Just say NO to extending the school year

BB's take: I agree with the professor's assessment of the problem and his solution of stopping the standardized testing and have raised these concerns in the Baytown Sun for years. We do not need more hours of school. What we need is to clip the wing of state mandated testing and allow school management to dictate a more robust approach, where school boards are allowed to set curriculum and be competitive with other institutions. Reading, writing, and arithmetic should be taught as a strong foundation and by junior school students should be allowed to take courses that massage their propensities and aptitude instead of passing state standardized testing.  Listen to Professor Showalter:

Steve Showalter is a government professor at Lee College in Baytown.

"Two weeks ago, the legislature discussed a proposal to add up to 30 days of instruction to the school year.   The online reader poll showed no interest in it, but the idea raises an important issue for discussion. Currently, the state of Texas requires 180 days of instruction every year. Nations that are kicking our butts in the worldwide education rankings generally require over 200 days of instruction per year. 

Well over half of public school students in Texas live below the federal poverty line. Advocates for these at-risk students feel that low income students and English language learners need far more than 180 days of instruction to catch up to their middle and upper class peers. The advocates also claim that the extended summer break harms low income students. Over the course of a three-month summer hiatus, at risk students lose ground because they do not have access to enrichment activities available to children in financially stable families.

Middle and upper income parents send their children to summer camps, enroll them in summer reading activities, and can afford to take their kids to museums, science exhibits, and historical sites.  Because of this, the gap between stable and poor students gets wider and wider each year. By the time they reach high school, low income kids could be two to three years behind in reading, writing, and math, and it is highly unlikely that they will ever catch up.

The problem is more complex than simply adding 15 instructional days in August and 15 instructional days in June. It would require a complete re-working of the school calendar, which would generate howls of opposition from all quarters.

A 210 day school calendar would require classes to be held almost year round with quarterly breaks of two to three weeks. From an educational standpoint, that would be better for students.  Periodic breaks give them enough time off to re-charge their batteries, but not so much time off that their knowledge and skills deteriorate.

Let the howling begin. Politicians do not want to increase taxes to pay for the additional six weeks of instruction. The Legislature estimates the cost to be $50 million for each extra day of instruction. Teachers might protest. No doubt they would appreciate the additional compensation, but they really need the time off.  The job is very stressful and demanding, and the long summer break keeps them from losing what is left of their marbles.

The tourism and hospitality industry would immediately mobilize against it. Summer is their bread and butter, and their business models are built around three months of sun and fun. Some readers supported a longer school day. Additional daily hours of instruction would negate the need to add days in August or June, but that would interfere with sacred cows, namely sports and extracurricular activities. 

There is a much simpler solution.  Cut back on standardized testing. 

School districts already spend up to one quarter of their instructional days (45 days) each year on test preparation, practice tests, test taking, and remediation for students who fail the silly tests. Those 45 days could be used for much meaningful activities. If the Legislature backed away from its peculiar obsession with standardized tests, the schools could use their existing time and money much more efficiently."