Why do folks think this is just for poor kids? Our HHI is 200K+ and this would be *marvelous* for our family. We'd be sunk without aftercare. Most of the families we know need some sort of care structure that will accommodate full time work.

I also caution against approaches that prioritize more schoolwork in extended days. Kids need free and unstructured play built in to the school day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in a high FARMS school. The majority of students have at least one adult in the home that stays home and doesn't work. Sometimes it's mom, sometimes it's dad, sometimes it's an older sibling, sometimes it's a grandma or grandpa or another member of the extended family. Sometimes the working parent works at night and the only time they get to see their child is the time between when the child gets home from school and the parent needs to go to work. Very few families at my school work 9-5 jobs. This is something that is really not aimed at low income families. As it is typical in education, the people making the decisions know jack sh*t about the realities of schools.

true

In my 20+ years in a large system, the mother or the grandmother is home. Or there's an aunt or an older sibling.

We sometimes think money grows on trees. This will run out eventually. And even if the young teachers - looking for extra income - step in, there won't be enough of them to handle the numbers. So they'll have to outsource. translation - more $

Have you seen some of the after-school programs? We think we have problems now with abuse, well, think again. MCPS has already lowered the criteria for hiring subs. And teacher certification is a joke, especially with the Praxis. So you can imagine who will be with these kids - many who misbehave simply b/c they're damn tired.

a recipe for disaster

But who am I but a lowly educator . . .

Kamala is an idiot who doesn't understand that money runs out.

So funny, all this 'money grows on trees' stuff. Funny that the USG has money to subsidize Viagra for dirty old men through medicare, money to buy more weapons. As a woman and a taxpayer, I'd like to see my tax dollars used for something that I could actually benefit from.

Actually the USG has money for neither.

As a woman and a taxpayer, I’d like the USG use my taxpayer money more responsibly all around. No free, low-qualify mandatory daycare and no Viagara for dirty old men. Thanks.

Kamala cray.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in a high FARMS school. The majority of students have at least one adult in the home that stays home and doesn't work. Sometimes it's mom, sometimes it's dad, sometimes it's an older sibling, sometimes it's a grandma or grandpa or another member of the extended family. Sometimes the working parent works at night and the only time they get to see their child is the time between when the child gets home from school and the parent needs to go to work. Very few families at my school work 9-5 jobs. This is something that is really not aimed at low income families. As it is typical in education, the people making the decisions know jack sh*t about the realities of schools.

true

In my 20+ years in a large system, the mother or the grandmother is home. Or there's an aunt or an older sibling.

We sometimes think money grows on trees. This will run out eventually. And even if the young teachers - looking for extra income - step in, there won't be enough of them to handle the numbers. So they'll have to outsource. translation - more $

Have you seen some of the after-school programs? We think we have problems now with abuse, well, think again. MCPS has already lowered the criteria for hiring subs. And teacher certification is a joke, especially with the Praxis. So you can imagine who will be with these kids - many who misbehave simply b/c they're damn tired.

a recipe for disaster

But who am I but a lowly educator . . .

Kamala is an idiot who doesn't understand that money runs out.

So funny, all this 'money grows on trees' stuff. Funny that the USG has money to subsidize Viagra for dirty old men through medicare, money to buy more weapons. As a woman and a taxpayer, I'd like to see my tax dollars used for something that I could actually benefit from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be done for the benefit of the parents and not the children. Let's be honest about that at least.

isnt something that benefits the parents also benefiting the kids?

No, Kamala, It doesn’t benefit children. They need daily outdoor playtime and family time.

+ 1 million

+3 million

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This plan doesn't just extend the day, it seeks to eliminate school breaks (she wants schools to stay open except on federal holidays, weekends, and emergencies).

