Posts by Karen Richardson3

Sarah Hall53 said:Look, speaking from my experience as a teacher—and I say this with all due respect to both sides—I’m really against pushing school start dates back for no reason, but I’m just as much against rushing kids into enrollment earlier than they're ready.
You can actually see the fallout when they hit 7th grade and hit the wall with science classes like physics and chemistry. At twelve years old, most kids haven't quite developed that capacity for abstract thinking that these subjects demand—mostly because that cognitive leap usually doesn't happen until they're around thirteen. So, you end up making everything unnecessarily difficult for them, turning what should be learning into a total nightmare of frustration and "why am I even doing this?!" moments.

If we define "pushing kids into school" as anything that goes against what professional educators recommend, then yeah, count me in as an opponent of that. I actually know someone where the struggles started way back in the first grade.

But honestly, I think your whole argument misses the mark entirely, and there isn't any actual research out there to back you up. If that were true, the top students in every class would naturally be the oldest ones, but that's just not how it works in reality. It wasn't like that over 20 years ago when I was in Elementary School and high school either—I was right on the edge of the age cutoff, and while some kids were younger than me, the ones who crushed it in Elementary School moved on to prep school, and even the youngest kids in those advanced tracks were absolutely killing it, just like some of the older kids. There was no correlation; some of the youngest and oldest were at the bottom of the class, too. Even looking at my son's class now, he's the top student and he's one of the youngest, followed by a kid who is exactly a year older, and after that, it's just completely random. There's zero connection between their birth month or whether they started school at 6 and 4 months versus 6 and a half.

By that same logic, I could probably make a wild claim that parents who push for a later start date are basically inviting puberty to hit in 5th grade, causing kids to lose that childhood drive to learn and respect authority, which leads to grades tanking.

To me, it feels like a total reach to suggest that American schools are full of kids struggling in certain subjects simply because their parents missed the window to enroll them earlier.
The truth is more mundane: average kids tend to get average grades. If they're failing English, it's usually because they aren't reading enough, and if they're struggling with math or chemistry, it's often because they just don't have the aptitude for those specific disciplines.

Susan James said:A lot of things aren't comparable to how they were in the last century (man, that sounds dramatic, doesn't it? 😂)
We used to apply to two different schools—one with our original documents and one with copies—and you just went wherever you got accepted. If you got into the one where you sent copies, you'd spend the whole day running around trying to find your originals to hand them in to the school that actually took you.
You could actually get in without hitting the maximum possible score; there was no oversight from the IRS or anything like that. I remember us standing OURSELVES in line outside the school building just to turn in our paperwork. Nowadays, I see parents heading off to college campuses with their kids during enrollment 🤦
(And they watch the high school admissions happen in real-time online, watching the little cursor move during the digital enrollment process, all while dealing with everyone's opinions on which school the kid should attend. For instance, back in middle school, my teachers basically told me exactly where I should go, even though by my freshman year, I realized how much they had steered us wrong. By the time I got to college, I was certain they hadn't been very accurate. Still, I wouldn't be who I am today if they hadn't made those mistakes 🤣)

Honestly, the biggest shock to me is how intensely parents obsess over high school placement these days—it’s nothing like when we were just debating which school was slightly better a few years back 😁

Were your parents like that? Mine both had college degrees and they really wanted me to take over the family business, but when it came to school, their attitude was basically "just do well or you won't have any options." As for high school, my mom wanted me to go to the one closest to home, but I picked one further away because there was this guy I liked (and maybe a little bit to spite her too 😁 just like with college, since I didn't end up taking over the family business 🕺 ).

Regarding the school schedule, I was always a night owl (meaning I'd grind through all those assignments and studying until the early hours), so if I had an early morning class, I’d just pass out on the couch after lunch. I personally loved the afternoon shift because I could be home alone, grab a coffee, light up a cigarette, and just mope around the way you're supposed to do in high school 😁
I seriously respect anyone who manages to juggle sports on top of high school; back then, I couldn't even wrap my head around adding one more single obligation to my plate 😁

northerntiger9 said:We have the same thing in Santa Monica—though I hadn't really considered that... You're right about the Salesian one, too. I think they used to just have the classic version, but they've expanded since then.

