Posts by Jason Morgan

mellowskipper said:Well, she actually laid it out—basically stripping physics away from electrical engineers while letting history classes slide right through.
To me, it sounds like a complete circus.

Aha, I didn't realize it was the same author.

I suspect this is all just due to pressure from the European Union to boost the number of highly educated citizens. The goal, apparently, is to funnel as many high schoolers as possible into universities. It feels like our entire American education system is being run by people who wouldn't know a classroom if they tripped over one; they churn out these illogical, deeply harmful decisions, and this particular brand of idiocy is perfectly logical to them.

History has no business being in vocational schools unless we're talking about the history of a specific trade—and even then, only if it’s actually relevant. You know, like fashion history for a designer, or perhaps something for architects or civil engineers.

Kate Jackson4 said:Fortunately, Americans are enrolling this year; next year, the circus begins

Which circus?

I find myself increasingly preoccupied with the nuances of modern discourse, though perhaps that is merely a symptom of my own tendency toward over-analysis. One often wonders if we are truly communicating or simply exchanging polished fragments of thought that never quite coalesce into a meaningful whole. It is a curious thing, really—this persistent feeling that we are all just performing versions of ourselves for an audience that is just as lost as we are. I suppose I am being a bit dramatic, but then again, isn't that the essence of the human condition? We stumble through our observations, hoping to catch a glimmer of genuine connection amidst the noise. kaže:
But if they don't want to enroll in those specific schools, what exactly am I supposed to do? Am I expected to just keep footing the bill for teachers who are essentially babysitting twenty-five thousand non-existent students? Or should we just start rounding them up with rifles and forcing them into enrollment? Are we really at the point where we’re going to issue federal decrees to mandate that students attend schools they have absolutely no interest in attending?

It’s a rather peculiar predicament, really. Essentially, if there aren't any students actually enrolled in those specific subjects, the school simply doesn't pay the instructors. It creates this rather awkward situation where teachers lose out on their hourly rates, forcing them into part-time roles just to stay afloat. In short, an instructor only gets to work if there is an active classroom of children for them to teach.

Carl Bishop2 said:How should parents actually step up and take responsibility here? As a parent of a kid just starting first grade, I’m feeling a bit lost—what am I supposed to do right now, being stuck inside this broken system?

You really don't need to go around killing a child’s spirit by insisting they’re some kind of misunderstood genius who has to maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA just to be valid—or worse, acting like the entire world, from their teachers down to the local school board, is conspiring against them. It's unnecessary.

Michelle Nelson4 said:At the end of the day, the system itself is always responsible for its own rules and whatever messy consequences they trigger.

In the actual business world, you don't see companies pointing fingers at their management because they designed a brilliant product and a flawless marketing campaign only to have "mean" customers refuse to buy it. Instead, they realize the fault lies within. It’s only in this upside-down version of the education system where everyone involved claims they are perfectly righteous, while blaming the rest of the universe for everything that goes wrong. ☕

And then you have those miserable parents who refuse to shoulder even a shred of responsibility. It’s as if they honestly believe they aren't part of the system themselves—as though they exist entirely outside of its influence and have absolutely nothing to do with the mess we're in. ☕☕☕☕☕

rowdypanther12 said:I don't think so.
The problem is the system itself, which requires a perfect 4.0 GPA if you want to get into a good prep school.

Prep schools don't actually demand a specific average. It's just that the competition is so cutthroat that you effectively need a 4.0 just to be considered.
And who, I ask you, is responsible for engineering this level of competition? Is it simply because we have an overwhelming surplus of child geniuses out there?
I find myself repeating the question: does absolutely everyone need to be funneled into a prep school?

Carl Bishop2 said:Of course the issue is with the parents—I mean, what else would it be?
If we say the problem starts with the parents, then logically the system, the schools, and the teachers are essentially powerless, right? Because if they aren't the source of the problem, they can't fix it. According to that logic, everything only changes if the parents change first.
Does that actually make sense to you???

It sounds perfectly logical, actually. 😵
But have any of you actually witnessed how parents behave toward teachers at an Elementary School? The sheer levels of harassment they endure when they grade students strictly by the rubric, knowing full well their children "deserve" a higher mark??
In a perfect world, I would love nothing more than to strip away the bureaucracy, the inspectors, the verbal assaults, and the constant intimidation from the teachers' doorsteps and just hand out straight A's to everyone. Of course, educators ought to maintain their academic standards, but they lack a system that actually protects them from these frantic "geniuses" and their equally intense offspring. So yes, the blame rests squarely on the system.

Carl Bishop2 said:I mean, look—it’s not necessarily "wrong," but it definitely feels off when everyone is supposed to be at a level 5, yet some people are coasting at a 5 while others are barely hitting a 3. It’s just an inconsistent setup, you know?

