Look, you have some parenting experience and a few friends to back you up. I suppose all that collective "wisdom" you gained during childbirth suddenly turns you all into unquestionable authorities—as if having a couple of kids makes your tiny sample size statistically significant.
In short, your comments are clearly just a projection of your own parenting style rather than an actual response to the situation described. The best proof is how you’re fixated on some supposed "vocabulary" issue that warrants punishment, whereas my colleague only mentioned sarcasm and being argumentative. Her primary struggle is actually just dealing with the fact that her child is growing up—at the end of the day, the drama boils down to forgetting instructions (not that there aren't other issues, but it’s telling that she mentioned such a relatively minor thing), yet you’re out here advocating for the go-to weapon of those who brag about "parenting experience" as a credential: brute force. It’s always going to be "He won't listen to ME..." or "I'll show HIM..."—the devil is always in the delivery 😬.
Furthermore, I simply refuse to engage with someone who—by completely failing to understand how any display of dominance would absolutely wreck the relationship IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE—has essentially sabotaged the entire string of positive behaviors my colleague wrote about by starting a totally unnecessary war.
BTW, don't bother trying to figure me out; I have zero interest in disclosing my age or whether or not I possess that "crucial" parenting experience you value so much.
analogseal18 said:Quincy, my little one is thirteen, and at that age, boys are really just scratching the surface of puberty, which means there aren't many topics they actually feel the need to hide behind a veil of privacy. It’s simply what everyone does—we gloss over our childhood nonsense and downplay our obvious mistakes. It is perfectly normal behavior.
Personally, I wouldn't necessarily pin this on puberty; true adolescent rebellion, where one decides they are entirely in control of their own life, usually waits about three or four years down the road. Boys tend to lag behind girls in that regard.
The boy has grown bold. You likely didn't set firm boundaries early enough, perhaps assuming that his tone and choice of words were merely fleeting outbursts of frustration that wouldn't recur. However, it has since become a habit. When he behaves unacceptably, there must be an immediate consequence. Usually, the most effective methods are those that don't feel like an attack on the child—simply taking away the phone or the PlayStation. For more serious offenses, you restrict internet access and social outings that aren't strictly related to school or sports.
God, I absolutely loathe this kind of instant punishment approach to parenting.
Taking away a phone or any of those other heavy-handed, ridiculous tactics you're suggesting—it’s definitely going to destroy whatever scraps of a relationship are left at this point. This is just your textbook "as long as you're living under my roof, blah blah blah" parent archetype; people who clearly lack the intellectual capacity to establish authority through actual reasoning, so they resort to the good old-fashioned "might makes right" strategy. Honestly, I suppose even evolution had the grace to move past physical discipline—now we just have to take things away, impose sanctions, and try to crush their spirit through other means—even though, based on everything described here, the kid seems perfectly fine.
And where on earth did you get the notion that stripping a kid of their phone or using these other methods won't feel insulting to them?
To top it all off, one absolute gem after another: where exactly are you getting the idea that true adolescent rebellion doesn't even start until someone hits seventeen???
It seems like nowadays, every single issue in elementary school gets slapped with an ADHD diagnosis, and if a teenager acts out, you can just blame the internet and call it a day.
Honestly, it turns out being a parent has never been easier—if you believe all the nonsense being pushed lately.
Think back to your last ten arguments: how many of them ended with you just handing him the win just to keep the peace? And honestly, how many times have you actually offered me an apology over the past year?
You sound exactly like one of those parents who insists, "Robert and I aren't just parent and child, we're BEST FRIENDS." Given the situation, Robert is probably losing sleep over the fact that Jacqueline might actually agree to take her bra off, yet she won't even let him touch her below the waist—even when they've had a few drinks. Do you seriously expect him to still come to you with everything?
As much as I’d love to hold onto some shred of hope that the answer to this question might be negative, I’m honestly terrified that it’s actually a yes: my colleague is essentially the poster child for that specific breed of rigid educator—the kind of person who ensures that no matter how many reforms get passed, they will absolutely, unequivocally fail.
Everything about it is laid out with such meticulous, absurd precision—it feels like something straight out of an old HBO drama: you’ve got everything from the bizarrely blatant misspelling of the Secretary's last name, to the sheer audacity of her attempting to critique the entire computer science curriculum despite clearly lacking any relevant expertise, all the way down to those constant, mindless ramblings about how the government is supposedly blocking "poor professionals" from pursuing their PhDs. And the cherry on top? That tragic level of literacy which—unlike the Secretary’s alleged ignorance of IT (which, by the way, is one of the most idiotic claims I've ever heard)—isn't actually a barrier to being an educator (I know, I know, this is just a forum, so there's no need to get pedantic about grammatical nuances, I get it... 🤦).
