School Reform: Thoughts?

rowdypanther12 said:So, how are things looking with the other competitions?

I don't know, just Google it yourself.🙂

I can't make sense of that one. Could you clarify what you meant? kaže:
That’s just too much. Competitive. Let’s say we assume that every country has the exact same percentage of talented kids. If that were true, then the only thing separating one nation from another would be how much they actually invest in those kids. It really comes down to whether a society builds a ladder for them to climb or just leaves them standing there. It seems like the Finns just aren't as driven to spend half their lives grinding away at math or whatever else it takes to get ahead. Because they don't push themselves that hard, their results tend to stay pretty average.
It’s widely recognized that Chinese students tend to dominate math competitions and standardized testing, but it makes you wonder: what does an education system like that actually look like in practice, and what kind of daily life does the average person lead under that kind of pressure?

I’m not quite sure what they mean by being "too competitive." I mean, if they’re sending people to a competition, you’d assume they’re picking the ones who actually have that competitive edge, not the ones who don't. It feels a bit like saying someone is "too good" at their job—it's a strange way to frame it. 😁First off, we're primarily focusing on sending out the ones that actually have enough capacity to get the job done.

Comparing ourselves to China or Korea just doesn't make sense when you look at the sheer scale of their populations. With those kinds of numbers, they can easily pluck ten geniuses out of a crowd and find them. To be honest, I don't know much about how their school systems work, or even Japan's for that matter. 🤷.

Since there’s a similar percentage of gifted or high-achieving kids everywhere you look, it feels a bit strange that students in a top-tier system like Finland's don't always see those massive, standout results on international assessments. If their entire educational framework is designed specifically to nurture and support young learners, how is it possible that even the brightest ones occasionally slip through the cracks?

I don't follow—are we talking about those little treats? If you're looking for something sweet and nostalgic, it's like finding that one specific candy from your childhood that just hits different. It’s all about those small, simple pleasures that remind you of being a kid. kaže:
A few years back, I came across this article that was trying to break down exactly why the Finnish model works so well. The real issue isn't just about policy or economics—it’s about our core values and the way we actually live our lives. Even here in the States, you see kids starting elementary school around age six or seven without necessarily being able to read yet. But when they come from families or communities that are absolutely obsessed with books, almost all of them are already reading fluently by that age. They’re constantly flipping through encyclopedias, asking a million questions, and hunting for answers. The curriculum in those lower grades tends to move pretty slowly, which works out well because they also have teaching assistants in the classrooms. This means the kids who might not have had that head start at home can get the extra support and motivation they need to catch up with their peers. And, yeah... The focus here is really on making sure the majority of students actually grasp the material, rather than just obsessively pushing the high achievers. The top-tier kids? They’ll find their own way regardless, leaning on their own drive or getting a little extra help from home when they need it.

I don't know, I'm not so sure about that. To me, it feels like a missed opportunity to just overlook our most capable people and leave them to fend for themselves. It seems only fair that we dedicate the same level of expertise, time, and energy to supporting them as we do to those with special needs.

David Palmer5 said:I don't know, just Google it yourself.🙂

I can't make sense of that one. Could you clarify what you meant? kaže:
That’s just too much. Competitive. Let’s say we assume that every country has the exact same percentage of talented kids. If that were true, then the only thing separating one nation from another would be how much they actually invest in those kids. It really comes down to whether a society builds a ladder for them to climb or just leaves them standing there. It seems like the Finns just aren't as driven to spend half their lives grinding away at math or whatever else it takes to get ahead. Because they don't push themselves that hard, their results tend to stay pretty average.
It’s widely recognized that Chinese students tend to dominate math competitions and standardized testing, but it makes you wonder: what does an education system like that actually look like in practice, and what kind of daily life does the average person lead under that kind of pressure?

I’m not quite sure what they mean by being "too competitive." I mean, if they’re sending people to a competition, you’d assume they’re picking the ones who actually have that competitive edge, not the ones who don't. It feels a bit like saying someone is "too good" at their job—it's a strange way to frame it. 😁First off, we're primarily focusing on sending out the ones that actually have enough capacity to get the job done.