There was a sporting event going on too, and one of my good friends actually headed out to check it out.
I don't know all the specifics, to be honest—all I know is that she probably had a baptismal certificate somewhere, though she wasn't exactly a devout believer. It was just one of those things where everyone in our family went through the motions and got baptized back in the early 90s. 😁 ).
And I also know they were at some Catholic camp where everyone just ended up getting completely trashed. 😁

rowdypanther12 said:So, just to make sure I understand: the general track has less math than the math track, and the language track has even less math?
Using basically the same curriculum and textbooks? 🤔
Does that mean they skip certain topics entirely, or do they just move through the material faster without as much repetition?

Alright, let's get this started. This is the first one.

When you look at how we actually learn stuff, it’s not really about how many times you grind through the same basic drills or repeat the same textbook pages over and over again. It’s more about the actual weight of the problems you're tackling—it's about that jump in complexity when you finally move from simple theory to those heavy-duty, multi-layered tasks that actually force your brain to work.
The kids over in the advanced math track are definitely going to be tackling much heavier lifting than the general studies or humanities kids, even if they end up covering all the same core curriculum. It’s possible they won't even hit those specific lessons until senior year, though I remember back when I was in the standard track, we still touched on basic matrices—just a really surface-level introduction, nothing too crazy.

I honestly have no clue how all this plays out with the SATs, mostly because things were a lot different back when we were in school, but if I had to take a guess, the kids in those high-level math tracks probably have the easiest time prepping. It feels like they’re basically just reviewing stuff they’ve already mastered, whereas the students in more general or liberal arts tracks might find themselves staring at problems that weren't even covered in their standard curriculum. I mean, I doubt the testing board would design it that way—otherwise, they'd basically be disqualifying everyone from vocational schools right out of the gate—so it's more likely that the math specialists are just cruising through the easier stuff while the others are playing catch-up with the advanced material.

Peter Rogers said:I don't really know anything about them, to be honest.
I have this whole emotional connection to my old school, so I can't say for sure if it actually turned out as great for everyone else as it did for me, but since most of my old classmates seem to have made it big in life, I guess they didn't exactly fail to push them to the next level.
The local community college totally caught me off guard, though; my son told me that at the info session yesterday, they mentioned their entry requirements are actually pretty low, like you could get in with just 75 points, whereas I always assumed the pool of straight-A students was way more competitive than that.
That Salesian school has always been kind of uninspiring to me, mostly because it feels like they aren't really focused on anything spiritual.
The music program has a general direction, I suppose, but personally, I think the natural sciences are way too underrepresented—it almost feels more like a liberal arts academy to me.
As for this last one, I don't think it even lasts that long.

But look, I graduated back in '99, so I'm only just now getting reacquainted with how all these enrollment options work.

Anyway, I ended up enrolling in my school mainly because the other two choices were way too far from home, and my family wasn't exactly supportive of my plans to go somewhere else since my aunt thinks she's such a genius... Oh, right.
Back in '95, I was completely in the dark about the school selection process because my parents refused to buy the local papers, so all I knew was that there were these three high schools available—including the one I wanted in Santa Barbara and that business school I absolutely hated.

Regarding that math competition, it was basically the same story back in my day too—if I'm remembering correctly, we were a few years apart and went to the same high school.
There was never really a massive rush for it, and they were usually the only ones consistently producing students who could qualify for the national level in science subjects; apparently, their top performers even used to get direct admission into MIT or some major engineering school like that (though I'm not sure if they still do that nowadays).

Actually, from what I can tell, there's always been a huge demand for general studies in Cleveland, whereas those "hardcore" math tracks usually end up with fewer students enrolled. It’s similar to how people here always flock toward the specialized vocational programs, like pharmacy or dental tech.

Peter Rogers said:The US Army school is basically a music academy that offers a general high school track with extra music classes thrown in, and that other one—I’m pretty sure they cut the name short, I can't quite recall which one—it's some kind of graphic arts and science hybrid that only takes a math-focused group of students once every generation.

Honestly, I didn't even know that existed... maybe it hasn't been around for the last 20 years? 😁

Anyway, let me correct myself there; I’d say in Cleveland, the GAM school is really the only one that stands out for math students if you look at how they perform in competitions, but the others are probably pretty much on par, though I personally have a soft spot for the one I attended. 😁

On the flip side, regarding enrollment, I heard the biggest rush this year was for the sports program over at the Cleveland school. If I remember right, they also have that specialized program taught in English, but I honestly never know what to make of those trendy new tracks—it's hard to tell if they actually deliver quality education or if it's just a massive PR stunt.
(That private high school is supposedly just a way for kids who wouldn't normally make it through a standard curriculum to buy their way into a diploma, which seems to be a common pattern with private schools here in the States.)

