Posts by Karen Richardson3

silvergardener6 said:Mockingjay ’ Director Says “ The Answer to Why Thes Books Exist ” is Revealed in Final Installment in his latest interview with Entertainment Weekly

During a recent sit-down with Entertainment Weekly, Francis Lawrence touched upon the complexities of the romantic tension, specifically noting how things shift with Peeta being out of the picture , and The fact that The Main Core message of The Hunger Games is really brought home in The Final novel. He mentioned that his desire to see the franchise through to its conclusion as director stemmed from the idea that adapting the specific narrative which captures the essence of the whole saga would be incredibly fulfilling. Furthermore, he suggested that splitting the adaptation into two parts allows for the films to present themselves as having very “distinct” narratives.

“With Mockingjay – Part I it’s tricky because Peeta is out of reach for her,” the director observes. “Obviously he becomes an objective for her, but Gale is right there, so that’s always a tricky situation.”
While Lawrence doesn't want to spoil the exact way he chose to split the final volume of the Suzanne Collins trilogy (“That’s going to be one of the really good surprises,” he mentions), he does suggest that the movies will function as “two different, very distinct stories. Those objectives became the motives for us,” Lawrence explains. “This is where the meaning of the entire series comes into play. The answer to why Thes Books exist exists in Mockingjay, and that’s really been exciting to me. That’s been kind of what I’ve hung on to through these stories.”

I suppose, in my view, the central theme that resonates most deeply in the final chapter of the Suzanne Collins series is the absolute, crushing horror inherent in warfare. It feels like people perish without any sense of grandeur or purpose, and those who simply attempt to shield their loved ones find themselves cast as heroes, left to deal with the reality that time is perhaps the only thing capable of offering even a semblance of healing. It feels inherently unfair, but I think that is precisely the intention. I tend to mention this whenever I encounter folks who claim they struggled with the final book because of its “dreary” tone. It feels dreary, I think, because that is the honest nature of war. It serves as a grounded portrayal of what actually unfolds during a revolution—it isn't all bright colors and happy endings.

Since the third book was my absolute favorite, reading this was such a breath of fresh air..

I’m really crossing my fingers that the movie adaptation doesn't pivot toward that tired "heroine saves the world" trope, though I’m terrified they might slip into it, especially since the book is anything but that kind of story..

I'm genuinely curious to see where they decide to focus the lens.. Since the actual combat scenes are so sparse in the book—mostly just something you pick up through dialogue—I really hope the film doesn't turn into nothing but a non-stop action marathon..

gentlemarlin said:I sat through the first two movies since everyone keeps hyping them up, and I honestly still don't get the appeal. I can at least see why people dig Harry Potter, but I just don't see it with The Hunger Games. Maybe the costumes during those chariot scenes were okay. It’s not that the movies are total garbage, they're just mediocre. To me, it felt like a watered-down American version of Battle Royale, just with more filler.

Most of the characters are forgettable, except for a few who might have actually been interesting if they weren't relegated to five minutes of screen time. As for the lead... yeah, pretty average.

The world-building logic is pretty weak. The Districts aren't well-developed, and they just sort of vanish whenever the central government starts cracking under pressure. It isn't realistic, but whatever, I'll let it slide. What really makes no sense, though, is the actual Hunger Games. A government that wants to prevent rebellions wouldn't hold an event that fuels resentment among the very population they're trying to pacify every single year. That's literally the fastest way to spark a revolt.

I thought Divergent was twice as good. Sure, that movie has its own issues, but it actually had some decent moments.

I watched the first movie before I ever picked up the books, and it was alright, mostly thanks to the production design 😁 plus I've always been a fan of sci-fi and dystopias, so it worked well enough for me. It wasn't mind-blowing, but it piqued my interest, and since a few plot points felt a bit fuzzy, I decided to dive into the novels.

I've read all three (in English), and for this genre, they are seriously top-tier.
The writing style is sharp, the pacing is engaging, the protagonist is incredibly well-developed, and there's just enough romance to keep things interesting without it feeling forced...

And that third book? Absolutely stellar! Most fans seem to dislike it, but personally, I think it does such a brilliant job stripping away all that polished political propaganda and showing the messy, winnerless reality of conflict. It honestly makes you wonder if the series is even meant for a teen audience at all (I don't even think the first two were, in my opinion; I feel like people caught up in the massive HG hype might miss the true depth of the narrative).

But the least realistic part of the whole thing is the Hunger Games themselves. A government that's terrified of an uprising wouldn't keep holding these games that essentially piss off the very population they're trying to keep under control every single year. That seems like the fastest way to fuel resentment and create the perfect environment for a revolt.

gentlemarlin said:I don't see it, but feel free to explain if I missed something. I'm not a fan of abstract arguments.

I already explained why THG isn't relevant to anything happening now, in the past, or in the future. The basic premise of the movie is just illogical and unrealistic—regular public executions used as a way to keep neighbors from rioting, while nobody even knows who's next on the list a year from now.

the ideas it provokes

Like what..?

what makes it a good series compared to the shallow and mindless Divergent (which I gave an OK rating to because it's decent entertainment) while simultaneously claiming it's 10 times better than THG and Citizen Kane—then you probably live under a rock, have a very superficial view of the world, or you're twelve years old.