Comparing ourselves to China or Korea just doesn't make sense when you look at the sheer scale of their populations. With those kinds of numbers, they can easily pluck ten geniuses out of a crowd and find them. To be honest, I don't know much about how their school systems work, or even Japan's for that matter. 🤷.

Since there’s a similar percentage of gifted or high-achieving kids everywhere you look, it feels a bit strange that students in a top-tier system like Finland's don't always see those massive, standout results on international assessments. If their entire educational framework is designed specifically to nurture and support young learners, how is it possible that even the brightest ones occasionally slip through the cracks?

I don't follow—are we talking about those little treats? If you're looking for something sweet and nostalgic, it's like finding that one specific candy from your childhood that just hits different. It’s all about those small, simple pleasures that remind you of being a kid. kaže:
A few years back, I came across this article that was trying to break down exactly why the Finnish model works so well. The real issue isn't just about policy or economics—it’s about our core values and the way we actually live our lives. Even here in the States, you see kids starting elementary school around age six or seven without necessarily being able to read yet. But when they come from families or communities that are absolutely obsessed with books, almost all of them are already reading fluently by that age. They’re constantly flipping through encyclopedias, asking a million questions, and hunting for answers. The curriculum in those lower grades tends to move pretty slowly, which works out well because they also have teaching assistants in the classrooms. This means the kids who might not have had that head start at home can get the extra support and motivation they need to catch up with their peers. And, yeah... The focus here is really on making sure the majority of students actually grasp the material, rather than just obsessively pushing the high achievers. The top-tier kids? They’ll find their own way regardless, leaning on their own drive or getting a little extra help from home when they need it.

I don't know, I'm not so sure about that. To me, it feels like a missed opportunity to just overlook our most capable people and leave them to fend for themselves. It seems only fair that we dedicate the same level of expertise, time, and energy to supporting them as we do to those with special needs.

It's like comparing a standard triathlon to an Ironman... maybe it’s a flawed comparison, but I’m just trying to point out the gap in how much training and sacrifice these athletes are willing to put in.
I don't think talented students are being overlooked; it's more that they aren't being pushed nearly as hard as kids in other countries.

David Palmer5 said:I don't know, just Google it yourself.🙂

I can't make sense of that one. Could you clarify what you meant? kaže:
That’s just too much. Competitive. Let’s say we assume that every country has the exact same percentage of talented kids. If that were true, then the only thing separating one nation from another would be how much they actually invest in those kids. It really comes down to whether a society builds a ladder for them to climb or just leaves them standing there. It seems like the Finns just aren't as driven to spend half their lives grinding away at math or whatever else it takes to get ahead. Because they don't push themselves that hard, their results tend to stay pretty average.
It’s widely recognized that Chinese students tend to dominate math competitions and standardized testing, but it makes you wonder: what does an education system like that actually look like in practice, and what kind of daily life does the average person lead under that kind of pressure?

I’m not quite sure what they mean by being "too competitive." I mean, if they’re sending people to a competition, you’d assume they’re picking the ones who actually have that competitive edge, not the ones who don't. It feels a bit like saying someone is "too good" at their job—it's a strange way to frame it. 😁First off, we're primarily focusing on sending out the ones that actually have enough capacity to get the job done.

Comparing ourselves to China or Korea just doesn't make sense when you look at the sheer scale of their populations. With those kinds of numbers, they can easily pluck ten geniuses out of a crowd and find them. To be honest, I don't know much about how their school systems work, or even Japan's for that matter. 🤷.

Since there’s a similar percentage of gifted or high-achieving kids everywhere you look, it feels a bit strange that students in a top-tier system like Finland's don't always see those massive, standout results on international assessments. If their entire educational framework is designed specifically to nurture and support young learners, how is it possible that even the brightest ones occasionally slip through the cracks?

I don't follow—are we talking about those little treats? If you're looking for something sweet and nostalgic, it's like finding that one specific candy from your childhood that just hits different. It’s all about those small, simple pleasures that remind you of being a kid. kaže:
A few years back, I came across this article that was trying to break down exactly why the Finnish model works so well. The real issue isn't just about policy or economics—it’s about our core values and the way we actually live our lives. Even here in the States, you see kids starting elementary school around age six or seven without necessarily being able to read yet. But when they come from families or communities that are absolutely obsessed with books, almost all of them are already reading fluently by that age. They’re constantly flipping through encyclopedias, asking a million questions, and hunting for answers. The curriculum in those lower grades tends to move pretty slowly, which works out well because they also have teaching assistants in the classrooms. This means the kids who might not have had that head start at home can get the extra support and motivation they need to catch up with their peers. And, yeah... The focus here is really on making sure the majority of students actually grasp the material, rather than just obsessively pushing the high achievers. The top-tier kids? They’ll find their own way regardless, leaning on their own drive or getting a little extra help from home when they need it.

