School Reform: Thoughts?

urbantinker8 said:And you see, I also had seventeen subjects, and I’d probably breeze through them with nothing but nonsense for maybe two or three classes that were absolutely boring or just didn't make any sense to me, but I actually did study for the others.
And I still managed to have a social life, go out, and fall in love, believe it or not.

It’s not like anyone ever explicitly stated that the whole point of education is to foster critical thinking.
The primary goal is really just to present certain important facts, and then, I suppose, there's a second level where you might eventually form an opinion or develop some sort of critical thought about them.
Because if you don't actually know the facts, it's probably pretty hard to have a meaningful stance on them. 🤷

And I wouldn't necessarily agree that general culture is defined by what someone reads after they finish school, because there is literature and then there is... well, literature, so I can't really prioritize someone who has never even heard of Joyce or Marulic in their entire life, but spends every single day devouring works by Coelh or Pamela Anderson instead of someone who is somewhat acquainted with the classics of American and world literature.

I don't quite get this perspective—how many books do you actually go through in a month? I’m talking about fiction, like Father Goriot, or maybe something more contemporary, but certainly nothing you feel forced to read for some reason. What kind of books are you into, generally speaking?
Do you truly believe that classics like Father Goriot or Crime and Punishment are somehow inherently superior to every single modern book (in other words, are you perhaps a bit of a book snob)?

Because I find it impossible to imagine that anyone who actually enjoys reading would ever compare, I don't know, a legitimate book to Kim Kardashian.
Most bookworms probably wouldn't touch a Goal truth if you paid them, though they might if there was a paycheck involved. Someone who reads because they genuinely love it, picking up standard books from the local library, isn't reading just so they can gossip about the author later; they're doing it to relax and escape the real world for a while.

I will never understand trying to put a Goal truth on the same level as a decent modern novel.

I don't really know what to make of this, but honestly, it feels like we're all just kind of drifting through these digital spaces without a real compass, you know? It’s like when you’re driving down a long stretch of highway in the Midwest, nothing but cornfields for miles, and you realize you haven't seen a single exit sign in twenty minutes—you start questioning if you even turned off at the right junction or if you've been circling the same loop the whole time. That's how some of these discussions feel to me lately, just a bit fuzzy and lacking that sharp, clear direction we usually look for. I’m not trying to be a buzzkill or anything, I genuinely want to find some substance here, but sometimes it feels like we're just throwing words into a void and hoping something sticks. It’s an odd sensation, being both present and totally lost at the same time, but I guess that's just part of the experience, isn't it? kaže:
It feels like nobody ever bothered to point out that the whole point of history class should actually be about sharpening our critical thinking skills rather than just memorizing dates.
Look, my main goal here is really just to lay out the heavy-hitting facts first and foremost, because you can't build anything solid without that foundation. Once we’ve got all those pieces on the table, then—and only then—is it time for the second level of the game, which is actually forming a real opinion and working on developing some actual critical thinking skills.
Look, if you haven't actually done the homework or gotten your hands on the actual facts, it’s pretty much impossible to form a real opinion that carries any weight. It's like trying to give a deep analysis of a Broadway play when you haven't even seen the opening night performance—you're just guessing based on rumors rather than what's actually happening on stage.🤷

Someone was claiming that the whole point of school is to foster critical thinking skills, which honestly makes me wonder which subject is actually supposed to handle that—because if you ask me, it should be history. But let’s be real for a second: history class is about as far from critical analysis as you can get.
The real kicker here, and honestly the biggest issue we're facing, is that they aren't even bothering to lay out the actual facts upfront. It’s like they’re trying to build a whole house without ever showing you the foundation or the blueprints first.

If we actually sat down and taught history based on nothing but the raw, unvarnished facts, honestly, we wouldn’t even need to update the textbooks every few years; students in the 1980s, the mid-90s, and today would all be learning the exact same story.

Honestly, I feel like the entire way they teach medieval history in our high schools is basically just modern-day mythology. If they actually sat us down and presented the raw facts instead of these polished legends, people might actually start developing some real critical thinking skills.
Let’s be real here—no government in the world is actually going to use history classes to fix this kind of stuff, because honestly, that would be like cutting off the very branch they're sitting on.

Honestly, I really couldn't agree more if someone tried to claim that "reading" just isn't part of the general culture once you've finished school, because let's be real—it absolutely exists and it's still happening. Literature is such a massive, sprawling thing to wrap your head around, isn't it? It’s like trying to map out the entire Pacific Ocean when you're just standing there with a bucket. You start with the heavy hitters—those giants whose names we all know because they basically built the foundation of how we tell stories—and then you realize there's this endless, beautiful mess of everything else underneath. It's not just about the stuff you had to read in high school to pass a test; it's about that specific feeling when a sentence hits you so hard it feels like a physical weight in your chest. It's like finding a perfectly worn-in pair of Levi's that fits just right, except instead of fabric, it's words that somehow explain exactly how you feel about life, even when you couldn't put it into words yourself. Whether it's some classic epic or a modern novel that feels like it was written specifically for your own messy life, literature is really just us humans trying to scream into the void and hoping someone else hears the echo. I just can't bring myself to respect someone's take on literature if they’ve never even heard of James Joyce or Ivan Lučić, yet somehow spend every single day devouring every little snippet written by Coca-Cola or Kim Kardashian instead of actually paying attention to someone who knows their way around the classics of American and world literature.

So, what you're basically asking is whether it’s better to just have a passing familiarity with someone like James Joyce without ever actually cracking open one of his books, rather than actually sitting down and getting lost in a story by Coca-Cola? It’s kind of like knowing all the stats and history of a legendary quarterback but never actually watching a single game versus being totally immersed in a modern blockbuster movie. One gives you the intellectual street cred, while the other actually gives you something to experience.
I honestly just can't wrap my head around that, if I'm being totally real with you. 🤷

Let’s be real, most people just aren't really looking to dive into the heavy hitters of world literature, you know? It’s like trying to run a marathon when you haven't even walked around the block yet; most folks would much rather just grab some light, breezy fiction that doesn't require a PhD to get through.

I mean, maybe—just maybe—we wouldn't have people struggling to find any interest in reading at all if schools actually let them dive into some high-quality contemporary authors instead of forcing them to bash their heads against the walls trying to make sense of the classics or stuff from the Renaissance and Baroque periods.

Shakespeare wrote about the people of his era specifically for the people living through it, and honestly, that’s exactly how he should be read. It really bugs me when people try to brush everything off with that tired excuse that "these are just timeless human problems." I mean, come on—there are countless authors out there today who are doing exactly what he did: writing about their own contemporary world for their own contemporaries. And if we actually gave those modern works a chance, they could be just as effective at helping kids develop a sense of critical thinking as the classics.

It feels like our whole academic system is just rigged, honestly. You’ve got these tenure-track history buffs who are so obsessed with pushing their own specific agendas that there's barely any room left to actually breathe, let alone study contemporary literature at the university level, much less expect anything meaningful to happen in our high schools.

I’ve always had this thing where I actually enjoy diving into books that people might dismiss as total trash, but honestly, there is so much substance there if you look closely enough. Take *The Hunger Games*, for example—I was absolutely obsessed with it. I truly believe that could be such an incredible tool for a classroom setting because it offers so much meat for discussing critical thinking, the desensitization to violence, the toxicity of reality TV, war, and how massive PR machines manipulate public perception. It would be such a blast to dissect a story like that in school, rather than being stuck reading something like *Where Time Stands Still*, which, if you ask me, feels more like the kind of stuff you'd read to pass the time in a nursing home.

