Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are pushing so hard for school to become childcare. You want school to be longer and to eliminate breaks? It’s not developmentally appropriate. The kids can sit and play with a monitor for two hours at the end of the day and then be bussed home in rush hour traffic. Happy? There’s no way that elementary schoolers have two additional hours of learning left in them. They’re already falling apart and overstimulated at the end of the day.

It’s hard to afford having a SAHP anymore. A lot of people have to send kids to camps in summer and over the school breaks anyway.

That isn't a problem that schools can solve, though. There are all these systemic problems in our society, like lack of paid sick leave, that people keep trying to blame on schools. "I can't keep my son home when he has a cough! I have a job." The school can't solve that problem. We shouldn't be sending people into communal spaces with communicable illnesses even when we aren't in a pandemic. People need to stop expecting overcrowded, underfunded schools to solve all of these social issues. Why doesn't your boss offer you onsite aftercare? Why don't you have flexible time off to spend with your children if they are ill? It's bizarre that people want schools to fix everything, without investing in schools at all.

The point is that you're making up a problem. Of course kids could stay in school all day. We know that because so many already do that with before/after care programs. Many were already spending a full day at preschool before elementary school.

There's no question whether you could do this. It's just a matter of what it would look like.

Making up a problem? There are sick kids sitting in my classroom every day, and parents arguing that they just can't come pick them up because they have to work. This is one of the many problems that arise when we treat school like childcare. People feel entitled to it, no matter what.
Of course they "could" stay at school all day. Just as they "could" stay home all day. The problem is an economic one, either way. Who would staff this? What would it cost to run the buildings for all those additional hours? How much more would it cost to bus those kids? Teachers aren't available for additional hours, nor do they have the ability to take on additional responsibilities. Who are you hiring and what are the qualifications? What are you paying these people? How do you find people who are available for short shifts five days a week? Are you just going to let the kids have free time, or are you purchasing materials and curriculum for this? Are you feeding the kids an additional meal?

I can see the justification for someone low income but its not acceptable for someone with higher income not to hire help if they cannot get their sick kid from schools. If parents refuse to pick up the kids and school says fine, of course they will do it. Schools need to stay pick up your kid within 90 minutes or we call CPS. Simple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen - you need to understand that we live in a society where there is a balance between supply and demand. Teachers are in serious demand and in low supply. The counties need to keep them as happy as possible and they don’t have any money to give them decent pay increases. So they give them time off. We had huge turnover at my kids school over the last 1 1/2 years. I will gladly take a couple days off rather than go back to online or have 50 kids in a class. If you want to keep your kids in school, take care of your teachers. Seriously.

Then we really, really need to adapt the European model of year round school. 6 weeks on, 2 weeks off.

Let’s go already.

I recently had a long conversation with my SIL about this. She's a former 2nd grade teacher (15 years), then elementary principal, now high level administrator in her school district. She says that while parents push back against the idea of year round school because change is hard, they aren't the real obstacle. Most families are two-income, and summers are hard in terms of childcare. Most families only take a couple weeks of actual vacation in the summer because they have to work, so the rest of the summer is just trying to keep the kids occupied and safe until school starts again. So while there would definitely be push back, a lot more families would get on board with this than you think.

The obstacles is teachers. This schedule is often one of the key selling points for many people who enter the profession, and long-timers have structured their entire lives around it. There are teachers who would support a year round model for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that it would make the actual act of teaching easier because you wouldn't have to deal with annual learning loss and re-acclimating kids to the classroom. And there are teachers who already essentially teach year round because they teach summer school most years. But as a group, there is a lot of resistance to a year-round model among teachers and that's the primary reason most districts haven't attempted it, even though it's an issue that comes up regularly.

That has not been my experience at all. Former teacher snd I’ve taught under a year round model and it’s so much better. Teachers are opposed to year round without breaks and you have to be careful when wording this so that they feel it’s not just tacking on more days. In general though most teachers realize how much more beneficial it would be.

The biggest complain I’ve heard is from fellow parents with a SAHP. Their ideal is a relaxed summer with pool days and summer vacations and that is what gets cut short. They also tend to be the most vocal about the issue. I’m not dissing SAHPs; I’ve been one myself, but people advocate for things for their families snd not the system as a whole.

