Time to learn
Complimentary books frequently make their way into the newsroom. I don’t have time to read them all — I’m still working my way through Jodi Picoult’s novels — but did receive one recently about a timely topic I think is worth sharing.
The book is called “Time to Learn,” and its premise is that the last school bell ringing out at 2:30 p.m. “makes no sense at all.”
Authors Christopher Gabrieli and Warren Goldstein write:
We wrote Time to Learn because we think it’s just the right time for a practical, large-scale transformation in American public education. We think it’s ‘time to learn’ from the available evidence — and we give you a ton of it in what follows — that our children need more ‘time to learn’ all of what they need to succeed and thrive in the twenty-first century. No one knows exactly how long the standard school schedule has clocked in at about six-and-a-half hours a day, or how it got to be that way, but just about everyone knows it’s not giving kids or teachers enough time to produce high school graduates well prepared for higher education, for the workplace of our newly global economy, or for citizenship in our democracy.
A little less than a year ago, State Superintendent Sandy Garrett called for a Time Reform Task Force to study the length of the school day and school year in Oklahoma. (Here’s a recap of their recommendations, and you can view the task force’s full report here.)
“If you want to raise expectations, this is the kind of discussion we need to be having,” Garrett said later.
So let’s have the discussion. Is the school day — or the school year — too short? And if you were in charge, what would you change?
Wendy K. Kleinman
Education Reporter
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Ms. Kleinman,
I teach world history at a suburban middle school and every year we have a discussion on the school calendar (stemming from our study of the Industrial Revolution of the 1700s).
I tell my students that the current three-month summer vacation did not start as a “vacation,” but as time off from school for older children to go work on their parents’ farms. I also propose to them that since this is no longer the case, we should revise our ideas of vacations.
There is, of course, the usual grumbling about not giving up summertime, until they hear my alternative.
I set forth a school calendar where school begins the first monday in September. Students attend for three straight months, September, October, and November – without any breaks. (Thanksgiving, traditionally but arbitrarily set in November, is moved to the first week of December. Other “Federal” holidays are not observed by schools.)
School restarts in January, again for three straight months – January, February, and March – again with no breaks However, the entire month of April is set aside as Spring Break.
Then comes the hardest sell: school resumes in May, and again goes three straight months: May, June, and July, with no breaks. But the entire month of August becomes Summer Break.
The advantages I submit are that students have less time to “forget” previously accumulated knowledge, and that they get three seasonally-distinct, month-long breaks. This might even allow for students to graduate in less than 12 years. I won’t claim to get 100 percent approval for my proposals, but I am usually surprised that at least half of my students think it sounds reasonable.
Over the years, I have also heard counter-proposals. My wife, who is also a teacher, proposes a 4-day academic week (with longer school days to make up for the lost time), and Fridays reserved for athletics and non-academic endeavors – field trips, school plays, band concerts, and the like.
I would be interested in hearing other adjustments to the current calendar.
Thank you for helping to bring this often-controversial topic to a discussion in the public forum. The Greeks and the Romans did it, so why can’t we?