Thread by @ClaraJeffery

Aligning the school day with the work day would be a huge benefit to working parents, especially women and super especially single moms. Everything about the way school is set up STILL assumes one parent is always free to pick up/have conferences motherjones.com/politics/2019/…

Lengthening the school day needn’t mean all that time is spent on academics. Kids could have more creative/play time.

Whatever this does for Harris’ presidential ambitions we need to start figuring out how to make schools work in tandem with working parents to the benefit of all. What we have now is getting more and more untenable.

whew, the people who don't bother to read the article or proposal are really out in force on this one. Many of whom don't seem to know anything about kids/school. Or, in the case of some, how education/aftercare works in the countries that they claim to emulate works.

For the people arguing that instead we should cut the adult working day to 5 hrs seem to not realize that childcare is ALSO work, sometimes more drugery than job work. You wouldn't shorten a parent's working day, you just change its composition.

Let's say I work an 8 hr day. With kids, particularly young kids, you easily tack another 3-4 hours onto that day. If my job ended at my kid's 3:30 dismissal time, it's not like I can go take a pottery class in those extra hours, unless I HAVE CHILDCARE.

Should childcare, and the freedom to make employment and leisure choices that come with it be only available to the rich? No. What is the best way to equitably distribute such childcare? The schools. Should extra hours of care fall to existing staff with no additional pay. No.

But anybody who's arguing that providing equitable childcare so as to level out work/leisure opportunity across class and gender is somehow neoliberal? Uh, no. It's the exact same argument as universal preschool or healthcare FFS.

And I gotta assume that anyone making such an argument from the left has no kids, never helped out in any serious way with their younger siblings, has an editor and/or take-cohort with no kids.

At least those arguing from the right are more honest about their sexist goals.

The obvious benefits of aftercare are supervision/safety + whatever academic/athletic/arts enrichments are provided. Do we only want those things for rich kids?

And, as this study notes, many more knock-on benefits could be possible, need more study: rand.org/pubs/perspecti…

Another thing that universal aftercare would provide is JOBS. Quite likely many of which would be union jobs.

But for some it seems that dunking on Harris is a more important than avoiding making a sexist, classist, anti-job argument.