I'm not sure what I think about this - but it seems to be a rapidly developing controversy... Anyone have any thoughts/insights? (Kay_Yow?)

5/15/2006 7:26:45 PM

no

skool r dum

5/15/2006 7:34:59 PM

Will kids no longer get to go to camp and work jobs and stuff?

5/15/2006 7:44:46 PM

they would have to get regular year-round part time jobs...
summer jobs would be limited to (i think) a 5 week timeframe, too small for the typical seasonal job...
probably wouldn't affect raleigh all that much, but you should hear they fuss they make about it on th coast where the tourism industry relies on teenagers for summer employees... hell, they've been bending the school schedule so that it better corresponds to tourist season...

5/15/2006 8:00:30 PM

Summer vacation is a God given right!

5/15/2006 8:45:53 PM

Year-round schedules and a school day that starts and ends later.

5/15/2006 10:39:19 PM

i vote for 3 day weeks with 16 hr days.

5/15/2006 10:49:54 PM

year round wouldn't be for the high school students. Year round is only for elementary school aged kids.

5/15/2006 10:53:40 PM

^ if that's the case, then it's not a bad plan at all.

It should help the parents a lot, because instead of having to suffer through 3 months of trying to entertain their kids, they break it up in to smaller chunks. Plus, the more continuous work-load could maybe help develop a stronger self of work-ethic in the younger kids to take with them through high school.

However, those 2 points are just conjecture, and I assume there is data somewhere that would deal with those issues from the year-round schools already in existence.

5/15/2006 11:19:31 PM

Quote :

"help develop a stronger self of work-ethic..."

...in fourth-graders.

fucking slack bastards, with their misplaced sense of entitlement. tell them bitches better come up with some milk money.

5/16/2006 12:25:15 AM

You grossly underestimate the lessons of childhood effects on adult hood.

5/16/2006 12:42:59 AM

5/16/2006 2:27:37 AM

against

5/16/2006 3:01:53 AM

I was on year round in middle school and modified year round in high school. I never had any problems with it, but the modified year round had everyone on break at the same time, thereby eliminating the marginally more efficient use of facilities you get with a year round system.

5/16/2006 5:54:35 AM

the strongest pro argument: save 1/3 future expansion costs

the strongest con argument: disrupts summer programs by YMCA, etc. and negatively impacts autistic programs

5/16/2006 6:17:40 AM

Special Education children have always run on a different schedule... keeping them on a traditional schedule while having year-round for hte rest of the school isn't impossible... although mainstreaming the kids would be a pain in the ass...

Quote :

"year round wouldn't be for the high school students. Year round is only for elementary school aged kids."

IF that winds up being the case across the board then parents will eventually start complaining to the school board... particularly parents of schools in wealthier neighborhoods... you'd be surprised how much parents want to keep their kids on the same schedule in order to plan vacations, they're amazingly adamant about it...

5/16/2006 7:30:15 AM

For.

What I've always wanted to see, as a method to combat overcrowding in our county's schools.. is some sort of split school day. Have half of the kids goto class in the mornings, and have another round of classes in the afternoon/early evening. I was a morning person in HS, but there are tons of kids who aren't. It could mean smaller class sizes, which would benefit kids. Teacher saleries could be raised to make up for having to teach a couple of more classes.

I mean, you've got these expensive schools that are really only used to capacity for 6-7 hrs a day. Night classes for community colleges can be pushed back a little. We can get another school day in there.

5/17/2006 1:27:54 AM

^Has that ever been tried anywhere? And are you suggesting teachers should teach twice as many each day?

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 1:46 AM. Reason : editing back for congruency]

5/17/2006 1:32:35 AM

Quote :

"Teacher saleries could be raised to make up for having to teach a couple of more classes."

with what money?

5/17/2006 1:34:24 AM

I don't know if it's been tried anywhere before.

And I think twice as many might be a bit much. Wake Co now is on block scheduling, where there are 4 classes in a day, and a teacher gets one as a planning period. It'd be kinda cool to structure it so that they were only there for a set amount of time.. like teach 4 or 5 classes, and do planning and lunch back to back. Also stagger the start time for the teachers, so that certain teachers overlap the break in the day.

