If we dump testing we are effectively adding days, so the 182 day model might include enough instructional time.

Instruction in 50 minute periods is bullshit. Always has been. Life and learning doesn't happen in 50 minute chunks.

If there must be content-specific, non-integrated classes on a schedule then at least let there be one flexible open-ended day per week for projects and experiential learning.

I could go on...

with 2/3 week between quarters....Teachers spend a large part of the first quarter of every school year "refreshing" students...which is fine for some, but bores others to death.

Would you dump all standardized testing or just some of it? What system would you use to determine whether a school is performing well? My children are grown, so I don't know what is going on these days...I do know that all of them had teachers who were great, good, acceptable and just plain lousy. All three went on to graduate from college.

A big reason we left Florida to go to Nebraska was to put our kids in better schools. I don't know about now, but six years ago, Florida schooling was basicallly nothing more than FCAT review. Thise tests became not only tied to school performance and teacher pay, but also drove local property values before the big real estate crash.

I don't think students or teachers (if paid well) would mind.

One of the questions is what is a working family to do with kids when school is out?

It's not like they go to school Mon - Fri 52 weeks a year.

Younger ones need down time, older ones need full time.
Home realities don't provide proper care scenarios for all ages.
It's a mess.

My parents would sit us down in January or so and present us with our options for the summer. I took horseback riding lessons, ballet classes, was on the swim team and went to camp. My dad was a teacher who didn't believe kids should spend an empty summer doing nothing.

The system that serves well the least well served best serves the future of all.

She attends a high school with "block system." In a typical high school, kids have -- call it 7 -- classes all / most of the year for 50-60 minutes a day. In her school, you do 4 blocks in each half of the school year for 90 minutes. So in half a year, you take what, in conventional schools, is a year's worth of English, math, whatever. She has less homework and gets more out of the classes she takes.

There are downsides. She's a band kid, and they want band kids to take a music block all year long. That means 4 years of band in the block system is the equivalent of 8 years in conventional schools. I don't like that. Also, there can be significant time gaps between taking phases of a foreign language or math class. On balance, though, I like it.

as long as I can remember. Had to debate it in a class in college in the Elementary Teaching program. My stance back then, and still now, is yes, we need more time teaching, but the time also needs to be used more efficiently.

I'll be watching how those schools do here in CO.

regularized and of a significant duration, physical learning resources, including flesh & blood learning professionals available 8 a.m. - 8 p.m., 7 days a week, more attendance/scheduling options, more vocational/guild opportunities, more arts, more PE, and either less sports or sports by private subscription, more accountability and transparency in authentic assessments and evaluations.

In fact, we probably need more.

If what you are saying is really "spend less on football", the reality is that many communities fund that privately through booster efforts and ticket sales.

..like "P90X" and "Zumba."

Taxpayers will never support that. The costs would be astronomical.

Kids need to be kids, not non-stop testing machines.

Oh, and by the way, teachers are not your kids' babysitters. They should not be at your beck and call 24/7. You seem to think schools should be babysitting services.

You have obviously never worked in education.

appear to operate on assumptions, so you may not have learned to 1. begin with a question, especially when there are things that you don't know 2. assumptions about your students, who are more vulnerable than I, can damage them.

What might that be? . . . if you please.

I don't know what the answer is, but these NCLB and Race to the Top have done nothing more than exasperate the teaching staff, load them down with paperwork/reports no one will ever read and left how many years of students behind in their dust.

We need to go back to learning and get the politicians out of the curriculum and school safety. The schools were doing pretty well without their help. Now, we have a generation that can't spell, comprehend what they read or make change without a mechanical device of some kind to tell them how much to give.

I'm from a family of many teachers and I know how frustrated they are. Their main hope is to get back to teaching...not experimentation.

