Posts by wanderingbadger44

briskbison55 said:I mean, you really shouldn't go calling on those history buffs too aggressively... because, I don't know, they might just end up explaining how the first schools actually came from the Church. And honestly? They’d probably be right. Without the Church, I guess humanity wouldn't have even made it out of the Middle Ages, or at least not in the way we know it. It's just one of those things, maybe.

I’m saying this for the third time now—look, we shouldn't be being all exclusive here. Not that I want to sound completely brainless or like some total weirdo for how I phrased it, but seriously... if you actually took my last post at face value, you might need to go get your head checked. My whole point was just to mock the idea that parents need to hold their kids' hands every single second instead of just letting them go out and play. That's all it was.

Quinn:

Religious education and the church teaching kids about ethics and morality? I mean, really... what kind of ethics are we actually talking about here? Is it the kind where you just go around discriminating against anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe? Or maybe it's that whole thing where you judge someone just because they don't feel the same way you do? It feels a bit off, I guess. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seems like it's more about drawing lines in the sand than actually being a good person.

I mean, no matter how much those judgmental types and similar folks keep harping on about it, the church just doesn't teach that stuff. It’s such a massive issue here—you have people running religious education classes whose own kids don't even attend. It’s honestly just this senseless intolerance for no reason at all. I guess... I don't know, it feels like tolerance should really be the hallmark of you progressive atheists, right? It just makes sense. 😉

Quinn:

It’s just... I don't know, this whole chauvinistic moral code where being "male" is somehow the center of the universe? It’s everywhere. You’ve got the male god, the male savior, the male priest—basically, everything is framed through men, while women are treated like these second-class beings, just some afterthought created from a rib or something. Like, apparently, a woman isn't even fit to hold a position of power or pass down something as "sacred" as the word of God. Honestly, I don't know how people live like that. It actually makes me feel sick, thinking about this kind of "morality and ethics." It's just... ugh.

Yeah, that's definitely a red herring—like, a totally biased way of looking at things without showing even a shred of tolerance for anyone else's perspective. I mean, honestly, this is exactly why we have to make sure everyone actually has the right to choose for themselves... otherwise, these kinds of lies just end up being accepted as the absolute truth. It's scary, really.
Quinn:

The Ten Commandments? I mean, isn't it kind of sad, honestly... like, if someone is actually a believer, shouldn't they just *know* better? It feels a bit heavy-handed, I guess. Like, does God really have to step in and go, "Hey, don't kill people," or "Don't steal stuff"? Those are just basic human decency things, right? It’s almost a little pathetic that those kinds of rules even need to be laid out like that. Maybe I'm overthinking it, or maybe I'm just being cynical, but it feels a bit redundant, you know?

I mean, I could probably ask you... is it actually kind of sad? Like, the fact that we seriously need laws written down just to tell people, "Hey, don't kill anyone" or "Don't steal stuff or you're going to jail." It feels heavy when you think about it. Back then, before all this legal paperwork, there was just... this other kind of justice, I guess. Maybe it was more raw? But I suppose the biggest thing is that we shouldn't be pulling things out of their historical context, right? You can't really judge how things worked back then by looking at them through today's lens. That's just... yeah, it's a lot to wrap your head around.

Quinn:

I mean, we secular folks don't exactly need some deity hovering over us telling us what's right or wrong... we just know, you know? We wouldn't want to do bad stuff anyway. And honestly, we don't need someone threatening us with the devil just to make us act decent. Ethics and morality? They come from people, not from God.

So, I guess that’s why religious studies is an elective in American schools—it's totally up to you.
Quinn:

Studies have actually shown that kids raised in religious environments tend to be less tolerant and more aggressive toward their peers. Just think about why that might be.

And, uh, there are also studies saying that people who believe everything they read online are usually wrong most of the time, too... maybe think about why that happens.

Quinn:

Parents and society are the ones teaching them morality.

