Obama's education czar proposes longer school days for public schools

[noblegas]

or this generation of students to remain competitive with their international peers as adults, they need to start spending more time in school. This week President Obama proposed that American school children extend their time in class, either by lengthening the school day, or spending less time on summer vacation.

“We can no longer afford an academic calendar designed when America was a nation of farmers who needed their children at home plowing the land at the end of each day,” Obama said. He continued to say “That calendar may have once made sense, but today, it puts us at a competitive disadvantage. Our children spend over a month less in school than children in South Korea. That is no way to prepare them for a 21st century economy.”

In fact, American children spend the least amount time in the classroom when compared to other countries. Currently, the school year length in the States is 180 days. Advocates are pushing further toward a 200-day school year, which would align with Thailand, Scotland and the Netherlands, and leave us a close second with Israel, South Korea and Japan, who leads with a 243-day school year.
via MSN Encarta

via MSN Encarta

This comes as Obama makes it very clear that education is on his hot-list of priorities. He admits the notion of spending more time in school is not “wildly popular”, but necessary.

He was applauded for his breadth of knowledge regarding the public education system in the U.S. He cited that one-third of the 13- and 14-year-olds in our country cannot read at an appropriate level for their age, and that the eighth grade curriculum is two years behind competing nations. He says the part of the problem is our “race to the bottom” mindset, wherein states are comfortable with lower standards for students.

Obama and his Secretary of Education Arne Duncan are truly advocates for a superior education system than that we’ve previously and currently known. It’s imperative that states use the stimulus package money to rebuild curriculum, increase teacher pay, improve school conditions, offer newer technologies to students and even extend the school year to ensure that this generation can not only keep up with their international peers, but even surpass them in the professional environment of the coming decades.

I don't think allowing school kids to stay in school for a longer period of time would increase the quality of public education. I think we need to improved and/or completely changed the curriculum in most public schools by created a curriculum that will suit each student's individual interests and do away with the general liberal arts curriculum; I don't think we should be worried about which nations contain the highest standardized test scores compared to our nation test scores. That should not be a priority concerning improving the quality of education a student received. Not to mentioned summer vacations are an american tradition . Just my 3 cents.

 

[Jasongreat]

I don't think allowing school kids to stay in school for a longer period of time would increase the quality of public education. I think we need to improved and/or completely changed the curriculum in most public schools by created a curriculum that will suit each student's individual interests and do away with the general liberal arts curriculum; I don't think we should be worried about which nations contain the highest standardized test scores compared to our nation test scores. That should not be a priority concerning improving the quality of education a student received. Not to mentioned summer vacations are an american tradition . Just my 3 cents.

It sounds like a governmental solution to me, the system isn't working so we just need them to spend more time in the failing classes. We would be far better off if we dispelled the myth that school is the only place to get an education IMO. I agree completely with your assement that we need to break it down to the individuals needs and not a one size fits all curriculum.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think anyone can argue that we need to raise overall standards in the public schools. However, a longer school day, week, or year is not the solution on it's own.

We need to think quality, not quantity. We might also want to re-think the whole concept of "teaching the test" - as it might be the reason we're leaving a lot of children behind.

 

[WhoWee]

I wonder what the Sec of Ed thinks about this story.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/critics-assail-obamas-safe-schools-czar-say-hes-wrong-man-job/

"President Obama's "safe schools czar" is a former schoolteacher who has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse, expressed his contempt for religion and detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men.

Conservatives are up in arms about the appointment of Kevin Jennings, Obama's director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, saying he is too radical for the job.

Jennings was appointed to the position largely because of his longtime record of working to end bullying and discrimination in schools. In 1990, as a teacher in Massachusetts, he founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which now has over 40 chapters at schools nationwide. He has also published six books on gay rights and education, including one that describes his own experiences as a closeted gay student."

 

[S_Happens]

I don't think anyone can argue that we need to raise overall standards in the public schools. However, a longer school day, week, or year is not the solution on it's own.

We need to think quality, not quantity. We might also want to re-think the whole concept of "teaching the test" - as it might be the reason we're leaving a lot of children behind.

I have the same opinion, except I think your "might" are actually certainties.

 

[Pengwuino]

Sometimes I wonder what the school graduation/drop rates/years to graduate would be if students were actually required to pass classes. At my university, the freshman dropout rate is something retarded like 25%. The average years to graduate is 6 years. Yet, (as far as i know) almost all people complete high school at around 18 if they haven't dropped out.

