Religion classes in school - Megathread

Kevin Bennett2 said:The issue here isn't about believers expressing their faith in public; it's about how one specific religion clearly holds an advantage over others, even if the Constitution says otherwise.

If you're going to cite the Constitution, then actually read it:

Article 41.
"All religious communities are equal before the law and separate from the state.
Religious communities are free, in accordance with the law, to publicly perform religious rites, establish schools, colleges, other institutions, social and charitable organizations, and manage them, while enjoying the protection and assistance of the state in their activities."

Schools are state institutions. If this article of the Constitution is interpreted correctly, then religious education in schools should at least be modified—so that teachers of other religions in America get an equal number of hours—or moved to churches entirely.

Has anyone even tried to check the constitutionality of bringing religious instruction into schools (and had the Supreme Court reject it)?

How could it be changed in that direction now, when the status quo has already... shifted. 🤔 That is to say, since the initial process of returning religious instruction to the classroom after it was driven out by the communists, all participating religious groups where there is student interest continue to maintain it. Even though in the vast majority of cases we are looking at Catholic instruction, that does not negate the reality that Islamic instruction, Orthodox instruction, and others are also conducted within the American school system... 🤷

Kevin Bennett2 said:The issue here isn't about believers expressing their faith in public; it's about how one specific religion clearly holds an advantage over others, even if the Constitution says otherwise.

If you're going to cite the Constitution, then actually read it:

Article 41.
"All religious communities are equal before the law and separate from the state.
Religious communities are free, in accordance with the law, to publicly perform religious rites, establish schools, colleges, other institutions, social and charitable organizations, and manage them, while enjoying the protection and assistance of the state in their activities."

Schools are state institutions. If this article of the Constitution is interpreted correctly, then religious education in schools should at least be modified—so that teachers of other religions in America get an equal number of hours—or moved to churches entirely.

Has anyone even tried to check the constitutionality of bringing religious instruction into schools (and had the Supreme Court reject it)?

Any religious community that has a contract with the government can organize religious education in school, provided they meet the same standard requirement: there must be at least 7 students in a group. Teachers from any religion with a government contract can teach 2 hours a week, as long as they gather a minimum of 7 participants.
Are you really suggesting that a teacher whose religion has no followers in the school shouldn't be allowed to teach? Who would even attend that class? Is the teacher just supposed to sit there by themselves?

rowdypanther12 said:Yeah, obviously.
And I guess you wouldn't mind one bit if kids had to listen to a sermon during their school plays 😁
Sure, sure 😁

In a school in Gunz, they actually teach both Catholic and Islamic studies. I have no idea what their school assemblies look like, though. Why don't you ask around and let me know when you hear something back?😉

Alexander Ortiz3 said:In a school in Gunz, they actually teach both Catholic and Islamic studies. I have no idea what their school assemblies look like, though. Why don't you ask around and let me know when you hear something back?😉

What do you mean by "THEIR" school plays? It's all the same school, isn't it?

silentraven6 said:Let’s look at it this way, then. How many teachers have actually brought an imam, a rabbi, or an Orthodox priest—literally anyone from a different faith tradition—into their classroom just to help students grasp the concept of ecumenism?

The religious community sets the curriculum, and then the Department of Education approves it.
I assume you're specifically talking about the Catholic Church's religious education program. If you want to know how they handle the topic of ecumenism or the specific methods they use, your best bet is to reach out to the Archdiocese.
A teacher follows the established curriculum, just like any other teacher in the school system.

silentraven6 said:Let’s look at it this way, then. How many teachers have actually brought an imam, a rabbi, or an Orthodox priest—literally anyone from a different faith tradition—into their classroom just to help students grasp the concept of ecumenism?

Each religious community sets its own curriculum for religious education, which is then approved by the Department of Education.
If you really want to find out how and when ecumenism is covered in the Catholic Church's curriculum, you should get in touch with the local Chancery.
Just like any other teacher, those teaching religion follow a specific, pre-approved lesson plan and syllabus.

rowdypanther12 said:What do you mean by "THEIR" school plays? It's all the same school, isn't it?

By "their," I'm referring to the school play in Gunston. In that specific district, they offer both Catholic and Islamic religious education classes. As for what the Gunston school play actually looks like, I honestly have no idea—I've never attended one.
P.S. My apologies to everyone, my internet connection is acting up, so posts are duplicating and things like that...

