With the “Back to School” ads appearing, many parents of school age children are secretly counting down the days and so are a surprising number of studious and totally bored kids. In the midst of that nine-week gap in K-12 schooling, politicians and the public could be forgiven for raising a few serious questions: Could students do with fewer holidays? Do they really need all that time off? And what’s the impact of lengthy gaps and the relatively short school year on student learning and achievement?
The dog days of mid-summer can be a challenge for house-bound families without ready access to cottages, camps, and recreational programs. Time hangs heavy for most kids when the heat rises, friends are away, and even those X-Box video games become monotonous. For the in-betweens, young teens ages 12 to 16, hanging out at the mall, around the empty schoolyard, or behind the railway tracks can be tiresome. Summer jobs today are hard to come-by and, late in the summer, American cities and towns report increased rates of juvenile crime as well as more risk-taking behaviours. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/459031
Expanding learning time is now a high profile public issue in the United States, where President Barack Obama has challenged educators to “rethink the school calendar” and called for a longer school year. On the NBC Today Show in September 2010, he based his case on the fact that in high performing school systems like Korea kids go to school a month longer each year. Indeed, eight of 31 countries in the OECD now have school years of 195 days or more. http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2010/09/obama-continues-to-support-year-round-school-for-americans-video/
A Toronto Globe and Mail “Time to Lead” series on the School Calendar in June 2011 put the issue squarely on the Canadian public agenda, but with a different twist. While recognizing that lengthening the school year might have an impact, lead reporter Tralee Pearce focused almost exclusively on the case –for and against—a lengthy summer break. Tampering with the conventional calendar of 185 six-and-a-half hour days was considered verboten. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/does-year-round-schooling-make-the-grade/article2057863/
Time matters in public education, it seems, except when it comes to the length of school holidays and the duration of the instructional day. Studies by the OECD have established a clear link between the amount of learning time and student performance on international tests. OECD’s Cassandra Davis of “Education Today” made this prediction: “With policymakers focusing on staying internationally competitive through improving education, school may be out for a shorter summer in the future.” https://community.oecd.org/community/educationtoday/blog/2010/08/03/school-s-still-out-for-summer
Why is the Canadian debate so narrowly circumscribed? It comes down to this: In the Canadian system, teachers’ union contracts, strictly limit both the school year and the duration of the teaching day. That tends to short circuit the discussion and to doom all proposals for so-called “year round schools” to failure and to suffocate any discussion of a longer school day.
The phenomenon of “summer learning loss” is now a vitally-important issue for American education authorities, especially in the wake of the U.S. dismal results on the 2009 PISA tests. In April of 2011, a TIME Act was introduced in the U.S. Congress aimed at providing grants to states adding at least 300 hours to the school year in low performing schools. A Summer 2011 study by the National Center on Time and Learning demonstrates that many states are already heeding the President’s call for a longer school year by cutting back on holiday time. http://www.timeandlearning.org/
Previous initiatives since the early 1990s to introduce “Modified School Year” (MSY) plans in Canada have met with limited success. Most such initiatives hold fast to the conventional 180 day minimum model and simply break the year up in a more symmetrical fashion. After two decades, the Calgary School Board has had some success, but fewer than 100 Canadian schools have adopted the unfairly labelled “year-round-school” model. http://www.cbe.ab.ca/calendars/default.asp
Research supporting the move to a MSY is rather inconclusive. One oft cited study by Eileen C. Winter (2005) focused solely on a small sample of Ontario early years teachers and reaffirmed previous assumptions about “learning loss,” particularly among at-risk students. Some modest gains were reported in student attendance and attitudes, but not enough to justify a wholesale change in most communities. http://www.mpsd.ca/pdfs/A_Modified_School_Year.pdf
Expanding learning time by adding school days or hours to the instructional day would have much more benefit. The PISA test results support the OECD’s contention that lengthening the school year can produce measurable results in student achievement.
American public charter schools, like those sponsored by the KIPP Foundation and the Citizen Schools, provide further evidence. Extending the school year and offering required extended day activities are, according to the NCTL, “fundamentally changing the trajectory of students’ lives in high poverty communities.” http://www.timeandlearning.org/learningtimeinamerica/learningtimeinamerica.html
Tinkering with the summer holiday schedule may provide some solace for families without the means to keep kids fully occupied during the summer. Reducing the summer break from nine to six weeks would be a start, but only by significantly expanding learning time will we be able to keep pace with the leading countries in the educational world. It’s time to revamp teacher contracts and remove what the 1994 NTL Commission described as “the shackles of time” from our schools.
What’s stopping us from rethinking the School Calendar in most of Canada’s provinces? Why have ambitious moves to Modified School Year plans mostly fizzled since the early 1990s? Would simply reapportioning the holiday periods have much of an impact on student learning? Can we remain competitive with the world’s educational leaders without expanding our actual classroom learning time?
