Yet another reason I don't like Obama - taking away summer VACATION????

Well, I like having the summer off. Summer means end of May until the middle of August. It could also be the middle of June till the beginning of September. That is fine too. What I DON'T want is having the break broken up so you get like 2 weeks here, 2 weeks there, etc etc. I will fight for having a summer of approx 2 and a half months off with NOTHING to interfere. I just happen to feel strongly about this and I'm sure I will encounter people who don't seem to care much. That's okay, but I don't want the middle of the road people who don't care either way to end up on the side of the folks who WANT to have this happen. I don't like having a ton of vacation spread throughout the year, or days off here and there constantly. If there needs to be 180 days of school, why not get them out of the way consistently - all in a row? Obviously you would still have winter break and obviously you would still have spring break, but I don't see any other break we need to stick in there. A few days off around Thanksgiving, and federal holidays which everybody is paid for but stays home, but that'd be it.

I actually was not COMPLETELY serious about everything being online, the online courses would be core things, like reading, english, math, science, history. I would find other things, classes of FUN things like science application, art, music, drama, dance etc to round out the day and those would also include the socialization missed at school. I think the socialization is very important, as well as learning appropriate classroom behavior and learning something from a teacher as well as hands-on play. Online is not my first choice, but it might have to be a choice if there is anything to this threat of summer vacation disappearing.

There IS a school or two around here that has a year round modified schedule, but I would NEVER send my daughter to either one. EVER. I would never send my son to a year round school either. I posted up a status griping about this very thing on facebook and he saw it and responded that it would make the high school dropout rate quadruple. I don't doubt it.

It is more expensive for the districts to have the schools open and closed, open and closed, they have to pay more staff constantly to keep everything up and maintained I'm sure. We live in the same state which is bankrupt, so I'm sure it just depends on the district and their financial situation. I am grateful that my district is normal and I just pray that it remains normal for the next 10 years. Otherwise, I will have to start looking for charter or parent choice schools that fit what I need. I have more leeway than a lot of parents though, as I am home and can drive my daughter to and from school, to and from activities, etc. If we end up having to go outside our district, it's not going to be a huge hardship.

I am cheered by the idea that this health care bill might be dead... maybe everything else planned by Obama will fall flat too. One can only hope.

You know, I was raised in Illinois and I only merely thought of year round school as a kid thinking what a horrible thing and I hope it never happens to me. (With the thinking it was like a job and not school -no vacation, as many people think it means) But really, it's not so bad. There are many families that enjoy the different seasons off, as planning a Christmas break vacation can be spread over 3 1/2 weeks, not just 10 days. Basically with a minimum of 2 weeks off per break, you can choose which season would best fit your needs!

The reasons with the smaller gaps in breaks have determined that some children (SOME) benefit from maintaining memory easier if not so spread out without any kind of structure, such as 3 months without school. Do I beleive that? Sort of. I had 3 months off as a kid, and I don't really know that if my summer was cut off that I would be all that better off or smarter in the process. But then again I am not watching the statistics of the kids who are having an easier time becuase of the change either. Who tried this theory in the first place? California was one of them, as we produced a low rating near the bottom of the list for the state's elementary achievement scores.

Why change a good thing? If your school district is keeping up with state standards, then the only reason I can think of is it is merely for change. Is Mr. President going to check out each county and determine where ones are excelling versus not? No, most likely not. And if you are hoping the President will bottom out, don't worry, he has bigger fish to fry than your little ones. Hopefully, he will keep moving on, unless he screws up his priorities yet again, and then he may think rearranging the school year is more important than stopping this war that we've been dealing with for the last 5,000 years.

And yes, I knew you weren't serious about the online thing for kids-I was stating it just as a joke to say that parents and caretakers are constantly remaining disappointed with the school systems and amendments and for good reasons many times-that we all say the hell with it and put our kids where we can learn in a virtual classroom-and even though it seems far-fetched, it will be here before you know it.

I am NOT a fan of change, especially change imposed ON me against my will, more or less I am sick to death of other people - for whom I have no respect anyway - fixing things that really ain't broken. I mean if it's broken for THEM, then they are free to make an OPTION that fits them, but to force ME to change because they have issues? That's where I take offense. Obviously if I came from an underprivelaged family or the only time my kids had heat and air conditioning and food was at school and I was working at Walmart 10 hours a day every day just so I wouldn't lose my crappy apartment, well then I guess the year round school with extra hours in the day would sound mighty good to me, especially if my kids took the state testing and were all less than average. The thing is though, that's not my situation. I feel like the government looks at everybody and thinks 'gee, EVERYBODY will benefit from this because the economy is horrible and everybody works 12 hours a day and these kids are without parents at home and opportunities outside school, and they are all doing poorly' but they forget that isn't true for some people. It's kind of offensive that they discredit people who are not in that boat and think we'd somehow LOVE their solution to a problem WE aren't having.

