Kamala Harris is proposing a new law which would add 3 hours to the school day. The idea is to align the school day, currently roughly 7-3 pm to the workday which is closer to 7-6 pm.
Now I get her point and it does make some sense however I dont think it will work.
My issues with this:
LOTS of parents like myself work outside the normal 8-5 so those extra hours dont help.
Teachers already work those 8 hours and need the time before and after school to do their work.so schools would need almost a second shift of teachers.
Many kids already do extra activities like sports and clubs after and before school.
Many kids work jobs after school.
Most kids just want to get the hell out at 3 pm and will be hell keeping them in line for another 3 hours.
At 6 pm that means kids getting home from 6-7 pm which will always be dark.
Or, teachers being expected to work even longer hours. My wife taught elementary school for close to 20 years; she was usually still at school for 2-3 hours after the kids were dismissed – that time was spent grading papers, doing lesson plans, and sometimes overseeing the kids in afterschool activities.
This idea only works if schools are given more money to hire more staff.
That said, note that the article you linked to is from 2019 – it’s an idea that Harris floated at this time last year, when she was running for the presidential nomination. Do you have any evidence that this is something that she’s pushing now?
Maybe @urbanredneck2 could have this thread closed since he obviously made an innocent mistake and would never attempt to make false claims about Democrats.
It would be interesting to know how she thought that she could make that stick, when school governance is almost exclusively on the local level–sometimes hyper-local.
School districts are an independent level of government. If a mayor, governor, or president tries to tell them to do something, they can (mostly) tell the interloper to go pound sand.
I think it sounds more like a law not intended to go anywhere, but to draw attention to the fact most people don’t work the typical 8 hour jobs anymore.
If anything I’d suggest shortening the school day. More attention and energy in a shorter time trumps less energy and focus over more time. And kids are at the growing age where they need their morning deep sleep; 1 more hour helps a lot.
The idea certainly has, at its core, trying to address a real need, since many working parents have to deal with having after-school daycare for their kids, as well as daycare for days that school isn’t in session.
As @Bootb notes, the federal government has very little say over the nuts-and-bolts of school administration. If there’s a kernel of an idea here, it’d be a program which gave grants to schools which did institute after-school programs and “day off” programs which can help working parents make sure that their kids are safe and supervised during the work day.
@urbanredneck2, I’m very curious where you came up with this article. Were you searching for unpleasantness on Kamala Harris on your own, or did one of the websites you frequent present this to you as something to get outraged about while neglecting to point out it was a year old?
The legislation would award five-year grants of up to $5 million total to school districts to implement programs in elementary schools serving high numbers of low-income families. The grants aim to fund programs that would allow the schools to provide academic, athletic, and enrichment opportunities to students during the extended hours.
Harris’s bill would allow schools to remain open during events such as parent-teacher conferences and professional development days, providing cost-free enrichment activities to students even on weekdays when there are no classes. Exceptions include Federal holidays, weekends, and emergencies.
My kids’ school had this already (not the federal grant, but the after-school programming). It was immensely helpful. The after-school programs weren’t led by regular teachers, but by after-school enrichment people. (Although teachers could opt in,)
My kids’ school has this too (extended enrichment programs up through 5:00 pm, five days a week). It’s great, and was really helpful in giving me a bit of extra time at the office before I had to go pick the kids up.
The new policies would not require teachers and staff to work longer hours and would ensure they are compensated fairly for any additional hours they do choose to work.
Basically, it’s offering a pile of money to schools to set up programs with community partners for after school and summer activities. It distinctly says that it wouldn’t be teachers staffing these hours, but the community partners (your point 2). It is aimed at elementary schools. If your elementary school child has an after school job, then there are other issues (your point 4). It is not compulsory - so if parents do not want to make use of these activities because it doesn’t fit their schedule, their family, or their child’s interests, they do not have to attend. (your points 1, 3, & 5). And no, depending on where you live, it isn’t dark at 6pm. (point 6).
I think you’ve made horrible points.
I have observed that families have to do a lot of scrambling to find care for their kids afterschool and during the summer. It’s tough enough for parents who are relatively well off, it’s got to be harder for parents with fewer financial resources. Providing funds for programs to help families out with childcare during out-of-school-in-work hours seems like a good idea, promotes the general welfare &tc.
Come on,Urbanredneck. It’s pretty unfair to mischaracterize an article or a proposal simply because you didn’t read past the first sentence or two (or maybe the headline). Here’s where you erred.
The hours would have been 8-6, not 7-6.
It’s for elementary schools ONLY–you know, the grade levels where kids need daycare after school.
It would ONLY have been for districts serving LOW-INCOME families–you know, families who can’t afford after-school daycare.
The additional hours could’ve been spent in athletic, enrichment, or academic activities. We’re not talking about teachers and students slaving away over math problems for an extra three hours.
It was a NOT a law that would’ve mandated schools to do anything. It would merely have provided funding (up to $5 million over the 5-year grant period) to enact the program. If a low-income school didn’t want to participate, no problem: they simply wouldn’t have applied for the grant.
So TL;DR, it was NOT what you said it was. It would have been a program for grade schools in low-income districts where parents can’t afford after-school daycare.
Next time, please read the whole article so you’re not misleading people, OK?