Peter Rogers said:Now, being someone who went through the high school system in Cleveland, I’m genuinely curious which ones you're talking about here.
In Cleveland, we've got four main high schools, plus some specialized tracks at the local university and even a program over at the US Army academy, not to mention maybe Adam's if you count the private options... honestly, am I missing any others?

I completely blanked on the Salesian school; my mind just jumped straight to the local prep academy, the Sušački one, and the Cleveland high school, so I have no clue what those acronyms you mentioned are even supposed to be.😁

rowdypanther12 said:I don't agree either, though people have made much worse choices when picking a school (myself included).😂

What I'm actually wondering about is the distinction between a "good" prep school and a "bad" one—don't they all follow the same curriculum?
And is a general college-prep track the best route for kids who excel at both languages and math but haven't figured out what they want to major in yet?

When it comes to heading off to college later on, I honestly think it doesn't matter much; you can pretty much get into any university regardless of which high school you attended.

I went the general track myself, and even though it was quite a while ago, back then the distinction worked roughly like this: the humanities tracks would take a third language, but they had way less math and physics. On the flip side, the STEM-focused students would have a much heavier load of math and physics starting in their junior year compared to us in the general track (which basically meant it was more intense for them). We had an extra history period and some other stuff I can't quite recall. It’s worth noting that in my high school, there were actually two different math tracks—one included a second language, while the other was "hardcore" math and science with a massive amount of coursework.

Nowadays, if you look at a place like Cleveland, for example, the difference is more that the math tracks focus heavily on computer science rather than just cranking up the physics.

But honestly, in my book, the general track is the way to go, mostly because I was too lazy to grind through extra languages and wasn't quite as obsessed with math (even though, say, back in middle school, I used to enter competitions and did really well—but that was mostly because my mom pushed me, and I ditched the extra math classes the second I could 😁 ).

Where we grew up in the rural parts of the country, it was simpler because we only had a handful of high schools; one was geared toward the math types, another toward the social science types (though both offered general and math options), and there was a third one that we all kind of considered inferior to the first two (though I couldn't tell you exactly why 😁 ).

In big cities, you’ve got a huge variety of schools, and they’re usually ranked by how well their students perform in academic competitions. My theory is that if the top-tier students all flock to those specific schools, the teachers tend to be more demanding, which creates a situation where anyone who gets in but struggles to keep up ends up having a really hard time.

Anyway, your little girl still has plenty of time ahead of her; hopefully, she'll figure out what she wants when the time comes.
As for me, I actually picked my high school simply because there was a boy I had a crush on going there 🙂😁

Susan James said:I was just looking back at the date on the original post (November 26, 2012)—it’s been almost ten years! It really makes me think about how prophetic this all turned out to be. 🐔

I went back and reread that whole post, and honestly, it feels like most of those changes they rolled out ended up being pretty lousy.

The way they judge overall GPA based on just two decimal points starting from fifth grade... man, that is just awful. To be fair, I didn't even realize they were doing that until my little guy came home in a total panic during fifth grade because the other kids were talking about it—you know, the kids with older siblings who had already been through the ringer at home.

And I have no clue how they managed to let sports overtake music in importance. I wasn't even aware of half the stuff you guys are mentioning, but the whole thing just seems pointless and totally misguided to me.
I mean, why would success in a sport where only a tiny handful of kids actually compete—like table tennis, for instance, how many kids are really training for that, and how deep is that league even?—be treated the same as a sport where a massive number of kids participate, like football? And why on earth would being good at table tennis, football, or horse riding carry more weight for high school admissions than going to music school or winning music competitions?

To me, it makes sense if those extra credit points are viewed specifically through the lens of whatever high school program they're trying to get into. Like, focus on the subjects that actually matter; maybe look at the GPA from seventh and eighth grade, then the entrance exam scores, and then add the specific extracurricular credits that actually align with the high school curriculum. That's all there should be to it.

hiddendriver34 said:The biggest irony here is that some students who finish with a solid B in an elective actually have a harder time getting into certain schools than a kid with the exact same grades who didn't take any electives at all and just stuck to the mandatory curriculum.

