School Reform: Thoughts?

Paul Wilson72 said:

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.

😂

What on earth are they going to "create" when the fat majority of bureaucrats working there have zero real-world experience outside of a classroom? These quasi-officials live in a bubble that has nothing to do with reality. Most of them are mentally still stuck back in America. 🙂 What is an indoctrinated idiot like that supposed to teach anyone?
The rest of this is just stating the obvious—stuff that's been repeated for decades while nothing actually moves. And it won't move, because schools, just like any other government institution, exist primarily to provide jobs for insiders—that's the priority, and everything else is secondary. Basically, kids go to school so those people can have a paycheck, and what the kids actually learn doesn't matter. Life will teach them the things that actually matter.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 said: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.

I think you mean light-years. ☕
Oh, absolutely. I’m just sitting here waiting for the inevitable backlash, but let’s be real: there is a massive difference between eating cheap canned meat and enjoying a gourmet meal at a high-end restaurant. Both will technically satisfy your hunger—maybe even the canned stuff will fill you up faster—but they aren't in the same league.
But do you really want people who know absolutely nothing beyond their specific job description? What happens when that role becomes obsolete in thirty years and they end up out on the street?

nimblelynx7 said: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.

Let’s look at this from a different angle: does a driver really need anything beyond basic driving skills to provide a high-quality transport service? I mean, you can find an endless sea of taxi drivers out there. But think about it—when someone travels to a new country, they aren't just looking for a ride. If they happen to encounter a driver who actually knows the city and the country they are "representing"—someone who knows the best spots, fair pricing, or even understands where the guest is coming from and their culture—that makes a massive difference. That kind of expertise leaves a lasting impression. It often leads to repeat business and much better tips compared to a driver who can only communicate through frantic hand gestures. At the end of the day, once the vehicle is in motion, a driver's job ends at the steering wheel. Everything else is what defines the service.
I personally prefer people who come across as genuinely good and kindhearted, even if they’re a little unpolished or rough around the edges.

How long does it actually take to become an electrician? A locksmith? A mason? I’m not talking about just picking up some basic, surface-level knowledge that anyone could stumble upon—I mean actual proficiency. If you look at the math, most of these specialized vocational programs could be wrapped up in a year at most. The sheer volume of private certification courses out there for every niche job imaginable proves my point. Most of them only run between 20 and 80 hours and cost just a few hundred bucks.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: I agree with the rest of you—we need more freedom, but that comes with much higher accountability for teachers. We should introduce standardized state testing and give educators the chance to tailor their curriculum specifically to what those exams require. If students fail the state tests, it’s a direct reflection of a poor teacher; and if a teacher is failing them, they shouldn't be in the classroom. Finally, we need to make school rankings public. It's time to stop letting schools treat children like commodities to be traded.

I’m with you on the standardized testing issue. To be honest, there are just way too many perfect grades being handed out in elementary school, and it definitely doesn't follow a standard bell curve. It seems like most teachers don't want to deal with the fallout from parents—especially in small towns where everyone knows everyone else. They also don't want to carry the guilt if a kid fails to get into their preferred high school, nor do they want to deal with the occasional parental meltdown. Regardless, it isn't right that students are getting into certain elite prep schools solely based on extra credit from extracurricular competitions, simply because everyone has already maxed out their regular academic points. So, yes—we need standardized testing.
The national standardized testing system needs to be scrapped because it’s geared exclusively toward academic preparatory schools. Vocational schools have lost everything meaningful that their previous graduation requirements used to offer, including specialized technical exams and the capstone projects that now serve as the sole measure of high school education—which, frankly, has become a joke. To make matters worse, since passing the capstone project is a prerequisite for the state test results to even count, it ends up being the teacher's fault when a student fails due to laziness. If they fail that one component, their college applications are ruined. For vocational programs, this current version of standardized testing is a massive mistake.

One thing I don't get—what does a teacher actually have to do with a student's success on these exams? Does the teacher write the test, or does the student? I'm genuinely curious: how exactly are you supposed to force a student to study when neither parents nor teachers can do it? Does that mean every instructor at a cosmetology school (which doesn't even use this specific testing model, if I recall) should just be out of a job?

And then there's the ranking of schools—I don't follow. Different schools attract different types of students. It's a stretch to expect top-tier academic scholars to flock to masonry programs just because they enjoy the trade. Is that considered a "bad" school? Or should we judge them by what they actually produce: workers who are either capable or incapable of doing the job?

crimsonwolf21 said:😂

What on earth are they going to "create" when the fat majority of bureaucrats working there have zero real-world experience outside of a classroom? These quasi-officials live in a bubble that has nothing to do with reality. Most of them are mentally still stuck back in America. 🙂 What is an indoctrinated idiot like that supposed to teach anyone?
The rest of this is just stating the obvious—stuff that's been repeated for decades while nothing actually moves. And it won't move, because schools, just like any other government institution, exist primarily to provide jobs for insiders—that's the priority, and everything else is secondary. Basically, kids go to school so those people can have a paycheck, and what the kids actually learn doesn't matter. Life will teach them the things that actually matter.

Here we go again—bureaucrats, lazy workers, cronies... I could go on all day. This is exactly what new generations of students are learning from their parents. There are certainly issues, but making broad generalizations like this definitely isn't going to achieve anything.
I truly wish ALL parents would send their children exactly where they think is best, especially since it clearly isn't happening through the schools or the teachers...

Paul Wilson72 said:"Quote"

I think you mean light-years. ☕
Oh, absolutely. I’m just sitting here waiting for the inevitable backlash, but let’s be real: there is a massive difference between eating cheap canned meat and enjoying a gourmet meal at a high-end restaurant. Both will technically satisfy your hunger—maybe even the canned stuff will fill you up faster—but they aren't in the same league.
But do you really want people who know absolutely nothing beyond their specific job description? What happens when that role becomes obsolete in thirty years and they end up out on the street?

Let’s look at this from a different angle: does a driver really need anything beyond basic driving skills to provide a high-quality transport service? I mean, you can find an endless sea of taxi drivers out there. But think about it—when someone travels to a new country, they aren't just looking for a ride. If they happen to encounter a driver who actually knows the city and the country they are "representing"—someone who knows the best spots, fair pricing, or even understands where the guest is coming from and their culture—that makes a massive difference. That kind of expertise leaves a lasting impression. It often leads to repeat business and much better tips compared to a driver who can only communicate through frantic hand gestures. At the end of the day, once the vehicle is in motion, a driver's job ends at the steering wheel. Everything else is what defines the service.
I personally prefer people who come across as genuinely good and kindhearted, even if they’re a little unpolished or rough around the edges.

How long does it actually take to become an electrician? A locksmith? A mason? I’m not talking about just picking up some basic, surface-level knowledge that anyone could stumble upon—I mean actual proficiency. If you look at the math, most of these specialized vocational programs could be wrapped up in a year at most. The sheer volume of private certification courses out there for every niche job imaginable proves my point. Most of them only run between 20 and 80 hours and cost just a few hundred bucks.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: I agree with the rest of you—we need more freedom, but that comes with much higher accountability for teachers. We should introduce standardized state testing and give educators the chance to tailor their curriculum specifically to what those exams require. If students fail the state tests, it’s a direct reflection of a poor teacher; and if a teacher is failing them, they shouldn't be in the classroom. Finally, we need to make school rankings public. It's time to stop letting schools treat children like commodities to be traded.

