It will be interesting to hear the board discuss the shorter school day recommendation from the administration at tonight’s school board meeting. Here’s the item as it appears on the agenda:

14.
PRIMARY SCHOOL SCHEDULE – Sanfilip
Proposed Action: That the student and teacher schedules for all Primary Schools, except Franklin Edison, Northmoor Edison, Roosevelt Magnet and Valeska Hinton Early Childhood Education Center, for the 2008-2009 school year shall be as follows:

1.	Student Schedule	9:15 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.
2.	Teacher Schedule	8:15 A.M. to 3:15 P.M.

The Superintendent is authorized to make such individual Primary School accommodations/variations to this schedule and any necessary Middle School changes to accommodate this schedule as he may deem necessary. Such changes shall be reported to the Board of Education. This school schedule shall be for the 2008-2009 school year. During the month of April, 2009, the Superintendent shall make a further or permanent Primary School schedule recommendation to the Board of Education.

The conclusion I’ve reached after hearing from board members and administrators is this: The administration chooses research to support whatever proposal they advocate rather than advocating for something based on research. See, I had always thought that they were looking at educational research and then pushing for change based on those principles. But this recent episode has made it clear that it’s really the other way around.

If they want to bring in Edison schools, they select research that “proves” the educational benefits of a longer school day. Ditto for putting a school in a park-like setting or situated on 15 acres. But, if the budget needs trimmed, and they decide they want to shorten the school day, they’ll go out and select research that “proves” the benefits of a shorter school day with block scheduling.

Bottom line: I believe they choose research that supports their ends, and then try to sell it to the school board and their constituents as something that’s been developed through thoughtful reflection and a thorough review of “best practices.”

Does that sound harsh? If so, please explain how the administration can simultaneously justify a longer school day for some schools and cutting the school day for others, and have it all based on best practices and educational research. I mean, they’ve spent years trying to convince the public that a longer school day is vital to improved academic performance, and now, all of a sudden, that’s out the window and a shorter school day is advocated… but only for some schools.

I think parents (and, frankly, school board members) deserve some honest dialog and clarity from the school administration. Because it sure looks like plans are being made solely on the basis of budget issues, and being propped up after the fact with educational “proof” of their effectiveness.

Here’s an interesting report called “The Future of Education in Peoria: Issues and Opportunities for Moving Forward Together in Peoria Public School District 150.” It says it’s a report that came out of “A Community Summit in Open Space, June 3-5, 2002.” This three-evening forum was designed “to bring together concerned people from all across District 150 to create a shared vision for our public schools. The results of our work will provide the foundation for moving forward together.” Two hundred people attended this event.

Here’s a suggestion (p. 10) that came from a group composed of Mary Davis, Bette Johnson, Linda Millen, Herschel Hannah, Sean Matheson, Audrey Galter, and Sandy Farkash:

Longer day (7 55minute periods)

Note that Herschel Hannah is an Associate Superintendent, and Sean Matheson is a former school board member.

This suggestion came up again (pp. 27-28) in a group composed of Beth Koch, Gerry Brookhart, Pam Dolozychi, Sandy Burke, Martha Ross, Scott Russell, Don Johnson, and Herschel Hannah:

NOT ENOUGH TIME – Need to expand academic days to allow full “On Task” time for curriculum demands and Prevention services and programs; after school programs may not reach all children in need

• Longer school day/year
• Use of free periods
• Build prevention programs into existing curriculum ie. High School speech classes
• Saturday school
• Evening school
• Access to Early Childhood Education programs

Note attendees Martha Ross (current board vice president) and, once again, Mr. Hannah.

So, in 2002, one of the problems identified was that there was not enough time. And the solution was to come up with ways to provide more class time for students. What’s changed in six years that all of a sudden less class time is now suddenly a good idea?

Well, Dr. Simpson did say at the meeting last night that children today learn differently than they did ten years ago, so maybe the findings of a forum six years ago are no longer valid. Okay. We’ll forget about the 2002 report. Let’s look instead at the September 18, 2007, minutes of the joint school board/city council meeting — only about seven months ago:

Superintendent Hinton expressed that the District vision is to improve student achievement…. Mr. Hinton also discussed the need fort the District to offer “Choice” to parents, the need for a longer school day and/or longer school year.

He later clarified:

Council Member Nichting asked about the longer school day being for everyone. Superintendent Hinton explained that the longer day would be “need based.” He is still considering the need for a longer school year and noted that many students fall behind during the summer months.

And current board member Mary Spangler weighed in on the issue, too:

Board Member Spangler spoke to the Choice Edison Program and stated that the data she has seen shows that schools with longer days showed student improvement.

How do we reconcile these statements with Hinton’s new proposal to cut 45 minutes off the school day for twelve primary schools, but leave Edison school schedules intact? (And don’t tell me they can’t get out of the contract. Every spring the school board has an opportunity to get out of the contract by its own terms. That contract covers only four schools — three next year since Loucks is closing — and costs the district $1.14 million per year.)

How can the same administration in just seven months do a complete 180 on the issue of school day length? They now say, according to a handout distributed at the meeting last night, “Further study has revealed exciting best practices along with instructional and operational opportunities.” Ah, so perhaps all that data from the past 6+ years was totally bogus, and longer school days aren’t really all they’re cracked up to be. In fact, “further study” shows that the days should actually be shorter!

Well, in that case, all the more reason to cancel the Edison contract. Since their day is already longer than the rest of the district’s, shortening it to five hours and forty-five minutes will surely produce even more academic improvement.

District 150’s logic is like a Penrose triangle.

