For heaven's sake, Harold Anderson3...😢 The equity you have in your home still outweighs your debt (and if you're unemployed, how are they even collecting on that debt? Or did they grant you some kind of moratorium? 🤔), so by that logic, selling the house isn't your only option, is it? 🤷
silentmason4 said:I've been wondering lately—is there actually any legal ground to stand on when it comes to school scheduling? Like, is there a specific law or a set of district regulations I could point to if I wanted to complain about a totally nonsensical timetable? For instance, imagine a situation where religion class is squeezed right into the middle of the regular school day for a class where half the kids aren't even enrolled in it. It just feels so disjointed.
No, there isn't some specific rulebook covering this, unless you want to argue that it's fundamentally unpedagogical and unacceptable to have kids wandering the halls aimlessly. When my son was in his upper grades, I handled it myself. Since he wasn't attending religious studies, I made sure to raise the issue of where on earth my child was supposed to be while everyone else was in class. I did this during a parent-teacher meeting, and I didn't give a damn what the other 28 parents thought. My kid, my problem. And if my problem was being caused by the school's scheduling, then the school was going to fix it. And they did. He was assigned to the guidance counselor's office, which always had staff present. It was warm, comfortable, and a decent spot for him to relax or read. As a parent, it gave me peace of mind (though my son wasn't thrilled about it; he actually hated being under constant supervision). To be clear, I didn't walk in and ask, "Are you going to deal with the kids who don't attend religion class?" Instead, I asked, "How exactly are you planning to resolve this issue? Once you have an answer, let me know immediately. Thanks. 🙂"
Michelle Nelson4 said:If you look at the Department of Education guidelines, there isn't a specific rule laid out regarding the daily schedule, which means any interpretation of it is pretty much subjective rather than set in stone. You see similar ambiguity in the legal statutes for other election matters as well. Essentially, the hourly schedule just needs to comply with federal law, which states that for multi-grade levels, the maximum is six hours per day. Beyond that, schools have total autonomy to organize their day however they please—whether they want to use block scheduling or something else entirely. In my experience, some days actually end up being longer because if religious studies is on the calendar, those hours don't even count toward that limit.
As for The Contract, of course it can be terminated. We are a sovereign nation, after all, and we’ve entered into agreements with other entities, like the Holy See, which we can rescind whenever we see fit. Naturally, there's a process involved; if things get complicated, there are plenty of international arbitration courts designed specifically for disputes between nations. You just take it to court, much like a divorce settlement.
Oh, please, "proab," what kind of sovereign nation are we talking about? Just look at the absolute chaos this country is running right now. If it were actually possible to terminate that agreement, it would have been done ages ago. But it can't happen—not because it's legally impossible, but because it's effectively carved in stone in the minds of those leading us. In this world, you don't touch the sacred cows, and that rule supersedes any law. And these "sacred cows" (and my apologies to any actual livestock reading this) have been allowed to metastasize into every single pore of this society (this supposedly secular—my ass—nation). Even back during the education reforms of 1997, they found ways to bypass things by cutting out character-building subjects. The main goal was to downgrade everything to elective status, while simultaneously throwing the door wide open for religion classes, complete with their own special set of rules for what is supposedly just an "elective." An elective that is supposed to hold the same status as regular coursework, yet its implementation in our schools has trampled over basic pedagogical principles. Students have literally been kicked out into the hallways (a problem that hasn't been resolved in over twenty years), and deep divisions have been manufactured among the student body. Those who don't attend religion class are marginalized, subjected to questioning, judgment, and the prejudices of indoctrinated children. It isn't human, and it certainly isn't good teaching. It is cruel, disgusting, and utterly unacceptable. But hey, you don't touch the sacred cows. Their perversions and interference are being funded by our tax dollars, and nobody can stop them. They act as the ultimate critics of everything in society, yet they barely even preach the fundamental tenets of the very faith they represent.