There's actually a third option here: I might just perceive depth differently than you do. For a large chunk of film critics, "depth" means an actor hysterically overacting or showing massive emotion. Or playing some lunatic. That automatically makes them an Oscar contender. To me, depth is when something reminds me of states of being that transcend normal human functioning, where scenes and characters trigger emotions outside the everyday human spectrum. From that perspective, Divergent at least has scenes where they face fear and deal with it in different ways, whereas I can't think of anything like that in THG.

The core premise of Divergent is that being different makes someone a threat to society, and one faction wants to seize control through mental manipulation. It's actually quite grounded, and we've seen stuff like this play out in reality. Sure, the movie has holes and the ending sucks, but at least there are standout scenes. I can't recall a single one in the Hunger Games.

As for Citizen Kane, it's total garbage. I can't remember a single redeeming quality or a single memorable scene. I'd rather watch the Hunger Games ten more times than sit through Citizen Kane once. Citizen Kane is the textbook definition of the kind of "depth" that doesn't mean anything to me.

Honestly, this whole thing is actually super well-developed in the books, so it’s entirely possible the movies just didn't manage to capture that depth.
The population is basically already broken, they aren't allowed to talk to one another, and they're completely dependent on the central government.

The whole point is that these aren't just random public executions (which would be way easier to pull off than running an entire arena full of kids), but rather they're forced to kill each other.
Plus, since the districts don't have equal standards of living, their chances of survival aren't even close, making the Games a tool for humiliation and pitting the districts against each other—even though they eventually all teamed up for the rebellion.
Then you've got the winners having to spend a year touring the very districts where they killed children, which is essentially just a continuous reign of terror designed to say, "we can do this, and we could do much worse if we felt like it."

All joking aside, the story is well-constructed; maybe it's not perfect, but it doesn't suffer from massive logical holes. Besides, stories about sacrificing children to prove the strength of conquerors pop up in all sorts of different mythologies (if I remember correctly, the author herself mentioned that was one of her inspirations).

And I'll say it again: the final book, with its focus on wartime PR and the fact that Katniss is anything but some flawless hero saving the world, managed to wrap everything up without devolving into mindless teen trash.

But then... there are the movies... those big summer blockbusters that were marketed as being "the next Twilight." In my opinion, they're only popular because they're popular, which is a shame because the books are actually quite good.

I was scrolling through the news this morning and stumbled upon another one of those proposals for yet another overhaul of our education system: http://www.nytimes.com/news/education/reforms-and-visions

Maybe I’m just being cynical, but I honestly feel like every six months or so, we get served some brand-new "grand vision" about how our schools ought to be run.

And if I’m being totally honest, I hate it—it feels like nothing but pure, unadulterated chaos.

I’m really curious to hear from people who are actually "in the trenches"—you know, the teachers and professors who deal with this stuff daily. What does it actually look like on the ground? I'm talking about everything from the sudden shifts in technology (like when they moved my little guy's elementary school over to tablets last year) to the constant tinkering with the curriculum, or all the talk about extending primary school to nine years. It feels like a revolving door of big-picture visionaries getting appointed as Secretary of Education.

I came across some stats earlier suggesting that since the early 90s, the average tenure for a Secretary of Education is barely even two years. 😳

So, I want to know: how does that instability actually hit your work? Does any of this stuff result in real, meaningful change, or is it all just paperwork and empty promises?

Back when I was growing up, school used to offer these two totally different setups: full-day programs or after-school care.

The full-day option was this specific way they organized everything where you’d basically have two different teachers looking after the class, and the schedule was all mixed up—like, you’d have an hour of actual lessons, then an hour of playtime, then back to a lesson, and so on.

Then there was the after-school thing, which was more just hanging out in the classroom once the regular school day wrapped up; you'd be with whatever teacher was on duty, just grinding through homework and stuff.

I ended up being in the full-day program for my first four years of elementary school (though even then, I’d still beat my parents home most days, since they wouldn't get back until around 5:00 PM and my grandma lived way across town—I'm guessing that was pretty unusual back then, because whenever I read these old threads, everyone talks about how their parents were pulling into the driveway by 3:00, but mine definitely weren't 😁).

Honestly though, I wonder if anyone even does that old-school full-day style anymore?

rowdypanther12 said:That’s exactly why I asked if it was actually true. My sister went to school eleven years after me, and back then, people were also claiming the workload was massive and the material was overwhelming.
Her 7th-grade history textbook was literally an inch thinner than mine was when I was in 7th grade. I actually measured them. With a ruler.
Hers was mostly pictures and little text boxes with important facts... which somehow made it harder, I guess? I have no idea.
The only thing that's probably actually harder now is that kids are different—their attention spans jump around more, and it's tougher for them to focus because they live in such a hyper-connected world.

I'm not even sure if textbooks are a reliable way to measure how much stuff there is to learn anymore.

back when I was doing student teaching for history, we didn't really read from the book; instead, we'd go over bullet points that the students would then scribble down in their notebooks during class (in 5th grade, maybe 4 or 5 points per lesson).
my teacher was only two or three years older than me, so it wasn't like I was being mentored by someone still using methods from thirty years ago.

and back when I was in school, textbooks for most subjects were kind of like that—you had to buy them and lug them around, but you mostly learned from your own notes (whereas today, you can just get slides or some PDF sent to you).

college was actually the first time I really sat down and studied directly from books (and even then, I was one of the few; everyone else just used study guides.😁 ))

rowdypanther12 said:Moms arguing with preschool teachers about school 😁

But honestly, I feel like I’m constantly hearing all this whining about how "intense" the curriculum is or how "heavy" the workload feels, yet it’s coming from parents whose kids are basically supposed to be the brightest stars of their generation.
I mean, how do you even square those two things? 😵 😁

To be totally blunt, I wasn't in school for very long, but it never felt overwhelming to me at all. And looking back, every single classroom followed Gauss's curve perfectly—you had a few high achievers, a few kids who struggled or caused trouble, and then the bulk of the class right in the middle.
It seems to me that the real issue isn't the difficulty level; it's that parents in that middle group can't handle being "average." They demand their kids be recognized as geniuses because, in their eyes, they absolutely are (okay, I don't really buy it, but hey, let me be politically correct here😁).

