Posts by silentraven6

urbantinker8 said:I think I could manage it too.😳🥳

But honestly, I’d probably end up working myself to death, you know? Between prepping lessons at home and actually teaching them in class, it feels like a lot.
It isn't impossible, per se, but it's just incredibly exhausting.

I suppose I might even be willing to take on one of those really difficult classrooms, if only because I feel like it would be its own kind of challenge.
I wouldn't say no to a bigger paycheck, obviously, though if I really had the choice, I’d probably just go for the seniority credits instead.😬

Exactly... you work yourself to death, and that's the catch. Yeah, we’re (hopefully not for much longer) criminally underpaid for this level of prep, but there's still that sense of human and moral duty to do right by the kids. Plus, it's challenging—isn't that why we do this job in the first place?

The pension credit idea... that's actually brilliant. That's how the system should really work.

How many of you would actually support giving higher salaries to teachers who work with students facing significant challenges—specifically those with special needs or learning disabilities?

Think about the ripple effect. If a highly compensated teacher takes on a particularly difficult classroom and somehow manages to spark real potential in them—if they actually succeed in helping a child reach a whole new level—what happens next? Would those same teachers just swoop in and take over the kids once they’ve become "easier" to teach in the mainstream classes?

Look, I’m not advocating for segregation. I’m talking about smaller class sizes. But I am saying that if a teacher is tasked with designing lessons specifically meant to squeeze every bit of potential out of every single student, they should be compensated for that level of effort. I’ve seen this firsthand during my internships at both elementary and high schools. Given the types of classes I've worked with—I've only had four professors in my life, but they exist—it's a real thing.

So, how do some of them actually pull it off?

Susan James said:Well, I'm definitely the expert here!
The more time I spend working with kids who are starting to act out or getting into real trouble, the more convinced I become that the school system itself is largely to blame. We’ve essentially pushed them into this corner. By placing such an overwhelming emphasis on traditional academic success, we end up driving kids right out of the classroom and onto the streets. It takes a massive toll on their self-esteem; when they feel like they can't meet the standards of a "good student," they figure the only way to find any sense of achievement is to lean into being a "troublemaker" instead.

Before the self-proclaimed experts on this forum start lecturing everyone about "family values," I just want to say that I truly believe the family is the foundation. Most of a child's core behavior starts at home. However, they also pick up a whole different set of behaviors at school—and then an entirely separate set while they're busy trying to find any excuse to skip class!
It’s no wonder some kids feel the need to skip school. For them, it doesn't feel like a place meant for learning or discovery at all. Instead, it feels like an environment where they constantly fall short—a place where their unique talents, interests, and skills just aren't valued. It can be incredibly draining when you're constantly being pressured to meet expectations that don't align with who you actually are or what you're capable of doing.

I honestly think the biggest misconception held by our parents—and even our grandparents—was the idea that sending kids to college was the only way to escape the grind. Their whole logic was basically, "Work hard in school and get a degree so you don't have to struggle like we did." They were so focused on making sure we wouldn't end up stuck in manual labor or working the fields just to get by, thinking a nice white-collar office job was the ultimate ticket to a smooth life.

To be honest, not every kid grows up wanting to sit behind a desk all day, and frankly, there just aren't enough of those office roles out there to go around anyway.
With unemployment rates climbing and so many people finding out that a college degree doesn't guarantee much these days, I completely get why kids aren't as obsessed with higher education anymore. You don't even really have to spell it out for them—they see it for themselves. They look around and see parents who went through the whole grind at places like UC Berkeley, only to end up unemployed or stuck in jobs that don't pay nearly what they were promised. It’s hard to value the hustle when you see that reality playing out right in front of you.

