School Reform: Thoughts?

The fundamental flaw with how we've been looking at this is that people stopped approaching it like an actual reader—you know, the very people these stories were actually written for—and instead started acting like stuffy academics looking down from a pedestal.
It’s like they decided the importance of the message was somehow tied to whether the meter or rhyme scheme was perfect.

Honestly, I can't get behind that at all; to me, it just feels like pure academic ego, where experts feel the need to overcomplicate things and bore kids with technicalities that don't really matter to them.

If you ask me, it’s infinitely more important for a reader to grasp the core message in regarding the relationship between humanity and power—like what it actually means to carry that ring—than it is for them to memorize the mechanics of classical drama or the definition of a deus ex machina. I mean, when has anyone ever actually needed to know those terms to navigate real life? Besides, if we teach kids that power has a way of corrupting people, we might actually save them some massive heartbreak later on 😁 .

Look, it’s not about the presentation itself. The issue is that Runic loves bragging about how she presents Homeric epics to high schoolers by framing them as nothing more than steamy romances and love stories, and how the kids absolutely loved it. Okay, great. But she hasn't provided a single shred of data showing how many of those students actually went home and sat down to read the Iliad from cover to cover on their own initiative. My guess? Zero.

Take Shakespeare, for example—he was an incredibly compelling writer. His life story is legendary, and his plays are packed with fascinating content. I’m sure I could brag just like Runic and say I know how to pitch Shakespeare to teenagers in a way that keeps them hooked.
But once they get home, all fueled up with enthusiasm, and pick up "Brer Rabbit" intending to actually read it—they’ll give up by page two. If they’re feeling particularly stubborn, maybe they’ll make it to page ten.

That’s why, when we tackle Shakespeare in my classes, I often have the kids dramatize a single scene. They’ll hold the book in their hands, flip through the pages, and pluck out snippets of text trying to find the perfect moment to act out. They even end up memorizing parts of that ancient text and go all out with the set design and costumes. Honestly, what else can you ask of them? It's not like they're doing a deep dive into the entire work.

And speaking of classics—there’s this edition where you have the original text on the left page and a "modern translation" on the right, and every single student gravitates toward that version. How much do you think they’re actually reading the left side—you know, the actual original text?
Usually, I’ll assign them some kind of linguistic or comparative analysis of a specific passage just to force them to focus on at least a tiny portion of the original text. If they're going to claim they're "reading" the classic, they might as well actually engage with it a little bit. But honestly, given the circumstances, I think it's totally hypocritical to complain about the fact that we don't force kids to read the entirety of "Judith."

hiddendriver34 said:Look, it’s not about the presentation itself. The issue is that Runic loves bragging about how she presents Homeric epics to high schoolers by framing them as nothing more than steamy romances and love stories, and how the kids absolutely loved it. Okay, great. But she hasn't provided a single shred of data showing how many of those students actually went home and sat down to read the Iliad from cover to cover on their own initiative. My guess? Zero.

Take Shakespeare, for example—he was an incredibly compelling writer. His life story is legendary, and his plays are packed with fascinating content. I’m sure I could brag just like Runic and say I know how to pitch Shakespeare to teenagers in a way that keeps them hooked.
But once they get home, all fueled up with enthusiasm, and pick up "Brer Rabbit" intending to actually read it—they’ll give up by page two. If they’re feeling particularly stubborn, maybe they’ll make it to page ten.

That’s why, when we tackle Shakespeare in my classes, I often have the kids dramatize a single scene. They’ll hold the book in their hands, flip through the pages, and pluck out snippets of text trying to find the perfect moment to act out. They even end up memorizing parts of that ancient text and go all out with the set design and costumes. Honestly, what else can you ask of them? It's not like they're doing a deep dive into the entire work.

And speaking of classics—there’s this edition where you have the original text on the left page and a "modern translation" on the right, and every single student gravitates toward that version. How much do you think they’re actually reading the left side—you know, the actual original text?
Usually, I’ll assign them some kind of linguistic or comparative analysis of a specific passage just to force them to focus on at least a tiny portion of the original text. If they're going to claim they're "reading" the classic, they might as well actually engage with it a little bit. But honestly, given the circumstances, I think it's totally hypocritical to complain about the fact that we don't force kids to read the entirety of "Judith."

To be totally honest, that whole setup used to trip me out so much back in high school. I mean, specifically that part where it wasn't even really a translation, if you know what I mean.
I remember us joking around about why they wouldn't bother translating Shakespeare into 16th-century American English instead. 😳

Susan James said: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.