I’m honestly losing my mind over this whole thread, so I think I need to just take a breather and step back for a second.
I honestly feel like you’ve gotta pin down exactly what the purpose of every single thing is first, but it can't just be some abstract theory floating around in space—it actually has to be rooted in the real world and based on what people truly need right now.

If the whole point of learning a foreign language is to actually get a handle on the basics so you can communicate, then I guess the goal of studying American English should be the same—mastering our own tongue. But honestly, just looking at how we teach it in schools makes me think we’ve completely lost the plot. When you see kids sitting in classrooms being forced to memorize rigid rules about syllable stress patterns and vowel lengths instead of just learning how to speak naturally, it really shows how stiff and outdated the entire system has become.
So, any language student out there probably remembers being told that "language is a living organism" and that it naturally evolves over time, but it feels like our academic linguists are desperately trying to freeze everything in the 1800s.
Things like pitch accent in spoken conversation have basically vanished, the vocative case is dying out, and I guess we’re all just "speaking incorrectly" now because some textbook says we should be stressing syllables differently...

But once you start digging into why things are stuck like this, you run right into the corruption within academia—basically these little cliques fighting tooth and nail for tenure and prestige—and you realize the whole system is just a total mess.

Anyway, thanks for listening. Peace out. 😁

P.S. My kid is starting elementary school in a couple of years, and they’ve already switched to tablets for all their lessons; I’ll let you guys know how it goes, though I'm sure it was all perfectly planned out and methodically brilliant! 😁

Don't get mad at me for being a total pushover, but I agree with every single word you wrote here. 😁

(Even though I can be a bit of a literary snob—despite being a huge fantasy fan—I think some of it is just fluff, and honestly, I wasn't a fan of Goldman Sachs 😂 )

David Jackson2 said:It’s not like the American education system doesn't need a serious overhaul or anything. It absolutely does—but we should probably start with how we hire teachers, the way they’re trained, and making sure there's actual continuous professional development instead of just... whatever currently exists. We also desperately need a standardized grading system. And I don't necessarily mean just slapping a number on everything, though if we do go the numerical route, it really needs to be rooted in actual written exams and projects with clear, objective rubrics.

As for the curriculum itself? Yeah, it needs some tweaking too, but honestly, things aren't quite the total catastrophe people seem to think they are.

If there's one thing that really gets me about a lot of the posts above, it's this mindset that education is just a tool to land a job or pick up specific technical skills you'll use at the office. That's only one tiny slice of what learning is supposed to do. Those "useless" details we were all forced to memorize back in school? They actually helped build critical thinking skills. Even pure rote memorization has its place in developing cognitive abilities—it’s not all wasted time.

A solid general culture is vital—and let's be real, for many people, it's what actually puts food on the table. Plus, someone with a broad, well-rounded education is much less likely to end up as a mindless political puppet without an ounce of their own opinion. It feels like that's becoming a bigger problem everywhere in the world lately.

I’m not buying that... honestly, I could go walk into any vocational school, trade school, or culinary academy right now and find a handful of career paths that don't have any real purpose... and in almost any other major, I could find a few subjects that serve zero cultural, educational, or technical value yet still get shoved into the schedule. (And I'm not even talking about religion or ethics classes here)

Karen Richardson3 said:Back when I was at Seattle Sounders FC studying American linguistics and literature, students would actually lose points on their lit exams just because of spelling errors—and we're talking basic stuff, like simple phonetic slips.

☕

As for this whole "general knowledge" debate, I think it's just a leftover relic of Sullivan's old-school idealism. That well-meaning guy probably truly believed that everyone deserves a shot at a high-level education because humans are inherently wonderful.
Fine, it was a specific moment in history and whatever.
But in practice, it ended up crushing small businesses and alienating the people who actually valued deep learning.

By the way, regarding the idea that you don't need to train waiters—sure, maybe you don't need training if you're just serving shots in some dive bar at 7 AM, but if you want to work in a high-end restaurant, you definitely do. A good server needs to be multilingual, carry themselves with class, and know exactly how to upsell the most expensive bottle on the menu.
At least the people I know working in hospitality swear by it.

Good grief, frupy... what are we even talking about here? The reality is that kids are taught about Frost and the Revolutionary War, but just a few years later, practically nobody knows anything about them unless they're specifically heading to an Ivy League school to become professors.
The truth is, they just don't care.
And because they don't care, they aren't actually learning; they're just copying answers, cheating, and barely scraping by through the system.
Are you seriously suggesting that Americans possess a high level of general culture?

I don't really get what you mean by "general culture"... personally, I feel like even being fluent in English counts as general culture these days... knowing a few classic authors, understanding how the government works, taxes, stuff like that—that's general culture.

If you think it’s totally fine that eighteen-year-olds have zero clue how the state functions while you're more worried about literary figures, then we've got a real problem on our hands.

btw regarding the idea that you don't need to train waiters—well, maybe not if they're just working at some dive bar serving moonshine at 7 AM, but you definitely need training for any decent restaurant where a server needs to be multilingual, carry themselves well, and know how to upsell the expensive stuff effortlessly.
At least the people I know in hospitality swear it's necessary.

How many languages do you actually need to say "good morning," "here you go," and understand what a customer ordered? And how much time would kids even waste on that, is it even worth it?

It would be enough to just group all those related jobs under one umbrella term like "hospitality professional" or something similar.

Karen Richardson3 said:

I don't really know what to make of this, but honestly, it feels like we're all just kind of drifting through these digital spaces without a real compass, you know? It’s like when you’re driving down a long stretch of highway in the Midwest, nothing but cornfields for miles, and you realize you haven't seen a single exit sign in twenty minutes—you start questioning if you even turned off at the right junction or if you've been circling the same loop the whole time. That's how some of these discussions feel to me lately, just a bit fuzzy and lacking that sharp, clear direction we usually look for. I’m not trying to be a buzzkill or anything, I genuinely want to find some substance here, but sometimes it feels like we're just throwing words into a void and hoping something sticks. It’s an odd sensation, being both present and totally lost at the same time, but I guess that's just part of the experience, isn't it? kaže:
It feels like nobody ever bothered to point out that the whole point of history class should actually be about sharpening our critical thinking skills rather than just memorizing dates.
Look, my main goal here is really just to lay out the heavy-hitting facts first and foremost, because you can't build anything solid without that foundation. Once we’ve got all those pieces on the table, then—and only then—is it time for the second level of the game, which is actually forming a real opinion and working on developing some actual critical thinking skills.
Look, if you haven't actually done the homework or gotten your hands on the actual facts, it’s pretty much impossible to form a real opinion that carries any weight. It's like trying to give a deep analysis of a Broadway play when you haven't even seen the opening night performance—you're just guessing based on rumors rather than what's actually happening on stage.🤷

Someone was claiming that the whole point of school is to foster critical thinking skills, which honestly makes me wonder which subject is actually supposed to handle that—because if you ask me, it should be history. But let’s be real for a second: history class is about as far from critical analysis as you can get.
The real kicker here, and honestly the biggest issue we're facing, is that they aren't even bothering to lay out the actual facts upfront. It’s like they’re trying to build a whole house without ever showing you the foundation or the blueprints first.

If we actually sat down and taught history based on nothing but the raw, unvarnished facts, honestly, we wouldn’t even need to update the textbooks every few years; students in the 1980s, the mid-90s, and today would all be learning the exact same story.

Honestly, I feel like the entire way they teach medieval history in our high schools is basically just modern-day mythology. If they actually sat us down and presented the raw facts instead of these polished legends, people might actually start developing some real critical thinking skills.
Let’s be real here—no government in the world is actually going to use history classes to fix this kind of stuff, because honestly, that would be like cutting off the very branch they're sitting on.