James Alvarez2 said:And you're telling me the Church isn't to blame? Like they aren't just playing blind to the fact that there's one elective stuck right in the middle of the daily schedule?
How can the Church claim to promote values that would actually give ALL kids TWO HOURS back in their week, or let the kids who want religion class take it during a different shift?

Hold up, hold up. What about the other electives?
Is it fair to the kids taking Computer Science? Or English? Or extra Math?
Why wouldn't switching shifts work for the religion students?
I get home at 1 PM, grab a snack, knock out some homework, chill for a bit, and then at 4 or 5 PM I head to religion class. I'll go with my buddy from down the street who's in the same boat. We'll walk, hang out, talk about homework...
Where's the actual problem here?
Meanwhile, our friend who isn't in religion might be in Computer Science then. Or English. Or soccer. Or just hanging at the park.

It's not one hour. It's two hours a week. Multiply that by the number of school weeks. If I'm not mistaken—that's 70 school hours.
Someone's kid could have spent those 70 hours sleeping, staring at a wall, knitting, or fixing bike chains with all the neighbors on the block. That's not my business and yours. You chose what you wanted your kid to do for those 70 hours. Why shouldn't another parent have the right to choose for their kid?

You want to hear something even funnier?
Kids—both the ones in class and the ones out of it—wouldn't give a damn if we called the subject Eating Ice Cream Until We Feel Sick or Playing Ball Until It Gets Dark, Even Though Half the Class Can't Even Spell the Letter R... which we don't teach because, well, obviously.
But parents? They’d probably have a massive problem with that.

Look, personally? I wouldn't care.
But I know my own faith inside and out, so nothing else feels like a threat to me.
Actually, my teacher taught me that we all pray to the same God, just in different ways. That other faiths are just more stuff to discover, not some threat you gotta wipe out.

(Sorry mods for the double post, couldn't fit it all in one)

I honestly don't understand how some of you struggle with such straightforward concepts.
There is an established agreement between the Church and the state (and it wasn't just the Catholic Church; other religious groups have signed agreements too).
From that legal framework, specific rights, obligations, and jurisdictions are derived.
The Church has neither the right, nor the obligation, nor the authority regarding students who choose not to attend religious studies. It certainly doesn't have the power to dictate their supervision or their programming during their free periods.

James Alvarez2 said:Look, I'm with everyone else on this, but you're dead wrong here. Faith is just like anything else in life—it's something you're taught. You can sit a kid down at home and teach them their ABCs, math, or how to read a map... same goes for teaching them how to pray or use a rosary. But just like the English language is way more than just letters, and math is much more than just numbers, religion is about a hell of a lot more than just saying grace before dinner...
Yeah, should be.
But not at school, definitely not in the middle of class, and certainly not while people are actually paying attention...
First things first—been getting this stuff at home since forever...

After all that nonsense about collecting points, it’s not even about some kind of penalty. It's just how she lives out her faith through the core of it... attending Mass with her local parish.
Nobody ever admits that kids just don't always feel like showing up. I used to love my martial arts classes, but there were days I just couldn't deal because I was wiped out or my friends were all hanging out at the mall... Same thing with church. Sometimes I’d rather just sit there watching cartoons in the morning. It wasn't like I thought Mass was some kind of punishment. If you actually grew up with your faith, following tradition isn't a chore. If it feels like a punishment, then fine—don't bother with Sunday school, Mass, or First Communion. Just skip it. It's totally fine to miss service if you're not feeling it or if the timing just sucks. Look, instead of counting down to one single ceremony, there are basically fifty-seven different chances throughout the year to show up and get those points...
Not even a thing. My training sessions are always at the same damn time, too. Besides, there are plenty of masses throughout the week and on Sundays. If your church doesn't work for you, just find another one...

Look, you gotta be careful when you're talking about those little "plus" marks or moving up levels. It’s not just some participation trophy. If I sign up for an intensive language course to hit the next level, I actually have to pass an exam. Same thing with Taekwondo—you don't just get a new belt; you earn it. You want to move up a grade in school? You need solid grades. You want to play in a varsity basketball game? You better show up and grind at practice first. Even with stuff like a baptism, your parents and godparents are basically testifying for you... but once it comes to things like First Communion or Confirmation, that responsibility falls squarely on your shoulders. That’s why you need real prep work. And at the end of the day, it all goes back to the parents being the foundation of everything...