Hmm, I suppose it was possible to get by if you studied hard enough without actually reading 😁 For instance, I never actually read anything by Emily Dickinson, but I think I could have managed a class discussion on her work.😂

But seriously, the reading list needs to be adapted. Take Kafka, for example; he's a classic, but I think many teenagers would actually find him fascinating if his work were presented effectively in class. And don't even get me started on *The Stranger*—that's practically written for lost teenagers.😁
Using shorter works like those can help ensure students don't end up hating reading altogether.
We shouldn't throw out all the classics, but we should curate a list that actually interests kids rather than chasing some imaginary academic ideal.

Karen Richardson3 said:To be totally honest, that whole setup used to trip me out so much back in high school. I mean, specifically that part where it wasn't even really a translation, if you know what I mean.
I remember us joking around about why they wouldn't bother translating Shakespeare into 16th-century American English instead. 😳

The thing is, it’s not the original work by Dante. It’s just a translation of Dante. Nobody actually sits down to read Dante anymore. And now, everyone is acting all outraged because someone is openly suggesting it, even though it’s already become the standard practice.

I honestly think we need two different strategies for elementary versus high school. In elementary school, the goal should be to get them hooked on reading—sort of like how dealers get people addicted to substances 😁
. Once you’ve achieved that, high schoolers won't stop reading just because they're forced to pick up a book they hate, especially if they're actually allowed to voice their opinions and debate the characters and themes (I have my high school English teacher to thank for that 😂)

hiddendriver34 said:The thing is, it’s not the original work by Dante. It’s just a translation of Dante. Nobody actually sits down to read Dante anymore. And now, everyone is acting all outraged because someone is openly suggesting it, even though it’s already become the standard practice.

Look, I get that, but even when we talk about Shakespeare, we aren't reading the original Shakespeare; we're reading an English translation, yet we still say kids are reading him in school.

The real issue here is the ego of the people designing these curricula. Honestly, it's a flaw you see in almost every subject. There's this total inability to realize that the goal shouldn't be to show off how "cool" your specific field is or how much massive information you can cram into it.

hiddendriver34 said:The thing is, it’s not the original work by Dante. It’s just a translation of Dante. Nobody actually sits down to read Dante anymore. And now, everyone is acting all outraged because someone is openly suggesting it, even though it’s already become the standard practice.

Look, some of my colleagues from years back couldn't follow original Shakespeare because they weren't exactly paying close attention during their linguistics seminars at Ivy League colleges. 😁

When it comes to Shakespeare's language, it should be easy enough to give kids the basics using some linguistically accessible methods. Honestly, I’d much rather teach Shakespearean Anka satir in a classroom than Judith, but hey, that's just my opinion. 😁

neka čitati i the "translation." Judith can actually serve as a window into understanding certain fundamental literary laws of the era it was written in. It's an excellent foundation for debating the morality of crimes, the author's stance, how female characters are portrayed, taking sides, and justifying bloodshed.

Karen Richardson3 said:Look, I get that, but even when we talk about Shakespeare, we aren't reading the original Shakespeare; we're reading an English translation, yet we still say kids are reading him in school.

The real issue here is the ego of the people designing these curricula. Honestly, it's a flaw you see in almost every subject. There's this total inability to realize that the goal shouldn't be to show off how "cool" your specific field is or how much massive information you can cram into it.

Listen, if a professor doesn't believe their subject is the coolest thing on the planet and a massive source of inspiration, they might as well quit right now. 😁

Of course, the staff follows the syllabus to the letter, forcing kids to memorize types of verse by rote, while having absolutely no clue how to present why a verse exists as a form, how it evolved through history, or why any of it matters to anyone. Understanding verse as expression could, for instance, provide a solid foundation for understanding predecessors—like using Petrarchan styles to show how powerful influence used to be. Then you pivot the conversation to their influences, who they were imitating, maybe play them a hip-hop track to bridge the gap, and talk about their followers. You can discuss why followers exist—is it just a Renaissance thing, or does that concept run through all of literary history and even into modern pop culture?

In the end, it all falls on you as the teacher. Even if you declare a work unreadable during class—and I've definitely had moments like that—it can spark a hell of a debate. You can take a comparative approach; you draw them in to read so they can understand why certain authors wrote such brainless, programmatic works and things like that.

And yeah, 😁

silentraven6 said:Look, some of my colleagues from years back couldn't follow original Shakespeare because they weren't exactly paying close attention during their linguistics seminars at Ivy League colleges. 😁

When it comes to Shakespeare's language, it should be easy enough to give kids the basics using some linguistically accessible methods. Honestly, I’d much rather teach Shakespearean Anka satir in a classroom than Judith, but hey, that's just my opinion. 😁

neka čitati i the "translation." Judith can actually serve as a window into understanding certain fundamental literary laws of the era it was written in. It's an excellent foundation for debating the morality of crimes, the author's stance, how female characters are portrayed, taking sides, and justifying bloodshed.

