School Reform: Thoughts?

Here’s a shot from my daughter’s school. This current freshman class has over 30 students in every single fourth-grade classroom. Now, just imagine trying to fit 35 kids into a tiny 200-square-foot room for ten hours a day during after-school care. It's a nightmare.
Back when my little one started, every class had fewer than 25 students.

It’s nothing short of a nightmare. And what happens if, by some stroke of terrible luck, they end up staffing the fifth grade with undertrained, unqualified teachers? It would be an absolute catastrophe...

I mean, you aren't wrong. Some schools are under an incredible amount of pressure right now. At my daughter's school, there's zero space in the cafeteria, so kids just end up in after-school care because there's nowhere else to go.
And honestly, all the other schools in our neighborhood are dealing with the exact same overcrowding issues.

I’ve been thinking about how much easier life would be if we just restructured teacher schedules. Instead of grouping all the kids who struggle with certain subjects into one massive, disorganized mess—like they do at my local high school—why not prioritize the instructors? If we focused on building more cohesive blocks for the teachers, we wouldn't have these constant gaps and scheduling headaches for the students.

rowdypanther12 said:It’s actually pretty straightforward. While the total number of kids might be similar, they’re spread out across much smaller class sizes in a lot more schools.

And I assume that ties back to how the school schedule is structured—specifically regarding single-shift instruction... but what kind of setup are we even talking about here?

What? 🤔

rowdypanther12 said:Here’s a shot from my daughter’s school. This current freshman class has over 30 students in every single fourth-grade classroom. Now, just imagine trying to fit 35 kids into a tiny 200-square-foot room for ten hours a day during after-school care. It's a nightmare.
Back when my little one started, every class had fewer than 25 students.

Honestly, it’s hardly surprising given how the government operates in a country where nothing matters except Washington, D.C.

Susan James said:I'm generally on the same page as the Secretary
Quincy:

When asked about what happens to the history, geography, and biology teachers at those specific schools, the Secretary pointed out that school schedules shouldn't be bent to accommodate individual teachers; instead, they have to prioritize what the students actually need.

The only way out might be for some of them to retrain for different roles. If we're expected to pick up the tab for that, we’re looking at a massive headache. We already have plenty of unemployed historians out there, so why should taxpayers fund their retraining? Honestly, if people wanted to teach computer science or math, they probably would have gone into those fields from the start rather than picking history...

It’s nothing new to see such condescending and ugly commentary directed at teachers, but it still hits a nerve whenever I come across something like this.

It’s as if anyone who graduates with a degree in linguistics, fine arts, or the social sciences is just a failure who couldn't hack it in anything else. It's hard to wrap my head around the idea that someone might actually prefer the nuances of music over coding, or find languages more captivating than chemistry.

But setting that aside, there's another angle I want to touch upon.

Since we are discussing student welfare, has anyone considered how a kid might end up enrolled in a three-year culinary program simply because they were pressured into it, even if they have zero passion for it? Then, once they hit adulthood and finally gain some clarity, they try to pivot into a fourth year to become a hospitality technician because they previously took geography and languages. And maybe they pass their SATs and head off to college...

In the end, that three-year culinary stint remains their highest level of achievement.
Well, since religious studies are staying on the curriculum, I suppose they could always study theology. 🕺

Christian Wilson28 said:Why on earth are we recruiting people for sales roles, seriously? what's the deal?

It is to earn a credential specifically for a career in retail. 😉
Everyone seems to assume they can perform high-quality work regardless of their actual field of study. That is why customers end up satisfied with service from, say, a former theology professor who couldn't find a job in her specialty and was forced to work a cash register at a place like Gap or Old Navy.

Matthew Castillo5 said:Look, the sales major is usually where they funnel students who were on specialized learning plans back in middle school because they couldn't quite keep up with the standard curriculum.

🤦🤦
That isn't true. For the most part, these are just average, capable kids. Everyone has their own reasons for choosing a path, after all.

Larry Walker24 said:I'm in STEM. 😉

I mean, they already spent eight years grinding through American language classes, so why on earth are we dragging this out for another three? It makes zero sense.

What does a tailor need trigonometry for, and why on earth would a bricklayer be messing around with complex numbers?

Why don't we just scrap all the general education requirements? I mean, besides foreign languages, why are we even wasting time on them?

Does a salesman actually give a damn about Anna Karenina?