The most heartwarming thing I've noticed lately is that there are actually kids out there who genuinely get excited about different types of jobs while they play. It’s such a sweet thing to see.
Just look at these little ones in preschool—well, except for the kids who were handed a tablet by their grandparents!
People are curious about all sorts of things—how to start a garden from scratch, what it’s really like to work as a contractor, an electrician, or a carpenter. They want to know the ins and outs of being a tailor, a chef, a firefighter, or even a hairstylist. It's funny, I was just chatting with a neighbor about how much everyone seems to be looking for hands-on careers lately!
Kids are naturally such curious little explorers, aren't they? They’re constantly observing everything happening around them, trying to make sense of the world. I've always felt that the best way for them to process all that information is through play—it's how they actually get to test out those observations and experience things firsthand.
So, we send them off to school, but what do they actually spend most of their time doing there?
They just sit there, quiet and obedient, doing exactly what they’re told. It feels like all they do is study—and most of the time, it’s just pure rote memorization. I remember being back in high school, and it felt like we were constantly being told to "get a move on" or "keep your seat warm." There was always that pressure to stay focused and push harder, almost like if you weren't constantly grinding, you were falling behind.
I honestly don't see anything wrong with assigning homework. It’s about giving kids access to different types of information and teaching them how to actually hunt for answers on their own—as long as we aren't doing it at the expense of their actual interests. The problem is that we often fail to find that balance. I can't tell you how many times I've heard parents say things like, "You can't go play soccer until your math worksheet is done," or "You can't help Dad fix the car until you finish your reading assignment." I've even heard, "You can't help Grandpa in the garage because you haven't finished that geography project," or "No gardening with Grandma this weekend because you have tests all week." The mindset is always "school comes first, period." Teachers often back this up, too. But here's the thing I've noticed: when we constantly tell a child they can only enjoy life once their schoolwork is finished, it often backfires. In my experience, instead of motivating them, it just leads to a standoff where the kid ends up doing neither—they don't go play, and they don't finish the homework either.
By the time a kid hits eighth grade, they often lose interest in learning practical trades or hands-on skills, yet they aren't exactly hitting the books or excelling in school either. It’s that tricky middle ground where they seem to drift away from everything at once.
To be clear, I’m not talking about people losing focus because they’re glued to their computers or hanging out with the wrong crowd on the street. This is about something much deeper. It's about how families, relatives, neighbors, and even kids are genuinely showing interest in pursuing specific, high-level career paths. We're seeing real ambition and meaningful connections to important professions within the community.

Not everyone is going to be into poetry, geography, or obsessing over what happened 20 or 200 years ago...
Just like I had zero interest in technical drawing back in the day, my buddy sitting next to me in class couldn't care less about literature.
I’d spend my time reading books and knocking out our required reading assignments (for both of us), while he’d help me fill out my workbooks.
In the end, we both walked away with straight A's in both subjects.
But what did we actually learn from all that?
I learned how to cut corners and navigate around the system—though, to be fair, I actually enjoyed the reading part.
Honestly, we were pretty lucky to have each other. We could swap favors, and by helping each other out, we were actually practicing things we were genuinely interested in.
Nowadays, if a kid struggles with a subject, parents usually just step in, hire a tutor, or pay someone to write their book reports for them.
I really don't like that.
It still feels like we're just encouraging kids to cheat and find loopholes.

I often see school reports stating that a child lacks "study habits" (usually alongside a long list of behavioral issues).
And it's true—they haven't developed the habit of memorizing facts, coming home to finish homework, reading assigned books, or doing any extra reading.
Among these kids, you'll find some who are totally lost in front of a computer or TV, or just wandering the streets. But you'll also find kids who love tearing computers apart and putting them back together, or who are obsessed with car mechanics. (I can talk your ear off about mechanics, but those kids usually have a mentor—someone they shadow at a local garage, for instance).

Sure, you could argue that kids get to choose a vocational path around age 14 or 15.
They do.
And quite often, they make that choice.
They can be really successful during their apprenticeships, yet they still choose not to go to college (which makes me wonder: do we really need as many professors and academic subjects in vocational high schools as we currently do?)
But then there are the ones who fall in with the wrong crowd before they hit 15. They lose interest in everything, never develop any work ethic—not for school, and not for a trade—and they end up cycling through various institutions that constantly tell them how much of a failure they are.

