School Reform: Thoughts?

Are you actually advocating for some kind of customized version of the American system? I’m honestly torn on this. On one hand, I get where you're coming from, but on the other... I feel like it might be too early to let kids dive into that during elementary school, especially since the entire structure is designed to move linearly. To really make it work, you’d probably have to overhaul the whole education system from preschool all the way up to PhD programs. I don't know. From everything I've read about global models, the Finnish system seems closest to what I consider an ideal setup.

Susan James said:Here’s a suggestion for changing the school curriculum, coming straight from a teacher on the front lines.
The way they consult with a psychologist or a whole support team is really just a way to shift the responsibility elsewhere.
But let’s be real—a psychologist isn't sitting through a math lecture, struggling to figure out why a student just isn't grasping the equations. 🥳

You’d be surprised how many complaints there are about these "solutions." Even when the adjustments haven't been cleared by a medical facility and a psychologist was part of the decision-making team, the teachers themselves are often the ones raising issues (even if they try to hide behind the school's entire support staff).

I don't quite get it—isn't it literally the job, and the responsibility, of a school psychologist to evaluate a child who just can't keep up with the standard curriculum?
How could an individualized program even be implemented without a psychologist's assessment?

I haven't quite figured out what you mean by that one! Could you give me a bit more context? kaže:
It’s exactly in moments like this that our foreign partners start acting like they’re the ones calling all the shots. They step in and decide whether we need to tweak things or change our entire approach, essentially treating us like subordinates rather than collaborators.
That’s honestly the most frustrating part of the whole thing. It’s getting a little frustrating because my school counselor keeps stepping on my toes. They’re actually trying to dictate my entire study schedule, how I should prep for exams, and which learning methods I ought to use. It feels like they're overstepping their bounds and micromanaging my academic life. Instead of Both my wife and I are seeing the exact same thing on our statements.🙄 And besides, it’s not like I’m the one sitting there staring at the clock or struggling to wrap my head around the material like you mentioned.☕

I honestly always assumed that a big part of a psychologist's job was to run those assessments on kids—basically to figure out if they’re actually equipped to handle a standard school curriculum or if they need something different. 🤷
If we’re talking about implementing an individualized education program for kids with disabilities, why on earth would anyone call that kind of assessment "interfering with professional expertise"? It feels like a bit of a stretch to suggest that tailoring support to a student's specific needs is somehow overstepping.
Who actually determines a child's intellectual standing? Is it the teacher or the psychologist? 😕?

Susan James said:

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."

Here we go again. 😕
Is this specialized program actually being offered to anyone specific, or is it strictly designed for kids with disabilities?

These specialized training programs have become a total joke. It honestly feels like they started falling apart right around the time traditional trades began dying off across the country. Now, we’re left with actual experts who know their craft inside and out, but unfortunately, they just can't find any meaningful work to do. 😢
Honestly, I feel like this is more of an economic issue than anything to do with the school system itself. At least, that’s how it looks from where I’m sitting.
If you take the time to properly train top-tier craftsmen, they won't just show up and punch a clock—they’ll go above and beyond. They become the kind of people who don't just follow instructions, but actually take ownership of the work. You give them the tools and the knowledge, and suddenly, they aren't just completing tasks; they're solving problems before they even happen. It’s like the difference between hiring someone to mow your lawn and hiring a pro who knows exactly how to prune the hedges to make the whole yard look better. When you invest in their skills, you aren't just paying for labor anymore; you're paying for expertise and pride in the craft.

The whole concept of an individualized education program is a complete farce. At its core, the child is still stuck in the exact same classroom, forced to listen to the same curriculum that they can’t even begin to wrap their heads around. It essentially boils down to a system where they just need to grasp a tiny fraction of the material to scrape by with a C, and if they aren't causing a scene, teachers feel obligated to hand out those passing grades just to keep the peace.

Jason Morgan said:The whole concept of an individualized education program is a complete farce. At its core, the child is still stuck in the exact same classroom, forced to listen to the same curriculum that they can’t even begin to wrap their heads around. It essentially boils down to a system where they just need to grasp a tiny fraction of the material to scrape by with a C, and if they aren't causing a scene, teachers feel obligated to hand out those passing grades just to keep the peace.