Not cool, man. You’re quoting another one of my posts where I said I wouldn't send my kid to Islamic school just to end up living in a country that's already mostly Muslim...

I don't see how you can even call yourself a believer, let alone a parent, sending your kid to Sunday school...
Are you teaching a kid to completely lose their sense of self just because of where they happen to be living?
Doesn't matter if it's religion or whatever else.
Waving faith around isn't actual faith.
But faith isn't just "I'll teach them what everyone else learns."
And look, this is basically the whole problem with religious ed in public schools. You’d send your kid to a Catholic class just because everyone else is doing it. Someone else does the same with a different denomination just to fit in. I don't get how you guys don't see the issue here.

Look, YOU—and no other parent for that matter—aren't dragging 19 kids to school. You're only responsible for your own kid (or two, or three...). So technically, it's the exact same deal for you as it is for the parent whose kid isn't taking the class: coordinating an afternoon arrival for any elective. You aren't the majority since you don't have 10 kids in the class. Not all parents in a grade work at the same company, take the same bus, or even live in the same neighborhood. You're acting like an individual. It's pretty embarrassing to preach a faith that's supposed to promote equality, caring for neighbors, and loving your friends while holding these kinds of views.

Are you some religious ed teacher terrified for your job because fewer kids are showing up, and the ones who do are only there because they have to be?
Asking because I don't see any other reason for this kind of talk.

Exactly, most religious ed teachers do cover several schools. Wouldn't it be easier to just bring the kids from the same district to a church and knock out a solid 6-7 hour block? No driving between schools, no sitting in traffic, no 19 miles idling in the car between campuses and home? I don't get it, common sense says that's the easier way.
Even if it wasn't at a church, even if it was at the school during an off-shift like every other elective, wouldn't that still be easier to organize?

Why even bring up Ethics?

1. Yeah, true. I'm one of those people. No one in my house goes to church—honestly, I don't even think they know how to make the Sign of the Cross properly. I went to religious ed because I chose to. I did my First Communion and Confirmation because I wanted to. I stayed in the community by choice. I never told my friends they had to cross themselves before eating, and I never told anyone they were going to hell just because they didn't pray with me. I never spoke ill of anyone at home either.

2. It's not some trend. I don't think we're anywhere near that. There's nothing "trendy" about kids doing religious ed. They go because they just go. Because their friends go. Because the older folks went. They go so they aren't stuck in the hallway, or because their best friend is enrolled. It's easier to just drift with the current than fight it. And then you get the double lessons, the Masses where participation is forced, sacraments that the parents don't even understand...

3. Let me give you a different perspective. I worked on the 2010 Census. I wasn't just crunching numbers behind a desk; I was out door-to-door, actually talking to people. I talked to about 1,100 people. Want to know how people answer questions about religion?
"Write whatever you want." (And since I can't do that, I just write 'declined to state')
"Uh... just put Catholic."
"Just so they don't think we're [Group X]."
"Write whatever everyone else writes."
"Wait, what's the deal with the President?"
I'll be listing their kids (who aren't there) and asking if they want me to include them. Parents will say, "Put Catholic for him too, he doesn't care..." Then the kid pops up at the door (even though I hadn't written anything yet) and says, "Put agnostic."

Honestly, I'm embarrassed by those Catholics, by believers in general. It's embarrassing that they claim to belong to the same community I do.
And no, statistics like that aren't a real reflection of what's happening in the country.

4. As for the "extra Mass," that's for me. My main Mass is the youth Mass held in our parish in the evening. But I want to help these little kids see Mass the way I saw it—the reason why I decided to stay. (I don't have kids of my own). So I show up to the extra 9 AM Mass to project song lyrics on the wall, to help the teachers engage the kids, to help with the music and the new altar servers... You know why so many people show up to that specific Mass (besides the ones who attend for themselves)? Because parents just drop their kids off in the church parking lot and pick them up after.
My parents (people who don't even know how to cross themselves) were at almost every Sunday Mass with me. They didn't get why I cared, but they saw I was interested in something, and they backed me up. Just like they showed up to my soccer games even though they didn't know a single rule of the sport.