That's why I think we shouldn't wait until they're 15 to start guiding them; we should start much earlier.
Or, at the very least, we should scale back the hours spent on history, geography, literature, and biology. (I remember most of that was just review for us in high school, so it seems logical that the heavy lifting should happen during the later years).
As for physics, chemistry, and technical subjects... those should be strictly hands-on workshops in middle school.
(Maybe with a little bit of theory thrown in, but definitely different from how things are handled today).

Look, I agree with most of this, I just want to point out that cutting out chemical equations that are vital for practical learning won't lead to anything good.😁

Jonathan Ortiz2 said:Mine. honestly, i don't know what to make of all this, but my two cents is that we're all just spinning our wheels in the same old cycle, thinking we've found some grand epiphany when really it's just more of the same noise. I mean, does most people just drift through the whole education system without ever actually retaining those core fundamentals, regardless of whether the lessons were surface-level fluff or some deep, life-altering stuff?

You just stick a TV in front of a kid and they’ll pick up English before they can even tie their shoes... yet you spend eight years dragging them through the public school system and they barely walk away knowing two words of the language. It's honestly kind of pathetic.

So now you’re out here assuming that some kids just can't hack it or succeed in elementary school by default, but honestly, the reality is that most people don't remember a single damn thing they learned back then anyway, so what's even the point of stressing over it?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that in a class of thirty students, fifteen of them actually give a damn about chemistry or chemical equations? If five of them...

Look, we don't need to overhaul the entire curriculum overnight, but maybe we could start by looking at the credit hour requirements... I mean, why are we still dragging around all these useless electives that nobody actually needs? We should probably ditch the fluff and rethink how we're even teaching this stuff in the first place.

P.S. Does it even matter who’s actually an expert and who’s just talking out of their ass? As if anyone’s going to start PayPaling you their diplomas to prove it anyway.

Look, I don't think you've quite grasped what I'm getting at...

Maybe they won't remember every tiny detail, but they will realize that the world has a structure that can be deduced—that specific logic inherent to every field of study. It's the process that matters, not just the raw content. That's the part so many people are missing today.

I brought up expertise because so many people fail to see that not every topic is for everyone, yet they still try to jump in blindly. Without understanding the foundations of the system, and without even having the intention to learn how it works from the inside to offer meaningful suggestions for improvement, they just end up peddling these fairy-tale ideas instead.

rowdypanther12 said:Why? To me, that isn't exactly foundational chemistry knowledge. 🤷 I’m not saying it’s useless, but since I believe middle school curricula should be broader and less deep, I don't think chemical equations or mass percentages belong there.
If a student is genuinely passionate about chemistry, they should have access to elective workshops. That should go for every subject, really.
In fact, if it were up to me, I’d actually add more subjects to the middle school curriculum. Like I said, much broader, much shallower, and with a lot more hands-on learning and cross-subject connections.
That’s just my take on it.

Saying "that's just my opinion" is kind of like saying "everyone is entitled to their own opinion"... it doesn't really add anything to the conversation.

Give me an actual example of what those extra subjects would be. I'm genuinely curious.

Also, I'm wondering how many people here are just parents, and how many of you are professionals in these fields as well as parents?

rowdypanther12 said:So, you really think the curriculum is fine as it is, without any unnecessary depth being forced on elementary schoolers?
I mean, teaching chemical equations, mass percentages, and linear functions at the elementary level seems a bit much to me. Honestly, I'm just speaking from memory here—thankfully, I haven't looked at a textbook or talked to middle schoolers in quite a while.

WTF?! What’s the actual issue here?

The kids aren't being forced to sequence DNA strands or calculate complex molecular compounds on day one. They're learning the fundamentals. Equations, functions, and mass percentages—these things explain how the world works, showing them that everything stems from a core definition. It teaches them how to draw mathematical conclusions and back them up with solid evidence...

