All-day school schedules

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?

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.

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.

Yes, he does. But he hasn't actually stepped foot in a school in those twenty years.

Out of the 29 elementary schools in the district, seven are running on a single shift, twenty are split between two, and two are struggling through three... It’s a logistical nightmare. On top of that, eight of these schools don't even have a proper gymnasium, and only nine actually have the facilities to serve hot meals. So, if we're being realistic about implementing this absurdly ambitious plan, they'd essentially be cramming sixty students into a single classroom, cutting out lunch entirely, and scrapping physical education altogether... though, let's be honest, nothing of substance will ever actually come of this nonsense.

Susan James said: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?

I haven't a clue—they've got four years to figure that out.

Drew Johnson2 said:Out of the 29 elementary schools in the district, seven are running on a single shift, twenty are split between two, and two are struggling through three... It’s a logistical nightmare. On top of that, eight of these schools don't even have a proper gymnasium, and only nine actually have the facilities to serve hot meals. So, if we're being realistic about implementing this absurdly ambitious plan, they'd essentially be cramming sixty students into a single classroom, cutting out lunch entirely, and scrapping physical education altogether... though, let's be honest, nothing of substance will ever actually come of this nonsense.

At this point, it’s probably best to just pull the plug and return the funds—pretty much how it goes with other EU grants. It’s easier to just keep repeating that it can't be done.

Jose Wells3 said:Yes, he does. But he hasn't actually stepped foot in a school in those twenty years.

Does anyone at the SEC actually have any firsthand experience working in a school—or are they just hiring wide-eyed idealists?

Paul Davis2 said:At this point, it’s probably best to just pull the plug and return the funds—pretty much how it goes with other EU grants. It’s easier to just keep repeating that it can't be done.

Hold on—do you really think it's possible to build or renovate over 100 elementary schools just in Washington, D.C. and Miami?

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:Does anyone at the SEC actually have any firsthand experience working in a school—or are they just hiring wide-eyed idealists?

Honestly, we ask ourselves that same question in the faculty lounge almost every single day. ☕
The worst part isn't even that they're naive—it's that they're opportunists. They’re those types who think they've got the whole system figured out just because they graduated twenty years ago or maybe have a kid enrolled somewhere. They really think they're the smartest people in the room.☕

Paul Davis2 said:Does anyone at the SEC actually have any firsthand experience working in a school—or are they just hiring wide-eyed idealists?

Look, I think you’re smart enough for a more mature conversation here. Have you even read what our colleagues are saying? They never actually consult us. It's always just top-down notices. Or, God forbid, giving us a two-week deadline to write an endless manifesto online.

Susan James said:But there is an alternative. We have after-school programs, they just need to be refined and improved. That really should be the first step we take.

I get the feeling that the push for full-day schooling is mostly coming from parents of toddlers or kids in 1st and 2nd grade who don't have after-school care and end up paying babysitters once school lets out around 10:30. Honestly, any sane parent with a teenager isn't going to be arguing for their kids to stay stuck in a classroom longer than necessary.

I mean, what kind of psychologist doesn't understand the basic developmental stages of middle schoolers? It feels like they've never actually spent time in a real classroom trying to maintain focus amidst a mix of hormonal shifts and, well, the general "scent" of a room full of kids. And don't even get me started on how their interests and abilities shift once they hit puberty... or even before that.

What name is Google showing you?

Then you've got the parents of older kids who just haven't learned how to set boundaries—or maybe they just can't bring themselves to do it. They relied so heavily on daycare during those first four years that now they're left with kids who have zero independence... and all sorts of other issues like that.
It feels like once again, people are expecting the school system to step in and do their parenting for them—basically asking schools to fix their own shortcomings.

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:At this point, it’s probably best to just pull the plug and return the funds—pretty much how it goes with other EU grants. It’s easier to just keep repeating that it can't be done.

