School Reform: Thoughts?

Susan James said:😂 🤣

About a year ago, I was scrolling through an article in a liberal newspaper, and it mentioned an AP project that was part of the push for the recent curriculum reforms. They listed certain schools that were essentially acting as the pilot leaders for these changes.
From what I recall, it wasn't a huge group of famous schools; in fact, there were only a handful of them in the Chicago area...

If I'm understanding the rollout correctly, they start with the first, third, fifth, and seventh grades, and then move to the even-numbered grades when the kids hit 17 or 18.

Also, I have this feeling—and I really hope I'm right—that the shift toward moving away from traditional grading starts for everyone this year. 😂
Basically, they'll be using descriptive feedback for individual students instead of letter grades, and numerical grades won't kick in until the third grade. 🤔

But what follows? Or rather, where does this path actually lead?
I find myself asking this because of my daughter, who is currently in seventh grade and is quite intensely interested in this proposed "specialization" for general high schools during their junior and senior years. Is this something that will actually manifest in her generation's academic reality?

Something like that, I guess...

Susan James said:😂 🤣

About a year ago, I was scrolling through an article in a liberal newspaper, and it mentioned an AP project that was part of the push for the recent curriculum reforms. They listed certain schools that were essentially acting as the pilot leaders for these changes.
From what I recall, it wasn't a huge group of famous schools; in fact, there were only a handful of them in the Chicago area...

If I'm understanding the rollout correctly, they start with the first, third, fifth, and seventh grades, and then move to the even-numbered grades when the kids hit 17 or 18.

Also, I have this feeling—and I really hope I'm right—that the shift toward moving away from traditional grading starts for everyone this year. 😂
Basically, they'll be using descriptive feedback for individual students instead of letter grades, and numerical grades won't kick in until the third grade. 🤔

Is this happening for everyone across the board, or is it just starting with certain groups? Because if my kid ends up getting traditional grades for this mid-term, but then suddenly doesn't next year—only to have them brought back again the year after—I'm going to start seeing this whole reform as nothing more than a classic, chaotic mess that leaves a child feeling completely lost...

Michelle Nelson4 said:Is this happening for everyone across the board, or is it just starting with certain groups? Because if my kid ends up getting traditional grades for this mid-term, but then suddenly doesn't next year—only to have them brought back again the year after—I'm going to start seeing this whole reform as nothing more than a classic, chaotic mess that leaves a child feeling completely lost...

No,
that's why the plan says they’ll start with the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th grades during the 2016/2017 school year, and then bring in the 2nd, 4th, and others starting in 2017/2018.
(Since grading officially kicks in at the third grade.)

For your little one, the old system still applies.

And I assume this has to be consistent across all schools, not just the "pilot program" ones—otherwise, imagine how much of a headache it would be if you had to move your kid to a different district halfway through the year!

It might be worth dropping a link to the proposed American language curriculum here. Might interest some of you.

http://www.jergovic.com/ajfelov-most...olska-lektira/

👍

I skimmed through this pretty quickly. I really liked those last few lines, though. 🤣
Since we’re on the subject of literature, back in high school, I used to think it would have been awesome to study Toni Morrison. 😁Even way back in elementary school, I had my favorite books and used to imagine how great it would be if we actually read them in class.

I really hope they cut the death of Smail aga Čengić too. That part of the book was just straight-up garbage.

I was just following the discussion yesterday until I got a little frustrated and decided to jump in 😂
Some people seem stuck on the idea that required reading lists are meant to introduce students to the great pillars of American (and global) literature. If that’s truly the goal, then leaving out Shakespeare is a total scandal, honestly 😁
But I think everyone should have realized by now that this approach is completely counterproductive.

Anyway, this sounds a bit like something I would have written 😂
From my perspective, we always had too little required reading, and the selection was far too narrow. It was like math class—there was always way too much of it, and it felt like you needed superhuman intelligence just to pass. The end result was that I managed to escape math as my biggest life hurdle so I'd never have to deal with it again, much like how most of my peers escaped required reading by never picking up a serious book for the rest of their lives.

rowdypanther12 said:I was just following the discussion yesterday until I got a little frustrated and decided to jump in 😂
Some people seem stuck on the idea that required reading lists are meant to introduce students to the great pillars of American (and global) literature. If that’s truly the goal, then leaving out Shakespeare is a total scandal, honestly 😁
But I think everyone should have realized by now that this approach is completely counterproductive.