That bolded part right there? That’s the whole reason parents sign their kids up for religious ed in the first place. If a parent doesn't see the point of Mass, Sunday school, First Communion, or all those Holy Week services—what's the kid even supposed to get out of religious class? Or the stuff they do at school? Look, if they can't wrap their heads around the logic, fine, they don't have to "get" it... but if they see their kid finding meaning in it, why fight it? Just let them be.
If you're a religious education teacher, I'd love to see some actual stats or even just what parents really think about everything their kids are forced to go through before receiving their sacraments.

I don't have anything to do with religious education in that sense. Nor am I out here spinning yarns about changing bike chains or whatever.
There was some chatter early on regarding whether the students who skip these classes—and have zero connection to the subject—were actually causing issues, and we eventually concluded the main concern was simply student supervision during free periods.

I’ve posted the international treaties that clearly outline the status of religious education and the role of instructors, which should address several of the questions raised here.
As for the number of students attending, those figures are actually quite steady. If enrollment were to drop, there are plenty of ways to make the program more engaging. For now, providing high grades to most participants is sufficient, as it helps boost the overall school GPA.
Across every region in America, there are shrines, historic Catholic Church buildings that serve as cultural landmarks, and monasteries. We could always organize one-day youth retreats, social gatherings, sports events, or cultural tours of monasteries for anyone interested—the kind of stuff regular school curriculum doesn't bother providing. Think of it like little weekend field trips. Do you really think that wouldn't make attending these classes more appealing?
The idea that students in these classes are only there to hang out can pretty much be applied to almost any subject in any school.

I want to be perfectly clear about my position here.
Religious education doesn't belong in our public schools. It should only be taught within the walls of the Catholic Church or in private settings.

Dana Phillips said:I want to be perfectly clear about my position here.
Religious education doesn't belong in our public schools. It should only be taught within the walls of the Catholic Church or in private settings.

It’s completely obvious that it doesn't belong there, but let's face it: nothing is going to change as long as that idiotic treaty with Vatican City remains in effect. And frankly, we'll be waiting forever for that to happen.
As for those religious instructors, according to what the students are actually saying, they barely do any real teaching. Instead, they waste their time on nonsense, like putting up tacky, tasteless posters all over the halls. Most kids can't stand them; they think the instructors are out of touch, and they view everything being taught as pure garbage. In short, the longer we force religious instruction into public schools, the more resentment and hostility the students are going to develop toward it.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:I honestly don't understand how some of you struggle with such straightforward concepts.
There is an established agreement between the Church and the state (and it wasn't just the Catholic Church; other religious groups have signed agreements too).
From that legal framework, specific rights, obligations, and jurisdictions are derived.
The Church has neither the right, nor the obligation, nor the authority regarding students who choose not to attend religious studies. It certainly doesn't have the power to dictate their supervision or their programming during their free periods.

Everything you just laid out is spot on.

But I’m still struggling to see why you think this automatically makes these non-religious students the responsibility of the teacher, the librarian, the homeroom instructor, or the principal. Can you actually point me to a source where that is explicitly stated in black and white?

Maybe you're interpreting it this way because the school functions more as a Christian institution than the Church itself does, stepping in to look after the kids who were essentially pushed out of the classroom when religious studies was slotted in as an elective.

Think about it—any teacher, librarian, or administrator who finds a gap in their schedule caused by religious classes could just as easily say, with a straight face, that looking after those kids isn't part of their job description.

So, we end up in this scenario where, legally speaking, neither the Church nor the State—the actual signatories of these agreements—is responsible for those children.

You’d think a person would expect more Christian compassion from the Church than from the government, but it seems the Church isn't losing any sleep over it, and they aren't particularly concerned with their neighbors. So, the burden falls on the schools and the state. It's like trying to drive a bull that refuses to move.

As a "staunch atheist," I find myself in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed by plus.nešto.
Through this contract, the church has secured exactly what it set out to achieve—something I would never personally grant them—but let’s be clear: this does not imply any sort of obligation toward the children. Students who choose not to participate in religious studies, and the resulting gaps in their daily schedules, should be treated as an administrative issue for the school to solve. Should the school not be capable of designing a schedule that ensures these students aren't left idling during those periods? If such a feat is truly impossible, then surely they could provide an alternative activity or even just an empty classroom where they might focus on their homework while their peers attend religious instruction.

