School Reform: Thoughts?

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.

I have a child in first grade, and even now, they’re already working on interpreting and spotting the core elements of a text. The textbooks are designed specifically for this—they guide kids through questions that mostly focus on actual reading comprehension.

There’s always some kind of question meant to spark their own thinking, plus a section where they get to draw something related to the story.

He just finished his first written book report. I didn't catch every single assignment, but roughly speaking: he had to write down the author and the title (so, learning who wrote what and what a "work" actually is); pick out two things from the stories he liked and transcribe two sentences about them (which covers writing practice, personal opinion, and reading skills); and then look around his room to write two sentences about items he sees (tapping into imagination and practicing short-form content creation).

So, tell me this... these kids are in 5th grade now, they're using advanced tech, they're navigating social dynamics and texting each other on iMessage or WhatsApp with all this malicious cleverness... Don't underestimate their ability to express everything they know in writing.

Later on, they'll move into complex sentences, more sophisticated vocabulary, literary devices, age-appropriate theory, metaphors, essay formats... If we give them clear roadmaps through a text and provide all the right tools in a way they can actually digest, they can show off much more talent in both writing and speaking than we give them credit for.
And they'll learn how to treat one another with respect—learning that it's perfectly okay and normal to say they don't like something, or that they love it, or that it's terrible, provided they can back it up with arguments. To do that, you first have to read something, then form an opinion, then read and read and read more. You have to cultivate critical thinking. Teachers need to nurture it, accept it, debate it—letting students win an argument sometimes, or letting them disagree. They need to encourage them to speak up, to express themselves, to communicate about what they've read, compare impressions, and learn how tastes vary and how everyone sees things differently... there are endless ways to do this. You can't just use the same old template for fifty years.

I suppose the reason a book like *The Chair* earned its spot on the high school required reading list is because...🤷

maybe it just sounds a bit more edgy and contemporary to pick up something titled *The Chair* instead of something like *The Great Gatsby*?🤔

urbantinker8 said:I suppose the reason a book like *The Chair* earned its spot on the high school required reading list is because...🤷

maybe it just sounds a bit more edgy and contemporary to pick up something titled *The Chair* instead of something like *The Great Gatsby*?🤔

Do you even realize that Springsteen isn't listed as MANDATORY?

And it’s not about who's more popular or who "deserves" what.

It’s about assessing feasibility given how language evolves and the general zeitgeist. It's also the fact that Academy literature doesn't always transition easily to university levels, and to actually read those Academy works, you have to head to the library and inhale the dust of the Merriam-Webster. Plus, you need a solid grasp of history.

Someone might pick him up later and read his entire discography, and we should be happy if that happens. But by forcing something onto kids that they aren't even equipped to understand, we're just pushing them away from reading altogether.

If we have to resort to that kind of cheap tactic—using Springsteen as some sort of bait just to get them to pick up a book—then fine, whatever. But let's be real: nobody is ever going to erase Dante from American literature anyway. There are hundreds of us who still study him and truly love his work.

Shakespearean John Smith, by the way, acts more like a politician than a literary historian. When you read his stuff, you get the impression that an American, an Austrian, a German, or a Canadian is constantly looming over us, ready to crush us, and we have to perpetually construct this identity—this mythomania about our roots and the father of our literature. Someone who fears outsiders fits perfectly into this whole tirade regarding Dante, especially considering how foreigners are depicted in the Academy texts and the roles they play.

silentraven6 said:Do you even realize that Springsteen isn't listed as MANDATORY?

And it’s not about who's more popular or who "deserves" what.

It’s about assessing feasibility given how language evolves and the general zeitgeist. It's also the fact that Academy literature doesn't always transition easily to university levels, and to actually read those Academy works, you have to head to the library and inhale the dust of the Merriam-Webster. Plus, you need a solid grasp of history.

Someone might pick him up later and read his entire discography, and we should be happy if that happens. But by forcing something onto kids that they aren't even equipped to understand, we're just pushing them away from reading altogether.

If we have to resort to that kind of cheap tactic—using Springsteen as some sort of bait just to get them to pick up a book—then fine, whatever. But let's be real: nobody is ever going to erase Dante from American literature anyway. There are hundreds of us who still study him and truly love his work.

