Conference moira::parenting

Last night I attended a very interesting meeting of the
Massachusetts Commission on Time and Learning.

Their task is to define instructional time and recommend
how much children should receive.


Currently instructional time includes everything from 
the time the bell rings to start school until the
bell rings to end school. Many educators want to define
instructional time as only that time students and 
teachers spend engaged in the learning process. Field 
trips would be included but study halls would not. 
Recess and time spent between classes, time for eye 
exams and scoliosis screening, and other such things 
would be excluded. The current thinking is that 5
hours of instructional time at the elementary level
and 5.5 hours at the secondary level should make up 
a school day and that some additional time would
be added to ensure enough flexibility for new and
different scheduling models.

Half-days would likely be eliminated.

The number of days in the school year is also being 
looked at both as a number of days and as a total
number of hours. 


Do you have any suggestions, ideas, comments?

    I would love to see half days eliminated from the point of view of a
    parent.  I also have no problem with an extended school year.  These
    are from a somewhat selfish point of view.  I know as a student I
    couldn't wait for summer to start and dreaded it's end.
    
    -sandy
    

I have always found it deplorable that the half days or early release 
days count as a full day towards the 180 days.     

I think that we should be looking at educational hours needed in a 
school year, and then add the non-educational overhead hours, and then 
let that decide the school year (an extended year is fine with me).    

    At the risk of sounding mean, it's always seemed to me
    that the right schedule for schools is the same as
    a work schedule: eight hours a day, five days a week,
    year-round, with the option to take two weeks off of
    your choice.  Possibly extended hours for those whose
    parents won't be home at the crack of 5pm.
    
    This greatly expanded time in school wouldn't necessarily
    all spent doing academics.  But I don't think team sports
    or "study halls" are the point of being in school.
    

Sheesh ... I really fail to grasp the fuss here over the exact number of
teaching hours in a school year!

So much depends on the teachers and kids in any given class.  I can remember
excellent teachers who with a rotten class couldn't complete the grade
curriculum.  That same teacher with a good class would have the syllabus
covered in 2 terms (3 term system rather than 2 semester) I know rotten
teachers do the dame thing.

And to be perfectly honest I'd be more satisfied with the results of the
excellent teacher not completing the year than the poor teacher who did!

It's time to focus on QUALITY and not on the hours of quantity!

Stuart

> It's time to focus on QUALITY and not on the hours of quantity!

Why does these concepts have to be mutually exclusive?  Perhaps if that 
excellent teacher had more time with the rotten class, s/he could cover the 
entire course play -- same for a poor teacher with a good class; perhaps if 
the excellent teacher with an excellent class could learn MORE than the 
course plan!

I think that summer vacation serves a very valid purpose.  Not only is there 
a chance for relaxation, but there is also the chance for educational, 
cultural, and athletically focused opportunities that aren't easily available 
during the school year.  It also provides a useful time in which families to 
take vacations.  I think that the summer vacation should extend from at least 
July 4 to Labor Day.  If it's necessary to extend the year beyond that, I'd 
do it by eliminating vacations.

As for extending the school day, I think planning for "overhead" hours makes 
eminent sense.  I also think that alloting school time for "extracurricular" 
activities makes a lot of sense, and ditto for sports/physical ed.

Clay  

RE: .4

	No it's time to focus on both. Quality is 
extremely important. However, when society, via
pressure as well as through legislation, continues
to force the non-educational issues onto the backs
of the school environment then we must set a minimum
period of time aside for education so we are assured
some education is going on.

RE: .5

"summer vacation" is a problem for the learning process.
Vacations should not be longer than 3-4 weeks. Otherwise
full review is necessary and that takes up almost a
full term these days (or about 20%-25% of classtime). 

There are now nearly 2 million students on full year
schedules and the first studies seem to indicate that
this is the biggest benefit.

    
    A question to those more informed....
    
    I have been told that the year round track system is "better" because
    it reduces the need for review.
    
    Itis my belief that the comparatively large amounts of unstructured
    time available in the summer are good for the individual; it teaches
    (OJT-style) how to amuse yourself; it provides opportunity for some
    in-depth activities; it allows free-form unstructured time.
    
    
    Has there been any discussion of the tradeoffs?  What are they ?
    
    
    Thanks.
    Jamd

There are many children, in fact the vast majority, who
don't have access to "good" activities and thus end
up bored or involved in negative activities.

Even in small towns the kids complain after a few weeks
about not having enough to do. Structure, if done 
correctly, certainly doesn't need to stifle creativity.

the push in Shrewsbury by the educators appears to be to go to
*less* time in teaching.  Right now there are two early release
days per month.  The discussion now is to go to one per week!
This would allow the teachers more time for professional 
development.  Also, the schools are looking for more and more
parental involvement in the classrooms to allow the teachers
more class preparation time.  For example, have a parent take
attendance in the morning, monitor playgrounds etc.  What I am
hearing from all this is they want to shorten the amount of time
they (the teachers) are actually involved with the students.
Personally I think that is going in the wrong direction. 
Yes, we are sharing our feelings with the administration.

RE: .10

	You might want to ask teachers how they feel 
about half days for professional development and
curriculum work vs full days. If you ask what if we 
didn't have half days they would likely assume you were
just taking away necessary work. You need to be sure 
to let them know you support the need just not the way
in which it is delivered.

We have a full year program at one (out of 7)of the 
elementary schools in our town, and it has been succesful 
since it's inception 2 years ago.

The schedule is 6 weeks on and 2 weeks off for the
entire calendar year, except for the 6-week "summer
vacation" from the end of July until Labor Day.