I was just chatting with a friend last night, telling him that I wouldn't be able to 'add more hours to the school day' because we pay for activities outside of school for our daughter because hmmm, the school doesn't do sports and dance and music and whatever. So we find and join those things on our own, and I'm not about to NOT do them any more, just because some government official says 'your kids now have to go to school 2 hours longer'. Screw that. Test the kids. The ones who don't know much or whose parents have to count on daycare until they get home from work - that can be a solution for them. Kids who are proficient or excelling and have someone home for them and activities they participate in? Don't penalize or punish them for no reason!

I actually like the idea of online for core classes only, and then going to school for electives, FUN stuff, things where being social is a good thing in class and not something you get in trouble for often lol.

The year-round school year does not reflect just the poorer families as you say, "working the Wal-mart jobs, living in crappy apartments, etc." Just to clarify-it has nothing to do with wealth, but all to do at standards. When this happened, though, I am not usre. It has been going on as long I lived here in California, and that has been since 1998. We are on the poorer side of the spectrum though, but we are not underpriveleged, as our needs are met and we go without nothing home-wise. My son is 10 and in 4th grade, and he is reading at the 3rd trimester level of 5th grade. My daughter is in 2nd grade, and they are required to recognize common sight words from a list of over 200. She is to recognize 100 by December (half the year). She only missed 4 out of all 200.

The day time schedule cannot be reformed. They can't make the school week run Tuesday through Saturday, just because, and likewise, they cannot extend the school days by 2 or 3 hours a day. Education is protected under federal law. Go to your school board and find these things out. We as parents know our children have to go to to school, but how many days, how long a school day is set by law, and the days set (Monday-Friday) have to be available for parents view, because it can raise concern. They can't just choose what they want-it is federally mandated. And many school years' changes don't happen for years. Even if it hit the school board right now to go to year round school, the chances of it actually going into effect probably won't happen for at least 2 or 3 years, if not longer.

I see that you are very upset, and you have reason to be. Call your school board, talk to the superindent (as I have to in regards for my daughter's mishap last Firday as well!) They may be able to ease your mind with some things that are unclear. You need to speak out against what you feel is not right for your children and your family! Remember-they make funding off your children, and need you child there to be a success! They will talk to you as clearly as they can about the pros and cons of what is too happen.

Then again, with Obama's great ideas coming along all the time, if this goes federal, than the traditional school year will be history. If that really starts to happen, write Congress! They say for every letter written to Congress about public affairs, it serves as if 5 people wrote it. They will listen if the get a rash of "un-fan" mail!

Oh, I'll write to my congressman. I'll write to the governor too. Let me explain why I used the example of less privelaged kids whose parents both work all day long. These kids are unsupervised for hours during the day. They also receive very little educational enrichment from activities with parents or help with schoolwork from parents. If we get into standards, that is why I said - test the kids. Don't punish the kids who are testing out fine and know what they should by threatening them with extra school, longer days, a longer year. I can totally see how it would help kids who are behind or below average. I see how it will just irritate and bore kids who are not behind or above average.

As far as I know, the state standard is 180 days. I have no issue with 180 days. We started at the beginning of August and go until the end of May. I have no problem with that either. I think it is an excellent schedule and I'm happy with it. Like I said too, I decided ultimately on this school based on the fact that kindergarten was still half day. I was glad to find out that it's also a good school, but if I were faced with a choice of two good schools and one was half and the other was full, I'd choose the half on principle. 7:30-2 is a LONG day for a five year old.

So far we have arrived at school every day early and not been absent even once. The kids receive awards for good attendance and good behavior and also being at grade level for work performance. I sincerely hope if ANYTHING comes of this, it takes at least 10 years for it to happen. 10 years would have my daughter well into high school and she could take high school online instead and finish early and go to college early. If online high school courses are anything like online college, you just have to complete the syllabus and assignments and final, it says nothing about hours spent doing it.

I agree that 7:30-2 makes a long day for the little ones. My son had gone to kindergarten the first year they did that here in our county. I don't even know any schools that run half day kindergarten classes around here in anymore. Another thing that has dissolved.....

I am sorry, by the way, if I came across snooty at all about the whole "Walmart/poor" subject. I enjoy a good debate/conversation, and I get a little jumpy with the defense side, or whatever you want to call it. I am not defending the year round-school business, but I can certainly offer you information about how it is!

I am not sure about online school for high school students. I have not heard of it, but maybe it is new or coming to be? As far as I know, students of elemntary or seconday education have to complete a certain amount of hours as well as follow a rigorous curriculum. I don't know how a public school could offer online classes-I don't think they could. In fact the only type of schools that really could have much less of a curriculum and time in a classroom setting is a charter school/alternative school-which is an independent school set away from county funding and curriculum.

Charter schools may be able to set up the online classroom, but I would be very weary of charter schools. They are not up to standard of their public school affiliation counterparts, and your child's education will be gypped in some ways. People off the streets can get jobs at teachers-with little or training college education, merely because "they are good at it." I know this because I was hired as one, as a 4th grade Creative Writing teacher-and I hadn't even earned 1/2 of my associate's degree. I was not an intern, or an assisistant-I was the instructor, and with a pay of 25 bucks an hour! I accepted the job, and later declined it-when I thought how scared to death I was to set foot in class and not know a thing about teaching and had no child psychology classes to help me understand these kids, which are mandatory for the degree. I had never done a day of student teaching. I had just finished one of my classes, reflecting the problems in the school systems-from issues like segregation, crime, funding, mixed cultural environments, and one particularly interesting topic: being sued as a teacher. No thanks. I chickened out, but it got me thinking-how many of those other teachers are not state certified? Are we allowed to talk about our lack of education or were we to lie about education if asked? Don't know-maybe I didn't ge that far in the process, but that talk was coming from my supervisor.

