Alexandria News, Carla Branch writes:
Last Thursday, Alexandria City Public School Superintendent Morton Sherman went to Richmond to ask the Virginia State Board of Education to grant a waiver, which would allow ACPS to begin school before Labor Day. The Board deferred action on the request until April.
Last Thursday, Alexandria City Public School Superintendent Morton Sherman went to Richmond to ask the Virginia State Board of Education to grant a waiver, which would allow ACPS to begin school before Labor Day. The Board deferred action on the request until April.
“The Board asked us to amend the waiver request to include specific school by school programmatic innovations that will be implemented if we are granted the waiver,” said Alexandria School Board Chair Yvonne Folkerts. “We will amend the waiver to address the issues that the Board raised and resubmit it on April 28. I remain convinced that this is the right thing for ACPS and believe that it will be granted.”
State law precludes public schools from opening before Labor Day because of Virginia’s tourism industry. The State Board has granted waivers to other school systems for various reasons.
“We have worked very hard to gain community support for beginning school early and, while there are still dissenters, most agree that it is what we should do,” Folkerts said.
Yvonne, I am your neighbor. You not only have not worked hard to gain community support, but you know damn well most do not agree that this is the right thing to do. SHAME!
ReplyDeleteYes, Yvonne. Please stop telling me what I think.
ReplyDeleteYvonne, it is time to resign. You are clueless about what is going on in the school system. You think just because you have tutored the same child for 4 years and have two kids who are honor students, you know everything. You don't. You have steadfastly not listened to the people you were elected to represent and are completely dependent on Mort Sherman to tell you what to do and how to think. Newsflash, HE WORKS FOR YOU!!!
ReplyDeleteI am sorry I ever supported your campaign. Your legacy will be the total destruction of this system. See how your neighbors like you after their property values rapidly decline because of and your ill conceived decisions.
They wanted to pull this thing off back at the beginning of January, behind everyone's backs, with little notice to the public and they claim there is community support!
ReplyDeleteThey have had over two months (five if look at Mr. Sherman's memo sent out in November) to get this right and the State had to send it back to them with a "try again next time" stamp. What an absolute waste of our time, money, and resources.
Since this is to be amended, is the Alexandria School Board going to have public hearings on the amendments? The original waiver request, which they sought public input on, is now being changed, what say the public?
9:57. A chunk of Alexandria is tied to the Congressional calendar, with the last two weeks of August the only really safe time to schedule the family together.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the answer, anonymous 9:57. I guess my question was deemed out of bounds by Robespierre... uh Voltaire, but actually I honestly wanted to know why it's such a problem for families. I do understand why teachers might not like the proposal though.
ReplyDelete"Voltaire", you should leave posts like this up and encourage reasonable discourse, not discourage it.
My issue is less pre-Labor Day than it is: why spend money to do more nonsensical things, regardless of timing? The shifting rationales underlying the waiver request - initially, student instructional time, eventually, more professional development time - indicate a fundamental motivation to have more time to do more top-down "reform." I am more interested in reform driven by students, parents, and teachers than reform driven by administrators.
ReplyDeleteWhy were specific school by school programmatic innovations not properly cited before this waiver went to the State? The short answer, because there are no specific programmatic innovations which require ACPS to start school before Labor Day. All of the programs cited in the "table this until you get it right" waiver are already in place within ACPS and do not require an earlier start date.
ReplyDeleteThe School Board appears to believe that it is best not to peek beyond the curtain.
ReplyDeleteThe original plan had no merit, and was thus shot down. The new plan, has no merit, and is being picked apart by the State. This idea is nothing more than a waste of our time and money. Yet another example of the bungling operation running ACPS.
Again, it is not the amount of time in school. It is the proper amount teachers in front of the children. The right amount of staff in schools where the most effective intervention would be a benefit is what is best for the children. Extra time means nothing without teachers.
