Posts by Karen Richardson3

Tyler Ruiz502 said:Based on what you guys have seen, how many kids actually skip out on religion classes?

I’m honestly not sure if I’ll be the only one sitting there alone. Also—is it even possible to opt out once they hit second grade?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

In our district over in Cleveland, about 16 kids attend while 12 don't. Since the school has a dedicated classroom for it, the ones participating head out to that room, while the rest stay behind to watch cartoons or just hang out outside.

Yeah, you can pull them from the program in any grade level.

urbantinker8 said:I guess I have to wonder if that’s just a random hunch you've got going on, or if you actually have some hard data to back up that claim?🙂

It’s funny, because on one hand, everyone is constantly clamoring for smaller class sizes, arguing that it would somehow magically elevate the quality of education for everyone involved, but then—when the freaking National Association of Educators finally pushes for those higher standards and we might actually see some real benefits from it—suddenly people start implying it's all just an excuse because schools are too stubborn to lay off staff.🙂

Man, I swear, this crowd in America can never seem to find anything to be happy about, no matter what happens.🙏

Our entire American school system is honestly way more advanced than what this ungrateful public deserves.☕

Well, whenever my friends and colleagues who work in schools chat about this, it’s always the main reason brought up (even though they’d probably swear otherwise if they were posting online 😁). If I had used a smiley face, maybe it would've been clearer that I’m obviously not making this claim based on some formal survey of school principals.

But seriously, I think the real driver behind those classes having only 15 students in Cleveland is something much bigger than schools just trying to meet certain educational benchmarks.

And regardless, what that forum user wrote earlier—that class sizes are being capped specifically because of students with special needs—just isn't true. I don't want to waste my breath here, especially since back when we were dealing with 30+ kids per room, we still had two students with special needs in there. Even right now, in the outskirts of Cleveland like Arlington and Annapolis, the classes are still huge, whether there are students with special needs present or not.

As for your last point, I truly believe our education, science, culture, healthcare, and politics are an exact reflection of who we are as a people; they couldn't possibly be any different given our national character. 🤣

The only thing I don't get is why you can't just poke a little fun at yourself and your profession. You guys aren't perfect, but you aren't the worst either—I just don't understand why there has to be so much intense drama surrounding the whole career.

northerncobra27 said:Unfortunately, they don't actually have a custom-built academic track designed solely for them, because for that to work, you would need entirely separate classrooms, which just isn't feasible within our current American public school system.

The schools that offer programs for gifted kids usually handle it through extracurricular activities, after-school clubs, and similar enrichment opportunities. On top of that, these institutions often employ staff who are specifically trained to work with high-ability children, so you find these incredibly passionate teachers who go above and beyond the standard requirements during regular class hours to give those students a bit more of a push.

My own child attends one of these schools, and while there is a massive rush of parents trying to get in every year, it’s a consistent trend, so waiting around wouldn't really change the outcome. Any "overflow" of students simply enrolls in the local neighborhood school, which, if you ask me, is a much more sensible way to manage things.

But shouldn't every single school be offering this kind of thing? Like, having those extra activities available for any kid who wants them, can handle them, or just really needs them?
I mean, we’re talking about things like competition prep, small project groups, and all that good stuff, right?

Looking back at my own experience, I went to two different elementary schools in Seattle, and both of them had these programs in place—honestly, pretty much every school I've ever come across seems to have them. 🤷

Robert Rodriguez9 said:Just wanted to add that even gifted kids can get bumped to a later start if enrollment gets too crowded—at least, that’s what one child psychologist told me.

Is it just me, or is everyone in New York City dealing with crazy overcrowding at specific schools right now, or is it basically everywhere across the country?

Seattle is actually the complete opposite; the number of kids has basically been cut in half, yet the number of classrooms hasn't budged because the school districts aren't letting teachers go.
The average class size over in Seattle is only about 15 kids 😁

I was reading this recent feature story in the Seattle Times about first graders, and my little guy's class was completely left out of the coverage because they have a whopping 28 students 😁
(And the reason it's so packed is because there are two different first-grade tracks—his is a full-day program, while the other group only stays for a few hours before heading home, so all those kids end up crammed into that one full-day "rush."
I went to the same school growing up, and back then, we had three classes per grade with about 30 kids in each.))

