10 hour school day?

[Valley Girl]

53 minutes ago, ByeByeMartha said:

I would really be concerned about an idea like that. Placing vulnerable children from dysfunctional homes into such a closed environment could subject them to a system of abuse. There may be some children for whom the trajectory of their lives are changed for the better, but this just sounds like old-fashioned institutionalization.

Humans are always trying to fix sin with man-made systems, but the real problem is the heart of mankind.

I'm not a fan of the whole nanny state view, and I see a whole lot of things wrong with the proposed idea. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but your last sentence doesn't make sense to me. Fixing the hearts of mankind begins with the individual. In the meantime, practical issues addressing the welfare of individuals need to be taken. Of course, people try to use "man-made systems" to address problems. The alternative is allowing people to suffer while we're waiting for all those hearts to fix themselves.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Valley Girl
view not vie

[SKL]

15 hours ago, dmmetler said:

I taught in a school where this would have been a major help. Most of our kids did not go to after school care-not even the subsidized program the YMCA offered at the school, because their parents could not afford it. They went home-and if they were lucky, an older sibling was there to provide some supervision. If not, they were on their own, being babysat by afternoon TV with maybe a neighbor they could call on if needed. Maybe. If at least one child was over 10, it wasn't something that social services would even look into. 

Since many of the highest paying jobs that were accessible to parents was working in the casinos, which needed staff mostly at night (and which ran shuttles to some of the areas to pick up their employees, so transportation wasn't an issue), many parents were leaving about the time their child came home from school, and the kids would be on their own all afternoon and evening, and go to bed, get up the next morning and go to school while their parent slept, and have little interaction with their parents. One of my students would regularly go to the police station and do his homework there, because he was lonely and a little scared, and he felt safe there. 

 

A voluntary after school program that gave these kids even a few more hours of somewhere safe to be with adult supervision and support would be helpful. 

 

I currently work as a music teacher at a community center. Our facility offers preschool during the day, after school and break child care, and enrichment classes and activities for all ages. A typical school age child who is in our after school program comes to the center via a van, at a cost of a few hundred dollars a month, and has homework support, crafts, a gym and playground, and similar activities. If the parent wants them to do dance, or music, or art, or any more specialized class, they'll pay for that separately, at the same rate that a parent who brought their child tomthe center just for the class would pay. Many of these parents are paying over $500/month for the after school care and a few extracurriculars to keep their child busy. My parents at my former school would have no prayer of affording such a program. 

Our public school buses will drop kids off at the local rec center afterschool program for parents who choose that.  It is no extra cost to the parent for transportation.  I wonder if this would be an option worth looking into.  (Our rec center care programs are very reasonably priced.)

[SKL]

Funny thing - our neighborhood nextdoor just had a post from a dad looking for care for his 10yo for days off school.  I responded that she could come hang with my daughters as I work at home.  Connection in the community can open options that we wouldn't otherwise know about.

One thing that was difficult for me when my kids were younger was not knowing where to turn for those random days off.  Once I had to bring my sick kids to work because I had a meeting with an important client who had traveled across the country to see me.  I had no time to find an alternative.  It was a sucky situation all around.

[vonfirmath]

15 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Wow, I would say that's pretty unusual.  

 

 

Agreed. I graduated high school 30 years ago and we had longer breaks at Christmas and spring break even when I was in school. And we had random one day holidays scattered throughout the year.

 

(But I grew up in Texas)

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by vonfirmath

[lynn]

IMHO  to much control.  I am so glad I only have 4.5 years and I'll be out of the schooling years.  I've been in it homeschooling and traditional school for over 20 years and it's sad to see the way things have changed, what is taught that we have to undo.     If they don't just give all the kids tablets but let them explore the Arts or trades that would be good but I'm afraid they will be more here's a tablet, sit down and be quiet with some physical activity thrown in and occasional community leader coming in to talk about their career choice.  

[Sneezyone]

10 hours ago, MissLemon said:

 

This was proposed as a solution in Buffalo a few years back. Public Boarding Schools The article mentioned it could be for kids as young as 1st grade.  I don't think that particular charter school idea got off the ground in Buffalo, however. 

 

Public boarding schools have been around a long time. In Arkansas, there's a public boarding school (high school) specifically for math, science, arts and technology. It's an all-state draw and has been in existence for almost 20 years. The goal was to keep more talent in-sate but it really serves as a farm system for top tier colleges nationwide.

[Frances]

1 hour ago, ByeByeMartha said:

I would really be concerned about an idea like that. Placing vulnerable children from dysfunctional homes into such a closed environment could subject them to a system of abuse. There may be some children for whom the trajectory of their lives are changed for the better, but this just sounds like old-fashioned institutionalization.

