I am writing this from the dual perspective of both a parent and an educator; while I don't consider either group to be composed of idiots, there are certainly certain individuals within both camps who fail to perform their roles as they ought to.
Regarding the private lives of teachers, I might offer the following suggestions: - It would perhaps be most efficient if the law mandated that they marry before ever entering the profession; - Even better, parents could simply find them suitable partners and decide when they should fall in love or get divorced—perhaps the local Parent Teacher Association could make those decisions during the hiring process; - We could implement a national procreation policy specifically for educators—you must have children, even if you are infertile, and strictly no more than two, so as not to distract from your duties while still gaining the necessary life experience; - And if anyone happens to feel lonely, unloved, abused, undervalued, financially unstable, or dares to fall in love—or heaven forbid, if someone is so impudent as to lose a spouse, a father, or a mother—they should face immediate termination via an expedited process.
I have plenty more suggestions like those, but I am, of course, joking. Those who believe that teaching expertise is derived solely from one's personal experience with one's own children clearly understand neither pedagogy nor parenthood. Speaking as a parent of two daughters, I can tell you that my personal experience offers zero practical utility; my eldest, who is twenty now, sailed through elementary and high school without any significant struggles or adolescent crises, and we never had a single confrontation, let alone a major issue. My younger daughter is developing quite normally as well (she’s four), and so far, I haven't needed her help to learn the basics. Furthermore, I cannot provide a "recipe" for success because no such recipe exists, though I can draw upon the collective wisdom gathered by my colleagues—not just those of my generation, but the entire lineage of educational thought, stretching from the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers to the modern scientists and practitioners I have encountered through my studies and beyond...
This inherent distrust in scientific achievement and in the professional knowledge of teachers is precisely what causes parents to react so inadequately toward schools. Sometimes, one simply needs to let go. Many people assume they are experts in pedagogy, child psychology, or special education if they happen to live next door to a child with challenges, yet the moment their own child is involved, they suddenly believe themselves to be PhDs. It is much like thinking anyone who has suffered through two ear infections, a bout of strep, and some sinusitis is suddenly a qualified ENT specialist...
We really ought to let teachers do their jobs. Most educators are perfectly capable of distinguishing their personal lives from their professional responsibilities toward children. When a doctor prescribes a course of antibiotics, you have the right to second-guess them, but in most cases, you simply take the medicine. Similarly, when a teacher tells you that it is in your child's best interest to have firm boundaries, or that you shouldn't reward them with a trip to Paris if they were caught smoking behind the school for the third time, you should either listen to the advice or reject it—but if you choose to reject it, do so entirely on your own responsibility.
On one hand, you’re expected to maintain strict professionalism, yet on the other, there’s this unspoken demand for total emotional immersion. It’s a delicate dance. Sometimes a cool head serves us better than an overflowing heart, but other times, nothing matters more than simply sitting down and listening to a child and their parent with genuine humanity. The true skill lies in finding that razor-thin equilibrium.
If parents could grasp even a fraction of what many teachers endure while struggling to support a child, perhaps we wouldn't see so much finger-pointing and tribalism between sides. At times, it is genuinely exhausting to deal with the behavioral issues of a student when you realize you can't actually help them because the very people responsible for that intervention are simply refusing to act. A few years back, I had a student battling anorexia. Every attempt my school made to get her parents to seek medical attention fell on deaf ears. I reported the situation to the school nurse, but nothing happened. I eventually reached out to the Department of Social Services... and only after I filed those reports did the gears finally start turning. Of course, that instantly turned me into public enemy number one in the eyes of those parents. You see the same pattern when a school discovers a child has ingested something dangerous; instead of initiating treatment, the parents often launch a full-scale assault against the staff.
When a child is struggling, the weight of concern—or at least the responsibility for it—is distributed among parents, teachers, counselors, doctors, psychologists, specialists, psychiatrists, social workers, coaches, extended family, and friends. And then, inevitably, you have the influence of television, social media, neighbors, and acquaintances shaping that same child.
It is far too easy to cast blame on either the teacher or the parent, but if a child isn't reaching their full potential, the responsibility is shared by everyone involved. However, saying "everyone is to blame" is a shallow, superficial way to look at such a complex reality.
