Posts by Paul Davis2

Scott Booth said: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.

Those kinds of excellence centers are already active in about 10 to 15 states.

Sarah Hall53 said:Do you realize this thing kicks in this September, yet the task force for the new curriculum didn't even get assembled until last month?
Yeah, they’re calling it a four-year pilot program—if you can even call it that—but honestly, it feels like they’re just scrambling to pull everything together at the very last second.

The pilot is only hitting about 50 schools—fingers crossed yours isn't one of them.

Jose Wells3 said:Even now, ninety percent of them can point out the USA on a map without breaking a sweat. They aren't exactly losing sleep over the fear that a classmate might take out half the class and the teacher mid-lesson.

So, they get their stay until age ten—some even make it through fifth grade. After that? We don't need them. Those who have actually seen a street fighter in action understand exactly what these kids are capable of.

Great. Our system is flawless, our teachers are the best in the world, and our kids have everything they could ever need. They go on to be massive successes later in life, and everyone globally wants a piece of them.

In these attempts at reform, things are being done backward on purpose—they ask the people who know nothing and ignore those who actually do. Everything is rushed, even when someone suggests a four-year pilot program before full implementation. It’s a lose-lose: they hate the experiment, yet they hate it if you don't run one. They should be consulting the faculty lounge—but of course, not the whole room, just the select few who "know." But how do you identify who knows, and how do you stop the others from labeling the experts as the ones who don't?

Sarah Hall53 said:Under American family law, preschool-aged kids aren't allowed to be left unsupervised. But once a kid actually starts school? There isn't really any restriction in place, so there's basically no reason for anyone to even bother checking in on them.

No, it's absolutely brilliant here. You've got seven-year-olds left totally unsupervised in high-rise apartments on the seventh floor—just hanging out home alone for hours on end. Perfection.
Oh, wait—I forgot. We're genetically gifted, aren't we? These kids spend their solo time being incredibly productive—drawing, reading, teaching themselves an instrument, maybe even brushing up on a second or third language.

nimblelynx7 said:Those state laws aren't a benchmark for anything, let alone for how we raise our kids.

Under our family law, you can't just leave a preschooler unsupervised.

That’s five points, but hey, it's just your take. The U.S. Attorney General for children has actually flagged this as a major concern lately—there have been countless articles over the last few years where she's specifically questioned about this exact issue.

nimblelynx7 said:First point. Who is making this claim? Or better yet, where is it actually written down?

In the USA, it’s all in the laws—and since every state does its own thing, it varies wildly; some have a floor of 14, while others go as low as 9.
Over in the United Kingdom, the legal age is 12.
Just a quick rundown—I didn't dig through the other places just this second.
As for our own traditions, we know how it works—nobody's going to come knocking on your door to check up on you unless something actually catches fire.

Jose Wells3 said:Oh, sure, let’s just go ahead and say we need to poll the kids on absolutely everything now.

Fine. Let’s give them the CliffNotes version of the policy, let them skim through it, and then ask for their "feedback"—just like they’re supposed to do with us teachers.

Do they even have a right to an opinion in this?

They’ll have a four-year window to voice opinions and make changes. So, what we're looking at is essentially a four-year rollout starting from an initial framework.

Jose Wells3 said:Yes, he does. But he hasn't actually stepped foot in a school in those twenty years.

Does anyone at the SEC actually have any firsthand experience working in a school—or are they just hiring wide-eyed idealists?

Drew Johnson2 said:Out of the 29 elementary schools in the district, seven are running on a single shift, twenty are split between two, and two are struggling through three... It’s a logistical nightmare. On top of that, eight of these schools don't even have a proper gymnasium, and only nine actually have the facilities to serve hot meals. So, if we're being realistic about implementing this absurdly ambitious plan, they'd essentially be cramming sixty students into a single classroom, cutting out lunch entirely, and scrapping physical education altogether... though, let's be honest, nothing of substance will ever actually come of this nonsense.

At this point, it’s probably best to just pull the plug and return the funds—pretty much how it goes with other EU grants. It’s easier to just keep repeating that it can't be done.

Susan James said:The Department of Education handled the coverage.
One meal is free.

The reality is that many schools don't have cafeteria space large enough for all the kids to eat at once, they're short on kitchen staff, and honestly, they probably can't source quality food for just a couple of dollars per kid like a standard lunch costs.

Those are the real issues the Department of the Treasury needs to tackle first.
The first two points are actually huge for full-day programs, because then kids aren't just eating one lunch; they're eating three meals. Three!
And where are they even supposed to sit while they eat?

I haven't a clue—they've got four years to figure that out.