Hi again! I'm really enjoying talking with you about this . Which county are you in, btw? I'm in So Cali.

I actually had found a link to online K-12 off this site at one point, and I had requested information from them which resulted in a phone call. I had wanted to file away the information because at the time I looked at it, my son was having a lot of trouble with school - mostly motivation/not doing his work in class and THEN refusing to complete it at home. I told him time and time again that if the entire class got 20 minutes in class to do it, the teacher expected 85% of the students to finish it in 20 minutes. The few who didn't he said it might take them 20 minutes more at home! That to me said two things - one, that he was not applying himself AT school so having to take it home was basically the consequence, and then if he refused to do it at home and turn it in, or even worse, he DID do it because I breathed down his neck but then he turned around and didn't turn it in - then he got a zero, or an F. It was extremely frustrating.

I saw a little blurb on the news about a student who left public high school because he was slow and being bullied. He talked on camera about how he went from getting Ds and Fs and living in fear of each day and who/what he'd encounter going to class, at lunch, attitudes of classmates as well as some teachers! When his mom pulled him out and he started doing online courses, he said his grades improved. He spent much less time overall, a couple hours in the morning, a couple hours in the afternoon. He could get up late and do his work in his pjs, he could work at KFC and not have to get a 'pass from school' for 4 hours in order to do it.

It was interesting to me because he said it was a lot less time consuming - leading me to believe there is not just a huge waste of supplies, resources, MONEY in public schools, but also a waste of TIME. In one-on-one type teaching like you'd get with an online course, it's not like competing with a whole class for attention. You basically have a class of one. YOu usually have an instructor whom you can chat with in real time during the 'school day' and you likely have their email and maybe even phone number. You move at your own pace, meaning you could repeat the information if you didn't 'get' it, and if you already knew it, you could move on without having to wait to get 30 other kids there too.

Wait a minute - you received a job offer for a charter school but you weren't qualified? Did you know the information, ie could you have taken a test on the material you needed to know that you'd be required to teach, and would you have passed it? I know that is a strange question to ask you, but if you do have the knowledge, degree or not, that proves you had the knowledge. I do know at the public schools that you have to have your degrees and your certifications - if you're secondary personnel, ie not a teacher with a class, you just need certification and I did think with certain certification you used to be able to sub without having a bunch of degrees, but that's likely because the teacher already has a lesson plan and work prepared. I've heard differing information from you still CAN sub without having degrees to people who say that you have to have the same qualifications as a regular teacher or they won't even hire you at all. I'm not sure if that varies from district to district, from state to state but having had subs in class, it never mattered whether they knew the material or not. Most of the time, the subs I remembered did nothing. They didn't teach or cover new material, sometimes they'd give a review or something. I'd be fooling myself if I said that I couldn't do that, because I could, so you don't need a degree to do that, a 12 year old could probably do it lol.

I think the only reason why I care if the teachers themselves are completely qualified/certified is because it makes a difference in the funding the school receives. If they didn't lose funding just because someone's masters was not completed, then it would be of little significance. They could still be a great teacher, still have excellent ideas, and still have wonderful classroom management and plan fun learning activities, but if the school lost a percentage of their funding, that would hurt the school in the long run. So again, the value of what ends up mattering to people is not the most important thing - like does someone know the knowledge and can they reliably teach it - it always comes down to MONEY.

OK, yes for this particular subject I was hired, it was a classified application-which is the loop hole I suppose. Certified means you have to have the degree. But the thing is is that it is still earning a letter grade, and I still had the potential to pass or fail a student. Yes, I believe I am good at writing. I had an interview with 3 women- 1 administration personel of the school, as well as 2 school board members. I was unable to answer a lot of their questions, and had come unprepared for the interview because, obviously this is a huge jump for me career-wise, and I lacked tremendous experience. Maybe they were swooned that I was a degree-in-progress, and I was going in exactly the direction they needed.

Could anyone do it? Sure. But one thing I take in assurance is that my children's teachers are certified-their education is NOT fabricated. They are learning along side an algorithm and syllabus declared standard, whith teachers of nothing less than the minimal requirement. What am I saying? Being in the hands of uncertified can be harmful and potentially detramental to the student's learning experience.

An example: Let's say you are going to the doctor for a random visit, but instead of the doctor coming to take a look at your illness, his assistant comes in dressed like a doctor, but officially has no training beyond 6 or 7 college classes. Well, you are not having surgery or delivering a baby, so this guy must be ok then right? You are made aware that he is holds no degree, but when you ask how qualified he is really is, he replies, "It's ok-I'm good at this."

