Posts by Karen Richardson3

Honestly, I find it totally wild how people are trying to justify giving in to parental pressure... Like, just imagine if teachers actually stood their ground to protect the integrity of their profession and refused to hand out unearned grades—what would even happen then?

The parent would probably threaten to call in an auditor from the Department of Education, who’d show up, check the books, and confirm everything is perfectly fine.

Or maybe parents just go straight to the principals, and then the principals start playing favorites to keep them happy?
If that’s really how it works, why aren't you reporting those principals to the teacher's union?

Could someone please walk me through this "pressure system" in detail? I’d love to hear about the specific fallout of refusing to give an A to Mark, whose mom apparently stormed in there acting like he's some kind of prodigy who definitely deserves a perfect score just because she thinks he's the best kid ever.

Look, Frupy says she doesn't inflate grades herself, which means she clearly has the backbone to do it right.
But then she turns around and tries to excuse the fact that other people are doing exactly that.
I just don't get the logic behind that at all.

urbantinker8 said:Well, that isn't exactly a secret, and I wouldn't call it much of a surprise, either.🤷

And yeah, I agree it's a cycle, but I think we can point to where it all started: parental pressure.
If there hadn't been that constant push from parents, I doubt such a huge number of teachers would have just spontaneously "decided" to start handing out straight As out of nowhere.
Ever since then, it's been this endless loop, and parents got exactly what they wanted: inflated grades and a total loss of respect for teachers, which they basically use as a doormat whenever it suits them.

Regarding those standardized assessments...
In theory, they sound perfect, but when you live here in America, where parents and students almost always believe they're right, things fall apart. You end up with people trying to scrap entrance exams, dodging midterms, and dealing with these over-engineered state exams where the basic level is laughably easy, yet the advanced level is practically impossible given how students actually study compared to their grades. Then, to top it off, they had that brilliant idea that a 20% score should be enough to pass. 👏🙂
So, I guess this whole vicious cycle of grade extortion actually leads to the dismantling of standardized testing altogether. It doesn't exactly start with the educators.
Believe it or not, for most of us, that might actually be a relief.🙏

So why don't you guys just go on strike over it?
Maybe try asking the union for some actual organizational support first.
Basically, you're living under constant pressure from parents. I really hope you've actually been keeping documentation of all this?
Because once you have that, maybe someone might actually step up and back you when you finally decide to strike for better pay.
And I’m being totally serious here, not even being sarcastic.

Michelle Nelson4 said:The education system is completely dysfunctional. If you think a regulatory audit is a nightmare, try jumping into the private sector. I’m talking about unpaid overtime, dragging yourself out of bed at 5:00 AM, and lying awake staring at the ceiling because you're dreading the sheer mountain of problems waiting for you at the office—all while playing a guessing game as to when some corporate headquarters decides profits aren't high enough and starts cutting payroll through layoffs.

But no, apparently an inspection is pure hell, yet a single email complaining about ticket prices can trigger a full-blown town hall meeting for all the first-grade parents, where everyone who doesn't work in academia gets called out just because a principal doesn't know how to hit "reply" and handle a trivial parent complaint properly.🤦

There is zero standardization in how things are done, no external performance reviews, no objective metrics, no actual methods for improvement, and absolutely no meaningful consequences for those who don't pull their weight or, even worse, exploit students. Everything just gets swept under the rug until the person involved eventually retires. Honestly, if you're unhappy with your working conditions, what is the point of having a union at all?

It’s such a loaded question regarding unions: why is it that they never seem to bring up performance evaluations, working conditions, or grade inflation, but instead focus entirely on protecting collective interests?

And when you look at those "collective" interests, it really boils down to two things: whatever base salary was negotiated (which is basically just some legal minimum for someone with a college degree, so they didn't actually fight for much) and the fact that you can't get fired.

So, in schools—just like in the entire American public sector—there’s really only one rule: they can’t fire you. Everything else is just political anarchy where administrators are appointed based on connections and then protected regardless of what they do, while a mass of employees stays silent and collects a paycheck because "that's just how it is / there's nothing we can do about it."
Most of these people probably landed their jobs through some kind of connection, which explains the whole mess.

urbantinker8 said:It's actually pretty straightforward:
A few of us—and I suppose I might be one of those rare, slightly crazy types—always stand our ground on a grade and refuse to let anyone push us around.🥳
The rest of them, who are probably much smarter than I am, I guess, just don't want to waste their energy or deal with the stress of looking over their shoulders, so they just give in.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you suggest someone would have something to hide in this situation?
Do you honestly believe in those conspiracy theories where someone just sits there for forty-five minutes during an observation without saying a single word?🙄
Yeah, right.
It isn't like she'd risk getting fired a million times over—I mean, someone who's mentally unstable couldn't exactly fake being perfectly fine during a formal evaluation from the school board—but besides that, the parents would probably have her lynched.

Once things settle in this fall, you'll see how the system actually operates. You might want to give your decision some more thought.😒

I’m glad you put that into words, because I wanted to say the exact same thing, but I figured some self-righteous jerk would probably come after me for it.
At the end of the day, this is pure professional negligence. Your colleagues have essentially decided they couldn't care less, so they won't bother $1.75 pushing back against pressure from parents or dealing with entitled kids who demand straight A's.
By doing that, you're destroying your own integrity while simultaneously preaching about wanting respect for the education system.

It’s all part of the same cycle; it doesn't matter if you're looking at the chicken or the egg, the responsibility lies with everyone: the kids, the parents, the teachers, the principals, and the politicians.

There is no way to avoid being complicit in grade inflation when you are the ones physically entering those grades into the digital gradebook.

For the record, I’ve always been a supporter of entrance exams, standardized testing for both middle and high school graduations, and uniform knowledge assessments.
And based on how well students perform on those tests, that should be the basis for determining the variable portion of a teacher's salary.

rowdypanther12 said:I don't know much about Italy, Daisy; I only really know about the northern countries and America.
I just got an email from a local childcare center about seven-year-olds and the start of actual, serious schooling. Basically, everything I've heard about early mandatory education is just that—one or two years of institutionalized preschool. Call them mini-schools if you want.
There aren't any assignments, problem-solving, or rote memorization involved.
Maybe Italy is the exception, but looking at how their government functions, I'm sure it's just great that kids are expected to learn multiplication tables at five and a half.

