All-day school schedules

It’s not even like the European Union actually handed us any cash—instead, our own leaders just went out and racked up this massive mountain of debt. And now they're trying to shove this absolute disaster of a reform down our throats, all just so they can make us look like better little rule-followers for the OECD.

Sarah Hall53 said:It’s not even like the European Union actually handed us any cash—instead, our own leaders just went out and racked up this massive mountain of debt. And now they're trying to shove this absolute disaster of a reform down our throats, all just so they can make us look like better little rule-followers for the OECD.

Wait, what? 😲

Yeah, this is honestly the peak of it all. They actually took out a massive LOAN just to fund this whole circus—we're talking $27 million that they’ll be stuck paying off until 2058.

Susan James said:Think about the kids currently in fourth grade. They started school right in the middle of strikes and then dealt with the Apple era... plus another two years of lockdowns.
They got a tiny break to take their standardized tests, and then it's straight into the hands of China starting in fifth grade to try and make up for the lost schooling, which basically means being stuck in all-day school programs. 😬

It feels like we're heading toward extremes... and it almost feels like the whole point is to mess things up for these kids.

I think you’re giving the folks over at the Department of Education far too much credit. Nobody there is actually engaging in any meaningful, long-term strategic thinking—which explains why we see this same brand of chaotic mismanagement every few years. If they would just bother to reach out to the actual experts who work directly with children on the ground, things might improve, but even that seems like too much effort for them.

mellowskipper said:What’s inevitable is the introduction of competency-based learning down the road. Why would the USA provide funding for an experiment if there wasn't some kind of intended outcome?
Sure, we could always just send a report back to D.C. claiming the whole thing was a failure and didn't suit our needs—hey, thanks for the money, though.
But I have my doubts about that working out...
So, yeah, education reform is coming via some version of competency-based standards.

Are you saying we could actually return the funds by claiming they were mismanaged? 🤔
That would be quite the twist...

If the European Union is complaining that our students aren't getting enough instructional hours compared to their standards, then we should have just handled it with some light "cosmetic" changes—like adding another grade level to elementary school, making preschool full-time, or requiring at least two years of high school. Just simple tweaks like that.

Jason Morgan said:I think you’re giving the folks over at the Department of Education far too much credit. Nobody there is actually engaging in any meaningful, long-term strategic thinking—which explains why we see this same brand of chaotic mismanagement every few years. If they would just bother to reach out to the actual experts who work directly with children on the ground, things might improve, but even that seems like too much effort for them.

That’s pretty much it.
The kids aren't even on their radar, I guess. It’s like they couldn't care less what happens to the students, since it seems like no Secretary of Education has ever truly given a damn about them. 🙂
All they seem to care about is sucking up to political heavyweights, self-promotion, and making sure the money trail stays blurry.
Kids? Please. They aren't even thinking about that.🤦

Susan James said:Are you saying we could actually return the funds by claiming they were mismanaged? 🤔
That would be quite the twist...

If the European Union is complaining that our students aren't getting enough instructional hours compared to their standards, then we should have just handled it with some light "cosmetic" changes—like adding another grade level to elementary school, making preschool full-time, or requiring at least two years of high school. Just simple tweaks like that.

No, wait—from what I gather, this is just a pilot program. It’s basically to see if the European Union thinks we actually have the capacity or readiness to handle any real changes. If they decide we do, then the real funding follows. This current amount is peanuts.
So, we ought to use this window to submit a report detailing exactly what kind of reform we need and how much capital it would take to pull it off.
The European Union seems quite fond of handing out cash for reforms in Eastern Europe because, frankly, they tend to view us as somewhat primitive in those areas.
Like I said before, we should squeeze every last cent out of this for the sake of the students and the teachers.
Of course, if Sarah Hall53 is right and things are already hitting the fan, then it doesn't matter—our kids will be the ones paying it back.

Sarah Hall53 said:Yeah, this is honestly the peak of it all. They actually took out a massive LOAN just to fund this whole circus—we're talking $27 million that they’ll be stuck paying off until 2058.

That loan is just a tiny fraction of the total budget earmarked for this project. The rest was pulled from various European Union funds via grants meant for educational equalization. The total secured figure is roughly $1.3 billion.