All that’s missing now is the inevitable whining about how much I make, the nostalgic longing for the good old days when people actually respected teachers, and that cautious little commentary you only hear in certain echo chambers—you know, the stuff where they claim kids today are spoiled, parents are impossible, and the only reform we really need is bringing back strict discipline in the classroom instead of all this soft, modern nonsense, as if life is just one big joke, screw school, and why on earth do we have to deal with all this crap anyway?
I honestly don't see how learning a foreign language has anything to do with memorizing parts of the human anatomy, but what I do know for certain is that the entire tragedy of our current education system stems from this relentless, mindless drilling forced upon elementary schoolers—though, of course, high schoolers aren't exempt, even if we’re focusing on the younger kids here—across every single subject. It’s always accompanied by that constant, messy attempt at supposed "advanced enrichment," usually wrapped up in that universal excuse that there just isn't enough time left in the day.
The end product of this repetitive drill is a generation of broken students who, as I mentioned, can't even remember three basic parts of the ear, let alone grasp any of the actual enrichment material, all while being completely incapable of using logical reasoning to solve even the simplest problems that require such thinking.
I completely disagree—though I suppose it’s hardly surprising that I find myself at odds with someone who advocates for nothing but rote drilling in the first place.
My inquiry regarding whether a student "must" memorize the specific names of every single part of the ear🙄 stems from two distinct concerns. First, if we expect a child to master two hundred and fifty different terms just to secure a slightly better grade, they won't actually learn a single thing—it's basic logic, regardless of how much a teacher might scoff or lecture about it. Second, there is the matter raised in the latter half of my question: what is the actual utility of those names once a child has memorized them?
If the sole objective is to cram two hundred and fifty labels into a brain, then there is absolutely no need for visual, auditory, or tactile processing; one could simply force the children to chant the names for half an hour roughly like this and they would have them down pat.
On the other hand, explaining the mechanics of how we perceive sound is entirely possible, whether or not you choose to call a specific component the Eustace tube or the Enoch fagott.
Thanks for getting back to me, though I feel like you only partially addressed my actual question. If I’m following your logic correctly—despite all this talk about "visual, auditory, and tactile processing"—it seems like everything eventually boils down to how many specific parts a kid can simply recite from memory. I mean, really? So, what’s the threshold here? How many parts does a student need to memorize to land a passing grade, a B, or an A, versus what it takes to actually earn an A+?
But more importantly: what happens once these kids have successfully memorized every single component of the ear? In what practical way do they actually apply that rote-learned information later on during the course?
I wonder what kind of lucrative gig Stephanie could land after leaving her post at the Department of State. Though, I suppose—and I might be wrong here—it’s hard to say if such a transition would even be legal under current federal regulations.
Also, just a heads-up: when you look at those Alibaba prices, you really have to factor in the customs duties and state taxes. Plus, if he actually went through with it, I imagine those computers would end up being used by his little band of forty henchmen.
Look, this isn't actually about some Cabinet Secretary or blistered feet—it’s about this pervasive, almost desperate need some people have to just lash out at everything and everyone. It always starts with those constant, baseless insinuations that we all just somehow —you know—about criminal activity.
I already made my point in that other PDF document: if cameras were simply listed as a standard spec for these tablets, I guarantee you the outrage would begin immediately. People would start screaming about corruption or the wasteful squandering of taxpayer dollars on nonsense, all while shouting, "I didn't send my kid to school just so they could be on Skype and filming everything! What on earth are they supposed to be recording?!!11!!!"
Susan James said:🤣 Honestly, what can you even say? It’s like someone absolutely had to make a profit off those tablets, right? 🤔
Seinfeld....
I guess they're running reruns on CBS these days just so anyone who didn't grow up watching Dunphy can finally catch up and get informed. 🍿
Paranoia is quite the fascinating ailment—it doesn't cause any physical pain, yet suddenly everything becomes crystal clear.
Was there an actual public bidding process for the supplier, or was the vendor perhaps handpicked during some clandestine meeting over charred burgers? Has anyone—anyone at all—written, said, or even considered that this contract favored Joe instead of Bernard?
It is indescribably irritating, this hairdresser-style rhetoric from above oh, you know just spitting on everything and everyone and labeling absolutely everybody a thief—except, I suppose, for oneself.
Do you honestly believe that someone just happened to have 8,000 unsellable tablets sitting in their garage and then called up and said, hey, Blaze, hey, listen, let me unload this junk on you, hey, if you catch my drift, wink wink?
I didn't write anything even remotely dramatic. Honestly, you're the only one here seeing chains and basements in this conversation—that's all in your head.
Sending a message to a fourteen-year-old telling them their life is effectively ruined forever.