For example:
A teacher starting the day at 7:30 would come in then, teach 3 classes.. have planning, have a lunch. The 1st half of the day would end. 2nd group would come in. Teach another one or two classes and go home. Whereas person working the opposite schedule of that could come in around noon, start by teaching the last class of the 1st half of the day, then finish up with the back half. Or any variation of that. There are a bunch of ways to do it.

I would never expect a teacher to stay from 7:30am to 6-7pm teaching a shitton of classes like that. A bit overkill.

Quote :

"with what money?"

heh, that's an entirely different problem to discuss in another thread. this is said with the assumption that there would be money.

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 1:40 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2006 1:39:05 AM

against.

who the hell is gonna work the farm? theres tobacco to be hung and cotton to be bagged. pigs to slop, and oh hell, the cow's in the barn again.

5/17/2006 1:42:06 AM

^^and why the fuck is that a logical assumption?

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 1:42 AM. Reason : ]

5/17/2006 1:42:17 AM

Quote :

"heh, that's an entirely different problem to discuss in another thread. this is said with the assumption that there would be money."

If it weren't for lack of money, we'd keep the traditional calendar, and year-round wouldn't even be up for debate.

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 1:47 AM. Reason : sss]

5/17/2006 1:47:43 AM

holy shit! a bridget post I can agree with!

5/17/2006 1:52:25 AM

Well, because at some point in time there COULD be.

Please quote and bold where I said it was logical.

I didn't. In fact, I went out of my way to use the word could, as shown below..

Quote :

"Teacher saleries could be raised to make up for having to teach a couple of more classes."

Here is why could was used:

Could implies the possibility exists, but it doesn't have to happen. It depends on too many things, ie: the money being available. Currently there isn't any money. At some future point there might be. I don't know, you don't know.

5/17/2006 1:52:37 AM

yes. and President Bush COULD walk into my house tomorrow and give me a million dollars...

5/17/2006 1:54:11 AM

absolutely.. it's possible.

So you're going to nitpick a side-effect of the main purpose of my post.. which is to suggest a method of dealing with overcrowding in schools other than year round scheduling. I'll take your silence about the rest of it as a sign that you fully endorse it. Thanks for your insightful input into what really mattered.

5/17/2006 2:00:47 AM

^Dude, the whole point is that, as long as we have money for new teachers, we'd never even consider your morning/afternoon class schedule.

(Wake County does not have a teacher shortage problem. It's a money shortage.)

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 2:04 AM. Reason : sss]

5/17/2006 2:03:48 AM

how the fuck is year round schools going to produce the "side effect" of increased teacher salaries? ITS NOT GOING TO, DIPSHIT! I don't give a fuck about whatever else you said about why year round is good. I care that you somehow magically think that year round will mean we can increase teacher salaries.

as bridget so elequently put it: if we had the fucking money to raise teacher's salaries, we wouldn't need to consider year-fucking-round schools

5/17/2006 2:05:10 AM

its not just about having enough teachers. Its also about space. Trying to cram a population of kids which is growing more and more dense over time into schools that can only handle a set capacity. Having a split schedule allows you to at the absolute most double the capacity of current schools, without having to build anything.

I mean, I know teachers are expensive, but so are school buildings.

5/17/2006 2:08:21 AM

and if we had all this extra money, why not just build more fucking schools, or expand the ones we have?

5/17/2006 2:13:42 AM

^^Dude, instead of using the money to raise teacher salaries because you'd have them work longer days, we'd stick with the traditional schedule and use that money to build new school buildings.

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 2:14 AM. Reason : Are you getting it yet?]

5/17/2006 2:13:42 AM

Quote :

"how the fuck is year round schools going to produce the "side effect" of increased teacher salaries? ITS NOT GOING TO, DIPSHIT! I don't give a fuck about whatever else you said about why year round is good. I care that you somehow magically think that year round will mean we can increase teacher salaries."

Well, for starters.. that "whatever else" you neglected to read may have clued you in that I'm not talking about year round schools. In fact, only one single word in my original post had anything to do with year-round schools.. I'll quote that one word now..

Quote :

"For."