Honestly, I really couldn't agree more if someone tried to claim that "reading" just isn't part of the general culture once you've finished school, because let's be real—it absolutely exists and it's still happening. Literature is such a massive, sprawling thing to wrap your head around, isn't it? It’s like trying to map out the entire Pacific Ocean when you're just standing there with a bucket. You start with the heavy hitters—those giants whose names we all know because they basically built the foundation of how we tell stories—and then you realize there's this endless, beautiful mess of everything else underneath. It's not just about the stuff you had to read in high school to pass a test; it's about that specific feeling when a sentence hits you so hard it feels like a physical weight in your chest. It's like finding a perfectly worn-in pair of Levi's that fits just right, except instead of fabric, it's words that somehow explain exactly how you feel about life, even when you couldn't put it into words yourself. Whether it's some classic epic or a modern novel that feels like it was written specifically for your own messy life, literature is really just us humans trying to scream into the void and hoping someone else hears the echo. I just can't bring myself to respect someone's take on literature if they’ve never even heard of James Joyce or Ivan Lučić, yet somehow spend every single day devouring every little snippet written by Coca-Cola or Kim Kardashian instead of actually paying attention to someone who knows their way around the classics of American and world literature.

So, what you're basically asking is whether it’s better to just have a passing familiarity with someone like James Joyce without ever actually cracking open one of his books, rather than actually sitting down and getting lost in a story by Coca-Cola? It’s kind of like knowing all the stats and history of a legendary quarterback but never actually watching a single game versus being totally immersed in a modern blockbuster movie. One gives you the intellectual street cred, while the other actually gives you something to experience.
I honestly just can't wrap my head around that, if I'm being totally real with you. 🤷

Let’s be real, most people just aren't really looking to dive into the heavy hitters of world literature, you know? It’s like trying to run a marathon when you haven't even walked around the block yet; most folks would much rather just grab some light, breezy fiction that doesn't require a PhD to get through.

I mean, maybe—just maybe—we wouldn't have people struggling to find any interest in reading at all if schools actually let them dive into some high-quality contemporary authors instead of forcing them to bash their heads against the walls trying to make sense of the classics or stuff from the Renaissance and Baroque periods.

Shakespeare wrote about the people of his era specifically for the people living through it, and honestly, that’s exactly how he should be read. It really bugs me when people try to brush everything off with that tired excuse that "these are just timeless human problems." I mean, come on—there are countless authors out there today who are doing exactly what he did: writing about their own contemporary world for their own contemporaries. And if we actually gave those modern works a chance, they could be just as effective at helping kids develop a sense of critical thinking as the classics.

It feels like our whole academic system is just rigged, honestly. You’ve got these tenure-track history buffs who are so obsessed with pushing their own specific agendas that there's barely any room left to actually breathe, let alone study contemporary literature at the university level, much less expect anything meaningful to happen in our high schools.

I’ve always had this thing where I actually enjoy diving into books that people might dismiss as total trash, but honestly, there is so much substance there if you look closely enough. Take *The Hunger Games*, for example—I was absolutely obsessed with it. I truly believe that could be such an incredible tool for a classroom setting because it offers so much meat for discussing critical thinking, the desensitization to violence, the toxicity of reality TV, war, and how massive PR machines manipulate public perception. It would be such a blast to dissect a story like that in school, rather than being stuck reading something like *Where Time Stands Still*, which, if you ask me, feels more like the kind of stuff you'd read to pass the time in a nursing home.

I’m honestly losing my mind over this whole thread, so I think I need to just take a breather and step back for a second.
I honestly feel like you’ve gotta pin down exactly what the purpose of every single thing is first, but it can't just be some abstract theory floating around in space—it actually has to be rooted in the real world and based on what people truly need right now.

If the whole point of learning a foreign language is to actually get a handle on the basics so you can communicate, then I guess the goal of studying American English should be the same—mastering our own tongue. But honestly, just looking at how we teach it in schools makes me think we’ve completely lost the plot. When you see kids sitting in classrooms being forced to memorize rigid rules about syllable stress patterns and vowel lengths instead of just learning how to speak naturally, it really shows how stiff and outdated the entire system has become.
So, any language student out there probably remembers being told that "language is a living organism" and that it naturally evolves over time, but it feels like our academic linguists are desperately trying to freeze everything in the 1800s.
Things like pitch accent in spoken conversation have basically vanished, the vocative case is dying out, and I guess we’re all just "speaking incorrectly" now because some textbook says we should be stressing syllables differently...

But once you start digging into why things are stuck like this, you run right into the corruption within academia—basically these little cliques fighting tooth and nail for tenure and prestige—and you realize the whole system is just a total mess.

Anyway, thanks for listening. Peace out. 😁

P.S. My kid is starting elementary school in a couple of years, and they’ve already switched to tablets for all their lessons; I’ll let you guys know how it goes, though I'm sure it was all perfectly planned out and methodically brilliant! 😁

To me, this feels more like a personal take.

maybe, just maybe, kids would actually dive into serious literature if schools offered them quality contemporary authors instead of forcing them to lose sleep over the problems of the Antiquity, Renaissance, or Baroque periods.

Shakespeare wrote about the people of his era for the people of his era. back then, he was the one who needed reading. and I'm so tired of hearing that excuse about how "those are all timeless issues," because there are tons of authors today writing about modern life for modern readers, and those works would definitely help kids "develop a critical spirit."

it's just our system—we have tenured literary historians pushing their own agendas so hard that contemporary lit barely gets a look-in at the university level, let alone in high school.

I'm with you on this... this is really solid stuff.

I suppose I should probably start by saying that I’m not exactly an expert on this sort of thing, though I do tend to spend a fair amount of my free time thinking about it, I guess. It seems to me that when you look at how things are laid out, there's this certain weight to the way we perceive reality, which might be why some people find it so jarring. I was reading something the other day—it might have been a bit too dense for my liking—but it brought to mind that feeling you get when you realize everything isn't quite as solid as it appears to be. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like we often overlook the small, quiet shifts in the landscape because we're too busy looking for the big, dramatic explosions, much like how one might expect a film directed by Quentin Tarantino to unfold, whereas life is usually much more... subtle, if that makes sense. Anyway, I don't mean to wander off on a tangent, but it feels relevant. If we consider the way information flows through our modern institutions, it reminds me slightly of the complexity you see in a particularly difficult passage by James Joyce, where you have to squint just to make out the underlying rhythm. It's all very layered, I think, and perhaps a bit overwhelming if you don't approach it with a certain level of patience. Or maybe I'm just overthinking it, which is a habit I've never quite managed to break.

Chloe Roberts2 said:I don't quite get this perspective—how many books do you actually go through in a month? I’m talking about fiction, like Father Goriot, or maybe something more contemporary, but certainly nothing you feel forced to read for some reason. What kind of books are you into, generally speaking?
Do you truly believe that classics like Father Goriot or Crime and Punishment are somehow inherently superior to every single modern book (in other words, are you perhaps a bit of a book snob)?

Because I find it impossible to imagine that anyone who actually enjoys reading would ever compare, I don't know, a legitimate book to Kim Kardashian.
Most bookworms probably wouldn't touch a Goal truth if you paid them, though they might if there was a paycheck involved. Someone who reads because they genuinely love it, picking up standard books from the local library, isn't reading just so they can gossip about the author later; they're doing it to relax and escape the real world for a while.

I will never understand trying to put a Goal truth on the same level as a decent modern novel.