Shakespearean John Smith, by the way, acts more like a politician than a literary historian. When you read his stuff, you get the impression that an American, an Austrian, a German, or a Canadian is constantly looming over us, ready to crush us, and we have to perpetually construct this identity—this mythomania about our roots and the father of our literature. Someone who fears outsiders fits perfectly into this whole tirade regarding Dante, especially considering how foreigners are depicted in the Academy texts and the roles they play.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I think I follow.
I really don't see why there's all this foaming around again, I guess.🤷

I guess I’ve been wondering lately, sort of drifting through the thought, what kind of criteria these "player" types actually use when they're picking their targets. It's hard to say, really, because maybe there isn't even a concrete logic behind it, but I find myself questioning what drives that specific kind of selection process.
I suppose I can see why certain works generate such massive hype, so I guess there’s no harm in letting them make the list, even if they only end up as honorable mentions.
But then you have Springsteen...🙄

I actually wrote an entire book and then deleted it all, just because it was centered around required reading assignments.
I really believe we should encourage kids to read absolutely anything they can get their hands on. They ought to write a little essay or perhaps just jot down some observations after finishing a book... because there is always something to be learned from any story, or at the very least, something to spark a discussion and let them share their own perspective.

All the mandatory reading in Elementary School, and even in vocational schools, really ought to be written in modern American English. Anything that requires a dictionary just to understand could be saved for elective language classes. Honestly, I would translate Brontë without even blinking...

As for high schoolers—let them keep a few of those old American classics in the curriculum. If someone is interested, they’ll read it, and if they aren't, they'll find their own way... they might skip over Dante, but they will certainly exercise their brains much more than someone who just breezes through him, developing their creativity, memory, and so much more. As long as they can avoid the heavy lifting while still earning a decent grade. But for the vocational students? Just give them the light stuff that they can actually discuss later on.

majo I’m just writing based on what I remember. I have no clue how things work nowadays or what’s changed in the meantime. For me, it was pure stupidity having to transcribe two or three pages of bibliographic data and author notes, then summarizing the plot and that whole "brief synopsis" thing—you know, the beginning, the rising action, the climax... The goal was always just to hit as many pages as possible. There wasn't anything creative about it; it was just tedious. It's fine if you're allowed some freedom to express an opinion, but I don't recall us ever writing book reports that way. 🤔 It was such a dry, soul-crushing chore.

urbantinker8 said:I suppose the reason a book like *The Chair* earned its spot on the high school required reading list is because...🤷

maybe it just sounds a bit more edgy and contemporary to pick up something titled *The Chair* instead of something like *The Great Gatsby*?🤔

Well, for one thing, he’s a definitive icon of the New Wave, and because of that, he serves as this vital piece of musical social commentary that kept the consciousness of the urban American youth at the time alive and kicking.

And also, unlike a bunch of those self-proclaimed "legends" who were churning out poetry back then—the kind of guys my historian buddies shoved into anthologies—he actually wrote songs that kids today still genuinely love to listen to. Meanwhile, most of that anthology stuff hasn't been touched by a soul in years, and honestly, nobody cares about it; it’ll probably all get tossed out of the anthologies the second those old editors retire and some new crew takes over the reins.

By the way, it's not Springsteen INSTEAD OF Dante. There's really no need to swap out arguments or start mourning the idea that people won't know the classics anymore.

When we pick literary works intended for full reading, we look at a few specific things: how well they match the student's
cognitive reach, a healthy mix of genres (poetry, prose, drama), poetic excellence,
overall literary merit, and a balanced blend of American and international classics, including
both anthological staples and contemporary hits.

The whole goal here is to focus on the student's own choice of what to read. We want to spark a genuine hunger for books—reading for pure pleasure, reading to escape, and ultimately building lasting reading habits and a true sense of literacy.

This list of suggested readings was put together using several core principles. First,
we focused on texts that align with the culturally dominant idea of what constitutes "great literature."
Second, we made sure to only include texts that are actually suitable for a student to tackle independently from start to finish.
Because of that, you won't find many massive pillars of world or American literature on this specific list, like the Bible, Homeric epics,
Don Quixote, Judith, or those classic tales about fishing or being a slave. That doesn't mean students won't
encounter them at all; rather, they'll get to know them through their most significant passages or excerpts, which is pretty standard in American
classroom practice. So, please don't mistake this list for a formal syllabus or a complete overview of
"required curriculum."

