Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Momto6inIN

10 hour school day?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:


Yeah, this is some serious stereotyping. Needing two incomes doesn’t mean a family is ‘at risk’. Lots of families are squeezed and need two incomes and marriage isn’t typically delayed because of benefit loss. That idea is 80s old. Marriage doesn’t guarantee parental involvement and government benefits (TANF) are time limited regardless of marriage or family size. In fact, many states require parents (single and otherwise) to work or volunteer to continue receiving benefits. They can’t do that and pick up kids at 12 or 3 o’clock too.

Oh for goodness sake. Sorry that my comments kind of jumped from one idea to the other and didn't fully explain them. I know that at-risk kids come from a variety of circumstances.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is one of those virtually unsolvable problems. More school is not good. Kids need more free time. And they need more positive enrichment, but providing that is costly. But parents also need more coverage of those hours. It is rotten for working families, regardless of whether their kids are "at risk" or not.

I think Harris is right that the set up no longer makes sense. But then her solution feels to me like it's tacted on to that original system too. If we're going to solve how this works, I think it might take a more radical re-imagining of school than a bill to pay for a bunch of daycare hours could do.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

There's more to life than being above the poverty line.

Paying for college and health care and saving for retirement are good things.

Well yes, of course, given that we are pretty much all parents here responding to this, we do all know this 🙂 I was responding specifically to the post that said long hours away from home in daycare/etc are the reality of poverty.  It's not just the reality of poverty, it's the reality for millions of working parents, even those who don't live in poverty.  For some, it's a choice, and for others, it's not.  But even when it's not a choice, it's not always a need driven by poverty.

 

2 hours ago, Frances said:

When I was growing up in a small, rural Midwest community where almost all the moms were at home, we did not have any days off during the school year except a short winter break and the Friday before and Monday after Easter. On Veteran’s Day, we did veteran themed stuff and had veterans come and talk at school. Ditto for President’s Day (but of course no presidents visiting, 😛) and all of those other Monday holidays. Parent teacher conferences were held after school in the afternoon and evening. Professional development days were held right before the school year started or right after it ended. I actually think the continuity and regular schedule was good for everyone involved. We also had three recesses per day in elementary school, PE a few times per week, music and art every week, and hot, homemade lunches every day. And formal academics were not pushed down to early grades like they are now. So the schedule was very regular with almost no days off, but the school days and weeks were much more balanced.

So, you never had Spring break or had Thanksgiving off?  You never had a fall break of like 2 days in October?  Never had optional days built into the calendar to make up for snow days?  Having also grown up in a variety of small semi rural and/or suburban midwestern schools, we generally had days off at least once a month.  Our parent teacher conferences were always a Thursday afternoon in October where we had a half day, and then the day after would also be off.   

Now, I didn't encounter professional development days until DD23 was in school, but most schools have typically take quite a few days off each year.....I would say every month usually had at *least* one day off.  January was always the hardest slog because the day off would be at the beginning, and then there was usually not much until President's Day.  Except snow days of course.  But yeah, most schools I grew up around had several days off every year.

50 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

I understand that having this as an option would help some kids and families in the short term. But what are the long term ramifications of having more and more kids spending less and less time with their families and more and more time with paid caretakers? Because that's where this is all going. Even if it remains optional, if it's free, more and more people are going to utilize it.

My husband and the board of directors he is on for an outreach program that serves people in 3rd world countries grapple with this issue too. By trying to help people with their short term needs, are we inadvertently setting them up to fail and actually hurting them in the long term?

This is exactly my concern.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Well yes, of course, given that we are pretty much all parents here responding to this, we do all know this 🙂 I was responding specifically to the post that said long hours away from home in daycare/etc are the reality of poverty.  It's not just the reality of poverty, it's the reality for millions of working parents, even those who don't live in poverty.  For some, it's a choice, and for others, it's not.  But even when it's not a choice, it's not always a need driven by poverty.

 

So, you never had Spring break or had Thanksgiving off?  You never had a fall break of like 2 days in October?  Never had optional days built into the calendar to make up for snow days?  Having also grown up in a variety of small semi rural and/or suburban midwestern schools, we generally had days off at least once a month.  Our parent teacher conferences were always a Thursday afternoon in October where we had a half day, and then the day after would also be off.   

Now, I didn't encounter professional development days until DD23 was in school, but most schools have typically take quite a few days off each year.....I would say every month usually had at *least* one day off.  January was always the hardest slog because the day off would be at the beginning, and then there was usually not much until President's Day.  Except snow days of course.  But yeah, most schools I grew up around had several days off every year.

This is exactly my concern.  

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes 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.

Wow, I would say that's pretty unusual.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Wow, I would say that's pretty unusual.  

 

This is roughly how my school year was set up as well. Starting after Labor Day and going through until Thanksgiving, off the Wednesday before Thanksgiving and the Friday after and then back to school til Christmas break which started a few days before Christmas and went until the first school day after new years. Then back to school until sometime around Easter when we did have a few days off and then school again until the first week in June depending on how many snow days we had. This was in Virginia and Boston.

