10 hour school day?

[SamanthaCarter]

I’m not exactly comfortable with this proposal, but I would be okay with a separate and distinct government provided after school program in a nearby but separate location from the school. I know from a physical plant standpoint, it would be more expensive, but I think it would be healthier for the kids to leave school behind for the afternoon. It could be set up more appropriately for play, and teachers could have an option to supplement income by taking part time tutoring/homework help jobs there. More expensive might mean that there needs to be some sliding scale payment on the part of parents. 

Maybe this already exists. I have no idea. The YMCA has made this model work pretty well, so there’s no saying local governments can’t do it equally well. 

[SamanthaCarter]

8 hours ago, Arcadia said:

This is the kind of program I want expanded to include K-5th students. It’s funded by the city (not mine). The school buses make a stop there.

“The Teen Center is a FREE drop-in facility for all Cupertino students in the 6th - 12th-grade to enjoy. Participants are welcome to study, hangout, meet for club meetings, or participate in our daily activities. While on-site teens will be supervised by trained rec. staff. 

How to Register & Participate:

Registration is easy! On your first visit, please be sure to have a completed registration form that is signed by both student and parent. You may turn in your completed form to one of our staff and you're all set! Please take a look at our participant manual before your first visit. The next time all you have to do is sign-in and out. 

Teen Center Holiday Break Extended Hours 

Thursday, December 26th through Saturday, January 3rd 12:00pm - 6:00pm

The Teen Center will be open extended hours while students are out of school for the holiday break. It will be closed on December 24th, 25th, 31st, and January 1st as well as every Sunday.

School Year Hours:

Monday-Friday: 3:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.  |  Saturday: 12:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.  |  Sunday: Closed (open for rentals!)

 Summer Hours (effective June 10 - August 14):

Monday-Saturday: 12:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.  |  Sunday: Closed (open for rentals!)” https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/parks-recreation/recreation-classes-and-activities/teen/cupertino-teen-center

 

Thanks! This does exist, at least for teens. 

I might be too simple-minded for these discussions. There’s probably 5,000 reasons why my ideas won’t work. I’m of the opinion  that schools should do 10 weeks on, 3 weeks off quarters year round, breaks being used for inservice, parent/teacher, teacher workdays. Districts not coordinating breaks to occur simultaneously, otherwise too much concentrated pressure on childcare and tourism during the off-weeks. 

[Skippy]

13 hours ago, frogger said:

 

So are the ones that work odd hours. When my DH made a poverty level wage, I worked the closing shift at a restaurant since he had a day job. Many single moms worked that shift with me and having their children stay longer in school wouldn't help at all. Considering the number of retail jobs that pay low wages it seems that the majoority of really low wage workers wouldn't benefit. Restaurant, retail workers, fast food, any entertainment type jobs all require more workers on evenings and weekends.

I'm not sure what I think of it still but it does seem like it would help a very narrow set of familys. 

This is such a great point. This particular proposal seems to only benefit the 9 to 5-ers and would help many middle class parents (certainly a very large and powerful voting block) but not benefit many poorer parents who are not working 9 to 5.

There are many such programs in my state, such as our lottery, which funds state college students. So our poor people (who are often the ones buying the lottery tickets) are funding the college education for our middle class. 

[BlsdMama]

On 11/8/2019 at 8:53 PM, 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.

 

Yes. I think we can’t have this conversation without also discussing this. 

 

While we discuss potebtial benefits to an extended school day with government run, parent absent programs, we must also ask, are there unintended consequences to the availability of such programs. 

Sigh. 

So the question become, how do we create a “fix” so that more parents are available to be home and engaged when their kids are home? And can we? 

People have a tendency to choose good ‘nuff over better or best. 

[SamanthaCarter]

49 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

 

So the question become, how do we create a “fix” so that more parents are available to be home and engaged when their kids are home? And can we? 

People have a tendency to choose good ‘nuff over better or best. 

I’m not sure there is a governmental solution. It’s in the government’s interest to have all able bodied people working from a tax revenue perspective. As a stay at home mom, I’m not contributing anything to the tax coffers, as I don’t earn income; nor the consumer economy, as I continually cut cost to make the single income work. Our vacations are few, meals out non existent, we buy second hand. So class differences aside, the SAHM might be something society wants, but not the governmental powers-that-be. 