 

[Wax]

I agree that longer school hours in failing schools do not work. One of the big problems right now is that your child must go to the school nearest your home, so if your child is stuck in a failing school then he is probably destine to fail. The best solution for this would be to let parents choose what school their child could go too.

 

[S_Happens]

Here in Texas it is possible to go to an out of district school, but in the case of high school (not sure about middle school) you lose a year of UIL eligibility.

 

[cristo]

I agree that longer school hours in failing schools do not work.

From what I gather, no one is proposing longer school hours, but instead saying that students should be in school for more days of the year. Seems to make sense to me, especially if your concern is that US students don't have a high enough level of knowledge of fundamentals when entering college.

 

[S_Happens]

I agree with your interpretation of Wax's post, but it misses the point altogether, which is quality over quantity. Days can be broken down into hours, so however the time is added doesn't really matter (yes, the referenced article discussed MORE days, not longer days). I think (and it appears that everyone else previous to me agrees) making better use of the time already spent in class would be more useful than simply adding to the number of days spent in poor classes. I think the post I quoted by WhoWee sums it up very nicely.

 

[Astronuc]

My high school was on a trimester system. Instead of 2 semesters/4 quarters with 6 one-hour (55 min) classes each day (5 days a week), we had 3 trimesters with 4 classes of 1.5 hrs. However, since I was doing an extended calculus course, and honors chemistry and physics, I took 5 classes each day instead of 4. I preferred to have more time in class or lab.

Teaching with an individual curriculum for each student just isn't practical, especially when each teacher has 120-150 students or more.

Summer 'vacation' was originally a break from education/class so that students could work on the farms and help with the harversts. Please review one's US history from the colonial period: 1600 and 1700's.

 

[noblegas]

My high school was on a trimester system. Instead of 2 semesters/4 quarters with 6 one-hour (55 min) classes each day (5 days a week), we had 3 trimesters with 4 classes of 1.5 hrs. However, since I was doing an extended calculus course, and honors chemistry and physics, I took 5 classes each day instead of 4. I preferred to have more time in class or lab.

Teaching with an individual curriculum for each student just isn't practical, especially when each teacher has 120-150 students or more.

Summer 'vacation' was originally a break from education/class so that students could work on the farms and help with the harversts. Please review one's US history from the colonial period: 1600 and 1700's.

Well I think the average classroom at the high school and middle school level is around 30-40 students per-class room, not 120 -150. I think classroom size could be lowered if 95 percent of the student population stopped attending public schools and begin to migrate to schools that offer curriculums that suit their intellectual interests and subsequently class size would go down drastically because students would not want the the same educational experience; Some my focus strictly on math and science, others might focus on theater and the arts, others my focus on rhetoric and logic, and other might focus on strictly improving atheletics skills. I don't see the need for students to attend a school that offers a curriculum that does not interest them; Not to mentioned most public schools do a poor job of teaching their curriculum for students do not retain what they learn after graduating. Or students could stopped flocking to schools altogether and the parents could decide what curriculum would be suited best for their children rather than what the schools thinks is best for their children. There are more than enough educational resources offered online freely available to students.

And call me crazy, but I don't think it should take thirteen years for students to learn the basics of math and english. When I was in 12th grade, I felt like was learning grammar skills I learned in 8th grade. I read the same novel in 7th grade that I learned in 8th grades. I think that learning the basics of writing , reading , and math and learning history and basic civics should take students at least 4 years, not thirteen years.

I am aware of the reasons why America has summer vacation; But the reason for summer vacations does not make it not an american tradition.

 

[Astronuc]

Well I think the average classroom at the high school and middle school level is around 30-40 students per-class room, not 120 -150.

Most teachers I knew taught 4 or 5 classes, with 20-40 students per class.

I think classroom size could be lowered if 95 percent of the student population stopped attending public schools and begin to migrate to schools that offer curriculums that suit their intellectual interests and subsequently class size would go down drastically because students would not want the the same educational experience;

and who pays for this? Public education is paid by the taxpayers, and it's based on economy of scale and a uniform system. Private education can cost $20k - 40k /year, or perhaps more.