The parents seem to like it (my kids aren't school
aged yet), on two levels.  The kids don't have the usual
review period each fall (which sometimes takes several
months), and during each 2 week break the
school  provides optional learning activies (hobbies,
sports, arts) in place of the school day.  The second
thing is that the parents feel a 6 week summer holiday
is plenty for the kids, with time for vacations and
relaxation.  The total number of school days remains
the same.

The biggest complaint that I've heard in my neighborhood
is that the year-round kids do not go to school with the
neighborhood kids & miss the local socialization.  This may
be eliminated in the next few years if they open more 
schools to the year-round concept.

I love the idea, and hope that when my daughter goes to
kindergarten in 2 years there will be more location choices.
Right now, all out of zone families must provide their own
childrens transportation to the year-round school.

I think defining instructional hours and increasing them, but extending the
school day, and to some extent by extending the school year (by eliminating
vacations, and by extending the year to just before the July 4th holiday) is
a great idea.

A couple of other changes I like are (1) arranging the school year so that
the Winter (i.e. Christmas) vacation is at the END of a grading period,
either by starting earlier or going to trimesters; and (2) eliminating
either the February or April vacations, and having the vacation at the end
of a grading period.  An alternative to trashing a vacation entirely is the
idea (Mike, I think you entered it somewhere) of replacing one of the
vacations with an equal number of holidays, the theory being that less
momentum is lost over scattered long weekends than is lost over a 9 day
break.

But I favor retaining a summer vacation from July 4 to Labor Day.

As I said in my earlier note, there is a wealth of wonderful programs
offered during the summer; many of these programs depend on having a
critical mass of participants (and for that matter leaders and volunteers)
go to some system in which all these opportunities must be crammed into a
3-4 week period, and you would kill off many of them.

I agree that not all kids have these programs available to them.  But I
think that the solution is to make these programs more available.  If using
the schools infrastructure to provide these programs to people who don't
have the means or the interest to do it any other way is the best way, then
fine; but it should not replace the summer activities entirely.

The attitude that the school can do a better job than other groups that
provide summer activities is, to me, an arrogant and mistaken attitude.  The
schools have much to do improve their mission as it is defined NOW; let's
see if they can do that before they start into territory that is fulfilled
now by other organizations.  As for "summer vacation is a problem for the 
learning process", not all learning goes on in school.  I'm reminded of the 
quote "School was interferring with my education".  

Suppose you want to use your summer vacation to intensively study computer
programming, or ballet, or figure skating, or soccer, or to travel, or to go
on a religious retreat, or to do to Y or Scout Camp and meet kids from
(gasp!) other socio-economic groups and/or communities? To (gasp!) earn
money? Or to engage in some other activity that is not (and possibly cannot)
be provided by the school, or is provided (gasp!) BETTER by someone other
than the school system?  I say you should be able to do it.

Clay

    Learning doesn't stop in my family when school is out.  The library is
    1 1/2 blocks from the house, and has several programs during the summer
    for young readers, we are in high-gear remodel mode when it is warm
    enough to have the house open, and that opens lots of opportunities
    to teach REASONS for math and reading skills, as well as to
    reenforce the skills learned through the school year.  We have a large
    garden, and that opens up all kinds of opportunities for science and
    the environment in action.  
    
    Also, my kids can use some decompression time, IMHO.  Soon enough they 
    will be grown and forced into working 50+ weeks out of the year to 
    support a family.  I see no need for children under the age of 16 to 
    have to spend all their "learning time" in a classroom.  The outdoors 
    and long summer breaks are important too.  Of course keeping learned 
    skills up over a summer does require that parents take some time to be 
    involved enough to know where their kids are at at the end of the 
    school year and to spend time to improve those skills over the breaks.
    
    Meg
    
    Meg 

>    Learning doesn't stop in my family when school is out.  The library is

>    Also, my kids can use some decompression time, IMHO.  Soon enough they 
>    will be grown and forced into working 50+ weeks out of the year to 
>    support a family.  I see no need for children under the age of 16 to 

Thank you!!!!! Thank you ! Thank you!

I sometimes think that we expect our children to learn too much too soon.
I was looking at my grade 7 daughter's English reading list (viz 12 years
old)  Many of the books, like the Diary of Ann Frank, were way beyond in
years what most 12 year olds are capable of reading for comprehension and
on an emotional scale.  In England, 90% of these books would be described
as for 14-16 year olds. Sure the 12 year olds can read it, but this is
supposed to be reading for understanding, and some of these are hard enough
for adults to understand.

These are children ... let them be children ... let them enjoy their
childhood.  There is a lot more to childhood than school all year, and
8 hours a day.

Sheesh what is society coming to!

Yes, my response is emotional and I know it.

Stuart

>Many of the books, like the Diary of Ann Frank, were way beyond in
>years what most 12 year olds are capable of reading for comprehension and
>on an emotional scale.

Anne Frank wasn't much older than 12 was she?

Are you saying that a book written by someone not much older than 12 can't be 
understood by a 12 year old?  In fact, I think there are some things about 
that book that might be understood BETTER by an adolescent.

I agree that an adult may get something different out of this book than an 
adolescent gets.  But it's true of most good books that they can be read on 
many levels; if fact that's almost a definition of a good book.  I remember 
spending a good part of sophomore English studying "Alice's Adventures in 
Wonderland", about 10 years after I read it the first time.

I see a trend in my children's reading that often the books are integrated 
with what is being studied in other courses.  "The Diary of Anne Frank", for 
example, fits nicely with a study of WW II.

Sorry for the rathole.