That period between ages 5 and 7 isn't really daycare in the way we usually think about it. Legally, it’s required, and from what I’ve gathered while skimming some stuff online, it functions more like "pre-K," but not in our sense where a kid just hangs out at daycare playing with toy cars, drawing, and running around the playground before having a single hour of "pre-school" worksheets. It’s structured specifically as a school designed for kids that age.

Check this out:
WA. state is changing the kindergarten classes from 1/2 day to full day. The world is changing. How do you feel about that change going from 3 1/2 hours to over 6 hours a day? I think it is too long of a day for a 5 to 6 year olds.

That clearly isn't anything like the preschool experience we have in our daycares.

Honestly, the labels "preschool" or "school" aren't even the main point here. The real issue is that over here, a child stays in daycare until they're 7, mixed in with 3 and 4-year-olds, whereas elsewhere, the line for separating kids by age is being moved lower, giving children age-appropriate tasks—and let's be real, kids at that age are capable of quite a lot.
Nobody is sitting a 5-year-old down to learn multiplication tables unless the average kid that age actually has the capacity to grasp it.
And if they *can* handle it, why wouldn't we teach them?

I don't see the issue with learning and assignments; if kids are developing normally and don't have concentration issues, they're actually totally open to it and can't wait to show they can do things.

The only thing is, if the argument is that Disney thinks our schools are the absolute worst in the world... 🤷
I get the feeling it's all just trends. It used to be that everyone was pushing for early enrollment, and now everyone is suddenly looking for ways to delay it.

silentraven6 said:Yeah, within their school system, that's completely standard.

But here? We need a massive overhaul first.

A five-and-a-half-year-old definitely doesn't have the attention span to sit there like a soldier for hours on end. They can barely organize themselves at 6 or 7. Name one parent who’s going to drop off a 5.5-year-old and then leave a 7.5-year-old home alone for hours just because there’s no after-school care. People are giving me grief right now because my kid stays home for two hours or walks home from school by himself, and he'll be 8 soon enough!

Even a seven-year-old doesn't have the attention span to sit still like a statue for hours.
I've been told that the average kid that age can only focus on one thing for about 15 minutes, which is why school periods are usually structured to be broken down into smaller chunks.
I’m assuming for five-year-olds, the lessons are even more segmented and probably involve way more time spent running around outside.

That said, I don't see any reason why a five-year-old shouldn't start doing things other than just coloring, running around, or playing with Play-Doh.
Every kid I've met around that age, regardless of how smart they are, seems to start developing that specific "school-oriented" interest.
I guess that happens earlier now than it did for our generation, mostly because they're growing up in a completely different world.

Raymond Jones8 said:Daisy
So, wait... are you telling me five-year-olds over in the USA have classes that start at 8:00 AM, run until maybe 10:45 or 11:30, and then they just... head home? Like, they just sit there waiting for their parents to finish work?
Or am I totally misreading this? Maybe it’s just mentioning the age they start school and nothing else about the actual schedule?

I haven't actually asked how long their classes last, or if they're in school all day or if they finish at 11:30 and go to after-school care or get picked up by a nanny.
I'll try to find out when I get a chance and let you know. 😉

I do know that at age five, they start what's officially called "school" (as opposed to preschool), where they actually learn curriculum that gets graded.

A friend's little one started halfway through the second semester because they allowed her to enroll late; the only difference was their grading system, where they evaluate "mastery of material compared to peers," so she's currently at an 80%, which is actually an amazing score.

Of course, their school system isn't identical to ours—it's impossible for two different school systems to be exactly the same.

However, I highly doubt their elementary school is anything like their preschool, otherwise, I don't see why a five-year-old would need to move from a preschool building to a school building.

Joseph Stewart7 said:Like I mentioned before, I have no clue how they behave during class since the teacher hasn't said anything about it. My observations come from seeing them at our place or watching them during recess from our window, which looks right out over the school playground. Those older kids really do seem to have a much lower drive to be constantly moving.

Regarding interests, my daughter is in a mixed-age preschool group for ages 3 to 7. Sometimes their interests overlap, sometimes they diverge, and even within the 6-7 bracket, the kids vary wildly in both hobbies and cognitive development, much like those in the 3-4 group.🤷
And yeah, the teachers lead certain activities for everyone together, which actually looks lovely and benefits both age groups.

My son was also in a mixed group, and I know it can look wonderful. I'm not claiming it won't work, nor am I saying things will get worse; I'm just pointing out that having more older kids definitely shifts the classroom dynamic. Since quite a few people (who don't even know my kid) have asked why we didn't opt for delayed school entry just because it's the current trend, I'll say this: if you want to follow trends, go ahead, but it's dishonest to act like it doesn't affect anyone else when it clearly does.

Violeta doesn't watch Big Brother, because that's what we watch at home, and that's tied to parenting, not school enrollment.
Actually, regarding delaying school, the only connection there is if you don't want your child stuck at home alone watching whatever pops up on screen, or if you want to keep them in daycare longer to maintain more control over their TV content.😂

Again, this is just my observation from my son's class. It might just be a coincidence that parents of the older kids happen to be more liberal about TV time. Personally, I know my child Violeta isn't interested, as she turns the TV off the moment she sees it; when something actually catches her eye, she begs her aunt to let her watch. In a year, I'll see if that's due to how we raised her or if her interests just shift naturally.

It’s definitely a trend.
Honestly, it probably depends on the specific city, the preschool, or even just the specific teaching staff you're dealing with.
I’m living in Cleveland, and at the preschool I go to, this is a massive trend that everyone—from the teachers to the school psychologist and even the school nurse—is totally on board with.

rowdypanther12 said:Kids over there don't just sit quietly at a desk trying to learn how to write or do math at age four or five. They're actually tackling things here that we usually don't see until preschool. That’s really what it's all about.

A friend of mine lives in Italy, and her little one started school at five and a half; she swears the curriculum is incredibly demanding.
He’s in fourth grade now, and she’s super happy with the quality of his education and how much he's actually learning, feeling like the Italian school system is way more rigorous than ours.

At the end of the day, I’m all for letting every family make their own individual choice.
It doesn't really bother me when people decide to send their kids to school early or not.

What actually bugs me is this narrative about a "cruel" school system that's supposedly crushing little kids, because from watching the kids I know who are already in school, nothing seems nearly as traumatic or overwhelming as people make it out to be.

Plus, since we're talking about focus and concentration, some teacher friends of mine tell me that those issues pop up even in middle school, where kids struggle to keep up with history or English because they just can't handle reading longer texts.

