How Strong is the Link Between Instructional Time and Educational Outcomes?

The Federal Department of Education has poured billions of dollars into state grants with strings attached to increased “instructional time” among other costly reforms that reduce local control and personal freedoms. This agenda is finally hitting home. This week the state board announced that Millard Public Schools will lose $7.2 million in state aid for the instructional time allowance next year.

The allocation is given to reward districts for providing more than the state’s average amount of instructional time. I expect that federal standards and the money tied to them are what motivate our state board to fall in line with the Federal agenda and attach monetary rewards to longer school days. It is an effective tool which is evidenced by the discussions to add time to the MPS school day for the 2011-12 calendar year following the announcement.

The Federal and State Departments of Education, motivated by a belief that American students suffer from a serious achievement gap when compared to other developed countries, believe our kids are educationally disadvantaged. I wonder, why then do Millard students perform so well in several reliable markers of educational success compared to students who spend considerably more time in school? How does it happen that one of the best performing school district in our state loses funding on the basis that their students don’t spend enough time at school regardless of their performance?

President Obama believes that “for this generation of students to remain competitive with their international peers as adults, they need to start spending more time in school.” Champions of his agenda correlate standardized tests with instructional time and “are pushing further toward a 200-day school year, which would align with Thailand, Scotland and the Netherlands, and leave us a close second with Israel, South Korea and Japan, who leads with a 243-day school year.” Arne Duncan, Obama’s Education secretary said in all seriousness he thought kids should be in school “12, 13, 14 hours a day, seven days a week, 11-12 months of the year”.

While it is true that kids in many other countries have more school days, it's not true they all spend more time in school. Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests - Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days).

A study by the National Bureau of Economic Studies compared a variety of components that produce improved educational outcomes and concluded that “there is limited evidence on the effect of classroom instructional time.” They found that “the productivity of instructional time is higher in countries that implemented school accountability measures, and in countries that give schools autonomy in hiring and firing teachers.” The correlation between “instructional time” and academic performance in this study proves that there is not a one size fits all comparison.

The “experts” in America are trying to convince us that our schools would be leading the world if our kids started school younger and were in school longer each day and throughout the year. The “experts” hold up high ranking European and Asian school systems as an example, but leave out important factors in their success that aren’t included in the overall strategy for improving education here.

A good example is number one ranked Finland, where students don’t start school until 7 years of age; they spend a third of what America spends per pupil (only $1,200); their teachers graduate in the top 10% of their collegiate class, compared to American teachers who graduate in the bottom third, and they have far less technology in the classroom. To further expose the imparity between our two systems, students in Finland are in school only two more weeks every year compared to the U.S. So if Finland can lead the world on a third of what we spend on our students then Millard can lead Nebraska without a change to our calendar.

There is plenty of room for increasing quality learning time in the existing school day. One study found that students were on task for about a third of the hours spent in school. These findings suggest that a focus on improving the delivery and quality of instruction would be a better investment than lengthening the school day. So before we spends millions more on programs that may do more harm than good we should take a closer look at what factors would have the most impact in our school district.

People talk about the days of American innovation with a wisp of nostalgia and tell us that our schools today aren’t up to the challenge; they say we can’t produce the next Henry Ford or Edwin Hubble. I wonder if these American pessimists have heard of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt, or Bill Simon, some of the world’s most successful businessmen and innovators today? I wonder whether these people have ever spent time with the average small business man in America.

It’s hardly quantifiable, but a local Omaha business man shared his impressions of how America stacks up to the competition in this way, “I've tried to have several of these overseas "wonder students" work for me as a contractor and every time I find they have little or no ability to think for themselves or solve problems by themselves... our local high school interns out perform these overseas "college graduates" nearly every time.”

The national conversation promises parents that more money and time in education will translate to kids who are more competitive in the new economy. But as you can see, there are substantive arguments to be made as to the fallacy of this line of reasoning. The sound bite that is continually repeated by proponents of this progressive agenda is that American students are “falling behind” in core subjects, but to believe this you have to discount dozens of factors and believe that standardized testing is a reliable gauge of educational aptitude.

There is real doubt as to how accurate "standardized" testing results are, for example, how much fraud is in the inflated numbers of some countries. Finally, this comparison to other countries based solely on standardized tests makes no allowance for the overall success of individuals in the work force; America is still the leading economy in the world, is first in productivity and innovation, and has the highest standard of living and pay scale in the world.

There is great potential for harm in following the footsteps of European and Asian countries and any attempt to do so should in my opinion be met with skepticism. This is America...what made us great will keep us great. The fuel has always been individualism and hard work built on the bed rock of strong family-centered communities and a moral society. The greatness we're reaching for didn't come out of high-tech high schools or Ivy League halls; it comes from the solid character that is built in the halls of a happy home.

"One of the surest ways to recognize real education is by the fact that it doesn't cost very much, doesn't depend on expensive toys and gadgets. The experiences that produce it and the self awareness that propels it are nearly free." (John Taylor Gatto, "Dumbing Us Down") We intuitively know this is true and yet we are persuaded to believe that more is better! More time in school, more money, more technology, more supervision, but sometimes more is just more.