Clay    

    While Anne Frank was about 12, it is emotionally very hard to read
    for a 12 year old.  Yes, the writing is that of a 12 year old, but
    it is not exactly the subject matter for a 12 year old.  Kids that
    grow up in war zones are "grow up" on an emotional scale far quicker!
    
    That was only one example though ... there were many others.  There
    is a lot of good literature out there far more suited to a 12 year old
    that they can gain a lot more from.  This is one of those areas of
    quality of education.
    
    All this fuss about the length of the school year makes me wonder if we
    want the school to baby sit or teach our kids (or both).
    
    Stuart
    
    
    

    
    I share the view of some of the recent notes regarding
    more "free time" and less planned, educational, etc. time.
    
    Childhood is the one time in your life for plopping down in a field
    with your best friend and whiling away the afternoon...  for dressing
    your cat in your doll's clothes.... for building tree houses... for
    learning to dive...  for bike rides...  for sleepovers... 
    
    These are the wonder years, and IMHO, we should be ever so careful
    not to bargain them away in pursuit of more book time.
    
    Lynn
    

>    All this fuss about the length of the school year makes me wonder if we
>    want the school to baby sit or teach our kids (or both).
    
IMO, this is a VERY important point, both for educators and parents.

Clay 

RE: .17, .19

	I do believe that the current expectation is
BOTH. I don't believe that is necessarily correct but
I do believe that it is the perception. 

	When focusing on "school time" I believe it is
important to seperate "instructional time" and 
"non-instructional time". Defining these as seperate 
entities may well be the most important thing the 
commission does. Additionally, I would expect that 
while students would be required to be "in school"
for instructional time, the non-instructional time 
or some part of it may well be optional. I can see
a "school day" that has non-instructional time at
the beginning, middle, and end of the day. The 
beginning and ending would be optional time. There
may be planned activities but it may also be a time
for use of the gym, library, and other school 
facilities that keep the kids from being home alone
or out roaming the streets and provides parents with
options. As we restructure the learning environment
it is necessary to take into consideration the needs
of the society around that environment. While many of
us would like to see a different environment we know
that a vast majority of today's socio-economic world
is made up of single parents and two-parent working 
families. The school day/year should be designed with
this in mind as well as ensuring that the time in
school is not so stressful on both children and
staff that we burn everybody out. 

I'm reminded of a quote from Lester Thurow in an article
comparing the Japanese to Americans. Thurow gets at the
basic problem when he states that Americans always tend
to try to do things the hard way (working smarter)
first rather than the easier approach (working longer
and harder). Americans believe we can learn in 180
days what other countries do in 220-240 days. In fact,
in most communities we don't even do 180 full days nor
do we spend a great deal of each day learning. The
average child gets about 540 hours of instructional
time per year. The expectation is that should be more
in the 900 hour range. That could still be accomplished
in 180 full days with 5 hours of instructional time
per day. Drop the number of hours per day to 4 and you
need 220+ days and to reach 900 hours on today's
schedule you would need around 300 days. 

I think the idea that
childhood is an idyllic time is cultural.  In
some cultures, kids are already working when 
ours are going to elementary schools.

Within our Western cultures, there are differing
opinions about childhood vs adulthood.  I somehow
remember learning that the French tend to look at
childhood as a time when one should work, and that
adulthood earns the priviledge of more leisure.
French children are expect to work towards a goal 
in almost everything; the example I remember was
a kid riding a carousel was expected to try and
catch the gold ring with a stick.

I also learned that the French school week is
Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday/Friday full days,
and Thursday/Saturday half days.  The kids who also
attend churches on Sunday never really get a day
off.

I'd be curious if anyone from France is out there
who could comment.

Pat

>I can see a "school day" that has non-instructional time at
>the beginning, middle, and end of the day.  . . .  There
>may be planned activities but it may also be a time for use 
>of the gym, library, and other school facilities that keep 
>the kids from being home alone or out roaming the streets 
>and provides parents with options.

There seems to be an almost universal practice in the private schools (at 
least non-parochial, I don't know there) of having periods at the end of the 
day which are set aside for athletics and/or activities that may be 
considered extracurricular or elective in the public schools.  I like this 
concept.  This period could be made very flexible; students who don't have an 
extracurricular activity (or perhaps are academically in trouble) could have 
supervised study hall.  Bus transportation could be at the end of the period, 
so that extracurricular activities aren't a logistical problem it the 
child has single parent or both parents work.  If a student wanted to partake 
in an activity not offered by the school, they could do it during this 
period, without missing any academic subject.  If a student didn't want to 
partake in the after school activities, they would have to provide their own 
transportations, thus putting the burden on the kids who DON'T do the 
non-academic activities rather than on those who DO.

>I'm reminded of a quote from Lester Thurow in an article
>comparing the Japanese to Americans. Thurow gets at the
>basic problem when he states that Americans always tend
>to try to do things the hard way (working smarter)
>first rather than the easier approach (working longer
>and harder). 

Not only that, but "working smarter" and "working longer and harder" are 
not mutually exclusive.  The concept of including "down time" during the 
day, for example, may be indicating that other countries educational systems 
are not only working longer, but smarter as well.

    After reading this string, here is a few of my opinions,
    take what you want, leave the rest.
    
    My niece and nephew reside in Jacksonville Florida.  They
    are attending this school year, and are living with my
    inlaws here in MA.  A couple random thoughts.  Last June
    these kids got out of school on June 9, they should have
    returned on JULY 16 as their school system is on a year 
    round schedule, something like 8 weeks in school and 3 or
    something off.  Because they are in MA for school this
    year they will get out around the 27th or something of
    June, and have to be back to start school in Florida
    mid July, result is just about NO vacation period, we
    cannot plan a nice summer playtime with these two plus
    the rest of the cousins, and extended family, their
    parents who haven't seen them more than twice, and 
    only for weekends at that, won't have enough time to
    reacquaint themselves with the kids (it's a divorce
    situation on the parent's part) plus you then begin
    a new school year only a few weeks after the last one
    ended, and a year's worth of catching up with the
    old school mates.
    
