NDL Forum

DRiccio21 wrote:fair point.

i didn't think about it much but there has to be more creative ways to do it.

give the same amount of days broken up over 12 months, give 'assignments' during those off weeks or whatever.

Im not really in agreement, but that's ok

for the record, BFiVL's is called 'modified year round'...but there really isn't much year round about it. Most places don't get more than 2 months in the summer of (like them)

Year round would involved more overall school days.

We still only go 180 days of instruction. That would be the same if we were on traditional schedule.

ajalves wrote: Im not really in agreement, but that's ok

give me some reasons.

DRiccio21 wrote:

ajalves wrote: Im not really in agreement, but that's ok

give me some reasons.

There truly aren't enough quality teachers that can handle that.

What's the point really? Does being in school more days ensure better equipped more educated kids? College is like 2 days a week.

nothing ensure's anything.

but giving kids 3 months to do nothing doesn't seem like an ideal scenario to me.

i'm certainly not an expert on this topic so my comments are to be taken with a grain of salt.

i just don't get the idea of taking 3 months off, what does that prepare them for? you don't get 3 months off in the real world in anything other than school. why not keep kids in the routine and build up momentum rather than getting them so excited to 'end the year'.

there are so many things broken in education, i'm not sure why i'm so interested in this. but i just like to think of things logically and this doesn't seem logical outside of what Nick suggested about kids needing the time off to do manual labor on farms back in the day.

Kids get the summer off from school and married couples with kids buy houses because that's what they do. Deal with it!!!

DRiccio21 wrote:nothing ensure's anything.

but giving kids 3 months to do nothing doesn't seem like an ideal scenario to me.

i'm certainly not an expert on this topic so my comments are to be taken with a grain of salt.

i just don't get the idea of taking 3 months off, what does that prepare them for? you don't get 3 months off in the real world in anything other than school. why not keep kids in the routine and build up momentum rather than getting them so excited to 'end the year'.

there are so many things broken in education, i'm not sure why i'm so interested in this. but i just like to think of things logically and this doesn't seem logical outside of what Nick suggested about kids needing the time off to do manual labor on farms back in the day.

Check out the costs to the states of going to say a 220ish school day a year. Honestly many kids nowadays don't sit around in the summer. Most high schools require them to take online courses to graduate.

Would more school days actually prepare them more? Hypothetically sure. Doing it just because they have 8 weeks off in the summer isn't good enough reason.

in Chicago, about $10 million was spent in 2011 for 50 public schools to lengthen their days. Schools received up to $150,000 to use to compensate employees for the extra time. The total projected cost for all schools in the district to move to extended time was $84 million. Other studies show that for just a 10 percent increase in time, schools would need to increase their budgets by 6 to 7 percent, but this does not include additional money needed for electricity, maintenance and other utilities costs, which can be more difficult to predict and estimate.

One school district, granted a very large one I would assume


Now, the money is out there, its not a popular thing to spend it on around election time.....especially in FL

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comm ... confidence

Teacher burns. I see Alves written all over some of these.

ajalves wrote:

DRiccio21 wrote:nothing ensure's anything.

but giving kids 3 months to do nothing doesn't seem like an ideal scenario to me.

i'm certainly not an expert on this topic so my comments are to be taken with a grain of salt.

i just don't get the idea of taking 3 months off, what does that prepare them for? you don't get 3 months off in the real world in anything other than school. why not keep kids in the routine and build up momentum rather than getting them so excited to 'end the year'.

there are so many things broken in education, i'm not sure why i'm so interested in this. but i just like to think of things logically and this doesn't seem logical outside of what Nick suggested about kids needing the time off to do manual labor on farms back in the day.

Check out the costs to the states of going to say a 220ish school day a year. Honestly many kids nowadays don't sit around in the summer. Most high schools require them to take online courses to graduate.

Would more school days actually prepare them more? Hypothetically sure. Doing it just because they have 8 weeks off in the summer isn't good enough reason.

This assumes that they would actually have to pay the teachers an exact ratio of the extra days added to the school year. If in fact many schools and school districts have downsized and released many teachers over a period of time (which is something that happened in California not too long ago), there will be a large number of qualified, former teachers that are no longer employed. When the pool of eligible applicants for a job exceeds the number of jobs available, than a correction in the salary for said jobs can be made in terms of holding current salaries or only expanding them a small percentage vs a larger percentage of added days to the school year.

This is true for any job anywhere. Lets say you have Job A, and your management decides that your workload will increase 10% yearly and they're offering a 5% raise. You could accept or decline, but if your management knows there are 5 qualified people they can give Job A to that will take the extra workload at their offered salary, you don't have much leverage to change the terms.

This assumes that they would actually have to pay the teachers an exact ratio of the extra days added to the school year. If in fact many schools and school districts have downsized and released many teachers over a period of time (which is something that happened in California not too long ago), there will be a large number of qualified, former teachers that are no longer employed

they do have to pay them the exact ratio, that's how it works.

qualified teachers wouldn't be the ones getting 'released'

Does it work that way because of union laws? Because otherwise there is nothing holding them to that.

In California many teachers lost their jobs due to budget cuts. Had more to do with seniority in who was let go, not qualifications.

dakshdar wrote:Does it work that way because of union laws? .

yes. tenure has since gone away but a ton of people were grandfathered

Is anyone a math teacher? My sister in law (history) was trying to explain the new way they teach math, and it confuses the shit out of me. I finally understood it a bit, but can't figure out for the life of me why they decided to reinvent the wheel on that one...

Seeitsaveit13 wrote:Is anyone a math teacher? My sister in law (history) was trying to explain the new way they teach math, and it confuses the shit out of me. I finally understood it a bit, but can't figure out for the life of me why they decided to reinvent the wheel on that one...

when you figure it out, clue me in.....

ajalves wrote:

Seeitsaveit13 wrote:Is anyone a math teacher? My sister in law (history) was trying to explain the new way they teach math, and it confuses the shit out of me. I finally understood it a bit, but can't figure out for the life of me why they decided to reinvent the wheel on that one...

when you figure it out, clue me in.....

Will do. Makes 0 sense

Seeitsaveit13 wrote:

ajalves wrote:

Seeitsaveit13 wrote:Is anyone a math teacher? My sister in law (history) was trying to explain the new way they teach math, and it confuses the shit out of me. I finally understood it a bit, but can't figure out for the life of me why they decided to reinvent the wheel on that one...

when you figure it out, clue me in.....

Will do. Makes 0 sense

Is that before or after you subtract the hundreds?

ReignOnU wrote:

Seeitsaveit13 wrote:

ajalves wrote:

Seeitsaveit13 wrote:Is anyone a math teacher? My sister in law (history) was trying to explain the new way they teach math, and it confuses the shit out of me. I finally understood it a bit, but can't figure out for the life of me why they decided to reinvent the wheel on that one...

when you figure it out, clue me in.....

Will do. Makes 0 sense

Is that before or after you subtract the hundreds?