Posts by Paul Wilson72

Some people are just total attention seekers. Honestly, it’s probably why they’ll be so popular in social circles down the road—assuming anyone actually wants to hang out with them. I had two colleagues end up in self-isolation out of nowhere just because one woman bragged about grabbing coffee with another, and then spent five minutes standing shoulder-to-shoulder in the same room. Wow.
Meanwhile, you see the President patting Novak Djokovic on the shoulder during a casual chat, but apparently, that doesn't count as close contact. Most normal people wouldn't even mention those interactions because they are completely trivial...
It's clearly time to be much more selective about who you spend your time with, based entirely on their talent for unnecessary drama. ☕

Megan Green72 said:I knew there were asymptomatic cases, but I had no clue they made up the vast majority. Is that an actual fact, some kind of math model, or just people guessing?

Is the self-isolation mandate based on hard data and mathematical modeling, or is it just a guess by whoever decided to pass the rule?

Quincy:

Megan Green72 As specified by: What kind of testing? COVID is being treated, regardless of how long it takes, and frankly, I don't care what anyone else thinks about it. 🙂

A huge portion of people cruised right through COVID without even realizing they were carrying it. Most of those who actually found out they had it were the ones who couldn't keep their mouths shut once the symptoms hit.

Megan Green72 said:If I'm not mistaken, the virus takes way longer to clear out, and apparently, it’s actually lethal for some people, unlike just sitting in your house alone.

Maybe go run a few polls out on the West Coast in San Diego, then come back and tell us what people actually think about it...

Well, there you have it—problem solved regarding the pandemic...

Megan Green72 said:I don't get it—can you explain where or when you read that masks were 100% protection? Is this really catching you off guard now?

Look, you try explaining to me who actually wears them properly. People are causing way more issues by obsessing over self-isolation than the virus itself ever did.

They really need to file a class-action lawsuit on behalf of everyone who was forced into unnecessary quarantine for two main reasons:
- loss of income,
- compensation for unlawful deprivation of liberty.

The local salon industry is facing a massive crisis right now, and it’s getting harder to ignore. I’ve been following the recent discussions regarding the sudden spike in costs for hair stylists and salon owners across the country. It feels like every single overhead expense—from high-end products to basic utilities—is climbing at an unsustainable rate. A few professionals have been speaking out about how this isn't just a minor inconvenience; for many small businesses, it’s a fight for survival. When you consider that many stylists are essentially running their own micro-businesses, even a slight increase in the price of supplies can wipe out a week's profit. I was reading some feedback earlier, and it’s clear there's a lot of frustration. Kimberly Lopez65 mentioned how much the pressure is mounting on independent shops. Even Paul Wilson72 pointed out that the economic squeeze is hitting everyone differently depending on their location. It’s a tough spot to be in. You want to provide great service without pricing your loyal clients out of their regular cuts, but the math just isn't adding up like it used to. We need more than just "toughing it out"—there needs to be a real conversation about how to support these small businesses before they start disappearing from our neighborhoods entirely.

"Field epidemiologists have been sharing what they're seeing on the ground regarding how..." Small business owners are being forced into self-isolation regardless of whether their customers actually test positive. Did she wear a mask or not?The President of Great Clips, Boris Lukovnjak, is asking... If everyone in the salon is wearing a mask, then what’s the point of the isolation mandate?.

Regarding, If the mask isn't a reliable metric, then we have a problem.So, what’s the verdict? Are we actually looking at self-isolation mandates again, or is that just talk? Then what’s even the point of wearing it?. Epidemiologists are stepping in to clarify that wearing a mask isn't some kind of foolproof guarantee.. "

Self-isolation doesn't even matter when you're just wearing makeup masks. Thanks for confirming that they’re basically making fools out of anyone who actually wears them.

Charles Edwards3 said:So, I was wondering... if you're living with someone who starts showing Corona symptoms on, say, Monday, but they don't actually get their positive test back until Friday, how does that work? Like, if you've been hanging out with them every single day because you share a place, when does your isolation period officially kick off? Does it start counting from Monday, or do you have to wait until Friday?

on divorce😁

nimblelynx7 said:Is an online forum debate really a benchmark for life? I know for a fact that the year or date of the Battle of Gettysburg won't matter to me, since I'm certain I won't be working as a history professor. I won't be a geography teacher, and I definitely won't be opening a manufacturing plant in Uganda, so I won't need to look up GDP data. It's the same deal with literature.
If those were the only useless facts taught in school, it wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, that isn't the case.