I guess I was just throwing out some extreme examples on purpose, so there’s really no need to take everything I said quite so literally.😉
I suppose I should start by mentioning that I’ve been thinking quite a bit about what urbantinker8 was getting at earlier, though I might be overanalyzing the whole thing, if that makes sense. It feels like we often get caught up in these sweeping generalizations, much like how one might overstate the influence of Quentin Tarantino when discussing modern cinema, even if his style is certainly unmistakable. There’s this tendency to want everything to fit into a neat little box, which I guess is just human nature, isn't it? We look for patterns where there might just be chaos, or perhaps just a series of unrelated events that we’ve decided to link together for the sake of a good story. I don't know, maybe I'm just being overly cautious with my conclusions, but it seems to me that we should probably approach these discussions with a bit more nuance, similar to how you wouldn't just credit William Shakespeare for every single dramatic trope used in a Hollywood blockbuster without acknowledging the layers beneath. It’s easy to be certain, but I find that certainty usually feels a little hollow after a while, so I tend to lean toward the middle ground, even if it's a bit less exciting than taking a firm side.

I suppose I should probably mention Miss Daisy, though I’m not entirely sure where to start with her, or if it even matters much in the grand scheme of things. She’s one of those people who just sort of exists in the periphery of your life, you know? I guess she’s always been around, moving through the world with this quiet, almost imperceptible presence that makes you wonder if you actually noticed her at all until she wasn't there. It’s a bit like watching a slow-moving fog roll over the Hudson; you don't really realize how much it has changed the landscape until everything is suddenly obscured. Maybe that's just how some people are built, I suppose—just a series of gentle, understated moments that don't demand much from anyone, which can be quite nice, I guess, if you have the temperament for it. There isn't much to say, really, other than she carries herself with a certain stillness that feels somewhat out of place in a country as loud and restless as America, but then again, maybe that's exactly why she stands out. urbantinker8 says: I guess you could say William Shakespeare wrote about the people of his era for the people of his era, which is exactly why he was meant to be read back then. It kind of pains me when I hear that tired old excuse about how certain works are just "timeless universal problems," because there are countless authors out there today who are doing exactly what he did—writing about their own contemporary world for their own contemporaries. And apparently, reading those specific kinds of works is supposed to be the magic key to "developing a child's critical thinking skills," or so they tell us.

I mean, I guess you might have actually picked the wrong example there, if you think about it.😁

I suppose the distinction between people who actually matter and those who are just sort of... drifting through life, is a concept that feels just as relevant today as it did back in the Renaissance, I guess.😛

I hadn't really considered the idea that someone might claim to "know" James Joyce without actually sitting down to read him, because I suppose that would fall squarely into the category of just being a poseur—you know, having all the facts about when he lived, where he spent his time, or what he supposedly wrote, yet never actually having laid eyes on the work itself.

I suppose I’m talking about... I suppose I’ve always found myself drifting toward reading lately, though I can never quite pin down why it feels more necessary now than it did a few years ago. It isn't that I have more free time—God knows that's a myth—but there's just this sense that the world moves a bit too fast, and sitting down with a book feels like a way to slow the gears down, if that makes any sense. Maybe it's just a way to escape the constant noise of everything else going on around us. I don't know. It's probably just me being overly contemplative about something as simple as turning a page. I suppose I’ve been sitting here for quite a while, just staring at my bookshelf and wondering about the whole concept of the "greatest hits" of literature, if you want to call them that. It’s a funny thing, isn't it? This idea that we can somehow categorize the heavyweights of world literature—those names that everyone feels obligated to respect—and pit them against... well, everything else. I was thinking about how we tend to treat certain authors like they’re untouchable, almost like a canon that’s set in stone, when really, greatness is such a slippery, subjective thing. You have someone like James Joyce, for instance, whose work can feel like a labyrinth you never quite find your way out of, and then you have the more structured, perhaps more accessible giants. I guess what I'm trying to get at is whether there's actually a meaningful distinction between those "classics" and the modern stuff we consume today, or if we're just clinging to old names because it makes us feel a bit more cultured. Maybe it's all just a matter of timing and luck, though I suspect most people would argue that's a bit too cynical. It’s hard to say, really. I suppose I should probably mention something about reading, though I’m never quite sure if it’s worth dwelling on, given how much noise there is out there lately. It feels like one of those things where you start with a simple intention—maybe just picking up a book to pass the time during a flight to Chicago or something—and then you find yourself spiraling into these deep, quiet rabbit holes that take up way more headspace than you originally planned. I guess it’s just a way to slow everything down, maybe, or perhaps it's just a habit I can't seem to shake, even when there are much more pressing things to attend to. It’s a strange, quiet sort of preoccupation, I suppose. I suppose I’ve been spending an awful lot of time lately thinking about the nature of belles-lettres, or whatever we call that specific, somewhat lofty category of pure literature these days. It’s a bit of a wandering thought, really, but there is something about the way we categorize writing—separating the "useful" prose from the stuff that just exists to be beautiful or evocative—that feels increasingly arbitrary, I guess. Maybe it’s just me, but I often find myself drifting between the two, wondering if the distinction even matters anymore in a world where everything is so aggressively functional. It’s like trying to decide if a piece of music is meant to be a soundtrack or just art, which is a bit of a moot point if you’re actually listening, isn't it? Anyway, I don't mean to ramble on about the philosophy of aesthetics, but I find the whole concept of "literary" versus "non-literary" to be a rather curious, perhaps slightly outdated, way to view the written word.

urbantinker8 said:I suppose I should probably start by saying that I’m not exactly an expert on this sort of thing, though I do tend to spend a fair amount of my free time thinking about it, I guess. It seems to me that when you look at how things are laid out, there's this certain weight to the way we perceive reality, which might be why some people find it so jarring. I was reading something the other day—it might have been a bit too dense for my liking—but it brought to mind that feeling you get when you realize everything isn't quite as solid as it appears to be. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like we often overlook the small, quiet shifts in the landscape because we're too busy looking for the big, dramatic explosions, much like how one might expect a film directed by Quentin Tarantino to unfold, whereas life is usually much more... subtle, if that makes sense. Anyway, I don't mean to wander off on a tangent, but it feels relevant. If we consider the way information flows through our modern institutions, it reminds me slightly of the complexity you see in a particularly difficult passage by James Joyce, where you have to squint just to make out the underlying rhythm. It's all very layered, I think, and perhaps a bit overwhelming if you don't approach it with a certain level of patience. Or maybe I'm just overthinking it, which is a habit I've never quite managed to break.

I guess I was just throwing out some extreme examples on purpose, so there’s really no need to take everything I said quite so literally.😉
I suppose I should start by mentioning that I’ve been thinking quite a bit about what urbantinker8 was getting at earlier, though I might be overanalyzing the whole thing, if that makes sense. It feels like we often get caught up in these sweeping generalizations, much like how one might overstate the influence of Quentin Tarantino when discussing modern cinema, even if his style is certainly unmistakable. There’s this tendency to want everything to fit into a neat little box, which I guess is just human nature, isn't it? We look for patterns where there might just be chaos, or perhaps just a series of unrelated events that we’ve decided to link together for the sake of a good story. I don't know, maybe I'm just being overly cautious with my conclusions, but it seems to me that we should probably approach these discussions with a bit more nuance, similar to how you wouldn't just credit William Shakespeare for every single dramatic trope used in a Hollywood blockbuster without acknowledging the layers beneath. It’s easy to be certain, but I find that certainty usually feels a little hollow after a while, so I tend to lean toward the middle ground, even if it's a bit less exciting than taking a firm side.

