Would you support 200 day school year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who didn’t read the link, it was not a district wide change, it was a pilot at two schools, one of which was 97% free and reduced lunch. It’s clearly targeting a specific student population.

It was so successful, they are expanding it. It makes sense to target those who need more help first but imagine how successful smart kids could be with extra days in school. I don't get parents who say 11 weeks of summer just aren't enough.

Richmond Public Schools have more than 66% free and reduced lunch, three times the rate of Arlington and Loudoun. It’s targeting low income students who lose the most in a long summer.

There are APS elementary schools with more than 66% of the kids on free and reduced lunch though. It would make sense to institute this program for those schools. Isn't part of the justification for segregating the schools that it's easier to provide services? I know transportation is the biggest piece of it, but I also thought they had high-needs schools to focus resources there (even though they don't necessarily advertise that fact).

Sure, let's make the poor kids and the non-poor kids in school with them go longer than the rich kids in other schools. And nevermind about the handful of poor kids in the wealthy schools who won't get the extra days. Perhaps we should segregate our schools better so that only poor kids are in any given school and only affluent kids are in any given school. After all, no low-income kids are high performing students and no affluent kids are low-performing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should be an opt in program for kids who need it. Not all children need this and there's barely any summer break anymore as it is with all the random teacher work days.

As the All-In tutoring program effort showed, it's difficult to get the families of kids - or the kids themselves - who most need the extra services to opt-in. They don't want to miss out on free time any more than the kids who don't need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A billion percent (I am a teacher in a Title I school). We waste so much time getting kids back into routines and making up for massive learning loss over the summer. If this was offered in my district, I would transfer schools to teach on that schedule.

I see at our school, that kids watched a movie twice this week when it was raining or too hot for outdoor recess. I see that they don't do ANYTHING the last 2 weeks of school. I see that the days before each break are empty. I see that my kids are bored because they are not challenged and are not free to do more in school. I agree school should be year-round, but I also think teachers should be paid more and tech should play a much smaller part and we should stop teaching for the test and teach for life.

YES!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely not. Learning loss has much to do with poor parenting and not student inability. Go to the library and get your kids some books or have them take any of the 100s of free classes or programs online. My kids loved summer reading programs and would read dozens of books when in k-5 and prob a dozen or more in secondary.

We already go to school too many useless days, especially the first couple weeks and the last two months. Unless advanced track kids can finish 3 years of class in 2 200 day school years, it'll prevent my kids from doing other things they want to do outside of school. And no we are not wealthy and go on trips during breaks.

BS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No way. I’m a teacher and might have been okay with this when my own kids were younger. Now that they are teens, they are doing other things in the summer and don’t want or need a longer school year. I can see how they are getting ready for the college years and how they will like having classes on a semester basis.

It is best to make education policy for all based on what high school students are doing with their summers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thnk we should have year round school. That would counter learning loss that happens annually over summer break. It would also make it so people could actually travel at times other than the summer.

FCPS tried this in 3 schools around 20 years ago.

APS did it at one school then ended it.

Where are you gonna get the money from? Let’s start by using the time we have better. Start earlier and end after APs and SOLs.

For some additional nuance, APS did it at the behest of the administration with the support of the school community. It lasted for several years - until new administration came along that didn't buy into it. Some argued that test scores weren't significantly improved with the modified calendar. It's a 60+% FRL and 50+% ESL school. Test scores aren't the only indicator of positive benefits. Love how people claim test scores aren't the most important factor, yet when they can use them to eliminate something they don't prefer they are more than happy to hold them up as justification to eliminate.

Nevertheless, the problem is also only one school doing it. It wasn't fully supported by central office. You don't do this at one or two schools. It needs to be the way the whole district operates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who didn’t read the link, it was not a district wide change, it was a pilot at two schools, one of which was 97% free and reduced lunch. It’s clearly targeting a specific student population.

It was so successful, they are expanding it. It makes sense to target those who need more help first but imagine how successful smart kids could be with extra days in school. I don't get parents who say 11 weeks of summer just aren't enough.

Richmond Public Schools have more than 66% free and reduced lunch, three times the rate of Arlington and Loudoun. It’s targeting low income students who lose the most in a long summer.