Susan James said:The reason the percentage of self-motivated kids is so low is because more and more children are left with almost zero free time.
And if we move to an all-day school schedule, they'll have even less. They'll also lose out on the encouragement they might get from family members or mentors from other schools or local institutions they could otherwise connect with. Who can guarantee that a local neighborhood school will be able to offer a child motivation specifically tailored to their unique interests?
Pushing the whole day at one single school just doesn't make sense.
It's just as likely that instead of tripling a teacher's salary, they won't even see a double increase. They'll just end up getting crumbs while being buried under mountains of extra work.
(And don't even get me started on the pressure from parents, who—between the long school days and the push for raises—will probably start demanding nothing less than straight A's. Maybe it's better if I just stay quiet about that part!)

Everything you’re saying hits the mark. It’s hard to pin down what works best for every individual student. I don't think the all-day model is a one-size-fits-all solution, but at least it needs to exist as an option within the system framework.

Hagley:
I looked up the superintendent—psychologist, twenty years of academic research in education. On paper, the resume is solid. So why him instead of someone else? Honestly, it likely boils down to politics. Just like previous reforms, they tend to promote whoever fits the current political agenda.

Susan James said:And even with those 23 schools, they haven't managed to guarantee free lunch for everyone in just these last three months. If they can't pull that off, how are they ever going to manage anything else?

I’m curious here—how is this even allowed by the local government in Washington, D.C., or the Department of State? Back in my home state, coverage is guaranteed for everyone.

Susan James said:And that encouraging environment is outside of school.
For these kids, an all-day school schedule will actually strip away their chance to be in those stimulating environments.
No mediocre, unmotivated teacher—even if you're paying them—can ever replace the extracurricular activities that parents pay for or find ways to provide during a child's free time.
That's just the reality of it.

I think people would be surprised by how many kids spend their free time at home programming just for fun, studying chess, teaching themselves an instrument (especially if they didn't make the cut at music school), practicing, or painting... Not every kid is glued to TikTok; some are genuinely creative and use their downtime to build skills. This "reform" is going to take that precious time away from them.

True, we need to raise teacher salaries so they aren't underpaid—that's the foundation.

But honestly, I wouldn't be surprised—I have kids nearby (both mine and others') and I know a thing or two about developmental psychology—that the percentage of kids who act purely on self-initiative is low. It always has been, and it always will be.

I actually like your paragraph—it's how I used to imagine my "ideal" child. My own kids are exactly like that—maybe twenty minutes a day of focused effort.😁

Jose Wells3 said:I never said things should stay exactly as they are. On the contrary, I offered suggestions. But you snapped at me simply because I dared to suggest we need early screening in our admissions process and more diverse offerings tailored to student interests.

I’m advocating for private offices in schools and an eight-hour workday with some remote work options. I’m advocating for easier ways to let go of poor teachers, external evaluations, streamlined workloads, better school equipment, and free field trips for kids. But not like this. Not by hiking up contact hours while keeping stipends miserable. And certainly not by forcing an eight-hour day on children, locking them in schools, or treating them with such distrust.

And honestly, forgive me, but times haven't changed so much that a first-grader can't be home alone. We have after-school programs; maybe they should just extend them until fifth grade and actually make them better. I didn't need them, nor did I need a sitter. My kids were perfectly fine. In fact, they were much better off than kids who are constantly under supervision—they are incredibly independent and handle their responsibilities without issue. We don't live in Brooklyn. We live in a country where kids play freely at the local parks starting from preschool.

Prasica can't—and shouldn't—be left home alone from 10:30 to 4:00, five days a week. It doesn't matter where you are—not in Brooklyn, not in the Bronx, nowhere.

Susan James said:That same Europe, especially Northern Europe, has been graciously welcoming our workers for decades—everyone from ITech professionals and doctors to plumbers... it’s funny how they’re now offering us huge amounts of money to basically dumb down our own children so that neither we nor they have enough workers left.

What I really want to know is how, despite such short school hours, our kids manage to achieve top-tier results at international Olympiads. How is it that they enroll in and graduate from universities across Europe, and then, if they decide to move abroad, receive job offers that include not just great salaries, but often paid housing and language training for the whole family? How does that happen? Who was responsible for educating all those people?

Some people hit their stride because they’re in an environment that actually pushes them—while others just don't. It comes down to the setting. We have a great work ethic here, largely because we share more cultural DNA with Northern Europe than, say, folks from the Middle East or the Far East. It's really that simple.

For two decades now, our scores on the OECD tests have been sliding further and further below the average. Is that because we’re all geniuses with a flawless system? Not exactly.

Jose Wells3 said:The system always finds ways to help low-income families. Working in an impoverished area, I can tell you firsthand that nobody gets left behind; we try everything to give these kids a chance. We also work much more closely with parents, who often find themselves in poverty due to alcoholism, lack of education, or other factors that aren't always about unfairness, but rather a refusal to put in the work to change.