Great—less than 10% of highly educated Americans, plus a fair amount of people without even a high school diploma. It’s almost a miracle that kids aren't all just watching MTV or listening to pop music instead of enrolling in trade schools rather than philosophy degrees and other... well, useless stuff.😉

I'm torn between 🤣, 🤦, and 🙄—actually, let's call it a three-way tie.

If we were to ask actual historians how we even transitioned from the height of classical civilization—that era defined by incredible art, literature, architecture, and science—into the Middle Ages, the answer is pretty straightforward.

You guessed it: the Church.

So, should we all be rolling out the red carpet for the Church because they carefully tucked away knowledge and books in monasteries for monks to use while keeping the rest of the public in the dark, only to graciously decide over a millennium later that they’d finally open up schools and universities? It's almost as if they were the only ones with the keys to the library, holding onto everything from advanced philosophy to basic literacy.

It’s funny how history works—like how it wasn't Nat Turner who revolutionized optics, but Blaise Pascal instead. Just strange, isn't it? 🤦

briskbison55 said:In the US, those kinds of options are already on the table if there's a need for them. And honestly, this whole part about kids wandering off during class still doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I was a kid once, right? We used to have gaps in our schedules all the time, and we'd just go wild—playing football, tag, trying to talk to girls... 😁

Huh, wise words. I guess if you had said that about Archimedes it would be one thing, but specifically for Newton...

If you made a list of everything you haven't heard anything about, it would probably shame every book ever written.

Anyway, it seems like everyone is just hyper-fixated on religious education because they're hyper-fixated on the church. Maybe you guys think our society is good enough that kids will just pick up basic ethics and morals on their own, but I don't really have that much faith in a nation that uses more tobacco products than almost anywhere else and sees alcohol consumption rising year after year while health issues are climbing too.

But wait, where is all this coming from, considering kids have been sitting through religious studies for twelve years of their schooling over the last quarter-century? Could there actually be some sort of connection there? 😬

edit: I was actually being modest when I said twelve years. I recently found out that even at MIT, they offer Biblical theology as an elective course. 🤦 I imagine you'd find similar things offered at other universities too.

How can there still be so much darkness in society despite having so much religious education? 🕺

Larry Walker24 said:Is it even right to judge someone's faith?

Of course not. It’s just like trying to measure how much someone loves their hometown; you can't really put a number on it, which is why everyone ends up getting an A. 👏

wanderingbadger44 said:

I haven't heard from you in a while, SOHO_. wanderingbadger44 says: What would a religion teacher actually lose if the rest of the class decided they’d rather opt out of the course entirely? It feels like a bit of a hollow victory for those who choose to skip, almost like a coach losing their entire roster right before the big game—you’re left standing on the field with nothing to coach and no one to guide. The whole issue really traces back to the Department of Education and how they authorize the formation of new classroom sections. It’s a bit like a domino effect; once you increase the number of classes, you’re essentially forced to expand the weekly schedules for every teacher—take history teachers, for instance, who would see an extra couple of hours added to their load. And of course, as those teaching hours climb, the school is then obligated to bump up the teachers' salaries accordingly. It feels like everything you look at lately, even when it comes to stuff like HBO, just points toward some kind of grand conspiracy. 🙄.

Let's try it this way:
With a hundred first graders enrolling this year, the school ended up splitting them into five separate classrooms.
Out of those hundred kids, twenty of them aren't even stepping foot in religion class.
I could potentially set up four religious studies departments along with one secular one.

The schedule stays exactly the same for all the teachers, even those handling specialized subjects in the upper grades. Whether we shuffle things around or not, the number of classrooms doesn't change—it’s five sections regardless of how you slice it. So, everyone ends up with the same workload, with one exception: the religion teacher, who has one fewer section, which works out to two fewer hours on their plate.

Yeah, one of the main reasons is that they’re just squeezing every last cent out of teachers through their hourly rates. It lines up perfectly with the other issue, which is basically just legalized segregation. Honestly, I’d take outright discrimination over this kind of systemic segregation any day. 👋

I find myself constantly coming back to this one rather bittersweet mathematical truth: for every single physicist we produce, there were four teachers who paved the way. For every chemist, there are four teachers behind them. For every biologist, you can count on four teachers. And when it comes to a musician, you’re looking at at least six dedicated educators who helped shape that talent.

