Next year's calendar has school on December 23, 2025 and has only 1 free emergency day built in-180 requirement issues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish all those religious/cultural days off were school days and also excused absences for those observing. It really would nicer to have a long winter break.

I also wish MD would get rid of the Monday after Easter.

And we fall into one of those groups!

I prefer a shorter winter break actually. I'd rather have a fall break so we can take a vacation without the sky high prices of winter break.

In order to get a fall break the 180 day requirement will need to be dropped to 175 or simply going to hours like Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish all those religious/cultural days off were school days and also excused absences for those observing. It really would nicer to have a long winter break.

I also wish MD would get rid of the Monday after Easter.

And we fall into one of those groups!

I prefer a shorter winter break actually. I'd rather have a fall break so we can take a vacation without the sky high prices of winter break.

In order to get a fall break the 180 day requirement will need to be dropped to 175 or simply going to hours like Virginia.

Or we start earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You want to get rid of 4 days of school-- how does that not get rid of instructional time?

Instructional time doesn't occur on 100% of "instructional days" maybe 95-97% of them. NOBODY wants makeup days during weeks where no school is planned. Bad weather and other things ex water main break happen. Built in time for that is good without lowering student or teacher moral. As long as the hours are still sufficient why not? Maryland requires 1080 hours which is 90 more than Virginia and some other states.

There isn't going to be enough instructional time if you cut 4 days. The remaining days and hours are going to be magically 100% utilized either. Some classes already don't get through everything.

You're kidding, right? The amount of time already wasted during any given school day could easily fill any gap created by 4 (!) days of no school. "Learning lab" time, silent work time... there's a lot of slush that could be rerouted. I'd advocate that childcare be made available for families for whom that would be a hardship, but I seriously doubt we'd see any real learning loss with 4 missing days.

For someone so worried about your kid missing a single day of class, you're sure happy to take 4 days away from 160,000 other kids. Weird.

You should probably go back to homeschooling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You want to get rid of 4 days of school-- how does that not get rid of instructional time?

Instructional time doesn't occur on 100% of "instructional days" maybe 95-97% of them. NOBODY wants makeup days during weeks where no school is planned. Bad weather and other things ex water main break happen. Built in time for that is good without lowering student or teacher moral. As long as the hours are still sufficient why not? Maryland requires 1080 hours which is 90 more than Virginia and some other states.

There isn't going to be enough instructional time if you cut 4 days. The remaining days and hours are going to be magically 100% utilized either. Some classes already don't get through everything.

You're kidding, right? The amount of time already wasted during any given school day could easily fill any gap created by 4 (!) days of no school. "Learning lab" time, silent work time... there's a lot of slush that could be rerouted. I'd advocate that childcare be made available for families for whom that would be a hardship, but I seriously doubt we'd see any real learning loss with 4 missing days.

For someone so worried about your kid missing a single day of class, you're sure happy to take 4 days away from 160,000 other kids. Weird.

You should probably go back to homeschooling.

I think you have me crossed with a different PP. My feelings are much simpler than that. I don't think there's enough covered in any single day of ES to make that day - or even four of them - essential. Whatever 'needed' to be taught during those imaginary four days can probably be compressed (at least at my DCs' school) into the really overabundant down time. There's a lot of waste in the daily schedule as it stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You want to get rid of 4 days of school-- how does that not get rid of instructional time?

Instructional time doesn't occur on 100% of "instructional days" maybe 95-97% of them. NOBODY wants makeup days during weeks where no school is planned. Bad weather and other things ex water main break happen. Built in time for that is good without lowering student or teacher moral. As long as the hours are still sufficient why not? Maryland requires 1080 hours which is 90 more than Virginia and some other states.

There isn't going to be enough instructional time if you cut 4 days. The remaining days and hours are going to be magically 100% utilized either. Some classes already don't get through everything.

You're kidding, right? The amount of time already wasted during any given school day could easily fill any gap created by 4 (!) days of no school. "Learning lab" time, silent work time... there's a lot of slush that could be rerouted. I'd advocate that childcare be made available for families for whom that would be a hardship, but I seriously doubt we'd see any real learning loss with 4 missing days.

For someone so worried about your kid missing a single day of class, you're sure happy to take 4 days away from 160,000 other kids. Weird.

You should probably go back to homeschooling.