It really shouldn't work that way. A true accommodation should mean narrowing down the scope of the material, letting the student move at their own pace, and simplifying the tests. I actually thought there were specific textbooks designed for this sort of thing...

David Palmer5 said:It really shouldn't work that way. A true accommodation should mean narrowing down the scope of the material, letting the student move at their own pace, and simplifying the tests. I actually thought there were specific textbooks designed for this sort of thing...

In theory? Absolutely. In practice? Not a chance. We’re still stuck with the same one-hour periods, the same single teacher, and the same crowded classroom. Who exactly is going to manage twenty-five typical students plus one student with specific needs all within a single hour? The answer is: nobody.

Jason Morgan said:In theory? Absolutely. In practice? Not a chance. We’re still stuck with the same one-hour periods, the same single teacher, and the same crowded classroom. Who exactly is going to manage twenty-five typical students plus one student with specific needs all within a single hour? The answer is: nobody.

So, it feels like all this talk about integration and inclusion is mostly just empty rhetoric...
It honestly seems like things worked better back when schools had dedicated special education classrooms—you had fewer kids to worry about, which meant you could actually give them the attention they deserved.
That said, I don't quite get the pushback; why is it such a massive ordeal to just give a kid with learning challenges simpler assignments or customized tests tailored specifically to their level?

David Palmer5 said:So, it feels like all this talk about integration and inclusion is mostly just empty rhetoric...
It honestly seems like things worked better back when schools had dedicated special education classrooms—you had fewer kids to worry about, which meant you could actually give them the attention they deserved.
That said, I don't quite get the pushback; why is it such a massive ordeal to just give a kid with learning challenges simpler assignments or customized tests tailored specifically to their level?

No, they get separate tests and customized oral exams.
And sure, you can walk by during class and hand them something a bit more manageable, but how on earth are you supposed to pull that off every single day within a forty-five-minute period—especially when you're juggling two students with accommodations alongside the rest of the class? There simply isn't enough time in the day. Plus, there aren't even specialized textbooks available for them.

Specialized programs exist for children with partial integration needs (those closer to mild intellectual disabilities), where they attend specialized instruction three days a week. In those settings, they truly thrive, and their progress is honestly quite remarkable because of that specific environment.

I find myself in favor of integration, though I certainly do not advocate for forced assimilation; rather, I believe it should be handled on an individual basis, tailored specifically to one's unique circumstances and residence.

For instance, consider a child of average intelligence living with cerebral palsy who possesses a genuine love for learning, demonstrates significant effort, and is supported by parents who are deeply invested in their progress; such a child could quite reasonably thrive in a more advanced classroom setting.

Furthermore, we must acknowledge that even neurotypical children exhibit vastly different levels of knowledge, aptitude, and motivation. A child who struggles to master the curriculum due to medical reasons—or perhaps only masters it partially—could just as easily be placed in a mainstream classroom alongside healthy peers who lack any semblance of drive or have arrived at school without the necessary foundational skills. These are typically the children whose parents, from the age of one, simply placate them with cartoons, or by the time they are three, hand them a tablet or a gaming console and let them indulge, provided it keeps them quiet and out of the parents' way. By the time these children reach seven years old, it is far too late to rectify such a lack of discipline, as their innate intellectual curiosity has already been effectively stifled. 😢

David Palmer5 said:I don't quite get it—isn't it literally the job, and the responsibility, of a school psychologist to evaluate a child who just can't keep up with the standard curriculum?
How could an individualized program even be implemented without a psychologist's assessment?

I haven't quite figured out what you mean by that one! Could you give me a bit more context? kaže:
It’s exactly in moments like this that our foreign partners start acting like they’re the ones calling all the shots. They step in and decide whether we need to tweak things or change our entire approach, essentially treating us like subordinates rather than collaborators.
That’s honestly the most frustrating part of the whole thing. It’s getting a little frustrating because my school counselor keeps stepping on my toes. They’re actually trying to dictate my entire study schedule, how I should prep for exams, and which learning methods I ought to use. It feels like they're overstepping their bounds and micromanaging my academic life. Instead of Both my wife and I are seeing the exact same thing on our statements.🙄 And besides, it’s not like I’m the one sitting there staring at the clock or struggling to wrap my head around the material like you mentioned.☕

I honestly always assumed that a big part of a psychologist's job was to run those assessments on kids—basically to figure out if they’re actually equipped to handle a standard school curriculum or if they need something different. 🤷
If we’re talking about implementing an individualized education program for kids with disabilities, why on earth would anyone call that kind of assessment "interfering with professional expertise"? It feels like a bit of a stretch to suggest that tailoring support to a student's specific needs is somehow overstepping.
Who actually determines a child's intellectual standing? Is it the teacher or the psychologist? 😕?