I’m with you on the standardized testing issue. To be honest, there are just way too many perfect grades being handed out in elementary school, and it definitely doesn't follow a standard bell curve. It seems like most teachers don't want to deal with the fallout from parents—especially in small towns where everyone knows everyone else. They also don't want to carry the guilt if a kid fails to get into their preferred high school, nor do they want to deal with the occasional parental meltdown. Regardless, it isn't right that students are getting into certain elite prep schools solely based on extra credit from extracurricular competitions, simply because everyone has already maxed out their regular academic points. So, yes—we need standardized testing.
The national standardized testing system needs to be scrapped because it’s geared exclusively toward academic preparatory schools. Vocational schools have lost everything meaningful that their previous graduation requirements used to offer, including specialized technical exams and the capstone projects that now serve as the sole measure of high school education—which, frankly, has become a joke. To make matters worse, since passing the capstone project is a prerequisite for the state test results to even count, it ends up being the teacher's fault when a student fails due to laziness. If they fail that one component, their college applications are ruined. For vocational programs, this current version of standardized testing is a massive mistake.

One thing I don't get—what does a teacher actually have to do with a student's success on these exams? Does the teacher write the test, or does the student? I'm genuinely curious: how exactly are you supposed to force a student to study when neither parents nor teachers can do it? Does that mean every instructor at a cosmetology school (which doesn't even use this specific testing model, if I recall) should just be out of a job?

And then there's the ranking of schools—I don't follow. Different schools attract different types of students. It's a stretch to expect top-tier academic scholars to flock to masonry programs just because they enjoy the trade. Is that considered a "bad" school? Or should we judge them by what they actually produce: workers who are either capable or incapable of doing the job?

Here we go again—bureaucrats, lazy workers, cronies... I could go on all day. This is exactly what new generations of students are learning from their parents. There are certainly issues, but making broad generalizations like this definitely isn't going to achieve anything.
I truly wish ALL parents would send their children exactly where they think is best, especially since it clearly isn't happening through the schools or the teachers...

Fine, light years.

Do you actually believe people are going to remember something they learned in school thirty years ago, and that it'll be the deciding factor in them landing a new career or a different role?
How is knowing the GDP of Uganda, the Battle of Gettysburg, or reading Shakespeare going to help them specifically?

Paul Wilson72 said:"Quote"

I think you mean light-years. ☕
Oh, absolutely. I’m just sitting here waiting for the inevitable backlash, but let’s be real: there is a massive difference between eating cheap canned meat and enjoying a gourmet meal at a high-end restaurant. Both will technically satisfy your hunger—maybe even the canned stuff will fill you up faster—but they aren't in the same league.
But do you really want people who know absolutely nothing beyond their specific job description? What happens when that role becomes obsolete in thirty years and they end up out on the street?

Let’s look at this from a different angle: does a driver really need anything beyond basic driving skills to provide a high-quality transport service? I mean, you can find an endless sea of taxi drivers out there. But think about it—when someone travels to a new country, they aren't just looking for a ride. If they happen to encounter a driver who actually knows the city and the country they are "representing"—someone who knows the best spots, fair pricing, or even understands where the guest is coming from and their culture—that makes a massive difference. That kind of expertise leaves a lasting impression. It often leads to repeat business and much better tips compared to a driver who can only communicate through frantic hand gestures. At the end of the day, once the vehicle is in motion, a driver's job ends at the steering wheel. Everything else is what defines the service.
I personally prefer people who come across as genuinely good and kindhearted, even if they’re a little unpolished or rough around the edges.

How long does it actually take to become an electrician? A locksmith? A mason? I’m not talking about just picking up some basic, surface-level knowledge that anyone could stumble upon—I mean actual proficiency. If you look at the math, most of these specialized vocational programs could be wrapped up in a year at most. The sheer volume of private certification courses out there for every niche job imaginable proves my point. Most of them only run between 20 and 80 hours and cost just a few hundred bucks.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: I agree with the rest of you—we need more freedom, but that comes with much higher accountability for teachers. We should introduce standardized state testing and give educators the chance to tailor their curriculum specifically to what those exams require. If students fail the state tests, it’s a direct reflection of a poor teacher; and if a teacher is failing them, they shouldn't be in the classroom. Finally, we need to make school rankings public. It's time to stop letting schools treat children like commodities to be traded.

I’m with you on the standardized testing issue. To be honest, there are just way too many perfect grades being handed out in elementary school, and it definitely doesn't follow a standard bell curve. It seems like most teachers don't want to deal with the fallout from parents—especially in small towns where everyone knows everyone else. They also don't want to carry the guilt if a kid fails to get into their preferred high school, nor do they want to deal with the occasional parental meltdown. Regardless, it isn't right that students are getting into certain elite prep schools solely based on extra credit from extracurricular competitions, simply because everyone has already maxed out their regular academic points. So, yes—we need standardized testing.
The national standardized testing system needs to be scrapped because it’s geared exclusively toward academic preparatory schools. Vocational schools have lost everything meaningful that their previous graduation requirements used to offer, including specialized technical exams and the capstone projects that now serve as the sole measure of high school education—which, frankly, has become a joke. To make matters worse, since passing the capstone project is a prerequisite for the state test results to even count, it ends up being the teacher's fault when a student fails due to laziness. If they fail that one component, their college applications are ruined. For vocational programs, this current version of standardized testing is a massive mistake.

One thing I don't get—what does a teacher actually have to do with a student's success on these exams? Does the teacher write the test, or does the student? I'm genuinely curious: how exactly are you supposed to force a student to study when neither parents nor teachers can do it? Does that mean every instructor at a cosmetology school (which doesn't even use this specific testing model, if I recall) should just be out of a job?

And then there's the ranking of schools—I don't follow. Different schools attract different types of students. It's a stretch to expect top-tier academic scholars to flock to masonry programs just because they enjoy the trade. Is that considered a "bad" school? Or should we judge them by what they actually produce: workers who are either capable or incapable of doing the job?

Here we go again—bureaucrats, lazy workers, cronies... I could go on all day. This is exactly what new generations of students are learning from their parents. There are certainly issues, but making broad generalizations like this definitely isn't going to achieve anything.
I truly wish ALL parents would send their children exactly where they think is best, especially since it clearly isn't happening through the schools or the teachers...

What if the driver hits a passenger who's an uneducated jerk, and then he starts lecturing him on Dostoevsky or market economics, and the passenger just stares at him blankly?
I once had to write a paper for a "local geography" course, where I had to explain how to get to Huey Long Street and who Huey Long was. Extremely vital info for a taxi driver, but hey, you gotta make your money.

Paul Wilson72 said:"Quote"

I think you mean light-years. ☕
Oh, absolutely. I’m just sitting here waiting for the inevitable backlash, but let’s be real: there is a massive difference between eating cheap canned meat and enjoying a gourmet meal at a high-end restaurant. Both will technically satisfy your hunger—maybe even the canned stuff will fill you up faster—but they aren't in the same league.
But do you really want people who know absolutely nothing beyond their specific job description? What happens when that role becomes obsolete in thirty years and they end up out on the street?

Let’s look at this from a different angle: does a driver really need anything beyond basic driving skills to provide a high-quality transport service? I mean, you can find an endless sea of taxi drivers out there. But think about it—when someone travels to a new country, they aren't just looking for a ride. If they happen to encounter a driver who actually knows the city and the country they are "representing"—someone who knows the best spots, fair pricing, or even understands where the guest is coming from and their culture—that makes a massive difference. That kind of expertise leaves a lasting impression. It often leads to repeat business and much better tips compared to a driver who can only communicate through frantic hand gestures. At the end of the day, once the vehicle is in motion, a driver's job ends at the steering wheel. Everything else is what defines the service.
I personally prefer people who come across as genuinely good and kindhearted, even if they’re a little unpolished or rough around the edges.

