All-day school schedules

nimblelynx7 said:It’ll be interesting to see if even half of these people actually follow through on their resignation threats.

My take? In the end, there won't be any actual change—just a lot of collective whining before business continues as usual.

Our well-known historian Darko Dukovski, who holds a PhD, ended up working at an Elementary School. I guess that’s just how the job market looks for anyone with degrees in sociology, history, political science, or philosophy...

For me, the real example is my mother. She only finished fourth grade, but right after WWII, while she was part of the League Women, she used to tutor kids who couldn't attend school because of the war. Eventually, those kids caught up with their own age groups, some even went on to college, and later they’d thank her, saying things like, "you were such a wonderful teacher to us." So, I suppose for a teacher, it’s more about your personality and how you connect with people than whether you have a master's degree.

The company doesn't need to lay off half the workforce. Honestly, if they just let go of 20% of the mathematicians 😁 and 15% of the IT staff, plus maybe a few linguists, the whole system would probably collapse

rowdypanther12 said:The company doesn't need to lay off half the workforce. Honestly, if they just let go of 20% of the mathematicians 😁 and 15% of the IT staff, plus maybe a few linguists, the whole system would probably collapse

Honestly, I think people are overcomplicating things. They don't need to go through the whole ordeal of quitting their jobs just to get some breathing room. Taking medical leave is a perfectly valid option—it’s much easier than walking away from a career entirely. 😬

Susan James said:Honestly, I think people are overcomplicating things. They don't need to go through the whole ordeal of quitting their jobs just to get some breathing room. Taking medical leave is a perfectly valid option—it’s much easier than walking away from a career entirely. 😬

Yeah, I get that. Burnout is a completely legitimate diagnosis given how things are right now.

Exactly. I said 50% of people would threaten to quit if this actually happens, but for certain professions, the risk is even higher. It doesn't take a mass exodus to trigger a total collapse; just a small fraction leaving is enough.

That’s why I suspect all these threats won't lead to anything in the end. Though, honestly? I wish they would. I wish the whole system would finally crash so everyone could see the emperor has no clothes. Then maybe we could actually start over from scratch on some solid ground. Unfortunately, our construction crews aren't exactly known for their competence, and those guys will never quit—not even when everything falls apart.

John Palmer9 said:Our well-known historian Darko Dukovski, who holds a PhD, ended up working at an Elementary School. I guess that’s just how the job market looks for anyone with degrees in sociology, history, political science, or philosophy...

For me, the real example is my mother. She only finished fourth grade, but right after WWII, while she was part of the League Women, she used to tutor kids who couldn't attend school because of the war. Eventually, those kids caught up with their own age groups, some even went on to college, and later they’d thank her, saying things like, "you were such a wonderful teacher to us." So, I suppose for a teacher, it’s more about your personality and how you connect with people than whether you have a master's degree.

Look, there’s no denying that personality plays a huge role in being a successful teacher—just like it does for lawyers or business owners—but I wouldn't go so far as to say we should lower the academic standards because of it.

rowdypanther12 said:Yeah, I get that. Burnout is a completely legitimate diagnosis given how things are right now.

But it’s more than just burnout.
The vast majority of employees are women (please don't come for me with the biases—as a feminist, I'm just stating the facts here). They’re the ones taking leave for pregnancy, maternity, adoption, or IVF... all while dealing with standard health issues that actually happen.

And even when we talk about men, they have those ten days for when a baby arrives. It's enough time that they might use it right in the middle of the school year, and then someone else has to step in to cover that vacancy...
and then you have layoffs to deal with.

Out of everything, what feels worst to me is seeing a kid get stuck in a system with a terrible teacher (there are plenty of them, and the schools can't seem to get rid of them). Instead of getting four hours of quality instruction, they sit there for five hours a week, and instead of Dad explaining math at home or going to a tutor, the kid is stuck at school until 3 or 5 PM and then has to grind through homework at home.