When we asked our elementary school teachers what we'd actually need, the answer was: "You'll learn that in high school." High school teachers said: "You'll need that in college." And college professors usually just changed the subject when asked those kinds of questions.

So now students are to blame because the curriculum is too easy? Where does it say vocational schools have to be dumping grounds? Once students start writing the code and designing the entire educational system, then sure, blame them. Until then, they are victims and unwilling witnesses.

Here’s a real-world example. My brother finished a vocational program for carpentry. Since I stood in for my parents at a few parent-teacher meetings, I had the chance to see what they were actually learning. It was a disaster; the math was barely middle school level. Everything seemed fine until his company bought a CNC machine for $150,000 that operates on polar coordinates. You can literally design and carve anything you want in wood, but it requires using a polar coordinate system.
We didn't even touch stuff like that in technical school; I first encountered it in college. Even the boss—a master carpenter—had no clue how it worked. When the three of us finally sat down at the machine, I spent literally 15 hours explaining how to work with polar coordinates without using double integrals (actually, without using any calculus at all). I managed to boil it down to basic geometric shapes and the Cartesian coordinate system.

Clearly, if they designed that machine specifically for "their" carpenters, we're living in two different universes compared to the West.

Then tell me, what *is* important in life? Is World War I or World War II important? Is the American Civil War important? Are nature and society important, or all those fairy tales about how the Midwest is perfect for agriculture? Today, it's clearly easiest to just import everything—even the things we could grow ourselves, which we do, yet our industries still fail. Is it important to learn about slavery and feudalism and listen to how terrible that was, or does that just show you that individuals today aren't any better off than they were back then? What matters? Learning some repetitive task so you can spend your whole life acting like a mindless robot?
By your logic, so much is useless. Art would be useless too since it serves no purpose. Music, movies—all of it. Why bother with any of it? What does life even boil down to then?

nimblelynx7 said:Is an online forum debate really a benchmark for life? I know for a fact that the year or date of the Battle of Gettysburg won't matter to me, since I'm certain I won't be working as a history professor. I won't be a geography teacher, and I definitely won't be opening a manufacturing plant in Uganda, so I won't need to look up GDP data. It's the same deal with literature.
If those were the only useless facts taught in school, it wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, that isn't the case.

When we asked our elementary school teachers what we'd actually need, the answer was: "You'll learn that in high school." High school teachers said: "You'll need that in college." And college professors usually just changed the subject when asked those kinds of questions.

So now students are to blame because the curriculum is too easy? Where does it say vocational schools have to be dumping grounds? Once students start writing the code and designing the entire educational system, then sure, blame them. Until then, they are victims and unwilling witnesses.

Here’s a real-world example. My brother finished a vocational program for carpentry. Since I stood in for my parents at a few parent-teacher meetings, I had the chance to see what they were actually learning. It was a disaster; the math was barely middle school level. Everything seemed fine until his company bought a CNC machine for $150,000 that operates on polar coordinates. You can literally design and carve anything you want in wood, but it requires using a polar coordinate system.
We didn't even touch stuff like that in technical school; I first encountered it in college. Even the boss—a master carpenter—had no clue how it worked. When the three of us finally sat down at the machine, I spent literally 15 hours explaining how to work with polar coordinates without using double integrals (actually, without using any calculus at all). I managed to boil it down to basic geometric shapes and the Cartesian coordinate system.

Clearly, if they designed that machine specifically for "their" carpenters, we're living in two different universes compared to the West.

Those are bad answers! The real answer should be: "One of you will need this, two of you will need something else, five of you will need a third thing, and some of you won't need any of it at all." But who is going to be that one, two, or five people? How can you know that in advance? It’s your job to provide them with everything you can, not to limit them from the start. This kind of thinking is like those old movies where the father works in the coal mine, and his sons aren't even taught because it's already assumed they'll work and die there too. Only a few would ever manage to "escape" that cursed cycle...

nimblelynx7 said:Is an online forum debate really a benchmark for life? I know for a fact that the year or date of the Battle of Gettysburg won't matter to me, since I'm certain I won't be working as a history professor. I won't be a geography teacher, and I definitely won't be opening a manufacturing plant in Uganda, so I won't need to look up GDP data. It's the same deal with literature.
If those were the only useless facts taught in school, it wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, that isn't the case.

