School Reform: Thoughts?

nimblelynx7 said:Quincy:

I don't even know where to start with this. Absolute nonsense. kaže: How many hours would you even spend covering interest rates in an elementary school class?🍿

Whether you learn one thing or a hundred—it doesn't matter. It’s irrelevant. What matters is learning *this*. You can fail at trigonometry; nobody's kicking you out on the street just because you can't calculate a sine wave. But you mess up a loan, take out a mortgage at a certain interest rate, and fail to pay it back? Then you're out on the street. Period.

Is "school" really the right word for this nonsense? Or is that term strictly reserved for heavy-hitting topics—like Kenya's GDP, the total landmass of Tanzania, or the specific year Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed a symphony?

Maybe people wouldn't be rushing into banks for loans like they’re grabbing ice cream on a summer day if someone actually sat them down and showed them how to calculate what they'd actually owe after interest kicks in.

No, let's just go full chaos like they did over in the UK—just send kids in diapers so their teachers can handle the potty training, or teach them how to use silverware, or even hand them over with shampoo and tell the teacher, "Hey, get this sorted by tomorrow," or something along those lines (I think I saw similar examples in The Guardian's column The Secret Teacher). That would be just wonderful, really—after all, isn't that what teachers spent years studying for? Honestly, at this rate, I could just stay home and teach my kids how to brush their teeth, tie their shoelaces, or slice bread... because apparently, reading, writing, and math are just optional extras now. Who actually needs those anyway?!

The real issue isn't actually about what you're learning—it's more about how you go about it.

Sarah Hall53 said:No, let's just go full chaos like they did over in the UK—just send kids in diapers so their teachers can handle the potty training, or teach them how to use silverware, or even hand them over with shampoo and tell the teacher, "Hey, get this sorted by tomorrow," or something along those lines (I think I saw similar examples in The Guardian's column The Secret Teacher). That would be just wonderful, really—after all, isn't that what teachers spent years studying for? Honestly, at this rate, I could just stay home and teach my kids how to brush their teeth, tie their shoelaces, or slice bread... because apparently, reading, writing, and math are just optional extras now. Who actually needs those anyway?!

Those are two different extremes. I doubt they even went that far, but regardless, it has nothing to do with our current discussion.

It also has nothing to do with the fact that in American schools, students are forced to memorize piles of useless trivia while missing out on a ton of essential life skills.

nimblelynx7 said:Quincy:

I don't even know where to start with this. Absolute nonsense. kaže: How many hours would you even spend covering interest rates in an elementary school class?🍿

Whether you learn one thing or a hundred—it doesn't matter. It’s irrelevant. What matters is learning *this*. You can fail at trigonometry; nobody's kicking you out on the street just because you can't calculate a sine wave. But you mess up a loan, take out a mortgage at a certain interest rate, and fail to pay it back? Then you're out on the street. Period.

Is "school" really the right word for this nonsense? Or is that term strictly reserved for heavy-hitting topics—like Kenya's GDP, the total landmass of Tanzania, or the specific year Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed a symphony?

Maybe people wouldn't be rushing into banks for loans like they’re grabbing ice cream on a summer day if someone actually sat them down and showed them how to calculate what they'd actually owe after interest kicks in.

But we aren't really talking about interest rates here; it's about basic addition and subtraction.
You know, it's like if a candy bar costs $1.75, and someone has $20k, how many bars can they buy?
I'm pretty sure that's standard second-grade math curriculum in American elementary schools; if not first grade.
If someone didn't grasp that back then, they probably never will.
We deal with number lines all through high school, and it's baked into almost every math lesson, so people should be able to realize—and plan for—what it actually means to go into the red.🤔

It isn't just about the subject matter; it's about the process.
And I agree with you there—schools don't really focus on teaching that practical side.

nimblelynx7 said:Quincy:

I don't even know where to start with this. Absolute nonsense. kaže: How many hours would you even spend covering interest rates in an elementary school class?🍿

Whether you learn one thing or a hundred—it doesn't matter. It’s irrelevant. What matters is learning *this*. You can fail at trigonometry; nobody's kicking you out on the street just because you can't calculate a sine wave. But you mess up a loan, take out a mortgage at a certain interest rate, and fail to pay it back? Then you're out on the street. Period.