I don't have a definitive stance on the whole "extra points" debate.
On one hand, I really respect it when a kid shows genuine passion for something. I truly believe that students who go out of their way to develop diverse skills—whether that's sports or picking up a new language—should have an edge over the kids who just do the bare minimum required by the state and spend every spare second playing video games or hanging out in the woods.
On the other hand, I personally know at least two families who simply can't afford club sports, and like wanderingbadger44 mentioned, in many rural parts of the country, those kinds of programs don't even exist.
If we use those points, it basically becomes a reward for privileged kids, so I'm honestly stumped on what the right move is. 🤷

Actually, I do know the fix. Once they switch everyone to full-day schooling, let's just build an extra gym, a pool, and a music hall in every single school. Hire the staff and offer free activities tailored to whatever the kids are actually interested in. 😁

Around here, everyone basically quit the Italian language program by sixth grade. The teacher was this old, super strict lady, and since not everyone was pulling straight As, people just dropped out. Even the few kids who were actually getting As didn't want to take the risk once they hit sixth grade.

Betty Wood54 said:Well, the criteria are actually set at the state level, so you really ought to start by looking at the high school admissions policy (including all its recent amendments and updates). Specifically, you should check out Article 17.

Thanks so much!
Honestly, I totally checked out after reading Article 14, so I completely missed over this part. 😁

northerntiger9 said:To address what everyone is saying—enrolling in sports-focused tracks follows specific high school enrollment regulations, where they judge you on actual athletic achievements. Just being active in a sport isn't enough; you have to be hitting elite milestones. It might be slightly easier in a massive hub like Chicago since there’s an entire school dedicated to that kind of talent, whereas in a place like San Francisco, there are only maybe two specialized classes—one of which is at a Salesian school where you also have to meet certain religious requirements. Getting in is honestly a long shot.

And one more thing—if you actually make it into one of those programs, you have to submit proof every single year that you're still training. You can't just quit after freshman year and call it a day.

I brought this up because it’s something we’ll likely be dealing with in a few years, and most people I talk to agree that it's better to just stick with a standard high school rather than fighting for one of twenty available spots in a specialized program.

From what I gather, this year saw the biggest rush ever for that specific program at the local athletic academy.

The logic seems to be: go for a solid vocational program first, and only then consider the more traditional academic tracks.

Everything definitely feels different out here in Seattle compared to how things operate in Washington, D.C.

That said, I’m not entirely sure what their current curriculum looks like, but back when I was in high school, the sports track had this reputation for being a bit more relaxed. It was like they understood these kids were spending basically all their free time at practice, so they didn't pile on as much heavy coursework as you'd find in the other honors programs.

But honestly, what you’re saying lines up with my own research—it looks like getting into those elite sports programs really comes down to having top-tier results from national championships.
It isn't like what shtefy mentioned, where you can rack up extra credit for athletic achievements to get into a general or language-focused academy.
Maybe that's just a quirk of that one specific school, because I've been digging through the official handbook for our local academies, and I just don't see anything about that.

northerntiger9 said:Regarding sports—it’s not exactly straightforward, and honestly, this whole scoring system should just be scrapped. It has nothing to do with being an elite athlete or how hard you work—unless, of course, luck is on your side.

The way the rules work is that they only recognize competitions organized by school athletic clubs. To put it bluntly: you could train track all you want and break a national record, but if your school doesn't have a coach willing to send you to the state qualifiers, you might as well be barking at the moon. On top of that, some sports only offer team events rather than individual ones, which means besides having a coach, you also need a handful of teammates who are actually good enough to win something that counts toward points.

Take our school, for instance—we have several kids who are national champions in their respective sports, yet the only ones sent to school competitions are the table tennis players or the soccer team. 😬

Actual club competitions are only considered for admission into specialized sports academies, and even then, you have to be highly ranked in the season standings with national-level success just to get a look-in. And because of the pandemic, it's been a mess for certain sports since competitions were canceled entirely—leaving them with zero results to show for it—while other sports managed to keep going.

So... yeah.

Edit: I see only one comment above, so let me clarify once more—kids who compete in state-organized events through official bodies (like US Ski & Snowboard, United States Tennis Association, USA Track & Field, etc.) do NOT receive any points.

It feels like they’re just trying to prevent a total free-for-all where hundreds of random little leagues could start hosting their own tournaments and claiming points, regardless of how many kids actually show up.

That’s my gut feeling anyway, because my little one participates in these niche subject-based competitions within a single league—which doesn't count for anything—but then goes to the standard city, county, or national meets where you actually rack up the credits.