Well, as mothers, we surely know how to dress a wound, administer medicine, maybe even give stitches in an emergency situation. But we are not doctors, and it doesn't take much of an incident for us to call upon a doctor, because we DON'T know a lot about how to care for our children medically, and we don't mess around when it comes to the health and safety of our kids. I am not saying that non-certified teachers are not interested in the well-being of the kids. But when you place an uncertified person in the shoes as a teacher, how is that person going to give the best education to those students? They can't.....

It is hit and miss with charter schools, and the tangible quality education they can recieve. I mean they will learn something, right? I guess I just expect my children to thrive in every way possible. Charter schools are necessary, though, in manys. They accomodate children and teens like the ones you mentioned-children who are bullied and or picked on at school. Children who missed a lot of school because of an illness or family issues. But the majority of kids that end up in these schools (statisitcs show-) that these kids have been removed from public school, or quit, because they were not interested in applying themselves with structure and discipline and in turn went on to an alternative school because not nearly as much was required of them. That or these are the kids under the "die hard" parents-the parents that have bad things to say about the schooling and staff of public schools. So they pull their kids out of public school, and put them in independent schools. Sure they may have a better time in school, getting more personal attention and their grades may be better. (And sometimes that is the problem solved right there.) But in all reality, the demands are not being met, so again, it's a cop-out for the parents too.

I learned all this both from my college schooling (which guess what?!?! I took 8 of my classes on University of Phoenix Online!) and talking with other parents and learning how this particular school I had applied for worked. I took the biggest opportunity by applying for this job-I inquired of it while actually wanting to apply for the librarian position, so I could at least get my foot in the door wit the school. When I found out I could be hired much further up the scale, I of course jumped on it! Why not, I get to be a teacher long before my degree is completed! Then I realized how important that degree is to do this job-classified or not. It wasn't for me in the end, becuase I didn't feel right having children's educations in my hand when I ultimately was not qualified to teach them anything by the state of California.

Sorry for the ramble.....LOL And I live in Calaveras County.

I totally agree. I actually have some friends whose kids are bussed to a parent choice school in another district, and so the kids are on the bus for almost 50 minutes each way. Add to that a school start time of 8:45 AM and an end time of 3:30ish and you have kids who have to get up at 6:30 so they can catch a bus at 7:50 and they don't get home till almost 4:30 - and this school gives a lot of extra work. They don't get to play or hang out with friends, they are doing homework until dinner and after dinner they have to shower and go to bed because 6:30 comes too early...

One thing that I would concede on if the schools all added ONE extra hour to the school day would be this: NO HOMEWORK. If they added an additional hour to the day, I'd specify that extra hour would be directed as time for kids to complete ALL assignments given for the day. That way if they are not getting home until 4:45 PM, at least they were home free and could go play immediately!

I am also not against having teachers, tutors, or other administrative staff on site later or during times when school is traditionally closed in order to service underprivelaged kids, english language learners, or children who are not old enough to be latchkey for hours but too old for daycare (say 9,10,11) AND they need to catch up. I don't think it's a horrible thing to use state or federal funds to create OPPORTUNITIES for people if they want to take advantage of them, but I do not think it is fair to make it a blanket thing that EVERYBODY has to comply with.

My son and my older daughter had to attend summer school a few times in order to make up credits, and in her case, she took a class or two early to free up space in her senior year. To me, summer school programs exist to help kids make up credits if they failed, or for enrichment - so you could take a regular level or college level course in the summer and then either have it out of the way or continue to the next level when you went back to school. I don't think it should be used as an attempt to force ALL kids to continue going to school! I never attended summer school, I never had to. I never failed anything and if I wanted enrichment programs, there were always plenty of those during the regular school year to get involved in.

Well... NCLB is partially to blame for some problems I can see. The schools lose more points if a child who is struggling falls further behind than the points they gain if they get an average/proficient child ahead to exceptional. Because of this, the biggest focus is on the kids who are having the most trouble, leaving the ones who are proficient or advanced at a bit of a loss, since you cannot really advance the class of 30 students to something better if you still have 6 students who don't know what their name is....

I volunteer at my daughter's school, and so far what I have seen of the curriculum is excellent. She has a good teacher and school is fun, she is doing things that are consistent with K/1 standards for the end of the year.

Budget crises are getting worse, and at the beginning of the year, there were 40 kids in the class. We have a long term sub now so there are 3 kindergarten classes, 2 morning and 1 afternoon, and the class is down to about 27 students. It's manageable, certainly much improved from 40 but it's still 7 more than they told me when I registered in March. Sometimes I want to laugh, you know the guy who touched things and turned them into gold? Well everything this government touches turns into a pile of.... you know what!

Well, you have your right to how you feel, but so do I. I do not want to be forced against MY WILL to have to deal with year round school just because you like it, or just because the government likes it. Like I said initially, I do not have a problem if it is a CHOICE. Right now there ARE some schools in my state which run on modified year round schedules. I don't have a practical need for a year round school system. It's not like I have to find something to do with my kids when they are off for summer break. I don't have to take time off work for their vacation days. I don't have to worry about daycare not taking sick kids or not being open the right hours or days.