And what would a mechanical engineer need to know about Anna Karenina?
unknown

Betty Chase74 said:It is to earn a credential specifically for a career in retail. 😉
Everyone seems to assume they can perform high-quality work regardless of their actual field of study. That is why customers end up satisfied with service from, say, a former theology professor who couldn't find a job in her specialty and was forced to work a cash register at a place like Gap or Old Navy.

🤦🤦
That isn't true. For the most part, these are just average, capable kids. Everyone has their own reasons for choosing a path, after all.

And what would a mechanical engineer need to know about Anna Karenina?
unknown

Why would Karenina be any more important than geography or chemistry?

Larry Walker24 said:Why would Karenina be any more important than geography or chemistry?

Looking at it from that angle, the responsibility ultimately lies with those managing the American education system.
At some point, someone designed these curricula based on what they believed were sound academic standards.
Does everyone here feel—as a general thought—that we might be seeing a similar pattern now? Perhaps through new research, updated findings, or curriculum adjustments?
If these changes end up restricting a student's ability to pursue higher education or switch career paths later on, then the solution fails both the students and the teachers alike.

perzefona, it might strike you as a harsh assessment at first glance, yet one cannot ignore the reality that many history professors—and indeed most humanities faculty members—simply lack the innate aptitude or even the fundamental desire to engage with STEM disciplines, certainly not to the degree required to be considered competent instructors in those fields.

As for these "salespeople," if one looks closely at the enrollment metrics, the pattern becomes quite clear; we are largely talking about students who have struggled to find their footing in the academic system or perhaps those who simply find the traditional curriculum uninspiring, often possessing only a rudimentary grasp of the material taught during their middle school years. It isn't necessarily a question of raw intelligence, you see, but rather a profound deficiency in both foundational preparation and a genuine thirst for learning. However, if these individuals possess a sincere willingness to work, then life will surely provide them with opportunities; after all, what is the point in forcing rigorous academic standards upon someone when it only serves to drive them to drop out of high school entirely? Is it not far more pragmatic to encourage a three-year vocational program than to leave them with nothing beyond a basic diploma?

wanderingbadger44 said:It’s nothing new to see such condescending and ugly commentary directed at teachers, but it still hits a nerve whenever I come across something like this.

It’s as if anyone who graduates with a degree in linguistics, fine arts, or the social sciences is just a failure who couldn't hack it in anything else. It's hard to wrap my head around the idea that someone might actually prefer the nuances of music over coding, or find languages more captivating than chemistry.

But setting that aside, there's another angle I want to touch upon.

Since we are discussing student welfare, has anyone considered how a kid might end up enrolled in a three-year culinary program simply because they were pressured into it, even if they have zero passion for it? Then, once they hit adulthood and finally gain some clarity, they try to pivot into a fourth year to become a hospitality technician because they previously took geography and languages. And maybe they pass their SATs and head off to college...

In the end, that three-year culinary stint remains their highest level of achievement.
Well, since religious studies are staying on the curriculum, I suppose they could always study theology. 🕺

As long as he can bake a communion wafer...

But yeah, I actually know someone who went through this exact thing. Was working mid-level waitressing, one year at HT, then enrolling in college. And that was over twenty years ago,

wanderingbadger44 said:It’s nothing new to see such condescending and ugly commentary directed at teachers, but it still hits a nerve whenever I come across something like this.

It’s as if anyone who graduates with a degree in linguistics, fine arts, or the social sciences is just a failure who couldn't hack it in anything else. It's hard to wrap my head around the idea that someone might actually prefer the nuances of music over coding, or find languages more captivating than chemistry.

But setting that aside, there's another angle I want to touch upon.

Since we are discussing student welfare, has anyone considered how a kid might end up enrolled in a three-year culinary program simply because they were pressured into it, even if they have zero passion for it? Then, once they hit adulthood and finally gain some clarity, they try to pivot into a fourth year to become a hospitality technician because they previously took geography and languages. And maybe they pass their SATs and head off to college...

In the end, that three-year culinary stint remains their highest level of achievement.
Well, since religious studies are staying on the curriculum, I suppose they could always study theology. 🕺

How did you go from being a history teacher to focusing on language studies? 🤔
From what I've been reading, they aren't planning on cutting those programs anytime soon. 🥳

I know you can finish a four-year program and move from retail to commerce, or go from a cook to a tourism technician, or a baker to a food tech specialist—there are all sorts of combinations. But that still doesn't justify keeping subjects around that could easily be covered within the standard middle school curriculum.