Listen, if a professor doesn't believe their subject is the coolest thing on the planet and a massive source of inspiration, they might as well quit right now. 😁

Of course, the staff follows the syllabus to the letter, forcing kids to memorize types of verse by rote, while having absolutely no clue how to present why a verse exists as a form, how it evolved through history, or why any of it matters to anyone. Understanding verse as expression could, for instance, provide a solid foundation for understanding predecessors—like using Petrarchan styles to show how powerful influence used to be. Then you pivot the conversation to their influences, who they were imitating, maybe play them a hip-hop track to bridge the gap, and talk about their followers. You can discuss why followers exist—is it just a Renaissance thing, or does that concept run through all of literary history and even into modern pop culture?

In the end, it all falls on you as the teacher. Even if you declare a work unreadable during class—and I've definitely had moments like that—it can spark a hell of a debate. You can take a comparative approach; you draw them in to read so they can understand why certain authors wrote such brainless, programmatic works and things like that.

And yeah, 😁

That whole debate about murder being a "holy act" usually gets settled pretty quickly in freshman year right after they tackle the biblical "Judith." 😉

silentraven6 said:Look, some of my colleagues from years back couldn't follow original Shakespeare because they weren't exactly paying close attention during their linguistics seminars at Ivy League colleges. 😁

When it comes to Shakespeare's language, it should be easy enough to give kids the basics using some linguistically accessible methods. Honestly, I’d much rather teach Shakespearean Anka satir in a classroom than Judith, but hey, that's just my opinion. 😁

neka čitati i the "translation." Judith can actually serve as a window into understanding certain fundamental literary laws of the era it was written in. It's an excellent foundation for debating the morality of crimes, the author's stance, how female characters are portrayed, taking sides, and justifying bloodshed.

Listen, if a professor doesn't believe their subject is the coolest thing on the planet and a massive source of inspiration, they might as well quit right now. 😁

Of course, the staff follows the syllabus to the letter, forcing kids to memorize types of verse by rote, while having absolutely no clue how to present why a verse exists as a form, how it evolved through history, or why any of it matters to anyone. Understanding verse as expression could, for instance, provide a solid foundation for understanding predecessors—like using Petrarchan styles to show how powerful influence used to be. Then you pivot the conversation to their influences, who they were imitating, maybe play them a hip-hop track to bridge the gap, and talk about their followers. You can discuss why followers exist—is it just a Renaissance thing, or does that concept run through all of literary history and even into modern pop culture?

In the end, it all falls on you as the teacher. Even if you declare a work unreadable during class—and I've definitely had moments like that—it can spark a hell of a debate. You can take a comparative approach; you draw them in to read so they can understand why certain authors wrote such brainless, programmatic works and things like that.

And yeah, 😁

That’s not quite what I meant, though. I’m not saying teachers shouldn't be 110% obsessed with what they teach.

My point is more about how the people designing these curricula often can't seem to cut out the fluff and actually focus on the end goal. It applies to every single subject. That’s why we end up with this outdated style of teaching where it's just a massive firehose of facts that students are expected to memorize and spit back out during exams.

It’s honestly ridiculous to act like you can't function in society without knowing the deep nuances of Greek tragedy or the specific biological details of how cephalopods reproduce.
And all while we ignore the glaring reality that kids are graduating from high school practically illiterate—and our American grammar rules aren't even that difficult to master—including some who legitimately think that writing after sex is a valid form of birth control.

Susan James said: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.

It was the same way here. 🙏
To me, writing those essays is one of the dumbest requirements out there. I don't see the point at all. I haven't been keeping up with the news lately—is there any talk about getting rid of them entirely?

Robert Rodriguez9 said:It was the same way here. 🙏
To me, writing those essays is one of the dumbest requirements out there. I don't see the point at all. I haven't been keeping up with the news lately—is there any talk about getting rid of them entirely?

I’d imagine one of the main points is basically just to give people a reason to actually practice building sentences while sticking to standard American grammar and spelling rules.

"Quote:"

hiddendriver34 said:That whole debate about murder being a "holy act" usually gets settled pretty quickly in freshman year right after they tackle the biblical "Judith." 😉

That was just a hint, really—just throwing some ideas out there to see what sticks. 😁 And honestly, isn't it sometimes necessary to circle back to certain topics? I feel like some things just need to be revisited over and over again. It’s part of the process, right? 😁 Especially in our society here. 🤣

I just spent some time scrolling through Open Forum, and honestly, the uproar is getting ridiculous. People are acting like they just kicked Shakespeare out of the classroom entirely instead of just moving him from the core curriculum to the supplemental reading list. I don't get the outrage. In my opinion, required reading should really just be a supplement. It doesn't necessarily have to cover every single thing discussed during class lectures. You could easily set three mandatory books for everyone and then let the rest be elective. Students could engage with the material through term papers, essays, reading journals, or even project-based problem solving. It shouldn't be this big of a deal.

hiddendriver34, honestly, if you ask me, taking that whole historical approach with distinct periods is the only way to go. It just makes sense.