I don't think my kids lose much over summer break. I never did, at least not in any measurable way. It's also not like I don't have learning opportunities either, I do, but it's not like going to school every day. It's practical application in real life, which is more important learning to me. I also have read and seen statistics, but I am not one, and neither is my daughter. I surely did not do WORSE than kids from other countries because I went to school on a traditional calendar and had summers off and didn't have homework. I refuse to fix something that isn't broken for me.

You will still have a choice if your district goes to year round school. You can always home school or go private if you can afford it...

American kids score worse on nearly every single subject than their peers in other countries, so while you personally may not have lost anything, our kids as a group aren't being served by our current system and several things need to change.

the kids here in the US spend more hours in school than any other country. they spend 1146 hours compared with Tiawan next at 1050 hours. They do have more school days though. It's in the news section http://www.mylot.com/w/ne... need to get back to really teaching the basics as earlier posted the true and real History and science and not this junk math. It also needs o be made more interesting so the kids will pay attention. More days or hours won't encourage then to learn better.

I would venture to say it's more about how education now caters to NOBODY rather than we don't spend enough time on it. It is also - let's face it - sometimes uninteresting to students. Think of something you really do NOT enjoy. Then think of the person you least want to see and listen to for 50 minutes. Then think of the worst assignment you'd have to do with that subject you don't enjoy, after listening to that person you never wanted to see again. Combine that and spoon feed it to several million kids. Rinse, repeat. I'm not saying it's like that for EVERY kid, it certainly isn't, but there are a lot of kids who feel that way.

Some kids are visual learners, they have to SEE a concept to get it. Some kids are auditory learners, they have to hear about a concept to get it. Some kids learn only by hands-on or doing something with the information in order to get it. Some kids have language barriers and they may APPEAR dumb but they aren't, they know exactly what you're talking about but they don't have the english equivalent to tell you they know, so they sit there and just look at you.

All we have to do is figure out how to combine all those things into teaching. If that could be managed, you could teach a concept quickly to a whole class of students and they'd ALL get it. If you found a way to make it fun, they'd enjoy it even more and not be able to wait for the next concept. Why aren't we doing something like this? It wouldn't take ANY extra time, just extra support staff so you could split the kids into groups. I think that would be a much better use of taxpayer dollars for education than trying to make kids stay at school more hours or more days or both. Length of time makes little difference.

Yep, I happen to agree with you. I see someone or someones around these parts disliked my opinion because my rating here in this topic went down but what can I say, they just probably figure if THEIR kids have to go to more school, then my kids should too just because. Just because is a crappy reason lol. I also do agree there may be more drop outs, more absences, and of course parents pulling kids out for independent study, which is another option. I do like the curriculum, I just don't think more time or days need to be spent. To me it would just be a waste of time. When I worked, I could do 8 hours of work in about 5 or 6 hours. It's what I try to teach my kids. Buckle down, get it done. The faster you finish up, the faster you can get back to the fun kid stuff you deserve to be doing.

Someday people will definately learn that quality of timeis much more important than the quantity of time.

Well grammasnook, i am 22, and so obviously do not have teenagers, but having been a teen in the recent years, I can tell you that....you are right Teens of this time are really lazy and immature. What can you expect from a generation that is trying to be taught in the media, and by social standards to want to be like Paris Hilton because that is "hot". If I could go back and do high school over, i would have paid more attention instead of everyday clicking down the time until summer vacation, i wouldn't have been swept up into the petty stuff that I now know means nothing, but the teens of today are waist deep in the crap that has no value to their futures whatsoever, but they still have no motivation because all they can think about is when that bell is going to ring so they can run home and watch the "The Hills".

LOL! I never got bored. I don't have any idea how anybody EVER does. If there isn't stuff you HAVE to do, there is stuff you WANT to do, and never enough time in which to do it, get it done, enjoy it to the fullest. Take me for example. When I was a kid, I was a voracious reader. I still love to read. I also did a lot of sports. I worked part time as a teen. I did a LOT of babysitting. These days? I have kids and a house and a husband. I have errands, I'm taking a class, I volunteer at my daughter's school, I have friends, activities, whatnot. I have PLENTY of things to do. And I like facebook... and mylot, and gaming. And I still like to read... and watch tv, and movies, and scrapbook, and go to the gym....

Anyway, the point is, I believe people who get bored do it to themselves. There are plenty of things to do to entertain yourself. Plenty of opportunities which are even free or low cost. Plenty of fun stuff, not so fun stuff, and downright NON fun stuff, regardless there is never a reason for boredom. I hate the word.

I don't believe in homework at all, not assigned homework. I do believe in kids bringing home things they did not finish at school, because completing your work is important. After 6 hours in school though, I do NOT think it's okay to expect kids to do another HOUR, much less all the THREE and FOUR hours I hear people talking about. Even an hour seems too much, unless it is a major project and your student is a junior or senior in HIGH SCHOOL. This three and four hours I hear about? Get this.... it's like people with second graders. SECOND GRADERS. When my daughter is in 2nd grade, the most I will expect is stuff she did not finish in school, which in my opinion should only add up to 20 minutes at the MOST. Second graders are what.... SEVEN YEARS OLD? Sorry but I don't want my seven year old sitting there doing three hours of homework a night. If she is, then what was the point of the 6 hours at school? Even my husband doesn't regularly work more than 9 hours a day, much less would he BRING IT HOME.

