School Reform: Thoughts?

Could someone please just give me the bottom line? I honestly don't have the energy to wade through this entire thread—are they actually introducing a standardized middle school exam or entrance tests for high school?
Because if they aren't, none of this really matters. As long as the focus for students in grades 6 through 8 remains strictly on their report card grades, we haven't changed anything. This whole idea of "flexibility" might actually end up widening the inequality gap, since an 'A' in one district won't mean nearly the same thing as an 'A' in another when it comes to actual knowledge and comprehension.
I feel like once kids realize they can just coast with a 'C' or a 'B' in subjects they find boring or difficult, they’ll stop pushing themselves. People love to make such a huge drama out of getting into vocational schools, but maybe if there were more accountability, students would actually find the motivation to dive into something they truly enjoy. Until then, they're just going to take the path of least resistance to avoid a bad grade—which, if I'm being honest, is actually pretty logical behavior given how the current system is set up.

Chloe Roberts2 said:And who exactly gets to decide what makes a work valuable? It's all subjective anyway.

The whole point of required reading is to get kids to actually read, not necessarily to lecture them. Besides, you develop recursive thinking through the act of reading itself.
That's why reading matters. As for anyone claiming there's a translation out there, I haven't been able to find one.

Here's an article from West Georgia. http://www.westga.edu/~mmcfar/The%20Role%20of%20Active%20Reading.htm

Active reading is recursive—it's a process where the reader circles back to territory they've already covered to reach a deeper, more thorough interpretation (128). Since producing decent literary criticism relies on being a decent reader, this is precisely the kind of skilled reading we need to cultivate during this course.

Well, yeah, it is subjective, I guess, though there might be some sort of criteria involved.
you can't just toss random authors into a canon simply because they happen to be trending right now.

Or maybe you can.🤷

Sarah Hall53 said:Honestly, I’m the type of person who spends every single winter day 50 miles trudging along icy sidewalks, so you wouldn't believe how much I love it when we get a sudden snow day. It’s such a relief not having to carry my head around in a bag just to stay warm.
But, if I’m being real, working with kids in the winter is actually way easier than during the summer—you know, when their brains basically melt from the heat. And let’s face it, those summer heatwaves are way more frequent and unbearable than the cold. (Then again, if they’d just install AC in every single classroom—especially in that cursed glass hallway where my lungs feel like they're burning the second I step out of an air-conditioned room—I might actually consider working all summer instead of begging for a break in the winter. ☕ But we all know we won't see AC in these classrooms until pigs fly, especially since at one school I practically have to beg for every single piece of chalk ☕ )

And what about you, buddy? 🙂

As for the snow... I remember times when classes were actually canceled because of it.
there was once a week where school just didn't happen (the last time I recall that happening was back in 2013, I think.).
on the other hand, I don't think a single hour of class has ever been canceled because of the heat.

I mean, seriously, what are we even doing here? Is anyone else just staring at this absolute wreck of a situation, wondering if we’ve all collectively lost our minds? It’s like looking at a total rhino—just this massive, heavy-handed, unstoppable force charging blindly through the room without a single thought for who it’s going to trample in its path. You know the type, right? Just pure, unadulterated chaos wrapped up in a thick skin. Honestly, does anyone actually have a plan, or are we all just waiting to get knocked over by the sheer momentum of this madness? kaže:
Man, what a massive oversight on the part of these reformers; did they even bother to check which climate zone the US is actually sitting in? 🙄

Honestly, it really is... this is just one of those situations where they’re trying to force everyone down a path by sheer brute strength, basically following that whole "everyone gets a slice regardless of whether they earned it" mentality. You know the type? Just pushing through with zero regard for logic.
By the time May rolls around, the sunshine starts hitting kids right in the head, you know? They just lose that ability to focus entirely. Honestly, summer school is basically a guaranteed way for them to tank their grades, isn't it? And when you throw this brutal heatwave into the mix on top of that, you've got the perfect recipe for disaster. It’s like the ultimate setup for parents to just go off on their kids for doing absolutely nothing right.
And honestly, don't even get me started on those daily treks to and from school during that time of year when every single news station is freaking out about the UV index... I mean, can you imagine? It’s just one more thing to worry about while you're trying to get through the day.

So, what exactly did we actually get out of all that? Seriously, what was the payoff?
It’s finally time for those field trips, isn't it? Though let's be real—half the kids won't even show up because their parents can't swing the cost. Whether people want to admit it or not, most families out there are just barely scraping by, trying to make ends meet every single day. And honestly, what is all this? Every little excursion, every guided tour, every "educational" outing... it’s nothing more than a massive cash grab for the travel agencies.

Even with this weather being such a disaster, trying to push through school feels like an uphill battle. Honestly, there’s zero point in extending the academic year at this stage. What on earth would we even gain from it?

urbantinker8 said:Well, yeah, it is subjective, I guess, though there might be some sort of criteria involved.
you can't just toss random authors into a canon simply because they happen to be trending right now.

Or maybe you can.🤷

And what about you, buddy? 🙂

As for the snow... I remember times when classes were actually canceled because of it.
there was once a week where school just didn't happen (the last time I recall that happening was back in 2013, I think.).
on the other hand, I don't think a single hour of class has ever been canceled because of the heat.

On average, Americans read less than one book a year. In fact, fewer than half of Americans even pick up a book at all. What am I supposed to say? It is what it is.

Classics like Homer and Shakespeare will eventually get read, along with other essential literary works, during summer reading sessions.
This list is basically just standard required reading. Students should be allowed to choose what they actually enjoy based on their own interests—just like any real book lover would. I mean, why should anyone else get to decide how I spend my free time?

The whole point here is to try and boost the literacy levels of students and future generations.

The people obsessing over these specific titles are just trivia buffs. At the end of the day, they're the only ones actually gaining anything from this. There.

Larry Walker24 said:How are you guys covering the death of Smail ego Čengić?

My high school English teacher used to argue that Njegos actually wrote the death of Ismail Aga Cengic.

Supposedly, Njegos gave the work to Mazuranica to read, but he ended up stealing it, altering it, and then publishing it after his passing.

There’s some info regarding this in the letters of Ljube Nenadovic.

