes always fall during the first, "zero," or last period.
In my opinion, none of this should be on the shoulders of the Department of Education, which is already struggling with tight budgets.
I keep reading stories about how schools don't have enough money for basic supplies like toilet paper or printer paper for tests, yet somehow there's money available to promote religion.
We live in a pretty interesting country.🤔