Edited November 12, 2019 by SamanthaCarter

[Momto6inIN]

1 hour ago, SamanthaCarter said:

I’m not sure there is a governmental solution. It’s in the government’s interest to have all able bodied people working from a tax revenue perspective. As a stay at home mom, I’m not contributing anything to the tax coffers, as I don’t earn income; nor the consumer economy, as I continually cut cost to make the single income work. Our vacations are few, meals out non existent, we buy second hand. So class differences aside, the SAHM might be something society wants, but not the governmental powers-that-be. 

That is such an interesting insight - I had not thought of that before!

[prairiewindmomma]

2 hours ago, SamanthaCarter said:

I’m not sure there is a governmental solution. It’s in the government’s interest to have all able bodied people working from a tax revenue perspective. As a stay at home mom, I’m not contributing anything to the tax coffers, as I don’t earn income; nor the consumer economy, as I continually cut cost to make the single income work. Our vacations are few, meals out non existent, we buy second hand. So class differences aside, the SAHM might be something society wants, but not the governmental powers-that-be. 

Right, but you're also churning out future earners, and educating them so that they can be functional members of society. You also perform a chunk of unpaid labor that allows wage earners to be more effective.  You still provide value to the economy. 🙂 

[frogger]

12 hours ago, EmseB said:

I feel like I live on a different planet than a lot of lawmakers and child safety advocates. Then again, in the intro to the article a case was cited where a mom left three kids ages 6mo to 4yo. That's demonstrably negligent. A 4yo can't care for an infant. But arresting a mom for leaving a 7yo for 45 minutes is nutso in the other direction.

 

Honestly, I feel like I live on a different planet than even people on this board. Our culture is simply different up here in Alaska. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am often interested in what the rest of the world looks like but that is the problem with big Federal programs, they affect different regions in different ways, some positive and some negative.  To give grants so that locals can structure things in a way that makes sense for their area is one thing but depending on how specific the proposal is and what hoops are needed to get the grant can make a huge difference on how it affects communities. Bottom up solutions (sometimes with Federal funds and sometimes not) are usually better.  I guess I need to go actually read the proposal now. 

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, SamanthaCarter said:

I’m not sure there is a governmental solution. It’s in the government’s interest to have all able bodied people working from a tax revenue perspective. As a stay at home mom, I’m not contributing anything to the tax coffers, as I don’t earn income; nor the consumer economy, as I continually cut cost to make the single income work. Our vacations are few, meals out non existent, we buy second hand. So class differences aside, the SAHM might be something society wants, but not the governmental powers-that-be. 

 

I think that this is why the momentum has been towards all able bodied adults working, and governments in many places have been willing to take on socialised childcare.  It's a view of the citizens being a worker-unit.

I wonder though if that really works in the end.  Not only is there a requirement to organise childcare, it becomes a problems for eldercare, care of the disabled.  there are health outcomes related to things that are connected - use of off the shelf food, less exercise.  Fewer people doing necessary volunteer work.  Even looking at environmental concerns, lack of time is a big factor in terms of people living more sustainably.

If you could really pencil it all out I wonder how much better it really is even in pure economic terms to have all adults at work.

[SamanthaCarter]

21 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

If you could really pencil it all out I wonder how much better it really is even in pure economic terms to have all adults at work.

My nerdy side LOVES this question. 😂❤️🤣👍🏻

Edited November 12, 2019 by SamanthaCarter

[Bluegoat]

5 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Or even, all adults at work all the time. 

It's weird to me that we're living in this brave new world of tech and automation, and yet people are still forced into a model of work that is f/t, 9-5 (more like 8-6, once you count overtime and commute) or they will count the financial and career costs. 

 

 

So - not to sound like a nutter but there is a reason for this IMO.

In capitalism, it is through having employees that capital owners can become rich.  They essentially are skimming off the productivity of the people they employ. That is the only way that someone like Jess Bzos could become so rich compared to everyone else, or that such a large proportion of wealth could be help by a fraction of the people.  They clearly are not actually that much more productive themselves and its built into capitalism to work that way.

There is zero reason people like that, and by extension the state that is dependent on them, would want to change the model.  And if they do it will be to something like universal income where there is still that dependency and ability of capitalists to determine what those on the bottom who aren't working get to keep.