(As a side note, I have this colleague who is... let's say, mediocre at best, but he's convinced he's the smartest, most talented, and best-looking guy in the room simply because his parents fed him that ego. Throughout his schooling, his teachers were always the scapegoats for his failures. It’s wild how much confidence he has, even if it’s completely unearned😁. My mom was the total opposite; whenever anyone tried to praise us, she’d immediately find some little flaw or reason to bring us back down to earth😁).

rowdypanther12 said:😂

It feels like this school has developed this massive reputation here, but I swear I haven't heard a single parent say, "Oh, don't worry, it's not that bad for them."
Instead, everyone is crying foul—it's a nightmare, it's too much work, the curriculum is way too advanced for their age, the kids are struggling...
I don't know why it's almost taboo in America to admit that school might actually be easy for a child. I guess it's the same reason people feel awkward admitting they have money, or that they think they look good, or that they actually like what they're wearing. 😂

What really gets under my skin is seeing parents obsess over the syllabus instead of actually focusing on their kid (and themselves).

The curriculum is what it is. There will always be some kids who find it a breeze and others who struggle to keep up. It's just how it works because some kids are naturally more driven toward academics while others are clearly destined for sports, music, or working with their hands.

In my opinion, the real issue today isn't the coursework; it's that kids—at least from what I hear—are having major concentration issues because they're glued to the TV. Plus, a huge number of them are left unsupervised on computers because their parents aren't tech-savvy at all. So, the parents think their kid is studying just because the room is quiet, which is pretty naive—I mean, I've seen it myself, and I used to fall for that logic too, thinking everyone was on the same page, but I'm making sure my kid won't even have a computer in their bedroom until they hit high school.🤣 )

Then you run into these authority issues, which probably stems from that whole mindset you see everywhere online: "Oh, if I raise my voice at my precious little one, will they be traumatized and end up hating me? I just want them to grow up to be perfect little beings who love me forever as the ultimate mother."🙂
(Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should go around yelling at kids constantly, but we need to raise them to understand they aren't the center of the universe. We shouldn't be walking on eggshells around them, terrified that setting a boundary or expecting them to listen without a meltdown will somehow damage their psyche.)

urbantinker8 said:I guess I should probably start by saying that I’ve been thinking about this for quite a while now, though I haven't really known how to put it into words until just this moment. It’s funny how things work out that way, isn't it? I was sitting there yesterday, just staring at my screen, and it hit me—well, it didn't exactly hit me like a lightning bolt, more like a slow realization that drifted in like a fog over the Hudson River. Anyway, regarding what Karen Richardson3 mentioned earlier... I don't know, maybe she's onto something, or maybe I'm just overthinking it again. I tend to do that. I find myself getting lost in the weeds of these discussions, wondering if we're all looking at the same picture or if we're all just staring at different pieces of a puzzle that doesn't actually exist. It feels like we spend so much time debating the small stuff when the bigger picture is just sort of hovering there, waiting for us to notice it. Or perhaps it isn't waiting. Perhaps it’s just indifferent. That’s a bit grim, I suppose, but I can't help but feel that way sometimes. I was reading this article the other day—I think it was from a tech blog based out of San Francisco—about how our perceptions are shaped by the very tools we use to communicate, and it made me wonder if our conversation here is being subtly steered by those same digital currents. It’s a strange thought, I realize. A bit rambly, even. But I think it’s worth considering, even if we don't reach any grand conclusions. We might just end up right back where we started, which, honestly, wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