There are APS elementary schools with more than 66% of the kids on free and reduced lunch though. It would make sense to institute this program for those schools. Isn't part of the justification for segregating the schools that it's easier to provide services? I know transportation is the biggest piece of it, but I also thought they had high-needs schools to focus resources there (even though they don't necessarily advertise that fact).

Sure, let's make the poor kids and the non-poor kids in school with them go longer than the rich kids in other schools. And nevermind about the handful of poor kids in the wealthy schools who won't get the extra days. Perhaps we should segregate our schools better so that only poor kids are in any given school and only affluent kids are in any given school. After all, no low-income kids are high performing students and no affluent kids are low-performing.

I'm surprised by the tone of your post. I don't think the APS boundaries are just or right- notice my use of the word "segregation" in the post. But this is what APS has done and they aren't going to change it. I am fine if APS allocates the additional money to give these kids more resources at the elementary level, whether it's framed as school or summer camp with some core academics. This would probably also help families who may not have the money for camp or childcare during the summer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who didn’t read the link, it was not a district wide change, it was a pilot at two schools, one of which was 97% free and reduced lunch. It’s clearly targeting a specific student population.

It was so successful, they are expanding it. It makes sense to target those who need more help first but imagine how successful smart kids could be with extra days in school. I don't get parents who say 11 weeks of summer just aren't enough.

Richmond Public Schools have more than 66% free and reduced lunch, three times the rate of Arlington and Loudoun. It’s targeting low income students who lose the most in a long summer.

There are APS elementary schools with more than 66% of the kids on free and reduced lunch though. It would make sense to institute this program for those schools. Isn't part of the justification for segregating the schools that it's easier to provide services? I know transportation is the biggest piece of it, but I also thought they had high-needs schools to focus resources there (even though they don't necessarily advertise that fact).

Sure, let's make the poor kids and the non-poor kids in school with them go longer than the rich kids in other schools. And nevermind about the handful of poor kids in the wealthy schools who won't get the extra days. Perhaps we should segregate our schools better so that only poor kids are in any given school and only affluent kids are in any given school. After all, no low-income kids are high performing students and no affluent kids are low-performing.

I'm surprised by the tone of your post. I don't think the APS boundaries are just or right- notice my use of the word "segregation" in the post. But this is what APS has done and they aren't going to change it. I am fine if APS allocates the additional money to give these kids more resources at the elementary level, whether it's framed as school or summer camp with some core academics. This would probably also help families who may not have the money for camp or childcare during the summer.

+1 APS is just fine with their segregated schools and pretends everything is fine when it’s not.

PP sounds like the kind of parent who worries their kid will be behind if another kid gets a leg up. Never change, Arlington!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who didn’t read the link, it was not a district wide change, it was a pilot at two schools, one of which was 97% free and reduced lunch. It’s clearly targeting a specific student population.

It was so successful, they are expanding it. It makes sense to target those who need more help first but imagine how successful smart kids could be with extra days in school. I don't get parents who say 11 weeks of summer just aren't enough.

Richmond Public Schools have more than 66% free and reduced lunch, three times the rate of Arlington and Loudoun. It’s targeting low income students who lose the most in a long summer.

There are APS elementary schools with more than 66% of the kids on free and reduced lunch though. It would make sense to institute this program for those schools. Isn't part of the justification for segregating the schools that it's easier to provide services? I know transportation is the biggest piece of it, but I also thought they had high-needs schools to focus resources there (even though they don't necessarily advertise that fact).

Sure, let's make the poor kids and the non-poor kids in school with them go longer than the rich kids in other schools. And nevermind about the handful of poor kids in the wealthy schools who won't get the extra days. Perhaps we should segregate our schools better so that only poor kids are in any given school and only affluent kids are in any given school. After all, no low-income kids are high performing students and no affluent kids are low-performing.

Fairfax and other counties did this 15-20 years ago when funding was better. Low income schools had extended school days or a year round schedule.

[Anonymous]

9 weeks on, 3 weeks off. That is my cousin's year round school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely not. Learning loss has much to do with poor parenting and not student inability. Go to the library and get your kids some books or have them take any of the 100s of free classes or programs online. My kids loved summer reading programs and would read dozens of books when in k-5 and prob a dozen or more in secondary.

