Not exactly a smackdown actually, just a civil debate on the editorial pages of USA TODAY this week, with MACCRAY (Minn.) Public Schools Superintendent Gregory A. Schmidt making the case for a four-day school week, while the paper’s editorial staff counters with concerns.
BoardBuzz has weighed in on this a few times already, and many of the pros and cons to the concept that we’ve raised are expressed in the two columns. They are both worth your read.
Schmidt notes some of the benefits his district has seen and clarifies that instructional hours have actually increased:
Despite reducing the number of instructional days from 172 to 149, MACCRAY students have gained more than 17 hours of instructional time by adding 65 minutes to each instructional day. Because there are fewer days, there are fewer breaks for recess, lunch, and time between classes making more time for academic pursuits.
The district expects to save between $85,000 and $100,000 in 2008-09 because of the modified schedule. The contract with its transportation provider assures the district of $65,000 in savings. That’s nearly $3,000 per day. Other savings will result by reducing electrical usage and having fewer days that furnaces are required to heat the buildings to a comfortable level.
Smartly, the district plans to evaluate the schedule change’s impact on academics, finances and reactions of the students, parents, teachers and community to determine the schedule’s future.
On the other side of the aisle, the USA TODAY editorial staff raises many questions, including whether U.S. students should be in school more days, not less. They also ask if the actual savings — possibly just 2% of the total budget — outweigh any potential academic loss to students, though the meager research (mostly just anecdotal evidence) on this to date indicates no harm to achievement.
If anything, U.S. students spend too little time in school. Compared with 39 other developed countries, the United States ranks near the bottom on average weekly instruction time. Measured over 12 years, the difference adds up to a full year of instruction.
What about the learning losses from a three-day school break? What about the stiff penalty a student faces when sick or absent for one of those four days? What about the family costs of day care for a child home alone on a weekday, or the potential for an unattended child to get into trouble?
We’ve said before that academic achievement is the ultimate bottom line for school districts and that it must remain in the forefront of any decision, along with engaging the public throughout the process of any signficant change to something like the school calendar. What do you think? Weigh in with a comment and tell us about it.