Karen Richardson3 I guess what they're saying is... I was born right around the start of the 1980s, and I remember back then the rule was that kids born by March 31st were basically required to start school, which I suppose felt pretty standard at the time. But now, there’s all this talk about moving that cutoff date up to September 1st, which would mean children end up starting their schooling much earlier than they used to. It makes me wonder how that shift will actually play out in the long run, though I guess everything changes eventually. I was born right at the tail end of March, which I suppose meant I started school a little early, around six and a half years old. I never really gave it much thought at the time, honestly; I never found myself sitting there wondering how many kids in my class were older or younger than me, though looking back, it’s pretty obvious that almost everyone else was a bit further along. My sister was born right at the start of May, and I guess she didn't quite make the cut during the testing for that early childhood program—you know, the one for kids around six and a half. That last year of preschool was honestly such a mess, mostly because she just wouldn't stop crying about how bored she was. Her mom used to leave her home by herself quite often—and look, I get it, I’m probably not the best judge here, but I remember playing all alone in the park when I wasn't even three yet while my mom just watched from the balcony. I actually ended up getting hit in the head with a swing once, but back then, I guess it was just considered normal for kids to get a few scrapes or bleed a little. It wasn't like today, where people act like you're going to lose your parental rights or end up in some state-run daycare center just because a kid gets a bruise. 😁 I mean, I guess my sister was always a bit different, like she basically taught herself how to read just by obsessively studying the elementary school curriculum, and if she had actually gone to preschool, she probably would have spent the whole time sitting there reading picture books to everyone else instead of playing. So, yeah, when you think about it, summer can actually be a bit of a drag for kids in preschool, I guess. It’s funny how we always assume they’re just going to be running around having the time of their lives, but there’s definitely a chance things get pretty tedious for them in that setting. 🙂 I guess looking back at my own school days, things haven't really changed that much, though it feels like we talk about it differently now. There were always those kids who just couldn't quite wrap their heads around reading, even by the time they hit fifth grade, and there were others whose parents would go out and buy them a bike just to celebrate them passing a grade, which seems a bit much, I suppose. It was a mix of everything, really, much like what you see today, and I suspect those parents probably felt the exact same way—convinced that the curriculum was just too demanding or that the teachers were asking for the impossible. I guess there’s just a constant stream of school kids on my street lately, always running around outside playing, though if they aren't out there, they're usually glued to Facebook—I mean, we all hang out together in our neighborhood circles, so I tend to know exactly what everyone is up to. I don't know if this comes off as a bit harsh, or maybe just blunt, but I suppose you could have seen it coming with most of those kids; before they even stepped foot into an American classroom, you could pretty much make an educated guess about what kind of students they were going to be. 😁 I suppose, in any given situation, if a parent is feeling that intense level of anxiety—that gut feeling that their kid just isn't ready for the classroom yet—it might actually be a better move to look into deferring enrollment for a year. I mean, it’s probably worth considering whether it’s more beneficial to ask for a delay rather than letting the child pick up on all that underlying tension or a negative attitude from the parent regarding school in general. It seems like that kind of stress could really rub off on them, which might not be ideal for their transition. I suppose it’s unlikely that anyone will actually want to stop playing just because they’ve headed off to school, especially since there’s always going to be something new and genuinely interesting to learn or get involved with once they get settled in.

🙏🙏🙏
Well, hello there—where have you been hiding? I feel like I haven’t seen you in an entire century, or maybe it just feels that way because life has been so busy lately.😁

I guess I don't quite wrap my head around why parents get so worked up before their kids even start school, worrying that they’re somehow losing their chance to just be kids, or acting like they're being drafted straight into the military instead of just heading into a classroom.🤷
I suppose we have to accept that things won't work quite the same way anymore, where kids can just spend the entire day playing exactly like they did back in preschool, though I guess there is still this ongoing push in the elementary school system to incorporate more play-based learning into the curriculum, much like what you see in those early childhood programs.
Whether it’s before school or after, depending on how their schedule shakes out, there is still plenty of time for kids to just go out and play. It isn't like they're sitting in first grade being forced to tackle something heavy like *Crime and Punishment* for homework the second they walk through the door, leaving them no chance to hit up the local park or anything.🤷
I suppose a six-year-old might be reaching that stage where they just need some fresh challenges, you know? It feels like they’re ready to start developing a bit more of a sense of independence, maybe even a little more responsibility when it comes to their own "obligations" around the house. I guess it’s about finding that balance between letting them fly and keeping things organized.

It’s actually kind of funny to me, something I’ve been noticing for years now: you have these parents who make such a massive, exhausting scene about enrolling their kids in preschool, complaining about every little thing from the curriculum to how they handle potty training, but then, once the kid hits six, suddenly they want to keep them in daycare for as long as possible and start this whole identical, overwhelming drama all over again regarding elementary school enrollment.
I suppose the whole cycle of intense drama just keeps going when it comes to high school, and honestly, it probably doesn't even taper off when they start applying for college.🤣

Honestly, I don't get why everyone treats starting school like it's some tragic end to childhood or something..
whereas I totally vibe with what summer was saying about worrying if their kid is just going to be stuck at home all day.

but yeah, generally speaking, we tend to turn everything into a massive drama when it comes to those "enlightened" parents.

And don't even get me started on all these posts complaining about how overwhelmed first graders are. If parents actually had the guts to just shut off the PC and the TV, I bet they’d find plenty of time for everything, including playing outside for a bit. Kids over five aren't missing out on parks because of their schoolwork; it's because they're glued to screens, playing video games and liking duck face selfies on Facebook.

P.S. "I'm chasing my career," says mom 🤣 I tried to cut back on the forums, but since I'm clearly terrible at self-control, I just banned myself until I finished everything I needed to get done.

Brian Barnes5 said:I’m not exactly losing sleep over it yet, just chewing on the idea, especially since I spend my afternoons hanging out at the local park with a bunch of moms whose kids are just starting elementary school, and honestly, the vibe I'm getting from them is pretty skeptical.
We used to head back to school right after Labor Day, but now it looks like everyone is gearing up by mid-August, and I haven't quite figured out why they shifted the calendar around this year. Does anyone have the scoop?

I was born right at the start of the 80s, and back then, if you were born by March 31st, you were automatically enrolled (but now everyone is saying the cutoff is September 1st, which basically means kids are getting pushed into school way sooner).

I was born in late March, so I started school when I was about six and a half. To be honest, I never thought twice about it; I never really sat there wondering, "Hey, is everyone in my class older or younger than me?" though looking back, almost everyone was definitely 😁older.