Susan James said:I personally feel there should be a way to value extra achievements and competitions, regardless of who organizes them or where they take place.
I'm no expert here, but I truly believe that kids who excel in these competitions won't view the entrance testing for their dream schools as a source of stress...

Using table tennis scores or school swimming meets (especially in schools without a pool!) as criteria for getting into a specialized language academy just doesn't make sense. For a language academy, it would be much more logical to test proficiency in two foreign languages or offer bonus points for studying both at school or through a language institute—essentially giving priority to students who have mastered both at an advanced level.
for example...

I'm sorry to see the points increasing from 5 to 10, though I suppose it's something.
I'm still against a standardized national exit exam; I think individual school admissions are much more objective and tailored to the student than a "one size fits all" national test.
plus, schools can still choose not to hold entrance exams at all.
And I'm sure we'll still see plenty of schools doing exactly that.

I'm not super deep into the whole high school admissions thing yet since my kid is only in 6th grade, but where are you guys finding these specific enrollment regulations that say national sports achievements earn points for every single school?

I managed to find the guidelines for enrolling in a language academy, which says they only count national competitions in a few subjects relevant to the curriculum, and I also dug up the high school enrollment regulations, which include a section on "Evaluating Success for Athlete Enrollment."

It's a bummer that it's only bumping up from 5 to 10 points right now, but hey, I guess it's something.
I'm still against the idea of a standardized national exam; I honestly think individual school entrance exams are much more objective and tailored to the student than some one-size-fits-all national test.
Plus, schools can still choose not to hold entrance exams at all,
and I'm pretty sure we'll still see plenty of those types of schools.

Honestly, I don't even know what to think anymore. Everything depends so heavily on the specific teachers working with them, and it seems like some people have all this freedom to just be lazy or play favorites, and as a society, we always seem to find some loophole or way to cheat the system. It makes me feel like there's really no way our education system is ever going to actually get better.

Sarah Hall53 said:First off, we really need to clear up the terminology here:
An IEP is an Individualized Education Program—you know, the stuff we do to make sure these kids actually succeed.
A 504 plan is an accommodation plan. Those are strictly limited to three students per classroom, regardless of how big the total class size is.

Now, 28 students is basically the absolute maximum number allowed in any standard American classroom.
Technically, for every student with a 504 plan, the total headcount in the room should drop by two. So, a class with one 504 student shouldn't exceed 26 kids, two 504s means a max of 24, and three 504s means the class cap hits 21.
But with IEPs? They can just cram in as many as they want because they play these little legal games to get around the rules. ☕

Look, I totally get the terminology myself, but there’s clearly some major misinformation floating around among the parents lately. People are out here acting like there's a strict limit on how much Intellectual Property we can handle, and they're actually using that flawed logic to try and justify how the classes are being split up.

mellowskipper said:That’s exactly how we were planning to handle enrollments, but now I'm being warned that if we do that, a whole bunch of kids with IEPs might miss out entirely since there's a cap on how many IEP students can be in one classroom, so apparently it's "safer" to stick to the standard enrollment process.

I was thinking about high school, though—is it true that the limit is 3 per class?

Sent from my JNY-LX1 using Reddit

I'm actually drafting this for the primary level, and honestly, it looks like that’s also based on some totally wrong info.

I didn't even realize there was some kind of advantage to being an IP holder, so honestly, I feel like I've just been wasting my time reading all this stuff for nothing.

So, how does this actually play out in the long run? They basically just funnel them through elementary school, high school, and maybe even through college, but once they finally land a real job, are they still stuck working strictly within the boundaries of their Intellectual Property, or does the whole setup change once they're out in the professional world? 😁

Jason Ortiz5 said:Does it actually make any sense to count points from sports competitions when you're applying for, say, a language school, a medical program, or just any high school that isn't sports-focused?

In our school system, I once saw a student get top priority for enrollment basically just because they crushed it at a national table tennis tournament. Like, are you kidding me? 🤦 How on earth does being good at ping pong qualify someone for a STEM academy? Or a web design track?

I mean, I honestly find it hard to believe that someone could be such a total underachiever in the classroom that they’d actually manage to coast their way into a top-tier school just by killing it at a sports competition. It feels like a bit of a stretch, you know? Like, even if you're an absolute superstar on the field or the court, most of those elite institutions still want to see that you aren't completely slacking off when it comes to your actual studies.
So, I was just sitting here thinking about how everyone wants to know if that government sports scholarship actually guarantees you a spot in the university. It’s kind of like asking if having a star quarterback on your high school roster means he’s automatically getting drafted by the Dallas Cowboys—it sounds like a sure thing on paper, but the reality is usually way more complicated than that. Even with all those athletic credentials and the backing from the state, there's still a whole mountain of academic requirements and admissions hoops to jump through before you're officially in. It’s definitely not a "get out of jail free" card for enrollment.

