Posts by Scott Booth

John Palmer9 said:I suppose what matters most is that the teacher is a solid mentor—someone who understands pedagogy, psychology, and just has a good head on their shoulders—because foxnews.com/we-are-all-born-mathematicians
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The high school system, especially the prep schools, probably needs a total overhaul:

1. English should be mandatory every single day for an hour.
2. Physical education needs to be a daily requirement, one hour every day.
3. Second languages should be strictly elective. It seems like a real issue when kids lose interest in
history, math, or physics... and being unmotivated to learn a specific
foreign language just makes everything three times worse.
4. We should probably quadruple the hours dedicated to Psychology, both for individuals and groups.
5. There should definitely be more time set aside for Sociology.

They already have 33 hours of classes per week, and that doesn't even include electives or any other extracurricular activities. How many more classroom hours could you possibly cram into their schedule?

mellowskipper said:My daughter is in 8th grade now, and after five years of constant math teacher substitutions, she’s currently being taught by someone who isn't technically qualified. She claims this teacher is her favorite so far, though—she’s patient, doesn't yell, offers extra help, stays late, and even runs an elective in financial literacy. It feels like she’s trying twice as hard just because she’s labeled as "unqualified."
When I look through my daughter's notebook, I don't see anything different—or any less quality—than when she had those English or math teachers before.

Well, bravo to the substitute then! You can't seriously believe that every single sub is unqualified, right? We can't just leave the quality of education up to pure luck.
(My child's experience has been the exact opposite; by some stroke of luck, they managed to navigate all those changes without any issues, though unfortunately, many of their classmates weren't so lucky.)

Dana Smith2 said:That bolded part is just unrealistic.
I agree that’s how things *should* work, but I highly doubt it’s actually like that anywhere else in the world.
I mean, even in the private sector, you don't see that kind of consistency.

We have to take this one step at a time if we ever want to get anywhere.

Let's break this down step by step: first, let's ensure kids actually have qualified teachers. I don't send my child to school just to be supervised; I send them there so they can exercise their constitutional right to an education. If the government is spending money on various reforms, it means the funds exist—so why not direct them where they actually matter?

I highly doubt that in Finland, children are being taught by unqualified people.

I really don't see the point in dragging the private sector into this conversation. We all fund the school system, from the Secretary of Education all the way down to that one underqualified teacher in the classroom.

shadowtiger0 said:Wait, isn't it true that starting this year, we aren't recognizing degrees from Canada anymore?

https://6yka.com/bih/otkrivamo-zasto...azovanja-u-bih

I haven't had a chance to dive deep into the article yet, but it feels like they might be reviewing each case on an individual basis. If that’s actually how it works, then this makes a lot more sense:
Like a firefighter's standard.

shadowtiger0 said:But then again, what are we actually supposed to do about the science teachers?

Look, I’m the first one in line to vote for giving them a raise compared to the rest of us—they’re practically an endangered species at this point. But—and it’s a big "but"—it isn't exactly a simple fix. Most of these science folks are total introverts; they have zero interest in dealing with people, let alone a room full of energetic kids.

Besides, the degree programs are brutal. Nobody goes through that kind of academic hell just to end up stuck in a classroom. It’s just the reality of the situation.

Around here, they’ve already started "importing" staff from neighboring states.

Before implementing an all-day school schedule, the government really ought to ensure that every single child has access to a qualified, dedicated teacher for every subject—and I'm not just talking about the sciences. Otherwise, we're just turning our students into pawns in various political education games.

Adam Diaz67 said:@Terry Martinez10

You went to a specialized prep school. My experience was at a pretty average high school in Chicago. Friends of mine who attended Miami or Phillips Academy have an experience much closer to yours. Those schools have such strong reputations, and they generally attract kids who are already highly motivated—often the type who were crushing science fairs and math competitions back in middle school. Basically, you get the top-tier, driven students. It’s way easier for teachers in that kind of environment too; they can actually go beyond the standard curriculum because the students want more. In those places, kids are practically competing to see who gets to join the competition teams. Back at my school, the teacher basically had to beg people to participate, even if they were talented and aced the subject—they just couldn't be bothered.