Humans are always trying to fix sin with man-made systems, but the real problem is the heart of mankind.

Here’s one for high school kids in the DC area. I first heard about it in a documentary. I’m fine with it because it’s a choice the parents and students are making. No one is being forced to attend.

https://www.seedschooldc.org/

[Frances]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Public boarding schools have been around a long time. In Arkansas, there's a public boarding school (high school) specifically for math, science, arts and technology. It's an all-state draw and has been in existence for almost 20 years. The goal was to keep more talent in-sate but it really serves as a farm system for top tier colleges nationwide.

I believe there is also one in Louisiana. I follow the blog of someone who attended and hopes all of her children will attend.

[SereneHome]

Mandatory or not, I don't think this is good for kids or anyone, really. Kids don't need more "enrichment" programs, more activities, more time spent away from families and communities. I think we need to build communities, where people know and trust and help each other.  The idea of "it takes a village" should not translate that the village is govt sponsored institution.  The idea of the village should be companies providing more flexible work hours and more work-at-home opportunities. We need to stop increasing retirement age and provide better retirement savings options to people so they don't have to work until they are 90 and can actually help with child care and so kids spend time with their grandparents vs "strangers". We need a huge mindset change. From govt taking care of people to people taking care of people.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Frances said:

I believe there is also one in Louisiana. I follow the blog of someone who attended and hopes all of her children will attend.

 

The woman who succeeded me in my last job graduated from ASMSA and our former coworker is now their foundation's chief exec. They do an amazing job with the students they serve.

[SKL]

Just a general comment - it doesn't really need to be enrichment.  My kids' school has aftercare from 3-6 (and also before-care).  The kids have access to the cafeteria, the gym (when sports aren't practicing), and the playground.  The program has a cabinet full of donated used games, puzzles, legos, and office supplies (discarded paper etc).  The main thing the kids do is interact with each other, which is the best thing for them really.  They can do homework, read, play, chat, be on their iphones, have a snack (brought from home or purchased at $.25), or just veg.  The only cost is the nominal part-time pay for two adults to make sure nobody gets killed.

By contrast, when I was a kid (and I think I had a pretty good childhood), I walked home from school and did whatever I felt like doing - watch TV, make a snack, read a book, go to the playground, homework, music practice, hobbies.  Really not much different, except that we didn't have direct adult supervision for a while.

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

Mandatory or not, I don't think this is good for kids or anyone, really. Kids don't need more "enrichment" programs, more activities, more time spent away from families and communities. I think we need to build communities, where people know and trust and help each other.  The idea of "it takes a village" should not translate that the village is govt sponsored institution.  The idea of the village should be companies providing more flexible work hours and more work-at-home opportunities. We need to stop increasing retirement age and provide better retirement savings options to people so they don't have to work until they are 90 and can actually help with child care and so kids spend time with their grandparents vs "strangers". We need a huge mindset change. From govt taking care of people to people taking care of people.

 

You mistakenly believe that the kids attending these schools aren't surrounded by community or a "village"? The "village" concept is what makes them work. In some cases, the community they find and build at these schools is MORE supportive than the one they come from...more open, more inclusive, more opportunities, more support for learning and achievement. The students all return home for breaks.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Sneezyone

[SereneHome]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

You mistakenly believe that the kids attending these schools aren't surrounded by community or a "village"? The "village" concept is what makes them work. In some cases, the community they find and build at these schools are MORE supportive than the ones they come from...more open, more inclusive, more opportunities, more support for learning and achievement. The students all return home for breaks.

I am not sure what schools you are referring to, but I don't think I am mistaken at all. I think a child or even an adult, for that matter, rarely does well in an institutional setting for an extended period of time unless he chose to be there. Military is one example that comes to mind where a person chooses to do so.

 

 

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

I am not sure what schools you are referring to, but I don't think I am mistaken at all. I think a child or even an adult, for that matter, rarely does well in an institutional setting for an extended period of time unless he chose to be there. Military is one example that comes to mind where a person chooses to do so.

 

Each of the public boarding schools mentioned are optional. I would also seriously question your choice of the word 'institution' to describe these opportunities. My spouse is in the military, my children attend schools that we volunarily placed them in. None are institutionalized or incarcerated.

[SereneHome]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Each of the public boarding schools mentioned are optional. I would also seriously question your choice of the word 'institution' to describe these opportunities. My spouse is in the military, my children attend schools that we volunarily placed them in. None are institutionalized or incarcerated.

First of all, I wasn't even talking about boarding schools, but again, unless it's a child's choice, my opinion stands. Second of all, you don't like "institutions", pick a different word, I am not picky.