Questions:

1. For all the Americans out there who identify as atheists or believers but still think religious education shouldn't be part of the public school curriculum:

What's the actual logic behind saying the government isn't truly secular just because religion is taught in classrooms? Do you really think other Western nations—places that aren't strictly religious cultures but still include religious studies in their schools—are somehow non-secular?

2. For the folks who support religious classes because they believe it teaches kids about ethics and morality:

If that’s the case, would you be okay with scrapping specific religious instruction entirely—since, let's face it, Catholic instruction is specifically about teaching the tenets of that faith rather than just being a general guide on "being a good kid"—and replacing it with a mandatory Ethics course for every single student, regardless of what they believe?

And honestly, how do you even draw a line between someone's personal ethics and their religious identity? When you look at the facts, faith doesn't actually define whether a person is a saint or a sinner, especially when you see plenty of religious people doing absolutely terrible things, ranging from theft and murder to much darker stuff.
At the end of the day, skepticism is really a product of the modern era; not too long ago, almost everyone believed in some kind of deity, and the amount of bad stuff humans were pulling wasn't exactly small.

Honestly, I’m pretty sure she’s getting paid for it since we're running a full-day program—not even an extended one—so it’s totally plausible.
The kids are basically at school from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, and they have two different teachers rotating through shifts.
She’d still be working that same hour, just with a free period, except now her class size is effectively cut in half because our religious education enrollment is split right down the middle.

redridge13 said:Interesting read here

Basically, this explains why they won't let religious studies be the first or last period in NYC schools, while high schools in places like Austin or San Diego can do whatever they want. It’s a perfect example of who actually holds the power in the American school system.🙄

"....But students in Austin or San Diego don't have to deal with this nonsense. Their schedules are usually set up so religion class is either the very first or the very last period, meaning kids either roll in late or head out early. Why on earth can't NYC schools follow the same logic?
– Apparently, that kind of schedule just doesn't work because of the religious teachers' other commitments – or so the principals claim...."

That final sentence is super vague; it could mean those teachers have outside gigs, or it could mean they're just so overworked with classes that there's no way to squeeze everything into the first or last slots.

It's pretty obvious the whole situation is all over the place, and the fix is going to depend entirely on the specific school.
For instance, a small suburban school with maybe just one freshman class per year is definitely going to have way fewer logistical headaches than a massive urban high school juggling five different freshman groups.

Then you also have to consider whether the teacher is stationed at one campus full-time or if they're driving between three different districts every single day.

On top of that, some schools have libraries that stay open all day, while others might only be open for a couple of hours, or maybe even just three days a week.

Take our school, for example: we have a dedicated classroom for religious studies, so those students go there, while everyone else stays in their regular room or hangs out in the courtyard (with their homeroom teacher, who I assume is getting paid for that period anyway).

Like I've mentioned before regarding this topic, the pressure really needs to be placed on the federal government; they're the ones who need to step up and organize actual alternatives.
The Church fights for its own interests and wins them, so it's really up to the government to design decent options for the kids who aren't participating in religious studies (at least for the elementary years).

Now I'm starting to wonder how this is handled in other USA countries that teach religion or religious culture—do they offer ethics classes instead, or do the kids just get a free period? And if it's the latter, how does that even work in practice?

Rachel Young3 said:🤣🤣🤣

When I was in school, I didn't even realize you could opt out of religious education classes.
Honestly, I don't think it was even an option back then...🤔

During my student teaching internship at one school, there was this little girl from a Muslim family just sitting on a bench in the hallway while her entire class was in their religion period.
I asked her why she was just sitting there... it’s freezing outside and why wouldn't she just head to the library? (There's always a librarian or some teachers running after-school programs there, plenty of places to sit... nobody even has to babysit her... but at least she'd be warm). She just tells me she's fine right where she is.🤔

Then there was this other time, I was doing a presentation at a different school and I walk into the classroom... and I see an Orthodox priest standing there. I ask him if I can just hand out some papers to the kids, and he says sure. So I start passing them out, and this little kid goes, "Give me another one for my friend, he isn't here right now." Nothing... I give him the paper, and then the priest turns to me and goes, "Yeah, you know... this is only half the class because these are the Islamic studies students."

And I'm just standing there like...😕 why on earth is an Orthodox priest teaching Islamic studies??
I swear, those two are probably working together behind the scenes whenever they need to...🤣

I mean, honestly, you could always just skip religion class if you wanted to; it was always treated as an elective rather than something you were actually forced to take.