How long does it actually take to become an electrician? A locksmith? A mason? I’m not talking about just picking up some basic, surface-level knowledge that anyone could stumble upon—I mean actual proficiency. If you look at the math, most of these specialized vocational programs could be wrapped up in a year at most. The sheer volume of private certification courses out there for every niche job imaginable proves my point. Most of them only run between 20 and 80 hours and cost just a few hundred bucks.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: I agree with the rest of you—we need more freedom, but that comes with much higher accountability for teachers. We should introduce standardized state testing and give educators the chance to tailor their curriculum specifically to what those exams require. If students fail the state tests, it’s a direct reflection of a poor teacher; and if a teacher is failing them, they shouldn't be in the classroom. Finally, we need to make school rankings public. It's time to stop letting schools treat children like commodities to be traded.

I’m with you on the standardized testing issue. To be honest, there are just way too many perfect grades being handed out in elementary school, and it definitely doesn't follow a standard bell curve. It seems like most teachers don't want to deal with the fallout from parents—especially in small towns where everyone knows everyone else. They also don't want to carry the guilt if a kid fails to get into their preferred high school, nor do they want to deal with the occasional parental meltdown. Regardless, it isn't right that students are getting into certain elite prep schools solely based on extra credit from extracurricular competitions, simply because everyone has already maxed out their regular academic points. So, yes—we need standardized testing.
The national standardized testing system needs to be scrapped because it’s geared exclusively toward academic preparatory schools. Vocational schools have lost everything meaningful that their previous graduation requirements used to offer, including specialized technical exams and the capstone projects that now serve as the sole measure of high school education—which, frankly, has become a joke. To make matters worse, since passing the capstone project is a prerequisite for the state test results to even count, it ends up being the teacher's fault when a student fails due to laziness. If they fail that one component, their college applications are ruined. For vocational programs, this current version of standardized testing is a massive mistake.

One thing I don't get—what does a teacher actually have to do with a student's success on these exams? Does the teacher write the test, or does the student? I'm genuinely curious: how exactly are you supposed to force a student to study when neither parents nor teachers can do it? Does that mean every instructor at a cosmetology school (which doesn't even use this specific testing model, if I recall) should just be out of a job?

And then there's the ranking of schools—I don't follow. Different schools attract different types of students. It's a stretch to expect top-tier academic scholars to flock to masonry programs just because they enjoy the trade. Is that considered a "bad" school? Or should we judge them by what they actually produce: workers who are either capable or incapable of doing the job?

Here we go again—bureaucrats, lazy workers, cronies... I could go on all day. This is exactly what new generations of students are learning from their parents. There are certainly issues, but making broad generalizations like this definitely isn't going to achieve anything.
I truly wish ALL parents would send their children exactly where they think is best, especially since it clearly isn't happening through the schools or the teachers...

None at all. The teacher is irrelevant here; they might as well have fallen straight from Mars into the classroom. If they don't matter, then what's the point of having a teacher?

Paul Wilson72 said:"Quote"

I think you mean light-years. ☕
Oh, absolutely. I’m just sitting here waiting for the inevitable backlash, but let’s be real: there is a massive difference between eating cheap canned meat and enjoying a gourmet meal at a high-end restaurant. Both will technically satisfy your hunger—maybe even the canned stuff will fill you up faster—but they aren't in the same league.
But do you really want people who know absolutely nothing beyond their specific job description? What happens when that role becomes obsolete in thirty years and they end up out on the street?

Let’s look at this from a different angle: does a driver really need anything beyond basic driving skills to provide a high-quality transport service? I mean, you can find an endless sea of taxi drivers out there. But think about it—when someone travels to a new country, they aren't just looking for a ride. If they happen to encounter a driver who actually knows the city and the country they are "representing"—someone who knows the best spots, fair pricing, or even understands where the guest is coming from and their culture—that makes a massive difference. That kind of expertise leaves a lasting impression. It often leads to repeat business and much better tips compared to a driver who can only communicate through frantic hand gestures. At the end of the day, once the vehicle is in motion, a driver's job ends at the steering wheel. Everything else is what defines the service.
I personally prefer people who come across as genuinely good and kindhearted, even if they’re a little unpolished or rough around the edges.

How long does it actually take to become an electrician? A locksmith? A mason? I’m not talking about just picking up some basic, surface-level knowledge that anyone could stumble upon—I mean actual proficiency. If you look at the math, most of these specialized vocational programs could be wrapped up in a year at most. The sheer volume of private certification courses out there for every niche job imaginable proves my point. Most of them only run between 20 and 80 hours and cost just a few hundred bucks.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: I agree with the rest of you—we need more freedom, but that comes with much higher accountability for teachers. We should introduce standardized state testing and give educators the chance to tailor their curriculum specifically to what those exams require. If students fail the state tests, it’s a direct reflection of a poor teacher; and if a teacher is failing them, they shouldn't be in the classroom. Finally, we need to make school rankings public. It's time to stop letting schools treat children like commodities to be traded.

I’m with you on the standardized testing issue. To be honest, there are just way too many perfect grades being handed out in elementary school, and it definitely doesn't follow a standard bell curve. It seems like most teachers don't want to deal with the fallout from parents—especially in small towns where everyone knows everyone else. They also don't want to carry the guilt if a kid fails to get into their preferred high school, nor do they want to deal with the occasional parental meltdown. Regardless, it isn't right that students are getting into certain elite prep schools solely based on extra credit from extracurricular competitions, simply because everyone has already maxed out their regular academic points. So, yes—we need standardized testing.
The national standardized testing system needs to be scrapped because it’s geared exclusively toward academic preparatory schools. Vocational schools have lost everything meaningful that their previous graduation requirements used to offer, including specialized technical exams and the capstone projects that now serve as the sole measure of high school education—which, frankly, has become a joke. To make matters worse, since passing the capstone project is a prerequisite for the state test results to even count, it ends up being the teacher's fault when a student fails due to laziness. If they fail that one component, their college applications are ruined. For vocational programs, this current version of standardized testing is a massive mistake.

One thing I don't get—what does a teacher actually have to do with a student's success on these exams? Does the teacher write the test, or does the student? I'm genuinely curious: how exactly are you supposed to force a student to study when neither parents nor teachers can do it? Does that mean every instructor at a cosmetology school (which doesn't even use this specific testing model, if I recall) should just be out of a job?

And then there's the ranking of schools—I don't follow. Different schools attract different types of students. It's a stretch to expect top-tier academic scholars to flock to masonry programs just because they enjoy the trade. Is that considered a "bad" school? Or should we judge them by what they actually produce: workers who are either capable or incapable of doing the job?

Here we go again—bureaucrats, lazy workers, cronies... I could go on all day. This is exactly what new generations of students are learning from their parents. There are certainly issues, but making broad generalizations like this definitely isn't going to achieve anything.
I truly wish ALL parents would send their children exactly where they think is best, especially since it clearly isn't happening through the schools or the teachers...

Vocational schools, first and foremost, along with certain trade paths, often see the (worst) students enrolling. That doesn't mean the school or the trades themselves are bad; it's just that parents would rather brag about their kid going to an elite prep school than becoming a carpenter or a locksmith. These vocational programs offer a path to a solid life, yet they end up filled with the bottom of the barrel—kids who have no other options. Regardless, schools need to be ranked within their own categories. You can't compare masons to prep school grads, but you absolutely have to know which vocational school is best, which technical school leads, and which prep school is the top tier in the US.