If they want to see a successful program for student and teachers - and the community!! (think year round out-of-school programs, childcare, vacations, etc... instead of trying to cram all those kids at once into one short period of time. Good for the local economy. Great even. And the parents paying for it - spread out over the year instead of all at once. Being able to take vacations "off-peak".)

The kids learn more. Forget less. Both teacher and student are more refreshed and less bored and ready for school to be OVER. The lessons move more quickly. Win Win Win Win Win.

Block scheduling is horrendous imo - the pitfalls outweigh any advantages. You can reap those advantages with different a different system without the pitfall. We had a "rotating or floating" schedule in my highschool (long ago and far far away). Six classes, but only 5 periods in a day. Therefore, longer classes. Works like this:

Let's say Periods 1-5 and Class 1-5 + "Float Class".

Monday you have Float Class 1st period instead of Class 1.
Tuesday you have Float Class 2nd period instead of Class 2.
Wednesday - Float Class 3rd period instead of Class 3.
Thursday you don't have Float Class. Fourth Period was lunch so difficult to change. It was also "three segments long" so only one third of the school had lunch at any one time. Lunch, Class, Class - or Class, Class, Lunch - or the most favored if you could get it - Class, Lunch, Class! :woo-hoo:

Fridays - Float class was fifth period. That did sometimes present a problem, because 4th & 5th had classes like band and chorus, etc... If you had a fanatical teacher, or a performance coming up - well, after school it was. Then again, for those guys - it was frequently "plus after school on any give day" anyway for extra rehearsal so that wasn't a big deal.

The other great thing - classes were "leveled" - which I know some people don't like - but the academic classes were either College Level (4), High school+ level (3), Highschool regular (2), or slower paced - okay sometimes called easy or remedial for those who needed it or who had absolutely NO intention - or ability - to go to college (1). They were still classes with expectations and learning did take place lest anyone thing it was a "holding tank". Not an option in my highschool. It might be "easier", but you were still expected to do the work. Some were say Level 3-4, level 2-3, or 1-2 and differentiated. (small classes, btw. Small highschool for that matter.)

You took the classes you wanted or were suited for - maybe you needed College level Math, but a slower English Class - or vice versa. Maybe Advanced Social Studies, but "regular Science". The class moved along at the rate and intensity it should for the students in it.
We had excellent vocational program and a sister program with the tech college for students who wanted to learn a trade (a lot of whom went on to make way more money than those who went to college. . . can you say plumber?)

Anyway - my highschool was excellent and advanced for it's time period. "Team teaching" so teachers who were better in one aspect of a subject taught that module. 1/2 day classes for those who wanted or could take classes at the local college, votech (do they even do that anymore?!?) High standards of excellence. A's were 96-100, B's were 91-95, etc... C's were broader at something like 80-89, D's 70-79, anything less than 70% was considered "you obviously didn't learn the subject well enough to advance". With leveled classes, it was fair system.

Not a fan of classroom mainstreaming as you might imagine. Advanced students need advanced pace and material. Dumbing down/slowing down the curriculum serves no one.

I hd that for a while. Sorry - I disagree completely. I like my kid's block schedule a lot. My experience was that floating classes were a major PITA. Homework was a mess. If you had a half day or a snow delay, reworking the classes was a major mess.

VoTec programs are important, but I see a growing need for employees who need a mix of class room and hands on technical training. Repairing machining equipment, for example, is as much about programming as it is about mechanical repair.

I'd like to see some of the emphasis on college preparation exchanged for developing skills that allow students to enter the world of work and make competitive wages at 18 upon graduation. There's no reason, for example, why student's couldn't develop MCSE or network certifications; become certified medication assistants; become certified child care providers; or even become licensed real estate or insurance agents by the conclusion of high school.

for modified schedules. Though there were rarely snow days where we lived. (Rarely here for that matter and I'm in Wisconsin now...)

I liked the homework schedule as it gave more time if you were pushed in a particular class or had something else going on.