My sister, on the other hand, was a May baby, and she didn't pass the assessment to start school at six and a few months.
But man, during her last year of preschool, it was such a struggle because she’d just cry about being bored out of her mind. My mom used to leave her home alone sometimes—yeah, yeah, I know... but even I used to play by myself in the park when I was barely three while my mom watched from the balcony, and I even took a swing set to the head once. Back then, it was totally normal for kids to get bruised or bleed a little; parents weren't constantly being called by CPS or left in some neglectful situation 😁, but still. Anyway, my sister ended up teaching herself to read just by looking at the school curriculum books, and if she had gone to preschool, she probably would have spent the whole time reading picture books to the other kids.

So, summer, it's totally possible for kids to be bored in preschool. 🙂

Besides, back when I was in school, there were always kids who couldn't even grasp basic reading by the 5th grade, and others whose parents bought them bikes just to pass the 4th grade. It was all sorts of things, just like today, and I bet those parents were just as convinced that the curriculum was too hard or that the teachers were asking for the impossible.

There are tons of school-aged kids on my street; they spend a lot of time playing outside, and if they aren't out there, they're on Facebook (we all hang out together, so we stay in the loop on everything).

And I don't know if this sounds mean, but for most of those kids, you could pretty much guess what kind of students they were going to be before they even stepped foot in a classroom. 😁

At any rate, if a parent is genuinely stressed that their kid isn't ready for school, it might actually be better to ask for a deferral rather than having the child pick up on that negative energy toward starting school.
That said, starting school doesn't mean they stop playing, and they'll have plenty of new, exciting stuff to learn and do.

Richard Wilson4 said:Man, thirty minutes is nothing, how can you even deal with that?

My specific life situation right now—having a little kid, trying to coordinate babysitters, not being able to just run to the theater whenever I feel like it and all that 😁—means that when I do get to the movies, I'm down for something fun or even total trash, but I just can't stomach anything boring or overly pathetic.

At first, I was thinking, "Oh cool, an old-school style flick, this should be fun," but after just a few minutes, it became painfully obvious that this was just some "eight Americans saving European culture while whining about how precious it is" crap.

After we talked it over, we all basically just stood up and walked out of the theater, which honestly, I don't even know when that actually happened. I didn't even finish my popcorn! 😁

Now, it's possible for a movie to grow on you and become great later, but I took a quick peek at the reviews, and it doesn't look like that's happening here. 😳

(Btw, thanks for the heads-up on HBO; I watched the first episode and it's pretty confusing, but I figured if all the good people are raving about it, there must be something there... I'll give it another shot once I finish Shameless, which I highly recommend by the way...)

Richard Wilson4 said:Sure, it’s got that Ocean's Eleven vibe going on, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing; honestly, I’m actually looking forward to seeing if it turns out to be a fun, solid watch.

That was pretty much where my head was at too.

We ended up walking out of the theater after maybe thirty minutes. I can't say for sure if things pick up later on, but based on what we sat through, if it wasn't for that heavy-hitting cast, this wouldn't even have made it to theaters and nobody would have bothered showing up.

It’s just an incredible mess of a concept. If you want to talk about "achievements," I guess they managed to take material from World War II and turn it into something incredibly dull.

Aside from a few old-school one-liners from the veteran actors, absolutely nothing happens in those first half hours—the scenes don't even feel connected to one another. The soundtrack is weak, and the dialogue about culture is just painfully cringey.

Carol Anderson8 said:Alright, so I’ve basically scrolled through almost every single page in this thread, so now I’m throwing my own question into the ring to see how everyone would handle a specific situation. I’d love to hear all perspectives—especially from any professors or teachers hanging out on this forum.

Here’s the deal: my kid is in 6th grade. She isn't some straight-A genius, but she’s holding steady with solid Bs. At the start of school, she had a massive struggle with focus and concentration, but thank God, that’s actually improved over the years.
I’m not some drill sergeant pushing for perfect grades or anything like that. All I want is for her to give it her best shot. She’s killing it in certain subjects—like history and geography—but then she hits a wall with others, specifically math and English.
But here’s the kicker—as we all know, when it comes to getting into any high school, the grades that actually count for admissions are English, math, and that third core subject, and those are exactly the areas where she’s struggling the most. (And just to be clear: I'm not talking about some elite prep academy, just any decent high school, like a medical vocational program which is what she actually wants to do).

When she’s doing math at home, she works totally independently. She gets the concepts—she can connect the dots and follow the logic. But man, she makes these ridiculous, "facepalm" mistakes. Like, she’ll write a minus sign instead of a plus, or completely forget a set of parentheses. And obviously, the whole answer ends up being wrong because of it. If I point out a slip-up—like, "Hey, check if you copied that right"—she catches it immediately and solves it perfectly.
But on actual tests? It’s the same stupid mistakes every single time. It kills me because she’s sitting there with a D in math even though she genuinely understands the material and knows how to apply it. It’s not lack of knowledge; it’s just pure, unadulterated sloppiness. I’m wondering if anyone has any ideas on how I can help her get past this?