And call me crazy, but I don't think it should take thirteen years for students to learn the basics of math and english. When I was in 12th grade, I felt like was learning grammar skills I learned in 8th grade. I read the same novel in 7th grade that I learned in 8th grades. I think that learning the basics of writing , reading , and math and learning history and basic civics should take students at least 4 years, not thirteen years.

My high school used college level textbooks books during senior year, and the classes were fairly rigorous. That's probably why most of my classmates went to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Brown, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, . . . . in addition to the state universities.

I am aware of the reasons why America has summer vacation; But the reason for summer vacations does not make it not an american tradition.

I worked after school and summers - since the 8th grade. I usually got 2 to 3 weeks vacation during a summer.

 

[S_Happens]

I think classroom size could be lowered if 95 percent of the student population stopped attending public schools and begin to migrate to schools that offer curriculums that suit their intellectual interests...

...I don't see the need for students to attend a school that offers a curriculum that does not interest them;

There are two problems there. First is that the students that have intellectual interests are most likely going to succeed anyway. Typically they have either the drive or ability to be there in the first place. Second is that the vast majority (something like your 95%), have no intellectual interest, so they would be in exactly the same place. Public schools cater to those that do not have any drive.

I think everyone should be held to a higher standard, meaning the minimum requirements and amount of material covered should be raised. I have no problems with lengthening the school year, but raise the educational standard as well. I agree that the piddly amount of material covered in 13 years is pathetic.

I know that the majority of America has the "race to the bottom" (thanks whoever posted that) attitude, but I don't think that raising the bottom itself would be detremental. The people that barely got by, will still barely get by.

 

[turbo]

Summer 'vacation' was originally a break from education/class so that students could work on the farms and help with the harversts. Please review one's US history from the colonial period: 1600 and 1700's.

It still is, in "the county" as Mainers refer to Aroostook. The big crop up there is potatoes, with broccoli gaining in importance, and schools up there close for the harvest.

Inspecting, sorting, culling are all important hands-on tasks that need to be done by humans and just can't be automated. If farmers contaminated their storage barns with damaged, diseased, blighted potatoes, they would be putting their entire crops at risk. Plus, it sure doesn't hurt kids to work some long days, earn money, and learn the discipline and responsibility that agricultural jobs entail.

 

[Jasongreat]

I think when people speak of a more individualized curriculum, what they mean is that, a school could offer the same classes to everyone, but instead of making all student take the same classes, the school would let the students customize their class schedule to allow them to take advantage of their personal strenghts. Not everyone needs college prep courses. The fact is most people graduating high school never go to college because they don't need to for the job they want. There are getting to be more and more jobs that require a college degree, but let's not forget that there are still far more jobs that don't. It seems to me as a society we are reaching the point where we feel labor is below us, everybody NEEDs college so they don't have to rely on their physical labor.
I think one thing we should remember is that a lot of student use their summer breaks to work and save money to pay for their further education, remove the break and you make them more dependent on taxpayers for their education, or at the very least they will be further in debt when they graduate than they would have been otherwise. I also feel there is far more to learn(to a point) by being out discovering the world for yourself, than sitting in a classroom learning about the world.
I have read that public education costs over 10,000 per student, and astronuc stated that private schooling costs over 20,000 per student(on top of the property taxes one pays towards public ed), but home schooling costs around 900 dollars per year for supplies. Granted one parent would have to give up their salary and stay home to teach and that would raise the price of home schooling, but it would be one on one and who knows the students strengths and weaknesses better than a parent? It is my belief that it would also help raise the level of education in the masses, as most parents would have to study themselves in order to teach some subjects to their child. Or how about a neighborhood of twenty families, hire a teacher with a phd for 100,000 per year(5,000 per family, if each family only has more than one child it is even cheaper). I think it would be easy to find some space that would be donated, local churches usually will offer space in a community at no charge. With the charge of 900 per student per year for supplies that would bring the total to around 6,000 per student. I once read an article on the public school system in california that shows some of the problems of centralized education, http://www.tommcclintock.com/articles/a-modest-proposal-for-saving-our-schools"

 

[BoomBoom]

It is my belief that it would also help raise the level of education in the masses, as most parents would have to study themselves in order to teach some subjects to their child.

Perhaps, but I often get the impression that a main problem we have with education is apathetic parents who don't really seem to care that their kids are failing. I've known a couple of people that decided to home school their kids and, I hate to say it, but I think those kids are receiving a poor education. Not to say that there aren't excellent parents out there that might do a wonderful job, but I do not think that is the norm but an exception.