Talking about this topic feels like a massive spike in my blood pressure; for my own well-being, I really shouldn't be visiting this forum.😁
Look, ironrider11, this is a matter of principle. I realize I might sound like I’m lecturing someone on how to resist a candy bar, but fundamentally, there isn't some arbitrary number of years where your greenery habit suddenly hits a "red alert" zone. I won't even get into the alcohol debate, but we're talking about a lifestyle here. It's that ingrained ritual—lighting up your first one with your morning coffee, having a session when a buddy drops by in the afternoon, or winding down while you're watching something on Netflix at night. Sure, if you're heavy on the weed for the long haul, you might end up with some mental fog or memory gaps, but honestly, that's all fixable. That's why, to the author, there's always hope—Nancy, that lovely lady who's always the last one standing. You wouldn't believe it, but people eventually just get bored of it. They reach a point where they realize "it just isn't what it used to be," and they simply say no the first time, the second time, the third...
You’ll definitely find some useful advice over in the Alcoholism - General Discussion thread. If you want, I can merge your topic into the existing one, unless you specifically feel the need to focus this discussion on broader societal issues, various types of addiction, and things of that nature.
Marijuana is destructive when it turns into a lifestyle, though it doesn't create a physical dependency in the same way other substances do. It dulls your edge, and if you're already dealing with mental health struggles, it’s a terrible idea because it usually just deepens the hole you're digging. Ultimately, though, it comes down to a personal choice—whether you light up or stay sober. Alcohol is an entirely different beast—much more dangerous and significantly harder to deal with. Take a look through the thread I linked above; there are plenty of people there who have already opened up about their own struggles, and you might find that someone else's perspective provides the clarity you need.
Michelle Nelson4 said:Honestly, it’s just unpredictable in my district too. I don't quite follow the logic of cutting back on religious studies—which isn't even mandatory, and my kids don't attend anyway—just to pad out the mandatory subjects. If we want to increase the core curriculum without touching the electives like computer science or foreign languages, the only real lever left is increasing the total number of instructional hours for required classes. And that inevitably leads us straight toward full-day schooling.
Besides, sooner or later, they're going to implement it. The rate at which school staff numbers are dropping is nowhere near as fast as the decline in student enrollment. A lot of schools are becoming one-way or half-empty, so this seems like a straightforward way for the state to maintain employment levels even as student populations shrink. In the big cities where they actually have overcrowding issues, they'll probably just build more facilities or expand existing ones. Because our overcrowded, two-way schools in NYC are basically a rare exception to the national trend...
What exactly don't you get? Religious education isn't just some random elective like anything else; if it were, it would be scheduled during 7th or 8th period, or maybe zero period, just like any other elective course. Have you ever heard of religious classes being held during the opposite shift, like 7th or 8th period? No, you haven't—and there's a reason for that. It is explicitly defined in The Contract that it must hold the status of a mandatory subject. Furthermore, in order to facilitate what was signed with the Pope, the schedules for all other subjects had to be restructured. So, let’s indulge in a little fantasy: imagine an impossible scenario for America where The Contract is nullified, religious studies finally move back to the church, and schools return to a standard schedule consisting only of secular subjects.
...but let's stop right there with the imagination, because there is absolutely no way anyone is going to tear up The Contract.
I’m not exaggerating here, Susan James, I’m speaking from direct experience. In reality, things vary because you can't make everything align perfectly every single time, but if we are talking about actual benefits and quality of education, the homeroom teacher absolutely needs to be physically present as much as possible. And the fact that students only get one hour of character education a week while religious studies gets two? We can thank certain people from the mid-90s political era for that mess. But look, we can sit here and vent all we want, but those interests have metastasized deep within the system, and there isn't even a hint that things will change. Honestly, it wouldn't even surprise me if they decided to cut biology hours next. They could just explain all that science stuff during religious studies anyway.👍 As for absences—the specific examples we see in practice are never even up for debate when it comes to grading, so there's really nothing to worry about on that front.
Susan James said:In an age where everyone has a smartphone and constant internet access? 😕 Sorry, but that’s a totally weak argument (and honestly, I thought it was weak ten years ago too, even back then when we were talking about physics or chemistry—at that particular school, certain teachers didn't have full schedules, so they weren't physically there every day)
Plus, what happens when the school runs on shifts (which most do)? A homeroom teacher might not even be on shift that day, or they might have a light schedule and head home early.