Some parents believe they are being "cooperative" as long as their child brings home straight A's and the teacher showers them with praise during parent-teacher conferences. If a teacher wants to play it safe and secure that "good cooperation," that might be the smartest tactical move, but if we are being honest, it is a cowardly approach that ultimately fails the child.
If a teacher shows bias, they are criticized. If they remain strictly objective, they are criticized even more harshly. How is one supposed to navigate that minefield perfectly every single time?
Furthermore, whether a teacher is divorced, has children of their own, or has ever been married is entirely irrelevant to the parents—just as their socioeconomic status is irrelevant to a doctor, a banker, or a local shopkeeper. Making sweeping judgments about an individual or a faculty based on their personal lives or domestic situations says much more about the person making the judgment than it does about the teachers themselves.
Jason Ortiz5 said:Has any educator actually taken the time to explain to these kids how lockers work and how to actually stay organized? Or did everyone just point at them once, turn their backs, and think, "Whatever, not my problem, onto the next one"?
Also, expecting a bunch of teenagers to keep their lockers tidy isn't exactly high-level professional expectation for an educator. 🤷
Parents Until parents realize that school isn't just a daycare where they can drop their kids off while they work (and hopefully not worry about them at home either), nothing changes. It’s like any other business—you have to invest if you want results, like funding smaller class sizes. Until they see that $400 a year's worth of textbooks costs roughly $33 a month—which some people blow through in five days on cigarettes—or until they understand that teachers who educate and mentor these kids are working 8+ hours, not just the 5 hours spent in the classroom, there won't be any progress. There won't be any shift in the parent-school relationship until some folks realize the school isn't solely responsible for raising their child. A lot of parents just aren't ready to take ownership of their parenting. It’s way easier to blame the school for everything: the kid is aggressive? School's fault. The kid is anti-social? School's fault. If the kid is unhappy, nobody thinks to spend a few weeks actually playing with them or fixing the constant fighting between parents at home. If a kid is "lazy," spoiled, or combative, it’s always the school's issue, never the job of the parent who’s out of the house until 7 PM every night.
The vast majority of parents who are gone for 14 hours a day because of work aren't doing it to avoid their kids; they’re forced to by necessity. An educator who can't or won't look objectively at the reality of our society—which is reflected directly in the family unit—probably picked the wrong profession.
Teachers They work for a paycheck, maybe 20 years in the field— $1933. They don't just work 5 hours a day. Judging them like that is like judging a judge or a lawyer based only on the hours they spend in a courtroom. I think teacher evaluations would be totally fine if they were actually handled by people who know what they’re doing. As for testing? Sure, maybe, once they start testing all public servants. I'd love to see them test everyone in healthcare, the police, local government, or even the arts departments.
Look, teachers are working in a country where a ton of parents are basically pulling half-pay shifts just to get by. Until educators realize they aren't going to see a raise unless those working parents actually have more money to contribute to the federal budget, we’re never going to see a healthy economic balance.
If we’re going to evaluate everyone's performance, it needs to be done by qualified experts—not just colleagues who are all part of the same circle trying to protect their own interests. Evaluation has to be competent, sure, but it also has to be objective. All that other stuff you're bringing up, comparing this group to that group... honestly, it just sounds like political noise to me. 🤷
I am not advocating for "protecting the profession"; I am advocating for competence and objectivity. As a parent, I can be an expert, but I will never be objective regarding my own child, nor would I ever wish to be. I maintain my stance: someone who knows the definition of the past perfect tense but possesses zero understanding of true professionalism is not a professional. Similarly, someone who is perfectly fluent in English is not necessarily competent to evaluate English language instruction in an elementary classroom, given the specific grade level, the specific student, and the various social circumstances involved. I suggest we start using a dictionary and looking up terms like: competence, qualification, demagoguery, objectivity, and subjectivity.
