In our schools, kids walk through the doors with such wildly inconsistent backgrounds and parental expectations. You’ll have some children who haven't even mastered holding a pencil or tying their own shoes, while others are already fluently reading in two languages. Look at kids in places like Sweden or Denmark; they regularly see their parents actually sitting down with books, and they spend an incredible amount of time out in nature. There is a genuine push for independence. Here? It often feels like the standard approach is just, "Leave me alone, here’s a TV and a computer, go entertain yourself."
Just because they don't use letter grades over there doesn't mean they aren't assessing knowledge; they utilize metrics like percentage of tasks completed or class ranking within a specific school to track success. They need those indicators to know exactly where to step in and help. Furthermore, they maintain a much higher ratio of educators to students, which makes the job manageable. As for this "integration" everyone talks about, it’s mostly structural. Students are grouped based on their skill levels and interests so they don't end up holding one another back. We simply don't have the budget for that kind of precision—we can barely afford the basic things we are currently trying to provide.
It truly warms my heart to see you all standing together, offering such profound love and unwavering support to one another. While this unity is absolutely vital, shouldn't we also acknowledge the reality that there will inevitably come moments of intense tension, deep exhaustion, and those sudden breaking points triggered by the smallest of things? We must remember that a serious illness is never just an individual struggle; it is a trial that weighs upon the entire family, not merely the patient. Hang in there, and please know that I am rooting for your victory.
When dealing with a specific medical situation, the absolute best course of action is to consult directly with your oncologist. In many cases, such additions are permitted. My father, for instance, mixes his supplements with pulp because it contains beneficial nutrients. My mother insists on adding lemon to the mix, but if you ask me—given that one of our primary objectives is to reduce the body's acidity—I wouldn't recommend lemon at all. Then there is this diet often championed by those favoring alternative medicine, which suggests avoiding red meat entirely. Yet, I have yet to find any substantial evidence explaining why red meat would be inherently harmful in this context. The primary difference between red meat and white meat lies in its iron content—which is higher, certainly not a negative thing—and its levels of fat and cholesterol, neither of which have any logical connection to the growth of an existing carcinoma. This is precisely the kind of thing one ought to pose to the experts: should we avoid it, and more importantly, what is the actual scientific justification? For me, the "why" is always the most critical question to pursue.
Dietary approaches. My father is currently battling pleural mesothelioma—an incurable diagnosis, as we all know—and he has just completed his first round of chemotherapy. Interestingly, the tumor has actually shrunk, and he seems to be holding up relatively well. He has completely cut out complex carbohydrates, significantly reduced his meat intake, and instead consumes massive amounts of raw fruits and vegetables via a blender; in essence, he drinks his nutrition. This is perhaps the most common alternative dietary strategy used against malignant diseases, based on the premise that such cells crave sugar for growth, while the fruit and vegetables provide a heavy dose of antioxidants to bolster the body's natural immune response. To support his blood health, he takes ten deciliters of blackberry oil daily.
Years ago, my grandfather dealt with small cell carcinoma in his throat. He underwent surgery, radiation, and chemo, though they eventually had to halt treatment because his kidneys were beginning to fail. After managing two years of remission, the cancer resurfaced on the other side of his throat, eventually leading to a fistula between his bronchus and esophagus. That required even more intense surgery and extensive radiation, yet he managed an incredible eighteen years of remission. During that time, he ate regular food, though he would blend everything thoroughly, and yet the disease returned. Once the cancer surfaced for the third time, there was simply no saving him. Still, he lived a remarkably long life after doctors had essentially given up on him. Between the top-tier specialists who did an exceptional job "clearing out" the cancer and the surrounding tissue, one cannot deny that luck played a significant role.
silentraven6 said:How many of you would actually support giving higher salaries to teachers who work with students facing significant challenges—specifically those with special needs or learning disabilities?
Think about the ripple effect. If a highly compensated teacher takes on a particularly difficult classroom and somehow manages to spark real potential in them—if they actually succeed in helping a child reach a whole new level—what happens next? Would those same teachers just swoop in and take over the kids once they’ve become "easier" to teach in the mainstream classes?