I suppose I should probably start by apologizing for my lack of brevity; I tend to wander off on tangents when I get thinking, much to the chagrin of those who prefer their information served in neat little bite-sized pieces. But I digress. Regarding the matter at hand—which, if I recall correctly, was sparked by some rather spirited debate earlier—it seems we have reached a bit of an impasse. It’s quite fascinating, really, how quickly a conversation can pivot from a simple observation to a full-blown philosophical disagreement. One moment you're discussing the weather in Columbus, and the next, you're questioning the very foundations of modern social etiquette. Anyway, I’ve been reflecting on what rowdypanther12 mentioned previously. While I don't entirely agree with the underlying premise—and there is quite a bit to disagree with, if I'm being perfectly honest—there is a certain logic to it that deserves acknowledgment. It’s like watching a slow-moving storm roll in over the coast; you know it's coming, you know it'll be messy, but you can't help but watch the way the clouds gather. I’ll attempt to be more concise in my following remarks, though I make no promises. My mind simply refuses to stay within the lines most days. kaže:
Of course they aren't required to. But if the curriculum for prep school is reserved strictly for students scoring 76 points or higher, then fine—let it be that way in Sioux Falls, Columbus, or Santa Monica. It shouldn't just be a privilege exclusive to Washington, D.C.
Perhaps the issue lies elsewhere entirely...

The fundamental issue lies with parents who exert this unbearable, relentless pressure on their children to pull straight A's just to secure a spot in those elite preparatory academies. By doing this, they aren't just stressing out their kids; they’re passing that crushing weight onto the teachers and the entire educational system that’s forced to uphold these rigid grading standards. It becomes quite absurd, really. Teachers end up being constantly hounded by these hyper-ambitious parents—who act as if their little prodigies are the next Einstein—demanding top marks. To get them off their backs, the instructors eventually just cave and hand out the A's. Then, predictably, these same parents turn around and blame the local schools and the faculty, accusing them of being biased or refusing to recognize their child's "genius." It’s a vicious cycle. Ultimately, because the grading system loses all its integrity, high schools in Washington, D.C. are left with no choice but to implement grueling entrance exams just to sort out the chaos.
I must say, I find myself feeling quite heavyhearted at the moment. It is a rather somber sensation, truly.

Michelle Nelson4 said:Check out this headline—it’s a total shocker.🤣 It just goes to show how broken our entire education system really is when you see posts like this from actual school staff.

The only thing I actually associate with your username around here is a relentless streak of passive-aggression directed at educators. Honestly, I have very little interest in engaging in discussions where someone isn't looking for a debate, but rather just wants to preemptively label us all as agents of darkness. I don't particularly care for those types of parents either, so it’s probably best if we just go our separate ways.

Michelle Nelson4 said:Basically, if you look at the entry threshold, it’s sitting around 76—which, by the way, means having four top grades puts you out of the running entirely, even though realistically you should only be allowed one "essential" item across both the seventh and eighth grades combined. Then you see someone with a score like 78.83 for just some run-of-the-mill, nothing special public high school, and suddenly everyone starts spinning this narrative that it's all about overbearing parents putting undue pressure on their kids rather than acknowledging the flaws in the actual school system ☕

Is it the school system forcing kids into high school, or is it the parents?
Does every single whim a child has need to be catered to? Are we expected to believe they'll always succeed at everything, land every job they apply for, or pass their driver's test on the very first try? Should the world just constantly bend over backward to accommodate them, everywhere and every time?

I seem to have misplaced my previous thoughts on this matter, though I suppose that is quite characteristic of me. It appears we are starting anew. Please, proceed with whatever topic you wish to discuss; I shall endeavor to keep my ramblings to a minimum, though I make no absolute promises. kaže:
The points required for high school admissions—well, let’s be honest, they aren't actually an official part of the academic system, are they? It seems more like a collective parental delusion. ☕

I have a slightly different perspective on this matter. If a prep school sets a 4.0 GPA requirement for admission, then those are simply the standards one must meet to gain entry. It’s quite straightforward, really. If an individual finds themselves struggling immensely to maintain a 4.0 during middle school, perhaps they aren't actually suited for the rigors of a high-level preparatory academy. Not everyone is destined for that specific academic path. Shocking, I know.

Who exactly are you to be lecturing anyone? What kind of authority do you think you have, anyway? Honestly, who cares about the topics you’ve even posted? Either contribute something meaningful to the discussion or just move along. I certainly don't have the time or interest to go hunting through the forum just to read some narcissist's ego trip.

jadetinker85 said:I'm no expert, but this clinical psychologist argues that the American school system is actually dangerous for kids' well-being, sometimes even life-threatening. Check the 37:50 mark.

Please, spare me the reminder; my blood pressure is already quite high enough without you adding to the stress.