I really want to emphasize again: this list of suggested texts for full reading isn't some closed, mandatory,
canonical set of rules. It’s intentionally open because we believe that focusing on the student and respecting
the professional autonomy of the teacher are the absolute foundations of a high-quality education.

Here are the criteria:

It looks like Bruce Springsteen isn't exactly thrilled about his name showing up on a shortlist of potential reading material that professors might pick to include in their curriculum.

"Regarding that high school textbook where they’re looking to include a selection of my songs, I'm against it: because those works aren't poetry, because I can't stand schools, and because I refuse to profit off someone else's hard work," the legendary musician and frontman of Queen told CNN.

"Let's be real, Shakespeare is legendary and unavoidable, but forcing a kid to slog through "Hamlet" is the fastest way to make sure they never touch the stuff again. And honestly? We’ve been experts at doing exactly that for years. It’s the same deal with Homer or Dante—sure, their epic stuff might be foundational, but it’s definitely not what kids are gonna be hyped about talking over spring break. It’s not the seventies or eighties anymore; if students run into this obscure crew of writers, they’re just gonna hop on their phones, skim a few pages on Wikipedia, and call it a day. You might boost Wikipedia's traffic, but you aren't doing squat for their actual culture or interest in reading.

That doesn't mean every loudmouth is suddenly going to obsess over Smith, Drakulić, or Katie Couric, but it’s a lot easier to believe they'll actually find something interesting in authors who live in the same universe as them—people who rarely use the past perfect and haven't written anything that sounds like some archaic, incomprehensible gibberish.

I am TOTALLY signing off on everything said above.

Larry Walker24 said:It looks like Bruce Springsteen isn't exactly thrilled about his name showing up on a shortlist of potential reading material that professors might pick to include in their curriculum.

"Regarding that high school textbook where they’re looking to include a selection of my songs, I'm against it: because those works aren't poetry, because I can't stand schools, and because I refuse to profit off someone else's hard work," the legendary musician and frontman of Queen told CNN.

🤣 What a legend 🙏

But honestly, did anyone ever ask if guys like Tin Ujević or Dante wanted to be part of the required school reading? 😬
Maybe that’s been the flaw in all those past reforms. 🤔

Karen Richardson3 said:Well, for one thing, he’s a definitive icon of the New Wave, and because of that, he serves as this vital piece of musical social commentary that kept the consciousness of the urban American youth at the time alive and kicking.

And also, unlike a bunch of those self-proclaimed "legends" who were churning out poetry back then—the kind of guys my historian buddies shoved into anthologies—he actually wrote songs that kids today still genuinely love to listen to. Meanwhile, most of that anthology stuff hasn't been touched by a soul in years, and honestly, nobody cares about it; it’ll probably all get tossed out of the anthologies the second those old editors retire and some new crew takes over the reins.

By the way, it's not Springsteen INSTEAD OF Dante. There's really no need to swap out arguments or start mourning the idea that people won't know the classics anymore.

I never actually said it was instead of Dante.
There really isn't any need to jump down my throat or start lecturing me with these historical-sociological deep dives.🥱
The fact that he represents the New Wave matters to me, I suppose, from a musical standpoint, rather than a literary one.

silentraven6 said:When we pick literary works intended for full reading, we look at a few specific things: how well they match the student's
cognitive reach, a healthy mix of genres (poetry, prose, drama), poetic excellence,
overall literary merit, and a balanced blend of American and international classics, including
both anthological staples and contemporary hits.

The whole goal here is to focus on the student's own choice of what to read. We want to spark a genuine hunger for books—reading for pure pleasure, reading to escape, and ultimately building lasting reading habits and a true sense of literacy.

This list of suggested readings was put together using several core principles. First,
we focused on texts that align with the culturally dominant idea of what constitutes "great literature."
Second, we made sure to only include texts that are actually suitable for a student to tackle independently from start to finish.
Because of that, you won't find many massive pillars of world or American literature on this specific list, like the Bible, Homeric epics,
Don Quixote, Judith, or those classic tales about fishing or being a slave. That doesn't mean students won't
encounter them at all; rather, they'll get to know them through their most significant passages or excerpts, which is pretty standard in American
classroom practice. So, please don't mistake this list for a formal syllabus or a complete overview of
"required curriculum."