Here we go again. 😕
Is this specialized program actually being offered to anyone specific, or is it strictly designed for kids with disabilities?

These specialized training programs have become a total joke. It honestly feels like they started falling apart right around the time traditional trades began dying off across the country. Now, we’re left with actual experts who know their craft inside and out, but unfortunately, they just can't find any meaningful work to do. 😢
Honestly, I feel like this is more of an economic issue than anything to do with the school system itself. At least, that’s how it looks from where I’m sitting.
If you take the time to properly train top-tier craftsmen, they won't just show up and punch a clock—they’ll go above and beyond. They become the kind of people who don't just follow instructions, but actually take ownership of the work. You give them the tools and the knowledge, and suddenly, they aren't just completing tasks; they're solving problems before they even happen. It’s like the difference between hiring someone to mow your lawn and hiring a pro who knows exactly how to prune the hedges to make the whole yard look better. When you invest in their skills, you aren't just paying for labor anymore; you're paying for expertise and pride in the craft.

The decision to change a student's academic track is made by a school physician, based on documentation from a medical facility where a psychologist was part of the evaluation team.
The suggestion for an evaluation usually comes from a teacher or subject instructor after consulting with the school's specialist staff (though some schools don't even have a psychologist on site). That was my response to Susan James, who suggested I should just "clean up my own backyard." A school psychologist doesn't make the final call on changing a program; they simply support their teaching colleagues during parent meetings or consultations with outside specialists.

I’m not quite sure which declining trades you're referring to, but personally, I think there will always be a demand for plumbers, carpenters, electricians, masons, butchers, and chefs... those jobs aren't going anywhere.
The thing is, many kids just don't have an interest in traditional academics or the general culture we try to push through eight years of schooling. In my experience, kids often show clear interests—especially if they come from families with hands-on trades or have relatives in practical fields—yet we force them to just "sit in a chair" in hopes that it leads to a better life later on.
(And I know plenty of people in bureaucratic roles who have nothing to do and no idea how to do it), while at the same time, kids fail to develop work habits and lose interest in things they actually care about.

I don't know, it seems crazy to force a kid to memorize history and geography if they'd rather be taking apart car engines or building furniture.
Or to read classic literature when they're passionate about culinary arts.
I don't have any prejudices; I just believe kids need more encouragement in things they love, rather than being pushed into things they have zero interest in.

edit: signed with a spicy pepper

Susan James said:The decision to change a student's academic track is made by a school physician, based on documentation from a medical facility where a psychologist was part of the evaluation team.
The suggestion for an evaluation usually comes from a teacher or subject instructor after consulting with the school's specialist staff (though some schools don't even have a psychologist on site). That was my response to Susan James, who suggested I should just "clean up my own backyard." A school psychologist doesn't make the final call on changing a program; they simply support their teaching colleagues during parent meetings or consultations with outside specialists.

I’m not quite sure which declining trades you're referring to, but personally, I think there will always be a demand for plumbers, carpenters, electricians, masons, butchers, and chefs... those jobs aren't going anywhere.
The thing is, many kids just don't have an interest in traditional academics or the general culture we try to push through eight years of schooling. In my experience, kids often show clear interests—especially if they come from families with hands-on trades or have relatives in practical fields—yet we force them to just "sit in a chair" in hopes that it leads to a better life later on.
(And I know plenty of people in bureaucratic roles who have nothing to do and no idea how to do it), while at the same time, kids fail to develop work habits and lose interest in things they actually care about.