On top of that, she’s got a D in English. She just doesn't have a handle on grammar or literature, which are the absolute foundations for a good grade. She pulls As and Bs in spelling, reading assignments, and essays, but when it comes to the final grade, none of that matters if the grammar and lit components are a mess. It’s gotten to the point where I’m literally re-learning grammar myself just so I can explain things to her. I know the American English curriculum is packed, but honestly, one sentence in a notebook under the heading "personal pronoun" that says, "She asked him about the problem," isn't nearly enough for a kid to grasp how pronouns actually work.
Does anyone have advice on how to tackle this with her? Where can I find decent practice materials?
I’ve found a ton of worksheets online, but unfortunately, none of them come with an answer key, so I’m stuck having to study the material myself, solve everything, and then try to teach it to her.

Is anyone else dealing with something similar?

Regarding the grammar side of things, if you're looking for deeper explanations and concrete examples, I'd suggest picking up a standard English grammar textbook—maybe something like the Merriam-Webster guides or a classic collegiate grammar book by Smith-Jones-others. They even have versions specifically designed for K-12 students. You could go through those sections yourself to pull out specific practice problems for her—to me, that seems way more reliable than grabbing random worksheets off the internet where you never truly know if the answers provided are even right.
Alternatively, maybe just head in for a quick chat with her teacher and ask for some extra practice materials; that might be a smoother way to handle it.

As for the literature part, I’m a bit confused—how can she get an A in reading assignments but only a C in literature? From what I remember back in my own American school days, isn't the process for analyzing a text pretty much the same, except for the fact that reading assignments are done at home?
What are they even grading in literature besides how she handles the themes of a story? Are there other fundamental concepts they're looking for?

amberskipper3 said:Actually, I disagree.
The whole point of required reading is to give students a roadmap of literary movements, history, theory, language, and the specific styles that defined different eras.
We pick these specific works because they’re the clearest examples of those concepts in action. It's about teaching the fundamentals through representative classics.

And why shouldn't required reading give students a chance to see what's actually being published today?

Why couldn't one part of the curriculum be about the historical evolution of literature, while another massive chunk focuses on modern and contemporary works?

Right now, the reading lists basically stop at the start of the 20th century—I don't even think they touch anything from the interwar period... contemporary stuff is totally ignored.
When it comes to that level of depth, you barely even get it in college.

I'm really curious to hear your take on why things are stuck this way.
To me, it feels like everyone would much rather dive into books they can actually relate to—stories that tackle the issues we face right now or look at morality through a modern lens.

I don't see any good reason for this other than pure laziness from the people designing the curriculum, who just keep pushing this same old "historical overview" model even though plenty of experts in the field aren't on board with it at all.

I honestly feel like we’re all just circling the same drain when it comes to this topic, you know? It reminds me of those old philosophical debates about fate versus free will that you’d stumble upon while reading *The Iliad*, where everything feels preordained even when you're fighting tooth and nail to change it. I was sitting there thinking about how much effort we put into these little daily struggles, almost like we're chasing a ghost, and it really makes you wonder if any of it actually moves the needle. It’s kind of like when someone spends their whole life working toward a Nobel Prize in Literature only to realize the most profound truths were actually found in the simplest, most unglamorous moments of life. We get so caught up in the grand design that we miss the texture of the actual experience, which is pretty wild if you think about it. kaže:
I mean, honestly, who else would you even trust to design a literature curriculum or hand-pick the reading list besides someone with a PhD in literature? It just feels like common sense to me, right? Like, if you were looking to overhaul the engineering program at MIT or redesign the medical syllabus at Johns Hopkins, you wouldn't just ask some random person off the street—you'd go straight to the experts who have actually spent their lives studying the craft. It’s the same logic here; when it comes to deciding which classics define our education, you want someone who truly lives and breathes the subject matter. 😁

If you're looking to go all in on academia, a PhD in literature isn't just one narrow path; you can actually specialize in things like literary history, contemporary works, interdisciplinary studies, or even teaching methodology. It’s pretty broad once you get into the weeds of it.
If you ask me, the people who actually live and breathe literary theory and pedagogy should be the ones calling the shots when it comes to designing school curricula, but honestly, that’s just not how things work in the real world.
Look, at the end of the day, everyone is just looking out for their own interests—it’s all about the bottom line, really. That’s basically the driving force behind this whole mess with those three different spelling guides they're pushing right now. When money is the main motivation behind the scenes, you can't be surprised that things are stuck exactly where they are.

Look, we really shouldn't start playing the relativity game here. If we go down that road and start questioning everything, we’ll eventually end up nitpicking every single subject in the curriculum and questioning the entire point of mandatory schooling itself, which honestly doesn't get us anywhere at all.

I honestly feel like obsessively overanalyzing every single detail of how we teach just leads us into a total dead end. It’s like we spend all this energy trying to micromanage every tiny little movement in a lesson plan, thinking if we just tweak one more thing, everything will suddenly click, but it really doesn't go anywhere. 😕
It’s really about steering everything toward a more modern way of teaching—something that actually clicks with the students we're doing all this for in the first place.

Look, if your whole mission—one of the biggest reasons you’re doing this in the first place—is to actually spark that genuine curiosity and hunger for learning in kids, how on earth can you not take a hard look at the curriculum? It’s like if you were trying to teach someone how to cook by giving them a broken stove and expired ingredients; you can't really expect them to get excited about the craft if the tools they're working with are fundamentally flawed from the jump. You have to question whether what we're feeding them is actually worth their time and energy, because if the foundation is shaky, you aren't building thinkers, you're just going through the motions. 😕

Look, I’m definitely not saying we should just toss literary history out the window or stop teaching the classics altogether, because obviously that would be a mistake. What I’m getting at is that it really needs to stop being treated like this untouchable, isolated pillar of education and instead become just one part of a much larger conversation—one where it sits right alongside contemporary literature and modern media culture. We need to start treating today's digital landscape and current storytelling with the same level of respect and academic weight as we do the old stuff, creating a balanced curriculum where the culture of right now holds the same real value as the stories from our past.