It feels like we only get a tiny glimpse of physics, chemistry, and biology during those two years in middle school—just a couple of hours a week—yet religious studies gets four times the attention, staying on the schedule for all eight years of elementary and middle school. It’s a bit like spending all your time studying the history of a hobby while barely scratching the surface of how the actual tools work.

If we assume that religion classes are being taught with the same frequency across almost all high schools, then the math gets even more unsettling when you realize there are schools out there that don't even offer biology, chemistry, or physics.

rowdypanther12 said:So, is there actually a solution out there where everyone walks away happy?

Of course there is. It’s pretty simple: Vatican City should cover the cost of supervising the kids who aren't attending religious studies. After all, the school is already paying a religious instructor for that specific time slot.

Think of it like this: if a librarian or a teacher is stepping in to watch over students during a period meant for a religious instructor, they are essentially performing a duty that was already budgeted for. If that instructor is scheduled for a session with class 2B at 9:00 AM, then all those kids fall under their responsibility for that hour. Alternatively, you could just deduct the proportional amount from the instructor's paycheck based on how many kids skip the lesson, and use that extra money to compensate the staff members who are volunteering their time to supervise them.

Then again, you could always solve the whole headache by making religious studies an elective, just like any other subject, held outside of the standard school day. Go ahead and try suggesting that to the administration—I’d love to hear how that goes. 😁

Donna Taylor5 said:That's exactly my point.
Extra sessions can't overlap with regular class hours. It has to be zero period or after school.
If a teacher handles her extra work during her own prep period instead of when it's actually scheduled, she's getting paid—not just in cash, but in time. Instead of waiting until the end of her shift to get things done, she squeezes it into her break and bills it as "extra duty." She gets home an hour or two early and doesn't give a damn!
In the official logbook she turns in at the end of the year, it probably shows she did the extra work during 6th or 7th period, even though she knocked it out way earlier during 3rd period.
Bottom line: don't pity her or praise her. The woman just figured out how to get home early while multitasking on the fly.
She's screwing over the kids in religious ed in the process, but hey, it's their fault for signing up, right?

Everything you mentioned is spot on, except for that one specific point I was highlighting.

If they didn't have religious studies right in the middle of the class schedule, she’d be headed home much earlier.

So, it isn't really that she discovered some clever trick to extend her day; rather, the school uses that elective period as a way to essentially keep her on campus for free.

On top of that, there's this unspoken expectation that she'll look after the kids who aren't attending those classes—kids who can be quite difficult or even unkind when they choose to skip out instead of following the rest of the group.

At the end of the day, the responsibility really falls on those students and their parents.

Donna Taylor5 said:You're looking at kids watching cartoons; they've heard bits and pieces of some fairy tale here and there. A story about a woman being formed from a rib isn't exactly a hard concept for a child to wrap their head around. I know when I was a kid, I didn't ask too many questions about it.
Obviously, you don't dive into the gritty details; they aren't interested in that anyway.
You can explain anything to kids, regardless of their grade level. You just need to be a good storyteller, and their imagination will take care of the rest.
We don't expect a first grader to approach this with a critical eye, nor are they capable of it.

If this were that, or if it were this... But it isn't!
The situation is what it is, but that doesn't mean a teacher can just pass the time however she wants.
It sounds to me like you're trying to fix one wrong with another.
The students in religious studies don't care where one, two, or five other kids are during their class time, and it's not their job to worry about it.
But should we strip away the opportunity for extra help just to make things "even"?

We don't need to crucify her, but her actions aren't exactly worth praising. She isn't paid to provide extra help only to the non-religious kids; she's paid to be available to EVERYONE interested. If I were a parent with a kid in religious studies who also happened to be a math whiz, I'd certainly want an explanation as to why she isn't holding extra sessions when they're supposed to happen (so my kid could attend), instead of doing it right in the middle of someone else's class!