Obviously, you have to take those factors into account.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: Do you honestly believe people are going to recall something they learned in a classroom thirty years ago, and that it’ll actually be the deciding factor in landing them a new job or a better position? How exactly is the GDP of Uganda, the Battle of Gettysburg, or reading Shakespeare going to help them here?

Look, you can see that this actually helps you hold your own in a forum debate. At least you have some baseline knowledge—you know that Uganda exists, you've heard of the Battle of Gettysburg, or you're aware of someone like Shakespeare.
You truly never know what life is going to throw at you next. One moment you think you have everything figured out, and the next, everything changes.

nimblelynx7 Asks:
What happens when a driver picks up a passenger who turns out to be a total jerk, only to start lecturing them on Dostoevsky or free-market economics while the rider just sits there looking pale?
I once had to write a paper for a "City Studies" course for a client. I had to map out exactly how to get to Huey Long Street and provide a full biography on who Huey Long actually was. It’s pretty vital information for a taxi driver to have, but hey, you've got to make a living.

Why would he bother bringing up Dostoevsky if the other person couldn't care less? But that’s just how it goes—if you cross paths with a writer, you're going to talk shop. If you run into a contractor, you'll end up rambling about construction for ages. In the end, just like many of our local taxi drivers, you'll eventually just grab the address you need and drive on.
I’ve personally written heaps of papers covering everything from medicine and maritime studies to electronics and law. My biggest one in the maritime field was over 350 pages long—and that’s not even counting the several pages dedicated just to the table of contents and references. But hey, I suppose someone will eventually use that kind of work to hand out a piece of paper labeling them an "expert" in their field.
Do I actually need to be an expert on cars? Maybe not. But I want enough knowledge so that no mechanic can look me in the eye and try to sell me a bunch of overpriced junk I don't need.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 Asks: It’s pointless. The teacher just rolled up on his bike, looking like he might have fallen straight from Mars into the classroom. If he isn't actually here, then what's the point of having a teacher at all?

Honestly, if someone thinks they don't need a teacher, they probably shouldn't be sending their kid to school at all. At least, not high school or college. They should just send them straight into the workforce. Everything you could ever need to know is already out there on the internet or YouTube anyway.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 said:Fine, light years.

Do you actually believe people are going to remember something they learned in school thirty years ago, and that it'll be the deciding factor in them landing a new career or a different role?
How is knowing the GDP of Uganda, the Battle of Gettysburg, or reading Shakespeare going to help them specifically?

What if the driver hits a passenger who's an uneducated jerk, and then he starts lecturing him on Dostoevsky or market economics, and the passenger just stares at him blankly?
I once had to write a paper for a "local geography" course, where I had to explain how to get to Huey Long Street and who Huey Long was. Extremely vital info for a taxi driver, but hey, you gotta make your money.

None at all. The teacher is irrelevant here; they might as well have fallen straight from Mars into the classroom. If they don't matter, then what's the point of having a teacher?

Vocational schools, first and foremost, along with certain trade paths, often see the (worst) students enrolling. That doesn't mean the school or the trades themselves are bad; it's just that parents would rather brag about their kid going to an elite prep school than becoming a carpenter or a locksmith. These vocational programs offer a path to a solid life, yet they end up filled with the bottom of the barrel—kids who have no other options. Regardless, schools need to be ranked within their own categories. You can't compare masons to prep school grads, but you absolutely have to know which vocational school is best, which technical school leads, and which prep school is the top tier in the US.

Obviously, you have to take those factors into account.

So let me ask you this: if those students are truly the "worst of the worst," who is to blame when the criteria at a vocational school—even one offering computer science—don't match the standards or curriculum of a prep school teaching the exact same subject? Is it the teachers, the expectations, or something else entirely? Because, by any reasonable measure, a C student from a prep school will likely outpace an A student from a vocational program in terms of actual knowledge.
You say schools should be compared, presumably through numerical success rates. That is simply impossible. It’s just as impossible as trying to objectively grade a professor. If you place a world-class educator in a room full of uninterested students, there is nothing they can do to spark passion for a subject the kids simply don't care about. On the flip side, put an average teacher in a class of geniuses, and everyone will walk away with straight As because that mediocre instructor has such low expectations—or perhaps the students already know more than what is being taught. You end up with the absurdity where a brilliant professor with struggling students shows poor results, while a mediocre teacher with gifted students shows excellent results just because the material is easy for them.
Is a "bad" professor who demands a lot and hands out Cs actually the better educator, if those Cs mean that student breezes through college later? Or is the "better" professor—the one who hands out As like candy—actually doing a disservice when those students hit a wall during their freshman year of college and end up dropping out?

Paul Wilson72 said:"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: Do you honestly believe people are going to recall something they learned in a classroom thirty years ago, and that it’ll actually be the deciding factor in landing them a new job or a better position? How exactly is the GDP of Uganda, the Battle of Gettysburg, or reading Shakespeare going to help them here?

Look, you can see that this actually helps you hold your own in a forum debate. At least you have some baseline knowledge—you know that Uganda exists, you've heard of the Battle of Gettysburg, or you're aware of someone like Shakespeare.
You truly never know what life is going to throw at you next. One moment you think you have everything figured out, and the next, everything changes.

nimblelynx7 Asks:
What happens when a driver picks up a passenger who turns out to be a total jerk, only to start lecturing them on Dostoevsky or free-market economics while the rider just sits there looking pale?
I once had to write a paper for a "City Studies" course for a client. I had to map out exactly how to get to Huey Long Street and provide a full biography on who Huey Long actually was. It’s pretty vital information for a taxi driver to have, but hey, you've got to make a living.

Why would he bother bringing up Dostoevsky if the other person couldn't care less? But that’s just how it goes—if you cross paths with a writer, you're going to talk shop. If you run into a contractor, you'll end up rambling about construction for ages. In the end, just like many of our local taxi drivers, you'll eventually just grab the address you need and drive on.
I’ve personally written heaps of papers covering everything from medicine and maritime studies to electronics and law. My biggest one in the maritime field was over 350 pages long—and that’s not even counting the several pages dedicated just to the table of contents and references. But hey, I suppose someone will eventually use that kind of work to hand out a piece of paper labeling them an "expert" in their field.
Do I actually need to be an expert on cars? Maybe not. But I want enough knowledge so that no mechanic can look me in the eye and try to sell me a bunch of overpriced junk I don't need.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 Asks: It’s pointless. The teacher just rolled up on his bike, looking like he might have fallen straight from Mars into the classroom. If he isn't actually here, then what's the point of having a teacher at all?

Honestly, if someone thinks they don't need a teacher, they probably shouldn't be sending their kid to school at all. At least, not high school or college. They should just send them straight into the workforce. Everything you could ever need to know is already out there on the internet or YouTube anyway.

