School Reform: Thoughts?

Susan James said:🎉 Me too, me too! 🎉

I know it means more paperwork and that it might be a bit more subjective, but I honestly think it's a great idea!

Anyway, that group sounds really promising to me, whether they are reaching out through the news or privately... I just really hope they don't mess up the selection process for those 300 members. I hope they are chosen based on clear criteria and that they are people who truly want to see change. The fact that they are coming straight to the teachers' lounges is just a massive plus.

Personally, though, I really can't stand the idea of descriptive grading in high schools.
especially when it comes to vocational schools.

Quincy:table>

manchild says: my dear colleagues, just how many education reforms have we seen over the last 25 years? I’d say at least 25. It seems like every single administration in Washington had its own little overhaul that lasted exactly as long as they were in power.

That's true, I guess.
Quincy:table>

rowdypanther12 says: but this feels like the first time an actual serious reform is happening—something that isn't just being driven by political theater.

it might look serious and promising, but I suspect it's still tied to politics quite heavily.
you can't really have a reform without some level of politics involved, I guess.

rowdypanther12 said:I've been reading through a few interviews lately, and after hearing what my friend had to say about it—maybe I'm just being naive—but this feels like a really well-thought-out reform.
It seems to have some solid goals behind it.
I'm just hoping the actual rollout and execution end up being half as good as the plan itself.

Where can I find the specifics on those goals?

Just Google the reform; there are plenty of articles out there about it.

Susan James said:Probably
there are quite a few similarities.

I personally absolutely love the idea of getting rid of letter grades altogether. I’ve been chatting with some folks in the American education system, and they keep telling me that something like this would never fly here—that kids just wouldn't bother studying without them. It reminds me of how we recently stopped issuing mid-term report cards; in my opinion, that was mostly just for show. It feels like teachers still just round up grades whenever they want to keep things looking a certain way, essentially maintaining that same old grade pressure.
I won't say the whole comparison is totally pointless, but we really need to shift our mindset regarding why we actually learn in the first place...

I’m also a fan of the no-grade approach. I work in an Elementary School and I also have a child in an Elementary School. Grading is nothing but a burden, whether you're looking at it from the perspective of a teacher or a parent.
As an educator, I would always support being evaluated on my own performance through external assessments, rather than being forced to assign a numerical value to a child's immediate knowledge, skills, and such.
As a parent, I need feedback from teachers, but a raw grade tells me very little; a child might miss a question on a test despite having a deep grasp of the material and the ability to apply it effectively.
That said, there would eventually need to be some sort of placement system at the end of Elementary School, but certainly nothing in the form of a single high-stakes exam that dictates their entire future—that is far too much stress even for an adult. Perhaps three separate evaluations, where only the best result is kept, would be more reasonable. It should involve both oral and written components, focusing not just on rote memorization of facts, but on the development of skills, abilities, and fundamental character growth.

Finland, which everyone always points to as the gold standard for education, is cooking up another big shake-up for its students. According to a report from independent.co.uk, they’re ditching certain subjects to make room for stuff kids will actually use in "real life."

Basically, instead of grinding through deep dives into history or geography, they're swapping those out for classes that actually interest students and focus on practical, hands-on skills for the real world.

Like, if a kid picks a class on hospitality, they won't just be staring at a textbook; they'll learn the math needed to run a cash register, foreign languages to stay competitive in the job market, and the communication skills you actually need when dealing with customers.

"Young people today are incredibly tech-savvy—something that used to be a niche skill, but now it's just the baseline. We have to adapt the entire school system to fit modern society and what the current industry and job market actually demand," said Pasi Silander, a development manager for the Finnish capital.

Some of these changes are already hitting classrooms. For instance, instead of sitting through a morning history lecture followed by an afternoon geography session, 16-year-olds are doing "phenomenon-based learning," where they tackle contemporary, relevant topics that offer actual utility.

The folks leading this reform are hammering home the point that we have to prep kids for the 21st century, because the old-school, outdated way of teaching just isn't getting them ready for what's coming.