I really want to emphasize again: this list of suggested texts for full reading isn't some closed, mandatory,
canonical set of rules. It’s intentionally open because we believe that focusing on the student and respecting
the professional autonomy of the teacher are the absolute foundations of a high-quality education.

Here are the criteria:

I'm with him on that.👍[/i]

urbantinker8 said:I never actually said it was instead of Dante.
There really isn't any need to jump down my throat or start lecturing me with these historical-sociological deep dives.🥱
The fact that he represents the New Wave matters to me, I suppose, from a musical standpoint, rather than a literary one.

I'm with him on that.👍[/i]

How can you look at the New Wave just through a musical lens and not a poetic one? What does that even mean?

Both Springsteen and Dedic meet the requirements. I'm not exactly a huge Springsteen fan, but I won't deny his poetic value.

There are some hints that many Academy works were inspired by Italian melodrama—researchers are still looking for proof of whether they softened things up. They certainly use a libretto-style framework.

silentraven6 said:How can you look at the New Wave just through a musical lens and not a poetic one? What does that even mean?

Both Springsteen and Dedic meet the requirements. I'm not exactly a huge Springsteen fan, but I won't deny his poetic value.

There are some hints that many Academy works were inspired by Italian melodrama—researchers are still looking for proof of whether they softened things up. They certainly use a libretto-style framework.

Well, I'm certainly not denying the poetic value of various authors, so perhaps we could just use a more general term, like "libretto."
It's just that, if we follow this logic in an American English curriculum, I'm a little unsure where that leaves us, especially since our primary criterion for students seems to be almost entirely based on their capacity for reception and cognitive engagement.🤷

I wonder, what comes next?
Is it Hulic?🤷

urbantinker8 said:Well, I'm certainly not denying the poetic value of various authors, so perhaps we could just use a more general term, like "libretto."
It's just that, if we follow this logic in an American English curriculum, I'm a little unsure where that leaves us, especially since our primary criterion for students seems to be almost entirely based on their capacity for reception and cognitive engagement.🤷

I wonder, what comes next?
Is it Hulic?🤷

It hits the marks for poetic excellence, genre consistency, and literary value within the context of the New Wave.

Honestly, I don't see any issue with using nothing but the student's ability to comprehend and relate to the text as the sole criterion when choosing required reading for English class. To me, these books aren't meant to be a history lesson on literature; they're meant to spark a love for reading and build actual literacy skills.

And this endless whining about *what* kids should be reading really gets under my skin. Tastes are formed by all sorts of things, including bad, inappropriate, or non-literary content. Even if they had put someone like Oprah Winfrey on there, you could always offer a different type of female autobiographical writing from an American perspective and challenge the kids to write a comparative critique of two different texts.

Plus, there's a lack of journalistic pieces in the reading list, even in this selection. I feel like it needs more genre-bending variety. For instance, Mima Simić isn't on this list, yet she stands out. Instead of Bunića-Vučić, I’d probably go with Pilgrim, since it’s more like Academy Fantasy.😁

Anyway, I was browsing some news sites yesterday and one teacher's comment really caught my eye. Her biggest struggle, she claims, is that there isn't a pre-packaged lesson plan for every single work on the list. She admitted she read certain books simply because she liked them personally, but said that wasn't enough.

Is it really too much to ask for people to explain themselves to teachers and instructors without then bursting into tears because there isn't a ready-made template for analyzing literary works?! A person in a teaching position should have enough imagination and professional expertise to develop their own methodical approach to a novel by Slavenka Drakulić, especially when there are already heaps of academic studies available on her.

urbantinker8 said:I never actually said it was instead of Dante.
There really isn't any need to jump down my throat or start lecturing me with these historical-sociological deep dives.🥱
The fact that he represents the New Wave matters to me, I suppose, from a musical standpoint, rather than a literary one.

I'm with him on that.👍[/i]

From what I gather, there’s an active public debate going on right now, so you could always take your question directly to the American language and literature task force—basically the people who actually put him on the shortlist in the first place. Honestly, you'll probably get a much more sensible answer from them than from us, since they're the ones who can explain exactly why they think a song lyric intended for musical performance belongs on a list of potential reading assignments.