I do agree with you that a lot of teens are lazy. They feel entitled, like they don't have to do anything but will suddenly have a 6 figure income job, an ipod, a nice cell phone, a mercedes... need I say more? That in itself IS a problem, one I' not sure how to approach except to tell them that the people who have such things worked for it and did a lot of crappy things THEY aren't willing to do, which is why THEY don't have those things. I think a lot of cause and effect is still lost on teens and they won't see the connections until they are in their early 20s. Fortunately a lot of them are going to college during that time or working full time, and they learn, it just takes awhile. It bothers me because I have some teenagers, and their attitudes toward life are SO different than the attitudes my hubby and I had when we were 16, 17, 18. We knew we could only depend on ourselves and if we wanted to make it, WE had to do everything. So we did. The kids? I don't know where that shorted out. It's like they 'get' part of it but then they regress again.

I want to know where you live that teacher salaries are generous? I want to move there when I get out of college with my English Education degree. In Florida, teachers with a Master's degree, start out at only $35,000 a year. With a Bachelor's, it's only $30,000. It's above poverty, but it can't support even two people by themselves with bills, food, and the supplies needed for the classroom that the school board won't provide.

New York, specifically, the southeast New york area - But - if you look at the cost of living here, that'll probably scare you away. In the public schools, the salaries are OK. It is the parochial schools that the salaries are kind of low.The thing is, the starting salary is just OK. It's when you have been with the particular school district for many years that the pay gets good.

That's partially why this doesn't make any sense to me. To make it more global and not just about school, all these programs and 'ideas' Obama has COST MONEY. Lots of money. TONS OF MONEY. Where is this money coming from? US! And none of us have it! That just throws me for a loop. So the government is what.... like 300 trillion in DEBT already? They don't have money for these programs, for these 'suggestions'. The states are all broke too. Unemployment is skyrocketing. And there's a school district hiring freeze, hiring freezes on NURSES and hospital workers... um... okay.

So if they want education to improve you have to either improve the QUALITY or the QUANTITY. I vote for improving the QUALITY, not adding more time or days. However, that means like you said that you'd have to remove the hiring freeze and hire back a lot of teachers, hire classroom aides, tutors, spend more money on supplies and activities to help promote the concepts kids are learning. Make it QUALITY education. If your child is spending 4 hours at school, make those 4 hours count. Break off into small groups and learn by level, it is so much easier to teach 5 or 6 kids who are all at the same level a new concept. It is incredibly daunting to try and teach 30 kids a new concept when a third of them didn't 'get' the last concept on which the new concept builds, a third of them get it but need more practice, and a third of them knew it already. How do you effectively handle that? Somewhere in there, at least one group of kids will get screwed.

Then you have all the extra work involved in teaching, which IS lesson planning, copying, sorting and organizing for crafts or games for younger kids, planning and making up packets or independent practice worksheets, correcting everything, planning and correcting tests etc etc. That is a LOT of extra work. That is one reason I like teaching but don't want a class. The salaries do not actually 'fit' all the extra hours a teacher works. In CA the average isn't too bad... I think it's like 60K. A lot of teachers make less, a few make more, and it's not the best but it's better than poverty level. With a masters and some experience, obviously you make more, but it also depends on your district. Some districts are poorer and have less funding available, and if the district is really low, they don't get a lot of parental support, which also hurts the school in performance.

Back to the extra funding that would be necessary - sorry but you cannot get blood out of a stone. Try as you might, it just won't happen. I believe that American taxpayers are already bled dry and that happened a long time ago. We don't have any more and we don't even wish we had any more because for so long we have not benefitted from the government taking our money. Why would that change now? It won't. We also don't want to be taxed any more, regardless of the reason. We just don't want to be taxed any more. I vote that we shift a lot of the waste of funds for other things back into education, and then if they are able to get the money for optional programs to help kids without taxing us or putting the burden on us, I think that would be acceptable, but it would also have to benefit the teachers, aides, tutors, and administration that would be faced with no time off and see if it was worth it to them.

By the way, it is SO not easy to be a teacher but I have discovered from volunteering and teaching/helping that it is probably the most rewarding thing next to being a parent. . I do caution those that do not have a real heart for it though, don't do it. Teaching kids is not for everybody, teaching ANYBODY is sometimes not the type of job someone should get into lol.

It's one thing to have expertise in something (or some things). It takes other special skills as a teacher, whether as an elemtary or high school school teacher, technical school teacher, or even a college/university professor. The special skills needed are two things. One is that special ability to pass on your own knowledge in such a way that whoever you're teaching actually gains that knowledge. Also, depending on who you are teaching, it also takes a special ability to get to the actual level of whoever you're teaching.

Here's something to clear up a common misconception. It seems that it actually gets tougher, from teaching at a graduate level (people who already graduated college & are going for their master's or doctorates) all the way down to elemtary school levels. I believe that is the main reason that teachers that work in high school & elemtary schools actually need special certificates/licenses, but college professors don't.

