Posts by Carl Bishop2

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?

Jason Morgan said:

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.

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???

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?

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 ☕

This really isn't right, and I honestly had no idea things were this intense in Washington, D.C.
It feels wrong to defend a system that works like this.
I really hope they either make the admissions process more equitable or ensure that national standardized tests actually carry some weight when it comes to enrollment while our kids are still trying to figure out high school.

urbantinker8 said:It isn't really the teachers' fault either.
When there's any kind of "non-compliance" with IMF guidelines, they always seem to be the first—and honestly, the only—ones getting targeted.
Even if we somehow had three teachers in a single classroom, which, let's face it, is never going to happen in our current system, it's just impossible for the whole structure to constantly bend itself to accommodate every single individual. Some students simply won't fit in, and they probably never will, no matter how much effort the faculty puts in.
And, if I may steer us back to the actual topic (I'm not quite sure why you keep trying to dodge it, by the way? 🤔)—what kind of strategy are you thinking of that would actually help students with special needs? And just how many teachers or specialists do you think would need to be crammed into a single classroom in this part of the country every day just so they could provide that level of personalized attention every child deserves, whether they are performing at an average level, or perhaps slightly below or above it ?

You brought students with special needs into this conversation, even though my primary point was about how computers can benefit students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and immigrant children (to help them better learn the language and integrate more smoothly into society). So, I hadn't mentioned kids with learning disabilities until now.
And then Africa decided to call me out over things she just imagined—forgive me for responding to posts where I'm being questioned or singled out.

But seriously, we can get back to the computers now.
I don't have a firm opinion on how much teaching staff is needed in the A2 section because I just don't know enough about the specifics.
What do you think? How many specialists or teachers should be in a classroom of 25 students—where, say, four of them require accommodations, like in a 5th-grade A2 setting?

urbantinker8 said:The real issue, I think, is that you—much like other parents of children with special needs—don't seem to grasp the fact that institutions simply cannot cater to every single child, precisely because every diagnosis is so unique. You have one teacher for twenty-five students. So, by all means, go ahead and crucify her if she fails to perfectly follow individualized instruction guidelines for every single one of the five or six kids in her class (and honestly, the average in a typical American public school is likely even higher than what I see in my local community college).
There is just this constant insistence on individual rights, which seems to be the beginning and end of every argument, while nobody really cares about the actual conditions within the classroom or the school itself.
And, if I may wander slightly off-topic: in what world could a centralized concept like this ever be a good solution when you consider how incredibly diverse these kids are, including all the different types of disorders you mentioned? Actually, thinking about the specific students I currently teach or have taught in the past—for even one single child with a diagnosis, a concept like this wouldn't even be on the table. What I mentioned earlier—the idea of implementing actual instruction through specialized teams working in pairs, small groups, or even 1:1 settings—that might actually make sense, but anything else is just nonsense.
So, naturally, we're all tearing this idea apart. Anyone who has any real-world experience working with children is going to be critical of this plan.
It would probably be a good idea to actually look over that document, especially if there's even a slight chance your own child could be affected by it.

I don't think the blame lies with the parents at all; the math simply doesn't add up. When you have one teacher overseeing 25 kids—or one preschool educator handling a group of 25 toddlers—you're looking at a structural deficit. That's a systemic failure, not a parenting one.

Jason Morgan said:You’re drifting completely off-topic here, though I do recall you turning just about every discussion into a grievance session against teachers and the school system. It seems your standard move is to demand they overhaul the entire curriculum specifically for your child—whether it's accommodations for dyslexia or whatever else—expecting them to dedicate 100% of their energy to one student as if the rest of the class simply didn't exist.

If you’re actually addressing me, you’ve definitely confused me with someone else, because:
1) I don't go around bashing teachers—though, granted, I do find myself criticizing the system from time to time.
2) My child doesn't have an individualized education plan (we don't need one right now, though we might later), nor do they have dyslexia. There’s no modified curriculum or special aide involved.
3) My kid doesn't require anyone to ignore the rest of the class just to focus on them.