What’s stopping us from rethinking the School Calendar in most of Canada’s provinces?
Nothing. It’s being tried in various parts of Ontario. It adds an element of choice to the spectrum.
If there was one thing stopping a whole rethink on the Calendar it’s that we’ve become used to having existing holidays and time off. Old habits are hard to change.
THEN, there are the teacher union contracts. However, I’m betting that when teachers see that there are choices to be had those contracts can get flexible.
Why have plans to modify school years fizzled?
Because crappy programs and methodology doesn’t change and the diddling around with calendars gives the illusion of progress when in fact achievement may not change for the better.
Re: Can we remain competitive without expanding actually classroom learning time?
We could if we could ensure in-class learning time was spent effectively and not on the flavours-of-the-decade like character education, fundraising/charitable events and way to many extra-curriculars that happen which cut into the school day, including things like weekly assemblies.
Watching the NBC Today interview (September 27, 2010) with President Barack Obama again can be very instructive. In the half-hour interview with Matt Lauer, Obama identified reforming education as a top priority and outlines a bold strategy for closing the achievement gap.
He is very firm on the issue of expanding learning time and pushing for a longer school year:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/39378291#39378291
American education is clearly in crisis and faces much bigger challenges than we do here in Canada. What the interview demonstrates, however, is the vital importance of national leadership in school reform.
Without a federal presence in education, except for CMEC, we lack the capacity to promote system-wide change and the provinces simply content themselves with competing with one another for bragging rights when it comes to levels of student achievement. The recent gutting of the Canadian Council for Learning can only make matters worse: depriving us of the regular, ongoing,independent research on how Canadian students are actually performing in relation to the world’s best.
One prime example: It’s now almost impossible to assess how the various provinces compare when it comes to learning time. In the 2009 OECD Comparative analysis, Canada was not among the 31 countries surveyed for number of school days, total hours of instruction, and actual teaching time. That only serves the interest of those defending the status quo.
“The recent gutting of the Canadian Council for Learning can only make matters worse: depriving us of the regular, ongoing,independent research on how Canadian students are actually performing in relation to the world’s best.”
What guarantee was there to the public that the Canadian Council for Learning was impartial?
I, for one have learned, through my own experience with our education system that very little is truly independent when it comes to research – one side or the other always has their own agenda to weave into things.
I’m not sure that any “council” funded by a government would necessarily be impartial because governments aren’t impartial.
Perhaps we should be looking outside of government for that leadership – like individual communities to make changes that suit their own communities?
Does it gall you so much that CCL was “gutted” by the CONServatives that now one needs to question their impartiality in order to justify the “gutting”? The CCL was highly critical of our public education and its deterioration over the past several years – as you and I are.
And where would you look for “leadership” outside government when the very concept of public education is that it is publicly funded with taxpayers’ money?
Andrew – it doesn’t gall me at all that the CCL was nixed…I don’t care who did the nixing.
I simply don’t trust that government run ANYTHING can be truly impartial OR get us closer to better educating our kids.
I believe that all effective change and leadership is found locally because that is truly where there’s a hope of making a difference. The less hierarchy and tiers to decision making the better.
If school boards were actually doing their jobs instead of being handy puppets for government we might have a shot at moving leadership up the ladder to where it could be provincial or federal in scope.
The gutting of CCL is a serious matter because it was the only real independent authority capable of analyzing Canada’s performance on international tests and potentially spearheading a national learning time initiative.
Since the early 1990s, Dr. Paul Cappon has been a major force in getting us back in the international testing game. He convinced the Ministers of Education to adopt the initial National Student Achievement Indicators project and pushed hard to get us back into PISA. He was every bit as committed as Dr. Dennis Raphael, one of the Ontario Coalition for Education Reform founders.
When it comes to countering the claims of the CEA and its member unions, CCL -sponsored research was critically important. From 2000 onward, CCL produced some great research on Canadian world rankings, dropout rates, utilizing new technologioes, and early childhood education. Most of those studies were conducted by independent university researchers who were not “embedded” in CTF, CUPE, or the PSAC.
A critical point to remember: When the 2009 PISA results were announced, it was Cappon and the CCL that countered the teacher union spin and insisted that Canadian 14-year-olds had “plateaued” and that too few of our students demonstrated mastery in mathematics and science at the higher levels. The Globe’s Education reporter Kate Hammer told me that he was virtually the only recognized Canadian authority on international standards with much credibility. I readily agreed with her assessment.
I tend to be skeptical myself of government-sponsored research, but CCL was a different kind of arms-length foundation. Sad to say, but Canada’s corporate sector has not contributed much to research promoting educational accountability. The CD Howe Institute, the Fraser Institute, and AIMS have a broader mandate and only the CCL conducted systematic studies of how the Canadian K-12 system was performing.
