Senator Kamala Harris introduces new bill to extend school day to 6PM

[Deleted member 11413]

Two things:

1) I'm not really concerned about how this bill could be "twisted," because you could aim that concern at any bill proposed by any candidate. I'm addressing this bill on its merits. You described it falsely in multiple ways across several pages. I was merely highlighting that you were incorrect.

2) ...so now your problem with the bill is that it doesn't extend after school programs enough? Are there schools with programs that go into the late evening, yes. But that is far from the norm. I was raised in good ol' "Progressive" California, and most of the schools in my district were lucky to provide an hour of after school care.

Click to shrink...

I'm not describing it falsely, I'm taking the bill at face value. Whether or not the teachers are required by the bill itself to take more hours is irrelevant; part of crafting legislation is understanding how it will incentivize behavior beyond the stated wording of the legislation. The bill encourages administrators to lean on teachers to 'volunteer' for overtime that isn't paid as overtime so they can get more grant money (grant money that isn't even enough to adequately cover the costs of the programs).

Yes that is a significant part of my problem with the bill, and has been the entire time. It's not nearly enough money nor coverage. The way the money is being distributed is not the most effective manner for addressing the problem.

 

[Deleted member 35987]

I think people are intentionally reading this proposal in the worst way possible because they hate Kamala Harris. I'm no Harris supporter either, but she's not the first person to advocate longer school days for this. I don't think that it means that kids are going to be in math class until 6PM. It's usually some sort of balance of learning and extra-curricular activities, and the funding is provided to extend the school day and school districts work out how to implement it from a curriculum perspective.

My wife is a high school teacher at urban public school for high risk kids. At 1:30PM, for the kids who don't do sports, they're booted out into the cold with nowhere to go and it's a major strain on their families and their parent's

Click to shrink...

I appreciate your insight and you make a lot of good points. Do you think it would be beneficial to just call it ec activities provided free of charge by the state? I think there's a lot of confusion around "extending school hours".

 

[GrizzleBoy]

I'm not describing it falsely, I'm taking the bill at face value. Whether or not the teachers are required by the bill itself to take more hours is irrelevant; part of crafting legislation is understanding how it will incentivize behavior beyond the stated wording of the legislation. The bill encourages administrators to lean on teachers to 'volunteer' for overtime that isn't paid as overtime so they can get more grant money (grant money that isn't even enough to adequately cover the costs of the programs).

Yes that is a significant part of my problem with the bill, and has been the entire time. It's not nearly enough money nor coverage. The way the money is being distributed is not the most effective manner for addressing the problem.

Click to shrink...

But not requiring teachers to do more time is literally a requirement for getting the grant in the first place.

If teachers are made to do extra hours, they aren't getting the grant.

There is literally no point pressuring teachers to do the extra hours because the moment they do that, they already lost access to the grant.....

If anything it actually gives the teachers the potential to actually negotiate terms of pay since it will be much cheaper for the admins to pay the teachers an overtime rate than hire new staff for the out of hours periods.

 

[Royalan]

I'm not describing it falsely, I'm taking the bill at face value. Whether or not the teachers are required by the bill itself to take more hours is irrelevant; part of crafting legislation is understanding how it will incentivize behavior beyond the stated wording of the legislation. The bill encourages administrators to lean on teachers to 'volunteer' for overtime that isn't paid as overtime so they can get more grant money (grant money that isn't even enough to adequately cover the costs of the programs).

Yes that is a significant part of my problem with the bill, and has been the entire time. It's not nearly enough money nor coverage. The way the money is being distributed is not the most effective manner for addressing the problem.

Click to shrink...

Again, this is false. This is not what the bill says or "encourages." This is your slant on the bill. To take the bill at "face value" means to take it on what it says.

What problem does the bill propose to solve?

How does it propose to solve that problem?

Anything else is your slant on it. That is not taking the bill at face value. That is your value judgment, which is meaningless here. We could apply this exercise to literally any bill proposed by any candidate.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Again, this is false. This is not what the bill says or "encourages." This is your slant on the bill. To take the bill at "face value" means to take it on what it says.

What problem does the bill propose to solve?

How does it propose to solve that problem?

Anything else is your slant on it. That is not taking the bill at face value. That is your value judgment, which is meaningless here. We could apply this exercise to literally any bill proposed by any candidate.