I think you have me crossed with a different PP. My feelings are much simpler than that. I don't think there's enough covered in any single day of ES to make that day - or even four of them - essential. Whatever 'needed' to be taught during those imaginary four days can probably be compressed (at least at my DCs' school) into the really overabundant down time. There's a lot of waste in the daily schedule as it stands.

If you think class is a waste, then you shouldn't worry about having them skip class so you can go on vacation early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You want to get rid of 4 days of school-- how does that not get rid of instructional time?

Instructional time doesn't occur on 100% of "instructional days" maybe 95-97% of them. NOBODY wants makeup days during weeks where no school is planned. Bad weather and other things ex water main break happen. Built in time for that is good without lowering student or teacher moral. As long as the hours are still sufficient why not? Maryland requires 1080 hours which is 90 more than Virginia and some other states.

There isn't going to be enough instructional time if you cut 4 days. The remaining days and hours are going to be magically 100% utilized either. Some classes already don't get through everything.

You're kidding, right? The amount of time already wasted during any given school day could easily fill any gap created by 4 (!) days of no school. "Learning lab" time, silent work time... there's a lot of slush that could be rerouted. I'd advocate that childcare be made available for families for whom that would be a hardship, but I seriously doubt we'd see any real learning loss with 4 missing days.

For someone so worried about your kid missing a single day of class, you're sure happy to take 4 days away from 160,000 other kids. Weird.

You should probably go back to homeschooling.

I think you have me crossed with a different PP. My feelings are much simpler than that. I don't think there's enough covered in any single day of ES to make that day - or even four of them - essential. Whatever 'needed' to be taught during those imaginary four days can probably be compressed (at least at my DCs' school) into the really overabundant down time. There's a lot of waste in the daily schedule as it stands.

If you think class is a waste, then you shouldn't worry about having them skip class so you can go on vacation early.

I don't worry about missing a couple of days here or there myself. But others who do worry might consider how much time in the regular school day doesn't actually involve work or learning. Then they might feel better about a slightly shorter school calendar.

[Anonymous]

This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

I'm having a hard time understanding the reason this is impactful to your like in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

But we know now that MCEA is going to keep looking for ways to cut instructional hours. Now that Zimmerman is on the board, watch out for them trying to switch a bunch of days to half days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

But we know now that MCEA is going to keep looking for ways to cut instructional hours. Now that Zimmerman is on the board, watch out for them trying to switch a bunch of days to half days.

Please stop referring to yourself as "we."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

But we know now that MCEA is going to keep looking for ways to cut instructional hours. Now that Zimmerman is on the board, watch out for them trying to switch a bunch of days to half days.

I don’t think this is true. Most teachers don’t love half days. What teachers want is their planning time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

But we know now that MCEA is going to keep looking for ways to cut instructional hours. Now that Zimmerman is on the board, watch out for them trying to switch a bunch of days to half days.

I don’t think this is true. Most teachers don’t love half days. What teachers want is their planning time.

Half days are MCEA's idea for more planning time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

But we know now that MCEA is going to keep looking for ways to cut instructional hours. Now that Zimmerman is on the board, watch out for them trying to switch a bunch of days to half days.

I don’t think this is true. Most teachers don’t love half days. What teachers want is their planning time.

Half days are MCEA's idea for more planning time.

No, they want their planning periods which are being taken away due to lack of subs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

But we know now that MCEA is going to keep looking for ways to cut instructional hours. Now that Zimmerman is on the board, watch out for them trying to switch a bunch of days to half days.

I don’t think this is true. Most teachers don’t love half days. What teachers want is their planning time.

Half days are MCEA's idea for more planning time.

No, they want their planning periods which are being taken away due to lack of subs.

That would require accepting a smaller pay increase next year so substitute teachers can get paid more, which definitely isn't MCEA's plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

But we know now that MCEA is going to keep looking for ways to cut instructional hours. Now that Zimmerman is on the board, watch out for them trying to switch a bunch of days to half days.

I don’t think this is true. Most teachers don’t love half days. What teachers want is their planning time.

Half days are MCEA's idea for more planning time.

No, they want their planning periods which are being taken away due to lack of subs.

That would require accepting a smaller pay increase next year so substitute teachers can get paid more, which definitely isn't MCEA's plan.

Plenty of other places to cut. Let's see what Taylor's upcoming budget has to say about it.