Anyway, this sounds a bit like something I would have written 😂
From my perspective, we always had too little required reading, and the selection was far too narrow. It was like math class—there was always way too much of it, and it felt like you needed superhuman intelligence just to pass. The end result was that I managed to escape math as my biggest life hurdle so I'd never have to deal with it again, much like how most of my peers escaped required reading by never picking up a serious book for the rest of their lives.

And honestly, I’m pretty sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we’re talking about literary historians here—people who are constantly sitting on various academic boards and committees that decide exactly which books make the cut for school reading lists and textbooks. 😁
You know how it is with people—it’s almost never actually about what’s in it for them or their own selfish little egos. It’s rarely just about greed or vanity, either. 😬

I haven't really been able to keep up with all the chatter surrounding this curriculum overhaul because my schedule has been absolutely slammed lately, but from what I can gather, the actual educators and literacy specialists are FINALLY getting a seat at the table. It feels like they’re finally being given the reins to steer things toward books that actually resonate with kids today—stuff written in their own era that feels relevant to their lives—which is honestly the only way you're ever going to get them to actually fall in love with reading.
I’m fully behind that. 👍

Oh please, they’re just worried about our kids' futures 😁

All jokes aside, what Jergović mentioned is exactly what I was thinking about yesterday. This "modern and engaging" literature taught in high schools really needs to be revised every few years. Beyond that, the curriculum should be broad enough that a teacher can choose based on their specific class structure.
That way, one class might study something classic while another dives into something like *The Hunger Games* or whatever actually grabs their attention.

rowdypanther12 said:Oh please, they’re just worried about our kids' futures 😁

All jokes aside, what Jergović mentioned is exactly what I was thinking about yesterday. This "modern and engaging" literature taught in high schools really needs to be revised every few years. Beyond that, the curriculum should be broad enough that a teacher can choose based on their specific class structure.
That way, one class might study something classic while another dives into something like *The Hunger Games* or whatever actually grabs their attention.

Just to give you a little glimpse of how this went down during my time at university (Seattle Sounders FC): our World Literature course was only two semesters long—basically just one single year.

And you won't believe how they structured it.
Seriously, they started way back in the Middle Ages... 🤣

It was absolutely maddening. After being hammered with all this stuff in high school, we get to college and immediately start getting drilled on Antigone, then a tiny bit of the Middle Ages, then more drilling on the Renaissance, and so on, until we finally crawl our way into the early 20th century by the end of the year.
Since the lectures wrapped up right there, all we ended up with was a handful of papers listing authors and the works that won the Nobel Prize in Literature during the 1900s. 😁 🙏

An absolute train wreck.

Meanwhile, in the spirit of Star Wars, which is what I'm currently obsessing over, 😁 there’s been this decades-long debate about what traits push people toward the Light or the Dark Side.
But seriously, try finding anyone actually debating the merits of The Odyssey or if anyone even cares about him anymore. 😁

Karen Richardson3 said:And honestly, I’m pretty sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we’re talking about literary historians here—people who are constantly sitting on various academic boards and committees that decide exactly which books make the cut for school reading lists and textbooks. 😁
You know how it is with people—it’s almost never actually about what’s in it for them or their own selfish little egos. It’s rarely just about greed or vanity, either. 😬

I haven't really been able to keep up with all the chatter surrounding this curriculum overhaul because my schedule has been absolutely slammed lately, but from what I can gather, the actual educators and literacy specialists are FINALLY getting a seat at the table. It feels like they’re finally being given the reins to steer things toward books that actually resonate with kids today—stuff written in their own era that feels relevant to their lives—which is honestly the only way you're ever going to get them to actually fall in love with reading.
I’m fully behind that. 👍

I was watching yesterday and honestly, it just set me off. Prosper started rambling about partisans and those old Soviet-era manuals🤦
just because nobody invited him to sit on the board.
So suddenly, everyone there is totally incompetent, useless, and just bad professors. And then you've got Jokic acting like a total coward, pushing some curriculum from 1976 (side note: the guy wasn't even born that year🙂, apparently they handed him the syllabus right at the hospital)