By that logic, religion teachers should all be homeroom advisors since they're always at school, and they might have known the class since elementary school.🙄
I get that block scheduling lets you squeeze in more than one hour per week, but what if a student is sick for a week, and then there's a holiday the following week? They could go a whole month without the subject! Okay, maybe it’s not the most critical class, but for some kids, art is their favorite thing, and they really miss it when it’s gone. It also makes it easy for them to end up with no grade (and you can run into issues with absences, which is a nightmare if the class only meets twice a month)... based on what is that recommendation even built on? (Though, personally, I'm a fan of block scheduling for those two-hour subjects; during the pandemic, it worked great for things like geography or science. Fewer books to carry and less studying once a week.) And just to be clear, I'm not being negative—block scheduling is great, especially for religion classes. It makes the master schedule much easier to manage outside of regular hours (plus all those perks I mentioned, like carrying fewer books and having less daily memorization).
The internet and a smartphone can never, under any circumstances, serve as a substitute for having a teacher physically present in an American classroom.
Regarding the suggestion for block scheduling: that recommendation comes directly from the specialists themselves—specifically the art professionals—as well as the agency. It isn't a strict requirement, but whenever it’s feasible, which it usually is, we opt for block sessions. And let me be clear: if a student is sick or dealing with whatever else is mentioned, they don't just lose the entire subject for a whole month.
How on earth do you think it's easy for students to end up without grades? 🤔 I don't get it. There is a specific allowed percentage of absences over the course of the school year before that kind of scenario even becomes a possibility. How and why would that ever happen? 🤷
I absolutely refuse to agree with the notion that this "isn't a particularly important subject." In fact, saying that is just pure intellectual bankruptcy—but fine, that's beside the point.
The real issue here arises when an instructor isn't physically present in the classroom on a regular basis—especially those teaching social studies or advisory courses. Being a homeroom teacher is an incredibly demanding role; when an incident occurs, the responsibility falls squarely on that individual first. It is completely unacceptable for a teacher to be left out of the loop, only finding out about a situation several days after the fact, or being unable to intervene effectively because they simply aren't there to handle things in real-time.
(Regarding those social studies courses, the recommendation for block scheduling isn't some leftover relic from pandemic-era mandates; it’s a professional pedagogical recommendation based specifically on the nature of the subject matter itself.)
Susan James said:What year did you graduate? I used to have three hours of shop class a week. 🤔 I still clearly remember those long block periods during the afternoon shift and just zoning out.
Personally, I don't see any issue with homeroom teachers being from "elective" subjects or classes that only meet once a week. But I'm telling you, some parents really take issue with it. When I first heard people complaining about this, my kid was still in preschool; honestly, there might be even more demanding parents today because people just expect so much more these days.
A lot of the shop teachers nowadays fill their schedules teaching physics or computer science, or running robotics clubs, so they don't really have the extra bandwidth to take on homeroom duties. However, art or music teachers are totally fine candidates—they actually struggle to get enough hours, even with choirs and art clubs. Actually, it’s probably better if the role goes to someone teaching a lighter subject. Even if they lose their art club time because of the homeroom responsibilities, it's better than a math teacher missing out on extra pay or prep time because they're stuck being a homeroom teacher. Though, religious studies doesn't really fall into that category.
The whole thing regarding foreign language teachers getting homeroom roles seems a bit odd too, but it makes sense since their class numbers can drop suddenly if students unenroll. That doesn't happen with religious studies because every grade level has that class regardless of how many kids are enrolled.
But a language teacher isn't the same as a religious studies teacher. They aren't hired under the same circumstances.
She could just as easily turn the question back on you, because having only three hours of tech class a week is a relic of the past.😳 The reality of modern American schooling is that tech and art teachers rotate through different grades constantly, so most of them are just handling one block period every other week.
goldentrucker18 said:Hey everyone. It’s been a minute since I’ve checked in here, but I ended up popping back in while searching for some info on homeroom religious studies teachers. So, I just found out that my daughter’s homeroom teacher from fifth through eighth grade is going to be the religious studies instructor. Honestly, I can’t even begin to wrap my head around the potential friction. What happens if they only ever cross paths during SRZ? Like, how is this teacher actually supposed to advocate for her if, say, she runs into issues with her biology teacher? Has anyone else dealt with this kind of setup? How did it play out for you? I’m really crossing my fingers that this person is reasonable. To be blunt, my biggest fear is a lack of tolerance toward "her"—you know, being an atheist—and the possibility of them pushing specific agendas during SRZ sessions and stuff like that. Since SRZ will be their only common ground, I’m struggling to understand the logic here. I have no clue how the administration at this school thinks this is going to work smoothly—they already shuffled kids from all four different tracks—4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D—just because of foreign language electives. PS. This is happening in Washington, D.C.