And, yeah...
She is getting paid for it, obviously. She took a free period that she might have just wasted and used it to do something she's actually paid to do during a time that works for EVERYONE. The catch is that it doesn't work for her to wait until regular classes are over.
It looks like a win-win, but she'd get crushed by an auditor or a particularly fed-up parent.

Actually, no, she isn't being paid for that. Not if you're referring specifically to that gap in her schedule.
Just like you pointed out earlier, she gets to decide whether to spend her downtime idling away or actually being productive.

She has every right to choose the idle route.

Now, if she chose to fill that gap by taking on extra hours, then sure, she’s getting paid.

But yeah, any school inspector would tear that decision apart without blinking an eye.

At the same time, an inspector can't force her to stop idling or forbid her from relaxing during her break, nor can they mandate that she cram students into a vacant period. When there's a hole in her schedule, she isn't even obligated to stay on campus; she could easily head out to grab a coffee.

shadowcrane91 said:At my kid's school, everyone takes religion class, so those issues just don't even come up

That’s exactly it—you've hit the nail on the head regarding why they push to make religion part of the standard school day: the goal is to ensure total participation.

When they fail to reach everyone, it creates these massive social and logistical headaches, and then the kids who don't participate are treated like the problem. It's much easier to manage if everyone is in the same boat, which is just a classic example of how the Vatican operates with such calculated subtlety.

Donna Taylor5 said:What time are those religious studies classes held?
It feels like my colleague is trying to operate in the shadows.
She’s basically plugging her gaps in the schedule by running a program during the exact window when all the kids attending the after-school sessions are available (that zero hour right after the final bell).
Look, you can fill your breaks however you want, but she’s being paid specifically for the after-school program—she admitted it herself: "it's in my contract"—so she has to make it accessible to everyone equally.
Basically, she found a loophole to avoid staying late at school despite it being in her job description, and she’ll probably get away with it as long as nobody files a formal complaint.

Man, why did you delete your comment? I wanted to ask how equal treatment is actually possible for the kids skipping religious studies when the instructors are already getting paid.

My focus isn't exactly 🙂 lately, so I'm constantly refining my thoughts.
Honestly, I mostly agree with you.
Since cutting the program entirely might be tough, I'd just slash the religious studies block to one hour; I wouldn't even mind if they moved it to a local church.
However, regarding the end of your post: the instructors are paid to teach the students who choose to attend, so there's no issue there.
But the teacher still needs to be available for the other students too, since she's on the payroll for them as well.

The saddest part is how spot-on this observation is. Between a cluttered schedule and the pressure to stay late, she's caught in a real bind.

The reality is that she has to make extra tutoring available to anyone who wants it. If a kid from the secular program decides they need extra math help, she’ll have to provide it after regular classes end, ensuring that those students aren't being sidelined just because they don't belong to the religious group.

It’s a bit of a win for her, though maybe not so much for the other kids, because she can flat-out decline to supervise them during that specific gap in her day. During that "free" block, she could be painting her nails, scrolling through forums, surfing the web, or even texting a lover... She could be grading papers she normally does at home, drafting lesson plans, or just staring at the ceiling. No one can tell her otherwise. That hour is technically off the books for her; it's her own time. A principal can't legally mandate that she watches over the non-religious students during that slot unless they pay her overtime, but let's face it, those extra hours are almost never authorized.

If someone does report her, it won't just be a headache for her personally; it will also impact the students who were counting on that specific time slot for tutoring, forcing them to stay even later if they still want the extra help.

So, while whoever reports her might be aiming to stick it to her, they’re ultimately making things harder for the kids who now have to push their schedules even further back to get the support they need.

shadowcrane91 said:That’s why I think the only people pushing to scrap religious ed in schools are minorities who expect the majority to just bend to their will.☕

Look, the way schools handle it right now is a total mess because religious studies is an elective—it's supposed to be a choice! So, logically, those classes should happen after the regular school day is already wrapped up...
I mean, why can't schools just organize it like any other elective? Honestly, I have no clue...

