Posts by silentraven6

urbantinker8 said:I suppose the reason a book like *The Chair* earned its spot on the high school required reading list is because...🤷

maybe it just sounds a bit more edgy and contemporary to pick up something titled *The Chair* instead of something like *The Great Gatsby*?🤔

Do you even realize that Springsteen isn't listed as MANDATORY?

And it’s not about who's more popular or who "deserves" what.

It’s about assessing feasibility given how language evolves and the general zeitgeist. It's also the fact that Academy literature doesn't always transition easily to university levels, and to actually read those Academy works, you have to head to the library and inhale the dust of the Merriam-Webster. Plus, you need a solid grasp of history.

Someone might pick him up later and read his entire discography, and we should be happy if that happens. But by forcing something onto kids that they aren't even equipped to understand, we're just pushing them away from reading altogether.

If we have to resort to that kind of cheap tactic—using Springsteen as some sort of bait just to get them to pick up a book—then fine, whatever. But let's be real: nobody is ever going to erase Dante from American literature anyway. There are hundreds of us who still study him and truly love his work.

Shakespearean John Smith, by the way, acts more like a politician than a literary historian. When you read his stuff, you get the impression that an American, an Austrian, a German, or a Canadian is constantly looming over us, ready to crush us, and we have to perpetually construct this identity—this mythomania about our roots and the father of our literature. Someone who fears outsiders fits perfectly into this whole tirade regarding Dante, especially considering how foreigners are depicted in the Academy texts and the roles they play.

Robert Rodriguez9 said:handwriting practice. 😬
Personally, I find it hard to believe a fifth or sixth grader could produce a deep analysis based on their own interpretation. 🤷 Sure, there might be a few outliers, but they're the exception. At least, that's my impression when I look back at how we handled literature discussions in middle school.

I have a child in first grade, and even now, they’re already working on interpreting and spotting the core elements of a text. The textbooks are designed specifically for this—they guide kids through questions that mostly focus on actual reading comprehension.

There’s always some kind of question meant to spark their own thinking, plus a section where they get to draw something related to the story.

He just finished his first written book report. I didn't catch every single assignment, but roughly speaking: he had to write down the author and the title (so, learning who wrote what and what a "work" actually is); pick out two things from the stories he liked and transcribe two sentences about them (which covers writing practice, personal opinion, and reading skills); and then look around his room to write two sentences about items he sees (tapping into imagination and practicing short-form content creation).

So, tell me this... these kids are in 5th grade now, they're using advanced tech, they're navigating social dynamics and texting each other on iMessage or WhatsApp with all this malicious cleverness... Don't underestimate their ability to express everything they know in writing.

Later on, they'll move into complex sentences, more sophisticated vocabulary, literary devices, age-appropriate theory, metaphors, essay formats... If we give them clear roadmaps through a text and provide all the right tools in a way they can actually digest, they can show off much more talent in both writing and speaking than we give them credit for.
And they'll learn how to treat one another with respect—learning that it's perfectly okay and normal to say they don't like something, or that they love it, or that it's terrible, provided they can back it up with arguments. To do that, you first have to read something, then form an opinion, then read and read and read more. You have to cultivate critical thinking. Teachers need to nurture it, accept it, debate it—letting students win an argument sometimes, or letting them disagree. They need to encourage them to speak up, to express themselves, to communicate about what they've read, compare impressions, and learn how tastes vary and how everyone sees things differently... there are endless ways to do this. You can't just use the same old template for fifty years.

"Quote:"

hiddendriver34 said:That whole debate about murder being a "holy act" usually gets settled pretty quickly in freshman year right after they tackle the biblical "Judith." 😉

That was just a hint, really—just throwing some ideas out there to see what sticks. 😁 And honestly, isn't it sometimes necessary to circle back to certain topics? I feel like some things just need to be revisited over and over again. It’s part of the process, right? 😁 Especially in our society here. 🤣

I just spent some time scrolling through Open Forum, and honestly, the uproar is getting ridiculous. People are acting like they just kicked Shakespeare out of the classroom entirely instead of just moving him from the core curriculum to the supplemental reading list. I don't get the outrage. In my opinion, required reading should really just be a supplement. It doesn't necessarily have to cover every single thing discussed during class lectures. You could easily set three mandatory books for everyone and then let the rest be elective. Students could engage with the material through term papers, essays, reading journals, or even project-based problem solving. It shouldn't be this big of a deal.

hiddendriver34, honestly, if you ask me, taking that whole historical approach with distinct periods is the only way to go. It just makes sense.