Linda Price5 said:If we’re okay with incompetence in the police force, why shouldn't we be okay with teachers who don't actually know their subject matter? Is it acceptable for people teaching computer science to barely understand what a desktop computer even is?😁
It bothers me, quite significantly, when a computer science instructor lacks a basic grasp of what a desktop entails. In such an instance, the school district superintendent should—prompted by a report from a principal or a concerned parent—take decisive action. Furthermore, if these claims are indeed true, shouldn't every professor who signed off on that individual's passing grade be forced to question their own judgment? That doesn't, however, imply that anyone possessing a rudimentary understanding of a desktop suddenly gains the authority to oversee faculty or lecture staff at a public school.
I find this comparison to law enforcement rather perplexing. What possible connection is there between the two? There are competent officers and there are incompetent ones, just as there are competent teachers and incompetent ones. And believe me, the latter bothers me just as much as the former.
I find myself viewing this through two distinct lenses: that of a parent—with one child aged 4 and another at 20—and that of an educator. When my eldest was navigating the school system, I experienced the trials of being a parent of a student, and now, after twenty years in the classroom, I carry the weight of professional experience as well.
Backpacks In my school, every student is assigned their own locker, yet they rarely utilize them in any meaningful way; more often than not, those lockers become catch-alls for everything except actual school supplies. Their backpacks are just as burdensome. In the English classes I teach, the students generally know what they need for the upcoming period, though about 80% of them still end up lugging everything to class regardless. For instance, if I tell them they’ll need their notebooks and workbooks for the next session, they’ll show up with the textbook and a reader as well. On numerous occasions, I have looked into a child's bag only to find books for subjects they aren't even studying that day, alongside a chaotic assortment of other items: notebooks, toys, reading assignments from three months ago, geometry sets they haven't touched in weeks, old food and juice boxes, and crumpled, dirty gym clothes sitting right next to a perfectly clean set waiting to be worn.
Creative Pedagogy and Education In a classroom of thirty students, it is nearly impossible to fully individualize every activity, yet many educators at my school strive to reach every single student, designing lessons where children actually *do* things rather than just sit there. However, despite the presence of various NGOs, the national plan and program, and the national curriculum, the syllabus remains incredibly bloated. A teacher is constantly racing against the clock just to cover what is mandated. The issue isn't necessarily the methods themselves, but the sheer lack of time. In an English curriculum, one should ideally focus on honing language competencies—speaking, listening, reading, and writing—not to mention developing functional literacy. Instead, a fifth grader is expected to master nine different parts of speech within the language block alone! If a teacher insists on assigning projects, encouraging research, or incorporating game-based learning, there is simply no way they will meet the requirements set by the Department of Education and the school administration. The luxury of breaking the rules can only be afforded by someone eccentric enough to ignore the consequences or financially independent enough to not care about their career. If you don't follow the Department of Education's mandates, you're failing; if you do, you're also failing, because in the rush to finish the material, the children inevitably miss out on much more vital learning.
Political Influence Neither parents nor teachers possess any real influence over the government, even though both parties care deeply about the outcome. Education is often treated as the last priority in the budget. It seems this society is only interested in money—and specifically, fast money with minimal investment. Education doesn't offer quick returns; it takes ten or twenty years for a generation to truly mature, so investing in schooling cannot be presented as an immediate profit in today's currency.
Parents There will be no progress until parents realize that school isn't just a daycare center where they can drop off their kids while they work—hoping to avoid dealing with them both during the workday and at home. There will be no change until they understand that, much like any other business, you have to invest if you want results; for example, supporting smaller class sizes to ensure better outcomes. It won't happen until it becomes clear that $400 the annual cost for textbooks amounts to $33 per month—money some people blow on cigarettes in five days—or until they recognize that teachers who educate and raise their children work eight hours or more, not just the five hours spent inside the classroom. Furthermore, the relationship between parents and schools won't improve until some realize that the school isn't solely responsible for raising a child. Many parents aren't willing to take accountability for their own upbringing of their children. It is far easier to blame the school for failures in parenting: if the child is aggressive, it’s the school's fault; if they are anti-social, it’s the school; if the child is unhappy, no one thinks to spend a few weeks actually playing with them or ensuring the parents aren't constantly at each other's throats at home. If a child is "lazy," spoiled, or combative, they'll claim it's the school's doing, rather than admitting it's the result of parents who are absent until 7:00 PM every night.