I went to elementary school back in the 90s, right in the middle of the war years, so even back then, religious education wasn't exactly mandatory for us. It’s funny looking back, though, because that was the exact era when most people were finally discovering God and stepping out from under that heavy shadow of the old communist regime. 🙂

redridge13 said:That old guy from the neighborhood is basically illiterate, to begin with ☕

Honestly, there's no way I'd let my kid sit through religion class either
If I actually wanted them listening to all that absolute bullshit, I would've just enrolled them in a private academy

Or just dragged them out to Coachella instead

Yeah, and honestly, since he’s almost ready to retire anyway, I don't really care what kind of skill set he was carrying around in those older generations.🤣
He was probably one of the only ones who actually knew how to read back when they were trying to educate all the folks out in the sticks.😁

Lisa Rivera said:My mother mentioned that one of her son's classmates told him today that the devil was going to kick him right in the gut and drag him straight to hell just because he doesn't believe in God. ☕
First grade...
It's funny how Catholics are supposedly known for their boundless tolerance, though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. By next year, they'll probably be holding a class vote to see if they can burn him at the stake.

Honestly, I feel like trying to draw an ironic parallel by saying "Catholics are known for being tolerant" is kind of a reach here, because it just ends up grouping you in with intolerant people, even if they're coming from a different angle.

People who lack intelligence just aren't capable of processing the idea that someone else's opinion can be different from their own—and that those different views might actually be perfectly normal, desirable, or even correct.

It’s also true that foolish people end up feeding nonsense to children because they simply don't know any better when it comes to raising them.

To me, this whole "the devil will send you to hell" thing feels pretty much equivalent to hearing old grandmas say "the big bad wolf is gonna get you," which is basically just a scare tactic used to keep toddlers from wandering off.

And if we really want to nitpick the theology of it all, as far as I know, that isn't even consistent with Catholic doctrine, since the devil doesn't actually have the authority to send anyone to hell; if he did, he’d be getting way too much power compared to God.😁

Jason Ortiz5 said:What kind of science professor is this guy?

Honestly, I'm not even surprised. Not to repeat myself, but there's an open thread on Politics about this, and someone even suggested starting separate schools for boys and girls. Mark and his crew are getting worked up again, and who knows what the next few years will bring, but with her around, things definitely won't be boring.
Basically, instead of heading toward Europe and civilization, we're slowly and surely drifting back into the Dark Ages.

Btw, not all Catholics are creationists. If I recall correctly, even Vatican City has acknowledged evolution and called the creationism in the Bible metaphorical. I wonder what believers like that have to say about this?

I actually read a bit about that "proposal"—though I didn't realize it was just a proposal, more like they were promoting a whole new educational model. The principal over at Rose Girls' School emphasized that choosing this kind of education would have to be entirely up to the parents.
Also, they pointed out certain benefits to that style of schooling (which I'm sure exist objectively, just like the downsides do).

Personally, I don't think much is going to change regarding this issue in the next few years. It's highly unlikely anyone is going to push for mandatory single-sex schooling at the federal level for everyone; there's just neither the willpower nor the budget for it.
However, the circles Mark belongs to might be able to pull off opening one more of those public-private hybrid schools—or whatever they call them, I'm not an expert—using taxpayer money if they get organized enough. Then, some people will naturally choose to enroll their kids there.

I feel like there's plenty of room in America for both liberal and conservative ideas, and we really shouldn't be shocked that one group is pushing gender theory while the other is pushing for girls' schools. It's exhausting when everyone starts spitting on each other, with both sides accusing the other of being totalitarian. 🤣

Also, let's be real: Mark gets so much media coverage because he's pure clickbait, not because he actually wields massive socio-political power. I don't think that referendum on gay marriage was a true show of strength; it felt more like picking a fight on a topic where you know you won't win. In the end, that same referendum didn't even pass in Canada, and from my own life experience, Canada (well, maybe Vienna) is way more gay-friendly than, say, Washington, D.C.—or at least it certainly was 15 or 20 years ago.

Michelle Nelson4 said:I remember having ethics back before I was 95, along with logic, sociology, philosophy, and a few other subjects I can't quite recall now. But honestly, except for philosophy, they all only lasted for a single semester—which explains why my head is a total blank when it comes to them. The only thing that sticks in my mind from logic class is that there were these various logical reasoning models, all with those incredibly forgettable Latin names.