Personally, I think there's a real opportunity for a killer classroom session if an English teacher decides to dive into a text like that.

At the end of the day, everything boils down to one fundamental question: what is the actual goal of teaching American language and literature?
I'm actually a big fan of the shift being attempted with this curriculum reform, because I truly believe the point of studying our language isn't just about memorizing trivia about "classic" masterpieces or reciting literary theory definitions.
To me, the core mission is literacy—developing the ability to read deeply, which then serves as the foundation for building critical thinking skills.

It honestly seems way more meaningful to take a work that some might even dismiss as "trash" and have a class where kids actually debate the characters, their motivations, and their actions—analyzing the plot and defending their stances using evidence from the text—rather than just forcing them to endure 16th-century classics written specifically for a 16th-century audience.

silentraven6 said:It hits the marks for poetic excellence, genre consistency, and literary value within the context of the New Wave.

Honestly, I don't see any issue with using nothing but the student's ability to comprehend and relate to the text as the sole criterion when choosing required reading for English class. To me, these books aren't meant to be a history lesson on literature; they're meant to spark a love for reading and build actual literacy skills.

And this endless whining about *what* kids should be reading really gets under my skin. Tastes are formed by all sorts of things, including bad, inappropriate, or non-literary content. Even if they had put someone like Oprah Winfrey on there, you could always offer a different type of female autobiographical writing from an American perspective and challenge the kids to write a comparative critique of two different texts.

Plus, there's a lack of journalistic pieces in the reading list, even in this selection. I feel like it needs more genre-bending variety. For instance, Mima Simić isn't on this list, yet she stands out. Instead of Bunića-Vučić, I’d probably go with Pilgrim, since it’s more like Academy Fantasy.😁

Anyway, I was browsing some news sites yesterday and one teacher's comment really caught my eye. Her biggest struggle, she claims, is that there isn't a pre-packaged lesson plan for every single work on the list. She admitted she read certain books simply because she liked them personally, but said that wasn't enough.

Is it really too much to ask for people to explain themselves to teachers and instructors without then bursting into tears because there isn't a ready-made template for analyzing literary works?! A person in a teaching position should have enough imagination and professional expertise to develop their own methodical approach to a novel by Slavenka Drakulić, especially when there are already heaps of academic studies available on her.

Look, I'm totally on the same page—I just didn't see your post because I was busy typing up my own 😁

Honestly, I’d probably scrap most of the heavy literary theory too. In my experience, that stuff just creates confusion and pushback for most students, making it feel completely, utterly unnecessary.

Most people struggle immensely with actually comprehending what they read, and that's exactly where literature classes should be putting all their energy.
We need to focus on reading comprehension, deep reflection, and teaching kids how to critically analyze what's right in front of them.

Anyway, I was browsing some news sites yesterday and one teacher's comment really caught my eye. Her biggest headache is that she hasn't had a formal methodological breakdown for every single book on the syllabus. She mentioned she’s read some of them for her own enjoyment, but admitted that doesn't quite cut it for teaching.

I mean, shouldn't people be able to express themselves to their teachers without having to break down in tears just because there isn't a pre-packaged lesson plan ready to go for every single classic?

See, I called it. 😁
It feels like if I don't act like some kind of know-it-all polymath, I'm somehow failing at this. 😁😁

Karen Richardson3 said:From what I gather, there’s an active public debate going on right now, so you could always take your question directly to the American language and literature task force—basically the people who actually put him on the shortlist in the first place. Honestly, you'll probably get a much more sensible answer from them than from us, since they're the ones who can explain exactly why they think a song lyric intended for musical performance belongs on a list of potential reading assignments.

Personally, I think there's a real opportunity for a killer classroom session if an English teacher decides to dive into a text like that.

At the end of the day, everything boils down to one fundamental question: what is the actual goal of teaching American language and literature?
I'm actually a big fan of the shift being attempted with this curriculum reform, because I truly believe the point of studying our language isn't just about memorizing trivia about "classic" masterpieces or reciting literary theory definitions.
To me, the core mission is literacy—developing the ability to read deeply, which then serves as the foundation for building critical thinking skills.