Listen, people, this isn't going away, and it certainly isn't disappearing overnight. We have to accept that the traditional elementary school model is changing, and the way salaries are calculated is shifting as well. What we really need to do is focus on iron out the contentious details.

As for the opinion that the local school board is useless? Honestly, such views are shallow and contribute nothing to the conversation.

So, what's the plan? We just abandon our own kids to whatever fate comes their way and call it a day?

She laid it out for you pretty clearly: posting those pathetic "kids are prisoners" rants on these forums isn't doing anyone any favors. It’s just not constructive. If you actually had a specific suggestion for how to change the way things are run—I mean, there was a public forum for exactly that. Anyone who wanted to contribute something meaningful could have stepped up and written something coherent then.

I’ve been submitting my comments during public hearings, not just posting them here.

Claiming these kids are essentially prisoners might be a slight exaggeration, but we aren't far off. Forcing them to sit in a classroom all day is excessive, harmful, and completely unnecessary.

Michelle Nelson4 said:She laid it out for you pretty clearly: posting those pathetic "kids are prisoners" rants on these forums isn't doing anyone any favors. It’s just not constructive. If you actually had a specific suggestion for how to change the way things are run—I mean, there was a public forum for exactly that. Anyone who wanted to contribute something meaningful could have stepped up and written something coherent then.

It’s a similar argument to the one about religious education in schools. Complaining about removing it doesn't help much if kids just end up somewhere else anyway. It might be better to schedule it as the first or last period so students still have a place to go during the middle of the day.

As for an all-day solution, the equivalent would be making sure students HAVE the option to stay at school if they want to, while hiring extra staff specifically to work with both struggling and advanced students during those hours.

hiddenseal14 said:That loan is just a tiny fraction of the total budget earmarked for this project. The rest was pulled from various European Union funds via grants meant for educational equalization. The total secured figure is roughly $1.3 billion.

Listen, people, this isn't going away, and it certainly isn't disappearing overnight. We have to accept that the traditional elementary school model is changing, and the way salaries are calculated is shifting as well. What we really need to do is focus on iron out the contentious details.

As for the opinion that the local school board is useless? Honestly, such views are shallow and contribute nothing to the conversation.

If something is wrong, you should push back. I know, it sounds utopian, but that’s my stance. I will never understand why people just shrug their shoulders and swallow whatever garbage is served to them. As if the geniuses sitting in that Department of Education are some kind of visionaries or messiahs. And then you have all those Fuksić types, Mamić types, Lovrić types, Piletić types—intellectual giants, clearly. And we’re supposed to let them force their project on us? A project that will impact generations of children and thousands of professionals in education? Please.
When I graduated with my English degree and started looking for work within the system (and mind you, I’ve worked in the private sector too; I didn't take the easy path from college straight to a permanent teaching job through some connection), I entered this profession knowing exactly what it looked like—what was expected of me, and both its pros and cons. I’ve said it a hundred times: what provides an advantage to a specialist in this field (not to be modest, I'm tired of this submissive attitude that we are all just "poor little teachers") is the schedule. It offers enough freedom to either work on school projects, grade a mountain of papers (which is always the case with language arts), or dedicate time to one's own family, provided you're organized. I calculated that the peanuts they pay for my knowledge and expertise are somewhat compensated by the flexibility of my non-standard working hours (though when I work afternoons, I lose the whole day and don't see my kids until evening, but whatever...). Now, some bureaucrat is going to calculate my "active hours" and conclude that I just have to accept being paid peanuts while simultaneously handing over my knowledge, experience, enthusiasm, and motivation overnight—all while stripping away the one perk this job actually offers? I guess they could have started by talking about salaries, comparing them to the US average or those high-end systems we claim we want to emulate, before moving on to these other whims.

I I almost forgot to mention—the judges are asking for a salary bump of up to $1,400. Give me a break. The administration is immediately countering with $300 (which is about what they offered those public school teachers who were barely scraping by $100 over several installments, right?). Let’s take a moment to compare the efficiency of the American judicial system against international standards just to see where we actually stand and if these people even deserve such raises. I’m talking about the group of judges whose case files sit gathering dust in drawers for ten years, or the ones handing out slap-on-the-wrist sentences to rapists and pedophiles.
Don't get me wrong, everyone should fight for their own interests, and I'll always support that, but why is it that we're constantly being asked if we've "earned" our keep?
Back during the strike in 2019, when we were demanding coefficient increases, the AP kept droning on about how they needed to form some sort of commission to review, coordinate, and debate those magical coefficients, but nothing ever actually happened. Then, just recently—right as inflation started spiking—I caught a news clip on TV about how the folks in the ruling administration just went ahead and raised their own coefficients themselves. They just showed up, signed the papers, and called it a day. It's pathetic. Truly.