I’m not actually on campus right now, so I don't have all the specifics, but from what I can see, reading is becoming a massive issue. It feels like it's getting worse by the day. Even the older generation seems to be heavily leaning into writing and grinding through those required reading lists just to keep up.

hiddendriver34 said:The thing is, it’s not the original work by Dante. It’s just a translation of Dante. Nobody actually sits down to read Dante anymore. And now, everyone is acting all outraged because someone is openly suggesting it, even though it’s already become the standard practice.

Look, some of my colleagues from years back couldn't follow original Shakespeare because they weren't exactly paying close attention during their linguistics seminars at Ivy League colleges. 😁

When it comes to Shakespeare's language, it should be easy enough to give kids the basics using some linguistically accessible methods. Honestly, I’d much rather teach Shakespearean Anka satir in a classroom than Judith, but hey, that's just my opinion. 😁

neka čitati i the "translation." Judith can actually serve as a window into understanding certain fundamental literary laws of the era it was written in. It's an excellent foundation for debating the morality of crimes, the author's stance, how female characters are portrayed, taking sides, and justifying bloodshed.

Karen Richardson3 said:Look, I get that, but even when we talk about Shakespeare, we aren't reading the original Shakespeare; we're reading an English translation, yet we still say kids are reading him in school.

The real issue here is the ego of the people designing these curricula. Honestly, it's a flaw you see in almost every subject. There's this total inability to realize that the goal shouldn't be to show off how "cool" your specific field is or how much massive information you can cram into it.

Listen, if a professor doesn't believe their subject is the coolest thing on the planet and a massive source of inspiration, they might as well quit right now. 😁

Of course, the staff follows the syllabus to the letter, forcing kids to memorize types of verse by rote, while having absolutely no clue how to present why a verse exists as a form, how it evolved through history, or why any of it matters to anyone. Understanding verse as expression could, for instance, provide a solid foundation for understanding predecessors—like using Petrarchan styles to show how powerful influence used to be. Then you pivot the conversation to their influences, who they were imitating, maybe play them a hip-hop track to bridge the gap, and talk about their followers. You can discuss why followers exist—is it just a Renaissance thing, or does that concept run through all of literary history and even into modern pop culture?

In the end, it all falls on you as the teacher. Even if you declare a work unreadable during class—and I've definitely had moments like that—it can spark a hell of a debate. You can take a comparative approach; you draw them in to read so they can understand why certain authors wrote such brainless, programmatic works and things like that.

And yeah, 😁

Karen Richardson3 said:Back in elementary school, I used to absolutely devour Greek mythology.
But I couldn't stand it for a second when it was presented in verse.

At the end of the day, everything hinges on what you think the actual point of teaching literature is.
There’s one camp of people who think the whole goal is just memorizing the classics and knowing which big names triggered which shifts in literary history.
Personally, I don't see why that matters to anyone unless they’re planning on making a career out of it.

If we shift the focus—say, if the goal of reading is to find our own personal struggles or universal human issues within a story, or to grapple with those eternal questions—then there’s no reason to limit ourselves strictly to works written hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Sure, studying the old stuff proves that these human dilemmas are timeless, but you could easily approach that through a comparative lens, pairing an ancient work with something modern to show how the themes carry over.

Plus, some questions are uniquely tied to our current era, which means we can't even begin to have a real conversation about them without digging into contemporary literature.

Exactly!

We can't just run away from the classics—they eventually have to be tackled somehow—but there are so many much better ways to go about it that would blow your mind.

For instance, you could take Držić and pair him with a contemporary comedy writer for a comparative analysis.

You could spend a few hours with first graders introducing them to a historical timeline, and then move through literary history using a comparative reading approach based on genre.