Whether it was true or not, we always listened intently because of that theory...😉

silentraven6 said:

I don't really know what to make of this one yet. It feels like there's more to the story, but I'm just sitting here trying to process it all. Honestly, it’s a lot to take in. kaže:
The way things have been handled up until now—and honestly, I suspect they’ll stay that way—is that high school English classes basically function as a chronological tour through literary history. The focus tends to land on those massive, foundational works that actually shifted the needle or introduced a major new movement. The general philosophy seems to be that for the average student, it’s enough to walk away from the class having grasped the core essentials of each work: you know, the basic themes, the main motifs, and just enough literary theory to make sense of the structure.

I really think the core idea here should be that, as a society, we need to master the basics: being able to actually write in our own language and truly understand what we’re reading. Beyond just the mechanics, though, there's this vital awareness that every single piece of literature is its own unique universe. An author's work isn't some static thing; interpretation and how we experience a story are entirely subjective. To me, that’s where the magic happens—diving into those different perspectives and debating the world within a book. It’s honestly such a blast because those discussions open up endless possibilities, all stemming from our own messy, diverse characters and life experiences.

Honestly, I think a meaningful, well-argued debate—you know, like being tasked to write an essay breaking down specific parts of the text—about the positive or negative traits of Bella’s character in Twilight would be way more valuable than just memorizing a bunch of random bullet points about Fishing and fishing regulations. It feels pointless when a student can just Google the answers and find exactly what they need in seconds. Fishing and Fisherman’s Complaints I was just revisiting this classic piece about Fishing, and honestly, it hits much differently when you really sit with it. It’s one of those stories that feels like it could have been written yesterday because human nature doesn't change all that much, does it? We love to complain, even when things are actually going pretty well. The whole premise centers on this guy who is out on the water, and instead of just enjoying the peace or being grateful for whatever he catches, he spends his entire time grumbling about how unfair everything is. It’s that universal human tendency to focus on the one thing that went wrong rather than the thousand things that went right. You know the type—the person who wins the lottery but complains the ticket was slightly wrinkled. It makes me think about how often we do this in our own lives here in the States. We get a promotion at work, but we immediately start stressing about the longer commute. We land a great house in a nice suburb, but then we spend all weekend complaining about the HOA rules. We’re experts at finding the friction in an otherwise smooth ride. There’s something deeply humbling about the way the story handles the fisherman's attitude. It forces you to look in the mirror and ask: "Am I being the person who appreciates the catch, or am I the one complaining about the weight of the net?" It’s a heavy read, but in a quiet, necessary kind of way. It’s less about the act of Fishing itself and more about the internal struggle to find contentment in a world that constantly gives us reasons to be dissatisfied. Definitely worth a reread if you're feeling a bit cynical lately. Then you’ve got to learn how to actually recite it. I mean, it’s an epic poem that functions like a travelogue, weaving in quotes and verses from all sorts of other works. On top of that, the whole thing is written in these double-rhymed dodecasyllables. It's pretty intense stuff once you get into the rhythm of it.
I honestly don't know if this is how the experts say it should be done, but then again, how are you even supposed to identify which students are actually capable of pulling out the "essential data"? Some kids might just breeze right past those key moments thinking they aren't important. To me, though, it feels like we're just stripping the soul out of literature—turning everything into this completely sterile, lifeless exercise.

Look, I might be completely off base here—and honestly, I could be totally wrong—but I just don't see how forcing students to memorize this kind of granular data about a text actually helps their literacy. How does knowing these specific details contribute to them actually becoming better readers?
Back in high school, I was definitely one of those students who lived for the literature discussions—you know, getting lost in deep dives about character arcs, symbolism, and overarching themes. But when it came to this kind of raw data? Forget it. I’d probably cram all that info the night before an exam and then completely flush it from my brain the second I handed in my paper.
Look, I mean, let's be real here—it’s just plain easier to grade a test when you're actually hunting for "correct answers" within it. I don't know... maybe that's exactly where the problem lies? 🤷

This kind of insight is absolutely vital for anyone who actually makes a living through literature. Students rarely truly internalize the material; instead, they just end up memorizing raw data that feels like total abstraction to most of them. I mean, I could at least wrap my head around it if we were being asked to count syllables or figure out rhyme schemes ourselves, but that’s not how it usually works. It’s just handed to you on a silver platter by the teacher. At least in my experience, it was always just some set of terms the professor would scribble on the chalkboard while we sat there mindlessly copying everything into our notebooks.

That’s exactly why we’re seeing this shift where students don't actually read anymore—they just memorize summaries and bullet points. Honestly, if anything, it's just clear proof that this entire style of teaching is fundamentally broken.
Books are starting to feel like empty shells. Honestly, there’s just no substance left in that kind of approach anymore.
It’s actually pretty common to see students pull off an A in English class without ever having cracked open a single book.

Why do people even bother writing books in the first place? Is it so that someone else can pick them up, see their own lives reflected on the page, and maybe walk away with some heavy questions or a few much-needed answers? Or is the ultimate goal just to land on a high school reading list, forcing students to memorize a bunch of bullet points about a character's traits just so they can scrape by on an exam?

I have the exact same complaints when it comes to language arts classes. Honestly, they could strip the entire curriculum down to nothing but grammar and spelling, and it would still be an improvement. At least then we’d actually graduate people who know how to correctly spell basic things like "don't know," "flower," "house," or "doubt." 😁

Daisy, let’s start with the language aspect. You’re honestly off base there. It’s not like anyone struggles to just Google spelling rules nowadays, but true literacy isn't built on some arbitrary consensus of rules—it's built on actual grammar.

The thing is, most people don't even grasp this, let alone have the capacity to teach it properly... and look, I'm not trying to write a whole dissertation here 😁 but that's why I keep harping on the fact that the core of any reform lies with the people actually teaching it. And frankly, that sector is a mess right now.

As for the works by Hemingway, you really picked a perfect example. His stuff is an incredible model for how to approach methodical analysis and serves as a stellar roadmap for comparative study. 😁

I think you might be oversimplifying things because of some bad personal experiences. When it comes to meeting students halfway, giving them freedom, and opening up new perspectives, we aren't going to go so far as to reduce reading down to nothing more than raw emotion, character tropes, or ideological takes. To truly understand a text, you have to understand how it was constructed.