And they're doing all of this using really basic examples.

Susan James said:And can you imagine the uproar the unions would cause if certain subjects were cut, or if hours were reduced, or if some kids were allowed to skip specific classes?
Or, you know, if certain jobs were eliminated...
If some teachers actually had to look for work somewhere else...🤔

Sure, kids are still forming, and we all keep growing and developing throughout our entire lives, but so many kids just struggle through elementary school with bad grades, constant absences, a poor self-image, or social hurdles. They spend time in an environment where they could instead be picking up practical skills—especially if their parents run a local business or work in agriculture.

The obsession with providing a "general education" often results in kids just sitting in chairs too much, which kills their drive to learn and explore. Ultimately, it stifles a child's genuine interests.
And all of this happens just to protect existing jobs.
We need to have the guts to admit that some kids want to be carpenters or florists. We shouldn't care about what A. Senou or Matos think; if they aren't interested in historical wars and just want to saw wood or tend to plants, let them.

Most of what is mandatory in elementary school right now is totally unnecessary, and the way we force kids to learn is actually counterproductive.

Josip Kozarac was a damn forestry engineer, one of our most famous foresters, so what are we even talking about here?

When you start nitpicking American language and literature, I'm going to bite back!

If knowing the basics of your own language and culture is "too much"—whether you end up a carpenter, a painter, or a modern literature professor at the University of California, Berkeley—then why bother? Because those foundations are how you learn to think, to be concrete, to think critically, to analyze a text, to read, and to write... If we don't need that, then what the hell do we need?

Yeah, maybe not every kid will find deep truths in a story by Matos, but they’ll grasp a sense of tradition, pick up new vocabulary, and realize there were people living before them... Not to mention everything else they can learn and every world they can visit through reading.

The same goes for every subject... If learning about major American rivers is "too much," or if fractions are too much, or if studying the World Wars is overkill for a future painter, then fine—let's take away their right to vote, too. Because that painter, that poet, that engineer, that sanitation worker... they all vote. Everyone needs the ability to recognize what is ultimately good for society as a whole.

God forbid I start bringing up Kant’s categorical imperative and a bit of utilitarianism for a healthy society...

I truly hope that soon I’ll be teaching my own passion, my own philosophy. I hope the muses strike me so I can instill critical thinking in these kids—whether they become carpenters or the next Einsteins. We need all of them. We all do the same work, and it’s a failure for all of us if we destroy these "weakest" links by reducing them to the bare minimum.

urbantinker8 said:Sure, maybe they coasted through middle school and high school, but let's be realistic—you can't exactly expect a student to fail an entire grade just because they don't know the difference between "its" and "it's." 🤷
Maybe at some point (at the latest during summer school😁), they actually know all their other basic fundamentals, so they somehow manage to scrape by with a D in English.

What I eventually find myself blaming about the system in this specific context are two things:
1. This unwritten rule where kids don't really fail grades in elementary school because apparently that’s "not pedagogical."🙄
2. The way standardized testing works today, where the questions at the lower levels feel almost trivial while the passing threshold sits at a measly 20-30%.

But honestly, both of those are just results of outside pressure, like the constant complaining from parents and students regarding the school system.
That’s just the struggle we've been handed.😁

I don't think you're making things up, but I have to admit, it feels a little insulting when it implies that all of us teachers are cut from the same cloth.
I’ve worked at several different schools, ranging from elementary to high school, and I’ve never shown up to work in sweatpants, been late to class, left early, or spent an entire period just chatting about my personal life to kill time.
But, I suppose it makes sense that the "bad" ones are much more conspicuous, so people rarely ever talk about the "good" ones.

Regarding the required teaching hours, I should probably mention that at my school, we always struggle to hit the target number by the end of the year. So many hours get lost to holidays, school events, various projects, field trips, graduation activities, or just people calling in sick...
Because of that, we never really had the luxury of holding lectures during instructional time.