Since I'm a bit younger than you, everything lasted two semesters for me.
It’s funny how they keep constantly reforming the system on us, isn't it? 😁
Could that subject you can't remember be called Civics and Economics?

rowdypanther12 said:No, their actual complaint was just about whether the class is scheduled for the first or last period. It wasn't even an issue of being in a different shift at any other school; they specifically targeted that timing.

For instance, at my kids' school, computer science (for the upper grades, I mean) used to be in the same shift as everything else. Sometimes religious studies would follow it, which left a gap in the schedule for students who took religion but skipped the tech class.
Starting this year—and now we can see why 😍—computer science has been moved to the opposite shift, while religious studies is tucked right in the middle of the day. 😁

Can someone drop a link? I feel like we're talking past each other here. I was thinking of that one article on CNN, and it doesn't actually say what you're claiming.

So, for example, at my school until this year, computer science (for the older kids, obviously) was always held during the same block, though sometimes religious studies would follow it, which left a gap for the kids who skipped computer science but signed up for religion.
Starting this year (and now we see why 😍), computer science is in a different shift entirely, while religious studies is tucked right in the middle of the daily schedule.😁

Well, yeah, because according to the Contract, that's how it has to be set up. If I'm reading this right, computer science couldn't even be scheduled before English class, and the Contract basically gave religious studies the same standing as English, even if not every single student attends.

I just want to clear one thing up—personally, I've identified as an atheist since I was 15, and my kid doesn't take religious studies.
But look, if there are legal obligations in place, people can love them or hate them all they want, but until those laws are overturned, they have to be followed.

So, it’s totally fair for the religious folks to demand the Contract be honored, and it’s just as fair for everyone else to think the Contract is flawed and work toward changing it.

I'm really trying to emphasize that working to amend a Contract isn't some destructive, mindless way of spreading hate toward believers or religious education.

Matthew Young35 said:Because even a fool can see that such a referendum would be dead on arrival in a country where nearly 80% of the population identifies as Catholic.
It’s a bit like suggesting that Americans living in certain enclaves fight for their rights through a national vote.

Right now, regarding religious education in schools, we're seeing the tyranny of the majority in full effect. A minority simply cannot win its rights through a referendum when the math is so heavily stacked against them. It's just the nature of being a minority, isn't it?

Using phrases like "tyranny of the majority over the minority" sounds really edgy and activist-ish, but honestly, it's just a hollow buzzword.

Let me explain why:
if we were actually talking about tyranny, the majority would be voting to make religious studies mandatory, declaring non-religious marriages invalid, and forcing everyone to go to Mass three times a week.

In this specific case, there really aren't any elements of religious believers actually tyrannizing non-believers.

Besides, I don't know what kind of situations you consider "tyranny"—where 7 people outvote 3, and those 3 are forced to go along with whatever the 7 decided?

Mad Hatter
The thing is, once you pick an elective, it basically becomes a mandatory requirement for you the second you hit that button. 🙂

From what I can gather, they’ve actually negotiated a special legal status for these classes through their contracts. So, while it isn't technically required for every single student in the district, it functions as a compulsory course when it comes to how the school schedules everyone's day.

The only way to really shake things up would be to renegotiate those formal contracts with the religious organizations—though, honestly, I'm not even sure if the Catholic programs are the only ones with this specific setup, or if other denominations are integrated into the daily schedule the same way.

If only a tiny handful of people actually push for changing those agreements, then they're just going to stay exactly as they are.

Personally, I don't really mind either way. It feels like the massive drama surrounding religious education has died down quite a bit, especially since I realized this is pretty much how schools operate all over the world, so my kid is perfectly fine during those periods.

To be totally honest, what’s actually bothering me right now is this sudden wave of secondary hate being thrown at the Church. It feels like so many people have jumped on the bandwagon lately that it’s stopped being interesting and just feels exhausting. 😁

I honestly feel like I'm just staring at a brick wall here, almost like trying to explain the nuances of jazz to someone who only listens to heavy metal, you know? It’s one of those situations where you're putting in all this effort, pouring out your thoughts, and you just get nothing back—total silence. It feels a bit like being stuck in a dead zone in the middle of nowhere, Nebraska, with zero bars on your phone and no way to reach anyone. Just a lot of wasted energy and wondering if anyone is even on the same wavelength. Asks:
That's actually pretty interesting.

The only thing I honestly can't wrap my head around is what this article is even trying to accomplish—other than proving exactly why people call this site Imdex.