Look, I’m not advocating for segregation. I’m talking about smaller class sizes. But I am saying that if a teacher is tasked with designing lessons specifically meant to squeeze every bit of potential out of every single student, they should be compensated for that level of effort. I’ve seen this firsthand during my internships at both elementary and high schools. Given the types of classes I've worked with—I've only had four professors in my life, but they exist—it's a real thing.
So, how do some of them actually pull it off?
Yes, it would certainly be desirable for teachers to receive a salary supplement when working in classrooms with such difficult conditions. However, above all else, they ought to be granted the autonomy to determine the scope of the material they teach, guided by both objective realities and subjective capabilities, ensuring that these children actually learn something during their time in class.
And honestly, it would be far better for those kids to hear the most essential concepts three times over—even if it interrupts their colleagues—so they can grasp enough to earn a C or even a D if they focus, rather than being bombarded with all the granular details required by students aiming for an A.
Smaller classes do make the job easier, but it only takes one disruptive student to prevent everyone else from learning effectively. My own child is in a class that isn't large, yet the lack of discipline is so profound that even veteran teachers nearing retirement can't get them to retain anything. Even if there were only ten students in a room, if the group is heterogeneous in terms of knowledge and interest in learning, it is harder to teach than a group of thirty similar students. A single class period lasts only forty-five minutes; there is simply no time for true individualization. Furthermore, when that attempt is made, the top performers end up with significant downtime, and it is those very individuals who will eventually be responsible for driving our nation's economic and social development.
It is quite clear that "vertical mobility" should be permitted once certain criteria are met: specifically, through testing proficiency and discussing motivation and the desire to work, provided this occurs without disrupting others (or within boundaries that are age-appropriate).
You have hit the nail on the head. And we are talking about a class of only twenty students. There is an overwhelming number of undisciplined kids in there, yet most of the teachers seem to lack the basic authority required to settle them down—not to mention they lack any actual mechanism for discipline. In fact, it feels as though some have simply given up entirely. Just today, a boy sitting right next to my daughter spent the entire math exam loudly muttering, "I have no clue what this is, this is insane..." When my little one tried to alert the teacher, the instructor merely gave him a mild reprimand, after which he continued his commentary in that same casual tone as if nothing had happened. In our day, she would have snatched that test away and sent him straight out into the hallway. And the kicker? This kid isn't even among the worst offenders.
Since the subject at hand is school reform, I find myself circling back to my previous stance: we ought to separate the students into distinct tracks—placing those who actually possess a desire to learn and behave appropriately into their own classrooms, away from those who view school as nothing more than a social club or a legal obligation to be endured.
Heaven bless the local music academy! One finds absolutely no such issues there, neither with the students nor with the instructors, who genuinely love what they do and strive to push their pupils toward excellence, both academically and personally.
Is merely showing up to class and keeping an eye on the curriculum actually enough to secure anything from a C to an A? It certainly seems to depend on the subject matter. I see it constantly in my daughter’s classroom, where anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen students fail every single written exam. These struggling students come from all sorts of different backgrounds, of course. I even have a mother in that class who boasts about holding two college degrees and having taught in schools herself, yet she remains completely indifferent to her son's failing grades and poor behavior—as if everything will just magically sort itself out in the end.
One can learn quite effectively on one's own through books, provided the child has mastered reading comprehension and has been taught how to actually utilize their brain. This level of cognitive development begins with consistent dialogue from infancy; it requires true two-way communication, the sharing of information, offering guidance, and asking probing questions about everyday life. Children who are essentially raised by cartoons and video games find themselves in a far more precarious position than those raised by attentive parents.
Providing private tutoring to compensate for lack of effort, or allowing them to simply copy book reports, does nothing but do them a massive disservice. Such habits don't produce brilliant students with actual knowledge; instead, they produce nothing but charlatans who coast their way to mediocre grades.