Click to shrink...

Exactly.

 

[Streamlined]

Well at least her campaign can take solace in the fact that there's still at least one guy left on the internet defending her dumb last ditch attempts at remaining relevant.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

But not requiring teachers to do more time is literally a requirement for getting the grant in the first place.

If teachers are made to do extra hours, they aren't getting the grant.

There is literally no point pressuring teachers to do the extra hours because the moment they do that, they already lost access to the grant.....

Click to shrink...

And what exactly is the mechanism for monitoring this? School admins already pressure teachers to do extra labor in the status quo. They are going to audit the schools? I don't see any provisions in the bill for that. Lots of things are 'voluntary' on paper but required in practice.

Again, this is false. This is not what the bill says or "encourages." This is your slant on the bill. To take the bill at "face value" means to take it on what it says.

What problem does the bill propose to solve?

How does it propose to solve that problem?

Anything else is your slant on it. That is not taking the bill at face value. That is your value judgment, which is meaningless here. We could apply this exercise to literally any bill proposed by any candidate.

Click to shrink...

No shit you could apply this thinking to any bill, that's what you should be doing because you need to figure out to the best of your ability what the potential ramifications of legislation are before you pass it. I'm pointing out a potential ramification of this bill, something that is likely to happen based on the language of the legislation.

 

[Reverse Giraffe]

Sounds like something a cop would do.

 

[Deleted member 35987]

Yeah and the fact that it's happening on a place like ERA, not even some crap hole like T_D or xChan, but right here just makes me fearful for what people are actually voting for in this election.

It's not okay to just be so lazy as to take headlines that sound like obvious too dumb to actually be true bullshit and blame candidates for believing that headline over what the bill actually says.

I don't even particularly care much about Harris. I'm not even American but reading post after post on a mostly left wing site talking shit about a left wing candidate simply because a news headline told them to do so is worrying as hell.



Except it isn't incoherent and unintelligible as written.

It would never have been thought of as such if it wasn't announced with a bullshit headline to taint impressionable people's (who don't read) minds.

Ten pages on we still have people talking about teachers being forced to do additional hours when the bill CLEARLY points out that teachers NOT being forced to do additional hours if they dont want to is a REQUIREMENT for receiving the damn grant in the first place!!!

Click to shrink...

Era is only Similar to xChan in the sense that both are bubbles that don't represent the actual world. Heck, we had people here saying they won't vote democrat if Biden is the nominee. Talk about privilage...

The good thing about these threads is that the mob exposes themselves for what they really are.

 

[Royalan]

No shit you could apply this thinking to any bill, that's what you should be doing because you need to figure out to the best of your ability what the potential ramifications of legislation are before you pass it. I'm pointing out a potential ramification of this bill, something that is likely to happen based on the language of the legislation.

Click to shrink...

So, as was pointed out by the other guy on the internet to defend Kamala's dumb last ditch effort, how do you rectify your claims of what the bill "encourages" with the fact that, stated in that same bill, a requirement to even receive the grant money is that teachers and staff are not given more hours?

If your answer to this is some form of, "Well, institutions are corrupt, they'll find a way." Well then, sorry to tell you, but no candidate has figured out a solution to that one as it pertains to the various legislation they plan to introduce. Guess they should all go home!

 

[Dennis8K]

FUCK NO

"You poors are so bad parents we need to minimize the contact you have with your kids"

Can't she just put more poors in prison? She has the experience.

 

[mbpm]

Will they add nap time back in?

 

[MPrice]

Yeah and the fact that it's happening on a place like ERA, not even some crap hole like T_D or xChan, but right here just makes me fearful for what people are actually voting for in this election.

It's not okay to just be so lazy as to take headlines that sound like obvious too dumb to actually be true bullshit and blame candidates for believing that headline over what the bill actually says.

I don't even particularly care much about Harris. I'm not even American but reading post after post on a mostly left wing site talking shit about a left wing candidate simply because a news headline told them to do so is worrying as hell.



Except it isn't incoherent and unintelligible as written.

It would never have been thought of as such if it wasn't announced with a bullshit headline to taint impressionable people's (who don't read) minds.