That said, pulling this off is going to be a massive headache, and people are already pushing back. A lot of teachers, who spent years specializing in one specific subject, are finding it impossible to pivot that fast to this whole new teaching style.

Plus, most of them—we're talking about 70 percent—haven't even been trained for this "new way" of teaching yet.

Andrew Doyle said:Concentration? It’s just one of those days where they lose their focus, mix up the basic steps, and fail to think through what they're doing. They end up overcomplicating things even when they clearly grasp the concept—they just stumble over the trivialities. Honestly, I deal with this at my own house. I've already reached an agreement with his teacher to have him meet with the school counselor periodically to work specifically on his focus. I'm confident we'll get this sorted out eventually. 🙂

I highly doubt it. Many much more advanced nations than ours—nations whose students consistently outperform ours on standardized testing—don't even use traditional grading systems in the lower elementary grades.

Yeah, but you're totally overlooking the biggest piece of the puzzle here: over there, the entire school system and the curriculum are actually built to support that kind of approach, unlike our setup which is just completely out of sync... I'm gonna drift a little off-topic here, so my bad to the mods, but I just need to clarify this point...
The way things work here... the system basically screws over any student finishing vocational school if they actually want to keep specializing in their field later on, because there’s just no path forward....
Take this, for example... kids who finish vocational medical programs have to go through another five years of training... they're doing school in the morning and clinicals in the afternoon, or vice versa... meanwhile, the general high schoolers just do their five or six years of standard classes and call it a day. When it comes time to apply for medical school, those vocational kids don't stand a chance because the specialized subjects they spent years studying aren't even factored into the admissions points, since they only had core general classes for the first two years....
So, what's the end result of this mess? We end up losing the kids who were actually well-prepared for their specific trades, while our system wastes everyone's time by forcing general high schoolers to sit through the exact same stuff those vocational kids already mastered years ago... what a joke, right?

Lawrence Torres56 said:Yeah, but you're totally overlooking the biggest piece of the puzzle here: over there, the entire school system and the curriculum are actually built to support that kind of approach, unlike our setup which is just completely out of sync... I'm gonna drift a little off-topic here, so my bad to the mods, but I just need to clarify this point...
The way things work here... the system basically screws over any student finishing vocational school if they actually want to keep specializing in their field later on, because there’s just no path forward....
Take this, for example... kids who finish vocational medical programs have to go through another five years of training... they're doing school in the morning and clinicals in the afternoon, or vice versa... meanwhile, the general high schoolers just do their five or six years of standard classes and call it a day. When it comes time to apply for medical school, those vocational kids don't stand a chance because the specialized subjects they spent years studying aren't even factored into the admissions points, since they only had core general classes for the first two years....
So, what's the end result of this mess? We end up losing the kids who were actually well-prepared for their specific trades, while our system wastes everyone's time by forcing general high schoolers to sit through the exact same stuff those vocational kids already mastered years ago... what a joke, right?

I don't know, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.🙂
I mean, we could have four-year vocational students sitting for the SATs, so theoretically, they have the exact same shot at getting into their preferred college as any student coming out of a standard high school.
I say "theoretically," though, because the schedule in vocational schools is definitely more compressed; it’s not quite the same experience when you're only sitting through math twice a week instead of four times, and besides, kids change their minds constantly—so that kid who specialized in business might suddenly decide they want to study medicine, and then they find themselves lacking the foundational knowledge in several areas simply because they never even took those classes...

But then again, it isn't particularly strange or unusual to see someone from a medical vocational track enroll in med school, or an economics student going into business. It happens all the time, really.

Let’s be honest: we are miles behind those more advanced nations. It’s a sad reality. However, the saving grace for all those working in education is that they still possess the opportunity—at least within the microcosm of their own classrooms—to foster a spirit that isn't defined by our school system, which is sluggish, inefficient, and frequently bogged down by utter nonsense.
Unfortunately, when it comes to reforming the education system, the smart, seasoned professionals aren't really consulted. But even though a teacher or professor has zero say in whether grading exists or what the curriculum looks like, they still hold the honor and the power to directly influence entire generations. Not every lesson will stick, and certainly not with every child—we are unfortunately seeing a drastic decline in basic civility, regardless of whether parents approve of it or not from home—but making an effort to nudge things toward creating more empathetic, humane, critical, and wise individuals is absolutely worth it. A teacher can do that. Parents, obviously, have their role too.