I’m not entirely sure how the scoring system works—I know we’ve touched on this before—but there are certain big national meets where you can earn a direct ticket into specific elite prep schools. Right now, points are awarded for placing at the national level, but they don't seem to value any of the regional or local circuit placements at all. In my opinion, that feels like a massive missed opportunity; I mean, why wouldn't grabbing a top three spot in a major regional tournament carry some kind of weight toward your ranking? It just seems like a waste to let those podium finishes go unrewarded.

I honestly don't see any issue with giving kids an extra edge if they manage to grind their way all the way to a national championship, especially if they’re also killing it in the classroom. It feels like we should be rewarding that kind of discipline. But then again, looking at how much time goes into prepping for that level of success in just about any field, you realize how much effort is actually being poured into those achievements behind the scenes.

Honestly, my biggest hang-up here is this whole concept of Intellectual Property, because I can't wrap my head around what that actually entails in practice—especially when you consider why my kid isn't being included in that conversation. And look, I don't mean that in the sense of someone struggling with a disability or anything like that; it’s more about the fact that they should have been getting way more guidance and resources from their school than what was actually provided.
It’s basically half the time spent just killing time, and the other half realizing that if you actually put in even a tiny bit of effort, you can pull off some seriously impressive results.
At the end of the day, if I’m being totally blunt about it, society would probably get way more value out of his Intellectual Property than anyone else would, 😁

Sarah Hall53 said:Nope, you can't find it anywhere on the transcript anymore—some genius decided that issuing a transcript that looks different from the standard ones constitutes discrimination.

Well, that must have been one massive classroom if they had to split it just because of four students with an IEP.
Actually, any class with four students needing special accommodations should be split—but I'm telling you from firsthand experience, they just cold-shoulder the whole thing. Now I'm working in a classroom with four students needing special accommodations and two with an IEP. I'm sitting there during study hall just staring at a wall, honestly losing track of who gets which worksheet, and all this for a measly $3.25 hourly wage. 👋
Man, those four kids, plus a few others in different classes, could easily have their own specialized unit, but I guess this way is just cheaper. ☕

I mean, I’m not really sure what qualifies as a "huge" class these days; back in the day, we had 28 kids in one room, but now they just split them into two groups of 14.

But look, if you're saying it's not true that there should only be three students with IEPs per class, then honestly, I haven't got a clue how they ended up splitting ours specifically—all I know is the version of the story that started circulating among us parents.

mellowskipper said:Wait, did I read somewhere that they're enrolling three different IEPs per classroom now?

Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Reddit

If you're talking about elementary school, I'm pretty sure the standard is three per grade, though in my kid's class, there were actually four.
(Just a side note here—one student in that group has a specific diagnosis that makes schooling a bit more complicated, plus their family has some serious pull, so it feels like they're basically being handed high grades through Intel accommodations, which the other kids have been noticing since first grade.
The other three kids in that group struggle a bit more academically, and since they don't have that kind of family influence backing them up, their grades are honestly pretty low compared to the others. 😁 )

The reason I say there were four is because it was one of those massive classes where a bunch of rowdy kids were just causing total mayhem. Eventually, having four kids with Intel accommodations became the perfect excuse for the administration to finally split the class into two smaller groups—it’s much easier for them to justify a split by saying "we can't manage this many special needs students at once" rather than just admitting they couldn't handle the chaos. 😁 )

Susan James said:Looking at how the enrollment turned out this year with all the IEP applications, I really think the district needs to address this massive inflation of points and tighten up the admission criteria.

The medical condition points seem to act as a tiebreaker—if students are tied at the bottom of the list, those points kick in. Personally, I think that’s pretty fair.

It is a shame, though, that the entrance exam doesn't carry more weight in the overall score.

I’ve been lurking in some of those local mom groups on Facebook lately just to keep an eye on where things are heading.
It feels like every single parent whose kid is labeled as "hyperactive and super smart, but just doesn't fit this standard school curriculum" is being told they need individualized learning plans.

Another big thing popping up—mostly with the little ones—is all this talk about "sensory issues." If a kid won't eat certain foods, suddenly it's a sensory processing disorder and they desperately need a therapist.

