All-day school schedules

Susan James said: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?

Exactly.

Jose Wells3 said:Buddy, are you actually aware of what you’re typing here? Do you realize how condescending you're being to everyone else?

I have a colleague who would never dream of saying something like this, but he has the track record to prove it. We're talking about actual grit—working tirelessly with kids, running countless after-school programs, coaching competitions, managing projects, and handling homeroom duties.

I respect him deeply; honestly, he’s the gold standard for what a teacher should be in our school.

Most of you just blow smoke and then drive these kids crazy—kids for whom soccer is the absolute last thing on their minds. You can't even point them toward other sports they might actually enjoy. Your top-tier climbers are essentially being bullied out of class because everything revolves around soccer. Kids with gymnastics potential are wasting away in your programs, and girls aren't getting any encouragement to stay active at all. To you, Pilates is somehow "soft" or "for wimps"... I've heard enough of those old-school, regressive jokes.

For what it's worth, I co-teach my classes, and I actively participate in professional development workshops for extracurricular physical education instructors. Don't even try to lie and claim we're all on the same level. We aren't. At least 90 percent of you aren't. Meanwhile, 90 percent of us are actually juggling extra responsibilities, lesson planning, grading, and prepping for state exams—and no, we don't all have perfect evaluations.

What humiliation? What are you even talking about? If anything, I’m the one humbling myself by constantly pointing out here that, say, a math teacher should probably be making a higher salary than I am.

For an educated person, you're really struggling to grasp what's been written.

And unfortunately, yes—there are plenty of people in the PE department who act that way. But it happens in other subjects too; it's just easier to hide behind a mask here.

Edit: My predecessor used to bench the endomorph kids and make the ectomorphs do pull-ups. I know the drill. As soon as I took over, I put the endomorph kids into strength training and the ectomorphs into running.

shadowtiger0 said:It's basic biology, fellow middle school teacher. It's the difference between men and women—energy. That's what I was getting at. For us, handling the heavy lifting comes a bit easier.

Energy stems from anabolic hormones. Honestly, do you really want me to dive into something that most seventh graders probably already know?

Pushovers? Fine, here's an example. A colleague of mine had someone block her car in (she couldn't get home), so she asked a male colleague from her department to go tell the guy to move his car. He literally responded with: "Not my problem, won't get involved."

So, I step in and handle it nicely myself.

Of course the work of a linguist and a PE teacher isn't comparable. Just like a surgeon should be making more than a physiatrist (which they aren't, at least not at the base level), natural scientists and language teachers ought to have higher salaries than the rest of us (again, at least the base pay). See? I'm just full of love.

😂 🙂

Why was my colleague too intimidated to deal with it herself if it wasn't that big of a deal?

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 never said things should stay exactly as they are. On the contrary, I offered suggestions. But you snapped at me simply because I dared to suggest we need early screening in our admissions process and more diverse offerings tailored to student interests.

I’m advocating for private offices in schools and an eight-hour workday with some remote work options. I’m advocating for easier ways to let go of poor teachers, external evaluations, streamlined workloads, better school equipment, and free field trips for kids. But not like this. Not by hiking up contact hours while keeping stipends miserable. And certainly not by forcing an eight-hour day on children, locking them in schools, or treating them with such distrust.

And honestly, forgive me, but times haven't changed so much that a first-grader can't be home alone. We have after-school programs; maybe they should just extend them until fifth grade and actually make them better. I didn't need them, nor did I need a sitter. My kids were perfectly fine. In fact, they were much better off than kids who are constantly under supervision—they are incredibly independent and handle their responsibilities without issue. We don't live in Brooklyn. We live in a country where kids play freely at the local parks starting from preschool.

jadetinker85 said:😂 🙂

Why was my colleague too intimidated to deal with it herself if it wasn't that big of a deal?

I honestly don't get the joke or why we're leaning so hard into the cheap sarcasm here.

The girl is twenty-five, working a temp gig—she doesn't even know which building she’s standing in, let alone what her actual job description entails.

rowdypanther12 said:I suppose once they actually finish building those 1,000 schools needed for the reform, maybe they'll finally get around to installing air conditioning.☕

God willing 👍

Susan James said: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?

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.