    Now on another thought, I generally work most of the
    year, with that in mind suddenly my daycare budget
    skyrockets to something near to one third of my
    gross (and isn't is really gross?) salary. 
    
    Last summer I used my previous preschool facility,
    but this year I can't, he is too old.  They offered
    "light" academics, swimming lessons and an air
    conditioned building.  I also felt it important to
    continue to reinforce his special needs, so I had
    to take him for speech therapy every week, another
    morning off from work, and he seemed very slow
    to get back into the groove in September anyway.
      
    This year it's pay a home
    care provider, who can only offer a sprinkler and
    unair conditoned home on the hottest of days, plus
    the usual conflict when 6 children 7 and under get
    together for 10 hours per day.  I'm not even looking
    forward to a whole week next week, during School
    vacation, but I owe I owe so off to work I go!
    
    I feel February is the worst time for vacation, skip
    the winter vacation, either give them an extra week in
    May when it's nice, or let them out early.  Our town
    tried one year of two weeks in March, which was nice
    but didn't coordinate with anyone else's school
    vacation.
    
    Rambling, yes but this sort of touched off a lot
    of built up thougths
	
    I think a shorter summer period off, or perhaps a
    modified year round schedule would be great, since
    most parents work year round anyway.
    
    Lyn                                

    >I think a shorter summer period off, or perhaps a
    >modified year round schedule would be great, since
    >most parents work year round anyway.
    
    This is not meant to criticise you personally Lynn, because I see
    the same comments so often .... people expect school to be a babysitter
    for their children.  Just because many families have 2 parents working
    (not all do), someone has to look after the kids ... and it might
    as well be school.  I think it steals so much from children.  We
    are teaching them to follow in our workaholic footsteps.
    
    There has got to be another way ...
    
    Stuart
    
    

Stuart,

	I disagree with your "workaholic" comment.

First of all you must recognize that the U.S. has the 
lowest standard of educational time in the 
industrialized world. For the most part we set a MINIMUM
of 180 days as the standard. However, within that minimum
there is little or no definition of what constitutes
a day. Many school systems routinely use 1 half day a
week for "professional development/curriculum work". 
This day counts toward the 180 day minimum but little 
actual education goes on. Then you need to account
for all the non-educational activities that go on
during each day. 

I don't think any of us wants our schools to become
babysitters nor do we want them to grow workaholics
either. However, the knowledge base our children are
working from is much larger than that we worked from
in school and it is now doubling on an almost annual
basis. Many of the programs that will shape our 
educational future will be reflective of our needs as
a society. Early childhood education starting at age 3
for children and including options for parenting skills
will come through the public education system. The how
to find the answer approach will become much more 
critical than the memorize the answer approach. New
subject matter, especially in the areas of literature,
math, and science are being added every day. Society
now consists of largely 2 parent working and single 
parent families. Our educational system needs to
recognize and plan for this because it is there. This
doesn't mean that our kids need to spend 8-10 hours a
day "getting an education". It doesn't mean that 
teachers have to spend 8-10 hours a day being "on" and
teaching kids. It may mean that school buildings need
to be open 10-12 hours a day with a flexible schedule
that allows parents and students options for learning
and "playing" within the school community. Most likely
a new standard will be developed that defines what is
and isn't instructional time (recess isn't instructional
time but it is needed) and how many hours per fiscal
year (July 1 to June 30). If that standard is 900 hours
a year of instructional time there are a myriad of ways
that can be handled. I also expect that our youngest
charges (elementary kids) will have a lower minimum than
our older charges (high school kids). 900 hours is
less than 2.5 hours per day if school is open 365 per 
year. You can get 900 hours in 180 days with 5 hours 
of instructional time per day. I suspect the standard
will be flexible enough to allow for local control
and conditions to dictate the schedule. As I said
before, my ideal school day allows for non-instructional
breaks in the day that are long enough for rejuvination
and renewal for both students and staff. The same goes
for days off with the caveat that studies do show that
vacations longer than 3-4 weeks require time be spent
in review and take away from new learning. 

>        I disagree with your "workaholic" comment.

What I meant by the comment was that kids get the idea that they must spend
all kinds of hours working at school, which then gets translated into
all kinds of hours working for an employer later.  Europe is a good example
of the idea that Shorter working hours and longer vacation do not necessarily
impact overall productivity or ability of the workforce.

I have been schooled in Canada and the UK.  My kids have been schooled in
Canada, and here in the USA.  The actual amount of educational time in
all these countries is remarkably similar, and yet there is a great
differential in the quality of the education.  Why ?  It certainly is NOT
related to school hours.  My kids, now here in COlorado, spend within a
couple days, the same number of school days, including professional development
time ... they spend virtually the same amount of time at school, with no
study halls or any "free time" periods.  In Canadian schools, they also had
approximately 40 minutes of PE daily.  Here in the US, they are doing tons
more homework than they ever has before, and yet in terms of topics, they
are marginally behind their Canadian counterparts on common subject matter.

Where then is the difference ?  From what I have seen of some of the work
my kids are bringing home, they spend a lot of time covering a lot more
subject material without enough depth.For example in Grade 7 geography, they
are covering the Middle East right now ... but they are discussing a lot
of things about the area that I didn't study until the equivalent of grade
10!  And then, they only just went below the surface of these topics.