So, if we follow that logic, should we just wait until they're twenty to send them to school, or maybe never? 😁

rowdypanther12 said:Karen Richardson3 is right, honestly, but it’s more like daycare than actual school
keep in mind you have two years of mandatory preschool before kindergarten starts

I honestly have no clue what world you're living in right now.

Over in Italy, kids start school at five (they actually just lowered the starting age from six down to five and a half recently), and in England, it’s also five years old.
It’s not some "mandatory daycare" situation; they are going to school just like every other kid.

Basically, everywhere else, the starting line keeps moving earlier because kids today just pick things up so much faster—they read, write, and are generally way ahead of where previous generations were, so their interests mature sooner too. It feels like we're the only ones still sticking to that 7+ rule.

Editor:
Check this out if you want proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_England

Some of my buddies moved over to England, and their little girl started primary school when she was only five.
She’s got her own school uniform and everything, and they all say she’s officially in school. 🤷

The one thing I just can't wrap my head around in this whole debate is how kids in basically every other developed nation start school at six, and honestly, more and more are even starting at five—mostly because of those generational shifts we all see happening—yet somehow here in America, we're still dragging things out until they're seven or older.

Susan James said:If you don't have residency, you're basically starting from zero.
Maybe I'll think about a full meal later, but for now, I’m just looking for a quick snack—something around... $33 I know for a fact that isn't either.

The school doesn't really offer any paid extracurriculars like sports, language classes, or dance, which is such a change from what we had back in preschool. They actually told me that you really need to sign your kid up for these programs just so they don't feel left out, since all the other kids end up doing them. Apparently, once they hit first grade, the language program becomes free through the school district.

I was actually pretty surprised to see people crunching the numbers like that. It’s wild to think that daycare costs can be such a massive hit to the budget that parents are practically counting down the days until their kids start school. Of course, I know it hits differently if you're paying out of pocket versus having coverage, but man, those monthly bills really add up. $100 Even $600 can make a big difference, especially if you’re putting it into a private account. When you look at it over the course of a full year, those amounts really start to add up into a nice little cushion.
I honestly just feel like, no matter how you slice it, everything comes with a price tag. It’s just one of those realities of life—as your kids get older, the costs just keep climbing. 🤷

If we’re talking about crunching numbers—and I mean really looking at the math while ignoring a child's actual potential—it feels more logical to assume they'll just be older by the time they finally start. Plus, once childcare options dry up, they should theoretically be capable of staying home alone on their own (which, if you follow the Ombudsman's recommendations, is exactly what's supposed to happen). There's also that optimistic calculation that they might eventually land a "better" teacher, though people seem to be banking on that too. 🤣I see this happen quite often, especially with parents who have older kids and really want their younger ones to start first grade at the same time to keep things simple. It seems like that's why more people tend to opt for early enrollment—it just makes life easier for the family schedule. I remember hearing about those delays back in the day when families were waiting on new school openings; it actually made sense to wait if you knew a local spot was coming online soon. But I also know there’s been plenty of indecision elsewhere, too. People end up caught in this limbo where they aren't sure if they should deal with a year of commuting or just wait until they can enroll them in the neighborhood school. It’s a tough call, especially when you're in the middle of moving. If you haven't officially settled into your new house or apartment yet, it feels much more practical to keep the little one in daycare rather than dealing with a long drive to a school across town.

Honestly, I don't see much point in delaying things if growth just hits a plateau during that year—or worse, if they don't actually fix the areas where they're falling behind. It feels like you'd just be pushing the same problems down the road.🤷
As long as it’s a decision being made by parents, I really feel like it needs to be backed up by solid expert advice. There should be a clear, detailed roadmap laid out—showing exactly what’s going to happen, where it’s taking place, and who will be working with the child during that specific year. It shouldn't be left to guesswork.

We have a pediatrician here who does the annual checkups and she's totally "pro-delay."
I honestly don't know what her clinical reasoning is (other than her own personal anecdote about waiting until a kid was 7 instead of 6, which worked out great for her, but hey, that's just one person's experience and nothing more).

So, for Harold Cook2:
since you're living on the East Coast side of town and will probably head to her for the physical anyway, you can get that delay approved without any hassle if that's what you want to do.
Between the school's specialist teams and the onsite psychologists all being on board with starting school a bit later, it’s pretty easy. From what I've seen firsthand, kids who get held back for no major reason other than "they're still acting like little kids" can easily get that extension the following year too, if you decide to go that route then.

Rachel Jones8 said:Yeah, I get it, I probably shouldn't have even brought up the request. What I was actually trying to say is that I haven't heard anyone mention starting at barely six months. Usually, it’s people who are a little past the deadline—like a month or two out—but those who hit the six-month mark right on the dot? They seem pretty rare.
But hey... everyone's moving faster these days, so I guess it's not that surprising.

It feels to me like people are actually waiting longer to start school nowadays, especially since everyone I know seems to be constantly weighing the pros and cons of holding a kid back for an extra year.😁

Like I mentioned before, I was talking about my friend, so we're in the same age bracket—born in the early 80s.
It’s definitely uncommon to see a kid head off to kindergarten before they've even turned six, but back when my generation was growing up, there were plenty of kids in my class who were born between April and August. I have a bunch of friends who were technically younger than me but still went through school at the exact same time, mostly because I was right on the edge of the cutoff and my mom didn't even think twice about delaying anything.

Rachel Jones8 said:@miss daisy
If they started with less than 6 credits, she definitely should've asked for an early enrollment. I heard it was only for kids born after March 31st, so this must be a total outlier.

Basically, for any kid born after the March 31st cutoff, you have to submit a special petition for early admission, and they also have to go through an extra evaluation by a school psychologist.

It doesn't really matter if the kid was born in April, July, or even November—the whole process stays exactly the same.

Brenda Stewart59 said:True, there is definitely some flexibility there.
For a child who is exceptionally gifted or highly advanced—let's say they were born on August 3rd—you can petition for an early enrollment. Basically, if they haven't hit that official six-year mark by April 1st of the current school year, but they are clearly mentally and emotionally ready, you can make a case for them to start school early.

Like I mentioned before, you can request an early start, though I should note that when I was looking into enrollment back in Washington, D.C., I saw one form that allowed kids to jump in early if they were turning six by August 31st, even though the broader state guidelines or local district policies seemed to say the cutoff was closer to December 31st.

They also allow for a deferral for kids born before March 31st who don't seem to be quite ready, as long as the parent feels they aren't mature enough yet and can get a formal sign-off from their preschool's specialist team.