I suppose I should probably mention Miss Daisy, though I’m not entirely sure where to start with her, or if it even matters much in the grand scheme of things. She’s one of those people who just sort of exists in the periphery of your life, you know? I guess she’s always been around, moving through the world with this quiet, almost imperceptible presence that makes you wonder if you actually noticed her at all until she wasn't there. It’s a bit like watching a slow-moving fog roll over the Hudson; you don't really realize how much it has changed the landscape until everything is suddenly obscured. Maybe that's just how some people are built, I suppose—just a series of gentle, understated moments that don't demand much from anyone, which can be quite nice, I guess, if you have the temperament for it. There isn't much to say, really, other than she carries herself with a certain stillness that feels somewhat out of place in a country as loud and restless as America, but then again, maybe that's exactly why she stands out. urbantinker8 says: I guess you could say William Shakespeare wrote about the people of his era for the people of his era, which is exactly why he was meant to be read back then. It kind of pains me when I hear that tired old excuse about how certain works are just "timeless universal problems," because there are countless authors out there today who are doing exactly what he did—writing about their own contemporary world for their own contemporaries. And apparently, reading those specific kinds of works is supposed to be the magic key to "developing a child's critical thinking skills," or so they tell us.

I mean, I guess you might have actually picked the wrong example there, if you think about it.😁

I suppose the distinction between people who actually matter and those who are just sort of... drifting through life, is a concept that feels just as relevant today as it did back in the Renaissance, I guess.😛

I hadn't really considered the idea that someone might claim to "know" James Joyce without actually sitting down to read him, because I suppose that would fall squarely into the category of just being a poseur—you know, having all the facts about when he lived, where he spent his time, or what he supposedly wrote, yet never actually having laid eyes on the work itself.

I suppose I’m talking about... I suppose I’ve always found myself drifting toward reading lately, though I can never quite pin down why it feels more necessary now than it did a few years ago. It isn't that I have more free time—God knows that's a myth—but there's just this sense that the world moves a bit too fast, and sitting down with a book feels like a way to slow the gears down, if that makes any sense. Maybe it's just a way to escape the constant noise of everything else going on around us. I don't know. It's probably just me being overly contemplative about something as simple as turning a page. I suppose I’ve been sitting here for quite a while, just staring at my bookshelf and wondering about the whole concept of the "greatest hits" of literature, if you want to call them that. It’s a funny thing, isn't it? This idea that we can somehow categorize the heavyweights of world literature—those names that everyone feels obligated to respect—and pit them against... well, everything else. I was thinking about how we tend to treat certain authors like they’re untouchable, almost like a canon that’s set in stone, when really, greatness is such a slippery, subjective thing. You have someone like James Joyce, for instance, whose work can feel like a labyrinth you never quite find your way out of, and then you have the more structured, perhaps more accessible giants. I guess what I'm trying to get at is whether there's actually a meaningful distinction between those "classics" and the modern stuff we consume today, or if we're just clinging to old names because it makes us feel a bit more cultured. Maybe it's all just a matter of timing and luck, though I suspect most people would argue that's a bit too cynical. It’s hard to say, really. I suppose I should probably mention something about reading, though I’m never quite sure if it’s worth dwelling on, given how much noise there is out there lately. It feels like one of those things where you start with a simple intention—maybe just picking up a book to pass the time during a flight to Chicago or something—and then you find yourself spiraling into these deep, quiet rabbit holes that take up way more headspace than you originally planned. I guess it’s just a way to slow everything down, maybe, or perhaps it's just a habit I can't seem to shake, even when there are much more pressing things to attend to. It’s a strange, quiet sort of preoccupation, I suppose. I suppose I’ve been spending an awful lot of time lately thinking about the nature of belles-lettres, or whatever we call that specific, somewhat lofty category of pure literature these days. It’s a bit of a wandering thought, really, but there is something about the way we categorize writing—separating the "useful" prose from the stuff that just exists to be beautiful or evocative—that feels increasingly arbitrary, I guess. Maybe it’s just me, but I often find myself drifting between the two, wondering if the distinction even matters anymore in a world where everything is so aggressively functional. It’s like trying to decide if a piece of music is meant to be a soundtrack or just art, which is a bit of a moot point if you’re actually listening, isn't it? Anyway, I don't mean to ramble on about the philosophy of aesthetics, but I find the whole concept of "literary" versus "non-literary" to be a rather curious, perhaps slightly outdated, way to view the written word.

We just have a different definition of what's actually current. The world and its people evolve, but they mostly just recycle the same old elements into new combinations. Sure, we still have fools today, but the specific mix of fools and serious citizens now isn't quite the same as it was during the New York era. Their concerns, the things that keep them up at night, and the scale at which they impact society have shifted. Dealing with scammers isn't even the biggest headache facing America right now; we have much more pressing issues than just some con artist. We still deal with those types, obviously, but modern society handles them in a way that would look completely foreign compared to how things were handled back then...

Besides, you actually have to read this drama to get it, and let's be honest, the language used in the New York era is basically unreadable by modern standards.

urbantinker8 said:I suppose I should probably start by saying that I’m not exactly an expert on this sort of thing, though I do tend to spend a fair amount of my free time thinking about it, I guess. It seems to me that when you look at how things are laid out, there's this certain weight to the way we perceive reality, which might be why some people find it so jarring. I was reading something the other day—it might have been a bit too dense for my liking—but it brought to mind that feeling you get when you realize everything isn't quite as solid as it appears to be. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like we often overlook the small, quiet shifts in the landscape because we're too busy looking for the big, dramatic explosions, much like how one might expect a film directed by Quentin Tarantino to unfold, whereas life is usually much more... subtle, if that makes sense. Anyway, I don't mean to wander off on a tangent, but it feels relevant. If we consider the way information flows through our modern institutions, it reminds me slightly of the complexity you see in a particularly difficult passage by James Joyce, where you have to squint just to make out the underlying rhythm. It's all very layered, I think, and perhaps a bit overwhelming if you don't approach it with a certain level of patience. Or maybe I'm just overthinking it, which is a habit I've never quite managed to break.

I guess I was just throwing out some extreme examples on purpose, so there’s really no need to take everything I said quite so literally.😉
I suppose I should start by mentioning that I’ve been thinking quite a bit about what urbantinker8 was getting at earlier, though I might be overanalyzing the whole thing, if that makes sense. It feels like we often get caught up in these sweeping generalizations, much like how one might overstate the influence of Quentin Tarantino when discussing modern cinema, even if his style is certainly unmistakable. There’s this tendency to want everything to fit into a neat little box, which I guess is just human nature, isn't it? We look for patterns where there might just be chaos, or perhaps just a series of unrelated events that we’ve decided to link together for the sake of a good story. I don't know, maybe I'm just being overly cautious with my conclusions, but it seems to me that we should probably approach these discussions with a bit more nuance, similar to how you wouldn't just credit William Shakespeare for every single dramatic trope used in a Hollywood blockbuster without acknowledging the layers beneath. It’s easy to be certain, but I find that certainty usually feels a little hollow after a while, so I tend to lean toward the middle ground, even if it's a bit less exciting than taking a firm side.