I truly wish this new education reform—which I haven't read extensively about, just heard whispers of—would actually bear fruit by allowing teachers much more freedom to creatively implement the curriculum. We have seen so many of these "reforms" come and go where nothing ever actually changes despite all the grand promises. Nevertheless, we cannot give up on the mission to do everything in our power to raise these kids so they become better human beings tomorrow. Grading, especially in those lower grades, should never dictate the direction of a child's development, nor should it be used as an attack on a child's integrity or how they perceive themselves and others. And yet, that is exactly what happens. Not everyone is lucky enough to have wise, experienced teachers who can spot these issues and pivot the focus back toward helping the child grow, develop, and progress.

Regarding the situation in Finland, it seems quite obvious that they are preparing to discard much of what made their educational system unique—specifically, that decade-long standardized approach where everyone follows the exact same path regardless of their individual talents, passions, or innate abilities. That example involving waiters is rather clumsy; honestly, all they really need for that line of work is fourth-grade level math.

Vocational schools ought to be training students for actual, tangible jobs, rather than saddling them with some imaginary career that nobody is hiring for or merely providing a vague foundation for further schooling. For instance, when you look at nursing, the most critical skills are patient care and the ability to follow strict protocols and instructions; conversely, doctors are expected to possess high-level abstract reasoning and the capacity to absorb massive amounts of data, which they must then synthesize into creative, concrete knowledge during a crisis—think diagnostic reasoning. A day only has twenty-four hours, and we simply cannot expect the same student to master both of these vastly different skill sets.

While there is technically a pathway to pursue higher education after vocational school, very few students actually manage to get into top-tier universities. However, one could always take a gap year to fill in the gaps by studying core subjects from a standard high school curriculum before attempting to pass the advanced levels of the national exams.

Finland, which basically has the gold standard for education, is planning to ditch teaching isolated subjects like math, chemistry, or physics by 2020. Instead, they want to roll out "thematic content" that actually makes sense for the world we live in now.

The whole vibe is that instead of grinding through one hour of geography followed by an hour of history, kids spend two hours diving into something like the European Union, hitting languages, economics, history, and geography all at once. For vocational tracks, future hospitality pros would tackle math, languages, and communication skills in a single block. According to Independent, the goal isn't to skip the hard science, but to focus on how you actually use those theories in real life.

"What we need right now is a different kind of education that prepares people for actual work," said Pasi Silander, who’s heading up the strategy development. "Young people are using incredibly advanced computers. Back in the day, banks needed a small army of clerks just to crunch numbers, but that’s totally changed. We have to realize that education needs to evolve alongside modern industry and society."

This new setup also pushes different learning styles, focusing heavily on interactive problem-solving and working in small groups. "We really have to rethink education and redesign our system to prep our kids for the future with the skills they'll need both today and tomorrow," says Marjo Kyllonen, who’s helping craft these new guidelines.

"There are schools still teaching the old-school way, which might have worked in the early 1900s, but the needs aren't the same anymore. We need something that fits the 21st century."

Finland kicked off these pilot programs for phasing out individual subjects two years ago in the capital, Washington, D.C., and now about 70 percent of teachers in urban high schools are following the new guidelines. Early data shows the strategy is already paying off, with students seeing better results than they did under the old system.

The draft being put together by Kyllonen—which is set to be published later this month—proposes that these subject-based classes be scrapped nationwide by 2020.

Obviously, not everyone is on board. There’s some pushback from teachers who have spent their entire careers specializing in one specific subject. To fix that, the draft suggests having teachers from different fields collaborate on these new thematic curricula, and they're even looking at offering generous pay to make it happen.