[Guest]

Just now, happysmileylady said:

 

 

I am actually not opposed to the general idea of a boarding school in high school.  Of course, boarding schools generally still follow a pretty typical school calendar with a winter break, summer break, weekends off classes (and the one linked above apparently sends the kids home on weekends.)  

 

But not so into the idea of a boarding school of elementary school kids.  And especially not a state run boarding school.  Not that the original proposal is an actual state run boarding school, but I do think it starts to come close.

 

And another question I have about this proposal just in general is that if it's targeting elementary schools, what happens once a kid leaves elementary school?  Suddenly they go back on a regular school schedule because 12 yr olds are old enough to stay home alone?  Or, does this idea suddenly become a need at the middle school level too?  

The tweens and teens in my community tend to use the community center and recreation center, plus extracurriculars, and take themselves there. For example, the fitness center that has a pool, gym, fitness classes, etc,is right next door to the middle school, so a lot of kids have memberships there and do a class or two, or hang out in the lounge area, buy a snack, etc. They are not in an official program, but the facility is there if they need it. Many of my older kids who take classes at the community center bring themselves there. I also used to  tutor at my DD's cheer gym, and many of the kids who had practice that night would come on their own or be dropped off by carpools after school, do their homework, and then do a tumbling class and cheer practice. If a parent felt their child needed help, they would hire me or one of the other parents who were on the list who have teaching backgrounds, and we would provide tutoring, or, more often, homework help, which really meant "kid, do your homework instead of watching you tube videos on your phone". 

 

The formal child care programs all end at about 5th/6th grade. 

 

[Momto6inIN]

2 hours ago, Medicmom2.0 said:

To be fair, I know a lot of people who do think this is family friendly.  They need the childcare.  There is so little after school care where I live that parents are really struggling.  The school offers a sliding scale fee after school program, but it fills months in advance and has a long waiting list. They don’t have the funding to provide subsidized after school care to all the local kids who need it.  The school combats the kids-left-alone issue by forcing an adult to be seen to pick up kids at the bus stop till about age 12.  There are still a lot of kids left by themselves after school; young kids age 8 and 9.  This bill is currently being talked about on my local FB group and parents are overwhelmingly in favor.  Even if their kids aren’t in school, they aren’t seeing them, anyway.  A 10 hour school day really would be beneficial for a large number of families.

Not picking on you, MedicMom, just quoting you  because this sentiment seems to be one of the selling points of the bill.

I know it would make a lot of parents' lives easier. That doesn't mean it's beneficial to their family. To me "family friendly" means something that is designed to give parents and kids more quality time together or strengthen their relationship in some way or make it easier to connect with each other. This idea most emphatically doesn't do that. It just shifts the "burden" (I dislike using that word because I don't think taking care of kids is a burden, but that is definitely where the arguments in favor of this seem to be coming from) of figuring out how to care for kids from the parents to the school.

[Sneezyone]

10 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

 

 

I am actually not opposed to the general idea of a boarding school in high school.  Of course, boarding schools generally still follow a pretty typical school calendar with a winter break, summer break, weekends off classes (and the one linked above apparently sends the kids home on weekends.)  

 

But not so into the idea of a boarding school of elementary school kids.  And especially not a state run boarding school.  Not that the original proposal is an actual state run boarding school, but I do think it starts to come close.

 

And another question I have about this proposal just in general is that if it's targeting elementary schools, what happens once a kid leaves elementary school?  Suddenly they go back on a regular school schedule because 12 yr olds are old enough to stay home alone?  Or, does this idea suddenly become a need at the middle school level too?  

 

Each of the ones mentioned is a public boarding school--state and private funds. As I understand this proposal, kids would return home each night.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

I feel like a lot of this gnashing of teeth is on the part of people who have chosen not to be part of a two-income family. That's a perfectly valid choice. So too is the choice to be in a two-income family or single-income family - whether because both partners or a single individual enjoys working or because they need to to fulfill their priorities (retirement/college savings, social security earnings, etc.). The lack of respect for their situations is really kinda galling. If this OPTION doesn't work or serve your needs, great. It may, however, be a very helpful option for others.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Sneezyone

[SKL]

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I feel like a lot of this gnashing of teeth is on the part of people who have chosen not to be part of a two-income family. That's a perfectly valid choice. So too is the choice to be in a two-income family or single-income family - whether because both partners or a single individual enjoys working or because they need to to fulfill their priorities (retirement/college savings, social security earnings, etc.). The lack of respect for their situations is really kinda galling. If this OPTION doesn't work or serve your needs, great. It may, however, be a very helpful option for others.

Agreed.

I had a working mom and I liked it.  I don't think there was or is anything wrong with a two-income family.  (Or a single-parent, single-income family like mine.)

Connecting with our kids is important, but there are many ways to do it.

For my kids, the time spent with other kids (and other adults), away from me, has been invaluable.  There is no reason to feel sorry for my kids for having that experience.