Ten pages on we still have people talking about teachers being forced to do additional hours when the bill CLEARLY points out that teachers NOT being forced to do additional hours if they dont want to is a REQUIREMENT for receiving the damn grant in the first place!!!

Click to shrink...

Um what? Im not reading headlines, Im pretty damn sure I was the first to post the actual bill in this thread. The headlines are running with "extending the school day" because the bill lists, multiple times, that it is "extending the school day to match work schedules". Which is literally the dumbest way to describe an afterschool program that I've ever heard. Literally everybody knows what an afterschool program is, why not just say that? "Extending the school day" sounds exactly like how it is being interpreted as.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

So, as was pointed out by the other guy on the internet to defend Kamala's dumb last ditch effort, how do you rectify your claims of what the bill "encourages" with the fact that, stated in that same bill, a requirement to even receive the grant money is that teachers and staff are not given more hours?

If your answer to this is some form of, "Well, institutions are corrupt, they'll find a way." Well then, sorry to tell you, but no candidate has figured out a solution to that one as it pertains to the various legislation they plan to introduce. Guess they should all go home!

Click to shrink...

No my argument is not 'institutions are corrupt', it's that the bill is introducing incentives for behavior that it does nothing to mitigate. Part of why this is a poor policy proposal is because it doesn't provide nearly enough funding to adequately do what it is trying to do. However, districts are still desperate to get whatever money they can because the majority of them are extremely cash-strapped, so they will cut corners to get more funding. This proposal does not provide enough funding to 1. Adequately compensate teachers currently employed by the district for overtime work 2. Does not provide enough funding to enable districts to hire a bunch of new, qualified staff to run a comprehensive afterschool program.

It's a half-measure, a small amount of funding if they slap together some form of afterschool services. Since many school districts have as many as 20 or more different elementary schools, 5 million per district is not going to cover staff, supplies, training, program development, assessment, etc. for every single school. But since districts are still desperate for extra money, administrators will approach teachers and lean on them to accept a couple extra hours here and there so they can throw together something to get the money offer.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

So, as was pointed out by the other guy on the internet to defend Kamala's dumb last ditch effort, how do you rectify your claims of what the bill "encourages" with the fact that, stated in that same bill, a requirement to even receive the grant money is that teachers and staff are not given more hours?

If your answer to this is some form of, "Well, institutions are corrupt, they'll find a way." Well then, sorry to tell you, but no candidate has figured out a solution to that one as it pertains to the various legislation they plan to introduce. Guess they should all go home!

Click to shrink...

I mean if he really wanted to "read into things" he could maybe take the part about the "working with communities" requirement to actually mean paying for kids to be able to go to local sports clubs or or hiring the services of local trainers etc to come to the school.

But why read into things that actually exist in the bill when you can just make up noise that doesn't and is directly contradicted by actual language in the bill, eh?

 

[Deleted member 11413]

I mean if he really wanted to "read into things" he could maybe take the part about the "working with communities" requirement to actually mean paying for kids to be able to go to local sports clubs or or hiring the services of local trainers etc to come to the school.

But why read into things that actually exist in the bill when you can just make up noise that doesn't and is directly contradicted by actual language in the bill, eh?

Click to shrink...

If the bill doesn't provide for a mechanism to ensure that admin are not leaning on teachers to fill these roles, then it's not preventing that from happening. I've already explained how it incentivizes that behavior from school administrators, your only argument says that they can't make it a requirement. No shit, lots of things that the admin pressures teachers to do are not requirements on paper.

It's not even enough money to do what you are talking about in a comprehensive way.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

Again, this is false. This is not what the bill says or "encourages." This is your slant on the bill. To take the bill at "face value" means to take it on what it says.

What problem does the bill propose to solve?

How does it propose to solve that problem?

Anything else is your slant on it. That is not taking the bill at face value. That is your value judgment, which is meaningless here. We could apply this exercise to literally any bill proposed by any candidate.

Click to shrink...

This is nonsense. You have to analyze the environment in which the bill is going to work, and if your analysis doesn't include that, it's meaningless. It's Spherical Cow analysis.

If you don't have the personnel who volunteer for duty, then you don't have the labor required to operate the program, and thus you can't get the grants. Minus some sort of auditing or regulatory function to monitor this sort of pressure, you'll have schools that are going to apply pressure to teachers towards accepting the extra hours so the school can qualify for the extra money.