That’s not a field for amateurs. Being a true expert is a given. What a high schooler needs to know is how the paradigm shifts—how meter changes, how the influence of Latin fades, how literature opens up to the vernacular and develops new rhythms. And, of course, the "taste" of the era. You take that info, you count the syllables, and you work with what resonates with them today—like analyzing the rhythm in modern spoken-word poetry, for instance.

You shouldn't be radical about this. You need a deep command of the subject matter before you start throwing things out the window.

Oh, and of course they count syllables and learn rhyme. That's taught in a completely different way than just dictating rules and scribbling them on a chalkboard... though, seeing your take, it sounds like you didn't exactly have great teachers growing up.

I honestly have no idea what you're even trying to say right now.
English is just what we grew up speaking; it’s our mother tongue through and through.
You know, I’ve always felt that we pick up the rules of grammar almost like we're breathing—it just happens naturally while we're kids, sort of like how you learn to ride a bike or catch a baseball without ever actually reading a manual on physics. It’s all about intuition; you aren't sitting there with a textbook memorizing syntax, you're just absorbing the rhythm of how people talk until it becomes second nature.

Do you ever run into Americans living right here in the States who just can't seem to wrap their heads around basic grammar, like tripping over verb tenses or totally butchering how to decline a word?

I know every single English professor out there is convinced that every citizen needs a dedicated lesson on how to properly master the "jotation" sound, but honestly, it’s kind of funny when you think about it—every single person in this country was already nailing that pronunciation perfectly back when they were just toddlers.

It’s honestly pretty wild how much people still struggle with basic grammar and spelling in their own language. I’m talking about professionals with college degrees—people I deal with constantly in my day-to-day business dealings—who just can't seem to get it right. And don't even get me started on the kids scrolling through the internet all day; if the professionals can't manage it, we're really in trouble.

I honestly feel like what people really need to focus on is just being able to get their thoughts down on paper without making those sloppy mistakes. You know, the kind where you can tell someone didn't even bother to proofread? At the end of the day, grammar is more of an intuitive thing anyway—it’s like riding a bike or knowing how to carry a conversation; once you have a handle on the flow of the language, the rules sort of just click into place naturally.
I’m honestly not even sure if I’m following you anymore, because I can't wrap my head around where you're finding people who actually struggle with basic grammar in their own language.

Look, I know I tend to get a little carried away during these debates, but honestly, I just feel like we’re losing the plot. We really ought to be focusing on the actual substance of what's being said, rather than getting boggeduk in the weeds over technicalities like specific vowel shifts or the complex verb tenses of our native tongue. If we want to actually get somewhere, that's where the focus needs to be.

It’s not just about getting the spelling right, though; honestly, I feel like people struggle to even get their thoughts out of their heads and onto the page in a way that actually makes sense. To me, being truly fluent in a language means more than just following grammar rules—it's about having the ability to write anything at all, whether you're drafting a serious academic paper or just rambling on about some cheesy vampire novel you just finished reading.

When it comes to Hector, you really hit the nail on the head picking that specific work; it’s honestly such a perfect example of how deep methodological processing can go, and it serves as an incredible roadmap if anyone is looking to dive into some comparative analysis. 😁

Honestly, back when I was seventeen, none of that would have done anything for me. I really wouldn't have given a damn about some guy sailing around Santa Catalina with a couple of fishermen just to scribble down some poems.

Look, even though we’re working on stepping back, giving the students more breathing room, and trying to open their minds to different perspectives, I don't want us to fall into the trap of stripping reading down to nothing more than just raw emotion, character tropes, or political commentary. If we want them to actually grasp what a text is doing, they have to understand the mechanics behind it—you can't truly get the soul of a story without understanding how the actual architecture of the writing was built.

I honestly don't see that happening, because God forbid they actually admit that being an English professor is basically irrelevant to everyone else in the room who isn't trying to become one—and let's be real, in a class of thirty, there are probably twenty-nine kids who couldn't care less about it.

What high schoolers really need to grasp is that the whole foundation is shifting—we're talking about a total paradigm shift in how we handle things like hexameter or Latin. The way classical studies interact with the vernacular is changing, creating this entirely new kind of rhythmic flow. It’s all about catching the vibe of the era. Once you actually understand that, you can start playing around with syllable counts based on what people actually find appealing today, like taking modern recitative pieces and mapping out their rhythm to see how they stack up.

Regarding this whole situation, I honestly wouldn't go so far as to say that even a single student in a vocational school needs to be familiar with this stuff.

urbantinker8 said:Fine, but then just say it out loud: let's add this to the required reading list as an example of trash lit and let the kids debate it until they're blue in the face.👍
Instead of just haphazardly tossing in various "authors" without any real criteria or cohesive plan... just as examples of... nothing, really.
It seems like as long as it's modern and easy to digest, the actual value doesn't matter much.

🙏

...and let's not forget those summer makeup classes that would probably be held until August 1st in 105-degree weather.
We'll all just pass out from heatstroke, I suppose.🙄

I mean, personally, it doesn't matter too much to me since our board meetings always run until July 15th, so we're already sitting in a greenhouse at 95 degrees anyway, but imagine adding thirty students to a single room for five or six or seven hours a day in that heat...🙂

I’m not even sure if you actually sat down and looked at the reading list, or if you just saw a headline in some article claiming that someone like Bruce Springsteen is going to be in there.
Most of the books they've included are basically modern classics that actually hold weight.

Personally, I can't stand reading those old-school classics from centuries ago. I just don't care about them—the language feels exhausting, the themes feel totally foreign, and I can't relate to what's driving the characters. There's nothing in those old books that resonates with me at all.
But the thing is, that's exactly how most students feel too.

So, instead of actually reading the books, they just read SparkNotes.
And rather than admitting that, everyone plays pretend and acts like it isn't happening, because, let's be real, in a class of 30 kids, you'll probably have one kid who would actually major in English lit and wants to dive into *Paradise Lost*.
It doesn't matter if the other 29 aren't reading anything at all.
That's just great logic right there.
God forbid we approach it by saying, "Well, let that one kid read *Paradise Lost* on their own time or in college if they're actually into it."