CCL was NOT a government-controlled entity by any stretch. They were independent and objective… probably the reason they were de-funded.
School boards ARE governments.
Run for office, Catherine.
This was the question on a local Halifax Rock radio station last week,”Summer’s over for students at Roberta Bondar School in Ontario… The balanced calendar school operates year round by spreading traditional vacation time throughout the year. They say students return from shorter holidays rested and spend less time on reviewing past material.
Today on Citizen Q… Should schools in Nova Scotia adopt the Balanced Calendar approach?”
They got 27 responses on their fb page and on their survey question, about 75% of the voters were opposed to any school in summer. (total of 64 voters)
Here was my comment on their question,” I think it is a great concept and would work if done properly. I imagine Roberta Bondar school is full of students who are motivated to be there, either by their own interests or the fact that their parents are paying for them to succeed there. I can see that parents in this region are spending alot of money on some awesome summer camps. The summer break is a great time for kids to spend some time doing what they love, whether it’s drama camp or a sports’s camp or science, etc. So, there is a “market” for some type of summer education programs. I don’t think that our outdated school system is the vehicle to provide this nice balanced approach school year referred to in the question. It’s already been said that the NSTU would never allow it, nor would all parents want it. I say let the private schools and camps develop their programs as they see fit. The HRSB would only see the whole idea as a chance to raise revenue, as they started Excel camps this summer for the money. I haven’t heard how well attended they were or what was offered as far as programming goes. I wouldn’t think they came close to matching some of the great camps available.”
As far as my own kids are concerned, my son has been away all summer and gets home next week. He did a week private pilot liscense course through cadets. For years, when he was younger, he did two week long Rock camps until he outgrew that. My daughter does cheerleading one day a week all summer and just did the Atlantic Cirque camp for a week and wished it had been a two week camp. My youngest did a one week camp at Neptune Theater and would have stayed there all summer, I think.
I really feel that summer is an opportunity to kick back, chill, visit with family and enjoy the weather, the beaches , the lakes. But, some kids like to have some structured time doing whatever it is that turnes their crank, so to speak. My kids are in the lucky category to have parents who can provide these opportunities. I feel for the kids who would love to participate instead of hanging at the mall or getting into trouble. Maybe there is something the Dept of Education could do for them in the summer too, but advertising a math course will not attract them. it would have to be fun, challenging and if they could hide some math concepts or critical thinking in there, the kids will learn and they wouldn’t even realise it.
So, what is stopping us from re-thinking the school year? The unions and the rest of us. It seems too complicated to make such a huge change in the way it has worked since we can all remember. Also, not everyone wants the Deptment of Education to dictate what they will be doing with their summers. I would actually rather make my own plans myself, to be honest.
Will we have better outcomes if we simply reapportion the holiday periods? Not necessarily. Try and imagine the smile on the teacher’s faces who have to come in to teach the students in July, no A/C and the kids don’t want to be there doing the same old boring stuff they just a few weeks ago. Unless they make these few weeks in the summer school totally awesome, it will be a waste of everyone’s time and effort making the change.
To the last question about remaining competetive, some would probably argue on here that we aren’t competetive now, but I think we are. I guess I’m going for the status Quo with my answer on this one.
I like the idea that there are and could be many options that would include school year calendar options for parents.
With my own kids, learning didn’t stop when the school year was over, actually, some of the coaches and instructors they had doing things like swimming or playing soccer taught them more education when it comes to the lessons of skill building, competition, sportsmanship than did the school.
Our vacation time was always refreshing and less stressful for us as a family then school actually. Sometimes it felt that school interfered too much in some aspects of family life and recreation (trips to Wonderland and theme parks) than we liked.
Beware of those who present this issue as strictly a matter of cutting into summer holiday time.The Balanced Schedule proposals being bandied about are really just warmed-over versions of the Modified School Year, a proposal that leads with “cutting your summers” and has been flogged repeatedly since the early 1990s.
Asking parents and kids to give up holidays is bound to produce negative results, in the total absence of any other countervailing information.
We can learn much from the American public debate — the critical issue is “expanding learning time” to close the achievement gap and better serve children in lower SES communities. It also opens the door to more choices in terms of program delivery, particularly in elementary schools.
Consider this: Today Nova Scotia students perform marginally above the OECD average on PISA and in the middle of the Canadian provincial pack. Over the past five years, the Nova Scotia system has averaged about 180 actual teaching days a year, compared to 204 in Korea, 195 in Australia, and 188 in Finland.
