Posts by Susan James

Paul Davis2 said:An 8-to-3 schedule is pretty standard across the USA—literally everywhere. In places where the day seems shorter, they aren't actually doing continuous instruction; it includes lunch breaks and various group activities. It’s not a solid block from 8 to 3; it’s a series of breaks, meals, and social periods.
Trying to run non-stop instruction from 8 to 3 just isn't realistic.

It’s also totally normal throughout the USA to attend private schools (where, by the way, they can actually expel you). These schools are worlds apart from what public schools provide. And I’m not just talking about the quality of the cafeteria food—though sometimes that’s the deciding factor—but also the caliber of teachers and the variety of subjects offered.

In California, public elementary education is still free. Plus, it's generally available to everyone right in their own neighborhood, usually just a quick 2 to 10-minute walk away.
Given the American model you guys seem to love so much, plenty of kids end up commuting long distances to school for all sorts of reasons.
I just don't want that for my kids.

hiddendriver34 said:It’s like everyone is just parroting the same old lines over and over again. It’s become such a cliché—you know, that whole "wherever there's a Turk, you'll find little Moe" kind of thing. Everyone's just repeating it like a broken record.

In the US, the tradition of full-day schooling has been around for at least fifty years. My husband grew up with that setup—he had full-day classes throughout his entire elementary school years, which back then lasted until the end of sixth grade. His older brother and sister went through the exact same thing. It was a long time ago, but that's just how things were done.

Our traditions are just built differently here. Look, I’m not saying that locking the door every single time is always the ultimate answer, but why on earth is full-day schooling considered the gold standard? I’m genuinely curious about the logic behind it. I don't want the usual "because everyone else is doing it" excuse—that doesn't explain anything. What is the actual, tangible advantage? Mandatory. All-day classes? Seriously? That sounds like a total grind.

-To keep kids off the streets (or stuck on TikTok these days)
-So parents have total control over their children
-To crush any sense of creativity or spark of imagination, which usually relies on downtime (something school tends to eliminate or discourage)
-To limit them from learning practical life skills, making them dependent on outside services (which, honestly, just preserves certain job sectors even though those jobs are becoming harder to fill)
-To keep them within a tiny social bubble, preventing them from seeing how other kids live or realizing that things can be different—better or worse—outside their immediate circle
-To make life easier for parents so they don't have to worry about what the kids are doing while they're at work (it's a whole thing)

Those same highly developed USA countries with full-day schedules actually recruit our specialists for years and are incredibly grateful when they arrive.
It's pretty clear that our traditions and the quality of our professionals aren't nearly as bad as the local gossip suggests, or as people try to convince us since we joined the USA.

The biggest flaw I see in our system is that you always seem to run into a teacher who drains a child's desire to learn. As the curriculum gets heavier, that spirit of inquiry and curiosity starts to fade. Exactly what could prevent this is having more time at home—maybe being home with a key, sitting in the next room with Grandma, or having a neighbor keeping an eye in from the balcony—basically having the freedom to pursue what you actually love once the school bell rings.

Not every kid is built for a high-pressure academic track, and they shouldn't have to be. They need to learn hands-on skills, work with their hands, observe how family members handle things at home, and learn from them.
Those advanced USA countries where kids are in school from dawn till dusk are actually facing a massive shortage of skilled tradespeople—the kind of experts who command huge salaries nowadays (sometimes even more than doctors)—and they often bring in talent from abroad because they're running out of locals.

wanderingbadger44 said:Are we talking about the students?
It feels genuinely inhumane to expect a thirteen-year-old to grind through six hours of standard classes, only to immediately jump into elective language blocks or computer science labs, followed by extra tutoring or remedial sessions, and then somehow find the energy for extracurriculars.

I don't know much about the specific after-school programs, but plenty of kids end up heading straight to those too.

Think about it—not a single adult out there can maintain peak concentration for eight full hours at a job. Yet, we expect a child to be fully dialed in, active, and engaged during every single period of the school day.

It’s honestly no wonder so many kids just hit a wall and give up; trying to sustain that level of intensity is practically impossible.

Every single day, middle schoolers are stuck dealing with seven or eight hours of various lessons.

