Would you support 200 day school year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: 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.

100% would support this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

If you're referring to me, the one who made the sarcastic post above, you're quite wrong. I'm the parent of middle class kids in the Title I schools. If anything, I would be more inclined to worry my kids would be behind by being dragged down in a school with such high percentages of ED and ESL students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Summer learning loss is not due to poor parenting. Period. I am not a "BFF" with my kid. What does all of your gobbledygook about medical needs and Asian parents and poor working parents have to do with summer learning loss? Are parents supposed to keep reviewing the previous school year's work all summer long instead of giving their kids other opportunities and experiences? And if they don't, they're poor parents and are to blame for summer regression? If you stop focusing on something for 2-1/2 months, do you not need a refresh review before picking back up and resuming?

[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.

Clearly you would support returning/continuing the cost if it had "worked" by magically eliminating the achievement gap for students who have years to make up while their peers are continuing to advance and for students who need to learn English, then? What would have indicated it "working" for you? There are many benefits to a MSY and test scores are not - and should not - be the sole criteria.

[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.

Expected comment from someone who is simply anti-year round school.
It worked quite well for us. But I suspect your definition of worked is different than ours.
Nevertheless, I didn't provide the information as a statement or advocacy of any kind - just putting the previous comment into context.

[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.

Perhaps I am misreading the focus of your comments. I thought it was regarding year-round school and implementing that only for the title I schools where the poor kids are. If not, then please clarify for me what you were referring to. Otherwise, my comment response remains the same. Not every student in an APS Title I school is poor. Not every poor kid needs extra academic help. Some wealthy kids need more academic help. Some middle class students are ESL students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Perhaps I am misreading the focus of your comments. I thought it was regarding year-round school and implementing that only for the title I schools where the poor kids are. If not, then please clarify for me what you were referring to. Otherwise, my comment response remains the same. Not every student in an APS Title I school is poor. Not every poor kid needs extra academic help. Some wealthy kids need more academic help. Some middle class students are ESL students.

I would support year- round school district-wide, but if there are limited resources, I would support focusing those resources on the schools with the highest percentage of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch or the schools with the lowest test scores. However you want to frame that. This isn't unusual. Title 1 schools get extra resources because much of the population needs them. So yes the students in Title 1 schools will get more resources than the "poor" students in non-Title 1 schools. In some schools, once a certain threshold of low income students is met, free breakfast and lunch is offered to everyone.

My post isn't a knock on anyone, it's the best approximation that we have to funnel resources where they are needed. In my ideal world no schools would have concentrated poverty, but that's not our current reality. If there was some kind of opt-out for summer school, maybe that's appropriate. But I also think plenty of poor kids sit home all summer in food insecure homes without adult supervision because their parents are working and I think you would be surprised at how many families would welcome a structured summer program for the younger kids. I think the greatest impact/need would be at the elementary level. OF COURSE i understand that students may benefit from this at other grade levels but in APS the greatest disparity is in the elementary schools. If there is budget money for more schools or grades, that's wonderful!

[Anonymous]

The time to combat "Covid learning loss" was while it was happening.

Already four classes of kids affected by "Covid learning loss" have already gone on to graduate and are out in the world.

[Anonymous]

You ready to pay every single 10 month staff member and hourly staff for 20 extra days? Next question: What are you willing to cut from the budget?

Or do you just need more “free” childcare?

[Anonymous]

This sounds awful to me. But I am able to provide my kids with enriching activities over the summer (no camps, but hiking, visiting museums, swimming, traveling to see family, visiting historical sites, summer reading programs, science experiments at home, etc.).

For kids whose parents work multiple jobs & the kids spent his or her summer watching TV all day with no adult supervision— I can see why extra school appeals to those families.

And the article stated that 1) they surveyed families at the schools & 90% were in favor of the extra month, and 2) it was funded by donors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This sounds awful to me. But I am able to provide my kids with enriching activities over the summer (no camps, but hiking, visiting museums, swimming, traveling to see family, visiting historical sites, summer reading programs, science experiments at home, etc.).

For kids whose parents work multiple jobs & the kids spent his or her summer watching TV all day with no adult supervision— I can see why extra school appeals to those families.

And the article stated that 1) they surveyed families at the schools & 90% were in favor of the extra month, and 2) it was funded by donors.

Amazon can pay for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You ready to pay every single 10 month staff member and hourly staff for 20 extra days? Next question: What are you willing to cut from the budget?

Or do you just need more “free” childcare?

I don't need it, but I'll pay for it for those who do. If I had a time machine I would start by cutting the ridiculous aquatics center that cost $100 million and who knows what else to actually operate and then move on from there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It makes as much sense as making it based on young elementary kids. The needs are drastically different for a 6 year old and a 16 year old. We agree on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Richmond Public School District has increased the number of days of the school year to counter Covid learning loss. Would you support that if your district did it? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-school-district-expands-academic-year/

Yes. I’d support year round.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds awful to me. But I am able to provide my kids with enriching activities over the summer (no camps, but hiking, visiting museums, swimming, traveling to see family, visiting historical sites, summer reading programs, science experiments at home, etc.).

For kids whose parents work multiple jobs & the kids spent his or her summer watching TV all day with no adult supervision— I can see why extra school appeals to those families.

And the article stated that 1) they surveyed families at the schools & 90% were in favor of the extra month, and 2) it was funded by donors.

Amazon can pay for this.

I find it so ironic that the same parents who want to ban Apple out of our classrooms entirely fully support Amazon storming right in.