Is "school" really the right word for this nonsense? Or is that term strictly reserved for heavy-hitting topics—like Kenya's GDP, the total landmass of Tanzania, or the specific year Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed a symphony?

Maybe people wouldn't be rushing into banks for loans like they’re grabbing ice cream on a summer day if someone actually sat them down and showed them how to calculate what they'd actually owe after interest kicks in.

If I recall correctly, even the most famous American mathematicians have been tricked into bad loans, including some folks over in Switzerland.
Maybe the problem goes a bit deeper than that?

I mean, if someone explained that a bank isn't a charity handing out free cash, but rather a place where you go to buy a product called a "loan"—just like walking into a Target to buy a pair of shoes—things might change.
I can agree that this should be part of Social Studies in elementary school, but more importantly, it should be a regular conversation between parents and their kids.

The thing that actually ties back to school is reading comprehension—being able to read through entire flyers and long contracts, especially all that fine print.

The issue is that in our textbooks, that fine print is often labeled as "for those who want to know more," so naturally, only the straight-A students bother reading it, maybe just to snag a higher grade.

Learning how to read for comprehension is a process too... and more often than not, it depends on the quality of the teacher you get in those early grades. It really comes down to luck, or how much effort the parents put in at home.

A decent enough post. At first glance, it seems solid, though upon closer analysis, I find myself questioning its depth.

To successfully file a tax return, one simply needs the basic reading comprehension skills acquired in elementary school; there is really no need to squander precious academic years obsessing over such a triviality.
The concept of taxation is something children grasp quite easily if they bother to read the fine print or engage in discussions with their parents regarding household finances; if they don't, well, there is always civics and economics, subjects taught in half of all American high schools anyway.
As for how to vote—even those who sign their names with a thumbprint understand the mechanics, and the poll workers at the precinct will guide them through it without much trouble. The true dilemma lies in deciding *for whom* to vote. Developing a genuine political stance demands significantly more intellectual labor and reflection than any classroom curriculum could ever provide, and frankly, any attempt to suggest a specific candidate feels like an intrusion on privacy or a blatant move toward indoctrination.
Is there anything else concerning banking? This feels somewhat forced... while students learn about simple and compound interest in school, true comprehension of monetary policy remains elusive even for many who have graduated from top-tier American universities with finance degrees. It brings to mind a certain high-ranking Democratic official—I believe he was an Assistant Secretary at the Treasury—who openly admitted to carrying a mortgage with a Swiss bank.
How does one apply for a loan? One can simply ask the clerk at a Chase teller window. But how to accurately assess risk—and let's be clear, we aren't talking about just one single risk factor—is a question many finance graduates still cannot answer.
And buying a car or a house? Oh, that is the easiest part of all. You Google it, ask some acquaintances, or drive down to a local dealership. However, one must first actually earn the money required to afford those things in the first place.

analogseal18 said:A decent enough post. At first glance, it seems solid, though upon closer analysis, I find myself questioning its depth.

To successfully file a tax return, one simply needs the basic reading comprehension skills acquired in elementary school; there is really no need to squander precious academic years obsessing over such a triviality.
The concept of taxation is something children grasp quite easily if they bother to read the fine print or engage in discussions with their parents regarding household finances; if they don't, well, there is always civics and economics, subjects taught in half of all American high schools anyway.
As for how to vote—even those who sign their names with a thumbprint understand the mechanics, and the poll workers at the precinct will guide them through it without much trouble. The true dilemma lies in deciding *for whom* to vote. Developing a genuine political stance demands significantly more intellectual labor and reflection than any classroom curriculum could ever provide, and frankly, any attempt to suggest a specific candidate feels like an intrusion on privacy or a blatant move toward indoctrination.
Is there anything else concerning banking? This feels somewhat forced... while students learn about simple and compound interest in school, true comprehension of monetary policy remains elusive even for many who have graduated from top-tier American universities with finance degrees. It brings to mind a certain high-ranking Democratic official—I believe he was an Assistant Secretary at the Treasury—who openly admitted to carrying a mortgage with a Swiss bank.
How does one apply for a loan? One can simply ask the clerk at a Chase teller window. But how to accurately assess risk—and let's be clear, we aren't talking about just one single risk factor—is a question many finance graduates still cannot answer.
And buying a car or a house? Oh, that is the easiest part of all. You Google it, ask some acquaintances, or drive down to a local dealership. However, one must first actually earn the money required to afford those things in the first place.

