The title is a quote from Kathy Christie, a policy analyst at the Denver-based Education Commission of the States, which appears in an AP article entitled U.S. schools weigh extending hours, year (the link is from the Boston Globe).
The primary motivation for many schools and systems to consider extending time in school is concern about test scores (NCLB). Often there are unfavorable comparisons with other nations, where students spend far more time than the 6.5 hours times 180 days that is the American standard. Were these the only issues discussed in the article I would probably not take the time to bring it to your attention. But as the title I have used shows, there is more.
I am going to offer a couple of quotes I found exceedingly interesting. I will as is my wont also offer a bit of my own commentary. And as per my usual practice I do encourage you to read the entire article.
There has been much focus on the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) schools, where there is not only an extended school day, but also Saturday school. This enables KIPP schools to provide about 50% more instructional time than traditional public schools. But KIPP has a focus on core subjects, the kinds which are subject to the tests driving educational policy through NCLB. What is interesting as that the approach being used experimentally in Massachusetts is not so narrowly focused:
Schools that are experimenting with longer days are adding more down time and enrichment courses, as well as reading and math.
This is important, because children are at different points developmentally, and haven varied interests. If we could not hae something that breaks up the monotony and invokes their natural interest and curiousity, it is unlikely we could get them to focus even for the 6.5 hour day that is now standard. The following quote is an important recognition:
Massachusetts' education commissioner, David Driscoll, said the offbeat classes get kids excited about a longer day.
"Once they're engaged, they'll learn other lessons," Driscoll said. "I think the big mistake that everybody makes is they think that education is all about the academics."
Let me repeat, in bold, the key words in that quote, words that I think need to be hammered home in our debates over education: I think the big mistake that everybody makes is they think that education is all about the academics. That's right, education is NOT all about "academics." It is about helping the child learn how to learn, to organize, to connect... And it was when I read that sentence that I knew I needed to share this article.
And the next quote struck me even more:
U.S. Rep. George Miller, the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said he likes the way schools in Massachusetts have invited community organizations to help with some enrichment courses.
"If you're just extending the day to bore the hell out of the child, why don't we all just all go home and save the overtime. You've got to rethink these models," said Miller, D-Calif.
Now the foregoing quote from George Miller may require some explanation. First, the experiment in Massachusetts is different from KIPP in that it is up to teachers if they wish to work the extended day (not all do, and because it is an option the NEA chapter has not offered a position on it), and they can earn up to $20,000 a year more if they do work the extended day (unlike KIPP where the pay is lower than public schools for a day that is longer and without union protection). Miller recognizes that with children we have to recognize they cannot just keep their nose to the strict academic grindstone. It would be counterproductive to extend the day in nothing but pure "academics." For me at least that raises a question - why is there no recognition of this in the drafting of NCLB? If having a pure academic day for 8 hours is a problem, perhaps we should be considering whether for K-5 even 6.5 hours might be too much? The original NCLB legislation did not address this issue, there is no serious consideration of it in the 75 recommendations from the commission from the Aspen Institute and there is no funding (the real recognition) in the budget proposal of the Bush Department of Education.
We have oodles of evidence that there has been extensive narrowing of the curriculum, especially in those schools and for those students NCLB was in theory supposed to help. Middle class schools did not have the same pressures on test scores and the families were better able to provide access to the enriching activities. Thus NCLB has been exacerbating the inequities with which children arrive at school, inequities that are an unfortunate part of our social and economic structure. Imagin yourself as an energetic elementary school student. Don't even think about an 8 hour day, only the current 6.5 hours. Now go reread the quote I used for the title, and see if you understand the problem.
The program in MA is focused on elementary and middle schools. Note the following from the article:
Extending the day has not been tackled extensively in high schools where many students have afterschool jobs or play sports.
We have economic and social structures that are an essential part of the enviroment in which our high schools operate which do not make it easy to change how we do high school. Our Education Uprising project, which is attempting to offer a new design to education and schools, will attempt to offer a solution to this problem, one that is not original to us. The school day is one part of the issue. The school year is another: think of the summer camps, amusement parks, resorts, summer schools, enrichment programs. Think how much of our economy is currently dependent at least in part on the fact of high school (and younger) students being off from school for two months. Addressing this part of our education system CANNOT be done in isolation from the rest of our economy.
The longer school day and school year also come into conflict with the lives of teachers. It is not just that teachers often have families of their own. Had I small children, how would I be able to stay for an extended day if my own children were not in a similar schooling situation? And what about the continuing education which we expect of teachers? For many teachers it is very difficult now to take more than one class at a time after a 6.5 hour school day (and remember, for many teachers there isup to half that amount of time each day outside of the school hours in planning, correcting student work, writing letters of recommendation, doing other paper work, calling parents, etc.). Were the school year extended how would teachers be able to do intensive summer workshops, or take courses, or go to workshops sponsored at colleges and universities by programs like NEH, NSF, Gilder Lerhman, and the like?
Please note - in raising these concerns, I do not intend to reject out of hand consideration of changing the school day or the school year. I am quite open to the idea of experimentation. I offered the article because it is one of the first times I have seen clear recognition of the need for children to have access to things like recess and "non-academic" classes as a part of their education. And if major figures like Miller and Driscoll can make the comments they have made, just maybe MEANINGFUL educational reform is possible.
But that is the subject for other diaries. For now, how about we process, and react to, what is in this article? I will be interested in your reactions, as always.
Peace.