I’m actually starting to develop a bit of a grudge against your profession, 😁

When it comes to high school graduation requirements and college admissions, I've basically checked out. I watch my little one making progress with such minimal effort, and honestly, it feels like the whole system is just beyond saving.

To be real with you, I care way less about standardized testing or the grading inflation we see with honor students than I do about them bringing back practical stuff like home economics, actual technical trades, and real PE. I couldn't care less about the academic fluff they're cramming down their throats.

driftingheron70 said:Jack Gray6, mind if I ask why they’re recommending she wait a year? Is that on your call, or what?
I'm asking because my daughter is officially required to start, she was born late January, and I’ve done everything by the book—enrolled her, kept up with all the paperwork, the whole nine yards. But everyone keeps grilling me about this deferral thing. They’re basically asking why I didn't just request an extension... you know, nothing crazy, just letting her have one more year of playing around in preschool before things get serious.

Man, people really love to overanalyze the "emotional readiness" of American kids, don't they? 🙂

rowdypanther12 said:I have no idea where you live, but it sounds like somewhere lovely 😂
I live in a part of Chicago that isn't exactly known for being religious or overly patriotic, so my little girl has already dealt with all sorts of situations 😁
She’s got a sharp tongue and handled everything just fine, but I can still tell it bothers her that one girl won't play with her because she doesn't attend Sunday school.
I explained to her that it isn't her fault—that someone else just didn't teach that child better—but the topic still pops up in our conversations from time to time.
Luckily, it doesn't upset her deeply; she isn't heartbroken or anything, she just finds the whole thing confusing and a bit silly.
If you're curious, I could write out some of the things she's heard while growing up in this trendy neighborhood 😁

Honestly, I don't see any reason to stress out about this at all, and if anything, it’s probably better that those kids aren't playing with yours... It’s basically like a perfect litmus test for character.

Any kid who is being filled with that kind of nonsense by their parents—you know, stuff like refusing to play with someone because of their religion, their background, or even just because they have cheaper sneakers or don't own a smartphone—that's not the kind of peer I want influencing my child's worldview.

And I don't see any issue (aside from maybe being a bit blunt?) with explaining to my kid exactly what kind of kid the other one is and how they were raised, and why it's actually a good thing that they aren't hanging out together.

nimblelynx7 said:Everything written here follows its own little logic. The curriculum hasn't changed in twenty years, yet suddenly everything’s become a revolution just because I finally graduated? Give me a break.

Back when I was in high school, maybe 10% of the students opted for business school.

I learned this stuff back in seventh grade. The problem? We aren't taught nearly enough. This isn't just some academic exercise; it’s a life-or-death matter. Not understanding how interest rates work—or even basic percentages—can absolutely ruin your life. You know what isn't going to ruin your life? Knowing the geometry of a triangle or how to calculate square roots. The curriculum needs to pivot toward practical math. Real-world application. Like, if a product costs $X, how much is it actually going to cost me after a merchant applies a Y% discount? That's what people need to know.

Grades are the only thing that matters in our school system. Everything revolves around them. They dictate a student's entire future, while actual knowledge or comprehension? Nobody cares about that. It’s exactly what I always say: cram it today, recite it tomorrow, forget it by the day after. In three days, nobody will even ask you about it. They'll just move on to some other topic, and you'll be stuck repeating the same mindless cycle.

Schools try to cram everything under the sun into kids' heads, but honestly, most of it just evaporates. It's because they don't care, or maybe they just can't wrap their brains around it. Do you seriously believe that teaching "more intense" lessons on compound interest is going to stop people from living way beyond their means, taking on bad debt, making reckless financial choices, or somehow bringing peace to the world? 😁

The fundamental flaw in our education system and the country at large isn't actually that low-performers fail to learn interest rates. It's that the whole system coddles them; we're afraid to call things what they are. The entire structure is built with the bottom tier as the priority, leaving all those high-achieving kids and driven individuals with no choice but to leave the country if they want a top-tier education or a career where you actually move up based on merit.

And that’s honestly one of the reasons why the USA remains a superpower. Over there, they don't hand out participation trophies to everyone, and frankly, nobody cares if some person doesn't know how interest works or lacks health insurance—instead, they focus on importing the absolute best talent from every other corner of the globe.