When we asked our elementary school teachers what we'd actually need, the answer was: "You'll learn that in high school." High school teachers said: "You'll need that in college." And college professors usually just changed the subject when asked those kinds of questions.

So now students are to blame because the curriculum is too easy? Where does it say vocational schools have to be dumping grounds? Once students start writing the code and designing the entire educational system, then sure, blame them. Until then, they are victims and unwilling witnesses.

Here’s a real-world example. My brother finished a vocational program for carpentry. Since I stood in for my parents at a few parent-teacher meetings, I had the chance to see what they were actually learning. It was a disaster; the math was barely middle school level. Everything seemed fine until his company bought a CNC machine for $150,000 that operates on polar coordinates. You can literally design and carve anything you want in wood, but it requires using a polar coordinate system.
We didn't even touch stuff like that in technical school; I first encountered it in college. Even the boss—a master carpenter—had no clue how it worked. When the three of us finally sat down at the machine, I spent literally 15 hours explaining how to work with polar coordinates without using double integrals (actually, without using any calculus at all). I managed to boil it down to basic geometric shapes and the Cartesian coordinate system.

Clearly, if they designed that machine specifically for "their" carpenters, we're living in two different universes compared to the West.

Certain schools systematically decline for years. Some fight just to stay on top. Rumors spread, and nobody has the guts to fix the root of the problem. If you know you have bad grades and you hear a school is "easy," obviously you'll go there just to scrape by for years. If you hear somewhere that people fail classes and the school is demanding, that will initially have a negative effect on enrollment—either because people are afraid they won't pass, or because a past reputation keeps the better students away. But over several years, a reputation can be built, just as easily as it can be lost. The fact is, a school needs a decisive principal and good teachers; if it has that, even a mediocre school can produce top-tier results.

nimblelynx7 said:Is an online forum debate really a benchmark for life? I know for a fact that the year or date of the Battle of Gettysburg won't matter to me, since I'm certain I won't be working as a history professor. I won't be a geography teacher, and I definitely won't be opening a manufacturing plant in Uganda, so I won't need to look up GDP data. It's the same deal with literature.
If those were the only useless facts taught in school, it wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, that isn't the case.

When we asked our elementary school teachers what we'd actually need, the answer was: "You'll learn that in high school." High school teachers said: "You'll need that in college." And college professors usually just changed the subject when asked those kinds of questions.

So now students are to blame because the curriculum is too easy? Where does it say vocational schools have to be dumping grounds? Once students start writing the code and designing the entire educational system, then sure, blame them. Until then, they are victims and unwilling witnesses.

Here’s a real-world example. My brother finished a vocational program for carpentry. Since I stood in for my parents at a few parent-teacher meetings, I had the chance to see what they were actually learning. It was a disaster; the math was barely middle school level. Everything seemed fine until his company bought a CNC machine for $150,000 that operates on polar coordinates. You can literally design and carve anything you want in wood, but it requires using a polar coordinate system.
We didn't even touch stuff like that in technical school; I first encountered it in college. Even the boss—a master carpenter—had no clue how it worked. When the three of us finally sat down at the machine, I spent literally 15 hours explaining how to work with polar coordinates without using double integrals (actually, without using any calculus at all). I managed to boil it down to basic geometric shapes and the Cartesian coordinate system.

Clearly, if they designed that machine specifically for "their" carpenters, we're living in two different universes compared to the West.

I don't know what you expect from a polar coordinate system if it isn't part of a standard high school math curriculum. On the other hand, you'll find it at almost any technical college. As for whether they teach it in foreign high schools, I have no idea. But since we're on the subject, why should an uneducated person be operating a CNC machine? Would you really want someone who only knows how to use a handheld drill and a trowel running a $150,000 machine? If I understand you correctly, you finished college, and high school gave you the foundations to continue your education. And lo and behold, you ended up teaching others how to use the machinery—not just learning it yourself, but passing that knowledge on too...