Its a huge issue with summer camps, swim team, vacations and much more. Some kids also go spend time with the other parent who lives far away. Not all parents could afford multiple flights vs. 2-3. Also, once kids hit teens, some work, maybe not yours so its much easier to have a job or internship over the summer vs. two week blocks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are pushing so hard for school to become childcare. You want school to be longer and to eliminate breaks? It’s not developmentally appropriate. The kids can sit and play with a monitor for two hours at the end of the day and then be bussed home in rush hour traffic. Happy? There’s no way that elementary schoolers have two additional hours of learning left in them. They’re already falling apart and overstimulated at the end of the day.

It’s hard to afford having a SAHP anymore. A lot of people have to send kids to camps in summer and over the school breaks anyway.

That isn't a problem that schools can solve, though. There are all these systemic problems in our society, like lack of paid sick leave, that people keep trying to blame on schools. "I can't keep my son home when he has a cough! I have a job." The school can't solve that problem. We shouldn't be sending people into communal spaces with communicable illnesses even when we aren't in a pandemic. People need to stop expecting overcrowded, underfunded schools to solve all of these social issues. Why doesn't your boss offer you onsite aftercare? Why don't you have flexible time off to spend with your children if they are ill? It's bizarre that people want schools to fix everything, without investing in schools at all.

The point is that you're making up a problem. Of course kids could stay in school all day. We know that because so many already do that with before/after care programs. Many were already spending a full day at preschool before elementary school.

There's no question whether you could do this. It's just a matter of what it would look like.

Making up a problem? There are sick kids sitting in my classroom every day, and parents arguing that they just can't come pick them up because they have to work. This is one of the many problems that arise when we treat school like childcare. People feel entitled to it, no matter what.
Of course they "could" stay at school all day. Just as they "could" stay home all day. The problem is an economic one, either way. Who would staff this? What would it cost to run the buildings for all those additional hours? How much more would it cost to bus those kids? Teachers aren't available for additional hours, nor do they have the ability to take on additional responsibilities. Who are you hiring and what are the qualifications? What are you paying these people? How do you find people who are available for short shifts five days a week? Are you just going to let the kids have free time, or are you purchasing materials and curriculum for this? Are you feeding the kids an additional meal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are pushing so hard for school to become childcare. You want school to be longer and to eliminate breaks? It’s not developmentally appropriate. The kids can sit and play with a monitor for two hours at the end of the day and then be bussed home in rush hour traffic. Happy? There’s no way that elementary schoolers have two additional hours of learning left in them. They’re already falling apart and overstimulated at the end of the day.

It’s hard to afford having a SAHP anymore. A lot of people have to send kids to camps in summer and over the school breaks anyway.

That isn't a problem that schools can solve, though. There are all these systemic problems in our society, like lack of paid sick leave, that people keep trying to blame on schools. "I can't keep my son home when he has a cough! I have a job." The school can't solve that problem. We shouldn't be sending people into communal spaces with communicable illnesses even when we aren't in a pandemic. People need to stop expecting overcrowded, underfunded schools to solve all of these social issues. Why doesn't your boss offer you onsite aftercare? Why don't you have flexible time off to spend with your children if they are ill? It's bizarre that people want schools to fix everything, without investing in schools at all.

The point is that you're making up a problem. Of course kids could stay in school all day. We know that because so many already do that with before/after care programs. Many were already spending a full day at preschool before elementary school.

There's no question whether you could do this. It's just a matter of what it would look like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are pushing so hard for school to become childcare. You want school to be longer and to eliminate breaks? It’s not developmentally appropriate. The kids can sit and play with a monitor for two hours at the end of the day and then be bussed home in rush hour traffic. Happy? There’s no way that elementary schoolers have two additional hours of learning left in them. They’re already falling apart and overstimulated at the end of the day.

It’s hard to afford having a SAHP anymore. A lot of people have to send kids to camps in summer and over the school breaks anyway.

That isn't a problem that schools can solve, though. There are all these systemic problems in our society, like lack of paid sick leave, that people keep trying to blame on schools. "I can't keep my son home when he has a cough! I have a job." The school can't solve that problem. We shouldn't be sending people into communal spaces with communicable illnesses even when we aren't in a pandemic. People need to stop expecting overcrowded, underfunded schools to solve all of these social issues. Why doesn't your boss offer you onsite aftercare? Why don't you have flexible time off to spend with your children if they are ill? It's bizarre that people want schools to fix everything, without investing in schools at all.