It is up to each family to decide for each child where to draw the line between time with parents and time with others.  Having more options is generally a good thing.  But we need to make sure new option B doesn't kill old, also good option A.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, ByeByeMartha said:

I have no issue with anyone making choices that are different from mine--unless it affects me or my family in some way. I am a taxpayer and public education, programs, etc. are paid for by taxpayers like me. So I do care that the money is used wisely and I do care that my taxes have been increasing quite a lot to fund various govt programs in my area/state. 

But dual-earner families, and single-parent, single earner families, generally pay a larger share of taxes.  So there is that.

[prairiewindmomma]

I am curious as to what others did after school when they were children. I either played on school sports teams (practices ran 3:30-5:30) or biked around the neighborhood with friends or hung out by myself. Most of my friends were latch key kids by 3rd grade too—both parents were working.

I don’t understand the jaws dropped by the concept of needing childcare.....

 

[prairiewindmomma]

We all posted at the same time with similar thoughts. 😄

[Sneezyone]

Just now, prairiewindmomma said:

I am curious as to what others did after school when they were children. I either played on school sports teams (practices ran 3:30-5:30) or biked around the neighborhood with friends or hung out by myself. Most of my friends were latch key kids by 3rd grade too—both parents were working.

I don’t understand the jaws dropped by the concept of needing childcare.....

 

This is what I did too. Parents are largely pilloried for making these kinds of choices for kids today though. Unsupervised time for the elementary set can earn you a CPS visit.

[Sneezyone]

It really feels like making the perfect the enemy of the good. If you don't need the care and it's of no help for your family, so be it. That doesn't mean it isn't 'family friendly'. I know a whole lot of families who would jump at that kind of friendliness right now.

It reminds me of all the military spouse surveys that ask what we need. The top responses are invariably 1. childcare 2. jobs/job placement support and 3. homesteading opportunities. The military also, invariably, offers more money in the form of raises and bonuses for the member. Not what was asked for, thanks.

[Sneezyone]

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

I had a working mom and I liked it.

 

So did I. My mom went to night school for her JD and I was so stinking proud of her. She'd also take me to her job after school so I could type my papers. We didn't have a typewriter or word processor at home. 

[Pronghorn]

I don't mind using tax money to provide for lower-income families, but I don't really want my taxes going up to cover everyone. That gets in the way of my choice to provide care for my child at home. I don't want homeschool parents to have to give up their lifestyle to work to support the lifestyles others choose.

I also think this is a good place for the voucher system, if you are going to provide care. Don't provide free care only at schools. Also, support other options, so that you are not doing away with other community-based systems.

[SereneHome]

23 minutes ago, Medicmom2.0 said:

I’m not picking on anyone, but it feels like this whole conversation is coming from a place of privilege.  Granted, I suspect this board is mostly made up of one income families.  However, my community, and probably most communities, are not.

Job sharing costs a family money.   Flexible hours or telework is the domain of white collar jobs.  My community is made of factory workers who work in the salt mine, nurses, police officers, professional firefighters, county and state highway workers who fix the roads in the summer and drive the snowplows in the winter.  All of these jobs pay decently for our area, but none so much that a family can be a one income earner.  Telework is clearly not an option for these kind of jobs. They’re shift work and the hours will never be flexible. I know some nurses who jobshare, but now they’re losing 50% of their income.

We are at a point where I could be a stay at home mom, but we would not be able to save for retirement or college if I did so. We are fortunate that we can work opposite shifts, but that does nothing good for our marriage.  I am able to work mostly weekends, so we don’t need after school care.  But I can see the need, in my town alone. We don’t have rec programs—the state no longer gives that grant.  Or a Y. We have the school, and a very poorly funded after school program.  

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the jobs you listed are shift jobs that can provide more flexibility than the job I had pre-kids - I had to be in the office "9-5" which usually translated into 8 to -whenever-big-bosses-thought-I-was-done.

 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Pronghorn said:

I don't mind using tax money to provide for lower-income families, but I don't really want my taxes going up to cover everyone. That gets in the way of my choice to provide care for my child at home. I don't want homeschool parents to have to give up their lifestyle to work to support the lifestyles others choose.

I also think this is a good place for the voucher system, if you are going to provide care. Don't provide free care only at schools. Also, support other options, so that you are not doing away with other community-based systems.

Yeah, my concern would be that when you make it a government program, you add all sorts of requirements and limits that add to the cost while taking away from flexibility and the freedom kids need to have after school.  It ends up being a sucky program that anyone with money opts out of.  I'd rather just let schools and community centers and neighborhood parents figure it out on a small budget.  There is nothing wrong with charging a small fee to supervise kids!  When we are adults, we have responsibilities.

