Posts by Susan James

Carl Bishop2 said:I’m with you there—the Canadian schools have implemented something similar for the younger grades (though I'm not positive if it's totally free), and I'm fairly certain that plays a role in their academic success—apparently about 84% of their students utilize after-school care.

The situation in Canada is pretty similar to what we had back when we first introduced those programs.
The real question is why we scrapped them in the early nineties (and it was actually the Republican Party that cut them, though they seem to be trying to bring them back now, just in a much worse version)

Plus, Canada offers homeschooling options, which—if you ask me—has plenty of downsides when it comes to kids' socialization, even for children with special needs. This aggressive push toward full-day schooling is stirring up a lot of debate from people fighting for homeschooling rights. If that movement gains too much ground, it could end up being a real setback for a lot of kids.

Carl Bishop2 said:It looks like I’m back in the crosshairs again, though this time there isn't much substance behind the criticism. 🥱 Honestly, if my posts are getting under your skin, you can always just hit the ignore button—there's no need to subject yourself to my ramblings if you don't want to.
It feels like whenever some of you bring up the topic of full-day schooling, the conversation immediately narrows down to nothing but Fuchsov's specific proposal. To be fair, I haven't even read the fine print on that yet, and I’m sure it has its flaws. Personally, I don't think tethering kids to a single teacher all day is a winning strategy. I totally get why people are frustrated by the prospect of an increased workload—I'd be annoyed too if my job description suddenly expanded overnight. But for me, the debate about full-day school is about the bigger picture, not just one politician's plan.
If you look at how other countries handle this, there are actually some solid models out there. Take Germany, for example—they utilize two different approaches. One is similar to our after-school programs, where parents can pick up their kids once the core classes are done, whenever they need to. The other is a mandatory full-day system that keeps students in school until the late afternoon. Now, Germany generally performs slightly above average on PISA tests, but they noticed a massive gap in student achievement based on socioeconomic status. The logic behind full-day schooling there is to level the playing field for those kids. A lot of them are children of immigrants who might not be hearing much English at home, rather than kids with actual learning disabilities. Looking ahead, I expect we'll see a similar demographic shift here in the US over the next decade.
The more I dig into this, the more I realize there is no "perfect" setup—not just for full-day schools, but for the entire education system, really. It’s going to take a lot of trial and error to figure out what truly works for everyone involved—the students, the parents, and the teachers. There is definitely no one-size-fits-all solution, so I think having some built-in flexibility is absolutely essential.

Don't you realize we're all pushing back against Fuchs's idea because it could directly affect our own kids?
Have you considered that your child's school might apply for the pilot program? If they get selected, your kid would be part of that model... not just for the first four grades, but for everything... at least for four years, and if the experiment goes well, it stays that way indefinitely...
The application window is open until April 28th.
What happens if your child's school applies and actually gets picked?

Parents are the ones asking for childcare and having everything handled on campus. If you actually asked the kids, they'd probably only stay longer if they were guaranteed playtime. Under current PBU rules, they have very little freedom, and according to the CNA proposal, they'll have even less. Plus, with the PBU, you can opt out or choose not to stay that day, but the CN is mandatory for everyone.
A lot of parents, influenced by media headlines (without actually reading the documents), think this is only about the elementary grades. You should see the look on people's faces when I tell them it actually applies to all grades! Many also believe it's great just because "that's how they do it in the West"—but I know plenty of examples where that isn't the case, or where Western models aren't necessarily better. Others think kids will get a better education through full-day schooling simply because "Europe does it better."

You guys keep bringing up PISA scores like they're this amazing indicator showing how poorly America is performing.
During the advisory sessions, there was mention of TIMSS and PIRLS testing, which actually show that our kids aren't struggling with reading or math literacy. Why don't those tests ever get mentioned in the news here? 🤔

Sarah Hall53 said:So, what you're saying is that someone already stuck with a 23-hour weekly teaching load should also somehow find the energy for another 4 hours of tutoring per grade? Plus these extra electives? I honestly don't know who would agree to that... I mean, if you dump 27 or 28 hours of teaching on one person, how are they supposed to do a good job, especially if they're juggling 7, 8, or even 9 different programs? It just seems impossible.