Teachers They work for a paycheck, and after 20 years on the job—$1933. It’s a mistake to assume they only put in five hours a day. Making an assumption like that would be no different than trying to calculate the hourly rate of a judge or a lawyer by only counting the time they spend sitting in a courtroom. A proper assessment of a teacher's workload should be conducted by people who actually possess the necessary competence and qualifications to understand what they're looking at. As for standardized testing—well, sure, if they decide to implement rigorous testing for every single public servant, and if I were given the chance to test everyone working in healthcare, law enforcement, administration, or the arts, then perhaps we could have a conversation.
Jason Ortiz5 said:So, let me get this straight: every single time someone voices an opinion that doesn't perfectly align with what a teacher says, suddenly it’s "aggressive tone"? Honestly, you just answered your own question right there regarding why parents stay quiet around educators. 🤷
And I find it pretty funny how you compared yourself and your work at $0.00 to being a doctor. It never occurred to you to compare it to anyone in a regular industry? Like, do you really think that cashier at the local CVS would rather be stuck working overtime than spending time with her kid? Or is it somehow her fault because she could have been a teacher or a surgeon if she’d just gone to school...
My comment regarding a "harsh tone" wasn't directed at your little remark about how "a good portion of parents wouldn't have mouths to feed if they didn't have asses to sit on..." Such vulgarities aren't a substitute for a reasoned argument. As I have already stated—though it seems I must repeat myself—any parent has the right to write a letter to the principal, the school board, the PTA, the Department of Education, or even submit one anonymously. An inspector can show up at a school at any moment. So, where is the issue? Unless, of course, you don't know anything beyond external organs or backsides. Will anyone actually answer that? Or should they?
The crux of the matter is that the education sector (much like healthcare) isn't viewed as real. Does that somehow make it unreal? I am certainly not suggesting that anyone, including those in the so-called "real" sectors, should offer their labor for $0.00, nor am I belittling grocery store clerks.
Everyone should be free to dedicate their work toward $0.00 whenever and to whomever they choose, without coercion; however, in our country, volunteering is practically a foreign concept. If you look at the statistics for America and other nations, we fall far short. But we aren't talking about labor where an employer exploits you and keeps you trapped in a rat race; we are talking about service to the community, something you invest in voluntarily because you believe it is right. Someone here—and it isn't you, nor anyone else on this forum—has completely confused the issue. My desire is to volunteer with sick children in hospitals, with the homeless who have slipped through the cracks of the system, with the abandoned, the displaced... I already do part of this work...
And I would do even more if a full-time job with a decent salary allowed me to avoid working two extra freelance gigs just to literally survive.
Is there anything more exhausting than watching people pretend to be surprised by the obvious? It seems we’re constantly circling the same drain, expecting different results while ignoring the very patterns that lead us right back to where we started. Does anyone else feel like we're just performing a tired ritual of indignation? kaže: I honestly can't quite wrap my head around it anymore... You get this overwhelming impression that every single high school graduate, without exception, is essentially part of some mindless, roving caravan of chaos. It’s as if they’re all possessed by this frantic, senseless energy where their only goal is to get wasted, smoke themselves silly, smash things, and eventually wind up in a jail cell or an ER waiting room. Is that really what we've become? 🤷 I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard stories about students breezing through their high school graduation exams like it was nothing more than a formality. Of course, you always hear the horror stories too—those instances where everything falls apart and turns into a complete disaster—but I’ve never really gotten the impression that those chaotic failures are actually the norm. Is it just my perception, or does it seem like most people manage to navigate the whole ordeal without much drama at all?