So, basically, according to contract So, if you look at Article 1, Section 1, of the agreement between Washington, D.C. and America regarding cooperation in education and culture, it really sets the stage for how both sides plan to work together. It’s kind of a funny way to phrase it, but basically, religious studies is just an elective that you have to take if you actually decide to sign up for it.

Do I even need to spell this out for everyone, or is it pretty obvious?

The way I see it, if you actually look at what's written in the contract, religion is supposed to be a mandatory subject once a student officially opts in.
Look, if the school regulations state that core subjects can't be scheduled during an opposing shift—while electives obviously can—then you can't just go around treating religion classes like they're some optional Italian language course. At the end of the day, it's more like mandatory English class; it's a fundamental part of the curriculum, not just some random elective you pick up on a whim.

Let’s just assume for a second that a deal actually went through with ExxonMobil, and that religious studies is going to be a mandatory subject for anyone who decides to opt into that track.

Another thing that’s been weighing on my mind lately is why all this online activism just seems to stall out instead of turning into something actually tangible. Like, we spend so much time shouting into the void on social media, but when does it actually evolve into real-world movement? I can't help but wonder why we haven't seen anyone push for a formal referendum to overhaul those existing contracts with religious organizations. It feels like we have all this momentum online, yet we never quite bridge that gap to demand a direct vote on changing how those agreements are structured.

rowdypanther12 said:I honestly don't get how they can't see why going to church is worth the effort🤷

Regarding this letter... it feels genuinely malicious. Truly. There’s absolutely no reason for them to be upset just because it’s the first or last service meant to make things easier for the kids. It's just mean-spirited

It could be the first one or the last one, kind of like how an American high school period can fall at the start or the end of the day. But there's no way it can be scheduled for the opposite shift.

silentraven6 said:Your perspective comes from your own experience, living in a major city. We can probably agree that America is much larger than just its biggest metropolitan areas. And even in those big cities, tolerance isn't exactly universal.

Small towns aren't outliers; they are often the ones actively maintaining the status quo because people are terrified of being judged. They act as brakes on progress because you're constantly stuck in this defensive position where it's hard to speak your mind. Not everyone is brave or revolutionary—like my friend from elementary school whose sister basically invited her to sit in on a religious class just to tell her in front of everyone that Satan would devour her. My friend gave her a legendary comeback and got a standing ovation from the rest of us. Obviously, not every small town is like that, but the experiences of most of my colleagues from rural areas are pretty similar—whether it's religion, music, sexual orientation, or social status, it's just more intense in those smaller communities.

And I don't see the issue with the outcry regarding how inappropriate the eighth-grade religious studies textbooks are. They repeat certain points that shouldn't be allowed in a free society within a state institution that pays the teachers but doesn't have the right to choose them through a competitive hiring process.

Saying you "understand" why things might be different in smaller towns is like saying you understand why coming out is harder in a Small town in the Midwest than it is in Washington, D.C. But look, I still think people overreact. To me, it's not "drama," it's an awareness of injustice. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

PS: I know I'm in a bit of a tense writing mode here, but I'm just thinking out loud. I'm not trying to start a nasty verbal fight with you 😁 (plus, it's been a while since we talked, so if you're up for it, let's chew the fat a bit).

I’m almost at a loss for words because I pretty much agree with everything you said 😁

I was really just speaking from my own personal experience living in Cleveland.
Basically, this past summer, I found myself in these deep conversations about how kids who opt out of religious studies get treated in Cleveland. It felt totally surreal to me, especially when you consider the actual percentage of non-Catholics in the city—you've got Orthodox folks, Muslims, atheists—and that whole local vibe where people try to brand the city as this "cool, progressive, tolerant, anti-fascist hub."

Based on what my friends were telling me, I fully expected my kid to be one of the few outliers who didn't participate, so I decided to just take the risk of dealing with some potential discrimination.

But guess what? Nothing happened. In fact, nearly half the class skips it; they just sit there watching Disney cartoons while the others are off in religion class.

What I find fascinating is this growing narrative about the near-persecution of kids who don't attend these classes, which has somehow made its way even to Cleveland—a place that, if my gut is right, probably has some of the lowest participation rates in the entire US.