I think I might have misspoken earlier.
What I really meant was that schools need to make sure these extra support sessions are actually available to students. It shouldn't just depend on whether a teacher happens to have an open slot in their schedule. In other words, if the current staff is already maxed out, the principal needs to hire additional teachers to meet that demand.
The same goes for administrative tasks or union duties—those shouldn't be piled onto teachers who are already stretched thin trying to cover essential remedial classes.

And just to reiterate: if a teacher tells a student they need to attend a makeup session because they missed class or failed to turn in an assignment, that student needs to show up. If they don't, it should be marked as an unexcused absence. A teacher shouldn't just be sitting there waiting to see if anyone bothers to show up.
(If you ask me, most grading corrections should happen during those dedicated sessions so the rest of the class isn't held back by a few individuals. I know changing the district policy is a huge hurdle, but it really needs to happen.)

rowdypanther12 said:strictly educational

Not to go too far off-topic here... but if they actually implemented an all-day schedule, there wouldn't be any students left in the classical track. There’s just no way a sane parent is going to enroll their kid in Latin and Greek classes that would presumably follow an intensive A2 program (from what I gathered during my meeting with the guidance counselor), which would have them finishing up around 5:00 PM for the seventh and eighth graders.

Or they'd just end up having to bring back Saturday classes. 😲

rowdypanther12 said:strictly educational

So, yeah, 🤣
even those dual-language programs (like German or French) in the local school districts require lower scores for enrollment.

But honestly, there are plenty of private high schools out there with really low entry requirements.
You’ve even got those parochial, Islamic, or all-girls academies where you can get in with a score of 60 or less, and they offer tuition assistance too.

rowdypanther12 said:Come on, seriously—you don't necessarily need a 5.0 GPA, but I honestly can't think of a single school in Chicago where you could get in with a 4.0.

Classic 🤔

rowdypanther12 said:@Susan James, they used to be more organized about high school admissions back when a 4.5 GPA was the standard 😁
A friend of mine managed to get into her preferred prep school with a 4.4 😁

They still do it today. It’s not like they're picking the overachievers exclusively, but they definitely still enroll them.

rowdypanther12 said:Lady Gaga, what kind of 12 or 13-year-old kid is actually going to get anything out of this?
I honestly can't picture it working. Even if they have five siblings at home, it’s still probably quieter than being stuck in a classroom with 25 other kids.

Kids older than 9 or 10 aren't going to see any real benefit from this setup.

What we actually need is guaranteed after-school tutoring for every student who needs it—especially those teachers who basically mandate attendance or threaten them with unexcused absences if they don't show up. The schedule shouldn't just depend on how many regular classes a teacher happens to have in their rotation.

And we definitely need to provide extra support for subjects where teachers are sending kids off to compete. It shouldn't be a situation where kids are teaching themselves while the teacher just signs the paperwork because someone has to.
It would be wonderful to have elective enrichment programs focused on deepening knowledge (regardless of competitions). In my opinion, these shouldn't even be strictly divided by grade level; they should be based on interest and talent within a specific school district.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by "proab"—it looks like there might have been a typo there! If you were trying to start a conversation or ask a question, feel free to try again. I'm always happy to chat or help out once I know what's on your mind. kaže:
I find it honestly baffling that anyone considers "mentoring" struggling students by administrative mandate to be a positive thing. For me, that was the exact reason I avoided taking any extra math certifications—because it was always assumed that if you did, you’d be forced to run remedial sessions to help out the weaker students. Even a twelve-year-old understands the logic here: how are you supposed to help someone who is completely lost and lacks the fundamental building blocks? It ends up being a total waste of time for both me and the student, since there's simply nothing I can explain without those basics being in place. Honestly, that experience was the one thing that 100% convinced me that teaching just wasn't the career path for me.

I haven't seen any posts from you yet! If you have something on your mind or just want to jump into the conversation, feel free to share. I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts. kaže:
At least they’re doing it as volunteers. Honestly, I didn't really want to be there, and neither did the person I was supposed to be training. It already felt like a bit of a waste of time, regardless. To make matters worse, I definitely felt like I was out of my depth when it came to the actual teaching methods.