I didn't say it was impossible, per se, but if we are being realistic, they would need to build at least ten schools in San Francisco just to get the ball rolling... And given that only one school was actually completed during the Miami era—and frankly, even that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the political ambitions of the Puljak couple—no, I don't see anything happening. For children to actually attend those schools, besides needing enough classrooms, they'd require kitchens, dining halls large enough for everyone to sit together, and ideally showers so they can clean up after gym class... My own high schooler has an elective on Saturdays because the professor couldn't find an empty classroom during the week. To discuss things like missing kitchens or lack of gyms when schools are struggling is like trying to debate the merits of a 1,000-square-foot apartment in a rough neighborhood while you're staring at a bank account balance of $150... You can try to imagine it, I suppose, but actual progress is never going to materialize. And really, is it such a tragedy?

Susan James said: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.

Then even that probably won't be enough, and eventually, there will be pressure to keep kids in high school for ten hours straight just so they aren't wandering around town unsupervised. ☕

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.

Just because we need to change things urgently doesn't mean we should implement the very first half-baked idea that pops into someone's head. No one here is claiming the current system is perfect. That’s exactly why people are writing post after post about it, not just on this specific thread. Nobody is against progress—everyone wants improvement—but what’s being proposed right now is poor quality, and honestly, it makes our current situation look better by comparison.

You don't build a house starting with the roof. We lack the basic infrastructure; so many schools are falling apart, classrooms are cramped, and there simply aren't enough of them. Specialized labs? Nonexistent. Gymnasiums for PE? Same story. We’re short on subject-matter teachers, and a portion of the current staff is completely checked out, disinterested, or just plain incompetent regardless of what their degree says. We don't have enough psychologists or special education specialists either.

So, are we really going to lock kids up in those kinds of spaces with those kinds of people for eight hours a day, just because it's convenient for us? And then act happy that they're "safe," assuming they're even safe to begin with?

Owen said:Check out this post
Just pull the plug and get the money back, similar to how other USA funding works. Honestly, the best move is just to keep saying "no."

Why? It’s not like that capital couldn't be put to much better use—stuff like upgrading school equipment, bumping up teacher salaries so we actually have enough chemists, physicists, and math experts, or making sure extracurricular sports are free for every kid in the country.
Instead, we're forced to expand school footprints by eating up playground space and pushing more sedentary activities?

Oh, sure, let’s just go ahead and say we need to poll the kids on absolutely everything now.

Fine. Let’s give them the CliffNotes version of the policy, let them skim through it, and then ask for their "feedback"—just like they’re supposed to do with us teachers.

Do they even have a right to an opinion in this?

No, I’m not talking about those types of people. I mean the ones who actually stick around in the classroom when this whole thing shifts into full-scale application... The truth is, anyone with even a shred of talent is going to start looking for the exit somewhere else. The absolute best among them? They’ll be the first ones out the door.
I mean, seriously—just in the last couple of days, five colleagues I deeply respect have told me they're planning to jump ship within the next few years. Some are looking at moving over to high schools, others want to get into adult education, and some are just dropping out of the teaching profession entirely. Every single one of them is a massive loss, both for their specific school and for the entire American education system, because they’re these incredibly driven, creative women who pour everything they have into sharing ideas and mentoring everyone around them.
But honestly, a system that fails to realize you can't just squeeze people like sponges—expecting them to patch up every systemic hole with nothing but their own grit and ingenuity while paying them peanuts and stripping away every other perk (and let’s be real, having the flexibility to work from home on our own schedule should be considered a major benefit!)—well, that system just doesn't deserve people like them.

Jose Wells3 said:Oh, sure, let’s just go ahead and say we need to poll the kids on absolutely everything now.

Fine. Let’s give them the CliffNotes version of the policy, let them skim through it, and then ask for their "feedback"—just like they’re supposed to do with us teachers.

Do they even have a right to an opinion in this?

They’ll have a four-year window to voice opinions and make changes. So, what we're looking at is essentially a four-year rollout starting from an initial framework.

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.

First point. Who is making this claim? Or better yet, where is it actually written down?