As a teacher, I would leave the profession if this were the case. If I choose to work over the summer currently, I get paid my regular salary plus an additional 18% of my annual salary on top of that. I would expect to continue receiving that level of pay to work over the summer. I would expect to be paid my per session rate for any extended school day time ($51/hour). To pay one teacher for one day for those three extra hours would be over $150. Where is this money going to come from? Teachers already work from home over breaks, weekends, and into the evenings. When are we expected to get this work done if we are getting home at 7 pm? I wouldn't work outside those hours, and it is the students who would suffer (lessons hastily planned, resources pulled together instead of self-created, etc). I would certainly not be writing IEPs at home or working on data.

The BS about teachers not being forced to work unless they "volunteer" is ridiculous. Every nontenured teacher would be forced into this or they would find themselves targeted. We are voluntold to do different "extras" all the time as it is.

I would need to make at least twice my current salary to work this kind of schedule and complete my current duties. It would likely still not be worth it.

MCPS has already implemented a full year school calendar in several low-income schools. And they are not paying the teachers fairly. There was much debate about this, but there simply isn’t enough money. Now the teachers are stuck working the extra days, and if they have kids, most of their own kids are still on the old calendar. It’s insanity.

I won't do it. I'm very good at what I do and I love teaching but I am barely well-paid enough for the 190 or 195 or whatever number of days it is now at 7.5 hours a day. Extend the day or add more days and I'll leave the profession. It isn't that I need the money so much or I care about the hours as it is that pay indicates respect to me, and to devalue what I do even more … I won't take it.

We talk about this a lot at lunch. The other teachers at my school who have been there at least 5+ years are pretty much in agreement with me. If half of us leave it will put a tremendous burden on our principal and school system. We have long-term subs in core content positions as it is. Think about what would happen if the language arts and math teachers start to leave in droves. Yikes.

I don't mean to impugn the job our principal and others are doing at recruiting. I believe that they are doing the right things and reaching out in the right ways. Apparently the problem isn't that there aren't applicants, it is because the applicants are not people even the most desperate principals would want to hire. The scuttlebutt in our school is that it is the same people applying for the same positions yet they are the same people who can't answer basic content questions let alone describe how they would teach the content. Every once in a while someone rises to the top, a trailing spouse or a mid-year teaching school grad, but those are few and far between.

It is a difficult issue and I don't know what the answers are. I only know that I am not willing to become a glorified babysitter to solve other parents' childcare problems.

Anonymous wrote:This plan doesn't just extend the day, it seeks to eliminate school breaks (she wants schools to stay open except on federal holidays, weekends, and emergencies).

As a teacher, I would leave the profession if this were the case. If I choose to work over the summer currently, I get paid my regular salary plus an additional 18% of my annual salary on top of that. I would expect to continue receiving that level of pay to work over the summer. I would expect to be paid my per session rate for any extended school day time ($51/hour). To pay one teacher for one day for those three extra hours would be over $150. Where is this money going to come from? Teachers already work from home over breaks, weekends, and into the evenings. When are we expected to get this work done if we are getting home at 7 pm? I wouldn't work outside those hours, and it is the students who would suffer (lessons hastily planned, resources pulled together instead of self-created, etc). I would certainly not be writing IEPs at home or working on data.

The BS about teachers not being forced to work unless they "volunteer" is ridiculous. Every nontenured teacher would be forced into this or they would find themselves targeted. We are voluntold to do different "extras" all the time as it is.

I would need to make at least twice my current salary to work this kind of schedule and complete my current duties. It would likely still not be worth it.

MCPS has already implemented a full year school calendar in several low-income schools. And they are not paying the teachers fairly. There was much debate about this, but there simply isn’t enough money. Now the teachers are stuck working the extra days, and if they have kids, most of their own kids are still on the old calendar. It’s insanity.

This plan doesn't just extend the day, it seeks to eliminate school breaks (she wants schools to stay open except on federal holidays, weekends, and emergencies).