And what kills me is that Vukovic-Runjic didn't even bother to address her point about how adults don't read anymore. She should have pointed out that THAT is the direct result of the exact type of education she’s still out here defending
Then she starts giving these examples of how kids in creative writing workshops are obsessed with the *Iliad* and > just because she’s "engaging" enough to present them well (unlike, say, Feric)
Newsflash: the kids showing up to those specialized workshops are already way above average when it comes to being interested in writing and literature. They aren't exactly your run-of-the-mill public school demographic

I actually really loved Antigone 😂

But honestly, it’s all about finding a balance. I truly believe any teacher knows exactly which students in their class are actually going to want to read something like Antigone or maybe some Krleža. There are always a few, but it's usually just two or three kids per class.
So, why not give that one student those quotes for extra credit? For everyone else, the goal should be to spark enough interest that they actually pick up a book at all—even if it's something as rough as The Odyssey. Let them read. Let them discover what a book actually is. Maybe 10% of them will move on to Tolkien after finishing The Odyssey, and maybe 5% of those will eventually find their way to Kafka. 😁
If things unfolded like that, I’d consider it a win. 😁

redridge13 said:I was watching yesterday and honestly, it just set me off. Prosper started rambling about partisans and those old Soviet-era manuals🤦
just because nobody invited him to sit on the board.
So suddenly, everyone there is totally incompetent, useless, and just bad professors. And then you've got Jokic acting like a total coward, pushing some curriculum from 1976 (side note: the guy wasn't even born that year🙂, apparently they handed him the syllabus right at the hospital)

And what kills me is that Vukovic-Runjic didn't even bother to address her point about how adults don't read anymore. She should have pointed out that THAT is the direct result of the exact type of education she’s still out here defending
Then she starts giving these examples of how kids in creative writing workshops are obsessed with the *Iliad* and > just because she’s "engaging" enough to present them well (unlike, say, Feric)
Newsflash: the kids showing up to those specialized workshops are already way above average when it comes to being interested in writing and literature. They aren't exactly your run-of-the-mill public school demographic

Man, I didn't even have to watch closely to know exactly what kind of circus was going on.☕ 😁

It’s the same old story everywhere in this country. You’ve got people chasing power and paychecks, then they wrap their greed in all this lofty rhetoric about "higher causes"—you know, pitting patriotism against liberalism—just hoping nobody sees through the act.😁

When it comes to these new book lists, there's really only one question worth asking: are these titles actually included in the teacher training manuals?
If they aren't, then we're looking at a situation where most teachers will just take the path of least resistance and keep teaching the same old Homer and Marulić classics, simply because that's what's already laid out in the guides they've been handed.

So, don't get your hopes up too high; in a system like ours, there's always some kind of catch waiting around the corner.😁

rowdypanther12 said:I actually really loved Antigone 😂

But honestly, it’s all about finding a balance. I truly believe any teacher knows exactly which students in their class are actually going to want to read something like Antigone or maybe some Krleža. There are always a few, but it's usually just two or three kids per class.
So, why not give that one student those quotes for extra credit? For everyone else, the goal should be to spark enough interest that they actually pick up a book at all—even if it's something as rough as The Odyssey. Let them read. Let them discover what a book actually is. Maybe 10% of them will move on to Tolkien after finishing The Odyssey, and maybe 5% of those will eventually find their way to Kafka. 😁
If things unfolded like that, I’d consider it a win. 😁

Back in elementary school, I used to absolutely devour Greek mythology.
But I couldn't stand it for a second when it was presented in verse.

At the end of the day, everything hinges on what you think the actual point of teaching literature is.
There’s one camp of people who think the whole goal is just memorizing the classics and knowing which big names triggered which shifts in literary history.
Personally, I don't see why that matters to anyone unless they’re planning on making a career out of it.

If we shift the focus—say, if the goal of reading is to find our own personal struggles or universal human issues within a story, or to grapple with those eternal questions—then there’s no reason to limit ourselves strictly to works written hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Sure, studying the old stuff proves that these human dilemmas are timeless, but you could easily approach that through a comparative lens, pairing an ancient work with something modern to show how the themes carry over.