For a fleeting second, I actually entertained the idea that you might have had good intentions. But then, of course, you just had to go and point out that the teacher was the one behind it. "za $0.00 It seems we are once again circling back to the concept of honorariums—that nebulous, often frustrating term used to describe compensation that feels anything but honorable. One has to wonder, does anyone actually believe these lump sums reflect the true value of the labor performed, or is it merely a polite way to avoid discussing a real salary? It feels like a shell game where the goalposts are constantly shifting, leaving the professional to wonder if they were fairly compensated or simply pacified with a gesture of goodwill. Is there ever a point where an "honorarium" stops being a courtesy and starts being an insult?. 😉 Would it be any better if we actually compensated teachers for those little trips to McDonald's? Of course, everything eventually boils down to the money... The moment an educator does something "extra" for the kids, people start looking for ways to attach a price tag to it. Is that really how we want this to work? $0.00 "Honorara," they say, and suddenly we’re all expected to start scouting locations for his monument. 🧐
I wonder if anyone actually understands the sheer scale of what people working in the private sector are sacrificing these days just to stay afloat? It makes you stop and think, doesn't it? When you look at the grind—the endless cycles of corporate bureaucracy, the constant pressure to optimize every waking second, and the relentless pursuit of quarterly growth targets—you have to ask: what exactly are they all trading their lives for? Is it just the paycheck, or is there something more profound being surrendered in those fluorescent-lit cubicles from New York to San Francisco? $0.00 Is it a fee or a salary? Honestly, does it even matter at this point? People seem so incredibly relieved just to have a foot in the door of any kind of employment. If they happen to land a role they actually care about—something that provides a sense of purpose and genuine fulfillment—then they shouldn't feel guilty about being vocal about their compensation. Why should they apologize for being proud of what they've earned?
So, let me get this straight: half the class is actually sitting there taking the test while the other half is just... existing? What exactly is the second group doing with their time? Are they just picking at scabs and staring at flies buzzing against the windowpane? 😕 What exactly are we to make of those kids whose parents might actually enjoy an excursion to a museum or a theater, yet their bank accounts tell a much more sobering story? Is there some unspoken rule that every parent must share the exact same enthusiasm, regardless of their financial reality? And honestly, does a meaningful encounter with art really need to be leveraged as a tool for academic grading, forcing students to scrape by just to prove they’ve experienced something beautiful?
Well, that would be a lovely theory, wouldn't it? But we have to face reality: it only works if we assume half of parents aren't too busy indulging their own impulses to actually raise a child, and more importantly, if they weren't constantly terrified that any attempt at standing their ground would just result in the fallout landing squarely on the kid's shoulders. 😉
Almost every high school graduation trip carries a certain level of inherent risk for the kids involved. Now, that doesn’t imply that every single student is a walking liability—that they’re all showing up with drugs, or booze smuggled from home, or some wild intention to pick fights with the locals and trash hotel rooms. It certainly doesn't mean they're all arriving at their elementary school graduation equipped with condoms just waiting for the right moment to test them out. Most of them don't even dream of such things. But there is always that one specific group, that core circle of classmates, who decides they need to experience absolutely everything at once. And isn't it funny how it only takes one such group to turn an entire trip into a complete disaster? Try looking after, say, ten kids for three days straight and you might finally begin to grasp why I claim it’s such an impossible weight to carry—the sheer, exhausting pressure of being held responsible for their health, their safety, and their very lives.
I made it quite clear from the start that I don't take my kids to McDonald's, nor do I involve them in any sort of similar activities, let alone... $0.00But then again, there isn't any amount of money in the world that could change my mind on that. Why on earth would anyone bother taking their kids to a McDonald's in the first place? And more importantly, why would anyone willingly dedicate themselves to any kind of work that doesn't offer a paycheck at the end of the day? I find myself running extra study groups for... $0.00 I’m not exactly asking. Besides, there are plenty of other things I handle on my own. $0.00I don't see much of a drama in all of this, really. I suppose I do what I do because I choose to, not because there's some heavy obligation forcing my hand—and there is a massive distinction between those two things. It’s not like I’m out here hunting for a monument or looking for some grand recognition. But if your child is heading off to an exhibition while I'm expected to be there with mine instead, then surely it's only fair that I am compensated for that time? Isn't it just basic fairness? It would be just as reasonable to expect you to be paid if you were stuck reviewing my child at 7:01 PM when your shift officially ended at 7:00.