My seventh grader is experiencing one of these scheduling gaps for the very first time because of these religious classes. Most of the time, she simply uses that period to get ahead on her homework, though occasionally she joins a geography study group. While I would certainly prefer a schedule free of these interruptions, one must accept the reality of the situation; at least the teachers aren't being paid for doing absolutely nothing.

analogseal18 said:As a "staunch atheist," I find myself in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed by plus.nešto.
Through this contract, the church has secured exactly what it set out to achieve—something I would never personally grant them—but let’s be clear: this does not imply any sort of obligation toward the children. Students who choose not to participate in religious studies, and the resulting gaps in their daily schedules, should be treated as an administrative issue for the school to solve. Should the school not be capable of designing a schedule that ensures these students aren't left idling during those periods? If such a feat is truly impossible, then surely they could provide an alternative activity or even just an empty classroom where they might focus on their homework while their peers attend religious instruction.

My seventh grader is experiencing one of these scheduling gaps for the very first time because of these religious classes. Most of the time, she simply uses that period to get ahead on her homework, though occasionally she joins a geography study group. While I would certainly prefer a schedule free of these interruptions, one must accept the reality of the situation; at least the teachers aren't being paid for doing absolutely nothing.

But who’s actually footing the bill for someone to run those extra activities? It feels like you or the Church might be assuming people will just volunteer their time, which almost feels like a lack of real concern for the kids' needs.
And what happens if there aren't any spare classrooms available? Some schools in the States are still running on three shifts instead of two, so space is already at a premium.

analogseal18 said:As a "staunch atheist," I find myself in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed by plus.nešto.
Through this contract, the church has secured exactly what it set out to achieve—something I would never personally grant them—but let’s be clear: this does not imply any sort of obligation toward the children. Students who choose not to participate in religious studies, and the resulting gaps in their daily schedules, should be treated as an administrative issue for the school to solve. Should the school not be capable of designing a schedule that ensures these students aren't left idling during those periods? If such a feat is truly impossible, then surely they could provide an alternative activity or even just an empty classroom where they might focus on their homework while their peers attend religious instruction.

My seventh grader is experiencing one of these scheduling gaps for the very first time because of these religious classes. Most of the time, she simply uses that period to get ahead on her homework, though occasionally she joins a geography study group. While I would certainly prefer a schedule free of these interruptions, one must accept the reality of the situation; at least the teachers aren't being paid for doing absolutely nothing.

Look, we can agree on one thing: a gap in the schedule is an operational headache for the school or the state, not the church—because, technically, that's where the responsibility lies. But my second point is that it's wrong to claim they aren't morally responsible for leaving our kids in a vacuum. By the very terms of the agreement, they’ve left them essentially unsupervised by everyone involved. In my view, they are morally responsible just as much as the government is. And since both sides love to beat their chests about how much they care for everyone—especially the kids—I find them to be hypocrites .

So, your child having a gap in their schedule for the first time this year? Well, that's fine. My kid has had four gaps since the very first year (technically three, but since they go to after-school care, it effectively counts as four). Right now, they spend that time sometimes in the library, sometimes in a teacher's office, and sometimes... honestly, I'm not even sure where. I'm not comfortable with my kid just loitering in the hallways, though I suppose it's a lesser evil than being forced into a religious class.

And frankly, the fact that things are being pushed on us through our children against our will is what really gets under my skin. If they would just stay out of my business and my kids' lives (see my previous post regarding blessings at school) and organize their activities so they aren't detrimental to us, I’d be much more tolerant. I genuinely couldn't care less who believes what; I have zero desire to debate people in real life or try to convert anyone. In return, I expect the same level of non-interference for my family. But unfortunately, that hasn't happened. That’s why I get frustrated, that's why I'm annoyed, and that's why I feel justified in being bitter. It feels like there is simply no respect shown for our views and our convictions.

wanderingbadger44 said:Everything you just laid out is spot on.

But I’m still struggling to see why you think this automatically makes these non-religious students the responsibility of the teacher, the librarian, the homeroom instructor, or the principal. Can you actually point me to a source where that is explicitly stated in black and white?

Maybe you're interpreting it this way because the school functions more as a Christian institution than the Church itself does, stepping in to look after the kids who were essentially pushed out of the classroom when religious studies was slotted in as an elective.