I’m not actually on campus right now, so I don't have all the specifics, but from what I can see, reading is becoming a massive issue. It feels like it's getting worse by the day. Even the older generation seems to be heavily leaning into writing and grinding through those required reading lists just to keep up.

silentraven6 said:"Quote:"

That was just a hint, really—just throwing some ideas out there to see what sticks. 😁 And honestly, isn't it sometimes necessary to circle back to certain topics? I feel like some things just need to be revisited over and over again. It’s part of the process, right? 😁 Especially in our society here. 🤣

I just spent some time scrolling through Open Forum, and honestly, the uproar is getting ridiculous. People are acting like they just kicked Shakespeare out of the classroom entirely instead of just moving him from the core curriculum to the supplemental reading list. I don't get the outrage. In my opinion, required reading should really just be a supplement. It doesn't necessarily have to cover every single thing discussed during class lectures. You could easily set three mandatory books for everyone and then let the rest be elective. Students could engage with the material through term papers, essays, reading journals, or even project-based problem solving. It shouldn't be this big of a deal.

hiddendriver34, honestly, if you ask me, taking that whole historical approach with distinct periods is the only way to go. It just makes sense.

I’m not actually on campus right now, so I don't have all the specifics, but from what I can see, reading is becoming a massive issue. It feels like it's getting worse by the day. Even the older generation seems to be heavily leaning into writing and grinding through those required reading lists just to keep up.

They aren't the ones calling the shots, you know? It’s all just pure vanity. I can't think of a specific piece of literature that fits perfectly, but if I look back at Star Wars, Anakin's fall to the dark side is actually pretty similar to this situation 😬 🙂

Karen Richardson3 said:I’d imagine one of the main points is basically just to give people a reason to actually practice building sentences while sticking to standard American grammar and spelling rules.

It’s not like they don't write anything else in that school. 🤔
Thinking back to myself—and honestly, plenty of others—that whole thing was just a massive waste of time. You can cover this stuff way more effectively during class, and any teacher can tell pretty quickly if a student actually did the reading.

Robert Rodriguez9 said:It’s not like they don't write anything else in that school. 🤔
Thinking back to myself—and honestly, plenty of others—that whole thing was just a massive waste of time. You can cover this stuff way more effectively during class, and any teacher can tell pretty quickly if a student actually did the reading.

I have no clue what the supposed benefits of this are, since I'm not the one standing at the front of the classroom.

That said, I personally used to love the writing assignments, specifically when we got to dive into our own interpretations (if that's even what we're talking about here?), mostly because I wasn't really the type to jump into every single debate during class time—though I might have raised my hand 😁 if the room went totally silent and nobody had an answer.

Karen Richardson3 said:I have no clue what the supposed benefits of this are, since I'm not the one standing at the front of the classroom.

That said, I personally used to love the writing assignments, specifically when we got to dive into our own interpretations (if that's even what we're talking about here?), mostly because I wasn't really the type to jump into every single debate during class time—though I might have raised my hand 😁 if the room went totally silent and nobody had an answer.

handwriting practice. 😬
Personally, I find it hard to believe a fifth or sixth grader could produce a deep analysis based on their own interpretation. 🤷 Sure, there might be a few outliers, but they're the exception. At least, that's my impression when I look back at how we handled literature discussions in middle school.

Robert Rodriguez9 said:handwriting practice. 😬
Personally, I find it hard to believe a fifth or sixth grader could produce a deep analysis based on their own interpretation. 🤷 Sure, there might be a few outliers, but they're the exception. At least, that's my impression when I look back at how we handled literature discussions in middle school.

Right, so what they’re really doing is practicing expression—trying to figure out how to construct their own thoughts into actual sentences.
That doesn't really fall under the umbrella of "well, they don't write anything else at this school," because with most other subjects at that age, you're mostly just filling in blanks or giving short answers based on stuff you've memorized straight from the textbook.

On top of that, in a typical classroom setting, you rarely see everyone getting a chance to speak up, especially if the class is packed with 30 or more students (though things are looking up lately; even in places like San Francisco, classes seem to have leveled out to maybe around 20 kids now).

(I'm sure teachers have plenty of other reasons for this too, but these are just the things that jump out at me.)

I remember back then, hardly anyone even bothered to speak up during interpretation sessions—it wasn't like we were actually given the chance to participate. 🤣 To be honest, I don't think we ever really grasped what was expected of us; the textbook questions were vague, and the stuff the professor asked just didn't click. I haven't kept up with how things are now, except for hearing the workload has increased. Given everything is headed toward a total overhaul anyway, I doubt much has actually changed.

How are you guys covering the death of Smail ego Čengić?