I honestly feel like we need to rethink how we approach literature in school, because just staring at a textbook doesn't cut it. If you really want to actually "learn" literary history rather than just memorizing dates for a test, you have to teach it alongside things like music history or fine arts. It’s all connected, right? Like, you can't fully wrap your head around the soul of an era just by reading words on a page; you need to hear the melodies that were playing in the background or see the brushstrokes on the canvas from that same period to truly get the vibe. It should be an integrated experience where everything flows together, making the whole subject come alive instead of feeling like some isolated, dusty chore.
I know that most subjects are designed to cover roughly the same historical eras at the same time, but honestly, looking back at my own time in school, it never felt like we were actually synchronized like that at all.
It felt like you were just rattling off a list of dry facts the whole time, honestly; it’s like you’ve never actually sat down to really soak in a masterpiece while letting the music from that same era play in the background to set the mood.
You can't really "learn" culture just by hitting the books; you have to actually feel it and live it to get it. Honestly, just grinding through endless lists of facts about the fashion or etiquette of some specific historical era doesn't do squat when it comes to actually nurturing the soul of a nation.😁That’s exactly why our culture stays right where it is—it's all tied to those deeper roots we've built over time.

When you really step back and look at the grand timeline of everything ever written, modern literature is such a tiny, microscopic sliver of the whole story; it’s basically just an afterthought tucked away at the very end of the curriculum. By the time students actually get to it, they're already drowning in senior year stress and obsessing over their SATs, so they barely have the headspace to actually engage with what's happening in books right now.

But look, she’s exactly what we’re living through right now. She’s happening in real-time. You can actually feel her, you know? There's this raw, honest way she forces you to confront the mess we're currently stuck in, which makes her so much more relevant than something like The Iliad ever could be.

Hey everyone, just wanted to drop in and say good morning! Hope you all slept well and are feeling ready to tackle whatever the day throws at you. kaže:
Honestly, the high school reading list is a total disaster, especially when you look at what they're handing to vocational students. It’s like, fine, if you’re in a traditional prep school, go ahead and grind through the classics to get that general knowledge base—that’s what you signed up for. But for everyone else? I really wish we gave them a bit more breathing room. They should definitely be reading, sure, but it doesn't always have to be some ancient slog; we should be throwing in contemporary authors and stuff that’s actually engaging and easier to digest.

My bad, I wasn't being super clear before—I was specifically talking about the high school level.

And honestly, I think the real issue is that even kids graduating from those top-tier prep schools come out the other side without having a clue who the people winning the Nobel Prize in Literature are these days, for example.

rowdypanther12 said:I feel like we should draw a clearer line between elementary and high school when it comes to required reading. In elementary school, kids should be engaging with modern books that actually grab their attention; that’s where they can build all those essential literacy skills. Then, once they hit high school, they can move on to the classic "must-read" literature 😁
Personally, I'd even let them skip parts of a book if they could give me a solid, reasoned explanation for why it wasn't clicking or why they found it boring 😁

Personally, I’d rather condense the whole history of literature into just one or two years 😬 ), and then dedicate the remaining year or two (depending on how long high school lasts) to contemporary fiction. Just a thought.

The thing is, most of this stuff is just boring. Like, I really don't care about Shakespearean drama or the endless suffering of Anna Karenina and her messy fallout with the Russian elite. 😁

Daniel Gomez10 said:I'm right there with you. Some people just aren't readers (and as someone who always has a book in my bag, I find that hard to wrap my head around 🙂), and you can't force that passion to happen.
I don't even think the point of required school reading is to make kids fall in love with books. It’s part of the English curriculum, and its main job is to give them a foundation in literature. It’s kind of like how in music class, students listen to specific classical pieces; in lit class, they read certain classics because of their historical importance.
Plus, there's everything else we've touched on before—mastering language, improving writing skills, learning how to think critically, analyzing themes, and building up that imagination...

Personally, I have a massive issue with how we approach American English classes—specifically this rigid principle of teaching literary history.
To me, it feels like a total fog, and I honestly can't see a logical reason why it's structured this way, other than the fact that the curriculum is clearly dictated by PhDs specializing in literary history. 😁

Don't get me wrong, studying literary history is definitely valuable. But what about the modern era? How many works by contemporary authors, whether they're American or international, have you actually read or discussed during your English classes?

Isn't it just common sense that books reflecting the world we actually live in right now would be much more relatable and engaging for teenagers?

Why is it that a fifteen-year-old is stuck reading The Iliad, then moves on to The Decameron at sixteen, followed by some Neoclassical drama at seventeen, only to reach senior year at eighteen where they barely even glance at a few mid-20th-century authors because everyone is too busy stressing over SAT prep and graduation?

I've always been a reader—actually, I still am—but most of my required school readings were just an absolute drag.
I would finish them (most of them, anyway), and I could always figure out "what the author was trying to say," which meant I always pulled straight A's in English, but man, those selected books were just brutal.