If you really want to be sure that teachers aren't forced into accepting extra hours, you do that by mandating that you can't extend teachers' hours to cover the extra programs, "volunteered" or not. But then you'd have to actually allocate enough money to cover new employees to handle the new hours, and they're trying to do this on the cheap by not providing enough money to do that.

 

[Forearm_Star]

I'd be for this if a few things are considered:

Better pay for teachers
The added 3 hours are for homework and extra social leisure activities. Sports, music, extra help.

Wait why not just have better after school programs?

 

[Deleted member 11413]

This is nonsense. You have to analyze the environment in which the bill is going to work, and if your analysis doesn't include that, it's meaningless. It's Spherical Cow analysis.

If you don't have the personnel who volunteer for duty, then you don't have the labor required to operate the program, and thus you can't get the grants. Minus some sort of auditing or regulatory function to monitor this sort of pressure, you'll have schools that are going to apply pressure to teachers towards accepting the extra hours so the school can qualify for the extra money.

If you really want to be sure that teachers aren't forced into accepting extra hours, you do that by mandating that you can't extend teachers' hours to cover the extra programs, "volunteered" or not. But then you'd have to actually allocate enough money to cover new employees to handle the new hours, and they're trying to do this on the cheap by not providing enough money to do that.

Click to shrink...

Thank you, that's what I've been saying for multiple pages now.

 

[MisterSnrub]

Thats one way to kickstart an entire generation of virulent Republicans

 

[Snowy]

I want my prize for correctly identifying Kamala as the Dem Rubio, just an absolute dishrag of a candidate inexplicably identified as a promising future star.

 

[Royalan]

Um what? Im not reading headlines, Im pretty damn sure I was the first to post the actual bill in this thread. The headlines are running with "extending the school day" because the bill lists, multiple times, that it is "extending the school day to match work schedules". Which is literally the dumbest way to describe an afterschool program that I've ever heard. Literally everybody knows what an afterschool program is, why not just say that? "Extending the school day" sounds exactly like how it is being interpreted as.

Click to shrink...

While I low key agree, there is a reason for this:

This bill, as stated in its enactment clause, is meant to amend The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 which is where the "school day" terminology is derived from. That alone conflicts with your idea that this bill is "poorly written."

Spoiler

...still, I low key agree with perception.

 

[Son Goku]

Make the days shorter and more efficient. College felt so much easier because I wasn't wasting a bunch of time then having busy work on top of it with stuff I didn't need

 

[Royalan]

If you don't have the personnel who volunteer for duty, then you don't have the labor required to operate the program, and thus you can't get the grants. Minus some sort of auditing or regulatory function to monitor this sort of pressure, you'll have schools that are going to apply pressure to teachers towards accepting the extra hours so the school can qualify for the extra money.

Click to shrink...

This is addressed in the very part of the bill that I already quoted. I'll bold the relevant parts:

Specifically, the legislation will:

• Award five-year grants of up to $5 million total to school districts to transform elementary schools serving a high number of low-income families into Family Friendly Schools that:
  
  • Collaborate with community partners to develop high-quality, culturally relevant, linguistically accessible, developmentally appropriate academic, athletic, or enrichment opportunities for students from at least 8 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday during the school year, with no closures except for Federal holidays, weekends, and emergencies;
  • Do not close for parent-teacher conferences, professional development, or any other reason without offering full-day enrichment activities free of charge for students;
  • Do not increase the amount of time teachers and staff have to work unless they choose to work additional hours, and are compensated fairly for the additional hours; and
  • Develop and implement evidence-based policies and practices for parent and family engagement to support working families and help better align school and work schedules.
    
• Require the Department of Education to publish and disseminate a report on lessons learned from the pilot schools at the end of the five-year grant period, including:
  
  • Approaches taken by Family Friendly Schools to align school and work schedules;
  • Survey results on parent, teacher, student, school administrator, and community organization satisfaction with Family Friendly Schools;
  • Changes in parental employment rates, student performance, and teacher retention at each Family Friendly School; and
  • Best practices and recommendations for aligning school and work schedules, aligning school schedules and calendars among schools and school districts, and engaging parents and families.
    