Anyway, the bottom line is that everything depends on the specific class and the teacher. You get miracles when you pair a motivated class with a motivated teacher. Take those kids from Miami, for instance—they're constantly bringing home medals from computer science olympiads. On the flip side, you have schools where it's total chaos: an alcoholic teacher who doesn't give a damn, and students who only enrolled because they didn't qualify anywhere else. That's the other extreme. Then there's the middle ground, where the distribution of teachers and students follows a Gauss curve. But honestly, if you don't have any real disciplinary measures in place, even one or two problematic kids can totally ruin the lesson for the other 25 or 30 people in the room.

That’s why it’s worth commuting for some schools, while for others, it’s just not worth the trip.

northerntiger9 said:See, this is exactly why I wanted to hear from moms in Chicago—to see if things have actually changed here or if it's still the same old story. Because honestly? There isn’t much of a real STEM choice in our school system. You either go the math and science magnet route, or you pick one of those vocational schools that looks great on paper but was a nightmare in my day. Back then, those places were filled with unruly kids, almost exclusively male, with zero extracurriculars to speak of. Most teachers avoided them because the behavior was so bad you could barely get through the bare minimum. So, unless there's been some massive overhaul lately, there really isn't an option for a bright STEM kid who doesn't want the traditional prep school vibe. 🤷 Please, tell me it's better now. 😬

I can't speak for what's happening in Seattle, 63 miles but the local vocational school nearby isn't actually a bad place depending on the specific program; most graduates come out feeling pretty satisfied. The real issue is the shortage of qualified teachers, though I suspect that's less of an issue in Seattle given how many people study math, physics, and electrical engineering locally.
But aren't prep schools facing the same struggle? Kids who excel in academic competitions usually end up studying on their own or finding mentors outside of the school system anyway.

If you take a look at the school's website, you'll notice they actually have a decent number of girls enrolled.

nimblelynx7 said:For those complete idiots, anything that isn't a prep school—and even some of the "non-elite" ones—is just a school for losers. Luckily, people like that are rare.
The slightly more realistic crowd? To them, any three-year vocational program is basically a dead end.

Losers?

It's pretty easy to slap a label like that on a 14 or 15-year-old kid who just wants to pursue a career that doesn't fit some narrow, middle-class definition of a "respectable" job.

A talented chef, a skilled carpenter, or a great barber... these aren't just hardworking people. They’re intelligent, creative, and honestly, they often possess qualities that set them far above the average American.

feralmoose32 said:Does character actually come from how we're raised—you know, that whole "nurture" debate we all grew up hearing about in school—or is there something deeper... something baked in from the start? I’ve been sitting here thinking about it—maybe while staring at my coffee—and it really makes you wonder where that core essence comes from... whether it's the lessons our parents drilled into us during those long Sunday dinners or if we're just born with a certain set of blueprints already laid out... it’s such a fascinating, swirling question... 🍿

I honestly don't know how many years—and how much sheer effort—I’ve poured into trying to cultivate a genuine love for reading in my child... I mean, I really went all out, didn't I? We bought every single book that caught their eye, from those glossy picture books to the big hardcover adventures—anything and everything that seemed even remotely interesting... but it feels like such a lost cause at this point. It's just... well, they read what they absolutely have to for school, and then they're done. Just completely finished...

I still don't see how there's any real connection between reading habits and someone's actual character.

But you know, the fact that they tackle the required reading shows a sense of responsibility, which is really a reflection of how they were raised. 😏. Kids find fulfillment through all sorts of other activities; they figure out what they enjoy while still handling their obligations. When the spark for reading eventually hits, it'll hit.

Then again, you have kids like mine who stick strictly to school assignments and fantasy novels. I'm not exactly thrilled about those choices, but at the end of the day, it's their choice to make. Maybe they'll grow out of it one day.

Ethan Mitchell4 said:In my entire life, nobody ever bought a single book for me; I've bought about 300 of them myself. I’ve loved reading since I was a kid, practically inseparable from a book. I have a sister who's a year older than me, and she wouldn't even touch a newspaper. Out of my cousin's two daughters, there's a two-year age gap; one stays far away from books, while the other is actually studying to be a librarian (that's the term, right?).
It's not an issue of parenting; it's a matter of temperament.

Someone mentioned something earlier regarding after-school programs. In those programs, they don't really focus on reading or working through school assignments. In fact, it's actually recommended that we handle things like English homework at home with our kids instead of leaving it to the staff at the center.