And I feel like I should comment on that last part of yours.🙂
That notion—that it isn't worth getting out of bed for anything less than four inches—is a perspective that students bring exclusively from their homes.😉
I doubt any teacher would pass on a worldview where they wouldn't bother putting in any effort for anything slightly larger than four inches.😉
I can't tell you how many times students have asked me why I even bother trying with them for such a meager salary, or why I don't just go find some better-paying job elsewhere.

This right here? This is the bedrock of our failing education system, this country, everything!!!!

This is the root of all our issues. This is how we were raised; this is how we perceive the world!

The fact that kids today have a better grasp of money and financial culture than they do basic math—something you shouldn't even need to memorize unless it's an extreme case, and something that can actually be learned through real understanding—is telling. It’s the fact that we live in a society, really a global one, that’s drowned in neoliberal capitalism where we've cherry-picked the absolute worst parts and tossed out the best. It's the fact that we have been, historically speaking, anchored as a nation of fools who are just a mass of people to be exploited and sent to the front lines because geniuses die too early and then we lose them. And that applies to everything, from industry to warfare—I mention war because historically we've been known as a tribe of warriors used to fight someone else's battles. The fact that we were never truly educated as citizens... that is what our struggles have actually given us!

That’s why I say, we can talk about school reform all day, but what we really need first is a spiritual reform. We need critical thinking. We need a reform of the mind itself!

Man, those damn exam questions... My professor handed me a failing grade just because I couldn't remember the name of the horse on the Josip Jelačić statue. It’s ridiculous. And honestly? The older generation doesn't even realize he was being sarcastic when he asked it—they don't even know when World War I actually kicked off.

When I talk about rote memorization, I’m not really referring to things like reciting poems by heart or mastering grammar rules or multiplication tables. Those are actually just exercises in memory retention and mnemonic skills, which are super important for future learning.

What I meant was more about those teachers who demand that you answer questions based purely on what you've memorized word-for-word.

A lot of people get upset when I say that if you just cram a lesson to recite it back, you’re looking at a C at best. I see that grade as a way to encourage students to realize that this kind of "learning"—which is usually just driven by pressure from parents—isn't actually acceptable. If you get a D, though, that’s for the ones who, after being shown exactly where they went wrong, still try to argue that they knew everything and said everything perfectly, and wouldn't even let you interrupt them to clarify things.

analogseal18 said:One certainly maintains the right to appeal a teacher's recommendation.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with mastering grammar or history, yet I find myself questioning the wisdom of insisting on specific facts that certain students merely memorize superficially for a midterm only to forget them moments later. In our American school systems, one can clearly observe this glaring discrepancy between high letter grades and actual performance on standardized diagnostic tests.

For those particular children who possess no genuine interest in absorbing the curriculum, such academic requirements are little more than a waste of precious time—time that might be better utilized to solidify foundational knowledge they will carry for a lifetime, or perhaps to acquire practical skills. Should they not be focusing on learning a trade properly, becoming self-sufficient adults who are genuinely capable of earning their own living?

Earning a living? Where?

If anything, that rote memorization might actually still hold some value out there in the workforce...

I agree that the system might be way too focused on general knowledge, but if we want to truly restructure education, we first have to restructure the labor market, enrollment quotas, jumpstart manufacturing, and address civic education—not to mention the national spirit...

Every four years, someone comes along in Washington to try these "aesthetic" reforms that never lead to anything meaningful; if anything, they usually make things worse. Just like everything else, really.

urbantinker8 said:Yeah, I suppose that’s true.
But even then, I suspect some of our parents wouldn't be all that thrilled with a system like that either.

Personally? I’d actually be happy if my kid learned early on that everything in life comes from your own hard work and grit—that as long as you want to move up, the opportunity is always there if you put in the effort.

