I think if we (including schools) acknowledge schools role, also, as childcare, then we are doomed.
Education and keeping a child busy are very very different things and should be different. Else the quality of education, which is already not held as high as it used to be, will erode further.
This does cause problems, but maybe if schools acknowledged that they were childcare they would be better equipped to deal with some of those problems? Or even the structure of schools might change to better accommodate this requirement.
Now whether or not schools should be primarily childcare is an entirely separate debate.
Totally agree. Our current school schedule is based on a 1930's farm schedule and hasn't changed in the last 100 years.
Currently school is trying to do education, socialization and childcare in one big lump and doing all poorly.
I fear though, that if school was not responsible for childcare, there would be no support at all for childcare for working parents - and we've seen the disastrous childcare crisis already in effect for ages 0-5. So this problem needs attention too.
I agree. As a parent, I both want my kids to learn, and I want care for them so I can work. I think if we were more honest about both these needs, we could do better at both. I have seen a certain mania that schools are only for education, and it leads to crazy things like expecting five year olds to spend 45 minutes per day writing, or otherwise asking kids to sit and learn for a lot more of the day than they can really tolerate - as opposed to more outside time, more play time, more movement. It's ok to be a school and a daycare!
Semi-related, I know I'm responsible for deciding to have kids, but the ongoing functioning of society relies on a continuous supply of people to keep it running. I sure hope some people are still working after I retire! It would be nice if the U.S. could support parents more than we currently do.
School from 9am to 3pm at a young age when childcare is most required is ridiculously long hours. This suggests to me that schools already take on much of the daycare role. That to me also seems very wrong.
School should first and foremost concern itself with effective education. If children can only study effectively for 2-3 hours a day, that is how long schoolday should last. Parents that need childcare should seek it elsewhere - that should be outside of the scope of schools' responsibilities.
You assume that the primary role of the regular schools is to educate children, it may very well be that the primary role is to keep children busy so parents have time to work. Even if teaching as a role is replaced, there is still a cost for monitoring children while parents are working.
The thing is that school acts as child care for 60-70% of the work day and it makes it not very viable to offer alternative services for the other 30% as there are not enough hours remaining to offer full time work.
I generally agree with the "school is a waste of time" sentiment, except that it does mean an additional burden for parents who now have to deal with carers for their kid during the work week.
To be clear, I think educators should and do serve a much more important role in society than mere babysitters. My choice of words was because so many people are raising the issue of “what about parents with rigid work schedules” as if school only exists so parents can work.
That emphasizes that the purpose of school isn't as much to educate children as it is to provide an economy of scale for babysitting so that more adults can participate in the workforce.
I wonder how that dynamic will interact with the decreasing need for adults in the workforce.
Most parents are trying to juggle a full schedule of teaching and jobs at the moment. I don’t think it’s fair to compare that against an environment dedicated to learning (ish).
It's concerning that this conflation of teaching and childcare is being normalized now. It leads to unnecessarily long school hours in the US. The school is set up as the only source of social interaction, that absolves parents from setting up any other sort of familial and social interactions for their kids.
> But getting kids out of the house so parents can work and into a social environment where they see other kids is extremely important for most families and society as a whole.
Yes, and that can be accomplished in a variety of ways, of which schools are one way (probably the riskiest way, in the current pandemic). Take your kids to the playground in the evening. Set up social playdates with other families. Let your kid sleep over at the neighbor's house. Let them visit their cousins and grandparents. Let them walk to school with other kids. Give a firm "no" to your boss for that 4pm meeting!
From what I have seen, most American kids seem to have no friends near where they live, and most American families have too many helicopter parents to let these normal channels of social interaction to work as intended. So they prefer that teachers serve as the helicopter for the majority of their workday instead.
Normalization of the workday to adjust to the fact that most families have working parents is what's needed, not saddling teachers with absorbing that extra load of childcare in addition to teaching.
Does it actually make sense to put all children below a certain age in a big building for the majority of the day, where they spend all their time with other children of the same age, taking classes from teachers who serve as their only consistent contact with the adult world outside their own home?"
Yes, because like it or not, our current set up sees a large secondary function for school: babysitter.
The larger problem when dealing with what to do about school is addressing this issue.
"Schools as daycare" is a bit of an oversimplification. For starters, many people have rigid work schedules and do not have the luxury of getting their kid to school at an arbitrary time.
That sounds more like daycare than school. Children don't need daycare. They should go to school to learn and at other times be out playing with other children. Teachers are supposed to be good at teaching, not good at looking after children. That's what the parents are for.
It’s not an analogy. One of school’s main purposes along with sorting and ranking and reducing their tendency to creativity and independent thought is day care.
Sure. And I struggle with this balance myself as a parent. But schools do have some very strong responsibility in education - otherwise why are we giving them prime 8 to 12 to 16 years of our lives? And we pay them and kids spend more time with them than with us (we do not contrary to your post have 168hrs a week with them! Kids go to school and play with their friends and sleep and do other activities. School is by far the biggest chunk of their time pie graph!) .
When viewed from that perspective our expectations should be high, while not dismissing our our part as parents and supporters of the school. I don't like the north American attitude toward teachers, but i disagree we should not absolve education system of basic education responsibilities.
I think that this point of view ignores the fact that a big under acknowledged purpose for public school is daycare. The school day needs to be long enough to give the parents time to go to work.
Not sure what the solution is here but I don't think shortening the day will work due to this.
Education and keeping a child busy are very very different things and should be different. Else the quality of education, which is already not held as high as it used to be, will erode further.
IMHO.
reply