Extended calendar next school year at two schools

[Anonymous]

So normal kids are going to lose the joy that is summer camps, bike riding and friends because some ghetto kids back slide with there limited read and math skills? What ever as long as they leave it to the focus and title one schools

[Anonymous]

As a teacher, not at either school, I think this is an interesting idea. Obviously, the entire curriculum would need to be adjusted for these 2 schools (and any schools it expands to in the future) to get the full benefit of the extra time. Our students have different needs and this seems like a good idea in terms of meeting the needs of some of our at risk students.
That said, I would be looking for a new school if I did teach at one of these schools. I have been at this too long to give up my summer, even for more pay. And, yes, the teacher would have to be paid more. My guess would be that it would come in a stipend form and be comparable to their typical pay. This is something the union would have to negotiate. Once the teachers who want to leave have gone, they will likely staff the vacancies with brand new hires. At that point, the extended year would just be part of the package when accepting a job there.
The biggest obstacle, in my mind, is paying for this. If I remember correctly, the article said this will cost 5 million for these 2 schools? I’m worried about where this money would come from and how expansion to other schools would be funded if that’s the direction we’re headed. Mcps is just such a big, diverse system...it will be interesting to see where this goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So normal kids are going to lose the joy that is summer camps, bike riding and friends because some ghetto kids back slide with there limited read and math skills? What ever as long as they leave it to the focus and title one schools

I'm not normally a grammar/spelling stickler, but it appears you could have used an extended school year to learn the difference between there and their, the difference between read and reading, and that whatever is one word. More to the point, maybe your kids could use an extended year so that they don't absorb your bad English language habits over the summer, nor your snobbery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some teachers might be thrilled to have the extra salary. After an initial shuffle I wouldn't think that would be a problem.

Are you positive that there will be extra salary? I did not see that made clear anywhere.

Also not everyone wants more salary. Some teachers like the job because of the somewhat family-friendly hours. Agree with the PP that you may end up losing some good, talented Teachers, seeing as how this is being implemented on somewhat short notice.

Of course it's extra money - whether in the form of a stipend, which is often a joke, or paid at their individual hourly rates. The union will not allow any teacher to work extra days w/o compensation.

And if these extra days - and they are extra days and NOT part of a REAL 12-month school year - bring in less than what's necessary for daycare, some teachers will be looking elsewhere.

At my hourly rate, which is high after 20+ years, I would never agree to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a true 12-month school year. Those schools are usually 9 weeks on, three weeks off. This is not unlike what we've had in place before - ELO, or extended learning opportunities.

True 12-month schools function in an integrated way; they don't rely on an additional 30 days to simply extend the year.

Furthermore, in many cases, poverty and absenteeism go hand-in-hand. Who's to ensure that attendance is mandatory over these 30 additional days?

These measures are "add ons" that won't be sustainable.

Furthermore, if teachers at these schools have small kids themselves, who's going to pay for their childcare if they're forced to work? It's not as though teachers are making big bucks and can afford to suddenly pay for childcare at this late date. Many will opt to leave, I imagine.

I suppose any measure will have built in risks and if you don't try you'll never know . . . However, how thought out were these plans? That's my question. And the only people who will know the truth are the teachers at these schools.

These were my initial thoughts also.

I wonder how much I put was sought from Teachers.

Also agree that it seems like a somewhat half-assed measure to just add on a few days. How is that any different than the summer school that is already offered? And how can they make extra attendance mandatory for some kids but not all? That sounds discriminatory. Rich kids can go to school less days??

Maybe some of this will be addressed at the meeting.

The answer is none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher, not at either school, I think this is an interesting idea. Obviously, the entire curriculum would need to be adjusted for these 2 schools (and any schools it expands to in the future) to get the full benefit of the extra time. Our students have different needs and this seems like a good idea in terms of meeting the needs of some of our at risk students.
That said, I would be looking for a new school if I did teach at one of these schools. I have been at this too long to give up my summer, even for more pay. And, yes, the teacher would have to be paid more. My guess would be that it would come in a stipend form and be comparable to their typical pay. This is something the union would have to negotiate. Once the teachers who want to leave have gone, they will likely staff the vacancies with brand new hires. At that point, the extended year would just be part of the package when accepting a job there.
The biggest obstacle, in my mind, is paying for this. If I remember correctly, the article said this will cost 5 million for these 2 schools? I’m worried about where this money would come from and how expansion to other schools would be funded if that’s the direction we’re headed. Mcps is just such a big, diverse system...it will be interesting to see where this goes.

That is absolutely nuts.

I hope they get some serious score increases for the kids at these schools. Or else, that is a large amount of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a true 12-month school year. Those schools are usually 9 weeks on, three weeks off. This is not unlike what we've had in place before - ELO, or extended learning opportunities.

True 12-month schools function in an integrated way; they don't rely on an additional 30 days to simply extend the year.

Furthermore, in many cases, poverty and absenteeism go hand-in-hand. Who's to ensure that attendance is mandatory over these 30 additional days?

These measures are "add ons" that won't be sustainable.

Furthermore, if teachers at these schools have small kids themselves, who's going to pay for their childcare if they're forced to work? It's not as though teachers are making big bucks and can afford to suddenly pay for childcare at this late date. Many will opt to leave, I imagine.

I suppose any measure will have built in risks and if you don't try you'll never know . . . However, how thought out were these plans? That's my question. And the only people who will know the truth are the teachers at these schools.

These were my initial thoughts also.

I wonder how much I put was sought from Teachers.