[EmseB]

8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

So did I. My mom went to night school for her JD and I was so stinking proud of her. She'd also take me to her job after school so I could type my papers. We didn't have a typewriter or word processor at home. 

I liked being a latch key kid and having time home alone, but I hated after care programs. I happened to get on a bus and go to a daycare after school until 4th grade or so and it was the same dynamics as being in school. I begged my mom to let me stay home alone instead of doing that. Staying at school would have been way worse. It would have been more convenient for my parents, but man, I would not have enjoyed another 2 hours at school no matter what programs they were offering.

But I also always kind of envied my friends who came home and their parent was there. Or kids who weren't the last person picked up from sports practice because of work obligations. Those feelings have a lot to do with why I wanted to be a SAHM.

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I have been a wide variety of parenting types.  I have been a single parent working and going to school full time.  I have been a single parent working 2 jobs.  I have been a married parent working full time.  I have been a married parent working full time while my spouse works full time plus overtime plus going to school part time and later, full time.  I have plenty of respect for all the choices and all the hard work that goes into every type of parenting, I have done most of it at some point or another.

None of that has anything at all to do with whether or not I think government run daycare through the school setting is a great idea.  

 

I don't think you want me determining what is 'family friendly' for you anymore than I want you to define 'family friendly' for me. In rural communities where I have visited and worked, the school continues to be the primary service delivery mechanism and social center, long after other services (like a YMCA or community center) have shuttered. I think the number of communities like that far outnumber those that aren't. No one said these have to be 'government run' anyway. This proposal is about a funding mechanism and location. In our old area of Seattle, the YMCA provided services on a contract basis.

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I liked being a latch key kid and having time home alone, but I hated after care programs. I happened to get on a bus and go to a daycare after school until 4th grade or so and it was the same dynamics as being in school. I begged my mom to let me stay home alone instead of doing that. Staying at school would have been way worse. It would have been more convenient for my parents, but man, I would not have enjoyed another 2 hours at school no matter what programs they were offering.

But I also always kind of envied my friends who came home and their parent was there. Or kids who weren't the last person picked up from sports practice because of work obligations. Those feelings have a lot to do with why I wanted to be a SAHM.

 

I didn't enjoy summer camps either, TBH. Unfortunately, I think this social pressure to always have eyes on kids limits those 'free time' opportunities.

[Sneezyone]

11 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Family Friendly?  I didn't say anything about "family friendly."  

I don't think the government does all that great a job with the schools as they are.  And now, someone thinks it's a great idea for the government to run daycare for kids through that same school setting that's already not working.  It's not good for kids.  That's not about family friendly, that's about it being good for kids.  And our society already has decided that there are a lot of things that are good for kids or not good for kids that parents really don't get a choice in.  

 

And that's before we talk about what sort of unintended consequences it might have, and whether or not I think it's a great use of tax dollars.  

The government is, in many cases, the only game in town.

[RootAnn]

1 hour ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I am curious as to what others did after school when they were children. 

I delivered newspapers with my siblings from when I was roughly 5 yrs old to 16 yrs old.

[SereneHome]

44 minutes ago, Medicmom2.0 said:

 

So yes and no.  The factory only does swing shifts, which helps no one, at least until you get some good seniority.  State DOT workers work when they tell you to work.  The hospital nurses here work 12s, and a lot work strange hours like 3pm-3am.  Once you have enough seniority you can bid on better shifts, like 7a-7p, but most of the women with young or school age kids don’t yet have that seniority.  I work 24 hour shifts, and when I am up all night it’s hard to get home, shower, and get enough sleep before the kids get home from school.  And then there are teacher conference days, early release drills, and a lot of half days.  One of our local school districts has gone to four regular days and one half day a week.  It is a very poor district and I suspect it’s money saving, but it puts a large burden on the working poor. I can guarantee the kids are not receiving any enrichment by sitting home watching TV by themselves that extra afternoon a week.

My point is that not everyone has white collar jobs where things like telecommuting are possible.  I strongly support federally funded, high quality after school care. I don’t support this bill, because I like the afternoons with my kids, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize the need.

And that kind of goes to my point - we need to deal with the issue from the jobs / community side and not additional school / govt side. Providing more job flexibility is a huge step, I think bc it shifts the mindset to the actual "family" friendly lifestyle. Not just that has to do with kids, but marriages, taking care of elderly parents, helping neighbors, etc etc etc

[brehon]

20 hours ago, Frances said:

Nope, never had a Spring Break except the Friday before and sometimes the Monday after Easter. My college didn’t have a Spring Break either. I didn’t have one until I went to grad school. Never had a fall break or any random days off during the year. If we had too many snow days, we went a few extra days at the end of the year. Depending how Christmas and New Year’s fell, I would say we normally had two days off for Thanksgiving, 5-7 for Christmas/New Years, and one or two for Easter. But our summer break was quite long with July 4th being about the half way mark and classes starting after Labor Day.