Also, I hate the fact that schools seem to be continually dumbing down their curriculum in an attempt to get more students to pass. We need to do the opposite and raise our standards and fail the kids that do not meet them. I say leave them behind and make them do it over again until they get it right.

 

[Hurkyl]

Perhaps, but I often get the impression that a main problem we have with education is apathetic parents who don't really seem to care that their kids are failing.

Also some do care -- and blame the teacher.

 

[noblegas]

Perhaps, but I often get the impression that a main problem we have with education is apathetic parents who don't really seem to care that their kids are failing. I've known a couple of people that decided to home school their kids and, I hate to say it, but I think those kids are receiving a poor education. Not to say that there aren't excellent parents out there that might do a wonderful job, but I do not think that is the norm but an exception.


Also, I hate the fact that schools seem to be continually dumbing down their curriculum in an attempt to get more students to pass. We need to do the opposite and raise our standards and fail the kids that do not meet them. I say leave them behind and make them do it over again until they get it right.

How do you figure that the education homeschool students received is generally more poor than the education of students that attend public school? Do you have statistical data and surveys of students all over america to back up your claim? OR do you have just that one anecdoctal story about the parents being poor teachers? I don't think most school teachers are apt at addressing all the academic needs of students nor do I think most teachers are apt at motivating their students to overcome their academic weaknesses ; Parents , those that take the time to be attentive to the needs of their child anyway , know their child's weaknesses and their child strengths better than a school teacher. students who are in the lower end of the academic track would just be labeled as the 'dumb kids' and would stay in the unchallenging courses throughout their grade and high school career; I don't think this would occur if parents were in control of their child's education. It is assumed that all students learn in the same manner. Thats statement is just not true. We are not created equal. Therefore, we will not learn in the same manner or same the pace. Therefore, it is inadequate for a teacher to instruct everybody under the same manner. Therefore, the standard classroom model is not sufficient for ideall for each individual receiving a quality education

 

[Jasongreat]

Perhaps, but I often get the impression that a main problem we have with education is apathetic parents who don't really seem to care that their kids are failing. I've known a couple of people that decided to home school their kids and, I hate to say it, but I think those kids are receiving a poor education. Not to say that there aren't excellent parents out there that might do a wonderful job, but I do not think that is the norm but an exception.

It seems to me that parents might take more interest in their kids' education if they knew it is their responsibility, as it is now parents are paying good money and the education system they pay for is supposed to complete that task. As far as the homeschooling goes it seems that millions of kids are getting a poor education at a far higher cost than the children getting taught at home, I'm not saying in any way that homeschooling is the only or even the best solution just that it is an option that seems to me is a far more efficient solution. I would think though that a child taught by a college educated or even a well read parent would fare far better than a child in the system we have know, especially if the parent understands that it is more important to learn how to think than to just memorize facts that you can find in any library or in any search engine.

Also, I hate the fact that schools seem to be continually dumbing down their curriculum in an attempt to get more students to pass. We need to do the opposite and raise our standards and fail the kids that do not meet them. I say leave them behind and make them do it over again until they get it right.[/

QUOTE]

I completely agree that it seems the schools keep lowering their standards to up their numbers, but not all children are meant to have or are even capable of an academic career, and there is nothing wrong with them that they need punishment to see the error of their ways. Some students imo would fare far better in a technical or trade atmosphere(more hands on), however there are some students that holding them back might help them see that they need to work harder and give them the incentive they need. So imo we should start making decisions based on the individual instead of trying to force the slower to catch up, and at the same time holding back the people that should be advancing farther and faster than the masses can keep up with. IMO let the excellent excel and allow the others to follow which ever path they are best suited for, college or not, to excel in their own individual way.

 

[russ_watters]

It seems to me that parents might take more interest in their kids' education if they knew it is their responsibility, as it is now parents are paying good money and the education system they pay for is supposed to complete that task.

You're not serious, are you? The primary responsibility for ensuring kids get a quality education always falls on the parents. If any parent doesn't understand what their duties as parents are, then they are failing their kids in a horrendous way.