• Authorize an additional $1.3 billion annually for 21[SUP]st[/SUP] Century Community Learning Centers to allow up to 1.8 million more children to access summer programming.

Click to shrink...

1) This bill prioritizes working with community organizations (and if you don't believe that many already exist who would love a bill like this, I don't know what to say).

2) This bill already provides a means of oversight on the progress of the schools using this funds. That includes teachers.

You can doubt that things will work as proposed in this bill. But you can't claim that those concerns aren't addressed by the bill.

 

[Quzar]

Why not try to make working hours shorter?

 

[____]

Just make kids more miserable, what could go wrong?

Click to shrink...

And the teachers. This seems undercooked. It says no increase on work hours but I don't see how that's possible unless I'm missing something.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

If the bill doesn't provide for a mechanism to ensure that admin are not leaning on teachers to fill these roles, then it's not preventing that from happening. I've already explained how it incentivizes that behavior from school administrators, your only argument says that they can't make it a requirement. No shit, lots of things that the admin pressures teachers to do are not requirements on paper.

It's not even enough money to do what you are talking about in a comprehensive way.

Click to shrink...

The bill states as a requirement that teachers, parents, admins, students etc will be asked about their satisfaction of the programs etc throughout the grant period.

Those results will be reported directly to Congress every three years.

So teachers (and parents, and pupils, and everyone basically) have a means to officially report being made to do extra hours to keep the funded programs going, with those results going all the way up to top government level.

If a school doesn't want local district authorities and congress to have a sack of letters about how they are abusing the system and lose their funding, they will follow the requirements one way or another,

 

[Deleted member 11413]

The bill states as a requirement that teachers, parents, admins, students etc will be asked about their satisfaction of the programs etc throughout the grant period.

Those results will be reported directly to Congress every three years.

So teachers (and parents, and pupils, and everyone basically) have a means to officially report being made to do extra hours to keep the funded programs going, with those results going all the way up to top government level.

If a school doesn't want local district authorities and congress to have a sack of letters about how they are abusing the system and lose their funding, they will follow the requirements one way or another,

Click to shrink...

I don't think that's sufficient enough to adequately ensure teachers aren't being pressured into doing more work. The bill does not provide nearly enough funding for schools to actually create a district wide program from scratch.

 

[JesseEwiak]

There's nothing in this plan that actually mandates that kids have to stay in school until 6 PM.

The "school day" extension is for funding reasons, not a belief kids will be at school until 6 every day.

 

[Royalan]

I don't think that's sufficient enough to adequately ensure teachers aren't being pressured into doing more work. The bill does not provide nearly enough funding for schools to actually create a district wide program from scratch.

Click to shrink...

I'm not saying you're wrong here, because 5 million seems like not-a-lot to me on instinct as well. But as someone willing to give this plan a charitable read (because no recent candidate I can think of has talked about something like this), my follow-up is basically...compared to what? We don't really have a whole lot of national programs of this type to compare here.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

I don't think that's sufficient enough to adequately ensure teachers aren't being pressured into doing more work.

Click to shrink...

"The bill doesnt stop schools from making teachers do more hours"

It literally does in the very language of the bill.

"And even if it does, theres no way to stop admins pressuring teachers to do more hours because theres no way to report it"

Reporting on the program is literally a requirement of the funding, the results of which go all the way to Congress for evaluation of how schools are using the funding.

"And even if there is an official way for authorities to be notified of breaches of the requirements, its just not sufficient"

Well actually it-

"And even if it is sufficient, the money isn't enough so it wont even work anyway!"


Okay, okay.

You win.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

I'm not saying you're wrong here, because 5 million seems like not-a-lot to me on instinct as well. But as someone willing to give this plan a charitable read (because no recent candidate I can think of has talked about something like this), my follow-up is basically...compared to what? We don't really have a whole lot of national programs of this type to compare here.

Click to shrink...

I'm saying this as someone who provided afterschool services to middle and high school students for years as a local government employee: compared to what it costs to actually run a comprehensive afterschool program.

Of course there are national organizations that run after school programs, both Boys and Girls Club and the YMCA come to mind. If you mean that the federal government runs/funds...no, we don't. But I can assure you doing so would cost a hell of a lot more than 5 million per school district.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

"The bill doesnt stop schools from making teachers do more hours"

It literally does in the very language of the bill.