I don't know, I'm not so sure about that. To me, it feels like a missed opportunity to just overlook our most capable people and leave them to fend for themselves. It seems only fair that we dedicate the same level of expertise, time, and energy to supporting them as we do to those with special needs.

But then where does that leave the average kids? If all our specialists are hyper-focused on both the high achievers and those with disabilities, what happens to everyone else in the middle?

analogseal18 said:A few years back, I came across this article attempting to dissect why the education system in Finland works so well. The secret, apparently, lies in their societal values and their general way of life. It’s fascinating how children there don't even start school until they're seven, and they aren't expected to be proficient readers right out of the gate; yet, because they come from families and a culture of passionate readers, almost everyone that age is already reading fluently. They grow up with a habit of flipping through encyclopedias, asking endless questions, and hunting for answers. Since the curriculum moves quite slowly in those early grades, and they provide extra assistants in the classroom, any child who starts behind can catch up through sheer motivation and support. And you know, the focus isn't on hyper-accelerating the geniuses; it's about ensuring the majority of students achieve a solid foundation. They manage just fine with help from their families. Plus, they have this incredible network of non-competitive extracurricular activities where kids just explore different interests. These programs aren't just limited to the school year either; they stay active even during those long summer breaks we see here in the States.

When it comes to our own American schooling system, I suspect the core issue isn't actually the volume of material or how it's taught, but rather the skewed perception held by parents. Too much precious instructional time is wasted simply trying to calm children down or struggling to spark even a shred of interest or concentration. It seems these poor little souls lose their innate curiosity and thirst for knowledge as early as preschool, and frankly, the responsibility lies with the parents. We see this same pattern reflected in the lack of basic manners exhibited by such a large percentage of children today. When you combine that with the delusional lens through which certain parents view their "gifted and creative" child—acting as if that child's whims somehow supersede the rights of others to learn—you end up with total chaos. In such an environment, only the students who are exceptionally emotionally and socially resilient manage to navigate the mess and actually walk away with an education.

🙏🙏🙏

You hit the nail on the head with that one.👍

analogseal18 said:A few years back, I came across this article attempting to dissect why the education system in Finland works so well. The secret, apparently, lies in their societal values and their general way of life. It’s fascinating how children there don't even start school until they're seven, and they aren't expected to be proficient readers right out of the gate; yet, because they come from families and a culture of passionate readers, almost everyone that age is already reading fluently. They grow up with a habit of flipping through encyclopedias, asking endless questions, and hunting for answers. Since the curriculum moves quite slowly in those early grades, and they provide extra assistants in the classroom, any child who starts behind can catch up through sheer motivation and support. And you know, the focus isn't on hyper-accelerating the geniuses; it's about ensuring the majority of students achieve a solid foundation. They manage just fine with help from their families. Plus, they have this incredible network of non-competitive extracurricular activities where kids just explore different interests. These programs aren't just limited to the school year either; they stay active even during those long summer breaks we see here in the States.

When it comes to our own American schooling system, I suspect the core issue isn't actually the volume of material or how it's taught, but rather the skewed perception held by parents. Too much precious instructional time is wasted simply trying to calm children down or struggling to spark even a shred of interest or concentration. It seems these poor little souls lose their innate curiosity and thirst for knowledge as early as preschool, and frankly, the responsibility lies with the parents. We see this same pattern reflected in the lack of basic manners exhibited by such a large percentage of children today. When you combine that with the delusional lens through which certain parents view their "gifted and creative" child—acting as if that child's whims somehow supersede the rights of others to learn—you end up with total chaos. In such an environment, only the students who are exceptionally emotionally and socially resilient manage to navigate the mess and actually walk away with an education.