Yup. This was basically my public school year in the two ISDs in Texas I attended: one a major large district and one that was at the time much smaller. 

[Shoeless]

5 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Public boarding schools have been around a long time. In Arkansas, there's a public boarding school (high school) specifically for math, science, arts and technology. It's an all-state draw and has been in existence for almost 20 years. The goal was to keep more talent in-sate but it really serves as a farm system for top tier colleges nationwide.

 

The proposal in Buffalo wasn't to create a pipeline for STEM colleges or other "elite" schools.  The proposal was for poor and at-risk kids to be sent to a public boarding school, which would provide them with education and life skills. 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, MissLemon said:

 

The proposal in Buffalo wasn't to create a pipeline for STEM colleges or other "elite" schools.  The proposal was for poor and at-risk kids to be sent to a public boarding school, which would provide them with education and life skills. 

That is, I think, the same model as the DC school mentioned up thread.

[Frances]

9 hours ago, Medicmom2.0 said:

I’m not picking on anyone, but it feels like this whole conversation is coming from a place of privilege.  Granted, I suspect this board is mostly made up of one income families.  However, my community, and probably most communities, are not.

Job sharing costs a family money.   Flexible hours or telework is the domain of white collar jobs.  My community is made of factory workers who work in the salt mine, nurses, police officers, professional firefighters, county and state highway workers who fix the roads in the summer and drive the snowplows in the winter.  All of these jobs pay decently for our area, but none so much that a family can be a one income earner.  Telework is clearly not an option for these kind of jobs. They’re shift work and the hours will never be flexible. I know some nurses who jobshare, but now they’re losing 50% of their income.

We are at a point where I could be a stay at home mom, but we would not be able to save for retirement or college if I did so. We are fortunate that we can work opposite shifts, but that does nothing good for our marriage.  I am able to work mostly weekends, so we don’t need after school care.  But I can see the need, in my town alone. We don’t have rec programs—the state no longer gives that grant.  Or a Y. We have the school, and a very poorly funded after school program.  

And not just economic privilege. It also seems that many of the posters believe all kids have a loving, stable, functional home life. For some kids, more time away from home in an environment that supports and nurtures them, whether it’s a program like the one under discussion or something else, might be exactly what they need.

[Frances]

10 hours ago, SKL said:

Just a general comment - it doesn't really need to be enrichment.  My kids' school has aftercare from 3-6 (and also before-care).  The kids have access to the cafeteria, the gym (when sports aren't practicing), and the playground.  The program has a cabinet full of donated used games, puzzles, legos, and office supplies (discarded paper etc).  The main thing the kids do is interact with each other, which is the best thing for them really.  They can do homework, read, play, chat, be on their iphones, have a snack (brought from home or purchased at $.25), or just veg.  The only cost is the nominal part-time pay for two adults to make sure nobody gets killed.

By contrast, when I was a kid (and I think I had a pretty good childhood), I walked home from school and did whatever I felt like doing - watch TV, make a snack, read a book, go to the playground, homework, music practice, hobbies.  Really not much different, except that we didn't have direct adult supervision for a while.

I think the biggest difference might be for kids who are introverts, like me. Even with just a regular school day, it was often tough to find enough alone time. I stayed up late reading many nights partly due to a love of reading and partly just to get some alone time. While you can in theory do that in the after school setting you describe, I think it’s more difficult.

[Frances]

8 hours ago, SereneHome said:

And that kind of goes to my point - we need to deal with the issue from the jobs / community side and not additional school / govt side. Providing more job flexibility is a huge step, I think bc it shifts the mindset to the actual "family" friendly lifestyle. Not just that has to do with kids, but marriages, taking care of elderly parents, helping neighbors, etc etc etc

But there’s only so much flexibility available in certain jobs. My brother, for example, has a sales job where he drives around a fairly large, rural area. And he can only make sales calls during the day when businesses are open. And half days don’t make sense when he’s already driving so far just to start working. So I’m not clear how his job or many others could actually be made more flexible. Or my husband works at a hospital. Sure, there’s some choice of shifts, especially as you gain seniority. But for people unlike him who are commuting an hour or more each way to work, it doesn’t make sense to work less than eight hours or even less than ten or twelve per shift. And you can’t telecommute if you are providing hands-on care. Or factories where each job depends on all of the other jobs. 

On the other hand, my professional job is extremely flexible and family friendly and lots of people telecommute at least part-time. But I also work with people who don’t take advantage of the flexibility or telecommuting at all and have their children in full-time daycare or after school care once they reach school age. Even though they make different choices than I do, I assume they have good reasons for doing so.