In my experience, the school districts here don't really make a fuss about delaying a year; honestly, it feels like they're much more open to letting a kid stay back than they are to letting a little kid skip ahead.

It’s pretty much the same way things worked when we were growing up. I ended up in classes with kids who were a full year older than me, but also mixed in with kids who were maybe six months younger—like a close friend of mine who was a November baby and started school just before she hit six.

rowdypanther12 said:There really needs to be a set date 😁 though I think they should probably stay flexible within a 2-3 month window, if you ask me.

Look, there actually is plenty of room for flexibility here; at my daycare center, we see kids starting early all the time, and then you have these little ones born in February or March who end up getting pushed back a bit even when they aren't showing any signs of needing the extra time.

Susan James said:It looks like they haven't.
Actually, I see that as a major upside, since it keeps everything aligned with the competition schedule. 🙏
(It does sting a little bit, though...
Quincy:

The main rule for selecting schools will be that the faculty has to reach a unanimous decision to participate, and they'll also need parental consent.

Which basically means if even one person at the school is against it, the whole school is out. I really hope they can find 48 schools where everyone is on board.

Honestly, I think getting parents to actually agree is going to be the real uphill battle here.
The way everyone has already split into these two angry camps is pretty wild; we're all so worked up and polarized right now that, in my opinion, this whole reform is probably going to hit a massive wall or just stall out completely.

rowdypanther12 said:It’s honestly pretty heartbreaking when a child starts school with speech impediments, only for us to realize that no specialists stepped in to help earlier.
I saw this happen in real life once—the pediatrician just brushed off a lisp, saying there was plenty of time for it to fix itself. Meanwhile, the preschool teachers didn't say a word to the parents.
Luckily, the kid was enrolled in an intensive program recently, and from what I hear, they're making really fast progress.

From what I’ve seen, a lot of kids don't even start preschool until they're older because parents tend to brush things off or flat-out deny there's an issue—you know, using excuses like, "Oh, little Peter from down the street has the same thing," or "Well, Dad didn't start talking clearly until he was five, and he turned out just fine."

Once the kid finally hits preschool, if the speech therapy services provided by the district are basically non-existent—since we're talking about one specialist trying to cover half a dozen different centers—the burden falls entirely on the parents to find private help. But if they still think the situation isn't a big deal, then nothing changes, and the child just keeps struggling.

Susan James said:how it goes ☕
In my experience, one session lasted 12 minutes, then another 5 minutes with her and her dad.

Preschools here, especially in big cities like Chicago, seem to have better access to specialists like psychologists or speech therapists. It feels like the psychologists in these preschool settings have way more testing tools available than the elementary schools do.
At least for now, before they start cutting those budgets.
Plus, they get the benefit of daily observation within the classroom, which I think provides such valuable insight into a child's development.
Our school didn't even ask for the preschool's assessment, even though we had it ready (they basically told us we could bring it along if we felt it was necessary).

It’s actually quite rare for a preschool to proactively suggest a child stay back another year. Unless the parents notice it themselves and speak up, the school rarely initiates that conversation unless things are absolutely hitting the fan.
And honestly, you hear a lot of clichés. They'll say, "Well, everyone else in the group is moving on, so he should too."
Or, "Look how tall he is! Just imagine him in a year."
And parents often hesitate and just enroll them anyway because of that.

At the end of the day, an extra year won't ruin a kid's life. They'll make friends along the way, and even if they happen to be the tallest kid in class, they'll end up with better speech, better fine motor skills for writing, and a much easier time grasping the curriculum...

I'm speaking from experience seeing kids struggle with schoolwork simply because
they weren't truly ready for it. The more they struggle academically, the less happy they become, and that can really take a toll on their social and emotional well-being later on...

Now that I'm navigating this as a parent myself, I can tell you that these school entrance tests are pretty much useless.
(Setting aside the rare exceptions, of course.)

It doesn't surprise me at all that some kids slip right through the cracks without any real analysis—kids who still have the handwriting of a toddler or major speech impediments.

Yeah, that’s obviously a totally different story than what we deal with here in Cleveland.

Around our neck of the woods, several preschool centers are lumped together into one big administrative district, and they only assign one psychologist and one speech therapist to cover that entire cluster of five or six locations.
Because of that, if a kid shows signs of speech issues, they basically just point the parents toward the one specific center where the speech therapist happens to be stationed—though even then, the support is pretty minimal, and parents really should seek out private specialists outside the school system. I know this because I live next door to two families with kids struggling with speech; the parents haven't really been educated on how to spot the red flags or realize the long-term impact this could have on their schooling, so they just brush it off thinking, "Oh, they'll grow out of it."

As for the psychologists, there's zero actual observation happening within the classroom environment, let alone daily check-ins.
If someone requests an early assessment or asks to delay enrollment, the teachers might give their input based on the child's behavior, but the psychologist just pulls the kid out of the group for a quick session, runs some tests, and drops them back off. That's it.

feralmoose32 said:I might be overgeneralizing here, but I just can't see my little one starting school in two years...
By next June, they'll be turning six—so technically, they’d be heading off to kindergarten at six and three months. Honestly, I don't see any harm in waiting an extra year, and I wouldn't even call that a delay, really...

To me, "delaying" would mean a child who is nearly seven and still isn't quite ready for the classroom, and then having to ask for more time...

Like the others mentioned, since the rules say there's no such thing as a "delay" for a child who turns six after the April 1st cutoff—they're either in or they're not—the only option is to request early enrollment, since only those born before April 1st are legally required to attend.

Ultimately, this whole situation started with a mom whose child is technically due to start, but after testing, the recommendation was to hold off on school because of speech struggles.
Since clear pronunciation is the foundation for proper writing later on, I wouldn't spend a second worrying about which of my friends' kids are heading to class this fall.

The only thing that actually matters is determining if the speech issue is legitimate—meaning the parent needs to take an objective look at whether the child is communicating clearly or not—and then figuring out the best way to fix it.

Susan James said:I definitely agree that a ten-minute assessment isn't going to give us an accurate picture, but I have to disagree that parents are the ultimate authority on readiness.
From my own experience, I don't think we always have the clearest perspective.
Of course, a parent's opinion matters deeply, but if we are already going through the trouble of scheduling evaluations—and dragging ourselves from local clinics to various school districts—then those assessments really ought to be higher quality.
Plus, most of us end up taking time off work (if not a full day off) just to handle these appointments, which are rarely scheduled at times that actually work for busy families.