It would feel just as bizarre if that kind of blatant discrimination were happening in Washington, D.C., too. Sure, I can wrap my head around individual people making snide comments because that's how they were raised, much like how people might face prejudice simply because they aren't originally from D.C. and moved there later (if we're being honest, there seems to be more online bashing of people from the South or rural areas than there is actual outcry over kids skipping religion class), but that doesn't mean the city itself is inherently discriminatory.

On the flip side, I completely get why it feels so much harder in smaller towns, where any kind of deviation from the norm gets you some pretty nasty looks.

As for the textbooks and stuff, I haven't really followed it closely; I saw a headline about that controversial religious textbook, but then just the other day there was that whole drama involving a woman and her mom, and I'm starting to get the impression that people just love to stir up panic. Even the liberal media outlets jump on it, framing everything as this looming "threat of backwardness" just to trigger clicks and comments. It’s a total conflict of interest because these news sites aren't trying to inform you; they're just chasing engagement.

Personally, a much bigger issue for me is that Disney cartoon featuring Mickey Mouse where they sing that song about "it's a mouse thing"—it sounds so suggestive, almost like they're singing about a penis, and to me, it honestly feels like some weirdly inappropriate pamphlet. 😁

Jeremy Fowler45 said:What do you mean by discrimination?

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Reddit

I’ve honestly heard so much nonsense about kids being picked on or bullied just because they don't take religion classes.
Whenever I try to dig deeper and ask who actually went through this, nobody can ever point to a single real-life case or someone they actually know—it’s always just "well, someone told me that someone else said..."

I get that if you live in some tiny rural town where 29 out of 30 kids attend religious studies, that one kid who doesn't might feel like an outsider, but seeing this level of outcry in a big city like Cleveland was honestly pretty shocking to me.

In my opinion, it feels like parents—especially the ones constantly venting on social media 😁—are just making way more of a huge deal out of this than necessary.
Looking back, when I was going through Elementary School in the early 90s, we didn't think it was weird at all that some kids attended and others didn't. It never crossed my mind to make a massive drama over it; for instance, I went to the classes while my absolute best friend didn't, and I never once felt the need to grill her about why she wasn't there. 🤷

In my kid's class, it’s pretty much a fifty-fifty split when it comes to who signed up for religious studies—maybe a few more are enrolled than not, but it's basically even.
During the regular school day, since we aren't in an after-school program, the kids who take that class just head over to a different classroom for a bit; it works exactly like it does for the kids taking ESL, except instead of the whole class moving together, only those specific students head out.

We live over in Cleveland, and honestly, the only real drama I've heard about is from some friends of mine in the area who warned me that there was massive discrimination against the kids who don't participate in the religious curriculum, so we spent most of the summer going back and forth debating whether that was actually a thing or just total nonsense.

Jerry Campbell2 said:I have a quick question for the group. I’ve just accepted a teaching position at a different school in another city. I am scheduled to sign my contract at the end of August, though my actual start date won't be until the beginning of the new school year. My dilemma is this: when exactly am I obligated to inform my current principal that I am resigning to move to this new district?
To be perfectly honest, I am feeling quite anxious about the timing. I certainly don't want to jeopardize my current position by giving notice too early and risking the principal terminating my employment over the summer break. However, I also recognize the importance of professional courtesy; I don't want to wait so long that the administration is left scrambling to find a replacement. I actually have a wonderful candidate in mind whom I could recommend to take my place, but I want to handle this with total integrity.

If you want to play it strictly by the book, your best bet is to dig through your current employment contract under the section labeled "Termination of Employment." You really need to focus on the notice period clause; typically, it's around two weeks, though depending on how your specific school district handles things, it might be a bit longer. That's the amount of time you're legally obligated to stay on the clock before you can officially walk away.

As for whether you should tell them sooner—like, even right now—that's entirely up to your own judgment regarding your relationship with the principal. It's kind of like deciding whether to tell your boss you're moving to a competitor before you've even packed your boxes; it all depends on how much you trust them.

silentraven6 said:Daisy, I definitely wasn't implying that our school system or schools in general are the absolute worst on the planet—I wouldn't say that about the German or English systems either, despite all their flaws and shortcomings.

What I see as the real issue is how people try to address potential improvements using nothing but Band-Aid solutions.

It’s like, "Sure, let's introduce this one thing, maybe we'll fix something, but whatever you do, don't touch the foundation."