Expanding learning time would enable us to significantly raise our performance levels. It’s not about “stealing holiday time” but really a matter of bringing us into line with other high performing countries. Like President Obama, I see it as being achieved by a combination of adding days and extending the school day with engaging activities, including sports and the arts. The KIPP schools have shown the way by running school programming for 8 hours a day, not 6 hours like Nova Scotia.
Over at SQE they point out that there are 178 mandated instructional days, of 195 total school days. What strikes me is the irony that we’re both extolling the vital nature of school as a top priority for both kids and society and holding fast against any efforts to actually create more classroom time for kids. Is 178 days per year the norm globally, more? less? How does it compare to the education “superpowers” we keep hearing about?
Setting aside all the theory about improving our schools allowing for more teacher/student time seems pretty clear. What are the barriers and why are they there? Are they defensible?
good questions – how do we find out to compare?
The SQE information is incorrect. The Ministry of Education requires 194 schoiol days, 2 of which must be given over to Ministry required professional develoipment, and 4 others which may be used at the discretion of the board.
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/memos/december2010/OSYC2011.pdf
That’s a maximum of 6. 194 minus 6 is 188, not 178.
If this document is accurate, Ontario has more school days than most states in the U.S.
http://www.ecs.org/html/Document.asp?chouseid=7824
It’s a challenge to sort out the actual number of teaching days, Allison. The SQE figure looks on the low side, but it depends on what criteria you use to define a teaching day…
Most of the Canadian provinces operate schools for 195 days, but the actual number of days of instruction hovers between 180 and 185, slightly more than in the United States. The OECD average in 2009 was 186. More significantly, the teaching day never exceeds six and one-half hours…
Countries in the OECD with over 195 days of instruction are: Korea (204), Japan (200), Brazil (200), Australia (197), and New Zealand (196)
Across Canada, ,most provinces allocate up to 10 days a year as “professional days” under collective agreements. Those days are used for PD days, examination prep days, marking days, parent-teacher days, and even for making summer school phone calls. In the Maritimes, a further 6 or 7 are ( believe it or not) lost to “storm days.”
Given the difficulty in assessing teaching time, the OECD looks at number of weeks of actual instruction, number of days of instruction, net teaching time in hours, working time required at school in hours, and total statutory working time in hours.
The bottom line: Students in high performing school systems spend up to a month more in school and, in the case of Japan, 300 more hours a year. Net teaching time in hours shows a radically different pattern, reflecting different methods of instruction and the mix of direct teaching and assigned projects.
What are the barriers and why are they there?
_____________________________________________________________
Inertia. It’s everywhere.
True, however I’m struck by how increasing the schoolyear to, say, 190 would be equivalent to well over a half year of classroom time from K-12. Consider how much could be added to the curriculum or how what’s current could be dealt with more depth.
I’m not certain much would be achieved. The teachers unions would constantly gripe as would the school boards.
One has to wonder, though, if it might not be preferable to have 4 quarters with 2 weeks off between quarters. I should think that retention would be greatly improved, especially at the lower grades.
The unions may well gripe, however it could be pointed out that, as fearless advocates for the “kids”, it sends a pretty bad message to be opposed to something that’s generally regarded as a real benefit to better outcomes for kids. How can people committed to kids actively campaign against a positive?
Is this about kids or the adult at the front of the classroom ? Who is the priority?
Who is the priority?
____________________________________________________________
For the teachers unions?: the teachers unions, not the teachers.
For the school boards?: the vioters – at election time only.
For the politicians?: see school boards.
For the educrats?: the educracy.
The kids? they don’t vote and have no money so they get sc*ewed.
Here’s what the OSSTF has to say about the school year calendar – taken from their website. The other teacher unions in Ontario likely have it all taken care of too:-)
“6.2.10 School Day and School Year
6.2.10.1 It is the policy of OSSTF that all collective
agreements should contain definitions for the
length of the school day and school year.
