A Longer School Day for Failing Schools

The New York Times had this story about a number of governors who are proposing longer school days for failing schools in order to bring them up to standard.

States and school districts nationwide are moving to lengthen the day at struggling schools, spurred by grim test results suggesting that more than 10,000 schools are likely to be declared failing under federal law next year.

In Massachusetts, in the forefront of the movement, Gov. Deval L. Patrick is allocating $6.5 million this year for longer days and can barely keep pace with demand: 84 schools have expressed interest.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York has proposed an extended day as one of five options for his state’s troubled schools, part of a $7 billion increase in spending on education over the next four years — apart from the 37 minutes of extra tutoring that children in some city schools already receive four times a week.

And Gov. M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut is proposing to lengthen the day at persistently failing schools as part of a push to raise state spending on education by $1 billion.

"In 15 years, I’d be very surprised if the old school calendar still dominates in urban settings," said Mark Roosevelt, superintendent of schools in Pittsburgh, which has added 45 minutes a day at eight of its lowest-performing schools and 10 more days to their academic year.

But the movement, which has expanded the day in some schools by as little as 30 minutes or as much as two hours, has many critics: among administrators, who worry about the cost; among teachers, whose unions say they work hard enough as it is, and have sought more pay and renegotiation of contracts; and among parents, who say their children spend enough time in school already.

Still others question the equity of moving toward a system where students at low-performing, often urban, schools get more teaching than students at other schools.

As described, there are many problems. Let us examine first the concerns of the naysayers. The unions, quite whining! Sorry, but you have an out, that is the renegotiation of contracts. Administrators are next up on the totem pole. Cost is a legitimate concern, but if the taxpayers are footing the bill, what specifically is your beef? Your are sure to get funds to cover the additional costs.

Parents and students have a legitimate complaint. Most kids are in school, that is physically in teh building or going to an from school for 8 plus hours. Taking on additional time is a burden. I can see their frustration, particularly at a specific point.

Ann Althouse calls the additonal time immoral.

In fact, I think it is a morally wrong solution. It's bad enough that children are cooped up and physically restrained for as long as they are to get through a school day. To justify that physical restraint, adults owe children a lot. If the adults are now failing to do what they owe children to justify physically restraining them, it is outrageous to attempt to make up for their own failure by increasing the restraint. What makes it worse is that the solution is inflicted disproportionately on minority kids.

The immorality however is not the length of the day itself, but the fact that their day will be lengthened to spend more time in a school that is already failing them!!!

Let's say a school has children from 9 to 3 and the school is being ordered to stay open for an extra hour to compensate for the poor education these kids have already been delivered. So instead of six hours with adults who have failed them, these students are being asked to spend seven hours with the same adults. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, why is this proposal not a prime example of insanity?

Unless the entire staff is replaced or dramatically restructured, then simply extending the day is morally reprehensible. However, if the school is restaffed with better teachers, then extending the day moves from a question of morality and propriety to one of logistics and parental choice, a far safer ground for the school system.

As for children paying the price for the failure of adults, this is nothing new. Successive generations have alwasy paid the price for the failings of their predecessors. It is nothing new and probably won't change any time soon, it is human nature to be self-centered and pass costs on to someone else. Not particularly moral, but human nature.