Look, we aren't being dense here—it’s literally what the document says. It specifies that this whole "enriched and supported learning" thing (which is just a clunky way of saying extra help or advanced stuff, since those other terms always sound so cheesy) has to happen right there in the classroom, with everyone in the class doing it at the exact same time. If we want to actually group kids by their interests, we only have a two-hour window once a week to make that happen.
In Scandinavia, there’s this deep-seated cultural drive to actually follow the rules rather than constantly looking for loopholes or trying to outsmart the system. Even the former Secretary of Education isn't out here claiming that cheating is just some baked-in part of our national tradition. That fundamental difference alone tells me why the Finnish model would never fly in America—we just don't have the built-in safeguards to stop people from gaming the system and cutting corners.
It’s just that one break they're proposing—it feels like it’s just vanishing into thin air. It's like we don't even exist at our jobs during those gaps between classes.
So, I was just reading through this and realized we’re actually seeing some pretty much identical ideas for reform being floated over here too: http://nastavnici.org/2023/03/23/zivot-u-skoli/
Do you realize this thing kicks in this September, yet the task force for the new curriculum didn't even get assembled until last month? Yeah, they’re calling it a four-year pilot program—if you can even call it that—but honestly, it feels like they’re just scrambling to pull everything together at the very last second.
Paul Davis2 said:In the USA, it’s all in the laws—and since every state does its own thing, it varies wildly; some have a floor of 14, while others go as low as 9. Over in the United Kingdom, the legal age is 12. Just a quick rundown—I didn't dig through the other places just this second. As for our own traditions, we know how it works—nobody's going to come knocking on your door to check up on you unless something actually catches fire.
Under American family law, preschool-aged kids aren't allowed to be left unsupervised. But once a kid actually starts school? There isn't really any restriction in place, so there's basically no reason for anyone to even bother checking in on them.
No, I’m not talking about those types of people. I mean the ones who actually stick around in the classroom when this whole thing shifts into full-scale application... The truth is, anyone with even a shred of talent is going to start looking for the exit somewhere else. The absolute best among them? They’ll be the first ones out the door. I mean, seriously—just in the last couple of days, five colleagues I deeply respect have told me they're planning to jump ship within the next few years. Some are looking at moving over to high schools, others want to get into adult education, and some are just dropping out of the teaching profession entirely. Every single one of them is a massive loss, both for their specific school and for the entire American education system, because they’re these incredibly driven, creative women who pour everything they have into sharing ideas and mentoring everyone around them. But honestly, a system that fails to realize you can't just squeeze people like sponges—expecting them to patch up every systemic hole with nothing but their own grit and ingenuity while paying them peanuts and stripping away every other perk (and let’s be real, having the flexibility to work from home on our own schedule should be considered a major benefit!)—well, that system just doesn't deserve people like them.
Susan James said:But there is an alternative. We have after-school programs, they just need to be refined and improved. That really should be the first step we take.
I get the feeling that the push for full-day schooling is mostly coming from parents of toddlers or kids in 1st and 2nd grade who don't have after-school care and end up paying babysitters once school lets out around 10:30. Honestly, any sane parent with a teenager isn't going to be arguing for their kids to stay stuck in a classroom longer than necessary.
I mean, what kind of psychologist doesn't understand the basic developmental stages of middle schoolers? It feels like they've never actually spent time in a real classroom trying to maintain focus amidst a mix of hormonal shifts and, well, the general "scent" of a room full of kids. And don't even get me started on how their interests and abilities shift once they hit puberty... or even before that.
What name is Google showing you?
Then you've got the parents of older kids who just haven't learned how to set boundaries—or maybe they just can't bring themselves to do it. They relied so heavily on daycare during those first four years that now they're left with kids who have zero independence... and all sorts of other issues like that. It feels like once again, people are expecting the school system to step in and do their parenting for them—basically asking schools to fix their own shortcomings.
Paul Davis2 said:Does anyone at the SEC actually have any firsthand experience working in a school—or are they just hiring wide-eyed idealists?
Honestly, we ask ourselves that same question in the faculty lounge almost every single day. ☕ The worst part isn't even that they're naive—it's that they're opportunists. They’re those types who think they've got the whole system figured out just because they graduated twenty years ago or maybe have a kid enrolled somewhere. They really think they're the smartest people in the room.☕
Paul Davis2 said:Honestly, we might as well just keep clinging to having the lowest hourly wages in Europe and then act shocked when foreign investment tells us we desperately need to change things. It’s almost like we’re living in some sort of educational utopia right now.
Since everyone is busy philosophizing, maybe try reading the actual documents with the understanding that every central proposal is really just a framework meant to be adapted to real-world conditions. Regarding that 8 to 3 schedule—it’s just not physically or mentally feasible. Take elementary school, for instance; a teacher isn't stuck in one classroom from 8 to 3. You’ve got foreign languages, PE, computer lab, and religious studies or electives—all squeezed into that window. Then there's the kids' side of things—breaks, extracurriculars, regrouping, socializing. Sure, you could run a school from 8 to 10:30, much like what my kids did in those first four grades. But back then, I was constantly paying babysitters.
I'm reading through the document. The document basically implies that—minus two hours of PE, two of computer lab, two of foreign language, and two of religion—one single elementary teacher will have to handle EVERYTHING else. That includes playground duty during breaks, planning activities, and keeping a constant eye on everyone during social time because heaven forbid something happens and someone screams, "Whereeeee is the teacherrrrrr?!"
mellowskipper said:It's funny how little it takes to "solve" a massive issue...