"Quote"

So let me ask you this: if those students are truly the "worst of the worst," who is to blame when the criteria at a vocational school—even one offering computer science—don't match the standards or curriculum of a prep school teaching the exact same subject? Is it the teachers, the expectations, or something else entirely? Because, by any reasonable measure, a C student from a prep school will likely outpace an A student from a vocational program in terms of actual knowledge.
You say schools should be compared, presumably through numerical success rates. That is simply impossible. It’s just as impossible as trying to objectively grade a professor. If you place a world-class educator in a room full of uninterested students, there is nothing they can do to spark passion for a subject the kids simply don't care about. On the flip side, put an average teacher in a class of geniuses, and everyone will walk away with straight As because that mediocre instructor has such low expectations—or perhaps the students already know more than what is being taught. You end up with the absurdity where a brilliant professor with struggling students shows poor results, while a mediocre teacher with gifted students shows excellent results just because the material is easy for them.
Is a "bad" professor who demands a lot and hands out Cs actually the better educator, if those Cs mean that student breezes through college later? Or is the "better" professor—the one who hands out As like candy—actually doing a disservice when those students hit a wall during their freshman year of college and end up dropping out?

Is an online forum debate really a benchmark for life? I know for a fact that the year or date of the Battle of Gettysburg won't matter to me, since I'm certain I won't be working as a history professor. I won't be a geography teacher, and I definitely won't be opening a manufacturing plant in Uganda, so I won't need to look up GDP data. It's the same deal with literature.
If those were the only useless facts taught in school, it wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, that isn't the case.

When we asked our elementary school teachers what we'd actually need, the answer was: "You'll learn that in high school." High school teachers said: "You'll need that in college." And college professors usually just changed the subject when asked those kinds of questions.

Paul Wilson72 said:"Quote"

nimblelynx7 As stated by: Do you honestly believe people are going to recall something they learned in a classroom thirty years ago, and that it’ll actually be the deciding factor in landing them a new job or a better position? How exactly is the GDP of Uganda, the Battle of Gettysburg, or reading Shakespeare going to help them here?

Look, you can see that this actually helps you hold your own in a forum debate. At least you have some baseline knowledge—you know that Uganda exists, you've heard of the Battle of Gettysburg, or you're aware of someone like Shakespeare.
You truly never know what life is going to throw at you next. One moment you think you have everything figured out, and the next, everything changes.

nimblelynx7 Asks:
What happens when a driver picks up a passenger who turns out to be a total jerk, only to start lecturing them on Dostoevsky or free-market economics while the rider just sits there looking pale?
I once had to write a paper for a "City Studies" course for a client. I had to map out exactly how to get to Huey Long Street and provide a full biography on who Huey Long actually was. It’s pretty vital information for a taxi driver to have, but hey, you've got to make a living.

Why would he bother bringing up Dostoevsky if the other person couldn't care less? But that’s just how it goes—if you cross paths with a writer, you're going to talk shop. If you run into a contractor, you'll end up rambling about construction for ages. In the end, just like many of our local taxi drivers, you'll eventually just grab the address you need and drive on.
I’ve personally written heaps of papers covering everything from medicine and maritime studies to electronics and law. My biggest one in the maritime field was over 350 pages long—and that’s not even counting the several pages dedicated just to the table of contents and references. But hey, I suppose someone will eventually use that kind of work to hand out a piece of paper labeling them an "expert" in their field.
Do I actually need to be an expert on cars? Maybe not. But I want enough knowledge so that no mechanic can look me in the eye and try to sell me a bunch of overpriced junk I don't need.

"Quote"

nimblelynx7 Asks: It’s pointless. The teacher just rolled up on his bike, looking like he might have fallen straight from Mars into the classroom. If he isn't actually here, then what's the point of having a teacher at all?

Honestly, if someone thinks they don't need a teacher, they probably shouldn't be sending their kid to school at all. At least, not high school or college. They should just send them straight into the workforce. Everything you could ever need to know is already out there on the internet or YouTube anyway.

"Quote"

So let me ask you this: if those students are truly the "worst of the worst," who is to blame when the criteria at a vocational school—even one offering computer science—don't match the standards or curriculum of a prep school teaching the exact same subject? Is it the teachers, the expectations, or something else entirely? Because, by any reasonable measure, a C student from a prep school will likely outpace an A student from a vocational program in terms of actual knowledge.
You say schools should be compared, presumably through numerical success rates. That is simply impossible. It’s just as impossible as trying to objectively grade a professor. If you place a world-class educator in a room full of uninterested students, there is nothing they can do to spark passion for a subject the kids simply don't care about. On the flip side, put an average teacher in a class of geniuses, and everyone will walk away with straight As because that mediocre instructor has such low expectations—or perhaps the students already know more than what is being taught. You end up with the absurdity where a brilliant professor with struggling students shows poor results, while a mediocre teacher with gifted students shows excellent results just because the material is easy for them.
Is a "bad" professor who demands a lot and hands out Cs actually the better educator, if those Cs mean that student breezes through college later? Or is the "better" professor—the one who hands out As like candy—actually doing a disservice when those students hit a wall during their freshman year of college and end up dropping out?

So now students are to blame because the curriculum is too easy? Where does it say vocational schools have to be dumping grounds? Once students start writing the code and designing the entire educational system, then sure, blame them. Until then, they are victims and unwilling witnesses.

Here’s a real-world example. My brother finished a vocational program for carpentry. Since I stood in for my parents at a few parent-teacher meetings, I had the chance to see what they were actually learning. It was a disaster; the math was barely middle school level. Everything seemed fine until his company bought a CNC machine for $150,000 that operates on polar coordinates. You can literally design and carve anything you want in wood, but it requires using a polar coordinate system.
We didn't even touch stuff like that in technical school; I first encountered it in college. Even the boss—a master carpenter—had no clue how it worked. When the three of us finally sat down at the machine, I spent literally 15 hours explaining how to work with polar coordinates without using double integrals (actually, without using any calculus at all). I managed to boil it down to basic geometric shapes and the Cartesian coordinate system.

Clearly, if they designed that machine specifically for "their" carpenters, we're living in two different universes compared to the West.

nimblelynx7 said:Is an online forum debate really a benchmark for life? I know for a fact that the year or date of the Battle of Gettysburg won't matter to me, since I'm certain I won't be working as a history professor. I won't be a geography teacher, and I definitely won't be opening a manufacturing plant in Uganda, so I won't need to look up GDP data. It's the same deal with literature.
If those were the only useless facts taught in school, it wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, that isn't the case.

When we asked our elementary school teachers what we'd actually need, the answer was: "You'll learn that in high school." High school teachers said: "You'll need that in college." And college professors usually just changed the subject when asked those kinds of questions.

So now students are to blame because the curriculum is too easy? Where does it say vocational schools have to be dumping grounds? Once students start writing the code and designing the entire educational system, then sure, blame them. Until then, they are victims and unwilling witnesses.

Here’s a real-world example. My brother finished a vocational program for carpentry. Since I stood in for my parents at a few parent-teacher meetings, I had the chance to see what they were actually learning. It was a disaster; the math was barely middle school level. Everything seemed fine until his company bought a CNC machine for $150,000 that operates on polar coordinates. You can literally design and carve anything you want in wood, but it requires using a polar coordinate system.
We didn't even touch stuff like that in technical school; I first encountered it in college. Even the boss—a master carpenter—had no clue how it worked. When the three of us finally sat down at the machine, I spent literally 15 hours explaining how to work with polar coordinates without using double integrals (actually, without using any calculus at all). I managed to boil it down to basic geometric shapes and the Cartesian coordinate system.

Clearly, if they designed that machine specifically for "their" carpenters, we're living in two different universes compared to the West.