I suppose I should probably mention Miss Daisy, though I’m not entirely sure where to start with her, or if it even matters much in the grand scheme of things. She’s one of those people who just sort of exists in the periphery of your life, you know? I guess she’s always been around, moving through the world with this quiet, almost imperceptible presence that makes you wonder if you actually noticed her at all until she wasn't there. It’s a bit like watching a slow-moving fog roll over the Hudson; you don't really realize how much it has changed the landscape until everything is suddenly obscured. Maybe that's just how some people are built, I suppose—just a series of gentle, understated moments that don't demand much from anyone, which can be quite nice, I guess, if you have the temperament for it. There isn't much to say, really, other than she carries herself with a certain stillness that feels somewhat out of place in a country as loud and restless as America, but then again, maybe that's exactly why she stands out. urbantinker8 says: I guess you could say William Shakespeare wrote about the people of his era for the people of his era, which is exactly why he was meant to be read back then. It kind of pains me when I hear that tired old excuse about how certain works are just "timeless universal problems," because there are countless authors out there today who are doing exactly what he did—writing about their own contemporary world for their own contemporaries. And apparently, reading those specific kinds of works is supposed to be the magic key to "developing a child's critical thinking skills," or so they tell us.

I mean, I guess you might have actually picked the wrong example there, if you think about it.😁

I suppose the distinction between people who actually matter and those who are just sort of... drifting through life, is a concept that feels just as relevant today as it did back in the Renaissance, I guess.😛

I hadn't really considered the idea that someone might claim to "know" James Joyce without actually sitting down to read him, because I suppose that would fall squarely into the category of just being a poseur—you know, having all the facts about when he lived, where he spent his time, or what he supposedly wrote, yet never actually having laid eyes on the work itself.

I suppose I’m talking about... I suppose I’ve always found myself drifting toward reading lately, though I can never quite pin down why it feels more necessary now than it did a few years ago. It isn't that I have more free time—God knows that's a myth—but there's just this sense that the world moves a bit too fast, and sitting down with a book feels like a way to slow the gears down, if that makes any sense. Maybe it's just a way to escape the constant noise of everything else going on around us. I don't know. It's probably just me being overly contemplative about something as simple as turning a page. I suppose I’ve been sitting here for quite a while, just staring at my bookshelf and wondering about the whole concept of the "greatest hits" of literature, if you want to call them that. It’s a funny thing, isn't it? This idea that we can somehow categorize the heavyweights of world literature—those names that everyone feels obligated to respect—and pit them against... well, everything else. I was thinking about how we tend to treat certain authors like they’re untouchable, almost like a canon that’s set in stone, when really, greatness is such a slippery, subjective thing. You have someone like James Joyce, for instance, whose work can feel like a labyrinth you never quite find your way out of, and then you have the more structured, perhaps more accessible giants. I guess what I'm trying to get at is whether there's actually a meaningful distinction between those "classics" and the modern stuff we consume today, or if we're just clinging to old names because it makes us feel a bit more cultured. Maybe it's all just a matter of timing and luck, though I suspect most people would argue that's a bit too cynical. It’s hard to say, really. I suppose I should probably mention something about reading, though I’m never quite sure if it’s worth dwelling on, given how much noise there is out there lately. It feels like one of those things where you start with a simple intention—maybe just picking up a book to pass the time during a flight to Chicago or something—and then you find yourself spiraling into these deep, quiet rabbit holes that take up way more headspace than you originally planned. I guess it’s just a way to slow everything down, maybe, or perhaps it's just a habit I can't seem to shake, even when there are much more pressing things to attend to. It’s a strange, quiet sort of preoccupation, I suppose. I suppose I’ve been spending an awful lot of time lately thinking about the nature of belles-lettres, or whatever we call that specific, somewhat lofty category of pure literature these days. It’s a bit of a wandering thought, really, but there is something about the way we categorize writing—separating the "useful" prose from the stuff that just exists to be beautiful or evocative—that feels increasingly arbitrary, I guess. Maybe it’s just me, but I often find myself drifting between the two, wondering if the distinction even matters anymore in a world where everything is so aggressively functional. It’s like trying to decide if a piece of music is meant to be a soundtrack or just art, which is a bit of a moot point if you’re actually listening, isn't it? Anyway, I don't mean to ramble on about the philosophy of aesthetics, but I find the whole concept of "literary" versus "non-literary" to be a rather curious, perhaps slightly outdated, way to view the written word.

Technically, the classics fall under the umbrella of fiction anyway.

Beyond that, what exactly are kids supposed to read once they've checked everything off the "must-read" list? What would you even consider a modern classic? Should children be restricted to nothing but the works of dead poets (and authors), or is it perfectly fine if they pick up a recent novel? Is all contemporary fiction inherently bad?

To be honest, I find it hard to believe you actually read much at all, because if you strictly stuck to the classics, you would have run out of material ages ago—the canon is a finite thing. We aren't exactly churning out new "classics" every day, unless, of course, you're actually reading modern fiction.

I don't really have any intention of diving into literary interpretations or comparing different books here, mostly because I feel like that's just totally off-topic for this space.

I have to admit, the literature you’re discussing isn't really my cup of tea.
Back in high school, I completely skipped the required reading because, honestly, it just couldn't hold my attention at that age; I’d start a quote, and it felt like nothing would ever actually happen...
It wasn't until much later that I picked some of it up again, mostly just to stay cultured, you know, but even then, it never quite clicked for me.
I did pick up *The Naked Truth 2*, though—mostly because I ran out of things to read while on vacation and it had just been released, so I figured, why not see what the fuss was about? I wasn't expecting a life lesson, but I will say it definitely gave me a good laugh.

But, if I may pivot to something that’s been weighing on my mind: I recently started reading *The Forest*. It's one of those mandatory books they assign in elementary school. Most of us probably agree that there’s plenty of value to be found in the story, and perhaps even some lessons worth discussing...
The real catch, though—and excuse my language here—is that without a modern translation, kids today simply cannot grasp it. Having to quote the text only to find yourself searching for a definition for every third line is incredibly frustrating for a child.
And that's just one example of how outdated school reading lists can be. That's why students struggle with reading; that's why they struggle to express themselves. It might not be the only reason, but it certainly plays a massive part...

So, how many teachers are actually extra?

I don't have the exact numbers on me, but we’re looking at moving toward a nine-year elementary school model to try and offset the shrinking student population. A nine-year setup naturally demands more staff than an eight-year one.

Wait, so we're just stretching out schooling for kids just to keep teachers employed? I can already hear the inevitable excuse coming—that "quality of education will improve" because kids can absorb material better over nine years instead of eight. Honestly, they could have just shrunk the class sizes where possible or introduced afternoon shifts instead...

What about math teachers?

- I honestly don't get why an elementary school math teacher needs a full-blown master's degree. It feels like overkill for the level of math being taught to little kids. At that stage, it's all about having those teaching skills—knowing how to present things so they aren't boring and actually make sense to a kid. You could probably nail that with a three-year program. Now, for high school? Yeah, sure, they should definitely have their degrees, just like you need a PhD to teach at a university.

Regarding math and the rest of the elementary curriculum... we actually underwent a four-year teaching program, and on top of that, we had to pass seven different exams from the College of Arts and Sciences, taught by professors from the College of Arts and Sciences, all following their specific curriculum.

In my opinion, even that was overkill, considering how much math is actually covered in grades 5 through 8. But honestly... why would you need five years of heavy mathematics from the College of Arts and Sciences just to teach basic concepts to kids in middle school? We have incredibly bright students graduating from those programs; they should be doing something more lucrative, more useful, or—let's face it—more intellectually stimulating than explaining fractions to teenagers during puberty.

I’d go as far as to say that those of us with the specialized teaching degree might actually be better at conveying this material to elementary students because, perhaps, our methodology is superior? I mean, maybe. My students, who study math from 5th to 8th grade and are trained in general classroom instruction, aren't any less capable than the pure mathematicians from the College of Arts and Sciences. In fact, my students often achieve even better results than the children taught by the other group.