And while we are talking about "learning," the standard high school math exit exams are basically middle school level. A normal person who finishes middle school could practically take that test and pass it.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: Do you honestly believe people are going to recall something they learned in a classroom thirty years ago, and that it’ll actually be the deciding factor in landing them a new job or a better position? How exactly is the GDP of Uganda, the Battle of Gettysburg, or reading Shakespeare going to help them here?

Look, you can see that this actually helps you hold your own in a forum debate. At least you have some baseline knowledge—you know that Uganda exists, you've heard of the Battle of Gettysburg, or you're aware of someone like Shakespeare.
You truly never know what life is going to throw at you next. One moment you think you have everything figured out, and the next, everything changes.

nimblelynx7 Asks:
What happens when a driver picks up a passenger who turns out to be a total jerk, only to start lecturing them on Dostoevsky or free-market economics while the rider just sits there looking pale?
I once had to write a paper for a "City Studies" course for a client. I had to map out exactly how to get to Huey Long Street and provide a full biography on who Huey Long actually was. It’s pretty vital information for a taxi driver to have, but hey, you've got to make a living.

Why would he bother bringing up Dostoevsky if the other person couldn't care less? But that’s just how it goes—if you cross paths with a writer, you're going to talk shop. If you run into a contractor, you'll end up rambling about construction for ages. In the end, just like many of our local taxi drivers, you'll eventually just grab the address you need and drive on.
I’ve personally written heaps of papers covering everything from medicine and maritime studies to electronics and law. My biggest one in the maritime field was over 350 pages long—and that’s not even counting the several pages dedicated just to the table of contents and references. But hey, I suppose someone will eventually use that kind of work to hand out a piece of paper labeling them an "expert" in their field.
Do I actually need to be an expert on cars? Maybe not. But I want enough knowledge so that no mechanic can look me in the eye and try to sell me a bunch of overpriced junk I don't need.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 Asks: It’s pointless. The teacher just rolled up on his bike, looking like he might have fallen straight from Mars into the classroom. If he isn't actually here, then what's the point of having a teacher at all?

Honestly, if someone thinks they don't need a teacher, they probably shouldn't be sending their kid to school at all. At least, not high school or college. They should just send them straight into the workforce. Everything you could ever need to know is already out there on the internet or YouTube anyway.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 said:Fine, light years.

Do you actually believe people are going to remember something they learned in school thirty years ago, and that it'll be the deciding factor in them landing a new career or a different role?
How is knowing the GDP of Uganda, the Battle of Gettysburg, or reading Shakespeare going to help them specifically?

What if the driver hits a passenger who's an uneducated jerk, and then he starts lecturing him on Dostoevsky or market economics, and the passenger just stares at him blankly?
I once had to write a paper for a "local geography" course, where I had to explain how to get to Huey Long Street and who Huey Long was. Extremely vital info for a taxi driver, but hey, you gotta make your money.

None at all. The teacher is irrelevant here; they might as well have fallen straight from Mars into the classroom. If they don't matter, then what's the point of having a teacher?

Vocational schools, first and foremost, along with certain trade paths, often see the (worst) students enrolling. That doesn't mean the school or the trades themselves are bad; it's just that parents would rather brag about their kid going to an elite prep school than becoming a carpenter or a locksmith. These vocational programs offer a path to a solid life, yet they end up filled with the bottom of the barrel—kids who have no other options. Regardless, schools need to be ranked within their own categories. You can't compare masons to prep school grads, but you absolutely have to know which vocational school is best, which technical school leads, and which prep school is the top tier in the US.

Obviously, you have to take those factors into account.

So let me ask you this: if those students are truly the "worst of the worst," who is to blame when the criteria at a vocational school—even one offering computer science—don't match the standards or curriculum of a prep school teaching the exact same subject? Is it the teachers, the expectations, or something else entirely? Because, by any reasonable measure, a C student from a prep school will likely outpace an A student from a vocational program in terms of actual knowledge.
You say schools should be compared, presumably through numerical success rates. That is simply impossible. It’s just as impossible as trying to objectively grade a professor. If you place a world-class educator in a room full of uninterested students, there is nothing they can do to spark passion for a subject the kids simply don't care about. On the flip side, put an average teacher in a class of geniuses, and everyone will walk away with straight As because that mediocre instructor has such low expectations—or perhaps the students already know more than what is being taught. You end up with the absurdity where a brilliant professor with struggling students shows poor results, while a mediocre teacher with gifted students shows excellent results just because the material is easy for them.
Is a "bad" professor who demands a lot and hands out Cs actually the better educator, if those Cs mean that student breezes through college later? Or is the "better" professor—the one who hands out As like candy—actually doing a disservice when those students hit a wall during their freshman year of college and end up dropping out?