By the way, I hear very clear and unmistakable chatter from various circles regarding the different working conditions between three-year vocational schools and four-year ones, not to mention traditional high schools. Specifically, regarding the quality of instruction and what the kids "actually learn."
Let’s not kid ourselves; do you really think someone who visits houses twice a year to inspect chimneys cares about history? What would a chimney sweep or a glazier need to discuss with a homeowner about Napoleon or Matthias Corvinus while they're doing their job? 😕

Did it ever cross your mind that kids in those vocational schools are actually working at ages 14 or 15? Their training happens in the real world with real people, clocking in actual hours. The goal is to teach them how to work with their hands and earn a living through honest labor, not to sit around debating the past or memorizing piles of useless trivia. Or are we supposed to keep churning out contrarians who will argue about civil wars and political movements just because someone from a three-year program might decide to go to college one day?

We should be making these jobs accessible and interesting to these kids by focusing on practical skills, rather than forcing them to cram heaps of useless data at the end of the school year—especially when most tradespeople are already swamped with actual work.

analogseal18 said:perzefona, it might strike you as a harsh assessment at first glance, yet one cannot ignore the reality that many history professors—and indeed most humanities faculty members—simply lack the innate aptitude or even the fundamental desire to engage with STEM disciplines, certainly not to the degree required to be considered competent instructors in those fields.

As for these "salespeople," if one looks closely at the enrollment metrics, the pattern becomes quite clear; we are largely talking about students who have struggled to find their footing in the academic system or perhaps those who simply find the traditional curriculum uninspiring, often possessing only a rudimentary grasp of the material taught during their middle school years. It isn't necessarily a question of raw intelligence, you see, but rather a profound deficiency in both foundational preparation and a genuine thirst for learning. However, if these individuals possess a sincere willingness to work, then life will surely provide them with opportunities; after all, what is the point in forcing rigorous academic standards upon someone when it only serves to drive them to drop out of high school entirely? Is it not far more pragmatic to encourage a three-year vocational program than to leave them with nothing beyond a basic diploma?

Do you really know enough history professors and humanities experts to make such a sweeping claim?
Even if that were true, would we then say that most chemists lack any sense of rhythm, or that most mathematicians struggle to pick up a second language?

From what I've seen in my own classroom, intelligence doesn't really divide itself into neat little boxes; gifted kids are just gifted, and you often find that those who excel at math are equally sharp with linguistics or possess a deep intuition for the cause-and-effect patterns found in history, much like how a student in a music program might grasp complex fractions almost instinctively during their first theory lesson.

wanderingbadger44 said:It’s nothing new to see such condescending and ugly commentary directed at teachers, but it still hits a nerve whenever I come across something like this.

It’s as if anyone who graduates with a degree in linguistics, fine arts, or the social sciences is just a failure who couldn't hack it in anything else. It's hard to wrap my head around the idea that someone might actually prefer the nuances of music over coding, or find languages more captivating than chemistry.

But setting that aside, there's another angle I want to touch upon.

Since we are discussing student welfare, has anyone considered how a kid might end up enrolled in a three-year culinary program simply because they were pressured into it, even if they have zero passion for it? Then, once they hit adulthood and finally gain some clarity, they try to pivot into a fourth year to become a hospitality technician because they previously took geography and languages. And maybe they pass their SATs and head off to college...

In the end, that three-year culinary stint remains their highest level of achievement.
Well, since religious studies are staying on the curriculum, I suppose they could always study theology. 🕺

Passion is one thing; reality is another. I used to think I’d major in English or German because it sounded interesting and easier to graduate, but I ended up going to MIT (and then Law School).

wanderingbadger44 said:It’s nothing new to see such condescending and ugly commentary directed at teachers, but it still hits a nerve whenever I come across something like this.

It’s as if anyone who graduates with a degree in linguistics, fine arts, or the social sciences is just a failure who couldn't hack it in anything else. It's hard to wrap my head around the idea that someone might actually prefer the nuances of music over coding, or find languages more captivating than chemistry.

But setting that aside, there's another angle I want to touch upon.

Since we are discussing student welfare, has anyone considered how a kid might end up enrolled in a three-year culinary program simply because they were pressured into it, even if they have zero passion for it? Then, once they hit adulthood and finally gain some clarity, they try to pivot into a fourth year to become a hospitality technician because they previously took geography and languages. And maybe they pass their SATs and head off to college...