Anthony Harris2 said:Either they’ll get called into the counselor's office, there will be some big "heart-to-heart" with the kid and the parents, maybe run a little workshop during homeroom—and then what? The teacher keeps preaching about non-violence, but the whole thing just hits a dead end because there are zero actual consequences. A few talks aren't going to change a bully, especially when most of those issues stem from deep-rooted problems at home anyway. During homeroom, all we can really do is talk and hope someone is actually listening. I don't know how it works in other districts, but in my school, parents usually start breathing down our necks when kids transition from elementary to middle school. They seem to think homeroom teachers are somehow omniscient—like we’re supposed to know every single whispered word or playground spat happening in every other classroom. Honestly, regarding that fight between the two classes mentioned earlier—as a teacher, I'm often at the mercy of whether the kids actually trust me enough to come forward. And once again, we’re back to square one: talking and hoping it actually makes a difference.

Yeah, parents expect the homeroom teacher to be just as plugged-in as the previous teacher who spent almost the entire day with them, every single day, and only had one class to worry about. Meanwhile, I have an average of 130 students. They are all equally "mine," and I have to give everyone equal attention and instruction.
Also, parents expect the teacher to handle things that are strictly parental responsibilities (not all parents, obviously, but generally speaking, whenever someone loses it—like on a Friday afternoon after an exhausting work week—they find it very easy to vent via email to the teacher about everything under the sun). And they ruin my weekend. I've told myself so many times not to check emails over the weekend, but it happens... A screenshot of a kid's WhatsApp conversation lands in my inbox. Things you don't want to see or even know about. Things that are completely outside your professional scope or expertise. Dealing with insults, profanity, and vulgarity among 11 or 12-year-old girls. What did we do about it?? What did the school do?? Kids are fighting on smartphones their dear parents bought them, using internet provided by those same parents, and wandering around local parks at odd hours (did the parents even approve that?). None of this happened at school or during English class, but what was our response?? It gets especially volatile when the conflict between the offended parents is bigger than the conflict between the children; then the accusations start flying, and the new trend is threatening to call Child Protective Services and whatnot.
What I find most interesting is that in eight years of being a homeroom teacher, I haven't received a single email or call complaining about my teaching or my specific subject. Instead, I always, exclusively, lose my mind because the homeroom teacher becomes the garbage bin for complaints regarding: other teachers/subjects, everyone's behavior, peer relationships, and just general grievances people feel the need to direct somewhere.
By far the hardest and worst part of the job.

Carl Bishop2 said:You brought students with special needs into this conversation, even though my primary point was about how computers can benefit students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and immigrant children (to help them better learn the language and integrate more smoothly into society). So, I hadn't mentioned kids with learning disabilities until now.
And then Africa decided to call me out over things she just imagined—forgive me for responding to posts where I'm being questioned or singled out.

But seriously, we can get back to the computers now.
I don't have a firm opinion on how much teaching staff is needed in the A2 section because I just don't know enough about the specifics.
What do you think? How many specialists or teachers should be in a classroom of 25 students—where, say, four of them require accommodations, like in a 5th-grade A2 setting?

As for me, I just want world peace and to save the whales and dolphins. I do this work because it's my calling, not just a job; my paycheck is a child's warm smile, and I feed myself and my family by soaking up the sunshine.

1. And who exactly is claiming that absolutely nothing in the Congress proposal is any good? We had 1,000 people participate in the public consultation out of 60,000 total in the education sector. Out of 3,000 comments, 80% just say the Congress plan is "bland" or "I won't do it"—what kind of actual argument is that? It's completely worthless.

2. Then there’s the claim that they want to work only 4 hours a day because otherwise they won't have time for a private life. That is also a pathetic excuse. If you want that much free time, you might as well not work at all so you can have time for everything.