But I'm not saying we should kick it out entirely. I'm saying we need a better structure so you don't have kids wandering aimlessly through the hallways; make it the first period or the last one.

So, you're saying you don't know? It feels a bit strange to me, doesn't it? Just take a moment to think about it—you could even look it up online.

If you dig around, you'll find that under the agreements with the Vatican, religious education in schools is regulated as an elective subject with a very specific legal standing. This unique status is strictly defined so that religious studies are treated as a core subject. Because of this, it has to be integrated directly into the standard daily schedule; it can't be pushed to before or after school hours the way other electives, foreign languages, or computer science classes might be.

Now, just try to consider what kind of intention lies behind setting it up that way.

Jason Ortiz5 said:If you were actually teaching my kid, you wouldn't have to worry about me being a burden. Trust me, I'm not about to waste my energy walking on eggshells just to protect some massive ego.

It takes one to know one. 😒

Susan James said:I would never go to a stylist like that.
Believe it or not, there are stylists who—because they truly love their craft and want to do it right, and because they want to stay competitive in the market—will flat-out turn down a client's request. Even if it means losing money on that appointment, they won't do it because they refuse to let their work be sloppy or cause further damage to someone's hair.

That's a bad metaphor. ☕

OH, wow, so you've actually had a stylist try to shut down your specific requests before? That’s impressive!

Jason Ortiz5 said:Oh, it does fill. Between all the drama and the shady stuff, they still have to balance the books. Believe whatever you want.

Since you aren't trying to lecture my kid, frankly, I couldn't care less about your attitude. You're the one sticking your nose into their business.

If anyone else had thrown in a bunch of talk about educators and hairstylists into this thread, we'd be reading some grand manifesto about "holy enlightenment" right now. When you do it, it's just a metaphorical explanation. It's honestly pretty funny and hypocritical.

If she was going to bring her up in the first place, why go through all that extra effort to justify it and claim it wasn't an ad hominem attack?

I wonder, if I were actually sitting down to give my kid a real talk about life, whether they would even be able to wrap their head around where I stand on all these things. 🤣

It feels like you’d just tell me whatever I wanted to hear, offering up all the right words just so you could finally be done with me. 😁 That’s exactly what I’m getting at here.

Quincy:

If anyone else had stuffed a bunch of flashlight salesmen and hair stylists into the same post, people would be busy nitpicking over some grand, pseudo-intellectual lecture on the "sanctity of illumination." But because it’s coming from you, you get away with it. It feels like a clever little metaphor, but honestly, it just comes off as pretty hypocritical.

I honestly don't have the energy to get into a heated debate with you right now, though I would gladly spend my time searching for just one single sentence or even a tiny hint in my words where I suggest that education itself holds some kind of sacred status. But since I can't find the motivation to go looking for something that isn't there, I think I'll just let it be.

I’ve spent a long time trying to drive home just how damaging it is to put teachers on such a pedestal, constantly reminding people that they aren't some kind of modern-day Jesus figure. I’ve tried to shatter those silly myths—like the idea that educators are somehow these flawless, ethereal beings who don't deal with basic human realities like bodily functions or physical struggles. It's the same way I've fought against the misguided notion that every single child is a hidden genius waiting to be discovered; true brilliance isn't something you can just hand out like candy, because if everyone is a prodigy, then the very concept of genius loses all its meaning.

At the end of the day, any kind of idealization acts like a veil that prevents us from seeing the world for what it actually is, which eventually does more harm than good. 😉

Jason Ortiz5 said:Actually, you *should* care. Because that "real sector" is exactly what fills the federal budget that pays your salary. Unless, of course, you work at some fancy private academy—but based on how you carry yourself here, I highly doubt it (not an ad hominem attack, just knowing how things work in the private sector). The rest of your post just feels like you trying way too hard to act smart and superior to everyone else.

So, the inspectors are finding that you're handing out grades like candy? Is that it? Are they ordering you to give an A to a kid who hasn't studied a lick just because the parents asked? If that's the case, then you should probably wonder why any kid even gets a grade lower than an A anymore...

