For the breakfast programs issue, I wanted to point out an important aspect of the history of those programs: they were created to respond to a need that those

For the breakfast programs issue, I wanted to point out an important aspect of the history of those programs: they were created to respond to a need that those communities had by individuals outside of the country or state government school system. When we talk about the issues with US education, we have to realize that many of those issues are caused or made worse by the top-down nature of implementing policy. As you rightly point out, those policies don't necessarily (or usually, even) come from within communities to address their specific needs. Indeed a lot of current state and federal policy revolves around more top down influence: using standardized tests to remove individual consideration of performance, replacing experienced teachers with less experienced teachers to reduce money spent on salaries and benefits, attempting to template-ize teaching curriculums instead of relying on teacher's professional training and experience, opening more state and federal dollars to charter schools (which as you point out have less oversight and accountability even by current metrics). When we talk about the Scandinavian model, those things are essential to helping to address the needs of communities most harmed by the aforementioned policies. We need more professionalism from staff, more opportunity for people in those communities to shape the programs that serve students. School systems were never designed to be social services institutions that attempt to alleviate all of the social ills that exist in the community. Since schools currently do not accomplish that kind of a mission, to increase the school day and push for more time in school is a form a punishment where you are intentionally removed from your community, family, and friends for simply existing in a poor community (a community that is likely to be color, no less).