The second half of the class spends their time working on tasks that have actually been tailored to the curriculum, following proper teaching methods and instructional design. Meanwhile, those who are preparing for some hypothetical test—something I’ve only ever heard mentioned on this forum but have never personally witnessed or implemented in my own classroom—are the ones receiving grades. And when a student answers a question orally? The rest of the class just sits there, completely disengaged, knowing they won't be getting any credit for listening in at that moment. Is it any wonder why engagement feels like such an uphill battle? Parents have plenty of ways to make their voices heard—whether it’s through formal PTA meetings, one-on-one sit-downs, or via the Parent Council. Even when families are struggling financially, even if they don't officially qualify for assistance, there are always avenues for the school district or local social services to cover those costs. I’ve mentioned this before, though apparently, people need to actually read what I write. In my experience working with the local school system, I have never once seen a child miss out on a field trip simply because their parents couldn't afford it.
Look, this isn't about starting a rebellion or playing the sycophant. A parent has every right to express their stance to a representative on the Parent Council, or take it up with the principal, the Department of Education, or even file an anonymous report. Every single complaint triggers a formal review, which often means an inspection team shows up at the school doors.
I honestly don't think that kind of aggressive tone or choice of language was necessary, but then again, the way someone speaks usually says much more about the sender than the recipient.
Peter Doyle2 said:I thought that was more or less how it worked, since that’s how it functions in my own field—every preschool center develops its own annual plan where things like field trips, plays, and similar events are defined.
Let’s be clear, I am absolutely not against field trips, especially the educational ones > mentioned regarding visiting landmarks. Nor am I against prom, which only happens once or twice during an entire eleven or twelve-year schooling period anyway. I’m not even opposed to theater performances, BUT there really isn't a need to drag kids to the theater several times a year!! Once or twice is plenty; the rest should be handled by having theater troupes come directly to the school. It’s definitely more cost-effective that way. Ultimately, most schools have drama clubs, so incorporating a few of their performances makes sense. If it works in preschool, I don't see why it wouldn't work in K-12.
So, it seems like the McDonald's trips, movie outings, and all those frequent excursions are completely unnecessary and just pushed by certain individual schools. I guess the solution is to voice concerns at parent-teacher meetings or talk to the counselor. Okay, I'll make a note of that 🙂
I'm also wondering about the grading aspect. One user mentioned that a teacher gave students a test based on a movie they watched at the cinema. Is that actually allowed? What if I decide today or tomorrow that I don't want to—or for some reason can't—send my child to the movies? Will my kid end up with a bad grade? Is going to the theater a mandatory part of the curriculum, or is this just a loose interpretation of media literacy (meaning, couldn't they have just watched the content at school on a DVD)?
Look, I’m speaking from experience here—straight from someone who actually works in the field. I find myself firmly against the whole concept of these graduation parties. Why should I be held responsible for kids attempting all sorts of reckless stunts? Is it really my job to go without sleep for two, three, maybe even five nights straight just to supervise them—all while praying they return home in the exact same numbers they left, ideally with their health and blood counts intact? It doesn't sit right with me. If parents want to host these things, they should handle it entirely on their own terms. I certainly didn't raise them to treat a milestone celebration as an excuse to experiment with every bad idea under the sun, so why on earth would I volunteer to stand guard over the chaos?
Educational field trips? Sure, they have their place, but only if they are treated as actual extensions of the classroom—complete with the same academic rigor, expectations, and assessments that follow any other lesson. If someone chooses not to participate, well, that is their prerogative; they will simply have to master the curriculum through other means. It might be a less vivid way to learn, but they’ll eventually get the same information as everyone else. In my school district, we made sure that no student was ever left behind due to financial constraints; whether it was the cost of the charter bus or the museum admission, we always found a way to make it work so every kid could join. However, there was one non-negotiable rule: anyone who went on these trips was expected to behave like they were sitting in a lecture hall and actually retain what was taught. It didn't matter who picked up the tab for the ticket or the transportation; once you are out there learning, you are a student, period.
Sixteen theater productions over eight years? Fine, I suppose that’s acceptable. Even having theater programs within schools is perfectly fine, though we have to be honest about the quality—there are very few performances out there actually suited for older students, much less the facilities themselves. And as for these school drama clubs? Don't make me laugh. Do people truly believe that a classroom hobby is the same thing as legitimate theatrical art, or that it serves as some kind of meaningful model through which children can actually experience the craft and learn the nuances of stagecraft? If you want to talk about youth drama workshops, sure, let's talk about those—but they should be treated as an entirely different pursuit altogether, driven by a completely different purpose.