(R.10)
6.2.10.2 It is the policy of OSSTF that no teacher
should be required to perform duties beyond
the definition of a school day or outside the
defined school year unless the teacher
consents and arrangements are made which
provide the teacher with appropriate lieu time
during the defined school year. (R.10)
6.2.10.3 It is the policy of OSSTF that no teacher
should be required to teach more than 194
days in any calendar year. (R.10)
6.2.10.4 It is the policy of OSSTF that discussions by
a district school board relating to the
modified/year-round school year in any
school or workplace where Members work
should include representatives of the
Bargaining Units. (R.10)
6.2.10.5 It is the policy of OSSTF that the introduction
of any modification to the present school year
in any school or workplace where Members
work should include: (R.10)
6.2.10.5.1 negotiated changes to the collective
agreement covering such Members and
detailing their terms and conditions of
employment in a modified/year-round
employment relationship; (R.10)
6.2.10.5.2 terms and conditions of employment that are
no less favourable than before the
modified/year-round school year was
introduced; (R.10)
6.2.10.5.3 priority for transfer on a seniority basis for
Members who wish to work in a traditional
model where a school changes to a
modified/year-round school model; (R.10)
6.2.10.5.4 the right not to be involuntarily transferred
from a school operating on a traditional
school year basis to a school operating on a
modified/year-round school basis. (R.10)
6.2.10.6 It is the policy of OSSTF that, if a school is
modified to operate on a year-round basis
with multiple tracks, transfer between the
tracks should be based on seniority. (R.10)
[…] Expanding Learning Time: Why Focus on Tinkering with Summer … OECD's Cassandra Davis of “Education Today” made this prediction: “With policymakers focusing on staying internationally competitive through improving education, school may be out for a shorter summer in the future. Source: educhatter.wordpress.com […]
TeachersFirst, a teachers’ online resource eestablished in 1998, is a fascinating site. (Teachers needs come first here for sure)
The Back to School feature contains an interesting tidbit. On the TeachersFirst calendar, August 15 is the first day of school…(varies by district)”
http://www.teachersfirst.com/index.cfm
For 1,500 American schools, that’s the case…but it’s still a tiny minority of the total multitude of schools.
Dr. Thomas Schweitzer, who often analyzed international test results on behalf of OQE many years ago, would note that “time on task” was an important indicator of acheivement.
Seems that it doesn’t matter about tinkering with the length of the school year by a dozen days plus or minus—it’s about WHAT actual focussed instruction is happening. It’s quality not quantity; however, if the quality is poor, then the quantity may not make a fig of difference.
http://www.wested.org/cs/we/print/docs/we/timeandlearning/the_research.html
and this:http://www.educoea.org/Portal/bdigital/contenido/interamer/BkIACD/Interamer/Interamerhtml/Puryear-Br37html/PurSlavin.htm
“The amount of time available for learning depends largely on two factors: Allocated time and engaged time. Allocated time is the time scheduled by the teacher for a particular lesson or subject and then actually used for instructional activities. Allocated time is mostly under the direct control of the school and teacher. In contrast, engaged time, the time students actually engage in learning tasks, is not under the direct control of the school or the teacher. Engaged time, or time-on-task, is largely a product of quality of instruction, student motivation, and allocated time. Thus, allocated time is an alterable element of instruction (like quality, appropriateness, and incentive), but engaged time is a mediating variable linking alterable variables with student achievement.”
Why the roundabout way of saying that students learn more when they’re on task?
These educrats make me nauseous.
Doretta, I agree. I typed up a comment about quality and quantity the other day, but it wouldn’t post for some reason. I also said that we could start we taking away free periods in high school. it would make more sense to me to use the time already allocated wisely then to just tack on more time.It’s the same as going to the gym. You could spend and hour a day at the gym, but if you just walk on the treadmill on 3 for an hour, you won’t get the same results as if you do interval training for an hour. The hour is the same, the effort is different.
If we could improve what we are already doing, then maybe, yes, let’s add more days to the school calendar. In my opinion, we have alot of work to do beforehand.
Would you pay teachers more for working more days? If so, I think you’d find many of them willing to work a few more weeks during the year. I know I would. We have been toying with the idea of changing our instructional year, and increasing it, but haven’t yet approached our parents. At our school, I think the biggest resistors would be the parents overall.
The question would be, would 3 more weeks of worksheets make a difference? I think something more transformational needs to take place than just adding time to the school year.
Great question, David. If we are asking to re-open teaching contracts to look at introducing a longer school year, then I think looking at compensation is fair game. We cannot expect flexibility from teachers if we don’t offer something in return.
Personally, I would favour opening up the whole standard contract and re-negotiating an agreement for the 21st century.
On the agenda would be: a longer school year, recognition of online learning ( relaxing the in-class seat requirement), lifting the restrictions on the teaching day, and removal of principals from the bargaining unit.
We introduced standardized testing without looking at the impact on actual teaching time, particularly in Language Arts and Social Studies. That, as Diane Ravitch and Common Core have conclusively demonstrated, was a mistake.
The current Teacher Contract is badly outdated and in need of reform…We need a 21st Century Teacher Contract, don’t we? It would be interesting to see if the odd 21st Century Educator might be willing to come to the table…
Need to be careful.
A loosey-goosey approach was attempted in some jurisdictions during the late 70s/early 80s and that failed miserably.
I’m told that compensation happens at the local level already, and varies between individual teachers.
Educhatter must truly be on the cutting edge of education. Where’s the proof? We are one step ahead of the American educational colossus, Education Week.(Smile)
Tomorrow’s Education Week Webinar is on a familiar topic: Narrowing the Achievement Gap by Expanding Time in School: What Educators Need to Consider It’s scheduled for Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Eastern time.