Unfortunately, this hits the nail on the head. 😢

silentraven6 said:But then where does that leave the average kids? If all our specialists are hyper-focused on both the high achievers and those with disabilities, what happens to everyone else in the middle?

What do you mean by "where does that leave them"? The entire system and curriculum are built specifically for the average student. That’s who teachers and professors spend their time working with.
Students with special needs are handled by specialists in other fields—like speech therapists, occupational therapists, or special educators.
And as for gifted or high-achieving kids within the K-12 system? Most of the time, nobody is really working with them at all.
Why aren't we offering them extra activities and specially designed curricula? Instead, it feels like the responsibility is just dumped entirely onto the parents.

David Palmer5 said:Unfortunately, this hits the nail on the head. 😢

What do you mean by "where does that leave them"? The entire system and curriculum are built specifically for the average student. That’s who teachers and professors spend their time working with.
Students with special needs are handled by specialists in other fields—like speech therapists, occupational therapists, or special educators.
And as for gifted or high-achieving kids within the K-12 system? Most of the time, nobody is really working with them at all.
Why aren't we offering them extra activities and specially designed curricula? Instead, it feels like the responsibility is just dumped entirely onto the parents.

That is completely wrong!

If you haven't been paying attention, the system is basically just a support network for kids with special needs or ADHD (whether it's diagnosed or not), while simultaneously complaining about how much the gifted kids have to deal with. But there *are* extra classes, competitions, and plenty of other resources out there for those bright students...

The "average" student is the one actually getting screwed over. They're stuck in the middle, forced to deal with both ends of the spectrum. In today's educational climate, they're the ones being used as the testing ground for "inclusion," patience, and tolerance. Most of the time, they’re the ones suffering.

And who's to say that one of those average kids won't have a sudden breakthrough later in life and turn into a brilliant scientist or a world-class pianist? Who knows?

Who's going to guide them or give them the help they need?

How many truly gifted children have you actually encountered in your lives?
There are those students who consistently earn straight A's—and believe me, I was one of them—but I wouldn't go so far as to label myself "gifted."
Back at my school, there was this one kid who was the definition of a prodigy. Once you see someone like that, you realize you’ve been using the term way too loosely for everyone else. 😬
To give you an idea: back in sixth grade, a classmate handed him an algebra problem from the eighth-grade curriculum. This kid just... solved it by pure intuition (I am being entirely serious!). He actually told his friend he didn't even know how he arrived at the correct answer; it was simply logical to him. 🙏

Jason Morgan said:How many truly gifted children have you actually encountered in your lives?
There are those students who consistently earn straight A's—and believe me, I was one of them—but I wouldn't go so far as to label myself "gifted."
Back at my school, there was this one kid who was the definition of a prodigy. Once you see someone like that, you realize you’ve been using the term way too loosely for everyone else. 😬
To give you an idea: back in sixth grade, a classmate handed him an algebra problem from the eighth-grade curriculum. This kid just... solved it by pure intuition (I am being entirely serious!). He actually told his friend he didn't even know how he arrived at the correct answer; it was simply logical to him. 🙏

Don't you dare say that out loud, or people will start questioning if you consider yourself gifted!

Don't you know that nowadays, every single American born is treated like a little genius? 😂

I don't see any particularly gifted students at my school, I guess.
It's a vocational school, after all.☕

silentraven6 said:Don't you dare say that out loud, or people will start questioning if you consider yourself gifted!

Don't you know that nowadays, every single American born is treated like a little genius? 😂

Precisely.
I once knew a mother whose kid had a 4.0 GPA, though his report card looked more like a colorful mosaic of grades throughout the year. She spent the entire semester trying to convince me that her child was a natural-born virtuoso who just *loved* the subject, despite the fact that his marks swung wildly from Cs to As to Bs purely by chance. 🤷 Or, of course, she’d claim the professor simply has a vendetta against him. ☕

silentraven6 said:That is completely wrong!

If you haven't been paying attention, the system is basically just a support network for kids with special needs or ADHD (whether it's diagnosed or not), while simultaneously complaining about how much the gifted kids have to deal with. But there *are* extra classes, competitions, and plenty of other resources out there for those bright students...

The "average" student is the one actually getting screwed over. They're stuck in the middle, forced to deal with both ends of the spectrum. In today's educational climate, they're the ones being used as the testing ground for "inclusion," patience, and tolerance. Most of the time, they’re the ones suffering.