"And even if it does, theres no way to stop admins pressuring teachers to do more hours because theres no way to report it"

Reporting on the program is literally a requirement of the funding, the results of which go all the way to Congress for evaluation of how schools are using the funding.

"And even if there is an official way for authorities to be notified of breaches of the requirements, its just not sufficient"

Well actually it-

"And even if it is sufficient, the money isn't enough so it wont even work anyway!"


Okay, okay.

You win.

Click to shrink...

No it doesn't stop it, that's been exactly my point the entire time lol. Like yes, you are correct that the bill says they cannot mandate teachers work extra hours. But the bill also introduces an incentive for administrators to pressure teachers into volunteering to take more hours. A survey every three years is not enough auditing/regulatory function to stop this behavior. And no the funding is not adequate, that's exactly WHY it's going to encourage this behavior. If the funding was adequate then there wouldn't be an incentive to pressure teachers to volunteer for more hours because they would have enough money to hire more staff to do it instead. You are acting like my argument has changed, when in reality I've been saying the same thing this entire time, explaining how each of these aspects work together in tandem to create the scenario I'm describing here.

 

[Royalan]

Just going to drop this here because, you know, who could possibly like this idea...

 

[NineConsonants]

Currently, low-income school systems and their low-income students are at a massive disadvantage; parents aren't able to hold jobs because school boots students out at 2pm and they have nowhere to go. Mothers have to quit jobs, fathers have to work two jobs, they need to rely on grand parents (many of whom may still be working themselves). It's a massive strain on families in low-income urban school systems, and the kids suffer. Wealthier families can afford programs: After school programs, sports, academic tutors, and more.

I support programs like these as long as they're applied intelligently and thoughtfully, which they would be from a Democratic candidate like Harris. It's good policy and it's good that she's proposing it.

Tax credits for daycare, which is a program that Ivanka Trump suggestted during the GOP convention in 2016, can also be good ideas but tax credits are more difficult to implement for low-income families and have them make a positive impact. A low income family simply doesn't have the budget flexibility to be able to dish out $200/week for partial day daycare and then wait until March or April for a tax rebate. Listen I'd love a tax rebate or more of one for daycare, but I'm comfortable middle class and I don't need the help as much as low-income families do, and tax rebate incentives are just lss effective at immediately easing the burden.

Click to shrink...

Your post makes it sound like democratic candidate = thoughtful and intelligent.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

Just going to drop this here because, you know, who could possibly like this idea...

Click to shrink...

No one is saying there isn't a need for after school care man.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

No it doesn't stop it, that's been exactly my point the entire time lol. Like yes, you are correct that the bill says they cannot mandate teachers work extra hours. But the bill also introduces an incentive for administrators to pressure teachers into volunteering to take more hours. A survey every three years is not enough auditing/regulatory function to stop this behavior. And no the funding is not adequate, that's exactly WHY it's going to encourage this behavior. If the funding was adequate then there wouldn't be an incentive to pressure teachers to volunteer for more hours because they would have enough money to hire more staff to do it instead. You are acting like my argument has changed, when in reality I've been saying the same thing this entire time, explaining how each of these aspects work together in tandem to create the scenario I'm describing here.

Click to shrink...

The survey is not every three years its an annual survey.

Having actual facts to hand about what or what is not provided in the bill, or what the language of the bill actually is, could go along way to calming your paranoia regarding the language of the bill and what it does.

If your argument hasn't changed from saying there is no language in the bill to stop admins forcing or pressuring teachers to work extra hours for the program and that theres no language in the bill for any authority to evaluate whether this is happening in order to stop it, then you are wrong.

You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

 

[Royalan]

No one is saying there isn't a need for after school care man.

Click to shrink...

Ummm, did you read the last 10 pages? Quite a few people are saying that.

 

[Kay]

Why not try to make working hours shorter?

Click to shrink...

I don't think neolibs would be able to understand these words if you said it to them.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

The survey is not every three years its an annual survey.

Having actual facts to hand about what or what is not provided in the bill, or what the language of the bill actually is, could go along way to calming your paranoia regarding the language of the bill and what it does.

If your argument hasn't changed from saying there is no language in the bill to stop admins forcing or pressuring teachers to work extra hours for the program and that theres no language in the bill for any authority to evaluate whether this is happening in order to stop it, then you are wrong.

