Posts by rowdypanther12

northerntiger9 said:Ready for summer, Suncica Findak?

🎉🎉🎉🎉
thanks!

hiddendriver34 said:I totally get why parents with little ones are loving this right now—it’s basically like getting a free after-school program that they used to have to shell out serious cash for.

The thing is, I don't think they're looking far enough down the road. Eventually, those kids are going to hit their teenage years, and I highly doubt things will feel quite as effortless then. ;D

Parents are paying for things they can barely afford. I get it—I really do. Back when my kid was in elementary school, they only offered after-school care for first graders, and honestly, it was a struggle. I really wish they had kept that program running through third grade.
It turns out we don't really need childcare for our third child either. Ideally, it would be nice if they could stay for lunch so they're settled at home, but honestly, just reheating something isn't a huge ordeal.

Does anyone remember the name of that journalist over at NBC who covers education? I can't seem to Google it—my brain is just totally fried today. I want to see if she's ever done an interview or a segment on this topic; from what I recall, she’s actually pretty sharp and really knows her stuff.

He mentioned on ABC that it doesn't strictly have to be 50 schools—it could be 20 or 70, as long as the project moves forward. After the first four years, the plan is to expand everywhere once we've made the necessary improvements during that initial period. 😂

Ugh, honestly, ABC News is driving me absolutely insane right now 😂
. I mean, do these journalists actually know anything at all? Where is that female reporter from PBS who usually covers education? Has she ever even interviewed this idiot? And why does he keep obsessing over elementary school when this applies to every single grade level?!

I find this really interesting. From a teacher's perspective, what stands out to you as a positive here? On the flip side, what would parents see as the upside of this proposal? I'm curious about the specific benefits you think this offers both students and faculty.

I'm honestly just waiting to see how the schedules look once that experimental program kicks off. I wonder what everyone will think after a few months have passed—parents, students, and teachers alike.

A lot of sports are only scheduled for the afternoon, which is why Sky Sports carries them.
My little girl only has availability in the afternoons too, so when school runs late, she ends up missing her practice.

All this arguing isn't helping anyone, and honestly, things are just how they are.
Specialists should be handling specialized roles, while classroom teachers should probably be putting in double the effort since they get so much downtime. As for those working in government bureaucracy, maybe now they’ll finally settle into a standard 40-hour week without all those extra days off. If we applied private sector standards to public employees, they'd be on minimum wage, doing nothing, yet still getting breaks and vacation time—and $2000 even then, it would be too much.
🙂
We really are stuck with our own way of thinking.

Hey everyone, I'm honestly shocked at the level of communication here. I can't believe someone would post something like that publicly 😱

I think I might have made a typo there. My apologies. rowdypanther12 says:
And I still have to cram lunch in there, too.

It’s not just about lunch; I mean having more frequent breaks and some extra downtime too. 🤣
I honestly don't get how someone who can't even grasp basic math is running the Department of Education. 🤷 Even the journalists aren't asking him anything. Why hasn't anyone pressed him for the exact numbers?
Mr. Secretary Fuchs, how exactly do you expect us to squeeze 33 hours of regular classes, lunch, and all that extra tutoring into an 8:00 AM to 2:00 PM schedule?

jadetinker85 said:How do they actually plan to pull that off?

I'm honestly not sure. 😂
Students who don't have electives are looking at about 27 hours a week—that's basically two days ending at 1 PM and three days ending at 12 PM.
Those taking things like foreign languages, computer science, or religious studies end up with 33 hours a week, which means at least three days until 2 PM and two days until 1 PM.
And that’s all assuming they don't try to pack extra credit or supplemental classes into that mandatory block, 😁
leaving absolutely no gaps in the schedule. 😁

mellowskipper said:So, I suppose it'll run until about 2:00 PM, including lunch.
I’d sign off on that immediately, honestly.

That basically means they're going to cut hours since kids are already getting out of school by 1:00 or 2:00 every day anyway.

hiddenseal14 said:1. And who exactly is claiming that absolutely nothing in the Congress proposal is any good? We had 1,000 people participate in the public consultation out of 60,000 total in the education sector. Out of 3,000 comments, 80% just say the Congress plan is "bland" or "I won't do it"—what kind of actual argument is that? It's completely worthless.