Then tell me, what *is* important in life? Is World War I or World War II important? Is the American Civil War important? Are nature and society important, or all those fairy tales about how the Midwest is perfect for agriculture? Today, it's clearly easiest to just import everything—even the things we could grow ourselves, which we do, yet our industries still fail. Is it important to learn about slavery and feudalism and listen to how terrible that was, or does that just show you that individuals today aren't any better off than they were back then? What matters? Learning some repetitive task so you can spend your whole life acting like a mindless robot?
By your logic, so much is useless. Art would be useless too since it serves no purpose. Music, movies—all of it. Why bother with any of it? What does life even boil down to then?

nimblelynx7 said:Is an online forum debate really a benchmark for life? I know for a fact that the year or date of the Battle of Gettysburg won't matter to me, since I'm certain I won't be working as a history professor. I won't be a geography teacher, and I definitely won't be opening a manufacturing plant in Uganda, so I won't need to look up GDP data. It's the same deal with literature.
If those were the only useless facts taught in school, it wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, that isn't the case.

When we asked our elementary school teachers what we'd actually need, the answer was: "You'll learn that in high school." High school teachers said: "You'll need that in college." And college professors usually just changed the subject when asked those kinds of questions.

So now students are to blame because the curriculum is too easy? Where does it say vocational schools have to be dumping grounds? Once students start writing the code and designing the entire educational system, then sure, blame them. Until then, they are victims and unwilling witnesses.

Here’s a real-world example. My brother finished a vocational program for carpentry. Since I stood in for my parents at a few parent-teacher meetings, I had the chance to see what they were actually learning. It was a disaster; the math was barely middle school level. Everything seemed fine until his company bought a CNC machine for $150,000 that operates on polar coordinates. You can literally design and carve anything you want in wood, but it requires using a polar coordinate system.
We didn't even touch stuff like that in technical school; I first encountered it in college. Even the boss—a master carpenter—had no clue how it worked. When the three of us finally sat down at the machine, I spent literally 15 hours explaining how to work with polar coordinates without using double integrals (actually, without using any calculus at all). I managed to boil it down to basic geometric shapes and the Cartesian coordinate system.

Clearly, if they designed that machine specifically for "their" carpenters, we're living in two different universes compared to the West.

Those are bad answers! The real answer should be: "One of you will need this, two of you will need something else, five of you will need a third thing, and some of you won't need any of it at all." But who is going to be that one, two, or five people? How can you know that in advance? It’s your job to provide them with everything you can, not to limit them from the start. This kind of thinking is like those old movies where the father works in the coal mine, and his sons aren't even taught because it's already assumed they'll work and die there too. Only a few would ever manage to "escape" that cursed cycle...

nimblelynx7 said:Is an online forum debate really a benchmark for life? I know for a fact that the year or date of the Battle of Gettysburg won't matter to me, since I'm certain I won't be working as a history professor. I won't be a geography teacher, and I definitely won't be opening a manufacturing plant in Uganda, so I won't need to look up GDP data. It's the same deal with literature.
If those were the only useless facts taught in school, it wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, that isn't the case.

When we asked our elementary school teachers what we'd actually need, the answer was: "You'll learn that in high school." High school teachers said: "You'll need that in college." And college professors usually just changed the subject when asked those kinds of questions.

So now students are to blame because the curriculum is too easy? Where does it say vocational schools have to be dumping grounds? Once students start writing the code and designing the entire educational system, then sure, blame them. Until then, they are victims and unwilling witnesses.

Here’s a real-world example. My brother finished a vocational program for carpentry. Since I stood in for my parents at a few parent-teacher meetings, I had the chance to see what they were actually learning. It was a disaster; the math was barely middle school level. Everything seemed fine until his company bought a CNC machine for $150,000 that operates on polar coordinates. You can literally design and carve anything you want in wood, but it requires using a polar coordinate system.
We didn't even touch stuff like that in technical school; I first encountered it in college. Even the boss—a master carpenter—had no clue how it worked. When the three of us finally sat down at the machine, I spent literally 15 hours explaining how to work with polar coordinates without using double integrals (actually, without using any calculus at all). I managed to boil it down to basic geometric shapes and the Cartesian coordinate system.

Clearly, if they designed that machine specifically for "their" carpenters, we're living in two different universes compared to the West.

Certain schools systematically decline for years. Some fight just to stay on top. Rumors spread, and nobody has the guts to fix the root of the problem. If you know you have bad grades and you hear a school is "easy," obviously you'll go there just to scrape by for years. If you hear somewhere that people fail classes and the school is demanding, that will initially have a negative effect on enrollment—either because people are afraid they won't pass, or because a past reputation keeps the better students away. But over several years, a reputation can be built, just as easily as it can be lost. The fact is, a school needs a decisive principal and good teachers; if it has that, even a mediocre school can produce top-tier results.

nimblelynx7 said:Is an online forum debate really a benchmark for life? I know for a fact that the year or date of the Battle of Gettysburg won't matter to me, since I'm certain I won't be working as a history professor. I won't be a geography teacher, and I definitely won't be opening a manufacturing plant in Uganda, so I won't need to look up GDP data. It's the same deal with literature.
If those were the only useless facts taught in school, it wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, that isn't the case.

When we asked our elementary school teachers what we'd actually need, the answer was: "You'll learn that in high school." High school teachers said: "You'll need that in college." And college professors usually just changed the subject when asked those kinds of questions.

So now students are to blame because the curriculum is too easy? Where does it say vocational schools have to be dumping grounds? Once students start writing the code and designing the entire educational system, then sure, blame them. Until then, they are victims and unwilling witnesses.

Here’s a real-world example. My brother finished a vocational program for carpentry. Since I stood in for my parents at a few parent-teacher meetings, I had the chance to see what they were actually learning. It was a disaster; the math was barely middle school level. Everything seemed fine until his company bought a CNC machine for $150,000 that operates on polar coordinates. You can literally design and carve anything you want in wood, but it requires using a polar coordinate system.
We didn't even touch stuff like that in technical school; I first encountered it in college. Even the boss—a master carpenter—had no clue how it worked. When the three of us finally sat down at the machine, I spent literally 15 hours explaining how to work with polar coordinates without using double integrals (actually, without using any calculus at all). I managed to boil it down to basic geometric shapes and the Cartesian coordinate system.

Clearly, if they designed that machine specifically for "their" carpenters, we're living in two different universes compared to the West.

I don't know what you expect from a polar coordinate system if it isn't part of a standard high school math curriculum. On the other hand, you'll find it at almost any technical college. As for whether they teach it in foreign high schools, I have no idea. But since we're on the subject, why should an uneducated person be operating a CNC machine? Would you really want someone who only knows how to use a handheld drill and a trowel running a $150,000 machine? If I understand you correctly, you finished college, and high school gave you the foundations to continue your education. And lo and behold, you ended up teaching others how to use the machinery—not just learning it yourself, but passing that knowledge on too...

And while we are talking about "learning," the standard high school math exit exams are basically middle school level. A normal person who finishes middle school could practically take that test and pass it.

nimblelynx7 said:Is an online forum debate really a benchmark for life? I know for a fact that the year or date of the Battle of Gettysburg won't matter to me, since I'm certain I won't be working as a history professor. I won't be a geography teacher, and I definitely won't be opening a manufacturing plant in Uganda, so I won't need to look up GDP data. It's the same deal with literature.
If those were the only useless facts taught in school, it wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, that isn't the case.

When we asked our elementary school teachers what we'd actually need, the answer was: "You'll learn that in high school." High school teachers said: "You'll need that in college." And college professors usually just changed the subject when asked those kinds of questions.