If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't jump to conclusions immediately. Give it a chance; it could be perfectly fine and professional. It doesn't automatically mean there's going to be trouble. My son was the only one in his class who didn't attend Religious Studies (at one point, there were actually two of them), and now in high school, he's the only one taking Ethics instead of Religious Studies. However, the Religious Studies teachers and even the principal back in elementary school had nothing but good things to say about him. In fact, they'd occasionally ask him for small favors—like helping with photocopying since he didn't have teaching duties at that time—and he'd do it, always remaining polite, and that was it. Later on, some of them even mentioned to me what a well-mannered kid he was. They didn't hold any prejudices against him just because he didn't sit in their class. If they did have any, they certainly never showed it.
Bottom line: don't start a fire before you've even struck the match. All of this could go quite smoothly. Homeroom teachers have a specific plan and curriculum to follow anyway; it's not just aimless rambling.
Benjamin Lopez11 said:Hey everyone. Starting this thread because I could use some help, and maybe someone else feels the same way. Basically, I’m not happy with how I’ve been acting lately. The catch? I don't even know how to fix it because I haven't figured out who I actually want to be yet. I want to work on my relationship with myself and how I treat people—and hopefully, get people to treat me better too, though we all know that's the hard part. I'm 16, so it's not like it's too late to turn things around and become someone worth being. Anyone else in the same boat? Let me know.
To get the ball rolling, can you actually explain what you mean by "how you're behaving" right now?
Olivia Jackson64 said:The thing is, someone else eventually passes that info along... it’s not like the TV is transmitting it directly into your brain via telepathy.😁
@Andrew Doyle, maybe she reached out from another world—just a thought on why there hasn't been a response... you didn't exchange pleasantries, so the loop remains open. That's my take.
And honestly? Half the people on this side of the grave aren't worth listening to anyway, let alone those who have already passed on. 🤷
All jokes aside, though. I'm not making some massive, dramatic deal out of this; I simply remembered her the same way I remember countless other people from my past. It’s a heavy, unsettling feeling when you start finding entire generations of your life through obituaries. 👎
About two months ago, I was sitting there scrolling through Netflix when I suddenly paused a scene—for absolutely no reason at all, honestly—because my former roommate popped into my head. Just out of curiosity, I decided to Google her, thinking maybe I’d see some cool creative projects she’s been working on lately. Instead, Google serves me an obituary. Are you kidding me? Seriously, search engines don't have a sense of humor. She passed away a long time ago. Her daughter, who happens to share my name, and her husband—whom I never even met—are all just trying to move on with their lives. And there I was, half-expecting a call or a message, wondering why it was taking her so long to get back to me... but that's life, I guess. Between work and everything else, we just never find the time to catch up. It's like one of us is on Jupiter, the other is on Mars, we left Venus behind ages ago... and now, we're leaving Earth too.
Jonathan Fowler14 said:I don't see why you'd separate the need for companionship from the need for connection; they basically explain one another. From a purely biological standpoint, humans have an inherent drive for community. Those who lack that drive don't pass on their genes because they don't feel the urge for partnership, social bonds, or starting families.
The pain of loneliness can actually manifest physically, and I think we know why: our brains are telling us that isolation isn't a healthy state for a human being and could actually be dangerous.
I'm not a fan of the cliché, "fix yourself before you're ready for someone else." It makes it sound like only "perfected" people deserve love and acceptance. Nobody is perfect, and people in relationships certainly aren't either. In fact, it's often through others that we grow, which is why living in a community is so important. If we didn't have others to advise us, correct us, and model civilized behavior, humanity would still be stuck in the Stone Age.