Are you talking about certifications, like when you take the C-BEST? There is a certification course I am taking too, but it's not for being a teacher, I don't have a masters. I have considered trying to find some child development classes to take just so I have more background knowledge. I like elementary school level, especially K-2. Once the kids get older, it's harder to keep them from thinking that I'm not just one of them lol.

I forgot the name of the certification program for teachers, but I used to know a teacher who was the chairman of the math department at a high school. He also had his master's degree, & was teaching evenings at a college in the evening (on a part-time basis). This guy was someone that everyone liked, professionally & personally. He had his certification, & it was required by law to work in any of the grades K through 12. From my own experience during the younger days, it does seem that as we got older during our school years, quite a few of us did become harder to teach, because we seemed to have become less disciplined as we grew up.

Once in college, however, it seemed that we sort of grew out of that undisciplined stage, & wanted to learn something for our careers. At the same time, some of these college professors that seemed to have come in from non-English speaking countries, it was kind of tough when trying to hear & understand what they are saying. I never encountered anything like that until college.

I am trying to understand why it takes so long and is so complicated (not to mention expensive) to get a masters. To take the courses that would teach you the appropriate child development and psychology for say - K-6 if that was your focus and all the standards for the state would not really include all the things you'd need if your focus and goal were 7-12 or being a college professor.

My BIL is a PE/health teacher and he coaches sports and also teaches driver's ed. I fail to understand why he would need college/graduate level history, science, english, and math for a position where he teaches PE and health to elementary, junior high, or high school - not to mention teaching high schoolers how to drive lol.*I* fail to understand why*I* would need that either - in order to help teach preschoolers or kindergarteners.

It wouldn't seem so wasteful to get a degree if it didn't take so long and incorporate things you really don't need to know in your job field. I'm not just saying this to say it, I have a friend struggling with 'should I finish my masters or not?' and it depends on her goal. She doesn't want to spend the time and money and then not actually have it be worth it....

Personally, I prefer the younger kids. If you like kids and can teach things in fun ways, kids will be excited about learning. The problem is as they get older that a lot of the teachers get burned out, or they have a lot of distraction and behavioral problems with older kids. It's slightly more acceptable to have a six year old who can't sit still more than 20 minutes than it is to have a 15 year old who can't sit still more than 20 minutes... and the six year old's tantrum may be a lot easier to deal with than the 15 year old's....

Also, the building blocks for learning - READING and comprehension - are beginning to be taught in preschool, kindergarten, and continued from there. If you have kids who can't read in 5th grade, it's going to affect their learning in every other subject. I think it is almost more important for students to get a BETTER more QUALITY education when they are very young, if any particular group is going to get more funding or focus. I do not mean MORE time and MORE work though. I just mean better quality, smaller classes, more supplies and resources, teacher aides, tutors, hands-on activities.

AND I guess I just need a real explanation for why anybody would require a person who teaches preschoolers or kindergarteners to have graduate level calculus, european history, creative writing for college students, anatomy and physiology, etc. I have been thinking and thinking and there doesn't seem to be any practical, applicable, acceptable, or realistic reason for it, other than we have a government and educational system that prefers waste and is greedy lol. I have even HEARD teachers complain about it. Would you spend almost 100K and 6 or more years of your life taking courses you weren't even interested in to fulfill a requirement for a degree - and then never even use the bulk of the knowledge gained in most of those courses in your chosen job field afterwards?

As far as college level, I believe at that point a lot of people simply weed themselves out. People who really DON'T want more school and can't afford it simply don't go. People who don't want more school but their parents can afford it and MAKE them do go, but those are the people you hear about who get busted having big drinking parties or who get run over on campus... Then you have the people who DO want to go. Clearly the people who go to class every day and study and complete their papers do want to go, the responsibility has shifted. It's not like K-12 where you HAVE to go and where over 50% of the time, there's no tuition involved. Unless you go to some private school, you don't have to apply and get accepted either, you just go. The key is you want kids to take ownership of their schooling and learning, but some of them just won't. They have to WANT to care before anything else makes much of a difference.

I'm not sure what to think about the college professors from elsewhere but at least it's a good thing they are college level. I don't know what we'd do with a K or 1st grade teacher who spoke such accented english that the english learners couldn't understand ANYTHING...

I believe that a backelor's degree is sufficient to get a teaching certificate to teach the younger children. All that a master's gets you - if that - is an extra differential added to your paycheck.

It seems that you got me as to why all those courses are needed if you want to stay within that younger age group. Uh - it seems that you stumped a Klingon

However, you do need a master's to teach at a college, & a doctorate to teach at a university. However, quite often, at a university, teaching is not the highest priority. It's getting research contracts, & doing that research. Ironically, you usually don't need a teaching certificate to teach at the college level.

You brought up another cost factor that I forgot about in my response above yours - air conditioning. There is the cost of maintaining the units, as well as the cost of the electricity to run them.

I think about that too... the extra cost in maintaining everything year round. It is by no means inexpensive to run a school. My daughter's school isn't even a very LARGE school, but there is a decent sized support staff. They have regular groundskeepers and custodians, there are proctors and cafeteria workers, English/Spanish translators and support staff for special education. This school did get an allotment of funds for after school tutoring, and they have a gifted type of program but as far as I'm aware, the after school tutoring is strictly being used to help the kids who are falling behind or are already below average and only going down. The gifted program I think does not include kindergarten.