And honestly, when I bring up examples from my surroundings, I'm not always talking about my own child. I know quite a few kids dealing with different challenges—I talk to them and their parents regularly—and since I have friends who are teachers, I get to see these issues from a totally different perspective.

urbantinker8, I haven't actually had a chance to dig into that document yet—trying to open it on my phone is a total nightmare, and since I'm working on my desktop right now, I don't really touch the computer during my downtime. My point was simply that I’m interested in seeing the bigger picture and hearing what everyone else has gone through; if you all just want to vent about this reform, feel free—the floor is yours. Just to be clear, I’m not out here defending this reform or Fuchsov’s vision.
It’s honestly tough to reply to every single person without turning this into one giant wall of quotes, so I'll try to keep it brief:
Persephone and whoever else—if you aren't running actual surveys at your school, you don't really have a pulse on what's actually happening on the ground. I definitely agree that the lack of disciplinary consequences is a massive issue. We aren't teaching kids how to take responsibility for their own actions.
jadetinker85, if people are coming to you to confide that they're planning fights at school, then clearly you're doing something right. 👍
Monstera, I’ve been reading your posts for years regarding how to handle kids with special needs. It seems like your advice is always some version of "they shouldn't go to preschool so they can play in the park" or "they shouldn't stay in after-school care." As a parent of a child with neurodivergent needs, I have to say that your stance can actually be quite harmful to those kids—especially since you present yourself as an expert, which leads people to believe your perspective is grounded in professional insight. Kids with disabilities are far too diverse a group for a "one size fits all" solution. What works for one child won't work for another; for some, going home early from school might be best, while for others, staying longer might be the better option. The reality is that our institutions struggle to adapt to individual needs, which I get, but please stop trying to sell parents the idea that these rigid structures are being implemented for the "well-being" of the child.

Honestly, the easiest way to prevent kids from being bullied would just be to pull them out of school entirely—it’s certainly simpler than actually doing the hard work of preventing violence in the first place.
I mean, regarding that little kid this person wasn't even extorting—and let's assume he wasn't lending him money at some predatory interest rate, but rather using blackmail instead—why didn't anyone come forward? Maybe he didn't know who to turn to, maybe home doesn't feel like a safe haven, or maybe he just held onto hope that the bullying would magically stop on its own... perhaps none of this would be happening if we actually focused on real prevention. Even now, certain behaviors are still brushed off as "just kids being kids" rather than being identified as actual bullying. And who is actually conducting these school violence surveys among the students? Is anyone? What do we really know about how often this happens or what the different forms of violence look like? All we know is that physical abuse is down compared to before, and that’s about it.
None of this has anything to do with the daily curriculum. I'm not talking specifically about Fuchs's CN, just speaking generally.
Fuchs is running an experiment right now, and I suspect we'll see some changes depending on how things progress.

While Timms evaluates both 4th and 8th graders, the US only focused on the 4th grade this time—and looking at the data, our results landed just a bit above the baseline.
It would be really fascinating to dig into how these scores fluctuate by country when you account for age; I mean, some places were testing kids at an average of 9.6 years old, while others were closer to 10.8. In the US, the average age was about 10.5. Interestingly, Canadians and Estonians don't participate in these specific tests, and Mexicans tend to score slightly lower than Americans here—though they fall much further behind on the PISA exams. As for Canada, their performance across all testing is, frankly, a disaster.

Sarah Hall53 said:Yeah, we’re talking about the big issues sitting right on the table—the stuff hanging over our heads—that we’ve honestly spent way too much time analyzing.
Honestly, if they just made free after-school programs available for elementary students (with their own dedicated teacher, obviously) for anyone who actually needs it, that would be a massive leap forward.

And as for this whole nonsense about lacking mandatory instructional hours just so we can look good for the OECD—which, let's be real, we aren't even part of—well, there’s a simple fix. Just move preschool into the elementary schools. Voila! There go your 700 extra hours right there if they’re only doing 4 hours a day. And if you throw in an after-school program? Boom. Done. Now, sure, that requires a little bit of actual organization and hiring some people, but hey, instead of doing that, they could just sign a piece of paper declaring the first two years of high school "mandatory." Suddenly, you’ve got another 2,500 hours added to the curriculum instantly. We’d jump halfway up the ladder of whatever organizational standard we're supposedly trying to meet. Wouldn't that be just brilliant? 🤣

I’m with you there—the Canadian schools have implemented something similar for the younger grades (though I'm not positive if it's totally free), and I'm fairly certain that plays a role in their academic success—apparently about 84% of their students utilize after-school care.