The Glass Bead Game😍

Just because kids are drowning in homework doesn't mean they're actually getting smarter. A new study out of the University of Oviedo looked at over 7,700 high schoolers from both public and private schools to see if all that extra work actually pays off on exams.

The researchers gave students a survey to figure out how much homework they were getting, how much time they spent on it, and whether they were cheating by asking for help. Then, they hit them with standardized math tests and other subjects.

They didn't just look at the work itself, though; they also factored in the students' socioeconomic backgrounds and their past grades to keep things fair.

Turns out, most students are spending about one to two hours a day on homework. Here’s the kicker: kids who got consistent, steady homework from their teachers scored nearly 50 points higher than the ones who just crammed through assignments whenever they felt like it. Also, students who tackled their work solo averaged 54 points more than those who leaned on their parents or tutors to get it done. This pattern held true for math and pretty much everything else.

"Our data shows you don't need to bury kids in massive amounts of homework. It’s more about making sure it's regular and systematic so they build good habits and learn how to study on their own," said Javier Suarez-Alvarez, a grad student who worked on the study alongside professors Ruben Fernandez-Alons and Jose Muniz. "The numbers suggest that spending about 60 minutes a day on homework is the sweet spot for being effective."

If students push it to 70 or 90 minutes, the extra boost they get is basically nothing.

"That tiny advantage requires an extra two hours a week, which is a huge time sink for such a small payoff," Suarez-Alvarez noted. "Because of that, assigning more than 70 minutes of homework a day just doesn't seem worth it."

The full study was published in the Journal of Educational Psychology.

Students have never seen grades this high while actually knowing so much less than they used to... or at least, that’s how one famous university professor from Miami would probably put it. If you asked her colleague from the local high school—who, during a class reunion party a few years back, told her former students straight up: What used to be a C in my day is an A today,--well, she’d probably give you an even more colorful way to say the exact same thing.

If we were to take a look at the current state of our elementary and high schools through a statistical lens, the data would basically look like this:
- the sheer volume of educational info being pushed: climbing.
- the amount of time spent hunched over books: climbing.
- the total level of stress being generated: climbing.
- the actual knowledge students demonstrate on exams: plummeting.
- the number of honor roll students: climbing.
- the rigor of grading and assessment standards: plummeting.

Even just a quick, surface-level glance at these messy numbers tells you exactly where we're stuck. To fix this, schools really need to flip those first and last variables on their heads, which essentially means:
- cutting down on the mountain of (pointless) information.
- raising—and totally rethinking—the criteria for what counts as success.

Taking action here would definitely require some massive intervention to reorganize the entire curriculum, and honestly, I think it would be incredibly useful if we took a hard look at one specific question: Have we given up far too easily on traditional textbooks (and I’m talking about the whole curriculum from first grade all the way through high school graduation)?🤔

A few insightful posts here: Azzura, Larry Walker24, and Jessica Jones2.

Beyond all the points already raised, it would be incredibly useful to dig into the specifics: what kind of assignments are actually being handed out, how much of it can students tackle on their own with actual focus, and what else is occupying their attention—what are they watching, listening to, or doing while they work? What does their routine look like before and after they sit down to study?

I’ve been working in the school system for 23 years now, and I can’t help but feel that over the last few generations, students are struggling to grasp even the most fundamental concepts of the American language, whereas previously, they seemed to navigate much more complex material and denser curricula with relative ease. Critical thinking, logical reasoning, abstract thought, analysis, synthesis—these things just don't seem to stick as easily anymore, especially when it comes to applying them to real-world situations. I find myself wondering if the culprit is this modern lifestyle—the constant pull of television, computers, the lack of face-to-face socializing, and the decline of unstructured play among peers. Could it be a lack of physical activity or poor nutrition? What about the role of the family? Or is it simply a matter of motivation—interests that the NPIP doesn't account for? And where do parents fit into all of this?

I won't fall into the trap of saying everything used to be better, because in many ways, it wasn't. But there was once an implicit understanding that a child was responsible for their own homework and studying. I don't recall any parents hovering over us to help with assignments back when I was in school, nor did anyone offer us sympathy for the fact that we had to put in the work.