For kids who don't already love reading, these mandatory lists just reinforce the idea that books are boring things to be avoided at all costs. Meanwhile, the kids who actually enjoy reading know there's a huge, fascinating world of literature outside the school curriculum, so they usually just suck it up and endure it.

redseal23 said:Maybe I sounded harsh, but I really wasn't. 😍😁
Look, I don't care if he hangs out outside the apartment for a bit longer—whatever. I used to go for runs around the neighborhood in the summer too, no big deal. But this guy wanted to be out until midnight wandering around town with his buddies? Yeah, absolutely not. That's where I draw the line.

You guys are totally nitpicking about the hair and the towel 🤣
I was just trying to help my kid get all that heavy-duty gel out. It looked like some cheap version of something you'd find in an Alexander soap commercial or something. Plus, he’s got hair down past his chin, so everything was just literally dripping everywhere. 😲

Now the roses are blooming again 😍
He forgave me for not giving him anything ; his words 😁

So you were just trying to be helpful, and now he’s acting like you’re actually attacking him? 😁

Do you know his group of friends, and is it true they're hanging out until midnight every night?
If you know them, and if that's really what's happening, maybe just let him stay out until, I don't know, 10:30 PM.

And just let him have his hair. It belongs to him. It can be greasy, purple, caked in gel, or covered in glitter for all I care, but it's his. He isn't your property, no matter how hard that realization hits for us moms.

Charles Murphy6 said:Since we're all patting ourselves on the back here, let's get real.😁
I honestly can’t tell the difference between those subtle vowel shifts in my own speech—take my daughter, for example; I’ll be testing her on her spelling from her notebook, she’ll tell me which letter she used, and I’m just sitting there completely lost because I can't hear the distinction myself.
I suppose I’m just both thick-headed and hard of hearing, if I’m being honest with myself.🙄
While I was working at the school, I actually went to see an English professor to try and master it, but even then, I just couldn't make it stick.
Apparently, some people are just wired such that they never quite grasp those specific sounds or hear them properly, and frankly, knowing that provides a little bit of comfort.😁
It's not like I have a handle on those "ee" and "ay" diphthongs either.
I tend to write these little humorous anecdotes about our family, and luckily, my husband acts as my editor.
Every writer needs an editor, after all; again, I’ll say it, having that support is everything.😁🤦

That whole issue with those specific consonant sounds isn't even weird if you grew up with a heavy regional accent from, say, the South or rural Appalachia; those dialects often blend those sounds into one single noise anyway.

As for those vowel spelling rules, the way they're handled in textbooks is kind of a mess. The reality is that in actual speech, those multi-syllable vowel combinations almost never exist, and the long single vowels fluctuate so much that people just default to what feels right. It's why everyone trips up on them—it's similar to how people struggle with whether to use "don't" or "do not"; it's one thought, but grammatically, it's two parts.

I've always felt like you really pick up those linguistic habits by reading a ton when you're young. Did you do much reading back when you were a kid?😁

rhino, I’ve been thinking—have you actually seen any real progress or positive shifts when dealing with those kids coming from really troubled, high-conflict homes?

Like, does anyone have an actual success story where things actually worked out?

Because honestly, the whole mess just boils down to this: you've got parents who are understandably stressed out, demanding that the school step in and protect their kids if they're being bullied.
Then you've got teachers feeling totally helpless because they can't seem to stop the violence or keep the kids safe.
(And while we're at it, I'm curious about the actual protocol here—like, what happens when a kid just snaps and starts hitting another student in class? What is a teacher legally required to do? Is there some specific handbook or set of regulations that dictates how to handle these situations?)

So, basically, the parents end up pointing fingers at the teachers and the school administration.
The school, in turn, points fingers at the police and the US Navy.
But what can those agencies even do? Which brings me right back to my original question.

I actually know how one story ended at a local elementary school over in Seattle. There was this student who was terrorizing everyone else; his parents were constantly breathing down the school's neck to do something, but the kid was out of control—he brought a knife to school, made death threats, even choked a classmate... it was constant drama that stayed in the local news for years. It was the textbook definition of a broken home: no mother in the picture, father is completely checked out, and he's a PTSD-sufferer struggling with alcoholism.
Eventually, the father just pulled his son out of school entirely, claiming they were moving to another country. Later on, the school tried reaching out to this supposed new school overseas, but it turns out the kid was never even enrolled there.
As for the school and the US Navy, they completely lost track of him. He's somewhere out there with his abusive father, and nobody has any clue where they went.

Can you believe it? Even my mom and her group of friends were posting all over there!!

Do the mods have any actual strategy for opening up new discussion threads and actually encouraging people to have constructive conversations instead of just policing everything?

Right now, you guys have basically smothered RiD, and I’m really hoping there’s some sort of roadmap to bring it back to life, preferably in a way that actually works better than before.

I don't know what the long-term vision is here, but for me, RiD—even if you all think it was low-quality or "bad"—was honestly a lifeline during some incredibly brutal stretches of my life. It was everything from getting breastfeeding advice to finding a space to vent about how exhausting being a parent can be (stuff that would probably get flagged as "unnecessary" and deleted under today's rules, but it's what kept me sane after countless sleepless nights over several months).

Also, I have to give a massive thumbs down to moving the twins thread and the whole explanation about relocating it based on those "interest groups" logic.
It should be pretty obvious to anyone with common sense that moms dealing with twins don't have the luxury of scrolling through an endless stream of chatter just to find other twin moms; they basically have to ignore everyone else just to find the specific info they need.

👎