Personally, I think more weight should be given to the input from preschool programs, especially if the child attended for more than just that final mandatory year. Though, even that's a bit tricky, since those institutions sometimes feel pressured to "clear out" their rosters to make room for new kids coming in. 🙂

As it stands now, daycare centers are only required to provide feedback for school placement if there's an early enrollment request or if delaying entry is absolutely necessary—usually at the parent's initiative.
To me, that feels insufficient, especially if the parent doesn't proactively push for it.

I really believe these reports should be provided for everyone, particularly because schools with high enrollment numbers often rush through testing in just 10 or 12 minutes.

Down at our local preschool, they provide a progress report for every single kid finishing up, but they mostly zero in on social-emotional maturity—stuff like how the kid plays in a group, if they’ve been accepted by their peers, and what they’re actually interested in.

Meanwhile, the actual "testing" they do once they get to elementary school only lasts about 1.5 hours, not 10 minutes.

I'm totally with the idea that we should be asking the preschool teachers for their take, but I have to reiterate: if a kid can't pronounce sounds correctly, it's going to be a massive hurdle when they try to learn how to write words, which is basically the foundation of everything in school.
To me, spending a year working with a speech therapist is infinitely more important than the kid being able to walk into class alongside their little buddies, assuming the school doesn't completely miss the mark on detecting speech issues (though parents usually notice too; at 6.5 years old, a child should be speaking clearly, so any slurred sounds, flipped syllables, or messy pronunciation is definitely a red flag).

Chris Fowler4 said:Hey everyone,

My kid just took his elementary school readiness assessment, and the verdict was that he isn’t quite "ready" for first grade yet. To be fair, he was born right on the cutoff line, so he’ll be among the oldest in the next cohort if we wait. And look, I get it—it makes sense to listen to the experts and just hold him back a year.
But here’s the thing: at his preschool, he’s already made a tight group of friends. We really don't want to rip him away from them, especially since there aren't many kids his age living nearby, and there won't be any in the next grade level either. Plus, the kid is actually genuinely excited to start "big kid" school.
The main sticking point from the testing was his speech; apparently, he isn't perfectly clear yet. As for everything else, he did pretty well—most areas were solid, and some were actually above average.
We’d love for him to move forward, though we aren't trying to force the issue. I don't think he'll fall behind academically because, honestly, he already knows what he needs to know. For instance, he’s got his letters down and can handle addition up to 10 without breaking a sweat.
So, I'm wondering what the options are here. Is the admissions committee the final word on this, or is there a way to present our own arguments and reasoning to convince them that he’s ready to jump in now?

Look, at the end of the day, the call is yours, but if they’re already struggling to get their words out clearly, there’s a massive chance they’re going to hit a wall when it comes to spelling.
If that happens, the whole school experience is just going to be an uphill battle for them.

You also have to keep in mind that a ton of kids head into kindergarten already knowing how to read—and I don't just mean recognizing letters, but actually putting together words and full sentences—so the curriculum tends to move pretty fast once things kick off.

As for that whole "they'll be with their little preschool friends" thing, honestly, that shouldn't even factor into the decision (even though every parent I know considers it).

They'll make plenty of new friends once they're in the classroom; what really matters is that the kid is actually ready for the workload so they don't feel totally overwhelmed right out of the gate.

When it comes to the school board, I’d say their verdict is pretty much the final word, and even if you disagree, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try and fight their ruling.
From everything I've heard from other parents, people are always complaining about kids starting too early, but I have yet to hear a single person regret their child starting school a year later.

silentraven6 said:

I don't really know what to make of this one yet. It feels like there's more to the story, but I'm just sitting here trying to process it all. Honestly, it’s a lot to take in. kaže:
The way things have been handled up until now—and honestly, I suspect they’ll stay that way—is that high school English classes basically function as a chronological tour through literary history. The focus tends to land on those massive, foundational works that actually shifted the needle or introduced a major new movement. The general philosophy seems to be that for the average student, it’s enough to walk away from the class having grasped the core essentials of each work: you know, the basic themes, the main motifs, and just enough literary theory to make sense of the structure.

I really think the core idea here should be that, as a society, we need to master the basics: being able to actually write in our own language and truly understand what we’re reading. Beyond just the mechanics, though, there's this vital awareness that every single piece of literature is its own unique universe. An author's work isn't some static thing; interpretation and how we experience a story are entirely subjective. To me, that’s where the magic happens—diving into those different perspectives and debating the world within a book. It’s honestly such a blast because those discussions open up endless possibilities, all stemming from our own messy, diverse characters and life experiences.

Honestly, I think a meaningful, well-argued debate—you know, like being tasked to write an essay breaking down specific parts of the text—about the positive or negative traits of Bella’s character in Twilight would be way more valuable than just memorizing a bunch of random bullet points about Fishing and fishing regulations. It feels pointless when a student can just Google the answers and find exactly what they need in seconds. Fishing and Fisherman’s Complaints I was just revisiting this classic piece about Fishing, and honestly, it hits much differently when you really sit with it. It’s one of those stories that feels like it could have been written yesterday because human nature doesn't change all that much, does it? We love to complain, even when things are actually going pretty well. The whole premise centers on this guy who is out on the water, and instead of just enjoying the peace or being grateful for whatever he catches, he spends his entire time grumbling about how unfair everything is. It’s that universal human tendency to focus on the one thing that went wrong rather than the thousand things that went right. You know the type—the person who wins the lottery but complains the ticket was slightly wrinkled. It makes me think about how often we do this in our own lives here in the States. We get a promotion at work, but we immediately start stressing about the longer commute. We land a great house in a nice suburb, but then we spend all weekend complaining about the HOA rules. We’re experts at finding the friction in an otherwise smooth ride. There’s something deeply humbling about the way the story handles the fisherman's attitude. It forces you to look in the mirror and ask: "Am I being the person who appreciates the catch, or am I the one complaining about the weight of the net?" It’s a heavy read, but in a quiet, necessary kind of way. It’s less about the act of Fishing itself and more about the internal struggle to find contentment in a world that constantly gives us reasons to be dissatisfied. Definitely worth a reread if you're feeling a bit cynical lately. Then you’ve got to learn how to actually recite it. I mean, it’s an epic poem that functions like a travelogue, weaving in quotes and verses from all sorts of other works. On top of that, the whole thing is written in these double-rhymed dodecasyllables. It's pretty intense stuff once you get into the rhythm of it.
I honestly don't know if this is how the experts say it should be done, but then again, how are you even supposed to identify which students are actually capable of pulling out the "essential data"? Some kids might just breeze right past those key moments thinking they aren't important. To me, though, it feels like we're just stripping the soul out of literature—turning everything into this completely sterile, lifeless exercise.