Fast food joints like McDonald's—that’s just not how you handle this. It could be an exception, sure, but it should always stay strictly optional. Personally, I wouldn't dream of taking my kids into any of those greasy, unhealthy establishments. But if a teacher insists on it for a class outing? Well, that's a different conversation entirely. $0.00 If parents can actually reach an agreement on letting their kids head out to some social gathering or activity they’ve picked for themselves, I honestly see nothing but good in that. Is it really such a monumental task to just let them follow their own interests? If they're on the same page, why fight it?
Is this a movie review? Hardly. It’s more like a formal reception for a piece of performance art. I find myself wondering if the people taking these tests actually bothered to mention who didn't attend the screening, though I doubt it. And as for those who were there—attending simply because their parents insisted it was part of their curriculum—well, why wouldn't they be included in the tally?
Everything ultimately boils down to the Teacher’s Council, the School Board, and the Parent-Teacher Association. Nothing happens within those school walls without passing through all three of those layers first. On top of that, the Department of Education maintains a very specific list of approved performances and events, essentially providing a guide on what is vetted and what is strictly discouraged; because of that, those three local groups don't have the final say unless the Department gives their blessing.
So, what’s the actual issue here? Is it the exceptions? If that's the case, then perhaps it’s time to address them within your own school districts.
Parents, and educators for that matter, ought to draw a much sharper line between the two: we aren't grading a child’s soul or their fundamental character, but rather their measurable achievements, the development of functional skills, and their overall academic progress. If we could just grasp that distinction, perhaps there would be less of this constant, grinding frustration. Everyone needs to keep in mind that most teachers actually take pride in their work, and frankly, no one has any vested interest in withholding an A if a student truly earned it.
The real issue lies elsewhere: we deal with both subpar instructors and those overbearing parents who believe they can micromanage every classroom decision simply because they once held a degree in some unrelated field.
In other parts of the world, homeschooling is a perfectly viable path. It is something we should seriously consider implementing here in the States. Even though I work within the school system myself, I don't think the idea is inherently flawed—at least, not for certain children and families who might thrive under different circumstances.
I have children. There isn't a single thing they need that I wouldn't fight to provide. Why on earth would I ever sacrifice anything for them? Just so some bureaucrats can plunder my hard-earned savings—money I worked for and money my kids deserve? Why should I ever be forced to choose between keeping the lights on and having running water? When you look at it from an existential standpoint, the last things I would ever give up are a healthy environment, clean drinking water, and the basic necessities provided by nature itself. I won't turn my back on God, no matter how much life tries to drag me down. And there is absolutely no way I’m living without health insurance. Nor am I letting go of a quality education, especially when it comes to my children's future. But honestly, I don't even want to spend another moment dwelling on these things. The real question is, what can be done to ensure we never reach a point where we're actually forced to make these sacrifices in the first place? Are they simply incompetent, or just incredibly skilled at seizing what belongs to me, leaving me to pick through the scraps? Is that really how this system was designed to work?
It’s all far simpler than people make it out to be. You are presented with a set of dogmas—assertions that simply aren't meant to be scrutinized or proven. It is a matter of taking them as they are or walking away entirely. There is no coercion involved; nobody is forcing anyone's hand. Faith isn't something you dissect through rigorous analysis or synthesis, nor does it rely on some grand, spectacular scientific demonstration. And yet, those who hold to Christ's dogmas occasionally find themselves gifted with deeply personal revelations. Is it easier to believe the universe is infinite or that it isn't? On one hand, the very concept of infinity is nearly impossible to wrap one's head around, yet on the other, it feels even more difficult to imagine that at the edge of everything, there is merely a wall or an endless void. It is the same when considering God. He is inherently inconceivable, yet I find it even harder to fathom His absence. Does it truly matter if someone in the past falsified the history of salvation or the details of Christ's suffering? Is it even relevant whether the Church made certain errors or spoke certain untruths at some point in time? What matters is whether we experience the dogma as an absolute truth or as a mere fabrication. Don't go looking for someone to provide you with proof. If you are hunting for evidence, you will find it everywhere you look; however, if you refuse to see it within yourself and in the world around you, you will inevitably find a thousand different reasons to deny it all.