It would be fascinating to run a side-by-side comparison of student success rates—specifically in math—between those taught by College of Arts and Sciences graduates and those taught by teachers with an enhanced math background. Actually, the national testing center holds that data, but they keep those results strictly confidential.......... shhh, we wouldn't want anyone finding out who is actually performing well. Or rather: who isn't.

Angela Wright4 said:Regarding math and the rest of the elementary curriculum... we actually underwent a four-year teaching program, and on top of that, we had to pass seven different exams from the College of Arts and Sciences, taught by professors from the College of Arts and Sciences, all following their specific curriculum.

In my opinion, even that was overkill, considering how much math is actually covered in grades 5 through 8. But honestly... why would you need five years of heavy mathematics from the College of Arts and Sciences just to teach basic concepts to kids in middle school? We have incredibly bright students graduating from those programs; they should be doing something more lucrative, more useful, or—let's face it—more intellectually stimulating than explaining fractions to teenagers during puberty.

I’d go as far as to say that those of us with the specialized teaching degree might actually be better at conveying this material to elementary students because, perhaps, our methodology is superior? I mean, maybe. My students, who study math from 5th to 8th grade and are trained in general classroom instruction, aren't any less capable than the pure mathematicians from the College of Arts and Sciences. In fact, my students often achieve even better results than the children taught by the other group.

It would be fascinating to run a side-by-side comparison of student success rates—specifically in math—between those taught by College of Arts and Sciences graduates and those taught by teachers with an enhanced math background. Actually, the national testing center holds that data, but they keep those results strictly confidential.......... shhh, we wouldn't want anyone finding out who is actually performing well. Or rather: who isn't.

I agree... it's not that it lacks purpose, it's just that the whole thing is monopolized and the actual instruction is frequently worse...

You see it happen in real life all the time—students fail a subject and get a chance to retake it... math, for example... and then they're basically left to the mercy of whoever decides to help them. And more often than not, that "helper" is just some incredibly bright college sophomore or junior... maybe even someone from a local community college...

And yet, that same student usually manages to explain everything a kid needs to know in a fraction of the time.

We really need to put the emphasis on methodology... exactly like you said.

Then there's the other issue, where it's becomes a nightmare to find qualified staff to teach in rural areas, like deep in the Midwest or something similar...

If we theoretically required every middle school teacher to have a PhD (just taking it to the extreme here), in practice, nobody would be working in any small provincial school. Not legally, anyway...

And this whole coefficient system is a total mess.

P.S. I seriously don't get how it occurs to ministers to extend schooling to nine years just to keep the current staff employed. Why not just introduce summer school? It avoids that same issue we discussed, where a kid is left entirely dependent on whether their parents can afford private tutoring... a much better solution would be offering classes over the summer.

I think it would actually work, because you'd have professors working with significantly smaller groups, giving them enough time to actually focus on every single student.

Which teachers are actually redundant?

We’ve got a surplus of English, history, and elementary school teachers.

Meanwhile, there's a perpetual shortage of foreign language instructors, physicists, and math teachers.

I haven't encountered the opposite trend anywhere else (unless you count Washington, D.C.)

It feels incredibly foolish to extend schooling to nine years just to overhaul the system so teachers can stay employed.
They should simply split the kids into more classrooms—let's say a maximum of 20 students per room. They could even implement specialized tracks for different learning levels, similar to how they do things in Germany, instead of forcing this exhausting "one size fits all" approach that serves absolutely nobody. Furthermore, they should assign specific teachers to handle disciplinary issues during class, essentially acting as a dedicated detention officer for those disruptive students. And why not organize after-school programs for children whose parents are both working full-time?
There are so many better ways to utilize unemployed educators to improve the system than merely stretching out the school year.

A signature for Jason Morgan.
In my neck of the woods, we actually have an excess of music and Italian instructors, given that those departments are part of our College of Arts and Sciences.

Yet, faced with a desperate shortage of math, physics, and chemistry teachers, this brilliant administration intends to solve the crisis through "natural sciences"—which is really just a euphemism for mashing various subjects together while slashing instructional hours. Is it not obvious that their goal is to cultivate a less informed populace, making it easier for the state and religious institutions to shepherd their flock?

That much-vaunted ninth grade is essentially nothing more than a mandatory preschool for children who missed out on daycare. Why do they even bother calling it a grade level when the curriculum focuses on basic motor skills like learning how to hold a pencil—skills every child should have mastered at least two years before ever stepping foot in a classroom? I suppose such rebranding simply sounds more sophisticated.

Jason Morgan I don't have any text to work with! You just sent "kaže:" which basically means "says:". Drop the content you want me to overhaul, and I'll get to work turning it into something that actually sounds like a real person living in the States.
So, what kind of teacher surplus are we actually talking about here?

Honestly, we’ve got way too many English, history, and elementary school teachers floating around right now. It feels like there's just a massive surplus of people looking for work in those fields, which isn't exactly the most comforting thought if you're trying to break into the profession.

It honestly feels like we’re stuck in this endless cycle where there’s just never enough people actually diving into foreign languages, physics, or math.

I haven't really run into any of that reversed stuff, unless you count being in Washington, D.C.

I haven't the slightest clue. 😁

It’s honestly pretty pathetic that they want to drag schooling out to nine years just because they need to cook the books so teachers can keep their jobs.

I'm with you on that.

Honestly, they really need to just split these kids up into more classrooms and cap it at maybe 20 students per room if they want any hope of actual learning happening.Honestly, they should just split the classes into advanced tracks and remedial ones, like how they do things in some specialized private schools, and finally ditch this exhausting "one size fits all" approach that doesn't actually work for anyone. They ought to bring back actual hall monitors or dedicated proctors who can haul off the kids causing trouble to a proper detention instead of just letting them disrupt everyone else's flow. And while they’re at it, maybe organize some decent after-school programs for the kids whose parents are stuck working ninety-hour weeks just to keep up.
Honestly, there’s such a massive opportunity being left on the table right now for all those unemployed teachers out there who could actually step in and help fix this broken system by pushing for an extension of compulsory schooling.

I was thinking the exact same thing when I first typed that out, but then I had a bit of a reality check. Most schools around here are already running double shifts just to keep up, so there’s honestly no way they have the physical space or the classroom capacity to cram in that many kids at once. That's why I ended up pivoting my suggestion in the first place. Summer school. Just what I needed. And honestly, I’m pretty sure we actually need this anyway.

analogseal18 said:A signature for Jason Morgan.
In my neck of the woods, we actually have an excess of music and Italian instructors, given that those departments are part of our College of Arts and Sciences.

Yet, faced with a desperate shortage of math, physics, and chemistry teachers, this brilliant administration intends to solve the crisis through "natural sciences"—which is really just a euphemism for mashing various subjects together while slashing instructional hours. Is it not obvious that their goal is to cultivate a less informed populace, making it easier for the state and religious institutions to shepherd their flock?

That much-vaunted ninth grade is essentially nothing more than a mandatory preschool for children who missed out on daycare. Why do they even bother calling it a grade level when the curriculum focuses on basic motor skills like learning how to hold a pencil—skills every child should have mastered at least two years before ever stepping foot in a classroom? I suppose such rebranding simply sounds more sophisticated.

I'm not even gonna try to dodge this one... but there's zero chance those classes are actually getting merged. That's what he said.

I’m pretty sure—like, 90% certain—he was actually talking about elementary school, since those nine years were being measured against other elementary schools over in Europe. So, it looks like he wasn't referring to preschool after all... though I guess I should probably dig around and find the actual source just so I don't end up looking like an idiot.

Honestly, none of this even matters because he’s still going to be stuck in that position for another year or so... we're talking back in the 2015/16 era here.