But doesn't character actually stem from one's upbringing? So, logically, it does have everything to do with how they were raised.

Nancy Howard4 said:Sure, but you’d need some serious guts to pull that off, and if the King of England could just declare himself Pope just so he could get a new wife, then I guess we can try asking for a "new" contract too.
You really don't realize how much influence Vatican City has over the economy and the whole European Union, especially since about 48% of the EU is Roman Catholic, so👎

The real issue here is the lack of transparency regarding what kind of capital the Vatican actually controls. And we know how that kind of money works—it devours its own children and then moves on to consume everyone else.

At the end of the day, I’m in favor of tearing up The Contract entirely, not just the specific parts concerning religious education in public schools.
There are so many other subtle details to consider: those scholarships bishops hand out to students, or the free student housing... all of it is subsidized by our tax dollars (which they basically take from us in the first place).

Scott Booth

Susan James said:You mentioned you had to explain math to your kid because the teacher was absent... well, other parents end up doing the teaching because teachers are constantly rotating, which messes with the teaching strategies and leaves kids needing extra help. Others have to step in because a professor doesn't grade homework, causing kids to lose their footing, or because the classroom has turned into a free-for-all where they just work in small groups and hope kids "independently explore" via the new standards.

Regardless of the reason, if the parent is the one doing the explaining, some kids have a safety net and others don't.
There were always parents who helped their kids, but back then, it was mostly limited to those stuck with a bad teacher. Now, the need has expanded because the reforms have essentially "narrowed the workspace" for the professionals.
Then there’s the group of parents who were super involved from day one—they encouraged their kids, studied alongside them, summarized the lessons, and quizzed them, regardless of how good the teacher was.
Under these new reforms, where teachers split the class into groups for self-directed learning, it's the parent who ends up re-explaining the colorful textbook at home and simplifying the concepts... which is supposed to be the teacher's job in the classroom.

By the way, at my old high school, there used to be mandatory tutoring for "struggling" students, and if you skipped, it counted as an unexcused absence. It was strictly for those who needed it, led by the teacher. Nowadays, from what I hear, you can't get an unexcused absence for skipping tutoring, and nobody calls out kids publicly for needing extra help, so you often see just one or two students show up from a whole group of six classes...
I don't see anything wrong with "stronger" students helping out the ones who are struggling. Aside from reinforcing what they already know, it builds camaraderie and improves social bonds. I’ve had great experiences with it, both as the student being helped and the one doing the teaching. 🤷
What would be ideal is for this to be the foundation for that "inquiry-based learning" and group work, but... for a teacher to pull that off, they first need to lecture the material, ensure everyone understands the facts, and *then* assign a small research project as a way to review or build upon the lesson.
But from what I hear from the kids, that’s not really how it works; usually, it's the exact opposite.

Actually, the kids tell me that math is still taught in class through traditional lectures and explanations. So, wherever there is an actual teacher present, it shouldn't be a problem (especially if it's the same teacher year after year). The real issue is the "online, do-it-yourself" culture, which is apparently a force of nature 🤣 🤔, involving not just the kids but parents and even neighbors too.

That’s really the core of the issue: we just don't have enough professors. There's a massive shortage, and to make matters worse, you have to wonder if some of them are even qualified for the roles they hold.

You can't expect any kind of meaningful reform to take hold without having high-quality professionals in place first. We're essentially spinning our wheels while our kids graduate more unprepared and less literate than ever. Isn't that just creating the perfect breeding ground for conspiracy theories and populist fringe parties?

If anyone in power in this country actually cared about fostering an independent-thinking citizenry, they would have made teaching a prestigious career path ages ago. It wouldn't be rocket science—just a decent, livable salary that reflects the importance of the job.

It doesn't even have to look like it does in Finland; just look at what they're doing over in Germany: https://www.nytimes.com/example-link-about-salaries
An elementary school teacher making $4,800 a month
A high school professor pulling in $6,000 a month

mellowskipper said:It’s funny—it only really hit me this year—but apparently, since elementary school, students have always been pushed toward competitions in just about every subject. There are heaps of kids involved. It’s basically a race for extra credit points.
The PE teacher, for instance, is obsessed with two specific sports and drags kids off to various school athletic meets, but beyond that, there's zero effort.
I guess you have to wonder if those teachers running the prep and the actual competitions get some kind of stipend or extra pay—I assume they do, though—since it's technically extra work that isn't strictly required by their contract.