It was basically the same for my older children in Buffalo and Wisconsin. It wasn't until we moved south that I ran into this radically differently school schedule starting in August with so many days off and ending in mid May. Down here there is a Fall break of at least a week, at least two weeks off for Winter break, a week long Spring break plus tons of miscellaneous single day holidays, teacher work days and other such breaks.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was working at a travel company, I was introduced to the idea of "President's Week."  Apparently this is common in the Northeast (and if I am wrong northeasterners can correct me.) where the week of President's Day, schools typically take the whole week off, like a pre-spring break or something.  SO MANY vacations booked that week.  And that was SO weird to me, having only ever attended schools where the week-long breaks were Christmas and Spring Break only.  

7 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

This was in Virginia and Boston.

It was basically the same for my older children in Buffalo

Ok, so it's not typical of the Northeast then?  Huh.  Like I said, resort inventory was always scarce during President's Week.....for those who have had President's Week off, what part of the country was that in?  I thought it was Northeast but it sounds like not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 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.

That was pretty much my situation too when I attended a Catholic grammar school many years ago. We had a short "Easter break." According to Wikipedia "spring break" was invented around the 1930's. Ya gotta love the 20th century--invented lovely terms such as "the teenager" and "midlife crisis." 🙄

I wonder what students think of the 10 hr school day--especially if they read the article and see that it's meant to "...better align the school and work day."  How can a student respect an educational institution that extends its hours for reasons other than education?  They know when they're being duped. 

Well, maybe high schoolers will vote that down. LOL (Rep. Ayanna Pressley proposes lowering voting age to 16) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pressley-proposes-lowering-voting-age-to-16-claims-maturity-not-an-issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Momto6inIN said:

I understand that having this as an option would help some kids and families in the short term. But what are the long term ramifications of having more and more kids spending less and less time with their families and more and more time with paid caretakers? Because that's where this is all going. Even if it remains optional, if it's free, more and more people are going to utilize it.

My husband and the board of directors he is on for an outreach program that serves people in 3rd world countries grapple with this issue too. By trying to help people with their short term needs, are we inadvertently setting them up to fail and actually hurting them in the long term?

Ironically they are calling it the "Family Friendly Schools Act." You can't make this stuff up. 

To your 2nd point about outreach programs, you are very correct and that's a thread topic in itself--particularly about short term missions...how people are "repainting the orphanage."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PrincessMommy said:

I want to address the bolded particularly.  Extending the school day for this reason smacks of the school system becoming an orphanage in all but name.  I'm not sure that helping kids in bad home situations by putting them in school for longer days is the way to fix that problem.  I'm not saying you thought it was an okay reason either, I'm speaking to society as a whole.  

 

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ByeByeMartha said:

Ironically they are calling it the "Family Friendly Schools Act." You can't make this stuff up. 

I thought that was ironic too. There is nothing "family friendly" about this bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

We have a ton of school off. My kids have had few full weeks. They have days off for teacher conferences, in services, Veteran’s Day, Columbus Day, almost three weeks over Christmas, a week in February, a week in April, a couple days off in May and all the snow days. We have up to six scheduled snow days and they’ll all be used; it’s the northeast.  Parents really, really struggle. 
 

What we really, truly need is fully funded after school care and subsidized child care.  We need more after school care places and open slots. The two working parent family isn’t going away, and it isn’t limited to those hovering around the poverty line. It is just easier for someone like me, who has the ability to work opposite days than my husband, has family support and can afford to hire an after school care babysitter if needed.

Edited by Medicmom2.0
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 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. 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Valley Girl
view not vie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Farrar said:

I think this is one of those virtually unsolvable problems. More school is not good. Kids need more free time. And they need more positive enrichment, but providing that is costly. But parents also need more coverage of those hours. It is rotten for working families, regardless of whether their kids are "at risk" or not.

I think Harris is right that the set up no longer makes sense. But then her solution feels to me like it's tacted on to that original system too. If we're going to solve how this works, I think it might take a more radical re-imagining of school than a bill to pay for a bunch of daycare hours could do.

 

A better fix would be a radical re-imagining of work and community. Flexible hours, job-sharing, telecommuniting, more paid time off and comp-time. Health insurance separate from full-time employment. If every parent could take off one afternoon a week groups of families could team up and watch each other’s kids after school. If one parent could work 8:30 to 5:30 and another 6:00 to 3:00 two-parent families could manage child-care and single parent families could partner with another single parent family. If jobs paid enough that a parent could take off a day to stay home with a sick child and still be able to pay their bills the next month . . . 

But all those ideas would require thousands of separate employers to change. The government has more direct control over the schools, so it’s easier to adjust the schools to fit the realities of employment than to change employment to meet the needs of children.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by vonfirmath
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Sneezyone
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 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.

 

21 minutes ago, Frances said:

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/

 

19 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.

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?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Sneezyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

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.

As I said, I am well aware that this proposal isn't actually a boarding school. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Valley Girl said:

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.

I have a different opinion about how hearts get fixed but I don't want to derail the thread.

And I believe that the breakdown of the family is responsible for a lot of society's ills.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Sneezyone
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Frances said:

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/

I don't care for the concept of boarding schools--whether public, private, missionary, etc. But that's just my personal educational philosophy. I do understand that many families choose it willingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 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.

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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 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 two income families. That's a perfectly valid choice. So two is the choice to be two income families - whether people BOTH partners enjoy 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.


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.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

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.


Our school won’t even let my 7 year old walk half a block from the school bus stop to our house without an adult.  The issue here is that the culture has changed and kids by themselves is no longer acceptable.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...