And now these kids stay in extra tutoring sessions until they're 14 or 15. The results? Well, they are what they are. At home, they have people telling them school doesn't matter because they won't need it anyway. They can't see their own living conditions clearly because they blame "the system" instead of looking at how they're sabotaging themselves.

I was a poor kid too, raised in a household of Worker's FC supporters and Social Democratic Party voters. No one could help me back then. I had to educate my way out of poverty. If I had been stuck in an all-day school schedule, I would have lost it—even with the abuse I dealt with at home. That’s why I threw myself into endless activities, picking my own path and choosing people I actually wanted to be around, rather than being trapped with the same crowd every day.

If someone tried to shove me into a standard high school classroom from age eight to fifteen, I’d probably lose my mind. I barely survived that schedule myself. I was constantly raising my hand because I couldn't stand listening to those idiots or hanging out with the popular cliques all damn day.

In one of my classes right now, I have four kids who are absolutely miserable because of the social dynamic. And there is nothing you can do. These kids are afraid to speak up in front of their peers because they hold different views. You can try to protect them, set an example, or crush the bullies, but eventually, they have to leave that school and go back into their own environment. And you won't be there. It’s hard for them now; imagine if they were stuck in an institution longer. They’ll lose that precious time when they should be free to be themselves—to retreat to their own little corner, hop on a call with like-minded friends, lie in a room, listen to music, read in peace, or practice an instrument to get better. Then there's my group of kids who actually love volunteering. Every single day they're at the community center, playing sports, finding themselves.

Did any of you ever play an instrument? Were you actually good? Did you compete? I was. I honestly don't know how I would have integrated that into this kind of rigid education. Where would I have tucked myself away as a child, or a teenager? Forgive me, but if I had been... well, busy with my private life...

And are you even aware of the benefits of boredom? Of having zero pressure?

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.

shadowtiger0 said:The funds exist, sure. But the real question—the one that actually matters—is whether that money actually ends up where it's supposed to go.

I really, truly hope it does.

I’m hoping for the same thing. I’d love to see infrastructure upgrades in every school across the US and a real shift in how teachers actually work day-to-day.
In my opinion, this document won't pass exactly as it's currently written, but we'll likely see some version of these ideas take shape over the next four or five years.

wanderingbadger77 said:There’s no way you can leave kids in these kinds of sanitary conditions all day long.
The school doesn't even have soap or paper towels, and don't even get me started on the showers—they're basically non-existent.
Wipes, cooks, teaching assistants... whatever else they need... who's actually going to foot the bill for all that?🍿>
Who's gonna cough up the cash?

Look, the money is there—otherwise, none of this would be happening in the first place. The initial move was providing free meals, which happened almost overnight across the board. It’s not a hot meal everywhere yet, but it’s a start. My kids don't get a hot lunch at school, just a snack, but honestly, that's a huge step up from nothing—especially for families struggling to make ends meet. Even for us, where I handle their snacks myself, having this extra support over the last two months has been a genuine relief.

Susan James said:Come on, give me the details! I can tell you're really into this, especially since you're such a die-hard fan of the all-day marathon sessions.

So, picture this: you’re looking at a school with about 350 students total, where each grade level is split into just two classes. It’s that kind of size where everyone pretty much knows everyone else in the halls.
How many teachers (and which specific subjects) and how many classrooms would we need to maintain an A2 level program?
When you look at a typical classroom here in the States, you really see the full spectrum of how kids develop. It’s actually quite fascinating to observe. You’ll often find those gifted students who seem to have this incredible, almost intuitive grasp of things—but "giftedness" isn't just one single thing. Some kids are absolute naturals with numbers, while others might be incredibly creative or possess a level of emotional intelligence that's way beyond their years. At the same time, you'll likely have a student in that same room who struggles a bit more with traditional learning. I remember back when my nephew was in elementary school; he was such a bright kid, but sitting still for math drills was a constant battle for him. He wasn't lacking intelligence, he just processed information differently. It's a delicate balance for any teacher, trying to nurture those high-flyers while making sure the students who are finding things a little tougher don't get left behind. Every kid brings their own unique rhythm to the classroom.

And yeah, if A2 is really just for the gifted students, when exactly are the average kids supposed to get time to practice everything they learned during the morning shift? 🤔

Honestly, it might be easier to just leave things as they are and let the gifted kids study on their phones at home.
Kids can be brilliant in one subject and lag behind in another at the exact same time.

The ones who need extra practice can do it in A2—and those who need even more intensive, specialized work can join groups with others who require that same level of depth. It's basically how things work everywhere else.

Scott Booth said: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...

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.