Honestly, I’d much rather be curled up with a really gripping book or just hanging out playing a round of Rummy with my grandma.

Honestly, I didn't find it to be much of an effort at all. For me, it was actually a pretty smooth experience!
They always used to tell me—and honestly, I totally fell for it—that the best way to actually learn something is to explain it to someone else or go over it repeatedly with a study buddy. I guess they only pushed that idea so I wouldn't have absolutely nothing to do once I finally got home from school!
There’s really nothing quite like that feeling you get when you know you’ve actually made a difference for someone. It’s such a great boost. My kids have been seeing some real progress lately, too—I guess I just have a bit of a natural knack for figuring things out! 😂

hiddendriver34 said:How many straight-A students were actually in your class? Like, how many people were pulling perfect 4.0 GPAs?

The older generation didn't feel the pressure to hover because they were totally fine with the idea that an average kid should just have average results.

Oh, we definitely had some kids who ended up repeating a grade; it was usually one person staying behind while a new student joined the mix.😬
I can't quite remember the numbers for 5th or 6th grade (maybe just a couple of us), but by 7th and 8th grade, there were quite a few high achievers. It wasn't necessarily everyone getting a 4.0, but let's say at least ten of us did—especially considering our classes were pretty large, sometimes hitting 35 or 40 students due to families moving into the district.

Yeah, parents back then were totally fine with their kid being middle-of-the-pack.
And getting a 3.5 was considered perfectly fine for those of us aiming for that top tier.

Sarah Hall53 said:I can still vividly recall those times back in elementary school when teachers would just sentence the entire class to extra help sessions for English or math—simply because most of the kids were failing.
everything, myself included, even though I actually pulled an A.
So there I’d be, just sitting there like a statue, forced to go over stuff I already freaking knew at a snail's pace. Honestly, I hated them all during those days—both the classmates who couldn't get it together and the teacher for making me stay an extra 45 minutes after school just because they were being slow. 🤦

It’s kind of wild, but nearly 30 years later, I’m still a little salty about all that wasted time. (Though, okay, don't mind me—I’m clearly one of those people who still holds a grudge from preschool. 🤣 ))

It honestly still happens today. One user mentioned their whole class had to stay for math tutoring (in the older grades), and another said a teacher kept the entire group after school...🤔

To me, that seems totally crazy, especially when you think about kids who don't need to wait for parent pick-up and could just be heading home.
Back when I was growing up in the suburbs, the kids who didn't need tutoring got to go outside play, while the ones stuck in tutoring stayed in the classroom (and I was one of those kids in first grade). Nowadays, I feel like I would have first gotten a school deferral, then an individualized learning plan, and a mountain of homework to do at home; back then, I did everything right there at school and caught up with my peers by the end of the year. The afternoon teacher would watch the kids playing outside, while our main teacher taught us and let us out as soon as we finished our work.
On top of that, my math teacher actually recognized I had a knack for it, which is why she kept me in those extra sessions.
Back in the mid-80s, despite how much things were changing, we actually had more individualized attention than kids can even imagine today. And the seniors at home? They really didn't have to deal with any of that.

Carl Bishop2 said:Now, Canada actually pulls above-average numbers on those PISA tests.
I'm never quite sure why everyone keeps bringing up Finland when Estonia is outperforming them, and frankly, it makes even less sense why we don't talk about Canada more often—especially since we share so many more similarities with them than we do with those Nordic nations.

In Canada, they implemented the full-day school model back in the '74/'75 school year. It was a fifteen-year transition period that had its fair share of pros and cons, but the long-term impact ended up being quite positive.
Nowadays, about 85% of their students in grades 1 through 4 or 5 are enrolled in after-school programs.

They rolled out similar models back then in Washington, D.C., and Cleveland too...
In fact, you can still see that specific model being used today in Cleveland.

I remember attending the specialized track at the academy in Washington, D.C.
We had two classes per grade level following the classic curriculum, while two others were in this special program.
Our backpacks stayed at school all week long. I managed to get absolutely everything done during school hours, including all my reading assignments. Because of that, every single weekend was completely free for us.
We had two different teachers who covered various subjects.
There weren't any extra tutoring sessions needed (like math or English).