I did live in Germany for a little while, and I've kept in touch with people over there for a lifetime now. All I can say is that their way of doing things really works for me; it makes sense, and it’s genuinely motivating.

urbantinker8 said:🤷
I'm honestly just curious about it all.
I don't really see any harm in the accusative case or in Mesopotamia, I suppose.🤷

Pretty much.😁
It's a similar setup to what they have in Germany, actually.
Compared to how we do things here in the States, they tend to steer kids toward specific paths quite early on, mostly based on their achievements and the input from teachers and parents, since kids around eleven or twelve years old don't exactly have a crystal-clear vision of what they want to do with their lives yet.

Oh please, it's that "wicked" accusative and that cursed Mesopotamia that's ruining our kids, not the fact that parents are becoming increasingly disconnected from them...

In Germany, sure, they guide them early, but they have a system that isn't a life sentence. You can always move up, you can transfer to a better school, pass your exams, and just keep going. Here? If there's a way to advance, there might be one, but it feels so much harder when the whole system basically tells you that you're a failure for the rest of your life.

urbantinker8 said:I was wondering if I could ask a bit more about how exactly you "work with all the schools across the US"?

He probably handles the heating systems for 😂

analogseal18 said:In this country, we simply fail to nurture talented children unless they possess a truly staggering level of intellect. Those extracurricular programs mentioned earlier are a rarity here, mostly concentrated in elite schools in cities like New York or Chicago. As far as my local school goes, they have a quasi-drama club that meets right before the end of the school year just to put on one single play. I know they offer things like recitation, choir, or maybe handball or soccer for the boys, but none of it provides an avenue for my daughter to participate—and she is a student with stellar grades who possesses a genuine passion for the natural sciences (math notwithstanding) and an exceptional command of English.

If you were to ask me, any meaningful reform should move toward the model used in Switzerland, Germany, or Austria. In those systems, students are channeled as early as fifth grade based on their academic aptitude and desire to learn into three distinct tracks: preparatory academies, technical high schools, or vocational paths for those who have mastered the foundational material but aren't suited for pure academia. This current American "one-size-fits-all" mishmash is devastating for average students, for those who excel in only one specific niche, and especially for children whose parents lack higher education. Children who struggle academically or require special accommodations aren't going to absorb much of the advanced curriculum taught in the upper grades anyway; meanwhile, the exceptionally bright students from educated households will simply pursue their ambitions through private tutoring outside the classroom regardless.

I hope you just misspoke a bit regarding the part about smart, educated parents and their children...

I was actually thinking about mentioning Germany too; I think that system works fine in a country that actually has the market for it... And it's great that there's always a way to transition from a vocational track back into higher education.

Everything in our system is basically in a coma, so I honestly believe we'd just implement a broken version of that, too.

The best thing about their schooling is the inclusion of forgotten subjects like home economics. Everyone I know over there knows how to sew and handle basic repairs from a very young age.

David Palmer5 said:🙄

By the way, those treatment programs at the facilities you mentioned are actually free for parents—it's all covered by the state through the Social Security Administration. A lot of parents with kids facing significant challenges take advantage of reduced work hours, too. It’s not a perfect fix, but it definitely helps ease the burden a bit.

At the end of the day, I still stand by my belief that if a kid is genuinely gifted or performing way above the curve, the school system should be stepping up to give them more opportunities during elementary and high school. Honestly, I just don't see what the big deal is with providing that kind of support. ☕

You can see I wrote that it should be adapted.

The rest was just my reaction to all the shouting. Often, special programs for kids with special needs are paid for—like sports, for example, or music classes.

I’m trying to explain that for gifted kids, there are extracurricular activities—not out-of-school ones—things like astronomy clubs, little physics groups, drama, etc. If we start tweaking the standard curriculum specifically for them on top of the adjustments already made for kids with special needs, it’ll just end up hurting the average students even more.

Because every time we try to individualize instruction in our classrooms—where it's already a struggle because class sizes are getting way too large—it ends up being focused mostly on those middle-of-the-road students.