Your point actually reminded me of this year's IRS instructions on how to file a tax return, and honestly, looking at how much the average American citizen actually managed to grasp from them...

http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040

I'll be the first to admit that even someone with a high school diploma would probably struggle to make sense of our government's complicated paperwork...

analogseal18 said:A decent enough post. At first glance, it seems solid, though upon closer analysis, I find myself questioning its depth.

To successfully file a tax return, one simply needs the basic reading comprehension skills acquired in elementary school; there is really no need to squander precious academic years obsessing over such a triviality.
The concept of taxation is something children grasp quite easily if they bother to read the fine print or engage in discussions with their parents regarding household finances; if they don't, well, there is always civics and economics, subjects taught in half of all American high schools anyway.
As for how to vote—even those who sign their names with a thumbprint understand the mechanics, and the poll workers at the precinct will guide them through it without much trouble. The true dilemma lies in deciding *for whom* to vote. Developing a genuine political stance demands significantly more intellectual labor and reflection than any classroom curriculum could ever provide, and frankly, any attempt to suggest a specific candidate feels like an intrusion on privacy or a blatant move toward indoctrination.
Is there anything else concerning banking? This feels somewhat forced... while students learn about simple and compound interest in school, true comprehension of monetary policy remains elusive even for many who have graduated from top-tier American universities with finance degrees. It brings to mind a certain high-ranking Democratic official—I believe he was an Assistant Secretary at the Treasury—who openly admitted to carrying a mortgage with a Swiss bank.
How does one apply for a loan? One can simply ask the clerk at a Chase teller window. But how to accurately assess risk—and let's be clear, we aren't talking about just one single risk factor—is a question many finance graduates still cannot answer.
And buying a car or a house? Oh, that is the easiest part of all. You Google it, ask some acquaintances, or drive down to a local dealership. However, one must first actually earn the money required to afford those things in the first place.

Exactly. All the objective, unbiased info regarding a loan comes straight from the bank officer. Your job is simply to sign the papers. Honestly, school only needs to teach kids how to read and write—they don't even need to master the whole alphabet, just enough to recognize their own name. Why bother tormenting children with letters they'll never use in their own names? It's more important they memorize the GDP of Kenya, the phone book for the Faroe Islands, or the names of every soldier lost in World War I...

The same goes for buying a vehicle. Just head to whatever manufacturer's dealership catches your eye. You don't need to understand anything about cars, the ownership process, or the hidden costs of maintenance. Just follow the logic from the paragraph above.

No. One simply takes all the instructions and the contract, and before signing anything, reads them with actual comprehension. Every single word that isn't perfectly clear is looked up; one finds books and studies until the concept is mastered. Until it is understood.

nimblelynx7, what grade are your children currently in?
Mine finished seventh grade, and I certainly don't see them being overwhelmed by the curriculum. Sure, there might be some superfluous information, but for a young mind in training—one that remains curious and prone to questioning—it poses no issue at all. You learn. You learn through understanding, through interrogation, and yes, even through searching online. My daughter truly knows her material inside and out, and she even explores topics beyond the syllabus; she still has plenty of time for extracurriculars and socializing, and nothing feels like a burden to her. The real issue lies with those children who entered school unprepared, or those whose parents effectively crushed their desire to learn, to question, or to comprehend before they even stepped foot in a classroom. For them, even basic practical tasks become an uphill battle. To those who have been conditioned to rely solely on rote memorization from the streets of Kenya, the truth just hits them like a freight train.