Roughly speaking, I'd say the kids in the specialized track had much more trouble with discipline once they hit the higher grades compared to the classic students (they were basically running wild, 🤣). One thing I vividly remember is that in the regular classes, there were tons of kids whose parents were teachers (some even worked at our school), and interestingly, those parents wouldn't enroll their children in the specialized program. They probably already realized back then that it wasn't the right fit for them 🤔
. On the flip side, my class included kids from outside the neighborhood whose parents would write letters requesting enrollment in that specific program—likely because, just like my family, they really needed that extra layer of supervision.
I was pulled out of the program in 4th grade, or perhaps everything just kind of fell apart around then 🤔. Third grade was incredibly boring for me, but what sticks in my mind is that "mentorship" work we were assigned with struggling students. Looking back, that seems totally crazy by today's standards; you wouldn't dream of having a kid explain math to another kid when you have a teacher on the payroll specifically for that. In the classic classes, the weekly student monitors would carry notebooks home to classmates who were sick, but in the specialized track, a few of us were tasked with that. After lunch or during breaks, we’d head over to a sick classmate's house to go over the lessons. For us, it was actually a lot of fun, though I doubt that would fly today. Especially with kids living outside the immediate area—who knows what parents would say! We didn't really have a choice, and my parents were actually really grateful that someone would come by when I was under the weather, so it felt natural for me to help others.

Once we reached the higher grades, nobody even mentioned the specialized track anymore. I don't think they even have it in Canada anymore, yet unfortunately, our current experiment is pushing to bring that specialized curriculum back for subject-specific teaching...
So, we don't really need to look at neighboring countries; we've already tried this ourselves.
(And we still have evidence of it; there was even an e-consultation discussing why we shouldn't ignore the recent outcomes from the Cleveland school)

Scott Booth said:There is actually so much I admire about the way they handle schooling over there:
the teachers are top-tier and genuinely happy in their roles (they're paid exceptionally well and are hand-picked from the best of the best), schools are fully equipped, and there isn't that massive gap in quality between rural towns and big cities. It’s consistently good everywhere.

And then there's that mandatory 15-minute break after an hour of instruction, where the kids are actually allowed to run outside, scream, and just act like wild animals. Of course, having two—maybe even three—teachers would be necessary to make that work.

But where does that leave us? We're down here in the South of Europe. I can't think of a single country that manages such a highly organized school system while maintaining those stellar PISA test scores (if you're looking for a real benchmark).

I was thinking about this the other day while looking over some old school reports, and it really got me wondering: why does everyone seem to focus solely on PISA test scores? It feels like whenever there’s a big discussion about our education system, the conversation immediately narrows down to those specific numbers. I remember back when I was in high school, my teachers used to emphasize so many different skills—critical thinking, creative writing, even how we worked together on group projects—but you rarely see those things quantified in a standardized way. Is it just because those metrics are easy for policymakers to grab onto? It seems a bit reductive to judge an entire generation's potential based on a single set of data points, don't you think? I’d love to hear what others feel about this.
While I was doing some reading and consulting online, I came across several teachers mentioning TIMSS, PIRLS literacy, and math assessments. It was actually pretty encouraging to see those educators noting that, overall, American schools aren't seeing poor results in those specific areas.
Where can I go to check those results?