Instead of just sitting there reading the classics, you could go see plays, focus more on actual dramaturgy rather than just plot points and whatnot, or bring in guest speakers who are modern authors and poets... there's just so much you can do.

But look, if I were teaching a comparative lesson, I’d handle drama here in the States by comparing major dramatic trilogies (like Vojnović, Krleža, and Valent). Honestly, Valent would give a lot of parents trouble, and Kamov would probably be a problem for plenty of people too.

At the end of the day, a good literature professor will find a way to make any work resonate. Our biggest issue is that we just have too many bad American English teachers.

Also, since we already have German and Spanish in the curriculum, I really think mandatory reading should be introduced there as well. I'd suggest making most of it elective, though; I don't see how anyone can truly master a language without reading, even if it's just fairy tales and fables.

placidorca16, if someone were to write a dissertation on the pedagogical competence self-assessment high school religious teacher, I think the results would be just as devastating. I’ve actually read this paper, and honestly, it isn't quite as bleak or one-sided as you're making it out to be.

Look, I'll admit I might have missed the mark on a few things, but I'm certainly not losing my mind here. It's not like there was some massive revolution within the accredited programs—let's not be overly bold by nitpicking formalities instead of focusing on the actual substance of the argument.

By the way, you seem to have completely misread the points I made in my initial post; they were actually pretty straightforward.

And besides, other disciplines tend to tear down the humanities in this exact same way—by obsessing over trivial nonsense that nobody actually needs. Do we really have to drag this debate down to that level?

Take a little time to look over this.

So, they have their own dedicated department, just like most colleges focused on teacher training would. The Teacher Training Center basically steps in when someone who originally pursued a pure science track wants to beef up their resume and boost their market value 🤣 by taking those specific courses to stay competitive.

As for the pedagogy courses and the overall quality at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences—honestly, let's not even get into that mess. I don't know if anything has actually changed. It seems like people are just trying to rack up certain credits now. I see they’re offering things like working with gifted students and all these random electives that, back in my day, were probably just pipe dreams for students who wanted more than just memorizing facts for an exam you cram for two days after never even showing up to the lectures.

Look, for me, the issue with religious education in schools is mainly because it gets treated more favorably compared to other electives. Plus, the whole situation with kids who opt out isn't handled well. But I would never question someone's pedagogical competence self-assessment high school religious teacher just because they earned those credentials somewhere other than the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Generally speaking, though, I think pedagogy courses need a complete overhaul at every university.

Besides, this list of their core and elective courses looks way better than what the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences offers, doesn't it? It covers both the broad strokes and the deep dives into the heart of the educational process. Imagine having a course in philosophy that actually focuses on the specific didactics and pedagogy of teaching philosophy itself, rather than just some vague, messy overview. I haven't met a single student from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences who has ever told me that their pedagogy classes actually helped them once they started teaching.

I'm not sure if things have evolved over the years. My sources have been in the classroom for a long time, and I haven't really kept up with this topic lately—I'll admit I haven't done a deep dive into it. But I used to hang out with people from the Society of Jesus and sat in on some of their courses; I remember they had to take those subjects too.

placidorca16 said:At which university, though?

I’m lost here... have you actually looked at the curriculum for those religious studies courses they mention in the lectures? As I recall, it covers general pedagogy, didactics, and methodology.

Besides, anyone with half a brain knows that trying to teach "teaching competencies" through basic pedagogy classes is a total joke. I won't even count the methodology courses I took in Philosophy, because honestly, that department probably feels more philosophical than the entire faculty at the FBI.

I don't know if they still do student teaching observations, but back in my day, even mentioning them as a requirement for teacher certification in secular programs was considered embarrassing—and I was doing my observations at a massive, high-profile school. Okay, fine, I'll make an exception for Reseda... I didn't exactly walk away with "competencies" because I was young, pregnant, and totally unprepared for the job at the time. But I did get a lasting sense of optimism from seeing people who truly love what they do and actually know how to teach at a world-class level.