But why would anyone care about chasing extra credit?
When my child signed up for a recent competition, I asked what the point was, and they gave me such a lovely answer: "What's wrong with learning something extra?"
Plus, those points are incredibly hard to come by. Only about twenty students nationwide actually make it to the national level, and it’s usually the same group of kids over and over. I have a feeling those kids aren't exactly being handed straight A's for free, either. 😏

Where we live, out in the suburbs, you don't really find elementary schools offering Latin or Greek. I would love to enroll my child in a program like that; there's something so wonderful about studying things that might seem "useless" right now. They'll have plenty of time to specialize later when they're older and can do anything they want. Specializing so early in life doesn't seem to make much sense to me—you might become great at one thing, but you risk being limited to just that.

Anyway, I guess I've officially come out of the closet on this one. 😃

I haven't heard a single word about that, though I suppose it wouldn't be surprising at all...

Word on the street is they’re planning to merge the math level for high school graduation exams in about two years.

It’s going to be a grueling stretch: trying to stay focused for five straight days while tackling six out of seven final exams for high school entrance prep.
The one silver lining? They really only need to nail just one of those tests to make it happen.

nimblelynx7 said:There are as many career paths as you want. Salesperson, waiter, tailor...

One interesting point. A guy I know wanted to start his own photography business, but he couldn't pull it off because he doesn't have a degree in photography—he’s got an Electrical Engineering degree instead. Even his high school was technical.

How else should one view emigration? If not like this? I'm not happy here; I'm going where things will be better. All that nonsense about "home" and "motherland" is for the patriots. It's easy to talk about patriotism when you aren't facing major problems.

And what's the alternative?

Schools? Is there any real damage? You think they'll miss anything vital? The geography of Kazakhstan, an alphabetical list of those fallen at Thermopylae, the reproduction cycles of Precambrian plants...?
Friends are fine, but they aren't the ones feeding their children, nor can you live off them.

What else? We can baby ourselves by calling it an "investment" or whatever, but the return is uncertain and highly questionable.

Maybe we shouldn't even bother sending kids to school. I mean, why would they need an education if all they're going to do is play soccer or clean vacation rentals?
They don't even need to grasp what they read or hear; it's much easier to pull the strings when people aren't thinking critically. Isn't that just the kind of society we're aiming for here?

https://www.collegeboard.org/students/apply-to-colleges/preparing-for-college/health-and-wellness/

Have you tried reaching out to the school nurse's office yet?

rowdypanther12 said:I’m already starting to feel a little slow sometimes, especially when my daughter shows me something she’s programmed or gets all excited about how her math teacher explained a concept in such a simple, clear way. 😂
Honestly, I can't make heads or tails of it either. It might as well be written in code. 😵
Not again—she’s just totally off base. Looking back at everything she’s said about where she wants to start her career, it's never been anything like a solid foundation in science or even a basic starting point.
Sure, maybe it'll round up to an 8, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen just yet.

Is the math program different?
Does hitting an A on the SAT require extra effort, or will I need to make up for it later once I'm actually in college?

You probably won't notice much difference during testing, but you might feel it later on in university. Under the new curriculum, they've lightened the load for the general track quite a bit, though I honestly wonder if that's a good move for long-term preparedness. There have been plenty of changes across other subjects too, but the thing is, not every teacher sticks to the specific (and now somewhat narrowed) guidelines provided. My son started to view his grumpy teacher a little more favorably after a substitute stepped in for a few hours and actually followed the textbook.

Michelle Nelson4 said:It isn’t even really about whether they mastered matrices or not; it’s more that I get the impression the conceptual way they approach math in those schools is just fundamentally different. Most people here seem to think that doing math—or physics, for that matter—is just a matter of plugging numbers into a formula and memorizing multiplication tables to get the answer. Not everyone thinks that way, of course, but certainly many do.

X

It’s not just a matter of how many hours they spend in class; the textbooks and the entire curriculum are built differently too.
None of this is permanent or impossible to fix—it just takes a bit of extra work.

One thing a lot of kids don't realize, which could actually make picking a "harder" school less intimidating, is that there is an option to switch schools or change tracks during freshman or sophomore year. Of course, there are certain requirements to meet. At fourteen, these kids are still just kids, and they should have the room to make mistakes.