The rest of the post was a hypothetical, pertaining to an idea that I have about a way to combat overcrowding.

and I'm the dipshit? at least I can fucking read and comprehend.

5/17/2006 2:14:26 AM

oh, ok.

Against.

We should really do our best to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa. It's really important to do this.

5/17/2006 2:15:21 AM

^^Sayer, I understood what you were suggesting, and I thought it was stupid.

5/17/2006 2:19:46 AM

^ lol

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 2:27 AM. Reason : agreed]

5/17/2006 2:27:17 AM

Thankyou

5/17/2006 2:34:10 AM

np.

if 3 months off in summer to work the farms was good enough for kids in the 19th century, it'll be good enough for kids today.

never mind the fact that i was always bouncing off the walls by august with boredom, secretly waiting for school to start...

(then once it did, a week later i'd be like "oh, fuck! where'd vacation go??")

5/17/2006 2:52:28 AM

^^ seriously, the fatal flaw with your 'half-day' idea for school, is what do you suppose working parents are gonna do about their kids for the other half of the day??

daycare, maybe? I was, until recently, paying $1600/month for daycare.

5/17/2006 2:58:28 AM

*Shrug* There are families who don't work a traditional work schedule. Some parents work second shift. This idea is really targeted for a HS level, not as much for elementary and middle. HS kids don't need as much supervision. But it could be adapted for elementary and middle.

Quote :

"aaronburro: and if we had all this extra money, why not just build more fucking schools, or expand the ones we have?"

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Dude, instead of using the money to raise teacher salaries because you'd have them work longer days, we'd stick with the traditional schedule and use that money to build new school buildings."

Sure, but what happens when you run out of land to build or expand on? Raleigh is already beginning to run into this problem. I think at last count it already had 18 public high schools. Almost all of those are overcrowded, and not by a little.

Which would be cheaper, expanding and renovating all those schools, building new schools, or hiring a few more teachers, and giving a pay raise to some of the others. I'm sure there is a point out in time where the cost of one will finally meet up with the cost of the other.. but when?

One way to limit a pay increase would be to pay teachers by the number of classes they teach. Those lazy ones wouldn't get as much, and those who want to teach more could earn their money.

5/17/2006 11:08:54 AM

Quote :

"Which would be cheaper, expanding and renovating all those schools, building new schools, or hiring a few more teachers, and giving a pay raise to some of the others. I'm sure there is a point out in time where the cost of one will finally meet up with the cost of the other.. but when?"

Not now. That's the whole point.

5/17/2006 11:28:43 AM

Honestly, I think I could make the argument that it'd cost a lot less to hire a few more teachers than to build new schools.. even right now.

5/17/2006 12:14:20 PM

^Just because you can make an argument that it would cost less, it doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

And I don't know how long you've lived in Wake County, but what you're suggesting would not happen. It would be absolute foolishness to change one of the most successful school systems in the state so drastically. The public would not allow it anyway.

Please find me a county where they have tried this morning/afternoon school thing, and let me know how it worked out.

I think you're underestimating how much teachers work in the first place.
I think you're underestimating how long the school day is in the first place.
I think you're ignoring after school jobs.
I think you're ignoring athletic teams.
I think you're ignoring other extracurricular activities.
I think you're ignoring the basic health of our students.

Basically, you don't have shit planned out as far as logistics go. You're just so stoked about maximizing the use of school buildings that you can't see any of the problems your plan presents.

Also, you're ignoring the fact that not many parents would want their child on the afternoon/evening track.

It's a terrible idea, dude. One that would only be accepted in the most desperate times.

Trust me, parents would be lining up to pay more taxes before they would permit the implementation of your plan.

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 12:43 PM. Reason : sss]

5/17/2006 12:23:37 PM

Quote :

"I don't know how long you've lived in Wake County, but what you're suggesting would not happen. "

Brassfield Elemetary
East Cary Middle
Cary High

been here a while, thanks.

Quote :

"It would be absolute foolishness to change one of the most successful school systems in the state so drastically. The public would not allow it anyway."

We're changing a schedule, not a cirriculum. We're not upending the foundation on which we teach kids. You have no proof the public would hate it just as I have no proof the public would go for it, so it's a moot point.