I noticed this myself when I went from Canada to the UK.  I went from a
school where I covered about 10 different subjects in moderate depth to
about 7 subjects in considerable depth.  I was left behind in the depth
of a lot of the subjects I'd already covered.  I wasn't really spending
any more time in school over the course of a year mind.

As to the additional subject material ... I don't altogether buy the idea
that these are needed in schools at such a young age.  The biggest
complaint is that our children (and in Canada too) lack BASIC skills.
Sure, they can diaper babies at age 12, taught by a school, sure they can
draw pictures with a mouse on the Print Shop, but they can't do long division,
they cannot spell, they cannot write coherent, grammatical English.

When I said earlier in this string that Quality in Education was more important
than Quantity (particularly in reference to time) I really meant it.  That
more emphasis MUST be placed on teaching basics.  It's all very well that
kids be taught to use calculators to do complex sums, but if they can't do it
without, then quality of education has failed.

I disagree that the workings of the school system be based of all parents
working.  I see so much that children are missing from being in an
organized or semi-organized atmosphere for 8+ hours a day.  I'm NOT saying
that one parent should stay home ... BUT I am saying that there is more
to life than a school, or other play environment.  I look around the community
I live in on Saturdays and Sundays, and although there are a lot of children
here, you see so few out and about playing with neighbours kids ... Why ?
They have had activities organized for them for nearly every waking hour.
And then so manny parents have a terror of their children being maimed / 
kidnapped / murdered that as long as they are home, they are kept indoors ...
not even out in their back yards!

What is wrong with our society. let alone what is wrong with school.

Stuart

    Some of my thoughts after reading through this note are:
                                                                         
    Why do we assume that school is the best place for children to learn? I
    am frustrated by the amount of time the school insists on having my
    child.  I love to travel and believe sharing this experience with the
    family is most beneficial - and educational - for the child.  
    
    I believe that it is in one's free time that one discovers who one is. 
    Summer break gives children a big chunk of time to get into that
    process.  Summer is also the time to learn to swim, relax at the beach,
    go to the mountains, etc.  We learn through textbooks because it is
    logistically impossible to do otherwise.  But let's not schedule our
    children out of the opportunity for real life learning experiences.
    
    Different children have different learning styles and benefit from
    different educational environments.  A variety of choices should be
    available in each school system and the choices might differ depending
    on the particular community.  Controlling content, format,
    schedule, etc. at the state level doesn't seem beneficial to me. I
    disagree with those who would propose one set of standards as the
    objective best.
    
    Since different families have different needs, communities should address 
    these needs by providing quality child care programs at the schools or a 
    community center.  These should be financed by parents (sliding fee scale)
    and public funds.  
    
    Just my two cents worth. - Alice 

RE: .27

	It would be great if all kids had both the
opportunities you mentioned and parents who cared about
those opportunities the way you obviously do. The reality
is that, unfortunately, only a small percentage do.

re: .28

     While I understand your point that the good summer programs
are not available to everyone, it seems to me that making the
summer vacation too short (or eliminating it entirely) would mean
that they would be available to NO one.  In my opinion, that
would be a major setback.
     As I said before, I'm all in favor of making summer programs
more available to more people, and if it helps to use the school
infrastructure to provide a voluntary program, then fine, do it. 
But don't extend the school year on through the summer, complete
with mandatory attendance (or is that what you are proposing?  
In my opinion, the loss of diversity in summer opportunities 
would be a major loss for EVERYONE.

Clay 
     

Especially for non-custodial parents who get to have their children
living with them for an extended time in the summer.  If there are 
no long breaks from school this becomes and impossibility - I think
it would be very difficult for a child to keep changing school systems in
order to spend time with each parent.

Leslie

    
    Most year round school programs actually provide more flexibility
    for enrichment programs. Year round schools are running 9 or
    10 weeks on with 2 or 3 weeks off. Research shows that retention is
    best with less than 4 week breaks. What many school systems do is
    schedule more enrichment courses for individual students in one
    semester with the rigorous academics in the other 3. Many school
    systems who do this work with outside enrichment programs to 
    give students credit and count the time. As for changing school
    systems to spend time with a custodial parent I would bet that
    as that child grows up he or she will have had a broader and
    more diverse education. One of the other issues here is when is
    it best to extend this time in school. Maybe we don't need to
    extend it as much at the elementary level, where the primary
    concern is building skills but only at the secondary level 
    where curriculum is more knowledge based. 
     

>    Year round schools are running 9 or 10 weeks on with 2 or 3 weeks off. 

What is interesting to me is that the concept of x weeks on y weeks off is 
one way of implementing more classroom hours,  but doesn't HAVE to be.  Even 
the current number of school days could be worked in such a schedule.   I 
think this system has merit, and that more experimentation should be done.  

That having been said, I would not want my children to be a part of such an 
experiment.   We use our summers for lots of things, most of which are not 
"enrichment" activities as I believe they are ordinarily defined.  And there 
are many of these "non-enrichment" but still productive activities (girl 
scout camps, sports camps etc.) that require resources that most schools 
don't have, and some that schools, in a practical sense *couldn't* do (such 
as religious retreats).

Even for the enrichment activities, is it necessarily good that the public 
schools take them over?  I say not necessarily.  I think schools *should* 
offer enrichment activities in the summer, but I think others should be 
available also.  Frequently schools have "blind spots" in their curriculum or 
approach, or don't have quality instructors in some subjects, or it benefits 
the kids to interact with a different bunch of kids; there are many other 
reasons.

Clay 

    
    I don't see the need for both of the vacations in the Feb & April
    timeframe.  I suggest they drop one week, and set the week in
    mid-March....
    