You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

Click to shrink...

They are reported to Congress every three years, i.e. the regulatory body. The language in the bill does not stop administrations from pressuring teachers to volunteering for more hours, and no I don't think annual surveys reported every three years are going to prevent administrators from exerting those pressures.

 

[KtSlime]

Wouldn't it be better to just make some sort of music/sports/club mandatory after school for the extra hour or two until 6pm?

 

[Deleted member 11413]

Ummm, did you read the last 10 pages? Quite a few people are saying that.

Click to shrink...

I did not see anyone saying "afterschool care is unnecessary or anything remotely similar.

If someone did say that, then they are obviously wrong. Doesn't suddenly make this bill adequately address the problem.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

Wouldn't it be better to just make some sort of music/sports/club mandatory after school for the extra hour or two until 6pm?

Click to shrink...

No

 

[Ryuelli]

And the teachers. This seems undercooked. It says no increase on work hours but I don't see how that's possible unless I'm missing something.

Click to shrink...

As a teacher, ending the school day at 6pm means I wouldn't make it home until 7 or 8pm on a good day. Ending at 6 means tutorials from 6-7, then staying after to clean up, print stuff that needs printed, and take care of anything that else needs done.

Definitely not a fan of this proposal.

I taught in Korea for 4 years, I had kids who were in a classroom from 8am to 10pm (with an hour or two break somewhere in there). I don't want to see that happen here, it absolutely has a negative effect on them, especially mentally. They have the highest youth suicide rate for a reason.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

So congre

They are reported to Congress every three years, i.e. the regulatory body. The language in the bill does not stop administrations from pressuring teachers to volunteering for more hours, and no I don't think annual surveys reported every three years are going to prevent administrators from exerting those pressures.

Click to shrink...

So you're saying Congress are the people who will be directly assessing initial and ongoing eligibility of each school?

Obviously not.

The assessments will be done by local authorities, who will obviously be in charge of doing the evaluations, not congress.

Those results will be evaluated and contextualized long before they get to congress to be debated and critiqued.

Just because the reports go all the way up to congress level doesnt mean nobody else gets to see them on the way there. Schools arent going to be sending packs of paperwork to "the congress building".

 

[____]

As a teacher, ending the school day at 6pm means I wouldn't make it home until 7 or 8pm on a good day. Ending at 6 means tutorials from 6-7, then staying after to clean up, print stuff that needs printed, and take care of anything that else needs done.

Definitely not a fan of this proposal.

I taught in Korea for 4 years, I had kids who were in a classroom from 8am to 10pm (with an hour or two break somewhere in there). I don't want to see that happen here, it absolutely has a negative effect on them, especially mentally. They have the highest youth suicide rate for a reason.

Click to shrink...

Thanks for the post. That's insane and sounds exactly like what I was thinking. I dated a teacher and she has a kid herself and wanted nothing more but to be off work and get home to her kid like any other human being.

This proposal seems to consider one side, but completely disregards work/life balance of the teachers. And as you mentioned, the kids as well. I'm kinda shocked it has backing.

 

[Zed]

Sounds like a neoliberal ploy to break kids down so they have less resistance to working longer hours.

 

[Dracil]

this is how to get the kids involved with politics. They will be lobbying their parents as soon as they catch wind of this.

Click to shrink...

This is so true. My school trying to force uniforms on us back in high school got us organizing and striking from classes. My class year were the last ones who didn't have to wear uniforms till we graduated. (We were the only school in the nation that didn't have uniforms back then)

 

[Foffy]

Seems in line with her "people should have dignity if they work 40 hours" kind of quota thing.

No wonder this thread hasn't taken it well.

 

[Royalan]

I did not see anyone saying "afterschool care is unnecessary or anything remotely similar.

If someone did say that, then they are obviously wrong. Doesn't suddenly make this bill adequately address the problem.

Click to shrink...

LOL -- you got to admit that you're moving the goal posts here.

Your original posts in this thread were along the lines of this proposal not just being "inadequate" but actively harmful to its stated goal. You even went as far as insinuating that plan said things it clearly didn't.

If your point this entire time was that the proposal didn't "adequately address the problem" then...there might be an actual avenue by which I could agree with you!