Also agree that it seems like a somewhat half-assed measure to just add on a few days. How is that any different than the summer school that is already offered? And how can they make extra attendance mandatory for some kids but not all? That sounds discriminatory. Rich kids can go to school less days??

Maybe some of this will be addressed at the meeting.

The answer is none.

That’s too bad if it is true.

I would like to hear from teachers whether they think this program has enough of an increase in value over the Summer School that is already offered. Will the increase in student learning justify the $5 million?

[Anonymous]

I’m the teacher poster that sighted the cost and I need to clarify. I read the article last week and didn’t recall the info accurately. The article states that DCPS did this in 13 schools at a cost of 5 million. There was no price tag given for Arcola and Nix in Mcps.
I apologize for not re-reading before posting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher, not at either school, I think this is an interesting idea. Obviously, the entire curriculum would need to be adjusted for these 2 schools (and any schools it expands to in the future) to get the full benefit of the extra time. Our students have different needs and this seems like a good idea in terms of meeting the needs of some of our at risk students.
That said, I would be looking for a new school if I did teach at one of these schools. I have been at this too long to give up my summer, even for more pay. And, yes, the teacher would have to be paid more. My guess would be that it would come in a stipend form and be comparable to their typical pay. This is something the union would have to negotiate. Once the teachers who want to leave have gone, they will likely staff the vacancies with brand new hires. At that point, the extended year would just be part of the package when accepting a job there.
The biggest obstacle, in my mind, is paying for this. If I remember correctly, the article said this will cost 5 million for these 2 schools? I’m worried about where this money would come from and how expansion to other schools would be funded if that’s the direction we’re headed. Mcps is just such a big, diverse system...it will be interesting to see where this goes.

In DC the teachers get paid more and the curriculum is enhanced. There is more art and music as well as more time for core academics. It is a real extended year calendar — so whole there are about 4-5 more instruction there are also extra breaks. I will post the link to the calendar so you can see what this looks like.

Teachers were allowed to transfer to different schools but some felt pressure to stay.

[Anonymous]

https://dcps.dc.gov/publication/2017-2018-revised-extended-year-calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a true 12-month school year. Those schools are usually 9 weeks on, three weeks off. This is not unlike what we've had in place before - ELO, or extended learning opportunities.

True 12-month schools function in an integrated way; they don't rely on an additional 30 days to simply extend the year.

Furthermore, in many cases, poverty and absenteeism go hand-in-hand. Who's to ensure that attendance is mandatory over these 30 additional days?

These measures are "add ons" that won't be sustainable.

Furthermore, if teachers at these schools have small kids themselves, who's going to pay for their childcare if they're forced to work? It's not as though teachers are making big bucks and can afford to suddenly pay for childcare at this late date. Many will opt to leave, I imagine.

I suppose any measure will have built in risks and if you don't try you'll never know . . . However, how thought out were these plans? That's my question. And the only people who will know the truth are the teachers at these schools.

These were my initial thoughts also.

I wonder how much I put was sought from Teachers.

Also agree that it seems like a somewhat half-assed measure to just add on a few days. How is that any different than the summer school that is already offered? And how can they make extra attendance mandatory for some kids but not all? That sounds discriminatory. Rich kids can go to school less days??

Maybe some of this will be addressed at the meeting.

The answer is none.

This is true. Teachers were told & not consulted.

[Anonymous]

I'm glad they are willing to try new things, honestly. It's a shame if teachers felt blindsided, but I also don't know whether this is the sort of thing that needs to be put up to an employee vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad they are willing to try new things, honestly. It's a shame if teachers felt blindsided, but I also don't know whether this is the sort of thing that needs to be put up to an employee vote.

So people who have been out of the classroom for years - some who have never taught in challenging situations - should make these decisons.

bc that makes the most sense

Thanks for the input.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a true 12-month school year. Those schools are usually 9 weeks on, three weeks off. This is not unlike what we've had in place before - ELO, or extended learning opportunities.

True 12-month schools function in an integrated way; they don't rely on an additional 30 days to simply extend the year.

Furthermore, in many cases, poverty and absenteeism go hand-in-hand. Who's to ensure that attendance is mandatory over these 30 additional days?

These measures are "add ons" that won't be sustainable.

Furthermore, if teachers at these schools have small kids themselves, who's going to pay for their childcare if they're forced to work? It's not as though teachers are making big bucks and can afford to suddenly pay for childcare at this late date. Many will opt to leave, I imagine.

I suppose any measure will have built in risks and if you don't try you'll never know . . . However, how thought out were these plans? That's my question. And the only people who will know the truth are the teachers at these schools.

These were my initial thoughts also.

I wonder how much I put was sought from Teachers.

Also agree that it seems like a somewhat half-assed measure to just add on a few days. How is that any different than the summer school that is already offered? And how can they make extra attendance mandatory for some kids but not all? That sounds discriminatory. Rich kids can go to school less days??

Maybe some of this will be addressed at the meeting.

The answer is none.

This is true. Teachers were told & not consulted.

I’m sorry but that is pretty shitty.

I work in healthcare and one of the most frustrating things is that managed care organizations often make decisions about patient’s healthcare, even though they have zero direct experience with that patient.

Sounds like what is happening in education. Teachers, who are the ones actually spending time with our kids, are being directed by other entities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad they are willing to try new things, honestly. It's a shame if teachers felt blindsided, but I also don't know whether this is the sort of thing that needs to be put up to an employee vote.

So people who have been out of the classroom for years - some who have never taught in challenging situations - should make these decisons.

bc that makes the most sense

Thanks for the input.

What would you suggest? If we all agree that the achievement gap is a problem, and that summer learning retention plays a role in that gap, what would the teachers want done?