OP
OP
Metallix87

Metallix87

User Requested Self-Ban
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
10,533
Ok, getting a better sense of it. I think the intention is good but where does it say this is optional and they don't have to stay there? What am I missing?
It does not say that. Harris framed it as extending the school day. She says the extra three hours can be used however the school districts want. The teachers have to essentially opt-in to work the extra three hours a day without overtime pay. The bill itself doesn't really discuss enforcement, and seems to acknowledge that this is being drastically under-funded, and thus the schools need to seek outside assistance for funding.
 

ElectricBlanketFire

What year is this?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
32,065
2vOcZvf.jpg



so you didnt read the bill either. cool cool cool.

Explain how:

1) This would work while relying on both outside funding and volunteers
2) How it's the fault of the reader for her campaign team rolling out a convoluted and poorly-worded idea for a bill at this stage of the race?
 

ruggiex

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,154
lol I remember when I first moved to America I didn't know what to do with all the extra time since school ended so early. 6pm was the norm for me before, then sometimes, cram school afterwards.
 

mute

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,624
There are aspects to this I could get behind, this is essentially how my education went until I was able to attend a school I could walk home from, but my mom worked 3rd shift and so I stayed at school (in a separate after school program) until she could wake up and come get me.

But ultimately I think it would create more problems than solve, and the money this would take would be better spent elsewhere.
 

Fushichou187

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,344
Sonoma County, California.
anyone familiar with how the 'community school' model both sanders and warren support stacks up against this?

So up until a few months ago I worked for a CBO (non-profit community based organization) for nine years that explicitly operates in this space in San Francisco. They provided the blueprint for what SF has adopted as its community schools model and went all-in on starting during the 2018-2019 school year. They also operate in Marin, Alameda and Contra Costa County.

As long as the money can be used to support existing community school infrastructure there shouldn't be an issue. A CS is essentially a partnership between the school and other partners in the community to provide resources for not only the youth, but their families as well; for example, food banks/pantries, 0-5 care, early literacy programs, family counseling, housing & job placement support services, STEAM-focused after school programs, supervised homework labs, informational workshops, evening classes for adults that support physical & mental well-being as well as professional development, etc.. etc.. A Community School seeks to turn the school site into a community resource center that supports the student, their family, and their immediate community. If funds can be used to support that effort, then there won't be any problem. If the extension of the school day causes these resources to be a casualty, then it's DOA.
 

Omegasquash

Member
Oct 31, 2017
6,409
Is there a link to the actual bill anywhere? I didn't see one in the articles linked, and want to see exactly what's being proposed, here.

Edit: Nevermind, thanks MPrice !
 

Squarehard

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,236
Ok, getting a better sense of it. I think the intention is good but where does it say this is optional and they don't have to stay there? What am I missing?
Where does it say this is mandatory, and they're not allowed to leave for those 3 hours even if the parents come pick them up early?

I'm going off of what I've seen in person, as I've already mentioned multiple times, this is a program that ALREADY EXISTS for private schools and other well-funded schools that have the means to make this work.

The mandate is about providing an extra 3 hours, and as such, the teachers are the ones who are accountable for managing those students' time there. There are also faculty and other staff that will be there to manage pick-ups, and make sure that students are not just being let off because they don't want to be there, but to their parents, as that's how daycare would have worked in any case. There's been plenty of times in daycare when a child doesn't want to be there anymore, and will ask the parents to come pick them up early, and the daycare will let them go. They're not going to be like, "Oh, he still has 43 minutes, sorry", and tell the parents to come back later.

This isn't some sort of scheme to keep torturing your kids in doing this.

The parts you can complain about is how they will actually fund this properly, and make sure that it's going to work fro that perspective.

The money from those private schools aren't just going to the resources for the extracurriculars, but a lot of it is going to higher wages that the faculty who work there are getting. All of these aspects need to be offset properly in order for the program to be successful.

The idea of providing this itself is fantastic, but the practicality of trying to make it work from a money standpoint, I'm still a bit hesitant on how they will fully make this work without putting too much of the onness on low-income parents who are already struggling to try and pay for daycare, which would then render this solution null, since it wouldn't be solving the problem, but just actually doing forced daycare from the money side of things even if they can't afford it. If you want to have a gripe with this bill, this will be the part that you are more than able to discuss since it's also my main issue with this bill since we are specifically talking about low-income communities here.
 

Felt

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
3,210
Ah yes more appeasement to our corporate overlords.

parents can't leave work to take care of their children. What will happen to productivity!? Keep the kids in school.

pathetic.
 

Wracu

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,396
This is real? Not from the Onion? This has co-sponsors?