Here's a great piece from a columnist on this exact topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/article/people-who-read...ponat/1534121/

Daisy, grammar isn't just about phonology and morphology. Honestly, I think the real struggle people face today is actually with syntax—maybe I didn't explain that clearly enough earlier.

Where am I running into this? In my work, specifically with the freelance gigs I'm picking up right now. 🤣

When I take on proofreading jobs, I rarely see papers that are truly bad in terms of spelling. It’s much less common than the absolute syntactic disasters I encounter. And I'm not talking about someone being "creative" with word order; I mean a total lack of understanding regarding case structures (which, honestly, is taught so poorly in our schools—the methods are just abysmal) and the tendency to force sentence structures from other languages into English. They just don't feel natural to the language, and they end up having the opposite effect of what was intended. Academic papers are particularly egregious; some of them are completely unreadable until I step in.

Spelling rules are also taught through grammar, though if I were in charge, I'd enforce much more order and cut out some of the nonsense.

Plus, hardly anyone seems to grasp our idiomatic expressions anymore. I run into all sorts of awkward constructions.

I won't get sidetracked discussing literature right now because that's a huge detour. There are ways to connect the material to vocational training in trade schools, depending on the field. This specific thread shouldn't be about dissecting every little example, can we agree on that? If you're interested, feel free to DM me and I'll share some of my methodological ideas involving Walt Whitman, assuming you don't mind waiting until I deal with these current bugs and obligations. 😁

From what I've gathered—though I haven't done a deep dive into the curriculum reforms for my subject yet—there's going to be major pushback from professionals. If these reforms are as great as they claim, the focus will shift toward practical application rather than just rote memorization. That’s something the subject hasn't really dealt with before, since it used to be rooted mostly in historical overviews and dry facts. Now, I'm curious to see how the national standardized tests will adapt to this change; that could be really interesting to watch.

As someone who doesn't know much about this stuff, I’d say that everything you mentioned boils down to one thing: reading. It’s just constant reading, over and over.
I honestly find it hard to wrap my head around how someone could breeze through two or three books a month and still struggle with basic American syntax or common idioms.
Plus, I’m not sure how you’d even begin to "teach" that in a standard American English class.🤷

I suppose I should probably mention Miss Daisy, though I’m not entirely sure where to start with her, really. It’s one of those things that feels like it needs a bit of context, if you follow me, because just dropping her name doesn't quite capture the whole picture, I guess. She has this way about her—it's hard to pin down, maybe a little bit whimsical, perhaps a little bit weary too, depending on how you look at it. I was thinking about it the other day while I was sitting around, and it struck me how much she reminds me of those old characters you see in classic Americana films, the kind that don't say much but somehow carry the entire weight of the scene just by existing in it. It’s a strange feeling, isn't it? To be reminded of someone through a mere thought, almost like a lingering scent or a song you can't quite shake. I don't mean to ramble, truly, but there's a certain gravity to her presence that makes you want to slow down and actually consider things for once, which is a rare thing in this fast-paced world we've built for ourselves. Anyway, that's just my two cents, I suppose. kaže:
I guess you’re asking if I know any Americans who struggle with proper grammar or maybe trip up on their verb tenses? It’s funny how that works, because I feel like everyone runs into someone like that eventually, though I suppose it depends on how much you pay attention to the way people actually speak in everyday life. Maybe some folks just haven't quite mastered the nuances of the language, or perhaps they're just in such a rush that the rules don't seem to matter all that much to them, which I guess is pretty common. I don't really have anyone specific in mind, but it seems like there's always someone around who might get a little tangled up in their own sentences.

Sure thing.
Wait, weren't you the one? I mean, I could be mistaken, I guess, but I had this vague feeling that it was actually you, though I might just be misremembering how we left things. 😕
Starting with those folks from the Midwest who always seem to talk about themselves in the third person... I guess I was thinking about the radio earlier, or maybe just the concept of it, though I suppose that’s a bit of a stretch. It’s funny how much things change, isn't it? You sit there, maybe in a car somewhere in the Midwest or just idling in a driveway in a quiet suburb, and you realize how much we rely on those frequencies just to feel like there's someone else out there, even if it's just some DJ in a studio in Chicago playing a song you barely recognize. It’s a strange, almost meditative way to pass the time, listening to the static and the signal drift, wondering if anyone else is tuning in at the exact same moment. It makes me think about how we used to consume everything, more deliberately, I suppose, whereas now it all feels so fragmented and immediate. But then again, maybe I'm overthinking the whole thing., I suppose I saw it, if you could call that a thing., I suppose I’ve been sitting here thinking about things, drifting through various ideas and little fragments of thought, though I can't quite pin down exactly what triggered it all. It feels like one of those moments where everything just sort of hangs in the air, maybe a bit nebulous, perhaps just a collection of wandering reflections that don't necessarily lead to a grand conclusion, but they exist nonetheless.I guess you occasionally run into people from certain parts of the country who just haven't quite mastered sibilance, which leads to all sorts of phonetic confusion and odd pronunciations. I guess you could say it’s right there in the palm of your hand. I guess I’m just sitting here thinking about how things could go either way, or maybe it’s just one thing or the other, though sometimes it feels like there isn't much of a choice at all, really. It’s funny how we frame everything as an "either/or" situation when, in reality, life is usually a messy middle ground that we try to force into neat little boxes, which probably doesn't help anyone, but I suppose that's just how we're wired, I guess. on footI guess I should probably mention that things over in Seattle feel a bit different lately, though maybe I’m just overthinking it. It’s funny how you can live in a place for so long and then suddenly notice the subtle shifts in the atmosphere, almost like a slow tide coming in. I was thinking about that the other day while grabbing coffee, and it occurred to me that everything is constantly in flux, isn't it? Not that I'm saying anything specific is wrong, per se, it’s more just an observation on how much things change when you aren't looking directly at them. Anyway, I might be rambling, but it seems like we're all just navigating these little transitions together.😉 I guess I'm just wondering who exactly is doing the greeting here. I guess I’m just thinking about everyone, all of them, really. I mean, I suppose it’s really aimed at those folks who aren't quite sure yet, right? I guess I’ve been staring at this car for a while now, and I can't quite decide if it's actually decent or just... something. It’s hard to say, really. Maybe I’m just overthinking the whole thing, but there's a certain vibe to it that feels a bit ambiguous. I suppose it could work, depending on what you're looking for, though I have my doubts. I suppose I should probably start by saying that I’m not entirely sure how to frame this, or if there is even a point in bringing it up at all, but I’ve been sitting here thinking about that whole "either/or" dilemma we were discussing earlier. It’s funny, in a way, how we tend to get stuck in these rigid binaries when life rarely seems to function that way, though I guess that’s just human nature, isn't it? Maybe I’m overthinking things, which I know is a bit of a habit of mine, but there’s something about the way we weigh options—like choosing between two equally frustrating paths—that feels so incredibly familiar. It’s almost like being caught between a rock and a hard place, or perhaps more accurately, trying to decide between two different flavors of the same headache. I don't really have a definitive stance on it, and I certainly wouldn't want to claim I do, but I find myself wondering if the middle ground isn't actually where the most interesting stuff happens. Anyway, that's just a wandering thought, I suppose. I guess this car... maybe it's worth a look, though I can't say for sure..
I suppose there might be an example regarding exports, if you're looking for one.
It doesn't really matter if someone claims they only use that casual style when they're hanging out at home, I guess, because those little slips and mistakes tend to bleed into everything else anyway, even when they're trying to be professional or drafting some formal memo for work.