Of course, balance is key, but being in a relationship helps you learn about yourself without being constantly hyper-focused on your own ego—which, in my opinion, is a huge cause of unhappiness. Sometimes we really need someone else's objective perspective, reaction, or experience to help us realize something about ourselves. At our core, we are all quite similar.
After all, we wouldn't have developed such incredibly complex communication skills compared to any other species if we weren't meant to interact.
Let’s get one thing straight: the idea that humans have some innate, biological drive for togetherness is complete nonsense. What people call "the need for community" isn't some primal instinct written into our DNA; it is nothing more than a collection of culturally sanctioned social behaviors. We adopt these patterns based on our habitus—essentially, the social framework we happen to be born into. It’s learned behavior, plain and simple. If we are talking about actual biological necessities, let’s stick to the facts. Oxygen and water—those are the primary requirements. Those are the things without which our species simply cannot survive. The absence of a "need" for social cohesion doesn't somehow sabotage the transmission of our genetic material. People love to conflate the two, but they are entirely distinct processes. A partnership does not automatically guarantee offspring, nor does having children necessitate a romantic partnership. Biology and social structures operate on completely different tracks, and it is high time we stopped pretending they are the same thing.
When it comes to psychogenic manifestations, let’s get one thing straight: they are absolutely, undeniably real. There is no debate here.
The cliché that you need to "work on yourself" to build better relationships isn't some divine commandment etched in stone, nor is it an absolute rule. Neither is there any prohibition against pursuing connections. People have every legitimate right to seek out love and intimacy, just as they have the right to earn affection through learning—learning about themselves, others, and the very nature of community. But let’s be real here: if you want a relationship that actually holds weight—one that is high-quality, harmonious, and genuinely stable—won't you get much further if you've already done the heavy lifting of sorting out your own internal mess? Yes, absolutely. Does that mean nobody else is capable of doing it? Of course not. But let's stop pretending there's a one-size-fits-all manual for human connection.
And to wrap this up: we need to stop placing the human race on some imaginary pedestal when it comes to communication skills. It’s frankly absurd. If you look closely at our own kind, you'll find plenty of glaring, undeniable examples of total communicative failure—and I'm not talking about rare outliers, but rather quite frequent instances where human interaction completely breaks down into nothingness.
Jonathan Fowler14 said:We'll have those needs our whole lives; we're humans, not robots. We're biologically wired to crave companionship, love, and acceptance from others—it's a need that never truly goes away. Otherwise, humanity would have gone extinct long ago if we all just lived alone and only cared about ourselves.
The real question is: *which* needs are we talking about? There is a massive distinction between basic biological necessities and this codependent, partner-seeking addiction. And let’s be clear—figuring out how to overcome that dependency doesn't turn us into cyborgs. On the contrary, once you actually find a sense of purpose within yourself, you become significantly more capable of forming high-quality connections with others. This completely dismantles your argument that "living for ourselves" is a bad thing—because it’s exactly the opposite. It is through self-awareness that we actually become capable of approaching others in a much deeper, more meaningful way.
Jonathan Fowler14 said:Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, honey,
You can't really change your attachment style; maybe it’s better to focus on understanding and accepting it through therapy instead. Find someone who truly gets you and complements your personality, then you won't feel that need to change at all. 🍿
Look, if you actually took the time to understand your own soul and "fill your own gaps," you wouldn't be out there hunting for someone else to validate your flaws or fix what's broken.
analogmarlin4 said:I found myself stuck in a room full of strangers the other day. There were six people there, all split up into little pairs, just chatting away. Suddenly, this wave of pure awkwardness hit me—I was sweating up a storm because I had absolutely no clue how to break the ice. I felt too intrusive to interrupt any of those couples mid-sentence, and then this nagging thought popped into my head: what if I actually tried to say something and they all just laughed at me? It felt like I was standing under a giant spotlight with everyone watching my every move.
Now, I’m just sitting here kicking myself, feeling this lingering anxiety because I missed my chance to actually meet someone new. The thing is, if I run into them again, I’ll probably freeze up all over again. I really want to strike up a conversation, but that fear of being rejected or made fun of is just so paralyzing.
Does anyone have any advice on how to handle this?
Damaged self-esteem, clearly. That said, I need some actual context here. What kind of situation was this? Where on earth were you that you ended up trapped in a room with six complete strangers?