So now students are to blame because the curriculum is too easy? Where does it say vocational schools have to be dumping grounds? Once students start writing the code and designing the entire educational system, then sure, blame them. Until then, they are victims and unwilling witnesses.

Here’s a real-world example. My brother finished a vocational program for carpentry. Since I stood in for my parents at a few parent-teacher meetings, I had the chance to see what they were actually learning. It was a disaster; the math was barely middle school level. Everything seemed fine until his company bought a CNC machine for $150,000 that operates on polar coordinates. You can literally design and carve anything you want in wood, but it requires using a polar coordinate system.
We didn't even touch stuff like that in technical school; I first encountered it in college. Even the boss—a master carpenter—had no clue how it worked. When the three of us finally sat down at the machine, I spent literally 15 hours explaining how to work with polar coordinates without using double integrals (actually, without using any calculus at all). I managed to boil it down to basic geometric shapes and the Cartesian coordinate system.

Clearly, if they designed that machine specifically for "their" carpenters, we're living in two different universes compared to the West.

So you weren't using complex numbers in polar form to solve AC circuits?
And what does double integrals have to do with any of this?

copperpuma11 said:So you weren't using complex numbers in polar form to solve AC circuits?
And what does double integrals have to do with any of this?

We did, but back in high school we didn't touch it as much. It was mostly algebraic. If you were actually given something in polar form, you usually had to convert it back to algebraic or trig just to deal with it.

In linear algebra, we used polar coordinates with double integrals all the time—solve for the r coordinates first, then handle phi.

A university philosophy professor is making quite a suggestion: Evolution and Darwinism ought to be removed from American school curricula.

“(…) many Catholics in America really ought to take a hard look at this and ask themselves whether they’ll continue to tolerate their children being forced to memorize Darwinian explanations for the origin of life—explanations that, as Thomas Nagel so decisively puts it, are simply wrong and unacceptable. Furthermore, Darwinism becomes particularly dangerous when its core tenets are applied to society and morality as a whole, giving rise to Social Darwinism—which feels like nothing more than a new version of a universal secular religion.”

Daniel Chase13 said:A university philosophy professor is making quite a suggestion: Evolution and Darwinism ought to be removed from American school curricula.

“(…) many Catholics in America really ought to take a hard look at this and ask themselves whether they’ll continue to tolerate their children being forced to memorize Darwinian explanations for the origin of life—explanations that, as Thomas Nagel so decisively puts it, are simply wrong and unacceptable. Furthermore, Darwinism becomes particularly dangerous when its core tenets are applied to society and morality as a whole, giving rise to Social Darwinism—which feels like nothing more than a new version of a universal secular religion.”

What kind of science professor is this guy?

Honestly, I'm not even surprised. Not to repeat myself, but there's an open thread on Politics about this, and someone even suggested starting separate schools for boys and girls. Mark and his crew are getting worked up again, and who knows what the next few years will bring, but with her around, things definitely won't be boring.
Basically, instead of heading toward Europe and civilization, we're slowly and surely drifting back into the Dark Ages.

Btw, not all Catholics are creationists. If I recall correctly, even Vatican City has acknowledged evolution and called the creationism in the Bible metaphorical. I wonder what believers like that have to say about this?

Jason Ortiz5 said:What kind of science professor is this guy?

Honestly, I'm not even surprised. Not to repeat myself, but there's an open thread on Politics about this, and someone even suggested starting separate schools for boys and girls. Mark and his crew are getting worked up again, and who knows what the next few years will bring, but with her around, things definitely won't be boring.
Basically, instead of heading toward Europe and civilization, we're slowly and surely drifting back into the Dark Ages.

Btw, not all Catholics are creationists. If I recall correctly, even Vatican City has acknowledged evolution and called the creationism in the Bible metaphorical. I wonder what believers like that have to say about this?

I actually read a bit about that "proposal"—though I didn't realize it was just a proposal, more like they were promoting a whole new educational model. The principal over at Rose Girls' School emphasized that choosing this kind of education would have to be entirely up to the parents.
Also, they pointed out certain benefits to that style of schooling (which I'm sure exist objectively, just like the downsides do).

Personally, I don't think much is going to change regarding this issue in the next few years. It's highly unlikely anyone is going to push for mandatory single-sex schooling at the federal level for everyone; there's just neither the willpower nor the budget for it.
However, the circles Mark belongs to might be able to pull off opening one more of those public-private hybrid schools—or whatever they call them, I'm not an expert—using taxpayer money if they get organized enough. Then, some people will naturally choose to enroll their kids there.

I feel like there's plenty of room in America for both liberal and conservative ideas, and we really shouldn't be shocked that one group is pushing gender theory while the other is pushing for girls' schools. It's exhausting when everyone starts spitting on each other, with both sides accusing the other of being totalitarian. 🤣

Also, let's be real: Mark gets so much media coverage because he's pure clickbait, not because he actually wields massive socio-political power. I don't think that referendum on gay marriage was a true show of strength; it felt more like picking a fight on a topic where you know you won't win. In the end, that same referendum didn't even pass in Canada, and from my own life experience, Canada (well, maybe Vienna) is way more gay-friendly than, say, Washington, D.C.—or at least it certainly was 15 or 20 years ago.

According to General Electric, Finland just pulled a massive power move with their school system by ditching traditional subjects altogether.
The Government in Finland is basically leading the charge in education reform, making history as the first nation to scrap standard school subjects. Instead of kids sitting through isolated lectures, they’re going to tackle major global events through one big, interconnected, interdisciplinary setup.

Marjo Kyllonen, the head official at the Department of Education in Helsinki, pointed out: “Some schools are still teaching using outdated methods from the early 1900s. But the world has changed, and we need something that actually fits the 21st century.”

Take this, for example: if students take a course on "Cafe Work," they’re actually learning language skills, communication, and basic economics all at once. Or they could study World War II through a mix of history, literature, geography, and math simultaneously.

Once kids hit 16, they get to pick the topics they actually care about and work together on them. Instead of just staring at the clock waiting for the bell to ring, they’ll be debating and tackling real-world problems themselves. It makes things way more interactive, both with teachers and with their classmates.

This whole new setup is supposed to boost confidence and give young people more skin in the game when it comes to their own learning. Plus, it should help with social skills and self-expression. And look, it isn't just about the students—teachers are getting in on it too. They’ll have to collaborate more, plan lessons together, and figure out this new way of teaching as a team.

A few teachers who have already jumped on board are loving it, saying there's absolutely no way they're ever going back to the old way.

Hmm... I find myself contemplating the Finnish model and how our perspective on it aligns.
I spent hours scouring the internet; while I don't necessarily feel any wiser, I certainly feel more informed.

They are overhauling their system because the old one—the very one we would likely try to emulate here—simply isn't functioning effectively. Over the last fifteen years, their results on standardized testing have been sliding, which serves as a decent metric for educational quality, even if it fails to capture the full spectrum of practical life skills. There are other, less publicized assessments as well, where the Finns historically struggled, leading them to perhaps not take those metrics quite as seriously as they should have.
A significant portion of what is commonly written about the Finnish system is, frankly, inaccurate. For instance, they do assign homework and they do use grades, yet the pressure remains significantly lower than what you see in other European nations or East Asia.

Implementing this "integrated knowledge" model requires an immense amount of capital and a vast amount of time dedicated to training teachers to be proficient across multiple disciplines—something that, in our current climate, could never yield successful results. The Finnish approach is essentially a model designed to raise the average at the expense of true differentiation; they focus heavily on supporting struggling students while largely neglecting the truly gifted. Furthermore, it is no coincidence that young children there arrive at school as proficient readers, even if that isn't strictly required; they are raised by parents who read extensively, so it is only natural that every seven-year-old is fluent. If we were to follow suit, we would need to become like them, yet how many American children actually see their parents holding a book?