I suppose I should probably mention Miss Daisy, though I’m not entirely sure where to begin with her, really. It’s one of those things that feels like it needs a bit of context, I guess, because she isn't exactly someone you can just categorize without some hesitation. She has this way about her—it's hard to pin down, maybe—where everything feels a bit more deliberate than it actually is, if that makes any sense. I was thinking about it the other day while I was grabbing a coffee over in Seattle, and it struck me how much she reminds me of certain old-school characters you see in classic Americana films, the kind that don't quite fit the modern tempo of things. It’s a strange sort of presence, I suppose, somewhat quiet but somehow impossible to ignore once you’ve actually noticed her. I might be overthinking it, though; I have a tendency to do that, which I know people have pointed out before. Regardless, there's just something about her essence that lingers, in a very subtle, unassuming way. kaže:
I'm not entirely sure if you actually sat down to go through the reading list, or if maybe you just caught a headline somewhere claiming that Brill would be featured in there.
I guess you could say that pretty much everything on this list is a modern classic, so they all probably have some level of actual value if you think about it.

I mean, obviously I went through the list.
I don't know, I guess the whole phrase "modern classic" just feels a little bit... off to me, if that makes sense. It’s one of those terms that gets thrown around so much lately that it almost loses its weight, you know? It feels like people use it when they can't quite decide if something is actually good or if it’s just trendy, so they settle on this middle ground that doesn't really mean anything at all. Maybe I'm just being picky, but there's something about the way it's tossed around in reviews and marketing that feels a bit hollow, like it's trying too hard to sound important without actually committing to being either truly modern or truly classic. I suppose it's just a thought.😵
I suppose there’s a certain argument to be made that you really need a bit of distance—a decent stretch of time, at least—before you can truly wrap your head around the actual artistic value of a piece of work. It’s like, maybe we just don't have the perspective yet, I guess, because everything feels so immediate and loud right now, whereas time has this way of filtering out all the temporary noise and leaving only what actually matters.
I’m not exactly saying I want the required reading list to stay frozen in time just as it is now—not by a long shot—but rather that it probably should have been completely overhauled a long time ago, if you ask me.
I mean, I’m just sitting here thinking that there really ought to be some sort of objective criteria in place, I guess. It feels like we're just drifting without any real standard to lean on, which probably isn't ideal if we want anything to actually make sense.

I haven't seen any posts from you yet, frupy. If you have something on your mind, feel free to share. I'm here to listen and chat. kaže:
Sure thing.
Wait, aren't you? 😕
It all starts with those folks from the Midwest who still talk in the third person plural... I mean, honestly... radio? It’s kind of wild how much we still rely on it. I was just sitting there thinking about it. You listen to the local stations, maybe catch some news or a specific DJ you actually like, and it just hits different than an algorithm telling you what to play. There's something about that live, broadcast feel—it feels more human, you know? Not like those sterile, perfectly curated playlists that feel like they were made by a robot in a basement. Just me rambling, I guess. But yeah, radio still has that soul., I see you., I don't know about you all, but I’ve been sitting here thinking... just really chewing on things lately. It's one of those moods where everything feels heavy, you know? Just a lot of thoughts swirling around without much direction....you know, those folks from up north who never really got a solid grasp on sibilance? They end up making all sorts of mess of their speech. It's right there in your hand. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one... I honestly don't know if it's "this" or "that." It’s such a toss-up. on footI haven't quite figured out what you mean by that. It looks like a fragment, or maybe just a typo? If you were trying to make a point or ask something specific, could you try again? I’m happy to chat, but I need a little more to go on!😉 Hey, who’s checking in? I don't really know what to make of all this. It feels like everyone is just... everywhere at once. Just a lot to take in. I mean, that’s for the people who aren't quite sure yet, right? Man, look at this car. ili This car..
There's actually a perfect example of this when you look at exports.
It doesn’t even matter if someone claims they only use that style "when they're just at home." The truth is, those sloppy mistakes are bleeding into their professional life too—especially when they actually need to sit down and draft an official memo or a formal email for work.

You're spot on there. There are honestly so many more examples out there—some of them are purely morphological, stemming directly from regional dialects or just the way people actually speak in everyday conversation.