Actually, that isn't how it works at all. You clearly missed the point of what I was saying.

I don't have the option to dodge my taxes, whereas the corporate world can—and frequently does.

Feel free to take shots at my sweet disposition if you need to; honestly, it doesn't bother me one bit.

It’s honestly a little surreal to me that I have to break down such fundamental concepts for grown adults. My approach is pretty simple: I aim to minimize stress, drama, and unnecessary friction at work. I consider myself a pragmatic organism that adapts to its environment, much like pure Darwinism in action. I perform my duties to the best of my ability and exactly as required, even in those moments where I am certain that following orders is actually counterproductive and that things should be done differently. But I refuse to burn myself at the stake of some grand Ideal.

I'm not under any illusion that I am superior, more brilliant, or more virtuous than anyone else just because I happen to be an educator, nor do I believe that being a teacher carries some noble, heavy burden to fight for a New World or a specific Order.

For real change to happen, society needs to genuinely crave actual knowledge and skill rather than just chasing grades. Until I see a true hunger for that, and until I am given the autonomy and the resources to actually implement it—and I truly believe that both the knowledge and the capability exist within me and my colleagues, even if exceptions exist in every field, much like how one difficult parent can skew the perception of an entire group—only then will I commit myself to that mission. Until then, I do what I am told and how I am told to do it. If I deviate, I face consequences. I have no desire for trouble, regardless of how much others might moralize about my choices.

To put it in perspective: I’m going to cut and color a client's hair exactly the way they ask for it.

Does anyone ever blame a stylist who looks at a client with already fried and damaged hair and calmly mixes a bleach that will undoubtedly weaken it even further? Does anyone expect a stylist to say, "Ma'am, that platinum blonde look doesn't suit your skin tone or your age, and since I am a trained professional, please listen to me and choose a shorter style that fits your face shape and hair quality; I'm sorry, but I refuse to bleach and flat-iron you because it goes against my professional ethics"?

If she actually said that, she wouldn't have a business left. So, she cuts and colors exactly as requested, makes sure to compliment the final result, and sends a satisfied customer out the door. Because, quite simply, she wants to survive.

Jason Ortiz5 said:wanderingbadger44, you keep bringing up the fact that you work for money, which basically means you consider yourself a professional. But do you actually get what that implies in the real world? In any actual industry, you give it your absolute best because if you don't, you're getting fired. Period. Your work is subject to performance reviews, government audits, and if you seriously screw up, you could be facing a massive lawsuit. If you mess up badly enough, your peers will rightfully tell you to go work on a ranch instead of dragging the whole profession down when we should be looking out for each other. Plus, a client or a business partner is someone you respect—they're the ones paying your bills! That doesn't mean you just hand over subpar work just because they asked for it, though. There’s plenty more to say, but honestly, none of that seems to show up in your posts. All I see is this constant disdain for everyone else. And let's be real, what are the odds that you're the only genius in the room while every single parent out there is just some idiot? I think it's better if we just leave it at that... ☕

I’m sorry, but why should I care about that? Do you honestly think I give a damn about boosting the profits of some local betting parlor, a coffee shop, or a retail store that loves to pretend they represent the "backbone of the economy," when it’s in the best interest of parents and society at large to invest in education? Heh...

Even though I don't care, I still know. For instance, I know that most of these private business owners who claim to be the "real sector" are just paying minimum wage, dodging taxes by not issuing receipts unless forced, and relying on government child tax credits to get by—and trust me, we could talk about that all day. Plus, most of them are convinced they're working harder than I am while I just sit around on vacation doing nothing.

The idea of a "productive sector" in a country where we don't actually manufacture anything and mostly just trade goods back and forth is laughable. Most of those businesses are just finding ways to dodge the IRS and run cash under the table.

And whatever applies to me applies to them. If people want to lecture me about joining the "real sector," then I’ll invite the real sector into our schools—to enjoy three-month summer breaks and coast along on taxpayer money.