3. Or the idea that kids will be stuck in school all day. Kids are already in school until 2 or 3 PM without even getting lunch, so that argument is equally nonsense.

4. "Parents will complain about this and that..." Please. Most parents actually benefit from this setup, so that's just another useless complaint.

5. "Teachers will quit en masse." Oh, really? I see. Maybe if you're living in New York City you can afford to be picky about your job, but in the rest of the country, you can't—and education is still an area where people pull rank just to get their foot in the door.

6. There will be plenty of unqualified teachers because there are plenty right now. Honestly, in the Los Angeles area, everyone is highly qualified except for the physics teachers. Even in the most remote areas. Believe me, I worked there for years.

By the way, I am a linguist myself. Greetings, 🙂

Times have changed, and we need to accept that. We aren't going to work 20 hours a week in schools anymore. We aren't going to be paid the exact same amount, whether someone teaches 16 hours or 22 hours. Those who work more should earn more. Period. That's just how it works. What we ought to be doing is pointing out specific organizational details that need changing rather than just screaming "I won't do it!" like a bunch of whiners.

Besides, this is just a pilot program for 50 schools; it isn't the final version of the Congress plan that will be rolled out to every school nationwide in four years.

hiddenseal14 said:1. And who exactly is claiming that absolutely nothing in the Congress proposal is any good? We had 1,000 people participate in the public consultation out of 60,000 total in the education sector. Out of 3,000 comments, 80% just say the Congress plan is "bland" or "I won't do it"—what kind of actual argument is that? It's completely worthless.

2. Then there’s the claim that they want to work only 4 hours a day because otherwise they won't have time for a private life. That is also a pathetic excuse. If you want that much free time, you might as well not work at all so you can have time for everything.

3. Or the idea that kids will be stuck in school all day. Kids are already in school until 2 or 3 PM without even getting lunch, so that argument is equally nonsense.

4. "Parents will complain about this and that..." Please. Most parents actually benefit from this setup, so that's just another useless complaint.

5. "Teachers will quit en masse." Oh, really? I see. Maybe if you're living in New York City you can afford to be picky about your job, but in the rest of the country, you can't—and education is still an area where people pull rank just to get their foot in the door.

6. There will be plenty of unqualified teachers because there are plenty right now. Honestly, in the Los Angeles area, everyone is highly qualified except for the physics teachers. Even in the most remote areas. Believe me, I worked there for years.

By the way, I am a linguist myself. Greetings, 🙂

Times have changed, and we need to accept that. We aren't going to work 20 hours a week in schools anymore. We aren't going to be paid the exact same amount, whether someone teaches 16 hours or 22 hours. Those who work more should earn more. Period. That's just how it works. What we ought to be doing is pointing out specific organizational details that need changing rather than just screaming "I won't do it!" like a bunch of whiners.

Besides, this is just a pilot program for 50 schools; it isn't the final version of the Congress plan that will be rolled out to every school nationwide in four years.

On these online public comment portals, you have to register with your full legal name and Social Security number. I’m convinced most people are too terrified for their own livelihoods to speak up. They're scared someone will snitch to the Department of Labor because they dared to voice a negative opinion about their bosses.

Who on earth is only working four hours a day? I’m pulling four to six hours daily just dealing with classes, exams, and essays that I have to take home and spend an entire week grading, calculating scores, and figuring out percentages. Then there's the endless data entry into the school portal—logging specific learning outcomes for my 130 students, writing up meeting minutes, drafting reports, and managing spreadsheets both in the system and elsewhere. Between my role as a teacher and a homeroom advisor, I’m also prepping for parent-teacher conferences, keeping parents updated, answering emails and calls, and juggling various school projects. I don't know. If you really only work four hours a day, then good for you—or maybe you just value yourself so little that you actually enjoy making things harder for yourself? Is that some kind of masochism?

What kind of kids are we talking about here—kids in second or third grade? Maybe some older students if they absolutely have to show up for an elective computer science class after they've already headed home and eaten. The little ones in after-school care get a proper lunch every single day.

As a parent, this just doesn't sit right with me. I want to be there for my kids. If people are in a position where they absolutely cannot be with their own families, then fine—let them have the option for all-day coverage. But I don't want that for myself.

We'll see about that.