Here’s a little primer:
“Expanding the school day or year is one strategy educators are employing to try to narrow the achievement gap. How schools use that time, experts say, should be tailored to meet the needs of individual schools. At the same time, though, there are proven policies and practices schools need to adopt to reach their goals. Finding that balance is tricky. Some schools have succeeded; others have failed. As more schools move toward expanded learning time using state or federal funding, what kinds of model designs should they choose, what tools are out there to help them, and what should their expectations be? Join us for a webinar that explores what educators should consider when implementing an expanded learning time model.”
Presenters:
Jennifer Davis, executive director, National Center for Time and Learning
Emily McCann, president, Citizen Schools
Moderator:
Nora Fleming, contributing writer, Education Week
To log on:
Access will be available starting 15 minutes prior to the event. It is highly recommended that you allow time for system compatibility testing and any downloading that may prove necessary prior to the event.
For optimal viewing the recommended browsers are IE for PC users and Firefox for Mac. Please check your audio settings and speaker volume.
No phone is required to participate in the webinar. An archived version will be available within 24 hours of the presentation.
Comment:
Interested Educhatter contributors are invited to report back on the Webinar and to provide your assessment of the program.
Here is a 2007 report entitled On The Clock.
“What’s more, the politics and cost of extending time
make the reform a tough sell. Additional days and hours
are expensive, and changing the school schedule affects
not only students and teachers, but parents, employers
and a wide range of industries that are dependent on
the traditional school day and year. It is critical that
policymakers understand the educational and political
complexities of time reform before they attempt to extend
the school year or take up other time-reform initiatives.
This report examines both the educational and political
dimensions of time reform. It presents the findings of a
wide range of research on time reform, discusses the
impact of various time reforms on the life of schools and
beyond, and makes recommendations for policymakers
about how to best leverage time in and out of school to
improve student achievement.”
http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/OntheClock.pdf
“Research reveals a complicated relationship between time and learning and
suggests that improving the quality of instructional time is at least as important as increasing the quantity of time in school. It also suggests that the addition of high-quality teaching time is of particular benefit to certain groups of
students, such as low-income students and others who have little opportunity for learning outside of school.”
“More time” is a dependent variable, whose value and efficacy are contingent upon other factors: more time for what? More time for whom? More time with what reasonable expected outcome?
Simply adding more days to the school year or hours to the school day cannot be expected to improve learning outcomes ipso facto. Incidentally, Paul’s adversion to the fact that many school districts in the US start on around August 15 is not really relevant to this discussion: those same districts (which have been starting in mid-August for more than 40 years) wind up their school year around the first week of June. They have fewer school days in the year than most Canadian systems. On my USA education listservs, the only North American teachers still teaching on June 28th are Canadians;-)
However, the objective of increasing learning time to improve academic achievement should be focused on addressing specific needs. Other countries, while they may provide food for thought, are not necessarily models we can follow. Finland, for instance, has a shorter school day and a short schools year (shorter than ours). Japan has a longer school day and year, but much more time devoted to recess than we would ever permit; South Korea has superior results, but is only beginning to allow disabled children into school at all at many grade levels (and then only into segregated programs); it hasn’t even begun to consider what we would call “inclusion.”
Canada’s top performers in math and science do not compare favourably with the top performers in a number of other countries — we have fewer of them, on a percentage basis, and their achievement is lower than that of their peers abroad. This may reflect a lack of opportunity for our most talented students to pursue in-depth study and advanced learning in these fields. So here is one group that would benefit from targeted additional learning time.
On the other end of the scale we have low-achieving children who need additional time for learning to master skills and knowledge that others learn much more quickly and with less practice. Inclusion is with us to stay (at least for the foreseeable future), since it is the preference of many parents, is supported by case law and legislation, and by most empirical evidence that segregated special education is not effective (Carlberg&Kavale, for starters, plus a number of other meta-analyses). So if we want to make inclusion work for these students, we must find a way for them to receive the extra time for learning and specialized instruction that is needed, without removing them from their regular classroom. This is true whether the reason for low performance is related to home factors, lack of instruction, medical needs, cognitive disability or identified learning problems.