I assume the principal will just appoint whoever they want to be the homeroom teacher. It's the same way it works here—when a supervisor issues an order, particularly if it's in writing, there really isn't much room for negotiation.
Well, that’s how it’s been until now. But, if the paperwork says it’s voluntary—how can they force me? You can legally turn down voluntary assignments, even if they hand them to you in writing. A few years ago, a boss gave a colleague a written order to do remote teaching from home for a student with pretty intense needs. She just calmly sent back a written response saying she refused, which she had every right to do since she works at two different schools and can't be forced to work extra hours beyond her contract without her consent. She just said, "No thanks." :P It says right here in black and white that being a homeroom teacher is voluntary. You just point to that specific section and tell them you don't consent to the extra workload.
Honestly, I’m just sitting here wondering who on earth is actually going to volunteer to be a homeroom teacher at this experimental school 😂 The thing is, they aren't counting homeroom duties toward your standard teaching hours anymore—so instead of having a full schedule, you just get a tiny 2.5% bump on your total salary, and it’s all strictly voluntary. What's the catch? Well, my friends, right now being a homeroom teacher is basically the equivalent of two extra teaching periods—one hour for advisory and one for general info, plus another two hours of pure administrative chaos. If you have a particularly difficult class, you're looking at at least six hours a week, if not eight, just dealing with the sheer volume of paperwork. We're talking everything from playing judge and jury for classroom discipline to printing stuff out on your own paper (because why not?), collecting permission slips, filling out endless spreadsheets because some bureaucrat decided they needed them, tracking who's eating breakfast in the cafeteria, chasing down excuse notes, and even calling NASA or the local police when things go sideways. Basically, under the current system, it pays about 10% of your salary, which helps people hit their full-time requirements—but even then, everyone feels totally burnt out and underpaid for the amount of work involved. And now they want to "increase" the compensation to... 2.5%? Yeah, right. No sane person is going to sign up for that kind of workload in specialized subjects, and according to the A2 programs, unless you're teaching advanced English or math, these roles aren't even mandatory for teachers.
Just don't forget—those aides are only really there for about five hours of sunlight. The rest of the day? It’s basically just the teacher and the kids left to fend for themselves. And no, they weren't talking about kids with special needs. They weren't thinking about kids with health issues, either. They weren't even considering children dealing with chronic illnesses. I mean, why would anyone bother to think about them?
Paul Davis2 said:So, basically, a government that signs onto human rights charters is locking children and teachers in schools, intentionally cutting off their growth, development, and access to necessary treatment. Someone here has bad intentions—and if it's not the Masons, then you can fill in the blank.
Hanlon's Razor: please, let’s not go around assigning malice to things that can be perfectly explained by sheer stupidity.
Raymond Jones8 said:I was reading somewhere that parents over in Cleveland are actually pretty happy, though maybe not with this latest reform they're pushing. See, in certain schools there in Cleveland, they've already been doing years of full-day instruction instead of just standard after-school care. The whole concept is different—it's not just one teacher stuck with everything all day—and everyone involved thought this model would be rolled out across the rest of the US, too. But from what I can tell, that successful example they've had running smoothly for ages hasn't even been considered.
So, I heard this story about those teachers over in Cleveland who were doing full-day instruction—and honestly, they were so eager to help. They actually reached out to the Department of Education, offering up all their years of hands-on experience to help shape how the whole full-day model would work. They thought they were being helpful, you know? But apparently, they got shut down immediately. The higher-ups basically brushed them off, saying that it wouldn't be "full-day instruction" anymore, but rather a "full-day school"—which is supposedly a completely different concept altogether. They basically told those teachers that all their hard-earned expertise was totally useless for this new direction. Kind of a gut punch, if you ask me.
Michelle Nelson4 said:Is that some kind of personal mantra you live by—like, "you can't pay me enough to make me work"?
Honestly, right now I’m pulling about 30% more work than what my paycheck actually covers ☕, but if they don't fix this soon, I am going to lean into that "not getting paid enough to care" vibe without a single ounce of guilt. Either that, or I'll just walk away and find a place where I can actually leave my work at the office after my eight hours are up—and get paid fairly, too. I’ve already got a few leads I'm looking into. At least five of my colleagues—and we're talking top-tier teachers here, really talented people—have told me the exact same thing. Like I mentioned before, one of those three things is bound to happen. ☕
Michelle Nelson4 said:So, does this mean our teachers aren't going to see any improvement in student performance, even with those extra budget allocations for hourly pay? That’s quite an interesting point to consider... It really makes you wonder what that says about them, doesn't it?
It's basically assuming they'll just cram 20-25 kids into a single classroom and expect one person to manage three different things at once. They’re planning to pile on more teaching hours and extra duties without any proportional bump in pay—which, honestly, sounds exhausting. At this rate, you’ll be lucky if they even step foot in the room; they'll just tell the kids which pages to read and then scroll through Instagram on their phones.
Paul Davis2 said:Well, in plenty of other countries, it's mandatory up to, say, 15 hours—and from what I gather about this proposal, he'd be required for 15, not 17.
It’s really just an option—something there if people actually want it. It isn't some mandatory thing forced on everyone from first through eighth grade.