At the end of the day, religious educators can't step foot in a public school without those pedagogy credits.

placidorca16 said:Plus, they haven't exactly mastered any pedagogical, didactic, or methodological skills needed to actually teach kids.🙄

Whether you’re training to be a religious educator or teaching secular subjects, you still have to master the actual art of teaching—the methods and the pedagogy required to make your subject stick.

John Thomas13, there are people everywhere, and let's be honest—idiots are everywhere too. You shouldn't be so exclusive about it. My own neighborhood is actually crawling with folks who are deeply into theology; I've got catechists, former seminary students, and even some staunch atheists living right around the corner. Those two groups can get into some pretty heated debates sometimes. It’s honestly fascinating to listen to. That kind of friction is healthy, and frankly, things would be pretty dull without it.

Religious educators answer to the Church, and the Church is their only real line of accountability—that’s a fact a lot of people seem to miss. In bigger cities, they might have a bit more autonomy, but in smaller communities, people tend to stick their noses into their private family lives. They aren't supposed to teach GO outside of what the Church mandates, and we all know how rigid they can be when it comes to topics like contraception, sexuality, or even LGBTQ rights.

To me, those values should be second nature to anyone who has chosen this path of life. That said, I’d definitely be open to letting someone present their own perspectives as a guest speaker within a GO class. Nothing more than that.

Look, I’ve been reading up on this, and while I have plenty of gripes regarding the terms of these kinds of agreements (because let's face it, we're still living in a bit of a backwater here and we're being totally naive about what these contracts are actually supposed to represent), the idea of making studies more interdisciplinary isn't a bad one at all. We’re already a weird case where you can study almost identical subjects at two different universities just a few miles apart; it’s already a precedent.

When you look at it from the perspective of the KBC and the FFZG, it actually seems like a pretty valuable move if you really think about it. You'll have people who are incredibly well-versed in scholasticism, patristics, Latin, and Greek, enrolling in a philosophy program at the FFZG to round out their expertise. Or maybe American studies, or whatever. I don't see a problem with it—if someone wants to study it, they should go for it. Honestly, having the secular influence rub off on the sacred might even help build tolerance among KBC students and encourage them to step away from dogma a bit (even though it's not like everyone there is strictly denominational, for example).

But then again, if we're talking about this kind of fluidity, I’d want to see it applied to other fields too. For instance, I’d love to be able to pair Russian language and literature with geology at the FFZG, just to stay competitive in the job market. Or maybe art history with musicology, or molecular biology with linguistics, or automation with American studies—the combinations are endless.

If things actually worked the way the Bologna process was intended to work in its core principles, it would be amazing to see, say, a Science student pairing mathematics with theology. I wouldn't see any issue with that whatsoever; it would be nothing but a benefit. But that's assuming we were in some other country and Boras wasn't one of the most influential figures in the Old Catholic Church.

We all know what’s actually going on here. They just tacked on those other majors as an excuse, a way to provide an alibi so they can claim this isn't a blatant attempt to wreck the critical thinking that still manages to exist in certain pockets of the FFZG philosophy department.

People don't really understand philosophy itself. There's this widespread misconception that anyone who asks a few fundamental questions straight out of Kalin is a philosopher. To them, sociology and philosophy are the same thing, psychology gets lumped in there too, and why not theology? These sciences have different subjects and different methodologies. Throwing them all into the same basket would be like saying chemistry and physics should be merged (and sure, they should overlap—every physicist needs to know chemistry and vice versa, and I don't mean just at a layman's level), but what does that make the two disciplines?

Reskovac was actually my mentor back in the day, so I can tell you firsthand—it’s a safe bet that theology students have more than enough expertise to work through that textbook.

I'm not quite sure how to paint a clear picture for you here.

Let's put it this way: a theology major and a philosophy major have about as much in common as a philosopher and a math professor. Sure, there's some overlap—philosophy uses plenty of math, especially when you get into logic as a formal discipline, which isn't even really on the radar for most theology programs. But look, I'm definitely not qualified to teach calculus.

If you just take a look at the actual course catalogs and curriculum plans, it’ll become pretty obvious to you.

As for anything else... feel free to start a thread about the recent academic reforms. I'd be more than happy to dive into a discussion about that.