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 said:There’s a massive gap between being a total moron and having a well-rounded education.

Beyond how much a broad education helps someone in their career—specifically an electrician, a locksmith, or a mason—what's the point? Does every single worker need to know the capital cities of various states, the year the American Revolution kicked off, or the GDP of Uzbekistan just to get their job done effectively?
If every trade can be mastered easily, why on earth are kids stuck in school for 11 to 17 years? Just to keep teachers employed?

I agree with the rest of you; we need more freedom, but also more accountability for teachers. We should implement a small exit exam and give instructors the power to tailor the curriculum to what’s actually required in the real world. If students fail that exam, it means the teacher failed. If the teacher is bad, they lose their job. Period. And for heaven's sake, let's start publishing school rankings publicly instead of letting these kids become prey for predatory institutions.

I think you mean light-years. ☕
Oh, absolutely. I’m just sitting here waiting for the inevitable backlash, but let’s be real: there is a massive difference between eating cheap canned meat and enjoying a gourmet meal at a high-end restaurant. Both will technically satisfy your hunger—maybe even the canned stuff will fill you up faster—but they aren't in the same league.
But do you really want people who know absolutely nothing beyond their specific job description? What happens when that role becomes obsolete in thirty years and they end up out on the street?

nimblelynx7 said:There’s a massive gap between being a total moron and having a well-rounded education.

Beyond how much a broad education helps someone in their career—specifically an electrician, a locksmith, or a mason—what's the point? Does every single worker need to know the capital cities of various states, the year the American Revolution kicked off, or the GDP of Uzbekistan just to get their job done effectively?
If every trade can be mastered easily, why on earth are kids stuck in school for 11 to 17 years? Just to keep teachers employed?

I agree with the rest of you; we need more freedom, but also more accountability for teachers. We should implement a small exit exam and give instructors the power to tailor the curriculum to what’s actually required in the real world. If students fail that exam, it means the teacher failed. If the teacher is bad, they lose their job. Period. And for heaven's sake, let's start publishing school rankings publicly instead of letting these kids become prey for predatory institutions.

Let’s look at this from a different angle: does a driver really need anything beyond basic driving skills to provide a high-quality transport service? I mean, you can find an endless sea of taxi drivers out there. But think about it—when someone travels to a new country, they aren't just looking for a ride. If they happen to encounter a driver who actually knows the city and the country they are "representing"—someone who knows the best spots, fair pricing, or even understands where the guest is coming from and their culture—that makes a massive difference. That kind of expertise leaves a lasting impression. It often leads to repeat business and much better tips compared to a driver who can only communicate through frantic hand gestures. At the end of the day, once the vehicle is in motion, a driver's job ends at the steering wheel. Everything else is what defines the service.
I personally prefer people who come across as genuinely good and kindhearted, even if they’re a little unpolished or rough around the edges.

How long does it actually take to become an electrician? A locksmith? A mason? I’m not talking about just picking up some basic, surface-level knowledge that anyone could stumble upon—I mean actual proficiency. If you look at the math, most of these specialized vocational programs could be wrapped up in a year at most. The sheer volume of private certification courses out there for every niche job imaginable proves my point. Most of them only run between 20 and 80 hours and cost just a few hundred bucks.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: I agree with the rest of you—we need more freedom, but that comes with much higher accountability for teachers. We should introduce standardized state testing and give educators the chance to tailor their curriculum specifically to what those exams require. If students fail the state tests, it’s a direct reflection of a poor teacher; and if a teacher is failing them, they shouldn't be in the classroom. Finally, we need to make school rankings public. It's time to stop letting schools treat children like commodities to be traded.