It’s going to happen; it's inevitable. We’re seeing new generations come through where job-hopping to find better opportunities is considered perfectly normal. I support that movement. Honestly, I’ve always been that way myself, even long before it became the modern standard. 🙂

Hey there, fellow linguist. Sorry, I need to take a moment to break this down. 🙂)

hiddenseal14 said:1. And who exactly is claiming that absolutely nothing in the Congress proposal is any good? We had 1,000 people participate in the public consultation out of 60,000 total in the education sector. Out of 3,000 comments, 80% just say the Congress plan is "bland" or "I won't do it"—what kind of actual argument is that? It's completely worthless.

2. Then there’s the claim that they want to work only 4 hours a day because otherwise they won't have time for a private life. That is also a pathetic excuse. If you want that much free time, you might as well not work at all so you can have time for everything.

3. Or the idea that kids will be stuck in school all day. Kids are already in school until 2 or 3 PM without even getting lunch, so that argument is equally nonsense.

4. "Parents will complain about this and that..." Please. Most parents actually benefit from this setup, so that's just another useless complaint.

5. "Teachers will quit en masse." Oh, really? I see. Maybe if you're living in New York City you can afford to be picky about your job, but in the rest of the country, you can't—and education is still an area where people pull rank just to get their foot in the door.

6. There will be plenty of unqualified teachers because there are plenty right now. Honestly, in the Los Angeles area, everyone is highly qualified except for the physics teachers. Even in the most remote areas. Believe me, I worked there for years.

By the way, I am a linguist myself. Greetings, 🙂

Times have changed, and we need to accept that. We aren't going to work 20 hours a week in schools anymore. We aren't going to be paid the exact same amount, whether someone teaches 16 hours or 22 hours. Those who work more should earn more. Period. That's just how it works. What we ought to be doing is pointing out specific organizational details that need changing rather than just screaming "I won't do it!" like a bunch of whiners.

Besides, this is just a pilot program for 50 schools; it isn't the final version of the Congress plan that will be rolled out to every school nationwide in four years.

Could you elaborate on that? How can someone working in a school even say that? What 4 hours are we talking about, especially if you're a language teacher?

Counter the arguments made by the American Psychological Association, all of which are backed by research findings.

hiddenseal14 said:1. And who exactly is claiming that absolutely nothing in the Congress proposal is any good? We had 1,000 people participate in the public consultation out of 60,000 total in the education sector. Out of 3,000 comments, 80% just say the Congress plan is "bland" or "I won't do it"—what kind of actual argument is that? It's completely worthless.

2. Then there’s the claim that they want to work only 4 hours a day because otherwise they won't have time for a private life. That is also a pathetic excuse. If you want that much free time, you might as well not work at all so you can have time for everything.

3. Or the idea that kids will be stuck in school all day. Kids are already in school until 2 or 3 PM without even getting lunch, so that argument is equally nonsense.

4. "Parents will complain about this and that..." Please. Most parents actually benefit from this setup, so that's just another useless complaint.

5. "Teachers will quit en masse." Oh, really? I see. Maybe if you're living in New York City you can afford to be picky about your job, but in the rest of the country, you can't—and education is still an area where people pull rank just to get their foot in the door.

6. There will be plenty of unqualified teachers because there are plenty right now. Honestly, in the Los Angeles area, everyone is highly qualified except for the physics teachers. Even in the most remote areas. Believe me, I worked there for years.

By the way, I am a linguist myself. Greetings, 🙂

Times have changed, and we need to accept that. We aren't going to work 20 hours a week in schools anymore. We aren't going to be paid the exact same amount, whether someone teaches 16 hours or 22 hours. Those who work more should earn more. Period. That's just how it works. What we ought to be doing is pointing out specific organizational details that need changing rather than just screaming "I won't do it!" like a bunch of whiners.

Besides, this is just a pilot program for 50 schools; it isn't the final version of the Congress plan that will be rolled out to every school nationwide in four years.

Let's just look at this one thing.
Right, kids are currently staying at school until 2 or 3 PM without a lunch break.
(Based on my latest schedule change, they're out by 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, plus two days where they have first period in the morning)

Since there aren't any plans to reduce total hours and breaks are being extended, they're adding lunch along with a full A2 module. How long do you think kids will actually be stuck at school under this full-day model?