David Palmer5 said:See, you get it, 😁 because you actually said it yourself: "they go to music, they go to sports."
The thing is, all of that falls outside the standard public school curriculum. That’s stuff parents have to manage entirely on their own: chauffeuring the kids back and forth, footing the bills, buying all the gear... But what happens if parents don't even realize their kid has a gift? What if they're working two jobs and pulling shifts until 7 PM, so there's no one to drive them to practice? Or what if they just don't have the extra cash to fund all those extracurriculars?
That's the core of my argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by "specialized schools"—you're probably thinking of things like performing arts academies or something similar, which are high schools. But here, we're talking about the K-8 level. 🤷

Well, then let them struggle if they don't know how to handle it.

I mean, kids with special needs have specific programs outside of school too (like Savannah, Goldman Sachs, or handwriting workshops—and most of them end up in sports, especially those with ADHD...) so the parents really do have to "shuttle" them everywhere.

And there are plenty of average kids involved in activities where they need to be driven around, too.

We usually just head out on our bikes 😍

The elementary school curriculum should be designed for the average student, I think that's pretty obvious.

David Palmer5 said:I’m not really sure what part of that is "completely wrong."😕
The standard curriculum and school requirements are designed for students of average ability, simply because that's the largest group. Any average kid can successfully navigate a program like that. The fact that so many kids today seem poorly behaved or disruptive doesn't actually have anything to do with what I was saying.
For students with disabilities, there are individualized approaches and specialized programs tailored specifically to their needs.
Extra tutoring (which isn't offered at every school) is meant for kids who just want to learn more, which doesn't necessarily mean they are gifted.
As for the kids who are truly gifted or have exceptionally high abilities—there aren't many of them, and honestly, we don't have adequate programs for them yet.

Look, I was thinking about the actual logistics of trying to run a lesson plan in a classroom filled with 30 average students, two kids with ADHD, and maybe one absolute genius.

I don't quite follow your logic regarding the gifted kids... If they have an ear for music, they go to a performing arts magnet school. If they're a natural athlete, they head toward sports academies. If they're a talented writer, there are endless opportunities, from specialized journalism programs to various liberal arts academies...

Jason Morgan said:How many truly gifted children have you actually encountered in your lives?
There are those students who consistently earn straight A's—and believe me, I was one of them—but I wouldn't go so far as to label myself "gifted."
Back at my school, there was this one kid who was the definition of a prodigy. Once you see someone like that, you realize you’ve been using the term way too loosely for everyone else. 😬
To give you an idea: back in sixth grade, a classmate handed him an algebra problem from the eighth-grade curriculum. This kid just... solved it by pure intuition (I am being entirely serious!). He actually told his friend he didn't even know how he arrived at the correct answer; it was simply logical to him. 🙏

Don't you dare say that out loud, or people will start questioning if you consider yourself gifted!

Don't you know that nowadays, every single American born is treated like a little genius? 😂

David Palmer5 said:Unfortunately, this hits the nail on the head. 😢

What do you mean by "where does that leave them"? The entire system and curriculum are built specifically for the average student. That’s who teachers and professors spend their time working with.
Students with special needs are handled by specialists in other fields—like speech therapists, occupational therapists, or special educators.
And as for gifted or high-achieving kids within the K-12 system? Most of the time, nobody is really working with them at all.
Why aren't we offering them extra activities and specially designed curricula? Instead, it feels like the responsibility is just dumped entirely onto the parents.

That is completely wrong!

If you haven't been paying attention, the system is basically just a support network for kids with special needs or ADHD (whether it's diagnosed or not), while simultaneously complaining about how much the gifted kids have to deal with. But there *are* extra classes, competitions, and plenty of other resources out there for those bright students...

The "average" student is the one actually getting screwed over. They're stuck in the middle, forced to deal with both ends of the spectrum. In today's educational climate, they're the ones being used as the testing ground for "inclusion," patience, and tolerance. Most of the time, they’re the ones suffering.

And who's to say that one of those average kids won't have a sudden breakthrough later in life and turn into a brilliant scientist or a world-class pianist? Who knows?

Who's going to guide them or give them the help they need?