It looks like I’m back in the crosshairs again, though this time there isn't much substance behind the criticism. 🥱 Honestly, if my posts are getting under your skin, you can always just hit the ignore button—there's no need to subject yourself to my ramblings if you don't want to.
It feels like whenever some of you bring up the topic of full-day schooling, the conversation immediately narrows down to nothing but Fuchsov's specific proposal. To be fair, I haven't even read the fine print on that yet, and I’m sure it has its flaws. Personally, I don't think tethering kids to a single teacher all day is a winning strategy. I totally get why people are frustrated by the prospect of an increased workload—I'd be annoyed too if my job description suddenly expanded overnight. But for me, the debate about full-day school is about the bigger picture, not just one politician's plan.
If you look at how other countries handle this, there are actually some solid models out there. Take Germany, for example—they utilize two different approaches. One is similar to our after-school programs, where parents can pick up their kids once the core classes are done, whenever they need to. The other is a mandatory full-day system that keeps students in school until the late afternoon. Now, Germany generally performs slightly above average on PISA tests, but they noticed a massive gap in student achievement based on socioeconomic status. The logic behind full-day schooling there is to level the playing field for those kids. A lot of them are children of immigrants who might not be hearing much English at home, rather than kids with actual learning disabilities. Looking ahead, I expect we'll see a similar demographic shift here in the US over the next decade.
The more I dig into this, the more I realize there is no "perfect" setup—not just for full-day schools, but for the entire education system, really. It’s going to take a lot of trial and error to figure out what truly works for everyone involved—the students, the parents, and the teachers. There is definitely no one-size-fits-all solution, so I think having some built-in flexibility is absolutely essential.

urbantinker8 said:I suppose I'm wondering what the actual point of your post is here?
I mean, are we really suggesting that because there might be three kids in a class without a desk, or four students whose parents can't quite grasp the curriculum, we should force tens of thousands of other kids into this seemingly pointless eight-hour daily grind in schools?
Your sense of altruism and concern for those in need occasionally seems to go a bit overboard, almost stepping on the rights of the majority, who aren't exactly needy in any way, I guess.
Then again, maybe that's just how modern social sensitivity works—it goes to these extremes where everyone starts fussing over one specific kid, and meanwhile, the other twenty-five kids in the classroom just have to suffer through it. If one kid can't manage his homework alone, then by that logic, the other twenty-five who are perfectly capable should just sit there until 4:00 PM so he doesn't feel left out or slighted, I suppose.🙄

The point I was making is simply that full-day schooling isn't bad for everyone; some students can actually benefit quite a bit from it.
As for the rest of your comment, I’d really appreciate it if we didn't turn this discussion into a personal attack.

wanderingbadger44 said:I hear you, but what’s the solution there? If that's the case, then we should specifically design programs tailored to support those students. It doesn't seem fair to force everyone to stay late just because Mary and Mark lack the right environment at home.

Actually, why not? I'm all for it. That's basically how after-school programs work anyway—it's optional for those who want it (or whose parents want it for them).

Michelle Nelson4 said:I find it absolutely fascinating that anyone could view mandatory "mentorship" with struggling students as a positive thing. Honestly, that was the exact reason I avoided taking any extra math courses—because there was this unspoken assumption that doing so meant I’d be stuck running remedial sessions to help out those who were falling behind. Even a twelve-year-old understands the futility of it; how are you supposed to approach someone who just doesn't get the concept and lacks the necessary foundational knowledge? It felt like such a massive waste of time for both me and the student, since there was simply nothing I could explain effectively. That experience alone was what 100% convinced me that teaching just wasn't the career path for me...

We didn't really have that happening here. I used to help out a few friends from different schools, but my memory is pretty fuzzy on the details—except for one girl where it wasn't even clear what the issue was; she probably just needed to focus better.

Susan James said:They rolled out similar models back then in Washington, D.C., and Cleveland too...
In fact, you can still see that specific model being used today in Cleveland.

I remember attending the specialized track at the academy in Washington, D.C.
We had two classes per grade level following the classic curriculum, while two others were in this special program.
Our backpacks stayed at school all week long. I managed to get absolutely everything done during school hours, including all my reading assignments. Because of that, every single weekend was completely free for us.
We had two different teachers who covered various subjects.
There weren't any extra tutoring sessions needed (like math or English).