Glumičić is actually a maxillofacial surgeon with an American subspecialty in aesthetic surgery, which means he isn't technically a plastic surgeon and is restricted to facial procedures; I've heard rumors that he works on the body as well, though I can't say for certain. Personally, he did a wonderful job on my nose—he slimmed everything down just enough that nobody even suspects I had work done. I can see the difference myself; the bridge is narrower, that little bump is gone, and the tip is more refined. Still, if I’m being honest, I'm not entirely satisfied. If I had any sense at all, wouldn't I have just told him, "cut away as much as you possibly can"?
John Myers7, it has only been seven days; you really have to wait for the surrounding tissue swelling to subside before making any judgments.
Raymond Wright4 said:There are plenty of things here that could be fixed; the only question is whether we possess the leadership capable of executing them.
I was infuriated today by information my daughter, a sixth grader, brought home from school. Apparently, the music teacher stated that students without a synthesizer will receive a failing grade in music class. My daughter also attends a local music academy, and in my view, this requirement is nothing more than a corruption of her existing skills, especially since she can play everything they teach on her own guitar.
So, what is the recourse? Do we submit to this "requirement," or go to the school hoping someone will address these delusions and unnecessary complications?
It is entirely possible that garant is misinterpreting the situation. There is always the chance she actually wants a synth and is merely trying to engineer a way to get one. 😉 Besides, trained musicians generally hold those things in lower regard than a cheap plastic recorder.
This is actually the first time I’ve heard of them playing instruments in the sixth grade (mine is in sixth as well). Some middle schools start teaching the recorder in fifth grade, and students can often choose to play the melodica instead. Unfortunately, our local district falls into that category where they don't bother with actual playing at all.
When I spoke about competition, my thoughts were directed toward those applying for the exact same position who possess superior expertise—knowledge that is absolutely vital to the profession. It doesn't need to be phrased formally.
A grade of two as a message? Honestly, even parents struggle to grasp the significance of that. In most cases, the fault lies with the professors; current instructors are far too stringent, whereas those from middle school failed to provide these students with a sufficiently solid foundation. 🙄
It isn't exactly a tragedy, though there is a certain sadness within the adult members of a family when a child fails to strive for excellence. This child is much like many others today—someone who has grown disillusioned with academics and opted for a path where they heard the workload is lightest, specifically where there is minimal theory involved. For children considering a trade, we ought to make those vocations more accessible; schools should demonstrate what the work actually entails in practice, showcasing the various specialties and providing genuine opportunities to experiment. A trade is not something one can develop a passion for simply by glancing at a technician working on a machine while being called home by parents. One must actually try it. That kind of exposure is nonexistent here; kids don't truly realize what they are getting into until they are out on an internship.
It isn't that the system actively pushes these kids out onto the streets; rather, it fails to prevent them from ending up there in the first place. It could easily offer alternative pathways—vocational training, internships, or different specialized programs—for those who simply aren't built for traditional academics. But the system offers no such alternatives, leaving these youths to stumble into all the wrong directions. If they don't have parents to steer them toward organized sports or to engage them with activities back at 😉 , what hope do they have? What truly infuriates me is the lack of honesty we show these children; why does nobody just tell them, "Look, this path isn't for you, find something else"? We see students enrolled in hospitality programs who can barely scrape by in English or Spanish—how on earth are they supposed to function in the service industry? Then you have those pursuing surveying or engineering tracks who can hardly pass algebra, physics, or geometry. One group might limp along by passing math while failing languages, while the other survives through language skills despite being lost in math, but neither scenario is sustainable. It leads nowhere, or worse, it leads to a permanent spot on the unemployment line where they'll be crushed by anyone with actual competence.
Jonathan Ortiz2 said:Mine. honestly, i don't know what to make of all this, but my two cents is that we're all just spinning our wheels in the same old cycle, thinking we've found some grand epiphany when really it's just more of the same noise. I mean, does most people just drift through the whole education system without ever actually retaining those core fundamentals, regardless of whether the lessons were surface-level fluff or some deep, life-altering stuff?
You just stick a TV in front of a kid and they’ll pick up English before they can even tie their shoes... yet you spend eight years dragging them through the public school system and they barely walk away knowing two words of the language. It's honestly kind of pathetic.