Quote :

"Please find me a county where they have tried this morning/afternoon school thing, and let me know how it worked out."

as I have already said, I know of none

Quote :

"I think you're underestimating how much teachers work in the first place."

They work a lot. But on an average they work just as long as anyone else in a 40 hr a week job. Yes, YES. I know. I've got 7 friends who now teach HS for Wake Co, 1 who teaches at Ravenscroft, and one who teaches elementary school in Johnston Co. Sure, all of them have things to grade, ect, but none of them complain about the overburden of shit they have to do. Christ, all of them would be willing to teach another class or two if it meant they got paid more.

Quote :

"I think you're underestimating how long the school day is in the first place."

7:30-2:15 in HS. At least, that's what it used to be. I believe it still is. I count that at 6hrs and 45minutes. If you overlapped the two school sessions, you could potentailly have the second one done by 8pm. You obviously wouldn't have teachers teaching from 7:30am-8pm.

Quote :

"I think you're ignoring after school jobs. I think you're ignoring athletic teams. I think you're ignoring other extracurricular activities."

No offense, but I don't give a fuck. And honestly neither should the school system. The primary role of schools is to provide an education. Not provide a schedule so that little boys and girls can still hold a job. Athletic teams? What, out of any of the things I proposed stops kids from participating in athletics? Can kids not still goto school in the mornings and practice in the afternoons? Can't extracurricular activities also be structured in the same way? Yes, they can.

Quote :

"I think you're ignoring the basic health of our students."

Basic health of our students? No offense, but you're full of shit. Asking a kid to goto school for 6.75hrs in the morning and have the afternoon off, is the same thing as asking a kid to goto school for 6.75hrs in the afternoons and having the mornings off. Please, PLEASE prove to me that the health of our poor children would suffer from having their lives so radically altered..

Quote :

"Basically, you don't have shit planned out as far as logistics go. You're just so stoked about maximizing the use of school buildings that you can't see any of the problems your plan presents."

Would you like to use your brain? Could you put it in drive and actually THINK of a realistic problem? None of the above that YOU listed even come close. Here, I'll actually give you a freebie.. what about transportation?! That's a big fucking problem. Wrap your mind around that.. that's where I'm stuck. How do you handle the transportation of all those kids throughout the day.. with picking them up, dropping them off, picking up the second round. Then juggle that with the bussing needs of the rest of the school system. THAT is a problem. The shit you listed above holds no water compared to transportation.

Quote :

"Also, you're ignoring the fact that not many parents would want their child on the afternoon/evening track."

*raises hand* I would have loved to gone to school in the afternoons. If I was a parent, and my child wanted to do that.. I'd of let him/her. I'm sure there are plenty of kids who would find the idea appealing, and at least a few parents who wouldn't mind either.

Quote :

"Trust me, parents would be lining up to pay more taxes before they would permit the implementation of your plan."

I think you underestimate our dislike for taxes.

5/17/2006 12:58:57 PM

To address the first problem, money.

http://www.newsobserver.com/content/news/education/story_graphics/20060414_wakeschoolsplan.pdf

According to the plan, it's gonna cost $676 million to build new schools in the county through 2010. And then once you build the new schools, you've still gotta hire new teachers to teach in them.

You can't argue with me that doing all that construction THEN hiring new teachers will be less expensive than using the schools we already have more efficiently, and hiring a new batch of teachers to fill in the gaps.

One method involved $676 million in construction as well as new teachers.. where as the other just involves the new teachers.. hmm.. I know which one I'd go with.

5/17/2006 1:11:14 PM

Quote :

"No offense, but I don't give a fuck. And honestly neither should the school system. The primary role of schools is to provide an education. Not provide a schedule so that little boys and girls can still hold a job. Athletic teams? What, out of any of the things I proposed stops kids from participating in athletics? Can kids not still goto school in the mornings and practice in the afternoons? Can't extracurricular activities also be structured in the same way? Yes, they can."

I don't understand how we could still have normal extracurricular activities on campus. Would students interested in extracurricular activities have to go to school in the morning and then gather in the afternoons? Where would they gather? The building would be full, right? I mean, a full building at all times is the whole point of your "plan" in the first place.