Grades are the absolute North Star of our school system; everything revolves around them, and they basically dictate a student's entire future. Nobody actually gives a damn about true knowledge or deep comprehension. Like I always say, cram it all in today, recite it tomorrow, forget it by the day after, and in three days, nobody will ever ask you about it again. They'll just move on to the next topic, and you'll just have to repeat the same cycle.

You could also look at it from a different angle:
- some kids/people are only capable of rote memorization, while others are capable of actual understanding. That leaves us with four main groups: the ones who are clueless and don't study at all, the ones who are clueless but can memorize things, the smart ones who don't bother studying (but understand enough to get an A), and finally, the smart ones who actually study (meaning they both understand the concepts and retain the necessary data).
You're clearly an idealist, so I guess you believe everyone has the capacity to truly understand, but personally, I think that's pretty far from reality. Because of that, you and I are probably never going to see eye-to-eye on how to fix the school system. 😁

Besides, I don't see anything wrong with learning something and then forgetting it shortly after. The brain just needs to have encountered that information once; that way, if you ever need it again down the road, you'll at least have a fighting chance to find it and figure it out.

feralmoose32 said:I think you might have missed a detail there—he actually wanted them to receive communion, he just didn't want them standing up at the altar with everyone else, maybe because he thought it wouldn't look right or something like that...

Besides, the child has Down, and they attend school with an aide—do you really think they have no idea what's going on?

People with Down aren't mentally incapable; they understand way more than you'd think, and honestly, they are often much more sincere in their faith than a lot of "devout Catholics" out there...

Yeah, I definitely have to admit I missed the mark on that one. I just saw the headlines floating around online and totally jumped to conclusions myself. I was under the impression the whole issue was that they were denying him the sacrament because of his special needs, not realizing the guy actually wanted him to participate, just... tucked away in a corner somewhere. That part is honestly pretty heartbreaking.

Susan James said:Maybe confession isn't necessary🤣 🤷
if a person hasn't done anything wrong, then there's no need for Confession, and they can receive Communion. You don't go to Confession every single time before Communion unless you've actually sinned. The goal isn't to sin just so you can confess; it's to live without sinning. That's how I was taught growing up in the church. 🧐 🙂)

If a priest views the sacrament the way you described, then that little boy probably shouldn't have been participating in First Communion at all—maybe even religious ed classes if he doesn't grasp the lessons. The real question is why he was allowed to participate until now? Why was he permitted to receive the sacrament if he doesn't understand it?

To be completely honest, looking at the big picture here rather than just this specific situation (since, clearly, I totally botched my initial take), I just don't get the logic behind handing out things like confession, communion, or confirmation to people who don't really wrap their heads around concepts like sin, forgiveness, or the Holy Spirit.

Tyler Ruiz502 said:Look, even baptism is supposed to be about understanding. Honestly, people—there’s just no logic left in this world. It’s about following, plain and simple.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

It’s not quite the same thing, though. For these later milestones, there’s a specific age and a level of cognitive maturity expected to really process what's happening.
Anyway, it doesn't matter now, I basically crashed the party without knowing the full story. But if this parent really intended for the child to receive communion just by being sidelined off to the side, that is truly awful.

Susan James said:Does anyone ever actually talk about kids with special needs in Sunday school or religious education classes? How does the Church really view them—where do they actually "fit" in?

Are students allowed to bring this up in class tomorrow? Like, can they ask about how the priest or the bishop is handling this whole situation, or will the teacher just stick strictly to the lesson plan and ignore it to save time?
Personally, I think since this guy messed up so badly, there should be an actual conversation held with the kids. 🥳

(Or maybe I'm just being naive 🙂)

When you get into the whole debate about kids with special needs, the real sticking point is whether we should be handing out sacraments like Communion or Confirmation to children who can't fully grasp what's happening.
I mean, look, it’s obvious to me that nowadays kids are basically just doing Confirmation to score a thousand-dollar gift from their relatives, and it's plain as day that many self-proclaimed "Catholics" don't have the slightest clue what their faith is actually supposed to teach them, but even so—I still remember bits and pieces from my own religious ed back in the day (which I don't follow anymore, so I'm not speaking from a Catholic standpoint here)—that the requirement for receiving Holy Communion was supposed to be some level of actual understanding.

So, if you ask me, that priest only caught heat from his superiors because of the media circus surrounding everything; the news outlets just jump on these stories because they don't know anything about the subject, other than the easy headline that the Church is the bad guy.

What is the actual point of having a child make a confession when they don't even comprehend what is taking place?