Kids with cognitive disabilities can be taught to reason, think and perform at levels above what their diagnosis would suggest; however, there are few validated methods for doing so that have empirical evidence of effectiveness and which can be reliably replicated. The only ones I am familiar or with are those of Feuerstein (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuven_Feuerstein ) and Zig Engelmann. Engelmann is best known for his reading programs, but has also (and perhaps even more importantly) developed effective teaching protocols for enhancing language, reasoning and cognitive ability in children which, in controlled studies, have raised students’ mean IQ an average of 25 points, and brought all participants to the median of 100 or above (a feat not replicated by any other cognitive training program). This can be the difference between a student who barely completes high school and one who gets a PhD. A somewhat outdated, but fascinating book on this topic (easily found on used book sites) is Whimbey’s Intelligence Can Be Taught (see http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-can-taught-Arthur-Whimbey/dp/0553026224 )
In addition, we have students of all ability levels who simply need much more time on task to master skill-based foundation subjects, including reading, mathematics and written language. Middle-class schools often outsource this responsibility to parents, who hustle off to Kumon or Sylvan, but low-SES families are unable to respond in kind. The needed extra practice, additional teaching and intervention must take place at school. Engelmann’s research discovered that some children needed up to 11 000 repetitions of something (such as letter-sound correspondences) to achieve mastery, and low-performing students in early reading may need up to 180 minutes of reading instruction per day to close the gap with their higher-achieving peers. At present we do not have sufficient instructional time to address these needs. Additional time — but strategic time — is required.
Among possible options to consider: afterschool programs, Saturday programs, before-school programs, flexible scheduling so that additional support could be provided during an extended school day, etc. None of these options would be cheap, however, and if the additional learning time is to produce results, it must involve training teachers or paraprofessionals in effective techniques and protocols that are not currently in wide use. If we continue to do “more of the same,” a radically different outcome cannot be expected.
Creative private-public partnerships are a possibility. Here’s a good afterschool program (started by an expat Canadian) in NYC that could be a model for something similar here:
http://www.readalliance.org/k—1st-grade
To circumvent the problem of congregating children with similar instructional needs together– a challenge in small or rural schools – an approach such as the one used by this very effective centre in North Carolina could be employed:
http://mastermindprep.com/online-learning/effective-online-tutoring
This overcomes the difficulty with online learning not providing immediate and accurate feedback, especially to the young learner.
Peggy’s point that before increasing instructional time, we need to maximize the use of the instructional time we have, is key. Not only is time on task important, but it is even more critical that most of the “time on task ” be in the student’s ZPD — his or her learning zone. If the instruction provided is too far above or below the student’s level, s/he will not benefit much or at all. For gifted students, some field studies suggest that less than 2% of their academic day is in their learning zone. For cognitively challenged students, the percentage may be even lower. “Differentiated instruction” is intended to address this wide range of student learning needs, but it has not been shown to be effective in closing skill gaps. We need a better solution.
Like the ELP, additional instructional time should be designed to meet specific needs of students who are poorly served under the present arrangement. Additional time could be targeted to those groups until a feasible and cost-effective system is perfected.
Inclusion has been the flavour-du-jour for a while yet it isn’t currently working very well.
School boards and DOEs have reams and reams of paper outlining “policy” but it appears that once it has become “policy” all is well.
It’s the paper that counts, not the results.
If educators are using the same failed programs and methodologies the result will be exactly the same no matter what the school day/year configuration is.
Opening up choices to all, including choice of instruction, methods, programs, school calendars makes more sense than does continuing in the manner we are.
“One prime example: It’s now almost impossible to assess how the various provinces compare when it comes to learning time. In the 2009 OECD
Comparative analysis, Canada was not among the 31 countries surveyed for number of school days, total hours of instruction, and actual teaching time. That only serves the interest of those defending the status quo.”
I understand that Paul, Perhaps too an independent organization can do the same thing and doesn’t have to be driven by government.
My point was that few know anything at all about CCL and what it did. That said asking parents to trust government, and yes Andrew even those elected trustees these days is falling on deaf ears.
Governments don’t deserve our trust. That includes school boards, and yes, they are a government.
Many teachers willingly teach summer school. John Snobelen tried to reduce the summer by one week and the business community that uses student labour, the cottage and resort industry and the recreation industry went crazy. The March break was aligned with the ski season. Parents are the number one complainers when holidays are shortened because they want their kids available for holidays.
Teachers are not opposed to a lengthened school year, only that it be fully compensated and voluntary. It is easy to lengthen the school day without forcing teaachers to work more. You simply hve to hire more teachers. Picture a 5 period day. Some teachers work 1-4 others 2-5. Teachers could sign up for an extra class for a 25% raise, I’m sure many would jump at it.
What is not on is a longer day/year without compensation.
Today’s Washington Post has a thoughtful piece on the “extra time for learning” issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/whats-the-link-between-time-in-school-and-achievement/2011/08/17/gIQAbIOGMJ_blog.html#pagebreak
The research appears to be consistent in showing that some students need more time to master the skills and knowledge to meet the required standards; on the other hand, that “more time” per se is only beneficial if good use is made of that time: targeting the students’ learning needs with effective practice and curricula.
I’m afraid in the minds of some corporate reformers, time will be extended but everything else would be left alone.
Extended time would effect EC activities for example. Time will simply not be extended without compensation.