Look, I might be completely off base here—and honestly, I could be totally wrong—but I just don't see how forcing students to memorize this kind of granular data about a text actually helps their literacy. How does knowing these specific details contribute to them actually becoming better readers?
Back in high school, I was definitely one of those students who lived for the literature discussions—you know, getting lost in deep dives about character arcs, symbolism, and overarching themes. But when it came to this kind of raw data? Forget it. I’d probably cram all that info the night before an exam and then completely flush it from my brain the second I handed in my paper.
Look, I mean, let's be real here—it’s just plain easier to grade a test when you're actually hunting for "correct answers" within it. I don't know... maybe that's exactly where the problem lies? 🤷

This kind of insight is absolutely vital for anyone who actually makes a living through literature. Students rarely truly internalize the material; instead, they just end up memorizing raw data that feels like total abstraction to most of them. I mean, I could at least wrap my head around it if we were being asked to count syllables or figure out rhyme schemes ourselves, but that’s not how it usually works. It’s just handed to you on a silver platter by the teacher. At least in my experience, it was always just some set of terms the professor would scribble on the chalkboard while we sat there mindlessly copying everything into our notebooks.

That’s exactly why we’re seeing this shift where students don't actually read anymore—they just memorize summaries and bullet points. Honestly, if anything, it's just clear proof that this entire style of teaching is fundamentally broken.
Books are starting to feel like empty shells. Honestly, there’s just no substance left in that kind of approach anymore.
It’s actually pretty common to see students pull off an A in English class without ever having cracked open a single book.

Why do people even bother writing books in the first place? Is it so that someone else can pick them up, see their own lives reflected on the page, and maybe walk away with some heavy questions or a few much-needed answers? Or is the ultimate goal just to land on a high school reading list, forcing students to memorize a bunch of bullet points about a character's traits just so they can scrape by on an exam?

I have the exact same complaints when it comes to language arts classes. Honestly, they could strip the entire curriculum down to nothing but grammar and spelling, and it would still be an improvement. At least then we’d actually graduate people who know how to correctly spell basic things like "don't know," "flower," "house," or "doubt." 😁

Daisy, let’s start with the language aspect. You’re honestly off base there. It’s not like anyone struggles to just Google spelling rules nowadays, but true literacy isn't built on some arbitrary consensus of rules—it's built on actual grammar.

The thing is, most people don't even grasp this, let alone have the capacity to teach it properly... and look, I'm not trying to write a whole dissertation here 😁 but that's why I keep harping on the fact that the core of any reform lies with the people actually teaching it. And frankly, that sector is a mess right now.

As for the works by Hemingway, you really picked a perfect example. His stuff is an incredible model for how to approach methodical analysis and serves as a stellar roadmap for comparative study. 😁

I think you might be oversimplifying things because of some bad personal experiences. When it comes to meeting students halfway, giving them freedom, and opening up new perspectives, we aren't going to go so far as to reduce reading down to nothing more than raw emotion, character tropes, or ideological takes. To truly understand a text, you have to understand how it was constructed.

That’s not a field for amateurs. Being a true expert is a given. What a high schooler needs to know is how the paradigm shifts—how meter changes, how the influence of Latin fades, how literature opens up to the vernacular and develops new rhythms. And, of course, the "taste" of the era. You take that info, you count the syllables, and you work with what resonates with them today—like analyzing the rhythm in modern spoken-word poetry, for instance.

You shouldn't be radical about this. You need a deep command of the subject matter before you start throwing things out the window.

Oh, and of course they count syllables and learn rhyme. That's taught in a completely different way than just dictating rules and scribbling them on a chalkboard... though, seeing your take, it sounds like you didn't exactly have great teachers growing up.

I honestly have no idea what you're even trying to say right now.
English is just what we grew up speaking; it’s our mother tongue through and through.
You know, I’ve always felt that we pick up the rules of grammar almost like we're breathing—it just happens naturally while we're kids, sort of like how you learn to ride a bike or catch a baseball without ever actually reading a manual on physics. It’s all about intuition; you aren't sitting there with a textbook memorizing syntax, you're just absorbing the rhythm of how people talk until it becomes second nature.

Do you ever run into Americans living right here in the States who just can't seem to wrap their heads around basic grammar, like tripping over verb tenses or totally butchering how to decline a word?

I know every single English professor out there is convinced that every citizen needs a dedicated lesson on how to properly master the "jotation" sound, but honestly, it’s kind of funny when you think about it—every single person in this country was already nailing that pronunciation perfectly back when they were just toddlers.

It’s honestly pretty wild how much people still struggle with basic grammar and spelling in their own language. I’m talking about professionals with college degrees—people I deal with constantly in my day-to-day business dealings—who just can't seem to get it right. And don't even get me started on the kids scrolling through the internet all day; if the professionals can't manage it, we're really in trouble.

I honestly feel like what people really need to focus on is just being able to get their thoughts down on paper without making those sloppy mistakes. You know, the kind where you can tell someone didn't even bother to proofread? At the end of the day, grammar is more of an intuitive thing anyway—it’s like riding a bike or knowing how to carry a conversation; once you have a handle on the flow of the language, the rules sort of just click into place naturally.
I’m honestly not even sure if I’m following you anymore, because I can't wrap my head around where you're finding people who actually struggle with basic grammar in their own language.

Look, I know I tend to get a little carried away during these debates, but honestly, I just feel like we’re losing the plot. We really ought to be focusing on the actual substance of what's being said, rather than getting boggeduk in the weeds over technicalities like specific vowel shifts or the complex verb tenses of our native tongue. If we want to actually get somewhere, that's where the focus needs to be.

It’s not just about getting the spelling right, though; honestly, I feel like people struggle to even get their thoughts out of their heads and onto the page in a way that actually makes sense. To me, being truly fluent in a language means more than just following grammar rules—it's about having the ability to write anything at all, whether you're drafting a serious academic paper or just rambling on about some cheesy vampire novel you just finished reading.