    With every holiday off, plus Xmas vacation, plus teachers meeting
    1/2 days, I think it could disappear without any problem....

For what it's worth,

I have been taking secondary education courses and getting a better
understanding of the school system(s).  While you do "pay" for your childrens
education via taxes don't confuse this with getting a quality education.
From what I have been experiencing teachers are overburdened these days;
they are substitute parents in many cases, have limited discipline abilities,
can't get the funding needed to reduce class size or "guarentee" teacher 
aides.  It's not all dismal, the folks I see going through this program
are spirited and want to give teaching all that they can.  But the reality
is 40% of them will not be teaching 3 years after they complete the program
(current statistics).  

I have learned a couple of things that I will apply to my family:
- The reading and study skills a child gets in K-3 will affect their ability
  to learn until they graduate from high school (w/out other intervention). 
  Phonics has a direct impact on reading ability.  Research indicates that w/ 
  so many kids attending pre-school sometimes this skill is assumed by teachers
  which implies there is a group of kids potentially missing this skill.
- Definately as previously mentioned, get my kids in a reputable school  
  district and be very involved as a parent.  When a kid gets to junior
  high and high school they will be 1 of 150 students a teacher sees daily.
  A phone call, note or meeting will show your interest and support.  Hate
  to say it "squeaky wheel..."

I really think these classes are "eye openers".  I'm taking them with the
intention of teaching secondary math but they have been invaluable from the
perspective of concerned parent and understanding public education.

I don't want to sidetrack this note, but at the same time, there are a number
of things that concern me about the previous reply ...

I was educated in classes of routinely 30+ children ... and yet I got what
is described as a quality education. I look at my children in classes
with a maximum of 24 children and hearing about child/teacher ratio being too
high.

I have looked at the work my children bring home, and I am convinced of one
thing that in wrong big time with today's education.  The basics are not
focussed on ...  My children are being taught information beyond their age
and understanding level.  They are being taught DETAIL that I would not
expect to see for another couple years.  The result is a lack of focus on
the important basics ... reading, writing and arithmetic.  They cannot
remember the detail just days after learning it ... they are not ready to
take in the details.  The ability to learn detail comes with maturity and
a good foundation.  Teaching detail before the foundation is built and
reinforcd is a waste and I keep seeing that happen.

I believe that a lot of this comes from the desire to push our kids too hard
in the overall learning process.  Their ability and desire to learn must
be nurtured ... not forced.

Stuart

    re .37
    
    As a parent of a child yet to go through the school system, and as
    someone who does not know the U.S. system well, I was genuinely
    interested by your comments about details before basics. Could you give
    some concrete examples if you get a chance?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Patricia.

Guess you are pretty lucky with a class size of 24.  Here in the west I
did an observation and the numbers were 30 to a max of 35 in a class.
I also observed the 3rd week of a new school year - the kids were still 
testing.

I agree with the basics, that was the direction of the article stating
K-3 were the most important years for establishing a foundation.

I too received a quality education in public schools (for the most part).
But my parents were real supportive, knew the teachers and didn't think
twice about calling school.  They also made sure my homework was done.
Many students are not this lucky today and consequently the teacher is
"pulled" into other roles.  I was/am surprised to learn what situations
some teachers are confronted with today.  

    Does anyone have any experience with the mixed age classroom?
    
    I just got a message from my son's school that they will be
    starting a pilot program next fall for grades 1 and 2 and 
    grades 4 and 5.  My son will be in 2nd grade next fall.
    
    Basically my questions are:
    
    Have you had experience with this?
    How did your child like/learn/adjust to this situation?
    What type of child/personality benefits from this type of
    classroom best?
    
    It is a voluntary program so the parents have a choice as
    to whether their children are to participate so I have some
    decisions to make.  So far I'm leaning toward it.
    
    Thanks for you input,
    Pam

    Pam
    
    When I was in the 5th and 6th grade, my school use to mix the classes 
    up for Math.  In my class, there were 6th graders who were at the same
    level as myself, and when I was in 6th grade, there were 5th graders
    who at the lever.  
    
    I think it made it easier to offer a large range of skills to a large
    variety of ages.  It gave the kids who were more advanced a chance to
    learn more, and the ones who were a little behind a better chance to
    grasp the basice before throwing the advanced stuff at them.
    
    Anne Marie
    

RE: .39

In Holliston we have two multi-age classroom 
environments and both have been very successful. We
run a full Montessori program with students age 3,4,5
grouped together and students age 6,7,8 grouped together.
We also run a transitional program at the 4th grade
level to acclimate students into our traditional
middle school program. 

We also have combined K/1 and 1/2 graded classes in
our French Immersion program for class size reasons. We
found a lot of kids helping other kids and surprizingly
it wasn't always the older ones helping the younger
ones. People all have different skill sets and some
develop faster or slower than others. All types of
kids can benefit from this environment. 

One of the best known "experiments" in multi-age 
grouping was done in ESL (English as Second Language)
classes of Vietnamese students in Chelsea. They put
older more experienced students together with first
year students and over the course of the year both sets
of students showed improved performance and were 
markedly ahead of single-aged classrooms. 


Mike

My kids have had mixed  grade classes for many years in Canada.  It requires
a lot of discipline on the part of the kids to stay focussed on their own work
and not let the mind wander to what the other kids are doing.

It generally works out well for the average to brighter kids in the lower
grade, and not so well for the average and below in the upper grade.  For
the brightest kids, it hardly matters at all.

Stuart

    Thanks for all of your input.
    
