Posts by Scott Booth

Kate Jackson4 said:It’s all quite stressful for me, especially since my kid could have pushed harder to secure better grades. A mix of health issues, puberty, and a touch of laziness finally caught up with him...

Some grades are earned. For others, a different teacher might have sparked more interest or motivation, but I wouldn't go so far as to call the grading unfair...

Looking at the big picture, I believe things eventually fall into place—perhaps even for a reason. Missing out on a first choice isn't the end of the world, whether it's their second, third, or sixth option...
If the child is doing alright, they will find their way in school. It might actually be for the best that they didn't get into their top pick ☕

Well done! 🥂

urbantinker8 said:Like I said, it happens.
As for the teachers' hourly pay, I guess for a lot of them, it actually works out fine since they end up working so much overtime—especially the science teachers, given how few of them there are left these days.

Susan James said:That's why I said I wasn't sure if it had happened yet—in my graduating class, it didn't happen for those exact reasons.
Even just one student being against it can stop the whole thing. Plus, teachers usually end up with fewer teaching hours if students drop a subject, so that definitely plays a role in the negotiations...😬

Yeah, you can tell from the Seattle track that they're heading off to all sorts of different colleges. They might not be as numerous as the STEM kids, but they're definitely moving on.

I know a few people personally. One of them actually got his PhD in physics abroad and now he's traveling around universities across the EU looking for the perfect place to settle down. Knowing a second language certainly helps him out there. And others are following a similar path.

Kate Jackson4 said:The people around me are driving me crazy; they can't understand why I'm not getting in, but they forget some of these folks enrolled years ago when the bar was much lower...
The computer technician role—back in 2017, you only needed 67 points, but this year it looks like it'll hit 77. That's quite the jump...

Has anyone else experienced what northerntiger9 is talking about? It’s definitely happened here in the States, though I suppose we should have seen it coming.

northerntiger9 said:Looking at the SER data—at least from the perspective of RI—it’s clear that grades spiked across all grade levels during the COVID era; they definitely weren't this high before. But since last year, things have been trending down again, and now that we're fully back to in-person learning without any isolation requirements, everything will likely just settle back to normal.

You see kids from both Newton and Tesla consistently placing at the top of the national rankings for physics and math. I can't quite say if those results come down to the quality of the professors or just the sheer grit of the students themselves—though it’s probably a bit of both. Regardless, they both leave you with the impression of being top-tier institutions for any kid with a serious head for STEM.

rustyowl7 said:Down here in San Diego, we only have two language schools, even though we have so many surrounding suburbs pulling people in...

rustyowl7 said:It honestly feels wrong that someone with a 4.8 GPA has to sit around stressing over whether they’ll actually get an acceptance letter.
What’s the best strategy here? He actually has a better score for MIT. 🤣 anyway, there’s no way to appeal the decision once it's made.

I took a look at last year's records, and the average for the language track at ST was 76.30—or specifically 72.99. There is absolutely no way a kid with 78 points wouldn't get accepted.

Things might feel a little easier if at least one person in the house stays level-headed. Maybe take a moment to think about other options? For those interested in languages, maybe a classical studies program would be a classic—and perhaps even a better choice—though, of course, that really depends on what the kid is actually into. Good luck!

Wishing everyone the best of luck with admissions, and I hope all the parents can stay calm through it all!

jadetinker85 said:I dig certain aspects of the Finnish school system, but who’s actually footing the bill to put two teachers in a single classroom? For subjects where mastery is non-negotiable, though, it’s probably worth it. Just imagine cutting the grading workload in half. Or if the kids start acting up—you’ve got two sets of eyes on them immediately.

There is actually so much I admire about the way they handle schooling over there:
the teachers are top-tier and genuinely happy in their roles (they're paid exceptionally well and are hand-picked from the best of the best), schools are fully equipped, and there isn't that massive gap in quality between rural towns and big cities. It’s consistently good everywhere.

And then there's that mandatory 15-minute break after an hour of instruction, where the kids are actually allowed to run outside, scream, and just act like wild animals. Of course, having two—maybe even three—teachers would be necessary to make that work.

But where does that leave us? We're down here in the South of Europe. I can't think of a single country that manages such a highly organized school system while maintaining those stellar PISA test scores (if you're looking for a real benchmark).

Nicholas Davis4 said:Under Suvar’s leadership, high schools didn't even exist in that format.

