3 ms·

The answer is easy - so that the schoolday is over by 1 PM and the children can indulge in activities not organized by the school in the afternoon. One might g

The answer is easy - so that the schoolday is over by 1 PM and the children can indulge in activities not organized by the school in the afternoon. One might go to the public library, play sports in a sports club, or - God prevent! - socialize with friends. This is important. The mindset is that it isn't the school that is running the students' lives, it is the students and the students' families. Unlike in America, life for school-age children does not revolve around the school.

jacalata 12y ago
But the school is running their lives, by making everyone be up, dressed, breakfasted and at school by a horrifically early time of day. When I was in elementary school in Australia (9am-3.30pm) I managed to do plenty of sports, public library visits and time running around the street with friends, while also getting to wake up at a reasonable hour (7am) and have a leisurely breakfast and some play time before leaving for school at 8.30am.
thinkpad20 12y ago
That seems like it would make it difficult to be a working parent, unless they provide for after-school programs. For a household with no stay-at-home parent, a long school day isn't just about education; it's about not having to sacrifice a career for you child's education.
- jacalata 12y ago
  That's the "school as daycare" model, requiring all children to be in "daycare" all day to meet the needs of some parents. They should be separate (compulsory school times, surrounded by available and convenient daycare at the same location).
  - thinkpad20 12y ago
    Regardless of what you call it, parents who don't have the luxury (or desire) to stay at home all day need a way to take care of their children. That's a pressing real-world problem for millions of parents, not just "some". And it makes perfect sense to entrust the schools with that responsibility (in part, if not in whole): they do it anyway, for some amount of the day, and they have great resources for children (sports teams and equipment, books, musical instruments, knowledgeable teachers, etc).
    - jacalata 12y ago
      So you're arguing that daycare should be compulsory, even for kids who don't need it.
      - thinkpad20 12y ago
        No; I'm arguing that access to daycare should be available to those who need it. And parenthetically stating that that is not a bad thing :)
        jacalata 12y ago
        ok - so I think we actually agree mostly. The system I grew up in had daycare available at the school, starting around 8am and going to 6pm. School itself only went from 9am to 3.30pm - so kids who had supervision available at home, or friends houses, etc, only had to be there at those hours. It sounds like you'd agree that system would meet parents needs without putting excessive restrictions on families that didn't need the care?

jacalata 12y ago

But the school is running their lives, by making everyone be up, dressed, breakfasted and at school by a horrifically early time of day. When I was in elementary school in Australia (9am-3.30pm) I managed to do plenty of sports, public library visits and time running around the street with friends, while also getting to wake up at a reasonable hour (7am) and have a leisurely breakfast and some play time before leaving for school at 8.30am.

thinkpad20 12y ago

That seems like it would make it difficult to be a working parent, unless they provide for after-school programs. For a household with no stay-at-home parent, a long school day isn't just about education; it's about not having to sacrifice a career for you child's education.

jacalata 12y ago
That's the "school as daycare" model, requiring all children to be in "daycare" all day to meet the needs of some parents. They should be separate (compulsory school times, surrounded by available and convenient daycare at the same location).
- thinkpad20 12y ago
  Regardless of what you call it, parents who don't have the luxury (or desire) to stay at home all day need a way to take care of their children. That's a pressing real-world problem for millions of parents, not just "some". And it makes perfect sense to entrust the schools with that responsibility (in part, if not in whole): they do it anyway, for some amount of the day, and they have great resources for children (sports teams and equipment, books, musical instruments, knowledgeable teachers, etc).
  - jacalata 12y ago
    So you're arguing that daycare should be compulsory, even for kids who don't need it.
    - thinkpad20 12y ago
      No; I'm arguing that access to daycare should be available to those who need it. And parenthetically stating that that is not a bad thing :)
      - jacalata 12y ago
        ok - so I think we actually agree mostly. The system I grew up in had daycare available at the school, starting around 8am and going to 6pm. School itself only went from 9am to 3.30pm - so kids who had supervision available at home, or friends houses, etc, only had to be there at those hours. It sounds like you'd agree that system would meet parents needs without putting excessive restrictions on families that didn't need the care?