3 ms·

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

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?

3 ms·

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

by thinkpad20 12y ago

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?