Would the night school students miss out on the extracurricular activities?

Without extracurricular activities, how would our students be competitive in college admissions?

Quote :

"7:30-2:15 in HS. At least, that's what it used to be. I believe it still is. I count that at 6hrs and 45minutes. If you overlapped the two school sessions, you could potentailly have the second one done by 8pm. You obviously wouldn't have teachers teaching from 7:30am-8pm."

Eight PM? This is a super idea. You claim this evening school would accomodate the children of parents who work second shift. Sounds like a good way to divide a school up by socioeconomic status. 9-5 parents who are more likely to make decent money get to send their kids to the day school. "Second shift" parents who probably work other shifts as well get to send their kids to evening school. I think I'm starting to see your motivation.

Quote :

"*raises hand* I would have loved to gone to school in the afternoons. If I was a parent, and my child wanted to do that.. I'd of let him/her. I'm sure there are plenty of kids who would find the idea appealing, and at least a few parents who wouldn't mind either."

What was the response that you gave me before? "You have no proof the public would hate it just as I have no proof the public would go for it, so it's a moot point."

Quote :

"They work a lot. But on an average they work just as long as anyone else in a 40 hr a week job. Yes, YES. I know. I've got 7 friends who now teach HS for Wake Co, 1 who teaches at Ravenscroft, and one who teaches elementary school in Johnston Co. Sure, all of them have things to grade, ect, but none of them complain about the overburden of shit they have to do. Christ, all of them would be willing to teach another class or two if it meant they got paid more."

AHA, laughable. How about you fill them in on how much more they would be getting paid...I suspect some of them would spit in your face for suggesting more hours for a relative amount of more money. You better plan to pay them exponentially more per class.

Also, teachers have children too. So, while their elementary school-aged kids are getting out at the regular time, their schedules might run much later than is appropriate for them to parent.

Quote :

"Would you like to use your brain? Could you put it in drive and actually THINK of a realistic problem? None of the above that YOU listed even come close. Here, I'll actually give you a freebie.. what about transportation?! That's a big fucking problem. Wrap your mind around that.. that's where I'm stuck. How do you handle the transportation of all those kids throughout the day.. with picking them up, dropping them off, picking up the second round. Then juggle that with the bussing needs of the rest of the school system. THAT is a problem. The shit you listed above holds no water compared to transportation."

Thanks for the freebie.

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 1:39 PM. Reason : sss]

5/17/2006 1:37:42 PM

Quote :

"I don't understand how we could still have normal extracurricular activities on campus. Would students interested in extracurricular activities have to go to school in the morning and then gather in the afternoons? Where would they gather? The building would be full, right? I mean, a full building at all times is the whole point of your "plan" in the first place. Would the night school students miss out on the extracurricular activities? Without extracurricular activities, how would our students be competitive in college admissions?"

I haven't come up with anything concrete on that one yet. I'm kicking around three options, but there could be others I'm not thinking about..

Option A: Have the extracurricular meetings planned out through the year, either meeting in the mornings or in the afternoon, so that students would know which side of the day to sign up for based on their extracurricular.

Option B: Each side of the day has it's own set of extracurriculars. Example: both sides of the day would have their own marching band, or key club, or football team. If the school is filled to capacity, then technically that's like having two different schools in the same place. Should have enough students to fill both.

Option C: Split the day by grades. Have 9th and 10th going in the morning, 11th and 12th going in the afternoons/evenings. Varsity / JV would be able to use the facilities without conflict. Only problem is teams with no division. This one is the weakest idea tho... kinda hard to make work.

Quote :

"Eight PM? This is a super idea. You claim this evening school would accomodate the children of parents who work second shift. Sounds like a good way to divide a school up by socioeconomic status. 9-5 parents who are more likely to make decent money get to send their kids to the day school. "Second shift" parents who probably work other shifts as well get to send their kids to evening school. I think I'm starting to see your motivation."

I clain that one of the benefits could be an accomodation to parents who work second shift. I didn't say it was directly targeting them. I don't know believe you can prove that, and I have no way of disproving it. You may have underestimated the desire to sleep in present in a lot of teenagers. But I don't think we'll know exactly how bad the economic class seperation would be in that unless someone conducts a poll or study.