[Bluegoat]

I also tend to thing programs like these are really a band-aid solution, and have consequences beyong the imediate help they give to families (assuming they are actually well run.)

There is a lot of practicality IMO to having some before and after school care available at low cost, in a school designed for that kind of use or in a nearby place.

But the underlying problem has been the pushing of people into being largely two income families.  And whatever anyone would like, it's not just a private choice with personal repercussions, if there are many two income families it affects the functioning of the overall economy.  So at some level we have to ask the question, what do we want to be normative, families requiring two full incomes to get by, or one, or one and a half, or something else?  While there will always be exceptions and demographic differences society can encourage the model we want to make most common.

The fact is that as soon as very cheap childcare is available for extended hours it becomes difficult for parents to say no to working more, particularly working class families.  It also becomes much easier for employers to become less flexible and more demanding of employees.  This changes the face of communities.

[Frances]

46 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

I also tend to thing programs like these are really a band-aid solution, and have consequences beyong the imediate help they give to families (assuming they are actually well run.)

There is a lot of practicality IMO to having some before and after school care available at low cost, in a school designed for that kind of use or in a nearby place.

But the underlying problem has been the pushing of people into being largely two income families.  And whatever anyone would like, it's not just a private choice with personal repercussions, if there are many two income families it affects the functioning of the overall economy.  So at some level we have to ask the question, what do we want to be normative, families requiring two full incomes to get by, or one, or one and a half, or something else?  While there will always be exceptions and demographic differences society can encourage the model we want to make most common.

The fact is that as soon as very cheap childcare is available for extended hours it becomes difficult for parents to say no to working more, particularly working class families.  It also becomes much easier for employers to become less flexible and more demanding of employees.  This changes the face of communities.

Personally, I find it interesting that some of the same people that seem to desire a two parent with one income and one SAHM model as the norm are the same ones opposed to universal healthcare. In the rural Midwest area where I grew up, the number one reason for moms going to work is to get healthcare coverage for their family. The vast majority of them work in hospitals or clinics in either lower level administrative or healthcare support roles, although some are nurses. While the traffic is minimal, some of the commutes are still long due to distance, so the time away from home is much longer than the eight hours at work. The next most common area to work is the schools, although of course that is better aligned with the schedule of their children.

On the other hand, I think there are simply lots of couples where both parents want to work. Now they may desire fewer hours or more flexibility, but I also think this is quite common, especially for people who have invested lots of time and money in higher education. Fortunately, professional jobs often are the most flexible and often provide an income level that allows help with the balancing act by outsourcing some services.

 

[SKL]

10 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

I loved being a latchkey kid and either going home and being alone, riding my bike alone, or rollerblading alone. Being stuck at my elementary school until 6 would have been absolutely terrible, and I didn't even come from a stable and healthy home. 

I also liked being without direct supervision, or as I would call it "a parent being up my a$$" after school.  😛  My folks were good parents, but I really liked being totally free!  Also an introvert, I liked being able to choose whether I wanted to be alone or with other kids.

FTR we weren't home alone that long ... 1.5 to 2 hours ... which is really not an issue safety-wise for kids old enough to follow basic rules and dial 911.  It also helped us get traditional cooked meals and various other benefits of being in the home/neighborhood vs. at some child holding facility.

Sad that this really isn't a viable option any more, thanks to people who think they care more about my kids than I do ....

[Kalmia]

We were very lower middle class growing up, but lived in a safe, rural town. My mom was a stay-at-home mom until I entered middle school in 5th grade. My younger sister and I were then latchkey children in (for her, part of elementary school), middle school, and high school. It was great! We would take walks, ride bikes, draw,  crochet, write stories, watch TV, prep dinner, walk the dog, help the neighbor with barn chores, do our homework, nap, hang out with friends, and recover from the stress that was school. By high school we were even tending the wood stove for heat in winter. Being on our own made us competent and confident. If we'd had to do stay in school for hours until our parents got off work, it would have been torture. I am sure it would have been in the loud cafeteria or gym and we would have been forced to  play team type things and do what adults told us every minute. My sister and I needed our downtime. We thrived with responsibility for the management of our own time. Freshman year of high school when I went to a horrible public school, being made to stay extra hours with the bullies that tormented me daily might have made me suicidal. How could that have been better for me than learning to manage a home and practicing the arts and exercising on my own? I am not against after school activities being available. I know everyone's home circumstances are different. However, I am vehamently against them being mandatory. 