I used to think that whole "2+2" educational model was a total mess.
But looking back now, it actually seems better designed than our current system; I’d take that old structure any day.
I'd also bring back entrance exams for both high school and college.

There were definitely some upsides to how things used to work. Being able to make those big decisions at sixteen rather than fourteen gave you more breathing room—it let you actually figure out where your interests were leaning before committing. Back then, our school district used to house both the junior high and the high school in the same large campus, just with separate entrances. That setup naturally created a sense of distinction. You knew exactly what kind of environment you were stepping into, whether you were heading into the old academic prep academy, the technical vocational wing, or the trade school side. Since the faculty was shared across the buildings, you could pretty much predict the level of rigor and the type of expertise you’d be getting depending on which hall you walked through.

The real issue stems from how our vocational programs were structured—that whole 2+1 model just didn't leave enough breathing room. When you look at the timeline, there simply wasn't sufficient time to actually master the necessary skills. How can you expect anyone to gain true proficiency when the curriculum is rushed like that? It’s a fundamental flaw in the training period itself.

I honestly think we should have gone with a 2+3 model—you know, keeping the academic prep schools and the four-year vocational tracks separate. Instead, we ended up with this 2+2 setup that mirrors what those three-year programs are doing today. If we had structured it that way, we probably wouldn't be dealing with such a massive gap in basic foundational knowledge. Wouldn't it have been better to ensure everyone actually mastered the fundamentals before moving on?

Sarah Hall53 said:It wasn't even real high school back then; they were just those "vocational" training centers for teaching assistants and other junk like that.

As for that tiered schooling model, it's a disaster—those early years just act as a massive drag on everyone. You've got the kids who are capable of so much more, but they're being held back and slowed down by the exact same system that stifled them in elementary school. Then you have the kids who are struggling, and instead of getting help with the fundamentals, they're forced through a curriculum that's way too advanced for their actual knowledge gaps. So everyone ends up stuck, and nobody ever really gets to reach their full potential.

Do you honestly think all these fake perfect scores are dragging down the quality of education? It’s not just about one semester, either—it’s more like four years of systemic damage instead of just two.
I’ve been hearing quite a few complaints from parents lately regarding the current curriculum. It seems like there's a growing wave of pushback across several generations because the material has become so incredibly dense and difficult to navigate. Is it just me, or is the academic load getting heavier every single year?

Anyway, let’s get back to the point at hand:
I honestly don't see this actually working. There is just no way they can build out all the necessary infrastructure in only four years. If you look at the rural areas and small towns across America, you’ll see schools that are still struggling without basic facilities—no gymnasiums, no proper kitchens, no cafeterias, and outdated classroom setups. How can you expect to implement something this massive when the foundation isn't even there yet?

It really makes me wonder about all that wasted capital. Honestly, wouldn't that money be better spent actually improving the status of teachers in our society? But then again, how realistic is that in a country where expertise is constantly being sidelined in favor of deep pockets and who you know?

Thanks.

That’s what I was thinking, too, but as a parent, I realize I can't really gauge the big picture just by looking at a few isolated cases.

Based on my own history—having gone through the public high school system back during the era of Stalin—and watching how my colleagues' kids and my own are doing in the same schools today, I’ve come to a conclusion. It seems like by the second year of high school, everyone ends up on a level playing field, regardless of where they started, provided they have the right mindset, a bit of maturity, and a decent foundation of general knowledge.

I’m curious to hear from the computer science teachers out there, or maybe those who work closely with them: is it actually possible to teach kids how to navigate an operating system, master basic Microsoft Office settings, or get comfortable with standard everyday apps if they only have one hour of tech class a week for eight years?

Personally, I’m all for increasing—or bringing back—the hours dedicated to English and math, provided we pair that shift with a solid, updated curriculum. It’s just a shame to see how much art and music have been pushed to the sidelines lately; the role they play in a well-rounded education shouldn't be overlooked like this.

Adam Diaz67 said:Okay, so it's pretty much like an American elementary school. From what I've heard through friends with kids in Canada, those schools seemed really well-equipped and modern. I guess there's probably a huge gap between private and public schools over there too, so you'd have better and worse public options depending on the province or city. But those places were basically full campuses with K-12 programs.

Anyway, I remember my old elementary school had built-in showers in the locker rooms, which probably worked way back when the school was new, maybe like the late 60s or early 70s. But by the mid-90s, they were totally run down.