By the way, when kids are sick and stay home from school, when are they supposed to catch up? During extra help sessions? How is that even supposed to work?

They really should have just clarified that the B module is completely optional. It would be great if kids knew they had a safe place to hang out and finish homework if they wanted to, with access to free food and computers, but without any pressure to stay.
It also could have been mentioned that they'd have extra support available during that time, like teachers who want the extra hours, outside specialists, or even college students doing their internships.

Absolutely not. Let kids enjoy those few hours at school while they still can; an eight-hour workday is inevitably waiting for them once they enter the workforce. As for the argument that children need somewhere to be, I suspect modern parents have become far too overprotective. In my view, it is perfectly reasonable for a child up to the end of fourth grade to walk to and from school alone and remain home for a few hours until their parents return. Of course, unless they live a great distance away or lack basic independence, the alternative would be after-school programs—though, as we know, not every school even offers those. It makes me wonder, though: will they eventually just force full-day schooling on everyone?
I truly hope this doesn't turn out to be yet another failed project by our illustrious U.S. Department of Education.

mistyfalcon3 said:Absolutely not. Let kids enjoy those few hours at school while they still can; an eight-hour workday is inevitably waiting for them once they enter the workforce. As for the argument that children need somewhere to be, I suspect modern parents have become far too overprotective. In my view, it is perfectly reasonable for a child up to the end of fourth grade to walk to and from school alone and remain home for a few hours until their parents return. Of course, unless they live a great distance away or lack basic independence, the alternative would be after-school programs—though, as we know, not every school even offers those. It makes me wonder, though: will they eventually just force full-day schooling on everyone?
I truly hope this doesn't turn out to be yet another failed project by our illustrious U.S. Department of Education.

Parents who need after-school care for a 4th grader aren't acting normally.
I actually wrote this eight years ago when I first heard they were offering these programs in Chicago, and now I'm writing it again as they try to push full-day schooling for fourteen-year-olds.

One thing is providing a warm meal, and I think it would be wonderful if kids had lunch available to them (even a cafeteria tray); it really makes family life easier (personally, I love being able to grab a bite at work).
Or perhaps just having a roof over their heads while they wait for violin lessons across the street (so they can finish homework, read a book, or just stay out of the rain).

But the other thing is the actual supervised help and structured homework time—being stuck in an indoor space with a bunch of students you didn't exactly choose to spend your life with, under the constant watch of an adult.

Carl Bishop2 said:Look, there’s no denying that personality plays a huge role in being a successful teacher—just like it does for lawyers or business owners—but I wouldn't go so far as to say we should lower the academic standards because of it.

Then how do you explain the fact that just a few decades ago, all you needed was two extra years of schooling to teach in a classroom, yet suddenly today, the U.S. Department of Education demands five?

Susan James said:Parents who need after-school care for a 4th grader aren't acting normally.
I actually wrote this eight years ago when I first heard they were offering these programs in Chicago, and now I'm writing it again as they try to push full-day schooling for fourteen-year-olds.

One thing is providing a warm meal, and I think it would be wonderful if kids had lunch available to them (even a cafeteria tray); it really makes family life easier (personally, I love being able to grab a bite at work).
Or perhaps just having a roof over their heads while they wait for violin lessons across the street (so they can finish homework, read a book, or just stay out of the rain).

But the other thing is the actual supervised help and structured homework time—being stuck in an indoor space with a bunch of students you didn't exactly choose to spend your life with, under the constant watch of an adult.

Exactly. I understand the first graders who haven't mastered navigating traffic yet and find everything so overwhelming; let them stay in after-school care until their grandparents pick them up. Since they've only recently transitioned from preschool, I believe staying at school is actually less traumatic than it would be for the older kids, who are already moody teenagers.
Not to mention those students dealing with bullying; forcing them to remain trapped in a school building would only make things worse.

nimblelynx7 said:Then how do you explain the fact that just a few decades ago, all you needed was two extra years of schooling to teach in a classroom, yet suddenly today, the U.S. Department of Education demands five?