From my perspective, here is what's actually missing if we want to build the kind of school environment both you and I dream about:

1. The physical space itself; there just isn't enough room.
2. The size and overall layout of the classrooms.
3. A lack of funding to make real changes (actually, it's not even a lack of funds, it's more like a total lack of interest from the governing bodies to ever invest properly in the education system).
4. Inadequate training for current teachers, and honestly, for future ones too.
5. Outdated teaching methods that are still stubbornly stuck in the classroom (with lecture-style teaching remaining the bedrock).
6. A general lack of interest within the profession to work differently, combined with the fact that they've basically been administratively hamstrung by the system itself.
7. The way our labor market is set up, plus the reality that we don't have the resources to pay for childcare over holidays for five-year-olds.
8. The textbook publishing lobbies, which are a cancer on education.
9. The fact that, as a nation, we are often uneducated, poorly educated, or just uninterested in anyone's progress except our own—we tend to view everyone else's success with suspicion (I admit, that's a bit of a cliché).
10. Corruption among the administrative leadership in the education system and their general incompetence when it comes to managing people and resources, fostering a positive workspace, making parents and kids feel welcome, encouraging self-actualization, or avoiding forcing every child into the exact same mold...

And last, but not least, the absolute martyr complex held by an entire profession that has spent a century portraying itself as the most downtrodden segment of our population, all while staying silent about obvious failures in staff selection and training.

So, I'm really not surprised when people advocate for delaying school entry, especially since children globally are starting earlier because they mature faster with all the technology and content available to them today.

To pull all of this off without institutionalizing children at such a young age, we would also need laws that encourage mothers and fathers to stay home with their kids or work reduced hours. We need to foster a freelance-friendly environment. To me, what kids need most in those early years is a core foundation provided by family. No matter how good a school system is, it can never replace that, because that's where all successes and failures begin. But around here, thinking like that is dismissed as being either old-fashioned or purely utopian.

This is a solid post.
Honestly, it’s pretty heavy stuff too 😁

It actually ties right back into that whole conversation about school reform, because these are the exact same questions spinning around my head whenever I start thinking about restructuring the curriculum...

But, getting back to the main point: the reality is that schools have always been this way, even back when we were kids. We used to start at six, and now there's this push to delay enrollment for kids born in March (and if they keep moving the needle bit by bit, February will be next on the list). It’s kind of like how they used to push for early enrollment for anyone born between April and July—I actually had a woman, a friend's mom who started school early back in the 80s, tell me just recently, "Oh, she wasn't even early," since her daughter was born only a month and a half after the cutoff.

So, is it that schools have fundamentally changed and become way more intense?
That’s the big question mark for me. I hear conflicting things all the time, so I’m really just waiting to see how this all plays out 🤣 😁

urbantinker8 said:What would even be the demands of a strike like that?
Banning certain parents from coming near the school?
All that documentation won't mean much if you don't have anyone to present it to.

I guess we aren't reading very carefully, are we?

Parents are constantly pressuring staff for grades, which leads to unrealistic marks, so naturally, students flop on their exams. The blame lies with both the parents and the teachers who cave under the pressure.
But if we could somehow find a way to stop this coercion—so that grades actually reflect reality and standardized tests work the way they were intended—I honestly believe educators could finally prove everything they've been shouting about for years, instead of being mocked by everyone, just like you're doing now.
Weren't you an education major?🤔
I suppose I'm just looking forward to seeing you experience all of this firsthand, after we've spent pages and pages debating these same topics.

For instance, imagine a strike centered on working conditions and protecting the integrity of the profession itself.
In a manifesto like that, you could lay out both the tangible and intangible hurdles you face daily—and I don't mean "my paycheck is too small," though that's real, I mean things like lacking the actual resources needed to teach effectively in the 21st century.

Basically, an effort to fix this mess:

Parents are basically bullying teachers into handing out grades, which results in inflated marks, and then we all see the inevitable crash when they hit standardized testing.

Because based on what you're saying here, it sounds like you aren't actually doing your jobs.
Your whole purpose is to educate and mentor these kids, but looking at your own data, it seems like students are graduating without any manners—because they've been conditioned to just demand an A—and without actual knowledge, given how poorly they perform on national exams. So, it really makes you wonder what exactly those $1.75 paychecks are covering, besides just babysitting kids in a building?
I’m not trying to be rude; I’m just following the logical conclusion of your own argument.

If you want someone to fight for this profession, you're going to have to do it yourselves. Honestly, I think the first step should be leaving whatever union you belong to, because it feels more like a tool used to cement this broken status quo than anything else.