Quote :

"so it's a moot point."

good, you got it.

Quote :

"AHA, laughable. How about you fill them in on how much more they would be getting paid...I suspect some of them would spit in your face for suggesting more hours for a relative amount of more money. You better plan to pay them exponentially more per class. Also, teachers have children too. So, while their elementary school-aged kids are getting out at the regular time, their schedules might run much later than is appropriate for them to parent."

As I said eariler, it'd be nice if teachers were getting paid my the number of classes they teach. Like there would be a minimum number you had to teach to get your base salary, then if you wanted to teach extra classes on the other side of the day, you could get paid extra on a per class basis. I bet you'd get more than you think

Some teachers do have children, others do not. As I've said before, this idea isn't really for elementary and middle school. This is mainly to deal with HS overcrowding. I think it'd have to work well in HS before it translated down, if it ever did. A 9 to 5 parent doesn't need to stay home with his high school junior...

5/17/2006 2:04:25 PM

Quote :

"Sayer: Some teachers do have children, others do not. As I've said before, this idea isn't really for elementary and middle school. This is mainly to deal with HS overcrowding. I think it'd have to work well in HS before it translated down, if it ever did. A 9 to 5 parent doesn't need to stay home with his high school junior..."

I understood your point about this would be for high school, not elementary and middle school. I'm not stupid. I have been reading what you write.

That's why I pointed to teachers (HS teachers in your scenario) who have elementary-aged children:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Also, teachers have children too. So, while their elementary school-aged kids are getting out at the regular time, their schedules might run much later than is appropriate for them to parent."

Quote :

"Sayer: I clain that one of the benefits could be an accomodation to parents who work second shift. I didn't say it was directly targeting them. I don't know believe you can prove that, and I have no way of disproving it. You may have underestimated the desire to sleep in present in a lot of teenagers. But I don't think we'll know exactly how bad the economic class seperation would be in that unless someone conducts a poll or study."

Apparently, there are a lot of polls and studies and moot points involved in the discussion of your plan.

If your plan isn't up for discussion without these polls and studies, then shut the fuck up until you conduct them.

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 2:33 PM. Reason : sss]

5/17/2006 2:28:07 PM

Quote :

"Apparently, there are a lot of polls and studies and moot points involved in the discussion of your plan. If your plan isn't up for discussion without these polls and studies, then shut the fuck up until you conduct them."

Fine, ask and ye shall receive.

Evidently this HAS been tried before:
http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/learning_environments/millet_issue1.htm

Above is listed a link to a much better write-up of the basic idea which I first stated. It follows the same basic points that I have alraedy listed above.

Dade County tried this with their schools to test it out. Here was the response:

Quote :

"After implementation, principals in the pilot schools were surveyed about the affect of double sessions on school operations. Survey responses rated the ten-hour day good. In addition,a majority of students, parents and teachers said "...the ten-hour day, rather than giving students more time to get into trouble, provided them with more opportunity to engage in wholesome activities.""

Hmm.. sounds like it went over well.

In fact, there is a school still on double session scheduling in that county.

In the summer of 2003, Pennsylvania changed the state law so that schools could move to double session scheduling. Link: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BT/2003/0/HB1680P2145.HTM

Why change the law if there wasn't a need and there wasn't proof it would work.

Not only that, but most school systems seem to have a backup double session plan in reserve in case of a serious emergency.

It may not be a popular idea, but it can work. Now, continue the growth in the area, and the need for solutions like this will grow as well.

5/17/2006 4:11:05 PM

Quote :

"Sayer: Now, continue the growth in the area, and the need for solutions like this will grow as well."

Pretty much what I've already said.

By the way, it's cool that you found those places in Florida that implemented it. Dade County's go at it in 1969-1970 is intriguing. It is kinda scary that capacity went up 75 percent while instructional staff costs only went up 2 percent. That says to me that some folks were getting underpaid. Also it says they operated with two five hour sessions--I wonder how it would work with two 6.75 hour sessions.

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 10:15 PM. Reason : sss]

5/17/2006 10:11:10 PM