I really love your comparison regarding selling products or services below market value. 😁 No regulatory agency in this country is ever going to order you to sell something at a loss or provide a service for less than it's worth. Not one of them. 😉 That’s why we just offer them for free ahead of time. Cheers to the straight-A students.

urbantinker8 said:I suppose I wonder, though, what exactly is wrong or inherently bad about an appeal like that?
If, just once, people finally decide not to stand by us, I guess everything might just fall apart completely.

But then again, maybe it already has.☕

Everything. It feels like the whole argument is built on the idea that teachers should be begging parents for support, rather than the other way around.

if you don't finally stand by us this one time, everything will just fall apart.

Actually, it already has.☕

Exactly, the damage is already done. Why not prove it by going on strike?

The next time there's a walkout, I’m not participating unless schools actually close their doors to students and tell parents clearly that childcare isn't being provided. If they want care, they can find their own sitters, take personal leave, call out sick, or pay a nanny—then they'll truly grasp how much childcare costs. This whole appeal makes me sick: "Just bring your kids in, we have staff on duty, yes, the cafeteria is open, no worries..."

A parent drops their kid off at school just like any other day, completely oblivious to the struggles we're facing. And honestly, I can't even blame them. They aren't going to realize our problems are their problems until we make it impossible for them to ignore. To me, the most distasteful part of any strike is the groveling toward parents and the desperate pleading for their solidarity.

The online grading portal is such a blessing. 👋 Everything is transparent now—every grade, every absence, every teacher's note. Parents used to come in constantly to check grades or excuse absences, often using the opportunity for a little bit of free psychotherapy. Now, they rarely show up, and they handle excuses through quick emails. 🎉

It’s absolutely ridiculous to demand that standardized test scores be made public just so parents, acting as "consumers," can judge which teachers are lazy and which are effective. It reminds me of trying to compare the success rates of an oncologist to those of a dermatologist. It’s foolish that this even needs explaining. Apparently, vocational school instructors are considered incompetent because their students score lower in math than students at a specialized STEM academy like MIOC. Because, of course, every single student arrives with the exact same level of genius, preparation, and work ethic.

This logic might fly in elementary schools. But elementary schools and these trendy ideas about high-stakes testing and external evaluations—stuff that education reform gurus like Nikola Jokić dismissed as being far too stressful for young children. 😍

Quincy:

It feels like watching someone try to build a skyscraper out of playing cards, where every tiny gust of wind threatens to bring the whole ambitious structure crashing down. kaže: I've been wondering lately what exactly qualifies someone to earn those kinds of accolades or recognition. $1.75 It makes me wonder about the actual pay scales for school security guards and those who look after kids in our buildings—is the compensation truly fair given the weight of that responsibility? I don't mean this to be an insult, but rather just a logical conclusion drawn from what was actually said.

That’s exactly it. Only a fool would take offense at that, and let's be honest, there are plenty of those running around among us. Some people might try to get poetic about it and call them Don Quixote, but I prefer a more grounded perspective: we’re essentially just glorified babysitters. We spend our time tailoring reviews to suit whatever order comes in, because if we didn't play along, we'd find ourselves facing nothing but trouble.

Quincy:

If you aren't willing to stand up and fight for your own profession, then nobody else is going to step in to do it for you. Honestly, I feel like the first real step toward making a change is walking away from the union you’re currently in, because right now, they act more like an extension of the status quo than anything else, essentially just reinforcing the very system that keeps us stuck.

Honestly, why should I feel the need to fight for some noble calling? At the end of the day, I’m working for a paycheck, not to chase after some lofty set of ideals. Feel free to judge me all you want.

It’s a simple matter of value and necessity; if a parent truly finds themselves in need of their child, they will make the effort to invest in them, because when you don't pay attention to someone, it's clear they aren't actually a priority in your life. It works the same way with society at large—when a community decides that education is a fundamental requirement for its future, they will fund those schools and pay the costs, and in return, they reap the benefits of a well-educated citizenry.

Come on then, let’s hear them—go ahead and share your stories about getting laid off. 😁 It feels like you could search every corner of this country from New York to LA and still never stumble upon a single decent mathematician, physicist, linguist, or computer scientist. Honestly, we really need to start bringing some real talent to the table.