Anonymous wrote:Parents are pushing so hard for school to become childcare. You want school to be longer and to eliminate breaks? It’s not developmentally appropriate. The kids can sit and play with a monitor for two hours at the end of the day and then be bussed home in rush hour traffic. Happy? There’s no way that elementary schoolers have two additional hours of learning left in them. They’re already falling apart and overstimulated at the end of the day.

It’s hard to afford having a SAHP anymore. A lot of people have to send kids to camps in summer and over the school breaks anyway.

Parents are pushing so hard for school to become childcare. You want school to be longer and to eliminate breaks? It’s not developmentally appropriate. The kids can sit and play with a monitor for two hours at the end of the day and then be bussed home in rush hour traffic. Happy? There’s no way that elementary schoolers have two additional hours of learning left in them. They’re already falling apart and overstimulated at the end of the day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are NO SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS.

This is not about complaining teachers or philosophies or whatever. It’s about the job market. If you look around your office and imagine that for every single person who takes a day or two off for Thanksgiving you need to hire a temporary worker to fill their job, then you understand the situation the school systems are in.

The office manager would probably have to deny leave for some of them.

ES Teacher

Right? Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

Anonymous wrote:THANK YOU parent above!! Teacher here who pushed for reopening ASAP last year and voluntarily went back early. It’s been a hell of a year and the teacher hate has added to the toll a lot. We are indeed being asked to do more than ever and support students who NEED more than ever. It’s been really really hard. Your support means more than you’ll ever know. ❤️

i reserve my hate for principals, admin and gatehouse, teachers are their hostages

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen - you need to understand that we live in a society where there is a balance between supply and demand. Teachers are in serious demand and in low supply. The counties need to keep them as happy as possible and they don’t have any money to give them decent pay increases. So they give them time off. We had huge turnover at my kids school over the last 1 1/2 years. I will gladly take a couple days off rather than go back to online or have 50 kids in a class. If you want to keep your kids in school, take care of your teachers. Seriously.

Then we really, really need to adapt the European model of year round school. 6 weeks on, 2 weeks off.

Let’s go already.

I recently had a long conversation with my SIL about this. She's a former 2nd grade teacher (15 years), then elementary principal, now high level administrator in her school district. She says that while parents push back against the idea of year round school because change is hard, they aren't the real obstacle. Most families are two-income, and summers are hard in terms of childcare. Most families only take a couple weeks of actual vacation in the summer because they have to work, so the rest of the summer is just trying to keep the kids occupied and safe until school starts again. So while there would definitely be push back, a lot more families would get on board with this than you think.

The obstacles is teachers. This schedule is often one of the key selling points for many people who enter the profession, and long-timers have structured their entire lives around it. There are teachers who would support a year round model for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that it would make the actual act of teaching easier because you wouldn't have to deal with annual learning loss and re-acclimating kids to the classroom. And there are teachers who already essentially teach year round because they teach summer school most years. But as a group, there is a lot of resistance to a year-round model among teachers and that's the primary reason most districts haven't attempted it, even though it's an issue that comes up regularly.

That has not been my experience at all. Former teacher snd I’ve taught under a year round model and it’s so much better. Teachers are opposed to year round without breaks and you have to be careful when wording this so that they feel it’s not just tacking on more days. In general though most teachers realize how much more beneficial it would be.

The biggest complain I’ve heard is from fellow parents with a SAHP. Their ideal is a relaxed summer with pool days and summer vacations and that is what gets cut short. They also tend to be the most vocal about the issue. I’m not dissing SAHPs; I’ve been one myself, but people advocate for things for their families snd not the system as a whole.

Maybe. However, based on observations from the pandemic, I can say with absolute certainty is that educators are not out of the box thinkers. That's a fact. Change and innovative solutions will meet with resistance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen - you need to understand that we live in a society where there is a balance between supply and demand. Teachers are in serious demand and in low supply. The counties need to keep them as happy as possible and they don’t have any money to give them decent pay increases. So they give them time off. We had huge turnover at my kids school over the last 1 1/2 years. I will gladly take a couple days off rather than go back to online or have 50 kids in a class. If you want to keep your kids in school, take care of your teachers. Seriously.

Then we really, really need to adapt the European model of year round school. 6 weeks on, 2 weeks off.

Let’s go already.