No, it’s not pathetic—not even a little bit. God, I’ve got tears welling up again just thinking about that poor kid whose future you're trying to seal shut.
hiddendriver34 said:Give me a break! Four years of general education? You really think that’s actually feasible?
The pressure comes from society. The old way was actually more humane because it told a fourteen-year-old kid that their life wasn't set in stone at that exact moment and that all doors were still wide open.
The new system basically points a finger and tells them exactly where they belong, and if they want a change, they're on their own to "pull themselves out." The system isn't going to lend a hand.
Honestly, I still don't get why focusing solely on a trade without any general subjects would even take three years. A program like that should realistically only last one year day.
Come on, let’s dial back the melodrama here. It isn't like the system is chaining a fourteen-year-old to a basement floor for life...
And honestly, can we pick a lane? Are we arguing based on the "general culture" our tradespeople should have, or is this really about letting people get an education whenever they feel like it while the public picks up the tab? If it's the latter—if that's the real issue—then what happens when you have an eighteen-year-old who enrolls in some random degree just because they couldn't get into med school? Why shouldn't we let them study anatomy on the side too, just in case they change their minds and don't want to commit to the full four-year degree?
I still don't quite grasp why studying a specific trade, without any general subjects, would even take three years. A program like that should last a maximum of one year day.
In the context of the current vocational training model, "one year day" actually means—once you subtract all the holidays and half the classroom instruction—only a few months spent actually working in a shop.
I certainly wouldn't trust those kinds of plumbers, masons, or electricians to build my house.
hiddendriver34 said:I think you might have missed the real point of Smith's piece. It’s not really about some romanticized glassblower spending his nights lost in historical novels; it's about a worker who, in this new class-based society, is basically locked into the glassmaking trade for life, with zero doors left open for him to try anything else.
How exactly is he going to be "pigeonholed"? By whom, and for what possible reason???
He’d only "be pigeonholed" if he were forced into trade school simply because he drew the shortest straw. Or maybe because his last name starts with an M. Or... well, some other arbitrary factor that has absolutely nothing to do with him as an individual.
In reality, it’s more likely that he puts himself in that position—and if he decides he wants out, he should probably be the one to pull himself out. There isn't some federal law forbidding him from pursuing a different education. Is it hard? Sure, it’s difficult—but so what?
BTW, let's be clear: telling a story about some kid from early May or mid-May who somehow ends up as the CEO of the universe is about as relevant as me claiming I know a legendary figure like Mar who, in her hundredth year, chugs three liters of stout a day—which would mean I'm basically advertising alcoholism as a foolproof way to live forever.
All of you people championing this idea of the "well-rounded citizen"—who just happens to work in glassmaking, but spends their free time writing novels and studying ancient architecture across America—are indulging in some serious, over-the-top idealization.
The implication here is that glaziers all over the country are weeping into their pillows because some wicked female minister has crushed their hopes for academic pursuit and general culture; apparently, they’re all just itching to get home from their apprenticeships so they can hide away behind closed doors and devour history books until dawn.
Naturally, by using this kind of rhetoric, you all—Pavicic included—portray yourselves as somehow more refined and noble than those of us who view things through the lens of what is actually real and possible.
What do you actually know about the student population in those schools? Do you have even the slightest inkling of what a history class there looks like—or, frankly, what it used to look like?
In a community that fundamentally scorns knowledge, within an educational system that is failing across every single one of its components, all this whining about the plight of these poor glaziers is nothing more than complaining about bad music playing on the Titanic.
Since I’m honestly not entirely sure just how much federal funding can be squeezed out of Washington for basic infrastructure projects, a director's ability to secure budget from local municipal authorities really just boils down to—well, I guess you could call it—their level of political cronyism and family ties within that local government.
In my view, that is hardly a reliable metric for deciding who counts as "incompetent" when it comes to removals.
Robert Rodriguez9 said:My neck actually hurts just thinking about kids having to spin 180 degrees toward a chalkboard. Or is that just for show during photos? 🤔
Oh, come on, don't be such a grouch 😁.
It's a cool forum, though I really hope these kids have decent teachers who aren't primarily focused on how much money they can squeeze out of parents with overpriced supplies or whatever else...
A machinist who isn't actually interested in being a machinist shouldn't expect to find much of value in a public vocational school.
By that same logic, I fail to see why taxpayers should be footing the bill for subsidizing whatever niche identity politics these little Kansas City kids decide they want to pursue through their education.
We are talking about fifteen-year-olds who have—by their own signature—expressed a specific desire to enter the machining trade; therefore, the only debate worth having is regarding the actual curriculum required to help them achieve that goal.
If the community decides to move toward a ten-year mandatory basic education model, they’ll have my vote—but that certainly doesn't mean there's any sense in pushing for these bastardized versions of vocational training.