Votec should of course INCLUDE more computerized components these days, but they certainly don't have to know how to be a "programmer", I don't think - there are programs written by programmers to write the program, if you know what I mean. These kids grow up using computers every day, too in a computerized world. Still, though, a necessary part of their education. Lots of necessary things going by the wayside, imo. Art, music, PE - these are all important aspects of learning and well-rounded life. Art & music help with mathematics - who doesn't understand that simple fact?

I think telling every kid to go to college is a huge mistake. A lie in fact. Not every kid should go to college. One of things wrong wtih the quality and COST of a college education now. It's become a business and not an institute of higher learning. It's a party ground for immature young adults who are taking up the space and time that should be going to serious students.

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:47 PM - Edit history (1)

I've taught in two buildings, both without central air. Throughout most of the year it's tolerable, but in late May, June, we have days where my classroom has gone into the 80's or 90's. On those days, we're dripping sweat, and I'm gonna be honest - we don't learn much at all. We're in surviving mode and our brains shut down.

Yet another idea I think that's based on people who don't have boots on the ground, or at least don't have them down in the poorer districts.

...and from a cost standpoint, cooling schools in July & August, as well as heating them in January & February, can be horrifically expensive.

couldn't they? Yes, you read right - one half of all instructional days, someone will be testing with makeups for TAKS, or the new EOC in all core subjects, or the STAAR test to determine your graduation.

Plenty of time to teach, if the powers that be would allow it.

And more hours doesn't mean better, necessarily - you could easily enter the domain of diminishing marginal returns on that time.

AND if more time is required for teachers, more pay will also be required. Not likely in Texas, where we cut $5.4 billion statewide from education last legislative session. No raises for two years, not even a step increase in our district, but they did start a bonus this year, payable each semester that you don't quit. 25% of our teaching staff districtwide did just that last year.

Pretending that we're already trying our current resources is simply bullshit. I wouldn't support major changes to anything until we've actually tried our current system, really. Or have independent and dependent variables gone the way of all other common sense?

People who promote this believe teachers are lazy shits who get all this time off.

Arne Duncan is a stupid asshole. Period.

We've needed a longer school year for many years now. BUT we need to make sure we spend the additional time on quality instruction rather than pointless test prep AND we need to pay teachers accordingly.

Year-round schools is about the lousiest idea to come down the pike. There is no evidence kids benefit from it. A few teachers like the frequent breaks, but that's all that can be said in its favor.

I LOATHED YRS when I worked in one. I felt like I was on a treadmill, never to decompress.


Of course, Arne really thinks teachers should work like employees in business settings and be available to parents 24/7 and be on campus until 5 or 6 at night--mandatory. He is talking year round as in the standard 260-day work year, I am sure, not the typical school year with month-long breaks and open during the summers. Teachers would NEVER be paid more in Arne's scheme.

This would cause even MORE burnout of teachers.

He NEVER has an idea that makes any sense. It's all about pleasing his idiotic corporate backers.

Making the school year longer is only going to hurt our education. The fact of the matter is, America has been trying to compete with the Chinese and South Korean educational systems for 20 years, increasing the amount of state tests, homework etc. But the problem is American students aren't Chinese students, our students are lazier. Ya know who has the best educational system in the world? Finland, and their kids don't start Kindergarten until they are 7 years old, state tests don't start until they're teenagers and they get more of a choice as to what they want to do in high school. They do the best because the kids actually pursue the education they want to unlike here in America where we force them what to learn even when the kids just aren't naturally enthusiastic or good at a certain subject. We should pursue Finland's education model, it's perfect.

My kid is a sophomore in HS and is taking material for college credit. As far as I can tell, today's HS kids are busting their butts and doing far more than kids did 30 years ago.

The big problem I see is the dropout rate. Too many kids don't see the payback for staying in school and drop out rather than graduate. The economic impact of this is horrific.

That said, I agree we should let kids pursue programs that better play to their strengths.