In the end, that three-year culinary stint remains their highest level of achievement.
Well, since religious studies are staying on the curriculum, I suppose they could always study theology. 🕺

Geography and languages won't help him at all there. It’ll be just as much of a headache to make up the credit difference—if they even bother to let him, just to squeeze more money out of him. When my buddy (a bus driver) tried to qualify to drive a subway train, they forced him to take over thirty extra courses, ranging from technical skills and foreign languages to religion (because obviously, it's all about the bottom line).

Betty Chase74 said:It is to earn a credential specifically for a career in retail. 😉
Everyone seems to assume they can perform high-quality work regardless of their actual field of study. That is why customers end up satisfied with service from, say, a former theology professor who couldn't find a job in her specialty and was forced to work a cash register at a place like Gap or Old Navy.

🤦🤦
That isn't true. For the most part, these are just average, capable kids. Everyone has their own reasons for choosing a path, after all.

And what would a mechanical engineer need to know about Anna Karenina?
unknown

Does it really take three years of schooling to learn how to stock shelves at a grocery store, change a price tag on orders from a manager, or count items during inventory? They're describing the limits of a "basic" salesperson. A salesperson who knows nothing about cars can't sell cars; one who knows nothing about computers can't work in tech retail; one who knows nothing about electrical supplies can't work in a hardware store... whereas someone who isn't even trained as a salesperson could handle those jobs without breaking a sweat.

Betty Chase74 said:It is to earn a credential specifically for a career in retail. 😉
Everyone seems to assume they can perform high-quality work regardless of their actual field of study. That is why customers end up satisfied with service from, say, a former theology professor who couldn't find a job in her specialty and was forced to work a cash register at a place like Gap or Old Navy.

🤦🤦
That isn't true. For the most part, these are just average, capable kids. Everyone has their own reasons for choosing a path, after all.

And what would a mechanical engineer need to know about Anna Karenina?
unknown

Does he need it? Like a fish needs a bicycle. Maybe if he's well-read, he can write better project proposals using actual style? Or maybe not. Who knows.

Susan James said:How did you go from being a history teacher to focusing on language studies? 🤔
From what I've been reading, they aren't planning on cutting those programs anytime soon. 🥳

I know you can finish a four-year program and move from retail to commerce, or go from a cook to a tourism technician, or a baker to a food tech specialist—there are all sorts of combinations. But that still doesn't justify keeping subjects around that could easily be covered within the standard middle school curriculum.

By the way, I hear very clear and unmistakable chatter from various circles regarding the different working conditions between three-year vocational schools and four-year ones, not to mention traditional high schools. Specifically, regarding the quality of instruction and what the kids "actually learn."
Let’s not kid ourselves; do you really think someone who visits houses twice a year to inspect chimneys cares about history? What would a chimney sweep or a glazier need to discuss with a homeowner about Napoleon or Matthias Corvinus while they're doing their job? 😕

Did it ever cross your mind that kids in those vocational schools are actually working at ages 14 or 15? Their training happens in the real world with real people, clocking in actual hours. The goal is to teach them how to work with their hands and earn a living through honest labor, not to sit around debating the past or memorizing piles of useless trivia. Or are we supposed to keep churning out contrarians who will argue about civil wars and political movements just because someone from a three-year program might decide to go to college one day?

We should be making these jobs accessible and interesting to these kids by focusing on practical skills, rather than forcing them to cram heaps of useless data at the end of the school year—especially when most tradespeople are already swamped with actual work.

And did you consider that most of these kids didn't actually choose these career paths—except for a rare few—but rather ended up there because, much like what you said about history professors, they didn't have many other options. It’s hard to imagine how much they actually enjoy the work.

If a boss wants to actually get some value out of them instead of just causing more headaches, he might just send them over to Žnidaršić to grab a coffee or run an errand.

Does anyone honestly believe these kids are putting in real hours when they should be studying history? Just hand them a broom or have them fetch drinks.

If you talk to any vocational instructors at those three-year high schools, they'll tell you the truth: students end up making things up in their internship logs just to list tasks they never actually performed, simply because they weren't doing anything related to their trade. Some don't even show up for the internship; the boss just signs off on the paperwork and stamps it. Why would he bother complaining?

But hey, if you want to keep believing that these students are eager workers and these tradespeople are eager mentors while they're all too busy avoiding biology homework, go right ahead.

If he won't bother learning his trade, history, biology, or whatever else—it’s not going to save him from being an idiot. If he’s a carpenter, fine, let him study biology; at least then he can professionally identify which finger he just sliced off. Maybe learn some anatomy too. Or if he studies history, maybe he'll actually grasp how it felt when craftsmen back in the 1700s were dying because of poorly engineered machinery, whereas all he did was lose a finger.

wanderingbadger44 said:And did you consider that most of these kids didn't actually choose these career paths—except for a rare few—but rather ended up there because, much like what you said about history professors, they didn't have many other options. It’s hard to imagine how much they actually enjoy the work.