As for single-sex schools, I am staunchly opposed to the concept.
There might be niche instances where such an environment works, but for children to develop normally within such a vacuum, the prerequisite would be intense, constant communication and socialization with the opposite sex during the rest of their day. Such a thing is only possible in hippie communes or among fundamentalist Christian groups with massive families and deeply intertwined community lives.
Personally, I have nothing against allowing parents who believe such an environment would benefit their child the option to enroll them, but I am absolutely against having these fringe pedagogies subsidized by the general taxpaying public—that is to say, people like us who are barely making ends meet and struggle to scrape together enough $50 for something like music lessons or youth sports.

Actually, if I remember correctly—and I might be totally off here, but I'm pretty sure—the school district doesn't even start rolling out this whole thematic learning model until junior or senior year of high school. Up until then, they just stick to the traditional subject-based classes like they always have.

Daniel Chase13 said:A university philosophy professor is making quite a suggestion: Evolution and Darwinism ought to be removed from American school curricula.

“(…) many Catholics in America really ought to take a hard look at this and ask themselves whether they’ll continue to tolerate their children being forced to memorize Darwinian explanations for the origin of life—explanations that, as Thomas Nagel so decisively puts it, are simply wrong and unacceptable. Furthermore, Darwinism becomes particularly dangerous when its core tenets are applied to society and morality as a whole, giving rise to Social Darwinism—which feels like nothing more than a new version of a universal secular religion.”

There’s actually a response here https://mudroljublje.wordpress.com/2...homasa-nagela/

And honestly, it’s worth reading Nagel himself.

This article is a perfect example of why we desperately need education reform, Zovkov...

The guy happens to be a close friend of Nina Raspudić—they come from the same small-town roots, share the same way of thinking and questioning the world... just playing a little folk music here and there, flashing a charming smile, winning over some heart, and dropping some "intellectual" wisdom (not that they aren't smart, but when you add it all up, it’s just classic diaspora philosophical posturing).

Philosophy of science isn't about the Catholic perspective on Darwinism; shove that onto whatever specific branch of philosophy he's actually teaching. This is pure populism, just a way to rake in some columnist cash.

...

For Vedran Mornar, a professor over at the College of Engineering and former science minister under the Democratic Party, the move by Secretary Divjak is a win.

"Back when I was running things, the goal was to roll out those experimental curriculum changes during the 2017/18 school year, aiming for full implementation by 2018/19. Honestly, I still think computer science works best when it's baked into a totally revamped curriculum, but since a massive overhaul isn't happening anytime soon—given how everything's playing out—I think what the Secretary is doing is great," says Mornar.

Basically, if we can't fix the whole system, we might as well make some progress where we can. Mornar points to three big roadblocks.

"First off, school equipment is ancient and desperately needs an upgrade. Back in my day, I was dealing with budget cuts at every single turn, so investing in tech for schools just wasn't on the table. I really hope the Secretary finds herself in a better spot this time around." "The second issue is the fifth-grade schedule; there isn't a single free slot left for a new mandatory subject. We’re going to have to either shake up the whole timetable or cut hours from something else," the former minister explains.

But which subject gets the axe? Unlike countries with more advanced education systems, here in America, subjects like art and music have already been stripped down to just one hour a week. If anyone even breathes in the direction of changing another subject's schedule—which, as the head of the Renaissance union Željko Stipić points out, will cause a total uproar—it's clear that in education, it's much easier to add hours than to take them away.

There’s a debate about finding space for this new required class (since elective computer science often gets pushed to the afternoon shift because there's no room in the regular schedule). Some people are suggesting moving elective religion classes to the afternoon instead. Even though that would technically free up two hours a week—exactly what's needed for mandatory computer science—everyone knows how much of a meltdown that would cause.

Mornar recalls a similar headache when they tried to find a gap in the schedule to introduce civics. From what he remembers, they managed to find exactly one opening: a single hour in sixth grade.

His third point? Teacher training.

"Even now, elective computer science isn't always taught well because the staff in some areas aren't properly trained, especially for stuff like algorithmic thinking and programming. So, those are the three hurdles the Secretary absolutely has to deal with," he concludes.

While it's inevitable that elementary schools eventually need to teach computer science—things like programming, algorithms, and navigating a digital world—some folks involved in the curriculum reform think it's totally unacceptable to mandate four years of computer science at two hours a week, especially when art classes get the same measly amount of time as PE.

On top of that, adding a new mandatory subject is going to mess with other electives (like a second foreign language or religion) because increasing the required hours would push them into the afternoon sessions. People are going to be extremely sensitive about moving elective religious studies to the other shift. At that point, computer science becomes a political lightning rod.

So, how do you actually solve the computer science problem when everything else is falling apart?

Read the rest here:

Bottom line: we're getting nowhere with computer science.

Equipment, schedules, faculty... it's all great on paper. It’s honestly pretty wild how she seems to have zero clue about the actual hurdles we face with mandatory computer science classes.
I just hope she doesn't get ahead of herself with all those "amazing" promises she's making.

The Democratic Party Executive Committee just made a major political call: they're greenlighting the pilot phase of the curriculum reform starting next year.

The whole thing went down during their meeting in Cleveland. The leadership basically admitted that trying to push through this education strategy and curriculum overhaul over the last eighteen months has been a slow, messy slog.

So, they’ve thrown their full weight behind Minister Blaženka Divjak to actually get this moving.

For the Democratic Party, fixing education is the top priority if we want American society to actually progress, and you can't have that without a solid curriculum reform. That's why they're insisting the pilot phase kicks off in the 2018/2019 school year. According to the Democratic Party Executive Committee, as part of the US Government via the Department of Education, they’ll do whatever it takes to get all the paperwork over to the US Congress on time. They're pulling out all the stops to ensure that the pilot program actually hits the classrooms by the 2018/2019 school year.

I honestly cannot wrap my head around the point of Jokić's reform.
What is the actual goal here? It feels like the only constant in the American education system is just endless, repetitive reforms!
Does anyone even remember Primorč's reform?
Or the Bologna Process?
Has any young person actually benefited from any of these "reforms"?
What has actually improved because of them, and what makes anyone think things will magically get better after this latest curricular overhaul?

Why don't we run a reform that actually makes an impact—like firing all the janitors in our elementary and high schools?

Why don't we force those schools to have the students clean their own bathrooms, sinks, and floors every single day after classes end?

That’s how the school system works in Japan.

Japanese kids—who are forced by the state to scrub floors and clean toilets after school—achieve way better results than American kids, whose schools have the government paying janitors to clean up after them.

And don't even get me started on how a reform like that would save literally millions of dollars every single month—it would be more than enough to buy every single student a brand-new tablet every year.

A reform like that would, on one hand, actually prepare kids for the real world, and on the other, it would bring massive savings for taxpayers while finally getting rid of thousands of useless bureaucrats we don't need—neither them nor their services.

Honestly, you have to wonder about parents who can't even teach their own kids how to scrub a toilet.
I really think schools should focus on teaching actual subjects, not basic life skills like that. And no, there is absolutely no way I’d let my kid be cleaning up after anyone else. Every time I hear stories about how some kids act in class, I just want to tell their parents they should be the ones doing the scrubbing for their little angels instead.