When it comes to Hector, you really hit the nail on the head picking that specific work; it’s honestly such a perfect example of how deep methodological processing can go, and it serves as an incredible roadmap if anyone is looking to dive into some comparative analysis. 😁

Honestly, back when I was seventeen, none of that would have done anything for me. I really wouldn't have given a damn about some guy sailing around Santa Catalina with a couple of fishermen just to scribble down some poems.

Look, even though we’re working on stepping back, giving the students more breathing room, and trying to open their minds to different perspectives, I don't want us to fall into the trap of stripping reading down to nothing more than just raw emotion, character tropes, or political commentary. If we want them to actually grasp what a text is doing, they have to understand the mechanics behind it—you can't truly get the soul of a story without understanding how the actual architecture of the writing was built.

I honestly don't see that happening, because God forbid they actually admit that being an English professor is basically irrelevant to everyone else in the room who isn't trying to become one—and let's be real, in a class of thirty, there are probably twenty-nine kids who couldn't care less about it.

What high schoolers really need to grasp is that the whole foundation is shifting—we're talking about a total paradigm shift in how we handle things like hexameter or Latin. The way classical studies interact with the vernacular is changing, creating this entirely new kind of rhythmic flow. It’s all about catching the vibe of the era. Once you actually understand that, you can start playing around with syllable counts based on what people actually find appealing today, like taking modern recitative pieces and mapping out their rhythm to see how they stack up.

Regarding this whole situation, I honestly wouldn't go so far as to say that even a single student in a vocational school needs to be familiar with this stuff.

urbantinker8 said:Fine, but then just say it out loud: let's add this to the required reading list as an example of trash lit and let the kids debate it until they're blue in the face.👍
Instead of just haphazardly tossing in various "authors" without any real criteria or cohesive plan... just as examples of... nothing, really.
It seems like as long as it's modern and easy to digest, the actual value doesn't matter much.

🙏

...and let's not forget those summer makeup classes that would probably be held until August 1st in 105-degree weather.
We'll all just pass out from heatstroke, I suppose.🙄

I mean, personally, it doesn't matter too much to me since our board meetings always run until July 15th, so we're already sitting in a greenhouse at 95 degrees anyway, but imagine adding thirty students to a single room for five or six or seven hours a day in that heat...🙂

I’m not even sure if you actually sat down and looked at the reading list, or if you just saw a headline in some article claiming that someone like Bruce Springsteen is going to be in there.
Most of the books they've included are basically modern classics that actually hold weight.

Personally, I can't stand reading those old-school classics from centuries ago. I just don't care about them—the language feels exhausting, the themes feel totally foreign, and I can't relate to what's driving the characters. There's nothing in those old books that resonates with me at all.
But the thing is, that's exactly how most students feel too.

So, instead of actually reading the books, they just read SparkNotes.
And rather than admitting that, everyone plays pretend and acts like it isn't happening, because, let's be real, in a class of 30 kids, you'll probably have one kid who would actually major in English lit and wants to dive into *Paradise Lost*.
It doesn't matter if the other 29 aren't reading anything at all.
That's just great logic right there.
God forbid we approach it by saying, "Well, let that one kid read *Paradise Lost* on their own time or in college if they're actually into it."

Here's a great piece from a columnist on this exact topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/article/people-who-read...ponat/1534121/

silentraven6 said:I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "literary theory," so I might not give you the perfect answer. But think of literary theory as applied to literature like math is to science—it's about the logically organized internal world of a text and its structure. Breaking things down into structural components is really just the starting point for a journey through the text toward true understanding. Semiotics is like street signs; there are certain patterns and rules you have to recognize.

To some, this seems irrelevant because it’s often taught poorly, without any mention of why we perform these analyses or how they contribute to general literacy when done correctly. Unfortunately, the way American language arts are taught tends to focus more on building national myths and nurturing patriotic symbols. Because of that, even when analyzing texts through theoretical lenses, people often fall into the trap of turning everything into ideology, mostly out of sheer ignorance.

Our broader issues with education, especially in the humanities, stem from the university level. The real culprit behind these flawed teaching methods is the University of Arts. Any real reform has to include them. They need to realize it's time to start training actual teachers, not just theorists, linguists, or pedants—there are plenty of specialized scientific tracks for those people.

And man, that story about the teacher is just depressing. I wasn't a great student myself, so whenever I read a book now, I jot things down and build a basic methodological framework. You just throw out five main points, look up the available literature, and dive deeper. Not to mention how much it helps parents when kids read assigned books; they can actually talk to their children about it, note their reactions, and learn from them. It's about raising a new generation of capable young people who aren't intimidated by books.

Edit: Just to add one more thing, I really care about this topic. 😁 My goal for American language and literature instruction would be to equip all young people with the ability to tackle diverse texts, encouraging lifelong reading habits and genuine comprehension. I want to foster generations of people who value reading so much that they won't shy away from texts outside their niche—like scientific papers. People who can gather all the clues in a text and form an informed opinion; people who won't read selectively, but openly; and people who know their own language so well that they can spot satire and tell when someone is trying to manipulate them verbally for their own benefit.

The way things have been handled up until now—and honestly, I think that’s how they’re going to stay—is that high school English lit classes basically function like a guided tour through the history of literature. The idea is that we focus mostly on those massive, heavy-hitting masterpieces that actually shifted the needle or introduced some major new movement. The whole philosophy seems to be that for the average student, it’s enough to just walk away with the core essentials of a work, like the basic themes, motifs, and whatever standard literary theory stuff you need to know to pass the test.

I honestly feel like the whole foundation of this should be that everyone in the country needs to master reading and writing their own language properly. It’s about more than just literacy, though; it’s about having that awareness that every single piece of literature is its own little universe where interpretation and how you experience it are totally subjective. To me, there is nothing better than diving into a deep discussion about those personal feelings or even just debating the world within the pages, because those conversations are so much fun—they really open up these endless doors for dialogue that stem directly from our own unique personalities and everything we've been through in life.