I guess I’m just saying that times have changed—the job itself has become way more demanding than it was twenty or thirty years ago. Honestly, I think any teacher who has been in the trenches for a couple of decades and is still at it would tell you the exact same thing.

Carl Bishop2 said:I guess I’m just saying that times have changed—the job itself has become way more demanding than it was twenty or thirty years ago. Honestly, I think any teacher who has been in the trenches for a couple of decades and is still at it would tell you the exact same thing.

And what kind of high schoolers were even applying to the Teacher Training College back then? Nowadays, it’s mostly mediocre—if not bottom-tier—students enrolling. Nobody from the top-tier prep schools in Chicago wants anything to do with it. For years now, they've basically treated Teacher Training College as just another elective course, much like Business or most of the majors over at the University of Arts and Sciences.

Carl Bishop2 said:I guess I’m just saying that times have changed—the job itself has become way more demanding than it was twenty or thirty years ago. Honestly, I think any teacher who has been in the trenches for a couple of decades and is still at it would tell you the exact same thing.

So we really need five years of college for this?
Every job has gotten harder, but that doesn't mean every single one requires a five-year degree.

Carl Bishop2 said:I guess I’m just saying that times have changed—the job itself has become way more demanding than it was twenty or thirty years ago. Honestly, I think any teacher who has been in the trenches for a couple of decades and is still at it would tell you the exact same thing.

It’s definitely tougher because parents don't seem to trust teachers as much anymore. At the same time, they have these incredibly high expectations—you know, the whole "every child is a genius" or "we need to maximize every ounce of their potential" mindset.

I won't drag this debate out too long, though... everyone gets pushed into standard schooling because, well, everyone has rights.

But looking at this specifically regarding kids with special needs, the full-day school model doesn't really address them. When people say a teacher will be freed up from certain hours because the kids have computer lab, language arts, or PE, leaving one teacher to handle everything all day, my question is: what happens to the aides? They aren't "freed up" from specific subjects; they are there with the student all day long. Plus, in the past, kids with disabilities were often advised against after-school programs because it was too overwhelming and they couldn't get the individualized attention they needed. What happens to them now? Will they actually get that support?
And then there are the gifted students. How can someone realistically pick only the gifted kids for enrichment programs based on actual ability when every parent thinks their kid is the next Einstein and demands they get in? They certainly won't settle for remedial help or just doing regular homework...
Also, are teachers even properly trained to work with gifted learners? It's kind of a lottery, really. Since elementary schools are still organized by local neighborhoods, you just get whatever comes your way.
(For years, I've heard teachers say that if they have to choose, they'd rather do remedial work because it's easier to prepare for. Their priority is making sure all the kids grasp the basics before focusing on the one or two who might need a bit more... so the advanced kids just end up idling away their time at school.)

Does a longer degree necessarily equate to higher quality or deeper expertise? Not necessarily. The sheer volume of coursework is often bloated and redundant; many young professionals don't even begin truly mastering their craft until they actually enter the workforce. I know the inevitable rebuttal will be that no university degree can ever truly substitute for hands-on experience, but we should certainly be increasing practical training while slashing—or entirely eliminating—those courses that exist solely to provide job security for tenured professors. Furthermore, wouldn't it make sense to halve enrollment quotas or perhaps just abolish degrees in fields like philosophy or Egyptology that offer little utility in the modern economy?
Take, for instance, why would MIT students be forced to sit through psychology or economics classes? I can wrap my head around economics—everyone needs a solid grasp of how money works—but only if it’s taught with actual substance rather than just being a way for an instructor to clock in their hours. There is a cascading series of failures within our educational system, but at its core, it all boils down to the fundamental rot in our society: corruption and cronyism. Of course, nobody is going to fire their relatives or political allies.
The Daylong school schedule, even if we set aside its detrimental psychological impact on most students, is merely a drop in the ocean of failed initiatives. We attempt to blindly transplant models from other successful nations—like the Finnish, British, or German systems—while ignoring the most critical factor: implementing a Western model requires a Western mindset.

nimblelynx7 said:So we really need five years of college for this?
Every job has gotten harder, but that doesn't mean every single one requires a five-year degree.