A much more pressing concern than "too much unnecessary information" is the glaring lack of engaging content and elective programs for students interested in specific niches. The school system does absolutely nothing in this regard. A few pseudo-intellectual professors might spend their time tinkering with lumens, but ordinary, inquisitive children are left without any opportunity to cultivate knowledge in fields that actually resonate with them.

My kid isn't even in school yet.

My interest in this topic doesn't stem from being a parent. It comes from the unfortunate reality of my career, where I see the flaws in our entire educational system firsthand. I’m actively involved in trying to fix it, and frankly, what I see is unbelievable.

It gives me chills to think that one day, my child will be forced into a system like this.
To think they'll go to school just to provide job security for teachers, rather than actually learning how to survive on their own.
To think the survival of the bureaucracy matters more than actual learning.
When I realize that in this system, my child is nothing more than an afterthought—that everything else takes precedence over them—it makes me sick. And as for those people complaining about my posts here? Honestly, I couldn't care less.

nimblelynx7 said:My kid isn't even in school yet.

My interest in this topic doesn't stem from being a parent. It comes from the unfortunate reality of my career, where I see the flaws in our entire educational system firsthand. I’m actively involved in trying to fix it, and frankly, what I see is unbelievable.

It gives me chills to think that one day, my child will be forced into a system like this.
To think they'll go to school just to provide job security for teachers, rather than actually learning how to survive on their own.
To think the survival of the bureaucracy matters more than actual learning.
When I realize that in this system, my child is nothing more than an afterthought—that everything else takes precedence over them—it makes me sick. And as for those people complaining about my posts here? Honestly, I couldn't care less.

I wouldn't want to drag you into a debate about education, but I am genuinely curious what kind of job involves directly fixing the flaws in the school system—if you don't mind me asking. Are you a tutor or something?

Part of my job involves training employees—specifically, making sure everyone has the technical skills, legal certifications, and general competence required to do their jobs from day one until they leave the company. It doesn't matter if I'm dealing with tradespeople like electricians and locksmiths or professionals like lawyers and accountants.

The whole process kicks off at hiring, and frankly, we’re starting from zero. Most of what they bring from school is practically nothing. They’re stuffed full of useless theory, yet you can't even hand them a tool without fearing they'll hurt themselves. They have zero hands-on experience; most things they've only ever seen in a textbook or a picture.

I tell them all the same thing: the faster you forget everything you learned in class and actually open your eyes and use your brain, the better off we'll all be. You can't leave them unsupervised for a single second—they're a liability to themselves and everyone else around them.

I could go on for hours about the experiences I've had. Some are hilarious, some are grim, and some are just straight-up unbelievable.

I've never bothered with writing instruction manuals, though I do occasionally put together seminars, theses, and similar documents.

nimblelynx7 said:Part of my job involves training employees—specifically, making sure everyone has the technical skills, legal certifications, and general competence required to do their jobs from day one until they leave the company. It doesn't matter if I'm dealing with tradespeople like electricians and locksmiths or professionals like lawyers and accountants.

The whole process kicks off at hiring, and frankly, we’re starting from zero. Most of what they bring from school is practically nothing. They’re stuffed full of useless theory, yet you can't even hand them a tool without fearing they'll hurt themselves. They have zero hands-on experience; most things they've only ever seen in a textbook or a picture.

I tell them all the same thing: the faster you forget everything you learned in class and actually open your eyes and use your brain, the better off we'll all be. You can't leave them unsupervised for a single second—they're a liability to themselves and everyone else around them.

I could go on for hours about the experiences I've had. Some are hilarious, some are grim, and some are just straight-up unbelievable.

I've never bothered with writing instruction manuals, though I do occasionally put together seminars, theses, and similar documents.

I’m still struggling to wrap my head around what kind of job this actually is; how on earth do you train an electrician, a locksmith, and a lawyer all at once?

It’s actually pretty straightforward, even if it doesn't seem that way initially. You likely sat through some mandatory OSHA safety training during your onboarding—it’s usually just a box-ticking exercise in most places, but at my company, it’s the foundation for everything we do.