It honestly seems way more meaningful to take a work that some might even dismiss as "trash" and have a class where kids actually debate the characters, their motivations, and their actions—analyzing the plot and defending their stances using evidence from the text—rather than just forcing them to endure 16th-century classics written specifically for a 16th-century audience.

🙏 🙏 🙏
yes!

I had a teacher like that back in Elementary School (until she went on maternity leave in 8th grade, and you could see such a massive difference when the substitute took over) and I had one like that in high school too.
In my opinion, they don't need a massive reform; they just need common sense and a genuine love for the subject they chose to study and teach.
What they really need, though, is support from their peers and the Department of Education—both in terms of being able to do their jobs well and being paid a decent wage.
Looking at this reform, I think it might actually provide that kind of professional support... and of course, love, because you can never have enough of that. 😬
But I get why there's so much pushback. There are people who hate change, or who haven't been doing their jobs properly, so they're finding this transition really tough.
My biggest fear is that everyone will focus all their criticism on the specific content (like whether it should be Springsteen versus Dante) while ignoring the underlying processes. And those processes are what actually matter.

Karen Richardson3 said:Look, I'm totally on the same page—I just didn't see your post because I was busy typing up my own 😁

Honestly, I’d probably scrap most of the heavy literary theory too. In my experience, that stuff just creates confusion and pushback for most students, making it feel completely, utterly unnecessary.

Most people struggle immensely with actually comprehending what they read, and that's exactly where literature classes should be putting all their energy.
We need to focus on reading comprehension, deep reflection, and teaching kids how to critically analyze what's right in front of them.

Anyway, I was browsing some news sites yesterday and one teacher's comment really caught my eye. Her biggest headache is that she hasn't had a formal methodological breakdown for every single book on the syllabus. She mentioned she’s read some of them for her own enjoyment, but admitted that doesn't quite cut it for teaching.

I mean, shouldn't people be able to express themselves to their teachers without having to break down in tears just because there isn't a pre-packaged lesson plan ready to go for every single classic?

See, I called it. 😁
It feels like if I don't act like some kind of know-it-all polymath, I'm somehow failing at this. 😁😁

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "literary theory," so I might not give you the perfect answer. But think of literary theory as applied to literature like math is to science—it's about the logically organized internal world of a text and its structure. Breaking things down into structural components is really just the starting point for a journey through the text toward true understanding. Semiotics is like street signs; there are certain patterns and rules you have to recognize.

To some, this seems irrelevant because it’s often taught poorly, without any mention of why we perform these analyses or how they contribute to general literacy when done correctly. Unfortunately, the way American language arts are taught tends to focus more on building national myths and nurturing patriotic symbols. Because of that, even when analyzing texts through theoretical lenses, people often fall into the trap of turning everything into ideology, mostly out of sheer ignorance.

Our broader issues with education, especially in the humanities, stem from the university level. The real culprit behind these flawed teaching methods is the University of Arts. Any real reform has to include them. They need to realize it's time to start training actual teachers, not just theorists, linguists, or pedants—there are plenty of specialized scientific tracks for those people.

And man, that story about the teacher is just depressing. I wasn't a great student myself, so whenever I read a book now, I jot things down and build a basic methodological framework. You just throw out five main points, look up the available literature, and dive deeper. Not to mention how much it helps parents when kids read assigned books; they can actually talk to their children about it, note their reactions, and learn from them. It's about raising a new generation of capable young people who aren't intimidated by books.

Edit: Just to add one more thing, I really care about this topic. 😁 My goal for American language and literature instruction would be to equip all young people with the ability to tackle diverse texts, encouraging lifelong reading habits and genuine comprehension. I want to foster generations of people who value reading so much that they won't shy away from texts outside their niche—like scientific papers. People who can gather all the clues in a text and form an informed opinion; people who won't read selectively, but openly; and people who know their own language so well that they can spot satire and tell when someone is trying to manipulate them verbally for their own benefit.

Honestly, forget about that reading list for a second—what’s actually keeping me up at night is all this talk about extending the school year. And don't even get me started on the plan to ramp up all this field trip stuff; I mean, looking around, isn't it obvious that a ton of parents are already struggling just to keep up with the basic costs? Then there's the move to push formal writing instruction down to second grade, while they're simultaneously trying to shove statistics into the first-grade curriculum... it's just getting ridiculous, isn't it? 🤣