Hold on a second, it feels like you're actually asking us to step in and do all the heavy lifting for you. 😁

It feels like nobody actually wants to work in education anymore, unless they simply don't have any other viable career paths available to them. You end up left with those who stay in the field only because they’ve reached an age where pivoting to a different industry in this economy just isn't a realistic option.

I honestly feel like restoring the dignity of this profession matters far more to parents and students than it does to me personally.

I honestly don't understand why we're still going in circles on this thread about people just trying to minimize the headaches and friction in their daily work lives. Why should anyone go through the stress of constant conflict? They do it for the sake of social good, or some grand educational mission, or lofty principles and dignity—all that high-minded stuff that sounds great in theory but doesn't actually put food on the table or pay the mortgage. Personally, I'm not about to ride into battle for Truth and Justice if the cost is my own mental health and sanity. At the end of the day, I care less about the next generation than most of you seem to, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Feel free to keep bickering all you want. 🕺

I have the ability, the drive, and the actual know-how to get my job done right. If I'm not given that opportunity—if you make it difficult for me or create unnecessary friction that leads to nothing but burnout and constant stress—then I’ll simply find a way to work around those obstacles just to stay sane. That’s really all there is to it.

nimblelynx7 said:I don't get why everyone acts so shocked when kids actually work and think just like adults do.

It’s absurd. As if parents wouldn't jump at the chance to earn more money for less work. And then you have students who are expected to just sit there while someone bleeds them dry? It's predatory. They act like they're doing you a favor, operating on that pathetic logic: "God knows what's in it for him, I'll take my cut, and you can fight over whatever is left." Total nonsense.

Most people don't even blink at it, though there are those who realize it’s a flawed system that shouldn't be applied to adults, let alone children. Everyone else just assumes it’s perfectly fine simply because they see it working in the real world, but honestly? It's a total illusion.

Quincy:

It’s almost as if parents don't actually want to see their paychecks grow while their workload shrinks, which honestly seems like a strange way to look at life.

So, when things don't go their way—like if someone refuses to bump up their salary even though they're doing way more work than originally agreed upon—who exactly are they turning to for help, and what kind of actual recourse do they have? I'd love to see a concrete example where that kind of logic actually holds water; please, show me a case where that mindset isn't just wishful thinking, but a proven strategy for success.
Quincy:

Students should probably be praying that someone comes along to drain their very souls and sip their blood through a straw, especially when they lean on that old logic where God knows five, I know four, and you’re stuck dealing with whatever is left over.

Give me the hard data.

Do you have any idea what the average GPA actually looks like for kids finishing middle school? Honestly, only God knows. 😬

redridge13 said:I think we’re talking past each other here. 🙂
Look, speaking as a parent now, I would absolutely lose my mind if my kid had a teacher like that.
Back then, when I was just some hormone-driven teenager, I thought it was totally fine.
The thing is, my parents didn't have a clue about just how messed up this teacher actually was. Her colleagues definitely saw it, too, even if they pretended they didn't.
We aren't just talking about "slacking off" here; we're talking about a woman who clearly had some serious, deep-seated issues going on.

As a parent, you're operating with the full picture because that's what your child shares with you. You even mentioned yourself how difficult it is for a kid to tell the difference between a teacher who is pushing them to be better and one who is actually causing harm.

redridge13 said:Look, obviously it worked in our favor. We were just kids back then, I don't get why everyone's acting so shocked.
The woman was clearly struggling, and whether it was a fellow teacher or the principal, someone should have stepped up and done something—primarily for her sake.

The reason you might not see it clearly now is simply because when you're a kid, there’s a certain freedom in having zero expectations placed upon you.
That’s not what an inspection is meant to be. If you actually hold people accountable, they just end up running straight to their parents, and the complaints always seem to land on the people trying to fix things, regardless of how much they're actually contributing. Neither the kids nor the parents mind the lack of productivity, so I’m glad we’re all on the same page here. 😉