Look, I’m not trying to disparage anyone’s career path here, but I have to ask: why should a preschool teacher be required to complete a full five-year degree instead of the two-year programs we used to see? Why must the educational requirement be stretched out for so long? If there are any professionals from that field here, perhaps you could offer some insight.

mistyfalcon3 said:Look, I’m not trying to disparage anyone’s career path here, but I have to ask: why should a preschool teacher be required to complete a full five-year degree instead of the two-year programs we used to see? Why must the educational requirement be stretched out for so long? If there are any professionals from that field here, perhaps you could offer some insight.

Two years is more than enough. They breeze through their coursework in just two semesters. A classmate of mine finishing her degree right now said the exact same thing when we compared my textbooks at the FBI to hers. She’s prepping for an exam with only two days to go. Maybe she spent a whole week studying for one of those exams during that entire five-year stretch.
I'm not disrespecting the job, but making a College of Education program last five years is just unnecessary and frankly ridiculous—for them too.

Susan James said:It’s definitely tougher because parents don't seem to trust teachers as much anymore. At the same time, they have these incredibly high expectations—you know, the whole "every child is a genius" or "we need to maximize every ounce of their potential" mindset.

I won't drag this debate out too long, though... everyone gets pushed into standard schooling because, well, everyone has rights.

But looking at this specifically regarding kids with special needs, the full-day school model doesn't really address them. When people say a teacher will be freed up from certain hours because the kids have computer lab, language arts, or PE, leaving one teacher to handle everything all day, my question is: what happens to the aides? They aren't "freed up" from specific subjects; they are there with the student all day long. Plus, in the past, kids with disabilities were often advised against after-school programs because it was too overwhelming and they couldn't get the individualized attention they needed. What happens to them now? Will they actually get that support?
And then there are the gifted students. How can someone realistically pick only the gifted kids for enrichment programs based on actual ability when every parent thinks their kid is the next Einstein and demands they get in? They certainly won't settle for remedial help or just doing regular homework...
Also, are teachers even properly trained to work with gifted learners? It's kind of a lottery, really. Since elementary schools are still organized by local neighborhoods, you just get whatever comes your way.
(For years, I've heard teachers say that if they have to choose, they'd rather do remedial work because it's easier to prepare for. Their priority is making sure all the kids grasp the basics before focusing on the one or two who might need a bit more... so the advanced kids just end up idling away their time at school.)

Do you ever stop to wonder if we’re putting too much pressure on kids to squeeze every last drop of potential out of themselves? I mean, there's this pervasive idea floating around—almost like a cultural mantra—that every child needs to be pushed to their absolute limit to truly succeed. It's that constant drive to maximize talent, hit every milestone, and basically operate at peak performance from day one. But I can't help but feel there's a fine line between encouraging someone and just relentless chasing of "optimization." It reminds me a bit of how people approach fitness or career climbing in the States—this obsession with being the best version of yourself at all times—which sounds great on paper, but it can be exhausting in practice. Is it really about reaching that maximum potential, or should we be giving them more room to just... exist? To fail without it being seen as a wasted opportunity? I'd love to hear what others think about where we should draw that line.
I get that it’s probably out of reach right now—honestly, it might even be a bit of a stretch—but I still think it’s something worth aiming for.
Teaching isn't just getting harder because parents have cranked up their expectations—it’s also because the kids themselves are becoming more demanding, and honestly, everyone seems to be looking for perfection these days. It feels like there's this massive gap where we should be getting help, too; teachers are facing all this pressure without nearly enough support from the specialized staff or mental health services that should be there to back us up.