Although the decentralized nature of public education in this country has its drawbacks--i.e. enormous gaps in funding and discrepancies between accountability standards (see Fordham's Accountability Illusion)--a recent Washington Post article on summer programs is a reminder of at least one reason to be grateful for state and local autonomy: experimentation.
While school districts across the country have canceled or scaled back summer programs, several in the Washington region have maintained summer classes, even at the expense of layoffs or school closure (for example, 275 employees lost their jobs in Prince George's County and eight schools were closed). It's hard not to want to compare different reform solutions--class size reductions, smaller schools, extended learning, better teacher pay--and wonder which would make the biggest dent in our nation's achievement gaps.
It is glaringly obvious that any one of these mandates is expensive, and unfortunate that the research often doesn't point policymakers in a definite direction. Support for extended learning has gained momentum with the support of both Barack Obama and Arne Duncan, who is on record for telling a group of students "I think schools should be open six, seven days a week, eleven, twelve months a year." (Hear more of Duncan's thoughts in the video below.)
Beyond political momentum, what evidence can inform decisions to select one reform over another? Given the success rates of many of our nation's high-performing charters, it seems sensible to take cues from them. In addition to having dynamic teachers (probably their greatest common denominator) many charters require longer school days, Saturday sessions, and a school year that is several weeks longer than traditional public schools. It seems intuitive that more hours on task = more time to close the achievement gap. However, we don't know to what degree extended learning time contributes to the success stories that have made KIPP such a powerhouse, or how it compares to other variables like teacher quality, school leadership, or behavioral management. A bigger question: Is extended learning time necessary for those students who are already meeting and surpassing state standards?
Here in Ohio, Gov. Strickland seems to think so, as his "evidence-based model" to fix Ohio's schools included a proposal to add 20 days to the school year (this stipulation didn't make it into HB 1). Such a mandate would have applied to all Ohio districts and schools, instead of differentiating between schools rated "effective" and on their way to reaching full proficiency, and those whose "academic emergency" status warranted such reforms. This is reminiscent of Strickland's plan to lower teacher-to-studio ratios in grades K-3. As Emmy points out, this would force schools making a "B" grade to hire significant numbers of new teachers, despite the fact that many of them are currently in serious fiscal peril. (We at Fordham are not the only ones who question the sufficiency of evidence that led to Strickland's educational model).
Admittedly, advocating for extended learning time has some intuitive appeal. But like other reform solutions, extended learning won't necessarily deliver uniform results for all students. Instead of issuing across-the-board mandates, why not take advantage of the decentralized nature of schooling in America and let schools select their own solutions? I'm reminded of a former British colleague who, after observing Uncommon Schools in Newark, New Jersey, stated that such experiments in public schooling could only happen in America. Despite many reasons to lament the state of American public schooling, lessons born from local trial-and-error and the entrepreneurial spirit that can find root in places like Washington D.C., Newark, New Jersey, or Columbus, Ohio, give us at least one reason to feel proud.