On days when I leave right after the main six-hour stretch, I see them still sitting there, waiting for their coding clubs, foreign language electives, geography groups, or extra help... and my heart just breaks for them.

🙏
Honestly, I could sign my name to every single word you wrote here.

I saw someone suggesting an all-day school schedule for preteens and teenagers, keeping the current period structure but just adding more classes on top. Honestly, it feels like they haven't stepped foot in a classroom since they were a student themselves. They clearly don't have a clue how much teenage development and brain chemistry actually impact focus and energy levels throughout the day.

Honestly, I don't think we'll ever see an operating system that can handle every single niche extracurricular activity out there—and honestly, it doesn't really need to. There’s just too much variety in what people do outside of school or work for one piece of software to cover all the bases.
I’ve noticed lately that so many parents are choosing schools with split shifts just so their kids can squeeze in music lessons or ballet classes. It helps create a much more manageable schedule. These kids are usually so busy with their extracurriculars that they don't really need to stay late for extra tutoring or after-school programs anyway. In my opinion, there's absolutely no reason to keep them stuck in a classroom past 1:00 PM. Honestly, it feels pretty shortsighted—if not outright disrespectful to their time—to limit how these arts programs set their schedules. If they start classes at 3:30 or even 5:00 PM, those kids won't have any time left for themselves or for actual family life. We should be giving them the flexibility to balance their passions with their home lives.

I’ve been thinking about the different types of parents out there who actually cheer on—or at least fully support—the idea of all-day school schedules. It’s funny how much you can learn about someone just by their take on the school bell. To me, they usually fall into a few specific camps:
They’ve never actually had kids older than second grade in private school, so they have no clue what happens when the workload starts getting heavy. They don't understand how much fun it can be to keep twenty or thirty totally different personalities focused during those extra five hours of after-school programs. Honestly, they seem thrilled by the idea of keeping everything contained within the school walls—it feels like they're just looking for an easy way out.

I’ve noticed this pattern quite a bit lately—parents who seem to want to outsource their entire responsibility to someone else. They expect institutions to just step up and handle everything. Look, I get it, extracurricular tutoring is voluntary right now, so you can't really point fingers at a teacher and blame them if a kid is struggling with a concept. But once these programs become mandatory? That’s when people will start making demands. It’s almost like they’re waiting for that moment so they can finally say, "Hey, you aren't doing your job!" It’s all fueled by those flashy commercials promising that kids won't have any homework because everything gets wrapped up during school hours. It sets this expectation that the school is a one-stop shop for everything, which just isn't how it works in reality.

Working from home really requires a certain level of peace and quiet. You need that mental space to actually focus, and it's tough when you have a kid in the next room who might pop in at any second to show you something they're studying or just ask a random question. It’s hard to stay in the zone when your workspace isn't truly private.

Working a standard nine-to-five can be a game changer. Honestly, after finishing school, people might actually start craving that stable, family-oriented lifestyle—it could mean all sorts of things for their future.

hiddendriver34 said:I just hope this extra hour of American language arts doesn't give some genius the bright idea to "enrich" the curriculum with more useless filler. Kids really need to master the basics: reading, writing, listening, and speaking.

I don't know why people act so shocked that today’s teenagers are actually more fluent in English than their own native tongue. You see high schoolers struggling to string a sentence together, relying on awkward, literal translations from English slang that just don't work in formal speech.

They struggle to get through even a decent-length article because they honestly don't grasp the vocabulary.

What does "scathing" mean?
What about "nullify"?
How about "paradigm"?
Or "trajectory"?

With this new afternoon block being added to the school day, one activity absolutely has to be reading. I’m talking about setting up a cozy little nook with beanbags and armchairs, stocked with everything from Lionel Messi biographies to chick lit.

Honestly, I’d implement a reading corner like that in EVERY single school, and keep it open all day long. If a student is having a hard time focusing during a lecture, they could—with permission—head over to the reading room where the Wi-Fi is totally blocked. Then they can just sit there and read. Or, you know, stare at the ceiling.

