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.
I went to Von Steuben in the 50’s. Our school day was 9-12, home for lunch 12-1, (we had no cafeteria and a few brown baggers that ate in school in the classrooms), and 1-3:30 classes in the afternoon. Kindergarten was either 9 – 11:30 or 1 – 3:30, no all day Kindergarten. First graders went home for lunch at 11:30. Of course we didn’t ride a bus we either walked or rode our bikes except for a few that their parents drove. It seems to me that we got a pretty good education on 5 and half hours minus recess time. What is the real justification for a longer school day? Do parents want the schools to be sitters for the long work days many have? Do the kids really learn more with a longer school day? Were we smarter back then and able to learn our lessons in less time than today’s kids or are there just more distractions and time wasting things in schools today? Are today’s teachers or teaching methods less effective than they were in the 50’s?
Ed — The school experts will say that kids learn differently today than they did 50 years ago.
They’ll also say some other things, like children from lower-income families don’t have as many learning opportunities at home as those from higher-income families, so a longer school day and/or longer school year is especially helpful to them.
Unless the budget needs cutting. In that case, a shorter school schedule is clearly supported by the evidence. I guess.
C.J., You are reading the reports from the “experts” so I think you know more on this subject than I do. I just can’t keep from believing that something is screwy with the teaching, or the testing. People are people and are the kids today really that much different or is it the teaching methods that have gone bad? From what I have heard and read every state has a different testing method and some states have very low passing standards which make states like Illinois with higher standards look very bad. There should be nationwide standard testing and schooldays should be about the same all over the country. Just my opinion for whatever it is worth.
Honest dialog. This is #150 They will need a court reporter. Honest dialog I doubt it.
In case you missed it, the Peoria Journal Star published an editorial in todays Journal Star that spoke out AGAINST this proposal. Here is the link:
http://pjstar.com/stories/050508/EDI_BGGU6O9N.058.php
Ed I also was in primary school in the late 50′ and early 60’s. Our school day began at 8:10 am and ended at 3:10 pm, we had a half-hour lunch (we did have a cafeteria and most kids ate there), and with a 15 minute recess, that made a 6.25 hour day. Not much different than today’s 6.5 hour day.
C.J., you were very generous with your post. My sources tell me that the preponderance of current educational research supports a longer school day/year configuration and have offered copies of the research to support their position. Would you like me to pursue some of this information for you?
Perhaps my skepticism is showing, but I can’t help wondering if they did any research at all into this budget-driven shorter day proposal. I hope they aren’t just saying they did to hoodwink the public.
It’s as simple as this – a shorter school day length takes part of the budget monkey off the District’s back. Depriving kids of learning opportunities is just much easier to do than balancing the budget by being responsible.
Let’s see: work for nine months, and 6 hours a day… that is exactly 3/4 of anyone else’s work year and 3/4 of the 3/4 days that one works. Using a 22 day a month work schedule that means teachers work 56% as much as other professions… so a teacher making 70,000 a year is getting the equivalent of around $155,000 a year.
Poor babies are unpaid as it is…