I'm going to go lie down for awhile.
 

Squarehard

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,236
I mean I get it, but that is such a roundabout way to deal with the actual problem.
It's really not if you read the bill.

The roundabout way is trying to figure out how to make sure the teachers are properly compensated for this, and that the money isn't going to be coming from the parents of the children, or other privatized conglomoerates that will want to "donate" to the schools out of the "goodness" of their hearts, thus putting themselves in some sort of control over the schools themselves.
 

kambaybolongo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,143
One of the biggest complaints actual teachers have is that we treat school too much like day care as it is! What a profoundly idiotic idea.

Shorten the work day (lol) if you're so concerned with parents being able to pick up their kids.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,751
Don't officially extend the schoolday to 6 pm for everyone. Instead, create robust, publicly-funded after-care for kids who need it (especially kids from low-income households).
 

Arkeband

Banned
Nov 8, 2017
7,663
I think kids would burn their schools down if they had to stay there an additional 3 hours every day.
 

MasterChumly

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,927
What the fuck? This can't be real. Did someone not tell her how fucking terrible this is? Kids can't be in school that long.

She should focus on after school care/daycare etc.
 
Oct 28, 2017
27,869
Hell no. They already taking away recess and playtime. Some kids don't even have time to finish eating lunch. Kids don't need to be in school a second longer than they are now.

Make aftercare free? I'm all in. More money for after school activities? Hell Yeah!
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,274
Isn't this something that already exists in a lot of school districts? It's called Afterschool care and teachers aren't the ones who usually oversee the kids in the program. I don't understand the outrage here.
 

Alucrid

Chicken Photographer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,559
So up until a few months ago I worked for a CBO (non-profit community based organization) for nine years that explicitly operates in this space in San Francisco. They provided the blueprint for what SF has adopted as its community schools model and went all-in on starting during the 2018-2019 school year. They also operate in Marin, Alameda and Contra Costa County.

As long as the money can be used to support existing community school infrastructure there shouldn't be an issue. A CS is essentially a partnership between the school and other partners in the community to provide resources for not only the youth, but their families as well; for example, food banks/pantries, 0-5 care, early literacy programs, family counseling, housing & job placement support services, STEAM-focused after school programs, supervised homework labs, informational workshops, evening classes for adults that support physical & mental well-being as well as professional development, etc.. etc.. A Community School seeks to turn the school site into a community resource center that supports the student, their family, and their immediate community. If funds can be used to support that effort, then there won't be any problem. If the extension of the school day causes these resources to be a casualty, then it's DOA.

thanks. so it sounds like if either or those two are elected and their community school goals come to fruition this bill becomes redundant since they encompass all of its goals and then some. gonna try and do some research on how the programs fair when situated in less well off areas though.
 

CaughtBeing

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
162
Might as well introduce a bill to easily disown your kid.

This is giving excuse to the big corporations to extend the amount of work they can give to the employees/parents.
 
OP
OP
Metallix87

Metallix87

User Requested Self-Ban
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
10,533
I keep reading it trying to find the part where it says that school starts later as well, since it's better for teenage mental health.
It does not say that. Also, people are saying it's not mandatory, but the bill doesn't seem to say that, and the way she has framed it doesn't suggest that, either.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,758
This seems terrible for all parties involved.
Kids will have less time to be kids
Teachers will have less time to do their after school tasks and be more stressed
Costs for everything go up if everyone is working 3 more hours
 

MPrice

Alt account
Banned
Oct 18, 2019
654
It does not say that. Also, people are saying it's not mandatory, but the bill doesn't seem to say that, and the way she has framed it doesn't suggest that, either.

The bill is not written well at all. But it doesn't state that this is mandatory. It centers around "eligible schools" taking steps to provide after school activities and receiving a grant if they can match the money privately.

Its an amendment to an existing grant.
 

Vilix

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,055
Texas
If children aren't getting the education they need because of no textbooks and deplorable conditions then what will 3 more hours accomplish?
 

Squarehard

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,236
This seems terrible for all parties involved.
Kids will have less time to be kids
Teachers will have less time to do their after school tasks and be more stressed
Costs for everything go up if everyone is working 3 more hours
Kids would have more time to be kids, as many of them have friends at schools, and instead of being stuck in class, they would get to spend time with them without being under a curriculum based setting.

Teachers do indeed need to get properly compenstated for such a program to work, and much of that money needs to find ways to go to them as well, and not just additional resources since that's just a small part of the issue.

Costs for what? Are you talking about taxes? This bill is specifically for low-income schools, so there is no inherent costs to parents like at private institutions.