Nowadays, I hear endless lamentations about how "poor" children are being overwhelmed, as if everyone else is at fault for their failure to achieve top results. This mindset, which breeds a generation of fragile, incapable, and lethargic individuals, starts in early childhood. They aren't required to exert themselves over anything; everything is served to them on a silver platter. From having virtually zero responsibilities at home to parents packing their school bags and micromanaging their schedules, they aren't even expected to tidy up their own toys, let alone contribute to household chores or solve a single practical problem.

To be fair, I haven't been an exception either. As a mother, I have undeniably made myself far too available to my children, stepping in to handle things they really should be managing themselves. But I am starting to change. I've noticed that my younger daughter actually thrives when she's given responsibility and allowed to navigate her own daily trifles. My husband helped convince me that shielding her from every minor struggle is actually detrimental; she won't break if she isn't catered to in every situation where she is perfectly capable of finding her own way. And honestly, I’m seeing progress in just a few months.

I recognize that there are significant issues within the current NPIP—anachronisms, inaccuracies, sheer nonsense, and redundant content—as well as flaws in teaching methods. However, I am not in favor of blindly shrinking the NPIP; in some areas, I would actually expand it. That said, I firmly believe that an education where a child is merely a passive vessel for information—where they don't actively engage or struggle to grasp and internalize knowledge—is fundamentally detrimental to their development.
I recently learned—and I feel a bit embarrassed that it took me this long to realize—that an IQ of around 100 at age five can fluctuate anywhere from 120 down to 80 by age 19, depending entirely on the activities one engages in. It isn't just about the quantity of stimulation, but the quality.
What exactly are we doing to our children by allowing their minds to remain idle? It seems painfully obvious.

Ultimately, we need to overhaul the curricula, refine our teaching methods, and shift the cultural attitude that suggests a child is being "mistreated" simply because they have to work hard every single day.

And one more thing: some assignments are genuinely pointless, purely reproductive, or just empty formalities. People often dismiss certain tasks as useless, asking what they will ever use them for in life. But if those tasks serve to build cognitive skills and functional abilities, then even a seemingly trivial assignment can be profoundly valuable.

wanderinggardener12 said:A few insightful posts here: Azzura, Larry Walker24, and Jessica Jones2.

Beyond all the points already raised, it would be incredibly useful to dig into the specifics: what kind of assignments are actually being handed out, how much of it can students tackle on their own with actual focus, and what else is occupying their attention—what are they watching, listening to, or doing while they work? What does their routine look like before and after they sit down to study?

I’ve been working in the school system for 23 years now, and I can’t help but feel that over the last few generations, students are struggling to grasp even the most fundamental concepts of the American language, whereas previously, they seemed to navigate much more complex material and denser curricula with relative ease. Critical thinking, logical reasoning, abstract thought, analysis, synthesis—these things just don't seem to stick as easily anymore, especially when it comes to applying them to real-world situations. I find myself wondering if the culprit is this modern lifestyle—the constant pull of television, computers, the lack of face-to-face socializing, and the decline of unstructured play among peers. Could it be a lack of physical activity or poor nutrition? What about the role of the family? Or is it simply a matter of motivation—interests that the NPIP doesn't account for? And where do parents fit into all of this?

I won't fall into the trap of saying everything used to be better, because in many ways, it wasn't. But there was once an implicit understanding that a child was responsible for their own homework and studying. I don't recall any parents hovering over us to help with assignments back when I was in school, nor did anyone offer us sympathy for the fact that we had to put in the work.

Nowadays, I hear endless lamentations about how "poor" children are being overwhelmed, as if everyone else is at fault for their failure to achieve top results. This mindset, which breeds a generation of fragile, incapable, and lethargic individuals, starts in early childhood. They aren't required to exert themselves over anything; everything is served to them on a silver platter. From having virtually zero responsibilities at home to parents packing their school bags and micromanaging their schedules, they aren't even expected to tidy up their own toys, let alone contribute to household chores or solve a single practical problem.