Every single person who walks through our doors has to undergo job-specific training. My entire role is to facilitate that process, ensuring everyone actually knows what they're doing so they can be productive.

nimblelynx7 said:It’s actually pretty straightforward, even if it doesn't seem that way initially. You likely sat through some mandatory OSHA safety training during your onboarding—it’s usually just a box-ticking exercise in most places, but at my company, it’s the foundation for everything we do.

Every single person who walks through our doors has to undergo job-specific training. My entire role is to facilitate that process, ensuring everyone actually knows what they're doing so they can be productive.

So, you're basically the one running the OSHA compliance tests. Got it. 🙂

Jamie Davis9 said:So, you're basically the one running the OSHA compliance tests. Got it. 🙂

🤣
enough said.☕

John Doe, you got anything to say about this?

Yeah, I run actual tests. And it’s not just testing—it’s followed by lectures, then hands-on training tailored specifically to the job description and role. I know, in most places, "training" is just code for useless busywork and finding out where to sign your life away. But at my company—we work for a major international corporation—they actually take this stuff seriously. If I just "ran a test" without the full process, I'd probably be looking at an immediate termination.

"When you first enroll in high school over in Denmark, you get to pick from four main tracks—you've got STEM (stuff like Geology, Biology, Chem, Math, Astronomy, Biotech, and CS), Classical which mixes languages with Philosophy, Social Sciences (History, Sociology, Economics), or Arts (Drama, Music, Design, Dance, etc.). Because the system is actually designed for the modern world, students in Denmark deal with way fewer mandatory subjects, giving them more freedom to mix and match classes based on what they actually care about," says this 16-year-old kid from Washington, D.C., who just got back from an exchange program in Denmark.

check the rest here:

For instance, a teacher could spend the first 10 minutes of class setting things up, split the students into groups, and then step out for a moment, returning for the final 5 minutes. Even if the period is extended from 45 to 75 minutes, students in Denmark have much more freedom, yet they don't abuse it. Even when the teacher isn't physically in the room, they sit down and work with discipline—something that feels almost impossible here.

Is there anyone brave enough to leave kids alone in a classroom for 45 minutes, let alone 60? In 99.9% of schools around here, they'd be causing chaos across the entire neighborhood.

As for education itself, we simply need to modernize it. However, we shouldn't be turning kids into narrow-minded specialists. You can learn almost any job or trade in a relatively short amount of time, even without a degree. Ultimately, you end up with exactly what an employer wants—especially in the US—someone without formal schooling who is willing to work for minimum wage and knows how to do just one specific task. We saw thousands of those "specialists" after 30 years in a factory; when the plant closed, they were the ones protesting. I understand they suddenly felt the ground slip away from under them, but honestly, what do you expect when you do the exact same thing your whole life and lifelong learning is a total mystery to you?

Our school system could be reformed relatively quickly. Alongside mandatory subjects (typically those required for state exams), individual schools should have the freedom to create modern programs tailored to market needs. Vocational schools should focus heavily on practical skills rather than just memorizing theoretical concepts. Of course, it is much, much easier to repeat the same old story year after year until retirement—at least for some. Others feel suffocated by the curriculum dictated by the Department of Education; their hands are tied. Even if they want to provide more, they aren't allowed to offer anything beyond what is strictly prescribed. So, "naturally," the teachers get blamed for everything, but the logic just doesn't hold up. We need freedom. Right now, teachers are spending more time dealing with bureaucracy than actually teaching.

There’s a massive gap between being a total moron and having a well-rounded education.

Beyond how much a broad education helps someone in their career—specifically an electrician, a locksmith, or a mason—what's the point? Does every single worker need to know the capital cities of various states, the year the American Revolution kicked off, or the GDP of Uzbekistan just to get their job done effectively?
If every trade can be mastered easily, why on earth are kids stuck in school for 11 to 17 years? Just to keep teachers employed?

I agree with the rest of you; we need more freedom, but also more accountability for teachers. We should implement a small exit exam and give instructors the power to tailor the curriculum to what’s actually required in the real world. If students fail that exam, it means the teacher failed. If the teacher is bad, they lose their job. Period. And for heaven's sake, let's start publishing school rankings publicly instead of letting these kids become prey for predatory institutions.