If a boss wants to actually get some value out of them instead of just causing more headaches, he might just send them over to Žnidaršić to grab a coffee or run an errand.

Does anyone honestly believe these kids are putting in real hours when they should be studying history? Just hand them a broom or have them fetch drinks.

If you talk to any vocational instructors at those three-year high schools, they'll tell you the truth: students end up making things up in their internship logs just to list tasks they never actually performed, simply because they weren't doing anything related to their trade. Some don't even show up for the internship; the boss just signs off on the paperwork and stamps it. Why would he bother complaining?

But hey, if you want to keep believing that these students are eager workers and these tradespeople are eager mentors while they're all too busy avoiding biology homework, go right ahead.

👍

wanderingbadger44 said:And did you consider that most of these kids didn't actually choose these career paths—except for a rare few—but rather ended up there because, much like what you said about history professors, they didn't have many other options. It’s hard to imagine how much they actually enjoy the work.

If a boss wants to actually get some value out of them instead of just causing more headaches, he might just send them over to Žnidaršić to grab a coffee or run an errand.

Does anyone honestly believe these kids are putting in real hours when they should be studying history? Just hand them a broom or have them fetch drinks.

If you talk to any vocational instructors at those three-year high schools, they'll tell you the truth: students end up making things up in their internship logs just to list tasks they never actually performed, simply because they weren't doing anything related to their trade. Some don't even show up for the internship; the boss just signs off on the paperwork and stamps it. Why would he bother complaining?

But hey, if you want to keep believing that these students are eager workers and these tradespeople are eager mentors while they're all too busy avoiding biology homework, go right ahead.

I’ve only heard rumors about this, but after seeing it firsthand this summer, I know it’s true.

Susan James said:How did you go from being a history teacher to focusing on language studies? 🤔
From what I've been reading, they aren't planning on cutting those programs anytime soon. 🥳

I know you can finish a four-year program and move from retail to commerce, or go from a cook to a tourism technician, or a baker to a food tech specialist—there are all sorts of combinations. But that still doesn't justify keeping subjects around that could easily be covered within the standard middle school curriculum.

By the way, I hear very clear and unmistakable chatter from various circles regarding the different working conditions between three-year vocational schools and four-year ones, not to mention traditional high schools. Specifically, regarding the quality of instruction and what the kids "actually learn."
Let’s not kid ourselves; do you really think someone who visits houses twice a year to inspect chimneys cares about history? What would a chimney sweep or a glazier need to discuss with a homeowner about Napoleon or Matthias Corvinus while they're doing their job? 😕

Did it ever cross your mind that kids in those vocational schools are actually working at ages 14 or 15? Their training happens in the real world with real people, clocking in actual hours. The goal is to teach them how to work with their hands and earn a living through honest labor, not to sit around debating the past or memorizing piles of useless trivia. Or are we supposed to keep churning out contrarians who will argue about civil wars and political movements just because someone from a three-year program might decide to go to college one day?

We should be making these jobs accessible and interesting to these kids by focusing on practical skills, rather than forcing them to cram heaps of useless data at the end of the school year—especially when most tradespeople are already swamped with actual work.

I can't believe you're buying into this. People graduate from four-year universities with no idea what their degree is actually for, yet you're out here believing in some fairy tale where teenagers fresh out of trade school are somehow skilled AND still have the motivation to work. 🤣

This self-important Secretary of Education keeps dropping these absolute gems of wisdom every single day.🙂

The part that really gets me about this whole situation, though, is how she just dives headfirst into these massive reforms without having an actual plan, a coherent strategy, or even a basic sense of direction. She just decides things on a whim and runs with it.

I’ve been chatting with some colleagues over at our local public school districts, and honestly, it’s just pure chaos right now.☕

So, my gut tells me the first thing she’ll do is start slashing teaching positions, and only after those cuts are made will she actually bother thinking about curricula, specific subjects, or how many hours kids should be sitting in a classroom. And then... oops... she’ll probably realize there isn't a clear objective in sight, but hey, who cares, right? By then, it’ll likely be election season again, we'll get a new administration, and the whole cycle starts all over again with someone else pushing their own set of half-baked ideas.🙂

It’s honestly nauseating.