I don't know, it seems crazy to force a kid to memorize history and geography if they'd rather be taking apart car engines or building furniture.
Or to read classic literature when they're passionate about culinary arts.
I don't have any prejudices; I just believe kids need more encouragement in things they love, rather than being pushed into things they have zero interest in.

edit: signed with a spicy pepper

But look, aside from those specific trades, there are plenty of other industries that have definitely declined.
We can't pretend we haven't seen countless small businesses and local shops shut their doors for good.😉

The people you’re talking about usually go to vocational high schools or technical institutes—and if you actually look at the curricula of those schools, you'll see they focus heavily on specialized training and hands-on practice rather than a bunch of general electives. So, nobody is forcing them to sit through endless history or geography lectures, though I personally don't see the harm in them picking up some basic general knowledge along the way.

And if you're suggesting we should let kids specialize or choose a trade path as early as middle school... I don't know, that seems a bit premature to me. 🤷Let's face it, there are plenty of kids who don't really find their footing until they hit high school.
How many times can you say with absolute certainty about an eleven-year-old that they "have no interest in learning or culture" and that they'll stay that way forever?

That’s true, kids around ten can get really into things, like soccer for example.
Personally, I feel like K-12 education should be broader but less intense than what we have now. It ought to be more interconnected and hands-on, incorporating way more experiments, real-world examples, movies, plays, and field trips...

Well, kids like that shouldn't be forced to rote memorize everything.

If it’s obvious they’re struggling, I haven't met a single teacher who would demand they sketch out the entire intricacies of the feudal system in exhaustive detail. They’ll just ask them to explain what the feudal system was, in broad strokes.
The same goes for geography—they might be asked where the world's largest oil reserves are located, or to identify the most populated regions and the largest countries on the map.

No one expects these students to master the entire curriculum to the level required of an honors student, quite simply because it makes no sense. Middle school is meant to provide a foundational education, not an exhaustive deep dive.
Everyone has to go through middle school, so there's really no point in forcing everyone through the exact same high-pressure filter.
Just think back to your own middle school classes. In mine, nothing was off-limits, but I am convinced my teacher was absolutely right when he only required us to know the major European capitals at the end of the year, rather than the top producer of luxury cars or the leading exporter of seed potatoes. To demand more would have just resulted in failing students without providing any actual educational value.
That is a completely different matter entirely: the lazy, arrogant, or neglected kids who actually have the capacity to do much more.

This is exactly what I’m struggling to wrap my head around. Why would someone who actually enjoys learning—someone bright, curious, and genuinely engaged with school—be forced to memorize how to extract seed potatoes? It feels like such useless trivia. What kind of information is that, and why on earth should anyone be tested on it for five points?
Why can't the time we spend on these things be redirected toward more interesting subjects, or toward actually helping us grasp and connect fundamental concepts?

rowdypanther12 said:This is exactly what I’m struggling to wrap my head around. Why would someone who actually enjoys learning—someone bright, curious, and genuinely engaged with school—be forced to memorize how to extract seed potatoes? It feels like such useless trivia. What kind of information is that, and why on earth should anyone be tested on it for five points?
Why can't the time we spend on these things be redirected toward more interesting subjects, or toward actually helping us grasp and connect fundamental concepts?

Good grief, it was meant to be a metaphor for overly granular lessons. I promise you, nobody is sitting in an American classroom studying potato export yields.

I use that as a metaphor too. 🤷

rowdypanther12 said:I use that as a metaphor too. 🤷

Alright, but what exactly are we talking about here? Is it a metaphor for grammatical cases, or perhaps the state of the economy in the Netherlands...?

I’m genuinely concerned about Kenya's GDP and the minority population percentage in Kazakhstan.

That’s just another metaphor on my part, because honestly, I don't recall anyone ever asking me about Ugandan geography or the minority populations of Uzbekistan back in high school—let alone during middle school.
I can only assume the rest of the students following that same curriculum were just as lost as I was.

So, you really think the curriculum is fine as it is, without any unnecessary depth being forced on elementary schoolers?
I mean, teaching chemical equations, mass percentages, and linear functions at the elementary level seems a bit much to me. Honestly, I'm just speaking from memory here—thankfully, I haven't looked at a textbook or talked to middle schoolers in quite a while.

Good heavens, I don't mean that at all—quite actually the exact opposite of what I just wrote above.