Roughly speaking, I'd say the kids in the specialized track had much more trouble with discipline once they hit the higher grades compared to the classic students (they were basically running wild, 🤣). One thing I vividly remember is that in the regular classes, there were tons of kids whose parents were teachers (some even worked at our school), and interestingly, those parents wouldn't enroll their children in the specialized program. They probably already realized back then that it wasn't the right fit for them 🤔
. On the flip side, my class included kids from outside the neighborhood whose parents would write letters requesting enrollment in that specific program—likely because, just like my family, they really needed that extra layer of supervision.
I was pulled out of the program in 4th grade, or perhaps everything just kind of fell apart around then 🤔. Third grade was incredibly boring for me, but what sticks in my mind is that "mentorship" work we were assigned with struggling students. Looking back, that seems totally crazy by today's standards; you wouldn't dream of having a kid explain math to another kid when you have a teacher on the payroll specifically for that. In the classic classes, the weekly student monitors would carry notebooks home to classmates who were sick, but in the specialized track, a few of us were tasked with that. After lunch or during breaks, we’d head over to a sick classmate's house to go over the lessons. For us, it was actually a lot of fun, though I doubt that would fly today. Especially with kids living outside the immediate area—who knows what parents would say! We didn't really have a choice, and my parents were actually really grateful that someone would come by when I was under the weather, so it felt natural for me to help others.

Once we reached the higher grades, nobody even mentioned the specialized track anymore. I don't think they even have it in Canada anymore, yet unfortunately, our current experiment is pushing to bring that specialized curriculum back for subject-specific teaching...
So, we don't really need to look at neighboring countries; we've already tried this ourselves.
(And we still have evidence of it; there was even an e-consultation discussing why we shouldn't ignore the recent outcomes from the Cleveland school)

The whole all-day school model mostly benefits students who don't have anyone at home to help them with homework—or those who might not even have a quiet desk to work at. Kids of teachers usually have all that support waiting for them at home.

Scott Booth said:There is actually so much I admire about the way they handle schooling over there:
the teachers are top-tier and genuinely happy in their roles (they're paid exceptionally well and are hand-picked from the best of the best), schools are fully equipped, and there isn't that massive gap in quality between rural towns and big cities. It’s consistently good everywhere.

And then there's that mandatory 15-minute break after an hour of instruction, where the kids are actually allowed to run outside, scream, and just act like wild animals. Of course, having two—maybe even three—teachers would be necessary to make that work.

But where does that leave us? We're down here in the South of Europe. I can't think of a single country that manages such a highly organized school system while maintaining those stellar PISA test scores (if you're looking for a real benchmark).

Now, Canada actually pulls above-average numbers on those PISA tests.
I'm never quite sure why everyone keeps bringing up Finland when Estonia is outperforming them, and frankly, it makes even less sense why we don't talk about Canada more often—especially since we share so many more similarities with them than we do with those Nordic nations.

In Canada, they implemented the full-day school model back in the '74/'75 school year. It was a fifteen-year transition period that had its fair share of pros and cons, but the long-term impact ended up being quite positive.
Nowadays, about 85% of their students in grades 1 through 4 or 5 are enrolled in after-school programs.

I’ve been reading up on how Estonia has actually overtaken Finland lately, and honestly, their school system feels incredibly familiar to what we have here in the States. They use an after-school program for the younger kids, just like our elementary schools, and children start first grade at age seven—though there's a specific rule that they need to be seven by October 1st of that school year to qualify. Interestingly, some of their schools offer split sessions (morning and afternoon shifts), which is more of an exception for them, whereas in our neck of the woods, that’s almost become the standard. Their academic year kicks off in September and wraps up in mid-June, totaling at least 35 weeks of instruction—which I think is pretty much the same timeframe we follow here, too. Plus, students get a daily meal that's largely subsidized by the state or local government; they're even starting to roll out breakfast options, usually something simple like oatmeal.
The real kicker, though, is the difference in preschool participation. In America, about 75% of kids head to preschool or daycare, but in Estonia, that number jumps all the way up to 94%.

jadetinker85 said:I mean, have you ever actually been a kid? Seriously—what child in elementary school wants to be stuck in a classroom from 8:00 AM until 3:30 PM?

I hear that. But my little one is just starting first grade—once he gets his homework finished, he’s pretty much free to do whatever he wants. There isn't really any heavy studying involved at this stage.

What does official status actually bring to the table—other than just handing someone a much heavier sentence if they decide to get aggressive with an officer?

Jose Wells3 said:Before we dive in, perhaps we should take a collective look at how things are handled over in Europe at Eurydice ? That might help us draw some conclusions about what qualifications are actually necessary, what alternative pathways could look like, and where they fit within the educational hierarchy.

As I mentioned before, the issue of subpar degree programs persists. It’s the same old story: whenever people start criticizing education, they aim their shots at primary and secondary schools, while the universities are busy trying to "reform" everything—all while lazy bureaucrats and political appointees run failing departments.