Honestly, I truly feel like sitting down for a deep, meaningful debate—you know, like actually breaking an essay down into parts to argue whether Bella’s character in Twilight is actually a breath of fresh air or just a total mess—would be way more valuable than some kid just memorizing a bunch of dry bullet points about the River and local fishing regulations. It’s just not the same when a student can just Google a few facts about fishing rules and call it a day instead of actually engaging their brain. I was just revisiting that classic story, *River* and the Fisherman’s Complaints, and man, it really hits home when you think about how much we tend to complain about our own lives instead of actually looking at what we have. It’s like that old tale where this guy keeps grumbling to the heavens about his luck, thinking he deserves better, even though he’s actually got everything a person could ask for if they just stopped being so bitter. It reminds me of those people I see in my own neighborhood here in Chicago—you know the type—who spend all their time venting about how life is unfair or how their job isn't perfect, completely ignoring the fact that they’re living in one of the best cities in the country with endless opportunities. We get so caught up in the "what ifs" and the tiny inconveniences that we lose sight of the big picture. It’s such a human flaw, honestly. We focus on the one pebble in our shoe instead of realizing we’re walking through a beautiful park. The way the story unfolds makes you realize that dissatisfaction isn't usually about what's missing from our lives, but rather an internal struggle with gratitude. If we lived by that fisherman's mindset, we'd all be miserable, constantly chasing a version of success that doesn't actually exist. It’s a heavy lesson, but there's something really beautiful about the idea that peace comes from accepting your lot and finding joy in the small stuff, rather than demanding the universe hand you a silver platter every single day. So, you basically have to learn how to recite this thing like it’s some massive epic poem that’s actually part of a travelogue, weaving together quotes and verses pulled from all sorts of other works, all while being written in those double-rhymed dodecasyllables.
I honestly can’t tell if this is actually what the experts recommend, because if that's the case, how are we even supposed to figure out which students are capable of pulling those "key takeaways" from a text? Some kids might just breeze right past those crucial moments thinking they don't matter, and to me, trying to boil down a great piece of literature like that just feels like you're stripping away all its soul and leaving nothing but a sterile, lifeless outline.

Look, I might be totally off base here, but I just don't see how forcing students to memorize these kinds of granular details about a text actually helps them become better readers or improves their literacy in any real way.
Honestly, back when I was navigating high school, I was definitely that student who lived for the deep dives—you know, those long discussions about character arcs, hidden motifs, and the deeper themes in a novel. I genuinely loved getting lost in the story. But when it came to the actual data or the dry, technical stuff they forced us to memorize? Man, I’d spend the entire night before an exam cramming it all into my brain, only to have it completely evaporate the second I handed in my paper.
Look, I honestly think it’s just way easier to wrap your head around a test when you feel like there are actually "correct answers" staring you in the face. It's like when you're trying to follow a recipe—if the instructions tell you exactly how much salt to add, you feel confident, but if it just says "season to taste," you start second-guessing everything. I don't know if that's really the core of the issue here, but it definitely makes things feel less overwhelming. 🤷

This kind of insight is absolutely vital for anyone who actually makes a living through literature. When you look at students, they rarely ever truly internalize the mechanics of what they're reading; instead, they just end up memorizing dry facts that feel like total abstractions to most people. I mean, I could almost get behind the idea of asking a student to sit down, count syllables, and figure out the rhyme schemes themselves to really grasp the structure, but that’s almost never how it works. In my experience, it was always just handed to them on a silver platter—the teacher would scribble these rigid definitions on the chalkboard, and we’d just mindlessly copy them into our notebooks without ever actually processing what they meant.

That’s exactly why we’re seeing this massive shift where kids aren't actually sitting down with a book anymore; instead, they just memorize a bunch of bullet points and plot summaries to get by. If you ask me, the whole thing is just a huge red flag that this entire style of teaching is fundamentally broken and totally out of touch with how students actually learn.
At some point, a book just turns into this hollow shell, completely stripped of any actual soul or substance.
I mean, you can have a student who absolutely crushes their American literature exam without ever actually cracking the spine of the book they were assigned.

Think about it—what’s the whole point of writing a book in the first place? Is it so people can read it and see reflections of themselves and the world around them, sparking new questions or maybe even uncovering some answers? Or is the goal just to get onto a mandatory reading list so other students are forced to memorize bullet points about some characters just to scrape by on a standardized test?

I feel the exact same way about how language arts is taught in our schools. Honestly, they could probably strip the entire curriculum down to nothing but spelling and grammar, and at least then we'd be sending graduates out into the world who actually know how to spell basic words correctly. 😁

silentraven6 said:It hits the marks for poetic excellence, genre consistency, and literary value within the context of the New Wave.

Honestly, I don't see any issue with using nothing but the student's ability to comprehend and relate to the text as the sole criterion when choosing required reading for English class. To me, these books aren't meant to be a history lesson on literature; they're meant to spark a love for reading and build actual literacy skills.

And this endless whining about *what* kids should be reading really gets under my skin. Tastes are formed by all sorts of things, including bad, inappropriate, or non-literary content. Even if they had put someone like Oprah Winfrey on there, you could always offer a different type of female autobiographical writing from an American perspective and challenge the kids to write a comparative critique of two different texts.

Plus, there's a lack of journalistic pieces in the reading list, even in this selection. I feel like it needs more genre-bending variety. For instance, Mima Simić isn't on this list, yet she stands out. Instead of Bunića-Vučić, I’d probably go with Pilgrim, since it’s more like Academy Fantasy.😁

Anyway, I was browsing some news sites yesterday and one teacher's comment really caught my eye. Her biggest struggle, she claims, is that there isn't a pre-packaged lesson plan for every single work on the list. She admitted she read certain books simply because she liked them personally, but said that wasn't enough.

Is it really too much to ask for people to explain themselves to teachers and instructors without then bursting into tears because there isn't a ready-made template for analyzing literary works?! A person in a teaching position should have enough imagination and professional expertise to develop their own methodical approach to a novel by Slavenka Drakulić, especially when there are already heaps of academic studies available on her.

Look, I'm totally on the same page—I just didn't see your post because I was busy typing up my own 😁

Honestly, I’d probably scrap most of the heavy literary theory too. In my experience, that stuff just creates confusion and pushback for most students, making it feel completely, utterly unnecessary.

Most people struggle immensely with actually comprehending what they read, and that's exactly where literature classes should be putting all their energy.
We need to focus on reading comprehension, deep reflection, and teaching kids how to critically analyze what's right in front of them.

Anyway, I was browsing some news sites yesterday and one teacher's comment really caught my eye. Her biggest headache is that she hasn't had a formal methodological breakdown for every single book on the syllabus. She mentioned she’s read some of them for her own enjoyment, but admitted that doesn't quite cut it for teaching.

I mean, shouldn't people be able to express themselves to their teachers without having to break down in tears just because there isn't a pre-packaged lesson plan ready to go for every single classic?

See, I called it. 😁
It feels like if I don't act like some kind of know-it-all polymath, I'm somehow failing at this. 😁😁