So now you’re out here assuming that some kids just can't hack it or succeed in elementary school by default, but honestly, the reality is that most people don't remember a single damn thing they learned back then anyway, so what's even the point of stressing over it?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that in a class of thirty students, fifteen of them actually give a damn about chemistry or chemical equations? If five of them...
Look, we don't need to overhaul the entire curriculum overnight, but maybe we could start by looking at the credit hour requirements... I mean, why are we still dragging around all these useless electives that nobody actually needs? We should probably ditch the fluff and rethink how we're even teaching this stuff in the first place.
P.S. Does it even matter who’s actually an expert and who’s just talking out of their ass? As if anyone’s going to start PayPaling you their diplomas to prove it anyway.
If you simply park a child in front of a television, they might passively absorb a handful of phrases or recognize a few sounds, but let us be clear: that is nowhere near actual proficiency. If one wishes to truly master a language, it requires a systematic approach. One cannot rely on osmosis alone, especially when compared to the rigorous "use of English" standards required by international certification exams used globally.
I find myself in agreement with rhino. Every child possesses unique strengths, and we ought to emphasize those specific areas, particularly if the child shows little interest in a broad, generalized curriculum.
In fact, I was visiting a friend just yesterday, and she was quite distraught because her nephew—who was merely an average student—decided to enroll in a three-year vocational program. It isn't that he lacks passion for the trade itself; rather, he simply has no stomach for traditional academics. He isn't unintelligent, nor is he a troublemaker or lazy; he actually commits to three hours of grueling physical training every single day. He has simply grown weary of the standard curriculum offered by most schools. For these types of children, who are fundamentally average, we should provide a spectrum of content where they can actually find their footing—perhaps a cluster of related trades taught over four years so they can refine their choice later. In our current system, it feels as though you are forced to be either a genius or a complete fool just to get by.😢
I find myself in favor of integration, though I certainly do not advocate for forced assimilation; rather, I believe it should be handled on an individual basis, tailored specifically to one's unique circumstances and residence.
For instance, consider a child of average intelligence living with cerebral palsy who possesses a genuine love for learning, demonstrates significant effort, and is supported by parents who are deeply invested in their progress; such a child could quite reasonably thrive in a more advanced classroom setting.
Furthermore, we must acknowledge that even neurotypical children exhibit vastly different levels of knowledge, aptitude, and motivation. A child who struggles to master the curriculum due to medical reasons—or perhaps only masters it partially—could just as easily be placed in a mainstream classroom alongside healthy peers who lack any semblance of drive or have arrived at school without the necessary foundational skills. These are typically the children whose parents, from the age of one, simply placate them with cartoons, or by the time they are three, hand them a tablet or a gaming console and let them indulge, provided it keeps them quiet and out of the parents' way. By the time these children reach seven years old, it is far too late to rectify such a lack of discipline, as their innate intellectual curiosity has already been effectively stifled. 😢
A signature for Jason Morgan. In my neck of the woods, we actually have an excess of music and Italian instructors, given that those departments are part of our College of Arts and Sciences.
Yet, faced with a desperate shortage of math, physics, and chemistry teachers, this brilliant administration intends to solve the crisis through "natural sciences"—which is really just a euphemism for mashing various subjects together while slashing instructional hours. Is it not obvious that their goal is to cultivate a less informed populace, making it easier for the state and religious institutions to shepherd their flock?
That much-vaunted ninth grade is essentially nothing more than a mandatory preschool for children who missed out on daycare. Why do they even bother calling it a grade level when the curriculum focuses on basic motor skills like learning how to hold a pencil—skills every child should have mastered at least two years before ever stepping foot in a classroom? I suppose such rebranding simply sounds more sophisticated.
There is simply no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution; which is precisely why I find myself advocating for the relatively early separation of students based on their specific learning inclinations and innate aptitudes.
In my estimation, we don't suffer from an excessive accumulation of useless trivia, yet we certainly encounter students who have absolutely no interest in granular details. Would it not be more efficient if we offered distinct curricula—let's call them Path A and Path B—with separate classrooms and advanced coursework for those destined for vocational training? Such students would cover less ground overall, but they would master the essential pillars of general knowledge thoroughly while freeing up time for, say, four hours of technical training and four hours of physical education (for heaven's sake, let children burn off some energy). Is it not far better, and arguably much more useful, to be a highly skilled carpenter than a mediocre lawyer?