Electricity and gas is expensive, heating and air conditioning is a daily thing. Bus transpo too, for a lot of kids. That means you have maintenance and gas for the bus and bus drivers and sometimes support staff. The school lost their dedicated PE teacher because they lost funding for it. Tell me there isn't something WRONG with that! Obama is sitting there saying 'kids should be in school more' yet the schools cannot even reliably keep a PE teacher on staff during a regular school year because THERE ARE NO FUNDS FOR IT. We SHARE a vice principal with another school! The music teacher gets one day a week per grade and then they must try and do a music program that fits each grade - but there may be more than 100 kids from each grade! It's just very frustrating. And sadly enough, this school is doing better than other elementaries in the district. If we are being shorted and squeezed that much, what is happening with other schools? Do they even have chalk or dry erase markers for their boards? Do they have enough paper for copies? Are there books for each student? It's a nightmare, wondering about those things which should be certainties.

I rant about the taxes because I cannot see a single good thing all this 'government stealing' is doing. I wish they were obligated to show in black and white on a graph with explanations EXACTLY where each of our taxpayer dollars goes. THEN I think we as taxpayers should have the right to VOTE whether or not we want OUR money going to those things, and if we disagree, WE should get to decide where that money gets spent, and the government should have to spend every cent where we want it spent. For instance, I do not want taxpayer dollars being wasted on signs proclaiming that 'the economic stimulus is working'. Seriously, they just wasted 30K on a stupid sign half the population can't even read because they are illiterate or don't speak English! The rest of us? WE DIDN'T WANT OUR MONEY WASTED ON A DAMN SIGN!

Well, because I am not petty and closed minded, I chose to rate you positively even though you disagree with me. That isn't the issue, and it's fine if you disagree, but you need to realize that perhaps we come from two different backgrounds. I dislike being lumped in with 'a group' just because 9 out of 10 people have trouble in school or 'lose' what they learned over the summer. If it doesn't apply to me, why the heck would I have to conform? That is really what this is about, giving options, not orders.

As far as my comment about Obama's successor, what I'm hoping is that the next person actually has the best interests of EVERYBODY at heart, not some blanket idea that everybody is the same and everybody will benefit from one size fits all campaign of 'you WILL do it this way and this way only'. I have stated repeatedly in this thread that I am totally FOR options! Choices! Sure, offer year round school at SOME schools in each district, or offer it as a choice at all schools - but a choice, not mandatory. I'm sorry, I just bristle when someone says 'you HAVE to do this' when there is no shred of evidence why I HAVE to. I dont' do anything 'just because someone else does' or 'because you're supposed to'. I do things because I want to, because it makes sense to me, because it benefits me, my kids, my family, my friends, etc. Those are the only reasons I do things. If you tell me I have to, that's the first reason I won't.

I'm sorry that your experience in school was negative, and I'm sorry that you were anxious because of the time you were off, but not everybody's situation is like yours. Some people work or travel in the summer, go to camp, go on vacation. Some things are specifically planned with that time in mind. My daughter takes swimming lessons in the summer and we also do a lot of activities with friends. This coming summer she may even be able to go to a summer day camp at a new park, and since she now has friends in the neighborhood, they'd all get to see each other every day there and do games and crafts, run and play, and even learn some cool new things. I also think you are confusing being out of school with 'no education'. There is still plenty of learning going on, but it is not book learning, rote learning, sitting in class listening to a teacher learning. There is little to no paperwork but plenty of information out there being added via experiences.

As an adult, I can tell you that the majority of what has helped me is internal motivation, persistence, and confidence. You can't teach those things, you have them or you don't. You can learn them but you have to care and you have to want them. School did not 'prepare me' for a job. I got part time jobs as a teen because I knew I'd need the experience in order to land and keep a full time job. I needed the job initially to put aside and save money to support myself. After I was on my own, it was just necessary to continue supporting myself, and the goal of course is to continue up through the ranks, get a better job, get more money. I am extremely grateful looking back that I had those summers to work part time, to goof off with friends, to experience life. I am grateful that I was able to get my work done in school so I had after school time to play with my siblings, my friends, hang out with my parents, read, run around, etc. When I got older I was grateful for that time to earn my own money, to participate in sports, music, drama, scouts, stuff like that. I would never wish I could look back and say 'yay, I spent all that time in school'.

You cannot MAKE or FORCE anybody to learn. You can put opportunities out there but only some people will take them. The key here is to encourage opportunities and make them available to the greatest amount of people, not FORCE people to take advantage of them. If you can convince people to care, you've done 90% of the job, but again, it just won't apply to some people. There may be an excellent English language learners program at my daughter's school but we don't fall in that group, so why should someone beat me over the head trying to get me to get involved? I'm trying to get you to see an example of why I believe in choice and not making EVERYBODY do it.

Do you honestly think EVERYBODY should have to be included in a program or way of doing something that isn't going to benefit them because they don't need it?