I feel like kids here don't read enough, don't write enough essays, and barely express themselves anymore...
And yeah, they speak English instead of American, even though those phrases, while sometimes funny, are actually pretty terrible. When MM was working from home, he used to quote our local kids with his colleagues, and even the kids would refer to it as "that weird language."
It’s fun for the first few times, but the longer you listen, the more you wonder if he’s working with aliens and how much it's changing our language.
I think change is okay (there's something kind of beautiful about evolution), but at the same time, kids today don't know basic terms.
So, instead of enriching their own language, we're forcing a second language on them.

By the way, when are kids supposed to get through their required reading in a full-day school schedule?
With the way grades are structured, they might only manage to finish a book on a Saturday morning.

jadetinker85 said:Everyone keeps bringing up cultural differences between Finland, now Estonia—which also lived under communism—and us.
What kind of massive cultural gap would actually make implementing a system like Finland's impossible?
Are first graders in Finland fundamentally different from ours in terms of competence or maturity?
At the end of the day, the goal should be healthy, happy kids and equally healthy, happy teachers—not just in America, but in any functional country.
Presumably, it matters that the people working with students are satisfied and motivated?

Forget this whole Finland obsession. We need to stop looking at Scandinavia as some blueprint and trying to force their model onto our way of life.
They have incredibly high rates of suicide and depression.
Are we planning on importing those statistics too?

Jose Wells3 said:Yeah, I have that document—and the one they cite as the source, which is in English—plus I’ve read the annex too.

So, looking at the stats: a range of 14 to 17 hours, with about 21 teachers reporting availability at school. They list class periods as being either 45 or 60 minutes. We also see about 90 percent of teachers holding a Master's degree (High School Diploma level equivalence). The school year kicks off August 11th and wraps up June 3rd! I was browsing some of their brochures, and apparently, since many parents struggle to find childcare, they organize these organized camps. Their breaks run from December 22nd to January 8th, plus breaks in February and November. No other holidays are listed. Does that sound familiar?
Fair enough, our percentage of teachers with a High School Diploma isn't in that top 10 percent. I'll give you that.

We have the same percentage of people with pedagogical competencies, and there are a few alternative ways to get qualified there.

We have a minimum of 175 working days. This year we actually have more, and it seems like it's trending upward every year.

Why am I obsessed with Finland? Because they’re a homogeneous nation just like us—small population, similar struggles.

From what I follow, some of their newer ambitions are questionable, and they have some pretty heated debates about them. Honestly, they seem almost indifferent toward PISA testing; they argue there are better metrics and that they simply want what’s best for their students within their own context.

Estonia is a bit more direct, but their kids aren't stuck in school from dawn till dusk.

Personally? If I could just teach 25 hours of actual instruction without any homeroom duties, I’d be the happiest person alive. For me, the prep work is actually the fun part—I love designing lessons, grading essays, and playing around with new ideas. What kills me is the homeroom responsibility. The mountain of paperwork, the mediation, the endless emails, the constant contact with parents... sunny or not, just take the homeroom away from me.

And please, stop keeping kids in the classroom until 3:00 PM.

By the way, we aren't far off on that front either; my sixth graders only have 29 hours of regular instruction (not counting tutoring or after-school stuff). Classes end at 1:05 PM, with 15-minute breaks and 5-minute passing periods. In most other countries, breaks range from thirty minutes to an hour and a half—some are even longer, and in some places, they last 40 minutes.

I noticed below that it's actually 25 hours plus a second foreign language and social studies, but let's just say 29 since that's usually the bulk of it.

So, if a child has electives in their regular schedule, a sixth grader is looking at 6 hours of class every day, and 5 hours one day a week.
(That should apply to everyone now, since the second language will be mandatory and instead of social studies, it’ll be something like philosophy).
Ultimately, this really hurts the kids who don't want to take a second foreign language in school (even if the schedule can be adjusted so they aren't in the late shift or stuck with gaps in their day; maybe it's a language they simply don't like or don't feel ready to tackle yet—most haven't even mastered their first language properly).
As for the impact on students who don't choose religious education, there's an entire discussion about that... those lucky enough to have had it before or after regular classes (there are some) will now have to come to school earlier or stay later regardless.
From what I see with my own kid, and even more so with many children I work with, there is simply no physical way to get through all those projects, posters, and endless assignments during free time when there's a deadline. Especially when you factor in a 40-minute lunch break and the need for extra help for some students while simultaneously trying to foster gifted students in the same spaces with the same teachers—that's what the program calls "enriched and supported learning." Making posters isn't truly working with gifted students; you need much more than that... besides, everyone does projects and posters in school.
And yeah, sometimes you actually have to study for a test.
Anyone who hasn't had to do it so far certainly will be studying on the weekends from now on.
So, bravo to them for completely wrecking family life.