Regarding all the pressure being put on the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and other departments, I think we're looking at this specific issue. There’s actually a really solid article right here.

Of course, they're pivoting toward philosophy and ethics now, and naturally, they're throwing everyone into the mix—American studies majors, political scientists, sociologists—just so it doesn't look like it's only theologians and religious educators trying to qualify themselves to teach these subjects. But honestly, once you actually know the material, seeing how much these different fields overlap with philosophy just looks ridiculous. As someone studying American studies, I don't see myself as competent enough to teach ethics or philosophy, at most maybe the philosophy of education or linguistics (though even then, I don't see myself doing that even after finishing my degree, but that's a whole different conversation 😁); I have no clue what a social scientist like a sociologist would even do there, maybe through some interdisciplinary correlations; I don't see a political scientist fitting in either, except perhaps in specific seminars on political or social philosophy; and I don't see how a theologian could take over bioethics or the principles of modern philosophy—maybe they could be a guest lecturer for Spinoza or something...; and as for religious educators, I really don't see it; their curriculum truly, truly can't be compared to studying theology, let alone philosophy.

I suppose this is what people mean when they talk about exercising pressure.

Trying to force religious instructors into teaching philosophy is a shameful move, regardless of how bad current instruction is and how desperately it needs a massive overhaul.

darkgull20 said:The 5th grade American language textbook 🤔
At this rate, they might as well start working Jesus into the math problems too... 🙄

Look, any professor worth their salt knows a textbook is really just a supplemental tool.

Honestly, those post-holiday tests are actually such a great way to see if a kid really grasped the material. They serve as a perfect guide for the teacher, too. I really think parents should keep track of these scores on the side—it’s like having a compass. If things don't start looking up after the kid gets back into their routine, you'll have that data to show both the student and yourself what's actually happening.

And look, a bad grade on one of these units doesn't always mean the teacher did a poor job explaining the lesson. It’s more nuanced than that. Sometimes it’s just about how a child processes and retains information. Other times, it points toward family dynamics—like whether there's enough support at home to help them actually absorb the lessons. And I don't mean sitting at a desk for hours; I mean integrating learning into daily life instead of just letting them zone out in front of the TV all day.

Susan James said:Maybe try bringing the kid into the conversation too.

Honestly, I’m worried that would be really hard on him. It's just the two of us, and seeing the way he talks about things right in front of him... I just know it won't work. Besides, it's not even like we're dealing with massive, life-altering issues here.

Personally, I think a joint parent-child workshop would be wonderful. And if we're talking about more serious stuff—like cases involving violence—it seems totally reasonable to have mediation between the aggressor, the victim, the teacher, and the school counselors. But I’ve never actually heard of anyone doing that.

Austin Vaughn3 said:From what I've seen raising two school-aged kids, you're right. Schools are supposed to be educational and developmental institutions, but in practice, they are strictly academic. Everything is focused on the curriculum, whether the kids are performing well or struggling.
If there are behavioral issues or social hurdles, don't expect help. They'll point out the problem to you, and that's it. Once you realize your child is your responsibility and yours alone, it gets easier. You'll know who to rely on—yourself—and you'll stop looking for solutions from them.
I'm not trying to be optimistic here, but it's the truth. Most schools operate this way. The sooner you accept it, the better you can plan. They aren't going to work on your child's social skills; they're going to focus on 1st period math, 2nd period English, 3rd period PE, and 4th period social studies. Get it? You have to handle the socialization. Read the books, seek advice, practice at home, talk to them, get them involved in extracurriculars, etc.

Also, you've hit on two main points. No one is collaborating with you, and no one is really engaging with the child either. Plus, you and the teacher clearly have different philosophies regarding socialization versus that "herd of obedient sheep" mentality. She hasn't responded to your requests for cooperation yet, which might actually be for the best. If you try to force her to change her methods to match yours, you won't achieve anything.

The priority is protecting your kid. Don't frame school as some terrible place; minimize the negativity and keep offering them ways to navigate it.

Good luck.