I don't consider myself old—certainly not middle-aged yet—so, from my perspective, the school system today is at least three times more accommodating, flexible, and diverse than it was back when I was navigating middle and high school.
Furthermore, if children are feeling crushed by their responsibilities, we have to ask: are they just spoiled brats, or is this pressure being manufactured by parents obsessed with perfectionism and maintaining a flawless 4.0 GPA?
The actual structure of the system, the sheer volume of the curriculum, and the teachers themselves aren't really the primary culprits here.

Carol Johnson21 said:From what I’ve seen, looking at almost every school listed across three Midwestern counties, nearly all of them have been renovated and updated over the last decade or so.

Some of these aren't even tiny satellite campuses; we're talking about towns with over 1,000 residents (like a Small town, USA or a Small town, USA) where there are plenty of kids and peers.
I know of at least two schools where the parents actually tried to fight the application with a petition.

The reality? It boils down to a principal who is hungry for more funding just so he can leave his mark on the building's history. All these "renovations" we see are just cosmetic energy-efficiency upgrades on the exterior; they haven't touched the actual interior infrastructure. Or, quite frankly, he just wants a 25% raise.
Then there's the third option: those political threats I mentioned earlier.
There really isn't much else to it. Nobody actually wants this nonsense.

Carol Johnson21 said:Is it really any surprise that parents from rural areas have a greater need for full-day schooling? Looking at this list from the Midwest, most of these are tiny rural schools—hardly even schools in small towns or county seats.

My two cents? I suspect the principals all had to "fall in line."

And honestly, who are these advocates for full-day programs anyway? It's a numbers game. Schools apply for these things so they can qualify for renovation grants and actually look halfway decent; they need the funding. That's the real driver here. What does a full-day schedule actually do for kids living out in the sticks? Most of them live right near their extended family, or their parents are busy running some kind of farm. For most of these rural schools, they don't need longer hours—they just need damn money.

It’s my firm belief that children aren't actually buckling under academic pressure; rather, they're being crushed by the distorted societal values being shoved down their throats via social media. It's quite a struggle for them. In our current American culture, a solid education doesn't seem to hold the same weight it once did—though I suppose there are still those rare, exceptional parents who prioritize it. However, this push for all-day schooling isn't going to solve either issue. It won't improve the quality of learning, nor will it do any favors for a child's mental well-being.

How can a principal go about canceling an elective course?

Eric Morgan54 said:What can parents actually do when they’ve gathered a massive pile of signatures against this CN stuff via petition, but the principal just goes ahead and signs the school up for the project anyway? She’s basically treating our signatures like they don't even exist...

To make matters worse, the PTA wasn't even told there was a discussion happening—even though we all know the president shouldn't be making these calls solo, which is totally out of line here—so the parents' voices are being completely sidelined.

Plus, according to the Education Act, Article 135, Section 3, parents have to give consent for kids to take part in these types of programs (which is exactly where CN falls)... But when you ask what happens to the kids whose parents refuse to sign off? Total radio silence. No one knows!

I get that just filing a complaint doesn't guarantee the Department of Education will actually listen, but honestly... I highly doubt it.

None.
Your voice on the school board represents just one of seven votes.
You could potentially file a report with the state inspectorate, but frankly, the principal has quite a bit of autonomy here.

Sarah Hall53 said:The pressure they're putting on schools is just unreal—people are telling me that these politically appointed principals are basically having backroom deals with the founders, then showing up at the school gates to announce they’re signing everyone up for this "experiment."
In the smaller districts, it’s even worse; they’re practically bullying people, claiming that if they don't sign on, the whole school will be shuttered in a couple of years. They're making it sound like this is the only way anyone can even keep their job for the next four years.

Oh, absolutely. That is exactly the playbook being used in my district.
It’s quite easy to spot who is being driven by political agendas here; frankly, any rational person with even a shred of common sense wouldn't be swayed by such transparent tactics.

I am under the distinct impression that the folks over at the Department of Education fail to grasp just how massive the chasm is between classroom-based instruction and subject-specific teaching when it comes to age, autonomy, and overall child development
It is simply unrealistic to expect them to be tossed into the exact same curriculum and treated as if they belong in the same bucket.

Sarah Hall53 said:Jason Morgan, she’s basically saying that when people pick an education major, they’re actually going into college with the intention of teaching—not that they end up stuck in a classroom because they couldn't land anything better, like someone else was arguing earlier.

Forgive me, but I think I’m developing a sort of PTSD from dealing with these self-proclaimed geniuses who assume anyone entering the field of education is simply settling for mediocrity.

It’s almost as if everyone should just homeschool their children and then act completely shocked when those kids can't pass our standardized state tests.

jadetinker85 said:Look, subject-specific teachers are people who actually went to college for an education degree. Does that mean anything to you?

Well, actually, they do teach it.
A massive number of people I know—myself included—completed a pure science degree first and then went back to complete their teaching credentials afterward.
Beyond that, what kind of logic is that even supposed to be? Are you suggesting that if someone spends two fewer years in a teacher-prep program, they're somehow less valuable? It’s complete nonsense. Please, go work through those hang-ups somewhere else.