All-day school schedules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada always ends up being this tricky example because you can't just dismiss them using the usual tropes we use for other neighbors—you know, the typical stuff about the climate, the local mindset, historical baggage, economic standards, or that lingering communist or Austro-Canadian legacy... (just keep the list going)

The one bright spot we actually managed to pick up from them (and thank goodness that came via a former cabinet secretary) was the idea of having more short holidays. It’s funny, though; everyone collectively sabotaged the whole thing during the first year because she tried to let people vote on the dates—which was a bit naive given the stubborn streak of the surrounding culture—so by the next year, they just made them mandatory for everyone alike. 🙏

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ever seen what schools look like in Canada? Or do you actually know what their standards are? People I know who worked on projects over there say we won't even be on that level for another twenty years. It’s pretty clear they put serious money into education.

Man, honestly, this is just classic—people always want a massive production on a tiny budget.
It’s like they don't even realize that even the education system follows that old Balašević logic of "we played better than we were paid for"—so if they had their way, they'd pay next to nothing and expect a full symphony orchestra to show up.

One of the things that really grinds my gears about CNN is this whole A2 program and how they actually thought this would work. In any given classroom, I’d be looking at at least 25 kids—looking at my current classes, there'd definitely be that many—and I'm supposed to run supplemental instruction for all of them. You've got maybe 10 advanced students mixed in with everyone else who just needs help finishing homework for... I don't even know how many subjects. I won't even get into the fact that it’s physically impossible to learn something AND finish homework in a 45-minute block. With the way things are right now, when 10 kids show up for extra help, it's already too much because these are the kids struggling with the subject matter; they need actual explanations and practice time. By the time I've spent enough time with each of them, those 45 minutes are gone and I feel like I haven't accomplished anything. Then you have the kids who just want to practice, the kids who can barely say "I'm ten years old," and the kids who are actually doing fine but were just absent and just need a quick recap of what we did last. The way they pitched A2 is just going to infuriate parents—they'll expect kids to get everything done at school so they don't need tutors, which is impossible, and then they'll end up blaming us for not teaching them properly.
If they actually want to make A2 high-quality, the only way is through small groups, with everyone in their own classroom—which, let's face it, is impossible in our US schools. I agree with what was said above regarding the need for elective-based reform. We should have a few core subjects and then let everything else follow student interests. Even those core subjects should be split into basic and advanced tracks, rather than having a single class where I have three honors students, six kids who totally get it, and nine others who haven't even mastered the basics yet.

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

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

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

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

The whole all-day school model mostly benefits students who don't have anyone at home to help them with homework—or those who might not even have a quiet desk to work at. Kids of teachers usually have all that support waiting for them at home.

Carl Bishop2 said:The whole all-day school model mostly benefits students who don't have anyone at home to help them with homework—or those who might not even have a quiet desk to work at. Kids of teachers usually have all that support waiting for them at home.

I suppose I'm wondering what the actual point of your post is here?
I mean, are we really suggesting that because there might be three kids in a class without a desk, or four students whose parents can't quite grasp the curriculum, we should force tens of thousands of other kids into this seemingly pointless eight-hour daily grind in schools?
Your sense of altruism and concern for those in need occasionally seems to go a bit overboard, almost stepping on the rights of the majority, who aren't exactly needy in any way, I guess.
Then again, maybe that's just how modern social sensitivity works—it goes to these extremes where everyone starts fussing over one specific kid, and meanwhile, the other twenty-five kids in the classroom just have to suffer through it. If one kid can't manage his homework alone, then by that logic, the other twenty-five who are perfectly capable should just sit there until 4:00 PM so he doesn't feel left out or slighted, I suppose.🙄

Carl Bishop2 said:The whole all-day school model mostly benefits students who don't have anyone at home to help them with homework—or those who might not even have a quiet desk to work at. Kids of teachers usually have all that support waiting for them at home.

I hear you, but what’s the solution there? If that's the case, then we should specifically design programs tailored to support those students. It doesn't seem fair to force everyone to stay late just because Mary and Mark lack the right environment at home.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find it absolutely fascinating that anyone could view mandatory "mentorship" with struggling students as a positive thing. Honestly, that was the exact reason I avoided taking any extra math courses—because there was this unspoken assumption that doing so meant I’d be stuck running remedial sessions to help out those who were falling behind. Even a twelve-year-old understands the futility of it; how are you supposed to approach someone who just doesn't get the concept and lacks the necessary foundational knowledge? It felt like such a massive waste of time for both me and the student, since there was simply nothing I could explain effectively. That experience alone was what 100% convinced me that teaching just wasn't the career path for me...

Honestly, I think it’s actually better now that the kids from Miami are charging their classmates for tutoring sessions. 😉

It’s teaching them early on that nothing in this life comes for free.

I mean, they were all volunteers, at the very least. Neither I nor the person I was supposed to be mentoring actually wanted to be there in the first place. Honestly, just being stuck in that situation felt like such a massive waste of time. And don't even get me started on my lack of experience in that specific area—that was really just adding insult to injury.

So, I would much rather have spent my afternoon getting lost in a gripping novel or maybe sitting down for a game of chess with my grandmother...

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

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

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

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

I mean, just imagine being assigned a mentee who’s basically a lost cause—someone who just won't listen or can't grasp the simplest things... you're basically set up for failure from day one!
And then, to top it all off, people have the nerve to point fingers at you when that mentee fails their next evaluation. Seriously, if you couldn't get through to them, why on earth would anyone expect me to be any different?

I mean, don't get me wrong—I think it's wonderful when kids step up to help one another, truly I do. But in my view, that kind of collaboration should be strictly voluntary. The issue is that, more often than not, you just end up seeing the same cliques forming—the kids with similar skill sets and interests gravitating toward each other...

Looking back on it now through an adult lens, it’s actually quite fascinating to realize how much was expected of them. It honestly strikes me as bizarre that anyone thought it was reasonable to expect an elementary schooler to step in and fix a problem that even their teacher couldn't manage...

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

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

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

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