To be fair, I haven't been an exception either. As a mother, I have undeniably made myself far too available to my children, stepping in to handle things they really should be managing themselves. But I am starting to change. I've noticed that my younger daughter actually thrives when she's given responsibility and allowed to navigate her own daily trifles. My husband helped convince me that shielding her from every minor struggle is actually detrimental; she won't break if she isn't catered to in every situation where she is perfectly capable of finding her own way. And honestly, I’m seeing progress in just a few months.

I recognize that there are significant issues within the current NPIP—anachronisms, inaccuracies, sheer nonsense, and redundant content—as well as flaws in teaching methods. However, I am not in favor of blindly shrinking the NPIP; in some areas, I would actually expand it. That said, I firmly believe that an education where a child is merely a passive vessel for information—where they don't actively engage or struggle to grasp and internalize knowledge—is fundamentally detrimental to their development.
I recently learned—and I feel a bit embarrassed that it took me this long to realize—that an IQ of around 100 at age five can fluctuate anywhere from 120 down to 80 by age 19, depending entirely on the activities one engages in. It isn't just about the quantity of stimulation, but the quality.
What exactly are we doing to our children by allowing their minds to remain idle? It seems painfully obvious.

Ultimately, we need to overhaul the curricula, refine our teaching methods, and shift the cultural attitude that suggests a child is being "mistreated" simply because they have to work hard every single day.

And one more thing: some assignments are genuinely pointless, purely reproductive, or just empty formalities. People often dismiss certain tasks as useless, asking what they will ever use them for in life. But if those tasks serve to build cognitive skills and functional abilities, then even a seemingly trivial assignment can be profoundly valuable.

I’m with you on most counts... except for one thing... parents and upbringing.

Honestly, I feel like it's a waste of breath even trying to guess what kind of discipline kids are getting at home... because you can't change that reality, so why bother arguing about it?

The whole point should be fixing or filling in all those gaps a kid has while they're actually sitting in class..

That's basically why I'm such a fan of having actual "homework" assigned in school.. just look at how that went down at that one middle school back in the day.

------------------------------

Then there's the mess regarding standardized textbooks, teaching methods, and stuff like that. Someone really needs to step up and fix this, because right now we've got different books being used at the same school every year... totally different materials from one district to the next... all using different methods. And frankly, it's all pretty bad.

---------------------------------

As for how we teach... I'm actually a big supporter of introducing small-scale exit exams... things that act as a real benchmark for both students and teachers.

Every single job in the world has performance standards nowadays... if half of a teacher's students (theoretically) fail their final exam... are we seriously going to let a teacher like that just keep on teaching?

Since when did teachers become untouchable sacred cows?

Jonathan Ortiz2 said:I’m with you on most counts... except for one thing... parents and upbringing.

Honestly, I feel like it's a waste of breath even trying to guess what kind of discipline kids are getting at home... because you can't change that reality, so why bother arguing about it?

The whole point should be fixing or filling in all those gaps a kid has while they're actually sitting in class..

That's basically why I'm such a fan of having actual "homework" assigned in school.. just look at how that went down at that one middle school back in the day.

------------------------------

Then there's the mess regarding standardized textbooks, teaching methods, and stuff like that. Someone really needs to step up and fix this, because right now we've got different books being used at the same school every year... totally different materials from one district to the next... all using different methods. And frankly, it's all pretty bad.

---------------------------------

As for how we teach... I'm actually a big supporter of introducing small-scale exit exams... things that act as a real benchmark for both students and teachers.

Every single job in the world has performance standards nowadays... if half of a teacher's students (theoretically) fail their final exam... are we seriously going to let a teacher like that just keep on teaching?

Since when did teachers become untouchable sacred cows?

Junior high assessments🤣
Honestly, the school system isn't even equipped to pull off the current exams properly right now—not without people trying to cheat, right? 🥳

Plus, when kids fail a big exam, they aren't really failing the teacher; they're failing themselves.
And to make sure that doesn't happen, moms and dads will just end up shelling out money for private tutors.