Think about it—any teacher, librarian, or administrator who finds a gap in their schedule caused by religious classes could just as easily say, with a straight face, that looking after those kids isn't part of their job description.

So, we end up in this scenario where, legally speaking, neither the Church nor the State—the actual signatories of these agreements—is responsible for those children.

You’d think a person would expect more Christian compassion from the Church than from the government, but it seems the Church isn't losing any sleep over it, and they aren't particularly concerned with their neighbors. So, the burden falls on the schools and the state. It's like trying to drive a bull that refuses to move.

That is precisely why I maintain that the Department of Education must organize the supervision during these free periods and allocate specific funding for it.
For the Department of Education to actually step up, they need to be pressured by the very people for whom these empty slots are a headache. Instead, they are just "treading water" by demanding that an entity with zero jurisdiction solve a problem that isn't theirs.

If outside groups didn't keep sticking their noses where they don't belong—kind of like someone trying to force their way into a crowded elevator when there’s clearly no room—and just stayed in their own lane instead of meddling with our public schools, we wouldn't be dealing with all this nonsense right now.
Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not letting our local politicians off the hook for getting us into this mess in the first place.

Andrew Doyle said:It’s completely obvious that it doesn't belong there, but let's face it: nothing is going to change as long as that idiotic treaty with Vatican City remains in effect. And frankly, we'll be waiting forever for that to happen.
As for those religious instructors, according to what the students are actually saying, they barely do any real teaching. Instead, they waste their time on nonsense, like putting up tacky, tasteless posters all over the halls. Most kids can't stand them; they think the instructors are out of touch, and they view everything being taught as pure garbage. In short, the longer we force religious instruction into public schools, the more resentment and hostility the students are going to develop toward it.

My friends are quite devout, and their child is currently enrolled in religious education classes, though I can't help but wonder just how much longer that will actually last...

They weren’t exactly thrilled with what their kid was being taught in class to begin with, but once the religion teacher started voicing those harsh, negative views regarding IVF, they finally reached their breaking point... It turns out their child was conceived through that very process after years of heartache and failed attempts, so hearing someone in a position of authority describe their miracle as something sinful or even demonic just felt like a direct assault on their family...

brightheron64 said:My friends are quite devout, and their child is currently enrolled in religious education classes, though I can't help but wonder just how much longer that will actually last...

They weren’t exactly thrilled with what their kid was being taught in class to begin with, but once the religion teacher started voicing those harsh, negative views regarding IVF, they finally reached their breaking point... It turns out their child was conceived through that very process after years of heartache and failed attempts, so hearing someone in a position of authority describe their miracle as something sinful or even demonic just felt like a direct assault on their family...

This type of conduct warrants an immediate report to the Department of Education, the Vatican, and the Children's Ombudsman. The subject matter she touched upon is incredibly sensitive and frankly inappropriate for a school setting; children of that age shouldn't be forced to shoulder the weight of such perceived "sins." If she feels the need to disparage assisted reproductive technology, perhaps she should stick to leading engagement seminars at her local parish—there, she might find candidates who actually require her timely warnings. 🍿

As for the question of the Church's moral responsibility, one can only offer a cynical laugh. The official Church has never truly been a bastion of morality, nor have they ever consistently practiced the very principles they demand from their flock.

analogseal18 said:This type of conduct warrants an immediate report to the Department of Education, the Vatican, and the Children's Ombudsman. The subject matter she touched upon is incredibly sensitive and frankly inappropriate for a school setting; children of that age shouldn't be forced to shoulder the weight of such perceived "sins." If she feels the need to disparage assisted reproductive technology, perhaps she should stick to leading engagement seminars at her local parish—there, she might find candidates who actually require her timely warnings. 🍿

As for the question of the Church's moral responsibility, one can only offer a cynical laugh. The official Church has never truly been a bastion of morality, nor have they ever consistently practiced the very principles they demand from their flock.

I ran into them today and we ended up talking about this all over again.

Since the teacher had another outburst, this time targeting homosexuality, the mother finally hit her breaking point; she went straight to the principal's office and demanded that her son be withdrawn from the religion classes immediately.

When the principal told her it wasn't possible to make changes like that in the middle of the semester, she threatened to call the Child Advocate, which caught the principal totally off guard and left him promising he'd figure out some kind of workaround.

I am honestly so curious to see how this whole thing plays out... 🍿