Basically, these bombastic headlines claiming kids will finish their homework at school don't hold up against my sixth graders' reality (especially if the curriculum and expected outcomes don't change).
And this "regular instruction" is being increased by one hour of math, one hour of English, and one hour of tech—that's three extra hours right there!

Free or partially free extracurricular activities should ideally take place after 3:00 or 3:30 PM.
But that's assuming the kids aren't already exhausted and worn out from sitting in a chair for so long, especially since the sixth-grade program only accounts for two hours of PE (and that's not even counting the recommendation that activities should be movement-based, which is a huge understatement).
Even though there's a "recommendation" that enrichment activities should mostly be physical (which isn't bad, unless you're talking about students who aren't interested in that or would rather be playing an instrument)....
And honestly, nobody knows what will happen to music programs and other specialized schools.
Will kids even have the energy to go to those after school? (Think about what isn't mentioned: a ballet school schedule might require 10–12 hours a week depending on the grade, or music schools might require 4 to 6 hours a week, plus daily instrument practice). In my opinion, if this goes through, those schools will either have to lock their doors or will become exclusive to the few who can afford it (because somehow, they'll have to keep staff employed at these schools, whose own family lives will be "happy" only if they work strictly from 3:30 PM to 8:00 PM, or more often from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM).

I honestly don't know how our policymakers (specifically the one who drafted the basis of this document back in 2020) concluded that our kids aren't spending enough time in school and that we need to increase the hourly requirements. Everything seems focused solely on adding more hours to the kids' days, and nothing else. Okay, her...jadetinker85 says "other kids are learning how to code, while ours will be learning how to knit")

And thanks for mentioning the sixth-grade curriculum. I feel like the people pushing this whole project/experiment mostly focus on the remote learning aspect—which can apply to plenty of things in schools that use digital platforms—but they aren't really talking about the actual subject matter itself. If we’re going to shake things up, the main thing should be modifying the scope of what's actually taught in the classroom.

Sarah Hall53 said: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.

Yeah, I hear you.
It’s such a massive issue within our full-day school systems. Honestly, it feels like things could get even messier if we don't address it, because some kids end up relying on those school programs well into their mid-teens.

Paul Davis2 said:Everything you’re saying hits the mark. It’s hard to pin down what works best for every individual student. I don't think the all-day model is a one-size-fits-all solution, but at least it needs to exist as an option within the system framework.

Hagley:
I looked up the superintendent—psychologist, twenty years of academic research in education. On paper, the resume is solid. So why him instead of someone else? Honestly, it likely boils down to politics. Just like previous reforms, they tend to promote whoever fits the current political agenda.

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?

Paul Davis2 said:I’m curious here—how is this even allowed by the local government in Washington, D.C., or the Department of State? Back in my home state, coverage is guaranteed for everyone.

The Department of Education handled the coverage.
One meal is free.

The reality is that many schools don't have cafeteria space large enough for all the kids to eat at once, they're short on kitchen staff, and honestly, they probably can't source quality food for just a couple of dollars per kid like a standard lunch costs.

Those are the real issues the Department of the Treasury needs to tackle first.
The first two points are actually huge for full-day programs, because then kids aren't just eating one lunch; they're eating three meals. Three!
And where are they even supposed to sit while they eat?

Mark Walker4 said:In Washington, D.C., there are 112 elementary schools, and get this—89 of them run on double shifts. Only 23 actually get to stick to a single schedule. If we wanted to fix just this one city, we’d need to upgrade 89 schools, but since about 60% of them are boxed in with zero room to expand, we'd have to build from scratch. A modern school runs you about $10 million a pop, so we're looking at building at least 50 new ones just to catch up.