    I think Nathan will do well in the multi-age class.  He has
    a heart for helping people so I think he will like that.
    He is doing well in the traditional classroom at the moment
    except that he is a little ahead of his classmates and does
    get bored.  Hopefully in a freer environment he will do even
    better.
    
    The only thing I am worried about is his attention level.
    He gets distracted very easily but perhaps he will mature
    somewhat over the summer break.
    
    I appreciate your thoughts on this subject, Thanks
    Pam

    My son's public school just started the multi-age classroom this year.
    The grouping is K/1, 2/3, 4/5.  He is in kindergarten this year.  I
    think the success of this program has a lot to do with the class size
    and the teacher/student ratio.  We are fortunate that the school is
    small (class size = 20) and the teacher-aide/ratio is 1/7.  Brian is
    doing math and science work at a 2nd grade level, his reading and
    writing is at a first grade level.  I do worry a little about next year
    when he'll be in the older group, but the classroom seems to be
    organized in a manner to enable the children beyond the 1st grade level
    to move forward.  He also has excelled personally in the ability to 
    help others in his classroom.
    
    LG 

    
    As an aside, this is the type of comment that really bothers
    me.
    
>>  For the brightest kids, it hardly matters at all.
    
    So many gifted students end up dropping out of school,
    failing classes, getting bored, never learning how to 
    work... and many other problems.  
    
    Just because a student is bright, does not mean that they
    do not have needs in school, for attention, for challenge,
    for guidence...
    
    Sorry, just a hot point...
    Amy
    

�    Just because a student is bright, does not mean that they
�    do not have needs in school, for attention, for challenge,
�    for guidence...
�    
�    Sorry, just a hot point...

it's called Educational Compression....and it's a real hot point for me too!

michael 

    The school my son attends stated the multi-age program this past year. 
    We have two 1/2, 2/3, and four 4/5.  Within one of the 4/5, there are
    also some 3's.  
    
    For my son, the program has been a success.  His self-esteem has gone
    back up, he enjoys what he is going, they get to change classes for
    social studies and science.  He gets to pick the social studies and
    science that he would like to study during the month.  The spelling is
    now done with the teacher and students picking the spelling words
    together, and spelling is a problem for him, but we are working very
    hard on that.
    
    I am glad that the school went multi-age, but there were some parents
    who were opposed to the change in program.  They grew up in a standard
    classroom, couldn't comprehend the idea of multi-age, and couldn't
    comprehend the idea of change and that change would work for the
    better.
    
    Erik's class size is no more than 22 at a given time during the day,
    and next year we will have both standard 1,2,3, and 5 along with 2/3
    and 4/5 combination.  The prinicipal gaven each parent a choice, and
    this was the end result.  She made the unhappy parents happy, along
    with keeping the multi-age that worked.
    
    If anyone would like to discuss the multi-age program, you can contact
    me off line.  
    
    Donna
    

    Re -.1, this seems a little harsh:
    
    > there were some parents who were opposed to the change in program.  
      They grew up in a standard classroom, couldn't comprehend the idea 
      of multi-age, and couldn't comprehend the idea of change and that 
      change would work for the better.
    
    The fact that someone opposes an idea does not necessarily mean they
    don't COMPREHEND the idea.
    
    Leslie
    

    I personally do NOT like the idea of mixing in classrooms.  This is
    from personal experience.  In the elementary school I attended there
    were both mixed 5/6 grades, and also a grade 5 which separated the
    "smart (usually just more eager to learn) children from the others. 
    What I personally experience, because I have always found math to be a
    struggle, was that the teacher paid more attention to the "smarter"
    children, giving them excellerated lessons, while the rest of the
    children were degraded and looked down upon, not only in math but
    overall, made to feel inadequate, "dumber" and give a free "study"
    period while the teacher concentrated on working with the "smarter"
    children. There was a physcial separation in the classroom, of the
    excellerated learners from the not so quick to learn students.
    I personally oppose a mixed grade, it sets children up for failure 
    and feelings of inadequacy.
    
    I also had a junior high school algebra teacher who did much the same
    thing, and would outright humiliate those who couldn't keep up, again I
    was one of the humilated children!
    
    To this day, I will avoid at all cost anything that involves working
    with numbers in a big way, feeling like I just can not do it well.
    Maybe it's psycological hangup on my part, but I feel its source was
    the separation in the classroom.
    
    I hope they never mix classes like this, I couldn't bear to see my son
    humiliated in this way.
    
    Lyn

By saying for the brighter kids it didn't matter at all was NOT meant as
it was taken ... that their needs were unfulfilled etc.  What I meant was
that they seemed to survive the mixed grade classes with no apparent
problems ... generally far better than the struggling child.  The struggling
child really had problems in mixed grade classes, in either grade.

Stuart

    I have had personal experience with mxed-grade classrooms.  I was in a
    2-3 combination and there were many disadvantages.  One was that as a
    2nd grader, I wound up learning much of the 3rd grade program, and
    since they didn't skip kids, I spent my 3rd grade year bored out of my
    skull.  
    
    Lolita got shafted three times in elementary school in multi-grade
    classrooms, despite my arguing to prevent this.  she was one of the
    "brighter" students and her needs were most definitely not met by the
    enviornment.  I will strongly fight to keep Carrie and Atlehi from
    suffering through this if I can avoid it.
    
    meg

>What I meant was
>that they seemed to survive the mixed grade classes with no apparent
>problems ... generally far better than the struggling child.

Sorry, Stuart, not gonna let you get off that easily :^)

The operative word here is "apparent."  A child "struggling" is usually 
fairly obvious.  A child who is underachieving but passing, who is bored but 
well behaved, who is underchallenged but getting good grades tends to get 
missed.