We already go to school too many useless days, especially the first couple weeks and the last two months. Unless advanced track kids can finish 3 years of class in 2 200 day school years, it'll prevent my kids from doing other things they want to do outside of school. And no we are not wealthy and go on trips during breaks.

BS

Typical ignorant or lazy response from someone that probably "BFF forever" their kid instead of parents them, but expects people in society to do all the teaching for them and blares the siren the loudest when their kid is underperforming. I've seen a lot of these people at PTA and school board meetings.

Unless there is a real medical need and not some of the fad ones these days that "legally" allow parents to let their kids to get away with not doing work, it very much is a parenting issue.

There have been many poor immigrant children from certain extremely low GDP (at the time whichever kid is going to school) countries in Asia who consistently outperformed other kids in advanced classes including history or even English (after a few years) even though they were starting at a language proficiency disadvantage (and faced teaching bias from some educators) and definitely didn't have parents who had functional proficiency in English to help with homework or otherwise game the system. These parents also worked 12+ hours a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A billion percent (I am a teacher in a Title I school). We waste so much time getting kids back into routines and making up for massive learning loss over the summer. If this was offered in my district, I would transfer schools to teach on that schedule.

I see at our school, that kids watched a movie twice this week when it was raining or too hot for outdoor recess. I see that they don't do ANYTHING the last 2 weeks of school. I see that the days before each break are empty. I see that my kids are bored because they are not challenged and are not free to do more in school. I agree school should be year-round, but I also think teachers should be paid more and tech should play a much smaller part and we should stop teaching for the test and teach for life.

awesome

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thnk we should have year round school. That would counter learning loss that happens annually over summer break. It would also make it so people could actually travel at times other than the summer.

FCPS tried this in 3 schools around 20 years ago.

APS did it at one school then ended it.

Where are you gonna get the money from? Let’s start by using the time we have better. Start earlier and end after APs and SOLs.

For some additional nuance, APS did it at the behest of the administration with the support of the school community. It lasted for several years - until new administration came along that didn't buy into it. Some argued that test scores weren't significantly improved with the modified calendar. It's a 60+% FRL and 50+% ESL school. Test scores aren't the only indicator of positive benefits. Love how people claim test scores aren't the most important factor, yet when they can use them to eliminate something they don't prefer they are more than happy to hold them up as justification to eliminate.

Nevertheless, the problem is also only one school doing it. It wasn't fully supported by central office. You don't do this at one or two schools. It needs to be the way the whole district operates.

It didn't work, move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thnk we should have year round school. That would counter learning loss that happens annually over summer break. It would also make it so people could actually travel at times other than the summer.

FCPS tried this in 3 schools around 20 years ago.

APS did it at one school then ended it.

Where are you gonna get the money from? Let’s start by using the time we have better. Start earlier and end after APs and SOLs.

For some additional nuance, APS did it at the behest of the administration with the support of the school community. It lasted for several years - until new administration came along that didn't buy into it. Some argued that test scores weren't significantly improved with the modified calendar. It's a 60+% FRL and 50+% ESL school. Test scores aren't the only indicator of positive benefits. Love how people claim test scores aren't the most important factor, yet when they can use them to eliminate something they don't prefer they are more than happy to hold them up as justification to eliminate.

Nevertheless, the problem is also only one school doing it. It wasn't fully supported by central office. You don't do this at one or two schools. It needs to be the way the whole district operates.

It didn't work, move on.

That depends on your definition of "work." Some would say that giving kids a chance to be in a supervised program at school with some activities, and ESL or other supports, plus breakfast and lunch, is enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should be an opt in program for kids who need it. Not all children need this and there's barely any summer break anymore as it is with all the random teacher work days.

As the All-In tutoring program effort showed, it's difficult to get the families of kids - or the kids themselves - who most need the extra services to opt-in. They don't want to miss out on free time any more than the kids who don't need it.

So why punish everyone at a school? Maybe there needs to be a more individualized differentiated approach like an IEP instead of a catch all. Sadly it seems like schools are headed the other way. Johnny is struggling to read so all kids have to have two hours of extra phonics and reading support or extra school days. What about the kids performing on grade level and above?! There is nothing left for them. Foreign language and gifted programs have been gutted all in the name of equity. This is just more of the same.