Like I mentioned in that other thread, I believe in people. I believe you can be smart enough to realize people aren't "set in their ways" for the rest of their lives. If I can change and learn, then we can grow together in this relationship, too.

This is a bit off-topic, but I notice you have a pretty bitter way of describing the school system. I don't quite get why you don't view your own profession through the same lens. Surely, one can admit that there are systemic issues in preschools and schools—that the systems need changing and the staffing is generally subpar?

To me, it feels like because of the transition from one institution to another, the different levels don't even recognize each other as participants in the single, shared project of raising a human being. The communication between parent and teacher, or educator and child, carries very similar traits—the same communication breakdowns and the same struggles with shared decision-making.

Scott Miller4 said:I remember once requesting a private meeting with a teacher. I made sure to stay calm and polite, even though I was being pretty persistent about what was bothering me. It wasn't some massive crisis, but I noticed my little girl was getting really anxious every time she had this specific teacher's class. We eventually realized the issue wasn't the subject matter itself, but rather the teacher's attitude toward my daughter. To prevent her from developing a total hatred for the subject, I went in for a talk. I kept everything calm, kind, and direct. I guess I had to fight the urge to snap at her a few times, but I managed to keep it together.

The woman just kept rambling (and look, I usually respect the profession), listing off all the difficult kids who were preventing her from actually focusing on the students who could do more. Every time she drifted off, I’d pull her back to the point by asking what solutions she actually proposed for the problem at hand.
When she hit a dead end, I just repeated the question. When she couldn't give me an answer, I asked her who she would recommend I speak with—specifically, who I should reach out to so we could actually resolve this. After that, the problem just... vanished.

Anyway, things settled down, and she became much more mindful of the students.

I’m not the type to make a scene over every little thing or call people out constantly. I have a decent relationship with the homeroom teacher, and I’m teaching my daughter to respect them...

I'm unhappy with the communication; it feels inflammatory and like it's being used against my child. My stomach has been in knots since I dropped him off at school this morning. I'm wondering how you handle situations where you need the teacher's help with your child's socialization, but they just aren't cooperating?

My kid doesn't have a relationship with the teacher. I can't say much more than that, but it's true.

Maybe try changing your approach with her?

If the communication feels that way to you, then it probably is. Try laying out the specific reasons why it feels like she's being inflammatory or targeting your child, and then ask her what solution she proposes. If she doesn't have one, tell her to point you toward someone who does, and then you can take it from there.
And don't stop until you either get a solution or a name of someone who can provide one.

(I don't know the full story yet, so I'll go back and read your previous posts, but the fact that your child has no relationship with her sounds pretty concerning...
))😢

I didn't get into the specific issues because, honestly, they aren't even the point. The way they communicate is exactly the same as with any other parent—it’s just completely one-sided. It’s always this constant list of grievances, followed by them immediately shutting down the second you mention the school counselor or ask what kind of actual, tangible support they're expecting from you. Then, suddenly, all those problems that triggered the need for an individual meeting become "nothing." They claim it's just "adjustment" and everything is perfectly fine now. It's the exact same pattern I've seen with you.

I don't really have any defenses up. I just take every bit of energy I can muster and try my hardest to actually listen—though, honestly, I’m usually a total nervous wreck while doing it. Once I've processed everything, I'll try to ask some direct questions or maybe even suggest a solution. As for body language... I honestly don't know. Maybe there's something there, maybe not. I might just have to be blunt next time and ask her directly: "Do you feel like I'm being guarded with you?" You know as well as I do that typing things out online isn't the same as sitting down face-to-face with someone. It's especially true here on the forum, where I come looking for advice on the stuff I'm too hesitant to say out loud. Often, after talking it through here, I realize that half the issues aren't even about the situation itself—they're just my own personal anxieties playing tricks on me.

Regarding their relationship... He actually has this deep sense of respect for her. He understands that she’s the teacher—the one responsible for his learning. Sometimes he won't even show her his homework because he feels like that’s her job; he figures if he messed up, she’ll be the one to catch it and correct him. That’s really all there is to it, aside from him constantly questioning why he isn't allowed to do certain things. I think he lost some of that connection once she called him out for not saying hello when she walked in. But she had her back turned! It was such a non-issue, yet he just bowed his head in shame over something totally senseless. I mean, I don't exactly go around greeting people's backsides either. That was actually the first time I stepped in and spoke up. I told her, "Look, I didn't greet her either, and I apologize, but she was facing the other way." The kid was already sitting in class by then.