And who's to say that one of those average kids won't have a sudden breakthrough later in life and turn into a brilliant scientist or a world-class pianist? Who knows?

Who's going to guide them or give them the help they need?

I’m not really sure what part of that is "completely wrong."😕
The standard curriculum and school requirements are designed for students of average ability, simply because that's the largest group. Any average kid can successfully navigate a program like that. The fact that so many kids today seem poorly behaved or disruptive doesn't actually have anything to do with what I was saying.
For students with disabilities, there are individualized approaches and specialized programs tailored specifically to their needs.
Extra tutoring (which isn't offered at every school) is meant for kids who just want to learn more, which doesn't necessarily mean they are gifted.
As for the kids who are truly gifted or have exceptionally high abilities—there aren't many of them, and honestly, we don't have adequate programs for them yet.

David Palmer5 said:I’m not really sure what part of that is "completely wrong."😕
The standard curriculum and school requirements are designed for students of average ability, simply because that's the largest group. Any average kid can successfully navigate a program like that. The fact that so many kids today seem poorly behaved or disruptive doesn't actually have anything to do with what I was saying.
For students with disabilities, there are individualized approaches and specialized programs tailored specifically to their needs.
Extra tutoring (which isn't offered at every school) is meant for kids who just want to learn more, which doesn't necessarily mean they are gifted.
As for the kids who are truly gifted or have exceptionally high abilities—there aren't many of them, and honestly, we don't have adequate programs for them yet.

Look, I was thinking about the actual logistics of trying to run a lesson plan in a classroom filled with 30 average students, two kids with ADHD, and maybe one absolute genius.

I don't quite follow your logic regarding the gifted kids... If they have an ear for music, they go to a performing arts magnet school. If they're a natural athlete, they head toward sports academies. If they're a talented writer, there are endless opportunities, from specialized journalism programs to various liberal arts academies...

silentraven6 said:Look, I was thinking about the actual logistics of trying to run a lesson plan in a classroom filled with 30 average students, two kids with ADHD, and maybe one absolute genius.

I don't quite follow your logic regarding the gifted kids... If they have an ear for music, they go to a performing arts magnet school. If they're a natural athlete, they head toward sports academies. If they're a talented writer, there are endless opportunities, from specialized journalism programs to various liberal arts academies...

See, you get it, 😁 because you actually said it yourself: "they go to music, they go to sports."
The thing is, all of that falls outside the standard public school curriculum. That’s stuff parents have to manage entirely on their own: chauffeuring the kids back and forth, footing the bills, buying all the gear... But what happens if parents don't even realize their kid has a gift? What if they're working two jobs and pulling shifts until 7 PM, so there's no one to drive them to practice? Or what if they just don't have the extra cash to fund all those extracurriculars?
That's the core of my argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by "specialized schools"—you're probably thinking of things like performing arts academies or something similar, which are high schools. But here, we're talking about the K-8 level. 🤷

David Palmer5 said:See, you get it, 😁 because you actually said it yourself: "they go to music, they go to sports."
The thing is, all of that falls outside the standard public school curriculum. That’s stuff parents have to manage entirely on their own: chauffeuring the kids back and forth, footing the bills, buying all the gear... But what happens if parents don't even realize their kid has a gift? What if they're working two jobs and pulling shifts until 7 PM, so there's no one to drive them to practice? Or what if they just don't have the extra cash to fund all those extracurriculars?
That's the core of my argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by "specialized schools"—you're probably thinking of things like performing arts academies or something similar, which are high schools. But here, we're talking about the K-8 level. 🤷

Well, then let them struggle if they don't know how to handle it.

I mean, kids with special needs have specific programs outside of school too (like Savannah, Goldman Sachs, or handwriting workshops—and most of them end up in sports, especially those with ADHD...) so the parents really do have to "shuttle" them everywhere.

And there are plenty of average kids involved in activities where they need to be driven around, too.

We usually just head out on our bikes 😍

The elementary school curriculum should be designed for the average student, I think that's pretty obvious.

silentraven6 said:But then where does that leave the average kids? If all our specialists are hyper-focused on both the high achievers and those with disabilities, what happens to everyone else in the middle?