ReplyDeleteMerit is not a legal term, it is the judgement of the worth of the idea, program, initiative, or in this case, waiver application. Recognizing that this proposal has no worth is pretty basic and down to earth. Research concludes that simply adding more days to the year or hours to the school day will do nothing to improve student achievement. Check it out for yourself, you don't even need a law degree.
ReplyDeleteWhat research exactly? So you're saying that adding, say, 30 more days to the school year wouldn't have any effect on "student achievement" (as measured by I guess sols or some other dubious measure)? Nonsense- you know no such thing. But please feel free to post references to whatever dubious "research" you know about that claims that adding more days to the school year doesn't help students to learn more. You know, there's a reason why dancers and concert pianists don't take off months at a time- they get behind if they do. Academics is no different.
ReplyDeleteThose of us that do agree with the Pre labor Day opening are not welcome on this blog, since our posts are routinely deleted, but many people do support the waiver. I hope it passes.
ReplyDeleteAh, the Nixonian "silent majority" argument.
ReplyDeleteI claim there is an even bigger silent supermajority that doesn't want to open before labor day and their posts were deleted first! Because they're not welcome by the SHADY CHARACTERS who run this site!
Ha! Winning!
@12:15 -- Part I due to comment length limitations:
ReplyDeleteSee the Board's own back-up research to its initial proposal citing very mixed results -- http://usm.maine.edu/cepare/pdf/Extended_%20Facts.pdf (Contradictory results, but citing the following research):
"3. Empirical Findings
a. Many studies have found “no significant connection between the length of the school year and student achievement” (Sims, 2008; Lee & Barro, 2001; Eide & Showalter, 1998; Grogger, 1996; Card & Krueger, 1992; Rizzuto & Wachtel, 1980).
b. “Experimental studies have repeatedly found no correlation between time spent at school and levels of achievement” (Baines, 2007, p. 99; Fisher & Berliner, 1985)."
“American students are not so far behind in the amount of absolute time they spend in school each year as compared to their foreign counterparts . . . some countries whose students outperform ours in mathematics and science actually have a shorter school year. In Sweden, for example, whose students were among the high scorers. . . the school year is only 170 days long” (Aronson, Zimmerman & Carlos, 1998, p. 9).
“In the United States . . . children go to school for six or more hours per day, five days per week, for approximately 185 days . . . The average time spent at school in the U.S. totals over 1,100 hours, almost double that of children in Finland. By the time children reach the age of 14 in Finland, they will have gone to school for 2,500 fewer hours than students in America (the equivalent of two to four years of schooling). Despite much longer school days, American students routinely score 10% to 20% lower than Finnish students on international tests of achievement” (Baines, 2007, p. 99).
The author suggests that these differences are attributable to social policies regarding poverty and healthcare; this discrepancy is not a “school problem.”
The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) “found
no clear pattern between the number of in-class instructional hours and mathematics achievement” (Beaton, et al., 1996, p. 16).
d. Using both Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and TIMSS data, a “weak positive relationship or no statistically significant relationship between more time and improved scores” was found (Silva, 2007).
e. On the other hand, Silva (2007) cites a few studies that found a positive relationship between instructional time and student outcomes for certain students (e.g., students with lower initial test scores and students in small classes). She also notes a finding of a “moderate positive association between total school days per year and mathematics and science scores” for eighth grade students in 39 countries (p. 2).
ii. “The TIMSS research . . . suggests that instead of adding time, greater attention should be paid to the focus and review of curriculum (i.e., the depth and breadth of subject matter covered)” (Aronson, Zimmerman & Carols, 1998, p. 6).
Part II: http://www.mcrel.org/newsroom/hottopicExtendedTime.asp
ReplyDeleteIn 1998 WestEd researchers Aronson et al. examined the research on time and learning and arrived at three conclusions:
• There is little or no relationship between student achievement and the total number of days or hours students are required to attend school.
• There is some relationship between achievement and engaged time, that subset of instructional time when students are participating in learning activities.