I honestly feel like our education system is long overdue for a serious overhaul. It feels like we’re still using outdated methods to teach students who are living in a completely different world than the one we grew up in. I was chatting with a friend the other day who works in one of our local school districts, and hearing about the struggles they face just trying to keep the curriculum relevant really drove the point home for me. We definitely need some meaningful reforms to make sure our kids are actually prepared for the future.
I honestly think we need to rethink how the school schedule is laid out. Personally, I’m all for increasing physical education hours—but let's be talking about actual, structured PE, not just the disorganized stuff we have going on right now. I also feel like we should bring back dedicated art and music periods. Instead of having that visual arts block jammed into the middle of everything, why not move it to an elective or an after-school program? It would free up space to get music and fine arts back into the core curriculum where they belong. Looking at the younger kids, specifically those first three grades, I really believe we should prioritize math and English literacy over foreign language requirements. In my experience, trying to push a second language on kids before they've even fully mastered their own native tongue feels counterproductive. Why rush it? Foreign languages should be an elective—something kids can choose if they're ready and don't have any speech or language hurdles to clear first. Let's build a solid foundation in the basics first!
I honestly think we could integrate digital literacy and computer science directly into things like math or even physics. There’s really no need to go around adding extra subjects to the curriculum or trying to cram more hours into the school day when the tools can just be woven into what students are already learning. It feels much more natural that way!
I really think we need to rethink how we approach history lessons for fourth graders. Right now, it feels like a lot of mindless rote memorization that leans too heavily on forced patriotism—it’s basically just indoctrination at a stage where most kids don't even fully grasp the concepts being pushed on them. Honestly, I think the curriculum should pivot toward nature and science instead. We should be looking at biology, some basic physics, and introductory chemistry tailored to their level. Let's focus on hands-on experiments—the kind of stuff you see at those fun summer science camps for elementary students. That’s what actually sticks with them!
I honestly think most of this content could be easily integrated with a foreign language. It’s actually pretty straightforward once you look at it that way!
I honestly think music can work beautifully that way—maybe spend an hour listening to something in your native language, and then switch gears with an hour of something in a foreign language. It keeps things interesting!

I’m totally on board with having two teachers. It makes so much sense, especially when you consider how much extra stuff they have to juggle during faculty meetings—like coordinating those advanced art classes, computer science sessions, and foreign language electives. It just keeps everything running smoother.
The all-day school schedule they have in Cleveland—which is honestly what Washington, D.C. used to offer about 40 years ago—is such a much better model than this current mess we're dealing with. I remember back when my kids were starting out, having that extra time for structured activities and supervised study made such a huge difference for families. This new setup just feels like a step backward.
That should cover everything from steps one through four.
I honestly feel like we should rethink the whole idea of using diapers for kids who are right on the cusp of puberty. It just doesn't seem to make sense at that stage of development.

I’ve been thinking lately about how we approach subject-based learning in our schools. I really believe we need to reform the way we structure these programs. Instead of a one-size-fits-all model, we should be grouping kids based on their actual abilities and focusing on what they can truly achieve by the end of fourth grade. It would be much more effective if we tailored the curriculum to meet them where they are, ensuring they have a solid foundation before moving on to the next level.
Trying to force everyone into the exact same curriculum is honestly a recipe for burnout—not just for the students, but for the teachers too. It feels like you're trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole every single day. I remember back in my high school days, we had one math teacher who tried to stick strictly to the textbook regardless of how much we were struggling, and it just sucked the joy out of the classroom for everyone involved. It’s much better when there's a bit of breathing room to actually meet people where they are.
I’ve been thinking lately about how we approach school curricula, and I honestly feel like we need to rethink things for some kids. It feels like there's way too much heavy theory packed into their schedules. Personally, I think we should scale back on the sheer volume of content and instead focus on more hands-on, practical learning hours. Instead of drowning them in endless biology, chemistry, and geography lectures—not to mention those massive piles of history dates and facts they're expected to memorize—we should give them more time to actually apply what they're learning. I remember when I was in school, I always struggled to connect with the textbook stuff, but everything clicked once we actually got to work on a project or a lab. Making education more interactive would make such a difference.

I really think everyone could benefit from more flexible scheduling options. Having lectures set up in intensive blocks would be such a game changer for most students. Honestly, I’ve always felt that moving toward a block-style semester system—kind of like how some specialized programs at places like NYU or UCLA handle their coursework—would make things so much more manageable. It just feels like a smoother way to stay focused.
I was thinking about this earlier today while I was grabbing coffee, and I really feel like we should look into allowing for more integrated subjects—basically, more ways to connect different topics together. It would be great to allow for multiple connections within the curriculum. We could even host joint lectures where two instructors teach a single session! It feels like such a natural way to broaden the perspective for everyone involved.