2. Then there’s the claim that they want to work only 4 hours a day because otherwise they won't have time for a private life. That is also a pathetic excuse. If you want that much free time, you might as well not work at all so you can have time for everything.

3. Or the idea that kids will be stuck in school all day. Kids are already in school until 2 or 3 PM without even getting lunch, so that argument is equally nonsense.

4. "Parents will complain about this and that..." Please. Most parents actually benefit from this setup, so that's just another useless complaint.

5. "Teachers will quit en masse." Oh, really? I see. Maybe if you're living in New York City you can afford to be picky about your job, but in the rest of the country, you can't—and education is still an area where people pull rank just to get their foot in the door.

6. There will be plenty of unqualified teachers because there are plenty right now. Honestly, in the Los Angeles area, everyone is highly qualified except for the physics teachers. Even in the most remote areas. Believe me, I worked there for years.

By the way, I am a linguist myself. Greetings, 🙂

Times have changed, and we need to accept that. We aren't going to work 20 hours a week in schools anymore. We aren't going to be paid the exact same amount, whether someone teaches 16 hours or 22 hours. Those who work more should earn more. Period. That's just how it works. What we ought to be doing is pointing out specific organizational details that need changing rather than just screaming "I won't do it!" like a bunch of whiners.

Besides, this is just a pilot program for 50 schools; it isn't the final version of the Congress plan that will be rolled out to every school nationwide in four years.

Let's just look at this one thing.
Right, kids are currently staying at school until 2 or 3 PM without a lunch break.
(Based on my latest schedule change, they're out by 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, plus two days where they have first period in the morning)

Since there aren't any plans to reduce total hours and breaks are being extended, they're adding lunch along with a full A2 module. How long do you think kids will actually be stuck at school under this full-day model?

Michelle Nelson4 said:She laid it out for you pretty clearly: posting those pathetic "kids are prisoners" rants on these forums isn't doing anyone any favors. It’s just not constructive. If you actually had a specific suggestion for how to change the way things are run—I mean, there was a public forum for exactly that. Anyone who wanted to contribute something meaningful could have stepped up and written something coherent then.

It’s a similar argument to the one about religious education in schools. Complaining about removing it doesn't help much if kids just end up somewhere else anyway. It might be better to schedule it as the first or last period so students still have a place to go during the middle of the day.

As for an all-day solution, the equivalent would be making sure students HAVE the option to stay at school if they want to, while hiring extra staff specifically to work with both struggling and advanced students during those hours.

urbantinker8 said:Well, look, I suppose there are people like that out there, though they certainly aren't the majority, if that makes any sense.
You have those kids who are basically wired to need constant social interaction; they can't stand being on their own, and they don't mind all the typical high school drama or moving from group to group. They aren't necessarily struggling with the actual coursework, but I guess they still find it helpful to have someone checking in on them occasionally or helping them structure their homework assignments.
And honestly, if their parents are working those grueling nine-to-five shifts just to make ends meet, but they still want to ensure their kid is supervised and eating three decent meals a day—then maybe a center like this is actually a pretty solid choice for families in that situation...
.....
.....especially during those first two or three years of schooling.☕

I’m just sitting here reading and watching everything you have to say, right down to the last word. 😂

It’s just what I was saying before—I honestly can’t wrap my head around how a child would find it better to spend their entire day living like this.

I definitely agree with what Susan James said. People without kids in the 10-18 age range just don't seem to grasp the reality of what’s being proposed or how much it will actually impact daily life.
My mom was honestly pretty shocked that I was against it—she couldn't understand why, since she thought kids would have more free time and wouldn't have any chores to do at home. But it's nothing like the current situation, where my poor niece has to spend her entire weekend studying for seven different tests and finishing five projects for next week.😂

Carl Bishop2, of course we’re discussing Fuchs' proposal since she's the one directly impacting us 🤷
I think most of us here agree that allowing a student to stay at school to finish homework and earn extra credit isn't a bad idea.
Our main issue is with the part where Fuchs suggests forcing kids to sit in a classroom for an extra two or three hours.
In our current system, that just doesn't seem right—not for the students who actually need the help, and certainly not for those who don't.

Susan James said:Classic 🤔

strictly educational