• The strongest relationship exists between academic learning time and achievement.
However, in recent years some notable extended time initiatives have produced gains in test scores, graduation rates, and college attendance, including the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP), which increases the amount of time students spend in school by nearly 60%, and Massachusetts 2020. Conversely, a $100 million effort in Miami to extend school days by one hour and add 10 days to the calendar produced no significant benefits.
"Since expanding learning time makes little sense without purposeful use of this time and effective instruction, schools and districts will need to design powerful curriculum and to ensure teacher understanding and skill with this time."
Further, maybe some of us are content to have a recreational pianist or dancer who has some fun in the summer (your comment seems to support a year round calendar) -- I am very lucky that my chilren are well ahead of grade level, performing at the top of their classes -- will more time put them further ahead? Maybe. Depends how it is spent, but I'd rather choose that - be it a sports camp, the Hopkins CTY program (which offers programs not offered by ACPS and may really advance and enrich children), or even lazy days. Yes, I understand these programs are expensive and not options for everyone (and not easy for us), and am supportive of creating more opportunities and providing extra instructional time for everyone who could benefit from it - but one size does not fit all. And I want what is best for my children. Improving the current use of time before extending the year or day would be a start. Moreover, there is a point of burn out (more of an issue with longer days than a extra days perhaps) and diminishing returns. Perhaps if I thought time was being used optimally today, I'd feel differently.
I have yet to see a research study that convinced me longer days/years would be good for my children. Can you point me to some?
@ 12:15 - Part I (I no longer see it posted):
ReplyDeletePlease see the "supporting" material the Board provided with its original proposal (citing very mixed results):
http://usm.maine.edu/cepare/pdf/Extended_%20Facts.pdf
International Comparisons: Contradictory Information
“American students are not so far behind in the amount of absolute time they spend in school each year as compared to their foreign counterparts . . . some countries whose students outperform ours in mathematics and science actually have a shorter school year. In Sweden, for example, whose students were among the high scorers. . . the school year is only 170 days long” (Aronson, Zimmerman & Carlos, 1998, p. 9).
“In the United States . . . children go to school for six or more hours per day, five days per week, for approximately 185 days . . . The average time spent at school in the U.S. totals over 1,100 hours, almost double that of children in Finland. By the time children reach the age of 14 in Finland, they will have gone to school for 2,500 fewer hours than students in America (the equivalent of two to four years of schooling). Despite much longer school days, American students routinely score 10% to 20% lower than Finnish students on international tests of achievement” (Baines, 2007, p. 99).
The author suggests that these differences are attributable to social policies regarding poverty and healthcare; this discrepancy is not a “school problem.”
3. Empirical Findings
a. Many studies have found “no significant connection between the length of the school year and student achievement” (Sims, 2008; Lee & Barro, 2001; Eide & Showalter, 1998; Grogger, 1996; Card & Krueger, 1992; Rizzuto & Wachtel, 1980).
b. “Experimental studies have repeatedly found no correlation between time spent at school and levels of achievement” (Baines, 2007, p. 99; Fisher & Berliner, 1985).
The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) “found
no clear pattern between the number of in-class instructional hours and mathematics achievement” (Beaton, et al., 1996, p. 16).
d. Using both Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and TIMSS data, a “weak positive relationship or no statistically significant relationship between more time and improved scores” was found (Silva, 2007).
e. On the other hand, Silva (2007) cites a few studies that found a positive relationship between instructional time and student outcomes for certain students (e.g., students with lower initial test scores and students in small classes). She also notes a finding of a “moderate positive association between total school days per year and mathematics and science scores” for eighth grade students in 39 countries (p. 2).
ii. “The TIMSS research . . . suggests that instead of adding time, greater attention should be paid to the focus and review of curriculum (i.e., the depth and breadth of subject matter covered)” (Aronson, Zimmerman & Carols, 1998, p. 6).