David Palmer5 said:Unfortunately, this hits the nail on the head. 😢

What do you mean by "where does that leave them"? The entire system and curriculum are built specifically for the average student. That’s who teachers and professors spend their time working with.
Students with special needs are handled by specialists in other fields—like speech therapists, occupational therapists, or special educators.
And as for gifted or high-achieving kids within the K-12 system? Most of the time, nobody is really working with them at all.
Why aren't we offering them extra activities and specially designed curricula? Instead, it feels like the responsibility is just dumped entirely onto the parents.

silentraven6 said:That is completely wrong!

If you haven't been paying attention, the system is basically just a support network for kids with special needs or ADHD (whether it's diagnosed or not), while simultaneously complaining about how much the gifted kids have to deal with. But there *are* extra classes, competitions, and plenty of other resources out there for those bright students...

The "average" student is the one actually getting screwed over. They're stuck in the middle, forced to deal with both ends of the spectrum. In today's educational climate, they're the ones being used as the testing ground for "inclusion," patience, and tolerance. Most of the time, they’re the ones suffering.

And who's to say that one of those average kids won't have a sudden breakthrough later in life and turn into a brilliant scientist or a world-class pianist? Who knows?

Who's going to guide them or give them the help they need?

silentraven6 said:Well, then let them struggle if they don't know how to handle it.

I mean, kids with special needs have specific programs outside of school too (like Savannah, Goldman Sachs, or handwriting workshops—and most of them end up in sports, especially those with ADHD...) so the parents really do have to "shuttle" them everywhere.

And there are plenty of average kids involved in activities where they need to be driven around, too.

We usually just head out on our bikes 😍

The elementary school curriculum should be designed for the average student, I think that's pretty obvious.

Maybe you should sit down and have a serious talk with yourself about whether the American school system is built for the middle ground or for those who fall outside the norm in either direction.🙂

silentraven6 said:Well, then let them struggle if they don't know how to handle it.

I mean, kids with special needs have specific programs outside of school too (like Savannah, Goldman Sachs, or handwriting workshops—and most of them end up in sports, especially those with ADHD...) so the parents really do have to "shuttle" them everywhere.

And there are plenty of average kids involved in activities where they need to be driven around, too.

We usually just head out on our bikes 😍

The elementary school curriculum should be designed for the average student, I think that's pretty obvious.

🙄

By the way, those treatment programs at the facilities you mentioned are actually free for parents—it's all covered by the state through the Social Security Administration. A lot of parents with kids facing significant challenges take advantage of reduced work hours, too. It’s not a perfect fix, but it definitely helps ease the burden a bit.

At the end of the day, I still stand by my belief that if a kid is genuinely gifted or performing way above the curve, the school system should be stepping up to give them more opportunities during elementary and high school. Honestly, I just don't see what the big deal is with providing that kind of support. ☕

David Palmer5 said:🙄

By the way, those treatment programs at the facilities you mentioned are actually free for parents—it's all covered by the state through the Social Security Administration. A lot of parents with kids facing significant challenges take advantage of reduced work hours, too. It’s not a perfect fix, but it definitely helps ease the burden a bit.

At the end of the day, I still stand by my belief that if a kid is genuinely gifted or performing way above the curve, the school system should be stepping up to give them more opportunities during elementary and high school. Honestly, I just don't see what the big deal is with providing that kind of support. ☕

You can see I wrote that it should be adapted.

The rest was just my reaction to all the shouting. Often, special programs for kids with special needs are paid for—like sports, for example, or music classes.

I’m trying to explain that for gifted kids, there are extracurricular activities—not out-of-school ones—things like astronomy clubs, little physics groups, drama, etc. If we start tweaking the standard curriculum specifically for them on top of the adjustments already made for kids with special needs, it’ll just end up hurting the average students even more.

Because every time we try to individualize instruction in our classrooms—where it's already a struggle because class sizes are getting way too large—it ends up being focused mostly on those middle-of-the-road students.

In this country, we simply fail to nurture talented children unless they possess a truly staggering level of intellect. Those extracurricular programs mentioned earlier are a rarity here, mostly concentrated in elite schools in cities like New York or Chicago. As far as my local school goes, they have a quasi-drama club that meets right before the end of the school year just to put on one single play. I know they offer things like recitation, choir, or maybe handball or soccer for the boys, but none of it provides an avenue for my daughter to participate—and she is a student with stellar grades who possesses a genuine passion for the natural sciences (math notwithstanding) and an exceptional command of English.