Parental responsibilities for education include:

-Supervision of homework (obvious)
-Tutoring (obvious)
-Teaching their kids the morality/ethics/behaviors required to perform in a classroom

A great many parents fail miserably at these responsibilities and they are the primary reason for failure of students to learn. From what I've seen, the schools themselves are little more than a footnote to the problem of poor student performance. We treat the problem from the wrong direction (blaming schools) because the schools are what the government has direct control over. But bad schools do not, for the most part, create bad students: bad students create bad schools.

 

[noblegas]

t seems to me that parents might take more interest in their kids' education if they knew it is their responsibility, as it is now parents are paying good money and the education system they pay for is supposed to complete that task. As far as the homeschooling goes it seems that millions of kids are getting a poor education at a far higher cost than the children getting taught at home, I'm not saying in any way that homeschooling is the only or even the best solution just that it is an option that seems to me is a far more efficient solution. I would think though that a child taught by a college educated or even a well read parent would fare far better than a child in the system we have know, especially if the parent understands that it is more important to learn how to think than to just memorize facts that you can find in any library or in any search engine.

I definitely agree. Washington DC public schools invest $10,000 dollars per student in their curriculum, so that's $130,000 for an entire 13 years and the graduation rate is 65 percent!(http://dcps.dc.gov/portal/site/DCPS...id=39d1e2b1f0d32210VgnVCM100000416f0201RCRD); millions of dollars are probably lost and does that do graduate probably did not receive a decent education ; Most high schools students don't know US civics or US history very well(http://www.examiner.com/x-5445-Politics-in-Education-Examiner) for 3 percent of the high school students past the history and civics test. Not suggesting that students should be forced to learn history or civics, but if those are the subjects teachers are hired to teach, then way more than 3 percent of the students should past.

 

[noblegas]

You're not serious, are you? The primary responsibility for ensuring kids get a quality education always falls on the parents. If any parent doesn't understand what their duties as parents are, then they are failing their kids in a horrendous way.

Yes russ , the parents should be invested in their students education. But if the cost of a student's public education is $10000/per student, then students should receive a better quality education than they actually are receiving. When we pay for an expensive car, we expect the car not to break down, and to have good mileage. If a car fails to meet such criteria, we don't say its the car buyer fault; We sue the car company. teachers should be held accountable too.When we pay for an $10000 for a child education, then we should expect our students to receive a decent education these teachers.

 

[edpell]

How about a democratic school for a democratic people? see www.sudval.org[/url] and [url]www.hudsonvalleyschool.org[/URL]

 

[Jasongreat]

Wow, thanks for the links. That looks like a great school and at a savings of about 4000 a year compared to the DC school district.

 

[Evo]

How about a democratic school for a democratic people? see www.sudval.org[/url] and [url]www.hudsonvalleyschool.org[/URL][/QUOTE]ok...

[quote]The Sudbury philosophy believes that success in life is determined by a person's character more than a specific body of knowledge.[/quote]Right, knowledge is not important.

[quote][B]Instead of passing a standardized test to receive a diploma, students of HVSS must prepare and defend a thesis in order to receive our Certificate of Graduation. The topic of the thesis is "How I have prepared myself to be an effective adult in the larger community". [/B]A study performed by the Sudbury Valley School shows that 82% of their graduates pursued formal study after graduation. Those who did not pursue formal studies felt that they were ready to go directly into their chosen field of work.[/quote]Formal studies of what?

 

[edpell]

ok...

Right, knowledge is not important.

Formal studies of what?

The statement was that A is more important than B. This does not imply B is unimportant.

If I applied the same logic to your statement I would get character is not important. The quote thing is behaving badly you asked study what?

Sudbury has put out books on longitudinal studies of their graduates. You can order the books from their website or borrow them through a library. In general all the subject areas typical young people in Massachusetts study.

 

[noblegas]

ok...

Right, knowledge is not important.

Formal studies of what?

Here is another quote from the website

Much of the learning at a Sudbury school occurs naturally; reading, writing and math are learned through every day experiences such as playing yu-gi-oh cards, writing a D&D adventure, or working in the School Store. Students also passionately dive into interests such as painting, physics, skateboarding, sewing, cooking, music, carpentry and Chinese — the list is endless. A Sudbury school is alive with activity. There is a wealth of exposure to various avenues of interest. Students see each other pursuing their passions and are inspired by them.

So obviously the creators of this school want children to focus on subjects that interest them and grab their curiosity, not on subjects provided and approved by a school board.