I’m with you on the standardized testing issue. To be honest, there are just way too many perfect grades being handed out in elementary school, and it definitely doesn't follow a standard bell curve. It seems like most teachers don't want to deal with the fallout from parents—especially in small towns where everyone knows everyone else. They also don't want to carry the guilt if a kid fails to get into their preferred high school, nor do they want to deal with the occasional parental meltdown. Regardless, it isn't right that students are getting into certain elite prep schools solely based on extra credit from extracurricular competitions, simply because everyone has already maxed out their regular academic points. So, yes—we need standardized testing.
The national standardized testing system needs to be scrapped because it’s geared exclusively toward academic preparatory schools. Vocational schools have lost everything meaningful that their previous graduation requirements used to offer, including specialized technical exams and the capstone projects that now serve as the sole measure of high school education—which, frankly, has become a joke. To make matters worse, since passing the capstone project is a prerequisite for the state test results to even count, it ends up being the teacher's fault when a student fails due to laziness. If they fail that one component, their college applications are ruined. For vocational programs, this current version of standardized testing is a massive mistake.

One thing I don't get—what does a teacher actually have to do with a student's success on these exams? Does the teacher write the test, or does the student? I'm genuinely curious: how exactly are you supposed to force a student to study when neither parents nor teachers can do it? Does that mean every instructor at a cosmetology school (which doesn't even use this specific testing model, if I recall) should just be out of a job?

And then there's the ranking of schools—I don't follow. Different schools attract different types of students. It's a stretch to expect top-tier academic scholars to flock to masonry programs just because they enjoy the trade. Is that considered a "bad" school? Or should we judge them by what they actually produce: workers who are either capable or incapable of doing the job?

crimsonwolf21 said:😂

What on earth are they going to "create" when the fat majority of bureaucrats working there have zero real-world experience outside of a classroom? These quasi-officials live in a bubble that has nothing to do with reality. Most of them are mentally still stuck back in America. 🙂 What is an indoctrinated idiot like that supposed to teach anyone?
The rest of this is just stating the obvious—stuff that's been repeated for decades while nothing actually moves. And it won't move, because schools, just like any other government institution, exist primarily to provide jobs for insiders—that's the priority, and everything else is secondary. Basically, kids go to school so those people can have a paycheck, and what the kids actually learn doesn't matter. Life will teach them the things that actually matter.

Here we go again—bureaucrats, lazy workers, cronies... I could go on all day. This is exactly what new generations of students are learning from their parents. There are certainly issues, but making broad generalizations like this definitely isn't going to achieve anything.
I truly wish ALL parents would send their children exactly where they think is best, especially since it clearly isn't happening through the schools or the teachers...

For instance, a teacher could spend the first 10 minutes of class setting things up, split the students into groups, and then step out for a moment, returning for the final 5 minutes. Even if the period is extended from 45 to 75 minutes, students in Denmark have much more freedom, yet they don't abuse it. Even when the teacher isn't physically in the room, they sit down and work with discipline—something that feels almost impossible here.

Is there anyone brave enough to leave kids alone in a classroom for 45 minutes, let alone 60? In 99.9% of schools around here, they'd be causing chaos across the entire neighborhood.

As for education itself, we simply need to modernize it. However, we shouldn't be turning kids into narrow-minded specialists. You can learn almost any job or trade in a relatively short amount of time, even without a degree. Ultimately, you end up with exactly what an employer wants—especially in the US—someone without formal schooling who is willing to work for minimum wage and knows how to do just one specific task. We saw thousands of those "specialists" after 30 years in a factory; when the plant closed, they were the ones protesting. I understand they suddenly felt the ground slip away from under them, but honestly, what do you expect when you do the exact same thing your whole life and lifelong learning is a total mystery to you?

Our school system could be reformed relatively quickly. Alongside mandatory subjects (typically those required for state exams), individual schools should have the freedom to create modern programs tailored to market needs. Vocational schools should focus heavily on practical skills rather than just memorizing theoretical concepts. Of course, it is much, much easier to repeat the same old story year after year until retirement—at least for some. Others feel suffocated by the curriculum dictated by the Department of Education; their hands are tied. Even if they want to provide more, they aren't allowed to offer anything beyond what is strictly prescribed. So, "naturally," the teachers get blamed for everything, but the logic just doesn't hold up. We need freedom. Right now, teachers are spending more time dealing with bureaucracy than actually teaching.