The sheer rigidity of our university system is a problem in itself. On paper, you can supposedly do anything. In reality? You can't. How am I supposed to study chemistry alongside English literature, or physics with art history, if that’s the specific combination I want for my career? The system just won't allow it.

I also think it’s a solid idea to allow people to earn certifications for high-demand subjects through alternative routes. However, we should set some guardrails: perhaps a minimum of a Bachelor's degree for certain roles, or even a Master's combined with relevant teaching experience and a certain level of maturity.

I fully support involving students in the process. We need to drastically cut enrollment quotas for oversaturated fields and boost them for others. Furthermore, we should be hiring students to fill specialized vacancies via a centralized database. Honestly? I’d advocate for penalizing those who refuse such placements. Of course, this would have to be balanced with incentives for those who step up—things like seniority credits and academic points for practical skills.

My stance remains unchanged: for core subject instruction, nothing less than a Master's degree should be considered—except, perhaps, in cases of extreme teacher shortages. Even then, we could follow a hybrid model of classroom instruction and lectures, which I’ll detail further down.

While I welcome alternative pathways and additional training for non-educators, let’s be realistic: with salaries at this current level, nobody is going to jump into teaching for extra work.

In my view, it’s perfectly reasonable for elementary teachers to undergo a five-year program. They could complete three years of traditional lectures and exams, followed by two years of heavy practice and specialized coursework on a 70:30 ratio. A final thesis based on their actual field experience should be mandatory, along with a professional exam and licensing.

Early childhood educators could follow a similar track: three years of college followed by two years of hands-on practice and focused instruction with a reduced course load. This would culminate in a Master's thesis centered on their practical experience, topped off by a professional exam and licensure.

Oh, and yes—this would finally clear out the masses of pure theorists from the universities. I believe I've touched on that before.

I really dig where you're going with these ideas. 👍

Susan James said:It’s definitely tougher because parents don't seem to trust teachers as much anymore. At the same time, they have these incredibly high expectations—you know, the whole "every child is a genius" or "we need to maximize every ounce of their potential" mindset.

I won't drag this debate out too long, though... everyone gets pushed into standard schooling because, well, everyone has rights.

But looking at this specifically regarding kids with special needs, the full-day school model doesn't really address them. When people say a teacher will be freed up from certain hours because the kids have computer lab, language arts, or PE, leaving one teacher to handle everything all day, my question is: what happens to the aides? They aren't "freed up" from specific subjects; they are there with the student all day long. Plus, in the past, kids with disabilities were often advised against after-school programs because it was too overwhelming and they couldn't get the individualized attention they needed. What happens to them now? Will they actually get that support?
And then there are the gifted students. How can someone realistically pick only the gifted kids for enrichment programs based on actual ability when every parent thinks their kid is the next Einstein and demands they get in? They certainly won't settle for remedial help or just doing regular homework...
Also, are teachers even properly trained to work with gifted learners? It's kind of a lottery, really. Since elementary schools are still organized by local neighborhoods, you just get whatever comes your way.
(For years, I've heard teachers say that if they have to choose, they'd rather do remedial work because it's easier to prepare for. Their priority is making sure all the kids grasp the basics before focusing on the one or two who might need a bit more... so the advanced kids just end up idling away their time at school.)

Do you ever stop to wonder if we’re putting too much pressure on kids to squeeze every last drop of potential out of themselves? I mean, there's this pervasive idea floating around—almost like a cultural mantra—that every child needs to be pushed to their absolute limit to truly succeed. It's that constant drive to maximize talent, hit every milestone, and basically operate at peak performance from day one. But I can't help but feel there's a fine line between encouraging someone and just relentless chasing of "optimization." It reminds me a bit of how people approach fitness or career climbing in the States—this obsession with being the best version of yourself at all times—which sounds great on paper, but it can be exhausting in practice. Is it really about reaching that maximum potential, or should we be giving them more room to just... exist? To fail without it being seen as a wasted opportunity? I'd love to hear what others think about where we should draw that line.
I get that it’s probably out of reach right now—honestly, it might even be a bit of a stretch—but I still think it’s something worth aiming for.
Teaching isn't just getting harder because parents have cranked up their expectations—it’s also because the kids themselves are becoming more demanding, and honestly, everyone seems to be looking for perfection these days. It feels like there's this massive gap where we should be getting help, too; teachers are facing all this pressure without nearly enough support from the specialized staff or mental health services that should be there to back us up.