Man, I can just imagine how brutal an all-day school would be in southern California. A building with no AC, nine months of school, the sun beating down outside... just a room full of sweating teenagers at 3:00 PM in 85-degree heat. 👎

The real question is how common it is for kids in Canada to attend public schools. And if it is, does that trend hold steady once they hit middle school? Is there a noticeable gap in academic performance between students coming out of public schools versus private ones (the affordable, middle-class type), similar to what you see in the United Kingdom? Canada generally sees very strong results on PISA testing.

Some people have already touched on this: to me, this all starts to look like a precursor to the privatization of education.

You don't even have to go all the way down to Southern California to be sweltering in September. Most of the coast and the inland areas are the same way. The heat starts creeping up pretty much right after Spring Break.

Paul Davis2 said:Those kinds of excellence centers are already active in about 10 to 15 states.

I know there are more than that out there. Honestly, though, I’m never quite sure what they actually do—sometimes these programs sound incredible on paper, but when you look at how they function in the real world, it’s a different story. I don't know enough about their specific operations to really judge them, but I can speak to the one here in Varaždin County. They offer such a wide variety of specialized subjects for kids to dive into, the organization is solid, and you can tell the teachers are truly giving it their all. It really shows in the students' end results.

We just don't have that kind of thing here. A huge number of schools are struggling to find qualified staff even for basic, everyday classes. And it isn't just limited to STEM. It's been this way for years, passing down from one generation to the next.

hiddendriver34 said:I’m really enjoying this thread. There are so many thoughtful and sensible points being made here. 👍

Looking at everything everyone has shared, I’d love to pitch an alternative to the Department of Education. Instead of just pushing for "all-day school," why not launch a comprehensive initiative called something like "21st century teaching"? Here is what I think that project should actually look like:

- Full-day programs in all elementary schools for grades K through 4.
- Modernizing and upgrading our schools so they actually match the era we live in.
- Adding proper kitchens, dining areas, and cozy lounge spaces in every building.
- Hiring more support staff—like janitors and cooks—and making sure they get a decent living wage.
- Giving teachers a much-needed raise.
- Increasing the number of specialists and counselors on campus.
- Beefing up tutoring and extracurriculars, while letting older students (if they're into it!) have the option to knock out their homework during school hours.

Did I miss anything?

That’s how you actually improve the school environment without turning these buildings into glorified prisons.

Actually, let me add one more thing:
Establishing centers of excellence, similar to the model used in Varaždin County. That could serve as a real emergency fix for the current shortage of high-quality teachers.

Paul Davis2 said:Honestly, we might as well just keep clinging to having the lowest hourly wages in Europe and then act shocked when foreign investment tells us we desperately need to change things.
It’s almost like we’re living in some sort of educational utopia right now.

Since everyone is busy philosophizing, maybe try reading the actual documents with the understanding that every central proposal is really just a framework meant to be adapted to real-world conditions.
Regarding that 8 to 3 schedule—it’s just not physically or mentally feasible. Take elementary school, for instance; a teacher isn't stuck in one classroom from 8 to 3. You’ve got foreign languages, PE, computer lab, and religious studies or electives—all squeezed into that window.
Then there's the kids' side of things—breaks, extracurriculars, regrouping, socializing. Sure, you could run a school from 8 to 10:30, much like what my kids did in those first four grades. But back then, I was constantly paying babysitters.

Just because we need to change things urgently doesn't mean we should implement the very first half-baked idea that pops into someone's head. No one here is claiming the current system is perfect. That’s exactly why people are writing post after post about it, not just on this specific thread. Nobody is against progress—everyone wants improvement—but what’s being proposed right now is poor quality, and honestly, it makes our current situation look better by comparison.

You don't build a house starting with the roof. We lack the basic infrastructure; so many schools are falling apart, classrooms are cramped, and there simply aren't enough of them. Specialized labs? Nonexistent. Gymnasiums for PE? Same story. We’re short on subject-matter teachers, and a portion of the current staff is completely checked out, disinterested, or just plain incompetent regardless of what their degree says. We don't have enough psychologists or special education specialists either.

So, are we really going to lock kids up in those kinds of spaces with those kinds of people for eight hours a day, just because it's convenient for us? And then act happy that they're "safe," assuming they're even safe to begin with?