I would feel a lot better about some of these programs in I were convinced 
that they are driven by educational or developmental, not budgetary concerns. 
If done for budgetary reasons, programs tend to get rationalized, in my 
experience.  My son's school had a mixed grade last year, and there was no 
doubt that it was viewed as a stopgap alternative to 30 pupil classrooms.  It 
worked OK; my son wasn't in it.

That's not to say that fiscal constraints ought to be irrelevant or sound 
educational concepts and fiscal conservatism are mutually exclusive.  The 
program described in .47, for example, has a small class size, doesn't force 
kids into mixed grade classes if they don't want to, and I presume costs less 
also.

Clay

I would feel a lot better about some of these programs in I were convinced 
>that they are driven by educational or developmental, not budgetary concerns. 
>If done for budgetary reasons, programs tend to get rationalized, in my 
>experience.  My son's school had a mixed grade last year, and there was no 
>doubt that it was viewed as a stopgap alternative to 30 pupil classrooms.  It 
>worked OK; my son wasn't in it.
>
>That's not to say that fiscal constraints ought to be irrelevant or sound 
>educational concepts and fiscal conservatism are mutually exclusive.  The 
>program described in .47, for example, has a small class size, doesn't force 
>kids into mixed grade classes if they don't want to, and I presume costs less 
>also.

OK OK OK ...  There are a LOT of variables in the equation of mixed grade
classes ... not the least of which is how good the teacher is in that
environment.    As far as I knew, most kids in my childrens' school back in
Kanata did very well in the split grade classes.  Each grade curriculum
could be interworked fairly well, such that the work units for each grade
could be taught at approximately the same time for many subjects.  The
teachers were capable of actually doing it.

Looking at my grade 4 daughter's current school here in Colorado, there is
no way that I can see that the teacher could do mixed grade teaching ... she
has enough trouble teaching this class, and the curriculum doesn't look
conducive for a 3/4 (the usual splits are 1/2 and 3/4) split either.

My grade 4 daughter actually ended up in two splits ... at least for a
while until a temporary classroom was installed ... a 1/2 and a 2/3.  In
Canada she would be a B student ... here she is an A student ... in both
instances, she seems to be working fairly well to potential (the different
results are purely the differences in school systems).

At one time I was in a 4 grade split class with 40 kids ... for 3 years.
I think we all learned in spite of the teacher.  Going to a single grade/
class school was certainly a surprise, but I quickly caught up ...

At first when I heard that Hilary would be in a split class, I was concerned,
but as it has turned out, I see no problems.  One advantage came from it on
a social scale too ... she is not worried about having friends a grade up
or down from herself as I remember being in school!

Stuart

After reading all 52 of the replies listed I had to ask myself what is
the problem we're trying to solve with our comments and solutions.

My only comment on school hours and class size is this.

	- I grew up in a lower-class neighborhood
	- Both of my parents worked (had to) - no different today for some
	  families
	- I went to a public school system (in the 70's)
	- I had an elementary teacher (5th or 6th grade) who could not handle
	  her large English class properly (the class I was unlucky enough to
	  be in), as a result I still can't do a "tree diagram of an english
	  phrase", and am also missing certain English language fundamentals.
	- So of us came out of that class learning something, and some of us
	  didn't.  Some of us had to pick it up in later classes, and some of
	  us picked it up on our own.

	- do I blame the teacher for not having control of his/her class,
	- do I blame the principal or school board for allowing so many
	  undisciplined children in the school,
	- do I blame the people who determine proper class sizes for allowing
	  so may kids in my english class,
	- do I blame the other kids parents for not caring for or taking the
	  time to care for their children and to raise them so they like
	  school or to be obedient in school,
	- do I blame my parents for not knowing that I was in a horrible
	  situation (I didn't even know it myself although I knew something
	  was wrong).

No I blame nobody. I realize today that everybody during that period
was doing the best they could, with what they could do given what they had,
and given what they could give. I wish all teachers were alike, that all parents
were alike, that all communities were alike, that all school systems were
alike, that all class sizes were alike, that all kids were alike, but that
will never be, and I don't think we want it to be that way -- do we.

I'm who I am for that experience. Am I somehow inferior because this is the
situation I went through?  Could things have been different?  Would
I have had more advantages?  Can everyone go to Harvard?  Should everyone
go to Harvard?

School Hours, School Size... I'll ask my son.

	The Massachusetts Commission on Time And Learning

		is hosting the following public forums
		for discussion and comments:

June 6		The Massachusetts Archives, Columbia Point
		220 Morrissey Blvd. Boston

		9:30-3 invited speakers
		3-4 public discussion


June 7		Doherty High School 
		299 Highland St. Worcester

		3-5 invited speakers
		6-8 public discussion

June 13		Sheraton Monarch
		1 Monarch Place  Springfield

		3-5 invited speakers
		6-8 public discussion

June 14		Taconic High School
		Valentine Rd. Pittsfield

		6-8 public discussion

June 16		Andover West Middle School
		Shawsheen Road Andover

		Wareham High School
		1 Viking Drive Wareham

		6-8 public discussion



Possible options being explored include:

	Extending the school day and/or year.

	Restructuring the school year to spread
	the existing 180 days over the full calendar
	year reducing the loss of learning that 
	occurs during the extended summer vacation.

	The Board of Education could define the school
	day as perhaps 8 hours in length, while retaining
	the requirement for 5-5.5 hours of instruction. 


	Time for teacher planning and professional development
	could be extended as a first step to improve the
	quality of existing instruction. 

	The Board of Education could specifically preclude
	the use of "early release" days and could, simultaneously,
	require that teachers receive a minimum number of full
	days for professional development.