And even with those 23 schools, they haven't managed to guarantee free lunch for everyone in just these last three months. If they can't pull that off, how are they ever going to manage anything else?

Paul Davis2 said:True, we need to raise teacher salaries so they aren't underpaid—that's the foundation.

But honestly, I wouldn't be surprised—I have kids nearby (both mine and others') and I know a thing or two about developmental psychology—that the percentage of kids who act purely on self-initiative is low. It always has been, and it always will be.

I actually like your paragraph—it's how I used to imagine my "ideal" child. My own kids are exactly like that—maybe twenty minutes a day of focused effort.😁

The reason the percentage of self-motivated kids is so low is because more and more children are left with almost zero free time.
And if we move to an all-day school schedule, they'll have even less. They'll also lose out on the encouragement they might get from family members or mentors from other schools or local institutions they could otherwise connect with. Who can guarantee that a local neighborhood school will be able to offer a child motivation specifically tailored to their unique interests?
Pushing the whole day at one single school just doesn't make sense.
It's just as likely that instead of tripling a teacher's salary, they won't even see a double increase. They'll just end up getting crumbs while being buried under mountains of extra work.
(And don't even get me started on the pressure from parents, who—between the long school days and the push for raises—will probably start demanding nothing less than straight A's. Maybe it's better if I just stay quiet about that part!)

Paul Davis2 said:Prasica can't—and shouldn't—be left home alone from 10:30 to 4:00, five days a week. It doesn't matter where you are—not in Brooklyn, not in the Bronx, nowhere.

But they aren't actually alone at home.

Wouldn't it be much smarter, during this experimental year, to invest that money into PB for all elementary schools across the US?
That way, we could level the playing field for every child's educational opportunities in that first year, since not everyone starts off on equal footing when they enter elementary school.

Paul Davis2 said:Some people hit their stride because they’re in an environment that actually pushes them—while others just don't. It comes down to the setting. We have a great work ethic here, largely because we share more cultural DNA with Northern Europe than, say, folks from the Middle East or the Far East. It's really that simple.

For two decades now, our scores on the OECD tests have been sliding further and further below the average. Is that because we’re all geniuses with a flawless system? Not exactly.

And that encouraging environment is outside of school.
For these kids, an all-day school schedule will actually strip away their chance to be in those stimulating environments.
No mediocre, unmotivated teacher—even if you're paying them—can ever replace the extracurricular activities that parents pay for or find ways to provide during a child's free time.
That's just the reality of it.

I think people would be surprised by how many kids spend their free time at home programming just for fun, studying chess, teaching themselves an instrument (especially if they didn't make the cut at music school), practicing, or painting... Not every kid is glued to TikTok; some are genuinely creative and use their downtime to build skills. This "reform" is going to take that precious time away from them.

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.

That same Europe, especially Northern Europe, has been graciously welcoming our workers for decades—everyone from ITech professionals and doctors to plumbers... it’s funny how they’re now offering us huge amounts of money to basically dumb down our own children so that neither we nor they have enough workers left.

What I really want to know is how, despite such short school hours, our kids manage to achieve top-tier results at international Olympiads. How is it that they enroll in and graduate from universities across Europe, and then, if they decide to move abroad, receive job offers that include not just great salaries, but often paid housing and language training for the whole family? How does that happen? Who was responsible for educating all those people?

Susan James said:Come on, give me the details! I can tell you're really into this, especially since you're such a die-hard fan of the all-day marathon sessions.

So, picture this: you’re looking at a school with about 350 students total, where each grade level is split into just two classes. It’s that kind of size where everyone pretty much knows everyone else in the halls.
How many teachers (and which specific subjects) and how many classrooms would we need to maintain an A2 level program?
When you look at a typical classroom here in the States, you really see the full spectrum of how kids develop. It’s actually quite fascinating to observe. You’ll often find those gifted students who seem to have this incredible, almost intuitive grasp of things—but "giftedness" isn't just one single thing. Some kids are absolute naturals with numbers, while others might be incredibly creative or possess a level of emotional intelligence that's way beyond their years. At the same time, you'll likely have a student in that same room who struggles a bit more with traditional learning. I remember back when my nephew was in elementary school; he was such a bright kid, but sitting still for math drills was a constant battle for him. He wasn't lacking intelligence, he just processed information differently. It's a delicate balance for any teacher, trying to nurture those high-flyers while making sure the students who are finding things a little tougher don't get left behind. Every kid brings their own unique rhythm to the classroom.