Susan James said:Right, because if a parent works a four-day week, they should have Friday entirely to themselves while the kid sits in school 🙂...so they can hit the spa, the pool, or grab a coffee....

And what about parents who work afternoon shifts? With full-day schooling, there'll be an even higher demand for afternoon coverage, which makes it nearly impossible for certain professionals to be parents to school-aged kids—think speech therapists, coaches, music teachers, artists, and so on.
Retail workers at Target or Walmart will barely see their kids once every two weeks outside of the busy seasons and Sundays.
Nurses will only see them every other week, too—not to mention they often work Sundays anyway.
And so on.
All things considered, it might be easier for them not to have kids at all.

Personally, I have nothing against these types of programs existing as private options that parents pay for, even if it means driving kids across town instead of just down the street.
But as long as public elementary schools are assigned by neighborhood, and the quality of the "good" districts depends on the staff and student makeup, you can't legally force parents into a corner. If they want a specific language or sport that their local district doesn't offer, they shouldn't be forced to drive elsewhere. At least now, you aren't mandated to take a second language (and some schools don't even offer certain sports anyway).

As for after-school care, it's always been voluntary. In some places, it's organized beautifully; in others, it's a total disaster. Some kids desperately need it, while others don't need it at all.
From what I've seen, it's unnecessary for third graders—maybe even a bit counterproductive—and for fourth grade, it could get even worse. Keeping kids in that kind of structured environment from fifth through eighth grade feels like a crime.
I realize some parents love the convenience of having their kids "taken care of," and they'd love for everything to happen right at school. But if we can't manage to handle everything within the school system during first and second grade, how can we expect it to work later on when the academic gaps become much wider? Why wasn't the focus on improving the quality of the early grades when parents were most desperate for childcare?

That's basically it: children will eventually become hostages of the ruling class.

mellowskipper said:Maybe then we just go with the RN option—you know, the one with the extra gear sets included. For an elementary school, I guess that would be perfectly fine enough.

I suspect that particular study program was phased out a long time ago.
Nowadays, students enter the RN track even if they only have about 25% mastery of B-level math. Does that really mean they're equipped to work with gifted students? You should take a look at some of the problems from the regional and national competitions.

Paul Davis2 said:Well, that A2 designation is specifically for the gifted students. And let's be honest—talented STEM professionals aren't going to jump into teaching unless the pay is actually decent, and this move gives them a much-needed bump in salary.

The reality here in the States is that we just don't have enough teachers. We have even fewer truly great ones, which makes it nearly impossible to find anyone worth giving a significant raise to.

But what about the gifted kids?
Specifically those with a knack for STEM subjects where we just don't have the teachers to support them?

I’ve started feeling like the only real solution at the end of this tunnel is a solid private school. So, if anyone can swing it...

mistydrifter73 said:Just a rhetorical question here.
Is the selection process for those 50 schools joining the pilot program actually going to be transparent, or is this just another case of political favoritism? #weallknow

And what happens if they don't get enough schools to sign up?

I think what Renaissance is getting at is that if we push for higher pass rates, the exam questions will inevitably get easier just to satisfy public demand. That would completely undermine the ability to actually select top talent for those highly competitive majors.
Aren't we seeing plenty of vocal students and parents complaining about how hard these standardized tests are? These people—the loud ones, anyway—don't view the SAT as a chance to demonstrate the knowledge they gained throughout high school, because they never actually acquired it. A significant portion of them had fewer instructional hours in certain subjects and didn't do anything to make up the gap. And now, they’ve all recently gained the right to vote. We really need to stop letting politics bleed into education.

Personally, I find it baffling that you need to take the advanced math track just to get into a state university like UT Austin. About 60% of the problems on that level are basically middle school math. Last year, you could have gotten by by solving barely 25% of the test—and that wasn't even covering the full curriculum!
In almost every county, you see dozens of students enrolling in these programs every single year, only to drop out eventually. As for finding jobs in the public sector? Aside from a few rare exceptions, I honestly don't know if those roles even exist anymore.

nimblelynx7 said:Supposedly, those 33 hours are among the highest in the entire European Union. If that's true, just how much are those "model" Europeans actually studying?

That’s not quite right. In Italy, students on a science track usually have about 27 to 30 hours a week, depending on their grade level.

http://www.liceidibra.com/CategoriaD...%20Scientifico