I’ve been sitting here for a while just thinking about everything that’s been going on lately... it’s a lot to process. I wanted to jump in here because I feel like we need to have a real conversation about this. It isn't just about one single thing; it's how all these pieces fit together in the grand scheme of things here in the States. I was reading some of the points made earlier—and I mean really digging into them—and I can't help but feel a bit conflicted. On one hand, you see the way things are moving, and on the other, there's this sense that we're missing the mark entirely. It feels heavy, you know? Like we're all just circling the same drain without actually addressing the core issues. I'm not trying to be contrarian just for the sake of it. Honestly, I'm just being earnest. I care about where we're headed. I look at the way our institutions are functioning right now—and let's be real, it's hit or miss at best—and I wonder if we're even looking at the right data. Are we? Or are we just reacting to the loudest voices in the room? It's a lot to chew on. I'll probably spend the rest of the night mulling this over. I just wanted to get my thoughts out there, even if they're a bit scattered. We need to be more deliberate. We need to be better. kaže:
As someone who's pretty much a total novice here, I feel like I have enough freedom to point out that for everything you just laid out, the absolute most important thing is reading. Just... reading and reading and reading.
I honestly can't wrap my head around it... how does someone actually go through two or three books a month and still have absolutely no grasp of basic syntax or common idioms? It just doesn't compute for me.
I mean, I honestly don't even see how you could "learn" something like that during an American English lit class. 🤷

I could honestly write entire volumes about the editors I’ve had to work under while proofreading books—people who were supposed to be "experts" but clearly didn't have the slightest clue how basic syntax actually works. Seriously, total amateurs.

The way we teach language in our schools needs a total overhaul. Just being able to read isn't enough. I get that in literature, you can do whatever you want—it's all part of artistic expression—but in a classroom setting, we should be focusing on teaching standard American English. It’s the common ground that connects every citizen in this country. We aren't exactly at a point where we can start teaching based on deep, inherent grammatical structures alone, especially since we have so many different regional dialects to account for here in the States, right?

Stouffer is just the tip of the iceberg! I’m honestly proposing we just strip everything out of schools that requires actual effort from students or teachers. If it doesn't align perfectly with what our kids find fun or easy, get rid of it. We could solve the whole school year length issue too—two weeks should be plenty to cover whatever's left. We don't even need to worry about the weather or anything else.

But seriously, ladies, have you actually thought about what the curriculum experts are saying? Like, they’re claiming the learning outcome is basically just mastering prepositions or something? Or is the goal for fifth graders just to learn how to mash words together? I’d love to hear from any of you who actually step into a classroom or are involved as parents. Otherwise, you're just talking for the sake of it.
Has anyone actually sat down and read the curriculum? I highly doubt it. It’s way easier to just throw out criticisms based on vibes.
The American English curriculum is a total mystery—it's vague and poorly defined, as usual. But instead of looking at that, the whole country is obsessed with specific book lists, and now everyone is picking sides over Stouffer. They threw out the bait, the little fish bit, and here we are. Though I guess I shouldn't even mention Preradovica... wouldn't want to start a whole new wave of drama.

swiftranger16 said:Stouffer is just the tip of the iceberg! I’m honestly proposing we just strip everything out of schools that requires actual effort from students or teachers. If it doesn't align perfectly with what our kids find fun or easy, get rid of it. We could solve the whole school year length issue too—two weeks should be plenty to cover whatever's left. We don't even need to worry about the weather or anything else.

But seriously, ladies, have you actually thought about what the curriculum experts are saying? Like, they’re claiming the learning outcome is basically just mastering prepositions or something? Or is the goal for fifth graders just to learn how to mash words together? I’d love to hear from any of you who actually step into a classroom or are involved as parents. Otherwise, you're just talking for the sake of it.
Has anyone actually sat down and read the curriculum? I highly doubt it. It’s way easier to just throw out criticisms based on vibes.
The American English curriculum is a total mystery—it's vague and poorly defined, as usual. But instead of looking at that, the whole country is obsessed with specific book lists, and now everyone is picking sides over Stouffer. They threw out the bait, the little fish bit, and here we are. Though I guess I shouldn't even mention Preradovica... wouldn't want to start a whole new wave of drama.

Feel free to share your observations on the reform. I'm interested in what the experts are saying, because I don't live under the delusion that anything real can happen here without some shady dealings behind the scenes.

I mostly just skimmed through it, and my takeaway is just a general sense of ambiguity. If you can explain your specific issues more clearly and provide some actual counterexamples, please do so. Right now, your post is just offering undefined views without any real analysis.

There are parents here who aren't subject matter experts, so we need to be pedagogical in how we present our views. Maybe then we can actually reach a solid conclusion together and figure out if this reform is just window dressing and corruption, or if it actually makes sense.

swiftranger16 said:Stouffer is just the tip of the iceberg! I’m honestly proposing we just strip everything out of schools that requires actual effort from students or teachers. If it doesn't align perfectly with what our kids find fun or easy, get rid of it. We could solve the whole school year length issue too—two weeks should be plenty to cover whatever's left. We don't even need to worry about the weather or anything else.

But seriously, ladies, have you actually thought about what the curriculum experts are saying? Like, they’re claiming the learning outcome is basically just mastering prepositions or something? Or is the goal for fifth graders just to learn how to mash words together? I’d love to hear from any of you who actually step into a classroom or are involved as parents. Otherwise, you're just talking for the sake of it.
Has anyone actually sat down and read the curriculum? I highly doubt it. It’s way easier to just throw out criticisms based on vibes.
The American English curriculum is a total mystery—it's vague and poorly defined, as usual. But instead of looking at that, the whole country is obsessed with specific book lists, and now everyone is picking sides over Stouffer. They threw out the bait, the little fish bit, and here we are. Though I guess I shouldn't even mention Preradovica... wouldn't want to start a whole new wave of drama.

Shakespeare and his other works will still be part of the curriculum during class. It seems you haven't been paying very close attention to the syllabus.

And regarding all this talk of "effort," nobody is actually suggesting we abolish school or eliminate hard work entirely; it’s just that reading Shakespeare isn't exactly tailored to what students want right now. The school itself should be designed around the students.
The level of effort required needs to match the actual capacity of a student's brain.

We aren't subsistence farmers anymore. Digging in a garden or working the soil isn't comparable to modern learning, even though people love to draw those kinds of parallels. We're still stuck with this outdated mindset that learning has to be an exhausting grind, much like how our ancestors thought they were accomplishing something just by digging holes in the dirt all day.