And yeah, if A2 is really just for the gifted students, when exactly are the average kids supposed to get time to practice everything they learned during the morning shift? 🤔

Paul Davis2 said:Honestly, it might be easier to just leave things as they are and let the gifted kids study on their phones at home.
Kids can be brilliant in one subject and lag behind in another at the exact same time.

The ones who need extra practice can do it in A2—and those who need even more intensive, specialized work can join groups with others who require that same level of depth. It's basically how things work everywhere else.

Hey, let's cut out the fluff and the generic clichés, please. I'd really appreciate some more direct answers instead.

I was asking you for a direct answer, so please, let's stick to the point and be specific.
And yeah, I totally get where you're coming from—kids can be incredibly gifted in all sorts of different areas. That’s exactly why I was wondering: how do you think the local neighborhood schools are going to handle nurturing those kinds of talents?

Sure, you could even back that up with some real-world examples from around the globe!

shadowtiger0 said:Personally, I don't mind working longer hours; I actually think kids today don't move enough, and I'd love more time to work with them.

The other day, I was helping the janitor set up some new fencing for small soccer goals and specific play areas. He looked at me and asked how I knew what I was doing—apparently, most male teachers couldn't find their way out of a paper bag, let alone change a lightbulb at home 😁—so I told him: "Listen, buddy, I'm a man, and a man should know everything from plumbing to electrical work. That's how I was raised."

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned—let the kids run around, play, and mess around. Let them scrape a knee or two. It's perfectly normal and healthy.

So, did you pick that up through some kind of life philosophy, at school, or maybe from a parent at home?

Because for me, I learned to cook at home (both when my mom was around and by following her handwritten notes when she wasn't).
How—or even when—are kids going to learn to cook if they're stuck in school until 3:30 or 5:00 PM? They won't see a parent cooking, and they won't be in a position where they can actually manage to make something for themselves (even just reheating something).

Oh, wait, I forgot—everything is on YouTube now, so they'll probably just watch a tutorial if they absolutely have to cook. And honestly, the ones who learn to code end up making great money, so they'll probably just order takeout anyway.

rowdypanther12 said:Instead of shortening summer breaks or reducing daily school hours for kids, they’re pushing this nonsense.

It sounds great on paper to have space at school for homework after classes, guaranteed tutoring, or room for recreation... those are all really solid ideas.
But having kids stuck at school until 4 PM just isn't right.
I'm honestly relieved my kids won't be part of this; I can't even imagine a schedule like that. When would they hang out unsupervised, hit up McDonald's or a local park, focus on studying, go to sports practice, or just spend time with family?

It feels like we're just institutionalizing our children.
The rest of the world seems to be moving toward shorter workdays and more freedom, yet here we are, trying to lock kids up in schools.

Right, because if a parent works a four-day week, they should have Friday entirely to themselves while the kid sits in school 🙂...so they can hit the spa, the pool, or grab a coffee....

And what about parents who work afternoon shifts? With full-day schooling, there'll be an even higher demand for afternoon coverage, which makes it nearly impossible for certain professionals to be parents to school-aged kids—think speech therapists, coaches, music teachers, artists, and so on.
Retail workers at Target or Walmart will barely see their kids once every two weeks outside of the busy seasons and Sundays.
Nurses will only see them every other week, too—not to mention they often work Sundays anyway.
And so on.
All things considered, it might be easier for them not to have kids at all.

Personally, I have nothing against these types of programs existing as private options that parents pay for, even if it means driving kids across town instead of just down the street.
But as long as public elementary schools are assigned by neighborhood, and the quality of the "good" districts depends on the staff and student makeup, you can't legally force parents into a corner. If they want a specific language or sport that their local district doesn't offer, they shouldn't be forced to drive elsewhere. At least now, you aren't mandated to take a second language (and some schools don't even offer certain sports anyway).

