Monthly Archives: January 2013

Total Effective School Days

The concept behind the number of days students spend in an educational setting is one based on experience, research, policy, and custom. The 180 days used in many states and educational communities has served as a benchmark for years despite educational change, testing requirements, and societal developments. But unlike the manufacturing process school systems are based on, the use of this benchmark is as ineffective as it is outdated. Even the amount of hours at school is based around transportation and public convenience rather than educational research.

20130126-103932.jpg
If however, one was to simply ask students, parents, and teachers the answer to the question, “How many totally effective schools days are there in a school year?” the answer would be significantly different from the number given by the states. If school were a manufacturing plant, where production goes forward despite other activities that occur during the day, given the fact that in the minimum number of production days, in this case 180, their product must be ready for shipment, then perhaps the number of days set at 180 would be an acceptable amount. However that would mean in school, despite a holiday assembly in the theater, the teacher would remain in the classroom and pressed on with the day’s lesson utilizing every minute of the 180 days, then we could say that in theory the time was used as required by law. Unfortunately unlike the assembly line where the product stays on the line, in this case the student leaves the line and heads to the theater.
Over the course of more than 20 years of educational experience to include raising four children through various educational systems to include DODDS, and input I’ve gathered from thousands of teachers over the years, the answer to the question raised about totally effective production/classroom days hovers more accurately around 155 effective school days.
That number may be further distorted based on the date testing is administered. Again using production facilities in comparison, the measurement of success is at the end of 180 days the product produced is what was promised at day one: In the educational process we measure the success of production using standardized testing 30 to 45 days before the promised delivery date. Effective educational time therefore, the amount of hours spent by students in an educational setting not to be confused with the amount of time teachers spend in comparison,is certainly a questionable amount. If standardized testing is based on an educational production time of 180 days then we are measuring success of students and schools before the paint is dry.
The solution therefore is an examination of the educational structure, the administration of that structure, and an educational calendar based on the reality of schools and not the perception. To be honest even the term Total Effective School Days is an improbable standard given the fact that the educational system is as much a social preparatory school as it is an educational one. Measurement of one’s social progress is almost as difficult as effective measurement of one’s educational progress. The question therefore goes back to the number of days given by states as a standard, is that an effective amount of time given the needs of society, the requirements of standardized testing, and the amount of quality educational time allocated to each teacher in our schools? If we are going to change the curriculum of schools across the country, we owe it to everyone to change the amount of time necessary to teach that curriculum.

Advertisements

Moore’s Law

There’s an advertisement on television that caught my eye recently, I pay attention to advertisements as a former media teacher because it takes a very clever, intelligent group of advertisers to put together concise information into 15 or 30 second spots. Anyway this advertisement for AT&T U-Verse shows a young person around 12 years old telling their siblings about the “old days” of television — where they had to go to the room the television was located in because it had to connect to a wall outlet where now with their new service they could watch it anywhere. The difference in age of these actors is about 3 to 4 years. I am sure the tongue in cheek reference here to us older folks is that the expression the “old days” was most often in reference to a multi-generational issue spanning 5 or 6 decades not 3 to 4 years, but this 30 second advertisement reveals more about the world we live in than just a passing reference to television technology.
Moore’s Law is an observation by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore who observed essentially that computing technology would change/improve itself every two years … that was in 1965. Today’s version would read something along the lines of technological change every month, perhaps even faster. The point here is (as I type this on my iPad, connected wirelessly on a school wide server, using an application or “app” a term in 1965 that was no where near associated with computers) that education reform, comfortable with the snails’s pace of past reform movements, must accept the new pace of education or leave. In fact I believe it is time for school boards, administrators everywhere to have a face-to-face discussion about change and reform in school with each and every staff member, teacher, support faculty, administrator — everyone. If they cannot change now, then they need to leave now. The sooner the better because you cannot go forward when part of the faculty is stuck in the mud pulling you back. We need leadership the elicits change and progressive thinking more than we need money. We need teachers who accept the role of classroom learning enabler and educational guide more than we need advanced placement classes. We need people reform to stay abreast of this ever advancing educational world.