Part I (on the question about research) has been deleted a couple of times (not sure why), but referenced the material the Board provided to support its original proposal. The results were mixed, but most seemed to conclude there was no correlation between longer or more days and academic performance. For example, many studies have found “no significant connection between the length of the school year and student achievement” (Sims, 2008; Lee & Barro, 2001; Eide & Showalter, 1998; Grogger, 1996; Card & Krueger, 1992; Rizzuto & Wachtel, 1980)." See http://usm.maine.edu/cepare/pdf/Extended_%20Facts.pdf. The original post had more references....
ReplyDeleteWhile the results cited above (5:02) might seem counterintuitive at first glance, they actually shouldn't be surprising. Additional school hours due to longer or more days can only impact academic performance on the margins. An efficiently managed school system with a quality curriculum will certainly yield better academic performance than an inefficient system with a poor curriculum within a comparable timeframe. Adding hours won't turn a failing system into a success because academic performance is not something that is parsed out easily into hourly packets of success (i.e. add an hour and students move an hour closer to reaching the desired academic goals.) These systems will just spend more time failing.
ReplyDeleteWhich makes it perfectly reasonable for teachers, who have raised serious concerns about the classroom success of recent curriculum and program changes, to balk when asked to spend even more hours implementing those changes.
@4:28
ReplyDelete" I am very lucky that my chilren are well ahead of grade level, performing at the top of their classes -- will more time put them further ahead? "
You make my point for me- more time (at Hopkins for example) DID make a difference for your kids. I'm sure that if someone had told you that more time school hasn't been shown to boost achievement you would have laughed at them once you realized they were talking about Hopkins during the summer. But yes, I agree that two or three more days of poor teaching won't make a difference for your kids or anybody else's.
Thanks for the citations everybody. I will look into them. They do seem to be counterintuitive- Why do people send their kids to math camp and science camp and music camp if extra days of teaching don't make a difference??
@6:26
ReplyDeleteWhat about the idea that the schools aren't actually failing at all for middle class students? If it could be shown that the schools are doing a good job (using whatever metric makes sense to determine this) then why shouldn't the schools ask for more time to accomplish even more? I think that the argument has been made that T.C. Williams, for example, is a perfectly fine, non-failing school if you happen to be middle class, the metric in this case being graduation rates, AP scores, college attendance etc. So why not spend a few more days there getting a great education?
"So why not spend a few more days there getting a great education?"
ReplyDeleteHere are a few reasons:
1) It is presently not a great education. The State did not just make up the PLA label out of nowhere. As a graduate of T.C. Williams I am shocked by what I see allowed within my old high school.
2) Countless research (thank you to those who cited what was put out by the School Board) does not indicate that throwing more time into the equation produces any better results.
3) Extra days = extra dollars. The economy is still in a recession and local governments, this one included, do not have the money to waste on dispelled initiatives.
4) This is just one more variable put into place alongside countless initiatives crammed in one after the other by the superintendent. If there is success at T.C. and other schools, what will be determined to be the cause of that success? Increased time, a change in staff, revamped curriculum, fresh fruits and veggies? An elementary understanding of planning and experimentation dictates that you minimize the variables to best draw conclusions and replicate what works.
Learning opportunities outside of the classroom impact students far beyond the concrete walls of our schools. Increasing time within school and adding days to the year decreases those opportunities and thus decreases positive impacts on student learning.
@8:27
ReplyDeleteThanks- Interesting point of view and I agree with some of it. Let me address your points.
1) T.C. Williams is doing great for middle class kids with functioning families- proof is high AP participation, high graduation rates, college attendance etc., so middle class folks shouldn't be complaining. The PLA status is nonsense.
2) That research doesn't necessarily apply to good programs servicing highly achieving students. Most of that research is about helping low achieving students do better.