As a teacher, I would leave the profession if this were the case. If I choose to work over the summer currently, I get paid my regular salary plus an additional 18% of my annual salary on top of that. I would expect to continue receiving that level of pay to work over the summer. I would expect to be paid my per session rate for any extended school day time ($51/hour). To pay one teacher for one day for those three extra hours would be over $150. Where is this money going to come from? Teachers already work from home over breaks, weekends, and into the evenings. When are we expected to get this work done if we are getting home at 7 pm? I wouldn't work outside those hours, and it is the students who would suffer (lessons hastily planned, resources pulled together instead of self-created, etc). I would certainly not be writing IEPs at home or working on data.

The BS about teachers not being forced to work unless they "volunteer" is ridiculous. Every nontenured teacher would be forced into this or they would find themselves targeted. We are voluntold to do different "extras" all the time as it is.

I would need to make at least twice my current salary to work this kind of schedule and complete my current duties. It would likely still not be worth it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be done for the benefit of the parents and not the children. Let's be honest about that at least.

isnt something that benefits the parents also benefiting the kids?

No, Kamala, It doesn’t benefit children. They need daily outdoor playtime and family time.

+ 1 million

Anonymous wrote:Before and after care will cost less overall if you use the already existing school building for it, and don't need to transport the kids anywhere.

Really? Then why does aftercare at my kids’ elementary school cost so much? Our aftercare is at the same building as our ES.

Turns out, it’s expensive to get good quality staff and fred the kids and offer activities.

Anonymous wrote:American kids are ignorant compared to kids around the world. Ten hour days is probably exactly what they need.

Nope.

They need better instruction during the time they are already in school.

Our public school system is such a mess. Fix that before you aim to keep kids in school even longer.

Have you been in an elementary school recently? SO MUCH wasted time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be done for the benefit of the parents and not the children. Let's be honest about that at least.

isnt something that benefits the parents also benefiting the kids?

Not by a long shot.

There are lots of things that benefit parents that have zero benefit for the kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be done for the benefit of the parents and not the children. Let's be honest about that at least.

isnt something that benefits the parents also benefiting the kids?

No, Kamala, It doesn’t benefit children. They need daily outdoor playtime and family time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the proposal more like SACC? The OP makes it sound like a requirement for everyone. It could be a slippery slope. I can imagine that at some point everyone will be required to keep their kids in school for the extended time with the excuse that it isn’t fair some kids get to leave early. It’s like what happened to kindergarten, and is beginning to happen to preschool. I don’t agree with this, but I could see it happening. My MC neighbors (many in the UMC+ category) complain about childcare costs all.the.time. They’d totally advocate for a 10 hour for all program.

Yep.

This is what I see happening.

It started out as optional full-day K and now it’s pretty much mandatory in most places.

They were advocating for universal preK in MoCo about two years ago and I could see them wanting to make that mandatory. Even though recent studies have shown that the gains made in Head Start are not nearly as beneficial as people thought they would be.

Then we head down the road where the kids are stuck with a 10 hour mandatory school day.

No thanks.

Not to mention that if taxpayers are paying for free before and free after care, that means less money for the kids while they are actually in class. Less money for teachers. Less money for staff. Less money for arts and music and PE (which have already been cut to once a week in MCPS).

Anonymous wrote:Is the proposal more like SACC? The OP makes it sound like a requirement for everyone. It could be a slippery slope. I can imagine that at some point everyone will be required to keep their kids in school for the extended time with the excuse that it isn’t fair some kids get to leave early. It’s like what happened to kindergarten, and is beginning to happen to preschool. I don’t agree with this, but I could see it happening. My MC neighbors (many in the UMC+ category) complain about childcare costs all.the.time. They’d totally advocate for a 10 hour for all program.

Yep.

This is what I see happening.

It started out as optional full-day K and now it’s pretty much mandatory in most places.

They were advocating for universal preK in MoCo about two years ago and I could see them wanting to make that mandatory. Even though recent studies have shown that the gains made in Head Start are not nearly as beneficial as people thought they would be.

Then we head down the road where the kids are stuck with a 10 hour mandatory school day.

No thanks.