No, that's not it. Learning needs to be adapted to the individual. That doesn't mean we scrap education or knowledge; it means school should actually be a place where kids learn something. But they shouldn't be forced to slog through assigned reading if it's just too much for them.

The whole point of literature isn't to glorify American heritage or serve as some tool for national pride. The goal is to cultivate the student. You won't achieve that by forcing them to finish a list of books if they're never going to pick up another book again once they graduate. The act of reading is what matters; the specific content is secondary.

Learning doesn't have to be a struggle. You won't actually achieve anything just by cramming. Throughout elementary school, high school, and even now at university, I found that simply reading the text and keeping up with my assignments was more than enough.

Chloe Roberts2 said:Shakespeare and his other works will still be part of the curriculum during class. It seems you haven't been paying very close attention to the syllabus.

And regarding all this talk of "effort," nobody is actually suggesting we abolish school or eliminate hard work entirely; it’s just that reading Shakespeare isn't exactly tailored to what students want right now. The school itself should be designed around the students.
The level of effort required needs to match the actual capacity of a student's brain.

We aren't subsistence farmers anymore. Digging in a garden or working the soil isn't comparable to modern learning, even though people love to draw those kinds of parallels. We're still stuck with this outdated mindset that learning has to be an exhausting grind, much like how our ancestors thought they were accomplishing something just by digging holes in the dirt all day.

No, that's not it. Learning needs to be adapted to the individual. That doesn't mean we scrap education or knowledge; it means school should actually be a place where kids learn something. But they shouldn't be forced to slog through assigned reading if it's just too much for them.

The whole point of literature isn't to glorify American heritage or serve as some tool for national pride. The goal is to cultivate the student. You won't achieve that by forcing them to finish a list of books if they're never going to pick up another book again once they graduate. The act of reading is what matters; the specific content is secondary.

Learning doesn't have to be a struggle. You won't actually achieve anything just by cramming. Throughout elementary school, high school, and even now at university, I found that simply reading the text and keeping up with my assignments was more than enough.

reading shakespeare isn't appropriate for students🤣 in high school sophomores😲

Sorry, but school isn't exactly "designed for students" as it stands, and with this new reform coming down the pipe, it's probably going to get even worse... honestly, all this talk about "reducing the load" sounds exactly like the nonsense we heard a few years ago about heavy backpacks. Remember when they said they were halving the math textbook, only to tack on extra pages to every single section? So now, instead of one 100-page book, kids are lugging around at least two 90-page ones, plus workbooks and activity books on top of that... they're still hauling a massive weight every single day.

And let's be real, this whole "mentality" thing seems to get more toxic with every single reform. We aren't peasants anymore, yet it feels like they're trying to turn our kids into little obedient drones from the first grade up—training them to sit perfectly still for five hours, staying quiet and nodding along, just so they can grow up to be the perfect little servants for some corporate overlord one day...👎

Chloe Roberts2 said:Shakespeare and his other works will still be part of the curriculum during class. It seems you haven't been paying very close attention to the syllabus.

And regarding all this talk of "effort," nobody is actually suggesting we abolish school or eliminate hard work entirely; it’s just that reading Shakespeare isn't exactly tailored to what students want right now. The school itself should be designed around the students.
The level of effort required needs to match the actual capacity of a student's brain.

We aren't subsistence farmers anymore. Digging in a garden or working the soil isn't comparable to modern learning, even though people love to draw those kinds of parallels. We're still stuck with this outdated mindset that learning has to be an exhausting grind, much like how our ancestors thought they were accomplishing something just by digging holes in the dirt all day.

No, that's not it. Learning needs to be adapted to the individual. That doesn't mean we scrap education or knowledge; it means school should actually be a place where kids learn something. But they shouldn't be forced to slog through assigned reading if it's just too much for them.

The whole point of literature isn't to glorify American heritage or serve as some tool for national pride. The goal is to cultivate the student. You won't achieve that by forcing them to finish a list of books if they're never going to pick up another book again once they graduate. The act of reading is what matters; the specific content is secondary.

Learning doesn't have to be a struggle. You won't actually achieve anything just by cramming. Throughout elementary school, high school, and even now at university, I found that simply reading the text and keeping up with my assignments was more than enough.

I suppose if you give them something just a tiny bit more challenging, they’d have to put in a little extra work and maybe strain those mental gears just a touch, which doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
If we mostly serve up stuff that requires almost zero intellectual heavy lifting, then I guess you have to wonder where the actual growth or progress is supposed to happen.

We are talking about high school, after all.
The absolute peak of their daily mental engagement shouldn't really be leveling up in a video game or obsessing over their status on Facebook.

urbantinker8 said:I suppose if you give them something just a tiny bit more challenging, they’d have to put in a little extra work and maybe strain those mental gears just a touch, which doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
If we mostly serve up stuff that requires almost zero intellectual heavy lifting, then I guess you have to wonder where the actual growth or progress is supposed to happen.

We are talking about high school, after all.
The absolute peak of their daily mental engagement shouldn't really be leveling up in a video game or obsessing over their status on Facebook.

It really isn't. Pushing your brain a little isn't a bad thing, and I never said there shouldn't be any effort at all—I just think the effort needs to be proportional.
A little mental heavy lifting to actually learn something is fine, but a "little effort" shouldn't feel like mindless torture or an endless slog through boredom.

Look, if 90 percent of students find a required reading way too dense or overly complicated, then the issue lies with the book, not the kids.

I think we need to distinguish between healthy engagement and total burnout, and you seem to be blurring that line. Shakespeare is simply not appropriate for this level of effort or as a logical next step in their reading progression.

Why wouldn't we make things more accessible? We aren't asking them to just scroll on their phones all day; we're asking for reading material that actually makes sense for them.

I'm dropping this link here again, just in case you truly believe Shakespeare belongs in a second-grade curriculum.
http://www.nytimes.com/news/education/reading-lists/.../1534121/

To reiterate, Shakespeare will still be read, but it should happen during structured classroom time, guided by a teacher. THAT is what's appropriate.

Chloe Roberts2 said:It really isn't. Pushing your brain a little isn't a bad thing, and I never said there shouldn't be any effort at all—I just think the effort needs to be proportional.
A little mental heavy lifting to actually learn something is fine, but a "little effort" shouldn't feel like mindless torture or an endless slog through boredom.