As I said upthread: more emphasis needs to be placed on getting our kids work-ready by 18.

but that is only a small part of the overall student body. You get past the honors and college classes, and you see (except for specialized classes with commitment like VoTech, Art, Journalism) many (in some cases) most students not engaged in the class (and not learning the material).

Agree with you totally about giving more options for children to be ready to enter the workforce at 18. I think that approach will also address the problem with lack of engagement (along with parents that explain the realities of the situation - that you are going to be expected to earn your daily bread somehow - the date for full time employment for pay be pushed back for additional education, but that education should also be viewed as a job).

Many high school aged kids need to work in the summer. Or maybe they just want to work, which can be a good life experience, even if it is just to save up money for trendy clothes. Also, learning does not just happen in the classroom, summer vacation affords opportunites to learn independently, which intellectually curious kids will do regardless of the school calendar.

If I was a parent, I would ignore the new calendar and take my child out of school when the original summer vacation was to start.

and have lives away from school?

Some kids are at school for 10 hours a day because of parents work hours. Then in the summer parents deal with finding child care.

Our current school calendar is based on an agricultural economy when most families were farmers or grew much of their own food. Those days are long gone. We need to adapt to our modern society and do a better job of meeting our kids and their families needs.

The energy costs, the transportation costs and the personnel costs will be much too high. Not to mention the heat factor in the summer in some locale.

I've worked 180 and 190 instructional day calendars, as well as the 168 day calendar I'd be on now if it weren't for all the cut days trying to balance the budget.

I'm fine with 180. We don't have to add school days if we scale back the forced theft of time from everything outside of preparation for reading and math tests. Get rid of the high-stakes testing, and we can balance the schedule and the day.

I prefer a single-track year-round calendar. It's not an increase in school days. It simply provides shorter, but more frequent, breaks. IT WORKS. Students lose less over those shorter breaks than they do the endless summer, and students and teachers both don't suffer the burnout that impacts learning, especially in the last couple of months. We stay rested, fresher, and more able to function effectively.

We were all groaning the first day back from winter break. Partly because our schedule so far this year has been intense and demanding; partly because the long, long work days are hard to get through this time of year.

In the winter, I leave in the dark, get home to more chores in the dark, and never even see my home in daylight until Saturday.

asynchronous, in order to allow more individually appropriate scheduling. Stuff is headed in that direction anyway, because of the internet and online schooling, but that will fall short, without some consistent personal human contact.

Why not just have physical resources and persons that are available all of the time, 8 a - 8 p, and have authentic assessments that document where a given individual is in whatever they are doing (and here the word "authentic" means actual benchmark samples of all of the different things that a person does, some of which the person themselves select as part of that portfolio of assessment examples, which obviously could be multi-media in nature, so you could actually see the student do things, or view a 3 D or holographic picture of their work, or sound files, or do you know there's even a 3 D "printer" now that will fabricate workable objects out of polymers of somesort . . . ) anyway, the idea of the authentic assessments is so that individual students and the system can keep track over long, even very long, periods of time what individuals are doing and how their skills and aptitudes are changing due to learning experiences.

I know this is so unusual that it sounds crazy to some people, but if we cared, we'd do it right, and my God, look at the money we wasted on that horrible crime against humanity in Iraq (and elsewhere, technically), if we can afford that sort of thing, why can't we decide to afford this? We have maintained these kinds of physical resources for the military, why can't we do it for the nation's children???????

BEFORE the testing Nazis took over.

On one calendar, students were required to attend 190 days. Teachers worked 222 instructional days. Families chose the 190 days they would attend before the year started, out of those 222 days. Attendance was completely individualized.

That sounds like a mess, but I didn't have any problem with it. Families loved it.

We would have made it even more open, simply requiring the 190 days without the pre-selection, but that would amount to positive attendance, which is a no-no. The state doesn't budget for 100% ada.

That's just one of several interesting variations.