Plus, some questions are uniquely tied to our current era, which means we can't even begin to have a real conversation about them without digging into contemporary literature.

I didn't really develop a love for poetry until long after I finished school. Sure, I read a little Baudelaire back in high school, but for the most part, poetry just wasn't my thing.
If they had actually taught us something like Kamov, maybe I would have taken an interest sooner.😁

It honestly would have been wonderful if we had studied artists like Cavea, Stulica, or even EKV in class...

I’ve always had a soft spot for modern poetry, and honestly, anything from the mid-19th century onward was usually fine for my required reading.

But those epic poems, the hexameter stuff... all of that just 🙂

Then you spend all this time grinding through them, only to walk out of high school without being able to name even three contemporary American or international authors. And somehow, nobody thinks that's a massive failure?

In our high schools, when it comes to World Literature, we basically got stuck in the early 20th century—maybe even stopping right at WWI. As for American literature, they didn't really push us past the 1960s (which, let's be real, feels like the curriculum boards just decided to stick with what they knew 😬)

Karen Richardson3 said:Back in elementary school, I used to absolutely devour Greek mythology.
But I couldn't stand it for a second when it was presented in verse.

At the end of the day, everything hinges on what you think the actual point of teaching literature is.
There’s one camp of people who think the whole goal is just memorizing the classics and knowing which big names triggered which shifts in literary history.
Personally, I don't see why that matters to anyone unless they’re planning on making a career out of it.

If we shift the focus—say, if the goal of reading is to find our own personal struggles or universal human issues within a story, or to grapple with those eternal questions—then there’s no reason to limit ourselves strictly to works written hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Sure, studying the old stuff proves that these human dilemmas are timeless, but you could easily approach that through a comparative lens, pairing an ancient work with something modern to show how the themes carry over.

Plus, some questions are uniquely tied to our current era, which means we can't even begin to have a real conversation about them without digging into contemporary literature.

Exactly!

We can't just run away from the classics—they eventually have to be tackled somehow—but there are so many much better ways to go about it that would blow your mind.

For instance, you could take Držić and pair him with a contemporary comedy writer for a comparative analysis.

You could spend a few hours with first graders introducing them to a historical timeline, and then move through literary history using a comparative reading approach based on genre.

Instead of just sitting there reading the classics, you could go see plays, focus more on actual dramaturgy rather than just plot points and whatnot, or bring in guest speakers who are modern authors and poets... there's just so much you can do.

But look, if I were teaching a comparative lesson, I’d handle drama here in the States by comparing major dramatic trilogies (like Vojnović, Krleža, and Valent). Honestly, Valent would give a lot of parents trouble, and Kamov would probably be a problem for plenty of people too.

At the end of the day, a good literature professor will find a way to make any work resonate. Our biggest issue is that we just have too many bad American English teachers.

Also, since we already have German and Spanish in the curriculum, I really think mandatory reading should be introduced there as well. I'd suggest making most of it elective, though; I don't see how anyone can truly master a language without reading, even if it's just fairy tales and fables.

I didn't catch the broadcast last night, but honestly, after talking to so many different school administrators over the past week, my excitement about these educational reforms is starting to fade pretty fast.

Regarding required reading, I was actually incredibly lucky with my English teachers back in high school 🙏, which is a huge contrast to what my partner experienced, though we both share a deep love for literature and read constantly. I’d say that passion just runs in the family—well, in my case, it wasn't just family, but I grew up seeing adults who really valued reading and showed me how engaging it could be.

One thing that gave me such an advantage in high school was that we weren't forced to write long, tedious book reports. Instead, we had to show up prepared to actually discuss the work in class; the themes would pop up in our worksheets and show up on tests all the time. It was nearly impossible to "fake it" without having actually read the book, but we didn't have that crushing pressure to just churn out a formal essay.

Nowadays, since the era of Google, required reading in our schools has basically turned into "copying"—and let's be real, it's less even copying and more just straight-up copy-pasting from the internet.
It’s definitely a good move to introduce more contemporary works, if only to ensure there isn't some quick summary available online so students are actually forced to pick up the book and read.😬

I think I agree with Susan James on this one; we need to find a middle ground. I'm perfectly fine with a curriculum that balances the timeless classics with modern literature.