[BarbecueMom]

Y’all were some tame latchkey kids.  I was bullied and didn’t want to spend any more time at school than necessary, but then we went home and sampled the liquor cabinet, got vulgar words spewed at us by neighbor kids, got held down and groped by a boy next door (who was younger than me), egged a house (okay, it was my own house, but it had been foreclosed on), burned a couch on the lawn and triggered the cops (that was my brother), and put baby powder in rolling papers and pretended we were “smoking crack” (that was totally me).  Plus all the other inappropriate behavior and, um, experimentation that went on.

I did watch enough Weather Channel to want to be a meteorologist for a while.

[madteaparty]

On 11/7/2019 at 3:10 PM, maize said:

I think extended school days could be a decent option when parents aren't available IF teacher to student ratios were such that the teachers could provide individual attention--say, a one to twelve ratio, and if lots of physical activity, arts, and a decent amount of self directed time were included.

I attended schools in France that went until 5:00 PM (normal there) and it was a very, very long day. Not ideal by any means.

DD’s school day in France is  830 to 430 but this includes something like 2 hours for lunch/ recess etc. we head straight to playground for an hour of playtime after (brrr). . Many kids stay for afterschool until 6. Wednesdays are off school. 
you all say “nanny state” like it’s a bad thing. I’ve no problems with the nanny if the nanny is a good one 😉 I do hate having to supplement math bc it’s November of third grade and it’s still place value. 🙄

[maize]

15 minutes ago, madteaparty said:

DD’s school day in France is  830 to 430 but this includes something like 2 hours for lunch/ recess etc. we head straight to playground for an hour of playtime after (brrr). . Many kids stay for afterschool until 6. Wednesdays are off school. 
you all say “nanny state” like it’s a bad thing. I’ve no problems with the nanny if the nanny is a good one 😉 I do hate having to supplement math bc it’s November of third grade and it’s still place value. 🙄

The school I went to was a public school but super academic, they only gave us one hour for lunch and only a half day off on Wednesdays.

School was 9:00-5:00.

It was miserable for me mostly because of bullying.

[Bluegoat]

19 hours ago, Frances said:

Personally, I find it interesting that some of the same people that seem to desire a two parent with one income and one SAHM model as the norm are the same ones opposed to universal healthcare. In the rural Midwest area where I grew up, the number one reason for moms going to work is to get healthcare coverage for their family. The vast majority of them work in hospitals or clinics in either lower level administrative or healthcare support roles, although some are nurses. While the traffic is minimal, some of the commutes are still long due to distance, so the time away from home is much longer than the eight hours at work. The next most common area to work is the schools, although of course that is better aligned with the schedule of their children.

On the other hand, I think there are simply lots of couples where both parents want to work. Now they may desire fewer hours or more flexibility, but I also think this is quite common, especially for people who have invested lots of time and money in higher education. Fortunately, professional jobs often are the most flexible and often provide an income level that allows help with the balancing act by outsourcing some services.

 

 

I can't speak for people who want one income families and who oppose universal healthcare, but I suppose they would say they would want healthcare to be arranged to accommodate a society with many one income families.  I imagine they probably have unrelated reasons for opposing universal healthcare.

Two income professional families with higher education are generally better off financially through having two incomes, even with paying for care. It's no different than a job of that kind where it makes financial sense to hire a cleaner while you work rather than doing the cleaning yourself, because you will make a lot more than you will pay the cleaner.  The ability of a family like that to have two incomes and pay for childcare is actually a class advantage, it makes the difference in incomes even more pronounced.  That will be true whether or not two or one income families are more usual.

[BarbecueMom]

5 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Uh... why would you do that?  Seriously, what is the thought process that leads to that sort of behavior.  It would have never, ever occurred to me.  The worst I did was break into the cooking chocolate chips and eat some.  And read some saucy fanfiction when I was a bit older.

I admit I don’t get why some kids do bad, crazy, destructive crap.  It would have never even crossed my mind, and the consequences my mom would deal out if I actually decided to try anything on that scale would not have been worth experiencing for the... whatever emotional satisfaction ones gains from it.... would be.

We didn’t have neighborhood kids, it was a private drive with only old people around.  But even when I was in high school and started hanging out with my (also latchkey) friend we just tended to watch Rocky Horror or anime or bike around. Neither of us would have done anything against the rules or against any laws, never destroyed someone else’s property (we were the kids knocking on doors letting the neighbors know that other kids were stealing their pomegranates), etc.

Oh, I could write a book on the "why".  And still have enough material for a sequel.

If you've seen the (quite disturbing) movie "Kids", it's the closest I've ever seen to what kind of atmosphere I'm talking about.  Just take out the HIV plot and change the setting from NYC to a Midwest lower middle class subdivision.

And my mom still doesn't know about any of this stuff.  Even after she got home and was sitting right there in the living room, stuff just went on without her ever knowing.  It took a special combination of anxiety, television, and naivety for that to happen.