If you were to ask me, any meaningful reform should move toward the model used in Switzerland, Germany, or Austria. In those systems, students are channeled as early as fifth grade based on their academic aptitude and desire to learn into three distinct tracks: preparatory academies, technical high schools, or vocational paths for those who have mastered the foundational material but aren't suited for pure academia. This current American "one-size-fits-all" mishmash is devastating for average students, for those who excel in only one specific niche, and especially for children whose parents lack higher education. Children who struggle academically or require special accommodations aren't going to absorb much of the advanced curriculum taught in the upper grades anyway; meanwhile, the exceptionally bright students from educated households will simply pursue their ambitions through private tutoring outside the classroom regardless.

analogseal18 said:In this country, we simply fail to nurture talented children unless they possess a truly staggering level of intellect. Those extracurricular programs mentioned earlier are a rarity here, mostly concentrated in elite schools in cities like New York or Chicago. As far as my local school goes, they have a quasi-drama club that meets right before the end of the school year just to put on one single play. I know they offer things like recitation, choir, or maybe handball or soccer for the boys, but none of it provides an avenue for my daughter to participate—and she is a student with stellar grades who possesses a genuine passion for the natural sciences (math notwithstanding) and an exceptional command of English.

If you were to ask me, any meaningful reform should move toward the model used in Switzerland, Germany, or Austria. In those systems, students are channeled as early as fifth grade based on their academic aptitude and desire to learn into three distinct tracks: preparatory academies, technical high schools, or vocational paths for those who have mastered the foundational material but aren't suited for pure academia. This current American "one-size-fits-all" mishmash is devastating for average students, for those who excel in only one specific niche, and especially for children whose parents lack higher education. Children who struggle academically or require special accommodations aren't going to absorb much of the advanced curriculum taught in the upper grades anyway; meanwhile, the exceptionally bright students from educated households will simply pursue their ambitions through private tutoring outside the classroom regardless.

I hope you just misspoke a bit regarding the part about smart, educated parents and their children...

I was actually thinking about mentioning Germany too; I think that system works fine in a country that actually has the market for it... And it's great that there's always a way to transition from a vocational track back into higher education.

Everything in our system is basically in a coma, so I honestly believe we'd just implement a broken version of that, too.

The best thing about their schooling is the inclusion of forgotten subjects like home economics. Everyone I know over there knows how to sew and handle basic repairs from a very young age.

analogseal18 said:In this country, we simply fail to nurture talented children unless they possess a truly staggering level of intellect. Those extracurricular programs mentioned earlier are a rarity here, mostly concentrated in elite schools in cities like New York or Chicago. As far as my local school goes, they have a quasi-drama club that meets right before the end of the school year just to put on one single play. I know they offer things like recitation, choir, or maybe handball or soccer for the boys, but none of it provides an avenue for my daughter to participate—and she is a student with stellar grades who possesses a genuine passion for the natural sciences (math notwithstanding) and an exceptional command of English.

If you were to ask me, any meaningful reform should move toward the model used in Switzerland, Germany, or Austria. In those systems, students are channeled as early as fifth grade based on their academic aptitude and desire to learn into three distinct tracks: preparatory academies, technical high schools, or vocational paths for those who have mastered the foundational material but aren't suited for pure academia. This current American "one-size-fits-all" mishmash is devastating for average students, for those who excel in only one specific niche, and especially for children whose parents lack higher education. Children who struggle academically or require special accommodations aren't going to absorb much of the advanced curriculum taught in the upper grades anyway; meanwhile, the exceptionally bright students from educated households will simply pursue their ambitions through private tutoring outside the classroom regardless.

In fifth grade? 🤔
As far as I know (looking at the Swiss system), the actual split doesn't happen until seventh. They take a big exam in sixth grade to decide where everyone goes.
The crazy thing is that almost every kid in a wealthy neighborhood passes that test. It’s not because those kids are magically geniuses compared to kids from other parts of town; it’s just because their parents can afford private tutors and extra prep classes throughout sixth grade.