3)There is no recession in Alexandria. In fact, I think Sherman in an interview referred to an EXTRA 22 million dollars due to higher than predicted revenues in the city. In general, Alexandria City has done ok during the recession.
4) Absolutely right. But then, ACPS is not a controlled scientific experiment so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Should we wait 14 or 15 years to see how a particular set of kids turns out before we try any other new programs?
Counter counterpoint:
ReplyDelete1)Public education is not just geared toward the middle class kids with functioning families.
2) What defines good programs? And, the research cited did not just examine low achieving students to draw the conclusion that more time does not equal increased achievement.
3) A city with a population of just over 140,000 and a city council of 7 would disagree with your "no recession in Alexandria" claim. Mr. Sherman appears to believe that money grows on trees...your trees and will spend, spend, spend. The city council is less then thrilled with this idea, which, if allowed to occur, would bring Alexandria dangerously close to it's debt ceiling.
4) Absolutely right. There is nothing controlled in this experiment. A 15 year case study would be nice, but how about a 3-5 year study or simply researching and implementing what works with populations of students similar to Alexandria? The ideas brought into ACPS by the superintendent are the same that he totted along in his previous districts, districts baring little resemblance to Alexandria's schools.
@7:43 - why do I send my kids to science camp, etc? Actually, I only send one. Why? To feed his curiosity and because he wants to go. Not to boost his academic performance (side benefit, perhaps ) Actually, this will be the first year for Hopkins and only one of my children will go ; though qualifying in past years he did not want to go. My other child would rather run around... So while one will choose computers and science as camp electives, and a few weeks of CTY , the other willl be choosing soccer. Don't use me as a data point to support your position just yet.....
ReplyDelete@9:26
ReplyDeleteThanks, I see your point and I'm not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand some of the distinctions being made here.
I think that feeding curiosity and boosting academic performance are two sides of the same coin. At some level every student in every school is having their curiosity fed or they wouldn't perform at all and I'm sure that the teachers in ACPS see the two things (well-fed curiosity and performance) as intimately linked.
My original point, however, was that you are already providing extra education for your kids in direct opposition to all the studies that claim that extra days of education are ineffective. One of your children is going to get some days of teaching in science. You can say that it's something other than schooling, but at the end of the day, it is still a kind of schooling because there is a teacher and there is at least one student... Even your kid who is doing soccer is not just running around the pitch with his friends, right? He will have a coach (A.K.A teacher) and thus will have extra days of soccer school, if you will.
But again, I don't mean to be argumentative- just pointing out that most of the parents who can are already, in effect, purchasing extra days of various sorts of schooling during the summer- You believe in extra days of schooling after all!. So instead of denying that extra time helps kids learn more stuff, just say you think ACPS schools are not well organized enough to make use of the extra time and that you can do better on your own with that time purchasing various types of schooling a la carte. But you might want to consider that there are a fair number of parents who can't provide extra schooling/tutoring/soccer education or whatever during the summer. This group might very well benefit from extra time, even if everything at TC or other ACPS schools isn't perfect and this is exactly the group, is it not, that has earned TC its PLA status.
As for the other comment about the PLA status, again not to be argumentative, but we were told at a PTA meeting pretty bluntly that TC was doing very well for many of the students but not doing very well for low income and hispanic students. I think it's interesting that the families of the students for whom the school is performing well are exactly the families that are the most vehemently against the extra days. You know, there are a number of teachers at TC that I only wish my son could study with all summer. But we would settle for a few extra days!
@9:06
ReplyDeleteThe "no recession" claim is not mine, it is a quote from Dr. Sherman explaining how we ended up with more money. I think the point was that we faired way better than almost everywhere else in the nation during the recession. I'm no economist, so I'll defer to you on that one. However, there is the extra money to explain!
I've said enough about TC- you all know the facts about what is working and not working there. It's a tough nut to crack for anybody but suffice it to say that my son is getting great teachers, enjoying crew, learning Latin, and enjoying the new building. What's not to like about that?