I might point to a particularly popular and rigorous vocational track as an example—take a specialized business high school, for instance. These institutions graduate students who lack a broad general education but possess a solid enough foundation to pursue an economics degree, though they often find themselves unable to pivot elsewhere. Furthermore, they struggle to enter the workforce immediately. By the time they receive their diploma, shouldn't they at least possess the proficiency required to work as an independent bookkeeper?
Regarding the restructuring of the labor market—while I am by no means diminishing the role of the government in this process—certain sectors are inherently self-regulating, particularly within the trades. If we actually produced young people with high-quality expertise, they would undoubtedly find placement. Think of it as a modern apprenticeship model under the guidance of those few master craftsmen who have managed to survive. As things stand now, nobody is hiring them, and they lack both the agency and the skill to succeed on their own.
As for tablets and smartboards... 🤣 they are not the essence of education. The true cornerstones are the teachers and realistically designed curricula—plans that actually lead toward a meaningful objective.
Rote memorization... well, that depends entirely on how one defines the term. One could learn German conjugations through practical, real-world examples, or perhaps through songs and simple, humorous verses; that is how retention actually happens. Take the multiplication table, for example; it isn't something you should just memorize blindly. I sat with my daughter, and she mastered it in record time by working backward through prime factorization. That, to me, represents a genuine understanding of the relationships between numbers.
rowdypanther12 said:Wait, so you're saying your entire future could depend on just one person? 😲
One certainly maintains the right to appeal a teacher's recommendation.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with mastering grammar or history, yet I find myself questioning the wisdom of insisting on specific facts that certain students merely memorize superficially for a midterm only to forget them moments later. In our American school systems, one can clearly observe this glaring discrepancy between high letter grades and actual performance on standardized diagnostic tests.
For those particular children who possess no genuine interest in absorbing the curriculum, such academic requirements are little more than a waste of precious time—time that might be better utilized to solidify foundational knowledge they will carry for a lifetime, or perhaps to acquire practical skills. Should they not be focusing on learning a trade properly, becoming self-sufficient adults who are genuinely capable of earning their own living?
Rachel Jones8 said:In fifth grade? 🤔 As far as I know (looking at the Swiss system), the actual split doesn't happen until seventh. They take a big exam in sixth grade to decide where everyone goes. The crazy thing is that almost every kid in a wealthy neighborhood passes that test. It’s not because those kids are magically geniuses compared to kids from other parts of town; it’s just because their parents can afford private tutors and extra prep classes throughout sixth grade.
I am simply relaying information from a friend who lives over there; she graduated from that specific school system and is a US citizen herself. It apparently varies depending on the state. They are in a district similar to Chicago—fifth grade, age 11. They sit for a test, but the most critical factor remains the teacher's qualitative evaluation and recommendation.
In this country, we simply fail to nurture talented children unless they possess a truly staggering level of intellect. Those extracurricular programs mentioned earlier are a rarity here, mostly concentrated in elite schools in cities like New York or Chicago. As far as my local school goes, they have a quasi-drama club that meets right before the end of the school year just to put on one single play. I know they offer things like recitation, choir, or maybe handball or soccer for the boys, but none of it provides an avenue for my daughter to participate—and she is a student with stellar grades who possesses a genuine passion for the natural sciences (math notwithstanding) and an exceptional command of English.
If you were to ask me, any meaningful reform should move toward the model used in Switzerland, Germany, or Austria. In those systems, students are channeled as early as fifth grade based on their academic aptitude and desire to learn into three distinct tracks: preparatory academies, technical high schools, or vocational paths for those who have mastered the foundational material but aren't suited for pure academia. This current American "one-size-fits-all" mishmash is devastating for average students, for those who excel in only one specific niche, and especially for children whose parents lack higher education. Children who struggle academically or require special accommodations aren't going to absorb much of the advanced curriculum taught in the upper grades anyway; meanwhile, the exceptionally bright students from educated households will simply pursue their ambitions through private tutoring outside the classroom regardless.