It feels like we’re seeing more and more articles like this lately... and I have to ask again, how much longer can this go on?

Jessica Howard5 said:My take? Put them in a closed facility with integrated schooling and vocational therapy. Once they finish their program and get their credentials, then they can get lost and head back out into the real world.

Honestly, I think every teacher and every victim of these kinds of students would be 100% on board with that proposal... ☕

Jessica Howard5 said:Honestly, I have no clue how to help them calm him down. And obviously, I wasn't talking about getting physical—I wanted to grab him and settle things, but look, I’m 6'3" and 240 lbs. I figured it would be easier for me than for some tiny 5'3", 130 lb daycare teacher.

And that's actually my point. The issue was flagged at the preschool way back when, but nothing was ever done to fix it. Why? I'm asking myself the same thing.

The kid is well on his way to becoming one of those headlines you see on the nightly news; it's just a matter of time.

Are you thinking of that group from the recent news report out of Miami?

And honestly, we see stories like this popping up constantly. That's just what makes the headlines—it doesn't even account for all the incidents that never get reported. At this point, the school district (or even the government) should probably be providing liability insurance for teachers to cover any damages caused by these kinds of lunatics.

Susan James said:Quincy:

I haven't seen any posts from you yet! If you have something on your mind or just want to jump into the conversation, feel free to share. I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts! kaže: I was chatting with a colleague who used to teach over there, and he mentioned that things have actually improved quite a bit. It sounds like the situation is incomparably better than it used to be.

What does "incomparably better" actually mean?
How many different schools did he teach at, and roughly how many students did he work with over the years?
What exactly is he basing his claims on?
You know what they say—the grass is always greener on the neighbor's lawn. I used to think that was just a cliché until I moved into my current place. Every time I look over at the yard next door, it looks like something straight out of a professional landscaping magazine! It’s funny how we work ourselves up over things that seem perfect from the outside, isn't it? 😬

Quincy:

I haven't seen any posts from you yet! Looking forward to hearing what you have to say. kaže: That’s exactly why I keep bringing up family therapy instead of just focusing on temporary isolation.

What exactly are you basing that claim about guaranteed efficiency on?
Family dynamics aren't going to shift overnight, and honestly, it feels like it could be a long time before we see real progress. In some households, things are so deeply rooted that change seems almost impossible. This often leads to children being sidelined or isolated from the rest of the family, which can be heartbreaking. I’ve seen cases where this isolation actually backfires, making a child's behavior or emotional reactions even more difficult to manage. It really makes you wonder: what are we supposed to do for those kids caught in the middle?
Does the school system actually have any patience left for kids like them? And more importantly, how much is left in the tank?

The one thing that really jumps out at me is the suspension.I just hope things don't end up like that here in the States.Family therapy can be such a game-changer when things feel a little off at home. It’s not just about fixing one specific problem; it’s more about looking at the whole picture and helping everyone communicate better. I remember a few years back, my own family went through a bit of a rough patch where we were all talking past each other instead of actually listening. We decided to try a few sessions with a counselor, and honestly, it helped us find our rhythm again. It’s really about building those stronger connections so everyone feels heard.Let others deal with them.What exactly should teachers be looking for, and what tools do they actually need to succeed? Beyond that, I’ve been thinking lately about what the true role of a school should be in a student's life. Is it just about the curriculum, or is there something deeper going on?
I can't shake the feeling that this recommendation is actually a way to push problematic kids aside. It feels like the underlying goal is to get them out of the classroom entirely so the teachers can just focus on the curriculum in peace. It’s almost as if they want to minimize their presence in school just so the rest of the class isn't interrupted.