I find the whole thing about withholding praise—or worse, giving it to the wrong person, which in this case is me—really interesting. I've mentioned several times now that it might actually be more effective to direct that positive reinforcement toward him instead. If he felt seen for his efforts, he’d probably be much more motivated to nurture those new, better behaviors in her. But honestly? It’s just a brick wall every single time.

It all just weighs on me, honestly. I find myself constantly questioning my actual role in this whole educational process. I feel like I’m stuck in this bizarre atmosphere where I'm being talked *at* or reported to, but I’m certainly not some court reporter or a police officer for my own kid. I want to be involved. I want my child to learn how to socialize properly, and yeah, I want to help correct certain mistakes along the way. But instead, I end up feeling like a sponge—just sitting there, soaking up information and staying quiet because any suggestions I try to make seem to hit a glass wall and just shatter. It feels like my input doesn't even matter. And then I can't help but wonder about the other parents out there. How do they handle it? Especially the moms dealing with kids who have much more intense struggles, or families that are just completely dysfunctional. It makes you realize how heavy this all is.

Look, I get it—to some extent, I really do. The class is restless, there's no real direction, and even though they’re moving forward quickly (even if some kids are faster than others), she herself admits they're bored. But wouldn't it be better to actually *do* something? Maybe host a workshop? Perhaps we could team up and make a real impact. If the kids see us parents actually working together, things might change. We could even chip in to buy some teaching supplies—brain teasers, hands-on tools, stuff like that. Right now, everything seems stuck on just audiovisual lessons; besides the occasional creative workshop, it feels like there's a real lack of sensory learning tools in the classroom.

I don't want anyone thinking I have some inherent grudge against the teacher. Honestly, she has her strengths. The kids are genuinely progressing, and they actually understand the material—it isn't just rote memorization. In fact, I think her rigidity might actually turn into a competitive advantage for these kids later on when they hit specialized high school courses, because let's face it, nothing in the system is going to change much in the next few years. We'll just have to power through. My main goal is just helping my kid not get lost in the shuffle of the system, plain and simple. My only real hesitation is whether we truly need this "military discipline" right at the start of their schooling. Elementary school should be about socialization and picking up basic life skills. It's a process; it doesn't all have to happen instantly for every single child at once.

Just listen, this is just who I am. I'm going to try to improve the communication here. I'm looking for ways to help and seeking advice... I can't help myself, I just have to try.

Karen Richardson3, from what I’ve been reading, most people aren't actually against religion classes themselves. It wouldn't even be an issue if we had some kind of religious culture integrated into the curriculum, similar to how they handle things in Germany or other major countries. The real headache is leaving kids wandering the halls because the school fails to organize those hours as actual elective courses—especially since every other elective has already been moved out of the standard daily schedule.

On both sides of this debate, you’re always going to have the extremists—those who want to shut down every single Catholic institution, and then the ones who want to throw all the non-believers straight into hell. 🤣

Matthew Young35 said:Perhaps the piece is indeed "biased" or even false, but let’s look at the reality here. The fact remains that children who aren't being taught Catholic ideology in school are being discredited in a million different ways.

Look, whatever my personal issues are with having religious education in public schools, my kid hasn't been sidelined or treated differently at all. I’ve definitely dealt with some pushback—recently even a direct comment from another parent telling me I’d have to enroll my child in religion class because "the winds are changing," and I even had some family pressure because we opted out. But honestly? My child hasn't felt any bit of that social stigma, and I’ve been watching everything very closely.

As far as the classroom environment goes, their teacher is actually a great example for everyone else. He gives them extra math help, they aren't just left to their own devices, and there’s zero negativity about it. Even the rest of the class was totally fine—except for right at the start when the other kids were asking me why he wasn't in religion class. I just told them straight up that he has different interests and that everyone is different. They took it perfectly well.