Andrew Doyle said:I would love to personally meet this mathematician—this supposed "dedicated educator"—who is expected to run mandatory makeup exams and extra credit sessions right after their regular classes finish. And then, apparently, they’re just supposed to spend the entire night grading finals and prepping lesson plans for the next morning.
Do you even have a life, sir or madam? Do you have children? A life outside the classroom?? Oh, wait, I forgot—that’s not how it works. In this country, teaching isn't a profession; it's a holy calling, right? 🙂

By the way, where exactly are the kids supposed to go when these A2 assessments happen and there aren't any scheduled makeups? Is there a specific section of some NASA-grade space shuttle built into our crumbling school buildings reserved just for them? Are we planning to shove them into a boiler room? Because clearly, sunlight and basic human dignity are just too much to ask for.

The A2 program is meant to be a core part of the curriculum for everyone. Some students need extra review and simplified explanations, while others need advanced challenges to stay engaged. The idea is that one superstar teacher can manage all these different needs in the same space. But honestly, the math doesn't add up. How are you supposed to squeeze ten different subjects into those ten hours (spread over five days), especially when some of that time is already eaten up by homeroom periods? It's asking for teachers to provide support for every single subject—letting kids practice until they actually get it—while also nurturing talents in things like math or computer science and still finding time to finish all their paperwork.

Jason Morgan said:I find myself wondering: once this entire initiative inevitably collapses like every other half-baked project we see around here, will those experimental schools be allowed to keep their bizarre, distorted curriculum? It seems we're headed toward a ridiculous situation where we'll be stuck navigating two entirely different sets of standards and teaching methods simultaneously.

And now, kids from about fifty different schools are going to be dealing with totally different schedules and standards...

I was thinking about this the other day while watching my neighbor's kid head off to his after-school club. We already have kids in private schools who follow a different rhythm—they don't deal with traditional grading and they participate in activities that public schools don't offer. From what I understand, most of those kids find it pretty tough to transition into the standard high school system later on because the structures are so different. But hey, that’s ultimately a parental choice, and usually, those parents end up footing the bill for private high school too. The real question is whether families here actually have a choice, and when it comes time for high school enrollment, will spending four years in an intensive 15-hour-a-day environment be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage compared to students who wrap up their day by 12:15 or 1:00 PM?

hiddendriver34 said:Honestly, I’m just relieved that my youngest will at least make it through elementary school, even if the whole system decides to go into full-blown meltdown mode tomorrow.

I feel lucky that mine won't be caught up in it either.
But I can't help but wonder about all the other kids out there. It really weighs on me. We're looking at a generation of young people who might struggle to function, lose their creative spark, or deal with depression and mental health struggles.

In a way, I'm actually glad the pandemic put a pause on that whole "full-day school" experiment back in 2020. Since Divjakica didn't secure a second term, the whole idea was basically pushed to the back burner...

hiddendriver34 said:I honestly don't think Fuchs is driving the bus here; he’s just following orders. To me, he seems like a grandfatherly type who's happy enough to hold onto a cabinet seat, but if it were up to him, he’d probably just be sitting there smiling through his entire term without lifting a finger. Plenković handed him a roadmap that was drafted a long time ago, and frankly, I have no clue who actually designed the master plan we're seeing now.

Let's be real: Fuchs doesn't have the bandwidth or the expertise to manage a massive project involving this kind of heavy funding with any real sense of quality. It’s a shame they didn't just let him coast and smile his way to retirement.

The whole "all-day school" concept actually started during Divjak's term.
She used to promote the importance of full-day instruction constantly on her Facebook page, linking to the program over and over. As a math teacher, she seemed solely focused on the numbers—specifically comparing how many hours our kids spend in class versus kids in the EU—rather than looking at the actual quality or content of the curriculum.
For instance, when people talk about those cumulative classroom hours compared to students in the EU, they conveniently ignore preschool (which is mandatory here but categorized under daycare rather than the school system) or the age kids start school (in many other countries, they start earlier). They also don't mention that we only have eight mandatory years, while some other nations have a few more...
And let's not forget our school holidays, which we definitely have far too many of.
But honestly, the number of hours spent in a building is irrelevant; what matters is *how* those hours are spent and what knowledge the kids actually walk away with.