We simply do not make enough use of summer school especially in poor areas where it can have a major positive effect. It seems those who want more
time-on-task also favoured the elimination of grade 13 and oppose the imposition of full day JK-SK and the downward extension of the school system. That makes no sense. Both supplied great increases in time-on-task.
Somehow this notion persists that “we can get more teaching out of the teachers at no cost” disabuse yourself of the notion. That does not work anywhere else and it will not work in education either.
Sometimes people who suggest educational “solutions” have a weak grip on arithmetic. Take the issue of lunchroom supervisors for example. These are moms from the community, paid around $16/hour for a 6-hour work week, who supervise children eating lunch and going outside to play. Often it is suggested that money could be saved by having teachers do this supervision (of course, they do part of the lunch hour as is, but not the whole time — even teachers need to eat and use the loo).
In one school I was in the principal did this. I spent 300 minutes weekly supervising lunch. What no one points out is that this comes out of instructional time. 300 minutes is one-fifth of the entire instructional week, taken away from teaching students. Was this a saving of money? Calculate the hourly wage of a teacher at level A4 and it will come to several times that of a lunchroom supervisor — and that doesn’t include the loss of teaching time for students
Sometimes what appear to be solutions are actually long steps backwards.
We could however increase instructional time for students not merely by adding teacher hours, but by using paraprofessionals more effectively, along with online learning and qualified staff at the continuing education rate.
School calendar reformers in the United States continue to hammer away in favour of expanding learning time. Today’s New York Times (August 23, 2011) has another column entitled “Shortchanged b y the School Bell.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/opinion/shortchanged-by-the-school-bell.html?_r=1&hp
Summer budget cuts, Luis A. Ubinas and Chris Gabrieli argue, could mean that American students will actually be shortchanged further in terms of instructional hours. They use the opportunity, once again, to beat the drum for expanding learning time.
Corporate reformers seem to want it both ways. They want to cut government funding for education (H of R Republicans) which leads to larger classes and boards across the USA taking weeks out of the school calendar and then say they are for ELT.
ELT is fantastic. The best way to get it is expanded ECE, all day JK/SK expanded summer school targeted to poor communities, Saturday remediation, 3rd language education, and so on.
The idea that existing teachers are going to be forced to work more time without compensation is a non-starter.
What an overreaction!
Halifax playright and bereavement counsellor Roy Ellis has responded to my opinion column (“School Holidays: Lost Learning Time?”, The Chronicle Herald,August 17) with an over-the-top response. In his Letter to the Editor, he attempts to paint me as a defender of the Korean educational model:
For the full Letter, see
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Letters/1260105.html
President Barack Obama’s call for expanded learning time in American schools makes good sense, especially if it targets the needs of kids in high poverty communities.
It’s amazing what kind of a reaction you get after questioning the sacred cows in public education. Who in their right mind would favour an unrelenting “drill and fill” system that produces unhappy kids? Certainly not me.
Does anyone seriously think that Nova Scotia education is in any danger of becoming a Korean system? It’s simply preposterous.
Rather odd to used teenage suicide stats, and than connect it to the education system. I did a little investigation on the numbers, where WHO, OECD, and other various government organizations have different numbers, and where Canada falls in the middle of the pack. What should be pointed out that Finland, has a very high suicide rate even though the Finland children spent the least time learning in school. Although, I am not going to link what I just stated above, his claims on linking Korea longer school year to suicides falls apart. It appears he is using the claim that has spouted up in the last 10 years or so, on the happiness index that is published yearly, and trying his best to connect the happiness index to the length of the school year.
“Mr. Bennett’s article fails to acknowledge the high social, psychological and spiritual cost of a culture of overheated educational competition and achievement. Mr. Bennett wants our kids to compete on the international stage, with Korea, where the youth are sad and stressed and have lost the ability to laugh freely. As an educational consultant, friend of children, and social scientist, I give Paul W. Bennett a low grade and strongly suggest he get out from behind his desk, go outside, and play.”
I would suggest to the writer to expand his horizons beyond suicide rates, because the globalized world and the make-up of the individual countries, and the economic indicators of the developed nations/developing nations are producing powerful positive and negative outcomes. My suggestion would be to look at the quality variables that makes up a quality education. And here he would not like the Canada stats on low literacy and numeracy rates, 48 % and 51 % respectively. His question, “The question I think we need to ask is whether we need more school or just better school. “, would be answered. We need better schools, along with better use of time inside our schools.
We need your help – please consider investing in the developmental health and future of children with intellectual disabilities! We are creating a playgroup for young children with intellectual disabilities. The Play Group would provide opportunities for participants to learn new skills and behaviours that will help make the transition to school smoother.
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-create-a-play-group-for-children-with-intellectual-disabilities?a=783880