I recently had a long conversation with my SIL about this. She's a former 2nd grade teacher (15 years), then elementary principal, now high level administrator in her school district. She says that while parents push back against the idea of year round school because change is hard, they aren't the real obstacle. Most families are two-income, and summers are hard in terms of childcare. Most families only take a couple weeks of actual vacation in the summer because they have to work, so the rest of the summer is just trying to keep the kids occupied and safe until school starts again. So while there would definitely be push back, a lot more families would get on board with this than you think.

The obstacles is teachers. This schedule is often one of the key selling points for many people who enter the profession, and long-timers have structured their entire lives around it. There are teachers who would support a year round model for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that it would make the actual act of teaching easier because you wouldn't have to deal with annual learning loss and re-acclimating kids to the classroom. And there are teachers who already essentially teach year round because they teach summer school most years. But as a group, there is a lot of resistance to a year-round model among teachers and that's the primary reason most districts haven't attempted it, even though it's an issue that comes up regularly.

That has not been my experience at all. Former teacher snd I’ve taught under a year round model and it’s so much better. Teachers are opposed to year round without breaks and you have to be careful when wording this so that they feel it’s not just tacking on more days. In general though most teachers realize how much more beneficial it would be.

The biggest complain I’ve heard is from fellow parents with a SAHP. Their ideal is a relaxed summer with pool days and summer vacations and that is what gets cut short. They also tend to be the most vocal about the issue. I’m not dissing SAHPs; I’ve been one myself, but people advocate for things for their families snd not the system as a whole.

Something has to change with public education. Either we figure out a better way to align public school schedules and calendars with the usual work day, or we accept that full access to public education requires either extensive family help, a stay at home parent, or household employees. The current school calendar simply has too many stops and start, days off, early dismissals, and inclement weather days that strain families and contribute to bad feelings toward teachers.

On the flip side, teaching is a unique profession in that there is so little downtime during a school day that it takes a toll in the way that many other professions do not. A natural way to address teachers' overload might be to have longer breaks more frequently rather than so many stops and starts. However, this would require good faith on behalf of teachers' unions, meaning that if there are regular 1-2 week breaks built into the school calendar, person leave for non-essentials needs to be limited.

As a general observation, I continue to be put off by the tone of teachers' unions and their blackmail of administrators and families. This is what many of us thought (well, probably knew) would happen. Instead of being grateful that the safety of those who work in school buildings were protected at the expense of children, these union members are not strained by the natural consequences of that safety, including student misbehavior and problems adjusting, so they demand that they be allowed to give students If the pandemic justified giving children less, shouldn't there be a time when those who benefitted from having their safety assured step up to give more? That might have to be working the week of Thanksgiving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are NO SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS.

This is not about complaining teachers or philosophies or whatever. It’s about the job market. If you look around your office and imagine that for every single person who takes a day or two off for Thanksgiving you need to hire a temporary worker to fill their job, then you understand the situation the school systems are in.

How do you think hospitals, doctors offices, and basically any business that deals directly with the public deal with this? Not everyone can take leave on the same day. Sometimes they come up with rotations or other systems to spread out the highly desired days to take off.

DP. My dentist's office and neurologist are closed the week of Thanksgiving and the two weeks of Winter Break, except for emergency appointments, for this very reason. Same with a pediatric specialist one of my children sees. They cannot staff at regular capacity during those weeks. I have no idea if they bonus the people who do work if there's an emergency, but I bet there's some kind of incentive pay. Most local school systems pay subs terribly and do not bonus them for the in demand days. I understand Loudoun recently adopted a measure to do this but it's probably too little too late for a lot of districts.

Anonymous wrote:There are NO SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS.

This is not about complaining teachers or philosophies or whatever. It’s about the job market. If you look around your office and imagine that for every single person who takes a day or two off for Thanksgiving you need to hire a temporary worker to fill their job, then you understand the situation the school systems are in.

How do you think hospitals, doctors offices, and basically any business that deals directly with the public deal with this? Not everyone can take leave on the same day. Sometimes they come up with rotations or other systems to spread out the highly desired days to take off.

Anonymous wrote:There are NO SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS.

This is not about complaining teachers or philosophies or whatever. It’s about the job market. If you look around your office and imagine that for every single person who takes a day or two off for Thanksgiving you need to hire a temporary worker to fill their job, then you understand the situation the school systems are in.

The office manager would probably have to deny leave for some of them.

ES Teacher