That was just one of the questions parents had for District 150 administrators last night at Kellar Primary School. The idea they want to stop is a proposal to reduce the school day by 45 minutes at 12 primary schools starting next year in order to save between $600,000 and $750,000 per year. Presentations were made by Kellar principal Ken Turner, D150 Strategic Planner Thom Simpson, and Assistant Superintendent Cheryl Sanfilip. Then questions were taken from the audience, estimated to be about 60 parents.

The questions were almost all critical of the plan. One person asked if this decision was budget-driven or academically-driven. (Dr. Simpson said it was both.) Several people asked about how much flexibility schools would have to set their own schedule and decide which special teachers to have. One complained that the school district was shifting the burden (and expense) of additional education time to parents to provide outside tutoring for whatever is cut from the school day. Another asked why we can’t save some money on the administration side.

Here’s the Journal Star’s report on the evening. And here’s HOI News’ report.

Not mentioned in these reports is the one question that kept coming up over and over again: What about Edison schools? Under the proposal, no changes would be made to the two Edison primary schools, Northmoor and Franklin, which already have a longer school day than other district schools. Many parents expressed concern about the disparity, asking why twelve schools have to bear $600,000 in educational cuts while we send $1 million to for-profit Edison schools, which only benefit a small percentage of District 150 students.

Good question.

By the way, the answer to the headline question is to contact your school board members:

David Gorenz
President (Dist. 3)
(309) 688-2824
david.gorenz@psd150.org

Martha M. Ross
Vice-President (Dist. 1)
(309) 674-2574
martha.ross@psd150.org

Linda Butler
(Dist. 2)
(309) 688-7912
linda.butler@psd150.org

Rachael A. Parker
(Dist. 2)
(309) 688-5990
rachael.parker@psd150.org

Mary Spangler
(Dist. 3)
(309) 691-1752
mary.spangler@psd150.org

Jim Stowell
(Dist. 3)
(309) 692-4128
jim.stowell@psd150.org

Debbie Wolfmeyer
(Dist. 3)
(309) 681-9567
debbie.wolfmeyer@psd150.org

To e-mail all board members at once, click here.

Hinton also recommended the new “birth through eighth-grade” school [replacing Glen Oak School in the East Bluff] be a choice school, meaning students may come from anywhere in the district, as well as incorporating year-round schooling, a specialized autistic program, a longer school day and parental contracts, requiring more involvement from parents.

— Journal Star, 1/8/2008

In the fall, [a restructured] Manual [High School] will reopen, officials say, as a much different place. Ninth-graders will be isolated among the rest of the student population in what is being called the ninth-grade academy; a seventh-and eighth-grade academy, made of about 80 students each, will be added; the school day and calendar will be longer; parents will be required to devote time at the school; and the school itself will undergo a facelift as well as compartmentalization to accommodate the different learning academies.

— Journal Star, 4/22/2008

So, let me see if I have this straight. Manual was not doing well academically, so they’re restructuring — that is, making changes that will help improve the educational experience there, which will manifest itself (hopefully) in higher test scores. One of those changes is a longer school day.

Furthermore, Superintendent Ken Hinton recommended just three months ago a longer school day for the new school that will be built in the East Bluff, replacing Glen Oak Primary School. I presume he recommended this because he thinks it has pedagogical benefits. Isn’t that also why Edison schools have a longer school day than other District 150 schools?

So, now I’m trying to figure out this quote from today’s paper:

Despite less time at school, many principals say the proposed schedule change [i.e., shortening the school day] improves classroom instruction by eliminating interrupted teaching, allows for more classroom flexibility and gives teachers common planning time in the morning before students arrive.

How about that! Longer school days improve classroom instruction, but surprisingly so do shorter days. Evidently, the only length of time that’s bad is the current length of the school day, which is six and a half hours. Somehow, this precise length of the school day is detrimental to academic success. Make it longer or shorter — it makes no difference which way you go — and things magically improve! I hope they publish this new finding, because it will be helpful to other school districts around the country. Beware the six-and-a-half hour school day! Keep scores high; avoid six-point-five!

I’m assuming the logic curriculum got cut from District 150 a long time ago.

From Peoria.com:

You may or may not be aware that the members of the District 150 School Board are preparing to vote on proposed changes that may substantially impact your child’s elementary school education.

Part one of the proposal calls for SHORTENED SCHOOL HOURS. If passed, school hours will be reduced by 45 minutes each day. The proposed new start time for Primary schools (at least for Kellar) will be 9:15 a.m.

Secondly, specialized instruction in gym, science, music and computers is on the chopping block. Primary schools will only be allowed the equivalent of two full time special teacher positions. The home room teachers must then assume responsibility for these subjects, regardless of their training or background.

Our initial reaction, as parents, is one of concern that our children’s education may be compromised as a result of these changes. We feel that there are alternative cost cutting measures that can and should be taken first that would not put the burden of the deficit squarely on the backs of our young children. As parents, we have the right to expect adequate education and exposure to the arts and sciences in our public schools.

The School Board argues that these proposed changes, in addition to saving the district money, will actually enhance the educational experience. They feel that less time will be spent transitioning children between classes, and that classroom time will be more devoted to learning.

You be the judge! We have arranged an informational meeting to take place at Kellar this Thursday evening, May 1st at 5:15 p.m. District Administrators have confirmed that they will be present to answer your questions and address your concerns.

Time is of the essence. This proposal is being fast-tracked and may very well be voted on at the next School Board meeting on May 5th.

It is our responsibility to watchdog the School Board and Administration to make sure that the Districts limited resources are being allocated in a way that is most beneficial to our children. We cannot entrust this responsibility to teachers or school staff, as their very employment is dependant upon the actions of the aforementioned entities.

We hope to see a very large and concerned presence of District 150 parents on Thursday. We then hope to have a very large group of informed parents at the School Board meeting on May 5th.

The Journal Star has a front-page story on this today as well.