Look, if 90 percent of students find a required reading way too dense or overly complicated, then the issue lies with the book, not the kids.

I think we need to distinguish between healthy engagement and total burnout, and you seem to be blurring that line. Shakespeare is simply not appropriate for this level of effort or as a logical next step in their reading progression.

Why wouldn't we make things more accessible? We aren't asking them to just scroll on their phones all day; we're asking for reading material that actually makes sense for them.

I'm dropping this link here again, just in case you truly believe Shakespeare belongs in a second-grade curriculum.
http://www.nytimes.com/news/education/reading-lists/.../1534121/

To reiterate, Shakespeare will still be read, but it should happen during structured classroom time, guided by a teacher. THAT is what's appropriate.

Good grief, who was even talking about Shakespeare for second graders?😕

The article in that link is pretty sensationalist, I think, and it seems to have been written by someone who clearly doesn't understand how things work, like in vocational high schools, for instance.
The works mentioned are usually handled in fragments, mostly during class periods with a teacher's help.
I doubt even the most advanced honors students are sitting down to read the entirety of Homer.😁
The same goes for Shakespeare, Frost, Whitman, or any of those other classics.
Reading a specific excerpt for homework isn't exactly a massive undertaking, especially when you have analysis provided right underneath, but it does require spending a bit of time and actually engaging your mind, which, I guess, is what most students tend to avoid.

Having spent plenty of time in the classroom myself, I feel like I can get a pretty decent handle on what constitutes a small, medium, or large amount of effort for a given age group.😉

I’m just going to say it: I am absolutely, 100% fruity. And honestly? I couldn't care less if people find that weird. There's this weird pressure sometimes to act all stoic and "normal," but life is way too short to spend it pretending you aren't exactly who you are. It’s like trying to force a square peg into a round hole—it’s exhausting, it doesn't work, and you end up just denting the wood. I’d much rather just embrace the chaos and be my colorful, unapologetic self. If being "fruity" means living authentically, then hand me the fruit basket! kaže:
Good grief, who on earth brought up Shakespeare in second grade?😕

That article at the link? Total clickbait. It’s clearly written by someone who doesn't have the slightest clue how things actually work on the ground—especially when it comes to vocational schools and trade programs.
These projects aren't some massive, all-consuming undertakings. They’re actually done in bits and pieces—mostly just during class time with a teacher right there to help guide the way.
I mean, let’s be real—even the most hardcore literature professors probably aren't sitting down and reading the entire Odyssey from cover to cover. It's like saying you've read every single page of the Encyclopedia Britannica just to prove you're smart. Most scholars just dive into the heavy-hitting chapters or the specific parts that actually matter to their research. It’s all about the highlights and the deep dives, not necessarily grinding through every single line.😁
The same goes for the heavy hitters like Shakespeare, Drábek, Gundel, and Zoran—they’re all in the same boat.
Look, reading a quick excerpt for homework isn't exactly rocket science. It’s not like you're climbing Everest; if you have some analysis or study guides sitting right under the text to guide you, it’s practically effortless. But here's the catch: you actually have to put in the work. You can't just skim the words; you have to actually turn your brain on and engage with what's on the page. And let's be honest—that part? That’s usually the exact moment students decide they'd rather be doing literally anything else.

Look, I’ve been in this game long enough to know exactly what I’m looking at. I can tell pretty quickly whether a kid is actually breaking a sweat or just going through the motions. When you've spent this much time in the classroom, you develop a sixth sense for distinguishing between a genuine, heavy-duty effort and someone just doing the bare minimum for their age group.😉

I’m honestly struggling to follow your logic here. What exactly are you trying to argue? Are you actually suggesting that the Shakespearean approach... Judith So, here’s the million-dollar question: should you actually sit down and read the whole book for your assignment, or can you just get away with reading the SparkNotes? Honestly? It depends on how much you value your sanity (and your GPA). Look, if you’re just trying to pass a quick quiz where they ask "what color was the protagonist's hat?", sure, a summary will save you three hours of your life. You can skim the plot points, grab some character names, and call it a day. It’s like looking at a photo of a burger instead of actually eating it—you know what it looks like, but you aren't getting any of the flavor. But if you actually want to *understand* what the author is doing—the subtext, the pacing, the way the dialogue hits you—then you’ve gotta read the thing. Reading the full text is like watching a movie in 4K versus looking at a blurry thumbnail on YouTube. There’s a massive difference in the experience. When you read the actual prose, you catch those little details and emotional beats that a summary completely glosses over. Those are usually the exact things teachers bring up in essays to see who actually did the work and who just Googled the ending. My take? If it’s a classic that’s actually decent, give it a fair shot. If it’s something truly soul-crushing, maybe lean a bit harder on the study guides to help you navigate the slog. But don't skip the journey entirely if you can help it. You'll regret it when you're staring at a blank essay page wondering why everyone is talking about symbolism you never even saw.

I mean, if you're really out there advocating for fragmented reading... Judith If you're bringing up those other works mentioned by MLA, then I honestly don't know who you think you're arguing with. It’s like trying to debate the weather—everyone is already on board with that side of things.

Michelle Nelson4 said:Could someone please just give me the bottom line? I honestly don't have the energy to wade through this entire thread—are they actually introducing a standardized middle school exam or entrance tests for high school?
Because if they aren't, none of this really matters. As long as the focus for students in grades 6 through 8 remains strictly on their report card grades, we haven't changed anything. This whole idea of "flexibility" might actually end up widening the inequality gap, since an 'A' in one district won't mean nearly the same thing as an 'A' in another when it comes to actual knowledge and comprehension.
I feel like once kids realize they can just coast with a 'C' or a 'B' in subjects they find boring or difficult, they’ll stop pushing themselves. People love to make such a huge drama out of getting into vocational schools, but maybe if there were more accountability, students would actually find the motivation to dive into something they truly enjoy. Until then, they're just going to take the path of least resistance to avoid a bad grade—which, if I'm being honest, is actually pretty logical behavior given how the current system is set up.

Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. I can't find a clear answer anywhere.