I see people online arguing that school principal positions should be "professionalized." What does that even entail? If this means a "professional" administrator just gets to park themselves in a plush office until retirement, I am dead set against it. As much as there are decent leaders out there, there are far more who treat public institutions like their own private fiefdoms—hiring relatives, hand-picking favorites for expensive training seminars, and bleeding a meager school budget dry through shady means, like charging $200 $0.00 to fix a single restroom.
In my view, we need a mandatory audit of all school maintenance and construction projects to ensure the work was actually necessary and that the costs align with standard US market rates.

Furthermore, there needs to be strict regulation regarding funding for professional development. It should be distributed equitably to everyone, perhaps even following a simple alphabetical order, rather than the current nonsense where certain insiders get to fly out to San Francisco while everyone else can't even get their meal per diems covered.

I agree—professionalizing the principal position is the only way forward. That office requires a leader with actual management chops, someone capable of driving revenue-generating projects to upgrade school facilities, possessing a solid legal foundation, and maintaining diplomatic PR when dealing with parents and the public. Instead, we too often see petty bureaucrats climbing into that chair, letting a little bit of authority go straight to their heads. They end up playing local sheriff or nursing decade-old grudges against former colleagues from the faculty lounge. Professionalization would actually mean something if we implemented a rotation system—say, moving principals to a different school every 5 to 10 years. But right now? We still have administrators sitting in the exact same office for twenty years.

Up until now, professional development workshops have mostly served as self-promotion tools for publishing houses; I'm not even sure what the trend has been lately. As for those mandatory continuing education credits? They’re a complete joke.

I don't have any text to rewrite yet! Please provide the posts you'd like me to work on, and I'll get started right away, keeping everything in that cheerful, steady, and uniquely American voice we discussed. kaže:
I’m a little worried you might be heading down the wrong path on this one.

Of course, if a teacher notices a student is struggling to keep up with the curriculum, they’re going to step in. That’s just part of the job—it's our responsibility to make sure no one gets left behind.

Meeting with a school counselor, psychologist, or a doctor isn't some way for us to pass the buck or share the responsibility. It’s an essential part of the process we're required to follow.
It’s exactly in these kinds of moments that our international partners really take the lead. Since they're technically overseeing the project, they're the ones deciding if we need to pivot or tweak anything, and they determine exactly how those adjustments should look.
That’s honestly what gets under my skin the most. It feels like the school counselor or the specialist starts stepping into my territory, trying to dictate exactly how I should structure my lesson plans, testing schedules, or teaching methods. It can be pretty frustrating when someone else tries to micromanage the actual instruction part of my job. I’m not quite sure what you meant to say there! It looks like you might have hit send a little too early. Feel free to jump back in whenever you're ready—I'm all ears! Both my partner and I have been looking over the paperwork, and everything seems to be lining up exactly as expected on our end.🙄 And besides, like you said, I’m not the one sitting there staring at the clock or struggling to wrap my head around the material.☕

To be honest, I’ve never once asked for a handout in my life, nor would I ever go looking for one just to have someone cater to my specific needs.😕
I remember having classes where at least five students always needed something adjusted for them—whether it was the lesson plan, the pace, or just the way instructions were given. It was one of those things you just had to account for every single day.

I’m certainly not under any illusions about how things work.
Trust me, I know exactly what I'm talking about.
I honestly feel like the school curriculum these days is getting a bit out of hand for some kids. It feels overly complicated and packed with so much extra fluff that it ends up being more distracting than helpful. Sometimes it feels like we're just teaching them to memorize things they don't actually need, which can really dull their natural curiosity.
As a psychologist, I could potentially design a customized learning plan for him. My hope is that if we tailor things, Mara might actually only need to memorize eight key dates instead of all twenty-eight. But here’s the catch: he still has to show up for two 45-minute history sessions every week, and he still has to bring all his supplies and gear. It's a bit of a balancing act!
She really needs to show up to school with documentation stating that she qualifies for an IEP or a modified curriculum. It’s much easier to get the right support when everything is officially on the books from day one.
He has to be at school for six hours every single day, even though he’d much rather spend just three hours there and use the rest of his time helping out in his grandpa's woodworking shop or getting his hands dirty planting vegetables with his parents in the garden.

I could actually offer him a specialized curriculum if one is available at any of the local schools nearby. It’s incredibly rare to get approved for that kind of thing, though—usually, if a kid shows decent intellectual ability, the district won't even consider it. If we did manage to pull it off, he could take five specific subjects through the end of middle school and enroll in some vocational training courses. To be honest, though, those specific certifications wouldn't really lead to much in terms of actual career opportunities later on.
Honestly, these specialized programs feel like such a joke. It’s just a total mess, especially when you consider they’re all funneling students straight into that local community college right after.

It feels like we’re forcing kids into these massive public school systems under the guise of "well-rounded education," but if you ask me, it often looks more like we're just protecting teaching jobs for people who haven't adapted to the modern world. I see it happen all the time—kids end up walking away with a really distorted sense of self-worth. Instead of being encouraged, they deal with bullying, behavioral issues, and a complete lack of practical work ethic. We're essentially crushing their natural talents and killing their curiosity. Then, by the time they hit fifteen, they hit a wall and realize they aren't built for traditional academics, yet they haven't been given any real-world skills to fall back on either. It's a tough cycle to break once they feel stuck.
I truly believe that every child is born with this natural, restless urge to learn and explore everything around them. Honestly, it feels like starting first grade can sometimes just snuff out that spark right when it's starting to glow.

Instead of just tweaking the curriculum for every single subject, I honestly think it would be more effective to simply cut certain classes entirely for specific students. If a particular course doesn't align with a child's path, why bother adjusting it? It feels much cleaner to just remove it from their schedule altogether.
It really just comes down to what they’re actually good at and what they're passionate about, you know? It's all about matching things up with their specific skills and interests, among other stuff.

I honestly feel a bit bummed that Home Economics was phased out of the curriculum. I always found those classes so practical—it’s where you actually pick up life skills that stick with you. Now, it feels like everything has shifted toward just reading about things in a textbook rather than actually doing them. At least, that's what I see happening with the kids I work with; there’s plenty of theory, but they aren't getting any hands-on experience.
Back in the day, we used to handle everything from wiring electrical circuits—and yes, we actually did our own soldering—to using planes and shapers in the shop. To be honest, I always found those tasks a bit tedious. If I could go back, I probably would have preferred spending that time curled up with a copy of *Oliver Twist* instead! But there were always those energetic kids running around, making a mess of everything. It’s funny looking back, though, because many of those same troublemakers grew up to become incredibly skilled professionals in their trades.
Whenever I try to get today's kids excited about doing even the bare minimum in school, I run into the same wall. In their free time, they're obsessed with hands-on stuff—taking gadgets apart, tinkering, building things. But then I constantly hear the same complaint: they’re forced to grind through endless theory first, and they rarely ever get to actually touch the equipment. Plus, it feels like the students who get the best grades on practical assignments are just the ones who aced the written tests—and let's be honest, those are often the kids whose dads just go home and finish the project for them.

I can't help but wonder: why not increase the technical workshop hours for 7th and 8th graders and scale back subjects like History or Geography instead?
Take English Language Arts, for example. Why not have two mandatory periods, and then offer two elective periods for students who actually want to dive deeper? Or, for those who haven't quite mastered the basics during the core sessions, we could offer specialized literacy workshops.
There's honestly so much room for improvement here.
But look, I know it isn't easy. Changing the curriculum means some teachers would lose hours in their schedules—some might even lose their jobs—while others would see an increase.
So, most people just figure it's "better the way it is."