As for after-school care, it's always been voluntary. In some places, it's organized beautifully; in others, it's a total disaster. Some kids desperately need it, while others don't need it at all.
From what I've seen, it's unnecessary for third graders—maybe even a bit counterproductive—and for fourth grade, it could get even worse. Keeping kids in that kind of structured environment from fifth through eighth grade feels like a crime.
I realize some parents love the convenience of having their kids "taken care of," and they'd love for everything to happen right at school. But if we can't manage to handle everything within the school system during first and second grade, how can we expect it to work later on when the academic gaps become much wider? Why wasn't the focus on improving the quality of the early grades when parents were most desperate for childcare?

Paul Davis2 said:Well, that A2 designation is specifically for the gifted students. And let's be honest—talented STEM professionals aren't going to jump into teaching unless the pay is actually decent, and this move gives them a much-needed bump in salary.

Come on, give me the details! I can tell you're really into this, especially since you're such a die-hard fan of the all-day marathon sessions.

So, picture this: you’re looking at a school with about 350 students total, where each grade level is split into just two classes. It’s that kind of size where everyone pretty much knows everyone else in the halls.
How many teachers (and which specific subjects) and how many classrooms would we need to maintain an A2 level program?
When you look at a typical classroom here in the States, you really see the full spectrum of how kids develop. It’s actually quite fascinating to observe. You’ll often find those gifted students who seem to have this incredible, almost intuitive grasp of things—but "giftedness" isn't just one single thing. Some kids are absolute naturals with numbers, while others might be incredibly creative or possess a level of emotional intelligence that's way beyond their years. At the same time, you'll likely have a student in that same room who struggles a bit more with traditional learning. I remember back when my nephew was in elementary school; he was such a bright kid, but sitting still for math drills was a constant battle for him. He wasn't lacking intelligence, he just processed information differently. It's a delicate balance for any teacher, trying to nurture those high-flyers while making sure the students who are finding things a little tougher don't get left behind. Every kid brings their own unique rhythm to the classroom.

And yeah, if A2 is really just for the gifted students, when exactly are the average kids supposed to get time to practice everything they learned during the morning shift? 🤔

hiddendriver34 said:Instead of chasing after all these half-baked, "revolutionary" schemes, someone really should have focused on reforming how we integrate climate science into the curriculum across every single school in the country. That’s the kind of move that actually moves the needle on quality and student outcomes without all the unnecessary drama or sarcasm. Honestly, while they were at it, they could have looked into restructuring our federal holiday schedule too.

Do you think they'll just end up wasting that money on supposed salary hikes for those experimental pilot programs in certain school districts?
I'm right there with you!

Paul Davis2 said:Check out Eurydice and you'll see how it works.
I don't get why it's not clear to everyone. To me, it's simple: kids who need support should get that support within their own school, and those who need more intensive help should get that in that same school too. They don't necessarily need to be sitting in the same room with the same teacher.

There's a huge gap between needing support and actually getting it, and honestly, I think that gap is just way too wide...

I'm not opening any files or documents.
It feels incredibly hypocritical to complain about staffing shortages while simultaneously forcing employees and kids into these chaotic, unplanned schedules that wreck everyone's work-life balance. It makes life impossible for parents during the week—unless you're one of those moms who gets to sit back with a coffee or someone who prefers working from home. Meanwhile, parents are left scrambling to figure out childcare from late June through early September, or dealing with the chaos when people take their two or three weeks of vacation. That’s the reality we're seeing with the current administration.
Why isn't this being handled by sending resources over from Washington, D.C.? We're supposedly short on hours, right?
Why wasn't that the first step they took?
And look at how they handled introducing school lunches. It’s been almost three months now—does every single kid actually have access to lunch at school? People in town are saying it's free, but is it really happening everywhere?

But moving back to the kids who need specialized support:
If school runs from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM (or even 5:00 PM), when on earth are these kids supposed to see a speech therapist or a psychologist? Are these specialists expected to work exclusively in the afternoons? On weekends? At night?