The really sad part of the current push for educational "reform" is that well-meaning folks come up with all sorts of ideas that just don't cut it; and, because they have good intentions, it doesn't seem right to slam their plans.
Governor Davis is a good example. He has proposed that one way to improve California's education is to extend the middle school year by six weeks. Apparently the governor believes that our state's kids aren't getting enough hours of instruction and, if we could just somehow pour a few more hours worth of learning into their heads, all would be well.
Sorry, Governor. That is not the answer.
First, a look at some applicable statistics: It might surprise a lot of people to know that in 1995 the U.S. Department of Education reported that the U.S. had more hours of instruction per year than 11 of the 16 industrialized countries. Some nations report more days when school is in session, but the total number of hours of instruction is less than what our kids get.
Our 180-day school year had more hours of actual instruction per year than did Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. It's not a matter of how many days, but how many hours of instruction. Germany with 225 days, Italy with 215, Japan with 215, England with 195, and Canada with 190 all had fewer hours of instruction than we did.
Does that seem strange? The reason isn't hard to find. The school day in those countries includes study time for students and professional time for teachers, valuable for education but not classifiable as instructional time.
But those figures fade when measured against more important ones. Funding - we're talking about tax dollars, something we can't avoid doing - for the extra six weeks would flatten some school districts. The Board of Trustees in Mariposa County Unified told us the funding proposal for this plan is so bad that if they extended the year for six weeks, they would lose $290,000. The figures may differ statewide, but the principle will apply.
Another number to think about. Everywhere in the state, districts have in desperation gone to year-round middle schools, and they are already bursting at the seams. How can you extend that kind of school year by six weeks? Add a new month to the calendar?
But let's dispense with statistics altogether and go to something more important, the judgment of the professionals involved, the teachers. As I visit schools all over California, I hear comments from middle school teachers like, "Smaller classes would be a lot better," and "I really worry about burnout for students and teachers," and "I would leave the teaching profession." If the teachers who would be involved cannot support the plan, isn't that a warning sign to those who want it?
I suppose there are still some people around who would sniff and mutter things about "those long vacations" that teachers cherish. You and I know something about those all-too-short periods off duty that the public still doesn't seem to recognize. They are absolutely necessary for the professional and personal health of teachers. Americans generally work longer than people in other countries; we have shorter vacations and put in more hours weekly than others. That is more than true of teachers, whose work day is almost endless - papers to grade, lessons to plan, conferences, reading, meetings, activities to sponsor, and more. You know. And that's not mentioning the workshops and classes necessary to hone skills and stay current. Worse, for many teachers, the "vacation" is only the time for that all-important second job that makes it (almost) possible to buy a family home or send one's own kids to college. Sadly, extending the school year six weeks will destroy what is left of the breathing time teachers absolutely must have.
Teachers believe that the $1.45 billion being proposed to pay for the extended school year would be better spent to reduce class size and improve salaries enough to reduce the huge teacher shortage. If administrators would pay attention to teachers' opinions, they might figure out ways to make the current schedule work better. Quantity and quality are not the same thing, Governor Davis. If the students buckle down to work and if the teachers are allowed to plan and put into effect the lessons they know will work best instead of having to toe the mark of a pre-determined curriculum and prepare their students for some official "evaluation" test, it is likely that the results will please everyone. And that's without six extra weeks of classrooms crowded with exhausted teachers and cranky kids.
We applaud Governor Davis for making public education a very high priority. But we do not believe the six-week extension proposal is well thought out, and we cannot support it. There are better ways of helping public schools. Ask any teacher.
Letters to the governor and your legislators are important. They need to know what you think. Make no mistake about it, extending the middle school year for six weeks would not improve things and quite probably would create more harmful problems to be solved down the line.