Bryan Wells11 said:Fine, let's use first names then. You certainly seem to love yourself. Very, very much.
I'm also a normal mom whom both my kids and students love, right? I just don't see that as a valid argument in a debate. Besides, that’s just a subjective impression based on how narcissistic a person happens to be.
I still have questions regarding these comparisons between men and women; what exactly is the point? Which "pushovers" are you talking about who are afraid of their shadows? You should probably write from your own experience, because it's unclear what the poet is trying to say here.
And yes, physical education is incomparable to, say, language studies, but it never occurred to me to judge others or try to divide us based on how complex our jobs are, though I see some people really enjoy doing exactly that.

Edit: Ah, I missed your condescending lecturing style, reminiscent of elementary school "I am - You are" lessons (you even misspelled the most basic foundation taught to first graders); but hey, if you're an "energy tank," everyone loves you, you're hilarious, and they're all lining up to meet you. You've once again proven you have absolutely no clue how much language proficiency we instill in children by the 8th grade, allowing them to enter top-tier high schools with pride, knowing they'll excel in English, making our population's language skills enviable compared to many other countries. But sure, "I am, You are," right?

I see you're quick on the uptake 😁

Not condescending at all—quite the opposite. It's hard work. The hardest kind. The fundamentals are always the toughest part of any subject. AND THAT IS NOT SARCASM—do you get it now? 😁

If you're going to quote someone, try quoting Far Coast instead of Mio Kekin. Oh, wait. He's just like you—a linguistics enthusiast.

"U'r" is slang, and clearly, you don't have much of a handle on it for someone claiming to be an English professor.

I lived in the States for a while, so I picked up a bit more than just the textbook stuff.

Why do you think my kids don't enter speech competitions?

Good grief, who am I even arguing with...🤦

Jose Wells3 said:I never said things should stay exactly as they are. On the contrary, I offered suggestions. But you snapped at me simply because I dared to suggest we need early screening in our admissions process and more diverse offerings tailored to student interests.

I’m advocating for private offices in schools and an eight-hour workday with some remote work options. I’m advocating for easier ways to let go of poor teachers, external evaluations, streamlined workloads, better school equipment, and free field trips for kids. But not like this. Not by hiking up contact hours while keeping stipends miserable. And certainly not by forcing an eight-hour day on children, locking them in schools, or treating them with such distrust.

And honestly, forgive me, but times haven't changed so much that a first-grader can't be home alone. We have after-school programs; maybe they should just extend them until fifth grade and actually make them better. I didn't need them, nor did I need a sitter. My kids were perfectly fine. In fact, they were much better off than kids who are constantly under supervision—they are incredibly independent and handle their responsibilities without issue. We don't live in Brooklyn. We live in a country where kids play freely at the local parks starting from preschool.

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.

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: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.

Susan James said: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.

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.😁

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.

Maybe try educating yourself on other types of assessments besides the OECD ones.

Besides, we have schools that produce excellent results despite being in environments that offer zero encouragement.

An encouraging environment isn't just about a classroom; it’s about family, society, and general standards.

Look at the countries we actually want to emulate—excluding China and those types, since I have my prejudices against totalitarianism and their youth suicide rates.

I looked into the Writer very thoroughly. I see the issues, sure, but I also see that many people can't actually interpret research data; they just stare at test scores.

There are plenty of possibilities here, but the biggest issue is that the people actually working within the system aren't even consulted. The public debate on this proposal lasts TWO WEEKS. TWO!

Right in the middle of the school year, when national exams are happening and everything is bursting at the seams before the holidays.

We're getting everything through the media.

The timing for public presentations speaks for itself.

And what about the qualifications of the people who designed this? When was the last time any of them were actually in a classroom teaching?

The system won't improve as long as those of us in the "trenches" aren't the generals, and the theorists remain nothing more than assistants.

Just look at the person leading this charge. Look at how many committees and organizations they chair. Is it even possible for one person to competently hold so many leadership positions?

This is classic American bullshit. It's a pre-election distraction meant to pull the wool over our eyes while something much worse is being prepared in the background. Ask yourself: what is it? I'm already digging.

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.

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.

In a nearby neighborhood, they expanded a school by taking over the playground and the basketball court where kids used to play. Now the school has more classrooms, but it doesn't have a yard.

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!)

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?

jadetinker85 said:In a nearby neighborhood, they expanded a school by taking over the playground and the basketball court where kids used to play. Now the school has more classrooms, but it doesn't have a yard.

And there’s your solution right there: just snatch away the playground and the local park to squeeze in a five-story building with 15 classrooms. It’s happened before—in a small town in the Midwest, they expanded their school recently, but instead of helping with single-shift classes, they just used the extra space to handle a second shift because the school was already packed with 1,200 students...

Susan James said: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?

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.

Susan James said: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!)

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.