Can I? Seriously, can I? Is this actually possible?
Educators have specific duties mandated by the Department of Education, which include delivering the curriculum, grading assignments, and implementing disciplinary measures. In my view, a school should primarily function as an educational institution; any focus on character building can only be applied in a very limited capacity.
What is the true purpose of school? It feels like Congress and the Department of Education can’t reach a consensus, and parents aren't exactly helping bridge the gap either. On one hand, lawmakers want schools to be these idyllic sanctuaries where children soak up knowledge—which happens, to an extent—while teachers diligently follow curricula that were essentially designed decades ago. On the other hand, when challenges arise, teachers find ways to adapt, which is exactly what they should be doing. But there's a catch. If they don't strictly adhere to the syllabus, they're considered failing. If they don't devote themselves to every single child, they're failing. If they focus too much on one student, they're accused of neglecting the rest. It ends up feeling like Sisyphus pushing a boulder up a hill, or more accurately, a job defined by impossible paradoxes that simply cannot be satisfied all at once.
If we truly want to focus on raising our children properly, then it’s time to move past the obsession with grades and rigid lectures. We should be spending quality time with them—grabbing a coffee, just talking, and actually connecting. If schools are going to maintain their core purpose of providing an education, they need students who are socially adjusted and ready to learn. Right now, we're seeing kids who act like they own the place, constantly disrupting the flow of class and, in their free time, basically terrorizing their peers.
With all this criticism directed at teachers regarding how they handle unruly students or general chaos in the classroom, I haven’t seen a single concrete proposal for what should actually be done. It’s always just "this needs to happen" or "that should change," which is completely impossible to implement in a real-world setting. The fundamental issue with these so-called "disciplinary measures" is that they are being drafted by people who think they know how to handle kids, yet they’ve never actually stepped foot in a classroom. They’ve jumped straight into politics instead, where they can sit around offering unsolicited advice while ignoring a reality that is far more brutal than they care to admit.
Suspensions, removals, and other measures that distance troublemakers from the center of the community are valid solutions. It forces these kids to face serious "either-or" decisions: either they change their ways, or they face the consequences—like losing the right to attend high school or being stuck repeating the same grade indefinitely. Eventually, circumstances might force them to realize that this behavior simply isn't sustainable. It might work for some, and it might not work for others, but as you pointed out, that’s a separate issue entirely. We shouldn't let one disruptive student jeopardize the entire environment for everyone else. Besides, not everyone is going to be an Albert Einstein. Some people need to learn how to hold down a blue-collar job, otherwise, they'll end up turning to crime—which, unfortunately, seems to be quite the trend these days.

Emily Gonzalez51 said:Regardless, I think it's vital to enroll the kid in some kind of martial arts; not to turn him into a thug, but so he actually has the means to defend himself when necessary.

That’s just the state of things today. My mother-in-law mentioned she was walking the dog across a bridge near some kids yesterday, and one of them barked, "Should we throw that Pekingese into the river?"
Well, you better watch your step then.

That is definitely a smart move, strictly for order and safety. It seems like kids today really can't afford to be victims. When the poking and provocations start, they need to be able to give a firm, appropriate response so the bully moves on. These bullies are always looking for someone weaker than themselves...

Yeah, and honestly, it's not even surprising... things get trashed at school just because kids are bored, people attack each other because they're bored... what else can you really expect?

I believe suspension is a very positive step. It removes the aggressor from the regular students, and that bully has to face the consequences through their own lack of progress for a month. We shouldn't be giving these kids any leeway; if necessary, they should be sent for remedial testing, where—given their dedication to doing nothing—they will surely "excel." 🙂 And if they end up repeating the same grade five times in elementary school, maybe they'll finally realize it's time to grow up. In high school, there's no second chance; fail once and you lose your right to an education, and that's it for them and anyone like them—time to join the adult workforce. Frankly, I don't care what kind of family background someone comes from; if they behave unacceptably, then goodbye! They can take that behavior home or out on the streets—there are other authorities "responsible" for handling that.

Emily Gonzalez51 said:Everything is spiraling downward.

http://www.nytimes.com/crime-news-report-example

I can't say I'm surprised. Criminals are being raised from childhood these days. If there are no consequences at home, there certainly aren't any in the school system because kids are treated like they're made of glass. It seems like the modern way to raise a child is to teach them how to be an aggressor. Apparently, being a bully is considered a better life choice than being a victim.

Linda Price5 said:Look, I don't know about you, but I'd much rather see society step in and help these little delinquents before they grow up to be major criminals, rather than hunting down someone who took my child from me. One approach could potentially save countless lives; the other offers zero utility in that regard. But hey, we all have different priorities.

It’s exactly that kind of mindset that makes these kids think they can get away with anything... Besides, if it were your own kid on the line, you’d likely change your tune pretty fast. Or maybe you'd be looking at a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. ☕