On top of that, given the culture we deal with here in the States, you don't see parents stepping up to report a school or a teacher for poor instruction. Instead, if they want their kid to have straight A's, they'll just hire a tutor who happens to be a colleague of the teacher 🥳
. Actually, some kids (and parents too) prefer it when teachers go easy on them so they can get better grades without putting in much effort.

So, I suppose it’s worth asking whether it actually matters if someone teaches at a top-tier prep school where the students are basically geniuses, versus a vocational school where you get kids who are... well, decent enough, I guess.🤷
Do you all honestly believe their success—or lack thereof—rests entirely on the shoulders of the teacher in charge of the subject?😕

And honestly, textbooks? Good grief.🤦
It feels like whoever was teaching this person English back in elementary or high school might have had a particularly rough instructor, maybe.😳

Because, naturally, the forum user is never the one at fault, right?☕

Susan James said:Junior high assessments🤣
Honestly, the school system isn't even equipped to pull off the current exams properly right now—not without people trying to cheat, right? 🥳

Plus, when kids fail a big exam, they aren't really failing the teacher; they're failing themselves.
And to make sure that doesn't happen, moms and dads will just end up shelling out money for private tutors.

On top of that, given the culture we deal with here in the States, you don't see parents stepping up to report a school or a teacher for poor instruction. Instead, if they want their kid to have straight A's, they'll just hire a tutor who happens to be a colleague of the teacher 🥳
. Actually, some kids (and parents too) prefer it when teachers go easy on them so they can get better grades without putting in much effort.

It’s honestly hard to tell if we’re actually incapable or if we just don't give a damn, or maybe both... but that pretty much sums up everything in this whole country.

besides, kids aren't going to fail because they have a crush on some professor, they'll fail themselves.
and since nobody wants their kid to fail, mom and dad will just pay for private tutors.

The real point is that we should be grading the professors too... somehow. Even if we have no clue how many students are paying under the table just to pass their class.

plus, let's face it, we're Americans—no parent is actually going to go up against the school system or report a teacher for being lazy, they'd rather just pay some guy 🥳
to get those grades up, and honestly, some kids and parents actually prefer it when teachers slack off so passing is easier.

I guess parents don't always know what's best for their kids...

Is there actually a better way to handle it? Or do you think this whole mess is just unnecessary?

I can't really make sense of what you're looking for here, man. You just dropped a single word like it was some kind of deep philosophical statement, but honestly, I'm just sitting here staring at my screen wondering if I missed the punchline or if you're just testing to see if anyone's actually awake in this corner of the internet. If you've got something real to say, just lay it out, because right now I'm just vibing with nothingness. kaže:
I mean, does anyone actually care if you’re teaching at a top-tier prep school where everyone is basically a genius, or if you’re stuck in some vocational high school where the kids are just... decent? Like, honestly, is there even a difference in the end?🤷
You guys really think their failure is all on the teacher's head, or am I just being too cynical here?😕

Look, obviously success falls squarely on the professor's shoulders... though if we're talking about guys working construction who don't actually need to touch math, then you can't really blame the instructor, it's more like a failure of the curriculum itself.

Look, if you’re actually gonna let kids like that slide through your classroom and just hand out passing grades like they didn't even try, then fine—but at least have the guts to actually stand by those marks.

Let’s be real, nobody actually wants to start drama with their parents over some useless assignment that doesn't even matter for their future. It’s like being forced to grind through advanced calculus when you know deep down you're just going to end up working a trade or running your own shop. Why fight that battle? It's just not worth the headache.

Man, don't even get me started on those textbooks, seriously... what a total disaster.🤦
Looks like someone went through the ringer with their English teachers, from elementary all the way through high school. Rough luck.😳

Oh sure, because it's totally the forum user's fault, right? As if anyone here actually has any control over how things go down.☕

Who even told you I actually took American history classes back in school? 🙄
You're basically just playing the percentages at this point.

So, what’s your big idea here... you really think we should just pretend all these schools are on the exact same playing field? Like, if we just baseline everything to the same level, suddenly all our problems vanish? I mean, would that actually change anything, or are we just kidding ourselves?