It’s funny—ever since this full-day school topic gained momentum, she has only spoken up regarding the "knitting vs. computer science" debate. It clearly stung her that knitting is being introduced while the computer science hours she implemented are being cut, as if that's the only subject that matters.

Beyond the fact that her original plan was a disaster, Fuchs somehow made it even worse. Like many politicians, he felt the need to leave his own mark, so he "updated" it. But because he likely doesn't grasp the subject matter and isn't considering the developmental needs of children at different ages, we ended up with a program that's arguably worse than hers.
Following the typical Republican playbook, he's pushing this forward mainly because some EU funding came in that needs to be spent by 2027.
(And that money exists because his predecessor basically used mathematical proofs to show our kids aren't spending enough time in school.)

I'm almost certain they will find 50 "experimental" schools 😠, led by 50 principals appointed along Republican lines who will happily take a 25% raise. They'll probably even make a little extra on school renovations or by hiring their friends and relatives for new positions like "World and Me."

My heart just goes out to the kids who will be part of this four-year experiment. It lacks the basic hallmarks of a real scientific study, and ethically speaking, it feels wrong.
Though, I suppose the blame lies with whoever signs the consent forms for the schools—those Founders and School Boards where the ruling party holds all the cards.

Dana Smith2 said:Am I reading this correctly?
So, elementary school teachers—grades 1 through 4—are expected to be on campus from 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM, only to head home and spend their evenings grading tests and prepping lesson plans for the next day.
And I suppose they’re getting a 25% raise to cover all that extra work?

Actually, you've got it wrong. ☕ 😬
The teacher will be on campus from 7:30 to 3:30, but they'll have plenty of downtime throughout the day while kids are off at music, English, computer lab, or PE... it’s not totally clear where they'll hang out exactly, but they'll have those breaks to get everything done right there at school. And it won't always end at 3:30; sometimes they'll stay until 7:00 PM because they need to touch base with parents (especially since many work full-time schedules) or attend PTA meetings and faculty sessions...
but honestly, that's what they already have to do now.

Only the principals are getting that 25% bump.
Because they're taking on the biggest and most critical responsibilities—basically running the whole show. 🙂

hiddendriver34 said:We had to start by laying down the groundwork first—fixing up the schools and getting them properly equipped. You can't even begin to talk about full-day programming until you've created the right physical space and provided the necessary resources. It’s just common sense.

That's exactly it.

They introduced this "free meal" program for about $1.50, which was supposed to be a hot lunch. In reality, it’s mostly just bread and some spread, and kids end up scarfing it down on the go because there isn't even enough seating.
There should be a public list of all the schools where the lunch program is actually working (and specifically those where parents aren't being hit with extra fees).

And don't even get me started on the "full-day school" concept. If they want kids there all day, they need to provide daily PE classes, not just two hours a week—and right now, they don't even have the gym space for that.

shadowtiger0 said:And what about those claims—what do you mean, fifty years behind? It’s like we’re still stuck in the seventies. Do you guys ever actually leave the house?

Trust me, I'm not lagging as much as you think. I've traveled extensively and lived abroad quite a bit myself.

Besides, "lagging behind" doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing.

Our experts head overseas all the time, and it isn't just a pursuit of a bigger paycheck—there are plenty of different reasons for it.

Even Vietnam isn't trailing the West by that many decades, let alone us. Let's try not to speak without knowing the facts.

Sarcasm?
Do I really need to point out the irony here? We’re constantly being told how much we need to catch up to the West, yet that very same West is busy recruiting our best experts left and right. It makes you wonder—where exactly are they all heading?

I travel quite a bit myself, and honestly, we both deal with international clients constantly in our lines of work. Plus, we have plenty of friends who have moved abroad, so staying connected globally is just part of life for us.

The sunshine out here in the West isn't quite what everyone makes it out to be. It’s definitely different from how people describe it!
It’s not like you can just grab any plant from the West and expect it to thrive once you bring it home. Between the local climate, the specific growing conditions, and all the extra maintenance required, it's definitely not that simple!
It’s the exact same story when you look at the education system.